Conservative Court of Appeals supports Federal gun infringement

[GhostWriter16]

The moral worth of a modern society should be determined by its treatment of the poor, not by its treatment of everyone else.

The moral worth of a government should be determined by how little it steals.

The moral worth of the people in society should be determined by (Among other things of course) how much they voluntarily give to the poor.

Say what you will of my position, it is more moral than locking people up

I would venture that having a specialised body of goons going around beating people up for consuming non-Crown-approved substances a far stranger morality than simply saying "I wouldn't if I were you, but it's your body".

Dommy's problem, of course, is that the dogmatic exhalation of the all-knowing market would create a situation in which drugs are ready available and widely consumed, but in which their existed pressure little information as to their damaging effects, or resources for those suffering from addiction. (Think how it used to be with tobacco.) It's much easier to argue for legalisation alongside a comprehensive welfare system (or some equivalent).

I don't really object to the idea that to make a choice you have to be informed, and as such requiring labels and such that give information. Now, I wish people would be smart enough to look for these things themselves, but I understand the convenience of having the information, its a relatively low cost to the manufacturer, and yeah, I don't really object to it. To make a choice, you do kind of need to know what you are doing.

Legalization becomes stupid with a comprehensive welfare system because then people can be stupid AND make other people pay for it.

And indeed, if tobacco were banned now it would ruin plenty of lives. Its a good thing they didn't do it, as harmful as the drug is. And legalization of everything else would be a net good for anyone who is already addicted, or anyone who would have still gotten addicted in the future, than the status quo.

Of course, it would be a bad thing to those on the fringe who would try it if it were legal, but would not if its illegal. But its not the government's job to play nanny for them.

I, of course, have no desire to use tobacco, marijuana, cocaine, or anything else. But I don't think using force against users is justified.

Yep, and it makes sense! The problem is that what you've just described is why there should be certain gun restrictions, yet you simultaneously claim that you want no restrictions at all. I'm not even saying that your view on gun ownership is wrong (I think it is, but that's irrelevant to this argument), just that you're presenting it poorly, and trying to cling to something that you don't actually believe. You support gun restrictions, as you have just described. You do not want violent and dangerous people having a right to own a gun. This means you do not support a situation in which there are no gun restrictions; a situation in which the right to gun ownership shall not be infringed. This does not make you a bad person, it makes you a reasonable person with a reasoned position. Embrace it!

I think "Dangerous" is a slippery slope, and would probably be used to say "Oh you said guns should be a check on tyranny, you are dangerous." Better to stick with "People who have committed violent crimes."

For the record, I do object to restrictions on the "Mentally ill" since they haven't committed any crimes. I do understand restrictions on children, since, as stated they aren't adults and so can't properly consent to anything, and while I wouldn't apply that to everything up to unhealthy food, it does make sense to apply it to alcohol, drugs, sex, joining the military and deadly weapons (Whether 18 is the right age of adulthood is another matter and not one I'm really knowledgeable enough to get into. All I'm saying is that there is a point upon which you become an adult and so paternalistic legislation restricting you is wrong). I do object, however, to saying "Well, you can join the military but you can't own your own gun." Either you are an adult or you are not.

 

[JollyRoger]

I think "Dangerous" is a slippery slope, and would probably be used to say "Oh you said guns should be a check on tyranny, you are dangerous." Better to stick with "People who have committed violent crimes."

"Dangerous" is not the peak of the slippery slope - "People who have committed violent crimes" is.

 

[GhostWriter16]

If you actually believed that, I'd be interested to hear your reasoning, but since you are just a hardcore statist that thinks government should be able to take away the right to bear arms whenever it wants, stop telling me I'm anti-gun.

Ron Paul might, MIGHT be able to justifiably give me that criticism, but you can't

 

[JollyRoger]

If you actually believed that, I'd be interested to hear your reasoning, but since you are just a hardcore statist that thinks government should be able to take away the right to bear arms whenever it wants, stop telling me I'm anti-gun.

Ron Paul might, MIGHT be able to justifiably give me that criticism, but you can't

I have a well-documented record on the site of being for no gun restrictions. You are more of a gun grabber than I am.

And I gave you my reasoning - the text of the Constitution - apparently that doesn't work with gun grabbing, hardcore statists such as yourself.

