" this does nothing to usurp the power of the Legislative and Executive branches respectively." - in the absence of the ability to amend the constitution it gives the supreme court more power than any other branch; though perhaps this is a result of crippling those branches ability to do anything.


These things are related problems.

Is it fair to say that not dismissing a case gives the court system more power to decide things.

That it is normal for most structures / institutions to accumulate as much power as they can...

@ Gunfighter: "The Bill of Rights *is* part of the Constitution and has been since 1791."

All the amendments are "part" of your Constitution. My point is that their existence somewhat undermines your claim that the Constitution is meant to be "permanent" and almost unchanging in its 18th Century form.

Also, can you tell us, to which well-regulated militia unit do you belong? How often do you report for drill?

"The Supreme Court was designed to judge the ultimate Constitutionality of things" Ehhhh... Not until 1803. Marbury v. Madison and all that. That became an inferred power, and people have spoken out against it adamantly and constantly from then to now. That's a power the Court gave itself. It was SUPPOSED to be a federal court whose decisions in a case couldn't be repealed. Marshall felt it was necessary to transcend that.
"Its passage was to ease (reasonable) anti-federalist fears of an all-powerful federal government." Except for the 9th Amendment, which was passed to ease federalist fears that the Bill of Rights would be the only rights for citizens, which is why they were hesitant to make one on the first place.
And the Constitution isn't permanent. Even Thomas Jefferson, the epitome of anti-federalism and strict constructionism, came to the thinking that the Constitution should change with the times.

@gunfighter: a short definition of a paramilitary group

"A paramilitary is a militarized or semi-militarized force whose organizational structure, training, subculture, and (often) function are similar to those of a professional military, and which is not included as part of a state's formal armed forces.[1] The comparison of a military to a paramilitary can be likened to that of a comparison between a medic and a paramedic." you'll find on Wikipedia.

I think though this point is irrelevant to the main topic. If you belong to a national guard unit, then I am sorry to have trampled on your pride, but I still can't change the descriptive scientific term. I suppose you are not familiar with the literature, like "The Soldier and the State" by Huntington, which greatly shaped the scientific and descriptive perspective on military organisation. Just because you call things differently (mostly with the goal to make things more valuable) it doesn't change the content (a facility manager is still the janitor).

Also I am very happy that you agree with me on most things empirically. Unfortunately, I can't follow your logic in as it seems driven more by irrational fear than a realistic outlook. That was why I initially only posed questions.

Concerning the continuum between riot and revolt and insurrection: size and degree of organisation go hand in hand, but organisation is the structure whereas size just one of several measures to it. You'll find enough literature on the topic in every reading list on subnational conflicts or insurrections in every war school.

Still, these are secondary topics to the value of a restriction on gun possession. One of the more compelling arguments used against even trying to restrict guns is the sheer quantity of civilian guns in the US. To this a simple starting point to just restrict sellling ammunition. This might lead to a certain degree of smuggling or contraband, but it'll prevent Joe and Sandy to shoot at will.

To your wrong view of a constitution, the above arguments are more than sufficient. To throw a little match I want to highlight the fact that the gun rights are NOT part of the original constitution. That is the simple reason why it is called 2nd AMENDMENT.

The original constitution did not include this right with very well considered arguments (they are found in the proceedings and the federalist papers). These are the same arguments as you find (and approved even by gun advocating think tanks) in the discussions of civil wars in other countries. It was a wise decision at the time, as the US just emerged from a bloody Civil War and with unclear prospects of the relations between the member states. Circumstances changed with the westward expansion and much of the right to bear arms was crafted along the lines of Austrian "Wehrbauern" on the border to the Ottoman empire as a cheap way to fend off little skirmishes. This reason is now obsolete and I'd like to how many deaths are prevented through killing people by civilians. I guess much less than are killed right now (remember: intruders won't have easy access to gun neither).

"I guess much less than are killed right now
(remember: intruders won't have easy access to gun neither)."

And remember how escalation works, if you don't have a gun, then i don't need a gun to arrest you - thus if it is a) illegal, and b) difficult, and c) expensive (blackmarket) : chances are that most bad guys will not have guns.

Irregardless of the fact that many people are murdered by gun crime in the US and not all of them are unarmed (thus having a gun doesn't necessarily protect you from gun crime... Actually you want bullet-proof armour... And i'm perfectly fine with you advocating for bullet-proof armour)

"And remember how escalation works, if you don't have a gun, then i don't need a gun to arrest you..."

