A Question for Gun Advocates

[ralfy]

The Second is not about the right to bear arms. Rather, it uses the right to bear arms (which is natural) as justification for forming militias. That's why it is usually seen in light of Art. 1 Sec. 8 of the Constitution and the Militia Acts.

However, natural rights may be abridged by law.

 

[DBT]

Getting guns out of circulation is a good thing if the guns are in the wrong hands and likely to be used for the wrong reasons. Hence comprehensive background checks and legitimate reasons for ownership. Getting illegally owned firearms out of circulation being the aim.

Such laws do nothing about illegally owned firearms--such guns can be taken under current laws.

"Legitimate reasons for ownership" is basically an attempt to drive guns out of society by keeping people from getting into guns.

No, those of sound mind and proven to be responsible - no history of violence or mental illness - being reasonable human beings, should not be barred from owning firearms if they so wish.

Illegal firearm ownership should be addressed in other ways. Heavy penalties for unlicensed firearm owners, etc, creating the perception that it's not worth the risk getting cought.

After all, all it takes to get a firearms permit is to be of good character and show responsibility.

 

[DBT]

Such laws do nothing about illegally owned firearms--such guns can be taken under current laws.

In other words, comprehensive background checks do nothing about illegally owned firearms. Someone could pass a comprehensive background check and then turn around and sell their firearm to someone who couldn't get one - thus moving more guns into the illegal portion of gun ownership. We need something really innovative to track guns used illegally back to their straw purchase agents to apply some liability (if they haven't reported their gun stolen or sold). I'd suggest having two serial number locations - one that can be easily seen and filed off and another you'd have to destroy the gun to get rid of.

Not if there is hefty penalty for selling firearms to unlicensed individuals. And the gun is registered in the name of the licensed buyer at the point of sale, and is therefore traceable to the buyer, so he or she can be held accountable for the disposal of their firearms.

 

[arkirk]

The Second is not about the right to bear arms. Rather, it uses the right to bear arms (which is natural) as justification for forming militias. That's why it is usually seen in light of Art. 1 Sec. 8 of the Constitution and the Militia Acts.

However, natural rights may be abridged by law.

Thomas Jefferson argued that the right to keep and bear arms for citizens should be revisited after twenty years and only signed off on the Second Amendment because of the likelihood there would be more wars with the British. He wanted an armed citizenry ready to shape up into a militia rapidly.

 

[NobleSavage]

The Second is not about the right to bear arms. Rather, it uses the right to bear arms (which is natural) as justification for forming militias. That's why it is usually seen in light of Art. 1 Sec. 8 of the Constitution and the Militia Acts.

However, natural rights may be abridged by law.

Thomas Jefferson argued that the right to keep and bear arms for citizens should be revisited after twenty years and only signed off on the Second Amendment because of the likelihood there would be more wars with the British. He wanted an armed citizenry ready to shape up into a militia rapidly.

Can you link me to the proof of Jefferson arguing that?

 

[EPresence2]

In other words, comprehensive background checks do nothing about illegally owned firearms. Someone could pass a comprehensive background check and then turn around and sell their firearm to someone who couldn't get one - thus moving more guns into the illegal portion of gun ownership. We need something really innovative to track guns used illegally back to their straw purchase agents to apply some liability (if they haven't reported their gun stolen or sold). I'd suggest having two serial number locations - one that can be easily seen and filed off and another you'd have to destroy the gun to get rid of.

Not if there is hefty penalty for selling firearms to unlicensed individuals. And the gun is registered in the name of the licensed buyer at the point of sale, and is therefore traceable to the buyer, so he or she can be held accountable for the disposal of their firearms.

In other words - comprehensive background checks do something about illegally owned guns IF there is hefty penalty for selling firearms to unlicensed individuals? Of course that "something" only occurs if straw purchase agents get caught in the act. After the serial numbers are filed off the guns are then untraceable. This isn't much different than the less-than-comprehensive background checks and gun trafficking casework we have now.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

Since apparently you advocate that the government ought have the right to own nuclear bombs, then sure I advocate the same for the people.

I'm astonished that you can divine that, given that I've said nothing about what tI think the government ought be able to own.

