2nd Amendment--applicable how?

[Rogue]

Originally Posted by jeff

Unfortunately, the framers of the 2nd Amendment used wording that can be interpreted in both "guns for them that wants 'em", and "guns within a well-ordered militia", as Vol_907 said. Maybe they were deliberately ambiguous, maybe not, but we're not making any progress by declaring their intentions based on what we wish they meant. People preferring one interpretation over the other can quote the amendment till they're blue in the face - it just isn't going to solve the issue.

That’s why it’s important to read supporting documents to understand the meaning.
BTW, IMO, I don’t think the founders found the wording ambiguous.

Originally Posted by jeff

Let's remember that neither the Constitution nor the amendments are perfect, nor can they be understood outside the context in which they were made. It took until the 13th amendment to abolish slavery, and till the 19th for women to be able to vote. The 16th amendment authorised federal income tax and the 18th amendment took away liquor (repealed by the 21st). So much for the claim that "all amendments increase our personal freedoms".

Now Jeff, I didn’t claim “all amendments”. I referenced the Bill of Rights.

Originally Posted by jeff

Let's also recognise that rights aren't unrestricted: there are things you can do to lose your freedom (eg: get thrown in jail), speech (limited by libel and slander laws, for example), and ownership of firearms too. People who like to say that laws restricting access to firearms are illegal because of the 2nd amendment forget that other rights are also subject to restrictions. For me, that immediately invalidates any claim that the 2nd amendment gives a sweeping unconditional right to arms regardless of circumstances and devoid of regulation (not to mention ignoring the "well regulated militia" part).

If I have never been convicted of a crime, what have I done to have my right stripped from me?

Originally Posted by jeff

We should think about this according to what this means for us now, not in the context of a revolutionary time fresh from a war for independence, while we still were taking land away from the original owners of this continent, and when many people used guns to put meat on the table. Today, there are people who use firearms to feed their families (I know people who depend on the game they hunt), or for sport. There are also drug dealers that use Tek9's to defend their turf.

Should we think about search and seizure rights and what it means now? We are in a war were prohibiting any type of privacy would help defeat the enemy.
Maybe we should limit the press? Information travels so fast the press can compromise military or law enforcement missions. Heck let’s just ignore any rights we find inconvenient at that particular time.
Punish the drug dealer, not me.

Originally Posted by jeff

Let's deal with the reality that there are both good and bad reasons for people to have firearms, and not obsess about Founders intentions (they permitted slavery to exist, didn't they?), or about fantasy scenarios of armed struggle against dictatorships. Let's also face up to the fact that we're a lot more violent a society than we should be - definitely when compared to other countries with lots of firearms (Switzerland, Israel). Death from firearms is a real problem today - not a fantasy one.

Ignore the original intentions? Lets just scrap the whole thing. We seem to be doing it bit by bit anyway.
IIRC, many of the founders wrote about the need to end slavery. So lets keep the Ad Hominum attacks on the founders out of the discussion.

"There is not a man living who wishes more sincerely than I do, to see a plan adopted for the abolition of it.[slavery]"
-- George Washington, letter to Robert Morris, April 12, 1786

[Rogue]

Originally Posted by mrbiggs

Just to keep in mind, remember that a high-quality gun in 1791 was a musket. Killing a specific person with a musket was never easy. I'm sure that the founding fathers did not expect guns to ever be accurate at thousands of yards, nor did they expect guns that could shoot hundreds of times a minute.

The intention was for the citizens to be armed to, among other things, protect themselves from tyranny. If the government had bazookas, the people should be allowed access to them also. I believe the founders would agree to equal armament.

[Rogue]

Originally Posted by jeff

http://medlib.med.utah.edu/WebPath/T...S/GUNSTAT.html -> "Gunshot wounds inpact severely on the criminal justice as well as health care systems. Some basic statistics are important in understanding the magnitude and severity of the social and economic burden to the U.S.

In the U.S. for 1998, there were 30,708 deaths from firearms, distributed as follows by mode of death: Suicide 17,424; Homicide 12,102; Accident 866; Undetermined 316. This makes firearms injuries one of the top ten causes of death in the U.S. The number of firearms-related injuries in the U.S., both fatal and non-fatal, increased through 1993, but has since declined steadily.(CDC, 2001) However, firearms injuries remain the second leading cause of injury-related death in the U.S., particularly among youth (Cherry et al, 1998)."

http://my.webmd.com/content/article/...000_1000_nb_01 -> "More than 360,000 people died from intentional firearm injury during the 11-year period. Nearly 54% were categorized as suicides, while more than 45% were called homicides." (the study was from 1989 to 1999.

