L
Lea101
Guest
Is there a limit to the number of possible deaths per weapon for it to become a constitutional right to own one though? Genuinely curious.
Why?
- Status
L
LilyM
Guest
But ‘infringed’ does not and annot mean ‘restricted’ because it is already - lawfully- restricted in quite a few ways.angel12:
Also, no other Constitutional right contains the words “shall not be infringed.”
The only a argument is what type and level of restriction is appropriate.
Imho having easy access to guns and wondering why there is a high level of.gun crine is like having easy access to.junk food and wondering why foks are obese.
Difference is everyone has to eat so you can’t really ban food. Not everyone- not NEARLY everyone- has to have a gun.
T
tgGodsway
Guest
Well, we can do nothing and wait for the police to arrive as the gun man pops off one at a time. Or… righteous people who know how to use the fire arm may save as many as possible until police arrive. It’s a senceable law of preservation. Why is this not senceable to you? And what better answer do you have?
T
tgGodsway
Guest
You missed the point. Whether the good guy with a gun is there or not, when one is, it is more likely they will save lives until the police can finally arrive. When unarmed good guys are there, everybody dies.
N
Nihilo
Guest
Or. It is illegally and Unconstitutionally and unjustly and wickedly “already…restricted in quite a few ways.”Nihilo:
But ‘infringed’ does not and annot mean ‘restricted’ because it is already - lawfully- restricted in quite a few ways.angel12:
Also, no other Constitutional right contains the words “shall not be infringed.”
I am a classical liberal, but also I can read, and I read, and you do too, “Shall not be infringed.”
Imagine what it means to infringe your right to life. Or to speak, or to practice religion freely. We all know what infringing rights like these looks like, and we all rightly condemn that infringement.
Consider the millions of innocent people who have been murdered under marxist regimes. Marxism is philosophy. Philosophy is speech. Should we infringe the right to free speech?
That’s true if your view is right. It’s not true, if classical liberalism is right. And I’ve got strong evidence that classical liberalism is right.
But nobody knows the future, and so we cannot know beforehand that you’re one of the people who won’t need a gun to defend their life or limb, or the lives and limbs of your close family, or of your neighbors, or of any other innocent (of capital crimes) people.
And so since we don’t and can’t know the future, it is evil to rob you of your human right to not be outgunned, in that case that a murderer wants to kill you or kill your kin, or for that matter if wild animals try to do so.
Which is only one confirmation that classical liberalism is right, and there are others that positively prove it also.
X
Xystus
Guest
Start with Federalist Paper 29, excerpt below:
This shows that the militia earns the character of being “well regulated” through “military exercises and evolutions, as often as might be necessary to acquire the degree of perfection”. on other words, a well regulated militia is “well trained” or in “good working order”
N
Nihilo
Guest
We are actively trying to deny N. Korea and Iran nuclear weapons. Why not France, or England, or India? We don’t trust N. Korea and Iran.Nihilo:
Is there a limit to the number of possible deaths per weapon for it to become a constitutional right to own one though? Genuinely curious.
Because the current restrictions are illegal, Unconstitutional, and evil, all at the same time.Nihilo:
Why?
E
Erikaspirit16
Guest
[that “well regulated” = “well trained” or “disciplined” or “good working order.”] Xystus is right about that. There are all sorts of sources, from George Washington, Alexander Hamilton, etc.–in other words from this period of history–that show the common meaning at the time in reference to a militia or amy was exactly that: disciplined or well trained. It didn’t mean “controlled by laws” or something.
However, it’s worth noting that it was only in 2008 with District of Columbia v Heller that the Supreme Court ruled (5-4, of course) that the right to bear arms could be separated from the idea of a “militia.”
And Warren Burger, chief justice appointed by Nixon said this in 1991 (after his retirement):
“If I were writing the Bill of Rights now, there wouldn’t be any such thing as the Second Amendment … that a well regulated militia being necessary for the defense of the state, the peoples’ rights to bear arms. This has been the subject of one of the greatest pieces of fraud—I repeat the word ‘fraud’—on the American public by special interest groups that I have ever seen in my lifetime.”
And, what exactly IS the 2nd amendment? This is what was passed by Congress and is in the National Archives: “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.”
But a slightly different (no 1st comma and no comma after “Arms”) version was ratified by the states and authenticated by Jefferson (Sec. of State): “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.”
And the comma matters to the meaning: the second version, that the states ratified, makes “the right of the people…” the object of a condition about the militia.
Best solution: amend the Constitution, eliminate the “right” of individuals to own firearms.
Anyone on either side who wants to know more about the subject should read the excellent article on “second amendment” in Wikipedia.
Last edited:
C
casslean
Guest
This.
