|
Nominations and Campaigning for the 2024 RationalWiki Moderator Election are now open |
Talk:Gun control
|
This Law related article has been awarded BRONZE status for quality. It's getting there, but could be better with improvement. See RationalWiki:Article rating for more information. |
| ||
|
| ||||
Rebuttal of the Guns only belong to a militia, not the average citizen Argument.[edit]
Being a direct descendant of the English colonies American law is based off of the English model. Our earliest documents from the Mayflower compact to the Constitution itself share a lineage with the Magna Carta. Even the American Bill of Rights being modeled after the English Bill of Rights.
The individual right, unconnected to milita service, pre-exists the United States and the Constitution. This right is firmly based in English law. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_of_Rights_1689 In 1689 The British Bill of Rights gave all protestants the right to keep and bear arms. Bill of Rights 1689 The Bill of Rights, also known as the English Bill of Rights, is an Act of the Parliament of England that sets out certain basic civil rights and clarifies who would be next to inherit the Crown. It received the Royal Assent on 16 December 1689 and is a restatement in statuto...
Bill of Rights 1689 The Bill of Rights, also known as the English Bill of Rights, is an Act of the Parliament of England that sets out certain basic civil rights and clarifies who would be next to inherit the Crown. It received the Royal Assent on 16 December 1689 and is a restatement in statuto...
https://www.americanbar.org/content/dam/aba/publishing/preview/publiced_preview_briefs_pdfs_07_08_07_290_RespondentAmCuCATOInstJMalcolm.pdf "The English right was a right of individuals, not conditioned on militia service...The English right to arms emerged in 1689, and in the century thereafter courts, Blackstone, and other authorities recognized it. They recognized a personal, individual right." - CATO Brief on DC v Heller Prior to the debates on the US Constitution or its ratification multiple states built the individual right to keep and bear arms, unconnected to militia service, in their own state constitutions.
https://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/vt01.asp "That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the State" - chapter 1, Section XV, Constitution of Vermont - July 8, 1777.
\
"That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the state" - A DECLARATION OF THE RIGHTS OF THE INHABITANTS OF THE COMMONWEALTH OR STATE OF PENNSYLVANIA, Section XIII, Constitution of Pennsylvania - September 28, 1776. https://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/pa08.asp
Later the debates that would literally become the American Bill of Rights also include the right of the people to keep and bear arms. "And that the said Constitution never be constructed to authorize Congress to infringe on the just liberty of the press, or the rights of the conscience; or prevent of people of the United States, who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms; or to raise standing armies, unless when necessary for the defense of the United States, or of some one or more of them; or to prevent the people from petitioning, in a peaceful and orderly manner, the federal legislature for a redress of grievances; or to subject the people to unreasonable searches and seizures of their persons, papers, or possessions." - Debates and proceedings in the Convention of the commonwealth of Massachusetts, 1788. Page 86-87. https://archive.org/details/debatesandproce00peirgoog Internet Archive Debates and proceedings in the Convention of the commonwealth of M... Book digitized by Google from the library of Harvard University and uploaded to the Internet Archive by user tpb.
Internet Archive Debates and proceedings in the Convention of the commonwealth of M... Book digitized by Google from the library of Harvard University and uploaded to the Internet Archive by user tpb.
The American Bill of Rights itself was a compromise between the federalist and anti-federalist created for the express purpose of protecting individual rights. In Madison's own words:
“I think we should obtain the confidence of our fellow citizens, in proportion as we fortify the rights of the people against the encroachments of the government,” Madison said in his address to Congress in June 1789. https://constitutioncenter.org/blog/on-this-day-james-madison-introduces-the-bill-of-rights National Constitution Center – constitutioncenter.org On this day: James Madison introduces the Bill of Rights On June 8, 1789, James Madison addressed the House of Representatives and introduced a proposed Bill of Rights to the Constitution. More than three months later, Congress would finally agree on a final list to present to the states.
National Constitution Center – constitutioncenter.org On this day: James Madison introduces the Bill of Rights On June 8, 1789, James Madison addressed the House of Representatives and introduced a proposed Bill of Rights to the Constitution. More than three months later, Congress would finally agree on a final list to present to the states.
