Discussion: The Second Amendment IV

[Destructus86]

So, let's just make automatic weapons illegal. That appeases the people crying out for a gun ban, while allowing people who enjoy guns as a hobby to keep. To an extent.

This is going to be a problem that can only be dealt with by both sides making compromise...a very unpopular thing in the US. But since we don't want to deal with the REAL issue...that's what has to happen.

 

[Optimus_Prime_]

The militia was the people. Anytime the Constitution refers to the people, that's what it means, the people. Well regulated was training and discipline for which the people were responsible to maintain.

"The people" referred to in the Constitution actually describes only a select group of people, not everyone.

 

[Bill]

So, let's just make automatic weapons illegal. That appeases the people crying out for a gun ban, while allowing people who enjoy guns as a hobby to keep. To an extent.

This is going to be a problem that can only be dealt with by both sides making compromise...a very unpopular thing in the US. But since we don't want to deal with the REAL issue...that's what has to happen.

The problem is that automatic weapons are illegal in quite a few states, and highly regulated in others. But they only account for an extremely small percentage of crime. But you're right, the real problem never gets addressed.

 

[Bill]

"The people" referred to in the Constitution actually describes only a select group of people, not everyone.

And "the press" was a hand cranked printing machine. How far into symantics do you want to go? Obviously there has been allowances made when discussing advancements in both society and technology when referencing terms in the Constitution. Of course, there are also amendments, in the Constitution, that help to expand the definition of what is meant by "the people."

 

[wiegeabo]

And "the press" was a hand cranked printing machine. How far into symantics do you want to go? Obviously there has been allowances made when discussing advancements in both society and technology when referencing terms in the Constitution. Of course, there are also amendments, in the Constitution, that help to expand the definition of what is meant by "the people."

And there are the Supreme Court rulings which further refine when and how the Constitution applies to what.

 

[Bill]

Baseball Bats and Hammers Do Not Kill More People Than Guns
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_...e_than_guns_is.html?wpisrc=newsletter_myslate

The relevance that the article had here is in the last paragraph which affirms whats been said. "Assault" rifles do account for a lower percentage of deaths than hammers or bats.

 

[Optimus_Prime_]

And "the press" was a hand cranked printing machine. How far into symantics do you want to go? Obviously there has been allowances made when discussing advancements in both society and technology when referencing terms in the Constitution. Of course, there are also amendments, in the Constitution, that help to expand the definition of what is meant by "the people."

Well the definition of words is fairly appropriate in legal contexts, otherwise you can say anything is anything. Legal discussions frequently are about semantics; the Constitution is actually an excellent example of this (also why lay people think Clinton asking what the definition "is" is is funny. No that was actually a legally sound question). The Constitution often uses words very vaguely in attempt to spark political discussion. Like how "we the people" simply refers to delegates, but then later slaves (Negroes) are referred to as "persons", while frequently everyone else is not, so it creates a kind of endless loop (hence, why, in the example I gave, they kicked the can of that legal discussion down the road until we had a freakin' civil war about it).

But no, the context and use of those words is very important. Your post right there is a great example. Currently precedent does stand to define the second amendment to mean something, although this is more what we define as "arms" (i.e. nukes not falling under that definition, etc.). The legal definition of "arms" could easily be changed by future precedent to only mean this arm or that type of arm, as well, like I just said, it already is. Tanks, fighter jets, many forms of gun, bombs and missiles are all colloquially referred to as arms in most discussions, but legally speaking that terminology doesn't hold that definition in this legal context. So, yes, it's important. To not understand the terms and how they're defined is a fundamental misunderstanding of law.

 

[hippie_hunter]

This is true but the same suppreme court also said that the government can decide what arms you can have. They can legally restrict the type of arms what devices is used with I just the same.

I'm pretty sure I said that. The Second Amendment doesn't just create a realm of unregulated gun ownership like the NRA would like us to think. But the problem is that gun control lobby is just as ignorant in their interpretation of the Second Amendment as the gun nuts are by trying to bring up the pointless militia argument, going too far in their regulation proposals, and relying on information as inaccurate and misleading as the information the gun nuts rely on.

I find this debate to be as frustrating as the abortion argument on account that both sides of the debate are essentially dominated by well.....idiots who overreact and don't know what they're talking about.

