The Second Amendment is past its Use-By date

[ZiprHead]

 

[maxparrish]

...I see little benefit to the private possession of guns, especially handguns and military type weapons. And the cost is great, tens of thousands of people who are killed every year.

First, a free society need not ban or coerce speech, private conduct, religion, trade, products, services, etc. based on some persons idea of 'balancing benefit and damage'. That much of this society has chosen to do so without regard to human rights or alternative measurements of benefits is a regrettable given, not an imperative.

Second, in a free society the presumption that what a person contracts for, does, or owns is legal, unless otherwise restricted by law. And some of it, such as speech, is protected from many restrictions by law as Constitutional rights.

There are no absolute rights granted by the Constitution. You can't falsely yell "fire" in a crowded theater. At some point an assembly can turn into an illegal riot. And yes, any restrictions on gun ownership would be enacted in the law. Ownership of heavy machine guns or artillery for example.

The worn mantra that "rights are not absolute" is a tired and imprecise cliche, repeatedly abused by the double-digit IQ'd. The Constitution acknowledges fundamental rights that are, by definition, inalienable rights for most adults - meaning they cannot be given nor taken away. And the endless repeating that they are not "absolute" does not mean (as some of these folk imply) they are morphable and arbitrary constructions, readily cancelled as rights for wide swaths of Americans.

"Not absolute" only means these rights have limitations by their own definition. When, for example, physical force in the right of self-defense is no longer just used for self defense THEN it is no longer a matter a protective right. And when you yell fire in a crowded theater it is no longer an issue of a person's "free speech" of their political/social views because it is actually a fraudulent statement to prompt serious physical harm.

Hence, the right to self-defense and the use of "tools" (arms) in that defense is inalienable, unconditional, and by definition is absolute WITHIN the definition's scope and as long as it is not in conflict with other fundamental rights and constitutional provisions, (assuming it is not surrendered by the individual because of his/her unwillingness to respect other's rights (e.g. violent felons).)

Third, I see many benefits to private ownership of guns. Primarily they provide recreational and sporting benefits, of much enjoyment to 10s of millions. For many others they provide personal security. Finally, someday they may provide a necessary counter-balance to government over-reach.

Wow, I thought that you didn't need to justify gun ownership. And yet, here you are trying to justify gun ownership.

The only "wow" in your being both confusing and badly confused. A reminder, I'm am not in need of a justification of the benefits of a fundamental right, but you are (as you have made clear). Noting that such benefits exist is not in conflict with my prior points 1 and 2. To wit: "a free society need not ban" freedom (just) "based on some persons idea of 'balancing benefit and damage' and a free society carries the presumption of freedom unless otherwise prevented by law.

Once again, we have to balance the benefits with the damage that is done. This is done all of the time in the real, adult world. Recreational drugs, gambling, prostitution, financial market speculation, and many more are examples where individual rights are balanced against the damage that they cause.

You keep saying this cliche'd stuff, as vague and unproven platitudes. What is "balance"? Who says "we must" balance? Whose benefits? Whose damages? How are you defining the benefits and the damages? Why must your opaque vision of "balance" take precedence over human rights or a free choice over a person's own body? Who is anyone to say, for example, that because cars kill 35,000 a year they should be banned? Who is anyone to say you can't use recreational drugs and why? Whose to say a firearm cannot be used to end your own life by choice (two out of three firearm deaths are suicide)?

By what right can you "balance" my right to smoke dope, play poker, or hire sex workers against the benefits or damage to myself?

No "we don't need to balance" all human conduct via some personal subjective standard just because you think so.

A-Bomb ownership provides almost no benefit; it can't be used recreationally, and are lousy at individual self defense. Given the downside, I am not sure they are worth making legal just to threaten government over-reach (although they would do a great job in making the feds come to the negotiating table).

So you do agree that there are weapons that are too dangerous to allow in private ownership. That the damage that they can do outweighs the benefits. Good, from here it is only details.

Nope, I don't agree that MERELY because a weapon is dangerous or has no use, that it cannot be allowed in private ownership. Nor am I am saying that A-Bombs must be privately owned. I am saying that:

a) the 2nd amendment of the constitution gives an explicit right to own "borne" arms; a-bombs are not "borne" arms (personal or otherwise). Constitutional protection for ownership of 'borne arms' is a given and must be protected, regardless of your imaginary 'danger' (see Heller).

b) A-bombs, tanks, B-52's, battleships, etc. are not arms that one can "bear"...historically or contemporaneously. Therefore they are not protected by the 2nd. However, the presumption of freedom in a free society is that they can be owned and used for whatever lawful purpose a person desires, unless otherwise made unlawful.

c) There is a presumption that anyone can own anything, but a few devices may have no conceivable use other than for illegal purposes. So, for example, a device that a) is not protected by the second, b) has no purposeful use, c) is innately useful only for seriously unlawful purposes d) cannot prevented or regulated from such illegal use MIGHT be eligible for banning as a last resort.

