Philosophy Discussion Forums

Felix wrote: ↑August 4th, 2019, 3:46 pm

Sculpter1: The constitution does not give the right to bear guns with magazines either.

GE Morton: Yes, it does.

There were no "magazines" (of either the sort that one loads or reads) when the second amendment was written . . .

That doesn't matter. The amendment does not limit the right to keep and bear arms to weapons in use in 1789.

. . . and the Supreme Court has decided that prohibitions against the carrying of “dangerous and unusual weapons” are valid.

You should perhaps read the Heller decision for definition of that phrase. A "dangerous and unusual" weapon is one not ordinarily kept for lawful purposes:

Under any of the standards of scrutiny that we have applied to enumerated constitutional rights, banning from the home 'the most preferred firearm in the nation to ‘keep’ and use for protection of one’s home and family,” 478 F. 3d, at 400, would fail constitutional muster.

Some have made the argument, bordering on the frivolous, that only those arms in existence in the 18th century are protected by the Second Amendment. We do not interpret constitutional rights that way. Just as the First Amendment protects modern forms of communications, e.g., Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union, 521 U. S. 844, 849 (1997), and the Fourth Amendment applies to modern forms of search, e.g., Kyllo v. United States, 533 U. S. 27, 35–36 (2001), the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding.

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf

GE Morton: You should perhaps read the Heller decision for definition of that phrase

.

Yes, that was a close decision (5-4, I believe), and many believe an incorrect one, but my point was only that it would not be contrary to constitutional law to classify automatic weapons and their magazines as uncommon and overly dangerous firearms.

Felix wrote: ↑August 4th, 2019, 10:00 pm
Yes, that was a close decision (5-4, I believe), and many believe an incorrect one, but my point was only that it would not be contrary to constitutional law to classify automatic weapons and their magazines as uncommon and overly dangerous firearms.

Automatic weapons are already illegal, and have not been used in any mass shootings since the 1930s. Semi-automatic weapons, which require a separate trigger pull for each shot, constitute virtually all modern firearms. Even a 1880 Colt .45 six-shooter is a semi-automatic weapon. They can hardly be called "uncommon."

ok, "semi-automatic" assault rifles, but with high capacity magazines, semi-autos act very much like fully automatic weapons:
"Semi-automatic rifles can accommodate high-capacity magazines – compartments that hold cartridges. That allows the shooter to fire off dozens of rounds in a short period of time. A Sig Sauer and an AR-15 magazine generally holds 20- 30 rounds. There are magazines that can hold more."

"Assault rifles accounted for 430 or 85.8% of the total 501 mass-shooting fatalities reported (95% confidence interval, 82.8-88.9) in 44 mass-shooting incidents."

Source: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30188421

Felix wrote: ↑August 4th, 2019, 10:52 pm ok, "semi-automatic" assault rifles, but with high capacity magazines, semi-autos act very much like fully automatic weapons:
"Semi-automatic rifles can accommodate high-capacity magazines – compartments that hold cartridges. That allows the shooter to fire off dozens of rounds in a short period of time. A Sig Sauer and an AR-15 magazine generally holds 20- 30 rounds. There are magazines that can hold more."

"Assault rifles accounted for 430 or 85.8% of the total 501 mass-shooting fatalities reported (95% confidence interval, 82.8-88.9) in 44 mass-shooting incidents."

Source: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30188421

The question here is why GE Morton chose to give the false impression that semi-automatics are no more effective than older guns.

It looks like he is politicking rather than philosophising. Again.

There's an interesting wider question (already much discussed around these parts) about the general concept of a set of overarching legal principles that were set down at a foundational point in a country's history and which are regarded as timeless and immutable, or at least more timeless and immutable than subsequent democratically decided upon legislation. A.K.A. a Constitution. As time passes, the zeitgeist changes and technology progresses does it get more and more difficult to sensibly interpret such a Constitution? Or does that Constitution, when properly interpreted, genuinely lay down principles of government that are so fundamental as to be valid for as long as human societies exist? Or at least for as long as the country in question (in this case the USA) exists?

Some have made the argument, bordering on the frivolous, that only those arms in existence in the 18th century are protected by the Second Amendment. We do not interpret constitutional rights that way. Just as the First Amendment protects modern forms of communications, e.g., Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union, 521 U. S. 844, 849 (1997), and the Fourth Amendment applies to modern forms of search, e.g., Kyllo v. United States, 533 U. S. 27, 35–36 (2001), the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding.

One possible problem with the above interpretation appears at first sight to be where it says: "... the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms...".

