[the majority] would have us believe that over 200 years ago, the Framers made a choice to limit the tools available to elected officials wishing to regulate civilian uses of weapons.
err... yes? I really wish I wasn't too lazy to find the full thing. The little looking I did was fruitless. I assume there's another 20 pages explaining why that isn't exactly what the founders thought, but it seems a fairly accurate summation of what the majority believe, and it's like there aren't 9 or so other amendments seeking to limit the tools of elected officials.
just strikes me as an odd thing for the media to run with.
[the majority] would have us believe that over 200 years ago, the Framers made a choice to limit the tools available to elected officials wishing to regulate civilian uses of weapons.
err... yes? I really wish I wasn't too lazy to find the full thing. The little looking I did was fruitless. I assume there's another 20 pages explaining why that isn't exactly what the founders thought, but it seems a fairly accurate summation of what the majority believe, and it's like there aren't 9 or so other amendments seeking to limit the tools of elected officials.
just strikes me as an odd thing for the media to run with.
Yes, I mean... wow. I don't want to say bad things about Stevens but really, if you find it difficult to believe that the Framers deliberately limited the powers of government then you should probably not be a judge at all, let alone sit on the SCOTUS
So I'm a bit detached from this, being European and considering gun control an obvious reality of life, a bit like air and Doritos, it just exists, but...
Why is it an issue if gun control is unconstitutional or not? There are constitutional reform protocols, aren't there? It's a matter of taking that decidedly XVIII century anachronistic piece of legislation, dumping it and joining the rest of the western world here in modern times. Why keep going around the fact that it's a barbaric outdated law AND in the Constitution at the same time? It's not a religious text, but a legal one. It's bound to need upgrades every now and then.
It's an issue because we're a constitutional republic and if we start ignoring the constitution we become an anarchist republic.
The latter kinda sucks.
My country passed its latest Constitution in 78, and we've reformed it twice. We are not anarchist. If part of the Constitution no longer applies, it gets changed, that's why the reform clauses are IN the Constitution in the first place. It's part of the constitutional plan that it's going to need changes down the line. That's why the amendments are amendments. Because they weren't there to begin with.
If you're asking whether I'd personally support an amendment to our constitution doing away with gun rights, I'd say no. We could get into a long and utterly pointless argument as to how much good the restrictions on guns in other countries do (again, I give a fuck less what your crime rate is compared to the US, I care what it is compared to what it was before your restrictions were introduced...which in most cases is "about the same" or "following the same trend"). I'll pass on that, though. But I will (seemingly) agree with you that if we do want to start banning guns in this country (or instituting de facto bans) that it merely needs to be done the "right" way...a constitutional amendment, not some law passed at the municipal level.
Waaait, that one you just made up. We've had gun control for centuries. There is just no valid crime data to report. I'd have problems giving you a history of gun control regulations off the top of my head because it's always been an administrative issue, not a constitutional one. We do gun licenses the way we do driving licenses, and if the regulations need to be tightened we assume the government can handle it. It's only constitutional in the US because being armed was a way to show independence from the Empire.
Do you have any idea what is required for a constitutional amendment in this country? It's not going to happen. Like, ever. Not on this issue. Considering that 35 states at the moment has "shall issue" concealed carry laws (which means not only can you relatively easily obtain a gun, but unless you have a criminal record they must issue you a permit to carry it as well) I don't see 2/3 of the states agreeing to overturn the second amendment.
Yeah, but that was my question.
Why?
I'm saying the rest of the world controls guns and only issues them to people if you've been threatened by terrorists, are part of a law enforcement agency, or are sports guns (i.e., not handguns) and you're a licensed hunter.
Why is this an issue on the XXI century? It makes no sense, what are you using the guns for?
And even if you had some use for the guns, why debate on how much to restric them under the Constitution instead of debating on whether or not the Constitution is RIGHT? It can be the Constitution and be wrong at the same time.
Or do you dispute that possibility? Is it an article of faith in the US that the Constitution is flawless? That's the kind of thing I wanted to know.
EDIT: And again, I'm not opposed in principle to a licensing requirement...within limits. But it simply cannot be used as a de facto ban. Or a de facto ban on poor people. So it needs to be on a basically "shall issue" basis (so more of a required class than required test), and cheap (if that means subsidized by taxes, so be it). And there should be some way to do it retroactively...because when my wife's (then girlfriend) stalker ex-roommate starts breaking into the house, I really don't want to have to wait to get a gun until I can fit some stupid fucking class into my schedule.
And that train of thought is also incredibly fucking alien to me. You want a gun in case a nutcase breaks into your house? Really? Because you think that's going to be more effective than a baseball bat? Calling the police, maybe? Or could it be because there's a fair chance that the guy has a gun himself?
And even if you're armed, what are you going to do? Shoot the guy? I wouldn't. Point the gun at him and hope that's enough? It's... I don't know what's so damn reassuring about a handgun, frankly, I just don't see the point.
EDIT: For those, especially not in the US, who think this sounds pretty pointless, it's a hell of a lot better than what many states how now. Which is "walk in with a credit card and an ID and walk out with a gun 10 minutes later." You can buy a handgun here about as easily as a loaf of bread.
As I said, alien.
You have full blown national paranoia going on and the one security enhancement you don't want to do is banning firearms.
Spying on everybody's phone calls? Sure.
Keeping people from acquiring lethal weapons over the counter? Nah, that'd restrict their rights.
It's almost too scary to be funny. The fact that some of you mistake honest puzzlement, concern and curiosity from your neighbours for mindless hate or stupidity is even worse.
My country passed its latest Constitution in 78, and we've reformed it twice. We are not anarchist. If part of the Constitution no longer applies, it gets changed, that's why the reform clauses are IN the Constitution in the first place. It's part of the constitutional plan that it's going to need changes down the line. That's why the amendments are amendments. Because they weren't there to begin with.
The simple fact is that an amendment to change the 2nd Amendment would never pass. It would probably never even get off the ground.
HamHamJ on
While racing light mechs, your Urbanmech comes in second place, but only because it ran out of ammo.
And I don't know too many people who appreciate the phonetaps. The rest of your post is not applicable.
