Addressing a Conservative on Gun Control

[Ravajava]

&list=UUc9qeMBayDxdWd3Y5KdKemg&index=1

Because I can

Thoughts?

[Trunk Monkey]

1. First thought, it's too long

no one is going to sit through a half hour of video they don't agree with in the first place

[Ravajava]

2. Perhaps

But most issues I think can't be done justice in a short video. I guess in a sense my video's aren't aimed at the people who don't have the patience to actually understand an issue

To add, this video's length is doubled by the video being responded to which is 10 minutes long already. Without that, my portion is maybe only 13-14 minutes.

[Clames]

5. Be nice if you actually understood the issue more than you display in the video.

Time will tell and there is plenty of that here.

[Ravajava]

10. Judging from the response

I've come to understand to address EVERY possible counter argument I could have possibly received I would have been shooting a 3 hour movie with directors commentary. And I'd still probably having people yelling at me that I don't understand. :/


Ultimately, it's important to understand that I'm trying to display two different points of view, my actual argument for gun control isn't as strong or prevalent as it was in the video I wanted to post.



I guess the greatest tragedy is that American culture ties guns to republican democracy. As long as that belief exists, nothing I say is going to matter.

[Clames]

12. Uh huh.

I guess the greatest tragedy is that American culture ties guns to republican democracy. As long as that belief exists, nothing I say is going to matter.

Tragedy? Not hardly. Our history and our Constitution aren't going away so either you figure out a better framing for your argument or just get used it its irrelevance.

[Ravajava]

16. It should be known

The second amendment and its modern interpretation by many Americans is a fairly modern invention that is up to debate. I think what is more likely is that a gun culture created the reading, not the other way around.

It's a relevant part of the gun debate.

[Clames]

17. That's a poor interpretation.

Since it is based on several centuries of legal and social-political history. Modern compared to the pyramids. America's unique form of gov't and legal system created the reading of the 2A and its siblings.

[hansberrym]

18. The "modern invention" meme is easily disproved. Please read more and report back .

The earliest state court case (Bliss) is more strident than the NRA's position, and even early "common defense" decisions such as Aymette v. Tenn. and Nunn v. GA. espouse a broad right to keep arms coupled with a more narrow right to bear arms.

http://www.guncite.com/court/state/

[Ravajava]

19. right...

Having read a lot on the topic, I can say with great confidence that their isn't any clear definition of the second amendment and that the current interpretation is fairly recent. To add, supreme court rulings can be wrong. People likely believed the unlimited reading before the supreme court agreed, and the courts could be wrong in agreeing, but I digress.

Second, their is nothing stopping the constitution being amended legally. Nothing is set in stone. So, suggesting you are right, then we should sit down and honestly consider the alternative. Albeit, I think their are more important things to be done before going that route...

"The Second Amendment is like the crazy uncle living in the attic. Nobody wants to address the problem, so we just accept the absurdity of a constitutional amendment that protects unfettered gun ownership."

"As it turns out, after more than 200 years of intense scrutiny by people more versed in The Law than you and I — and in the face of seemingly endless American gun violence — the meaning of the Second Amendment continues to baffle and elude. In this case, the country's Founders have left us to founder."

[GreenStormCloud]

23. Amend 2A out of the Constitution? LOL.

To ament the Constitution requires 2/3 of the House and Senate and 3/4 of the states to ratify the proposed amendment. Any 13 states can block the amendment. I can easily name 13 states that would vote "NO". Texas, Oklahoma, Kansas, Nebraska, S. Dakota, N. Dakota, Louisanna, Mississippi, Alabama, Georgia, Florida, South Carolina, North Carolina, Montana, Idaho and several others. That's more than 13. I threw in a couple of extra.

[Ravajava]

34. As I said

Probably not worth going that route. Benefits wont be worth the struggle.

