But, you ask, how do I recognize a Glib Sociopath, the better to obey their authority? That’s easy. They usually put an “R” after their name.
Almost Every GOP Senator Just Voted to Keep Letting Terror Suspects Buy Guns
I agree that that bill is problematic: when being put on the terrorist watch list seems to be a matter of whims by conservative law enforcement officers, being a “suspect” is a damned poor excuse for suspending a privilege. But I also have no doubt that the same people are against closing the gun show loophole, or requiring reasonable background checks or waiting periods, and think a history of domestic violence is not grounds to deny someone a gun.
I saw a good line on twitter about how the GOP is both a) totally disingenuous in advocating due process here; and b) right. If the GOP was actually trying to stop the profiling and abuse of suspects in other contexts as well, their actions might even be praiseworthy.
That’s been an issue where there has some been success on both the federal and state level. Here’s a good summary of what has been done and what more can be done: http://smartgunlaws.org/domestic-violence-firearms-policy-summary/#state. It’s also one of the few areas where the NRA has admitted defeat.
The bill was problematic because the terrorist watch list is problematic. In a slightly less stupid world, this amendment failing would have been followed by an amendment to fix the process that people get added to the watch list to remove those problems because we just had over half the Senate say that the terror watch list is not sufficient to deny someone the ability to purchase a gun.
If we’re okay with letting people put on an arbitrary watch list buy guns, we shouldn’t care if they’re passengers on planes either. And if we’re not okay with letting them fly, then they shouldn’t buy guns. This is not rocket science.
I imagine this will get a LOT of political play in the coming months. I can see the independent ad buys now playing in every one of those Senator’s states. We’ll see if it affects the vote at all, but really the idea that we’re going to call these people “terror suspects” and deny them the ability to fly on a plane but let them load up on as many guns as they want to carry is absurd.
The root problem is that they’re still fine with access to guns being the default, with people taken off the “allowed to buy murder weapons” list for infractions, rather than put on it after stringent screening. Any sane and sensible system would ban ownership of all firearms, absolutely and across the board, as the default state, then (perhaps) permit a certain few people with compelling needs and substantial training to own them under very restrictive conditions. Maybe police SWAT teams, the occasional backwoods farmer in places with large animals, and… well, that’s probably it.
Watch lists, done right, do work.
In my area, some guy threatened to shoot up a university. He was reported and put on a point of sale watch list.
A few days later, he was stopped while trying to buy a rifle at a store.
I haven’t heard what happened to him since. My impression is that he was taken in for a mental evaluation and might still be in a secure facility somewhere.
Oh, I couldn’t possibly agree more. But what is the point of suspect list at all other than to suspend privileges (at the very least the privilege of not being watched as a suspect)? Clearly if basic privileges such as free movement and privacy are to be suspended the ability to purchase means of mass destruction should be.
They don’t get to complain about that if they’re not willing to fix it. And they’re clearly not. They didn’t fix it last time this proposal was made. They’re far more interested in being seen as “tough on terrorism” than in actually protecting the rights of citizens. Besides, if they had fixed it, they would’ve come up with some other excuse to do the NRA’s bidding, so why make the effort?
I’d just like to point out that Montreal, a city of 1.6 million people (not counting the suburbs), has only just suffered its sixth murder of the year.
We don’t let terrorists legally buy handguns — nor anyone else at all.
Is it possible that the reluctance to restrict weapon sales to those on a watch-list is because the gun-fondling right wingers have a reasonable concern that they themselves are on a list, due of their anti government rantings?
There are a lot of things that really should be no brainers but we don’t bother with.
1) Universal background checks – why is this even controversial?
2) Registration – I understand why the NRA and the extremists don’t like this, but the government has Apache helicopters, M1A3 MBT’s and predator drones. If they want to take your guns, they’re going to.
3) mandatory training course – Again, why would this even be controversial? I had to take a drivers ed class and pass a competency exam to drive a car but I can get a gun with no training whatsoever? Makes no sense.
Also, why aren’t Democrats making more hay with the Republicans refusal to do anything about these mass shootings? If you believe their dumb rhetoric that the Orlando Shooter was an ISIS recruit then they are aiding and abetting terrorists. If we call them on that BS then they are aiding and abetting mass shooters. So why are they on the side of terrorists and mass shooters and not on the side of the people that elected them?
and we here the surprise that there is some kind of revolt in politics this season with the surprising success of the 2 “outsider” candidates for president.
The rhetoric used always sounds good and patriotic and always the results are the same regardless of the issue involved. It is as if the only thing people pay attention to is the story they are being told regardless of what is actually happening.
many many years ago I thought of some place to go where it was sane, if I could find such a place I would go. I ain’t found any place yet I am still looking.
uncle frogy
erichoug @9:
Because an appalling number of Democrats are also pro-gun.
Also sub.
numerobis #7,
Err, we let people buy handguns in Canada. It is not that difficult to get one, even in Quebec where there are additional requirements. You take a few courses, the Canadian Firearms Safety Course, and the Canadian Restricted Firearms Safety Course if you want a restricted firearm, such as a handgun or AR-15, in Quebec you also take the Bill 9 competency test. After that you Apply for a Possession and Acquisition License, you join a shooting club, and get an Authorization To Transport, so you can transport it between home and club. The big difference between the US and Canada is not that handguns are allowed in one, and not in the other, but the amount of training, licensing, and restrictions placed on owners of handguns, whereas in many US states no testing, no permits, and no registration is required. Few people who apply are denied their license, but it takes some time, costs a few hundred dollars, background checks are done, references are checked, and how and where you can transport firearms is very limited.
We have the basic “no brainers” erichoug mentions in #9, basically.
billygutter01 has the right of it. Up to a hundred thousand US citizens claim to be ‘sovereign’ and are listed as potential terrorists. Of course, the most determined won’t vote, but many on the lunatic right must be under suspicion. The Republicans couldn’t stomach so many white Americans being denied their lethal toys.
The Canadian system sounds similar (although more strict) to the Norwegian system. While one can argue over the effect of the finer details of those systems the core is the same: Permits and registration. Without these two limitations you pretty much lack any control over who has access to them. Background checks have limited effect if you can’t regulate further transfers.
With all the blurred lines in this debate, the only side I can find that has remained consistent and clear throughout it are the civil libertarians, Glenn Greenwald being their most prominent voice. Whether or not you ultimately side with him, I think it’s worth checking out his twitter timeline to get another perspective on this issue.
If we must implement stricter gun control, something resembling #13’s description of Canadian regulations seems more reasonable than what Democrats are proposing. But even then, if liberals truly do want to be (more) on the side of freedom on the freedom vs security continuum, then sometimes that has to mean defending the right of people we don’t like to do something we find personally repulsive or even dangerous.
I should say my description was geared towards restricted firearms as handguns were mentioned. The process is less strict for non-restricted firearms, which are most shotguns and rifles that do not meet the restricted requirements dealing with barrel length, semi-auto fire etc. For those firearms you do the Canadian Firearms Safety Course, apply for a Possession and Acquisition License, wait for it to be approved and then you can get a non-restricted firearm legally. Registry of non-restricted firearms is not longer required, as that component of the law was removed in 2012.
As usual, the options came down to shitty choices on both hands. Anyone who can seriously state “I don’t think people on government watch lists should be allowed to buy a gun” should, in their mind, substitute ‘buy a gun’ with ‘be allowed to vote’ and see if the thought doesn’t turn your stomach. The no-fly list is a bureaucratic, dystopian disgrace which has ensnared countless innocent people and should be scraped, period. To allow the suspension of ANY rights (even those you don’t personally care for) based on such an affront to due process is insane.
