Questions for gun control advocates, part 1

[Shamash]

Answers should be intelligent, rational, liberal, consistently applied and supportable by objective data if required. Please label your comment with the number of the question you are responding to. Feel free to link to this post if you need someone to answer one of the questions in a different comment thread. If the moderator for the RKBA group thinks this is worth permalinking, by all means do so.

Note: It is assumed that your answer represents the maximum level of intelligence, knowledge and common sense you can bring to bear on the subject.
[hr]
#1
This is a picture of an M1 carbine, a magazine-fed semi-auto rifle capable of using high-capacity magazines, which can be had with a folding stock, bayonet lug, pistol grip and flash hider, making it by all popular definitions an “assault rifle". It has been available to civilians since 1945, and required no background check or license or even ID to purchase in an era (circa 1950) where the per capita firearm murder rate was the same or lower than it is today (circa 2010).

Question: If you feel that this sort of weapon should be banned, list all other technologies freely available to civilians with no restriction in 1945 that you deem too dangerous to be allowed for any civilian to own today, despite there being no evidence of increased harm due to the civilian ownership of that technology?
[hr]
#2
Magazine limits are a popular topic for gun control advocates, but there is far from universal agreement on what a proper limit should be and why. New York’s SAFE Act had a 7-round limit, Connecticut’s Act Concerning Gun Violence Prevention and Children’s Safety had a 10-round limit, while Colorado has a 15-round limit.

Question: If you think there is a specific value appropriate for a magazine limit, can you explain why X shots held is a reasonable limit and X+1 should be a crime? In addition, since opinions on this vary, explain how gun control advocates with different values of X from yours are either too lenient (allowing in your opinion a criminally dangerous level of ammunition) or too restrictive (criminalizing what you feel is a reasonable level of ammunition).
[hr]
#3
The NRA has an annual revenue of 348 million dollars (2013) (for comparison, Goldman-Sachs had a revenue in 2014 of 40 billion dollars). Of this 348 million dollars in yearly NRA revenue, approximately 15 million dollars (less than 5%) comes from firearm manufacturers and dealers (assuming the linked figures from the Violence Policy Center are accurate and evenly divided over the 6 year period listed), a figure which includes both direct contributions from industry and indirect contributions like advertising in NRA publications.

link
link

Question: To what extent is the NRA "funded by the gun industry” and if you have commented in the past on NRA funding sources, have your comments been accurate?
[hr]
#4
Here are some fatality rates per 100,000 people at risk in that category:

boy’s softball: 2.89 fatalities per 100,000 players
boy’s water polo: 1.06 fatalities per 100,000 players
boy’s gymnastics: .95 fatalities per 100,000 players
boy’s football: .81 fatalities per 100,000 players
boy’s lacrosse: .80 fatalities per 100,000 players
boy’s basketball: .76 fatalities per 100,000 players
boy’s ice hockey: .48 fatalities per 100,000 players
boy’s soccer: .45 fatalities per 100,000 players
boy’s high school cross-country: .36 fatalities per 100,000 players
firearm accidents, all children,: .15 fatalities per 100,000 children
ages 5 through 19

link
link

Question: For any group of 100,000 boys, which is more likely to result in a fatal accident, having a gun in the house or letting them play school sports?
[hr]
#5
This is a picture of a Browning Longtrac Hunter, a rifle with a 3-shot removable magazine, that costs about $2000.



This is a picture of the Hammerli SP 20, an Olympic-grade (as in “actually used by Olympic competitors&quot target pistol in the world’s least powerful caliber (.22 rimfire), with a 5-shot removable magazine, that has a base price of about $2000.



No company in the world makes high-capacity magazines or any military-type accessory for either of these weapons. However, according to the Connecticut Act Concerning Gun Violence Prevention and Children’s Safety, both of these are currently “assault weapons” (as defined in section 53-202) whose unauthorized sale in Connecticut is a Class C felony meriting a mandatory minimum jail sentence of two years.

link
link
link

Question: Do you feel that the definition of “assault weapon” under Connecticut law was made intelligently and with due consideration of what an “assault weapon” actually is? Explain why or why not.
[hr]
#6
In the Gallup poll for May 6, 2015 on the question of “What do you think is the most important problem facing this country today?”, guns were not in the top 30 items, and were considered less than one-tenth as important as terrorism, healthcare or immigration. Since 1990, the percentage of people who think gun laws should be made more strict has dropped by a third, and in that same period the number of people who think gun laws should be made less strict has doubled.


link

Question: Is the American public clamoring for stricter gun control? Explain why or why not.
[hr]
#7
A stranger calls you on the phone and asks if you have in your home a specific type of easily portable item with a high black market value.



Question: How do you answer, and does this answer reflect your prior statements about the significance of telephone polls about how many people own firearms?
[hr]
#8
Gallup polling a week after the failed Senate vote for universal background checks (2013) showed that 65% of the public wanted the background checks to pass. Gallup polling in 2004 showed that 64% of people did not want marijuana to be legalized. Gallup polling in 1996 showed that 68% of people did not want same sex marriages to be legal. Gallup polling in 1978 showed that 64% of the public did not want mixed race marriages to be legal.

link

link

link

Question: Should public opinion be considered as a valid measure for promoting the merits of restricting the conduct of individuals whose behavior you disapprove of but who are not actually doing anything harmful?
[hr]
#9
Individuals in a society have rights and privileges. The Supreme Court, the Democratic Party platform and President Obama have stated that firearms ownership is a “right”, and thus has the legal standing of anything else held as a “right”. Things that are held as rights by either the Constitution or Supreme Court decision:

• a woman’s reproductive choice
• voting
• trial by jury
• free speech
• privacy
• firearm ownership

Question: Is something legally defined as a "right" one which you must affirmatively prove you have a "need" for to a potentially adversarial bureaucracy before you are allowed to exercise it? And does your answer reflect a standard you would trust a conservative-led government with?
[hr]
#10
According to FBI statistics, the least likely type of firearm murder is a mass murder, the least likely type of shooting incident is one in which 10 or more shots are fired and the least likely type of firearm to be used in a murder is a rifle.

Question: If you wanted to enact firearm bans or restrictions statistically guaranteed to have the smallest possible effect in curtailing firearm murders, what type of firearm(s) would you insist on banning or restricting? How does this answer correlate with your own stated views on what should be banned or restricted?

[Fred Sanders]

1. Question: why do all the questions assume a deadly, mobile, concealable WMD is a fluffy toy? Unneeded gun ownership is terrorism.

I swear I do not know who are worse, the science deniers, or the weapons of mass death deniers...same twisted logic and thinking makes it difficult to decide.

?itok=2DDf505k



http://www.csgv.org/wp/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/CSGV-Campaign-Sidebar-6


ANSWER to ALL: See Canada.

[Shamash]

2. Readers, see note at top of post and infer appropriately

Last edited Thu Jun 4, 2015, 09:55 AM - Edit history (1)

[friendly_iconoclast]

15. The inference says volumes about cartoon scrapers/Third Way® apologists...

...none of which are flattering.

[GGJohn]

4. We ain't in Canada, Fred,

Canada has nothing to do with the 2A, or, for that matter, this thread.

[gejohnston]

7. What about Canada?

their murder and violent crime rates were still one one fourth of ours when their laws were less strict than ours on balance, back when you could buy a machine gun with little legal hassle. Canadians could do that until 1977.

[ileus]

10. Why won't those guns just stop killing people?

If only they had better job training and more opportunities for employment.



My only question is are guns considered 1%er's or part of the 99%???

[Nuclear Unicorn]

13. "Unneeded gun ownership is terrorism."

Meanwhile, you claim the FBI entrapped a man who wanted to behead people in order to play into the hands of ISIS.

Perhaps you are not the best judge of what is or is not terrorism.

[friendly_iconoclast]

16. Reposting cartoons, while insulting others, is easy. Answering questions is hard

The disinterested reader will note what Fred chose...

[Straw Man]

17. Well ...

... that was an intellectually lazy bad-faith response. You want more gun control, but you are unwilling to even attempt to explain the reasoning behind various measures that already exist.

Just more toons and hyperbole. You do your cause no justice.

[Lizzie Poppet]

44. "WMD"

Credibility shot to shit in three letters...nicely done.

[Omnith]

3. Excellent post!

I learned a lot reading the OP. Thanks so much for posting.

[upaloopa]

5. I am puzzled

Last edited Thu Jun 4, 2015, 12:00 PM - Edit history (3)

What is the point of this post?
First I am not going to try to do as you direct.
I also don't support grabbing guns.
It seems to me you are asking people to see the world through your paradigm and doing that make a judgement on themselves.
There is a First Amendment before there is a Second. Americans have every right to say what they want about guns and gun control. They do not need to take a course on gun lore to have an opinion or to vote on proposed gun control legislation.

Sorry but I see your post as a self serving trap.

[Shamash]

8. The point is two-fold

1. Do gun control advocates have an accurate view of law and public opinion on the subject?
2. Do gun control advocates have a consistent ethical viewpoint with regard to rights and tolerance?

