gun control and the individual right

[themic]

http://www.msnbc.com/news/856672.asp

Thought provoking article... his main thesis is:

that without a supreme-court-approved individual right to bear arms, the war over gun control will never be stable, and continue to be viscious. With that in place, however, gun control advocates could probably make much more ground... as soon as they stop being so damned stupid all the time.

thoughts? comments?

 

[Edward429451]

Reasonable regulation would be ok if it wasn't a lie and the stepping stone to disarmament. Thats a well established deception and tactic at this point, given rise to the thought pf regulate reasonably or not at all.

The supreme court ruling would only mean something if it was undertaken by men of integrity. The problem with the supreme court is that they are appointed and not elected. They want to rule on our rights, and are personally put in place by one man and his (puppeteers) whims.

I dont think so. I hold SC justices to be some kind of modern day political Trojan Horse, thrust on the people to speak for the people and wont listen to the people. It dont take a rocket scientist to surmise that the SC will never rule in favor of the people on an issue.

 

[MicroBalrog]

Well, I've written to him to say that I agree with him in that the Second Amendment doesn't protect WMD's as they cannot be used without harming innocents. However, I continued, it does protect ownership of all other weapons , as they all can be used without harming innocents. I then continued that the 2A could be construed to allow MINIMAL regulation on some forms of carry or transportation (i.e., no high-explosives on buses).

Is that stupid?

 

[themic]

i dont think it's stupid. it really comes down to where you draw the lines.

as it is, we on this board tend to draw lines that many would call "extremist," even though it probably isn't a smart idea to transport quantities of high explosives on buses, or to have WMD, on an individual level.

and that's a point i think he didn't quite explore enough, also, was his line about weapons that are harmful to innocents while used correctly

i.e. if i use a handgun correctly it shouldn't harm innocents

if i were to use a rifle correctly, in my own home, it would harm innocents most likely, cause i'm in a large apartment building. but does that mean i shouldn't own one? i have rifles in my apartment. so is ownership contextual? it won't hurt anyone for someone out in the country to have a hand grenade, when used correctly, should he be able to bring it in the city? if not, does that mean i shouldn't be able to have a rifle in my apartment? i would hope not.

so obviously merely having the capability isn't the answer of where to draw the line.

nots also that with the explosives on the bus example, or the example of having WMD, that there's a safety issue regardin proper care and maintenance. a gun can just sit there, or transported, or jostled about, or not be cleaned for years, and wont hurt anything. explosives, though, need much more special care to ensure they don't cause harm. could you say "active care?" what about stable explosives that don't require active care (C-4 for example)?

i think what it comes down to, IMO, is the issue of aimed fire. grenades and TNT and WMD are sort of aimed, but not very precise weapons, even when used correctly. a firearm, even a fully automatic one, IS a precise weapon when used correctly.

 

[MicroBalrog]

I think, from what my military friends told me, and from my general reading, that explosives CAN be safely used/aimed (look, the military blows up thousands of shells during training and almost nobody gets hurt). WMD is where I draw the line.

 

[Jim March]

Basically correct, so far as it goes. But remember who the audience is, and the tactical purpose for the document.

 

[BOBE]

//"Reasonable regulation" is not an issue. "Shall no be infringed" means no
regulation.

 

[Standing Wolf]

...what I am now coming to appreciate is that increasing numbers of persons on the Left create in their minds a false world in which to live — a world that better suits their preconceptions. They are not content to disagree with the goals of their opposition or about predictions of future policy results. They must make up facts about the world that fit their theories — like the “homeless†crisis that immediately vanished when Clinton took office.

Which explains how guns cause crime.

 

[NIGHTWATCH]

No guns, no America. Hold your ground.

 

[Bartholomew Roberts]

//"Reasonable regulation" is not an issue. "Shall no be infringed" means no regulation.

That is a ridiculous assertion. Please point out any of the Bill of Rights where there is no regulation at all. Please point out any of the Bill of Rights where there SHOULD be no regulation at all in your mind.

