Gun Control and Mass Murder

[GE Morton]

Your statistics are a bit light on details. No mention is made of what kind of rifles were used, whether they were modified, and how many the gunman used.

They were most likely some type of semi-auto rifles, since those are the largest, most popular category of modern rifles. Bolt-action and lever-action rifles, and even pump-action shotguns, are going the way of the dodo. All modern handguns, which are used in most mass shootings, are also semi-auto (even 19th century revolvers are semi-auto, i.e., they'll fire six rounds as fast as you can pull the trigger). Those are, of course, also the types of weapons most commonly kept for self-defense, hunting, and competitive shooting, as I said.

I have no idea how many were modified, but I doubt it is many. Most spree shooters wouldn't know how to do it or want to go to the trouble.

What is it you have to defend yourself against with a semi-automatic rifle, let alone a bump stock semi-automatic?

Assailants with semi-auto weapons and multiple assailants. Semi-auto shotguns are very useful to bird hunters. People prefer semi-auto weapons for the same reasons they like food processors, automatic coffee makers and garage door openers. This is the push-button era.

The feds will likely ban bump stocks; some states have already done so. Most gun owners will not object to that ban, though it will have no discernible effect on homicide rates or the frequency or severity of mass shootings.

What makes “common use” a reasonable standard? How is common use to be measured when federal law explicitly prohibits federal law enforcement agencies from using dealers' records of sales to establish a centralized system for the registration of firearms, firearm owners, or firearm transactions; or requiring dealers' records of sales to be recorded in, or transferred to a centralized facility.

"Common use" is a reasonable standard because it indicates what types of weapons people perceive to be best suited to the purposes for which they acquire them, the principle purpose being self-defense --- the most fundamental of rights. Restricting their choices to weapons less easily operated or less effective infringes that fundamental right.

What does common use at the time mean? What other product’s legality is determined by the fact that it is in common use? Are there any weapons that can maim or kill that are not dangerous? What makes a weapon unusual? Surely most weapons in use today would have been unusual at the time the second amendment was written. If we are to be guided by what they understood as arms then they certainly did not mean the weapons being used with disturbing and increasing frequency in mass shootings.

"Common use at the time" meant, initially, at the time the amendment was adopted. But the Court has construed "the time" to mean, "the present time; at the time a case is brought or a question raised." As Scalia noted, the court similarly construes "the press" in the First Amendment to protect not only printed media, but all forms of electronic communication unknown in 1789. He could have also mentioned that "unreasonable search" in the 4th Amendment covers not only physical searches, the only kind available in 1789, but also electronic snooping.

[Fooloso4]

GE Morton:

Assailants with semi-auto weapons and multiple assailants.

An escalating arms race. Since the multiple assailants who might (no matter how improbable) attack the average law abiding person have semi-automatic weapons so should the person who might be assailed. And what if they have fully automatic weapons? After all, as you say:

Restricting their choices to weapons less easily operated or less effective infringes that fundamental right.

In this case a potential threat, no matter how remote, must be treated as if it were an actual threat, but when it comes to mass shootings, you fall back on the inane claim that everything carries a risk, and that a threat is:

1 : an expression of intention to inflict evil, injury, or damage

Who are these multiple assailants who have expressed the intention to inflict evil, injury, or damage on everyone who believes it is their fundamental right to carry a semi-automatic weapon?

"Common use at the time" meant, initially, at the time the amendment was adopted. But the Court has construed "the time" to mean, "the present time; at the time a case is brought or a question raised."

And there you have it. What it means is what the authors of the amendment meant, unless that is not what you want it to mean. It is no wonder you were so reluctant to discuss this.

Once again:

What makes “common use” a reasonable standard? What other product’s legality is determined by the fact that it is in common use?

Are there any weapons that can maim or kill that are not dangerous?

How is common use to be measured when federal law explicitly prohibits federal law enforcement agencies from using dealers' records of sales to establish a centralized system for the registration of firearms, firearm owners, or firearm transactions; or requiring dealers' records of sales to be recorded in, or transferred to a centralized facility.

You have fallen silent on the distinction between “the people”, people, and a person, as well as the relationship between the people and the state, and what a legal effect means. In case you missed it instead of ignored it:

Not people but “the people”. In the letter he [ Jefferson] says:

we had never been permitted to exercise self-government. when forced to assume it, we were Novices in it’s science. it’s principles and forms had entered little into our former education. we established however some, altho’ not all it’s important principles. the constitutions of most of our states assert that all power is inherent in the people; that they may exercise it by themselves, in all cases to which they think themselves competent, (as in electing their functionaries executive and legislative, and deciding by a jury of themselves, both fact and law, in all judiciary cases in which any fact is involved) or they may act by representatives, freely and equally chosen ...
The state is to be the vehicle and mechanism of self-government, it is to represents the will of the people as a whole, not the disparate and often conflicting will of individuals. Self-government does not mean that each and every person governs himself. When the will of a person opposes the will of the people it is the will of the people that shall prevail.

It is the people, the whole of the people, that has the right and duty to be armed. Why would each person have a duty to be armed? Of course the people cannot be armed if no person is armed. The question of which persons or individuals have the right to be armed yields no clear, unambiguous answer. The second amendment is silent on this question. The preamble to the Constitution, however, says:

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

It is the purpose of the Constitution to form a union to promote the general welfare. We the people, not I the person, is first and foremost. It is we the people that protects and promotes the welfare of I the person.

You say:

… self-defense --- the most fundamental of rights.

But the individual can be conscripted by the state in service of the people. The individual rights of a person do not stand apart or above the general welfare of the people.

[GE Morton]

An escalating arms race. Since the multiple assailants who might (no matter how improbable) attack the average law abiding person have semi-automatic weapons so should the person who might be assailed. And what if they have fully automatic weapons?

The right of self-defense entails a right to whatever means are necessary to repel an attack or neutralize a threat. Whether a full-auto weapon is necessary to repel an attack with a full-auto weapon is debatable, but if it is, and full-auto weapons become commonplace among criminals, then citizens would be entitled to possess them as well. The Court would have to re-visit that issue.

In this case a potential threat, no matter how remote, must be treated as if it were an actual threat, but when it comes to mass shootings, you fall back on the inane claim that everything carries a risk . . .

Er, no. We do not treat risks as actual threats. The risk that someone, some day, might shoot us does not allow us to shoot anybody. An actual threat does --- the person making the threat (if it is credible and the harm imminent). Everyone may do what he thinks prudent to minimize risks, including keeping a firearm, as long as he violates no one else's rights.

Who are these multiple assailants who have expressed the intention to inflict evil, injury, or damage on everyone who believes it is their fundamental right to carry a semi-automatic weapon?

