If there is one lesson from my dad that I could relay to help everyone in the world, it would be: The voice of experience speaks wisdom learned the hard way. Listening to it and heeding its message is wisdom learned the easy way. So which way do you want to learn?
Wisdom from abroad:
http://libertycrier.com/u-s-constitution/english-warning-to-americans-dont-give-up-your-guns/
[quote]Alpha F wrote:
The issue is whether someone often described as having an absolute right can be curtailed in the name of public safety - and I have made my point:
because we know there are 1 million people who have proved to be competent, law abiding citizens, we don’t abolish their right when we can otherwise curtail the rights of the 1 incompetent and or delinquent that is not able to exercise self restraint. [/quote]
But that isn’t the point in the article or my point - you are arguing what we should do. From a Second Amendment perspective, should is irrelevant - the only question is whether we can.
As the rules re: disarming the mentally ill demonstrate, there have been recognized exceptions were we can proscribe the right. By contrast, if the right is/was absolute, we could not and cannot proscribe the right, even if we thought it was a good idea in the name of public safety - in other words, even if we thought we should.
Should has nothing to do with step one: that is, answering the question whether we can.
And if it is has been historically recognized that we can, then the right isn’t absolute, and the next step is figuring out where the lines have to be drawn between where a state can proscribe the right in the name of public safety and the constitutional right to keep and bear.
EDIT: added underlined for clarity.
So then, your argument is “might makes right”. “Should” doesn’t matter, only “can” and then you draw an arbitrary line of right and wrong according to what benefits you the most. Because (you think) you can, and (you think) you have the might to enforce that decision.
Dr. Lyle Rossiter, author of the new book, ?The Liberal Mind: The Psychological Causes of Political Madness.?
“Should” is a normal responsibility involved in adult decision-making. We also have a normal adult responsibility to defend our families, our communities, and our nation against all threats.
So now let me tell you; WE have the might (and the right, and the normal adult responsibility) to tell YOU to go pack sand. WE will not be disarmed and helpless, left only to beg for help or mercy. Some of US are vocal about making sure you understand the consequences, because we are trying to avoid trouble, but there are tens of millions more of US who are patiently and quietly waiting.
When you get up the courage, and think you have the might, feel free to come on down.
[quote]JayPierce wrote:
So then, your argument is “might makes right”. “Should” doesn’t matter, only “can” and then you draw an arbitrary line of right and wrong according to what benefits you the most. Because (you think) you can, and (you think) you have the might to enforce that decision.[/quote]
Well, no, we don’t have an arbitrary line - we have an existing Second Amendment, its history, and its historical application. My point was that quite obviously, in practice, we recognize the right is not absolute, because we make exceptions for public safety in the case of, for example, the mentally ill.
“Should” matters when considering policy. “Can” matters when you are trying to determine whether a law violates the (existing and non-arbitrary) Constitution. As in, “can we pass a law proscribing the right? Do we have the power to? The authorization to?”.
The Constitution does not tell any government that they “should” pass a law - it only says whether that government “can or cannot”. Learn the difference.
“Should” is a normal responsibility when you have the [/i]authorization[/i] to make the decision. But for purposes of the Second Amendment, and the point I made re: the article above, the question is “can a state pass a law proscribing the right in the name of public safety?”, and the answer is “historically, yes, see laws forbidding the mentally ill from owning guns.”
Since that is true, that cuts against the idea that the right is absolute, and that there is some policy space available for a state to proscribe the right. What is the outer edge of that? Unsure. But what is relevant is that the door is open to it.
Irrelevant bluster. Follow the logic of my point as to the scope of the right under the Second Amendment.
Sure thing, internet tough guy.
If you had any sense, you’d be following my point instead of giving me windy hysterics and empty bravado. Point is, the existence of laws like the ones restricting the mentally ill from owning guns is evidence the right is not absolute and states can invoke the police powers in the name of public safety re: gun ownership.
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
As the rules re: disarming the mentally ill demonstrate, there have been recognized exceptions were we can proscribe the right.[/quote]
You cannot prohibit a right without infringing it.
English common law has it that the mentally incompetent and felons lose some of their their rights. ( Personally, this needn’t be common law; it’s just common sense! ).
Turning the exceptions to the rule into an absolute right to rule and prohibit the right of all citizens is tyranny.
The point that the government has absolute rights over the people is authoritarianism.
Do you support authoritarianism?
[quote]Alpha F wrote:
You cannot prohibit a right without infringing it.
English common law has it that the mentally incompetent and felons lose some of their their rights. ( Personally, this needn’t be common law; it’s just common sense! ).
Turning the exceptions to the rule into an absolute right to rule and prohibit the right of all citizens is tyranny.[/quote]
But this is a straw man - I don’t take that position, nor did I say that one form of a restriction justified all restrictions.
What I did say was that the existence of these “loss of rights” due to a status and for public safety reasons refutes any notion that the right to keep and bear arms is absolute one.
[quote]The point that the government has absolute rights over the people is authoritarianism.
Do you support authoritarianism?[/quote]
Well, no, but what does that have to do with the point I raised re: the article above?
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
The Constitution does not tell any government that they “should” pass a law - it only says whether that government “can or cannot”. Learn the difference. [/quote]
“The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed”. I know the difference.
