What if you a had a do-over?

[digonswine]

Suppose that guns had not proliferated to the degree that they have. Suppose that the U.S. had few guns and that they were licensed from the get-go. Suppose that the (understandable) argument for private ownership of guns--that every fuckwit has them and I have the right to protect myself(I agree)--was not applicable. SUPPOSE that is the case today. What limits-and I am talking to gun-owners-would you think proper? I personally would love to see a less armed populace. I know the genie is out of the bottle. BUT--some people speak of gun ownership as if it is some human right, rather than, as I see it, a necessary evil. I disagree with that. What are your thoughts? By the way-being the dink I am and due to my schedule-my responses may take a bit!

[ileus]

1. I'd like everyone to realize the second as a basic civil right...

[digonswine]

2. Can you elaborate?

Why is this one thing-specifically-a civil right? I support the ownership of guns-I would be hypocrite not to-BUT--I don't necessarily feel it is a basic civil right.

[tortoise1956]

3. As I understand it,

The entire Bill of Rights is considered to Be a list of civil rights, in the following sense:

The political, social, and economic rights that each citizen has by virtue of simply being a citizen, and which are usually upheld by law. The meaning of the phrase is shaded by its commonest reference: to the civil rights of ethnic minorities in the United States. In this and similar usages, there is at least as much stress on the rights of a (minority) group as on the rights of the individual.

Nevertheless the phrase is older and more general than the American Civil War. Any state which gives constitutional or legal guarantees to its citizens confers civil rights. However, constitutions sometimes state rights without giving the citizen any means of enforcing them against the state. In the French Revolution for instance, the Declaration of the Rights of Man and the Citizen (1789) was modelled on contemporary American attempts to guarantee certain individual freedoms, which appear in the US Constitution (1787) and its first ten amendments, collectively known as the bill of rights (1791). The French Declaration remains in force in that it was incorporated into the preamble to the constitutions of the Fourth and Fifth Republics. However, French practice, unlike American, gives the citizen no legal channel to claim the rights guaranteed in 1789.

Excerpt from the Oxford Dictionary of Politics at the link below:

http://www.answers.com/topic/civil-rights

If I had a do-over, I'm not sure I would change all that much. Even though guns are used to commit many violent acts, I still believe that the ability of our citizens to own a firearm does act as a deterrent to those who would prefer to have absolute power over us.

The best method of changing this is to amend the Constitution. I don't think that the American public is in favor of taking this drastic a step. However, I must admit that I have never seen a poll asking this particular question. Anybody have more info on this?

[digonswine]

5. I want to know what you-YOU-a person- thinks is reasonable and what is not-

I am not talking about how to change gun laws-that is why it was a hypothetical. I disagree with the assertion that owning a firearm deters those that would want absolute power over us.

[tortoise1956]

8. Ok, maybe this is better.

I believe that gun ownership is a basic individual civil right. I see no reason to take that right away, even if it makes a segment of the population uncomfortable or afraid.

[digonswine]

10. I would not take it away either-

Thank you for the response. If we lived in a society where carrying a weapon caused an undue risk of danger to those around us and provided us with little improved personal safety, I think many would feel differently. I simply do not see carrying as a "basic civil right". I see it as a "right" and a necessary one for some. Can you tell me why you feel it is a basic individual civil right? (this is a request-not a demand)

[tortoise1956]

13. I believe that all people have a right to defend themselves from harm.

In other words, the right of self-defense. This right was formally recognized as far back as 1689 (The British Bill of Rights):

Link - http://www.buzzle.com/articles/british-bill-of-rights-1689.html

However, the right of self-defense is considered to be a natural right as noted below:

The historical link between the English Bill of Rights and the Second Amendment, which both codify an existing right and do not create a new one, has been acknowledged by the U.S. Supreme Court.<14><15>