 

[GhostWriter16]

I'd actually take your argument over the number of restrictions we have now. Fine, let the felons have guns

 

[JollyRoger]

We might make a libertarian out of you yet.

 

[History_Buff]

Correction. The US government can always print more cash, and/or steal it.

And rhetoric aside, people respect that. People like to own US debt.

 

[Traitorfish]

Legalization becomes stupid with a comprehensive welfare system because then people can be stupid AND make other people pay for it.

There's a strong case that providing the costs of comprehensive treatment and rehabilitation is in the interests in at least the majority of the population, because it means that they don't have to live in a world full of untreated drug addicts. Speaking only for myself, I live maybe ten, twenty minutes walk away from some pretty deprived neighbourhoods, which is not so far as to isolate me from the social ills that untreated addiction generated. (edit: I did a bit of digging, and it turns out I actually live in one of the 20% most deprived areas in the UK. That's honestly quite surprising.)

 

[GhostWriter16]

And rhetoric aside, people respect that. People like to own US debt.

I own US bonds that were purchased for me by other people, so technically I own US debt as well. But I would never, ever purchase it. I don't trust the system as far as I can throw it. If I had kids and wanted wanted to invest in something for them, I'd either buy stock in a safe company, or gold.

I don't even believe the US will even have debt for the next twenty years. They'll keep increasing it until they default on it.

There's a strong case that providing the costs of comprehensive treatment and rehabilitation is in the interests in at least the majority of the population, because it means that they don't have to live in a world full of untreated drug addicts. Speaking only for myself, I live maybe ten, twenty minutes walk away from some pretty deprived neighbourhoods, which is not so far as to isolate me from the social ills that untreated addiction generated.

Now you're arguing for illegalization

I get that I'm talking to a communist who doesn't believe in property rights, so I suppose the argument of "Don't bill someone else for your choices" doesn't really work in that paradigm, but if you were a capitalist this paragraph would be a typical anti-legalization post

I'm too ideological to think "Societal good" is a good reason to invoke government intervention in this case.

 

[MagisterCultuum]

For the record, I do object to restrictions on the "Mentally ill" since they haven't committed any crimes. I do understand restrictions on children, since, as stated they aren't adults and so can't properly consent to anything, and while I wouldn't apply that to everything up to unhealthy food, it does make sense to apply it to alcohol, drugs, sex, joining the military and deadly weapons (Whether 18 is the right age of adulthood is another matter and not one I'm really knowledgeable enough to get into. All I'm saying is that there is a point upon which you become an adult and so paternalistic legislation restricting you is wrong). I do object, however, to saying "Well, you can join the military but you can't own your own gun." Either you are an adult or you are not.

Children (obviously not newborn infants, but certainly teenagers) typically have a much greater ability to give informed consent than do those adults whose decision making processes are warped by severe mental illnesses.

If you support regulations that keep guns away from minors, wouldn't make even more sense to support regulations that keep guns away from those disturbed enough that they could be found "not guilty by reason of insanity" in the event that they killed an innocent?

 

[GhostWriter16]

Children (obviously not newborn infants, but certainly teenagers) typically have a much greater ability to give informed consent than do those adults whose decision making processes are warped by severe mental illnesses.

If you support regulations that keep guns away from minors, wouldn't make even more sense to support regulations that keep guns away from those disturbed enough that they could be found "not guilty by reason of insanity" in the event that they killed an innocent?

That's a fair point.

The argument I guess is that age is far easier to check, and far more egalitarian (Everyone is young at some point.)

I've heard of some people not being allowed to bear arms even though they were still fully capable of making decisions, although our courts MIGHT call them not guilty anyway.

 

[Bugfatty300]

regulations that keep guns away from those disturbed enough that they could be found "not guilty by reason of insanity" in the event that they killed an innocent?

How would such regulations actually go about doing that?

 

[JollyRoger]

How would such regulations actually go about doing that?

To paraphrase the late, great Joseph Heller:

There was only one catch and that was Catch-22, which specified that a sane person would not want to possess a dangerous weapon. Joe Gungrabber was sane and could possess a gun. All he had to do was ask; and as soon as he did, he would no longer be sane and could no longer own a gun. Joe Gungrabber would be sane enough to own a gun if he didn't possess one and crazy if he requested to own one, but if he was sane enough to possess one, he could only demonstrate his sanity by not possessing one. JR was moved very deeply by the absolute simplicity of this clause of Catch-22 and let out a respectful whistle.

