Guns for Hunting People Are Different: Legislation Should Reflect That

[xchrom]

http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2013/05/guns-for-hunting-people-are-different-legislation-should-reflect-that/276182/



As a gun guy who's also a journalist and professor in a town sometimes called "The Peoples Republic of Ann Arbor," I meet plenty of people who think I should be ashamed of myself. But in failing to address the challenges presented by the latest massacre of innocents, United States senators have done what nobody else has managed to do: make me, for the first time, truly embarrassed about the company I'm lumped with, including theirs.

In most states, it is illegal to hunt animals or birds with more than six rounds in a rifle or three in a shotgun. Why? Because if you can't kill within those limits you need remedial marksmanship (of the sort NRA Executive Vice President Wayne R. La Pierre reportedly required to bring him up to snuff). If you've got ten or even 30-shot replaceable clips, then you're holding arms for hunting humans--equipment that brings the Second Amendment face to face with the First Commandment.

I suspect that one reason indirect controls like tightened background checks repeatedly fail is that lots of people don't think they will be sufficiently effective. Neither do I. Assault rifles are rifles of mass destruction. We shouldn't be trying to make it safe to have them on the street. It's too late for that. We need to restrict homicide weapons to those licensed to hunt humans, in law enforcement and the military.

One way to do that is to change manufacturing standards for guns as we did in barring vehicles without seatbelts or catalytic converters. Civilian weapons should be required to conform to the more humane rules for hunting game. No amount of legislative fiddling will prevent Rambo-styles clips from replacing small ones if the structure of the gun isn't changed. The answer is to return long guns to traditional magazines internal to the weapons, themselves, limited to hunting restrictions.

[onehandle]

1. Some guns are clearly for hunting humans and some 501(c)(4)s are Republican Fronts.

Both should be severely regulated, and eventually, will be.

[Lizzie Poppet]

2. "Assault rifles are rifles of mass destruction."

[Hoyt]

3. What do you consider them?

[Lizzie Poppet]

22. Small arms, obviously.

The term "weapons of mass destruction" already has an extant definition in widespread use, and that definition doesn't include small arms like assault rifles, battle rifles, shotguns, etc.

[Hoyt]

24. They are "weapons of mass destruction" in our country. They are coveted for their killing power.

Otherwise, those in the gun culture would covet something else.

[AndyA]

27. +1. They exist for no other reason than to kill humans.

American citizens have no business with them, obviously.

[Lizzie Poppet]

34. Thanks, Doctor Hoyt.

Your insights into others' psychology is always worth every penny paid...

[oldhippie]

7. College professors are propagandists .....

If he can change definitions at will, so can I.

[X_Digger]

5. Where does the second amendment mention hunting? n/t

[Eleanors38]

8. The Second is not about hunting. It is about the

Right of the people to keep and bear arms for purposes unspecified, save for the fed's limited interest in that right as specified in Article 1. It should be noted that the fed's interest is military (militia), which can certainly be construed as "hunting people," but is really about self-defense against some people, using weapons suitable for that purpose.

If the writer is so concerned about "people hunting," he should reference the various states' game laws where such is already disallowed.

[tblue]

21. The 2A is about defense of 'free state'

It says nothing about self-defense of individuals. And 'well-regulated' means there must be laws controlling these armed militias. Nowhere does it say any of us has an unfettered right to keep and beat arms.

[Lizzie Poppet]

23. The preamble is.

The main clause is about the right to keep and bear arms, and clearly ascribes that right to "the people."

[AndyA]

29. Second Amendment

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 well regulated militia. The words beginning the sentence, followed by a comma, indicate that the remainder of the words in that sentence support the opening words. Basically, since the security of a free state is necessitated upon a well regulated militia, people have a right to keep and bear arms and that right shall not be infringed.

It sounds to me like the people have a duty to be in a militia, and that militia should be well regulated. Neither of which seem to be applied today.

[The Straight Story]

33. What about the part that says:

"The right of the people" - that word people is important.

It didn't say 'the right of the militia' - so we have two rights here: one, that we can have a militia and that the people themselves can also be armed.

The base principles, the core ideals, were to limit the power of government over the people. Not to limit the power of the people.

We have a right to defend ourselves - through our own well regulated militia against enemy forces and the right for a person to bear arms to defend themselves. Defense is not left up to the government, you have a right to bear arms yourself.