The English Bill of Rights includes the proviso that arms must be as "allowed by law." This has been the case before and after the passage of the Bill. While it did not override earlier restrictions on the ownership of guns for hunting, it was written to preserve the hunting rights of the landed aristocracy and is subject to the parliamentary right to implicitly or explicitly repeal earlier enactments.<16> There is some difference of opinion as to how revolutionary the events of 1688-89 actually were, and several commentators make the point that the provisions of the English Bill of Rights did not represent new laws, but rather stated existing rights. Mark Thompson wrote that, apart from determining the succession, the English Bill of Rights did "little more than set forth certain points of existing laws and simply secured to Englishmen the rights of which they were already posessed ."<17> Before and after the English Bill of Rights, the government could always disarm any individual or class of individuals it considered dangerous to the peace of the realm.<18> In 1765, William Blackstone wrote the Commentaries on the Laws of England describing the right to have arms in England during the 18th century as a natural right of the subject that was "also declared" in the English Bill of Rights.<19><20>

The fifth and last auxiliary right of the subject, that I shall at present mention, is that of having arms for their defence, suitable to their condition and degree, and such as are allowed by law. Which is also declared by the same statute I W. & M. st.2. c.2. and is indeed a public allowance, under due restrictions, of the natural right of resistance and self-preservation, when the sanctions of society and laws are found insufficient to restrain the violence of oppression.<21>

Link - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution

During the civil rights struggle in this country, one of the leaders of the movement, Robert F. Williams, specifically addressed the need to be armed:

Robert Williams was a proponent of “armed self-reliance” who in 1957 organized a community in armed defense against the Ku Klux Klan in North Carolina. Williams also used and approved of nonviolent resistance, but he believed that “a man cannot have human dignity if he allows himself to be abused; to be kicked and beaten to the ground, to allow his wife and children to be attacked, refusing to defend them on the basis that he’s so pious, so self-righteous, that it would demean his personality if he fought back” (Williams, 1962).

Link - http://www.civilrightsteaching.org/Handouts/UnderstandingSelf-Defense.pdf

This is the basis for my belief that the Second Amendment is simply expressing a natural right. I call it a civil right using this definition:

civil rights
pl.n.
The rights belonging to an individual by virtue of citizenship, especially the fundamental freedoms and privileges guaranteed by the 13th and 14th Amendments to the U.S. Constitution and by subsequent acts of Congress, including civil liberties, due process, equal protection of the laws, and freedom from discrimination.

I think the confusion on what a civil right is, stems from the fact that the term civil rights has been generally applied to the Civil Rights movement. However in its most basic form the definition applies to ALL nonpolitical rights that come with being a citizen, as noted in the first section of the definition above.

I hope this explains my position. If you have any questions, or if something is still unclear, let me know.

[PavePusher]

21. Self-defense, defense of family, community and nation are all basic Rights.

Access to effective tools for accomplishing those tasks is a corollary to the Right.

[iverglas]

35. trying to get the gun afficionados to stick to a subject and answer a question

instead of spewing forth some prepared script about something that has nothing to do with anything ......... good luck!

[SteveM]

36. Here is my take:

(1) There should be state laws governing minimum age for purchase of firearms (handguns & long guns would have diff. ages);
(2) There should be state/federal laws preventing purchase of firearms by felons & adjudicated mental incompetents; and
(3) No infringement on a citizen's right to keep and bear arms; states may reasonably regulate the manner of bearing arms.

_____________________

As to your views on firearm deterrence, I do not believe a firearm will guarantee deterrence of a government entity with a monopoly on violence, or a thug with a deadly weapon. (Here, I see "deterrence" as causing an entity or individual to change its policy or mind when contemplating a choice to wield "absolute power over us.") Firearms may, however, provide considerable power to the citizen to defend him/herself from an actual attack. This is self-defense, however, and not social policy based on deterrent effect.

[ileus]

4. you have to be able to preserve your person before any other right matters.

It's your job to assure your life safety...your #2 job is to assure the safety of your family.

[digonswine]

6. OK-but I was talking of a do-over in the OP-

I think-I think- that including a loaded or loadable gun in your list of possessions, in a society not already saturated with guns, would decrease the safety of a family. I am not talking of a gun you use for game, though, those also come with a risk. The idea was---What if you were not threatened in a real way by others with guns? Would this change, in any way, how you feel about gun rights?

[AtheistCrusader]

14. Defense against individuals with guns is not the only reason for using a gun in self defense.

In fact, IIRC the justice department numbers, only about 14% of lawful defensive gun uses were against people with firearms.

