The Second Amendment

I noticed the same trend. When you back away from each topic it is all part of the same process. This a large part of why I have shifted from being a conservative to libertarian. Liberals and Conservatives seem to be caught in this ridiculous trap of arguing individual political issues when, as a whole, I see the problem as the Fed just doing too damn much substituting a flurry of activity for accomplishment. Meanwhile, everyone else has to pay the bill and adjust our lives.

The few times I watch any politically driven tv shows - or read similar websites, it's all static and no signal. People need signal to plan their real lives and make long-term plans. Static is just interference. It is also why I still participate in the serious discussions thread. It's mostly signal with a tolerable amount of static.

 

I look at regulation and banning as something that should be done with much forethought, and great care.

It is extraordinarily easy to over regulate something. It happens again and again. A great example is ITAR (International Traffic in Arms Regulation). This piece of legislation did considerable damage to the US space industry.

The biggest problem with it was that it is a rather large and unwieldy restriction, that is not clearly communicated. This leads to in many cases knee jerk reactions on behalf of the private industries and educational institutions, where rather than risking the possibility of receiving a substantial fine from the government; they hack away at possible ITAR issues by either banning any foreign involvement on the project, or cleaving away large portions project that might pose an issue.

A great example of some of the issues with the regulation is that I could purchase a satellite subsystem from a company in the UK (Clyde Space). And have 0 problems with them shipping that component to me. However, if I had a fault with the system after I have received it, it is illegal for me to ship their own component that they designed back to them for warranty service.

While yes, this is a bit of an unrelated issue compared to gun regulations, it still is an example of how well meaning regulations can have many extra negative consequences when not fully conceived/ well implemented.


To me almost all of the feasible current gun regulations on the table in the US are pretty much useless.

"Assault Weapons" seem to be the favorite focus, however banning them wont really have any significant positive effects. There are very few gun crimes in the US that are perpetrated with "Assault Weapons", just because they resemble a military style weapon, doesn't make them any more dangerous than any other gun on the market.

So what exactly is the point of banning them, if doing so wont put a significant dent in gun crimes, and at the same time would be a negative impact on the 10s of millions of people the currently own one.

Is there much utility in one? Honestly, not really. But there are many things in life that we have/ want but at the same time aren't really useful.

If the case was that anywhere close to a majority of gun crimes in the US were performed with an "Assault Weapon" I would agree restricting them would probably be a positive idea. But that really isn't the case.


Honestly I don't think that gun control on the level of how many bullets you can have, what shape your guns can be, etc. is an issue that should be discussed on the federal level. This is definitely one of the cases where something that makes a lot of sense in someplace like New York, really doesn't make any sense in some place like Alaska. At the same time, if it is pursued on the federal level, my state is going to get the short end of the stick, simply because we have significantly fewer people up here.

State gun control laws make much more sense to me. Since you can heavily restrict something as common as pistols in places with high gang crime. But leave them legal in places like Alaska, where you might need to go traipsing around in high grass and there are large predators weighing upwards of 1500 lbs, that could kill you in a single swipe of its paw. A long shotgun/rifle is rather useless in this situation when it takes you more than a few fractions of a second to pull the gun out.

 

Just as a bit of an at addendum:

Something that is frequently forgotten I feel is that, the US federal government making a decision for the nation, is much more similar the the EU making a decision for all its member nations.

It's also forgotten as to how large exactly the US is. In my state alone, If I were to drive from Prudhoe Bay (northern Alaska) to my hometown of homer (South-Central) it is close to the same distance (~1800km) as if I drove from London England, to Rome Italy.

To drive from my current location in Fairbanks, Alaska to Orlando, Florida. It would be the same distance (~4700km) as driving from London, to Kabul, Afghanistan. Not that I would exactly be keen on driving from London to Afghanistan.


Lastly as a bit of a personal story related to guns. At my home I grew up in it is not very common to see bears. They tend to stay pretty well away from people, and in the 20 years I lived there I can count the number of times I had bears at my house on 1 hand.

