|
|
|
|
|
Users viewing this topic:
none
|
|
Login  | |
|
RE: D.C.'s Gun Ban Gets Day in Court - 4/7/2008 6:29:49 PM
|
|
|
1dblthnk02
Posts: 637
Joined: 3/24/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: SteveSund
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.
Like I said, there are five in particular that I tend to look at; Miller looms the largest.
quote:
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.
What about it?
quote:
Since you are comfortable with DC gun laws, I fail to see this as much of a right.
I said that the ban is “justifiable, but regrettable.” Even if I was comfortable with it, does that change the right itself?
quote:
Under the collective rights argument put forth by the gov't, the right only applies to people that are part of a militia.
An argument put forth by “the gov’t?” Could you be more specific here?
As for the argument itself, it runs contrary to U.S. history.
quote:
You specifically mentioned that DC laws were justifiable.
“Justifiable, but regrettable” . . .
Not because of statistics. The ban is justifiable in the sense that a state could ban guns without violating the 2nd Amendment. But, again, D.C. is not a state . . .
quote:
I am sorry, I find this insulting unless you have some reasearch that backs it up.
Your umbrage is duly noted. And, sorry, but I do not require research to back up that which is strictly a personal opinion.
quote:
How many people do you personally know that carry guns on a regular basis?
The exact number, I don’t know. But all of them are or were in law enforcement of some kind.
quote:
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.
Wow! You personally know hundreds of people? Your social circle certainly outshines mine.
Anyway, the people that I referred to do not seem to walk in fear, either. But not a one of them are what I would term ordinary citizens. Every one of them was in law enforcement of one kind or another, had been in gun fights, and some were also veterans.
Most of us are not cowboys.
quote:
I don't typically do this.
But why not? Is there anything wrong with admitting that it is not really a safety issue?
|
|
|
|
|
RE: D.C.'s Gun Ban Gets Day in Court - 4/7/2008 8:16:51 PM
|
|
|
EverLearning
Posts: 1662
Joined: 5/25/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: 1dblthnk02
Which intelligent controls?
not allowing violent felons or the mentally unstable to own firearms.
quote:
It either is or is not an outright ban. There is no “all intents and purposes.” The D.C. law bans handguns and puts specific restrictions on other firearms. It is not a unilateral ban.
When a person can not own or is so restricted as to make ownership unfeasible then that is in fact a ban, maybe not by name but it is still a ban.
_____________________________
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 - 4/8/2008 2:49:02 PM
|
|
|
1dblthnk02
Posts: 637
Joined: 3/24/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: EverLearning
not allowing violent felons or the mentally unstable to own firearms
That is a control on purchasers, not guns. Still, it is a control of sorts. I don’t consider it an especially “intelligent” control; maybe not stupid describes it best.
quote:
When a person can not own or is so restricted as to make ownership unfeasible then that is in fact a ban, maybe not by name but it is still a ban.
My understanding is that the ban is on handguns, autos, semi-autos, and unregistered firearms. Furthermore, law enforcement officers were exempt, as well as all firearms registered before the law took effect.
The only part of it I consider too drastic is the ban on handguns; the rest of it makes good sense to me.
As for your contention that it makes ownership “unfeasible,” you are exaggerating. The law states that all guns kept at home must be "unloaded, disassembled, or bound by a trigger lock or similar device." I can see where this restricts the readily available discharge of a firearm, but it does not make ownership unfeasible in the slightest.
quote:
ORIGINAL: SteveSund
I agree with Everlearning. Are you saying that anything less than a total ban is ok? How is that not an 'infringement'?
I inadvertently overlooked this question the first time around. My answer is that a state’s ban, even a total one, is okay as far as the 2nd Amendment is concerned.
You need to recognize that the 2nd Amendment restricts Congress, not the states, from infringing on the right of the people to keep and bear arms. No wording in the 2nd Amendment prevents states from imposing gun restrictions or even outright bans within their own jurisdictions. It stands to reason that Washington D.C. should be at liberty to do the same. Or should it?— it’s not a state . . .
