|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
 Posted - 08/08/2003 : 06:47:05 [Permalink]
|
Tim wrote:quote:
Please, Dave...You know what I mean. There is no need for lessons in grammar, and strict word definitions.
Actually, I was completely serious about a need for a definition of what a 'clause' is as applicable to the Constitution and its Amendments. It looks like something different from both plain English and 'legalese', if you're saying that there's more than one clause in the 2nd.quote:
However, you may want to Amend your argument a bit.
Okay, that was more painful than mine.quote:
In the example you gave using the religion clauses, (plural, and not my invention, but common usage), the 'Establishment Clause' and the 'Exercise Clause' are separated by only commas, too.
If you're refering to this:quote:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof...
I'll have to disagree: there is one of those pesky conjunctions in there ("or"), making the clauses clear, at least to me. The only conjunction which appears in the 2nd Amendment is this:quote:
...right of the people to keep and bear arms...
which would seem to be a silly place to separate clauses.quote:
These are, afterall, only my opinions, and probably lacking in any rational discourse.
Nonono! I think it's a very interesting idea, and would like to keep following it until it either pans out or flops.
Darwin Storm wrote:quote:
Here's a link to a breakdown of murders by weapon for the last 25 years.
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/homicide/tables/weaponstab.htm
This table shows that the ratio of gun-murders (GM) to all other murders (OM) was lowest in 1983, at 1.40 GMs per OM, highest in 1994, at 2.34 GMs per OM, and averaged about 1.78 GMs per OM between 1976 and 2000. Therefore, your assertion,quote:
For every murder by gun, there is one by other means of physical violence.
is demonstrated to be false, since the ratio stays well above 1.00, always, and actually spent 6 years (1992-1997) above 2.
|
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
 |
|
|
Darwin Storm
Skeptic Friend
87 Posts |
Posted - 08/08/2003 : 15:23:10 [Permalink]
|
Sorry for exaggerating the ratio. My point was that guns hardly account for all murders. Likewise, guns probably only count for such a high level because of their ease of use and lethality. If knives were more effecient, you would probably see more stabbings. Additionnaly, if you look at the chart, gun violence fluctuates quite a bit. I have no problem with admiting guns are dangerous, designed as a weapon.
However, while guns be be the easiest way to murder people, it is hardly the only way, and murders are the result of criminal acions, not the result of merely owning a gun. |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 08/08/2003 : 23:21:12 [Permalink]
|
Oh, I completely agree with all those points, Darwin Storm. And eliminating guns wouldn't even drop the totals murders by those ratios, since people intent on killing someone else will find a way (the chart you linked to, if I read the site correctly, doesn't include accidental fatalities, only murders and non-negligent homicides).
Whatever happened to that ring technology, anyway? The guns which would only fire if the person holding 'em were wearing a specially-coded ring. Sorta like vehicle electronic entry. And what's the progress on traceable ammunition these days?
To be completely honest, my position here isn't to argue for gun control as a method of preventing or even reducing gun crime, but I do have an interest in making gun crimes more-easily solvable from a police point-of-view. I understand that it'll never be impossible for me not to be killed by some madman with a pistol, but if I wind up being a victim of gun crime, I'd like it to be as easy for the cops to nab the shooter as it was for the jerk to shoot me. Is there a way to do just that without stomping on the intent of the framers of the Constitution?
Oh, another point I'd like to make: both you and jmcginn have argued that training and education are good things, but that registration is not. I submit that this is flawed thinking along two lines:
1) "Proficiency tests" and other forms of training will require tracking. At best, you'll be required to give your name and address, and probably SSN as well, before the government will hand you a little card saying that you've been certified as competent to own a weapon. You'd probably be required to re-certify ever so-many years. How this is any different from gun registration - from an "if we register our guns, it'll make it that much easier for the government to take them away" point-of-view - is beyond me.
