Gun Violence Tracker (3 Viewers)

[the3rd]

What year did Jefferson say this? 2011? 2015? It's a new world and there is not only room, but need for social evolution.

The founding fathers got all kinds of things wrong. Slavery and women's suffrage for example. We live in different times, it is reasonable to reevaluate what was put on the table 240 years ago.

The founders also built in a system to append and edit the constitution. Even they didn't think it was a perfect sacred document.

Exactly. Slavery and women's voting was fixed through amendments. If gun control advocates want to get rid of guns, they should propose an amendment repealing the Second. They know they can't get it accomplished, so they repeal it bit by bit and call it regulation.

If a new Constitution was written today, the PC thought police would install huge limitations on anything like the First Amendment. Words hurt.

 

[Chicken Rob]

The Founding ideals are still modern. Humans don't evolve that much in 200 years. They were a hundred years ahead of their time. Where exactly on the globe could women vote in 1789? Slavery was all over the world in 1789 including Africa and they attempted to address it. These types of comments are tired and cliche talking points repeated in left wing blogs

But you are right, there is an Amendment process and that process is intentionally difficult. This is why those who find the Constitution be an impediment to their agenda would prefer the court legislate.

As far as guns, there is historically nothing to indicate that they would reevaluate the Second Amendment based on modern times. As a matter of fact they would most likely clarify it and separate the militia clause instead of trying to kill two birds with one stone.

I imagine they would word it similar to the way Pennsylvania worded their right to bear arms:
"The right of the citizens to bear arms in defence of themselves and the State shall not be questioned. " Art. 1, § 21 (enacted 1790, art. IX, § 21).

Though I'm an admitted extreme lefty in most ways, I am a civil libertarian. I think gun ownership is fine. I own guns. I even own assault rifles. Despite this, the argument from the 2A nuts that any regulations around guns over steps our rights is ludicrous.

Go back and read the whole thread. We've run around this topic for quite some time, and you're bringing very little that is new to the discussion.

 

[Chicken Rob]

This is nonsense and there is no historical evidence to back that up but plenty to refute it. Did any of the dissenting justices even deny an individual right? (No, they didn't.)
Why then did no one ever question it as an individual right until the early 20th century? Isn't it odd how every other Amendment in the BORs refferenced an individual right?



How does this make a difference? You don't need a law degree to understand the Constituion and law schools haven't taught the original intent of Constitution in 130 years. They used to but now just teach case law where you learn about the Constituion via the interpretation of politically appointed judges. Up until the late 1800s law schools required students to read Blackstones commentaries, John Locke, and Madison's notes to the convention.

The change coincidentally coincides with the beginning of the "progressive movement". That's also when it was first implied that the Second Amendment was a collective right.

There are very few lawyers that have any meaningful understanding of the US Constituion unless that is their specialty. Just ask them, many will tell you that.

I also didnt begin arguing with him. I questioned the validity of this tracker


Still no evidence offered to support any claims. I have given quite a lot.

@jbutler do you have any meaningful understanding of the constitution?

 

[abby99]

@jbutler do you have any meaningful understanding of the constitution?

 

[Chicken Rob]

The Founding ideals are still modern. Humans don't evolve that much in 200 years. They were a hundred years ahead of their time. Where exactly on the globe could women vote in 1789? Slavery was all over the world in 1789 including Africa and they attempted to address it. These types of comments are tired and cliche talking points repeated in left wing blogs

But you are right, there is an Amendment process and that process is intentionally difficult. This is why those who find the Constitution be an impediment to their agenda would prefer the court legislate.

As far as guns, there is historically nothing to indicate that they would reevaluate the Second Amendment based on modern times. As a matter of fact they would most likely clarify it and separate the militia clause instead of trying to kill two birds with one stone.

I imagine they would word it similar to the way Pennsylvania worded their right to bear arms:
"The right of the citizens to bear arms in defence of themselves and the State shall not be questioned. " Art. 1, § 21 (enacted 1790, art. IX, § 21).

I'm glad you have such clarity on how our founding fathers would view the current state of affairs.

 

[jbutler]

@jbutler do you have any meaningful understanding of the constitution?

None at all and they still let me pretend lawyer every now and again. But my bigger hindrance at the moment is that I'm posting on my phone so I can't properly quote and respond to the many gems coming from the peanut gallery. I'll have to save it for later.

 

[Old State]

I was reading through and noticed a lot of commentary on the original intent that can not be substantiated with evidence which is why I responded. I have added a lot from a historical perspective but that doesn't every seem to have any impact on people who want to believe what their feelings tell them is right.

Law degree or not I have yet to see any historical evidence to support the claim that there was no individual right until 2008. All nine justices agreed on that part

 

[Old State]

None at all and they still let me pretend lawyer every now and again. But my bigger hindrance at the moment is that I'm posting on my phone so I can't properly quote and respond to the many gems coming from the peanut gallery. I'll have to save it for later.

