Gun Control and D.C. vs. Heller

[Relambrien]

Back in March, the U.S. Supreme Court made a ruling on a gun control law in Washington, D.C., in the case of D.C. vs. Heller. The law essentially stated that citizens were not permitted to keep handguns in their homes. The Court decided in a 5-4 split that the ban was unconstitutional, citing the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution.

The Second Amendment reads as follows: "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 majority opinion stated that the amendment does, in fact, protect individual rights to gun ownership, because the "militia" is made up of individual citizens. Thus, the government cannot ban gun ownership to those individuals.

Now that this has set a legal precedent, the only types of gun control cases that should cause any issues deal with the extent of such laws. For instance, bans on automatic weapons or explosive devices.

What I would like to know is CT's opinion of gun control. As for me, I'm still on the fence. I've seen people claim things like "Less than 1% of legal gun owners misuse their weapons," "Bans on firearms won't prevent criminals from illegally obtaining one," etc. I've also seen others cite low gun ownership rates in areas with low crime rates, and things like that.

Given the quality of this forum, I think there's some excellent discussion to be had on this topic. And after looking through the past ten pages, I didn't see any topics focusing on gun control, though I seem to remember some discussion in relation to other topics.

So, what do you think of this D.C. vs. Heller decision? How should the Second Amendment be interpreted? Does it apply now, since militias are archaic and no longer exist? Should it be amended to be more clear?

[Afrobean]

The Second Amendment's mention of "militia" is irrelevant. It also clearly says "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." A full-on ban on arms is infringing "the right of the people to keep and bear arms".

Regardless of the intended function, it still provides this right. Furthermore, the wording might be archaic, but the concept behind it still exists now. If the amendment were written today, it might say "Because it is an effective choice for self protection, as well as a sport of choice for many, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

[fido123]

I have to agree with Afrobean on this however I think the U.S. would be much better if the second amendment was chucked. There is no need for a gun in a household in this modern world. If a robber breaks into your house it would probably be safer to barricade yourself in your room and call 911 rather than try to shoot him yourself which could also lead to a possible criminal charge. Also a lot of the people who tend to be gun-advocates tend to be (obviously not always) rowdy patriots who probably aren't the best people to be having these guns.

I can understand having a hunting rifle or having a gun for sport but there is no need for automatic weapons or really anything much more dangerous than a hunter rifle of another sportsman gun. I know the second amendment will never be chucked or at least for now, but there is really no need for it anymore.

[Afrobean]

Safety is irrelevant when it comes to freedom and liberty. I'd rather live in a free world than an absolutely safe one.

Also a lot of the people who tend to be gun-advocates tend to be (obviously not always) rowdy patriots who probably aren't the best people to be having these guns.

I'm in favor of guns being allowed, but I would never own a gun myself, and I CERTAINLY would never shoot anyone with a gun EVER. I'm basically a pacifist. But I still think the right to own such a thing should be allowed. Think: owning a gun is not immoral. The problem only comes when the tool is misused, in which case, we just need stricter punishments for knowing misuse or negligence of them.

there is really no need for it anymore.

How about maintaining freedom. If I want to own a gun, I should be allowed to. The only thing I shouldn't be allowed to do, is USE that gun to infringe upon the basic human rights of other people.

[fido123]

Originally Posted by Afrobean

How about maintaining freedom. If I want to own a gun, I should be allowed to. The only thing I shouldn't be allowed to do, is USE that gun to infringe upon the basic human rights of other people.

So your saying people should be able to use guns but never use them? It's pointless to buy a gun just to express your freedom and that's not the reason why some people are going to buy them, they're going to buy them to shoot/intimidate somebody. IMO, if it will better the world to take away a freedom, take away the freedom.

[Corbin Wells]

One should ONLY BE ALLOWED gun possession if they have:
Served in the military
Have served as a police officer/fireman/doctor
or has done some form of work with the government.

I don't see what's so hard about a rule like that. American gun violence is very very high.
And all sorts of gang violence and such would probably be more controlled if everyone weren't allowed guns. Not that they wont get them illegally anyway but that's besides the point here.

[Cavernio]

"The only thing I shouldn't be allowed to do, is USE that gun to infringe upon the basic human rights of other people."

