Trump supports efforts to improve gun background checks

Events occurring and how they relate/affect Anabaptist faith and culture.
User avatar
Bootstrap
Posts: 14439
Joined: Thu Oct 20, 2016 9:59 am
Affiliation: Mennonite

Re: Trump supports efforts to improve gun background checks

Post by Bootstrap »

RZehr wrote:
Bootstrap wrote:I really don't like to mess with the Constitution, and I consider the Bill of Rights important to our freedom. But for the first 200 years, the Second Amendment was rarely litigated or discussed, and courts have never held that it means some of the things extremists are saying today. I think it's rather obsolete - we no longer have a "well-regulated militia" that depends on individuals having guns, and we do have a standing army, which the founders were opposed to. I don't think that privately held guns are the source of American freedom or the true test of our freedom. But I think it's hard to change the Constitution, and I don't think the Second Amendment is as extreme as what some people say.
I think the Second Amendment is every bit as extreme as people believe today. Remember the context it was written in. It wasn't about personal protection, or hunting. It was about over throwing the government with a well regulated militia (a point lost among many on the right) - a militia that was equipped with the same firearms that the government used.
Well, sort of. The militia was the fighting force of the government, and subject to the authority of State government. So by definition, it used the same weapons, because it was the fighting force that the government used. It did not have a standing army. And that's precisely why it was "necessary to the security of a free State".
2nd Amendment wrote: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.
In Article 1, the Constitution tells us that the Militia is under the authority of the President of the United States, who can call on it to suppress insurrections:
Article 1 Clause 15 wrote:To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;
So one of the goals of the militias was to "suppress Insurrections," and the President could order them to do so. A "well-regulated" militia is subject to the authority described in Article 1. This was written shortly after the Whiskey Rebellion and Shay's Rebellion, which were the kind of insurrections a militia should be able to suppress.

But these "well-regulated militias" are directly accountable to the individual States to avoid the danger of giving too much power to the federal government. Madison described these State militias in Federalist 48, one of the essays used to persuade people that the Constitution should be adopted.

To Madison, the notion of a standing army for the Federal government would be horrible, but it was inconceivable:
Federalist 48 (Madison) wrote:The only refuge left for those who prophesy the downfall of the State governments is the visionary supposition that the federal government may previously accumulate a military force for the projects of ambition. The reasonings contained in these papers must have been employed to little purpose indeed, if it could be necessary now to disprove the reality of this danger. That the people and the States should, for a sufficient period of time, elect an uninterrupted succession of men ready to betray both; that the traitors should, throughout this period, uniformly and systematically pursue some fixed plan for the extension of the military establishment; that the governments and the people of the States should silently and patiently behold the gathering storm, and continue to supply the materials, until it should be prepared to burst on their own heads, must appear to every one more like the incoherent dreams of a delirious jealousy, or the misjudged exaggerations of a counterfeit zeal, than like the sober apprehensions of genuine patriotism.
Ooops. That happened long ago, certainly by the end of World War II, and today we most Americans seem to accept a standing army as the way things should be. But this was something the founders genuinely feared, because they generally believed that a demagogue with a military behind him was one of the greatest threats to democracy. But let's keep following his argument:
Federalist 48 (Madison) wrote:Extravagant as the supposition is, let it however be made. Let a regular army, fully equal to the resources of the country, be formed; and let it be entirely at the devotion of the federal government; still it would not be going too far to say, that the State governments, with the people on their side, would be able to repel the danger. The highest number to which, according to the best computation, a standing army can be carried in any country, does not exceed one hundredth part of the whole number of souls; or one twenty-fifth part of the number able to bear arms. This proportion would not yield, in the United States, an army of more than twenty-five or thirty thousand men.

To these would be opposed a militia amounting to near half a million of citizens with arms in their hands, officered by men chosen from among themselves, fighting for their common liberties, and united and conducted by governments possessing their affections and confidence. It may well be doubted, whether a militia thus circumstanced could ever be conquered by such a proportion of regular troops. Those who are best acquainted with the last successful resistance of this country against the British arms, will be most inclined to deny the possibility of it.

Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation, the existence of subordinate governments, to which the people are attached, and by which the militia officers are appointed, forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit of. Notwithstanding the military establishments in the several kingdoms of Europe, which are carried as far as the public resources will bear, the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms. And it is not certain, that with this aid alone they would not be able to shake off their yokes.
I highlighted three things in that text. First, Madison thought it highly unlikely that Americans would ever settle for a standing army. (Standing navies were always considered OK, FWIW.) Second, Madison believed that the State governments, which were in charge of the militias, would lead the charge against the Federal government that got out of hand and established a standing army. The phrase "simple government" means a government that is not composed of multiple parts, single, like "if the eye is simple" in the KJV. The subordinate governments of the States are the reason we do not have a simple government. Third, Madison thought that Europeans might overthrow their governments if they could, and that's why they weren't allowed to have arms, but he also thought that without the help of subordinate governments, even arms would not be enough for them to do so.

So what happened to that vision? First off, the Civil War showed us what happens if states actually do what Madison proposed, and it pretty much destroyed the country. After the Civil War, three amendments significantly changed the relationship between the States and the federal government - the 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendments. Here's part of the 14th:
Section 3. No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may, by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.
That makes it quite clear that when push comes to shove, the Federal government's authority is greater than that of the individual states. And we saw that when Eisenhower was able to federalize the Arkansas National Guard in 1957.
RZehr wrote:Maybe it is obsolete with life being so much different nowadays. Maybe it isn't. But whether it is obsolete or not, shouldn't hinge on crime rates.
I do think it's original purpose is mostly obsolete, and I do not think that it is the source of American freedom. We no longer organize our military this way, except for the National Guard, and we are careful to keep that under the authority of the Federal government. It was never intended to enable popular insurrection, and since the Civil War, we have clearly changed our minds about letting the States fight the Federal Government.

And let's face it, if you wanted to fight the Federal Government, an AR-15 wouldn't do it for you.
0 x
Is it biblical? Is it Christlike? Is it loving? Is it true? How can I find out?
RZehr
Posts: 7026
Joined: Thu Oct 20, 2016 12:42 am
Affiliation: Cons. Mennonite

Re: Trump supports efforts to improve gun background checks

Post by RZehr »

You make a good argument here. You're probably right. I don't know a whole lot about it.
0 x
RZehr
Posts: 7026
Joined: Thu Oct 20, 2016 12:42 am
Affiliation: Cons. Mennonite

Re: Trump supports efforts to improve gun background checks

Post by RZehr »

Bootstrap wrote: And let's face it, if you wanted to fight the Federal Government, an AR-15 wouldn't do it for you.
My thinking is that the AR would only be the beginning, and they would possibly get more powerful weapons from military bases. It's hard for me to imagine any kind of armed group successfully overthrowing the Federal government. But who knows? If a large majority of the population supported them and other countries assisted I suppose anything is possible.

But they certainly wouldn't have a chance without ARs. I see the AK-47 currently quite effective and popular in rebellions around the globe
0 x
User avatar
Bootstrap
Posts: 14439
Joined: Thu Oct 20, 2016 9:59 am
Affiliation: Mennonite

Re: Trump supports efforts to improve gun background checks

Post by Bootstrap »