I was sitting at home watching TV, my parents had just walked up our driveway and were walking up the hill we lived on just as some exercise (It was a very nice and sunny day). About 20 min later Out of the corner of my eye I seen movement out of the window which didn't look like a person. I walked to the window and I seen a large black bear walking out of the woods. He then proceeded to continue walking along our driveway and went and sat down in a clump of bushes that was right between our driveway, and our house. The place he had chosen happened to make it so you could not see him from the road anymore. The only reason I could see him is because I was at a high angle.

I wasn't sure how long my parents were going to be walking for, but I figured they were going to get back soon. So I grabbed one of our guns (an AK-47 clone), loaded some rounds and walked out on our porch with it. My parents would be walking with in 10 feet of the bear when they walked back down our driveway. So first I yelled at the bear, and make noise by banging on our railing (this usually scares away the more skiddish animals). But he didn't even pay much attention to me. So I test cycled the bolt on the gun, not pulling back far enough to chamber a round, and the bear still didn't react. I then finally chambered a round, and as soon as that bear heard that, he started to get up and move. I fired three rounds at the ground around him to hurry his egress.

After that I put the gun away, and went back to watching TV. The bear never did return, my parents were able to walk home safe, and the bear lived another day.

That was a case of bear who had become very accustomed to humans, after this incident we had heard other people report that a similar coloring and size of bear had gotten into trash, and killed someones dog.

If I hadn't had a gun in this situation, things would have likely turned out much different. I would have called the police, but depending on the time of day it can take 10-20 min for a police officer to arrive. My parents had returned about 10 min after I had scared the bear off. While its possible them walking down the road would have spooked the bear off, its also just as likely the bear would have attacked them, especially since it didn't display much fear for humans.

Cases like this is why I believe state regulation of firearms makes more sense than a federal blanket ban. People in many other areas of the country don't have to worry about issues like this, but there are also still plenty who do. I think sticking with regulations like this will provide much more utility in the long run.

 

Walle/eddy or anyone else do you want to reply to this post?

http://forums.bit-tech.net/showpost.php?p=3275065&postcount=85

 

I wasn't ignoring it on purpose, just pursuing my own issues of interest. This is very clear in my mind. The Constitution (and almost all of civil and criminal law for that matter) only applies to individuals. That's just the way it is and from a practical standpoint, it has to be. Rights are established and serve virtually no purpose, until they are violated. If everyone behaved, having rights codified wouldn't mean anything. It is only when they are violated is when they need to be addressed. Our court system is setup where someone needs to address those violations.

The context of "groups" is too arbitrary. There may be a riot where hundreds are in the street but only 5 individuals may be responsible for violence. Our justice system is set up to redress violations against individuals. There are situations where class actions occur, but even then, their only value/purpose is that it is a collection of individuals. In a democracy or democratic republic like ours, where each person is allowed to participate in the process, the only unit of measure of success or failure must fall on the individual.

This discussion started because a deranged person walked into a school and took many innocent lives. Should we round up anybody that is "like" him based on an arbitrary criteria - even if they have harmed no one in the name of the collective? That would certainly make a lot of people feel safer, others it would distress.

This same distraction happens during the private property debate. Property has no rights, people/individuals do. It's a critical premis that is often overlooked.

The law works on the principle that you are responsible for you.

 

And the responsible thing to do to protect my own self interest would for their not to be a gun around. That's my extension of your reasoning.

Can we debate that point rather than just saying its in my self interest to have a gun and instead consider it from the view that maybe both yourself and everyone else would be safer in the absence of firearms.

 

And you have that choice, don't buy a gun. Don't allow anyone to bring a gun onto your property. Being responsible for yourself does not grant you power to deny others of their rights. That's a direct conflict.

One person subjectively being able to limit the options of a whole range of others is the foundation of dictatorship which has a nasty history.