Did you study Constituional law outside the rudimentary survey of it most law schools require. Are you a Constituional lawyer? Just curious. Not being a sarcastic

I have two cousins, a best man, and three close friends that are lawyers. All of them say they studied very little regarding the US Constituion.

 

[jbutler]

This is nonsense and there is no historical evidence to back that up but plenty to refute it. Did any of the dissenting justices even deny an individual right? (No, they didn't.)

Yes, they did.

Stevens, in dissent:

[T]he words "the people" in the Second Amendment refer back to the object announced in the Amendment's preamble. They remind us that it is the collective action of individuals having a duty to serve in the militia that the text directly protects and, perhaps more importantly, that the ultimate purpose of the Amendment was to protect the States' share of the divided sovereignty created by the Constitution.
...
As used in the Second Amendment, the words "the people" do not enlarge the right to keep and bear arms to encompass use or ownership of weapons outside the context of service in a well-regulated militia.

Breyer, in dissent:

The majority's conclusion is wrong for two independent reasons. The first reason is that set forth by Justice Stevens - namely, that the Second Amendment protects militia-related, not self-defense-related, interests.

Even in his majority opinion, Scalia, before spending a considerable amount of time rebutting the arguments in the dissent, recognized that the dissenting justices disagreed as to whether there was a individual right to possess firearms for self defense:

Petitioners and today's dissenting Justices believe that it protects only the right to possess and carry a firearm in connection with militia service.

Why then did no one ever question it as an individual right until the early 20th century? Isn't it odd how every other Amendment in the BORs refferenced an individual right?

It was explained quite plainly in Justice Stevens' dissent that the controlling opinion of the Court prior to Heller required that the right to gun ownership as protected by the Second Amendment must be tied to "the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia", not simply individual self-defense:

Upholding a conviction under that [National Firearms] Act, this Court held that, "n the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a `shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length' at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument."

Still no evidence offered to support any claims. I have given quite a lot.

I was reading through and noticed a lot of commentary on the original intent that can not be substantiated with evidence which is why I responded. I have added a lot from a historical perspective but that doesn't every seem to have any impact on people who want to believe what their feelings tell them is right.

Evidence has been presented succinctly here and is available in bulk in the actual opinion and the two dissents in Heller.

You are concerned with original intent. Neither I nor most judges or practitioners care at all about original intent. So to the extent that you care to argue whether the framers believed this or that, in my view it is irrelevant. It would be literally identical to you telling me that scientists should spend more time studying alchemy because Newton thought it worthwhile. Science has moved on and those who practice it understand that alchemy is not worth our time. Most in the legal community feel the same about originalism.

Law degree or not I have yet to see any historical evidence to support the claim that there was no individual right until 2008. All nine justices agreed on that part

Again, as I noted above, you are wrong. The dissenting justices clearly did not agree that the amendment provides an individual right to possess guns outside the context of a militia.

How does this make a difference? You don't need a law degree to understand the Constituion and law schools haven't taught the original intent of Constitution in 130 years. They used to but now just teach case law where you learn about the Constituion via the interpretation of politically appointed judges. Up until the late 1800s law schools required students to read Blackstones commentaries, John Locke, and Madison's notes to the convention.

The change coincidentally coincides with the beginning of the "progressive movement". That's also when it was first implied that the Second Amendment was a collective right.

Respectfully, that you believe the above shows you have little understanding of legal education or its purpose. Law is not practiced using historical texts. Law is practiced using case law which, in part, incorporates these historical texts you think people should be studying more in law school.

And I say "more of" because they are studied and are part of the curriculum. So if someone cares to actually study what is assigned, they will read much of what you reference above. Can someone bumble their way through law school never cracking a historical text? Maybe, but it would be tough and it would not be because they are not assigned. If someone does, then it's more an indication of their lack of interest than the failure of the curriculum.

Did you study Constituional law outside the rudimentary survey of it most law schools require. Are you a Constituional lawyer? Just curious. Not being a sarcastic

I have two cousins, a best man, and three close friends that are lawyers. All of them say they studied very little regarding the US Constituion.

Again, this says much more about the priorities of your cousins and friends than it does about legal education in general. At the time I went to school, though some schools only required one semester of Constitutional Law, we were required to take two. And naturally, many courses other than those that are nominally intended to focus on Con Law require a thorough understanding of the provisions of the Constitution relevant to the topic at hand.

I'm sure some will not believe it, but to be honest I don't like talking about my personal and professional life here. Since you put the question directly and I don't want to get off on some tangent where you claim I'm avoiding it, I will answer.

