What can we do about the shootings?

[Economist]

This has all been addressed by the courts. The 2nd Amendment covers ammunition the same as it does the firearm itself. They can’t tax it to make too expensive, they can’t make it illegal, etc.

Do you have access to the pertinent court rulings? I would be interested in seeing them. Especially the ones which equate the guns and the ammo.

 

[Nihilo]

[Caetano v. Mass.] was an affirmation of the District Columbia vs Heller…

…prohibiting certain types of weapons is certainly allowed…

Caetano elaborated on what can be and what cannot be considered “dangerous,” noting that the prohibitions on the carrying of arms based on whether they are dangerous or not, is one half of a dual-pronged test, it must be both dangerous and unusual, not just one. And the S. Ct. further noted that guns inherently cannot be considered to fail even the “dangerous” part of that test, let alone both “dangerous” And “unusual,” which is what is required to justify historically restricting what can be carried publicly.

I will also say, that the Supreme Court is interpreting the constitution, not “fundamental human rights…”

I know. I was just presenting some relevant information about the S. Ct.'s thoughts on the Second Amendment. The fact is that the words “the right to bear arms” (‘sans’ ellipses) is explicit, and that’s in opposition to any other especially developed Western country’s law. So since the Supremes have to face the reality of the Second Amendment, it can help clarify things for the rest of us to inspect /examine what these legal authorities think about it.

So you believe that all current restrictions on gun ownership and carrying guns are a violation of fundamental human rights?

In as much as I understand those words, yes I do. I note that we may be using different homonyms, which is why I’m happy to clarify and define the words and terms I’m using to avoid unnecessary confusion due to unintentional ambiguity.

If you would ever have to break the law to save your life, then whatever law that is, is fundamentally incorrect, that is just classical liberalism.

We should be able to own fully automatic weapons, we should not need a license for concealed carry, any type of ammo should be allowed?

Yep.

Churches, government buildings, airports, airline flights, schools: all of them cannot ban one carrying a gun?

…His answer will be that any private property owner may refuse admittance to said property to anyone for any condition…

That’s it.

Churches, airports and airlines have property rights, and can charge those who refuse to comply with trespassing (there is no right to commit crimes after all). Same for private people in their homes and on their property. There is no right to violate someone else’s rights, it’s in fact the opposite—classical liberals want le /government to actively penalize those who do violate someone else’s rights. If a store forbids guns, and a patron refuses to disarm before entering, then classical liberals want that patron arrested and imprisoned until we can trust them with a gun again.

Through due process of law, of course.

 

[Minks]

@tafan2 “There is nothing traditionally American about our current gun culture. It is a very new phenomena.”

New since what year?

 

[Nihilo]

MiserereMeiDei:

He’s been quite clear [wrt] restriction on ownership…

Fair enough, but it is an extreme position

It is not extreme but classically liberal. I am not an extremist but a classical liberal. Classical liberalism was what the American founders believed was right, and I agree with them. We are a city on a hill, wrt civil government, not extremists.

, I am wondering how far he actually goes. He states the his philosophical answer (and you must admit he was not clear for quite some time), but is he actually consistent on that view?

Yes.

I think it is fair.

It’s fair.

MiserereMeiDei:

His answer will be that any private property owner may refuse admittance to said property to anyone for any condition. I won’t speak to his answer for government buildings. That’s a toss up although I think he said restrictions were permitted at least for courts.

Yes, they are permitted by the courts, but that does not answer if he believes theses restrictions are violations of his fundamental rights.

If you ever have to break the law to save your life, then that law is fundamentally incorrect.

Assault is a crime. Posing a credible threat to someone’s life, limb, and liberty is crime. Standing there with a machine gun around your shoulder isn’t assault or posing a threat. Meanwhile, an unarmed man can pose a credible threat, and that unarmed man—not the one with the machine gun—should be arrested and confined until we trust he will not do that again.

