Licensing - A good argument for

[ataraxia]

I understand it perfectly well, its human limitations that prohibit me from being able to carry around any arm I want. I can't carry around a battleship as its too heavy. You can blame human limitations for that.

So now even Justice Antonin Scalia is not conservative enough for you guys these days, is he?

"Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose. For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court's opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms."
-Antonin Scalia

 

[Glitch]

So now even Justice Antonin Scalia is not conservative enough for you guys these days, is he?

"Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose. For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court's opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms."
-Antonin Scalia

Justice Scalia added additional criteria to his Heller decision that does not exist in the Second Amendment or even the US Constitution. Which makes it a very bad decision indeed. The only criteria that the Second Amendment includes is the implication that the "arm" must be carried and operated by just one individual, since it is an individual right and it must be a "bearable" arm.

That would automatically eliminate heavy machine guns, artillery, vehicles, vessels, aircraft, ICBMs, and satellites from being protected by the Second Amendment. However, it would include most light machine guns, grenades or other explosive devices, hand-held anti-tank rockets and hand-held surface-to-air missile launchers, or anything else an individual can carry and operate by themselves.

Scalia is wrong about the States not violating the Second Amendment with their licensing and/or permitting requirements. People do not require the government's permission to exercise their constitutionally protected right. That is a government infringement.

With regard to felons and the mentally ill, it comes down to the individual right to due process under the law. An individual right can only be suppressed by government through due process of law. The reason felons are prohibited from owning or possessing a firearm is because that was part of the punishment included when they were convicted in accordance with the due process of law. The same thing is true for the mentally ill. Only if the government presents evidence in a court of law that proves beyond a reasonable doubt that the individual is not mentally fit and a threat to either themselves or the public can their right to keep and bear arms be suppressed.

 

[DebateChallenge]

I think all this controversy over the 2a is just because weapons technology has advanced so much since it was written, and continues to advance. If standard issue for militia was still a front loading musket, we would not be having this controversy.

The 2A does not grant the right to keep and bear arms it identifies such a right. The right to keep and bear arms is a constant that existed before the 2A was written. It always has existed and it always will exist. The 2A simply identifies the right and prohibits the government from infringing on it. Muskets just happened to be the weapon of the time when the 2A was written. Before there was muskets such a right applied to swords. Today it applies to the weapons of today. In the future it will apply to whatever weapons exist in the future.

 

[DebateChallenge]

Do you seriously think this should be about what one individual can carry?

No, back when the 2A was written they had bigger weapons that couldn't be carried such as cannons and the 2A applied to those.

Since the days the 2A was written, weapons technology has advanced incredibly, and has been the real game changer. The amount of firepower a single individual can carry around today would have been undreamed of by the founding fathers of this country in the 18th century.

Our founding fathers weren't stupid. They knew weapon technology would advance with the times. See post #528

One individual today with a Gatling machine gun and a few hand grenades could take on an entire army of the 18th century.

I wouldn't bet on that, an army of the 18th century when firing their muskets in a volley had the same effect of a machine gun. And as I said above they had bigger weapons such as cannons that had much greater range that they could use from a much greater distance. They also had howitzers that had a range of about 750 yards.

Get To Know The Brutal Artillery Of The Revolutionary War

The American Revolutionary War was one of the first conflicts fought with devastating cannons, howitzers, and mortars.

www.thedrive.com

If you're Glen Gorbous (a Canadian professional baseball outfielder who holds the world record for the longest throw of a baseball) you might be able to lob a grenade at a group of soldiers before they come within musket range but I doubt even he could throw a grenade the distance that a howitzer of the 18th century could shoot.

And that advance in technology is not stopping any time soon. We can, after all, carry a simple briefcase, can't we? How long before you are OK with a 2-for-1 special on these nukes at the local Walmart?


View attachment 67342112

I don't think Walmart will be selling nukes at 2-for-1 anytime soon. Yes weapons technology along with all technology is advancing and the 2A applies to those advances as I've discussed before, unless you want the police and military to also be restricted to having access to only those weapons that were around when the 2A was written.

 

[DebateChallenge]

So now even Justice Antonin Scalia is not conservative enough for you guys these days, is he?

"Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose. For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court's opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms."
-Antonin Scalia

Number one, the Second Amendment is not a right. The Second Amendment does not grant any rights. The Second Amendment simply identifies the right to keep and bear arms, it doesn't grant it.

Number two, I never said the right to keep and bear arms was unlimited, rather what I've said is that if such a right does have limits it is not for the government to decide if and what those limits are as the government did not grant the right in the first place.

 

[ataraxia]

Number one, the Second Amendment is not a right. The Second Amendment does not grant any rights. The Second Amendment simply identifies the right to keep and bear arms, it doesn't grant it.

Number two, I never said the right to keep and bear arms was unlimited, rather what I've said is that if such a right does have limits it is not for the government to decide if and what those limits are as the government did not grant the right in the first place.

