Politics Trump’s support for background check bill shows gun politics ‘shifting rapidly’

[MarAzul]

If I were to suggest an amendment, it would be a clarification of the language of the 2nd. One of the biggest issues with the right to bear arms, in my mind, is with people's understanding of its purpose.

• Some believe it was intended that the US have no standing army, but that regular citizens would take up arms in defense of the nation if/when necessary, and as such it was essential that the populace be able to possess armaments to that end.
  • If this is the case, then the fact of the US having a standing army means that the second amendment is no longer valid, because the intended purpose is no longer necessary.
• Others believe that it was understood that the US would have a standing army, and as such it was essential that the populace be able to possess armaments in order to potentially protect themselves from a corrupt and overreaching government
  • If this is the case, then the size and might of the US government demonstrates that the second amendment is absolutely necessary

In my mind, it is incredibly difficult for various sides of the gun debate to actually communicate because they interpret essential elements of the debate in completely different ways.

I agree with you, it is not as clear as I would prefer.

I suspect that it is what Madison could get passed by the votes in Congress. This process often screws up the clarity that we should have.
Actually I think the Militia is a secondary issue. I believe Madison really did believe in the right of men to protect themselves and their rights with the force of arms when necessary. A long standing principal in Natural Law.
What we got, was a murky compromise at best. So, I could very much agree with an amendment to the 2nd amendment especially if it gave us clarity.

With Clarity in mind, it should as be clear that the right to defense, is just that for defense. No person has the right to bear arms for the purpose of offensive action. That right belongs only to the Sovereign. This is where I think the true break is in whether a man should own a Machine Gun or not.
The inability to obtain from government a tax stamp in truly ridiculous subterfuge. If we got that far in a civil discussion, I might agree that owning more than four magazines for the same weapon was over the line. Or... maybe.

 

[SportsAndWhine]

As long as you understand how stupid you sound.

I do.

 

[PtldPlatypus]

People always had guns in this country and the federal government never saw fit to claim ownership is not a Natural Right. Natural Right being one you are born with, under Natural Law.

I've never heard it as a natural right, so much as a legal right. There's another point that needs to be clarified in order to facilitate legitimate discussion.

The words "shall not be infringed" have specific legal meaning. No matter what clause precedes it, "right to bear arms shall not be infringed" means no matter what, the right shall not be restricted.

Again, a term that requires definition in order for both sides to have a legitimate discussion. You define "infringe" as "restrict". Another might define it as "violate", or "encroach". All these words vary to differing degrees and have different connotations. You may believe your definition is infallible, but that doesn't necessarily make you right.

 

[SportsAndWhine]

By the way, I think we should allow personal insults on this forum. It's asinine how thinly we veil our insults, and I would much prefer to discuss how I honestly feel about people rather than pretend I don't value their life so much less for their opinions.

 

[PtldPlatypus]

It's impossible to deal rationally with gun people. They've chosen their god, and they welcome the blood sacrifices.

IMO, these kinds of statements frustrate rational discourse as much as anything you hear from the other side.

 

[Nate]

By the way, I think we should allow personal insults on this forum. It's asinine how thinly we veil our insults, and I would much prefer to discuss how I honestly feel about people rather than pretend I don't value their life so much less for their opinions.

Nice tolerance.

 

[rotary111]

When they come for you, who is going to defend you?

Come for me? To get my assault rifle????

I have a tank because there is no limit to what I can have...right? All or nothing.

 

[AFully22]

It's impossible to deal rationally with gun people. They've chosen their god, and they welcome the blood sacrifices.

I honestly find it interesting that so many of the pro gun dudes act like they’re the most patriotic but also genuinely fear that the government will come imprison them if they had no guns. How could you love your country so much but also believe that they would try and kill you if you couldn’t protect yourself?

 

[SportsAndWhine]

IMO, these kinds of statements frustrate rational discourse as much as anything you hear from the other side.

Sorry. I won't stop, but I'll send you thoughts and prayers.

 

[UncleCliffy'sDaddy]

People always had guns in this country and the federal government never saw fit to claim ownership is not a Natural Right. Natural Right being one you are born with, under Natural Law.

The US had a standing army early on. Nobody, for a century+, suggested the 2nd could somehow be interpreted to deny this right.

The US had big cities since the 1700s, so it's not a new thing to have guns and cities together.

The words "shall not be infringed" have specific legal meaning. No matter what clause precedes it, "right to bear arms shall not be infringed" means no matter what, the right shall not be restricted. Those words are extra syntax to make the intent as clear as can be. Words that aren't even used regarding the 1st amendment, for example.

