|
Users viewing this topic:
none
|
|
Login  | |
|
RE: D.C.'s Gun Ban Gets Day in Court - 4/3/2008 7:50:05 PM
|
|
|
1dblthnk02
Posts: 394
Joined: 3/24/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: SteveSund
From every indication it seems that the Supreme Court is going with the individual rights approach.
Have you heard something new? I haven’t heard anything new for about two weeks now . . .
quote:
Whike there are some on the court that believe there is support for a militia in the 2nd, they also believe the individual right to bear arms is a separate clause.
Yes, but I doubt that their interpretation is going to hold up in the long run: “the right of the people to keep and bear arms,” is not an independent clause. The thing that bothers me is they haven’t even addressed the most important issues, not as of yet anyway.
quote:
Miller has to be one of the most poorly written and decided opinions of the 20th century.
I don’t think so. Their reasoning was sound and in keeping with a general understanding of the 2nd Amendment and U.S. history.
quote:
The ban was passed in 1976.
. . . and has been challenged ever since.
quote:
Besides banning handguns, it also says that any long guns must be unloaded and disassembled. This makes it impossible to have a gun for self-defense outside the home.
How many ordinary citizens “pack” for self-defense? You need a license to so, btw.
quote:
Unless the 'bad guy' calls ahead and gives you notice, it also makes self-defense inside the home very difficult.
Having been to D.C., I would feel far safer in my home than outside of it.
quote:
The average crime rate is higher after the ban then it was before the ban
Now, let’s be clear here. When did D.C.’s crime rate begin its significant upswing?-- Immediately after the ban? Six months after? A year after?
It was twelve full years after the ban. 1988’s staggering crime rise in D.C. corresponded with a nation-wide crime increase due to the proliferation of crack cocaine. It had nothing whatsoever to do with the gun ban.
quote:
DC is one of the most unsafe cities in the country.
It would help if you qualified your sources on statements like this. According to an Infoplease list compiled last year, D.C. didn’t even make the top 25 most unsafe cities in the U.S.
quote:
I fail to see how the ban is reasonable or justified.
. . . because of everything that I have noted thus far on this thread, especially my last post which you have not really addressed.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: D.C.'s Gun Ban Gets Day in Court - 4/3/2008 7:52:21 PM
|
|
|
1dblthnk02
Posts: 394
Joined: 3/24/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Marcus.
I'm afraid to say it looks far more like a national government. A federal system falls apart if the states pull out. But they can't. When there is a conflict between federal and state law, the state's will always loose.
Did the rebel states of the Civil War really lose? The Union was preserved to everyone’s benefit as far as I am concerned. Can you imagine how different the 20th Century would have played out, e.g. weathering two World Wars, the Great Depression, the Cold War, the space race, etc. if there were not a UNITED States? The United States became a world leader that it could never have been as the Divided States.
quote:
But back to this case. Since the district isn't a state, does that mean the people living there don't have full Constitutional rights? That they willing give them up to live there?
Valid question. My answer is: yes-- the citizens of Washington D.C., as citizens of the United States, have full Constitutional rights. I do not see this as a matter of civil liberties, but rather as a matter of extending to a non-state the 2nd Amendment’s guarantee of state protection from Congressional infringement.
What actually needs to be determined is whether D.C., as a corporate district under the full plenary power of Congress, has the right to pass its own gun legislation free of federal intervention. I don’t think that this has ever been addressed in any of the court battles since 1976, and I would like to know why not.
< Message edited by 1dblthnk02 -- 4/3/2008 8:03:05 PM >
|
|
|
|
|
RE: D.C.'s Gun Ban Gets Day in Court - 4/3/2008 11:10:02 PM
|
|
|
rnershigh
Posts: 1799
Joined: 7/15/2005
From: DC metro area
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: 1dblthnk02
How many ordinary citizens “pack” for self-defense? You need a license to so, btw.
Not exactly. It varies by state, but I know here in Virginia to open carry you don't need a license. All one has to do is make sure the firearm is visible. Citizens can also conceal carry in which you do need a license (requirements include training and class certification).
_____________________________
O Grave! where is thy Victory?
O Death! where is thy Sting?
|
|
|
|
|
RE: D.C.'s Gun Ban Gets Day in Court - 4/3/2008 11:31:37 PM
|
|
|
Marcus.
