irrefutable proof gun control is unconstitutional

well, i fudged a little bit. all federal gun control is unconstitutional on the face of it.


if its not covered by the 2nd amendment, then it surely is by the 9th or Tth.


brad

I tend to agree, although no individual right has been found to be unlimited. I think the gun control act of '68 is unconstitutional, as are the bans on post '86 machine guns and regular capacity magazines. I think portions of the law regarding transfer taxes and registration on pre-'86 machine guns are illegal, but probably not all of it. (That's a 1930's law). Needless to say I will never be on the Supreme Court so it doesn't matter a whit what I think. I'd be in the minority on a lot of stuff anyway. I'd have a lot of fun up there though.

It's pretty easy to understand why the framers wrote what they wrote, and what they took themselves to be signing. Just ask yourself "Was it going in in Europe?"


Generally, everything they wrote was in reaction to some bad experience in Europe. In Europe, citizens were disarmed all the time.


But then you have things like abortion. So you ask yourself "Was abortion restricted in states and communities in the US at the time the Constitution was written?"


Yes, abortion was always restricted at non-Federal levels, in the early history of this country. Nobody fled Europe to the New World so that he could get an abortion.


But again, it's just a legal game, and you'd do well not to misinterpret it. Liberals know gun rights are guaranteed by The Constitution as well as tobacco executives know smoking causes cancer.


eLROY

The law as it is makes no sense anyway. A literalist interpretation of the law means that technically ANY gun control should be illegal. Back in the days of muskets, I guess it didn't matter much what type of "arms" you were talking about, but today if you had no gun control there would be nothing stopping someone from getting a bazooka, rocket launcher, etc. Besides that, you have this inane argument about interpretation of the law. Liberals argue that the law was written during a time of war with the British, and allude to the "militia" portion of the amendment as proof of such.


In my opinion, it shouldn't make much of a difference. Either way you argue it, the 2nd amendment is archaic. It does not apply in any respect to what is needed in America today. We don't have militias running around fighting the British anymore, and no one (save for a few wackos)believes that your average Joe should have access to a bazooka. So just repeal it and send it to the states, which is pretty much what is going on anyway.

Why on Earth should it be illegal for someone to have a bazooka?


After all, there are already laws against


1) murder,

2) conspiracy to commit murder,

3) preaching violent government ovethrow or something, and

4) so forth.


This is something that always confuses me, laws against things there are already laws against.


eLROY

Is this a joke? The reason is obvious: because in the wrong hands these are weapons of MASS destruction, not just self defense. Do you think it should be legal for humans to own nuclear weapons as well? By your logic, you think they should.

Conspiracy to commit murder or mass destruction could perhaps be implied in the manufacture of a nuclear weapon. Funny, you said all our gun laws are archaic, and yet without the single example of an extra-large thermonuclear devices, you don't really have much of an argument.


Though frankly, yes, I do believe that people should not be interfered with so much, and that is how you end up with moral citizens. It is best that societies which breed violent and immoral elements are able to blow themselves up, and then people who can handle themselves better - without so many preventative measures of preventative measures - move in.


And what is someone going to do with a bazooka? Everyone should have a bazooka, and the only real thing they could do with it would be to attempt to murder or take property, which involve rights that are unanimously backed up by Federal law. Plus, if everybody had bazookas, you would only have an incentive to use it if your own rights were threatened, and it would self-regulate that way.


I would not see it odd that each local city might have its own tactical nuclear device, or maybe the Lions Club, or the City Fathers. But what I can visualize, though quite sophisticated, is not really relevant. Moral and legal systems are the product of evolution, not thought, and there was no reason to dispose of our Constitutional legal genetics when we were not dying.


In fact, no society is ever really justified in consciously eliminating any old laws on its books. There just need to be enough sub-communities and super-communities that the bad ones die and get replaced by the ones that work, and the people move out and move in and copy the alternative customs.


This idea that people can picture how laws and freedoms and morals are supposed to interoperate is ridiculous. I will not believe that a law is bad or good until I see proof that a society lived or died by it. But even that I will never have, as it is difficult to trace direct causes in the downfall of civilizations.