Yet I haven't seen anybody claiming they'll extend the Patriot Act "over their cold dead bodies" and, in fact, they are in place.
And not applicable to what? I believe I made very direct, simple questions.
They aren't actively restricting your right to pass information to a buddy. And you don't hear anything because those people are shouted down by imbeciles similar to those who try to shout down the minority in this thread. They're too busy voting for the same political parties over and over.
My country passed its latest Constitution in 78, and we've reformed it twice. We are not anarchist. If part of the Constitution no longer applies, it gets changed, that's why the reform clauses are IN the Constitution in the first place. It's part of the constitutional plan that it's going to need changes down the line. That's why the amendments are amendments. Because they weren't there to begin with.
The simple fact is that an amendment to change the 2nd Amendment would never pass. It would probably never even get off the ground.
Yeah, but why?
Is this just an emotional thing? Is it because you've sacralized the constitution? Do you accept that it could be wrong, outdated or become inapplicable under some circumstances? Is it just about this one amendment or about the whole text?
[the majority] would have us believe that over 200 years ago, the Framers made a choice to limit the tools available to elected officials wishing to regulate civilian uses of weapons.
err... yes? I really wish I wasn't too lazy to find the full thing. The little looking I did was fruitless. I assume there's another 20 pages explaining why that isn't exactly what the founders thought, but it seems a fairly accurate summation of what the majority believe, and it's like there aren't 9 or so other amendments seeking to limit the tools of elected officials.
just strikes me as an odd thing for the media to run with.
Yes, I mean... wow. I don't want to say bad things about Stevens but really, if you find it difficult to believe that the Framers deliberately limited the powers of government then you should probably not be a judge at all, let alone sit on the SCOTUS
I find it hard to believe you'd mischaracterize Stevens' comment by extending his doubting that the framers were trying to restrain the government's restricting civilians bearing arms (especially given the fact that, using the period definition of the word bear, civilians couldn't possibly bear arms) to doubting that the framers wanted to restrain anything.
My country passed its latest Constitution in 78, and we've reformed it twice. We are not anarchist. If part of the Constitution no longer applies, it gets changed, that's why the reform clauses are IN the Constitution in the first place. It's part of the constitutional plan that it's going to need changes down the line. That's why the amendments are amendments. Because they weren't there to begin with.
The simple fact is that an amendment to change the 2nd Amendment would never pass. It would probably never even get off the ground.
Yeah, but why?
Is this just an emotional thing? Is it because you've sacralized the constitution? Do you accept that it could be wrong, outdated or become inapplicable under some circumstances? Is it just about this one amendment or about the whole text?
Maybe because there are enough people who like the 2nd Amendment as it is to prevent getting the necessary supermajority to change it?
My country passed its latest Constitution in 78, and we've reformed it twice. We are not anarchist. If part of the Constitution no longer applies, it gets changed, that's why the reform clauses are IN the Constitution in the first place. It's part of the constitutional plan that it's going to need changes down the line. That's why the amendments are amendments. Because they weren't there to begin with.
The simple fact is that an amendment to change the 2nd Amendment would never pass. It would probably never even get off the ground.
Yeah, but why?
Is this just an emotional thing? Is it because you've sacralized the constitution? Do you accept that it could be wrong, outdated or become inapplicable under some circumstances? Is it just about this one amendment or about the whole text?
Maybe because there are enough people who like the 2nd Amendment as it is to prevent getting the necessary supermajority to change it?
I assume you have hot-button issues in whatever country you're from, Nova. This is one of ours, that's all.
I assume you have hot-button issues in whatever country you're from, Nova. This is one of ours, that's all.
Yeah, I get it. I was trying to understand the reasoning behind it, that's all, but it's too much like a Monty Python sketch. It's really painful to try and follow the twisted logic of the damn thing.
I'm gonna go put my brain on ice, now. Good night.
Why did they do that, anyway? The First Amendment, for instance, is really straightforward: Congress shall pass no law on these five things. The Second is a goddamn comma splice. Argh.
They did it because the Founding Fathers feared and abhorred a government that could only retain authority over an unarmed populace, because such a government would by tyrannical by definition. If you put yourself in their shoes, it's actually very easy to see why the second amendment is worded as such.
You could also say that some of the Founding Fathers feared and abhorred a government where white dudes couldn't take up their muskets and flintlocks and put down a slave revolt, and that's the "correct" historical context for the 2nd Amendment to be interpreted in by so-called Constitutional originalists.
Why did they do that, anyway? The First Amendment, for instance, is really straightforward: Congress shall pass no law on these five things. The Second is a goddamn comma splice. Argh.
They did it because the Founding Fathers feared and abhorred a government that could only retain authority over an unarmed populace, because such a government would by tyrannical by definition. If you put yourself in their shoes, it's actually very easy to see why the second amendment is worded as such.
You could also say that some of the Founding Fathers feared and abhorred a government where white dudes couldn't take up their muskets and flintlocks and put down a slave revolt, and that's the "correct" historical context for the 2nd Amendment to be interpreted in by so-called Constitutional originalists.
I'm not asking why the Second Amendment is there, I'm asking why is it an ambiguous syntactical nightmare while every other Amendment of the time is in easily understandable language.
Daedalus on
0
Options
KageraImitating the worst people. Since 2004Registered Userregular
I'm not asking why the Second Amendment is there, I'm asking why is it an ambiguous syntactical nightmare while every other Amendment of the time is in easily understandable language.
Because the founders were up one late night after smoking some dank weed and TJ was all like 'let's fuck with our descendants, put a comma in there.'
And that's the hilarious story of how the 2nd amendment was made.
Why did they do that, anyway? The First Amendment, for instance, is really straightforward: Congress shall pass no law on these five things. The Second is a goddamn comma splice. Argh.
They did it because the Founding Fathers feared and abhorred a government that could only retain authority over an unarmed populace, because such a government would by tyrannical by definition. If you put yourself in their shoes, it's actually very easy to see why the second amendment is worded as such.
