Poor little girls in Florida!

[LeafByNiggle]

LeafByNiggle:

I would phrase it differently. The government has the right to restrict the use of firearms in any way that is not clearly inside the protected right (meaning the right to keep and bear arms).

First government has no rights. Government has powers.

According to Catholic teaching, and probably according to your church’s teaching too, legitimate authority does have the natural law right to exercise its authority.

The right to keep and bear arms is, first and foremost…

If this is the start of a first-principles argument on the meaning of the 2nd amendment, I am not in the mood for that today. I will rely on the judgement of the highest court in the land, which has not held what you think they have held regarding semiautomatic civilian firearms.

 

[JonNC]

How would you achieve that? Mind you, I agree with your concept. But there is a huge resistance about a database to keep track of the guns, to eliminate gun transfer in legal, but undesirable manner - like gun shows. The NRA and its supporters want to keep unlimited access to virtually any kinds of firearms.

Well, first, you don’t do it by attacking the rights of those 100 million citizens that do not violate the law. Gun shows are rarely the source of firearms used in crime. I oppose a database/registry because it is the prerequisite for confiscation.
The comment about the NRA is patently false. I see no movement within the NRA for the legalization of assault weapons (automatic). I certainly wouldn’t.

 

[JonNC]

According to Catholic teaching, and probably according to your church’s teaching too, legitimate authority does have the natural law right to exercise its authority.

No. It is a power, not a right. Rights are granted to individuals. Government only has powers granted to it by the people. Those powers, even the government’s existence, can be ended by the people. See article 5.

If this is the start of a first-principles argument on the meaning of the 2nd amendment, I am not in the mood for that today. I will rely on the judgement of the highest court in the land, which has not held what you think they have held regarding semiautomatic civilian firearms.

Go read Heller. That is exactly what the Court says. The prefatory clause is clear about the first principle for which the right is protected. The Court then goes on to state that it is not the only reason. They further rule that firearms in “common use at the time” (Miller decision) by civilians are protected.

 

[IQ170]

First government has no rights. Government has powers.

Oh, brother! I almost spilled my coffee (not my covfefe!) The rights derive from power. Just think it through. What does it mean that “one has the right to perform action X”? It means that you are allowed to perform that action, without fear of repercussions. That is all. An unenforced “right” is just a pipe dream.

Well, first, you don’t do it by attacking the rights of those 100 million citizens that do not violate the law. Gun shows are rarely the source of firearms used in crime. I oppose a database/registry because it is the prerequisite for confiscation.
The comment about the NRA is patently false. I see no movement within the NRA for the legalization of assault weapons (automatic). I certainly wouldn’t.

Well, I see nothing constructive here. Try it again, with actual propositions. By the way, the distinction between semi-automatic and fully automatic weapons is almost irrelevant, due to the existence of bump-stocks, which are really easy to manufacture in your garage, unlike mass producing ammunition.

 

[JonNC]

Oh, brother! I almost spilled my coffee (not my covfefe!) The rights derive from power. Just think it through. What does it mean that “one has the right to perform action X”? It means that you are allowed to perform that action, without fear of repercussions. That is all. An unenforced “right” is just a pipe dream.

You seem to have no understanding of the principle of American governance. At no point in the constitution, Declaration of Independence, or the Federalist Papers, is there language of government having anything but limited power granted by the people.

Well, I see nothing constructive here. Try it again, with actual propositions. By the way, the distinction between semi-automatic and fully automatic weapons is almost irrelevant, due to the existence of bump-stocks, which are really easy to manufacture in your garage, unlike mass producing ammunition.

Nothing constructive? Then provide one yourself.
Of course there is a difference. Automatic firearms and bump-stocks are both illegal. It was my understanding that we were talking about stopping gun violence with “common sense” laws. These two prohibitions are common sense, and already in place. AFAIK, only one mass shooting involved either - Las Vegas. So I see nothing constructive in the comment about them.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

LeafByNiggle:

According to Catholic teaching, and probably according to your church’s teaching too, legitimate authority does have the natural law right to exercise its authority.

