Court rules for gun rights, strikes Chicago handgun ban

[One Brow]

You're not going to catch me arguing this on the basis of history or politics. This issue, to me, is one of principle. A person has the right to protect them self.

Having been mugged once (I still have the dent in my skull), and having heard a friend be shot outside my back door (in the arm, fortunately), I can say this much: having a gun would not have helped in either situation, and could have made them a lot worse. If we regulated guns better than we regulated cars (yearly licensing, including passing a couple of basic written and operational tests), I would have no problem with the licensed people owning guns.

 

[Gameface]

Having been mugged once (I still have the dent in my skull), and having heard a friend be shot outside my back door (in the arm, fortunately), I can say this much: having a gun would not have helped in either situation, and could have made them a lot worse. If we regulated guns better than we regulated cars (yearly licensing, including passing a couple of basic written and operational tests), I would have no problem with the licensed people owning guns.

So then, the right to defend your self would be conditional? Some people would posses the right while others would be deemed unworthy. That's not in accordance with what I see as an individual right. I don't think rights are bestowed upon us by our government.

I agree with you that guns don't provide a magical force field. I own several guns, but due to having a young son I don't keep any of them at the ready. They are completely worthless to me as a defensive tool. Even if I did have them somewhat at the ready I'm very aware that it wouldn't protect me from many threats.

 

[Gameface]

Actually, the noun in your example is "electorate", not "school". Yes, that could easily be interpreted as saying the purpose of having free books was to inform voters.

Well, you got me there. You're right.

 

[One Brow]

First, I want to say you sound like a responsible gun owner.I'm glad you don't need licensing and testing in order to understand the threats to your children.

So then, the right to defend your self would be conditional? Some people would posses the right while others would be deemed unworthy. That's not in accordance with what I see as an individual right. I don't think rights are bestowed upon us by our government.

Let me try this analogy:

Mobility is a right, having a particular tool to enable mobility (e.g., a car) is not necessarily a right.
Self-defense is a right, having a particular tool to enable self-defense (e.g., a handgun) is not necessarily a right.

I think that we probably even agree on that (if you don't, I suggest replacing "handgun" with "bazooka" and seeing if you perhaps agree then).

Everyone should have the right to prepare for self-defense in a manner that is safe for the community, as well as themselves. The fight is not over that right, but a particular implementaion of that right (handguns). I think we even agree handguns are more dangerous to bystanders than learning martial arts and less dangerous than bazookas. So, using rhetoric along the lines of 'denying the right to defend yourself' clouds the issue, rather than clarifying it.

 

[Loki]

Mobility is a right, having a particular tool to enable mobility (e.g., a car) is not necessarily a right.
Self-defense is a right, having a particular tool to enable self-defense (e.g., a handgun) is not necessarily a right.
<snip>
I think we even agree handguns are more dangerous to bystanders than learning martial arts and less dangerous than bazookas.

And also less dangerous than cars. Hey just trying to maintain consistency in your post Browser.

 

[One Brow]

Loki,

Whether care are more dangerous than handguns or not (it probably depends upon how you measure things), educated ownership makes them safer to use, don't you think?

 

[sirkickyass]

I noticed that, in order to make the modern version comport with his interpretation, Mr. Copperud added the wqord "since", to subordinate the first clause to the second. The original lacks such subordination.

Also, why would this right be the only one containing a justification, out of all the rights listed in the first 10? Stylistically, it does not fit.

Brow: there are actually multiple versions of the second Amendment as well. The version cited above is the one contained in the federal copy in the Bill of rights. A version that was punctuated slightly differently (in a way that I think was meaningful because it removes a couple commas changing the way that you think about the clauses) was the actual version that was sent to the states for their ratification. This is actually a process that wouldn't fly today but was accepted then because it was such a damn hassle to fix it.

Needless to say, I think this version was strategically chosen.

 

[Loki]

Loki,

Whether care are more dangerous than handguns or not (it probably depends upon how you measure things), educated ownership makes them safer to use, don't you think?

