Gun don't kill people, people kill people

[Kulindahr]

No, I’m being sarcastic because these discussions don’t mean anything when nothing is getting done and the death toll is getting higher.

At the end of the day, the good guys with guns and the second amendment argument are nothing more than silly when the amount of deaths with guns to the amount of mass shootings being stopped by guns is incredibly disproportionate.

At the end of the day, not many mass shootings are stopped by armed citizens these days because liberal politicians have decreed that de facto the mass shooters get to be unopposed. It's not likely an accident that mass shootings take place almost always in "gun free" zones, which are in actuality "free kill" zones because they guarantee to a killer that he will have defenseless targets.

And nothing is getting done because liberals want us to live in a fantasy land where laws magically keep people from breaking them and conservatives aren't interested in really adhering to the model on which the Constitution's approach to the matter rests.

 

[Kulindahr]

I would agree, but I know you are committed to your own peculiar sense of what the words mean. As we have discussed many times, free speech for you does not include people organized as corporations. Corporations have no rights for you. The Constitution does no mean much unless we stay close to the original intention. Failing that, it becomes an instrument of authoritarianism. The Supreme Court legislates by claiming to apply the "living" Constitution, and our democracy has not found a way to fight back against it.

There's nothing "peculiar" about my use of words. A corporation has no mouth, has no brain, has nothing which can generate speech.

Indeed, to affirm that somehow corporations are entities capable of speech is to throw out the entire Judeo-Christian heritage of the country, a heritage which has a name for entities to which speech is ascribed yet have no mouths: false gods. One may as well assign the rocks in my back yard free speech as corporations.

 

[Kulindahr]

Bringing it back to topic...
There are people on the left who attempt to do what you're doing with the liberal strawman only their boogeyman is the social conservative crowd (gods, guns, gays). It's an unfair stereotype to categorize all conservatives as second amendment absolutists. What I've found is that most of them realize that there's a problem and they're in favor of reasonable reforms like closing the Charleston loophole (which allows people whose background check hasn't been completed to have their guns anyway after 3 days of waiting) and allowing lawsuits against gun manufacturers (all Americans should be entitled to due process).

That's not a loophole, it's a protection against the very thing that the ATF and other agencies have shown government is good at doing: denying the exercise of rights by inaction.

As for the lawsuits, all that the law you reference did was to require that gun manufacturers get the same protection everyone else does.

 

[Kulindahr]

If you want to use superlatives, then ask the average American whether the idea of serfdom or the slaughter of children is something they prefer.

You may need to define "serfdom" for them.

This is my general complaint about your posts: you're making a really important argument about Constitutional language, the rights of citizens and the safety of citizens. But you keep shitting all over your argument with inflammatory language about "liberals". If you're not careful, someone is going to create a Benvolio BINGO card with all these words that you keep using that just keep people from reading your posts (or in a lot of cases, put you on ignore).

So, here's the fabled Second Amendment. It has two clauses:


Note that there are no capitalizations of any word in the text above.

For years, the courts read BOTH clauses. And in long-standing precedent, they said that their interpretation was that the purpose of this uninfringeable right of the people to keep and bear arms was for the purpose of protecting their own freedom via militias.

One of the really big issues was that the original proposal for the "right" capitalized Militia and State. So, it was clearer that this right was to allow citizens to use weapons to defend the State (versus their own state of freedom- State vs state) in Militias (as in local formalized military groups - Militias vs militias).

There are sixteen instances in which the Supreme Court, prior to Miller, cited the Second Amendment as an individual right alongside the first and fourth and the rest. And historically, the idea that the Second protects state militias was invented by former slaveholders after the Civil War in order to justify letting the KKK disarm and then terrorize the newly freed citizens in their states.

 

[Kulindahr]

The wetlands issue becomes "does the right of the property owner to spoil wetlands override the rights of neighbors who have their land flooded when the wetlands are drained/filled?".

No, the wetlands issue is simple: lawyers argued and the courts agreed to invert the commerce clause, flipping it from being a limitation on federal power to authorizing unlimited federal power. It was only intended to allow the federal government to make sure states didn't put up trade barriers against others states -- and no more.

