Yay, GUNS!

[Ringer]

No, those if's really don't exist if someone gets the court to hear a case that presses that very literal point and it's meaning and context in the era it was drafted. Felons in that time did their time and took up arms once they had served their time. Arms that didn't exist then are now part of the problem and they are technically protected. Well regulated clearly refers to the militia and not the general people of the population.

I didn't say they always existed, I said they exist now.

 

Again it's not that clear since, as I read it, the entire purpose of the right to bear arms is to have a well regulated militia, so the assumed separation doesn't make sense.

Think legally and follow the punctuation of the amendment, the protection of the people to keep and bear arms is explicitly stated and it is that very protection that would allow the people to assemble a well regulated militia if and when it became necessary for the security of a free state. It is hard to form a militia from unarmed citizens.

Yes, so the purpose of firearms is a well regulated militia, those not in a militia have no need for firearms. That's how I read it, but that is why we have a court to decide what the writing means.

 

I personally fear the language of the amendment is too broad and too vague in today's world but until it is changed I fully support what it says because the law should always say what it means and mean what it says. It should not be open to interpretation based on the times as the living document crowd advocates. Shall not be infringed means no encroachments of any kind. If that language is now a problem then it needs to be fixed, not circumvented.

The problem with vague language is it can mean anything to anyone. Hence the differences on how we are both reading the exact same sentence.

[Iggy]

Arms that didn't exist then are now part of the problem and they are technically protected. Well regulated clearly refers to the militia and not the general people of the population. Think legally and follow the punctuation of the amendment, the protection of the people to keep and bear arms is explicitly stated and it is that very protection that would allow the people to assemble a well regulated militia if and when it became necessary for the security of a free state. It is hard to form a militia from unarmed citizens.

 

The Supreme Court agreed in 2008 saying,

 

1. The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.

-District of Columbia v. Heller

 

What's interesting is that there was an earlier decision, United States v. Miller, 1939, that put limits on the type of weapons that could be owned by limiting them to those conceivably used by a militia. It held that a shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches couldn't be protected by the second amendment because...

 

In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a 'shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length' at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument.

The significance attributed to the term Militia appears from the debates in the Convention, the history and legislation of Colonies and States, and the writings of approved commentators. These show plainly enough that the Militia comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. 'A body of citizens enrolled for military discipline.' And further, that ordinarily when called for service these men were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time.

-United States v. Miller, wikipedia

 

 

The supreme court reused the language I bolded in 2008 when saying that handguns couldn't be banned in DC. Weapons commonly used for non-criminal purpose (eg hunting and self defense) can't be banned.

[overtone]

 

The problem with vague language is it can mean anything to anyone. Hence
the differences on how we are both reading the exact same sentence.

The language is not particularly vague. There are a lot of people these days,

 

when we have a standing Army and a National Guard and hundreds of Police forces with more firepower than the British Army in 1812, when we have no frontier or self-defending territories or towns far away from each other,

 

who don't know what militias are (or how they come to be "well-regulated" in 1780 language), is the problem.

 

At least, that's the source of the "vagueness". The "problem" may be more that a lot of people simply don't like what it says. They don't like the idea of their neighbors keeping and bearing militia caliber weaponry, and they don't want to read a sentence in the Constitution that guarantees those neighbors that right.

 

 

How do we determine when one right violates another?

They never do.

 

When one owns a gun, there is an increased probability that someone's right to life will be violated.

1) not necessarily 2) likewise when one assembles with people to petition the government for redress of grievances.

When such an event occurs, the person most to blame may be the owner simply because they owned the gun.

There is no Constitutional right to shoot people. There is no Constitutional right to immunity from mishap or accident. One can blame the careless and improvident, even regulate against carelessness and improvidence, but not legally define gun ownership itself as careless.

[MonDie]

The language is not particularly vague.

 

Let's get as literal and decontextualized as possible. Wouldn't "the right to bear arms" mean the right to carry a gun around? Airports are looking pretty unconstitutional right about now.

 

There is no Constitutional right to shoot people. There is no Constitutional right to immunity from mishap or accident.

