Last February, Trump signed a bill making it easier for people with mental illness to buy guns

[tytlyf]

If you restrict people who have a mental illness from buying a gun, then the weapons manufacturers would lose sales.
That's why republicans are against common sense gun laws. That's all it is. Serving their overlords. (Bought and paid for)

 

[Curious George]

Why does the constitution stop at legal gun ownership? It does so because it was created during the revolutionary war.

What correlation does gun ownership have to do with stopping a corrupted government in modern times?

Gun ownership relating to the protection against a corrupted government is farce in modern times. What worked in the revolutionary war is grossly outdated for today. If that was the case, countries like North Korea would stick to their guns as opposed to developing nuclear weapons.

IMO, the second amendment is now hurting us more than it is supposedly protecting us. IMO, the greater good is to limit gun ownership to those that can commit to the safety of themselves and others. IMO, the cost of gun ownership has to be much much higher so that we can enforce these safety measures. It is way to cheap in many aspects for various individuals to obtain a gun and effectively massacre people.

Well, I am not so sure that we need to discuss "gun ownership relating to a corrupt government." But, if we must, we must.

This would certainly be included within the domain of reasoning. And a little help is better than no help at all. That said, if this were the sole reasoning behind a right to bear arms, then it would entail providing for access to additional weaponry. The constitution doesn't just stop at gun ownership. The constitution uses the phrase "bear arms." We have minimally interpreted this.

What is quite clear is that life, liberty, and property were highly valued by the drafters of the constitution and the ability to defend these is central to those concepts. Threats to these can come from groups or individuals. I see no reason why we should limit to the discussion of a corrupt government.

 

[Buddha Dharma]

 

[Revoltingest]

So the 2nd Amendment to the Bill Of Rights was to ensure a right of government, but not citizens?
This conflicts with the intent of the Anti-Federalists, who wanted the Bill Of Rights to secure individual liberty.
More illuminating of the framers' intent than Burger's quote would be some from James Madison.
Ref....
The James Madison Research Library and Information Center
.
Quotes on the Second Amendment:

"The Constitution preserves "the advantage of being armed which Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation...(where) the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms." (James Madison of Virginia, The Federalist, No. 46)

"The right of the people to keep and bear...arms shall not be infringed. A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the best and most natural defense of a free country...." (James Madison, I Annals of Congress 434 [June 8, 1789])

"Americans have the right and advantage of being armed ― unlike the citizens of other countries whose governments are afraid to trust the people with arms." (The Federalist, No. 46 at 243- 244)

"Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation.... Notwithstanding the military establishments in the several kingdoms of Europe, which are carried as far as the public resources will bear, the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms." (The Federalist, No. 46)

"It is not certain that with this aid alone [possession of arms], they would not be able to shake off their yokes. But were the people to posses the additional advantages of local governments chosen by themselves, who could collect the national will, and direct the national force; and of officers appointed out of the militia, by these governments and attached both to them and to the militia, it may be affirmed with the greatest assurance, that the throne of every tyranny in Europe would be speedily overturned, in spite of the legions which surround it." (The Federalist, No. 46)

 

[Revoltingest]

Let us also consider another decision by Burger, one which casts grave doubt
upon his judgment regarding protection of individual liberty (underlining added)....
Bowers v. Hardwick (1986)
Bowers issued a ruling that sex between gay and lesbian partners was a crime. The court actually
narrowed a Georgia sodomy law that found all oral and anal sex to be illegal. All sodomy laws were
eventually invalidated by the Supreme Court decision in Lawrence v. Texas (2003).The ruling was
made at a time when the court was deeply homophobic and concerned with rulings on privacy
matters. Legislating morality from the bench, Chief Justice Warren E. Burger wrote “to hold that the
act of homosexual sodomy is somehow protected as a fundamental right would be to cast aside
millennia of moral teaching.”

Ref...
6 Supreme Court Decisions That Were Totally Wrong

We should note that Burger has ruled based upon apparent religious tradition rather than
constitutional law. He is willing to criminalize behavior which harms no one....& punish
them severely....all based upon personal prejudice. When justices do this, we ordinary
citizens may read the Constitution, & enjoy our right & obligation to oppose bad law.
Even a Chief Justice can commit great evil, so a quote from him carries no weight with me.

 

[Revoltingest]

And here's an interesting quote (rated true by Snopes)....

 

[sun rise]

Read more carefully....& stop growling at me.
I posted what it "suggests" to me.
This is to raise a question for discussion about why the ACLU sided with the NRA.

Do you have any ev idence that that ACLU sided with the NRA on this issue or are you "suggesting" it with no evidence?