Wayne in Maine wrote:Most people killed by criminals with guns are killed one or two at a time by hand guns. Most often those hand guns are in the possession of people for whom it is illegal to own a hand gun.
Absolutely. Also, suicide by gun is much more common than homicide by gun. I believe I have read that more veterans are killed by suicide per year than the number of soldiers killed in active duty.
Wayne in Maine wrote:Assaulting the National Rifle Association or the Second Amendment or ArmaLite or gun nuts (I know some gun nuts) who want to play with semi-automatic "military" looking firearms won't go very far toward reducing gun deaths where they are occurring most frequently. The term "virtue signaling" comes to mind when I think about the current push to "keep our kids safe from gun violence".
I really don't have a problem with the Second Amendment as the Supreme Court understands it, only the "fulminations, stemming from penumbras" that some people see in it. But the NRA has done a lot to make it hard to combat illegal gun trafficking, and that leads to more guns in the hands of criminals.
Wayne in Maine wrote:I would like to think that banning violent video games and films and that glorify violence (without showing the suffering of the victims and survivors) would likely go a lot further than trying to ban semi-automatic firearms in preventing kids from shooting up schools (assault weapons - that is, machine guns, are already banned). Humanizing humans again might save a lot of human lives. Families and schools paying closer attention to the mental health of "youth at risk" might help too.
I agree - and suicide prevention is just as important here, since guns are more likely to be used in suicide than in homicide. That is particularly true for veterans.

Beyond that, I think we in our own Kingdom may have some things to teach about defusing violent situations, building peace, living in ways that promote mental health, etc.
Wayne in Maine wrote:As we are talking about an issue outside of God's Kingdom: swift, sure, and harsh punishment for criminal activity has always been an effective deterrent to criminal activity. That's common sense. And we already have some very good laws that are not enforced, swiftly or otherwise. In Massachusetts there is a mandatory 1 year prison term if you are in possession of a firearm illegally or while committing a crime (I believe New York has a similar law). It has not been enforced for decades.
We need to enforce gun laws. We also need some infrastructure to be able to enforce them, such as the ability to trace a gun.
Wayne in Maine wrote:The fact is too, most ongoing gun crimes by bad people with guns are stopped by good people with guns (generally the police). I feel uncomfortable being around people openly carrying a hand gun at the local grocery store, but I suppose criminals do too, so... Bad people with guns are not deterred by the declaration that they are entering a gun-free zone, rather they are likely encouraged by it! That too is common sense.
I agree that it's generally the police.

It's actually very hard to get reliable statistics on the number of crimes that are prevented by people with handguns. It's not at all hard to fund unreliable ones, which say whatever the researcher wants them to say. Here's something I worry about: who decides which people with guns are good people and which ones are bad people? When would you want someone to use a gun at your local grocery store, and how? What kind of training does that person have to ensure that they won't accidentally shoot someone innocent? If we really intend to turn ordinary citizens with guns into a secondary police force, how do we build in the same kinds of protections and training needed for the official police force? How do I know that this private citizen with a gun cares about my rights?
0 x
Is it biblical? Is it Christlike? Is it loving? Is it true? How can I find out?
User avatar
Josh
Posts: 23817
Joined: Wed Oct 19, 2016 6:23 pm
Location: 1000' ASL
Affiliation: The church of God

Re: Trump supports efforts to improve gun background checks

Post by Josh »

Jazman wrote:
Josh wrote:...and how the most gun-crime-ridden places already have restrictions which clearly don’t work. That’s a personal opinion I hold.
But you contradict yourself with what you said here:
Josh wrote:A few years ago, a crime syndicate had an underground factory turning out machine guns... and it took the government a while to figure it out and close it down.
According to your own testimony here, the gov of Australia, backed by it's laws was able to shut down a criminal gun-making operation. So something worked and apparently (unless you have evidence to the contrary) those guns weren't used for harm.
The manufacturing operation ran for a while and the guns are still out there.

It took the government a while to figure out “Why are there are so many guns showing up? These were outlawed a long time ago.”
0 x
User avatar
Bootstrap
Posts: 14439
Joined: Thu Oct 20, 2016 9:59 am
Affiliation: Mennonite

Re: Trump supports efforts to improve gun background checks

Post by Bootstrap »

Josh wrote:
Jazman wrote:
Josh wrote:...and how the most gun-crime-ridden places already have restrictions which clearly don’t work. That’s a personal opinion I hold.
But you contradict yourself with what you said here:
Josh wrote:A few years ago, a crime syndicate had an underground factory turning out machine guns... and it took the government a while to figure it out and close it down.
According to your own testimony here, the gov of Australia, backed by it's laws was able to shut down a criminal gun-making operation. So something worked and apparently (unless you have evidence to the contrary) those guns weren't used for harm.
The manufacturing operation ran for a while and the guns are still out there.