Yet, you've studiously avoided my question three times now. So, I'll phrase it another way:

If you could determine the law in the United States on this one matter, would you forbid the U.S. government from owning nuclear arms (thus forbidding them for citizens), or would you allow nuclear arms for the government (thus allowing them for citizens).

Sure. It's not like it's a realistic question in the first place.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

The Second Amendment was almost entirely an appeasement to the Southern states, who relied on private/local/state militias to deter and suppress slave revolts and/or slave escapes. The need for a "well-regulated militia" specifically addresses that issue of domestic insurrection in the early days of the United States and has now become entirely obsolete.

Can you back that up this time? Last time I asked you to do so, you rather disappeared.

To be sure, the role of the "well regulated militia" imagined by Second Amendment fanatics (aka "Gun rights advocates") is accomplished by State National Guards.

Certainly, the 2nd Amendment, ratified in 1787, refers to the National Guard, which was created 130 years later, in 1917. What you write must be true because the militias belong to the states, but the National Guard while having state duties, is part of the federal government. The National Guard, federally funded, with bases on federal land, using federally-owned weapons, vehicles, buildings and uniforms, punishing trespassers under federal law, is a "state" militia. Plus, unlike being part of a militia, these National Guard troops are often engaged in police activity. So many reasons what you write must be true.

That is, IF it ever fell to the citizens to take up arms against a tyranical government, it would have to happen at the STATE level -- Jefferson Davis style -- and not at the level of "private/local/town militia." It would basically come down to the combined forces of, say, the Virginia, Alabama, Texas and Florida National Guard storming Washington D.C. and overthrowing the government because Obama. The National Guard IS the "well-regulated militia" the Second Amendment calls for; it is all our country needs, and it is the only segment of our population that actually NEEDS to have access to firearms. For the rest of us, they are sporting instruments or anti-pest devices, and you need to be able to demonstrate your suitability in either case.

I like how you're trying to make it subtly about race, and therefore don't mention the idea of New York, Massachusetts, and Virginia doing something about Bush and Cheney.

You know how to tell when a conservoprogressive is out of arguments? When they say "because racism" to everything. And yet the first gun control laws were entirely about racism, to keep weapons out of the hands of minorities. The racist origins of gun control are well documented.

 

[Jarhyn]

I would consider myself a gun advocate. I am not what most gun advocates would consider a gun advocate. I think that more people should have weapons, namely handguns and rifles. I do not, however, accept the situation we currently have.

Currently we have barely-trained awful marksmen who have not been forced to learn respect for their weapons, nor to have anything approaching a healthy fear of them. We also give people access to weapons that are disgustingly and unnecessarily powerful.

I am pretty big on game theory. In the gun game, when placed inside the ethics game's context, the goal is not to kill 7 whole people. The goal is to scare seven whole armed people away. Assuming the seven are mostly sane and have some healthy, even if darwinistic, fear for their lives, 7 rounds is enough. 6 rounds would probably do it too, but I'm willing to assume bad marksmanship.

So I would say every adult capable of passing a weapons respect course (ala military weapons training), and a demonstrates knowledge of how and why and when and how a weapon should be used should have such a weapon. But we also should not be in the nasty business of making and selling weapons which grossly exceed what people would need to stand against an armed group. Seven shots for handguns, and manual action rifles.

 

[TV and credit cards]

1) I'd like to see the requirements for concealed carry upped--require some simulator training.

I'd make this instructor led training. It keeps the intimidation factor high. You have to rattle the trainee's cage. I've sent many students to courses like rescue swimmer and weapons & tactics training for boarding ships. Many have the physical ability but fail under pressure.

Make sure people are properly insured/post a bond.

Thorough psychological testing. Ensure the individual is not only mentally stable but is mature.

I'd venture to guess many people who have concealed carry permits stop carrying after awhile. It's a pain in the ass to carry a gun around constantly.
Further, I'd also venture to guess most people who carry, if put in an emergency situation, would flee with the rest of the crowd rather than stand their ground. It's like the guy that spends all his time in the gym building his muscles. There's no machine that builds courage. I don't care if your carrying or not, gunfire is scary.

