Meanwhile, we can't even get a compromise bill on background

[Rick]

Yer point is?

That you had no point.

Then pass it by

[rubato]

> 2/3 of voters overall agree that background checks are minimal good sense public policy. 9/10ths of Republican politicians are bought whores or craven cowards to the NRA.

If the second number changes the Republican party has a chance at some future nationally. If it doesn't then we'll all be better off.


yrs,
rubato

[Econoline]

Probably because most people don't see automobile ownership as an unalienable right.

Our forefathers didn't, otherwise someone like Thomas Jefferson might have proposed, "A horse being necessary to travel freely throughout the state more quickly than on foot, the right of the people to own horses shall not be infringed."

The question is why--why now, in 21st century America, people consider owning a gun more important than owning a car or owning a house or owning a television. And not just more important--so MUCH more important and so MUCH more likely to be taken away by the government that gun ownership in particular is a constitutional right rather than a regulated privilege.

I can and do live my life quite well and comfortably without owning a gun. I'm not sure I could do so well without a car, and neither could a lot of Americans nowadays. I think regulation of gun ownership and use makes just as much sense as regulation of automobile ownership and use...but obviously most Americans disagree. Or do they really? Is the main reason for keeping the Second Amendment "because it's already there, and would be impossible to remove" (a sentiment with which I agree, BTW) or is there really, truly some fundamental difference which would compel us to add a "right to keep and bear arms" (but not a "right to keep and use vehicles") to the Constitution now, if it wasn't already there?

[Econoline]

> 2/3 of voters overall agree that background checks are minimal good sense public policy. 9/10ths of Republican politicians are bought whores or craven cowards to the NRA.

If the second number changes the Republican party has a chance at some future nationally. If it doesn't then we'll all be better off.

yrs,
rubato

The real reason:

[dgs49]

I will concede that registration of all gun owners is reasonable

In exchange for

An admission that having to PROVE WHO THE FUCK YOU ARE before voting is reasonable.

Fair?

[dales]

No, it's no one's damn business weather I own a firearm or not.

I do agree with your voter reg. ID, though.

[Rick]

Maybe we should see all the credit references for those that are being voted on.

No I don't know why, I just felt like posting that...

[Sue U]

No, it's no one's damn business weather I own a firearm or not.

Why not?

Also, don't you have to file a Firearms Ownership Record with the state?

[Joe Guy]

I will concede that registration of all gun owners is reasonable

In exchange for

An admission that having to PROVE WHO THE FUCK YOU ARE before voting is reasonable.

Fair?

Good point.

(in the spirit of this thread) I'm sure there is ample evidence that a person who votes illegally is much more likely to commit mass murder with a firearm than a person with an unregistered gun.

[Scooter]

I will concede that registration of all gun owners is reasonable

In exchange for

An admission that having to PROVE WHO THE FUCK YOU ARE before voting is reasonable.

Fair?

Perfectly fair.

Since there are already sufficient measures in place to verify voter identity, and since any measures being proposed have no purpose except to disenfranchise legitimate voters, then it's great to have you on board as someone in favour of a gun registry.

[dales]

No, it's no one's damn business weather I own a firearm or not.

Why not?

Also, don't you have to file a Firearms Ownership Record with the state?

Nope

[Rick]

No, it's no one's damn business weather I own a firearm or not.

Why not?

Also, don't you have to file a Firearms Ownership Record with the state?

In Arkansas (currently) only if you buy from an FFL dealer.

Not so from a private individual...

[Andrew D]

Sue U: You previously stated the question as:

Assuming no 2d Amendment, should every individual have an unqualified right to own guns?

(Emphasis added.)

Has anyone here argued for an unqualified right to own guns?

Has anyone here argued for the "right" of persons convicted of violent felonies to own guns?

Has anyone here argued for the "right" of people so deranged that they have been involuntarily commited to lock-down psychiatric care to own guns?

Etc.

It seems to me that the answer to your question, as stated, is obviously "no". And I do not recall anyone's having answered your question, as stated, "yes". And it seems to me that your word "unqualified" is what makes the answer so clear.

