The Virginia Shooting, Gun Rights, and Revolutions (Split from News thread)

[Tairis]

While I have the same problem figuring out what exactly Tairis means and broadly agree with your points on the Second Amendment, Lisztes, I do not think we will get anywhere in this thread arguing the Second Amendment. If this is something to debate here, perhaps it is time to start a new thread for it, because we are arguing so many different aspects of gun-related topics here, the broader the discussion gets, the more likely we might miss points were people can actually agree on.

We have had moments here when I thought both sides of the debate could actually agree on some sort of consensus, agree at least on some basis from where a more detailed debate could be taken. Maybe we should focus on that and leave the Constitution for another time?

eBadger summed it up already in this post and the same thing has been determined by the US Supreme Court every time it has been brought up.

https://elliquiy.com/forums/index.php?topic=235540.msg11725126#msg11725126

  Yes, but you said you would ignore not taking guns into a movie even if it was the law. Why would you ignore that law but obey the Gun Free zone law, despite disagreeing with both?

Taking guns into a movie theatre is not a law, however, and I only obey the 'gun free zone' laws in such a situation where it would be detrimental to me. IE places that actually do something other than post a sign. Courthouses, for example, pretty much universally have metal detectors and security. Your average college campus does not. In the end it works out because those situations where the idea of  a gun free zone is actually enforced (ironically usually where the politicians do business) it is effective because the law isn't what is stopping people from being armed: it's the cops with guns of their own and metal detectors.

  Also, which states exactly have laws making sex out of wed lock a crime?

Short version, there are still 14 states in the union with sodomy laws on the books despite Supreme Court rulings. The entire history of that basket of fun can be found here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sodomy_laws_in_the_United_States

  But guns already cost money, and since I'm guessing they are taxed, the government is already charging something for them. Are guns in fact tax exempt?

No, they are not, though as pointed out it varies from state to state whether there is sales tax.

Whether or not they are taxed is irrelevant, however, because the point of a tax is not to restrict access. If you crafted a bill requiring a $250.00 license fee and all the same requirements as a concealed carry permit then you are opening up to the legal argument that one group is being priced out or restricted from what is considered a basic right.

This is the same issue that has come up recently with voting restriction laws. Numerous states passed laws that required stricter identification when voting, changed the hours voting was eligible for, etc. These changes made it where voters had less time to cast ballots early, made it where individuals would need to take time off of work, etc. Many of those laws have been contested in the courts because the apparent aim of the law is to reduce minority voter turn out during major elections.

[LisztesFerenc]

Short version, there are still 14 states in the union with sodomy laws on the books despite Supreme Court rulings. The entire history of that basket of fun can be found here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sodomy_laws_in_the_United_States

  Yes, but they are all invalid, as of 2003. Which whilst shocking recent, still makes your claim 12 years out of date.

  As for the rest, I'll agree to disagree so we can focus on common ground.
 

[Cycle]

According to Wikipedia, the Supreme Court's interpretation of the Second Amendment has evolved over time:

In United States v. Cruikshank (1876), the Supreme Court of the United States ruled that, "The right to bear arms is not granted by the Constitution; neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence" and limited the applicability of the Second Amendment to the federal government.[9] In United States v. Miller (1939), the Supreme Court ruled that the federal government and the states could limit any weapon types not having a "reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia".[10][11]

In the twenty-first century, the amendment has been subjected to renewed academic inquiry and judicial interest.[11] In District of Columbia v. Heller (2008), the Supreme Court handed down a landmark decision that held the amendment protects an individual right to possess and carry firearms.[12][13] In McDonald v. Chicago (2010), the Court clarified its earlier decisions that limited the amendment's impact to a restriction on the federal government, expressly holding that the Fourteenth Amendment applies the Second Amendment to state and local governments to the same extent that the Second Amendment applies to the federal government.[14] Despite these decisions, the debate between various organizations regarding gun control and gun rights continues.[15]

[Tairis]

  Yes, but they are all invalid, as of 2003. Which whilst shocking recent, still makes your claim 12 years out of date.

  As for the rest, I'll agree to disagree so we can focus on common ground.

Thing is those laws still exist and you can be charged with them. Now any good lawyer (IE not a public defender) is going to get the case tossed based on the supreme court decision, but until something gets elevated to a high court level they still technically linger.

