The American Constitution

[Sir Taliesin]

Originally posted by Eisenschwarz: quote: Originally posted by antryg: As to the debate on gun control, I will agree with what Timber Loftis has stated: If you let me define what the words mean I'll win every arguement. Untilsomeone on this thread offers a definition of freedom, security, etc. that we all will agree with then all that can be done is everyone expressing their opinion. The question then becomes "Did anyone understand the meaning of what I said?".

In A purely Legal Sense, I don't think There is a Right under the US constitution for individuals to own a gun.
claims of a Second Amendment _right_ to _own_ guns have typically met with universal rejection by courts that have considered them.

Courts have often held that the 2nd Amendment's purpose was to guarantee the integrity of militias organized by the states, not to confer an individual right to firearms. Any rights created by the 2nd Amendment have not been applied to the States through the Fourteenth Amendment, the source of the enforceability of portions of the Bill of Rights against the States.

"The militia was or is a group of citizens volunteering or legally compelled to turn out for active military service upon order of the several States. For purposes of federal law, it is defined as all males between the ages of 17 and 45 who are or intend to become citizens." [10 U.S.C. 31]

the Federal Government has authority to prescribe rules and regulations for any militia. If you were to claim that everyone is in the milita, and therefore can own a gun, these arguments are unavailable to women, or to senior citizens.[/QB][/QUOTE]I don't think you are right on this. Look at this link!!!

http://www.nra-ila.org/articles.asp?...de=Detail&ID=7

Seems pretty clear to me.

[Timber Loftis]

The second amendment does give individuals the general right to bear arms. It is clear from the framers' writings, including the "make guns illegal and only the criminals will have them" statements (yes, they're that old), that it was not *only* for the militias.

That right can be reasonably limited by the states, as is often done, as there is a still-open question as to whether the second amendment applies directly to the states. I say it does, via the and 5th and 14th amendments, which collectively make all of the first ten amendments (the bill of rights) applicable to states - it's called "reverse incorporation" for your lexis-search fun.

Regardless of whether or not an amendment applies to the states, you can limit the constitutionally-protected right so long as you do so in reasonable ways which are reasonably related to legitimate state interests (except in the "heightened constitutional review" situations, which don't apply here). I posted a link on a prior page of this thread that gave a very good in-depth review of this.

Oh, and as opposed to law review articles (which are *somewhat* stilted to an agenda), writings by the NRA on 2nd Amendments issues are notable persuasive-pieces. Rather than seek to interpret the law from an ostensibly objective viewpoint, the NRA is rather obvious about trying to take any piece of law, be it statute or judicial opinion, and argue it supports the right to arm bears. I have no objection to the NRA, I'm just saying that when you read its legal writings it is more akin to reading one side of a legal argument than it is akin to reading the objective opinion rendered from hearing both sides.

[edit] Upon further review, I will say that the NRA article you cited is more objective than most. Note that even the NRA can't argue against the fact that many judicial opinions distinguish between the 2nd Amendment's existence as a right vis-a-vis the federal government instead of the state government.

[ 10-22-2002, 05:30 PM: Message edited by: Timber Loftis ]

[Yorick]

Originally posted by antryg: I realize that I'm coming into this thread very late but would still like to "enter the fray". Yorrick, it appears to me that all you really wanted to do was talk about gun control.

Not at all. The two topics are linked that is all. The gun problem highlights what I was saying about the constitution, and guns won't be reduced until the constitutional issue is addressed.

[Cerek the Barbaric]

Originally posted by Moiraine: If it is for your personal defense that you think you need a range weapon, why not shoot tranquilizer darts instead of regular bullets ? Thus you would be perfectly protected without harming anyone. Or is it that you make a confusion between justice and revenge ?

Nachtrafe already answered the feasibility of the tranquilizer dart, so I'll skip that part. AFA having a "range weapon" for defense, I agree with you somewhat. A handgun or shotgun is MUCH more effective for home defense. Of these two, the handgun is the more ideal. Why? Because it CAN be used to injure but not kill an intruder. You could shoot them in the leg, for instance. A shotgun is going to be much messier and will probably maim, even if it doesn't kill. That is why I prefer a handgun. Also, handguns are easier to "keep out of the reach" of my boys.

Originally quoted by Moiraine: Those of you who are Christians and advocate gun bearing, how do you reconcile your conviction with what your God told you through Jesus, that a life is sacred, that no man is fit to judge, and that retaliation is never never the good answer ?

An excellent question, Moiraine, and one well worth considering. I will preface my answer with an experience I had while I still lived with my parents.