 

[Revoltingest]

Do you have any ev idence that that ACLU sided with the NRA on this issue or are you "suggesting" it with no evidence?

I suggested something different from what you claim.
The OP made the claim about ACLU siding with the NRA.
One of the linked articles in the OP also makes the claim.....
Why disabilities rights activists like me sided with the NRA on an Obama gun control rule
Additionally, the ACLU posts this....
Gun Control Laws Should Be Fair

If this is about disputing the OP & sources, you could post a preferred source to contradict it.
Or do you object to how I worded it?
Either way, it would be useful to explain your objection.

 

[suncowiam]

Well, I am not so sure that we need to discuss "gun ownership relating to a corrupt government." But, if we must, we must.

This would certainly be included within the domain of reasoning. And a little help is better than no help at all. That said, if this were the sole reasoning behind a right to bear arms, then it would entail providing for access to additional weaponry. The constitution doesn't just stop at gun ownership. The constitution uses the phrase "bear arms." We have minimally interpreted this.

What is quite clear is that life, liberty, and property were highly valued by the drafters of the constitution and the ability to defend these is central to those concepts. Threats to these can come from groups or individuals. I see no reason why we should limit to the discussion of a corrupt government.

That is your interpretation, of course.

Let's discuss from a self-defense perspective since you've alluded to it several times.

Effective self-defense will always be a measurement to the attacking prowess of the would be attacker. The defender needs to have the same attack prowess if not more than the attacker. However, the defender is still at a disadvantage due to surprise and controlled tactical situations that an attacker can impose due to choice of initiation.

In the US, the assumption is that any attacker would be armed with a gun. This is the proper assumption to make because of the climate that US has enabled. I will not digress into why. However, there is a clear distinction between the capability of an automatic versus a semi-automatic gun.

---> The assumption then continues that the best attacking prowess of any would be attacker is a semi-automatic gun. <---

Let me pause this and simply ask, do you agree with that notion?

 

[Curious George]

That is your interpretation, of course.

If you disagree with that interpretation, then I am certainly willing to discuss it.

Let's discuss from a self-defense perspective since you've alluded to it several times.

Effective self-defense will always be a measurement to the attacking prowess of the would be attacker. The defender needs to have the same attack prowess if not more than the attacker. However, the defender is still at a disadvantage due to surprise and controlled tactical situations that an attacker can impose due to choice of initiation.

In the US, the assumption is that any attacker would be armed with a gun. This is the proper assumption to make because of the climate that US has enabled. I will not digress into why. However, there is a clear distinction between the capability of an automatic versus a semi-automatic gun.

---> The assumption then continues that the best attacking prowess of any would be attacker is a semi-automatic gun. <---

Let me pause this and simply ask, do you agree with that notion?

No. I do not agree. There are many different types of situation where people may need to defend themselves. Limiting the potential of situations based in statistical theories will not get us anywhere productive.

Would you agree that some law enforcement officers need guns? Would you also agree that some military personnel need guns? Why or why not?

Now, would you also agree that it is the individuals job to protect themselves? If gun possession is not a beneficial way to protect oneself, why do police and military individuals need them?

 

[suncowiam]

If you disagree with that interpretation, then I am certainly willing to discuss it.

No. I do not agree. There are many different types of situation where people may need to defend themselves. Limiting the potential of situations based in statistical theories will not get us anywhere productive.

Would you agree that some law enforcement officers need guns? Would you also agree that some military personnel need guns? Why or why not?

Now, would you also agree that it is the individuals job to protect themselves? If gun possession is not a beneficial way to protect oneself, why do police and military individuals need them?

It's not my job to interpret the the Constitution. It's pointless for us to interpret it. It's how our court system interprets it that matters. You can make any arguments you like from your interpretations but it won't prove anything.

I think you misunderstood my point about self-defense.

I'm not denying your right to defend yourself by the way so bare with this...

The context of the police and military are different and I will get to that but first...

My question to you is how would one effectively defend oneself from a would be American attacker?

 

[Curious George]

It's not my job to interpret the the Constitution. It's pointless for us to interpret it. It's how our court system interprets it that matters. You can make any arguments you like from your interpretations but it won't prove anything.

I think you misunderstood my point about self-defense.

I'm not denying your right to defend yourself by the way so bare with this...

The context of the police and military are different and I will get to that but first...

My question to you is how would one effectively defend oneself from a would be American attacker?

There is a multitude of ways. Of those ways, hopefully an individual chooses the most effective and least harmful way. However, such is not always the case.

What I do not think ought to be the case is that a simple majority of people can dictate how one can choose to defend themselves unless they have a compelling reason and the dictation is narrowly tailored to fit that compelling reason.

