BF2S Forums Supreme Court of the US to hear 2nd Amendment Case

FEOS wrote:

...As to your second point: What I don't understand is why you even care about interpretations of our 2nd Amendment. It has zero bearing on your life and the lives of your countrymen and fellow Europeans. I don't believe it is taught in any of your schools prior to University...yet you are all informed enough on the topic to discount out of hand the opinions of US citizens on the same topic?

1. as a former student of political science and contemporary history, such topics naturally interest me. Wether I am informed enough or not is irrelevant, as far as my right to discuss these issues is concerned. After all, I am not doing so in some form of official capacity. If you feel that I am factually incorrect in one or more of my statements, feel free to point it out to me. That's part of a decent discussion.
Opinions, however, are just that. Opinions. Mine is not better than yours, and vice versa. After all, even if it sometimes resembles one, this is not a debating class.
Personally, I have always found it interesting to listen to the opinions of those outside of my own cultural subgroup, as they often represent views and chose approaches that are not blurred by cultural indoctrination.
Recently, however, I have found it increasingly difficult to discuss such matters with american citizens, as they do not seem to embrace this concept, and often chose to be defensive when I offer my opinion. this would include such topics as gun control, foreign politics, abortion, death penalty, etc..
Consequently, these discussions often end with the other guy saying s.th. like "what the hell do you know/care ? You're not even american".
See a pattern here ?

2. as someone who intends to visit your country, and who knows many others who have visited the US as tourists, I feel a certain need to adress issues such as public safety, gun control being one of them. A lot of exchange students go to US universities. a lot of german high school kids visit UU high schools in exchange programs. One day, my son or daugther could be one of them. See how even foreigners might have an increased interest in gun control in the US ?

FEOS wrote:

...You are no more qualified to talk about the US 2nd Amendment than I am qualified to talk about any part of German domestic law. That's why, in my previous posts (since you apparently went back and read every one of them), you won't find me commenting on other countries' internal policies unless I have specific experience with them. And believe me, if I were constantly spouting off about your country's policies, telling you what your country's policies really mean, and discounting what you have to say based on your first-hand experience living in your own country...you'd get a bit frustrated too, don't you think? First-hand experience trumps purely academic experience every single time, regardless of topic.

your point being ? Where did I say I was ? All we do is exchange opinions here, based on the topic given in the OP. If you feel my point of view and arguments are negligible (sp?), just disregard them. Or is the mere fact, that I dare speak about the 2nd amendment enough to make you mad ? Maybe my opinion on the issue contradicts with you opinion, but is that so unusual ? Different people having different opinions on a specific issue ?
If you feel compelled to discuss german constitutional law, go ahead. It surely will be a pleasant experience for both of us. However, I am afraid since our constitution only dates from 1949, there would be less interesting topics to discuss, especially since the right to bear arms isn't included.
But I am sure you'll find something worth discussing, and if you do, I'll be happy to engage.

In the meantime, I'd like to hear your opinion on this:

me wrote:

...As far as I know, your constitution was written by humans. Intellectual, maybe. Wise, surely. But still humans. It represents their opinion about what they thought would be a good constitution for the newly founded US. Those "inalienable rights" are their perception of what they thought basic human rights would be.
They made some good choices, I'll give you that, but they were still human, and thus not free from error.
I ask you, how can you question my logic, when your argument is based on religious beliefs ?

I am merely asking this, because the idea that any man-made document or concept should be totally free from error, seems..well, unlikely to me, if not outright absurd. If mankind has proven anything since we learned to walk upright, it would be that man can fail, and does so routinely.
In fact, this is one of our biggest strenghts, if you ask me. We learn from our mistakes, make changes, and improve.
Why this should not include a legal document from 1789, is beyond me, tbh.

But maybe I am just not american enough to understand it.

No offense intended.

