Gun Control & RKBA
Related: About this forumWhere is the line?
I'm referring to the line between the stuff we should be trusted with and the stuff we shouldn't.
Obviously there is a line. It's equally obvious that the line has moved over the past 100 years.
What justifies where that line is today?
What can justify moving it?
Who can/should be trusted?
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Tuesday Afternoon
(56,912 posts)What justifies where that line is today? or, is it a rationalization that has perpetuated by tptb ... ?
What can justify moving it? I would prefer to move it as I see fit in my own life...
Who can/should be trusted? I truly trust very few people in real life.
discntnt_irny_srcsm
(18,475 posts)Being an adult isn't sufficient in the opinions of some people to accept that one can own a certain kind of weapon.
If the line between okay weapons and bad weapons moves, what justifies the move?
Who should the government trust?
Tuesday Afternoon
(56,912 posts)I do not understand that concept at all.
weapons are either used offensively or defensively.
discntnt_irny_srcsm
(18,475 posts)You'd have to ask the ones who think it can.
Sekhmets Daughter
(7,515 posts)that we are consistently lied to. Nor the way they have rewritten history to fit the ' opportunity for everyone' fairy tale.
discntnt_irny_srcsm
(18,475 posts)Which lies are the focus of your reply?
Sekhmets Daughter
(7,515 posts)our government has been telling us for decades. When I think of misplaced trust I think of the trust we, as citizens, have in our government.
I think when we, as a nation, bought into the myth that 2 atomic bombs had to be dropped on Japanese cities in order to save the lives of countless US soldiers, we set in motion a system of deceit and willful blindness that has crippled us both morally and financially.
discntnt_irny_srcsm
(18,475 posts)But if we have reason to mistrust the government, why should we trust the government to decide who can or can not own what type of weapon?
Sekhmets Daughter
(7,515 posts)The politicians are bought and paid for. The citizens have pretty much come down in favor of reasonable laws governing who can purchase what. (Sometimes, I forget to look at which forum I've wandered into....sorry.)
Personally, I don't know why anyone would want to own a gun that can get off a ridiculous number of rounds in mere moments...unless they wanted to shoot a ridiculous number of people in mere moments. 10 and reload seems reasonable to me for hunting purposes... even target shooting. I always wonder about the gun crowd...how many of them have actually shot and killed somebody? Why are they so willing to allow the weapons to get into the wrong hands to protect something they have never done themselves...and wouldn't dream of doing?
Straw Man
(6,622 posts)But ...
Ten is too many for hunting. Many states mandate lower-capacity magazines for hunting. This is to conserve game. Most target shooting has courses of fire that stipulate how many rounds are needed, but some events have no such stipulation and go by how much time it takes you to hit the required number of targets. In such events, the larger the magazine, the better, within limits of reasonable reliability and handling.
Very few.
I'm not sure what the last part of your sentence means, but believe me when I say that legal gun owners do not want weapons to get into the wrong hands. However, they mistrust government regulation because they don't trust government.
Sekhmets Daughter
(7,515 posts)Many have expressed the number 10 as being reasonable...I view it as the highest number...not the ideal.
Of those very few...how many do you think would do it again? I'd bet the number is miniscule.
Then legal gun owners should be raising hell with the NRA and their congress critters. Months ago someone on DU wrote they thought guns could be registered with an agency that was not part of the government...with court orders being needed to check registrations. I think that would go a long way to easing all but the most paranoid.
Eleanors38
(18,318 posts)custody of records -- though not permanent -- of b.g. Checks to fill in the blanks of the current NICS, perhaps authorized by but not run by the states. This idea was the result of a discussion here several yrs. earlier, which included ideas of a FOID, B.G. Checks on DLs, and open NICS system. Though theoretically safe from a de facto government licensing scheme, it would be under pressure from controllers who relentlessly pursue just that goal.
Frankly, an open NICS system may be a better approach whereby any individual could access for a b.g. Test, and where states might require such.
Sekhmets Daughter
(7,515 posts)I think it is an idea worth pursuing and/or refining. I have given up trying to follow the 'gun wars'. I quite accidentally wandered in here yesterday. I become careless sometimes!
I hope you have been well!
