Firearm Expertise

[Zeb_Carter]

I once sat all day calling my gun nasty, foul names and not once did it try to kill me. Then I did the same thing to a liberal, he tried to hit me after 10 seconds. Of course he didn't know how to fight, so I shouted at him and he ran away. And my gun never did bark at him the whole time.

 

[twister947]

Okay, this has descended into silly.

 

[OTCurve]

Okay, this has descended into silly.

I found it quite revealing.

But it is true, silly certainly has a spot in certain debates.

 

[yukonnights]

I once sat all day calling my gun nasty, foul names and not once did it try to kill me. Then I did the same thing to a liberal, he tried to hit me after 10 seconds. Of course he didn't know how to fight, so I shouted at him and he ran away. And my gun never did bark at him the whole time.

Zeb, Did you try the same experiment with with a conservative...or an independent...or heaven forbid, a gang-banger who also had a gun! I know you were being facetious, but is it really in the best interest of the country to work to polarize the populous. Are we not "shooting our collective selves in the foot" in falling into this orchestrated labeling? Surely, there is a middle ground in this whole issue...or maybe not

Since this has merged once again into the political... I have a sincere question; It seems to be the position among avid gun advocates that every person in the country should be wearing a sidearm or have an assault rifle slung over a shoulder (or at least have the right to do so). As I understand the argument, this will make life safer for us all. According to some people's interpretation of the 2'nd amendment there can be no regulation to prevent this. To be honest, this conjures up images of third world countries where "gangs" (sometimes more like small armies) roam around unchecked until a larger "gang" takes their place. And if our experiment follows the pattern, soon the "gangs" will acquire even bigger weapons like mortars and machine guns. How do you, and other folks who advocate this right, see such a scenario being a better place to live? Will my second grade daughter truly be safer walking home from school if every car that passes her has a gun on the seat...

(again, sincere question...which I hope will get sincere answers. Personally I would like to see a more united country, which seems to be slipping away from us all. And since this is the How To Thread, how do we as a nation resolve this?)

 

[HisArpy]

Zeb, Did you try the same experiment with with a conservative...or an independent...or heaven forbid, a gang-banger who also had a gun! I know you were being facetious, but is it really in the best interest of the country to work to polarize the populous. Are we not "shooting our collective selves in the foot" in falling into this orchestrated labeling? Surely, there is a middle ground in this whole issue...or maybe not

Since this has merged once again into the political... I have a sincere question; It seems to be the position among avid gun advocates that every person in the country should be wearing a sidearm or have an assault rifle slung over a shoulder (or at least have the right to do so). As I understand the argument, this will make life safer for us all. According to some people's interpretation of the 2'nd amendment there can be no regulation to prevent this. To be honest, this conjures up images of third world countries where "gangs" (sometimes more like small armies) roam around unchecked until a larger "gang" takes their place. And if our experiment follows the pattern, soon the "gangs" will acquire even bigger weapons like mortars and machine guns. How do you, and other folks who advocate this right, see such a scenario being a better place to live? Will my second grade daughter truly be safer walking home from school if every car that passes her has a gun on the seat...

(again, sincere question...which I hope will get sincere answers. Personally I would like to see a more united country, which seems to be slipping away from us all. And since this is the How To Thread, how do we as a nation resolve this?)

First, your premise is ridiculous when you mischaracterize the position that we hold. I certainly do NOT believe that everyone should carry the arms you list. I believe that if a person desires to do so, then the Gov, under our 2nd Amendment, cannot prevent them. Nor do I believe or advocate that everyone who does so is automatically considered a "gang" member.

Thus, with the mischaracterization removed, your "sincere question" becomes an example of you trying to make an emotional point on a subject you aren't comfortable with. It really has no other substance beyond that.

It is the birthright of American citizens to enjoy certain freedoms. 1 of those freedoms is the ability keep and bear arms. If someone CHOOSES to not do so, that should have no effect on the choices of others. Just as someone choosing to not procreate should not affect whether others should or should not.

The exercise of a Constitutional Right is an individual choice. What the current debate is about is whether the general populace can outvote the individual in making that choice. You choose to believe that your desires outweigh mine even though a choice to exercise any Constitutional Right has no effect on whether you must as well. However, your efforts to deny me, and those who feel as I do, the ability to exercise our Rights affects everyone. Your attempts to FORCE us to obey your desires takes away our free will as well as risking the entire idea behind our Nation - that of independence and freedom from oppression from both individuals as well as the government.

And that is why your position on this issue is both insincere and wrongly held.

 

[yukonnights]

First, your premise is ridiculous when you mischaracterize the position that we hold. I certainly do NOT believe that everyone should carry the arms you list. I believe that if a person desires to do so, then the Gov, under our 2nd Amendment, cannot prevent them. Nor do I believe or advocate that everyone who does so is automatically considered a "gang" member.

Since your point is based on this premise, I'll just touch on this:

I think you misread my statement; "It seems to be the position among avid gun advocates that every person in the country should be wearing a sidearm or have an assault rifle slung over a shoulder (or at least have the right to do so)"

Just to be clear; it seems your beliefs fall into that original statement ^^^.

I guess what I'd like to better understand is; How is this "freedom" going to play out? Without some way to control who gets this "right", then by default every man woman and child can own whatever gun they want. At this point in time, we're operating under the last Supreme Court ruling, which as I understand it; upholds the right to keep arms, but also confirms that laws can be enacted to restrict them to lawful purposes.

And yet, there is a strongly held position by many gun/second amendment advocates that such restrictions are onerous and unconstitutional. You own position supports this; that if a person desires to own and carry arms he should be able to do so.

I can only take you at your word, which is that every person should be able to own and carry a gun. (and by extrapolation; that right includes any place any time.)

Thus, enters the gang-banger...the villain! In a world where everyone who wants to can own and carry, then so can the "villain". No law can be passed which would limit the right to own and carry.

