Justices Agree on Right to Own Guns

[Diuretic]

And I told you, makeing an argument that centers around the concept of necessity is moot. How many things that you own could I prove you don't need?

Since we're discussing a specific topic and a specific sub-set of the topic it might be useful to stay with it. I've made the point that if there's no necessity for someone to own/use a fully automatic weapon then they shouldn't have one. You disagree and that's fine, but trying to counter my argument with a dismissive "that's moot" is a bit rich.

Justify a civilian being able to own/use a fully automatic weapon. I've given my position, no necessity, no auto. I'd be interested to read you on that.

 

[Diuretic]

Same question, asked better:
How many things do you own that you can't prove you need?

Are you asking me, how many things I own that I don't need?

 

[Diuretic]

Who gets to decide what constitutes failure on the part of the criminal justice system? And if citizens are not allowed to legally possess arms unless this failure is determined, wouldn't that in all likelihood be too late?

It's pretty obvious, or at least it seems that way to me, that you do not believe in the fundamental right to bears arms. Certainly not the same way you believe in other rights such as free speech, habeus corpus, and that sort of stuff. I'm pretty sure you wouldn't put qualifiers on any of those.

I'm just left wondering why you dance around it rather than owning up to it.

Dancing around what? I've not addressed the concept of the right to bear arms in this thread so far. My posts have been on the nature of firearms control in civilian society. No-one has asked me my opinion on the right to bear arms. In fact to this point I've avoided commenting on the interpretation of the 2nd Amendment and made that perfectly clear.

If you want my opinion on it you only have to ask, but please do me the courtesy of being straightforward and don't come in and blindside me.

 

[Diuretic]

Why, you wait until the police come, so they can tromp through your house, crack bad jokes and bag your dead bodies!

We never crack bad jokes, they're always full of illustrious humour, no more so than when we're dealing with murder victims, I've been to many a crime scene that looked like Saturday Night Live, people all over the place laughing and joking with each other. Jeez I miss those murder scenes, they used to be such fun.

 

[pegwinn]

Here, we aren't required to prove a "need" to exercise a right before we execrise it. Do you have to do that down there?

Imagine the people going apeshit if you even suggested they might be required to show a need to exercise their right to scream "Bush sucks!"

To add to that: It's up to the government (or anyone else) to prove the need to regulate, remove, or modify our rights. Example. Free speech does not give one the right to communicate classified data no matter what the NYT believes. The Government had to prove a compelling need to shorten the absolute right to speak freely when the classification statutes were written.

Reasonable applies to intent. The intent of the 2nd Amendment is to ensure the citizenry can and is armed to resist foreign and domestic invaders, rebels or troops. It is to ensure the citizenry has the weapons needed for self defense, defense of fellow citizens and defense of community, State and Country.

How ever heavy weapons should be controlled in a collective manner. Personal weapons are protected, crew served should not be individual citizens right to own.

And yes the Government DOES have the right and the power to determine justification within the guidelines of the Constitution. That has always been the case.

Intent is irrelevant. No one, be they left or right wingnuts can divine the thoughts of the founders. What they said, debated, or thought doesn't matter. It's what was ratified that counts. Literal wording or amendment is called for.

I disagree on the crew served issue. So long as I don't take away someone else's rights with my M60 there is no compelling interest to deny me my desire to own one.

I won't argue the governments power to determine justification, but I'm not convinced they have the right to.

 

[Bern80]

Since we're discussing a specific topic and a specific sub-set of the topic it might be useful to stay with it. I've made the point that if there's no necessity for someone to own/use a fully automatic weapon then they shouldn't have one. You disagree and that's fine, but trying to counter my argument with a dismissive "that's moot" is a bit rich.

Justify a civilian being able to own/use a fully automatic weapon. I've given my position, no necessity, no auto. I'd be interested to read you on that.

Why wouldn't you be required to hold such a standard across the board? Why are guns spedial that you only get to use the neccessity argument for them and nothing else?

You said very specifacally and without qualifaction I must prove necessity to own something. That is the standard YOU set. So it is pretty rodiculous that you require that standard for a specific type of weapon and not another.