You could also say that some of the Founding Fathers feared and abhorred a government where white dudes couldn't take up their muskets and flintlocks and put down a slave revolt, and that's the "correct" historical context for the 2nd Amendment to be interpreted in by so-called Constitutional originalists.
I'm not asking why the Second Amendment is there, I'm asking why is it an ambiguous syntactical nightmare while every other Amendment of the time is in easily understandable language.
Because James Madison was drunk off his ass on corn whiskey?
But seriously, most of the other amendments are easily understandable only in comparison to the train wreck that is the 2nd Amendment. The Establishment Clause of the 1st Amendment alone has been interpreted in vastly different ways, for example.
While I don't advocate a complete ban on ownership, I'm going to go ahead and disagree completely on CCW permits.
I live in a major metropolitan area and can with a modicum of awareness avoid any potential issues by being aware of my surroundings and not venturing into areas that I would deem unsafe. This is a fairly reasonable guarantee of my not being around people armed with weapons outside of police officers. However if every law abiding citizen has CCW permits that changes.
Remember that every criminal starts out at least at one time or another as a law abiding citizen. What does it take to send a normal law abiding person over the edge? Not much nowadays. Whether you're in the mall and some clerk refuses to take a return and the redneck flips out and starts throwing shit (I've seen it); Road Rage incidents; drunks in a bar threatening to kill someone if they had the chance. Now what happens when you give them weapons with which to enact their rage upon others? Since previously they were completely law abiding citizens they would be eligible for CCW's if you had your way right? I personally would feel unsafe wherever I went knowing that for whatever reason the standing next to me could flip out and unload a clip.
As to my knowledge all the recent school/mall/church shootings have been with legally owned and obtained firearms right? You said that the insane shouldn't get weapons, but how do we know that they are insane? It seems like you would oppose state mandated psych evaluations, but then how do we know they are insane or could be without it?
Now I'm not advocating psych evaluations, in fact the opposite. Gun control works by reducing the amount of weapons out there. Even if in completely legal and safe hands (for the moment) the more that are out there, the higher the chance that someone close to the tipping point gets their hands on one too.
And I've already thought of your counter-argument, ya ya ya but if we had CCW's people could just whip out their glocks and deal with someone who went psycho. But do we really want bloody shootouts all the damn time? Would kinda go back to the wild west days.
Do people overreact, and if they had firearms, would they overreact? That's a hard one to say. Certainly, I've overreacted. Not to the point where I would be tempted to pull out my firearm and shoot somebody. Beat the everloving piss out of them, yes, shoot, kill, maim? No. Holding a CHL and a CCW, you suddenly have many more responsibilities. You assess things. You're supposed to take that training that you receive, and act sensibly. Almost, like an adult. Will this happen all the time? No. Will it happen the majority of the time? I would hope. Could it happen in a small percentage? Yeah. I'm not saying it's perfect, but it's a good system, and it could see some improvement, like everything.
Do I believe in psych evaluations? Hell no, absolutely not. But if you've been committed, involuntarily, and in some cases, voluntarily, to a mental institution, you shouldn't be able to own guns. If you commit a certain kind of cirme, you shouldn't own guns.
Thanks for already considering my counter-argument. After all, I'd hate to be a one trick pony. But to pander to your needs for that, I'll play along. Yes, somebody with a CCW could deal with the threat. Would this be preferable? Not if everybody pulled out a firearm and started blazing away. If somebody saw what was going on, called the police, and then shot the psycho, would that be better than letting people be murdered at a fast rate waiting for police response? I don't think so. Do I want to go back to the Wild West? Nope, no air conditioning.
If you want to prevent gun crime, quit living in a fairy tale. There are bad people in this world. Educating people helps. Treating problems can help. Preventing them, will do so much more. Gun control doesn't prevent much. If you have the intent to get a firearm, you can get one. Criminals are less likely to pick a victim they believe to be armed. If the victim they pick is carrying, great.
The majority of the gun deaths of children, are often teenagers involved in gang related shootouts. Sad, but it's the way things seem to work. The majority of gun deaths are often skewed facts or incomplete. Some cities when they submit these things fail to submit all or any data. Depending on who comes up with these statistics, they may skew the way the data is presented. I'd say everybody does it. That would include the NRA, the Brady Center, NBC, CNN, FOX, the government, etc. Not that the information is false, just presented in a way that produces favorable responses amongst their target audience.
If they are thinking about committing a crime, are in the act of committing a crime, or have committed a crime, then they are, in fact, a criminal.
That makes everyone a criminal.
And then you spend way too many lines ranting about how gun control is a non-issue because people can be killed with rubber bands and garbage bags. :roll:
Is anyone even buying that bit of sophism these days?
"Hay guys, u cun kill som1 with a firecrackers so C4 shuld b suld @ 711 m i rite lolz"
There's a reason why people get murdered more often with firearms than with purple dildos; One of these things is much more deadly than the other, and shit, it was actually designed for the purpose of killing people! Imagine that.
Maybe it was dumb. Maybe that was a bad sentence. Whatever. Irrelevant. I never mentioned anything about rubber bands or garbage bags. True, you could kill somebody. Thanks for bring that point up.
You take guns out of the hands of law-abiding citizens, who will possess guns? Criminals. This makes things so much easier for them. Okay, you don't believe in that non-sense. That's fine.
If I was truly set on killing somebody, and I had a tool, read that, a tool to do so with, if it made the job easier, I would use it. If I did not have a firearm nearby, but I had a knife, shovel, axe, rock, chair, kitchen plate, etc, to inflict harm, guess what? I'd fucking use one of the implements available to kill somebody.
Hey, airplanes earliest uses were to bomb the hell out of the enemy. Now they ferry people to and from distant locales. Still used to bomb the hell out of the enemy. They take packages of mail, and ship them off far and wide. Still used to bomb the hell out of the enemy.
Whatever use you see for something, there are plenty of ways to use it. Like you said, you can kill somebody with rubber bands and garbage bags. I'd prefer to close my bag of potato chips with rubber bands and deposit my trash in the garbage bag, often lining the trash can.