It seems that by default we have to concede to some regulation. My question is; why not thoughtful and effective laws? Why the hyperbole that fans up flames of polarization?

So a simple question: Are you for or against laws regulating the ownership and use of guns?

 

[NightL]

Nor do I believe or advocate that everyone who does so is automatically considered a "gang" member.

"We have the guns!" seems gang like to me.

NRA certainly behaves like a gang - swaying influence. For their contribution to mass murder in US they should be stripped of their right of political donation.

yukonnights comment about gun ownership escalation is exceedingly valid

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RIrcB1sAN8I&feature=youtu.be&t=19m13s

You must have been so proud of the 12 year old girl taking a semiautomatic handgun to school recently.

Oh, how is that pew pew soul thing going?

 

[NightL]

It seems that by default we have to concede to some regulation. My question is; why not thoughtful and effective laws? Why the hyperbole that fans up flames of polarization?

So a simple question: Are you for or against laws regulating the ownership and use of guns?

now this is going to be funny

"but what about Australia, where they took all guns away and rape and murder has escalated. We can not have our guns taken away, we will shoot anyone who tries. Every 12 year old girl should be allowed to get their hands on a semiautomatic hand gun and take it to school!"

 

[HisArpy]

Since your point is based on this premise, I'll just touch on this:

I think you misread my statement; "It seems to be the position among avid gun advocates that every person in the country should be wearing a sidearm or have an assault rifle slung over a shoulder (or at least have the right to do so)"

Just to be clear; it seems your beliefs fall into that original statement ^^^.

I guess what I'd like to better understand is; How is this "freedom" going to play out? Without some way to control who gets this "right", then by default every man woman and child can own whatever gun they want. At this point in time, we're operating under the last Supreme Court ruling, which as I understand it; upholds the right to keep arms, but also confirms that laws can be enacted to restrict them to lawful purposes.

And yet, there is a strongly held position by many gun/second amendment advocates that such restrictions are onerous and unconstitutional. You own position supports this; that if a person desires to own and carry arms he should be able to do so.

I can only take you at your word, which is that every person should be able to own and carry a gun. (and by extrapolation; that right includes any place any time.)

Thus, enters the gang-banger...the villain! In a world where everyone who wants to can own and carry, then so can the "villain". No law can be passed which would limit the right to own and carry.

It seems that by default we have to concede to some regulation. My question is; why not thoughtful and effective laws? Why the hyperbole that fans up flames of polarization?

So a simple question: Are you for or against laws regulating the ownership and use of guns?

The most basic flaw in your argument is that you don't understand the difference between a Right and a privilege. This sentence shows that clearly:

Without some way to control who gets this "right"...

Our enumerated Rights existed PRE-Constitution. They were set down in the Bill of Rights to ensure that government would not restrict or remove or limit those Rights. They belong to US and aren't prizes to be handed out, or withheld, at the whim of government officials. For most of the Rights in the BOR, there were "allowances" built in. The 4th Amendment allows "reasonable" searches and seizures by authorizing the issuance of a warrant for those actions based upon "probabe cause". It says so right there in the Amendment.

Then the courts decided that they were the power behind the Constitution and could re-interpret the Amendments using "reasonablness" to insert other things into them. Warrantless searches and seizures based upon things other than probable cause (exigent circumstances) were allowed because...(insert your own reason here, it's still bogus no matter what it is because it's not allowed under the Constitution because it's not "probable cause"). This actually violates the separation of powers because only CONGRESS can amend the Constitution to change the express language there. The SupCt overstepped its authority.

Thus, began the fall of law and order. Courts were allowed to do what they "felt" was appropriate rather than limit themselves to what the law/constitution actually said they could do. 200 years of the usurpation of power and still going. (This would actually be a good book - do all the research where the SupCt failed to obey the Constitutional limits placed upon it and expose the hypocrisy.)

But, let's now skip ahead to the problem of guns in today's society. The Supreme Court recently had to decide the issue of whether the 2A was a Right of the People or a Right that was controlled by the Gov. It decided on behalf of the people and said that the Right is an individual Right. But then it stuck it's own political and personal opinion in there and said that the Right could be "regulated". It got to this nonsensical point by failing to follow it's own thinking. If the 2A contains 2 parts (it's actually 3 but we'll get to that in a moment) then the prefactory clause (A well regulated militia) applies ONLY to "the militia" and not to "the right of the people". I say this because they are 2 different things; a "militia" is a military body and "the people" are you and I collectively in our personal capacity. A militia may be comprised of select individuals from "the people" but they are not interchangeable in toto. Thus, the militia can be regulated (which actually means well trained not restricted) but "the people" cannot.

Now for the 3rd part. The argument above follows the fact, not opinion, that there are 4 words at the end of the Amendment which prohibit everything that is being said by the "restrict the Right" crowd. Those words are "shall not be infringed."

Notice that the ONLY Right that has those words is the 2A. NO OTHER Right in the entire BOR has them. Thus, the inclusion of those 4 words means something important is going on there. That Gov (and the courts) doesn't have ANY ability to restrict, regulate, infringe, limit, or prohibit the keeping and bearing of arms. For any reason. SHALL NOT be infringed.

This position is further born out by the 10th Amendment.

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people

If the gov cannot "infringe" and the SupCt has said that the 2A is an individual Right, then it follows that the 2A is a "right of the people". Under the 10A, Gov has no power to regulate, restrict, limit, or prohibit the Right. Not the Feds. Not the States. Not local. There is no pathway by which the Gov can gain access to whether "the people" can or cannot exercise the rights held by them. They are OURS and outside the scope of Gov to legislate upon.