 

How do we effectively stop them from shooting people if we can't take away their guns? It's not like the constitution is there just so we can say, "You're not supposed to kill people, but we really can't do anything about it until after you've shot 11 people. And, well, if you kill yourself too, there's virtually nothing we can do about it."

 

"One can blame the careless and improvident, even regulate against carelessness and improvidence..."

 

... regulate against it by restricting gun ownership.

Edited May 14, 2013 by Mondays Assignment: Die

[Moontanman]

My logical self can see the statistics and draw a reasonable conclusion that overall we would all be safer if guns were non existent. My emotional self cannot make that leap, this seriously disturbs me. I don't see myself as a threat to society because I have a gun. In fact if i wanted to hurt someone I doubt lack of a gun would hinder me much. I don't see having a gun as a logical incentive to hurt anyone.

[zapatos]

Let's get as literal and decontextualized as possible. Wouldn't "the right to bear arms" mean the right to carry a gun around?

Yes, I think it would mean the right to carry a gun around. But if we are going to only use these words then we are lacking quite a bit of necessary context. Those words make no mention of who, what, where, when, or how. You cannot simply assume 'at the airport or anywhere else you wish' anymore than you can assume 'only while hunting'.

Only using those words will never work. Unless it is specifically mentioned, someone is going to have to use their judgement.

The language may not be vague, but the context is.

[John Cuthber]

Whatever the constitution says, and however you (or some group) interpret it, using it to justify carrying guns is an argument from authority and is a logical fallacy.

 

In any event, if it does not agree with what you want, it can be changed, so what it currently says isn't important.

[overtone]

 

 

The language is not particularly vague.

Let's get as literal and decontextualized as possible. Wouldn't "the right to bear arms" mean the right to carry a gun around? Airports are looking pretty unconstitutional right about now.

You can gin up all kinds of problems by taking quotes out of context and pretending to be simple about it. So?

 

How do we effectively stop them from shooting people if we can't take

away their guns?

Mostly, you can't. It's called living with other people.

It's not like the constitution is there just so we can say, "You're not supposed to kill people, but we really can't do anything about it until after you've shot 11 people. And, well, if you kill yourself too, there's virtually nothing we can do about it."

The Constitution does much more than that, true, but that's part of it.

 

Whatever the constitution says, and however you (or some group) interpret it, using it to justify carrying guns is an argument from authority and is a logical fallacy

We are not using it to justify carrying guns. We are using it to prevent the government's disarming one's neighbors preemptively, by refusing to allow said government to violate said Constitution.

 

 

Edited May 14, 2013 by overtone

[zapatos]

Whatever the constitution says, and however you (or some group) interpret it, using it to justify carrying guns is an argument from authority and is a logical fallacy.

Not true. It is only a logical fallacy if the person or group is not a legitimate authority. In the case of the SCOTUS, in matters of Constitutional law, what they say goes. If they say it is a Constitutional right to carry guns, then it is a Constitutional right to carry guns.

[John Cuthber]

Yes, and during prohibition you didn't have a constitutional right to sell liquor. but before and after you did.

But moral right and wrong didn't change because of some words on paper.

The disparity is because it was a political decision.

So is the rest of the constitution.

The fact that the constitution can be changed means it's not acceptable to cite it as a logical proof of anything.

 

There is, it seems, in the US, at the moment, a constitutional right to bear arms. (and as far as I understand it, nobody is saying otherwise, there is some debate about age limits and the types of guns etc.)

That does not mean that bearing arms is a good thing- it certainly does not address the fact that those guns keep getting used to kill lots of innocent people.

 

Saying "We should be allowed to carry guns because the constitution says so" is a logical fallacy because it's an appeal to a fallible authority.

It is the logical equivalent of saying " we should stone adulteresses to death because the Bible says so".

Sure the Bible says it, but that doesn't make it right.

 

Just a thought, if the government changed the constitution to make gun ownership illegal,(no matter how unlikely that may be) would that alter your belief that you "ought" to be allowed to have guns?

If not then the constitution has nothing to do with it.

Edited May 14, 2013 by John Cuthber

[zapatos]

Yes, and during prohibition you didn't have a constitutional right to sell liquor. but before and after you did.