The thing is that the only thing a gun is used for IS to infringe upon the rights of other people, even if it's only through intimidation, (besides hunting rifles.)

[fido123]

Originally Posted by Corbin Wells

One should ONLY BE ALLOWED gun possession if they have:
Served in the military
Have served as a police officer/fireman/doctor
or has done some form of work with the government.

Why would a fireman or a doctor need a gun?


Also I agree with Cavernio 100%

[Afrobean]

I don't see what's so hard about a rule like that. American gun violence is very very high.

You have no idea.

And all sorts of gang violence and such would probably be more controlled if everyone weren't allowed guns.

****ing prove it. The burden of proof is on you for demanding a change to the status quo. Prove it.

Also notice that a large selection of gang related violence makes use of non-lethal force, such as simple beatings.

Not that they wont get them illegally anyway but that's besides the point here.

No, that's completely within the point. The point is that outlawing guns won't stop outlaws from having guns.

The thing is that the only thing a gun is used for IS to infringe upon the rights of other people, even if it's only through intimidation, (besides hunting rifles.)

You have no idea. What about shooting galleries? What about self protection? If a person owns a gun to use in case they want to protect themselves with it, that is not an infringement of human rights against the person he would be protecting himself from. Example: if you're defending yourself and you wind up killing someone (and prove it in a court of law), you will NEVER do jail time for it.

Why would a fireman or a doctor need a gun?

To protect themself? For sport?

Does it ****ING MATTER?

Why would a person want to own a baseball bat? We should get those baseball bats off the street because I think it is deplorable that so many lethal weapons would be allowed to be owned. It doesn't matter that only a fraction of the owners of baseball bats use them in a nefarious manner. It doesn't matter that families may partake of sport using this tool. It is a lethal weapon and shouldn't be allowed to be owned at all.

Originally Posted by fido123

if it will better the world to take away a freedom, take away the freedom.

How can you say that the "greater good" is more important than personal liberty?

protip, and yes I am willingly going into Godwin's Law territory: greater good is how Nazis justify the Holocaust.

ps

So your saying people should be able to use guns but never use them? It's pointless to buy a gun just to express your freedom and that's not the reason why some people are going to buy them, they're going to buy them to shoot/intimidate somebody.

No ****. If someone is buying a gun to SHOOT SOMEONE OR INTIMIDATE SOMEONE, THAT IS AGAINST THE LAW. If that is their reason for owning a gun, it CLEARLY infringes upon the human rights of others. They should be able to own a gun, they should be able to use a gun, BUT THEY SHOULD NOT BE ABLE TO USE A GUN TO INFRINGE UPON THE HUMAN RIGHTS OF OTHERS.

[Corbin Wells]

Originally Posted by Afrobean

You have no idea.


****ing prove it. The burden of proof is on you for demanding a change to the status quo. Prove it.

Also notice that a large selection of gang related violence makes use of non-lethal force, such as simple beatings.


No, that's completely within the point. The point is that outlawing guns won't stop outlaws from having guns.

Yeah, nevermind that part, that was retarded, forget about that part.

[devonin]

The point is that outlawing guns won't stop outlaws from having guns.

Only if gun control laws are done stupidly. We've been over this Afro, and you know this isn't actually a viable argument against gun control. It would be so easy to institute a total gun ban that would be just as effective at stopping "outlaws" from using outlawed guns, and you know it, because I've described it to you more than once on this very forum.

The Second Amendment's mention of "militia" is irrelevant.

Why is it irellevant? It was clearly the intention of the framers of that amendment to protect the rights of the population of a town/settlement to have their own armed defenders in the case of invasion from an outside force, because there wasn't such a thing as the police department at the time. The police take the place of the militia that was intended by that amendment. You can't only apply the second half of a sentence to constitutional law because you like it better, there isn't even a full stop between referencing militias and the right to keep arms for the purpose of a militia.

I'd rather live in a free world than an absolutely safe one.

So you're okay with a world in which say, someome is free to beat the crap out of you and take all your belongings with absolutely no negative consequences to them at all? I suspect instead, that you're perfectly okay with infringing on the rights of rights infringers as an example, since I imagine you'd be fine with such a person being made to pay restituion, or go to prison etc. You can't have it both ways, if you're okay with the government legislating anything, you can't really oppose the government legislating something else on the grounds of "I prefer freedom to lack of freedom"

The only thing I shouldn't be allowed to do, is USE that gun to infringe upon the basic human rights of other people.

