Gun control/2nd Amendment

[Ramo]

Just sneaking in a question here, sorry if it was already asked/answered (Directed at Ramo and David Floyd, primarily):

If the United States government passed an amendment that modified the 2nd amendment (in favour of gun control and redefining the terms of the 2nd amendment to basically allow states to regulate firearms) would you support the government's right to enforce said amendment (IE regulate firearms moreso than it does today), or would you still argue that anyone should have the right to own weapons, no matter what type, in all cases?

First off, you'd have to tell me what "regulation" is, exactly.

Freedoms are never absolute. We have freedom of speech, but we can't and shouldn't be able to shout "fire" in a crowded theatre. Likewise, I think there are reasonable restrictions on arms the gov't has full justification, morally and legally, to partake in.

But, assuming by regulation you mean banning of all guns, for instance. No, I wouldn't support the gov't's legal rights to enforce this Amendment. Morality is not constrained by laws.

[Sinapus]

Originally posted by Ramo
First off, you'd have to tell me what "regulation" is, exactly.

Freedoms are never absolute.

That doesn't make them something to trample over if one can make up an excuse.

We have freedom of speech, but we can't and shouldn't be able to shout "fire" in a crowded theatre. Likewise, I think there are reasonable restrictions on arms the gov't has full justification, morally and legally, to partake in.

Actually, you are able to shout fire in a crowded theater. Especially if there is a fire. If there isn't a fire and your shout causes a panic and people get hurt, then you should be punished for those injuries and any other damage caused. Of course, we also don't paralyze the vocal cords of people entering theaters because they might shout "fire" while inside.

(Wasn't that example used in a case involving pacifists passing out flyers opposing the Great War?)

But, assuming by regulation you mean banning of all guns, for instance. No, I wouldn't support the gov't's legal rights to enforce this Amendment. Morality is not constrained by laws.

Sure, and regulation of religion wouldn't mean banning all religious beliefs either.

[Sinapus]

Originally posted by orange
Just sneaking in a question here, sorry if it was already asked/answered (Directed at Ramo and David Floyd, primarily):

If the United States government passed an amendment that modified the 2nd amendment (in favour of gun control and redefining the terms of the 2nd amendment to basically allow states to regulate firearms) would you support the government's right to enforce said amendment (IE regulate firearms moreso than it does today), or would you still argue that anyone should have the right to own weapons, no matter what type, in all cases?

Counterquestion: If they passed a law in your nation (or an amendment here in the US) that legalised slavery and specified that your ethnic group, or other group you belonged to were the ones to be enslaved, would you go along with it?

If you were not in one of the groups who would be enslaved, would you support that law/amendment?

[Ramo]

That doesn't make them something to trample over if one can make up an excuse.

I never said they were. I think you're misinterpreting what I wrote.

orange didn't specify what regulation is; I think some regulation is valid (for instance, a prohibition of carrying around small pox).

If there isn't a fire and your shout causes a panic and people get hurt, then you should be punished for those injuries and any other damage caused. Of course, we also don't paralyze the vocal cords of people entering theaters because they might shout "fire" while inside.

That's not a valid comparison. Speech is a Constitutionally protected freedom, just like the right to bear arms is a Constitutionally protected freedom. An infringement on freedom of speech (locking up people in the aforementioned circumstance, for instance) is anagous to an infringement on the right to bear arms (say, banning small pox). An infringement on the right to bear arms is not analagous to paralyzing vocal cords.

(Wasn't that example used in a case involving pacifists passing out flyers opposing the Great War?)

No, that example was used in the dissenting opinion in Abrams v. U.S. Holmes argued that speech can be restricted if and only if there was a "clear and present danger." This idea has since been accepted by the courts and refined.

Sure, and regulation of religion wouldn't mean banning all religious beliefs either.

Huh?

[Sinapus]

Originally posted by Ramo
I never said they were. I think you're misinterpreting what I wrote.

orange didn't specify what regulation is; I think some regulation is valid (for instance, a prohibition of carrying around small pox).

"No right is absolute" has been used by some people to justify a number of abuses. Sorry, I should have been more specific since you were not saying so.

That's not a valid comparison. Speech is a Constitutionally protected freedom, just like the right to bear arms is a Constitutionally protected freedom. An infringement on freedom of speech (locking up people in the aforementioned circumstance, for instance) is anagous to an infringement on the right to bear arms (say, banning small pox). An infringement on the right to bear arms is not analagous to paralyzing vocal cords.

