Gun Control Discussion

[Cold_Zero]

You don't need to wait, be fingerprinted, or bg checked for a hunting knife. But you aren't allowed to stockpile high-explosives.

They're all arms. Obviously you are drawing a line along a scale of "arms". A constitutionalist can't expect the framers to have imagined modern fire arms. If you want to stick to original intent then why can't the government infringe on anything beyond giant barrel-loaded muskets? Though I do not think that registration even counts as infringing on keeping and bearing.

And yet the Supreme Court when handing down their ruling in DC vs. Heller, this coming from an original intent side of the bench, maintained that certain controls like the Gun Control Act of 1968, the National Fire Arms Act of 1934 are well within the Constitution. Most people, even NRA members view these key pieces of legislation as critical and no brainer legislation.Not sure who you are arguing with here.

[marlin29311]

My mentioning of the cars to guns dealt with the destructive powers of both. I understand that driving a car is a privledge granted by the gov, and can be revoked, whereas the gun debate is stemmed from the constitution.

However, my initial comment was geared at the destructive powers of cars and guns. My car is just as lethal as the gun you can carry (depending on the situation), and I was trying to make an arguement in regards to the regulation surrounding both of them. I think its silly the amount of regulation that occurs with guns, and then you look at the sheer amount of vehicular homicides that occur each year. I can much easier run you over than shoot you...

[HashiriyaS14]

Consitutionally and morally, firearm registration and a fee to register to vote/vote "poll tax" are identical.

A completely fee-less registration (ie: voting) would be consitutionally acceptable. It would not be morally or slippery-slopely acceptable.

You don't appear to be good at listening, so I'm going to give you one more chance to digest this before I start deleting your posts on grounds of belligerence.

I WAS NOT ARGUING FOR REGISTRATION.

I was saying that a literal reading of the 2nd Amendment, as opposed to a continued interpretation based on reasonable precedent, is inherently perilous for the pro-gun crowd.

They may think it's in their best interest to interpret it literally but IT IS NOT.

A literal interpretation DOES, without argument, hand states, localities, and the federal government the right to regulate any aspect of weapons ownership that is not expressly guaranteed in the language of the 2nd Amendment. This includes registration, types of weapons, types of carry (open or concealed), trigger locks, classes, et cetera.

It just does, that's how the law works. If the law doesn't say some kind of regulation is prohibited, then it isn't prohibited, PERIOD.

The founding fathers had no idea of the internet when they wrote the Constitution. Emails aren't subject to free speach laws nor freedom from unwarrented search.

Do you understand why this argument doesn't make sense?

How about nuclear arms? How about sarin gas? How about F117s?

How about all the other weaponry that didn't exist at the time the Amendment was written.

The problem with your argument is you're assuming a "common sense" quotient, but there is no such thing as "common sense" when you're interpreting the letter of the law.

It is NOT obvious, from the wording of the Amendment, that the line should be drawn to exclude nuclear arms, and it likewise isn't obvious that the line should be drawn to exclude ALL weaponry but pocket-knives.

This is the inherent danger of the gun lobbies pressing for a literal interpretation of the Amendment. It opens up Pandora's box.

This is why an "extremist" stance on the part of the gun lobbies will ultimately doom them, and I DO NOT want to see that happen. As much as you might like to, there is just no way you can interpret the Amendment as saying "We can have whatever we want and do whatever we want with it". That isn't what the words say. The words say "Keep and Bear Arms".

Whatever they DON'T say, if you interpret it literally, is up for grabs. PERIOD.

[sensibleS13driver]

Sorry, mainly arguing charlieo's assertion that registration is unconstitutional, which goes against the original intent view that he usually assumes, IMO. But he deflected it weakly.

[Urabus GodofTraction]

3.) EVERYTHING ELSE is up for grabs. This includes registration, mandatory training courses, etc. If you're going to read the 2nd Amendment literally to provide for the 2 points above, then you need to also see that it doesn't literally FORBID any of this other stuff, and so it's all ultimately okay via the letter-of-the-law.

Everything else we can argue about, but these 3 points are the hard and fast constitutional law aspects that are not subject to any debate.

I understand if you don't agree with those statements. However, there it is. If that's not a statement saying registration is constitutional, well then straighten me out and I'll appologize.

On F-117s and such, I was about to quote my comments in the States Right's thread, but...

And I just un-derailed it by deleting your whole goddamned post.

If you want to talk about firearms, use the search button and bring back the 2nd Amendment thread like I told you to in the first place.Back on topic.--Hash

Could you not have moved it? I requested a link. Can we bring that post back? It covered a lot.

Sorry, mainly arguing charlieo's assertion that registration is unconstitutional, which goes against the original intent view that he usually assumes, IMO. But he deflected it weakly.

