Author Topic: Firearms in the home  (Read 426811 times)

Metric Mouse

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5311
  • FU @ 22. F.I.R.E before 23
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #2000 on: January 14, 2017, 05:37:55 PM »
Do you think requiring someone to get training prior to purchase is a bad idea?


I see nothing wrong with requiring a basic gun safety course -- or some other equivalent, like a test proving you know those basics -- for a first purchase.

And yes, I'm well aware that that there are people who consider it an outrageous violation of their Second Amendment rights to ask that a person buying a gun for the first time have some basic gun safety knowledge.

I'm just not one of them.

This is fine. Obviously some people would disagree, which is fine as well.

As this idea has been floated in this discussion many times, one of the most popular compromises offered was to make it part of education curriculum in public schools in the United States.  This way all are given this information (which is clearly a good idea) and no one is burdened in exercising their rights.  Would you object to such a policy, if offered as a compromise?
Give me one fine day of plain sailing weather and I can mess up anything.

MustacheMathTM

Kris

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2381
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #2001 on: January 14, 2017, 05:51:46 PM »
Do you think requiring someone to get training prior to purchase is a bad idea?


I see nothing wrong with requiring a basic gun safety course -- or some other equivalent, like a test proving you know those basics -- for a first purchase.

And yes, I'm well aware that that there are people who consider it an outrageous violation of their Second Amendment rights to ask that a person buying a gun for the first time have some basic gun safety knowledge.

I'm just not one of them.

This is fine. Obviously some people would disagree, which is fine as well.

As this idea has been floated in this discussion many times, one of the most popular compromises offered was to make it part of education curriculum in public schools in the United States.  This way all are given this information (which is clearly a good idea) and no one is burdened in exercising their rights.  Would you object to such a policy, if offered as a compromise?

*shrug* Why not?

The sad thing is, so many people are trying to politicize curriculum in public schools these days (seeking to teach creationism in science class, seeking to only allow a version of history that makes America look flawless), that I wouldn't be surprised if such a class got politicized as well. But I see no problem with a gun safety class as a PE unit. Except that I'm guessing many people would not be okay with their minor children being exposed to guns. So maybe as an elective.
Please note: Libertarian4321 did not vote for either Hillary or Trump. He voted for Gary Johnson, who was the Libertarian candidate.

Metric Mouse

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5311
  • FU @ 22. F.I.R.E before 23
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #2002 on: January 14, 2017, 08:48:06 PM »

*shrug* Why not?

The sad thing is, so many people are trying to politicize curriculum in public schools these days (seeking to teach creationism in science class, seeking to only allow a version of history that makes America look flawless), that I wouldn't be surprised if such a class got politicized as well. But I see no problem with a gun safety class as a PE unit. Except that I'm guessing many people would not be okay with their minor children being exposed to guns. So maybe as an elective.

Of course it would be politicized, which is why it is important to have these conversations to get everyone from all sides of the issue to come to a compromise. Just like sex ed, or science, or creationism, or vaccines, some people will object to their children being exposed to it. But that doesn't mean it's better for everyone if they are, and worrying about a how political a good solution may be is not a good reason to accept a worse solution to a problem.
Give me one fine day of plain sailing weather and I can mess up anything.

MustacheMathTM

disconneked

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 21
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #2003 on: January 14, 2017, 09:22:29 PM »
Good lord. This thread is still going. Somethings never change.
;)

Metric Mouse

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5311
  • FU @ 22. F.I.R.E before 23
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #2004 on: January 14, 2017, 09:26:12 PM »
Good lord. This thread is still going. Somethings never change.

I know. Isn't it wonderful? Pretty soon we'll be able to buy silencers over the counter!
Give me one fine day of plain sailing weather and I can mess up anything.

MustacheMathTM

disconneked

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 21
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #2005 on: January 14, 2017, 09:29:38 PM »
Good lord. This thread is still going. Somethings never change.

I know. Isn't it wonderful? Pretty soon we'll be able to buy silencers over the counter!

Alex Jones is selling discounted body armor if you are worried.
;)

Lagom

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1228
  • Age: 34
  • Location: SF Bay Area
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #2006 on: January 14, 2017, 10:40:43 PM »
Ask, yes -- require with threat of fines, jail, etc., absolutely not.

I mean, while I agree in principle that fines are a problematic threat (let's be honest, jail time is a hyperbolic supposition), even if they were to be mandated, it's still not a big deal. Take the freaking class. You have to take a class to drive a car. No one is getting hysterical over it. It's annoying, but it's also far from a threat to individual liberty.

Metric Mouse

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5311
  • FU @ 22. F.I.R.E before 23
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #2007 on: January 14, 2017, 11:13:28 PM »
Ask, yes -- require with threat of fines, jail, etc., absolutely not.

I mean, while I agree in principle that fines are a problematic threat (let's be honest, jail time is a hyperbolic supposition), even if they were to be mandated, it's still not a big deal. Take the freaking class. You have to take a class to drive a car. No one is getting hysterical over it. It's annoying, but it's also far from a threat to individual liberty.

Do you feel this about laws that would force people to present identification to vote?
Give me one fine day of plain sailing weather and I can mess up anything.

MustacheMathTM

Lagom

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1228
  • Age: 34
  • Location: SF Bay Area
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #2008 on: January 14, 2017, 11:33:49 PM »
Ask, yes -- require with threat of fines, jail, etc., absolutely not.

I mean, while I agree in principle that fines are a problematic threat (let's be honest, jail time is a hyperbolic supposition), even if they were to be mandated, it's still not a big deal. Take the freaking class. You have to take a class to drive a car. No one is getting hysterical over it. It's annoying, but it's also far from a threat to individual liberty.

Do you feel this about laws that would force people to present identification to vote?

Of course not because there is quite substantial evidence that those laws meet the standard of Chris22's fears of overly onerous restrictions, if we were to draw an analogy to guns: namely, they are unconstitutional. There are no comparably questionable gun laws on the books. To wit:

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/frontline/article/why-voter-id-laws-arent-really-about-fraud/

http://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-hajnal-voter-id-research-20160908-snap-story.html

https://www.aclu.org/other/oppose-voter-id-legislation-fact-sheet

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2012/03/how-voter-id-laws-are-being-used-to-disenfranchise-minorities-and-the-poor/254572/

Metric Mouse

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5311
  • FU @ 22. F.I.R.E before 23
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #2009 on: January 14, 2017, 11:57:42 PM »
Ask, yes -- require with threat of fines, jail, etc., absolutely not.

I mean, while I agree in principle that fines are a problematic threat (let's be honest, jail time is a hyperbolic supposition), even if they were to be mandated, it's still not a big deal. Take the freaking class. You have to take a class to drive a car. No one is getting hysterical over it. It's annoying, but it's also far from a threat to individual liberty.

Do you feel this about laws that would force people to present identification to vote?

Of course not because there is quite substantial evidence that those laws meet the standard of Chris22's fears of overly onerous restrictions, if we were to draw an analogy to guns: namely, they are unconstitutional. There are no comparably questionable gun laws on the books. To wit:

There are many questionable gun laws on the books, but that is another topic.

If these restrictions are unreasonable to vote, why are they reasonable for other rights? Would you propose voters be required to take a knowledge test or pass an exam at the polls before being allowed to vote?