 

[Kulindahr]

The more I consider this, the more I think repeal of the Second Amendment might be an excellent idea.

Which de facto means you support assault, sexual abuse, and rape -- all three being things I or friends have NOT experienced thanks to having been armed.

When is it going to sink in that the only people who benefit from "gun control" are those who refuse to bey laws?

 

[Kulindahr]

I don't think anyone here is suggesting the complete ban of guns. We're only suggesting that they ban or restrict the sale of weapons that can end the lives of dozens and dozens of people within seconds from the 32nd storey of a hotel.

But why not rather follow the concepts in the Constitution, which allows for no such thing?

Article I Section 8 gives Congress the authority needed here, consistent with the militia concept"

"To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia...."

Banning any kind of arms is forbidden, but requiring those who have particularly potent arms to keep them in a secure location -- in the Constitution's terms, a militia armory/shooting range -- is perfectly legitimate, under both "organizing" and "disciplining".

The real problem here is that neither major party really believes in the Constitution any more except as a weapon to use against others. It was meant to give structure to the country, and the militia concept is the structure provided for dealing with arms. It's a robust concept that can handle every issue we face, but only if Congress has the guts to stop playing games and buckle down to do real work. Safe storage, denial of access to the severely mentally ill, and a lot more fit nicely into the militia concept.

And of high significance, high military officers have been saying quietly but regularly for the last decade and more that the U.S. population no longer provides many individuals ready to serve in the armed forces should need arise -- and the way to fix that is a militia system; if nothing else, anyone who wants to play with full auto (or "simulated" full auto) could be required to belong to a state-recognized militia and keep their potent toys stored at its facilities. Sure, at the moment we have no militia facilities, but that wouldn't be hard to fix given some federal matching funds.

 

[Kulindahr]

The courts have held that the government cannot deny citizens the right to own gun but they have also held that government has the right to legislation gun sales.

The polls say that over 90% of the public are in favor of things like background checks.

There's not other explanation for why a 10% minority overrules a 90% majority... other than the $30 million donated in the last election cycle almost entirely to Republicans... well, and those emails from the RNC instructing their members to say "now is not the time to discuss gun reform" to avoid pissing off the NRA.


My response is not intended to adjudicate these rights... that's why we have a co-equal judicial and legislative branch.

This is a great example of why nothing changes: people love feel-good legislation that does nothing, and politicians love it even more because they can keep adding to it and then calling for more because what they did accomplished nothing: background checks are no barrier to a mass shooter acquiring weapons.

As for the NRA, a solid majority of Americans view them favorably, and a more solid majority are against more "gun control" (which means it isn't a "10% minority"). That alone is a reason it would be a good time to change the narrative and pass a new Militia Act: the NRA would have to get behind it if it was built on the Constitution's militia concept, and it could address every issue we have.

 

[Kulindahr]

I don't think any mainstream politician has suggested this and even if they were to suggest it, the US has more guns in circulation than people - over 300 million. That ship has sailed.

More recent analysis taking into account the reticence of many people to answer intrusive questions from strangers puts the number at 450 million to 600 million.

 

[Kulindahr]

The Constitution grants the right to bear arms, but nowhere does it say which arms can be borne. Nobody needs weapons the likes bought and used by Paddock. Nobody. Banning weapons capable of mass slaughter is not an infringement. There are still plenty of guns available.

Keeping track of the weapons bought and by whom would be a good idea, too. Red flags would pop up if they were recorded in a central database.

Excuse me, but words have meaning, and the words in the Constitution have clear meaning: the phrase "bear arms" meant to carry the regular arms of the individual soldier.

As for the term "infringement", even the existence of the BATFE is an infringement, because the word means to touch even remotely relevant matters. And a central database would be an immense infringement, since that is the key element in being able to disarm people -- authoritarian states have used it as a first step for a couple of centuries.