Posts: 1180
Joined: 4/11/2005
Status: offline
|
Based on original intent from the debates and the what militia meant for over the first century of the U.S.A, I have no doubts at all that private individual possession of common military small arms was the intent. Folks trying to interpret otherwise are confined to ignoring the original debates (Constitutional and state) of the period. The idea of restricting ownership and calling it into question is purely an invention of the 20th Century.
_____________________________
Blessed is He who comes in the Name of the Lord.
Hosea Project Care Net
Google
|
|
|
|
|
RE: D.C.'s Gun Ban Gets Day in Court - 4/4/2008 9:18:14 AM
|
|
|
SteveSund
Posts: 686
Joined: 11/8/2005
From: Michigan
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: 1dblthnk02
. . . because of everything that I have noted thus far on this thread, especially my last post which you have not really addressed.
What do you want me to address? Frankly, your arguments are almost entirely based on your opinion and a reading of one case (Miller). Others have provided quotes, which you have said are not really alll that important (despite case law that says it is). I provided cases, which you said were not on point, despite the fact that Miller has never been used to support a state's right to have a militia. It wasn't even mentioned in Perpich where it would have if it applied, since that was a case that dealt with federal control over the Reserves and National Guard.
The majority of law review articles seem to support an individual right, so your position is not supported by facts, history, and caselaw.
quote:
Yes, but I doubt that their interpretation is going to hold up in the long run: “the right of the people to keep and bear arms,” is not an independent clause. The thing that bothers me is they haven’t even addressed the most important issues, not as of yet anyway.
The right of the people to keep and bear arms is most certainly an independent clause. Do you honestly believe the FF's would have supported laws to disarm the populace? Have you read any of their writings from that period of books on the debate surrounding the development of the BOR's? They most certainly would have supported an individual right to bear arms as stated in the 2nd Amendment. Most cases that mention the second Amendment never even include the militia clause.
Here is a good discussion.
The 5th Circuit also believes the 2nd affirms an individual right. From that case:
quote:
We have found no historical evidence that the Second Amendment was intended to
convey militia power to the states, limit the federal government's power to maintain a standing
army, or applies only to members of a select militia while on active duty. All of the evidence
indicates that the Second Amendment, like other parts of the Bill of Rights, applies to and
protects individual Americans.”
From that same case:
quote:
“We conclude that Miller does not support the
[government's] collective rights or sophisticated collective rights approach to the Second
Amendment.” They continue, “There is no evidence in the text of the Second Amendment,
or any other part of the Constitution, that the words ‘we the people’ have a different connotation
within the Second Amendment than when employed elsewhere ...”.
quote:
How many ordinary citizens “pack” for self-defense? You need a license to so, btw.
You don't need a license in Alaska or Vermont. Most states (39) are shall issue, meaning they need a good reason to deny your permit. I am not sure about numbers. My state currently has over 150,000 permit holders. Florida has issued over 1.2 million permits since the late 1980's and currently has over 400,000 permit holders.
quote:
Now, let’s be clear here. When did D.C.’s crime rate begin its significant upswing?-- Immediately after the ban? Six months after? A year after?
It was twelve full years after the ban. 1988’s staggering crime rise in D.C. corresponded with a nation-wide crime increase due to the proliferation of crack cocaine. It had nothing whatsoever to do with the gun ban.
I never said it did. I just pointed out that the gun ban has failed to prevent crime. In 2003, a CDC taskforce reviewed 51 recent studies:
quote:
they “found insufficient evidence to determine the effectiveness of any
of the firearms laws or combinations of laws reviewed on violent outcomes."
Using the FBI uniform crime stats, the DC homicide rate rose 134% from 1976 to 1996, while the national rate dropped 2%.
quote:
It would help if you qualified your sources on statements like this. According to an Infoplease list compiled last year, D.C. didn’t even make the top 25 most unsafe cities in the U.S.
Sure. #4 most dangerous in cities with a population of over 500,000.
quote:
Having been to D.C., I would feel far safer in my home than outside of it.
Then everyone should just never leave their home if they want to feel safe. What a great idea.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: D.C.'s Gun Ban Gets Day in Court - 4/4/2008 3:06:07 PM
|
|
|
1dblthnk02
Posts: 394
Joined: 3/24/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: rnershigh
Not exactly. It varies by state, but I know here in Virginia to open carry you don't need a license. All one has to do is make sure the firearm is visible.