Everyone is entitled to their opinion, but if that opinion shows a double standard or is based on ignorance and bias, I have a First Amendment right to point that out. Yes, you can have a strong opinion about something you are totally clueless about. I think the proper response to clueless yet highly opinionated people is what DU did when this happened:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/101453029

I use that experience and look at the gun control issue. I don't like the idea of people who have no knowledge of the subject of guns making laws restricting their use based on what they think is going on, and I imagine you would agree with that sentiment.

Now, none of the ten questions are "have you stopped beating your wife?" questions. They merely ask for factual answers or statements of position that many gun control advocates will not want to give because it would be embarrassing to have their double standard, ignorance or bias publicly displayed.

Personally, I have one set of liberal beliefs and ethics that allows me to hold a consistent position on race, gender, marriage, reproduction, sexual identity, end of life decisions, alcohol, tobacco, marijuana, religion, free speech and gun ownership. If someone else needs to carve out a special exemption to discriminate against one or more of these, I fail to see how that is either a trap or a problem with my beliefs. It is merely asking for honesty on their part.

[upaloopa]

12. It is like a push poll

[Shamash]

14. How so?

"Push polls" are designed to influence people's views. This is neither a poll nor is it designed to influence anyone. If you ask most of the people it is aimed at (i.e. "Questions for gun control advocates&quot whether or not their position on the issue could be swayed by facts, logic, reason or a desire for ethical consistency, they would say "no". Which would mean their views on the subject would reflect the opposite of those four characteristics, an observation which would seem to be confirmed by the rhetoric they use. See comment #1 for a typical example.

If there is an "influence" component to the questions, it is for anyone who reads it who is not already in one of the two opposing camps. And I guess how they end up viewing the subject would be based on their own answers to the questions and the quality of responses by gun control advocates. At this moment the gun control side has most of its screen real estate taken up by Fred Sanders and not a single gun control advocate has stepped up to answer any of the questions. If that's the impression gun control advocates want to give to people undecided on the issue, that's their business.

The questions are designed to put gun control advocates on the spot. For instance, if a gun control organization (Violence Policy Center) and an objective source (guidestar.org) indicate that only a small minority of the NRA's revenue comes from gun manufacturers and distributors, question #3 would be embarrassing to answer if your DU record shows you've been flogging a talking point that is not accurate. And if it turns out the NRA is not getting most of its money from the gun industry, then saying that gun owners are hiding behind industry money would no longer be a viable statement one could make.

Basically, you are either willing to state a position and have it compared to objective evidence and possibly your own past record on the subject, or you will avoid stating a position either because you cannot defend it or do not wish to have that position compared to objective evidence.

So far it seems like a lot of the latter and none of the former.

[pablo_marmol]

20. "It is like a push poll." NO. It is NOT. NT

[rock]

27. Actually, I do not feel that it's good enough to be called a push-poll

Which at least tries to act like it is fair. While this babble is a thinly disguised and poorly written one-sided questions that need technical analysis to understand. It's a wak attempt to get you to change you mind about gun-control as the author clearly thinks it's useless.

[Shamash]

35. Since I'm always interested in self-improvement

Perhaps you can educate me on how one or more particular questions are poorly written or one-sided. Are they factually inaccurate? Do they use logical fallacies? Does it require technical knowledge to look at the figures in questions #3 and #4 and figure out the probabilities? It seems to me questions #8 and #9 can stand all by themselves without any gun-related preamble.

Given that the questions are clearly written and do not require any "technical" knowledge beyond basic literacy, it would seem that you are dodging the questions by making unsubstantiated complaints.

Complain all you like that it is not "fair". I'll actually care if you show that it is not accurate.

[rock]

40. Well I'll try at least in part to answer you

Your paper is better designed to be presented to a consortium of experts in the field, not a general discussion board like DU. Perhaps it is my limitation but I cannot even make out what your overall point is. I personally feel 'baffled with bullshit' when I read over your test. One example:

"#1 Question: If you feel that this sort of weapon should be banned, list all other technologies freely available to civilians with no restriction in 1945 that you deem too dangerous to be allowed for any civilian to own today, despite there being no evidence of increased harm due to the civilian ownership of that technology?"

Why on earth would I be interested in listing ... all other technologies ... . I see the point you're trying to make, but feel the analogy does not apply to the point at hand.
I see by the clock on the phone it's past my bedtime. Thanks for the discussion.

[Shamash]

46. That premise is simple

If you want to ban assault rifles, demonstrate why, using the historical context of their availability and the rate to which they caused harm an era in which they were not regulated at all. Comparing this to your feelings on some other historically contemporary item of equal risk is merely a measure of your consistency for desiring such a ban. And if you cannot show some historically contemporary item with approximately the same qualities, this would call into question your judgement on why assault rifles should be banned (since you are looking at it as a lone item rather than its relative position on a continuum of risk with other hazards).

This requires no technical knowledge of the subject, merely your definition of "assault rifle" and having a consistent point of view on why something potentially dangerous should be restricted and the level of risk it needs to pose to warrant being restricted.

For instance, if you want to ban something because there is a 1 in 10,000 chance it will cause a death, then it would be consistent to also want to ban something that has a 1 in 5,000 chance (twice as great).

On the other hand, if you are holding a less risky item to a higher regulatory standard than a more risky item, that is an inconsistent position that you need to justify.

[rock]

49. I do not except your premise

I do not believe we can arrive at a mutually greed upon viewpoint. We obviously do not share the same basic underpinnings as to what we feel gun-control should be based upon. I want to save people's lives, I don't really know what you want to achieve. Now I do not mean to be curt with you but once again I must point out that blogs are not an effective way to discuss truly complex issues. We could spend an enormous amount of time and effort discussing back and forth discussing where we disagree but I really think both of us have better things to do. I do think you're level-headed and that's not the problem.

[Shamash]

52. I wish to save lives as well

But the larger question is "at what cost?" If I asked you "Is it worth an infinite cost to save one life?", you would probably answer "no", which would mean that to you there are some things that are worth keeping even there is a death toll involved. We could stop all auto deaths by a draconian ban on cars, yet no one is suggesting that is a good idea.

I do not think it is unreasonable to ask people to look beyond their pet issues and/or fears and take a consistent view on risk. If you disagree, you are free to make an argument in support of why liberals should have inconsistent ethical standards and government policy should use a principle of ideology-based risk management.

And "not accepting my premise" is a long way from "demonstrating that it is a faulty premise". Far too often "let's agree to disagree" just means "I cannot find fault with what you are saying but I'm still not going to change my mind." I presume you feel your views on the subject are intelligent and rational and liberal, yet you have gone out of your way to avoid answering any of the questions, even the ones which can be answered completely and accurately and honestly with no firearm context (#8 and #9) nor the one which is simply "which item on this list is the smallest?" (#4). That you are unwilling to say anything...says a lot.

In terms of saving lives, the CDC has said that guns are used defensively more often than they are used by criminals, and that people who use a gun defensively have on average, better outcomes than those using any other defensive strategy. The implication of this is that if you removed all legally held civilian guns, more people would be victimized by criminals (the victims could not use a gun defensively) and on average victims would be worse off (since the previously gun-using victims now have on average, worse outcomes). That's not an NRA talking point, that's a CDC study on the causes and prevention of firearm violence. So the math on "saving lives" is not as clear-cut as "guns/not guns".

Some of the questions are simply a back-handed way of suggesting honesty about one's view. For instance, all the people who keep saying that the NRA is bankrolled by the gun industry. If they can come up with more reliable financial figures than mine to make their case, they should do so. Otherwise, they should stop saying that. Interestingly, what we have seen with this post is that all of these people are making themselves scarce so they can keep on saying that and pretend their talking point has not been rebutted.

You are quite right in that it is an enormously complex issue. Compare the depth of your view on the subject to that of the first commenter. Some people do not see it as a complex issue, they have an absolutist mentality that leaves no room for logic or discussion. I am not a gun rights absolutist, I think there is room for improvement in current laws and approaches to the subject, and that this improvement would save lives. And I have been saying it for years and saying it consistently. But as a believer in civil liberties, presumption of innocence and equality under the law, I am not going to stand by idly in the face of any fear- and ignorance-based prior restraint and bigotry. If for no other reason than that legal precedents are binding on subjects other than the one they are decided on.

For instance, there was a recent fauxtrage over Pennsylvania cities and towns no longer being able to make local gun laws stricter than state gun laws, i.e. "The NRA's diabolical plan for killing new gun laws". How many people outraged over this took a moment to realize that such a ruling also means that cities and towns cannot pass anti-abortion laws stricter than state law? Or conversely, if the cities and towns could pass such stricter gun laws it means they could also pass stricter anti-gay or anti-abortion laws.

Gun rights do not stand all by themselves in our legal framework. They are rights, and the extent to which we allow or restrict one right can affect our other rights as well (as implied in question #9). Gun rights have played a part for better or worse in at least one of our more prominent Supreme Court cases, even though that case had nothing to do with guns.