 

[tafan2]

I appreciate your clarifications. We certainly disagree. I have been a gun owner since the age of 13, I have been around guns my entire life. I just do not see owning a gun as a fundamental human right.
With regards to the second amendment, I do not even agree with DC vs Heller, as it seems clear that founders intended the amendment to apply to a well regulate militia as the reason for the amendment, not self-defense. It was an instance of the courts making up a constitutional right that was not written in the constitution. Having said that, I certainly believe people should be allowed to own a gun for self-defense. And I agree with concealed carry for self-defense if one can show the need. But these two things are not fundamental rights nor even a constitutional right IMO.
As to gun ownership in general, ie for sporting purposes, that can be regulated as much as the government (preferably state or local) decide in a democratic manner.

 

[Nihilo]

. . . I agree with concealed carry for self-defense if one can show the need.

What about open carry? My own impression of the Second Amendment is that it pretty plainly forbids the forbidding of carrying weapons generally, which would mean first of all, that we ought to be free to carry weapons openly in public, and since the law is aimed at the federal and state legislatures, it especially means we would be free to do so on public property.

Only then would we need to ask the question “what about concealed?”

But these two things are not fundamental rights nor even a constitutional right IMO.
As to gun ownership in general, ie for sporting purposes, that can be regulated as much as the government (preferably state or local) decide in a democratic manner.

As every other developed Western nation does, without any mention of a right to bear arms in any of their laws. There are hunters everywhere, even where there’s no Second Amendment. But to obey our own supreme law the Bill of Rights, we can’t infringe the right to bear arms. If we don’t agree with that, then we should amend the Bill of Rights.

 

[tafan2]

What about open carry? My own impression of the Second Amendment is that it pretty plainly forbids the forbidding of carrying weapons generally, which would mean first of all, that we ought to be free to carry weapons openly in public, and since the law is aimed at the federal and state legislatures, it especially means we would be free to do so on public property.

Only then would we need to ask the question “what about concealed?”

I think your interpretation is hard to justify when looking at the wording of the amendment. The right to keep and bear arms is clearly in support of a well regulated militia. At the time of the founding, to have a militia (ie civilian based military force that can be locally mobilized quickly), it would have required for people to “keep” their own guns. But it would not have required them to be able to “bear” their guns all the time. As long as they can bear the arms while acting in the capacity of a militia member, that would suffice. So there is no constitutional right for concealed or open carry in general. This is pretty much the Supreme Court decision United States V Miller, 1939.

 

[PetraG]

@tafan2 “There is nothing traditionally American about our current gun culture. It is a very new phenomena.”

New since what year?

As far as I know, no population in the history of the world has had as many firearms per capita as ours does. Until recently, we had never had a firearm per person in private hands. We are now estimated to have over 120 per 100 persons, almost twice as many on a per capita basis as the next-most-armed citizenry (over 62 per 100 persons). We have three times as many in private hands per person as the countries in 5th place and four times as many as the country in 14th place. This, even though under a third of US households currently have guns.

Compare that to motor vehicles, a category in which we are in third place. The countries that have half as many per capita as we do are down in something like 70th place.

Nope, nothing in our history like this…

 

[PetraG]

If you ever have to break the law to save your life, then that law is fundamentally incorrect.

Assault is a crime. Posing a credible threat to someone’s life, limb, and liberty is crime. Standing there with a machine gun around your shoulder isn’t assault or posing a threat. Meanwhile, an unarmed man can pose a credible threat, and that unarmed man—not the one with the machine gun—should be arrested and confined until we trust he will not do that again.

Did you just write that “Standing there with a machine gun around your shoulder isn’t…posing a threat”?!?

Stroll around your neighborhood every day with a machine gun on your shoulder and poll your neighbors. Let us know what feedback you get on that…

This is the kinds of statements that erode public support for the 2nd Amendment. They really are. How do any gun advocates fail to get that? If I didn’t know better (by talking to actual gun owners) I would think these statements are being made by anti-gun trolls trying to undermine support for gun-owning.

 

[Nihilo]

I think your interpretation is hard to justify when looking at the wording of the amendment. The right to keep and bear arms is clearly in support of a well regulated militia. At the time of the founding, to have a militia (ie civilian based military force that can be locally mobilized quickly), it would have required for people to “keep” their own guns. But it would not have required them to be able to “bear” their guns all the time. As long as they can bear the arms while acting in the capacity of a militia member, that would suffice. So there is no constitutional right for concealed or open carry in general. This is pretty much the Supreme Court decision United States V Miller, 1939.

