The Second Amendment

[Biochemist]

Originally Posted by nemo

...That quote is the definition of why I am opposed to gun control. Tradeoff of liberty for security. ...

Most laws are trade-offs of liberty for something, often security. Speed laws, drunk driving laws, even anti-pollution and securities laws can be viewed as restrictions on liberty for security (physical or financial).

Gun control is not really different.

[Buffy]

Originally Posted by nemo

[rant]I'm not about to build a compound in Michigan and start writing a manifesto, but I can't wait to hear your argument about the grey area in the Fourth Amendment: "If you're not doing anything wrong, you shouldn't have anything to hide..."[/rant]

Tee hee! You've got to understand, I'm a raving libertarian. I'm also somewhat practical and believe there are no absolutes ever. For all the same reasons you cite, I'm also for legalization of drugs and abortion. In all cases using all means? No. Government is indeed about people making evolving decisions about how things should work to benefit everyone. Now, given that here are some of my rejoinders:

Slippery slope: nkt's story is important to always keep in the back of one's mind, and requires an freedom of speech and open government to guard against. However, the absolutist stance that *any* restriction cannot be allowed because it will only lead to more onerous restrictions later is simply not practical nor a good idea. Give me an amendment and I'll show you a restriction/exception, many right there in the text:

1. Church-State: "private prayer", abortion, creationism, creches in public parks. Free speech: yell fire in a theater...
2. Arms (see below)
3. Quartering soldiers: in time of war its allowed "as prescribed by law" (note, we're currently "at war"...)
4. Search-seizure: it says "unreasonable" and "probable cause" which are interpretable, and have been interpreted to say if your 3rd cousin twice removed is a drug dealer and he visited your house 10 years ago, the government can seize it.
5. Criminal rights: Exceptions for "time of war or public danger". Your property can be seized for *any* reason provided "just compensation" (decided by whom?)
6. ....

I can go on but you get my point, there *have* to be exceptions in order to allow for the complexities of people's beliefs. I worry about many of the exceptions that are creeping into our society and I speak out about them (and get accused of being a godless commie gun confiscator who wants 8 year olds to be toking and fornicating), but I think the Supreme Court exists for a reason: there are no absolutes, and the law should be interpreted contemporaneously because reasonable people may differ in their opinions. You can be on the left or the right and warn about slippery slopes, but its an argument that forces you into a position of absolutism, which I don't think is defensible:

Defining partial rights: Where do we draw the line. I asked above, and I'll ask again: should every American have the right to buy shoulder fired anti-aircraft missles? Its an "arm" which is pretty clearly then covered by the second amendment. How about F-16s? M1 Abrams Tanks? .50 Cal machine guns? Flame throwers? Are you really going to make the argument that there should be *no* restrictions? The fourth amendment: reasonable searches is built right into the language. But what's "reasonable"? Is it reasonable for the DEA to confiscate property of those periferally related to drug dealers? Its happening now, and you'd better start complaining about it: no politician these days will go near anything associated with "defending drug dealers". If you ACLU membership has lapsed, please renew it! This constant debate, resolution and modification of the law is essential to making our society work. Its like a good marriage: you do have to work at it or it falls apart!

Privacy: I'm actually a strong privacy advocate, but privacy is going away fast. In California, we're fortunate because there's an explicit right to privacy in our constitution. Everywhere else it is under attack, *not* by liberals trying to confiscate your guns, its by the "communitarians" who want to put GPS transmitters in cars to catch speeders, or do random drug testing in schools, or eliminate cash because only criminals and tax cheats use cash. Does registration reduce the privacy of those who own guns? Certainly! Does it help *prevent* shootings? Not with all the loopholes the NRA has driven through legislatures. Does it allow law enforcement to catch bad guys after the fact? Yep, and its getting better! Will increased risk of being caught make criminals think twice about how they proceed with their gun? In some cases and for the people who don't die as a result, that's a very good thing!

I agree with Franklin's maxim, but I also agree with Gorbachev: "Trust, but verify"

Cheers,
Buffy

[UncleAl]

If Washington shudders in deathly fear of honest citizens buying guns, it should.

