Daily Kos: Why liberals should love the Second Amendment

[Commander PK]

Would you be cool with an "assault weapons" ban if written by people who knew what they were talking about, specifically to cover your AK-47s and weapons that are or may be too dangerous to sell to the general public at Wal-Mart?

Who decides what gun is "too dangerous" You either would use a gun for criminal means, or you would not. One well placed shot from a skilled shooter is not "too dangerous?" Should I ban myself, because I can kill from 50 yards away with a .38 revolver?

I have zero problem with wait lists and background checks. I have no problem with convicted felons not having legal access to guns.

What sense does it make to restrict the rights of those who would follow the letter of the law, when those that would not follow the law can still get what they want? You don't hear about many gun owners, who go through the background checks, and follow legal means to purchase their weapons...only to go out the same day they receive the gun to mow down the shopping mall. The bottom line is, would be gun banners believe you can stop "crazy." You can't stop "crazy." If "crazy" wants to kill a bunch of people, but you have eliminated all guns, "crazy" just finds a new way to kill a bunch of people. Bombs made from household chemicals, large knives (that people without a gun) can't defend against. Should we ban fertilizer because you can make a bomb from it?

[DjTj]

Who decides what gun is "too dangerous" You either would use a gun for criminal means, or you would not. One well placed shot from a skilled shooter is not "too dangerous?" Should I ban myself, because I can kill from 50 yards away with a .38 revolver?

Who should decide? How about our democratically elected representatives, who also decide which drugs are "too dangerous," what amount of liquid you can carry on an airplane is "too dangerous," and which immigrants are "too dangerous." Representative democracy isn't perfect, but it's the best we've got.

I have zero problem with wait lists and background checks. I have no problem with convicted felons not having legal access to guns.

Where does the Second Amendment say that waitlists and background checks are okay? I agree with you, but if all you are using as support is the text of the Second Amendment, I don't see how some restrictions would be okay while others would not. The only way you can figure that out is to dig deeper into the English common law.

What sense does it make to restrict the rights of those who would follow the letter of the law, when those that would not follow the law can still get what they want?

Seriously, why make it so hard to get medical marijuana when the potheads are going to get it off the street anyways? Why make prostitution illegal when Lawrence Taylor is going to pay some guy $300 to bring a 16-year-old girl to his hotel room?

People are going to do illegal things. That's not necessarily a good reason to make those things legal.

You don't hear about many gun owners, who go through the background checks, and follow legal means to purchase their weapons...only to go out the same day they receive the gun to mow down the shopping mall. The bottom line is, would be gun banners believe you can stop "crazy." You can't stop "crazy." If "crazy" wants to kill a bunch of people, but you have eliminated all guns, "crazy" just finds a new way to kill a bunch of people.

I haven't seen a single person in this thread advocate for eliminating all guns. I think there should be background checks and waiting periods. I think there should be restrictions on the kinds of guns that people can own. You are arguing against a "gun banner" bogeyman that no longer exists under current Supreme Court law.

Bombs made from household chemicals, large knives (that people without a gun) can't defend against. Should we ban fertilizer because you can make a bomb from it?

Yes, we should regulate the purchase of large quantities of fertilizer. http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/2008/E8-25821.htm

[Popeman38]

Would you be cool with an "assault weapons" ban if written by people who knew what they were talking about, specifically to cover your AK-47s and weapons that are or may be too dangerous to sell to the general public at Wal-Mart?

No, because an AK-47 is not too dangerous. "OH MY GOD IT FIRES MORE THAN 1 ROUND PER TRIGGER SQUEEZE IT IS HORRIBLE THERE IS NO REASON TO OWN ONE" is not a valid retort. Just because you do not see a reason to own one, nor do any "educated" folks, does that mean that a law should be written to outlaw them. There have been numerous studies done that clearly state there is no evidence that an assault weapon ban decreased any violent crime. You know why? Because criminals don't follow the law. No matter how many laws you pass oppressing law abiding citizens right to keep and bear arms, criminals will continue to break laws and own and operate illegal guns. Just as they do today.

[Popeman38]

Who should decide? How about our democratically elected representatives, who also decide which drugs are "too dangerous," what amount of liquid you can carry on an airplane is "too dangerous," and which immigrants are "too dangerous." Representative democracy isn't perfect, but it's the best we've got.