What does this mean? All rights, by definition, are protected by force of law by government. In nature, left free, there is no such things as rights. If you are strong enough you can do what you want; and if you are weak you take whatever anyone stronger than you wants to dish out to you. If you are in a position of weakness and vulnerability in nature, there’s no guarantee you even have the right to breathe.

 

[DebateChallenge]

What does this mean? All rights, by definition, are protected by force of law by government. In nature, left free, there is no such things as rights. If you are strong enough you can do what you want; and if you are weak you take whatever anyone stronger than you wants to dish out to you. If you are in a position of weakness and vulnerability in nature, there’s no guarantee you even have the right to breathe.

The government might protect rights and neither the 2A nor any of the other articles in the Constitution prohibit the government from protecting rights, rather the 2A, along with all the other articles in the BOR prohibit the government from infringing on the rights that are identified in the BOR, including the Right to Keep And Bear Arms.

You make a good point about how a strong enough person can do whatever they want and take advantage of weak people which essentially means the strong have rights and the weak don't. That is a good case for the Right To Keep And Bear Arms as it would give an otherwise weak person the ability to stop a strong person from taking advantage of their weakness, and that is the underlying purpose of the Right to Keep And Bear Arms, to serve as a final check and balance in power, since here in the USA we don't believe in a strong person ruling over weak people and doing whatever they want, we don't believe in a dictatorship we believe in balance of power, which is all the more reason people should be allowed to keep and bear arms as identified by the 2A.

 

[ataraxia]

The government might protect rights and neither the 2A nor any of the other articles in the Constitution prohibit the government from protecting rights, rather the 2A, along with all the other articles in the BOR prohibit the government from infringing on the rights that are identified in the BOR, including the Right to Keep And Bear Arms.

You make a good point about how a strong enough person can do whatever they want and take advantage of weak people which essentially means the strong have rights and the weak don't. That is a good case for the Right To Keep And Bear Arms as it would give an otherwise weak person the ability to stop a strong person from taking advantage of their weakness, and that is the underlying purpose of the Right to Keep And Bear Arms, to serve as a final check and balance in power, since here in the USA we don't believe in a strong person ruling over weak people and doing whatever they want, we don't believe in a dictatorship we believe in balance of power, which is all the more reason people should be allowed to keep and bear arms as identified by the 2A.

There’s always someone around bigger than you, with a bigger/fancier gun than you, and/or who can afford a bigger/better-armed posse than you.

This is not a good mindset or approach if you want to maintain any kind of functional, modern, civil society functioning under any kind of law and order.

 

[TurtleDude]

Not sure why you think that’s a good premise- because the former are heavily screened, trained, and accountable, and the latter are not. There’s nothing clear about that comparison.

yet private citizens who lawfully bear firearms are less likely to shoot an innocent and more likely to hit the criminal than police are. and those with CCW licenses are less likely to violate the law than the police

 

[ataraxia]

yet private citizens who lawfully bear firearms are less likely to shoot an innocent and more likely to hit the criminal than police are. and those with CCW licenses are less likely to violate the law than the police

So are you suggesting the police take a cue and stop screening or training their cadets? It seems to be doing more harm than good, right?

 

[TurtleDude]

So are you suggesting the police take a cue and stop screening or training their cadets? It seems to be doing more harm than good, right?

more training is needed. Most police recruits aren't proficient shooters when they enlist. My then 16 year old son entered a shooting event that had Ohio's top police pistol shooters. The only person who beat him was me. Not the forty police who were at the Ohio Police Olympics who were shooting the event as a warm up for their exclusive competition later that day

 

[ataraxia]

more training is needed. Most police recruits aren't proficient shooters when they enlist. My then 16 year old son entered a shooting event that had Ohio's top police pistol shooters. The only person who beat him was me. Not the forty police who were at the Ohio Police Olympics who were shooting the event as a warm up for their exclusive competition later that day

So why demand more training of the police but not the civilians? Obviously you are suggesting it is making it worse than if you just bring in random people off the street into the department, with no background screening and no training, and give them a high-powered rifle, right?

 

[bave]

So why demand more training of the police but not the civilians? Obviously you are suggesting it is making it worse than if you just bring in random people off the street into the department, with no background screening and no training, and give them a high-powered rifle, right?

It isn't the job of the police to be marksman. They need to be proficient in the operation of a firearm, but not an expert shooter. The vast majority of cops never get even close to shooting their sidearm. The sheer amount of practice it takes to build and maintain the skill, particularly with handguns, is incredible. When I carried a gun for a living I shoot at least a thousand rounds *a week*, assuming we had no drills or specialized training planned for the week.

 

[ataraxia]

It isn't the job of the police to be marksman. They need to be proficient in the operation of a firearm, but not an expert shooter. The vast majority of cops never get even close to shooting their sidearm. The sheer amount of practice it takes to build and maintain the skill, particularly with handguns, is incredible. When I carried a gun for a living I shoot at least a thousand rounds *a week*, assuming we had no drills or specialized training planned for the week.

