2nd Amendment--applicable how?

[telkanuru]

You know very well that if they tried to take away said cannons, they would be in a bit of difficulty...

[gojujay]

Originally Posted by jeff

I would prefer to attribute better motivation to police chiefs - that they're actually concerned about the public and their officers - rather than assume they're dishonest about such an important subject. IIRC, most PBAs also support gun-control.

I think that Inq and others who have dealt with public administrations as employees are, unfortunately, justified in their cynicism. Police chiefs, especially of large departments, are political creatures. In too many cases the Peter Principle, and to some extent, the Dilbert Principle, applies when dealing with administrators.

PBAs and other collective bargaining organizations related to law enforcement, are strange creatures. Their membership is overwhelmingly conservative, however, the Democratic party is the most friendly to Unions and organized labor groups. Just goes to show that politics make many strange bedfellows

[gojujay]

Originally Posted by lochinvar

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe that the police and other agents of the state are by definition the ONLY people who are authorized to "justly and legitmately" kill someone. That power is conferred upon them by the "mandate of the masses" as expressed through our laws and courts.

Or are you advocating that anyone can "legitimately" determine for him- or herself whether he or she can "justly" kill another person? (The fabled "He needed killing" defense?)

That, simply spelled, is the rule of Right by Might, otherwise known as Anarchy. Is that seriously what you are espousing?

Anyone can kill another person, legally, provided he can justify the action taken in a court of law. The courts have recognized a right to self-defense or the defense of others, against attack. You must be able to justify the action, according to the law.

[gojujay]

Originally Posted by lochinvar

... but confrontations between civilians. If neither person has a gun, then the confrontation may become ugly but will have less chance of turning lethal than if both parties are armed.

Ah yes... so the smaller person is put at a disadvantage. Smaller individuals wouldn't necessarily be victimized more, would they?

[gojujay]

Originally Posted by lochinvar

So, you are advocating that they arrest people who haven't victimized anyone? Help me out here...

I believe the point being made is that your personal defense is YOUR responsibility.

The police are there to protect society at large, not induhviduals. That being the case, who is responsible for you and your safety as an induhvidual? Many would say that an induhvidual doesn't need a gun for protection, that there are many alternatives, e.g. O.C. pepper spray, stunguns, etc. Fine tools, agreed, but I have seen, with my own eyes, people whom pepper spray DID NOT AFFECT. This after it was applied by trained professionals. Stunguns require up close and personal contact. Hope you don't miss or that the assailant manages to block the stunner, or knock it away. A gun gives you the advantage of distance (something with which all of us fencers should know about ), in addition to a certain psychological crutch.

[oiuyt]

Not sure about the rest, but in many locations pepper spray requires a FID (Firearms Identification) card to legally carry.

Not that I don't know a number of people who are willing to carry it illegally without that under the theory that the only way it'll be discovered is if they end up using it on someone committing a significantly worse crime (ie attempting to rob/rape/etc. them).

Seems easier to go through the process of applying for the card and carrying legally than to have any worry about the risk of something going wrong, but what do I know?

-B :)

[Epee_Pox]

If I were king, anyone (and I mean ANYONE) could have a gun, but only IF they first:

A) demonstrate a basic proficiency, such that:

1) if they are trying to shoot target A they're likely to hit it, and not so likely to hit innocent bystander B; and

2) they can store and carry the weapon with a minimal chance of inadvertent harm coming to others; and

B) demonstrate such proficiency on a periodic basis, with the provision of a license for each such period. Licenses would be specific to each category of firearm.

Anyone possessing or using a firearm without the apropriate license would be criminally culpable, as well as subject to strict liability for any wrongful or accidental injury caused by the use of the firearm.

The strict liability part gets better.

If you're a merchant, and you sell to someone who is disqualified by law from owning a firearm (such as a felon) or to someone who is not licensed to possess and use that category of firearm, then you too are jointly and severally subject to strict liability for any wrongful or accidental injury caused by the use of the firearm.

For crime detection purposes, all firearms are to be subjected to a ballistics test prior to sale, and the ballistics fingerprint is to be registered in a national database. All ownership is to be registered, so law enforcement can tell whose gun shot whom. In the event of theft, the duty lies with the owner to report the theft promptly, or else be subject to strict liability for the harm caused by their failure to secure their weapon.

[Note: This is a watered down version of a bit of legislation I proposed back in the mid-90s. It originally had strict liability for manufacturers, to spread the social cost of firearm ownership among the class of people who purchase and own firearms. But externalities are hard to legislate, and that kind of language tends to get shot down.]