< Message edited by 1dblthnk02 -- 4/8/2008 2:56:43 PM >
|
|
|
|
|
RE: D.C.'s Gun Ban Gets Day in Court - 4/8/2008 3:36:19 PM
|
|
|
SteveSund
Posts: 741
Joined: 11/8/2005
From: Michigan
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: 1dblthnk02
An argument put forth by “the gov’t?” Could you be more specific here?
As for the argument itself, it runs contrary to U.S. history.
This argument was put forth by the state in the Emerson decision. I believe they also did in the current case, though I can't say how it was presented.
quote:
You specifically mentioned that DC laws were justifiable.
“Justifiable, but regrettable” . . .
Not because of statistics. The ban is justifiable in the sense that a state could ban guns without violating the 2nd Amendment. But, again, D.C. is not a state . . .
quote:
Your umbrage is duly noted. And, sorry, but I do not require research to back up that which is strictly a personal opinion.
Fair enough.
quote:
Wow! You personally know hundreds of people? Your social circle certainly outshines mine.
Anyway, the people that I referred to do not seem to walk in fear, either. But not a one of them are what I would term ordinary citizens. Every one of them was in law enforcement of one kind or another, had been in gun fights, and some were also veterans.
Most of us are not cowboys.
What can I say, I am such a pleasant person. I am fairly active in several groups that are related to firearms and firearms 'rights'. They represent a fairly diverse group in terms of jobs and experience. None are cowboys. Michigan doesn't have very many that I have seen.
quote:
But why not? Is there anything wrong with admitting that it is not really a safety issue?
Nope, nothing at all.
quote:
I can see where this restricts the readily available discharge of a firearm, but it does not make ownership unfeasible in the slightest.
Ownership, maybe not, but it makes bearing them unfeasible. This was discussed in the current case.
quote:
You need to recognize that the 2nd Amendment restricts Congress, not the states, from infringing on the right of the people to keep and bear arms. No wording in the 2nd Amendment prevents states from imposing gun restrictions or even outright bans within their own jurisdictions.
This is correct, but it is my opinion that this right should be extended to state actions through the 14th Amendment, as they have extended most (but not all) of the other BOR's. This won't happen in the current case, but I'd like to see it in the future.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: D.C.'s Gun Ban Gets Day in Court - 4/8/2008 11:43:31 PM
|
|
|
1dblthnk02
Posts: 637
Joined: 3/24/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: SteveSund
This argument was put forth by the state in the Emerson decision.
Actually, the argument was put forth by the feds, i.e. the United States party of United States v Emerson. The plaintiffs were off-base, of course. I don’t see how the Court of Appeals could have ruled any other way than to dismiss the argument.
quote:
I believe they also did in the current case, though I can't say how it was presented.
Maybe those who are defending the ban are urguing it, but I don’t know, either.
quote:
What can I say, I am such a pleasant person.
I didn’t mean to come off as incredulous; I’m not used to encountering someone with hundreds of acquaintances.
quote:
None are cowboys. Michigan doesn't have very many that I have seen.
I was using the term in the colloquial sense: “one having qualities (as recklessness, aggressiveness, or independence) popularly associated with cowboys:”
quote:
But why not? Is there anything wrong with admitting that it is not really a safety issue?
quote:
Nope, nothing at all.
Why do you suppose that gun advocates so often bring this up as an argument? For instance, in the D.C. case they like to contend that the restrictions make it difficult for people to defend their homes, thereby reducing their safety from victimization.
But public safety isn’t the gun advocates’ main concern at all, is it.
quote:
Ownership, maybe not, but it makes bearing them unfeasible.
Yes, it does-- unless one is an officer of law enforcement.
quote:
but it is my opinion that this right should be extended to state actions through the 14th Amendment, as they have extended most (but not all) of the other BOR's.
