<p>haha like we said earlier, this is a way more complicated issue morally and philosophically than we can get into here. Take it to a new thread you two…</p>
<p>The whole “you can’t yell ‘fire’ in a theater” is a usage limitation. I am all for punishing people for pointing weapons at people and threatening to fire! That is a usage limitation. My hypothetical purchase of a AR-15 is not inciting imminent lawlessness, nor is it a danger to the public. It is simply a citizen buying a potentially dangerous product…as happens frequently in most countries.</p>
<p>We don’t gag people because they MIGHT yell “fire” in a theater, but people do try to ban certain types of firearms because they MIGHT be used criminally. Does that seem like a double standard at all?</p>
<p>I just can’t wait for the Supreme Court to once and for all settle record and say that the 2nd amendment is a collective right to firearms and reject the interpretation of individual gun ownership to shut up the NRA and gun people once and for all. Those who want to use guns so much can join the Marines.</p>
<p>“I just can’t wait for the Supreme Court to once and for all settle record and say that the 2nd amendment is a collective right to firearms and reject the interpretation of individual gun ownership to shut up the NRA and gun people once and for all. Those who want to use guns so much can join the Marines.”</p>
<p>I usually am not a fan of slippery slope arguments, so when the NRA makes claims that those on the left, if given their way, will make ownership of all guns illegal, I am inclined to say that that’s a bit of an overstatement. However, quotes like the above as well as others on this thread seem to be proof that the NRA is on solid ground when they makes these predictions.</p>
<p>I’m an NRA member… why can’t you just shut me up gottaloveucla?</p>
<p><we don’t=“” gag=“” people=“” because=“” they=“” might=“” yell=“” “fire”=“” in=“” a=“” theater,=“” but=“” do=“” try=“” to=“” ban=“” certain=“” types=“” of=“” firearms=“” be=“” used=“” criminally.=“” does=“” that=“” seem=“” like=“” double=“” standard=“” at=“” all?=“”>
good point…</we></p>
<p>I gotta say…seems like everyone from ucla is a huge liberal… (and possibly tyrants)</p>
<p>I would not bet the ranch on that outcome.</p>
<p>esmitty,</p>
<p>How rude. I’m by no means a “huge liberal.” Don’t base your opinion on me based on two interactions with me.</p>
<p>You want to know how “liberal,” I am? For one, I’m probably far more conservative on economic issues than most of the so-called “conservatives” on this site. I’m closer to libertarian than I am to “liberal” on most other issues. I believe very strongly in free trade, unimpeded economies, and letting the market work most things out. I have limits, of course, and believe that true laissez-faire economy is impossible (I tend to take a somewhat Sen-like view on welfare systems), but for the most part I say let people do business.</p>
<p>And tyrant? C’mon, let’s avoid hyperbole here. I tend to take a very complex view of state-constituent interactions based on my understanding of how the two interact in theory and practice. Just because I believe that the state has a vested interest in practical regulation doesn’t make me tyrannical. </p>
<p>I’d say that gottaloveucla and I have VERY different views of what the state should do in 99% of situations. Yet you pegged us as similar based on a very superficial view of what we think. You ought to reconsider that.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>This is unlikely. For one, the SCOTUS has demonstrated significant reluctance to deal with 2nd Amendment cases. Circuit courts have dealt with the issue, and two recent cases, United States v. Emerson, and Parker v. District of Columbia have come up in favor of individual rights.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>So if the state is willing to also limit individual purchasing of, say, fissile materials, why should firearms be different? </p>
<p>Of course, the most reasonable argument in my mind is "because we don’t have the constitutional right to fissile materials. But we do have the right to property. So then it gets complicated in my mind.</p>
<p>You argument is extreme, but sound. That particular debate has been solved through legislation. I don’t think owning fissile material has ever been construed as a fundamental right, or neccessary for liberty, the way that the right to arms has.</p>
<p>gottaloveucla, the collective rights argument is a pretty iffy one. Especially when the indiviual rightists bring out the “the right of the people” argument.</p>
<p>Sometimes you have to use extremes to get through on the interwebs.</p>
