Why Liberals Should Love the 2nd Amendment

[Saint Peter]

Me foreigner. English is second language.

How gud is your French or whatever?

Better than the King's!

Byron in a fart smeller.

 

[statsultan]

C) Washington, Franklin, Jefferson, Madison etc. all dared to raise arms against their homeland. One mans traitor/terrorist is another mans patriot/freedom fighter. All the people I know who if the time came would be willing to fight to uphold the constitution are all upstanding citizens of the US, several of whom have earned high level military/LEO awards for valor while serving their country, state and community.

http://oathkeepers.org/oath/

Ok, Frizzle, you seem to have more experience than I in what a small number of highly trained and armed individuals can do. I'd think that Iraq/Afghanistan isn't comparable because you and I have been arguing about rebellion against our own government's military rather than a foreign invader. Home field advantage matters a lot, but I concede the point.

I do find it slightly ironic that you first mentioned people who would be willing to fight to overthrow the government and win against the US military. I mentioned the duties of the government (i.e. of the police) and quoted the Constitution.

You say that the government has no duty to protect the people, and come back with a link to a group of policemen, veterans, and current members of the military affirming their oath to protect the people and to support the Constitution.

It seems like we're both on the same side, differ on one small point, and are mostly talking past each other.

As far as this little bit “Ah, so you're saying that people who don't own guns and are willing to use them against others, either for personal, religious, philosophical, or any other reasons, are irresponsible. Interesting.” where did you get that? I never said to go on a shooting rampage for shit’s and giggles I said it is every persons responsibility to ensure their own safety, not the governments.

I took it as the logical corollary to your own statement, that you have now repeated. You said it is every person's responsibility to ensure their own safety which, to you, means gun ownership and willingness to use it. Thus anyone who does not follow your meaning is, by definition, irresponsible.

 

[statsultan]

We live in a highly policed state. *your para 2* --- in which the police are not required to protect the citizens (Castle Rock v. Gonzales, 545 U.S. 748 (2005)).

So, That being proven (by law) and obviously true (unlike your circular logic argument against gun ownership). Who is to protect the citizens if not themselves?

Ok, I conceded the militia uprising point in my prior post. Obviously you and Frizzle are plugged into the massive NRA uprising that could happen at any moment. I'm a little frightened by the rhetoric being thrown around, actually. I didn't realize we were living in the last days of the Republic. Silly me, here I am still holding onto faith in the political process.

But to the above post - that's an overly broad, and downright scary, interpretation of Castle Rock v. Gonzales. It has been long settled law that the police have a duty to protect the people and to give their best efforts in preventing crime, but that they will not be held civilly liable for being unable to prevent every crime. It's impossible to do that. Instead, the police puts its limited resources to the most practicable uses, which includes investigating crimes after the fact. They still have a duty to bring criminals to justice, even if they are unable to prevent the crime from happening in the first place.

In Castle Rock, the state government had written a law giving the police an express duty to enforce all restraining orders that were issued based on domestic violence. When Gonzales's ex-husband violated the order to take their kids on an outing, the police didn't bother to find him and haul the kids back, because the wife wasn't in danger (i.e. the reason for the restraining order being issued in the first place). The police were not supposed to make that kind of determination, per the plain meaning of the statute, but they have limited resources. And as a result, tragedy struck.

So the Supreme Court reinforced the traditional rule of the police not being civilly liable, even in this heart-wrenching case. They are ruling that the state could not create that express duty, removing all discretion from officers, and which would only subject itself to immediate and recurring civil liability.

That does not mean the police no longer have ANY duties to protect the public, as you are arguing.

Just think about what you are saying - you cannot trust the police to do their jobs, so therefore every citizen must buy a gun and have implied permission to use their own discretion on when to use lethal force in the void of state protection. Congratulations, you're saying that the Supreme Court of the United States has declared that our civilization has been lost.

Again, the rhetoric, and its logical conclusions, ... really scary.

 

[statsultan]

.A) That’s just it, you cant ever get rid of all the guns, sharp and blunt objects, and anything that could be used as a deadly weapon. Won't ever happen which is why the 2a is what it is, every one has the right to arm themselves against harm. Me? I prefer high caliber pistols, a variety of assault rifles and a shotty for close encounters.

Oh, and another thing. Sorry, this just came to me.

I wasn't saying to get rid of everything that could possibly do anyone any harm. I was making a utilitarian argument that if we got rid of some things that people use to kill each other, we take away some people's opportunity to reach for a lethal weapon when tempers flare and they are gripped with the heat of passion or sudden adequate provocation, and people who now end up dead would instead end up hurt.