Are you aware of how few fatal gun accidents there are in the U.S. each year? Clearly the evidence points to training requirements not actually being about reducing the miniscule number of accidental gun deaths each year.
Give me one fine day of plain sailing weather and I can mess up anything.

MustacheMathTM

Lagom

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1228
  • Age: 34
  • Location: SF Bay Area
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #2010 on: January 15, 2017, 12:08:41 AM »
Ask, yes -- require with threat of fines, jail, etc., absolutely not.

I mean, while I agree in principle that fines are a problematic threat (let's be honest, jail time is a hyperbolic supposition), even if they were to be mandated, it's still not a big deal. Take the freaking class. You have to take a class to drive a car. No one is getting hysterical over it. It's annoying, but it's also far from a threat to individual liberty.

Do you feel this about laws that would force people to present identification to vote?

Of course not because there is quite substantial evidence that those laws meet the standard of Chris22's fears of overly onerous restrictions, if we were to draw an analogy to guns: namely, they are unconstitutional. There are no comparably questionable gun laws on the books. To wit:

There are many questionable gun laws on the books, but that is another topic.

If these restrictions are unreasonable to vote, why are they reasonable for other rights? Would you propose voters be required to take a knowledge test or pass an exam at the polls before being allowed to vote?

Are you aware of how few fatal gun accidents there are in the U.S. each year? Clearly the evidence points to training requirements not actually being about reducing the miniscule number of accidental gun deaths each year.

how many times must I repeat myself? Yes, I am aware. I'm just saying gun safety classes are far from a threat to liberty. Voter ID laws, however, are much more demonstrably so.

Metric Mouse

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5311
  • FU @ 22. F.I.R.E before 23
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #2011 on: January 15, 2017, 12:13:34 AM »
how many times must I repeat myself? Yes, I am aware. I'm just saying gun safety classes are far from a threat to liberty. Voter ID laws, however, are much more demonstrably so.

Well I guess on this we will have to disagree.  (On the safety classes - no so much the voter id laws)

No biggie, the law currently feels the benefits of mandatory before-purchase gun training to be outweighed by the harm and the supreme court will likely uphold this view for at least another generation.
Give me one fine day of plain sailing weather and I can mess up anything.

MustacheMathTM

Lagom

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1228
  • Age: 34
  • Location: SF Bay Area
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #2012 on: January 15, 2017, 12:23:18 AM »
how many times must I repeat myself? Yes, I am aware. I'm just saying gun safety classes are far from a threat to liberty. Voter ID laws, however, are much more demonstrably so.

Well I guess on this we will have to disagree.  (On the safety classes - no so much the voter id laws)

No biggie, the law currently feels the benefits of mandatory before-purchase gun training to be outweighed by the harm and the supreme court will likely uphold this view for at least another generation.

I mean, like I said, I don't personally care if there are no mandatory safety class laws. I think gun owners who don't learn responsible ownership are idiots, but that's their prerogative since I don't particularly fear their impact on society, other than the likelihood that their children will inadvertently kill themselves or a friend. I'll keep my kids from hanging out with such households, of course. But I will never be convinced that being kept from voting by the government* is worse than being forced to attend a class to own a gun.

*Point being that voter ID laws make it at least if not more difficult for certain citizens to vote than the hypothetical (but have never actually existed) gun laws feared by posters like Chris22. Since I think the latter are clearly bad, I feel comfortable telling you all to chill out about the fact that the worst you've had to deal with is WAY less onerous than the former.

Metric Mouse

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5311
  • FU @ 22. F.I.R.E before 23
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #2013 on: January 15, 2017, 12:35:41 AM »
*Point being that voter ID laws make it at least if not more difficult for certain citizens to vote than the hypothetical (but have never actually existed) gun laws feared by posters like Chris22. Since I think the latter are clearly bad, I feel comfortable telling you all to chill out about the fact that the worst you've had to deal with is WAY less onerous than the former.

Well not really on point, there are plenty of areas in the country where it is unimaginably more onerous to purchase a handgun than it is to get an ID to vote. Not even close. I question if you are even versed on the subjects to compare them.
Give me one fine day of plain sailing weather and I can mess up anything.

MustacheMathTM

Lagom

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1228
  • Age: 34
  • Location: SF Bay Area
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #2014 on: January 15, 2017, 12:41:28 AM »
*Point being that voter ID laws make it at least if not more difficult for certain citizens to vote than the hypothetical (but have never actually existed) gun laws feared by posters like Chris22. Since I think the latter are clearly bad, I feel comfortable telling you all to chill out about the fact that the worst you've had to deal with is WAY less onerous than the former.

Well not really on point, there are plenty of areas in the country where it is unimaginably more onerous to purchase a handgun than it is to get an ID to vote. Not even close. I question if you are even versed on the subjects to compare them.

And I question if you are versed in the negative impact of voter ID laws that you would compare their society-wide repercussions to requiring people take a class to own a deadly weapon, as has been done with automobiles for ages.

ETA - I can think one is bad while still thinking the other is very obviously worse.
« Last Edit: January 15, 2017, 12:44:29 AM by Lagom »

Metric Mouse

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5311
  • FU @ 22. F.I.R.E before 23
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #2015 on: January 15, 2017, 12:56:39 AM »
Well not really on point, there are plenty of areas in the country where it is unimaginably more onerous to purchase a handgun than it is to get an ID to vote. Not even close. I question if you are even versed on the subjects to compare them.

And I question if you are versed in the negative impact of voter ID laws that you would compare their society-wide repercussions to requiring people take a class to own a deadly weapon, as has been done with automobiles for ages.

ETA - I can think one is bad while still thinking the other is very obviously worse.
[/quote]

I now see your point. To be fair, you clearly began the exchange with 'threat to individual liberty' which onerous requirements for firearm possession clearly are (as well as onerous requirements to vote). This is what my responses have been speaking to (and possibly most other posters). Switching the discussion midstream to "society-wide repercussions" clearly changes the dynamics and alters the equation.

When accidental firearm deaths even begin to come close to accidental vehicular deaths, then perhaps the safety training will be  more appropriate.
Give me one fine day of plain sailing weather and I can mess up anything.

MustacheMathTM

Lagom

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1228
  • Age: 34
  • Location: SF Bay Area
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #2016 on: January 15, 2017, 01:11:57 AM »
I dunno, it's late and we are but young sophists, arguing minor distinctions in the wee hours. All I'm saying is that what amounts to a drivers safety course for gun owners, while annoying, is a far cry from a threat to liberty. I do not agree that it is unconstitutionally onerous. Yeah, it's a pain in the ass to have to attend a course just because you want to own something. I get it. But it's not an existential threat. It isn't robbing you of your freedom, unless you want to get extremely nitpicky about the term. Being disenfranchised is very obviously worse as far as I'm concerned.

zolotiyeruki

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2108
  • Location: State: Denial
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #2017 on: January 15, 2017, 12:23:41 PM »
I dunno, it's late and we are but young sophists, arguing minor distinctions in the wee hours. All I'm saying is that what amounts to a drivers safety course for gun owners, while annoying, is a far cry from a threat to liberty. I do not agree that it is unconstitutionally onerous. Yeah, it's a pain in the ass to have to attend a course just because you want to own something. I get it. But it's not an existential threat. It isn't robbing you of your freedom, unless you want to get extremely nitpicky about the term. Being disenfranchised is very obviously worse as far as I'm concerned.
Setting the voter-id issue aside for the moment, before I would be willing to agree to support any sort of mandatory gun safety training, I'm compelled to ask: why?  What problem would be solved/improved by such a requirement?  The CDC says that only about 500 people per year are killed through negligent or accidental discharge.  While each of those is certainly a tragedy to those involved, from a statistical and public policy standpoint, this barely amounts to a rounding error.

