[QUOTE=DaCommie1;40333769]The 2nd, like the 1st, was designed to cover improving technologies. Its goal wasn't to give every American the right to own a musket, else it would have said so, it was to give every American the right to own a military-grade firearm.[/QUOTE]
You may be right. As an outsider, I can shrug and call the decision the height of folly. Those who wrote the constitution obviously had a high opinion of humanity.
[QUOTE=archangel125;40333720]And while that may have been written into the constitution at a time when it took two minutes to reload a single shot in a musket, it makes sense, in this age of a divided population, anti-intellectualism and a push for theocracy, that a government exercise prudence in allowing its populace to obtain weapons. If someone can't can't pass the background checks, well, let them be free to bear muzzle-loaded muskets.
The biggest problem with a population having a right to bear arms (Which those who wrote the constitution could never have anticipated) was just how weapons technology would improve over the years, to the point that a single person could now massacre scores of men all by himself.
I'd like to see someone pull off the VT shooting, or Sandy Hook, with a musket.
Let's not forget that no science in those days was dedicated to mental disorders.
As I posted in a previous thread, nobody has a right to drive a car. It is a privilege conferred only unto those who have demonstrated that they can handle a vehicle responsibly. And cars aren't even designed with murder in mind.[/QUOTE]
The purpose was to secure the right of the population to control their government and abolish it when necessary. By all means, the anti-federalists believed that the people should be capable of arming themselves to the same extent as the government, and by all means that grants us the right to own assault rifles and predator missiles if we have the wealth. I'm not saying that it's right, I'm saying that's how it is. That's what was meant and that's that.
But that doesn't mean it's the proper or right choice. I agree with universal background checks. But that's not the intent of the Constitution and the law is supposed to abide by it. I'll be the first to say that the constitution no longer applies in law and that it's outran its relevance, and its usefulness, and hell it was overall lacking to begin with. BUT we have a democratic process for amending that, and if the populace thinks that there should be limitations on what type of arms individuals can bear and universal background checks, then we ought to be acting through that process to modify the Constitution and not shitting on it. We can't have it both ways- either the thing is valuable and binding, or it isn't and we can just willy nilly act against its word.
[QUOTE=archangel125;40333783]Nobody argued about the illegal gun trade. And yet, most mass shootings were perpetrated by people who had obtained guns legally. And I believe that most would-be mass shooters would not have the wit or patience to obtain them illicitly.[/QUOTE]
and yet all of these mass shooters passed their background checks OR just obtained the firearms through illegitimate means.
[QUOTE=areolop;40333785]Thats campaign funds. Bribery and campaigning are two different things[/QUOTE]
If, and I quote, the ruling was that "spending money to influence elections is a form of constitutionally protected free speech", then those lobbyists with the deepest pockets will win the most favours.
[QUOTE=T2L_Goose;40333654]Are you really saying that everyone who owns a gun intends to kill someone? lol.
Right, so, with your logic: People shouldn't have the right to talk about blowing up people or buying bomb parts online. We should allow the government to log our online interactions, just in case. Otherwise those people could kill/maim someone.
You can't throw everyone into the boat when such a small group of people are the bad guys. Not every gun owner is a murderer or psychopath. Not every facebook user and internet user is a terrorist.
[/QUOTE]
But I said in that post that people shouldn't have the right to pry into other people's private lives, that's the exact opposite of allowing the government the right to spy on people in case theyre harbouring ~dark thoughts~. You missed the point almost entirely.
I'm not saying all gun owners are maniacs, though it's something that's never really appealed to me. There will always be people however who want to cause harm with these tools that can cause untold pain, death and suffering, so they should be taken away. People can't shoot other people when there aren't any guns, and I'd rather live in a world where no-one gets shot at all.
