The FAST Approaching Gun Ban

[Prospero]

Re the "right to bear arms."

[notdrunk]

Call them firearms, call them guns, call them whatever you wish...nevertheless... the paranoid contention that U.S. citizens need firearms to keep their own government in at bay is a stupid, numbskull, testosterone driven fantasy. Anyone who subscribes to such a lunatic fantasy should be issued round edged scissors and denied any contact with firearms.

NYBURBS might be wrong but he isn't totally wrong. The problem is that the numerous men that helped create this country had issues with standing armies. For example, The Federalist No. 8 called standing armies a "malignant aspect to liberty and economy". You can read state constitutions from that era backing the militia system as the best defense for a "free" state/government. Some of the states (i.e., Pennsylvania and Vermont) explicitly mentions the right to bear arms for self defense too. So, there has always been an innate fear that the "government" could do wrong. American history has shown that it could and will do wrong to its citizens. Therefore, paranoia can be expected when the government starts mentioning restricting rights that have been apart of this country since its founding.

[NYBURBS]

Call them firearms, call them guns, call them whatever you wish...nevertheless... the paranoid contention that U.S. citizens need firearms to keep their own government in at bay is a stupid, numbskull, testosterone driven fantasy. Anyone who subscribes to such a lunatic fantasy should be issued round edged scissors and denied any contact with firearms.

Say what you will, but history is on my side of this argument.

I agree that this is the purpose of the bill of rights but don't you think that the other amendments provide better protection against tyranny? Trial by jury, due process, privilege against self-incrimination, free speech, protection against cruel and unusual punishment. The 2nd amendment by comparison provides very little protection against the state, except in the most extreme circumstance when having a gun is very unlikely to matter. You can use Syria as an example but it was not a relatively stable democracy or any kind of democracy. The people had absolutely no choice if they wanted to oppose their leader but to resort to violence. The 2nd amendment seems unique in that it pre-supposes the abandonment of every other lawful means of resistance.

In the United States, those who want to resort to violence are the individuals who cannot get their way through the democratic process. Those who oppose many of the laws passed through the legislature, who are upset that their neighbors don't feel the same way they do about every issue. Possessing guns provides very little protection against tyranny and has led to immediate deaths in the near term. IMO this is an insurance policy in which the insurance premiums are just too expensive to cover.

I don't trust individual law enforcement officers but I do have some faith in the rule of law and the process by which laws are passed. I also have faith in the mechanisms in place to oversee and punish the behavior of rogue cops.

Since there is a 2nd amendment, laws cannot abridge the rights that it protects but I think it's a bit of a red herring since banning assault weapons might not be an abridgement on this general right.

But you have to see a sort of contradiction in the concession you make. If the 2nd amendment were really intended to protect individuals against the tyranny of government then perhaps it exclusively protects the right to possess military grade weaponry? This would make its sweep broader but would appear even more unreasonable given the costs and benefits such a protection would create. It would literally turn the man on the street into a walking militia.

The 2nd Amendment is unique in that it presupposes the failure of all of the other protections. The other protections are more ideal to a peaceful democracy, but it is never guaranteed that our government will remain peaceful. Moreover, the liberal wing of the country is attempting to do to the 2nd Amendment what the Nec-Cons have tried to do to much of the rest of the Bill of Rights (i.e, water it down until it becomes meaningless). One need only look to military commissions, indefinite detention provisions, and executive assassination orders to see how the government attempts to subvert some of the protections that you mentioned.

Btw, I'm not advocating that people should grab their guns and run out to the street right now. The democratic process is far more preferable in most cases, and I'm well aware of the bloodshed that would ensue if people ever did revolt. I think the main point of contention between myself and some others is that I can rationalize a point where it would be foolhardy to rely on the system any further, and moreover I do think that a well armed populace is something that keeps those with ill intentions up at night.

PS- What I wrote earlier wasn't meant as a concession on how to interpret the Amendment per se, but more of a realist point of view that there will be some changes to the laws that the courts are likely to give their consent too.

[NYBURBS]

Bear in mind that this thread started out scaremongering against a ban that will never happen.

Meanwhile the gun nuts will continue to buy assault weapons with huge cartridge clips and more innocents will die in multiple shootings.

If that's how you choose to define freedom then I for one want no part of it.

Bear in mind that until the Heller decision, there were essentially complete bans to firearms possession in some areas (NYC still borders on being a near complete ban as they make it extremely difficult, time consuming, and expensive to even get a permit to keep a weapon in your home). There is a deep divide in this country over this issue, the only other issue I can think of as being remotely close in divisiveness is the abortion issue. So while you might view much of this as scaremongering, many of us need only look at the law codes to recall those bans, and there are more than a few in this country that would like to see a return to the pre-Heller era.

[Prospero]

And what - leaving your much vaunted constitutional "rights' aside - is so important about owning semi automatic weapons. Not hand guns. Not shotguns. But the sort used by nujobs and fanatcis to carry out slaughters like Sandy Hook. What do you gun owners NEED them for exactly? I'd love a rational argument on this that isn't circular about rights.

Do you really think the US Government is like Syria and about to turn its military firepower on the populace?

[Dave32111]

Since when does "need" drive what things we're legally allowed to have? Women don't "need" liposuction, and yet more die from complications than are killed by rifles - yet you want to ban a subset of those rifles - even when those surgeries are not protected by an amendment to the USC?

Last time there was an assault weapon ban even the CDC couldn't find sufficient data to support its effectiveness. It appeared to mostly be about how scary the weapon looked, as the provisions of the ban talked about cosmetic features.

Let's talk first about the mental health system and making records available nationally for the NICS checks to catch before we make another knee jerk reaction that just helps some of us feel better about something being done.

[Prospero]

Duuhhhh... lyposuction vs weapons whose only purpose is to kill people. Get real. Yes.. I repeat my question. Why do you gun folks need or want these people killing armaments (thus making them available to those with mental problems) . Do you want them just because your constitution says you CAN? In which case would you want flame throwers, napalm, rocket propelled hand grenades etc if you were allowed? Simple question.

[trish]

Your argument over how to interpret the constitution is an old one, I don't see myself changing your mind and you're not about to change mine, but I do find it a stretch to think that the meaning of the words in a social compact (aka a constitution) can change. If it could then there'd be little need for an amending clause, or even a constitution for that matter.

As the meaning and reference of some words evolve, others remain fixed. Meaning shift doesn't obviate the need for amendments. Sometimes the relation between the meaning and the reference of a word drifts to the point that require some contracts be reconsidered. It's not the meaning but the reference of the words in a contract that determine how it is to be practically applied. Certainly the very word in dispute, "arms" has radically changed its reference if not its meaning.

[trish]

Since when does "need" drive what things we're legally allowed to have?

Then why do you guys keep saying guns are "needed" for protection? We're merely rebutting your argument, not suggesting a general principle for the creation or dissolution of rights.

[Dave32111]

I didn't. You are not rebutting any argument I've made. Don't stick me in with "you guys" and I won't stick you in with "those guys." Deal?

Why is *that* the question? Why do you feel the "need" to ban something that is causing fewer than 300 deaths every year?