 

[Optimus_Prime_]

I'm pretty sure I said that. The Second Amendment doesn't just create a realm of unregulated gun ownership like the NRA would like us to think. But the problem is that gun control lobby is just as ignorant in their interpretation of the Second Amendment as the gun nuts are by trying to bring up the pointless militia argument, going too far in their regulation proposals, and relying on information as inaccurate and misleading as the information the gun nuts rely on.

I find this debate to be as frustrating as the abortion argument on account that both sides of the debate are essentially dominated by well.....idiots who overreact and don't know what they're talking about.

If you want to be really precise about it, even if it was meant to create a realm of unregulated gun ownership it would only apply to arms available at the time the document was written. In which case have all the muskets you want.

What's real ironic is the Republicans were opponents of our current reading of the Second Amendment in Reagan's time. Reagan supported gun control.

 

[Optimus_Prime_]

The relevance that the article had here is in the last paragraph which affirms whats been said. "Assault" rifles do account for a lower percentage of deaths than hammers or bats.

Uh, no. There are about 10,000 (8,583 in 2011) a year that die from guns, and about 500 (496 in 2011) that die from blunt objects. Actually that's pretty consistent. Blunt objects haven't ever been a leading cause of murder since, well, guns were invented. Clearly you didn't even bother reading that.

 

[wiegeabo]

Uh, no. There are about 10,000 (8,583 in 2011) a year that die from guns, and about 500 (496 in 2011) that die from blunt objects. Actually that's pretty consistent. Blunt objects haven't ever been a leading cause of murder since, well, guns were invented. Clearly you didn't even bother reading that.

Did you bother reading what he wrote?

He was talking about the last paragraph of the article, where it spoke about rifle and assault rifle deaths.

 

[Optimus_Prime_]

Did you bother reading what he wrote?

He was talking about the last paragraph of the article, where it spoke about rifle and assault rifle deaths.

Yeah, when you separate them into very precise distinctions. It's a pretty stupid point to keep harping on. "Blunt objects" include rocks, hammers, pipes and all sorts of things. If I said "just hammers" or "just bats" those would be much lower than "just rifles" and "just shotguns", much, much lower. That point would only be valid if every blunt object was a baseball bat, which it isn't. Far from it. There are actually so few deaths by "bats" or just "hammers" alone no one bothers even keeping statistics on it. "Blunt objects" is a very broad category.

 

[dnno1]

The relevance that the article had here is in the last paragraph which affirms whats been said. "Assault" rifles do account for a lower percentage of deaths than hammers or bats.

Blunt objects. There is no distinction between hammers, bats, clubs, axe handles, et. al.

 

[Bill]

Yeah, when you separate them into very precise distinctions. It's a pretty stupid point to keep harping on. "Blunt objects" include rocks, hammers, pipes and all sorts of things. If I said "just hammers" or "just bats" those would be much lower than "just rifles" and "just shotguns", much, much lower. That point would only be valid if every blunt object was a baseball bat, which it isn't. Far from it. There are actually so few deaths by "bats" or just "hammers" alone no one bothers even keeping statistics on it. "Blunt objects" is a very broad category.

Actually, when it says rifles, it includes all types of rifles, of which "assault" rifles make only a small part. It was only brought up due to a ban on a specific weapon that does very little in terms of death statistics. In that sense, it is stupid.

 

[Bill]

Uh, no. There are about 10,000 (8,583 in 2011) a year that die from guns, and about 500 (496 in 2011) that die from blunt objects. Actually that's pretty consistent. Blunt objects haven't ever been a leading cause of murder since, well, guns were invented. Clearly you didn't even bother reading that.

Clearly the point of the post flew right over your head.

 

[Optimus_Prime_]

Blunt objects. There is no distinction between hammers, bats, clubs, axe handles, et. al.

Rocks, clubs, pipes, f***ing children's toys.

Stones, anvils, guitars, statues, clubs, sports equipment, books, furniture all that stuff falls into "blunt objects" (I've even heard fists can technically qualify).

So yeah, saying hammers and bats is complete straw man. The incidents are so rare as they don't even warrant running statistics on them hence a broader category is invented.

 

[Mad Love]

"Good people do not need laws to tell them to act responsibly, while bad people will find a way around the laws. " -Plato

That's not true at all since people go out of their way to look up what the laws are and abide by them. There's no good or bad when it comes to the law. There's obedient and disobedient.

I don't believe laws are about morality or the goodness of a person's character. They're about social order. There are bad people who write laws so their actions are not punished. There are good people who go against laws to show they're unjust. Laws are a complete invention that aren't inherently good.