It's the only example of prior restraint on speech I could think of that matched the "shout fire in a theater" argument.

No, that example was used in the dissenting opinion in Abrams v. U.S. Holmes argued that speech can be restricted if and only if there was a "clear and present danger."

Couldn't remember the case name. Thanks.

This idea has since been accepted by the courts and refined.

You have no idea how underwhelmed that leaves me.

Huh?

Man... I wish this quoting system would keep nested quote brackets.

[Kontiki]

It's nearly impossible to draw parallels between banning guns and anything else. The problem is simply that guns are designed to kill or at least injure and any other uses for them are secondary (ie. target shooting). The rediculous arguements of "cars kill more people" or the voicebox thing are that, in the exact opposite manner of guns, those are designed for other, benevolent uses and other used (ie: intentionally inflicting harm) are secondary.

Don't take this to say I think the US government should instantly ban all guns, just that guns have a rather unique distinction of existing for lethal purposes. Therefore, treating them like any other object is a little absurd.

[Ned]

Originally posted by Ramo


Speech is a Constitutionally protected freedom, just like the right to bear arms is a Constitutionally protected freedom.

Ramo, I hope you do recognize that the Supreme Court has yet to decide that the right to bear arms is what you say it is. There is substantial legal debate on this issue and contrary holdings of a number of Circuit Courts.

As best, therefor, all of us can only argue our position. We cannot say as a factual matter that "the right to bear arms" IS a constitutionally protected freedom - at least not yet.

As I said in my earlier posts, I believe that what is being protected is the existence of a Militia composed of armed citizens who, when called, show up bearing their own arms. One might even argue that the constitution almost requires able-bodied males to possess military arms in order that such Militias be formable.

But I beleive the Miller case is good authority that there is no right to bear non military type arms. As well, the right may not extend to women because they historically are not part of the Militia.

[Dr Strangelove]

Originally posted by Sikander


Tell that to Sgt. York, or for that matter my uncle who grew up during the depression nailing squirrels with a single shot .22, and ended up as a Marine sniper in 3 campaigns in the Pacific. There is certainly a difference in the way you shoot while hunting compared to a firefight, but I never saw anyone who wasn't already an experienced shooter shoot expert with the M-16. That Troll won't hunt!

I learned about this policy from my Dad. He learned about it from OCS in 1942.
Alvin York was already a crack shot before he joined the Army, furthermore, that was WWI. Your Uncle was in the Marines. We all know what the Marines think of Army doctrines.
Well, I know at least one guy who made expert on the M-16 who never touched a gun before being drafted into the Army in 1969.

[Big Fish]

One thing: times change and now people are trying to get laws to change with them, sometimes for the worst. Don't forget guns don't kill people, people kill people, and if the person really wanted to they would kill you someway else besides a gun.

[Dr Strangelove]

Originally posted by Sinapus


Counterquestion: If they passed a law in your nation (or an amendment here in the US) that legalised slavery and specified that your ethnic group, or other group you belonged to were the ones to be enslaved, would you go along with it?

If you were not in one of the groups who would be enslaved, would you support that law/amendment?

Wow! That's just so wrong! To equate the suffering incumbent with the condition of being a slave with the mild inconveience of being deprived of one of your boy toys is just utterly unbelievable. You are truely one sick puppy.

I'm glad that none of our African- American members are around to read your post.

[Ramo]

It's the only example of prior restraint on speech I could think of that matched the "shout fire in a theater" argument.

Gun regulation isn't prior restraint of the freedom to bear arms. It is simply restraint. Prior restraint would be something along the lines of banning parts that made up a gun.

You have no idea how underwhelmed that leaves me.

The Court precedents that dictate the matter are pretty sound IMO. The problem is that there are sometimes lapses in the enforcement.

Ramo, I hope you do recognize that the Supreme Court has yet to decide that the right to bear arms is what you say it is. There is substantial legal debate on this issue and contrary holdings of a number of Circuit Courts.

I hope you realize that just because SCOTUS says something, doesn't make their decisions grounded in the Constitution.

As I said in my earlier posts, I believe that what is being protected is the existence of a Militia composed of armed citizens who, when called, show up bearing their own arms.

Umm... I've refuted this assertion of yours a couple times in this thread alone...

