Friday, January 11, 2013

Gun debate proves there is no 2nd amendment right to own a gun but common sense laws can solve the gun problem.

Since the school shootings in Newton, the debate about guns and laws and what to do about both have taken center stage. The NRA had agreed to be part of the talks headed by Vice President Biden and offer their point of view and just the other day, New York's

Governor Cuomo rolled out the strictest most comprehensive gun legislation in the country and the consensus is that all of it will pass the legislature.

What makes all this activity, soul searching, and debate about gun laws ironic, is, in it's own way it proves the obvious despite what people say publicly or what they think is right to say politically -- that the second amendment does not in any way guarantee anyone the right to own a gun and in fact has nothing whatsoever to do with individual gun ownership at all. It doesn't even imply it.

The proof whether they want to admit it or not, that everyone accepts this fact, is that there are debates about gun laws at all. Because if the second amendment really had anything to do with an individual right to own a gun, if it was truly a right guaranteed by the constitution, there wouldn't be any debates about gun laws at all because based on what the amendment says,  any law restricting any gun ownership in any way would be unconstitutional.

As pointed out here previously, there is no reading of the second amendment that can in any way be applied to individual gun ownership if one goes by the precise words of the amendment, it's meaning, and the clear intent of the Framers in terms of what the amendment was really all about. In fact in the context of the second amendment, and in the context of the english language, the word "arms" doesn't even mean guns. The word "arms" didnt mean guns at the time of the amendment's creation, didnt mean guns before the amendment's creation and doesnt mean guns to this day.  The word "arms" has never meant guns. "Arms"  has a very specific meaning and it means weapons of war - all military weapons of war,  and they are distinct from civilian firearms. Military weapons of war is what the word "arms" meant in 1789, it's what it meant in 789,  and its what it meant during the cold war when the "arms race" related, not to guns or which country had more people with guns in their closets,  but nuclear warheads and the missiles to deliver them.

That is something that goes over the head of someone like Alex Jones, whose appearance on Piers Morgan did more to re-enforce the need for psychological testing for gun ownership than anything Morgan could have said. Jones was the one who created a White House petition to have Piers Morgan deported for his stance on guns, something signed by a little more than 100,00 constitutional idiots like Jones who are so busy wailing about the second amendment they never read or don't care about the first.

The second amendment as debated and created by the framers of the constitution had nothing to do with civilian ownership of firearms. It never even came up in the debates. And as former Chief Justice of the Supreme Court Warren Burger, appointed by conservative Richard Nixon said, the idea that the second amendment relates to individual civilian gun ownership is "the biggest fraud, I repeat the word fraud, ever perpetrated by an interest group (the NRA) on the American people in my lifetime".

Every Supreme Court in the last 225 years agreed with this since every court since the court itself and the constitution was created had ruled that the second amendment does not relate to individual gun ownership. The one exception has been the politically motivated conservatives on the farcical Roberts court and an opinion written by Alito that would have had conservatives screaming for impeachment had a liberal court based a decision the same way.

If the second amendment did relate to individual gun ownership, there would be no debate on gun laws at all because there is a little thing in the amendment called the infringement clause which specifically says the right granted in the second amendment is unlimited and cannot be reduced, modified,impeded, altered, or changed in any way.

Being part of the debate, the NRA itself is acknowledging that any state, locality, city, village or the Federal government can write any gun laws they wish even if they don't come right out and say so. Actions as they say, speaks louder than words. And it is why the NRA takes an active role in elections and spends millions to try and elect officials sympathetic to their agenda. If they believed the second amendment applied to individuals they wouldn't have to spend a dime, would cite the infringement clause and say, wait a minute buster, any restrictions on gun ownership is unconstitutional. But even the NRA isn't going to push their luck with that argument  and they prefer to let sleeping dogs lie. But based on the ruling of the Roberts court, they could push the argument that all restrictive gun laws are unconstitutional. But they know that argument would go nowhere and would probably result in the Roberts court reversing or modifying itself at the first chance.

There are gun laws on the books right now in every town, village,city and state in the country that would be unconstitutional if the second amendment applied to individuals. And so most arguments about gun laws are only giving lip service to the second amendment. The NRA's contention that Biden's task force is only interested in attacks on the second amendment is just so much hot air since you can't "attack" a constitutional provision. Or pass a law negating it.

That aside, both gun owners and those on the other side keep missing the point on gun laws. Gun owners want no gun laws which is preposterous, and those on the other side often propose laws that have nothing to do with solving the real problem. And if you don't correctly define the problem you can never come up with the real solution.

