Ah yes, an illustration of stupid laws...

[OF]

And furthermore!

Wild, you may (it seems) personally believe that an absolute, shall-not-be-infringed, hands-off 2nd Amendment is not a good idea for society. That 'reasonable restrictions' as you define them (in an obviously changing set of definitions, as you have said that you are 'still looking into it') are necessary. That's fine and that's a whole separate set of issues. But the fact remains, the bill of rights recognizes and protects an absolute right of the people to keep and bear arms. Period. If you think that was a bad idea, then we can discuss that, but there is no question that the founders wrote those words to forbid the gov't, any branch or agent, from ever making any law or edict that would in the smallest possible way infringe on the right that those founders held so dear.

So we see that there are two separate arguments in this thread:

a) is the 2nd Amendment absolute?

b) is an absolute 2nd Amendment a good idea?

The answer to 'a' is a demonstrable 'yes'. The answer to 'b' is much more complicated.

- Gabe

 

[OF]

I am fondling my GORGEOUS cutie perfectly restored shooter M1 paratrooper carbine... I fold the stock....All of a sudden...it hits....

Better late then never, as they say. You're gettin' there, Wild. Free your mind and the rest will follow!

- Gabe

 

[grampster]

Well, I'm certainly pleased to see that some of you are starting to comprehend the simple meaning of the 2A. It has been somewhat funny to watch all you late 20th century Americans haggle back and forth over what we meant when we put that little simple statement of fact in the B o R.
You're starting to slowly understand that the freedom of the several States depended on a certain few things being understood.

One of those was the ability of the States to keep themselves free from tyranny or the misuse of a standing army by a few of the larger more powerful states against a few weaker ones or by the federal government itself! The only way we could plan for that was to have a healthy scepticism of standing armies as we have observed the nature of that beast over the last few hundred years.

So, we included the need for a militia in each state of its able bodied men that was able to handle a firearm without shooting off their foot or each other. We considered women as well, but found them too fierce and unforgiving. In order for a militia to exist or to be effective, each militia member had to have his own firearm and know how to use it, and keep it in good repair. They were not a standing army after all, who would be provided weapons when they were inducted. We didn't want that. Certainly there was enough corespondence that we had back and forth and saved by somebody to illuminate that understanding we had about who was the "militia" and other simple statements of facts as we understood them and planned them for your well being.

As an exclaimation point to the 2A so you would understand the seriousness of private ownership of property such as firearms, we added the words..."shall not be infringed. Is there something about those four words that are unclear? Sheesh!

We'll tell you another thing while were at it! We are getting a little sick of you folks telling us how stupid we were and how we could not forsee the progress this nation would embrace, so you need to "interpret" our words in the light of the changed times.
Forget that BS! These words were to be a guide that helped you not make the mistakes that were made in the past! Our words were good then and they are good now. As far as for worrying about men of other than good will carrying weapons? Well you only have yourselves to blame for that with your wishy washy "justice system." In our day if a man was a dangerous criminal, we hung him or locked him away or beat him till he wised up, or ran him out of town. If all that failed, an honest man usually shot him dead with the weapon we wanted you to have for that alternate purpose while the miscreant was doing his evil deed. The fact that that weapon could also put food on your table was a third benefit. The fun we had shooting at sporting events and training up our children in their use was a fourth. I ask you...what else provides your family with so much safety, provender and amusement than your trusty 30.06 or 7 mag. or your scatter gun or that old trusty standby 1911. Yeah, we foresaw that too!

Quit trying to "interpret" and just read what we wrote and pay attention. A moron could understand our words! If you can't, maybe you should do something about your schools. Plus we put those words down so that you could progress and get greater and better. That was their intent. We planned for your progress and gave you the means to it. Compare the progress in America to the rest of history! Is it not self evident to you how bright we were, how much forsight we had? Quit trying to take that credit for yourselves. Give credit where credit is due; to us. We thought em up and wrote em down and gave them action. You are the result. We are not pleased with some of you.

For land sake, look at the last election! My word, if we had not considered the factionalism that was and we knew would be afoot we would not have put together the electoral college to even that problem out, by protecting the weak from the strong and overbearing. (I think you call them left wing liberals now. You are at least right about those folks) If you doubt our wisdom, all you have to look at is the last presidential election. Without the electoral college and the SCOTUS the few large cities full of whiners and living off the providence (taxes) of the rest of you, would be controling this vast fruited plain. We did not want that, either.
So, my fellow citizens, quit trying to put words in our mouths. We had enough of those for ourselves and for you as well, for that matter. Our wisdom brought you this far. Trust that our wisdom will take you even farther!