All muggers, robbers, rapists, wife-beaters, thieves, and murderers. Though few of them care much about their victims' beliefs.

And there you have it. What it means is what the authors of the amendment meant, unless that is not what you want it to mean. It is no wonder you were so reluctant to discuss this.

Not reluctant at all. I thought the issue had been adequately covered. The arms the authors of the amendment had in mind were those commonly used at that time for hunting, self-defense, and by militias and other infantrymen. But they clearly did not intend that superior weapons that might appear in the future should be excluded, any more than they would have excluded future communications technology from the First Amendment.

The right to keep arms derives from the underlying rights of citizens to defend themselves, from domestic criminals and foreign invaders, and embraces any means necessary to that end. It is not restricted to 18th century technology. When the Colt revolver, the Winchester repeating rifle, and metal cartridges were introduced in the mid-19th century no one argued they weren't covered by the 2nd Amendment.

What makes “common use” a reasonable standard?

Asked and answered.

What other product’s legality is determined by the fact that it is in common use?

Irrelevant.

It is the people, the whole of the people, that has the right and duty to be armed. Why would each person have a duty to be armed?

Er, unless each person has a right or a duty to be armed, then "the whole of the people" cannot possibly have such a right or duty. The "whole of the people" is nothing but the sum of the individuals who comprise it.

But the individual can be conscripted by the state in service of the people. The individual rights of a person do not stand apart or above the general welfare of the people.

Ah. You seem to have subscribed to the "organic fallacy." The "general welfare of the people" is the sum of Alfie's welfare, Bruno's welfare, Chauncey's welfare, etc. It is not something distinct and separate from those. And their welfares require and presuppose respect for their rights. None of them may advance his own welfare by violating someone else's rights. Rights trump welfare. Affirming that priority is the purpose of the Bill of Rights.

[Fooloso4]

GE Morton :

Whether a full-auto weapon is necessary to repel an attack with a full-auto weapon is debatable, but if it is, and full-auto weapons become commonplace among criminals, then citizens would be entitled to possess them as well. The Court would have to re-visit that issue.

Let’s hope they have more sense than to allow it. Suppose they don't allow it, then what? Are you claiming that the rights of anyone who owned one illegally are being violated? That you have the right to do something illegal because of the possibility that you might be assaulted by a multiple assailants with fully automatic weapons? Doesn't that risk already exist?

Everyone may do what he thinks prudent to minimize risks, including keeping a firearm, as long as he violates no one else's rights.

What someone thinks is prudent may not be prudent at all. It is telling that you say “a” firearm when so many mass shooters carry several and own more. What rights of others is violated by owning a cannon?

All muggers, robbers, rapists, wife-beaters, thieves, and murderers

.

All muggings, robberies, rapes, wife-beatings, thefts, and murderers are carried out by multiple assailants?

Not reluctant at all. I thought the issue had been adequately covered.

Telling us to look it up hardly counts as adequately covering the issue.

But they clearly did not intend that superior weapons that might appear in the future should be excluded, any more than they would have excluded future communications technology from the First Amendment.

It is not clear at all. The proper comparison would be between owning a printing press and owning a communications technology such as broadcast or radio station. There is no right to own them. In fact, it is a highly regulated industry.

The right to keep arms derives from the underlying rights of citizens to defend themselves, from domestic criminals and foreign invaders, and embraces any means necessary to that end.

You cannot legally own a machine gun or a tank even though they would be a much more effective means of defending yourself in certain situations.

When the Colt revolver, the Winchester repeating rifle, and metal cartridges were introduced in the mid-19th century no one argued they weren't covered by the 2nd Amendment.

According to Adam Winkler, author of Gunfight: The Battle over the Right to Bear Arms in America:

A visitor arriving in Wichita, Kansas in 1873, the heart of the Wild West era, would have seen signs declaring, “Leave Your Revolvers At Police Headquarters, and Get a Check.”

… in Dodge City in 1879 … There’s a huge wooden billboard announcing, “The Carrying of Firearms Strictly Prohibited.”

Many frontier towns, including Tombstone, Arizona—the site of the infamous “Shootout at the OK Corral”—also barred the carrying of guns openly.
Asked and answered.

Asked and not answered.

Not adequately answered. The proliferation of semi-automatic rifles like the AR-15 occurred after the ban was lifted.If the ban had stayed in place they would not now be in common use.

Er, unless each person has a right or a duty to be armed, then "the whole of the people" cannot possibly have such a right or duty. The "whole of the people" is nothing but the sum of the individuals who comprise it.

What I said was, of course the people cannot be armed if no person is armed. The question of which persons or individuals have the right to be armed yields no clear, unambiguous answer. The second amendment is silent on this question. The United States is a democratic republic, not the sum total of individuals. An express purpose of the Constitution is the “general welfare”, that is, what is deemed best for the people as a whole.

Rights trump welfare.

The rights of persons cannot endanger the general welfare. Alfie’s welfare, Bruno's welfare, and Chauncey's welfare are all taken into consideration, but what is in the general welfare is not necessary what is in Alfie's welfare, Bruno's welfare, or Chauncey's welfare, as conscription makes clear. If there is a draft and I am eligible for the draft then I will be drafted whether I like it or not, whether it is in my welfare as an individual or not, whether it violated my right to life, liberty, and happiness or not.

[GE Morton]

Are you claiming that the rights of anyone who owned one illegally are being violated? That you have the right to do something illegal because of the possibility that you might be assaulted by a multiple assailants with fully automatic weapons? Doesn't that risk already exist?

No, it doesn't, to any measurable degree. To your broader question of whether one has a right to do something illegal in order to defend other rights, the answer is "Yes." For example, southern slaves in 1860 had a right to flee their plantations, and underground railroaders had a right to assist them, despite those actions being illegal under the Fugitive Slave Act. Natural rights trump laws, morally speaking.

What someone thinks is prudent may not be prudent at all. It is telling that you say “a” firearm when so many mass shooters carry several and own more. What rights of others is violated by owning a cannon?

Asked and answered in previous posts (see comments re: nukes and hand grenades).

All muggings, robberies, rapes, wife-beatings, thefts, and murderers are carried out by multiple assailants?

*Sigh*

It is not clear at all. The proper comparison would be between owning a printing press and owning a communications technology such as broadcast or radio station. There is no right to own them. In fact, it is a highly regulated industry.

Yes, there is. Anyone may own a radio station. But the right to operate one in the US has been effectively nullified by the government via its ridiculous claim to own the "public airwaves." There is no such thing as a "public airwave." It is a physical fiction. There are only electromagnetic signals, which don't exist until the owner of a transmitter flips the switch. Nonetheless, the First Amendment still applies to the content of radio and television broadcasts. The government may not censor a television news broadcast any more than it can censor a newspaper story. The regulations only address the siting, frequencies to be used, and output power of the station.

