Two Guns Per Person

[middlefinger]

.

A simple, constitutional proposal that protects both Americans’ lives and liberty.




The 27 words of the Second Amendment don’t say anything about how many guns someone can own in America.

Neither do the other 7,564 words in the Constitution.

Yes, this is a facile point to make.

A lot of things—including rights, responsibilities, and government powers we take for granted—aren’t itemized in the Constitution. While saying you can’t find something doesn’t necessarily mean anything, conservatives use this trick all the time.

Consider marriage equality, a precept protected by the Constitution’s Equal Protection and Due Process clauses. That’s the case even though the Constitution doesn’t include the words, There shall be no discrimination by government in recognition of any marriage on the basis of race or sexual orientation.

This means a couple of things in the gun debate.

First, the Constitution and its text are a starting point, not an end point, for determining what gun regulations federal, state, and local governments may pass.

Second, though the Constitution’s open-ended provisions are rooted in the time of their drafting, the task of understanding them and applying them has been left to later generations.

Federal courts have taken tentative, though momentous, steps in recent years to decide what the Second and 14th amendments mean in terms of gun laws.

But in the wake of the slaughter in Las Vegas, some commentators appear to have lost their minds about just how far the courts have gone.

No, we don’t have to repeal the Second Amendment to pass strong gun laws—Section III of the Supreme Court’s landmark 2008 Heller decision is all you have to read to figure that out.

The Constitution doesn’t mandate that Americans be allowed to own an unlimited number of guns.

What we need are tougher and smarter rules that keep guns out of the hands of dangerous people, while still allowing law-abiding, rule-following people to arm themselves.

Perhaps the most startling fact about the Las Vegas shooter’s means of mass murder is that he stockpiled 33 firearms in 12 months, “most of which were rifles. .......... Why is this legal?

I’m not talking about why we don’t require reporting multiple sales of long guns to federal authorities (which we don’t).

I’m not talking about the bump stocks the shooter used to make his semi-automatic weapons fire like machine guns. I’m talking about why people are allowed to own more than, say, two firearms without a really good reason.

The easy answer is because that’s how it’s always been. We’ve never had a federal law that says you can only own so many guns.

But is there a logical, policy-based justification for unlimited gun ownership, especially when weighed against the public safety risk of allowing someone to arm himself with weapons that are capable of shooting nearly 600 people in 10 minutes? I don’t think there is one.

The Constitution certainly doesn’t mandate that Americans be allowed to own an unlimited number of guns. In the Second Amendment, a gun enthusiast might latch onto the words “shall not be infringed” and (ironically) “militia,” and argue that any restriction on his ability to possess any gun he wants violates his constitutional rights, while also making it harder to wage war against the government if it becomes tyrannical.

Neither of these arguments is persuasive.

As Justice Antonin Scalia of all people wrote in Heller, “[T]he right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited.” Scalia also justified laws that ban “dangerous and unusual weapons”—such as machine guns—even if such bans make it harder to fight back against a tyrannical government.

Consider the recent survey showing that just 3 percent of adults own half of America’s guns, with the Washington Post reporting that those individuals “own, on average, 17 guns apiece.” Another 19 percent of Americans own the other half of the nation’s guns, leaving 78 percent of the American people who don’t own any firearms at all.

The Second Amendment uses the word arms, plural.

There is also compelling 14th Amendment scholarship on the Reconstruction-era history of newly freed slaves, who used guns to defend themselves against racist marauders.

But here in 2017, how many firearms does the average American need to competently defend her residence? For whom would, say, a 10-shot semi-automatic pistol and a six-round 12-gauge pump action shotgun not suffice for home defense?



Join Dahlia Lithwick and her stable of standout guests for a discussion about the high court and the country’s most important cases.
Let me put that another way: Why shouldn’t we require someone who wants to own more than two firearms, and who isn’t legally in the gun business, to file an application?

Send some paperwork to the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives; submit fingerprints and a photo; and send in a $200 fee along with the make, model, and number of additional weapons you’d like to purchase (and eventually their serial numbers).

You would agree to undergo a thorough criminal, domestic violence, and mental health background check, knowing that if a permit to purchase additional firearms were granted, such a background check would be performed every six months (to ensure the applicant hadn’t fallen into a prohibited category of gun owner). Finally, and most important, the reason for requesting additional firearms would be stated on the application.

