The Second Amendment is past its Use-By date

[Draconis]

I just think there's a lot of distrust of Western governments, basically because people feel very let down. For instance, Party A gets elected through promising not to implement a certain policy proposed by Party B. Party A then (overtly or covertly) goes ahead and implements that policy. People will wonder why they bother with voting, democracy, etc: it makes little difference, and then consider that they want (apparently self-centred) government out of their lives, and keeping guns is a freedom they want to keep, regardless of any other consequences.

There's a lot wrong with democracy and we need a proper discussion about this and many other issues. But... I'm not holding my breath.

 

[ImGod]

Democrats should stop what their doing because it's only partisan purity testing. There are more Democrats who own guns than there are members of the NRA. Mother Jones carried guns, Elenor Roosevelt carried guns, etc. There is a long list of Democrats and progressives who not only carried guns, but realized without them they were at a distinct disadvantage to the people with more power.

1) Stop proposing semi-auto rifle with detachable magazine weapons bans. Rifles are used in 1/3 the number of homicides at blunt force objects. They barely register when compared to handguns. So why propose fixes to things that aren't the problem unless the goal is political posturing instead of solving the problem?

2) Mental health funding is a good thing. But shouldn't be tied to a negative. If someone has to choose between seeking help and giving up something they're more likely to skip seeking help. It's already hard to get them in without making them more paranoid about it. Ask for an addition $2 billion for it.

3) Obama's EA wants to add ATF agents to help with processing and cross correlating background checks. He should have instead added all those agents to help find and prosecute straw purchasers, felons with guns, etc. Go to congress to add money for prosecutions and add laws stiffening penalties for straw purchasers. It would pass both houses and he'd have a bipartisan win. A police woman was shot and killed here last year and the person who provided the felon with a gun received 5 year probation. That's totally unacceptable.

4) Stop misusing statistics and learn a little about what you're trying to legislate. It's sloppy and makes them look stupid and partisan.
For example, 90% of people support background checks, but not additional gun control measures. Clinton can't go a day without messing up or misusing a statistic in an attemp to bolster her cause. Climate change deniers misuse statistics and confuse terminology, don't be like them.

5) Homicide rates in the US are lower than they've been in 50 years. We're safer than we were in the terrible 70s, 80s, and 90s. These, my friends, are the good old days people yearn for. Even with much lower homicide rates, we can do better. If you take out Chicago, Washington D.C., Detroit, and New Orleans we have one of the lowest homicide rates of any country on the planet. I'd start with figuring out what's wrong with those specific cities. Actual root cause analysis versus lumping the entire country in with them. Why target people in Texas for things going wrong in Illinois? It makes no sense.

6) Bloomberg sucks. If you don't like the Koch brothers buying government, why is it okay for another Billionare to do it.

I have more, but really, Obama's EAs are stupid and so are most of the proposals the Dems have brought up recently. Their using it as a wedge issue for partisan politics in order to try and win elections. The presidents press conference and upcoming town hall are election year politics and will have nothing to do with solving any of the gang related gun violence issues in the US.

 

[fromderinside]

No. no. no. no. The 2nd amendment is just fine. What we need are justices who believe it actually relates to a well regulated military. I don't want the government to do like the Romans, shop out our defense to foreigners. We need to assure every citizen can be candidate for participation in the military.

Read the damn thing:

So every citizen has to go to basic training and is required to join the reserves?

That's the ticket!

Here it is once again: 2nd Amendment:

"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."

It clearly states that citizens are responsible for defense of country. They must have the ability to keep and bear arms as part of a well regulated military.

I don't see anything in there about keeping and bearing arms for personal protection against others within the state.

So if you git yer gun you'd better use it only for national defense.

 

[AthenaAwakened]

No. no. no. no. The 2nd amendment is just fine. What we need are justices who believe it actually relates to a well regulated military. I don't want the government to do like the Romans, shop out our defense to foreigners. We need to assure every citizen can be candidate for participation in the military.