As part of “a well regulated militia”. So.......what well regulated militia do these gun owners belong to??? Hell, what militias (well regulated or otherwise) even exist?? Does the National Guard count?? The Second Amendment is the most misinterpreted piece of writing in recent history after the Bible. Funny (or maybe not) it’s the guys who currently hold the guns who are the ones who shout the loudest......and make the most ominous threats at the idea someone might actually come for their guns (an utterly ridiculous and impossible scenario). And that says volumes......

 

[Denny Crane]

I've never heard it as a natural right, so much as a legal right. There's another point that needs to be clarified in order to facilitate legitimate discussion.


Again, a term that requires definition in order for both sides to have a legitimate discussion. You define "infringe" as "restrict". Another might define it as "violate", or "encroach". All these words vary to differing degrees and have different connotations. You may believe your definition is infallible, but that doesn't necessarily make you right.

Encroach is fine by me. The right shall not be encroached upon. Same meaning.

The concept of the Natural Right to bear arms goes back centuries and has been entrenched in common law for all that time.

https://www.cato-unbound.org/2008/07/18/david-kopel/right-bear-arms-sensible-gun-laws

But for the neutral reader, the fight over original meaning has to come to an end when the opinions analyze “the” right to keep and bear arms. The D.C. Circuit opinion pointed out that the phrasing indisputably shows that the right was a pre-existing one. That is, the right to keep and bear arms already existed before the Second Amendment was written. The Second Amendment merely imposed a legal requirement that the right not be infringed by the federal government. The 1875 Supreme Court decision in Cruikshank said the same thing, as both the majority and dissent agree.

So what was “the” right that pre-existed the Constitution? The majority opinion provides an obvious answer. It was the right of having arms for personal defense, as guaranteed by the 1689 English Declaration of Right, and as expounded by Blackstone: “the natural right of resistance and self-preservation,” which was effectuated by “the right of having and using arms for self-preservation and defence.”

 

[SportsAndWhine]

I honestly find it interesting that so many of the pro gun dudes act like they’re the most patriotic but also genuinely fear that the government will come imprison them if they had no guns. How could you love your country so much but also believe that they would try and kill you if you couldn’t protect yourself?

Actually, it's funny; this sentiment is the one I kind of agree with most. I love the land I live in. I think it's great. But you can and probably should separate the land and people from the government who looks over it. And if you've got a jaundiced eye towards the government, you're going to want to make sure that you've got protection from a government turning on you.

Now, that general skepticism and separation of land and state is fine, but it looks kind of silly when you look at the government's arsenal and think your cache of guns in a wall safe or bunker or whatever is going to keep you safe if the government really wanted to take your guns.

 

[SlyPokerDog]

By the way, I think we should allow personal insults on this forum. It's asinine how thinly we veil our insults, and I would much prefer to discuss how I honestly feel about people rather than pretend I don't value their life so much less for their opinions.

We allow insults of me. That should be enough for any forum.

But honestly, how many people do you really know enough here to insult them? You're insulting them over something they've posted, an opinion or opinions on a very select subject. This is a community, a community that sometimes meets in person. Trying to keep things from getting personal helps to keep this community healthy and functioning.

 

[Denny Crane]

As part of “a well regulated militia”. So.......what well regulated militia do these gun owners belong to??? Hell, what militias (well regulated or otherwise) even exist?? Does the National Guard count?? The Second Amendment is the most misinterpreted piece of writing in recent history after the Bible. Funny (or maybe not) it’s the guys who currently hold the guns who are the ones who shout the loudest......and make the most ominous threats at the idea someone might actually come for their guns (an utterly ridiculous and impossible scenario). And that says volumes......

Militia is irrelevant. What part of "shall not be infringed" isn't clear?

I don't own a gun, never did, probably never will. It's an issue of you violating someone else's rights. I choose not to.

 

[Denny Crane]

Come for me? To get my assault rifle????

I have a tank because there is no limit to what I can have...right? All or nothing.

You can have a tank.

Now what?

 

[MarAzul]

Militia is irrelevant. What part of "shall not be infringed" isn't clear?

I don't own a gun, never did, probably never will. It's an issue of you violating someone else's rights. I choose not to.

This is why I have a few. I will loan some to those that pass my background check when I deem it necessary. But only if you wish.

 

[PtldPlatypus]

Encroach is fine by me. The right shall not be encroached upon. Same meaning.

