Second Amendment

[freethinker44]

All the rights that you lose when Congress has the power to "discipline" you outside of the judicial system.


But that section (Article 1, Section 8) differentiates between "the militia" and the part of the militia "employed in the service of the United States":

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States,

Apparently, whatever "the militia" refers to, it's still "the militia" even when it's not in active service.

That article also gives "disciplining the militia" and "governing the militia on active service" (paraphrased) as separate powers of Congress. Presumably, these mean two different things.

When it comes to the Second Amemdment, you argued that "the militia" equalled "the people". Now, when it comes to Section 1, you're arguing that "the militia" only includes people "when they are acting as the militia"; which is it? Which do you think the Constitution means when it says "militia"?

I think discipline might mean training here.

 

[Curious George]

All the rights that you lose when Congress has the power to "discipline" you outside of the judicial system.


But that section (Article 1, Section 8) differentiates between "the militia" and the part of the militia "employed in the service of the United States":

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States,

Apparently, whatever "the militia" refers to, it's still "the militia" even when it's not in active service.

That article also gives "disciplining the militia" and "governing the militia on active service" (paraphrased) as separate powers of Congress. Presumably, these mean two different things.

When it comes to the Second Amemdment, you argued that "the militia" equalled "the people". Now, when it comes to Section 1, you're arguing that "the militia" only includes people "when they are acting as the militia"; which is it? Which do you think the Constitution means when it says "militia"?

I still suggest that militia is the people. Militia at the time meant able bodied citizens.

This is a subgroup of "the people" however my suggestion that the militia was the people was a suggestion that able bodied men were who the constitution was written for. Technically this creates a problem because without doubt, the founding fathers, thought of women and children as part of the people as well. However, their actions and laws did not suggest that this was consistently the case. So, it was a politically charged statement.

Yes, I was wrong regarding my assumption that the militia was only regarded as such when they were active. So, upon further consideration, I would instead assert that this power to "discipline" is applicable only when disciplining someone in accordance with actions done as a member of the militia. But, this definitely means that a person who acted with the militia was always regarded as a part of the militia even when the militia was not active.

This does not compromise any other rights as any discipline that did such would require a balancing test.

 

[Mister Emu]

More guns is not going to fix our gun problem,

This is the heart of the issue. We don't have a gun problem, we have a violence problem.

 

[Underhill]

This is the heart of the issue. We don't have a gun problem, we have a violence problem.

I don't buy that. That implies that Americans are more violent than the rest of the world. I don't see that.

I'm a gun owner but I see the number of guns easily accessible by those who want to commit violence as the problem. This is a direct result of the sheer number of guns among the populace.

We can't get rid of them (couldn't if we wanted to at this point) but we can try to make people lock them up and limit who can buy them.

 

[Mister Emu]

I don't buy that. That implies that Americans are more violent than the rest of the world.

That is hyperbole. We aren't. But we are more violent than a significant portion of the first world.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/special/nation/gun-homicides-ownership/table/
Look at gun ownership compared to murder rates by gun. The simple presence of guns isn't a problem, it is who has them.

 

[Underhill]

That is hyperbole. We aren't. But we are more violent than a significant portion of the first world.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/special/nation/gun-homicides-ownership/table/
Look at gun ownership compared to murder rates by gun. The simple presence of guns isn't a problem, it is who has them.

I like the way you phrased that but your cooking the books a bit. Yes, we are more violent than much of the first world (with guns) but using the same metric (you didn't), there is a correlation, among first world nations, between guns and homicide rates. There are exceptions (like in Switzerland) but I would also point out the reason. They have laws on the books much like those I proposed.

 

[Mister Emu]

Yes, we are more violent than much of the first world (with guns) but using the same metric (you didn't), there is a correlation, among first world nations, between guns and homicide rates.

Indeed there is a correlation. However, it is a negative one.

http://crimeresearch.org/2014/03/comparing-murder-rates-across-countries/

Now I'm not saying that gun ownership causes less homicide. But, gun ownership in first world/developed countries correlates with less murder, not more.

They have laws on the books much like those I proposed.

we can try to make people lock them up and limit who can buy them.

No, you can't; you can't do either of those things. You can't try to make people lock them up(Heller. The ability to have a gun available for self-defense is protected by the second amendment and laws that require locks infringe upon this). You also cannot limit those who can purchase guns without due process, as it is an American's right to purchase firearms.

 

[Underhill]

Indeed there is a correlation. However, it is a negative one.

http://crimeresearch.org/2014/03/comparing-murder-rates-across-countries/

Now I'm not saying that gun ownership causes less homicide. But, gun ownership in first world/developed countries correlates with less murder, not more.



