Sensible gun control is about on the same level of stupidity as paying

[wvit1001]

even conservative supreme court judges say that your right to own a gun isn't an unregulated right 

[chuck_curtis]

So, the virtual, total gun ban in those nations you proudly point to is Constitutional?  Is sensible?

[1965hawks]

sweetwater5s9: The Constitution spells out sensible gun control - "Shall not be infringed" --"shall not be infringed."

sweetwater5s9,

Gun control (or firearms regulation), refers to laws or policies that regulate the manufacture, sale, transfer, possession, modification, or use of firearms.

The Second Amendment reads in its entirety,

"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."

As you can see, sweetwater5s9, there's absolutely nothing in the Second Amendment that either "spells out" gun control  or prohibits  governments--local, state, or federal--from enacting laws that regulate the manufacture, sale, transfer, possession, modification, or use of firearms. Yes, the Second Amendment says that the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, but the right protected is the right of the people to bear arms (serve as soldiers) in state-controlled (federally recognised militias). As originally written, understood, and ratified, the Second Amendment had absolutely nothing to do with the private ownership and use of firearms (including self defense), Scalia's judicial activism in Heller notwithstanding.

[1965hawks]

chuck_curtis: So, the So the virtual, total gun ban in those nations you proudly point to is [c]onstitutional?  Is sensible?

You're propping up a straw man to attack, chuck_curtis. There is no total gun ban--virtual or otherwise--in none of the countries I mentioned. Yes, sensible gun laws in those countries strictly regulate the availability and accessibility of firearms (especially handguns) to members of the general population, but your claim that there's no total ban of firearms in those countries is entirely false. Yes, a government's strict regulation of deadly weapons is sensible and, in the US, constitutional.

   

[sweetwater5s9]

"shall not be infringed,"   spells it out clearly...


As a result of Second Amendment dispute, it has been suggested that to infringe relative to the fundamental right to keep and bear arms means only to completely destroy the right, and that extensive "reasonable" regulations are legitimate and do not infringe the right. As an example, it has been claimed that a complete ban on certain types of firearms is a “reasonable” regulation and would not violate the "shall not be infringed" restrictive language. A contrary understanding is that infringe means to encroach upon or narrow the right in any way and that the purpose for the "shall not be infringed" language was to prevent regulation of the right.

An excellent method for determining how extensive the Bill of Rights protection based on the verb "infringe" was intended to be in the Founders' view is to rely on historical examples. What can be gleaned from their own use of this term in relation to other Bill of Rights proposals? Here are some of them.

James Madison's Usage
The Second Amendment's "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" language is exactly what was proposed as the first clause of the amendment by James Madison on June 8, 1789. In addition to that "infringe" based language, Madison also included this freedom of religion related protection in his Bill of Rights proposals to Congress: “nor shall the full and equal rights of conscience be in any manner, or on any pretext, infringed.” [The Origin of the Second Amendment p.654] Assuming that Madison's intention in preventing religious liberty from being “infringed” was to allow for considerable "reasonable" regulation by the federal government is illogical. In fact, it is clear that the intent of such language was to prevent any interference whatsoever by the government in such matters. The later change to “Congress shall make no laws” language buttresses this period understanding of "infringe" based protection.

Samuel Adams' Usage
Another person who used "infringe" in bill of rights proposals for the Constitution was Samuel Adams in the Massachusetts Ratifying Convention. He attempted to protect freedom of the press and religion with this proposal: “that the said Constitution be never construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the press, or the rights of conscience”. [OSA p.260] It is unthinkable that such usage by Adams indicated an intention to allow extensive reasonable regulations of freedom of the press and religious beliefs. Instead, such language was certainly intended as the strongest of limits upon government actions, just as in Madison's case with his infringe based restrictive proposals to Congress regarding freedom of religion and the right of the people to keep and bear arms.

Congressional Amendments Committee Usage
There is other informative period Bill of Rights related use of "shall not be infringed" language often overlooked today due to gun control advocates' historical arguments diverting away from the Second Amendment's actual Bill of Rights history. The Committee of Eleven, to which Madison's proposals were submitted by Congress, accepted his original use of "infringed" relative to freedom of religion as well as his "shall not be infringed" language relative to the right of the people to keep and bear arms. The Committee also added Madison's original Second Amendment restrictive language ("shall not be infringed") to other First Amendment rights – freedom of speech - freedom of the press - the right of peaceable assembly - the right to apply for redress of grievances. All of these, including Madison's “inviolable” freedom of the press and his right of the people to speak, of which they “shall not be deprived or abridged” [OSA p.654], were re-stated by the Committee as rights that “shall not be infringed”. [OSA p.680] Once again, it does not appear that such period usage indicated the Committee members understood that religious beliefs could be subjected to extensive reasonable regulations, or that they used "shall not be infringed" with the intention that it would condone extensive and reasonable regulation of freedom of speech, freedom of the press, the right of peaceable assembly, the right to apply for redress of grievances, or the right to keep and bear arms.

