US Constitution Discussion, Part 13: Amendment II

Perspectives on our world and our universe, how it works, what is happening, and why it happens. Whether by a hidden hand or natural laws, we come together to hash it out, and perhaps provide a little bit of education and enlightenment for others. This is a place for civil discussion. Please keep it that way.
Forum rules
1) Remain civil. Respect others' rights to their viewpoints, even if you believe them to be completely wrong.
2) Sourcing your information is highly recommended. Plagiarism will get you banned.
3) Please create a new thread for a new topic, even if you think it might not get a lot of responses. Do not create mega-threads.
4) If you think the subject of a thread is not important enough to merit a post, simply avoid posting in it. If enough people agree, it will fall off the page soon enough.
User avatar
Martin Blank
Knower of Things
Knower of Things
Posts: 12685
Joined: Fri Feb 07, 2003 4:11 am
Real Name: Jarrod Frates
Gender: Male
Location: Dallas, TX

Re: US Constitution Discussion, Part 13: Amendment II

Post by Martin Blank » Mon May 24, 2010 12:33 am

Interesting, especially considering the spikes that have occurred in places like Ciudad Juarez and Tijuana. I'd expected the rate to have gone higher.

There is the problem in Calderon's pleas, though, that many of the military-grade weapons -- basically assault rifles and anything fully automatic -- actually are smuggled in from nations south of Mexico, where they are often diverted from the military or police that purchase them. Exact percentages are impossible to pin down, but FactCheck.org performed an analysis that determined that of the roughly 29,000 weapons confiscated by Mexican Police in 2007 and 2008, at least a third came from the US, based on figures supplied by the BATFE. Others were untraceable because the serial numbers were removed, but many simply were clearly not from the US.

Violence is a huge problem in Mexico, and I have sympathy for the victims. It does seem like the country is slowly getting a handle on things, though it has a long road to follow before it can claim some real measure of victory.
If I show up at your door, chances are you did something to bring me there.

User avatar
collegestudent22
Redshirt
Posts: 6886
Joined: Fri Jun 08, 2007 10:02 am
Gender: Male
Location: Gallifrey

Re: US Constitution Discussion, Part 13: Amendment II

Post by collegestudent22 » Tue Jun 29, 2010 2:22 am

I am a bit curious on opinions about the Supreme Court decision today. I mean, I heard conservatives claim that the Second Amendment went for a vote in the Court and barely passed, while liberals rail about the "newly created" universal right to bear arms. What is the truth here?
Frédéric Bastiat wrote:And now that the legislators and do-gooders have so futilely inflicted so many systems upon society, may they finally end where they should have begun: May they reject all systems, and try liberty; for liberty is an acknowledgment of faith in God and His works.
Count Axel Oxenstierna wrote:Dost thou not know, my son, with how little wisdom the world is governed?

User avatar
Martin Blank
Knower of Things
Knower of Things
Posts: 12685
Joined: Fri Feb 07, 2003 4:11 am
Real Name: Jarrod Frates
Gender: Male
Location: Dallas, TX

Re: US Constitution Discussion, Part 13: Amendment II

Post by Martin Blank » Wed Jun 30, 2010 6:58 am

It's more complex than that. I've been reading the decision (slowly, because of work issues), but it seems that what the Court has done is to extend the concept of "fundamental rights" to apply to the Second Amendment. AFAICT, the decision is actually not as much about the Second Amendment as the Fourteenth Amendment, actually, and the Court did not strike down the Chicago ordinance. Almost (but not quite) the entirety of the first eight amendments now fall under the concept of fundamental rights, meaning that both the federal and state governments must respect them. The case has been remanded to the Circuit Court of Appeals for renewed direction to the trial court.

What I find interesting is that the majority says that the right is not newly created, but in fact was recognized and supported by Federalists and Antifederalists as the Constitution was being debated as a way of safeguarding the nation, and by both Democrats and Republicans after the Civil War as a way of providing a method of self-protection by former slaves. The Freedmen's Bureau Act of 1866 (I think that's what it's called -- the printout is downstairs) specifically mentioned that the rights of blacks and mulattoes would be upheld, including the "constitutional right" to keep and bear arms. The need for such protection may have declined (no groups made of former rebel soldiers or KKK members are rounding up blacks to be executed because they owned a gun), but that doesn't make it irrelevant in the eyes of the Court.