Where does the Second Amendment say that waitlists and background checks are okay? I agree with you, but if all you are using as support is the text of the Second Amendment, I don't see how some restrictions would be okay while others would not. The only way you can figure that out is to dig deeper into the English common law.

Seriously, why make it so hard to get medical marijuana when the potheads are going to get it off the street anyways? Why make prostitution illegal when Lawrence Taylor is going to pay some guy $300 to bring a 16-year-old girl to his hotel room?

People are going to do illegal things. That's not necessarily a good reason to make those things legal.

I haven't seen a single person in this thread advocate for eliminating all guns. I think there should be background checks and waiting periods. I think there should be restrictions on the kinds of guns that people can own. You are arguing against a "gun banner" bogeyman that no longer exists under current Supreme Court law.

Yes, we should regulate the purchase of large quantities of fertilizer. http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/2008/E8-25821.htm

All points are invalid, because none of the activities you suggest are guaranteed rights within the Constitution. I get tired of these. The 2nd was included by our founding fathers, yet it is debated to death as irrelevant by liberals/progressives. Yet when a conservative/neocon mentions anything about restricting any other protected right, those same people lose their minds. It is not an either or argument. Support the Bill of Rights, or don't. And that goes for both sides.

[skinfan133]

Because some people interpret the first clause, "a well regulated militia", as a precondition for the later clauses in the amendment.

Later court decisions have not agreed with this interpretation - but it still has some support.

As an aside, what was the point of having "a well regulated militia", lead off the 2nd amendment? Why not just have the later clauses (i.e. have the 2nd amendment state, "The right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.")?

Why word it so clumsily if that's the intent of the amendment?

Pending a lengthy search there is a good thesis paper on the subject. I'll try and find it for you. I'll warn you though, its very dry and long as it is a well-researched academic paper...

edit: found it, http://www.law.ucla.edu/volokh/common.htm

[DjTj]

All points are invalid, because none of the activities you suggest are guaranteed rights within the Constitution. I get tired of these. The 2nd was included by our founding fathers, yet it is debated to death as irrelevant by liberals/progressives. Yet when a conservative/neocon mentions anything about restricting any other protected right, those same people lose their minds. It is not an either or argument. Support the Bill of Rights, or don't. And that goes for both sides.

Sure, let's go with the First Amendment then. Those rights are not unlimited.

First, the idea that liberals oppose all restrictions on the Bill or Rights is incorrect. For example, the Supreme Court has recently been interpreting the First Amendment to protect political spending, under a theory that money is akin to speech in that context. The Court has used this interpretation to strike down campaign finance laws, and recently, to basically give corporations a free pass to run political ads with less regulation than is imposed on individuals. Liberals oppose that expansive interpretation of the First Amendment.

Similarly, a Christian student group in California wanted to exclude gays from its membership, citing their First Amendment Rights to free exercise of religion and freedom of association. Liberals opposed these rights, arguing that the First Amendment did not extend to this context.

There are many places where the Bill of Rights conflicts with other rights and other liberal values, and that's where liberals have made choices about where to choose their fights.

The Constitution doesn't grant unlimited rights. All the rights are limited, and you need to look to history and precedent to find where those limits are.

Even the most conservative members of the Supreme Court (like Justice Scalia) aren't going to give you M-16's.

[Popeman38]

Sure, let's go with the First Amendment then. Those rights are not unlimited.

You are allowed to say whatever you want in the privacy of your home. There is no restriction on what you say. There are areas that have been declared to have restrictions, but in your house you are free to say whatever you want. Why the, does the govt want to restrict what type of arms you can maintain in your home? There are areas where you are restricted from carrying a gun, liie airports, schools, universities, courthouses..... What these laws seek to do is eliminate your right to own. There is a distinct difference.

The Constitution doesn't grant unlimited rights. All the rights are limited, and you need to look to history and precedent to find where those limits are.

Even the most conservative members of the Supreme Court (like Justice Scalia) aren't going to give you M-16's.

You are right, I can be forced to remove my **** YOU! t shirt on private property. But I can damn sure where it as I walk down the street. And I can buy an M-16. It is called an AR-15 (AR-15 M4, AR-15 Sniper, AR-15 Hello Kitty). It is amazing what you can buy legally that the anti-gun folks think were banned.

[Bliz]

Who decides what gun is "too dangerous" You either would use a gun for criminal means, or you would not. One well placed shot from a skilled shooter is not "too dangerous?" Should I ban myself, because I can kill from 50 yards away with a .38 revolver?

