Timex
4387
But originally, the right was that we be allowed to keep arms that basically allowed us to be equal with a soldier in the military. That was the right.
But that right has already been eroded, for obvious reasons. Military technology evolved to the point where a single person could cause too much damage if allowed to have military grade weaponry. And so we decided that was not actually an essential right.
ShivaX
4388
We decided it wasn’t a limitless right, but I dunno about not essential. YMMV depending on where you are on the subject.
Timex
4389
Well sure, but it’s exactly that notion of it being limited that would allow communities to restrict the right to secretly carry weapons.
One interesting conversation is to discuss why ardent defenders of more or less untrammeled gun ownership feel this right is so essential. We know why opponents of widespread ownership of firearms feel the way they do, but in some ways it is more interesting to hear from the other side. It’s not an argument that is intuitive in the way anti-gun arguments are. Note I say intuitive, making no call on whether the arguments on either side are good, bad, or indifferent. But it’s easy to see why people can point to any number of shootings and say, see, gun ownership needs to be curtailed. It’s much harder to intuitively grasp why the right to own a weapon provokes such visceral commitment and passion on the part of a not insignificant portion of the populace.
It’s one thing to point to the Constitution; that’s fairly clear, though you can debate stuff like what exactly “bear arms” means in a modern context, but overall there’s not much doubt that the document says gun ownership is a right. Other than the reference to a well-regulated militia (another area for discussion), though, the Constitution doesn’t muse on why owning guns is a good thing. The arguments I’ve heard range from the ridiculous (gonna use my guns to fend off the revenoors!) to the sublime (a free people needs to have the means to defend itself, even if only symbolically).
Gun control works; see machine guns, dynamite, uh mercury for example are strictly controlled and rarely if ever used in crime. But ShivaX is correct, owning a gun is a right. Therefore the current price of that right, in dead kids per day etc etc, is worth it in the overall public opinion. Proof being that it remains a right. Other countries have decided it’s not worth it, but the USA is known for paying dearly for its freedoms too.
Sent from my Nexus 6 using Tapatalk
Another reason for a real discussion of just why this right is so vital to so many.
Now that the second is being limited every further, maybe we can look at some other common sense limits on some other rights. Maybe those Muslims shouldn’t be allowed to practice their religion. Or all news stories should be reviewed by a government agency before being allowed to be published. Perhaps if the police really, really need to, they should be able to search whatever they want.
In what world is the amendment being limited further? Laws against concealed carry have existed forever in this country, and in some states like New York all pistol possession was controlled until the conservative courts broke it open fairly recently.
Pod
4395
I find it amusing that an amendment to the constitution is considered immutable.
Just change it.
ShivaX
4396
Good luck with that. It’s statistically impossible according to Scalia and he’s was right.
Yeah. Impossible in general these days to add or change any amendment with a 2/3 majority. Ten times as impossible to change the 2nd with most of the House bought and paid for by the NRA. Even if Trump is caught on camera wiping his ass with the flag (after dry-humping it today) the GOP will still have at least 1/3 of the House when all is said and done.
ShivaX
4398
Yeah, adding an Amendment everyone wants can’t happen, much less one where that isn’t remotely the case.
As it should be. When we’re talking about adding or removing fundamental rights/limits on government power, it should be hard.
It used to be hard in the 20th century, when 12 amendments were passed. Now it looks to be impossible.
ShivaX
4401
Sure and I don’t think the 2nd Amendment would ever get repealed realistically, but we’re talking statistically impossible for anything ever and that’s just stupid. I’m still strongly in support of a Scalia Amendment to amend the Amending process so that it can actually be done. The document is based on having the ability to do so.
Timex
4402
I don’t think there is really anything wrong with the second amendment. It’s not something that needs to be changed.
But it’s already established, clearly, that it does not constitute an unlimited right to anything involving weaponry.
I’m not sure exactly what specific right is being removed, or what harm could be suggested, if one were not able to carried a concealed handgun. I think that perhaps if they were not allowed to carry weaponry at all that it would be an unreasonable violation of the right, but it doesn’t seem like the limitation that you can’t hide weaponry on yourself goes against the literal text of the second amendment.
ShivaX
4403
Well my understanding is that we’re talking about a place where to carry at all requires you to carry concealed. So you are effectively not allowed to carry weaponry at all unless you can convince the government you should be able to and they have to reason to let you.
In Iowa you need a permit to carry a weapon. Concealed or not. Many, many other places you can ONLY carry concealed, open carry is illegal (hell if you print while carrying concealed you’ll be arrested). In Iowa the state has to approve you if you pass background checks, but it used to be you had to convince the Sheriff why you needed to. Depending on the Sheriff in question your ability to carry ranged from “pretty fucking easy” to “completely impossible all requests for non-LEO/military are always denied.”
California law:
A citizen or legal resident over the age of 18 may possess a handgun anywhere within his or her place of residence, business or other private property. (California Penal Code § 25605.) However, outside of these places, it is against the law to openly carry rifles, shotguns, or handguns in California (loaded or unloaded, except under certain circumstances). You may however carry a concealed weapon if you first obtain a concealed carry license. (California Penal Code § 25850, 26155.)
So, effectively, you can’t possess a firearm in California outside of private property. Concealed carry isn’t a right, but neither is open carry. Since they can just refuse you getting concealed carry, they can deny you the ability to carry at all. If A is illegal, but B is legal but we always deny B, well… then A & B are both effectively illegal.
Lantz
4404
There’s always option C which is to carry your weapon in a legal manner which, generally, is unloaded in a locked container. Just because a Californian can’t walk to pick up their kids from school with an AR-15 over their shoulder (open carry) or with a loaded pistol in a shoulder holster doesn’t ban all gun transport . But they could go pick them up with an unloaded gun in their trunk. (Picking them up outside of the school zone).
The leading reason cited for pistol ownership is home defense and no form of carry whatsoever is required there at all. Surely a well-regulated militia is possible for people whose basements are armories?
IMO concealed carry is for that minority of people whose work requires lethal capability or who otherwise can generate a plausible reason for needing a deadly weapon on the street. These people in the 20th century never had a problem getting licensed by the police or sheriff even in places like New York with its Sullivan act. And open carry is for crazed anarchists, secessionists, and for vigilante heroes shooting up people in Walmart parking lots.
As Lantz says, for point A to point B you can just transport instead of carrying.
Yeah, but what if my self-worth as a human being is determined primarily by how many motherfuckers I can kill in the next 30 seconds at any given time?
CHECK MATE, LIBERALS.
