Gun Crime

[GeneralTacticus]

With all of these arguments about the Constitution and what the Founders 'meant' with it, quite frankly, who gives jack? The Founders founded the U.S., they don't run it. The Constitution has no meaning other than what it is interpreted to mean. It's nt written in stone either - that's why it can be amended.

[Deity Dude]

There is a big difference between amending the Constitution and interpreting it.

[GeneralTacticus]

Note the word 'either'. My point is that it doesn't matter what the writers of the Constitution originally thought. They lived in a world without any modern technology. The Constitution is important yes, but one shouldn't think of it as a list of commandments.

[Wraith]

--"The Constitution has no meaning other than what it is interpreted to mean."

While you are right that it can be amended, you are wrong here. It can not be "interpreted". You seem, along with the others, to keep missing the point of that Justice Brewer quote I've used. That comment is from a Supreme Court decision majority opinion. Sorry guys, but I have to accept the words of a Surpreme Court Justice delivering a case decision over yours on Constitutional matters.

--"The Constitution is important yes, but one shouldn't think of it as a list of commandments"

I don't. I think of it as what it is, namely, our federal government's founding charter. It is the list of rules by which they were granted their powers by the citizens of the United States.
If the government does not follow its own founding charter, then the powers it weilds become illegitimate.

Wraith
"The Constitution shall never be construed... to prevent the people of the United States who are peacable citizens from keeping their own arms."
-- Samuel Adams

[MrFun]

Originally posted by Dr Strangelove


So the rest of us would pretty much be defenseless in the face of a determined coalition of rich people. Say, isn't this pretty much how feudalism started? Only the rich could afford armor then too. Hmmmm, maybe we'd better think this issue over some more.

Ok, Loinburger asked what I was trying to prove with this hypothetical (strawman??) construct. I'm not sure if this can be called strawman though, since I am not claiming that the NRA or gun-owners would advocate the extreme that I am constructing.

Anyway, Dr. Strangelove and Loinburger, here is my point I wish to prove with the right to own small firearms based on the concept of right to private property:

1) Just as there are social risks, and endangerment by allowing wealthy people to pratice their right to own military weapons, there are social risks and endangerment today in our society with people of all classes praticing their right to own small firearms.

And remember, their are two reasons why military weapons have to be included under the rationale of the Second Amendment:

1) Military weapons are private property, and as David has pointed out, all citizens have the right to own private property. This includes people who are NOT in the military service.

2) One of justifications for the Second Amendment is for an effective, civilian defense in the event of foreign invasion. Military weapons would increase the power of civilian defense in this case.

So my question is this --- with the incredibly high murder rate in the United States from small firearms, why are we limiting the right to bear arms only to small firearms?? Why can't we accept the social risks and endangerment of right to own military weapons??

[Solly]

Originally posted by Wraith
"The Constitution shall never be construed... to prevent the people of the United States who are peacable citizens from keeping their own arms."
-- Samuel Adams

Ah, since Samuel Adams said it!

[loinburger]

Originally posted by MrFun
So my question is this --- with the incredibly high murder rate in the United States from small firearms, why are we limiting the right to bear arms only to small firearms?? Why can't we accept the social risks and endangerment of right to own military weapons??

Who is your question addressed to? I certainly hope it isn't me, seeing as how I already asked the same friggin question on page 2 of this thread...

Originally posted by Loinburger
Question for the floor: On this thread and the other gun-control thread it has been said by many, even those generally opposed to gun control, that the more powerful firearms (machine guns, for example) should be restricted/outlawed.

The question is, "why"? If you're going to bear arms for the purposes of combating an oppressive government, wouldn't you rather have a machine gun or a combat shotgun than a pistol? On the flipside, how practical is it for a mugger to hold somebody up with a machine gun? If anything, in order to adhere to the original intent of the second amendment as well as the intent of gun control laws, shouldn't we be legalizing machine guns and restricting/licensing/etc. pistols?