I presume "bearable" means weapons that can be carried. This seems like a curiously arbitrary criterion and not really worth taking too literally if the aim is to extract from the wording of the Second Amendment a broad principle that it is hoped can be held to be an axiomatic truth about the kind of society the US ought to be. Presumably, as technology progresses, more and more powerful weaponry will become "bearable", so the question of whether one can carry the weapon is irrelevant if we're looking for timeless, technology-agnostic principles.

There's some discussion of this term "bear" starting on page 10 of the original Supreme Court document cited by G E Morton:

At the time of the founding, as now, to “bear” meant to “carry.” See Johnson 161; Webster; T. Sheridan, A Complete Dictionary of the English Language (1796); 2 Oxford English Dictionary 20 (2d ed. 1989) (hereinafter Oxford). When used with “arms,” however, the term has a meaning that refers to carrying for a particular purpose— confrontation. In Muscarello v. United States, 524 U. S.125 (1998), in the course of analyzing the meaning of “carries a firearm” in a federal criminal statute, JUSTICE GINSBURG wrote that “[surely a most familiar meaning is, as the Constitution’s Second Amendment . . . indicate[s]: ‘wear, bear, or carry . . . upon the person or in the clothing or in a pocket, for the purpose . . . of being armed and ready for offensive or defensive action in a case of conflict with another person.’” Id., at 143 (dissenting opinion)...

And so on.

It strikes me that rulings like this, seeking to interpret an aspect of the US Constitution with lots of discussion of the intended meaings of words in various contexts, often appear faintly absurd. They sometimes remind me of parodies of the attempted interpretation of the words of revered religious figures, like Jesus.

GE Morton wrote: ↑August 4th, 2019, 10:21 pm

Felix wrote: ↑August 4th, 2019, 10:00 pm
Yes, that was a close decision (5-4, I believe), and many believe an incorrect one, but my point was only that it would not be contrary to constitutional law to classify automatic weapons and their magazines as uncommon and overly dangerous firearms.

Automatic weapons are already illegal, and have not been used in any mass shootings since the 1930s. Semi-automatic weapons, which require a separate trigger pull for each shot, constitute virtually all modern firearms. Even a 1880 Colt .45 six-shooter is a semi-automatic weapon. They can hardly be called "uncommon."

I am given to understand that you can purchase a perfectly legal, and cheap, conversion kit to restore the automatic function to any gun.

That's interesting Steve. I think it compares a constitution to holy writ. I agree that Islam is wrong when the Koran is viewed as eternal and not historical. In each case, that of the Koran and that of the Constitution, I think the spirit of the law underlies the words. The spirit of the law is only to be found when the historical origin of the holy writ are understood, understanding the spirit of the law is not easy but requires a lot of learning.

Football is popular. The rules of football are written explicitly in a book. The spirit of football i.e. the unwritten rules must be eternally true or the game would be pointless.

The stuffed moose head in Faulty Towers says " I speak English. I read it in a book".

Greta wrote: ↑August 4th, 2019, 11:57 pm
The question here is why GE Morton chose to give the false impression that semi-automatics are no more effective than older guns.

No, Greta. The question here --- as far as this post is concerned --- is why you persist in attributing to me statements I've never made and positions I've never taken.

Of course semi-auto firearms are more effective than non-semi-auto firearms. That's why they are preferred by most gun owners and dominate the market. My comment said or implied nothing about the effectiveness of semi-auto weapons.

Belindi wrote: ↑August 5th, 2019, 5:41 am Football is popular. The rules of football are written explicitly in a book. The spirit of football i.e. the unwritten rules must be eternally true or the game would be pointless.

Clearly the game, the playing field and the players are completely different than they were in December 1791.
https://broeder10.files.wordpress.com/2 ... 00x600.jpg

http://media.cleveland.com/nationworld_ ... 1e1c57.jpg


Synonyms for amendment: revision, alteration, change, modification, qualification, adaptation, adjustment.

Time to amend the amendment.

Felix wrote: ↑August 4th, 2019, 10:52 pm ok, "semi-automatic" assault rifles, but with high capacity magazines, semi-autos act very much like fully automatic weapons:
"Semi-automatic rifles can accommodate high-capacity magazines – compartments that hold cartridges. That allows the shooter to fire off dozens of rounds in a short period of time. A Sig Sauer and an AR-15 magazine generally holds 20- 30 rounds. There are magazines that can hold more."

Not as short a time as with a full-auto weapon. You can't sweep a field of fire with a semi-auto.

"Assault rifles accounted for 430 or 85.8% of the total 501 mass-shooting fatalities reported (95% confidence interval, 82.8-88.9) in 44 mass-shooting incidents."