And Heller held:

The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes…
(a)
The Amendment’s prefatory clause announces a purpose, but does not limit or expand the scope of the second part, the operative clause. The operative clause’s text and history demonstrate that it connotes an individual right to keep and bear arms…
(f)
…United States v. Miller, 307 U. S. 174, does not limit the right to keep and bear arms to militia purposes…

 

[Nihilo]

Did you just write that “Standing there with a machine gun around your shoulder isn’t…posing a threat”?!?

Yep.

Stroll around your neighborhood every day with a machine gun on your shoulder and poll your neighbors. Let us know what feedback you get on that…

I don’t have a machine gun.

This is the kinds of statements that erode public support for the 2nd Amendment. They really are. How do any gun advocates fail to get that? If I didn’t know better (by talking to actual gun owners) I would think these statements are being made by anti-gun trolls trying to undermine support for gun-owning.

You do not understand or believe in classical liberalism is all. It doesn’t make your favored philosophy right.

 

[PetraG]

I don’t have a machine gun.

Well, people feel threatened by strangers wielding weapons. That’s on whole nother level than strangers who are known to carry a concealed weapon with a permit.

You do not understand or believe in classical liberalism is all. It doesn’t make your favored philosophy right.

I hope you realize that the law eventually becomes what the majority say it is, not what is “right” by some objective measure. That is political reality, the side the bread is buttered on, whether you or I like it or not.

 

[Nihilo]

Nihilo:

I don’t have a machine gun.

Well, people feel threatened by strangers wielding weapons. That’s on whole nother level than strangers who are known to carry a concealed weapon with a permit.

That’s manifestly false. Everybody feels fine when leos wield weapons. Even when they are strangers.

And meanwhile if people we know personally who are unarmed pose a credible threat to our life or limb, we don’t think that because they’re not armed that we must be imagining things.

Or at least, we shouldn’t.

 

[tafan2]

I am aware of what Heller held. It was a case, IMO, of the court making up a constitutional right that was not in the constitution. Not unlike the right to privacy which was created in a Roe V Wade. At the very least, you must admit to it being rather interesting that the right to self-defense as part of the 2nd amendment was not referenced by any court for well over 200 years.

 

[PetraG]

That’s manifestly false. Everybody feels fine when leos wield weapons. Even when they are strangers.

And meanwhile if people we know personally who are unarmed pose a credible threat to our life or limb, we don’t think that because they’re not armed that we must be imagining things.

Or at least, we shouldn’t.

I think I’m just being a bit slow here (again) because I have to think anyone who suggests what you’re saying is true is just pulling my leg.
There is no necessary relationship between reality and the way people feel and react.
A person with a loaded weapon is not a threat, per se. Some people may see a person with a loaded weapon, interpret them as a protector and actually feel safer.
It is extremely unlikely that this will be the emotional reaction to a total stranger with no credentials carrying a high capacity firearm. People don’t “feel fine” about that.

There are no limits to rights, if classical liberalism is correct, and if it is incorrect, then we don’t have rights.

This, by the way, is internally inconsistent because it is untenable in the practical sense and therefore it is manifest nonsense. I don’t care if Thomas Jefferson himself believed it.

 

[Nihilo]

Nihilo:

You do not understand or believe in classical liberalism is all. It doesn’t make your favored philosophy right.

I hope you realize that the law eventually becomes what the majority say it is, not what is “right” by some objective measure.

And classical liberalism understands more than any other philosophy the importance of defending the minority against the majority, through specifically the enumeration, recognition, and defense of our rights. It is by this, that societal stability is secured, according to classical liberalism.

That is political reality, the side the bread is buttered on, whether you or I like it or not.

And no matter how menacing or threatening or passive aggressive one makes one’s own words, doesn’t establish the truth of their own favored philosophy. That is also true.

 

[PetraG]

And classical liberalism understands more than any other philosophy the importance of defending the minority against the majority, through specifically the enumeration, recognition, and defense of our rights. It is by this, that societal stability is secured, according to classical liberalism.