As for voter-id laws and the potential for voters being disenfranchised, I'd like to give an example of the potential mischief.  In 2008, Al Franken was elected to the Senate by a mere 312 votes.  With that victory, the Democratic Party achieved a 60-vote (filibuster-proof) majority in the Senate and passed the ACA.  That's not a huge number of votes to swing, especially since later review revealed that nearly 400 convicted felons had voted (or had ballots cast in their name).  When talking disenfranchisement, it's important not only to remember the people who might find it difficult to get an ID card, but also all the voters who are disenfranchised by voter fraud.  Given how far many states go to make voter-ID easy to get, and how stupidly easy it is to commit voter fraud where ID isn't required, I'm inclined to come down in favor of requiring ID (but making it free/easy to get).

Lagom

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1228
  • Age: 34
  • Location: SF Bay Area
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #2018 on: January 15, 2017, 01:03:47 PM »
I'm not particularly advocating for mandatory trainings, I'm just saying its hyperbolic to whine about freedom lost, especially since none of these hypotheticals that have been offered, that I agree would be unconstitutional, have actually happened or seem likely to happen.

As for voter fraud, just go research the issue with an open mind please rather than giving into the fear. Even many GOP officials were explicitly standing against Trump when he was going on about it, for example. They were doing this because there is absolutely no evidence that fraud has been an issue in national elections. But there is tons of evidence that ID laws and other voter-suppression methods have had a a huge impact on voting numbers among certain (i.e. not white) populations. You don't think especially close votes aren't subject to extra scrutiny? Tinfoil hat truly required if you are going to go down the rabbit hole of claiming fraud was to blame there. You can respond to this if you like but that's all I'll say on the matter in this thread since we are well off topic.

Kris

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2381
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #2019 on: January 15, 2017, 01:11:24 PM »
I dunno, it's late and we are but young sophists, arguing minor distinctions in the wee hours. All I'm saying is that what amounts to a drivers safety course for gun owners, while annoying, is a far cry from a threat to liberty. I do not agree that it is unconstitutionally onerous. Yeah, it's a pain in the ass to have to attend a course just because you want to own something. I get it. But it's not an existential threat. It isn't robbing you of your freedom, unless you want to get extremely nitpicky about the term. Being disenfranchised is very obviously worse as far as I'm concerned.
Setting the voter-id issue aside for the moment, before I would be willing to agree to support any sort of mandatory gun safety training, I'm compelled to ask: why?  [/b]What problem would be solved/improved by such a requirement?  The CDC says that only about 500 people per year are killed through negligent or accidental discharge.  While each of those is certainly a tragedy to those involved, from a statistical and public policy standpoint, this barely amounts to a rounding error.

As for voter-id laws and the potential for voters being disenfranchised, I'd like to give an example of the potential mischief.  In 2008, Al Franken was elected to the Senate by a mere 312 votes.  With that victory, the Democratic Party achieved a 60-vote (filibuster-proof) majority in the Senate and passed the ACA.  That's not a huge number of votes to swing, especially since later review revealed that nearly 400 convicted felons had voted (or had ballots cast in their name).  When talking disenfranchisement, it's important not only to remember the people who might find it difficult to get an ID card, but also all the voters who are disenfranchised by voter fraud.  Given how far many states go to make voter-ID easy to get, and how stupidly easy it is to commit voter fraud where ID isn't required, I'm inclined to come down in favor of requiring ID (but making it free/easy to get).

I would be very interested in seeing research on this. However, the NRA has done everything it can to stop the CDC from doing that research.

http://www.pri.org/stories/2015-07-02/quietly-congress-extends-ban-cdc-research-gun-violence

So, I don't think we're likely to have that information from a credible source.

Which is sad, really, if you want actual information to help guide your thinking.
« Last Edit: January 15, 2017, 01:13:46 PM by Kris »
Please note: Libertarian4321 did not vote for either Hillary or Trump. He voted for Gary Johnson, who was the Libertarian candidate.

zolotiyeruki

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2108
  • Location: State: Denial
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #2020 on: January 15, 2017, 01:32:29 PM »
I'm not particularly advocating for mandatory trainings, I'm just saying its hyperbolic to whine about freedom lost, especially since none of these hypotheticals that have been offered, that I agree would be unconstitutional, have actually happened or seem likely to happen.

As for voter fraud, just go research the issue with an open mind please rather than giving into the fear. Even many GOP officials were explicitly standing against Trump when he was going on about it, for example. They were doing this because there is absolutely no evidence that fraud has been an issue in national elections. But there is tons of evidence that ID laws and other voter-suppression methods have had a a huge impact on voting numbers among certain (i.e. not white) populations. You don't think especially close votes aren't subject to extra scrutiny? Tinfoil hat truly required if you are going to go down the rabbit hole of claiming fraud was to blame there. You can respond to this if you like but that's all I'll say on the matter in this thread since we are well off topic.
I'm not quite clear on which hypotheticals you're referring to--can you clarify, so I don't go off arguing a point you're not making? :)

I'm not making the argument that voter fraud affects one party more negatively than the other.  The point I'm trying to make is that if we're talking about the potential for disenfranchising voters by requiring voter ID (and it's certainly a point that needs to be addressed), we would be remiss if we ignored the potential for disenfranchising voters by not requiring voter ID.

As for the huge impact of voter ID on certain demographics, can you point me in the direction of the evidence, so I can get the facts straight from the source?

Shane

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 690
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #2021 on: January 15, 2017, 04:17:12 PM »
In my state, to legally purchase a firearm you must first attend a 13.5 hour "hunter education course," which is only offered once a month. Just checked the state's hunter ed website, and the only courses offered this month and next month are 75 miles, one way, from my house. In March, a class is offered that's "only" 35 miles away. Also, from the state's website: "Please remember to bring a valid picture ID to the class."

Please explain to me how requiring that someone, not only show picture I.D., but also drive 150 miles, round trip, three days in a row to attend a mandatory 13.5 hour gun safety course, is *less* of an infringement on a citizen's constitutional rights than simply asking that people who want to vote get a photo ID?

IMO, both types of laws are intentional barriers put in place to limit the number and type of people who engage in certain activities. In the case of voter ID laws, the intent of the laws is clearly to limit the number of poor people who vote, many of whom are people of color, many of whom are likely to vote for Democratic candidates. On the other hand, mandatory gun safety classes clearly have very little to do with "safety," as the number of accidental gun deaths is already very, very low, and everything to do with limiting the number and types of people who are able to legally own firearms.