So why meddle?


Arrogance.


eLROY

hetr0n, you are getting to a delicate and difficult area. I think it is pretty clear that the 2d Amendment gives you the right to have bazookas and rocket launchers. It takes a long time to dissect the meaning of the Amendment, but I can make a strong argument that any weapon commonly used in the army is fair game under the 2d Amd. I would exempt nukes and WMD's for various reasons. Some could say I was a hypocrite for that, but whatever. But a tank or bazooka is not a WMD. I know this interpretation scares people on both sides of the gun debate. Anti-gun folks because of how broad the Amd. really is. Pro-gun folks because such an interpretation would probably lead to a repeal or further amendment of the Amendment.


You would also be surprised what weapons a citizen can legally have now I think. I could go out and procure a machine gun legally and carry it most everywhere in the state I live in. I can pack it at the grocery store either in the open or concealed. I don't because of hassle, lack of need, and some sense of rational behavior, but I could do so legally if I were so inclined. Because of the hodge podge of weapons laws some machine guns would be OK, others not. In other states I couldn't do this, but it just depends.


But of course, the laws don't matter much anyway because people who are inclined to get a given weapon can, and the only factor they consider is price. And this includes some stuff that is really scary or really neat depending on how you view it.


As to the argument about the militia, it is becoming increasingly clear in the academic debate that the right is an individual one. I posted a link a while back that had a lot of stuff on this. If you are really curious, do an internet search for Eugene Volokh. He has a lot of interesting stuff and has done some excellent academic work on the topic. I don't have the links handy.

>Conspiracy to commit murder or mass destruction >could perhaps be implied in the manufacture of a >nuclear weapon. Funny, you said all our gun laws >are archaic, and yet without the single example >of an extra-large thermonuclear devices, you >don't really have much of an argument.


I only said the 2nd amendment was archaic, not ALL gun laws. And I can give you plenty of other examples of weapons civilians shouldn't have access to. How about grenades, missiles and bombs?

Do you think regular citizens should have access to these?


>Though frankly, yes, I do believe that people >should not be interfered with so much, and that >is how you end up with moral citizens. It is >best that societies which breed violent and >immoral elements are able to blow themselves up, >and then people who can handle themselves >better - without so many preventative measures >of preventative measures - move in.


I'm curious to know what you think of the US's high crime rate compared to other first world countries. Do you think our society breeds violence? Is there something we can learn from countries with lower crime rates?


>And what is someone going to do with a bazooka? >Everyone should have a bazooka, and the only >real thing they could do with it would be to >attempt to murder or take property, which >involve rights that are unanimously backed up by >Federal law. Plus, if everybody had bazookas, >you would only have an incentive to use it if >your own rights were threatened, and it would >self-regulate that way.


Yes, but ready access to weapons more powerful than the guns available today would mean they could take out more people in a fit of rage. Instead of killing 8 or 9 they might take out a train and kill 100 with a few grenades. Don't you see the danger in this?


And the whole argument about being scared that the other person is also packing wouldn't apply with a bazooka. If you are angry and want to take people out, would you rather have a hand gun, or a grenade launcher?


>I would not see it odd that each local city >might have its own tactical nuclear device, or >maybe the Lions Club, or the City Fathers. But >what I can visualize, though quite >sophisticated, is not really relevant. Moral and >legal systems are the product of evolution, not >thought, and there was no reason to dispose of >our Constitutional legal genetics when we were >not dying.


Evolution from muskets to nuclear bombs doesn't count? More sophisticated weapons are available now than when the Constitution was penned. Im not even GOING to TOUCH the idea of a Lions Club owning a nuke.


>This idea that people can picture how laws and >freedoms and morals are supposed to interoperate >is ridiculous. I will not believe that a law is >bad or good until I see proof that a society >lived or died by it. But even that I will never >have, as it is difficult to trace direct causes >in the downfall of civilizations.


THey don't. THe principle behind the Constitution is rather simple. It's based on the fact that the individual has maximal rights over his own life, so long as these rights don't interfere with other people's rights. The problem has always been figuring out where one person's (or groups') rights end and those of another begin.

