General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsThe contitution says you can own a gun but also that you can own people
http://dailykos.tumblr.com/post/131292189105
hunter
(38,264 posts)Response to hunter (Reply #1)
Maraya1969 This message was self-deleted by its author.
Lizzie Poppet
(10,164 posts)...is to right click the image (I don't know how to do this with a single-button Mac mouse, though, if that's what you have), select "copy image URL" and then paste. I just tried it with this one, pasted into a new browser tab, and it worked.
Maraya1969
(22,441 posts)saturnsring
(1,832 posts)which it isn't so you don't have a right to one. any legal basis for gun ownership is courtesy of the supreme court .
Lizzie Poppet
(10,164 posts)The right is quite clearly ascribed to "the people," regardless of the rationale for protecting said right in the amendment's introductory clause. SCOTUS decisions aside, this is utterly basic linguistics. The "collective right" argument is dead as a dodo.
dumbcat
(2,120 posts)Could you please point that out for me? Thanks.
saturnsring
(1,832 posts)dumbcat
(2,120 posts)Funny, the US Code disagrees:
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/10/311
Lizzie Poppet
(10,164 posts)The language of the amendment simply doesn't work that way.
kelliekat44
(7,759 posts)individual as part of a well regulated militia. But then we can disregard grammar for the sake of insanity.
Lizzie Poppet
(10,164 posts)That's not what an introductory clause does when prefacing a subsequent clause constructed like that. It instead provides a rationale (not the sole rationale) for what's contained in the subsequent clause. An "if-and-only-oif" situation like yoiu assert woudl require a different construction.
Moreover, the RKBA remains ascribed to the larger set (the people), not to the subset (militia). The language doesn't create or grant this right, either; it simply acknowledges it.
Whether protecting this right is "insanity" or not is another matter, of course.
EL34x4
(2,003 posts)https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thirteenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution
Maraya1969
(22,441 posts)constitution allowed for slavery.
Travis_0004
(5,417 posts)If it is proposed, then you can vote on it.
Good luck getting it passed though.
EL34x4
(2,003 posts)frizzled
(509 posts)The Second Amendment is the Fourth Article of the Bill of Rights, not the Constitution.
EL34x4
(2,003 posts)They're talking to an audience that doesn't really understand how the Constitution works.
frizzled
(509 posts)"Ensuring domestic tranquillity" is pretty much the opposite of what 2A does.
Lizzie Poppet
(10,164 posts)You might think that the compliance rates with partial bans in CT and NY might inform ban advocates...but apparently that's a big ask.
EL34x4
(2,003 posts)It only matters what it says now.
The Founding Fathers inserted procedures in the Constitution to change the Constitution.
Che's analogy is silly.
Want to repeal the Second Amendment? We can do it! There are procedures in our Constitution to allow us to do exactly that.
frizzled
(509 posts)Contrast to the UK, France and Australia where bicameral assent is all that's needed.
The likelihood of repealing any part of the constitution within the existing legal framework within the next 100 years is nil.
Absent a revolution, and you'd be talking about killing a lot of people, you can either live with the existing terrible constitution and accept it will never change in your lifetime or your childrens' lifetime, or else just leave the country and find somewhere saner to live.
Sorry, but this is just the reality.
EL34x4
(2,003 posts)Twice within my lifetime and 6 times since 1950.
To say it is impossible to amend is ridiculous and just not true.
Now, it might be impossible at this time to amend the Second Amendment but this is only because there is not enough popular support in doing so. That's not a defect in the Constitution.
frizzled
(509 posts)The last amendment to be proposed (not ratified) was the 26th, which was passed 94-0 by the Senate in 1971.
The problem isn't that there can never be enough popular support, it's that a tiny number of legislatures can refuse to pass it.
Eleanors38
(18,318 posts)There were ten (10) amendments on today's early voting ballot alone, most dinky house-keeping stuff. I ignored half of them.
former9thward
(31,802 posts)That is different than "allowing" it. Only one section of the Constitution mentions slavery as an institution, Article I, Section 9. That section allows Congress to ban the importation of slaves after 1807.
WillowTree
(5,325 posts)It just didn't specifically prohibit it and the 13th amendment was passed to make it clear that slavery would no longer be tolerated.
Please note that the Constitution does not specifically forbid arson or child abuse, but I wouldn't go around saying that it allows those unsavory activities just because it doesn't mention them explicitly.
Yo_Mama
(8,303 posts)to forbid the federal government from disarming the citizens.
That was done as part of the original Bill of Rights in order to get the states to ratify the Constitution.
So, currently, the forbidding of the mass disarmament of the people and the forbidding of slavery rests on exactly the same legal grounds.
We could, of course, amend the Constitution to alter the provisions of the Second Amendment, as was done for Prohibition (twice, 18 prohibiting and 21 repealing 18 and the Volstead Act).
So basically, the argument the OP references only is appealing to the ignorant. It should come as a surprise to no one that the Constitution is periodically amended.
loyalsister
(13,390 posts)That amendment does not ban slavery\involuntary servitude altogether, it specifies under what conditions it may exist. People make a great deal of money off of that practice and minorities are overrepresented. The 13th amendment did not change things as much as people would like to believe.
cleanhippie
(19,705 posts)out of the hands of the owners that legally possess them now?
Seriously, these feel-good, contrived platitudes are worthless.
What's your real-world solution?
frizzled
(509 posts)Bearing in mind that these guns are highly concentrated in a few people's hands.