Dead Legend on
diablo III - beardsnbeer#1508 Mechwarrior Online - Rusty Bock
The goal of (most) gun control legislation is not strictly to "take guns out of the hands of law abiding citizens." It's to have an overall reduction in the number of guns, and therefore the number of guns stolen/sold and put into the black market where criminals can obtain them.
Why did they do that, anyway? The First Amendment, for instance, is really straightforward: Congress shall pass no law on these five things. The Second is a goddamn comma splice. Argh.
They did it because the Founding Fathers feared and abhorred a government that could only retain authority over an unarmed populace, because such a government would by tyrannical by definition. If you put yourself in their shoes, it's actually very easy to see why the second amendment is worded as such.
You could also say that some of the Founding Fathers feared and abhorred a government where white dudes couldn't take up their muskets and flintlocks and put down a slave revolt, and that's the "correct" historical context for the 2nd Amendment to be interpreted in by so-called Constitutional originalists.
I'm not asking why the Second Amendment is there, I'm asking why is it an ambiguous syntactical nightmare while every other Amendment of the time is in easily understandable language.
Many of them were assumed rights, not ones given by the government. Take it written in the context of the time, and the specificity of that exact situation, and it isn't written quite as poorly. Related to the same core issues responsible for some of the heated arguments between federalists and anti.
Why did they do that, anyway? The First Amendment, for instance, is really straightforward: Congress shall pass no law on these five things. The Second is a goddamn comma splice. Argh.
They did it because the Founding Fathers feared and abhorred a government that could only retain authority over an unarmed populace, because such a government would by tyrannical by definition. If you put yourself in their shoes, it's actually very easy to see why the second amendment is worded as such.
You could also say that some of the Founding Fathers feared and abhorred a government where white dudes couldn't take up their muskets and flintlocks and put down a slave revolt, and that's the "correct" historical context for the 2nd Amendment to be interpreted in by so-called Constitutional originalists.
I'm not asking why the Second Amendment is there, I'm asking why is it an ambiguous syntactical nightmare while every other Amendment of the time is in easily understandable language.
Many of them were assumed rights, not ones given by the government. Take it written in the context of the time, and the specificity of that exact situation, and it isn't written quite as poorly. Related to the same core issues responsible for some of the heated arguments between federalists and anti.
I dunno, though, really. It's one of only two clauses in the whole Constitution that bothers to justify itself. You don't see "A well-informed Electorate, being necessary to the governance of a free State, the right to Freedom of the Press, shall not be Abridged", you see "Congress shall pass no law restricting the freedom of the press", because it's obvious why we need a free press. I just find it either funny or strange (depending on what mood I'm in) that while the main debate with respect to freedom of religion, press, etc, the debate has been where to draw a pragmatic line and say "well, this speech right here, what with the going into a crowded fire and shouting 'Theater!', can lead to a clear and present danger to the people present", but for the Second Amendment we've been arguing largely over how to parse a fucking sentence. It's downright maddening.
Daedalus on
0
Options
ZoelI suppose... I'd put it onRegistered Userregular
edited June 2008
It's too ambiguous to be a real constitutional clause. It means whatever SCOTUS says it means and no amount of Strunk and White or Black's Law is going to give it any real clarity. This week the Second amendment means this because we have had Bush as a president for long enough to make it mean what it does. After eight years of a democratic president it may well mean something else.
Any argument that it obviously means anything is disingenuous at best.
Zoel on
A magician gives you a ring that, when worn, will let you see the world as it truly is.
However, the ring will never leave your finger, and you will be unable to ever describe to another living person what you see.
I know what you're saying. But I think that is akin to writing the first amendment as "Government shall not infringe on the rights of the citizens to speak." I agree it isn't an easy read.
What is even more confusing is to try and actually reconcile the idea of an inalienable right with government issuance of any right. That, I don't understand.
It's too ambiguous to be a real constitutional clause. It means whatever SCOTUS says it means and no amount of Strunk and White or Black's Law is going to give it any real clarity. This week the Second amendment means this because we have had Bush as a president for long enough to make it mean what it does. After eight years of a democratic president it may well mean something else.
Any argument that it obviously means anything is disingenuous at best.
You could look at the writings of the founders outside of the Constitution to find their views on the issue, if you didn't already consider it obvious.
And that train of thought is also incredibly fucking alien to me. You want a gun in case a nutcase breaks into your house? Really? Because you think that's going to be more effective than a baseball bat? Calling the police, maybe? Or could it be because there's a fair chance that the guy has a gun himself?
No, I wanted a gun because a nutcase who had taken an unhealthy sexual interest in my girlfriend had already broken into our house. And yes, I think it would be more effective than a baseball bat. And call the police? You're fucking joking, right? Do I need to start posting stories of people dead or assaulted (including raped) before the police ever arrive? Or stories where the police simply never arrived.
The police are there to figure out who violated you, not stop them from doing so. I'll pass on that, thanks.
In fact, as posted in the last thread, the police have absolutely no obligation to ever respond to your call, nor any obligation to do so in a timely manner. This has been ruled in court. You're on your own for self-defense, the police are not actually your personal bodyguards.
And even if you're armed, what are you going to do? Shoot the guy? I wouldn't. Point the gun at him and hope that's enough? It's... I don't know what's so damn reassuring about a handgun, frankly, I just don't see the point.
That's great that you wouldn't shoot the guy. I would (hence the reason I own a gun). As would my wife (who was the girlfriend in question). And again, as alien as this might seem to you, I believe I should have that right. We kind of take self-defense pretty seriously over here.
And that train of thought is also incredibly fucking alien to me. You want a gun in case a nutcase breaks into your house? Really? Because you think that's going to be more effective than a baseball bat? Calling the police, maybe? Or could it be because there's a fair chance that the guy has a gun himself?
No, I wanted a gun because a nutcase who had taken an unhealthy sexual interest in my girlfriend had already broken into our house. And yes, I think it would be more effective than a baseball bat. And call the police? You're fucking joking, right? Do I need to start posting stories of people dead or assaulted (including raped) before the police ever arrive? Or stories where the police simply never arrived.
The police are there to figure out who violated you, not stop them from doing so. I'll pass on that, thanks.
