Working on an idea but not sure where this goes. Not sure if the gun debate can be had productively with students, but I'll try. The most fundamentally sound constitutional argument for gun ownership in general from an originalist perspective is a check against the potential tyranny of the federal government. Later, via the 14th, it is intended as a check against tyrannical state governments and oppressive southern whites for blacks and poor whites. In both situations, throughout the history of this county, the most fundamental reason to have 2A and 14A has utterly failed each and every time a minority opinion rises up against perceived government or majority tyranny with arms or the threat of arms. Whiskey Rebellion, South Carolina secession, John Brown, Civil War, Blacks and poor Whites during Reconstruction and Jim Crow... all failures with massive defeats. "Hey, Southern Freedmen, we're tired of fighting this civil war for you. Get your guns and protect yourselves against the whites around you. And now you can participate in government." Yeah, that just lead to massacre after massacre. I will admit. I have no automatic weapons, but my guns are weapons of mass destruction. If see some fascist turn in America, I'm probably leaving. But if I'm stuck, then I may fight. But if fascism is the majority with the arms, whether it's the Texas military or the national military, then I would get smoked. Maybe take out a few evil doers in the process, but smoked in the end. That's always happened, and the only time you win is if you get a bigger army to help you. That's why the South tried to recruit the British to join the South. Anyhow, still noodling this. We all generally accept gun rights from a practical standpoint for the purposes of self-defense. Maybe they should be regulated only from that viewpoint. It's definitely more limiting than the "guns to fight tyranny of government or tyranny of the majority" frame. I get it, but what's the point of the more expansive view if it's literally impossible to succeed in those situations.
Again that doesn't change the overall point that the 2nd Amendment's purpose was for a well regulated militia that includes a command structure and discipline. It's not an unlimited right. If anything the Federalist Papers argue that firearms could be even more regulated since "discipline" comes up as essential to the function of the militia and the purpose of the right is for collective defense through an organized structure of militia.
one way to do it (and I've had some success with this) is to teach the history of the English game laws and how those led to Blackstone's Commentaries, which the founders relied upon so heavily. The game laws were not so much about game as they were about social control. And, depending on who was in power at any given time, tended to ebb and flow with the monarch's enthusiasm for hunting. And then finally with the English Civil War and subsequent Revolution, game laws were used almost entirely as a fiction to achieve gun control. Hence the founders' concern for a right "of the people" to keep and bear arms. hard to argue with much of what you say here
I do not believe that anyone, anywhere, at any time, argues that the the right to keep and bear arms is "an unlimited right." So that would be a straw man
Well murders still happen and we the standard of what qualifies as "murder" has been varying degrees and has been changed. If we accept that murders still happen and we can't stop all of them with one standard why should we have bothered with different degrees or things like "manslaughter". Let's try another example. Drunk driving has been around since automobiles existed. It still happens but in recent years the standard of intoxication in most states has been increased from .1% blood alcohol to 0.08%. Under your argument states shouldn't have changed that since there was still drunk driving going on under the higher standard. The reason for the change was the recognition that drunk driving was a dangerous social problem that required changing standards to address the problem. The difference here in our arguments is that you don't see firearm violence as a problem, or perhaps you see it as acceptable byproduct to your interpretation of personal liberty. Whereas I and many others do. In that case it would make sense to increase existing enforcement and also look at changing the current regulatory structure. As another poster noted you could allow the robber to leave while getting enough information about him to assist with aprehension. This isn't a radical strategy as many PD's already have standards that limit high speed pursuit and use of firearms where it puts civilians at risk. Besides that there are other techniques involving close combat that could be applied. Now I won't claim that those aren't without risk to the person doing them. They have a lot of risk but as we see so does the use of firearms. [quote That's nice, everyone is entitled to their own opinion.[/quote] Yes everyone does and you're entitled to considering a situation where bystanders were shot as being a good outcome. No one is claiming that the since X law passed in 2014. ( Interesting considering you're accusing others of making non-sequitors) Pointing out that some of the worst mass shootings in history have occurred since 2012 which may change the assesment. Are you arguing that the shootings worst mass shootings in US history (2016 Pulse nightclub 49 killed 53 wounded, 2017 Las Vegas 61 killed 867 wounded) wouldn't skew the numbers? Also note the San Bernadino shooting (16 dead 24 injured) happened in 2015 so it wasn't included in the study.
