Catch-all gun debate thread to keep 2nd amendment type discussions out of other threads...  Apart from the US 2nd amendment, there is a similar clause in Ohio's constitution.

 

Starter question:  should cities be able to control firearms more strictly than the states?  States more than feds?

No, I think it is ridiculous.

 

With any other amendment in the Constitution, the states are allowed to only BROADEN the right, not limit it.

 

Furthermore, the whole anti-gun propoganda is based off no statistical data, only utopianism.  The whole anti-gun movement started in the 1960's, as many were fearful of groups like the Black Panthers.  So really, the anti-gun movement started to suppress "radicals."

NO and you should have made this a poll!

Perhaps, although regulating sales and ownership more stringently at the local or state level is pointless, as they don't have controlled borders.  On the other hand, I'd think that it is only logical that certain things, like actually firing the weapon in one's backyard that might work in rural areas might need to be regulated in urban areas.

I don't know how to make a poll.  I just noticed more gun discussions recently and thought there should be a place for the core issue debate.  Otherwise every other gun thread would turn into that eventually.

Perhaps, although regulating sales and ownership more stringently at the local or state level is pointless, as they don't have controlled borders.  On the other hand, I'd think that it is only logical that certain things, like actually firing the weapon in one's backyard that might work in rural areas might need to be regulated in urban areas.

 

I do not know for sure, but I am sure something like that is covered by some blanket regulation, and thus you don't need a special rule.  It is likely that whenever using a firearm, you have to be cognizant of your surroundings and not unnecessarily scare the shi!t out of your neighbhors.  You could get charged with nuisance violations, possibly assault, disturbing the peace, etc.  All these apply, regardless where one lives.

Gun laws and regs ALWAYS hurt/hinder the responsible owners.    Pure and simple!   

 

The criminal element will never abide by these laws. 

 

CHANGE THE DRUG LAWS IF YOU WANT GUN CRIME TO DECREASE IN URBAN AREAS.

^I totally agree.

 

The people who have the most to gain from gun laws are those that live in urban areas.  The criminals will get guns, just like the criminals got alcohol during Prohibition.

 

I do, however, think there should be stringent background checks.

You can't have people target shooting in the city.  That doesn't work at all.  People get hit by stray bullets from this in rural areas; it would be chaos here.  You can't have people shooting into the air either.  It could be argued that in neither case is the shooter "bearing arms," they're just messing around. 

 

Actually carrying a weapon for defense purposes is different.  Presumably those are only fired in emergencies.  Most of the places that are inclined to pass a gun ban (big cities) are the places where the most guns are carried, the most crime takes place, and the need to have your own gun is most pressing.  These places also tend to be short on police.  You can't claim a monopoly on using guns to defend the innocent and then not be around. 

Gun laws and regs ALWAYS hurt/hinder the responsible owners.    Pure and simple!   

 

The criminal element will never abide by these laws. 

 

CHANGE THE DRUG LAWS IF YOU WANT GUN CRIME TO DECREASE IN URBAN AREAS.

 

^Agree with you totally.

 

Legalize and tax drugs; urban/gang crime would drop off a cliff.

 

It's amazing how little we learn from history; or is it because there are powerful interests who enrich themselves on the status quo?

Legalize and tax drugs; urban/gang crime would drop off a cliff.

 

Listen to any 90s rap album and they explain the illicit drug business in great detail.  Drug laws are the worst thing to happen to public safety since they started dropping pianos and anvils out of downtown windows in the 1930s.

The talk in gun circles now is: "you can't find ammunition on the shelves. That means that Obama is going to ban guns".

 

More likely it means that ammunition producers are hyping this message to spike the sales of their products.

The question I always have is what is included within my right to bear "arms" end?  What I mean is where does the right end? - an assault rifle, a cannon, a rocket launcher, a tank, a missile, nuclear arms?

 

The drafters of the 2nd Amendment lived in a different world than ours.

You know what's funny?  Those little signs on public buildings that say "Gun-free zone."  As if wacko killers care what a sticker says.  I'm just saying...

The question I always have is what is included within my right to bear "arms" end?  What I mean is where does the right end? - an assault rifle, a cannon, a rocket launcher, a tank, a missile, nuclear arms?

 

The drafters of the 2nd Amendment lived in a different world than ours.

 

I've been saying that all along. If we were given that right so that we're allowed to revolt against our own government then why can't I have nuclear weapons without being a terrorist?  :?

