TargetTalk

Constitutionalist wrote: The Second Amendment is primarily about keeping the Government honest, and really has very little to do with common criminals … .

The minority in the Heller and McDonald decisions would agree with you, and deny you your 2nd amendment right to have an effective weapon with which to exercise your right to self-defense (which they readily concede that you have). They base this on the preamble portion of the 2nd amendment:

“A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State …”

Of course, at the time, the ‘militia’ was every able-bodied man in the community – not such entities as the National Guard. And “well regulated” meant adequately equipped. It still does, in places like Switzerland and Israel. And, of course, the minority in the Heller and McDonald decisions say that the phrase, “security of a free State” only refers to threats from tyrants and from without, and that the 2nd amendment is merely a collective right that is no longer relevant.

However, they fail to consider the phrase, “security of a free State” in the context of Illinois state legislators calling for the National Guard to patrol the streets of Chicago. I would suggest that, “security of a free State” has everything to do with common criminals, as well as threats from tyrants and from without.

Regards,

Al B.

Ok, lets keep this civil

No, no, guys. Not trolling (trawling?). I really have been interested in a conversation about this. I'll say this much about conversation: Over the last year or so, since joining Team ShootingStars in the Dallas area, I FINALLY was able to understand the gun-rights position. This doesn't mean that I agree with all of it, but it certainly changed my critique of it. Nowadays I get weird looks from my liberal friends when I tell them that I'm a shooter and am not completely opposed to gun ownership, as they are. And I recognize that knee-jerk fear-driven reaction from them. I call that "growing up" and "acquiring a mature perspective." And what could be wrong with that?

Thanks to the last few posters; the conversation seems back on a more polite level.

Ricardo, I'm not baiting you but I'd really like to know the thought process behind the idea that limiting the number or types of guns in the hands of otherwise law abiding citizens is a sensible measure of gun control and will make things "safer". This seems to be a big plank in the gun control/anti-gun crowd, but to me makes no sense whats so ever.

If I have one gun I won't commit a crime, but if I have two, three or more it will somehow drive me into a crime spree? If I was going to commit a crime anyways such as murder, why would I be concerned about following a law regarding the type, size or number of firearms?

The vast majority of homicides fall into two categories, drug related and family related. The first group are already involved in a criminal enterprise, that has severe consequences both from a professional standpoint and a criminal justice stand point. Can't see why these people would be concerned with gun control laws, the gun is a business tool and a kin to the law suit in regular business. The second group is just as likely to stab you with a steak knife or beat you to death with a 2x4 as these are crimes of passion, so wether there is 1,2 or no guns won't have much of an effect.

ALB,

I've spent some time carefully considering your premise. For the life of me, I can't see what Police Powers have to do with the US Second Amendment. National Guard is rightly only used in times of State or National Emergencies. While the Militia of the 18th century was the Founding Fathers preference to a Standing Army, Posse Comitatus prevents either of these being used on law abiding citizens in all cases short of specific declared emergencies, and then many States have and are passing laws which limit confiscation of Arms. Use of the Military (Guard, Reserve, etc…) would surely drive Constitutional supporters over the edge, then there wouldn’t be much left to discuss anyway. Even the current administration doesn’t seem willing to participate is such brinksmanship.

Constitutionalist wrote:ALB,

I've spent some time carefully considering your premise. For the life of me, I can't see what Police Powers have to do with the US Second Amendment. National Guard is rightly only used in times of State or National Emergencies. While the Militia of the 18th century was the Founding Fathers preference to a Standing Army, Posse Comitatus prevents either of these being used on law abiding citizens in all cases short of specific declared emergencies, and then many States have and are passing laws which limit confiscation of Arms. Use of the Military (Guard, Reserve, etc…) would surely drive Constitutional supporters over the edge, then there wouldn’t be much left to discuss anyway. Even the current administration doesn’t seem willing to participate is such brinksmanship.

Don't know if this is veering too far off topic but a few questions -- doesn't the present configuration and training regimen of the FBI and parts of DHS really constitute a standing federal army not constrained by posse comitatus? If not, what's the difference? Haven't we crossed the brink long ago? Both the FBI and DHS are sufficiently well armed, trained and in numbers to do what the framers seem to have taken pains to avoid (all likely without being late for their lunch).

