What should the end goal of our gun policy be?

[2aguy]

What does the constitution say about limiting clip capacity ??

It says the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.......that says it all.....

Why do you nuts worry about magazine capacity...it has no bearing on crime or mass shootings.....

 

[2aguy]

What does the constitution say about limiting clip capacity ??

"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."

Ah, so it says nothing about it . Then states can elect to have laws controlling such things .

None of our rights are absolute . All of them have at least some limitations .

Gun rights are already limited...you can't use guns to commit crimes.......that is all the limit we need.

 

[2aguy]

Hey. Can we at least agree that we want to keep guns away from criminals and those who would do bad things wh them??

Exactly...so why do you gun nuts only target law abiding people with your gun laws....that is exactly what you do and we don't understand the mentality of that........control actual criminals.

 

[2aguy]

Miller v. US says that if it's good to go on the battlefield it should be made available to the militia, meaning the common citizenry. Outside of that can be regulated, but magazines can't.

Not that it stops the states and courts from doing what they want anyways.

Your rights are only a court ruling away from being gone. Each and every one of them.

The militia is no longer the common citizenry .

Have you seen what kind of weapons are available to our military ? That should be available to everyone!?

Any rifle or pistol that can be carried by our cops or soldiers we get to carry too......crew served weapons are not individual weapons...so no...machine guns, a crew served weapon, does not count.

 

[Little-Acorn]

"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."

Ah, so it says nothing about it .

Correct. And when the Constitution says nothing about a certain power of government, that means the Federal government is forbidden to exercise that power.

Then states can elect to have laws controlling such things .

Nope. The 2nd says NO government can restrict or take away the RPKBA.

None of our rights are absolute . All of them have at least some limitations .

Already refuted for the 2nd amendment, several posts ago. Please try to keep up.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

“What should the end goal of our gun policy be?”

Wrong question.

Correct question: “What standard of judicial review should firearm regulatory measures be subject to?"

Answer: strict scrutiny.

Rationale: the right of individuals to possess firearms pursuant to the right of self-defense is fundamental, where regulations and restrictions must be supported by a compelling governmental interest, narrowly tailored to address that interest, and applied in a comprehensive, consistent manner.

Examples of firearm regulatory measures which would pass Constitutional muster per strict scrutiny:

Background checks

The designation of felons, the mentally ill, and undocumented immigrants as prohibited persons.

The prohibition of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings.

Regulations concerning the commercial sales of firearms.

Prohibitions of weapons determined to be dangerous and unusual and not in common use by the general public.

Examples of firearm regulatory measures which would not pass Constitutional muster per strict scrutiny:

Purchase permits and registration requirements.

Licensing requirements (save that of concealed carry).

Prohibitions of firearms based on appearance, configuration, or functionality, such as banning AR and AK platform rifles, or other weapons in common use by the general public not determined to be dangerous or unusual.

Training requirements.

Bans, restrictions, and limitations on magazine capacity or types of magazines.

Ammunition bans.

Waiting periods.

Restrictions on the number of firearms that may be purchased during a given time period.

 

[Pogo]

No one with any intelligence can invoke the 'founding fathers' concerning control of modern firearms. A weapon capable of a six hundred round per minute rate of fire was beyond all comprehension. It is obvious that they are vastly more dangerous than what was available two hundred and fifty years ago. The rules made at that time, for that time, are not, cannot be enshrined forever as holy writ.

Very true. When the Bill of Rights was written, not even the Minié Ball had been invented yet.

>> Before the development of the Minié ball, muzzle-loading rifles were not used in combat situations because of how difficult they were to load. Because the ammunition used had to engage the spiral grooves, or rifling, inside the rifle barrel, it had to be equal in diameter to the barrel, and shooters would have to jam the bullet into the rifle by force. In addition, the rifle tended to become even more difficult to load as gunpowder residue collected inside the barrel. The French army officer Claude-Etienne Minié was not the first to come up with the design of a bullet that expanded when fired, but he simplified and improved on earlier designs–including those developed by Britain’s Captain John Norton (1818) and William Greener (1836)–to create his namesake bullet in 1849. Cylindrical in shape, with a conical point and a hollow base containing an iron plug, the Minié bullet was smaller than the diameter of a rifle barrel, and could be easily loaded, even when the rifle became dirty.