The working function of freedom is the ability to make your own choices as long as it doesn't effect other's ability to do the same (that's all the law actually is). That's the problem with collective goals is that no two people in a group will ever agree to what they personally feel is "safe" or "enough". Doing no harm to others is a construct that is much more productive and practical. Given the diversity of individual's sensibilities even in a group of common interest, the bickering would never stop.

There are regions of the US where it is relatively difficult to legally obtain a gun: Chicago, NYC, Washington D.C. and others. Even though that goal has been accomplished, do you think you are safer in those areas from being harmed by a gun?

 

An addendum my argument is that it is you should be satisfied by the current state of affairs anyway. The Constitution was argued upon several phrases were originally written in and removed due to argument of the various representatives of the various states. The final radified version is what all of them (various groups of people in the form of states) could live with. The Constitution is amendable. During all of our history, never has the 2nd amendment been changed. A majority of Americans agree with the 2nd amendment as it stands right now. So I ask, you hasn't the "collective" already been served?

If not how so?

My ability to defend myself in no way limits your freedom of choice. Your ability to limit my options does. There's a big difference between the two. One stops at the boundary of the individual, the other does not.

Seeing how you are outside what the collective currently and historically believes then how does it feel to be only considered as a group? Tough nuts. This is why I stand by the freedom of the individual.

 

You can't opt out of taxes or laws. What makes guns somehow different as a personal freedom which can under no circumstances be violated.

I'm more likely to be killed by someone else were I haven't chosen to be near a gun than in an accident (11k-1k).Guns free availability does infringe on peoples individual rights to safety regardless of whether they choose to own a gun or not.



Gun ownership hasn't always been so strongly supported.
http://www.gallup.com/poll/150341/record-low-favor-handgun-ban.aspx
It should be clearly debated and the stronger argument will hopefully be reflected with majority support.

 

You can't opt out of paying taxes because of the 16th amendment. This is another amendment that has stood since it's passing that could be amended. Taxes are a lot less popular to Americans than guns. The ironic thing is that you are counting on the power of a gun to collect those taxes you defend having to pay.

Gun availability does not infringe on any of your rights. - Let's be a little honest and practical of cause and effect and what does what - If you lived next to a bank, I could fill the vault with 50,000 guns and nothing would happen to you or your rights. If you lived next door to a police station that is full of guns, you would be less likely to be victim of a violent crime. The misuse of guns by various individuals (and in my example those individuals are already in violation of the law) is what could POSSIBLY do you harm, especially if you are defenseless. I live right up the road from a National Guard base not only with guns but missiles with explosive heads and yet, I still have my rights as established in the Constitution.

The ultimate freedom in a federalist system is that you can vote with your feet. If I'm not comfortable with gun ownership. I can move to Chicago knowing that none of my neighbors likely has a firearm but my odds of getting shot is higher. Or I can live where I do now where everyone has a gun and there is virtually no gun violence. When you are s statist, everything is fixed and you have less options and less chance of learning what works and what doesn't.

Please cite to me the amendment that establishes your right to safety. You are evoking rights that don't exist to trump rights that do.

Also, if you follow that logic and consider things used by other people that you are more likely to violate your imaginary sphere of safety, how can you justify the right to own a bathtub, a car or a hammer? There is nothing in the constitution establishing your right to own any of those things, that's how theses limitations of the government work.

 

This is why I attempted to frame the question about gun control in America from a slightly different angle - When Americans debate the issue it always turns in to a game of "Who can make the most convincing interpretation of a 200yr old document"

It seems to me a form of fetishism, born out of a desire to defer responsibility.

The constitution is not an incontrovertible document, written by gods. It was written by people, just like you and me. And to my mind it is wholly outdated, and not fit to serve modern times.

Were it possible that could Washington time-travel to the present, what do you think his reaction to modern America would be? Would he read the names and ages of the dead at Sandy Hook (or any other mass-shooting), fall to his knees and cry "My God, what have I done?"