And as for "needs", since the Second Amendment's primary purpose was to allow for a civilian force capable of opposing the federal government, then under its terms any weapon the military needs is exactly the weapon the populace needs.

 

[Alistair]

...denial of access to the severely mentally ill...

So far, the only substantial thing president trump has done during his presidency is made it easier for them to obtain guns.

 

[Kulindahr]

So far, the only substantial thing president trump has done during his presidency is made it easier for them to obtain guns.

Really? How? As far as I can see, he hasn't done anything at all.

 

[Alistair]

Really? How? As far as I can see, he hasn't done anything at all.

He rescinded a bill passed by President Obama that required the Social Security Administration to submit the names of certain mentally disabled beneficiaries to a federal agency that conducts gun background checks.

http://www.factcheck.org/2017/10/trump-nixed-gun-control-rule/

 

[Kulindahr]

He rescinded a bill passed by President Obama that required the Social Security Administration to submit the names of certain mentally disabled beneficiaries to a federal agency that conducts gun background checks.

http://www.factcheck.org/2017/10/trump-nixed-gun-control-rule/

First, there was no bill, merely a rule. Second, as the article you linked said, it required anyone Social Security considered unable to manage their own finances to be labeled as mentally ill. Third, it was an attempt to do a run-around on federal law which requires that only courts can judge someone mentally ill for purposes of federal law.

So what Trump did in this case was reverse a plainly unconstitutional violation of the separation of powers by President Obama that penalized thousands of people on Social Security for no other reason than that they have someone else handling their finances. It didn't have any effect on people actually mentally ill, as those are covered by existing law.

And FWIW, the first organization to oppose that rule was the ACLU, because it did away with the constitutional requirement of due process.

 

[KaraBulut]

There are sixteen instances in which the Supreme Court, prior to Miller, cited the Second Amendment as an individual right alongside the first and fourth and the rest. And historically, the idea that the Second protects state militias was invented by former slaveholders after the Civil War in order to justify letting the KKK disarm and then terrorize the newly freed citizens in their states.

Since the origin of the second Amendment was Jefferson- a states-rights advocate, it's more likely that the word "militia" in the precedent phrase was intended to be directed toward balancing Federal control vs State Militia. Even those muskets and pistols were far less lethal, it's doubtful that they trusted the commoners completely with unlimited weaponry. One only has to read some of the writings about the "lantern-jawed white trash" from the period to know that they weren't very trusting of the common man. All it takes it a drive on a modern-day freeway to understand their reservations.

United States v. Miller (1939) was the long-standing precedent for interpretation of the Second Amendment. Heller (2008) was the first case to set aside that interpretation; it's an example of what happens when there are bad laws that end up in the Supreme Court with decisions that not only overrule the bad law but add new rights that weren't exactly there before.

 

[Kulindahr]

Since the origin of the second Amendment was Jefferson- a states-rights advocate, it's more likely that the word "militia" in the precedent phrase was intended to be directed toward balancing Federal control vs State Militia. Even those muskets and pistols were far less lethal, it's doubtful that they trusted the commoners completely with unlimited weaponry. One only has to read some of the writings about the "lantern-jawed white trash" from the period to know that they weren't very trusting of the common man. All it takes it a drive on a modern-day freeway to understand their reservations.

United States v. Miller (1939) was the long-standing precedent for interpretation of the Second Amendment. Heller (2008) was the first case to set aside that interpretation; it's an example of what happens when there are bad laws that end up in the Supreme Court with decisions that not only overrule the bad law but add new rights that weren't exactly there before.

Sorry, but Madison drafted the Second, not Jefferson. It rested on Blackstone, on two points: the traditional right of Englishmen to be armed, and the right of insurrection against tyranny (a right belonging not only to Americans, as argued by John Quincy Adams before the Supreme Court, which affirmed it). Thus while it included the idea of protecting local -- not necessarily state -- militias against the federal government, that was merely a secondary point to the right "of the people", which in discussions then and in the rest of the Bill of Rights always means the individual citizens, not any government -- just as it does in its first occurrence in the Constitution, "We, the people...." This is supported by the grammar; the essence of the statement is "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed"; the preceding clause merely states one reason -- as is illustrated in the debates concerning the amendment, which took for granted that keeping and bearing arms for one's own use, especially self-defense, was a right no government could tread on since it was a natural right... a position also affirmed by both Blackstone and early American jurists.