All in all its an irrelevant fact distracting from the point. You're telling me that if those very recent laws were on the books you'd abide by them?

According to Wikipedia, the Supreme Court's interpretation of the Second Amendment has evolved over time:

The Cruiskank decision basically said 'the 2nd amendment only keeps the federal government from interfering'. It was later decided that the 14th amendment's first provision should apply to all items in the Bill of Rights. I also never quite understood the whole militia argument in the first place. So gun control advocates are much happier with the idea of private citizens para-military groups? Because we've got those in the south already. They're kinda scary.

[Cycle]

The Cruiskank decision basically said 'the 2nd amendment only keeps the federal government from interfering'. It was later decided that the 14th amendment's first provision should apply to all items in the Bill of Rights.

From the decision itself:  the Second Amendment doesn't provide a right to bear arms nor prohibit States or local governments from restricting said right.

The right there specified is that of "bearing arms for a lawful purpose." This is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. The second amendment declares that it shall not be infringed, but this, as has been seen, means no more than that it shall not be infringed by Congress. This is one of the amendments that has no other effect than to restrict the powers of the national government, leaving the people to look for their protection against any violation by their fellow citizens of the rights it recognizes, to what is called, in The City of New York v. Miln, 11 Pet. 139, the "powers which relate to merely municipal legislation, or what was, perhaps, more properly called internal police," "not surrendered or restrained" by the Constitution of the United States.[4]

Looks like it was Heller and McDonald, decided about 150 years later, that applied the Second Amendment to protect individual's right to own guns:

District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008), was a landmark case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held in a 5-4 decision that the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution applies to federal enclaves and protects an individual's right to possess a firearm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. The decision did not address the question of whether the Second Amendment extends beyond federal enclaves to the states,[1] which was addressed later by McDonald v. Chicago (2010). It was the first Supreme Court case to decide whether the Second Amendment protects an individual right to keep and bear arms for self-defense.[2]

On June 26, 2008, the Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit in Heller v. District of Columbia.[3][4] The Supreme Court struck down provisions of the Firearms Control Regulations Act of 1975 as unconstitutional, determined that handguns are "arms" for the purposes of the Second Amendment, found that the Regulations Act was an unconstitutional ban, and struck down the portion of the Regulations Act that requires all firearms including rifles and shotguns be kept "unloaded and disassembled or bound by a trigger lock." "Prior to this decision the Firearms Control Regulation Act of 1975 also restricted residents from owning handguns except for those registered prior to 1975."[5]

I also never quite understood the whole militia argument in the first place. So gun control advocates are much happier with the idea of private citizens para-military groups? Because we've got those in the south already. They're kinda scary.

According to Wikipedia, the word Militia meant something different back when there were drafting the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.  Seems like their Militia is something closer to our modern National Guards--i.e., units under the control and direction of the government:

The term militia in the United States has been defined and modified by Congress several times throughout U.S. history. As a result, the meaning of "the militia" is complex and has transformed over time.[1] It has historically been used to describe all able-bodied men who are not members of the Army or Navy (Uniformed Services). From the U.S. Constitution, Article II (The Executive branch), Sec. 2, Clause 1: "The President shall be the Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States when called into the actual service of the United States."

[Cassandra LeMay]

So gun control advocates are much happier with the idea of private citizens para-military groups?

Not really, no, at least not as far as I am concerned. But, aside from Sec. 2, Clause 1 of the constitution Cycle has already pointed out, there's also Art. 1, Sec. 8 of the constitution that gives Congress the power: "To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, ...". I think that makes it pretty clear that the militia mentioned in the Second Amendment was not intended or envisioned as some form of private, para-military group outside the governments control. In so far I don't see emphasizing the "militia" aspect of the Second as some sort of endorsement for the type of "militia" groups you are referring to.

[Tairis]

Yea, it's come up many times. Funny thing about the Cruikshank decision... that decision was made allowing a number of white citizens to avoid charges of trying to suppress the rights of freed slaves after the 14th amendment was passed. And it was eventually overturned when it was challenged directly with the decision in 2008. I might add that same decision also ruled  on the First Amendment "was not intended to limit the powers of the State governments in respect to their own citizens, but to operate upon the National Government alone,".

So if we want to go with that century old decision your state is also perfectly eligible to infringe on your First Amendment rights.

