Supreme Court & Second Amendment

[Joe Schmoe]

I suppose if we use the convoluted logic of some, we should ban swimming pools, and buckets, and many other inanimate objects.

Yeah. We'd better do that before some teenager steals the bucket from his parent's closet, takes it to school, and drowns several of his classmates and teachers in it.

 

[Halon451]

Yeah. We'd better do that before some teenager steals the bucket from his parent's closet, takes it to school, and drowns several of his classmates and teachers in it.

Eh, stuff happens, you never know.

 

[Alamar]

Good point. I don't see the need to actually shoot someone when simply aiming the gun at them and yelling "hands up!" can be as effective. If they refuse to obey, then it is time to shoot.

If you have the ability to do that safely then that would, of course, be a preferred way to act. However I would have a hard time convicting someone that shot first and asked questions later if they had a "reasonable belief" that shooting was a "reasonable" course of action.

Devil's Advocate: As any training class should teach you proper target identification is CRITICAL. If you DON'T properly identify the target that you're shooting at I'd happily put you away for some form of Manslaughter [whatever the proper crime is] if you accidentally shoot grandpa who got up for a glass of milk.

 

[Highlander]

Dictators are afraid of an armed general population. But they do require armed "enablers" to keep them safely in dictatorial power.

I accept that, and I accept that in countries not (yet...) 'westernised' there maybe an argument for having an armed population. I do not accept, however, that in the likes of the U.K. or U.S. that there is even the most remote chance of them becoming dictatorially run. I'm happy to accept that such a thing is theoretically possible, but just not realistically possible.

Sorry, but such arguments are, for me, lame.

 

[Tomorrow]

Sorry, but such arguments are, for me, lame.

Thus are arguments, for me, that attempt to curtail my liberties.

 

[aberkowitz]

Devil's Advocate: As any training class should teach you proper target identification is CRITICAL. If you DON'T properly identify the target that you're shooting at I'd happily put you away for some form of Manslaughter [whatever the proper crime is] if you accidentally shoot grandpa who got up for a glass of milk.

Or if you're Junior Soprano and you just go crazy .

 

[Tomorrow]

I accept that, and I accept that in countries not (yet...) 'westernised' there maybe an argument for having an armed population. I do not accept, however, that in the likes of the U.K. or U.S. that there is even the most remote chance of them becoming dictatorially run. I'm happy to accept that such a thing is theoretically possible, but just not realistically possible.

Sorry, but such arguments are, for me, lame.

You know Robbie, my father used to have similar ideas about the U.S. government. In particular he was fond of saying "The government wouldn't do that!" when any negative was imaged on the news or stated by me.

I believe you have a different world view that I, especially formed by your upbringing in the United Kingdom as opposed to the U.S. (Too many curtsies or bows of subjugation to the Queen? ) Perhaps because of the circumstances of our country's founding, distrust of government is part and parcel of our U.S. culture...or should be for those historically challenged as was my father. Jefferson, Hamilton, Washington, etc. etc. all believed that an armed society was necessary to preserve the interests of the 'people'.

A couple of hundred years ago, your country, "The British Empire" was a hegemonous, empirialistic dictatorship, not unlike the Soviet Union of the last century. But the Empire became to big, too unwieldy, and the Monarchy lost control...much like another dictatorship (more accurately an oligarchy) the Roman Empire.

I'll grant that the U.S. or England turning to dictatorships is unlikely, especially in the U.S. where we all have firearms. But it is certain...all you have to do is read any U.S. paper in any town in the country...that those who run the government often do so with greed, immorality, and with 'special interests' in mind. Have you heard the idiom "Power corrupts. Absolute power corrupts absolutely."? No country is perfect. No government is perfect...far from it. THAT is why our founding fathers established the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, ensuring a continuity of freedom from oppression.

If you think the above is a lame argument, take it up with King George III's bones...and blame it on the "Revolution".

EDIT: Or better yet, go ask some Irish separatists their opinion.

 

[stratman]

It is not quite true that people only have to fear criminals. Too many "law abiding" citizens are careless about the storage of their guns, and children end up dead because of it. The simple fact is, morons as well as geniuses are allowed to buy guns in the U.S., and this is a matter of legitimate concern.