You cannot legally own a machine gun or a tank even though they would be a much more effective means of defending yourself in certain situations.

Previously addressed.

According to Adam Winkler, author of Gunfight: The Battle over the Right to Bear Arms in America:

A visitor arriving in Wichita, Kansas in 1873, the heart of the Wild West era, would have seen signs declaring, “Leave Your Revolvers At Police Headquarters, and Get a Check.” (Etc.)

Yes. Prior to the adoption of the 14th Amendment in 1868 the Bill of Rights was construed to restrict only actions by the federal government, not actions by a State. The 14th, however, forbade the States to " . . . 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." Over the ensuing decades the Court held that most of the protections of the Bill of Rights applied to the States as well as to the federal government, via the 14th Amendment. But whether the 2nd Amendment applied to the States remained unsettled in the late 19th century. In the first 2nd Amendment case to come before the Supreme Court, U.S. v. Cruikshank (1875), the court held that "The right to bear arms is not granted by the Constitution; neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. The Second Amendments means no more than that it shall not be infringed by Congress, and has no other effect than to restrict the powers of the National Government."

https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federa ... /case.html

Most of the States, of course, had variants of the 2nd Amendment in their own constitutions. The Kansas constitution provided, "§ 4. Individual right to bear arms; armies. A person has the right to keep and bear arms for the defense of self, family, home and state, for lawful hunting and recreational use, and for any other lawful purpose; but standing armies, in time of peace, are dangerous to liberty, and shall not be tolerated, and the military shall be in strict subordination to the civil power." (Adopted 1859).

https://www.kssos.org/other/pubs/KS_Constitution.pdf

I don't know whether any of those local bans were challenged in State courts. Keep in mind, however, that the issue at hand is not the jurisdictional reach of the 2nd Amendment, but whether any type of firearm not in use in 1789 is excluded from its protection. Your citations don't address that issue.

The proliferation of semi-automatic rifles like the AR-15 occurred after the ban was lifted. If the ban had stayed in place they would not now be in common use.

You seem to be infected by the new outbreak anti-AR-15 hysteria currently underway. There is nothing uniquely evil about that particular weapon. It operates just like every other semi-auto rifle, which make up the majority of modern rifles. If that weapon and its look-alikes were banned, buyers would simply choose another weapon that looked different but worked the same way. And manufacturers would modify the look of the weapon sufficiently to evade the ban. To accomplish your objective you'd need to ban ALL semi-auto rifles, and ALL handguns, which latter were used in the majority of mass shootings. Your animus toward the AR-15 is irrational and pointless.

What I said was, of course the people cannot be armed if no person is armed. The question of which persons or individuals have the right to be armed yields no clear, unambiguous answer. The second amendment is silent on this question. The United States is a democratic republic, not the sum total of individuals. An express purpose of the Constitution is the “general welfare”, that is, what is deemed best for the people as a whole.

Oh, but it does have a clear, unambiguous answer. "The people" in the 2nd Amendment means ALL people, just as it does in every other occurance in that document --- in the 1st Amendment, 4th Amendment, 9th Amendment, and elsewhere. There are no priviliged classes who hold rights others don't. The 5th Amendment also provides that "no person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law." The right to keep arms is a liberty right.

You seem not to grasp the logical fact that "the whole" means "each and every one." No measure that diminishes Alfie's welfare can increase the welfare of "the whole." Such a claim is self-contradictory. It will be only a measure that increases the welfare of some at the expense of others.

The rights of persons cannot endanger the general welfare. Alfie’s welfare, Bruno's welfare, and Chauncey's welfare are all taken into consideration, but what is in the general welfare is not necessary what is in Alfie's welfare, Bruno's welfare, or Chauncey's welfare, as conscription makes clear. If there is a draft and I am eligible for the draft then I will be drafted whether I like it or not, whether it is in my welfare as an individual or not, whether it violated my right to life, liberty, and happiness or not.

The draft, like taxes, imposes a duty upon all citizens to support the machinery which (theoretically) protects their rights. That duty does not extend to affording others peace of mind, or improving others' personal welfare.

You might ponder the definition of "welfare" in Webster's 1828 dictionary for an understanding of the meaning of "general welfare" in the Constitution:

WELFARE, noun

1. Exemption from misfortune, sickness, calamity or evil; the enjoyment of health and the common blessings of life; prosperity; happiness; applied to persons.

2. Exemption from any unusual evil or calamity; the enjoyment of peace and prosperity, or the ordinary blessings of society and civil government; applied to states.

(Emphasis added)

http://webstersdictionary1828.com/Dictionary/welfare

[Fooloso4]

GE Morton:

No, it doesn't, to any measurable degree.

You have argued that you have a right to protect yourself from the risk that you might be assaulted by multiple assailants with semi- automatic weapons. By what measure? And by what measure do you discount the possibility that those weapons will be fully automatic? Does it have anything to do with the fact that those weapons are illegal? But the argument we hear again and again is that making weapons illegal only prevents those who obey the law from obtaining them.

To your broader question of whether one has a right to do something illegal in order to defend other rights, the answer is "Yes."

That was not my question. There is no right to defend yourself by whatever means you deem necessary. If there was there would be no distinction between legal and illegal weapons.

(see comments re: nukes and hand grenades)

This thread is now 47 pages long. It used to be that the posts were numbered. They no longer are. Why do you insist on telling me to see something instead of just saying it? Copy and paste the relevant comments.

All muggings, robberies, rapes, wife-beatings, thefts, and murderers are carried out by multiple assailants?

*Sigh*

My question was: who are these multiple assailants. Your answer was: all muggers, robbers, rapists, wife-beaters, thieves, and murderers.
This makes no sense unless all muggings, robberies, rapes, wife-beatings, thefts, and murderers are carried out by multiple assailants?

Anyone may own a radio station. But the right to operate one in the US has been effectively nullified by the government via its ridiculous claim to own the "public airwaves."

Right, you do not have the right to to operate a radio station. The law recognizes that the technology makes a difference. The right of free speech does not mean the right to use whatever means are available. Analogously, the technology of guns makes a difference, and the right to protect yourself does not mean the right to protect yourself by whatever means are available. And so, the argument, by way of analogy to communications technology, that the Founders clearly did not intend that superior weapons that might appear in the future should be excluded, fails.

If you would like to argue that anyone has the right to own a gun but not to operate a gun ...

You seem to be infected by the new outbreak anti-AR-15 hysteria currently underway.

It comes down to two questions:

Is there a problem with gun related deaths?
Can we shoot our way out of the problem?

"The people" in the 2nd Amendment means ALL people, just as it does in every other occurance in that document --- in the 1st Amendment, 4th Amendment, 9th Amendment, and elsewhere.

