Gun Rights and Gun Control

[Teallaura]

1. We have a lot of gun control laws. Including laws that say it is illegal to use guns in crimes, or for felons to have guns.
2. Criminals still have guns. Lots of guns.

Gun control laws are weakened by the conflicting jurisdictions - this isn't much of an argument, even when it's not a strawman.

[Teallaura]

20,000 jurisdictions are in question - which ones are supposedly not enforcing the laws?

Rhetorical, I know you're not arguing that as a opponent - but it's also the answer to your question. Federal gun control is weak - and the only over arching level of governance.

[Teallaura]

I do agree not enforcing the laws we have is a bad thing. I think we should be more diligent in enforcing them first before add more laws, right? Maybe even adding stricter penalties for violating them.

First off, with more than 20,000 jurisdictions in play, how exactly do you know they AREN'T being enforced? Even where a shooting occurs, the laws simply may not have been adequate.

[Teallaura]

And stricter penalties for not enforcing them.

Furriners...


Now, you idiots adding amens - you DO realize more than 20,000 new laws would have to be added to the books to add stricter penalties - because nearly EVERY jurisdiction would have to amend their laws accordingly.

[Teallaura]

Are you insane? The US didn't believe in personal protection until the 1970's?

Never watched a western I guess? Or read a history book?

The amendment is pretty clear and has always allowed personal protection.

Sparky, the Court clearly did NOT take the individual right view in the few cases where it was tested. Also, it wasn't incorporated until THIS century - an obvious indication that the Court has changed its opinion.

[Teallaura]

...
And no - I'm not insane...

You're posting here... Just sayin'...

[Teallaura]

But the fact is that what we have seen to date does correlate in the exact opposite direction of what the gun grabbers suggest will happen.

No, that's called 'selective reading' - the data is muddier than that (which is why you have a point on this one - you might wanna not undermine your own argument).

[Teallaura]

well 1. it doesn't reduce gun crime because it is not taking guns away from criminals. And two, nobody said "all crime will go away" so you accusation of my using a strawman argument is itself a strawman.

Argument ad absurdium...

[Teallaura]

He got it from the case law.

[Teallaura]

What does the early case law say?


That's right, it's based in the militia, not individual rights.


It's been incorporated - why are you even arguing this?

[Teallaura]

You said specifically that

Lilpixie has demonstrated that to be false.

No, she didn't.

[Teallaura]

Hey Carp! Long time no see!

I've read through the thread and Ummm...are you sure you're reading the correct paper?

The Federalist 29

Concerning the Militia
Hamilton for the Daily Advertiser. Thursday, January 10, 1788.
To the People of the State of New York:
THE power of regulating the militia, and of commanding its services in times of insurrection and invasion are natural incidents to the duties of superintending the common defense, and of watching over the internal peace of the Confederacy.

It requires no skill in the science of war to discern that uniformity in the organization and discipline of the militiawould be attended with the most beneficial effects, whenever they were called into service for the public defense.

I believe the part that is being referenced is the 6th paragraph:

``The project of disciplining all the militia of the United States is as futile as it would be injurious, if it were capable of being carried into execution. A tolerable expertness in military movements is a business that requires time and practice. It is not a day, or even a week, that will suffice for the attainment of it. To oblige the great body of the yeomanry, and of the other classes of the citizens, to be under arms for the purpose of going through military exercises and evolutions, as often as might be necessary to acquire the degree of perfection which would entitle them to the character of a well-regulated militia, would be a real grievance to the people, and a serious public inconvenience and loss. It would form an annual deduction from the productive labor of the country, to an amount which, calculating upon the present numbers of the people, would not fall far short of the whole expense of the civil establishments of all the States. To attempt a thing which would abridge the mass of labor and industry to so considerable an extent, would be unwise: and the experiment, if made, could not succeed, because it would not long be endured. Little more can reasonably be aimed at, with respect to the people at large, than to have them properly armed and equipped; and in order to see that this be not neglected, it will be necessary to assemble them once or twice in the course of a year.

To me, this reads that to require citizens to actually be in the militia and to drill and train would be "injurious". The bolded part is the germane point to the discussion.

Um, no - read the part after what you bolded. Hamilton isn't arguing that there should be NO drilling or training, but that the amount necessary for a truly 'well regulated militia' would be injurious. He's still supporting the training of militia but is arguing about the degree necessary.

[Teallaura]

Your are picking nits. It has been clearly shown that the individual right to possess guns was well established regardless of what one paper or another does or does not say.

No, he's arguing the issue - which isn't gun ownership.

And establishing the individual right by using the Federalist Papers was Lil's idea. It's failing because it's NOT what the Founders were concerned about. They didn't want (or have the resources for) to have a standing army. Absent a standing army, they opted for a 'well regulated militia' - which is where the Second comes from.

An incredibly liberal Court incorporated the thing - I'm not sure why Lil wants to argue this at all but history doesn't support the 'Founders wanted everyone to have guns' notion. At. All.

[Teallaura]

I may have missed some posts. There are only so many hours in a day. I do not recall any posts about the founding fathers that said anything to contradict what I have posted.

They didn't. The most fun was the mix up with the numbering systems.

[lilpixieofterror]

You'll have to point out that section, Pixie. I'm not finding it in any of the papers you cited. Indeed, after rereading them (I forgot how much parsing the language of the 1700s makes my head ache), I also did a word search. "persons" appears. But "personal" does not appear in 28 and 29, and "protection" only appears in the contect of the role of the militia in protecting the state. "Personal" does appear in 46, but in the context of talking about the role of the state versus the federal government in seeing to the personal needs of the people.

So exactly what are you referring to?

For anyone else following, you can find the papers in question here:

• http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/fed28.asp
• http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/fed29.asp
• http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/fed46.asp

[box]If the representatives of the people betray their constituents, there is then no resource left but in the exertion of that original right of self-defense which is paramount to all positive forms of government, and which against the usurpations of the national rulers, may be exerted with infinitely better prospect of success than against those of the rulers of an individual state. In a single state, if the persons intrusted with supreme power become usurpers, the different parcels, subdivisions, or districts of which it consists, having no distinct government in each, can take no regular measures for defense. The citizens must rush tumultuously to arms, without concert, without system, without resource; except in their courage and despair. The usurpers, clothed with the forms of legal authority, can too often crush the opposition in embryo. The smaller the extent of the territory, the more difficult will it be for the people to form a regular or systematic plan of opposition, and the more easy will it be to defeat their early efforts. Intelligence can be more speedily obtained of their preparations and movements, and the military force in the possession of the usurpers can be more rapidly directed against the part where the opposition has begun. In this situation there must be a peculiar coincidence of circumstances to insure success to the popular resistance.
Federalist 28[/quote]