Several American counties - including one in Jeb Bush's Florida - legislated that anybody passing basic gun safety instruction should be issued a concealed carry permit on request. The only apparent effect of such radical lawmaking was the local disappearance of almost all petty crime, rape, and gang activities. Who wants any of that to happen?

Every rifle in 1776 was an assalt rifle. The opposition carried muskets. Pistol for home defense, shotgun for mobs, 30-06 rifle for talking with law enforcement. Support evolution - shoot back.

[Buffy]

Originally Posted by UncleAl

If Washington shudders in deathly fear of honest citizens buying guns, it should.

Heh, heh, it *should* but right now "Washington" is the lapdog of the NRA, and its pretty certain you'll get your assault weapons back any day now. And the rig to convert your AR-15 into an M-16 is dirt cheap...I may go into manufacturing...

Originally Posted by UncleAl

Several American counties - including one in Jeb Bush's Florida - legislated that anybody passing basic gun safety instruction should be issued a concealed carry permit on request. The only apparent effect of such radical lawmaking was the local disappearance of almost all petty crime, rape, and gang activities.

I know what Unca Al thinks, but I ask everyone else to ask themselves: why didn't that happen in Miami? Does it have to do with the vast ghetto there that has rampant drugs and gangs and shootings which tourists are warned to avoid at all costs? Wanna know what'll happen to the crime rate if anyone can have a license to *carry* Tec-9s? Will they be moms? Or will they be gang members? Will the criminals change their M.O. from yelling "gimme the money or I'll shoot" to simply "Bam! Bam! Bam!" and rifle your pockets and cash register? This idea probably does work really well in those small towns on the highway where there's one petty theif, two gang members, and 10 child molesters, but good luck in the inner city...

Beware of the law of unintended consequences....

Originally Posted by UncleAl

Support evolution - shoot back.

Now *that's* a proposition I can get behind...and the next Church Lady who shows up at my door with a petition to put Intelligent Design in the school curriculum better be prepared to deal with my .45....

Lock n' load,
Buffy

[IrishEyes]

First, while it was great to read both sides, please limit this discussion to the SECOND Amendment. Start a new one on the FOURTH, please.

Second, Buffy: what is this? "creches in public parks". I followed and agreed with most of what you said, but had no idea what that was. Throw a girl a clue here, please.

Third, this thread just really ticks me off! Here's why - I agree with both sides. I think both sides are 100% correct, and it really upsets me because I feel like I'm fence-sitting. But I am really torn. I don't like the idea of the government taking one of our 'rights' away (yes, I know it happens all the time, but I still don't like it). But I also don't think everyone should be allowed to run around carrying an AK-47, screaming that it's their "right" to do so. I mean, what's the point of that gun? It's sure not elk hunting! (sorry, babe, I just couldn't help myself- payback for the "Irish is old" comment)
Anyhow, this one is causing some tension arund here, so I'm backing out for a bit.
Stick to the topic. Start a new topic on the 4th if you want. Be nice to each other. And keep this great discussion going!!

[Buffy]

Originally Posted by IrishEyes

First, while it was great to red both sides, please limit this discussion to the SECOND Amendment. Start a new one on the FOURTH, please.

I'll disagree insofar as the debate about the second amendment often occurs in a vacuum that insists that it be interpreted in an absolutist manner, when in fact virtually none of the Bill of Rights is. To the extent that discussion of the other amendments establishes the validity of the interpretation of the second amendment, I'd say the others *have* to be mentioned here. I'll agree that arguments specifically about the 4th should go on elsewhere, but I've been trying to walk the line of using the references *only* to back up my points on the second...

Originally Posted by IrishEyes

Second, Buffy: what is this? "creches in public parks". I followed and agreed with most of what you said, but had no idea what that was. Throw a girl a clue here, please.

Really? Oh wait, you're in that part of Virginia where there's no controversy about putting up Nativity Scenes (aka "Creches") on the front lawn of the court house. Ah yes, Virginia, the Christian State...

Originally Posted by IrishEyes

Third, this thread just really ticks me off! Here's why - I agree with both sides.

Welcome to the silent majority. Its okay to be on the fence! Honest! Life would be *boring* if everything was black and white. My suggestion? Read Melville...