More as needed....

Shall I quote deaths and injury statistics in activities that are directly related the invention of the wheel and argue for a ban on it?

[jeff]

Originally Posted by Rogue

That’s why it’s important to read supporting documents to understand the meaning.
BTW, IMO, I don’t think the founders found the wording ambiguous.

I don't know, myself. Also, let's be careful: Samuel Adams and Patrick Henry were revolutionaries, not lawmakers planning the laws the new republic would have. We have to be careful about who, when, and what context.

Originally Posted by Rogue

Now Jeff, I didn’t claim “all amendments”. I referenced the Bill of Rights.

Yes, you're right

Originally Posted by Rogue

If I have never been convicted of a crime, what have I done to have my right stripped from me?

Even without being convicted of a crime, some of your rights are under restriction (eg: speech - "no shouting FIRE in a crowded theatre", libel. slander, etc), Rights are not unrestricted in *general*, not just with regard to guns.

Originally Posted by Rogue

Should we think about search and seizure rights and what it means now? We are in a war were prohibiting any type of privacy would help defeat the enemy.
Maybe we should limit the press? Information travels so fast the press can compromise military or law enforcement missions. Heck let’s just ignore any rights we find inconvenient at that particular time. Punish the drug dealer, not me.

Those are excellent discussions to have: the rights (and responsibilities) for a society under attack is an important topic. Remember Lincoln suspending habeas corpus? This is the dialogue we should have - not just say "rights are unrestricted all the time".

PS: I don't want to take away your guns - I want to make sure the dealers don't have 'em and that fewer people die from them. We don't *have* to be in conflict here. Do you think drug dealers should have easy access to firearms?

Originally Posted by Rogue

Ignore the original intentions? Lets just scrap the whole thing. We seem to be doing it bit by bit anyway. IIRC, many of the founders wrote about the need to end slavery. So lets keep the Ad Hominum attacks on the founders out of the discussion.

Well, we don't throw out the baby with the bathwater. The Constitution is great, but by no means is it perfect - for then, let alone for now. And despite misgivings about slavery, they nonetheless permitted it. So, we do ignore original intentions when we think it right.

Originally Posted by Rogue

"There is not a man living who wishes more sincerely than I do, to see a plan adopted for the abolition of it.[slavery]"
-- George Washington, letter to Robert Morris, April 12, 1786

Yes, but unfortunately he owned slaves. He was a great man, one of the best presidents in our history (in my opinion only Lincoln surpassed him), but the evil of slavery condemned millions to misery and was an unhealed wound that festered and tore the country open in the Civil War. We still haven't fully recovered from it. So yet, we do sometimes reject what our (nonetheless great) founders did. Women vote too, for example. There is such a thing as progress. It's a good thing.

[jeff]

Originally Posted by Rogue

Shall I quote deaths and injury statistics in activities that are directly related the invention of the wheel and argue for a ban on it?

By all means do. Society either explicitly or implicitly does a cost-benefit analysis of its choices - all of them (or should). The societal benefits of wheels (and don't forget fire!) pretty much outweigh the costs, don't you think? (I dunno, wheelchairs plus ability to ship medicine and food that otherwise would be impossible, plus ambulances, vs. automobile crashes? just free-associating here) What's the real societal benefit of firearms to compensate for approx 30,000 deaths per year in the US? If it exists, then lets hear about it.

[prototoast]

Originally Posted by jeff

http://medlib.med.utah.edu/WebPath/T...S/GUNSTAT.html -> "Gunshot wounds inpact severely on the criminal justice as well as health care systems. Some basic statistics are important in understanding the magnitude and severity of the social and economic burden to the U.S.