While you may not like the direction the questions point you and are uncomfortable with what the answers imply about your views on the subject, they are fact-based and logically sound (and I would note that you have not found any fault on either of those grounds). Not liking the questions, or being forced to reappraise one's views because of their answers does not mean they are bad questions.

[pablo_marmol]

62. "I want to save people's lives........."

But yet I'm betting that you don't care a whit about the fact that a number of highly credentialed liberal criminologists don't sign off the delusions of the Democratic Party or most liberals w/regard to the gun restriction issue. There are still used copies of "Gun Control - the Liberal Skeptics Speak Out" available on Amazon, as well as "Under the Gun" by James Wright and Peter Rossi. (Rossi, RIP) Then there's books by Civil Rights attorney Don Kates as well as the highest credentialed (and decorated liberal) criminologist Dr. Gary Kleck --- the reigning expert on gun violence.

Tell us -- what books have you read cover-to-cover dealing with the issue of gun violence? Rhetorical question. I'm betting you haven't read even one. Most left-leaning folks are essentially MSNBC "educated" on the subject of gun violence -- which makes them the equivalent of Fox Noise viewers.......not just uninformed, but misinformed as well.

Again.....going out on what I believe is a very short and sturdy limb, the most "research" you have under you belt has been garnered from internet articles which reinforce your biases.

[pablo_marmol]

63. "I do not believe we can arrive at a mutually agreed upon viewpoint."

Of course we can't - because we disagree on something MUCH more fundamental that the solutions to gun violence.

You believe that you're entitled to your own set of facts, while we believe that neither of us is!

Prove me wrong! The definition of what constitutes an "assault weapon" is NOT open for debate, and is EASILY VERIFIABLE all over the internet. So check out these links and refute them -- or you will have demonstrated that you haven't done your homework on the single gun restriction related issue ("assault weapons&quot that causes many Dems the most angst!

http://www.assaultweapon.info/

[Nuclear Unicorn]

66. If saving lives is the objective let's look at the facts.

More than half of gun deaths are suicides. Anyone who uses a gun has no allusions about the extremity and permanence of their actions. There is no, "Oh maybe I'll shoot myself and someone will save me" cry for help; it's an act calculated to result in death.

Someone who is that determined to die cannot be dissuaded by what is or is not commercially available; they need help to move past what is destroying their lives.

And to ignoring what moves people to suicide in order to fixate on the chosen method of suicide is effectively saying it is okay to leave someone trapped in the abyss of suicidal depression for nothing more than a fleeting political victory.

Treat the mental health issues and guns become irrelevant.

Of the remaining roughly 45% of gun deaths we have a portion that are accidental and the remainder are deliberate criminal acts.

If banning a thing because of the misuse of that thing has never worked. It brought us Prohibition which turned irresponsible behavior into a criminal enterprise that remains entrenched to this day, decades after its repeal.

What reduces drunk driving isn't banning alcohol but rather a shift in social mores where responsible behavior is constantly reinforced.

As far as criminal use of guns is concerned, consider the fact that the majority of criminals using guns have prior criminal records. In others words their possession of a gun is already a criminal offence.

Many more are instances of domestic violence. Will a proposed law be.more likely to deter the offender or only end up disarming the targeted victims?

President Obama recently took steps to bolster the flagging NICS database. He is to be applauded for this. Now it is time to open NICS to private sellers as well.

[Straw Man]

18. Please don't tell me ...

There is a First Amendment before there is a Second. Americans have every right to say what they want about guns and gun control. They do not need to take a course on gun lore to have an opinion or to vote on proposed gun control legislation.

... that you are arguing in favor of deliberate ignorance. There is never any excuse for voting for (or against) any measure that you do not understand. That is how democracy descends into corruption and mob rule.

Yes, people have a First Amendment right to express opinions. If those opinions are based on ignorance and inaccurate information, then that should be pointed out, as the OP is doing. As someone wiser than I once said, you have the right to your own opinion, but you don't have the right to your own facts.

[Shamash]

22. To upaloopa's credit

The linked sentence I put in reply #8 is a verbatim quote by upaloopa, so at least in the past he was arguing against uninformed people making gun laws.

I agree with him that the uninformed have a right to their opinion, but I give that opinion the exact amount of respect it deserves.

[pablo_marmol]

21. "Sorry but I see your post as a self serving trap."

Of course. The perfectly predictable response of a person who can't present empirical evidence to support their positions.

Quelle surprise!

[GGJohn]

6. Very good thread.

But expect the naysayers to be along shortly to join the one already here.

[ileus]

9. 244 posts....you're gonna be labeled a Rand Paul loving gun troll.

[Shamash]

11. I've been called a lot of things

But to the best of my knowledge the name calling has never been backed with any substance and usually reflects an inability to address the issue in a serious fashion (see cognitive dissonance and possibly backfire effect). For instance, Rush Limbaugh calling Sandra Fluke a ‘slut’. The difference being that Rush Limbaugh eventually apologized, which is more than I've ever gotten from anti-gun name callers and which puts some perspective on their worldview.

[pablo_marmol]

19. Outstanding post Shamash. I expect you'll be getting nothing but dodges and slurs, though.

For a few years now I've kept a group of elementary "Gun Control Knowledge Tests" in the trunk of my car in a binder. The tests mostly ask questions that everyone should know the answers to before opening their mouths on the issue of gun violence. Questions such as "Explain in general terms what's been going on with the U.S. crime rate the last four decades." Some true/false, some multiple choice, and a few essay questions - like the one just mentioned. And all rigorously cited via a separate set of pages.

Whenever some pro-restriction ignoramus starts talking their usual trash, I ask: "Hypothetically speaking, if I were able to go out to my car and return with a very rudimentary Gun Control Knowledge Test -- would you be willing to take it?" This has never failed to shut them up.....and expose them for the blowhards that they are. Any of the pro-RKBA Dem regulars could create a GCKT as quickly as I did, I'm sure. Plus, with the high percentage of folks who have smart phones you can demonstrate that you're able to back up your statements while The Controllers flounder.

[ileus]

23. He's not even managing the normal troll posts on this one....remarkable.

[beevul]

24. I wonder if it shouldn't be retitled.

'Questions for gun control advocates, part 1' may be more reflective of the current situation, if titled: "Questions gun control advocates seem unable or unwilling to answer."

[krispos42]

25. I guess they'll have to speak up.

I can't hear them over the deafening roar of the crickets.

[rock]

26. So let's hear your answers to those questions

I take it you're the expert and I'm not. I do believe your test should be answered by someone familiar with the arms you are talking about. Answers should be intelligent, rational, liberal, consistently applied and supportable by objective data if required. Thanks.

[Shamash]

29. Not necessary in my case, since I am not a gun control advocate

But you do make a good point. If someone is a advocating for a particular course of action and yet is unfamiliar with the subject matter they are unhappy about, perhaps they should reconsider making judgements about other people's lifestyles or demanding restrictions on things they know nothing about.

Fortunately, I took this into account when presenting these questions. A person can click on the numerous links to improve their knowledge of the subject, and many of the questions require zero knowledge of guns to answer, merely a measure of elementary school math and a willingness to give an honest answer.

So, do not let your "non-expert" status deter you, there are several of the questions that can be readily answered by anyone.

[Comatose Sphagetti]

28. Just me

Had a satellite tv guy come into the house for an installation. Me, wife and kids at home. I notice he's carrying concealed. I ask if he has a permit. He says yes. Shows it to me. Perfectly legal in my state. I am not comfortable. Would you be?

[GGJohn]

30. Sure, I wouldn't have a problem with it.

Why were you?

[Comatose Sphagetti]

37. Have never been thrust into that situation before.

Felt threatened. Visceral discomfort. Not in control of my own home.

[GGJohn]

41. You do have the right to not have firearms in your home,

if you feel uncomfortable, ask them to leave.

[Duckhunter935]

51. yes, very true

[Shamash]

31. I'd be comfortable with it

However, as the occupant of the property, you are within your rights to say you do not want guns in your house. The TV guy's permit almost certainly does not give him permission to carry on private property where the owner does not wish guns (I do not know what state you are in, but I could look up the law if you send me a private message). I suspect if you had told him you were not comfortable with it, he would have taken it back out to his truck, and if he did not, you would be well within your rights to make a complaint about him to the company he works for, or even call the police if necessary.

[Comatose Sphagetti]

34. Or...

He might have been unstable and my request to remove his weapon might have pissed him off and it might have went South from there.
Too many 'mights' (see 'uncomfortable'). I'd rather he hadn't brought it into the house in the first place. But he did, legally, and any attempt to alter that reality after the fact was just that; after the fact.

[Shamash]

38. I understand your discomfort

I guess the question is whether you are able to recognize that it is an irrational fear. If you had not noticed the installer was carrying concealed we would not be having this conversation, but he still would have been in your house with a gun. There are several million concealed permit holders in the US, so you undoubtedly pass one or more of them each day. Does this fill you with dread? And the likelihood that a concealed permit holder will do anything illegal with a gun is less than the average for gun owners in general.

