Drunk driving laws are a "broad brush smear" of all the people who a) don't drive drunk, or b) drive drunk but never hit anybody!

Broad brush smear, I tell you!

How I roll! Druuuuunk!

the right to drive drunk while shooting shit

the differences between regulation of ownership of guns and cars (registration is some states, etc) aren't the same things as regulation of the actions taken with either object. They have nothing to do with each other.

thus the actual gun-related equivalent to your "I should be able to drive with a fifth of Jack atwixt ma' legs if'n I want to!" example would be advocating making it legal to, say, commit armed robbery. I trust you see the problem with this line of argument...

I am unaware of any similar restriction on picking up your gun. And as I understand, a lot of homicides are related to gun and alcohol use.

This is particularly true in domestic violence cases, I suspect. No. I don't have the statistics and I doubt that any exist because I am not sure that the police even bother to test for alcohol abuse in many domestic violence cases. Getting drunk in your home is not against the law.

That is to say, an officer could arrest you for "reckless endangerment" if you were holding a loaded firearm while under the influence. Obviously they could if you were actually pointing it at anyone (regardless of whether you were drunk or not), but I think it could happen even if you were just holding it. Not positive, either way...

to carry a gun into a bar for 2 years.No incidents of a problem in that time.

And wasn't one of our state legislators caught driving drunk with a loaded CC?

I'm sure there are more examples.

I have no problem with CCP's, anyway. Never said I did. I carry, but not CC.

Plan on taking the course soon.

the alcohol diatribe.But yes,there was a legislator that got a DWI while a gun was in his car,the gun played no part in any of it except another charge tho.

I dont know of the girl in Knoxville,although it wouldn't surprise me.

Me personally driving with a bottle of whiskey between my legs - and slugging it while I drive - is not intent to harm, it's intent to drive in whichever state of intoxication i desire. If I harm no one with this action, why would that be regulated? I haven't assaulted anyone or taken their property.

Armed robbery is taking away another's property with INTENT to do so, as well as threatening them with bodily harm as an INTENT.

No one who posted your initial outpouring of logically-challenged nonsense should be calling any other argument "stupid." Just sayin'...

In any case, the analogy is sound in terms of the actual point being made: the categorical difference between ownership of a tool and one's behavior with that tool. Do you understand this differentiation?

I said it was a resort to insult...which you have now admitted was the case (not that it was in question).

And no, I am by no means "conflating personal choice that harms no one with a personal choice that does do harm." The analogy was based on the categorical difference between ownership and behavior, not on the outcome of the actions taken. As I previously explained...

"Your (sic) saying that driving with an open bottle in the car is the same as armed robbery ..."

Straw man. Again, I wasn't positing a broad equivalency. I was stating, by obvious implication, that they are both behaviors. Which they are.

Regulation based on a significant and demonstrable probability of harm is perfectly reasonable. On the mere possibility? That's a bit trickier...but the basic principle is a valid one.

How many pictures do you have to take to get that one you were looking for? Shooting is like that, a skill that has to be developed and practiced. The joy comes from accomplishing a difficult task.

I would argue that our entire socio-economic structure is built around the auto. Had we had the auto when the Constitution was written, I imagine driving would have been a "right." It's time to fucking step out of 1776 here, folks. Take off that three-cornered hat and put on your Reality Cap.

Are you saying that the right to own a gun is more integral to our society than the right to drive a car? ( And I would argue that the Commerce Clause would probably cover the right to drive. )

Really?

And it isn't me bringing up the car/gun comparison, BTW. I just addressed it...

On edit: meant Amendment IX, not Commerce Clause...too much going on

It is an important distinction.

Now as far as your oblique attempt to insult me by insinuating that I'm some kind of a teahaddist, you couldn't be more wrong. In fact I am of the very few Americans that has said for decades that our Constitution was a buggy alpha that has been enshrined as inviolate in a myth of divine inspiration despite its enormous flaws and lack of functionality. But be that as it may, the fact remains that yes, because of our unwillingness to address the deficiencies of our Constitution the right to own a firearm is superior to the privilege of driving.