Thanks for that tidbit of info. Come to think of it, it seems that this is true in several states.
But the question remains: what percentage of the population actually does this? If very few people “strap” for protection, then how does gun legislation make the majority any less safe?
quote:
Citizens can also conceal carry in which you do need a license (requirements include training and class certification).
And this is a form of gun control, is it not? I’ll also bet that those concealed weapons have to be registered. How does this violate anyone’s civil liberties?
I’m posing these questions in general, rnershigh. You brought up some valid points, so I’m expounding on them.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: D.C.'s Gun Ban Gets Day in Court - 4/4/2008 3:07:21 PM
|
|
|
1dblthnk02
Posts: 394
Joined: 3/24/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Marcus.
Based on original intent from the debates and the what militia meant for over the first century of the U.S.A, I have no doubts at all that private individual possession of common military small arms was the intent.
It was not the only intent. You have already admitted as much in post #125; “I see the Second Amendment as a guarantee for both individual rights and state rights.”
quote:
Folks trying to interpret otherwise are confined to ignoring the original debates (Constitutional and state) of the period.
And on Sept. 9, 1789, they proposed inserting the phrase “for the common defense” after the words “keep and bear arms.” What does this tell you about original intent?
But in all reason, we cannot confine ourselves strictly to the observations of the Framers without confining ourselves to the prevailing condition of the United States in 1789. The militia has changed since that time. Even if we were to outright disarm the citizenry (something I would be opposed to, btw) it would not affect the security of a free state. We would still have the National Guard, Army Reserve, Air reserve, Coast Guard, etc.
quote:
The idea of restricting ownership and calling it into question is purely an invention of the 20th Century.
It seems to me that you are calling the restriction of ownership into question if I read this comment correctly.
And it is not an “invention” of the 20th Century: U.S. v Cruikshank and Presser v Illinois were both argued and rendered in the 19th Century.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: D.C.'s Gun Ban Gets Day in Court - 4/4/2008 3:12:38 PM
|
|
|
1dblthnk02
Posts: 394
Joined: 3/24/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: SteveSund
What do you want me to address? Frankly, your arguments are almost entirely based on your opinion and a reading of one case (Miller).
Because is Miller is the clearest, most decisive case imo.
quote:
Others have provided quotes, which you have said are not really alll that important
I did not say that they weren’t important; I said that a Founder’s quote war on this forum would be pointless.
quote:
I provided cases, which you said were not on point, despite the fact that Miller has never been used to support a state's right to have a militia.
The states’ right to a militia was never called into question. The defendant claimed his right to a sawed-off shotgun based on the 2nd Amendment. His defense was ruled as off-base, and it was.
quote:
It wasn't even mentioned in Perpich where it would have if it applied, since that was a case that dealt with federal control over the Reserves and National Guard.
This is off point: Perpich did not argue the right to states’ militias, or the right to bear arms. The 2nd did not figure in. We are discussing the 2nd Amendment, are we not?
quote:
The majority of law review articles seem to support an individual right, so your position is not supported by facts, history, and caselaw.
With all due respect, my position is based entirely upon facts, history, and case law.
quote:
The right of the people to keep and bear arms is most certainly an independent clause.
An independent clause is this: “A group of words that contains a subject and verb and expresses a complete thought. An independent clause is a sentence”
Now, I don’t think that it is profitable to turn this into a debate based on the rules of grammar, but when someone puts forth the argument that the phrase “the right of the people to keep and bear arms” (no predicate germane to the subject) is an independent clause, they are mistaken.
quote:
We have found no historical evidence that the Second Amendment was intended to
convey militia power to the states, limit the federal government's power to maintain a standing
army, or applies only to members of a select militia while on active duty.