Statistically speaking, if you asked him to leave his gun in the truck he would be more likely to hand you a winning lotto ticket than he would be to shoot you. Similarly, the chance you will be in a fatal auto accident going to work on Monday is higher than the chance you will be fatally shot on Monday.

So, legally you could have asked him to leave. That's your right as a non-gun owner. Being afraid to ask him to leave is not rational given the realities of the situation.

[Comatose Sphagetti]

39. Thanks for understanding my discomfort.

Legal or not, 2nd Amendment or not, training or not, law enforcement or not, charts and graphs or not, irrational or not;

Millions of us are uncomfortable with guns in our presence.

[Shamash]

47. Discomfort is not a reason for regulation, though

Otherwise the people "uncomfortable" with blacks at their swimming pool would have a point:



Fear is an emotion that comes from within. A wish for "freedom from fear of X" does not justify coercing the entire population of the United States, as some gun control advocates have wished. If it did, people with a "fear of heights" would have us all living in single story buildings (falling kills more people than assault rifles, after all).

I cannot overcome your fear. I can understand that you have it and that it is real and offer suggestions (and defer to your wishes in your home), but how you deal with it is ultimately at your end.

[Duckhunter935]

50. I would have no issues with it

That tells me he has has training, local, state and federal background checks and does not have a criminal history. Now try and check that out if he did not have a permit, do you really know anything about the TV guy you just let into your house.

Tell the truth now!

[Comatose Sphagetti]

32. Just me

Have an uncle-in-law. Great guy. PhD Psychologist. Deacon at his church. Very conservative. Concealed carries everywhere.
Hopes and prays he will be placed in a situation to defend himself or rescue a damsel in distress.
I find this strange. Do you?

[GGJohn]

33. Yes I do find that strange and stupid.

The vast majority of gun owners and CHL holders hope to hell that we're never put in that situation.

[gejohnston]

43. he needs to read this book

http://www.amazon.com/In-Gravest-Extreme-Personal-Protection/dp/0936279001

For example, you're walking down the street and someone insults you. Do you get into it with them, or just keep going? He explains that since you are carrying a firearm, it is your responsibility to avoid having to use it, if possible. So getting into an argument with some punk because he called you a name, which could escalate into something which might cause you to draw your weapon, must be avoided. Legally, it could be devastating.

Do I find it strange? Yeah. I don't carry even though my state doesn't even require a permit (other than backpacking or out in the sticks).
My question is, does your uncle in law tell you that to screw with your head or is he serious? Psychology degree, you know.......... Or he has a life mystery question that would be best left unanswered.
But, yeah strange. You know what they say about being careful what you ask for.

[Comatose Sphagetti]

36. Just me

Have two buddies with big-ass gun safes filled to the brim with long rifles, shotguns and pistols. Neither carry.
They are waiting for when the SHTF.
Both are out of shape 50-somethings, very conservative, angry and fear-driven.
I find this puzzling.

[gejohnston]

42. some people have too many shoes

Americans are materialistic and collect stuff. I know people who have a big assed safes full of guns, some with closets full of shoes, some with cameras, flashlights, whatever.
None of them I would describe as "angry or fear driven".
but to assume all gun owners or collectors, or even these two are representative is a logical fallacy.

[pablo_marmol]

45. Just curious...........

Now that a number of issues have been discussed with you that have nothing to do with the OP, do you have any input regarding said original post?

[Shamash]

48. Agreed

If someone comes into the OP with a general firearm question, I do not mind helping them out even if it is off-topic, but since you're here, perhaps you could be the first person to actually answer one of the questions?

[jimmy the one]

53. #1's false premises

shamash: .. an M1 carbine, a magazine-fed semi-auto rifle capable of using high-capacity magazines .. It has been available to civilians since 1945, and required no background check or license or even ID to purchase in an era (circa 1950) where the per capita firearm murder rate was the same or lower than it is today (circa 2010).

It is, arguably, the carbine to the m1 garand army rifle of wwII; the m1 carbine wasn't that effective at stopping Japanese soldiers, American GI's complaint was it took 3 shots where the m1 took one. So the carbine was short on stopping power.

shamash: Question: If you feel that this sort of weapon should be banned, list all other technologies freely available to civilians with no restriction in 1945 that you deem too dangerous to be allowed for any civilian to own today, despite there being no evidence of increased harm due to the civilian ownership of that technology?

You created two false dilemmas in #1, two faulty premises. First, you ignore the large BULGE in murder rates between 1950 & ~2010, as if there never was a doubling of murder rates & gun murder rates. Second, since circa early 1960's the current violent crime rate remains doubled, thus your contention that '..no evidence of increased harm due to the civilian ownership of that technology...' is dubious, & subject to scrutiny.

wiki, m1 carbine: The M1 carbine with its reduced-power .30 cartridge was not originally intended to serve as a primary weapon for combat infantrymen, nor was it comparable to more powerful rifles developed late in the war... Other soldiers and Marines engaged in frequent daily firefights (particularly in the Philippines) found the weapon to have insufficient stopping power and penetration. Reports of the carbine's failure to stop enemy soldiers, sometimes after multiple hits, appeared in individual after-action reports, postwar evaluations, and service histories of both the U.S. Army and the U.S. Marine Corps. Aware of these shortcomings, the U.S. Army.. continued to work on shortened versions of the M1 rifle throughout the war, though none was ever officially adopted.

[Shamash]

57. You've never been long on logic or intelligence

Which is why I had you on ignore, and will put you back on ignore after these two replies. I never thought I would see the day when I would long for stone space's company, but your reply almost reaches that threshold.

So feel free to avoid actually answering the questions or actually pinning yourself down to a position you can be referenced on, secure in the knowledge that I will neither see it nor respond to it again. Further replies will be left to those more able to tolerate your particular brand of inanity.

1) Does the weapon shown qualify as an "assault weapon" under NY or CT law? If so, then it is certainly fair to call it one for purposes of argument. If you wish to append your name to a statement saying that a semi-auto rifle with a 30 round magazine and a folding stock should not be banned, by all means do so.

2) The bulge in murder rates is irrelevant unless you can demonstrate that weapon availability was the reason for it. Since the weapon shown was available with no restriction (and could be ordered through the mail), and is an "assault weapon", it makes an admirable case for comparison to total bans on the weapon in multiple states. If on the other hand, other factors were responsible for the bulge in rates, well I guess that's where control efforts should go and you would not see a need for an assault weapon ban...



Looks to me like correlating easily available assault rifles and homicide rates gives you 15 years of no problems. However, I am not stupid enough to say there is a causal link between the two. How do you feel about a causal link between availability and murders? And hey, wasn't there as assault weapon ban in 1999 that apparently did absolutely nothing and a Brady Act in 1993 that did not seem to make any difference in an already declining murder rate? It's almost like correlating US gun laws and murder rates has a correlation of zero! Wait, it's exactly like that.

3) If you feel that this sort of weapon should be banned, you are arguing for banning a 60-year old piece of technology that was 1) once far more easy to acquire, and 2) had no evidence of correlation with harm because of that availability. It is not too much to ask if there is anything else you want to ban that meets those criteria. Manual transmissions? Nylon stockings? Steel-belted radials? Or do you just have an obsessive fear of guns?

[jimmy the one]

60. not quite right, shamash, not right at all

shamash: The bulge in murder rates is irrelevant unless you can demonstrate that weapon availability was the reason for it.

No, it is indeed relevant, since you contended this, & this is what I challenged:

sham contended: If you feel that this sort of weapon should be banned, list all other technologies freely available to civilians with no restriction in 1945 that you deem too dangerous to be allowed for any civilian to own today, despite there being no evidence of increased harm due to the civilian ownership of that technology?

There was evidence of increased harm, the BULGE in murder rates (& violent crime rates) which you ignored by taking the start & end points for your specious reasoning (as well as the doubling of the violent crime rate ~1960's - ~2014). You imply the technology is that of firearms. I do not argue the m1 carbine was instrumental in the increase of murder & violent crime rates - that would've been the relatively new technology called the semi-automatic handgun.

sham: .. wasn't there as assault weapon ban in 1999 that apparently did absolutely nothing and a Brady Act in 1993 that did not seem to make any difference in an already declining murder rate?

I've not heard of the 1999 awb, unless particular state; there was a fed awb 1994 - 2004.