[QUOTE=archangel125;40333791]You may be right. As an outsider, I can shrug and call the decision the height of folly. Those who wrote the constitution obviously had a high opinion of humanity.[/QUOTE]
They did, actually, they put a great deal of trust and confidence in the American people, and of course held them in the highest regard. They put very little trust or confidence in a government though, even one comprised of themselves.
[QUOTE=Aman VII;40333800]and yet all of these mass shooters passed their background checks OR just obtained the firearms through illegitimate means.[/QUOTE]
When any background checks existed at all - And in most cases, they didn't. It is impossible to completely eliminate a type of violent crime, but one can reduce their frequency by making it difficult for unstable individuals to obtain their tools.
Bowling for Columbine's a pretty decent documentary. Not without its small bias, but full of interesting facts. I highly recommend it.
[QUOTE=NoDachi;40333377]Background checks don't infringe upon the second amendment.
It's just 'regulating the militia'.[/QUOTE]
private citizens aren't militia, that's a separate clause in the 2nd amendment. just like how there are different clauses in every amendment.
[editline]19th April 2013[/editline]
background checks are legal and constitutional because of the 5th amendment's due process clause, not because of the 2nd's militia clause.
[QUOTE=DaCommie1;40333808]They did, actually, they put a great deal of trust and confidence in the American people, and of course held them in the highest regard. They put very little trust or confidence in a government though, even one comprised of themselves.[/QUOTE]
Anti-federalists, at least, but that was only half the pie. There's a reason why election day is on Tuesday, the electoral collage exists and its members appointed by the states, the right to vote originally given only to land-owning white males, and the senate not elected by popular vote. They weren't supportive of the people, they were against the government interfering in the private sector. The people got part of that pie only out of necessity and radicals like Jefferson.
[QUOTE=Aman VII;40333789]Fucking this. As already said the whole idea of "universal background checks" has already been torn apart in the other thread.
All it would create is a defacto registry which isn't allowed to begin with along with wasting money on something that will do nothing.[/QUOTE]
The law itself prevented the formation of a national registry using the information gained by background checks.
You should try getting your facts from not the NRA seeing as how even their owm members can't seem to agree on a narrative.
[QUOTE=archangel125;40333819]When any background checks existed at all - And in most cases, they didn't. It is impossible to completely eliminate a type of violent crime, but one can reduce their frequency by making it difficult for unstable individuals to obtain their tools.
Bowling for Columbine's a pretty decent documentary. Not without its small bias, but full of interesting facts. I highly recommend it.[/QUOTE]
Background checks exist on a federal level for any purchases through an FFL dealer. Only private citizen to citizen transactions do not have this but even that depends on the state in question.
So let's say everything requires a background check, which as I previously said creates a defacto registry which is specifically not allowed. So now we are at a fork in the road the person either just passes the background check perfectly fine as many shooters have done before, or they say "no thanks" and proceed to procure guns through another person or other means.
All of this for a minuscule speed bump which may or may not deter anyone in the process that only wastes money and has no real tangible benefit.
[QUOTE=yawmwen;40333820]private citizens aren't militia, that's a separate clause in the 2nd amendment. just like how there are different clauses in every amendment.
[editline]19th April 2013[/editline]
background checks are legal and constitutional because of the 5th amendment's due process clause, not because of the 2nd's militia clause.[/QUOTE]
I'd argue that second part there. I would say that they aren't constitutional and not through the fifth. You could interpret it that way but I don't believe the Court has ever said it was so, and even then the Court is illegitimate.
[QUOTE=DaCommie1;40333808]They did, actually, they put a great deal of trust and confidence in the American people, and of course held them in the highest regard. They put very little trust or confidence in a government though, even one comprised of themselves.[/QUOTE]
Maybe it's a difference in worldview I can't reconcile, then. I believe that without rule of law, life is short and brutish, and people are murderous. Not because ALL men have that disposition to violence, but because some do, and even a small group is enough to destroy any hope of civilized conduct - After all, the rest have to defend themselves. That every American, even the ones with major psychological problems that make them prone to violence, even the sociopathic and psychopathic, has a constitutionally protected right to own and operate a military-grade firearm sounds an awful lot like playing with fire. The ideals of the founding fathers were commendable, but as the destructive capability of weapons improves, so too will the body count from every one of these incidents. If the senseless slaughter of innocents - And in this last big massacre - children - is considered acceptable collateral for the right to own an assault rifle, then I suppose life must be cheap, too.