Cordially and on behalf of my fellow citizens, patriots and founders of our grand union,

Alexander Hamilton

 

[Zander]

Well regulated means nothing at this point because it hasnt been interpreted in the context of the 2nd.

What possesses you to believe that an inherent Right is subject to interpretation?

The Constitution of the United States of America was written to restrict the overweaning power of a federal government. I've yet to see a single phrase in the entire document that advocated the intercession of judicial activism.

Your interpretation is convenient to your argument. So what?

 

[Justin Moore]

Nothing really means what it says anymore and the world is all Klintonian 'shades of gray'. It all depends upon the meaning of the words 'well regulated' and what 'is' really 'is'.

 

[Wildalaska]

El Tejon, Gramps, Justin, GRD, you all make valid points to support your arguments..obviously we differ as to what the 2nd A means, or even whether it can intepreted at all by a Court, but lets put that aside for a moment and change the focus..

Assume for a moment a non absolute right...Using a strict scrutiny standard, which is applicable to an "infringement" of a constituional right, how would each of you argue that a registration scheme is unconstituional? Would it depend on the scheme? Are some better than others?

Issues such as these need to be analyzed....a rote mantra of "its absolute, absolute, absolute" isnt part of that analysis under the issue posited here....

WildabsorbingideasAlaska

 

[Zander]

Issues such as these need to be analyzed.... -- WA

Why?

 

[Justin Moore]

Assume for a moment a non absolute right

Okay, let's do that. I'm not quite sure where you're going here with this, but I'll try to make an educated guess. Perhaps you could elaborate, and maybe provide an example, just to clarify,
and then I could better understand what you mean.

To me, a 'non absolute right' means a 'privlage', the majority of which are subject to some type of restriction. That is the distinction that I myself would draw, namely that rights are absolute, and privlages are not. I do not feel that the 2nd or any other part of the BOR are 'privlages', ie something that can be revoked because of public opinion, societal standards, or by fiat by any 'majority' of individuals.

how would each of you argue that a registration scheme is unconstituional

Well, to me that is pretty much a non starter. Registration, historically, has allways lead to confiscation. And, I DO think the 1st Amendment analogy holds. If I have to register a gun, that implies that I need the gubments permission to possess such an item. The very virtue of having to ask for permission turns the 'right' into a 'privlage', subject to government whims. Surely, no one would tolerate something like that with the rest of the BOR.
Why would we tolerate it with the 2nd? The day you have to ask anyone's permission to exercise a right, is the day that you no longer have any rights.

 

[Wildalaska]

Registration, historically, has allways lead to confiscation

Not always, but it has happened (NYC for example). Nevertheless, that is an argument against registration (ie the famous parade of horribles).

If I have to register a gun, that implies that I need the gubments permission to possess such an item.

Nope....you are letting your idea of "absolutism" colour your argument. We are assuming here that the Supreme Court has already ruled that the 2nd A is an individual fundamental right that can of course (like the 1st) be subject to restrictions that can withstand a strict scrutiny analysis. What I need to hear is how or why the mere fact of letting the govenrment keep a record of your gun would fail under a strict scrutiny analysis...

The argument is two fold, I am going to paraphrase, for example Wygant v. Jackson Board of Education, 476 U.S. 267 (1986)) which is a racial case, but I changed a few things and omitted citations...

"There are two prongs to this examination. First, any [firearms registration scheme] 'must be justified by a compelling governmental interest.' Second, the means chosen by the State to effectuate its purpose must be 'narrowly tailored to the achievement of that goal.' Fullilove, supra, at 480. We must decide whether the [registration scheme]is supported by a compelling state purpose and whether the means chosen to accomplish that purpose are narrowly tailored."


You have to assume of course that in rendering any decision on such as issue SCOTUS will already have a developed factual record before it to demonstrate "compelling governmental interest". Can not the argument be made, with all due intellectual honesty, that registration is a crime precvention tool? Can that be supported? How about the deterrent effect of registration ny the use of strong penalties for non registration? Can this be supported with a statistical analysis, or even a logical one?