Just to be clear, I'm against voter ID laws, because I'd prefer to see more Democrats elected and I'm in favor of erecting even more barriers to make it more difficult to purchase firearms, because I'd prefer to live where fewer people are walking around carrying guns, but to try to argue that requiring that somebody get a photo ID to vote is anywhere even close to the burden placed on people who want to purchase a firearm in some states is disingenuous, IMO. 

Lagom

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1228
  • Age: 34
  • Location: SF Bay Area
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #2022 on: January 15, 2017, 06:02:29 PM »
to try to argue that requiring that somebody get a photo ID to vote is anywhere even close to the burden placed on people who want to purchase a firearm in some states is disingenuous, IMO.

Good thing that' not what I'm arguing although it sounds like you don't realize how burdensome it actually can be for some people to obtain IDs (see the links below). Again, all I'm saying is having your right to vote restricted is obviously a greater threat to freedom with a capital F than having your access to guns restricted. Not sure how many ways I can rephrase before it sticks. As I've said repeatedly, I think many instances of restricting gun access are unconstitutional and yes, a restriction on freedom. Just less so by a fair margin. It's ridiculous to call me disingenuous in this instance when I'm not even making the argument you are referring to.


I'm not quite clear on which hypotheticals you're referring to--can you clarify, so I don't go off arguing a point you're not making? :)


Mostly referring to this one by Chriss 22 on the last page:

Because groups will use a safety training requirement as a backdoor ban. Want a gun in CA or IL or NYC?  That will be 40 hours of safety training provided by a state instructor who teaches 10 people per class, 1 class a year, for $1500 a person. What, you're against safety???

As for this question:

Quote
As for the huge impact of voter ID on certain demographics, can you point me in the direction of the evidence, so I can get the facts straight from the source?

There are many sources but here is a combination of reporting by well respected publications and one recent academic paper. Many more sources can be found easily via Google:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/courts_law/getting-a-photo-id-so-you-can-vote-is-easy-unless-youre-poor-black-latino-or-elderly/2016/05/23/8d5474ec-20f0-11e6-8690-f14ca9de2972_story.html?utm_term=.88a59c111a74

https://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2016/08/03/courts-are-finally-pointing-out-the-racism-behind-voter-id-laws/?utm_term=.924dd5c2721e

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2012/03/how-voter-id-laws-are-being-used-to-disenfranchise-minorities-and-the-poor/254572/

http://pages.ucsd.edu/~zhajnal/page5/documents/voterIDhajnaletal.pdf
« Last Edit: January 15, 2017, 06:10:48 PM by Lagom »

zolotiyeruki

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2108
  • Location: State: Denial
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #2023 on: January 15, 2017, 08:04:42 PM »

I'm not quite clear on which hypotheticals you're referring to--can you clarify, so I don't go off arguing a point you're not making? :)


Mostly referring to this one by Chriss 22 on the last page:

Because groups will use a safety training requirement as a backdoor ban. Want a gun in CA or IL or NYC?  That will be 40 hours of safety training provided by a state instructor who teaches 10 people per class, 1 class a year, for $1500 a person. What, you're against safety???
Ah, thanks for clarifying that.  Here's the thing, though:  such laws aren't hypothetical.  They are very real in some places.  Take Illinois' concealed carry law, which was passed only after the blanket ban on carry of any sort was struck down by the courts.  It requires a 16-hour class (one of the longest in the country), and a $150 permit fee, non-refundable, which doesn't guarantee that you'll actually *get* your CCW license, and which is only good for 5 years (after which another $150 renewal fee applies).  And Cook County (which includes Chicago) Sheriff Dart's statements that he would object to every single CCW application in his county.  And the fact that non-IL residents have to pay $300 to get that same permit.  That $150 fee is the major reason why, despite taking the CCW class, I have not applied for my permit.  There is no rational reason for the permit being so high.  Utah's CCW permit costs $50, is good for the same 5 years, and costs $10 to renew. 

You want another example?  Take New York's recently-passed "SAFE" Act, which instituted an "assault weapons" ban.  No grandfathering here, you *have* to move your guns out of state or turn them in.  Or take Maryland, Hawaii, D.C., New Jersey, most of Massachusetts, California, or Rhode Island, where concealed carry is technically allowed, but in practice it's practically impossible.

Quote
As for this question:

Quote
As for the huge impact of voter ID on certain demographics, can you point me in the direction of the evidence, so I can get the facts straight from the source?

There are many sources but here is a combination of reporting by well respected publications and one recent academic paper. Many more sources can be found easily via Google:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/courts_law/getting-a-photo-id-so-you-can-vote-is-easy-unless-youre-poor-black-latino-or-elderly/2016/05/23/8d5474ec-20f0-11e6-8690-f14ca9de2972_story.html?utm_term=.88a59c111a74
https://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2016/08/03/courts-are-finally-pointing-out-the-racism-behind-voter-id-laws/?utm_term=.924dd5c2721e
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2012/03/how-voter-id-laws-are-being-used-to-disenfranchise-minorities-and-the-poor/254572/
http://pages.ucsd.edu/~zhajnal/page5/documents/voterIDhajnaletal.pdf
It's hard to take WaPo seriously when they strongly imply that the 2013 SCOTUS ruling will legalize poll taxes and literacy tests for voting, when that has absolutely nothing to do with the actual ruling. 

I understand that there are people who indeed run into issues like those in the article, where there's a missing name-change document somewhere, or a missing birth certificate.  I get that, and voter-ID laws should definitely account for such situations.  But that does not constitute a "huge impact," since it only applies to a very small sliver of the population.  And to use that as an argument to disenfranchise (by not requiring voter ID) the vast majority of the population that can more easily substantiate their identity seems like bad public policy to me.  I don't mean to minimize the impact it has on those individuals, but it really looks like a "baby with the bathwater" approach.

JLee

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3735
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #2024 on: January 15, 2017, 08:18:00 PM »
Quote
You want another example?  Take New York's recently-passed "SAFE" Act, which instituted an "assault weapons" ban.  No grandfathering here, you *have* to move your guns out of state or turn them in.  Or take Maryland, Hawaii, D.C., New Jersey, most of Massachusetts, California, or Rhode Island, where concealed carry is technically allowed, but in practice it's practically impossible.

Yep.  As a former police officer with a perfect record, I can't get a carry permit in NJ.

Lagom

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1228
  • Age: 34
  • Location: SF Bay Area
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #2025 on: January 15, 2017, 08:39:42 PM »
Meh, OK. You guys are arguing with me like I'm super pro gun-control. I'm not. Like I said earlier, I just think ya'll need to chill a bit with the "BUT WHAT ABOUT MY FREEEEEEDOM?!?!?!?" rhetoric. Concealed carry is a whole 'nother bag of worms than purchasing firearms and warrants a separate discussion on what constitutes overly onerous requirements. The ones you mention do seem close to that line but I would need to think more on the topic and do additional research before I weigh in.

@zolo, you are continuing to argue as if voter fraud is actually a problem. It is not, thus anything that restricts people's ability to vote is fundamentally awful. WaPo is far from the only source (not even the only source I linked!) that has plenty more to say on the topic. Anyway, I think the comparison has run its course for the purposes of this thread.