In law school I took the following courses that focused on constitutional interpretation and the practice of litigating constitutional matters: Con Law I, Con Law II, Criminal Procedure I (primarily focusing on the Fourth Amendment), Criminal Procedure II (focusing on the Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendments), a seminar on the First Amendment, National Security Law, and an independent study focusing on the constitutional implications of drafting legislation. I may be forgetting some as I don't have my transcript in front of me. In my current practice, I spend a significant amount of time defending against constitutional claims and have, in the past, spent a fair amount of time as a plaintiffs' attorney arguing constitutional claims.

 

[jbutler]

If gun control advocates want to get rid of guns, they should propose an amendment repealing the Second. They know they can't get it accomplished, so they repeal it bit by bit and call it regulation.

Not to speak to "getting rid of guns", but simply of imposing significant restrictions on their sale, possession, and use, there is no need for an amendment. The Court can simply reverse Heller, citing the rationale and support presented in the dissents.

 

[Old State]

It has been a while since I read the opinions, but what I was remembering was this from Breyers dissent:

"The Second Amendment says that: “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.” In interpreting and applying this Amendment, I take as a starting point the following four propositions, based on our precedent and today’s opinions, to which I believe the entire Court subscribes:

(1) The Amendment protects an “individual” right—i.e., one that is separately possessed, and may be separately enforced, by each person on whom it is conferred. See, e.g., ante, at 22 (opinion of the Court); ante, at 1 (Stevens, J., dissenting).

(2) As evidenced by its preamble, the Amendment was adopted “[w]ith obvious purpose to assure the continuation and render possible the effectiveness of [militia] forces.” United States v. Miller, 307 U. S. 174, Second Amendment is not absolute, but instead is subject to government regulation. See Robertson v. Baldwin, 165 U. S. 275, Second Amendment embodies a general concern about self-defense, I shall not assume that the Amendment contains a specific untouchable right to keep guns in the house to shoot burglars. The majority, which presents evidence in favor of the former proposition, does not, because it cannot, convincingly show that the Second Amendment seeks to maintain the latter in pristine, unregulated form.

(3) The Amendment “must be interpreted and applied with that end in view.” Miller, supra, at 178.

(4) The right protected by the Second Amendment is not absolute, but instead is subject to government regulation. See Robertson v. Baldwin, 165 U. S. 275, 281–282 (1897) ; ante, at 22, 54 (opinion of the Court)."

 

[Old State]

He continued:

"My approach to this case, while involving the first three points, primarily concerns the fourth. I shall, as I said, assume with the majority that the Amendment, in addition to furthering a militia-related purpose, also furthers an interest in possessing guns for purposes of self-defense, at least to some degree. And I shall then ask whether the Amendment nevertheless permits the District handgun restriction at issue here.

Although I adopt for present purposes the majority’s position that the Second Amendment embodies a general concern about self-defense, I shall not assume that the Amendment contains a specific untouchable right to keep guns in the house to shoot burglars. The majority, which presents evidence in favor of the former proposition, does not, because it cannot, convincingly show that the Second Amendment seeks to maintain the latter in pristine, unregulated form."

Breyer singled out Stevens as having a slightly different take than the other 8.

 

[Old State]

Not to speak to "getting rid of guns", but simply of imposing significant restrictions on their sale, possession, and use, there is no need for an amendment. The Court can simply reverse Heller, citing the rationale and support presented in the dissents.

The very definition of legislating from the bench. Even that crackpot Stevens thinks you need to rewrite the 2nd Amendment

The 2nd Amendment didn't suddenly apply to individuals in 2008. To the contrary from ratification in 1791 to the the Miller decision in the 1930's, no one had seriously questioned it. That is precedence.

I have read numerous books on the founding and Constituion. I am 100% convinced that no honest person that reads the debates over the Declaration of Independence, the Constituion, and probabaly, most importantly, the ratification debates could possibly interpret the 2nd as anything but an individual right. It would be philosophically inconsistent the founders entire philosophy and with their actual words.

The Militia was already addressed in Art 1 Sec 8 of the body of the Constituion. That was ratified in 1789. The BORs came in 1791, though they were a prerequisite to getting the States to ratify. When ever rights are addressed in the Constituion, the term "the people" refers to individuals. It only refers to the collective when addressing governments powers.

------------

In any event, this entire tangent began with your surprising dismissal of the existence of "natural rights" (a crux of our founding) meaning that human beings possessed certain rights prior to the existence of government rather than the concept that humans have no rights unless they are given to them by a government.... which by default you seem to subscribe to and have not refuted or explained. Instead of addressing that we have delved into minutia.

And as a reminder, I joined this discussion because the thread was based around a "tracker" of dubious legitimacy.

 

[jbutler]

It has been a while since I read the opinions, but what I was remembering was this from Breyers dissent:

"The Second Amendment says that: “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.” In interpreting and applying this Amendment, I take as a starting point the following four propositions, based on our precedent and today’s opinions, to which I believe the entire Court subscribes:

(1) The Amendment protects an “individual” right—i.e., one that is separately possessed, and may be separately enforced, by each person on whom it is conferred. See, e.g., ante, at 22 (opinion of the Court); ante, at 1 (Stevens, J., dissenting).