Oh and you should have written it 1787 or 1791, 1776 was the Declaration of Independence.

Last edited Sun Jul 22, 2012, 04:37 PM - Edit history (2)

edit cuz I done wrong...

that there are countless precedents at the state and local levels that specifically deny that it is a right. If a right to drive were ever recognized it would throw a large part of the Judicial into chaos as most of those revenue generating laws they've passed over the years would be thrown out.

put up that talked about shooting with a camera.

They assumed their right to travel freely. Unfortunately, they did not put their assumption into the written Constitution. It was part of the culture of the time.

Any laws regarding horses and wagons, if they existed would have been, I assume, local.

to give us, I think they would have stayed British.

I'm not saying that we shouldn't have a right to drive or that it is not a necessity for too many of us, but the fact remains that there is no right to drive.

If there were a right to drive most of the laws surrounding cars and driving would be unconstitutional, so there's another deficiency in The Constitution.

subject to reasonable regulation. That's what I think -- reasonable regulation. Neither the right to travel and therefore to drive nor the right to own a gun is absolute.

I would like to see a requirement that gun owners insure their guns -- against theft, against damages to themselves and others. To drive a car you have to have insurance. I think that you should have to carry insurance to own a gun.

by every state and locality in America in order to keep those restrictions you list on driving. If driving were a right, the state could not take it away without the whole mechanism of due process and that would be too expensive and time consuming.

Firearms OTOH are specifically protected.

I think one of the Big Issues this points out is the terrible deficiencies in our Constitution. Another is our collective abdication of our responsibility to build and maintain our society. But that's another issue and thread that nobody wants to take on as it gets so very messy so quickly.

right, it would be subject to regulation.

Ammunition in cartridge form, much less semiautoatic weapons with high capacity clips would similary not be covered by the Constitution.

to which certain rights were not and did not need to be regulated in the simple, low-population society of the 18th century, most of our rights are subject to reasonable regulation today. And when it comes to the First Amendment right to free speech and assembly which our Constitution specifically states is not to be abridged, our government at different levels impose a lot of regulations which are more or less reasonable. So, rights that were pretty absolute in 1776 are no longer all that absolute. With regard to the First Amendment, I personally find a lot of the "regulations" to be far too restrictive and expensive.

I think the idea of requiring gun owners to buy insurance for their guns is an excellent one.

That is all.

Has nothing to do with the OP, which equates a privilege (driving a car on public roads) and a Right (to own a gun).

I'm not making a judgement call or voicing my opinion, merely stating a fact.

Sounds like a judgement to me.

Thats a really neat trick you have there. I thought mind reading was just a sham.

I have no doubt that driving would have been an enumerated right.

There have been many cases over this issue:

Williams v. Fears, 343 U.S. 270, 274: Undoubtedly the "RIGHT" of locomotion, the "RIGHT" to remove from one place to another according to inclination, is an attribute of personal liberty, and the "RIGHT," ordinarily, of free transit from or through the territory of any State is a "RIGHT" secured by the Fourteenth Amendment and by other provisions of the Constitution."

People v. Nothaus, 147 Colo. 210: "Every Citizen has an inalienable "RIGHT" to make use of the public highways of the state; every Citizen has full freedom to travel from place to place in the enjoyment of life and liberty."


Spann v. City of Dallas, 235 S. W. 513:
"Property in a thing consists not merely in its ownership and possession, but in the unrestricted "RIGHT" of use, enjoyment and disposal. Anything which destroys any of these elements of property, to that extent destroys the property itself. The substantial value of property lies in its use. If the "RIGHT" of use be denied, the value of the property is annihilated and ownership is rendered a barren "RIGHT." Therefore, a law which forbids the use of a certain kind of property, strips it of an essential attribute and in actual result proscribes its ownership. "

Just a few to ponder....

Sometimes it really does seem that they knew what they were doing.

ownership in the modern world, referring to modern weaponry that did not exist at the time the Bill of Rights were written, how can you then turn around and say that the right of travel in the modern world is not covered under the old right to travel freely?