In fact, as posted in the last thread, the police have absolutely no obligation to ever respond to your call, nor any obligation to do so in a timely manner. This has been ruled in court. You're on your own for self-defense, the police are not actually your personal bodyguards.
And even if you're armed, what are you going to do? Shoot the guy? I wouldn't. Point the gun at him and hope that's enough? It's... I don't know what's so damn reassuring about a handgun, frankly, I just don't see the point.
That's great that you wouldn't shoot the guy. I would (hence the reason I own a gun). As would my wife (who was the girlfriend in question). And again, as alien as this might seem to you, I believe I should have that right. We kind of take self-defense pretty seriously over here.
Statistically speaking, the guys more likely to have your gun than you are.
Also, you still wouldn't be beating an arm, in the sense the founding fathers wrote it.
If I was truly set on killing somebody, and I had a tool, read that, a tool to do so with, if it made the job easier, I would use it. If I did not have a firearm nearby, but I had a knife, shovel, axe, rock, chair, kitchen plate, etc, to inflict harm, guess what? I'd fucking use one of the implements available to kill somebody.
So we both agree that if somebody's determined to commit murder, they will, so, like guns, murder should be legal!
And even if you're armed, what are you going to do? Shoot the guy? I wouldn't. Point the gun at him and hope that's enough? It's... I don't know what's so damn reassuring about a handgun, frankly, I just don't see the point.
That's great that you wouldn't shoot the guy. I would (hence the reason I own a gun). As would my wife (who was the girlfriend in question). And again, as alien as this might seem to you, I believe I should have that right. We kind of take self-defense pretty seriously over here.
Statistically speaking, the guys more likely to have your gun than you are.
Also, you still wouldn't be beating an arm, in the sense the founding fathers wrote it.
You mean bearing an arm?
Also, do you have a cite on that "he's more likely to have my gun that I am" thing? Like, what are they counting? Because most of those "a gun is more likely to kill its owner or a resident" stats are including suicides and domestic violence, last I checked....you're going to need to back up the fact that an intruder is more likely to have my gun, I'm not accepting your word on it.
And even if you're armed, what are you going to do? Shoot the guy? I wouldn't. Point the gun at him and hope that's enough? It's... I don't know what's so damn reassuring about a handgun, frankly, I just don't see the point.
That's great that you wouldn't shoot the guy. I would (hence the reason I own a gun). As would my wife (who was the girlfriend in question). And again, as alien as this might seem to you, I believe I should have that right. We kind of take self-defense pretty seriously over here.
Statistically speaking, the guys more likely to have your gun than you are.
Also, you still wouldn't be beating an arm, in the sense the founding fathers wrote it.
You mean bearing an arm?
Also, do you have a cite on that "he's more likely to have my gun that I am" thing? Like, what are they counting? Because most of those "a gun is more likely to kill its owner or a resident" stats are including suicides and domestic violence, last I checked....you're going to need to back up the fact that an intruder is more likely to have my gun, I'm not accepting your word on it.
Go look up the CDC's reports on mortality rates. They're online somewhere, I posted them in the last gun thread we had. Accidental gun deaths significantly outnumber justifiable firearm homicides year after year (usually at about a 2:1 rate).
And even if you're armed, what are you going to do? Shoot the guy? I wouldn't. Point the gun at him and hope that's enough? It's... I don't know what's so damn reassuring about a handgun, frankly, I just don't see the point.
That's great that you wouldn't shoot the guy. I would (hence the reason I own a gun). As would my wife (who was the girlfriend in question). And again, as alien as this might seem to you, I believe I should have that right. We kind of take self-defense pretty seriously over here.
Statistically speaking, the guys more likely to have your gun than you are.
Also, you still wouldn't be beating an arm, in the sense the founding fathers wrote it.
You mean bearing an arm?
Also, do you have a cite on that "he's more likely to have my gun that I am" thing? Like, what are they counting? Because most of those "a gun is more likely to kill its owner or a resident" stats are including suicides and domestic violence, last I checked....you're going to need to back up the fact that an intruder is more likely to have my gun, I'm not accepting your word on it.
Go look up the CDC's reports on mortality rates. They're online somewhere, I posted them in the last gun thread we had. Accidental gun deaths significantly outnumber justifiable firearm homicides year after year (usually at about a 2:1 rate).
What's your definition of "justifiable homicides". According to the statistics you are citing the 2:1 ratio is between accidental deaths and "Legal Intervention". Legal intervention means that the cops shoot somebody. That statistic doesn't include citizen self defense.
Almost 120,000 people died of accidents of which only 222 of them were with firearms. What I gather from that is that a person is 7 times as likely to accidentally kill themselves or someone with everything except a gun, as you are to be killed by a gun wielded intentionally by another.
Accidental gun deaths 789. Death due to complications from pregnancy 760.
Detharin on
0
Options
ZoelI suppose... I'd put it onRegistered Userregular
It's too ambiguous to be a real constitutional clause. It means whatever SCOTUS says it means and no amount of Strunk and White or Black's Law is going to give it any real clarity. This week the Second amendment means this because we have had Bush as a president for long enough to make it mean what it does. After eight years of a democratic president it may well mean something else.
Any argument that it obviously means anything is disingenuous at best.
You could look at the writings of the founders outside of the Constitution to find their views on the issue, if you didn't already consider it obvious.
I could, but any argument that someone could make regarding them is completely irrelevant because people will choose answers that suit their own interests. It's not something clear cut like "Murder is illegal." The answer that anyone comes up with is just part of the cheese of American politics; who gets what, why and how.
It's as pathetic as people during the civil war trying to convince everyone that the Bible justified slavery based on a few out of context verses. If you like slavery, sure, sounds great. If you don't, well then obviously that's wrong. The argument that I am making here, is that when the stakes are really high for interpretation of a particular phrase or verse, anything that isn't explicit means nothing.
This was pretty apparent even when the founders were still alive. There were more than a few situations, after Marshall became Chief Justice, where a decision was rendered and the framers were alive "Uh, that actually isn't what we intended at all."
Marshall's response? Well then you should have written it that way you retards.