Assuming arguendo you can establish a compelling governemtal interest, can we honestly say that registration is not narrowly tailored?. What about a scheme that allows the possession of ANYHTING (NFA included) as long as it is registered?

Take it one step further by the way and tell me how the instant check is unconstituional under the above test..

WildcomplicatedstuffehAlaska

 

[faustulus]

I understand where you are coming from Wildalaska, however, my fear is who defines what is "resonable." It smacks of majority rules and there are inherent dangers in that mentality. If a right is not absolute, and restrictions may be applied it is up to someone to determine what these restrictions are. Now this can be done in serveral manners. One is to allow the general populace to decide. This would seem to be the most fair. However, what if that community was a white middle class neighborhood in the delta country of Mississippi in 1960 and they are going to determine whether a black man should be lynched or not. It is an extreme example to be sure but it is not one that is far from reality.
the other method is to allow leaders to decide. This is of course a dictatorship but may work so long as the leader has the wisdom of Solomon. But there are few philosopher kings in life and many of them were warlords before they were philosophers. What is reasonable to one may not seem so reasonable to his son. Say one emperor allows a religious cult to exist, because he sees it as an asset. Upon his death his son, banishes the cult because he fears they will undermine his authority.
If rights are inherent in nature, they are neither given nor taken by man. If there are any limitations placed on them then it should be by nature.
That is why I tend to believe in rights as absolute. It is the only way for them to have any meaning. Otherwise you are a the whim of either the masses or kings.
Reasonable restrictions assumes that reason is an absolute, however this is a false idea. Reason is not absolute, it changes with the one doing the reasoning, if you don't think so why is it that philosophers have for thousands of years used reason to come to completely different conclusions.
I am one of the people that believe you should be able to yell "fire" in a crowded theater. It is the other person's responsiblity to sit up an notice if there is smoke or not.

 

[Wildalaska]

my fear is who defines what is "resonable." It smacks of majority rules and there are inherent dangers in that mentality. If a right is not absolute, and restrictions may be applied it is up to someone to determine what these restrictions are.

Not to digress too much, but are you contending that with all its flaws, our system has not worked to date?


WildthisisgonnabealongthreadAlaska

 

[Justin Moore]

Can not the argument be made, with all due intellectual honesty, that registration is a crime precvention tool?

No, because criminals won't register their guns, only law abiding people will. Law abiding people don't commit crimes in the first place. That being the case, what 'crimes' will be prevented? You'll
have a nice registry of law abiding citizens. If you want proof that
registration is NOT a crime prevention tool, just take a look at the crime rates in Britain in Austrailia.

I seem to remember this argument being made by the Reno (in)Justice Department about not immediately destroying the records of background checks, ie the NICS checks. Somehow they felt that keeping records on people that PASSED the check (ie law abiding citizens) could be used to 'prevent' crime. If that's not absurd, then I don't know what is. Keeping records on law abiding citizens 'prevents crime'? If that's not Orwellian Doublethink then I don't know what is.

 

[Wildalaska]

No, because criminals won't register their guns, only law abiding people will. Law abiding people don't commit crimes in the first place. That being the case, what 'crimes' will be prevented?

What if you tie in draconian penalties for non registrations? 20 years for a non papered gun...drop gun crime fast?

If you want proof that registration is NOT a crime prevention tool, just take a look at the crime rates in Britain in Austrailia.

I tend to view their schemes as prohibitory rather than pure registration....

Somehow they felt that keeping records on people that PASSED the check (ie law abiding citizens) could be used to 'prevent' crime. If that's not absurd, then I don't know what is. Keeping records on law abiding citizens 'prevents crime'? If that's not Orwellian Doublethink then I don't know what is.

Different scenario..we are talking about mandated regis here with obviously penalties for non regis....

What about the Instant Check?

WildwillcontinuetommorowAlaska

 

[faustulus]

Not to digress too much, but are you contending that with all its flaws, our system has not worked to date?

Depends on your definition of work. If you are white and male it has worked pretty well. If you are not then its record is a bit spotty to say the least.

Think about prohibition. It was reasonable enough to be passed into law. But it was not a good thing to do. It was immoral at best and stupid at worst.

I understand the desire, but I worry about the dangers. Personally I would rather err on the side of too much freedom rather than too little.

 

[Wildalaska]

Think about prohibition. It was reasonable enough to be passed into law. But it was not a good thing to do. It was immoral at best and stupid at worst.