Constitutionalist wrote:ALB,

I've spent some time carefully considering your premise. For the life of me, I can't see what Police Powers have to do with the US Second Amendment. National Guard is rightly only used in times of State or National Emergencies. While the Militia of the 18th century was the Founding Fathers preference to a Standing Army, Posse Comitatus prevents either of these being used on law abiding citizens in all cases short of specific declared emergencies, and then many States have and are passing laws which limit confiscation of Arms. Use of the Military (Guard, Reserve, etc…) would surely drive Constitutional supporters over the edge, then there wouldn’t be much left to discuss anyway. Even the current administration doesn’t seem willing to participate is such brinksmanship.

Constitutionalist ,

Your point is well-taken. However, I was considering the phrase, “security of a free State” from a historical perspective. Back when the 2nd amendment was written, we didn’t have dedicated police forces for keeping order. Back then, violent crime was dealt with by “hue and cry.” This was also the case in England prior to the 20th century (please see my reference to Professor Malcolm’s book in one of my previous posts). And the word ‘militia’ originally referred to all able-bodied members of the community – it didn’t just have a strictly military meaning.

Justice Alito, writing in the majority opinion in the McDonald case, observed that Illinois state legislators had been calling for the National Guard to patrol the streets of Chicago. The fact is, violent crime is a serious issue that affects the “security of a free state.” Just consider the current situation in Mexico, for example. By disarming the populace, you prevent people from defending themselves, and you prevent bystanders from intervening in violent crimes. This limits the ability of untrained people to exercise bad judgment. However, when you relegate security solely to professional police forces, you limit response to violent crime to after-the-fact action, which as we see in Chicago and Mexico, for example, isn’t all that effective just by itself.

Regards,

Al B.

Richard H wrote: If I have one gun I won't commit a crime, but if I have two, three or more it will somehow drive me into a crime spree?

Richard,

Of course, you’re correct. However, having multiple guns means that you don’t have to reload as often, which gives you a significant tactical advantage should you go on a shooting spree. In other words, if you happen to be a homicidal maniac, having multiple weapons makes you a more dangerous homicidal maniac.

If you are armed with a machine pistol and someone attacks you, would you really choose not to defend yourself because you might harm innocent bystanders? Fortunately, homicidal maniacs are pretty rare; unfortunately, poor judgment, in choice of defensive weapons, for example, is far more common.

Justice Stevens, in his dissent in the McDonald case, observed that the right to self-defense is already recognized in all 50 states. However, he made a distinction between the right to self-defense and the right to own firearms in order to exercise that right to self-defense. He believes that guns are dangerous, and that if we ban them, we limit the danger from homicidal maniacs and poor judgment. He is willing to use the preamble portion of the 2nd amendment in order to interpret it away for this purpose.

Justice Breyer, in his dissent in the McDonald case, noted that if the 2nd amendment is interpreted as a fundamental individual right, then this opens up a can of worms, where federal judges will now be required to determine what limits that are placed on the ownership of firearms are reasonable and constitutional, something that is currently done by state judges. In other words, he is advocating states’ rights for once in his career. He has a point, although making life easier for federal judges isn’t really his job. Like Justice Stevens, Justice Breyer is willing to interpret away the 2nd amendment in order to achieve his objective.

Unfortunately, all of our justices do this in the various cases that they review. That’s why we have nine of them.

The issue of gun rights is not so simple, and people differ in their beliefs about how to maximize safety and security. We can expect to see a lot more litigation on the subject.

Regards,

Al B.

alb wrote:

Constitutionalist wrote: The Second Amendment is primarily about keeping the Government honest, and really has very little to do with common criminals … .

The minority in the Heller and McDonald decisions would agree with you, and deny you your 2nd amendment right to have an effective weapon with which to exercise your right to self-defense (which they readily concede that you have). They base this on the preamble portion of the 2nd amendment:

“A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State …”

Of course, at the time, the ‘militia’ was every able-bodied man in the community – not such entities as the National Guard. And “well regulated” meant adequately equipped. It still does, in places like Switzerland and Israel. And, of course, the minority in the Heller and McDonald decisions say that the phrase, “security of a free State” only refers to threats from tyrants and from without, and that the 2nd amendment is merely a collective right that is no longer relevant.