I'm getting through it as quickly as I can, and I hope to have an analysis posted this weekend.
If I show up at your door, chances are you did something to bring me there.

User avatar
Deacon
Shining Adonis
Posts: 44204
Joined: Wed Jul 30, 2003 3:00 pm
Gender: Male
Location: Lakehills, TX

Re: US Constitution Discussion, Part 13: Amendment II

Post by Deacon » Wed Jun 30, 2010 3:42 pm

Very good stuff, MB. Thanks!
The follies which a man regrets the most in his life are those which he didn't commit when he had the opportunity. - Helen Rowland, A Guide to Men, 1922

User avatar
collegestudent22
Redshirt
Posts: 6886
Joined: Fri Jun 08, 2007 10:02 am
Gender: Male
Location: Gallifrey

Re: US Constitution Discussion, Part 13: Amendment II

Post by collegestudent22 » Wed Jul 14, 2010 12:24 am

On the reasoning behind this Amendment, the writer of the Constitution:
Thomas Jefferson wrote:The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government.
Frédéric Bastiat wrote:And now that the legislators and do-gooders have so futilely inflicted so many systems upon society, may they finally end where they should have begun: May they reject all systems, and try liberty; for liberty is an acknowledgment of faith in God and His works.
Count Axel Oxenstierna wrote:Dost thou not know, my son, with how little wisdom the world is governed?

User avatar
Dr. Tower
Redshirt
Posts: 2031
Joined: Fri Feb 14, 2003 6:32 pm
Gender: Male
Location: Dayton, OH

Re: US Constitution Discussion, Part 13: Amendment II

Post by Dr. Tower » Fri Jul 23, 2010 9:05 pm

While I don't disagree with the substance of the quote, it does not appear to be a valid Jefferson quote.

Furthermore, Jefferson didn't write the Constitution. Jefferson wrote the Declaration of Independence. Madison, for the most part, is considered the father of the Constitution and drafted most of it.
Father of 3

User avatar
collegestudent22
Redshirt
Posts: 6886
Joined: Fri Jun 08, 2007 10:02 am
Gender: Male
Location: Gallifrey

Re: US Constitution Discussion, Part 13: Amendment II

Post by collegestudent22 » Sun Jul 25, 2010 7:22 pm

Furthermore, Jefferson didn't write the Constitution. Jefferson wrote the Declaration of Independence. Madison, for the most part, is considered the father of the Constitution and drafted most of it.
Err, yeah. I meant to put Declaration. Whoops.
Frédéric Bastiat wrote:And now that the legislators and do-gooders have so futilely inflicted so many systems upon society, may they finally end where they should have begun: May they reject all systems, and try liberty; for liberty is an acknowledgment of faith in God and His works.
Count Axel Oxenstierna wrote:Dost thou not know, my son, with how little wisdom the world is governed?

User avatar
collegestudent22
Redshirt
Posts: 6886
Joined: Fri Jun 08, 2007 10:02 am
Gender: Male
Location: Gallifrey

Re: US Constitution Discussion, Part 13: Amendment II

Post by collegestudent22 » Sun Aug 01, 2010 2:07 am

An article on the fallout from the McDonald case. Quite interesting to see how far this may end up going, touching even a New York ban on nunchucks and other martial arts weaponry.
Frédéric Bastiat wrote:And now that the legislators and do-gooders have so futilely inflicted so many systems upon society, may they finally end where they should have begun: May they reject all systems, and try liberty; for liberty is an acknowledgment of faith in God and His works.
Count Axel Oxenstierna wrote:Dost thou not know, my son, with how little wisdom the world is governed?

User avatar
collegestudent22
Redshirt
Posts: 6886
Joined: Fri Jun 08, 2007 10:02 am
Gender: Male
Location: Gallifrey

Re: US Constitution Discussion, Part 13: Amendment II

Post by collegestudent22 » Sat Sep 18, 2010 2:46 am

According to the FBI's reports on 2009, gun ownership is at an all-time high, yet violent crime rates are all decreasing - currently at a 35-year low since peaking in 1991. The response from the NRA:

Paul Helmke and Dennis Henigan -- spokesmen for the beleaguered Brady Campaign these days -- are old enough to know what a phonograph record is, so for their benefit we'll put it this way: At the risk of sounding like a "broken record," gun ownership has risen to an all-time high, and violent crime has fallen to a 35-year low. Coinciding with a surge in gun purchases that began shortly before the 2008 elections, violent crime decreased six percent between 2008 and 2009, according to the FBI. This included an eight percent decrease in murder and a nine percent decrease in robbery.