Maybe it's simply because you're from there and I'm from here, but what is rich is that the standard you want to use iin a free country you want to make me prove i need something before you'll let me have it. I wonder why you're not willing to place everything else you own under that standard.

As basic as I can make is that we don't operate that way here. Aside from a few stupid laws we can do what we WANT when we WANT up until what we WANT impacts others.

 

[Diuretic]

Why wouldn't you be required to hold such a standard across the board? Why are guns spedial that you only get to use the neccessity argument for them and nothing else?

Go ahead, set the terms of the discussion and I'll be happy to chime in.

You said very specifacally and without qualifaction I must prove necessity to own something. That is the standard YOU set. So it is pretty rodiculous that you require that standard for a specific type of weapon and not another.

You'll need to point this out, I'm getting confused. But just to get back on track, this is my specific view regarding firearms:

1. Provided a person is suitable then they should be able to own/use a non-prohibited firearm.
2 Some firearms should be prohibited from civilian use because there is no need for them. Fully automatic weapons are in that category for me. CT police units have a need, therefore they should be able to carry fully automatic weapons.
3. Certain occupational groupings in civilian society have a need for firearms. Farmers, security personnel, police and others can demonstrate a need for firearms (but not fully auto except for CT police) and should be able to own/use them.
4. Recreational shooters have a need and that need is to practise their recreation. So whether they're skeet shooters, combat shooters, range shooters, hunters and so on, they should be able to own/use firearms to follow their recreational pursuits.

That's it. If someone can't demonstrate a need then they don't get a firearm.

Maybe it's simply because you're from there and I'm from here, but what is rich is that the standard you want to use iin a free country you want to make me prove i need something before you'll let me have it. I wonder why you're not willing to place everything else you own under that standard.

I own a car. To drive it I have to prove competence. I'm not allowed to drive it if I'm under the influence. I must drive in compliance with certain laws. It's privilege to allow me to use my car on public roads.

All my other stuff I can use as I see fit. Firearms though should be controlled because they are potentially dangerous. They should only be allowed to be used by people who have been licensed to use them. That is, competent, law-abiding citizens who have demonstrated not just good character but also an ability to safely use firearms. Just as I am required to comply with certain requirements to drive my car on public roads, so I am required to comply with laws regarding firearms.

As basic as I can make is that we don't operate that way here. Aside from a few stupid laws we can do what we WANT when we WANT up until what we WANT impacts others.

In the words of Dick Cheney, "so what?" The various states laws and the 2nd Amendment are a domestic issue for Americans. I'm merely making generalised points about firearms control.

If a state wants to allow its civilian citizens to own/use fully automatic weapons then that's their business.

My opinion is that a civilian can't reasonably justify owning a fully automatic weapon.

My opinion is that a civilian should be able to use a fully automatic weapon in controlled circumstances such as a range where the range owner owns and stores the fully automatic weapons.

 

[Bern80]

Go ahead, set the terms of the discussion and I'll be happy to chime in.

I did set the terms by stating makeing an argument cetnered around the concept of necessity can't be one of the terms becaaust it is illogical.

You'll need to point this out, I'm getting confused. But just to get back on track, this is my specific view regarding firearms:

2 Some firearms should be prohibited from civilian use because there is no need for them. Fully automatic weapons are in that category for me. CT police units have a need, therefore they should be able to carry fully automatic weapons.

4. Recreational shooters have a need and that need is to practise their recreation. So whether they're skeet shooters, combat shooters, range shooters, hunters and so on, they should be able to own/use firearms to follow their recreational pursuits.

That's it. If someone can't demonstrate a need then they don't get a firearm.

recreational shotting isn't a need. It's a want. I don't need to hunt either. Therefore by your argument I should not be allowed a gun.

I own a car. To drive it I have to prove competence. I'm not allowed to drive it if I'm under the influence. I must drive in compliance with certain laws. It's privilege to allow me to use my car on public roads.

All my other stuff I can use as I see fit. Firearms though should be controlled because they are potentially dangerous. They should only be allowed to be used by people who have been licensed to use them. That is, competent, law-abiding citizens who have demonstrated not just good character but also an ability to safely use firearms. Just as I am required to comply with certain requirements to drive my car on public roads, so I am required to comply with laws regarding firearms. [/QUOTE]

The problem with your argument is the stima attached to firearms. Again this is a simple basic fact which makes guns no different than a car, a toaster, a microwave, or a toothbrush. All are as dangerous as the person using them.

