Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 Smacks wrote:

 CptJake wrote:
You seem to assume rights are granted by the gov't. That would also indicate they can take them away as they see fit.

Our whole constitution was kind of based on the opposite. The people grant the gov't certain powers.

That's just semantic nonsense. A government of the people, represents the people. They are not separate entities. What you're trying to do there, is the argument equivalent of denying that eggs come from chickens, on the basis that chickens come from eggs. Cracking stuff!

Right there is the basis of why we have these discussions.

The US populace historically view their government with more skepticism than other Western nations.

Ya'll just don't understand man.

 Kilkrazy wrote:

 CptJake wrote:

 Smacks wrote:

 CptJake wrote:
gov't with or without a majority backing it, can't take the right away.

This is still just a legal quibble, but it is batted about like some god given truth, which boarders on dogma. There is a legal process for making changes to the law. There is public and political support for changes to the law, there is also very good philosophical arguments for why unchangeable laws are bad. The idea that it can't be changed and now stands for all time is just nonsense.

So lets go with this. Yes, our constitution has a mechanism in place to change it. So why is that not the offered solution? It is hard, but if folks truly believe the 2nd amendment (and I assume the 4th) are out of date and out of touch, then addressing it by repealing/changing those amendments would be the right way to go about it.

But they don't.

...
....

I have suggested it, only to be shot down by Frazzled on the grounds that the constitution is holy writ.

Of course, the individual states can enact restrictions on guns. It's possible that the more let's say 'cosmopolitan' states might enact stronger restrictions than Montana, etc. This is already the case in New York, for example.

Once enough states had passed such laws, it would create the scenario that an amendment could be added to the constitution.

I think the other issues I have mentioned previously, such as gay marriage, are proof that public opinion can gradually swing and once it passes a certain level, the law gets changed somehow.

IDK how public opinion has changed regarding guns.

New York is one of 5 states that doesn't have the right to keep and bear arms in their state constitution so they have more leeway to enact stricter gun control laws than any of the 45 states that do have the right of individual state residents to own firearms included in their state constitution. It would be very difficult and extremely hypocritical for state politicians to claim that it is neccessary to repeal the 2nd amendment from the US constitution while the same clause is still intact in their own state constitution. So far in over 2 centuries of US history no state has removed the right to keep and bear arms from their state constitution and I know of no evidence that suggests such a thing might happen anytime soon. With 90% of the states having the right to keep and bear arms in their respective constitutions I don't think it's practical to expect a majority of states to decide that we need to repeal the same clause from the US constitution.

Gay marriage is not an example you want to use. There still is no federal law that makes gay marriage legal in all 50 states. DOMA is still officially on the books and I see no evidence that Congress is going to pass a law anytime soon that legalizes gay marriage. Gay marriage is legal throughout the country because SCOTUS ruled that it is unconstitutional to ban gay marriage. A court ruling in no way can be construed as a manifestation of the will of the people.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 whembly wrote:

 Smacks wrote:

 CptJake wrote:
You seem to assume rights are granted by the gov't. That would also indicate they can take them away as they see fit.

Our whole constitution was kind of based on the opposite. The people grant the gov't certain powers.

That's just semantic nonsense. A government of the people, represents the people. They are not separate entities. What you're trying to do there, is the argument equivalent of denying that eggs come from chickens, on the basis that chickens come from eggs. Cracking stuff!

Right there is the basis of why we have these discussions.

The US populace historically view their government with more skepticism than other Western nations.

Ya'll just don't understand man.

Yeah, the constitution is essesntially a list of negative rights; it's a document that clarifies what the federal government can't do. This was done to protect individual liberty from government tyranny, which was also the basis for our war for independence.

Negative rights are very different from positive rights. Positive rights are the rights of the people that have to be provided for by the government. For example, the right to an education requires the government to establish and fund public schools so that citizens can send their children to public schools to get the education to which they are entitled.

That is the source of political conflict within the US. Limited govt conservatives on the right who ascribe the most important to negative rights and believe that people are best off with the govt staying out of their way and not infringing on an individual's freedom and on the other side the more socialist, liberal doctrine that the government should proivde for the people and that people will be best off with the government assisting as much as possible with their quality of life. Historically the US has placed a higher value on negative rights than in European countries.

 cincydooley wrote:
Well, no. The part you highlighted is the dependent clause of the 2nd. It's entirely dependent on "the right to bear arms shall not be infringed."

It's a dependent clause because it contains the word "being", but it could stand on its own as: "A well regulated Militia, is necessary to the security of a free state." and is offered here as justification for why the right should not be infringed. I can phrase it as a syllogism:

Premise: A well regulated Militia, is necessary to the security of a free state.
Premise: People forming the militia would require arms:
Conclusion: the right of the people forming the militia, to keep and bear arms, should not be infringed (for the security of a free state.)