However, they fail to consider the phrase, “security of a free State” in the context of Illinois state legislators calling for the National Guard to patrol the streets of Chicago. I would suggest that, “security of a free State” has everything to do with common criminals, as well as threats from tyrants and from without.

Regards,

Al B.

I would argue that the possession of arms was intended both as security against the state, as well as security against individual threats (common criminals). We need to think back to the "liberalism" (in the original and noble sense) of the framers. The State was created by men for the mutual protection of their safety, property, and rights; the only powers that the state had were those delegated to it by individuals (and an individual cannot delegate more powers than he alone possesses); and the state had no right to interfere in mans' activities except to protect the rights of others (Locke, etc., and a far cry from what currently passes as "liberalism"). The individual and his rights were inviolate, even in the face of the state, which implies that self preservation, and preservation of rights, were supreme. Whether the protection of the individual and his rights was protection from the state or protection from his neighbor wasn't really the issue. Both are threats which a man has the right to protect himself from.

As far as posse comitatus is concerned (as long as we're off-topic we might as well go for broke), like many other governmental powers it is restricted only to the extent that the government is willing to accept the restrictions, and to the extent that the government is willing to be honest in interpreting the law and applying it.

Per the US Code:
Whenever the President considers that unlawful obstructions, combinations, or assemblages, or rebellion against the authority of the United States, make it impracticable to enforce the laws of the United States in any State or Territory by the ordinary course of judicial proceedings, he may call into Federal service such of the militia of any State, and use such of the armed forces, as he considers necessary to enforce those laws or to suppress the rebellion.

This means that the only criteria for the president to call out the Army or Marines is that he "considers" it necessary.

alb wrote:
Of course, you’re correct. However, having multiple guns means that you don’t have to reload as often, which gives you a significant tactical advantage should you go on a shooting spree. In other words, if you happen to be a homicidal maniac, having multiple weapons makes you a more dangerous homicidal maniac.

If you are armed with a machine pistol and someone attacks you, would you really choose not to defend yourself because you might harm innocent bystanders? Fortunately, homicidal maniacs are pretty rare; unfortunately, poor judgment, in choice of defensive weapons, for example, is far more common.

Are people like you for real?

Let me guess......you thought the crime control act of 94 was a good idea. Right?

People who think like you and Ricardo are worse than anti-gunners.

Jose, you are wrong.

The people you denigrate are posting thoughtful comments. Some of the comments to which you object are clearly attempts to 'out-think' or think around those making gun ownership ever more difficult.

I've learned a lot from this thread. Others might too, rather than proudly admitting to hardly ever having changed their mind. Attempting to justify one's ownership of a gun by repeating that it is one's right simply isn't good enough these days. What is meant by a 'right' is highly debatable. If we are to continue to enjoy gun ownership, we need ever more sophisticated arguments, backed up by fact, to counter the arguments and distortions of the facts used by the anti-gun brigade. Some posters may be acting as devil's advocate, not as trolls, to illustrate the weakness of emotive and outdated arguments.

Personal gun ownership is under threat internationally. In some countries it is practically impossible, in others it is dying by a thousand cuts. Out-flanking manoeuvres by various agencies are adding to our problems: it is now extremely difficult to find international carriers for pistols, for example. How clever: add to our difficulties without the government being seen to have done anything.

I am outside USA and don't understand many of the points made about your constitution, etc.. In any case, interesting though they may be within USA, they are irrelevant outside. I would, however, be worried that politically-driven re-interpretation of such an old document, or even re-drafting of sections of it could invalidate the 'it's my right' argument. Is there no mechanism to change the constitution to accommodate changes and developments in the world, or is it cast in stone and to be as immutable as, say, the Old Testament? After all, look how religious interpretation has shifted over the millennia. Do I still have a 'right', or even religious duty to stone adulterers?

I'm concerned that legislators in other countries look at what's happening in USA and see that the major justification for gun ownership, voiced by the pro-gun population, is for self-defence against armed aggressors. This is frightening, because it seems like an arms race. The arms are seen as the problem, rather than the criminals using them. It's then a small step to sell the banning of gun ownership to the electorate. For a state to change the law to allow armed self-defence would be to admit to the electorate that the government has failed to maintain law and order, so, realistically, it isn't going to happen. Therefore, outside USA, the self-defence argument is weak, if not outright dangerous and counter-productive.