OK- it’s a little like driving. Some people are much better at it than others. But we still have people take driving tests before we give them a license. If you’re good at it, take a test and prove it.

In fact, we have such regulations in place on all potentially hazardous tools and equipment, not just cars or guns.

Not sure how people think that lifting regulations on this potentially hazardous piece of equipment will make us all safer.

 

[bave]

OK- it’s a little like driving. Some people are much better at it than others. But we still have people take driving tests before we give them a license. If you’re good at it, take a test and prove it.

In fact, we have such regulations in place on all potentially hazardous tools and equipment, not just cars or guns.

Not sure how people think that lifting regulations on this potentially hazardous piece of equipment will make us all safer.

One word.

Infringed.

 

[ataraxia]

One word.

Infringed.

Nuclear arms. Infringed?

 

[RF667799]

OK- it’s a little like driving. Some people are much better at it than others. But we still have people take driving tests before we give them a license. If you’re good at it, take a test and prove it.

In fact, we have such regulations in place on all potentially hazardous tools and equipment, not just cars or guns.

Not sure how people think that lifting regulations on this potentially hazardous piece of equipment will make us all safer.

Though you have been corrected on the bold several times, you keep saying it. That makes it a lie at this point.

 

[rahl]

Nuclear arms. Infringed?

nuclear arms have nothing to do with the 2nd amendment.

 

[ataraxia]

Though you have been corrected on the bold several times, you keep saying it. That makes it a lie at this point.

I have not been corrected. I’ve just been told that guns are different than other hazardous equipment because it is a constitutional right. That’s a valid argument. What it means is that in essence I’m being told I have to tolerate highly hazardous equipment being used by untrained people. I am being forced to sacrifice the safety of myself and my loved ones for their freedom.

I can accept that, as long as we are clear on what is really being said here. What’s a lie at this point is that having criminals, unscreened and untrained idiots, and every crazy person off the street hauling these things around makes this a safer society. What’s the fact is they they have the freedom, and I and my whole just have to shut up and literally die for it. Isn’t freedom great?

 

[Maidenrules29]

Running people over is also already illegal. And people who want to kill others with a car will do so regardless of how many laws are already on the books. So why have any traffic laws at all? It just seems designed to harass and inconvenience law abiding citizens.

I just love it when people like you state "why have any laws at all?" when we say that criminals ignore the law. Its like we don't know if you are being purposely obtuse, or just living in some fantasy world.. We still need laws to act as some kind of deterrent and so that we can charge people who break them. Our main argument as legal gun owners is that MORE gun laws are a moot point. Like TurtleDude said, we need to enforce the laws already on the books, and not create new ones that criminals will IGNORE and only affect law abiding gun owners.

 

[Maidenrules29]

The proposed system is for all gun purchases

Did you not see the data on how gun crime fell after the adoption of the licensing process ?

You won't be able to enforce background checks for ALL gun purchases. There will still be almost as many illegal black market "private" sales in parking lots and alleys as before. See thats the thing, criminals are going to continue to not follow any new laws. That's why we call them criminals.

 

[ataraxia]

I just love it when people like you state "why have any laws at all?" when we say that criminals ignore the law. Its like we don't know if you are being purposely obtuse, or just living in some fantasy world.. We still need laws to act as some kind of deterrent and so that we can charge people who break them. Our main argument as legal gun owners is that MORE gun laws are a moot point. Like TurtleDude said, we need to enforce the laws already on the books, and not create new ones that criminals will IGNORE and only affect law abiding gun owners.

Why do you think more laws are moot?

Can we get rid of drunk driving laws if we already have laws against running people over?

 

[Maidenrules29]

Firearms (with few exceptions) are designed to kill.

Most firearms are designed to kill yes, ( and not all are designed to kill humans )but it really doesn't matter what any man-made object is designed to do. They are all inanimate objects until they are manipulated by someone. It's that manipulation along with any malevolent intent or negligence that then makes that object potentially dangerous or lethal. Guns, cars, or otherwise. If all guns on Earth disappeared tomorrow humans would still keep killing each other at the same rate. They would just figure out different ways to do it. More knifings, more blunt objects, running over throngs of people with vehicles, more bombs, more killings with bare hands and feet.

 

[ataraxia]

nuclear arms have nothing to do with the 2nd amendment.

With what part of "the right to arms shall not be infringed" do you disagree? I don't see anything in the Constitution excluding nuclear arms. They are getting small enough now that any soldier or militia member can carry them, so SCOTUS should be OK with it.

 

[Maidenrules29]

Why do you think more laws are moot?

Can we get rid of drunk driving laws if we already have laws against running people over?

Again you are being obtuse. Simply running someone over, which is usually going to be called assault with a deadly weapon at least or murder at most, is a different charge than drunk driving. We already have laws that punish every aspect of illegal acts involving firearms. We don't need any more. And we need to ENFORCE the ones we have and not let these perps out of prison early.