Certainly some interpretation is necessary --- what is an 'arm'? Heller is replete with this. And that interpretation squares with the actual words in the 2nd Amendment.

It is one thing to interpret a word, and another thing entirely to make up a fundamental right that has zero basis in the Constitution in an explicit manner.

FBO seemingly thinks that they are equivalent.

If the SCOTUS found themselves determining that a fundamental right to operate a crocodile farm existed (i.e. the equivalent of the right to an abortion, since there is really no basis in the explicit words of the Constitution), I dont think anyone would believe that that right would be held as an equal basis to, say, the core freedom to associate under the 1st Amendment, or the core right not to be forced to self-incriminate under the 5th.

There is a huge difference between 'interpreting the bounds of an explicitly granted right' (i.e. what are the bounds of the term 'arms' in the 2nd, what is 'speech' in the 1st, what are 'houses, papers, and effects' in the 4th) and 'interpreting a brand new fundamental right into existence' (i.e. a fundamental right to an abortion)

If you cant see that, well so be it. But, to be honest, that is the crucial difference between 'originalism' or 'textualism' and proponents of the 'living Constitution'.

As for the 'shall not be infringed' -- under Heller something has to fit the rubric of what would be considered an 'arm' to have that protection. Under Heller, the term 'arm' was found to be 'weapons that are common and ordinary usage within the populace' (or somefink to that effect. M60 machine guns are not 'common' or in 'ordinary use' in the normal population; as are not any automatic weapon, an operational tank with gun, a howitzer, a land mine, or a nuclear bomb. Those types of items are free from the protection against government infringement.

So the interpretive step lies not with 'shall not be infringed', it actually lies in what falls inside or outside the roof.

And further, the delineation of 'common use' was not made by Heller --- that distinction was made 70 years earlier in the Miller case from 1939.

(08-12-2019 04:23 PM)Fort Bend Owl Wrote:  So I'd say that if Roe vs. Wade is overturned, then the precedent might be then set for taking away certain gun rights. Be careful for what you wish for OO.

Don't jump to conclusions about what I wish for, FBO. As I have said here many times, and which you are totally ignoring, again, I am neutral on abortion. I am neither pro-life nor pro-choice. I see pluses and minuses with both sides. Perhaps this is because I spent most of my youth before RVW. I have seen the problems an abortion ban causes. OTOH, it takes a special kind of obtuseness to say the fetuses on the floors of abortion clinics are not human. AFAIAC, a fetus is just another human being in another state of development, like being a teen.

But go ahead, ignore what I say, again, and put words in my mouth again.

You can kill all the babies you want. No skin off my nose. And it does sound very Democratic of you (large D) to try and find a right to confiscate guns in retaliation for others finding a right for babies to not be killed.

My quarrel is not with abortion. I support a woman's right to kill her children. Just not for the inane reasons you do. My quarrel is the misuse of statistics to support a movement to eventually ban guns. Because if one death is too many, we will always have one, and so stricter measures will be needed, again and again. It's a string of dominoes.

(08-12-2019 04:14 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(08-11-2019 03:20 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(08-11-2019 03:08 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(08-11-2019 10:54 AM)Fort Bend Owl Wrote:  Any death via gun - whether suicide, one-on-one killing, or a nutjob killing innocents - is unfortunate and costs our society unnecessary grief and money.

Same as any death via a motor vehicle.

I think the numbers on suicides are brought up because the antigun lobby cites the largest numbers possible and intimates that their solutions would make a sizable dent (80%) in that giant number.

And that is why we have a lot of regulations on vehicles. How fast you can drive them, what tests you need to pass to operate them, what annual activities you need to do to legally use them, where you can drive them, how they can be modified, etc.

Is your issue with the majority of the hypothetical gun control legislation, the legislation itself and what it would limit? Or is it that you view these potential regulations and infringements on the 2nd Amendment? In other words, let’s say the 2nd amendment does not exist - would you be opposed to a law that banned all semi-automatic rifles?

Most of what you describe as legislation is geared toward emissions and pollution, not safety. I haven't been asked to parallel park between cones in 40 years. My car gets inspected every year. If your car is old enough, it doesn't need some of the modern safety things like air bags or collision brakes or back-up cameras

I'd note though that your response doesn't really respond to him.