I have zero problem with wait lists and background checks. I have no problem with convicted felons not having legal access to guns.

What sense does it make to restrict the rights of those who would follow the letter of the law, when those that would not follow the law can still get what they want? You don't hear about many gun owners, who go through the background checks, and follow legal means to purchase their weapons...only to go out the same day they receive the gun to mow down the shopping mall. The bottom line is, would be gun banners believe you can stop "crazy." You can't stop "crazy." If "crazy" wants to kill a bunch of people, but you have eliminated all guns, "crazy" just finds a new way to kill a bunch of people. Bombs made from household chemicals, large knives (that people without a gun) can't defend against. Should we ban fertilizer because you can make a bomb from it?

The first part is not an intellectually honest argument. Now, the reason I asked that is because you said "The problem, is legislated stupidity like the 1994 Assault Weapons Ban, where people who have no idea what they are talking about when it comes to weapons, bans them because they "look" like an "Assault" gun. In reality, what gun is not an assault gun?" which suggested to me that you had a bigger problem with the way the law was written, not the idea of the law itself. There is an obvious difference between a handgun and certain automatic weapons that can mow down 10s of people in a matter of seconds. Besides their ability to inflict damage, one is or may be reasonably necessary to protect your home, and one is not.

The second part, and Popeman's argument, doesn't fare much better. Just because people who really want heroin can still get it, should we just say "ahhh, eff it" and sell it over the counter at CVS? Should we get rid of all DUI laws because a drunk person who really wants to get into their car is going to do it? Should we not make it a crime to molest kids because pedophiles aren't going to be stopped by some pesky law? Of course not. We make value judgments as a society regardless of people's ability or inability to get around our rules. And if and when those criminals are caught with the outlawed weapons (and it's not at all uncommon, particularly for drug dealers) then the penalty is that much harsher as a result.

No, because an AK-47 is not too dangerous. "OH MY GOD IT FIRES MORE THAN 1 ROUND PER TRIGGER SQUEEZE IT IS HORRIBLE THERE IS NO REASON TO OWN ONE" is not a valid retort. Just because you do not see a reason to own one, nor do any "educated" folks, does that mean that a law should be written to outlaw them. There have been numerous studies done that clearly state there is no evidence that an assault weapon ban decreased any violent crime. You know why? Because criminals don't follow the law. No matter how many laws you pass oppressing law abiding citizens right to keep and bear arms, criminals will continue to break laws and own and operate illegal guns. Just as they do today.

If this is the logic, why should anyone be barred from owning an RPG or military grade assault weapons with armor-piercing rounds? Because criminals won't follow the law, so why should we bother? If "too dangerous and no reason to own one" aren't valid retorts, how do we draw the line, if there even is a line?

[The Evil Genius]

You are allowed to say whatever you want in the privacy of your home.

That is not true.

Both verbal assault and harassment can and do occur in your (not yours) private residence.

[Bliz]

You are allowed to say whatever you want in the privacy of your home. There is no restriction on what you say. There are areas that have been declared to have restrictions, but in your house you are free to say whatever you want. Why the, does the govt want to restrict what type of arms you can maintain in your home? There are areas where you are restricted from carrying a gun, liie airports, schools, universities, courthouses..... What these laws seek to do is eliminate your right to own. There is a distinct difference.

You don't have any idea what you're talking about.

There are plenty of restrictions on what you can say in the privacy of your home. You can't make terrorist threats, say you're planning to kill the president, commit slander, threaten to stab your guest in the neck, etc. Certain speech is regulated everywhere.

DjTj was exactly right. There are restrictions on all our rights. The 2nd Amendment is no better or worse than the others

[Skin'Em84]

You don't have any idea what you're talking about.

There are plenty of restrictions on what you can say in the privacy of your home. You can't make terrorist threats, say you're planning to kill the president, commit slander, threaten to stab your guest in the neck, etc. Certain speech is regulated everywhere.

DjTj was exactly right. There are restrictions on all our rights. The 2nd Amendment is no better or worse than the others

Exactly, just like there are restriction on right to peaceful protest (where and when; you can't assemble a protest on the White House lawn at 230am).

Religion- You can't organize a religion where one of the tenants is human sacrifice; the Aztecs will never be allowed to make a rise in the USA.