So the Constitution covers firearms but hasn't evolved to cover travel?

That's just crazy.

By your logic, the only guns you should be allowed to own under the 2nd are the very guns that were around in the late eighteenth century. Nothing more.

If my car doesn't count as travel, your AR-15 doesn't count as "arms."

Or, ah, lack of it.

Thanks, its been real nice having you read my mind and speak for me, but I've grown tired of that parlor trick.

You have yourself a nice day.

Never needed to, as you continually told me what I thought, meant, and said. Why stop now. You have created your own answers for me up until now, I'm sure you can come up with another to fit your meme.

C, ya.

Your posts have become boring.

horses? That was the mode of transportation at the time.

I do believe I have a right to own a car even if I am not legally allowed to drive it on public property.

Already been down this road with others. Feel free to peruse the thread.

Was the Assault Weapons Ban of 1994-2004 ruled unconstitutional, or did Congress simply not restore it yet?

All the AWB did was force importers and manufacturers to make slight cosmetic changes to their firearms to comply with the law. This was almost universally just the removal of the bayonet lug, which most shooters don't give a flip about having anyway.

It banned the manufacture and import of new high capacity magazines, but grandfathered in old ones and there is such an abundance of supply that while prices went up availability never was compromised.

So the AWB accomplished nothing.

But moreover, the Internet happened, and now information can be disseminated easily. And one piece of important information (FBI UCR) that is now widely disseminated is the fact that every year, only about 300 people are murdered using rifles of all kinds, let along assault rifles. This is about half as many as are killed by hands and feet.

So it's very very difficult to push for legislation that is 1) ineffective and 2) targeted at a crime committed only about 300 times a year when the law would affect millions of people.

to own assault weapons and high capacity magazines, or justify what you seem to see as an easy trade-off between hundreds of lives and thousands of very expensive and very infantile toys for moronic gun zealots.

Trust me, I follow firearm issues rigorously. I bought my first assault rifle during, and because of, the assault weapons ban.

I know exactly what the ban did and did not do. It is not the result of some "NRA talking points". You can read up on it yourself if you don't believe me:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Assault_Weapons_Ban

Prior to the AWB, you could buy an imported civilian AK-47. That is, it looked like a military AK-47, but it could only fire semi-automatically. It could have a threaded barrel, and it could have a bayonet lug. This is because these weapons were essentially military AK-47s with a different fire control group.

After the AWB, "assault weapons" were defined as:

Semi-automatic rifles able to accept detachable magazines and two or more of the following:

Folding or telescoping stock
Pistol grip
Bayonet mount
Flash suppressor, or threaded barrel designed to accommodate one
Grenade launcher (more precisely, a muzzle device which enables the launching or firing of rifle grenades, though this applies only to muzzle mounted grenade launchers and not those which are mounted externally)

Semi-automatic pistols with detachable magazines and two or more of the following:

Magazine that attaches outside the pistol grip
Threaded barrel to attach barrel extender, flash suppressor, handgrip, or suppressor
Barrel shroud that can be used as a hand-hold
Unloaded weight of 50 oz (1.4 kg) or more
A semi-automatic version of a fully automatic firearm

Semi-automatic shotguns with two or more of the following:

Folding or telescoping stock
Pistol grip
Fixed capacity of more than 5 rounds
Detachable magazine

To comply with this law, importers and manufacturers simply machined off the threads on the end of the barrel, and machined off the bayonet lug. That's it.

To comply with import regulations, some imported assault rifles had a few foreign-made parts replaced with US-made parts.

Even if your NRA talking points were accurate, that wouldn't make it a right to own assault weapons and high capacity magazines, or justify what you seem to see as an easy trade-off between hundreds of lives and thousands of very expensive and very infantile toys for moronic gun zealots.

The founders of this country and authors of our Constitution disagree with you. They wanted the citizens to be armed with the weapons that would allow them to undertake military service. An assault rifle is exactly the right kind of weapon today to achieve that goal.

