When does the right to bear arms end?

[neophyte]

wondering will this discussion continue;

In contrast, Article I, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution states:

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress[67]


The framers thought the personal right to bear arms to be a paramount right by which other rights could be protected. Therefore, writing after the ratification of the Constitution, but before the election of the first Congress, James Monroe included "the right to keep and bear arms" in a list of basic "human rights" which he proposed to be added to the Constitution.

Patrick Henry, also in the Virginia convention, eloquently argued for the dual rights to arms and resistance to oppression: "Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are ruined." Thus, they agreed that an armed populace was the ultimate check on tyranny.

these excerpts are a cut n paste;

rivalarrival: Sir, with your argument; doesn't that defeat the 2nd Amendment?

quote:
And what of the people who want their elected officials to make deals with lobbyists and foreign nationals? I'd hope that my congressman would be open to deals with other legislators, the NRA or several other lobbyists, or companies - foreign or domestic - investing in my region. I'd hope he would agree to give ground in certain areas that are unimportant to me, in order to garner support on issues I consider paramount. This isn't corruption. This is a good representative, working for his constituents.

then you follow up with:

My main fear is that by stating "we must have guns to defend ourselves from our government", we paint ourselves in the eyes of the public not as responsible, law-abiding gun owners, but as paranoid, delusional, dangerous lunatics. I fear that our own efforts occasionally justify the short-sighted anti-gun agenda.

Reading; your thoughts, you are suggesting ''compromising'' the Constitution.

[rivalarrival]

Originally Posted by neophyte

wondering will this discussion continue;

In contrast, Article I, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution states:

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress[67]


The framers thought the personal right to bear arms to be a paramount right by which other rights could be protected. Therefore, writing after the ratification of the Constitution, but before the election of the first Congress, James Monroe included "the right to keep and bear arms" in a list of basic "human rights" which he proposed to be added to the Constitution.

Patrick Henry, also in the Virginia convention, eloquently argued for the dual rights to arms and resistance to oppression: "Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are ruined." Thus, they agreed that an armed populace was the ultimate check on tyranny.


these excerpts are a cut n paste;

rivalarrival: Sir, with your argument; doesn't that defeat the 2nd Amendment?

No. Of course not. NOTHING I have said is in any way contradictory to the basic right to keep and carry arms. I am carrying a gun right now, a Glock 26 in a shoulder holster. It will be with me all day, just as it was yesterday, just as it has been for several months, just as it will be tomorrow, and for the rest of the foreseeable future. I firmly believe in the right of the people to keep and bear arms.

I take full responsibility for my personal security, and for the security of those in my charge. I take on some responsibility for the security of those around me, and I expect my fellow citizens to take on certain responsibilities for my security. I willingly bear some responsibility for securing the persons of government officials, from postal carriers, to local police, to soldiers, to the President of the United States. (Note the distinction between securing their persons, and supporting their ideas; I certainly don't agree with every elected official, and will challenge some vehemently. But never violently.)

THIS is the duty of a militiaman, whether he is armed or not. The militia is comprised of the able-bodied citizens of the US. The militia is necessary to the SECURITY of a FREE STATE. We cannot maintain the security of a free state where the representatives of the people are forced to work under duress, under the threat of violence.

NO, my arguments most certainly do NOT defeat the 2nd amendment, but the idea that we can manipulate our government with violence is most assuredly contradictory to the constitution. The framers recognized that people would try to compel the government through violent means, and gave Congress the authority allow the government to mobilize the militia against such a threat.

Patrick Henry, also in the Virginia convention, eloquently argued for the dual rights to arms and resistance to oppression: "Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are ruined." Thus, they agreed that an armed populace was the ultimate check on tyranny.

I do agree with what this says, but there is a problem with what it seems to imply. The error in the implication is the presumption that government=tyrant. While this implication may have been true in earlier forms of governance, it's not true of any government that can be legitimately described as being of the people, for the people, and by the people.