There are all sorts of restrictions on all of our rights in the Bill of Rights.

[skinfan133]

I can't even begin to describe how ignorant this post is.

You guys are missing the boat on 3 crucial points:

#1 The "militia" described at the beginning of the 2nd amd, does it refer to the general public or the military? It refers to the military. How do I know this? From Article II Section2 of the Constitution:

"The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States."

You have no individual right to own a gun per the constitution.

The Militia is a function of the state governments, they are for all intents and purposes the militaries of those states. I am a private in the Va Militia for example, both by law (every male in the commonwealth within a certain age is a member of the militia) and by the fact that I am a member of the VMI corps. My chain of command stops at the governor, only during a time of domestic conflict does the Va Militia come under federal authority, and there are sets of criteria that go along with that.

more widely seen these days is the National Guard within the framework you are very transitively and loosely describing. The National Guard is a function of the states ceding the power to maintain its own armed forces to the Dept. of the Army.

And here's the best part. You conveniently inserted a period where there is a comma in the text. Where you say: 'and of the Militia of the several States.' The text actually reads: "and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual service of the United States; ..." everything after the semicolon is about unrelated executive powers. This proves my point, the militia is not a subject of the federal government, and has not been outside the whiskey rebellion, the war of 1812, and the civil war.

Even if you were correct, how on earth do you make such a huge jump in logic that "the militia is under the jurisdiction of the President, therefore, there is no individual right to ownership." Mountains of precedent, laws, and secondary documents clearly say otherwise.

#2 Your discussion has centered around guns. The 2nd amd never mentions guns. It is talking about all arms. So, if you feel individuals have a constitutional right to bear arms with no restrictions, I should be able to have nukes, chemical weapons, etc. That would make for a really fun country. Of course we need to have HUGE restrictions on the 2nd amd.

You fundamentally misunderstand what the term "arms" means. Arms is short for firearms. A firearm is a projectile weapon that fires a non self-propelled missile, such a a bullet. Any weapon that fires a self-propelled missile, such as a rocket propelled grenade or a Tomahawk Cruise Missile, is not a standard arm.

the Dictionary.com definition for firearm: "a small arms weapon, as a rifle or pistol, from which a projectile is fired by gunpowder."

What you are confusing here is the separate meaning of the term arms in relation to combat vernacular. Arms are the branches of military. The term "combined arms" has nothing to do with the differentiation of the weapons involved, but rather the people who wield them. Combined arms are the uses of artillery in conjunction with infantry.

tl;dr "arms" or "arm" are not terms that refer to "all weapons in existence"

#3 The root of this debate among the founding fathers came from, like so much of our legal foundation, English common law. In England, only the nobility could have swords (and when they were invented, guns) and these laws made rebellions against the King next to impossible. This is why some of our founders clung so strongly to the ideas of individual gun ownership, to keep the governing authority in check. Of course, with the explosion of technology, our government now has fighter jets, aircraft carriers, nukes an chemical weapons. It is 100% impossible for an armed citizenry with only guns to confront our government so we need to allow private citizens to own nukes and chemical weapons in order to keep the federal government in check OR we must admit that this justification for gun ownership has been made obsolete.

Fundamentally wrong. owning a firearm was a British right, and by extension, an American right under British common law. For example:

taken from Sir William Blackstone's Commentaries on the Laws of England -1707

The fifth and last auxiliary right of the subject, that I shall at present mention, is that of having arms for their defence, suitable to their condition and degree, and such as are allowed by law. Which is also declared by the same statute I W. & M. st.2. c.2. and is indeed a public allowance, under due restrictions, of the natural right of resistance and self-preservation, when the sanctions of society and laws are found insufficient to restrain the violence of oppression.

Ever heard of the 9th Amendment? It's a wonderful part of the Bill of Rights, but no one really knows about it.

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

This amendment was included in order to assuage the fears of the people that enumerated rights in the Constitution would lead the way for the federal government to argue that enumerated rights were the only rights that people had. This meant the preservation of rights enjoyed under English Common Law, which included gun ownership. Even if you could prove no individual right is enumerated in the Constitution, you'd still have to be able to prove that it never was a right enjoyed prior to the ratification of the Constitution. Good luck...

[skinfan133]

Should we not make it a crime to molest kids because pedophiles aren't going to be stopped by some pesky law? Of course not.