So what were you even bringing up the Federalist papers for in this context? I brought them up in regard to the overall argument that yes the 2nd Amendment does allow for regulation even greater than we have now. Do you disagree with that?
now I'm back to being totally mystified at what you're driving at other than the 2nd Amendment allows for regulation in the modern sense of "regulation." Yes, the 2nd Amendment, like all other amendments, allows for limits, constraints, and "regulation."
reminds me of what Hugh Jackman recently said about Australians. I'll try to dig that one out, it was in the NYT I think
Hugh Jackman Is Having Fun Playing as ‘Arrogant as You Possibly Can’ “There’s something about this show that buoys me up with an energy that I didn’t think I had,” the Tony nominee said of “The Music Man.” https://www.nytimes.com/2022/05/24/theater/hugh-jackman-the-music-man.html excerpt: You’ve lived in the United States for about 20 years. Do you consider yourself an American? I’m Australian. I think America’s an extraordinary place, though — there are very few places as generous of spirit. Do you think that generosity is what draws Americans to scammers? It goes back to this sense of individualism, and the ultimate expression of that is the con man, who goes against everything and flips the rules of hierarchy. Australia has got a little bit of that, but we saw during the pandemic that Australians follow the rules. There’s a collective, “We should really be doing this,” and people fall in line. And as we saw here, there’s no falling in line. more at the link
We bother with different degrees and different crimes because we are criminalizing different acts. You may as well say why have more than one law. Just have a law that says don't do bad things. The change was to address further study in the area of intoxication. There is a general law against driving while intoxicated. In fact, the "legal limit" laws are actually just a judicial economy law. It is illegal to drive while unable to operate a motor vehicle with the same care and ability that a sober person can. States have just implemented a parallel law to save time which codifies that you are per se unable to safely operate a motor vehicle if your blood alcohol content is above a certain level. It went down from .10 to .08 due to lobbying and additional scientific studies. It could have stayed at 0.10%. It could go down to 0.05% (this is what my local criminalists push for). It could be eliminated and you just use the general rule. I see all violence as a problem. I don't see increased gun control as a targeted enough solution, nor do I find that it is Constitutionally acceptable. Moreover, I don't think you should add additional restrictions when the current restrictions are ignored (especially when they are ignored to privilege a ruling elite). The clearance rate on robbery is under 30%. That's a nice idea, but it doesn't really work in practice. You think the guy who had someone sneak up behind him and hold a gun to his head should have tried to engage in hand-to-hand combat with his robber? Really? The use of firearms seems like it was far less risky to this guy, since he was uninjured and the robber ended up shot and arrested. Thank you. No, it wouldn't skew the numbers. The numbers may fluctuate over time, but there was already a large sample used under the same gun law conditions, so the results should be valid. You are looking at a sample, not every incident past present and future. Another study can be done for comparison to try to replicate or falsify the results. If you do a diabetes study and there happens to be a spike in diabetes a few days after the study ends, it doesn't invalidate the study. Examples that occur before or after a study don't invalidate a study unless the study was specifically limited to avoid those examples. The two studies here used the same end date and were clearly not both trying to avoid a particular data point by choosing that end date.
NY governor signs law raising age to own semiautomatic rifle https://apnews.com/article/kathy-ho...cs-shootings-2af4ea8d1ed084d712de16db47b2bd6e excerpt: ALBANY, N.Y. (AP) — New Yorkers under age 21 will be prohibited from buying semiautomatic rifles under a new law signed Monday by Gov. Kathy Hochul, making the state among the first to enact a major gun control initiative following a wave of deadly mass shootings. Hochul, a Democrat, signed 10 public safety-related bills, including one that will require microstamping in new firearms, which could help law enforcement solve gun-related crimes. Another revised the state’s “red flag” law, which allows courts to temporarily take away guns from people who might be a threat to themselves or others. *** Part of New York’s new law will also require all purchasers of semiautomatic rifles to get a license, something now required only for handguns. more at the link
Fed gov is fully broken and does not reflect the will of the people. Local is the only way change can happen. Despite Buffalo, NY has some of the lowest gun violence in US. Still, we vote people in who make laws even more restrictive. Texas is ****ed. Guns=freedom, which is more important than anything, even the children. So sad and selfish and incredibly stupid.
Pedestrian fatalities hit four-decade high. Which states had the most? https://thehill.com/blogs/blog-brie...t-four-decade-high-which-states-had-the-most/ excerpt: The most pedestrian deaths in a single year in four decades were recorded in 2021, averaging out at 20 deaths in the U.S. every day, a new report has found. An estimated 7,485 people were killed while on foot in 2021, compared to 6,711 in 2020, according to the Governors Highway Safety Association (GHSA). Seven states reported an increase of more than 30 percent in the number of people on foot struck and killed in motor vehicle crashes. “This is heartbreaking and unacceptable. The pandemic has caused so much death and damage, it’s frustrating to see even more lives needlessly taken due to dangerous driving,” said GHSA Executive Director Jonathan Adkins. “We must address the root causes of the pedestrian safety crisis – speeding and other dangerous driving behaviors, inadequate infrastructure, and roads designed for vehicle speed instead of safety – to reverse this trend and ensure people can walk safely,” he added. more at the link
this is like asking me what I think about the Rockets not disciplining KPJr for leaving the arena at halftime, and I start bringing up Draymond’s moving screens
Yeah, that is the most ridiculous response ever. Just deflection from the truth. The NRA owns them. They care more about that blood money than the people of this country. Always have, always will. Republicans are as the party of ruthless, heartless souls.