The Constitution has been amended 17 times since the Bill of Rights was passed.  Several of the amendments clarified governmental powers, some protected more people's rights (civil war amendments and voting amendments), and one proved disastrous (see 18th and 21st).  I agree that the Constitution is not free from errors, but I would offer that it is designed to guarantee certain rights and legal means to modify them.  For some decades, there has been a strong gun-control movement in the US that has sought to limit the ownership of guns.  Those advocates have usually not tried to repeal the 2nd Amendment largely because there is strong support for the Amendment and many view altering the Bill of Rights as potentially dangerous to other protected rights mentioned in the Constitution.  Therefore, they have tried to limit rights without addressing the 2nd Amendment, or tried to interpret it to exclude whatever they were trying to restrict.  Some anti-gunners have used the militia clause to limit guns they felt were not useful to the militia (using modern and historical approaches to what the militia needs).  Others have attacked "military-type" firearms and explained that they felt no citizen would ever need such a weapon for sporting purposes.  (See a contradiction here?)  This court case may create a legal standard that addresses many of these arguments for what gun-control advocats deem "reasonable restrictions" on the 2nd Amendment, and set-up a clearer standard for interpreting the 2nd Amendment.  As a result, both pro and anti-gunners are rather nervous about the ruling that will be handed down.

***How about we get back to debating the merits of the case and its arguments rather than the authors of the arguments?  Ad Hominem is the most overused logical fallacy here.  Let's try to avoid it.

Dilbert_X wrote:

Don't see why you took my post to Dilbert as a shot at you. He and I had a running fight on the temp forums and he was starting his crap up again. Probably more appropriate for a PM, but again...a bad day for me (as stated previously).

It was barely a running fight, and I made a reasonable comment about regime change in Iraq in response to your claim the US never meddles in foreign govts. And how was it condescending?
You do seem to have a lot of bad days don't you, resorting to personal insults and the 'I know more than you so stfu' routine in half your posts.

Oh yes, you're the epitome of reasonable:

Dilbert_X wrote:

Do you see Americans saying the UK, or Australia, or Germany, or Belgium, or <insert country name here> need to change the fundamental principles of their governments simply because we have an opinion (often under-informed) on their domestic situation?

Uhhh remember 'Regime Change' in Iraq?
Is the US well informed on aything outside their borders?

The US stamps around the world bombing,  killing, bribing and threatening to change other countries governments.
If you can't cope with an opinion you don't like stay off internet discussion boards.

Otherwise, if the OPer could just put 'Septics Only' in the thread title we'lll stay out.

And again you miss the entire point of a post.

As you can see above (since you clearly can't be bothered to go back and look for yourself), my comment was focused completely on domestic policies, not foreign policies. I never said the US didn't meddle in foreign governments (whatever that means). I was asking why people from other countries care about US domestic (as opposed to foreign) policies that have no bearing whatsoever on their lives. The comment had absolutely nothing to do with regime change or Iraq (or foreign policy for that matter)...you never answered from before: Is English your primary language? If it's not, that's OK. It will help the rest of us to read your responses within the appropriate context.

No personal insults, no "I know more than you so stfu" as you so elegantly put it. And go back and read all of my posts, then do the math. You'll see you're way off. You're the one making this personal right now, Dilbert, not me. If you take non-personal points showing the error of your arguments (and a little bit of humor) personally...well, I guess that's a personal problem you're going to have to work out.

Last edited by FEOS (2007-11-30 16:30:37)

be like aus ...and most of the world and dont have guns at all

colonel_locke wrote:

S.Lythberg wrote:

Well, DC is not exactly the safest town in the country, so the ban has certainly had little to no effect on actual crime rates.

It's been said before, and I'll say it again, "If you outlaw guns, then only outlaws will have guns."

Amen to that. 

IMHO, the only effective way to deter violent criminals from acting is to enact a "lethal consequences" law.  If you have a weapon on you, it must be to harm someone, and you receive a death sentence.  No prolonged discoveries or trials, no multi-year appeals.

You have a gun?  You die.  Now.

Then, and only then, would I support a plan to remove my right to have a firearm in my possession.

Well, I guess that puts the Olympic rifle and skeet teams, those who do biathlons, hunters, cops, soldiers, and anyone who likes to go to the range out of business (or out of this plane of existence). 

What happens when guns are "gone" and most criminals move to blunt objects or blades?  Do we kill anyone with those as well?  After that, do we cautiously watch anyone with martial arts skills, since they are now the most lethal people around?

***And why do you assume anyone with a weapon is going to commit a crime?  There are millions of gun owners who have never attacked anyone with their firearm.

Your idea is too extreme to work and would likely lead to a paranoid society where those who are physically weaker could not defend themselves without risking a death sentence.  Does that really sound like a great idea to you?