Then what is the purpose of owning any kind of gun at all besdies ones explicitly for hunting animals? If you have no intention of ever using your handgun to infrgine on the rights of someone infringing on your rights (See again, how you're okay with infringing rights that aren't yours) then you have even less business owning a handgun than someone who -will- use it readily and with training when provoked to need it.

I don't even need to make the usual appeals to the statistics of how many times a gun is fired in someone's home and accidentally has shot someone who lives there who was mistaken for an intruder (The number is very large, by the way) because the basic logic of your argument doesn't really stand up. You're trying to have it both ways.

[Afrobean]

Originally Posted by devonin

Only if gun control laws are done stupidly. We've been over this Afro, and you know this isn't actually a viable argument against gun control. It would be so easy to institute a total gun ban that would be just as effective at stopping "outlaws" from using outlawed guns, and you know it, because I've described it to you more than once on this very forum.

I don't recall this. I don't even recall more than one other instance of being vocal on this issue.

If you could tell me a way to ban guns without limiting personal freedoms, I'd love to hear it though.

Alternatively, if you could identify a way by which guns could be banned, and criminals would somehow be unable to obtain unregistered, illegal arms, I'd love to hear that.

Why is it irellevant? It was clearly the intention of the framers of that amendment to protect the rights of the population of a town/settlement to have their own armed defenders in the case of invasion from an outside force, because there wasn't such a thing as the police department at the time. The police take the place of the militia that was intended by that amendment. You can't only apply the second half of a sentence to constitutional law because you like it better, there isn't even a full stop between referencing militias and the right to keep arms for the purpose of a militia.

It's not irrelevant because it doesn't matter, it's irrelevant, because regardless of the justification by which they explain it, the amendment clearly says "the right... shall not be infringed". It doesn't matter if it says "because monkeys now fly out of my butt, the right... shall not be infringed." It still says "the right... shall not be infringed."

So you're okay with a world in which say, someome is free to beat the crap out of you and take all your belongings with absolutely no negative consequences to them at all? I suspect instead, that you're perfectly okay with infringing on the rights of rights infringers as an example, since I imagine you'd be fine with such a person being made to pay restituion, or go to prison etc. You can't have it both ways, if you're okay with the government legislating anything, you can't really oppose the government legislating something else on the grounds of "I prefer freedom to lack of freedom"

No, not "absolutely no negative consequences". The difference here is that a person owning a gun but not using it improperly is not grounds for impediments by the government. The only people who are deserving of having their rights taken away are the ones who would abuse their rights to infringe upon the rights of others. What you are suggesting is the only way to stop gun violence is to get rid of all guns, but what I am suggesting is that the best way to stop gun violence is to punish those who would use a gun violently.

I want a way to stop gun violence, while still maintaining the freedoms of those who would not abuse said right. Simply banning all guns cuts out all of the people who would own their gun in what I would deem a proper fashion, yet the villains who use their guns for evil would still just use illegal firearms.

Then what is the purpose of owning any kind of gun at all besdies ones explicitly for hunting animals? If you have no intention of ever using your handgun to infrgine on the rights of someone infringing on your rights (See again, how you're okay with infringing rights that aren't yours) then you have even less business owning a handgun than someone who -will- use it readily and with training when provoked to need it.

There's also shooting ranges. I've never really been, myself, but I would be troubled if I never experienced it at some point.

Then there's self protection. Using a gun to protect yourself is not an infringement upon another person's rights, because in infringing yours, they've justified your actions.

I don't even need to make the usual appeals to the statistics of how many times a gun is fired in someone's home and accidentally has shot someone who lives there who was mistaken for an intruder (The number is very large, by the way) because the basic logic of your argument doesn't really stand up. You're trying to have it both ways.

Accidental misuse (whether negligent or non-negligent) of a firearm is not what I am advocating at all either. Justified and proper ownership is all that I am advocating.

