Debate about Gun Control

[Eric the Green]

Quote:

Quote:Bob Butler 54 Online
Values Driven
*****
Posts: 952
Threads: 4
Joined: May 2016
#31 Today, 12:53 AM
(Yesterday, 11:18 PM)Eric the Green Wrote:
If the 2nd is the only amendment with qualifications, then that would indicate that those qualifications were important. You can't claim originalism, and oppose going against text, and then refer to state constitutions of the 1780s. They aren't part of the constitution.

I doubt very much that the 2nd is the only amendment with qualifications. I know it is not the only right with a justification clause. It should be interpreted the same as every other right written with a justification clause. The Jim Crow / blue wet dream interpretation of the 2nd is entirely inconsistent with how other rights with a justification clause are interpreted.

I don't know another USA constitutional amendment that has a justification/qualification clause; not the bill of rights anyway.

Quote:

Quote:(Yesterday, 11:18 PM)Eric the Green Wrote:
Originalism of the Scalia/Gorsuch type does not work. The world changes, and the constitution must be interpreted in a flexible-enough way to adapt. Guns are not the same as they were in 1787. And remember, the phrase "well-regulated" is built in to the 2nd. Whatever militia has a right to bear arms, it must be well-regulated. That means gun control, and qualifications on which guns the militia members have a right to bear.

The recent supreme court cases reestablishing an individual right is not originalism except in the sense that there has been a return to the original meaning. There is lots of room to debate the statistics of what results from various types of gun prohibition. There is no room to debate the meaning of the text, the intent of the authors, the precedents and scholarship. Those advocating the blue wet dreams deliberately keep themselves ignorant of the history of gun policy.

Gun control is not prohibition. That is just more sloganeering like the libertarian Republicans engage in. There's lots of room for debating the meaning of the text. The pre-Heller meaning goes back to the early days of the Republic. Only Scalia has changed it, as a result of the temporary takeover of the USA by right-wing extremism since 1980, courtesy of the charming actor.

Quote:

Quote:(Yesterday, 11:18 PM)Eric the Green Wrote:
The blue wet dream is merely to go back before the right-wing extremist appointed by the 3T charming actor and his faulty decision.

The blue wet dream is a mistaken attempt to cling to the absolutely rotten Jim Crow efforts to deny blacks the benefits of the Bill of Rights. It wasn't just the 2nd Amendment that was effectively neutered by the Jim Crow supreme court. The entire Bill of Rights was effectively neutralized. The gun policy debate is old. It has been a persistent part of our history. Your claim that it started recently shows a tremendous ignorance.

I wouldn't doubt that there have been debates on this subject. That would be rather presumptuous of me. But no, qualifying the 2nd Amendment, which is the least necessary and most outdated amendment in our constitution, does not neutralize the bill of rights.

Quote:[quote]
(Yesterday, 11:18 PM)Eric the Green Wrote:
Another point to insert: it is a false myth that we have freedom of speech in this country. We don't at all.

Huh? Not part of this discussion. If you want to start on that elsewhere... What is it you want to say that you believe you can't?

It could not be more relevant. If you say the right to bear arms has no qualification or limit, then that would apply to any other right stated in our constitution.

Bosses, profit and non-profit, have many times seriously infringed on my freedom of speech. I took great offense at this, and still do. But I don't recall any government infringing it.

Quote:[quote]
(Yesterday, 11:18 PM)Eric the Green Wrote:
I don't recall the Supreme Court throwing out libel and obscenity laws. The FCC still censors broadcasts. Nor directing bosses and leaders of non-profits not to fire or punish people for saying the wrong things or "airing dirty linen in public."

[quote]
Since the time of Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, there has been a broad principle that a right does not grant one the ability to harm others. ("Your right to wave your fist around ends where my nose begins." "You don't have a right to cry 'fire' in a crowded theater.") Libel and obscenity are considered to be harmful to others, thus freedom of speech does not enable them. Shooting people also causes harm to others, and the 2nd Amendment does not enable that. Owning and carrying a gun (keeping and bearing arms) does not harm others, thus the libel and obscenity comparison is generally not applicable.

Carrying guns seriously infringes on peoples' rights, especially freedom of speech, since it imposes fear and the threat of severe violence on others. The PBS doc about UT, covering the 50th anniversary of the mass shooting there, showed this. Allowing the mentally ill and criminals to have guns is a serious threat to our freedom and safety, yet that is what gun advocates have successfully imposed upon us. And since anyone at any time can go crazy or break the law, anyone carrying a gun is a serious threat to public safety. My wet dream of no-one anywhere having guns may be a long-term vision, and may never happen in the USA. But I still think it's the best ideal to have. I recognize the need to compromise my ideal.

And if there are limits to free speech because of potential harm, then surely people carrying weapons, even military weapons, that can in a second kill anyone, constitutes potential harm and should be limited. The more severe the limit, the better; I say. Americans are the only people in the world with this male-macho inadequacy-caused gun obsession. And we pay a high price for this disease.

Quote:Now, if you want to pass laws prohibiting gun ownership by felons, the insane, terrorists, or similar folk, I'll go along with it so long as there is some form of due process. One shouldn't lose guaranteed rights without due process. I'll be dubious about the ability to enforce such laws, but if the blue states wish to make the attempt, I for one would not object.

This quote of yours makes more sense to me, obviously. Yes, I don't disagree. The best compromise we can get, in a country with a gun tradition (i.e. obsession), is worth trying for.