Yet, private ownership of A-bombs might be conceivable if a legal purpose is ever found (e.g. a civil engineering project nor experimentation) and their illegal use is preventable and enforceable. I don't see that (yet) but who knows.

Therefore, I see at most a few (or no) products that should be unconditionally banned from all private ownership, "from here it is only details".

The compelling reason to limit the ownership of weapons is because they kill tens of thousands of Americans every year from irresponsible use. An absolute right to own arms would increase the carnage as individuals started owning and using heavy machine guns, for example. There are weapons that are too dangerous for the general population to own. This has been true since the beginning of the nation and it is even more so today, with the damage that modern weapons can inflict on the human body.

Your shifting and sliding. I thought you were proposing to "ban firearms" from private ownership but now you are speaking of only "limiting the ownership" and objecting to the too dangerous to own "heavy machine guns" - which have nothing to do with the tens of thousands of domestic deaths. Nor have you made a compelling case that banning firearms (vs other forms of regulation) is absolutely necessary or effective.

Because you are becoming increasingly unclear, I will simply repeat that:

a) Firearms that can be "borne" are protected by the 2nd, which acknowledges a general and inalienable right to ownership.
b) Arms that are not protected by the 2nd are, none the less, due the same liberty presumption of any other product or service.
c) Said arms in category (b), in general, needn't be banned because unlawful use can be regulated.
d) There are few if any arms in category (b) needing totally banned.

The Heller decision did much more than to confirm the right of people to own firearms. I listed all of the pertinent points in a section a separate post that you apparently didn't read. I will repeat them here...

Justice Scalia, the justice who wrote the majority option in the case, had the age old problem of what to do with the well regulated militia phrase of the amendment...every phrase in the Constitution has meaning has been a tenet of the Supreme Court since the beginning, until Heller.

...This meant that the government could prevent individuals from owning crewed weapons like machine guns or cannon, for example. It meant that the government could prevent the private ownership of sawed off shotguns, because these are not allowed by the rules of war.

In order for Justice Scalia to interpret the second amendment as providing a fundamental right to bear arms he had to do something with the militia phrase. He decided to ignore it. He simply declared it to be a meaningless preamble ...

But since he rendered the militia phrase meaningless, he had some housekeeping to do. ...you admitted there are weapons to dangerous to be owned by and in the possession of the general public....So he decided that the federal government is who decides which weapons are too dangerous for the public to have.

I realize that for those of us here who fear democracy, this is not acceptable. But I believe that there is no better way to make these decisions. ...it means that we don't have to pass a new amendment to cancel out the Second in order to ban handguns or military type weapons.

Justice Scalia also ruled that gun registration would be constitutional too, as well as gun licensing. And that entire classes of people can be prevented from owning guns, felons, the mentally ill, children, and so on.

Your "analysis" didn't list pertinent points; you gave us a muddle of constitutional misunderstanding, mangled characterizations of Scalia's majority opinion, speculative and faulty reasoning, and unsupported second amendment history. I suggest we dumpster your screed and start over. Let's start with what legal professionals already KNOW that Heller established from a purely legal perspective.

1) The 2nd amendment protects the individual right to possess a firearm, be it connected or unconnected with service in a militia.

2) The 2nd protects the right to use it for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.

3) The 2nd does not provide a right to keep and carry any weapon, in any manner, for whatever purpose. It is limited to the kinds of arms that can be "borne" for self-defense for traditional lawful purposes. There is no right to conceal weapons, nor does it affect longstanding prohibitions for possession by felons and the mentally ill, nor does it prevent laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.

4) A handgun ban and a trigger-lock requirement (as applied to self-defense situations) violates the Second Amendment. Such prohibition of an entire class of arms, overwhelmingly chosen for lawful self-defense of self, family and property is a blatant a violation of the right. And the requirement of a trigger lock, in the home, on the weapon also harms the core purpose of self-defense and is therefore invalid.

5) While required licensing and registration is permitted, with few exceptions, a government must permit a person to register his handgun and if licensing is required, must issue him/her a license to carry it in the home.

