I think gun rights are like privacy rights. I think the Second Amendment is a dead letter (well, should be), but there is no doubt that our society has a deep-rooted belief that the government cannot take away a person's ability to protect himself in his home against intrusion ( whether from a criminal or a government that has turned despotic and is trying to take you away in the night without due process) Essentially, the government is invading our privacy when it seeks to deny us the ability to protect ourselves. I just think you can do that without having a 30 round clip
When you start saying that the Second Amendment guarantees people the right to have weapons to rebel against the government, you really can't any legitimate restrictions on weapons a person can have--any restrictions are completely arbitrary.

One of the earlier links posted (about the professor who mentioned the civil war), did make a valid point, and I can understand why. If insurrection was the purpose (or at least collective defense against an intrusive government), it becomes difficult for the Feds at that time. So, the switch was made to personal protection, not to include the government.

I wouldn't say that it allows "rebellion" per se, but protection against infringement. there is a big difference there--one that I think statists don't typically see, and libertarians understand fully.

Guapo, you're by far the most honest of the gun rights advocates I know, so I'll ask you and hopefully get a straight answer. Do you believe that the 2nd Amendment grants you the right to own any kind of weaponry ? If not, where does it draw the line and why ?

Thank you. I am of a firm belief that by using faulty reasons and reasoning to defend an idea, one does greater harm to the cause.

As for your question, it's tricky. does the 2nd amendment specifically grant that right? well, yes and no. yes, i believe that ultimately it does, but there are other rights to consider.

For example, a nuclear reactor in one's home may be allowable by the 2nd, but it may interfere on the property rights of others. This, and only this, is a clear case of the founders not knowing what we'd be capable of.

I don't buy into the argument that just because someone owns a tank, he or she would automatically use it to try to subdue others. Some might, but there would be plenty of others who would "collectively" own tanks to defend against them. Moreover, that sort of person is less likely to become wealthy enough to buy one, and certainly likely to be known for the type of person they are.

One of the biggest fallacies people have about libertarianism/voluntaryism is that we believe it will create a utopia. We do not. Human nature will prevail, and people will be people. It just provides a method by which the politically unconnected can live freely, without having to play the games they don't want to play. On the utilitarian side of things, it's clear to me that while the state provides many comforts, it is not necessarily safer. Without a large government to create needless wars, there is less of a concern with foreigners coming to conquer. The modern technology we have allows us to be able to see threats coming much more quickly.

Yes, it's true that much of the technology we enjoy was started by the state, but the way I see it, individuals are ultimately responsible. I view the state as steroids. You can bodybuild naturally, and it will be slower. Or, you can use steroids, build your body faster, and suffer the consequences of the steroids.

Sorry, I went off-topic a bit, but I think some understanding is in order.

So back to your question, I believe that humans ought to have all the weaponry available to them, that is available to governments. I'd prefer that the weaponry disappear, but that's not reality. It doesn't mean that I believe that the Feds are trying to enslave us now, but I will not forego that possibility in 10, 20, or 100 years. In other words, just because I think we're "safe" now, it doesn't mean we should abandon our rights and responsibilities for future generations.

You've said that it ought to provide you with the ultimate right to own pretty much any kind if weaponry, but does it ? The fact is that many categories of weapon are prohibited by law in the US without many people offering any kind of objection. Do you accept that this is reasonable, and that therefore it's reasonable for the state to impose at least some kind of 'infringment' upon the right to keep and bear arms, or is this in fact unconstitutional and should be struck down ?

Doctor Fate wrote:There are no "reasonably effective gun laws" that don't violate the Second Amendment.

I disagree with that.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sullivan_Act

In short, you need a license to own a small gun in NYC and they don't give licenses. Well, they do to very, very few people: (Cops, diamond dealers, and that's about it.) If someone has a handgun it is likely an illegal gun, and last I checked, NYC is still part of the US.