Then why didn't they use the same language in the first amendment "Congress shall make no law..."?

Main Entry: in·fringe
Pronunciation: in-'frinj
Function: verb
Inflected Form(s): in·fringed; in·fring·ing
Etymology: Medieval Latin infringere, from Latin, to break, crush, from in- + frangere to break -- more at BREAK
Date: 1533
transitive senses
1 : to encroach upon in a way that violates law or the rights of another <infringe a patent>

Exactly how was Congress going to maintain any militia if it wasn't entitled to make regulations concerning arms? How do you fight a war with one million different calibers?

 

[Edward429451]

"Reasonable Regulation"

Hey now, don't read more into my words than was meant.

By reasonable regulation I meant procuring common calibers for militia usage, not de-holstering in schools or bars around drunks, not press checking on city buses, storing your nukes in a real facility (sic), or locking slide backs on formal ranges to show clear (for conformity). Basically common sense or self regulation. Regulation by others in these manners for newbies, instruction, and training purposes.

Things of that nature. Reasonable regulation.

 

[pax]

That is a ridiculous assertion. Please point out any of the Bill of Rights where there is no regulation at all. Please point out any of the Bill of Rights where there SHOULD be no regulation at all in your mind.

Bartholomew,

Talk about ridiculous. "Shall not be infringed..." As you pointed out, the root of infringe means to break a bit off. So to infringe an item means to nibble away at the edges of it, to break off little pieces of it, pieces that are on the fringe of the item.

The plain language of our country's easily-understood Constitution says that the right to own and carry weapons shall not be nibbled away. No small part of that right may be broken off for political expedience. Not one little iota of that right may be taken.

It's unfortunate that fearful people with ridiculous agendas are willing to nibble away at the rights of other people. But the language of the Constitution is clear: you do not have the legal warrant to nibble away at MY rights.

pax

"A well-crafted pepperoni pizza, being necessary to the preservation of a diverse menu, the right of the people to keep and cook tomatoes, shall not be infringed." I would ask you to try to argue that this statement says that only pepperoni pizzas can keep and cook tomatoes, and only well-crafted ones at that. This is basically what the so-called states rights people argue with respect to the well-regulated militia, vs. the right to keep and bear arms. – Bruce Tiemann

 

[Bartholomew Roberts]

Pax, please read closely before jumping in. The original poster's assertion was:

"Shall no be infringed" means no regulation.

Are you arguing that the Constitution permits no regulation of any aspect of the Bill of Rights?

So to infringe an item means to nibble away at the edges of it, to break off little pieces of it, pieces that are on the fringe of the item.

So does all regulation by legislature constitute an infringement in your mind? Are your rights infringed by not being allowed a constituional right to slander and libel people?

 

[pax]

Pax, please read closely before jumping in.

Bartholomew,

That's fairly condescending, you know. It implies that of course anyone who understood the discussion would agree with you and not with him.

Are you arguing that the Constitution permits no regulation of any aspect of the Bill of Rights?

Not really. I am arguing that the Bill of Rights means what it says.

I think "Congress shall make no law..." MEANS Congress shall make no law respecting the items listed in the First Amendment.

I think "shall not be infringed" MEANS the RKBA shall not be infringed, in the Second Amendment.

Take a look at the language of the Third Amendment. It says certain things shall not be allowed, "but in a manner to be prescribed by law." That means those certain things ARE subject to reasonable restrictions.

If the Founders intended the 2nd Amendment rights to be subject to certain 'reasonable restrictions' later to be prescribed by law, they would have said that. They certainly had both the ability and the foresight to say such a thing if such a thing were what they meant.

pax

The U.S. Constitution poses no serious threat to our form of government. – Joe Sobran

 

[TallPine]

So does all regulation by legislature constitute an infringement in your mind? Are your rights infringed by not being allowed a constituional right to slander and libel people?

You are comparing bananas and bowling balls ...

Slander and libel are to the First Amendment, as armed robbery and murder are to the Second Amendment.