I'm still waiting for good arguments supporting gun ownership which we can use (outside USA) when our government starts to squeeze harder. The squeeze will come sometime...

Guest (hiding again),

I am neither proud nor ashamed of having changed my mind only once on a "core" issue as a result of conversation with others. My post was intended to challenge others to examine their experiences and to consider how likely it is that they will change the mind of someone else by a post.

I will not insult Alb by pretending that he actually believes what he wrote. That would show a lack of knowledge of the shooting sports on his part that begs credulity.

Guest (hiding again) wrote:
I'm still waiting for good arguments supporting gun ownership which we can use (outside USA) when our government starts to squeeze harder. The squeeze will come sometime...

Looking for a good reason, well target shooting will never be a GOOD reason, becasue you can always find something else to do to occupy your free time.

That leaves hunting, well you shouldn't kill animals either.

So I guess we're left with defending yourself and saving your life or someone elses, nah thats not a good reason either

Guest (hiding again) wrote: Some posters may be acting as devil's advocate, not as trolls, to illustrate the weakness of emotive and outdated arguments.

Can we infer that you think self-defense is an "emotive and outdated argument"? Do you live in a society without a threat of violence? Can you rely on your government to protect you and your property? Can you rest easy knowing that your government will always respect your rights as an individual? There were millions of Chinese, Russians, Cubans, Germans, Rawandans, etc. who probably thought they could trust their governments as well. Is your self-respect and sense of self-determination so crippled that you are willing to abdicate your most fundamental reponsibility to yourself - your self-preservation?

Guest (hiding again) wrote: I'm concerned that legislators in other countries look at what's happening in USA and see that the major justification for gun ownership, voiced by the pro-gun population, is for self-defence against armed aggressors. This is frightening, because it seems like an arms race. The arms are seen as the problem, rather than the criminals using them.

Instead of abandoning valid arguments because your politicians are too foolish to see them, perhaps you should instead try to correct their mistakes.

As Richard H pointed out, appealing to target shooting and hunting aren't long-term solutions. Target shooting is a hobby for (generally) middle- to upper-middle class white males, while hunting is "cruel". Your not going to secure your ownership privilege (I've avoided the word "right" out of respect for your opinions) by appealing to those reasons.

Guest (hiding again) wrote: It's then a small step to sell the banning of gun ownership to the electorate. For a state to change the law to allow armed self-defence would be to admit to the electorate that the government has failed to maintain law and order, so, realistically, it isn't going to happen. Therefore, outside USA, the self-defence argument is weak, if not outright dangerous and counter-productive.

Governments have, and generally will, fail to maintain law and order. Not mentioning that because you're afraid they won't like it is not a winning strategy. If you don't stand up and advance sound arguments, even if they aren't politically correct, you're not going to win. You're essentially abandoniong a very good argument because your opponents don't like it. That's not the way to win an argument. Instead you should perhaps show your opponents that you are right and they are wrong.

If you don't think that protecting yourself, your family, your property, and your community is a good enough reason to own a gun, then we have a truly unfathomable gulf between our outlooks.

Guest,

The problem with looking for niches that may be politically acceptable as valid reasons for owning a gun, is that as soon as an incident occurs, the politicians will be more than happy to close that valid reason, in the interest of "community safety" and "think of the children", not to mention potential votes for re-election. Niche = small amount of potential elector backlash.

The fact that pistol shooting is an Olympic sport didn't help jack diddly in England.

Thanks Tom, interesting, All the points you make probably seem fair enough in America, but possibly not so good in an environment different from USA. In fact, I agree with a lot of what you say. However, I'm trying to explore how our politicians and the judiciary might see it, far away from USA.