Metric Mouse

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5311
  • FU @ 22. F.I.R.E before 23
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #2026 on: January 15, 2017, 08:59:40 PM »
I think the point that everyone is trying to make with the comparison is that the biggest issue with mandatory safety training is not that safety training is a bad idea, or that it would be the most burdensome thing one can think of, (I mean, really, why is that a level of burden that has to be reached to stop laws being added?) it's that the burden overall greatly outweighs any benefit to society overall. Taking a training class is not really that burdensome, in isolation. Getting an id to vote is not that burdensome, in isolation. But the act of requiring someone to do has negatives that clearly outweigh the positive, and thus there is no pressing reason to add the burden to peoples' exercise of their freedom.
« Last Edit: January 15, 2017, 09:14:18 PM by Metric Mouse »
Give me one fine day of plain sailing weather and I can mess up anything.

MustacheMathTM

Lagom

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1228
  • Age: 34
  • Location: SF Bay Area
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #2027 on: January 15, 2017, 11:51:55 PM »
I think the point that everyone is trying to make with the comparison is that the biggest issue with mandatory safety training is not that safety training is a bad idea, or that it would be the most burdensome thing one can think of, (I mean, really, why is that a level of burden that has to be reached to stop laws being added?) it's that the burden overall greatly outweighs any benefit to society overall. Taking a training class is not really that burdensome, in isolation. Getting an id to vote is not that burdensome, in isolation. But the act of requiring someone to do has negatives that clearly outweigh the positive, and thus there is no pressing reason to add the burden to peoples' exercise of their freedom.

Yes, both are an example where the negatives outweigh the positives, but the comparison is still silly because one is an actual assault on freedom while the other is not.

Metric Mouse

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5311
  • FU @ 22. F.I.R.E before 23
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #2028 on: January 16, 2017, 12:08:30 AM »
Yes, both are an example where the negatives outweigh the positives, but the comparison is still silly because one is an actual assault on freedom while the other is not.

I guess at this point we will have to disagree on this.
Give me one fine day of plain sailing weather and I can mess up anything.

MustacheMathTM

Lagom

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1228
  • Age: 34
  • Location: SF Bay Area
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #2029 on: January 16, 2017, 12:15:02 AM »
Yes, both are an example where the negatives outweigh the positives, but the comparison is still silly because one is an actual assault on freedom while the other is not.

I guess at this point we will have to disagree on this.

So you literally think being prevented from voting (in the extreme case) is no worse than being prevented from buying a gun? Because all I'm saying is that only one of those things is fundamental to having a voice in our society, which is built upon escaping the yolk of monarchs. You do know I am more on the gun owner side of things in general, right? I oppose most gun control measures, although probably for different reasons than most posters here. I just am offended by the suggestion that the right to vote is a relatively trivial thing, when I consider it to be in some ways the most important thing of all.

Metric Mouse

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5311
  • FU @ 22. F.I.R.E before 23
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #2030 on: January 16, 2017, 12:55:46 AM »
Yes, both are an example where the negatives outweigh the positives, but the comparison is still silly because one is an actual assault on freedom while the other is not.

I guess at this point we will have to disagree on this.

So you literally think being prevented from voting (in the extreme case) is no worse than being prevented from buying a gun? Because all I'm saying is that only one of those things is fundamental to having a voice in our society, which is built upon escaping the yolk of monarchs. You do know I am more on the gun owner side of things in general, right? I oppose most gun control measures, although probably for different reasons than most posters here. I just am offended by the suggestion that the right to vote is a relatively trivial thing, when I consider it to be in some ways the most important thing of all.

I personally feel that both rights are extremely important, that neither is trivial and that both should be protected as strongly as possible. Which is why I disagree with trivializing these basic, vital rights as 'similar to getting a driver's license.' Remember, America did not vote itself free of the yolk of monarchs.
Give me one fine day of plain sailing weather and I can mess up anything.

MustacheMathTM

Lagom

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1228
  • Age: 34
  • Location: SF Bay Area
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #2031 on: January 16, 2017, 01:02:29 AM »
Yes, both are an example where the negatives outweigh the positives, but the comparison is still silly because one is an actual assault on freedom while the other is not.

I guess at this point we will have to disagree on this.

So you literally think being prevented from voting (in the extreme case) is no worse than being prevented from buying a gun? Because all I'm saying is that only one of those things is fundamental to having a voice in our society, which is built upon escaping the yolk of monarchs. You do know I am more on the gun owner side of things in general, right? I oppose most gun control measures, although probably for different reasons than most posters here. I just am offended by the suggestion that the right to vote is a relatively trivial thing, when I consider it to be in some ways the most important thing of all.

I personally feel that both rights are extremely important, that neither is trivial and that both should be protected as strongly as possible. Which is why I disagree with trivializing these basic, vital rights as 'similar to getting a driver's license.' Remember, America did not vote itself free of the yolk of monarchs.

Yes, but the vote is precisely what was lacking in the society that arms were necessary to escape.

Metric Mouse

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5311
  • FU @ 22. F.I.R.E before 23
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #2032 on: January 16, 2017, 01:39:27 AM »
I would agree: these rights compliment each other well.
Give me one fine day of plain sailing weather and I can mess up anything.

MustacheMathTM

ncornilsen

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 605
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #2033 on: January 16, 2017, 08:01:37 AM »
I dunno, it's late and we are but young sophists, arguing minor distinctions in the wee hours. All I'm saying is that what amounts to a drivers safety course for gun owners, while annoying, is a far cry from a threat to liberty. I do not agree that it is unconstitutionally onerous. Yeah, it's a pain in the ass to have to attend a course just because you want to own something. I get it. But it's not an existential threat. It isn't robbing you of your freedom, unless you want to get extremely nitpicky about the term. Being disenfranchised is very obviously worse as far as I'm concerned.

I get what you're saying, and on the face of it, a basic class wouldn't more than an inconvenience. But JUST like voter ID laws, it could be used to disenfranchise potential gun owners... IE, how much the class costs, availability, locations, etc.  If anything, the abuse of voter ID and voter testing is evidence of similar tactics that could be used to make it unconstitutionally onerous. It's not just about it being a pain in the ass. I took a CCW class since I wanted to be able to concealed carry... which amounts to a safety class. I live in a fire-arm friendly county, and that was STILL a pain to get signed off by the sheriff. I hear tales of what one must go through in the gun-unfriendly county a bit north of me, and that's all the evidence I need to know how a required class would play out.

GuitarStv

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 8527
  • Age: 36
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #2034 on: January 16, 2017, 08:16:38 AM »
I hear tales of what one must go through in the gun-unfriendly county a bit north of me, and that's all the evidence I need to know how a required class would play out.

Those tales are just that.

When I got my firearms license for hunting (at the age of 12) I had to attend a class for part of a day, watch a video, and then pass a pretty short and simple written test.  Then I mailed away for it.  (It arrived in a couple weeks.)  My understanding is that it's a very similar process for your PAL after you turn 18, which lets you buy guns.  It's very easy to find a place to do your test . . . I lived in a remote northern community of less than a thousand people at the time, and it was possible to do test without leaving town.

There's a second course required if you want to own a restricted weapon (handgun, sawed off shotgun, military type rifle, etc.).

None of the above is difficult or onerous.