The Supreme Court has ruled that it is an individual right and that the 14th Amendment protects it. I'm not going to keep arguing whether or not its valid. If you want to have that argument have it with someone else, as far as I'm concerned its not on the table for negotiation. If we get to the day that said right is nullified and action is taken to actively disarm people (as has occurred in the UK) then I assure you, you are going to have a great deal of violence on your hands because then all the people that sit comfortably in the middle of 'yes we should have guns, but maybe it shouldn't be as easy to get them' are going to shift right on over to the crazy right wing side.

[LisztesFerenc]

The Supreme Court has ruled that it is an individual right and that the 14th Amendment protects it. I'm not going to keep arguing whether or not its valid. If you want to have that argument have it with someone else, as far as I'm concerned its not on the table for negotiation. If we get to the day that said right is nullified and action is taken to actively disarm people (as has occurred in the UK) then I assure you, you are going to have a great deal of violence on your hands because then all the people that sit comfortably in the middle of 'yes we should have guns, but maybe it shouldn't be as easy to get them' are going to shift right on over to the crazy right wing side.

  As I asked the other person in this thought who mentioned this prospect, would you still advocate armed revolution if the Supreme Court changed its ruling of the 2nd amendment based on the democratic will of the people?

[Cycle]

Oh, I'm not saying Cruikshank is still the leading decision.  No, Heller and McDonald definitely took a different tack.  What I was simply pointing out--and it looks like we have no disagreement on this--is that the Supreme Court's position with respect to the Second Amendment has not been the same over time.  It has changed.  And the Second Amendment has not guaranteed a Constitutional right to own firearms for hundreds of years.  That's apparently a myth.  Such a right seems to have evolved in the last 20 odd years.

Indeed, having dug into this further, I can see how folks can argue that the Second Amendment was not originally drafted to grant the right to privately own guns, but rather to ensure that the States can have their own armed forces that are cannot be infringed upon by the Federal Government:  i.e., reading the text of the Second Amendment together with the way "Militia" was used back then.  But just as corporations are now citizens, and same sex couples have the right to wed, I'll follow the Supreme Court's decision that the Second Amendment now gives citizens a reasonable right to own firearms.

[Tairis]

  As I asked the other person in this thought who mentioned this prospect, would you still advocate armed revolution if the Supreme Court changed its ruling of the 2nd amendment based on the democratic will of the people?

Let me counter with a question of my own. Would you advocate revolution if they did the same thing to the 1st Amendment and instituted a national religion?

In answer, though, yes, because we are not in a true democracy. We, as citizens, do not vote for the laws that are passed. In the current system we are essentially presented with a few handpicked 'choices' and told 'vote for the one that you hate the least' and then those same people get to do whatever they want once they get there.

Any attempt to remove or restrict any portion of the Bill of Rights I would consider a reason for active resistance. The people that founded this country established the bill of rights because they had seen first hand what happened when a government had no real restrictions on its actions and how easy it was to manipulate existing laws to favor those in power. Those 10 amendments were meant to provide hard, clear cut holds on government power.

As for the militia thing, I never understand the obsession. It's like all anyone ever sees is the word 'militia' and ignores the part right after it that says 'the rights of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.' Who exactly are 'the people' in this scenario other than citizens of the United States?

[LisztesFerenc]

Let me counter with a question of my own. Would you advocate revolution if they did the same thing to the 1st Amendment and instituted a national religion?

  Of course I wouldn't. I'd try to get that reversed through non-violent means. Social campaigning, voting.

  Now if voting rights were being rescinded, that's another matter. But I probably still wouldn't advocate armed revolution. I'd trust the army to do the right thing. If they choose to side with the people, the government will fall. If they stick with the government, untrained personnel are unlikely to win and it would likely become an ideological battle.

  Also, I'm European. So I see either comparison as false.

Any attempt to remove or restrict any portion of the Bill of Rights I would consider a reason for active resistance. The people that founded this country established the bill of rights because they had seen first hand what happened when a government had no real restrictions on its actions and how easy it was to manipulate existing laws to favor those in power. Those 10 amendments were meant to provide hard, clear cut holds on government power.

  So you'd advocate armed revolution over Civil Forfeiture? Police taking your stuff because they suspect it is connected to criminal activity sounds like its a violation of the 4th amendment.