The comment is that all deaths are an issue... and you say 'thats why we regulate cars'. Okay, how about alcohol? All you need to drink alcohol is an ID. You can have 50 DUIs and still buy alcohol. You can have killed someone while drunk and still buy alcohol (if you're not in jail). You can own 1,000 bottles of booze. You can let almost anyone drink your booze.

his real comment is that the number includes things like suicides to make the number sound big and thus create a meaningful opportunity.

As an example, something like 350 people are killed each year by rifles of ANY kind. So why the focus on assault rifles, which are of course only a portion of these deaths?

If you COMPLETELY eliminated deaths by rifle, it wouldn't move the bar on deaths by gun very far.

(08-11-2019 03:29 PM)Fort Bend Owl Wrote:  I don't understand why we can't improve technology to help the rates of guns killing innocent people.

I think this would be a good idea.... at least better than banning objects or deciding by fiat and not due process that certain people can't protect themselves. Some sort of a gunpowder jammer around schools or banks or airports or whatever. The tech is beyond me and perhaps impossible, but I'd support it if there were something

(08-11-2019 04:34 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Personally, I would like to see guns regulated in a manner where you must show you can competently own and operate a gun before you can buy it, and on a regular basis after you own it.

If you fail to show you can competently own and operate a gun, you're unable to legally purchase one.

I don't completely disagree.... I'd like for people to have gun safety training.... but how would you feel if someone suggested the same for voting?

I say that because this is the level of the issue.

I have suggested that before the right to vote is fully vested, that new voters need to pass a test similar to the one naturalized citizens have to pass. People on both sides of the aisle have erupted, but the left side more so. Educated voters is not a priority for the left.

Hispanics in EP flock to gun classes

Looks like Hispanics in El Paso have decided to rely on their right to carry rather than the laws that did not protect them in Wal-Mart.

They seem to have decided the best protection against a shooter is a citizen with a gun.

Maybe the won't be so quick to vote for somebody who wants to take their gun rights away.

And if, heaven forbid, there is an incident in which a concealed carry permit stops a shooter in a crowded store, the antigun people will moan about the Wild West and how dangerous it is when there is more than one person with a gun.

(08-12-2019 06:08 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  Certainly some interpretation is necessary --- what is an 'arm'? Heller is replete with this. And that interpretation squares with the actual words in the 2nd Amendment.

It is one thing to interpret a word, and another thing entirely to make up a fundamental right that has zero basis in the Constitution in an explicit manner.

FBO seemingly thinks that they are equivalent.

If the SCOTUS found themselves determining that a fundamental right to operate a crocodile farm existed (i.e. the equivalent of the right to an abortion, since there is really no basis in the explicit words of the Constitution), I dont think anyone would believe that that right would be held as an equal basis to, say, the core freedom to associate under the 1st Amendment, or the core right not to be forced to self-incriminate under the 5th.

There is a huge difference between 'interpreting the bounds of an explicitly granted right' (i.e. what are the bounds of the term 'arms' in the 2nd, what is 'speech' in the 1st, what are 'houses, papers, and effects' in the 4th) and 'interpreting a brand new fundamental right into existence' (i.e. a fundamental right to an abortion)

If you cant see that, well so be it. But, to be honest, that is the crucial difference between 'originalism' or 'textualism' and proponents of the 'living Constitution'.

As for the 'shall not be infringed' -- under Heller something has to fit the rubric of what would be considered an 'arm' to have that protection. Under Heller, the term 'arm' was found to be 'weapons that are common and ordinary usage within the populace' (or somefink to that effect. M60 machine guns are not 'common' or in 'ordinary use' in the normal population; as are not any automatic weapon, an operational tank with gun, a howitzer, a land mine, or a nuclear bomb. Those types of items are free from the protection against government infringement.

So the interpretive step lies not with 'shall not be infringed', it actually lies in what falls inside or outside the roof.

And further, the delineation of 'common use' was not made by Heller --- that distinction was made 70 years earlier in the Miller case from 1939.