[ileus]

17. Nope....criminals come in may flavors with many weapons.

[SteveM]

37. Agreed. nt

[PavePusher]

22. "...would decrease the safety of a family."

If so, the statistical risk is incredibly small, and greatly overshadowed by many other risks. Or so the CDC stats indicate.

[gejohnston]

7. a civil or individual right

But to answer your larger question, I seriously doubt our crime problem would be that much different if at all. Most of our problems have more to do with the war on drugs.
The European countries and Canada had equally low violent crime rates since before their gun laws started being enacted post WW1. Our most violent cities have stricter laws than most of Europe. Most if not all of the countries that have higher violent or murder rates than we do all have stricter gun laws.
Something else western Europe has that we don't
affordable health care
well funded public school systems. While we talk about how we value education etc. They put their money where their mouth is
many have free higher education, which provides higher social mobility and no student loan debt
no making the the rest of us paying for the banksters ripping us off
much lower income disparity
That is before we get to the more subtle cultural and historical issues.

[digonswine]

9. I agree with you completely-

I was not asking about causes of crime rates. I was wondering about others' philosophies regarding the nature of gun rights to the individual. If you feel it is a civil right-can you tell me why? That is why the hypothetical was a non-gun-ownership society. Suppose it was NOT necessary to defend one's self and others against gun-toting ne'er do wells? Would you still consider it such a right?

[gejohnston]

11. There are knife toting ne'er do wells

hand wielding ne'er do wells that are a hell of a lot bigger than I am. Look at Russia, little to no gun violence, or guns in private hands, but have a murder rate almost four times ours. Like I said in another post, the only two examples of gun violence that ever remotely touched me was a kid I went to school with who shot his step father. Step dad was a violent drunk and was in the process of beating the mom, possibly to death. The county DA called it justifiable and never touched it. The other was a suicide that would have happened anyway, the gun used was his service revolver. His only gun violence experience (not self inflicted) was answering a radio call to a rare (for that place) armed robbery. Even that had an nonviolent ending since the robber surrendered.
When I compare that to the number of relatives and classmates that died to cars and drugs, you get the picture.
I don't carry. Where I grew up, it was kind of a multi cultural Mayberry most people had guns but probably never kept them loaded, we didn't other than the cop relatives. But then, we really didn't lock our doors either.
Before the 24 hour news and it bleeds it leads, most gun ownership was sporting. Probably still is.
If in your perfect world, restraining orders were worth at least as much as the paper they were written on, we could cure sociopaths, etc. I guess then it would be more like Switzerland or even Finland were kids ride their bikes to the range, people carry their rifles on bicycles during the shooting fest. In short, noisy archery.
Would I still consider it a right? Yes, since there would be no over riding social or state interest.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

12. My two cents:

In the Declaration, some basic rights are listed, life in particular. It is my position that having a right to life implies justification for obtaining and preparing the use of means to preserve and protect that life. Any plan to accomplish anything consists of three things: tasks, resources to accomplish those tasks and a schedule. One of the first tasks should generally be to look at the overall situation and perform a safety assessment.

I can entirely accept that by virtue of that assessment some would feel no need whatever to be armed. I can entirely accept that others would acquire a number of firearms. Choosing the best tool for the job part of freedom. Some of us may be fine with an $9 hammer and others will spend a bunch more on an electric nail gun. Freedom is sensitive to each individual's priorities and perceptions.

I could not feel good about an arbitrary or capricious denial of freedom. Laws for gun-control face a the rightful uphill battle of justifying why they should exist here, in a society that puts individual sovereignty above collective benefit.

[Kennah]

15. The genie is out of the bottle, but not for the reason you think.

The genie came out of the bottle when some began to preach prohibition. There has been licensing and restrictions on guns, including outright bans on carrying, for a very long time. People just accepted it. People probably would have continued to accept more and more aggressive licensing.

Prohibition and bans are what awoke the dragon. The Coalition to Stop Gun Violence was founded as the National Coalition to Ban Handguns. Pete Shields, one of the founders of Handgun Control Inc., now the Brady Campaign and Brady Center, said in 1976 they wanted registration, then confiscation. Today I know of no national gun control group preaching a ban on handguns. I think most everyone knows that's the goal, but it's just not smart politics to say it aloud.

