This message was self-deleted by its author

[billh58]

This message was self-deleted by its author (billh58) on Thu Mar 12, 2015, 05:32 AM. When the original post in a discussion thread is self-deleted, the entire discussion thread is automatically locked so new replies cannot be posted.

[guillaumeb]

1. please keep it going

an excellent how-to for debating the issue.

Thomm Hartmann has also suggested that gun owners be required to purchase insurance. Why not? I am required to insure my car.

[shenmue]

2. Yes

Sounds reasonable to me.

[daleanime]

5. Seems sensible to me....

[Beartracks]

3. The gist: with proper regulation, there shouldn't be ANY need to "confiscate yer guns." K&R

Auto-driving is regulated, but as long as you follow the common-sense laws regarding their use, there's no need to confiscate yer truck.

Likewise, it should be the same with guns.

Sure, the Constitution guarantees yer right to have a firearm, I suppose, whereas cars are optional. But that doesn't mean their use cannot or should not be regulated. You say the Constitutional right to bear arms was intended to safeguard the country, but so far we're just paying a terrible price in the deaths of American citizens.


(Note: all references to "you" and "yer" refer to the right-wing gun lobby and apologists.)

=========================

[flamin lib]

4. At the core of the gun rights movement is absolutism.

Gun control of any kind means confiscation of all guns, period. Universal background checks are a prelude to registration which is a prelude to confiscation. Smart gun technology is a prelude to confiscating all old style guns. Tagants are meant to track people who buy gun powder for reloading so their guns can be confiscated. Regulating high capacity magazines for semi auto guns is the first step to confiscating all guns. Regulating military style semi auto rifles with high capacity magazines with high cyclic rates is the first step to taking all guns from everyone.

It is all argumentum extremis, a logical fallacy based on "if anything, then everything". The camel's nose under the tent argument. Fostered by the NRA beginning in the late '70s, absorbed, regurgitated and taken as a basic truth by all who are seduced by the high priests of gun nuttery.

[BrotherIvan]

6. The argument always is "the right to defend oneself"

I agree that you have the right to defend yourself in your own home. If you feel that is with a gun, then ok, I'll compromise. But most guns used in robberies by "criminals" (the favorite boogie man of gunners) have been stolen from irresponsible gun owners who do not secure their weapons or private sales. Let's fix that first.

Then require insurance that if your deadly weapon injures anyone, you are responsible. That means you must secure your weapon at all times. Proof of a gun safe should be a requirement for any gun license.

Then let's follow the Tombstone Rule: you can't carry a gun in public. Funny, that's what most of the civilized world has figured out.

[Hoyt]

7. +1. A gun or two AT HOME doesn't really concern me. A bunch of guns and/or public toting, does.

[BrotherIvan]

8. Gunners will argue they need to be armed at all times in public

But the standard should not be overwhelming fear and paranoia. Any person with a gun is a threat in compared to an unarmed person. Because that gun can discharge at any time. Or that person can be a little bit angry and an argument turns deadly. And they are putting innocent peoople at risk because they live in some cowboy fantasy.

[billh58]

9. As Justice Stevens noted in his dissent in Heller:

"The Second Amendment was adopted to protect the right of the people of each of the several States to maintain a well-regulated militia. It was a response to concerns raised during the ratification of the Constitution that the power of Congress to disarm the state militias and create a national standing army posed an intolerable threat to the sovereignty of the several States. Neither the text of the Amendment nor the arguments advanced by its proponents evidenced the slightest interest in limiting any legislature’s authority to regulate private civilian uses of firearms. Specifically, there is no indication that the Framers of the Amendment intended to enshrine the common-law right of self-defense in the Constitution."

The common-law right of self-defense does not automatically confer the right to be armed at all times "just in case" you need to defend yourself. The SCOTUS decision in Heller included the following statement:

"Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analog."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_of_Columbia_v._Heller

The same logic applies to Stand-Your-Ground laws, and the duty to retreat is a sound survival and desired legal tactic.

[guillaumeb]

10. on the mark again

Many people seem to feel that the phrase "...the right of the people to keep..." refers to each individual person. The Founders specifically talked about "a well regulated militia..." in the context of possession of firearms.

In my view, D.C. v Heller applies the same reasoning. The Amendment must be read in its entirety, not have words or phrases cherry picked out of context to support a viewpoint. Given that the Founders made no provision for a standing army, and given the emphasis on a well regulated militia, to assert that any individual citizen has a right to carry a gun is a ridiculous selective reading of the 2ND Amendment.

[BrotherIvan]

11. Most excellent

I am going to change that to my sigline.

"Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited."

Thank you.