[beevul]

26. What nonsense. Recent my ass.

Dred Scott v. Sandford in 1856:



It would give to persons of the negro race, ...the right to enter every other State whenever they pleased, ...to sojourn there as long as they pleased, to go where they pleased ...the full liberty of speech in public and in private upon all subjects upon which its own citizens might speak; to hold public meetings upon political affairs, and to keep and carry arms wherever they went.

So much for "fairly recent", and there "isn't any clear definition of the second amendment".

[Ravajava]

36. Having read up on this

It seems like the second amendment and the supreme court have an interesting history. They have gone back and forth on this. The Supreme Court as far back 1791 have ruled that it's a collective right. But it would appear that in your 1856 case they swtiched to an individual right, and in the 1939 went back to a collective right until the 1980's, finalizing with an individual ruling in 2003. Even then, in 2003, it was a weak 5-4 ruling.

Which would suggest that one of my earlier statements was true, their is no clear definition and the meaning of the second amendment is truly up to debate.

[beevul]

40. LOL.

First, cite this 1791 "collective rights" case.

Second, the 1939 case you refer to...if its Miller, it was no "collective rights" decision. Feel free to point out the part you believe casts it as a "collective rights" decision, again assuming its Miller you're referring to, and I'll be happy to point out where and how you're wrong.

Third, Heller was a 2008 case, not a 2003 case.

The only way " their is no clear definition and the meaning of the second amendment" is if one is intent on interpreting case dicta that way.

[Ravajava]

41. 2003

Was when Wasington DC's gun regulation were ruled to have no force or effect. Im referring to Emerson, not Miller

This part, the courts ratio decidendi "In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a [sawed-off shotgun] at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument. Certainly, it is not within judicial notice that this weapon is any part of the ordinary military equipment or that its use could contribute to the common defense."

In the case of 1791, I am referring to quotes from Justices at the time.

But wait, their is more. In the 1875 US v. Cruishank case, the ratio decidendi was "...bearing arms for a lawful purpose is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence."

Furthermore, it's important to remember in these individual rights rulings that we can't ignore dessenting justices, as the US has a commom law system where dissent can effect future cases, especially when the court was split. So on the Miller case "To sum up, there is no dispute that the Constitution, case law and applicable statutes all establish that the District is not a State within the meaning of the Second Amendment. Under United States v. Miller, 307 U.S. at 178, the Second Amendment's declaration and guarantee that "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed" relates to the Militia of the States only. That the Second Amendment does not apply to the District, then, is, to me, an unavoidable conclusion."

[gejohnston]

48. you misunderstand Cruishank

it said the same thing about the 1st Amendment. What it basically said that the BoR (in this case, the 1st and 2d Amendments) applied only to the federal law, that a state can limit any of them as they wanted.

The First Amendment right to assembly was not intended to limit the powers of the State governments in respect to their own citizens and the Second Amendment has no other effect than to restrict the powers of the national government.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Cruikshank

The same ruling also made the civil rights laws in that era unenforceable.

[Ravajava]

50. In that case

Wouldn't this mean that states have the right to impose gun regulations as they see fit?

Just saying...

[beevul]

51. Right up until Mcdonald became law.

Mcdonald Incorporated amendment 2 against the states IIRC.

[gejohnston]

52. that was before incorporation

and they still can and do up to a point. In that case, and prior to incorporation, a state could not only completely ban guns but also establish official religions, censor press, etc.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incorporation_(Bill_of_Rights)
Complete bans have been struck down by Heller. The reason sponsors of the NFA (our National Firearms Act, not to be confused with the National Firearms Association, Canada's NRA) placed a high transference tax because they assumed that a ban would be overturned. The first gun ban to be overturned, that I know of, was a ban on some pistols and knives in Georgia in 1837. The Georgia supreme court overturned it in 1845 citing the federal 2A.

[beevul]

53. Uhh..

Emerson was in the 5th circuit, and that was 2001.

The supreme court denied review of that case in 2002.

It was Heller in 2008, which struck down the DC handgun ban, not Emerson.