Love the BS argument that gun laws won't work so why do them? Gosh, Drug laws won't work so...... Gosh, traffic laws won't work so.... Stupid argument. DD
https://www.wsj.com/articles/why-bl...ection-11654635686?mod=hp_opin_pos_2#cxrecs_s Why Black Americans Are Buying More Guns The people who bear the brunt of rising violent crime are taking steps to protect themselves. By Jason L. Riley June 7, 2022 6:13 pm ET “The issue we face is one of conscience and common sense.” So said Joe Biden last week in a prime-time plea for more Second Amendment restrictions. The president is right on both counts, just not in the way that he and other gun-control enthusiasts imagine. Voters have noticed that cities where shootings occur almost daily also have some of the strictest gun laws. Using common sense, they’ve concluded that more gun-control legislation probably isn’t the solution because criminals by definition don’t respect laws. Many of the same people likewise find it unconscionable that elected officials would make it more difficult for law-abiding residents of high-crime neighborhoods to arm themselves for protection. Someone might remind Mr. Biden that the past two landmark Supreme Court rulings on gun control were fueled by black plaintiffs who simply wanted to defend their homes and their families. Moreover, they hailed from cities controlled by liberals who have done an extraordinarily bad job of protecting low-income minorities from criminals. In a 2008 case, District of Columbia v. Heller, the court affirmed that the right to bear arms is an individual right and that you don’t need to be part of a militia to exercise it. One of the initial plaintiffs was Shelly Parker, a black computer-software designer who decided to challenge the district’s handgun ban in court after a 7-foot-tall neighborhood drug dealer tried to break into her home one evening and threatened to kill her. “What I want is simply to be able to own a handgun in my home, in the confines of the walls of my home—nothing else,” she told National Public Radio. Two years later, in McDonald v. Chicago, the high court expanded on Heller. The lead plaintiff was Otis McDonald, a black Chicago retiree who wanted to own a handgun for protection from the gangs that terrorized his low-income neighborhood. Ruling in his favor, the court said that the Second Amendment applies with equal force to federal, state and local governments alike. When McDonald died in 2014, the Chicago Tribune obituary described him as “the man who brought down Chicago’s gun ban.” It’s well known that gun sales have surged in recent years, but less well known is that blacks have led the trend. Retailers in an online survey conducted by the National Shooting Sports Foundation, a trade group, reported that they sold 58% more guns to black customers in the first half of 2020 than a year earlier, the highest increase for any ethnic group. Personal safety tops the list of why people decide to buy a firearm. In a 2021 Gallup survey, 88% of respondents said they own a gun “for protection against crime,” which is up from 67% in 2005. Social conditions have convinced more Americans that they need a gun, yet the political left has spent little time reassessing woke policies that lead to such thinking. Violent crime has been rising. Homicides in major cities have reached levels not seen in three decades. Meanwhile, liberal policy makers treat criminals like victims and police officers like criminals. Antigun police units tasked with keeping illegal weapons off the streets have been disbanded. Felonies have been downgraded to misdemeanors, and misdemeanors go unpunished, which only emboldens miscreants. Low-income minorities feel the brunt of these so-called reforms because they are by far the most likely crime targets. The same “defund the police” progressives who have spent most of the past decade undermining the ability of law enforcement to combat crime are now using sensational but statistically rare mass-shooting tragedies as a pretense for curtailing the ability of people in vulnerable communities to defend themselves. The president wants to ban “assault weapons,” raise the purchase age to 21, and expand background checks. There’s no evidence that any of this will address the day-in-day-out gun violence that has driven so many Americans to become first-time gun owners. The question is whether more restrictions on ordinary Americans in a nation that already has more guns than people will reduce the number of lives lost. Most mass shooters in recent decades have been over 21. The assailants in Buffalo, N.Y., and Uvalde, Texas, passed background checks and purchased their weapons legally. And from 1994 to 2004, we had a federal assault-weapons ban in place. The reality is that most gun crimes don’t involve such weapons, and a RAND Corp. assessment of these efforts found “inconclusive evidence for the effect of assault weapon bans on mass shootings.” The source of the problem is the failure or inability of the government to protect us. Common sense dictates that we do what is necessary to protect ourselves in the meantime. Only a fool or an ideologue could believe that the best response to people who commit crimes with guns is launching a holy war against people who respect gun laws. Appeared in the June 8, 2022, print edition.
That is exactly the point. Both the languange of the amendment itself and the Federalist Papers state the purpose of the amendment. It is for collective defense and is meant to be constrained. If you agree with that then good.