But you do need a crossbow, throwing axe, bola or other ranged weapon to subdue an alleged perpetrator when they flee the scene.

At the very most, Taser's can do for that.

also, why is it so important to subdue a fleeing perpetrator? If just safety is your concern then chasing him away is sufficient. Everything else is just for the ego. And subduing someone with a crossbow is way cooler than using a sniping gun. Also you could try to learn using a boomerang, that'll even top the crossbow.

You were talking about law enforcement and paramilitary groups. They definitely want to subdue and arrest fleeing perpetrators; indeed, it is their job to do so.

Waving a billy club or truncheon around ain't gonna do the trick.

@ orathaic

"That it is normal for most structures / institutions to accumulate as much power as they can..."

I will openly acknowledge the somewhat recent activism of the judiciary to be a major problem, but in my opinion it has not reached a critical point, and as such no change is necessary as of now. Also, the amendment process is still possible, just unlikely, as intended by the authors of the Constitution.

@ Jamiet99uk

"Also, can you tell us, to which well-regulated militia unit do you belong? How often do you report for drill?"

Good try, but the Supreme Court has ruled that the Second Amendment right exists unconnected with service in a militia (National Guard)

@ TrPrado

"Ehhhh... Not until 1803. Marbury v. Madison and all that"

Are you enjoying your 'gotcha' moment?

"And the Constitution isn't permanent."

It's permanent, relative to other laws. The amendment process is so difficult (especially in modern times) that the document might as well be permanent, even if it is theoretically not permanent.

@ X3n0n

Oh, you want to cite Wikipedia? Okay, why don't you cite the Wikipedia article that I referenced above that defines National Guardsmen as "reserve military" as opposed to "paramilitary".

"are similar to those of a professional military"

The National Guard and Reserves aren't similar, they are the *same*. Same rank, same subculture, same training, same everything. The only differences are command structure/authority and frequency of service (full-time vs. one-weekend-a-month)

"To this a simple starting point to just restrict sellling ammunition."

Restrictions on ammunition sales could be easily construed to mean a restriction on 'arms'. Also, many shooters hand-load their own ammunition or have significant personal stockpiles. Hell, my gun room looks like the basement of Corregidor circa 1941. You could theoretically restrict the sale of finished ammunition, but you could not hope to regulate the raw materials used for hand-loading. Besides, with current ammunition prices, new ammunition is already more or less income-restricted. I know more than a few gun owners who can't even afford ammunition for occasional target practice to retain a modicum of competency, and price of ammunition is having an impact on what kinds of firearms people are buying. .30/06s and .45s are flying off the shelves since .30/06 and .45s are so cheap right now.

"remember: intruders won't have easy access to gun neither"

Yeah, and Mexican drug cartels won't have access to fully-automatic AK-47s and RPGs either, because gun laws in Mexico are airtight.

@ orathaic

"chances are that most bad guys will not have guns."

How do you propose that we get 300 million firearms to simply disappear?

@ X3n0n

"also, why is it so important to subdue a fleeing perpetrator?"

I know you were responding to someone else, but I'll answer anyway. What if the perpetrator *isn't* fleeing, as in the case of a home invasion or worse, an attempted sexual assault? You're going to want a .45.

"And subduing someone with a crossbow is way cooler than using a sniping gun."

Only if 'cool' has an inverse relationship with 'practical'.

Jeff Kuta: In much of the world, it is illegal to shoot someone fleeing the scene. It's messed up to think they need to shoot lead bullets.

Yeah, have fun getting rid of 300 million guns. Great way to start Civil War 2.0

""Ehhhh... Not until 1803. Marbury v. Madison and all that"

Are you enjoying your 'gotcha' moment?" Yes. If you're not, you should try being correct the first time.