So far as I know, there have basically been three periods when the crime rate exploded in our country,


1) when Western Christian morals went out of fashion in the 1800's,


2) as a byproduct of the profound waves of immigration in the early part of the 1900's, and the explosion of urban populations, and


3) as a result of the gutting of the Constitution by civil-rights laws in the 50's and 60's.


So, while I would believe there could be something in our "original culture" that lets criminals survive, I haven't really seen any evidence that the people who embrace our original culture are the ones committing the crimes. In fact, the crime can perhaps even be traced to our strong freedom of religion, our lack of homogeneous cultural norms, and a general willingness to permit the evolution of local subsets of values.


So far as grenades and such, I in no way presume that I will ever have the wisdom, even if I live to be 200, to develop my own conclusions as to whether citizens "should" be allowed to have grenades. I wouldn't wouldn't even know where to begin thinking to arrive at such a conclusion one way or the other.


I'm not saying citizens should have grenades, I'm saying it seems to me, in my limited analytical powers that citizens should, above all, have the legal genetics of Constitutions. Without that, no law, no matter how sensible to anyone, has any guarantee of being around long enough to even be given a chance.


So far as the Lions Club owning a nuke, the military owns nukes, and the military is made up of people, same as any other structure. Many liberals would even argue that Ronald Reagan and George Bush are more fallible than most ordinary people.


The only reason we trust the military with nukes is because of an evolved history, and track record. I'm simply saying it doesn't seem impossible to me that other decision structures - also made up of people - couldn't also dodge their own self-destruction and evolve to govern nukes constructively.


So far as spree killing and rages, why don't you tell me why it didn't happen 100 years ago? Why was the piddling little St. Valentines Day Massacre the most shocking civilian event in the history of our country? Why did teenage boys in New York City used to carry their rifles to school for after-school shooting clubs, and yet they never shot the bullies?


If you were to play architect, how would you rebuild that?


eLROY

"Yes, abortion was always restricted at non-Federal levels, in the early history of this country. Nobody fled Europe to the New World so that he could get an abortion."


I hope you meant "..so that SHE could get an abortion".

did somebody warn you, ripdog, that someday a fella woudl come along using the non-specific "he," and that that fella would be speaking strictly of men?


did somebody give you a cracker-jack decoder ring with a bug in it, a trick slipped in to get girls all riled up, so we can enjoy a good laugh all around?


that lie about the historically evolved use of language was designed to make girls feel slighted, so as to cause them to come charging into the saving arms of feminist propagandists as their white knight-ettes.


but, in reality, people have been referring to both gooses and ganders as "geese" for many a century.


eLROY

Obviously there are no easy answers to your question. The US violent crime rate is highest among first world countries due to more than one reason. If I can speculate on a few factors, top on the list would be (1) the heterogeneity of American culture (2)the large separation between rich and poor that exists in a country that increasingly is only concerned with the culture of money and (3) the easy availability of guns and the fascination with violence.


These factors all interweave with one another. For example, gun supporters point to the low crime rate in switzerland and the high rate of gun ownership in switzerland. But switzerland's culture is nothing like America's culture. I am pretty sure they don't have as disgruntled a lower class as America or as heterogenous a culture as America.


The pro gun folks will argue that the crime rate in Texas has dropped since the concealed weapon law passed, and maybe that's true. But the South still has the highest gun murder rate, while the Northeast still has the lowest. Perhaps its no coincidence that the Northeast has the weakest gun culture in America, while the South probably has the strongest. It is probably also no coincidence that the Northeast is still probably one of the wealthiest areas in US, while the South, despite it's recent boom, is still among the weakest.


Obviously you can write a book on all the causes of US violent crime, but I think programs designed to help the poor out economically and sensible gun laws are good place to start.

It is true, I was talking to one of Bill Clinton's perennial bosom buddies the other day - a real commie from way back in the Oxford days - and in the same paragraph he


1) called the US evil, based on the conditions of the poor in our ghettos, and


2) proclaimed how the morally superior Germans, for instance, would never let so many Turks immigrate in the first place, because they just won't tolerate the poor, tired, and hungry living in ghettos.


