Philosophy Discussion Forums

Are you against gun control?

Now that the US has a president who is willing to stand up for second amendment rights is it finally time for elementary school teachers and students to be given the means to exercise their god given right to self defence? Shouldn't they all be carrying hand guns to school?

Steve3007:

Now that the US has a president who is willing to stand up for second amendment rights is it finally time for elementary school teachers and students to be given the means to exercise their god given right to self defence? Shouldn't they all be carrying hand guns to school?

Of course! As secretary of education Betty DeVos said, guns do have a place in schools do to the threat of grizzly bears (she actually did say this).

There is a bill in my state that would allow judges to is issue an “extreme risk protective order” in order to take guns way from those deemed a threat to themselves or others. Of course the NRA is opposed, after all, we wouldn’t want to take away anyone’s right to own a gun.

Fooloso4 wrote:
There is a bill in my state that would allow judges to is issue an “extreme risk protective order” in order to take guns way from those deemed a threat to themselves or others. Of course the NRA is opposed, after all, we wouldn’t want to take away anyone’s right to own a gun.

Deemed by whom? Based upon what evidence, and per what process?

GE Morton:

Deemed by whom?

A judge.

Based upon what evidence …

That would depend on the case.

… and per what process?

I do not know the specifics.

Fooloso4 wrote:

… and per what process?

I do not know the specifics.

The 5th Amendment declares that ". . . no person . . . shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law . . . "

"Due process of law" means, conviction of a crime by a jury, consistently with all provisions of the 5th and 6th Amendments. The right to keep and bear arms is a constitutional liberty right. Hence any process which does not satisfy those provisions if not "due process."

From Wiki (emphasis added):

Due process is the legal requirement that the state must respect all legal rights that are owed to a person. Due process balances the power of law of the land and protects the individual person from it. When a government harms a person without following the exact course of the law, this constitutes a due process violation, which offends the rule of law.

The Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution each contain a Due Process Clause. Due process deals with the administration of justice and thus the Due Process Clause acts as a safeguard from arbitrary denial of life, liberty, or property by the Government outside the sanction of law. The Supreme Court of the United States interprets the Clauses as providing four protections: procedural due process (in civil and criminal proceedings), substantive due process, a prohibition against vague laws, and as the vehicle for the incorporation of the Bill of Rights.

Taking someone’s gun in such a situation does not cause harm and is not an arbitrary action. It does not violate due process.

Fooloso4 wrote:
Taking someone’s gun in such a situation does not cause harm and is not an arbitrary action. It does not violate due process.

Of course it causes harm. Any restriction of liberty, and any confiscation of property, are harms. Suppose the government forbid someone to own, say, a television, or a bicycle. Would those be harms? What if someone stole your gun, or your television or your bicycle --- would those be harms? May the police refuse to investigate those thefts or prosecute the thieves, on the ground that "no harm was done"?

You might pay more attention to the "substantive due process" mentioned in the article you quoted. Denying someone a right expressly protected by the Constitution, except as punishment for a crime, is a ]prima facie violation of substantive due process.

GE Morton:

Of course it causes harm. Any restriction of liberty, and any confiscation of property, are harms.

Good point. I will rephrase it: it is a matter of greater and lesser harms. If I owned a gun and my wife or child have noticed that my behavior had become erratic, or I seemed depressed and/or agitated, If something about me causes them to be concerned and think I might be a danger to myself or someone else, what harm would come to me if I no longer had access to guns until my condition was evaluated? How does this harm weigh against the harm to lives that may be at risk?

Substantive due process, in United States constitutional law, is a principle allowing courts to protect certain rights deemed fundamental from government interference

But it is the court not the state that makes the determination that a particular person is a danger and should not be allowed to own guns.

"if you outlaw the guns only the outlaws will have guns"

Well, there you go. If you want a gunless society, first extract the guns from the outlaws' possessions; only the inlaws will have guns then; which can be surrendered by the inlaws peacefully, since the outlaws don't have any any more, so no need to return fire power to save one's own life.

This is easier said than done. But if we all work together as a team, toward the common goal of de-gunning the nation in order to prevent mass murder by firepower, then maybe we should think about de-gunning the outlaws.

How does one define an outlaw? Well, the originator of the quote knows. Let's ask him or her.

Failing that, a simple measure could be established: "Anyone who possesses a gun and is not a member of the armed forces or of the police, or of accredited policing forces, is an outlaw." Bang, the nation is de-gunned.