When I was in college, we lived in a house that was literally at the end of a small dirt road. Since you couldn't see the house until you came around a curve that literally put you in our yard, it was not "uncommon" to get vehicles pulling into our yard, only to quickly turn around and leave (these were usually teenagers looking for a place to go "parking").

One night, I had just gotten in bed when a pickup came into our yard at a pretty good clip, which was unusual in itself....most of the other cars were driving very slowly. The truck then slid to a stop in our yard. The headlights were pointed right towards my bedroom window, so I got up to see what was going on. As I sat on my bed and looked out the window, the driver of the pickup climbed out the passenger side of the truck - looked around - then reached behind the seat and pulled out a rifle! The ONLY reason I wasn't completely scared out of my wits is because I KNEW my dad was in the living room with his pistol watching this guy...and that if he took one step towards the house, he wouldn't have a chance to take a second. Fortunately, the guy turned and bolted into the woods. We called the police, only to learn that they had been chasing this guy and had lost him when he turned down our driveway. We lived 1 full mile of the nearest highway and 5 miles outside of town, but within 6 minutes of making the call, our yard was FULL of policemen. They didn't find the guy until the next morning, and he was taken to jail. The police also found a sawed-off shotgun still inside the truck when they searched it.

Now then, to answer your question and to "tie-in" to my first answer. Since that night, I have always kept a gun in my room. And if somebody breaks into my house, I will consider them a threat to my family and I will "shoot to kill". I am not going to muck around with a leg shot, I will be aiming for their chest.

How do I "reconcile" that with my Christian faith? Quite simply, I DON'T!!! Taking a life IS wrong and it is a sin I would have to answer for when I stand before the Throne of Judgement, but I also know with absolute certainty that is exactly what will happen if somebody breaks into my house.

On to other issues:

Earlier in this thread, Yorick mentioned America's "love affair" with guns. Despite Magik's protestation, I do believe their is a fair amount of truth in that statement. The bottom line is - I LIKE MY GUNS! And (as has also been mentioned), I would NEVER give (nor sell) them back to the government. I thoroughly enjoy target shooting. It's one of my favorite pasttimes. Yet, I do NOT like hunting. Never have and never will. I see no "thrill" in killing an animal, just like I don't "fantasize" about shooting an intruder. But I would readily shoot either one in self-defense.

One point where Yorick and I disagree is his assertion that "most people favor more gun control". He referred to a poll in that assertion, but I would be willing to bet that poll was conducted primarily in urban areas. If the majority of people really DID want more gun control, then we would have more gun control.

The tobacco lobby used to be every bit as powerful as the gun lobby. Actually, I would be willing to wager it was far more powerful during it's heyday. Yet, as "anti-smoking" sentiment began to grow in America, the tobacco companies started losing their leverage in Congress. It became MORE popular to OPPOSE tobacco companies than to SUPPORT them. That has NOT happened with guns because the MAJORITY of Americans still don't want to give thier guns up. Most of them do NOT ask for tougher gun laws, they just ask the gov't to enforce the laws they already have. (another subject that was mentioned earlier).

So, there you have one "Christian perspective" on gun control. Of course,keep in mind that it is a Southern Baptist view only, and other denominations may not agree.

[WillowIX]

Originally posted by Nachtrafe: Regardless of what people are led to believe from movies, sleepy darts are not 100% effective. They also take at least a minute or two for full effectiveness. And different people have different tolerances. And the dose that only puts a 200 pound man into slumber man only annoy a 300 pound man, and can easily KILL a 150 pound man.

Actually such substances exist. Most neural toxins for instance, the most known would of course be curare (not that useful in the dart usage though). [img]smile.gif[/img] Instant relaxation of muscles and "one dose fits all" lol. The only problems are, 1) They are illegal for personnal use (except medication of course) which IMO is a good thing 2) Using them on children (up to about 15 years old) is lethal (for the recipient of course). The problem would of course be that you could fire two darts which would then relax the diaphragm (not so much the heart) and you would suffocate. So you can´t really control that as well.

Now I´m not going to get into the real debate since I don´t know anything about either guns or the American constitution (never been that interested of that subjext I must shamefully admit [img]graemlins/blush.gif[/img] ). But how about stun guns? Of course they could prove lethal for a person with heart problems...

[ 10-22-2002, 06:20 PM: Message edited by: WillowIX ]

[antryg]

Yorick. I would like for you to inform me as to what actions you wish to be addressed in regards to gun control. Are you wanting a constitutional amendment to make private ownership of guns illegal? Are you wanting greater control of firearms that could be addressed through legislation other than a constitutional amendment? Would you be satisfied with a Federal law modeled on German gun control laws? Do you feel that there is ever responsible gun ownership? I for one think our laws are to lax and that there is to much variety from one state to another. You are correct in that there are too many deaths caused by guns in the hands of unthinking people. One is too many. Yet with proper screening, education and training responsible people (Whom I believe actually do outnumber the stupid.) could make gun safety a reality. When it is all said and done we must remember than firearms are just a tool. It is only when people use them that bad things may happen.
(edit)Willow IX Since I flatlined due to an allergic reaction to tubocurarine while having knee surgery and have since discovered that I am allergic to most anestheias used in hospitals you can be sure that I don't want to be hit with a dart.