Ok I'll bite. The object of laws is to punish crime, not prevent it. Therefore your example here is invalid. I can gather that you are in favor of banning certain types of rifles. This is an act of crime prevention. Why not just execute people who you think would be pedophiles given the chance? before you fly off the handle, preventing ownership of these weapons would certainly affect people who would never use them for evil, so why not break a few eggs to make an omelet then?

Think my argument is ridiculous? It may well be, and probably is. But I think your rationalization is just as ridiculous. Laws punish crime, they do not prevent. This is the cornerstone of a free society

[skinfan133]

Pending a lengthy search there is a good thesis paper on the subject. I'll try and find it for you. I'll warn you though, its very dry and long as it is a well-researched academic paper...

edit: found it, http://www.law.ucla.edu/volokh/common.htm

I'm still curious what yall think of this

[The Evil Genius]

I'm still curious what yall think of this

It was an interesting read.

My only complaint/question - if the structure was commonplace back then, then why aren't the rest of the original amendments written in the same structure?

[Enzo]

I'm liberal, a gun owner, & I also hunt. I also believe that gun control is necessary, but the right kind of gun control. I have nothing but contempt for the NRA. They believe that people on the terrorist watch list should be able to buy guns. That is just plain stupid. Nobody on the terrorist watch list should be able to own a gun. They support people carrying concealed weapons into bars & restaurants. That is smart idea, liquor & a 9mm. Here some sensible gun laws.

1) Legalize drugs. I know some are you are saying what does that have to with guns. Here my point you legalize drugs you get rid of a major source of income for drugs dealers big & small & remove a hugh source of income for gangs. That would greatly reduce the crime rate in every city in America.

2) Make it illegal for anybody on the terrorist watch list to own a gun. If the NRA thanks there are people on that list that don't belong. Then they should use their vast amounts of money & resources & get them remove from the list through the legal system.

3) No guns allowed in bars or anywhere else alcohol is served. If you shoot & kill someone while under the influence of any drug (alcohol is a drug) you will be charged with murder unless the police investigation determines it was self defense. In that case you will be charged with a misdemeanor of operating a loaded firearm while under the influence.

4) Nobody that is considered mentally ill will be allowed to own a gun.

5) Any person or group that threatens the President or any elected official will immediately lose their gun ownership rights. That would only include public forums, such as posting something on the internet or carrying a sign at a public rally. It would not include someone in a private conversation saying something to a friend.

6) Anybody person or group that publicly talks about the overthrow of the U.S. government through means other that the election process would lose their right(s) to own any firearm & be charged with treason.

[SnyderShrugged]

I'm liberal, a gun owner, & I also hunt. I also believe that gun control is necessary, but the right kind of gun control. I have nothing but contempt for the NRA. They believe that people on the terrorist watch list should be able to buy guns. That is just plain stupid. Nobody on the terrorist watch list should be able to own a gun. They support people carrying concealed weapons into bars & restaurants. That is smart idea, liquor & a 9mm. Here some sensible gun laws.

1) Legalize drugs. I know some are you are saying what does that have to with guns. Here my point you legalize drugs you get rid of a major source of income for drugs dealers big & small & remove a hugh source of income for gangs. That would greatly reduce the crime rate in every city in America.

2) Make it illegal for anybody on the terrorist watch list to own a gun. If the NRA thanks there are people on that list that don't belong. Then they should use their vast amounts of money & resources & get them remove from the list through the legal system.

3) No guns allowed in bars or anywhere else alcohol is served. If you shoot & kill someone while under the influence of any drug (alcohol is a drug) you will be charged with murder unless the police investigation determines it was self defense. In that case you will be charged with a misdemeanor of operating a loaded firearm while under the influence.

4) Nobody that is considered mentally ill will be allowed to own a gun.

5) Any person or group that threatens the President or any elected official will immediately lose their gun ownership rights. That would only include public forums, such as posting something on the internet or carrying a sign at a public rally. It would not include someone in a private conversation saying something to a friend.

6) Anybody person or group that publicly talks about the overthrow of the U.S. government through means other that the election process would lose their right(s) to own any firearm & be charged with treason.

Wow, the American "Liberal" has fallen far from what they were. This post alone pretty much proves the OP's point.

[skinfan133]

It was an interesting read.

My only complaint/question - if the structure was commonplace back then, then why aren't the rest of the original amendments written in the same structure?