Eleanors38
(18,318 posts)I hope you are well, too. Been watching the deterioration of DU from the end zone; seems to extend well beyond the "gun room!"
Sekhmets Daughter
(7,515 posts)I won't spend anywhere near $1,260 on doctor visits this year... I'll sign up next year or the year after during open enrollment.
I think I know what you mean re: deterioration. Most of the time I stay out of it!
I'm doing really well and I'm happy to see you are too!
discntnt_irny_srcsm
(18,475 posts)...government can be the instrument of the majority. I don't generally trust the government or the majority to decide the rights of the minority. I think government has been infamous in the neglect of individual rights. I remember my own thoughts in 1987 regarding the case before Justice Robert Wilentz and how certain I was (and everyone I spoke to) before I read his decision. I don't think I've ever changed my mind quite so fast or completely.
I prefer not to consider hypothetical motivations as factors in this type of debate.
Common Sense Party
(14,139 posts)I own one handgun. Standard magazine holds 19 rounds. I could reload after 10 shots, but in the extremely, very, almost infinitesimally unlikely event that I ever have to protect my family from multiple bad people, I'd rather not have to worry about reloading in the middle of what would likely be a very stressful situation. It's one less thing to worry about.
The think to remember in (extremely unlikely) home defense situations, is you won't always hit the bad guy with one shot. You may miss. There may be multiple bad guys. It may take more than one or two shots to stop a hopped-up bad guy.
Again, I hope it never happens. Where I live, it probably won't. But heaven forbid it ever does, I'd like to know that I have the resources necessary to protect those I care about.
Sekhmets Daughter
(7,515 posts)But I think the 'very unlikely" case does not justify the nonsensical approach we have to guns now.
Perhaps people like myself would be comfortable with the large magazines, if there were really thorough background checks and universal registrations of all weapons.
Your fear of the very unlikely situation has made it possible for sociopaths and psychopaths to purchase just about anything they desire. Somehow, that does not seem like a good trade-off to me. Background checks should include family members who might have access as well.
rdharma
(6,057 posts)A five year old with dynamite? Sarah Pailin with the nuclear "football"? 
discntnt_irny_srcsm
(18,475 posts)- drunk with a chain saw: I kind of figure that it's up to the individual to know his limitations with power tools. We do trust drunks with automobiles.
- five year old with dynamite: No I would not give dynamite to a five year old.
- Sarah Pailin with the nuclear "football": I believe the required clearance process is called "Yankee White". I'm not in that loop nor am I aware of the criteria. In short, it's not my job to decide nor do I have the information on which to base a decision.
Hangingon
(3,071 posts)Chain saws are not prohibited.
Dynamite and explosives are controlled.
The American voters took care of Pailin.
discntnt_irny_srcsm
(18,475 posts)
rdharma
(6,057 posts)HUH?!!!! 
discntnt_irny_srcsm
(18,475 posts)...somewhere that the court has actually confiscated the defendant's automobile but I'm not aware of it. 
hansberrym
(1,571 posts)We have the right to possess "arms". meaning a weapon that is part of the ordinary military equipment, or that its use could contribute to the common defense.
Flash suppressers, large capacity magaziines, pistol grips are part of the ordinary military equipment. The AWB and
related attempts to ban military style arms are contrary to US v. Miller and the case cited therein (Aymette v. Tenn.)
When it comes down to placing a finer point on it, it will be difficult for those supporting the AWB to claim as a matter of law that possession of military style arms is not protected by the second amendment.
Thus far the AWB proponents have tried to fool the public, but the Miller decision stands in their way.
discntnt_irny_srcsm
(18,475 posts)Is that current line in the right place?
hansberrym
(1,571 posts)have to explain away Miller, Aymette, and a whole lot of other cases plus much historical evidence.
It is a though the Sporting purpose advocates are saying that the second amendment is primarily about hunting or other sporting purposes, a position which is not defendable, though the "sporting purpose" meme does make for good sound bites.
kudzu22
(1,273 posts)No full autos, no explosives. Yes to concealed carry for self defense.
yup.
discntnt_irny_srcsm
(18,475 posts)...but why is it where it is?
needledriver
(836 posts)We have the right to possess "arms". meaning a weapon that is part of the ordinary military equipment, or that its use could contribute to the common defense.