His more nuanced response was actually "The people made the constitution and the people can unmake it." I.e. yeah a limited number of lawyers on a court will sometimes completely screw things up but hey the constitution is subject to revision if we mess things up that badly.
p.s. hey you guys realize that gun homicides have been on a steady decline mostly because medicine is getting really good at treating gunshot wounds right?
Zoel on
A magician gives you a ring that, when worn, will let you see the world as it truly is.
However, the ring will never leave your finger, and you will be unable to ever describe to another living person what you see.
And even if you're armed, what are you going to do? Shoot the guy? I wouldn't. Point the gun at him and hope that's enough? It's... I don't know what's so damn reassuring about a handgun, frankly, I just don't see the point.
That's great that you wouldn't shoot the guy. I would (hence the reason I own a gun). As would my wife (who was the girlfriend in question). And again, as alien as this might seem to you, I believe I should have that right. We kind of take self-defense pretty seriously over here.
Statistically speaking, the guys more likely to have your gun than you are.
Also, you still wouldn't be beating an arm, in the sense the founding fathers wrote it.
You mean bearing an arm?
Also, do you have a cite on that "he's more likely to have my gun that I am" thing? Like, what are they counting? Because most of those "a gun is more likely to kill its owner or a resident" stats are including suicides and domestic violence, last I checked....you're going to need to back up the fact that an intruder is more likely to have my gun, I'm not accepting your word on it.
Go look up the CDC's reports on mortality rates. They're online somewhere, I posted them in the last gun thread we had. Accidental gun deaths significantly outnumber justifiable firearm homicides year after year (usually at about a 2:1 rate).
But that's not what you [EDIT: Sorry, appears one person without an avatar replied in defense of another...I didn't notice, since their flavor of wrong was about the same] said. What you said, just to drive it home, was...
Statistically speaking, the guys more likely to have your gun than you are.
...not that he's more likely to shoot me than I am him, not that he's more likely to have a gun than I am. Which is not backed up or even loosely implied by your statistics. What I'm guessing you're trying to say is that I'm more likely to be killed by my own gun than shoot somebody else with it, which is the old statistic thrown out by the anti-gun crowd and accepted by the gullible at face value with little question. Then you somehow managed to twist it in your little head into an intruder being more likely to be holding my gun than myself. But no, all they're saying is that lots of people kill themselves with guns.
Plus you're ignoring the fact that I can defend myself or intervene against an intruder without actually firing or killing him.
Besides, when I have somebody who has actually broken into my house, and when that somebody seems likely to do so again, and when I keep the gun accessible specifically for self-defense, I think I've swung the ol' statistics in my favor on this one.
"Accidental" gun deaths are actually pretty rare (as Detharin pointed out, and actually cited). Again, most of the statistics thrown out by the anti-gun crowd without adequate explanation include suicides, because that's generally the best way to make guns look as evil as they need to to further their agenda. The reality is that more kids drown in backyard pools than die from firearms-related accidents. Or are killed in a single busy weekend by drunk drivers.
EDIT: Sorry, I believe it takes two weekends.
EDIT: Also, in case anybody is questioning the CDC's definition of "legal intervention," look no further. A layperson might take the term to mean "interventions that are legal," but it really does just mean interventions by legal authorities. It includes security guards and the like, though.
p.s. hey you guys realize that gun homicides have been on a steady decline mostly because medicine is getting really good at treating gunshot wounds right?
Really? Because all the numbers I'm finding are showing a decline in both fatal and non-fatal firearm injuries over the last decade or so. Where are you getting your data, and could you link it?
Posts
XBL : lJesse Custerl | MWO: Jesse Custer | Best vid ever. | 2nd best vid ever.
Hell yes. I want a soma-gun.
I don't know if anyone else caught the bit of the decent the new outlets bothered to pick up.
err... yes? I really wish I wasn't too lazy to find the full thing. The little looking I did was fruitless. I assume there's another 20 pages explaining why that isn't exactly what the founders thought, but it seems a fairly accurate summation of what the majority believe, and it's like there aren't 9 or so other amendments seeking to limit the tools of elected officials.
just strikes me as an odd thing for the media to run with.
Yes, I mean... wow. I don't want to say bad things about Stevens but really, if you find it difficult to believe that the Framers deliberately limited the powers of government then you should probably not be a judge at all, let alone sit on the SCOTUS
Well that's nice, I don't think Scalia or Roberts belong there, and Thomas definitely doesn't belong there.
My country passed its latest Constitution in 78, and we've reformed it twice. We are not anarchist. If part of the Constitution no longer applies, it gets changed, that's why the reform clauses are IN the Constitution in the first place. It's part of the constitutional plan that it's going to need changes down the line. That's why the amendments are amendments. Because they weren't there to begin with.
Waaait, that one you just made up. We've had gun control for centuries. There is just no valid crime data to report. I'd have problems giving you a history of gun control regulations off the top of my head because it's always been an administrative issue, not a constitutional one. We do gun licenses the way we do driving licenses, and if the regulations need to be tightened we assume the government can handle it. It's only constitutional in the US because being armed was a way to show independence from the Empire.
Yeah, but that was my question.
Why?
I'm saying the rest of the world controls guns and only issues them to people if you've been threatened by terrorists, are part of a law enforcement agency, or are sports guns (i.e., not handguns) and you're a licensed hunter.
Why is this an issue on the XXI century? It makes no sense, what are you using the guns for?
And even if you had some use for the guns, why debate on how much to restric them under the Constitution instead of debating on whether or not the Constitution is RIGHT? It can be the Constitution and be wrong at the same time.
Or do you dispute that possibility? Is it an article of faith in the US that the Constitution is flawless? That's the kind of thing I wanted to know.
And that train of thought is also incredibly fucking alien to me. You want a gun in case a nutcase breaks into your house? Really? Because you think that's going to be more effective than a baseball bat? Calling the police, maybe? Or could it be because there's a fair chance that the guy has a gun himself?
And even if you're armed, what are you going to do? Shoot the guy? I wouldn't. Point the gun at him and hope that's enough? It's... I don't know what's so damn reassuring about a handgun, frankly, I just don't see the point.