Read the damn thing:

"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."

True

 

[maxparrish]

This is a sloppy straw man.

I am liberal. I am for control of guns. Not banning of them outright, but control. ... But I’ve said clearly OVER AND OVER that I am not talking about a ban.

I _OWN_ guns! And I still know that they are dangerous, more so than cars, and some regulation can help make them safer. FFS. Terrible stupid strawman.

It seems to be a straw man when applied to you, and it might be a straw man when applied to some others in this thread, but do you agree that it has not been a straw man when applied to the American liberal community as a whole? In my humble experience, grassroots left of center gun bashers have often also been advocates of gun banning (grabbing), albeit that view seems to have retreated some in the face of growing public opposition over the last two decades.

Moreover, liberal gun-control leaders and of persons of stature have often been more frank about their goals - for example:

"Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-CA), author of the recent ban on "assault
weapon" sales, recently admitted that the only reason she does not seek the
banning and confiscation of all guns is because that is not politically feasible
at this time: "If it were up to me, I would tell Mr. and Mrs. America to turn
them in-turn them all in," she told Lesley Stahl in an interview CBS's 60
Minutes aired on February 24, 1995."

http://scholarship.law.georgetown.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2550&context=facpub

So while 'gun-grabber' may not apply to you, it does apply to many others of the like-minded.

If not, then laws should also be based on something more, namely; a philosophical/moral view of the nature of men and what is right and wrong. One such view is that of natural rights and liberty - that of the individual as sovereign and entitled to free choice.

I agree. And one of those moral views is that your views are not “rights” if they bring harm to other people. Like gun ownership and its tens of thousands of dead each year that have nothing to do with “self defense”. And is exactly the reason we don’t consider it a “right” to own grenades and tanks.

Well, that is one view.

 

[Nice Squirrel]

So while 'gun-grabber' may not apply to you, .

When did "gun-grabber" become a slur? I always though we wanted to grab our guns to protect the community from the Russians, Cubans, or the "Godless tornadoes".

 

[Rhea]

It seems to be a straw man when applied to you, and it might be a straw man when applied to some others in this thread, but do you agree that it has not been a straw man when applied to the American liberal community as a whole?

No. You people have pretty much always been dead wrong about applying that straw man.

In my humble experience, grassroots left of center gun bashers have often also been advocates of gun banning (grabbing), albeit that view seems to have retreated some in the face of growing public opposition over the last two decades.

Yah no. Always wrong in the 5 decades I've been watching.

Moreover, liberal gun-control leaders and of persons of stature have often been more frank about their goals - for example:

"Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-CA), author of the recent ban on "assault
weapon" sales, recently admitted that the only reason she does not seek the
banning and confiscation of all guns is because that is not politically feasible
at this time: "If it were up to me, I would tell Mr. and Mrs. America to turn
them in-turn them all in," she told Lesley Stahl in an interview CBS's 60
Minutes aired on February 24, 1995."

http://scholarship.law.georgetown.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2550&context=facpub

So while 'gun-grabber' may not apply to you, it does apply to many others of the like-minded.

Yah no. One Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) who was there when Harvey Milk was murdered and therefore has first-hand experience to form her opinion still does not equal "many others."
Straw man.

If not, then laws should also be based on something more, namely; a philosophical/moral view of the nature of men and what is right and wrong. One such view is that of natural rights and liberty - that of the individual as sovereign and entitled to free choice.

I agree. And one of those moral views is that your views are not “rights” if they bring harm to other people. Like gun ownership and its tens of thousands of dead each year that have nothing to do with “self defense”. And is exactly the reason we don’t consider it a “right” to own grenades and tanks.

Well, that is one view.

Yup. it is.

 

[bilby]

If the right to bear arms was anything other than a consequence of the US Constitution - which can be amended - then the other 95% of the world population would be claiming that right. But they are not, because it isn't. There is no such thing as a natural right; just rights granted by law.