Last edited by RAIMIUS (2007-12-01 12:24:50)

HollisHurlbut wrote:

..Given your obvious airball in response to my point, I'll not respond to each of your misplaced rebuttals and instead allow you to try again...

well, that's generous. Let me be more precise in my phrasing. on page 3 of this thread, you wrote:

HollisHurlbut wrote:

..The Bill of Rights isn't a list of rights granted by the government, but an affirmation of rights inherent in each individual by virtue of his simple existence.  To suggest that certain rights enshrined in any of the first ten amendments could ever become obsolete is to ignore the foundation of our system of government: that Man is endowed by his Creator with certain inalienable rights.

is that not an argument based on religious beliefs ? Are you in fact saying that the right to bear arms was basically given to the american people by god ? I'm sorry, but how can you question my logic under these circumstances ?

HollisHurlbut wrote:

....If this is really true, then the document has, as I've stated before and you haven't rebutted, no meaning at all.  If the meaning of the words can change at the whim of nine robed individuals, then there are no protections that cannot be interpreted out of it and no powers that cannot be interpreted into it.

well, it's not really as easy as that, since the Bill of Rights was phrased quite carefully ( as you will remember, there was extensive discussion among the states during ratification ), but I am glad you get the point. Of course, it's not free-for-all, but there is some room for interpretation. Why I am saying that ?
Because it has already been established that the government can restrict gun purchase and ownership. The USSC did so in US vs Miller, 1939.
Or are you denying that numerous laws restricting gun ownership are already in place ? How could that be, if they were all unconstitutional ?

So the question is not, if the government can restrict gun ownership, only to what extent it may do so. And I am eager to see what the SC will decide with regard to the DC regulation.

HollisHurlbut wrote:

...The important part about this is the standard the courts apply to interpreting the Constitution.  They can apply your nebulous and ever-changing philosophy of what the Constitution means, or they can apply my more concrete and respectful philosophy that assumes the words in that document mean something and continue to do so until the people activate the mechanism for changing them...

I'll disregard the tone and the obvious attempt to put my and my opinion down. Talk about condescending..

with regard to the interpretation of the 2nd amendment though, the term "nebulous" is probably spot on. In contrast to your opinion, various courts over various times have interpreted the 2nd amendment quite differently. A list of the court cases can be found here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Ame … t_case_law

if you ask me ( and I am sure you won't, but let me say it anyway ), if there is anything one can conclude from these court cases it would be that there is no fixed meaning of the 2nd amendment, and that it does remain open to interpretation to some degree.
Hence the fact that there are currently laws in place that do restrict posession and use of firearms in the United States.

Or are you disputing that ?

B.Schuss wrote:

HollisHurlbut wrote:

..Given your obvious airball in response to my point, I'll not respond to each of your misplaced rebuttals and instead allow you to try again...

well, that's generous. Let me be more precise in my phrasing. on page 3 of this thread, you wrote:

HollisHurlbut wrote:

..The Bill of Rights isn't a list of rights granted by the government, but an affirmation of rights inherent in each individual by virtue of his simple existence.  To suggest that certain rights enshrined in any of the first ten amendments could ever become obsolete is to ignore the foundation of our system of government: that Man is endowed by his Creator with certain inalienable rights.

is that not an argument based on religious beliefs ? Are you in fact saying that the right to bear arms was basically given to the american people by god ? I'm sorry, but how can you question my logic under these circumstances ?

He's actually paraphrasing from the Declaration of Independence. That statement is the basis of both the Declaration and the Constitution...particularly if you continue on, where it says those inalienable rights will not be infringed by government. (again, a paraphrase).

Not so much a religious statement, but a method of stating that these rights are not "given" to men by anyone, but they are born with them. Keep in mind, evolution as a scientific theory had not developed yet.

FEOS wrote:

...Not so much a religious statement, but a method of stating that these rights are not "given" to men by anyone, but they are born with them...

says who ? You ? The founding fathers ? god ? allah ?

I do not mean to be rude, but I guess you get the idea. Humans wrote the constitution and the bill of rights, and humans decided which rights to give to their future citizens.

FEOS wrote:

..Keep in mind, evolution as a scientific theory had not developed yet.

which is exactly why I say there must be some room for interpretation or improvement. Hollis has rightfully pointed out that such a mechanism exists in the amendment process, but I have my doubts that there is sufficient motivation among the US population to initiate that process. Why that is, remains a point open for discussion. Personally, I think it is because Americans do not want effective gun control, even if it could save the life of thousands of innocent fellow citizens. But that's just me.

