Gun Permits

[Raikas]

Again, it's the simple fact that they are criminally accosting you. It doesn't matter over what; it could be your money, your car, sex, or your life.

You, as an individual, have a right to protect yourself and all that you own from criminal behavior -be it a Porsche or a penny. Your assailant has NO RIGHT whatsoever to take from you a single thing regardless of its value.

Yeah, see there's no way I'm ever going to understand a POV that's has zero allowances for degree. Lethal force over a penny (or a Porsche) is madness in my world. If your life is threatened? Yeah, I'm there. But when it comes to things, I'm just not there - stuff is not worth a life to me. Your worldview is different, and fair enough - but worldview=culture, and I'm just not coming from the same place.

 

[spartan231490]

I don't think there's any point in arguing with you as it's hard to tell if you're trolling or not. Militias often are not formed until they are needed, therefore we have the right to bear arms so that we may form an effective militia quickly when the time comes. We are constitutionally able to own firearms, get over it. Thriving on fear? Tell that to the many families who have protected themselves from home invasions and the like. There is fear, but guess what, I'd rather be alive at the end of the day so I'll carry a gun at all times whenever possible.

It's hard to know if we're talking about the same thing or not. The second amendment grants the right to bear arms for a well regulated militia. The first clause trumps the second clause, according the Supreme Court, ergo:

this is patently false. DC vs Heller the supreme court clearly ruled that 2nd amendment protects an individuals right to bear arms. The first clause is not a restrictive clause, merely an introductory statement. If it were restrictive, it would state that the right of the militia to have and bear arms shall not be infringed. Every single other place that "the people" is used in the constitution or the amendments it refers to the citizens of the US.

"The right to bear arms is not granted by the Constitution; neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence"

And that has been the legal stance until 2008

You're taking things out of context. The above line is from U.S. v. Cruikshank(1876) and they said the same about the 1st amendment. They continued on to explain that statement by saying that these rights existed long before the constitution, they are not granted by the amendments, merely protected. The supreme court has regularly confirmed that the 2nd amendment preserves an individual right. Also, the supreme court confirmed in Presser v. People of Illinois (1886) that all citizens capable of bearing arms are members of the (reserve)militia.

when NRA lobbying finally changed public perception enough for a court to uphold the second clause above the first, and literally changed the constitution.

DC vs Heller did not change the interpretation of the second amendment but it's scope in application. The only thing DC vs Heller did was extend the protection of the second amendment to restrict state laws in addition to federal.

To me, it sounds like you have your own personal interpretation of second amendment, so I don't know if there's any point in arguing.

Protected themselves? Tell that to the many families who killed themselves or each other, lost a family member, friend or child in gun related accidents "and the like".

There is fear, but guess what, the last thing two fearful people need are lethal weapons. Because that can quickly turn to two dead people.

What about the millions of people each year who defend themselves with guns, you people never mention them: http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcdguse.html

 

[senordesol]

Again, it's the simple fact that they are criminally accosting you. It doesn't matter over what; it could be your money, your car, sex, or your life.

You, as an individual, have a right to protect yourself and all that you own from criminal behavior -be it a Porsche or a penny. Your assailant has NO RIGHT whatsoever to take from you a single thing regardless of its value.

Yeah, see there's no way I'm ever going to understand a POV that's has zero allowances for degree. Lethal force over a penny (or a Porsche) is madness in my world. If your life is threatened? Yeah, I'm there. But when it comes to things, I'm just not there - stuff is not worth a life to me. Your worldview is different, and fair enough - but worldview=culture, and I'm just not coming from the same place.

You're not killing for the penny; he's dying for it (and I agree, it's a silly thing to throw your life away for).

When you pull the gun, it does not mean you have to shoot -it's merely a demonstration that you're willing to protect your rights. If he presses the attack, it means that he's wiling to die to trample your rights and get at that penny anyway.

Again, not the property that's at stake -but the principle.

 

[Raikas]

You're not killing for the penny; he's dying for it

Eh, unless your gun is magically firing itself I think that's a spurious distinction at best. Again though: different worldviews.

 

[senordesol]

You're not killing for the penny; he's dying for it

Eh, unless your gun is magically firing itself I think that's a spurious distinction at best. Again though: different worldviews.