[Arch0wl]

Originally Posted by Afrobean

The Second Amendment's mention of "militia" is irrelevant. It also clearly says "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." A full-on ban on arms is infringing "the right of the people to keep and bear arms".

The constitution has been amended and modified throughout history as I'm sure you're aware of. In its current form, it effectively means what the supreme court decides it to mean. An appeal to constitutional writing, in this case, is as relevant as a fundamentalist appeal to the Bible or Koran.

Originally Posted by Afrobean

If the amendment were written today, it might say "Because it is an effective choice for self protection, as well as a sport of choice for many, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

I take issue with this because you're projecting your own writing onto the constitution with your usage of "it might say". It might say that, yes, but it might not. This claim holds no weight.

[Afrobean]

Originally Posted by Arch0wl

The constitution has been amended and modified throughout history as I'm sure you're aware of. In its current form, it effectively means what the supreme court decides it to mean. An appeal to constitutional writing, in this case, is as relevant as a fundamentalist appeal to the Bible or Koran.

An amendment I could respect. At least then it would be constitutional, and not without precedent either.

The Constitution is the supreme law of the land, though. Circumventing it with external lawmaking isn't right.

I take issue with this because you're projecting your own writing onto the constitution with your usage of "it might say". It might say that, yes, but it might not. This claim holds no weight.

You missed the point I was trying to make entirely. It's that the first clause of that sentence... The Second Amendment-- it's not a conditional statement. I was making light of how relevant the clause is is to the ACTUAL protection of said right by implying the first clause might as well say "Because monkeys now fly out of my butt...". It doesn't matter WHAT the prefatory clause says, BECAUSE IT IS NOT CONDITIONAL. It doesn't say:

"If a well regulated Militia is necessary to the security of this free State, then the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed."

My comments were only to explain that I believe their intention was only to justify it with a specific example. They're saying that the right should be protected, period. But they're prefacing that with a reason of why it should be protected. A single reason used then, when multiple reasons which are used today to defend it also existed back then. They weren't saying "a militia needs the people to have guns, but without a militia people don't need guns", it's saying "people need the right to have guns, and a militia is a reason why".

[N.T.M.]

The idea of gun control is such a funny concept it takes a truly narrow-minded person to even consider it. As the OP mentioned the criminals will always find guns. Taking away people's right to keep guns would only increase crime. Also in the event that the government becomes too powerful, people wouldn't be able to fight it since their guns have already been confiscated. History repeats itself and that's always a primary step in creating a government that's too powerful.

The media brain washes most people so the idea is actually commonly well-accepted.

[NFD]

Nobody's going to change the Bill of Rights. That's about the end of it. They were the first 10 ammendments of our country, and they never will be changed.

[N.T.M.]

Originally Posted by NFD

Nobody's going to change the Bill of Rights. That's about the end of it. They were the first 10 ammendments of our country, and they never will be changed.

I wish I was as confident as you are. Consider the NAU for example. That already infringes on US sovereignty, and although the two aren't directly connected, it's pretty evident that laws that built this country will probably fall in the not-too-distant future.

[NFD]

If you have ever taken a look at history, you'll notice that most democracies last only about 200 years. All the major civilizations, just 200 years of democracy. England and the US are both over 200, so anytime soon, there will be a person to take over, instead of a president, and they will be a dictator. A dictator will lead to Fascism which in turn will lead to Communism. The end.

[N.T.M.]

Originally Posted by NFD

If you have ever taken a look at history, you'll notice that most democracies last only about 200 years. All the major civilizations, just 200 years of democracy. England and the US are both over 200, so anytime soon, there will be a person to take over, instead of a president, and they will be a dictator. A dictator will lead to Fascism which in turn will lead to Communism. The end.

Agreed (as I mentioned before).

[Afrobean]

Originally Posted by NFD

If you have ever taken a look at history, you'll notice that most democracies last only about 200 years. All the major civilizations, just 200 years of democracy. England and the US are both over 200, so anytime soon, there will be a person to take over, instead of a president, and they will be a dictator. A dictator will lead to Fascism which in turn will lead to Communism. The end.

Communism is an economic system, not anything directly involving politics, particularly fascism.

Anyway, fascism doesn't necessarily need to clash with democracy either. If people vote and decide they want Big Brother, that's still democracy.