gun ownership is a non-iissue. it's protected by the bill of rights

[logjon]

i've known how to use a gun since i was ten. i live alone. even if that were not the case, i know how to secure it. your statistics are flawed. i assure you that a gun in my possession is less of a threat to me than one who means to do me harm.

my question is about the limits on violent resistance to harmful criminal activity in civilized society

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

1. So who's spineless now?

:rofl:

[logjon]

2. me i guess?

the guy who doesn't want to wait for forensic examiners to put his grey matter under a microscope?

[logjon]

3. my fault

i guess they don't really put brains under a microscope

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

4. Bingo.

Do you spend a lot of time staying up late worrying about forensic examiners examining your grey matter?

And yes, I suppose they'd need that microscope.

[logjon]

7. send me a postcard from suburbia

though from what i've witnessed, it's not so great either

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

12. OK.

Shall I address that to the abandoned Walmart parking lot you keep your RV in?

[logjon]

16. no

just address it to whatever city people are getting killed for talking the wrong way. you'll find me eventually

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

20. Is that the city where people are getting shot because of guns in the home?

Because there's a lot more of that than the other.

[logjon]

23. yeah

now compare it to the number of cases where people diffuse the situation without firing the gun. oh wait. that would break your case.

[eqfan592]

29. I live in suburbia, and it's not immune to home invasion.

Recently had a person have to defend his family with a firearm from a home intruder who instead of leaving when warned decided to charge the homeowner. Homeowner and family are fine, intruder is dead.

There's nothing "spineless" about being prepared. Anybody who says otherwise has their head right up their ass.

[denbot]

5. .

[LostInAnomie]

6. I don't get how people constantly live in fear like this.

Kind of sad.

[logjon]

11. maybe

just maybe, because we've seen it happen? because we've been at the wrong place at the wrong time, or stuck up for the guy who was? because it happens on our front porch? take your pick.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

14. People shouldn't make things up on the internet.

My brother died that way.

[logjon]

17. oh ok

cool story bro

[Katya Mullethov]

31. 1 / 10

Needs an MSPaint diagram

[SteveM]

41. The OP can answer for his/her self. Me? I don't live in fear...

You have assumed a condition (fear) suffered by others because you don't know these people or have made a faulty conclusion based on their self-defense practices. There are a number of self-defense practices you probably take: locking doors, "safe rooms," escape routes, etc., to say nothing of "long-term" threats: house insurance, health insurance (Ha!), etc.

I add to that list a home-defense firearm. But wonder of wonders, I do not "constantly live in fear." I have nagging fears (like declining health and fewer "good" years, given my age of 61), but these would be present, gun or no. My keeping a firearm for self-defense is a reasonable common-sense measure in light of potential threats. I would venture to say that having a suite of self-defense measures (some of which you would no doubt agree to) REDUCES "fear."

BTW, I am not "sad." I hope you feel better for me!

[OttavaKarhu]

55. Careful. You're projecting. n/t

[east texas lib]

8. All depends on how much you like living.(nt)

;-)

[tonysam]

9. No, it isn't.

Unfortunately the Roberts court defied precedent in claiming it does.

[pipoman]

38. Actually the entire court

unanimously agreed that the rkba is, in fact, an individual right...even the dissenting justices in Heller agreed...a question which has never, in the history of SCOTUS, been asked and answered.

[Solly Mack]

10. Spaminal

[NYC_SKP]

13. Wow! That looks like a 150 pound guy having his way with a big pink meaty...

...loaf of Internet Spam!!!

:wow:

[Name removed]

19. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[NYC_SKP]

22. OMG! Spam is gay??? Since when???

Tell me you didn't just write the word "fag"...

[DainBramaged]

25. He did, now we know his intentions here......

[NYC_SKP]

26. Yep, first one provocative post, locked, then this one.

I'd like to see 'em suffer a little first.

[DainBramaged]

27. Well, we were chasing this other clown who disliked Bob barker eariler...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x7410341#7410505

[Jamastiene]

33. I thought my eyes were deceiving me too.

But, I think that horrible wretched word is really there.

[DainBramaged]

24. I wanted to quote you before you erase it, you are disgusting and a fraud.

a fag joke

[PavePusher]

39. Maybe he's British and talking about cigarettes...?

:evilgrin:

[DainBramaged]

40. Naw, about as British as grits........

[Jamastiene]

32. Your ass is toast.

That word is homophobic. You should not use it here.

[Deep13]

15. An undefined right to keep and bear arms is protected.

In fact it doesn't even do that. It merely states that whatever right to keep and bear arms that exists anyway will not be infringed. So it would be necessary to figure out what right existed under Common Law. And there is the provision that the purpose of that right is for collective security. Honestly, read as a whole, it seems to grant the right of states to authorize police departments.

Anyway, what statistics are you talking about?

