The Liberal Gun Club Forum

AmirMortal wrote:

What that says is the right to have a handgun FOR self defense is fundamental - that's just reinforcing the 2nd Amendment. It does NOT say that the right to have a handgun is fundamental for the right to self-defense: nothing like it at all.

You must be a relatively young, and strong, and physically fit person. For many of the elderly, the physically weak, smaller of stature, etc, the right to defend oneself effectively and the right to own a gun are one and the same.

No, they are not. And when it comes to the law, precision of words used is critical. A right to defending oneself EFFECTIVELY is nowhere near the same, by any measure, as a right to defend oneself by any methods available. The former is dictating the manner of defense as the right itself, whereas the latter is dictating the act of self-defense as a right, regardless of defense methodology.

If your contention is that right to gun = right to self-defense, then felons, under-aged kids, mentally unsuitable and people otherwise unqualified to own guns have no right to defend themselves. I should just go steal their stuff and beat them up for fun, with impunity from the law.

AmirMortal wrote: You cannot seriously believe that a frail octogenarian with osteoporosis is really free to defend themselves if they are limited to a bat or knife, that would be completely ridiculous. If you do than you are being willfully obtuse.

That is just being disingenuous. Of course FOWOs (frail octos with osteoporosis) have the right to defend themselves, as do EVERYONE ELSE regardless of whether they are allowed to own guns or not. Not having a right to own a gun does not negate the right to self-defense. A bat or a knife may not be effective, depending on the assailant, but it is beside the point of the law. Having the right of self-defense still allows FOWOs to obtain other methods of defending themselves, like bodyguards, guard dogs, shrill scream, alarm systems, electric fence.

The problem with equating 2A with right to self-defense (or any other fundamental right) is that it is an exaggerated and illogical argument, one that only reinforces the desperation and extremism that many in the far right engage in - we're supposed to be smarter than that.

And BTW, if octogenarians with osteoporosis can still rack a slide or pull a DA trigger, they can't really be all that frail, can they?

JayFromPA wrote:I noticed as I read through the Heller case that the logic seemed to be built in a manner that was flexible toward future defense developments.

As in, the right is to defend yourself, in the best manner commonly available.

200 years ago, the "best" manner "commonly available" was muskets and such, or whatever a historian will declare as I'm not sure of the facts.

Right now, the "best" manner "commonly available" is a handgun. Therefore, the 2A is currently protecting the right to keep and bear handguns.

In 500 years, the "best" manner "commonly available" may well be shoulder mounted 360-degree energy beam weapons. If that is the case, then the 2A will be protecting the right to keep and bear those things.

Handgun isn't the best manner commonly available for defending yourself in all situations. It is only one of many "best manner". Verbal persuasion, show of solidarity, avoidance, non-engagement are all part of this list.

2A is for guaranteeing the right to own guns - it is guaranteeing methodology, not the actual act of defending yourself. And a gun does not always provide the "best manner" to do this.

Dude, I'm just pointing out what I read. If you've got a problem with the court interpretation recognizing the goal, and granting legal sanction to the best commonly available and publicly preferred method of achieving that goal of "I will defend myself" - which happened to be handguns in the year of the ruling - then head east till you get to the ocean and then turn south toward the potomac and take it up with Scotus. But leave me out of it.

After all, the 2A doesn't say jack shit about guns, rifles, muskets, pistols, or any sort of firearm. Just arms, which is open to interpretation, and has been interpreted. Yell at them if you want the definition nailed down to "handguns".

maybe I'm some kind of trainable, but I'm failing to understand why this argument being posited for any reason other than semantics. are you opposed to people using firearms for self-defense, or simply saying that using a firearm for self-defense isn't guaranteed? because it's stupid to say someone shouldn't use a handgun to defend their family, house, whatever, if one is available. it's stupid to say that someone shouldn't try to defend themselves if they're capable, with whatever comes to hand. fuck I'd be miserable if I didn't live in a castle state. again, I'm sorry if I'm missing something important that you're trying to get across, but I'm sleepy and full of carbs.

AdAstra wrote:Having the right of self-defense still allows FOWOs to obtain other methods of defending themselves, like bodyguards, guard dogs

Outsourcing removes the self from self defense, and is beyond the financial means of most people who aren't Daley or Rosie O'Donnell, Bloomberg or the like.

shrill scream, alarm systems, electric fence.

Non of those are an effective defense against an active attacker. They are all relatively passive.

The problem with equating 2A with right to self-defense (or any other fundamental right) is that it is an exaggerated and illogical argument, one that only reinforces the desperation and extremism that many in the far right engage in - we're supposed to be smarter than that.

Well, perhaps if you choose not to interpret the Heller and McDonald rulings literally, instead choosing some form of hyperbole.

And BTW, if octogenarians with osteoporosis can still rack a slide or pull a DA trigger, they can't really be all that frail, can they?

There are plenty of firearms which require little force to operate, at least less force than HTH combat.

Part of the point with this little gun is that you do not have to rack the slide, instead loading the chamber directly, then pulling a relatively light DA trigger.

AdAstra wrote:Handgun isn't the best manner commonly available for defending yourself in all situations.

You're right, sometimes a shotgun or carbine are better.

It is only one of many "best manner". Verbal persuasion, show of solidarity, avoidance, non-engagement are all part of this list.

Again, these are passive deterrents and have nothing at all to do with actually defending oneself. The same can be said of calling the police,. as they will take time to get there; time in which your attacker will likely continue to do whatever it was that they had intended on doing previously.

2A is for guaranteeing the right to own guns - it is guaranteeing methodology, not the actual act of defending yourself. And a gun does not always provide the "best manner" to do this.

Not really sure where you're going with this.

"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."

We're talking about "The People" along with "Arms" and "Security". Unless you're pushing the "State" aspect, as in the State is the entity with the right to bear arms and not the people, then this argument is making no sense. Sure, a selective targeting area of effect ray gun may ultimately be the best weapon, but those are pretty hard to find...and probably won't be cheap once they are developed. Bear spray may be best against bears from a moralistic standpoint, but most people aren't defending themselves against bears.

I think that you can like guns for whatever purpose gets your fancy. The point is that we have the enumerated right to own and bear arms, which includes guns, and we have the right to self defense. Both rights predate the Constitution. They are intertwined in that people can choose to exercise the right to own firearms for the purpose of self defense. One doesn't necessarily equal the other, but it doesn't preclude it either.

Again, it is fine that you like guns because you like to shoot and hunt. That makes you no better or worse than people who like guns because they offer a measure of personal protection. The post implies that people who perceive the use of firearms for self defense have a certain character, that was depicted in a negative light. That is condescending and not appreciated.

It can be said that people who like to shoot at targets are just repressing a desire to destroy, and people who like to hunt like to destroy relatively defensive animals out of some need to feel superior. That is not my view, but it is a view of hunters that some people have.

Rather than try to form a pecking order and denigrate gun owners whose reason to own are different than yours, why not try some restraint and accept that some people own guns for different reasons? As long as guns are used in a legal and responsible way it shouldn't matter why they are owned.