You know, I don’t have a problem with any of this. I have already stated that the 2nd Amendment does not grant the right to militias or to bear arms, but protects these rights from Congressional infringement. It also does not mention standing armies, but it is a historical fact that the framers detested standing armies, and that they had this aversion in mind while drafting the 2nd Amendment.
quote:
There is no evidence in the text of the Second Amendment, or any other part of the Constitution, that the words ‘we the people’ have a different connotation within the Second Amendment than when employed elsewhere
This is not quite true. First of all, the phrase “WE the people” is not part of the 2nd Amendment; it is in the Preamble. Secondly, “the people” can be seen to have applicable connotations of being a collective body, or individuals; the two definitions alternate throughout the Bill of Rights. As “the people” applies to the 2nd Amendment specifically, there is room for either interpretation.
quote:
Most states (39) are shall issue, meaning they need a good reason to deny your permit.
But does the average citizen carry firearms for personal protection? I think not. Therefore, the whole pro-gun “protection” argument amounts to little. Relatively few people can attribute their personal safety to firearms.
quote:
I never said it did. I just pointed out that the gun ban has failed to prevent crime.
You did more than that. Your exact words, “The average crime rate is higher after the ban then it was before the ban,” links by proximity the rise in crime directly to the gun ban.
quote:
Using the FBI uniform crime stats, the DC homicide rate rose 134% from 1976 to 1996
And has been steadily dropping ever since 1997 to rates as low as the first two years when the ban took effect
quote:
Sure. #4 most dangerous in cities with a population of over 500,000.
But # 19 on "Overall cities." Btw, the site lacks the year in which these statistics were gathered.
quote:
Then everyone should just never leave their home if they want to feel safe. What a great idea.
This was not my point at all. You brought up the issue of defending one’s home.
But as long we are on the topic of feeling safe, how safe would everyone actually feel if they deemed it necessary to strap on a loaded sidearm every time that they exited their front door? That is not a paradigm of safety, but of fear.
< Message edited by 1dblthnk02 -- 4/4/2008 3:21:32 PM >
|
|
|
|
|
RE: D.C.'s Gun Ban Gets Day in Court - 4/4/2008 6:01:16 PM
|
|
|
EverLearning
Posts: 1881
Joined: 5/25/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: 1dblthnk02
And this is a form of gun control, is it not?
The DC case wasn't about control, it was about an outright ban . I would like just once for there to be a debate where we debate apples and oranges. Controling how someone can carry, ie registering for a ccw, is not the same as not allowing people to own a gun at all.
_____________________________
Normal people believe that if it ain't broke, don't fix it."
Engineers believe that "if it ain't broke, it doesn't have enough
features yet
|
|
|
|
|
RE: D.C.'s Gun Ban Gets Day in Court - 4/4/2008 8:38:32 PM
|
|
|
SteveSund
Posts: 686
Joined: 11/8/2005
From: Michigan
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: 1dblthnk02
With all due respect, my position is based entirely upon facts, history, and case law.
Your position is based on Miller. What facts is it based on? What other cases?
Cruikshank and Presser, which you mentioned earlier, recognize an individual right to bear arms. They just say the Constitution is not a barrier for State action, which was consistent with their view of the other BOR's.
quote:
This is not quite true. First of all, the phrase “WE the people” is not part of the 2nd Amendment; it is in the Preamble. Secondly, “the people” can be seen to have applicable connotations of being a collective body, or individuals; the two definitions alternate throughout the Bill of Rights. As “the people” applies to the 2nd Amendment specifically, there is room for either interpretation.
What other portions of the first 8 Bill of Rights only apply to groups? Why do you ignore the other caselaw that speaks about an individual right to bear arms?
quote:
But does the average citizen carry firearms for personal protection? I think not. Therefore, the whole pro-gun “protection” argument amounts to little. Relatively few people can attribute their personal safety to firearms.
Gary Kleck has done statistical analysis of crime in the United States and argues that while in 1993 there were about four hundred thousand crimes committed with guns, there were approximately 2.5 million crimes in which victims used guns for self-protection. (Kleck and Gertz 1995,"Armed resistance to crime." Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology 86(1):150-187, p. 162)
2.5 million is more than a relative few.
quote:
You did more than that. Your exact words, “The average crime rate is higher after the ban then it was before the ban,” links by proximity the rise in crime directly to the gun ban.
Your words not mine. I was mostly presenting it to show that the ban did not seem to have the desired effect.
quote:
But # 19 on "Overall cities." Btw, the site lacks the year in which these statistics were gathered.
2006
quote:
This was not my point at all. You brought up the issue of defending one’s home.