What would qualify as a legitimate reason?

Maybe you own a huge ranch in Wyoming and need to supply your staff members with bolt-action rifles. Maybe you own a courier business that ferries valuables for clients and you need to arm your guards.

As long as they’re all properly trained and vetted, and safe-storage precautions are taken, certain business exceptions like these probably make sense. You can likely think of other potential reasons. How many of these outweigh the public safety purpose of preventing someone like the Las Vegas shooter from amassing a personal arsenal? I suspect the answer is “very few.”

Under such a two-guns-per-person law, would anyone be prevented from owning a firearm to defend themselves in their home? Clearly not.

Whether or not you agree with this idea, it’s plainly correct that neither the Second Amendment nor any other part of the Constitution stands in the way of policy proposals like this one.

There are countless other ideas already in circulation for reducing the horrific toll that gunfire takes on America. What’s lacking is a constant, thunderous groundswell of public demand for these and other strong regulatory steps.

Apart from our Constitution’s stated purpose to promote the general welfare, as well as the Declaration of Independence’s inalienable rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness—which can as easily encompass the freedom from gunfire as the freedom to shoot—neither the Founding Fathers nor their post–Civil War successors have much to say to us in our modern campaign against gun violence.

It is up to us to honor both our Constitution and those who are gunned down every day by preventing as many of our fellow Americans as possible from sharing their tragic fate.

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_a...d_liberty.html

[priell3]

Bear arms. Plural. That means as many as I damn well please.

[KCJones]

.

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_a...d_liberty.html

So let me put on my 'know thy enemy' hat and ask what's the best response to this. And with due respect to Priell3, I'm not sure "as damn many as I please" is the best line of argument.

Right off the bat, I can justify three: handgun, rifle, shotgun. I can quite easily justify six: small carry handgun, larger/target handgun, hunting rifle, sporting/target rifle, two shotguns of varying bore/style. I could go on to nine easily enough, probably get to 20+ without a strain, and then invoke the 'collector' factor to increase that manifold.

Point is I think we're well-served to understand that straw-men will be brought to bear by the naysayers on near-any unilateral response... "Because Constitution" quickly turns into "Oh, so someone should be able to own 500 "assault rifles" and 100,000 rounds of ammo in 100-round magazines with bump-stocks and special sights that target women and children? Baby-killer!"...

In the end, no, I don't support any 'common sense' limit (or limit at all). In the end, I agree the constitution does not say "a reasonable number of arms"... But as a practical/pragmatic matter, I find that responding "over my cold dead..." to anti-2A folks is not typically productive.

I'd be more inclined to respond by drawing parallels against something they hold dear... e.g. "Okay, so what's the lifetime limit on abortions?" or "How many times can a woman complain about sexual harassment before she's hit her limit?" What about "So you can claim 'racism' twice and then you're done"... Or even "What's the limit on how many books you're allowed to own?" I'd sooner respond "Because Fahrenheit 451 B**ches" than "Because Constitution Motherfletcher!"

The point is really to bring the discussion back from emotion and return to the issue of limiting rights, including all the scary slippery-slope elements of that.

Yeah, I love a snarky response like "as damn many" or "cold dead hands" or similar, and that is -right-. But sometimes what's right isn't the ONLY right response, nor the best one. I prefer something that cuts their legs out from under them, versus something that just stokes the "See! These unreasonable, un-common-sense gun nuts just don't get it" fires.

KC

[Emptymag]

How many pairs of shoes does that homo REALLY need?

I can think of a LOT of shit that people don't "need" - in my OPINION.

I'm so sick of people with ZERO understanding of "guns" thinking they are the ones who should make the rules concerning them.

[tacticalreload]

So let me put on my 'know thy enemy' hat and ask what's the best response to this. And with due respect to Priell3, I'm not sure "as damn many as I please" is the best line of argument.

Right off the bat, I can justify three: handgun, rifle, shotgun. I can quite easily justify six: small carry handgun, larger/target handgun, hunting rifle, sporting/target rifle, two shotguns of varying bore/style. I could go on to nine easily enough, probably get to 20+ without a strain, and then invoke the 'collector' factor to increase that manifold.

Point is I think we're well-served to understand that straw-men will be brought to bear by the naysayers on near-any unilateral response... "Because Constitution" quickly turns into "Oh, so someone should be able to own 500 "assault rifles" and 100,000 rounds of ammo in 100-round magazines with bump-stocks and special sights that target women and children? Baby-killer!"...