(2) As evidenced by its preamble, the Amendment was adopted “[w]ith obvious purpose to assure the continuation and render possible the effectiveness of [militia] forces.” United States v. Miller, 307 U. S. 174, Second Amendment is not absolute, but instead is subject to government regulation. See Robertson v. Baldwin, 165 U. S. 275, Second Amendment embodies a general concern about self-defense, I shall not assume that the Amendment contains a specific untouchable right to keep guns in the house to shoot burglars. The majority, which presents evidence in favor of the former proposition, does not, because it cannot, convincingly show that the Second Amendment seeks to maintain the latter in pristine, unregulated form.

(3) The Amendment “must be interpreted and applied with that end in view.” Miller, supra, at 178.

(4) The right protected by the Second Amendment is not absolute, but instead is subject to government regulation. See Robertson v. Baldwin, 165 U. S. 275, 281–282 (1897) ; ante, at 22, 54 (opinion of the Court)."

He continued:

"My approach to this case, while involving the first three points, primarily concerns the fourth. I shall, as I said, assume with the majority that the Amendment, in addition to furthering a militia-related purpose, also furthers an interest in possessing guns for purposes of self-defense, at least to some degree. And I shall then ask whether the Amendment nevertheless permits the District handgun restriction at issue here.

Although I adopt for present purposes the majority’s position that the Second Amendment embodies a general concern about self-defense, I shall not assume that the Amendment contains a specific untouchable right to keep guns in the house to shoot burglars. The majority, which presents evidence in favor of the former proposition, does not, because it cannot, convincingly show that the Second Amendment seeks to maintain the latter in pristine, unregulated form."

Breyer singled out Stevens as having a slightly different take than the other 8.

You're not helping argument with those excerpts. As he says, Breyer does not believe the Second Amendment "contains a specific untouchable right to keep guns in the house to shoot burglars." Isn't that exactly what you believe it does contain?

If when you refer to an "individual right" found in the amendment, you believe that right is a right to possess a gun in the context of a militia, then I guess we can call it a day and find ourselves in agreement. But Second Amendment advocates, when they speak of the "individual right", are referring to the individual right to possess a gun for self defense, i.e., to shoot burglars. Obviously Breyer and the rest of the dissenting justices did not believe that right to "keep guns in the house to shoot burglars" could be found in the amendment.

 

[jbutler]

The very definition of legislating from the bench. Even that crackpot Stevens thinks you need to rewrite the 2nd Amendment

The 2nd Amendment didn't suddenly apply to individuals in 2008. To the contrary from ratification in 1791 to the the Miller decision in the 1930's, no one had seriously questioned it. That is precedence.
...

The Militia was already addressed in Art 1 Sec 8 of the body of the Constituion. That was ratified in 1789. The BORs came in 1791, though they were a prerequisite to getting the States to ratify. When ever rights are addressed in the Constituion, the term "the people" refers to individuals. It only refers to the collective when addressing governments powers.

You're turning back to the magical thinking that the original intent might be helpful. It isn't. It doesn't matter.

To the extent you want to argue about what text actually remains in the document regarding the meaning of, among other phrases, "the people", these arguments were addressed thoroughly by the majority and the dissents in Heller no matter how much you might like to think your conclusory statements above are unrebuttable.

Note, however, that Scalia helpfully points out in footnote 6 of the majority that "the people" did, in some but not all founding era documents, did intend to refer to the collective people rather than individuals.

If we look to other founding-era documents, we find that some state constitutions used the term "the people" to refer to the people collectively, in contrast to "citizen," which was used to invoke individual rights.

One thing you won't see in the majority is the claim that the Second Amendment was always understood to provide an individual right of gun possession for self defense. If it was, consider that the law at issue in Heller was passed in 1975 and was in effect in Washington DC since that time. So between 1975 and 2008, did it just not occur to Second Amendment advocates to challenge the law that prevented citizens other than police to own handguns in DC? Of course not. They were aware that they would lose because the law did not recognize the Second Amendment as providing such a right.

I have read numerous books on the founding and Constituion. I am 100% convinced that no honest person that reads the debates over the Declaration of Independence, the Constituion, and probabaly, most importantly, the ratification debates could possibly interpret the 2nd as anything but an individual right. It would be philosophically inconsistent the founders entire philosophy and with their actual words.

Arguments from authority are rarely persuasive and even less so when they are based in authority gained by reading "numerous books on the founding and Constitution."