.... The French army never adopted the Minié bullet, but the British did, paying Minié for his patent to use the ammunition in 1851. During the Crimean War of 1853-56, which pitted Britain, France and the Ottoman Turkish empire against Russia, the bullet so improved the effectiveness of infantry troops that 150 soldiers using the minié could equal the firing power of more than 500 with a traditional musket and ammunition. <<​

This was a YUUUGE advance, let alone all that has been invented since. To take the language of 2A literally, I should be able to legally own a nuclear bomb.

 

[Pogo]

Why was the 2nd is written without qualifications?

Actually it isn't. Right at the beginning of it is the conditional phrase "A well regulated Militia being necessary to the Security of a free State, ...." That's a qualification before the Amendment is even voiced.
Exactly what that means is highly debatable and not the topic here, but it's a worthy one.

(sigh)

Yet another ignoramous who can't read the normal English in the Constitution.

Time for another reprint.

From Taking On Gun Control - The Unabridged Second Amendment

The Unabridged Second Amendment
by J. Neil Schulman

If you wanted to know all about the Big Bang, you'd ring up Carl Sagan, right? And if you wanted to know about desert warfare, the man to call would be Norman Schwarzkopf, no question about it. But who would you call if you wanted the top expert on American usage, to tell you the meaning of the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution?

That was the question I asked A.C. Brocki, editorial coordinator of the Los Angeles Unified School District and formerly senior editor at Houghton Mifflin Publishers -- who himself had been recommended to me as the foremost expert on English usage in the Los Angeles school system. Mr. Brocki told me to get in touch with Roy Copperud, a retired professor of journalism at the University of Southern California and the author of American Usage and Style: The Consensus.

A little research lent support to Brocki's opinion of Professor Copperud's expertise.

Roy Copperud was a newspaper writer on major dailies for over three decades before embarking on a distinguished 17-year career teaching journalism at USC. Since 1952, Copperud has been writing a column dealing with the professional aspects of journalism for Editor and Publisher, a weekly magazine focusing on the journalism field.

He's on the usage panel of the American Heritage Dictionary, and Merriam Webster's Usage Dictionary frequently cites him as an expert. Copperud's fifth book on usage, American Usage and Style: The Consensus, has been in continuous print from Van Nostrand Reinhold since 1981, and is the winner of the Association of American Publisher's Humanities Award.

That sounds like an expert to me.

After a brief telephone call to Professor Copperud in which I introduced myself but did not give him any indication of why I was interested, I sent the following letter:

"I am writing you to ask you for your professional opinion as an expert in English usage, to analyze the text of the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution, and extract the intent from the text.

"The text of the Second Amendment is, 'A well-regulated Militia, being necessary for the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.'

"The debate over this amendment has been whether the first part of the sentence, 'A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State', is a restrictive clause or a subordinate clause, with respect to the independent clause containing the subject of the sentence, 'the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.'

"I would request that your analysis of this sentence not take into consideration issues of political impact or public policy, but be restricted entirely to a linguistic analysis of its meaning and intent. Further, since your professional analysis will likely become part of litigation regarding the consequences of the Second Amendment, I ask that whatever analysis you make be a professional opinion that you would be willing to stand behind with your reputation, and even be willing to testify under oath to support, if necessary."

My letter framed several questions about the text of the Second Amendment, then concluded:

"I realize that I am asking you to take on a major responsibility and task with this letter. I am doing so because, as a citizen, I believe it is vitally important to extract the actual meaning of the Second Amendment. While I ask that your analysis not be affected by the political importance of its results, I ask that you do this because of that importance."

After several more letters and phone calls, in which we discussed terms for his doing such an analysis, but in which we never discussed either of our opinions regarding the Second Amendment, gun control, or any other political subject, Professor Copperud sent me the follow analysis (into which I have inserted my questions for the sake of clarity):

[Copperud:] "The words 'A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state,' contrary to the interpretation cited in your letter of July 26, 1991, constitutes a present participle, rather than a clause. It is used as an adjective, modifying 'militia,' which is followed by the main clause of the sentence (subject 'the right', verb 'shall'). The 'to keep and bear arms' is asserted as an essential for maintaining a militia.

"In reply to your numbered questions:

[Schulman:] "(1) Can the sentence be interpreted to grant the right to keep and bear arms solely to 'a well-regulated militia'?"

[Copperud:] "(1) The sentence does not restrict the right to keep and bear arms, nor does it state or imply possession of the right elsewhere or by others than the people; it simply makes a positive statement with respect to a right of the people."

