[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 they actually don't, they simply keep them out of the hands of people who want to defend themselves from those people. Mass shootings account for less than 200 deaths a year in the US, versus a total of 8000, and that's just firearms. The majority of shootings are committed by gangs, and they're gang-on-gang. Ideally, you'd therefore see shooting numbers reduced by 200, down to 7800, if this was 100% effective at stopping mass shootings, which it wouldn't be. However, legislation in the '90s failed to have any impact. Legislation in Canada failed to have any impact as well, there has been a very steady decline here in murder and violent crime since the late '70s, and the 1995 Firearms Act didn't improve that rate at all, the rate crime was declining was unaffected, despite huge reforms in background checks and the arbitrary prohibition of a number of guns by name, and others by size (short-barrelled pistols), as well as making owning a gun a criminal offence without a license.
[QUOTE=yawmwen;40334011]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.[/QUOTE]
Which is why I think risk evaluation would be a good idea. And not entirely unconstitutional. Because, as the Fifth said,
"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, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, [B]without due process of law[/B]"
That last bit there is the key point. This would be a legal process. Those with criminal backgrounds should certainly be considered at risk. Those with a known and legally documented propensity to violence should be considered 'at risk'. Those with a history of manic depression, suicidal tendencies, or anger management problems should be considered 'at risk'. They would not be arbitrarily denied the right to bear arms, but they would be required to submit to a psychological evaluation at least once a year to determine whether they still pose a considerable risk.
No, it won't stop all incidents. But I think it'll reduce their frequency.
[QUOTE=archangel125;40334049]Which is why I think risk evaluation would be a good idea. And not entirely unconstitutional. Because, as the Fifth said,
"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, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, [B]without due process of law[/B]"
That last bit there is the key point. This would be a legal process. Those with criminal backgrounds should certainly be considered at risk. Those with a known and legally documented propensity to violence should be considered 'at risk'. Those with a history of manic depression, suicidal tendencies, or anger management problems should be considered 'at risk'. They would not be arbitrarily denied the right to bear arms, but they would be required to submit to a psychological evaluation at least once a year to determine whether they still pose a considerable risk.
No, it won't stop all incidents. But I think it'll reduce their frequency.[/QUOTE]
Do you have any idea how expensive and time consuming that would be?
[QUOTE=archangel125;40334005]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]
That's where the argument about "gun-free zones" comes in. Americans can get a permit in every state now to carry a gun for self-defence, but a number of states enforce "gun-free zones" where permit holders are not allowed to carry their guns. The only mass shooting that has happened in the last 25 years that has NOT been in a "gun-free zone" was the one where Congresswoman Giffords was shot in Arizona. Many proponents for Concealed-carry blame these gun-free zones for the deaths, claiming if someone there had a pistol the shooting would have been over before it even started, though that's a very hotly debated matter itself. Another issue is most of the time you don't hear about the shootings that didn't happen, that were prevented by a CCW holder, because those don't make good (inter)national news stories.
[QUOTE=T2L_Goose;40334057]Do you have any idea how expensive and time consuming that would be?[/QUOTE]
How much value would you put on a life?
[QUOTE=yawmwen;40333976]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]
Welcome to constitutional law in the US, may I take your coat?
But that's how it is. The BoR is particularly protected just because it's the BoR.
As far as its relationship to the due process clauses, the point of those clauses is not to say that we can limit rights, it's to say that those rights can't be limited:
The Constitution
State Law---------Federal Law
Local Law
Common Law
This is a general explanation of the binding of the laws of the US from most overruling to least, with the Constitution being the ultimate rule-maker (at least how it was intended, obviously it's different now). The purpose of the 5th and 14th clauses are to prevent incrimination and persecution without being given the protections afforded to you. That means that, should you be charged with a crime at the local level, everything greater than that legal standard that makes regulation is the process by which you are due. Hence, the highest laws would be afforded or applied to you. The Constitution is the highest law, and therefore whatever protections or persecutions there are in that document would be granted to you. So, if the federal government says "Hey, no guns", then the due process clauses would say "Well, we must abide by the due process of the law. What processes are due to you? you get a trial based on the highest laws on this matter. What is the highest law? the Constitution, and it says he has a right to bear arms." The fifth rarely can be used to limit the Constitution itself, especially the BoR and even more so Amends. 1-4 because of the order of their adoption. Hence, these rights are substantively due, meaning that there is no process/law due enough to overrule them.