2) If you think that the lines for gun certification won't be half-full of gang members (for instance), you're most-likely mistaken. Gangs don't become gangs because they're all walking around with felony convictions on their records, so many of the members won't have any problems passing a proficiency test or background check, and 90-something percent of gang-related violence would still be by firearm, since even kids are smart enough to pretend to be responsible long enough to pass a test.
In other words, I think that training and testing would only be a burden to law-abiding citizens, which is something that, if I'm not mistaken, both of you have argued against. Criminals would still carry firearms (and would-be criminals could easily be certified to do so). Testing and training, therefore, would probably only affect the accidental-shooting statistics, and would probably affect them just as much as mandatory knife training would affect the accidental-stabbing numbers.
All the above taken together means pretty-much just one thing: mandatory training is no different from gun registration, since it would do little to curb gun-related crime, and it would do much towards making it easier for the government to forcibly remove weapons from their owners' hands. If my analysis is correct, nobody should be able to argue against registration and for mandatory training with a straight face while debating the right to own firearms and intentional homicide.
Are my ideas on this point correct? Is the idea of mandated training harmful to the broader ideals of the 2nd Amendment, and only helpful to reduce the "I didn't know it was loaded" kind of accidents, which nobody here seems to be disputing will always happen, anyway?
|
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Darwin Storm
Skeptic Friend
87 Posts |
Posted - 08/09/2003 : 15:07:20 [Permalink]
|
Gun training and familiarazation would probably reduce accident-related gun deaths, but those numbers are actually quite low anyways. The vast majority of non-criminal gun deaths are acutally suicides, which aren't really accidents, but get lumped under those categories rather than criminal deaths.
As for crime, I agree that there is little either registration or training will do. I am all for backround checks. However, as you pointed out, there are plenty of people with no criminal record that are criminals. However, non-criminals are the vast majority, and it unfair to punish them for the criminal actions of others. Likewise, you also edge into the idea of presumed guilt versus innocence. If you haven't been convicted of a crime, you fully deserve the presumtion of innocence. Too many control arguemenets stem from the point that people may use their guns and go on rampages, etc. Statically, that is a flat out lie, but many of these arguements casts criminal doubts on a large portion of people who are doing nothing more than legally exercising their second amendment rights.
|
|
|
|
Darwin Storm
Skeptic Friend
87 Posts |
Posted - 08/09/2003 : 15:11:35 [Permalink]
|
| I might ( and I mean I would have to consider it heavily) support gun registration if we amended the 2nd amendment to flatly say "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.". That would clearly establish the right of people to own firearms, would make illegal any attempts to use registration to confiscate arms, and would end a great number of silly and superflous laws like banning "assuault" weapons. (Now there is a bad joke that was sold on fear and not on facts. Oh, not to mention, it is completely arbitrary and cosmetic in what it defines as assault weapons. ) |
|
|
|
Valiant Dancer
Forum Goalie
USA
4826 Posts |
Posted - 08/11/2003 : 08:11:33 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Kil
quote:
Amendment II
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.
Here's the thing. It's my opinion that the 2nd Amendment is granting "the right of the people to bear arms" as "necessary to the security of a free state" by maintaining "a well regulated militia."
We can go around and around on this. I just can't get passed the "well regulated militia" part. I don't think I'm being irrational, as has been suggested, to ask what constitutes a well regulated militia? The reply to my question, over and over again is that we are granted the right to bear arms just in case we need to form a militia. But the 2nd Amendment says that a well regulated militia is necessary. It can't be well regulated if it doesn't exist. I have seen justifications and rationalizations for why we don't have to actually maintain a well regulated militia. As I see it, if you are going to claim that the second part of the amendment means exactly what it says, than to be consistent, the first part has to mean exactly what it says. It does not say, just in case the need arises, we will get together and form a militia. It says that a militia is necessary to the security of a free state. The implication here is that it must exist and be ongoing.
If you reject the notion that the national guard fills that roll, how can you expect to get a well regulated militia going on the fly? I doubt that you can. Doing that assumes that you and your fellow country men and woman will be of like mind when a perceived threat requiring armed resistance arises. I don't even want to guess at what the odds of that happening are except to say that some of those armed people, yes, the people, just may see things differently than you and might well take up arms against your resistance. And they will be able to site the same 2nd amendment as justification for shooting at you.
