A Question for Gun Advocates

[Trausti]

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."

This is just total BS. The purpose of the Bill of Rights was to provide explicit restrictions on the power of the newly centralized federal government. Any interpretation of the Bill of Rights as aggrandizing the federal government at the expense of the people or the states is wrong. And in any case, by its words the 2nd Amendment does not announce a new right, but that a right to bear arms - already recognized - cannot be infringed by the new federal government. The drafters of the Bill of Rights were, for most of their lives, British subjects, and held on to English common law and various acts of Parliament; chiefly here, the 1699 English Bill of Rights, which gives a right to bear arms (to Protestants, at least). Magna Carta and the English Bill of Rights remain relevant to American jurisprudence. Saying that the 2nd Amendment exists for slave patrols is of the most ignorant "scholarship."

 

[Metaphor]

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.

So, which is it?

 

[Jarhyn]

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

So, which is it?

The question as posed is not coherent. A society is not any individual. An organization may have a treasury, but that treasury is not disposable by any given member. Consensus must be reached. The ethical and game theoretic applications of socially held resources is distinctly different from those pertaining to individually held resources.

 

[maxparrish]

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. ...

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).

Apparently the historiography of the second amendment was not well represented in your readings, and is certainly not represented by the googled source and the C.T. Bogus law article. Backwater revisionists like Bogus always make for entertaining reading for the lay gullible but are not taken too seriously in mainstream second amendment literature.

http://www.constitution.org/lrev/roots/death_collective_right_theory.pdf

http://www.uclalawreview.org/pdf/56-5-5.pdf

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

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

So, which is it?

Parse my answer.

Sure, let people own nukes, because the question isn't a realistic question in the first place.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

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.

You know what would be really interesting? Arguing that those should be the requirements to vote.

 

[Metaphor]

So, which is it?

Parse my answer.

Sure, let people own nukes, because the question isn't a realistic question in the first place.

That's a mealy-mouthed copout. Either it's your view or it isn't, whether or not the question is 'realistic'.

But I'll take you at your word. If you had the power, you would continue to allow the U.S. government to own nuclear arms, and you would allow private ownership in the U.S., of nuclear arms too.

The reason I wanted a straight answer from you (despite your continual unwillingness to provide one) is because I do not want to be accused of building a strawman.

Thanks for admitting the logical consequences of your beliefs.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

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/

Lots of non-specific assertions, few stats. And note that not all "straw purchases" end up with the gun in the hands of a criminal. A gun purchased as a gift is effectively a straw purchase.

- - - Updated - - -

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.

He was in a rural area, not the wilderness. And why a shotgun? The spread of a shotgun is overrated.

 

[DBT]

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.

Actually, grinding away the serial number does not make the serial number disappear entirely, the impact of stamping compresses the metal molecule to quite a depth, invisible to the eye but can be recovered. Also, if a gun is registered to a buyer, that licensed buyer must account for that registered firearm. If he has sold it, he needs to provide details of the sale, who he sold it to. Just like car rego and disposal regulations.

 

[EPresence2]

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.

Actually, grinding away the serial number does not make the serial number disappear entirely, the impact of stamping compresses the metal molecule to quite a depth, invisible to the eye but can be recovered. Also, if a gun is registered to a buyer, that licensed buyer must account for that registered firearm. If he has sold it, he needs to provide details of the sale, who he sold it to. Just like car rego and disposal regulations.

Yeah, I'm reading about how hard (not impossible) it is to get rid of serial numbers. Thanks for the link Then what is the advantage (to the seller) of a straw purchase if it's traceable back to the legal buyer? The buyer could claim it was stolen or lost and how could you prove him wrong? Maybe that's the answer.

 

[Playball40]

Why not court houses?
Airports?
Airplanes?

 

[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/

Lots of non-specific assertions, few stats.

You are describing your initial post reactions Loren. You left out the strawman you employed of criminals removing serial numbers. Creating argument where there weren't any - Sheesh

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

Parse my answer.

Sure, let people own nukes, because the question isn't a realistic question in the first place.

That's a mealy-mouthed copout. Either it's your view or it isn't, whether or not the question is 'realistic'.

But I'll take you at your word. If you had the power, you would continue to allow the U.S. government to own nuclear arms, and you would allow private ownership in the U.S., of nuclear arms too.