@gunfighter I don't how it works in the US. But in the countries where I lived in case of a home perpetration, police arrives within 10 to 15 minutes even in the country side. contacting a police force is also easy as they check out if 110/18 is called and the response is short or just a fluster. They charge prohibitively high price if the call wasn't necessary though, which many little boys discover after their first try at joking. I don't think one needs a shorter time span.
Drug cartels don't kill people just for fun. And their huge weaponry is more result of Mexican state failure than a counterargument to gun legislation.
As for citing Wikipedia: I could simply copy and paste it instead of going through my class notes or book shelve and then type in the same definition. Also inconsistencies are likely with Wikipedia, across languages as well as across items. It involves some critical judgement to use it. What, when and how to use definitions is discussed in almost any introductory textbook to any science. I suggest that you'll go through some introduction to legal studies and the distinction between "legal definitions" and "scientific definitions" aka "normative statements" vs. "empirical statements." For this discussion ends here as it strayed too far away from the subject matter. I leave it to you to study further if the matter really interests you that much. And please remember that the value of engagement for your country does depend on the name you give it. What this value is is up to you and rarely open for discussion. My opening of the debate was merely to highlight some holes in your argumentation, which haven't been closed by this side discussion.
A final point to justifying the widespread and easy access to guns and ammunition via the necessity or existence of militias:
Most American gun owners do not and did never belong to the National Guard. This is the essential point to it. A regulation of guns can easily crafted in a way as to allow them to keep their guns while restricting ownership to non-guardsmen.
A reiterated point to your excessive use of the "ban of …" Regulation is no "ban." Regulated piloting or car driving is no "ban on cars" or "ban on airplanes." The same goes for restrictive regulation of ammunition sales or future gun sales.
To amunition sale restriction:
Even the largest stockpile will decline with every round fired for whatever reason. So it is a cheap and easily implementable way to get some hold of the problem. For gun lovers it means they can still enjoy their having guns and like coffee shops in Holland may have access to ammunition in shooting clubs (as most legal gun ownership works in regulating countries).
Any other points have been addressed at length by others, so it is up to you to take their arguments into account. And be it just strengthen your arguments instead of using weak, readymade ones. I am sure you are capable and willing to do this.

@JK no we were not. It was a different point made by gf to restrict law enforcement armament so that civilians have an edge over them in terms of weaponry. My personal opinion is that any law enforcement may have weaponry as it their job to capture perpetrators.

@ X3n0n

"police arrives within 10 to 15 minutes even in the country side"

That's an awfully long time to wait for someone who is about to be sexually assaulted or murdered.

"And their huge weaponry is more result of Mexican state failure than a counterargument to gun legislation."

Interestingly, Mexicans have a constitutional right to bear arms, much like America's Second Amendment. However, as I understand it, the Mexican courts have interpreted "arms" to mean weapons up to and including (but not surpassing) .380 ACP, a wholly inadequate self-defense round.

"Most American gun owners do not and did never belong to the National Guard. This is the essential point to it. A regulation of guns can easily crafted in a way as to allow them to keep their guns while restricting ownership to non-guardsmen."

The Supreme Court has interpreted the Second Amendment to protect an individual right to bear arms for historically lawful purposes, *unconnected* with militia service, so any law aiming to restrict non-guardsmen would be easily challenged in court.

"The same goes for restrictive regulation of ammunition sales or future gun sales."

That's the problem. Restrictions generally lead to outright bans or de facto bans.

"Even the largest stockpile will decline with every round fired for whatever reason. So it is a cheap and easily implementable way to get some hold of the problem."

It's *not* a cheap *or* easily implementable way to get hold of the "problem". The ammunition industry is a sizable chunk of the American economy. How many people are employed by Federal, Hornady, Winchester, Remington, and others? Besides, restrictions on ammunition do absolutely nothing to address hand-loading, which would be more or less impossible to effectively regulate, especially with the recent resurgence of hand-loading.

"It was a different point made by gf to restrict law enforcement armament so that civilians have an edge over them in terms of weaponry."

I made no such point. I simply pointed out that, historically speaking, civilians have had the edge in weaponry. I subsequently pointed out that the trend has been reversed and taken a long way in the other direction. I am advocating for balance. A law-abiding civilian should be no better or no worse armed than a law enforcement officer.

@gun you said: "I will openly acknowledge the somewhat recent activism of the judiciary to be a major problem, but in my opinion it has not reached a critical point, and as such no change is necessary as of now. Also, the amendment process is still possible, just unlikely, as intended by the authors of the Constitution."

Fair point about the judicary - i suspect that more social progress would have been made on the right to abortion if Roe vs Wade had been thrown out and left smaller local groups (perhaps at state level) to argue the case for or against with motivated grass roots movements trying to change their laws rather than a single supreme court decision.

That is to suggest (and i don't know the details of that case) that the US would be in a better position now if the decision making power had remained in the hands of individuals...

And to your second point i believe that with an increasing population (but in particular increasing number of states) the admendment process became more and more difficult - thus the situation is not exactly what it was when the founders set it up. Power is further and further away from the people and states. If you still only had to pass admendments through the original colonies then we'd be playing a very different game.

@gun: i said "chances are that most bad guys will not have guns."