This is an interesting idea. However, it does raise a question in my mind bringing it back to the Framers’ original intent. What would they have thought about the Constitution prohibiting Congress in one amendment, and then prohibiting the states in another later amendment?
And even if this were done, this brings us back to the bugaboo about D.C.’s status as a non-state. Neither the 2nd nor the 14th applies to them in the strictest sense. Congress cannot be prohibited from exercizing their Constitutional plenary power over D.C. (2nd Amendment), and D.C. cannot be treated as a state like any other state (14th Amendment), because this is why it was set aside as neutral ground in the first place.
< Message edited by 1dblthnk02 -- 4/8/2008 11:51:07 PM >
|
|
|
|
|
RE: D.C.'s Gun Ban Gets Day in Court - 4/10/2008 8:31:41 AM
|
|
|
SteveSund
Posts: 741
Joined: 11/8/2005
From: Michigan
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: 1dblthnk02
Maybe those who are defending the ban are urguing it, but I don’t know, either.
IIRC, it was the Solicitor General.
quote:
I didn’t mean to come off as incredulous; I’m not used to encountering someone with hundreds of acquaintances.
Some I don't know very well, others I do. The first category is much bigger.
quote:
Why do you suppose that gun advocates so often bring this up as an argument? For instance, in the D.C. case they like to contend that the restrictions make it difficult for people to defend their homes, thereby reducing their safety from victimization.
But public safety isn’t the gun advocates’ main concern at all, is it.
It is probably a PR thing to some extent. Most people are comfortable with most laws and wouldn't bother to question them. They would gladly give up some rights in the name of perceived safety or just because the gov't "said so." The gun banners have long used the safety aspect. They appeal to people to "think of the children" or ask why anyone would "need to hunt with AK-47?" They say certain laws are needed and blasted any attempt to make concealed carry easier by saying their would be "blood in the streets." Gun rights people have taken to countering the safety argument with one of their own because it will probably garner more support than the 'rights' approach.
I am sure that most gun advocates would support laws that were narrowly tailored to protect the public and still be able to defend themselves. I fall into this category.
quote:
This is an interesting idea. However, it does raise a question in my mind bringing it back to the Framers’ original intent. What would they have thought about the Constitution prohibiting Congress in one amendment, and then prohibiting the states in another later amendment?
The framers probably wouldn't have been happy that any of the BOR's were being applied to the states.
quote:
And even if this were done, this brings us back to the bugaboo about D.C.’s status as a non-state. Neither the 2nd nor the 14th applies to them in the strictest sense. Congress cannot be prohibited from exercizing their Constitutional plenary power over D.C. (2nd Amendment), and D.C. cannot be treated as a state like any other state (14th Amendment), because this is why it was set aside as neutral ground in the first place.
True. I will be interested to see how they resove it.
It will probably be unsatisfying to both sides. They seem willing to say it is an individual right, but are not willing to make any kind of test or provide some kind of framework for other courts.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: D.C.'s Gun Ban Gets Day in Court - 4/10/2008 5:15:38 PM
|
|
|
1dblthnk02
Posts: 637
Joined: 3/24/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: SteveSund
The gun banners have long used the safety aspect. They appeal to people to "think of the children" or ask why anyone would "need to hunt with AK-47?"
Of course, anyone with firearms and children in the house should think of the children's safety. Proper training and an ingrained respect for firearms would be the best safety device.
And I must admit that I've never heard of anyone who has hunted with an AK-47, so I guess that I agree with that one, too.
quote:
Gun rights people have taken to countering the safety argument with one of their own because it will probably garner more support than the 'rights' approach.
I disagree. It seems to me that gun advocates are the ones who brought up the safety issue in their arguments against the D.C. gun ban.
quote:
The framers probably wouldn't have been happy that any of the BOR's were being applied to the states.
So you disagree that they intended the 2nd Amendment to apply to states?
quote:
True. I will be interested to see how they resove it. It will probably be unsatisfying to both sides.