Those who are actively being investigated or who have a history of domestic abuse, etc on the other hand… by all means, background check and ban their asses.
Fuck restrictions, I say repeal the 2nd amendment. Barring some very particular cases, no one needs to own a gun.
So yes, protect that right as long as it exists, but also get rid of it as soon as possible, please.
qwints wrote:
We all know how fiercely they defended the rights of due process when it came to detainees in gitmo: they wanted to continue to hold all those people without charge indefinitely rather than change anything. In fact, most wanted to continue to send people there.
erichoug wrote:
If the U.S. government was as nasty as they say, the condition that “they can have my gun when they pry it from my cold, dead hands” would be entirely acceptable.
The bullshit about the Second Amendment makes it controversial. Although, if gun ownership is core right, why should the mentally ill or ex-felons be stripped of that right? Somehow this very important right transmuted into a privilege for certain very specific segments of society. I imagine we all know why (scapegoating and racism, respectively), but it’s so rarely mentioned.
The damn amendment should be entirely repealed so you can properly treat gun ownership like the privilege it ought to be rather than pretending it’s some kind of inalienable right. Canada has a lot of guns, and most of the things you suggest, but no where near the homicide rate. We just don’t have the tradition of fetishizing guns, and the process you have to go through weeds out the “heat of the moment” buyers. The biggest problem with guns in Canada is handguns illegally smuggled into Canada from the U.S. after being “legally purchased” there, rather than guns purchased here.
Travis wrote:
We also have a number of laws on the safe storage and transport of weapons. For example, “loaded, and tucked in your waistband or slung onto your back in a residential or commercial area” does not qualify. However, even suggesting this usually causes gun fondlers go apeshit over “gun-grabbing liebruls”.
“So yes, protect that right as long as it exists, but also get rid of it as soon as possible, please.”
Um, no. In point of fact, I don’t think we will. Now is there anything serious you would like to pass? You know, measures which actually have a chance of getting enacted and actually WOULD save lives? You know, like banning those under investigation for serious crimes from getting guns or those with restraining orders or trying to coordinate the background check system so that every lunatic who comes along isn’t able to pass a check? Or do you prefer to simply mouth off demanding something with zero chance of every becoming reality? Do you really value your juvenile demands for ‘my way or bust’ over a chance to save lives?
ck, #12
That is true, I vaguely alluded to it in my other paragraph but should have probably mentioned it in more detail. When they are being stored they have to be unloaded, have a locking device on them, and be stored in a locked and hard to break into container, with similar rules when transporting them.
Travis@13: thanks for the correction.
ck@21: “Canada has a lot of guns” — yes compared to Europe, but the US has nearly *three times* as many per capita.
treefrogdundee@22: show me where there is a chance for *any* gun control legislation at all to be passed today.
I am capable of liking more than one thing at once. Getting rid of the second amendment would be ideal, but I’m willing to put up with gradually accumulating several heavy restrictions on guns over time.
Oops, Montreal just suffered its seventh murder of the year tonight, so we’re above one a month now. An 88-year-old stabbed to death, poor woman.
numerobis wrote:
True, I should’ve said the rate of gun ownership is high and fairly similar. Around 29% in Canada, versus 31% in the U.S, but while Canada has 0.31 guns per capita (which seems proportionate to the ownership rate), the U.S. is sitting at 1.13 guns per capita. However, Canada’s gun homicide rate is only 0.38 per 100,000 versus 3.43 per 100,000 for the U.S., so the number of guns or rate of ownership alone isn’t the cause.
Honestly, I wish people would get less hung up on the assault weapon thing, and start looking at a wider view of the toxic gun culture. Handguns deserve at least as much attention as the M16 and other military-style rifles (the epidemic of “regular” murders are primarily done with these). Holding people accountable for their negligent and “accidental” (read: also negligent) discharges of their firearms, even when they do not result in injury, would probably help greatly. Laws targeting those who leave loaded, unattended firearms laying around could also help change the culture somewhat. Frankly, I don’t give a fuck about how the family has suffered after their toddler shot a sibling after picking up an unattended firearm, the gun owner who allowed that situation to happen must be held responsible or nothing will ever change.
Taking away the current favorite toy of gun fondlers might help in the near term, but if the culture that allows people to treat guns like toys remains and continues to fester, they’ll just find a new favorite toy-gun and things will quickly return to the current, terrible “normal”.
treefrogdundee@18,
Uh…what? “Allowed to buy a gun” and “allowed to vote” have never been interchangeable. Domestic abusers can vote. Felons can vote (in most states). Mentally ill people who have been ruled a danger to themselves or others can vote.
I agree that the watchlists are pretty damn useless, but in general I have zero problem with gun-purchasing rights being more restricted than voting rights.
Anton Mates wrote:
It sounded like a pretty disingenuous comparison to me, unless treefrogdundee was also seriously suggesting that we strip voting rights from domestic abusers or those currently under investigation for something.
Here’s an idea that would make a hell of a talking point. Don’t want to take guns away from “responsible gun owners?” Fine. Then gun owners accept full responsibility for anyone hurt by their gun. Kid pulls it out and shoots himself? You’re charged with manslaughter. Someone steals your gun and kills his neighbor? You’re charged, too. Your gun accendentally discharges and kills your spouse? Too bad. You’re going to jail.
I would LOOOOOVE to watch NRA nuts explain why they wouldn’t support this. Whatever excuses they give, just hammer them with, “Why are you protecting irresponsible gun owners?”
Vivec, #26
Agreed.
And it’s going to take cultural change also. The rampant gun fetish and desire to own powerful killing machines will have to slowly be reduced over generations. Basically a two pronged approach: from one side you restrict guns, on the other you raise children in a culture where guns are actually considered bad things.
“the same people are against closing the gun show loophole, or requiring reasonable background checks or waiting periods,…”
I’m pretty sure that they’d be in favor of NOT allowing gun sales to females during their periods.
Adam James @ 16
Yeah … I call BS.
Ensuring security for others in ensuring personal freedom for everybody.
Your freedom ends where my security begins.
Your “freedom” to race at 150 kph through the inner city is null and void because it endangers the safety of everybody in the city.
Your “freedom” to dump toxic waste in a nature preserve is null and void because it endangers the safety of visitors of the preserve and anybody who eats the produce from the farms downstream.
Your “freedom” to yell fire in a crowded theatre is null and void because it endangers the safety of the people who could be trampled in the ensuing panic.
Every person has the freedom to have reasonable expectations to be safe!
And your “freedom” to do something that any reasonable person can see will endanger the safety of others can go straight back to the ass where it was pulled from.
And yes, your “freedom” to own a murderstick ends where there is any possibility of you pointing that murderstick at my face or any other part of my anatomy (or that of any other person).
treefrogdundee @ 22
Guess what … strict gun control does save lives.
Point in case: Belgium. If Belgium hadn’t tightened its gun control laws in the wake of the previous mass shootings (Antwerp, 2006 and Liège, 2011) the 22 March terror attacks would probably have been a lot worse in body-count precisely because those terrorists had such a hard time getting ahold of guns.
True, the arrest in the week before did involve (a few) guns. But you can be sure that one of the reasons those terrorists responded by shooting at the police is precisely because those kind of guns are outlawed in Belgium, so by definition posession those guns declares one’s outlaw status. You can be sure they knew they’d have no reasonable excuse why they had assault weapons in their possession.