The problem is that our government will not do anything to ensure that the mentally ill don’t have access to weapons, even when the people around that person BEG for them to. Then, when that mentally ill person gains access to a weapon and commits a crime with it, the government refuses to hold that person accountable for their actions because they didn’t have a good enough grasp on reality to understand that killing people is wrong.
BTW: You can call it empty bluster all you want. You apparently have no understanding of how important this issue is. We absolutely will not be disarmed. Killed maybe, but not disarmed.
[quote]JayPierce wrote:
“The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed”. I know the difference.[/quote]
Ok, so all these state and local laws restricting the mentally ill are unconstitutional? Yes or no?
Has this article been posted yet? Huge thread…
http://1389blog.com/2012/12/23/larry-correia-refutes-the-gun-controllers-once-and-for-all/
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
[quote]JayPierce wrote:
“The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed”. I know the difference.[/quote]
Ok, so all these state and local laws restricting the mentally ill are unconstitutional? Yes or no?[/quote]
UNconstitutional.
If they don’t understand that killing is wrong, they should be institutionalized. If that doesn’t work, they should be executed. They do not belong in society. They are not victims, they are unconscientious killers.
To take away the ability of the general populous to defend itself against any and all threats because of a handful of mentally deficient criminals is an exercise in self-destruction.
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
What I did say was that the existence of these “loss of rights” due to a status and for public safety reasons refutes any notion that the right to keep and bear arms is absolute one. [/quote]
Well, I disagree.
I, as a law abiding sound minded citizen, can enjoy absolute rights. If I lose my mind my right is now relative to my new state.
In my previous state my right was absolute.
In my new state my right becomes naturally relative.
The point you are making is like saying that the existence of death refutes any notion that life is.
Life was complete until loss of life occurred.
While a person is competent and law abiding their right to bear arms is an absolute one.
There is no logical reason why it cannot be.
[quote]
[quote]The point that the government has absolute rights over the people is authoritarianism.
Do you support authoritarianism?[/quote]
Well, no, but what does that have to do with the point I raised re: the article above?[/quote]
I was trying to understand your mind better.
Because only authoritarians believe that the government “can”, i.e., has the authority to exercise absolute power over the people.
Historically and in practice, we have seen that the government can do whatever it wants.
Authoritarians see “government can prohibit a right” as a means to an end that is Good to society.
[quote]JayPierce wrote:
UNconstitutional.
If they don’t understand that killing is wrong, they should be institutionalized. If that doesn’t work, they should be executed. They do not belong in society. They are not victims, they are unconscientious killers.
To take away the ability of the general populous to defend itself against any and all threats because of a handful of mentally deficient criminals is an exercise in self-destruction.[/quote]
Ok, how about laws restricting felons from having guns?
[quote]JayPierce wrote:
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
[quote]JayPierce wrote:
“The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed”. I know the difference.[/quote]
Ok, so all these state and local laws restricting the mentally ill are unconstitutional? Yes or no?[/quote]
UNconstitutional.
If they don’t understand that killing is wrong, they should be institutionalized. If that doesn’t work, they should be executed. They do not belong in society. They are not victims, they are unconscientious killers.
To take away the ability of the general populous to defend itself against any and all threats because of a handful of mentally deficient criminals is an exercise in self-destruction.[/quote]
Can’t the government get around this by declaring 99% of the country an institution? Then they are free to execute when that doesn’t work out.
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
[quote]JayPierce wrote:
UNconstitutional.
If they don’t understand that killing is wrong, they should be institutionalized. If that doesn’t work, they should be executed. They do not belong in society. They are not victims, they are unconscientious killers.
To take away the ability of the general populous to defend itself against any and all threats because of a handful of mentally deficient criminals is an exercise in self-destruction.[/quote]
Ok, how about laws restricting felons from having guns?[/quote]
If it is someone who has been PROVEN in a court of law to be irresponsible with weapons, then yes, it would be Constitutional to deny them that right in the interest of prudence.
BUT! You have to understand that a law will not prevent them from obtaining a firearm and using it again. The law will only provide a way to remove them from the streets again if they get caught with it.
[quote]Alpha F wrote:
Well, I disagree.
I, as a law abiding sound minded citizen, can enjoy absolute rights.[/quote]
Well, no, you actually can’t. You may want to, but that isn’t the case.
But in any event, people do not always determine whether they themselves are of sound mind - in other words, you may think you are, but you may not be, and the state enjoys the power to override your own self-determination of the issue.
That said, your posts continue to drift away from the point I made - from a Second Amenment point of view, our recognition that states have the ability to restrict the right in the name of public safety quells any idea that there exists an absolute right to gun ownership.
Then you don’t think gun restrictions for the mentally ill are constitutional?
Absolute power? No. But power? Yes, it certainly does.
[quote]sufiandy wrote:
Can’t the government get around this by declaring 99% of the country an institution? Then they are free to execute when that doesn’t work out.[/quote]
Not as long as we exercise our 2nd Amendment rights.
[quote]JayPierce wrote:
If it is someone who has been PROVEN in a court of law to be irresponsible with weapons, then yes, it would be Constitutional to deny them that right in the interest of prudence.[/quote]
On what basis? Where does it provide for that caveat in the Second Amendment?