 

[Bugfatty300]

How would that work on the 4473 form?

Anyway, there's really nothing to suggest that laws regulating age, mental health, waiting times, magazine capacity, etc for firearms make our society any safer or secure.

So, I'm not sure why supporting one is any better or worse than supporting the other.

 

[Berzerker]

Another misinterpretation, unfortunately. The 2nd Amendment ("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.") concerns itself with two things only: 1) the security of a free state (that is the Union, not the individual States) which 2) requires a well regulated militia. It is for this purpose, that "the people" shall have the right to keep and bear arms. If the writers intended for every able individual to keep and bear amrs, they would have phrased it differently. The only reason that the people's right to keep and bear amrs exists, is the security of the State.

Had the writers intended to write an article on an individual's right to keep and bear arms, any mention of State and militia would have been entirely unnecessary.

You named 3 "entities" earlier, now you're leaving the people and their right out of it... Militias belonged to the states, the 2nd Amendment reflects the constitutional scheme of giving the states and Congress access to firepower provided by the people. Your argument seems to be: the people have no right to guns because the people = well regulated militia and that = army - so join the army if you want gun rights because those are "the people" in the 2nd Amendment.

You again mention professional soldiers. But the early Union didn't have a regular army; hence the Militia. It was all they got.

I have no idea what this means. what is "the states' militia powers"? "The amendment doesn't infringe upon the states' power"? The amendment doesn't even concern itself with that.

And "the Union" wanted to avoid standing armies, hence the state militias...Hamilton mentioned a professional class of soldiers to be created and maintained by the states in Fed 29 backed up by an armed general population. He wasn't describing the past, just the future. The law violates the states' power to have militias, well regulated or not.

It matters very much. A purely collective right to keep and bear arms means that an individual citizen shall not have arms at his disposal - unless he's in a (para)military organization. Consequently, "ïndividuals toting guns" would be a violation of the 2nd Amendment.

But "the collective" is the people toting guns, not well regulated militiamen. Are there other collective rights enjoyed by "the people" that individual people dont have?

"The Bill of Rights is only implicitly about individual rights"? Where was that said? By whom?

You said it:

Since this is a state document, dealing with affairs of state, it isn't suprising that individual rights are only implictly dealt with. The fact that the text specifies "a well regulated Militia" (as opposed to individuals toting guns) clearly indicates what the concern of the writers was.

The text "specifies" both - the latter to help achieve the former if necessary, and the latter doesn't get interpreted out because we have a natl army and guard

Lastly, it's pretty obvious that a state miltia with no guns would be pretty non-effective. and that's why the right of the people to keep and bear arms exists. Since no regular army was in place, there was little alternative than not to infringe the right of the people to keep and bear arms.

Basically what is intended here, is a recognition of a status quo (which laws often are). The writers were very much aware of people (again: not the people, as this is a different concept legally) having guns at their disposal. It was, at the time, the normal situation, given the often hostile Frontier. What they wanted - apart form a well regulated Militia - isn't inferred. That would be interpretation. Whether they wanted an armed population isn't really relevant; it already existed.

Did they want an unarmed population? Did they want guns limited to people serving in the well regulated militia? Didn't they just fight a war triggered in part by gun control? That population wasn't all that armed, but I'd be happy to read where these writers said the right to keep and bear arms depended on joining the army that didn't exist or recently created militias. You've just described the norm to include several reasons for guns not involving "the state", including survival and self defense in a hostile world. Yeah, gun rights were a given - the Constitution reflects that reality, it deals with how the state can call upon those people when needed. You've confused that relationship and removed our gun rights from the 2nd Amendment - the only right written into it, how ironic.

 

[Bugfatty300]

In addition to Bezerker's post:

You again mention professional soldiers. But the early Union didn't have a regular army; hence the Militia. It was all they got.

Except that the US constitution clearly describes a regular army and explicitly gives congress the ability to raise and expand it as they see fit, irregardless of militia or the 2nd amendment.