You seem to be taking it piecemeal. I've said several times already: when you fire your weapon you are protecting yourself and your rights. That is what you are defending. The specifics in question are simply immaterial to the discussion (that is, except for the assailant himself).

Perhaps where we truly differ is the perceived value of a human life?

Some would argue that every life is precious and only the most dire circumstances warrant the taking of a life.

I do not hold to such a notion. I believe we are all *created* equally precious, but you can devalue your life through your actions. When you pose an active threat to one's person and their rights, so far as I'm concerned: your life has no value. You are scum, a detriment to society, and if your head gets blown clean off -then nothing of value was lost.

Now, you might yet be redeemed if you live long enough to be arrested -but I see no reason what so ever why your actions should be tolerated if someone is in a position to stop an active crime.

 

[Dagda Mor]

Better to live in fear than to die in fear.

In any case, yeah, my wallet is worth less than a human life, but
A) I don't know what my assailant intends for me when he charges
B) Even if he does only plan on taking my wallet, how is he going to take it if I resist? Violence, obviously. Which brings me to
C) I could just give him my wallet, but he does not deserve it and I will not allow him to be a parasite and a brute who might go on to kill other, more helpless people--better to live free than to live in fear. On a human level, I grieve for his loss that he threw his life away and made me a murderer, but on a societal level, shooting him is little more than removing a tick.

Simply put, I would rather his rights be taken than mine, if he does indeed intend to take them. And violence and coercion are inherently about denying freedom.

 

[Raziel]

You mean shoot them in the leg or pretty much anywhere?

Anywhere. Doesn't matter.

Never aim for the limbs. Always go for the biggest, most stable target (center of mass).

I get killing someone in defense of your own life. In defense of your wallet, though?

Thats the point of view of someone who can afford to lose their wallet. Where I live 50% of people live paycheck to paycheck. You get robbed and you cannot pay you mortgage or something else. And thats a good way to find yourself living on the street.

When every dollar in your wallet means the health and welfare of your family the well being of someone robbing you likely isn't very important.

 

[Agayek]

I think this is a good example of that cultural difference that makes the whole gun thing seem so alien to a lot of non-Americans.

It's a way of looking at it that I have a hard time getting my head around, and yet it seems to be such a common way of looking at it - I have cousins in the US who say the same thing, but it's just baffling to me (and I hunt, so I'm not even at the extreme that a lot of other people are with the issue).

This discrepancy in the end boils down to one thing:

Belief in personal responsibility is a thing in American culture.

What I mean by that, is that Americans tend to believe that when a person acts, they accept all of the potential consequences of that act, and that they are therefore responsible for the outcome.

In this particular discussion, the line of thought you are so confused by is less "I will kill to protect my possessions" and more "The idiot that is trying to rob me has created a situation where he will die". That's the key difference that is so mystifying to people who don't know the culture at all. Americans are perfectly willing to draw a line and say "if you cross this line, the consequences are on your own head", while most other cultures I have been exposed to tend toward "if you cross this line, I am equally responsible for driving you to do so".

That same attitude infuses pretty much all of American culture and if you're looking for it, you can spot it all over the place. It's one of the primary reasons American social programs tend to lag far behind other Western nations, why the poor are generally derided and the rich/successful are glorified. For better or worse, Americans as a whole believe that one's circumstances are a result of one's own choices and that one is responsible for all of it.

Therefore, the responsibility for the death, in this particular example, is not on the shooter, but on the one who instigated the confrontation.

Now, I won't pretend I know if this is an inherently good or bad perspective, but it is the American one. Hopefully it makes more sense to you now.

 

[senordesol]

I think this is a good example of that cultural difference that makes the whole gun thing seem so alien to a lot of non-Americans.

It's a way of looking at it that I have a hard time getting my head around, and yet it seems to be such a common way of looking at it - I have cousins in the US who say the same thing, but it's just baffling to me (and I hunt, so I'm not even at the extreme that a lot of other people are with the issue).

This discrepancy in the end boils down to one thing:

Belief in personal responsibility is a thing in American culture.

What I mean by that, is that Americans tend to believe that when a person acts, they accept all of the potential consequences of that act, and that they are therefore responsible for the outcome.

