Justices Agree on Right to Own Guns

[Diuretic]

Do you honestly believe that the right to bear arms was included in the Bill of Rights to protect an individual's freedom to shoot skeet and the odd animal?

If so, then you really don't believe in the right to bear arms, which is certainly your prerogative. Just at least be honest about it.

I don't know. And I really don't have an opinion because the interpretation of your constitution's 2nd Amendment is up to you - well, the US Supreme Court really - but it's not for me to comment I think.

I'm happy to discuss gun control as an abstract idea and I'll be happy to discuss it as it applies in my country. But I'm uncomfortable discussing something that's a constitutional interpretation issue for Americans. I'll take the 5th on this one. In fact a fifth of Jack Daniels would be good

 

[Diuretic]

Not so much, but OK.


Perhaps not, but that's where it comes from -- the right to self-defense.
Any other use is ancillary.


But, police departments DO have them, and as such, private citizens should, if they chose, be able to have them as well.
After all, if they need them to protect us, we clearly need them to protect ourselves.

I think the right to self defence exists independent of the gun control issue.

On police with autos. I see it based on need. Since not every police officer needs one, then why wouldn't that apply to non-police citizens?

 

[manifold]

I don't know. And I really don't have an opinion because the interpretation of your constitution's 2nd Amendment is up to you - well, the US Supreme Court really - but it's not for me to comment I think.

I'm happy to discuss gun control as an abstract idea and I'll be happy to discuss it as it applies in my country. But I'm uncomfortable discussing something that's a constitutional interpretation issue for Americans. I'll take the 5th on this one. In fact a fifth of Jack Daniels would be good

Fair enough. However, if you really are happy to discuss the abstract idea of gun control, I'm still going to have to put you on the spot about your sporting comment. Do you believe that on balance, a society is better off if it's citizens retain the right to arm themselves for defense against all aggressors, or if the citizens relinquish this right and place their complete trust in their government?

 

[M14 Shooter]

I think the right to self defence exists independent of the gun control issue.

It does, but that doesnt change the fact that the right to own a gun is based in the right to self-defense, exercised individually or collectively.
Here, anyway.

On police with autos. I see it based on need. Since not every police officer needs one, then why wouldn't that apply to non-police citizens?

Every officer has access to one, either by design or by accident.
Thus, every citizen should have the same access.
After all, if they need them to protect us, we clearly need them to protect ourselves.

 

[Bern80]

I want a fully qualified military person who is not just well trained but is rational and following legal orders to be operating that automatic. I don't want a civilian operating that automatic. No, let me qualify that. If a civilian wants to operate a fully automatic weapon then they should be permitted to do so, on a suitable range, using weaponry that belongs to a corporate body and is stored and maintained properly. No problem. But as for private ownership and use outside of those conditions, no, there's no reasonable justification for it. You present me with reasonable justification beyond a rhetorical claim and we'll pursue it.

Reasonable justification is really the same as 'not neccessary'. And that argument really doesn't fly simply because we all have a whole slew of things we don't have any 'reasonable justification' for haveing. It is an extremely slippery slope when we delve into what is neccessary and what isn't. Reasonable justification means that at some point a line can be drawn or a threshold is reached where the requirement of neccessity is met. That is this firearm meets the minumim requirement for what would be necessary. And by your argument one should not be allowed anything beyond that. You would have to admit where neccessity is concerned the bar could be set an awful lot lower than even a semi-automatic rifle. If we were arguing neccessity only we could probably agree that all anyone should have is a very basic gun with rubber bullets.

So in a nutshell I don't need to make a reasonable justification for owning an automatic weapon because it is the argument itself - that reasonable justification is required - that is false.

 

[Diuretic]

Fair enough. However, if you really are happy to discuss the abstract idea of gun control, I'm still going to have to put you on the spot about your sporting comment. Do you believe that on balance, a society is better off if it's citizens retain the right to arm themselves for defense against all aggressors, or if the citizens relinquish this right and place their complete trust in their government?

If the criminal justice system of a society is failing to protect citizens then those citizens should be able to legally possess weapons which they reasonably need to protect themselves. Citizens should comply with reasonable requirements (registration, licensing) but given the failure of government to provide protection they should be able to tool up.

