Thread: Supreme Court finds individual right to own guns

This was actually a very serious constitutional question for a very long time. The actual amendment reads somewhat ambiguously, starting off as it does by mentioning a "well-armed militia."

Kantian Pragmatist



Mister Pragmatist,

The ONLY way to truly get a feel for someone’s actions and words is to understand the time in which they lived. The Framers of our Constitution had just come out of a war with an oppressive nation. A nation that had cost them blood, treasure and the lives of many friends.
The “straw that broke the camel’s back” leading to that war, was ‘gun control.’ Actually it was confiscation of the gunpowder in the local Powder Magazine. Without that powder, the American’s guns were just pretty sticks. Eighteenth century Gun Control. The Battle of Lexington and Concord was the result. The Revolutionary War was the consequence of that battle.
After the war, the victors had to form a permanent Government.
The U.S. Constitution sets up our Government AND severely limits it’s powers! The Tenth Amendment says “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.” The Federal Government isn’t supposed to ASSUME powers it wasn’t specifically given, by the Constitution.
I have always wondered why anyone could get the idea that the word "people" in the First Amendment, Fourth Amendment and Tenth Amendment (in the Bill of Rights) would mean the individual citizen and NOT mean the same thing in the Second Amendment! (I limited the Amendments I enumerated, to the Bill of Rights, because they were passed BY the Framers.)
So just what DID the men who were instrumental in the formation of our Government have to say about gun ownership?

"I ask, Sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people. To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them."
George Mason
Co-author of the Second Amendment

"A militia, when properly formed, are in fact the people themselves …"
Richard Henry Lee
writing in Letters from the Federal Farmer to the Republic, Letter XVIII, May, 1788.

"Firearms stand next in importance to the constitution itself. They are the American people's liberty teeth and keystone under independence … from the hour the Pilgrims landed to the present day, events, occurences and tendencies prove that to ensure peace security and happiness, the rifle and pistol are equally indispensable … the very atmosphere of firearms anywhere restrains evil interference — they deserve a place of honor with all that's good."
George Washington

"The supposed quietude of a good man allures the ruffian; while on the other hand arms, like laws, discourage and keep the invader and plunderer in awe, and preserve order in the world as property. The same balance would be preserved were all the world destitute of arms, for all would be alike; but since some will not, others dare not lay them aside … Horrid mischief would ensue were the law-abiding deprived of the use of them."
Thomas Paine

"To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them."
Richard Henry Lee
American Statesman, 1788

"Those who hammer their guns into plowshares will plow for those who do not."
Thomas Jefferson
Third President of the United States

In light of the words of the Founding Fathers, your position doesn’t seem to be ALL that pragmatic. At least not to me.
If the above words aren’t enough for you, I have a lot more, but I didn’t want to make this post too cumbersome.
However, I HAVE to add the words of a man who lived long before the formation of the United States of America.

"A sword is never a killer, it’s a tool in the killer’s hands."
Lucius Annaeus Seneca (4 BC – 65 AD)

Regards,

Jeeter

Originally Posted by mhailey

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

I agree with you about these statistics in the US, but I reiterate that this phenomenon only occurs because guns are already nearly ubiquitous in our society. It makes no sense to ban something that's nearly everywhere. If it were possible to suddenly remove all the guns held by private citizens (and I don't think it is) things would be very different, and more like they are in the UK and Japan. And gun owners are pushing the position that gun ownership is absolutely permissible. I agree that it is and ought to be permitted in many cases, but I don't think felons should be allowed to own guns, I don't think automatic weapons ought to be allowed to be carried in urban areas, and I don't think private citizens should be allowed to make or buy armor piercing or tracer rounds. But more importantly, I think that these questions ought to be decided at the local level, with sensitivity toward local concerns and cultural beliefs. Guns are not necessary for any aspect of private life that I can think of, including hunting, since you can hunt with a bow, or even knives and swords. Given this lack of necessity, I see no way that anyone can argue that gun ownership or use ought to be absolutely permissible. But at this point, I think the only route to reduce gun violence is through gun safety education and gun exchange programs

Trying to use the insurgency in Iraq to support the notion that private gun ownership would give us the capacity to overthrow our government won't fly either. We've been in Iraq for over 5 years now, with an insurgency for nearly that entire time, and they haven't succeeded in running us out. Indeed, I think everyone here would agree that if the US is determined to stay, that insurgency will never succeed in running us out. That is the only metric we can use to support the notion that, if only citizens were allowed unrestricted access to own and use guns, they would have the power to overthrow their government.

By the way, I do want to state for the record here that I like guns. I like hunting and target shooting. And I'm a pretty good shot, if I do say so myself. I taught my younger brother to shoot, and when he joined the army, he was one bullseye away from some sharpshooting patch, despite the fact that his M16 had broken and he had to load each round by hand. (The test was to get a certain number of target hits in a certain amount of time) But I am also very much aware that a gun is a tool, and it is a tool designed to do just one thing, kill stuff. Just like I don't think everybody should be allowed to own and use any tool they wish, I don't think everybody should be allowed to own and use a gun. I put guns in the same category I put cars, and we require licensing and certification before we let people use cars.

Originally Posted by Kantian Pragmatist

I'm actually somewhat disappointed by this ruling because I think it hamstrings local governments in dealing with their problems. I don't think the same rules governing firearm ownership and use are going to work equally well in the cities as they are in the suburbs or rural areas.

Indeed, I fear this ruling will harm the future of gun-rights, as this interpretation of the 2nd Amendment makes the guarantee of this right highly anachronistic in the 21st century for many locales. It will end up being rather like a right to travel the roads by horse. 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.

And from another thread ("resistance is futile"):

Let me re-iterate my central point, as it is the area where I think we have our fundamental disagreement. Government, in writing and enforcing laws which govern our interaction with each other, cannot and should not have as its intent the creation of good consequences or the reduction of bad ones. It's sole interest must be in the maximization of freedoms or available ends to its citizenry and the proper distribution of whatever consequences arise from their mutual interaction. Distribution of bad things to people who have not yet caused bad things to happen is unjust. Ticketing someone for speeding, arresting them for smoking weed, citing them for using a cell-phone while driving, all of these things involved distributing bad things to people who, for all we know of them otherwise, might be the very best people in the world. We certainly don't know that they have caused harm and the harm we distribute to them by ticketing or arresting them has nothing to do with, and is not proportional to, whatever harm they may have caused.

Perhaps I'm not understanding. In one thread you are saying that the government should stay out of the way, and in this one you are saying that the government needs to step in to protect us? Or are they individual cases for the sake of debate?

Originally Posted by Wildtim

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.

They do (Switzerland). They also have the highest gun density in the world, with military grade weapons stored in hidden caches around the countryside. That stump you see on the side of the road might well be hiding a machine gun in the land of clocks, cheese, chocolates and banks. But they also keep all the ammunition locked up, so those automatic weapons in the closets of all those Switzerlanders are really not much more than pretty sticks.

The militia in Iraq has not yet run us off. But back in 1776 the militia did sucessfully run off the British, which was the superpower of that age.

Originally Posted by Wildtim

The only sad part is that it was even a close vote.

Have you read the dissenting opinions? Excruciating intellectual contortions. There is little ambiguity, the Constitution is perfectly clear: "... the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." Yet somehow leftist mental Jiu-Jiutsu manages to infer all sorts of secret hidden meanings, caveats and exceptions.

Originally Posted by Kantian Pragmatist

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. .

You must live in a land of pixie dust, lollipops, and ferries.
Here is a quick search for "home invasion." home invasion - Google News

You are basing your assertion that we no longer need guns because our society has progressed to the point that personal protection can be handled by the government. However, in almost the same breath you say that we can protect ourselves by owning dogs. If society is so evolved, why would you even provide an alternative to guns for self protection, when self protection is an obsolete issue?

Matt

Originally Posted by Kantian Pragmatist

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.

What social institutions are you referring to? It cant be Law Enforcement, those men and women do on heck of a job but they just cant make it to me if someone is breaking in or attacking. Even if I was in a urban area they wouldn't be able to stop any type of attack on me or my family, the time required for them to respond is outside of what a situation would require. As for the dogs I have two of them, they're cute but basically dumb as rocks . They will bark and raise a commotion but wouldn't be able to stop an intruder. Thats where my 1911 comes in, yes guns are still Needed. The only one who can STOP something from happening to my family is me.

Bob

Originally Posted by ProfessorChaos!

Have you read the dissenting opinions? Excruciating intellectual contortions. There is little ambiguity, the Constitution is perfectly clear: "... the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." Yet somehow leftist mental Jiu-Jiutsu manages to infer all sorts of secret hidden meanings, caveats and exceptions.

Made my head hurt, trying to follow their twisted, basackwards logic.

Matt

Originally Posted by Seraphim

And from another thread ("resistance is futile"):


Perhaps I'm not understanding. In one thread you are saying that the government should stay out of the way, and in this one you are saying that the government needs to step in to protect us? Or are they individual cases for the sake of debate?

Really, it just shows how complicated things can be. I have no problems with a law-abiding and well educated citizen keeping as many guns as they wish, of whatever kind they desire. I am in favor of a general right to bear arms, but not an absolute right. I would much rather we treat guns as we do cars, and require someone to take a test for competence and safety before they can purchase a gun. And I think communities should have the right to regulate the ownership and use of guns as they can with cars. Some communities have areas where cars are not allowed to go, some others won't even permit you to park them in your driveway and insist that they be garaged. For the most part, I don't think those sorts of rules violates the spirit of government.

And remember, guns have only one use, to kill stuff. Target shooting, while it can be enjoyable in itself, is a means to the end of being more competent in using the gun to kill stuff, should it be necessary. The point of cars is to get us from point A to point B, the use of cell-phones is to allow us to talk to far away people without being tied to some wire, but the use of guns is to kill. Indeed, except for some highly engineered target rifles, ownership of a gun signifies an intent to kill something, even if that intent is based on a hypothetical circumstance. I don't think the government should get in the way of people trying to do the first two things, even if they try to do them together, but they should get in the way of people trying to do the latter. Whether they should stay in the way in this latter case depends on a lot of circumstances. What are you going to be killing? Do you have a right to kill those things in the first place? Are you competent enough to use this tool to do the job? All of these are questions that have to be answered before you are morally permitted to use such a tool, just as you have to answer similar questions before you use a car.

My point in that other thread is that government ought to always act in such a way as to increase the number of available ends to its citizenry. I certainly agree that prohibition of guns will not do this, but it is very far from clear that an unrestricted right to keep and bear arms will do it either. That's why I prefer that gun control be a local issue, decided by the needs, desires and circumstances, both cultural and environmental, of the people who will be affected by that law.