From the Harvard Law Review:

Part II contends that, due to its many ambiguities, Heller has not resolved the meaning of “the people” in the Second Amendment. Part III argues that, even if it had, Heller’s analysis should not affect the meaning of other amendments, because “the people” can embrace different individuals in different clauses. This Part focuses on the First, Second, and Fourth Amendments because they are frequent sources of dispute. These amendments’ texts, origins, precedents, and purposes suggest that the same phrase, “the people,” can have different meanings in different clauses.
(https://harvardlawreview.org/wp-content ... tution.pdf)

There are no priviliged classes who hold rights others don't.

The military and law enforcement have access to weapons that you have no right to. Government officials have information deemed to be matters of national security that you are not privy to even under freedom of information.

You seem not to grasp the logical fact that "the whole" means "each and every one." You seem not to grasp the logical fact that "the whole" means "each and every one." No measure that diminishes Alfie's welfare can increase the welfare of "the whole."

Alfie may think being drafted diminishes his welfare. Or that paying taxes diminishes his welfare. Or that laws against polygamy diminish his welfare. Or laws requiring his children to get an education. Or laws that forbid him from dumping toxic waste on his own property.

Such a claim is self-contradictory. It will be only a measure that increases the welfare of some at the expense of others.

The examples above are measures that increase the welfare of the majority at the expense of an individual or minority.

The draft, like taxes, imposes a duty upon all citizens to support the machinery which (theoretically) protects their rights. That duty does not extend to affording others peace of mind, or improving others' personal welfare.

That duty may conflict with the rights of the individual. While some may willingly go to war or pay taxes as a matter of duty others will not and are compelled to do so by force. A nation in peril diminishes the peace of mind and personal welfare of most.

You might ponder the definition of "welfare" in Webster's 1828 dictionary …

James Madison said:

… but cool and candid people will at once reflect, that the purest of human blessings must have a portion of alloy in them; that the choice must always be made, if not of the lesser evil, at least of the GREATER, not the PERFECT, good; and that in every political institution, a power to advance the public happiness involves a discretion which may be misapplied and abused. They will see, therefore, that in all cases where power is to be conferred, the point first to be decided is, whether such a power be necessary to the public good; as the next will be, in case of an affirmative decision, to guard as effectually as possible against a perversion of the power to the public detriment. (The Federalist Papers: #41)

Madison uses the terms greater good, public happiness, and public good. The greater good is not the perfect good or an unalloyed good. It is to choose the lesser evil. The public good is not the good of each and every person (as if such a thing were possible). It does not guarantee the happiness of every individual. It is a compromise between my happiness and the happiness of all others.

That the government should promote the general welfare was not in dispute. What was in dispute was how best to accomplish this:

With respect to the meaning of “the general welfare” the pages of The Federalist itself disclose a sharp divergence of views between its two principal authors. Hamilton adopted the literal, broad meaning of the clause; Madison contended that the powers of taxation and appropriation of the proposed government should be regarded as merely instrumental to its remaining powers, in other words, as little more than a power of self–support. (https://www.law.cornell.edu/anncon/html ... tml#fnb534)

The difference of opinion centered not on the question of the general welfare but on the question of money:

Alexander Hamilton said:

Money is, with propriety, considered as the vital principle of the body politic; as that which sustains its life and motion, and enables it to perform its most essential functions. A complete power, therefore, to procure a regular and adequate supply of it, as far as the resources of the community will permit, may be regarded as an indispensable ingredient in every constitution. From a deficiency in this particular, one of two evils must ensue; either the people must be subjected to continual plunder, as a substitute for a more eligible mode of supplying the public wants, or the government must sink into a fatal atrophy, and, in a short course of time, perish. ( The Federalist Papers # 30)

Jefferson on taxes the general welfare:

To lay taxes to provide for the general welfare of the United States, that is to say, “to lay taxes for the purpose of providing for the general welfare.” For the laying of taxes is the power, and the general welfare the purpose for which the power is to be exercised. They are not to lay taxes ad libitum for any purpose they please; but only to pay the debts or provide for the welfare of the Union. In like manner, they are not to do anything they please to provide for the general welfare, but only to lay taxes for that purpose. (Jefferson's Opinion on the Constitutionality of a National Bank : 1791)

In the first statement he says “general welfare” and in the penultimate “the welfare of the Union”. The general welfare, at least as it is used here, means the welfare of the Union. The question of the general welfare was and continues to be matter ongoing deliberation.

[GE Morton]

You have argued that you have a right to protect yourself from the risk that you might be assaulted by multiple assailants with semi- automatic weapons.

By anyone with a semi-auto weapon, single or multiple.

By what measure? And by what measure do you discount the possibility that those weapons will be fully automatic? Does it have anything to do with the fact that those weapons are illegal? But the argument we hear again and again is that making weapons illegal only prevents those who obey the law from obtaining them.

By the available statistics. Most gun-wielding assailants use semi-auto weapons, either rifles or handguns. Attacks with full-auto weapons, on the other hand, are rare. And, no, the reason they are rare is not primarily due to the fact that they're illegal. The fact that an item is declared contraband doesn't prevent those who desire it from seeking and acquiring it, as Prohibition and the "war on drugs" clearly demonstrate. Full-auto weapons are rare because their marginal utility for robbers and other street thugs is minimal (the fact that they are illegal does affect the street price, of course, which is a factor in the calculation of marginal utility).

That was not my question. There is no right to defend yourself by whatever means you deem necessary. If there was there would be no distinction between legal and illegal weapons.

What one has a right to do, and what is legal, are not necessarily the same. If the law forbade a means of self-defense that was truly necessary it would be unconstitutional. I do not, of course, have a right to any means "I deem necessary." Whether a a given means is necessary or not is a matter of fact, not personal opinions. It is necessary if it is the only means or the most effective or reliable or practical means of accomplishing the desired objective, without posing undue risks to third parties.

This thread is now 47 pages long. It used to be that the posts were numbered. They no longer are. Why do you insist on telling me to see something instead of just saying it? Copy and paste the relevant comments.

Sure. From 2/28: "A nuke, or even a hand grenade, poses grave risks to 3rd parties if ever used. Hence they cannot be used for any morally justifiable purpose short of warfare (assuming you consider wars to sometimes be justifiable). Hence banning them imposes no substantive loss or hardship on would-be owners. Personal weapons, on the other hand, have many substantive and morally justifiable uses that pose no risks to third parties."

In the last sentence I should have said "no undue risks" (to head off nitpicking). Any use of a firearm poses some risk to third parties. But you cannot set the level of acceptable risk at zero, because that would negate the right of self-defense entirely via a reductio ad absurdum.