We do not have an unrestricted right to fully automatic weapons, which are certainly part of ordinary military equipment. This is a good example of where the "line" is, or at least was.
Flash suppressers, large capacity magaziines, pistol grips are part of the ordinary military equipment.
Of those three, only large capacity magazines has any real effect on rate of fire. The core issue, at least with those who would permit any use of firearms at all, is rate of fire.
A rate of fire of hundreds of rounds a minute; i.e. fully automatic, is widely accepted as something that should not be freely accessible to the general public. Machine guns are highly regulated, and very few people have a problem with that.
A rate of fire of dozens of rounds a minute is legal. As we have seen, in malevolent hands it can be catastrophic.
The line, therefore, might be drawn at whatever rate of fire is deemed "acceptable" for civilian use.
The only meaningful ways to lower rate of fire* are to reduce magazine capacity in order to make more frequent reloads necessary, or to slow down the cycling action of semi automatic weapons. Of these, reducing magazine capacity has gained a lot of traction recently.
In the absence of a clearly defined "line" we will be left with a patchwork of laws most of which try to solve a "problem" by addressing form rather than function.
*This of course assumes that you have a firearm at all. Another way to reduce rate of fire is to prevent someone from having a firearm altogether.
hansberrym
(1,571 posts)but the "Unrestricted" rights meme is just a strawman.
When it comes to drawing a line, the AWB promoter's claim that flash supressers and pistol grips are military style and thus not fit for civilian use will run smack into US v. Miller.
That said, I do not disagree with your point about rate of fire, but advocates of such limitations will need a better argument than "military style arms" are not protected by the second amendment.
In regards to your "function" comment: Semi-autos have been in common use for around a hundred years, and 30 round magazines for quite some time as well.
Legislation restricting the bearing, but not the possession, of 30 round magazines would fit with the US v Miller and Aymette v. Tenn rulings.
spin
(17,493 posts)This video made by a sheriff shows two shooters, one with considerable experience and one with less, shooting a number of firearms and changing magazines while timed. A semi-auto pistol, an AR-15 rifle, a 1911 style .45 ACP pistol and revolvers are demonstrated.
Obviously the video has a pro-gun rights bias but I feel the test itself is realistic and fair. You can easily ignore the first 1 minute and 40 seconds of the video as it adds little to the test.
http://m.
I seriously doubt that you will ever see a demonstration like this on the media.
jmg257
(11,996 posts)and the stationary shooter's use of the large barrel to keep the re-loads nice and handy, it certainly shows how long 1 can shoot 1 mag of 15 rounds without having to pause at all. And of course the 1st guy did indeed have issues on reloads with the smaller mags, as he constantly had to strip out the empty mags.
Well - again - it was interesting.
spin
(17,493 posts)He was used to grabbing his magazines from pouches on his gun belt. He stated that he knew exactly where they were at and didn't have to look to find them.
I also noticed the difficulty that the shooters encountered with the smaller mags. I'm not sure what caused this. In the last segment, the experienced shooter uses a 1911 style .45 ACP pistol and the empty magazines fall freely from the firearm as they should. Being an older shooter he probably had more experience with this style pistol and it might have been his own firearm.
I could be wrong as I am not all that familiar with the first semi-automatic pistol used in the test, but I feel a little lubrication on the side of the magazines might have made them fall out easier.
ZombieHorde
(29,047 posts)discntnt_irny_srcsm
(18,475 posts)I'm interested in why. How do we decide what side of the line a weapon belongs on?
Eleanors38
(18,318 posts)Carried & operated in one or two hands; an infantry weapon confcurrent with the times. Full-auto restriction would seem too restrictive, given the times, but is politically expedient & acceptable to the big number of 2A advocates.
It is bothersome that the AWB rears its head when the tech. Seems to represent a "topping off" point reached a century ago. Controllers should feel fortunate that an agreeable stasis has been reached. But we are a nation which is obsessed with looks, image & style, to the detriment of science and meaningful policy. Despite the change in media & communication, the vast info available, and the recently-polished veneer of social tolerance, we are more than ever subject to gothic scarlet letters, hateful stereotype & tribalism. If there is hope in this, it comes from the collapse of agreement & community, both of which depend on the legitimizing impact of a failing mass media model. That "hope" gives me little comfort.
jimmy the one
(2,708 posts)hans: ..AWB and related attempts to ban military style arms are contrary to US v. Miller and the case cited therein (Aymette v. Tenn.)