It's the same logic used to ban the public from having some things right now. Which I assume you agree with, since in this entire thread I haven't heard anyone support the plain meaning of the 2A, that private citizens have the right to own all arms that can be used in a military situation. In fact, for over about a hundred years now, we as a society have been just fine with limiting the type of guns people can own (e.g. no sawed-off shotguns).

So you're already agreeing with me. Now it's just a matter of where we draw the line about which guns and weapons we ban and which we allow. "Where is that line" is all this entire argument has been about.

 

[Weird Harold]

It's the same logic used to ban the public from having some things right now. Which I assume you agree with, since in this entire thread I haven't heard anyone support the plain meaning of the 2A, that private citizens have the right to own all arms that can be used in a military situation. In fact, for over about a hundred years now, we as a society have been just fine with limiting the type of guns people can own (e.g. no sawed-off shotguns).

I shall correct that ommission in THIS thread, then -- or at least do it explicitly:

Citizens of the United States should be permitted to own anything whatsoever as long as their possession is maintained so that it does not endanger public safety -- Your right to own any "arms" from a stockpile of fist sized rocks to a B31 tactical nuke should be predicated on what you do with it and not on the mere fact of it being in your possession.

ETA: that standard of regulating actions instead of objects applies to drugs and hazardous materials, too.

 

[KingOrfeo]

One question for you...



Where the hell do you think the soldiers of the most powerful government in the world come from?

Easy. They're conscripted in infancy and trained for war from childhood. That works well enough until genetic engineering makes them obsolete.

 

[kbate]

Ok, I conceded the militia uprising point in my prior post. Obviously you and Frizzle are plugged into the massive NRA uprising that could happen at any moment. I'm a little frightened by the rhetoric being thrown around, actually. I didn't realize we were living in the last days of the Republic. Silly me, here I am still holding onto faith in the political process.

But to the above post - that's an overly broad, and downright scary, interpretation of Castle Rock v. Gonzales. It has been long settled law that the police have a duty to protect the people and to give their best efforts in preventing crime, but that they will not be held civilly liable for being unable to prevent every crime. It's impossible to do that. Instead, the police puts its limited resources to the most practicable uses, which includes investigating crimes after the fact. They still have a duty to bring criminals to justice, even if they are unable to prevent the crime from happening in the first place.

In Castle Rock, the state government had written a law giving the police an express duty to enforce all restraining orders that were issued based on domestic violence. When Gonzales's ex-husband violated the order to take their kids on an outing, the police didn't bother to find him and haul the kids back, because the wife wasn't in danger (i.e. the reason for the restraining order being issued in the first place). The police were not supposed to make that kind of determination, per the plain meaning of the statute, but they have limited resources. And as a result, tragedy struck.

So the Supreme Court reinforced the traditional rule of the police not being civilly liable, even in this heart-wrenching case. They are ruling that the state could not create that express duty, removing all discretion from officers, and which would only subject itself to immediate and recurring civil liability.

That does not mean the police no longer have ANY duties to protect the public, as you are arguing.

Just think about what you are saying - you cannot trust the police to do their jobs, so therefore every citizen must buy a gun and have implied permission to use their own discretion on when to use lethal force in the void of state protection. Congratulations, you're saying that the Supreme Court of the United States has declared that our civilization has been lost.

Again, the rhetoric, and its logical conclusions, ... really scary.

In Castle Rock - the police specifically had court papers ( a restraining order) alerting them to exactly what the threat was and still they refused to provide any sort of protection, and we arrived at "victims" as a result. If I leave a child in my car - I go to jail and lose custody of my child as an unfit parent.

If a police force allows through negligence for a family to be slaughtered - they argue in court that even despite pre-warning of the possibility by the courts - they have no liability. I wish you liberal's had given the same "can't prevent all" get out of jail free card to former president bush over katrina. Seems strange doesn't it.

Why again do you want guns banned? So only criminals and police have power?

 

[statsultan]

In Castle Rock - the police specifically had court papers ( a restraining order) alerting them to exactly what the threat was and still they refused to provide any sort of protection, and we arrived at "victims" as a result. If I leave a child in my car - I go to jail and lose custody of my child as an unfit parent.

If a police force allows through negligence for a family to be slaughtered - they argue in court that even despite pre-warning of the possibility by the courts - they have no liability.

The argument I hate most is the "parade of horribles" ... we must do something now because otherwise the most horrible things I can imagine might happen, even if I concede that the chances of them happening are remote.