I'm puzzled by the self-defence argument. I honestly don't know where I stand. I don't feel any safer here with about eight pistols and four rifles in the cupboard. But then I didn't feel unsafe without them. There just isn't a widespread perceived need for armed self-defence where I live. Sure there's violent crime, including some gun crime, but not too much and we don't walk around in fear of being shot. The police are not routinely armed. Have we avoided an arms race, to some extent? A couple of police were shot and wounded recently in a residential neighbourhood. The reaction of the locals was not to clamour to be allowed to arm themselves to the teeth. Instead, it was reported that one said that it was terrible and that it was getting like America. That, unfortunately, is the reality: America is seen as dangerous and lawless, with shootings happening all the time. Given that sort of public opinion, our politicians intent on banning guns might win votes.

The' outdated arguments' which I mentioned are those based on a document written in a very different time and environment to the one which prevails in USA today. Perhaps the arguments are not outdated, but I would still suggest that basing individual behaviour on a literal interpretation of your constitution may be akin to religious fundamentalism. Other posters have suggested that parts of the constitution are being interpreted nowadays in ways they mighn not have been intended all those years ago. Whether right or wrong, that's how it appears to me, outside USA, and in considerable ignorance of the constitution. I suppose I'm playing devil's advocate here and acknowledge that I may be mistaken.

I honestly don't know how we have managed to enjoy our fairly liberal gun laws here. I think it's because there is a general realization that it's the person, not the gun that's important, and the person is carefully vetted when applying for a licence. Also, hunting seems acceptable to society. Having said that, naturally the criminals slip through the net, and a large proportion of the (relatively few) shootings that do occur are carried out by licence-holders. I think we are highly privileged to be allowed our guns, whilst it lasts. We don't consider it a right.

Guest (still hiding) wrote:The' outdated arguments' which I mentioned are those based on a document written in a very different time and environment to the one which prevails in USA today. Perhaps the arguments are not outdated, but I would still suggest that basing individual behaviour on a literal interpretation of your constitution may be akin to religious fundamentalism. Other posters have suggested that parts of the constitution are being interpreted nowadays in ways they mighn not have been intended all those years ago. Whether right or wrong, that's how it appears to me, outside USA, and in considerable ignorance of the constitution. I suppose I'm playing devil's advocate here and acknowledge that I may be mistaken.

Those who fail to study history are doomed to repeat it. Our Declaration of Independence and our Constitution, based on the ideas of the people who wrote them, are timeless. Our ancestors freed themselves of an oppressive government by force of arms and took great pains to avoid falling into the same trap going forward. Those are not in any way antiquated ideas and changing them under the guise of interpretation is far more dangerous and destructive than simply adhering to their true original intent.

The founders believed that the right of self defense, including defending oneself from a tyranical government, was not a right "granted" by a government but a natural right inherent in all people. It is impossible, without sophistry, to say that modern times somehow render such a bedrock principle obsolete. At present firearms are an integral part of preserving that right. The only change to be "interpreted" into the contours of that right might be to ensure that citizens keep and bear rayguns once firearms are long ago obsolete.

Freedom can be dangerous as others are free to do evil. The alternative amounts to the slow withering of what we prize most until we end up back where we started, or worse.

Jose Rossy wrote: Are people like you for real?

Let me guess......you thought the crime control act of 94 was a good idea. Right?

People who think like you and Ricardo are worse than anti-gunners.

Of course I’m for real. But, perhaps you misunderstand where I’m coming from. I’m firmly opposed to gun control. The book I referenced by Joyce Lee Malcolm was about the total failure of gun control in Great Britain and the resulting astronomical increase in the rate of violent crime. Since Obama was elected, there has been a tremendous surge in the purchase of guns and ammunition in this country, resulting in a corresponding drop in the murder rate of 7.5 percent nationally. There was a similar surge in gun buying and a corresponding drop in the murder rate nationally in the wake of the Columbine shootings, when Domestic Policy Advisor Elena Kagan started calling for tighter gun controls.

Gun ownership is at an all-time high in the U.S., and the violent crime rate in this country is at a 35 year low (so are accidental firearms deaths) – it’s not a coincidence.

That doesn’t mean, however, that gun control advocates don’t have legitimate concerns. Have you ever seen one of these?

http://www.keltecpistols.com/item/56520 ... 23_9_.aspx

I have. One day someone came to the range where I used to shoot with one of these. He is licensed to carry concealed firearms, so he carries one of these with a sling under his coat … just in case he ever gets mugged. God help anyone who happens to be down-range of his attacker! While I support his right to carry, I just wish he had a little common sense. In the very unlikely event that he ever does kill an innocent bystander as a result of his use of extreme overkill, I wonder if he’ll feel any remorse?