And once that terrorist cell lost its assault weapons, they were unable to replace them whithin the next week (which would have been a cinch to do through a middle-man in the US) so they had to result to IEDs which no society will be able to totally eliminate as long as the Anarchist’s Cookbook exists.
FYI Belgium did have a more open gun culture than the neighbouring countries in the previous decades. And we still have hunters that are needed to control populations in nature preserves without large predators. And yet, when with those new gun laws, there was an “grace & amnesty” period during which guns could be turned in to be destroyed without any further ramifications (I guess there was a clause for guns identified to be used in criminal acts, though), more than 300,000 firearms were destroyed in that period (on a population of some 10,000,000).
So if Belgium can do this, why can’t the US?
I was under the impression that the US was “great” and so much better than us Eurotrash?
Saad:
I showed the “action hero kid” videos to my girlfriend and her second comment (after “cool”) was that it was odd how obsessed this four year old was with guns. I hadn’t really noticed, because it’s a normal obsession in my mind.
Alex the pretty good, the issue here isn’t the freedom to [protest the draft during wartime] as much as it is due process. Terrorism involves many crimes, and if the government should obviously investigate and punish people for those crimes. It just shouldn’t be doing that in secret with no judicial review or accountability. Read about the woman who got stuck on the no fly list because a government employee literally checked the wrong box. I would oppose doing literally anything based on the no fly list in its current form. It should be abolished as the police state abuse it is.
treefrogdundee @ 18;
Why on earth do you see gun ownership as equivalent to the right to vote? Do you really think that owning a murderstick should be seen as a fundamental aspect of political enfranchisement on a par with the voting rights? You don’t think that might be rather overstating your case? I am Brit, and live in a country with far stricter gun laws than the US, and indeed some of the most stringent in the entire world, and yet the democratic process over here is trundling along just fine, and functions as well as that in the US. Like many other democracies with effective gun control laws, the UK serves as a practical example that the lack of access to firearms in no way undermines one’s democratic rights. If you wish to assert otherwise, perhaps you could start by demonstrating how the entire population of the UK is actually subject to some kind of gun-anaemia based tyranny nobody over here is able to perceive?
@ 22;
And what makes you think this opposition to rational gun laws is some immutable, unavoidable aspect of US politics? Where does this supposedly adamantine pro-gun stance come from? As I have already noted, it is in no way a set element of free or prosperous societies, so it comes from some kind of political interest group. Perhaps, rather than throwing your hands up and declaring that meaningful gun restrictions are an impossibility and so can never save lives, you might be better served by asking yourself where the money and political clout comes from that is used to obstruct sensible gun laws in the US. The NRA, and their various shills in the Republican (and to a lesser extent Democrat) parties should come under unforgivingly close scrutiny, as should their links to the arms industry.
Equally, all the people who insist on casting gun ownership as core to American identity or as some unavoidable aspect of the US political landscape should examine their own actions and priorities. You say that the repeal of the Second Amendment is a pointless endeavour because it is unachievable, but political mechanisms do exist to repeal constitutional amendments – the resistance comes from the attitude that the Constitution should be views as a sacred document not subject to review or analysis as society changes, and from the mindset that guns are somehow as essentially American as the Stars and Stripes.
That attitude comes from people like you. So you need to ask yourself; am I comfortable contributing to the roadblocks to meaningful reform that will result in the deaths of yet more innocent people? Exactly the blood of how many Orlando or Sandy Hook massacres can I tolerate on my hands?
That is a question for your conscience that only you can answer, but in your place I would immediately seek to re-evaluate my priorities.
“show me where there is a chance for *any* gun control legislation at all to be passed today”
With the lunatics in charge right now, there is zero. But the Senate will most likely return to Democrat control and they will also pick up a number of House seats. If a sane, bipartisan measure comes up next year it has a rather good chance of passing.
“I agree that the watchlists are pretty damn useless, but in general I have zero problem with gun-purchasing rights being more restricted than voting rights”
Nor do I. My comment was more directed at the notion that abridging ANY right based on a secretive government list that shreds due process and has next to no form of checks and balances on it is tyrannical and cannot possibly be defended in a free country. The very notion that such a list exists is chilling.
“unless treefrogdundee was also seriously suggesting that we strip voting rights from domestic abusers or those currently under investigation for something”
Exactly the opposite. See my above comment.
“Why on earth do you see gun ownership as equivalent to the right to vote?”
Do I really have to relate centuries of human history and how the right to vote has caused more change (and lead to more blood being shed) than gun ownership? Self defense is a basic human right. It is as simple as that.
“So you need to ask yourself; am I comfortable contributing to the roadblocks to meaningful reform that will result in the deaths of yet more innocent people?”
Nope. I and millions of other gun owners have been supporting sensible gun laws for years. But in this country, we are sandwiched in between two extremes: the Rightwing nuts who would allow Terry Nichols, were he ever to see the light of day again, to buy a gun on one hand and the Leftwing nuts on the other who demand outright bans and confiscation for everyone (or at the very least, laws designed to be so onerous that they effectively eliminate gun ownership for everyone). And your “with us or against us” mentality by no means helps… only feeds into the propaganda machine of the NRA which, unless you haven’t noticed, is winning.
“Exactly the blood of how many Orlando or Sandy Hook massacres can I tolerate on my hands?”
As my gun stays where it is (locked or with me) and has not harmed anyone and in no way contributes to the availability of weapons for those who would use them for ill, I have zero blood on my hands. What better way to sway others to your argument than by insulting them and accusing them of aiding one of the darkest events in our history, you disingenuous little shit.
And to reiterate so that there is zero confusion… I grew up a gay man (or color, no less) in the most crimson of Red States. My high school years were full of subtle and no-so subtle taunts of what should happen to a “perversion” such as myself. It is for precisely that reason that I decided to exercise my right to self-defense. So for you to take an event such as Orlando, an event which sickens and terrifies any human being but those of my community in particular, and attempt to rub my face in it and suggest that I am somehow responsible is beyond the pale. If there was a hell, I would kindly invite you to go straight to it.
What the ACLU is against you, it might be time to rethink your position.
https://www.aclu.org/blog/speak-freely/until-no-fly-list-fixed-it-shouldnt-be-used-restrict-peoples-freedoms
We should not be setting further bad precedent w.r.t. the “no fly list”. We should have a presumption of innocence until proven guilty, and we should require a criminal conviction to abridge someone’s civil rights.
You know how I’m always complaining about when some members of the left will choose to sacrifice the whole constitution and the principles of our modern republic / democracy on the altar over the gris-gris of gun control? Yea. This is a prime example. What the fuck people? This is horrible policy. We shouldn’t expand the no-fly list and building precedent on top of it. We should be abolishing the no-fly list.
I’ve been making the same points myself (except the theft scenario). At a minimum, we should legislate basic gun safety rules, and with strict liability, and we should prosecute violations vigorously. I go a little further than you: Any time someone leaves unattended a loaded gun in a place that is readily accessible by minors, that should be instant criminal negligence charges with strict liability. In a place readily accessible by minors, such as any room of a house where minors are regularly present, either unload the gun, or place it in a safe. Punishment should include at a minimum the revocation of gun ownership right for many, many years.
And YOU would allow known potential felons access to guns based solely on your irrational overreading of personal liberties?
