Questions from second amendment supporters

by truthbetold Tue Dec 18, 2012 9:51 pm

1) the purpose of the second amendment is to allow citizens to bear arms to defend themselves from tyranny of the govt. the citizen has the right to choose whatever fire arm he or she thinks appropriate. How can you restrict assault weapons and rapid fire ammunition?
2) if gun owners give an inch the govt. will take a mile? How do you assure that won't happen?
3) most of the mass murderers are mental health cases. Then what is the point of taking weapons from regulars citizens?

I am looking forward to some well reasoned arguments to respond to these questions.

by Petrichor Tue Dec 18, 2012 10:37 pm

truthbetold wrote:1) the purpose of the second amendment is to allow citizens to bear arms to defend themselves from tyranny of the govt. the citizen has the right to choose whatever fire arm he or she thinks appropriate. How can you restrict assault weapons and rapid fire ammunition?
2) if gun owners give an inch the govt. will take a mile? How do you assure that won't happen?
3) most of the mass murderers are mental health cases. Then what is the point of taking weapons from regulars citizens?

I am looking forward to some well reasoned arguments to respond to these questions.

1. The original intent in the strict constructionist sense is in favor of militias, not individuals. This was also a reaction in a very short-sighted sense against the British. It was a stupid amendment that would not pass the test of time. For 100's of years this was also among the least litigated (after the 3rd amendment which was also reactionary and stupid).

Constitution is a "living" document - and founding fathers are not super-exceptional. Americans are not exceptional although based on consumption of world resources it feels like it, at times. There are things in there in the Constitution that are worth celebrating and gloating over - 2nd amendment is not one of them.

"Firearms" that existed at the time of revolutionary war is some orders of magnitude miniscule in their impact to the assault rifles and high capacity magazines today. Congress cannot abdicate its responsibility from keeping the Constitution spruced up for modern times.

2. If the mile travelled by some citizens happens to be a lengthy one or (in other words) if mass murder capability exists in the hands of individual citizens, then the Government must act to protect the public interest. In general mass killing capabilities must be highly regulated with safeguards.

3. No one is disagreeing that mental health patients should not get their hands on weapons. A good background check should include prescriptions search for antipsychotics (in a manner of speaking). Reasonable gun ownership (not assault weapons or high capacity magazines) for self-defense, hunting etc. is fine. But the basic principle should be if you acquire kill capability, you lose some more of your privacy expectations in the Commons.

by truthbetold Tue Dec 18, 2012 11:15 pm

Actg,
Supreme court upheld 2nd amendment in the past few years. Their interpretation is that citizens right to bear arms to fight govt. tyranny.

We all have opinions that some things are good and some things are bad. But opinions unless backed by well reasoned arguments are not useful in discussions.

My limited reading suggests that the on going disputes with native Americans have a significant role in the formulation of 2nd amendment.

by MaxEntropy_Man Tue Dec 18, 2012 11:29 pm

no right is absolute. the first amendment for example has restrictions too. you cannot for example shout fire in a movie theater without there actually being a fire. in a similar sense, the second amendment cannot trump people's right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

i have been thinking about this a lot these last few days. i am no legal expert, but i feel there might be a civil rights argument here that people on my side of the debate should think about. civil rights includes the ensuring of people's physical and mental integrity, life and safety. i think there is an argument to be made that the current gun laws violate the civil rights of certain individuals, defenseless first graders for example. i am not sure if this line of legal reasoning will succeed, but it is worth a shot.

now the other side will come back with, "the vast majority of gun owners are peaceful individuals who do nothing to violate the civil rights of first graders". the argument to that should be that it is possible that without breaking any laws, conditions that prevail in society and societal behavior in the aggregate could still end up violating the civil rights of groups of individuals. for example, when slavery was legal, slave owners were perfectly law abiding, but they would have been found to be law breakers after the enaction of civil rights legislation. in a similar sense, the second amendment was written a long a time ago, but civil rights laws came later. if it can be shown that the mere existence of bushmasters and glocks in circulation in society violate the civil rights of first graders because of the implicit danger of getting into the wrong hands, we might have ourselves a case.

by Petrichor Tue Dec 18, 2012 11:32 pm

Have you signed up for auto-debit for your Scalia newsletter subscription yet?

Of course the supremes will decide on original intent and verbiage from 200 years ago - individual rights argument is of recent vintage. I do not blame them - there's just a lot of NRA money floating around to be trifled with.

It is the Congress that should be castigated. And the pathetic performance of Obama who literally cried and begged with his colleagues on the Hill to do a little something so we can all feel a little better even though wink wink nod nod NRA supports the lot of them.

And you are right - I am not arguing within the current law framework with "reasonable" arguments - as i said before - scrap the 2nd amendment - it doesn't have a place in modern times.

And if you do not find my opinion backed by well-reasoned arguments (I thought i had them reasoned out pretty well), then I guess go for it - you get the Republic you deserve.

by Petrichor Tue Dec 18, 2012 11:37 pm

truthbetold wrote:
My limited reading suggests that the on going disputes with native Americans have a significant role in the formulation of 2nd amendment.

Yes, it is limited. Pls. read the New Yorker Toobin article and the one right after Newt wanted to make it a fundamental human right to bear arms at the UN.

by truthbetold Tue Dec 18, 2012 11:46 pm

Max,
Your response is well thought out.
1. Supreme Court in upholding the 2 Ned amendment said states have a right to regulate the citizens rights under this amendment . They however also said state cannot restrict widely popular firearms. Some of assault weapons are unfortunately very popular.
2. Civil rights of children is a novel idea. Even if loses in a court, it may win the hearts of many people. That is also part of the battle.
3. Old slavery law vs new civil rights law is an excellent example of how constitution must change with times.
4. Actg made a good point above that a law made for 18 th century instruments may not be applicable to 21st century assault weapons. Copy right laws have been reinterpreted and updated several times within a century.

by truthbetold Tue Dec 18, 2012 11:48 pm

Actg,
I will read more about origins of 2ndamendment.

by Sponsored content

Questions from second amendment supporters

Questions from second amendment supporters

Re: Questions from second amendment supporters

Re: Questions from second amendment supporters

Re: Questions from second amendment supporters

Re: Questions from second amendment supporters

Re: Questions from second amendment supporters

Re: Questions from second amendment supporters

Re: Questions from second amendment supporters

Re: Questions from second amendment supporters