As far as Miller goes:

""In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument. Certainly, it is not within judicial notice that this weapon is any part of the ordinary military equipment or that its use could contribute to the common defense."

What they're saying there, is that:

"Since we haven't been presented with any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a short barreled shotgun at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument."

They did not say that the second amendment does not guarantee the right to keep and bear a short barreled shotgun.

They simply said that without being presented evidence, they could not say that possession of it was protected.

By that line of reasoning, had Miller been alive at the time of the decision - he was dead at that time, you see, and could therefore not present any evidence - but had he been alive, the words "trench gun" would have ended that entire case.

Of course, they're also going in a direction that would undermine the NFA for us regular folks where possession of real and true military hardware is concerned, so I'd be careful what I wished for, if I were on the other side of the issue.


Besides, the whole militia vs individual rights argument is nonsense at its core anyway:

THE Conventions of a number of the States having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best insure the beneficent ends of its institution

billofrights.org

Amendment 2 explicitly states what the government shall not do, makes no distinction of whom it shall not do it to, and clearly expresses why it shall not do it.

You're mistaking the "why it shall not do it" as "under what circumstances it shall not do it", just as most "collective rights" theorists do.

The words of the framers themselves make it very crystal clear that they intended people as individuals to keep and bear arms.

[GreenStormCloud]

22. The "individual right" interpretation is the original interpretation.

The collectivist interpretation is an invention of the 20th century. Read the writing of our founding fathers for more information.

[Ravajava]

35. Like

"A people cannot long retain their freedom, whose government is incapable of protecting them."
- Oliver Ellsworth, a drafter of the constitution, and the third Chief Justice of the Supreme Court

Even if it is an invention of the 20th century, then maybe the Americans of the 20th century knew something Americans of th 18th didn't...

[holdencaufield]

14. If it takes you three hours to explain your position ...

... then perhaps you'll want to re-think your position. It doesn't sound all that persuasive.

[Ravajava]

15. Short arguments

You can't really address a complex issue in a short amount of time. You can present an idea, but I feel you wouldn't do it justice. Even in a half hour I cut out parts and my own personal views (w/ some exceptions)

[sinister minister]

44. It isn't a belief, it's a fact. But your final 7 words are 100% correct.

Still waiting for someone to explain why my rights should be compromised because an infinitesimally small number of nutcases have abused theirs.

[Ravajava]

45. Well I explained in the video the reasoning

As I said though, their are ways of regulating firearms without compromising rights.

[apocalypsehow]

3. By posting it down here you sure are addressing more than a few alrighty...

[Ravajava]

4. True

Yeah, so many conservative on democratic underground obviously

Well, I assume I'll run into more supporters here than detractors, albeit some on the left are also against gun control, so you never know.

[AnotherMcIntosh]

31. "conservative" vs "liberal"? A firearm-owning Democrat who all liberals in this country would

recognize defined what it means to be a liberal. His name was John F. Kennedy. His definition isn't the only one, but it is one.

“If by a "Liberal" they mean someone who looks ahead and not behind, someone who welcomes new ideas without rigid reactions, someone who cares about the welfare of the people-their health, their housing, their schools, their jobs, their civil rights and their civil liberties-someone who believes we can break through the stalemate and suspicions that grip us in our policies abroad, if that is what they mean by a "Liberal", then I'm proud to say I'm a "Liberal.”

There are literally millions of Democrats in the U.S. who own firearms. There are literally millions of liberal Democrats (and/or progressive Democrats) who own firearms.

In contrast, there are highly-intolerant, dichotomized-thinking ("You're either with us or against us&quot self-appointed spokesmen on this board and elsewhere who claim to have superior knowledge that all liberals and/or progressives are opposed to the private ownership of firearms. Their assertion of such claims doesn't make it so.

How do we even know that such self-appointed spokesmen are even liberals and/or progressives? Do they act in a manner consistent with that? It is circular reasoning for them to reason that liberals oppose gun ownership, they oppose gun ownership, and therefore they must be liberals. Their frequent virulent posts against lawful firearm owners, including firearm-owning Democrats, doesn't make them liberals or passionate liberals.