My opinion is that a civilian should be able to use a fully automatic weapon in controlled circumstances such as a range where the range owner owns and stores the fully automatic weapons.

You're opinion has no logocal basis and actually contradicts itself. Why does the range owner 'need' fully automatic weapons? Or are you going to try to make the argument that he needs them because they're his livlihood?

The only way I can make sense of your thinking is that is that you believe it is okay to regulate something on the basis of need if you perceive that something to be dangerous. And the fact is a fully automatic rifle isn't dangerous in of itself. On top of that such a position would require you to be promoting the banningment of many other things like cigarettes, trans fatty goods, etc.

 

[Diuretic]

I did set the terms by stating makeing an argument cetnered around the concept of necessity can't be one of the terms becaaust it is illogical.

I am now confused.

recreational shotting isn't a need. It's a want. I don't need to hunt either. Therefore by your argument I should not be allowed a gun.

The "need" I referred to was the necessity to use a firearm to practise certain recreational pursuits such as skeet shooting. You can't go skeet shooting with a slingshot and a rock. There is a need to use a firearm. If skeet shooting was prohibited then there would be no need to use a firearm because skeet shooting would be banned.

The problem with your argument is the stima attached to firearms. Again this is a simple basic fact which makes guns no different than a car, a toaster, a microwave, or a toothbrush. All are as dangerous as the person using them.

I don't see the problem here. Of course an inanimate instrument is only as dangerous as the person using it.

You're opinion has no logocal basis and actually contradicts itself. Why does the range owner 'need' fully automatic weapons? Or are you going to try to make the argument that he needs them because they're his livlihood?

Try and see this as a complex and graduated argument, that's how things usually are in real life.

I maintain that no civilian should be permitted to own an automatic weapon. The civilian has no need. The soldier or the CT cop has a need to use it, that's what the weapon was designed for (well military use first of course).

However, being the reasonable chap I am, I am arguing that if a civilian wants to go and fire an automatic weapon then they should be permitted to do so. I'm envisaging that a range owner may wish to offer that service to customers. I don't have a problem with that. But it in no way contradicts my primary view that civilians have no need to own a fully automatic weapon.

The only way I can make sense of your thinking is that is that you believe it is okay to regulate something on the basis of need if you perceive that something to be dangerous. And the fact is a fully automatic rifle isn't dangerous in of itself. On top of that such a position would require you to be promoting the banningment of many other things like cigarettes, trans fatty goods, etc.

Cigarettes are regulated. Children can't buy them. In my state the law explicitly forbids smoking inside public or commercial buildings. It also forbids people smoking in cars with young children. There are good reasons for those prohibitions. Trans fats are harmful but if you want to load up on them go ahead. I do like to know if something has trans fats in it because I won't eat it. In a restaurant I don't know what's in the food but I would prefer that there were no trans fats and if a law was passed prohibiting them then I would think it was a good thing.

A fully automatic weapon is designed for one purpose and that's to kill people. Other firearms have many uses, target shooting, hunting. A fully automatic weapon isn't designed for target shooting, although it can be used on a range of course. It isn't designed for hunting unless you like to make your own ground beef in the field. It is a military weapon and it should stay in the hands of the military and a select number of police who may need it for CT purposes. Based on that knowledge I find it completely acceptable to prohibit autos from civilian use. I, as I have stated, am prepared to accept that for recreational purposes, they could be available on certain ranges. But again as I have pointed out, that is an allowance that in no way negates my position.

 

[Bern80]

The "need" I referred to was the necessity to use a firearm to practise certain recreational pursuits such as skeet shooting. You can't go skeet shooting with a slingshot and a rock. There is a need to use a firearm. If skeet shooting was prohibited then there would be no need to use a firearm because skeet shooting would be banned.

I really can't make any sense of your thinking anymore. And your argument still doesn't work. Now your argument is if i want to do something and that something requires some instrument (i.e. I WANT to golf, therefore I NEED golf clubs) how is an automatic different? You will allow for this: I WANT to shoot skeet, therefore I NEED a skeet gun, but not this: I WANT to shoot a an automatic rifle, therefore I NEED an automatic rifle.