[Schulman:] "(2) Is 'the right of the people to keep and bear arms' granted by the words of the Second Amendment, or does the Second Amendment assume a preexisting right of the people to keep and bear arms, and merely state that such right 'shall not be infringed'?"

[Copperud:] "(2) The right is not granted by the amendment; its existence is assumed. The thrust of the sentence is that the right shall be preserved inviolate for the sake of ensuring a militia."

[Schulman:] "(3) Is the right of the people to keep and bear arms conditioned upon whether or not a well regulated militia is, in fact, necessary to the security of a free State, and if that condition is not existing, is the statement 'the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed' null and void?"

[Copperud:] "(3) No such condition is expressed or implied. The right to keep and bear arms is not said by the amendment to depend on the existence of a militia. No condition is stated or implied as to the relation of the right to keep and bear arms and to the necessity of a well-regulated militia as a requisite to the security of a free state. The right to keep and bear arms is deemed unconditional by the entire sentence."

[Schulman:] "(4) Does the clause 'A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State,' grant a right to the government to place conditions on the 'right of the people to keep and bear arms,' or is such right deemed unconditional by the meaning of the entire sentence?"

[Copperud:] "(4) The right is assumed to exist and to be unconditional, as previously stated. It is invoked here specifically for the sake of the militia."

[Schulman:] "(5) Which of the following does the phrase 'well-regulated militia' mean: 'well-equipped', 'well-organized,' 'well-drilled,' 'well-educated,' or 'subject to regulations of a superior authority'?"

[Copperud:] "(5) The phrase means 'subject to regulations of a superior authority;' this accords with the desire of the writers for civilian control over the military."

[Schulman:] "(6) (If at all possible, I would ask you to take account of the changed meanings of words, or usage, since that sentence was written 200 years ago, but not take into account historical interpretations of the intents of the authors, unless those issues can be clearly separated."

[Copperud:] "To the best of my knowledge, there has been no change in the meaning of words or in usage that would affect the meaning of the amendment. If it were written today, it might be put: "Since a well-regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be abridged.'

[Schulman:] "As a 'scientific control' on this analysis, I would also appreciate it if you could compare your analysis of the text of the Second Amendment to the following sentence,

"A well-schooled electorate, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and read Books, shall not be infringed.'

"My questions for the usage analysis of this sentence would be:

"(1) Is the grammatical structure and usage of this sentence and the way the words modify each other, identical to the Second Amendment's sentence?; and

"(2) Could this sentence be interpreted to restrict 'the right of the people to keep and read Books' _only_ to 'a well-educated electorate' -- for example, registered voters with a high-school diploma?"

[Copperud:] "(1) Your 'scientific control' sentence precisely parallels the amendment in grammatical structure.

"(2) There is nothing in your sentence that either indicates or implies the possibility of a restricted interpretation."

Professor Copperud had only one additional comment, which he placed in his cover letter: "With well-known human curiosity, I made some speculative efforts to decide how the material might be used, but was unable to reach any conclusion."

So now we have been told by one of the top experts on American usage what many knew all along: the Constitution of the United States unconditionally protects the people's right to keep and bear arms, forbidding all governments formed under the Constitution from abridging that right.

As I write this, the attempted coup against constitutional government in the Soviet Union has failed, apparently because the will of the people in that part of the world to be free from capricious tyranny is stronger than the old guard's desire to maintain a monopoly on dictatorial power.

And here in the United States, elected lawmakers, judges, and appointed officials who are pledged to defend the Constitution of the United States ignore, marginalize, or prevaricate about the Second Amendment routinely. American citizens are put in American prisons for carrying arms, owning arms of forbidden sorts, or failing to satisfy bureaucratic requirements regarding the owning and carrying of firearms -- all of which is an abridgement of the unconditional right of the people to keep and bear arms, guaranteed by the Constitution.

And even the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), staunch defender of the rest of the Bill of Rights, stands by and does nothing.

It seems it is up to those who believe in the right to keep and bear arms to preserve that right. No one else will. No one else can. Will we beg our elected representatives not to take away our rights, and continue regarding them as representing us if they do? Will we continue obeying judges who decide that the Second Amendment doesn't mean what it says it means but means whatever they say it means in their Orwellian doublespeak?

Or will we simply keep and bear the arms of our choice, as the Constitution of the United States promises us we can, and pledge that we will defend that promise with our lives, our fortunes, and our sacred honor?