In answer, though, yes, because we are not in a true democracy. We, as citizens, do not vote for the laws that are passed. In the current system we are essentially presented with a few handpicked 'choices' and told 'vote for the one that you hate the least' and then those same people get to do whatever they want once they get there.

  So when the Supreme Court rules in your favour, then you aren't interested in discussing it. When it doesn't, armed revolt. To me, that's a worrying attitude.

[Cycle]

As for the militia thing, I never understand the obsession. It's like all anyone ever sees is the word 'militia' and ignores the part right after it that says 'the rights of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.' Who exactly are 'the people' in this scenario other than citizens of the United States?

The Second Amendment states:

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

According to this source, there was a disagreement between the Supreme Court justices when they decided Heller.  Five felt that the second part--"the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed"--is not limited by the first part--"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State".  In other words, the people's right to bear arms shall not be infringed, regardless of whether those people are in a militia.

Four felt that the second part should operate within the framework of the first part:  "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."  In other words, people's right to bear arms are not limited to the extent that is necessary to maintain a well regulated militia.

The five won, of course.  And since 2008, that's how the Second Amendment should be applied.  But that doesn't mean (a) that's the way it has always been interpreted, or (b) another case can't come along later and change this interpretation again.

To me, this shows that if folks can agree, and if folks try hard enough, the scope of gun control/the right to own firearms can be altered one way or the other.  That is, having these discussions and looking into these issues matters.

[Tairis]

  Of course I wouldn't. I'd try to get that reversed through non-violent means. Social campaigning, voting.

  Now if voting rights were being rescinded, that's another matter. But I probably still wouldn't advocate armed revolution. I'd trust the army to do the right thing. If they choose to side with the people, the government will fall. If they stick with the government, untrained personnel are unlikely to win and it would likely become an ideological battle.

  Also, I'm European. So I see either comparison as false.

So the government is telling you that you don't have the right to free speech, but you're expecting a social campaign to somehow change this? Tell me how that's working out for citizens of Iran, the Russian Federation, etc.

  So you'd advocate armed revolution over Civil Forfeiture? Police taking your stuff because they suspect it is connected to criminal activity sounds like its a violation of the 4th amendment.

If it got to the point that it became wide spread? Yes. Right now Civil Forfeiture is a poorly written set of laws that need to be challenged legally. Unfortunately the subset of citizenry that they target is usually the group that is least capable of fighting back.

  So when the Supreme Court rules in your favour, then you aren't interested in discussing it. When it doesn't, armed revolt. To me, that's a worrying attitude.

No, I'm not interested in discussing it because its an endless argument that I've made it very clear that I'm not interested in having. There are basic rights set down by our Bill of Rights/Constitution. They are not on the table for negotiation as far as I'm concerned. If people want to discuss ways to limit gun violence through reasonable means (improved background checks, increasing the time and effort investment to acquire firearms, etc) I'm all for it. But 'amend the bill of rights to remove this whole pesky right to bear arms thing' isn't one that I'm going to entertain, period, so you might as well save your breath.

Should we get to the point that the government is attempting to revoke that right and confiscate lawfully owned weapons from citizenry en masse? There is indeed going to be violence.

The Second Amendment states:

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

According to this source, there was a disagreement between the Supreme Court justices when they decided Heller.  Five felt that the second part--"the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed"--is not limited by the first part--"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State".  In other words, the people's right to bear arms shall not be infringed, regardless of whether those people are in a militia.

Four felt that the second part should operate within the framework of the first part:  "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."  In other words, people's right to bear arms are not limited to the extent that is necessary to maintain a well regulated militia.

The five won, of course.  And since 2008, that's how the Second Amendment should be applied.  But that doesn't mean (a) that's the way it has always been interpreted, or (b) another case can't come along later and change this interpretation again.

To me, this shows that if folks can agree, and if folks try hard enough, the scope of gun control/the right to own firearms can be altered one way or the other.  That is, having these discussions and looking into these issues matters.

And so begins again the circular argument. Well-regulated militia meaning what? The gun control advocates are going to complain that it should only be the government with guns. Anti-control advocates are going to say that every one should have them. eBadger already posted numerous examples of our Founding Fathers' opinions on the right and necessity of armed citizens.