Because if the Gov can remove a Right at whim, then it's not really a Right. Take the 8th Amendment against cruel and unusual punishment. Waterboarding is thought to be torture and should fall under the prohibition of the 8A. Thus, it shouldn't be performed even on terrorists to gain information. Yet THE GOV says they can do this by twisting language and inserting rather unique arguments in favor of their desire to continue torturing terrorists for information. Meanwhile "the people" are pretty much universally against it. By fiat, the Gov has eliminated the 8A prohibition in these cases.

Now, think about this... If the Gov can do this for this enumerated Right, what's to stop them from doing it for any of the OTHER enumerated Rights?

Yep, you go it. Nothing. Except the Constitution and the BOR. And then, only as long as the courts and THE PEOPLE hold them to that line. And, as soon at the people start to insert their political opinions and personal beliefs in there, the line is lost and the Gov can do whatever they want.

The BOR exists to protect all of us from Gov excesses. It is the limit WE placed upon OUR government. That limit includes the Right of the people to keep and bear arms without infringement. Because every Gov knows that if they disarm their people, there is no protection against their abuses. This is FACT, not opinion. And it is supported by thousands of years of history. Gov will ALWAYS overstep in favor of money and/or power at the expense of the governed. Our forefathers knew this and put these limitations upon our Gov at its creation.

There's another thing here about that; those limits exist to prevent our Gov from going rogue. If our Gov decides to go rogue, it's because it stepped outside the charter that created it. As such, it no longer is our lawful Gov. In that sense, our Constitution and the limits in the BOR are what the courts have said it is not... a suicide pact. Because if the Gov won't abide by the laws that created it, then it has committed suicide. We are very close to this point on guns, immigration, sexual orientation, religion and racism. Because those with political will and money have decided to force their ideals upon the rest of us regardless of whether the law allows it or even if its good for us or not. They believe they are right and we will OBEY them. Or else. That's not what this country is about. And that's not what is allowed by the law and the Constitution.

Remember why this country came about. To be free from just that sort of thing. Yet, here we are.

And now for the final chapter of this tome.

None of this means the Gov cannot enact laws to make those who act irresponsibly, liable for it. We have laws against murder, mayhem, and negligence. Enforce the law. If someone does something stupid with a gun, prosecute them for the ACT, not the gun. If I drive drunk, I'm liable for it, not the car. If I build a house that falls down, I'm liable for it, not the lumber and concrete I used. This is the law. It's clear and easy to understand - I'm responsible for the harm I cause. Not the tools or things that I use, me. It's no different if the tool is a gun or a baseball bat or a car or any other inanimate object.

 

[HisArpy]

"We have the guns!" seems gang like to me.

NRA certainly behaves like a gang - swaying influence. For their contribution to mass murder in US they should be stripped of their right of political donation.

yukonnights comment about gun ownership escalation is exceedingly valid

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RIrcB1sAN8I&feature=youtu.be&t=19m13s

You must have been so proud of the 12 year old girl taking a semiautomatic handgun to school recently.

Oh, how is that pew pew soul thing going?

I'm actually appalled by it. But I'm also not the one gloating over it either like you seem to be.

Yet, somehow what's lost in that glee of yours is the REASON why that little girl felt she had to take the gun with her to school. Perhaps it's because people like you were bullying her to the point that she believed she had to defend herself because no one else loved her enough to protect her.

 

[Zeb_Carter]

Zeb, Did you try the same experiment with with a conservative...or an independent...or heaven forbid, a gang-banger who also had a gun! I know you were being facetious, but is it really in the best interest of the country to work to polarize the populous. Are we not "shooting our collective selves in the foot" in falling into this orchestrated labeling? Surely, there is a middle ground in this whole issue...or maybe not

...

The two independents I tried this on, made fists and then turned and walked away. The five conservatives I tried it on sat down and smiled at me. When I was finally out of breath, they applauded.

And even though I only used an example of a liberal, they are the only ones to use arguments such as "Guns kill people" the most foolish of all statements. When anyone in their right mind knows, without a person behind that gun, holding it in their hand, the gun is just an inanimate object without the power to do anything on its own.

Of course I was being facetious, but I still believe in the Second Amendment of the Constitution even if in some cases the state and local governments have tried to restrict my right to own and carry a firearm/gun.

 

[yukonnights]

The two independents I tried this on, made fists and then turned and walked away. The five conservatives I tried it on sat down and smiled at me. When I was finally out of breath, they applauded.

And even though I only used an example of a liberal, they are the only ones to use arguments such as "Guns kill people" the most foolish of all statements. When anyone in their right mind knows, without a person behind that gun, holding it in their hand, the gun is just an inanimate object without the power to do anything on its own.

Of course I was being facetious, but I still believe in the Second Amendment of the Constitution even if in some cases the state and local governments have tried to restrict my right to own and carry a firearm/gun.

Zeb, I appreciate your sense of humor, a little humor can be like oil on turbulent waters.

I think what I'm going to say here also addresses HisArpy's central point. My thanks to both for spending the time to share.

Taking the belief, at face value, of a totally unabridged or regulated "right for every American to own arms"; I cannot, in all sincerity, see an end that isn't exactly what I alluded to in the early post...That is; Such a course has no place to go except into the accumulation of armament by groups of citizens. It's a well worn path that can be seen all around the world. Eventually, these armed "groups" will be forced to take the law into their own hands, further escalating the demise of normal society.

The obvious reason for this is simply because not all citizens are capable of being the "responsible" gun owner.

By default, we could probably all agree that emotionally ill people should not have a machine-gun. Likewise, a habitual criminal isn't someone I want roaming around the block with a concealed pistol. (I think we could add to this list, but let's do one thing at a time). With no abridgment to the 2nd amendment, this is the reality that we are faced with, yes?

I have known and been around anti-government conspiracy folks, and they all harbor this fear that Big Uncle is going to take all their guns. The reality of this happening is virtually impossible. The US military has yet to disarm the 'militant citizens' of any of the foreign countries we have tried in recent years. To fear that somehow, our military will even try to do that here seems a very remote possibility.

