And you should also not pretend that we dont regularly restrict or limit the rights in the constitution over various greater public interests.
Yes, over the 20th century, the federal government has increasingly imposed legislation that places the so-called "public interest" ahead of constitutional liberties. Because we have made these mistakes in the past doesn't mean we need to continue making them; a lot of those laws should be reversed.
Freedom of speech has its limits: cant yell fire in the movie theater.
So does religion: you dont get to impose your religion on others even if its what your religious expression or observance calls for
Assembly: cant block public streets, or you must get a permit to do so
While there are examples of the federal government putting the "public interest" ahead of constitutionally guaranteed rights, none of those are.
Reality is the 2nd amendment is about the ability of the militia to exist and be capable of fulfilling its mission of assisting in national defense.
Even if that interpretation of the Second Amendment were true, it wouldn't matter. It's not the Second Amendment that grants Americans the right to own and bear arms; rather, it is the lack of a delegated power in the Constitution that establishes that right. The Bill of Rights is merely a clarification of some powers, in particular, that the federal government lacks. Hence "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."
So dont pretend that the 2nd Amendment is any different, or any more sacred and inviolate than the others. There are times and places to limit it. By imposing background checks, on ALL sales. By requiring training to prove your anret incompetent and a threat to others.
And what "public interest" would such ineffective policies serve?
By requiring proper storage, so that unauthorized persons, such as children, get access.
And how do you imagine that is going to work? Do you seriously think that any penalty the state can impose on parents for improper gun storage is worse than losing a child?
The problem with the policies you want is that, even if we adopted the principle that the "greater public interest" justifies intrusions into individual liberties, those policies simply don't make much sense.
To most of us in the rest of the world, the arguments put forward by American gun advocates don't sound much different to religious fundamentalists using the bible or Koran to justify their outrageous positions, i.e. there's no logical sense.
No, what makes "no logical sense" is the idea that you can meaningfully enforce a law prohibiting possession of something as simple as a metal cylinder with a handle. Attempting to do so would be even worse than the "war on drugs".
Now, I understand that this may be hard to grasp for, say, urban, mechanically challenged, government-indoctrinated Europeans (which is what I presume you mean by "the rest of the world"). I understand because I used to be one. But your lack of understanding is your problem, not a problem with US politics.
Why not just agree the 2nd amendment is out-of-date and wrong, and just get rid of it?
There is a democratic process for that. Anybody who wants to do that is welcome to try.
The 2nd amendment already has limits: can't murder people, or rob people, or kidnap them, or threaten them.
None of those are related to the Second Amendment, the right to own or bear arms. In addition, these are primarily matters for the states, not the federal government.
The 2nd Amendment *isn't* any different than the others - and if you want to limit it, please, let's apply strict scrutiny, shall we?... compelling government interest...
If you interpret "compelling government interest" as "attempting to improve some national statistic based on some half-assed theory about causality", then you can justify pretty much every policy you like, all the way to government mandated pay scales or even nationalizing all the means of production. That is not how the US government is supposed to work. That isn't what a "compelling interest" ought to look like.
All this detective work on the meaning of the Second Amendment is pointless. The right to be free from federal restrictions on gun ownership or carry is part of the original Constitution, which doesn't list such restrictions as part of the enumerated powers of the federal government. Originally, any such restrictions were left to the states and local governments, and that's probably still the best place to impose such restrictions.
And that has what to do with Quigley's observation?
His main point isn't that "guns are necessary for revolutions", but rather "free and democratic societies tend to trust their citizens with guns".
If what this guy says were true then countries like China are screwed, since the people will never get better weapons than the state. Yet China seems to be getting more democratic...
Quigley didn't argue that gun availability is part of the democratization process or that it precedes it; what he is saying is that availability of weapons to common citizens is an indicator of free and democratic societies.
(Also, in what way is China getting "more democratic"? There seems to be some economic liberalization, but not much in terms of politics or individual liberties.)
He didn't say that weapons availability is "necessary and sufficient" for democracy to emerge. In fact, he didn't even postulate a causal relationship. What he is really saying is that if a society meets the pre-conditions necessary for democracy, then it will also trust its citizens with guns. Availability of weapons is an indicator of the state of society and politics, with free and democratic societies having more availability than non-free societies.
As for Somalia, your example fails on several fronts, in addition to your confusion of "necessary" and "sufficient". First, the guns available in Somalia aren't legally available, which is what Quigley used as the indicator. Second, Somalia was a creation of European imperialism and colonialism, so it is doubtful that having a "functional government" for the entirety of that particular piece of Africa is ever a good idea; below the "national" level, Somalia still have government. Third, creating a democracy takes decades or centuries, and Somalia just started. Fourth, Somalia is economically and politically better off now than it was under "scientific socialism".
Given the massive fall in violent crime over the last couple of decades that we achieved by "doing nothing" about gun control, and given that gun control has never been shown to cause a reduction in violent crime, "doing nothing" seems like a good option.
Rather than hysterical shrieking designed to encourage doing nothing, maybe you could suggest alternative approaches.
Sure, there are several things we can do to reduce violent crime further: end the war on drugs, stop subsidizing single motherhood, end racist policies by the federal government, among other things. Obama was elected to do many of those things, and the fact that he has failed to do anything meaningful about these issues means he is responsible for the deaths of tens of thousands of Americans. His current gun control efforts and his crying on TV are cosmetic and hypocritical.
So, you honestly think that companies like Colt, S&W, H&K, Glock, etc... given the incentive could not, within a few years develop a smart trigger lock that would equal the reliability of the rest of their firearm?