In this particular discussion, the line of thought you are so confused by is less "I will kill to protect my possessions" and more "The idiot that is trying to rob me has created a situation where he will die". That's the key difference that is so mystifying to people who don't know the culture at all. Americans are perfectly willing to draw a line and say "if you cross this line, the consequences are on your own head", while most other cultures I have been exposed to tend toward "if you cross this line, I am equally responsible for driving you to do so".

That same attitude infuses pretty much all of American culture and if you're looking for it, you can spot it all over the place. It's one of the primary reasons American social programs tend to lag far behind other Western nations, why the poor are generally derided and the rich/successful are glorified. For better or worse, Americans as a whole believe that one's circumstances are a result of one's own choices and that one is responsible for all of it.

Therefore, the responsibility for the death, in this particular example, is not on the shooter, but on the one who instigated the confrontation.

Now, I won't pretend I know if this is an inherently good or bad perspective, but it is the American one. Hopefully it makes more sense to you now.

That's exactly right. Precisely what I was taught.

"The fault lies in the man who created a conflict in the first place. Once assailed, your ONLY concern and responsibility is survival and ending the threat. The one who initiated the circumstance is free to surrender or flee whenever it suits him; if he doesn't -that's his choice, and all the consequences that result of that choice are his responsibility, not yours."

 

[chikusho]

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.

That has been the official stance in all legal instances until 2008.
That is, that states are free to prohibit the sale and use of firearms for private citizens.

Also, who are "the people" exactly?

Finally, sure, interpretation change over the years which is all well and good. Yet, the same people who inspired the change are the ones currently using the infallibility of the constitution as a rallying cry against regulation.

It has not been the official stance. In addition, when you diagram the sentence, you quickly figure out that "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state" is a dependent clause. It is not a sentence and does not stand on its own.

On the other hand, "The right of The People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." is very clearly an independent clause, a whole sentence on its own.

As for "The People", this is the people who lawfully reside in the United States of America. It's the same "The People" who have the right to peaceably assemble, the right to worship, the right to express themselves freely, the right to be free from unreasonable search and seizure, the right to a fair trial, etc.

The definition does not change from amendment to amendment. Where "The People" appears in the Constitution and the Amendments thereunto, it always refers to the individuals lawfully residing in the United States of America.

According to the US Supreme Court ruling of United States v. Cruikshank, that has been the official stance, which has been held up in court since then and until 2008.
I'd call that the very definition of official stance.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/second_amendment

SO yeah, the right of the people to keep and bear arms for the purposes of a well regulated militia has been constitutionally protected for hundreds of years. For "everyone" - the past 5 years. For "self defense", not in the constitution anyway.

So, what does "lawfully reside" mean? It is the same "the people", yet for some reason this particular amendment needed a qualifying clause.

What about the millions of people each year who defend themselves with guns, you people never mention them: http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcdguse.html

Yeah, what about the _allegedly_ millions of people who defend themselves with guns? The same link you sent states that noone is sure what numbers are accurate. Besides, if two people get in a fight and pull guns, you are likely going to have both of them say they used their gun for self defense.

 

[2012 Wont Happen]

I like guns because they make me feel more secure in my life and possessions and my ideological stances uphold the right to revolution. I don't honestly believe that I'll ever be part of any revolution, but it feels right to own weapons proper for it.

As far as concealment goes, in the US some states you can only carry publicly with a license of concealment. Some allow open carry, so you can wear a gun on a holster openly without a license, but to carry it concealed you have to have a license. Vermont allows open and concealed carry of both handguns and long rifles without any licensing. It is the only US state to do so. Also, while having the most open gun laws, they have the nation's only openly Socialist senator. That isn't really relevant, just counter-intuitive based on the common stereotype of American gun owners.

 

[spartan231490]

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.

That has been the official stance in all legal instances until 2008.
That is, that states are free to prohibit the sale and use of firearms for private citizens.

Also, who are "the people" exactly?

Finally, sure, interpretation change over the years which is all well and good. Yet, the same people who inspired the change are the ones currently using the infallibility of the constitution as a rallying cry against regulation.

It has not been the official stance. In addition, when you diagram the sentence, you quickly figure out that "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state" is a dependent clause. It is not a sentence and does not stand on its own.