But this idea that those in our country who are relatively poor relative to the rich in our country - but rich relative to the poor in other countries - shoot their neighbors because there are strangers living only a few miles away who are more productive than either them or the people they shoot, is ridiculous.


The reason poor people kill each other - whether here or in Africa - and the reason they are poor, is the same reason: THEY ARE DIRTBAGS. They don't shoot people because they are poor, they are poor because they practice a whole portfolio of unproductive behaviors, at the far end of which is shooting each other.


Back to my previous post, I made one error/omission. I stated that, without a Constitution, no laws which happen to be good will ever last long enough to become Darwinistically discovered or sorted out as being good. A more direct statement would be that, without the legal genetics of a Constitution - the survival of which is tied to the survival of the society - the only laws which are guaranteed to survive are those laws which increase the power of the legislature. The two options are


1) having laws which increase the power of the legislators, or


2) having laws which perpetuate the survival of the society.


This third idea, having laws survive based on whether they "make sense," has never been an option. So a Constitution really only needs to contain laws restricting the power of the government, and the evolution of laws which help communities survive will flower.


But, in conclusion, I'll grant you fascination with violence, and I'll grant you a collection of uniquely American things which cultural heterogeneity is a part of. And I will smirk smugly at this notion that poorer people in the US kill each other because they are geographically closer to people who are richer than them than they are to people who are poorer than them in Africa.


And sure, some of them may be disgruntled, even despite the historically unprecedented scope of opportunity that is staring them in the face. But that is not because of the rich, but because of poverty pimps like Jesse Jackson, who raise money by appealing to people's paranoia that they are being cheated. Same thing happened in Germany a few decades back.


eLROY

'The US violent crime rate is highest among first world countries ...'


this is no longer true. search for crime rates in britain .


brad

See


http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcgvinco.html

So countries that have higher murder rates really have higher dirtbag rates? What leads people to become dirtbags? Is it genetics, environment, or what?


You are WAYYYY oversimplifying the problem. Just saying that the problem is people of low moral fiber doesn't cut it. There are people of low moral fiber in every country, but what causes some of these people to be murderers in the US but pickpockets in Italy? I believe socioeconomic factors and culture play a big role in these things. The interplay of factors contributing to crime within each country is something that is so detailed that I could never do it justice with a single post, or even a few posts. Your THEY ARE DIRTBAGS answer leaves much to be desired.


And why compare the US to Africa? That's like comparing apples to oranges. Compare the US to other First World nations, such as Italy, Australia, Norway, the Netherlands, etc. All these countries have much lower murder rates than the US.

'Last updated: 1/21/2001'


using data how old? a lot wasfrom 1994.


ill post a link later.


brad

People are just bags of meat. Their behavior is a product of culture. They are born as basically empty - if not flawed - neural networks, and need to be burnt into shape like eproms. So it is cultural genetics. And, so far as oversimplifying the problem, there is probably nothing more complicated or less understood than cultural, or exosomatic genetics.


The reason we have so many killer dirtbags in this country is probably because so many idiots are brought up on TV, rather than by their parents. And the government pays people who are cultural vacuums and have no family structure to have children. Most of what all these murderers carry is culture is not really culture at all, as it has been invented by their own limited reason, rather than evolved.


There is no explanation of reality anywhere for someone to learn and think about. For a simple example, consider movies. It is almost impossible to portray economic processes on screen using three-camera shots, cuts, fades, steadi-cams, or whatever.


So, movies tend to protray the causes behind effects as oversimplified personal ones. Some things happen because people persevere, other things happen because people have big guns that cause someone to fly back three yards and die instantly. As such, the literal phsyics of reality - how people become rich or poor, the role played by businessmen, how resources are allocated, how culture plays out in an individual's success of failure - can never be portrayed.


So you go into it with the basic problem that people are born and brought up without an evolved culture, and the physical model of the world they are shown, which they can use to invent their own culture, is a very flawed and inaccurate model. So they go around killing each other, wasting their lives, and amounting to nothing useful. And of course they should be unhappy about it.