You're not right either, about what happened from 1993 to 2004. Note how the murder rate 1990 to 1994 remained about parity, then after the brady bill & awb were enacted, murder rates & violent crime rates fell dramatically (tho the same time gun ownership rates fell dramatically too):

year .... pop ....... totalCR... violCR... propCR... murder RATES ALL
1985 238,740,000 5,207.1 556.6 4,650.5 8.0
1990 248,709,873 5,820.3 731.8 5,088.5 9.4
1991 252,177,000 5,897.8 758.1 5,139.7 9.8
1992 255,082,000 5,660.2 757.5 4,902.7 9.3
1993 257,908,000 5,484.4 746.8 4,737.7 9.5 brady bill
1994 260,341,000 5,373.5 713.6 4,660.0 9.0 awb
1995 262,755,000 5,274.9 684.5 4,591.3 8.2
1996 265,284,000 5,087.6 636.6 4,451.0 7.4
1997 267,637,000 4,927.3 611.0 4,316.3 6.8
1998 270,296,000 4,615.5 566.4 4,049.1 6.3
1999 272,690,813 4,266.5 523.0 3,743.6 5.7
2000 281,421,906 4,124.8 506.5 3,618.3 5.5
2001 285,317,559 4,162.6 504.5 3,658.1 5.6
2002 287,973,924 4,125.0 494.4 3,630.6 5.6
2003 290,690,788 4,067.0 475.8 3,591.2 5.7
2004 293,656,842 3,977.3 463.2 3,514.1 5.5 awb expires
2005 296,507,061 3,900.5 469.0 3,431.5 5.6
http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/uscrime.htm

[jimmy the one]

54. #4, specious reasoning exposed

#4 Here are some fatality rates per 100,000 people at risk in that category:
boy’s softball: 2.89 fatalities per 100,000 players
boy’s water polo: 1.06 fatalities per 100,000 players
boy’s gymnastics: .95 fatalities per 100,000 players
boy’s football: .81 fatalities per 100,000 players
boy’s lacrosse: .80 fatalities per 100,000 players
boy’s basketball: .76 fatalities per 100,000 players
boy’s ice hockey: .48 fatalities per 100,000 players
boy’s soccer: .45 fatalities per 100,000 players
boy’s high school cross-country: .36 fatalities per 100,000 players
firearm accidents, all children,: .15 fatalities per 100,000 children ages 5 - 19
Question: For any group of 100,000 boys, which is more likely to result in a fatal accident, having a gun in the house or letting them play school sports? ?

All of the sports are more likely to cause fatal accidents than a firearm in the house.
Followup, which is more likely to be used to commit suicide or homicide, those sports equipages, or a gun in the house?
You gloss over the far more overall fatalities when it comes to guns.

And what is this? you include 19 yr olds as 'children', shamash? your colleagues will call this a 'sham'. You also need include a time determinant, are those accident figs per year?

[jimmy the one]

55. specious casuistry

#6 shamash: Question: Is the American public clamoring for stricter gun control? Explain why or why not.

Accd'g to your gallup poll (one source), about half americans ARE for stricter gun control (47%), and gallup has had a biased right wing lean the past decade or so, it has been suggested;
.. more importantly for this forum, is the fact that democrats support stricter gun control by wide margins over republicans, around 70% of dems support stricter gun control. This is DU Underground, shamash, not NRA Propagunda-Land.

#7: A stranger calls you on the phone and asks if you have in your home a specific type of easily portable item with a high black market value.
Question: How do you answer, and does this answer reflect your prior statements about the significance of telephone polls about how many people own firearms?

The various polls allow for 'no answer' as well as for dishonesty; as well as incorporated in their margin of errors.

#9: The Supreme Court, the Democratic Party platform and President Obama have stated that firearms ownership is a “right”, and thus has the legal standing of anything else held as a “right”.

The 2nd amendment was a right all right, to serve in a militia. The supreme court ruled 5 - 4 for the individual rkba, with the 4 liberal justices ruling for the militia centric. The far rightwing bush administration precipitated the individual rkba ruling, for had gore been elected Roberts & alito might be arguing in district courts.

Overall, your 10 questions are a blend of specious casuistry.

[beevul]

56. "The 2nd amendment was a right all right, to serve in a militia."

The second amendment was NEVER anything more or anything less, than a restriction on governmental exercise of power, James.

Unless you can get that right, you really haven't any business throwing around labels such as "specious", unless they're directed at your own specious assertions, like the one I quoted.

[jimmy the one]

61. beev peeved

beevul: The second amendment was NEVER anything more or anything less, than a restriction on governmental exercise of power, James.

The bill of rights was both a restriction on congress & a guarantee:

Wm Rawle, 1829, A view of the constitution, all caps in link, not my emphasis: CHAPTER X. OF THE RESTRICTIONS ON THE POWERS OF CONGRESS — AND ON THE EXECUTIVE AND JUDICIAL AUTHORITIES — RESTRICTIONS ON THE POWERS OF STATES AND SECURITY TO THE RIGHTS OF INDIVIDUALS

Of the amendments already adopted, the eight first in order fall within the class of restrictions on the legislative power, some of which would have been implied, some are original, and all are highly valuable. Some are also to be considered as restrictions on the judicial power.
The constitutions of some of the states contain bills of rights; others do not. A declaration of rights, therefore, properly finds a place in the general Constitution, where it equalizes all and binds all. http://www.constitution.org/wr/rawle_10.htm

beevul: Unless you can get that right, you really haven't any business throwing around labels such as "specious", unless they're directed at your own specious assertions, like the one I quoted.

Why don't you go soak your head? you can get the egg off it.

[jimmy the one]

70. heimlich maneuver needed, quick

beevul: The second amendment was NEVER anything more or anything less, than a restriction on governmental exercise of power, James.

So I posted how Wm Rawle, nearly 200 years ago circa 1825-29, defined the bill of rights as both a restriction on congress as well as a guarantee of individual liberties; and here are some more rebuttals of beevul's remark above:

encyclopedia britannica: Bill of Rights, in the United States, the first 10 amendments to the U.S. Constitution, which were adopted as a single unit on Dec 15, 1791, and which constitute a collection of mutually reinforcing guarantees of individual rights and of limitations on federal and state governments. http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/503541/Bill-of-Rights

wiki: The Bill of Rights is the collective name for the first ten amendments to the United States Constitution. Proposed to assuage the fears of Anti-Federalists who had opposed Constitutional ratification, these amendments guarantee a number of personal freedoms, limit the government's power in judicial and other proceedings, and reserve some powers to the states and the public.

beevul: The second amendment was NEVER anything more or anything less, than a restriction on governmental exercise of power, James. Unless you can get that right, you really haven't any business throwing around labels such as "specious", unless they're directed at your own specious assertions, like the one I quoted.

Beevul's choking on his foot again. Heimlich maneuver needed.

[GGJohn]

71. You think you're being cute and sharp witted,

when in reality, you're not.

[jimmy the one]

77. my right to self defense, against slurs

ggjohn: You think you're being cute and sharp witted, when in reality, you're not.

So what? I defended myself against beevul's slur on character & his misconception about what a bill of rights consists of, and all you can do is harp on triviality about my posting style? Were I on your side you'd be backslapping & giggling about my style.
I have a right to defend myself from slander & lies perpetrated by hostile adversaries, & beevul is one of the most hostile I have on DU. You pro gun people who are so prone to cry 'self defense' yet you GG cannot recognize the verbal form when it is so apparent. Writing is amongst the mildest forms of 'combat', and the alternative to physical fight. We are obligated to remain civil, but can respond in kind to ad hominem & unwarranted character assassinations as is beevul's modus operandi.

What have you to say about the crux of my rebuttal? the slur beevul made to me: The second amendment was NEVER anything more or anything less, than a restriction on governmental exercise of power, James. Unless you can get that right, you really haven't any business throwing around labels such as "specious", unless they're directed at your own specious assertions, like the one I quoted.

Did beevul apologize or even acknowledge his error once he had been informed of it? No he didn't, he's even smirking & continuing his ad hominem on other threads, afraid to reappear on this one since the egg would drip from his face so much.
Tell me GG, since it is beevul who was wrong here, does that mean I now am entitled to use 'specious'? Why aren't you harping on beevul's errors & his faulty accusation that I was wrong?

You say I think I'm cute? .. there's only one mirror in my entire house, in the bathroom, don't care to look at myself except to shave, nor anyone else either for very long. I think you might be the one GG, who thinks he's 'cute'.

sarisatake: For once I have to agree with you .. The BoR guarantees of individual rights and of limitations on federal and state governments. The rights belong to individuals. They may be exercised collectively, such as individuals gathering to exercise their right of religious freedom or to peaceably assemble but the base right belongs to the individual.

Are you still reading GG? see how your colleague concurs I was right & beevul was at least not fully correct? in fact I was surprised beevul took the tack he did & disavowed any protection of rights etc.. if it were as beevul said wouldn't the bor have been a 'bill of restrictions'?

sarisatake: It says nothing about a "collective" right or enumeration of duties...

Thanks for the limited aforementioned support, but the 2ndA does indeed mention the 'collective' right by the militia clause; the individual 'right' was the right to belong to a well regulated militia, you cannot read into the 2ndA an individual right disconnected from militia service - it quickly became the law 6 months later via the 1792 militia act.

[sarisataka]

78. The individual right was to keep and bear arms

there was no "right" to belong to a militia. It was a duty to belong to the militia.

The militia act only clarifies this-

The Militia Act of 1792, Passed May 8, 1792, providing federal standards for the organization of the Militia.

I. Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, That each and every free able-bodied white male citizen of the respective States, resident therein, who is or shall be of age of eighteen years, and under the age of forty-five years (except as is herein after excepted) shall severally and respectively be enrolled in the militia, by the Captain or Commanding Officer of the company, within whose bounds such citizen shall reside, and that within twelve months after the passing of this Act.

later in section I-

That every citizen, so enrolled and notified, shall, within six months thereafter, provide himself with a good musket or firelock, a sufficient bayonet and belt, two spare flints, and a knapsack, a pouch, with a box therein, to contain not less than twenty four cartridges, suited to the bore of his musket or firelock, each cartridge to contain a proper quantity of powder and ball; or with a good rifle, knapsack, shot-pouch, and powder-horn, twenty balls suited to the bore of his rifle, and a quarter of a pound of powder; and shall appear so armed, accoutred and provided, when called out to exercise or into service, ...

Note that there is no option of participating in the first passage. Section II lists those exempt, Vice President, judges etc. from militia duty

Note in the second section the provision of arms is up to the individual. In addition when "called out to exercise or into service" they are to appear "so armed". There is nothing of armories, weapons being issued etc. the individuals are armed for militia duty. Also there is no restrictions on the use of such arms outside of militia duty.

Consider the history of the 1792 act. Near the end of 1791 the Western Confederacy of American Indians defeated the US Army at the Battle of Wabash inflicting >90% casualties. This occurred in present day Ohio, placing it near Pennsylvania, Virginia and Kentucky. As the Constitution provided for Congress to call out the militia there was a risk an effective hostile force could invade, doing serious damage before the militia could be summoned. The standing army had shown it was not up to the task of protecting the United States by itself.

The Act served the three part purpose of creating, organizing and giving the President authority to call the militia. All of this after the passage of the Second Amendment. There was hardly a right to belong to a "well regulated" militia at the passage as such did not exist.

Now take a step back and look at the entirety of the relationships

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed

The Militia Act comports perfectly with the Second Amendment:
-there was no single militia but a composite of militias run by the states with no common organization
-the US was bordered by hostile forces that could act faster than Congress could react
-the effectiveness of the Army was questionable
-the Militia Act sought to correct deficiencies by defining the militia, giving common organization and providing requirements for how it should be armed.

The individuals had the right of the people to keep and bear Arms for the purpose of A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State

As we have further codified the militia into the National Guard and the unorganized militia we do not expect each person to

provide himself with a good M-16A4, a sufficient bayonet and belt, and a knapsack, a pouch, with a box therein, to contain not less than 210 cartridges, suited to the M-16A4, each cartridge to contain a proper quantity of powder and ball;

(I placed the modern equivalent in bold)
I can live with that and that the NG stores such in an armory. It does not however abrogate that there is still an individual right to keep and bear arms just as we still have a militia duty- though it has not been enforced since the draft ended.

[jimmy the one]

81. 2ndA obsolete & worthless

sari: As we have further codified the militia into the National Guard and the unorganized militia we do not expect each person to provide himself with a good M-16A4, a sufficient bayonet and belt, and a knapsack, a pouch, with a box therein, to contain not less than 210 cartridges, suited to the M-16A4, each cartridge to contain a proper quantity of powder and ball;

Correct, the militia act of 1792 was superseded by the militia act of 1903 (iirc the date), so those requirements are obsolete.
There is no requirement whatsoever to belong to a well regulated citizen's militia, only the almost all encompassing unorganized militia (which is a joke), not at all what the 2ndA called for.

sari: I can live with that and that the NG stores such in an armory. It does not however abrogate that there is still an individual right to keep and bear arms just as we still have a militia duty- though it has not been enforced since the draft ended.

Strained reasoning. There is no longer any well regulated citizen's militia, thus there is no duty to belong to one. The UNorganized militia, by definition of 'unorganized' is not well regulated thus fails the 2ndA litmus test.
The militia act of 1792 is obsolete & superseded by the national guards being the well regulated militia. You must volunteer to join the National Guards, there is no duty to. The 2ndAmendment is obsolete & worthless as the militia act of 1792.
The duty to belong to a well regulated militia circa 1800 was considered somewhat synonymous with the right. 2ndA used 'right' while the 1792 militia act used 'duty'.

[beevul]

84. It still restricts government.

Get over it. Or don't.

[sarisataka]

88. Amendments do not become obsolete...

the first and only significant court decision based on the Third Amendment was Engblom v. Carey in 1979. It went unused for 192 years but was (and is) still valid.

The strained reasoning is that a right can be legislated out of existence. We can require a parade permit but cannot require such for every gathering of four or more people. That would override freedom of assembly and thus is unconstitutional.

That Congress has removed an active militia duty does not mean that it is magically gone. The 1903 Act defines militia duties. That is the regulation. The fact that it classifies the overwhelming majority as unorganized and imposes no further duty is a matter of Congress choosing not to exercise its authority. The militia still exists and is regulated to the satisfaction of the Government.

That all is moot however as the Amendment gives the right to the People. The 1792 Militia Act clearly reinforces the point that People meant individuals.

That you consider the unorganized militia to be "a joke" bears absolutely no weight until you get appointed to be a Federal judge and rule on a 2A case.

[jimmy the one]

89. intractables

sarisataka: Amendments do not become obsolete...

Sure they can. The 18th amendment (prohibition) became intractable, & thus quickly obsolete & repealed. The 12th amendment has had passages eliminated due being intractable & obsolete.
The 2nd amendment is intractable as well, due there being no well regulated citizen's militia, & the development of far more sophisticated firearms from when the 2ndA was written (predominantly single shot muzzle loading musketry).

sari: the first and only significant court decision based on the Third Amendment was Engblom v. Carey in 1979. It went unused for 192 years but was (and is) still valid.

It's still an obsolete amendment. The bizarre application in 1980 you note does not make it contemporary whatsoever. "No soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law."
... it cannot be denied that the Third Amendment is one that has outlived its purpose, as far as its application in modern times is concerned. The inclusion of the {3rdA} is directly associated with the time period in which it was written and has not been applied or enforced simply because the necessity has never arisen since then.
{3rdA} has little, if any, relevance or purpose today. However, in the early 1980s {it} was used in a court case regarding the housing of National Guard members that were employed during a strike by New York State correction officers. Many of the correction officers were evicted from their employee housing in order to accommodate the influx on the National Guard. The matter was brought to trial in the court case Engblom v. Carey, in which the courts deemed it that such action was protected by the {3rdA} because the National Guard is a military establishment and its members qualify as soldiers. This would be the first and last time the Third Amendment would be employed since the late 1700s. Even though the Amendment can be considered obsolete, it still is important as a major piece of legislation that existed to oppose tyranny and unjust treatment of American citizens. http://constitution.laws.com/american-history/constitution/constitutional-amendments/third-amendment

sari: That Congress has removed an active militia duty does not mean that it is magically gone. The 1903 Act defines militia duties. That is the regulation. The fact that it classifies the overwhelming majority as unorganized and imposes no further duty is a matter of Congress choosing not to exercise its authority. The militia still exists and is regulated to the satisfaction of the Government.

The US militia still exists only as unorganized & select, which was NOT what james Madison had in mind when he wrote the 2ndA as being for a 'well regulated militia' comprised of age eligible white male citizens. This is basis alone for the 2ndA to be obsolete, no citizens mililtia.

The UNorganized militia is indeed a JOKE, having 'organized' only once as an armed militia since 1903, months after pearl harbor when the call was answered only by ~5,000 citizens, largely wwI vets, who patrolled the west coast in fear of 'invasion hysteria', that the Japanese would invade down Alaska (or by sea!) to attack the US. They spotted a IJN (jap.) submarine off fort stevens Oregon but were so afraid of revealing their cannon position to the possible 'invasion', they lost a golden opportunity to sink the IJN sub.
This 'organizing' only once, for a year as an armed militia regiment (no more), as well makes the Unorganized mlitia outdated & obsolete. There is no obligation whatsoever, no meeting, no pay, no mobe point, nothing.
One of the main reasons the Unorg'd Militia does not get activated is the fear that hundreds to thousands of gathering gun owners with ar15s inter alia et al intermingled with gunnuts would be far more a dangerous hazard than a remedy to any ailment which might generally occur.

sari: That all is moot however as the Amendment gives the right to the People. The 1792 Militia Act clearly reinforces the point that People meant individuals.

Well this is simply the subjective gibberish that's been heard for a couple of centuries now.

[friendly_iconoclast]

90. "(S)ubjective gibberish"? I'll gladly stipulate your expertise on the subject...

[beevul]

79. Just for you, james.

So what? I defended myself against beevul's slur on character & his misconception about what a bill of rights consists of...

James the poor victim. Not.

You claim, as evidence of my "misconception" what other people wrote about the bill of rights. How others "define" the bill of rights.

That amounts to "because someone else said so after the fact" at best.

Lets just put this to bed shall we?


I wrote this:

The second amendment was NEVER anything more or anything less, than a restriction on governmental exercise of power, James. Unless you can get that right, you really haven't any business throwing around labels such as "specious", unless they're directed at your own specious assertions, like the one I quoted.


My evidence, is this:

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

In case you're unaware, that's the preamble to the bill of rights. Written by the framers themselves. Not some observers characterizarion or "definition" after the fact.