As I said, alien.
You have full blown national paranoia going on and the one security enhancement you don't want to do is banning firearms.
Spying on everybody's phone calls? Sure.
Keeping people from acquiring lethal weapons over the counter? Nah, that'd restrict their rights.
It's almost too scary to be funny. The fact that some of you mistake honest puzzlement, concern and curiosity from your neighbours for mindless hate or stupidity is even worse.
Yet I haven't seen anybody claiming they'll extend the Patriot Act "over their cold dead bodies" and, in fact, they are in place.
And not applicable to what? I believe I made very direct, simple questions.
The simple fact is that an amendment to change the 2nd Amendment would never pass. It would probably never even get off the ground.
They aren't actively restricting your right to pass information to a buddy. And you don't hear anything because those people are shouted down by imbeciles similar to those who try to shout down the minority in this thread. They're too busy voting for the same political parties over and over.
Yeah, but why?
Is this just an emotional thing? Is it because you've sacralized the constitution? Do you accept that it could be wrong, outdated or become inapplicable under some circumstances? Is it just about this one amendment or about the whole text?
I find it hard to believe you'd mischaracterize Stevens' comment by extending his doubting that the framers were trying to restrain the government's restricting civilians bearing arms (especially given the fact that, using the period definition of the word bear, civilians couldn't possibly bear arms) to doubting that the framers wanted to restrain anything.
Maybe because there are enough people who like the 2nd Amendment as it is to prevent getting the necessary supermajority to change it?
I assume you have hot-button issues in whatever country you're from, Nova. This is one of ours, that's all.
Yeah, I get it. I was trying to understand the reasoning behind it, that's all, but it's too much like a Monty Python sketch. It's really painful to try and follow the twisted logic of the damn thing.
I'm gonna go put my brain on ice, now. Good night.
You could also say that some of the Founding Fathers feared and abhorred a government where white dudes couldn't take up their muskets and flintlocks and put down a slave revolt, and that's the "correct" historical context for the 2nd Amendment to be interpreted in by so-called Constitutional originalists.
I'm not asking why the Second Amendment is there, I'm asking why is it an ambiguous syntactical nightmare while every other Amendment of the time is in easily understandable language.
Because the founders were up one late night after smoking some dank weed and TJ was all like 'let's fuck with our descendants, put a comma in there.'
And that's the hilarious story of how the 2nd amendment was made.
Because James Madison was drunk off his ass on corn whiskey?
But seriously, most of the other amendments are easily understandable only in comparison to the train wreck that is the 2nd Amendment. The Establishment Clause of the 1st Amendment alone has been interpreted in vastly different ways, for example.
Do people overreact, and if they had firearms, would they overreact? That's a hard one to say. Certainly, I've overreacted. Not to the point where I would be tempted to pull out my firearm and shoot somebody. Beat the everloving piss out of them, yes, shoot, kill, maim? No. Holding a CHL and a CCW, you suddenly have many more responsibilities. You assess things. You're supposed to take that training that you receive, and act sensibly. Almost, like an adult. Will this happen all the time? No. Will it happen the majority of the time? I would hope. Could it happen in a small percentage? Yeah. I'm not saying it's perfect, but it's a good system, and it could see some improvement, like everything.
Do I believe in psych evaluations? Hell no, absolutely not. But if you've been committed, involuntarily, and in some cases, voluntarily, to a mental institution, you shouldn't be able to own guns. If you commit a certain kind of cirme, you shouldn't own guns.
Thanks for already considering my counter-argument. After all, I'd hate to be a one trick pony. But to pander to your needs for that, I'll play along. Yes, somebody with a CCW could deal with the threat. Would this be preferable? Not if everybody pulled out a firearm and started blazing away. If somebody saw what was going on, called the police, and then shot the psycho, would that be better than letting people be murdered at a fast rate waiting for police response? I don't think so. Do I want to go back to the Wild West? Nope, no air conditioning.
If you want to prevent gun crime, quit living in a fairy tale. There are bad people in this world. Educating people helps. Treating problems can help. Preventing them, will do so much more. Gun control doesn't prevent much. If you have the intent to get a firearm, you can get one. Criminals are less likely to pick a victim they believe to be armed. If the victim they pick is carrying, great.
The majority of the gun deaths of children, are often teenagers involved in gang related shootouts. Sad, but it's the way things seem to work. The majority of gun deaths are often skewed facts or incomplete. Some cities when they submit these things fail to submit all or any data. Depending on who comes up with these statistics, they may skew the way the data is presented. I'd say everybody does it. That would include the NRA, the Brady Center, NBC, CNN, FOX, the government, etc. Not that the information is false, just presented in a way that produces favorable responses amongst their target audience.
Maybe it was dumb. Maybe that was a bad sentence. Whatever. Irrelevant. I never mentioned anything about rubber bands or garbage bags. True, you could kill somebody. Thanks for bring that point up.
You take guns out of the hands of law-abiding citizens, who will possess guns? Criminals. This makes things so much easier for them. Okay, you don't believe in that non-sense. That's fine.
If I was truly set on killing somebody, and I had a tool, read that, a tool to do so with, if it made the job easier, I would use it. If I did not have a firearm nearby, but I had a knife, shovel, axe, rock, chair, kitchen plate, etc, to inflict harm, guess what? I'd fucking use one of the implements available to kill somebody.
Hey, airplanes earliest uses were to bomb the hell out of the enemy. Now they ferry people to and from distant locales. Still used to bomb the hell out of the enemy. They take packages of mail, and ship them off far and wide. Still used to bomb the hell out of the enemy.
Whatever use you see for something, there are plenty of ways to use it. Like you said, you can kill somebody with rubber bands and garbage bags. I'd prefer to close my bag of potato chips with rubber bands and deposit my trash in the garbage bag, often lining the trash can.
Many of them were assumed rights, not ones given by the government. Take it written in the context of the time, and the specificity of that exact situation, and it isn't written quite as poorly. Related to the same core issues responsible for some of the heated arguments between federalists and anti.