But as long we are on the topic of feeling safe, how safe would everyone actually feel if they deemed it necessary to strap on a loaded sidearm every time that they exited their front door? That is not a paradigm of safety, but of fear.
Everyone that carries a gun is in fear? I have never felt fearful by the mere act of carrying. I have been in a few situations where I was fearful, but having a gun did not make me more fearful. A gun, for most people, is a seldom used tool. By your logic, by wearing a seatbelt, I should be in fear of a car accident.
In the end, if there is an individual right to bear arms or Congress is forbidden from infringing on the right to bear arms, then it shouldn't matter if people are safer. The burden should be on the gov't to show a need. I am sure that we would be a safer society if there were frequent warrantless searches. I am sure they would come up with a fair amount of contraband. I am also sure we would be safer if there were curfews for everyone.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: D.C.'s Gun Ban Gets Day in Court - 4/5/2008 12:30:07 AM
|
|
|
Marcus.
Posts: 1180
Joined: 4/11/2005
Status: offline
|
An armed society is a polite society.
_____________________________
Blessed is He who comes in the Name of the Lord.
Hosea Project Care Net
Google
|
|
|
|
|
RE: D.C.'s Gun Ban Gets Day in Court - 4/5/2008 8:23:29 PM
|
|
|
cog41
Posts: 573
Joined: 7/16/2006
From: tejas
Status: offline
|
quote:
A gun, for most people, is a seldom used tool. By your logic, by wearing a seatbelt, I should be in fear of a car accident.
In the end, if there is an individual right to bear arms or Congress is forbidden from infringing on the right to bear arms, then it shouldn't matter if people are safer. The burden should be on the gov't to show a need. I am sure that we would be a safer society if there were frequent warrantless searches. I am sure they would come up with a fair amount of contraband. I am also sure we would be safer if there were curfews for everyone.
Incorrect. One chooses to own a gun. The seat belt is a piece of federally required equipment that comes with the motor vehicle one chooses to own/operate and when operating the said motor vehicle the state requires the operator to wear the seat belt. One may choose to wear or not to wear the belt,but the ownership of the belt is without choice as it comes with the car/truck etc.
Correct, the gun is a tool. Seldom used but should be practiced with and handled by it's owner very frequently. Practice,practice and More practice so that when and if the time comes to be "used" it will be used with sound proficiency.
Warantless searches? Contraband? What call ye contraband? Curfews?
Next you'll have us quartering troops and giving our daughters to His majesty's officers.
Please!!!!!!!!!!!!!
_____________________________
Psalm 122:6 Pray for the peace of Jerusalem: "May they prosper who love you."
Hook'em Horns! Roll Tide!
|
|
|
|
|
RE: D.C.'s Gun Ban Gets Day in Court - 4/5/2008 8:28:14 PM
|
|
|
cog41
Posts: 573
Joined: 7/16/2006
From: tejas
Status: offline
|
I should have said, lawful,dutiful and sound proficiency.
_____________________________
Psalm 122:6 Pray for the peace of Jerusalem: "May they prosper who love you."
Hook'em Horns! Roll Tide!
|
|
|
|
|
RE: D.C.'s Gun Ban Gets Day in Court - 4/6/2008 9:45:42 AM
|
|
|
SteveSund
Posts: 686
Joined: 11/8/2005
From: Michigan
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: cog41
Incorrect. One chooses to own a gun. The seat belt is a piece of federally required equipment that comes with the motor vehicle one chooses to own/operate and when operating the said motor vehicle the state requires the operator to wear the seat belt. One may choose to wear or not to wear the belt,but the ownership of the belt is without choice as it comes with the car/truck etc.
Correct, the gun is a tool. Seldom used but should be practiced with and handled by it's owner very frequently. Practice,practice and More practice so that when and if the time comes to be "used" it will be used with sound proficiency.
Warantless searches? Contraband? What call ye contraband? Curfews?
Next you'll have us quartering troops and giving our daughters to His majesty's officers.
Please!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I am afraid that you may have misunderstood my point. I apologize for not explaining it better. I was trying to say that the act of carrying a gun does not imply that that person is fearful or looking to use it...the same as wearing a seatbelt does not mean a person is expecting (or fearful) to be in accident.
