Debate about Gun Control

[Bob Butler 54]

(06-16-2016, 06:14 AM)Mikebert Wrote:

(06-15-2016, 04:21 PM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote: Problem is we have a right to self defense here.  We have a Constitution that makes it very difficult to strip folk of their rights and a very divided electorate.  

That is not the issue.  Rights are not absolute.  Your free speech rights does not give you the right to commit libel.  Your right to bear arms does not give you the right the bear ANY kind of arms, for example WMDs  In fact machine guns were banned 80 years ago and based on a quick search it appears nobody has brought this matter to the Supreme Court.  As far as I can tell the argument is that one does not need a WMD or even a machine gun to provide self protection.  Similar arguments could be made for tanks, flamethrowers, rpgs and most military arms of the present day or recent past.  Even today self-defense efforts typically employ weapons of much smaller firepower (see Table 11) than the large-magazine semiautomatic weapons often used in mass-casualty shootings.  When I see a police officer on duty he/she is typically armed with a pistol, not something like this.

I think it is pretty clear than if both parties decided they wanted to ban "assault weapons" the courts would have no problem upholding the constitutionality of this ban.  The Second Amendment is no barrier to gun control.  Politics is.  The US is being increasingly drenched in guns because the Republican party sees fit to focus on the rights of owners and makers of guns.  Similarly the US is being drenched with sexual politics (e.g. the silly campus antics discussed elsewhere on this site) because the Democratic party sees fit to focus on the rights of sexual deviants.

In both cases this serves to distract Americans from other issues, which elites would prefer they not focus on.

To many, the right to self defense is the issue.  Because you may not think it important does not imply others do not.

To many, the notion that rights are not absolute seems to imply that rights should have no legal power if exercise of said rights opposes their personal values.  This is not the case.  There are well known principles that specify when rights can be and must be curtailed.  The primary example came from Justice Oliver Wendall Holmes Jr.  No right allows one to harm others.  Your example of libel laws is classic.  If one uses speech to harm another, or uses a gun to harm another, the Bill of Rights provides no legal protection.  The 2nd Amendment does not strike down murder laws.  Never has, even before Holmes.  On the other hand, in the eyes of many, exercising one's right to own and carry arms, a right of self defense, does not cause harm.  What causes harm is gun prohibitions, removing the right to self defense, as was done in Orlando.

You seem also ignorant of US v. Miller.  Existing Supreme Court precedent states the weapons most explicitly protected by the 2nd Amendment are modern military weapons...  which would be assault rifles in modern times.  If one reads the writings of the Founding Fathers one discovers the Miller decision is correct in that respect.  This does not imply a modern court will put Rule of Law and the intent of the authors ahead of modern political fashion, but you should not blithely assume the justices will ignore their oath to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution.

Because you do not give a (expletive deleted) about the rights of those whose values conflict with yours does not imply that no one cares.  Equality and the suppression of harassment and prejudice is important to some.  For them it is not a question of a distraction, though some politicians do indeed treat it as such. 

You are making statements reflecting your personal values as if they are absolute truths.  You should know better.