As was foretold, we've added advertisements to the forums! If you have questions, or if you encounter any bugs, please visit this thread: https://forums.penny-arcade.com/discussion/240191/forum-advertisement-faq-and-reports-thread/
The Right to Bear Arms
Gooey
(\/)┌¶─¶┐(\/)pinch pinchRegistered User regular
(\/)┌¶─¶┐(\/)pinch pinchRegistered User regular
???No, silly!
Second Ammendment wrote: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.
As some of you may have heard, SCOTUS has taken up the first case concerning the scope of the Second Ammendment since 1939, District of Columbia v. Heller. The general background of the case is that D.C. has an outright ban on handguns and highly regulates other firearms. Some residents think that this infringes on their Second Ammendment rights (and right to defend themselves.) SCOTUS heard arguments yesterday, and a decision isn't due out until June, but that doesn't mean we can't talk about it yet! Either way the courts decide will probably end up shaping gun control in the United States for some time. What say you, D&D? What does the Second Ammendment actually mean? Where does the comma go, anyway? And the capitalization? What is a reasonable level of gun control? How far does a city or states rights go to impose gun control? Do bears have the right to arms?
Debate, and discourse! But please, please keep the gunfire to a minimum.
Gooey on
0
Posts
I think that if I can build an atomic bomb out of old smoke detectors and just keep it in the corner of my room, as a conversation starter, by God that's my right as an American!
Using it is another matter entirely.
Besides, guns are for pussies. A claw-hammer is far more manly!
However, I do love my guns also, and it would be tough to part with them, but I would be willing to make a deal where I could own the firearm, but not the ammunition, so that I could at least still display them, since some are collectors items.
Conversely, if the American government ever decided to go all tyranny on our asses without the support of the military, it really wouldn't matter how many guns we have in our basements, because it would be over before it started.
XBL : lJesse Custerl | MWO: Jesse Custer | Best vid ever. | 2nd best vid ever.
If they cop out like they usually do, it's just Gun Nuts vs Anti Gun Nuts, round 20,592.
One of the precise arguments submitted to SCOTUS by one of the lawyers for the D.C. handgun ban was that (paraphrased from what I heard on CSPAN) "an absolute ban on handguns is a resonable restriction."
The arguement comes down is "is self defense a reasonable need for a weapon", which sadly doesn't address the horribly worded ammendment.
Not really. One might even throw around terms like "strict scrutiny." Wiki it. A majority of current gun laws would meet that burden.
I'd suggest, however, that DC's laws would never meet (or rather, depending how this falls, have met) that burden.
If I remember correctly they also argued in some brief or another that an absolute ban on handguns, combined with a requirement that any long guns be either disassembled or locked (even in homes), didn't infringe on somebody's right (assuming it exists) to defend themselves with a firearm.
Wang C-SPAN for the oral argument.
Exactly. I heard one of the lawyers or lawmakers or something on NPR saying that there is no need to have a firearm in a purely urban environment like DC.
Which makes sense to me, but it's basically an argument on exactly what you said above.
Statistics pretty clearly suggest that private gun ownership has positive effects in regards to crime as well as negative.
People like to dismiss the idea of a gun for home defense because the odds of your house being broken into while you are home are pretty slim. And they are. Yet, at the same time, the odds of this happening in countries where you can't own a gun for home defense seems to be higher...suggesting that perhaps merely being able to own a gun for home defense helps ensure you won't need to use it. Combined with the fact that various violent crimes are highly likely to occur during a burglary if the occupants are home, I'd say this is at least one positive effect of private gun ownership.
There are negatives as well, to be sure. I'll not be silly enough to deny that. But determining the overall net effect is more like calculus than arithmetic. Throw in the idea that any purely local bans (like that in DC) are bound to be failures (because criminals own cars) and blanket bans like the one in DC don't really make a lot of sense.
EDIT: Also, regardless of whether you think the second amendment has a place in modern America, it's still there and thus still applies. If you don't like it, then it will take a Constitutional Amendment to do away with it. And please, don't go throwing the first half out as an argument...I'm quite familiar with it. We've gone there before. It's most definitely a statement of purpose, but it's pretty hard to argue that it's an actual restriction. And the right is clearly granted to "the People," not the militia, and blah blah blah. Hopefully the Supreme Court will clarify that one once and for all and we can put that shit to bed anyway.
I have a theory that this is due to:
Extremely strict regulations on firearms
Depenalization of cannabis use
And legalized prostitution
No.
That's like claiming Freedom of Speech doesn't cover [insert speech you dislike here], because it is not a "reasonable need for speech."
This case has been pretty carefully framed so that they will have to actually tackle the question.
Hopefully they don't puss out.
You are aware what Freedom of Speech does and does not cover, right? And that it has documented limitations?
