You are either not logged in or not registered with our community. Click here to register.
 
December 09, 2016, 03:57:44 AM

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?

Login with username, password and session length

Click here if you are having problems.
Default Wide Screen Beige Lilac Rainbow Black & Blue October Send us your theme!

Hark!  The Herald!
Holiday Issue 2016

Wiki Blogs Dicebot

Author Topic: The Virginia Shooting, Gun Rights, and Revolutions (Split from News thread)  (Read 14925 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Online theLeslie

Re: The Virginia Shooting, Gun Rights, and Revolutions (Split from News thread)
« Reply #250 on: October 16, 2015, 06:17:11 PM »
Sorry about the deleted post, for some reason only the numbers came through the first time I read, now I understand it.and not the categories above them.  That is certainly food for tought.  For some reason I always imagined that knife wounds are so much bigger and so much more traumatic.  Likely because I've cut myself pretty badly on more than one occasion, and sometimes scraping bone can really leave a lasting impression, and yet I've never been shot.  Personal bias paints colorful, hard to ignore pictures in our minds.

Regardless, I don't think that would come into play.  I think what matters is, whether knife or gun, these are issues of violence being used against others.  Be it club, sword, or bow, I feel that we are better served trying to treat the problem, as opposed to addressing the symptoms.


Offline Cycle

Re: The Virginia Shooting, Gun Rights, and Revolutions (Split from News thread)
« Reply #251 on: October 16, 2015, 06:42:09 PM »
Regardless, I don't think that would come into play.  I think what matters is, whether knife or gun, these are issues of violence being used against others.  Be it club, sword, or bow, I feel that we are better served trying to treat the problem, as opposed to addressing the symptoms.

You can treat the problem both by reducing access to the more lethal weapons (e.g., improving the background check system so it is faster and has fewer--or no--"holes") as well as trying to provide more care/resources to those in need.  The latter does not preclude the former.  We can do both.


Online theLeslie

Re: The Virginia Shooting, Gun Rights, and Revolutions (Split from News thread)
« Reply #252 on: October 16, 2015, 06:47:24 PM »
Agreed, we can do both, and I am fully in favor of closing the loop holes that let people by guns at shows and conventions without any type of background check.  I honestly don't understand why the law even exists, if there is such a gaping hole in it.  It invalidates the law, it's like that buying crack is illegal(except at night).  What's the point?

I am only not in favor of restricting personal liberties of those who have done no wrong.  This does not restrict their liberties any more than requiring a drivers license does.

Offline LisztesFerenc

Re: The Virginia Shooting, Gun Rights, and Revolutions (Split from News thread)
« Reply #253 on: October 16, 2015, 06:58:36 PM »
I am only not in favor of restricting personal liberties of those who have done no wrong.  This does not restrict their liberties any more than requiring a drivers license does.

  Cars also require registration and mandatory insurance for injury of third party, which some people argue should be extended to guns too.

Offline Tairis

Re: The Virginia Shooting, Gun Rights, and Revolutions (Split from News thread)
« Reply #254 on: October 16, 2015, 07:46:06 PM »
  So you break the law and you're proud of it? Unless I'm mistaken, the cinemas are privately owned, and so ignoring those signs isn't your right, you are breaking the law by entering a company's property whilst refusing to abide with their request.

Not quite how that works. A private company can post any sign they want. They could post a 100 point font that says 'no one with tattoos is allowed in' or 'no one wearing clothing made of a blend of two fabrics can enter'. Entering anyway does not mean you are breaking the law. Private organizations do not get to make laws. All they can do is ask you to leave and, if you refuse, then involve the cops and possibly trespass you which then would make it a crime if you came back again.

Long story short, it is my right. It's their right to ask me to leave. Which if they did, I would, and they would lose my business. Considering that I carry concealed, however, it's rather difficult for them to determine that I am carrying a weapon if I'm doing so responsibly.

Even if it was technically against the law? See my signature quote for my opinion on that.

  Cars also require registration and mandatory insurance for injury of third party, which some people argue should be extended to guns too.

Cars also aren't a constitutional right, however. Personally I wouldn't have a major issue with making ownership licensed just like my concealed carry permit. This does two things

1) It puts the burden of effort on the individual. Initially getting the permit required a class that took about 4 hours, getting finger printed, and submitting the application with fee.