In any event, this entire tangent began with your surprising dismissal of the existence of "natural rights" (a crux of our founding) meaning that human beings possessed certain rights prior to the existence of government rather than the concept that humans have no rights unless they are given to them by a government.... which by default you seem to subscribe to and have not refuted or explained. Instead of addressing that we have delved into minutia.

Minutiae such as the actual decision which gives rise to the right you believe is so important? In any case, I've explained that I have no interest in debating what is essentially a religious argument in the form of "natural rights".

And as a reminder, I joined this discussion because the thread was based around a "tracker" of dubious legitimacy.

And yet here you are still.

 

[Old State]

Not to speak to "getting rid of guns", but simply of imposing significant restrictions on their sale, possession, and use, there is no need for an amendment. The Court can simply reverse Heller, citing the rationale and support presented in the dissents.

You're not helping argument with those excerpts. As he says, Breyer does not believe the Second Amendment "contains a specific untouchable right to keep guns in the house to shoot burglars." Isn't that exactly what you believe it does contain?

If when you refer to an "individual right" found in the amendment, you believe that right is a right to possess a gun in the context of a militia, then I guess we can call it a day and find ourselves in agreement. But Second Amendment advocates, when they speak of the "individual right", are referring to the individual right to possess a gun for self defense, i.e., to shoot burglars. Obviously Breyer and the rest of the dissenting justices did not believe that right to "keep guns in the house to shoot burglars" could be found in the amendment.

I chose to fully quote him for context and transparency. His opinion is assumed based on his vote.

That it's only and individual right when an individual is a member of the militia is pretty bizzare logic and is wholly inconsistent with the larger scope of the entire BORs. Scalia does a pretty good job showing this.

Since the militia was already addressed in the body of the Constitution, the 2nd Amend would be redundant. This thinking also requires one to accept that the 2nd Amendment was conceived in a completely different way than the 1st, 3rd-8th....all addressing individual rights.

You're turning back to the magical thinking that the original intent might be helpful. It isn't. It doesn't matter.

To the extent you want to argue about what text actually remains in the document regarding the meaning of, among other phrases, "the people", these arguments were addressed thoroughly by the majority and the dissents in Heller no matter how much you might like to think your conclusory statements above are unrebuttable.

Note, however, that Scalia helpfully points out in footnote 6 of the majority that "the people" did, in some but not all founding era documents, did intend to refer to the collective people rather than individuals.



One thing you won't see in the majority is the claim that the Second Amendment was always understood to provide an individual right of gun possession for self defense. If it was, consider that the law at issue in Heller was passed in 1975 and was in effect in Washington DC since that time. So between 1975 and 2008, did it just not occur to Second Amendment advocates to challenge the law that prevented citizens other than police to own handguns in DC? Of course not. They were aware that they would lose because the law did not recognize the Second Amendment as providing such a right.



Arguments from authority are rarely persuasive and even less so when they are based in authority gained by reading "numerous books on the founding and Constitution."



Minutiae such as the actual decision which gives rise to the right you believe is so important? In any case, I've explained that I have no interest in debating what is essentially a religious argument in the form of "natural rights".



And yet here you are still.

To be clear I stated prior to the beginning of the 20th Century that the individual right was not questioned in any meaningful way. Only with the rise of the "progressive" movement and a shift to consolidating more power in the central government do you first see this.

Also, leveraging a law degree seems to be arguing from authority no? I only mention that I "read numerous books" to show that there no primary sources that point toward a collective right.

As to laws from that time to infer consensus as to the common beliefs, we can look at several state constitutions such as PA, where I live as written in 1790 "The right of the citizens to bear arms in defence of themselves and the State shall not be questioned"

If the right was historically always considered collective than surely we would have seen large scale gun bans and confiscations prior to Heller.

Natural rights are the main tenant of our founding documents and the Constitution. If you simply "don't believe" in that theory it is pointless to debate the US Constitution. It would be like trying to discuss planetary physics with someone how doesn't believe in gravity. Natural rights are what our whole theory of government in built around. And it's not a "religious" argument. Thomas Jefferson, possibly the most vocal proponent of natural rights, was most likely agnostic and possibly atheist.

And yes, I would prefered the conversation about how a tracker (that hides its sources and ignores FBI statistics) owned by a far left blog with a clear anti gun agenda is basis for serious debate about gun violence

 

[jbutler]

I chose to fully quote him for context and transparency. His opinion is assumed based on his vote.

If you understand his dissent then your continued crowing that none of the nine justices disagreed with an individual right seems odd. At any rate, I suppose we can at least dispense with that misunderstanding now and see that the dissenting justices did not recognize the individual right. So it's clearly not a universal understanding as you seemed to think previously.

That it's only and individual right when an individual is a member of the militia is pretty bizzare logic and is wholly inconsistent with the larger scope of the entire BORs. Scalia does a pretty good job showing this.