As I've said, the facts in teh Castle Rock case are a tragedy. Pure and simple. But the restraining order barred the ex-husband from coming to the house except for pre-arranged times in order for him to not beat his ex-wife. So the police respond and are told that the ex-husband had been to the house when the ex-wife was not at the house. Yes, technically, he had broken the restraining order. But there was no evidence that there was any danger to the kids, since if there had been then he wouldn't have been allowed to take the kids at those pre-arranged times in the first place. The statute explicitly gave the police a duty to enforce the restraining order, only here the violation didn't coincide with the reasons for issuing the restraining order in the first place. So they exercised their discretion and did not take several police cars away from their regular patrol in order to track down the ex-husband and kids at an amusement park.

And you want to use those facts to saw a) that the police are responsible for the ex-husband killing the three kids and then committing suicide, and b) that the police cannot be trusted at all and so everyone needs to start packing heat.

I'd think with that long of a stretch you'd have sprained your shoulder.

I wish you liberal's had given the same "can't prevent all" get out of jail free card to former president bush over katrina. Seems strange doesn't it.

I'd ask you to elaborate, but I have neither the time nor inclination.

Why again do you want guns banned? So only criminals and police have power?

Finally, a point that may have some illustrative power. Basically, yes. There are two types of criminals, people who are engaged in an illegal enterprise and thus live their lives hiding from the reach of the law, and those who in a moment of weakness or heat of passion don't think of the consequences of their actions and break the law.

The first type would have their lives made much more difficult if guns were outlawed. Yes, they could prey more easily on the rest of us, but their efforts to obtain guns would be much more likely to bring them to the police's attention. So in the end, they would find ways to go about their enterprise without guns (see, e.g. Japan).

The second type of criminal would be much, much, much less likely to leave a dead body in their wake if a gun was not readily accessible to them. For example, would Gonzales's ex-husband have been able to kill his children and then himself if he didn't own a gun? Maybe. But maybe not. There have been a spate of murder-suicides in my town recently. I doubt any of them happen without a gun already being in the home.

Add in the numbers of accidents involving gun ownership, especially involving young children in the house, and I think the benefits of a ban on guns far exceed the "we must be able to defend ourselves" argument in favor of the status quo.

 

[y=mx+b]

and not one single "oh you're welcome"

 

[TurdFergeson]

Just what we need, yet another ban.

You know, 'cause banning drugs has worked so well.

 

[Weird Harold]

Just what we need, yet another ban.

You know, 'cause banning drugs has worked so well.

And banning alcohol by Constitutional Amendment worked ever so well in the 20's, too.

 

[statsultan]

Just what we need, yet another ban.

You know, 'cause banning drugs has worked so well.

You know, this is the shortest and yet the most compelling counter-argument in the entire thread.

So nuclear weapons for everybody!!!

 

[doctor_insanus]

Without having read the thread, I'll say that I love the 2nd Amendment.

I just hate wackadoos.

 

[TurdFergeson]

You know, this is the shortest and yet the most compelling counter-argument in the entire thread.

So nuclear weapons for everybody!!!

That seems like a gross exaggeration.

Guns are very easy to manufacture. People make simple pen-guns in Prison. Nuclear weapons, not so much.

But anyway...if you really want to get technical, why not ban bullets? Guns only fire those pesky little things which actually kill people.

I think your argument about murder/ suicides is off-base, though.]

Guns might make it a bit easier, but there are plenty of other waysm and I don't think it can be proven that these incidents would be averted of no guns were involved. Because crazy people do crazy things.

Now...saying all that, I am strongly in favor of "smart guns" and non-lethal projectile weaponry.

You don't always need to blow off the head of some punk. Most of a the time a 12 gauge full of rock salt will be more than effective for a variety of common varmints.

 

[TurdFergeson]

And banning alcohol by Constitutional Amendment worked ever so well in the 20's, too.

This reminds me of that crazy AZ sheriff who recently did a press conference showing off his .50 val. machine gun.

Merely attempting to treat the symptoms of the disease (with rapid-fire bullets), rather than cure the disease itself (The War on Drugs and the resultant profit motive).

 

[statsultan]

That seems like a gross exaggeration.

Guns are very easy to manufacture. People make simple pen-guns in Prison. Nuclear weapons, not so much.

But anyway...if you really want to get technical, why not ban bullets? Guns only fire those pesky little things which actually kill people.

I think your argument about murder/ suicides is off-base, though.]