I can see the difference you're pointing out regarding the explicit rights and the enumerated rights.

I was pointing out that your comment about "shall not be infringed" still requires interpretation. You can dodge slightly and say that it's really the word "arms" that is being interpreted, but that just deflects away from the overall point, which is even textualists realize that interpretation of the Amendments is necessary, and the Constitution and it Amednments are not as cut and dry as many textualists often like to suggest they are.

(08-13-2019 08:58 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(08-12-2019 04:14 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(08-11-2019 03:20 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(08-11-2019 03:08 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(08-11-2019 10:54 AM)Fort Bend Owl Wrote:  Any death via gun - whether suicide, one-on-one killing, or a nutjob killing innocents - is unfortunate and costs our society unnecessary grief and money.

Same as any death via a motor vehicle.

I think the numbers on suicides are brought up because the antigun lobby cites the largest numbers possible and intimates that their solutions would make a sizable dent (80%) in that giant number.

And that is why we have a lot of regulations on vehicles. How fast you can drive them, what tests you need to pass to operate them, what annual activities you need to do to legally use them, where you can drive them, how they can be modified, etc.

Is your issue with the majority of the hypothetical gun control legislation, the legislation itself and what it would limit? Or is it that you view these potential regulations and infringements on the 2nd Amendment? In other words, let’s say the 2nd amendment does not exist - would you be opposed to a law that banned all semi-automatic rifles?

Most of what you describe as legislation is geared toward emissions and pollution, not safety. I haven't been asked to parallel park between cones in 40 years. My car gets inspected every year. If your car is old enough, it doesn't need some of the modern safety things like air bags or collision brakes or back-up cameras

I'd note though that your response doesn't really respond to him.

The comment is that all deaths are an issue... and you say 'thats why we regulate cars'. Okay, how about alcohol? All you need to drink alcohol is an ID. You can have 50 DUIs and still buy alcohol. You can have killed someone while drunk and still buy alcohol (if you're not in jail). You can own 1,000 bottles of booze. You can let almost anyone drink your booze.

his real comment is that the number includes things like suicides to make the number sound big and thus create a meaningful opportunity.

As an example, something like 350 people are killed each year by rifles of ANY kind. So why the focus on assault rifles, which are of course only a portion of these deaths?

If you COMPLETELY eliminated deaths by rifle, it wouldn't move the bar on deaths by gun very far.

(08-11-2019 03:29 PM)Fort Bend Owl Wrote:  I don't understand why we can't improve technology to help the rates of guns killing innocent people.

I think this would be a good idea.... at least better than banning objects or deciding by fiat and not due process that certain people can't protect themselves. Some sort of a gunpowder jammer around schools or banks or airports or whatever. The tech is beyond me and perhaps impossible, but I'd support it if there were something

(08-11-2019 04:34 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Personally, I would like to see guns regulated in a manner where you must show you can competently own and operate a gun before you can buy it, and on a regular basis after you own it.

If you fail to show you can competently own and operate a gun, you're unable to legally purchase one.

I don't completely disagree.... I'd like for people to have gun safety training.... but how would you feel if someone suggested the same for voting?

I say that because this is the level of the issue.

I have suggested that before the right to vote is fully vested, that new voters need to pass a test similar to the one naturalized citizens have to pass. People on both sides of the aisle have erupted, but the left side more so. Educated voters is not a priority for the left.

It's because many people think of voting as a more fundamental right than owning a gun. And our country has a history of using such tests/taxes to intentionally disenfranchise segments of people.

Let's ignore the 2nd Amendment and all the other ones for a minute. If you were to create a democratic government, which right would you say was more important? The right to vote or to own a gun?

(08-13-2019 09:22 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(08-13-2019 08:58 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(08-12-2019 04:14 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(08-11-2019 03:20 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(08-11-2019 03:08 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Same as any death via a motor vehicle.

I think the numbers on suicides are brought up because the antigun lobby cites the largest numbers possible and intimates that their solutions would make a sizable dent (80%) in that giant number.

And that is why we have a lot of regulations on vehicles. How fast you can drive them, what tests you need to pass to operate them, what annual activities you need to do to legally use them, where you can drive them, how they can be modified, etc.

