Gun Control thread (merged many)

[Stealhead]

Originally Posted by geetrue

All the gov has to do is put the VA in charge of who can own an assault weapon and who can not own one.

At the present time the VA has a backlog of 900,00 claims that can take up to a year to settle:

http://www.military.com/daily-news/2...4213943&rank=3

They go out of their way to help those that fought for their country don't they? Sadly it is known that some vets actually committed suicide in frustration.
I heard on NPR a while back they spoke with an Iraq/Afghanistan vet this guy cant work and had been waiting for 2 years at the time they spoke with him and his wife on his complete claim.
He was waiting just for them to get to him and start working on his case mind you.

I would not worry about it because many Sheriffs say that they will not enforce gun bans anyway and not just the right wing ones like Arpiao.

"... shall not be infringed." (my emphasis).

So you cannot have any restrictions on owning firearms.
That obviously includes for convicted felons too.


So to elaborate on your next point, a convicted terrorist has the undeniable right to own a nuclear armed submarine.

Its just so easy to show how that "not be infringed" line of arguement is absolute nonsense isn't it.

[tater]

Originally Posted by Tribesman

So you cannot have any restrictions on owning firearms.
That obviously includes for convicted felons too.


So to elaborate on your next point, a convicted terrorist has the undeniable right to own a nuclear armed submarine.

Its just so easy to show how that "not be infringed" line of arguement is absolute nonsense isn't it.

That's what it says, and there were no such restrictions on felons at the time. I'm fine with that. I'd rather have no restrictions (which was the intent) than unconstitutional ones. Disallowing some felons was part of the Federal Firearms Act of 1938, before that there were no restrictions at all on weapon sales or ownership in the US (except the other FDR crap in 1934 that taxed some guns rather a lot to avoid the 2d).

Of course they were rather more lose about capital punishment back then, and "terrorists" of the exact same persuasion were actually a problem in even the first US administration (the so-called "barbary pirates" were in fact operating under the rules of jihad such as they are out here in dar al harb (slaves may be taken, etc)). Such terrorists would face summary execution for their crimes (like any other pirates), so they'd not likely have a chance at firearms possession in the US. If they managed to get here, then you are right, they'd be no different than anyone else purchasing arms.

The argument is not "nonsense," the language of the 2d is clear, as is the meaning from contemporary writings by its authors.

There is a mechanism to change this for changing times, it's called amending the Constitution. I'm happy to try and come up with a redone 2d that will satisfy 2/3 of both houses, and 3/4 of the State legislatures. You could insert "small" before "arms," for example. They could append "Area-effect weapons, being of indiscriminate effect, may be controlled as deemed necessary by Congress." This would open the door to entirely arbitrary legislation regarding HE, WMD, and even machine guns (which were designed to lay down a "beaten area" not aimed fire for each round).

[Ducimus]

I think the source of this video might be "conspiracy theory central", but... this video makes a good case for what the second amendment is really about.

The argument is not "nonsense," the language of the 2d is clear, as is the meaning from contemporary writings by its authors.

Unless you can show that there have been no restrictions on firearms from the time the authors first put ink in a quill you are obviously incorrect.

The restrictions they have a plain enough, it goes with the thinking at the time.

I see you walked right in to the shipping one

I do like your honest approach though, you think criminals and the insane should be allowed guns. After all if they were not allowed guns then the 2nd cannot mean what you want it to mean.

I think the source of this video might be "conspiracy theory central"

What gave it away? the video on FEMA death camps?

[yubba]

oooooooooo I see some ones is off his meds, maybe this will help. Maybe you ought to show us where in the constitution it says government can ,, I really get a kick out of folk that can't understand {not to be infringed.} and to maintain a well armed miltia to secure a free state,, it is every americans duty to be a rifleman and that means that we have the same arms the government has, I guess if you had enough money you could have a tank, which people do, now I can't place it my memory is getting bad, some where I saw someone had a PT boat damn now where did I see that, well any how the Tico Airshow is on and even people own fighter air craft ooooh mmyyyyyy.

[Platapus]

Originally Posted by tater

"... shall not be infringed." (my emphasis).

Infringed is a pretty GD low bar. Not so much as a speed bump, and that applied to warships and artillery as written, when written.

You are correct, the words "shall not be infringed" is included in the Second Amendment, when it was written. But it is also necessary to recognize that the scope of the Second Amendment (and the Bill of Rights as a whole) has changed.

When the founding dudes wrote it, the Second Amendment (actually all of the Bill of Rights) only applied to the Federal Government. The states were still sovereign and were not bound by the Bill of Rights in any way.

So a state could establish an official religion, could ban free speech and could certainly restrict weapons according to the state's constitution and the state's legislation. The federal government could not.

Even the 14th amendment (1868) still recognized that the bill of rights applied to the Federal Government only. As late as 1883 (Barron v Balitmore 32 US (7pet) 243) the SCOTUS ruled that the bill of rights only applied to the Federal Government.

