Rongone wrote:

I guess that's why Canada is ranked #8 on Humanity world rankings as safe places to live and the U.S. Is ranked #97.

Must be because of those failed gun laws in Canada.

Well, it certainly has nothing to do with Canada's gun registry.

What were the benefits promised when the Canadian gun registration was proposed?
What was the proposed cost?
What benefits were actually realized?
What was the actual cost?
What is the current status of the gun registry?

Rongone wrote:

Jeerleader, please help me understand exactly what the process you see as coming to fruition to take away firearms from law abiding citizens in the U.S. Describe that process that you fear. How would this happen? Which government agency would have the responsibility for collecting these weapons? Exactly how would they do it? Do you think that a countrywide confiscation program would ever work?

How have I given you the impression that I fear total gun confiscation?  I'll answer anyways . . .

It can not be done legally (constitutionally).
The process would certainly come under some sort of emergency powers claimed by the executive.
I have no doubt that the current make-up of certain agencies would eagerly enforce a gun ban EO.
I think that no matter how anti-gun a person might be, they would soon grow weary of the ancillary rights infringements that would accompany a universal gun ban EO.
At some point it would be realized that whatever threat was percieved from the nations gun owners is vastly overwhelmed by the real threat to life from the authorities enforcing the disarmament EO. (see Jamaicia)
My primary interest would be to see if the framer's envisioned numerical superiority of private citizen gun owners vs government (standing army) forces will hold true in such a conflict (Madison stated it to be 17-20 to 1).
 

Jeerleader wrote:

Rongone wrote:

I guess that's why Canada is ranked #8 on Humanity world rankings as safe places to live and the U.S. Is ranked #97.

Must be because of those failed gun laws in Canada.

Well, it certainly has nothing to do with Canada's gun registry.

What were the benefits promised when the Canadian gun registration was proposed?
What was the proposed cost?
What benefits were actually realized?
What was the actual cost?
What is the current status of the gun registry?

Rongone wrote:

Jeerleader, please help me understand exactly what the process you see as coming to fruition to take away firearms from law abiding citizens in the U.S. Describe that process that you fear. How would this happen? Which government agency would have the responsibility for collecting these weapons? Exactly how would they do it? Do you think that a countrywide confiscation program would ever work?

How have I given you the impression that I fear total gun confiscation?  I'll answer anyways . . .

It can not be done legally (constitutionally).
The process would certainly come under some sort of emergency powers claimed by the executive.
I have no doubt that the current make-up of certain agencies would eagerly enforce a gun ban EO.
I think that no matter how anti-gun a person might be, they would soon grow weary of the ancillary rights infringements that would accompany a universal gun ban EO.
At some point it would be realized that whatever threat was percieved from the nations gun owners is vastly overwhelmed by the real threat to life from the authorities enforcing the disarmament EO. (see Jamaicia)
My primary interest would be to see if the framer's envisioned numerical superiority of private citizen gun owners vs government (standing army) forces will hold true in such a conflict (Madison stated it to be 17-20 to 1).
 

Wow, you totally blew tha canada thing. Want to try again, 'cause I'm not impressed.

Jeerleader wrote:

Goose wrote:

Wow, you totally blew tha canada thing. Want to try again, 'cause I'm not impressed.

Wow, it sure would be easy to say I thought we were on a new 'no personal attacks' program and that I'm not impressed by the example you are setting.

 

No personal attack. I'm sure you are a wonderful man. Merely noting that the argument was unconvincing.
BTW, someone who repeatly suggest that others have "weak minds", or are against "liberty" can't really play the victim card here

Last edited by Goose (5/26/2015 6:22 am)

Just Fred wrote:

Lot of back-and-forth discussion going on here.  That's fine.  My only point has to do with the framers of the Constitution not being able to anticipate the weaponry that is made, promoted, and sold to the public, and whether or not it is a good idea.  What seemed like a good plan in 1780, may not apply to the American culture and society that has evolved in 2015.

Carry on.

That is such an excellent point. The proponents of unlimited gun rights spend a huge amount of time parsing over words in the constitution and supreme court decisions, as if they were the word of God,,,,,,,,  and absolutely no time contemplating the costs to society in blood and tragedy. The "is it a good idea"  question goes largely unaddressed.

Rongone wrote:

Well, from a logical perspective, the laws relating to firearms in Canada must have some impact on their safety factor as compared to ours.

One could surmise that.

I would say that laws that are obeyed isn't the problem in either nation.

Rongone wrote:

I have gotten that impression from the many, many posts you have made on this and the old exchange concerning gun control. You are delivering that impression to others through either deliberate or unconscious messaging in your posts.

I am vigilant for and oppose any government overstepping of authority.  A total gun confiscation and the mechanics of it is not something I spend any time thinking about . . . About on the order of worrying about a massive asteroid strike.

Neither am I a "proponent of unlimited gun rights".  I certainly hold the position that no power was ever granted to the federal government to have any interest whatsoever in the personal arms of the private citizen but I do recognize and accept that certain powers have been claimed and have withstood constitutional challenge.  I believe that many laws now on the books and nearly all those proposed are constitutionally infirm if not facially unconstitutional.  I would welcome any discussion on a particular law.

I often challenge gun control proponents to cite the origin of the power to do what they want to do because that is the constitutionally valid approach.  The right to arms is not subject to constant and evolving evaluation; it isn't the Court's constitutional charge to decide what the right is or its "scope" . . .  Their duty is to decide whether a challenged law is an exercise beyond the limited powers granted to the federal government.  For the right to arms the "tests" have been established and I believe work quite well and conform quite well with the founders / framers constitutional framework (the three pronged "Miller Rule").

Rongone wrote:

 It could be done through the Constitutional Amendment process.

How do you see that amendment worded? 

I would question the notion that a provision of the Bill of Rights can even be amended.  The ratification of the original compact depended upon the Congress sending the states a bill of rights composed from the proposals from the states.  The thought that an ex post facto amendment can eliminate what the states had declared their ratification contingent upon, is a concept I would consider unthinkable.  Couple that with the fact that the right to arms does not in any manner depend on the 2nd Amendment is why I asked how you would word this amendment.

Rongone wrote:

As Fred has pointed out, that is the genius of the document as constructed by the "founding fathers". They were acutely aware of the fact that through changing times factors that they were dealing with would definitely change. They foresaw the requirement for the document to have the ability to change to address unknown (at the time they created the document) factors that would possibly arise in the future.

And part of their genius is that the Article V process is a difficult hurdle.  You will need to get 38 states to go along and the states have a strong history of pushing back against federal gun control. 

Take a look at THIS LIST of state right to arms constitutional provisions and note the number who rewrote stronger protections or outright created citizen arms protections through the 80's and 90's (in response to the Brady Bill / Act and other federal threats). 

The thought that 38 states would give the federal government new powers to impact the rights of their individual citizens (whom most call out specifically as a protected class) is far-fetched.  How can you argue that a state that declares the right to arms of their citizens as inviolate can assume that it possesses the power to give the federal government the power to infringe on the right? 

What a Pandora’s Box of constitutional quandaries and dilemmas you wish to open . . .


 

Last edited by Jeerleader (5/26/2015 7:18 pm)