Called the great experiment was it not?

 

[Zander]

Can not the argument be made, with all due intellectual honesty, that registration is a crime precvention tool? Can that be supported?

No.

The entire sordid history of registration is apparent to anyone who has the most basic understanding of such schemes. True intellectual honesty condemns registration as leading to confiscation.

Any other queries on the subject?

[Prohibition was] called the great experiment was it not?

History records it as a great folly...which resulted in dramatically increased levels of violent crime as the inevitable result of a misguided malum prohibitum law.

Is this the model on which you base your argument?

An aside: Were you born in the USA?

 

[faustulus]

Called the great experiment was it not?

That is what they called communisim as well

 

[Wildalaska]

That is what they called communisim as well

Hell thats what they called us too I reckon...

WildlifeisuncertainAlaska

 

[cordex]

Okay, Wild ... assuming I'm not yet on your ignore list, let's examine registration, shall we?

What if you tie in draconian penalties for non registrations? 20 years for a non papered gun...drop gun crime fast?

Draconian penalties don't provent convicted felons from owning and using firearms in murders (also draconian penalties attached to that, no?).

If I have to register a gun, that implies that I need the gubments permission to possess such an item.

Nope....you are letting your idea of "absolutism" colour your argument.

How so?
I say: "I want to own a gun."
Gov't says: "You must register any guns you own or we'll thrash you about the head and shoulders with lawyers."
I say: "Yessuh massah, how should I go about this registration?"
Gov't says: "We are no longer accepting registrations. Firearms ownership is not banned, we simply will no longer register new transfers."
Has happened before in recent times in our country. But you know this.

"There are two prongs to this examination. First, any [firearms registration scheme] 'must be justified by a compelling governmental interest.' Second, the means chosen by the State to effectuate its purpose must be 'narrowly tailored to the achievement of that goal.' Fullilove, supra, at 480. We must decide whether the [registration scheme]is supported by a compelling state purpose and whether the means chosen to accomplish that purpose are narrowly tailored."

With this argument anything that can "be justified by a compelling governmental interest" could theoretically be allowed as long as it were "narrowly tailored". I can not agree with that line of reasoning. There was a fellow who was able to convince some other fellows that getting rid of people whose Sabbath was on Saturday through narrowly tailored poison gas distribution was justified by a compelling governmental interest.
But let's address the compelling interest which you feel might be served by firearms registration.
How would registration of legal firearms prevent unlawful use thereof?
How would you ensure registration did not lead to confiscation and prevent elitism within the system?
Historically, can you think of an act of registration that caused fewer crimes to take place?

How about the deterrent effect of registration ny the use of strong penalties for non registration? Can this be supported with a statistical analysis, or even a logical one?

How well do draconian penalties deter those that choose to participate in that particular trade?
How well does the death penalty deter murderers?
How well does a 10 year prison sentence for the mere possession of a single cartridge deter convicted felons?

What about a scheme that allows the possession of ANYHTING (NFA included) as long as it is registered?

Again, 1986 FOPA comes to mind. Sure, you can possess and even transfer any machine-gun that was registered pre '86, but since the supply is frozen, the prices have skyrocketed and it is very difficult to obtain machine guns any longer.

Take it one step further by the way and tell me how the instant check is unconstituional under the above test..

Wild, nothing is unconstitutional if it deemed constitutional whenever the government feels like it has compelling reason to do it.

 

[labgrade]

Back after a very deep breath ....

"Well regulated means nothing at this point because it hasnt been interpreted in the context of the 2nd. Also, werent militia members "registered" at the time of the drafting of the 2nd? In addition, how does registration constitute "well red taped". Couldnt a regis scheme be concocted that is simple and innocuos?'

Simply, Sir. There is no interpretation of the 2nd. It says exactly what it says - same as the rest of the trashed BoRs.

Not to be too condescending, but your ilk's "interpretations" of the BoRs has lead to this latest state of flux = turning rights into privs. Likely a whole new thread "When are rights Privs?"

& never could a registration scheme become innocuous. How on earth could you even envision such!?

"How does regis of guns differ from credentialing of journalists?"

Journalists are not required to somehow become "credentialed."

Imagine that you wanted to attend some function to do a write-up on its discussions & outcome.

The mere fact that you did a write-up makes you a "journalist," de facto.