B.Schuss wrote:

FEOS wrote:

...Not so much a religious statement, but a method of stating that these rights are not "given" to men by anyone, but they are born with them...

says who ? You ? The founding fathers ? god ? allah ?

I do not mean to be rude, but I guess you get the idea. Humans wrote the constitution and the bill of rights, and humans decided which rights to give to their future citizens.

Since the Founding Fathers wrote the document, I will go with Founding Fathers on that one. It is a basic concept upon which the rest of the argument for independence and the Constitution were developed. Man didn't give those rights...man merely documented that those rights belong to everyone. You are objecting to the semantics of how they phrased it, rather than the concept itself.

B.Schuss wrote:

FEOS wrote:

..Keep in mind, evolution as a scientific theory had not developed yet.

which is exactly why I say there must be some room for interpretation or improvement. Hollis has rightfully pointed out that such a mechanism exists in the amendment process, but I have my doubts that there is sufficient motivation among the US population to initiate that process. Why that is, remains a point open for discussion. Personally, I think it is because Americans do not want effective gun control, even if it could save the life of thousands of innocent fellow citizens. But that's just me.

I'm sure if there was sufficient motivation among the population or Congress, the amendment process would be initiated. But, thankfully, we allow our own citizens and our own legislative body determine when that should occur, rather than letting people in other countries who have no vested interest in the issue decide.

I see where you're coming from in your last statement, but I believe you're incorrect. I believe that Americans do want effective gun control...there just haven't been any effective options offered up. What metric should be used to define the efficacy of a given measure? Purely crime statistics? Violent crime only? Accidental deaths from a specific type of weapon? Are weapon types even tracked so you can determine the efficacy?

I'm gonna jump in with a bit of tidbit-ery.

Hypothetical:   You as a criminal, are you more likely to try to use a gun to rob someone in a state where Concealed carry is legal, or rater in a state where guns are to be kept locked way, never on a civilian?

I offer no answer, look for this answer, with an OPEN mind.  Statistically,  Criminals commit gun related crimes with illegally obtained OR illegal weapons MORE OR LESS often than with Legally obtained guns?

How realistic is it to ban ALL guns, and in doing so removing all firearms from criminals, including illegal smuggling of arms?

---------------------------------------------------

Personal note: I just don't understand this debate. I really don't. 

When it comes down to it, Owning a gun is usually for protection, but in the case you actually have to USE IT, you'd better acknowledge the fact that you using your gun will put you under a lengthy legal process.  Meaning most people who own guns have them for hobby or protection, and in the protection situation, most people don't just fire away.

What EVERYONE really should understand is, that guns aren't the problem,  Criminals and Stupid people are. It's like blaming Bleach for poisoning your kid.

Last edited by RoosterCantrell (2007-12-03 13:52:40)

RAIMIUS wrote:

....One of the most important points in this type of argument is how ineffective current gun control is within the US.

but isn't the only reason why current gun control is ineffective in the US the fact that gun lobbyists like the NRA do everything in their power to dismiss any attempt to make it effective ?

I think there are two opposing schools of thought here. For Americans, effective gun control means that they, the law-abiding citizens get to keep their guns, and only the criminals are stripped of theirs. But with so many guns in circulation, that's obviously not a feasible concept.
Most europeans, however, think that effective gun control means that no one should be allowed to have guns, thereby reducing the number of guns in circulation drastically. The result is much less gun crime, and comparably less people dieing because of guns.

I guess I'll simply have to acknowledge that americans come from a different cultural background. Gun culture is part of america's heritage.
I think it is unfortunate, however, that you're obviously willing to live with the negative implications that gun culture brings. But that's your choice

B.Schuss wrote:

I'm sorry, but with that exact same argument one could rationalize legalizing any type of drug or alcohol for minors. After all, it's not the drug itself or its availability that is the problem, it's the people who use it. [/irony]

Come on, be realistic. In some instances, people need to be protected from themselves. That's why there are laws in the first place. Because people can't be trusted. Would your society be better off if you threw more drugs on the market, and made them legal ? Of course not. More people would get addicted and die, and most likely more people would resort to criminal activity to finance their addiction.

So why does anyone think putting more guns out there would make your society safer ? People are people. They are going to continue to use guns as long as they are widely available. Obvious solution: go to great lengths not to make them widely available.

unfortunately, as long as the 2nd amendnment stands as it is, there is little hope for effective gun control.

