Mal Posted July 21, 2012 Report Share Posted July 21, 2012 I see the 2nd Amendment to be more symbolic than anything. It allows for The last check and balance to the government: a revolution, an armed one at that. In the past the armed population could give the government a good fight if it relations broke down that far. Now, not so much but the symbolism still remains. You take away the 2nd Amendment and you'll take the symbolism away from the US Constitution. Sure it doesn't have to written down somewhere but I find it to be pretty powerful when it is. 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thursday Next Posted July 23, 2012 Report Share Posted July 23, 2012 (edited) @Thursday: the prevailing legal interpretation though is that "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state" is just their justification for the rule, and that only the second part really has legal effect. I agree that it's completely pointless in this day and age, unless they decide that it also protects your right to have a surface-to-air missile in your backyard and an anti-tank gun in the garage, but it says what it says and it's a bitch to change. But it doesn't need a re-write. You just need to read it properly*. Where there is a condition attached then it holds that the opposite is true when circumstances differ. In effect, the unwritten second half of this statement is "A well regulated militia no longer being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall be infringed." "Tradition" or "Founding values" is a BS reason to continue with a broken rule. It was traditional to have a legal slave trade and the US was founded on the money that trade brought them. It is also ludicrous to have a constitutional right to rise up against an oppressive government. An oppressive government doesn't give a crap about your rights and any government that would allow you your constitutional right to take up arms against them clearly is not all that oppressive. If we're going to take Sporks idea about stricter regulation, then make the regulation in line with the constitution. You have to be in a "Well Regulated Militia" preferably one of the regulations being that you leave your gun(s) at the militia HQ when you go home. I, like Dean, don't buy the "he would've done it anyway" argument. If you don't have a gun your chances of injuring 50+ people are massively reduced. If he'd run in there with a bad attitude and a hammer he might have got a couple of people before being brought down. Hell, even if he had been restricted to a revolver he'd have struggled to kill anything like as many people. I also don't think that the people who carry out bomb attacks are of the same mindset as those who go on spree killings. With the gun you've got that element of 1:1 killing. You look at the individual, you pull the trigger and they die. It's more visceral for being narrowly targeted. Dumping a bomb and running, you get the end result, but not the first hand experience. *properly in this case meaning how I think it should be read Edited July 23, 2012 by Thursday Next 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheMightyEthan Posted July 23, 2012 Report Share Posted July 23, 2012 But there's nothing in it that conditions the second half of the amendment on the first. It says "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." in absolute terms. It doesn't say "the right of militia members to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed," or "the right of the states to maintain an armed militia shall not be infringed", though that would arguably make a lot more sense. Maybe it's a facet of American legal interpretation as compared to British, but generally speaking one part of a law is not conditioned on another unless it's made explicit that it is supposed to be conditioned on it. I just can't see any other reading of it that makes sense other than that it protects an individual right to possess and carry weapons, regardless of why they wanted to protect that right. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
deanb Posted July 23, 2012 Report Share Posted July 23, 2012 I wouldn't really call 2nd ammendment "symbolic". The queen is sysymbolic, the bullets that killed or wounded the folks of Aurora not so much. The only part symbolic is the right to form a militia cos good luck taking on the largest army in the world. As far as reading the law goes, maybe it was written wrong? The right to form an armed militia makes more sense than enshrining the right to own a specific item. It'd be like the right to own a car or something. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheMightyEthan Posted July 23, 2012 Report Share Posted July 23, 2012 Agreed, but that's not what's written. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