No, you can't; you can't do either of those things. You can't try to make people lock them up(Heller. The ability to have a gun available for self-defense is protected by the second amendment and laws that require locks infringe upon this). You also cannot limit those who can purchase guns without due process, as it is an American's right to purchase firearms.

Actually we can do both as the constitution does not say you have the right to own a gun for self defense or the right to get a gun without a permit.

As for your graph, it ignores the obvious. We were talking about first world nations. Poorer, more unstable nations tend to have higher rates of murder and crime regardless of gun ownership, but it isn't relevant information for what should be obvious reasons.

And the Crime Prevention Research Center is a purely pro gun group. The name implies a whole host of lies and half truths that make them a dubious source at best.

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct...0d5lNCHVw&sig2=M6PWPD1jobFkPWB_x5tRdw&cad=rja

 

[Mister Emu]

Actually we can do both as the constitution does not say you have the right to own a gun for self defense

Actually, according to the SCOTUS it does. I even cited the decision in my last post and you still said this.

The Heller decision specifically says the right to bear arms covers lawful usage of arms, including self-defense and that laws that prevent a gun from being readily available in your home, such as a requirement for dis-assembly, not being loaded, or being locked, are unconstitutional.

the right to get a gun without a permit.

Again, you can't deny someone's rights without due process. The courts have found that even having been committed to a mental facility in the past in and of itself is not constitutional grounds for denying arms. No permitting process could both meaningfully limit gun owners and pass constitutional muster.

As for your graph, it ignores the obvious. We were talking about first world nations. Poorer, more unstable nations tend to have higher rates of murder and crime regardless of gun ownership, but it isn't relevant information for what should be obvious reasons.

Look at the title of the graph again. It includes only developed nations. We are still talking about first world nations.

And the Crime Prevention Research Center is a purely pro gun group. The name implies a whole host of lies and half truths that make them a dubious source at best.

So what is the lie here then? You made a claim that there was a (positive) correlation between guns and first world homicide rates, what is the source for that information?

 

[esmith]

So, I ask all of you that feel that there is a problem in the laws governing firearms..... What law would you like to see passed and how it would curtail the problems that you perceive.

 

[Underhill]

Actually, according to the SCOTUS it does. I even cited the decision in my last post and you still said this.

The Heller decision specifically says the right to bear arms covers lawful usage of arms, including self-defense and that laws that prevent a gun from being readily available in your home, such as a requirement for dis-assembly, not being loaded, or being locked, are unconstitutional.

So quote for me where it says that in the constitution? The supreme court has been wrong in the past. This would not be the first time.

Not to mention that decision was made in 1975. Fingerprint activated safes make getting quick access to locked guns a non issue.

Again, you can't deny someone's rights without due process. The courts have found that even having been committed to a mental facility in the past in and of itself is not constitutional grounds for denying arms. No permitting process could both meaningfully limit gun owners and pass constitutional muster.

So explain to me how most states require permits for handguns? Many of them will not issue if there is a history of mental health issues.

Look at the title of the graph again. It includes only developed nations. We are still talking about first world nations.

Developed nations and first world nations are not the same thing. Countries like Mexico make the 'developed nations' list, but are not considered first world. The US, most of Europe, Japan, South Korea... these are first world nations. Mexico, most of south America, a lot of Asia, are considered second world with the worst obviously being 3rd world. The difference is substantial. Countries like Mexico, Egypt or Kenya cannot be compared to the US but are considered 'developed nations'.

So what is the lie here then? You made a claim that there was a (positive) correlation between guns and first world homicide rates, what is the source for that information?

http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/hicrc/firearms-research/guns-and-death/

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26091930

 

[Mister Emu]

When small arm homicides are compared to undeveloped countries, for sure, but NOTE that the USA is left out of your graph, Hmmm . . . . . Wonder why? Oh yes, because when it is included, it comes out looking pretty bad

If you checked the link you'd notice that they do have the same graph with the U.S. included. I misread the website and thought it said that the correlation was slightly more negative, which is why I chose the one without the U.S. My apologies.
Here is the graph:

Still a clearly negative trend.

So quote for me where it says that in the constitution?

SCOTUS decisions are official interpretation of the constitution. For all legal purposes we have the rights they say we do... unfortunately. I actually agree with you in principle, that the SCOTUS shouldn't be making up rights like a right to use your gun in self-defence or a right to have an abortion, etc. However, they do and their pronouncements control our laws.

Not to mention that decision was made in 1975.

The Heller decision was 2008.

So explain to me how most states require permits for handguns?