The concept of the Natural Right to bear arms goes back centuries and has been entrenched in common law for all that time.

https://www.cato-unbound.org/2008/07/18/david-kopel/right-bear-arms-sensible-gun-laws

But for the neutral reader, the fight over original meaning has to come to an end when the opinions analyze “the” right to keep and bear arms. The D.C. Circuit opinion pointed out that the phrasing indisputably shows that the right was a pre-existing one. That is, the right to keep and bear arms already existed before the Second Amendment was written. The Second Amendment merely imposed a legal requirement that the right not be infringed by the federal government. The 1875 Supreme Court decision in Cruikshank said the same thing, as both the majority and dissent agree.

So what was “the” right that pre-existed the Constitution? The majority opinion provides an obvious answer. It was the right of having arms for personal defense, as guaranteed by the 1689 English Declaration of Right, and as expounded by Blackstone: “the natural right of resistance and self-preservation,” which was effectuated by “the right of having and using arms for self-preservation and defence.”

Not necessarily the same meaning as you implied by equating "infringe" with "restrict". "Encroach" means to intrude upon unlawfully, not that intrusion is completely disallowed. For example, see football--the defensive line has permission to invade the offensive backfield, but only after the ball is snapped; to do so prior to the snap is an impermissible intrusion, hence "encroachment".

By that interpretation/definition, it would reasonably be possible to restrict the type or volume of arms-bearing without encroaching upon (infringing) the right itself.

 

[SportsAndWhine]

Militia is irrelevant. What part of "shall not be infringed" isn't clear?

I don't own a gun, never did, probably never will. It's an issue of you violating someone else's rights. I choose not to.

I won't harp on this long, but I have to ask, since we're all about Natural Rights and making sure others' Natural Rights aren't taken away; do you support universal healthcare? It seems the only way to reconcile the natural (inalienable) right to Life with the governmental responsibility not to infringe on that right by withholding health care or allowing healthcare to be withheld by a capitalist system. Capitalism, of course, is a system designed to leverage real or artificial scarcity to extract resources from people, and is separate from government, a system designed to represent the rights of the people; a capitalist health care system, therefore, is designed to withhold the natural right to Life from people unless they can extract resources from those people, and thus is illegally going against the natural rights of the people. The government in this case should intervene on the people's behalf to ensure their right to Life.

 

[rotary111]

You can have a tank.

Now what?

I shouldn't need a tank or an assault rifle to protect myself. If I need either I should find a new country to live in. It's not going to be all or nothing for long.

 

[SportsAndWhine]

I shouldn't need a tank or an assault rifle to protect myself. If I need either I should find a new country to live in. It's not going to be all or nothing for long.

I bet in Russia you could get a tank easier than in the US, as long as it has a dashcam.

 

[UncleCliffy'sDaddy]

Militia is irrelevant. What part of "shall not be infringed" isn't clear?

I don't own a gun, never did, probably never will. It's an issue of you violating someone else's rights. I choose not to.

How can “militia” be irrelevant when it starts the entire Second Amendment???? If militia is irrelevant, then the entire amendment is irrelevant. Weak, weak sauce Denny. As the amendment clearly indicates, a well regulated militia is the reason for allowing gun ownership. Nowhere does the amendment say the people have the right to unfettered gun ownership “just because”.

I too don’t own a gun and never will. Other than for the purposes of hunting, I have never understood the need for a firearm. That said, I don’t care if anyone owns a gun, only that the gun is registered and that the owner is required to be licensed and insured, just as automobiles (as an example) are. We all have “rights” we feel are infringed upon every day of our lives. It sucks sometimes but that is just part of living in a “civilized” society. The most fervent of gun enthusiasts seem to think they deserve special considerations for no other reason than they have the guns.....

 

[Denny Crane]

Not necessarily the same meaning. "Encroach" means to intrude upon unlawfully, not that intrusion is completely disallowed. For example, see football--the defensive line has permission to invade the offensive backfield, but only after the ball is snapped; to do so prior to the snap is an impermissible intrusion, hence "encroachment".

By that interpretation/definition, it would reasonably be possible to restrict the type or volume of arms-bearing without encroaching on the right itself.

Infringing would be unlawful. Thus intrude upon would be unlawful. I'm failing to see any distinction you are trying to make.

The term "shall not infringe" really means, "government may pass no limits on the right."

A person may be deprived of rights via DUE PROCESS. Government passing a law is not due process. This is the 5th amendment.

