Keeping the Second Amendment

[Centexfarmer]

ajacobs did a masterful job of demonstrating why the Brady Campaign and all their associates such as the Violence Policy Center and the Coalition Against Gun Violence, cannot be trusted. Their position is based on lies, with which they attempt to befuddle Americans who ought to know better. They twist plain English, butcher grammar, quote out of context, and put forth studies set up to prove their conclusions made beforehand.
Nothing from any of those organizations counts as documentation, because of their pattern of lies.

But, with all due respect, doesn't the National Rifle Association take protection arguments to the extreme?

See my previous posts. (I'll concede that I've taken some of those arguments further. )

The other organizations that you've mention, and that Andreus has referenced definately show a biase FOR GUN CONTROL.

In my opinion, the National Rifle Association refuses to accept or to acknowledge that some "arms" just aren't good for society. PERIOD. It's EITHER/OR with the NRA.

As has been pointed out in this thread by ajacobs, and opinterph, along with others there is some rational logic behind each side of this debate.

Where's the middle ground?

 

[Kulindahr]

The middle ground is to return to the historical position in this country: do away with all the firearms laws, and let a free people be free.
And, especially, to stop lying about firearms, stop twisting language and butchering grammar. Andreus thinks "saner" minds "disagree", but he is asking for agreement with those liars. The NRA may take positions you call extreme, but they are doing nothing but defending the historical position of the United States! They are an organization which stepped up to the line when no one else could, an organization become political not by desire, but by need. They are no more extreme in the defense of the Second Amendment than is the ACLU in defense of the First.
The middle ground is this: restore the freedom enjoyed by our grandfathers and great-grandfathers, and make an end of this.

 

[Andreus]

The other organizations that you've mention, and that Andreus has referenced definately show a biase FOR GUN CONTROL.

lets be clear here

i have a personal bias towards any and all people that dont respect weapons.

i am seeing alot of that here, because there is an obvious reluctance to address the real issue... that the second amendment was never designed to override our right to individual safety and overall child care as a nation.

technically it was only designed to protect states rights from the federal government, and no ammount of intellectual dishonesty will change that historically relevant FACT.

every supreme court case has never sought to redefine that basic idea.

no pumped up trumped up cock a mamy story about how you keep a gun to stop uncle sam from rounding you up and killing you can undo that basic reality. Statistics prove that people are often killed by the gun that they think protects them, so the boogey men gittin ya aint a real excuse either.

i have watched this thread unfold waiting for real and rellevant data to actually be posted, but it simply hasnt, although a fair ammount of gun toting breast beating has occured with a few healthy doses of arrogance.

the same old arguements that have always been used have been rehashed over and over again and reframed for one real reason.... to make it seem ok to own weapons that are inherently dangerous and designed to kill people. the only reason you need one of those is if you are planning on taking a human life, and when that ugly reality gets ugly pointed out a cloud of dust gets thrown up in the air to subvert the truth..... that some of you guys just dont want to give up your toys that kill. that is a selfish perspective and has no real regard for the society that we live in or the people that we are responsible for.

period.

i'm not going for it

i guess I'm just biased

ps... centex this isnt "aimed" at you. you seem to be interested in a real discussion, and i appreciate that.

 

[Kulindahr]

Just for the record: there were no "military style weapons" banned by that 10-year law -- only weapons that some wimpy types thought were military because they looked like it to them.

Also for the record: the words "the people" in the Second Amendment have been declared more than once by SCOTUS to be the same as for the other amendments in which "the people" appear. In every other case in the Constitution, those words indicate all the individuals, and thus an individual right. That the right is individual is further made clear by the writings of the founders and framers -- despite the misquote of Madison made by some anti-freedom outfits.

 

[Kurn]

*According to the National Rifle Association (NRA) and other opponents of rational firearms control measures, the Second Amendment guarantees the absolute right of every American to privately possess firearms without restriction. Although this interpretation is accepted as fact by many Americans, it has absolutely no basis in law. To the contrary, nearly 100 years of uncontradicted legal precedent make clear that the Second Amendment only protects the right to keep and bear arms in connection with service to an organized state militia.

Chief Justice Warren Burger was wrong. Quite wrong.
There is certainly a Common Law basis for Gun Control.
A community has a right to defend against foreseable threats to its peace and security.
Public Health concerns are the only basis for gun control.
The complement to this is that Individuals are not to have their right to possession of weapons infringed. That is what the Second Amendment says. The mention of 'militias' serves to suggest that common-sense notions of self-defense are what should be followed.

But to scoff at the notion that citizens have no right to balance the terror that the State, in a state of moral disarray, might wield, is to scoff at a basic fundamental of our constitutionality.

But gun violence is also, obviously, a threat to our constitutionality.
Like I have said; there needs to be a meeting of minds; perhaps a Constitutional Amendment incorporating notions relating to Public Welfare, in the broadest sense of that phrase.

 

[Centexfarmer]

I don't think the middle ground, the logical place to be as a nation lies with restriction on the type of firearm, how it looks, etc. I mean if a good guy is alowed to have a gun what does it matter if it is a flint lock or a machine gun. Bad guys shouldn't have guns.