Just because the restrictions on governmental exercise of power happen to protect rights, that does not change the fundamental nature of the bill of rights, as described right there in the preamble.

So what you do when confronted by this fact, is spin, bluster, falsely accuse, muddy the waters, appeal to authority, deliberately attempt to communicate poorly by gaming the reply system when it suits you, and a few other less than credible things I'm quite certain I'm leaving out.

Please, ask me to cite examples.

Thanks for the limited aforementioned support, but the 2ndA does indeed mention the 'collective' right by the militia clause; the individual 'right' was the right to belong to a well regulated militia, you cannot read into the 2ndA an individual right disconnected from militia service - it quickly became the law 6 months later via the 1792 militia act.

First, any notion that the framers would have protected ONLY militia members rights to keep and bear after just being at war with a country among whos first steps were to try and disarm the colonists, is absurd on its face.

Second, the amendment restricting government, says very plainly that the right belongs to the people, not "the militia".

And third, the amendment itself, is a blanket restriction on government power. It has no exceptions written into it of any kind, that would reduce its applicability as a restriction on government power to cases only where the militia was involved. Oh, I understand that you're trying to read exactly such an exception into it, but you fail.

[jimmy the one]

82. most firearms belonged to british 1775

beevul/bor preamble: 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:

See that little 3 letter word 'and' between declaratory & restrictive? hoist on your own petard, agayne.

beevul: ..any notion that the framers would have protected ONLY militia members rights to keep and bear after just being at war with a country among whos first steps were to try and disarm the colonists, is absurd on its face.

The british tried to confiscate arms ammo powder & cannon from washington's armories ie concord & from surrendered soldiers, generally not muskets from colonists/citizens. Actually, the firearms the colonists had in 1775/6 were largely what the british had given them, so perhaps only reneging on their gifts. Only about a third of the male citizens in american 1776 supported washington, the others neutral or for george the third.

beevul: You claim, as evidence of my "misconception" what other people wrote about the bill of rights. How others "define" the bill of rights. That amounts to "because someone else said so after the fact" at best.

The 'someone' you refer to consist of better knowledgeable people than you ever will be on the subject:
William Rawle, 1825,1829 A View of the Constitution
Encyclopedia Britannica, and, well wiki, tho it's the weakest link I concede.

Rawle clearly differentiates between 'restrictions on the powers of congress' and a 'bill of rights' as being security to the rights of individuals. That they intertwine does not prove your point.
Wm Rawle, 1829, A view of the constitution, all caps in link, not my emphasis: CHAPTER X. OF THE RESTRICTIONS ON THE POWERS OF CONGRESS — AND ON THE EXECUTIVE AND JUDICIAL AUTHORITIES — RESTRICTIONS ON THE POWERS OF STATES AND SECURITY TO THE RIGHTS OF INDIVIDUALS
Of the amendments already adopted, the eight first in order fall within the class of restrictions on the legislative power, some of which would have been implied, some are original, and all are highly valuable. Some are also to be considered as restrictions on the judicial power.
The constitutions of some of the states contain bills of rights; others do not. A declaration of rights, therefore, properly finds a place in the general Constitution, where it equalizes all and binds all. http://www.constitution.org/wr/rawle_10.htm

encyclopedia britannica: Bill of Rights, in the United States, the first 10 amendments to the U.S. Constitution, which were adopted as a single unit on Dec 15, 1791, and which constitute a collection of mutually reinforcing guarantees of individual rights and of limitations on federal and state governments. http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/503541/Bill-of-Rights

wiki: The Bill of Rights is the collective name for the first ten amendments to the Constitution. Proposed to assuage the fears of Anti-Federalists who had opposed Constitutional ratification, these amendments guarantee a number of personal freedoms, limit the government's power in judicial and other proceedings, and reserve some powers to the states and the public.

beevul: The second amendment was NEVER anything more or anything less, than a restriction on governmental exercise of power, James. Unless you can get that right, you really haven't any business throwing around labels such as "specious", unless they're directed at your own specious assertions, like the one I quoted.

I'll take Wm Rawle & Encyclopedia Britannica's word for it over yours any day.

[beevul]

83. What a joke.

See that little 3 letter word 'and' between declaratory & restrictive? hoist on your own petard, agayne.

And your point is?

Amendment 2 is a restrictive clause against government. Shall not be infringed. By Whom? by government, of course.

The british tried to confiscate arms ammo powder & cannon from washington's armories ie concord & from surrendered soldiers, generally not muskets from colonists/citizens. Actually, the firearms the colonists had in 1775/6 were largely what the british had given them, so perhaps only reneging on their gifts. Only about a third of the male citizens in american 1776 supported washington, the others neutral or for george the third.

Let me see, what was it I said that you do when confronted by uncomfortable fact? Ahh yes, it was "spin, bluster, falsely accuse, muddy the waters, appeal to authority, deliberately attempt to communicate poorly by gaming the reply system when it suits you, and a few other less than credible things I'm quite certain I'm leaving out."

You didn't have to go in the order I listed them, how efficient of you. "perhaps only reneging on their gift". Spin. Check. Bluster. Check.

The 'someone' you refer to consist of better knowledgeable people than you ever will be on the subject:
William Rawle, 1825,1829 A View of the Constitution
Encyclopedia Britannica, and, well wiki, tho it's the weakest link I concede.

Unless you assert that your source knows better than the framers themselves, "weak" is not applicable.

Impotent is. Much like the movement your do this in support of.

Rawle clearly differentiates between 'restrictions on the powers of congress' and a 'bill of rights' as being security to the rights of individuals. That they intertwine does not prove your point.
Wm Rawle, 1829, A view of the constitution, all caps in link, not my emphasis: CHAPTER X. OF THE RESTRICTIONS ON THE POWERS OF CONGRESS — AND ON THE EXECUTIVE AND JUDICIAL AUTHORITIES — RESTRICTIONS ON THE POWERS OF STATES AND SECURITY TO THE RIGHTS OF INDIVIDUALS
Of the amendments already adopted, the eight first in order fall within the class of restrictions on the legislative power, some of which would have been implied, some are original, and all are highly valuable. Some are also to be considered as restrictions on the judicial power.
The constitutions of some of the states contain bills of rights; others do not. A declaration of rights, therefore, properly finds a place in the general Constitution, where it equalizes all and binds all.

Appeal to authority while ignoring the authors of the text in question. Check.

encyclopedia britannica: Bill of Rights, in the United States, the first 10 amendments to the U.S. Constitution, which were adopted as a single unit on Dec 15, 1791, and which constitute a collection of mutually reinforcing guarantees of individual rights and of limitations on federal and state governments.

Appeal to authority while ignoring the authors of the text in question. Check.

You may wish to bump your rhetoric needle. Its skipping james.

I'll take Wm Rawle & Encyclopedia Britannica's word for it over yours any day.

yes, and I'll take the words the framers themselves penned into law in the founding documents themselves, over your spin, bluster, false accusations, muddying the waters, appeals to authority, deliberate attempts to communicate poorly by gaming the reply system when it suits you, and a few other less than credible things I'm quite certain I'm leaving out.

Bless your soul.

[jimmy the one]

85. where it all began

beevul: Amendment 2 is a restrictive clause against government. Shall not be infringed. By Whom? by government, of course.

As well as being an individual right (aka duty) to belong to a well regulated militia.
Whee, we're back where it all began (allman brothers) several posts ago.

[beevul]

86. Heres where your problem lies james.

Amendment 2 authorizes NOTHING.

It there fore can not "authorize" or "grant" a "right to belong to the militia".

Not to mention, that the OTHER document, the constitution not the bill of rights, already contains language authorizing the militia.

Nice try though. Not.

[sarisataka]

73. For once I have to agree with you

The BoR

guarantees of individual rights and of limitations on federal and state governments.

The rights belong to individuals. They may be exercised collectively, such as individuals gathering to exercise their right of religious freedom or to peaceably assemble but the base right belongs to the individual.

It says nothing about a "collective" right or enumeration of duties...

[Shamash]

58. More lack of logic on your part

Regarding #6:
This is United States-land. The votes of everyone count. If you wish to exist solely in an anti-gun echo chamber where you cannot hear from the 30% of Democrats who own guns, then I suggest you stop visiting here. Flamin lib is lonely over at GCRA and could use the support.

If you can show where these questions have used any source or study done by or funded by the NRA or any gun advocacy group, please do so.

You can also check the same question done by Pew, Quinnipiac and Nate Silver's fivethirtyeight.com. Unless all three of those are right wing as well.

Saying "so it has been suggested" regarding Gallup as right-wing is not demonstrating that it is right wing. After all, would anything I suggest about you be automatically counted as true by a DU audience? Would that it were so... Also, would your own DU record ever show you as supporting the results of a Gallup poll? Oh wait, that's a perfect introduction for #7!

Regarding #7:
Which is where you defend the accuracy of a Gallup poll after you just tried to tear down their credibility. I guess it is just coincidence that the poll you considered credible is one that matches your biases and the one that you think is faulty does not. It must suck to be you.

