1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Guns - Let Talk Compromise

Discussion in 'Issues Around the World' started by ShinyTop, Oct 25, 2002.

  1. Domh

    Domh Full Member

    If the supreme court somehow managed to rescind the second amendment I would start stockpiling armaments, post-haste.

    As I mentioned in a post above, that was Hitlers first move.

    If the government ever tells me that I am not allowed to own a gun, that will be all the evidence I need to ascertain that I will soon NEED a gun.
  2. Sunriser13

    Sunriser13 Knee Deep in Paradise

    One hell of a good point... albeit a scary point...
  3. ethics

    ethics Pomp-Dumpster Staff Member

    Domhain, I meant like if your city didn't allow you to have guns (like NY's NYC) would you anyway?
  4. fritzmp

    fritzmp Fire Fire For Effect

    better to be judged by 12 than carried by 6. That's my answer.
  5. Domh

    Domh Full Member

    Nope. I would move.

    I respect local governance, and realize that the balance between federal and local jurisdiction is razor thin, so damn thin that I cant figure it out half the time.

    I also think that in most cases, local people know best what locals need.

    But it gets sticky when local governments start infringing on a citizens federal rights.

    Annnnnd, here we go into a different topic.

  6. mikeky

    mikeky Member

  7. jfcjrus

    jfcjrus Veteran Member

    Now, wait a second, here.
    Due to the laws of the State of my domicile, I've pretty well been forced to purchase a several hundred dollar 'gun safe', to store my guns.

    Are you now suggesting that, if my home is robbed, and some of my guns stolen, that I am somehow responsible ("serious explaining"), rather than the scumbag criminals that broke into my home?

    "Responsibility" may sound good, but exactly who decides whether I've met who's criteria? Isn't anyone upset at the burglers anymore? Do I now risk more jail time than them?

    I suggest that regulating me, and others like me, is not going to solve the problem; no matter how good it feels.

  8. EMIG

    EMIG Yup

    Miller, Emerson, etc.

    I'll do my best to explain the sorry state of Second Amendment law. Hopefully Martin et al will forgive the lame inadequateness of this summary. Please consider that I am not willing to spend a couple of hours on the Web researching this more carefully.

    Back in the '30s some bootleggers were caught with a sawed-off shotgun. They were convicted under some local or Federal law that proscribed such weapons. They challenged the constitutionality of said law on Second Amendment grounds. They won at the appelate level, and the prosecution appealed to the Supremes. The SCOTUS sent the case back down to the lower court asking for more clarification on whether a sawed-off shotgun was the kind of weapon that would be useful in a militia. The bootleggers, freed by their win at the appelate level, had long since skipped town. Those are the particulars of the Miller case.

    To modern eyes, the Justices' question to the lower courts looks a little strange. It seems to justify private ownership of howizters, and outlaw handguns. You must understand the context of Second Amendment law at the time.

    There had been an earlier challenge to a Chicago (I believe) law that banned brass knuckles and billy clubs. The SCOTUS had upheld the law on the basis that such weapons were only likely to be used by "blackguards", and were not useful in a militia.

    Thus the Court was only trying to ascertain if it could use the reasoning from the prior case to uphold the law.

    This seemingly unimportant case was perversely twisted into acting as the foundation for the "collective right" interpretation of the Second Amendment.

    That line of thinking is that the Amendment protects the State's right to field a militia, not the individual's right to keep and bear arms. Proponents point to the National Guard as evidence that state militias are alive and well.

    This "collective right" ideology is such a bizarre distortion of the plain language of the Amendment and of the Miller case, that even scions of the left like Larry Tribe agree that it's probably wrong.

    That shaky edifice stood until a Federal judge found that a Texas doctor's Second Amendment rights were violated by a Federal law meant to mitigate domestic violence. The District Court amazingly agreed, and the SCOTUS refused certiorary.

