Discussion in 'Latest Political News and Current Events' started by Capitalist, Oct 4, 2017.
It's only a problem for folks who believe the state should have a monopoly on force.
First, you have to determine who the founders are. There were a lot of them. Those that helped write the documents. Those that promoted it and pushed for ratification. Those that ratified it.
Then, you have to determine what they all meant? How do you do that? Some left a paper trail of their thoughts but most did not. When there is a known conflict between interpretations, then how do we maintain an "originalist interpretation"?
The founders wrote a squishy document that has to be interpreted today. Not an easy task.
I think "originalist interpretation" is a way of promoting outdated thinking and concepts.
That doesn't change the fact that you and I agree that it's OK for the government to infringe on the individual's ability to keep and bear arms. We just disagree about the details of when it should do so.
There you have the fundamental question of government. What gives the government the right to say that if I hack your bank account and transfer the money to myself, you're entitled to have it back, and I should be punished? The government has ruled that the money is yours and that therefore certain types of things I could do that would make it mine aren't permitted. Despite me being a free man, it has restricted those rights. What gives them that authority?
The ultimate answer is "the informed consent of the governed." That is the moral basis for government restricting rights.
Not on a free individual's rights, no. Prisoners by definition, are not free.
So IOW, they have none and just did it anyway.
The Second Amendment doesn't have a caveat saying only "free individuals." You're reading that in. That's fine. We're agreed that it's OK to read things into the Second Amendment. We merely disagree on the details of what should be read in.
If you're playing the odd, the odds are, when you put these restrictions in place and they don't work, that a new round of restrictions will be called for -- I'm unwilling to compromise away my right to arms, and so are most gun owners.
I'm comfortable with experimenting -- give things a try, in a structured way. Put in place sunsetting provisions so that it's easy for even a minority of opposition to prevent extension if things don't seem to be working. Then we can be deciding based on real data, rather than naked speculation.
In the entirety of the history of the United States only one federal gun control law has come off the books -- the Assault Weapons Ban, and that only because organized opposition forced a sunset provision, and that opposition continued when very active political forces called for it to be extended beyond the sunset period -- even though the FBI reported that there was no measurable decrease in violent crime during the period of the ban.
I'm not willing to jump through all those hoops again. The people who want to outlaw these guns refuse to look at real data.
Are prisoners "the people", then? Or are they folks who have been removed from "the people" due to their bad behavior?
We could have a good discussion about that, but that's not about the right to be armed; you're wandering off topic a bit.
and about that real data...
From the link;
"Ask yourself: What is the one element that is present in most shootings by another person?
I'm not talking suicides by gun (which typically are three times more common than gun homicides and usually make up just over half of all suicides.) I'm talking about being killed or wounded by a firearm in the hands of another person. Or, hell, even shot at.
Before I go on let me point something out. Something that has a major influence on why there's an elephant in the room. An elephant that not only the government isn't talking about; the cops know it, but don't make official statements or talk about it in court; and gun control advocates are mum about too. The idea is found in what's called a "bill of attainder." The U.S. Constitution prohibits them as do the constitutions of all 50 states.
So what is a bill of, writ of, act of attainder? From the dictionary: Under English common law, the state of having lost one's legal and civil personhood, as through losing the legal capacity to own or pass on property.
In plain English it's when you're condemned by the state as a criminal (or traitor) without trial or specific charge. You're -- literally -- declared an outlaw. Not in the romantic bad ass sense of the word, but meaning you're outside the protection of the law. Civil rights? You don't have any.
Protection by the law? Nope. Sure they can shoot you down like a rabid dog on sight. But more than that they can put you in prison without trial and throw away the key. The cashier's check about this, however, is anything you own can be seized by the powers that be -- again without trial or chance to defend yourself. Taking this a step further, it's not necessarily a specific crime, it's just that you are... you know... a criminal and therefore deserve all this happening to you.