You may believe you are the standard-bearer for an entire school of political thought, but you’re only saying that you personally understand more than anyone else about defending rights.

Over the course of history, rights not limited by responsibility and duty eventually lead to the collapse of society, to chaos, and then (inevitably) to a form of government that has far less concern for individual rights. Societies that value their rights take the need of limiting rights with responsibility very seriously.

Roughly 70% of American households choose not to own a firearm at all. If that majority becomes afraid for their lives due to the unbridled proliferation of high capacity weapons concentrated in a few hands with few restrictions leading to regular ambushes on groups of private citizens, you can bet that the majority’s defense of their own right to live is going to put the right to personally bear firearms very much in peril.

 

[Nihilo]

I am aware of what Heller held. It was a case, IMO, of the court making up a constitutional right that was not in the constitution. Not unlike the right to privacy which was created in a Roe V Wade.

We are free to disagree with the S. Ct.'s authorized interpretations. They aren’t infallible. Again even mentioning these opinions is just to help round out the discussion.

At the very least, you must admit to it being rather interesting that the right to self-defense as part of the 2nd amendment was not referenced by any court for well over 200 years.

Meh. Read Justice Scalia’s opinion in Heller. Numerous contemporary sources were cited in support of the S. Ct.'s holdings, among them unambiguous references to the right to bear arms being individual, and for the purpose of self defense.

It’s also just in keeping with what classical liberals believed in the 1700s as well, but the S. Ct. likes to reference actual laws (state constitutions e.g.) and not works of philosophy. Seeing as how that’s their vocation, it makes sense.

 

[Nihilo]

Nihilo:

And classical liberalism understands more than any other philosophy the importance of defending the minority against the majority, through specifically the enumeration, recognition, and defense of our rights. It is by this, that societal stability is secured, according to classical liberalism.

…Over the course of history, rights not limited by responsibility and duty eventually lead to the collapse of society, to chaos, and then (inevitably) to a form of government that has far less concern for individual rights. Societies that value their rights take the need of limiting rights with responsibility very seriously.

Can you provide a couple examples so that we can examine them together? Because every time a government emerges with little concern for individual rights that I can think of, it was preceded by a definite lax, not heightened vigilance, in defending them.

Also I feel as if you might not understand that to a classical liberal, there isn’t a hint of the notion that anybody’s rights justify them violating someone else’s rights. Defending individual rights against such, is what classical liberalism is all about.

Roughly 70% of American households choose not to own a firearm at all. If that majority becomes afraid for their lives due to the unbridled proliferation of high capacity weapons concentrated in a few hands with few restrictions leading to regular ambushes on groups of private citizens, you can bet that the majority’s defense of their own right to live is going to put the right to personally bear firearms very much in peril.

As the majority in every other developed Western nation has already done. There is no recognized right to bear arms in any of those nation’s laws anymore.

And also, as the majority in the US is already in the process of doing here in the US, starting back in 1934 with the National Firearms Act, and Unconstitutionally so, since in order to licitly infringe the right to bear arms, we need a super majority, and not a simple one. And gun control infringes the right to bear arms.

You’re certainly in good company though, numerically. I disagree with philosophy that approves of infringing fundamental human rights for any reason, because defending these rights is not only right and just, but is demonstrated to secure a stable society, and, I believe the right to bear arms is a fundamental human right.

Your right to life isn’t threatened by a stranger with a machine gun. Your right to life is threatened by anybody who intends to, or who credibly threatens to, rob you of your life, unarmed or heavily armed and anywhere in between. Those people don’t have a right to do that, and they should be confined according to due process, until and unless we trust that they won’t do that anymore.

 

[Economist]

There’s not one particular court case that settled this we’re talking several hundred years of English common law and assumptions made at the time of court rulings.

So there is NO actual court ruling. That is good news. The point is that the “spirit” of the law is irrelevant, only the “letter” of the law that counts. That is why the legal wording is so important with all those “therefore” and “herewith” and the rest… In the seat belt laws it only says that the belt must be buckled up, but it does not say the belt must be in front of you.