Why can't people get that through their heads?

Are you not allowed to publish anything because you MIGHT libel someone?

 

[Minuteman]

Bartholomew Roberts wrote:

Exactly how was Congress going to maintain any militia if it wasn't entitled to make regulations concerning arms? How do you fight a war with one million different calibers?

In the language of the late 18th Century, "reglated" as in "a well regulated militia..." referred to training, not laws. So a well regulated militia is one that is well trained and disciplined.

If even one-third of America's adult males were armed, it really wouldn't matter what caliber each is using. I dare even China, if it had the requisite means of transport, to try invading a United States like that. If you study the relevant history, you'll discover that the militia's purpose, in the case of an invading force, was to hold an enemy at bay long enough for the central government to muster a military force to deal with the threat. The militia at Lexington and Concord did this quite handily, some of whom were shooting squirrel calibers. And by law, militia members are to provide for their own arms and ammunition.

You seem to be concerned about what the law says. That's good. The 2nd Amendment says that a well trained militia is necessary for the defense of a free state and, for that reason, our right to own and carry weapons of war is not to be legislated in any way, for the militia is the whole people except a few officials. A quick perusal of the writings of almost any of the founding fathers will amply bear this out. So I have a question for you. Are you obeying the law by being a member of your local militia (and training), and why or why not?

For reference, the extant US Militia Act of 1792 can be viewed here.

TallPine, thank you for that excellent point.

Minuteman

 

[Bartholomew Roberts]

Slander and libel are to the First Amendment, as armed robbery and murder are to the Second Amendment.

If it was the intention of the Founding Fathers that Congress should not have any regulatory power over arms then why not simply use the same phrasing as in the First Amendment "Congress shall make no law"?

EDITED TO ADD:

Here is a good link to peruse. It is a discussion of the Second Amendment from an 1874 Missouri law journal:

http://www.guncite.com/journals/centlj.html

Minuteman:

The 2nd Amendment says that a well trained militia is necessary for the defense of a free state and, for that reason, our right to own and carry weapons of war is not to be legislated in any way, for the militia is the whole people except a few officials. A quick perusal of the writings of almost any of the founding fathers will amply bear this out.

Really? Peruse these writings from the 1789 ratification debates:

http://www.constitution.org/mil/militia_debate_1789.htm

That each State respectively shall have the power to provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining its own militia, whensoever Congress shall omit or neglect to provide for the same.

The Militia shall be under the government of the laws of the respective States, when not in the actual Service of the united States, but Such rules as may be prescribed by Congress for their uniform organisation & discipline shall be observed in officering and training them.

That each State respectively shall have the power to provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining its own militia, whensoever Congress shall omit or neglect to provide for the same. That the militia shall not be subject to martial law, except when in the actual service in time of war, invasion or rebellion; and when not in the actual service of the United States, shall be subject only to such fines, penalties, and punishments as shall be directed or inflicted by the laws of its own State."

All of those sound fairly regulatory to me.

There are no absolute rights in the Constitution of the United States. Whether there ought to be is a neat question for philosophers; but it will forever remain in the realm of philosophy because practical everyday life demands that there be limits to all rights.

So I have a question for you. Are you obeying the law by being a member of your local militia (and training), and why or why not?

There are two forms of militia today - the organized (National Guard etc) and the unorganized. The only one that trains is the organized and I know of no law compelling membership in it. The unorganized militia is all males 17-45. You don't have to "obey" any law to be a part of it and since they are by definition, unorganized, there is no training.

I have served on active duty with the U.S. Navy for 5 years, another 3 years in the IRR (organized militia per above discussion) and am now a male who would fall into the unorganized category.