Since the militia was already addressed in the body of the Constitution, the 2nd Amend would be redundant. This thinking also requires one to accept that the 2nd Amendment was conceived in a completely different way than the 1st, 3rd-8th....all addressing individual rights.

As I've said, if you'd like to see the rationale for those arguments in the dissent...read the dissent. They are there and they are compelling. You can disagree if you like, but simply dismissing it as "bizarre logic" does nothing to detract from the fact that 4 of 9 justices subscribed to it.

To be clear I stated prior to the beginning of the 20th Century that the individual right was not questioned in any meaningful way. Only with the rise of the "progressive" movement and a shift to consolidating more power in the central government do you first see this.

Again, if the meaning were so clear then Second Amendment advocates would not have taken more than 30 years to challenge the law. They waited because they knew it would be a challenge. It makes sense that it wouldn't have come up at any earlier point since there was really no reason to ban guns or have any extensive regulatory scheme to control guns since gun violence was not a large scale problem until the 20th century.

Also, leveraging a law degree seems to be arguing from authority no? I only mention that I "read numerous books" to show that there no primary sources that point toward a collective right.

It would be if I had done so, but I didn't. I merely responded to your direct questions about my education and practice. If you hadn't asked I wouldn't have mentioned it because arguments from authority are almost always worthless.

If the right was historically always considered collective than surely we would have seem large scale gun bans prior to Heller.

As noted, gun violence was not a significant problem until the 20th century and not an "epidemic" until around 1975, so it makes complete sense that people wouldn't have wasted time banning things that did pose large scale societal problems.

Natural rights are the main tenant of our founding documents and the Constitution. If you simply "don't believe" in that theory it is pointless to debate the US Constitution. It would be like trying to discuss planetary physics with someone how doesn't believe in gravity. Natural rights are what our whole theory of government in built around.

You have that exactly backward. The Constitution and all laws are codified so that societies are not compelled to rely on universal acceptance of such mystical concepts as "natural rights".

 

[Old State]

Two points:

The natural rights argument is not backwards. The Bill of Rights was demanded by the States as a requisite for ratification of the Constitution. That is explained right in the preamble of the BOR..which most people have never heard of.

"THE Conventions of a number of the States having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best insure the beneficent ends of its institution"


A BORS was demanded to restrict the Fed government from interfering with PRE EXISTING rights of the people. So we have a set of clauses RESTRICTING the government. The Constituion does not grant any rights.

As for natural rights and Constitution, I encourage anyone reading this to simply Google those terms, read up, and report back any evidence supporting they were considered "mystical" and not the core base of our government. You could read for weeks on this subject

You state that gun violence wasn't an epidemic until 1975 but in the 200 years prior to that date gun ownership was higher as a percentage of the population. Therefore I fail to see the logic that guns themselves are the issue. This instead would point to a change in society or certain segments of it...mainly the inner city. It seems more than coincidence that the movement toward gun restrictions didn't happen until there was statistically smaller percentage of the population owning guns legally....meaning greater acceptance...meaning votes

 

[Meddler2]

I suspect even the founding fathers (those guys who owned slaves and gave no liberty or the right to pursue happiness for a large % of American citizens) were alive today, they would not only be shocked by the volume of gun violence and murder, they would not hesitate to amend t2a.

Of course that is just an assumption; as is 99% of the prior 2 pages of this thread.

The simple question posed is how many deaths does it take to change the minds of staunch t2a advocates?

If you don't think there is a problem with thousands of gun deaths this year (which will exceed all-time US war deaths in a few years), then the divide between 2A purists and 21st century needs is simply too wide.

 

[Old State]

I suspect even the founding fathers (those guys who owned slaves and gave no liberty or the right to pursue happiness for a large % of American citizens) were alive today, they would not only be shocked by the volume of gun violence and murder, they would not hesitate to amend t2a.


.

With this parroting of far left blog talk you show your cards. This is nothing more than talking points college "activists" rehash texting their friend next to them on their $600 iPhone while sipping a $5 Free trade pour over coffee.....in their safe zone

They were men of their times and FAR ahead of the rest of the world when it came to human rights. Find me another country that was more free then or now...but. Especially then. Judged by the time they lived in, as any intelligent, fair, and reasonable person would be expected to do, they were an exceptional group of men.

And no, they wouldn't change anything. Would they suggest limiting free speech because the Internet allows instantaneous transfer of false and libelous speech? I think not


...and they certainly wouldn't rely on bogus statistics from a dishonest and partisan website.

 

[Chicken Rob]

If you understand his dissent then your continued crowing that none of the nine justices disagreed with an individual right seems odd. At any rate, I suppose we can at least dispense with that misunderstanding now and see that the dissenting justices did not recognize the individual right. So it's clearly not a universal understanding as you seemed to think previously.



