Court says individuals have right to own guns

[DSTCHAOS]

Originally Posted by shinerbock

Fears often don't come true in such matters, but I don't think that makes them illegitimate.

For what we're discussing, fears that have no or minimal foundation and have a low likelihood of coming to reality are illegitimate and irrational.

Originally Posted by shinerbock

Perhaps your named exception aside, I think the discourse has been pretty rational and well-mannered.

I don't care about the well-mannered part. Rational, perhaps, but that's because what can irrationally and/or emotionally be said about guns has been said in other threads.

[shinerbock]

Originally Posted by DSTCHAOS

For what we're discussing, fears that have no or minimal foundation and have a low likelihood of coming to reality are illegitimate and irrational.

Not to beat a dead horse, but could your provide an example?

From my perspective, when we're talking about fear, I'm talking about people who fear the government knocking on doors and taking away guns when people need them the most. That may seem irrational to some, but I suspect some citizens of NOLA feel differently.

[DSTCHAOS]

Originally Posted by shinerbock

Not to beat a dead horse, but could your provide an example?

From my perspective, when we're talking about fear, I'm talking about people who fear the government knocking on doors and taking away guns when people need them the most. That may seem irrational to some, but I suspect some citizens of NOLA feel differently.

Good example. When do you suppose that you will "need them the most?" That's where the issue of fear can irrationally fuel the discussion. And would the government ever really be knocking down doors or is that not literal?

I think you and I have discussed this before. Aren't you (or macallan?) the one who said you keep a gun under your pillow because you think it's a deterrent? You now know that pillow guns aren't deterrents because criminals don't know you have a pillow gun or the probability that anyone would have a pillow gun. But I'm all for your right to have a pillow gun as long as you are well-informed and realistic in what it is intended to accomplish and what it is most likely to accomplish. Most people aren't. Let's also pray that you never have to startedly fumble with your pillow to actually defend your home.

[shinerbock]

Originally Posted by DSTCHAOS

Good example. When do you suppose that you will "need them the most?" That's where the issue of fear can irrationally fuel the discussion. And would the government ever really be knocking down doors or is that not literal?

I think you and I have discussed this before. Aren't you (or macallan?) the one who said you keep a gun under your pillow because you think it's a deterrent? You now know that pillow guns aren't deterrents because criminals don't know you have a pillow gun or the probability that anyone would have a pillow gun. But I'm all for your right to have a pillow gun as long as you are well-informed and realistic in what it is intended to accomplish and what it is most likely to accomplish. Most people aren't. Let's also pray that you never have to startedly fumble with your pillow to actually defend your home.

We have, and I've made statements about deterrence, but I don't keep a gun under my pillow. Must be Mac or a combination of statements made by us both.

I believe collective gun ownership in an area can be a deterrent, and there is some evidence to support that argument. Further, I can deter criminals by possessing a weapon (pulling my gun from under my pillow can certainly deter a criminal from committing a violent act).

I brought up the Katrina example because it was a realization of many people's fears. When authority comes to your door and by force, takes your weapons, that it rightfully frightening. To many people, the time when one will most need a weapon to defend themselves and their families is during periods of societal collapse. Arguably, that is what happened in New Orleans.

I think fear can certainly be irrational, but we have to be careful when dismissing those fears as illegitimate. Anti slippery-slope arguments can be just as dangerous as the slope itself, IMO.

[UGAalum94]

Random thought about assault rifles etc:

Many of us consider placing limitations on assault weapons among the most reasonable of the restrictions that the government can place on gun ownership, and yet, if you try to read the 2nd amendment to be about militias, wouldn't those be the guns be the most essential in that regard?

[nittanyalum]

Originally Posted by UGAalum94

Random thought about assault rifles etc:

Many of us consider placing limitations on assault weapons among the most reasonable of the restrictions that the government can place on gun ownership, and yet, if you try to read the 2nd amendment to be about militias, wouldn't those be the guns be the most essential in that regard?

When the framers were talking about militias and their one-shot-muskets to make sure the colonists could defend themselves against the crown or other enemies, I can't imagine they had AK-47s in mind when they wrote the amendment. Or fathom the existence of a gun like that.

[Kevlar281]

Originally Posted by nittanyalum

When the framers were talking about militias and their one-shot-muskets to make sure the colonists could defend themselves against the crown or other enemies, I can't imagine they had AK-47s in mind when they wrote the amendment. Or fathom the existence of a gun like that.

Da Vinci envisioned the machine gun in the 14th century; the first documented rapid-fire gun was patented in 1718. I don’t see why the founding fathers couldn’t have imagined a light weight assault rifle.

[Elephant Walk]

Originally Posted by nittanyalum

When the framers were talking about militias and their one-shot-muskets to make sure the colonists could defend themselves against the crown or other enemies, I can't imagine they had AK-47s in mind when they wrote the amendment. Or fathom the existence of a gun like that.

That's simply not a viable argument.

The citizens must be armed to defend itself against the government. That means if a citizen has the means to do it, they should be able to purchase what ever gun the government owns.

[shinerbock]

Originally Posted by nittanyalum

When the framers were talking about militias and their one-shot-muskets to make sure the colonists could defend themselves against the crown or other enemies, I can't imagine they had AK-47s in mind when they wrote the amendment. Or fathom the existence of a gun like that.

When they envisioned free speech, the probably didn't envision internet pornography either. Constitutional interpretation should rarely be impacted by technological advance, and Scalia addresses this in the Heller opinion.

Regarding assault weapons, I again want to urge people to look into what you're supporting (if you support such things). These measures probably will not just limit "assault weapons" (which are fully automatic rifles like AR 15's and AK-47's), but will likely try to limit the semi-automatic versions of these rifles as well. The only difference between a semi-auto AR-15 and a hunting rifle are magazine capacity and the fact that the former looks "scarier." I also expect such legislation will try to limit magazine capacity in handguns as well (as seen already in states like CA).

[KSigkid]

Originally Posted by nittanyalum

When the framers were talking about militias and their one-shot-muskets to make sure the colonists could defend themselves against the crown or other enemies, I can't imagine they had AK-47s in mind when they wrote the amendment. Or fathom the existence of a gun like that.

If you start getting into this type of argument, as to the framers not having modern advances in mind when writing the Constitution and amendments, you're getting into a whole mess of issues. You could make arguments on how to limit free speech over the internet and a few other things.

I understand what you're saying, I just don't think you want to start going down that road.