Further you can't create a neccissity for something out of unneccessary activity. That is why you argument is flawed. I don't NEED to hunt, or shoot skeet, or decorate my wall or whatever, therefore I don't NEED a gun either.

I'm purely guessing here, but I would say 90% of the people who own guns don't need them. That's why your argument is so confusing. You're simply drawing a totally arbitrary line at automatic rifles. When in truth the need for an automiatic rifle is no greater than the need for a shotgun. And thus for your argument to have any weight or credibilty you would have to be for a lot more than an ownership ban on just automatics.

My whole point is the concept of establishing need for some type of gun or anything else is ridiculous. If you want to argue regualting some types of firearms, fine. But you have to do it in some other context than this idea of neccessity determines whether I should be allowed to have it, because that argument just plain doesn't work. It doesn't work because most of the guns we are allowed to own aren't needed either and the law doesn't say I need to establish need to own them. It's a concept that doesn't work under the context of a free society. Freedom means you're essentially free to do what you want. When someone starts going down that path of determining what you need or don't need and you structure society based on that, then you are no longer free.

I maintain that no civilian should be permitted to own an automatic weapon. The civilian has no need. The soldier or the CT cop has a need to use it, that's what the weapon was designed for (well military use first of course).

The activity of wanting to shoot an automatic rifle is no more neccessary than the activity of wanting to shoot skeet, or golf, or fish. And despite that equal footing you don't see the flaw in your argument that owning a fishing pole, golf club or shotgun (becauser by your argument I need them to accomplish those activities) is okay, but owning an automatic isn't (because I also need it to accomplish tha activity of wanting to shoot an automatic rifle.

A fully automatic weapon is designed for one purpose and that's to kill people.

100% patently false. I guess you missed the rather long argument with Larkinn. A PERSON determines the purpose of any inanimate object. Someone decided they were going to use an automatic rifle primarily for military use, yes. That desired purpose is not inherent to the instrument. It is purpose that a PERSON gave it. Therefore, if my purpose in owning an automatic is simply to range shoot, or hell, just hang on the wall, in other words not kill, why should I not be allowed to have one? I determined the purpose of that object. The object didnt' tell me this is my purpose because 1)it's an inanimate object that can't and 2)it's simply ridiculous to arbitrarily say this is the inate purpose (as in not determined to by a person) of inanimate object.

 

[Foxfyre]

It wasn't that long ago that Washington DC had one of the highest gun crime rates in the country, if not the highest, despite having the most restrictive gun control laws. I haven't checked to see if that is still the case.

I was fortunate to grow up at a time and in a place where virtually every household had a loaded rifle or shotgun mounted over the fireplace or stuck in the front coat closet, but gun crime or even accidents were virtually non existent. As soon as kids were big enough to hold the weapon, they were taught to shoot; by the time we were teenagers most of us had our own guns and complete freedom to go out hunting rabbit or quail or whatever was in season. Not one of us would have presumed to threaten somebody to play inappropriately with a gun. It was simply ingrained into us.

All the doors of the schoolhouse were also unlocked and nobody had any kind of fear of somebody walking into a school or post office or restaurant or anywhere else and start gunning down people. A murder or other gun crime for many counties in all directions was so rare that the community was completely shocked and horrified that such a thing could occur.

Seems to me that the problem is not in the guns. The problem is in the social values that we hold. Until we get back to those more sensible social values, no amount of gun control is going to fix it.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Protect themselves from what?

The same things that the police protect us from.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Owning and using a firearm isn't a right in Australia. We have nothing similar to the 2nd Amendment. The common law right in English law (which was inherited by the colonists in Australia) has been extinguished by a series of statutes which control firearms. So, no, there is no right to own and use a firearm. It's akin to driving a car, a privilege, conditionally granted.

Aha.
Thus, the difference between a citizen and a subject.
No offense to you, if course.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Are you asking me, how many things I own that I don't need?

Actually, he asked you that. I just worded the question better.

 

[jimmyBUFFET]

In my reading of the Second Amendment, the term 'militia' is used to represent an army of the common people, much like the one used (under the same terminology) to defeat the British oppressors.