Legislation restricting the bearing, but not the possession, of 30 round magazines would fit with the US v Miller and Aymette v. Tenn rulings.
Regarding aymette vs tennessee, hans still hasn't addressed this opinion in silveira, where the emerson 5th circuit (texas area) rejected aymette as being a 'collective right'.
The Fifth Circuit {same as emerson case} dismisses the Aymette decision because it believed that the constitutional provision relied on by the Tennessee court granted free white men the right to “keep and bear arms for their common defense.” According to the Emerson court {5th circuit}, the “common defense” language, which is not present in the Second Amendment, rendered the interpretation of the Aymette court inapplicable here. However, the Tennessee court reached its conclusion primarily because of a different provision of the state constitution that did not include the “common defense” language. Thus, the Fifth Circuit’s attempt to distinguish Aymette fails.
So which is it hans, you disagreeing with the 5th circuit that aymette protects for common defense? so far you've ducked this concern 5 times. If emerson is correct & aymette applies to common defense, how is that contrary to banning military style firearms from personal possession? or does silveira trump emerson court?
hans: When it comes down to placing a finer point on it, it will be difficult for those supporting the AWB to claim as a matter of law that possession of military style arms is not protected by the second amendment.
Not difficult at all, there is no well regulated citizens militia any longer, for assault rifles to pertain to.
hans: Thus far the AWB proponents have tried to fool the public, but the Miller decision stands in their way..
.. When it comes to drawing a line, the AWB promoter's claim that flash supressers and pistol grips are military style and thus not fit for civilian use will run smack into US v. Miller.
hans, running 'smack into miller' which is standing in his way:
1939 SCOTUS ruling on miller: 1) "The Constitution as originally adopted granted to the Congress power - 'To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union'.... With obvious purpose to assure the continuation and render possible the effectiveness of such forces the declaration and guarantee of the Second Amendment were made. It must be interpreted and applied with that end in view."
2) "In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a [sawed off shotgun] at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well-regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument.."
discntnt_irny_srcsm
(18,475 posts)...that "hans" will see this as you've replied to me.
It may be time for another 
with extra coffee. 
hansberrym
(1,571 posts)jimmy the one asks:
If emerson is correct & aymette applies to common defense, how is that contrary to banning military style firearms from personal possession? or does silveira trump emerson court?
You already know the answer -because the court in Aymette dealt with the "great political right" to keep and bear arms in which...
"The citizens have the unqualified right to keep the weapon, it being of the character before described as being intended by this provision. But the right to bear arms is not of that unqualified character. The citizens may bear them for the common defence; but it does not follow that they may be borne by an individual, merely to terrify the people or for purposes of private assassination. And, as the manner in which they are worn and circumstances under which they are carried indicate to every man the purpose of the wearer, the legislature may prohibit such manner of wearing as would never be resorted to by persons engaged in the common defence. "
You are also well aware that a later Tenn decision (Andrews) found for a private individual right to "Keep" arms.
Andrews v. State (Tenn)
"It is insisted by the Attorney General, that the right to keep and bear arms is a political, not a civil right. In this we think he fails to distinguish between the nature of the right to keep, and its necessary incidents, and the right to bear arms for the common defense. Bearing arms for the common defense may well be held to be a political right, or for protection and maintenance of such rights, intended to be guaranteed; but the right to keep them, with all that is implied fairly as an incident to this right, is a private individual right, guaranteed to the citizen, not the soldier.
