Wacka Posted November 10, 2005 Share Posted November 10, 2005 The ban already exists in DC and Chicago. How was it handled in those two cities? 499463[/snapback] And they have two of the highest gun violence rates in the country. I think DC is the murder capital. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crap Throwing Monkey Posted November 10, 2005 Share Posted November 10, 2005 The ban already exists in DC and Chicago. How was it handled in those two cities? 499463[/snapback] In DC...poorly, I imagine. DC's got other problems with gun control as well, being sandwiched between two states with still different gun control laws. To my understanding, one of the major motiviations behind DC's set of laws wasn't just to limit gun ownership but to restrict and control the flow of guns (legal and illegal) into the district from the surrounding states. Given the frequency with which people are shot in the district, and the frightening increase in frequency with which people are shot in the surrounding suburbs (the border of DC and Prince Georges County is an extraordinarily bad crime zone, as criminals go into DC from PG County and run back over the border outside DC jurisdiction - thereby negating DC's attempts at gun control, for the most part), I would suggest that DC's gun control laws are not necessarily a model for the rest of the country to follow... But at any rate, I don't know how they handled confiscating guns. But however they did it, I'm sure I hate it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KD in CA Posted November 10, 2005 Share Posted November 10, 2005 Was the original intent simply to limit the power of a government from infringing on a person's right to bear arms, or is it implying that it is the right of the people to make the choice? All that sentence states is that the governing body can not infringe on the peoples' right to keep and bear arms. It says nothing about interpreting the will of an informed public. If the will of the people is to ban arms by a majority vote, then the right of the people is not being infringed. 499234[/snapback] "Right of the people" interpreted as the choice of EACH PERSON, not subjecting people's rights to tyranny by majority. I sounds like you are suggesting that the rights offered by the Constitution or parts thereof can be taken away from individuals because others in the same geographic area decided to do away with them in a straight up and down vote. I can't believe that was anyone's intent. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Johnny Coli Posted November 10, 2005 Share Posted November 10, 2005 And they have two of the highest gun violence rates in the country. I think DC is the murder capital. 499469[/snapback] I'm not arguing statistics, I'm wondering how the two major cities in America that already have a ban in place handled enforcing that ban. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Johnny Coli Posted November 10, 2005 Share Posted November 10, 2005 "Right of the people" interpreted as the choice of EACH PERSON, not subjecting people's rights to tyranny by majority. 499525[/snapback] Well, that's the crux of the whole argument, isn't it? Was the writer's intent to mean "the people" as a plural majority, or "the people" as an individual. A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. IMO, this means the people (meaning the State) have the right to an armed militia, and the federal governing body cannot infringe upon that right. To me, and this is only my own interpretation, that does not mention anything about an individual right. I sounds like you are suggesting that the rights offered by the Constitution or parts thereof can be taken away from individuals because others in the same geographic area decided to do away with them in a straight up and down vote. I can't believe that was anyone's intent.499525[/snapback] If the will of the people by a majority vote infringes on an individual's rights as set up in another part of the constitution, then wouldn't that majority vote become void when held to the scrutiny of a court? SF voted by a majority to ban handguns. You can bet that a lawsuit questioning the constitutionality of that ban will be filed soon. One final thing, while I am against guns, I don't care if you own one provided it is used in a lawfull manner. That's not what I'm debating here. I'm just debating the semantics of the second amendment. I will always vote against having guns, but if the majority wants them, it doesn't bother me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crap Throwing Monkey Posted November 10, 2005 Share Posted November 10, 2005 Well, that's the crux of the whole argument, isn't it? Was the writer's intent to mean "the people" as a plural majority, or "the people" as an individual. Depends on if you're a Republican or Democrat. (Seriously...I've found that almost without exception Democrats interpret "the people" on an individual level, Republicans on a representative level.) The original intent, though, hinges on the phrase "tyrrany of the majority" that KD used, and I believe was originally spoken by Jefferson as one of the justifications for forming a representative and not true democracy. And it's beside the point. It only necessarily applies at the federal level. States and municipalities may govern themselves as they see fit - which is why Louisiana's law is based in Napoleonic Law and not English Common Law, and why CA and SF can see fit to have the electorate vote directly on legislation). And regardless, it still doesn't mean a majority vote at a local level can nullify Constitutional