You can talk, with truth, about the porousness of borders, but you link strict licensing laws, with severe penalties for breaking those laws, with virtually no licenses granted, with constant stop-and-frisk police tactics (684,000 last year), and you don't have a lot of guns in NYC, even in crappy neighborhoods. It's nothing like Detroit where nearly everyone had a gun (and liked to shoot it in the air on the front porch on December 31st at 11:59pm.) Makes a profound difference in the feeling of safety on the street.

Sassenach,

I would say that those laws, as written, are unconstitutional. The key word for me, is "infringed".

It should be struck down, but that's unlikely to happen. Again, that's why I see it important to argue the right reasons for it. Nobody needs a nuclear reactor to stop crime, or prevent a break-in, but since that's been the prevailing argument, those laws pass.

It is entirely possible to undo or change an amendment by additional amendments. That's the correct way to do so.

But then again, I'm not really a constitutionalist. So long as those are the rules, it should be adhered to. However, I think that the constitution is not a binding contract, and we were supposed to have conventions regularly. One polemic I agree with is "No Treason" by Lysander Spooner.

edit: I hope this answers you. I'm not trying to avoid or dance around the issue, but complex issues require complex thought and explanation.

guapo

The reason was for the "security of a free state". A state isn't made free by a military. A state is made free by an armed populace. In his own commentary, he fails to understand that the military (any military, foreign or federal) was the reason for the second amendment--so that the people (citizens of the free states), could have a means by which to protect themselves.

This is profoundly paranoid in nature. That a belief in the importance of this interpretation persists today reflects the underlying problem. Americans don't trust their government or each other. And, since its in the Constitution its foundational.
And for that reason, some are willing to promote turning elementary schools into armed camps. (NRA today)
There is some hope that this is trending away. Polls show that gun ownership is lowest amongst 18-29 year olds, and they also reflect the highest support for stricter gun law amongst age demographics.
If one considers the three legs of the US Conservatives "policy stool " from the 80s on ... Guns, God and Gays ...
Gays are generally accepted and gay marriage well on its way to national acceptance. Religion is losing its sway as more people claim no religion than ever before, and gun ownership is curving down. Now, these are long term, slow moving, trends. (Well maybe the Gays thing has had an accelerated evolution) . So I wouldn't expect major short term change.
But the revulsion at the defence of guns following Sandy Hook, and Sandy Hook itself, may have been a turning point.

I'm breaking one of my rules by displaying your post, Ricky, but I'll play.

You call it paranoid, I call it realism. Governments have, throughout history, abused the citizens. To say that an armed citizenry makes it more difficult is common sense. To assert that somehow the US Federal Government would never do that is silliness. The Congress has already authorized the indefinite detention of American Citizens, without trial. Whether Obama or any future immediate president or congress would use it is immaterial. Once it's on the books, it's ready for use.

That said, given the nature of the recent anti-gun frenzy, it's clear that it only takes the right sensationalist event to happen for those laws to be used. For decades, executive orders have been written that increasingly allow this free society to be usurped because of a "tragedy" or "emergency". Why bother with such orders and laws if there is no plan to use them?

At what point does it become ok for the President to declare a national emergency and start carting off those who resist? What happens if another Timothy McVeigh decides to make a statement at the expense of the rights of citizens?

If I'm paranoid, then so were the founding fathers. If they were paranoid, it was for good reason. And they were setting up a new government that they believed increased liberty. However, they were smart enough to know that things change and people forget.

Yes, I agree with those who say that the answer is to arm teachers--or to allow them or be armed. Sandy Hook Elementary was a "gun-free" zone, and look how that turned out.

There's an image going around of a teacher in Israel, armed with a rifle, leading school kids somewhere. People need to stop thinking of guns as the bogeyman. They're a tool. Now, I don't think we need rifles, but if teachers had guns with them, in a shoulder holster, these occurrences would diminish. Gun Free Zone is an advertisement for atrocity.

That said, nobody ever shot up a home-school...