    If the Amendment does indeed protect an individual right, a lot of the more ridiculous gun laws are unconstitutional. Whereas no constitutionally protected right is absolute, and lots of restrictions even on the right to free speech are constitutional, the burden on the government for placing such restrictions is much higher. Things like the so-called assault weapons ban which proscribe guns 'cause they look mean, would be clearly unconstitutional.

    I'm not surprised the Supremes refused to hear the Emerson case. It's essentially brand-new law, and they probably want to have a few more lower court cases for reference before they take a look at the matter.

    I thought the Fifth Amendment and Commerce Clause arguments in Emerson were also strong, and I wish the SCOTUS had heard the case on those grounds. I guess they want their relatively recent Commerce Clause decisions to receive more treatment in the lower courts as well. But I digress.

    Regardless of what you think about guns, you should be outraged by the cynicism and sophistry of the process that created the "collective right" interpretation of the Second Amendment. It weakens the Bill of Rights, and Constitution as a whole.

    I understand how many right-thinking people can feel that the Second Amedment is an anachronism. That is all fine and good. There is a process for amending the Constitution, and last I checked there were no exceptions for anachronisms. If you sincerely feel that the time for people to own guns is past, you should work to have the Constitution amended. Further tampering with the Second Amendments' plain meaning sets a dangerous precedent in constitutional law.
  9. ethics

    ethics Pomp-Dumpster Staff Member

    Re: Miller, Emerson, etc.

    The trick is the opposite, to research the best way and the most efficient. One does not need hours on the net.

    Excellent post and good info.
  10. ditch

    ditch Downunder Member

    An opinion from the antipodes.
    The gun culture and public feelings on guns in OZ is vastly different to the US. We have similar debates going but there is no "right to bear arms" written into a constituition as you have. We have strict rules for gun ownership with all guns held in private hands registered. Certain types of automatics are illegal. Infact all types of autos I think.
    Fact is...they all should be banned. Self defence..I dont want a gun for that. I certainly wouldn't or couldn't shoot anyone. So tell me I'll soon change my mind once the Muslims start invading.
    Guns kill. That line that people kill, not guns is a shallow argument. If people want to kill often its a gun they turn to. Last week in Melbourne some bloke walked into a tutorial at a university and started shooting. He killed two and wounded several more. He was a registered legal owner of the firearms he killed with. So don't tell me registration means safety from crazed killers.
    Someone said earlier that knuckle dusters are illegal. For goodness sake, so howcome guns are considered safer and can be legally owned?
    There are significant cultural differences between us on this issue I know. I also know a few of you will find my comments offensive. I find however the pro gun voices so extreme in your country compared to those voiced in OZ and couldn't resist voicing my opinion. I look forward to your replies and to making some more of my own.
  11. jamming

    jamming Banned

    Your heritage is that you were given your independence we had to take ours. France which has a more restricted policy than yours had a Farmer kill 8 people with his single shot break apart shotgun. Japan had a man go berserk and kill 11 with a Sword. Building a policy on extremes is not necessarily the best way to make choices about it. Someone cited the study by a Chicago based professor who showed that legitimate self defense stopped 7 times as many crimes as the number of people who died by suicide, accident, or murder. His original study was a surprise to him as he entered the study leaning toward handgun control, what he found surprised the heck out of him. Not all studies are commissioned to lie by those which cite them
  12. -Ken

    -Ken Guest

    <i>jfcjrus said:</i>
    I believe you misunderstood part of what was trying to say but did get
    the gist of it.

    No, I am not in support of burglars. If someone breaks into your house,
    I believe you have every right to detain them and should your life be
    actually threatened to defend yourself.

    Conversely, if someone can break into your house and steal your guns
    I guess your guns were not "safely" stored. I understand RRedline's
    concern regarding trigger locks and I agree with everyone that a gun
    needs to be readily accessible when needed but I also believe they also
    must be secure from being stolen easily.

    What I was referring to as far as the serious explaining comment is the
    irresponsible idiot who leaves his gun locked in his car ot perhaps in a
    drawer with no trigger lock. This is unacceptable.