I know there was a news story about waitresses in Rifle, CO who carry while on the job. I'd like to get some honest opinions what it's like staying on your feet eight hours a day with 2-3 extra pounds strapped to one side. It gets heavy after awhile. Not that I've ever been a waitress.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

"Legitimate reasons for ownership" is basically an attempt to drive guns out of society by keeping people from getting into guns.

No it isn't. But I can see how you would interpret it as so.

If I had to pass the same test to drive car I could say, "So I can get to work so I can feed my family. So I can engage in recreation. So I can buy food. Etc. In the case of guns if can be for personal protection and because of constitutional guarantee.

If I wish to own an arsenal of hundreds of guns and thousands of rounds of ammunition I should certainly have to measure up to a higher standard. This is the foundation of a civilized society. I should also be required to accept liability for those firearms, same as I do any other possession.

Are you claiming that firearm ownership is special and should not come with accountability?

The problem is that other than occupational reasons you have a catch-22: To get into guns you need guns--but with such rules someone who isn't already into guns can't get one. The existing community is pretty much unaffected new entrants are effectively barred.

- - - Updated - - -

Such laws do nothing about illegally owned firearms--such guns can be taken under current laws.

In other words, comprehensive background checks do nothing about illegally owned firearms. Someone could pass a comprehensive background check and then turn around and sell their firearm to someone who couldn't get one - thus moving more guns into the illegal portion of gun ownership. We need something really innovative to track guns used illegally back to their straw purchase agents to apply some liability (if they haven't reported their gun stolen or sold). I'd suggest having two serial number locations - one that can be easily seen and filed off and another you'd have to destroy the gun to get rid of.

Criminals aren't too effective at removing serial numbers as it is--and they usually don't care because the guns weren't obtained by legal means in the first place.

- - - Updated - - -

Such laws do nothing about illegally owned firearms--such guns can be taken under current laws.

"Legitimate reasons for ownership" is basically an attempt to drive guns out of society by keeping people from getting into guns.

No, those of sound mind and proven to be responsible - no history of violence or mental illness - being reasonable human beings, should not be barred from owning firearms if they so wish.

Illegal firearm ownership should be addressed in other ways. Heavy penalties for unlicensed firearm owners, etc, creating the perception that it's not worth the risk getting cought.

After all, all it takes to get a firearms permit is to be of good character and show responsibility.

Yup. I favor firearms licenses--but I think they should be like driver's licenses, the state must issue them unless it can show a reason not to.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

So I would say every adult capable of passing a weapons respect course (ala military weapons training), and a demonstrates knowledge of how and why and when and how a weapon should be used should have such a weapon. But we also should not be in the nasty business of making and selling weapons which grossly exceed what people would need to stand against an armed group. Seven shots for handguns, and manual action rifles.

You're assuming rational attackers.

Many years ago in one of these gun debates I ran into a guy who wouldn't be here under your rules. He was attacked by a large dog pack, it took more than 7 shots to drive off the survivors.


Furthermore, it's only in Hollywood that you reliably drop someone with one round.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

1) I'd like to see the requirements for concealed carry upped--require some simulator training.

I'd make this instructor led training. It keeps the intimidation factor high. You have to rattle the trainee's cage. I've sent many students to courses like rescue swimmer and weapons & tactics training for boarding ships. Many have the physical ability but fail under pressure.

I wasn't ruling out other training, simply saying that it should include simulator time where they face realistic shoot/don't-shoot situations.

Make sure people are properly insured/post a bond.

This one worries me.

Thorough psychological testing. Ensure the individual is not only mentally stable but is mature.

Too subjective.

Further, I'd also venture to guess most people who carry, if put in an emergency situation, would flee with the rest of the crowd rather than stand their ground. It's like the guy that spends all his time in the gym building his muscles. There's no machine that builds courage. I don't care if your carrying or not, gunfire is scary.

If you can flee you should. Concealed carry is for when retreat is not an option.

