Senate Gun Control

Did KK just out himself as a potential murderer? Somehow I don't think defense would be considered a valid argument over food.

 

What is your source for it? Come on. I've given you citations for my sources. Can't you reciprocate?

The US legal system is based on English Common Law prior to 1776 (when we declared independence). In fact, every state (except Louisiana) has passed a "reception statute" which explicitly incorporates English Common Law prior as it was prior to 1776, except as it has since been superseded by the Constitution or other US law. Any developments to English law (Common or otherwise) since then are irrelevant to US law.

With the ratification of the US Constitution in 1789, and the ratification of the Bill of Rights in 1791, we codified as a higher law many rights that previously were relatively simple to modify or abolish. The Second Amendment is one of those rights.

In a disaster situation where food is scarce, it would certainly be considered self-defense to protect your food supply. It would be no different than protecting fuel to run a generator needed to power life saving equipment (such as an oxygen concentrator).

 

Thanks for your answers, KK, I guess we cleared the misunderstanding and it boils down to this:

I guess the confusion could have been avoided if you'd said "In the US, guns are primarily used for sport". My point has always been that in any other industrialized country, it's not, and the US could maybe learn something from that if it wants to rid itself of the problem under discussion. Not looking at comparable countries that have much, much less problems with gun crime is just foolish, and can only serve to deflect criticism against US gun law.

 

KK, can you please comment how at the time that English right was in effect, it might have applied to everyday life and how the US is not really subject to threats from Spain or France?

I'm reasonably sure the 1689 Bill of Rights enshrined the bearing of arms as a right because in times of peace, no standing army could be maintained.

So, in that context - when you consider a decade later the treaty of Rijswijk was signed - it made sense to allow arms to be born by the citizenry. Notice how they have since moved on from such primitive thinking?

Since the US is not in need of a militia in any way, shape or form, there is no moral or intellectual basis for arms being a right. However, as you seem to view the AR-15 as a target rifle (my god man, did you see the kit I posted? That's a proper target rifle; not some redneck phallic toy) and are talking about situations in which you'd actually kill someone... I'm not sure what I can say. Maybe when you take your first life, you'll change your mind. I don't know.

I do find it disappointing that you have this collection of force multipliers and instead of adopting a "great power means great responsibility" mentality you have already run a bunch of scenarios in your head in which you would comfortably exercise lethal force.

Which means, by extension, in those scenarios you have weighted your right to bear arms over another person's right to life.

I'm sorry, as a point of fact your right to bear arms is not more important than another's right to live, nor does that right confer the right to use them to enforce personal boundaries.

EDIT: Fire_Ice_Death, you're still persisting with zero value-add to the discussion. I believe you were called on this pages ago. Can you either post something that shows some thought when into it first, or go back to trolling YouTube videos please?

 

Regardless of the shape or price of pieces of printed paper, the purpose of shooting targets is obvious. Debating gun jargon seems a tedious distraction from the obvious. It's clearly a subject that fascinates you, but I can't feign interest for very much longer. So...

Without just shrugging your shoulders, redefining/distorting/inverting the question, what is your preferred solution to the epidemic of gun related death in the USA?

 

So... 42 pages later... is there any consensus yet on what should be done to help prevent further Gun Violence?

 

FWIW - the 'disaster situation when food is scarce' is sketchy and entirely hypothetical; it would need to be fleshed out more if anyone is to make any moral judgments about protecting food with bullets, but I don't consider it outside the realm of possibilities that a situation can be conceived in which even FID would defend his stash with a gun.

 

V-2 - you posted a picture suggesting human silhouette targets were what sporting shooters aimed at and inferred, crassly, that such a silhouette was instructive for the true purpose of target shooting. As if you had gleaned insight into a secret world and needed to share it.

When called on it, by people who have actually target shot (including myself, as a former competition shooter who favours gun control), instead of admitting you were wrong and that you applied the ham-fist of logic to your post, you huff and puff and suggest the topic is still mired in disingenuity.

Pro-gun advocates have a wonderful weapon in their arsenal (no pun intended), which is the fear and ignorance of gun control advocates. These advocates, they reason, actually don't know anything about firearms and as a result can be safely ignored since their advocacy is founded on errors.

