Re: [update] Santa Fe school shooting: 10 dead and 10 wounded in Texas
 

Wow, almost 3 weeks late, sorry for my tardy timing and I assure you I haven't forgotten about the post.

Okay so a lot of traditional intellectual / conservative thinking of the foundation of the land is that almost all of the rights we all have as human beings, are from God, and that they are inalienable. The creator granted them to us, no man / government etc shall take them away.

I.e., natural rights:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_and_legal_rights

Examples of contemporary definitions of this are the declaration of independence, the Universal declaration of HR etc etc.

This very much gets into the weeds and is very very wonkish / much more than my liking / to my chagrin. To the extent that there are discussions as to whether the word is "unalienable" or "inalienable":

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...=.e092083ecc6b

Anyway I digress (I better get to the point or I will max out the bandwidth for this site).

Basically (to get right to the point) in arguing that the right is not granted by the constitution but that the document restricts what the government can do is a very big legal distinction.

The second amendment states:

Now I could keep talking about this for days but in quick terms (even the topic does deserve a much longer reply) the rights that God has given man come from God. The US constitution forbids man (the government) from infringing upon them. Is the way the document is created. Now I am in no way saying that it is your or my God given right to own a gun - that is not what I would determine to be a basic human right (not in this day and age).

However to restrict anything, the constitution would have to explicitly state as much - it doesn't. In this instance (an amendment to the constitution states very clearly that there shall we no infringement at all by the state).

That was my point to Ianch99 ; there is a distinction (not one without a difference) that the constitution does not in any way grant the right to own a gun, it merely restricts the government from banning you bearing a gun - does that make sense?

I can't apologize enough for that comment - it was crass and unwarranted. Sometimes in arguing politics with seasonal political minds, I tended to hear arguments to the effect of "knowing what gun violence leads to the founders would still be in favor of something that carried out the lines in the DoI - because you can't have life or liberty preserved without the ability to defend it". None the less (true or not) I don't want to make excuses for my comments / try to justify them...the flippancy was inexcusable and I am sorry. I have a young daughter and I could only imagine how upset I would be if something happened to her due to gun violence. My apologies for the comment.

Re: [update] Santa Fe school shooting: 10 dead and 10 wounded in Texas
 

I think you missed the 2 points I raised:

1. to be a "well regulated Militia", as defined by the Founding Fathers, you must bear Arms that are commensurate to those of the Standing Army. If you do not, then you are not the Militia as intended in the original design and consequently are unable to use this defense to justify your wish to own near-military grade weapons.

2. you said "However to restrict anything, the constitution would have to explicitly state as much - it doesn't. In this instance (an amendment to the constitution states very clearly that there shall we no infringement at all by the state) This does not match reality I am afraid. There is a line in the sand: fully automatic weapons. The Government *does* restrict the population on the type of guns they can own. The precedent has been set, all that is being debated is where to now move it to.

Re: [update] Santa Fe school shooting: 10 dead and 10 wounded in Texas
 

If I might be so bold, the US Constitution serves two purposes. First, it establishes a purpose for having a central government to manage affairs between the states as well as affairs of common interest to all the states. Second, it mandates a certain structure for that government and restricts the powers that the central government shall be allowed to have. Basically it is an acknowledgement by the several states that, in the interests of mutual security and the prospects for international prosperity, there should be a central government BUT that the central government should be closely watched and held accountable by the states lest it become oppressive.

The US Constitution grants no rights to the citizens but, rather, was designed to protect the natural rights of the citizens from intrusion by the government. It is an expression of "negative rights" (those which exist without regard to government) rather than "positive rights" (those which government bestows upon the people). For example, the 13th Amendment does not grant a right of individual liberty. It merely proscribes the government from restricting that right. In this same way the 2nd Amendment proscribes the government from infringing on the right of the people to keep and bear arms.

Now, from a practical standpoint, there will be times where the unlimited exercise of personal choice by one person has a negative impact on the free exercise of rights by another. That is where the 4th, 5th and 6th Amendments come in; all of which limit the actions government can take if and when the time comes to restrict a person's liberty. These Amendments prohibit the broad restriction of any natural right and generally mandate that reasonable cause be given before a right can be restricted.

If we view the 2nd Amendment through the filter of the 4th, 5th and 6th Amendments it becomes clear that broad restrictions WITHOUT PROPER CAUSE would be unconstitutional. In 1934 Congress passed the National Firearms Act which was an attempt to establish such "proper cause" especially with regard to fully automatic weapons. The law was challenged in US v Miller (1939) and some specifics to "proper cause" were established. The Miller decision was a total sham but, precedent being what it is, has yet to be completely overturned. The US courts have been, are, and likely will continue to be, unduly influenced by public opinion.

Re: [update] Santa Fe school shooting: 10 dead and 10 wounded in Texas
 

I see the 2nd Amendment quote "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." as a clear historical anachronism when applied to the individual citizen and, as I argued in my earlier posts, should be ignored in the context of today's society. Of course this all depends on how you interpret the commas in the quote :) I see it as the "people" being part of the "well regulated militia" hence the historical anachronism.

So, what that leaves us with is the *nature* of the weapons that the citizen should be authorised to own, or to put in the inverse wording of your argument, the weapons that he/she should be not be allowed to own.

There is already a line in the sand, a precedent agreed and implemented, namely fully automatic weapons. What I personally think the US needs now, in light of the recent events relating to mass murder by semi/"modified to near full" automatic weapons is a redrawing of that line in the sand.

The line is there, just move it. The precedent is set and uncontested so with the consensus of the majority, it seems sensible to move the line and save lives. Saving lives seems a "proper cause" .. I know of no better one.

I have not seen, so far, a well argued position on why someone *needs* a semi automatic weapon for personal use at home. Needs one .. not wants one ...