So I guess it's up to the benign minions of government to do that? Or the more enlightened individuals of our society? Morons kill more people with cars everyday than with guns, should we ban cars? Morons mutilate themselves with power tools, fishing hooks, scuba equipment and on and on it goes. This to me is a very legitimate concern, it raises health care costs. How about criminals that are allowed to walk the streets again in a short period of time due to legal incompetence or jail over-crowding, that too me me is a grave concern. Most of my friends are gun owners, collectors, competitive shooters, people I've known all my life. I can say that I don't personally know of anyone that has had a fatal accident in their family due to gun ownership, but again I don't know any morons with guns. As for fearing legitimate guns owners, I still stand by my statement, I don't know of any law abiding citizen that has committed any sort of crime, much less with a gun.

 

[Highlander]

I believe you have a different world view than I...

It is certainly the case that we perceive things differently.

Perhaps because of the circumstances of our country's founding, distrust of government is part and parcel of our U.S. culture...But it is certain...all you have to do is read any U.S. paper in any town in the country...that those who run the government often do so with greed, immorality, and with 'special interests' in mind.

Yes, but how is this different from any country, civilised or otherwise? Any sane person knows that politicians are greedy immoral !"£$%^'s

No government is perfect...far from it. THAT is why our founding fathers established the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, ensuring a continuity of freedom from oppression.

Is it not possible that circumstances at the time the Constitution was laid down are not those of modern day? Wikipedia (sorry ) tells me that the Constitution has been amended 27 times since its inception. Clearly it has been changed to reflect the times. Who is to say that the right to bear arms is no longer credible in the America of today?

 

[Tomorrow]

So I guess it's up to the benign minions of government to do that? Or the more enlightened individuals of our society? Morons kill more people with cars everyday than with guns, should we ban cars? Morons mutilate themselves with power tools, fishing hooks, scuba equipment and on and on it goes. This to me is a very legitimate concern, it raises health care costs. How about criminals that are allowed to walk the streets again in a short period of time due to legal incompetence or jail over-crowding, that too me me is a grave concern. Most of my friends are gun owners, collectors, competitive shooters, people I've known all my life. I can say that I don't personally know of anyone that has had a fatal accident in their family due to gun ownership, but again I don't know any morons with guns. As for fearing legitimate guns owners, I still stand by my statement, I don't know of any law abiding citizen that has committed any sort of crime, much less with a gun.

We even have morons making and enforcing our laws. (Just ask Schmoe about that and GWB. ) What will be the litmus test for moronity? Shall we just ban all gun ownership...and legislative positions, too? LOL!!

 

[Tomorrow]

Wikipedia (sorry ) tells me that the Constitution has been amended 27 times since its inception. Clearly it has been changed to reflect the times. Who is to say that the right to bear arms is no longer credible in the America of today?

History 1A.

The Bill of Rights was implemented for the protection of individual rights. Not collective rights. Not someone's idea of moral rights. Not even group safety. It is not a document to be used to LIMIT individual rights as you suggest is possible. (By the way, that's why Amendment 18, banning alcohol, was repealed by Amendment 21.)

All laws must pass the test of being constitutional acceptable. That is why the Washington DC gun deprivation law case is being heard by the U.S. Supreme Court and will be overturned.

 

[jonnythan]

For what its worth, nothing in the bill of rights (the first 10 amendments) has been altered or changed by a subsequent amendment.

 

[Highlander]

The Bill of Rights was implemented for the protection of individual rights...It is not a document to be used to LIMIT individual rights as you suggest is possible.

So your Bill of Rights states what your rights are, rather than are not, correct? Well then, all you need to do is erase the relevant clause; if it's not written that you do have the right, does than mean that you don't?

 

[Pyrrho]

So I guess it's up to the benign minions of government to do that? Or the more enlightened individuals of our society? Morons kill more people with cars everyday than with guns, should we ban cars? Morons mutilate themselves with power tools, fishing hooks, scuba equipment and on and on it goes. This to me is a very legitimate concern, it raises health care costs. How about criminals that are allowed to walk the streets again in a short period of time due to legal incompetence or jail over-crowding, that too me me is a grave concern. Most of my friends are gun owners, collectors, competitive shooters, people I've known all my life. I can say that I don't personally know of anyone that has had a fatal accident in their family due to gun ownership, but again I don't know any morons with guns. As for fearing legitimate guns owners, I still stand by my statement, I don't know of any law abiding citizen that has committed any sort of crime, much less with a gun.