Don’t mind my skepticism again of your position….
You are over the edge, either admit it, and accept that you will be opposed by those who aren’t as paranoid about personally liberty as you are.
When you go to extremes, you have a problem.
Yes, I would. And so would the ACLU.
The Second Amendment has nothing to do with individuals owning guns – nothing. Saying that you have a right to own a gun is not in the Constitution. Everybody else having a right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness is in the Declaration. You having a device designed to deprive other people of life can’t be a right. Especially when the device is so often used by those offended by other’s liberty and pursuits, used to deprive then of life.
Sure, you have your own right to life. But your defense of that right is not in the Constitution. Especially if the only way to defend your life is to deprive someone else of theirs. You are not judge and jury, nor executioner, nor Constitutional scholar. It might be that you should just quietly die, and let the law deal with the crime – that couldn’t be worse than you killing an innocent person.
If you insist on defense, make sure it is defense. Wear a bulletproof vest. But those don’t work all the time, do they? Well, neither do guns.
Here’s my suggestion: The current situation is untenable, complete confiscation is difficult. Let the gun owners work out a good set of rules and laws to be considered. There must be substantial changes, not tokens, that they can live with. The alternative is a complete and total gun ban, legal and enforced. Give us a good change, workable and with responsible owner’s full support, or the banhammer comes down.
Note: I am not demanding full confiscation of guns, but I see nothing wrong with a total ban. A ban is not irrational or unconstitutional. If you don’t want a total ban, come up with a better alternative than the current mess.
And form some gun-owner group other than the NRA. That farce is a total tool of the gun makers.
To Menyambal
As per PZ’s new rule, I’ll use the word “boomstick”.
You’re wrong. The second amendment is a personal right to own boomsticks. It is very clearly so, and any other interpretation / meaning of the second amendment is based on gross historical ignorance, incredibly bad jurisprudence, and oftentimes outright lying. If you want to go into the pissing match on this one, I have my multitude of primary historical sources ready, and I continue to grow them every day.
I support and endorse the congress exercising its authority to train the militia, as evidenced by the presumed constitutionality of the second federal militia act of 1792, to require uniform mandatory training and licensing for all boomstick ownership. This course will be at least as hard as driver’s ed. It will cover basic boomstick safety, laws on boomstick safety, the law and ethics of self defense, and stats on the common “accident” e.g. negligence scenarios. Then, have refresher courses, testing, and re-licensing on a periodic basis, just like driver’s licenses. This then dovetails nicely into universal background checks for being a felon or having certain mental health problems.
I further support the creation of laws that require uniform boomstick handling safety, and vigorous prosecution of those who violate these laws. For example, it should be criminal negligence with strict liability to leave unattended a boomstick in a place that is readily accessible to minors, regardless of whether anyone was actually injured, with penalties that include revocation of the boomstick owner’s license for a long, long time. Really, we need a larger culture change where boomsticks are not treated nonchalantly and without care. They should be treated with utmost respect and caution as the very dangerous objects like they are.
We should also continue to combat the problem of lead poisoning, which is the single best thing by far that we have done in the last 50 years to combat violent crime.
http://www.motherjones.com/environment/2016/02/lead-exposure-gasoline-crime-increase-children-health
We should also continue to use progressive taxation to fund public works to help out the poor and disadvantaged, and try to fix our other social and cultural problems, in the normal social justice warrior way. (I am a social justice warrior.)
The SCOTUS (party line, btw) decision on the NEW interpretation of the second amendment is just that… NEW. it flew directly in the fact of 200 years of prior interpretation. and again, went right down party lines.
you’ll simply cherry pick shit from people who aren’t constitutional scholars, then actually completely misinterpret even what THEY said.
just like nearly everything else you ever argue.
I laugh at people who waste time even trying to argue with you. I really do.
damn spell checker.
….flew directly in the FACE of…
fine idea, unless you also authorize random inspections
the only time that will ever be known is if something happens and a minor does gain that access and discharges the weapon and is reported otherwise it has only an after the fact effect.
I am in favor of effective regulation and all that, maybe even allow the upgrading of the records to facilitate digital searches, restricting more kinds of weapons.
I hate to admit it and I am sure it will set some here off but the NRA does have a point with it’s “it is not guns that kill people it is people kill people”. There are many guns out there that are seldom ever shot at all. They do not kill anything though they are all capable of it. It is the willingness to resort to violence to make a point, solve a problem, fix it once and for all that needs to be looked at. How do things get to that point so easily or at all?
You can make them all illegal but many things are illegal and if there is a demand that is not being filled there will be a black-market niche evolve to fill it. As of now there is only a grey one as in shadow purchases and similar. If nothing is done to discourage violence and make it an unacceptable way to solve problems and not a powerful heroic courageous manly thing there will still be bad things happen. Maybe the only thing we can hope for is to reduce them if we can.
uncle frogy
I feel similarly.
Still, what’s your position? Was the second amendment written with the intent to guarantee a personal right to own boomsticks? was the second amendment understand by the people who ratified it to guarantee a personal right to boomsticks? Do you have an alternative intention and well-understood meaning, and what is that?
Or is your position that the second amendment does guarantee a personal right to own weapons of war, but it is overruled by some other provision of the constitution, or it’s overruled by some sort of extralegal “common sense” argument?
My preemptive position is that it’s clearly not guaranteeing a right to the states, because it would have used language like “a power of the States” instead of “a right of the People”. It’s also not guaranteeing a power to the federal government, because it would have used language like “a power of the (federal) congress”. The writers of the constitution and bill of rights were quite consistent on the terminology that rights are individual rights enjoyed by individual persons in their private capacity, and powers are things that are “enjoyed” by governments and persons acting on behalf of governments.
Further, considering the context of the rest of amendments 1-9, the second amendment is clearly a limit on the power of the government as a protection for the people.
Further, contrary to your ridiculous stipulations otherwise, there is a clear legal history of the personal right to own weapons of war, going back to the English bill of rights of 1689, to the second amendment and the second federal militia act of 1792 (where every adult male between 17 and 45 was legally required to obtain on their own time a boomstick and other military equipment, or face monetary penalties otherwise), and going all the way to the post civil war legislation of the freedman bureau bills. And that’s just off the top of my head.
Concerning the text itself. Concerning the first half, it’s irrelevant window dressing.
http://www2.law.ucla.edu/volokh/common.htm
Many other state constitutions had similarly worded amendments, and in those contexts, no one would suggest that the guaranteed right is conditional on the factual truth of the preface. Instead, the preface can be thought of as part political grandstanding. These amendments and constitutions were political in nature, and they contained text meant to help sell them, such as the first half of the second amendment. Please consult the link for examples and further details.
And even if it was legally meaningful, which it’s largely not:
“Well regulated” in context simply means “well trained” and “well armed”, and “militia” simply means “a (whole) population as a military fighting force”. “free State” in the text simply means a society free from tyranny and oppression. Thus, the text of the second amendment, when translated into today’s English, simply means: “A national population that is well armed and well trained in war is necessary to defend against tyranny and oppression, and for that reason, the personal right to own weapons of war shall not be infringed.”
Further to what Ichthyic wrote, here is the ratified text:
Leaving aside its merit*, it is patently clear that “the right of the people to keep and bear arms” is a means to an end, rather than an end in itself.
—
* Fuck-all in C21.
When was the last time, if ever, you had a meeting of the well regulated militia? I’ve never attended even one meeting in my 65+ years….That kills the second amendment….
unclefroggy @48:
But people with guns kill a lot more people.