That some "news agencies have a lock on telling you what "news" is, has nothing to do with it.

Very telling that you assume "credentials" lends credibility.

I'd say that says it all.

"One of the important points of these debates of course is to sharpen our skills for the inevitable real debates to come."

Unmittigated BS!

We are again forming the debate (which, BTW, has been in forment for well over 70 years) that The .Guv doesn't have the constitutional authority to regulate these things.

The basic premise is:

We either have the right, (to keep and bear) or we do not.

It IS as simple as that.

What you do with that right is another story completely .....

 

[OF]

Assume for a moment a non absolute right

You can't. There is no such thing. You might as well try to envision non-hydrogenated water. If there ain't 2 hydrogens in there, it ain't water! Water is defined as a molecule consisting of two hydrogen and one oxygen atom. A molecule made up of two hydrogen atoms and one oxygen atom is, by definition, water.

A right that can be abridged, through any conceivable means was never a right in the first place. A right is defined by its absoluteness. A right is absolute. That is it's nature. Something is known to be a right because it is absolute.

Now, you (we) may live in a state of varying degrees of oppression, where you are unable to fully realize your inherent rights due to fear of retribution from your oppressors, but that doesn't make those rights any less absolute or your claim to them any less valid.

How do we define oppression?

- Gabe

 

[labgrade]

Hat's off, Gabe.

A right is absolute (certainly by definition), & the only "restrictions" are those placed by subsequent actions, which are an abuse of - not on the right itself - which never was a right (to begin with).

Such a simple concept, & one that appears to escape even the most astute (allegedly).

Good job, GRD.

 

[Meow]

Uh, did WildAlaska say he was for registation? And before ya'll ague any more, what according to WildAK is resonable restiction?

Lets try to keep the AC on in our heads

 

[OF]

Thanks LG

Another important point is that the question isn't 'is this a right' or 'do we have this right'. The question should be does the gov't respect and acknowledge this right as a matter of policy?'. We have a right to keep and bear arms. Period. Just like you have a right to freely speak your mind as a free human being walking the earth. Is this right respected by the gov't? It's supposed to be, it says as much in the Bill of Rights...and it's designed to be clear as written, as in not in need of further 'interpretation' or explanation. Is this right respected in practice? Not exactly. But this doesn't mean we don't have a right to keep and bear arms, we do. The fact that, in practice, the right appears to be open for 'interpretation' and has been clearly infringed is only evidence that we live in a state of oppression. Maybe not a dire state, certainly not if you ask an Iraqi what oppression means, but it is a matter of degree. That degree even changes depending on what State you happen to be in.

For Wild: How do we define oppression?

- Gabe

 

[labgrade]

GRD,

In some abstract, I'd disagree. The Iraquis at the least, had possession of full-autos, & that with (alleged) full-up "ya-hoos" by their guv.

Likely disposed to the "who is more free" thread, huh? (at least for now?)

& yes, I've no idea as to that "allowance," but the point remains.

Our guv will not allow even that vision of freedom (possesion of firearms), theirs will not allow the freedom of public desention - & I'll not go there as to which is "more free." BTW - not just yet - trying to just nail down our own alleged BoRs


A problem we seem to have here is our "definition" of what is "allowable" under our rights.

My take is that we do have (unquestionable in my mind) an absolute right under those deliniated.

But.

They've been restricted through many means - the 1st itself, we have "redress of greivance" though SCOTUS, who will only accept a certain number of cases. Legsilation, clearly unconstitutional, cannot be redressed due to case-load, is a clear violation, but since not ruled as such, must stand as law - total BS from the git-go, & totally out of whack.


Therein lies the "objectivists argument" which says that, yes!, our rights must be restricted through some means because we are not capable of exercizing them "responsibly."

To them, I say, if we cannot hold possesion of ANY firearm, we are not likely able to responsibly drive a car - MY GOD! Man - the daily carnage! unlike anything we've ever seen due to firearms ..... (or any other right)

Many other examples could be given, but.

If we cannot be trusted, even after licensing & registration to drive a car, how could anyone accept the same-same system (which does nothing to prevent the death & destruction) to "work for firearms?

Aside from the fact that we have the (otherwise assumed) "right" to possess firearms?

Those that will not accept rights, as delineated, are merely appologists that will sell out their own bnirthright to the highest bidder in a vain attempt to appease those in power to eat them last - or quite likely worse.