<p>My point-- and I really do mean that last one tongue-in-cheek-- is that the state (and I mean the state as a concept, not the United States alone) has a vested interest in seeing to the safety of all of its constituents. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Ah, let’s go back to my rather silly F-22 argument. Why does the state see fit to make sure that top secret weapons, though ostensibly just “arms,” don’t fall into the hands of the average citizen?</p>
<p>My point is not that we should ban any sort of firearms. I see that as a more mops solution when the problem is obvious. My point is that regulation of a right is not, in and of itself, outside of the purview of a responsible liberal democracy’s ruling authorities. It’s just that those rights that we have a special interest in are far more dear to us than…well… others.</p>
<p>Let’s use another interesting one. The right to assembly. Sure, you have the right to a protest, but the state regulates those as well. I mean, try staging a rally inside the Lincoln Memorial and see how long it takes for it to get broken up.</p>
<p>It’s just that, well, most people think that that’s reasonable.</p>
<p>A little news from across the pond…
[Banning</a> samurai swords | Oddly Enough | Reuters](<a href=“http://www.reuters.com/article/oddlyEnoughNews/idUSN1319327520071213?feedType=RSS&feedName=oddlyEnoughNews]Banning”>http://www.reuters.com/article/oddlyEnoughNews/idUSN1319327520071213?feedType=RSS&feedName=oddlyEnoughNews)</p>
<p>There is a reason that certain things are Top Secret. The state has a vested interest in keeping that information from other states. I do not know of any law that requires a state to give up its secrets (at least, when they are still potentially harmful). </p>
<p>Now, take out the top secret avionics on RCS-reducing elements of the plane and it probably would be sold commercially, unless Lockheed had some objection or contractual agreement (which I’m sure they do).</p>
<p>Rights do have exceptions. I am not opposed to forbiding convicted, violent criminals some of their rights (RTKBA, in this case). They acted irresponsibly, and as a result lost some rights. I do think that any time someone loses their Constitutional rights, the action should fall under the strictest judicial scrutiny. Thus far, gun-rights have not been reviewed this way.</p>
<p>As to the article, that just figures. Britain apparently feels that if it takes away the tools of crime, crime itself will decrease. That is idiotic. What next? Are they going to ban Cricket bats after some psycho goes on a beating rampage? I am curious as to how someone would “hire” a sword.
I think this quote says it best. “In the wrong hands, samurai swords are dangerous weapons,” Home Office Minister Vernon Coaker said. DUH! They can be dangerous if a criminal uses them. Their solution: we think you might be a criminal, so you can’t have it. Innocent until proven guilty–is that the law over there?</p>
<p>Raimius, your analysis in post 142 was, in my opinion, spot on. Next question: How do you reconcile it with your later posts?</p>
<p>^ Because we already have laws against burglary and robbery with a firearm, not to mention many other misuses of firearms, and these are not in dispute since they are not a restriction on the right to own and use firearms (legally). They are, as was mentioned, use limitations, not limitations on what you can buy and make legal use of.</p>
<p>I saw the article on the banning of samurai swords in Britain as well, and yes, it is quite ridiculous. </p>
<p>[YouTube</a> - American Dad - Guns kill](<a href=“http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X6bbXgUNOws]YouTube”>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X6bbXgUNOws)
^ had to be posted because its funny :D</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>But you seem to be making the leap from the idea that because regulations exist, any regulation is justified (or at least, thats how I’m reading it). How do you justify any more regulation than keeping firearms out of the hands of violent criminals? (which is not as much a regulation on the right as it is recognizing that those people have forfeited their rights by their actions)</p>
<p>raimius,</p>
<p>I agree. More mops doesn’t mean you turn off the spigot. However, with guns we have a definite supply issue. Based on the figures I’ve read, most illegally obtained guns come from legal owners at some point (degrees of separation can be large). Maybe more tracking of sales is necessary, I don’t know. I mean, we put the sales of automobiles under an almost absurd amount of legal scrutiny, so why not firearms? Of course, the argument once again comes to the notion that just because we do that with cars doesn’t mean we SHOULD do it with guns. And just because I sell a friend a baseball bat and he goes and murders Ryan Seacrest with it doesn’t mean I should be held accountable.</p>