I have no problem with restricting the right of people to carry that kind of weapon in public, any more than I have a problem with speed limit laws. As I wrote in a previous post, we live in a society – your rights stop where my rights start, and vice versa. You have a right to shoot an armed attacker in self-defense; you don’t have the right to shoot innocent bystanders who just happen to be nearby.

I’m a safety officer at the range where I currently shoot. You might think that we range officers wouldn’t have to constantly remind people to keep their muzzles pointed down-range, or explain to people what ‘down-range’ means. Unfortunately, a lot of the people who come to our range aren’t experienced shooters, so we range officers are frequently busy.

Unfortunately, accidents do happen, and criminals do use guns. As Justice Breyer pointed out in his dissent in the McDonald case, we have 60,000 firearms related deaths per year in the U.S. (his statistics are high by a factor of 2). He neglected to mention the 1.5 to 3 million defensive gun uses every year in the U.S., and the untold number of lives saved as a result. People generally only see the harm caused with guns – they rarely see the benefits, thanks to an anti-gun bias in our news media. So, when the gun-control crowd does a cost-benefit analysis of gun ownership, they count only the costs.

Richard asked what rationale people could have for restricting the type or number of guns someone could own, or the magazine size, or how frequently someone could buy them. So I explained it to him. I don’t agree with it, but unfortunately, 4 of the 9 justices on our Supreme Court do. And we’re about to replace an old one with a much younger one.

Regards,

Al B.

Guest (hiding again) wrote:Is there no mechanism to change the constitution to accommodate changes and developments in the world, or is it cast in stone and to be as immutable as, say, the Old Testament?

Yes, there is. It’s extremely difficult, as it should be. We in the U.S. live in a representative republic, governed by written laws. This is a good thing. In a true democracy, you forever have three wolves and a sheep voting on what to eat for dinner.

Guest (hiding again) wrote:I'm concerned that legislators in other countries look at what's happening in USA and see that the major justification for gun ownership, voiced by the pro-gun population, is for self-defence against armed aggressors. This is frightening, because it seems like an arms race. The arms are seen as the problem, rather than the criminals using them. It's then a small step to sell the banning of gun ownership to the electorate. For a state to change the law to allow armed self-defence would be to admit to the electorate that the government has failed to maintain law and order, so, realistically, it isn't going to happen.

Actually, in the U.S. over the last 20 years, more and more states have been adopting non-discretionary concealed-carry laws, and the violent crime rate has been dropping lower and lower. We now have 38 states out of 50 with ‘shall-issue’ concealed carry laws, and 10 more states with ‘may-issue’ laws.

Guest (hiding again) wrote:I'm still waiting for good arguments supporting gun ownership which we can use (outside USA) when our government starts to squeeze harder. The squeeze will come sometime...

Try reading this book:

http://www.amazon.com/More-Guns-Less-Cr ... 169&sr=8-1

It’s by far the best and most comprehensive treatment I’ve seen on the subject.

Regards,

Al B.

alb wrote:Have you ever seen one of these?

http://www.keltecpistols.com/item/56520 ... 23_9_.aspx

I have. One day someone came to the range where I used to shoot with one of these. He is licensed to carry concealed firearms, so he carries one of these with a sling under his coat … just in case he ever gets mugged. God help anyone who happens to be down-range of his attacker! While I support his right to carry, I just wish he had a little common sense. In the very unlikely event that he ever does kill an innocent bystander as a result of his use of extreme overkill, I wonder if he’ll feel any remorse?

You seek prior restraint on behavior just because it might injure someone.

If your friend, or anyone else, shoots through an attacker and injures or kill a bystander, there are plenty of laws to punish that injurious conduct. Your prior restraint is unnecessary.

I suppor the weapon carrying laws of Vermont and Alaska. Please don't insult our intelligence by trying to tell us that what works in sparsely populated rural states will not work elsewhere. Human nature is human nature. People who will commit armed crime don't GAS about laws prohibiting what they do.

Prior restraint laws affect only those who respect the rights of others anyway. They do nothing to prevent crime by those who are anti social.