Structurally speaking, I'm pretty sure it is a premise.

Your "reading" of it also doesn't include what militia meant contextually (the people)

Perhaps my quip about gang violence was unwarranted. What I was really trying to illustrate is how armed militias are quite an unfashionable and antiquated idea these days.

or the actual purpose of the 2nd (to guarantee a citizenry that can protect itself from a potentially tyrannical government.)

No, that is exactly how I read it, and what I understood it to mean. No disagreement from me on that point.

Obama weighs expanding background checks through executive authority
Yay... more executive over-reach that'll do exactly Jack & Gak... and Jack left town.

I'm sure it will sell a few more AR15s.

 Ouze wrote:
I'm sure it will sell a few more AR15s.

And artificially inflate prices :/

That is the source of political conflict within the US. Limited govt conservatives on the right who ascribe the most important to negative rights and believe that people are best off with the govt staying out of their way and not infringing on an individual's freedom

Except in matters of personal religion, women's health and reproductive rights, choice of sexual partners, access to legal rights and liberties provided by a marriage contract, integration, environmental protections to protect public health, maintenance of national parks and forests, equal protection under the law, equal representation and a host of other topics that regularly come up in the news.

It should also be noted that the US Constitution provides the bare minimum of rights. State Constitutions cannot provide fewer or less than those enumerated therein.

 Psienesis wrote:

That is the source of political conflict within the US. Limited govt conservatives on the right who ascribe the most important to negative rights and believe that people are best off with the govt staying out of their way and not infringing on an individual's freedom

Except in matters of personal religion, women's health and reproductive rights, choice of sexual partners, access to legal rights and liberties provided by a marriage contract, integration, environmental protections to protect public health, maintenance of national parks and forests, equal protection under the law, equal representation and a host of other topics that regularly come up in the news.

It should also be noted that the US Constitution provides the bare minimum of rights. State Constitutions cannot provide fewer or less than those enumerated therein.

Don't confuse conservatives with Republicans, that Venn diagram doesn't overlap entirely. Most of the conservatives I know don't fit your description, of course most of the conservatives I know aren't Republicans either.

Not all conservatives are Republicans, but all Republicans are conservatives.

Some conservatives are Objectivists, but since 98% of those are still high school sophomores, I don't pay them much mind. They're not old enough to vote yet.

The rest seem to be neo-Libertarians which is actually scary, though whether it's because people actually think that would work or because some of them make mainstream Republicans look temperate in comparison is a coin-flip.

There's a few Conservative fiscal policies I could theoretically stand behind but, unfortunately, so many of them are bundled with overt elements that seem to want to make being poor a capital offense, I can't back most of them.

 Psienesis wrote:
Not all conservatives are Republicans, but all Republicans are conservatives.

I think most folks who consider themselves 'conservatives' would STRONGLY disagree with that statement.

 CptJake wrote:

 Psienesis wrote:
Not all conservatives are Republicans, but all Republicans are conservatives.

I think most folks who consider themselves 'conservatives' would STRONGLY disagree with that statement.

Ditto.

Shoot... Rep. King had me confused for years as I thought he was a Democrat.

 sebster wrote:

 Ouze wrote:
This is a legitimate question. I'm not trying to be snarky or intentionally obtuse; but if the reason we need to do something about people dying from gun violence is to protect life... isn't it a bit misplaced, in that gun violence in general and spree killings in specific are statistically very rare and incredibly rare, respectively?

Gun violence is not uncommon. Again, 10,000 is a big number. Spree killing is relatively rare, and so are gun accidents.

No, no its not. 10,000 people is a tiny number in a country with 350 million people and more than 1 gun for each of them.

If guns were really the boogyman people, like you, are making them out to be we'd have a much larger number of deaths. That combined with gun violence, and violence in general, trending downwards in what can only be described as a free fall makes this a non-issue.

So yes, gun violence is uncommon in the US. Maybe not relative to some other places, but that is not unexpected or cause for concern. And 10,000 is not even close to a big number, its an absurdly tiny number.