It's nearly impossible to try and compare the effects of firearms laws between countries, because there are generally other significant differences that can effect crime rate as well. Disparity of wealth/income, social welfare programs, effects of other legal trends (yay War on Drugs!), different levels (and styles) of urbanization, etc.
If I were to suggest that the violent crime rate is much lower in Montana than New Jersey or Maryland, despite easy availability here of any gun your heart might desire, you'd call me an idiot and point out the glaring differences between the two. However there are plenty of differences between Washington, DC and Berlin other than gun control that, while less subtle, can have equally dramatic effects on crime (including violent crime).
And to be clear, I've lived in a large city (Phoenix), as well as a quasi-rural area of a more urbanized state (central Pennsylvania), have a wife from Los Angeles, and have pretty much traveled coast to coast...so I'm not just basing my viewpoints on the issue from a narrow experience in one part of the country. I only mention it because I've run into plenty of people on both sides who tend to do so. Plenty of folks up here can't imagine that what qualifies as a "reasonable restriction" might vary from Bumfuck, Montana to New York, New York.
Yes, on both counts.
However, as an enumerated right, these restrictions aren't based on "reasonable need," but "strict scrutiny." Which in lawyer-speak makes all the difference in the world.
I mean, try to organize a militia and see how far you get.
This far? They have an annual calendar and everything!
But seriously, I believe under current US law, all males age 18 to 49 are automatically part of the "unorganized militia." Someone who knows this stuff might even be able to tell us the relevant statute.
See, that's what I always thought about that amendment. I mean, I know fuck all about the American Constitution, but it always seemed like a leap that it could be interpreted to mean everyone can buy military grade hardware and no one can stop them.
I've come to the conclusion that Canada has a fairly balanced approach to gun ownership - non-restricted firearms (Long guns and the like) require a basic license that isn't too hard to get, but forces you to go through the motions and get a background check done on you, a restricted license (For pistols) that requires training and then outright prohibited weapons like fully automatic assault rifles.
I don't understand why it's a bad thing that the people who are allowed to buy guns have at least a cursory look taken at them before they do so.
The registration thing can kiss my ass though. :P
As far as violence goes, the availability of guns only changes what tool is used, not the rates. At least, that's how it seems to me. Poverty seems to have a greater effect on violent crime rates than the availability of weapons.
But yes, you're touching on the core debate in the country, the Militia wording, and what the fuck does it actually mean.
Yeah, I'm pretty sure that statute is still around but I can't remember which it is. Obviously it's outdated, and largely irrelevant, but doesn't mean it isn't the law.
Regardless, I'd say that every male registered with selective service is (to some extent) part of the "militia." While they will be provided with a weapon when the time comes, I'd say familiarity with firearms and perhaps some skill with their use would be beneficial. You can't really teach all that much in the way of marksmanship in nine weeks of basic training.
Again, it's pretty clearly a statement of purpose. And as was pointed out last time we did this, it's (I believe) the only amendment in the Bill of Rights that has one. Still, the fact that that purpose has been outdated (assuming it has) doesn't automatically do away with the right. Which is given to the people, not the militia.
When you buy a firearm in the US, they do a background check as well.
And really, outside of the most extreme pro-gun folks, nobody seems to have much issue with the idea. I don't see how NCIS checks wouldn't meet the burden of strict scrutiny.
Wikipedia FTW.
So apparently it's all males between 17 and 45 that are part of the "reserve militia." I.e. if you are part of the selective service, congratulations you too are a militiaman.
BTW, the relevant law is the Dick Act (1903). No, I'm not making this up.
Okay, they do a background check, that's pretty cool. I still like the idea of forcing people to be trained on use and maintenance of a firearm if they want to buy something like a pistol. Hell, even the non-restricted license application says you should take a course (I did back when I was 16 - makes it more likely to actually be approved). You have to take a test to be licensed to drive a car and cars are way more ubiquitous that guns.
Section 311. Militia: composition and classes
The law was updated to this so that while all men were still a part of the militia (as required by law), they were not compelled to serve unless needed for state/national defense.
- John Stuart Mill
So we can all pistol-whip each other!
You only need a license to drive a car on public roads. There is no licensing requirement to drive around on your own property.
So the analogy fails, because you suggest a required license to keep a firearm on your own property. Almost all states already require a license to carry in public (if they allow it at all).
Exactly.
Violent crime in Japan is through the roof, yet they have strict restrictions on firearms just like Germany does.
But still, I do think that putting heavy restrictions on firearms is still part of the solution (but definately not all) to lowering violent crime.
Like I said, its just a theory I have.
XBL : lJesse Custerl | MWO: Jesse Custer | Best vid ever. | 2nd best vid ever.
The argument goes: Wider availability of legal guns leads to wider availability of illegal guns. Naturally, gun control will always affect law-abiding folks more than criminals. The question is, how much more?
XBL : lJesse Custerl | MWO: Jesse Custer | Best vid ever. | 2nd best vid ever.