 

[suncowiam]

There is a multitude of ways. Of those ways, hopefully an individual chooses the most effective and least harmful way. However, such is not always the case.

What I do not think ought to be the case is that a simple majority of people can dictate how one can choose to defend themselves unless they have a compelling reason and the dictation is narrowly tailored to fit that compelling reason.

Ok, my original point is that to efficiently defend oneself, it has to be on the basis of the prowess of a would be attacker. The defender needs to have at least the same or a higher prowess than the attacker.

Agree?

 

[Curious George]

Ok, my original point is that to efficiently defend oneself, it has to be on the basis of the prowess of a would be attacker. The defender needs to have at least the same or a higher prowess than the attacker.

Agree?

Still no. Unfortunately it isn't as cut and dry. There are other factors beyond prowess. Intimidation is one. Luck is another. I imagine we could sit here and brainstorm at least 5-10 factors that are determinative but distinct.

If you are trying to suggest that it will be an equal loss to the attacker as the defender this is not always so. Nor would it matter, because it misses the point. The point is you do not get to tell Sally how to protect her children unless you have a really good reason. And sh***y as it sounds to some, all of the victims of gun violence do not amount to a good enough reason to take away Sally's choice to own a gun. Because you reason is for preventing x, and Sally is not into doing x, she is into doing y.

That is the brass tax. Some people see tragedy and they believe that anything should be given up to prevent it. But, only when it is something that they don't choose or want.

A school bus crashes and we do not say, "well, let's ban all motor transportation." Instead we say, what safety precautions can we take to avoid this.

 

[Shad]

Ok, my original point is that to efficiently defend oneself, it has to be on the basis of the prowess of a would be attacker. The defender needs to have at least the same or a higher prowess than the attacker.

Prowess is not restrict to guns. It will exist with melee weapons and hand to hand due to basic biology. Seniors and women for example. Both are more likely to be at a disadvantage against a violent perpetrator which are male for the most part.

 

[Buddha Dharma]

This conflicts with the intent of the Anti-Federalists, who wanted the Bill Of Rights to secure individual liberty.

I see, so do you think the anti-federalist approach to the Constitution was the most correct, without offering an argument to why that is? I'm all ears buddy.

"The right of the people to keep and bear...arms shall not be infringed. A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the best and most natural defense of a free country...." (James Madison, I Annals of Congress 434 [June 8, 1789])

Madison is reaffirming what the second amendment says here. I see no indication that the second amendment's wording equals unrestricted access to any firearm an individual wants. Just because an individual wants it...

Let us also consider another decision by Burger, one which casts grave doubt
upon his judgment regarding protection of individual liberty (underlining added)....
Bowers v. Hardwick (1986)

Yes. I certainly won't disagree with you. I'm not saying the man was perfect. Unfortunately, he was probably ruling on past legal precedent. Many judges find that easiest. That raises the question of if his gun ruling was based in past legal precedent? After all, I hope you wouldn't say a ruling about gay rights is the same issue as gun ownership. I see the individual liberty aspect you're trying to emphasize.

And here's an interesting quote (rated true by Snopes)....

Well yeah. The Dalai Lama is teaching the historical Buddhist position that our body is the vessel of the Buddha's own subtle nature and through which the Dharma is practiced. Buddhists are also permitted to fight for the Dharma against it's annihilation. I am not sure that means the Dalai Lama agrees individual gun ownership is the best way to go about these things, rather than a benevolent central government.

Given that Buddhism favors globalism typically, I'd guess the latter. I do know that when quoting the Dalai Lama, westerners are often unaware of the traditional Buddhist dimension to the things he says, so they think he's saying something secular in nature. I cannot think of anything on hand the Dalai Lama has ever said that I could separate from Buddhist teaching.

 

[suncowiam]

Still no. Unfortunately it isn't as cut and dry. There are other factors beyond prowess. Intimidation is one. Luck is another. I imagine we could sit here and brainstorm at least 5-10 factors that are determinative but distinct.

If you are trying to suggest that it will be an equal loss to the attacker as the defender this is not always so. Nor would it matter, because it misses the point. The point is you do not get to tell Sally how to protect her children unless you have a really good reason. And sh***y as it sounds to some, all of the victims of gun violence do not amount to a good enough reason to take away Sally's choice to own a gun. Because you reason is for preventing x, and Sally is not into doing x, she is into doing y.

That is the brass tax. Some people see tragedy and they believe that anything should be given up to prevent it. But, only when it is something that they don't choose or want.

A school bus crashes and we do not say, "well, let's ban all motor transportation." Instead we say, what safety precautions can we take to avoid this.

Concerning the tool argument... Keep in mind, I didn't propose a prohibition of guns. I proposed stricter gun control. That is the safety precaution to avoid public massacres caused by guns.