[Inquartata]

Making gun ownership contingent upon licensing, however, establishes in law that said ownership is NOT a right, as the Constitution establishes, but instead a privilege that is granted or denied only at the whim of a government official. I do not think this is a good thing, because the power to grant or withhold is likely eventually to become only the power to withhold. Look at Britain, for example. Or D.C.

As to the marksmanship requirement, that goes only so far. In the average gunfight, the majority of rounds fired---miss. This despite the fact that most of them happen at ranges of 15 feet or less. And that includes those involving the presumably well trained police. Adrenaline, moving targets who are shooting back at you, haste, low light conditions, noise, etc. all contribute to making a real exchange vastly different than carefully putting holes in paper targets during qualification shoots. And too, you are again conferring upon government the ability to set the standard wherever it pleases---and what if it decides that it simply doesn't want anyone having a gun and sets the standard so high that it cannot be met? Like zero misses out of 100 shots at a moving target at 100 meters with your off hand?

So-called ballistic fingerprinting is also pretty next to useless, inasmuch as barrel idiosyncrasies change over time or are easily altered with a file. Not to mention the fact that barrels can be changed altogether---this is particularly easy with modern semiauto handguns. Nor, like registration, is it meaningful to the criminal who has stolen his gun, the bullets from which are then only traceable to the original buyer. Nor would it account for the millions of guns in private hands already, which have NOT been so recorded. It's also an immensely expensive and complicated system to set up, maintain and use, especially compared to its, er, limited usefulness. In fine, it's just another measure that sounds good to the masses who don't understand the details but insist that 'something be done'....and to the politicians who pander to them.

[Schiavona]

Originally Posted by epeemike81

Rogue:

I will grant you that the intent of the founding fathers was to provide for all citizens to have the guns of the time. However, that doesn't mean that the amendment they crafted fulfills that intent. The constitutionality of gun control laws has to do primarily with the letter of the amendment, not its original intent.

As to their original intent, I am not at all sure that their intent can be automatically extended to the full range of modern weaponry. they were saying that people can keep single shot muskets and pistols. They would not, I believe, have felt a citizen had the right to own a cannon. In a world of 20 shot clips, semi and full auto, and grenade launchers, thier "intent" is not so clear.

I will, however, stand with you in your efforts to allow all citizens to own single shot, muzzle loading, non-rifled muskets and pistols.

-m

I always like to hear this arguement My parry-riposte is thus. Did the founding fathers invision the internet? Televison? The telephone? What do you think they would have felt about all of that? Saying that the 2nd amendment applys only to muzzleloaders(they had rifled, as well as multishot weapons back then) is like saying that the 1st amendment applys only to print media and non-electronic communication.

I feel that the theme of the 1st amendent is free expression of ideas and communication of those ideas.
I feel that the theme of the 2nd amendment is that an armed citizenry will both protect the country and act as a finial, most terrible check on the excesses of government.

[Rogue]

Agreed.
One of the reasons the founders wanted an armed citizenry was to prevent tyranny from the Gov. It doesn't stand to reason that they would want the Gov. to have superior fire power over the people. That's one of the reasons they did not want a standing army.

On the note that the Nat'l Guard is the militia, it is not.

The Guard ultimatly falls under Fed control.
IIRC.
During school desegregation the Gov. of Arkansas used the Guard to prevent the black children from entering the school. Once the President ordered the arkansas Guard to allow them in, the same guardsmen protected the children as they entered.

***Desegregation was a good thing***
But this shows who ultimatly controls the Guard- the Fed. Gov.

[jeff]

As usual on this subject - we've come full circle with both sides reasserting the positions they started with: one side says guns are a right due to the 2nd amendment, the other side says nope, not without the well ordered militia part. One side holds up guns for self-defense, the other side says guns make it easier for people to kill. One side says 'guns are there to keep the government in check, the other says that this was due to the context of the times of a revolutionary period. One side says that we have to respect the intention of the Founders, the other says the intention is ambiguous, and we've changed outmoded parts before. Did I leave anything out?

Side note: while we've had a lot of examples based on 'guns make it possible for good guy to defend him/herself" scenarios, we haven't had a lot on the opposing one: "guns make it possible for loonies to waste a bunch of people". Think about incidents like Columbine, or "going postal" employees after being laid off, or marching into a brokerage office with a gun after losing money on the market, or jealous ex-spouses knocking off the ex and their current love interests. Generally, people without prior criminal records. If they didn't have firearms, they would have been able to do a lot less carnage, eh?

[oiuyt]

Originally Posted by jeff

If they didn't have firearms, they would have been able to do a lot less carnage, eh?

'Cuz guns are the only way to commit mass carnage *cough*Oklahoma City*cough*?