The only modification to Miller that Heller did was to extend the meaning of "arms" beyond those of the military; the Court in Miller made it clear that what the Amendment covers is military arms -- and continued the Court's view of the right as an individual one as mentioned those numerous times previously. That it was individual is affirmed by the early Militia Acts as well.

But more basically, the principle on which the United States and indeed all liberty is based is that the powers of government derive from the governed; thus no government can bestow rights, and no government has any authority which does not arise from the governed. Thus if a government may utilize arms, it is only because individuals first and foremost have that right. This was understood not just by Jefferson when he drafted the Declaration of Independence, but by all Americans of the time. So even with the inclusion of protecting state and local militias from the federal government, that protection itself rests on what was considered the natural right of people to keep and bear arms.

In fact what we are experiencing is what Justice Joseph Story warned against:

"The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered, as the palladium of the liberties of a republic; since it offers a strong moral check against the usurpations and arbitrary power of rulers; and it will generally, even if these are successful in the first instance, enable the people to resist and triumph over them. And yet, though this truth would seem so clear, and the importance of a well-regulated militia would seem so undeniable, it cannot be disguised, that among the American people there is a growing indifference to any system of militia discipline, and a strong disposition, from a sense of its burdens, to be rid of all regulations. How it is practicable to keep the people duly armed without some organization, it is difficult to see. There is certainly no small danger, that indifference may lead to disgust, and disgust to contempt; and thus gradually undermine all the protection intended by this clause of our National Bill of Rights."

And Story, along with his fellow justices, considered that the Amendment did not grant a right, because the right is a natural one; it only protects what inherently belongs to "the people". It's worth noting that this is one reason the Dred Scott case was decided as it was: if blacks could be citizens, then "It would give to persons of the negro race, who were recognised as citizens in any one State of the Union, the right...to keep and carry arms wherever they went." (It's interesting to note that this individual right was regarded as because they were citizens of a state -- not of the United States -- but that it extended through all states.)

 

[KaraBulut]

Which de facto means you support assault, sexual abuse, and rape -- all three being things I or friends have NOT experienced thanks to having been armed.

That's a red herring. Guns in the US are part of a problem with violence in America. If you look across the globe, you won't see the American brand of fear. In places like Africa and the Middle East, areas with guns are the areas with the most violence, rape and murders. In Canada and most of Europe, the relationship is the inverse, fewer guns and less violence.

When is it going to sink in that the only people who benefit from "gun control" are those who refuse to bey laws?

Because that's a gun industry talking point that has little basis in reality. It's part of that "the only way to stop a bad man with a gun..." marketing ploy.

This is a great example of why nothing changes: people love feel-good legislation that does nothing, and politicians love it even more because they can keep adding to it and then calling for more because what they did accomplished nothing: background checks are no barrier to a mass shooter acquiring weapons.

That's another gun industry talking point.

The reason that we need reasonable restrictions is not because of mass shootings. I mentioned earlier that the number of mass shootings seems to constant (about 20 per year in the US), so that's a separate issue from the daily gun violence issue.

Gun control advocates make a mistake in bring up background checks after mass shooting events. Background checks are needed to reduce the incidence of people who have criminal histories- particularly domestic violence- and mental health histories from obtaining weapons. It's also an insult to our intelligence that one can be on a terrorist watch list or the no-fly list and still be able to buy a weapon.

Because of the push to expand the intent of the Second Amendment we have a big issue in that it is very difficult to remove guns from someone who is mentally ill and deemed dangerous to themselves and others. And with several States allowing guns to be legally taken into places that serve alcohol, we've reached the point where rational thought has abandoned us.