My comment on warrantless searches was directed at those who are willing to give up liberty in the name of 'feeling safer'.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: D.C.'s Gun Ban Gets Day in Court - 4/6/2008 11:18:22 AM
|
|
|
1dblthnk02
Posts: 394
Joined: 3/24/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: EverLearning
The DC case wasn't about control, it was about an outright ban . I would like just once for there to be a debate where we debate apples and oranges.
You lost me here . . . you want to debate an invalid comparison? Why?
quote:
Controling how someone can carry, ie registering for a ccw, is not the same as not allowing people to own a gun at all.
I was pointing out that even our freedoms are controlled or truncated to one degree or another. Most gun advocates recoil (no pun intended) at the idea of any control whatsoever, which demonstrates a kind of outright intemperance, imo.
D.C.’s gun ban is not a unilateral ban on all firearms, but rather some very specific restrictions. As drastic as the ban may be in comparison to the rest of the country, it causes me to wonder just exactly how D.C. fits under the umbrella of the 2nd Amendment.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: D.C.'s Gun Ban Gets Day in Court - 4/6/2008 11:19:39 AM
|
|
|
1dblthnk02
Posts: 394
Joined: 3/24/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: SteveSund
Your position is based on Miller.
My position is based on the historical notes of the various versions that the 2nd Amendment took before ratification, the current ratified one (most gun advocates cannot even quote it correctly), the case law that deals with the 2nd Amendment— five in particular—and one of those is Miller, the clearest and most recent one until now. I also look at the particulars of statistics, as you should have noticed by this time.
quote:
Cruikshank and Presser, which you mentioned earlier, recognize an individual right to bear arms.
I also recognize the right of individuals to bear arms; you should have noticed this by now as well.
quote:
What other portions of the first 8 Bill of Rights only apply to groups?
First of all, just because “the people” in the 2nd Amendment is a collective term does not negate the right of individuals to bear arms. Remember, the 2nd Amendment does not grant rights, but rather protects them from Congressional infringement, albeit with a specific justification in mind.
But to answer your question:
The 1st Amendment: “the right of the people peaceably to assemble”; it is unlikely that the framers considered an individual to be an assembly
The 9th Amendment: “The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people” is collective in order to include states’ rights
The 10th Amendment: “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people”; “the powers” are not vested in individuals, but rather in the collective
I am unclear how you interpret “the people,” SteveS. Are you suggesting that “the people” always implies individuals as well as groups?:
The 4th Amendment uses “the people” separately from the word “persons”
The 5th Amendment uses “persons” exclusively, thus demonstrating that the Framers differentiated between “persons” and “the people”
quote:
2.5 million is more than a relative few.
2.5 million is less than 1% of the entire population of the U.S. in 1993. You don’t consider that relatively few? I do.
quote:
Your words not mine
No, they were your words, my friend. That is why I put quotation marks around them.
quote:
I was mostly presenting it to show that the ban did not seem to have the desired effect.
And you are incorrect. The homicide rate in D.C. dropped immediately following the 1976 ban, and stayed fairly minimal until 1988 when crack cocaine hit town.
quote:
Everyone that carries a gun is in fear?
If they feel that it is continuously essential for their own well being, then yes.
quote:
By your logic, by wearing a seatbelt, I should be in fear of a car accident.
No more so than bracing myself with the handrail means that I fear falling down the staircase. Ordinary precautions are one thing; preparing for a gun battle is another.
quote:
In the end, if there is an individual right to bear arms or Congress is forbidden from infringing on the right to bear arms, then it shouldn't matter if people are safer.
Bingo! You are right on the money here.
Why then do so many gun advocates spin the safety issue? Maybe because admitting the truth, like you just did, would be bad PR?
|
|
|
|
|
RE: D.C.'s Gun Ban Gets Day in Court - 4/6/2008 11:20:56 AM
|
|
|
1dblthnk02
Posts: 394
Joined: 3/24/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Marcus.
An armed society is a polite society.
“An armed society is a polite society. Manners are good when one may have to back up his acts with his life.”-- Robert A. Heinlein.
So? My dear Marcus., do you have any thoughts to add to this 2nd Amendment thread thus far?
|
|
|
|
|
RE: D.C.'s Gun Ban Gets Day in Court - 4/6/2008 12:57:36 PM
|
|
|
Marcus.
