The Republican Thread

[Balta1701]

Welcome to everywhere except the State of Illinois. And yet you're still alive! Amazing!

Wow, so Illinois banned firearms and took away your right to self-defense? And yet you're still alive? Amazing!

[Jenksismyhero]

Wow, so Illinois banned firearms and took away your right to self-defense? And yet you're still alive? Amazing!

 

Except that the government should have a good reason to deny me my rights, not the other way around.

[StrangeSox]

yeah but you set yourself up for that one.

[Jenksismyhero]

I did.

[StrangeSox]

I'm going to link to TNC again because I think he made a good point about the escalation that carrying a weapon invites:

 

The man in me knows how macho imaginings usually outstrip reality. He also knows that this may not have even been a threat. He further knows that kids, in general, do dumb s***. But that wasn't the man in me talking. It wasn't the father who knows he needs to be around for his child. It wasn't the husband, who knows his wife is back in New York depending on him. It wasn't the writer who hopes that his best words are still in front of him. It was some little boy who got jumped repeatedly more than two decades ago, back in West Baltimore, and has spent the rest of his days just "wishing a n***** would," as my people say.

 

That boy is a damn fool. And part of any adult's maturation must be keeping the idiot in them under wraps. But I can't kill the boy. Nor should I. It's that same boy who tells me not to punk out when I'm doing my miles, not to be a chump and take a day off from writing. The boy reinforces the man. But he needs guardrails.

 

I suspect that a good way to remove the guardrails is to put a gun in my hand. I didn't say anything when those kids rolled up on me. I knew I was outnumbered. But give me a gat, give me that same anger, and that thirst for revenge, and it takes nothing for me to see myself yelling at those kids, "n*****, what?" and hoping, praying, they stopped the car and got out.

 

You might say they initiated the aggression. I say I don't want to kill anybody. I say that there are things worth more than my life -- like how I want to live it. And I know that after the boy has his moment, the man must take the weight. There must be consequences, moral or otherwise, for even those killing which the law would relieve you of. It must alter you, just a little -- unless you've already gone there.

 

I haven't.

 

But I think a small part of me is always spoiling for a final fight. And I think it must be a seriously well-adjusted human who has none of that in them. Perhaps Michael Dunn would have told those kids to turn down their music, no matter what. But perhaps knowing that he had the ultimate power in his hands to annihilate all of them, gave him a little edge. Very few people, no matter how "responsible," would be immune to such a feeling.

[Balta1701]

Except that the government should have a good reason to deny me my rights, not the other way around.

So why do you get the right to have a deadly weapon around me with me not having any choice in the matter? You're right the government should have to have a good reason to deny a person their rights, and that's one I want.

[StrangeSox]

That right isn't enumerated in the Constitution. I don't know if it's part of the history of natural rights philosophy, but I would doubt that.

[Balta1701]

That right isn't enumerated in the Constitution. I don't know if it's part of the history of natural rights philosophy, but I would doubt that.

Neither is the right to concealed carrying of arms on the street or into my business/property, if you want to be specific about it.

 

The right to bear arms "Anywhere and at all times without acknowledgment" is a modern invention. Hell, when that was written, I seriously doubt you could effectively conceal a legitimately damaging weapon.

[Soxbadger]

Posner addresses #2 and #3 in his opinion. Essentially, avoiding places where guns are banned, when the bans are limited, does not present a substantial burden. Most people can generally avoid those places. Not so when they're banned everywhere but your own house.

 

What if I live near a school? What if guns are banned in hospitals, how can I get treatment? No guns are allowed in court, how can I feel safe when I am there? I am a lawyer, is that not a substantial burden for me not to be allowed to arm myself at my work place?

 

But you have a defined right to keep and bear arms. Not so for "avoiding people who are keeping and bearing arms."

 

I have a right to life. Which many argue gives the right to the govt to make laws to protect my life.

 

Except that the government should have a good reason to deny me my rights, not the other way around.

 

The sooner gun rights people actually want to limit govt power the better. The problem is that many gun advocates are the same people who want it to be illegal for me to due lines of coke off a hookers chest after I got done gambling at the local casino.

 

Otherwise, guns are good leverage for me to hopefully get what I want in the future.

Edited December 11, 2012 by Soxbadger

[StrangeSox]

"The right to keep and bear arms" is an enumerated right. There's disagreements over what that means, obviously, but that's a different discussion than the right you're trying to assert.

[Jenksismyhero]

So why do you get the right to have a deadly weapon around me with me not having any choice in the matter? You're right the government should have to have a good reason to deny a person their rights, and that's one I want.

 

Because it's in the Constitution as SS pointed out.

[Jenksismyhero]

Neither is the right to concealed carrying of arms on the street or into my business/property, if you want to be specific about it.

 

The right to bear arms "Anywhere and at all times without acknowledgment" is a modern invention. Hell, when that was written, I seriously doubt you could effectively conceal a legitimately damaging weapon.

 

Actually it's not. The idea that you're free to keep and bear arms only in your home is the real modern invention. At the time the 2nd amendment was ratified people carried guns all the time, freely, in public, because they used them for hunting.

[Jenksismyhero]

What if I live near a school? What if guns are banned in hospitals, how can I get treatment? No guns are allowed in court, how can I feel safe when I am there? I am a lawyer, is that not a substantial burden for me not to be allowed to arm myself at my work place?

 

 

 

I have a right to life. Which many argue gives the right to the govt to make laws to protect my life.

 

 

 

The sooner gun rights people actually want to limit govt power the better. The problem is that many gun advocates are the same people who want it to be illegal for me to due lines of coke off a hookers chest after I got done gambling at the local casino.

 

Otherwise, guns are good leverage for me to hopefully get what I want in the future.

 

"Counsel, how is that relevant to the issue before me?"

[StrangeSox]

What if I live near a school? What if guns are banned in hospitals, how can I get treatment? No guns are allowed in court, how can I feel safe when I am there? I am a lawyer, is that not a substantial burden for me not to be allowed to arm myself at my work place?

 

These represent specific circumstances that are overruled by specific public safety concerns.

 

The school one is interesting and I'd be curious as to how other states/cities handle that.

 

I have a right to life. Which many argue gives the right to the govt to make laws to protect my life.

 

Sure, but at the same time, they must also respect other rights as well. You're arguing in favor of abridging a somewhat narrow right regarding weapons on a broad and general "right to life" argument which may or may not be supported by the evidence (gun statistics are all over the place and essentially useless).

 

[CrimsonWeltall]

Hell, when that was written, I seriously doubt you could effectively conceal a legitimately damaging weapon.

 

Flintlock pistol?

[StrangeSox]

Because it's in the Constitution as SS pointed out.

If you accept Heller as correct, which I doubt Balta does. I don't think it's a good opinion myself, even if I'm not opposed to the outcome.

[Balta1701]

Because it's in the Constitution as SS pointed out.

But you both have made a leap of interpretation that you particularly like.

 

That is where this case is...it's taking a particular leap of interpretation.

[Balta1701]

If you accept Heller as correct, which I doubt Balta does. I don't think it's a good opinion myself, even if I'm not opposed to the outcome.

This is probably the correct interpretation of the law based on that decision and the later McDonald vs. Chicago decision. But I have this annoying habit of disagreeing with interpretations of the law that put me and my family in greater jeopardy while walking down the street (and you all know I can pull out the studies showing that to be true).

[StrangeSox]

But you both have made a leap of interpretation that you particularly like.

 

That is where this case is...it's taking a particular leap of interpretation.

 

Posner can't overrule Heller, though. I don't think he's making a leap if you start at Heller.

[Jenksismyhero]

But you both have made a leap of interpretation that you particularly like.

 

That is where this case is...it's taking a particular leap of interpretation.

 

I'm still not sure how someone can interpret the 2nd amended and believe that the founders believed it was important for people to retain the right to keep and bear arms but ONLY in your home. What purpose does that serve? Posner talks about this in his opinion and his answer is it doesn't. Historically there's no reason to believe that's what they believed, and grammatically it doesn't because it does not limit where your right begins and ends.

[Soxbadger]

"Counsel, how is that relevant to the issue before me?"

 

As I said, its leverage. If you want to pretend we live in a vacuum where gun rights people are not hypocritical, so be it. But I am going to live in the real world, where the arguments I am making, are winning arguments against the legalization of drugs, prostitution, gambling etc.

 

If those arguments are losers when it comes to restricting guns, they should be losers when it comes to restricting drugs, sex, etc.

 

Basically, dont use the "I dont like govt interference" argument, unless you really want to limit govt interference.

[Jenksismyhero]

As I said, its leverage. If you want to pretend we live in a vacuum where gun rights people are not hypocritical, so be it. But I am going to live in the real world, where the arguments I am making, are winning arguments against the legalization of drugs, prostitution, gambling etc.

 

If those arguments are losers when it comes to restricting guns, they should be losers when it comes to restricting drugs, sex, etc.

 

Basically, dont use the "I dont like govt interference" argument, unless you really want to limit govt interference.

 

I think you're comparing apples and oranges. Yes, in a very general sense we're talking about how far government can intervene, but by your logic if the government can't restrict guns then it can't restrict anything. That's not reality and you know it. We have public policy arguments and I think guns are different from drugs or sex or whatever else. Each has to be looked at independently.

[Balta1701]

I'm still not sure how someone can interpret the 2nd amended and believe that the founders believed it was important for people to retain the right to keep and bear arms but ONLY in your home. What purpose does that serve? Posner talks about this in his opinion and his answer is it doesn't. Historically there's no reason to believe that's what they believed, and grammatically it doesn't because it does not limit where your right begins and ends.

I'm not going to object to your right to bear arms on any private land that isn't mine, and I probably have little problem with it on a variety of public/wilderness lands, but many of these laws take away the right of people to decide what is carried on to their own property, and they take away my right to be in an environment without them. I'm given no decision in the matter. Your right to have a concealed weapon has removed my right to have it around.

 

If you want to go somewhere to hunt meat, great. Go there. I don't have to. But in that case, I'm given the chance to make an informed decision about whether to go somewhere that guns are being used in the way they would have been used at the time of the writing of the bill of rights.

[StrangeSox]

I'm still not sure how someone can interpret the 2nd amended and believe that the founders believed it was important for people to retain the right to keep and bear arms but ONLY in your home. What purpose does that serve? Posner talks about this in his opinion and his answer is it doesn't. Historically there's no reason to believe that's what they believed, and grammatically it doesn't because it does not limit where your right begins and ends.

 

This assumes a self-defense motive for the 2nd which wasn't really law until Heller.

[StrangeSox]

As I said, its leverage. If you want to pretend we live in a vacuum where gun rights people are not hypocritical, so be it. But I am going to live in the real world, where the arguments I am making, are winning arguments against the legalization of drugs, prostitution, gambling etc.

 

If those arguments are losers when it comes to restricting guns, they should be losers when it comes to restricting drugs, sex, etc.

 

Basically, dont use the "I dont like govt interference" argument, unless you really want to limit govt interference.

 

Most guns-rights arguments are absolutely terrible. Wayne Lapierre argued that Kasandra Perkins would have been saved if only she had her own gun! Of course, Kasandra did have access to a gun and was a recreational shooter herself. Of course this means that we should all be carrying at all times, ready for a shoot-out even in our own homes!