The US Constitution is a piece of paper. It has been changed before; It can be changed again. It was written by human beings, and has been and will be amended by (or perhaps one day scrapped and replaced entirely by) human beings.

Human laws are not laws of nature.

I doubt 95 percent of the world's people are capable of agreeing on what natural rights are, or are not - the North Korean communist, Yemeni Muslim, and stick-hut dweller of Niger could not agree on the functions of indoor plumbing fixtures, let alone on the scope and meaning of natural rights.

Yet it is true that human laws are not natural laws, nor are they laws of ethics, morality, or philosophy. What they are, and on what basis they are made, is made by choice - be it the choice of a Stalin or by the parliament of Australia. But then, are we to assume, given your tone, that all "piece of paper" are the same, justified only because they are the will of the strongest and most powerful?

If not, then laws should also be based on something more, namely; a philosophical/moral view of the nature of men and what is right and wrong. One such view is that of natural rights and liberty - that of the individual as sovereign and entitled to free choice. And whether or not you agree, it remains true that the natural right to possess and use arms was not invented 'de novo' upon the creation of the Constitution.

I won't go into the history (although I am more than happy to provide citations for your reading) but many legal scholars have traced the beginnings of these rights in both ancient Chinese and Western philosophy, as well as Judaic and Islamic law . Invariably they derive from several other views of 'rights' and/or moral imperatives. In sum:

- The right of self-defense, and the use of weapons to harm or kill others.
- The right of a class, group, or citizenry to defend their interests against tyrants or oppressive classes.
- The duty to defend one's community or sovereign.
- The right to hunt or kill game, predators, and vermin.

Weapons are far more "natural" to human experience that are weapon bans. From the paleolithic to our own era the possession of weapons by both males and females has been ubiquitous and highly valued. So much so, skill in the martial arts has been a measure of every man's worth since antiquity - at one time, every proper "gentlemen" was expected to learn the sword or the bow or various other weapons (and to carry them in daily life).

Of course, there were ancients who opposed such rights - anyone defending the absolutist divine right of Kings or the Emperors "Heavenly Mandate" looked askance at such rights. Others, such as Muslims, saw nothing wrong with weapons as long as they weren't owned by the Jews and Christians within their empires. And some tyrants actually confiscated weapons from their common citizenry, fearful of rebellion or to secure a ruling class (e.g. the ban on sword ownership for non-Samurai peasants).

But deadly hand weapons are are more 'natural' (came before) than even the plow or the wheel. What could be more natural, more "human", than that?

Who gives a shit? Dying of dysentery at the age of 35 in a mud hut is far more natural than living in an air-conditioned apartment until the age of 95.

Your equivocation about the word 'natural' is both pointless and silly. Laws are made, and modified, by people; So to answer your rhetorical question, Yes, all "pieces of paper" are the same, justified only because they are the will of the strongest and most powerful.

Not all means of determining who has the reins of power are equally desirable for those within the jurisdiction of these laws, but that's a side issue.

The purpose of a democratic government is to serve the people; and the people demand protection from their neighbours - hence the existence of armies, police forces, and courts of law.

The debate about gun control boils down to "Are people better protected by unregulated gun ownership, or by regulated gun ownership?"; But as this is a 'no brainer', the answer to which is easy to see, those who oppose regulation of gun ownership have to cloud the issue to turn a simple question of fact into a philosophical discussion of the meaning of liberty; or they fall back on arguments from authority, using the immutable word of God the founding fathers as set out in (the second half of) the second amendment as their rock.

It's transparent, pathetic and childish.

As a member of a social species, you have no rights, other than those given to you by the law; and the law can remove and/or amend those rights. Your only recourse is revolution; and despite the fevered imaginings of the NRA and its supporters, the 2nd amendment has been incapable of rendering a revolution more easy at least since WWI; The government has air supremacy, and overwhelmingly better arms and training at its disposal, so a successful revolution must include a sizable portion of the armed forces on the rebel side - which would render privately owned arms irrelevant.