Every time someone says “What can we do about mass shootings?” I always think “Stop making gun ownership a right.” But no one wants to actually do that.
M
mrsdizzyd
Guest
Most people I know don’t own one because they are expensive and if given a choice, they’ll opt to spend their money on a more concealable weapon. I also don’t know very many people, who aren’t ex-military, that even desire to own an AR-15. Then again, I live in a metropolitan area, and I’m probably the most pro-2a person I know. Ha!
N
Nihilo
Guest
Virtually every other country especially other constitutional republics, have already removed the right to bear arms from all their laws. They don’t recognize it, and treat gun ownership like car ownership, not like a human right. They’re not classically liberal and neither is gun control. And gun control also isn’t Constitutional, so I do agree that if We the People don’t believe in the right to bear arms, that we should gather up our political will and amend the Bill of Rights to say so. That takes a super majority in both houses of Congress, and among all the state legislatures as well.
C
casslean
Guest
We don’t have a second amendment in Canada and I have lots of friends who are avid gun enthusiasts with extensive collections. They just don’t assume they have a right to own those guns.
C
Chris-Wa1
Guest
Automatic weapons are already very tightly controlled and illegal for personal possession. Only the military and some law enforcement agencies can legally use automatic weapons. If a private citizen has an automatic weapon, it is only because they obtained it illegally through the black market or they illegally modified their semi-automatic weapon with special parts obtained, again, illegally.
Pretty much every other legal weapon, except for hunting rifles, is a semi-automatic, including almost all handguns. Most hunting rifles are not even semi-automatic. They are bolt-action rifles that require the user to load and fire each bullet individually.
There is a great deal of ignorance of these basic facts about firearms in the media and among the general public.
Pretty much every other legal weapon, except for hunting rifles, is a semi-automatic, including almost all handguns. Most hunting rifles are not even semi-automatic. They are bolt-action rifles that require the user to load and fire each bullet individually.
There is a great deal of ignorance of these basic facts about firearms in the media and among the general public.
C
CatholicELATeacher
Guest
Well said.
Every one of these shooters is profoundly lacking Jesus Christ. Nearly every one lacks a father.
50-60 years ago guns were ridiculously easy to get, including semiautomatics. I can think of one mass shooting at that time— the U. of Texas tower incident. And how many young people were on psych meds, compared to today?
How prevalent was belief in God, Christ, and absolute morality then, compared to today?
It’s not a gun problem—it’s a mental illness + evil problem.
Every one of these shooters is profoundly lacking Jesus Christ. Nearly every one lacks a father.
50-60 years ago guns were ridiculously easy to get, including semiautomatics. I can think of one mass shooting at that time— the U. of Texas tower incident. And how many young people were on psych meds, compared to today?
How prevalent was belief in God, Christ, and absolute morality then, compared to today?
It’s not a gun problem—it’s a mental illness + evil problem.
Last edited:
N
Nihilo
Guest
The right to bear arms is not an assumption.
N
Nihilo
Guest
Correct. Civilians are banned from buying new selective fire /automatic weapons, but can be permitted to participate in the market for such weapons that were made up to 1986, nothing more recent. This fixed number of them, ensures that they will always fetch a massive premium over what their new, modern replacements cost, thus limiting those who can own them to, surprise surprise, wealthy people. Gun control is always discriminating against the poor, poc, and other either numerical or political minorities, which is just another objective reason that it’s inherently wicked and evil.
C
CatholicELATeacher
Guest
Me too. I can’t carry in a school, obviously, so I have to know how to weaponize other common classroom items in the event of a school invasion. And I have to be willing to do so to protect my students.
C
Chris-Wa1
Guest
Yes I understand this. What you’re talking about is quite rare, and as you said, very tightly controlled. For all practical purposes, owning automatic weapons is illegal, unless one meets very specific and restrictive criteria, which the vast majority of the population does not. My point is that people, and especially the media, often say we need to restrict automatic weapons. We already do. Automatic weapons are not a problem in this country as some claim out of ignorance.
E
Economist
Guest
Actually, many of us want to do exactly that!
R
_Ruby
Guest
Yes, but Thorolfr’s original question was why there were so many mass shootings in the USA compared to other places. You brought up the restrictive gun laws in relation to knife crime, but the knife crime you speak of is one on one crime, instances of mass stabbings are far rarer than mass shootings, so I don’t see how the two compare.
The USA is standing at 250+ mass shootings halfway through 2019, the last mass stabbing in the UK took place was 2 years ago.
To my mind, a mass killing has two factors: motivation and opportunity to carry it out. Out of all developed, western democracies, the USA seems to have a particular problem in producing people with both the motivation and the opportunity to carry out their plans.
- Status