Therefore: What to do? I believe that if we continue on the course of unabridged and unregulated ownership of weaponry...the only outcome will be the demise of this country. However, I also believe that rational people can realize that we have come a long way from the days from single shot muskets. And to be honest, if all we could own were single shot muskets, I wouldn't be concerned.

Is it time to clean up and modernize the 2nd ? As we all know, it's one of the least concise of the amendments. Another option is to properly address the problems with regulation in a thorough manner.

There's more to be said on this, but in order to keep it all readable I'll just ask again: Is there no room for any moderation to this inalienable right? If the answer is no; then I fear this will not end well for the USA.

 

[HisArpy]

Zeb, I appreciate your sense of humor, a little humor can be like oil on turbulent waters.

I think what I'm going to say here also addresses HisArpy's central point. My thanks to both for spending the time to share.

Taking the belief, at face value, of a totally unabridged or regulated "right for every American to own arms"; I cannot, in all sincerity, see an end that isn't exactly what I alluded to in the early post...That is; Such a course has no place to go except into the accumulation of armament by groups of citizens. It's a well worn path that can be seen all around the world. Eventually, these armed "groups" will be forced to take the law into their own hands, further escalating the demise of normal society.

The obvious reason for this is simply because not all citizens are capable of being the "responsible" gun owner.

By default, we could probably all agree that emotionally ill people should not have a machine-gun. Likewise, a habitual criminal isn't someone I want roaming around the block with a concealed pistol. (I think we could add to this list, but let's do one thing at a time). With no abridgment to the 2nd amendment, this is the reality that we are faced with, yes?

I have known and been around anti-government conspiracy folks, and they all harbor this fear that Big Uncle is going to take all their guns. The reality of this happening is virtually impossible. The US military has yet to disarm the 'militant citizens' of any of the foreign countries we have tried in recent years. To fear that somehow, our military will even try to do that here seems a very remote possibility.

Therefore: What to do? I believe that if we continue on the course of unabridged and unregulated ownership of weaponry...the only outcome will be the demise of this country. However, I also believe that rational people can realize that we have come a long way from the days from single shot muskets. And to be honest, if all we could own were single shot muskets, I wouldn't be concerned.

Is it time to clean up and modernize the 2nd ? As we all know, it's one of the least concise of the amendments. Another option is to properly address the problems with regulation in a thorough manner.

There's more to be said on this, but in order to keep it all readable I'll just ask again: Is there no room for any moderation to this inalienable right? If the answer is no; then I fear this will not end well for the USA.

You still wish to restrict everyone instead of punish the guilty offenders.

Let's take this out of the realm of guns. Let's say, instead of guns, it's childbearing. You and I both know that there are good parents, irresponsible parents and really abusive parents.

Would you prohibit EVERYONE from being a parent unless "approved" by the Gov? Because not everyone is capable of being a "responsible" parent? To use your own words against you; is there any way to moderate the inalienable Right to be a parent so that trajedies don't occur?

Let's say there is. Let's say that we've discovered the way. And that way is that ONLY women between the ages of 20 and 30 have been shown to be necessary for the continuation of the species. And we create a law to that effect. Does that mean ALL men must be sterilized because they aren't women? (Wait for it, someone will say yes and they'll believe it too.) Or does the law now have to be modified so that men must be "approved" by the Gov so that they can reproduce. If so, then who does that approval? And is the age range the same? If so, what happens if a woman under 30 finds and meets Mr. Right who's 31?

And, do you not believe that eventually, some dim bulb legislature will give all gov officials an EXEMPTION?

Once we go down that road where does it stop? Will women eventually have to submit to being bred by "approved" mates regardless of who they actually prefer to procreate with? Even if that would promote genetic superiority?

Of course not. Yet wouldn't that prevent chaos and abused children?

Enumerated rights are enumerated because they are personal and held by the individual. The collective has NO POWER to restrict them at the expense of the individual. If an individual abuses his enumerated rights by harming others, he can be punished for it. As is proper under the law. The view you espouse to limit those rights is an attempt to use the law to punish everyone for doing no harm. And that's just flat wrong.

I do understand your fear of societal turmoil. However, you fail to consider that 100 years ago, bearing arms was commonplace. There weren't riots or unrest except in places where the bearing of arms was restricted or prohibited. And those who were being rioted against, were the ones with guns while the rioters were disarmed. And the predictable occurred.

And, while I try not to interject vignettes into my arguments in this case I will. I had the honor of being a participant in a running debate on abortion with 7 others. As you know, the topic can engender hot tempers and fervent opinions and malicious personal attacks, During this particular debate ALL of us were armed. All 8 of us. This debate actually occurred over the course of a month or so at a couple of restaurants during which even the servers occasionally injecting their opinions on the matter.

No one got shot. no one got arrested. No one had to go to the hospital. No one's voice was raised. And we actually had a conversation on a very controversial subject which concluded with all of us having a great time. My personal view on abortion changed... by expanding my understanding and fitting it into my personal beliefs. And, I'll bet my opinion is different than yours. And much more comprehensive than the average persons limited belief.

I include this vignette for a reason. Not to show that I and my friends are calm individuals. But, rather, to show that at one time we had the ability to actually debate issues and topics without flying off the handle and murdering each other even if guns were right there and easy to get to and use. This was the case because the general public had guns, knew how to use them, and carried them everywhere. They had to be polite. They had to think outside their own small world.

Once guns fell out of favor, we lost that ability to talk without violence and the anonymity of the internet isn't helping us find it again. Nor does the anti-gun rhetoric that is fueled with false data and emotion-filled dislogic contribute to anything meaningful other than promoting the violence they profess to be trying to stop.

These are my rights. You have them too. That you choose not to use them should in no way prohibit me from doing so. The attempts to do that show that the ones behind the attempt are the actual dangers to our society. Because they would destroy it to promote themselves to power.

