Post by Herb MartinPost by The Lone WeaselAnd all you're being asked to do is show us how more guns
means less crime. Let the world know you have guns in
your house - make your community safe from home
invaders...
Already done by Lott and others but that isn't even the
issue because to take RIGHTS you would have to FIRST show
that they led to an increase in crime which you cannot AND
THEN you would still be left with the "social utility"
versus the rights of law-abiding citizens which
cannot be removed a priori a criminal violation and due
process.
"A priori" eh?
Laugh laugh laugh laugh laugh.
Well, there's evidence that more guns means more crime. And
it makes sense, if you have guns in your house, if criminals
find out you have guns, they're liable to steal your guns if
they get a chance. Probably the same with jewels, stamp
collections - my dad had a big stamp collection stolen along
with a Browning 20 gauge semiauto, somebody just busted into
his house and took it, because they knew it was there. One
of his students, apparently.
As to rights, if you mean gun rights you know that nobody's
gun rights are absolute. The rkba doesn't necessarily mean
you have a right to have any weapon you want, and it doesn't
mean you have a right to any gun you want, nor do you have a
right to use it or carry anywhere you want.
In fact, the people of your state can decide like the people
of Missouri did, they voted against ccw in 1999. But then
the NRA decided they'd ignore the will of the people - the
same people mentioned in the Second Amendment - and force
their own agenda on Missouri by paying off the legislature, a
tactic they're using now in Wisconsin. So you can drop the
pretense of "the rights of law-abiding citizens" because what
you really mean is the power of the gunlobby to get what it
wants regardless of what the people want.
Finally, the states retained the power of internal police
through the reserved powers under the Tenth Amendment, and
one of example of that power is the regulation of weapons
which existed decades before the US Constitution, before the
Bill of Rights, and the people will decide what kind of guns
rights they'll have whether you like it or not.
Post by Herb MartinOn balance, guns reduce crime but that isn't a necessary
Probably wrong.
Post by Herb Martincondition because ON BALANCE removing 4th, 5th, and 6th
amendment protections would mean "less crime" but no one I
know wants to live in THAT country.
Strawman. You don't have any Second Amendment personal right
to have guns. State and federal case law proves it. The
fact that you can't cite a single federal Circuit or USSC
opinion that strikes down a state gun law on Second Amendment
grounds, although nearly all state gun laws would infringe a
personal gun right under the Second Amendment, shows you have
no real argument.
Post by Herb MartinYour arguments are just as fallacious as arguing for
beating or torturing SUSPECTS in a criminal investigations
-- and just as stupid.
Then show us those federal appeals cases where state gun laws
are found unconstitutional on Second Amendment grounds, you
know Blurb, like the Texas statute criminalizing homosexual
sex was found unconstitutional. Many state anti-gay laws
were struck down, based on an actual Constitutional
right:"individual decisions concerning the intimacies of
physical relationships, even when not intended to produce
offspring are a form of 'liberty' protected by due process."
Lawrence v Texas (2003).
The gunlobby can't just buy a Constitutional right to have
guns, although I'm sure they're arrogant enough to think so.
You can't scrape up an argument with just your gunlobby
propaganda, Blurb. You'll just have to accept the fact that
the states grant personal gun rights; that a personal right
to have guns is many degrees of magnitude less important than
the right of the people to keep up a well-regulated militia
that has a fundamental right to keep and bear arms to defend
the state and everybody living in it.
That's the fundamental right granted by the Second Amendment,
not your personal right to have weapons granted by your state
constitution, but the great right of the people to defend
their government, homes, businesses, their land, all their
lives without exception, and their way of life, which is the
right of the people to keep and bear arms in defense of the
state.
_______________
The clause in the constitution of the United States, that it
is said to be in violation of, is the 2d article of the
amendments: "A well regulated militia being necessary to the
security of a free state, the right of the people to keep
and bear arms shall not be infringed." O. & W. Dig. 7. The
clause in the constitution of this state, which it is said
to violate, is the 13th section of the bill of rights:
"Every citizen shall have the right to keep and bear arms,
in the lawful defense of himself or the state." O. & W. Dig.
14.
The object of the clause first cited, has reference to the
perpetuation of free government, and is based on the idea,
that the people cannot be effectually oppressed and
enslaved, who are not first disarmed. The clause cited in
our bill of rights, has the same broad object in relation to
the government, and in addition thereto, secures a personal
right to the citizen. The right of a citizen to bear arms,
in the lawful defense of himself or the state, is absolute.
He does not derive it from the state government, but
directly from the sovereign convention of the people that
framed the state government.
The clause cited in our bill of rights, has the same broad
object in relation to the government, and in addition
thereto, secures a personal right to the citizen.
The right of a citizen to bear arms, in the lawful defense
of himself or the state, is absolute. He does not derive it
from the state government, but directly from the sovereign
convention of the people that framed the state government.
It is one of the "high powers" delegated directly to the
citizen, and "is excepted out of the general powers of
government." A law cannot be passed to infringe upon or
impair it, because it is above the law, and independent of
the law-making power.
Cockrum v. State, 24 Texas 394 (1859)