Did I oversimplify again? To be honest with you, Hetr0n, the real source of our disagreement is that you are working with nothing better than movie-theatre definitions of morals, culture, religion, and so on. If you went and did some reading on these things, they wouldn't seem so simple. But if you think that petty theft is the only "immoral" behavior, then I assume you think drugs should be legal, and communism isn't a religion.


In reality, most of those pick-pockets in Italy probably aren't immoral at all, not in the sense I mean it. Rather, many of them were brought up pickpockets. Or they copied the habits and rituals of a picpocketing clan. For them, pickpocketing is a cultural survival trait.


It is much less likely, by comparison, that a teenage gang-banger who shoots and gets shot, and gets some girl pregnant somewhere, will "pass on" his survival traits to his son. So what we have with gang-banging culture, for instance, must be something that occurs spontaneously in the environment, and can only slip in to fill a cultural vacuum.


When the government pays for people to eat, and pays for people to have children without fathers, it is very unlikely people will evolve survival traits in the first place, much less pass them on. And all these people are dirtbags. Though in truth, people in Africa may actually be brought up with some archaic set of morals, they just happen to be so useless and out of place in the modern world that they may as well have no morals at all.


So of course I "compared" the US to Africa, and "contrasted" it to Norway, by the very definition of "compare," you silly. I cannot "compare" a place with a huge dirtbag problem to a place with a low dirtbag problem. I just told you what the apples and oranges are. The apples are dirtbags, whether in the US, or Africa. Wake up.


Oh, one last thing. My guess would be that Great Britain has a higher crime rate than Germany for instance. And the reason why I guess this is because, in some of my studies of the history and migrations of Gypsies, it became plain that the reason Great Britain is such a haven for such an alien culture is for the simple reason that, unlike Germany or even Spain, the British have been way more tolerant of such an alien people living and practicing their culture there.


eLROY

Hmmm, are you implying that making drugs illegal has been a wise move? I'd think someone who is so strident in the support of markets, and the freedom of individuals to make their own decisions as best they can, would see how stupid and counterproductive these idiotic laws have been.


Really, many of the murders you are decrying are done by good capitalists, acting as best they can in a government-regulated market. I'm talking about your street corner crack dealers here.

If you were using "he" in a non-specific manner, I wouldn't have given it a second thought. A statement such as "He who hesitates is lost" wouldn't have drawn a response from me. Why do you have to drag waterfowl into this? Are they forcing waterfowl to have abortions where you live?

we can learn that the proper, prompt, and thorough application of the laws, and punishment for crime is more important than what laws we have. if the USA executed every single convicted muderer, people would be much less likely to even think about committing murder. as it is, you are much more likely to get away with murder in our country than you are in other first world countries, and, I think, this is a huge contributing factor to our crime rate.

one thing that HDPM says goes to spport my idea

of stringent enforcement of laws. he says


'But of course, the laws don't matter much anyway because people who are inclined to get a given weapon can, and the only factor they consider is price. And this includes some stuff that is really scary or really neat depending on how you view it.'


this seems to make sense. new gun laws only keep honest people honest. if i want to kill you with a machine gun, im not going to care whether or not my state has outlawed them, because i can still get one illegally. if i am caught, and put on trial, am i going to care more about the murder charge or the ownership of an illegal machine gun charge? if neither is enforced very well, i may be more inclined to go through with the whole thing... (i am in no way threatening you, just to make it clear...)

Another thing is, if I come home and my wife has been raped or murdered or something, and I see some guy with a cap running out the back door - and I know the justice system will guarantee the monster his "miranda rights" and a dozen appeals even if they do track him down - I'd prefer to just go tearing out the back door with my own gun, run down the alley, and shoot the first guy - or every guy - I see wearing a cap.


eLROY

needless to say, i tend to be along the same lines of thought as eLROY on this and (a lot) of other topics. some real talent for pure thought i see in you. (ha! i feel like some wise old sage saying that, but im only 23. i just call em as i see 'em, with no regard to what im qualified to say)

as it is, you are much more likely to get away with murder in our country than you are in other first world countries, and, I think, this is a huge contributing factor to our crime rate.