You said "How do you propose that we get 300 million firearms to simply disappear?"

No, i think you can take some example from Northern Ireland when it comes to disarming illegal organisations. But for the rest of the population you can grandfather in the rules.

Start by banning dangerous weapons which are old and haven't been well maintained, while limiting sales of new weapons. Then offer a scrappage scheme (voluntary) to reprocess un-used and un-wanted weapons (in exchange for cold hard cash). Then implement tigther controls on storage (my cousin's brother-in-law kept his in guns a big safe, apart from his pistol he wore on his hip... But Texas is weird) - which may incentivise people to store their weapons in licensed gun clubs.

Step-by-step reduce the number of guns, hurt guns sales by introducing licensing and background checks which can be made stricter and apply only to new purchases. 9-day background checks delay a new lurchase by 9days and each one reduces the number of guns in america by 1 (for 9 days, in which time more old guns may have come out of use)

The slow reduction would also give the gun industry time to adapt.

Eh. We had twelve amendments to the United States constitution during the 20th century. The country went over 60 years between the 12th and 13th amendments. It's only been 22 years since #27. We'll have more before all is said and done.

@ orathaic

"And to your second point i believe that with an increasing population (but in particular increasing number of states) the admendment process became more and more difficult - thus the situation is not exactly what it was when the founders set it up. Power is further and further away from the people and states. If you still only had to pass admendments through the original colonies then we'd be playing a very different game."

All true points, but I would argue that our increased political polarization (driven by an over-sensationalized media) is the main factor prohibiting the proposal of new amendments. When the country is as evenly politically divided as it is, there's really no chance of getting an amendment passed, much less ratified. One could reasonably assume that an increase in population would have a tendency to politically homogenize the population and make radical political elements irrelevant, but it appears that the exact opposite is happening. Our polarization as a population has already eliminated the possibility of a constitutional convention (one of two ways to get amendments passed/ratified). One could reasonably fear that we are getting to the point where the "conventional" amendment process (House/Senate supermajority + State ratification) is impossible.

"No, i think you can take some example from Northern Ireland when it comes to disarming illegal organisations."

It's a lot harder to disarm the legions of unaffiliated common criminals (and organized criminals, for that matter) than a well-organized terrorist organization like the PIRA. You can't sign peace treaties and negotiate terms with a mafia or with unaffiliated criminals. I dispute that analogy.

"Start by banning dangerous weapons which are old and haven't been well maintained,"

How do you legally define "[dangerous], old and [not] well-maintained"? That's *extremely* subjective. There are plenty of old firearms that are dangerous by modern safety standards, but have never been illegal and pose no risk to a knowledgeable operator, such as the Model 1897 Winchester pump-action shotgun, which is lacking in certain modern safety features (trigger disconnect) but is nevertheless a historic, useful, and combat-effective firearm. Besides, how old is "old"? Is the age of the firearm the determining factor or the age of the design? Because most *modern* firearms have designs that go back decades, if not over a century.

"while limiting sales of new weapons."

Okay, assuming that the Second Amendment is a non-factor, how do you propose to do this without starting a general revolt?

"Then offer a scrappage scheme (voluntary) to reprocess un-used and un-wanted weapons (in exchange for cold hard cash)."

Buyback schemes have been a dismal failure everywhere they have been tried in the United States. See: Chicago.

"Then implement tigther controls on storage"

I'm all for tighter storage requirements, but it is unnecessary for people to be forced to store their weapons in a gun club. Just make a simple law that holds people legally liable for their firearms at all times. For example, if someone has his firearm stolen and that firearm is later used in a crime, he can be held accountable as an accomplice in that crime. Weapons should either be locked up (locked hard case, safe, cable lock, et cetera), rendered inoperable (storing the bolt/slide/firing pin separately from the receiver, for example), or stored in a well-concealed place if no kids are in the home. Alternatively, the firearm should be in the owner's physical possession or within plain sight of the owner (if on a range, or cleaning the firearm at home, et cetera). Such a law would be simple to write, easy to pass (I don't even think GOA would oppose such a law, as it holds firearm owners accountable for their firearms, which is an idea that basically anyone would support)

"9-day background checks delay a new lurchase by 9days and each one reduces the number of guns in america by 1 (for 9 days, in which time more old guns may have come out of use)"

I stand staunchly opposed to waiting periods. In the words of Homer Simpson: "5 days?! But I'm mad *now*!" But seriously, no one should have to wait any length of time to exercise what is generally viewed as a fundamental right. Licensing for highly combat-effective weapons like automatic weapons? Sure. Waiting periods? Bans? Hell no.