Especially from my side: no one in the case seems to be addressing the points that I have been making.
quote:
They seem willing to say it is an individual right, but are not willing to make any kind of test or provide some kind of framework for other courts.
Like what?
|
|
|
|
|
RE: D.C.'s Gun Ban Gets Day in Court - 4/11/2008 7:13:13 AM
|
|
|
SteveSund
Posts: 741
Joined: 11/8/2005
From: Michigan
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: 1dblthnk02
Of course, anyone with firearms and children in the house should think of the children's safety. Proper training and an ingrained respect for firearms would be the best safety device.
And I must admit that I've never heard of anyone who has hunted with an AK-47, so I guess that I agree with that one, too.
I agree that safety is very important. IIRC, gun realted accidents have been declining. I know a few people that have hunted with an AK-type gun. It wouldn't be my first choice, but to each their own. Besides, the 2nd isn't about protecting hunters, since their is no right to hunt.
quote:
I disagree. It seems to me that gun advocates are the ones who brought up the safety issue in their arguments against the D.C. gun ban.
Gun advocates here or in the actual case? I seem to hear the safety argument mostly from gun banners.
quote:
So you disagree that they intended the 2nd Amendment to apply to states?
They intended that the 2nd (along with the 1st, 3rd, 4th, etc.) apply to the Federal gov't. This changed when they started using the 14th to apply the BOR's to the states. I think it is reasonable to include the 2nd.
quote:
quote:
They seem willing to say it is an individual right, but are not willing to make any kind of test or provide some kind of framework for other courts.
Like what?
Something similar to what is used with free speech cases...strict scrutiny, compelling governmental interest, narrowly tailored, etc.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: D.C.'s Gun Ban Gets Day in Court - 4/11/2008 6:57:45 PM
|
|
|
1dblthnk02
Posts: 637
Joined: 3/24/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: SteveSund
I know a few people that have hunted with an AK-type gun. It wouldn't be my first choice, but to each their own. Besides, the 2nd isn't about protecting hunters, since their is no right to hunt.
I'm inclined to agree here. Hunting and arms were a fact of life back when the 2nd Amendment was drafted. I can't imagine the Framers addressing something so basic to their existence as a right in need of protection. It would be like protecting their right to farm for their sustenance.
quote:
Gun advocates here or in the actual case?
In the case of the D.C. gun ban. Those against the ban, chiefly gun advocates, argue that the ban puts personal/public safety at risk. I have googled a few quick examples:
"Outlawing a city's ban on handguns would unfairly strip citizens of their collective ability to make their communities safer"
"At some point, hard facts must matter. This is one point where public safety and individual rights coincide"
And it's right in the title of this OPED, "The ban against public safety; D.C. gun laws have increased crime"
quote:
I seem to hear the safety argument mostly from gun banners.
I was able to find a couple examples of this, such as:
"The challenge of creating a safe community is already a daunting goal. With the addition of potentially thousands of firearms, it becomes a nearly impossible one"
"It really is trying to restrict the ability to use certain types of firearms which are perceived to be a particular threat to public safety"
Now, I had to spend a whole lot more time and effort scouring Google for any pro-ban safety argument than the few seconds it took to mine the first three anti-ban arguments. Is this any indication of which side is actually making the loudest and most frequent use of the safety issue? I think that it does.
quote:
They intended that the 2nd (along with the 1st, 3rd, 4th, etc.) apply to the Federal gov't.
As this applies to the 2nd Amendment, you are right that it is a restriction on Congress, not the states. However, "the security of a free state" is the chief goal of the amendment; therefore, I don't see how we can say that it doesn't apply to states. It does not restrict states in any way, but this amendment was drafted with the states in mind, and hence does apply to them in a non-restrictive sense.
quote:
Something similar to what is used with free speech cases...strict scrutiny, compelling governmental interest, narrowly tailored, etc.