Using established legal precident is hardly weakly. Now, deflected quickly and sloppily I'll agree to.
Modified by charlieo at 3:59 PM 10/31/2008

[Cold_Zero]

Remember, when the Supreme Court heard oral arguments for DC vs. Heller, the Constitution was not the only source cited. They also used the English Common Law, the Pennsylvania State Constitution and past Case Law to interpret the intent of the Amendment.

[HashiriyaS14]

Could you not have moved it? I requested a link. Can we bring that post back? It covered a lot.

I'm pretty sure I said, before you posted that, to respond in THIS thread and NOT that one.

If I hadn't explicitly warned you, then I probably would've moved it, but seeing as how I did explicitly tell you to put it here and then you refused, I don't feel particularly bad about having deleted it.

I'm all for heated discussions man, but we have to have *some* semblance of order in here and it happens to be my job to enforce that.

Matt: Your point is a good one, many materials other than the strict wording of the 2nd Amendment were used in that decision. Hopefully, this will continue to be the case, lending some "common sense" barriers to both sides of the argument.

I was trying to illustrate the peril involved in a strict interpretation based only on the wording of the Amendment itself, which is something the gun lobbies seem to push for thinking that it's in their best interest. It is NOT in their best interest, and that's what I was attempting to convey.

[Cold_Zero]

I guess I am confused. Who is Matt?

[HashiriyaS14]

I guess I am confused. Who is Matt?

LOL. My bad.

Oh come on, all you conservatives are the same. Everyone knows that.



But seriously, you made a good point.

[Urabus GodofTraction]

I'm pretty sure I said, before you posted that, to respond in THIS thread and NOT that one.

If I hadn't explicitly warned you, then I probably would've moved it, but seeing as how I did explicitly tell you to put it here and then you refused, I don't feel particularly bad about having deleted it.

I'm all for heated discussions man, but we have to have *some* semblance of order in here and it happens to be my job to enforce that.

I was trying to illustrate the peril involved in a strict interpretation based only on the wording of the Amendment itself, which is something the gun lobbies seem to push for thinking that it's in their best interest. It is NOT in their best interest, and that's what I was attempting to convey.

Well, did you read it? If so, remember anything about it?

You've perhaps done a poor job "illustrating the peril involved in... strict interpretation..." You didn't even touch on it in this thread (though I have seen you talk about it before) until I replied to your statement on costs. THEN you went and made the point you're currently hammering home (a tangent, to be sure).

So, forgive my confusion, I was debating with Hash before the necrothreading:

Guns are for sport (hunting or target), home defense, and carry. You can't carry a Calico M900. No one needs one. You can defend yourself with a Civilianized AR15 with a bunch of 10-round clips just fine, or with a handgun, or with a semi-auto shotgun.

Additionally, short-barreled or concealable high-cap weapons exist solely to get the jump on people and START problems. No one needs a 9-inch long Tec9 with a 30rd mag for concealed carry defense when a USP will do just fine. It's ridiculous. I have the same view of short-barreled shotguns, etc.

My issue isn't that "the government would never do that", it's that if they ever did, the incremental increase in firepower of citizens owning M900s versus owning sporting shotguns would not afford said citizens any meaningfully increased protection against a malevolent government when said government is armed with Abrams tanks, cruise missiles, smart bombs, and other tools of mechanized warfare.

It was a meaningful check/balance back in the 1700's when a confrontation between government and citizenry would've meant "guys with muskets versus other guys with muskets", but this is obviously not the case in the 21st century. If the US government really decided to wage war on it's population, there's nothing the population could do about it, and thus this incredibly unlikely scenario is not a justification for citizens owning assault weaponry.

I never said anything about large caliber rifles, I said HIGH CAPACITY. I have no problem with stuff like .50BMG or whatever, because people hunt large animals. Hell, there's rounds out there a lot bigger than that, like .577 Tyrannosaur. All of which IS legal and should STAY legal, because again, what else are you going to hunt a Bear or a Rhinoceros with?

I said that COMPACT High-Capacity weapons exist for no other reason than to facilitate surprise attacks on people. You don't need a tiny semi-auto weapon with a 30rd mag unless you're trying to sneak up on a group of 8 people and kill all of them. There is no other purpose for the weapon.

Anyway, my point is NOT whether or not the DC gun ban in particular is a good idea. My point is that LOCAL AND STATE GOVERNMENT should have final say on these matters. If a given locality decides that, through the wills of the electorate, given gun laws should be made, then I think they should be able to govern for themselves. It's a states' rights issue.

I think, however, that certain TYPES can still be banned, but you can't say "no guns". Obviously automatic weapons and RPG's are illegal, so where's the line? Short-barreled shotguns? All Handguns? I don't know where the line is, but I"m just trying to prove that it's obviously somewhere between "everything is legal" and "nothing is legal". To a certain extent, this "line in the sand" needs to remain a local judgment rather than one of the Supreme Court.