It is said by the Attorney General, that the Legislature may prohibit the use of arms common in warfare, but not the use of them in warfare; but the idea of the Constitution is, the keeping and use of such arms as are useful either in warfare, or in preparing the citizen for their use in warfare, by training him as a citizen, to their use in times of peace. In reference to the second (p.183)article of the Amendments to the Constitution of the United States, Mr. Story says, vol. 2, s. 1897: "The importance of this article will scarcely be doubted by any persons who have duly reflected upon the subject. The militia is the natural defense of a free country against sudden foreign invasion, domestic insurrection, and domestic usurpations of power by rulers. It is against sound policy for a free people to keep up a large military establishment and standing armies in times of peace, both from the enormous expense with which they are attended, and the facile means which they afford to ambitious rulers to subvert the government, or trample upon the rights of the people. The right of the citizen to keep and bear arms, has justly been considered as the palladium of the liberties of the republic, since it offers a strong moral check against usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers; and will in general, even if these are successful in the first instance, enable the people to resist and triumph over them."
We cite this passage as throwing light upon what was intended to be guaranteed to the people of the States, against the power of the Federal Legislature, and at the same time, as showing clearly what is the meaning of our own Constitution on this subject, as it is evident the State Constitution was intended to guard the same right, and with the same ends in view. So that, the meaning of the one, will give us an understanding of the purpose of the other.
The passage from Story, shows clearly that this right was intended, as we have maintained in this opinion, and was guaranteed to, and to be exercised and enjoyed (p.184)by the citizen as such, and not by him as a soldier, or in defense solely of his political rights"
(my emphasis in boldface)
Now I suppose you will deny the above ever happened, as you ridiculously deny Stevens' said there was an individual right associated with the Second amendment, but that is all you can do.
slackmaster
(60,567 posts)National Firearms Act.
discntnt_irny_srcsm
(18,475 posts)...but I'm not sure that's where the line ought to be.
What is it that should justify where the line is? What principle(s)?
jmg257
(11,996 posts)through their chosen representatives, and the courts, decide it should be.
1) That is how the line is placed, and how/why the placement is justified.
2) When a majority decides it needs to be moved, often because the current location doesn't seem to be working out as ideally as the original majority of the people thought it would.
3) Who should be trusted depends on several things - the level of damage that is possible due to misuse; the level of mis-use prevalent; the past behavior of those wanting the stuff, &c.
When placing lines on stuff, the people have likely taken into consideration the notion that many people will want or need to access and use that stuff. When enough people demonstrate, through mis-use, that too much access (i.e. trust) has been granted - especially in comparison to the benefits of allowing such access, it is proper that the placement of the line be re-visited.
Some stuff is so dangerous, that very few should be trusted with it. Some people are so dangerous, they should never be trusted with certain stuff. Some stuff just ends up being mis-used too often or too severely, to keep the level of trust where it is.
discntnt_irny_srcsm
(18,475 posts)...is the path by which we will arrive at the best compromise. I agree.
I subscribe to the school of thought which says rights do not arise nor are they nor should they be overridden by the will of the majority. I believe that the RKBA is such a right. I don't remember your views.
Your point #3 I look at from the other direction, not who should be trusted but who shouldn't. There is a good summary of who shouldn't in the current NICS system but better reporting needs to be implemented:
Persons who are fugitives of justice—for example, the subject of an active felony or misdemeanor warrant.
An unlawful user and/or an addict of any controlled substance; for example, a person convicted for the use or possession of a controlled substance within the past year; or a person with multiple arrests for the use or possession of a controlled substance within the past five years with the most recent arrest occurring within the past year; or a person found through a drug test to use a controlled substance unlawfully, provided the test was administered within the past year.
A person adjudicated mental defective or involuntarily committed to a mental institution or incompetent to handle own affairs, including dispositions to criminal charges of found not guilty by reason of insanity or found incompetent to stand trial.
A person who, being an alien, is illegally or unlawfully in the United States.
A person who, being an alien except as provided in subsection (y) (2), has been admitted to the United States under a non-immigrant visa.
A person dishonorably discharged from the United States Armed Forces.
A person who has renounced his/her United States citizenship.
The subject of a protective order issued after a hearing in which the respondent had notice that restrains them from harassing, stalking, or threatening an intimate partner or child of such partner. This does not include ex parte orders.
A person convicted in any court of a misdemeanor crime which includes the use or attempted use of physical force or threatened use of a deadly weapon and the defendant was the spouse, former spouse, parent, guardian of the victim, by a person with whom the victim shares a child in common, by a person who is cohabiting with or has cohabited in the past with the victim as a spouse, parent, guardian or similar situation to a spouse, parent or guardian of the victim.