I'll ask Madison some day when I'm deceased for you :cool:

i.e. there's no way to know definitely. Personally, I think the clause acts as a justification rather than a stipulation.

[skinfan133]

1) Legalize drugs. I know some are you are saying what does that have to with guns. Here my point you legalize drugs you get rid of a major source of income for drugs dealers big & small & remove a hugh source of income for gangs. That would greatly reduce the crime rate in every city in America.

Yes! this is absolutely sensible, and morally right.

2) Make it illegal for anybody on the terrorist watch list to own a gun. If the NRA thanks there are people on that list that don't belong. Then they should use their vast amounts of money & resources & get them remove from the list through the legal system.

Umm, I have to disagree with you. What's your contingency plan for the government abusing such power? "Oh they won't we can trust them :thumbsup:" doesn't cut it.

3) No guns allowed in bars or anywhere else alcohol is served. If you shoot & kill someone while under the influence of any drug (alcohol is a drug) you will be charged with murder unless the police investigation determines it was self defense. In that case you will be charged with a misdemeanor of operating a loaded firearm while under the influence.

wow... First of all, it should be a proprietors decision as to whether they allow firearms in their establishment. Umm, if you shoot and kill someone and it wasn't self defense that is practically the definition of murder. Making it murder to shoot someone under the influence is a double-wrapped law, and that opens all sorts of doors for bad court decisions and abuse of the law.

4) Nobody that is considered mentally ill will be allowed to own a gun.

This is more acceptable, but what constitutes mentally ill and who decides who is mentally ill and who decides which illnesses are too severe? Would a person who suffers from clinical depression be deprived of gun ownership? Would this law keep people from seeking help in order to maintain their constitutional rights? This is the sort of debate going on in the military right now. Members of the armed forces do not seek help because there is a fear (a rational one in some cases) that they will be discharged if they do.

5) Any person or group that threatens the President or any elected official will immediately lose their gun ownership rights. That would only include public forums, such as posting something on the internet or carrying a sign at a public rally. It would not include someone in a private conversation saying something to a friend.

wow, there really are people who desire George Orwell's world...

6) Anybody person or group that publicly talks about the overthrow of the U.S. government through means other that the election process would lose their right(s) to own any firearm & be charged with treason.

man, the alien and sedition acts would have been really popular with you.

[Popeman38]

I'm liberal, a gun owner, & I also hunt. I also believe that gun control is necessary, but the right kind of gun control. I have nothing but contempt for the NRA. They believe that people on the terrorist watch list should be able to buy guns. That is just plain stupid. Nobody on the terrorist watch list should be able to own a gun. They support people carrying concealed weapons into bars & restaurants. That is smart idea, liquor & a 9mm. Here some sensible gun laws.

Why call it gun control? Why not call it gun use laws?

1) Legalize drugs. I know some are you are saying what does that have to with guns. Here my point you legalize drugs you get rid of a major source of income for drugs dealers big & small & remove a hugh source of income for gangs. That would greatly reduce the crime rate in every city in America.

Have any proof of this? It sounds wonderful, but what is it based on?

2) Make it illegal for anybody on the terrorist watch list to own a gun. If the NRA thanks there are people on that list that don't belong. Then they should use their vast amounts of money & resources & get them remove from the list through the legal system.

Well gee, what could a tyrannical govt , who by the way maintains this list, do to abuse this? Place anyone they deem a threat on this list. Pretty soon the list is millions of people long. You have to assume govt overreach since that is the norm.

3) No guns allowed in bars or anywhere else alcohol is served. If you shoot & kill someone while under the influence of any drug (alcohol is a drug) you will be charged with murder unless the police investigation determines it was self defense. In that case you will be charged with a misdemeanor of operating a loaded firearm while under the influence.

So self defense then becomes a crime? And since you just committed a crime while operating a firearm, I assume you propose eliminating this individuals right to bear arms? If not, how will you stand up to the public outcry if this person uses the gun again under the influence?

4) Nobody that is considered mentally ill will be allowed to own a gun.

Well gee, what could a tyrannical govt , who by the way maintains this list, do to abuse this? Place anyone they deem a threat on this list. Pretty soon the list is millions of people long. You have to assume govt overreach since that is the norm. I mean, if you have ever taken anti-depressants you would be automatically disqualified.