The fact that many persons in the opposite party own firearms in a manner in which Americans have traditionally owned firearms since the founding of this country does not mean that any of us should give up our right to own firearms consistent with our history and culture in order to satisfy the anti-gun authoritarians. Do we have to do so to prove that we are sufficiently "liberal" or "progressive" to meet their relatively new test? The answer is no.

You say, as a Canadian or someone with a Canadian avatar, that you favor gun registration. Actually, there many gun registration laws on the books. While we can talk about modifying the laws, what many of us have learned that is that zealous advocates often use a deceptive tactic called "bait and switch." The anti-gun advocates always overreach. They inevitably overreach and demand more and more unwarranted control. Since they can reject reason as a way to resolve issues, they can often act irrationally. As an example, there are those who want to prohibit pistol grips on some rifles. To have "feel good" legislation? And these advocates, who will not discuss issues in a rational way, are liberals? Somehow I don't think so.

Have you been influenced by them to believe that the millions of Democrats who own firearms are conservatives? And that DUers who own firearms are conservatives? You might want to re-think that.

[Ravajava]

32. As a side Note

The guy I am addressing in the video is Conservative...
I'm not suggesting that being pro gun inherently makes you conservative. I'm just addressing a Conservative in the video. If you are liberal and support his point of view, so be it.

I think you are missing my overall point here.

And as an aside, I think you can own a gun and still be for firearm regulations.

And while their may be registration laws in the books, their are lots of real, addressable problems with the system. Based off the numbers, what exists now is clearly inneffective.

[AnotherMcIntosh]

39. I don't know what "being pro gun" is. I know John Locke expressed it correctly re "natural rights"

and that such natural rights includes a right to self-defense without being granted by the 2nd Amendment or any other provision in our Constitution.

Your thinking may vary. When our ancestors had the Revolutionary War with England, they were free people and no longer subjects. Canadians were "subjects" and continued to be referred to as "subjects" even up until the recent past.

Our Constitution did not grant us the right to self-defense. It did not grant us the right to own firearms for self-defense. The Second Amendment contains precatory words which doesn't prevent governmental officials from doing anything. But to the extent that our system of check-and-balances sometimes work, such words can inform other governmental officials when there are those governmental officials have over-stepped the line. Such precatory words also inform Americans generally as to when the line has been crossed.

You say, "I'm not suggesting that being pro gun inherently makes you conservative." I am not a conservative, and I think that you are acknowledging that. But I am not "pro gun". That is a pejorative term that originated with those who have sought to control others by banning the private ownership of guns. The fact that some of those who are not gun-controllers have now also adopted that term to refer to themselves when dealing with the gun controllers does not mean that it accurately reflects anyone's thinking.

If anything, I am pro-people.

[spin]

6. It was long but interesting. The gun control supporter was the more skilled commentator...

in my opinion.

What I found most interesting is that the video reinforces my view that both sides of the gun control issue can find common ground for compromise.

[Ravajava]

7. Thanks :D

That was originally what I was going to talk about. I felt responding to his video was a good way of showing that.

[raidert05]

8. +1

K&R

[Straw Man]

9. Sorry, but I lost my patience.

I got about five minutes in, and nobody had said anything of substance yet: just a lot of self-important blather. I blame YouTube.

I lament the lost art of rhetoric. Sorry, but that's my reaction. I guess I've reached my curmudgeon years.

[Ravajava]

11. I see

Unfortunate. I guess I'll just have to get to the point sooner next time. Which I find to be hard to do unfortunately.

My key arguments are made later into the video sadly, so my pacing is probably weak.

[tortoise1956]

13. I got about 12 minutes into it

but it's time to start winding down for bed. (I hate getting old!)