No. It is a power, not a right. Rights are granted to individuals. Government only has powers granted to it by the people. Those powers, even the government’s existence, can be ended by the people. See article 5.

I’m talking about something more powerful than article 5. I am talking about Almighty God. It is God who grants natural law rights. And so I repeat, according to Catholic teaching, and probably according to the teaching of your church as well, God has ordained that legitimate authorities acting for the common good have the right to exercise that authority. (And citizens have the duty to obey the laws of that authority, unless such laws require them to engage in immoral acts.)

 

[JonNC]

I’m talking about something more powerful than article 5. I am talking about Almighty God. It is God who grants natural law rights.

That’s your interpretation of Natural Law. The framers had and expressed a different view. So, short of a theocracy, we go by the Constitution.

And so I repeat, according to Catholic teaching, and probably according to the teaching of your church as well, God has ordained that legitimate authorities acting for the common good have the right to exercise that authority.

Irrelevant, what your communion or mine teach about it. The Constitution and American founding documents are explicit: government power is granted to it by the people, and can be taken away just as easily. Article 5.

(And citizens have the duty to obey the laws of that authority, unless such laws require them to engage in immoral acts.)

That authority is granted by the consent of the governed through the constitution. We as a people rejected divine right of kings (government) about 250 years ago.

 

[IQ170]

You seem to have no understanding of the principle of American governance. At no point in the constitution, Declaration of Independence, or the Federalist Papers, is there language of government having anything but limited power granted by the people.

I am aware all of that. Nice, but unrealistic dream. None of those you mentioned equals the Constitution. And the laws are maintained by the legal system and the police. Once the government is established, it will declare that anyone against it is a criminal, and will be treated as such. Every government is maintained by force. This is fact. You and I might not like it, but the facts do not care about our likes and dislikes.

Nothing constructive? Then provide one yourself.

Evasion again? Not that was hoping to get something positive. What kind of arrangement can you suggest to lower / eliminate the gun related violence? You would be welcome to say that you have nothing.

As long as the gun rights are considered more important than the deaths due to illegal activities, you will be unable to produce anything constructive. If the deaths due to those illegal actions will become more important than the gun rights (given by the government) then and only then will be new laws become feasible and eventually enacted, if necessary by amending the Constitution. And that will be an uphill battle, because you “either personally, or in general” consider a few mass murders an acceptable price to pay. As long as that price is paid by some far away and unknown victims and not your family.

Are you going to refute this?

 

[LeafByNiggle]

LeafByNiggle:

I’m talking about something more powerful than article 5. I am talking about Almighty God. It is God who grants natural law rights.

That’s your interpretation of Natural Law.

Well, it is Catholic Church’s interpretation of Natural Law.

The framers had and expressed a different view.

When comes to rights granted by God, I’ll take the word of my Church of the word some politicians.

So, short of a theocracy, we go by the Constitution.

As far as what laws we have to obey, yes, we go by the Constitution, which is a perfect example of what I was saying - a legitimate authority acting in the common good. The US Government has the right ordained by God to establish laws that we must follow. It is more than a power. It is a right.

And so I repeat, according to Catholic teaching, and probably according to the teaching of your church as well, God has ordained that legitimate authorities acting for the common good have the right to exercise that authority.

Irrelevant, what your communion or mine teach about it.

It is irrelevant to the question of what the Constitution says. That is true. But the question at the moment is whether a government has rights. I don’t know if you mean something different than I do by the word “rights”, but government does have the right to exercise it’s authority. Now if could guess what you are beating around the bush about without saying it is that the Constitution establishes specific limits on what the government may do. And if you want to call that a limit on rights, then please say so, and I will know how to interpret the word “rights” when you use it. But even within the Constitution, mechanisms are defined to made interpretations and applications of the Constitution to particular cases - chief among those mechanisms is the Supreme Court. And that court has not interpreted the 2nd amendment to mean that semiautomatic weapons may not be banned by state or local governments. Even the Heller decision ruled only that “excessive” regulation was contrary to the 2nd amendment. So according to the official interpretation of the 2nd amendment, the State of Florida does have the right to place certain restrictions on the sale and use of semi-automatic weapons. If you believe otherwise, then bring a case to the Supreme Court and we will see.

