The Republican Thread

[EvilMonkey]

Balta, you keep throwing out the false assumption that you are at more risk simply because some people may be carrying a concealed handgun. The incidents of people with legal carry permits committing crimes or any such thing is so small at to be not statistical at all. If it were a larger number you would hear about it day and night from the Brady Campaign, Bloomberg's mayor group and every other anti gun group out there. It just is a false premise that you are starting your argument with. You are not at more risk simply because someone may be carrying a legally concealed handgun.

[Balta1701]

Balta, you keep throwing out the false assumption that you are at more risk simply because some people may be carrying a concealed handgun. The incidents of people with legal carry permits committing crimes or any such thing is so small at to be not statistical at all. If it were a larger number you would hear about it day and night from the Brady Campaign, Bloomberg's mayor group and every other anti gun group out there. It just is a false premise that you are starting your argument with. You are not at more risk simply because someone may be carrying a legally concealed handgun.

You would also hear about it if people cared to listen.

[StrangeSox]

Carrying a gun can turn somebody who may have otherwise backed down into a "big man," escalating a situation substantially. I'm not sure if there's a statistical examination of this or not, but as I said earlier most gun stats are questionable from either side.

[Soxbadger]

But it's infringing on a constitutional right that requires a higher standard than the standard that applies to your non-existent right to smoke pot or bang a hooker. I know what your saying and I don't disagree, all i'm saying is there's a reason why different standards and considerations are used in determining the legality of those acts. I'm all about letting people drink alcohol, but i'm totally behind the idea that you shouldn't be able to stroll down my street getting drunk with a bunch of kids around. That doesn't mean my stance of limited government generally is somehow less valid. It's not an all or nothing scenario.

 

I disagree with that interpretation of the constitution. Words mean something. The words "regulated" and "militia" are not superfluous they have meaning. The fact Illinois was allowed to adopt a constitution that specifically limits gun ownership pursuant to police power, means something.

 

And the part in bold is what many people who want gun control believe. I just dont believe that our lives should be determined by a sentence that is over 200 years old and up to interpretation.

 

 

[Balta1701]

Carrying a gun can turn somebody who may have otherwise backed down into a "big man," escalating a situation substantially. I'm not sure if there's a statistical examination of this or not, but as I said earlier most gun stats are questionable from either side.

It's really not hard to find examples of the probability of the person being shot in an incident skyrocketing when that person is holding a gun. You can find similar numbers on risks skyrocketing when you have a gun in your home as well, but this isn't a debate that involves data, it's all about how having the gun produces the emotional response, makes you feel more secure.

[StrangeSox]

It's really not hard to find examples of the probability of the person being shot in an incident skyrocketing when that person is holding a gun. You can find similar numbers on risks skyrocketing when you have a gun in your home as well, but this isn't a debate that involves data, it's all about how having the gun produces the emotional response, makes you feel more secure.

 

But if you're approaching it pragmatically, that needs to be counter-balanced against the effects of self-defense.

[Balta1701]

But if you're approaching it pragmatically, that needs to be counter-balanced against the effects of self-defense.

That is included in the one I just cited, for an example. The cases where the person had a reasonably high chance of responding/defending actually produced an even higher rate of being shot than if the person had a low probability of responding. If you have a decent chance of responding, the assailant can respond to your actions, and that actually showed up in the one I happened to cite there.

[StrangeSox]

Did they control for the situations that the carriers and non-carriers found themselves in?

 

However, compared with control participants, shooting case participants were significantly more often Hispanic, more frequently working in high-risk occupations1,2, less educated, and had a greater frequency of prior arrest. At the time of shooting, case participants were also significantly more often involved with alcohol and drugs, outdoors, and closer to areas where more Blacks, Hispanics, and unemployed individuals resided. Case participants were also more likely to be located in areas with less income and more illicit drug trafficking

 

People living in and around gang areas are going to have a higher likelihood of being shot. This is unsurprising.

 

If Posner's correct that the largest group of CC holders are middle-aged, middle-class, suburban white men, then statistics of shootings that don't control for CC and are centered in a dense urban area don't tell me too much about the effects of CC on society as a whole.

[Soxbadger]

Since when do statistics matter when it comes to rights?

 

Either 1) the govt can regulate or 2) the govt cant regulate.

 

After that, its just simply drawing fake lines in the sand.

[Balta1701]

Did they control for the situations that the carriers and non-carriers found themselves in?

 

 

 

People living in and around gang areas are going to have a higher likelihood of being shot. This is unsurprising.

 

If Posner's correct that the largest group of CC holders are middle-aged, middle-class, suburban white men, then statistics of shootings that don't control for CC and are centered in a dense urban area don't tell me too much about the effects of CC on society as a whole.