That's it. How you turned that plain finding into your goobly-gook about the federal government being able to freely ban firearms merely they get to decide what is "dangerous" is a mystery.

 

[Rhea]

The worn mantra that "rights are not absolute" is a tired and imprecise cliche, repeatedly abused by the double-digit IQ'd..

Blah blah blah “you stupidone!” Nice name-calling.

The Constitution acknowledges fundamental rights that are, by definition, inalienable rights for most adults - meaning they cannot be given nor taken away.

But this absurdly contradicts the addition of amendments and repealing of same.
Amendments were added to CHANGE the things written as “absolute” in the first document. The writers were human, not divine. They made errors. (I mean, Holy shit, you thought those men were incapable of error?) Like permitting slavery. (I mean, holy shit, you’re arguing that slavery should still be legal!?) And the later amenders also made errors. (I mean, holy shit, you still think alcohol should be illegal?)

Hence, the right to self-defense and the use of "tools" (arms) in that defense is inalienable, unconditional, and by definition is absolute WITHIN the definition's scope and as long as it is not in conflict with other fundamental rights and constitutional provisions, (assuming it is not surrendered by the individual because of his/her unwillingness to respect other's rights (e.g. violent felons).)

Well, yeah, it conflicts with the right of others to life. That is the whole point. You know that, right? That’s what we are arguing? That the right to the unrestricted ownership of certain types of weapos gets in the way of LIFE.

Who says "we must" balance?

Uh, the right of others to pursue life…

a) the 2nd amendment of the constitution gives an explicit right to own "borne" arms;

as understood at the time. They did not and could not envision today’s arms. The arms at that time had no capability of being fired by a toddler in the seat of a grocery cart.

Because you are becoming increasingly unclear, I will simply repeat that:

a) Firearms that can be "borne" are protected by the 2nd, which acknowledges a general and inalienable right to ownership.

You leap to the assumption that bearing arms carves out certain things. But that’s not written by the divine founders. Where did you get it THAT ALSO does not represent what you object to? In other words, the same people saying you can’t own cannon and A-bombs are the same people proposing that you also can’t own rapid-fire large-magazine weapons. And Pistols on your hip.


You haven't made any convincing argument that you are doing anything besides handwaving why your opinion of what's right should be considered as right.

People in this country have a right to pursue their lives, free of the oppression and tyranny of the threat of their toddlers and neighbors and strangers on the street to constantly kill them. The "need" to carry guns around everywhere does not accomplish what you claim it accomplishes, and therefore its intrusion into the lives of others has no justification beyond the desire to bully.

And nothing in the formation of this country or its constitution prevents us from growing up and acting like civilized adults. The constitution does not prevent us from regulating rights to keep them from causing harm. Nor does it prevent us from advocating a change to the amendments of the constitution itself in pursuit of the evolution of society to a greater height.

 

[SimpleDon]

Do you believe that there are weapons that are too dangerous for the general public to have?

Why yes. I believe government is too dangerous a weapon for anyone to have.

A nonsensical deflection of a rhetorical question.

Libertarians, the gifts that keep on giving.

 

[credoconsolans]

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.

Ditto.

The armed civilian population was out-gunned by the government by the Civil War.

Now, it's nothing but a fantasy that civilians with a stash of handguns, shotguns and deer rifles can outgun the US military.

These conspiracy people seem to believe that our military leaders are mindless drones. I don't believe that.

I'm a gun owner and a liberal and I believe that gun control is necessary.

And yes, anyone who thinks someone else openly carrying a gun is NOT meant as intimidation is fooling themselves. When the first road rage/cutting in line/argument at a sports event results in a open carrier pulling his/her gun and killing someone, people will wonder why such a stupid idea was ever made into law.

 

[Nice Squirrel]

When the first road rage/cutting in line/argument at a sports event results in a open carrier pulling his/her gun and killing someone large group of Black men carry openly, people will wonder why such a stupid idea was ever made into law scream bloody murder for gun control.

Fixed it.

 

[Angra Mainyu]

a) the 2nd amendment of the constitution gives an explicit right to own "borne" arms; a-bombs are not "borne" arms (personal or otherwise). Constitutional protection for ownership of 'borne arms' is a given and must be protected, regardless of your imaginary 'danger' (see Heller).

How about shoulder-fired missiles, like TOWs or Stingers?

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

Why yes. I believe government is too dangerous a weapon for anyone to have.

A nonsensical deflection of a rhetorical question.