 

 

 

And yeah, I agree that we should make drugs legal. We would have MUCH less crime and we would save taxpayers billions of dollars. Weed, coke, opium, heroin, amphetamines, valium (and all other pills) etc etc. should be in every corner convenience store for its cheap, market-driven price. Less people will have a reason to rob at gun-point.

Here's another question - does the 2nd Amendment grant us the right to "conceal" a weapon on our person while in public?  Or is that right simply granted by State law.

Here's another question - does the 2nd Amendment grant us the right to "conceal" a weapon on our person while in public? Or is that right simply granted by State law.

We have the right to keep and bear arms.  Your question is like asking "do we have a right to carry it on the end of a stick?"  It's just a matter of semantics.  I think "concealing" would fall under "keeping and bearing."

 

Our rights are self-evident and given by God (Dec. of Ind.) and the Constitution protects our rights from a usurpatory government.

given by God

 

WARNING:

given by God

 

WARNING:

Haha, ok then, how about we agree that our rights don't come from anyone, we're born with them.  All humans have certain unalienable rights.

Yes.  I just don't think I have an inalienable right to have an .50 caliber M2 gun affixed to my front porch.  These aren't merely semantics.  There are some very real issues that must be dealt with in application of the 2nd Amendment.

Yes. I just don't think I have an inalienable right to have an .50 caliber M2 gun affixed to my front porch. These aren't merely semantics. There are some very real issues that must be dealt with in application of the 2nd Amendment.

Concealing is different than affixing an .50 caliber M2 to your front porch. But in either case, you have the right thanks to the 2nd amendment.

Cleveland Mayor Frank Jackson wanted to ban concealed carry as a means of controlling crime in his city.  The Ohio legislature overruled him.  Republicans are hypocrites when they claim that they advocate "local control" of government.  I think that the mayor should have local control of weapons.  The mayor certainly can make a better decision than some disinterested patrician lawyer from semi-rural Geauga County. 

Weapons advocate Ohio Senator Tim Grendell of Chesterland

 

To his credit, Mayor Jackson has reduced the crime rate in Cleveland despite the huge reductions in police headcount during the previous mayor's administration.  :clap:

 

I would argue that the 'original intent' of the 2nd Amendment was to ensure the right to organize and maintain a private militia so that the citizens could defend themselves against the government if need be.

 

In this day and age, what kind of fire power is necessary to form a militia that would not be laughed off any battle field by our government run military?  Do the laws even allow us, as private citizens, to arm ourselves on par with the military?  Are there weapons the military is allowed to possess that a private citizen cannot?

 

I don't think that guns should be outlawed by any means.  If that happened, the illegal gun trade would operate akin to the illegal drug trade.  However, I just don't see how the original intent of the 2nd Amendment, which was drafted during a time when back-woods militias realistically could fight off governemnt forces, can be translated to the realities of this day and age.

If I am going to break the law to shoot at and at least attempt to harm them (or worse), why do people think I wouldn't break the law to carry a concealed weapon? It's a flawed logic. ...

Prosecutors could use the "weapons charge" as leverage to get a criminal to testify against other criminals.

 

We got to this point because we are a "frontier" country whose pioneers needed firearms to hunt wildlife and to "deal with" the indigenous people (whose land we were incrementally taking away from them).  Firearms are deeply ingrained into our national culture.  We are not a colonial nation, but we have an aggressive, violent history of taking land from the natives through treaties and treachery, and taking half of Mexico (and California's gold).

 

Britain and Australia were able to deweaponize because they came to the 21st century through a different path.  Canada is a country with hunting advocates, but their politics are not degraded by this wedge issue.  Their weapons laws are more restrictive, but Canadians are not captured by insane paranoid messages of government control.

Reparations for Mexico!

.

Hts44121 is asking the question I've always asked "2nd Amendment people", but nobody seems to have any answers.

In this day and age, what kind of fire power is necessary to form a militia that would not be laughed off any battle field by our government run military?  Do the laws even allow us, as private citizens, to arm ourselves on par with the military?  Are there weapons the military is allowed to possess that a private citizen cannot?

 

At the time it was written, there was to be no standing army at all.  So that really is a different context.  But there was also a sense that everyone should be allowed to defend themselves on at least a base level. 