EricL

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 649
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #2035 on: January 16, 2017, 08:18:11 AM »
The 2nd Amendment has that bit about "A well regulated Militia" being the justification for bearing arms.  This seems to indicate to me that the the government can and should require at least some training proficiency for gun ownership. I can see where special forces quality training standards might be unfairly imposed. But I can't see a justification for no standards at all.

And yeah, I'm a vet who owns a few.
Gentleman of Leisure

KBecks

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 811
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #2036 on: January 16, 2017, 08:44:09 AM »
The 2nd Amendment has that bit about "A well regulated Militia" being the justification for bearing arms.  This seems to indicate to me that the the government can and should require at least some training proficiency for gun ownership. I can see where special forces quality training standards might be unfairly imposed. But I can't see a justification for no standards at all.

And yeah, I'm a vet who owns a few.

Are the words "shall not be infringed" ambiguous in any way whatsoever? 
Citizens have the constitutional right to keep and bear arms. 
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

A hunting license is for hunting -- hunting is regulated and not covered at all in the 2nd amendment.  Hunting licenses and training are not unconstitutional.

We could talk about concealed carry and argue over it-- my state requires training for concealed carry.   You must be 21, have ID and have passed a concealed carry class.   The classes are put on by private organizations and costs vary.  One non profit organization provides free training. A sporting goods shop's class costs $99.  One does not require gun ownership, the other does require you bring a gun and materials to class.  The classes are about 5 -6 hours.  Military and police service also qualifies someone as a trained person.

In my state, I do not need any special permission to buy or use a gun for self defense.  My state requires that I would provide an ID and pass an instant background check / database check.  That's all.

Kris

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2381
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #2037 on: January 16, 2017, 09:05:22 AM »
The 2nd Amendment has that bit about "A well regulated Militia" being the justification for bearing arms.  This seems to indicate to me that the the government can and should require at least some training proficiency for gun ownership. I can see where special forces quality training standards might be unfairly imposed. But I can't see a justification for no standards at all.

And yeah, I'm a vet who owns a few.

Are the words "shall not be infringed" ambiguous in any way whatsoever? 
Citizens have the constitutional right to keep and bear arms. 
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

A hunting license is for hunting -- hunting is regulated and not covered at all in the 2nd amendment.  Hunting licenses and training are not unconstitutional.

We could talk about concealed carry and argue over it-- my state requires training for concealed carry.   You must be 21, have ID and have passed a concealed carry class.   The classes are put on by private organizations and costs vary.  One non profit organization provides free training. A sporting goods shop's class costs $99.  One does not require gun ownership, the other does require you bring a gun and materials to class.  The classes are about 5 -6 hours.  Military and police service also qualifies someone as a trained person.

In my state, I do not need any special permission to buy or use a gun for self defense.  My state requires that I would provide an ID and pass an instant background check / database check.  That's all.

I always find it fascinating when people go to the "shall not be infringed" part and point out how unambiguous it is.

"Well-regulated militia", however...

Well, "well-regulated" in my mind, might mean that one must have training. Untrained militias, I would imagine, tend to be pretty chaotic.

So, you know, just to play devil's advocate, I'd say that it makes most sense to me to read that language as saying that there should be no infringement on the ability for people to be trained to participate in a well-regulated militia.
Please note: Libertarian4321 did not vote for either Hillary or Trump. He voted for Gary Johnson, who was the Libertarian candidate.

Metric Mouse

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5311
  • FU @ 22. F.I.R.E before 23
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #2038 on: January 16, 2017, 11:20:05 AM »

I always find it fascinating when people go to the "shall not be infringed" part and point out how unambiguous it is.

"Well-regulated militia", however...

Well, "well-regulated" in my mind, might mean that one must have training. Untrained militias, I would imagine, tend to be pretty chaotic.

So, you know, just to play devil's advocate, I'd say that it makes most sense to me to read that language as saying that there should be no infringement on the ability for people to be trained to participate in a well-regulated militia.

While you may be right on the points you mentioned, the 'right to keep and bear arms' is not a subordinate clause to "the well-regulated militia".  Therefore, while a militia may need to be trained to be 'well-regulated', the right to keep and bear arms is not dependent upon the existence or regulation of the militia.

The 2nd Amendment has that bit about "A well regulated Militia" being the justification for bearing arms.

This is not an accurate reading of the text.
« Last Edit: January 16, 2017, 11:26:51 AM by Metric Mouse »
Give me one fine day of plain sailing weather and I can mess up anything.

MustacheMathTM

Lagom

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1228
  • Age: 34
  • Location: SF Bay Area
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #2039 on: January 16, 2017, 11:35:41 AM »
I dunno, it's late and we are but young sophists, arguing minor distinctions in the wee hours. All I'm saying is that what amounts to a drivers safety course for gun owners, while annoying, is a far cry from a threat to liberty. I do not agree that it is unconstitutionally onerous. Yeah, it's a pain in the ass to have to attend a course just because you want to own something. I get it. But it's not an existential threat. It isn't robbing you of your freedom, unless you want to get extremely nitpicky about the term. Being disenfranchised is very obviously worse as far as I'm concerned.

I get what you're saying, and on the face of it, a basic class wouldn't more than an inconvenience. But JUST like voter ID laws, it could be used to disenfranchise potential gun owners... IE, how much the class costs, availability, locations, etc.  If anything, the abuse of voter ID and voter testing is evidence of similar tactics that could be used to make it unconstitutionally onerous. It's not just about it being a pain in the ass. I took a CCW class since I wanted to be able to concealed carry... which amounts to a safety class. I live in a fire-arm friendly county, and that was STILL a pain to get signed off by the sheriff. I hear tales of what one must go through in the gun-unfriendly county a bit north of me, and that's all the evidence I need to know how a required class would play out.

Actually, this is a good point and one area where I will agree comparing ID laws makes perfect sense. After all, many of these gun restriction measures also inordinately affect poor/minority communities. One of my favorite parts of the Ferguson situation was when that black gun club came into town and was walking around in solidarity (but also to encourage calm and peaceful protests), hardware fully on display. It was a powerful message and well executed. It definitely troubles me that many gun regulations have little effect on the wealthy while disarming the working poor.

Metric Mouse

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5311
  • FU @ 22. F.I.R.E before 23
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #2040 on: January 16, 2017, 11:58:24 AM »
Actually, this is a good point and one area where I will agree comparing ID laws makes perfect sense. After all, many of these gun restriction measures also inordinately affect poor/minority communities. One of my favorite parts of the Ferguson situation was when that black gun club came into town and was walking around in solidarity (but also to encourage calm and peaceful protests), hardware fully on display. It was a powerful message and well executed. It definitely troubles me that many gun regulations have little effect on the wealthy while disarming the working poor.

I don't mean to sound patronizing because I genuinely appreciate your contributions to this topic (and many of the contributions to other topics on this forum that I have read) (and I know it will sound patronizing anyway) but - now you are beginning to see the similarities in the problem with restrictions upon rights.
Give me one fine day of plain sailing weather and I can mess up anything.

MustacheMathTM

Lagom

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1228
  • Age: 34
  • Location: SF Bay Area
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #2041 on: January 16, 2017, 12:38:55 PM »
Actually, this is a good point and one area where I will agree comparing ID laws makes perfect sense. After all, many of these gun restriction measures also inordinately affect poor/minority communities. One of my favorite parts of the Ferguson situation was when that black gun club came into town and was walking around in solidarity (but also to encourage calm and peaceful protests), hardware fully on display. It was a powerful message and well executed. It definitely troubles me that many gun regulations have little effect on the wealthy while disarming the working poor.