Guns might make it a bit easier, but there are plenty of other waysm and I don't think it can be proven that these incidents would be averted of no guns were involved. Because crazy people do crazy things.

Now...saying all that, I am strongly in favor of "smart guns" and non-lethal projectile weaponry.

You don't always need to blow off the head of some punk. Most of a the time a 12 gauge full of rock salt will be more than effective for a variety of common varmints.

Yes, its an exaggeration. Its taking an argument to the extreme to make a point. We ban all kinds of weapons, and types of weapons, already.

I may be off-base with the murder-suicide argument. I haven't looked at the stats, or if any meaningful testing of the hypothesis is possible. Its just an impression I've gotten from reading cases and watching the news.

As to the banning bullets - congrats, you're just feeding the gun-owner's paranoia even more than I am with that argument, since yours is more plausible than mine. Not by much, though. Neither a ban on bullets or a ban on guns is ever going to happen in this country. But whereas my ban on all guns is 1 in a billion, your ban on bullets is maybe only 1 in a million.

 

[Weird Harold]

Yes, its an exaggeration. Its taking an argument to the extreme to make a point. We ban all kinds of weapons, and types of weapons, already.

If you want ad absurdum arguments, then how about we ban private automobiles; they kill far more people by accident or negligence and are more accessible for crimes of passion than weapons of any type are.

...your ban on bullets is maybe only 1 in a million.

It's far more likely than that. A simple mandated change in the composition of primers has made ammunition a use it or lose it proposition. Primers still have a fairly respectible shelf life, but ammunition can't be hoarded in anticipation of Z-Day any longer.

Reloading supplies in particular have been hemmed in with "safety" regulations about how much can be purchased or stored by individuals -- at least they were locally the last time I did any reloading before deteriorating health made me stop hunting.

 

[Frizzle_Fry]

I do find it slightly ironic that you first mentioned people who would be willing to fight to overthrow the government and win against the US military. I mentioned the duties of the government (i.e. of the police) and quoted the Constitution.

1) You say that the government has no duty to protect the people, and come back with a link to a group of policemen, veterans, and current members of the military affirming their oath to protect the people and to support the Constitution.

2) I took it as the logical corollary to your own statement, that you have now repeated. You said it is every person's responsibility to ensure their own safety which, to you, means gun ownership and willingness to use it. Thus anyone who does not follow your meaning is, by definition, irresponsible.

1)When you said

"And here I thought our government's primary purpose (aka responsibility) was to establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty. In my mind, that means taking steps to protect from and to punish those who dare attempt to harm my family and/or my property. But if you have an argument to the contrary I'd enjoy reading it. "

You have to read it with legal context in mind, and you are right they will take steps to protect you from (write laws, have a police force) and bring to justice and punish anyone who wrongs you/your family/ your property. No where dose it say they are required to prevent any harm from coming to you or your own and there is not a police dept in the entire country required to prevent a violent crime from happening. I forgot the actual number from class and I'm not opening my book but over 90% of police action occurs after a crime is committed. Which leads me to point number 2.

2) I never said you have to have a gun, if you are a ninja feel perfectly safe protecting your family from an attack with a wiffle ball bat and poison darts then that is cool as hell. I think the irresponsible are those who rely on anyone other than themselves (alleviating themselves of that responsibility) to secure/protect themselves and their own. Most people of this type rely on some level of government to protect them which is a fail blog waiting to happen.

I wasn't saying to get rid of everything that could possibly do anyone any harm. I was making a utilitarian argument that if we got rid of some things that people use to kill each other, we take away some people's opportunity to reach for a lethal weapon when tempers flare and they are gripped with the heat of passion or sudden adequate provocation, and people who now end up dead would instead end up hurt.

You should fear the high functioning retard behind the wheel of a 2 ton truck moving 70mph more than the guy next to you at the bank/store with a legal pair of .45's and 30 rnds of ammo on him. You are FAR more likely to get killed by a great number of other things than a legal gun owner/carrier. Not having a gun wont stop a nutter from killing somone, but an intended victim with weapon just might.

 

[Liar]

If you want ad absurdum arguments, then how about we ban private automobiles; they kill far more people by accident or negligence and are more accessible for crimes of passion than weapons of any type are.

Valid argument, I guess.

But you are aware that that's not an ad absurdum on the same tangent, right? Just because you can use a tool for violence, it's not a tool intended for violence.

 

[Frizzle_Fry]

Valid argument, I guess.

But you are aware that that's not an ad absurdum on the same tangent, right? Just because you can use a tool for violence, it's not a tool intended for violence.