deanb Posted July 23, 2012 Report Share Posted July 23, 2012 But the militia part is definitely written down. It just seems really odd they'd create a right to bear arms, but before getting yo that part bring up stuff about well regulated militia. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheMightyEthan Posted July 23, 2012 Report Share Posted July 23, 2012 Yes, the militia part is written down, but the right to keep and bear arms is not conditioned on it. They basically said "Because we want to be able to raise a militia if necessary to protect the state, the government cannot prohibit people from having or carrying weapons." It doesn't say they can't prohibit people from having or carrying them for the purpose of the militia, it just says they can't prohibit people from having or carrying them full stop. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
deanb Posted July 23, 2012 Report Share Posted July 23, 2012 Surely the "because" part matters? Seems like a purposeful misreading of the "spirit" of the amendment in order to be "yeehah, we get to own guns". Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheMightyEthan Posted July 23, 2012 Report Share Posted July 23, 2012 Well you'll have to take that up with the last 200 years of judicial precedent. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
P4: Gritty Reboot Posted July 23, 2012 Report Share Posted July 23, 2012 In the case of a revolution, you cannot assume the entire military would side with the government. Depending on the causes and the amount of support a hypothetical revolution would have, fractions of the military would certainly fight alongside the citizens and flat-out refuse to target American people. Remember, they're our sons, daughters, brothers and sisters. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thursday Next Posted July 24, 2012 Report Share Posted July 24, 2012 Yeah, as Dean says, it's clear what the spirit of the law was, and what the legislative intent was. But the spirit and intent have been overridden by people who want guns sticking to the black letter law. All three methods, Literal, Purposive and Contextual are valid ways of interpreting the law in the UK. I'd argue that the older it gets the more that Purposive / Contextual interpretations should be used over literal. Language changes over time as do attitudes and morals. By way of a crude example, in the UK, Purposive interpretation is mostly used in EU law, if the EU legislation provides that each country must make a law abolishing the manufacture of cutlery, and the UK law is worded "2012 Cutlery Act: The manufacture of knives and forks is hereby banned." then the literal interpretation says that you can still make spoons. However, the purpose of the legislation was to make all cutlery banned, so the Judges will fill the gaps to ban spoons too, suggesting for example that the list "knives and forks" was not exhaustive and the title Cutlery Act makes the intent clear. Of course in this reading judges have to be careful not to cross over into legislating. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheMightyEthan Posted July 24, 2012 Report Share Posted July 24, 2012 Judges use legislative intent here as well, but in the case of the constitution it's 200 years old and there aren't good records of the debate surrounding its drafting, not to mention the fact that with so many people involved in its creation (the Congress plus the legislatures of all the states) there's no one legislative intent behind it. Basically the amendment proscribes certain government conduct, and the fact that it gives a reason for doing so might be relevant in a borderline case but it doesn't change what conduct is proscribed. The government cannot infringe on your right to keep and bear arms. The protection may be especially strong in the case of a "well-regulated militia" because that's at the core of the purpose of the amendment, but it applies to everyone. Regarding your example, there's actually a rule of statutory construction in the US that if the legislature lists things then only the things in the list are covered unless it's specifically noted that they're only examples. So while "the manufacture of knives and forks is hereby banned" wouldn't cover spoons, "the manufacture of eating utensils, such as knives and forks" probably would. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Luftwaffles Posted July 24, 2012 Report Share Posted July 24, 2012 I'm just going to toss this in here, as it's something that sort of bothers me whenever people start talking about changing laws after something like this happens. In my opinion, these are the worst times to think about changing laws, as too much stock will be given to arguments based around emotions or hysteria. What happened in Aurora is terrible and I'm definitely not trying to deny that, not at all, but arguing for/against gun control now is going to be a far different argument than it was even 2 months ago or in 2 months when we inevitably seem to forget all about Aurora. I'm definitely not saying it shouldn't be discussed at all in the weeks afterwards, but too many people are going to use this as an excuse to argue for new gun laws, and I think that's ridiculous. Hysteria like that is how we ended up with the Patriot Act. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Johnny Posted July 24, 2012 Report Share Posted July 24, 2012 I agree with that in a general sense, but on the other hand sometimes you may need an event like this for people to realize the consequences of having such public and easy access to tools designed for killing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Little Pirate Posted July 24, 2012 Report Share Posted July 24, 2012 (edited) I'm on the gray area on this one. I don't think it should be so easy for any average joe to get a gun. But if someone wants a gun bad enough they're gonna find a way to get one legally or not. What they should start doing is make the process of buying a gun more of a 'class'. Teach people the proper way to use it, which situations would be appropriate in drawing it out, and going through the legal parts of gun ownership. Shooting someone regardless of the situation is a big deal, and things can go badly. A few years back there was a local case where a mugger got back at his victim for shooting him in the leg and rendering him in a wheelchair over it. You figure the guy would have deserved to get shot and the victim had every right to defend himself, but he ended up owing that mugger a good ton of money for suffering and medical fees. That did spark a lot of controversy about the 2nd amendment, too. But everyone here in Iowa seems to be conservative so nothing was done about changing any laws. It's really difficult to determine the 'middle ground' on this amendment. Personally, I don't think random citizens should go around toting guns unless they know how to use them and know the weight of responsibility that goes with it. Untrained people with guns going into a panic I just see ending badly. Edited July 24, 2012 by LittlePirate Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mal Posted July 24, 2012 Report Share Posted July 24, 2012 I'm okay with guns being around. I'm also fine with regulation on how to get firearms. Remembering V Tech with Cho and now this... there's no debate that some people are just not fit to handle firearms. Same thing with driving a motor vehicle. An outright ban on firearms is insane. Also I feel that the militia back 200 years ago could be pretty much anybody. Thinking back to the Battles of Lexington and Concord (Sidenote, I am actually happy that I remember Concord. I had to google up the spelling of Revere and got reminded of Lexington History class did stick!) the battles with Paul Revere's ride. What met the British was a militia made up a patchwork of town folks. Militia now, in the United States, seems to refer to the National Guard. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CorgiShinobi Posted July 25, 2012 Report Share Posted July 25, 2012 (edited) I've had an opinion on this for awhile, but I decided against sharing it because, as Spork said, there's a hysteria to it and people have been passionate on the stance they've taken. I can't look at Facebook on any given day without there being an image macro about gun control, for or against. I'm also not a gun owner and of the near 24 years I've been alive I've only shot a "pellet" gun and two different small game rifles at an outdoor activity. I don't know the process it requires, other than what roommates and friends have said. In fact, I don't think a lot of people know the process since owning a gun, other than as a hobby, isn't required unless you believe the neighborhood you reside in would require armed protection. All I know for certain in that there are multiple tests, it depends on the state, where you purchase (in or out of state), and perhaps having a specific license (or two). Maybe someone who has gone through this can enlighten us? Speaking of, I've been seeing the comparison that guns should be treated like cars... But you know, that works against gun control. There are already measures in place, but lets say, for sake of argument, guns were exactly like cars. In ways they are very similar. -People without a license still seem to own or operate one. -No one should operate one while intoxicated. -Criminals seek after them, for whatever purpose they desire. -People seem to go through the motions when they are "tested." (Think of those online psych tests too.) -Elevated emotional state leads to potential disaster when handling device. It goes on further, and when you get down to it, cars are pretty dangerous too even with all our traffic laws. That "Stats of America" show did a breakdown of what's likely to kill us. It started off with flying, but supposedly chances of being killed when flying are 1 in 2.5 million. Chances of dying when driving in a car? 1 in 88. Anyway, while we could tighten up control with some new laws, we can't fool ourselves into thinking events like what happened at Aurora won't happen again because we've somehow improved. It's pessimistic to say the least, but I stand by the statement that "people kill people, not guns." The final straw that breaks the camel's back is one's own will, and an inanimate object has no will to sway your actions. A buddy of mine had a roommate that had what you would call the "warning signs." Life going in a sharp downward spiral, a loner, assortment of guns, trench coats, etc. While this scared the piss out of him, in the end nothing happened. All the materials needed to take away innocent lives, but nothing was done. Was the opportunity not presented? Was there another mental issue preventing him from exploding into an emotional wreck? Or was he simply stable and knew killing wouldn't be the answer to whatever problem