In the U.S. for 1998, there were 30,708 deaths from firearms, distributed as follows by mode of death: Suicide 17,424; Homicide 12,102; Accident 866; Undetermined 316. This makes firearms injuries one of the top ten causes of death in the U.S. The number of firearms-related injuries in the U.S., both fatal and non-fatal, increased through 1993, but has since declined steadily.(CDC, 2001) However, firearms injuries remain the second leading cause of injury-related death in the U.S., particularly among youth (Cherry et al, 1998)."

http://my.webmd.com/content/article/...000_1000_nb_01 -> "More than 360,000 people died from intentional firearm injury during the 11-year period. Nearly 54% were categorized as suicides, while more than 45% were called homicides." (the study was from 1989 to 1999.

More as needed....

Well, assuming the government has no business preventing accidents and suicides, in 1998 there were about 12000 homicides by firearm, which is approximately .005% of the population. I really don't consider that to be much of a problem.

[jeff]

That's a hell of an assumption, prototoast. I sure don't agree with it. Neither does the government: suicide's a felony, and there are government regulations for preventing accidents all over the place, from OSHA to EPA to FDA to guard rails on roads. The government has a substantial position in trying to reduce accidents and suicide. Maybe you don't think they should, but I don't agree with you there either. The idea that the government is neutral with respect to its citizens' preventable deaths is not one I agree with.

Anyway, even the number of deaths due to homicide is a lot. What makes you think % of population is the right metric? 12,000 deaths by homicide is a hell of a lot. 30,000 is a lot. If you don't think those are important, then we don't really have a common ground for discussion.

[prototoast]

Originally Posted by jeff

That's a hell of an assumption, prototoast. I sure don't agree with it. Neither does the government: suicide's a felony, and there are government regulations for preventing accidents all over the place, from OSHA to EPA to FDA to guard rails on roads. The government has a substantial position in trying to reduce accidents and suicide. Maybe you don't think they should, but I don't agree with you there either. The idea that the government is neutral with respect to its citizens' preventable deaths is not one I agree with.

Anyway, even the number of deaths due to homicide is a lot. What makes you think % of population is the right metric? 12,000 deaths by homicide is a hell of a lot. 30,000 is a lot. If you don't think those are important, then we don't really have a common ground for discussion.

I don't agree with any laws designed to protect people from themselves. Particularly suicide, I don't like suicide (I doubt anyone does), but if I don't want to live anymore, no government should try to stop me. Furthermore, gun suicides are a suicide problem, not a gun problem.

[jeff]

You agreeing with those laws is besides the point - they nonetheless exist - that's reality. Besides, there's still the homicides and accidental deaths. A lot of them

[prototoast]

Originally Posted by jeff

I don't know, myself. Also, let's be careful: Samuel Adams and Patrick Henry were revolutionaries, not lawmakers planning the laws the new republic would have. We have to be careful about who, when, and what context.

It's true, though Patrick Henry had no part in the forming of the constitution.

Even without being convicted of a crime, some of your rights are under restriction (eg: speech - "no shouting FIRE in a crowded theatre", libel. slander, etc), Rights are not unrestricted in *general*, not just with regard to guns.

And similarly, shooting people is illegal. Just because you're allowed to keep and bear arms, doesn't mean you can do whatever you want with them. The line is drawn when harm is actually done.

PS: I don't want to take away your guns - I want to make sure the dealers don't have 'em and that fewer people die from them. We don't *have* to be in conflict here. Do you think drug dealers should have easy access to firearms?

I think you should be more worried about the drug dealer than the gun... well, really not quite the drug dealer, since that opens up the whole drug issue and without getting into details, I object to the war on drugs (though for the record, I am a recreation drug user myself).

Well, we don't throw out the baby with the bathwater. The Constitution is great, but by no means is it perfect - for then, let alone for now. And despite misgivings about slavery, they nonetheless permitted it. So, we do ignore original intentions when we think it right.

The great thing about the constitution is that it can be changed, and if people want it changed, it should be changed rather than ignored. If people don't like it they should change the second ammendment.

[Rogue]

Originally Posted by jeff

By all means do. Society either explicitly or implicitly does a cost-benefit analysis of its choices - all of them (or should). The societal benefits of wheels (and don't forget fire!) pretty much outweigh the costs, don't you think? (I dunno, wheelchairs plus ability to ship medicine and food that otherwise would be impossible, plus ambulances, vs. automobile crashes? just free-associating here) What's the real societal benefit of firearms to compensate for approx 30,000 deaths per year in the US? If it exists, then lets hear about it.