Because they are not substantially impeding the ability of applicants to obtain those handguns.

Many of them will not issue if there is a history of mental health issues.

That is probably a good thing. But, as I said, the federal court system has said that by itself a history of mental health issues(broadly speaking) is not sufficient to deny 2nd Amendment rights.

Mexico, most of south America, a lot of Asia, are considered second world

I actually learned something because of this statement. No, they are not, nor have they ever been considered second world(or first world). The Three Worlds were centered around the cold war, with 1st world being NATO and its capitalist allies, 2nd world being USSR and its communist allies, and the third world being everyone else. The end of the cold war is why terminology switched to developed and developing.

Countries like Mexico, Egypt or Kenya cannot be compared to the US but are considered 'developed nations'.

One of these things is not like the other, one of these things just doesn't belong. One of these things has the 15th largest economy in the world.

http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/hicrc/firearms-research/guns-and-death/

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26091930

Thanks, I appreciate it and I'll look into them.

 

[Underhill]

If you checked the link you'd notice that they do have the same graph with the U.S. included. I misread the website and thought it said that the correlation was slightly more negative, which is why I chose the one without the U.S. My apologies.
Here is the graph:

Still a clearly negative trend.

Sure, but these tables are decieving. There is so much more at work here than just gun ownership. For example a pile of those countries with higher rates of ownership already have the kinds of laws I am talking about. (most of those that demonstrate your trend in fact.)

SCOTUS decisions are official interpretation of the constitution. For all legal purposes we have the rights they say we do... unfortunately. I actually agree with you in principle, that the SCOTUS shouldn't be making up rights like a right to use your gun in self-defence or a right to have an abortion, etc. However, they do and their pronouncements control our laws.

Obviously.

The Heller decision was 2008.

Oops, the Firearms Control Act was from 1975.

Because they are not substantially impeding the ability of applicants to obtain those handguns.

Except that is the argument you just tried to use to tell me we couldn't make people get permits for gun ownership.

That is probably a good thing. But, as I said, the federal court system has said that by itself a history of mental health issues(broadly speaking) is not sufficient to deny 2nd Amendment rights.

Which is sheer stupidity.

I actually learned something because of this statement. No, they are not, nor have they ever been considered second world(or first world). The Three Worlds were centered around the cold war, with 1st world being NATO and its capitalist allies, 2nd world being USSR and its communist allies, and the third world being everyone else. The end of the cold war is why terminology switched to developed and developing.

Okay, my terminology was incorrect. But the point is valid.

One of these things is not like the other, one of these things just doesn't belong. One of these things has the 15th largest economy in the world.

Sure, but it still cannot be compared to the US. They are essentially in civil war right now. Jamaica is another prime example. My parents live there. I can tell you they are not at all comparable to the US. The poverty there is like nothing seen in the US. You cannot put poverty torn, war torn countries on the same table with the US and try to make a point about gun policy.

Thanks, I appreciate it and I'll look into them.

No problem.

 

[Koldo]

Ah.

My position on the gun topic in the US has always been very simple: it is a political fight and one that I hope my side wins eventually. It is not a debate, it is not a discussion. It is simply whether or not one side has enough political capital to enforce their viewpoint. The 'debate' has long been over. It is now nothing more than a political battle.

Exactly.
It doesn't matter what the amendment says. This is only about what side can enforce the interpretation that suits their ideals.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

That is hyperbole. We aren't. But we are more violent than a significant portion of the first world.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/special/nation/gun-homicides-ownership/table/
Look at gun ownership compared to murder rates by gun. The simple presence of guns isn't a problem, it is who has them.

I think it would be interesting - and potentially more informative - to look at gun ownership not in terms of number of guns per capita, but number of gun owners per capita. I suspect that there's a diminishing return here: I doubt that one guy with ten guns has as much crime potential as ten guys with one gun each, but the stats you quoted don't differentiate between these two situations.

I'd also be interested to see things broken down by type of firearm. Comparing Canada to the US, I think that a lot of the difference in our experiences comes down to the fact that almost all of our firearms are hunting weapons (rifles and shotguns) while a large proportion (maybe majority?) of your guns are so-called "self-defense" weapons (e.g. handguns).

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

So, I ask all of you that feel that there is a problem in the laws governing firearms..... What law would you like to see passed and how it would curtail the problems that you perceive.