2) It attaches a monetary cost, upfront cost without immediate payoff. The fee for my application was a little over a hundred bucks, throw in another forty for the class and cost for fingerprinting (Local sheriff's dept charged like 10 bucks) and you've now got a nearly $200 initial investment.

But to play devil's advocate to my own idea what happens when (assuming we implement such a plan) someone comes out and claims that by putting this cost to ownership into place you have effectively disarmed poor people? It's not an invalid argument. Someone working two part time fast food jobs isn't going to be able to shell out 200 bucks for a permit and the cost of the gun most likely.

To answer Mithlomwen's question from earlier:

100% belief that the media, this monster that we have created, is by far the 2nd most damaging thing to this country. It's not drugs, guns, or crime, it's not politicians even. The 1st most damaging thing? The people that live here that have become complacent and lazy to the point they allow this media empire to lead them around by the nose.

Crime as a whole is down, period. We have the numbers to back that up. But crime being down does nothing to feed a 24 hour news industry that generates trillions of dollars annually, that simply by mentioning candidates can validate their attempts to run for office. Perfect example, Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders. I don't agree with Sanders on alot of things, but as politicians go his ideas make a great deal more sense than most and he has the record to back it up.

But Hillary Clinton (whose campaign has received thousands of dollars from Turner Broadcasting), though, gets vastly more press than Sanders on CNN. How do we see this as anything less than blatant manipulation by the media to anoint favored candidates?

Offline LisztesFerenc

Re: The Virginia Shooting, Gun Rights, and Revolutions (Split from News thread)
« Reply #255 on: October 16, 2015, 08:02:16 PM »
Even if it was technically against the law? See my signature quote for my opinion on that.

  Is this attitude limited to private businesses, or would you also violate the Gun-Free School Zones Act and carry a concealed weapon into such a school? And if you would respect the latter, why would you not respect the former?

Cars also aren't a constitutional right, however.

  Yes, but then technically your constitutional right regarding guns is to be a well regulated militia, so how important the wording of the constitution is subject to change.

But to play devil's advocate to my own idea what happens when (assuming we implement such a plan) someone comes out and claims that by putting this cost to ownership into place you have effectively disarmed poor people? It's not an invalid argument. Someone working two part time fast food jobs isn't going to be able to shell out 200 bucks for a permit and the cost of the gun most likely.

  Are guns that affordable to someone on minimum wage currently
« Last Edit: October 16, 2015, 08:03:40 PM by LisztesFerenc »

Offline Tairis

Re: The Virginia Shooting, Gun Rights, and Revolutions (Split from News thread)
« Reply #256 on: October 17, 2015, 01:18:51 AM »
  Is this attitude limited to private businesses, or would you also violate the Gun-Free School Zones Act and carry a concealed weapon into such a school? And if you would respect the latter, why would you not respect the former?

The only reason I'd respect the latter would be due to the consequences of breaking said law (since it's actually a law, and not some company policy). Most of these so called 'gun free' zones are perfect examples of why the entire concept is nonsense though. If I'm carrying concealed then neither the students or faculty are aware that I'm armed in the first place. Someone wanting to do harm has the exact same advantage. There is no magical aura that repulses guns.

As fir this attitude it is not limited to anything. Laws exist because at some point a bunch of people sat around a table and decided 'this is something that we don't want people to do'. You break laws every day. Every time you cross the street not at a crosswalk, change lanes without signaling, or light up a joint at the end of a long day. Or even have sex with your boyfriend or girlfriend in many states in the union considering a large amount of them still have laws making sex out of wedlock a crime.

Laws are not morality. Laws are rules set down by a higher authority to make society work in a manner they deem fit. The only way to determine whether something is moral is to decide it for yourself.

Quote
  Yes, but then technically your constitutional right regarding guns is to be a well regulated militia, so how important the wording of the constitution is subject to change.

Not going to get into this debate. It's been explained ad nauseam what the amendment is referring to (even in this very thread and by the actual highest court in the United States dozens of times) and it has nothing to do with some 'national guard' militia idea.

Quote
  Are guns that affordable to someone on minimum wage currently

Depends on the gun. Small caliber handguns from inexpensive manufacturers aren't obscenely expensive (in that $200 to $250 range) and can sometimes be gotten cheaper at gun shows or on consignment at gunshops if the seller just wants to get rid of it.