Privately held guns can't beat the army if the army opposes your revolt; If the army isn't opposing your revolt, then privately held guns are needless.

 

[bilby]

If the second amendment could be amended(which will never happen)what would be a reasonable amendment?

There is no need for arms to even be mentioned at the constitutional level; It should simply be repealed.

There is no need for a constitutional right to own any other kind of machinery or apparatus; why are 'arms' so special that they need to be mentioned alongside such genuinely important legal rights for a democracy as the right to a fair trial, the right to vote, or the right not to be enslaved?

Perhaps in 1789 it was conceivable that a sufficiently aggrieved populace could use privately held arms to overthrow a tyrant; But that reason has long since been consigned to the dustbin of history.

Maybe, if rebellion is to be protected as a 'right of last resort', you could have an amendment allowing individual military commanders to disregard their orders if they don't like them?

 

[maxparrish]

No. no. no. no. The 2nd amendment is just fine. What we need are justices who believe it actually relates to a well regulated military. I don't want the government to do like the Romans, shop out our defense to foreigners. We need to assure every citizen can be candidate for participation in the military.

Read the damn thing:

You are badly mistaken. We don't need justices who believe in falsehoods only because they are partisan shills. We need jurists who have a clear, consistent, and repeatable model of application of Constitutional interpretation that comports with the text and original understanding. We need honesty and integrity.

Unfortunately, those on the Supreme Court who want the Second Amendment to be limited to state approved militias are not among the honest. They are merely opportunistic and shameless situational "textualists", as likely to ignore text and adopt an entirely subjective "living constitutional" divination of meaning whenever it suits their politics. In other words, we don't need more legal grifters and Constitutional charlatans as jurists.

Fortunately, outside of the courts, there are honest legal researchers in academia and in the lay intellectual world - they include the remarkable liberal scholars that have played a prominent role in the 2nd amendment revolution. Until 1980 the history of the second amendment remained largely unexplored, and many liberal academics assumed that the "militia model" was nearly undisputed, i.e.; the right to bear arms only existed for the purposes of forming a state run militia.

However in the larger public more conservative legal researchers began to recover this history, dealing a number of body blows to the prevailing paradigm.

One of the earliest to challenge the orthodoxy was work by a non-academic, Don Kates (in his 1983 Michigan Law Review Article Handgun Prohibition and the Original Meaning of the Second Amendment). Which was followed by the work of Dave Koppel and Steve Halbrook (as well as the work by a few other non-academic liberal researchers).

While all this work was as scholarly as that of any academic, the pivotal academic body blow to the 'militia model' was the acceptance of the individual rights interpretation by liberal academic Sandy Levinson in his 1989 Yale Law Journal article, The Embarrassing Second Amendment. Levinson admitted that Don Kates work had changed his view, and Levinson legitimized the debate for the remaining academic left. He was followed by the work of other liberal academics supporting the individual rights view: Bill Van Alstyne, Akhil Amar and Laurence Tribe (Akhil Amar is a liberal whose historical research is a must read).

By 2000 no longer was the individual rights position of the NRA looked upon as that of the historical fantasies of gun crazies. In fact, what developed was a near scholarly consensus (with a few exceptions) that the 2nd Amendment was intended to protect the right of individuals to bear arms - with or without a militia. There has been, in the sense of "Global Warming", 'a consensus' (and we know how much liberals value consensus).

Still this consensus does not impress many judges, whose political motives transcend and often ignore legal scholarship. Hence, even if liberal legal academics tell them they are wrong, they are not inclined not to listen. Sadly, they refuse to let historical truth to get in the way of their own anti-gun fantasies.

Hence, your expectation that more political hacks are needed to stack the court.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

So while 'gun-grabber' may not apply to you, .

When did "gun-grabber" become a slur? I always though we wanted to grab our guns to protect the community from the Russians, Cubans, or the "Godless tornadoes".

Considering that the radical gun control lobbyists think guns are penises, the phrase "gun grabber" becomes hilarious.