Its also important to point out that rarely, if ever, has the right of gun ownership been brought to the Supreme Court's attention as a direct question. In the other major cases, Cruikshank and the 1939 decision, the parties involved invoked the 2nd Amendment as a defense against another criminal act. Cruikshank was a decision to protect white citizens that were suppressing black voters. The 1939 US vs Miller decision was based around a ruling that a 'short barreled shotgun had no value to a militia' and was based around a known criminal's defense. Made all the more ironic by the fact that both sides of the argument cite that ruling to support their views.

The 2008 Heller decision was the result of the question being posed to the Supreme Court of 'does the Constitution guarantee the right to bear arms'? It was not a tertiary part of a larger political argument, it was the focus of the argument.

[LisztesFerenc]

So the government is telling you that you don't have the right to free speech, but you're expecting a social campaign to somehow change this? Tell me how that's working out for citizens of Iran, the Russian Federation, etc.

  I'd expect a social campaign to go better than an armed revolt against the military (and as mentioned, if the military joined the people, an armed revolt would be unnecessary). Do you think citizens of the Russian Federation would serve themselves better with an armed revolt?

If it got to the point that it became wide spread? Yes. Right now Civil Forfeiture is a poorly written set of laws that need to be challenged legally.

  It has been challenged 1996, where the Supreme Court upheld it as constitutional 5-4. It should be challenged again yes, but then it should have been ruled unconstitutional the first time.

No, I'm not interested in discussing it because its an endless argument that I've made it very clear that I'm not interested in having. There are basic rights set down by our Bill of Rights/Constitution. They are not on the table for negotiation as far as I'm concerned. If people want to discuss ways to limit gun violence through reasonable means (improved background checks, increasing the time and effort investment to acquire firearms, etc) I'm all for it. But 'amend the bill of rights to remove this whole pesky right to bear arms thing' isn't one that I'm going to entertain, period, so you might as well save your breath.

  We both know this won't happen, I just find it disturbing how some people seem to think armed revolution is justified in such circumstances, even when I specify that in this hypothetical scenario, the government was simply following the democratic will of the people.

[Cycle]

And so begins again the circular argument. Well-regulated militia meaning what? The gun control advocates are going to complain that it should only be the government with guns. Anti-control advocates are going to say that every one should have them.

I was summarizing the positions of the justices in the Heller decision to answer your question.  If you think that's starting an argument on the meaning of militia, you've misread.   

As for your comments concerning what Cruikshank and Miller meant, folks do not need to rely on my or your interpretation of these cases.  They can read the words used by the Court itself.  The Cruikshank decision states:

The second and tenth counts are equally defective. The right there specified is that of 'bearing arms for a lawful purpose.' This is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. The second amendment declares that it shall not be infringed; but this, as has been seen, means no more than that it shall not be infringed by Congress. This is one of the amendments that has no other effect than to restrict the powers of the national government, leaving the people to look for their protection against any violation by their fellow-citizens of the rights it recognizes, to what is called, in The City of New York v. Miln, 11 Pet. 139, the 'powers which relate to merely municipal legislation, or what was, perhaps, more properly called internal police,' 'not surrendered or restrained' by the Constitution of the United States.

Miller states:

In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a 'shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length' at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument.

...

The Constitution as originally adopted granted to the Congress power- 'To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions; To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress.' U.S.C.A.Const. art. 1, 8. With obvious purpose to assure the continuation and render possible the effectiveness of such forces the declaration and guarantee of the Second Amendment were made. It must be interpreted and applied with that end in view.

The Militia which the States were expected to maintain and train is set in contrast with Troops which they [307 U.S. 174, 179]   were forbidden to keep without the consent of Congress. The sentiment of the time strongly disfavored standing armies; the common view was that adequate defense of country and laws could be secured through the Militia- civilians primarily, soldiers on occasion.

To me, this is clear.  The notion that the Second Amendment guarantees the right of private citizens to bear firearms is a modern, and recent, development.  Prior to 2008, the United States Supreme Court had consistently interpreted the Second Amendment to apply in the context of a Militia in the service of the United States government.

[Tairis]

  I'd expect a social campaign to go better than an armed revolt against the military (and as mentioned, if the military joined the people, an armed revolt would be unnecessary). Do you think citizens of the Russian Federation would serve themselves better with an armed revolt?

If they actually want full rights to free speech, etc? Maybe. The kicker with armed revolt is that you need enough of the populace engaged and outraged to reach critical mass for it to become an option. In the Russian Federation, for example, it's not really at that point. Its the minority that are being oppressed with the majority cheers them on. But of course, yay democracy right?