5) Any person or group that threatens the President or any elected official will immediately lose their gun ownership rights. That would only include public forums, such as posting something on the internet or carrying a sign at a public rally. It would not include someone in a private conversation saying something to a friend.

This is ripe for abuse.

6) Anybody person or group that publicly talks about the overthrow of the U.S. government through means other that the election process would lose their right(s) to own any firearm & be charged with treason.

So what is the point again? If the govt starts taking the steps in my rebuttal and the people decide to overthrow the govt through armed resistance, the public is stripped of their rights?

See, that is what is wrong with supporting the rest of the Bill of Rights but not the 2nd. Everyone is willing to support a persons right to talk about overthrowing the govt, and print these words. But god forbid you own a gun while talking about it. You just became a radical. Remember when the Dems complained that liberal has become a dirty word? Well, the liberals are now trying to make the words "gun owner" dirty.

[Bliz]

Ok I'll bite. The object of laws is to punish crime, not prevent it. Therefore your example here is invalid. I can gather that you are in favor of banning certain types of rifles. This is an act of crime prevention. Why not just execute people who you think would be pedophiles given the chance? before you fly off the handle, preventing ownership of these weapons would certainly affect people who would never use them for evil, so why not break a few eggs to make an omelet then?

Think my argument is ridiculous? It may well be, and probably is. But I think your rationalization is just as ridiculous. Laws punish crime, they do not prevent. This is the cornerstone of a free society

I think you missed the point.

His argument was, why outlaw when criminals ignore the law? That was a flawed piece of logic, and my examples are valid to show that.

I do think your argument is a little ridiculous, and here's why. This statement:

The object of laws is to punish crime, not prevent it.

is incorrect. Actually our entire criminal system is based on the notion that justice is supposed to be rehabilitative, not punitive. The object of law is definitively not to "punish crime." Prevention is at the heart of the death penalty argument, for example, - that a criminal should consider and know that if he does X, he might get the death penalty. That's how the theory goes anyway. But how do you draw a bright line between "laws punish crimes" and "laws prevent crimes"? The threat of punishment inevitably prevents a certain amount of crimes.

We regulate a lot of things that may or may not be used for crime. How much cold medicine with codeine you can buy. Maybe you're making meth or drank, and maybe you're not. How much fertilizer you can buy. Maybe you're trying to recreate Oklahoma City, maybe you're not. If you want to say that we shouldn't regulate anything like that, that's a different argument. But a regulation on particular types of weapons is consistent with limitations on other enumerated rights, and is consistent with limitations on other "freedoms" we might have.

But I stand by my opinion that "well criminals are going to do it anyway so why bother" is a BS argument

[Bliz]

See, that is what is wrong with supporting the rest of the Bill of Rights but not the 2nd. Everyone is willing to support a persons right to talk about overthrowing the govt, and print these words. But god forbid you own a gun while talking about it. You just became a radical. Remember when the Dems complained that liberal has become a dirty word? Well, the liberals are now trying to make the words "gun owner" dirty.

Wait, who supports a person's right to talk and print about overthrowing the govt? That is the very definition of sedition, and it is a crime. An area where free speech does not apply.

If you are talking seriously about overthrowing the government, you are a radical. Guns or no guns.

[DarrellsMyHero28]

All I want is criminal and mental background checks.

Its that simple for me.

[Commander PK]

Who should decide? How about our democratically elected representatives, who also decide which drugs are "too dangerous," what amount of liquid you can carry on an airplane is "too dangerous," and which immigrants are "too dangerous." Representative democracy isn't perfect, but it's the best we've got.

There isn't a single gun I know of that cannot kill if the shot is placed well enough. That to me makes this argument moot. If I am good enough, and I have six shots in my revolver, I can kill six people. Should we ban revolvers? The problem, is that once you open the door to banning "some" guns, you leave the possibility of ALL guns being attacked until eventually, law-abiding citizens can buy NO guns, which I believe is the ultimate goal of many anti-gun legislators.

Where does the Second Amendment say that waitlists and background checks are okay? I agree with you, but if all you are using as support is the text of the Second Amendment, I don't see how some restrictions would be okay while others would not. The only way you can figure that out is to dig deeper into the English common law.