Again, I am not sure what the Framers would have thought of cookie-cutting an intrinsic right. The plasticity and ideological nature of speech makes it necessary to define it a little more clearly; but for the most part, guns are guns.
< Message edited by 1dblthnk02 -- 4/11/2008 7:05:13 PM >
|
|
|
|
|
RE: D.C.'s Gun Ban Gets Day in Court - 4/12/2008 8:45:43 AM
|
|
|
SteveSund
Posts: 741
Joined: 11/8/2005
From: Michigan
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: 1dblthnk02
Now, I had to spend a whole lot more time and effort scouring Google for any pro-ban safety argument than the few seconds it took to mine the first three anti-ban arguments. Is this any indication of which side is actually making the loudest and most frequent use of the safety issue? I think that it does.
Interesting. The oped from the Baltimore Sun seems to support the anti-gun side. I certainly don't have any data that will prove which side uses the safety aspect the most. I recall the debate in MI over shall-issue concealed carry. The anti-carry side overwhelmingly used the public safety aspect, saying there would be "blood in the streets." I am sure the pro-gun side will continue to use data that supports their position.
quote:
As this applies to the 2nd Amendment, you are right that it is a restriction on Congress, not the states. However, "the security of a free state" is the chief goal of the amendment; therefore, I don't see how we can say that it doesn't apply to states. It does not restrict states in any way, but this amendment was drafted with the states in mind, and hence does apply to them in a non-restrictive sense.
Excellent point. I am not aware of any state laws regarding guns around the time of the FF's, so I don't really know how they would react. Your argument has merit and I tend to agree.
quote:
Again, I am not sure what the Framers would have thought of cookie-cutting an intrinsic right. The plasticity and ideological nature of speech makes it necessary to define it a little more clearly; but for the most part, guns are guns.
True, but unless there is some kind of framework, there will always be problems.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: D.C.'s Gun Ban Gets Day in Court - 4/12/2008 8:55:31 PM
|
|
|
TomTurn
Posts: 758
Joined: 3/13/2008
Status: offline
|
None is more sad than the slave who thinks they are free
|
|
|
|
|
RE: D.C.'s Gun Ban Gets Day in Court - 4/13/2008 2:59:54 AM
|
|
|
Marcus.
Posts: 1344
Joined: 4/11/2005
Status: offline
|
I've read several in years past. Individual rights to firearms was a common amendment.
_____________________________
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 - 4/13/2008 9:43:11 AM
|
|
|
SteveSund
Posts: 741
Joined: 11/8/2005
From: Michigan
Status: offline
|
My state (MI) mentions the right to bear arms in it's constitution. Clear and to the point.
From article 1, section 6 of the MI Constitution:
quote:
Every person has a right to keep and bear arms for the defense of himself and the state.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: D.C.'s Gun Ban Gets Day in Court - 4/13/2008 11:35:24 AM
|
|
|
1dblthnk02
Posts: 637
Joined: 3/24/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: SteveSund
Interesting. The oped from the Baltimore Sun seems to support the anti-gun side.
After re-reading it, I think that you may be right. I read it in haste.
quote:
The anti-carry side overwhelmingly used the public safety aspect, saying there would be "blood in the streets."
Indeed, there are those Brady-bill-types who are not above using hyperbolic language to make their point.
quote:
I am sure the pro-gun side will continue to use data that supports their position.
I'm sure they will; that's common sense.
quote:
I am not aware of any state laws regarding guns around the time of the FF's, so I don't really know how they would react.
Most laws about guns were actually related to race at that time. Gun control was a scant concern at a time when a mere estimated 14% of all New England and Pennsylvanian households even possessed firearms at all.
quote:
Your argument has merit and I tend to agree.
Thank you. I find it just a bit amazing that you and I have had a far more relevant discussion about this topic than anything I have seen or heard in the media or the courts thus far. What's up with that?
quote:
True, but unless there is some kind of framework, there will always be problems.
