Law POTWR 2019 Vol 4: Repeal Or Respect The 2nd Amendment?

[Farmer Br0wn]

The bill was passed on public referendum, so the bill being passed without public consent isn't the issue.

We would all recognize a restriction on the First Amendment to be invalid, even if passed by referendum.

The Second Amendment is no different.

 

[sickc0d3r]

I understand the sentiment, but States should have no power to arbitrarily restrict or infringe your Constitutionally protected individual rights.

True, but the choice as I read it was to remove it completely from federal purview (making it no longer a federally protected right) and let the states make their own rules. I agree with that, but of course it will never happen.

 

[Farmer Br0wn]

One problem that the gun control argument has is that the laws are different between states and executed differently between counties. So Chicago as a district can have some very gun purchasing requirements, but most of the guns used in crimes can be purchased more easily in a different county or state. You have a situation where the vast majority of gun crimes are being performed with guns purchased from outside the areas where the law is in effect.
I think some people are happy to dismiss it as evidence that laws don't work when in reality it is more complicated than that. Gun crimes are going to be a problem at an intersection of population density, income inequality, and proximity to easily purchasable firearms. Of the three factors, the only one that seems feasible to adjust is the last one.

An interesting thought experiment:

Why is it that the vast majority of guns used in violent crimes in cities with heavy gun control laws are almost never involved in any violent crimes until they arrived at these large cities with heavy gun control?

 

[Higus]

We would all recognize a restriction on the First Amendment to be invalid, even if passed by referendum.

The Second Amendment is no different.

There are checks and balances to that. A court could find the law unconstitutional and reverse it.

FWIW, There are plenty of restrictions on the first amendment.

 

[spamking]

links:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...-the-guns-used-in-chicago-actually-came-from/
https://www.nbcchicago.com/blogs/ward-room/chicago-gun-trace-report-2017-454016983.html
https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2016/10/26/13418208/guns-new-york-iron-pipeline

Not that I think it is politically feasible, but if the entire nation had a set of laws like Chicago, then it would at least solve the issue of people in high crime areas purchasing weapons in areas with more lax registration.

I can tell you right now . . . Chicago doesn't want the laws like they have . . .

 

[Cubo de Sangre]

I understand the sentiment, but States should have no power to arbitrarily restrict or infringe your Constitutionally protected individual rights.

They should in the sense that the Bill of Rights is there to restrict the federal government, not the states. Most state Constitutions contain similar provisions.

 

[Higus]

I can tell you right now . . . Chicago doesn't want the laws like they have . . .

I wouln't doubt it, but I just used them as an easy example

 

[Higus]

An interesting thought experiment:

Why is it that the vast majority of guns used in violent crimes in cities with heavy gun control laws are almost never involved in any violent crimes until they arrived at these large cities with heavy gun control?

Since I need to spell it out for you, when I say that "Gun crimes are going to be a problem at an intersection of population density, income inequality, and proximity to easily purchasable firearms", when I say population density and income inequality, I mean problems that are more pronounced in urban areas than rural areas.

 

[Farmer Br0wn]

Since I need to spell it out for you, when I say that "Gun crimes are going to be a problem at an intersection of population density, income inequality, and proximity to easily purchasable firearms", when I say population density and income inequality, I mean problems that are more pronounced in urban areas than rural areas.

So you subscribe to GINI coefficient theory? Excellent to know. That's a good explanation for why people in a given geographic area will be violent in general. It's also half of the answer to the thought experiment I posed to you.

The question I posed was about the gun itself. People pointing out that guns used in gun crimes in major cities with heavy gun control come from different areas never seem to address why there is a demand for these products in the first place.

Just saying "income inequality and proximity" doesn't really answer the question.

 

[Higus]

So you subscribe to GINI coefficient theory? Excellent to know. That's a good explanation for why people in a given geographic area will be violent in general. It's also half of the answer to the thought experiment I posed to you.

The question I posed was about the gun itself. People pointing out that guns used in gun crimes in major cities with heavy gun control come from different areas never seem to address why there is a demand for these products in the first place.

Just saying "income inequality and proximity" doesn't really answer the question.

Look, if you think lax gun control laws in a major city would somehow solve the gun violence issue, then you shouldn't be hard to back that up with evidence, such as example cities in the US or some other country or point in time. Otherwise, I think you just have cause and effect mixed up.

 

[sloppypie]

We currently are interpreting it as it was ment to apply.

Note how it says: The right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."

It doesn't say "The right of the government" or "The right of the state".

It does say for the security of a free state. An armed populace so that an abusive (or absent) federal government fails to protect the states. And it specifically points out a militia as the tool to achieve that, and the tools to achieve the militia (individually armed people).

So I wonder why a state can’t decide for themselves on how to regulate their weapons based on their own perceived threats. Since that what it was designed to do.

 

[Cubo de Sangre]

It does say for the security of a free state. An armed populace so that an abusive (or absent) federal government fails to protect the states. And it specifically points out a militia as the tool to achieve that, and the tools to achieve the militia (individually armed people).