Posts: 1180
Joined: 4/11/2005
Status: offline
|
I have put them forth earlier. I believe self defense is inalienable. I believe that a free people is an armed people and a disarmed people are slaves or subjects, property of their state. Free men have inalienable rights. Subjects have privileges or allowances by their masters that can be given and revoked as easily as their masters breath. If you disarm me then you take away my rights and allow me certain privileges but I am no longer free. I believe that disarming the law abiding will never reduce violence, only make them easy prey for criminals and governments bent on tyranny. What does a government have to fear if the people are disarmed and the government oppresses them? Nothing. The people have no power that will help them overthrow their oppressors. A government that fears it's citizens being armed is a government that is heading into a dictatorship. It is seeking too much power over its own citizens and fears an uprising to restore control to were it should be, with the citizens.
I also believe that our rights that we have fought to maintain have been eroded as any government does by slowly whittling away those those rights in areas unthought of at the time they were first protected. History teaches us that governments seek to control and their bureacracies grow in power at the expense of their citizens. We haven't gotten to the point of tyranny yet but we are slowly heading that way.
But back to the court case. If the judges aren't using the original intent as it is revealed to us in the records of the debates over the amendments then they can reverse what was once thought protected by the founding fathers. We have to have some bedrock or foundation to these essential questions or we will blow with the breezes of each generation. If you ignore the devices in the Constitution for making changes to our form of government then the document and our founding beliefs are dead. But if you honor the sacrifices of our Founding generation and all the ones after, then you will follow the procedures for making changes to our governmental framework; the Constitution is alive then.
< Message edited by Marcus. -- 4/6/2008 2:40:41 PM >
_____________________________
Blessed is He who comes in the Name of the Lord.
Hosea Project Care Net
Google
|
|
|
|
|
RE: D.C.'s Gun Ban Gets Day in Court - 4/6/2008 2:27:06 PM
|
|
|
rnershigh
Posts: 1799
Joined: 7/15/2005
From: DC metro area
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: 1dblthnk02
quote:
ORIGINAL: Marcus.
An armed society is a polite society.
“An armed society is a polite society. Manners are good when one may have to back up his acts with his life.”-- Robert A. Heinlein.
So? My dear Marcus., do you have any thoughts to add to this 2nd Amendment thread thus far?
No need to get patronizing. I've followed this thread and Marcus has given his input throughout, if you bothered to look.
_____________________________
O Grave! where is thy Victory?
O Death! where is thy Sting?
|
|
|
|
|
RE: D.C.'s Gun Ban Gets Day in Court - 4/6/2008 7:12:17 PM
|
|
|
1dblthnk02
Posts: 394
Joined: 3/24/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Marcus.
But back to the court case. If the judges aren't using the original intent as it is revealed to us in the records of the debates over the amendments then they can reverse what was once thought protected by the founding fathers.
And in what you have followed of the D.C. ban challenge thus far, do you think this is what the justices are doing, or not?
quote:
ORIGINAL: rnershigh
No need to get patronizing. I've followed this thread and Marcus has given his input throughout, if you bothered to look.
I have, and I am sorry if I come off as patronizing. My point was that a disjointed and uncredited quote says little without some relevant context.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: D.C.'s Gun Ban Gets Day in Court - 4/7/2008 2:11:56 AM
|
|
|
Marcus.
Posts: 1180
Joined: 4/11/2005
Status: offline
|
From the news articles, it sounded as if the judges looked back to some of the original documents. However, with the news the way it is how are we to know. The majority of the quotes I used have the source of the quote with. Only a few do not.
I don't see what I posted as disjointed but to the point in regards to arguments put forth.
< Message edited by Marcus. -- 4/7/2008 2:20:11 AM >
_____________________________
Blessed is He who comes in the Name of the Lord.
Hosea Project Care Net
Google
|
|
|
|
|
RE: D.C.'s Gun Ban Gets Day in Court - 4/7/2008 5:38:01 AM
|
|
|
EverLearning
Posts: 1881
Joined: 5/25/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: 1dblthnk02
quote:
ORIGINAL: EverLearning
The DC case wasn't about control, it was about an outright ban . I would like just once for there to be a debate where we debate apples and oranges.
You lost me here . . . you want to debate an invalid comparison? Why?