[ 10-22-2002, 06:27 PM: Message edited by: antryg ]

[Donut]

Originally posted by Angelousss: Yorick your fundamental argument is wrong. If a suffiecent number of Americans wanted guns outlawed they would be. We have constitutional amendments that allow for changing times and circumstances. That is why the Constitution has persisted not for reverence of the founding fathers. We amended the constition to outlaw slavery. The found fathers while many were torn about slavery in the end chose to allow it to continue. The gun lobby is one of the strongest in washington, I believe they go to far but i am not for banning guns entirely.

Angel I think that Yorick's point is that the first line of defence for the pro-gun lobby is always that they have the right to bear arms as granted by the second aMendment. As if the constitution written over 200 years ago is sacrosanct.

[Donut]

Originally posted by Azred: The Founding Fathers decided that the government could not arbitrarily take away all guns because that would make America a place where the government, with its armed militia, could do exactly as it pleases, with no restrictions. Ban guns? [img]graemlins/idontagreeatall.gif[/img] Besides, automobiles kill more people yearly than guns do.

You make Yorick's point for him. Two hundred years on do you still fear your own Government? Times have changed, America has changed.

Yes cars kill more people than guns - but not deliberately!

[Yorick]

Originally posted by antryg: Yorick. I would like for you to inform me as to what actions you wish to be addressed in regards to gun control. Are you wanting a constitutional amendment to make private ownership of guns illegal? Are you wanting greater control of firearms that could be addressed through legislation other than a constitutional amendment? Would you be satisfied with a Federal law modeled on German gun control laws? Do you feel that there is ever responsible gun ownership? I for one think our laws are to lax and that there is to much variety from one state to another. You are correct in that there are too many deaths caused by guns in the hands of unthinking people. One is too many. Yet with proper screening, education and training responsible people (Whom I believe actually do outnumber the stupid.) could make gun safety a reality. When it is all said and done we must remember than firearms are just a tool. It is only when people use them that bad things may happen. (edit)Willow IX Since I flatlined due to an allergic reaction to tubocurarine while having knee surgery and have since discovered that I am allergic to most anestheias used in hospitals you can be sure that I don't want to be hit with a dart.

What I would like to see is this:

The second amendment removed from the constitution so that an individual state, like New York or California, with significantly different problems regarding gangs, drugs and guns to say Alabama or Montana, could then make tough laws if they so wished.

As it is, New York State and California are held prisoner to arcane restrictions by rural states who have a totally different experience.

I'd agree that the polls for greater gun control would come from Urban rather than rural areas. I'll have to see if we can find info on polls.

In any case do you see my point?

New York, even though it has pretty tough gun laws compared to the rest of the country, is still not free to determine it's own solutions to a worsening problem because a constitution made before it developed the character it has, are, as Donut put it...."sacrosanct."

Where's the freedom in that?

[ 10-22-2002, 08:40 PM: Message edited by: Yorick ]

[Night Stalker]

Yorik

The whole point to the Constitution was to protect the People's Freedoms FROM government. The framers viewed government as a nessicary evil because the alternative to law is anarchy, and that just is not conducive to a society that can succeed. Basically they set up a system that says in many words "Your rights end where mine begin, and vice versa".

The Constitution is designed to protect peoples Freedom of Choice. It does not however garuantee Freedom from Fear. If that is what you are looking for, I hate to inform you, but NO government will ever provide that to you. If you fear being shot in NY, then you should considder living somewhere else. But, where ever you live, there is no garuantee that some accident will not happen to you - as this whakko in VA is proving, or any weather disaster prooves. If you want garuantees, I'll give you one, and only one - it's the best I can do. You are dying. You are a corpse waiting to happen. Some time between the time I post this and eternity you will cease to be. I know that is a morbid sentiment, but accept it and set yourself free. Instead of living in fear, try just living. And let others do the same. That after all, is what the Constitution is all about - live and let live. The rest of the legal code is just an over complication of this.

Oh, and on that thought about protecting Freedom by restricting it. There is a serious flaw to that - namely, you can't. You either protect and enable freedom or you restrict it - you can't protect by restricting.

[ 10-22-2002, 08:54 PM: Message edited by: Night Stalker ]