Anyone looking at the available data involving gun violence can see the obvious. The problem isn't guns, its illegal guns. What is an illegal gun? It's any gun in the hands of a person who isn't the registered owner of that gun or someone who is in possession of a gun obtained fraudulently.The other obvious problem and the solution which is already being discussed is the banning of private ownership of 30 round clips, something that is already a certainty to pass in New York State.

 The first thing that needs to be done is to pass laws with severe penalities to substantially reduce illegal guns -- guns getting into the wrong hands and irresponsible gun owners who let it happen,intentionally or unintentionally, and people buying guns to illegally sell them to others.

 1. First, it should be a felony for anyone to be in possession of a gun for which they are not the legally registered owner.

2. There should be laws requiring gun owners to report any lost or stolen gun to law enforcement within 24 hours. And any gun owner who has two lost of stolen guns in a 3 year period should have their license or permit to own firearms revoked for at least 5 years and be forced to surrender all their firearms. They are clearly not responsible enough to own firearms.

3. Anyone not reporting a lost or stolen gun for the purposes of evading the penalties for not doing so should face a mandatory 3 years in jail and a lifetime forfeit of being able to own a firearm.

4. Any gun lost or stolen that is unreported and involved in the commission of a crime should charge the registered owner as an accessory before the fact on any crime committed with his or her gun including murder.

5. Because most guns used in the commission of crimes in New York for example, are purchased in Virginia which has lax gun laws and then  resold in alleys in New York, there should be laws that anyone purchasing a firearm living outside the state where the gun is purchased must have that gun shipped to the address on their drivers license at their own expense and may not take those firearms with them at the time of purchase. And limit the number of guns that can be bought out of state within a 30 day period to one.

This will cut down the use of phony ID's to purchase guns and also cut down on people buying firearms by the carload in one state and taking them to another state for re-sale to criminals.If someone tries to use a phony drivers license, it's easy to cross check the address and penalties for using phony ID's to purchase a firearm should be 10 years in prison.

6. Ban private ownership of 30 round clips. Allow those clips to be available at firing ranges where gun owners who want to use them for target practice can obtain them for use at the firing range and then turn them in when they leave. There is no reason for a gun owner who has firearms for hunting or self-defense to have 30 round clips. They have no value to a real hunter, and as for self-defense, if you cant stop an intruder with an 8 round clip you are a loser.

Make the private possession of 30 round clips a felony punishable by a mandatory 5 years in jail and make the illegal sale of these clips to an individual other than the legal owners of a firing range, also punishable by a hefty prison sentence.

These are laws that would, by acting as a deterrent,  cut down on the proliferation of illegal guns and guns falling into the hands of the wrong people, as well as imprisoning those trying to evade existing laws.  It would also force gun owners who were not responsible to make sure their guns are secured since the penalties if they should be used by anyone else would be severe, including prison time.  There were 3 cases in the last year where a child got his hands on a parents gun, took it to school and shot and killed a schoolmate by accident. Under the proposed law, that gun owner would be tried for second degree murder which is defined as "showing a depraved indifference to human life". Anyone leaving a loaded gun around where a child can get it, fits that description.

Laws that have sentences equal to or will surpass laws related to drug trafficing when it comes to buying or selling illegal guns or trying to obtain one illegally would also make the kind of trafficking  not worth the risk. No one is going to get rich selling illegal guns.  Laws that could include life in prison would make the reward negligable compared to the risk.

Banning 30 round clips would go a long way in saving lives by cutting down the ability to commit mass murder, and while yes, someone intent on committing such acts could do so with a hand gun, no one can say that banning the 30 round clips would not save lives.  Jared Loughner, the shooter of Gabriel Giffords and who killed six people,including a child  was stopped when he was jumped trying to reload after exhausting an 8 round clip.

 Laws have to be aimed at solving real problems, not exacting a pound of flesh. The problem by all statistical measure is not guns themselves in spite of the fact that the second amendment does not give anyone a constitutional right to own a gun,  but illegal guns and laws need to be passed to define what is an illegal gun and to reduce the possibility of guns falling into the wrong hands, unintentionally or intentionally. And those laws need to be harsh.

The gun used in the Newtown killings was legally owned and registered to the shooters mother. Had there been a law that had a harsh mandatory prison sentence if that gun fell into the hands of someone other than the registered owner for any reason, if that owner knew they could be held criminally responsible for any crime committed with their gun,  if that owner knew they faced mandatory prison time if someone else was caught in possession of that gun, its possible as a gun enthusiast  that she would have kept that gun under lock and key and it wouldnt have been accessible to anyone but her.