 

Technologcally speaking, the colonists should never have beaten the redcoats, the Afghans should never have beaten the Soviets, the Soviets should never have beaten the Germans, and so on.  Stranger things have happened, and most people have a fighting chance in most situations if they have access to the most basic projectiles and explosives.  But if you can get your populace separated from all practical weaponry, then resistance is perhaps truly futile.  That is clearly not the situation desired for the US at any point, no matter how much military technology may advance. 

 

And no, there's nothing in the constitution about concealed weapons, nor is it clear that "to bear" is "to conceal," in fact I would think they're not the same thing at all.  But if we're worried enough about a quantity and concentration of criminals so severe that respecting the 2nd amendment would be unthinkable... then we really need to address whatever problems got us to that point.  They didn't have places like modern Cleveland in the 1780s, so they didn't make a ghetto exception.  They probably assumed we'd never let it get like this. 

 

I can understand practical limits on guns and ordnance in urban areas, it only makes sense.  But think about this... if everyone is packing, and most people are decent people, it would be tough to pull a robbery anywhere.  I think this was part of the original idea too. 

Its interesting how people demand a strict interpretation of the Constitution when it does and doesn't fit their needs!

Its interesting how people demand a strict interpretation of the Constitution when it does and doesn't fit their needs!

YES!

Hts44121 is asking the question I've always asked 2nd Amendment supporters, but nobody seems to have any answers.

 

They are questions regarding forming a militia. With all do respect, I know many people that own firearms including myself and I have never had a discussion with any of these people about forming any type of militia.  I'm sure those type of radicals exist, but most use the 2nd as a form of defending themselves from the criminal element, not the military or the govt.

Its interesting how people demand a strict interpretation of the Constitution when it does and doesn't fit their needs!

I'm not sure I understand what you are saying.

They are questions regarding forming a militia. With all do respect, I know many people that own firearms including myself and I have never had a discussion with any of these people about forming any type of militia. I'm sure those type of radicals exist, but most use the 2nd as a form of defending themselves from the criminal element, not the military or the govt.

 

I am not referring to his militia post as much as his one where he asks where it stops.  Does it stop with guns, and if so, why?  Should you be allowed to have automatic weapons?  How about hand grenades or rockets?  How about nuclear weapons.

 

I think that it makes sense to recognize that no matter where you stand on guns and the 2nd Amendment, a line has to be drawn at some point where we say that some weapons are illegal.

Does that line really need to be drawn?  When the framers were writing the 2nd Amendment, if they truly meant it for militias to protect against the government, did they not believe that the right to bear arms meant equal weapons?  They could have drawn the line and said that the people have the right to bear bows and arrows or spears!  Now I realize they couldn't have even imagined the weapons we have at our disposal today, just furthering the conversation.

I am not referring to his militia post as much as his one where he asks where it stops.  Does it stop with guns, and if so, why?  Should you be allowed to have automatic weapons?  How about hand grenades or rockets?  How about nuclear weapons.

 

I think that it makes sense to recognize that no matter where you stand on guns and the 2nd Amendment, a line has to be drawn at some point where we say that some weapons are illegal.

 

Now that is a good question which I can't answer and I'll admit I even wrestle with.  Most people I know who collect assault rifles and such are ex military personnel who have a passion and history with such weapons.  I'm more into hunting and handgun firearms so my personal opinions tend to be biased torwards protecting my rights to bear those arms.  Like Dan says,  "they couldn't have even imagined the weapons we have at our disposal today"  or for that matter whats to come. 

 

I believe it still comes down to the drug war in this country.  How many homicides would Cincy have had last year if you take out the illegal drug factor and trade?    10, if that.

 

What do you do for a country that has more guns than people? 

 

Not to get too far off topic but,

If deaths are the issue, then why aren't we putting weight limits on vehicles which kill more Americans than guns?  What if all vehicles were forced to abide by similar design standards and stay in the realm of 2000 to 4000lbs instead of having a society that drives a 1600 lbs smart car in one lane and an 8000 lbs SUV in another.  I feel a person behind the wheel when mixing cell phones, radios, GPS and other distractions is more of a danger to society than guns.

Its interesting how people demand a strict interpretation of the Constitution when it does and doesn't fit their needs!

YES!

Sort of like when people demand a loose interpretation of the Constitution when it does and doesn't fit their needs?!?!  :-D

 

Seriously, there is a lot of hypocrisy in the whole 2nd amend debate.  The dems try to read it as narrowly and strictly as possible and the repubs try to read it as broadly and loosely as possible.  Both totally contradict their MO on constitutional interpretation.

