[pc86]

Something gun control advocates seem to forget is that gun ownership is a Constitutional right for Americans. You cannot compare it to driving a car, or buying a television, or buying something from Amazon. If you're going to compare to something else for the purposes of limiting and regulating it, you need to compare to voting, assembling, practicing your faith or some other Constitutional right.

When you are required to get a license to cast your ballot or attend your church, then you can make the argument for getting a license to purchase a firearm.

[zzzeek]

The most recent supreme court decision DC v Heller upheld the fact that second amendment rights are not unlimited.

> 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 analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons. Pp. 54–56.

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

this is considerably more limited than the restrictions on attending churches. w.r.t voting, you do need to register ahead of time and in some states you may even have to show a photo ID, though this is under debate.

[tthomas48]

Remember it's an amendment. Which means it can be repealed. We also at one point had an amendment outlawing all liquor and then another that repealed it. The inverse could be done easily with the 2nd.

I'd imagine it's something that won't be out of the question in about 20-40 years. Gun owners are overwhelmingly white, male and older. A demographic that is dying of old age.

[wonderzombie]

Remember it's an amendment. Which means it can be repealed. We also at one point had an amendment outlawing all liquor and then another that repealed it. The inverse could be done easily with the 2nd.

This is something that often goes without mentioning, so thanks for bringing it up.

The founders were not idiots. They did not want to create a set of stone tablets, a collection of unchangeable holy texts. The Bill of Rights and the Constitution were intended to be changeable, living documents, adaptable to the times.

Maybe it's time to question whether or not the status quo can scale and remains consistent with our societal values.

[joshuahedlund]

This is a trend I would expect too, but the data does not appear to support it. Gun control has actually become consistently less popular over the last two decades[1]. I actually don't have a clue why, as it seems to counter other various demographic/political trends.

[1]http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/files/2012/07...

[tthomas48]

It correlates with a massive decrease in crime. It's interesting, but I live in a fairly mixed-income and higher crime area and guns are very unpopular here. I think ultimately it's some sort of weird reaction to extreme safety. Our brains start creating fake risk when we don't have any in our lives.

[nollidge]

I assure you gun control advocates have not forgotten about the second amendment since the opposition will not shut up about it.

Also, all the rights listed in the first ten amendments are limited to the point at which you're infringing on someone else's rights. The threat of death or injury, such as it is, would seem to be a pretty clear reason to limit that right.

[pc86]

And I welcome you to explain to me how my owning a particular type of firearms constitutes "threat of death or injury." Brandishing is already a crime, so I fail to see what point you're trying to make.

[smacktoward]

If you fail to store it securely, it could be stolen and used against me.

If you fail to operate it properly, I could be struck by a bullet fired by you at somebody else.

2nd Amendment absolutists love talking about their rights, but spend precious little time talking about the responsibilities that come with them. Which are (or should be) significant, when the right you are talking about is the right to wield a lethal weapon.

[pc86]

A stolen weapon used to commit a crime does not constitute a crime on the part of the original owner. In my state there is no legally required way to store a firearm. Shooting someone accidentally certainly leaves the person operating the firearm open to civil litigation, and possibly criminal prosecution. I don't think anyone has every implied otherwise. All the regulations that have been mentioned refer to purchasing a firearm. If you want to require rifles be locked up at night, make the argument that it will help prevent theft. Don't make the argument that someone can't purchase it in the first place.

I'm not a "2nd Amendment absolutist" as you put it, no more than I am a free speech or free press absolutist. I have no problem with licensure or registration so long as it's not prohibitive, and you will be hard pressed to find gun owners who say there are no responsibilities associated with gun ownership. To get a license to carry a concealed firearm in my state requires $20 and a few weeks while they do a cursory background check, depending on the county. To get a handgun or rifle takes half an hour for a phone call background check.

If politicians like Sen. Feinstein would stop talking about banning weapons wholesale that had nothing to do with any recent tragedy, and instead talk about a national level of firearms reciprocity (while requiring locations like NYC, Chicago and DC to come up to par), you'd see folks on the Right move quickly and decisively to supporting more common sense gun regulations.

[nollidge]

I think my point was pretty explicitly clear. Perhaps there's some other point you imagine I was making that you disagree with, but I can't really help you out of that pickle.

[boboblong]

You sound like a parody of the left. "Your rights end where my feelings begin!" Is that really your stance?