Samantha Bee had a nice segment on her show a couple days ago about this. To be honest, the entire episode was pretty great.
The American militia was never well regulated. George Washington led the militia to put down the Whiskey Rebellion, and thereafter complained about how disorganized and untrained it was; that actually led to the creation of West Point. Relying on the militia for national defense is a big part of why we got our capital burned in the War of 1812.
In the modern era…well, I’d be surprised if a private American militia could protect us from the army of Honduras, let alone anyone we would reasonably be worried about.
EnlightenmentLiberal, I applaud you for recognizing that “well-regulated” means “well-trained”, but you go running off the rails right after that.
The militia was not the entire population, it was the men who signed up in official, government-armed, militias. It was for the defense of the nation from invaders – rebellions and insurrections were put down hard (see Civil War), not cheerfully welcomed as right – the entire defense against tyranny myth is all that insulting stuff you said about me.
It was a people’s army, so to speak, as there was to be no paid standing army, only a navy. The people had a right to serve in their nation’s defensive force, and a right to practice with the arms the state supplied.
The body of the Constitution addresses arming the militias with government-issue arms, and the Militia Act makes it clear that commissioning a mil-spec musket from the local gunsmith was a way of paying taxes, and could take six months. Nothing supports the idea that individuals owned their own. (Who would own a clunky, inaccurate, large-bore beast of a muzzleloader?)
My stand is based on history, and is supported by the four Supreme Court justices that made the 5-4 minority in Heller. Your stand, and the majority in that case, is based on belief in a recent tradition, and is wrong. Rearrange your life accordingly.
treefrogdundee @38,
I don’t even know how you’d measure that. I’m also not sure how it relates to Gregory’s question, which is why you see the two rights as equally fundamental. The right to vote has also caused more change and bloodshed than the right to explode farm animals, but that doesn’t make it critically important to safeguard the latter.
You should probably defend that claim, because you won’t find self-defense listed on most of the world’s significant human rights documents. Rights to life, liberty and security, sure. The right to use violence in defense of those things, no. Individual citizens have the basic right to protection by the state, but it doesn’t follow that they have the right to do the protecting themselves, let alone with a gun.
Most Western societies do recognize self-defense as a justification for certain violent acts, of course. But that’s a limited privilege they afford to citizens in order to help protect them; it’s not an inalienable right.
@52
absolutely it is people who do the killing and making it harder to do by making weapons more difficult to obtain is not a bad idea but it is not a cure for violent behavior nor will it prevent it.
guns are used a lot here in the U.S. in part because they are so easy to get hold of and have been all along that is proving very hard to change.
I wonder if there is some other ways that might be tried to solve the problem of all the deaths.
One of the things I have heard is trying to get the repeal of the ban on the CDC research into gun violence. even with an order by Obama there is still not much action the fear of the NRA lobby and all.
the issue is just too emotionally charged, Every one thinks they know the facts!
what are all the facts really. for all gun violence including officer involved shootings, suicides, terrorist style mass shootings. and gang shootings.
what we got now is emotional blackmail coming at us from all directions with nary a complete fact in sight.
uncle frogy
Ichthyic, #46
I stopped after the “taxes are violence” thing.
Just reporting from down under. Apparently the research is in, and our gun laws (put in about ooh, twenty years ago, after our last massacre at Port Arthur) have had a consistent downward effect on things like the amount of gun deaths overall, the amount of massacres since their imposition (zero), and the amount of gun deaths by suicide. Consistently. Over twenty years.
Just putting that out there for consideration by those people who don’t particularly want to be offered up as sacrificial lambs on the altar of toxic masculinity.
We still have toxic masculinity here in Australia; don’t get me wrong. It’s just that our examples of it aren’t readily able to “prove they’re a Real Man” by going out and killing people en masse.
PS: We Aussies consider the requirement to vote to be MORE important than gun ownership. Voting is compulsory. Gun ownership is voluntary.
@57 Unclefroggy
No, banning guns won’t completely prevent people from killing each other. With that said, it will significantly mitigate the amount of damage people can do, at all levels. It also has the potential to stop some of the violence entirely, inasmuch as some of the people who are willing to pull a gun on someone are potentially a lot less willing to try and kill someone in a way that gives them a better chance of fighting back.
You also highlighted suicides, and that’s one of the places that there are hard numbers. The majority of people who attempt suicide and fail don’t attempt again, although the rates for a second attempt are still pretty high. Still, the survivability of the method chosen makes a very big deal. With guns, about 80% of people who attempt suicide die. The next highest method varies when looking at state by state, or province by province data (which is where a lot of it is), but it’s usually somewhere around 30%.
Mass shootings are another place there tend to be hard numbers, and while they are dwarfed by more conventional homicides, they do provide an example of where guns are vastly more dangerous than other methods. There have been mass stabbings, particularly in countries where getting guns is actually difficult. They consistently kill and wound far fewer people. That seems like a good thing to me.
To Menyambal
No. It was all male adults, 17 to 45, according to federal law, specifically the second federal militia act of 1792. Further, this particular law was proposed and endorsed in the Federalist Paper #29 by Alexander Hamilton. Participation in the militia was not voluntary. It was mandatory. The requirement to obtain a boomstick of a certain kind, and certain other militia equipment, was a personal individual obligation, and failure to comply with the regulation would lead to stiff monetary penalties. The text of the second federal militia act of 1792 which stated in plain language that it was an obligation of every male adult between 17 and 45 (but in practice many were exempted). Please also see court case “Commonwealth v Stephen Annis, Massachusetts, year 1812”, which clearly decided that it was a personal obligation, and that there was a fine of 1 dollar 50 cents for violations according to further Massachusetts law.
The people who wrote and ratified the law disagree, including statements from Hamilton in Federalist #29, James Madison in Federalist #46, Noah Webster in his own series of phamplets “An Examination Into the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution”, from the recorded debate notes between James Madison and George Mason in the Virgina legislature (as recorded in “Elliot’s Debates”), and various other quotes from George Mason (the father of the bill of rights). And that’s just what I have offhand.
Except the actual evidence which does. According to the court case cited above, it was a personal obligation with stiff monetary penalties for failure to personally obtain a boomstick of a specified kind (and other associated military equipment), and to have such equipment ready for when your segment of the militia is called out for once or twice a year training. Also, please see the report prepared for congress: American State Papers. Military Affairs. Volume 1. 1789 – 1819. Year 1812. Number 198. Article Title: “No. 62” “The Militia”. This report stated that about 2/3s of the boomsticks of the militia were privately owned and maintained.
For “proper” citation of these claims, partial and full quotes, and direct link URLs, please see my google doc here:
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Ak6bx8jyDxIlsLuFHHevw-4RQ7R5vJb15RtTNG5d79w/edit
…
To Meg Thornton
No. Actually, the probable primary cause of the decrease of violent crime worldwide is the banning of leaded gasoline.
http://www.motherjones.com/environment/2016/02/lead-exposure-gasoline-crime-increase-children-health
PS:
I’m just taking the standard Marxist position on that, because I am a Marxist. (Which is not the same thing as “communist” nor “anarchist”.) I don’t wish to dredge up that topic again, but my position remains the same.
EnlightenmentLiberal, when a person HAS to obtain a mil-spec firearm, under pressure of stiff penalty, that is not owning a personal means of defense. Again, the muskets were purchased for the state militia, and paid for with tax money, by tax deduction. The body of the Constitution says the state will supply arms – you locking up on the Bill of Rights and the Federalist Papers is typical.