A person who is under indictment or information for a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year.
spin
(17,493 posts)it could be blocked by the minority of people who live in less populated states where the majority support gun rights and ownership.
Each state, reguardless of population, gets two Senators. That's the beauty of our system of government. I'm sure that many people who live in large urban areas would love to see this changed.
discntnt_irny_srcsm
(18,475 posts)jmg257
(11,996 posts)an over-bearing majority, but at the same time knowing the restrictions would never be regarded if against the decided sense of the public. (per Madison anyway - which is why he was so selective)
I tend to think the primary purpose for enumerating the right to arms was for militia purposes. Since that purpose is obsolete, it is no longer as important as it was thought to be (people decided a long time ago the constitutional militias are NOT the best security of our free state).
That leaves self-defense, hunting, recreational shooting/collecting, and other lawful purposes. There is an interest in balancing these needs and wants with the very real dangers associated with 'the stuff' (guns).
Due to the levels of mis-use over the years, the common interest tells us that some restrictions & infringements are in order...hence the "line" you mention in your OP. {its placement often determined by compromises on the varying opinions re: just how much mis-use is too much, and the best ways to go about limiting such mis-use}.
discntnt_irny_srcsm
(18,475 posts)...is specifically designed to protect individual rights, it is not the source of any rights. I've read MvM; "It cannot be presumed that any clause in the Constitution is intended to be without effect...". Without a doubt, our government like any other may define, devise and specify the means by which it protects the overall nation. This one item referenced by Justice Stevens in his dissent in Heller. There is no argument to remove the militia clause from the 2A that holds water.
IMHO, there is no argument against self-defense that could reasonably be assailed. Self-defense being a corollary to a right to life, the wisdom of preparing a means of defense and selecting an effect tool to use can only be thought logical.
Self-defense is not a need or a want, it's a fundamental right.
But regardless, if it can be accepted that self-defense is a right, what are the criteria for deciding on where to draw the line in terms of magazine capacity, pistol grips...?
jimmy the one
(2,708 posts)discnt: While I believe that the BoR...is specifically designed to protect individual rights, it is not the source of any rights
That may apply to a particular definition of a bill of rights, but the US bill of rights is either or both a restriction on congress, as well as what you contend, a protection of individual rights.
Wm Rawle, 1829: Of the amendments already adopted, (for which see the appendix,) the eight first in order fall within the class of restrictions on the legislative power, some of which would have been implied, some are original, and all are highly valuable. Some are also to be considered as restrictions on the judicial power.
The constitutions of some of the states contain bills of rights; others do not. A declaration of rights, therefore, properly finds a place in the general Constitution, where it equalizes all and binds all. http://www.constitution.org/wr/rawle_10.htm
While rawle was at times in variance with later decrees regarding the consititution, he was correct on this & the US bor has been interpreted as being both a limitation on congress & a protection of individual rights.
rawle at variance: Reasons will be given hereafter for considering many of the restrictions, contained in the amendments to the Constitution, as extending to the states as well as to the United States...
Where pro gun advocates err is what 'individual' meant; the 2ndA protected an individual right to belong to a militia, which could not be infringed. This was the interpretation handed down from the english 1689 bill or rights & specifically their 'Have Arms' decree, which granted protestants an individual right to belong to militia (right cleverly synonymous with duty). Scalia even cites the 'have arms' decree in heller iirc, but errantly assigns it to individual protection for self defense etc, rather than the proper english point of view.
rawle, same link, on 2ndA, excerpt: In the second article, it is declared, that a well regulated Militia is necessary to the security of a free state; a proposition from which few will dissent. Although in actual war, the services of regular troops are confessedly more valuable; yet, while peace prevails, and in the commencement of a war before a regular force can be raised, the militia form the palladium of the country. They are ready to repel invasion, to suppress insurrection, and preserve the good order and peace of government. That they should be well regulated, is judiciously added. A disorderly militia is disgraceful to itself, and dangerous not to the enemy, but to its own country. The duty of the state government is, to adopt such regulations as will tend to make good soldiers with the least interruptions of the ordinary and useful occupations of civil life. In this all the Union has a strong and visible interest.