What do you mean by "get away with murder"? Do you mean the likelihood of catching the murderers? Or do you mean we execute less than any other First World country? If that is what you mean, it is false. I have mixed opinions on the death penalty, but using other First World countries as an example defeats your argument. Why? We are the only First World country with the death penalty, and we have the highest murder rate in the First World.

>People are just bags of meat. Their behavior is >a product of culture. They are born as basically >empty - if not flawed - neural networks, and need >to be burnt into shape like eproms. So it is >cultural genetics. And, so far as oversimplifying >the problem, there is probably nothing more >complicated or less understood than cultural, or >exosomatic genetics.


Nature vs. nurture is still a matter of intense debate in the scientific community. But let's agree that culture plays DOES play a strong role in people's development.


I have no disagreements with you about the LACK of culture in american society today. However, we might disagree about WHERE it comes from. You might think it comes from leftist "lifestyle" liberals who put out movies with lose morals, and lack of family values. I won't disagree with these points TO A CERTAIN EXTENT. However, how about the destruction of culture by capitalist influences in general? You see, there is very little money in culture. If you look at most cultural programming on TV, its publicly funded. You can't get Coca Cola to sponsor an opera as easily as you can get it to sponsor a Football game. So it increasingly falls on the government (God help us) to save culture, whether it be through sponsoring of the arts, or music programs in school. However, there are many forces in this country who parade as capitalists but are really anarchists. They don't want small government, the want almost NO government. Destruction of culture doesn't bother them, if it means they save money on taxes in the process. They only care about the government for protection and that's it. I can't delineate the exact ways this works, but there have been books written about it, no doubt by people you deride as socialists or pinko commies.

And your definition of reason is probably too expansive.


But I'll get into it another day.


eLROY

why is opera culture but the Super Bowl not culture? i hate most sports, and don't care to watch any of them on television. in fact, the only good reason i had for watching the superbowl was that the bar was serving free food, and i was low on $$ reserves that week. and the commercials are funny. but that doesn't give me the right to say that it isn't culture. just lowbrow, or unartistic. i think this stems from our discussion a while back about valid art. and i was right then too.

how can you ask that examples be made with other first world countries, and then say that this one doesn't count?


and then your argument holds even less water because it begs the question. so what if we are the only ones that have the death penalty? we don't enforce it, and we don't enforce the other punishments we have for murder. there are too many ways for the guilty to go free, not least of which is inadequate police and detective work. OJ simpson got off because Mark Fuhrman let a racist comment slip, and his lawyers knew how to exploit that. anyone that can argue with me on that, let's go.

I didn't say it "doesn't count". I said it defeats the comment you made. If you say "more people get away with murder in this country", meaning that they avoid the electic chair, the comparison wouldn't be valid to other countries who have NO death penalty, because in those countries no murderers get the chair. But perhaps you meant something different. I'm not sure


As for Mark Furman and OJ I can make a feeble argument for that. If you put Furman up as a star witness, a law officer beyond reproach, you can't have him on tape saying the things he did. He was found making a disgusting series of racist comments, not just one. The man's credibility was shot down right then and there. I still think OJ is probably guilty, but putting that clown up as a star witness was a huge mistake.

Well, the superbowl is definitely a part of Americana. I wouldn't argue against that. However, there is more to culture than just the superbowl and other pop events. I think deemphasis of the more "high brow" stuff, if that's what you want to call it, has definitely had a negative influence on this countries OVERALL culture.

i was referring to the number of murders that go unpunished, by a death sentence or otherwise. this, i believe, IS comparable to other countries where murder is illegal.


as far as OJ, i think we are saying the same thing. the guy got away because somebody was stupid and put Mark Fuhrman on trial without making sure his testimony was untouchable. Marcia Clark's fault, I guess. I used the illustration because it was pretty obvious that the guy was guilty, DNA evidence, witnesses, past spousal abuse, etc. but his defense was able to stick a foot in the doorway of doubt with the racism stuff, and there you have it. the example goest to prove that people get away with all kinds of crap here in USA because of slick lawyers, dumb jurors, etc.

eLROY's post lifted verbatim from a Rush Limbaugh book. Maybe you ought to read "The Way Things Aren't".