Thread: Supreme Court finds individual right to own guns

Originally Posted by Kantian Pragmatist

The need to limit gun ownership and use in suburban and urban areas will quickly begin to outstrip the enjoyment of gun ownership in rural locations where it is more easily tolerated. This might lead to a grassroots effort, born out of the cities, to abolish the 2nd amendment. It would have been far better for gun rights advocates had the Supreme Court ruled in favor of the alternative interpretation, as it would have freed local governments to tailor their gun laws to meet their needs and desires, and everyone can still have what they want and need.

1. our Constitutional government enables democracy (mob rule) in some instances and protects against it in others. this is commonly known as "checks and balances"
2. I would argue that there is no NEED to limit gun ownership in urban areas. after all, I live in a very large urban area (over 6 million residents and climbing fast) where gun ownership is very common and the vast overwhelming majority of these folks have no problem with it. also, please note the old saying, "when guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns." no gun ban has ever had any helpful benefit in terms of reducing violence, as most people who don't care about braking anti-murder laws also don't care about breaking anti-gun laws.
3. if the Second Amendment ever falls, I can personally guarantee that the tree of liberty will once again be refreshed by the blood of patriots and tyrants. pretty sure I'm not the only one here that thinks this.

Originally Posted by hoglahoo

I don't know about that - what weapon is safer, more powerful, and faster than a handgun that you can relate to the horse / automotive vehicle analogy?

Anyway, I've often wondered if someday a huge bloc of voters would actually repeal the 2nd amendment. Madison seemed to think that such rights were necessary to the security of a free state. And yet other states seem to get by in the security department without giving their citizens that right.

Just offhand, I would say the modern day criminal and civil justice system would = automobile where gun = horse. For the most part, we don't need guns to settle our disputes anymore. We no longer duel, in part, because we can get satisfaction from a relatively efficient civil court system, and we don't have to worry about stray bullets hitting someone who isn't party to our dispute.

The Founding Fathers seemed to believe that arms held by private citizens were necessary to protect the citizens from their government, should government get out of control. In that sense, they were part of the security of the state. It also helps if someone should invade, you've got lots of weapons within easy reach lying about, and a citizenry that knows how to use them. But realistically, the USA is too geographically isolated and militarily powerful for either of those reasons to make much sense anymore. Neither Canada nor Mexico have the power or will to invade us, and unless private citizens gain the capability to own and operate strategic bombers, tanks, and atom bombs, they're not going to be much of a detriment to our government should it decide to go all totalitarian on us. Indeed, an individual right to bear arms (if those are your justifying reasons) is just as anachronistic as a right to travel the road by horse.

Originally Posted by Kantian Pragmatist

and unless private citizens gain the capability to own and operate strategic bombers, tanks, and atom bombs, they're not going to be much of a detriment to our government should it decide to go all totalitarian on us.

actually, I'm pretty sure the insurgents our military is fighting with now do not have any of these little luxuries, and are putting up one hell of a fight. your assumption only holds true if a rebellion were to "fight fair," that is, like a large army would. historically, that is rather the opposite of how American rebels fought the Redcoats.

Originally Posted by jockeys

1. our Constitutional government enables democracy (mob rule) in some instances and protects against it in others. this is commonly known as "checks and balances"
2. I would argue that there is no NEED to limit gun ownership in urban areas. after all, I live in a very large urban area (over 6 million residents and climbing fast) where gun ownership is very common and the vast overwhelming majority of these folks have no problem with it. also, please note the old saying, "when guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns." no gun ban has ever had any helpful benefit in terms of reducing violence, as most people who don't care about braking anti-murder laws also don't care about breaking anti-gun laws.
3. if the Second Amendment ever falls, I can personally guarantee that the tree of liberty will once again be refreshed by the blood of patriots and tyrants. pretty sure I'm not the only one here that thinks this.

The Constitution does not protect against mob rule if the mob is big enough. More people live in cities than in rural areas, and if they come to believe that they must outlaw guns in their city, they're gonna outvote their rural brothers very quickly. Whether there is a need to limit gun ownership or not is a matter of intense controversy. You can have your opinion and I can have mine, and doubtless we both have our respective reasons. There is clearly no NEED to own a gun in the first place. Gun bans have a mixed history in the US, but that history is less mixed elsewhere. Gun violence in the UK, for example, where few people (including law enforcement) have or use guns, is nearly non-existent. Part of the problem with the effectiveness of gun bans in the US is near ubiquity of guns in our culture. We have more guns than we do adults in this country. Banning something like that is like banning a weed. It will be ineffective and often counterproductive. But gun bans also have a history in the US. Many western towns and cattle-stops had a rule where you had to check your gun in at the sheriff's office when you got into town. It doesn't seem out of bounds to suggest that people shouldn't be allowed to walk around with fully automatic weapons in a downtown shopping district, or that they should be allowed to buy armor-piercing bullets or tracer rounds. Bravado aside, gun violence is a serious issue in many urban areas, and it is the height of hubris to suggest that you, and those who think like you, have the only morally acceptable solution to the problem, especially when your solution amounts to doing even less than is currently being done.

Originally Posted by jockeys

actually, I'm pretty sure the insurgents our military is fighting with now do not have any of these little luxuries, and are putting up one hell of a fight. your assumption only holds true if a rebellion were to "fight fair," that is, like a large army would. historically, that is rather the opposite of how American rebels fought the Redcoats.