[logjon]

18. actually

i'm pretty sure it says that the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

[Deep13]

43. It does not define what that right is.

Whatever right exists shall not be infringed. So the question is, what right existed--presumably at Common Law--when that Amendment was enacted. And you like most gun-rights purists are selectively reading it. I never see "a well regulated militia" on an NRA belt buckle.

[TPaine7]

52. It absolutely tells you what right is being protected.

The people can

1) keep arms
2) bear arms

Are you hanging your hat on the fact that it does not lay out in excruciating detail the limits that can be put on the right? (No shooting into the air on New Year's day in the city, no waving unholstered guns around in the mall while drunk, no hunting in Central Park and the like?)

If that is your point, please point out where the First Amendment spells out that it does not cover an officer ordering a soldier to commit an illegal act or a newspaper publishing American troop positions and munitions locations. Do you actually believe that anyone who authored, edited, debated or ratified the First Amendment expected it to protect such behavior? Or, alternately, that anyone imagined that the right was "undefined" because it didn't mention these details?

Constitutions do not deal in minutia.

[TPaine7]

28. Read it again

It's not the purpose of the right, it's a reason that the right shall not be infringed. That's a very different thing.

There's another, even more fundamental reason the right must not be infringed--government exists to secure the people's rights.

Calling a thing a right is the same thing as to say that a legitimate government exists to secure it.

[Deep13]

44. I have it memorized.

"A well regulated militia..."

This was at the community level in colonial times. The men of the town would turn out as the militia.

"...being necessary for the security of a free state,..."

Speaks for itself. The militias are needed for state and ultimately national security. The founders did not approve of permanent standing armies because they could be used to oppress the people they were supposed to serve. Also, they are expensive and taxing people to pay for them was its own form of oppression. This disapproval is echoed in the 3rd Amendment. Also, the 4th protects people from the kind of general warrants usually enforced by soldiers and the 5th & 6th in part from military punishment of civilians.

"...the people's right to keep and bear arms..."

Again, it recognizes that there is a right, but does not specify what that right is. Usually when the Constitution does that, we look to Common Law and existing practices at the time of enactment to see what those rights were. Traditionally, the nobility had an absolute right to be armed, while the commoners had a limited right to hunt the few animals they were allowed and to practice archery for the king's army. The Revolution did away with the nobility, of course, so it is unclear what happens to their rights. Presumably, since elected government replaces them, that power falls on their Common Law successors, the states. It is worth noting that the framers said "people" and not "persons." That is a collective noun that is something apart from the state. I think it means commoners. I also think, like most of the BOR, the wording was the result of political compromise and we cannot know what exactly it means.

"...shall not be infringed."

This is the kind of general "thou shalt naught" that exists in the Federal Constitution. It does not grant rights so much as it prohibits the Federal govt. from interfering with rights that already exist. This leaves the states free to infringe all they want, at least until Reconstruction. The 14th Amendment says, in effect, that whatever rights a person has as a Federal citizen, he or she also has as a state citizen. Oddly, the Feds. are responsible for enforcing that. In my view this restricts state power so that it may not "infringe" on the still undefined "right" for the "people" to be armed.

And what does "infringed" mean? It suggests that regulation that does not substantially effect ones rights is still allowed. While out right prohibition is clearly not allowed, something substantially less than that probably is. It also seems to focus on possession by the arms owner. It says nothing about manufacture, importation or commercial traffic of arms. "Keep and bear" not buy and sell. Of course, one effects the other, so the power of govt. to restrict sales is limited too.

I could go on, but I'm getting bored.

[X_Digger]

47. Look at precusrsors and contemporary state constitutions

let's look at the preamble to the Bill of Rights-

The Conventions of a number of the States having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best insure the beneficent ends of its institution.

The Bill of Rights was intended as a 'the government shall not' document- "to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers"- not a 'the people can' document. Rights aren't limited by the bill of rights; rather the scope of protections of certain rights are set. If the Bill of Rights were a listing of all a person's rights, there would be no need for the ninth and tenth amendments ("The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." and "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." respectively.)

Nothing in the second amendment says that arms are only for militia service, rather the ability to raise an effective militia is _why_ protecting the right to be armed is protected. Since we know from the preamble (and the 9th/10th amendment) that the bill of rights is not exhaustive, we have to look outside the bill of rights itself to see if the founding fathers expected this right to extend beyond militia service.

State analogues of the second amendment that were adopted in the same timeframe give a clue-

The present-day Pennsylvania Constitution, using language adopted in 1790, declares: "The right of the citizens to bear arms in defence of themselves and the State shall not be questioned."

Vermont: Adopted in 1777, the Vermont Constitution closely tracks the Pennsylvania Constitution. It states "That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the State..

Kentucky: The 1792 Kentucky constitution was nearly contemporaneous with the Second Amendment, which was ratified in 1791. Kentucky declared: "That the right of the citizens to bear arms in defence of themselves and the State, shall not be questioned.

Delaware: "A person has the right to keep and bear arms for the defense of self, family, home and State, and for hunting and recreational use."

