How To Argue For Gun Control.

Discussion in 'Politics' started by Maccabee, Jul 27, 2016.

  1. MeAgain

    MeAgain Dazed & Confused Lifetime Supporter Super Moderator

    Messages:
    19,782
    Likes Received:
    13,799
    What rulings are you referring to? Are you saying that everyone in the United States is permitted to own firearms?

    Are you saying that no laws are legal unless ruled Constitutional by the Supreme court
    The sources you listed are disputing the number of guns in early America, I didn't address the number of guns.
    I will admit the claim that guns were not exclusively owned by individuals seems a bit far fetched upon further research, but it is undisputable that they were highly regulated and could be confiscated.
    In the Colonies, people could be disarmed for religious reasons:
    Note the the obligation to own guns for for the protection of the colonies as part of a well regulated militia.

    Yes before the Bill of Rights.
    The Bill of Rights were the first Amendments of the Constitution.

    You are saying that all men have an a priori right to carry a gun, yet that right was not recognized in the colonies, the Constitution, or even today.
    As your guns can be confiscated, or you may be restricted from gun ownership in the U.S. if you violate the law or don't meet certain requirements; while you may claim an a priori right, none in fact exits.

    You do agree that Heller v D.C established the right of individuals to own guns irrespective of militia service, yet claim both a historical and an a priori right.
    How's that work?
    If the Supreme Court had to declare that right in 2008...then it didn't exist prior to 2008.

    As it allowed slavery, et al, that is condoning it.

    Because you don't understand that words can be interpreted differently by different people in different times, nor do you understand that the Constitution can be amended and that amendments can be repealed, nor due you realize that the Supreme Court can reverse it's own rulings. If the people wish the 2nd, or any other amendment to be changed it can be changed or repealed by law.
    The Constitution is not a religious document. It's not dogma, any part of it can be changed, that's how it was designed.

    Mac, you're running in circles.
    Now you're telling me that the 2008 Heller v D.C ruling that defined the right of individuals to own guns isn't necessarily Constitutional?
    Do you understand the role of the Supreme Court?
     
  2. Balbus

    Balbus Senior Member

    Messages:
    13,152
    Likes Received:
    2,672
    Mac

    LOL – hell man the thread is the evidence as I’ve said I’m very happy to stand by it.

    For fuck sake man just address the outstanding criticism (they are in the thread)
     
  3. Maccabee

    Maccabee Luke 22:35-38

    Messages:
    1,461
    Likes Received:
    253
    Everyone who hasn't been restricted by due process, yes.
    No. I'm saying that a law that goes against the constitution is illegal since its inception. If California decided tomorrow to ban right wing speech in public, they have created an unconstitutional law.

    In botg of these examples, they either disarmed someone by due process through court (not by declaring a law banning guns), out of emergency in which case they were compensated, or they didn't allow non citizens (blacks who were mostly slaves) or foreigners (indians who often attacked them and were at war) to possess firearms. To which I'm fine with as far as principle. You can't own a firearm if you have been deemed by due process to not be eligible nor can non citizens or not permanent residents own furearms either. As the links you posted states, for the law abiding freeman he was most often required to possess a firearm.

    Ok. Then what I've stated still stands.

    Louisiana was a french colony and therefore wasn't under the US colony laws. We're talking about basically two different countries at the time with two separate set of laws. It'll like asking why doesn't Mexico have the same rights as we do now.


    If you violate certain laws and have your guns taken away because of it that's due to due process and if you're not a citizen of this country you do not have the same rights either. Neither concept contradicts the statement that people had the right to own firearms prior to the constitution.

    That's not what I agreed to. You stated this:

    "You don't agree with the Heller v D.C ruling that individuals may own guns irrespective of militia service"

    To which I thought you were saying that Heller recongizes the individual right to keep and bear arms. I did not agree that Heller establishes the individual right to keep and bear arms.

    True. However that's not what you originally asked.

    Ok then. Lets go with another example such as segregation.

    I do understand that the second amendment can be repealed by another amendment. In fact I suggested as much. However one has to be a master wordsmith to construe "shall not be infringed" into "turn in your guns now." It'll like saying "congress shall not establish a religion nor prohibit the free exercise thereof" means "you shall pray to the President 3 times a day."

    Heller recongized the individual right to keep and bear arms, it didn't defined it and yes I do know how the Supreme court works.
     