 

[themic]

whoa this thread has wandered a bit, but lots of good discussion here.

here's where my thought process was going, as I read the original article.

look at the case of the 1st Amendment, there are restrictions to the right of free speech. the classic "Fire!" in a movie house, for example. even though this is a guaranteed inalienable right, it is not ok to use this right to harm others.

one of the fundamentals libertarianism, a group which tends to take a rather pure approach to rights, is that no freedom should be encroached upon unless one's exercise of that freedom inflicts upon the freedom of others.

yelling FIRE in a crowded movie house, then, is a deliberate attempt to cause panic and mayhem which, especially in that setting, could likely be foreseen to lead to injuries both physical and psychological, at least to some people.

and therefore it is not ok.

the corrollary to the 2nd Amendment would be brandishing. Even though you are not directly harming anyone, it is a forseeable consequence that panic mayhem and/or indirect injury would ensue. basically, it's a dramatic form of assault (as opposed to battery) with a firearm.

but, is there ever a time when the mere ABILITY to commit a crime of large extent worthy of legislation? This is where my question comes in. Gun regulation is based on the enabling power of the firearm, that mere ownership is somehow unacceptable to society.

conversely, can we look at the 1st amendment and see a corrolary regarding ownership, or ability? Here, I point to FCC laws. for instance, there is a limited percentage of total media market that a single entity can possess. While the direct intentions here are in terms of competition and the ability to hear multiple viewpoints, the point i'm making is that there already exists a means by which the 1st amendment is controlled by way of merely having the power to distribute ideas. don't get me started on the new FCC regs and the effective prohibition of small media establishments such esp in radio.

but basically, there is legal precedent for regulation of large-scale capability in terms of the 1st amendment. the question is, then, in light of this, seeing as we tend to be a bit of a no-rules-of-any-kind crowd here, is:

if we were to get our way, which is way way way in the area of nothing infringed comapred to current law and culture, how far does this go? is it ok for an individual to have a select-fire rifle? a tank? a grenade? tnt? an F-15? powdered anthrax? a dirty bomb? all of which are 'arms.' are there international (geneva) considerations for this?

 

[Bartholomew Roberts]

That's fairly condescending, you know. It implies that of course anyone who understood the discussion would agree with you and not with him.

No, it implies that anyone who properly understood my post wouldn't have responded as you did. Whether you find that condescending or not is of course a matter of personal choice...

Now, let's cut to the chase...

I think "shall not be infringed" MEANS the RKBA shall not be infringed, in the Second Amendment.

Is it not possible for Congress to pass regulations on arms (particularly as regards the original purpose of having a viable militia) without infringing on the Second Amendment?

If it is, then the no regulation argument is bogus and you didn't understand my post when you responded to it.

If it is not, then we disagree and you need to advance an argument that will suffice to sway someone who has read extensively on the subject over a period of five or six years if you hope to change it.

 

[Bartholomew Roberts]

if we were to get our way, which is way way way in the area of nothing infringed comapred to current law and culture, how far does this go? is it ok for an individual to have a select-fire rifle? a tank? a grenade? tnt? an F-15? powdered anthrax? a dirty bomb? all of which are 'arms.' are there international (geneva) considerations for this?

I think the guy draws a good line in the article - any weapon that when used properly presents an unreasonable risk to an uninvolved thrid party is not acceptable. i.e. using an 81mm mortar on your local mugger.

 

[pax]

Is it not possible for Congress to pass regulations on arms (particularly as regards the original purpose of having a viable militia) without infringing on the Second Amendment?

No, it is not.

And I have no intention of trying to sway you, since your mind obviously closed on the subject. But for the benefit of others following the thread, I will answer a question you asked of someone else:

If it was the intention of the Founding Fathers that Congress should not have any regulatory power over arms then why not simply use the same phrasing as in the First Amendment "Congress shall make no law"?

Because the Founders had an intelligent and nuanced grasp of the English language.

"Shall not be infringed" does not mean "shall make no law." It means, "shall not be infringed."

The First Amendment:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Okay, the first phrase of this Amendment is written within fairly narrow parameters. It says that Congress shall not make a law relating or referring to establishing a religion. With only this phrase, Congress might still make a law which regulates certain religious behavior, and not run afoul of the First Amendment.