[Sue U]

I'm asking a somewhat different question here: What is the (current) public policy justification for making gun ownership a constitutional right rather than a regulated privilege? What societal goal is advanced and how? See my earlier posts in this thread.

[Lord Jim]

If this is really the question you intended to ask, then you have been badly served by the strawman and false choice you stated at the outset, (which you steadfastly refuse to admit was such, despite clear evidence to the contrary) as well as contradictory statements like this:

Have you actually read the Second Amendment? You know, where it expressly guarantees that "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed"? IT IS A GODDAM CONSTITUTIONAL GUARANTEE. To say it "does not exist" and "there is no such thing ... under US Constitutional law" is either a denial of the actual existence of the Second Amendment or an indication of reading comprehension difficulties so severe that you should really consult a neurologist immediately.

Followed by:

Your emphasis is misplaced, because there has never been any question whether any "right" -- constitutionally guaranteed or not -- is "unlimited." The question in all such cases is what governmental limits run afoul of the constitutional guarantee.

And strange statements like:

There is absolutely nothing about repealing the 2d Amendment that curtails anyone's right of self-defense

And this bizarre question:

Why do you keep bringing up the Second Amendment when it has absolutely no relevance to the question?

Heavens to Murgatroyd, how could I possibly have gotten the impression that this discussion was about the 2nd Amendment?

Maybe it was this:

Which brings me back to my current hobby horse:

On public policy grounds (i.e., not just "because the NRA is a powerful lobby"), why shouldn't the Second Amendment be repealed and gun ownership made a restricted and heavily regulated privilege?

And this:

There is absolutely nothing about repealing the 2d Amendment that curtails anyone's right of self-defense -- with or without a firearm.

Or maybe this:

The Second Amendment does not guarantee a right to self defense; it guarantees a "right" to "keep and bear arms," which "shall not be infringed."

Or this:

Have you actually read the Second Amendment? You know, where it expressly guarantees that "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed"? IT IS A GODDAM CONSTITUTIONAL GUARANTEE.

But In the interest of avoiding tearing out any more of my thinning hair, I'm going to lay aside the strawman and the false choice you began with, and your contradictions, and your strange claims, your position shape shifting and goal post moving, your refusal to admit that questions you ask have been answered because you don't like the answers, and most of all your exasperating refusal to admit you have done any of these things, even in the face of clear evidence that this is precisely what you've been doing....

Yes, I'm going to lay all of that crapoloa you've engaged in aside, (as well as your condescending insults) and focus in on this:

What is the (current) public policy justification for making gun ownership a constitutional right rather than a regulated privilege? What societal goal is advanced and how?

(Since this post is already fairly long, I'm going to deal with that in the next post, which I'm going to type now, and should have up shortly. Let me also say that if want to respond to this post with yet another round of "I never did that", feel free, but as far as I'm concerned you can save yourself the keystrokes, because I won't reply to it; I'm getting off that merry-go-round.)

[Econoline]

What is the (current) public policy justification for making gun ownership a constitutional right rather than a regulated privilege? What societal goal is advanced and how?

One approach to the question might be to note that the authors of the existing 2nd Amendment put their "public policy justification" and "societal goal" right there in the amendment itself: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State..." I guessing that if an amendment regarding "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms" were being (re)written today it would be worded somewhat (or completely?) differently...right? Would any of the passionate gun rights people here (Jim, or anyone else) care to try their hand at a modern rewrite?

[Joe Guy]

My guess is a "modern rewrite" of the 2nd amendment by our current politicians would be at least 1000 pages long and nobody would agree on it. Also, passionate gun rights people would probably not want it rewritten because the current version serves them well.

I'm not a passionate gun rights advocate, but here's my quickly written version that is subject to change -

Amendment 2.1 -

All legal citizens of the United States of America shall be allowed ownership of simple firearms for protection of their families and property or other necessity prescribed by law. The right to keep and carry firearms shall remain intact.

This update would allow everybody to fight over things like the meaning of "simple" and "other necessity" and "whattaya mean carry?" for another hundred years or so.

[Lord Jim]

From my last post:

Yes, I'm going to lay all of that crapoloa you've engaged in aside, (as well as your condescending insults) and focus in on this:

What is the (current) public policy justification for making gun ownership a constitutional right rather than a regulated privilege? What societal goal is advanced and how?

