Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[scriver]

And if that person wasn't just a strawman put up to make a point he would've responded that he doesn't think men should have guns either, or something, so the "women's right" thing is irrelevant.

And since that dumb comic now has drawn me into the discussion I'll just say for the record that I echo the sentiment of Ispil in this post:

As far as I can tell, the only serious issue that comes up in these discussions is that no one can think of a way to both make guns less common in the hands of people who cannot handle them safely without restricting the rights of those who can.

...if you're expecting me to come up with some sort of hypothetical solution here, I got nothin'. The only thing that I can think of is that comparing it to freedom of speech doesn't do very much to help the discussion. Someone abusing their freedom of speech in one of the many court-defined cases can generally be identified before any further crimes are committed. By the time someone can identify that an owner of a gun should probably not own a gun, there's already a body.

Maybe with the addendum that, while this is spoken in ignorance as I have no facts on how many guns used in violence is obtained first hand vs second hand, but getting a better handle on the second hand trade of guns feels like it might be a place to start.

Apart from that I think that shootings like this, as separated from the general class of "gun violence" or "gun casualties" is probably not related to the gun culture (although yes, the availability of guns may make shootings easier/more devastating) but a cultural problem of it's own that needs to be dealt with somehow.

[Sheb]

What? The comic says nothing about proportions. It's about the fact that even if owning a gun actually increase the risk of being shot at, it's a choice that someone might make.

[Reelya]

So is the choice of driving on the footpath. The point being that it's nonsense to talk about "choice" like this as if people live in a vacuum. "My body, my choice" doesn't count when your actions directly impact other people. I'm sure the majority of people can drink and drive responsibly, but that doesn't mean we should do away with drunk driver laws. Are many people who can handle a car fine, while drunk, unfairly punished for having a beer before driving? Definitely. So why take away most people's fun for the sake of the irresponsible minority? Sure, you're going to have the occasional 30-car pile up, but just like mass shootings, that's the price of liberty.

[Sheb]

Well, of course, "my choice" doesn't always work. My point here was more to illustrate the fact that statistics about how gun are not helpful for self-defense are hardly useful, since people might value the feeling of agency over actual safety, and that it might constitute a legitimate choice.

But it is not like gun are the only choice with negative externalities people can make in the US. Alcohol cause plenty of deaths, fuel domestic violence and yeah, cause drunk driving. Yet, no one talk of banning it anymore.

My point is that pointing out that something has externalities is not, in and of itself enough to argue for banning it. A balance has to be reached between those externalities and the pleasure people get from that stuff. There isn't necessarily a good and a bad option. Also, what is the right balance is going to change from society to society and from time to time. Back in the 19th century, there was a majority in favor of banning alcohol. There isn't now.

That is actually why I think the Second Amendment should go. The decision of what kind of gun ownership is okay is one for the electorate, not for the court.

[SirQuiamus]

Okay, I get it. Ammosexuals need their boomsticks and taking them away would be like mandating reparative therapy for all homosexuals. Or better yet, it would be like snatching away a drunkard's booze or a dope-fiend's smack – just plain inhuman cruelty. Depriving people of their pleasurable vices is much, much worse than killing them or letting them kill themselves, and as a reprobate alcoholic I can personally testify to that.

But oh, wait... scratch that. No-one is actually talking about taking anyone's guns away, and yet some people are acting as if The Man was going barge into their homes and grab everything that vaguely resembles a firearm. This is rather strange.

[Strife26]

Ah yes, the super important, well established, additional test of the "Is you using right good?" standard. That is a crucial component of constitutional law. Any rights that is not being used sufficiently good may be restricted beyond strict scrutiny standards, because, regardless of their status in the Constitution, they are obviously not important. Be sure to take note protesters, gun owners, and privacy advocates.

[smjjames]

Well, of course, "my choice" doesn't always work. My point here was more to illustrate the fact that statistics about how gun are not helpful for self-defense are hardly useful, since people might value the feeling of agency over actual safety, and that it might constitute a legitimate choice.

But it is not like gun are the only choice with negative externalities people can make in the US. Alcohol cause plenty of deaths, fuel domestic violence and yeah, cause drunk driving. Yet, no one talk of banning it anymore.

My point is that pointing out that something has externalities is not, in and of itself enough to argue for banning it. A balance has to be reached between those externalities and the pleasure people get from that stuff. There isn't necessarily a good and a bad option. Also, what is the right balance is going to change from society to society and from time to time. Back in the 19th century, there was a majority in favor of banning alcohol. There isn't now.

That is actually why I think the Second Amendment should go. The decision of what kind of gun ownership is okay is one for the electorate, not for the court.

Good luck with removing the Second Amendment, you know how the gun nuts would probably react. I'm not a gun owner myself, so.....

[Sheb]

Oh, yeah, Im not sure the fight is worth the political capital youd need on it, I am jsut saying that if it were up to me that amendment be gone (And the USA would be given back to the UK, so it is a good thing I am not in charge).

[Reelya]

IIRC, that's a case of the meaning of words changing over time, "well regulated" in this case meaning "well equipped". In the context of the American independence, where militamen with rifles were use with great effect against the British and their muskets, this interpretation make a lot more sense.