I don't mean to sound patronizing because I genuinely appreciate your contributions to this topic (and many of the contributions to other topics on this forum that I have read) (and I know it will sound patronizing anyway) but - now you are beginning to see the similarities in the problem with restrictions upon rights.

I always saw them for the most part (this particular wrinkle I had thought about before during Ferguson, but only remembered again now), but thank you. As I've mentioned many times, I am also not particularly pro gun control (although I once was), but not because of "mumble mumble FREEDOM!." The thing is, I really am more open than most to being convinced to change my views. My frequent frustration here is that I am consistently treated as some wet behind the ears liberal by many of the forum's conservative posters just because I dare to disagree with them on any topic, when I actually empathize with many of their stances. I know my tendency towards sarcasm/strident posting does me no favors, but I'm working on it :)

Despite my empathy with aspects of conservatism, I still stand behind only the arguments where I see clear evidence and reason. Emotion based arguments are not convincing. Neither are hyperbolic claims that having to take a class infringes on your freedom in your own home or that a gun is always optimal for home defense (as we discussed many pages back). My goal in these sorts of conversations is to improve my understanding, but also to get people to acknowledge the limits of their stances, expand their appreciation for how other people are impacted on both sides of an issue, and/or provide more compelling arguments in general. To wit, I would bet good money that a clear majority of 2nd amendment activists don't give a shit about poor black people's ability to buy guns. Many might even argue their disarmament is some kind of silver lining to these gun laws (not saying anyone here is doing this). I also still maintain that the vote is the single most fundamental aspect of democracy (or democratic republic, etc.). Owning a gun is fundamental to our constitution, sure,  and guns were literally used during the revolution, sure, but they are still an order of magnitude less critical to our existence as a nation of free individuals than our right to have a voice. It is the second amendment, after all!

Kris

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2381
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #2042 on: January 16, 2017, 12:44:25 PM »

I always find it fascinating when people go to the "shall not be infringed" part and point out how unambiguous it is.

"Well-regulated militia", however...

Well, "well-regulated" in my mind, might mean that one must have training. Untrained militias, I would imagine, tend to be pretty chaotic.

So, you know, just to play devil's advocate, I'd say that it makes most sense to me to read that language as saying that there should be no infringement on the ability for people to be trained to participate in a well-regulated militia.

While you may be right on the points you mentioned, the 'right to keep and bear arms' is not a subordinate clause to "the well-regulated militia".  Therefore, while a militia may need to be trained to be 'well-regulated', the right to keep and bear arms is not dependent upon the existence or regulation of the militia.


Well, the sentence is kind of wonky as it's written, in that there's a comma in there that seems to be misplaced, or something.

The original text reads: "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."

The subject of the sentence, then, seems to be "a well regulated militia." Followed by a dependent clause, separated by commas describing the reason a militia is important. So far, so good. But then, following the rules of modern grammar, what follows should be a verb plus a complement, e.g. "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, IS..." 

This isn't what happens, though, which creates some ambiguity.

(And interestingly, following the grammatical logic of that argument, then the verb we're looking for is shall not... In which case, there's even some argument to be made that the subject of "shall not" is "A well regulated Militia," and not "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms." Reading it that way, the clause about the right of the people to keep and bear arms seems kind of like a weirdly tacked-on bit that doesn't really belong. But I'll leave that one alone.)

One could assume that the first comma is superfluous, in which case the first clause would be all of a piece, and not the subject of the sentence as it originally appears to be. If we do so, the idea would be "A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free state," (in other words, "since a well-regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free state"), "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." (Note that there's a comma after Arms, too, and that further inserts the possibility for ambiguity.)

If we do presume that the correct way to interpret the amendment is the second one, then we still have to contend with two things: One, that the authors chose to put the idea of a well-regulated militia first in the sentence. In other words, in a stronger, more prominent position. And two, that they even chose to include the language about a well-regulated militia at all. Why didn't they simply write "The right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed"?


The fact that they did include that language, and that they put it in the front of the sentence, in a position of prominence, ought to be considered, or at least not ignored, in discussions of the amendment's meaning.

Constitutional scholars -- people far more knowledgeable about the document than you or I (assuming you're not a constitutional scholar) -- have been examining and debating the language of this amendment for years. Which indicates that, despite the original intent to be as clear as possible, the authors still managed to insert some ambiguity.
« Last Edit: January 16, 2017, 01:05:55 PM by Kris »
Please note: Libertarian4321 did not vote for either Hillary or Trump. He voted for Gary Johnson, who was the Libertarian candidate.

zolotiyeruki

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2108
  • Location: State: Denial
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #2043 on: January 16, 2017, 02:59:14 PM »
To wit, I would bet good money that a clear majority of 2nd amendment activists don't give a shit about poor black people's ability to buy guns. Many might even argue their disarmament is some kind of silver lining to these gun laws (not saying anyone here is doing this). I also still maintain that the vote is the single most fundamental aspect of democracy (or democratic republic, etc.). Owning a gun is fundamental to our constitution, sure,  and guns were literally used during the revolution, sure, but they are still an order of magnitude less critical to our existence as a nation of free individuals than our right to have a voice. It is the second amendment, after all!
I'm afraid you just lost me here.  A couple of things:
1)  Maybe I've never lived in the right/wrong parts of the country, but I have NEVER heard a pro-gun person say ANYTHING that could be understood as a desire to disarm black people.  In fact, since black people are more likely to live in higher-crime areas (that's a correlative, not causal, link), they would benefit disproportionately benefit from relaxation of gun regulations.
2) The right to vote actually isn't mentioned in the constitution until the 14th amendment, so if we're ranking individual rights by their order in the constitution, guns are more important! :P

Cathy

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1044
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #2044 on: January 16, 2017, 03:09:13 PM »
The right to vote actually isn't mentioned in the constitution until the 14th amendment ...

Not true. The right to vote makes it first explicit appearance near the beginning of the Constitution in Art I, 2, cl 1, which provides that: "The House of Representatives shall be composed of Members chosen ... by the People of the several States ..." (emphasis mine).

Or, one could argue that the right to vote appears even earlier than that in the document, specifically in the first three words of the preamble. As Justice Douglas described it: "Under our Constitution it is We The People who are sovereign. The people have the final say.". United States v. Automobile Workers, 352 US 567, 593 (1957) (Douglas, J, dissenting), cited with approval in Buckley v. Valeo, 424 US 1, 43 (1976) and in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, 558 US 310, 130 S Ct 876, 904 (2010).
« Last Edit: January 16, 2017, 03:17:10 PM by Cathy »
This post contains only general information on the issues raised by this topic. This post does not provide help tailored to your specific situation. There are many facts that could be relevant to your specific situation and I am not in possession of those facts. If you need help tailored to your specific situation, you should retain an appropriate professional and not rely on this post.

jamesvt

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 51
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #2045 on: January 16, 2017, 04:09:10 PM »
I hear tales of what one must go through in the gun-unfriendly county a bit north of me, and that's all the evidence I need to know how a required class would play out.

Those tales are just that.

