Gun purchasers may need to submit social media history under proposed New York legislation

[Cathoholic]

1. The number of citizens carrying guns is much less than the number of citizens who own cars.

But I never asked about this.

 

[Cathoholic]

1. Carrying a gun around is like having a car in the garage. . . .

You tell that to police guarding courtrooms, security guards guarding stadiums, Secret Service checking you before a political rally, entering the restricted area of an airport, etc.

See how THAT goes.

See if you have a car in your garage when you go in, if you will be denied access to these places because you have a car at home in the garage.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

You asked how it is embedded in the individual right to self defense. That individual right was recognized in the Magna Carta and before.

Let’s be clear, we are still talking about the right to have and use a gun, not the general right of self defense, right? I don’t know if the Magna Carta lists that as a right for all people or not, but it doesn’t matter because, as I said, the Magna Carta is not officially or legally binding in the United States, so citing it as an authority is irrelevant.

As for the “and before” part, some people may have thought that at some point in history. That does not prove it is a right. The only legally binding and relevant document for us is the Second Amendment, which the courts have held is violated by some, but not all, gun control measures. Until the court rules that a specific measure is unconstitutional, it is just your layman’s opinion against mine. For what it’s worth, I think the specific measure of using social media in the OP, if it passes (which is doubtful) will be found unconstitutional. But that decision will not be broad one.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

1. The number of citizens carrying guns is much less than the number of citizens who own cars.

I know, but it explains the contrast you were drawing between deaths from cars and deaths from guns.

1. Carrying a gun around is like having a car in the garage. . . .

The point was made to counter your explanation that deaths per person hour should be calculated based on time spent carrying rather than time spent accessing and using a gun. It was not meant to apply to any security measures one might take in response to carrying a gun.

 

[Cathoholic]

LeafByNighle . . .

but it explains the contrast you were drawing between deaths from cars and deaths from guns.

It doesn’t. When people are carrying firearms, they ARE in use in a sense. That’s WHY people carrying firearms are not to consume alcohol for example.

“Pulling the trigger” is not the ONLY way people use firearms.

Your example is not equivalent.

 

[Inisfallen]

The right to arms is embedded in the right to self defense going back to the Magna Carta and before.

The Magna Carta, a 13th-century document recording an agreement between then King John and the great land-owning magnates of the time (and only the great land-owning magnates of the time), mostly concerns property rights, customary and de jure.

It does not grant or memorialize rights held to belong to all the people (the concept would have been utterly alien to the king and barons of the time), or grant a right to keep and bear arms to the people.

 

[JonNC]

JonNC:

The right to arms is embedded in the right to self defense going back to the Magna Carta and before.

The Magna Carta, a 13th-century document recording an agreement between then King John and the great land-owning magnates of the time (and only the great land-owning magnates of the time), mostly concerns property rights, customary and de jure.

It does not grant or memorialize rights held to belong to all the people (the concept would have been utterly alien to the king and barons of the time), or grant a right to keep and bear arms to the people.

Redirect Notice

 

[JonNC]

JonNC:

You asked how it is embedded in the individual right to self defense. That individual right was recognized in the Magna Carta and before.

Let’s be clear, we are still talking about the right to have and use a gun, not the general right of self defense, right? I don’t know if the Magna Carta lists that as a right for all people or not, but it doesn’t matter because, as I said, the Magna Carta is not officially or legally binding in the United States, so citing it as an authority is irrelevant.

As for the “and before” part, some people may have thought that at some point in history. That does not prove it is a right. The only legally binding and relevant document for us is the Second Amendment, which the courts have held is violated by some, but not all, gun control measures. Until the court rules that a specific measure is unconstitutional, it is just your layman’s opinion against mine. For what it’s worth, I think the specific measure of using social media in the OP, if it passes (which is doubtful) will be found unconstitutional. But that decision will not be broad one.

I guess the difference between us is two-fold.

1. I view rights as inherent and antecedent to government, not granted by government.
2. I view rights as the source of government power, and therefore superior to government.

While I can’t and won’t speak for you, I do know that progressive that going back to Wilson takes a view contrary to that.

From my viewpoint, since rights precede government, one can verify their existence prior to any particular government, including ours.