On the other hand, "The right of The People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." is very clearly an independent clause, a whole sentence on its own.

As for "The People", this is the people who lawfully reside in the United States of America. It's the same "The People" who have the right to peaceably assemble, the right to worship, the right to express themselves freely, the right to be free from unreasonable search and seizure, the right to a fair trial, etc.

The definition does not change from amendment to amendment. Where "The People" appears in the Constitution and the Amendments thereunto, it always refers to the individuals lawfully residing in the United States of America.

According to the US Supreme Court ruling of United States v. Cruikshank, that has been the official stance, which has been held up in court since then and until 2008.
I'd call that the very definition of official stance.

you're twisting the court's stance. They protected it as an individual right because every individual capable of bearing arms for the common defense is a member of the militia. The supreme court said that themselves in Presser v. People of Illinois (1886). Further, the guy you quoted is correct, the first clause is the dependent clause, it doesn't overrule the first, it only modifies it by protecting their right to bear those weapons in common use in the military at the time, as seen in U.S. v. Miller (1939)(which also upheld the 2nd amendment as an individual right, the court said that Miller had to prove that the type of weapon in question could contribute to the efficiency of a well regulated militia, but not that he was a part of said militia, affirming the 2nd amendment as an individual right because of the reserve militia which includes all citizens capable of bearing arms for the common defense) So the official stance of the court has been what you say, but not what you are implying. Since every citizen capable of bearing arms is a member of the militia, even the first clause supports the 2nd as an individual right, which the supreme court has consistently upheld.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/second_amendment

SO yeah, the right of the people to keep and bear arms for the purposes of a well regulated militia has been constitutionally protected for hundreds of years. For "everyone" - the past 5 years. For "self defense", not in the constitution anyway.

So, what does "lawfully reside" mean? It is the same "the people", yet for some reason this particular amendment needed a qualifying clause.

What about the millions of people each year who defend themselves with guns, you people never mention them: http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcdguse.html

Yeah, what about the _allegedly_ millions of people who defend themselves with guns? The same link you sent states that noone is sure what numbers are accurate. Besides, if two people get in a fight and pull guns, you are likely going to have both of them say they used their gun for self defense.

That's what happens in the social sciences, no one knows what the number is exactly, but they know it's reasonably close to their findings.

 

[Johnny Novgorod]

You mean shoot them in the leg or pretty much anywhere?

Anywhere. Doesn't matter.

Never aim for the limbs. Always go for the biggest, most stable target (center of mass).

I get killing someone in defense of your own life. In defense of your wallet, though?

Legally? He's putting me in danger, so I'm well within my rights.

On moral grounds? He's robbing me. I can't spare many fucks to give.

I'm pretty sure murder is a worse crime than theft. Morally.

Meh. He rolled the dice that the theft was going to go sour. I'll have a clear conscience at the least.

That's a bit sad, murdering in good conscience over stuff.

I get killing someone in defense of your own life. In defense of your wallet, though?

Thats the point of view of someone who can afford to lose their wallet.

I cannot afford to lose my wallet. But I cannot afford to murder over it either.

 

[Raziel]

You mean shoot them in the leg or pretty much anywhere?

Anywhere. Doesn't matter.

Never aim for the limbs. Always go for the biggest, most stable target (center of mass).

I get killing someone in defense of your own life. In defense of your wallet, though?

Legally? He's putting me in danger, so I'm well within my rights.

On moral grounds? He's robbing me. I can't spare many fucks to give.

I'm pretty sure murder is a worse crime than theft. Morally.

Meh. He rolled the dice that the theft was going to go sour. I'll have a clear conscience at the least.

That's a bit sad, murdering in good conscience over stuff.

Shooting someone in self defense is not murder. Them killing you to steal your stuff is murder. Thats why one is crime and the other isn't.

 

[rednose1]

Shooting someone trying to invoke their will illegally is ok. in American culture. You wouldn't shoot them at all if they hadn't chosen to break the law. Personally, I carry a CCW permit, and have a 9mm for it. I'd rather have it where if anything bad happens to me or my family, the people around can do more to stop it than call police or blow a rape whistle.