Thus the Founders added a second phrase, equally nuanced: "or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." Congress is prohibited both from passing any law which relates or refers to establishing a religion, and from passing any law which prohibits religious behavior.

Without violating the First Amendment, Congress might still pass laws which relate or refer to the free exercise of religion, and they might still pass laws which prohibit the establishment of religion.

The Second Amendment is a little different:

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.

This Amendment is hardly nuanced at all: the right of the people (the same individual human beings mentioned in the 1st and 4th Amendments) to keep and to carry weapons shall not be infringed. That is, that right may not be nibbled away. No small part of it may be broken off.

There's no wiggle room there at all. The right to keep and to carry weapons shall not be nibbled away in any manner -- not by laws, not by regulations, not by judicial fiat.

Because the Founders knew that they had just written something entirely radical, they added an explanatory clause: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State..." This explains the reason behind the radical no-infringement clause. It says that the RKBA must not be nibbled away because an intact RKBA is necessary to security in a free country.

Every time Congress debates "common sense gun control," the members of Congress which do so are demonstrating their contempt for the highest law of the land, and their contempt for their own oaths of office, and their contempt for the safety of America.

And every time we let them get away with it, we demonstrate our contempt for the ideals this country was founded upon.

That there are not lynchings and riots following each nibble taken out of the RKBA means that we simply are not worthy to inherit the freedom for which our forefathers risked their lives, their fortunes, and their sacred honor.

pax

It is seldom that any liberty is lost all at once. -- David Hume

 

[MicroBalrog]

I think I'll have to repeat myself:

"The Second Amendment doesn't protect WMD's as they cannot be used without harming innocents. However, I continued, it does protect ownership of all other weapons , as they all can be used without harming innocents. I then continued that the 2A could be construed to allow MINIMAL regulation on some forms of carry or transportation (i.e., no high-explosives on buses). "

Thus, no WMD.

 

[Bartholomew Roberts]

No, it is not.

So if Congress passed only one federal firearms law and it was that all males between the age of 17-45 were required to have an M-16 and 210 rounds, this law would infringe on the Second Amendment in your view?

we simply are not worthy to inherit the freedom for which our forefathers risked their lives, their fortunes, and their sacred honor.

Completely off topic; but I'm just curious as to what you have risked to protect that freedom? I know I've definitely given up some fortune to naval service although with the exception of having a michman in Vladivostok wave a Nagant revolver at me, I never felt like my life was in immediate risk. I don't think of honor (sacred or otherwise) as something you can risk. You either have it or you don't, it isn't something that can be gambled away on a new house at 40-1 odds.

Its a personal question unrelated to our conversation; so don't feel obliged to answer it. I'm just satisfying my personal curiousity as well as examining my own hypothesis relating to posting.

 

[Edward429451]

So if Congress passed only one federal firearms law and it was that all males between the age of 17-45 were required to have an M-16 and 210 rounds, this law would infringe on the Second Amendment in your view?

Doublespeak for confusion.

Requireing people to have arms wouldn't be infringing on the right to keep and bear arms, cause they'd have them and be bearing them. So no point is made there.

 

[Intune]

Bart R asked:
"Completely off topic; but I'm just curious as to what you have risked to protect that freedom? I know I've definitely given up some fortune to naval service although with the exception of having a michman in Vladivostok wave a Nagant revolver at me, I never felt like my life was in immediate risk. I don't think of honor (sacred or otherwise) as something you can risk. You either have it or you don't, it isn't something that can be gambled away on a new house at 40-1 odds."

You failed to ask Pax about leading the riots and lynchings. Having failed to lead or participate in such activities indicates what? A misconception of the BOR? Is it just me or do I detect a condescending tone here?



Pax said:
"That there are not lynchings and riots following each nibble taken out of the RKBA means that we simply are not worthy to inherit the freedom for which our forefathers risked their lives, their fortunes, and their sacred honor."

Inheriting something doesn't require any action. That there are no efforts expended to KEEP that inheritance seems to be the crux of the statement.
Lives, fortunes, and sacred honor have already been expended.