Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

billh58

(6,641 posts)
Sun Feb 15, 2015, 09:11 PM Feb 2015

This message was self-deleted by its author

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

11 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
This message was self-deleted by its author (Original Post) billh58 Feb 2015 OP
please keep it going guillaumeb Feb 2015 #1
Yes shenmue Feb 2015 #2
Seems sensible to me.... daleanime Feb 2015 #5
The gist: with proper regulation, there shouldn't be ANY need to "confiscate yer guns." K&R Beartracks Feb 2015 #3
At the core of the gun rights movement is absolutism. flamin lib Feb 2015 #4
The argument always is "the right to defend oneself" BrotherIvan Feb 2015 #6
+1. A gun or two AT HOME doesn't really concern me. A bunch of guns and/or public toting, does. Hoyt Feb 2015 #7
Gunners will argue they need to be armed at all times in public BrotherIvan Feb 2015 #8
As Justice Stevens noted in his dissent in Heller: billh58 Feb 2015 #9
on the mark again guillaumeb Feb 2015 #10
Most excellent BrotherIvan Feb 2015 #11

guillaumeb

(42,649 posts)
1. please keep it going
Sun Feb 15, 2015, 09:20 PM
Feb 2015

an excellent how-to for debating the issue.

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

shenmue

(38,537 posts)
2. Yes
Sun Feb 15, 2015, 09:54 PM
Feb 2015

Sounds reasonable to me.

daleanime

(17,796 posts)
5. Seems sensible to me....
Sun Feb 15, 2015, 10:24 PM
Feb 2015

Beartracks

(13,581 posts)
3. The gist: with proper regulation, there shouldn't be ANY need to "confiscate yer guns." K&R
Sun Feb 15, 2015, 10:07 PM
Feb 2015

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

Likewise, it should be the same with guns.

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


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

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

flamin lib

(14,559 posts)
4. At the core of the gun rights movement is absolutism.
Sun Feb 15, 2015, 10:14 PM
Feb 2015

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

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

BrotherIvan

(9,126 posts)
6. The argument always is "the right to defend oneself"
Mon Feb 16, 2015, 01:32 AM
Feb 2015

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

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

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

 

Hoyt

(54,770 posts)
7. +1. A gun or two AT HOME doesn't really concern me. A bunch of guns and/or public toting, does.
Mon Feb 16, 2015, 02:28 AM
Feb 2015

BrotherIvan

(9,126 posts)
8. Gunners will argue they need to be armed at all times in public
Mon Feb 16, 2015, 03:16 AM
Feb 2015

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

billh58

(6,641 posts)
9. As Justice Stevens noted in his dissent in Heller:
Mon Feb 16, 2015, 10:44 AM
Feb 2015
"The Second Amendment was adopted to protect the right of the people of each of the several States to maintain a well-regulated militia. It was a response to concerns raised during the ratification of the Constitution that the power of Congress to disarm the state militias and create a national standing army posed an intolerable threat to the sovereignty of the several States. Neither the text of the Amendment nor the arguments advanced by its proponents evidenced the slightest interest in limiting any legislature’s authority to regulate private civilian uses of firearms. Specifically, there is no indication that the Framers of the Amendment intended to enshrine the common-law right of self-defense in the Constitution."


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

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

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


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

guillaumeb

(42,649 posts)
10. on the mark again
Mon Feb 16, 2015, 12:57 PM
Feb 2015

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

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

BrotherIvan

(9,126 posts)
11. Most excellent
Mon Feb 16, 2015, 05:46 PM
Feb 2015

I am going to change that to my sigline.

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

Thank you.

Latest Discussions»Issue Forums»Gun Control Reform Activism»This message was self-del...