It took the government a while to figure out “Why are there are so many guns showing up? These were outlawed a long time ago.”
In your view, is that a good thing or a bad thing? Do you want the government to be able to round up illegal guns?
0 x
Is it biblical? Is it Christlike? Is it loving? Is it true? How can I find out?
User avatar
Bootstrap
Posts: 14439
Joined: Thu Oct 20, 2016 9:59 am
Affiliation: Mennonite

Re: Trump supports efforts to improve gun background checks

Post by Bootstrap »

First indications of what Trump will push for.
Screen Shot 2018-02-22 at 2.58.53 PM.png
Screen Shot 2018-02-22 at 2.58.53 PM.png (75.49 KiB) Viewed 159 times
Screen Shot 2018-02-22 at 3.01.39 PM.png
Screen Shot 2018-02-22 at 3.01.39 PM.png (99.79 KiB) Viewed 159 times
0 x
Is it biblical? Is it Christlike? Is it loving? Is it true? How can I find out?
PeterG
Posts: 894
Joined: Wed Oct 19, 2016 4:52 pm
Location: Central PA
Affiliation: Conserv. Mennonite

Re: Trump supports efforts to improve gun background checks

Post by PeterG »

Josh wrote:
PeterG wrote:
Josh wrote:I’m not an NRA member.
Don't be surprised if the reader of your posts in this thread (other than this one) concludes otherwise...
That’s a good example of turning everything into a partisan debate with a “good” side and a “bad” side.

In this thread, I’ve pointed out why I believe there is resistance to further gun restrictions, and how the most gun-crime-ridden places already have restrictions which clearly don’t work. That’s a personal opinion I hold.
The arguments you've made are indistinguishable from what I'd expect from an NRA member; if my impression is inaccurate, can you please explain how your arguments in this thread are distinct from those characteristic of NRA members?

Whether intentionally or not, you have aligned yourself with a particular faction in a political debate. I don't necessarily consider this faction to be "good" or "bad" relative to any other faction, and I don't see how my observation introduced partisanship into the discussion, especially since other posters (yourself included) had already apparently chosen a side (presumably the good one).
0 x
"It is a weird" —Ken
PeterG
Posts: 894
Joined: Wed Oct 19, 2016 4:52 pm
Location: Central PA
Affiliation: Conserv. Mennonite

Re: Trump supports efforts to improve gun background checks

Post by PeterG »

Bootstrap wrote:First indications of what Trump will push for.
In summary, more restrictive background checks, a bump stock ban, and the arming of some teachers. The first two measures are just the sort of thing that has been argued against in this thread, and constitute yet another example of President Trump acting contrary to the longstanding positions of the right. It will be very interesting to see how his supporters respond.
0 x
"It is a weird" —Ken
PeterG
Posts: 894
Joined: Wed Oct 19, 2016 4:52 pm
Location: Central PA
Affiliation: Conserv. Mennonite

Re: Trump supports efforts to improve gun background checks

Post by PeterG »

mike wrote:And as long as there are guns, there will be murders with guns, including mass murders and school shootings. Because people have evil hearts. Even expanded databases for background checks, and many other solutions being offered, will not eliminate the problem.
It's hard to argue with this. Gun control is a superficial measure at best, and can't address the root of gun violence.

It's funny how conservative arguments against gun control and liberal arguments in favor of marijuana legalization are basically the same. And they're both sort of right. No government's attempts to control guns, drugs, pornography, abortion, sexual immorality, etc. can be successful on a deep level. It's strange how some believe that greed can be controlled through taxation, while criminalization of drug use is futile; or that gun control won't stop violence, but outlawing gay marriage will promote morality.

Not that a libertarian utopia would truly be any better. That individualistic vision is deceptive in its own way, and still predicated on the lie that a proper political structure is the foundation of the good society.
0 x
"It is a weird" —Ken
Post Reply