------------------------------------------

©1991 by The New Gun Week and Second Amendment Foundation. Informational reproduction of the entire article is hereby authorized provided the author, The New Gun Week and Second Amendment Foundation are credited. All other rights reserved

OK Emily. See if you can figure out what your point might be, if you have one, from this endless screed. I ain't spending the rest of the week wading through a verbage flood.

 

[Pogo]

The "mentally ill" thing is a smokescreen. Sure, some mass shootings are carried out by people with a history of mental illness. Mass shootings make a big splash in the media and in the fearful mind.

But we are not losing 16,000 Americans a year to mass shootings or the mentally ill. We are losing them to one-on-one gun homicides.

No one on the Right is offering a viable solution to this problem. They toss out "mental health" red herrings after a mass shooting, and call it a day.

It's a good point that the mass shootings like the Colorado theater and Newtown were a huge splash, but as awful as they were, they account for not many of the gun deaths in this country. Most killings one-on-one or one-on-two are by people who aren't mentally ill. Since it is impossible (I think) to know who would take another citizen's life when you sell them the gun (except for the restrictions we already have in place) that is why it seems like the only way to put a big dent in these killings is to severely restrict the number and type of guns available for general consumption.
I know lots of people with guns and none of them worry me. I don't like the thought of disarming them. But what else can be done, except to shrug and give up and let the killings keep going on and on?

Disarming America would require us to repeal the Second Amendment. And when you are willing to start denying rights in the name of the common good, then you cannot make an argument against the banning of dissent.

No, you are going to have to come up with a better plan.

Don't some people think the Second Amendment actually speaks to a militia, not individual citizens?

That is what's implied by the leading conditional phrase. Unfortunately as written it's a grammatical train wreck and consequently clear as mud. Which kind of indicates they didn't really put much thought into it.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

That's a reasonable start.

It sounds like you believe that we are better off letting the government decide who can have a gun and who can't. Correct?

Second Amendment jurisprudence determines who may possess a firearm, decided by the courts pursuant to that case law.

And Second Amendment jurisprudence is in its infancy, still evolving, where the doctrine of judicial review will make clear in time what restrictions government may enact and what restrictions it may not.

 

[jon_berzerk]

I chose unlimited but I really don't mind a background check. But that's about it.

of the last three checks i had

one took two days for a response

the next one they never called back

the last one was almost instantaneous

it is kind of a hassle though

 

[FA_Q2]

Most guns deaths are suicides.

Nobody's gonna say "gee, I can't get a gun, I guess I'm not going to kill myself." Take out the suicides, accidents, etc., the numbers aren't anywhere near as bad as the anti-gun pants shitters would have you think. You never hear the pants shitters ever talk about the "why", only the method.

Our HOMICIDE rate is much higher than developed countries which have much stricter gun control.

That's a simple fact.

It is a meaningless fact.

The homicide rate is unconnected with stricter gun controls. Those nations would have lower homicide rates with or without the controls they have in place. The homicide rates in those nation before and after such laws were passed prove this.

 

[FA_Q2]

The "mentally ill" thing is a smokescreen. Sure, some mass shootings are carried out by people with a history of mental illness. Mass shootings make a big splash in the media and in the fearful mind.

But we are not losing 16,000 Americans a year to mass shootings or the mentally ill. We are losing them to one-on-one gun homicides.

No one on the Right is offering a viable solution to this problem. They toss out "mental health" red herrings after a mass shooting, and call it a day.

That is because there really is no solution. This is, as pogo stated, a CULTURAL problem. You do not fix culture through government edict. It is a change we need to address as a people.

 

[FA_Q2]

I have proposed a solution here a few times. Instead of registering guns and limiting magazine sizes and whatnot, we should register gun buyers.

If you apply to be a gun buyer, and pass a mental health and criminal background check, your name goes on a list. Sort of like those people who can now get pre-screened before flying.

If you wish to purchase a firearm, the retailer simply looks to see if your name is on the approved gun buyer list. If it is, you can buy as many guns and any size magazines you wish, and no record is kept of what you bought.

If you are a certified nutjob, your name does not get on the list and you cannot buy a gun.

If you are on the list, and then get convicted of whatever crime the people of your state decide warrants your removal from the list, then you are taken off the list.

If you are on the registered gun buyer list, it does not necessarily mean you have bought a gun. Nor does it indicate how many guns you own. Nor does it indicate how much ammo or magazines you own. It just indicates you are an upstanding citizen whose Second Amendment rights shall not be infringed or taken away without due process.

