San Francisco Approves Gun, Military Recruiting Ban

[Arba_Sicula]

vern humphrey:

I have. I’ve also read much more scholarly and exhaustive work that refutes the proposition that gun control somehow saves lives.

Good. Then, post some of that scholarly and exhaustive work on that thread to rebut those statistics so we can see what the numbers on each side say!

As you probably know, the Supreme Court has consistently ruled there is no individual right to police protection.

Nor have they said that there is an individual right to carry concealed weapons.

Every dead citizen found in the street is an example of someone whom those professionals did not protect.

Not every dead citizen found in the streets would have been protected by a personal concealed firearm, either.

It’s not an appeal – it’s an illustration of how wrong-headed bigots can destroy civil rights.

Your wrong-headed bigot is another man’s right-thinking individual. What you see as a civil right is what others see as an invitation to disaster.

 

[Philip_P]

vern humphrey:

Start here: tsra.com/LottPage.htm

The most exhaustive stastical study ever done shows that allowing concealed weapons does reduce crime.

Note the irony – the question is no longer presented as “Allowing concealed weapons will increase crime.” That’s been so thoroughly shot down that the opposition has had to reword it to “Does allowing concealed weapons really **reduce **crime?”

Note the irony - all across the US crime has been going down significantly, yet in states with loose concealed carry laws, that decrease has been much less pronounced. Something’s been driving down crime, but obviously it’s not access to guns…

BTW, do check out the thread I started, “**Does allowing concealed weapons really reduce crime?” **The study cited specifically responds to the flawed Lott study you linked to.

 

[vern_humphrey]

Arba Sicula:

Good. Then, post some of that scholarly and exhaustive work on that thread to rebut those statistics so we can see what the numbers on each side say!

I posted the URL to an exhaustive list of studies.
Arba Sicula:

Nor have they said that there is an individual right to carry concealed weapons.

They don’t have to – the Constituition says that.

But they have said you have no right to police protection.
Arba Sicula:

Not every dead citizen found in the streets would have been protected by a personal concealed firearm, either.

Not every person who boards a lifeboat survives the shipwreck – but we’re not such fools as to outlaw lifeboats!
Arba Sicula:

Your wrong-headed bigot is another man’s right-thinking individual. What you see as a civil right is what others see as an invitation to disaster.

What they see is one thing, what the Constitution says is another. And objective reality says they are wrong.

 

[Arba_Sicula]

vern humphrey:

They don’t have to – the Constituition says that.

To “concealed weapons”? I’ll bet a dinner at the best restaurant in NYC to one at the best restaurant in Little Rock, that the Constitution has no language about concealed weapons.

Not every person who boards a lifeboat survives the shipwreck – but we’re not such fools as to outlaw lifeboats!

You want everyone to carry around his own lifeboat, never mind what the ship provides, eh?

What they see is one thing, what the Constitution says is another. And objective reality says they are wrong.

Again, the challenge to find language about concealed weaons in the Constitution.

 

[vern_humphrey]

Arba Sicula:

To “concealed weapons”? I’ll bet a dinner at the best restaurant in NYC to one at the best restaurant in Little Rock, that the Constitution has no language about concealed weapons.

You lose:

Amendment II
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. **

I’ll take that dinner at the Dogwood Steak House in Mountain View, if you don’t mind.http://forums.catholic-questions.org/images/icons/icon12.gif
Arba Sicula:

You want everyone to carry around his own lifeboat, never mind what the ship provides, eh?

Last time I was on a ship, each individual had his own life preserver. And when I was on my own sailboat, yes, I had my own lifeboat.

 

[Arba_Sicula]

vern humphrey:

You lose:

Oh? Where’s the “concealed weapon” language? And the Amendment is about “well regulated militias,” not personal handguns.

Last time I was on a ship, each individual had his own life preserver.

Provided by the ship, not the individual, no doubt.

And when I was on my own sailboat, yes, I had my own lifeboat.

And your passengers had to provide their own lifeboats?

 

[vern_humphrey]

Arba Sicula:

Oh? Where’s the “concealed weapon” language? And the Amendment is about “well regulated militias,” not personal handguns.

What part of “shall not be infringed” don’t you understand?http://forums.catholic-questions.org/images/icons/icon12.gif

As for the tired old, “It applies only to the militia” argument, when and where has a court ruled that way? Clearly the Debates make it obvious that “the militia is the whole of the people.”
Arba Sicula:

Provided by the ship, not the individual, no doubt.

So you think the government ought to issue us guns, do you?http://forums.catholic-questions.org/images/icons/icon12.gif
Arba Sicula:

And your passengers had to provide their own lifeboats?

If there were more than could fit into mine.http://forums.catholic-questions.org/images/icons/icon10.gif

Your argument reminds me of those idiots in England who wanted to prohibit lifeboats.