Then in the 1900's things started to change. Slow at first but soon we had what is called the "Incorporation Doctrine". There were a series of court cases and appeals that slowly changed how the courts interpreted the Constitution. It was not a sudden single decision but a series of decisions over about 20 years.

What that meant is that the courts up to and including the Supreme Court, made the decision that the restrictions on the Federal Government that were in the Bill of Rights and other amendments also restrict the State Government.

That's a pretty big deal.

Whether the Incorporation doctrine is good or bad, can and is debatable, in addition to the question whether the Incorporation doctrine is even constitutional in itself is debatable. But the fact is that it is with us.

This means that it is difficult to go back to the original (federal only interpretation) constitution and make the claim "well those dudes wrote this back then and therefore it must apply to current (federal and state interpretations of the constitution) issues.

The founding dudes may have intended that all infringement of arms would fall to the state. The only thing they made clear (back then) was that the Federal Government could not infringe. Remember, they also wrote the 9th and 10th Amendment also so they recognized a difference between what the Federal government could or could not do and what State governments could and could not do. Basically, what the states could not do was left up to the state to decide through their laws and courts.

This is one of the many problems with the Incorporation Doctrine. We were just a bit over 100 years old as a country, when we started moving away from being the United States of America to become the United Federation of America.

Either being a confederation of sovereign states or a federation of incorporated states has its advantages and disadvantages. But the move from a confederation of sovereign states to a federation of incorporated states needs to be made deliberately and with the consent of the people.

I do not believe this has been done.

So we find our country somewhere between a confederation of sovereign states and a federation of incorporated states with, to quote Archie Bunker, "a little too much of both and not enough of neither".

This is a bad thing. We need to be one or the other with clear delimitation of authority.

And this makes interpreting the constitution not only necessary but also difficult.

My opinion? It is necessary to interpret the constitution as environments change (That's why the Founding Dudes made a SCOTUS)

BUT

Such interpretations need to be taken with care and with due diligence as to unintended, unexpected, undesired, consequences that may come from the interpretation in the future. I lean more to following the restrictions of the constitution, but recognize that a bunch of guys in the early 1800s can not be expected to have thought about issues in the 2000's.

Of course, if I had the answer, I sure would not be writing bombastic posts on a video game fan forum.

[Ducimus]

Originally Posted by Platapus

Then in the 1900's things started to change. Slow at first but soon we had what is called the "Incorporation Doctrine". There were a series of court cases and appeals that slowly changed how the courts interpreted the Constitution. It was not a sudden single decision but a series of decisions over about 20 years.

What that meant is that the courts up to and including the Supreme Court, made the decision that the restrictions on the Federal Government that were in the Bill of Rights and other amendments also restrict the State Government.

That's a pretty big deal.

Whether the Incorporation doctrine is good or bad, can and is debatable, in addition to the question whether the Incorporation doctrine is even constitutional in itself is debatable. But the fact is that it is with us.

This means that it is difficult to go back to the original (federal only interpretation) constitution and make the claim "well those dudes wrote this back then and therefore it must apply to current (federal and state interpretations of the constitution) issues.

The founding dudes may have intended that all infringement of arms would fall to the state. The only thing they made clear (back then) was that the Federal Government could not infringe. Remember, they also wrote the 9th and 10th Amendment also so they recognized a difference between what the Federal government could or could not do and what State governments could and could not do. Basically, what the states could not do was left up to the state to decide through their laws and courts.

This is one of the many problems with the Incorporation Doctrine. We were just a bit over 100 years old as a country, when we started moving away from being the United States of America to become the United Federation of America.

Either being a confederation of sovereign states or a federation of incorporated states has its advantages and disadvantages. But the move from a confederation of sovereign states to a federation of incorporated states needs to be made deliberately and with the consent of the people.

I do not believe this has been done.

So we find our country somewhere between a confederation of sovereign states and a federation of incorporated states with, to quote Archie Bunker, "a little too much of both and not enough of neither".

This is a bad thing. We need to be one or the other with clear delimitation of authority.

My thoguht has always been that issues like Gun control, should be left to the state, NOT the federal government. Why?

Each state is different. Has its own demographic, their own cultural values, their own prominent religious or political beleifs, it's own economy, etc etc, the list goes on.

What's good for California, is not good for Utah, and vice versa. The problem with Federal laws that are on the scope of gun control, or abortion, or whatever, is it's trying to make a square fit into a round hole.

The fact that a Senator like Fienstien (who would never have been elected to office in Utah in the first place) can instigate legislation that is counter to what the people and culture of what Utah want, is angering to say the least.

[Sailor Steve]

Originally Posted by Platapus

Even the 14th amendment (1868) still recognized that the bill of rights applied to the Federal Government only. As late as 1883 (Barron v Balitmore 32 US (7pet) 243) the SCOTUS ruled that the bill of rights only applied to the Federal Government.