I'm confident everyone who was able to defend themselves, their family or someone else from harm by having a gun, would say gun availability is a societal benefit.
Father's and son's actually getting to know one another as a result of a hunting trip. Benefit?

[Rogue]

Originally Posted by jeff

Anyway, even the number of deaths due to homicide is a lot. What makes you think % of population is the right metric? 12,000 deaths by homicide is a hell of a lot. 30,000 is a lot. If you don't think those are important, then we don't really have a common ground for discussion.

I guess one uses the metric that places their view in a more favorable position.
12,000 is a lot.
0.005% is not a lot.

[Schiavona]

Originally Posted by jeff

Even without being convicted of a crime, some of your rights are under restriction (eg: speech - "no shouting FIRE in a crowded theatre", libel. slander, etc), Rights are not unrestricted in *general*, not just with regard to guns.

Jeff, you didn't write this just to draw me into this morass, did you?
I think you'd find, if you studied it that the right to own weapons has far more restrictions than the right to free speach.

Originally Posted by jeff

I don't want to take away your guns - I want to make sure the dealers don't have 'em and that fewer people die from them. We don't *have* to be in conflict here. Do you think drug dealers should have easy access to firearms?

Ow! What makes you think that criminals have 'easy access to firearms'? This is a phrase created by journalists(using the term loosely here) to, as far as I can tell, create fear and sell advertising. It is on equal terms as saying I have easy access to money because I can rob a bank. People with a felony record are committing a crime just trying to buy a gun . Your drug dealers are committing crime after crime after crime. Do you think they get their guns leaglly? Many of the laws aimed at gun control do nothing to reduce crime because they are written by people who don't understand how guns work, how guns are bought and sold or how guns are used. I'm sure these laws make the people who pass them feel good, even if they do nothing. The 1994 Assualt Weapons Ban is a case in point.

How about a law that triples the penality if a gun is used?

[Vol_907]

I haven't read all the comments on this topic so far (wow, this was a live wire one, wasn't it?), but here's my reply to one of them

Originally Posted by noodle

1) i agree with the philosophy that its not the gun that kills, its the person. but i also subscribe to the philosophy that there's no real point to sell friggin assault rifles

Question: what defines an "assault rifle?" I hear this term thrown around a lot, in the spirit of Inigo Montoya (I don't think that word means what you think it means).

that people should be checked to make sure they aren't a nut before they buy the gun. why should we be required to have a driver's lisence to operate a car but not something similar and better for a gun?

But you ARE checked out. Federal law requires that each time you make a new purchase, you are subjected to a background check. Furthermore, if you are buying a handgun, there's a 5-day waiting period to acquire it.

jth

[Schiavona]

Originally Posted by Vol_907

Furthermore, if you are buying a handgun, there's a 5-day waiting period to acquire it.

jth

Not where you(and I) live.

If the Federal background check dosen't pass you right away(Delayed rather than Denied) you can pick up your handgun in 3 days. Assuming you weren't 'Denied' of course.

Oh, and we don't need a permit to carry a conceled gun. Alaska and Vermont

[telkanuru]

Originally Posted by Rogue

Says the Constitutional scholar/historian.

Oh, I'm sorry, if that's the standard we're going for, I guess you can't really speak either...

[Rogue]

Originally Posted by telkanuru

Oh, I'm sorry, if that's the standard we're going for, I guess you can't really speak either...

I try to back up my opinion with historical record. You want to ignore any supporting information.

Originally Posted by telkanuru

Unless you're quoting the Constitution or the Bill of Rights, I wouldn't waste such effort again.

I guess you know all there is to know about the Constitution if you have no need to support your opinion.

[telkanuru]

The point is if such a thing is what the founders actually thought, why didn't they say, 'Arms, being necessary for the existance of a free state, may be bourne by all citizins", or something along those lines? Because the 2nd is prefaced by the part on the militia, one therefore logically thinks that it applies directly to the limited situation of guns and the forming of a militia, not to ownership in general. Moreover, I agree that the founders supported the ownership of guns. Such a thing is only logical when you exist in a frontier society which just fought a war of rebellion. From the above facts, it can be deduced that the founders did not specifically include the 'you can have all the weapons you want' clause in the constitution because they foresaw a future where such things would not be necessary.

I did support my argument. Perhaps you should read my argument...

Cheers.