Repeal the 2nd Amendment

[The UK in Exile]

seems reasonable, states that want to ban guns do, states that don't, don't.

Unless you believe that people have the right to own guns. The constitution exists to prevent states from taking rights that people should have regardless of where they live.

thats not its original purpose.

besides, why enforce that view on people who don't agree?

[Des-Bal]

thats not its original purpose.

Post civil war that's what we've been doing with it.

[The UK in Exile]

thats not its original purpose.

Post civil war that's what we've been doing with it.

so basically its a minority enforcing its ideology on others through legal chicanery?

[Des-Bal]

so basically its a minority enforcing its ideology on others through legal chicanery?

No it's basically saying "people have these rights this is not up for debate." These kind of limitations are necessary, the alternative is tyranny of the mob.

[Northwest Slobovia]

How was the poll done? Assuming it's voluntary only people with strong feelings are going to answer and I imagine the conservative shift has caused an increase in people who feel strongly in favor. 2003 there was the Lockheed Martin Shooting, 2006 was the Amish School Shooting and 2007 was Virginia Tech.

The analysis in this report is based on telephone interviews conducted April 4-15, 2012, among a national sample of 3,008 adults, 18 years of age or older, living in all 50 U.S. states and the District of Columbia (1,805 respondents were interviewed on a landline telephone, and 1,203 were interviewed on a cell phone, including 603 who had no landline telephone). The survey was conducted by interviewers at Princeton Data Source under the direction of Princeton Survey Research Associates International. A combination of landline and cell phone random digit dial samples were used; both samples were provided by Survey Sampling International. Interviews were conducted in English and Spanish. Respondents in the landline sample were selected by randomly asking for the youngest adult male or female who is now at home. Interviews in the cell sample were conducted with the person who answered the phone, if that person was an adult 18 years of age or older. For detailed information about our survey methodology, see http://people-press.org/methodology/

[The UK in Exile]

so basically its a minority enforcing its ideology on others through legal chicanery?

No it's basically saying "people have these rights this is not up for debate." These kind of limitations are necessary, the alternative is tyranny of the mob.

right. but the rights that are not up for debate are not those originally intented by the writers of the constitution.

so from whence do they spring?

[Des-Bal]

right. but the rights that are not up for debate are not those originally intented by the writers of the constitution.

so from whence do they spring?

I don't think it's relevant.

[The UK in Exile]

right. but the rights that are not up for debate are not those originally intented by the writers of the constitution.

so from whence do they spring?

I don't think it's relevant.

humor me.

[Des-Bal]

humor me.

I don't wanna? I mean it's a clear cut question I could look up where the current interpretations of constitutional rights come from but as I said I don't find it relevant and you could do the same thing just as easilly.

[Northwest Slobovia]

Unless you believe that people have the right to own guns. The constitution exists to prevent states from taking rights that people should have regardless of where they live.

thats not its original purpose.

I don't understand what you mean.

[The UK in Exile]

humor me.

I don't wanna? I mean it's a clear cut question I could look up where the current interpretations of constitutional rights come from but as I said I don't find it relevant and you could do the same thing just as easilly.

from the consent of the governed naturally. so why how could constitutional rights be beyond debate when the authority by which those rights are asserted comes from the people?

they can't.

[Yuonela]

It's an interesting topic on which my views are still developing. Now let's get rid of the notion of it being in the bill of rights and all that, considering I don't give two fucks about culture or tradition. I think that, if guns should be legal at all, regulation should be brutal.

[Des-Bal]

from the consent of the governed naturally. so why how could constitutional rights be beyond debate when the authority by which those rights are asserted comes from the people?

they can't.

The point is that states can't just legislate away constitutional rights, even democratically.

[Grinning Dragon]

I don't wanna? I mean it's a clear cut question I could look up where the current interpretations of constitutional rights come from but as I said I don't find it relevant and you could do the same thing just as easilly.

from the consent of the governed naturally. so why how could constitutional rights be beyond debate when the authority by which those rights are asserted comes from the people?

they can't.

That is incorrect. The United States is a Constitutional Republic, not a democracy. As such, the Constitution defines a framework in which the govt must operate and recognizes that there exists natural Rights that the govt cannot infringe upon, and charges the govt to ensure these Rights are secured for the people.

[The UK in Exile]

from the consent of the governed naturally. so why how could constitutional rights be beyond debate when the authority by which those rights are asserted comes from the people?

they can't.

That is incorrect. The United States is a Constitutional Republic, not a democracy. As such, the Constitution defines a framework in which the govt must operate and recognizes that there exists natural Rights that the govt cannot infringe upon, and charges the govt to ensure these Rights are secured for the people.

the federal government. orginaly not the case for the states.

[Northwest Slobovia]

That is incorrect. The United States is a Constitutional Republic, not a democracy. As such, the Constitution defines a framework in which the govt must operate and recognizes that there exists natural Rights that the govt cannot infringe upon, and charges the govt to ensure these Rights are secured for the people.

the federal government. orginaly not the case for the states.

This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.

Here's the whole thing, for reference.

[Des-Bal]

This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.

Here's the whole thing, for reference.

Prior to the civil war the constitution was not applied to the states.

[Grinning Dragon]

That is incorrect. The United States is a Constitutional Republic, not a democracy. As such, the Constitution defines a framework in which the govt must operate and recognizes that there exists natural Rights that the govt cannot infringe upon, and charges the govt to ensure these Rights are secured for the people.

the federal government. originally not the case for the states.