Right, you do not have the right to to operate a radio station. The law recognizes that the technology makes a difference. The right of free speech does not mean the right to use whatever means are available. Analogously, the technology of guns makes a difference, and the right to protect yourself does not mean the right to protect yourself by whatever means are available. And so, the argument, by way of analogy to communications technology, that the Founders clearly did not intend that superior weapons that might appear in the future should be excluded, fails.

Nice try, but it is your argument that fails. The government's rationale for regulating broadcasting rests on the nonsensical ground that "the public" owns the "airwaves." Thus it is merely establishing rules for the use of its (fictitious) property. There is no similar fiction available applicable to firearms. Thus there is no analogy. In practice, of course, almost anyone who wants to operate a broadcasting station may do so, if only a ham radio or a CB radio. Even commercial broadcasting licenses will nearly always be granted provided there is spectrum available in the target market. And apart from prohibiting "indecency," there is no regulation of content.

Is there a problem with gun related deaths?

There is a problem with all homicides --- and, indeed, all deaths, even those from natural causes. That's why we develop new vaccines and cancer treatments.

Can we shoot our way out of the problem?

No. But we could reduce the number of gun homicides, and all crime, substantially by locking up recidivist criminals for life.

From the Harvard Law Review:

Part II contends that, due to its many ambiguities, Heller has not resolved the meaning of “the people” in the Second Amendment. Part III argues that, even if it had, Heller’s analysis should not affect the meaning of other amendments, because “the people” can embrace different individuals in different clauses. This Part focuses on the First, Second, and Fourth Amendments because they are frequent sources of dispute. These amendments’ texts, origins, precedents, and purposes suggest that the same phrase, “the people,” can have different meanings in different clauses.

The question raised in the unsigned Note --- whether "the people" refers to all persons who are members of the "national community" or of the "political community" --- is moot for the issue in dispute here. Both embrace all persons who are members of those respective communities, not to a collective, and certainly not to the State. The author's worries may spring from his construal of "political community" to mean "eligible voters." Which is surely wrong --- it would imply that persons under 18, and thus not eligible to vote, are not protected by the First, Second, or Fourth Amendments. Given that the Court in Heller also affirmed the definition from the Verdugo-Urquidez decision it is likely that Scalia saw no substantive difference between the two definitions.

As for the author's suggestion that "the people" may have different meanings in different clauses, the Court has said in at least two cases that it does not. They're not likely to revise that view.

The military and law enforcement have access to weapons that you have no right to. Government officials have information deemed to be matters of national security that you are not privy to even under freedom of information.

They have no rights to them either. Their access to them is an advantage conferred in order that they may perform the tasks asked of them.

You seem not to grasp the logical fact that "the whole" means "each and every one." No measure that diminishes Alfie's welfare can increase the welfare of "the whole."

Alfie may think being drafted diminishes his welfare. Or that paying taxes diminishes his welfare. Or that laws against polygamy diminish his welfare. Or laws requiring his children to get an education. Or laws that forbid him from dumping toxic waste on his own property.

And he would be mistaken, at least with respect to (some) taxes and military service. Since he benefits from those services (whether he realizes it or not) he has a duty to support them. And your response there does not address the point made.

The examples above are measures that increase the welfare of the majority at the expense of an individual or minority.

Yes indeed. "The majority" is not "the whole," as you previously stated. And Alfie has no duty to increase the welfare of "the majority" at the cost of his own. If he chooses to do so his act will be supererogatory, morally speaking.

" … but cool and candid people will at once reflect, that the purest of human blessings must have a portion of alloy in them; that the choice must always be made, if not of the lesser evil, at least of the GREATER, not the PERFECT, good; and that in every political institution, a power to advance the public happiness involves a discretion which may be misapplied and abused. They will see, therefore, that in all cases where power is to be conferred, the point first to be decided is, whether such a power be necessary to the public good; as the next will be, in case of an affirmative decision, to guard as effectually as possible against a perversion of the power to the public detriment. (The Federalist Papers: #41)"

Madison uses the terms greater good, public happiness, and public good. The greater good is not the perfect good or an unalloyed good. It is to choose the lesser evil. The public good is not the good of each and every person (as if such a thing were possible). It does not guarantee the happiness of every individual. It is a compromise between my happiness and the happiness of all others.

The issue is not the comparative happiness or welfare of Alfie v. Bruno. It is the question of whether the government may act to increase Bruno's welfare in violation of Alfie's rights. The Bill of Rights was adopted to foreclose that option. I.e., the Congress may act to promote the "general welfare, but not by means that violate anyone's rights.

"With respect to the meaning of “the general welfare” the pages of The Federalist itself disclose a sharp divergence of views between its two principal authors. Hamilton adopted the literal, broad meaning of the clause; Madison contended that the powers of taxation and appropriation of the proposed government should be regarded as merely instrumental to its remaining powers, in other words, as little more than a power of self–support."

Yes. Hamilton's view was never adopted, by the Congress or the Court, until the Court's decision in Butler v. U.S (1936).

https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federa ... /case.html

Pursuant to his interpretration of the general welfare clause Hamilton, in his "Report on Manufactures," proposed that Congress impose tariffs on imported manufactured goods and grant subsidies to domestic producers of those goods, in order to encourage the development of American industry, a goal he considered to be within Congress's power to "promote the general welfare." The Congress disagreed. They enacted some of the tariffs, which they thought constitutional under the commerce power, but rejected Hamilton's subsidies.

The Butler re-interpretation of the general welfare clause, along with the 1941 Wickard decision which re-interpreted the commerce clause, are the two pillars upon which the vast expansion in the powers of the federal government since the "New Deal" rests.

To lay taxes to provide for the general welfare of the United States, that is to say, “to lay taxes for the purpose of providing for the general welfare.” For the laying of taxes is the power, and the general welfare the purpose for which the power is to be exercised. They are not to lay taxes ad libitum for any purpose they please; but only to pay the debts or provide for the welfare of the Union. In like manner, they are not to do anything they please to provide for the general welfare, but only to lay taxes for that purpose. (Jefferson's Opinion on the Constitutionality of a National Bank : 1791)

That quote does not delineate the meaning of "the general welfare." This one does:

"You will have learned that an act for internal improvement, after passing both Houses, was negatived by the President. The act was founded, avowedly, on the principle that the phrase in the constitution which authorizes Congress "to lay taxes, to pay the debts and provide for the general welfare," was an extension of the powers specifically enumerated to whatever would promote the general welfare; and this, you know, was the federal doctrine. Whereas, our tenet ever was, and, indeed, it is almost the only landmark which now divides the federalists from the republicans, that Congress had not unlimited powers to provide for the general welfare, but were restrained to those specifically enumerated; and that, as it was never meant they should provide for that welfare but by the exercise of the enumerated powers, so it could not have been meant they should raise money for purposes which the enumeration did not place under their action; consequently, that the specification of powers is a limitation of the purposes for which they may raise money."