he was faced with? Hard to say, especially since he wasn't my roommate. EDIT: Though, think of all the seemingly stable people we see daily. Everything is going well, but then a tragic event. The cliche cheating wife/husband, laid off, any little thing. Like the Joker said (in Dark Knight and Killing Joke), all it can take is a little push. As much as we can look for "warning signs," we can't very well look at psyche, misguided emotions, radical notions that seem to come from left field. Point is, whatever stance you take, we can't forget who's really at fault: the gunman. And most importantly, we must focus on lives and those who are affected now, not our own agendas and hypothetical situations involving hypothetical people. Rarely have I've seen these arguments talking about what happened, instead going off into scenarios that prove one side of an argument. "Sure you could use knives, but who would use knives?" or "Maybe more people should have a concealed gun, then no one would die!" Edited July 25, 2012 by Atomsk88 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheMightyEthan Posted July 25, 2012 Report Share Posted July 25, 2012 I definitely agree that guns don't kill people, people kill people, but the thing is guns make it a hell of a lot easier. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
deanb Posted July 25, 2012 Report Share Posted July 25, 2012 http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-18980974 I think this is one of the things I'll never ever be able to wrap my head around. "Hey someone shot up a cinema, what the community needs now is more guns on the street". I dunno, does anyone have any word on average joe citizen having a gun upon his person at the moment of a crazed gunman going loony and being able to put the gunman down? (Also any where the average joe citizen has maybe put down the wrong person? cos I can see that being more likely). More guns on the street just means more chances for them to shoot the wrong people. Especially when folks are on edge right after an incident like this. Oh to amend the previous post on "you're not a criminal until you use the gun on someone". The killers two hand guns, pump action shotgun, automatic rifle, 3000 rounds of handgun ammo, 3000 rounds of AR ammo and 300 rounds of shotgun ammo were all legally purchased, and he had only a speeding ticket on his record. edit: Oh this thread got active as I was typing :/ What's the "1 in 88 chance of dying in car" thing? As in for every 88 times you go n drive a car, you'll die? Seems a bit skewed. Also people have a huge difficulty in propelling small metal objects to speed of sound, it's something we've never really gotten the hang of. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CorgiShinobi Posted July 25, 2012 Report Share Posted July 25, 2012 I definitely agree that guns don't kill people, people kill people, but the thing is guns make it a hell of a lot easier. Well yeah, that's why they're preferred. Less effort, nothing to construct, quick and hardly any skill. But if you have the intent to kill, you'll find ways. Pipe bombs, chemicals from school lab, it goes on. Back in high school, we had a discussion on this, and it got rather creepy. One student made the point that many different objects can kill us, in the classroom itself. The loose metal bars (crappy welding) on our chairs that could be pulled off and used to stab, or if anyone was carrying any scissors. Heck, sometimes kids in shop would be idiots and make crappy throwing stars for a laugh. Then there was the chemical fire in chemistry, but what if someone wanted it to purposely happen? We're surround by many ways to die and to kill, and needless to say after the discussion it was disturbing. (Especially when you think of the people who would answer and if they ever thought of those methods before). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CorgiShinobi Posted July 25, 2012 Report Share Posted July 25, 2012 (edited) What's the "1 in 88 chance of dying in car" thing? As in for every 88 times you go n drive a car, you'll die? Seems a bit skewed. Also people have a huge difficulty in propelling small metal objects to speed of sound, it's something we've never really gotten the hang of. It's from the show "United Stats of America" and they did a segment on death. Ways we could, vehicle transportation, germs, etc. I don't know where they get the numbers, they being Randy and Jason Sklar. If you can find the epsiode, it's called "Stayin' Alive." They went from meteorites, animals, to actually discussing the top killers. For example, deers kill more people than snakes. #1 killer in America? Heart disease! EDIT: But my point in bring it up is that I've been seeing people comparing guns to cars in a way to make guns safer. Except, you know, cars are still really dangerous and so are the people that operate them. Not even car-to-car accidents themselves, but being near cars/roads too. Edited July 25, 2012 by Atomsk88 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheMightyEthan Posted July 25, 2012 Report Share Posted July 25, 2012 Sure someone who really wants to kill another person will find a way, but what about the person who, in a moment of rage, pulls