<p>And I know WHY we keep TS things out of public hands (trust me, I know this far too well after going through a clearance), but I’m pointing out the fact that the government can reasonably see to regulating sales of things to Mr. Joe Public when it sees fit and not be infringing upon our liberties in an unreasonable way.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I am not and I never did. I’m saying that we should evaluate regulations on a case-by-case basis and not have a knee-jerk reaction to any regulation of our enumerated rights. Just like all regulations aren’t good, not all regulations are bad. We need to maintain flexibility to allow our jurisgenerativity to provide us with what we need both as individuals and as a society.</p>
<p>Just as there is tyranny of a minority over the majority, there is tyranny of the majority over the minority. We need to recognize that any legislation, no matter how popular, is bound to hurt someone. I do believe that we can find better ways of handling firearm control, but we must evaluate all present and future firearm legislation based on both the effects on individuals and the aggregate. Democracy is, unfortunately, sometimes zero-sum for the individual.</p>
<p>We should also not get too caught up on what the Founders said. Yes, I agree that they were all brilliant and exceptional men, but the argument that Madison et al. said it so it’s therefore true is not reasonable-- all too often I see both sides resort to this. The Founders were by no means in concert, and I doubt that they all agreed on what the 2nd Amendment should mean to the Republic. The same men who enumerated these rights were also willing to abridge them at times (Adams comes to mind.) I’d rather, personally, identify policy as it pertains to us and the Constitution rather than get mired in the history of what Madison thought. That’s what I find troubling about the so-called “constructionist” argument: it relies just as much on interpretation as a more open and common law approach.</p>
<p>But I digress. My point, if I have one left at the end of this diatribe, is that we should evaluate everything case-by-case whenever possible.</p>
<p>Kluge, I feel that gun-rights are a fundamental right and that ownership restrictions can only be placed on those who have forfeited those (and other) rights based on specific, violent crimes. (A social contract theory of sorts.)</p>
<p>I will occasionally agree with something other than that for two reasons. First, sometimes I simply make a mistake in interpretation or wording. Second, I might compromise if the vast majority of my views are agreed with, and if I can get the concessions I want. That is not the philosophically pure way, but it usually works better in real life. Afterwards, I will usually argue the rest of my opinions.</p>
<p>I acknowledge the battle between personal liberty and collective security in these arguments. I do not believe that less liberty will neccessarily provide greater security in this case, and I am very wary of giving liberty in hopes of gaining security. Therefore, I oppose general ownership restrictions.</p>
<p>UCLAri, I do not claim that something is true only because a founding fater said so. I think what they said is often relevant and well argued. It also is generally a convincing argument for gun-rights to those who take the “original intent” approach to judicial philosophy.</p>
<hr>
<p>Side Notes:</p>
<p>For arguments such as limiting ownership of nuclear weapons, the “control” side has some good points. Nuclear bombs don’t really have productive uses (“Plowshare” was an interesting attempt). The only purposes they serve are deterrance and destruction. They are so devastatingly destructive that we try to limit even state ownership. Besides, they are not usually considered “arms” as mentioned in the 2nd Amendment, so constitutional issues are not as related as firearm ownership is. In essence, there are similarities, but the specifics of the arguments vary signifcantly. The “control” side likes to bring this up because it is easier to argue that specific case (and it limits the impact of the 2nd Amendment). On the fighter jet argument, there are civilians who own surplus fighters. They do not cause many problems (other than occasional flaming wreckage and flying debris).</p>