 

[PyramidHead]

None of the precautions people mention would be as critical if there existed a viable non-lethal way to defend oneself. I get that guns work well against baddies who want to invade my home or steal my wallet. But they also can discharge accidentally into a child's face, or end up in the hands of people with mental problems, or ordinary people whose anger gets the better of them occasionally. My problem with guns is that they make killing someone so very easy. There has to be a way to design non-lethal weapons to be both highly effective at incapacitating someone and extremely unlikely to result in their death. This is not an insurmountable logistical hurdle for the scientific prowess wielded by a superpower. The army uses technology with a similar rationale routinely, albeit on a larger scale. If optimal non-lethal weapons were aggressively pursued by the best minds in R&D and made available to consumers, what would be the downside to simply banning all conventional firearms except for law enforcement, military, and animal control? Must it be within the power of every citizen to obtain a device that can instantly kill someone?

 

[EPresence2]

Such laws do nothing about illegally owned firearms--such guns can be taken under current laws.

In other words, comprehensive background checks do nothing about illegally owned firearms. Someone could pass a comprehensive background check and then turn around and sell their firearm to someone who couldn't get one - thus moving more guns into the illegal portion of gun ownership. We need something really innovative to track guns used illegally back to their straw purchase agents to apply some liability (if they haven't reported their gun stolen or sold). I'd suggest having two serial number locations - one that can be easily seen and filed off and another you'd have to destroy the gun to get rid of.

Criminals aren't too effective at removing serial numbers as it is--and they usually don't care because the guns weren't obtained by legal means in the first place.

It wouldn't be the criminals removing the serial numbers but rather the legal gun buyers who turn around and sell them to people who shouldn't have them. The criminals wouldn't give a rats ass if serial numbers were removed or not. I obviously wasn't talking about criminals in the paragraph you quoted. Straw purchasing is a major problem you can't seem to acknowledge it seems - http://smartgunlaws.org/straw-purchases-policy-summary/

 

[Crazy Eddie]

Can you back that up this time? Last time I asked you to do so, you rather disappeared.

I can't seem to recall you ever asking me to do ANYTHING, but twelve seconds of googling turned up this:

The real reason the Second Amendment was ratified, and why it says "State" instead of "Country" (the Framers knew the difference - see the 10th Amendment), was to preserve the slave patrol militias in the southern states, which was necessary to get Virginia's vote. Founders Patrick Henry, George Mason, and James Madison were totally clear on that . . . and we all should be too.

In the beginning, there were the militias. In the South, they were also called the "slave patrols," and they were regulated by the states.

In Georgia, for example, a generation before the American Revolution, laws were passed in 1755 and 1757 that required all plantation owners or their male white employees to be members of the Georgia Militia, and for those armed militia members to make monthly inspections of the quarters of all slaves in the state. The law defined which counties had which armed militias and even required armed militia members to keep a keen eye out for slaves who may be planning uprisings.

As Dr. Carl T. Bogus wrote for the University of California Law Review in 1998, "The Georgia statutes required patrols, under the direction of commissioned militia officers, to examine every plantation each month and authorized them to search 'all Negro Houses for offensive Weapons and Ammunition' and to apprehend and give twenty lashes to any slave found outside plantation grounds."

I've read at least three books on constitutional history that largely bear this out; in almost all interpretations, the Second Amendment was written in the context of 18th century American politics, in which the the southern/slaver states formed a power bloc of their own with which a compromise had to be reached (the three-fifths compromise is another example).

To be sure, the role of the "well regulated militia" imagined by Second Amendment fanatics (aka "Gun rights advocates") is accomplished by State National Guards.

Certainly, the 2nd Amendment, ratified in 1787, refers to the National Guard, which was created 130 years later, in 1917.

No, the second amendment refers to the formation of a well-regulated militia for the purpose of maintaining civil order against domestic uprising. In 1787, the way to do that was by local militias with privately-owned weapons. By 1917, that was no longer feasible, and the militias were incorporated into the National Guard.

That is, IF it ever fell to the citizens to take up arms against a tyranical government, it would have to happen at the STATE level -- Jefferson Davis style -- and not at the level of "private/local/town militia." It would basically come down to the combined forces of, say, the Virginia, Alabama, Texas and Florida National Guard storming Washington D.C. and overthrowing the government because Obama. The National Guard IS the "well-regulated militia" the Second Amendment calls for; it is all our country needs, and it is the only segment of our population that actually NEEDS to have access to firearms. For the rest of us, they are sporting instruments or anti-pest devices, and you need to be able to demonstrate your suitability in either case.