Since 1991, when total violent crime peaked, it has decreased 43 percent to a 35-year low. The murder rate, less than half what it was in 1980, is now at a 45-year low. Throughout, the number of guns that Americans own has risen by about four million a year, including record numbers of the two types of firearms that the Brady folks would most like to see banned -- handguns and the various firearms they call "assault weapons."

Predictions that increasing the number of guns would cause crime to increase have been proven profoundly lacking in clairvoyance. One of our favorite gems comes from the Brady outfit, when it was known as the National Council to Control Handguns: "There are now 40 million handguns. . . . the number could build to 100 million. . . . the consequences can be terrible to imagine," the group warned in the mid-1970s.

"Terrible consequences" indeed, for gun control supporters. The number of handguns has reached almost 100 million; waiting periods, purchase permits, and prohibitions on carrying firearms for protection have been dismantled in state after state; gun ownership has soared; and violent crime has plummeted.
Frédéric Bastiat wrote:And now that the legislators and do-gooders have so futilely inflicted so many systems upon society, may they finally end where they should have begun: May they reject all systems, and try liberty; for liberty is an acknowledgment of faith in God and His works.
Count Axel Oxenstierna wrote:Dost thou not know, my son, with how little wisdom the world is governed?

User avatar
Deacon
Shining Adonis
Posts: 44204
Joined: Wed Jul 30, 2003 3:00 pm
Gender: Male
Location: Lakehills, TX

Re: US Constitution Discussion, Part 13: Amendment II

Post by Deacon » Wed Oct 13, 2010 2:19 pm

It's so easy for people to forget the sacrifices so many people have made, from the Revolutionary War onward, to acquire and maintain this essential freedom. When we're warm, well-fed, and comfortable in our homes, lost in the administration of our daily lives, it's easy to say that because we're not having to defend ourselves this particular day we should forever give up the ability to do so. In my opinion it's never silly to be diligent in reinforcing this fact and to be vigilant against those who would make it law, no matter how much popular society might scoff, roll its eyes, or actively and angrily ridicule it.
The follies which a man regrets the most in his life are those which he didn't commit when he had the opportunity. - Helen Rowland, A Guide to Men, 1922

User avatar
collegestudent22
Redshirt
Posts: 6886
Joined: Fri Jun 08, 2007 10:02 am
Gender: Male
Location: Gallifrey

Re: US Constitution Discussion, Part 13: Amendment II

Post by collegestudent22 » Sun Oct 31, 2010 4:03 am

Can't drive? No gun for you. Seriously, what the hell? As put by Greg Gutfield:
So apparently New York City is proposing new criteria for would-be gun-owners - banning folks from having weapons if they happen to be lousy drivers, been fired from a job due to bad character, or in possession of serious debt.

According to councilmember Dan Halloran, these changes give police more power to reject licenses, in order to counter a possible upswing in gun ownership caused by new, lower fees.

Now I'm all for keeping guns out the hands of bad people.

But I'm also for getting guns into the hands of good people.

But I must ask: how does being a bad driver, make you a bad person? And getting fired? I've been canned three times - does that mean I can't have a glock? I mean, I shouldn't have a glock - but not for that reason. There was an incident in Shreveport that ended that dream.

As for being in debt? That eliminates everyone here on this set. And also John Gibson - who still owes me $1300 for that lost weekend in Cancun.

So yeah, these new restrictions seem pretty vague.

But there's something else here that stinks. If the government can link certain good behaviors to gun ownership, who's going to define what's good?

Think about it. Your fitness to own a gun might only be approved as long as you fulfill a strict criteria that appeals only to the modern, annoying civil servant.

Perhaps, to own a gun, you'll have to possess an impeccable recycling history, participate regularly in Take Your Daughter to Work Day, watch The Daily Show religiously, and ban transfats from your kids diet. So you didn't run the 5k on Earth Day? And you chose to rent "the expendables" over "Eat Pray Love?"