Personally, I think four things would be good ideas:

1. Ban - or at least severely restrict - availability of handguns. The story of gun violence is primarily about handguns. Any gun control policy that doesn't address this fact isn't really getting at the core of the issue.
2. Require all gun owners to carry liability insurance. Let the market decide the relationship between risk and cost: if you want to "exercise your rights" by keeping a loaded firearm with no trigger lock under your pillow to shoot intruders, expect to pay a higher premium than someone who keeps his hunting rifle in a gun safe and his ammo in a separate lock box.
3. Change how tort liability for gun crimes works: make every person who owns a gun, starting with the manufacturer and going on down, liable for any future use of the gun unless they can demonstrate to a very high standard that they took every reasonable measure to ensure that the gun would not be used in a crime by them or by any future owner.
4. Make known issues with firearms - e.g. increased risk of suicide - issues that gun manufacturers are responsible and liable for, similar to the liability and responsibility of a company that makes airbags that increase a car occupant's risk of death.

Of course, I don't think the political climate of the US will allow any of these right now. This is more of a "wish list" than a realistic plan. It's what I would like to see, not what I think I will see.

 

[esmith]

Personally, I think four things would be good ideas:

1. Ban - or at least severely restrict - availability of handguns. The story of gun violence is primarily about handguns. Any gun control policy that doesn't address this fact isn't really getting at the core of the issue.
2. Require all gun owners to carry liability insurance. Let the market decide the relationship between risk and cost: if you want to "exercise your rights" by keeping a loaded firearm with no trigger lock under your pillow to shoot intruders, expect to pay a higher premium than someone who keeps his hunting rifle in a gun safe and his ammo in a separate lock box.
3. Change how tort liability for gun crimes works: make every person who owns a gun, starting with the manufacturer and going on down, liable for any future use of the gun unless they can demonstrate to a very high standard that they took every reasonable measure to ensure that the gun would not be used in a crime by them or by any future owner.
4. Make known issues with firearms - e.g. increased risk of suicide - issues that gun manufacturers are responsible and liable for, similar to the liability and responsibility of a company that makes airbags that increase a car occupant's risk of death.

Of course, I don't think the political climate of the US will allow any of these right now. This is more of a "wish list" than a realistic plan. It's what I would like to see, not what I think I will see.

Let's look at yours one at a time:
1. You would have to amended the 2nd Amendment. Not going to happen, takes 38 out of 50 states to do so (of course that is at the present and foreseeable future
2. Illegal search and seizure. You would have to have a warrant to discover if someone did or did not do what you suggest
3. Do that and you open a huge ball of worms. Think how many products would be in jeopardy. automobiles for a starter
4. See 3 above.

I'll give you points for at least trying but there are too many of us.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Let's look at yours one at a time:
1. You would have to amended the 2nd Amendment. Not going to happen, takes 38 out of 50 states to do so (of course that is at the present and foreseeable future

If you had paid attention to my whole post, you would have seen the bit at the bottom where I explained that I don't expect this to happen.

2. Illegal search and seizure. You would have to have a warrant to discover if someone did or did not do what you suggest

No, you wouldn't:
- it could be done a lot like cars: if you're being searched for something else, the cops check insurance while they're at it. There could also be a requirement that your firearm license can't be renewed unless you provide confirmation of your insurance.
- if you lie about it and get caught, you would incur the wrath of the insurance companies. Again: let the market take care of as much as possible.

3. Do that and you open a huge ball of worms. Think how many products would be in jeopardy. automobiles for a starter

Why would changing the rules for firearms affect automobiles?

The "reasonable person" test is already used in the law in all sorts of ways. This would just be one more.

4. See 3 above.

Why would automobiles be in jeopardy if we treat guns like automobiles when it comes to product liability?

 

[esmith]

Why would automobiles be in jeopardy if we treat guns like automobiles when it comes to product liability?

Basically you are saying that if someone injures someone with a firearm the manufacture should be held libel, even if the firearm was not "defective". Is that one of your points? If so then if a person kills and or injures someone with a car, then the manufacture could be held libel just as you want to hold firearm manufactures libel. Comprenda.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Basically you are saying that if someone injures someone with a firearm the manufacture should be held libel, even if the firearm was not "defective". Is that one of your points?

Not really. Depends what you mean by "defective".

I'm arguing that when a person buys a weapon for hunting, for instance, but it has the side effect of increasing the risk of suicide in that home, it's just as much of a defect as when a person buys a car to drive around but it has the side effect of increasing the risk of the occupants being killed by an airbag.

In these situations, it's the responsibility of the manufacturer to show that they took all reasonable steps to reduce that incidental risk.

Back in the day, cars with no "defects" could still have occupants in their crumple zones or steering columns that would skewer the driver through the chest. It's time for a similar change to our attitudes toward firearm design issues now as happened decades ago with cars.