law. (And no, I don't know why it stuck in DC or Chicago. My personal opinion is that those should have been overturned on constitutional grounds having nothing to do with any opinion on gun control itself.) If the will of the people by a majority vote infringes on an individual's rights as set up in another part of the constitution, then wouldn't that majority vote become void when held to the scrutiny of a court? Yes. And that has happened in the past, I believe. The majority vote, if counter to the founding principles of the country, is null and void unless said vote is part of the constitutional amending process. The country, as a whole and following the process outlined in the Constitution, may overturn even the most permissive interpretation of the Second Amendment. But SF can't on their own. SF voted by a majority to ban handguns. You can bet that a lawsuit questioning the constitutionality of that ban will be filed soon. I believe I hear the mayor say today that he expects it to be filed before the day is out. IMO, this means the people (meaning the State) have the right to an armed militia, and the federal governing body cannot infringe upon that right. To me, and this is only my own interpretation, that does not mention anything about an individual right. And that's certainly a valid interpretation. Not one I share personally...but I can't find any objective fault with it off the top of my head. I think, though, that if one were to investigate what "well-regulated militia" meant in the context of the time, the phrase does imply individual right to gun ownership (assuming that militia members were expected to provide their own arms at the time - which I believe was the case, but I'm by no means certain.) At the very least, it's a powerful argument in favor of deciding whether the phrase "well regulated militia" is valid in today's context. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KD in CA Posted November 10, 2005 Share Posted November 10, 2005 Well, that's the crux of the whole argument, isn't it? Was the writer's intent to mean "the people" as a plural majority, or "the people" as an individual.IMO, this means the people (meaning the State) have the right to an armed militia, and the federal governing body cannot infringe upon that right. To me, and this is only my own interpretation, that does not mention anything about an individual right. So does this apply to the rest of the constitution as well, or only the second ammendment? Can 'the people' ban the right to organized protest as well? It doesn't follow for me that 'the people' would mean the group as it applies to one specific piece of the Constitution but the individual as it applies to the rest of it. Sure, of course the courts can overrule any passed law, but then we're just back to "look at what those retards in SF did". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Johnny Coli Posted November 10, 2005 Share Posted November 10, 2005 So does this apply to the rest of the constitution as well, or only the second ammendment? Can 'the people' ban the right to organized protest as well? It doesn't follow for me that 'the people' would mean the group as it applies to one specific piece of the Constitution but the individual as it applies to the rest of it. Sure, of course the courts can overrule any passed law, but then we're just back to "look at what those retards in SF did". 499679[/snapback] Who's job is it to interpret the Constitution? Certainly not the people. In this case, a majority of the people of their own free will decided to ban guns, Second Amendment be damned. The burden, rightly so, will now fall on the court to determine whether the vote of this particular majority is in conflict with the Constitution, and infringes on individual rights as established by other parts of the Constitution. Isn't that how the process is supposed to work? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alaska Darin Posted November 10, 2005 Share Posted November 10, 2005 Well, that's the crux of the whole argument, isn't it? Was the writer's intent to mean "the people" as a plural majority, or "the people" as an individual.IMO, this means the people (meaning the State) have the right to an armed militia, and the federal governing body cannot infringe upon that right. To me, and this is only my own interpretation, that does not mention anything about an individual right. 499608[/snapback] Which of the other "rights" granted in the Bill of Rights don't apply to individual citizens? Answer: None Can't have it both ways, pahhhhhhhhhdnah. Secondly, why in the world would the government need to give itself the power to arm itself when that is already contained in the body of the Constitution itself? The word "militia" comes from the Federalist Papers, meaning ALL OF THE PEOPLE. Typical liberal semantics exercise, and as usual, quite wrong. It's stupifying to believe that a brand new government whose very existance came to fruition via privately held firearms, would immediately remove that right from the individual it so obviously held in high regard. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crap Throwing Monkey Posted November 10, 2005 Share Posted November 10, 2005 Who's job is it to interpret the Constitution? Certainly not the people. In this case, a majority of the people of their own free will decided to ban guns, Second Amendment be damned. The burden, rightly so, will now fall on the court to determine whether the vote of this particular majority is in conflict with the Constitution, and infringes on individual rights as established by other parts of the Constitution. Isn't that how the process is supposed to work? 499692[/snapback] Sorta-kinda. Like I said (or implied - I don't remember) earlier, it my very well have been a test-case to get before the court. Ideally, though, I think the system should not even put blatantly unconstitutional items on local ballots. It's representative of the same "It's Constitutional, but the states aren't bound by it even though it's federal law" bull sh-- Kerry tried to pull justifying the Defense of Marriage Act. The Second Amendment is either binding, or...there is no "or". It is the law, and it's binding. The majority of people in San Francisco are not entitled to pick and choose which parts of the Constitution apply to San Francisco. But of course, like you said, that's for the courts to decide. Specifically, the idiots in the Ninth Circuit Court, who are just as likely to decide that San Francisco CAN pick and choose a la carte from the Constitution as they are likely to decide that San Franciscans can own guns just as long as they don't pray at the same time... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KD in CA Posted November 10, 2005 Share Posted November 10, 2005 Who's job is it to interpret the Constitution? Certainly not the people. In this case, a majority of the people of their own free will decided to ban guns, Second Amendment be damned. The burden, rightly so, will now fall on the court to determine whether the vote of this particular majority is in conflict with the Constitution, and infringes on individual rights as established by other parts of the Constitution. Isn't that how the process is supposed to work? 499692[/snapback] Except they decided to interpret the Contitution for a secific group of other people. Makes a big difference. So to apply this reasoning to a different example, the good citizens of Crawford, TX have every right to vote to ban organized protests and can haul off the next Cindy Sheehan in cuffs, right? First Amendment be damned. Since it's the 'will of the people' it won't bother you a bit that certain constitutional rights won't apply to those citizens anymore (or at least until the courts settle it out years later after all the appeals, etc.) It's just the evolution of our democracy. Got it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Johnny Coli Posted November 10, 2005 Share Posted November 10, 2005 Which of the other "rights" granted in the Bill of Rights don't apply to individual citizens? Answer: None Can't have it both ways, pahhhhhhhhhdnah. Secondly, why in the world would the government need to give itself the power to arm itself when that is already contained in the body of the Constitution itself? The word "militia" comes from the Federalist Papers, meaning ALL OF THE PEOPLE. Typical liberal semantics exercise, and as usual, quite wrong. It's stupifying to believe that a brand new government whose very existance came to fruition via privately held firearms, would immediately remove that right from the individual it so obviously held in high regard. 499694[/snapback] Why do the amendments differentiate between "person" and "the people"? Just asking, for the basis of semantics, because they seem to go out of their way when speaking of broader rights, vs. individual rights. One: : "...the right of the people peaceably to assemble..." Two: "...the right of the people..." Three: "...without the consent of the Owner..." Four: "...The right of the people to be secure in their persons..."[...] "...the persons or things to be seized." Five: "No person shall be held to answer for a capital..."[...]"; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself,..." Six: "the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial..."[...]"...; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence." Seven and Eight are not specific. Nine: "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." Ten: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constituiton, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people." Clearly, the last one should not be interpreted to allow any citizen to make own laws, and could be interpreted to mean a majority consent. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Johnny Coli Posted November 10, 2005 Share Posted November 10, 2005 Except they decided to interpret the Contitution for a secific group of other people. Makes a big difference. So to apply this reasoning to a different example, the good citizens of Crawford, TX have every right to vote to ban organized protests and can haul off the next Cindy Sheehan in cuffs, right? First Amendment be damned. Since it's the 'will of the people' it won't bother you a bit that certain constitutional rights won't apply to those citizens anymore (or at least until the courts settle it out years later after all the appeals, etc.) It's just the evolution of our democracy. Got it. 499732[/snapback] People get hauled off all the time during protests, and if it's peacable, they are let go by a judge on a case-by-case basis. For your scenario to take place, the people of Crawford would have to have an open vote, the police would have to go along, as well as the judicial system in that town. I just don't think your scenario would ever happen. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crap Throwing Monkey Posted November 10, 2005 Share Posted November 10, 2005 For your scenario to take place, the people of Crawford would have to have an open vote, the police would have to go along, as well as the judicial system in that town. I just don't think your scenario would ever happen. 