The Three Biggest Threats to Gun Rights
 

LINK TO SOURCE

- Another babbling SAKIT Blogger-author that calls himself "Heartbreaker"

...

I tend to agree with most of his points (vast generalizations). Especially the part where he's hating on fat people as if that's a criteria for stupidity.

damn, someone from the "cold, dead fingers" crowd who makes sense...

and, if a soldier asked me nicely to stay in my place temporarily, i'd probably say 'yes,' wartime or not...

So, uh, can I stay on your couch?

yet another piece of mind oriented fiction to somehow stress to people that 'yes, you have that right, but you shouldn't exercise it' bullshit. I want my 2 minutes back.

C'mon, DK. Go read the two articles on Open Carry (holy noises) and tell us how you really feel.

I can't do that and maintain the minimal good behavior standards necessary to participate on this forum.

Me too, provided 1: it's voluntary on my part and 2: said soldier isn't responsible for 'pacifying' me.

I think the biggest dangers to gun-rights are as follows:

1: Illiteracy or it's near equivalent. If you understand what a 'preamble' is and what 'the people' means then the 2'nd Amendment is crystal clear. You don't have to like what is written to read it correctly.

2: Apathy: If you feel safe and don't exercise (or at least work to maintain) your rights you will lose them. Most people just don't care because they don't see having to use a firearm for violence as likely to occur....or having to speak out against a totalitarian government.....or assembling to organize against one.....etc. Most people just don't care.

3: A pacified public that thinks the world is a truly safe place.


I agree with the points Plan9 posted as hurting the gun-rights 'political' movement, but it shouldn't have in impact on our ability to exercise our rights.


For instance, I personally don't think it would be 'constitutional' to pass a constitutional amendment removing any among the bill of rights. I believe this to be the case because the constitution itself states that the bill of rights consists of inalienable rights....Thus they cannot be taken away, even through an amendment process.

They can, however, be restricted illegally by the ignorant and willfully corrupt...

All legal acrobatics aside, a plain reading of the language is pretty clear. It's when interests and politics get involved that things get muddied.

Agreed.
http://www.demopolislive.com/gallery..._bear_arms.jpg

anytime, buddy...

...

There is only one threat and one choice that I see

The right to own and bear guns is legally entitled in the USA. This right results in a number of deaths each year that would not occur if the right does not exist.

As a democracy, America must decide and does decide if this right is worth these deaths... "gun rights" will be revoked when the people decide differently, or conditions force the state to take the decision out of the people's hands.

_

Those who are passionate about the right to own the means of destruction will talk of the right of self defence

Those of us who look in from the outside will wonder how a country that enshrines freedom more than any other finds it acceptable that it is a usual situation for a parking ticket to be issued at gun point.

???

Perhaps ignorance is the biggest threat to the Second Amendment.

So...the best way to prevent my culture from being destroyed is by suborning certain aspects of that culture to the irrational desires and phobias of those who wish to destroy it? Shall I ask Mrs. Parks to dye her skin white next? Or Mr. Cooper to marry a woman and father children on her? After all; racists and homophobes might be made uncomfortable by Mrs. Parks' blackness or Mr. Cooper's gayitude.

To paraphrase Mr. Churchill: he who appeases a Tiger does so in the vain hope that the Tiger will eat him -last-.

I am a frequent practitioner of open carry. Which Amendment would you like to quiz me on? Where did I leave my beer-gut, 'cause it a'int on mah belleh...oh yeah, I don't have a beer-gut, I hold two University degrees, am drunkenly multilingual and have lived for extended periods in places where nobody speaks English.

This "article" is nothing but a call to surrender, penned by a hopeless Fudd who appears to have had his brain replaced by a Brady Bunch "keeper." If we lose our gun rights, or any other Civil Right, in this country it will be because of gutless, compromise-happy pissants like Mr. Heartbreaker here who sold them all off a piece at a time in the name of not making anti-Rights jerkoffs like Mark Potok "uncomfortable."

Oh, and Strange:

Horseshit. If this was the case, Mexico, Russia, Brazil and South Africa would be a great deal safer than they are. Likewise Chicago, Washington DC, and London. Back in the Real World, the UK is the most violent country in the developed world (per the UN) with the fastest-rising rate of violent crime in the developed world (per the UN) and a person in Scotland is 4x more likely than an American to be robbed by violence, assaulted, or raped (per the UN). South Africa and Mexico, with some of the strictest victim-disarmament laws in existence, are two of the most violent countries on Earth. And as for Russia...whoo boy.

America is -not- a Democracy. America is a Constitutional Republic, and is defined as such in our Constitution which is the supreme Law Of The Land. Learn the difference.