    <i>Domhain said:</i>
    I'll take issue with that line of hooey.

    Somewhere between manufacture and the criminal hands is a obvious
    breakdown in the system. For you to say otherwise is ludicrous. We need
    to prevent this from happening.

    Where does this occur? At the factory? No, I don't think so, even though
    there is probably some theft occurring there (like any other industry). So,
    if not the factory, at the distributor? Again, no with the possible exception
    of the occasional employee problem which can happen anywhere. On to the
    gun dealer. Most of them are reputable and with the regulations and oversight
    in their end of things, I don't believe the majority of guns are finding their way
    onto the streets from there.

    That leaves us with the private owners. Sorry guys but unless you know of
    somewhere else where these guns come from, it seems you guys are left
    holding the bag.

    One more comment I would like to make, if you are locking your guns away
    in one of those gun cabinets which has the etched glass picture of a deer on the
    front, who are you kidding? That is not safely stored and we both know it. If you
    can take an axe and gain access to your gun cabinet in fifteen or less, it isn't safely
    secured in my book.

    <i>Jamming said:</i>
    As if the NRA would post a study which didn't agree with their views in an attempt
    to deliver a "balanced viewpoint". Hey, that is funny.
  13. jamming

    jamming Banned

    You must be tired from jumping to conclusions all the time, I said that a study being from NRA point of view or even from Handgun Control doesn't invalidate it, on the face of things.
  14. yazdzik

    yazdzik Veteran Member

    Dear Friends,
    EMIG described perfectly the objection of constitutional scholars to the current state of affairs.
    Essentially, rights are either inherent or not; Marshall, once and for all time, declared this in Marbury, "There is no middle ground."
    Thus, the so-called "collective rights" theory, the half-assed elucidation of which in Miller created the hole in the dyke through which the filthy waters of oppression now leak, is anathema to the written word.
    While Holmes may argue that experience, rather than logic, is the essence of law, that, like majority rule, stops at the Bill of Rights. If experience teach us a granted right be dangerous, then experience be damned.
    I still prefer Jefferson.
    To answer the question posed by Ethics, there is no way that owning a gun can be illegal, there are merely fallacious court decisions. I, worshipping at the altar of stare decisis, will still not take a knife to my son's heart, for no god, nor any sane judge, would so require. Thus, at the point where the courts, swayed by "common sense judges," fail to assert against the mass hysteria of those needing protection from freedom, then I have no choice but to declare, against my own internal preferences for docility and order, I should own a gun precisely upon that day when the courts ruled that it were lawful for the state to usurp rights. I find the current compromises ugly, ill intended, and unreasoned, but still only upon the border of true destruction of the constitution. I have sworn an oath to protect the constitution, not the majority, not the customs, not the wishes of myself or others, but the word.
    In the beginning was the word, and, should we fail to take better care, the word will be all that is left at the end.

    All good wishes,
  15. ethics

    ethics Pomp-Dumpster Staff Member

    Thank you Yazdik, as well as others, I think you folks just made up my mind.
  16. ditch

    ditch Downunder Member

    Isn't it more likely the Civil war would be having more of an impact on the US line of thinking given it is a lot more recent? Your War of Independence was a long time ago. Plenty of time to realise the Brits were no longer a threat.
    All systems, including the French, are not guarantees of zero firearm fatalities. It is easy to cite individual cases and rely too heavily on them in backing up one's line of argument. Swords have nothing to do with it. People can be killed by the bare hands of another. As soon as we stray into these examples the point of the discussion is lost.
    If there is a culture that encourages the "quick, get the gun" mindset then change is needed. If someone broke into my house when I was home, they have done when I was not there and were teenagers stealing electrical gear, would I grab a gun and threaten to shoot? You may but I certainly wouldn't. If they also had a gun the results would be potentially disastorous.
    I don't think we are going to get far here. I know I'm preaching what you will never be convinced of and you're doing the same.

Share This Page