"No bills of attainder allowed" doesn't sound like a big thing, but quite frankly you don't want the government to have the ability to write them up. It's been abused way too often in the past by the rich and powerful. They tell someone in the court, "This guy pissed me off" and 'viola!' you're a state certified outlaw. You're on the run, everything you own is seized, your family is destitute, and helping you isn't just a crime, but giving you a hand will get those folks the same treatment.
As an individual in the U.S. you can only be charged with a specific crime. This nix on bills of attainder is why -- if you listen very carefully -- you'll not hear cops, lawyers, lawmakers, or others refer to someone as 'a criminal' (on the record), but more commonly refer to the person as "involved in criminal activity." While you might hear someone referred to as a career criminal that's both dancing close to the line and still the person can only be charged for specific crimes. While 'career criminal' acknowledge the individual is making his livelihood through criminal activities, it's not branding the individual as an outlaw for just breathing. It does, however, have a lot to do with sentencing. (Habitual is another common term.)
Now to the average person this 'you can't label someone a criminal' sounds stupid. Because we all know there are criminals. We know the cops and courts know there are criminals. If you've dealt with them, you know it's not just a career it's a way of life and mindset. But if you're in the government, a cop, a psychiatrist, or associated with the legal system there are the folks called, 'lawyers.' Lawyers can make a mountain out of a molehill and cause all kinds of problems if an official pronounces someone 'a criminal' and tries to punish them for that general condition. Now this whole 'the government can't call someone a criminal' may sound silly to you, but it's kind of like political correctness. And like PC, it has fangs because of the rules and lawyers.
So guess what is not tracked on a national level when it comes to shootings?
You got it, criminal records and behavior. It is tracked on a local level because it has a lot to do with the investigation into the shooting. Oh and by the way, no matter what you've heard or think: The cops can't blow off a homicide investigation just because the guy was a criminal. Nope, death of a citizen must be investigated. They may do a sloppy, half-assed job because they know he's a douche, but they can't officially ignore it. It has to be investigated especially if it results in a corpse.
In case you didn't get it, the answer to the 'what element is present' question is criminal behavior.
When it comes to gun deaths and shootings, crime is more important than race. It is more important than age. It is more important than income. It is more important than sex. And it definitely has a lot to do with who is pulling the trigger and why. That's why it's 'absence' in official numbers is a serious, "Hold the phone." As in how the hell can you have a rational conversation about guns without it?
The answer is you can't.
This is more suggestive of an agenda than actually looking at the subject of guns, shootings, and deaths. The bottom line is in the U.S. we have a professional, armed criminal class who shoot each other with distressing regularity. They in fact make up most of (nonsuicide) gunshot 'victims.'
Now while I say, "When it comes to crime there are no statistics that are worth wiping your ass with," I'm going to have to use them to demonstrate a point. It varies from year to year, city to city, but -- in places where homicides are common -- the rate of homicide victims who have criminal records typically range between 90 percent to 100 percent. Oh and guess what?
The same majority applies to the shooters themselves. As one cop from a mid-sized city once told me, "In the twenty years I have been on the force, we've never had a homicide where the victim was not known to the police."
So yeah crime and shootings? Big connection."
More at the link.
Well, there also used to be a waiting period, which no longer exists thanks to instant background checks.
I can't speak to all of the gun controllers, but I'm all about data. It's what drives my position. That's actually a key difference between us. If evidence suggested that a given kind of gun control (say a magazine capacity restriction) would have no meaningful benefit, I wouldn't support it (just as I don't support gun bans that are based on military aesthetics rather than firearm capabilities). But if evidence suggested that it would have a meaningful benefit, you still would oppose it. The data, for me, is the crucial consideration. The data, for you, is something useful to have when it happens to line up with the position you're pushing, but not at all the driver for the position.
They're the people.
I believe we're better off with as much relevant data as we can get. That would include a systematic tracking of how many of those shot have criminal backgrounds or were at the scene of a crime, etc., as well as systematic tracking of how many are shot by police, and so on. The more we know, the better we can set policy. What percentage of those shot are criminals? I don't know, and I'd like to. But even if it were 100%, that wouldn't decide the gun control issue. If, say, George W. Bush were gunned down in cold blood tomorrow, I wouldn't think that was somehow OK because the man was arrested for driving drunk many years earlier.