A couple of quick points:
1, Automatic weapons are not banned, but they are so heavily regulated that it is a de facto ban. Legal ownership requires jumping through a whole bunch of hoops. As a consequence, legal automatic weapons (manufactured before 1986) cost thousands of dollars to buy. As for involvement in crimes, banning them serves no rational purpose. They are very rarely used to commit crimes. This is strictly a feel-good act.
2. The Supreme Court never ruled in any case that the second amendment represented a collective right and was to be applied to militia members instead of individuals. That particular legal theory was created in an attempt to demonstrate a constitutional basis for restricting the scope of the second amendment. It was not a universal theory, BTW. If you're interested, I can point you to several liberal legal scholars who disagreed vehemently with the collective rights theory. One of them is at the link below.
3. Banning AR-15 style weapons is a knee-jerk reaction to horrific crimes carried out, in almost all cases, by mentally unstable people. Again, almost all of those people had shown themselves to be unstable. The main culprit here, at least in my opinion, is the violent nut, not the weapon. Legislation to help identify these types, and prevent them from gaining access to weapons of any kind, would make more sense. However, the HIPAA laws place very high barriers on getting that information and making it available. This needs to be carefully addressed to ensure we don't trample on the rights of the many in the process.

The real answer to bans is that the second amendment doesn't allow government to take that right away from the individual. No, it's not an absolute right. Yes, sensible regulation would pass constitutional muster. The devil is in the details. That is where the potential for real trouble starts. In the words of Sanford Levinson, a noted legal (and liberal) scholar quoting another writer," If the Second Amendment is not worth the paper it is written on, what price the First?" http://constitution.org/mil/embar2nd.htm

Please don't interpret this as a criticism of your video. I enjoyed what I have seen so far. I am merely trying to point out what I see to be fallacies in your argument. I agree with you that background checks could be expanded. I would even be amenable to some kind of limits on magazine size - say, to the original design of the weapon. Frankly, anyone that buys Mall Ninja 100-round drum magazines is probably not the type of person I want to see with weapons in the first place. I would also be willing to accept training and proficiency requirements as a precondition to ownership. My dad made sure that I had gone through gun safety and hunter's safety courses before I was even allowed to shoot a weapon. That should be the norm for juveniles, and strongly suggested for adults

I would like to hear back from you. I'm old enough to take constructive criticism.


Edited out grammar and spelling FUBARs.

[Ravajava]

20. Interesting

Not sure I disagree with you to criticize you :p

I honestly forgot about magazine size restrictions, so that is certainly something else to consider.

I think an interesting case would be if someone bought a nuclear weapon and challenged the unlimited argument. If he won then I think a lot people would reconsider their views, if he lost then the unlimited reading would be discredited.

Something to ponder...

[gejohnston]

21. if you have the money to purchase

a nuke, along with hiring the maintenance, security, infrastructure etc. you would have enough money to buy elections and judges. Besides, nukes would at the very least fall under the National Firearms Act as destructive devices. The accepted standard is common use.

[Ravajava]

30. So

By that definition we already both agree then that the 2nd amendment isn't unlimited.

[GreenStormCloud]

24. We get the nuke argument down here from time to time.

Sometimes a person who is new to the gungeon thinks they are being brilliant by claiming that if guns are legal then nukes should be legal, and that if nukes can be outlawed then so can all guns be outlawed. Nukes are weapons of mass destruction and are in a category by themselves.

No one claims that the 2A is unlimited, just as 1A isn't unlimited either. The fight is over where those limits should be drawn.

You want to see a compromise between gun-controllers and gun owners. A compromise means each side gives up something. What are gun controllers willing to give up that we gun owners don't already have?

[Ravajava]

33. The Purpose of the Nuke Argument

The purpose of the nuke argument isn't to say that because guns are legal, so are nukes. The purpose of the argument is to say "okay, we agree that in reality, you do not have an unlimited right to arms"

Also, I think you are bringing up a seperate and far more rational argument then the one the person in the video is arguing. I've talked to him and he believes that you have an unlimited right, as well as many Americans I have talked on the issue.