Our discussion here was based on the idea of finding mutually agreed upon east’s to prevent those who should not have guns from getting them without interfering with the right to arms by the law abiding. Whether or not the constitution would strike down a registry is irrelevant because those who support the right would oppose it on the grounds I gave. So, yes, these were our laymen’s opinions.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

LeafByNiggle:

JonNC:

You asked how it is embedded in the individual right to self defense. That individual right was recognized in the Magna Carta and before.

Let’s be clear, we are still talking about the right to have and use a gun, not the general right of self defense, right? I don’t know if the Magna Carta lists that as a right for all people or not, but it doesn’t matter because, as I said, the Magna Carta is not officially or legally binding in the United States, so citing it as an authority is irrelevant.

As for the “and before” part, some people may have thought that at some point in history. That does not prove it is a right. The only legally binding and relevant document for us is the Second Amendment, which the courts have held is violated by some, but not all, gun control measures. Until the court rules that a specific measure is unconstitutional, it is just your layman’s opinion against mine. For what it’s worth, I think the specific measure of using social media in the OP, if it passes (which is doubtful) will be found unconstitutional. But that decision will not be broad one.

I guess the difference between us is two-fold.

1. I view rights as inherent and antecedent to government, not granted by government.

I do too. I just don’t think the right to have and use a gun is one of those inherent rights.

1. I view rights as the source of government power, and therefore superior to government.

Well, the inherent rights, anyway. Many things are called “rights” that are not inherent.

From my viewpoint, since rights precede government, one can verify their existence prior to any particular government, including ours.

That’s just a tautology. Since you define the word “rights” as those that are inherent, then by the meaning of the word “inherent”, of course its existence is independent of government. That does not help one bit in the effort to determine if the right to own and use a gun is such a right.

 

[Inisfallen]

Interesting article. I read it in its entirety. It doesn’t address, in any way whatsoever, the point I was making.

 

[Inisfallen]

I don’t know if the Magna Carta lists that as a right for all people or not

It doesn’t.

 

[JonNC]

Interesting article. I read it in its entirety. It doesn’t address, in any way whatsoever, the point I was making.

Then you read it with a preconceived position.

 

[JonNC]

JonNC:

LeafByNiggle:

JonNC:

You asked how it is embedded in the individual right to self defense. That individual right was recognized in the Magna Carta and before.

Let’s be clear, we are still talking about the right to have and use a gun, not the general right of self defense, right? I don’t know if the Magna Carta lists that as a right for all people or not, but it doesn’t matter because, as I said, the Magna Carta is not officially or legally binding in the United States, so citing it as an authority is irrelevant.

As for the “and before” part, some people may have thought that at some point in history. That does not prove it is a right. The only legally binding and relevant document for us is the Second Amendment, which the courts have held is violated by some, but not all, gun control measures. Until the court rules that a specific measure is unconstitutional, it is just your layman’s opinion against mine. For what it’s worth, I think the specific measure of using social media in the OP, if it passes (which is doubtful) will be found unconstitutional. But that decision will not be broad one.

I guess the difference between us is two-fold.

1. I view rights as inherent and antecedent to government, not granted by government.

I do too. I just don’t think the right to have and use a gun is one of those inherent rights.

1. I view rights as the source of government power, and therefore superior to government.

Well, the inherent rights, anyway. Many things are called “rights” that are not inherent.

From my viewpoint, since rights precede government, one can verify their existence prior to any particular government, including ours.

That’s just a tautology. Since you define the word “rights” as those that are inherent, then by the meaning of the word “inherent”, of course its existence is independent of government. That does not help one bit in the effort to determine if the right to own and use a gun is such a right.

In all honesty, without agreement that thecright to keep and bear arms is an inherent right, mutual conclusions are hard to come by because our basic understanding of the right is in opposition. If one doesn’t view as an inherent right, then it is a mere privilege granted by government to the people, to be rescinded by government.
Then the status of all rights is in question.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

In all honesty, without agreement that thecright to keep and bear arms is an inherent right, mutual conclusions are hard to come by because our basic understanding of the right is in opposition

Well, of course. Unless you can support you belief with something we hold in common, just stating your belief is never going to do it. About the only values I know we have in common is the profession of the Catholic faith. But I don’t think you are going to find any support for the right to have and use a gun as an inherent right in the Catechism. I know there is an inherent right to self defense in Church teaching, but the Church does not go on to say that specific weapons are necessarily a right. I have heard it said that without the right to use a gun, the right to self-defense is meaningless. I have never heard a convincing argument for that point either.