Now, let me begin by stipulating that you are not going to like my answer, and will therefore no doubt triumphantly proclaim that once again I have not given an answer, which clearly is the way you view any answer on this subject that you don't agree with....

It's pretty obvious at this point that as far as you are concerned on this subject there is one, and only one, answer that can be called an "answer"; it goes something like this:

"Sue you are absolutely right! There is no justification whatsoever for having the right to keep and bear arms as a Constitutional right. It should be repealed immediately!"

Now, since I won't be giving that answer, (or an answer that looks anything remotely like that answer) I fully anticipate that you will declare my answer a non-answer, but there's really nothing I can do about that.

(It's kind of a sweet set up you've got going there really; "The only answer is to agree with me, and anyone who disagrees with me isn't just wrong; they haven't even answered the question.")

Perhaps my answer, whether they agree with it or not, will serve for others who have a less narrow standard for what constitutes an "answer".

In looking at this, it seems to me the first thing to do is ask a broader set of questions:

What is the justification for having a set of "rights" laid out in a fundamental document, in the first place? Rights which are specifically enumerated, and while they are defined not by their simple text but by the interpretation of our highest court, cannot be extinguished by the regular course of the law making process, and instead, require a far higher standard to alter or abolish.

After all, there are plenty of functioning democratic republics of long standing that do not have any such fundamental document with these requirements...

Why shouldn't all current Constitutionally guaranteed "rights" be subject to abolition ( or conversion to a "privilege" governed by "strict regulation") by a simple majority of both houses of Congress and the signature of the President? (Or two-thirds majorities over-riding a Presidential veto)

What would be wrong with that?

Well, the philosophical basis for this was that there were some rights that were so fundamental to the rights of a free people that they should be enshrined and elevated in such a way that they would be protected from the political passions of the moment.

(If one does not accept that as principle, then we need go no further; then there's no reason to have the right to keep and bear arms as a constitutional right, or the right to free speech, or the right to peaceably assemble , or the right to free exercise of religion, or the right against unreasonable searches and seizures, or any of the other rights enumerated in the bill of rights...)

Sue, I may be wrong, but I'm assuming you accept that principle and rationale for having a Bill of Rights in the first place... (Afterall if we didn't have a Constitutionally guaranteed right to "free speech" Congress could easily pass a law making it illegal to call someone a "sheep shagger", to give a hypothetical example....I think we can both agree that we would prefer not to live in a society where that was going on...)

So now the question becomes, "Okay, even if there's good justification for having a set of rights laid out that cannot be altered or abolished by the normal legislative process, why should "the right to keep and bear arms" be one of them?"

Here I return to the answers I gave earlier:

The right to defend one's self, one's home and one's loved ones is a deeply held and cherished American value. (Every bit as much so as the right to free speech, or the free exercise of religion.) The right to keep and bear arms is self-evidently intrinsic to having this right of defense.

Your earlier attempt to somehow de-couple the right to self defense from the right to keep and bear arms is not well taken. Justice Alito writing for the majority in McDonald:

Self-defense is a basic right, recognized by many legal systems from ancient times to the present day and in Heller, we held that individual self-defense is the “central component” of the Second Amendment right.

http://www.cga.ct.gov/2010/rpt/2010-R-0314.htm

That answer alone should more than suffice as to why the right to keep and bear arms should be a Constitutional right, but let's drill down even further and address your question about not just the basic philosophical rationale, but the contemporary rationale; (and then also the question you raised about what the practical difference would be if the right to keep and bear arms were not a part of our basic law.)

There are a couple of answers to why the right to keep and bear arms remains justified in contemporary times :

First, there is the fact that the preservation of this right remains broadly supported by the vast majority of Americans, and in a democratic society the burden for justifying the repeal of a right that enjoys that sort of support lies with those who seek to eliminate it.

Second, it would be impossible to rationally argue that the threat of attack on one's self, one's home, or one's family has somehow been alleviated in current times to the point that a right to keep and bear arms is no longer relevantly justified....(indeed, a strong case can be made that this threat is greater than it was at the time of the adoption of the 2nd Amendment, not less)

Now, I can imagine a time in the future where force field technology has developed to the point that it becomes impossible for a person or persons to enter one's home with nefarious intent, or a time where enlightenment about the rights of others becomes so universally embraced that crimes of this nature simply no longer occur....