I dunno, though, really. It's one of only two clauses in the whole Constitution that bothers to justify itself. You don't see "A well-informed Electorate, being necessary to the governance of a free State, the right to Freedom of the Press, shall not be Abridged", you see "Congress shall pass no law restricting the freedom of the press", because it's obvious why we need a free press. I just find it either funny or strange (depending on what mood I'm in) that while the main debate with respect to freedom of religion, press, etc, the debate has been where to draw a pragmatic line and say "well, this speech right here, what with the going into a crowded fire and shouting 'Theater!', can lead to a clear and present danger to the people present", but for the Second Amendment we've been arguing largely over how to parse a fucking sentence. It's downright maddening.
Any argument that it obviously means anything is disingenuous at best.
However, the ring will never leave your finger, and you will be unable to ever describe to another living person what you see.
What is even more confusing is to try and actually reconcile the idea of an inalienable right with government issuance of any right. That, I don't understand.
You could look at the writings of the founders outside of the Constitution to find their views on the issue, if you didn't already consider it obvious.
Sounds good to me.
No, I wanted a gun because a nutcase who had taken an unhealthy sexual interest in my girlfriend had already broken into our house. And yes, I think it would be more effective than a baseball bat. And call the police? You're fucking joking, right? Do I need to start posting stories of people dead or assaulted (including raped) before the police ever arrive? Or stories where the police simply never arrived.
The police are there to figure out who violated you, not stop them from doing so. I'll pass on that, thanks.
In fact, as posted in the last thread, the police have absolutely no obligation to ever respond to your call, nor any obligation to do so in a timely manner. This has been ruled in court. You're on your own for self-defense, the police are not actually your personal bodyguards.
That's great that you wouldn't shoot the guy. I would (hence the reason I own a gun). As would my wife (who was the girlfriend in question). And again, as alien as this might seem to you, I believe I should have that right. We kind of take self-defense pretty seriously over here.
Statistically speaking, the guys more likely to have your gun than you are.
Also, you still wouldn't be beating an arm, in the sense the founding fathers wrote it.
So we both agree that if somebody's determined to commit murder, they will, so, like guns, murder should be legal!
You mean bearing an arm?
Also, do you have a cite on that "he's more likely to have my gun that I am" thing? Like, what are they counting? Because most of those "a gun is more likely to kill its owner or a resident" stats are including suicides and domestic violence, last I checked....you're going to need to back up the fact that an intruder is more likely to have my gun, I'm not accepting your word on it.
Technically speaking, what kills people is lack of oxygen to the brain.
Go look up the CDC's reports on mortality rates. They're online somewhere, I posted them in the last gun thread we had. Accidental gun deaths significantly outnumber justifiable firearm homicides year after year (usually at about a 2:1 rate).
What's your definition of "justifiable homicides". According to the statistics you are citing the 2:1 ratio is between accidental deaths and "Legal Intervention". Legal intervention means that the cops shoot somebody. That statistic doesn't include citizen self defense.
http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr56/nvsr56_10.pdf
Almost 120,000 people died of accidents of which only 222 of them were with firearms. What I gather from that is that a person is 7 times as likely to accidentally kill themselves or someone with everything except a gun, as you are to be killed by a gun wielded intentionally by another.
Accidental gun deaths 789. Death due to complications from pregnancy 760.
I could, but any argument that someone could make regarding them is completely irrelevant because people will choose answers that suit their own interests. It's not something clear cut like "Murder is illegal." The answer that anyone comes up with is just part of the cheese of American politics; who gets what, why and how.
It's as pathetic as people during the civil war trying to convince everyone that the Bible justified slavery based on a few out of context verses. If you like slavery, sure, sounds great. If you don't, well then obviously that's wrong. The argument that I am making here, is that when the stakes are really high for interpretation of a particular phrase or verse, anything that isn't explicit means nothing.
This was pretty apparent even when the founders were still alive. There were more than a few situations, after Marshall became Chief Justice, where a decision was rendered and the framers were alive "Uh, that actually isn't what we intended at all."
Marshall's response? Well then you should have written it that way you retards.
His more nuanced response was actually "The people made the constitution and the people can unmake it." I.e. yeah a limited number of lawyers on a court will sometimes completely screw things up but hey the constitution is subject to revision if we mess things up that badly.
p.s. hey you guys realize that gun homicides have been on a steady decline mostly because medicine is getting really good at treating gunshot wounds right?
However, the ring will never leave your finger, and you will be unable to ever describe to another living person what you see.
But that's not what you [EDIT: Sorry, appears one person without an avatar replied in defense of another...I didn't notice, since their flavor of wrong was about the same] said. What you said, just to drive it home, was...
...not that he's more likely to shoot me than I am him, not that he's more likely to have a gun than I am. Which is not backed up or even loosely implied by your statistics. What I'm guessing you're trying to say is that I'm more likely to be killed by my own gun than shoot somebody else with it, which is the old statistic thrown out by the anti-gun crowd and accepted by the gullible at face value with little question. Then you somehow managed to twist it in your little head into an intruder being more likely to be holding my gun than myself. But no, all they're saying is that lots of people kill themselves with guns.
Plus you're ignoring the fact that I can defend myself or intervene against an intruder without actually firing or killing him.
Besides, when I have somebody who has actually broken into my house, and when that somebody seems likely to do so again, and when I keep the gun accessible specifically for self-defense, I think I've swung the ol' statistics in my favor on this one.
"Accidental" gun deaths are actually pretty rare (as Detharin pointed out, and actually cited). Again, most of the statistics thrown out by the anti-gun crowd without adequate explanation include suicides, because that's generally the best way to make guns look as evil as they need to to further their agenda. The reality is that more kids drown in backyard pools than die from firearms-related accidents. Or are killed in a single busy weekend by drunk drivers.
EDIT: Sorry, I believe it takes two weekends.
EDIT: Also, in case anybody is questioning the CDC's definition of "legal intervention," look no further. A layperson might take the term to mean "interventions that are legal," but it really does just mean interventions by legal authorities. It includes security guards and the like, though.
Really? Because all the numbers I'm finding are showing a decline in both fatal and non-fatal firearm injuries over the last decade or so. Where are you getting your data, and could you link it?