--- Thomas Jefferson to Albert Gallatin (1817)

http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders ... _1s25.html

Madison, the author of the Constitution, held an identical view.

[Fooloso4]

GE Morton:

By the available statistics. Most gun-wielding assailants use semi-auto weapons, either rifles or handguns.

The question was: by what measure do you have the right to protect yourself from the risk that you might be assaulted by multiple assailants with semi- automatic weapons. I will amend the question to one or more assailants with semi-automatic weapons, and as a point of clarification we are not talking about any semi-automatic weapon but AR-15 type semi-automatic weapons.

You discount the possibility of being attacked by assailants with full-automatic weapon, but what is the likelihood you will be attacked by one or more assailants with AR-15s? Isn’t that also rare?

Whether a a given means is necessary or not is a matter of fact, not personal opinions.

Based on the statistics you provided when asked for details on the kinds of rifles used your answer was “they were most likely …”. What is "most likely to be" is an opinion not a matter of fact if one has to surmise based on the statistics. In addition, federal law explicitly prohibits federal law enforcement agencies from using dealers' records of sales to establish a centralized system for the registration of firearms, firearm owners, or firearm transactions; or requiring dealers' records of sales to be recorded in, or transferred to a centralized facility. In other words, the law prohibits us from knowing the facts.

Personal weapons, on the other hand, have many substantive and morally justifiable uses that pose no risks to third parties.

Do you really believe that? Let’s look at the facts:

In the days since 17 children and teachers were fatally shot at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Florida, at least 21 other children have been killed by gun violence in the U.S., according to shootings tracked by the nonprofit Gun Violence Archive. As of March 7th 2018 there have been 297 unintended shootings reported and verified.

… you cannot set the level of acceptable risk at zero, because that would negate the right of self-defense entirely via a reductio ad absurdum.

Are the numbers cited below the level of acceptable risk?

The government's rationale for regulating broadcasting rests on the nonsensical ground that "the public" owns the "airwaves."

Well, you might think it nonsensical, but it is the law and serves as evidence that law recognizes that the technology makes a difference.

But we could reduce the number of gun homicides, and all crime, substantially by locking up recidivist criminals for life.

The United States has the highest prison population in the world as well as the largest number of gun related crimes. Shoot and lock ‘em up ain’t working.

The question raised in the unsigned Note --- whether "the people" refers to all persons who are members of the "national community" or of the "political community" --- is moot for the issue in dispute here.

What I said is that the question of which persons or individuals have the right to be armed yields no clear, unambiguous answer. The note supports that claim.

They have no rights to them either. Their access to them is an advantage conferred in order that they may perform the tasks asked of them.

They have a right to use such weapons in the line of duty. To take away those weapons would be a violation of their rights and by extension ours. How could they protect themselves and us without them?

Since he benefits from those services (whether he realizes it or not) he has a duty to support them.

Well, there are many who think that the Vietnam War was immoral and you would be hard pressed to identify any benefits the war conferred on those who were drafted.

"The majority" is not "the whole," as you previously stated.

The state is to be the vehicle and mechanism of self-government, it is to represents the will of the people as a whole, not the disparate and often conflicting will of individuals. Self-government does not mean that each and every person governs himself. When the will of a person opposes the will of the people it is the will of the people that shall prevail. The will of the people is determined by a majority of the people. The Founders, however, were well aware of the dangers of the tyranny of the majority and took measures to assure that the whims of the majority not become the will of the people. Thus our mode of self-governance is not one of a simple majority, but a democratic republic, with laws and institutions that are intended to maintain majority rule and keep the majority in check.

And Alfie has no duty to increase the welfare of "the majority" at the cost of his own.

Using your own argument he does. Alfie derives a benefit by being a member of a democratic community and thus has a duty to increase the welfare of the majority as it is instantiated in the system as a whole. As discussed below, this does not mean unlimited increase but increase sufficient to assure the welfare of the people.

The issue is not the comparative happiness or welfare of Alfie v. Bruno.

That is correct.

It is the question of whether the government may act to increase Bruno's welfare in violation of Alfie's rights.

That is a misconstrual of the issue in question. What is at issue in the paper is the public happiness, the public good. But see below on the 9th amendment.

The Bill of Rights was adopted to foreclose that option. I.e., the Congress may act to promote the "general welfare, but not by means that violate anyone's rights.

That is correct. A violation of the rights enumerated would be inconsistent with the general welfare. As Madison noted, however, the perfect good is not possible. In practice conflicting claims often arise. Thus the 9th amendment:

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

And so, the right to free speech, for example, is limited in cases of national security. The right to bear arms too is limited. Even the Scalia court recognizes that. The question is how we should construe the right to bear arms so as not the deny or disparage other rights.

Hamilton's view was never adopted, by the Congress or the Court, until the Court's decision in Butler v. U.S (1936).

And this supports the point I made to close my last post that the question of the general welfare was and continues to be matter of ongoing deliberation.

That quote does not delineate the meaning of "the general welfare." This one does:

Where does it delineate the meaning? It argues for limitations on measure to raise money in the name of the general welfare. The purpose of taxation, as he clearly states, is to provide for the general welfare. The point of the letter you cite is that this does not confer an unlimited power to raise money. That would be inconsistent with the general welfare of the people.

Regarding what you refer to as "anti-AR-15 hysteria": There is a significant difference between the damage caused by rifles such as the AR-15 and other guns. If one makes the questionable distinction between a gun that is “dangerous and unusual” and one that is not then surely given the damage caused by such rifles compared to other guns they are dangerous and unusual. Only since the ban was lifted millions have been manufactured and sold, and so, they are in that sense no longer unusual and the damage they cause tilts the scale of what is usual. Talk about a slippery slope! Don’t worry folks, according to you they are rarely used in mass shootings, but you have a right to own one or more to protect yourself from being attacked by one or multiple assailants with AR-15s. Guns trump reasoned deliberation and logic.

/www.nytimes.com/2018/03/04/health/park ... dline&te=1

[ernestm]

GE Morton:

By the available statistics. Most gun-wielding assailants use semi-auto weapons, either rifles or handguns.

First, statistically, long barrels are the most infrequent weapons in firearm fatalities all told.

Having said that, statistics are not really a very good measure. Consider for example that mass murder constitutes less than 0.2% of all firearm casualties, yet is the only number of most concern. And some will want to quibble with that too, proving me right on my real point: statistics easily direct attention away from the numbers that are actually important.

[ernestm]

In Japan it's less than 50. When they first enacted gun control due to a horrific increase to over two dozen, it dropped to 2/year initially.