Is your issue with the majority of the hypothetical gun control legislation, the legislation itself and what it would limit? Or is it that you view these potential regulations and infringements on the 2nd Amendment? In other words, let’s say the 2nd amendment does not exist - would you be opposed to a law that banned all semi-automatic rifles?

Most of what you describe as legislation is geared toward emissions and pollution, not safety. I haven't been asked to parallel park between cones in 40 years. My car gets inspected every year. If your car is old enough, it doesn't need some of the modern safety things like air bags or collision brakes or back-up cameras

I'd note though that your response doesn't really respond to him.

The comment is that all deaths are an issue... and you say 'thats why we regulate cars'. Okay, how about alcohol? All you need to drink alcohol is an ID. You can have 50 DUIs and still buy alcohol. You can have killed someone while drunk and still buy alcohol (if you're not in jail). You can own 1,000 bottles of booze. You can let almost anyone drink your booze.

his real comment is that the number includes things like suicides to make the number sound big and thus create a meaningful opportunity.

As an example, something like 350 people are killed each year by rifles of ANY kind. So why the focus on assault rifles, which are of course only a portion of these deaths?

If you COMPLETELY eliminated deaths by rifle, it wouldn't move the bar on deaths by gun very far.

(08-11-2019 03:29 PM)Fort Bend Owl Wrote:  I don't understand why we can't improve technology to help the rates of guns killing innocent people.

I think this would be a good idea.... at least better than banning objects or deciding by fiat and not due process that certain people can't protect themselves. Some sort of a gunpowder jammer around schools or banks or airports or whatever. The tech is beyond me and perhaps impossible, but I'd support it if there were something

(08-11-2019 04:34 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Personally, I would like to see guns regulated in a manner where you must show you can competently own and operate a gun before you can buy it, and on a regular basis after you own it.

If you fail to show you can competently own and operate a gun, you're unable to legally purchase one.

I don't completely disagree.... I'd like for people to have gun safety training.... but how would you feel if someone suggested the same for voting?

I say that because this is the level of the issue.

I have suggested that before the right to vote is fully vested, that new voters need to pass a test similar to the one naturalized citizens have to pass. People on both sides of the aisle have erupted, but the left side more so. Educated voters is not a priority for the left.

It's because many people think of voting as a more fundamental right than owning a gun. And our country has a history of using such tests/taxes to intentionally disenfranchise segments of people.

Let's ignore the 2nd Amendment and all the other ones for a minute. If you were to create a democratic government, which right would you say was more important? The right to vote or to own a gun?

Equal. The FF gave more weight to owning a gun.

I think millions of idiots voting en masse is more dangerous than one idiot with a gun.

I don't like having the leadership of this country selected by people who have no idea. I guess you do.

If you are worried that a test will disenfranchise some group you are protecting, work in a bipartisan manner to develop the test. I suggested the one for naturalization since it is already developed and works for people of all races and ethnicity.

But if you think a test will weed out the ignorant and apathetic, and this will hurt the Democrats, then I think you have just proven to be partisan in favor of party over country.

When I was young, the age to vote was 21. As I got older, I supported the reduction to 18. Now the democrats want a reduction to 16.

I am older now, again, and now I would support a raise to 25. I would rather see that than a test, but both would be good. What is the problem Democrats have with an educated, informed, and experienced electorate making decisions that impact the country? Their slogan may as well be "more ignorance results in better leadership".

The right to vote has always been restricted, in various ways. Age is only one way.

The FF put a premium on experience. That is why they set minimum ages for the offices of Representative, Senator, and President. I presume the Dems would like lower those, too. AOC for President!!!

This is my opinion. Hillary thinks the electorate is full of deplorables. I think it is full of the deplorably ignorant.

(08-13-2019 09:22 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  It's because many people think of voting as a more fundamental right than owning a gun. And our country has a history of using such tests/taxes to intentionally disenfranchise segments of people.
Let's ignore the 2nd Amendment and all the other ones for a minute. If you were to create a democratic government, which right would you say was more important? The right to vote or to own a gun?

