Debating the Gun Issue

[SecularMotion]

Many Americans agree that guns are winding up in the wrong hands and being used in the wrong ways. From there discussion bursts into an array of incompatible views, posing questions with no easy answers. In balancing the individual’s “right to bear arms” with the need for public safety, should the United States

• concentrate on enforcing existing laws?
  
• enact more gun laws?
  
• insist that manufacturers include safety features and that gun owners take safety training courses?
  
• ban certain types of firearms?
  
• abolish the right to bear arms?
  

There are many arguments for and against different means of gun control, and the answers to the questions that arise vary greatly depending on who has the floor and how that person interprets the information coming from the many different sides of the gun issue. But the principal arguments fall into two categories: those that center on the meaning of the “right to bear arms” and those weighing the extent to which gun possession by ordinary individuals tends to increase the risk of injury or prevent crime.

http://www.americanbar.org/groups/public_education/initiatives_awards/students_in_action/debate_gun.html

[gejohnston]

1. there is that old Ben Franklin quote

Samuel Johnson said that (false) patriotism is the last refuge of scoundrels. I would add that public safety and national security are among the first refuges.
That said, the kid attempted to do a fair job, although he missed the point behind Miller. Miller simply said that having an unregistered sawed off shotgun did not violate the 2A because there was no evidence shown that it was a military weapon that a militia would use.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Miller
If you follow that logic, an AR15 isn't constitutionally protected, but the select fire version, a real assault rifle, would be.

[jimmy the one]

2. more guns more lies

johnston: Miller simply said that having an unregistered sawed off shotgun did not violate the 2A because there was no evidence shown that it was a military weapon that a militia would use.

No they didn't 'just' say that, johnston just ad infinitum repeats the progun propanda surrounding miller, the concoction the gunlobby fabricated to get around the miller decision, which was 8-0 (one recusal by douglas) UNANIMOUS which wrote this:

supreme court on miller decision, 1939, 8-0 unanimous decision: The Constitution, as originally adopted, granted to the Congress power -- To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions; To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress.
With obvious purpose to assure the continuation and render possible the effectiveness of such {militia} forces, the declaration and guarantee of the Second Amendment were made. It must be interpreted and applied with that end in view.

another excerpt from scotus 1939 miller: In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a "shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length" at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument. Certainly it is not within judicial notice that this weapon is any part of the ordinary military equipment, or that its use could contribute to the common defense

This was an 8-0 unanimous verdict for the militia rights interpretation; Not even one of the justices thought to object that these remarks might possibly be interpreted as being 'anti individual rights' by future generations.
The recused/abstaining justice, douglas, later wrote &/or supported a handgun ban in america. THAT is how the 2ndA was properly interpreted prior to the filth precipitated by nra gunnuts & propagated by some on these boards.

[gejohnston]

3. fewer guns, more ignorance

Miller didn't decide collective right vs individual right. Besides,

In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a "shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length" at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument. Certainly it is not within judicial notice that this weapon is any part of the ordinary military equipment, or that its use could contribute to the common defense

That is the longer version of what I said. The only reason the decision was 8-0 was because Miller's council wasn't there nor did they file a brief.
According to Wiki:

Gun control advocates argue that for over six decades the United States Circuit Courts, with very few exceptions, point to the precedence of the Miller case while rejecting legal challenges to federal firearm regulations.[5]
Gun rights advocates claim this case as a victory because they interpret it to state that ownership of weapons for efficiency or preservation of a well-regulated militia unit of the present day is specifically protected. Furthermore, they frequently point out that short-barreled shotguns have been commonly used in warfare, and the statement made by the judges indicates that they were not made aware of this.[6] Because the defense did not appear, there was arguably no way for the judges to know otherwise. Two of the justices involved in the decision had prior military experience, Justice Black as a Captain in the field artillery during WWI and Justice Frankfurter as a Major in the Army legal service; however, there is no way to know if they were personally aware of the use of shotguns by American troops. During WWI, between 30,000 and 40,000 short-barreled pump-action shotguns were purchased by the US Ordnance Department and saw service in the trenches and for guarding German prisoners.[7]
Some argue that fundamental issues related to the case were never truly decided because the Supreme Court remanded the case to the federal district court "for further proceedings", which never took place — by the time of the Supreme Court decision, Miller had been killed, and Layton made a plea bargain after the decision was handed down, so there were no claimants left to continue legal proceedings.