I read "being necessary for the security of a free state" to mean that this militia must be for the defense of the State. That, as a matter of state rights, a state has the right to defend itself and rise up against the federal government if the feds attempt to impose a new tyranny. If a State rises up against its people, the feds will take care of that because state imposed tyranny against its citizens would be seen as unconstitutional. Sending troops in to insure desegregation in the South could be seen as an example of that. If the Govenor or your state decides that the U.S constitution doesn't apply to him, and declares himself king, my guess is that the feds will change his mind in a hurry.
That there is disagreement over the language of the 2nd amendment is no surprise. What I find galling is the constant accusation that my reading of the amendment shows a lack of critical thinking. Worse, it has been suggested that since I agree with Jefferson on many things, I must necessarily agree with him on everything. Would that be an example of critical thinking? Perhaps I should knock up a slave if I ever happen to own one...
I do not view the constitution as a holy document. I see it as an evolving document. That it has worked so well is a testament to its brilliance. And yet, there are flaws. There is ambiguity in some of the language. The language of the 2nd Amendment is example of that. Perhaps that is a part of the constitutions brilliance. What has been called the modern interpretation of the 2nd Amendment may be the reason for the ambiguity. Perhaps the framers understood that if the document was not the least bit fluid, it would not last much beyond the century it was written in.
Right now, as the courts see it, Gun control does not violate the 2nd Amendment. I suppose that could change, but for now, that is the way it is. Sorry....
Does gun control work? As Dave W pointed out, it hasn't even been tried. Little laws here and there are not going to do the job. That is why I chose Canada rather than some city or state to demonstrate that gun control can work. I understand the problem here. Your objections to this comparison are reasonable. However, that does not mean gun control can't work. It means that your objections are reasonable and need to be considerd. I understand that there are many factors when looking at gun violence, and that they must to be addressed too.
You all know where I stand on this. I will continue to push for tougher regulations and controls. Sorry if that offends some of you. Live with it. We are going to have to agree to disagree.
And now, I am (probably) out of this thread....
Edited...
The people may have need in the future to form a well regulated militia in the future to counter a corrupt one. (Police and National Guard can pass as a well regulated militia for purposes of this example.) When that militia becomes corrupt (as well as the political system it is directed by), it is the responsibility of the populace to form another well-regulated militia to protect themselves from the corrupt militia and possibly overthrow the government. It is for that reason that I believe that the second amendment must be interpreted to allow gun ownership with reasonable restrictions that does not include the wholesale banning of classes of weapons based on magazine capacity. (Many weapons considered assault weapons are due to magazine capacity issues solely.)
Banning entire classes of weapons does not further gun control. Training and background checks are reasonable. Gun fingerprinting is an interesting idea but is easily defeatable. One need only scratch the inside of a barrel or change a barrel out to defeat the measure. A gun owner database is unreasonable due to the ability of the database to be misused to confiscate weapons made illegal by edict. As long as gun class banning is in use as a preferred method of gun control, I will be against an owner database.
I believe the controls and regulations in place need a few modifications, but the existing laws need to be enforced. |
Cthulhu/Asmodeus when you're tired of voting for the lesser of two evils
Brother Cutlass of Reasoned Discussion |
|
|
|
jmcginn
Skeptic Friend
343 Posts |
Posted - 08/12/2003 : 08:23:31 [Permalink]
|
Dave W and all,
Sorry for the delay in responding I was busy with some serious landscaping work. I also am going to bow out of this conversation and I apologize for letting it degrade to its current status (at least at the time of my last post). However I would like to start a new conversation on anarchy (which I will start on a new thread) and hopefully this will be a long and fruitful discussion. Dave W as I value your points and opinions I hope that you join in (as well as all the others here as well). I promise that I will work hard to contain my sarcasm :>.
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