More specifically, wouldn't you agree that the only prudent and worthwhile regulations on firearms would be those barring convicted criminals and other such subsets of the people (the mentally ill, small children) from owning one? It seems a bit nonsensical to gerrymander a Constitutional right the way that DC has.

As for necessity, I have personally seen situations where my house was skipped over by burglars and vandals because the community members are aware of the fact that I own and know how to operate firearms. The truth is, criminals are less likely to work where there is a higher chance of retaliation from the innocent people they prey upon. Does this not make a nearly infallible case for the pro-gun argument?

-jB

 

[manifold]

Dancing around what? I've not addressed the concept of the right to bear arms in this thread so far. My posts have been on the nature of firearms control in civilian society. No-one has asked me my opinion on the right to bear arms. In fact to this point I've avoided commenting on the interpretation of the 2nd Amendment and made that perfectly clear.

If you want my opinion on it you only have to ask, but please do me the courtesy of being straightforward and don't come in and blindside me.

I apologize. I didn't intend to blindside you and I did believe I asked the question about a fundamental right to bear arms (outside the context of the 2nd Amendment).

So, what is your opinion regarding the right to bear arms?

 

[Diuretic]

I really can't make any sense of your thinking anymore. And your argument still doesn't work. Now your argument is if i want to do something and that something requires some instrument (i.e. I WANT to golf, therefore I NEED golf clubs) how is an automatic different? You will allow for this: I WANT to shoot skeet, therefore I NEED a skeet gun, but not this: I WANT to shoot a an automatic rifle, therefore I NEED an automatic rifle.

Further you can't create a neccissity for something out of unneccessary activity. That is why you argument is flawed. I don't NEED to hunt, or shoot skeet, or decorate my wall or whatever, therefore I don't NEED a gun either.

I'm purely guessing here, but I would say 90% of the people who own guns don't need them. That's why your argument is so confusing. You're simply drawing a totally arbitrary line at automatic rifles. When in truth the need for an automiatic rifle is no greater than the need for a shotgun. And thus for your argument to have any weight or credibilty you would have to be for a lot more than an ownership ban on just automatics.

My whole point is the concept of establishing need for some type of gun or anything else is ridiculous. If you want to argue regualting some types of firearms, fine. But you have to do it in some other context than this idea of neccessity determines whether I should be allowed to have it, because that argument just plain doesn't work. It doesn't work because most of the guns we are allowed to own aren't needed either and the law doesn't say I need to establish need to own them. It's a concept that doesn't work under the context of a free society. Freedom means you're essentially free to do what you want. When someone starts going down that path of determining what you need or don't need and you structure society based on that, then you are no longer free.



The activity of wanting to shoot an automatic rifle is no more neccessary than the activity of wanting to shoot skeet, or golf, or fish. And despite that equal footing you don't see the flaw in your argument that owning a fishing pole, golf club or shotgun (becauser by your argument I need them to accomplish those activities) is okay, but owning an automatic isn't (because I also need it to accomplish tha activity of wanting to shoot an automatic rifle.




100% patently false. I guess you missed the rather long argument with Larkinn. A PERSON determines the purpose of any inanimate object. Someone decided they were going to use an automatic rifle primarily for military use, yes. That desired purpose is not inherent to the instrument. It is purpose that a PERSON gave it. Therefore, if my purpose in owning an automatic is simply to range shoot, or hell, just hang on the wall, in other words not kill, why should I not be allowed to have one? I determined the purpose of that object. The object didnt' tell me this is my purpose because 1)it's an inanimate object that can't and 2)it's simply ridiculous to arbitrarily say this is the inate purpose (as in not determined to by a person) of inanimate object.

Are we now getting into semantics rather than substance?

 

[Diuretic]

The same things that the police protect us from.

Fair enough.

 

[Diuretic]

Aha.
Thus, the difference between a citizen and a subject.
No offense to you, if course.

None taken. Although I do admit the difference in status terminology the primacy of parliament (see the English Civil War for its resolution) means that the difference is semantic. I can see a new thread on written v unwritten constitutions.

 

[Diuretic]

Actually, he asked you that. I just worded the question better.

Did I answer it?