In The Federalist No. 29, Alexander Hamilton argued that the army would always be a "select corps of moderate size" and that the "people at large (were) properly armed" to serve as a fundamental check against the standing army, the most dreaded of institutions. James Madison, in The Federalist No. 46, noted that unlike the governments of Europe which were "afraid to trust the people with arms," the American people would continue under the new Constitution to possess "the advantage of being armed," and thereby would continually be able to form the militia when needed as a "barrier against the enterprises of despotic ambition."

A 1990 Supreme Court decision regarding searches and seizures confirmed that the right to keep and bear arms was an individual right, held by "the people"--a term of art employed in the Preamble and the First, Second, Fourth, Ninth, and Tenth Amendments referring to all "persons who are part of a national community" (U.S. v. Verdu go-Urquidez, 1990).

The Supreme Court has ruled on only three other cases relating to the Second Amendment--all during the last half of the nineteenth century. In each of these cases, the Court held that the Second Amendment only restricted actions of the federal government, not of private individuals (U.S. v. Cruikshank, 1876) or state governments (Presser v. Illinois, 1886, and Miller v. Texas, 1894). The Court also held, in Presser, that the Firs t Amendment guarantee of freedom of assembly did not apply to the states; and in Miller v. Texas, it held that the Fourth Amendment guarantee against unreasonable search and seizure did not apply to the states, since the Court believed that all the amendm ents comprising the Bill of Rights were limitations solely on the powers of Congress, not upon the powers of the states.

[AndyA]

36. The people have a right to bear arms

As long as they are in a well regulated militia. That is the requirement. Seems simple enough to me.

[The Straight Story]

44. I think you want it to say that, but that is not what it says

And it was not the intent of the founders when they wrote it.

Patrick Henry: ”Are we at last brought to such an humiliating and debasing degradation that we cannot be trusted with arms for our own defense? Where is the difference between having our arms under our own possession and under our own direction, and having them under the management of Congress? If our defense be the real object of having those arms, in whose hands can they be trusted with more propriety, or equal safety to us, as in our own hands?”

Benjamin Franklin: ”Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote.”

Thomas Jefferson: ”The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government.”

”No freeman shall ever be debarred the use of arms.”

George Mason, American patriot, statesman and delegate from Virginia to the U.S. Constitutional Convention: ”When the resolution of enslaving America was formed in Great Britain, the British Parliament was advised by an artful man, who was governor of Pennsylvania, to disarm the people; that it was the best and most effectual way to enslave them; but that they should not do it openly, but weaken them, and let them sink gradually.”

[AndyA]

45. So the intent of the founders was to allow mass murders of children in schools?

Given the other rights they documented, I don't think so.

Perhaps the founders didn't envision a day when society would tolerate the senseless murder of innocent people. They did, however, allow for a legal process to change and update when necessary.

It's become necessary. The founders did not go to all the trouble to bring about a new country with freedoms and rights for its citizens just to have it undermined by groups like the NRA, which is what has happened.

They did recognize the right to life. Without life, there is no need for any other rights. The right to life trumps 2A rights, and it's up to our government to protect the right to life, for a change.

Things are changing right now with the public perception of gun ownership, and with every mass shooting, they will continue to change. Eventually our elected representatives will realize if they want to keep their jobs, they will have to respond to the public instead of catering to the NRA as they have been.

[The Straight Story]

46. Um... society didn't tolerate it

We have laws against harming others (with anything, not just guns) and have had such laws for a really long time.

Less than 1% of gun owners use them to harm others, same stats for cars, polls (drownings), etc.

The many should not be judged by what a few of that group does, something time and again I have heard is a progressive ideal and why we on the left don't rush off to condemn all muslims based on what a few do and we call for cooler heads (like after 9/11, the right wanted to rush out and pass laws and attack muslims based on emotional reaction to what a few did).

[AndyA]

53. Um...society IS tolerating it

Polling shows the vast majority of Americans want changes made to gun laws. So far...zip. Which means society has to continue to tolerate all the gun murders, accidents, suicides, etc., even though the majority want changes made.

In most cases, when laws don't protect people from being harmed, they are changed to make them better. Except when it comes to guns. The one thing that serves no purpose other than to kill, and for some reason the majority is expected to tolerate death and violence so the minority who have guns don't have their rights infringed upon.

The right to life trumps the right to bear arms. You don't need rights if you're dead.

[tblue]

47. Well = effectively Regulated = controlled by laws

Militia = a coalition of citizens protecting the free state

Free state = United States (or maybe the several states), free of imperial power, in the original case, the King of England


That's my interpretation. You said it better than I did though. Nothing there about self-defense. Nothing about protecting against the US government.