  It has been challenged 1996, where the Supreme Court upheld it as constitutional 5-4. It should be challenged again yes, but then it should have been ruled unconstitutional the first time.

No argument there.

  We both know this won't happen, I just find it disturbing how some people seem to think armed revolution is justified in such circumstances, even when I specify that in this hypothetical scenario, the government was simply following the democratic will of the people.

See my Russian Federation comment above. There are two large issues with the idea of the democratic will of the people somehow being this magical all knowing force.

First it assumes that the majority of people have the best interests of all in mind and are somehow, by the nature of their gestalt power, just.

Second it assumes that this is actually the will of the majority, and not the manufactured result of a corrupt system manipulated by extensive outside forces and determined only by the people that have either decided, been encouraged, or cajoled into voting.

To me, this is clear.  The notion that the Second Amendment guarantees the right of private citizens to bear firearms is a modern, and recent, development.  Prior to 2008, the United States Supreme Court had consistently interpreted the Second Amendment to apply in the context of a Militia in the service of the United States government.

My point is that both of those decisions were not cases brought to the Supreme Court to actually address the right to bear arms. Both cases were the result of a ruling being made for political reasons (Cruishank's ruling was made to protect others, Miller was made to specifically counter a known criminal's challenge). Did the Supreme Court rule that the Constitution didn't protect the right to bear arms in the Cruishank decision because that was the reasonable interpretation? Or did they rule that way to keep black votes disenfranchised and disarmed? Did they rule in the Miller case after a well considered argument on both sides? (They didn't because there was no counter-argument, the plaintiff didn't even show).

Rulings of the Supreme Court are always going to change with the generations. My thought is that at least the 2008 ruling was specifically addressing the question of the right to bear arms and not a politically charged side issue.

[Cycle]

My point is that both of those decisions were not cases brought to the Supreme Court to actually address the right to bear arms. Both cases were the result of a ruling being made for political reasons (Cruishank's ruling was made to protect others, Miller was made to specifically counter a known criminal's challenge).

And my point is that your interpretation is just that.  Your interpretation.  Indeed, one can argue Heller was made for political reasons too.  How the question was presented does not change the fact that it was presented.  And no, even if one party was not present, that doesn't mean the U.S. Supreme Court just rolls over and does whatever the other side wants.

The Supreme Court--as its own words show--did analyze the scope of the Second Amendment and address the right to bear arms.  I've quoted those words.

Eh.  We're not covering new ground here.  Scalia and Stephens have argued/counterargued all of these points in Heller itself.  Scalia's starts on page 50.  Stephen's starts on 105.  The decision also goes on at length about the drafters' intent, what militia means, etc. 

Anyone following this thread can read Heller, Cruikshank and Miller for themselves and decide what the Supreme Court held or did not hold.  You and I are probably best off agreeing to respect the other person's position and moving on.

[LisztesFerenc]

First it assumes that the majority of people have the best interests of all in mind and are somehow, by the nature of their gestalt power, just.

  No it doesn't. It assumes that following the will of the majority of the people is the best form of government we have. If you have a superior model, I'm all ears.

Second it assumes that this is actually the will of the majority, and not the manufactured result of a corrupt system manipulated by extensive outside forces and determined only by the people that have either decided, been encouraged, or cajoled into voting.

  Yes it does, and I'm sure plenty people who oppose any decision made by the Supreme Court ever believe the Justices were acting on such a manufactured majority. Fighting what you believe in even when the majority of the country is against you is an admirable move, for dedication is not for ethics. Advocating armed revolt because you believe the democratic will of the people has been subverted or cajoled is by contrast a very dangerous stance.

[Ironwolf85]

getting back into it I suppose the thing I dislike more than any other in this debate is the NRA.
I assume most people here already know most of their money comes from large scale weapons manufacturers not "outdoor sportsmen" So I'll skip the details on that gripe and get into the meat.

What I wanted to bring up is their most recent proposal to arm all teachers and students across the country, at the expense of the schools or local government of course.

The NRA seems to have nothing good to bring to this conversation anymore, they just seem to scream "OH NOEZ LIBURLS WANT TO TAKE YOUR GUNS! Vote NRA canadates 2016"  I'm a bit tired of it.