Funny you should say this: I came across this article which makes the point that a framework, as you suggest, must be determined by the people not the courts. Thus, the Court's opinion will prove to be of little value in the long run. Of course, this plays into a bias favoring D.C.'s gun ban, but at least his reasoning is sound, as far as I can tell.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: D.C.'s Gun Ban Gets Day in Court - 4/13/2008 8:11:00 PM
|
|
|
SteveSund
Posts: 741
Joined: 11/8/2005
From: Michigan
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: 1dblthnk02
Most laws about guns were actually related to race at that time. Gun control was a scant concern at a time when a mere estimated 14% of all New England and Pennsylvanian households even possessed firearms at all.
The 14% was from research by Bellesiles. He was widely discredited and eventually had his Bancroft Prize rescinded and his publisher did not review his contract. I don't know if that stat was among the ones that was false, but I don't really trust much from him.
quote:
Thank you. I find it just a bit amazing that you and I have had a far more relevant discussion about this topic than anything I have seen or heard in the media or the courts thus far. What's up with that?
The media often prefers the emotional or sensationalistic angle. They also frequently get the facts wrong when discussing guns. As for courts, I am sure there are plenty of judges that are just biased and willing to circumvent the Constitution if they 'need' to.
quote:
Funny you should say this: I came across this article which makes the point that a framework, as you suggest, must be determined by the people not the courts. Thus, the Court's opinion will prove to be of little value in the long run. Of course, this plays into a bias favoring D.C.'s gun ban, but at least his reasoning is sound, as far as I can tell.
I'll have to read that article more carefully and get back to you.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: D.C.'s Gun Ban Gets Day in Court - 4/13/2008 8:44:35 PM
|
|
|
Marcus.
Posts: 1344
Joined: 4/11/2005
Status: offline
|
Bellesiles. Was that the guy writing a book to debunk the notion that firearms were commonplace in the early US?
< Message edited by Marcus. -- 4/13/2008 8:53:10 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 - 4/14/2008 7:58:19 AM
|
|
|
earthless
Posts: 4826
Joined: 4/11/2005
From: where bbq pigeons roast....
Status: offline
|
Obama:
quote:
n 1996, Obama filled out a candidates’ questionnaire. In that questionnaire, he was asked if he was in favor of legislation to, “ban the manufacture, sale and possession of handguns.” Unlike most politicians who never come right out and answer a question, Obama’s answer was one three-letter word.
"Yes"
Obama supports the Washington DC gun ban - the one that's about to be struck down by the US Supreme Court:
Obama:
quote:
“There is an individual right to bear arms, but it is subject to common-sense regulation just like most of our rights are subject to common-sense regulation.”………….“I think that local jurisdictions have the capacity to institute their own gun laws . . . the City of Chicago has gun laws, as does Washington, D.C.” He went on, “The notion that somehow local jurisdictions can’t initiate gun safety laws . . . isn’t borne out by our Constitution.”
Rights are "subject to common-sense regulation"? Since when? They are Unalienable Rights granted by the "Creator" according to the document we read. The state is not entitled to regulate them out of hand.
_____________________________
Probing Today's Religious Movements | Promoting Doctrinal Discernment & Critical Thinking | Providing Reasons for Christian Faith & Ethics
|
|
|
|
|
RE: D.C.'s Gun Ban Gets Day in Court - 4/14/2008 4:43:50 PM
|
|
|
1dblthnk02
Posts: 637
Joined: 3/24/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: SteveSund
I don't know if that stat was among the ones that was false, but I don't really trust much from him.
Honestly, I find Bellesiles' critics incredible. While his stats are likely to be somewhat imprecise, they also successfully indicate lesser gun proliferation before the days of high-yield, assembly line arms manufacture.
To be fair, some of his supporters also lack credibility. We cannot determine the veracity of his research strictly by its popularity or lack thereof.
quote:
The media often prefers the emotional or sensationalistic angle. They also frequently get the facts wrong when discussing guns.