If you want the larger scale data, you can go to the data showing that the states with the highest rate of gun crime and gun injuries are the states with...the highest ownership of guns and the laxest gun laws. In the middle of work now so go find the citation yourself for once

 

There are something like 200 successful uses of a gun to defend oneself against a crime per year in the united states, as judged by FBI statistics on justified homicide. On average, a gun in the home is >20x more likely to be used in a suicide, accident, or crime than it is for the gun to be used for self defense.

[Balta1701]

Since when do statistics matter when it comes to rights?

 

Either 1) the govt can regulate or 2) the govt cant regulate.

 

After that, its just simply drawing fake lines in the sand.

Some would say that a right that kills us is a right we shouldn't want.

[Jenksismyhero]

Since when do statistics matter when it comes to rights?

 

Either 1) the govt can regulate or 2) the govt cant regulate.

 

After that, its just simply drawing fake lines in the sand.

 

As a lawyer you know this isn't true. You know the arguments going into those decisions. Why are you making a grey issue so black and white? It's not that simple. You have a right to own and carry a gun, but there are restrictions. The lines in the sand that are drawn are important in determining what those restrictions should and should not be.

[Balta1701]

As a lawyer you know this isn't true. You know the arguments going into those decisions. Why are you making a grey issue so black and white? It's not that simple. You have a right to own and carry a gun, but there are restrictions. The lines in the sand that are drawn are important in determining what those restrictions should and should not be.

The problem is...he's actually sort of right. The Supreme Court cases and the case cited here, for example, aren't being decided based on whether additional guns are good or bad for the society, they're being judged using the statement that gun possession is a fundamental right and should not be restricted under any circumstances. That's the logic being used here, that's the logic in overturning Chicago's handgun ban, the only question is how far the court is willing to push it. It's being treated as black and white, everyone has the right to have guns...and the consequences don't matter.

[Jenksismyhero]

If you want the larger scale data, you can go to the data showing that the states with the highest rate of gun crime and gun injuries are the states with...the highest ownership of guns and the laxest gun laws. In the middle of work now so go find the citation yourself for once

 

There are something like 200 successful uses of a gun to defend oneself against a crime per year in the united states, as judged by FBI statistics on justified homicide. On average, a gun in the home is >20x more likely to be used in a suicide, accident, or crime than it is for the gun to be used for self defense.

 

On its face that seems false given that Chicago and East St. Louis are two of the worst in the country and it's illegal to carry guns.

 

And any object can be used with deadly force in any circumstance. Cars are used as weapons all the time. Should we ban them because of the slight, abnormal increase in the overall use of vehicles?

[Jenksismyhero]

The problem is...he's actually sort of right. The Supreme Court cases and the case cited here, for example, aren't being decided based on whether additional guns are good or bad for the society, they're being judged using the statement that gun possession is a fundamental right and should not be restricted under any circumstances. That's the logic being used here, that's the logic in overturning Chicago's handgun ban, the only question is how far the court is willing to push it. It's being treated as black and white, everyone has the right to have guns...and the consequences don't matter.

 

That is patently false. Go read Posner's decision and the decision in Heller. That right is not absolute.

[Balta1701]

That is patently false. Go read Posner's decision and the decision in Heller. That right is not absolute.

That assumes this court won't have a desire to expand upon that decision in the near future.

 

Would you honestly put it past this court to strike down concealed weapons bans if given the chance? I think they'd have the votes right now.

 

Edit: in fact, here's the relevant clause from Heller:

Although we do not undertake an exhaustive historical analysis today of the full scope of the Second Amendment, nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms

Take note...they do not say anything about concealed weapons bans there, but take pains to say that the law making sure people don't bring guns into the Court is ok.

[StrangeSox]

AFAIK there's no realistic challenge to the NFA or the FOPA, which severely restricts ownership of fully automatic weapons.

[Soxbadger]

As a lawyer you know this isn't true. You know the arguments going into those decisions. Why are you making a grey issue so black and white? It's not that simple. You have a right to own and carry a gun, but there are restrictions. The lines in the sand that are drawn are important in determining what those restrictions should and should not be.

 

Because the biggest argument against gun control is that its somehow unconstitutional. So if that is the case, then we cant control guns at all.

 

Otherwise we start with the premise that gun control is constitutional, which means that guns shouldnt be given some sort of special protection.

 

I completely understand grey issues, but whether something is or is not protected, needs to be determined so that we know what rules we are playing with. There can not be "grey" area in that regard. Unless we just say nothing in the constitution is black and white, which is the actual reality. And if that is the truth, then the constitution doesnt really matter, all that matters is how we currently interpret it.

 

Which goes to my original argument, that my interpretation of the constitution does not protect individual citizens right to own guns at all. It protects the rights of those in a regulated militia.

[Jenksismyhero]

Because the biggest argument against gun control is that its somehow unconstitutional. So if that is the case, then we cant control guns at all.

 

Otherwise we start with the premise that gun control is constitutional, which means that guns shouldnt be given some sort of special protection.