The middle ground is enforcement of existing laws. Treating violations seriously - which they aren't being done so now.

The type of firearm doesn't matter. When the assult weapons ban went into effect it had a 10 year sunset. This law banned millitary style weapons, magazines that held more than 10 rounds etc. The justice department was required to statistially analize if it had any effect prior to the sunset - it was determined to have none.

The middle ground lays with allow people who are not criminals to own guns and ones who are criminals prevented from doing so. Background checks are already mandatory, if someone gets a restraining order against you you can't have a gun etc. I don't know what percentage of guns used in crimes come from where but straw purchasers should be punished as well as the dealer.

I think it speaks for how easy it was to get off on charges for laws that existed before when several state like new york come out with tv commercials saying that there is a new zero tolerance policy on gun crimes - they will not plea them out to lesser sentances. It will be a while be for we see if that actually works.

Part of it I guess is a community decision for what the middle ground is. There is certain federal laws already and each state and many communities are deciding what is right for them.

There isn't an easy answer for what will stop the gun crime, we aren't even sure if the crimes would still happen if guns weren't involved. The thing is it doesn't matter becuase the guns are already out there. The laws to prevent them are already out there, the criminals don't take them seriously becuase the DA's in many cases don't take them seriously. A good guy is a good guy and a bad guy is a bad guy. Picking up a gun will not suddenly make them more likely to commit suicide or a crime.

I think the middle ground may include other things like storage laws or training requirements. Traditionaly those have been resisted in the past because they are viewed as incramentilization. Slowly working up to the greater restrictions and that is why they are mostly fought at every corner.

Things in recent years haven't been moving toward more restriction they have been moving to less. More states are alowing concealed carry of firearms by individuals. More states are taking the ambiguity out of their justified use of force statues, changing their castle doctrine, creating make my day laws.

We don't see crime shooting up in these areas in fact in almost every case it goes down.

Maybe there is some more legislation that is needed and will work but we can't jump into based on assumptions made without fact, without fulling implementing the existing solutions.

Ajacobs, thank you for an honest attempt at answering my question about finding a "middle ground."

It far supersedes you'er an idiot from K, and you're an idiot from A.

I think that you've pretty accurately described WHERE the middle ground is, and illustrated (or antagonized the extremes) to show where the middle ground isn't.

I found no fault in your illustration/observation about where we are as Americans and the Second Amendment, but rather you illustrated where we are not, as opposed to where we should be.

Thank you for being a "breath of fresh" air to this debate.

 

[Kulindahr]

Kurn, calling "gun control" a "public health issue" is just a way to try an end run around the Constitution. If it is one, then so is walking down the sidewalk, taking a bath, playing football, typing at the computer, eating at MacDonald's, sitting in a chair, skiing... in fact, every aspect of life could ultimately be regulated under "public health".
And you know what the RelgioPublicans would do with that -- homosexuality would become a "public health issue", and outlawed... again.

 

[Andreus]

dont try to stop kurn from speaking the truth just becuase you dont like it kulindahr

Guns are a safety issue and YOU are just trying to redefine that very real issue with legaleze gobblety gook

people really are smart enough to see the truth

 

[Centexfarmer]

dont try to stop kurn from speaking the truth just becuase you dont like it kulindahr

Guns are a safety issue and YOU are just trying to redefine that very real issue with legaleze gobblety gook

people really are smart enough to see the truth

Wouldn't it be easier then to legislate gun safety training, than the elimination of guns?

 

[Andreus]

lol

where did i say that guns needed to be gotten rid of entirely from the society

thanks for asking the question

assumptions have made people look ...

well

you get the message

 

[Centexfarmer]

lol

where did i say that guns needed to be gotten rid of entirely from the society

thanks for asking the question

assumptions have made people look ...

well

you get the message

Well...in all fairness...what exactly is YOUR position on the Second Amendment.

I'll go out on a limb and say that the Second Amendment means exactly what it says:

Amendment II

A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

I've always taken it to mean literally/historically what it's saying.

"being necessary to the security of a free state"

Security being, either enemies from abroad or enemies from within, including our own government.

MY reasoning, seems to be supported by the fact that there have been so few Constitutional challenges, during the last 219 years or so, against it.

Part of my question has been; To what extent/validity does the government have to define which arms ARE legitimate and which are not.

There are so many instruments/armaments in which we can commit crimes against each other.

Under Constitutional Law, what rights do our Government have in regulating them?

Where does one draw the line, and how?

Andreus, I'm familiar enough with you and your opinions here on JUB, to have SOME idea where you stand on certain issues. But I will grant you the same civility that I hope that others here will grant me; I won't just assume.

So, I'm asking where do you stand on the Second Amendment?

I think that I have a pretty good idea what your position is, and why, but where do you stand on the Second Amendment?

 

[Kulindahr]

dont try to stop kurn from speaking the truth just becuase you dont like it kulindahr

Guns are a safety issue and YOU are just trying to redefine that very real issue with legaleze gobblety gook

people really are smart enough to see the truth

Explaining something in plain terms is trying to stop someone from speaking the truth?
Why don't you just admit that what you feel comfortable with is your definition of truth, and you don't care about any information or clear thinking?