Without deferring to the constitution can you justify mass gun ownership in modern times?

 

That was one of the reasons why I avoided mucgoo's points because the discussion was diverting identically to the other thread. For that I apologize.

I don't need to defer to the constitution, but modern world history for the justification of gun ownership among the population.

Again, all points addressed in the other thread but I felt you deserved a response.

 

Taxes are unpopular but necessary everywhere.
There's laws and in the US cases a constitutional amendment which requires you give up certain personal freedoms for the common good. In this case the financing of a stable state. Unless you believe in anarchy its a fair deal. Of course people do attempt to pay as little as they can within the confines of not facing penalties. The government's ability to collect taxes isn't done at gun point. You can replace the state through voting.
A strong state is needed to enforce them yes but would you rather live in a country with a weak government? I'm okay with monopolizing guns to government control.

I think it does. From what I've seen of statistics high gun ownership rates is normally correlated with higher murder rates. I consider it a right to be able to enjoy low murder rates.

Chicago's a bit of a silly example. Nearly without exception cities have a higher than average crime rate.
I could say move to London with its 1.1 murder rate.
Part of the problem is how effective can a city regulation be when criminals can easily cross the border with guns.

It doesn't matter whether or not a right to safety isn't in the constitution. Its not the sole source of human rights. The "right to life" (and under that falls safety from others) is actually in the constitution as well as the human rights bills along with pretty much any moral code ever created.
"Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness"
Right_to_life


I thought we'd already establish that all the of those items have purposes which make them far to valuable to ever ban as well as being far, far less dangerous than guns.

Thing is eddie your again using the constitution as some whitewash tactics. I try and bring in the facts and figures side and you respond with we have a right to guns. Look, the second says so. Its rather a boring thread like that.

 

And to zatana: It is not, and never will be, outdated. As another poster mentioned: one of the purposes of the second amendment was to keep the government in line, for the fear of god would be impressed upon them when they tried to nullify a right and we rose up in such numbers so as to make even the militairy irrelevent lest they nuke their own country(even if we dont have them now, which face it, we at least have one or two, we could build a fission or fusion bomb powerful and numerous enough to decimate a noramally-sized country)....paranthases rant

 

Then clarify it for me - Why is gun ownership good for the health of America?

 

We have been a thriving nation without the 16th amendment (federal income taxes) longer than with it so I disagree with this point. It was passed in 1913 to deal with war debt, not to satisfy the demands of the civil society.

The power of the gun is behind every single law because if you don't comply, officers will show up and that is ultimately what motivates you to cooperate. I'm not complaining about it or disputing it, merely pointing it out. This is simply what it is and I will follow up on that theme at the end.

If you compare the FBI statistics of areas with harsh gun laws compared to areas with lax ones, especially right-to-carry, the numbers are irrefutable. Yes, there has always been more violent crime in cities like Chicago compared to other densely populated areas. The question is two fold:

1) Has crime in Chicago gone up or down since new restrictions have been put in place? Up, same as in other places like NY and DC

2) Are there other cities around the same size as Chicago, NY and DC with less restrictions and less gun-related crime. Yes, nearly all of them.

Does this prove that gun ownership lowers crime? Not necessarily, but the facts don't state in any irrefutable way that gun control lowers violent crime. My deeper point is that you declared this right to safety. It stands to reason that you would want to live in an area where there is less legal access to guns. The truth is, you are more likely to be the victim of a gun-related crime - in essence, you would get what you want and be less safe. Again, your rights only come into play after they have been violated. Hopefully, people will recognize the rights and avoid violating them. How could they know unless they are properly understood and documented as the law of the land?

The topic of the thread is "The Second Amendment" you cite a wiki page on the topic of "right to life" when asked for what establishes your right to safety and I get criticized for endlessly referring to the constitution.

