Debate about Gun Control

[Bob Butler 54]

(05-16-2017, 02:14 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: I don't know another USA constitutional amendment that has a justification/qualification clause; not the bill of rights anyway.

Your ignorance is not because I have not tried to educate you.  Again, I refer you to The Commonplace Second Amendment.  If you were to read it, you would know exactly what I'm talking about.  We could discuss how to interpret justification phrases intelligently.  Over the years, I have posted a link to The Commonplace Second Amendment many times.  It is obvious that you have never read it.  It might be neat if you did.  It makes a good solid case, but might not be slam dunk.  Go on.  Step up to the plate.  Do a little research on justification clauses so you know what you are talking about.  It's a fairly short paper.  It's not too deep in legalese.  Try it.  I dare you.

(05-16-2017, 02:14 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.

Umm...  you do realize that the phrase 'well regulated militia' is in the justification clause?  Again, I'd recommend The Commonplace Second Amendment.  It would be nice to have an intelligent conversation.

(05-16-2017, 02:14 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: 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.

Some of the time we can get together and propose steps that can be taken to remove guns from classes of people who really shouldn't have them: felons, the insane, perhaps terrorists.  There are some loopholes in the purchasing process and background checks that should really be closed.  These are not total prohibitions.  We can often cheerfully agree on many such things.

Once in a while you go on rants where you want to take away weapons from law abiding citizens.  This would be prohibition.  That's when I'll step up and disagree.  I'll use 'prohibition' accurately and without apology.

(05-16-2017, 02:14 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: 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.

Yes, it is very presumptuous of you.  Whether the 2nd is the most outdated amendment is a personal opinion, and many disagree with you.  Simply saying so is not sufficient.

The Jim Crow supreme court did neutralize most of the Bill of Rights.  Thurgood Marshall and his NAACP legal team spent a lot of time in the mid 1900s restoring the Bill of Rights.  The NAACP did not see it as their place to finish the job, to restore the 2nd as well.  That only happened more recently, but replacing the Jim Crow precedents with a modern restoration of the original meaning uses the same flavor of legal theory whether applied by the NAACP or the NRA.

Race and the Bill of Rights have been intertwined for centuries.  If you don't understand that the Jim Crow supreme court deliberately sought to deny Bill of Rights protection to blacks, and thus dissolved Bill of Rights protection to everybody, you're not going to truly understand the history and nature of the gun policy discussion

Sorry, I can't fix you lack of knowledge of history with one paper.  I'd start with The Commonplace Second Amendment.

(05-16-2017, 02:14 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: 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.

There are no limits to speech because of potential harm.  You have to actually cause harm by libeling someone or using obscenity.  Similarly, owning or carrying a firearm does not cause harm.  You actually have to shoot somebody.  Would you write laws to silence everyone who might potentially libel or swear?  Would you force repeat offenders to wear gags, to silence them?  I would hope not.  The tradition is to punish those who actually cause harm not to prevent law abiding citizens from speaking.

(05-16-2017, 02:14 PM)Eric the Green Wrote:

I Wrote: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.

We quite often end our exchanges in this sort of place.  I figure we can let things rest here for a time before you go back to advocating all out prohibition.

Again, I'd recommend The Commonplace Second Amendment.