 

[Sir_Knight]

Arba Sicula:

And the Amendment is about “well regulated militias,” not personal handguns.

Interesting in how the all other 9 amendments make reference to individual rights (freedom of speech, freedom from unreasonable search, etc.) yet the second amendment for some reason doesn’t deal with an individual’s right.

Why is that?

Don’t have an answer? Maybe then, the second amendment DOES deal with an individual’s right to keep and bear arms!

 

[wabrams]

Sir Knight:

Interesting in how the all other 9 amendments make reference to individual rights (freedom of speech, freedom from unreasonable search, etc.) yet the second amendment for some reason doesn’t deal with an individual’s right.

Why is that?

Don’t have an answer? Maybe then, the second amendment DOES deal with an individual’s right to keep and bear arms!

My constitutional law and Supreme Court process professors in college always explained it like this: when the Constitution was written, the militia was every man. “Bear” simply means to carry, so you won’t find anything specific to concealed weapons anymore than you would find specific language saying the weapons have to be carried in plain sight.

 

[Sir_Knight]

wabrams:

My constitutional law and Supreme Court process professors in college always explained it like this: when the Constitution was written, the militia was every man. “Bear” simply means to carry, so you won’t find anything specific to concealed weapons anymore than you would find specific language saying the weapons have to be carried in plain sight.

Exactly my point. It was intended to be an individual right!

 

[vern_humphrey]

wabrams:

My constitutional law and Supreme Court process professors in college always explained it like this: when the Constitution was written, the militia was every man. “Bear” simply means to carry, so you won’t find anything specific to concealed weapons anymore than you would find specific language saying the weapons have to be carried in plain sight.

And the militia still is every man.

And since the right to bear shall not be infringed, there is no constitutional warrant for outlawing the means of bearing.

 

[Arba_Sicula]

vern humphrey:

And the militia still is every man.

The militia is a body of men, not every man.

Read the Amendment. It refers to the people’s (militia’s) right to bear arms, not to the individual’s. There are numerous law briefs available that support this position - as well as, I know, support for unabridged gun possession.

But, let’s hope this gets to the Supreme Court to get a final interpretation of that Amendment, one way or the other. I’m confident that even a conservative Court will not consider every individual to have an unabridged right to own any arms he wants.

Folks in the boonies want to carry a .44 hogsleg, ready at any time for a Streets of Laredo quick draw showdown? Let them have at it. As long as they voted that privilege in.

But, as for me, I’ll support every law that restricts the “right” to carry a hidden handgun in public, at least in my city.

 

[vern_humphrey]

Arba Sicula:

The militia is a body of men, not every man.

The militia are the whole body of the people – every man except those already on military service or in government.
Arba Sicula:

Read the Amendment. It refers to the people’s (militia’s) right to bear arms, not to the individual’s. There are numerous law briefs available that support this position - as well as, I know, support for unabridged gun possession.

Read the Amendment. It refers to the people’s, not the militia’s right to bear arms. The need for a militia is a justification for guarenteeing the people this right.
Arba Sicula:

,But, let’s hope this gets to the Supreme Court to get a final interpretation of that Amendment, one way or the other. I’m confident that even a conservative Court will not consider every individual to have an unabridged right to own any arms he wants.

Let’s hope the Court decides to follow the Constitution. I personally feel comfortable with every citizen who has the right having the right to bear arms. Conversely, if we cannot trust someone to bear arms, we ought not to trust him to vote.
Arba Sicula:

Folks in the boonies want to carry a .44 hogsleg, ready at any time for a Streets of Laredo quick draw showdown? Let them have at it. As long as they voted that privilege in.

The Constituition was ratified more than 200 years ago.
Arba Sicula:

But, as for me, I’ll support every law that restricts the “right” to carry a hidden handgun in public, at least in my city.

You betcha. Who needs all those “rights” anyway? The papers should print what the government wants them to print, right? And the government should decide what our religion is.http://forums.catholic-questions.org/images/icons/icon12.gif

 

[wabrams]

vern humphrey:

And the militia still is every man.

And since the right to bear shall not be infringed, there is no constitutional warrant for outlawing the means of bearing.

Exactly!

 

[wabrams]

Arba Sicula:

The militia is a body of men, not every man.

Main Entry: mi·li·tia [m-w.com/images/audio.gif](javascriptopWin(’/cgi-bin/audio.pl?militi01.wav=militia’))
Pronunciation: m&-'li-sh&
Function: noun
Etymology: Latin, military service, from milit-, miles
1 a : a part of the organized armed forces of a country liable to call only in emergency b : a body of citizens organized for military service
2 : the whole body of able-bodied male citizens declared by law as being subject to call to military service

Source:
m-w.com/dictionary/militia

Many states still have militia who are made up of ordinary citizens. Some have prior military service, some have none. They are called up in case of emergency or as other needs of the state rely on their service. To join all you need is to pass a criminal background check, just like buying a firearm. So yes, the militia is every man or woman.