 

[Zeb_Carter]

Zeb, I appreciate your sense of humor, a little humor can be like oil on turbulent waters.

I think what I'm going to say here also addresses HisArpy's central point. My thanks to both for spending the time to share.

Taking the belief, at face value, of a totally unabridged or regulated "right for every American to own arms"; I cannot, in all sincerity, see an end that isn't exactly what I alluded to in the early post...That is; Such a course has no place to go except into the accumulation of armament by groups of citizens. It's a well worn path that can be seen all around the world. Eventually, these armed "groups" will be forced to take the law into their own hands, further escalating the demise of normal society.

The obvious reason for this is simply because not all citizens are capable of being the "responsible" gun owner.

By default, we could probably all agree that emotionally ill people should not have a machine-gun. Likewise, a habitual criminal isn't someone I want roaming around the block with a concealed pistol. (I think we could add to this list, but let's do one thing at a time). With no abridgment to the 2nd amendment, this is the reality that we are faced with, yes?

I have known and been around anti-government conspiracy folks, and they all harbor this fear that Big Uncle is going to take all their guns. The reality of this happening is virtually impossible. The US military has yet to disarm the 'militant citizens' of any of the foreign countries we have tried in recent years. To fear that somehow, our military will even try to do that here seems a very remote possibility.

Therefore: What to do? I believe that if we continue on the course of unabridged and unregulated ownership of weaponry...the only outcome will be the demise of this country. However, I also believe that rational people can realize that we have come a long way from the days from single shot muskets. And to be honest, if all we could own were single shot muskets, I wouldn't be concerned.

Is it time to clean up and modernize the 2nd ? As we all know, it's one of the least concise of the amendments. Another option is to properly address the problems with regulation in a thorough manner.

There's more to be said on this, but in order to keep it all readable I'll just ask again: Is there no room for any moderation to this inalienable right? If the answer is no; then I fear this will not end well for the USA.

Have you even read the 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.

Why do you need to change the words?

Let's look at a case in point...Chicago, Illinois. My hometown. I'm very glad I no longer live there. The only people with guns are the police and criminals. So getting rid of the bad influences not working so good for Chicago.

Now down here in Texas, where everyone owns a gun...well almost. Just three nights ago, a police officer was shot, just wounded. The man who shot him was preparing to put another bullet in him when a citizen with a carry permit pulled his weapon and shot the would be killer to death...well almost, he died on the way to the hospital in a life flight helicopter.

 

[HisArpy]

Have you even read the 2nd Amendment?



Why do you need to change the words?

<snip>

He (actually everyone) should also read/study the Constitution. There are bits in there about certain persons having their Rights stripped from them for specific reasons.

Thus people like convicted felons, and so on, don't HAVE the Right to keep and bear arms. Yet, that's a talking point by the anti-gun crowd. And, somehow it's always attached to machine gun, or assault weapon, or automatic or high capacity magazine, or other "scary" sounding words that mean nothing, Yet those words sound like they do mean something to people who don't bother to read or attempt to understand the actual DOCUMENT that allows them to live in freedom.

It's not that complicated. But it does take more than listening to, and then parroting, political bumper sticker slogan designed to sound emotionally appealing. Amazingly enough, after you DO start to read and ask questions, all the inflamatory rhetoric seems to disappear and conversations, even for difficult subjects, become easier to have without someone flying off the handle.

Amazing how that works. Knowledge, it's a good thing for everyone.

 

[yukonnights]

Have you even read the 2nd Amendment?



Why do you need to change the words?

Let's look at a case in point...Chicago, Illinois. My hometown. I'm very glad I no longer live there. The only people with guns are the police and criminals. So getting rid of the bad influences not working so good for Chicago.

Now down here in Texas, where everyone owns a gun...well almost. Just three nights ago, a police officer was shot, just wounded. The man who shot him was preparing to put another bullet in him when a citizen with a carry permit pulled his weapon and shot the would be killer to death...well almost, he died on the way to the hospital in a life flight helicopter.

Sorry to get back to this so late, very busy day in the town!

Yes, I've read the 2nd Amendment. In fact, I've read more than just the words that the founders wrote. Also, over the years I've tried to find important commentary on it as well...For example; The following is a part directly from the US Supreme Court Syllabus in the case of DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA v. HELLER

2. Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited.
It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any
manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast
doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of fire-arms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or
laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons. Pp. 54–56.

(NOTE: This is one small part of a much larger decision!!!! I think it's a good read and recommend it, as it really tries to clarify the somewhat convoluted language of the 2nd. Also, I highlighted the bold part for emphasis.)

The reason I quote this is in an effort to show that indeed "rights" can be and are regulated. Further, the Constitution foresaw and provided for changes through a detailed Amendment process in Article 5.

The fact is; the "unabridged right" to bear arms has been regulated "abridged" for many, many years. Therefore; the door is definitely open to changes.

The question then is; Is such a thing necessary today? The mere advances in the lethality of modern weapons is certainly something to consider. One person, well armed with semi-auto or automatic weapons can inflict more carnage than a group of musketeers could at the time of the writing of Constitution. I was taught that the wisdom of the founders foresaw the need to make adjustments.

Thus, it is my understanding that nothing is technically preventing an amendment in regard to the 2nd.
******

And while I appreciate the references in regard to Chicago and Texas, I don't think they provide the proof implied. First and foremost; Any solution to the problems in Chicago and other metro areas has been impeded by the very idea that there cannot be and shall not not be any "infringement"...in short, hands are tied while we debate whether or not we can/should amend the Constitution...so that we could then enact suitable laws/regulations to address the problem. (It also begs the question: Where did the criminals obtain the guns?)

Second, to compare Chicago with Texas is also no true indicator of the cause of the difference. Texas is a much different culture than Chicago. I'm not saying your argument is totally void of merit, simply that it's a lot like comparing apples to oranges and does not provide a true correlation. And we both know it wouldn't take much of a search to find instances where 'citizen assistance' has gone dreadfully wrong. (but I am truly glad it worked out this time)
*****

I'm going to bed...I'll try to reply to HisArpy tomorrow.