[QUOTE=archangel125;40334049]Which is why I think risk evaluation would be a good idea. And not entirely unconstitutional. Because, as the Fifth said,
"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, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, [B]without due process of law[/B]"
That last bit there is the key point. This would be a legal process. Those with criminal backgrounds should certainly be considered at risk. Those with a known and legally documented propensity to violence should be considered 'at risk'. Those with a history of manic depression, suicidal tendencies, or anger management problems should be considered 'at risk'. They would not be arbitrarily denied the right to bear arms, but they would be required to submit to a psychological evaluation at least once a year to determine whether they still pose a considerable risk.
No, it won't stop all incidents. But I think it'll reduce their frequency.[/QUOTE]
why is ok to do that to deny someone the right to own personal possessions but not their right to be in the free world? why shouldn't we imprison people who have a high risk of committing a felony, or why shouldn't we imprison people who we are 60% sure committed a crime in their life?
Riddle me this:
Court Martialed / Dishonorably discharged from the US military: Cant own a gun.
Domestic assault aggressor: Cant own a gun.
Felon: cant own a gun.
Found mentally insane by the courts: Cant own a gun.
Mentally Ill but never checked into a treatment center: Allowed to own a gun.
[QUOTE='[Seed Eater];40334076']Welcome to constitutional law in the US, may I take your coat?
But that's how it is. The BoR is particularly protected just because it's the BoR.
As far as its relationship to the due process clauses, the point of those clauses is not to say that we can limit rights, it's to say that those rights can't be limited:
The Constitution
State Law---------Federal Law
Local Law
Common Law
This is a general explanation of the binding of the laws of the US from most overruling to least, with the Constitution being the ultimate rule-maker (at least how it was intended, obviously it's different now). The purpose of the 5th and 14th clauses are to prevent incrimination and persecution without being given the protections afforded to you. That means that, should you be charged with a crime at the local level, everything greater than that legal standard that makes regulation is the process by which you are due. Hence, the highest laws would be afforded or applied to you. The Constitution is the highest law, and therefore whatever protections or persecutions there are in that document would be granted to you. So, if the federal government says "Hey, no guns", then the due process clauses would say "Well, we must abide by the due process of the law. What processes are due to you? you get a trial based on the highest laws on this matter. What is the highest law? the Constitution, and it says he has a right to bear arms." The fifth rarely can be used to limit the Constitution itself, especially the BoR and even more so Amends. 1-4 because of the order of their adoption. Hence, these rights are substantively due, meaning that there is no process/law due enough to overrule them.[/QUOTE]
so maybe i should find some felons, go to the aclu, and try and contest the state taking felon's 2nd amendment rights away.
[QUOTE=archangel125;40334066]How much value would you put on a life?[/QUOTE]
Depends, that could be the objectivist approach to the effects of gun control legislation, you take the calculated value for X number of lives the legislation is projected to save and see if the legislation will cost more or less than that value, and if it's more then it's not worth it, however that approach would also make someone look like a huge asshole, since in economics and insurance you can put a value on a life, but in the justice system a life is viewed as "priceless."
[QUOTE=areolop;40334089]Riddle me this:
Court Martialed / Dishonorably discharged from the US military: Cant own a gun.
Domestic assault aggressor: Cant own a gun.
Felon: cant own a gun.
Found mentally insane by the courts: Cant own a gun.
Mentally Ill but never checked into a treatment center: Allowed to own a gun.[/QUOTE]
You make the assumption that those advocating for these regulations hope to stop EVERY case.
No, just reduce the number of them.
[QUOTE=archangel125;40334110]You make the assumption that those advocating for these regulations hope to stop EVERY case.
No, just reduce the number of them.[/QUOTE]
Well obviously. You cant stop anything. There will always be cases that get through no matter how strict you make it
[QUOTE=DaCommie1;40334109] in the justice system a life is viewed as "priceless."[/QUOTE]
And since we're debating justice, in a sense, and the objective of law enforcement to save as many lives as possible, that's what I'd base my argument on. Of course, the dollar wins out, every time.