[eBadger]

The NRA seems to have nothing good to bring to this conversation anymore, they just seem to scream "OH NOEZ LIBURLS WANT TO TAKE YOUR GUNS! Vote NRA canadates 2016"  I'm a bit tired of it.

*Nods* But again, they're a direct counter to the extreme left on this.  Every time someone says Ban, another NRA member gets their plaid jacket and gun rack. 

[Oniya]

I would honestly be more okay with putting up metal detectors and security guards than trying to arm teachers.  Why?  Because teachers have enough to deal with, never mind adding on the (hopefully) required training and practice required to get someone to a carry-ready status (let alone full concealed-carry).  On top of that, there are some teachers who very likely wouldn't qualify, simply on a physiological level:  older teachers, those with visual impairments - and then there are some who simply wouldn't want to be armed.  Would having a CCW permit become a job requirement for becoming a teacher?  Would the lack of one be seen as a reason to remove/not hire a teacher?

Putting the financial burden on the school system is another red flag for me.  I've seen first hand how badly funds are disbursed through the state education budget (charter schools get theirs first and without delay, while the public schools have to request funds).  How much do you want to bet that the schools in the most 'dangerous' areas (read, 'low-income, Title I, urban districts') would have to cut into their educational resources to afford permits/training/guns?

[Zillah]

And the first time a teacher legally carrying a gun makes a bad decision and shoots the wrong person, what's going to happen?

Seriously, we want to add that to a teacher's responsibilities?

[Cycle]

And the first time a teacher legally carrying a gun makes a bad decision and shoots the wrong person, what's going to happen?

[Tairis]

  No it doesn't. It assumes that following the will of the majority of the people is the best form of government we have. If you have a superior model, I'm all ears.

As the famous Churchhill quote goes 'Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all the others.'

The majority a hundred years ago thought homosexuality should be a crime. A century before that the majority believed that people should be property. These things changed over time, but they rarely changed quietly. Everyone has to decide what laws they will and will not follow. And to decide when those laws reach the point that they must be resisted violence.

  Yes it does, and I'm sure plenty people who oppose any decision made by the Supreme Court ever believe the Justices were acting on such a manufactured majority. Fighting what you believe in even when the majority of the country is against you is an admirable move, for dedication is not for ethics. Advocating armed revolt because you believe the democratic will of the people has been subverted or cajoled is by contrast a very dangerous stance.

That's kind of the point, though, of personal freedom and personal choice. The system we have is broken. The question becomes can it be fixed or is it going to continue to degrade until drastic action does become necessary? And if things do get bad... personally I have no interest in being unarmed for such an eventuality.

I would honestly be more okay with putting up metal detectors and security guards than trying to arm teachers.  Why?  Because teachers have enough to deal with, never mind adding on the (hopefully) required training and practice required to get someone to a carry-ready status (let alone full concealed-carry).  On top of that, there are some teachers who very likely wouldn't qualify, simply on a physiological level:  older teachers, those with visual impairments - and then there are some who simply wouldn't want to be armed.  Would having a CCW permit become a job requirement for becoming a teacher?  Would the lack of one be seen as a reason to remove/not hire a teacher?

Putting the financial burden on the school system is another red flag for me.  I've seen first hand how badly funds are disbursed through the state education budget (charter schools get theirs first and without delay, while the public schools have to request funds).  How much do you want to bet that the schools in the most 'dangerous' areas (read, 'low-income, Title I, urban districts') would have to cut into their educational resources to afford permits/training/guns?

Mandating that teachers carry guns is definitely not a necessary or even desirable step. What I do think, however, should be legal is that a teacher that wants to carry a weapon in the class room would have to undergo training and evaluation. Something akin to what is required of armed security licenses in most states.

Otherwise if you want to make actual 'gun free' zones then the only option to actually enforce that is to install full metal detectors and armed security just like a government building. Which in turn creates significant costs.

[LisztesFerenc]

That's kind of the point, though, of personal freedom and personal choice. The system we have is broken. The question becomes can it be fixed or is it going to continue to degrade until drastic action does become necessary? And if things do get bad... personally I have no interest in being unarmed for such an eventuality.

  Which would be fine, if no one ever died from US gun culture, but they do. So you are paying with human lives now, to be prepared for what might happen in the future. But maybe not in your life time. Or maybe it won't even happen.