Why would you give them ammunition in this regard (pun intended)?

 

The problem with that is that you cannot simply implement another country's legal approaches to guns on top of the US's current laws. Not even a related legal system like the UK, Canada, or Australia, can be overlaid on US laws, because with the Constitution we specifically decided to follow a different structure of government which makes those changes incompatible.

The Second Amendment in the US is really a game changer. You can claim that it's outdated, but it is still part of the Supreme Law of the Land, and the only way to change that is by amending the Constitution. Until then, you really have to work with the limits that imposes on the discussion.

The Second Amendment was primarily to provide a means of defense, both on an individual level (as government-run police forces didn't exist at the time) and a collective defense. In addition to that, the Ninth Amendment protects rights retained by the people from infringement by the government, which there are some very solid arguments suggesting that it also protects the right to keep and bear arms.

 

Possibly, but I'd be more apt to share than defend. Unless someone gives a reason to be fearful then it's best to just work out a compromise. And that sounds like a silly and naive notion, but I've always sought compromise to a fight unless it's necessary. Or if I've been wronged.

 

Kimball, I don't see how your discussion of English common law has much bearing. If I understand the bill of rights of 1689 by reading about it just now on wikipedia, the controlling issue was the monarch disarming the protestant segment of the population. The right to regulate arms was enshrined with parliament and the right was restricted by "as allowed by law" meaning that fair restrictions enacted by parliament affecting protestants and catholics equally would not be impermissible, as indeed they haven't since been for the brits.

It seems to me an interpretation of the second amendment in tune with prior english common law and blackstone, who recognizes a right varied by situation and laws currently in effect, would make the right to bear arms dependent on the contingency of an ongoing need, varying by place and time and other relevant factors, for a militia. If the first clause of the amendment is to be relevant at all, this is what it has to mean.

 

How did the treaty of Rijswijk change the Bill of Rights of 1689, which was still treated as authoritative by Blackstone over 75 years later? As of that time, the right to bear arms was still recognized in English Common Law, and it continued to be as of the time that US law split off from it.

There are many different kinds of target rifles. In fact, the AR-15 is quite popular in some competitions, to the point that several manufactureres make models specifically for such competitions (like this one from Colt).

EDIT: Also, the US very much has a militia today. See 10 USC 311 for a description of who constitutes the Militia of the United States, and 10 USC 312 for a list of those exempt from the Militia.

ES, why don't you take your own advice to FID and try adding some actual value to the discussion, instead of trying to insult and belittle those who disagree with you? The decision to have and carry a firearm requires that you consider whether and when you would be willing to take another's life. To avoid such considerations is sheer recklessness.

No. What it means is that I have considered under what situations I would consider my own right to life (or the right to life of my family) over another's right to life. For me, that decision is fairly clear: my priority is to protect my own life and that of my family. If someone presents a credible threat to that, either directly or by denying them the means that they need to support life, then it is justifiable. Otherwise, it is not.

Where have I ever said that my right to bear arms is more important than another's right to live? What I have said is that I have a right to protect my own life and the lives of my family, as an extension of my own right to live and supported by the right to bear arms as the most effective means to do that. There is only a potential conflict between my right to live and someone else's right to live if they present a direct threat to my life (or the lives of my family), as otherwise I have no cause to use lethal force against them.

 

Again, though, you need to take into consideration the structural chance in government that came with our written Constitution. The key change was that the People were considered sovereign, instead of the government. As a result, only limited powers were granted to the government, and certain rights were enshrined to be essentially out of the reach of that government. The Second Amendment was part of that, and set those limits. (It did, after all, say "shall not be infringed", as opposed to "shall not be infringed, except as allowed by law".) The Second Amendment was not a direct encoding of English Common Law, but it was heavily based in it as it existed at the time.

EDIT: And with that, I'm off for the evening. I have a phone interview for a job in 20 minutes, and plan to have an enjoyable evening with my family after that.

 

Well, KK, I agree that it's all mostly because of the 2nd Amendment and everything attached to it, though it's kind of circular to point to the 2nd Amendment as the cause for the current situation, while at the same saying that nothing can be changed because of that 2nd Amendment.