The facts are that a military musket was useless for hunting or home defense. Having one in one’s possession had no implications at all for personal ownership. It’d be like taking home a National Guard trench mortar.
Much more can be explained, but it seems pointless.Even if the Constitution meant to guarantee a musket per each man’s castle, we don’t have to be held to that. Especially since muskets are so frakking obsolete it’s incomprehensible to think the writers meant murdersticks to be a right.
To Menyambal
I really encourage you to read this article by the respected law professor Eugene Volokh. It addresses some of your concerns much better than I could.
http://www2.law.ucla.edu/volokh/common.htm
I don’t understand your point. It is private ownership of a boomstick.
The boomsticks were purchased mostly by individual persons, and retained in the possession of individual persons. The federal and states governments subsidized this behavior with tax deductions, ok.
No contest right now. My position is that the second amendment is expressly there to protect private ownership of “weapons of war” quality boomsticks.
If we give a damn about rule of law, – and we should – actually, yes we do have to be held to that, until such time that it is repealed by constitutional amendment.
There were several primitive and barely functional plans for rapidfire (e.g. semiauto boomsticks) at the time. They were very expensive, or they were unreliable, but the writers and ratifiers of the constitution and the second amendment did have knowledge of more advanced boomsticks (e.g. semiauto boomsticks), some of which existed at that time.
The founders also very clearly and unequivocably wrote that personal ownership rights of boomsticks was a foundational civil right, and they also wrote that second amendment is a protection of that right. It’s not incomprehensible. What’s incomprehensible is your utter rejection of reality by refusing to recognize these very clear facts about the beliefs of the people of that generation and especially the people who wrote and ratified these documents, as made available from many many sources, moreso than Federalist Papers, also including private letters, official debate notes from the state and federal legislature sessions (some of which I’ve cited), and more.
EnlightenmentLiberal wrote:
Unfortunately, the words they put in law is not limited to boomsticks if we want to take the literal view of things here. “Arms” means literally any military weapon, from muskets to fully automatic rifles to mortars to rocket propelled grenades to nuclear warhead ICBMs. Furthermore, the “shall not be infringed” does not really leave room for exceptions, so there is little basis for denying firearms to former criminals, the mentally ill or anyone else, for that matter. America is already pretty far from those definitions, and are you entirely sure you want strict textual interpretations here?
Prescript:
I’ll go with murderstick instead of boomstick.
To ck, the Irate Lump
The rest of the bill of rights are not interpreted in such a literal textual fashion. I personally subscribe to a much more complicated view where historical papers are relevant, where debate notes from the ratification are relevant, and especially for the constitutional law from that era. The people who wrote that law had a particular view of the law which is based on their understanding of natural rights and common law.
For example, the first amendment is just as absolutist in the mere text, but we also properly understand that it does not protect utterances of true threats, defamation, incitement, harassment, breach of contract, treason, conspiracy, and so forth. Further, it does not protect the rights of criminals in jail. It doesn’t prevent the proper issuing of civil and criminal restraining order and “no contact” orders. It doesn’t prevent a judge from setting parole conditions for convicted hackers to include “no computer / internet access”.
Similarly, the second amendment should be interpreted in this lens of natural rights philosophy and common law. Thus, it is incredibly obvious that as part of criminal sentencing, a felon could be barred from murderstick ownership. I wholeheartedly support this.
Similarly, based on the abound evidence, such as the Federalist #29 or #46 (I forget), and the second federal militia act of 1792, and the text of the constitution itself that grants the power to discipline the militia to the federal congress, and based on the constitutionality of mandatory training and licensing for driving on a public road, it seems eminently obvious to me that it would be constitutional to require mandatory training and licensing to be a murderstick owner. We could then pass laws that require universal checks for a murderstick owner’s license for alls sales and transfers of murdersticks, and we could revoke the murderstick owner’s license for people with certain certified mental health problems. I fully support these proposals as both constitutional and morally desirable.
Regarding the IMHO unreasonable example “but what about nukes?”, I think that this simple common law approach would clearly protect the weapons of the standard soldier, but others weapons could be “less protected”, or not protected at all. For example, during the founders’ era, there were plenty of laws governing the storage of murderstick-powder in cities w.r.t. public safety. I see no reason why we could not extend that logic to ownership of stuff like explosives in cities, which I assume we already do.
Further, I could be cheeky and invoke the power of treaties under the constitution, and cite treaties that we have signed that have called for the (eventual) destruction of all nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons. The constitution gives special status to treaties IIRC, and that’s one way that we could – and already have – banned private possession of certain weapons. I’m not the biggest fan of abusing this loophole, but for nuclear, chemical, and biological, I think it does fit within the original spirit of allowing treaties to have a special place in our legal system.
And finally, even if all of the preceding legal arguments fail, I am ok with judges invoking “rule 0” to ban private ownership of nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons. Such a drastic explicit violation of the rule of law should be used only rarely and wisely, and IMAO that does not extent to banning mere private ownership of 6-shot revolving murdersticks.
The bottom line is that any reasonable interpretation of the extent of the personal right guarantee of the second amendment IMHO covers 6-shot revolving murdersticks, and with just 6-shot revolving murdersticks, the number of murderstick deaths is going to remain mostly unchanged. Even the numbers of deaths from mass shootings is not going to see drastic changes – many mass shootings would happen in exactly the same way with just 6-shot revolving murdersticks. With these simple facts in mind, there’s not much constitutional room to maneuver for effective murderstick control that works by banning murdersticks by make and model.
EnlightenmentLiberal, my point about being forced to keep a musket is that it isn’t choosing to keep a home-defense weapon. It’s a lot closer to having troops quartered upon one. According to you, when the government say you have to pay taxes, it’s violence. If the government says you have to keep a war weapon on your property, pay for it and maintain it, that’s not a choice. That certainly isn’t choosing to buy a blunderbuss to deter burglars.
Speaking of your reading difficulties, I got a few pages through Volohk, and just gave up. He seems to be scholarly, but he’s doing the justification dance. He wants guns, and logic be damned.
Dang blockquote tag.
Note: The Volokh Conspiracy is a widely read and hugely influential legal blog, created by prof Eugene Volokh (and others). It has been said that it is more read and more influential than most actual law review journals.
I find his arguments to be quite compelling and straightforward. Again, link here:
http://www2.law.ucla.edu/volokh/common.htm
I want to share just the central argument, and frame it in terms of a question. Here is text from the 1784 New Hampshire state constitution.
Does this text make it the job and role of judges on the New Hampshire supreme court to decide the question of fact “is it really essential to the security of life, liberty and estate of the citizen to require that all trials of fact happen in the vicinity of the crime?”, and based on that answer, declare defunct the prior guarantee that trials of fact must happen in the vicinity of the crime?
As prof Volokh rightly argues, of course not. That is nowhere close to a reasonable approximation of the ratifier’s intention, nor the common understanding of the legal meaning at the time of the ratification. It is nowhere close to a reasonable judicial interpretation of legal meaning. That text does not include a sunset provision which can be invoked by a mere act of the state supreme court.
Do you agree with me regarding this reasoning about this bit from the New Hampshire state constitution?
And the kicker: Assuming you got the right answer to the previous questions, and given the plethora of similarly phrased guarantees of civil rights in many state constitutions at the time, how is the federal second amendment any different?