The reason I wanted a straight answer from you (despite your continual unwillingness to provide one) is because I do not want to be accused of building a strawman.

Thanks for admitting the logical consequences of your beliefs.

Apparently you think that your absurd question somehow gives you a victory in demonstrating something about my beliefs. I don't know why you think that.

 

[Crazy Eddie]

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

This is just total BS. The purpose of the Bill of Rights was to provide explicit restrictions on the power of the newly centralized federal government. Any interpretation of the Bill of Rights as aggrandizing the federal government at the expense of the people or the states is wrong.

Read it again. The whole point of the 2nd amendment was to prevent the Federal Government from restricting the private ownership of firearms and thus preventing it from interfering with the militia. This made sense in the 18th and 19th centuries when the southern states were facing the very real prospect of slave revolts, but it has ceased to make sense in a world where local insurrections can be just as effectively combatted by the National Guard and private militias generally do more harm than good.

Saying that the 2nd Amendment exists for slave patrols is of the most ignorant "scholarship."

Strictly speaking,t he 2nd Amendment exists to keep the Federal Government from interfering with slave patrols and/or militias. That the right to bears arms predates the 2nd amendment is kind of irrelevant; the Founders were under no specific obligation to preserve English common law, but in this case chose to for both political and practical reasons. Reasons which, 200 years later, are no longer relevant.

 

[Crazy Eddie]

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


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).

Apparently the historiography of the second amendment was not well represented in your readings, and is certainly not represented by the googled source and the C.T. Bogus law article. Backwater revisionists like Bogus always make for entertaining reading for the lay gullible but are not taken too seriously in mainstream second amendment literature.

http://www.constitution.org/lrev/roots/death_collective_right_theory.pdf

http://www.uclalawreview.org/pdf/56-5-5.pdf

Neither of your sources addresses this issue at all, let alone contradict it. Perhaps you have me confused with another argument?

Regardless, I'm not here claiming that the Second Amendment was implicitly meant to be implemented at the State/organization level, in fact I think I was pretty clear on the fact that militias are collections of PRIVATE individuals in PRIVATE possession of weapons. My point is actually that the AIM of including the amendment in the bill of rights was to keep the Federal Government from interfering with the militias -- also known as "the people who had the biggest reason to keep and bear arms" -- and that this issue was very important to the South because they depended on the militias and slave patrols in order to maintain stability during slavery years. In the centuries that have passed since then, the role of the militia has all but disappeared; law enforcement officers are quite well armed (in some cases, excessively so) and state-regulated National Guard is capable of putting down any local insurrection too large for the police to handle. The INDIVIDUAL right to keep and bear arms no longer serves the intended purpose of the Second Amendment: being necessary to the security of a free State. The militia is no longer necessary for that, so the right to keep and bear arms isn't either.

 

[maxparrish]

Apparently the historiography of the second amendment was not well represented in your readings, and is certainly not represented by the googled source and the C.T. Bogus law article. Backwater revisionists like Bogus always make for entertaining reading for the lay gullible but are not taken too seriously in mainstream second amendment literature.

http://www.constitution.org/lrev/roots/death_collective_right_theory.pdf

http://www.uclalawreview.org/pdf/56-5-5.pdf

Neither of your sources addresses this issue at all, let alone contradict it. Perhaps you have me confused with another argument?...

Or perhaps you have confused my suggestion for you to obtain greater intellectual exposure with another comment of your own imagination? You quoted the historiography given at Truthout website which is based on the views of Bogus. You stated that this historiography is reflective of your own readings. And because your and Bogus's readings of the origins and purposes of the 2nd amendment have not been representative of the literature (the standard model) I suggested you read more broadly.

Contrary to your handwaving, 'The issue' is addressed, it is addressed by presenting and providing for support of the standard view of the origins and purposes of the 2nd amendment given in the links and footnotes. If, for example, you had stated that the purpose of Columbus's voyages were to find space aliens and then I referred you to standard historiography that explains other reasons then OF COURSE it addresses 'the issue'. The problem you are having (metaphorically) is that the standard Columbus historiography, while well accepted, does not find the area 51 ideas worthy of serious consideration.