The corollary, from the first position, is, that the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
A corollary, mind you, is derived from a higher proposition of rule or law.
discntnt_irny_srcsm
(18,475 posts)Maybe you're making a grammatical point here but I see the BoR as a restriction on government to protect individual rights. All of government and not just congress.
Why you have delved into opinions of the 2A in response to my assertion about the defense of one's self or family I'm not sure.
My assertion in the post to which you replied:
Self-defense is not a need or a want, it's a fundamental right.
(And, yes, my use of "corollary" was correct and appropriate. I can't guess your reason for mentioning corollary.) IMHO, the right to life is about the highest order of right or law. In my post I mentioned Justice Stevens and his lucid and reasonable dissent in Heller. This aspect of thinking and appeal to the 2nd Amendment while correct in many venues is fundamentally limiting. The courts and legislatures are restrained to that which is properly the business of government. Challenges in both directions that argue what is properly to be found in that pervue are the business of government and, more specifically, the duty of the voters. Arguments on which to base a court challenge to an oppressive law are commonly derived from precedent and the interpretation of laws. Many state constitutions contain references to a right of arms for self-defense of the individual. Other states have no such references nor does the 2A.
I have two basic questions:
1) Do you believe that it is valid to use a tool to defend yourself, if need be?
2) On what principle should society limit the choice of tools?
I'm not against a limit. Up thread ZH mentioned nukes and I agree. The whole point of this thread is the question, "Where is line and on what is the position of the line based?
Justice Stevens argued in Constitutional context regarding the 2A and the bearing of the militia clause on the relation between government, the individual and the RKBA. While in context, nothing in that very learned dissent precluded armed defense of one's self or others. The fact that the militia is a key aspect of the 2A, does not limit the RKBA to the militia only. The recognition of A reason for the RKBA does not ideologically limit that to being the ONLY reason for the RKBA.
jimmy the one
(2,708 posts)Is what I meant by 'both'; white women in 1791 did not have any rkba granted by the 2ndA, women couldn't even vote, yet they were also part of the 'people' in the 1st amendment (altho there likely were restrictions for women in town meetings I'd suppose) & other amendments.
Women could own guns if they could afford & want one, but were a wife to try to take & use her husbands musket on the grounds her parents gave it to him as a wedding present & he's now refusing her access to it, & she claimed 2ndA protection, she wouldn't have a leg to stand on, since it was 'he' who had the right to have it.
IMHO, there is no argument against self-defense that could reasonably be assailed. Self-defense being a corollary to a right to life, the wisdom of preparing a means of defense and selecting an effect tool to use can only be thought logical.
Self-defense is not a need or a want, it's a fundamental right.
And the right to self defense has been around for thousands of years, it wasn't an original idea emanating from the 2nd amendment, they are two separate concepts.
Certainly you can use whatever tool is available, within reason. And you must use commensurate force for what is opposing you, etcetra, you can't shoot a man for walking towards you shaking his fist.
Many state constitutions contain references to a right of arms for self-defense of the individual. Other states have no such references nor does the 2A.
Exactly, the 2ndA has no mention of rkba for self defense, just for militia.
(And, yes, my use of "corollary" was correct and appropriate. I can't guess your reason for mentioning corollary.)
Wasn't even referring to your usage, was referring to wm rawle's usage, which apparently went over your head; reread (or rather first read) the last paragraph I posted by wm rawle.
discntnt_irny_srcsm
(18,475 posts)Agreed. (But I'm not sure how a wife taking a husband's gun is relevant.)
----------
Agreed. This is one of the main points I made.
----------
We're getting there. As I said previously, nukes are out and, certainly, a number of other weapons.
----------
Within reason, I agree. You are not (cannot be) prohibited from using, possessing or obtaining a tool (such as a firearm) for the purpose of self-defense based on arbitrary or capricious laws. It is this point about which I'm looking for answers. Laws that restrict certain weapons from possession and use by the people, must meet Constitutional standards. These laws must be based on the essentials of freedom and respect for individual rights.
As I asked in the OP, how do we decide where to draw the line? Thanks