See this is where I am on the fence about this. If the Founders put all of these protections in the form of enumerated Rights that cannot be infringed upon, but somehow States could infringe upon them? Up until the the ratification of the 14th?

[Not Safe For Work]

Not true.

http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/pub/pdf/GUIC.PDF

"78% of the guns that were traced in 1994 originated in the United States".

"According to the 1991 Survey of State Prison Inmates, among those inmates who possessed a handgun, 9% had acquired it through theft, and 28% had acquired it through an illegal market such as a drug dealer or fence."

In other words - criminals are obtaining their weapons either directly through legal channels... or indirectly through legal channels.

Maybe. I finally got the chance to look at this report and the one it's refering to. So...

1) The report is 21 years old; the fancy federal database for checking for perps and nuts is only 14 years old. The proportions have probably changed because of that. (Hell, even the report you're citing dates from 1995, 17 years ago.)

2) As I expected, you're excluding at least one source of guns. To summarize the chart given in the 1991 report:

31% got their guns from friends or family. We don't know how those people got them.
28% got them from the black market.
27% of them bought them legally. This has probably dropped.
9% stole them, and
5% "other".

So, waaaay back in '91, there's not much evidence of indirect channels. Did some "friends or family" buy their guns, maybe even for the perp? Oh, sure. But the report doesn't say how many; for all we know, they all traded them for other illegal goods.

Where criminals are currently getting their guns can't be described from the report, because of the newer federal database. Your other comments about scratch purchases are qualitatively reasonable, but the quantity is what matters for this discussion.

I now return the thread to its previously scheduled Constitutional exegesis.

I'm not sure why you think the new federal database means that the numbers would be categorically wrong. The only number that is likely to have changed is the criminal buying the gun for himself from a legitimate retail outlet on record. So they buy them off-record, or they get someone to buy them for them. The other things I've already mentioned. The point I was making is that the weapons criminals are using are by-and-large coming from the 'legal' domestic gun market. And that is unlikely to have changed.

[Northwest Slobovia]

Here's the whole thing, for reference.

Prior to the civil war the constitution was not applied to the states.

Bill of Rights, I guess you mean, in which case the guarantee of rights despite the predations of the states comes from the 14th Amendment.

[Des-Bal]

Bill of Rights, I guess you mean, in which case the guarantee of rights despite the predations of the states comes from the 14th Amendment.

That's what I was driving at. I just remember it as "after the civil war" because I tend to mix up 13, 14, and 15.

[Northwest Slobovia]

Maybe. I finally got the chance to look at this report and the one it's refering to. So...

1) The report is 21 years old; the fancy federal database for checking for perps and nuts is only 14 years old. The proportions have probably changed because of that. (Hell, even the report you're citing dates from 1995, 17 years ago.)

2) As I expected, you're excluding at least one source of guns. To summarize the chart given in the 1991 report:

31% got their guns from friends or family. We don't know how those people got them.
28% got them from the black market.
27% of them bought them legally. This has probably dropped.
9% stole them, and
5% "other".

So, waaaay back in '91, there's not much evidence of indirect channels. Did some "friends or family" buy their guns, maybe even for the perp? Oh, sure. But the report doesn't say how many; for all we know, they all traded them for other illegal goods.

Where criminals are currently getting their guns can't be described from the report, because of the newer federal database. Your other comments about scratch purchases are qualitatively reasonable, but the quantity is what matters for this discussion.

I now return the thread to its previously scheduled Constitutional exegesis.

I'm not sure why you think the new federal database means that the numbers would be categorically wrong. The only number that is likely to have changed is the criminal buying the gun for himself from a legitimate retail outlet on record.

But the numbers have to add up to 100%, and we know one has changed. So, the others can't just remain the same. So, does the background check drive the black market? Or direct theft of guns? Or, as you say -- and I don't disagree -- guns coming through a channel which the law essentially created: scratch purchases. There's simply no way to tell from that old data what the current situation looks like. We'd need to re-run the study on a current batch of perps.

[The lepearchauns]

Theres no legitimate reason to own ANY assault or automatic weapons. Ban them outright. Sniper rifles too. And legal grenade launchers and ect like that. There is LITERALLY no reason to own these. YOu can keep hunting rifles and pistols, but assault weapons have no purpose outside military

[Des-Bal]

Theres no legitimate reason to own ANY assault or automatic weapons. Ban them outright. Sniper rifles too. And legal grenade launchers and ect like that. There is LITERALLY no reason to own these. YOu can keep hunting rifles and pistols, but assault weapons have no purpose outside military

That depends on your interpretation of the second ammendment. If it's national defense or acting as a check on the government then there's no point to owning pistols or hunting rifles. Anti-Aircraft guns and assault weapons however should be in every home.

[Northwest Slobovia]

Bill of Rights, I guess you mean, in which case the guarantee of rights despite the predations of the states comes from the 14th Amendment.

That's what I was driving at. I just remember it as "after the civil war" because I tend to mix up 13, 14, and 15.

Ok, I sometimes do that too.

So that's the answer to UK's question: the 14th Amendment established those rights, based on the will of the people living then (1866-1868, the period of ratification), and the existing powers of the Federal government under the Supremacy Clause (the bit I quoted). As to what the framers of the Consitution intended, well, they were the ones who provided for amendments...

Of course, that means that your point -- which UK was complaining about -- that "people have these rights this is not up for debate" is not quite right. We could repeal either the 2nd or 14th amendments. But assuming the survey data I posted is correct, that ain't gonna happen.