[Steko]

That's not his stance, that's fundamental constitutional law. Quoting Paul Waldman from TAP:

"for some reason gun advocates think that the right to bear arms is the only constitutional right that is virtually without limit. You have the right to practice your religion, but not if your religion involves human sacrifice. You have the right to free speech, but you can still be prosecuted for incitement or conspiracy, and you can be sued for libel. Every right is subject to limitation when it begins to threaten others, and the Supreme Court has affirmed that even though there is an individual right to gun ownership, the government can put reasonable restrictions on that right."

[boboblong]

He said:

>Also, all the rights listed in the first ten amendments are limited to the point at which you're infringing on someone else's rights. The threat of death or injury, such as it is, would seem to be a pretty clear reason to limit that right.

Apparently, if someone legally owns a gun, this presents a "threat of death or injury" to others. Of course, if the gun weren't legally owned by an individual but still existed, it would either be illegally owned by an individual or be legally owned by the government or by some other exempted institution. You might feel safer with only the government and criminals owning guns, but many others would feel less safe. What makes your fear more legitimate than theirs? Other rights are restricted only when exercising them would directly infringe on the rights of others. You can't demonstrate that you would be safer if a particular gun owner with no criminal record were forced to turn in his gun. You can't even demonstrate that you would be safer if all law-abiding gun owners were forced to turn in their guns. Even if you could, you couldn't demonstrate that your increased safety wouldn't be more than offset by the decreased safety of the gun owner(s).

The comparison between gun ownership and first-amendment rights is not a good one, because there are already restrictions on gun ownership comparable to the restriction on first-amendment rights. True, you don't have the right to practice human sacrifice--you also don't have the right to murder people with your legally owned guns. True, you can be prosecuted for incitement--and also for waving your gun around in public. True, you can be sued for libel--and you can be prosecuted for brandishing.

[nollidge]

Point out where I said "feelings".

EDIT: The word I used was threat, which, if arguing in good faith, you would have read as "actual risk", rather than "angsty feelings".

I also qualified it with the phrase such as it is. Which, again in good-faith discourse, means "if it exists" or "whatever form it takes".

But do continue to tell me more about how I feel.

[boboblong]

If a particular gun owner is threatening you, you can take legal action against him or her.

[nollidge]

Fantastic, that'll come in handy for the 8,500 people who were shot dead last year.

[boboblong]

8500 out of nearly 350 million is 1 in 40000 people. And how many of those 8500 were gangsters or robbers anyway? 50%? 90%? In any event, I'm having a hard time getting worked up over here.

[wonderzombie]

Many items in the Bill of Rights are far more nuanced than this absolutist interpretation of the 2nd Amendment.

For one thing, there are multiple restrictions on freedom of speech. Maybe you think those oughtn't exist, but we're talking about the status quo, not ideal worlds.

This is not to mention the idea that there are multiple ways to adjudicate whether this means "all guns" or "some guns," since there's quite a difference between an assault rifle or handgun and a simple rifle. Then there's the "well-regulated militia" piece.

I'm not advocating for any particular reading. Rather I disagree that the Bill of Rights ought to be the last word in any discussion. I think the Bill of Rights is better suited to a starting point, and the history of the judiciary in this country seems to bear this out in practice.

[jack-r-abbit]

True. It is kind of interesting how often the "well-regulated" part is overlooked. To regulate something is to control it. So... there is that.

[boboblong]

When the second amendment was written, "well-regulated" essentially meant "properly functioning".

[Anechoic]

DC v. Heller: "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 analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms."

[ollysb]

> gun ownership is a Constitutional right for Americans

To turn this round, this constitutional right is the reason that Americans are allowed to own weapons that are normally used in warzones at the age of 18 and without any safety measures. The world has changed since the constitution was written. If you were writing it today, would you still include the right to bear arms?

[hga]

Absolutely. The French Revolution which followed not long after sparked a new type of government mass murder, with death tolls in the 20th Century in the 10s to 100s of millions (the latter is my adjustment based on how much estimates of Communist mass murder get increased when a country really opens up).

Somehow, these actions always happen to disarmed people....

They are, at least here, truly "unthinkable", for "it can't happen here" without a preceding confiscation of the nation's guns. Which is a sufficient tripwire to provoke a counter-revolution to stop things from ever getting that nasty.

One might also look at the Swiss experience.