Furthermore, I even support the idea of "bear" in "keep and bear" referring to carry, BUT I think this must require registration. I think you should be able to carry a firearm, but I also think that everyone who is legally carrying firearms should be on record so that bullet-matching can be performed at crime scenes, et cetera.

Again, these are obviously my own subjective judgments. What is NOT subjective is this:

1.) You cannot ban ALL guns, due to the 2nd Amendment (thank goodness)

2.) Carry should be legal

3.) EVERYTHING ELSE is up for grabs. This includes registration, mandatory training courses, etc. If you're going to read the 2nd Amendment literally to provide for the 2 points above, then you need to also see that it doesn't literally FORBID any of this other stuff, and so it's all ultimately okay via the letter-of-the-law.

Everything else we can argue about, but these 3 points are the hard and fast constitutional law aspects that are not subject to any debate.

Perhaps I have done a poor job attempting to explain that your last point IS subject to debate...
Modified by charlieo at 4:32 PM 10/31/2008

[marlin29311]

matt = audatious?

i'm too

[Cold_Zero]

A literal interpretation DOES, without argument, hand states, localities, and the federal government the right to regulate any aspect of weapons ownership that is not expressly guaranteed in the language of the 2nd Amendment. This includes registration, types of weapons, types of carry (open or concealed), trigger locks, classes, et cetera.

I guess I am confused.

The Second Amendment says, "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

The Tenth Amendment says, "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

Because I think you are coming from this stand point I am trying to approach it as such. The 2nd Amendment does not dictate whose power it is to regulate and just says that the right shall not be infringed. I guess they mean the States nor the Federal Government should infringe the right to Keep and Bear Arms. Since the 2nd Amendment is not written like say the 13th Amendment which has section 2 which says, "Congress shall have the power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation." Delegation of power to the States would not imply to this Amendment. Neither the Federal Government nor the State's can infringe on the right. If the 2nd Amendment did have a section 2 that indicated this, I could see your point.

[Urabus GodofTraction]

My mentioning of the cars to guns dealt with the destructive powers of both. I understand that driving a car is a privledge granted by the gov, and can be revoked, whereas the gun debate is stemmed from the constitution.

However, my initial comment was geared at the destructive powers of cars and guns. My car is just as lethal as the gun you can carry (depending on the situation), and I was trying to make an arguement in regards to the regulation surrounding both of them. I think its silly the amount of regulation that occurs with guns, and then you look at the sheer amount of vehicular homicides that occur each year. I can much easier run you over than shoot you...

While I agree about regulation of weapons vs. cars, I disagree that destructive powers are relevant. They're not. It doesn't say "Shall not be infringed except for arms that can kill 10 elephants."

WMDs are the wrench in my cogs. I can't via strict interpretation not justify their possesion by civilians. I can't even argue what the Founder's intentions were. I shy away from all but the most obvious of "living document" arguements (ie: though not mentioned, a seperate air force IS Constitutional). Morally, they shouldn't be possesed, but Constitutionally? I can't argue for or against them. Unfortunatly, I'm not wealthy enough to find out what the Supreme Court says.
Modified by charlieo at 4:52 PM 10/31/2008

[Cold_Zero]

It doesn't say "Shall not be infringed except for arms that can kill 10 elephants."

Wouldn't it be 10 Red Coats? Last time I check the founding fathers were not worried about African or Asian Elephants invading the United States.bud

[sensibleS13driver]

Using established legal precident is hardly weakly. Now, deflected quickly and sloppily I'll agree to.

Ehh, I'm not very familiar with 2nd A precedent but I am with the two other amendments that you referenced, and they have very different histories. If you can educate me on how these three intersect I would be very interested and impressed. Are you thinking of a "chilling effect" on gun ownership? That's an interesting concept.

Also did GRM change some platform? I can't get it to send me my old login info. I think they'd get a kick out of my new car.

[Urabus GodofTraction]

Wouldn't it be 10 Red Coats? Last time I check the founding fathers were not worried about African or Asian Elephants invading the United States.bud

Touche.

Ehh, I'm not very familiar with 2nd A precedent but I am with the two other amendments that you referenced, and they have very different histories. If you can educate me on how these three intersect I would be very interested and impressed. Are you thinking of a "chilling effect" on gun ownership? That's an interesting concept.

Also did GRM change some platform? I can't get it to send me my old login info. I think they'd get a kick out of my new car.

Certainly. You stated:

Obviously you are drawing a line along a scale of "arms". A constitutionalist can't expect the framers to have imagined modern fire arms.

That's a very shakey argument. I referenced cases like Warshak v. United States in that just because the framers could not imagine something doesn't mean it's not protected.