[Remmah2]

16. It's not the guns.

It's the criminals.

Self defense is a human right.

Self preservation is a human instinct.

[Hoyt]

20. There are a lot of human instincts that ain't "right."

[PavePusher]

23. Wow.

You just equated the instinct for survival to be "ain't 'right'".

Holy shit-fire....

[spin]

24. A question ...

If you are attacked by a person who intends to severely injure or kill you, what do you plan to do?

[Hoyt]

26. Whatever is necessary -- although the odds are so friggin low, you are wasting your time obsessing.

Now, if you are messing with another man's women, doing drug deals in back alleys, gambling with criminals, selling guns to folks you don't know, and the like -- your odds may increase. But, rather than strapping a few guns on, I'd change behavior.

[rrneck]

34. Low for you.

The fact that you can't see beyond your own bigoted personal preferences leaves embarrassing holes in your opinion.

[slackmaster]

18. Sorry, but without any coffee in my system your fantasy makes me think of just one thing...

http://www.non-violent.com/

[Tuesday Afternoon]

19. What if wishes were fast trains?

Wouldn't we all take a ride :shrug:

[rrneck]

33. Heh. Never heard that one. nt

[Ready4Change]

25. Accepting all the 'what-ifs' you present.

I think it would create a world where criminals would do anything in their power to get a gun, because that would give them great leverage over the largely unarmed populace. A black market for the creation and distribution of guns to criminals would spring into existence, just as prohibition of drugs has not only fueled illegal drug importation but domestic production as well. Soon criminals would be just as armed as they are today, but law abiding citizens would be far more at their mercy (or lack thereof.)

So, in such a world, given the conditions it would create, I'd be for the relaxing of gun controls for law abiding citizens in good standing. (Ie: non-felons.)

[We_Have_A_Problem]

27. If they had not....

...it would be virtually impossible to consider the type of world in which we would now live. I, for one, do not think it would be for the better as we would likely still be living in a feudal society confined to a relatively small portion of the world.

[S_B_Jackson]

28. And suppose that if a frog had wings, he wouldn't bump his ass when he jumped.....

The right to defend oneself IS a civil liberty. The right to possess/own the most expedient tool for that purpose is, likewise, a fundamental right.

[benEzra]

29. In other words, what if U.S. gun laws were like U.S. drug laws?

Then cartels could manufacture guns clandestinely and smuggle them into the country disguised as routine cocaine shipments. :eyes:

[DissedByBush]

30. What if there were no hypothetical questions? n/t

[Atypical Liberal]

31. Of course people should have access to firearms.

What limits-and I am talking to gun-owners-would you think proper? I personally would love to see a less armed populace. I know the genie is out of the bottle. BUT--some people speak of gun ownership as if it is some human right, rather than, as I see it, a necessary evil. I disagree with that. What are your thoughts?

Everyone has the right to use deadly force to defend themselves from violent aggression and oppression. I believe people even have the ability to use deadly force to defend their property from those who would steal it from them.

Firearms are the tool best suited to that task.

Without firearms, every victim of violent crime is left with only three options: Flee if they are fast enough, submit if they are tough enough, or engage in a physical contest of strength with their attacker, if they are strong enough.

It is not right to force victims of violent crime into those three options. Not everyone is fast, tough, or strong, and people should not be at the mercy of anyone faster, tougher, or stronger than they are.

Firearms are an equalizer. Nearly anyone can operate a firearm, particularly a handgun.

I would rather society suffer the ills of a few bad apples using firearms criminally than force every victim of violent crime to be at the mercy of anyone stronger than they are.

[digonswine]

Now THAT I can agree with.-

I can safely say I am uncomfortable with people carrying weapons--I mistrust people-cuz'-you know-they're people! I agree with what you said--and I for one (trusting myself) sure as hell am not bringing a knife to a gunfight.

[DU GrovelBot]

32. ## PLEASE DONATE TO DEMOCRATIC UNDERGROUND! ##

This week is our third quarter 2011 fund drive. Democratic Underground is
a completely independent website. We depend on donations from our members
to cover our costs. Please take a moment to donate! Thank you!

Click here to donate