 

[Inisfallen]

Then you read it with a preconceived position

I didn’t, actually. Or at least I tried not to.

And I’m certainly no expert in 13th century history or literature.

So I may have missed where the Magna Carta endorses, or even mentions, the right of all the people, regardless of social position, to keep and bear arms.

 

[JonNC]

JonNC:

In all honesty, without agreement that thecright to keep and bear arms is an inherent right, mutual conclusions are hard to come by because our basic understanding of the right is in opposition

Well, of course. Unless you can support you belief with something we hold in common, just stating your belief is never going to do it. About the only values I know we have in common is the profession of the Catholic faith. But I don’t think you are going to find any support for the right to have and use a gun as an inherent right in the Catechism. I know there is an inherent right to self defense in Church teaching, but the Church does not go on to say that specific weapons are necessarily a right. I have heard it said that without the right to use a gun, the right to self-defense is meaningless. I have never heard a convincing argument for that point either.

I’m not going to look in the Catholic Catechism,any more than you would look in an Anglican or Lutheran one.
So let’s take the word inherent out. I would contend otherwise that the individual right to arms is equal in importance to all other enumerated rights. When former Justice Stevens suggested the repeal of the 2nd, it could have been the first or fifth for all I care. It would be the same.
So, again, from that position, any mutually agreed upon statute to limit access to firearms by those who should not have them must meet two criteria: 1) it cannot interfere withthe right of the law abiding. 2) it cannot jeopardize the individual right itself, hence an absolute opposition to things like a registry.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

LeafByNiggle:

Well, of course. Unless you can support you belief with something we hold in common, just stating your belief is never going to do it. About the only values I know we have in common is the profession of the Catholic faith. But I don’t think you are going to find any support for the right to have and use a gun as an inherent right in the Catechism. I know there is an inherent right to self defense in Church teaching, but the Church does not go on to say that specific weapons are necessarily a right. I have heard it said that without the right to use a gun, the right to self-defense is meaningless. I have never heard a convincing argument for that point either.

I’m not going to look in the Catholic Catechism,any more than you would look in an Anglican or Lutheran one.

Sorry, I forgot you are not Catholic. I guess I knew that at one time. But that doesn’t really matter, since our Christian faith is similar enough on this point.

So let’s take the word inherent out. I would contend otherwise that the individual right to arms is equal in importance to all other enumerated rights.

I assume you mean “enumerated in the US Constitution.” If so, then as a practical matter I can agree that there is no basis in law for thinking any one section of the Constitution is less important than another. In other words, I agree with you.

When former Justice Stevens suggested the repeal of the 2nd, it could have been the first or fifth for all I care. It would be the same.

Any provision of the Constitution can be repealed (in theory) with another amendment. The decision to do so or not do so would be based on the merits of that particular provision. The 21st Amendment is unique in being the only Amendment to repeal another Amendment. But other Amendments have repealed (or invalidated) other provisions of the Constitution, such as the the 15th Amendment. In short, we can do whatever we want with the Constitution. But the founders made it especially hard to make changes so that the only changes that can be made are those that have very broad support from many sectors of society. I don’t think the 2nd Amendment is in any danger of total repeal, although it’s exact interpretation may be modified.

So, again, from that position, any mutually agreed upon statute to limit access to firearms by those who should not have them must meet two criteria: 1) it cannot interfere with the right of the law abiding.

We already have that and it has not been ruled unconstitutional by the courts. So that cannot be a firm requirement.

1. it cannot jeopardize the individual right itself, hence an absolute opposition to things like a registry.

“Jeopardize” is a vague term open to too much interpretation. I do not agree to this either.

 

[1cthlctrth]

We must keep guns out of the hands of people who commit violent crimes. However, normal everyday people have the right to own a gun. We’re asking for big trouble if we let the government micromanage every part of our lives. For Leftists, it’s about centralized government power, and the suppression of individual freedom.

 

[1cthlctrth]

The best way to defeat a bad guy with a gun: a good guy with a gun.

 

[1cthlctrth]

By the way, Chicago (and the sites of most mass-shootings) is a “gun-free” zone. That doesn’t appear to be working very well. Soft targets for the bad guys.