The reason why background checks wont work on a national level is because the police departments in this country cant decide to have one fucking registry for criminals. My department uses a different database than the city to the north, which uses a different database than st. patrol
[QUOTE=Raidyr;40333850]The law itself prevented the formation of a national registry using the information gained by background checks.
You should try getting your facts from not the NRA seeing as how even their owm members can't seem to agree on a narrative.[/QUOTE]
So it'd create a "registry" but not an official one. You really think they care if its official or not? I don't trust that information to be in their hands to begin with as a Canadian seeing precedent with registry bullshit and what that entails.
[QUOTE='[Seed Eater];40333864']I'd argue that second part there. I would say that they aren't constitutional and not through the fifth. You could interpret it that way but I don't believe the Court has ever said it was so, and even then the Court is illegitimate.[/QUOTE]
i think that's at least the justification. the 5th says you can deprive someone of their rights through due process, and so the background checks are done to ensure that the person has not previously been disenfranchised.
[editline]19th April 2013[/editline]
and although background checks themselves might not have been ruled on, the disenfranchisement certainly has numerous times and shown to be constitutional.
[QUOTE=archangel125;40333819]When any background checks existed at all - And in most cases, they didn't. It is impossible to completely eliminate a type of violent crime, but one can reduce their frequency by making it difficult for unstable individuals to obtain their tools.
Bowling for Columbine's a pretty decent documentary. Not without its small bias, but full of interesting facts. I highly recommend it.[/QUOTE]
Michael Moore is literally the worst documentarian. I haven't seen that one, but I did see Capitalism: A Love Story for school. It was horribly biased, and absolutely ridiculous. I think I'd research literally anything he said before I'd believe it, especially due to his ridiculously huge amount of bias towards everything.
As well, like Aman said, background checks didn't stop Columbine, nor Virginia Tech, nor Aurora, nor Norway, nor the three that have happened in Montreal, and often the shooter would likely prefer to get a gun legally because it would attract more media attention, and that's what these people want, attention. The media loves to blow a story out of proportion, and any little things they can grab on to to sensationalize a story they will, and a shooting committed by a "legal gun owner" makes a huge story, and that means it gets them huge ratings, and therefore huge amounts of ad revenue.
I will say, though, I don't disagree with them on principle, but the way the US would do them is kinda a shitty way to do it.
[QUOTE=areolop;40333871]The reason why background checks wont work on a national level is because the police departments in this country cant decide to have one fucking registry for criminals. My department uses a different database than the city to the north, which uses a different database than st. patrol[/QUOTE]
Sounds inefficient. In Canada, our database had access to the records of every department across the country, and the search by name pulled up entries from all departments.
also archangel you say to make it difficult for unstable individuals to obtain their tools, does that mean you think psychiatric background checks are necessary? if so, that's outright unconstitutional and that's pretty much inarguable.
[QUOTE=yawmwen;40333878]i think that's at least the justification. the 5th says you can deprive someone of their rights through due process, and so the background checks are done to ensure that the person has not previously been disenfranchised.[/QUOTE]
I'd argue the 2nd, like most of the BoR, falls into substantive due process and can not be disenfranchised by the due process of law. At the very least, strict scrutiny should be applied. There's really no precedent on this issue, though, so all we can actually go by is the intended meaning of the amendment.