Interpreting this restrictive "infringe" based language in the manner that some advocates of gun control do for Second Amendment usage removes all meaning of the terminology and completely destroys any protective intent of the provision. Such interpretations leave the intended protected rights to be regulated exactly like any other subject placed under the government's power. Such views of the language completely ignore the developmental history of the Bill of Rights, a history that is remarkably well documented because the need for a U.S. Bill of Rights was publicly and privately discussed for more than two full years prior to Congress' proposal of the U.S. Bill of Rights amendments.

Shall Not Be Infringed - Shall Make No Laws
Another interesting period fact is that the style of restrictive language ultimately used in the First Amendment – "Congress shall make no law" - was previously found mostly in Second Amendment related proposals.


David E. Young

    Constitutional scholar and recognized authority on Founding Era Second Amendment developmental history and documents. Author of The American Revolutionary Era Origin of the Second Amendment's Clauses, published in the Journal on Firearms & Public Policy (2011). Editor of The Origin of the Second Amendment: A Documentary History of the Bill of Rights in Commentaries on Liberty, Free Government and an Armed Populace 1787-1792, which was cited over one hundred times in the U.S. 5th Circuit Court of Appeals US v Emerson decision and six times in the U.S. Supreme Court's recent District of Columbia v Heller decision. Author of The Founders' View of the Right to Bear Arms: A Definitive History of the Second Amendment, the first period documented book length treatment of the Second Amendment.

[chuck_curtis]

I take that answer as a yes.  Almost no ordinary peon can carry a hand gun to defend themselves in those countries.  That's what you nuts call sensible.  You point to that as an example of where you want to take America and now you call it constitutional.  I read it time and time again.

[1965hawks]

sweetwater5s9: "hall not be infringed,"   spells it out clearly[.] As a result of Second Amendment dispute, it has been suggested that blah blah blah blah blah....

As used in the Second Amendment, "shall not be infringed" simply means that the federal government shall not interfere with the right of the people to serve in a state-controlled (federally recognised) militia: and, in addition to that, the federal government shall not interfere with the right of a state's right to arm its legitimate (state-controlled and federally recognised) militia. The states ratified the Second Amendment with the understanding that it prevented the federal government from arbitrarily disarming their legitimate (lawful, official, authorised) militias. Contrary to what the NRA's disinformation and Scalia's flawed ruling win Heller would have us believe, constitutionally protecting the private ownership and use of firearms by private citizens (civilians) was never the issue. The Second Amendment protects the arms of a state's "well regulated militia," not the privately owned arms of the general population. 

chuck_Curtis: Almost no ordinary peon can carry a hand gun to defend themselves in those countries.

You've moved the goal post, chuck_curtis. First you argued that guns are totally banned in the countries I cited, now you're arguing that handguns can't be carried for self-defense in those countries. Now you're propping up another straw man to attack; now you're suggesting that since handgun ownership is strictly regulated in those countries, then the inhabitants of those countries can't defend themselves. However, your argument has a serious flaw: it is based on the false premiss that a handgun is necessary for self-defense and that everybody in those countries are at risk due to the fact that the vast majority of the population in those countries don't carry firearms for protection. How many times have we heard that bogus argument? 

[chuck_curtis]

How many times have we heard your bogus argument that you don't want to take our guns when you call laws in countries that effectively and essentially do that very thing sensible? 

[1965hawks]

chuck_curtis,

How many times have we heard the bogus "they-want-to- take- away- my- guns" argument, that gun control is really a slippery slope that will lead to confiscation and a total ban on firearms in the United States? How many times do I have to provide the following articles to support my argument for common-sense gun laws in the US and as rebuttal to your arguments in opposition of sensible gun laws?

http://www.newsweek.com/gun-control-what-we-can-learn-other-advanced-countries-379105

http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Asia-Pacific/2012/1224/Could-the-US-learn-from-Australia-s-gun-control-laws

http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2012/07/a-land-without-guns-how-japan-has-virtually-eliminated-shooting-deaths/260189/

Instead of responding with your usual opinionated hagwash, a la Donald Trump, read each article and point out what's not sensible about the common-sense gun laws described in those articles, chuck_curtis.

[chuck_curtis]

Where do draw the line between a "sensible" law regulating the individual right to keep and bear arms and a crazy one that goes to far?  How far is too far?  A simple example of too far will do.

[Baretta19]

"shall not be infringed,"

That's way above Hawkies comprehension level

[D2D]

Sensible gun control is a total ban on gun ownership by all but the government and the politically well connected!

Corruption, thy name is Democrat!