Alabama: The Alabama Constitution, adopted in 1819, guarantees "that every citizen has a right to bear arms in defense of himself and the state"

Again, it recognizes that there is a right, but does not specify what that right is.

The Right.. is to keep and bear arms.

Keep trying to spin it, but history doesn't back you up.

[Deep13]

49. I resent the implication that I am agruing the consequent.

I mean the reference to "spinning." If I was arguing the consequent, I would be arguing that I have a right to buy a real, select fire A-4 and not just the "consumer safe" AR carbine I did buy. I'd be arguing that the Fed. and state Constitutions mandate that I have adequate public space to practice riflery.

What you are demonstrating is that the 2nd protects rights already in existence. It does not create new ones.

[X_Digger]

51. Who's arguing 'creation' of rights?

The spin that I see is the quibbling that the "...the people's right to keep and bear arms..." doesn't mean the people's right to keep and bear arms.

If other state analogues of the second amendment aren't an indication of what the founders or their contemporaries had in mind, we cna always go back to their writings.

Shall we?

[rusty_rebar]

30. And there is the provision that the purpose of that right is for collective security.

Have you seen the Heller decision? Did you not understand it?

"Held:
1. The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a
firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for
traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home."

[DrCory]

37. People=Police???

Rather a bizarre interpretation.

[Deep13]

45. People is a collective noun.

It seems to imply a community based police dept. or militia rather than regular soldiers which were used before the revolution. "People" does not mean the state, but it probably does not mean "persons" either.

[X_Digger]

46. Except 'people' used elsewhere _does_ mean individuals..

First: "..or the right of the people peaceably to assemble.."
Fourth: "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects,.."
Ninth: "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."
Tenth: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

See that last one? How clearer can it get that "the people" does not mean "the state".

[Deep13]

48. I agreed that it does not mean "state."

Traditionally, from the perspective of the crown, the "people" were distinct from the government. The examples you cite can be read as collective. It's always "the people" not just "people" as the plural of "person" as it is typically used now.

And right, "the people" have a right to peaceably assemble. That does not mean anyone can meet anyone any time or any place. What about judicial restraining orders? Trespassing laws? Obstructing traffic? By making it a collective right, it allows reasonable conditions on specific persons. But generally, we can assemble and associate for any peaceful purpose.

"The people" are free from arbitrary intrusion by the state. Nevertheless, specific persons may be search by judicial warrant based on probable cause.

On the other hand, the 5th states, "No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime...." That's an individual right that applies only to someone accused of a crime.

The 15th might have said "persons", but it is actually restricted even further to "citizens" "The right of citizens of the United States..." But it clearly expresses a personal right.

And compare the second and the 4th to the wording in section 1 of the 14th.

"Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

This is specific to persons. Frankly, this is why I think there is an individual right to own weapons, although not without limits. I would argue it is a privilege of a Federal citizen.

[X_Digger]

50. It appears you're arguing that because there are limits..

.. it's not an individual right.

And right, "the people" have a right to peaceably assemble. That does not mean anyone can meet anyone any time or any place. What about judicial restraining orders? Trespassing laws? Obstructing traffic? By making it a collective right, it allows reasonable conditions on specific persons.

That doesn't make sense. Rights can be limited, that has nothing to do with whether they're collective or individual.

[TPaine7]

54. Are you serious?!!!

"The people" are free from arbitrary intrusion by the state. Nevertheless, specific persons may be search by judicial warrant based on probable cause.

In context, this appears to be saying that because individuals can be searched with a judicial warrant and based on probable cause, "the people" must mean a collective. This is laughable on its face, especially when we consider that the Amendment under discussion says:

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

The Amendment itself makes clear that warranted searches based on probable cause are permissible. That fact cannot be used as some type of proof that "the people" is not used in describing individual rights.

The fact that "the people" is used in the Bill of Rights to describe the holders of personal, individual rights is well established. The very first time the Supreme Court addressed the Second Amendment, it called it--along with other rights--"rights of person." The arguments, as well as the singular noun made crystal clear that the RKBA as well as other rights enumerated in the bill of right were personal rights belonging to individuals.

[DainBramaged]

21. How sad you live in such fear and paranoia, how sad

I've lived 3/4 of my life without the need (or want) for a gun. maybe all of you paranoid gun-huggers should move to a place where there are fewer guns? then you won't have to be so paranoid?

[rd_kent]

34. Seems like you are the only one paranoid. Why do you hate the Constitution?

[SteveM]

42. "Paranoid gun huggers should move"? Go to another forum to find 'em (nt)

[petronius]

35. This thread made my head hurt

:crazy:

[AtheistCrusader]

36. Lurk more.

[TheWraith]

53. I don't see a question there.

If you're asking where the limits are, the law says that you have the right to use potentially lethal force to defend yourself or another person against a reasonably perceived threat of death or severe bodily harm.