 

[NightL]

The fact is; the "unabridged right" to bear arms has been regulated "abridged" for many, many years. Therefore; the door is definitely open to changes.

The question then is; Is such a thing necessary today? The mere advances in the lethality of modern weapons is certainly something to consider. One person, well armed with semi-auto or automatic weapons can inflict more carnage than a group of musketeers could at the time of the writing of Constitution. I was taught that the wisdom of the founders foresaw the need to make adjustments.

and these founders were no more than fallible humans

 

[HisArpy]

Sorry to get back to this so late, very busy day in the town!

Yes, I've read the 2nd Amendment. In fact, I've read more than just the words that the founders wrote. Also, over the years I've tried to find important commentary on it as well...For example; The following is a part directly from the US Supreme Court Syllabus in the case of DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA v. HELLER

2. Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited.
It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any
manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast
doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of fire-arms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or
laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons. Pp. 54–56.

(NOTE: This is one small part of a much larger decision!!!! I think it's a good read and recommend it, as it really tries to clarify the somewhat convoluted language of the 2nd. Also, I highlighted the bold part for emphasis.)

The reason I quote this is in an effort to show that indeed "rights" can be and are regulated. Further, the Constitution foresaw and provided for changes through a detailed Amendment process in Article 5.

The fact is; the "unabridged right" to bear arms has been regulated "abridged" for many, many years. Therefore; the door is definitely open to changes.

The question then is; Is such a thing necessary today? The mere advances in the lethality of modern weapons is certainly something to consider. One person, well armed with semi-auto or automatic weapons can inflict more carnage than a group of musketeers could at the time of the writing of Constitution. I was taught that the wisdom of the founders foresaw the need to make adjustments.

Thus, it is my understanding that nothing is technically preventing an amendment in regard to the 2nd.
******

And while I appreciate the references in regard to Chicago and Texas, I don't think they provide the proof implied. First and foremost; Any solution to the problems in Chicago and other metro areas has been impeded by the very idea that there cannot be and shall not not be any "infringement"...in short, hands are tied while we debate whether or not we can/should amend the Constitution...so that we could then enact suitable laws/regulations to address the problem. (It also begs the question: Where did the criminals obtain the guns?)

Second, to compare Chicago with Texas is also no true indicator of the cause of the difference. Texas is a much different culture than Chicago. I'm not saying your argument is totally void of merit, simply that it's a lot like comparing apples to oranges and does not provide a true correlation. And we both know it wouldn't take much of a search to find instances where 'citizen assistance' has gone dreadfully wrong. (but I am truly glad it worked out this time)
*****

I'm going to bed...I'll try to reply to HisArpy tomorrow.

Heller (the case you referenced) tries to make complex that which is not complex. It does this because the prior decisions by the SupCt in 2A jurisprudence have been flawed and they cannot reverse those decisions without creating a quagmire. If they reverse those prior decisions then ALL of their decisions which have been based upon them fall apart and ALL of the gun laws that were enacted since are illegal laws. That means the gun control act of 1968, the assault weapons bans, magazine capacity limits and so on are ALL unconstitutional in one swoop. The SupCt won't do that because it will cause political and legal turmoil So they didn't. Instead they produced a flawed decision designed to mollify everyone.

The first flaw is not including and analyzing all of the text of the Amendment. Those 4 little words at the end mean something. Yet they were ignored in order to build a consensus for the decision. That doesn't make the decision "correct" or "right" what it makes it is incomplete. And the decision is incorrect because of it. When you consider that the court cannot "add" or "subtract" or "render meaningless" any of the language, by not including those 4 words the court failed in it's analysis and duty. They did so only to get that political hot potato out of their hallowed halls.

The reference to Miller shows how flawed the court's reasoning is. And how wrong it is to rely on 1 or 2 parsed sentences. Miller was a case where he was accused of transporting a sawed off shotgun across state lines. In it's decision, the court reasoned that the shotgun was a "dangerous and unusual weapon" and not in common use at the time. It also reasoned that the second amendment did not cover arms which are not in service or suitable for service in the militia. Which sort of destroys the narrative that "assault rifles" aren't covered by the 2A because they're "military style weapons". Miller says that's EXACTLY what the 2A DOES include.

You can't reconcile that. Many legal analysts have tried and failed because it's impossible.

The biggest flaw in the whole argument about guns being able to be regulated is that there are 2 mistakes being made. The first is that "regulated' as it appears in the amendment means "well-trained" not subject to legislation. The second is that it assumes the SupCt isn't a political body. And that it always makes the correct decision every time - the end. That's wrong as our SupCt history shows. One doesn't even have to try very hard to find cases where the court got it absolutely wrong. Scott v. Sandford (Dred Scott) is exactly that sort of case. The SupCt decided that Scott, a former slave, wasn't entitled to freedom from slavery because the Constitution didn't include blacks as citizens.

We KNOW that's wrong. But that's what the court decided. And basically started a war over. But that's not the only case where they screwed up. Plessy v. Ferguson is another case where they did the same thing. That case created the whole "separate but equal" thing. Again, we KNOW that's wrong but that was the decision made by the SupCt.

So, the court isn't infallible. And, relying on parsed sentences to try to force the decisions into a politics based narrative will only result in failure by those who try. Nor does saying that a 1-sentence Amendment is "convoluted" or "complicated" alter the truth. There are 4 words in there that are unmistakable in their intent.

As to those words, there's a case (Bliss v. Commonwealth of Ky) that actually analyzes the 2A. It was decided at a time when the founders were still alive. It was decided at the time when the populace knew and understood what the words actually meant because that was the common language of the people at the time. And it includes the intent of the founders when they added that amendment. And why the gov has no ability to do what the anti-gun crowd proposes.