On the compromise part, I said I would compromise an assault weapons ban if it meant universal background checks on a national scale. Currently 40% of weapons are sold without background checks. 2/3 guns used in murders come from only 1% of sellers. To me, it's far more effective to fix that then attack individual rights to own weapons which may require jumping a lot of hurdles for little pay off. I would like to ban a range of semi-automatic weapons, but I'm not married to that position.

[gejohnston]

37. not so sure about that

I'm sure that one percent would get much ATF scrutiny. I doubt the dealers are selling to those criminals.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/post/update-obama-claim-on-background-checks-moved-from-verdict-pending-to-2-pinocchios/2013/01/25/59caeca6-672f-11e2-85f5-a8a9228e55e7_blog.html

I would like to see the right to keep and bear arms included in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

[Ravajava]

42. Hence the problem that needs fixing

The NRA successfully lobbied to weaken the ATF on that front. ATF agents can on risk of prosecution can only visit a seller once a year for inspection and have been banned from making their list of sellers who've sold guns used in murders made public. Reversing that and makings sellers responsible when several weapons sold at their store result in murders would help.


I find other sources more credible than the Washington Post, but suggesting they are telling the telling the truth, that still means millions of guns are being sold without background checks.


Thank god that wont happen

[gejohnston]

47. the ATF brought it on themselves

The ATF had a poor reputation for civil rights violations against dealers and collectors. They also had, and continue to have, problems with ridding their ranks of racists, sexists, and idiots that date back to when they were a branch of the IRS.
Such information should not be public for the simple reason that the sale most likely happened over a decade before the murder. Also, everyone knows where the movie theater shooter bought his, as well as the VT shooters.

Different sources are credible on some areas. That said, I can get a gun without a background check in Toronto or London (ON) just have to know who to see.

[GreenStormCloud]

38. What are you willing to give us that we don't already have?

Anti-gunner idea of compromise is for gunners to do all the giving. What restrictions on guns are you willing to see relaxed in return for some tighter restrictions?

[Ravajava]

43. Defeating the purpose

That's like saying I compromise and make interracial marriage illegal to get gay marriage. I think you are looking at the wrong place to negotiate.

[GreenStormCloud]

46. If you won't give up anything, then why should we? N/T

[Ravajava]

49. In politics

It is generally understood that their will be resistance to a piece of legislation from parties with an invested interest. My hope is to either convince you that you are wrong, or confront you and hope that people agree with my view as opposed to yours. Compromise can be made, but I think your definition of compromise would make it impossible in this context.

[Clames]

54. Well, to convince him he's wrong you kinda have to be right...

There isn't much room to compromise anymore. Compromise came with the 1994 AWB which turned out to be a turd for both sides. Compromise is not a one-way street which is basically what you are asking for. Both sides have to give up something in compromise, not one-side-doesn't-get-to-go-as-far-as-it-would-like-this-time-but-let's-see-next-year. Want universal background checks? Get rid of the 1934 NFA.

[GreenStormCloud]

55. We have different ideas of what compromise is.

My idea of compromise is that we each give up something and we each get something.

Your idea is that the gunners do all the giving and the grabbers do all the taking. You want to take some of our rights now, some more later, and eventually all of our rights. To avoid that we gunners have to mobilize to defeat the grabbers.

[rl6214]

25. Half a fucking hour?

Cliff notes anywhere?

[Ravajava]

28. Funny you ask

Because yes http://globalpolitics.deviantart.com/journal/Canadian-Perspective-343534102

[AnotherMcIntosh]

27. Thoughts? 1) Your video is too long. 2) Millions of firearm-owning Democrats are not conservatives.

3) If you want to join the gun-controllers down here, you have to be more rude.

[Ravajava]

29. I have nothing against owning a gun

Really, the primary thing I want is background checks and to give the ATF more power in enforcing existing regulations, especially on sellers. I'm a fence sitter on everything else.