Do a little reading and research sometime, when you can spare a minute, and you'll find that the "freedom uber alles" crowd (myself among them) are the ones decrying and condemning such behavior. Your fellow leftists (with a healthy splattering of Arpaio-ite right-collectivists thrown in) are the ones defending such strongarm Police tactics. Your fellow leftists are also the ones consistently lobbying for early releases, shortened sentences for violent crimes, and the disarmament of the people these criminals prey on: so if cops are scared of traffic stops guess what? It's because y'all lobbied to let Biilly The Crip out of jail early so he could get back to his usual occupations of theft, rape, and murder while simultaneously lessening the likelihood that Billy's next victim would be able to solve the problem permanently. So don't blame the gun-rights crowd for that, Strange: your fellow Lefties are the one who ensured this dismal outcome.

I'm following this thread with interest, though I have no strong position on it. I find it interesting to think about the differences between understanding one's rights and the exercise thereof by different means to different ends.

However, this little bit stuck out at me, and I wanted a clarification:
Isn't it the case that America has aspects of a representative democracy via the presidential system under the constitutional republic? There is after all an election process, elected representatives of the people, and even an amendment process for the Constitution.

I figure the process is elaborate and requires a lot of support, but constitutional amendments imply a democratic process via elected representatives, do they not?

Correct. However, in a Republic the power of democratic initiative is tempered by what we in the US terms "Checks and balances*" between branches of government which share no authority or powers, and which are intended to be intensely adversarial. Furthermore, in a Republic the ability of the majority to exercise democratic franchise is limited by a body of codified laws specific to that purpose which are difficult to change or alter, and which are -intended- to be easily understood and (absent aforementioned difficult changes) permanent.

A Republic may therefore be loosely defined as a sub-type or relative of democracy. However, in a Democracy the power of the Mob, of the uninformed and easily-misled majority (because any Group is only as smart as it's stupidest member) is essentially unchecked. Moreover, in a Republic the Right of Franchise is typically extended only to those with extensive and hard-to-sever ties to a given community (landowners) and those who have indicated an interest in serving the interests of the Body Politic and the Republic itself (the so-called Starship Troopers scenario). This is intended to keep laws from being made or monies from being spent for "light and transient causes," as Mr. Jefferson put it, and to keep people who will -not- be affected by a given law from passing laws which will adversely affect their neighbors.



*Not sure if y'all have a different term?

It's a bit challenging to keep track of. The Canadian government, like many other governments, also has a system with built-in separation of powers. In our case it's the differences between the judiciary, the Senate, the House of Commons, and the Crown. Within those groupings you get the expected three branches of government: the judicial, the legislative, and the executive.

Probably the biggest difference between our two systems lies in the differences between the presidential system and the parliamentary system, which is largely a structural matter in terms of how representatives are elected/appointed and how they act.

We're also technically a constitutional monarchy, which means we too are limited by a constitution, and so we understand the difficulty undertaken to make any changes to the top-level document. For example, if we wanted to do away with the remnants of the monarchy and become an actual republic, we'd need to open up the constitution to do so. But that's like opening up a can of worms, as it invites other interests because, hey, while we're at it....

Anyway, enough of the threadjack. I don't see the U.S. Constitution feasibly changing anytime soon. I'm not sure if that's what Strange was implying, or whether he was implying that federal law would limit the right. Either way, it seems a bit far fetched. The culture of being armed is too ingrained I think.

Look, I agree that idiots in general are a problem within the gun community. Trust me. But it's ridiculous for the author of this article to make the generalizations and accusations that he/she does. Likewise I equally detest those who love their guns but are ignorant of the Constitution. However I and a great many other gun-owners in the US are well-educated, politically aware people working towards concrete coherent ends: the cultural normalisation or at least acceptance of -all- Constitutional and Human Rights for -all- people.

Customer: "Good morrow, shop keep. Might I trouble you for a Glock this fine day?"
Gun Store Proprietor: "Surly, my good sir! First I must ask for you to sign this form and then return three days hence for the weapon... but alas! My fine lad, you seem a bit portly if I may be so bold. Might I inquire as to your body fat percentage?"
Customer: "You might, shop keep, but for what reason?"
Gun Store Proprietor: "The risk you seem to face isn't from an armed enemy but rather from the deadly foe LDL cholesterol! I fear you shall not find armament from danger here this day. I respectfully suggest you take your currency and find your armament with a dietitian and personal trainer. "
Customer: "Well shit."

I love it when you post. My heart skips a beat and I cry, but in a good way.

Like KirStang said, ignorance is the biggest threat. If they take away one right, they'll take away all of our rights. I don't think they will take it away, but it shouldn't even be an issue.

I'm with him on #1 at least. The guy that thinks it's a genius idea to try to bumpfire something ridiculously oversized and blows the top of his own head off in the process may have done the human race a favor genetically but as a (prospective) gun owner it hurts me by indirectly making us all look worse.