I don't recall that (I could have missed it - if so, I apologize). It was brought up in the other thread and when I posed, what I considered, a reasonable counter to the logic, I was ridiculed, my intelligence questioned, but not rebutted. I don't accept repetition as an argument.

Mucgoo, I have sincerely enjoyed this discussion and get a lot out of this sort of dialog. Perhaps I have been too stern on the letter of the amendment. You have to understand going back to your argument above, rights that can be cited subjectively and arbitrarily on-the-fly have virtually no purpose (at least not as I can be convinced). I have a right to green paint, there, I said it.

The constitution is the standard by which our country exists. It can, and has been changed when the people want it to be. Part of my frustration and why I probably come across as subbornly repetitious is the tactic of not addressing the rule but bending the rules of the english language because, to well meaning people, the end justifies the means. The problem with that tactic is that, later, when you need the shelter of other words - like the freedom of expression - , and you've opened the pandora's box of redefining what everyone has understood, you are no longer protected. If you are allowed to wipe one away because of one fevered moment, they all fall. It was never my point to state they are perfect or without costs or consequences.

Change the law, I don't care, just read and understand it honestly. Just don't say it is something that it is not. I feel like Picard when he was being tortured to say there are more lights than there were in front of him.

I'm not immune to all the arguments and motives behind them just agree to uphold the principles that give the rights any meaning in the first place. I understand and respect that you are convinced that you are better off without guns, and even that my stance is unpopular. It changes nothing about the mechanics of what would need to happen to make things different.

 

If America's founding fathers time traveled to the present day, they'd probably fall to their knees, but it wouldn't be because of violence at schools. As recently as 1804 we had a former Secretary of the Treasury dueling a sitting Vice President. More likely, they'd lament the absence of slaves, wonder where all the good cocaine went, and then they'd look around wondering were Benjamin Franklin was. He would already be on his way to France, where all the good whore-houses could be found.

 

Maybe a modern nation could thrive with a tax revenue at about 5% of GDP(I believe that was about the pre 1900's level). Who knows. Its a tangent to my point that Americans already to agree to certain personal infringements in the interest of society(if we assume the 5% scenario to be considered undesirable). Why can't gun control come under the same banner.

This is were it gets very messy.
It could be that the reason those cities introduced gun laws was they already had problems with high crime rates.
As I pointed out it doesn't remove the easiness of a criminal crossing state or city lines with a gun. On a national level that's not nearly so easy.
Most of Europe provides a solid examples but there are of course more heavily armed US cities with lower crime rates.
Crime rates in those example seemed to plateau for a bit then all go up sharply as part of a nationwide increase in 1990 before falling again. Its rather hard to see through random variations in noise particularly with a sample size of three.

link
There's graphs supporting both points of view. Its the same if you do it by state or any other variable basically. Its mixed message sure but worth serious investigation to check if current policy is good or bad.

You criticize me for stating I have a right to safety and claim I make it up because its not in the constitution? You challenged the idea of "right to life" as a human right which is just insane.
Safety and life are one and the same.

We're never going to agree here. If you want to see me spending ages trying to re-argue this point then sure.

Isn't that basically what they did in 1780. They decided people have a right to guns.
Not an entirely silly idea like green paint rights. America was a dangerous place due to wildlife, Indians and other people who didn't have strong law enforcement to stop them. The British weren't too happy and at the time a group of armed citizen could overthrow the government if it became tyrannical.
I just don't see how any of those points actually hold true in this day. 200 years isn't a short time frame in which to reconsider the original wisdom of a decision. If it was to change it wouldn't some small simple thing. Proper research (which the NRA has blocked from federal funding for the past 15 year) to establish whether guns do make America a more dangerous place to live and then a referendum. I'm not saying the government should just rip up the constitution and rewrite it.

 

Even later with Andrew Jackson..

 

Seeing how he led soldiers to war younger than the New Town shooter I think this may answer the question:

~ George Washington - First Annual Message to Congress

and