499755[/snapback] And yet, the first step of that - an open vote overturning a Constitutional guarantee locally - did just happen in SF. I have no doubt the second step - police going along - will come to pass as well. But it dodges the real question: why is it okay for San Francisco to decide to not follow part of the Constitution, but not okay for Crawford? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Johnny Coli Posted November 10, 2005 Share Posted November 10, 2005 (edited) And yet, the first step of that - an open vote overturning a Constitutional guarantee locally - did just happen in SF. I have no doubt the second step - police going along - will come to pass as well. But it dodges the real question: why is it okay for San Francisco to decide to not follow part of the Constitution, but not okay for Crawford? 499758[/snapback] Won't that be settled by the courts? Not a single handgun in SF will ever be collected (in the near future) because there will undoubtedly be an injunction filed while it is being fought in the courts. How was this handled in DC and Chicago? Up until today, I had no idea there were bans in those cities. Edit: I'm actually looking forward to the shot of the NRA lawyers walking hand-in-hand up the courthouse steps with the lawyers from the ACLU. Edited November 10, 2005 by Johnny Coli Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crap Throwing Monkey Posted November 10, 2005 Share Posted November 10, 2005 How was this handled in DC and Chicago? Up until today, I had no idea there were bans in those cities. Wish I knew. I'm sure I wouldn't agree with it if I did, though. Edit: I'm actually looking forward to the shot of the NRA lawyers walking hand-in-hand up the courthouse steps with the lawyers from the ACLU. 499766[/snapback] That's going to be somewhat amusing... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ghost of BiB Posted November 10, 2005 Share Posted November 10, 2005 Why does anyone really care that I own guns? What business is it of theirs? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stuckincincy Posted November 10, 2005 Share Posted November 10, 2005 Won't that be settled by the courts? Not a single handgun in SF will ever be collected (in the near future) because there will undoubtedly be an injunction filed while it is being fought in the courts. How was this handled in DC and Chicago? Up until today, I had no idea there were bans in those cities. Edit: I'm actually looking forward to the shot of the NRA lawyers walking hand-in-hand up the courthouse steps with the lawyers from the ACLU. 499766[/snapback] Consider the power of deterrence. If you were bent on a crime, say a break-in, I would suppose that you would be heartened if you had a reasonable expectation thanks to deadly force removed from the largely-law abiding population. The confiscation removes some uncertainty. I've looked it up from time to time - not recently but IIRC when Britain removed not only hand guns but also long guns from the general populace, violent crime, robberies took a noticible rise. The crumbs were emboldened. I guess it comes down to this: Can the State guarantee you 100% protection around the clock? Do you think that fear of deadly force inhibits criminals? Do you think that those bent on crime care a whit about any law of prohibition? Regardless of prohibition of protective force imposed by a few - and that few are normally well-situated individuals with the means of living in reasonably secure neighborhoods, able to afford security systems, perhaps even afforded better police protection due to their influence - for myself, I choose to not lose the ability to protect myself and my loved ones. If that becomes criminal by statute, well as it has been said by others before..I'd rather have 12 good men judge me than 6 good men carry me out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ghost of BiB Posted November 10, 2005 Share Posted November 10, 2005 Consider the power of deterrence. If you were bent on a crime, say a break-in, I would suppose that you would be heartened if you had a reasonable expectation thanks to deadly force removed from the largely-law abiding population. The confiscation removes some uncertainty. I've looked it up from time to time - not recently but IIRC when Britain removed not only hand guns but also long guns from the general populace, violent crime, robberies took a noticible rise. The crums were emboldened. I guess it comes down to this: Can the State guarantee you 100% protection around the clock? Do you think that fear of deadly force inhibits criminals? Do you think that those bent of crime care a whit about any law of prohibition? Regardless of prohibition of protective force imposed by a few - and that few are normally well-situated individuals with the means of living in reasonably secure neighborhoods, able to afford security systems, perhaps even afforded better police protection due to their influence - for myself, I choose to not lose the ability to protect myself and my loved ones. If that becomes criminal by statute, well as it has been said by others before..I'd rather have 12 good men judge me than 6 good men carry me out. 499790[/snapback] My less eloquent version is, if you break into my house, or try to carjack me you're catching two in the chest. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OnTheRocks Posted November 10, 2005 Author Share Posted November 10, 2005 Why does anyone really care that I own guns? What business is it of theirs? 499788[/snapback] they are afraid you will shoot your mouth off. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts