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 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 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 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 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.

I think you are missing one of the basic points of this ruling. The ruling was that the people have a right to own guns in their homes for protection or even hunting. There is nowhere in this ruling that says every person has the right to own a gun and absolutely nowhere that it says every person has the right to carry a gun in public. In fact not only does the ruling not specifically state that everyone has the right to own a gun but it leaves room for interpretation, allowing local governments to regulate guns based on local laws. This means that there are still going to be requirements on who can buy a gun, for example no felon should be permitted to own a gun, and there can also be regulations on the requirements for guns in homes. This means that the government can still require the guns to be registered and they will still be able to regulate concealed weapon permits etc. I am all for having the right to own guns but at the same time I am all for the regulations requiring registrations and background checks to ensure that the people who are owning guns are responsible. I am also completely against any law that prohibits me from buying firearms for protection, hunting, or simply collecting. If these laws are allowed to continue the only people that will have guns are the criminals.

The only thing that laws do is keep the honest people honest.

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