[Dr Strangelove]

Originally posted by David Floyd


Oh Jesus Christ. I really hope you aren't serious with that argument.

Why shouldn't I be? Didn't you bring up the argument that the people need to own guns to protect themselves from some hypothetical invader ot tyrannical government? Allowing people to own even the very expensive military weapons then skews the balance toward the rich. You could be advocating a policy that would lead to your own demise. Let's face it a .32 special is really no match for an M1A1. Sure you could go out and buy a TOW anti-tank weapon, but I've got news for you: they're not cheap either.

I'm not worried. Rich people like doctors.

[MrFun]

No more expanding my argument??

I take it then, that we all agree that wealthy people have the right to own military weapons??

Or do we disagree because allowing wealthy people the right to own military weapons is too great of a social risk and endangerment??

If so, small firearms create social risk and endangerment too -- just look at the very high murder rate in the United States.

[David Floyd]

Why shouldn't I be? Didn't you bring up the argument that the people need to own guns to protect themselves from some hypothetical invader ot tyrannical government? Allowing people to own even the very expensive military weapons then skews the balance toward the rich. You could be advocating a policy that would lead to your own demise. Let's face it a .32 special is really no match for an M1A1. Sure you could go out and buy a TOW anti-tank weapon, but I've got news for you: they're not cheap either.

Look, there are always going to be wealth discrepancies - that is inevitable once we begin using money.
However, people with differing amounts of wealth don't have differing amounts of rights - the difference lies in what amount or quality of property they are able to buy/produce. Why should wealthier people have their rights restricted on the basis of being wealthy? That goes against the concept of rights themselves, the concept that rights can neither be granted nor taken away, they just ARE - one of the founding principles of this country.

So try again.

[KrazyHorse]

With enough money I could build a sufficient arsenal of nuclear weapons and delivery systems to decimate the population of the US. Some of you actually believe that private citizens of the US should be allowed to do so?

[MrFun]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse
With enough money I could build a sufficient arsenal of nuclear weapons and delivery systems to decimate the population of the US. Some of you actually believe that private citizens of the US should be allowed to do so?

KrazyHorse -- read David's posts, Loinburger's posts, and my posts.

By David's logic of right to own private property, small firearms fall into that category.

So to follow that path of rationale, we then have to allow wealthy people the right to own military weapons.

I disagree with citizens having the right to own small firearms -- I'm constructing a hypothetical argument. I do not think it could be a strawman argument though, since I do not claim that the NRA or gun owners would advocate citizens owning military weapons.

[KrazyHorse]

There are (and always have been) limits placed on individual sovereignty over private property (real and chattel). I'm not allowed to own private property that poses a genralised threat to members of the public. I can't store anthrax in improper conditions. I can't set explosive booby traps on my front lawn. I can't stockpile chemical weapons ready for launch. All these are independent of whether or not the anthrax escapes, the booby traps go off or the mustard gas is fired at New York. Society has the right to set reasonable limits on what individuals can own or do with their property, based on the potential for physical harm.

[David Floyd]

MrFun,

I disagree with citizens having the right to own small firearms -- I'm constructing a hypothetical argument. I do not think it could be a strawman argument though, since I do not claim that the NRA or gun owners would advocate citizens owning military weapons.

So you disagree with the right to property then, huh?

KH,

With enough money I could build a sufficient arsenal of nuclear weapons and delivery systems to decimate the population of the US. Some of you actually believe that private citizens of the US should be allowed to do so?

I suppose if one haf a few billion dollars - which begs the question of why would someone blow up the country, if doing so would cost him his entire fortune. Country collapses, banking system and world economy collapses. Unless you're gonna tell me he has that much cash
Then again, to my knowledge, no one that rich currently exists who would have the mindset of blowing up the US and losing his fortune.
Don't bring foreign nationals and terrorists into this, either, because US law in that respect has 0 affect on them.

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by MrFun


KrazyHorse -- read David's posts, Loinburger's posts, and my posts.

See, David seems to agree that it's all right, unless I'm misreading.