[QUOTE=yawmwen;40333894]also archangel you say to make it difficult for unstable individuals to obtain their tools, does that mean you think psychiatric background checks are necessary? if so, that's outright unconstitutional and that's pretty much inarguable.[/QUOTE]
That depends on how incisive the background checks were. Ideally, I'd like each person who has a history of mental illness or violent behaviour to have a risk evaluation - And a certificate marking that evaluation - That would remain good for say, a year.
An interesting quote relating to what Seed Eater is saying about the 5th amend
[quote]Nobody wants criminals to be armed. Ever. That’s what makes the concept of the universal—that is to say mandatory—background checks so appealing. But in truth, the practice of mandatory background checks raises a lot of flags and may put the brakes on the entire background check system.
Firearms ownership is a right. And in the U.S., that means a few things. Chiefly that firearms ownership may not be taxed and may not be registered. The Supreme Court and the Firearm Owners Protection Act (FOPA) have reinforced this: enumerated rights have a protected status. Unlike property, income or health insurance, rights cannot be taxed and registries are prohibited.
Where do background checks fit in? They cost money. They are performed by licensed gun sellers, who charge money for this service. This is important because if mandatory background checks use the system as it is in place now, the government will be putting a de facto tax on gun ownership.
On top of that, FFLs, Federal Firearms License holders, must keep ATF-accessible records of who applied for background checks, which is comparable to a registry, if distributed, not centralized.
Because face-to-face transfers cost nothing and records are not required this gives buyers an opportunity to opt out of the fee and stay off the books. Even though the vast majority of gun buyers opt in and purchase through FFLs and have their backgrounds checked (including people who aren’t allowed to own guns, giving purpose to the whole process) the existence of the face-to-face market, the lack of a universal background check, makes the background check system legal.
A mandatory background check is potentially unconstitutional on another front as well: the Fifth Amendment, the prohibition against self-incrimination.
As it stands, many law enforcement agencies use background checks to suss out people who may be of interest. While it is certainly in the public interest to prevent the sale of firearms to people who are suspected of violence or other heinous crimes, the background check is not discriminatory. And it simply is not legal to give up one right in order to exercise another.[/quote]
[QUOTE=archangel125;40333867]Maybe it's a difference in worldview I can't reconcile, then. I believe that without rule of law, life is short and brutish, and people are murderous. Not because ALL men have that disposition to violence, but because some do, and even a small group is enough to destroy any hope of civilized conduct - After all, the rest have to defend themselves. That every American, even the ones with major psychological problems that make them prone to violence, even the sociopathic and psychopathic, has a constitutionally protected right to own and operate a military-grade firearm sounds an awful lot like playing with fire. The ideals of the founding fathers were commendable, but as the destructive capability of weapons improves, so too will the body count from every one of these incidents. If the senseless slaughter of innocents - And in this last big massacre - children - is considered acceptable collateral for the right to own an assault rifle, then I suppose life must be cheap, too.[/QUOTE]
Hence where the right to bear arms is used as an argument of defence against the massacres, and US law actually does prohibit the mentally unstable and criminal from owning a gun.
However, not every massacre is with an "assault rifle" or "high-cap mag", the first major US shooting in Texas in the '70s was with a scoped hunting rifle (17), Virginia Tech (33) was with a couple of pistols, as was a shooting in Concordia University in Montreal (4), and the Eaton Centre(2), and Danzig Street (2), and Dunblane, Scotland(18), and there was a shooting in Cumbria, England (13) that was done with a double-barreled shotgun.
These so-called "assault rifles" are also used across the world in competitive shooting and hunting applications daily.
[QUOTE=Aman VII;40333926]An interesting quote relating to what Seed Eater is saying about the 5th amend[/QUOTE]
It's a very pretty argument, but keeping the constitution aside for argument's sake, is there any other reason - ANY reason at all - why regulations that will help keep things designed to murder people out of the hands of people who will USE them to murder people is such a horrible thing?