One might even argue that the constitution almost requires able-bodied males to possess military arms in order that such Militias be formable.

Actually, no, one can't... Not without making a lot of silly assumptions.

To equate the suffering incumbent with the condition of being a slave with the mild inconveience of being deprived of one of your boy toys is just utterly unbelievable.

I don't think he was doing that. I think he was only pointing out the fallacy of fanatical legalism.

[Sinapus]

Originally posted by Dr Strangelove


Wow! That's just so wrong! To equate the suffering incumbent with the condition of being a slave with the mild inconveience of being deprived of one of your boy toys is just utterly unbelievable. You are truely one sick puppy.

Nice to see you have so much respect for people who disagree with you.

Btw, where did I say they were "equivalent"? While having a human right removed is not a "minor inconvenience" and getting deprived of a way to defend your life against someone who wishes to harm you is not quite at the level of being enslaved, it does safely fit in the Bad Things category.

Also, where did I say that I owned any firearms? Oh wait, I object to your pet prejudices against guns (and the people who must be awful since they actually own them) so that means I must be one of those awful people who owns firearms. Right?

Perhaps you are the one who is sick. Judging from your posts, you blame gun owners for all crimes commited with a firearm.

[Sinapus]

Originally posted by Ned


Ramo, I hope you do recognize that the Supreme Court has yet to decide that the right to bear arms is what you say it is. There is substantial legal debate on this issue and contrary holdings of a number of Circuit Courts.

As best, therefor, all of us can only argue our position. We cannot say as a factual matter that "the right to bear arms" IS a constitutionally protected freedom - at least not yet.

So... you're saying that a right protected in the Constitution isn't one until the Supreme Court hears a case and makes a decision?

As I said in my earlier posts, I believe that what is being protected is the existence of a Militia composed of armed citizens who, when called, show up bearing their own arms. One might even argue that the constitution almost requires able-bodied males to possess military arms in order that such Militias be formable.

But I beleive the Miller case is good authority that there is no right to bear non military type arms. As well, the right may not extend to women because they historically are not part of the Militia.

Um... and where does the Supreme Court get it's power to "interpret" the Constitution?

(Hint: It's not in the Constitution.)

[orange]

Sinapus - calm down. Strangelove isn't out to troll you, he has a valid argument to make, just like Ramo and Floyd. I think he was just a bit taken back by a comparison analogy to slavery. Having your rights to freedom (all encompassing) restricted by a document is a little different than having a single freedom regulated by the constitution.

Ramo: Thanks for answering the question. I realize it depends a lot on what the definition of regulation is...but at least we've seen that you agree in the legitimacy of some form of basic regulation, such as not allowing disease (and I'm assuming other forms of mass destruction?) to fall under the category of 'arms'.

Historically, Floyd has argued the opposite

[Ned]

Originally posted by Sinapus


So... you're saying that a right protected in the Constitution isn't one until the Supreme Court hears a case and makes a decision?



Um... and where does the Supreme Court get it's power to "interpret" the Constitution?

(Hint: It's not in the Constitution.)

Sinapus, the Supreme Court in Presser held that the the Second Amendment does not apply to the states. The Supreme Court in Miller held that Second Amendment does not apply to nonmilitary type arms. The Fifth Circuit has held that the Second Amendment protects the right people to keep and bear arms. I am not sure whether this case involved a state state or a federal statute. (If this circuit case involved a state statute, the entire case is dicta because Presser has already held that the the Second Amendment does not apply to state statutes.) The Ninth Circuit has held that the Second Amendment protects state militias and does not protect the right of the people to keep and bear arms against a state statute barring the possession of assault rifles. (Note, this holing is also dicta based upon Presser.)

Now that is a case law. Your question appears to be more fundamental as it seems to question whether there are bodies other than the Supreme Court that can finally determined constitutional rights. The Constitution provides two ways other than the Supreme Court: amendments proposed by a a constitutional convention called by two-thirds of the state legislatures or an amendment passed by two-thirds majorities of both houses of Congress. In both cases the proposed amendment must be approved by three-fourths of the states legislatures.

To the extent that you suggest that there may be means for a finally determining constitutional rights other than by the Supreme Court United States or by the amendment process, I take you to suggest that state succession is an option. However, I think that that issue was decided by the Civil War. We do not want to repeat that sad event.