As I've said, if you'd like to see the rationale for those arguments in the dissent...read the dissent. They are there and they are compelling. You can disagree if you like, but simply dismissing it as "bizarre logic" does nothing to detract from the fact that 4 of 9 justices subscribed to it.



Again, if the meaning were so clear then Second Amendment advocates would not have taken more than 30 years to challenge the law. They waited because they knew it would be a challenge. It makes sense that it wouldn't have come up at any earlier point since there was really no reason to ban guns or have any extensive regulatory scheme to control guns since gun violence was not a large scale problem until the 20th century.



It would be if I had done so, but I didn't. I merely responded to your direct questions about my education and practice. If you hadn't asked I wouldn't have mentioned it because arguments from authority are almost always worthless.



As noted, gun violence was not a significant problem until the 20th century and not an "epidemic" until around 1975, so it makes complete sense that people wouldn't have wasted time banning things that did pose large scale societal problems.



You have that exactly backward. The Constitution and all laws are codified so that societies are not compelled to rely on universal acceptance of such mystical concepts as "natural rights".

To be fair to @Old State, I think I'm the one who dragged your credentials into this. I tend to value your opinion more strongly on two grounds:

1. You cleanly put forth your views with actual cited support
2. My belief that your training and career trajectory has resulted in deeper consideration and exposure to the issues. Not authority per se, but a history that has allowed deeper consideration of arguments from both sides, and at a deeper level than most.

Point 2 above is why I consider your background relevant to this discussion from my perspective.

 

[the3rd]

Not to speak to "getting rid of guns", but simply of imposing significant restrictions on their sale, possession, and use, there is no need for an amendment. The Court can simply reverse Heller, citing the rationale and support presented in the dissents.

I respect your opinion, but while you and others who vote for the Democratic party may want stricter regulations, the Democrats who actually hold or run for office, like Clinton, Schumer, and Feinstein have made it clear in speeches, interviews, writings and the way they campaign for the negative and patently false portrayal of gun owners in the media, that they want even more than an Australia like confiscation program.

Why do they not make their true intentions widely known? Because some might question the cost. Nearly 300m gun in America. To buy them up at an average of $200 would cost nearly $60 billion. Add to that, the cost of sending the ATF, local LEOs and maybe the National Guard to search for and collect them. That will add 100s of millions of dollars. Then you have to melt them down. At an average of 3 pounds of metal per gun, that's almost half a million tons of metal. How much will that cost? When something becomes rare, it gains value. Who in their right mind thinks the cops and ATF won't sell them on the black market. We'll need watchers for the watchmen. Imagine the political suicide if a politician said bluntly, "I want to put an industry that employs 220,000 people and generates over 9 billion in revenue out of business. That is the American firearms industry. Don't even think foreign markets will make up the slack. The same people don't want the US to sell weapons to allies.

If we have $70b+ to spend wouldn't it be better spent on urban revitalization, job creation, occupational therapy, making college education cheaper, parenting classes.... which would eliminate most violent crime whether committed with a gun or not.

 

[Chicken Rob]

With this parroting of far left blog talk you show your cards. This is nothing more than talking points college "activists" rehash texting their friend next to them on their $600 iPhone while sipping a $5 Free trade pour over coffee.....in their safe zone

They were men of their times and FAR ahead of the rest of the world when it came to human rights. Find me another country that was more free then or now...but. Especially then. Judged by the time they lived in, as any intelligent, fair, and reasonable person would be expected to do, they were an exceptional group of men.

And no, they wouldn't change anything. Would they suggest limiting free speech because the Internet allows instantaneous transfer of false and libelous speech? I think not


...and they certainly wouldn't rely on bogus statistics from a dishonest and partisan website.

There was no nation then with more freedom for wealthy white male landowners. For blacks and females and the poor, well, good luck. The deck has been stacked for wealthy land owners, now more generally just wealth owners, from the beginning.

 

[the3rd]

I suspect even the founding fathers (those guys who owned slaves and gave no liberty or the right to pursue happiness for a large % of American citizens) were alive today, they would not only be shocked by the volume of gun violence and murder, they would not hesitate to amend t2a.

That is rich.

You chastise Old State and others for supposedly knowing the intent of men who lived long ago, then you do the exact same thing.

 

[Chicken Rob]

I respect your opinion, but while you and others who vote for the Democratic party may want stricter regulations, the Democrats who actually hold or run for office, like Clinton, Schumer, and Feinstein have made it clear in speeches, interviews, writings and the way they campaign for the negative and patently false portrayal of gun owners in the media, that they want even more than an Australia like confiscation program.