As soon as either of those conditions come into existence, perhaps we can have this discussion again...

Now, as to the point of what the practical difference would be if the right to keep and bear arms weren't a Constitutional guarantee, but instead was a "strictly regulated privilege"....

Well that seems kind of self evident to me, but here goes:

There is a huge difference between a Constitutional right, and a legislatively granted "privilege" (Obviously you know this, or you wouldn't be proposing the change) A privilege granted through legislation, can be easily altered or abolished at any time through the regular legislative process. (I'm sure that would suit you just fine.) A Constitutional right, on the other hand, is subject only to the interpretation of the SC and protected from abolition by the regular legislative process....

If you really don't believe that there would be any practical difference between having the right to bear arms as a part of the Constitution, rather than as a "strictly regulated privilege" then why argue for it?

Now, based on your posts to date, I'm quite confident that the next thing I'll see from you on this is something like, "Why can't you answer my question?" or "you still haven't answered my question" or "Why can't you answer a simple question" or some similar such hoo hah....

But as I said regarding all your other sophistic antics in this discussion, I am jumping off that merry-go-round as well...

Besides, I really didn't post this for you anyway; You've made abundantly clear that on this topic you will simply not accept anything as being an "answer" unless it agrees with your position, period.

I posted it for the benefit of those who are capable of recognizing an answer when they see one, whether they agree with that answer or not.. On this subject, that obviously would not include you.

I do want to thank you for one thing though...

Anyone who has read my comments on this general topic knows that I have been vociferous in my criticism of 2nd Amendment absolutists, and the baseless arguments against modest, completely Constitutional measures relating to firearms and background checks. (I've made strong and repeated arguments for both universal background checks and magazine size limitations and I've taken to task those who have argued that these sort of measures will result in some sort of "slippery slope" that will ultimately result in the folks who think the way you do carrying the day.)

In fact the positions I've expressed are well to the left on these issues of many of my Conservative brethren, (though they place me directly in the center of mainstream American thinking)

These exchanges with you have provided me with the opportunity to demonstrate to anyone who might think otherwise, (in light of much of what I've posted) that when I describe myself as a strong supporter of the 2nd Amendment, I'm not just blowing smoke...

[dales]

Joe - you can have a flintlock if you want one.

(you can even buy them thru the US Mail).

[Econoline]

I hope to get back to this later today or tomorrow, but for now I'd like to respond mostly to Joe, because he directly addressed my version of the question. First, regarding the possible length of the amendment due to political meddling: since this would be a Constitutional amendment rather than a law, I don't think that's a realistic fear. The follow-up legislation to put the amendment into practice might well be complex--that's just the nature of the legislative process--but previous experience, including all amendments passed or proposed in the 20th century (XVI-XXVII plus the proposed Child Labor, Equal Rights and D.C.Voting amendments) are quite concise, with even the longest (XX and XXV) coming in at under one page and most considerably shorter than that.

Second, I really didn't want to get into the question of whether of whether those who really really like the current 2nd amendment (including the NRA and the gun manufacturers, who are indeed "served well" by it ) would ever want to replace it with something more suitable for the 21st century. In that respect I know my question would have to be just a hypothetical one--though I really can't see who is served well by the inclusion of a militia as the sole justification for the right to keep and bear arms. The question is therefore simply what if we did rewrite it, rather than why or whether we should.

As for your actual proposal, I like it, and that's about what I would figure might be proposed. Short, simple, and ambiguous enough to need some eventual legislative or judicial clarification. I like the fact that it specifically includes ownership rather than just keeping and bearing, and I like the use of the term "simple firearms" rather than the more ambiguous catchall term "arms"; maybe there should be a specific distinction between the firearms allowed to every qualified citizen and arms that could be restricted to law enforcement and/or military use? I think I would also like to put something in there about being able to deny the right to convicted felons, but it's a good starting point.

And Jim--do you really believe that, absent the right to keep and bear arms, there is no constitutional right to self-defense?