Still, you support it. So are you actually saying that nothing should be done to bring down gun crime in the US?

EDIT: Oh well. Good luck with the interview!

 

Contrary to the picture you paint, I was stressing the shamefully obvious fact of the purpose of paper targets. I asked with some sarcasm if it was too obvious to point out what targets are for. The sillhouette was on the first page of my google image search for shooting target. I chose it because I wanted one that was illustrative of the massively obvious purpose of shooting targets.

Incorrect. I'm just reading this thread now, for the first time since my last posting. I'm replying to things as I read them, so my reply didn't really include any foreknowledge of being 'called'.

I was rooting through my attic and found an old paper target of mine, from some army fair. Saddam Hussein's face. I'm sure I found it fun as an 11/12 year old, it seems a tad creepy now.

You're not denying the main purpose of target practice, or the historical and cultural causes of shooting competition and sports, or the purpose of a gun in the first place, as far as I can tell I have no argument with you. I humbly apologise if my contributions to this thread are not up to your intellectual and frequency standards.

 

KK, I'm sorry, nothing I said was belittling. Either harden up or stop making false claims.

I could say your posts show a clear disdain for Jews. Does that make my claim right? No.

You have clearly weighted scenarios in which an application of lethal force would be, in your view, justifiable. The fact you have considered that in the event of X, your response would be Y where Y = discharging your weapon at another human being, is evidence of that.

In doing so, you have suggested that if it boils down to an aggressor's right to life vs your right to bear arms, you will exercise your right to the exclusion of his. Whether or not you chose to see it this way is immaterial to the outcome; it is a contest of whose right takes primacy.

As for the Treaty of Rijswijk and the 1689 bill of rights - at the time of the bill, Britain did not maintain a standing army in time of peace (or could, but in limited circumstance and with the authority of Parliament). Yet, there remained the constant threat of aggression from Europe (the lousy French, for one) so there was merit in having a united, armed populace with the capacity to act as a militia (and be mobilsed quickly).

It is also important to note that relevant UK statutes such as the Prevention of Crime Act 1953 did not remove the right of citizens to bear arms for personal defence, but placed constraints on the types of arms they could carry, and when, and why.

Basically, I feel it's a bit dishonest to argue that the 2nd Amendment derives precedent and authority from the 1689 bill for two reasons; 1) the bill has seem limits placed on arms by the government, and 2) British constitutional law does not follow the American model of advising the citizenry of what rights they have. Instead it adopts an approach of outlining which activities may harm the common good and places constraints around that behavior (I think this method is unquestionably superior to the American one).

In short, it feels a bit like cherry picking to refer to the 1689 Bill of Rights but not any of the historical context nor the subsequent legislative restraints placed on the arms-bearing provision of that bill.

 

A militia is clearly not necessary to the security of a free state. In order to preserve the integrity of the amendment, DC v. Heller transforms the right/duty to participate in a militia into a personal self defense right to handguns. I don't question the right to self defense in general, of course, but I dislike the pretense at higher goals or artificial attempts to suggest something lofty, such as the need for guns to protect us all against totalitarian government. Let's face it, the U.S. is now no different from any other pre-revolution great European state in the sense that we're all hopelessly outgunned. We can't possibly arms ourselves fast enough to keep up with the state. D.C. v Heller at least lets us put that notion to rest, permits us to focus squarely on killing each other as opposed to killing the representatives of a totalitarian state.

 

Can I point out that the US' rights-based framework is problematic beyond the right to bear arms (or, bare arms, in summer) - you have a right to the pursuit of happiness. lol.

 

The Declaration of Independence is mostly just a letter. It's a lot less important than the Constitution.

 

What are you, crazy?

 

Legally, yes. But from a cultural standpoint..?

 

Well, yes, it's important culturally because it effectively established the country. I don't understand what's wrong with a "right to pursue happiness" (if we take it literally) anyway.

 

I must be Hoping we got around to agreeing on at least one thing though...

 

Since when is any thread meant to establish a unanimous opinion? That seems like a silly goal.

 

It's not, I was just wondering if there's anything that everyone agreed on so far. Like better background checks or something. Whatever.