If the latter interpretation is true, the SCOTUS kicked it back to a lower court that ruled NFA violated the 2A.
Douglas' personal opinions about handguns isn't relevant.

for more reading:
http://www.law.nyu.edu/sites/default/files/ECM_PRO_060964.pdf

The founders were followers of John Locke and other classical liberal writers during the Enlightenment. The view is that individuals are sovereign and rights come from nature, or god if you will, not from the State or Crown. That is why the BoR are a set of negative rights, which means it tells the State what it can not do, not what individuals are allowed to do.

[DonP]

4. Why bother debating it anymore?

The pro-second side never gets anything out of it, beyond being demonized and lied to?

We're accused of not being willing to "compromise", when nothing is offered from the other side of the compromise. If you don't agree with them completely "you want dead children".

They keep throwing up "studies" by shills and hacks like Hemenway and his ilk and ignore actual DoJ and CDC reports on violent crime dropping.

They can't get anything passed but a handful of state or local laws that are out numbered 2 to 1 by pro-second laws and all theirs are being challenged in court ... and their court track record really sucks.

And every week more new gun buyers join the discussion in spite of the false meme of fewer owners.

Hell, the only area of "success" from their activism is getting a post here and there hidden and on a really "good" day maybe get somebody banned.

So again, why bother debating with them when they have nothing to offer?

[clffrdjk]

5. Yep

A little extreme but pretty close to how a large number of people feel.

[jimmy the one]

6. more manipulation

johnston: The only reason the decision was 8-0 was because Miller's council wasn't there nor did they file a brief.

Further (absurd) manipulation & (transparent) blowing smoke from johnston; Just because 'some technical problems arose', the 1939 supreme court wrote a unanimous ruling which stated pretty clearly that the 2ndA was intended as a militia based right, and NOT ONE of them paused to consider including an individual rights recognition, like for self defense or hunting or mantelling, HA. In a case clearly focussing on the 2nd amendment rights as they clearly recognized it was.

johnston: According to Wiki: ---- wiki is caught between a rock & hard place in granting gunnuts their views & trying to present a fair balance. Wiki is saturated with subtle pro gun spin on this, & to a trained eye like mine wiki can't see through it & lets it go.

johnston: {accd'g to wiki} Gun rights advocates claim this case as a victory --- true, that's how nutty gunnuts are, they actually have perverted the miller decision, somehow, someway, into a win for the individual rkba version.

johnston/wiki: Some argue that fundamental issues related to the case were never truly decided because the Supreme Court remanded the case to the federal district court "for further proceedings", which never took place — by the time of the Supreme Court decision, Miller had been killed, and Layton made a plea bargain after the decision was handed down, so there were no claimants left to continue legal proceedings. If the latter interpretation is true, the SCOTUS kicked it back to a lower court that ruled NFA violated the 2A.

You present the manipulation & concoction I referred to earlier. Doesnt' negate the quotes I put up in last post, which you can't refute whatsoever. The gun lobby had to neutralize miller, & this is what they came up with, a method to blame by diaclectic reasoning, picking at the miller decision when it was clear in the vernacular of the 1939 day, what was meant.

johnston: Douglas' personal opinions about handguns isn't relevant.

Justice Douglas recused himself from the miller decision, but obviously did not contest it nor argue with the other 8 justices, which reveals there was no dissension in how douglas saw it. Had miller been for an individual rkba then douglas would've later disagreed.

johnston: That is why the BoR are a set of negative rights, which means it tells the State what it can not do, not what individuals are allowed to do.

Accd'g to Wm Rawle in his 1825 View of the Constitution, the american bill of rights does both, protect individual rights as well as limit congress.

[gejohnston]

7. riiiiiiiiiight

Wiki is saturated with subtle pro gun spin on this, & to a trained eye like mine wiki can't see through it & lets it go

.

[clffrdjk]

8. Notice how he can't even reply to you

He tries to hide his post from you so you don't respond.

Also a one sided trial where the defendant is not even represented now falls under "technical problems"