I am not the one who has debated gun control. I have been specifically referring to how the 2nd amendment is relevant to the outright ban in D.C.
quote:
quote:
Controling how someone can carry, ie registering for a ccw, is not the same as not allowing people to own a gun at all.
I was pointing out that even our freedoms are controlled or truncated to one degree or another. Most gun advocates recoil (no pun intended) at the idea of any control whatsoever, which demonstrates a kind of outright intemperance, imo.
the overwhelming majority of gun advocates have no problem with intelligent controls.
quote:
D.C.’s gun ban is not a unilateral ban on all firearms, but rather some very specific restrictions. As drastic as the ban may be in comparison to the rest of the country, it causes me to wonder just exactly how D.C. fits under the umbrella of the 2nd Amendment.
For all intents and purposes it was in fact an outright ban on ownership of firearms. Especially those most useful in protecting ones person and property. How DC fits under the umbrella of the 2nd? I understand it isn't technically a state but if we allow the seat of our government to not be held to the constitution then why would we expect those in the government to feel that they must operate within it's bounds.
_____________________________
Normal people believe that if it ain't broke, don't fix it."
Engineers believe that "if it ain't broke, it doesn't have enough
features yet
|
|
|
|
|
RE: D.C.'s Gun Ban Gets Day in Court - 4/7/2008 7:46:13 AM
|
|
|
SteveSund
Posts: 686
Joined: 11/8/2005
From: Michigan
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: 1dblthnk02
My position is based on the historical notes of the various versions that the 2nd Amendment took before ratification, the current ratified one (most gun advocates cannot even quote it correctly), the case law that deals with the 2nd Amendment— five in particular—and one of those is Miller, the clearest and most recent one until now. I also look at the particulars of statistics, as you should have noticed by this time.
IIRC, there are around 90 cases that mention a right to bear arms. Much of that is dicta, but it still offers an insight into the court. As for the the various versions, how about the one that was sent to the states for ratification:
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.
quote:
I also recognize the right of individuals to bear arms; you should have noticed this by now as well.
Since you are comfortable with DC gun laws, I fail to see this as much of a right.
quote:
quote:
What other portions of the first 8 Bill of Rights only apply to groups?
First of all, just because “the people” in the 2nd Amendment is a collective term does not negate the right of individuals to bear arms. Remember, the 2nd Amendment does not grant rights, but rather protects them from Congressional infringement, albeit with a specific justification in mind.
But to answer your question:
The 1st Amendment: “the right of the people peaceably to assemble”; it is unlikely that the framers considered an individual to be an assembly
The 9th Amendment: “The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people” is collective in order to include states’ rights
The 10th Amendment: “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people”; “the powers” are not vested in individuals, but rather in the collective
I am unclear how you interpret “the people,” SteveS. Are you suggesting that “the people” always implies individuals as well as groups?:
The 4th Amendment uses “the people” separately from the word “persons”
The 5th Amendment uses “persons” exclusively, thus demonstrating that the Framers differentiated between “persons” and “the people”
I asked about the first 8. I understand the intent of the 9th and 10th amendments. Under the collective rights argument put forth by the gov't, the right only applies to people that are part of a militia. The same can not be said for the first other 8 BOR's. Those rights do not require membership in some group (beyond being a citizen).
quote:
2.5 million is less than 1% of the entire population of the U.S. in 1993. You don’t consider that relatively few? I do.
It is substantially larger than the 400,000 acts by criminals in that year that gun control advocates have used to pressure Congress to pass things like the AWB. You specifically mentioned that DC laws were justifiable.
quote:
If they feel that it is continuously essential for their own well being, then yes.
I am sorry, I find this insulting unless you have some reasearch that backs it up. How many people do you personally know that carry guns on a regular basis? I have known hundreds, both as a trainer and as a friend. I can't speak for every law abiding gun owner, but I have yet to meet one that is as you say.
quote:
Bingo! You are right on the money here.
Why then do so many gun advocates spin the safety issue? Maybe because admitting the truth, like you just did, would be bad PR?
I don't typically do this. I had brougt it up several times in this thread. Once in response to a specific question and another time in response to you bringing up that the DC ban was justified. I am aware of some research that says loosening gun laws lowers crime. Fro | | |
Forum Tools
Printable Version