Both equally.

another weekend in Chicago[

"...authorities said a drive-by shooting on Chicago’s West Side early Sunday wounded six people, including one who is reported in critical condition."

Don't these fools realize drive by shooting is against the law? I am sure if they just knew the law, they would stop.

shots fired into ICE offices

One thing the left has right is that reckless rhetoric can inflame crazy people.

One thing the left has wrong is that the reckless rhetoric is confined to right-wingers.

Make that two things. They think crazy people are confined to right wingers.

I have little doubt that this shooter thought he was defending families against anti-Hispanic racist Nazis running concentration camps. Thanks, AOC et al.

(08-14-2019 09:44 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  shots fired into ICE offices

One thing the left has right is that reckless rhetoric can inflame crazy people.

One thing the left has wrong is that the reckless rhetoric is confined to right-wingers.

Make that two things. They think crazy people are confined to right wingers.

I have little doubt that this shooter thought he was defending families against anti-Hispanic racist Nazis running concentration camps. Thanks, AOC et al.

But I thought rhetoric didn’t influence people to commit crimes???

(08-14-2019 12:01 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(08-14-2019 09:44 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  shots fired into ICE offices

One thing the left has right is that reckless rhetoric can inflame crazy people.

One thing the left has wrong is that the reckless rhetoric is confined to right-wingers.

Make that two things. They think crazy people are confined to right wingers.

I have little doubt that this shooter thought he was defending families against anti-Hispanic racist Nazis running concentration camps. Thanks, AOC et al.

But I thought rhetoric didn’t influence people to commit crimes???

Reckless lying rhetoric does.

Like Trump is a racist.

Like Trump just hates Hispanics.

Like ICE is a bunch of Nazis

Like the illegals are put into concentration camps.

Like ICE is forcing illegals to drink from toilets.

The entire Democratic establishment is doing this.

The entire Democratic party is supporting it.

Which of the above do YOU think is overblown rhetoric? Which of the above do YOU think is the truth?

(08-13-2019 09:22 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  It's because many people think of voting as a more fundamental right than owning a gun. And our country has a history of using such tests/taxes to intentionally disenfranchise segments of people.

a) by many you mean many on the left of the issue. Those on the right of the issue don't see it that way... and that's okay
b) So you should fully understand why those on the right of the issue see it as a means to accomplish the same thing!!!

Quote:Let's ignore the 2nd Amendment and all the other ones for a minute. If you were to create a democratic government, which right would you say was more important? The right to vote or to own a gun?

That's like asking about the right to vote or the right to speech and assemble or a free press. I can control your vote if I control your ability to access or share information. You speak about history and then ignore it here. Had we not had guns, this country as we know it would not have existed.


but the REAL issue here is that the right to vote or own a gun is no more or less important than the right to breathe... all of which are endowed within us and not granted by the government.

You're asking the question wrong.
The situation is, we have a nation of overwhelmingly law abiding citizens holding 300mm guns and let's say 5mm criminals holding guns, despite a century or more of laws prohibiting them from doing so.... If you were to ask these people to join your government today and you said... but you all have to turn in your guns..... (knowing criminals still wouldn't)

Government is a voluntary action by the governed giving up certain rights in order to form a more perfect union. PLEASE tell me how taking guns away from people who have never once used them to commit a felony accomplishes that goal?

WHAT IF a time came again, whether towards the federal government or just a rogue sheriff's department in some podunk little town that it becomes necessary to sever the ties that bind us?

Since the day I was born, I've heard of 'people' defending themselves using everyday weapons against much better armed and prepared forces and winning, or at least holding off what they consider to be an invasive force long enough for 'help' to arrive. No, I don't see us fighting such a war... but given the focus on 'bad cops' and 'trying to change the EC' or split up states to increase political power, Not to mention the EU and now Brexit, I ABSOLUTELY see a possibility that some states within our nation could seek to sever these ties at some point.

(08-15-2019 10:07 AM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(08-13-2019 09:22 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  It's because many people think of voting as a more fundamental right than owning a gun. And our country has a history of using such tests/taxes to intentionally disenfranchise segments of people.

a) by many you mean many on the left of the issue. Those on the right of the issue don't see it that way... and that's okay
b) So you should fully understand why those on the right of the issue see it as a means to accomplish the same thing!!!