I don't believe the founding fathers would have imagined the murder and violent crime rates rising as far as they have in this country since their time. However, I don't think that's a case to eliminate guns, I think it's a case to allow law-abiding citizens to arm themselves so they can protect themselves. Guns will still make it into this country from Europe and other places if we ban them or not. We can't even stop illegals and drugs from coming across the borders, what is to stop weapons? A simple back ground check to make sure you are not signing over a gun to somebody who just broke out of a psychiatric ward makes a ton of sense. If there is nothing to indicate you have a problem, then you deserve the benefit of the doubt.

Seriously, why make it so hard to get medical marijuana when the potheads are going to get it off the street anyways? Why make prostitution illegal when Lawrence Taylor is going to pay some guy $300 to bring a 16-year-old girl to his hotel room?

People are going to do illegal things. That's not necessarily a good reason to make those things legal.

As an aside to this, I personally believe the government should legalize all drugs, and tax the hell out of them. You effectively eliminate the criminal element, that has blossomed in recent decades just like during the times of prohibition. If somebody wants to waste their life away getting high in their basement, fine. Just don't get too crazy, and hallucinate your way into my home, or I'll have to put you down. Eventually, the "glorification" and "forbidden taboo" of drug use will dissipate.

I haven't seen a single person in this thread advocate for eliminating all guns. I think there should be background checks and waiting periods. I think there should be restrictions on the kinds of guns that people can own. You are arguing against a "gun banner" bogeyman that no longer exists under current Supreme Court law.

Yet, even now after the supreme court rulings in McDonald V. City of Chicago, and Heller v. District of Columbia, politicians are still trying to find loop holes, and circumvent the Supreme Court's decision. They want to make it as difficult as humanly possible for you and me to get our hands on a gun. Make no mistake, if these people could ban all guns, they would. Even though statistics show time and time again that there is zero evidence of gun control equaling lower violent crime rates.

http://www.nbcchicago.com/blogs/ward-room/Daley-Vows-New-Gun-Ordinances-97328384.html

[DjTj]

There isn't a single gun I know of that cannot kill if the shot is placed well enough. That to me makes this argument moot. If I am good enough, and I have six shots in my revolver, I can kill six people. Should we ban revolvers? The problem, is that once you open the door to banning "some" guns, you leave the possibility of ALL guns being attacked until eventually, law-abiding citizens can buy NO guns, which I believe is the ultimate goal of many anti-gun legislators.

Sure, but there are also legislators who want to ban all rap music, who want to ban all alcohol, or who want to ban all offshore drilling. How do you fight against that? You get more votes on your side. These are not simple yes/no questions but questions of degree. In the end, we're not going to ban all guns, but we're going to ban some guns, and our legislators are going to vote on which ones get banned, or what tests are necessary, or where you can carry.

I don't believe the founding fathers would have imagined the murder and violent crime rates rising as far as they have in this country since their time. However, I don't think that's a case to eliminate guns, I think it's a case to allow law-abiding citizens to arm themselves so they can protect themselves. Guns will still make it into this country from Europe and other places if we ban them or not. We can't even stop illegals and drugs from coming across the borders, what is to stop weapons? A simple back ground check to make sure you are not signing over a gun to somebody who just broke out of a psychiatric ward makes a ton of sense. If there is nothing to indicate you have a problem, then you deserve the benefit of the doubt.

Once we agree that some restrictions are necessary and proper, then we are no longer asking the Constitutional question. We're asking a legislative question, and the only way to really resolve the issue is to ultimately vote on it. There's no real right and wrong; just a compromise.

Yet, even now after the supreme court rulings in McDonald V. City of Chicago, and Heller v. District of Columbia, politicians are still trying to find loop holes, and circumvent the Supreme Court's decision. They want to make it as difficult as humanly possible for you and me to get our hands on a gun. Make no mistake, if these people could ban all guns, they would. Even though statistics show time and time again that there is zero evidence of gun control equaling lower violent crime rates.

Sure, and you can vote against those politicians, or you can file lawsuits if it gets too close to an outright ban.

But short of an outright ban, which the Supreme Court has now said is unconstitutional, I don't think we're really arguing about what the Constitution says anymore. There is really a lot of room to maneuver where the Constitution doesn't really help us decide on way or the other. The Second Amendment doesn't really say anything about whether a 5-day waiting period is reasonable, whether trigger locks should be required, or whether semi-automatic weapons should be banned. Those aren't really Constitutional questions. Those are just legislative questions, which you and I can debate, and our representatives can vote on, but the Founders don't really give us much guidance on which way to go when you start digging into the details.