 

[Optimus_Prime_]

That's not true at all since people go out of their way to look up what the laws are and abide by them. There's no good or bad when it comes to the law. There's obedient and disobedient.

I don't believe laws are about morality or the goodness of a person's character. They're about social order. There are bad people who write laws so their actions are not punished. There are good people who go against laws to show they're unjust. Laws are a complete invention that aren't inherently good.

Yup.

Like I pointed out, Plato thought it was perfectly acceptible to rape little boys, as part of their upbringing, and there were no laws against such a thing in Athens. In fact it was quite encouraged.

 

[Thundercrack85]

Laws are a reflection of the morality of the times. Especially in a democracy.

So, morality is quite relevant.

Things that are illegal are considered immoral (sodomy, gambling, drug laws, etc). They change as morality changes.

 

[dnno1]

Rocks, clubs, pipes, f***ing children's toys.

Stones, anvils, guitars, statues, clubs, sports equipment, books, furniture all that stuff falls into "blunt objects" (I've even heard fists can technically qualify).

So yeah, saying hammers and bats is complete straw man. The incidents are so rare as they don't even warrant running statistics on them hence a broader category is invented.

Let's ban straw man arguments we don't even need a law to do that here.

 

[Optimus_Prime_]

Laws are a reflection of the morality of the times. Especially in a democracy.

So, morality is quite relevant.

Things that are illegal are considered immoral (sodomy, gambling, drug laws, etc). They change as morality changes.

To an extent.

For example; there is nothing really moral about a parking citation, or certain driving restrictions (whereas others like drunk driving would be morality in a sense) or even things like public decency laws regarding clothing. I'm not sure those are moral so much as they just keep society generally moving. Actually most laws can be reduced to money concerns. Most drug laws, specifically those about opiates, developed because of a fear that it would negatively impact the workforce which, at the time, was very dependent on manual labor. Whereas now zoning out in front of a computer screen is pretty easy to do high, or may even improve someone's demeanor in a service job. So, no, I don't think it has anything to do with morality.

Zoning laws definitely have nothing to do with morality.

I'd actually argue there is nothing moral about abortion, yet it is legal, and should be legal because there are very legitimate instances where it is necessary. The unintended consequence is people end up using it as a magic eraser for their irresponsible sex life.

Other things simply are not laws because we can't enforce them, or cannot enforce them in a way that would be "moral". Arguably there are good public health concerns regarding sodomy, but unless you're willing to create a secret police to go around and hide in people's bedrooms there is no way to regulate safe sex practices. Make sure gay and straight people wear condoms and such. It really has nothing to do with "two consenting adults". We outlaw all sorts of things "two consenting adults" could get together and do. So there, you have a moral concern over the right of individual privacy but also a bureaucratic concern of "why would we bother wasting money on something we can't enforce".

So really it is a framework of obedience and disobedience.

That's one of the reasons I *cringe* when I hear "law abiding gun owners" versus "criminals". Most criminals, excuse me, ALL criminals are "law abiding" until that day they decided not to. Like Fanboii pointed out, this is an obedience test. Because the other, rather two-faced side of the courtroom, is the law never says "don't do this" it in fact says "don't get caught doing this". I still smoke pot in the privacy of my own home, and while the law totally frowns on this, they'd also frown on just about every measure they'd have to catch me. That's the reason the law so often protects people like Ben Roethlisberger or Michael Jackson; because they can afford a lot of privacy, and it's much harder to conduct proper investigations against people who can pay off witnesses and have others sweep away evidence for them. So are laws are very much an obedience test.

 

[Webfoot Hero]

Seriously, how can anyone take Joe Biden or anyone else in the administration serious about guns? Firing two rounds from a gun indiscriminately to scare intruders is just stupid and even unsafe. Plus, saying a shotgun is easier for a woman to handle than an AR-15 is also just plain stupid.

http://news.yahoo.com/biden-second-...k-ownership-233655251--abc-news-politics.html

 

[Mad Love]

I think the point was you don't need an assault rifle for defense.

 

[Optimus_Prime_]

Yeah, it seems like your taking his suggestion a bit literally. Most criminals also have enough of a head on them not to run to where they hear gunfire, ya know, like most people, shotgun blast or otherwise.

 

[Kelly]

I would much rather have a shotgun, I can shoot and I will probably hit whatever I need to hit much easier than if I had an AR-15...so, give me the shotgun...