If you want to avoid tyranny, both are essential.

Here's something that a lot of gun control advocates don't seem to grasp. They point to UK or Australia, or for that matter most anywhere in western Europe, as examples of strict gun laws and low rates of gun crime. But there's a big cultural difference. Those countries were all monarchies at some point in time, and UK and Australia still have a queen. They have grown up as subjects rather than citizens, with vastly different ingrained expectations regarding government power and control over individual lives. That's an entirely different mindset from "We hold these truths to be self-evident. That all men are created equal. That all men are created equal. That they are endowed by their creator with certain rights. That among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness."

The left tends to postulate that those places have low rates of gun violence because they have strict gun laws. But that ignores a significant fact. Those places had those low rates of gun violence BEFORE they had those gun laws, so those gun laws were a result and not a cause of those low rates of gun violence. Actually a product of those low rates of gun violence coupled with an attitude of subservience toward government.

In places where those two historic factors are not both present, strict gun laws have tended to produce higher, not lower, rates of gun violence.

Quote:

Quote:Let's ignore the 2nd Amendment and all the other ones for a minute. If you were to create a democratic government, which right would you say was more important? The right to vote or to own a gun?

That's like asking about the right to vote or the right to speech and assemble or a free press. I can control your vote if I control your ability to access or share information. You speak about history and then ignore it here. Had we not had guns, this country as we know it would not have existed.

If I have all the guns, you are going to vote the way I do. Or at least, I'm going to count your vote as a vote for me. And you can do absolutely nothing about it. So if you don't have a right to a gun, how valuable is your right to vote? Unless, of course, you can vote with your feet by leaving and going somewhere else that doesn't impose such restrictions. So I would say that both are essential. The forefathers apparently agreed, and their model has worked pretty well, so I would be averse to making any huge changes. Without the Second Amendment, all the rest are worthless.

Quote:but the REAL issue here is that the right to vote or own a gun is no more or less important than the right to breathe... all of which are endowed within us and not granted by the government.
You're asking the question wrong.
The situation is, we have a nation of overwhelmingly law abiding citizens holding 300mm guns and let's say 5mm criminals holding guns, despite a century or more of laws prohibiting them from doing so.... If you were to ask these people to join your government today and you said... but you all have to turn in your guns..... (knowing criminals still wouldn't)
Government is a voluntary action by the governed giving up certain rights in order to form a more perfect union. PLEASE tell me how taking guns away from people who have never once used them to commit a felony accomplishes that goal?
WHAT IF a time came again, whether towards the federal government or just a rogue sheriff's department in some podunk little town that it becomes necessary to sever the ties that bind us?
Since the day I was born, I've heard of 'people' defending themselves using everyday weapons against much better armed and prepared forces and winning, or at least holding off what they consider to be an invasive force long enough for 'help' to arrive. No, I don't see us fighting such a war... but given the focus on 'bad cops' and 'trying to change the EC' or split up states to increase political power, Not to mention the EU and now Brexit, I ABSOLUTELY see a possibility that some states within our nation could seek to sever these ties at some point.

Interesting questions. I think one thing that has held us together, and brought us back together after one big split, is that government has always recognized its limits. If government exceeds those limits, then citizens need recourse. And if government and criminals have all the guns, then the ballot box is not going to provide that recourse.

(08-13-2019 09:22 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  It's because many people think of voting as a more fundamental right than owning a gun. And our country has a history of using such tests/taxes to intentionally disenfranchise segments of people.

Quite frankly, I don't think either one is worth a damn without the other.

If gun controls were the only way to stop gun violence, or even an effective way, I might modify my position. But they simply aren't either of those things.

Although I am a conservative and a 2nd Amendment supporter (for now -- more on that below), I do have to say that IMO, arguments that "people need guns as a check on government power" and "people need guns to make sure they keep all their other rights" etc. just don't strike me as likely to be very persuasive to today's moderates, independents, overall masses, or even the smart & thoughtful liberals that post here and are willing to entertain good arguments.