The point wouldn't really be the actual affordability, though. It would be the fact that you are, in essence, establishing a pay gate to something outlined in the Bill of Rights. You could apply the same argument to the first amendment, for example, if the government required everyone to have a $50.00 permit to publish something in a national newspaper or the like. The overall amount of money is less relevant than the fact that you're charging it.

Online Cassandra LeMay

Re: The Virginia Shooting, Gun Rights, and Revolutions (Split from News thread)
« Reply #257 on: October 17, 2015, 03:57:01 AM »
I've only said that laws will not stop someone who is willing to break laws.
I'd say it depends on what type of crime we are talking about. When it comes to premeditated crimes you have a point. I'd still say making it more difficult for people who plan a crime to get the tools they might need for their crime is a worthwhile goal, but, that aside, there is also another category of crime.

Some crimes are not planned much, if any. It's not exactly a scientific term, but I'd call them 'crimes of passion'  for ease of description. Domestic disputes are a prime example. Easy access to a gun can lead to deadly outcomes when tempers run high and people "see red". There is a reason the FBI will not approve a gun sale when the NICS database turns up:
Quote
The subject of a protective order issued after a hearing in which the respondent had notice that restrains them from harassing, stalking, or threatening an intimate partner or child of such partner. This does not include ex parte orders.
A person convicted in any court of a misdemeanor crime which includes the use or attempted use of physical force or threatened use of a deadly weapon and the defendant was the spouse, former spouse, parent, guardian of the victim, by a person with whom the victim shares a child in common, by a person who is cohabiting with or has cohabited in the past with the victim as a spouse, parent, guardian or similar situation to a spouse, parent or guardian of the victim.
Restricting access to guns by requiring background checks for private gun sales can bring down the number of homicides of women by current or former partners. Granted, there may be other factors at work, but the same picture also emerges when it comes to suicides, i.e. restricting access to gun more tightly than it is done in some places now will save lives.

The debate shouldn't just be about more than guns vs. crime rates - it should be about guns vs. lives lost.

Speaking of suicides: eBadger raised the point earlier and I think we should examine that too, because he was absolutely right to mention it.

Facts: Even among people give to suicidal thoughts, actually acting on those thoughts is often a pretty spontaneous thing. In many cases only minutes pass between making the decision to commit suicide and acting on it. Once the initial impulse passes, people are far less likely to act on it. Reducing access to guns makes it harder to act with deadly consequence on this fleeting decision to end one's life. Fact is also that if you restrict access to guns you will not end up with a corresponding number of people who just use other tools to end their lives.

And yes, all those are facts. When Australia enacted stricter gun control and initiated a buyback program to incentivice people to hand in their (now illegal) guns, not only did the number of firearms in circulation drop, but the number of gun suicides also dropped significantly - without a corresponding increase in suicides by other means. (Source) After the Israeli Defense Force forbid its soldiers to take their firearms home with them over the weekend, the suicide rate among soldiers dropped by 40% - without any noticeable increase of suicides during weekdays when soldiers could access their weapons while on duty. (Source) Among people who made near-lethal attempts, 24 percent took less than five minutes between the decision to kill themselves and the actual attempt. Seventy percent took less than an hour. (Source) States with more universal background checks have a lower rate of gun suicides - without a corresponding increase in suicides by other means. (Source)

Offline LisztesFerenc

Re: The Virginia Shooting, Gun Rights, and Revolutions (Split from News thread)
« Reply #258 on: October 17, 2015, 07:25:29 AM »
As fir this attitude it is not limited to anything. Laws exist because at some point a bunch of people sat around a table and decided 'this is something that we don't want people to do'. You break laws every day. Every time you cross the street not at a crosswalk, change lanes without signaling, or light up a joint at the end of a long day. Or even have sex with your boyfriend or girlfriend in many states in the union considering a large amount of them still have laws making sex out of wedlock a crime.

  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?

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

Not going to get into this debate. It's been explained ad nauseam what the amendment is referring to (even in this very thread and by the actual highest court in the United States dozens of times) and it has nothing to do with some 'national guard' militia idea.

  This thread is 11 pages long. Can you show me where?