Source: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30188421
[/quote]

Article is behind a paywall, so not clear how "assault weapon" is defined. But any semi-auto rifle or handgun can be fired just as quickly as, say, an AR-15. And virtually all modern rifles and most modern handguns are semi-auto.

Size of the magazine is a minor issue. They can be swapped out in seconds.

Steve3007 wrote: ↑August 5th, 2019, 4:47 am There's an interesting wider question (already much discussed around these parts) about the general concept of a set of overarching legal principles that were set down at a foundational point in a country's history and which are regarded as timeless and immutable, or at least more timeless and immutable than subsequent democratically decided upon legislation. A.K.A. a Constitution. As time passes, the zeitgeist changes and technology progresses does it get more and more difficult to sensibly interpret such a Constitution? Or does that Constitution, when properly interpreted, genuinely lay down principles of government that are so fundamental as to be valid for as long as human societies exist? Or at least for as long as the country in question (in this case the USA) exists?

Good questions (you usually do pose good questions).

Clearly the authors of the Constitution did not consider all of its provisions timeless and immutable, or they would not have included an amendment procedure. But they no doubt considered some of them more fundamental than others, particularly those declared in the Bill of Rights. Surely among the latter would be the principle of self-defense, upon which the 2nd Amendment rests.

One possible problem with the above interpretation appears at first sight to be where it says: "... the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms...".

I presume "bearable" means weapons that can be carried. This seems like a curiously arbitrary criterion and not really worth taking too literally if the aim is to extract from the wording of the Second Amendment a broad principle that it is hoped can be held to be an axiomatic truth about the kind of society the US ought to be. Presumably, as technology progresses, more and more powerful weaponry will become "bearable", so the question of whether one can carry the weapon is irrelevant if we're looking for timeless, technology-agnostic principles.

The key phrase in the quoted sentence is "prima facie." The Court has upheld laws restricting possession of machine guns, rocket launchers, and other "bearable" weapons. The real test is whether the weapon is well-suited and broadly favored for lawful purposes, such as self-defense, hunting, target shooting. Semi-auto rifles and handguns qualify by that test.

It would be pretty hard to argue that the right of self-defense is not fundamental. If it is not, is anything? If it is, then it would also be hard to argue that rights to the most effective means of exercising that right are not also fundamental.

GE Morton: Article is behind a paywall, so not clear how "assault weapon" is defined.

The term is clearly defined in the Federal Assault Weapons Ban of 1994 (which expired in 2004), the effectiveness of it was the focus of that study.

"The 1994 act made it “unlawful for a person to manufacture, transfer, or possess a semiautomatic assault weapon." Weapons banned were identified either by specific make or model (including copies or duplicates thereof, in any caliber), or by specific characteristics that slightly varied

according to whether the weapon was a pistol, rifle, or shotgun."

GE Morton: Size of the magazine is a minor issue. They can be swapped out in seconds.

Only if you consider murder to be a "minor issue." A lot can happen in seconds, many people can be murdered.

P.S. - This paragraph got broken up....

"The 1994 act made it “unlawful for a person to manufacture, transfer, or possess a semiautomatic assault weapon." Weapons banned were identified either by specific make or model (including copies or duplicates thereof, in any caliber), or by specific characteristics that slightly varied according to whether the weapon was a pistol, rifle, or shotgun."

GE Morton wrote: ↑August 5th, 2019, 11:07 am

Greta wrote: ↑August 4th, 2019, 11:57 pm
The question here is why GE Morton chose to give the false impression that semi-automatics are no more effective than older guns.

:-) No, Greta. The question here --- as far as this post is concerned --- is why you persist in attributing to me statements I've never made and positions I've never taken.

Of course semi-auto firearms are more effective than non-semi-auto firearms. That's why they are preferred by most gun owners and dominate the market. My comment said or implied nothing about the effectiveness of semi-auto weapons.

Let's quote you again since you seem to think people lack the capacity to check on your dishonesty.

Semi-automatic weapons, which require a separate trigger pull for each shot, constitute virtually all modern firearms. Even a 1880 Colt .45 six-shooter is a semi-automatic weapon. They can hardly be called "uncommon."

So why did you not acknowledge the extra dangers of semi-automatics to Felix at the time?

Because you, as always, played politics rather than embraced philosophy.

You implied above that semi-autos are no big deal, just business as usual. Yet the founding fathers did not speak of the right to pack semi-automatic machines of war in cities. No doubt you will find another misleading rationalisation.

That was Felix's point, and you played him by failing to admit IN CONTEXT AT THE TIME that the legality of semi-automatic guns in the city is a major factor in death tolls.

This is a plea for you to make at least some small attempt to be even-handed and honest instead of arguing like a prosecutor or defendant, conveniently leaving off essential bits of information to create false impressions.