Madison's first draft of the second Amendment is even more clear.
"The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; a well armed and well regulated militia being the best security of a free country; but no person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person." https://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llac&fileName=001/llac001.db&recNum=227
Ironically it was changed because the founders feared someone would try to misconstrue a clause to deny the right of the people.
Mr. Gerry -- This declaration of rights, I take it, is intended to secure the people against the maladministration of the Government; if we could suppose that, in all cases, the rights of the people would be attended to, the occasion for guards of this kind would be removed.
It really come down to the “shall not be infringed”? There’s already a huge disparity in the words constituting the 2nd Amendment versus how it is applied in practice (especially depending on the state you live in).
How many restrictions and qualifications can you place on a right until it is no longer truly a right?
According to the US Supreme Court it is unconstitutional to :
-Require a precondition on the exercising of a right. (Guinn v US 1915, Lane v Wilson 1939)
-Require a license (government permission) to exercise a right. (Murdock v PA 1943, Lowell v City of Griffin 1939, Freedman v MD 1965, Near v MN 1931, Miranda v AZ 1966)
-Delay the exercising of a right. (Org. for a Better Austin v Keefe 1971)
-Charge a fee for the exercising of a right. (Harper v Virginia Board of Elections 1966)
-Register (record in a government database) the exercising of a right. (Thomas v Collins 1945, Lamont v Postmaster General 1965, Haynes v US 1968) . . . and yet we see all these applied to gun ownership.
Here is the thing, it really comes down to the “shall not be infringed”, NO OTHER RIGHT IS EXPENSED IN SUCH ABSOLUTE TERMS. It helps to understand if you consider that gun control isn’t really about controlling guns--it’s about controlling people. Licenses are just a way to control people and the actions they make. Unfortunately, licenses/registration assumes that every gun owner is a potential criminal and treats them accordingly. That’s really at cross purposes to what a civil liberty is supposed to be about.
I do belive the Court's ruling in Nunn v. Georgia in 1846 is close enough for the intent of the founding fathers.
Nor is the right involved in this discussion less comprehensive or valuable: "The right of the people to bear arms shall not be infringed." The right of the whole people, old and young, men, women and boys, and not militia only, to keep and bear arms of every description, not such merely as are used by the militia, shall not be infringed, curtailed, or broken in upon, in the smallest degree; and all this for the important end to be attained: the rearing up and qualifying a well-regulated militia, so vitally necessary to the security of a free State. Our opinion is, that any law, State or Federal, is repugnant to the Constitution, and void, which contravenes this right, originally belonging to our forefathers, trampled under foot by Charles I. and his two wicked sons and successors, reestablished by the revolution of 1688, conveyed to this land of liberty by the colonists, and finally incorporated conspicuously in our own Magna Charta!
Weapons secure all of our rights. Taken from our Declaration of Independence "Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.” how we do that, is with our arms.
Anything an average soldier has access to the citizens are supposed to. That's what the militia mentioned in the 2nd is about.
"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." "A well regulated Militia" "well-regulated" referring to the property of something being in proper working order. Something that was well-regulated was calibrated correctly, functioning as expected."Militia" referring to all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and under 45 years of age who are citizens of the United States who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia (the unorganized militia) and armed to adequately and appropriately carryout that duty. So the 'armed to the standard soldier' this would by default include things like grenades.
"the right of the people to keep and bear Arms" creates an individual constitutional right for citizens of the United States. The United States Constitution restricts legislative bodies from prohibiting firearm possession, or at the very least, the Amendment renders prohibitory and restrictive regulation presumptively unconstitutional.
Removing the access for people who shouldn't have firearms is constitutional and quite intelligent. Banning access from law abiding citizens, absolutely not. https://www.constitution.org/cons/wellregu.htm Meaning of the phrase https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/10/246 LII / Legal Information Institute 10 U.S. Code § 246 - Militia: composition and classes
And I feel that I should add... No, the removal of rights under certain circumstances (felons, mentally unstable ect.) is a seperate debate not exclusive to guns. It is not 'gun control'. Meaning of the phrase LII / Legal Information Institute 10 U.S. Code § 246 - Militia: composition and classes — Unsigned, by: 2600:1702:4651:29d0:380c:1fbd:fbba:6470 / talk / contribs
The Pro v. Con section[edit]
That is truly an interesting example of the progun and antigun arguments.