Within a few decades most of the guns will be too rusty and antiquated to work reliably. The ammunition will decay. The half-life of the existing stocks will be measured in decades at most.
Sure, you'll never get rid of all of them, but you don't need to in order to have an impact. Gun crime in cities depends on easy availability. Criminals and gangs typically aren't gunmaking experts nor wealthy.
Lizzie Poppet
(10,164 posts)While there is considerable controversy on this point, I definitely think that's not the case. The impetus behind asserting this concentration seems to be a couple of survey studies indicating smaller percentages of gun owners. Those studies, however, are phone surveys that have no method of verifying the truthfulness of the respondents. In many cases, such surveys can be constructed to work around the lack of verification. However, in the case of "yes/no" questions on a controversial subject like this one (the matter boils down to "do you have firearms in your household?" constructing the survey question to avoid resistance to divulging info to a stranger is basically impossible. The intent of the question remains obvious. I have no doubt whatsoever that a significant percentage of respondents in those studies lied to the surveyors.
That is simply not the case. Most firearms are in fact extremely robust, long-lasting machines. A friend of mine has a pistol well over a hundred years old (a "Broomhandle" Mauser) that functions perfectly, despite being an exceptionally complicated design. Most firearms will operate perfectly for many thousands of rounds fired. Keeping them from rusting is a very simple matter in most climates.
Thisw is largely correct. Ammunition lasts for several decades, but does decay to the point of unreliability. Most of the roubnds in a given batch will still fire at that point...but by no means all.
frizzled
(509 posts)made up.
Most firearms are in fact extremely robust, long-lasting machines.
Many aren't, and even if they're built to last, only then if the guns are well kept. I dare say most won't be.
Metal rusts and corrodes, polymers oxidise, wood splits. We can help that on its way by banning specialized gun oils too.
As long as the pool of guns is a finite resource the number will get smaller every year.
Lizzie Poppet
(10,164 posts)Care to address the issue of false negatives in any unverified survey about possible gun possession...or is slinging an insult all ya got?
EL34x4
(2,003 posts)LOL!
You mean this?
Lizzie Poppet
(10,164 posts)EL34x4
(2,003 posts)beevul
(12,194 posts)Welcome to permanent minority party status.
I can't even begin to quantify the stupid of that idea.
frizzled
(509 posts)nt
beevul
(12,194 posts)Lurks Often
(5,455 posts)I have a number of guns over 100 years old that remain completely reliable and have fired WWII era ammo that worked perfectly fine.
As long as the ammo is stored in a dry, relatively cool place, it will last indefinitely. The same applies to firearms, as long as they are cleaned and stored in a reasonably dry place, they will remain functional indefinitely.
A study shows 33% of Americans own firearms, that is hardly "highly concentrated". If anything that is probably on the low side.
Link: http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/one-three-americans-own-guns-culture-factor-study-finds-n384031
frizzled
(509 posts)Sure, you'll never entirely get rid of all the guns, but we can make them rare and valuable enough to make it very hard for street gangs, criminals and psychos to get hold of them.
Lizzie Poppet
(10,164 posts)Guns that are seldom fired (which means most US civilian guns) need only a bit of oil and a cleaning after use to last for well over a century. Certain ancillary components like stocks and grips won't last that long, but the components actually necessary for operation (and which are less simple to create from scratch) will. Oh, and it doesn't need to be gun-specific oil, so your suggestion upthread about banning such oils would be as useless as it is extreme.
Ammunition will start to degrade to the point of some of the rounds in a given batch misfiring in the thirty years you posit. However, that failure percentage will be low for at least another couple of decades. In any case, reloading and smuggling (War on Drugs and its abject failure, anyone?) can easily out-pace that decay should a complete ban be enacted.
Lurks Often
(5,455 posts)Again, I have fired ammo that was made during WWII and it worked fine. There is plenty of surplus ammo out there in various military calibers that is more then 30 years old that still works perfectly when fired.
As for regular maintenance that is also wrong. As long is the gun is put away reasonably clean and not subject to excessive moisture or humidity it will not need "regular maintenance".
frizzled
(509 posts)Sure, some rounds that are 70 years old might work, but with no reliability. The explosive chemicals always react slowly over time.
Forcing criminals and psychos to scavenge for ancient guns and ammunition on the black market sounds like an excellent improvement to the current situation where they can walk into Walmart.
Lurks Often
(5,455 posts)If you want to keep denying that and continuing making up things, go right ahead.
Waldorf
(654 posts)frizzled
(509 posts)nt
Waldorf
(654 posts)sarisataka
(18,216 posts)It expressly forbids owning people-
AMENDMENT XIII
Passed by Congress January 31, 1865. Ratified December 6, 1865.
Note: A portion of Article IV, section 2, of the Constitution was superseded by the 13th amendment.
Section 1.
Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.
Section 2.
Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.
Changed from original text per-
Article. V.
The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.
Nuclear Unicorn
(19,497 posts)LanternWaste
(37,748 posts)I can often be quite difficulty indeed, to extrapolate the both the intentions and the sincerity of the one-third to one-half of the original, slave-owning signers of the Declaration of Independence...
And yet for some odd reason we deify them for their wisdom rather than their salad-buffet choosing of copied ideals.
Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)So would it be fair to say 'The Constitution forbids the sale of alcohol' because it once did even though it actually says the very opposite?
It's a cute point until he starts suggesting we need to get rid of the Constitution over things it does not in fact say.
MagickMuffin
(15,890 posts)Constitution. The "s" is misssssssing