I did not offer a solution to the problem; I merely pointed out the fact that your previous statement about not needing to be concerned about law abiding citizens was "not quite true". People are accidentally injured with guns, and it is ridiculous to deny that fact.

 

[Pyrrho]

So your Bill of Rights states what your rights are, rather than are not, correct? Well then, all you need to do is erase the relevant clause; if it's not written that you do have the right, does than mean that you don't?

The 10th Amendment (the last of the "Bill of Rights") states:

"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 it is a bit vague on what the rights of the people are. Anything not mentioned or specified could be a personal right, or a right regarding the individual states. That, of course, does not fit quite with the post to which you were replying, either, so perhaps I should have simply let your argument run its course without my input. Still, it might prove worthwhile for people to actually read the document in question; there are many places online where the U.S. Constitution, and its Amendments, can be found. Just do a search for it.

 

[jonnythan]

So your Bill of Rights states what your rights are, rather than are not, correct? Well then, all you need to do is erase the relevant clause; if it's not written that you do have the right, does than mean that you don't?

No, and no.

The Bill of Rights is a set of specific limits on the power of the federal government.

Nothing less, nothing more.

The second amendment specifically prohibits the government from infringing on our right to keep and bear arms.

 

[Rickster71]

The part of this discussion that amazes / bothers me the most, is how cavalier some are, with their willingness to take away the constitutional rights of others.
The rights of the responsible, law abiding, gun owner.
Why not focus more on criminal intent, and criminals, and punish them?
Maybe we could chip away at the rights of the criminal a little bit first; before we come after the law abiding.
Would you use the same broad brush tactics with other parts of the constitution you don't like?

 

[Highlander]

The second amendment specifically prohibits the government from infringing on our right to keep and bear arms.

Then what are those who enjoy the right to bear arms concerned about? From the above it appears that their right is secured in perpetuity.

 

[stratman]

I did not offer a solution to the problem; I merely pointed out the fact that your previous statement about not needing to be concerned about law abiding citizens was "not quite true". People are accidentally injured with guns, and it is ridiculous to deny that fact.

It is also ridiculous to overlook that cars injure more people than guns, on the contrary we all should be more concerned with the "morons" entrusted by our local DMVs with death causing equipment. How about power tools? You know under the right circumstance a cordless drill can be as effective as a gun, or air nailers, all you need to do is rig the nose safety and hey it will kill you, let's ban those too, more people are injured each year skiing and performing water-sports than with guns. The problem I see in these arguments is that guns are seen by anti-gunners as a single purpose device, namely for killing people, a gun is nothing more than a tool. Guns are an enjoyable past time, an afternoon shooting skeet or trap is right up there with playing golf or fishing, but yet this is never touched upon. Why? Why is it that the only argument is "guns injure people?" Shouldn't we ban chef's knives? After all they're much larger than necessary for an average homeowner, who needs a 16" chef's knife, and they cause a lot of injuries. The bottom line is certain elements don't like to see an armed citizenry because it upsets the status quo, to them government should posses the unique power to control life and death, personal protection should be left to the "professionals" IE cops, again I'll ask why would you put your life in jeopardy waiting for the police to arrive at your house when you have a person breaking into where your family lives to do harm, why put their lives in danger? I also believe that if you don't offer a solution what's the purpose of being critical? Unless you have an ax to grind perhaps? I can offer a solution, you say you're "concerned" that gun owners cause accidents, well I'm in the camp that says that if you buy a gun you should take safety classes, I'm on the minority on this issue. But to be fair, people buying drills, knives of any type, cars, sports equipment, etc. that have potential for dealing death should be mandated to take safety classes.

 

[Tomorrow]

I did not offer a solution to the problem; I merely pointed out the fact that your previous statement about not needing to be concerned about law abiding citizens was "not quite true". People are accidentally injured with guns, and it is ridiculous to deny that fact.

What's the point? There are more people killed in medical "accidents" at hospitals every year in the U.S. than all the gun killings combined (those including law enforcement shootings).