Believe me, if the US army wanted to completely put down the rebellion in Iraq, there wouldn't be a rebellion in Iraq. There also wouldn't be people or buildings or much of anything but fused glass, either, but there definitely wouldn't be a rebellion. I don't doubt that the trouble of having to deal with an insurgency is a large part of why the government doesn't act like bigger assholes to its own citizenry, after all, it was a major part of the thinking in the Pentagon for why we needed to get out of Vietnam. They didn't think they could fight over there and put down an insurgency at home. But it is ludicrous to suggest that, even if they didn't start throwing citizens in concentration camps and we wanted to overthrown them for some other reason, we would be successful. Indeed, this is the point that is pertinent here. The right to own a gun is not so you can defend yourself against a malicious government. It is so you have a weapon you can use to help overthrow your government should you and your fellow citizens deem it necessary. I very seriously doubt that such a coup is possible, given the vast asymmetry in strength.

Originally Posted by Kantian Pragmatist

Indeed, an individual right to bear arms (if those are your justifying reasons) is just as anachronistic as a right to travel the road by horse.

I have a funny feeling that the founders considered it common sense that the right to bear arms for home security would not even be in question. i don't have any historical evidence to offer you that statement, but that's where i am coming from for the most part.

Also, horse ownership was never considered as a fundamental necessity to the security of a free state. Arms are more than just guns, but even a gun can still neutralize the best soldier in any army today.

KP, I still don't think it's a good analogy. For instance, the rebels in Iraq don't have much more than what the common armed to the teeth citizen would have (except for maybe RPG's...). Last I checked, they're giving us a hard time over there. I think that if things did hit the fan with our government we could do decently. I predict that it would be civil war-esque with one side being the federal government and the other being states with national guard resources.

Originally Posted by Kantian Pragmatist

Bravado aside, gun violence is a serious issue in many urban areas, and it is the height of hubris to suggest that you, and those who think like you, have the only morally acceptable solution to the problem, especially when your solution amounts to doing even less than is currently being done.

9 out of 10 times the urban areas where gun violence is a serious issue are typically those urban areas which have strict gun control laws. (see DC and New York). Historically, where individuals are granted the right to keep and bear (read carry concealed), the crime rate declines, and stays down.

Further, the gun owners are not those that are pushing their view as the "only morally acceptable solution" to the problem of crime. They are not the one out on the street pushing for mandatory gun ownership. They are fine and dandy with anyone that does not want to own a gun for personal, religious, or political reasons. However, the anti-gun groups are the ones out on the streets, and in the legislatures, attempting to force their views of right and wrong on the populace, and take way the guns from normal, law abiding, citizens.

Matt

Originally Posted by hoglahoo

I have a funny feeling that the founders considered it common sense that the right to bear arms for home security would not even be in question. i don't have any historical evidence to offer you that statement, but that's where i am coming from for the most part.

Also, horse ownership was never considered as a fundamental necessity to the security of a free state. Arms are more than just guns, but even a gun can still neutralize the best soldier in any army today.

For many of them, I'm sure it was a common tool for use in the defense of themselves and their homes. Indeed, it was likely so necessary that it was hard to imagine living without one. But we don't need those sorts of weapons to secure our own defense any longer. Our social institutions have become stable enough and extend far enough into the world that we can rely on them to provide these protections, and there are other, newer tools that we can make use of as well. Indeed, the oldest security tool of all time is the most effective in our current world of danger: man's best friend, Canis familiaris. So while the Founders may have believed that the day would never come when arms (whether firearms or swords or laser pistols) were not needed to secure himself and his property against the troubles of the world, this does not mean they were right. And while horse ownership was never considered a fundamental necessity for the promotion of a free society, freedom of movement was. This lead to many localities writing laws that gave horses and horse-drawn vehicles the right of way when cars came on the scene. I can easily imagine an alternate world where the citizenry, who, at the time, mostly did not own cars and did own horses, demanded a constitutional amendment that allowed and gave the right of way to ridden or hitched horses on public roadways. After all, they wrote and passed an amendment that prohibited the production and sale of alcohol.

Originally Posted by Kantian Pragmatist

Believe me, if the US army wanted to completely put down the rebellion in Iraq, there wouldn't be a rebellion in Iraq. There also wouldn't be people or buildings or much of anything but fused glass, either, but there definitely wouldn't be a rebellion. I don't doubt that the trouble of having to deal with an insurgency is a large part of why the government doesn't act like bigger assholes to its own citizenry, after all, it was a major part of the thinking in the Pentagon for why we needed to get out of Vietnam. They didn't think they could fight over there and put down an insurgency at home. But it is ludicrous to suggest that, even if they didn't start throwing citizens in concentration camps and we wanted to overthrown them for some other reason, we would be successful. Indeed, this is the point that is pertinent here. The right to own a gun is not so you can defend yourself against a malicious government. It is so you have a weapon you can use to help overthrow your government should you and your fellow citizens deem it necessary. I very seriously doubt that such a coup is possible, given the vast asymmetry in strength.

It very much would depends upon which side the majority of the reserve army base commanders came down on. If they opened their arsenals the militia of the people would be equally armed as the standing army.

I fully believe that the intent of the 2nd amendment was that every male citizen was to be allowed to be armed equally with the general infantry soldier.

Its worth noting that the of all the countries of Europe the one with the lowest crime and gun related crime rate is the only one that REQUIRES that every male of military age keep a military issue and military grade rifle in the closet at home.