Imho the best gun owner is the one that nobody knew about until it was necessary. I don't think that open carry makes any more sense than concealed carry while shouting "I HAVE A GLOOOOCK". For once I agree with the marine corps on something: Be polite, be professional, be courteous, and have a plan to kill everyone you meet.

I think I do not really have a very strong personal opinion on whether the right to be armed should remain, because I dont live there. All I am saying is that people ought not close their eyes to the fact that this right has a cost. The right to own and bear guns has a value to many people certainly, and on a societal level there is a human cost.

To argue about whether the widespread ownerships of guns increases death is really just re-hashing old ground... I think if you look at the number of people who were shot unlawfully in the US last year, you can simply take a view. If you really believe if no one held guns all those people would have been stabbed or bludgeoned to death instead - then "there is no case to answer" as such.

Obviously this is common knowledge, and as a citizen of the country you are referencing I should be perfectly aware of this. However, I don't watch TV so I must have missed the news reports showcasing this country-wide situation that has become so common that it is considered to be normal. Care to shed some light on the subject?

I believe he's referring to the officers having guns on their person meaning that everything they do is "at gun point"... which is rather silly since it means that everytime I do anything it's at more knifepoints than I have hands for.

I don't soldier much these days, UP, but if I piss my wife off much more I might need a place to hang...

i'm glad you and the planster understand what the third amendment is about, because i fear that some of the "cold, dead fingers" crowd doesn't...

as a complete aside, I've yet to understand this "we are a republic not a democracy" bit.

I mean, they have almost identical meaning, just different root languages (democracy is the people's rule in Greek and Republic is "the affairs of the people" in Latin). And the supposed difference between them (that democracies the majority rules everything while in the republic it doesn't) is both ahistorical and illogical.

I think the idea is that we're not a direct democracy, there are things which are above the will of the majority.

But democracy doesn't necessitate a direct democracy nor means that the will of the majority is absolute.

As I mentioned above, it's a matter of the process including representative democracy. I'm assuming you folks vote people into power to represent your interests. Well, I'd like to consider that a kind of democracy.

It might be plain when you ignore the half you don't like.

You can (and will) argue the definition of militia; but the fact remains that the 2nd amendment specifically speaks to regulation.


I'm pretty indifferent to guns, gun culture, and such. I just don't buy the any, any, any mentality that the NRA pushes as a constitutional right (Any weapon, any person, anywhere). A single sentence that gives you the right to bear arms, also allows for regulation. Selective quotation doesn't change that.

deleted because I didn't take enough time to follow who posted what.

Sure, attack my 'selective' quotation. The two clauses are interpreted separately. See DC v. Heller, 128 S. Ct. 2783, specifically sections II(A)(2) & (3).

Regulated applies to the militia. Not to the arms. But whatever. Attack my quotation. Got a problem with the interpretation? File suit. Good luck.

deleted because I still can't follow who posted what.

Uh...DK? Was addressing StanT?

From what I superficially gather, the Fed's justification for regulating firearms is something like the commerce clause, not the 'regulated' portion of the 2A.

Anyway, the point is this: StanT says I'm selectively quoting. However, the Supreme Court (the supreme interpreters of the constitution!!!) itself, considers the two portions separately. One as 'prefatory' (in other words, the purposes for the amendment), and the other as 'operative' (what the amendment actually in fact protects).

Legal acrobatics indeed.

well, if you look at those two clauses together, you could easily and reasonably infer from them a justification for some limitations on gun ownership rights.
for example, "a well-regulated militia" likely could not abide crazy people.
it likely would not abide those with serious criminal backgrounds--or presents characterized by that sort of activity.
and there'd likely have to be some kind of safety training.
so one could argue that gun ownership could be regulated in the way driving is without violating the meanings one can reasonably impute to that entire sentence.

but the clauses are separated by precedent.

you'd think then that there would be less correlation between strict constructionists and absolutist positions on the 2nd amendment.

sometimes precedent is what enables counter-intuitive positions to become possible that strict construction folk like. it's a conundrum, really, how that circles is squared.

ooops. my bad.

DC vs Heller struck down DC's ban on handguns. The majority opinion, written by Scalia, specifically stated that other regulations were valid.When it comes to constitutionalists, it doesn't get much more hardcore than Scalia.

It's not like Supreme Court justices to address things that aren't specifically mentioned in a case. It's noteworthy that Scalia did in this case.


An analysis of Second Amendment language and federalist/anti federalist positions:
Chicago-Kent Law Review

The bottom line if that the founding fathers were every bit as contentious and vague as present politicians. You can read either viewpoint into both the language or intent of the time.

I'm not anti-gun, I'm against an entitlement mentality.