[QUOTE=archangel125;40334120] Of course, the dollar wins out, every time.[/QUOTE]
Especially when it's NRA dollars bribing congressmen to ignore their constituents.
[QUOTE=archangel125;40334120]And since we're debating justice, in a sense, and the objective of law enforcement to save as many lives as possible, that's what I'd base my argument on. Of course, the dollar wins out, every time.[/QUOTE]
At the same time, what if it costs millions/billions and saves nobody, but instead is used as a means to put an otherwise/previously law-abiding citizen in prison?
[QUOTE=Raidyr;40334130]Especially when it's NRA dollars bribing congressmen to ignore their constituents.[/QUOTE]
hey now this is the land of the free, the nra's dollars are no more important than your own dollars. so pick yourself up by your bootstraps and bribe your own politicians!
[QUOTE=yawmwen;40334100]so maybe i should find some felons, go to the aclu, and try and contest the state taking felon's 2nd amendment rights away.[/QUOTE]
Sure. I think it would be an interesting case that wouldn't make it to the SCOTUS, and if it did the rationale would be that the state has an interest in preventing criminals from having guns and that it would pass a strict scrutiny or heightened interest test or something like that. But it would be a challenge to the Court none the less, because as you know criminals aren't deprived of their other rights in the BoR, so why should the be deprive of their 2nd legally? Constitutionally they shouldn't, and SCOTUS knows that 2nd amend cases are trouble, which is why they only have had 1 major case on it and why they didn't incorporate the 2nd to the state through the 14th until 2010. That's right, the state could take away your right to bear arms until the Court said otherwise. In 2010.
SCOTUS is illegitimate and its decisions are based on bollocks and politics.
By no means am I saying that's how it ought to be, I'm just saying that's how the law works.
[QUOTE=DaCommie1;40334133]At the same time, what if it costs millions/billions and saves nobody, but instead is used as a means to put an otherwise/previously law-abiding citizen in prison?[/QUOTE]
Quite, that'd be a problem. But we're not dealing with prohibition, we're dealing with regulation. Regulation that would be more than likely to save lives, and wouldn't give the black market any significant boost.
[QUOTE=yawmwen;40334140]hey now this is the land of the free, the nra's dollars are no more important than your own dollars. so pick yourself up by your bootstraps and bribe your own politicians![/QUOTE]
'Murrica
[IMG]http://i.imgur.com/7DHIuYZ.gif[/IMG]
well the nra is now just a company with a bunch of ties to large gun/ammunition sellers. it used to stand for hunting but now it stands for selling as much as possible at any price, it was around 80s~90s that the board was slowly gutted from the inside by corporations and it no longer stood for hunting or just guns
[QUOTE=archangel125;40334151]Quite, that'd be a problem. But we're not dealing with prohibition, we're dealing with regulation. Regulation that would be more than likely to save lives, and wouldn't give the black market any significant boost.[/QUOTE]
Hence why I don't disagree with background checks, I just don't think the arguments you are using are necessarily the best means to go about gaining favour for them, especially from people who own guns, and also playing a bit of devil's advocate and talking on a larger scale of gun control.
I also don't think the way the US was going to implement checks would have been effective or efficient, and would likely have been hugely ignored.
[QUOTE=VTG;40334176]well the nra is now just a company with a bunch of ties to large gun/ammunition sellers. it used to stand for hunting but now it stands for selling as much as possible at any price, it was around 80s~90s that the board was slowly gutted from the inside by corporations and it no longer stood for hunting or just guns[/QUOTE]
To that end, here's a useful article regarding the history of the NRA.
[url]http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/how-nras-true-believers-converted-a-marksmanship-group-into-a-mighty-gun-lobby/2013/01/12/51c62288-59b9-11e2-88d0-c4cf65c3ad15_story.html[/url]
There's some bias but it helps illustrate how it went from a relatively weak group to a very influential lobbying group.
[QUOTE=alexguydude;40333289]Sorry but 90% of American's think background checks are a good idea. Anyone with a god damn brain thinks that.
Fucking NRA.[/QUOTE]
There is some confusion. The NRA opposed universal (expanded) background checks.
I would just like to say this might be one of the best discussions/arguments I have seen in FP in a long time with both sides making sense, providing relevant information and not resorting to name calling or insults. It has been very informative. Thanks all!
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