Why do you feel the need to address this as a 'may I exercise my rights' rather than 'rights have been taken by due process.' IOW, this list should be a list of those with their rights taken away after due process rather than the other direction.

 

[Iceweasel]

It limits government

Correct. In a few places it imposes concrete restrictions on our various governments. And it also says that if there is any power NOT mentioned in the Constitution, the Fed govt is forbidden to exercise that power, but the states and the people still can.

Are you one of those that think if it isn't mentioned in the constitution the law has no right to impose on your doings?

No. You?

Well, you're wrong. Cops have to deal with constitutionalists all the time. You can go to court and protest all you want but if you break the law you do the time, that's how it works. Like I said, the constitution can't possibly handle all the laws of the land and was never intended to.
Ten year olds are not allowed to run around with loaded weapons, sorry if you don't like it but that changes nothing in the real world.

 

[Old Rocks]

For those who don't find an exact match, just pick the closest one. It's impossible to cover every possible choice in a poll like this.

Note this is a goal question, not a question what the policies are to get there.

None of the above. The end goal of this nation's gun policy should be to end the very high number of gun deaths in this nation, while not infringing on the rights of the gun owner that uses his guns for hunting and recreation. If that means banning the sale of certain types of weapons, so be it. We have banned the private ownership of the Thompson .45 Submachine Gun, unless you can pass certain background checks, for many years, and it has not affected our freedoms. The NRA and the gun nuts on this board need a reality check before the citizens of this nation get fed up with them and pass gun laws that even I won't like.

 

[Iceweasel]

None of the above. The end goal of this nation's gun policy should be to end the very high number of gun deaths in this nation, while not infringing on the rights of the gun owner that uses his guns for hunting and recreation. If that means banning the sale of certain types of weapons, so be it. We have banned the private ownership of the Thompson .45 Submachine Gun, unless you can pass certain background checks, for many years, and it has not affected our freedoms. The NRA and the gun nuts on this board need a reality check before the citizens of this nation get fed up with them and pass gun laws that even I won't like.

You left out self defense. That's why I own guns. I ride motorcycles for recreation and go to the store for food. Machine guns do require a fee but Thompson's are still legal and mass produced. Like most liberals you are totally in the dark but highly opinionated.

Most gun deaths are gang or self inflicted. That has nothing to do with me and no, the nation won't pass draconian guns laws. The Democrats learned long ago it's political suicide.

 

[Old Rocks]

They require more than a fee. A special license, with extensive background check.

So, your solution to the rate of suicides? And to keeping the guns out of the hands of the gangs?

There was a time that one could have said that the nation would never pass tolerant laws concerning homosexuals.

I do not want draconian gun laws. But I would like to see some policies that reduces the number of guns out on the street. Thus far, we have seen the NRA and people like you advocating more and more guns out on the street, and we have seen an increase in the use of the guns for suicide and gang wars. So, what now? It's in your court.

 

[Iceweasel]

They require more than a fee. A special license, with extensive background check.

So, your solution to the rate of suicides? And to keeping the guns out of the hands of the gangs?

There was a time that one could have said that the nation would never pass tolerant laws concerning homosexuals.

I do not want draconian gun laws. But I would like to see some policies that reduces the number of guns out on the street. Thus far, we have seen the NRA and people like you advocating more and more guns out on the street, and we have seen an increase in the use of the guns for suicide and gang wars. So, what now? It's in your court.

Homosexuals? You want homosexuals to have background checks and fees? WTF? Suicides and gangs were two separate issues. You are retarded, drunk or stoned.

 

[kaz]

For those who don't find an exact match, just pick the closest one. It's impossible to cover every possible choice in a poll like this.

Note this is a goal question, not a question what the policies are to get there.

None of the above. The end goal of this nation's gun policy should be to end the very high number of gun deaths in this nation, while not infringing on the rights of the gun owner that uses his guns for hunting and recreation. If that means banning the sale of certain types of weapons, so be it. We have banned the private ownership of the Thompson .45 Submachine Gun, unless you can pass certain background checks, for many years, and it has not affected our freedoms. The NRA and the gun nuts on this board need a reality check before the citizens of this nation get fed up with them and pass gun laws that even I won't like.

Let's assume for a second that criminals as you believe will only buy legal guns to commit crimes, they won't just go by an illegal one. You just dealt with only a tiny fraction of the crimes when your stated goal was to reduce "the very high number of gun deaths"