I'm more willing to compromise than most people might think regarding firearms legislation. My goal is to protect the rights of firearm owners while also making firearm ownership safer for everyone. Hell, me and my buddies could write up a few simple laws that would simultaneously decrease firearm-related crimes *and* increase firearm ownership rights.

The fundamental problem is that people who don't know anything about firearms (liberals) are making these retarded (forgive the political incorrectness) firearm regulation proposals without having any idea what they are trying to regulate. Let the firearm owners take accountability for our hobby and make everyone safer. The FAA wouldn't dream of writing a regulation without input from pilots. Why do we let non-shooters write firearm legislation?

@ orathaic

If you're interested, I can write a counter-proposal out for gun reform so I can get your opinion

"It's a lot harder to disarm the legions of unaffiliated common criminals (and
organized criminals, for that matter) than a well-organized terrorist organization
like the PIRA. You can't sign peace treaties and negotiate terms with a mafia
or with unaffiliated criminals. I dispute that analogy."

Fair point, but i did mean to offer an amnesty to illegal weapon holders who turn in their weapons (no cash payouts, but like the northern irish amnesty) while increasing the punishment/enforcement for people after the amnesty has lapsed.


"Besides, how old is "old"?" - All these are details which can be worked out by people more knowledgable. The point is you make a commitement to reducing the number of firearms, and THEN you take baby steps.

"but it is unnecessary for people to be
forced to store their weapons in a gun club. " - i didn't say force, but you can encourage by increasing the cosr of storing at home (and thus making communal storage a bigger saving) Again, details, slow, whatever works...

"I stand staunchly opposed to waiting periods." - yeah, but you oppose the very principle of reducing harm done by firearms in your society... I was responding to your question of 'how can we deal with the current 300 million..." The answer is SLOWLY.

"are making these retarded (forgive the political
incorrectness) firearm regulation proposals without having any idea what they
are trying to regulate" Fair point, but i'm rather committed to living in a society where gun ownership is not the norm. So your proposals - while benificial will not satisfy me.

Also i am happy to live in such a society. But you have a great point, gun regukations which wil make gun owners happy should probably be written by gun owners.

@gf You finally raised several points we could agree on. (Note I am a (green) liberal AND love guns BUT am happy not to have them at home – ya know, kids and stuff) The argument that this would harm the American firearm industry is non of my concern. If you produce a dangerous product it is part of the risk it will be reduced, as with tobacco or Meth (–Meth was the highest selling medical drug (just like aspirin or ibu today) in the Western world after WWII until the early 70s, check out "pervitin"). Taking up work in a gunshop is also a "business" decision.

Your good point touches precisely the way sensible gun regulation should be done. After the decision to do something is made, it should be knowledgable guys like you that work out the details in terms of what works best, what doesn't, what are the greatest risks, etc.

You can even combine this. One way is to just cancel the second amendment (it is possible just as adding a new amendment) or amending the second amendment like "every citizen has the right ONE gun," etc. This should be worded not as ban/prohibition but as an inhibition (if your familiar with the legal concepts, else refer to an introductory textbook). From there one can proceed to construct a legal framework that addresses just the problems you mentioned.

A different approach would be (and this is what's happening right now), to isolate problems find solutions to them and check how far they can be implemented without changing the constitution. The result would be in no way a ban. Cars are highly regulated, do you have the impression they are banned? Alcohol is highly regulated, do you feel it is banned? Cabs are highly regulated, do feel they're banned? If you do, I can't do anything about you. If you don't then please review your pertaining argumentation.

This said, I do certainly not defend any concrete regulations or proposals underway in the US. If you feel they are bad and that you have better proposals than those produced by a polarised, malfunctioning political system: then DON'T ASK WHAT YOUR COUNTRY CAN DO FOR YOU, ASK WHAT YOU CAN DO FOR YOUR COUNTRY! and take some responsibility and participate in improving what you yourself described as wrong some pages above. This would be in the spirit of the American constitution and it is the idea of democracy in general.

Concerning the reasons for polarisation, just take a few issues of the Journal of Theoretical Politics, or Party Politcs by Taagepera (it exists as a free draft on the net) or other relevant literature. Check out what they have to say about polarisation. It is not th media that are at fault…

Gunfighter, I would be interested in hearing your proposals.

Bounce. I'll get back to y'all later when I have enough time to write a worthwhile response.