Wikipedia wrote:
Gun violence in the United States results in thousands of deaths and thousands more injuries annually.[1] According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, in 2013, firearms (excluding BB and pellet guns) were used in 84,258 nonfatal injuries (26.65 per 100,000 U.S. citizens) [2] and 11,208 deaths by homicide (3.5 per 100,000),[3] 21,175 by suicide with a firearm,[4] 505 deaths due to accidental discharge of a firearm,[4] and 281 deaths due to firearms-use with "undetermined intent"[5] for a total of 33,169 deaths related to firearms (excluding firearm deaths due to legal intervention). 1.3% of all deaths in the country were related to firearms.[1][6]

In 2010, according to the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime, 67% of all homicides in the U.S. were conducted using a firearm.[7] According to the FBI, in 2012, there were 8,855 total firearm-related homicides in the US, with 6,371 of those attributed to handguns.[8] 61% of all gun-related deaths in the U.S. are suicides.[9] In 2010, there were 19,392 firearm-related suicides, and 11,078 firearm-related homicides in the U.S.[10] In 2010, 358 murders were reported involving a rifle while 6,009 were reported involving a handgun; another 1,939 were reported with an unspecified type of firearm.[11]

In 2010, gun violence cost U.S. taxpayers approximately $516 million in direct hospital costs.[12]

Of course you may well consider 33,000 deaths a year to be trivial.

I'm sure it's less than the number of people killed by violent jihadists in the US and we are all over those guys.

 Kilkrazy wrote:

Wikipedia wrote:
Gun violence in the United States results in thousands of deaths and thousands more injuries annually.[1] According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, in 2013, firearms (excluding BB and pellet guns) were used in 84,258 nonfatal injuries (26.65 per 100,000 U.S. citizens) [2] and 11,208 deaths by homicide (3.5 per 100,000),[3] 21,175 by suicide with a firearm,[4] 505 deaths due to accidental discharge of a firearm,[4] and 281 deaths due to firearms-use with "undetermined intent"[5] for a total of 33,169 deaths related to firearms (excluding firearm deaths due to legal intervention). 1.3% of all deaths in the country were related to firearms.[1][6]

In 2010, according to the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime, 67% of all homicides in the U.S. were conducted using a firearm.[7] According to the FBI, in 2012, there were 8,855 total firearm-related homicides in the US, with 6,371 of those attributed to handguns.[8] 61% of all gun-related deaths in the U.S. are suicides.[9] In 2010, there were 19,392 firearm-related suicides, and 11,078 firearm-related homicides in the U.S.[10] In 2010, 358 murders were reported involving a rifle while 6,009 were reported involving a handgun; another 1,939 were reported with an unspecified type of firearm.[11]

In 2010, gun violence cost U.S. taxpayers approximately $516 million in direct hospital costs.[12]

Of course you may well consider 33,000 deaths a year to be trivial.

It is trivial. It's still a tiny fraction of 1% of our population. When over 99% of the population remains unaffected by gun violence it's not anywhere close to being a major problem.

2/3rds of those 33,000 deaths are suicides and if people choose to end their own life that's a choice they made. You can't equate suicide with violent crime and murder.

You think it's trivial. Other people don't. You can equate gun suicide with crime because people die unnecessarily.

Prestor Jon wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:

Wikipedia wrote:
Gun violence in the United States results in thousands of deaths and thousands more injuries annually.[1] According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, in 2013, firearms (excluding BB and pellet guns) were used in 84,258 nonfatal injuries (26.65 per 100,000 U.S. citizens) [2] and 11,208 deaths by homicide (3.5 per 100,000),[3] 21,175 by suicide with a firearm,[4] 505 deaths due to accidental discharge of a firearm,[4] and 281 deaths due to firearms-use with "undetermined intent"[5] for a total of 33,169 deaths related to firearms (excluding firearm deaths due to legal intervention). 1.3% of all deaths in the country were related to firearms.[1][6]

In 2010, according to the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime, 67% of all homicides in the U.S. were conducted using a firearm.[7] According to the FBI, in 2012, there were 8,855 total firearm-related homicides in the US, with 6,371 of those attributed to handguns.[8] 61% of all gun-related deaths in the U.S. are suicides.[9] In 2010, there were 19,392 firearm-related suicides, and 11,078 firearm-related homicides in the U.S.[10] In 2010, 358 murders were reported involving a rifle while 6,009 were reported involving a handgun; another 1,939 were reported with an unspecified type of firearm.[11]

In 2010, gun violence cost U.S. taxpayers approximately $516 million in direct hospital costs.[12]

Of course you may well consider 33,000 deaths a year to be trivial.

It is trivial. It's still a tiny fraction of 1% of our population. When over 99% of the population remains unaffected by gun violence it's not anywhere close to being a major problem.

2/3rds of those 33,000 deaths are suicides and if people choose to end their own life that's a choice they made. You can't equate suicide with violent crime and murder.

Can I tell my boss to stop worrying about those pesky veteran suicides then?

 Kilkrazy wrote:
You think it's trivial. Other people don't. You can equate gun suicide with crime because people die unnecessarily.