Any revolution involves the dismantling of an old system, and replacing it with a superior system. The founding fathers did that. Countless people fought and died to do this. We honor these people by using this system, working within it, not by subverting it for our own purposes.

quote:
And what of the people who want their elected officials to make deals with lobbyists and foreign nationals? I'd hope that my congressman would be open to deals with other legislators, the NRA or several other lobbyists, or companies - foreign or domestic - investing in my region. I'd hope he would agree to give ground in certain areas that are unimportant to me, in order to garner support on issues I consider paramount. This isn't corruption. This is a good representative, working for his constituents.

then you follow up with:

My main fear is that by stating "we must have guns to defend ourselves from our government", we paint ourselves in the eyes of the public not as responsible, law-abiding gun owners, but as paranoid, delusional, dangerous lunatics. I fear that our own efforts occasionally justify the short-sighted anti-gun agenda.

Reading; your thoughts, you are suggesting ''compromising'' the Constitution.

Not in any way, shape, or form. This is something you brought to the table, not I. I don't understand what point you are trying to present - how do the two quoted passages relate in such a way that you consider their meaning to compromise the constitution?

[rivalarrival]

Originally Posted by YelloJeep

Let it be said that I have never really lived in a large urban setting. I could not imagine it really. I wonder if the most densly populated areas have a very different view of firearms. I imagine they would. Mostly because everyone lives in such close proximity of each other. I would think it almost like a different culture. Example: I have never really lived where puplic transit is a viable option whereas there are (I think) folks who have lived all their lives in a densely populated city and perhaps have never driven a car.

Anyway, I am afraid that the larger the population becomes, and the more urban things become, our gun rights will be in more imminent danger. Do you believe this is a reasonable concern?

I think it may be something we should look out for. Keeping and carrying a firearm in a densely populated area requires some practical considerations, and may require the power of law to compel people to address these concerns. I've lived in three apartments, two dorms, and a duplex. It would have worried me to learn that my upstairs neighbor considered "down" a safe direction to point when he was manipulating his guns. For an apartment in the middle of a very large complex, there may not naturally exist a safe direction to point a gun. Is responsible gun ownership even possible in such an apartment?

I do think we need to be aggressive in regulating ourselves in such situations to mitigate the risk. Perhaps purchasing a desktop bullet trap, to safely clear and check our guns. Perhaps choosing a lighter loading, or frangible bullets may be in order. Birdshot or even beanbag loads in the defense shotguns instead of buckshot. Or simply not keeping or carrying in such an apartment, holding off until you move to someplace that is gun-friendly!

Perhaps building codes would be the laws changed, requiring apartment complexes to use
building materials and methods certified to stop handgun rounds from penetrating floors and ceilings. Surely this would be safer for everyone than simply banning guns, a law that criminals would ignore anyway.

[YelloJeep]

I guess my concern is that people who live in urban settings (growing voting blocks) will vote for anti-gun politicians.
You do bring up good ideas. I would hope for those types of things instead. I have no intention of myself ever living in any urban settings...Too crowded for me.
I just want my rights to me safe.

[neophyte]

rivalarrival

yesterday 12:48 is where I copied this; and paste; ''the'' very last line is mine in this .

quote:
And what of the people who want their elected officials to make deals with lobbyists and foreign nationals? I'd hope that my congressman would be open to deals with other legislators, the NRA or several other lobbyists, or companies - foreign or domestic - investing in my region. I'd hope he would agree to give ground in certain areas that are unimportant to me, in order to garner support on issues I consider paramount. This isn't corruption. This is a good representative, working for his constituents.

then you follow up with:

My main fear is that by stating "we must have guns to defend ourselves from our government", we paint ourselves in the eyes of the public not as responsible, law-abiding gun owners, but as paranoid, delusional, dangerous lunatics. I fear that our own efforts occasionally justify the short-sighted anti-gun agenda.

Reading; your thoughts, you are suggesting ''compromising'' the Constitution.

you bring out some very good point; With that; sometimes I get confused..

I realize I left out ''the quote from ''YelloJeep",

if I have twisted this in some fashion. ? I am trying to understand


{ I believe the converstation has grown}

[blucher]

Originally Posted by Brian

That said, I would be in favor of (heavily) secured facilities owned and operated by militia groups in which arms typically not owned by individuals might be stored. Maybe county-wide (or smaller) militias could collectively be responsible for storing grenades, full-auto/high-caliber firearms, and maybe even more potent items, etc. and state-wide militia compounds might house the really nasty stuff like tactical nukes.