I mean, don't get me wrong, it's historically accurate and definitely one of the reasons for the 2nd Amendment in the first place (hence the prefatory clause), but that was then and this is now. We are hardly any longer a new nation just out from under a long experience with tyranny (and with that tyrant still having troops on our doorstep, in Canada) and composed of disparate states who weren't all sure what the other states might want to do going forward. We're a completely mature, stable democracy now. Those arguments are so theoretical and there would have to be such a dystopian devolution for them to become relevant again that they're just going to be tuned out.

I think a -- perhaps the only -- winning modern argument for why regular people need access to guns is, frankly, for self-defense against other people with guns. Even people that don't own guns (that includes me) can understand that self-defense is a fundamental right. And also, I think that people intuitively understand that there is probably some connection, at least, between the general -- and substantial -- drop in crime rates over the past few decades (notwithstanding the rise in mass shootings, although those are simply insignificant as a statistical matter) and the general rise in guns in circulation. There has to be some deterrent effect at work.

But I think it's also time to admit that we don't need the absolutist "shall not be infringed" 2nd Amendment in order to preserve that fundamental right of self-defense. I'm for the Second Amendment being followed as long as it is in place -- I have only contempt for the progressive tactic of ludicrously redefining or outright ignoring democratically enacted words they don't like (see also: not enforcing immigration laws, abortion "rights"), because heaven forbid it should take time and effort to build consensus in a democracy -- but I'm definitely persuadable on the issue of repealing it. I don't think that repealing the 2nd Amendment would result, in our mature democracy, in banning and confiscation of all private guns or anything even close to that. Sure, some people would like to see that happen, but their crazy, emotion-laden appeals are also completely unpersuasive and will never appeal to anything close to a majority. I don't see our country ever coming to a consensus that acquiring a gun should be impossible or even close to it because, again, the right to self-defense is so fundamental. As a practical matter anyway, repeal of the 2nd Amendment would probably be politically possible only if it was coupled with a new amendment that still had robust (just not absolutist) language.

Bottom line, though, it just makes sense to me and obviously lots of other people that in the modern world one should have to take a class, pass a test, register, or whatever else, in order to have a firearm. So, I'm for doing that -- but only the right, honest way.

As for mass shootings, this "slow motion epidemic" (not my term, read it somewhere else) is so obviously a cultural problem, and not addressable to any meaningful degree by gun control. Or, for that matter, by blaming the emptying out of insane asylums (the homeless crazies aren't the ones doing the shooting). The common threads seem to be disaffectation and radicalization. Well, those and irreligiosity (with the notable exception of jihadist shooters) but of course there is no feasible governmental solution for people turning away from God, so the churches will just have to keep working on that part of it. In the meanwhile, what large-scale efforts might be feasible to combat disaffectation and radicalization?

An idea I recently read that seems promising to me is an oldie but a goodie: compulsory military service. Unfortunately conservatives are innately skeptical of massive government compulsory anything, and liberals are innately skeptical of "militarism" and "jingoism" and blah blah blah. (Some probably cynically fear that conservatives would become a permanent majority if everyone ultimately becomes a "veteran.") So maybe there should be a civilian option. But I think there may be something very valuable to be gained by forcing people out of their silos to live and work alongside people unlike them. And while not a cure-all (obviously there have been ex-military and even current military mass shooters) maybe this would also give more chances to spot the ones in the process of going off the rails.

(08-16-2019 11:35 AM)illiniowl Wrote:  I mean, don't get me wrong, it's historically accurate and definitely one of the reasons for the 2nd Amendment in the first place (hence the prefatory clause), but that was then and this is now. We are hardly any longer a new nation just out from under a long experience with tyranny (and with that tyrant still having troops on our doorstep, in Canada) and composed of disparate states who weren't all sure what the other states might want to do going forward. We're a completely mature, stable democracy now. Those arguments are so theoretical and there would have to be such a dystopian devolution for them to become relevant again that they're just going to be tuned out.

2 things. The opinion that 'that was then' is fine, but it speaks to amending the Constitution, and not merely getting a friendly supreme court or a law that somehow threads the proverbial needle. It's not up to the right to convince the left... its up to the left to convince the right.... and to amend the Constitution with an overwhelming and widespread majority, and not merely a simple one. IMO, the probability of needing a right is not at all related to the justification for it.