Sorry, no Smith & Wesson for you.
Frédéric Bastiat wrote:And now that the legislators and do-gooders have so futilely inflicted so many systems upon society, may they finally end where they should have begun: May they reject all systems, and try liberty; for liberty is an acknowledgment of faith in God and His works.
Count Axel Oxenstierna wrote:Dost thou not know, my son, with how little wisdom the world is governed?

User avatar
maoof
Redshirt
Posts: 338
Joined: Thu Oct 29, 2009 2:01 pm
Gender: Male
Location: brooklyn

Re: US Constitution Discussion, Part 13: Amendment II

Post by maoof » Sun Oct 31, 2010 2:21 pm

Perhaps, to own a gun, you'll have to possess an impeccable recycling history, participate regularly in Take Your Daughter to Work Day, watch The Daily Show religiously, and ban transfats from your kids diet. So you didn't run the 5k on Earth Day? And you chose to rent "the expendables" over "Eat Pray Love?"
I wish he hadn't gone for the hyperbolic straw-man as it feels like he's just trivializing the issue to get some guffaws. NYC gun laws have and continue to be some of the worst in the nation. The new amendments aren't quite as broad as he tries to say, but again, that's just because it looks like he's just blogging for entertainment instead of reporting for accuracy. Here's the real dirt, and it's bad enough that it speaks for itself.
5-10 Grounds for Denial of Handgun License wrote:(h) The applicant has a poor driving history, has multiple driver license suspensions or has been declared a scofflaw by the New York State Department of Motor Vehicles.
(j) The applicant has been terminated from employment under circumstances that demonstrate lack of good judgment or lack of good moral character.
(l) The applicant has failed to pay legally required debts such as child support, taxes, fines or penalties imposed by governmental authorities.
I hate NYC. Thank God the money's good here or I'd shoot myself. OH WAIT.

User avatar
collegestudent22
Redshirt
Posts: 6886
Joined: Fri Jun 08, 2007 10:02 am
Gender: Male
Location: Gallifrey

Re: US Constitution Discussion, Part 13: Amendment II

Post by collegestudent22 » Sun Oct 31, 2010 10:35 pm

maoof wrote:The new amendments aren't quite as broad as he tries to say, but again, that's just because it looks like he's just blogging for entertainment instead of reporting for accuracy.
Well, I find that "hyperbolic straw man" to be at least a little bit more likely than you might think. For example, certain towns and cities are installing sensors in recycling bins to ensure you are recycling (so they can fine you if you don't do a good enough job, apparently). Thus, that bit about fines does require you to have a "good recycling history".

The rest, perhaps is just a bit too far for it to really make sense. For now.... :lol: The point, of course, being that having a right, but only being able to use it if you follow the politicians' whims is not a right.
Frédéric Bastiat wrote:And now that the legislators and do-gooders have so futilely inflicted so many systems upon society, may they finally end where they should have begun: May they reject all systems, and try liberty; for liberty is an acknowledgment of faith in God and His works.
Count Axel Oxenstierna wrote:Dost thou not know, my son, with how little wisdom the world is governed?

User avatar
collegestudent22
Redshirt
Posts: 6886
Joined: Fri Jun 08, 2007 10:02 am
Gender: Male
Location: Gallifrey

Re: US Constitution Discussion, Part 13: Amendment II

Post by collegestudent22 » Sat Oct 01, 2011 4:04 am

Proof that looser gun control means lower gun violence - since certain Supreme Court decisions threw out gun control laws in Chicago and D.C., crime, both committed by firearms and not, has plummeted in both places.

And the media coverage = nonexistent. Good to know the media is keeping the politicians honest. Oh, wait! :(

Specifically, in Washington, "Robberies with guns fell by 25%, while robberies without guns have fallen by eight percent. Assaults with guns fell by 37%, while assaults without guns fell by 12%." "In the first six months of this year, there were 14% fewer murders in Chicago compared to the first six months of last year – back when owning handguns was illegal. It was the largest drop in Chicago’s murder rate since the handgun ban went into effect in 1982."
Frédéric Bastiat wrote:And now that the legislators and do-gooders have so futilely inflicted so many systems upon society, may they finally end where they should have begun: May they reject all systems, and try liberty; for liberty is an acknowledgment of faith in God and His works.
Count Axel Oxenstierna wrote:Dost thou not know, my son, with how little wisdom the world is governed?