[QUOTE='[Seed Eater];40333906']I'd argue the 2nd, like most of the BoR, falls into substantive due process and can not be disenfranchised by the due process of law. At the very least, strict scrutiny should be applied. There's really no precedent on this issue, though, so all we can actually go by is the intended meaning of the amendment.[/QUOTE]
i think it would be a bit silly to say that the 15th amendment can be taken from someone but the 2nd can't.
[QUOTE=archangel125;40333917]That depends on how incisive the background checks were. Ideally, I'd like each person who has a history of mental illness or violent behaviour to have a risk evaluation - And a certificate marking that evaluation - That would remain good for say, a year.[/QUOTE]
that's still utterly unconstitional.
[quote]No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, [b]nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law;[/b] nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.[/quote]
unless you are convicted of something through the courts, you cannot deprive someone their constitutional rights. unless, of course, you want to make mental illness a crime, it would never hold up in an american court.
[QUOTE=archangel125;40333963]It's a very pretty argument, but keeping the constitution aside for argument's sake, is there any other reason - ANY reason at all - why regulations that will help keep things designed to murder people out of the hands of people who will USE them to murder people is such a horrible thing?[/QUOTE]
Because the actual regulations are ineffective and cost large amounts of money and resources.
If there was some magic "stop gun crime and mass shootings" button with no repercussions of course I'd press it. But there's no button.
[QUOTE=DaCommie1;40333808]They did, actually, they put a great deal of trust and confidence in the American people, and of course held them in the highest regard. [/QUOTE]
No, this is absurdly, hilariously wrong. While the idea that American's should be an independent, sweat-of-their-brow sort of people to be regarded with pride certainly existed before, during, and for a time after the revolution, by the time the Constitution was signed the Federalist had power and they feared mob rule and encouraged a strong central government which gave us the Constitution we have today. Ultimately most of the people who participated in the drafting and ratification of the Constitution were white, upper-class, educated men who did believe in the tenants of representative democracy rather than monarchy or oligarchy, but the idea that they held your average citizen "in the highest regard" is preposterous.
[QUOTE=archangel125;40333963]It's a very pretty argument, but keeping the constitution aside for argument's sake, is there any other reason - ANY reason at all - why regulations that will help keep things designed to murder people out of the hands of people who will USE them to murder people is such a horrible thing?[/QUOTE]
Simply when those methods and regulations are inefficient.
[QUOTE=DaCommie1;40333953]Hence where the right to bear arms is used as an argument of defence against the massacres, and US law actually does prohibit the mentally unstable and criminal from owning a gun.
However, not every massacre is with an "assault rifle" or "high-cap mag", the first major US shooting in Texas in the '70s was with a scoped hunting rifle (17), Virginia Tech (33) was with a couple of pistols, as was a shooting in Concordia University in Montreal (4), and the Eaton Centre(2), and Danzig Street (2), and Dunblane, Scotland(18), and there was a shooting in Cumbria, England (13) that was done with a double-barreled shotgun.
These so-called "assault rifles" are also used across the world in competitive shooting and hunting applications daily.[/QUOTE]
Sure, I agree, but there are two points I'd like to stress here - I used 'assault rifle' for the sake of an example, not to imply my focus was strictly on assault rifles. Second, if guns were supposed to prevent massacres, they seldom seemed to be in the right place at the right time - Maybe just once in a while.
See, people don't trust the state. But if, as a member of government, I faced too much opposition to regulate civilian gun ownership, I would instead push to have a corps of policemen with rifles stationed
at every public school and post-secondary institution in the country against the next attempt.
[QUOTE=archangel125;40333963]It's a very pretty argument, but keeping the constitution aside for argument's sake, is there any other reason - ANY reason at all - why regulations that will help keep things designed to murder people out of the hands of people who will USE them to murder people is such a horrible thing?[/QUOTE]
can you prove that a person will use a gun to kill people? last i checked minority report was still a work of fiction.
from a moral standpoint, people who haven't done anything to harm other people shouldn't be assumed to have intent to harm other people unless they actually state that intent.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