The Constitution and American founding documents are explicit: government power is granted to it by the people, and can be taken away just as easily. Article 5.

But only by mechanism that are defined in that same Constitution. The Constitution does not give license to a popular armed uprising or other such illegal means of “taking away” that power.

 

[JonNC]

I am aware all of that. Nice, but unrealistic dream. None of those you mentioned equals the Constitution.

Actually, that is exactly the constitution. Find the term “government rights” in any founding document. The Declaration is explicit:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,

People are endowed by their creator with rights, not government.
Government is created (instituted) by people, and it derives its powers (not rights) from the people.

And the laws are maintained by the legal system and the police.

Which was created to preserve individual rights, and can be abolished if it abuses rights.

Once the government is established, it will declare that anyone against it is a criminal, and will be treated as such. Every government is maintained by force.

You’re making my case for the right to keep and bear arms.

Evasion again? Not that was hoping to get something positive. What kind of arrangement can you suggest to lower / eliminate the gun related violence? You would be welcome to say that you have nothing.

Evasion? You’re the one who said “nothing constructive”. So, where’s your constructive?
I have lots.

1. Intensify police presence in the inner cities where the “Ferguson Effect” has reduced police presence.
2. Change government policies that have led to the decline of the American family and increase in the out-of-wedlock birthrate, policies that encourage men to not be in the family picture to raise their sons, in particular.
3. Return greater carry and possession rights to the law abiding in the inner cities so they can better protect themselves. This was the intention of the MacDonald decision.
4. With robust and intense protection of due process, develop “red flag” laws that can be used to identify and help those who by word or deed have demonstrated they may be a risk. An example is the Parkland shooter. He should have been adjudicated for his previous violence.
5. Government agencies and personal must be held accountable when they fail to enforce existing laws, as was the case in both Parkland and Sutherland Springs.

 

[JonNC]

As long as the gun rights are considered more important than the deaths due to illegal activities, you will be unable to produce anything constructive.

Non-sequitur. The right of the law abiding to keep and bear arms is not the cause of violence. Ending gun deaths is not related to the rights of law-abiding Americans.

If the deaths due to those illegal actions will become more important than the gun rights (given by the government) then and only then will be new laws become feasible and eventually enacted, if necessary by amending the Constitution.

See above. The right to keep and bear arms, which is antecedent to even the existence of government, is not the cause of violence and illegal gun use, anymore than the right to free speech is the cause of slander.

And that will be an uphill battle, because you “either personally, or in general” consider a few mass murders an acceptable price to pay. As long as that price is paid by some far away and unknown victims and not your family.

Actually, it is those who wish to disarm the populace that invite the greater likelihood of civilian murders due to the fact that it is government that is most prone to massacres. That seems to be okay for some who think government power is preferable to individual rights.

 

[Ridgerunner]

I think to those who are not used to guns, and hate them because they know little or nothing about them, this seems bad, when it isn’t.

I doubt I was even 10 when I got my first .22 rifle. It was a bolt-action, single shot, .22 long rifle. My younger brother got a .22 short at the same time. They had been my father’s when he was young. I’m not sure how old my daughters were when I bought them guns, but I doubt either of them was over 10 years old.

With them, as with me, there was the gift, then lessons in taking care of a gun, cleaning it, handling it and shooting it. None has ever shot any person. Their use was strictly supervised until they were older, and then they could only shoot in the country.

I would imagine any parent who buys a .22 rifle for a 10 year old totally supervises its use.

 

[JonNC]

I would imagine any parent who buys a .22 rifle for a 10 year old totally supervises its use.

And by doing so, they’ve done their child and society a great service.

 

[GKMotley]

22 bolt action, 5 shot magazine, thus capable of holding 6 rounds. Hand-crafted stock, done by my uncle.

 

[Ridgerunner]

And by doing so, they’ve done their child and society a great service.