Correct.

But moral right and wrong didn't change because of some words on paper.

Why would it? The Constitution is a legal document, not a moral document.

The fact that the constitution can be changed means it's not acceptable to cite it as a logical proof of anything.

Nonsense. A logical proof citing the Constitution is acceptable for that version of the Constitution. The logical proof may fail if the premise changes (in this case, the Constitution), but that is the case in ALL logical proofs.

That does not mean that bearing arms is a good thing- it certainly does not address the fact that those guns keep getting used to kill lots of innocent people.

Never said it was. It just means it is a legal thing.

Saying "We should be allowed to carry guns because the constitution says so" is a logical fallacy because it's an appeal to a fallible authority.

That is not quite what we are saying though. We are saying "We should be allowed to legally carry guns because the constitution says so". And that is NOT a logical fallacy, because the Constitution, as interpreted by the Supreme Court, does say that.

It is the logical equivalent of saying " we should stone adulteresses to death because the Bible says so".

Not at all. The Constitution is a legal document, and in the US, along with interpretations by the Supreme Court and its inferior courts, decides what is Constitutionally legal in this country. In this sense it is not legally fallible. It may be morally, or socially, or monetarily fallible, but then it is not a moral or social or monetary document.

If the Bible says it is morally right to stone adulteresses, then for those who use the Bible as their moral guide it is morally right.

You can't just say "that doesn't make it right". You have to specify in what way it is not right. Something can be morally right and legally wrong at the same time.

 

To address your edit (I didn't see it when I started this):

Just a thought, if the government changed the constitution to make gun ownership illegal,(no matter how unlikely that may be) would that alter your belief that you "ought" to be allowed to have guns?

 

If not then the constitution has nothing to do with it.

It would alter my belief that we legally ought to be allowed to have guns. It might not alter my belief that we would be better off with guns.

Edited May 14, 2013 by zapatos

[Arete]

There is, it seems, in the US, at the moment, a constitutional right to bear arms. (and as far as I understand it, nobody is saying otherwise, there is some debate about age limits and the types of guns etc.)

 

 

Being an expat here the rather terrifying extension of the second amendment - that at least somewhat justifies not only owning guns but using them on people are the castle doctrine and the stand your ground laws.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Castle_doctrine

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stand-your-ground_law

 

To summarize, the castle doctrine is legislation in some states which protects a person who kills someone in their home from prosecution, provided there were circumstances that made it reasonable for the shooter to be in fear of harm. It removes the duty to retreat or seek other resolutions to the situation - i.e. even if you could reasonably leave the house, subdue the attacker or call and wait for the police, you have no obligation to. The stand your ground legislation extends this to public places where the attacked person feels unlawfully threatened. I.e. if you were walking down the street, armed and you reasonably felt as though you were going to be harmed you can kill your potential attacker without fear of even being prosecuted - even if you had ample opportunity to run away or call for help.

 

The reason this is kind of terrifying is that there are plenty of situations in which a perceived threat turns out to be not a threat. For example I was dog sitting for a friend, and his house-mate came back from vacation early. I let myself into the house to feed the dog on my way to work in the morning, scaring the room-mate. If we had of been in a castle doctrine state, and he had of had a gun nearby, he almost certainly could have shot me and there would have been no legal repercussions. The fact that someone could legitimately use a gun on me as a first resort scares me more that the simple possibility someone could own one.

 

In April, 22-year-old Cordell Jude shot and killed Daniel Adkins Jr., a pedestrian who walked in front of Jude’s car just as Jude was pulling up to the window of a Taco Bell drive-thru in Arizona. Jude claimed Adkins had waved his arms in the air, wielding what Judge thought was a metal pipe – it was actually a dog leash. Jude shot the 29-year-old Adkins, who was mentally disabled, once in the chest. As of May, an arrest had not been made in the April 3 shooting. Arizona passed a Stand Your Ground law in 2010.

 

http://www.propublica.org/article/five-stand-your-ground-cases-you-should-know-about

Edited May 14, 2013 by Arete

[MonDie]

Whatever the constitution says, and however you (or some group) interpret it, using it to justify carrying guns is an argument from authority and is a logical fallacy.