 

[Arba_Sicula]

vern humphrey:

The militia are the whole body of the people – every man except those already on military service or in government.

Read the Amendment. It refers to the people’s, not the militia’s right to bear arms. The need for a militia is a justification for guarenteeing the people this right.

Yours is one position on the right to bear arms. I am aware of that. I happen to believe that it is the incorrect position, but neither you or I will decide which position should be upheld.

Let’s hope the Court decides to follow the Constitution.

You and I can both say that, but to be sure we each have a different notion of what following the Constitution means in this matter.

I personally feel comfortable with every citizen who has the right having the right to bear arms.

I agree that anyone should be able to own long arms, hunting guns.

The Constituition was ratified more than 200 years ago.

When people didn’t carry their muzzleloaders concealed.

You betcha. Who needs all those “rights” anyway?

I’ve already said that If the citizens of Arkansas or some such state decide that they should have the right to carry concealed handguns, then they ought to be able to do so. Honest election on the matter, etc.

But, if Arkansas decided to vote to ban concealed handguns, that’s also their perogative. No argument from me either way.

But, I don’t live in Texarkana, and the will of your people is the will of your people. I do live in Brooklyn, and my will, and I hope, of millions more Gothamites is to ban handgun carry laws as they are now and as they will continue to be.

Enjoy the privilege your legislature has extended to you!

 

[vern_humphrey]

Arba Sicula:

When people didn’t carry their muzzleloaders concealed.

They did, you know. In fact, a lot of clothing was tailored for the carrying of concealed weapons in those days. A common carry place was in the tail of a coat, which is why those tails were buttoned back.
Arba Sicula:

I’ve already said that If the citizens of Arkansas or some such state decide that they should have the right to carry concealed handguns, then they ought to be able to do so. Honest election on the matter, etc.

The beautiful thing about the Bill of Rights is that it covers everyone, everywhere in the nation. I can be a Catholic in a state where we are a tiny minority because of the Bill of Rights – even if the majority of my neighbors are anti-Catholic.
Arba Sicula:

But, if Arkansas decided to vote to ban concealed handguns, that’s also their perogative. No argument from me either way.

Kind of like whe the Ku Klux Klan burned my old church, Saint Mary’s in Batesville in the '70s?
Arba Sicula:

But, I don’t live in Texarkana, and the will of your people is the will of your people. I do live in Brooklyn, and my will, and I hope, of millions more Gothamites is to ban handgun carry laws as they are now and as they will continue to be.

Enjoy the privilege your legislature has extended to you!

It isn’t a privilige – when basic rights are seen as “priviliges” the whole concept of human rights is endangered.

 

[Arba_Sicula]

vern humphrey:

It isn’t a privilege – when basic rights are seen as “privileges” the whole concept of human rights is endangered.

What you say is the nub of it, I think. You consider carrying a gun one of the basic human rights. I don’t see carrying a concealed weapon as a right at all, I see it as a privilege. Just like driving a car, for example.

I’d like the Supremes to rule on the controversy, hoping that they will consider it a privilege for individuals. Then, you could carry your handgun as you do now, by dint of your legislature’s or city council’s grant, or not, where it wasn’t desired, by the legislature or city council’s ban.

 

[vern_humphrey]

Arba Sicula:

What you say is the nub of it, I think. You consider carrying a gun one of the basic human rights. I don’t see carrying a concealed weapon as a right at all, I see it as a privilege. Just like driving a car, for example.

I’d like the Supremes to rule on the controversy, hoping that they will consider it a privilege for individuals. Then, you could carry your handgun as you do now, by dint of your legislature’s or city council’s grant, or not, where it wasn’t desired, by the legislature or city council’s ban.

So how come it’s listed in the Bill of Rights, and not the Bill of Priviliges?

Don’t you see how supporting bizzare interpretations of the Constitution hurts us all? What works in circumventing one amendment will work in circumventing them all. Look at the twisted logic that gave us abortion on demand. Look at attacks on religion under the guise of the First Amenement.

 

[Arba_Sicula]

vern humphrey:

So how come it’s listed in the Bill of Rights, and not the Bill of Priviliges?

I am speaking of concealed handguns, not arming a militia. There’s simply been no final interpretation by the SCt, so you can see it your way, and I mine. And we are joined by partisans on either side. I read somewhere that the NRA doesn’t actually want the matter to go to the Supreme Court because they’re genuinely fearful of losing, so they’d rather have it remain in legal limbo than be decided.

Don’t you see how supporting bizzare interpretations of the Constitution hurts us all? What works in circumventing one amendment will work in circumventing them all.

Yes, that might likely be so if I accepted your position as to the correct interpretation of the 2nd Amendment.