I am not referring to his militia post as much as his one where he asks where it stops.  Does it stop with guns, and if so, why?  Should you be allowed to have automatic weapons?  How about hand grenades or rockets?  How about nuclear weapons.

 

I think that it makes sense to recognize that no matter where you stand on guns and the 2nd Amendment, a line has to be drawn at some point where we say that some weapons are illegal.

I agree that a line has to be drawn, but my reading of the 2nd Amendment says that the federal government doesn't have the right to draw that line, it is up to the states to do that.

The Bill of Rights is effective upon the states via 14th amendment incorporation, and typically states are allowed to expand federal rights but not reduce them.

states are allowed to expand federal rights but not reduce them.

 

That's a funny way of looking at it.

If that weren't true, what's the point of having federal rights?  States would remove them as soon as they found it expedient to do so, i.e. yesterday.

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.

While I'm far from a legal scholar, that sure sounds to me like permission for states to regulate arms, while not forbidding them. In other words, it is up to the states to determine where to draw the line on what is and isn't allowed. I don't see how the 14th amendment affects that.

Watered down version... the 14th amendment generally provides that no US government, including states, shall deny anyone rights granted in the constitution.  Without that guarantee, the no-slavery and blacks-can-vote amendments would have been meaningless in the post-war South.  States cannot opt out of the personal rights that make America what it is. 

 

I'm not trying to solve the gun question... countless books have been written that don't come close to solving it, and my own position is nuanced.  I think the founders are happy we're still talking about it.

Grumpy has a point.  The term "well regulated" has led some, certainly not all, to arrive at the conclusion that the Founders intended the States to "regulate" the keeping and bearing of arms.  Under that argument, the States cannot eliminate the right to keep and bear arms, but they may "regulate" it.

Under that contention, so too can the feds... right?  This is not a "congress shall pass no laws," this is a "shall not be abridged," passive voice, which seems universally applicable.  Much has been written about the comma alone.  To me, the phrase "well-regulated" applies only to the militia, before the comma, and not to the "right to keep and bear arms" which comes after.  Exclusio unius.  How can a "right" simultaneously be "well-regulated" and "not...abridged?" 

Listen Latin Geek, you have to read the entire clause in pari materia.

Had to look that up... and I would say that in pari materia, the 2nd amendment can't possibly be a right of the state (the militia) sandwiched as it is among so many individual rights against the state.  But we're getting awfully technical here.

It is an individual right. The right is to be allowed to serve in a well regulated state militia. I don't see anything that specifically guarantees the right of any person not associated with a militia endorsed by the state to own, or possess a firearm. If the state says it's ok for you to have a firearm in your home because the state militia can't always protect you, then you have that right.

It is an individual right. The right is to be allowed to serve in a well regulated state militia. I don't see anything that specifically guarantees the right of any person not associated with a militia endorsed by the state to own, or possess a firearm. If the state says it's ok for you to have a firearm in your home because the state militia can't always protect you, then you have that right.

 

It sounds like you saying that the 2nd Amendment doesn't cover any right to bear arms outside of being in a well-regulated state militia.

It is an individual right. The right is to be allowed to serve in a well regulated state militia. I don't see anything that specifically guarantees the right of any person not associated with a militia endorsed by the state to own, or possess a firearm. If the state says it's ok for you to have a firearm in your home because the state militia can't always protect you, then you have that right.

 

It sounds like you saying that the 2nd Amendment doesn't cover any right to bear arms outside of being in a well-regulated state militia.

 

If you read the 2nd Amendment the way Justices Scalia and Thomas would read any OTHER constitutional amendment, very strictly and very narrowly, then that argument could certainly be made - i.e., while the 2nd Amendment in no way forbids/precludes your ability to own a gun, it only "grants a right" to do so in that limited circumstance and for that limited purpose yet the States can expand upon that "right" as they desire under their own laws.

It is an individual right. The right is to be allowed to serve in a well regulated state militia. I don't see anything that specifically guarantees the right of any person not associated with a militia endorsed by the state to own, or possess a firearm. If the state says it's ok for you to have a firearm in your home because the state militia can't always protect you, then you have that right.

 

It sounds like you saying that the 2nd Amendment doesn't cover any right to bear arms outside of being in a well-regulated state militia.

That's one way to read it, and it appears to me to be the original intent. I honestly don't care that much, as no one is going to read it that way now, but I felt like defending it. In other writings at the time "bear arms" literally meant to serve in the militia.