- Capitalism and Alternatives -

Weapons suitable only for personal brawls are not protected

Posted by: DonS ( USA ) on October 21, 1999 at 01:15:08:

In Reply to: Their specific purpose is to kill people is it not? posted by septimus on October 19, 1999 at 11:00:31:

: *So what's the dividing line between a sawn off shotgun and any other gun? Their specific purpose is to kill people is it not?

Don: In Miller, the issue was whether the gun in question had value in a militia context. Weapons suitable only for personal brawls are not protected, while those suitable for military service are. As is often said, "the right to keep and bear arms ain't about hunting". It is about weapons for killing PEOPLE, but not necessarly for ALL TYPES of guns used for killing people.

: *OK, you win. I don't really have the time or the inclination to debate this. It's obviously been a labour of love for you and I can't compete with that at this stage. But even if what you say is true, that doesn't make the right right. Right?

Don: Two points: 1) We must defend our rights, even if we don't agree with them. The proper way to remove this right is head on: repeal the Second Amendment. To subvert it threatens all our rights 2) I believe this right is very right. My most important right is my right to life and liberty, and my right to keep and bear arms is necessary for me to defend life and liberty.

::: How many times have YOU been quoted in SC opinions?
: :
: *Not very many times as it happens. You?

Don: Not once. But then, I never quoted myself as an authority.

: : Don: On the contrary, the world isn't as simple as YOU think. After all, YOU are the one offering simplistic solutions.

: *Don't be so silly. At no point have I claimed that reducing crime is as simple as harsh gun laws. I mentioned the crime rate only as a counterpoint to your statement in an effort to show you how simplistic it is. The importance of social context of the guns will usually outweigh their mere existence.

Don: But gun laws may INCREASE violent crime. And if gun laws can not be shown to decrease violent crime, why have them? Laws that do no good do harm.

: At the end of all of these debates I can never help but think that the only factor which should preclude the right to own a gun is the desire to do so. Gun ownership should be a hard won privelege, not a right.

Don: I view it as a basic right. It is, in effect, my right to defend life and liberty. I know quite a few people who choose to own guns, and quite a few who don't. I must say, the people who choose to own guns tend to be better people then the ones who don't. I don't think this is because they like guns; I think there is some other reason. But it does seem to be a trend.

Follow Ups:


The Debating Room Post a Followup