That said.... and by that I mean, any response to the above would need to address the following in order to be complete/convincing...

I think there are still plenty of places in this country where 'the government', meaning agents of the government, can be tyrannical enough for citizens to need protection and where traditional arms would still be effective to at least allow time for 'higher powers' to intervene. I am not an anti-government nutcase well versed in all of the possible examples so these are REALLY poor... but imagine ruby ridge or waco on a smaller, much more local scale. I suspect there are numerous examples from the left of a local police force that is out of control... or even just a rogue cop in remote Montana or New Mexico.

Not saying these are happening... just I don't see it being a COMPLETE impossibility, even in a mature Democracy for people to need to protect themselves from a tyrannical government, at least until other government (or citizens) could arrive to help.

Heck, even a simple... No Mr racist policeman... you are not coming in my home to harm us... I am armed... call your supervisor... call for backup so that I am more protected than 'unarmed me' against armed YOU

Interesting difference in the coverages of the Philadelphia incident.

Fox is concentrating on the criminal record of the shooter.

CNN is all over the types of guns he had.

Speaking for myself, I am more concerned with with bad guys than bad guns.

(08-16-2019 11:35 AM)illiniowl Wrote:  Although I am a conservative and a 2nd Amendment supporter (for now -- more on that below), I do have to say that IMO, arguments that "people need guns as a check on government power" and "people need guns to make sure they keep all their other rights" etc. just don't strike me as likely to be very persuasive to today's moderates, independents, overall masses, or even the smart & thoughtful liberals that post here and are willing to entertain good arguments.

I mean, don't get me wrong, it's historically accurate and definitely one of the reasons for the 2nd Amendment in the first place (hence the prefatory clause), but that was then and this is now. We are hardly any longer a new nation just out from under a long experience with tyranny (and with that tyrant still having troops on our doorstep, in Canada) and composed of disparate states who weren't all sure what the other states might want to do going forward. We're a completely mature, stable democracy now. Those arguments are so theoretical and there would have to be such a dystopian devolution for them to become relevant again that they're just going to be tuned out.

I think a -- perhaps the only -- winning modern argument for why regular people need access to guns is, frankly, for self-defense against other people with guns. Even people that don't own guns (that includes me) can understand that self-defense is a fundamental right. And also, I think that people intuitively understand that there is probably some connection, at least, between the general -- and substantial -- drop in crime rates over the past few decades (notwithstanding the rise in mass shootings, although those are simply insignificant as a statistical matter) and the general rise in guns in circulation. There has to be some deterrent effect at work.

But I think it's also time to admit that we don't need the absolutist "shall not be infringed" 2nd Amendment in order to preserve that fundamental right of self-defense. I'm for the Second Amendment being followed as long as it is in place -- I have only contempt for the progressive tactic of ludicrously redefining or outright ignoring democratically enacted words they don't like (see also: not enforcing immigration laws, abortion "rights"), because heaven forbid it should take time and effort to build consensus in a democracy -- but I'm definitely persuadable on the issue of repealing it. I don't think that repealing the 2nd Amendment would result, in our mature democracy, in banning and confiscation of all private guns or anything even close to that. Sure, some people would like to see that happen, but their crazy, emotion-laden appeals are also completely unpersuasive and will never appeal to anything close to a majority. I don't see our country ever coming to a consensus that acquiring a gun should be impossible or even close to it because, again, the right to self-defense is so fundamental. As a practical matter anyway, repeal of the 2nd Amendment would probably be politically possible only if it was coupled with a new amendment that still had robust (just not absolutist) language.

Bottom line, though, it just makes sense to me and obviously lots of other people that in the modern world one should have to take a class, pass a test, register, or whatever else, in order to have a firearm. So, I'm for doing that -- but only the right, honest way.

Generally agree with this. The argument that guns will protect us from a "tyrannical government" nowadays is hilarious. The US government/military has the might and weapons to wipe countries off the map; no nutjob anarchists that do militia drills out in the woods and whatever armory of guns they have is going to stand a chance, if the US government/military really wanted to crush them.