[Lizzie Poppet]

35. I disagree that the preamble acts as an unconditional modifier.

That is, the sentence is not structured so as to require militia membership in order to possess the right to keep and bear arms. It posits the existence of a well regulated militia and one justification for preserving a right that the main clause ascribes to the people. The latter is the larger set, while the militia is a subset thereof.

There is a necessary temporal order for this to work: in order for that militia to exist, the people from which it is draws must obviously exist as a precondition. The amendment suggests that those people must also possess the right to keep and bear arms in order for the militia to exist, as well.

If the amendment was intended to restrict the RKBA to the militia, it seems that it would not ascribe that right to the entire set (the people) but to the subset (the militia). It doesn't do that.

[AndyA]

39. I see it differently

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.

It opens with the statement that a well regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free state, then continues with the statement that the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. That is one statement. If the well regulated militia were independent from the right to bear arms not being infringed, a period would separate the two. But a comma was used, which meant what follows after the comma is a continuation of the opening statement.

Well regulated is truly the key element. Complete, thorough rules and regulations. We don't have that.

[Lizzie Poppet]

41. While I don't agree with your linguistic analysis...

...I do agree that there are a number of useful, non-infringing regulations that should be put in place (universal background checks being but one example). I also very much appreciate the civil, rational approach you're taking, something sadly rare in gun discussions of late.

[hack89]

52. "..our Constitution guarantees our individual right to bear arms" - Barack Obama May 2013

The Democratic party platform also recognizes the individual right to bear arms.

[Niceguy1]

54. the constitutional scholar has spoken.

[AndyA]

57. The right to life trumps the right to bear arms

You don't need any rights if you're dead. When people are expected to tolerate mass murders of children so that others can have the right to bear arms, something needs to change. The founding fathers did not intend for the majority of society to endure what we currently have so some could have guns.

[hack89]

58. Still doesn't change the fact that Americans have the right to own guns

all rights are equal - there is no hierarchy of civil rights in the Constitution.

[AndyA]

59. Tell that to survivors of gun violence

Things can be changed, that's why it's an amendment. It can be amended from time to time as necessary, like for instance to address the situation that citizens are walking around with more firepower than the founders ever imagined would exist.

Most Americans want changes. They will come, despite the NRA.

Americans also have the right to live their lives. It would seem one right is interfering with another. I value life at a higher level than gun ownership. The fact that some don't shows how decayed our society has become.

[hack89]

60. Americans want changes like universal background checks

there is no widespread support to compleatly repeal the 2A and outlaw private ownership of guns. Even here at DU there is majority support for the 2A.

[AndyA]

61. I don't believe I said anything about outlawing private ownership of guns, or repealing the 2A

You must be listening to the NRA too much.

The Second Amendment can and should be amended. It has not kept up with weapon technology. Rights can have limits, and I believe it's only a matter of time before responsible laws are put in place that don't infringe on rights.

Having a gun for protection is one thing, but owning an arsenal capable of launching a small war is another. With every suicide, accidental shooting, intentional shooting, and mass murder, more and more people are reconsidering how they feel about guns. This stuff will keep happening because what we have now isn't working, and will never work.

The mass murders will become more violent, and more people will die, because that's what has to be done to grab the headlines that these sick people seem to have such a desire for.

Things will change. The right to life trumps the right to bear arms.

[hack89]

70. We have cut our murder rate in half

gun deaths have steadily declined for 20 years. You have to go back 50 years to find a less violent time in America.

So no, you cannot say that things are not working. You have never been safer.

[AndyA]

71. Bullshit

Gun deaths have not steadily declined for 20 years. According to the CDC, gun deaths are rising again after hitting a low point in 2000, and gun deaths will exceed auto fatality deaths for the first time ever by 2015.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-12-19/american-gun-deaths-to-exceed-traffic-fatalities-by-2015.html

It's nice that you can marginalize people's lives by saying they've never been safer, but you'll never convince the survivors of gun violence of that. Yes, I can say that things aren't working because that's the fact, not NRA talking points.

What a waste of time even responding to you. The NRA owns you, just like many in Congress. Enough. Really.

[hack89]

72. Murder rate in 1992 = 9.8 In 2011 it was 4.8

66% of gun deaths are suicides. Which has nothing to do with semiautomatic rifles, does it?

What was responsible for that steady 20 year drop in gun violence? It was a time of skyrocketing gun ownership and an expansion of gun rights. Why didn't we see a corresponding explosion in gun violence?

[Eleanors38]

48. The RKBA is recognized as an individual right, just like...

the other rights enumerated in the BOR, and cannot be infringed anymore that that of free speech, for example. There is no right other than an individual right within the BOR. The well-regulated militia is a power of the fed government. It does NOT condition the RKBA, it does NOT imply (nor can it imply) a communitarian "right."