Seems so to me. I can’t explain why it is, but I can still shoot with an accuracy that surprises even me with that old .22 bolt action rifle with nothing but iron sights. I think it actually takes a lot of shooting to get really good at it.

 

[IQ170]

People are endowed by their creator with rights, not government.

The Declaration is a nice, but irrelevant document.

Which was created to preserve individual rights, and can be abolished if it abuses rights.

Which rights? To carry weapons of mass destruction? This is the crux of the problem, which is avoided by your side.

Evasion? You’re the one who said “nothing constructive”. So, where’s your constructive?
I have lots.

I am not for the 2nd amendment, so it is not my job to keep it AND also eliminate gun related deaths. The problem is yours, not mine.

1. Intensify police presence in the inner cities where the “Ferguson Effect” has reduced police presence.
2. Change government policies that have led to the decline of the American family and increase in the out-of-wedlock birthrate, policies that encourage men to not be in the family picture to raise their sons, in particular.
3. Return greater carry and possession rights to the law abiding in the inner cities so they can better protect themselves. This was the intention of the MacDonald decision.
4. With robust and intense protection of due process, develop “red flag” laws that can be used to identify and help those who by word or deed have demonstrated they may be a risk. An example is the Parkland shooter. He should have been adjudicated for his previous violence.
5. Government agencies and personal must be held accountable when they fail to enforce existing laws, as was the case in both Parkland and Sutherland Springs.

1. Means a police state.
2. Irrelevant.
3. More guns will increase violence.
4. That is a good approach.
5. So is this.

So you had two useful propositions. Not a bad start.

How about eliminating the gun shows? Eliminating the gun transfer possibilities. Making gun ownership like car ownership? Making gun carry licenses renewable every “x” years? All law abiding citizens must renew their driver licenses periodically. And driving is MUCH more important than carrying guns. Registering all guns, like cars? Do you have anything against this kind of approach?

 

[IQ170]

Non-sequitur. The right of the law abiding to keep and bear arms is not the cause of violence. Ending gun deaths is not related to the rights of law-abiding Americans.

Carrying guns is not a direct cause of violence. It, however, makes violence much easier to bring forth. As long as having guns is more important than eliminating the ILLEGAL use of them, nothing will happen. Eliminating guns would eliminating gun related deaths.

Actually, it is those who wish to disarm the populace that invite the greater likelihood of civilian murders due to the fact that it is government that is most prone to massacres.

What are the chances that the government will go berserk and start to slaughter civilians?

That seems to be okay for some who think government power is preferable to individual rights.

I don’t prefer the power of the government, but it is a fact.

 

[JonNC]

Carrying guns is not a direct cause of violence. It, however, makes violence much easier to bring forth. As long as having guns is more important than eliminating the ILLEGAL use of them, nothing will happen. Eliminating guns would eliminating gun related deaths.

Again. I non-sequitur, which you just admitted. Are you willing to start with government?

What are the chances that the government will go berserk and start to slaughter civilians?

Ask the Jews in central Europe, the Russians and others under Stalin, the Cambodians, the Chinese under Mao. Prevention, and the right to defend oneself and the free state.

I don’t prefer the power of the government, but it is a fact.

Then I assume you do not support only government with guns.

 

[IQ170]

I non-sequitur, which you just admitted.

An indirect cause is still a cause.

Ask the Jews in central Europe, the Russians and others under Stalin, the Cambodians, the Chinese under Mao. Prevention, and the right to defend oneself and the free state.

I am talking about the US, here and now. How about actually responding to my suggestions?

How about eliminating the gun shows? Eliminating the gun transfer possibilities. Making gun ownership like car ownership? Making gun carry licenses renewable every “x” years? All law abiding citizens must renew their driver licenses periodically. And driving is MUCH more important than carrying guns. Registering all guns, like cars? Do you have anything against this kind of approach?

 

[drcube]

And by doing so, they’ve done their child and society a great service.

Definitely. Now the child can protect him/herself from those bad guys that want to murder little kids at school. I hope they show up to school fully armed and prepared every day.