Somehow that doesn't sound much like "a well regulated militia". Considering the Michigan Militia couldn't manage to get along with eachother this sounds like a prescription for chaos.

[blucher]

Just got an email from Mayor Bloomberg which surprised me. He's plugging an effort to get gun checks cross indexed with lists of people who should not have guns.
I share this concern. We do nothing to protect access to arms for the sane if we protect the nuts from being weeded out. UWV and Tucson featured social misfits clearly well identified as problems. I've lost one good friend to an armed nut and I'm unwilling to lose any more.
Bloomies cause;
Mayors Against Illegal Guns Launches Fix Gun Checks Tour

[neophyte]

blucher: Sir, for information.


Gun Violence | National Institute of Justice

within reason; do simple math. Numbers can be skewed easily, Mayor Bloomberg; easily skews numbers.

use numbers; populace = somewhat 300,000,000 U.S. citizens; then do any type math you choose. {census}
2.5%+- actions are controlling, the mass

use next equation, how many illegal actions by villians against law abiding citizens, that were able to protect themselves with firearms.
{we will never know this total}

very easily, alcohol related deaths, are considered the greater killer

firearms, are easily identified, for the simple; without educating themselves?

we can find information, available from the internet. How we trust? is an individual thing

Sir, I'm sorry for your loss.

[rivalarrival]

Originally Posted by blucher

Just got an email from Mayor Bloomberg which surprised me. He's plugging an effort to get gun checks cross indexed with lists of people who should not have guns.
I share this concern. We do nothing to protect access to arms for the sane if we protect the nuts from being weeded out. UWV and Tucson featured social misfits clearly well identified as problems. I've lost one good friend to an armed nut and I'm unwilling to lose any more.
Bloomies cause;
Mayors Against Illegal Guns Launches Fix Gun Checks Tour

Imagine, for a moment, that you were standing next to your friend, moments before he or she died. You're in the place and time to observe the armed criminal's actions from the time he chooses to kill to the time that your friend would have been shot. You have with you what you had with you the day your friend died.

Now imagine that instead of you, the person standing there is an off-duty cop. He has with him a concealed handgun, most likely a Glock 19 holstered inside his waistband on his right hip. He can draw and present his gun, ready to fire, in under 2 seconds. There is an armed cop observing the armed criminal's actions from the time he chooses to kill to the time that your friend would have been shot.

Now imagine that instead of you or the cop, the person standing there is me. I could be any citizen from any walk of life, going about my business when the armed criminal, your friend and I cross paths at this moment in time. I am observing this armed criminal's actions from the time he chooses to kill until the time your friend would have been shot.

You've painted yourself as a person who doesn't carry a gun. If this is true, most likely, your friend would still have died in the first scenario. Most likely, your friend would have lived in the second and third, as either the cop or myself are well trained and equipped to respond to that threat. Why didn't you do in your scenario what the cop would have done, what I would have done, and saved your friend's life? Were you incapable of doing the same thing? Do you lack the knowledge and the skill to do the same thing? Do you lack the tools that could have saved your friend's life?

Was there anyone else present when your friend died? If there were, do you not wish that those people had the skills and equipment to stop that criminal attack before it took the life of your friend?

Would you want to do anything that would make it more difficult for that cop or me, or any bystander to save your friend's life?

There is a criminal defense in this country - "Not guilty be reason of insanity". The law says that if you can't tell the difference between right and wrong, you can't be held legally accountable for your actions. You can't legislate the insane. The insane are legally permitted to violate the law, to commit even violent crime with impunity. No law can stop a violent criminal, not even one enforced on everyone else around him. He can steal a gun from a law abiding citizen and kill someone with it, or he can use a baseball bat to crush his victim's skull. The problem is not the gun in his hand, the problem is him. The solution is to stop him before he commits his crime. Our laws don't permit people to be locked away because they might become criminals. Locking away an as-yet innocent person is deplorable. But that means that there WILL be victims of violence by the insane, and by sane criminals, and as long as that is true, we must have effective means of defending ourselves and eachother against them.