 

[Diuretic]

It does, but that doesnt change the fact that the right to own a gun is based in the right to self-defense, exercised individually or collectively.
Here, anyway.


Every officer has access to one, either by design or by accident.
Thus, every citizen should have the same access.
After all, if they need them to protect us, we clearly need them to protect ourselves.

Where I am our CT group has fully automatic weapons on a needs basis. I can tell you that regular officers have no access to those weapons. That issue and use is strictly controlled. Unless you're a terrorist here, you don't need them.

 

[M14 Shooter]

If the criminal justice system of a society is failing to protect citizens then those citizens should be able to legally possess weapons which they reasonably need to protect themselves.

I would argue that they have the right to those weapons regardless of the efficacy of the government at protecting them. better to have and not need than need and not have.

As far as what we 'reasonably need'...if the police need weapon x to protect us, then we need weapon x to protect us.

 

[Diuretic]

Reasonable justification is really the same as 'not neccessary'. And that argument really doesn't fly simply because we all have a whole slew of things we don't have any 'reasonable justification' for haveing. It is an extremely slippery slope when we delve into what is neccessary and what isn't. Reasonable justification means that at some point a line can be drawn or a threshold is reached where the requirement of neccessity is met. That is this firearm meets the minumim requirement for what would be necessary. And by your argument one should not be allowed anything beyond that. You would have to admit where neccessity is concerned the bar could be set an awful lot lower than even a semi-automatic rifle. If we were arguing neccessity only we could probably agree that all anyone should have is a very basic gun with rubber bullets.

So in a nutshell I don't need to make a reasonable justification for owning an automatic weapon because it is the argument itself - that reasonable justification is required - that is false.

In response. If you can prove a need for a fully automatic weapon then do so. If you can't prove a need for it then you shouldn't have one.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Where I am our CT group has fully automatic weapons on a needs basis.

If they need them to protect the citizenry, then its reasonable to argue that the citizenry needs them to protect themselves.

 

[M14 Shooter]

In response. If you can prove a need for a fully automatic weapon then do so. If you can't prove a need for it then you shouldn't have one.

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!"

 

[Bern80]

In response. If you can prove a need for a fully automatic weapon then do so. If you can't prove a need for it then you shouldn't have one.

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?

 

[M14 Shooter]

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

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

 

[manifold]

If the criminal justice system of a society is failing to protect citizens then those citizens should be able to legally possess weapons which they reasonably need to protect themselves. Citizens should comply with reasonable requirements (registration, licensing) but given the failure of government to provide protection they should be able to tool up.

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.

 

[Shogun]

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

better yet:

Who, besides yourself, should be the person to decide if you need anything you own regardless of proving anything about necessity?

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Reasonable justification is really the same as 'not neccessary'. And that argument really doesn't fly simply because we all have a whole slew of things we don't have any 'reasonable justification' for haveing. It is an extremely slippery slope when we delve into what is neccessary and what isn't. Reasonable justification means that at some point a line can be drawn or a threshold is reached where the requirement of neccessity is met. That is this firearm meets the minumim requirement for what would be necessary. And by your argument one should not be allowed anything beyond that. You would have to admit where neccessity is concerned the bar could be set an awful lot lower than even a semi-automatic rifle. If we were arguing neccessity only we could probably agree that all anyone should have is a very basic gun with rubber bullets.

So in a nutshell I don't need to make a reasonable justification for owning an automatic weapon because it is the argument itself - that reasonable justification is required - that is false.

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.

 

[AllieBaba]

Is it me or is it not our right to bare arms? I could swear that was one of our rights as Americans! Guns dont kill people, people do! Also tell me everyone. What do I do when some killer, who gets his guns illegally, breaks into my house and kills my entire family? THIS IS MY RIGHT.

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

 

[AllieBaba]

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.

It's also to provide that the citizenry maintains the ability to defend themselves from the military, including their own, if that military should become corrupt.

It's to ensure the people maintain equal power, and to ensure our ability to maintain a democratic republic.

 

[Diuretic]

If they need them to protect the citizenry, then its reasonable to argue that the citizenry needs them to protect themselves.

Protect themselves from what?

 

[Diuretic]

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!"

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.