[GE Morton]

The question was: by what measure do you have the right to protect yourself from the risk that you might be assaulted by multiple assailants with semi- automatic weapons. I will amend the question to one or more assailants with semi-automatic weapons, and as a point of clarification we are not talking about any semi-automatic weapon but AR-15 type semi-automatic weapons.

By what "measure"? No measuring is necessary. You have a right to protect yourself against any risk you perceive, no matter how small, by any means you choose, as long as it violates no one else's rights. It is implicit in the right of self-defense. And I'm not sure what distinction you're trying to draw between "AR-15 type" weapons and other semi-auto weapons. The AR-15 presents no more risk than any other semi-auto weapon, in proportion to the popularity of the weapon.

You discount the possibility of being attacked by assailants with full-automatic weapon, but what is the likelihood you will be attacked by one or more assailants with AR-15s? Isn’t that also rare?

A risk doesn't have to be great to justify taking precautions against it, as long as those precautions don't involve violating others' rights. My installing a smoke detector to reduce the small risk of injuries in a house fire raises no moral questions. An attempt by me to forbid you from possessing matches or flammables, to reduce the even smaller risk you might torch my house, would raise them.

Based on the statistics you provided when asked for details on the kinds of rifles used your answer was “they were most likely …”. What is "most likely to be" is an opinion not a matter of fact if one has to surmise based on the statistics.

Er, no. Statistics are matters of fact. Semi-auto weapons are the largest group of firearms kept for actual use ( in distinction from those in static collections). Hence they they are the most likely type to be used in crimes.

In addition, federal law explicitly prohibits federal law enforcement agencies from using dealers' records of sales to establish a centralized system for the registration of firearms, firearm owners, or firearm transactions; or requiring dealers' records of sales to be recorded in, or transferred to a centralized facility. In other words, the law prohibits us from knowing the facts.

We don't need to know who owns weapons to calculate the risks from them. We only need statistical data, obtainable from sales figures and surveys.

Personal weapons, on the other hand, have many substantive and morally justifiable uses that pose no risks to third parties.

Do you really believe that? Let’s look at the facts:

"In the days since 17 children and teachers were fatally shot at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Florida, at least 21 other children have been killed by gun violence in the U.S., according to shootings tracked by the nonprofit Gun Violence Archive. As of March 7th 2018 there have been 297 unintended shootings reported and verified."

As earlier, I should have said "no undue risks." And as I also said, we cannot set the level of acceptable risk at zero, because that would negate not only the right of self-defense, but forbid nearly all of the tools and technologies of the modern world.

Are the numbers cited below the level of acceptable risk?

It is not acceptable in the sense that no further efforts to reduce it are worthwhile or possible. It will become acceptable when we have reduced it as far as possible without violating anyone's rights.

Well, you might think it (radio regulations) nonsensical, but it is the law and serves as evidence that law recognizes that the technology makes a difference.

Constitutionally technology makes no difference. BTW, I'm not denying that government may constitutionally regulate broadcasting in some ways. E.g., it may enforce laws which forbid broadcasting that interferes with other broadcasters or users of other electronic equipment --- analogous to trespassing laws (which is the main thrust of the FCC licensing system).

The United States has the highest prison population in the world as well as the largest number of gun related crimes. Shoot and lock ‘em up ain’t working.

It's not working because we don't lock them up for long enough. U.S. prisons have revolving doors; it's a "catch-and-release" system. As a result the streets are crawling with thugs with multiple prior felony convictions, most of whom continue their criminal careers.

What I said is that the question of which persons or individuals have the right to be armed yields no clear, unambiguous answer. The note supports that claim.

No, it does not. The author frets that adopting membership in the "political community" might exclude non-citizens or even non-voters from constitutional protections. He makes no suggestion that either definition would exclude, in the case of the 2nd Amendment, everyone except government employees and militia members, as you have been contending. Both definitions embrace all persons who are members of the two communities mentioned.

The state is to be the vehicle and mechanism of self-government, it is to represents the will of the people as a whole . . .

No, Fooloso. No scheme of representative government ever represents the will of the people "as a whole." It will only express the will of a majority, and often enough, only of some minority powerful enough or determined enough to get its will enacted.

Thus our mode of self-governance is not one of a simple majority, but a democratic republic, with laws and institutions that are intended to maintain majority rule and keep the majority in check.

That is called a constitutional republic, where the power of government to carry out the will of majorities is constrained by a written constitution, which limits those powers to certain tasks and confines the means of exercising them to those which do not violate any individual's rights.

And Alfie has no duty to increase the welfare of "the majority" at the cost of his own.

Using your own argument he does. Alfie derives a benefit by being a member of a democratic community and thus has a duty to increase the welfare of the majority as it is instantiated in the system as a whole. As discussed below, this does not mean unlimited increase but increase sufficient to assure the welfare of the people.

Paying for a service from which he benefits does not constitute increasing others' welfare at a cost to his own. He is paying only for the benefit he receives. (I realize that is not how the US federal tax structure presently works. But it's the way it should work).

And so, the right to free speech, for example, is limited in cases of national security. The right to bear arms too is limited. Even the Scalia court recognizes that. The question is how we should construe the right to bear arms so as not the deny or disparage other rights.

I agree! There are several additional things that could be done to keep firearms away from persons likely to abuse them:

1. Expand the background check system to include all firearm sales, not just those from licensed dealers.

2. Prosecute would-be buyers who lie on background check forms and sellers who fail to perform the checks. At present prosecutions for these offenses are rare.

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/02/22/us/p ... tions.html

3. Prosecute would-be buyers who fail background checks (for unlawfully attempting to acquire a firearm).

4. Resurrect "habitual criminal" laws and lock up recidivist violent criminals for life.

Surely one of the "other rights" contemplated in the 9th Amendment is the right to self-defense. On the other hand, there is no right to a risk-free environment. Gun legislation that would significantly hamper exercise of the right to self-defense in order to eliminate the inevitable risks attached to the presence of firearms in a community cannot be justified, constitutionally or morally.

That quote does not delineate the meaning of "the general welfare." This one does:

Where does it delineate the meaning? It argues for limitations on measure to raise money in the name of the general welfare. The purpose of taxation, as he clearly states, is to provide for the general welfare. The point of the letter you cite is that this does not confer an unlimited power to raise money. That would be inconsistent with the general welfare of the people.

It delineates the meaning where it reads, " . . . Congress had not unlimited powers to provide for the general welfare, but were restrained to those specifically enumerated; and that, as it was never meant they should provide for that welfare but by the exercise of the enumerated powers . . ."

The "general welfare" is served by exercise of the enumerated powers. It neither implies or requires any powers beyond those. Is that not clear enough?