Regarding #9:
You are welcome to elaborate on any part of the historical record from the ratification of the Constitution until the present day, when the official stance of the United States government was that the 2nd Amendment only applied to those serving in an official militia. Then show for how many years out of that interval this stance applied. Then get back to me with the validity of your militia interpretation.

And FYI:
"The Supreme Court did hold that there is in the Second Amendment an individual right to bear arms. And that is its holding and that is the court's decision. I fully accept that." - Sonia Sotomayor

“There is no question, after Heller, that the Second Amendment guarantees Americans ‘the individual right to possess and carry weapons in case of confrontation.’” - Elena Kagan

Overall, your answers or more particularly your lack of them, are about what I would expect from you. Goodbye.

[jimmy the one]

59. shamash's sham

shamash: Regarding #7: Which is where you defend the accuracy of a Gallup poll after you just tried to tear down their credibility

No I didn't, it's just specious you again. What I wrote: The various polls allow for 'no answer' as well as for dishonesty; as well as incorporated in their margin of errors.

I was not defending the accuracy of gallup there, I was saying they & other polls had an incorporated allowance for 'no answers' & dishonesty; ... borrow icon's 'Statistics for Dummys'.

sham: Regarding #9: You are welcome to elaborate on any part of the historical record from the ratification of the Constitution until the present day, when the official stance of the {US} government was that the 2nd Amendment only applied to those serving in an official militia.

1939 supreme court, miller, UNANIMOUS 8-0 ruling: The Constitution, as originally adopted, granted to the Congress power --To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions; To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress.
With obvious purpose to assure the continuation and render possible the effectiveness of such forces, the declaration and guarantee of the Second Amendment were made. It must be interpreted and applied with that end in view.

sham: And FYI: "The Supreme Court did hold that there is in the Second Amendment an individual right to bear arms. And that is its holding and that is the court's decision. I fully accept that." - Sonia Sotomayor
“There is no question, after Heller, that the Second Amendment guarantees Americans ‘the individual right to possess and carry weapons in case of confrontation.’” - Elena Kagan

They are obligated now to accept the decision, even tho they were in the dissenting view. Doesn't mean that they need hold to that view if the 2nd amendment interpretation concern reappears on a future supreme court agenda.

sham: If you wish to exist solely in an anti-gun echo chamber where you cannot hear from the 30% of Democrats who own guns, then I suggest you stop visiting here.

I'll visit here when I please, this is not your personal gun board. You create another false premise, that the 30% of dems who own guns, buy into your far right garbage. Only a few percent of those 30%, do.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

64. The militia argument again?

when the official stance of the {US} government was that the 2nd Amendment only applied to those serving in an official militia.

Per Title 10 USC all able bodied males 17 to 45 are part of the unorganized militia as are all able bodied females to 45 who have prior military service.

[DonP]

67. Don't hold your breath ...

... waiting for a "credible citation" to any case law showing that it only applies to the "militia".

The "Militiaites" here have all graduated from the "Everyone knows what it really means" law school.

Hence, it's not necessary to show any actual cases where SCOTUS ever actually ruled that way. They tend to point ignorantly to the Miller case, as if a one sided argument on whether a sawed off shotgun is a military weapon somehow proves their point.

[jimmy the one]

68. the unorganized donP

donP: Don't hold your breath ... waiting for a "credible citation" to any case law showing that it only applies to the "militia".

Did you miss my post 59? a few posts prior to yours?

1939 supreme court, miller, UNANIMOUS 8-0 ruling: The Constitution, as originally adopted, granted to the Congress power --To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions; To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress.
With obvious purpose to assure the continuation and render possible the effectiveness of such forces, the declaration and guarantee of the Second Amendment were made. It must be interpreted and applied with that end in view.

donP: Hence, it's not necessary to show any actual cases where SCOTUS ever actually ruled that way. They tend to point ignorantly to the Miller case, as if a one sided argument on whether a sawed off shotgun is a military weapon somehow proves their point.

1939 supreme court, miller, UNANIMOUS 8-0 ruling: With obvious purpose to assure the continuation and render possible the effectiveness of such {MILITIA} forces, the declaration and guarantee of the Second Amendment were made. It must be interpreted and applied with that end in view.

nuc uni: Per Title 10 USC all able bodied males 17 to 45 are part of the unorganized militia as are all able bodied females to 45 who have prior military service.

How many times do I need tell you this before it sinks in? the 'unorganized' militia is not protected under the 2nd amendment, which CLEARLY refers to a 'well regulated' militia.
An Unorganized militia, by definition of unorganized, is NOT well regulated.
I've elucidated you on this before, then you clammed up, only to reappear a few months later & pipe up with more gibberish about the unorganized militia.

How old are you? are you still in the Unorganized militia (UM)? or are you 'retired'? where are you serving? where do you meet for UM drills? what's your pay grade? where's your mobilization point? what's your rating? who's your commanding officer? Ha.
The UNorganized militia, is a JOKE.

[DonP]

69. As usual - ignorance on the half shell

And here comes ignorance with a capital I, right on schedule.

"They tend to point ignorantly to the Miller case, as if a one sided argument on whether a sawed off shotgun is a military weapon somehow proves their point."

And here you are pointing ignorantly and jumping up and down all excited as if it matters.

Getting an 8-0 decision in Miller, when there is no legal representation on one side of the case and the plaintiff is dead, doesn't really create a mandate or binding legal precedent. And including your (parenthetical) editorial comments doesn't really make the case any more pertinent or relevant Jimmy.

If Miller was really the controlling legal opinion your sort think it is, why hasn't it been cited in any cases in the past decade or so? In any event, Heller and McDonald have now superceded previous court decisions, whether you and your merry band of pranksters think they have or not.

Heller - Individual right to own and bear arms

McDonald - Incorporated the 2nd amendment

Now stop making yourself look as ill informed as most of us think you are.

[jimmy the one]

72. emerson miller catalysts

donP: Getting an 8-0 decision in Miller, when there is no legal representation on one side of the case and the plaintiff is dead, doesn't really create a mandate or binding legal precedent.

You don't make much sense overall. Miller crossing state lines w sg was the catalyst behind the 1939 scotus ruling, just as emerson was the catalyst behind the 2008 heller decision. Neither miller nor emerson were sterling characters deserving of anything but a little jail or fines. They became catalysts for the supreme court involvements. There are thousands of cases like petty criminals emerson & miller which have occurred. That miller died is irrelevant to the 1939 scotus opinion I provided. Had emerson died during the heller trial, nothing would've changed.

Emerson was indicted for possession of a firearm while being under a restraining order .. Timothy Emerson moves to dismiss the Indictment against him - an unconstitutional exercise of congressional power under the Second Amendment.. 1998, Emerson's wife, Sacha, filed a petition for divorce and application for a temporary restraining Mrs. Emerson alleged that her husband threatened over the telephone to kill the man with whom Mrs. Emerson had been having an adulterous affair ..

donP: If Miller was really the controlling legal opinion your sort think it is, why hasn't it been cited in any cases in the past decade or so?

Duh, it's been superceded, duh. Dumb question.

donP: And including your (parenthetical) editorial comments doesn't really make the case any more pertinent or relevant Jimmy

Duh, wake up & get some coffee. You & shamash I believe both asked for examples of an official rendering of the militia interpretation, & here it is again:

1939 supreme court, miller, UNANIMOUS 8-0 ruling: The Constitution, as originally adopted, granted to the Congress power --To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions; To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress.
With obvious purpose to assure the continuation and render possible the effectiveness of such {militia} forces, the declaration and guarantee of the Second Amendment were made. It must be interpreted and applied with that end in view.

Now provide one, prior to circa 21st century, that spelled out an individual rkba.

[friendly_iconoclast]

74. "Now provide one..." Consider the word 'moot', James.

In this case, it means that Miller is now as relevant to modern jurisprudence as
Dred Scott v. Sandford, Plessy v. Ferguson, and random ex cathedra
pronouncements of retired Supreme Court justices are...

[DonP]

76. Ain't it interesting how they cling to obsolete interpretations?

There's a word for people that cling desperately to outmoded political concepts and old judicial decisions.

It just slips my mind right now. Starts with a "C" I think? I'm sure I'll think of it later.

They keep citing old pre-empted cases and the dissenting opinions on Heller and McDonald, as if they mattered in the least how the majority decision is enforced. Dissenting Opinion = Losers.

But when you are a multi-time loser on a decided issue and none of your ideas ever see the light of day, whining online is your last pathetic refuge.

At least it's here in the Gungeon, where people might actually see it and revel in the obvious silliness, instead of being buried in Bansalot.

[Duckhunter935]

80. Does anyone even post over there anymore?

[beevul]

87. Apparently.

Although the things posted over there remind me of reruns of...the brady bunch.



Similar to those music stations that let a recording play all weekend on holiday weekends, when theres not really actually much of anyone there...

[hack89]

65. The 2A protects a individual right according to the Democratic Party platform

As a good Democrat that is good enough for me.

[friendly_iconoclast]

75. Some Palin-level 'legal scholars' seem to have a problem with that...