About well-regulated & unfettered. In the context when 2A was written, "well-regulated" meant militia members were to report with an arm suitable for military service which was in good condition with its bearer knowledgeable in its use. One could argue semi-auto rifles (AR-15s, AK-47 clones, etc.) are not suitable for military service as modern armies use FULL AUTO rifles. Fortunately, for controller/banners, most strong defenders of 2A are satisfied with restrictions beyond the rather obsolete models cited above. The outlines of my argument are the "standard model" among constitutional scholars, attorneys, historians and political scientists who have studied the Second.

The states CAN regulate the manner in which arms can be borne (concealed, unconcealed, both allowed, but not both prohibited), and other regs which do not violate the Second or the Fourteenth Amendments.

Alan Dershowitz, no friend of the Second, recognizes theindividual RKBA, and says if you want to have it any other way, repeal it.

[rrneck]

9. Hmmm.

People hunt single animals. If the animals are hunting a person, in a pack, would five rounds be enough? If there is a home invasion with multiple assailants, would five rounds be enough?

Of course, that doesn't happen very often. The odds are against it. So fuck 'em, right?

[Bake]

10. Yeah, I guess ... sucks for them ...

As for me, I'll keep my 15-round magazine ready. Two or three of 'em maybe.



Bake

[Tommy_Carcetti]

31. Why? nt

[Bake]

42. Because I can. Just in case.

Sorry you have a problem with that.

Bake

[Tommy_Carcetti]

43. See, this underscores the greater problem in this country.

"Because I can." "Because the 2nd Amendment says so."

The fact is, most people in this country who have guns arguably don't need one. And beyond that, very few--if any--private citizens in this country needs any type of semi-automatic gun with more than a 10 round capacity.

It goes beyond a matter of simple legislation, although make no mistake about it, gun control legislation is most certainly needed. It's a matter of a change of mindset. Maybe, under some interpretations of the 2nd Amendment, you can have a gun, or a certain type of gun. But does that mean that you should?

I would offer that most people do not actually need any gun, and as a matter of common sense, arguably should not have one.

I just think back to the man who last month came into my office building, shot his wife and then himself. He grew up in a very safe neighborhood, upper middle class. The chances of him suffering any type of violent home invasion were probably quite slim. Unfortunately, I think the chances of him doing what he ultimately did were far greater.

[raouldukelives]

11. Semi-auto high powered rifles are dangerous, no doubt about it.

But aren't handguns where the majority of deaths on American streets come from?
Seems like it would be good idea to focus on where the majority of suffering is emanating from and work backwards.
Hanguns aren't designed for hunting, they are designed to kill people.

[NightWatcher]

12. We've forgot about handguns because ARs look so scary

and terms like "assault rifle" and "semi-auto" are so powerful. Way more people are killed and injured by handguns daily than ARs, AKs....

[hack89]

13. Assault weapons kill abut 200 people a year. Handguns kill 30,000 a year.

why are we spending so much time talking about the weapons that are not the real problem?

[G_j]

16. I suppose it's because

a psycho was just able to guickly slaughter a whole bunch of school children with one?

ya think?

[hack89]

19. A psycho was able to kill even more people with a handgun

remember Va Tech?

If any proposed law would not have stopped Va Tech then it will not stop mass shootings.

[Eleanors38]

49. I suppose it's because

The Virginia Tech shooter used... Oh! wait... A pistol with standard mags. And killed more people, all adults.

[Hoyt]

17. Agree, we need to focus on handguns,toting, etc. Although I see no reason not to focus on guns

that get the gun cultists all emotional about lethal weapons and such. Tighter restrictions on weapons designed to kill people -- and which appeal to gun cultists' baser instincts -- will help calm the gun nuts down.

[hack89]

20. Every gun made is designed to kill people

guns are guns.

You are calling for tighter restrictions on all guns - correct?

[Hoyt]

25. Of course, you guys wouldn't covet them if harmless, non-intimidating, good for society, etc.

[hack89]

26. I covet mine because they shoot straight

comes in very handy for competitive target shooting.

[premium]

30. I covet mine because I got them for next to nothing.

I don't own any of those type semi auto rifles, but have no problem with those that do as long as they're used responsibly and properly secured when not in use.