I absolutely agree with you there! You can never be too careful with guns and you can never be too careful with cars. If I almost get broadsided by a stupid teenager texting while driving one more time I may pull my beard out.

 

[Gameface]

Brow: there are actually multiple versions of the second Amendment as well. The version cited above is the one contained in the federal copy in the Bill of rights. A version that was punctuated slightly differently (in a way that I think was meaningful because it removes a couple commas changing the way that you think about the clauses) was the actual version that was sent to the states for their ratification. This is actually a process that wouldn't fly today but was accepted then because it was such a damn hassle to fix it.

Needless to say, I think this version was strategically chosen.

This is something I've never heard. Interesting.

But, were any of the colonies opposed to private gun ownership, that you know of?

 

[moevillini]

This is something I've never heard. Interesting.

But, were any of the colonies opposed to private gun ownership, that you know of?

The entire concept of "ownership" has changed a great deal over the past 400 - 500 years. I don't think that individual rights to ownership of personal property meant the same thing in the 1750's that it means today. Few people had tangible possessions beyond what they consumed and used. Ownership rights were understood more along the lines of what a person actually possessed, not what a person may or may not possess at some point in the future.

https://rationalrevolution.net/articles/capitalism_property.htm

Locke has argued that though someone can acquire a right to ownership of property through the use of their own labor, that right only extends so far as the individual does not acquire more than they can use and insofar as their labor is not destructive. In other words, Locke argues that his position that a person's labor grants them a right to ownership of property does not mean that someone has the right to accumulate more than they can use because all things are, in their natural state, a part of the common resources available to all people equally

 

[sirkickyass]

This is something I've never heard. Interesting.

The federal version in the paper bill of rights has the three commas cited above. Several state versions actually had slightly different punctuations for the second Amendment and many states addressed the Amendments out of order. This really screws up a lot of the textual and historical analysis a lot of people like to do on the meaning of the Bill of Rights.

For example, here's the first page of New Hampshire's announcement of their vote. What is now known is the second Amendment is addressed in "Article the Fourth." It has the text "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."

The Library of Congress actually cites that punctuation and capitalization as the correctly ratified version of the Amendment.

But, were any of the colonies opposed to private gun ownership, that you know of?

Hard to say because we can't tell if they were voting for the Amendment based upon an individual theory or a group-militia theory. At least not with a surface analysis. What is interesting though is that the idea that the second Amendment related to individual rights doesn't appear as a serious strain of thought for some thirty years after the passage of the Amendment. That's part of the reason I think the claim that it is "undoubtable" that the Amendment protects an individual right to bear arms is ridiculous on face.

 

[Hopper]

Back then "well-regulated militia" was just a code word for citizens in rebellion against the government. And nobuddy handed out weapons to them, they had to bring their own--which means, of course, that they had to individually own them to begin with.

 

[VINYLONE]

This is something I've never heard. Interesting.

But, were any of the colonies opposed to private gun ownership, that you know of?

Yeah, tell me about it. Im going to ask someone I know who happens to be a lawyer about it. Pretty damn interesting.

 

[Scat]

Thomas Jefferson's take on the subject is pretty straight forward. The citizens have a right to arm and protect themselves, even from their own government.

 

[Gameface]

Thomas Jefferson's take on the subject is pretty straight forward. The citizens have a right to arm and protect themselves, even from their own government.

Jefferson is my favorite Founding Father, by a good margin.

 

[Scat]

So in less than a week the city of Chicago reinstates stiff restrictions on guns.

https://www.suntimes.com/news/cityhall/2458402,new-chicago-gun-law-passed-070210.article

 

[Hopper]

Loki,

Whether care are more dangerous than handguns or not (it probably depends upon how you measure things)

I measure them kinda thangs the way good ole Isaac Newton done it: Force = Mass times Acceleration.

Ya gitcho self one big black Cadillac, cruisin down the road at about 90 mph, and ya gots bouta million times the force of a .44 magnum, I figure. Ya can blow up a turtle like an A-bomb can blow up Hiroshima.