Most of the population are fine, law-abiding citizens. Having them armed helps those that aren't law-abiding stay on the correct path.

 

[Johnny Novgorod]

You mean shoot them in the leg or pretty much anywhere?

Anywhere. Doesn't matter.

Never aim for the limbs. Always go for the biggest, most stable target (center of mass).

I get killing someone in defense of your own life. In defense of your wallet, though?

Legally? He's putting me in danger, so I'm well within my rights.

On moral grounds? He's robbing me. I can't spare many fucks to give.

I'm pretty sure murder is a worse crime than theft. Morally.

Meh. He rolled the dice that the theft was going to go sour. I'll have a clear conscience at the least.

That's a bit sad, murdering in good conscience over stuff.

Shooting someone in self defense is not murder. Them killing you to steal your stuff is murder. Thats why one is crime and the other isn't.

Suppose your life is not endangered by the theft?

 

[Dirty Hipsters]

You mean shoot them in the leg or pretty much anywhere?

Anywhere. Doesn't matter.

Never aim for the limbs. Always go for the biggest, most stable target (center of mass).

I get killing someone in defense of your own life. In defense of your wallet, though?

Legally? He's putting me in danger, so I'm well within my rights.

On moral grounds? He's robbing me. I can't spare many fucks to give.

I'm pretty sure murder is a worse crime than theft. Morally.

Meh. He rolled the dice that the theft was going to go sour. I'll have a clear conscience at the least.

That's a bit sad, murdering in good conscience over stuff.

Shooting someone in self defense is not murder. Them killing you to steal your stuff is murder. Thats why one is crime and the other isn't.

Suppose your life is not endangered by the theft?

You never know if you're being endangered by a theft or not, at least not until the theft is over. For all you know you could give the guy robbing you all your money, and he'll still beat the shit out of you for not giving him enough money, or even just for the hell of it. The only way you know that you weren't in danger during the theft is if you've already given the guy your money and then he leaves you alone, but that's an issue of hind sight being 20/20.

In the middle of the theft you have to assume that you're in danger, after all, if you aren't in danger why would you give the guy anything at all? Without the assumption of danger the theft doesn't work, so by mugging you, the theft is implying harm to you if you don't comply.

 

[LetalisK]

I get killing someone in defense of your own life. In defense of your wallet, though?

In defense of your security.

Legally? He's putting me in danger, so I'm well within my rights.

On moral grounds? He's robbing me. I can't spare many fucks to give.

Hm? I'm not aware of any state in the United States that allows the use of a firearm other than to protect against harm to life or serious bodily injury[footnote]Edit: Specifically when using it against someone, I'm assuming target shooting and hunting are given.[/footnote]. If someone is robbing your house it can, and often does, lead to a circumstance where you could justify the use of a firearm, but I'm not aware of any state that recognizes protection of property as a legitimate use. Not even Texas.

Edit: Nope, I was wrong, Texas actually does allow it and they're probably not the only ones. Move along, nothing to see here. >.>

 

[Elyxard]

My basic thought on this topic, owning guns for self defense is irrational in the same way that having a fear of flying (while having no problem getting into a car) is irrational. That gun is infinitely, statistically more likely to get you or your family killed than actually defend you from harm, either by way of suicide, accidents, or provoking an attacker to shoot in his own self defense by escalating the situation. I've lost too many people in my life due to the combination of temporary depression and their ownership of a gun.

If you really must own a gun, sure, but do understand that it's a bigger risk to you than not owning it.

And if you're buying a gun for the eventual revolution, that's a whole different level of irrationality. That era of civilization and armed revolution is long passed us, despite what the NRA wants us to think.

Personally, I'd love to wipe guns away from this country entirely, even from our police forces; every other first world country does a whole lot better without them, but I do understand that an outright ban is out of the question in our current cultural climate. The changes have to come through education and a willingness to self-disarm. This paranoia, fear, and lies that the NRA keeps spreading is ultimately poisonous to our safety and security.

 

[Antari]

Well being in Canada there isn't much point to the concealed weapon permit. There are under 20 of them issued in the entire country. And they are all supreme court judges. Officer's don't need a permit to carry concealed. As for shooting I like the skill of it. I do long range target shooting in the mountains (500-1200m). It can be exceptionally challenging.