 

I completely understand grey issues, but whether something is or is not protected, needs to be determined so that we know what rules we are playing with. There can not be "grey" area in that regard. Unless we just say nothing in the constitution is black and white, which is the actual reality. And if that is the truth, then the constitution doesnt really matter, all that matters is how we currently interpret it.

 

Which goes to my original argument, that my interpretation of the constitution does not protect individual citizens right to own guns at all. It protects the rights of those in a regulated militia.

 

Who in 1780 were the masses. The cases we're talking about here do a pretty good job going over the historical context of the amendment. It didn't say, and was not intended to mean, that ONLY people in an existing militia had the right to bear arms. It was that everyone has the right in case a regulated militia was required to combat a government that was out of control.

 

To play your game, either your going to be a strict textualist and disagree with this assessment (also admitting that there is no right to privacy or marriage or whatever else has been read into the constitution because the constitution doesn't provide for it) or you're going to have to admit that the context is what is important and the context isn't really debatable IMO.

Edited December 11, 2012 by Jenksismybitch

[StrangeSox]

the context was also barrel-loaded black powder rifles and handguns that were less lethal than crossbows

[Soxbadger]

Who in 1780 were the masses. The cases we're talking about here do a pretty good job going over the historical context of the amendment. It didn't say, and was not intended to mean, that ONLY people in an existing militia had the right to bear arms. It was that everyone has the right in case a regulated militia was required to combat a government that was out of control.

 

To play your game, either your going to be a strict textualist and disagree with this assessment (also admitting that there is no right to privacy or marriage or whatever else has been read into the constitution because the constitution doesn't provide for ti) or you're going to have to admit that the context is what is important and the context isn't really debatable IMO.

 

I dont believe that marriage is a right. I dont believe the govt should have any role in marriage (pro or con). If a church wants to marry you, great, if they dont want to marry you, why should I care. The argument is actually an equal protection argument, that the govt is giving rights to a certain subset that it is not giving to another subset. Which is also explicitly in the constitution.

 

14th Amendment:

 

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

 

Also, I do believe right to privacy is explicitly in the constitution:

 

4th Amendment

 

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

 

Isnt invasion of privacy a "unreasonable search" which is explicitly delineated?

 

Its also historically unclear whether the right was supposed to be individual or collective. I believe that its clear the amendment was written to allow for the govt to control guns and it places no limitation on the govts ability to due such. Which to me leaves it to the people to determine what controls are okay.

 

[Balta1701]

I dont believe that marriage is a right. I dont believe the govt should have any role in marriage (pro or con). If a church wants to marry you, great, if they dont want to marry you, why should I care. The argument is actually an equal protection argument, that the govt is giving rights to a certain subset that it is not giving to another subset. Which is also explicitly in the constitution.

I'm going to wind up with a derail here, but I don't care because this is a complete copout. Should spouses be able to be forced to testify against their husbands? Should there be no recognition of spousal relations in terms of estate planning/death benefits/insurance laws (i.e. if a person leaves an estate to their spouse, should it be subject to the estate tax, and then taxed again if that spouse dies)? If a parent dies, should there be no recognition of the existence of a spouse in terms of deciding custody of a child?

 

It's nonsensical.

[Soxbadger]

I'm going to wind up with a derail here, but I don't care because this is a complete copout. Should spouses be able to be forced to testify against their husbands? Should there be no recognition of spousal relations in terms of estate planning/death benefits/insurance laws (i.e. if a person leaves an estate to their spouse, should it be subject to the estate tax, and then taxed again if that spouse dies)? If a parent dies, should there be no recognition of the existence of a spouse in terms of deciding custody of a child?

 

It's nonsensical.

 

None of these things have to do with marriage. They all have to do with the govt giving "rights" to people. I dont care what you call it, as long as it is equal.

 

If 2 straight people get a spousal privilege, 2 gay people should. If 2 straight people can avoid taxes, 2 gay people should.

 

I dont see why you have to say "marriage is constitutionally protected", we created laws out of convenience, the laws have to be equal, its not very difficult.

 

If it wasnt clear, I wasnt saying that the govt shouldnt be able to create laws for convenience, I was saying that the govt should have no real ability to say when consenting adults can marry. (And the biggest issue there is polygamy.)

[Balta1701]

By my definition, the government doing things for married couples that clearly provide obvious benefits (tax status, child status, priveledged state of spouses regarding hospitalizations/end of life decisions/etc) is by definition the government taking actions that are "pro" marriage.

 

If you don't use the same wording there, fine, my bad but that one, the "Government should get out of the marriage business entirely" gets my goat when I hear that all the time from my libertarian friends because the idea that they're opposed to spouses being immune from testifying against one another is ludicrous, but they never consider the actual implications of their position.

[Soxbadger]

I was being lazy its a message board. I meant in defining marriage. If the govt wants to give out benefits to married people, thats their choice, they just need to make sure its done equally. I just assumed that was a given as there is really no reason the govt shouldnt be able to create laws for convenience.