In the end, no, I don't support any 'common sense' limit (or limit at all). In the end, I agree the constitution does not say "a reasonable number of arms"... But as a practical/pragmatic matter, I find that responding "over my cold dead..." to anti-2A folks is not typically productive.

I'd be more inclined to respond by drawing parallels against something they hold dear... e.g. "Okay, so what's the lifetime limit on abortions?" or "How many times can a woman complain about sexual harassment before she's hit her limit?" What about "So you can claim 'racism' twice and then you're done"... Or even "What's the limit on how many books you're allowed to own?" I'd sooner respond "Because Fahrenheit 451 B**ches" than "Because Constitution Motherfletcher!"

The point is really to bring the discussion back from emotion and return to the issue of limiting rights, including all the scary slippery-slope elements of that.

Yeah, I love a snarky response like "as damn many" or "cold dead hands" or similar, and that is -right-. But sometimes what's right isn't the ONLY right response, nor the best one. I prefer something that cuts their legs out from under them, versus something that just stokes the "See! These unreasonable, un-common-sense gun nuts just don't get it" fires.

KC

Almost 100% of the time, someone who proposes something as stupid as this is not going to listen to ANY line of argument. They don't want you to have guns, period. Just as 10 round in a magazine is better than 15, two guns per owner is better than five... and we can all work toward reducing that number down the road some time.

Engaging in a logical debate that is bred from a viewpoint of illogical emotion and fear is pointless. Just as an atheist and a preacher aren't going to convince each other to come around to their way of thinking, someone who is vehemently anti-gun isn't going to be swayed by even the most logic of arguments. You aren't going to be any more likely to convince them that they are wrong than they are you do the same to you. The best thing you can do is not come off like an asshole and move along. I'm not suggesting that you give up... but it should be pretty clear from the jump when you're dealing with someone who isn't going to change their mind no matter what.

[john9001]

How many laws is the government allowed to pass?

[KCJones]

Almost 100% of the time, someone who proposes something as stupid as this is not going to listen to ANY line of argument. They don't want you to have guns, period. Just as 10 round in a magazine is better than 15, two guns per owner is better than five... and we can all work toward reducing that number down the road some time.

Engaging in a logical debate that is bred from a viewpoint of illogical emotion and fear is pointless. Just as an atheist and a preacher aren't going to convince each other to come around to their way of thinking, someone who is vehemently anti-gun isn't going to be swayed by even the most logic of arguments. You aren't going to be any more likely to convince them that they are wrong than they are you do the same to you. The best thing you can do is not come off like an asshole and move along. I'm not suggesting that you give up... but it should be pretty clear from the jump when you're dealing with someone who isn't going to change their mind no matter what.

I don't disagree: there are folks for whom there's simply no 'convincing'. They know what they know, they've decided what they've decided and that's that. And when there are two sides to a debate, both of whom are entrenched and just not changing their minds, then you just have math. I don't like math. Math means if 50.0000000000000001% of people know something and I disagree, then I lose... even if I'm right.

My thought was more to the 'swing' middle that is still not totally entrenched. The folks who are, perhaps, right now today caught in an emotional upheaval but may still be willing to listen to reason.

One of my fears for this great nation of ours is that the 'middle' group becomes smaller and smaller. If we have, today 45% on the right irrevocably and 45% on the left irrevocably, there are still 10% who are thoughtful and 'swing' their decision. What happens when it becomes 50/50 (or 51/49 - who knows which "direction")?

[john9001]

A Republic, if you can hold it.

[Sandcut]

Consider marriage equality, a precept protected by the Constitution’s Equal Protection and Due Process clauses. That’s the case even though the Constitution doesn’t include the words, There shall be no discrimination by government in recognition of any marriage on the basis of race or sexual orientation.

Did the dipshit who wrote this article just try to make the argument that "just because the words aren't clearly enumerated in the Constitution, the government can't restrict personal liberty" as justification for the government to be able to restrict a personal liberty that is actually enumerated in the Constitution?

Really??

Come on. I'm really not that smart and I can even see this as a dumb idea for poopheads.

[cdi]

Constitutionally speaking just how much sperm should these smarmy, pointy-pants beta males be allowed to swallow?