 

[bilby]

When did "gun-grabber" become a slur? I always though we wanted to grab our guns to protect the community from the Russians, Cubans, or the "Godless tornadoes".

Considering that the radical gun control lobbyists think guns are penises, the phrase "gun grabber" becomes hilarious.

Only if you are terminally lacking in humour. The phrase 'Gun Grabber' might raise a wry smile, given the context of Freudian imagery, but it's far too tenuous a link to qualify for 'hilarious'.

Now, when you understand that, in non-American dialects of English, the phrase 'Gang banger' means 'Participant in group sex', the entire gun control debate in the US (on both sides of the partisan divide) becomes genuinely hilarious.

I seriously think I may have cracked a rib.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

"Gang banger" isn't a part of gun culture, but gang culture. You've missed a step or two in your inability to appreciate humor.

 

[Nice Squirrel]

"Gang banger" isn't a part of gun culture, but gang culture. You've missed a step or two in your inability to appreciate humor.

Actually "Gang Banger" is what the cops call gang members in the United States. It is sometimes extended to mean "any black youth that is not dressed in a collared shirt". Most Americans are understand it in the sexual way.

 

[bilby]

"Gang banger" isn't a part of gun culture, but gang culture. You've missed a step or two in your inability to appreciate humor.

Not at all; The gun control debate is full of people making claim and counter-claim about how the shootings you have are or are not a problem for ordinary Americans, because most of them are or are not group sex enthusiasts killing other group sex enthusiasts.

I guess these are crimes of passion.

 

[bilby]

"Gang banger" isn't a part of gun culture, but gang culture. You've missed a step or two in your inability to appreciate humor.

Actually "Gang Banger" is what the cops call gang members in the United States. It is sometimes extended to mean "any black youth that is not dressed in a collared shirt". Most Americans are understand it in the sexual way.

Then why do the cops use the phrase, when they could avoid confusion by saying, for example, 'gangsters'?

If Americans understand it in the sexual way, then by using the phrase, are the police not worried that they will look ridiculous? Or are they now so frequently ridiculed that they have succumbed to Stockholm Syndrome, and begun ridiculing themselves?

 

[fromderinside]

No. no. no. no. The 2nd amendment is just fine. What we need are justices who believe it actually relates to a well regulated military. I don't want the government to do like the Romans, shop out our defense to foreigners. We need to assure every citizen can be candidate for participation in the military.

Read the damn thing:

Hence, your expectation that more political hacks are needed to stack the court.

I have no expectation beyond that one read what the meaning of well regulated militia is with respect to the primary responsibility of a national government. That is to maintain security of the state (nation) against other states (nations). The amendment clearly means the state needs to have a citizen army to protect itself so the state cannot deny citizens from bearing arms in that task. The founders were well aware that other nations contracted their defense out to foreigners and they weren't about to have any of that. There is no individual right there beyond having arms to protect the state (nation). The founders were clear in that the responsibilities of the federal government were defense and order. Never did they pretend that individual states within the union arm themselves against the union. That sort of thinking stretches beyond the properties of rubber.

 

[AthenaAwakened]

So while 'gun-grabber' may not apply to you, .

When did "gun-grabber" become a slur? I always though we wanted to grab our guns to protect the community from the Russians, Cubans, or the "Godless tornadoes".

I see what you did there, Les.

 

[Rhea]

Actually "Gang Banger" is what the cops call gang members in the United States. It is sometimes extended to mean "any black youth that is not dressed in a collared shirt". Most Americans are understand it in the sexual way.

Then why do the cops use the phrase, when they could avoid confusion by saying, for example, 'gangsters'?

If Americans understand it in the sexual way, then by using the phrase, are the police not worried that they will look ridiculous? Or are they now so frequently ridiculed that they have succumbed to Stockholm Syndrome, and begun ridiculing themselves?

Well look at what the "tea Party" did when they started up - with the tea bagger thing.