No, that turns out to be plain wrong sorry. "Well regulated" meant "well trained" or "disciplined". You can read some commentary on the motivation from Alexander Hamilton, from Federalist No. 29, which was published the year before the second amendment and goes into detail about what the intentions were.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federalist_No._29
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution#Meaning_of_.22well_regulated_militia.22

If a well regulated militia be the most natural defence of a free country, it ought certainly to be under the regulation and at the disposal of that body which is constituted the guardian of the national security ... confiding the regulation of the militia to the direction of the national authority ... [but] reserving to the states ... the authority of training the militia ... A tolerable expertness in military movements is a business that requires time and practice. It is not a day, or even a week, that will suffice for the attainment of it. To oblige the great body of the yeomanry, and of the other classes of the citizens, to be under arms for the purpose of going through military exercises and evolutions, as often as might be necessary to acquire the degree of perfection which would entitle them to the character of a well-regulated militia, would be a real grievance to the people, and a serious public inconvenience and loss ... Little more can reasonably be aimed at, with respect to the People at large, than to have them properly armed and equipped; and in order to see that this be not neglected, it will be necessary to assemble them once or twice in the course of a year.

[smjjames]

Oh, yeah, Im not sure the fight is worth the political capital youd need on it, I am jsut saying that if it were up to me that amendment be gone (And the USA would be given back to the UK, so it is a good thing I am not in charge).

(and I think Belgium should be split between France and Netherlands)

Anyhow, Jason Chaffetz enters the race for the House Speaker position. http://www.politico.com/story/2015/10/jason-chaffetz-speaker-mccarthy-republicans-boehner-214404

I looked at wiki and he seems pretty good, in the sense that he's not one of the crazies or on the far right.

[mainiac]

where militamen with rifles were use with great effect against the British and their muskets

There wasn't a single rifle at the battle of Lexington-Concord, the ones to introduce rifles into the American revolution were probably either British or Germans and Americans generally fought large engagements in line battles because contrary to what hollywood would have you believe, musket lines actually made sense in a battlefield of muskets and bayonets.

No, that turns out to be plain wrong sorry. "Well regulated" meant "well trained" or "disciplined". You can read some commentary on the motivation from Alexander Hamilton.

Yeah the guns rights crowd thinks they're in some great intellectual tradition stretching back to 1776 but it's actually stretching back to around 1970 when the paranoia lobby took over the NRA.

[smjjames]

where militamen with rifles were use with great effect against the British and their muskets

There wasn't a single rifle at the battle of Lexington-Concord, the ones to introduce rifles into the American revolution were probably either British or Germans and Americans generally fought large engagements in line battles because contrary to what hollywood would have you believe, musket lines actually made sense in a battlefield of muskets and bayonets.

Just because they mainly used musket lines (which was the method of the day) doesn't mean that they never used rifles.

[Strife26]

The collective interpretation of the 2nd Amendment is one of the most ridiculously anti-freedom arguments available.


1st Amendment: Individual protection against restriction of the right of speech, religion, press, assembly, and petition
3rd Amendment: Individual protection against quartering soldiers in peacetime (the ignored Amendment)
4th Amendment: Individual protection against unreasonable searches and seizures.
5th Amendment: Individual protection against juryless indictment, confiscations of property, double jeopardy, and compelled testimony.
6th Amendment: Individual right for a fair and fast jury trial, defense lawyer, and to be able to call witnesses.
7th Amendment: Individual right for a jury trail in cases of more than $20
8th Amendment: Individual protection against cruel and unusual punishments, as well as excessive bail
9th Amendment: Individual protection against shitty legislation and legal arguments claiming that rights not listed above don't exist
10th Amendment: Group protection for the States to maintain jurisdiction on anything not specifically delegated to the Federal Government (the most trampled on Amendment thanks to abuse of the Commerce Clause and somewhat of an odd duck, being one that pertains to State-Federal relationships instead of Federal-Citizen)

(Also, please note that, Federalism concerns aside, the large bulk of these Amendments are firmly incorporated, that is to say, they restrict State-Citizen affairs as well as Federal-Citizen. There are some exceptions, but those are largely a matter of not coming up in cases or not mattering. Wikipedia is an excellent source for delving into this somewhat strange oversight in the modern legal landscape.)
)

The idea that the 2nd Amendment only pertains to the National Guards of the States or the amorphous concept of militias that are well-regulated is twisting of words, dishonest, and flies in the places of established precedent
DC vs Heller:

[The 2nd] protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes

[Reelya]

Yeah, who does that Alexander Hamilton guy think he is to talk about the Second Amendment?

Twisting of words? Dishonest? It's right in the text and the discussions from the period. I don't agree that questioning a court ruling from 2008 makes you a dishonest word-twister. If that's established precendent, it's of very recent vintage.

[Frumple]

Yeah the guns rights crowd thinks they're in some great intellectual tradition stretching back to 1776 but it's actually stretching back to around 1970 when the paranoia lobby took over the NRA.

Yeah... gun ownership as an individual right is bloody recent. "This instance of the supreme court" recent, with the swing vote on the decision that was made having since expressed that they now consider that to have been a mistake. SCOTUS has apparently been recently-ish refusing to check over cases that would force them to go back over the decision, from what I understand. Says a lot about whether it's likely to stand up to another round of scrutiny, heh.

And without that, well... there suddenly exists a lot more room for constitutionally backed gun control. Already is, really, even with access being seen as an individual right rather than the collective right it was seen as for most of the US's existence. 2nd amendment doesn't promise nearly as much as a lot of firearm activists seem to think it does, heh.

... though, uh. Strife, you do realize that "ridiculously anti-freedom" argument has been the primary one for most of the states' existence, right? There hasn't even been the hint that it was intended otherwise to any meaningful degree until recently, and that recent decision is on damn shaky grounds.