There are other 2A cases we could talk about. The Slaughter House Cases are some of them. If you read Heller you'll find references to those cases. And, if you read those cases and compare them to what Heller says, you'll see that the court basically reversed those decisions without actually saying so. Because they were wrong. Yet, by not actually reversing them the court created more confusion on what the real meaning of the amendment actually is.

Thus, the decisions aren't clear. Nor are they reliable or the final word on the subject. What is clear is that the amendment is 1-sentence with 4 words that appear no where else in the entire Constitution or BOR. And, if that doesn't get your attention, I don't know what will.

Go read Bliss. It's about a sword-cane but that's still considered an "arm" for 2A purposes. Contrast that decision with the idea that guns (arms) can be regulated.

Hmmm...

Now ask yourself how many centuries slavery was considered ok and had laws to support it. And then compare that with the "longstanding" language in Heller.

More food for thought.

In the end, the political narrative over gun laws fails because it's based upon personal motivations and emotion rather than an actual analysis of the law. It's an idea that if enough people can band together they can force society to bend to their will. Regardless of whether that's a good thing or not, the mechanism is not the correct one. Peer pressure is a very bad way to rule society. Or upon which to base laws.

If you believe the 2A is so anachronistic, then mount a campaign for Congress to repeal it. There is no other path that will get to where the progressive anti-gun crowd wants to go. Doing what they are doing will only result in another Dred Scott decision. With the same predictable consequences.

 

[yukonnights]

Heller (the case you referenced) tries to make complex that which is not complex. It does this because the prior decisions by the SupCt in 2A jurisprudence have been flawed and they cannot reverse those decisions without creating a quagmire. If they reverse those prior decisions then ALL of their decisions which have been based upon them fall apart and ALL of the gun laws that were enacted since are illegal laws. That means the gun control act of 1968, the assault weapons bans, magazine capacity limits and so on are ALL unconstitutional in one swoop. The SupCt won't do that because it will cause political and legal turmoil So they didn't. Instead they produced a flawed decision designed to mollify everyone.

The first flaw is not including and analyzing all of the text of the Amendment. Those 4 little words at the end mean something. Yet they were ignored in order to build a consensus for the decision. That doesn't make the decision "correct" or "right" what it makes it is incomplete. And the decision is incorrect because of it. When you consider that the court cannot "add" or "subtract" or "render meaningless" any of the language, by not including those 4 words the court failed in it's analysis and duty. They did so only to get that political hot potato out of their hallowed halls.

The reference to Miller shows how flawed the court's reasoning is. And how wrong it is to rely on 1 or 2 parsed sentences. Miller was a case where he was accused of transporting a sawed off shotgun across state lines. In it's decision, the court reasoned that the shotgun was a "dangerous and unusual weapon" and not in common use at the time. It also reasoned that the second amendment did not cover arms which are not in service or suitable for service in the militia. Which sort of destroys the narrative that "assault rifles" aren't covered by the 2A because they're "military style weapons". Miller says that's EXACTLY what the 2A DOES include.

You can't reconcile that. Many legal analysts have tried and failed because it's impossible.

The biggest flaw in the whole argument about guns being able to be regulated is that there are 2 mistakes being made. The first is that "regulated' as it appears in the amendment means "well-trained" not subject to legislation. The second is that it assumes the SupCt isn't a political body. And that it always makes the correct decision every time - the end. That's wrong as our SupCt history shows. One doesn't even have to try very hard to find cases where the court got it absolutely wrong. Scott v. Sandford (Dred Scott) is exactly that sort of case. The SupCt decided that Scott, a former slave, wasn't entitled to freedom from slavery because the Constitution didn't include blacks as citizens.

We KNOW that's wrong. But that's what the court decided. And basically started a war over. But that's not the only case where they screwed up. Plessy v. Ferguson is another case where they did the same thing. That case created the whole "separate but equal" thing. Again, we KNOW that's wrong but that was the decision made by the SupCt.

So, the court isn't infallible. And, relying on parsed sentences to try to force the decisions into a politics based narrative will only result in failure by those who try. Nor does saying that a 1-sentence Amendment is "convoluted" or "complicated" alter the truth. There are 4 words in there that are unmistakable in their intent.

As to those words, there's a case (Bliss v. Commonwealth of Ky) that actually analyzes the 2A. It was decided at a time when the founders were still alive. It was decided at the time when the populace knew and understood what the words actually meant because that was the common language of the people at the time. And it includes the intent of the founders when they added that amendment. And why the gov has no ability to do what the anti-gun crowd proposes.

There are other 2A cases we could talk about. The Slaughter House Cases are some of them. If you read Heller you'll find references to those cases. And, if you read those cases and compare them to what Heller says, you'll see that the court basically reversed those decisions without actually saying so. Because they were wrong. Yet, by not actually reversing them the court created more confusion on what the real meaning of the amendment actually is.

Thus, the decisions aren't clear. Nor are they reliable or the final word on the subject. What is clear is that the amendment is 1-sentence with 4 words that appear no where else in the entire Constitution or BOR. And, if that doesn't get your attention, I don't know what will.

Go read Bliss. It's about a sword-cane but that's still considered an "arm" for 2A purposes. Contrast that decision with the idea that guns (arms) can be regulated.

Hmmm...

Now ask yourself how many centuries slavery was considered ok and had laws to support it. And then compare that with the "longstanding" language in Heller.

More food for thought.

In the end, the political narrative over gun laws fails because it's based upon personal motivations and emotion rather than an actual analysis of the law. It's an idea that if enough people can band together they can force society to bend to their will. Regardless of whether that's a good thing or not, the mechanism is not the correct one. Peer pressure is a very bad way to rule society. Or upon which to base laws.

If you believe the 2A is so anachronistic, then mount a campaign for Congress to repeal it. There is no other path that will get to where the progressive anti-gun crowd wants to go. Doing what they are doing will only result in another Dred Scott decision. With the same predictable consequences.