The point wouldn't really be the actual affordability, though. It would be the fact that you are, in essence, establishing a pay gate to something outlined in the Bill of Rights. You could apply the same argument to the first amendment, for example, if the government required everyone to have a $50.00 permit to publish something in a national newspaper or the like. The overall amount of money is less relevant than the fact that you're charging it.

  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?

Offline TheGlyphstone

Re: The Virginia Shooting, Gun Rights, and Revolutions (Split from News thread)
« Reply #259 on: October 17, 2015, 07:30:06 AM »

  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?

That would depend on the state. A gun would fall under a sales tax, which some states have and some do not. There is no federal sales tax.

Offline LisztesFerenc

Re: The Virginia Shooting, Gun Rights, and Revolutions (Split from News thread)
« Reply #260 on: October 17, 2015, 07:33:43 AM »
That would depend on the state. A gun would fall under a sales tax, which some states have and some do not. There is no federal sales tax.

  Oh yeah, some some states have no sale tax. That is weird. In any case, guns already cost money, and in some states that government is responsible for a part of that cost.

Online Cassandra LeMay

Re: The Virginia Shooting, Gun Rights, and Revolutions (Split from News thread)
« Reply #261 on: October 17, 2015, 07:40:21 AM »
This thread is 11 pages long. Can you show me where?
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?

Offline Tairis

Re: The Virginia Shooting, Gun Rights, and Revolutions (Split from News thread)
« Reply #262 on: October 17, 2015, 01:36:27 PM »
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.

Quote
  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

Quote
  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.
« Last Edit: October 17, 2015, 01:39:02 PM by Tairis »

Offline LisztesFerenc

Re: The Virginia Shooting, Gun Rights, and Revolutions (Split from News thread)
« Reply #263 on: October 17, 2015, 01:58:48 PM »
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.
 

Offline Cycle

Re: The Virginia Shooting, Gun Rights, and Revolutions (Split from News thread)
« Reply #264 on: October 17, 2015, 02:19:55 PM »
According to Wikipedia, the Supreme Court's interpretation of the Second Amendment has evolved over time:

Quote
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]



Offline Tairis

Re: The Virginia Shooting, Gun Rights, and Revolutions (Split from News thread)
« Reply #265 on: October 17, 2015, 11:11:07 PM »
  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.

Offline Cycle

Re: The Virginia Shooting, Gun Rights, and Revolutions (Split from News thread)
« Reply #266 on: October 18, 2015, 10:27:50 AM »
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.

Quote
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:

Quote
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:

Quote
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."


Online Cassandra LeMay

Re: The Virginia Shooting, Gun Rights, and Revolutions (Split from News thread)
« Reply #267 on: October 18, 2015, 10:55:56 AM »
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.

Offline Tairis

Re: The Virginia Shooting, Gun Rights, and Revolutions (Split from News thread)
« Reply #268 on: October 18, 2015, 02:24:08 PM »
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.
« Last Edit: October 18, 2015, 02:30:22 PM by Tairis »

Offline LisztesFerenc

Re: The Virginia Shooting, Gun Rights, and Revolutions (Split from News thread)
« Reply #269 on: October 18, 2015, 02:54:06 PM »
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?

Offline Cycle

Re: The Virginia Shooting, Gun Rights, and Revolutions (Split from News thread)
« Reply #270 on: October 18, 2015, 02:59:48 PM »
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.


Offline Tairis

Re: The Virginia Shooting, Gun Rights, and Revolutions (Split from News thread)
« Reply #271 on: October 18, 2015, 03:05:59 PM »
  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?
« Last Edit: October 18, 2015, 03:08:05 PM by Tairis »

Offline LisztesFerenc

Re: The Virginia Shooting, Gun Rights, and Revolutions (Split from News thread)
« Reply #272 on: October 18, 2015, 03:31:46 PM »
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.
« Last Edit: October 18, 2015, 03:49:18 PM by LisztesFerenc »

Offline Cycle

Re: The Virginia Shooting, Gun Rights, and Revolutions (Split from News thread)
« Reply #273 on: October 18, 2015, 04:22:44 PM »
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.


Offline Tairis

Re: The Virginia Shooting, Gun Rights, and Revolutions (Split from News thread)
« Reply #274 on: October 18, 2015, 10:25:08 PM »
  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.

Quote
  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.

Quote
  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.
« Last Edit: October 18, 2015, 10:26:41 PM by Tairis »