I was just looking over this thread, and I thought I should reply to some of the direct questions, because I still see some disconnect in the conversation, despite my best efforts.
Correct.
Correct. However, I will in no way endorse that it is a violation of the third amendment. Nowhere close.
Correct. Saying that I have to do anything under the implicit or explicit threat of any use of force, including forced incarceration, qualifies.
Correct.
Also correct.
Again, I don’t understand your line of argument. I have not been arguing about personal armed self defense rights. Please try to argue against my position, and not the position of others, because I am not here advocating those other positions.
I am claiming that the second amendment’s clear and simple legal meaning is the protection of private ownership of weapons of war. I am claiming the that justification clause has minimal legal importance, and for what legal meaning it does have, it is consistent with and supports my position. In short, I am arguing that the plain and siple textual meaning of the second amendment in today’s English is as follows, and that this is also the same as the writer’s intent, the ratifier’s understanding, and the original public understanding:
> The personal right to own weapons of war shall be guaranteed and legally protected (“the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed”),
> and the reason for this guarantee is to allow, enable, and foster a national population that is well armed and well trained in war (“a well-regulated militia”),
> and the reason for desiring that is the fact that a national population that is well armed and well trained in war is necessary to prevent tyranny and oppression, foreign and domestic (“being necessary to the security of a free State”).
Of course, a side effect of that is to help enable armed personal self defense, but the second amendment itself does not guarantee that right. The second amendment does not guarantee a personal right of armed self defense. It does not guarantee any right of self defense of any sort!
PS: Of course, if you asked any of the founders about that, they would quickly tell you that (armed) personal self defense is an inalienable right, and further they would say that the right of (armed) personal self defense is also legally protected by the federal ninth amendment, and further they would say that even without the ninth amendment, such laws are unjust because armed personal self defense is a natural right, aka an inalienable right.
PPS: Discussions about the proper role of the ninth amendment are harder, and I’m still working through my own views on the subject. I would probably decide that personal self defense is a right guaranteed by the ninth, but the exact scope is unclear to me now, including when it’s reasonable to have a requirement to retreat before using deadly force. At the moment, I’m generally in favor of some requirement to retreat before using any otherwise unlawful force – absent particular mitigating circumstances.
And you are still wrong. The Second had only to do with the militia as the people’s army, and only for the defense of the nation from external enemies. It is now moot as we now have a standing army, agaist the intent of the founders. (If it had been intended to provide experienced gunners to the militia, I’d still argue for it’s obsolescence.)
The body of the Constitution states clearly that the states are to supply arms to the militia. You have never addressed that, and it makes moot any arguments about owning guns.
The Second does not say it is intended to ensure an armed populace to prevent tyranny. That’s your interpretation, and the militia is clearly stated as intended to put down insurrections – twisting about to think the militia is meant to enable insurrections is twisted. I offer the Civil War in evidence, and will further say that my family name is on one supressed rebellion.
You claiming to not understand my point is annoying. As you said, the Second had nothing to do with individual ownership of guns. Anybody claiming that they have a constitutional right to own guns, and damn the schoolchildren, is wrong.
The NRA is a tool of the gun manufacturers, regardless of its history.
So I said the militia was only for external enemies. Then I said it was meant to supress insurrection as well. I should have said it was intended to oppose enemies of the nation, whether foreign or domestic, that nation being the people’s government, of and by the people.
The militia of the Second Amendment was never intended to overthrow the government. If the people had to take up arms against the government, they, the people of the government, had already failed.
To Menyambal
Let’s ignore the minutae for the moment. I now believe that you are arguing in bad faith. In other words, I believe that you are being dishonest. Case in point:
I believe that you have this as your prejudiced position, and that no amount of hypothetical historical or legal reasoning could change your mind otherwise.
As a last hope that you are not engaging in bad faith, I ask you the following questions, to try and set some ground rules for this discussion. Is your position based on any sort of historical facts? Is there hypothetical historical evidence which could be presented to you which would change your mind regarding the proper legal meaning and effect of the second amendment? For example, you’re still making arguments about the historical minutae, and I believe that this is merely a dishonest pretense on your part, and I have no wish to engage in a fundamentally dishonest conversation. However, if the results of these arguments over historical minutae would change your mind on the legal effect of the second amendment, then this conversation is honest and productive.
For example, if I could show all of the following hypothetical historical facts are true (and I’m not claiming that I can), would you change your position to “the federal second amendment guarantees and protects personal ownership of murdersticks”? The hypothetical historical facts:
– The writers of the second federal amendment intended it to be a guarantee of a personal right to own murdersticks, and communicated that the intent, legal effect, and plain text meaning of the second federal amendment is a guarantee of a personal right to own murdersticks?
– The ratifiers of the second federal amendment believed that the intent, legal effect, and plain text meaning of the second federal amendment is a guarnatee of a personal right to own murdersticks.
– All legal scholars of that era believed that the second federal amendment believed and communicated that the legal effect and plain text meaning of the second federal amendment is a guarantee of a personal right to own murdersticks.
– The vast majority consensus of the adult population believed that the intent, legal effect, and plain text meaning of the second federal amendment is a guarantee of a personal right to own murdersticks.
– Without context, the average person on the street from the time of ratification would read the text of the second federal amendment and have the belief that the meaning of the text is a legal guarantee of a personal right to own murdersticks.
– According to the common legal philosophy and and meaning of the English words at the time, the only plausible meaning of the text of the second federal amendment is a legal guarantee of a personal right to own murdersticks?
Again, in the hypothetical world where I could show that all of these claims are true, would you relent, and would you agree that the second federal amendment today is a guarantee of a personal right to own murdersticks? Or am I arguing with a closed mind? Or arguing with someone who has some severe problems regarding proper jurisprudence and rule of law?
Now, if that hypothetical evidence would change your mind, please pick out the points on which you remain unconvinced. If you require some further hypothetical evidence to change your mind, please name it.
PS:
Da fuck? I said no such thing.
I would also like some questions to my post #69. That’s important to determining the ground rules of this conversation, and whether this conversation can be productive vs a waste of our time.
EnlightenmentLiberal, you’ve ignored my #50.
Again:
To reiterate, it is patently clear that the Constitutional right to “to keep and bear arms” (note, it doesn’t say to personally own!) is a conditional requirement for the specific reason of “A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state”.
You can waffle-on all you wish about its interpretation being that individuals — whether or nor part of some militia — are constitutionally allowed to personally own firearms*, but its meaning remains crystal-clear nonetheless.
(And yes, you’re wasting your time)
—
* But in reality they can’t legally own any firearm whatsoever, can they?
To John Morales
Will you answer my rebuttal to this point in post 69 and answer the questions I posed there please?
Also, I answered this already in post 66.
EnlightenmentLiberal:
Sure.
Q:
I have no idea. Feel free to link to the relevant portion of the 1784 New Hampshire state constitution, if you think that supersedes or explains your 2nd Amendment interpretation.
Q:
I have no idea. Feel free to link to the relevant portion of the 1784 New Hampshire state constitution, if you think that supersedes or explains your 2nd Amendment interpretation.
Q:
I have no idea. Feel free to link to the relevant portion of the 1784 New Hampshire state constitution, if you think that supersedes or explains your 2nd Amendment interpretation.
—
Indeed — and you answered it in the affirmative.
Which is to say, the constitution says nothing about which specific weapons citizens are allow to keep and bear, but subsequent laws restrict the specific weapons which people are allowed to actually own.