 

I like the way you put that. I guess you could say that, to a certain extent, Americans have faith that the founding fathers were right. They like to think of this faith as a strength, not a weakness.

[John Cuthber]

The decision by the state to sanction, or not to sanction, gun ownership by mentally competent adults, in spite of the risks and in spite of the fact that more guns means more shootings is a decision that the state can make.

Whatever the outcome, it is either the correct decision, or it is not the correct decision.

 

That decision is written down as part of the constitution, and, at the moment, they permit guns.

 

But saying that the constitution is anything other than a record of the outcome of that decision making process, made some time ago, is unsupported.

Using the constitution to argue against gun control is a circular argument.

Edited May 15, 2013 by John Cuthber

[overtone]

 

But saying that the constitution is anything other than a record of the
outcome of that decision making process, made some time ago, is
unsupported.

The Constitution is not a record of anything. It is the formal, legal, official, structure and bound of the legislative powers of government in the US.

 

 

Using the constitution to argue against gun control is a circular argument.

Noting that the Constitution forbids entire categories of law that might otherwise be employed to control guns in the US is not circular.

[john5746]

I think Zapatos cleared it up. John is arguing ethics, for the well-being of society, while the constitution is a legal argument. I think the legality should be discussed in the other thread. This thread is regarding the impact to society and there are plenty who feel guns are a good thing, so I think we can drop the constitution.

 

I think we should have a Constitution 2.0, it is long overdue, but it ain't happening anytime soon. I think it has been obviously established that we don't read the constitution like Bubba reads the bible(if he could read). If you did that, the document would be obsolete the day after it was written. So there is always wiggle room, but I think we all agree that as it stands, we cannot ban all guns in the US without a change to the constitution.

[Iggy]

I think the legality should be discussed in the other thread.

 

Uh-huh

 

I Ihink we should have a Constitution 2.0, it is long overdue

 

We are up to Constitution 17.0.

 

 

, but it ain't happening anytime soon. I think it has been obviously established that we don't read the constitution like Bubba reads the bible(if he could read). If you did that, the document would be obsolete the day after it was written.

 

The bible can't be changed. The Constitution can. Perhaps you'd like to discuss 'the constitution vs. the bible' it in another thread.

 

The constitution protects individual rights against the majority.

 

The second amendment is a constitutional right exactly because. as John is so keen to point out, more deaths are caused by guns than by their absence.

 

If the moral outrage of society were the only concern then we could ban guns outright like John advocates. But, banning something from an individual demands an equivalent deference be paid to that individual. There are people in this country who would be dead today if they did not have a firearm. You have to look that person in the eye and tell them "You have to die because I am going to take away your means of defending yourself. It's ok, because people less responsible than you use the tool that saved your life irresponsibly, and I'm mostly concerned with them"

 

 

So there is always wiggle room, but I think we all agree that as it stands, we cannot ban all guns in the US without a change to the constitution.

 

There are other ways. A president needs only ignore impeachment, make an executive order enforced by the army, and ignore the constitution.

 

Your idea that guns can't be banned without ratifying a new amendment assumes that political leaders don't do illegal things. That's a very sweet thought, but history doesn't bear it out.

[John Cuthber]

 

The Constitution is not a record of anything. It is the formal, legal, official, structure and bound of the legislative powers of government in the US.

 

 

Noting that the Constitution forbids entire categories of law that might otherwise be employed to control guns in the US is not circular.

The constitution has changed.

So it's a record of the current outcome of the process that defines "the formal, legal, official, structure and bound of the legislative powers of government in the US."

"Noting that the Constitution forbids entire categories of law that might otherwise be employed to control guns in the US is not circular."

nope, but saying that you can't outlaw guns because the constitution says so is silly: you could change the constitution.

[Moontanman]

NNS the ultimate in home protection...

 

[overtone]

 

So it's a record of the current outcome of the process that
defines "the formal, legal, official, structure and bound of the
legislative powers of government in the US."

Product, not record.

 

nope, but saying that you can't outlaw guns because the constitution says so is silly: you could change the constitution.