GMTom wrote:again, I support stricter gun control laws, I am for banning assault weapons, for banning these large capacity magazines and so on. But using this example as your rallying cry to get these things done is a bit foolish, absolutely nothing would have changed regardless of the laws you were to pass. This guy was deranged and was going to find a way to pull this off. He stole the guns, he broke into a locked school, etc. If he had no access to guns (he could get them illegally with great ease) then maybe it would have been worse and he made a fertilizer bomb that would have killed even more? You simply can't stop every crazy person when they are so determined (similar to suicide bombers?)

Except there are ways to stop suicide bombers.

And we don't actually know how 'deranged' he was, or whether it was a situation that developed very quickly and was more 'temporary insanity'. He was able to easily steal guns because his mom kept them legally in the house. I'm not convinced he would have found it so easy to source such weapons illegally another way.

Guapo - that Israeli image is not likely to be a teacher, but a security guard in Israel. Teachers there are not armed, but schools do have armed security. Well, except for in the West Bank settlements, but that's not real Israel.

And the NRA have also suggested armed guards in every school. It is not foolproof, however. Colombine and Virginia Tech both had armed security, and in both cases that failed to stop massacres.

There are all kinds of ways in which just arming more people would not solve gun violence. For example, what if it's one of the teachers who goes postal?

Guapo wrote:That said, nobody ever shot up a home-school...

Are you 100% sure of this? No-one has ever shot up a home that happens to be where the kids are home-schooled? I think that's rather hard to prove.

Not too easy to disprove, but we only have to find one.

geojanes wrote:

Doctor Fate wrote:There are no "reasonably effective gun laws" that don't violate the Second Amendment.

I disagree with that.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sullivan_Act

In short, you need a license to own a small gun in NYC and they don't give licenses. Well, they do to very, very few people: (Cops, diamond dealers, and that's about it.) If someone has a handgun it is likely an illegal gun, and last I checked, NYC is still part of the US.

You can talk, with truth, about the porousness of borders, but you link strict licensing laws, with severe penalties for breaking those laws, with virtually no licenses granted, with constant stop-and-frisk police tactics (684,000 last year), and you don't have a lot of guns in NYC, even in crappy neighborhoods. It's nothing like Detroit where nearly everyone had a gun (and liked to shoot it in the air on the front porch on December 31st at 11:59pm.) Makes a profound difference in the feeling of safety on the street.

Sorry, NYC is not really in the US.

People rent glorified closets for what could be a mortgage in other parts of the country.

More cabs used than the rest of the country.

Soda restrictions.

The government has no qualms about taking liberties away.

Can we reboot this?

Read Krauthammer. http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/ ... s_opinions

danivon wrote:

GMTom wrote:again, I support stricter gun control laws, I am for banning assault weapons, for banning these large capacity magazines and so on. But using this example as your rallying cry to get these things done is a bit foolish, absolutely nothing would have changed regardless of the laws you were to pass. This guy was deranged and was going to find a way to pull this off. He stole the guns, he broke into a locked school, etc. If he had no access to guns (he could get them illegally with great ease) then maybe it would have been worse and he made a fertilizer bomb that would have killed even more? You simply can't stop every crazy person when they are so determined (similar to suicide bombers?)

Except there are ways to stop suicide bombers.

And we don't actually know how 'deranged' he was, or whether it was a situation that developed very quickly and was more 'temporary insanity'. He was able to easily steal guns because his mom kept them legally in the house. I'm not convinced he would have found it so easy to source such weapons illegally another way.

Guapo - that Israeli image is not likely to be a teacher, but a security guard in Israel. Teachers there are not armed, but schools do have armed security. Well, except for in the West Bank settlements, but that's not real Israel.

And the NRA have also suggested armed guards in every school. It is not foolproof, however. Colombine and Virginia Tech both had armed security, and in both cases that failed to stop massacres.

There are all kinds of ways in which just arming more people would not solve gun violence. For example, what if it's one of the teachers who goes postal?

You're right. I was wrong. That's what I get on the rare time I don't fact check myself.

Anyway, back to drinking...