Not to mention that the case is always "discussed" in the media by polarized politicos, each determined to get their message out to the masses rather than examine the specific facts in the case.
quote:
As for courts, I am sure there are plenty of judges that are just biased and willing to circumvent the Constitution if they 'need' to.
This is one reason why Marc Fisher (link) may be right about the uselessness of the Court's decision, regardless of what it is.
quote:
ORIGINAL: Marcus.
Was that the guy writing a book to debunk the notion that firearms were commonplace in the early US?
That's not all it was about. The book is called "Arming America," in which Bellesiles examines the difference between pre and post mass gun manufacture in America, and the associated statistical rise in violent crime.
quote:
ORIGINAL: earthless
Rights are "subject to common-sense regulation"? Since when? They are Unalienable Rights granted by the "Creator" according to the document we read.
The right to bear arms has always been regulated to one degree or another. Do you really believe that a mentally defective person, or a violent felon, has the inalienable right to bear arms with the unilateral sanction of the same Creator who commanded, "Thou shalt not kill?"
quote:
The state is not entitled to regulate them out of hand.
Incorrect. The 2nd Amendment is a restriction on Congress, not the state. Any state may impose any regulation they care to.
However, Washington D.C. is not a state. Furthermore, Congress exercises plenary power over D.C. as mandated by the Constitution. But then you have the 2nd Amendment which is a restriction on Congress-- do you see the quandary? It's a Catch-22.
< Message edited by 1dblthnk02 -- 4/14/2008 4:50:55 PM >
|
|
|
|
|
RE: D.C.'s Gun Ban Gets Day in Court - 4/14/2008 7:23:08 PM
|
|
|
TomTurn
Posts: 758
Joined: 3/13/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
Incorrect. The 2nd Amendment is a restriction on Congress, not the state. Any state may impose any regulation they care to.
State your source
|
|
|
|
|
RE: D.C.'s Gun Ban Gets Day in Court - 4/14/2008 8:42:47 PM
|
|
|
earthless
Posts: 4826
Joined: 4/11/2005
From: where bbq pigeons roast....
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: 1dblthnk02
The right to bear arms has always been regulated to one degree or another. Do you really believe that a mentally defective person, or a violent felon, has the inalienable right to bear arms with the unilateral sanction of the same Creator who commanded, "Thou shalt not kill?"
Of course it has to be regulated to a sensible and rational degree, like what you mentioned about a mentally defective person, etc..
But you and I both darn well know that is not what the "ban guns" crowd is advocating.
I am reminded of Thomas Jefferson who wrote this passage in his "Commonplace Book"
It reads in part: "Laws that forbid the carrying of arms ... disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes ... Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man."
_____________________________
Probing Today's Religious Movements | Promoting Doctrinal Discernment & Critical Thinking | Providing Reasons for Christian Faith & Ethics
|
|
|
|
|
RE: D.C.'s Gun Ban Gets Day in Court - 4/15/2008 10:48:53 AM
|
|
|
SteveSund
Posts: 741
Joined: 11/8/2005
From: Michigan
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: 1dblthnk02
Honestly, I find Bellesiles' critics incredible. While his stats are likely to be somewhat imprecise, they also successfully indicate lesser gun proliferation before the days of high-yield, assembly line arms manufacture.
To be fair, some of his supporters also lack credibility. We cannot determine the veracity of his research strictly by its popularity or lack thereof.
It has been several years since I have looked at Bellesiles's work. IIRC, he made up some data, which is not all that well respected in the world of academia. I have a few friends that are history professors. One is pretty comfortable with gun control and even he has a pretty low opinion of Bellesiles.
quote:
Not to mention that the case is always "discussed" in the media by polarized politicos, each determined to get their message out to the masses rather than examine the specific facts in the case.
True, but the media seems to favor gun control far more often than they do the other side.
|
|
|
|
| |
Forum Tools
Printable Version