  4. MeAgain

    MeAgain Dazed & Confused Lifetime Supporter Super Moderator

    Messages:
    19,782
    Likes Received:
    13,799
    So you have changed your position as to what everyone means.
    If California passed that law it could be legally enforced until challenged in court and declared illegal.
    So again there is no a priori right to own guns. Gun ownership is governed by law.
    Amendments don't clarify, they change. The Supreme Court clarifies through it's rulings.
    You stated that there is a historical a priori right to own guns. There isn't as many colonies that later joined or formed the U.S. regulated guns...historically
    Again, gun ownership is governed by laws and laws may be changed. There is no inherent right to own guns.
    Please tell me what it did do.
    Wait, I'm confused didn't you just say that Heller vs DC didn't establish the right of an individual to own guns?
    What about segregation?
    Who said anything about turning in all guns?
    You are taking the interpretation of four words which you gave out of context and comparing that to completely changing something else.
    I don't understand your stance on Heller.
    Before Heller guns could be banned by governments such as the city of Washington D.C. after it they can't.
     
  5. Maccabee

    Maccabee Luke 22:35-38

    Messages:
    1,461
    Likes Received:
    253
    No. Everyone still means everyone however tgere were some who did something to cause the court to deem that person ineligible. That's due process. You have a right until you do something to relinquish that right.

    No it could not as the 1st amendment prohibits the law from being made in the first place.

    It's not an either-or. We have the freedom of speech yet we can't use that speech to incite violence and if we do, the courts by due process can limit your right to free speech by placing you in jail and jail certainly forbids you from saying things that would otherwise be ok if you weren't in jail. You have freedom of movement but the courts can take away your freedom by due process.

    Originally the first ten was to clarify.

    I'm confised by this statement.

    The laws you're referring too aside from banning non citizens and foreigners requires a prior act before due process can take away that individual right to bear arms. There was no law banning or restricting full fledged law abiding citizens to keep and bear arms which is what you advocate now.

    Recognized the right.

    Yes.


    For awhile after the civil war the courts declared segregation legal even though it wasn't by the constitution.

    No one that I recall. I'm using an extreme example.

    How did I gave it out of context?

    It was only enfirced because it was never been challenged.
     
  6. MeAgain

    MeAgain Dazed & Confused Lifetime Supporter Super Moderator

    Messages:
    19,782
    Likes Received:
    13,799
    What it all boils down to is that nothing is a crime until a law is passed that declares it a crime.
    Historically going back to English Common Law gun ownership has been restricted and there was no inherent right for everyone to own them. In 1689 only Protestants were allowed to own guns in England.
    In the past history of our country, and the Colonies, many laws were passed that have declared that certain citizens were not allowed to own guns or that that right could be infringed upon.
    The citizens that were barred from owning guns were barred, not because they did something illegal, but because of their race, religion, or age.

    It's infringed upon today. There are numerous instances where your right to bear arms is infringed upon, such as entering the White House with a weapon. You may not bear arms there unless you are individually permitted due to some type of sanctioned duty.

    Today certain citizens are still barred from owning guns even if they haven't committed a crime such as if they are under age, deemed mentally unfit, addicted to any controlled substance (such as legally obtained and administered opiates or even alcohol), or dishonorably discharged from military service (which in itself is not a crime).
    They have been deemed ineligible by law, they have no a priori right to own a gun.

    You are correct in that anything is legal until a law is passed that makes it illegal, for example marijuana wasn't illegal until a law was passed making it illegal.
    However, that doesn't address whether those anti marijuana laws are Constitutional.
    If the Supreme Court ever takes it up and decides that you have an inherent right to marijuana use...guess what? If you were convicted of violating those laws before the Supreme Court decision your record will not be automatically cleared and you will still serve time unless a legal action is taken to void your previous conviction.

    Nothing in the Constitution prohibits any law from being made as long as it's done in accordance with the provisions set forth for doing so. The law may be challenged and voided after it's made, but it is legal until then. You argument is that no laws, and there must be thousands of them, are legal unless the Supreme Court has addressed them..that's clearly ridiculous.

    So my point is that there are currently laws that do infringe on your right to do anything you want with any type of weapon, those laws are legal, they can be changed at any time either way, and guns can legally be outlawed at any time if that is what the lawmakers decide to do.