Ponder this: it's more difficult to vote in the US that it is to buy a gun. To vote, you have to register well in advance of an election, wait until your registration is processed and then when you show up to vote, you have to present identification. If you are a felon or you are deemed non compos mentis, you can lose your right to vote. The restrictions on gun purchase and gun ownership are much more lax.

More recent analysis taking into account the reticence of many people to answer intrusive questions from strangers puts the number at 450 million to 600 million.

That doesn't surprise me. Given the rate at which the gun industry is cranking out new product, the fact that a maintained gun can be used for over a century and the hoarding that has been going on in the past couple of decades.

Sorry, but Madison drafted the Second, not Jefferson.

It's an idea that came from the Virginia Constitution- take a look at Jefferson's original draft:

No freeman shall be debarred the use of arms (within his own lands or tenements).

Proposing and drafting are separate things.

And take a look at the final version (before the 1971 addition):

That a well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defense of a free state.

You'll also find a pretty clear statement in his 8th annual address (1808):

Considering the extraordinary character of the times in which we live, our attention should unremittingly be fixed on the safety of our country. For a people who are free, and who mean to remain so, a well organized and armed militia is their best security. It is therefore incumbent on us at every meeting to revise the condition of the militia, and to ask ourselves if it is prepared to repel a powerful enemy at every point of our territories exposed to invasion.

 

[kallipolis]

^These clarifications on the militia question, as it relates to freemen bearing arms...are educational.

 

[Benvolio]

Really? How? As far as I can see, he hasn't done anything at all.

To libertarians and conservatives, doing nothing is not a bad thing. That government is best which governs least. But revoking laws and regulations, increasing freedoms is better.

 

[Benvolio]

That's a red herring. Guns in the US are part of a problem with violence in America. If you look across the globe, you won't see the American brand of fear. In places like Africa and the Middle East, areas with guns are the areas with the most violence, rape and murders. In Canada and most of Europe, the relationship is the inverse, fewer guns and less violence.


Because that's a gun industry talking point that has little basis in reality. It's part of that "the only way to stop a bad man with a gun..." marketing ploy.


That's another gun industry talking point.

The reason that we need reasonable restrictions is not because of mass shootings. I mentioned earlier that the number of mass shootings seems to constant (about 20 per year in the US), so that's a separate issue from the daily gun violence issue.

Gun control advocates make a mistake in bring up background checks after mass shooting events. Background checks are needed to reduce the incidence of people who have criminal histories- particularly domestic violence- and mental health histories from obtaining weapons. It's also an insult to our intelligence that one can be on a terrorist watch list or the no-fly list and still be able to buy a weapon.

Because of the push to expand the intent of the Second Amendment we have a big issue in that it is very difficult to remove guns from someone who is mentally ill and deemed dangerous to themselves and others. And with several States allowing guns to be legally taken into places that serve alcohol, we've reached the point where rational thought has abandoned us.

Ponder this: it's more difficult to vote in the US that it is to buy a gun. To vote, you have to register well in advance of an election, wait until your registration is processed and then when you show up to vote, you have to present identification. If you are a felon or you are deemed non compos mentis, you can lose your right to vote. The restrictions on gun purchase and gun ownership are much more lax.


That doesn't surprise me. Given the rate at which the gun industry is cranking out new product, the fact that a maintained gun can be used for over a century and the hoarding that has been going on in the past couple of decades.


It's an idea that came from the Virginia Constitution- take a look at Jefferson's original draft:

Proposing and drafting are separate things.

And take a look at the final version (before the 1971 addition):


You'll also find a pretty clear statement in his 8th annual address (1808):

Nevertheless, any attempt to reduce gun ownership wil leave guns in the hands of the criminals.
And no you don't need an ID to vote' democrats can't afford IDs, remember.
The Constitution and Bill of Rights seldom give the reason for their provisions, in most cases believing it was too obvious to state. It was so obvious that guns were needed for hunting on the frontier and for defending from wild animals and native Americans, it was not necessary to state it. The people would not have tolerated a law prohibiting guns, and there has never been a time when Americans would have tolerated such a law. The Constitution means what it says; the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.