There are many things in life that we have to consider as trade-offs. We allow people to drive, even though thousands of people are killed in cars every year (far more than are killed by firearms). It's a trade-off we consider essential to our way of life. We allow people to own swimming pools, even though hundreds drown in them every year. We allow people to smoke and drink, even though millions of people die early deaths because of them every year.

The fact that we make these trade-offs does not negate the tragedy of those who die. But we make the trade-offs, nonetheless.

may be legal only because of loopholes.

What were the annual sales of newly-manufactured military-style assault weapons in each year from before the AWB went into effect in the early 90s through the 2004 end of the ban to last year?

If the US government says something's legal, there may be a huge market. But if the government says something is NOT legal, only a few zealots and schizos will want to go anywhere near it.

Look at the clear sales figures rather than at the NRA talking points.

Is that the deep philosophical humanism of American gun-owners?

How many human lives is easy access to each ten thousand 100-round drum magazine worth, according to your beneficent reckoning?

The fact of the matter is, only about 300 people are murdered every year with all rifles combined, let alone assault rifles, let along assault rifles equipped with $250+ 100-round drum magazines.

How many human lives is easy access to each ten thousand 100-round drum magazine worth, according to your beneficent reckoning?

As I've said many times, I'm not going to be punished for the crimes of others no matter how many crimes are committed. But that is beside the point. The point is, we make trade-offs every day between safety and freedom.

A six-year-old's "safety" vs. gun-owners "freedom" to have their dangerous toys?

That appellation seems to emanate from the same quarter as "penis substitute" and "spewer of death" do.

I recognize that some, maybe even many, gunowners have been bullied in their pasts or even victimized by violent crimes, and I feel sorry for them. But IMO what most of them are doing now is holding onto their security blankets, trying to intimidate people they don't like, and generally letting the toybox get way out of control of their mental well-being and other people's very lives.

You might find that inappropriate, and frankly, I don't give a damn.

As Benjamin Franklin said back in 1775, "They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety."

Our entire system of government, law, and order is a balance of freedom vs. safety.

Our founders thought it was essential that the people be the final repository of military force in this country, or at least that they be able to counter the military force of the federal government. Firearms were already hundreds of years old by the time of the writing of the Constitution, and no doubt had been used in countless crimes by then. The founders no doubt understood the risks in having an armed citizenry and that this meant that citizens could commit crimes with firearms.

But they looked at the balance of safety and freedom and choose freedom.

Hear, hear! It's about time someone started talking some sense on this issue.

Common sense tells you that any gun law short of confiscation would take fifty and probably a hundred years to show any true progress. Guns are a very durable product.

Banning ammunition could probably make a large difference in five to ten years.

So anybody that is honest will admit that the AWB was not truly given a chance. It was so poorly written that it had no real chance anyway.

It accomplished nothing because it was a COSMETIC LAW.

It did nothing to change the availability of AR15 or AK47 variant rifles, or any other kind of firearm.

All the manufacturers and importers did was to machine off the muzzle threads and the bayonet lugs. Things that had absolutely no effect on them being used in crime, which they hardly ever were or are.

All rifles combined, let alone assault rifles, are only used in about 300 homicides every year. THAT is why the law was allowed to expire. It wasn't worth the political cost in votes, which President Clinton acknowledged, to try and save 300 people a year.

So anybody that is honest will admit that the AWB was not truly given a chance. It was so poorly written that it had no real chance anyway.

Again, the AWB did not fail because it was not given a chance. It was because it was "so poorly written". It was so poorly written it did not limit the availability of anything.

And there is a reason for that. You can't ban a semi-automatic AK-47 without also banning grandpa's semi-automatic deer rifle. So they tried to ban the things that made it look scary, like pistol grips, or bayonet lugs, or threaded muzzles. And so the manufacturers complied with the cosmetic changes.

Just try and pass a law that bans grandpas semi-automatic deer rifle with a detachable magazine.

See post #100 above.

Yes, the AWB drove firearm sales like crazy.