Libertarians, the gifts that keep on giving.

A sensible answer of a question that was taken at face value, rejected because everybody except libertarians desire that weapon for themselves.

Libertarians, asking questions that others don't want asked.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

a) the 2nd amendment of the constitution gives an explicit right to own "borne" arms; a-bombs are not "borne" arms (personal or otherwise). Constitutional protection for ownership of 'borne arms' is a given and must be protected, regardless of your imaginary 'danger' (see Heller).

How about shoulder-fired missiles, like TOWs or Stingers?

As technology progresses, we will be able to launch nukes from the hip as well. That's the great thing about our Founding Fathers. They knew that day would come and that militiamen would need to bear these nukes to bomb other countries to hell and back.

 

[bilby]

Why yes. I believe government is too dangerous a weapon for anyone to have.

A nonsensical deflection of a rhetorical question.

Libertarians, the gifts that keep on giving.

A sensible answer of a question that was taken at face value, rejected because everybody except libertarians desire that weapon for themselves.

Libertarians, asking questions that others don't want asked.

That's not really a libertarian position so much as an anarchistic one.

But it runs into a major problem, observed everywhere where governments are not present - if government is outlawed, only outlaws will govern.

Any government sufficient to prevent people from establishing themselves as warlords on the basis of having greater firepower than their neighbours, is powerful enough for you to declare it unacceptable.

Indeed, the more heavily armed the general population, the more powerful government must be if it is to endure. An armed populace ensures the continuing existence of big government.

 

[Nice Squirrel]

if government is outlawed, only outlaws will govern.

This, and many self-proclaimed libertarians do not see what is obvious to the rest of us: that removing government will not promote a brotherhood of self-sufficient believers, but a system of thuggery worse than any benign government they profess "oppresses" them.

 

[arkirk]

the 2nd Amendment that the NRA and max supports is a patchwork of misinterpretations and fixes that no longer can cover the gaping hole in the rights of non gun owners and also government that needs to regulate. At this time we have a bunch of Yahoos in a Federal Bldg. in a wildlife refuge threatening the authority of government to protect wildlife with their guns. The idea we all need to be able to kill each other is absurd. Jefferson thought it would be reviewed in about 20 years, when the U.S. could set up its army to equal outside threats. It is long past the 20 years and it needs to go away.

It is very possible that the 2nd Amendment remaining law contributed to the violence in the Civil War and also to the extension of slavery long past when it would have been eradicated were it not for armed defenders of slavery.

 

[bigfield]

if government is outlawed, only outlaws will govern.

This, and many self-proclaimed libertarians do not see what is obvious to the rest of us: that removing government will not promote a brotherhood of self-sufficient believers, but a system of thuggery worse than any benign government they profess "oppresses" them.

The libertarian concepts of spontaneous order and natural harmony of interests are a huge misunderstanding of human nature.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

Pffft...once we get rid of the government the Invisible Hand of the Free Market will finally stabilize everything.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

Pffft...once we get rid of the government the Invisible Hand of the Free Market will finally stabilize everything.

Hm. What do you think is "the invisible hand" and the "free market"?

 

[Rhea]

Genrully speaking, it's the claim that everything will be fine if you just let unregulated demand and "supply" happen at the whim of the oligarchs. The lazy people will starve to death, the ones willing to work will always make enough to feed themselves. The mentally damaged or distressed will also starve to death. The criminals (plus 10x more non-criminals) will be shot and everyone will have more wealth because no taxes are required for any of this.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

Pffft...once we get rid of the government the Invisible Hand of the Free Market will finally stabilize everything.

Hm. What do you think is "the invisible hand" and the "free market"?

You seem to be the one who left a regular Libertarian and came back an anarcho-capitalist, so you tell us: how is living under capitalism supposed to work without any kind of government?

 

[AthenaAwakened]

Why yes. I believe government is too dangerous a weapon for anyone to have.

A nonsensical deflection of a rhetorical question.

Libertarians, the gifts that keep on giving.

Now, now, Jason has a point. I mean, why would anyone want govt of the people, by the people, and for the people to be left in the hands of the people?

 

[ZiprHead]

Hm. What do you think is "the invisible hand"?

Sitting on your hand until it falls asleep then jacking off with it?

 

[Malintent]

more people die in car accidents than by bullets. therefore ban cars.

It's not exactly so simple... unless you are a millennial.. then everything is ideologically simple.. because you are a freshman.

We have different speed limits in different places... we should have different gun control laws in parallel circumstances.