What about that pesky second amendment? Well, if you research law, you will find many useless amendments. Persecution of witches and witchcraft is in one of the amendments-- need I extoll the shtupidity of that? Or the criminalization of suicide. Poor saps, who commit suicide, they have enough anguish and agony on their plate to worry about, why top it off with the incredibly strong social pressure by declaring them non-Christians and evil if they commit suicide? And the entire ensuing euthanasia thing, which is commonly debated. Or the right or no-right to abortion... it stems from the fact that an unborn baby has a soul, and it's not Christian until it gets Baptized, so many Christians feel it displeases or displeasures God to abort unborn feti... a good solution to that would be practice to Baptize babies before they are out of there, but the Church won't sanction that... I can't see why not, it's not in the scriptures explicitly to restrict Baptism only to those who are out of the hole. Baptism is the simple act of washing off the original sin by a priest or preacher... why wait until the baby leaves the womb? Wash then those g----d babies in-vitro. Because God only knows, many anti-abortion agents support the death penalty... where is the logic in that? Either ban abortions, ban the death penalty, and ban public gun ownership at the same time, or else reestablish the death penalty and allow abortions and gun ownership... but be consistent, for Christ's sake. Christ likes logically consistent behaviour. Always has.

Here we go again. The NRA constantly tries to change the narrative. The topic is gun control, not the banning of guns. Why are you people so against trying to control gun ownership?

If it makes you safer, why are you against it?

Talk about voting against your own self interest!

Fooloso4 wrote:
But it is the court not the state that makes the determination that a particular person is a danger and should not be allowed to own guns.

Ah. Since a judge has decided Alfie there is a danger, should he also be forbidden to leave his house? Or to possess knives, tire irons, or baseball bats? Perhaps he should just be preemptively locked up; that should assure he doesn't hurt anybody.

The only reliable evidence that Alfie is a danger is that he has previously committed a crime, for which he was convicted. Any other "evidence" is nothing more than guesswork.

Do you really want to empower judges to nullify your constitutional rights because of something someone claims you might do?

GE Morton:

The only reliable evidence that Alfie is a danger is that he has previously committed a crime, for which he was convicted. Any other "evidence" is nothing more than guesswork.

It is up to the judge in each individual case to use his or her own judgment to determine whether the potential risk of guessing wrong outweighs the benefit of guessing right.

Do you really want to empower judges to nullify your constitutional rights because of something someone claims you might do?

It is not a matter of nullify your constitutional rights, it is a question of whether a particular right, the right to own a gun is sacrosanct. I do not think it is. There are situations in which an individual’s rights may be curtailed with probable cause, and this is one of them. Any other case would have to be based on its own merits.

GE Morton: The only reliable evidence that Alfie is a danger is that he has previously committed a crime, for which he was convicted. Any other "evidence" is nothing more than guesswork.

So you consider professional psychiatric evaluations to be "guesswork"?

Felix wrote:

GE Morton: The only reliable evidence that Alfie is a danger is that he has previously committed a crime, for which he was convicted. Any other "evidence" is nothing more than guesswork.

So you consider professional psychiatric evaluations to be "guesswork"?

It is nothing but guesswork. There are as many schools, and theories, of psychology as there are religions. It is (roughly) 20% science, 80% speculation, with a generous dollop of ideology.

-- Updated April 12th, 2017, 11:01 pm to add the following --

Fooloso4 wrote:
It is up to the judge in each individual case to use his or her own judgment to determine whether the potential risk of guessing wrong outweighs the benefit of guessing right.

So apparently you are willing to hinge constitutional rights on guesswork. The question remains: If the judge decides, based on guesswork, that Alfie is a danger to the public, why not just preemptively lock him up? What principle allows the former, but forbids the latter?

It is not a matter of nullify your constitutional rights, it is a question of whether a particular right, the right to own a gun is sacrosanct. I do not think it is. There are situations in which an individual’s rights may be curtailed with probable cause, and this is one of them.

Methinks you don't understand what "probable cause" means. It means that there is reason to believe a a crime has been committed, and that Alfie was involved in it. It does not mean that it is probable that Alfie will commit a crime.

Is the right of free speech sacrosanct? The right to practice religion? The right to counsel if accused of a crime? Or is the right to keep and bear arms some sort of "second class" right, in your view?