I like how you're trying to make it subtly about race

Actually I'm trying to make it subtly about REPUBLICANS, the political party (and states) that in the not too recent past have been home to politicians and pundits who have talked about doing EXACTLY this.

I'm beginning to wonder if the reason I didn't answer you "the last time" is because I didn't think you were worth responding to.

You know how to tell when a conservoprogressive is out of arguments? When they say "because racism" to everything. And yet the first gun control laws were entirely about racism, to keep weapons out of the hands of minorities. The racist origins of gun control are well documented.

I can't tell if you're being sarcastic or just being a jerk. Either way I have lost interest in talking to you.

 

[Crazy Eddie]

So I would say every adult capable of passing a weapons respect course (ala military weapons training), and a demonstrates knowledge of how and why and when and how a weapon should be used should have such a weapon. But we also should not be in the nasty business of making and selling weapons which grossly exceed what people would need to stand against an armed group. Seven shots for handguns, and manual action rifles.

You're assuming rational attackers.

Many years ago in one of these gun debates I ran into a guy who wouldn't be here under your rules. He was attacked by a large dog pack, it took more than 7 shots to drive off the survivors.

"In case you are attacked by a large pack of dogs" just might be the flimsiest reason I have ever heard to carry a concealed weapon.

Although, if you live in an area where wild dog attacks are common, a shotgun might come in handy.

Furthermore, it's only in Hollywood that you reliably drop someone with one round.

True. Most people either run away or hide behind something as soon as they realize you're shooting at them.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

You know how to tell when a conservoprogressive is out of arguments? When they say "because racism" to everything. And yet the first gun control laws were entirely about racism, to keep weapons out of the hands of minorities. The racist origins of gun control are well documented.

I can't tell if you're being sarcastic or just being a jerk. Either way I have lost interest in talking to you.

Neither, I'm being factual - unlike your "gun ownership is about racism" arguments, the racist origins of gun control are very well documented and not the result of a poorly written poorly researched opinion screed. Try reading Justice Thomas' separate concurrence in McDonald v. City of Chicago, in which a black man wanted the right of self defense and the progressive government of Chicago said that minorities do not have self defense rights. His opinion was actually stronger than the majority opinion. Justice Thomas , concurring in part and concurring in the judgment.

 

[Sarpedon]

"In case you are attacked by a large pack of dogs" just might be the flimsiest reason I have ever heard to carry a concealed weapon.

Although, if you live in an area where wild dog attacks are common, a shotgun might come in handy.

Yup, you gotta carry a gun to deal with those wild dogs that you refuse to pay taxes to have professionals take care of, because the government is bad. Small children are just out of luck.

 

[Jarhyn]

So I would say every adult capable of passing a weapons respect course (ala military weapons training), and a demonstrates knowledge of how and why and when and how a weapon should be used should have such a weapon. But we also should not be in the nasty business of making and selling weapons which grossly exceed what people would need to stand against an armed group. Seven shots for handguns, and manual action rifles.

You're assuming rational attackers.

Many years ago in one of these gun debates I ran into a guy who wouldn't be here under your rules. He was attacked by a large dog pack, it took more than 7 shots to drive off the survivors.


Furthermore, it's only in Hollywood that you reliably drop someone with one round.

Read the post again, this time pay close attention to the bit about game theory. As to packs of wild dogs, game theory is also applicable. Having assault weapons in case of wild dogs is a bad gamble; people go off the rails and shoot places up with assault weapons more often than giant packs of aggressive wild dogs attack people.

Simply put, Te goal isn't to kill 7 people. If there are 7 armed persons, and they do not fear death, they will kill you regardless of what you are shooting, particularly since not every shot will drop someone. They will still have seven rounds to your 1. The point is to shoot at least one and threaten the rest with the possibility of being shot. Faced with that reality, the vast majority of attacking groups will flee.