Blame guns for considerably higher levels of accidental death, sure. For lowering the threshold for random violence against small groups, sure. For mass carnage? Mmmm, less so.

-B :)

[jeff]

No argument on that score (as long as we manage to keep the number of automatic weapons down, eh?) at least, for individual incidents. On the other hand, people haven't started assembling fertilzer-based explosives while in a drunken brawl, so that's a plus!

[Inquartata]

One wonders how much smaller the body counts in incidents like Columbine would be if some of the people caught up in them were themselves armed?

All rights have costs, and one does not throw out the good in a vain attempt to quash the bad. We don't consider repealing the First Amendment ( to continue with Schiavona's trope ) because people like David Duke or Louis Farrakhan use it to express hatred or because our email accounts get spammed with porn offers, or because a newspaper prints an invented or libelous statement now and then, or because occasionally an assemblage of people riot...

[jeff]

Indeed we do not repeal the 1st, but we do establish limits (eg: on libelous speech) The same does and should apply to firearms.

[Inquartata]

The libel laws stand as a warning against and a punishment for the misuse of speech; we also have laws which warn against and punish the misuse of firearms ( and other weapons ). This is not the same thing as placing prior restraint on the choices.

A person can choose to commit libel, because the First Amendment guarantees him that choice---libel laws merely punish after the fact, as do laws against misuse of firearms. Restrictions on the possession of firearms remove choice altogether by prohibiting the instrumentality. Unless you are advocating prohibiting the instrumentalities of speech, the two are not comparable.

Philosophically, we ought to treat the rights alike: grant people the choice of how to use them, including, if they are so unwise, to choose to MISuse them. Punish the misuse, do not attempt to infringe the choice from the outset.

[jeff]

I just saw a relevant and timely article in the NYT: Massachusetts has a new electronic gun check system with a fingerprint scanner. "On Wednesday, moments after a court placed a woman's husband under a restraining order. a notice about the order popped up un a new computer terminal at the police station here. Given that information, the Woburn police went to the man's house and confiscated his guns, all 13 of them". And "the system provides instant updates on arrest warrants, restraining orders and convictions". That's why registration is necessary: because otherwise you don't know about somebody having weapons if he is subsequently arrested or convicted.

What do the gun owners and sellers think? This was trialed at the state's largest gun dealer, Four Seasons, and the owner is all for it, saying that they've sold over 2,000 weapons since they started using the system, without a single complaint. The system speeds the ability for gun purchasers to get a new gun once licensed, and speeds the licensing process.

(Aside: consider that "For murder victims, 43% were related to or acquainted with their assailants; 14% of victims were murdered by strangers, while 43% of victims had an unknown relationship to their murderer in 2002." (Source: Bureau of Justice: http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/cvict_c.htm ) So, the scenario that gun owners like to tout about firearms providing protection is at best only slightly better than 1/2 the cases. Having firearms widely available means that it's a lot easier for a domestic violence situation to become fatal.)

Back to the article: This illustrates why "after the fact" is not good enough, and why registration is necessary. Instead of focussing on the fantasy of a future dictatorship fended off with unregistered guns, we should think about the reality of homicides happening today - frequently done by people who know one another rather than professional crooks, people without priors that would prevent their ownership, We register cars and dogs - lethal weapons should be registered too.

[oiuyt]

Originally Posted by jeff

(Aside: consider that "For murder victims, 43% were related to or acquainted with their assailants; 14% of victims were murdered by strangers, while 43% of victims had an unknown relationship to their murderer in 2002." (Source: Bureau of Justice: http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/cvict_c.htm ) So, the scenario that gun owners like to tout about firearms providing protection is at best only slightly better than 1/2 the cases. Having firearms widely available means that it's a lot easier for a domestic violence situation to become fatal.)

Wow, you get that conclusion from those statistics? Protection is protection, against both strangers and acquaintances. Perhaps moreso with acquaintances who have a higher chance of knowing that one is armed.

Not that I believe that owning a firearm is a deterrent, but if the possibility of a potential victim carrying is a deterrent, this deterrent effect should be independent of the degree of acquaintance between assailant and victim.

-B :)

[jeff]

My first sentence was just to state the stats; the second is to conclude that the "house invasion" or "car jacking" or other "I have a gun for crime prevention" scenario isn't that all-dominating a percentage of assaults, and the last sentence the observation that domestic violence or violence between family, friends and acquaintances is more likely to be lethal if firearms are involved. The 3rd doesn't follow from the 2nd: they're two separate ideas: defense from strangers is not the overwhelming % (lessening the "benefit" of gun ownership), and domestic violence or violence among those known to one another surely is more lethal with guns (also lessening the "benefit"). Sorry if I was less clear than I might have been.