[Decoy of Fenris]

62. I covet mine because they're pieces of history, and one of them is worth more than your car. :)

[Hoyt]

63. Pieces of history -- used to kill hundreds of thousands. Not inspiring if you ask me.

[Decoy of Fenris]

64. Pieces of history -- used to save hundreds of millions. Also, to shape the modern world.

Guns are valuable on an intellectual level for the same reason you give; because they kill. Firearms, in the same way as the bow and arrow, the sword, the spear and the snare, shaped human development significantly across the globe. Their presence in certain battles at certain times in certain positions turned the tides of history from favoring one faction to favoring another entirely. Likewise, their absence can be attributed to the fall of several civilizations. On an individual level, "one man with a gun" has proven capable of turning aside entire armies, simply by his presence and intimidation against equal, or superior, foes.

You can dislike guns all you want, but you'd be hard-pressed to say that they don't have significant historical value and in some cases, yes, inspirational value.

[Hoyt]

68. Some people are attracted to seedy stuff.

[oneshooter]

65. Part of my Family History

M92 Winchester 38WCF built in 1911, belonged to my grandfather, my Dad, and now me
Colt New Service revolver, 38WCF, built 1907 also my grandfathers, Dads and now mine.
Both these firearms were carried by my Grandfather for 20+ years as a Volunteer Deputy Sheriff in Quitman County MS.

Sharps 1875 Long Range Express rifle. 45/100/550 caliber, cased w/tools and some supplies

This rifle was carried by my great grandfather when he traveled west to Oregon in 1877. I also have his journal of his travels.

These firearms are a part of my families history, They will be passed on to future generations. They are a part of their past that they can touch and know.
I don't know if they were used to harm humans, and don't really care.

[Hoyt]

67. They were talking about "assault" weapons. You guys with guns in your user name

should reconsider your priorities.

[premium]

66. "if you ask me",

I don't believe anyone did ask you.
That aside, they are historical articles of history, whatever you may think of them.
And your little snide remark of "used to kill hundreds of thousands". No rifle used during WWII killed hundreds of thousands, proving, once again, that you don't know jack about what you're talking about.

Don't you ever get tired of being proven that you have no idea of what you talk about?

[Hoyt]

69. Collecting guns is on par with collecting swastikas and confederate flags.

[premium]

73. About par for the course from you. nt.

[Orrex]

14. Hunting people should be illegal.

[Pelican]

15. We could start a White House petition...

I hear they have been really effective...

[premium]

32. There was a movie made about hunting humans,

starring Ice-T.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0111323/

[Orrex]

37. That movie is so bad that it's part of the reason why it should be illegal

[premium]

38. Yeah, it really wasn't that good.

Especially Gary Busey, he really sucked.

[Eleanors38]

50. It is.

[Orrex]

55. Then why are guns for hunting people different?

[Eleanors38]

56. "Hunting people" is a systematic plan to kill humans...

no matter what instrument one uses. That is what is illegal. My "deer rifle," a Rem. 700 w/ scope, is nothing more than a military rifle with pretty walnut and nice blueing. But its ancestors have in the last century been responsible for millions of deaths in combat. I guess I don't see what you're driving at. If I were younger & could hustle over mesas and through river bottoms after wild hogs, I would lay aside my "deer rifle" & pick up an AR-15 with extended mag and go after 'em with that. It makes sense since you need a number of rounds to drop several hogs at one sitting (population reduction is more the call than hunting). That is why that type of rifle is the go-to arm for hogs.

[derby378]

18. The First Commandment?

"I am Yahweh your God. You shall have no other gods before me." Is this the commandment he's referring to? Because if he is, I fail to see where a detachable magazine flies in the face of that. Strange.

[aikoaiko]

28. What a classic Fudd.

This rationale stopped working about 20 years ago just after the first AWB came around.

[NickB79]

40. Which type of gun HASN'T been made to hunt people?

Muskets came about as weapons of war, designed to kill people.

Then rifled muzzle-loaders and revolvers in the early parts of the US Civil War.

Then lever-action rifles and shotguns in the later parts of the US Civil War.

Then bolt-action rifles and semi-automatic handguns in WWI.

Then semi-automatic and select-fire rifles in WWII.

The author of this article seems to start off calling for magazine capacity limits (which isn't a bad thing, IMO) but then seqways into a vague claim of assault rifles being the sole weapons designed to "hunt humans" when it's clear that ALL firearms have their basis in warfare.

[Fla_Democrat]

51. Yeah, like muskets..

those have never been used to.. oh, wait.

[ileus]

74. The kids and I managed to squeeze in some time with the AR's yesterday.

Between Baseball and Softball games we hit the neighbors property to have some family fun time with the AR's.

If you haven't tried a CMMG conversion for your 556/223 upper you're missing out on a load of cheap fun.