With all that in mind, let's address Bloomberg's ideas:
1. Add the list of people prohibited to own guns to the NICS registry.
2. Require a background check for each gun sale.

The intentions here are good, but the road to hell is paved with similar. Who creates the list of people? If it's every judge in the nation, it should already be in the NICS system. If it's anyone else, there is a problem. We each have the right to defend ourselves with the necessary force - up to and including lethal force - against criminal violence. Guns are required for defense against certain types of violence. Gun ownership and carry is a fundamental human right - not a privilege. To deprive someone of their rights in this country requires Due Process, a concept that incorporates most of the bill of rights. A doctor can't do this by himself, nor can a cop or a lawyer. It requires a judge, and those judgments should already be in the hands of NICS. If this is not the case, then there is a legitimate problem to be solved.

For the second part, does this mean that I can't give my son a rifle for his 18th birthday without first contacting the federal government? Does this mean that I need to contact the federal government before selling a gun to a friend I grew up with? A friend I know to be a fine, upstanding citizen, who already owns an extensive collection of firearms? When I die, does the executor of my will have to perform a background check on the heirs who will receive my guns? Do I have to perform a background check on a licensed firearms dealer before I sell my used guns to him? Clearly, such a requirement would place a burden on law-abiding gun owners.

Does it mean that a criminal will have to perform a background check before he tries to break into my house and steal my guns? Does it mean that he will have to perform a background check on another criminal before he sells those guns? Does it mean that he can't use the guns he stole to commit another crime?

Let's go back to today. If I purchase a gun from a dealer and I sell it to a person prohibited from owning a gun, I have committed a crime. Regardless of whether I perform a background check, I have committed a crime. My failure to perform a background check doesn't mitigate my crime, it exacerbates it. If that person then uses the gun to commit a violent crime, that gun will be traced back to the dealer, then to me, and I can potentially be charged with a felony.

How exactly does mandating a background check help? I'm already guilty of a serious crime, now you want to throw another one on top of it?

So, it creates burdens for responsible gun owners, it adds a second felony charge to irresponsible sellers, and it doesn't affect armed criminals. How does this help the problem?

Good intentions alone aren't going to prevent gun violence. While there are legislative approaches that can help, these two ideas will not. A better approach would be to increase the responsible use and carry of guns, which requires education. We need to end the scare tactics that have people paranoid of responsibly carried firearms. People like Barbara Carver:

This is simple. We must stop the gun shows and illegal sale of guns. And for God?s sake do not allow assault guns to be sold period., because no one who is sane needs one and insane people certainly should not have one. We must address this before someone in your life is gunned down.. Also. I see no need for anyone carrying a gun around even if it is registered. I live in TX and I am scared to death because I don?t know who around me has a gun when I am out. and in a crowd. What has happened to our country ? We can fix this problem if enough people wake up.

Posted by Barbara Carver at 9:24pm, February 16, 2011

Stop the gun shows? Every transaction at a gun show requires a NICS check.
Stop the illegal sales? They're already illegal, fix the enforcement problems.
No "assault weapons"? Since fully automatic guns have been banned for 80 years or so, she must be referring to big, expensive, finely crafted "scary black guns" like the AR15, while virtually all gun crimes are conducted with small, inexpensive handguns. The sanity of "assault weapon" owners is far less suspect than that of any other type of gun.
Scared to death of who has a gun? A rational person would hope that EVERYONE around them is armed, dangerous, and ready to destroy any criminal threat.
What's happened to our country? People have lost faith in eachother, just as Ms. Carver obviously has done. A lot of people are giving in to their paranoid delusions that everyone around them is out to get them. Frankly, the mental defects of people like Ms. Carver do not justify legislating away my right to defend myself. I will not stand by and be killed by an actual criminal because of Ms. Carver's paranoid delusions.

[YelloJeep]

Bravo... Okay, this thread is officialy closed. Everything worth saying was just said...

Nah just kidding, I think it was great. Okay, Carry on.