You'll need to create a new log-in for GRM. They're on a completely new system.

[yelnatsch517]

The nra always uses those arguements when confronted with new gun legislation but that is missing the point. Very few people are looking to ban guns outright but to make the checks more stringent for people to purchase them. I see nothing wrong with waiting a couple of days for indepth background checks. I own several guns but when I purchased my first one it took like 7 business days cause I wasn't a citizen just a permanent resident, my wife was born here and it took her 4 business day for hers. No big deal, I was actually glad that someone was monitoring who gets these things. I doubt you will be so unlucky as to be in a situation where a firearm is needed during that one week.

This is exactly why I try to avoid a posteriori arguments. Personal experience ranks as one of the lowest forms of viable evidence in any debate and this is true even for the court of law where anecdotal evidence ranks almost last.

What I'm trying to say is that just because you had little trouble getting a gun doesn't mean it's the same for everyone. Like someone said already above me, try getting a gun legally in California as a non-Citizen.

[hsckris]

Like someone said already above me, try getting a gun legally IN CALIFORNIA as a non-Citizen.

There is your problem right there...

[Urabus GodofTraction]

More on the slippery-slope:

The outrage that followed led to the revelation that Delaware State Police had been keeping lists of gun buyers for years; state law requires them to destroy these records after 60 days.

[telcoman]

I guess I am confused.

The Second Amendment says, "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

The Tenth Amendment says, "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

So based on the 2nd amendment it is ok for states to allow ex cons to keep AK 47s for halloween?

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/27482694/

trick or treat

Telcoman

[audtatious]

Depends on what he was an ex-con for. As they seem to be drug convictions, and we all know those drug laws need to go away, then he should be considered a model citizen by you and others (I have a different view)......At least until he unloaded a gun on a kid.

[Cold_Zero]

So based on the 2nd amendment it is ok for states to allow ex cons to keep AK 47s for halloween?

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/27482694/

trick or treat

Telcoman

Howie, have you been trying to following along in this discussion? My response that you quoted was a response to Hash's comment that a strict interpretation of the 2nd Amendment would mean that administration of the right would fall to the States. I thought Hash was using the 10th Amendment in his rationale and asking for clarification.

With that being said, you totally glossed over this post:

And yet the Supreme Court when handing down their ruling in DC vs. Heller, this coming from an original intent side of the bench, maintained that certain controls like the Gun Control Act of 1968, the National Fire Arms Act of 1934 are well within the Constitution. Most people, even NRA members view these key pieces of legislation as critical and no brainer legislation.

The Gun Control Act of 1968 excludes Felons or someone convicted of a felony from purchasing or owning a firearm, among other things.

[Cold_Zero]

Not exactly!

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10...t=nyt

Telcoman

http://www.necn.com/Boston/New....html

The AP has reported that Pelham Police Chief, who was one of the gun club owners has been indicted on charges related to this kids death. Two other adults (not the father) have been indicted as well for furnishing a firearm to a child.

Howie, this isn't some group of slacked jawed idiots dispensing fully automatic weapons to children. NO this was a 'trained professional' police office that has been indicted on charges. You won't hear this from the Brady Campaign. You will only here it here.

I guess it's easy to fling poo, run and not see where it lands.

[hsckris]

I guess it's easy to fling poo, run and not see where it lands.

[mtcookson]

Woohoo! Back for a while!

A literal interpretation DOES, without argument, hand states, localities, and the federal government the right to regulate any aspect of weapons ownership that is not expressly guaranteed in the language of the 2nd Amendment. This includes registration, types of weapons, types of carry (open or concealed), trigger locks, classes, et cetera.

I have to disagree with this. They're infringements on the right to keep and bear. If I can't go buy a gun and carry it right away, that's infringing on my right to bear.

The whole idea behind all these limitations is to keep guns out of criminals hands... and it does NOT work. These regulations only hurt law abiding citizens wanting to get a gun.

One thing I absolutely disagree with is registration of guns. That should never, ever be allowed. The government doesn't need to know what kind and how many guns I own. If they do and they start banning them they know exactly where to go to get them away from me and others and that should never, never, never, never be allowed.

[Armelius]

I always see (on signs) or hear someone say "Freedom isn't free."

My response is always "How much does a gun and bullets cost?"

[Armelius]

I took the time to reread or read for the first time this whole thread. Got me thinking of Gattling who was in prison for something and here he was developing a very great weapon while in prison. Now shouldn't a felon own a gun or people who were convicted, served their time and are "free."

The only purpose I see in gun control is to keep guns out of children's hands outside of adult supervision. Keeping guns from being used in a dangerous manner. And not letting guns to be used in an intimidating manner.

Otherwise I don't see why someone would need or be required to have a concealed weapon's permit. Looks like an infringement to me.