Nice research HA,

I'm not going to try and comment on all of the details of what you said, but just the theme of it. That theme is: The Constitution as written has indeed been shown to be open to interpretation as demonstrated by the great numbers of legal decisions since it's ratification.

It is not an infallible document, as you have clearly shown above. Nor are the attempts by the courts to try and clear up the many issues/challenges infallible.

Therefore, one can only conclude that there are no inalienable rights enshrined therein that are protected from change/regulation as society progresses.

I agree with your proposed solution in regard to a thorough review and rewrite of the 2nd. There are pressing issues on both sides of this issue and without such a process, I think we both agree that the predictable consequences will not be in anyone's best interest.

Sorry for not having more time to spend on this, but company arriving in a short while Not too keen on it...but...

 

[HisArpy]

It was an excellent conversation. Thank you for joining in.

Some more "light reading" on the subject.

Cataeno v. Mass.

Cataeno shows how far the anti-gun proponents, States, and courts will go to torture the language in Heller in order to promote the "gun ban" agenda. The coolest part of the case is that it went all the way to the US SupCt and they handed it back to the Mass Sup Ct unanimously and without a written decision (that's what "per curiam" means). The written decision that accompanied the remand (meaning "returning it to the lower court") is a concurrence by some of the Justices who didn't feel that a silent per curiam remand said enough.

Remember, this was a 9-0 decision to remand with instructions to obey what it says in Heller. Even the justices like Ginsberg and Sotomayor who believe that the 2A shouldn't be unrestricted voted to send it back down to the lower courts. The end result is that Cataeno had her conviction reversed shortly after the remand.

Please, everyone who's been following this discussion - READ this case. If they will do this over guns, what will they do over other Rights like abortion. Or equal protection. Or any number of other issues that make America the country it is.



Yukon, enjoy your "company" and have a great weekend.

 

[NightL]

If they will do this over guns, what will they do over other Rights like abortion.

You wanted to make a correlation between gun laws and abortion laws? Here is one for you:
If It Was As Hard To Get A Gun As It Is To Get An Abortion
http://www.huffingtonpost.com.au/en...o-get-an-abortion_us_5612afc4e4b076812702b817

 

[coachdb18]

You wanted to make a correlation between gun laws and abortion laws? Here is one for you:
If It Was As Hard To Get A Gun As It Is To Get An Abortion
http://www.huffingtonpost.com.au/en...o-get-an-abortion_us_5612afc4e4b076812702b817

Perhaps we should simply require that all abortions be performed with a handgun?

 

[Weird Harold]

You wanted to make a correlation between gun laws and abortion laws? Here is one for you:
If It Was As Hard To Get A Gun As It Is To Get An Abortion
http://www.huffingtonpost.com.au/en...o-get-an-abortion_us_5612afc4e4b076812702b817

All that tells me is that it is far too difficult to get an abortion.

 

[NightL]

it is far too difficult to get an abortion.

no arguement with that part of your sentence

 

[yukonnights]

In reference to my last post which envisioned a thorough rewrite of the 2nd Amendment that might both consolidate current judicial thought, and clarify the will of the people in regard to private ownership of 'weapons...I'm wondering what are some of the issues I would like to see clarified/included.

Here's an excerpt from a paper I found interesting from us.constitution.net ;
*****
A proposed amendment

Recognizing that the need to arm the populace as a militia is no longer of much concern, but also realizing that firearms are a part of our history and culture and are used by many for both personal defense and sport, this site has proposed a new 2nd Amendment — an amendment to replace the 2nd Amendment to the Constitution. This proposed text is offered as a way to spark discussion of the topic.

Section 1. The second article of amendment to the Constitution of the United States is hereby repealed.

Section 2. The right of the people to keep arms reasonable for hunting, sport, collecting, and personal defense shall not be infringed.

Section 3. Restrictions of arms must be found to be reasonable under Section 2 by a two-thirds vote of Congress in two consecutive sessions of Congress before they can be forwarded to the President for approval.

This proposed amendment is a truer representation of how our society views our freedom to bear arms. Because "reasonableness" can be far too elastic, the two-Congress restriction requires that two Congresses in a row pass the same bill — this allows both thoughtful reflection and for the opinions of the people, to be expressed between these votes, to be heard (both at the ballot box and in general). It is an unusual, but not unprecedented, way of passing legislation. Finally, the courts would have the ultimate authority in determining if a restriction is not reasonable, providing a final layer of protection (after the two pairs of debate in the House and Senate and the President's own agreement). The militia is removed from the equation, greatly clarifying the purpose of the amendment.

Historical note: in Section 2, the "collecting" clause was added, and Section 3 is a replacement for "The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation" after concerns over "reasonableness" were examined more fully
******
This is just an excerpt, but the discussion covers many of the cases and issues we've discussed above concerning the convoluted 2nd amendment.
***


Certainly some things I would like to see included in any change would be that all persons who desire to own a weapon must be;

1. Mentally/emotionally "certified stable" !

2. Must undertake training in the safe use of the weapon, and pass a comprehensive examination. (such training & testing to be on going to renew license)

3. Training must include "How to de-escalate" a volatile situation, When and how to intervene in a good citizen capacity, The legal liabilities of 'vigilante use of a weapon'...(which would require a legal definition of what is and what is not allowed in such instances).

4. And of course, some precise definition of what is suitable for citizen use, and what is only suitable for military use.

5....anyone else?
****

Note; I read in the news tonight that two more police officers were shot and killed in Ohio today while responding to a 911 call. The report said a "possible" domestic situation was involved. The carnage must stop! The time is far past when we could just keep on as usual. I refuse to believe that there is no solution to the increasing bloodshed and loss of life we see engulfing this country. I don't see this as a political debate...I see it as a moral test. I wonder how history will remember us?