The greatest orator, save one, of antiquity, has left it on record that he always studied his adversary's case with as great, if not with still greater, intensity than even his own. What Cicero practised as the means of forensic success, requires to be imitated by all who study any subject in order to arrive at the truth. He who knows only his own side of the case, knows little of that. His reasons may be good, and no one may have been able to refute them. But if he is equally unable to refute the reasons on the opposite side; if he does not so much as know what they are, he has no ground for preferring either opinion. The rational position for him would be suspension of judgment, and unless he contents himself with that, he is either led by authority, or adopts, like the generality of the world, the side to which he feels most inclination. Nor is it enough that he should hear the arguments of adversaries from his own teachers, presented as they state them, and accompanied by what they offer as refutations. That is not the way to do justice to the arguments, or bring them into real contact with his own mind. He must be able to hear them from persons who actually believe them; who defend them in earnest, and do their very utmost for them. He must know them in their most plausible and persuasive form; he must feel the whole force of the difficulty which the true view of the subject has to encounter and dispose of; else he will never really possess himself of the portion of truth which meets and removes that difficulty. - John Stewart Mill — Unsigned, by: 134.223.116.151 / talk / contribs
Assumption of Rightwingedness[edit]
The section on common arguments regarding gun control seems to be written from the perspective of someone who assumes that, if you support "guns" or the rights of people to own them, you must lean right politically. Specifically the very first rebuttal which states, "While unrelated to the main argument, given their right-wing political leanings, gun supporters are also likely to support military spending." Whether or not you support this right has nothing to do with being a leftist or right-wing, and this section takes a very biased stance on the matter, which I feel does not do this page any favors, and makes it seem more like a bizarro world infogalatic article.
Furthermore, "This is further exacerbated by racial profiling, as black Americans with guns are far more likely to get shot.", is not an argument against gun rights, rather it is an argument against racist police. The next part of this paragraph makes yet another assumption about what someone who is irrational enough to shoot someone over a shove is likely to do in the same situation without a gun. At the risk of making yet more assumptions, I find it highly more likely that such a person would be likely to escalate a conflict even absent of the availability of weaponry.
Regarding nuclear weapons and chemical weapons like mustard gas, I find this less compelling as a comparison to small arms like rifles, pistols, etc, as this is also a moral question on whether anyone should have access to such destructive devices. Unfortunately, despite the claim, both sides of the political spectrum are fiercely divided on nuclear weapons, especially if governments should hold on to large stockpiles of them, but that is beyond the scope of this silly talk topic.
Basically I think that this page should have a more "rational", or at the very least less one-sided rewrite that takes into account the fact that leftists can also be pro gun. More intelligent and concise people than me have already taken exception with the other issues of this article so I will not repeat them. — Unsigned, by: Littleman / talk / contribs
- Disagree on the racial profiling part. "Exacerbate" is a key word, and the combination of gun ownership and being black do contribute to being more likely to be shot. Gun ownership in general does increase your chance to be shot. It's not an assumption, it's borne out in police statistics where most police shootings involve an armed person or at least a gun. --It's-a me,
LeftyGreenMario! 22:57, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
Another US school massacre[edit]
How many more shootings will there be before something gets done?
Why aren't the pro-lifers pressing for action? Arming the teachers (ad the children) will only lead to more blood. Anna Livia (talk) 22:54, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
- The soi-disant “pro-life” mob are only pro-birth, after which they undergo a total shortage of spare fucks. Unless Junior subsequently joins the armed forces, obv. Mr Larrington (talk) 18:16, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
Rowan Atkinson[edit]
Will mention [1] ('lodge' in this case is a reference to the Masons). Anna Livia (talk) 17:44, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
No citations for gun crowd "arguments"[edit]
If you're gonna provide arguments from gun nuts without actually providing citations, you run the risk of being accused of peddling strawmen. Carthage (talk) 23:12, 29 November 2023 (UTC)