Or get rid of it, or ignore it, sure - nobody is saying it's physically impossible to ban guns in the US.

 

It's just very difficult, and damaging even to attempt. It can't be done by legislation, or by ordinary politics, or probably by any means short of tyranny.

 

btw: the tail end of the baby boomers have always been more inclined to suicide than previous generations of Americans (explanations vary, mine is that self-destructive behaviors have become less lethal recently - so that one must approach the matter more overtly and on record), and they have been entering the prime suicide years coincidently with an economic collapse. A marginally larger share of these suicides is coming from oxycontin and oxycodon and the like, but firearms are of course picking up their fraction. Suicides are a large fraction of firearm deaths, and we therefore expect a rise in total casualties and death rates due to firearms, without the implication of a growing public threat from them.

Edited May 16, 2013 by overtone

[MonDie]

Suicide is still ethically problematic. Admittedly, it's not a gun-specific problem, so a guns ban would only be one of many possible approaches to the suidice problem. However, suicide prevention would still be a positive result of a guns ban, like the chocolate syrup upon the sundae.

Edited May 18, 2013 by Mondays Assignment: Die

[John Cuthber]

"Or get rid of it, or ignore it, sure - nobody is saying it's physically impossible to ban guns in the US."

Some folk give the impression that you ought not outlaw guns because the constitution says you should have them.

They seem to think that the constitution is some sort of Holy Writ which can not be questioned.

 

Since it can, if needs be, get altered, the constitution is not relevant to the arguments about whether the right to bear arms is a good thing from society's point of view.

If I was somehow able to convince the entire population of the US that having guns in the home is a bad thing, then they would arrange to alter the constitution.

 

It just tells you what a bunch of (admittedly very clever) people thought a long time ago, under very different circumstances thought about ownership of a more or less totally different sort of guns.

[doG]

The constitution has changed.

 

Only through the amendments that have been added, one of which is the very point of discussion here, that the right of the people to keep and bear arms is a protected constitutional right that shall not be infringed.

 

but saying that you can't outlaw guns because the constitution says so is silly: you could change the constitution.

 

No, it's not silly, it's making a point that you can't outlaw guns without changing the Constitution. The current efforts of both the Executive and Legislative branches to infringe on any of the constitutionally protected rights of the people through regulation are unconstitutional. If there is a desire and a need to reconsider the 2nd amendment then the Executive and Legislative branches need to focus their efforts on changing the constitution as opposed to circumventing it. No effort by either to circumvent the constitutionally protected rights "of" the people should be tolerated "by" the people.

 

Suicide is still ethically problematic. Admittedly, it's not a gun-specific problem, so a guns ban would only be one of many possible approaches to the suidice problem. However, suicide prevention would still be a positive result of a guns ban, like the chocolate syrup upon the sundae.

 

Imposing consequences on someone because of actions of someone else is also ethically problematic. Just because someone buys a piece of rope at the hardware store and hangs themself does not mean it should be any harder for me to buy rope at the hardware store. I've done nothing wrong so I should face no encumbrances on buying rope because someone else did something bad with rope.

 

I have a constitutional right to keep and bear arms and a set of laws that limits what I can legally do with them. That someone else abuses their right or violates the law with them is not a reason that I should face any consequences because of their actions. Forcing consequences on me because of the illegal or unethical actions of someone else is itself unethical.

[John Cuthber]

"No effort by either to circumvent the constitutionally protected rights "of" the people should be tolerated "by" the people."

Either prohibition did that or its revocation did or these "rights" of which you speak are time dependent.

 

Gun ownership may have been a "right" when it was introduced, but not one now.

[overtone]

Gun ownership may have been a "right" when it was introduced, but not one now.

It is a right until it is revoked, the Constitution has been changed, the necessary steps of revocation taken.

 

Of course legal, formal, official rights are "time dependent" - all of them. They can be lost in many ways,.over time. But until they are lost, we have them.

 

 

Some folk give the impression that you ought not outlaw guns because the constitution says you should have them.

Like who? Nobody here.

 

The people here think the Constitution says we have the right to own guns because the very intelligent and experienced people who wrote it thought we should have that right.

Edited May 18, 2013 by overtone