Please don't step out, Irish! If its only us loonies on the extremes arguing (wait as second, I'm in the middle getting shot at by both the nemo's and UA's as well as the "no guns" folks who haven't spoken up yet....), *none* of this will ever make sense!

Cheers,
Buffy

[Turtle]

___Where to begin? I suppose with the 2nd ammendment (GETE). If the citizens don't like the current laws, then they need to banned together & change them. The option (right?) to protect one's life & property by deadly force doesn't change simply because of the technology or era in history.
___I received NRA training in firearms when I was just a boy, & while most the people I have encountered who own guns scare the hell out of me with their carelessness, I have a greater fear of the idiots driving than those with guns. Having a car is no protection from idiot drivers whereas owning & carrying a sidearm at home is some protection against home invasion. In my state, unless you're a felon or otherwise restricted from gun possession, you may carry a concealed weapon on your property with no permit or registration required.
___Ever heard the Beatles' song Happiness is a Warm Gun? I only recently realized it was a Beatles' song & on further probing found that John wrote it. Blimy! I don't remember all the words but the title says it all. It isn't just any gun he's talking about, but a pistol, & it isn't warm because it's been fired, but because it is close carried. Where & when did John have the opportunity to close carry a pistol?
___Anyway, it takes my 1911 Colt .45 about 20 -30 minutes to make me happy & when I'm smiling, the whole world smiles with me.

[pgrmdave]

If I am correct, there are three main reasons to shoot a gun:

1 - for hunting/target shooting
2 - for self-defence
3 - for an aggressive action

Of these reasons - two of them are to hurt people. If we were to be able to eliminate the third, we could eliminate the second reason. Thus we are left with hunting and target shooting, activities which require different weapons than the second two (you don't go hunting with a pistol, usually, nor an M16). I think that the question should be more along the lines of how can we help eliminate, or at least reduce, the third reason, rather than going with M.A.D.ness.

[Buffy]

Originally Posted by pgrmdave

(you don't go hunting with a pistol, usually, nor an M16)

Depends on what you're hunting, and I can attest that an M-16 is quite effective on deer, (although it would not have much of an effect on an elephant: the rounds are too small). On the other hand, its not much "sport" to do so: check out AMC tonight: they're running "The Man With The Golden Gun" which is all about this definition of "hunting" and "sport", with the conclusion that only wimps and bad shots would use big guns to hunt anything...

Cheers,
Buffy

[nemo]

Of these reasons - two of them are to hurt people.

I'd suggest that eliminating the third would still leave the second for response to aggressive action of any kind with any weapon.

you don't go hunting with a pistol, usually

You might not, but there are a number of people who do. Ironically, the best ammunition for defense against a bear is also the ammunition that people point to as being designed solely for killing people. While I'll be using a rifle to hunt elk, I'll have my .45 on my hip at all times, with the most effective ammunition available loaded and ready to go.

Sorry for straying off topic with the mention of the 4th; I'd agree that it is nearly impossible to discuss one amendment in a vacuum. Additionally, I'm really not in favor of every nut in the country toting anti-aircraft weaponry, but I feel that effective enforcement of existing laws is a better solution than what is often knee-jerk legislation. To rehash the existing metaphor, most vehicles are capable of speeds well in excess of 100 miles per hour. Most states' speed limits are well below that rate of speed. Rather than make performance automobiles illegal, states have used enforcement of speed limits to deter speeding. Murder is illegal whether it is done with a handgun or a temporarily elevated grand piano. Assault is illegal regardless of whether a handgun was used or someone was stabbed with a frozen swordfish (when used in that manner, it is also considered a deadly weapon). At some point the teenage lunatics in this country will realize that the techniques currently being used by Iraqi insurgents would be pretty effective in their high school, with a lot less risk of getting themselves killed in the process. Synthetic fertilizer is already regulated to reduce the opportunity of acquiring a truck full of the stuff if you don't have a farm, but you don't need that quantity to load up a few lockers.

I know. The horse is dead. Perhaps I'm leaning on one side, but I'm sharing at least part of Irish's fence (I'm just a bit more annoyingly vocal).

Thanks for the feedback - this has been an enjoyable thread.