Sally of course gets to choose how to defend herself, but there will always be a notion of how to effectively defend oneself. If she chooses a lesser method, that is her volition. I'm not arguing one's right to defend themselves. I'm making the point that the most effective defense is based on the environment. It cannot be concluded without understanding the types of attackers, their experiences and the types of weapons used. That is the "environment." In our environment, the best defense that I would agree with is to own a gun with proper training. That is the environment we've created for ourselves. Hypothetically speaking, if there were no guns in the hands of criminals then we could suggest a lesser form of defense that would still constitute as effective. But as it is, guns have become the best form of defense. That is not the same as me saying Sally is forced to use a gun for her self-defense. She could still use any thing else but we could objectively measure her effectiveness from her choices given the environment she is in. I hope that makes sense.

The conundrum of weapons used for self-defense, is that these same weapons can turn around and be used for offense. There is absolutely no guarantee that all these weapons will maintain a position of defense. So the more these weapons enter the environment, the more the environment will basically be these weapons. It is a catch 22 that the NRA surely knows of and pushes on the American public. The equation of effectively defending against such an environment is a feedback loop. The weapons used for defense has to be the same weapons used from offense. So, although technically there is no forcing of anyone to choose a defense, the environment effectively forces the public to have to choose that defense.

I mean Sally could choose to use only pepper spray as her defense. But given the worst case scenario that an attacker would be a male and own a gun, is that the best scenario for her? What "choice" does she really have in this matter?

 

[Revoltingest]

I see, so do you think the anti-federalist approach to the Constitution was the most correct, without offering an argument to why that is? I'm all ears buddy.

It's more than "most correct"...it's what the framers & the states approved.
And unlike others, I've never made fun of your ears.

Madison is reaffirming what the second amendment says here. I see no indication that the second amendment's wording equals unrestricted access to any firearm an individual wants. Just because an individual wants it...

I don't argue that the right is without restriction.

Yes. I certainly won't disagree with you. I'm not saying the man was perfect. Unfortunately, he was probably ruling on past legal precedent. Many judges find that easiest. That raises the question of if his gun ruling was based in past legal precedent? After all, I hope you wouldn't say a ruling about gay rights is the same issue as gun ownership. I see the individual liberty aspect you're trying to emphasize.

I find his ruling lacking in constitutional basis...in both cases.
Thus, I give no automatic weight to his quotes or decisions,
ie, he's not a reliable authority.

Well yeah. The Dalai Lama is teaching the historical Buddhist position that our body is the vessel of the Buddha's own subtle nature and through which the Dharma is practiced. Buddhists are also permitted to fight for the Dharma against it's annihilation. I am not sure that means the Dalai Lama agrees individual gun ownership is the best way to go about these things, rather than a benevolent central government.

Given that Buddhism favors globalism typically, I'd guess the latter. I do know that when quoting the Dalai Lama, westerners are often unaware of the traditional Buddhist dimension to the things he says, so they think he's saying something secular in nature. I cannot think of anything on hand the Dalai Lama has ever said that I could separate from Buddhist teaching.

I just thought it was an interesting quote from him.
It doesn't prove anything regarding our law.

 

[Buddha Dharma]

It's more than "most correct"...it's what the framers & the states approved.

If that's the case, what led to the formation of the federalists directly from among some of our followers? Also, you don't think things that have passed in our nation's history since the Constitution was ratified has cast the right of states to govern themselves at least into some question? Presuming they had this right to the unfettered degree a Libertarian might try to argue.

And unlike others, I've never made fun of your ears.

Your donkey ears would make your teasing me about my rabbit ears look hypocritical.

I don't argue that the right is without restriction.

What restrictions would you reasonably agree with?

I find his ruling lacking in constitutional basis...in both cases.
Thus, I give no automatic weight to his quotes or decisions,
ie, he's not a reliable authority.

Fair enough. I cannot change your mind on this view.

 

[Revoltingest]

If that's the case, what led to the formation of the federalists directly from among some of our followers? Also, you don't think things that have passed in our nation's history since the Constitution was ratified has cast the right of states to govern themselves at least into some question? Presuming they had this right to the unfettered degree a Libertarian might try to argue.

Being a little short of time, I'll offer....
Anti-Federalism - Wikipedia
The rights of states are spelled out in the Constitution.
But they've been modified by the Incorporation Doctrine (of the Amendments) & USSC decisions.

Your donkey ears would make your teasing me about my rabbit ears look hypocritical.

Hence my discretion.

What restrictions would you reasonably agree with?

I just listed a bunch somewhere on RF.
Highlights.....
Licensing, training, mental capacity, law abiding