But that has nothing to do with the OP, which equates a privilege (driving a car on public roads) and a Right (to own a gun).

I'm not making a judgement call or voicing my opinion, merely stating a fact.

"Personal liberty largely consists of the Right of locomotion -- to go where and when one pleases -- only so far restrained as the Rights of others may make it necessary for the welfare of all other citizens. The Right of the Citizen to travel upon the public highways and to transport his property thereon, by horse drawn carriage, wagon, or automobile, is not a mere privilege which may be permitted or prohibited at will, but the common Right which he has under his Right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Under this Constitutional guarantee one may, therefore, under normal conditions, travel at his inclination along the public highways or in public places, and while conducting himself in an orderly and decent manner, neither interfering with nor disturbing another's Rights, he will be protected, not only in his person, but in his safe conduct."
II Am.Jur. (1st) Constitutional Law, Sect.329, p.113

We have the RIGHT to travel, as long as we follow the rules.

The AR 15 was available for manufacture and sale, but without certain features, like a bayonet lug, threaded barrel, etc. The basic weapon he had was not banned.

The mag would have been for manufacture, but all the ones made before 1994 were still in circulation. Might have cost him a little more.

self-appointed extreme reactionary USSC in the wildly ahistorical, precedent-overturning and partisan Heller and McDonald decisions, during just the past few years.

And has nothing to do with the OP, which equates a privilege (driving a car on public roads) and a Right (to own a gun).

I'm not making a judgement call or voicing my opinion, merely stating a fact.

future societies would face a different set of issues and left room for them to adjust the laws to the needs of the their times.

And that has been done as intended when needed several times.

The language of the Constitution often appears to be arbitrary but it appears that was deliberate as the FFs were smart enough to know they could not foresee every future issue.

It is clear that the 2nd Amendment was intended to prevent a tyrannical government from oppressing the population but they had no concept of the kind of weapons today's population would need to prevent that from happening.

If we were to try to prevent what they feared when they wrote the Constitution today using the same method, then every citizen should have the right to own Nukes, eg.

Since that is not even something to consider, they left us with other options to achieve security against a takeover of the government.

So no, it is not what we are left with. We can use our intelligence to prevent what they intended to prevent by other means.

Edited to add, maybe we should focus more on their thoughts on 'standing armies' which always seems to be left out of the calculations of those who want to stick strictly to the Constitution as it applied more than 200 hundreds ago. Because clearly no matter how many guns people may own, there is no way they could ever be a match for the current weapons the government now owns and continues to add to with huge amounts of money every, single year.

USSC decision. The "right" of which you speak did not exist before the Heller and McDonald decisions, and IMO will not stand future review by an impartial Court where outrageous legal fraud is in the minority.

Its still a fact.

the Civil Rights Act, "Obamacare" and restore DOMA, Proposition 8, and DADT. Be careful what you wish for.

The Constitution does not make any distinctions for sub-categories of guns. But you knew that.

Where can I go pick one up?!?

You have a nice day.

You never said anything about firing one, just buying one.

If you're gonna move the goalposts after I already kicked the ball, why play at all?

I think it's implied what I meant. But hey, if you want to go down that path, I'm all fine with people owning semi-automatics...let's just make it illegal to shoot 'em.

That cool? No goal posts moving. I think the intent was clear.

Its not the readers job to infer something that isn't there. The writer must make their point clear and concise.


In this case, you stated, and I quote:

My point still stands and you're not even refuting it, which shows me you have nothing to stand on here. Instead of coming back and claiming I'm wrong or showing where I am wrong, you're trying to parse words. That's what people do when they've lost the argument and they don't have a comeback for what I laid out. It's not moving the goal posts - it's solidifying my point so that you can understand it better.

But you're not interested in debating. You're interested at stonewalling, which losers in a debate generally do. It's cool. I get it. You gotta do what you gotta do when the argument isn't going your way.

So, I'm done with you. You're obviously more obsessed with parsing my words instead of debating the actual point. Good luck!

(Shall not be infringed, not 'you have the right to')