You could also say that it is not on the same tangent because driving is not an inalienable right that "Shall not be infringed" upon by our government at any level in accordance with the Constitution of the United States of America.

 

[Liar]

You could also say that it is not on the same tangent because driving is not an inalienable right that "Shall not be infringed" upon by our government at any level in accordance with the Constitution of the United States of America.

That's yet another tangent. And not the tangent that was discussed.

 

[kbate]

The argument I hate most is the "parade of horribles" ... we must do something now because otherwise the most horrible things I can imagine might happen, even if I concede that the chances of them happening are remote.

As I've said, the facts in teh Castle Rock case are a tragedy. Pure and simple. But the restraining order barred the ex-husband from coming to the house except for pre-arranged times in order for him to not beat his ex-wife. So the police respond and are told that the ex-husband had been to the house when the ex-wife was not at the house. Yes, technically, he had broken the restraining order. But there was no evidence that there was any danger to the kids, since if there had been then he wouldn't have been allowed to take the kids at those pre-arranged times in the first place. The statute explicitly gave the police a duty to enforce the restraining order, only here the violation didn't coincide with the reasons for issuing the restraining order in the first place. So they exercised their discretion and did not take several police cars away from their regular patrol in order to track down the ex-husband and kids at an amusement park.

And you want to use those facts to saw a) that the police are responsible for the ex-husband killing the three kids and then committing suicide, and b) that the police cannot be trusted at all and so everyone needs to start packing heat.

I'd think with that long of a stretch you'd have sprained your shoulder.



I'd ask you to elaborate, but I have neither the time nor inclination.



Finally, a point that may have some illustrative power. Basically, yes. There are two types of criminals, people who are engaged in an illegal enterprise and thus live their lives hiding from the reach of the law, and those who in a moment of weakness or heat of passion don't think of the consequences of their actions and break the law.

The first type would have their lives made much more difficult if guns were outlawed. Yes, they could prey more easily on the rest of us, but their efforts to obtain guns would be much more likely to bring them to the police's attention. So in the end, they would find ways to go about their enterprise without guns (see, e.g. Japan).

The second type of criminal would be much, much, much less likely to leave a dead body in their wake if a gun was not readily accessible to them. For example, would Gonzales's ex-husband have been able to kill his children and then himself if he didn't own a gun? Maybe. But maybe not. There have been a spate of murder-suicides in my town recently. I doubt any of them happen without a gun already being in the home.

Add in the numbers of accidents involving gun ownership, especially involving young children in the house, and I think the benefits of a ban on guns far exceed the "we must be able to defend ourselves" argument in favor of the status quo.

Why are you not angry about automobiles? 20 times the people are killed by misuse of cars every single year as are killed by guns. 1000 times as many are injured by automobiles/motorcycles/trucks.

We have regulated who may drive. We test drivers. We license and perform safety checks on vehicles.

and till people crash and die.

That alone should prove that regulation and bans will not make any difference in the Gun Violence you claim to abhor.

In truth, you dislike guns because you are liberal and liberals dislike guns because they are the final power of the people. Everything you quote about crime/violence is a lie to cover this fact.

***

You used idiotic logic earlier to accuse me of "end of republic" thinking - which I have not engaged in. I do not believe revolution is imminent or is ever likely in this country. As long as television sates the masses - they will remain docile sheep in the face of a growing police state, and even cheer the loss of their freedoms.

You again use assumptions and a shocking lack of truth in your assertions about criminal use of guns. Gonzale's ex-husband went there to kill. No Gun ban would have made a difference any more than a restraining order (the supposed protection of your mighty protective police) made to him.

Banning guns for the citizens of America - won't stop Mexican and Columbian drug dealers from killing. Bans won't hinder crime at all or bring them to police attention any more than the 20,000 gun laws already in force do. Every state has a speeding law - and still cars drive 20 over that limit. Drunks continue to drive, kids drink and crash - despite MAD and the race for the nation's toughest DWI law.

England is planning to ban pointed steak knives now that banning guns, air-guns and toy guns didn't end violence.

How far do you liberals wish to go in your attempt to create a new peaceful human?

 

[Byron In Exile]

Byron in a fart smeller.

No different than anyone else within 20 yards of your noxious expulsions.

 

[Byron In Exile]

Every state has a speeding law - and still cars drive 20 over that limit.

I've driven 145 mph in a 65 mph zone.

 

[Liar]

No different than anyone else within 20 yards of your noxious expulsions.

More to the point, why didn't you harp on his spelling?


"in"?