out a gun from under their seat and shoots the guy who just cut him off on the road? If he didn't already have that gun sitting there odds are he'd just get really mad, maybe yell and scream about it, but in the end nobody would be dead. 4 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheMightyEthan Posted July 25, 2012 Report Share Posted July 25, 2012 @Dean: There have been a few cases of someone with a valid concealed-carry license using their gun to stop a crime, but it's a lot less common than someone using their legally owned/carried gun to commit a crime. That's from a societal perspective though, and I can definitely understand the individual outlook that if I have a gun I can use it to protect myself and others should the need arise, even though when everyone thinks that it leads to bad things for society overall. It's kind of like the prisoner's dilemma but with millions of people instead of just 2. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CorgiShinobi Posted July 25, 2012 Report Share Posted July 25, 2012 Sure someone who really wants to kill another person will find a way, but what about the person who, in a moment of rage, pulls out a gun from under their seat and shoots the guy who just cut him off on the road? If he didn't already have that gun sitting there odds are he'd just get really mad, maybe yell and scream about it, but in the end nobody would be dead. Then what's your solution? The only one I see is to ban all guns. Your hypothetical person could have passed all the requirements to own said firearm, but in his emotional outburst he was able to reason in his mind that his gun should be used to kill a person. The intent to kill, but by all our laws or any new ones he could still possess a gun if only he needs to jump through more hoops. After all, this person you describe is someone who believes he should have a gun in his car. He must have strong reasons for wanting to have the firearm in his vehicle. Take away the gun, and there's still the chance that said individual could have harmed the other driver. Following them, running them off the road. I mean, he went through all the trouble of shooting at another person in another car, he must be capable of other actions. It reminds me of the string of incidents in Texas during the 80's when truck drivers would either shoot someone who enraged them, or use their truck to run someone off the road. Even without the gun, individuals who wanted to cause harm would still carry it out. But still, we're talking hypothetical. The chance that someone would kill someone in road rage, or the chance that someone could rescue someone from a mugger. The chance that someone's emotional unstablity would take it out on someone else, or take it out of themselves. You can make a case for different possible actions. Funny thing is, even cut-and-dry actions can have different interpretations. Currently I'm read an interesting piece about a certain shooting in New York City circa 1984. It's in The Tipping Point by Malcolm Gladwell where he's talking about different kinds of epidemics and how they spread, from disease, media, and crime. An incident involving a man named Bernhard Goetz and four youths on a subway, during a time when New York was averaging over 2,000 murders and 600,000 serious felonies a year. These young men were harassing Goetz, asking for five dollars and one in particular pointing to something hidden in his pocket. Suddenly, Goetz pulled out a gun and fired on all four young men. He fired his last shot into one of them, thus paralyzing him for life. After that, Goetz asked one of the passengers, who had fallen in shock, if she was alright. She said she was fine, and soon the conductor made it to the subway car and asked if Goetz was a police officer. He wasn't, and when asked why he did it, he answered, "I don't know why I did it... They tried to rip me off." He exited the subway car through the emergency exit and walked off through the tunnel. It turns out all four of those young men were criminals, and in the following days Goetz was treated like a hero. Tabloids called him the "Subway Vigilante," but Goetz eventually turned himself in to a police station in New Hampshire. When in court back in New York City, he was easily acquitted of the charges of assault and attempted murder. Later that night, an impromptu street party erupted outside of Goetz's apartment building. At any other time he would have been found guilty, a gunman who nearly took away lives simply because he was being harassed. Instead, he was deemed a hero by the public and the criminals had what was coming to them. Now, to not end on such a sour note, the book briefly mentions that Goetz was brought to court again in 1996 for a civil suit involving one of his gunshot victims. In those passing years, the citizens (metaphorically) sobered up and barely anyone paid attention to the trial. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheMightyEthan Posted July 25, 2012 Report Share Posted July 25, 2012 Then what's your solution? The only one I see is to ban all guns. Exactly. I haven't been arguing against that, I've been pointing out why it's unlikely to happen. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.