When I got my firearms license for hunting (at the age of 12) I had to attend a class for part of a day, watch a video, and then pass a pretty short and simple written test.  Then I mailed away for it.  (It arrived in a couple weeks.)  My understanding is that it's a very similar process for your PAL after you turn 18, which lets you buy guns.  It's very easy to find a place to do your test . . . I lived in a remote northern community of less than a thousand people at the time, and it was possible to do test without leaving town.

There's a second course required if you want to own a restricted weapon (handgun, sawed off shotgun, military type rifle, etc.).

None of the above is difficult or onerous.
Some states in the US it is more difficult than that. In Massachusetts a license is required to own or posses any firearms.  With the exception of a mandatory training course, a background check, fingerprinting, and application fee, any additional requirements are up to the police chief in your town. Those additional requirements can include extra training, letters of recommendation, essay on why you want to own firearms, or an interview with the chief. Chiefs also have the authority to deny a person a license for any reason or for no reason at all. There isn't much a person can do at the point other than move.


« Last Edit: January 16, 2017, 04:33:54 PM by jamesvt »

EricL

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 649
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #2046 on: January 16, 2017, 04:26:19 PM »
Eh.  Perhaps I erred.  Apparently firearms ownership cannot be infringed no matter what.  AND that owners should be part of a well regulated militia.  So all gun owners should enlist in their respective National Guards.  Having served in the Guard I can vouch that "well regulated" can be an exaggeration.  But close enough for government work.
Gentleman of Leisure

Lagom

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1228
  • Age: 34
  • Location: SF Bay Area
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #2047 on: January 16, 2017, 08:17:28 PM »
To wit, I would bet good money that a clear majority of 2nd amendment activists don't give a shit about poor black people's ability to buy guns. Many might even argue their disarmament is some kind of silver lining to these gun laws (not saying anyone here is doing this). I also still maintain that the vote is the single most fundamental aspect of democracy (or democratic republic, etc.). Owning a gun is fundamental to our constitution, sure,  and guns were literally used during the revolution, sure, but they are still an order of magnitude less critical to our existence as a nation of free individuals than our right to have a voice. It is the second amendment, after all!
I'm afraid you just lost me here.  A couple of things:
1)  Maybe I've never lived in the right/wrong parts of the country, but I have NEVER heard a pro-gun person say ANYTHING that could be understood as a desire to disarm black people.  In fact, since black people are more likely to live in higher-crime areas (that's a correlative, not causal, link), they would benefit disproportionately benefit from relaxation of gun regulations.
2) The right to vote actually isn't mentioned in the constitution until the 14th amendment, so if we're ranking individual rights by their order in the constitution, guns are more important! :P

Cathy covered #2 quite well, although you also missed my point, which has to do with the definition of democracy, but I'll grant it was marginally opaque in this instance with the tongue in cheek comment. As for #1, chill your craw. I'm not crying "racist." I shouldn't have included the sentence about seeing it as a silver lining in retrospect as it was certain someone would hone in on it and take umbrage. As for the main point, this thread represents exactly the second time in decades of internet squabbling on this topic that I have heard others besides myself explicitly mention the plight of urban blacks as relevant to the gun debate (other than well-meaning but misguided liberals claiming gun control will help end gang violence). Perhaps this is widely believed but not seen as the most important argument? All I'm telling you, as a former gun control zealot, is that that argument is far more compelling from where I'm sitting than crying about FREEDOM.*

In my opinion, the real reason we hear this argument less is not because most gun advocates are racist (they are not), but because most are republican, and things like the illegality of voter ID laws (which we have established represent a comparable burden to some gun laws) are not things that most republicans are willing to concede. Thus if you accept the argument that gun laws unfairly target minority groups you have to accept the same argument for other laws. Of course, this goes both ways and I don't exactly hear liberals making this argument either.

*ETA - other more compelling arguments focus on the things gun control advocates worry about, namely gun deaths. So, for example, the best way to reduce gun deaths in this country would be to end the drug war. School shootings are horrific, but gun control is not likely to prevent them and they are a small portion of gun deaths anyway. Of course, that's another argument centered on the urban poor and it also advocates legalizing drugs, which is (needlessly) controversial.
« Last Edit: January 16, 2017, 08:38:44 PM by Lagom »

Shane

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 690
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #2048 on: January 16, 2017, 11:04:12 PM »
to try to argue that requiring that somebody get a photo ID to vote is anywhere even close to the burden placed on people who want to purchase a firearm in some states is disingenuous, IMO.

Good thing that' not what I'm arguing although it sounds like you don't realize how burdensome it actually can be for some people to obtain IDs (see the links below). Again, all I'm saying is having your right to vote restricted is obviously a greater threat to freedom with a capital F than having your access to guns restricted. Not sure how many ways I can rephrase before it sticks. As I've said repeatedly, I think many instances of restricting gun access are unconstitutional and yes, a restriction on freedom. Just less so by a fair margin. It's ridiculous to call me disingenuous in this instance when I'm not even making the argument you are referring to.

Sorry if I misrepresented the argument you were making, Lagom. I think I understand, now.

I agree with you that voter ID laws are intentionally being used to deny (mostly) poor people of color their right to vote. I also think, though, that all the time spent arguing that people shouldn't have to show IDs to vote could be more productively spent helping people who need them to get IDs, which would also be useful to them in other aspects of their lives, like, for example, if they wanted to take a hunter education class and get qualified to legally purchase a firearm in my state.

As I've posted elsewhere on this forum, I've known a couple of people who didn't have IDs, and I think I understand how difficult it can be for some people to get them. It's not impossible, though, and, rather than wasting our time trying to justify some people's not having IDs, we could more easily just help them to get IDs. Problem solved.

In my state, you don't have to show ID to vote, but you do have to show ID to purchase a firearm. If it's unreasonable to require that a person show ID to vote, then why would it be okay to require he show ID to buy a gun? Wouldn't poor people of color, who are most likely to not have ID, be the most likely to benefit from being able to legally purchase a gun to use to protect themselves?


Lagom

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1228
  • Age: 34
  • Location: SF Bay Area
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #2049 on: January 16, 2017, 11:34:59 PM »
Indeed, we are on the same page. I actually think this is a bit of a breakthrough in our collective conversation, or at least I feel good about it! I hope all of you pro gun people will notice that this angle is an important one, and perhaps one more likely to appeal to knee-jerk anti gun liberals (of which I used to be one, though not for some time now). I care very much about civil rights, and viewing gun laws as in some ways representing yet another example of disempowering poor/minority communities is a good way to draw parallels to the standard civil rights agenda.

The thing is, I think most of you know what kind of stereotypical image liberals have of gun "nuts." It's totally unfair, but based in enough truth that when you get righteously angry and go on and on about your white middle class* "freedom" being threatened, its no wonder few who disagree are inclined to listen. Same goes for hand-wringing over a supposed right to be able to overthrow the government, or even to take out that potential school shooter with your concealed weapon. But perhaps reframing this as a conversation also concerned with protecting disadvantaged groups from systemic disempowerment might go over better. Or maybe I'm being too optimistic.

*Intentionally generalizing here for the point, I know this is far from universally true.
« Last Edit: January 16, 2017, 11:38:18 PM by Lagom »