Amendment V
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.


"Liberty" includes the right to bear arms, to not sit in jail, to vote, and whatever else Persons otherwise enjoy.

 

[PtldPlatypus]

I won't harp on this long, but I have to ask, since we're all about Natural Rights and making sure others' Natural Rights aren't taken away; do you support universal healthcare? It seems the only way to reconcile the natural (inalienable) right to Life with the governmental responsibility not to infringe on that right by withholding health care or allowing healthcare to be withheld by a capitalist system. Capitalism, of course, is a system designed to leverage real or artificial scarcity to extract resources from people, and is separate from government, a system designed to represent the rights of the people; a capitalist health care system, therefore, is designed to withhold the natural right to Life from people unless they can extract resources from those people, and thus is illegally going against the natural rights of the people. The government in this case should intervene on the people's behalf to ensure their right to Life.

A natural right is one that does not have to be provided to you. Your right to life does not guarantee the government's provision of all resources necessary to ensure continuance of that life. That logic would also necessitate the government providing all your basic needs. The government's only responsibility in regard to your right to life is to not deprive you of it (without due process).

 

[Denny Crane]

How can “militia” be irrelevant when it starts the entire Second Amendment???? If militia is irrelevant, then the entire amendment is irrelevant. Weak, weak sauce Denny. As the amendment clearly indicates, a well regulated militia is the reason for allowing gun ownership. Nowhere does the amendment say the people have the right to unfettered gun ownership “just because”.

I too don’t own a gun and never will. Other than for the purposes of hunting, I have never understood the need for a firearm. That said, I don’t care if anyone owns a gun, only that the gun is registered and that the owner is required to be licensed and insured, just as automobiles (as an example) are. We all have “rights” we feel are infringed upon every day of our lives. It sucks sometimes but that is just part of living in a “civilized” society. The most fervent of gun enthusiasts seem to think they deserve special considerations for no other reason than they have the guns.....

It is irrelevant what the first part says. It could say, "clowns must have guns" and wouldn't negate the second part.

"the right to bear arms shall not be infringed." For no reason, including whatever the 1st part says.

Shall not be infringed.

No twisty logic can change that.

An amendment can.

 

[PtldPlatypus]

Infringing would be unlawful. Thus intrude upon would be unlawful. I'm failing to see any distinction you are trying to make.

The term "shall not infringe" really means, "government may pass no limits on the right."

And again, we are at a semantic impasse. Your definition/interpretation of the word "infringe" differs from mine.

 

[Denny Crane]

A natural right is one that does not have to be provided to you. Your right to life does not guarantee the government's provision of all resources necessary to ensure continuance of that life. That logic would also necessitate the government providing all your basic needs. The government's only responsibility in regard to your right to life is to not deprive you of it (without due process).

The government has never granted the right to bear arms.

Natural Rights are one you are born with. Granted by "God." Not granted by government. Not provided by government.

I'm not seeing your quibble with "that logic."

 

[e_blazer]

My latest theory is that we shouldn't necessarily change gun laws due to 2nd Amendment considerations. On the other hand, the power of the government to tax is unrestricted. $100 a bullet should do it. Use the funds raised to help provide better school security.

 

[PtldPlatypus]

The government has never granted the right to bear arms.

Natural Rights are one you are born with. Granted by "God." Not granted by government. Not provided by government.

I'm not seeing your quibble with "that logic."

I agree with your statement regarding natural rights being inherent and not granted. I'm quibbling with @SportsAndWhine's implication that the natural right to life means that the government is responsible to provide healthcare. I apologize if I did not word it well.

 

[Denny Crane]

And again, we are at a semantic impasse. Your definition/interpretation of the word "infringe" differs from mine.

My definition is in Law. The constitution was all about Law, not written by novices. They used specific words and terms for specific reasons.

"Shall not be infringed" is exactly one of those legal terms. They were being quite specific that government was not to deny the right, pass laws against that right, and so on.

You might consider that the 2nd is part of the Bill of Rights and why the Bill of Rights was even added to the Constitution. They wanted to be extra sure there was no confusion about the limits of the rights of the people and power of the government.

 

[Denny Crane]

I agree with your statement regarding natural rights being inherent and not granted. I'm quibbling with @SportsAndWhine's implication that the natural right to life means that the government is responsible to provide healthcare. I apologize if I did not word it well.

No problem. I think we agree on this much

The Natural Right to life simply means the government can't kill people they don't like. People are free to live their lives.