User avatar
Deacon
Shining Adonis
Posts: 44204
Joined: Wed Jul 30, 2003 3:00 pm
Gender: Male
Location: Lakehills, TX

US Constitution Discussion, Part 13: Amendment II

Post by Deacon » Fri May 04, 2012 7:25 am

I know you're not generally supposed to post entire articles due to copyright concerns, but in this case I don't think they'll mind.

As is so often the case, arguments against law abiding citizens being allowed the rights guaranteed them in the constitution are utter crap, and rarely are they more absurd and of questionable motives (and/or sanity) than those used to deny us our right to keep and bear arms. Ohio has yet to go up in flames despite the grave warnings of their government, which thankfully finally gave into the demands of the citizens.

Link: http://www.dispatch.com/content/stories ... proar.html
April 8, 2012, marked the anniversary of a law that affects the lives of more than 270,000 Buckeyes.

Ohio’s concealed-handgun license law turned 8 years old on that Sunday afternoon.

Notably absent from the festivities were blood in the streets, Wild West reenactments and an epidemic of accidental gun injuries. To understand the significance of this event and why today it seems completely unremarkable, simply Google “Ohio concealed carry 2003” and prepare to be astonished.

• “The widespread carrying of concealed handguns, however, will result in far more cases of senseless killings that occur simply because a loaded gun was readily available.” — Ohio Prosecuting Attorneys Association, March 4, 2003.

• “Imagine your child’s class is visiting the Statehouse on the same day a group known for violence is scheduled to attend in protest.” — State Highway Patrol, March 5, 2003.

• “If 200,000 to 300,000 citizens begin carrying a concealed weapon, common sense tells us that accidents will become a daily event.” — Ohio Association of Chiefs of Police, March 5, 2003.

Eight years later, we know definitively that these dire warnings were groundless. Ohio was the 46th state to adopt licensed concealed carry, allowing residents to obtain a predetermination of their legal ability to carry a handgun without facing potential arrest and prosecution. This number has since increased to 49 states, with Illinois as the lone holdout.

Of these 49 states, several, including New York and California, have a license that is technically available. However, courtesy of “may issue” laws in these states, it is nearly impossible for mere mortals to meet the arbitrary, subjective standards to obtain a license. In these states, bureaucrats have absolute discretion over whether to issue a license. A federal court in Maryland recently struck down that state’s “may issue” law on the grounds that these government officials are given power to freely discriminate against applicants for any reason. Indeed, almost all gun-control laws have their roots in racial or ethnic discrimination. In the next year or two, it is entirely likely that the U.S. Supreme Court is going to decide that all “may issue” systems are constitutionally impermissible.

Despite more citizens than ever carrying a gun for self-defense, the national Centers for Disease Control and Prevention statistics continue to show that accidental gun injuries are, if anything, decreasing. Further, “unjustified” shootings by licensees remain an extremely rare occurrence, and these occurrences are statistically insignificant, especially when compared to the instances of lawful self-defense use.

We now know that the burdensome restrictions contained in our original law had nothing to do with safety and everything to do with harassing those who would otherwise obtain the license. Originally, law enforcement insisted upon Ohio being the only state to micromanage how a licensee carried a handgun inside a vehicle. Ohio has since removed this micromanagement.

Ohio also originally forced licensees to disarm in order to use a bathroom in a park or highway rest stop, and this provision has similarly been removed. Similarly gone is the ability of Ohio’s newspapers to compile and publish lists of licensees.

Perhaps most important, it is now 100 percent clear that cities, villages and townships cannot interfere with the gun rights of Ohio residents. Gone forever is the impossible task of tracking and complying with a patchwork of 250-plus sets of gun laws across Ohio.

Ohio’s licensees are your neighbor, Little League coach, dentist, insurance agent and the person sitting next to you at dinner or church. Next time you see one, wish them happy birthday. Do not be surprised if they seem confused; like anyone else, they are probably wondering what all the fuss was about.
The follies which a man regrets the most in his life are those which he didn't commit when he had the opportunity. - Helen Rowland, A Guide to Men, 1922

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Common Crawl (Research), NickGXZ, Yandex [Bot] and 0 guests