Good post, but I would disagree slightly with this one point. Both the 13th and 15th amendments created new limitations that were specifically designed to make the States follow Federal guidelines, concerning slavery and voting rights respectively.

[Platapus]

Originally Posted by Ducimus

My thought has always been that issues like Gun control, should be left to the state, NOT the federal government. Why?

Each state is different. Has its own demographic, their own cultural values, their own prominent religious or political beliefs, it's own economy, etc etc, the list goes on.

What's good for California, is not good for Utah, and vice versa. The problem with Federal laws that are on the scope of gun control, or abortion, or whatever, is it's trying to make a square fit into a round hole.

A good argument for state's rights. We are not all the same in the USA. Under the constitution and its amendments, federal laws must be equally applied across all the states and apply equally to all the citizens.

But the states are not all the same, nor are the citizens.

Is the world as dichotomous as that? Of course not.

Slavery should be illegal in all states and frankly I don't care if a state wishes to bring it back. Slavery is wrong.

But where do you draw the line. And when it comes to legislative authority a line must be drawn.

At what point does federal legislative authority end and state legislative authority take over.?

Finding the extremes are easy

Outlawing slavery? - Federal authority is appropriate, really can't be left up to the states

Establishing speed limits in residential areas? Federal authority is not appropriate. It can and should be left up to the states.

But what about everything in the middle?

Where is the legislative authority line drawn and who gets to draw it?

The answer, in the past, has been "who has the money". States have voluntarily given up a lot of their sovereignty because the federal government has given the states money and the states have grown to rely on this money.

The polite word is extortion.

Until the environment changes where the individual states can operate mostly independent of the federal government, nothing will change.

It should not come as a surprise that the federal government is not exactly encouraging states to become too independent of the federal government.

Which is why I favor a schema where personal federal tax is abolished and the individual states collect and deliver taxes to the federal government. That will give the state, as a whole, a lot more leverage then just little me.

The US I would like to see is one where

The states have a great deal of freedom in setting their laws as their constitution and legislation see fit (with some restrictions)
Where the citizens have the opportunity of "voting with their feet" and move to a state that has a set of laws that agrees with their opinion.

States with unpopular laws may find themselves lacking in tax revenue when many people move out.
States with popular laws may find themselves with increased revenues when people move in.

Of course that can create a whole bunch of other problems which is why it is a good idea I ain't in charge.

[Sailor Steve]

Good points. I remember when we had the 55 mph freeway speed limit. Not that Federal speed limits shouldn't exist on Federal highways, but the Fed threatened to withold Federal assistance to the states if they didn't comply. Yes, it's a form of extortion that the central government should have that kind of power, especially since the money they threatened to withold came from the states in the first place.

I've always like Thomas Jefferson's take on the subject:

"The true theory of our Constitution is surely the wisest and best, that the states are independent as to everything within themselves, and united as to everything respecting foreign nations."
-Thomas Jefferson; letter to Gideon Granger, August 13, 1800

[Stealhead]

They did the same thing when they changed the federal drinking age to 21.Some states refused to change theirs so the Fed said no federal highway money if you do not change the drinking age.

Louisiana still refused for several years but as their roads began to fall apart they had no choice but to accept.

It should be states rights within reason so long as a state law is not violating civil rights they should be allowed to do what they want.
Personally I think the drinking age being 21 is a bad idea it makes drinking intriguing to kids and more likely to abuse.In Germany they allowed you to drink at 18 on base I was past the legal age by the time I was posted there but I can say that there seemed to be less alcohol related problems in Germany than at stateside bases I had been.

[Sailor Steve]

Originally Posted by Stealhead

It should be states rights within reason so long as a state law is not violating civil rights they should be allowed to do what they want.

Thank you. I've been looking for the proper line between what States should be free to do and what the Feds should be able to enforce for a long time, and that's the phrase I've been looking for.

[Platapus]

Originally Posted by Stealhead

It should be states rights within reason so long as a state law is not violating civil rights they should be allowed to do what they want.

I like it. That sounds reasonable...... But who gets to decide what is and what is not a civil right? And especially what takes precedence a federal opinion on what is a civil right or a state's opinion on what is a civil right?

Civil rights are a lot like art, we know it when we see it and we can recognize when it is absent, but trying to define it is a little more tricky. We all know what civil rights are... but we may not be in agreement.

In my current chapter of my dissertation (which I should be writing instead of posting here) I am addressing the difficulties in defining and measuring political freedom (only one subset of civil rights). Pretty easy at the conceptual level, mighty difficult at the measurand level.

[August]

Originally Posted by Platapus

I like it. That sounds reasonable...... But who gets to decide what is and what is not a civil right? And especially what takes precedence a federal opinion on what is a civil right or a state's opinion on what is a civil right?

I'd say the Bill of Rights would be a pretty good standard.