No. Suicides are people CHOOSING to kill themselves. Lumping them in with the violent crime is disingenuous at best.

I do love how people that choose to commit suicide this way are viewed so differently than those choosing to commit suicide over in that other thread where it's all "good for California."

 Kilkrazy wrote:
You think it's trivial. Other people don't. You can equate gun suicide with crime because people die unnecessarily.

Uh... no. Don't equate gun suicide(or suicide in general) to "a crime". That's a disservice to the problems leading up to the suicide.

Please explain to the relatives of suicides why people dying from one preventable cause is different to them dying from another preventable cause.

 d-usa wrote:


Can I tell my boss to stop worrying about those pesky veteran suicides then?

If you want to discount the legitimate mental health problems in the US (that have nothing to do with guns), then sure.

 cincydooley wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
You think it's trivial. Other people don't. You can equate gun suicide with crime because people die unnecessarily.

No. Suicides are people CHOOSING to kill themselves. Lumping them in with the violent crime is disingenuous at best.

I do love how people that choose to commit suicide this way are viewed so differently than those choosing to commit suicide over in that other thread where it's all "good for California."

Depends on mental illness, which is something that the law in California is specifically addressing.

But I guess "I'm depressed, nobody loves me, I'm a failure, war is hell, feth life" is the same as "I'm going to die in 3 months and would like not to be in pain".


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 cincydooley wrote:

 d-usa wrote:


Can I tell my boss to stop worrying about those pesky veteran suicides then?

If you want to discount the legitimate mental health problems in the US (that have nothing to do with guns), then sure.

I'm just addressing the "suicide is their choice" argument that was made and that we shouldn't could them.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Please explain to the relatives of suicides why people dying from one preventable cause is different to them dying from another preventable cause.

Proclivities to suicide can be treated.

How do you "treat" someone who wants to murder you? Banning all guns won't change that...

As to this OP, the answer is that those weapons needed to be safely secured.

 whembly wrote:
How do you "treat" someone who wants to murder you? Banning all guns won't change that...

If we could properly identify trouble cases, then maybe with heavy medication.

There really needs to be more effort done toward understanding the brain. I mean, we don't even dissect and analyse the brains of people who do these things. That'd be a pretty good start.

 d-usa wrote:


Depends on mental illness, which is something that the law in California is specifically addressing.

But I guess "I'm depressed, nobody loves me, I'm a failure, war is hell, feth life" is the same as "I'm going to die in 3 months and would like not to be in pain".

.

Should one be allowed to and not the other?

Obviously we should try and treat the mental illness if we can, but the ultimate choice should still lie with the individual.

Then again, I'm still a proponent of the Satirist Christopher Buckley's notion in Boomsday that we should offer Baby Boomers incentive to "voluntarily transition" themselves at 70.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
You think it's trivial. Other people don't. You can equate gun suicide with crime because people die unnecessarily.

Who has ownership over your life other than you, yourself? If your life is your own and you choose to end it why should the govt act to take that choice away from you? How exactly is the govt supposed to physically stop people from choosing to commit suicide? Do we all get a govt minder that follows us around constant ready to intercede at a moments notice and save us from ourselves? It's unfortunate for the loved ones of people who commit suicide but it's nobody else's fault other than the suicidal person himself/herself. That was a choice freely made. Stopping people from exercising their freedom of choice isn't a matter of gun control, it's literally people control and the govt doesn't have the ability or the right to do that.

 daedalus wrote:

 whembly wrote:
How do you "treat" someone who wants to murder you? Banning all guns won't change that...

If we could properly identify trouble cases, then maybe with heavy medication.

There really needs to be more effort done toward understanding the brain. I mean, we don't even dissect and analyse the brains of people who do these things. That'd be a pretty good start.

We can't Minority Report our way to disarmament.

Evil is not something that can be medicated or what have you...

:shrug:

But, in the context of this post, yes... much, MUCH more need to be done to identify phsycolgically issues in order to treat and segregate them from the public.

 whembly wrote:
How do you "treat" someone who wants to murder you?

Make it difficult for them.

 Smacks wrote:

 whembly wrote:
How do you "treat" someone who wants to murder you?

Make it difficult for them.

How?

Specificity is required.

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:
I take it you are familiar with the notion of inalienable rights?

Indeed. They're a conceit

Where do you think those 'inalienable rights' came from?

A bunch of people got together and said 'Hey, everyone should have these rights! All in favour?'

As I said, they're not written into the foundation of existence. They're a bunch of things that people agreed that other people should have. And so, regardless of what they are called, are subject to change when enough people decide that it is warranted.