And what would the point be? That obviously won't stop or even reduce criminal uses of firearms. It won't stop suicides by firearm.
The only thing it will do is stop accidental injuries and death when children get a hold of a firearm, or when a burglar grabs a gun and tries to shoot the home owner with it. But those cases are fairly rare, and they are stopped just as well by gun safes.
You're here on Slashdot. I hope that means you're a technologist of some type.
Yes, and part of being a good technologist is to respect KISS, instead of adding complexity and features where they don't belong.
BingeOn doesn't use your data plan, it's unlimited, and you complain that it's limited to 1.5 Mbps? That seems like a good deal to me. But if you don't like it, you can opt out: nobody is forcing you to use it.
Another way of looking at it is that text used to be scarce due to the cost of publishing and distributing it, so people read a lot of crap, like the musings of impoverished Frenchmen or the escapist poetry of disenfranchised Germans. These days, people actually read stuff that matters to them: writings by people they care about, dating profiles of people they can actually meet, stories about places they can actually visit.
Slashdot Mirror
Yes, over the 20th century, the federal government has increasingly imposed legislation that places the so-called "public interest" ahead of constitutional liberties. Because we have made these mistakes in the past doesn't mean we need to continue making them; a lot of those laws should be reversed.
While there are examples of the federal government putting the "public interest" ahead of constitutionally guaranteed rights, none of those are.
Even if that interpretation of the Second Amendment were true, it wouldn't matter. It's not the Second Amendment that grants Americans the right to own and bear arms; rather, it is the lack of a delegated power in the Constitution that establishes that right. The Bill of Rights is merely a clarification of some powers, in particular, that the federal government lacks. Hence "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."
And what "public interest" would such ineffective policies serve?
And how do you imagine that is going to work? Do you seriously think that any penalty the state can impose on parents for improper gun storage is worse than losing a child? The problem with the policies you want is that, even if we adopted the principle that the "greater public interest" justifies intrusions into individual liberties, those policies simply don't make much sense.
No, what makes "no logical sense" is the idea that you can meaningfully enforce a law prohibiting possession of something as simple as a metal cylinder with a handle. Attempting to do so would be even worse than the "war on drugs". Now, I understand that this may be hard to grasp for, say, urban, mechanically challenged, government-indoctrinated Europeans (which is what I presume you mean by "the rest of the world"). I understand because I used to be one. But your lack of understanding is your problem, not a problem with US politics.
There is a democratic process for that. Anybody who wants to do that is welcome to try.
None of those are related to the Second Amendment, the right to own or bear arms. In addition, these are primarily matters for the states, not the federal government.
If you interpret "compelling government interest" as "attempting to improve some national statistic based on some half-assed theory about causality", then you can justify pretty much every policy you like, all the way to government mandated pay scales or even nationalizing all the means of production. That is not how the US government is supposed to work. That isn't what a "compelling interest" ought to look like.
All this detective work on the meaning of the Second Amendment is pointless. The right to be free from federal restrictions on gun ownership or carry is part of the original Constitution, which doesn't list such restrictions as part of the enumerated powers of the federal government. Originally, any such restrictions were left to the states and local governments, and that's probably still the best place to impose such restrictions.
And that has what to do with Quigley's observation? His main point isn't that "guns are necessary for revolutions", but rather "free and democratic societies tend to trust their citizens with guns".
Quigley didn't argue that gun availability is part of the democratization process or that it precedes it; what he is saying is that availability of weapons to common citizens is an indicator of free and democratic societies. (Also, in what way is China getting "more democratic"? There seems to be some economic liberalization, but not much in terms of politics or individual liberties.)
As for Somalia, your example fails on several fronts, in addition to your confusion of "necessary" and "sufficient". First, the guns available in Somalia aren't legally available, which is what Quigley used as the indicator. Second, Somalia was a creation of European imperialism and colonialism, so it is doubtful that having a "functional government" for the entirety of that particular piece of Africa is ever a good idea; below the "national" level, Somalia still have government. Third, creating a democracy takes decades or centuries, and Somalia just started. Fourth, Somalia is economically and politically better off now than it was under "scientific socialism".
Given the massive fall in violent crime over the last couple of decades that we achieved by "doing nothing" about gun control, and given that gun control has never been shown to cause a reduction in violent crime, "doing nothing" seems like a good option.
Sure, there are several things we can do to reduce violent crime further: end the war on drugs, stop subsidizing single motherhood, end racist policies by the federal government, among other things. Obama was elected to do many of those things, and the fact that he has failed to do anything meaningful about these issues means he is responsible for the deaths of tens of thousands of Americans. His current gun control efforts and his crying on TV are cosmetic and hypocritical.
And what would the point be? That obviously won't stop or even reduce criminal uses of firearms. It won't stop suicides by firearm. The only thing it will do is stop accidental injuries and death when children get a hold of a firearm, or when a burglar grabs a gun and tries to shoot the home owner with it. But those cases are fairly rare, and they are stopped just as well by gun safes.
Yes, and part of being a good technologist is to respect KISS, instead of adding complexity and features where they don't belong.
BingeOn doesn't use your data plan, it's unlimited, and you complain that it's limited to 1.5 Mbps? That seems like a good deal to me. But if you don't like it, you can opt out: nobody is forcing you to use it.
Another way of looking at it is that text used to be scarce due to the cost of publishing and distributing it, so people read a lot of crap, like the musings of impoverished Frenchmen or the escapist poetry of disenfranchised Germans. These days, people actually read stuff that matters to them: writings by people they care about, dating profiles of people they can actually meet, stories about places they can actually visit.