—
Nice to see you don’t dispute any of what I wrote.
~confused face~
I did. Here it is again:
EnlightenmentLiberal, you really don’t understand the distinction between a link (citation to a source) and a quotation?
(More to the point, what relevance does it have to the current Second Amendment of the United States Constitution, the basis of the purported right of individual citizens to keep and bear (restricted types of) arms?)
Hmm… It’s eating my posts. I’m mangling the URLs to get around some silly autofilter. Is 3 URLs too many for a single post? Meh.
Sorry. I thought sufficient citation was given.
lmgtfy dot com/?q=1784+New+Hampshire+state+constitution+text
en dot wikipedia dot org/wiki/Constitution_of_New_Hampshire
en dot wikisource dot org/wiki/New_Hampshire_Constitution/Part_I
Is that sufficient?
I explained this. I linked to prof Volokh who also explained this, in much more detail.
Let me explain again. Examining other law from that period gives us a context and an understanding to the way that constitutions were written and interpreted at that time, which does have and should have a bearing on how we rule about those laws today. Further, I wish to place people like you into a difficult position whereby you forced into a difficult situation where you are forced to choose from:
1- Abandon jurisprudence consistency, and adopt different standard for interpreting the federal second amendment vs many state constitutions from the same era with similar grammatical structures.
2- Admit that these apparent state constitutional guarantees of personal civil rights – such as freedom of speech, guarantee of a criminal trial to be held in the vicinity of the crime, etc. – can be voided by a mere act of the state legislature and / or a mere act of the state supreme court, e.g. not a constitutional protection at all. I encourage you to read prof Volokh’s paper for additional examples, but let’s start with this one.
3- Admit that the federal second amendment is an unconditional guarantee of the personal right to own (some kinds of) murdersticks. (My preferred outcome.)
Ugg, I should clarify before someone (dishonestly) takes that with the wrong meaning.
I mean that the right is not conditional on the truth of the effectiveness of a well armed and well trained militia at protecting a free state, just like the New Hampshire guarantee of the right of a trial in the vicinity of the crime is not conditional on the truth of the fact that this guarantee is “essential to the security of the life, liberty and estate of the citizen”.
Of course, the right can be conditional on mandatory training and licensing, which I wholeheartedly endorse, and I endorse a raft of other constitutional murderstick laws which we should be enacting. I think I laid out other examples above.
EnlightenmentLiberal:
No. You imagine you explained it, and that “prof Volokh” similarly explained it.
Fine, examining other law from that period gives us a context and an understanding to the way that constitutions were written and interpreted at that time — and so now we can see how they justified the claim that criminal prosecutions should be tried in the same county as the offence.
(What the fuck does that have to do with the right to bear arms?)
—
First, be aware that I am an Australian national; here in Oz, individuals can get a firearms licence without any such constitutional mandates, but we actually apply prudence, not just jurisprudence.
So, you imagine you are forcing me to choose from:
(1) Ignoring every change since the late C18 — jurisprudence is fixed in stone and shall not ever change. Somewhat contradicted by reality, no?
(2) Something about state’s rights, totally ignoring that your Constitution is a Federal framework, not a State one. Totally contradicted by reality.
or
(3) Admit that it is an unconditional guarantee to bear arms without any consideration of whether the bearer is part of a well regulated militia, though its phrasing clearly indicates otherwise. Why anyone would admit to a counterfactual claim is beyond me, but there you go.
Heh.
Leaving aside you have not exhausted all possibilities, none of your purported forced choices apply to me.
(Didn’t I already tell you you were wasting your time?)
Considering that it is now apparent that you are unwilling to engage in good faith as well, and that you are actually trolling me, yes, it’s now obvious to me now that I’m wasting my time with you too. Let me know if and when you’re ready to behave like a reasonable adult and engage in good faith. Asshat.
PS EnlightenmentLiberal
Hate to break this to you, but your proposal constitutes (du Du DUUMMM!) “gun control”.
(Yikes!)
To John Morales
Yes, and? I’ve been advocating for gun control since my second post in this thread. You say as though this is some magical and insightful revelation, when I’m been very clear and upfront about this part of my position. Asshat.
EnlightenmentLiberal:
You’re funny. Sure, don’t address my contentions, just claim I’m trolling you.
—
In passing, I can’t help but note you’ve descended to advocating for conditional rights.
(You don’t recognise an oxymoron when you utter it, do ya?)
EnlightenmentLiberal:
Ahem.
You advocate control of an unconditional guarantee, right?
(Conditionally unconditional! Guarantee not guaranteed!)
To John Morales, asshat
Licensed rights are not oxymoronic. Almost all rights are licensed in some or all situations – at least under US law.
The right to speech. Well, broadcasting radio is heavily controlled and licensed. We just got some network neutrality regulation too in the US, and I’m thankful about that. One often needs a permit to do a large protest on public lands. I can go on for a while describing situations where free speech is licensed.
The right to drive a car on a public road. In Bell V Burson, SCOTUS clearly stated that the right to drive is a constitutionally protected right / privilege, which means that any revocation of that right, e.g. any revocation of that license, must have a proper state interest, and there must be due process in the revocation of the license.
These are but two rights that are regularly licensed of many rights that are licensed. Your point there is the foolish one, not mine.
I am not going to respond to your shitty criticisms because you’re not engaging honestly. You’re doing this dance where you engage just enough to bait me into saying something that you can take out of context and make fun of. You’re not interested in actually engaging with me, breaking down the problem, stating your position, and narrowing down the points of disagreement, which is what should happen in a reasonable conversation.
For example, you asked me “Why is this relevant”, and I explained why I thought it was relevant. Note that my initial line of argument was something entirely fucking different. That’s because I realized that jumping to the end is not a proper argument that will convince anyone, and instead I needed to walk with you through my steps of reasoning, which I tried to do in post 69, and see if and where you disagree, because that’s how fruitful progress is made in conversations like this.
Now, if you want to make some constructive progress, and narrow down and isolate points of disagreement, so that progress can be made, could you please respond to my questions in post 69? I can copy-paste them again if you want.
I really hope you posted that before reading my clarification in the next post, which was posted before you wrote your response. If not, you really are a fucking dishonest scumbag.
PS:
No fucker, that’s what you did when you asked for a citation when a citation was already provided, and because apparently you’re too lazy you fucker to just google the citation text to find the full original document, a process that would take all of 30 seconds, and instead you took the time to write a post complaining about my lack of direct URL link which took more time than just fucking googling the citation provided.
EnlightenmentLiberal:
No, I get you. If we can determine the interpretation of the law back in the day, we should apply that interpretation today.
As for your specific example…
“In criminal prosecutions, the trial of facts in the vicinity where they happen, is so essential to the security of the life, liberty and estate of the citizen, that no crime or offence ought to be tried in any other county than that in which it is committed”*
… And therefore, there is an unconditional right to keep and bear arms, the which is and should be regulated (i.e. conditions are and should be imposed upon it).
Your argument is perfectly clear.
—
* I note county borders are lines on a map; take but one step over the border, one is in another county. Tricky, these issues of jurisdiction.
I already clarified that, and I already posted once before how I clarified that. You know this. I know you know this. You are just trolling. You’re a disgrace. You should feel ashamed.
EnlightenmentLiberal:
So you don’t dispute my adumbration, though you claim to have clarified it.
I’m done.
John Morales, #94
I learn a lot of new words from you.