    You can shout about your inherent rights about guns as long as you like but we are a nation of laws and presently there are laws governing guns.
    We can debate whether those laws are good or bad but you can't deny that they exist, they have historical precedence, they are legal, and they can be changed at any time.
     
    Last edited: Feb 1, 2018
  7. Maccabee

    Maccabee Luke 22:35-38

    Messages:
    1,461
    Likes Received:
    253
    The key word is cituzen. Were they considered citizens at the time?

    It's kinda obvious the second is being infringed on now. However that wasn't my argument.

    I've never made that claim. I said that a law that goes against the constitution is illegal since its inception.

    I only dispute that they are legal and have a historical precedence.
     
  8. MeAgain

    MeAgain Dazed & Confused Lifetime Supporter Super Moderator

    Messages:
    19,782
    Likes Received:
    13,799
    Yes, they were citizens.
    There are no laws that go against the Constitution until the Supreme Court rules that they go against the Constitution. As the Supreme Court has not ruled on every law in the country, all those laws are de facto legal.
    You can dispute the fact that gun laws are legal and you can question their historical basis, but I haven't seen you present anything that proves current gun laws are illegal or that they lack a historical precedent.
     
  9. Maccabee

    Maccabee Luke 22:35-38

    Messages:
    1,461
    Likes Received:
    253
    So slaves and indians were considered citizens at the time?

    The gun laws proposed and enacted today (aside from prohibiting foreigners and disarming someone by due process) doesn't have historical precedence.
     
  10. MeAgain

    MeAgain Dazed & Confused Lifetime Supporter Super Moderator

    Messages:
    19,782
    Likes Received:
    13,799
    Slaves were 3/5 persons in the Constitution. Slave states prohibited free blacks from owning weapons. Free blacks in the North were partial citizens.
    In some of the colonies all blacks were denied guns as were Catholics and those suspected of disloyalty.
    One example of English Common Law was that In 1689 only Protestants were allowed to own guns in England.

    Slaves weren't citizens of the early U.S., neither were American Indians.
    Catholics were citizens in Pennsylvania. Maryland was founded by English Catholics.
    Of those suspected of disloyalty certainly some were citizens.

    No historical precedent for today's gun laws?
    Here's is a 40 page brief on just precedents for public carrying laws:

    There's another two pages of laws but you can look them up..
     
  11. Maccabee

    Maccabee Luke 22:35-38

    Messages:
    1,461
    Likes Received:
    253
    The second paragraph is my point. Non citizens weren't allowed to bear arms. Also if you were suspected of disloyalty then you would found so by the court. Which was due process at the time.

    And here's a paper disputing that.

    The Statute of Northampton (1328) and Prohibitions on the Carrying of Arms by Clayton E. Cramer :: SSRN
     
  12. MeAgain

    MeAgain Dazed & Confused Lifetime Supporter Super Moderator

    Messages:
    19,782
    Likes Received:
    13,799
    Catholics were citizens, those suspected, not convicted could be barred. Could you list a few cases that went to court?
    I would compare that to the ATF taking away your guns if they suspect you're disloyal.

    You cited one paper disputing one statute. Anything can be disputed.

    I think we've reached an impasse.
    I maintain that there are laws that govern firearms and are legal.
    These laws are constitutional and can be changed at anytime, even to the extent that all guns could be legally banned by amendment.
    They have precedent.

    My understanding of your position is that all laws are illegal unless ruled on by the Supreme Court, there is no precedent for any gun law, and that the 2nd Amendment is inviolate dogma that can never be changed.

    So that's that.
     
  13. Maccabee

    Maccabee Luke 22:35-38

    Messages:
    1,461
    Likes Received:
    253
    I can't find one right off but I doubt being suspected of disloyalty meant that townfolk Jim-Bob can accuse Johnny of being disloyal and have his guns taken away without evidence. As for Catholics, they were only banned in few colonies. It wasn't a wide spread thing.

    Unconstitutional laws are illegal from inception. If something as blatant as banning free speech was made into law in a state, it is unconstitutional. I never stated that all laws are illegal until ruled on by th supreme supreme court. In fact I advocated that just because the court ruled it to be constitutional, doesn't mean it actually is. There is no precedent or very little at the least for most of the gun laws either inacted or proposed except for laws disarming people by due process or barring foreigners and non citixens from owning firearms. The second amendment can be changed via another amendment.
     

Share This Page

  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
    Dismiss Notice