Ehhh.... maybe. I think it might be something to think about.... I will do some research and let you know what I come up with.
The waiting period was not removed from the law -- it was only put in place until the insta-check system could be installed (that's in the language of the law).
The data were clear on the assault weapons ban -- it had no measurable impact on violent crime. The data have become clear on "must issue" concealed carry. It also has had no measurable impact on violent crime. The issue has been clear on most of the provisions of GCA '68, and that too had no measurable impact on violent crime. The data are clearly of no import to would-be gun controllers because they are still calling for re-instating the assault weapons ban, want to restrict concealed carry, and have not called for any repeal of any provision of GCA '68. All they want is more gun control regardless of the data.
The fact is, the people who advocate for gun control, do not like living in a free country. They wish it was much more restrictive than it is, and are constantly plotting, scheming, and lying in order to try and make it so.
We know this, and we constantly tell them to fvck off and stymie their efforts to make us all less free.... but they occasionally get something by us, (NFA, GCA, etc.). And every time they do, we are less free, and more diminished as a nation.
And that's the kind of automatic trigger I'm talking about working into these experiments. You could craft the law to say "if x, y, and z, then this law sunsets automatically," similar to the way the waiting period went away automatically once insta-check was ready.
So, for example, picture a law that put waiting periods on new gun buyers (those who don't already own a registered firearm). That might decrease crimes of passion, as well as suicides, by giving people a little cooling-off period (the reason I'd only apply it to new buyers is that you'd see little benefit with someone who'd have a gun one way or the other). You could build into the law a test -- if, after five years, the homicide-commission and suicide rate of the impacted group (those who didn't already own firearms) didn't decline relative to the non-impacted group (those who did already own firearms), then the waiting period would go away. Basically, the comparison would give you a way of measuring whether the regulation was working, and you could define ahead of time the test, and if the regulation didn't pass the test, it went away.
I'm not married to that particular regulation or test -- I'm just offering it as an illustration of the concept: the concept being to allay the fears of an accumulation of ineffectual regulations. The regulations either have to prove themselves against pre-determined criteria, or they automatically go away.
I think people on my side would be very open to that, but people on your side would be against it. My side is driven by a practical goal, and so whether that goal is being achieved matters in deciding whether or not to continue down that path. Your side is driven by an abstract ideal, and so the last thing you'd want to know is that some form of regulation actually works. You want to keep the debate confined to naked assertions, rather than data, because you're worried the data would hurt your cause.
No, that's actually incorrect.
You are assuming a literal interpretation. In religious terms, you are assuming constitutionalists are fundamentalists. Nothing could be further from the truth. You two are NOT in agreement. In fact, YOU are the one reading things into the 2nd Amendment, not Freyasman. Not me.
You are reading a suicide pact into the 2nd Amendment when there is none. Using a fundamentalist's interpretation you are assuming a counter argument demands that ALL people--free men, criminals, felons, prisoners, combatants, invaders, Soviets, Nazis, Catholics and Lutherans--must be allowed to carry any weapon they deem necessary. That is not only ridiculous but most certainly NOT the original intent of the founders.
The 2nd Amendment contains the words:
being necessary to the security of a free State
So we can immediately exclude prisoners since arming prisoners would, in fact, HARM the security of a free State. Duh! Similar things can be said about invaders, Soviets, etc.
So you are NOT in agreement that it's okay to read things into the 2nd Amendment. You want to read a suicide pact in where none exists. I (and other constitutionalists) recognize the necessity of the 2nd Amendment to the security of a free State and further recognize that arming prisoners and invaders is not only not demanded by but would run counter to the 2nd Amendment.
So drop the false equivalence of your views with every other constitutionalist's.
Good for you. I'm not.
Germany had a democracy. They experimented in a very structured way with National Socialism. How did that work out?
They are a threat to the security of a free state. Therefore, in accordance with the 2nd Amendment, they shall not keep and bear arms.
This is not rocket science.
Separate names with a comma.