Why do they not make their true intentions widely known? Because some might question the cost. Nearly 300m gun in America. To buy them up at an average of $200 would cost nearly $60 billion. Add to that, the cost of sending the ATF, local LEOs and maybe the National Guard to search for and collect them. That will add 100s of millions of dollars. Then you have to melt them down. At an average of 3 pounds of metal per gun, that's almost half a million tons of metal. How much will that cost? When something becomes rare, it gains value. Who in their right mind thinks the cops and ATF won't sell them on the black market. We'll need watchers for the watchmen. Imagine the political suicide if a politician said bluntly, "I want to put an industry that employs 220,000 people and generates over 9 billion in revenue out of business. That is the American firearms industry. Don't even think foreign markets will make up the slack. The same people don't want the US to sell weapons to allies.

If we have $70b+ to spend wouldn't it be better spent on urban revitalization, job creation, occupational therapy, making college education cheaper, parenting classes.... which would eliminate most violent crime whether committed with a gun or not.

I have boutique manufacturer guns valued at $1500+ each on the current used market. I'd be pretty pissed to get $200ea for them. Plus I have about $5k in reloading equipment and supplies I'd like reimbursement for. I would take the money in the form of a tax credit, but I'm not gonna be thrilled to get 10% the value when confiscated. This is part of why it's a tough issue, as I'm actually not opposed in theory to a gun free society. I'm just not sure how to get there.

 

[Old State]

To be fair to @Old State, I think I'm the one who dragged your credentials into this. I tend to value your opinion more strongly on two grounds:

1. You cleanly put forth your views with actual cited support
2. My belief that your training and career trajectory has resulted in deeper consideration and exposure to the issues. Not authority per se, but a history that has allowed deeper consideration of arguments from both sides, and at a deeper level than most.

Point 2 above is why I consider your background relevant to this discussion from my perspective.

As long as people understand the simple fact a person holds a law degree doesn't necessarily give them a defacto clairvoyant and unbiased view of Constitutional issues. They could of course specialize and therefore be well versed but they would not in anyway be unbiased.

This is not to disrespect Jbutler.

For the record I also adhered to #1 on your list did I not...whether you agree or not? If you are implying I didn't, please re read my posts.

 

[jbutler]

I respect your opinion, but while you and others who vote for the Democratic party may want stricter regulations, the Democrats who actually hold or run for office, like Clinton, Schumer, and Feinstein have made it clear in speeches, interviews, writings and the way they campaign for the negative and patently false portrayal of gun owners in the media, that they want even more than an Australia like confiscation program.

Why do they not make their true intentions widely known? Because some might question the cost. Nearly 300m gun in America. To buy them up at an average of $200 would cost nearly $60 billion. Add to that, the cost of sending the ATF, local LEOs and maybe the National Guard to search for and collect them. That will add 100s of millions of dollars. Then you have to melt them down. At an average of 3 pounds of metal per gun, that's almost half a million tons of metal. How much will that cost? When something becomes rare, it gains value. Who in their right mind thinks the cops and ATF won't sell them on the black market. We'll need watchers for the watchmen. Imagine the political suicide if a politician said bluntly, "I want to put an industry that employs 220,000 people and generates over 9 billion in revenue out of business. That is the American firearms industry. Don't even think foreign markets will make up the slack. The same people don't want the US to sell weapons to allies.

If we have $70b+ to spend wouldn't it be better spent on urban revitalization, job creation, occupational therapy, making college education cheaper, parenting classes.... which would eliminate most violent crime whether committed with a gun or not.

I disagree that there is any cognizable threat to individual gun ownership, but in any case that was not at all my point. My point, in response to your post, was simply that there is no need for an amendment to the Constitution to permit greater restriction and regulation than is currently permitted, only a decision reversing Heller.

 

[the3rd]

There was no nation then with more freedom for wealthy white male landowners. For blacks and females and the poor, well, good luck. The deck has been stacked for wealthy land owners, now more generally just wealth owners, from the beginning.

You do realize white men were not running though west Africa locking up black men in shackles. White men showed up with boats and bought slaves from black men who enslaved other black men.

Show me a society existing right now where land ownership doesn't increase one's power, wealth and privilege. You may not like it, but it has always been that way and the alternative is worse. To do away with property rights will lead any nation into a communist hell hole.

 

[Old State]

I have boutique manufacturer guns valued at $1500+ each on the current used market. I'd be pretty pissed to get $200ea for them. Plus I have about $5k in reloading equipment and supplies I'd like reimbursement for. I would take the money in the form of a tax credit, but I'm not gonna be thrilled to get 10% the value when confiscated. This is part of why it's a tough issue, as I'm actually not opposed in theory to a gun free society. I'm just not sure how to get there.

So the end game is a "gun free society"....theoretically ?

 

[Old State]

You do realize white men were not running though west Africa locking up black men in shackles. White men showed up with boats and bought slaves from black men who enslaved other black men.

Show me a society existing right now where land ownership doesn't increase one's power, wealth and privilege. You may not like it, but it has always been that way and the alternative is worse. To do away with property rights will lead any nation into a communist hell hole.

An incovienient truth a Al Gore would say