Presently, you clarify your claims:

1. "My point is actually that the AIM of including the amendment in the bill of rights was to keep the Federal Government from interfering with the militias -- also known as "the people who had the biggest reason to keep and bear arms" -- and that this issue was very important to the South because they depended on the militias and slave patrols in order to maintain stability during slavery years."

2. "The INDIVIDUAL right to keep and bear arms no longer serves the intended purpose of the Second Amendment: being necessary to the security of a free State. The militia is no longer necessary for that, so the right to keep and bear arms isn't either."

I will comment on those claims as time permits.

 

[Crazy Eddie]

Neither of your sources addresses this issue at all, let alone contradict it. Perhaps you have me confused with another argument?...

Or perhaps you have confused my suggestion for you to obtain greater intellectual exposure with another comment of your own imagination? You quoted the historiography given at Truthout website which is based on the views of Bogus. You stated that this historiography is reflective of your own readings. And because your and Bogus's readings of the origins and purposes of the 2nd amendment have not been representative of the literature (the standard model) I suggested you read more broadly.

Gotcha. You're suggesting that you have a dispute (that you have so far declined to articulate) with Bogus' historiography.

I can see that you think this dispute is relevant to the subject at hand, but to be abundantly clear: the difference between "collective right" and "individual right" readings of the Second Amendment is NOT the issue I'm addressing.

We aren't discussing this in the context of states rights vs. individual rights; we're discussing this in the context of "the rights of the individual for the individual's self interest" vs. "the rights of the individual for the purpose of his being able to participate in the militia." The militia actually served a purpose in the first century of American history, in which case preserving the individual's right to bear arms makes sense. It no longer serves a purpose in modern times, because the possibility of slave revolts and/or raids by hostile Indian tribes has been reduced to zero, and because the Federal and state governments are now fully capable of ensuring the safety of the states and the nation against such threats.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Actually, grinding away the serial number does not make the serial number disappear entirely, the impact of stamping compresses the metal molecule to quite a depth, invisible to the eye but can be recovered. Also, if a gun is registered to a buyer, that licensed buyer must account for that registered firearm. If he has sold it, he needs to provide details of the sale, who he sold it to. Just like car rego and disposal regulations.

Huh? The paperwork about cars is an anti-theft measure. Around here I simply take the plates off when I sell a car and give the buyer the signed title. I then either return the plates to the DMV or have the DMV put the plates on the replacement car. What became of the old car is of no concern, I do not tell the DMV what I did with it.

 

[DBT]

Actually, grinding away the serial number does not make the serial number disappear entirely, the impact of stamping compresses the metal molecule to quite a depth, invisible to the eye but can be recovered. Also, if a gun is registered to a buyer, that licensed buyer must account for that registered firearm. If he has sold it, he needs to provide details of the sale, who he sold it to. Just like car rego and disposal regulations.

Yeah, I'm reading about how hard (not impossible) it is to get rid of serial numbers. Thanks for the link Then what is the advantage (to the seller) of a straw purchase if it's traceable back to the legal buyer? The buyer could claim it was stolen or lost and how could you prove him wrong? Maybe that's the answer.

We have gun registration, I own guns. From my perspective, I don't need the problem of accounting for guns that I sold to an unlicensed buyer (wouldn't even consider it). It could come back and bite me in several ways. The firearms are on a police files as belonging to me. It's not worth the hassle. I wouldn't do it because I don't want to see guns in the hands of unlicensed individuals who may misuse them.

 

[DBT]

Actually, grinding away the serial number does not make the serial number disappear entirely, the impact of stamping compresses the metal molecule to quite a depth, invisible to the eye but can be recovered. Also, if a gun is registered to a buyer, that licensed buyer must account for that registered firearm. If he has sold it, he needs to provide details of the sale, who he sold it to. Just like car rego and disposal regulations.

Huh? The paperwork about cars is an anti-theft measure. Around here I simply take the plates off when I sell a car and give the buyer the signed title. I then either return the plates to the DMV or have the DMV put the plates on the replacement car. What became of the old car is of no concern, I do not tell the DMV what I did with it.

It wasn't anything to do with cars, not plates. The point was registration, that the item, whatever it is, is registered in your name and any inquiry as to its whereabouts begins with you. You are held accountable for whatever happens to your registered item, a firearm in this instance.