So I wonder why a state can’t decide for themselves on how to regulate their weapons based on their own perceived threats. Since that what it was designed to do.

Yep, but up until a point.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Presser_v._Illinois

However, the high court stated that there is a limit upon state restriction of firearms ownership, in that they may not disarm the people to such an extent that there is no remaining armed militia force for the general government to call upon:

"It is undoubtedly true that all citizens capable of bearing arms constitute the reserved military force or reserve militia of the United States as well as of the States, and in view of this prerogative of the general government, as well as of its general powers, the States cannot, even laying the constitutional provision in question out of view, prohibit the people from keeping and bearing arms, so as to deprive the United States of their rightful resource for maintaining the public security, and disable the people from performing their duty to the general government. But, as already stated, we think it clear that the sections under consideration do not have this effect."

Sounds like a blow to "assault weapon" bans right there. Any armies that don't primarily use select-fire automatic rifles? Relegating the militia to inferior technology is to some degree "disabling".

 

[Higus]

Sounds like a blow to "assault weapon" bans right there. Any armies that don't primarily use select-fire automatic rifles? Relegating the militia to inferior technology is to some degree "disabling".

I haven't gone through the entire thread. Has anyone tried to argue that the government should allow citizens to buy military grade explosives or else it's violating the second amendment?

 

[Based and White Pilled]

I'm in favor of the 2nd amendment as much for the ability of the people to stand against the government as I am for the ability to defend myself against random criminals. Tyrannical regimes have a long history of disarming their subjects. I like knowing that I'm part of an armed populace.

Edit: my point is that I don't understand why this conversation almost always focuses solely on how effective gun ownership is in preventing crimes by individual citizens. That isn't the reason so many gun owners have (or would like to have) an arsenal that some consider excessive and it isn't the most important function of the second amendment IMO.

 

[spamking]

I haven't gone through the entire thread. Has anyone tried to argue that the government should allow citizens to buy military grade explosives or else it's violating the second amendment?

Should we argue for that?

 

[Cubo de Sangre]

I haven't gone through the entire thread. Has anyone tried to argue that the government should allow citizens to buy military grade explosives or else it's violating the second amendment?

Nope. That's an infringement most everyone agrees with so the main battleground is firearms-related prohibitions and requirements.

 

[Higus]

Should we argue for that?

If someone is saying they need a certain type of firearm to prevent tyranny, then explosives should not be out of the question.

Nope. That's an infringement most everyone agrees with so the main battleground is firearms-related prohibitions and requirements.

But why does it limit itself there? Is there some point that people acknowledge the destructive capabilities of certain items exceeds their practicality? And if so, why was the line drawn at firearms, or why should the line stop at firearms?

 

[Cubo de Sangre]

But why does it limit itself there? Is there some point that people acknowledge the destructive capabilities of certain items exceeds their practicality? And if so, why was the line drawn at firearms, or why should the line stop at firearms?

I don't think it is limited there. But it's called picking your battles.

The only argument I can think for excluding things like hand-grenades is that they are not standard issue for each soldier. Firearms clearly are and you'd have a piss-poor militia absent any.

 

[Cubo de Sangre]

@spamking

https://www.yahoo.com/news/aurora-gunman-gary-martin-apos-161340436.html

Aurora gunman's license was revoked, but he kept his gun. That's the norm in Illinois

Gary Martin, the gunman who killed five people and wounded six in a shooting rampage last week, slipped through a background check process to buy the Smith & Wesson he used in the attack – even though the law prohibited him as a felon from owning a gun.


The system failed again days later, when Illinois State Police figured out he had a conviction in 1995 in Mississippi for aggravated battery – the felony that should have prevented him from getting a state firearms license.

Illinois State Police records show Martin was sent a letter April 15, 2014, telling him he was required to relinquish his state firearms license. Police gave Martin 48 hours to transfer his firearms to a licensed gun owner or give them up to police.

If he saw the letter, he ignored it.

He would hardly have been alone.

Fewer than half of Illinois gun owners whose licenses are revoked follow through with the requirement to show authorities that they no longer own firearms, according to state police data.

State police sent more than 10,800 revocation letters to Illinois residents last year. “In most instances,” the agency said in a statement, the gun owners failed to vouch that they no longer possessed a firearm.

 

[nhbbear]

@nhbbear

Incredibly well-written posts to start this thread.

I will have to give your posts the full time and consideration they deserve.

I'm hoping to do a point-by-point analysis of your posts, but to give that any justice I'll have to be in front of a PC to do it.

Thank you for this in-depth research, I suspect I will reference it in the future.

Thanks. I have to admit, the anti-stance was the most difficult for me to write.

I am by no means a die hard second fanatic, like most issues, I fall a little more in the middle.

I guess to sum up my stance, I favor the second, but I think the laws should be more staunchly upheld surrounding guns. Specifically, I feel very strongly about prohibited persons caught with firearms, that have an extensive criminal history, should be locked up for a long time.