RoosterCantrell wrote:

..How realistic is it to ban ALL guns, and in doing so removing all firearms from criminals, including illegal smuggling of arms?

well, since the US government at least in theory has strict control over all firearms and ammunition produced and distributed in the US, I do think it is possible.

1) change the 2nd amendment
2) ban all firearm/ammunition imports into the US, except for law enforcement and military use. The tightened border security for the War on Terror should help here.
3) ban all firearms sales in the US except for military and law enforcement agencies. control this heavily.
4) ban all sales of ammunition to private citizens. after some time, the criminals will find it difficult to get their hands on ammunition.
5) close down all privately owned gun shops, and remove all gun shows. ban sale of firearms over the internet

as far as the privately owned firearms are concerned, there are a couple of options:

a) ban possession of all firearms outright, maybe except for hunting and competition rifles
b) strictly limit the number of firearms one can own and keep, punish any private sale heavily.
c) all firearms need to have electronic registration in them via RFID chip, for example
d) make it illegal to carry a firearm outside of your home. Best possible compromise, I believe. Home protection would still be possible.

once the number of guns in circulation has dropped, it will be much easier to track down those criminals that still use them.

all of the above is possible, I believe, if there is a will among the population and the lawmakers. It would be a long-term commitment, with little short-term successes. It would be expensive. People in the firearms industry and in retail would lose their jobs.
But it could be done.

I'll say it again. There can be no effective gun control if you simply allow anyone to own a gun. How anyone can argue that americans want effective gun control, but at the same time can't bring themselves to enact legislation that would contribute to that, is beyond me.
Americans obviously don't want effective gun control, if it means that they'd have to give up their guns, too. Only the bad guys, please.

The first bolded point is where philosophies differ.  The US was founded on the idea (imperfect that it is) that the people are more trustworthy than the government.  People should be left to make their own decisions rather than have some authority always tell them what to do.  (I agree with this sentiment.)

If you ban all sales and ammo, how will hunters and sportsmen be able to use them?  How should one defend their home unless their relatives decide to pass down some guns and OLD ammo?  I doubt that you can have it both ways.

The US could enforce strict anti-gun laws, but it would curtail a LOT of personal liberties and STILL not address the causes of crime.  Your ideas could work, but I don't think the benefit would outweigh the loss.  (Americans put a lot of value on personal liberties and checks on government power...both of which would be sacrificed under this type of plan to marginally reduce crime.)

RAIMIUS wrote:

...The first bolded point is where philosophies differ.  The US was founded on the idea (imperfect that it is) that the people are more trustworthy than the government.  People should be left to make their own decisions rather than have some authority always tell them what to do.  (I agree with this sentiment.)

while I can see your argument, wouldn't you agree that history has proven that people can not be trusted ? Look at the high numbers of gun crime in the US, the shootings at high schools and universities. what makes you think allowing everyone to own a gun will make that situation better ?
I mean, you do restrict access to certain drugs that pose a threat, don't you ? Such as Cocaine or heroine ? What's the difference here ? People can be trusted with guns, but not with drugs ?
We put laws in place because we know that people can not be trusted to use common sense, curtesy, and be respectful of their fellow citizens. Because if they did, we would not need these laws. Humans are not trustworthy. We act on feelings, give in to emotions, and lack rational capacity. That's why, in certain cases, we need to be protected from ourselves. And I happen to believe that this includes guns.

RAIMIUS wrote:

...If you ban all sales and ammo, how will hunters and sportsmen be able to use them?  How should one defend their home unless their relatives decide to pass down some guns and OLD ammo?  I doubt that you can have it both ways...

as I said, those are only a couple of possible options. a starting point, if you will. I am certainly not claiming to know the perfect solution. Even with stricter gun control in place, there will be gun crime and people will die. Just a lot less, I figure.

RAIMIUS wrote:

..The US could enforce strict anti-gun laws, but it would curtail a LOT of personal liberties and STILL not address the causes of crime.  Your ideas could work, but I don't think the benefit would outweigh the loss.  (Americans put a lot of value on personal liberties and checks on government power...both of which would be sacrificed under this type of plan to marginally reduce crime.)

well, I know I am totally out of line here, but the same could be said about the patriot act. I guess americans are a bit selective as far as their personal liberties go, huh ?

gun control no, patriot act yes. It seems you can have it both ways.

no offense intended. /hugs RAIMIUS