Just maybe.


Anonymous said...

"If the second amendment did relate to individual gun ownership, there would be no debate on gun laws because there is a little thing in the amendment called the infringement clause then specifically says the right granted in the second amendment is unlimited and cannot be reduced, modified,impeded, altered, or changed in any way."

I couldn't agree more with your infringement argument. If you look at the First Amendment, you'll see that the infringement argument is even stronger than under the Second Amendment :

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

You'll notice that "respecting", "prohibiting", and "abridging" are unqualified, just as "infringed" is unqualified in the Second Amendment. This is why church buses and other vehicles owned by a church are not subject to speed limits or other traffic laws and why there are no libel laws in this country and why you don't need a permit to hold a parade.

Wait a minute. There's something wrong here. Church vehicles ARE subject to the traffic laws. You CAN be sued for libel. You DO need a permit for a parade. How can that be? Could it be that this "unlimited" reading of the Second Amendment is just plain wrong (and just plain silly, to boot)?

Anonymous said...

"4. Any gun lost or stolen that is unreported and involved in the commission of a crime should charge the registered owner as an accessory before the fact on any crime committed with his or her gun including murder."

How does filing the appropriate paperwork with the police for a lost gun help to prevent its use in a murder? Are the police going to spring into action and track down the new illegal owner? Of course, they're not. So not reporting the loss has nothing whatsoever to do with whether it's used in a murder. So why should I be sentenced to life in prison for murder? Because I didn't file some paperwork with a government bureaucrat?

Anonymous said...

If you want to make a reasonable argument against the 2nd amendment, I'm game. But you need to be consistent and be reasonable.

"Arms" means weapons, of any dimension and capacity. You tried making an argument to what the framers of the constitution meant, then you jumped to "missiles and nuclear weapons." Seriously? If you're going to support policies and policitcal candidates which involve limiting the freedom of others, please make a real argument.

One thing not one person ever seems to consider is actually repealing the 2nd amendment. What this mean is the meaning of the 2nd amendment is of no consideration to the argument any ways. This means that there are a group of people who want guns, and conveniently they use the 2nd amendmend from time to time as a supporting argument.

Those who dont want guns, will simply not use the 2nd amendment as an argument. Or they will dismiss it as relevant. The reality is those who are against guns don't even try to remove the 2nd amendmend as an argument, any interpretation of it. Let's face it, if you really think it means nuclear weapons or one will argue one your side.

Anonymous said...

The Second Amendment (Amendment II) to the United States Constitution is the part of the United States Bill of Rights that protects the right of the people to keep and bear arms. It was adopted on December 15, 1791, along with the rest of the Bill of Rights. The Supreme Court of the United States has ruled that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess and carry firearms.YOUR A FUCKTARD!!!

Marc Rubin said...


The only fucktard is you who are both ignorant of the Bill of Rights the constitution and all the Supreme Court justices in 225 years who ruled it does NOT give an individual a right to own a gun. This is the only fuctard court to rule that it does because of the 5 fucktard conservative justices who ruled that way then tried to change their minds which you are too much of a dumb fucktard to know. You are way too stupid to own a gun but luckily for you taking an intelligence test isnt part of getting a permit. if it ever is you are toast.

Marc Rubin said...

"Arms" means weapons, of any dimension and capacity. You tried making an argument to what the framers of the constitution meant"

Im sorry you missed my point. My point wasnt what I think the Framers meant. My point was we KNOW what the framers meant, we know it from the transcripts of the debates that still exist and can be read. Arms means weapons of war. Period. Anything used in war are arms. If its not a weapon of war it is NOT arms, and the framers who knew the language better than anyone trying to twist what they wrote to mean something else, knew it.The only definition of the word "arms" is weapons of war. In case you didnt know its why those who carry arms in large groups are called an "army".

Marc Rubin said...

"You DO need a permit for a parade. How can that be? Could it be that this "unlimited" reading of the Second Amendment is just plain wrong (and just plain silly, to boot)?"

the only thing silly is your argument. What do you think the words "shall not be infringed" mean? what do you think an "infringment" means? Bone up on your vocabulary and you wont make silly statements. And do NOT try and impose YOUR idea of what the word means. The only thing that matters is what it really means and what the people who wrote it knew it meant, and what it was defining, not your idea of what you think it means based on completely irrelevant comparisons and ideas that are nowhere to be found in the second amendment.