Regarding what you refer to as "anti-AR-15 hysteria": There is a significant difference between the damage caused by rifles such as the AR-15 and other guns.

Really? What is the difference in damage caused by an AR-15 v., say, a Ruger Mini-14, a Glock 19, or a .357 magnum?

https://www.cabelas.com/product/shootin ... s?slotId=8

You have presented 3 main arguments for restricting (banning?) possession and use of semi-auto (all?) firearms. First you argued that the 2nd Amendment conditioned the right to keep and bear arms on service in a militia, and was held by "the people" collectively, not by individuals. Historical sources, similar provisions in State constitutions, and voluminous commentary from the period refutes that claim, and you have offered no evidence that any of the Framers held such a view. Indeed, in Cruikshank the Court noted that " . . . the right there specified is that of 'bearing arms for a lawful purpose.' This is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence." The 2nd Amendment does not grant anyone a right to keep arms; it is a right they already have, prior to the enactment of any laws or the existence of any militia.

Next you suggested that the 2nd Amendment only protects the right to possess firearms of types in existence in 1789. Not only is there no textual, historical, or case law support for that view, but such an interpretation would render many provisions of the Bill of Rights moot, including the rights of free press, free exercise of religion (only religions known in 1789 are protected), freedom from unreasonable searches, etc. The Constitution is not vulnerable to temporal or technological obsolescence.

Finally, you claimed that the words "the people" refer to a collective body, not to all persons as individuals, or that it means something different in the 2nd Amendment than it does in the 1st, 4th, and 9th Amendments. Two Supreme Court rulings expressly reject both of those claims. All of those Amendments are concerned with rights. Rights are held only by individual persons. The only rights that can be properly attributed to any group or collective are rights its individual members bring into it.

I think we've exhausted this discussion, unless you have some new argument more cogent and better supported than those offered so far.

[Fooloso4]

As long as the issue of gun control is considered solely as a matter of individual rights the problems we are facing will never be resolved. The law as it is currently interpreted at any given time in our history is never final and irrevocable. The law as it stands regarding the second amendment is based on a questionable interpretation as is evident in the 5-4 split in the decision of the Scalia court. Even that court recognized that the right to own arms is not unqualified or unlimited. This recognition points to a possible way forward.

I think it appropriate to allow the Founders to have the last word.

John Adams, Thoughts on Government, 1776:

Government is instituted for the common good; for the protection, safety, prosperity, and happiness of the people; and not for the profit, honor, or private interest of any one man, family, or class of men; therefore, the people alone have an incontestable, unalienable, and indefeasible right to institute government; and to reform, alter, or totally change the same, when their protection, safety, prosperity, and happiness require it.

James Madison, Federalist Papers, No. 57, February 19, 1788:

The aim of every political constitution is, or ought to be, first to obtain for rulers men who possess most wisdom to discern, and most virtue to pursue, the common good of the society; and in the next place, to take the most effectual precautions for keeping them virtuous whilst they continue to hold their public trust.

Alexander Hamilton, Citing David Hume, February 5, 1775:

'Political writers,' says a celebrated author, 'have established it as a maxim, that, in contriving any system of government, and fixing the several checks and controls of the constitution, every man ought to be supposed a knave, and to have no other end, in all his actions, but private interest. By this interest we must govern him, and by means of it make him co-operate to public good, notwithstanding his insatiable avarice and ambition. Without this we shall in vain boast of the advantages of any constitution, and shall find, in the end, that we have no security for our liberties, and possessions except the good-will of our rulers—that is,we should have no security at all.'

[ernestm]

As long as the issue of gun control is considered solely as a matter of individual rights the problems we are facing will never be resolved. The law as it is currently interpreted at any given time in our history is never final and irrevocable. The law as it stands regarding the second amendment is based on a questionable interpretation as is evident in the 5-4 split in the decision of the Scalia court. Even that court recognized that the right to own arms is not unqualified or unlimited. This recognition points to a possible way forward.

I would point a slightly different way on this, sadly. In 2015, I surveyed 400 Tea Party members on whether they'd shoot someone they can't see in their backyard, even if it turned out to be a child taking apples off an apple tree. Half of them said they would.

Law should be a response to social problems, and clearly, this is a majorly significant problem. Arguments from Madison, who dropped out of college and bribed his way into the bar, should not be considered more important, no matter how much you want to take the 'intent of the fathers' into consideration. When half of a group of 400 not only concur that shooting children is right, but moreover, 10% of them are urging others to shoot children, calling them cowards etc if they don't, we are actually reaching the stage where the epidemic of gun violence is becoming mass lunacy, in the face of which, a few mass shootings (less than %1 of all gun deaths) is totally irrelevant.

There IS NO SECOND AMENDMENT DEFENSE. People who are shot to death also lose their 2nd amendment rights because they are dead. They did have 2nd amendment rights. they dont know. The 2nd Amendment rights of people who are shot to death by guns have had their 2nd Amendment rights infringed.

The issue, as I see it, is that I have to repeat the previous paragraph at least three times before most people arguing for 2nd amendment rights even read it.

Thats the real social problem as I see it.

[Fooloso4]

ernestm:

Arguments from Madison, who dropped out of college and bribed his way into the bar, should not be considered more important, no matter how much you want to take the 'intent of the fathers' into consideration.

Can you provide references? A quick internet search resulted in several sources saying that he completed college at the College of New Jersey (Princeton) in two years. I found no results saying he bribed his way into the bar.

It is not that he was “more important”. There was a great deal of disagreement and compromise between the Founders. His was one, but an important, voice.

I do not buy into the notion that we can know an author’s intent except perhaps when he explicitly states “it is my intent”, and even then it may be open to interpretation. Scalia accepted a form of ‘originalism’, roughly, the idea that the meaning of the text is fixed and should be understood as it would have been by reasonable persons at the time it was written. I do not accept this either, but it informed the decision of Scalia and Thomas. It should be pointed out that, as Scalia acknowledged, this does not resolve the problem of interpretation. Originalists may still disagree on the meaning of a text.

The 2nd Amendment rights of people who are shot to death by guns have had their 2nd Amendment rights infringed.

I do not think that this is the correct way to state the problem. It is not that their right to bear arms was infringed, but that the argument that one has a right to self-protection cuts both ways. If one argues that one has a right to protect himself with a gun, then others have a right to protect themselves from irresponsible gun owners.

[GE Morton]

. . . we are actually reaching the stage where the epidemic of gun violence is becoming mass lunacy, in the face of which, a few mass shootings (less than %1 of all gun deaths) is totally irrelevant.

Actually, the number of homicides in the US has been declining for the last 20 years or so. Over the same period the number of guns produced and sold increased significantly.

https://mises.org/wire/fbi-us-homicide-rate-51-year-low