Quote of the Day: NJ’s Lack of Gun Rights is Just a Technicality

Not to get drawn into the tired old abortion debate, but as a matter of illustrating my point. Many conservatives consider abortion bad. On another hand, we detest crime, and it comes up with a good portion of why we support the 2nd Amendment. However, my point is that positions are not often logically thought out to their conclusions, and then a logical decision made upon that. For instance, in the book Freakanomics (written by a sage economist very similar to our own John Lott), the point is made that Roe vs. Wade directly lead to a massive reduction in crime throughout the 1990s, and up until this point. Reason: lower socioeconomic folks weren’t having the kids that would grow up to be tomorrow’s criminals. I can understand one being against it for religious reasons, but there are certainly many amongst us that should be absolutely be pro-choice because of the impact on crime, let alone our stance on freedom of choice to live how we wish as gunowners and citizens. Again, not wanting to be drawn into any abortion/morality debate, but I am simply making a point. We shouldn’t necessarily be against something because the other side is for it.

Well JD, if we just murdered everyone that would end crime forever.

JD, that’s a textbook example of treating the symptom and not the problem, being the negative influences and reduced opportunities presented to youth growing up in the inner cities.

Fix that, and abortions have no impact.

That’s a tougher problem though so it’s just easier and more practical to treat unborn black babies as pre-criminals.

JD,

John Lott’s work on the abortion/crime connection actually concluded the opposite of Prof. Steven Levitt (Freakonomics author) in some respects.

For example, Lott and his research partner’s study found that legalizing abortion increased murder rates by up to 7%. They concluded that legalizing abortion is a contributing factor to the great increase in out‑of‑wedlock births and single parent families, which in turn contribute to increased crime rates.

I don’t challenge your central point that policies, even distasteful policies, can have far reaching, surprising, even beneficial, consequences. It’s just that some of the consequences may split in different directions and be simultaneously conflicting.

If anything, its a caution against sweeping, nationwide, federally-imposed experiments in public policy. Let the states, as laboratories of democracy, conduct those experiments.

@JD and following responders,

Replace the “right” to abortion with free birth control, same result at lower cost. Conservatives should be frothing at the mouth to pay for birth control in the opposing ranks, even mandating it for those on wealthfare. I’ve never understood how people can be so opposed to both things.

Wood says: ” I’ve never understood how people can be so opposed to both things.”
It’s easy. Some people have strong religious beliefs that oppose both. The first amendment guarantees that those beliefs can be exercised. That’s how it’s supposed to work.
Now you understand. You don’t have to agree with it, but at least now you understand it.

Bill, I’d add that even if you have no religious convictions on the subject, some of us just think that people should be responsible for their own actions. And if you’re dumb enough to have unprotected casual sex you should have to deal with the inconvenience of raising a child or of paying child support or of contracting a venereal disease. Don’t look to me to save you from your own stupidity. Because you were too cheap to blow 50 cents on a rubber.

Sian, that’s not treating the symptom, it’s ‘the ends justify the means’. Pure Marxist logic. The same kind of logic that was used to starve 7 million Ukrainians and slaughter 6 million Jews. Which is why any libertarian should reject Freakenomics.

You need to go look up what a right is. Just because some people have their voting PRIVILEGES protected under the CotUS does not make it a RIGHT available to everybody in the US. Let’s take an example…

Everybody in America has a right to…

Freedom of speech
Freedom of religion
Freedom of assembly
Due process of law
To be secure in their possessions etc…

By definition, these are rights as they are not limited in scope to a specific portion of the population.

Voting, however, is restricted to…

American citizens
Over 18 years of age
With no felony record

As such, it is a privilege as it is, by definition, not universal.
The 15th amendment doesn’t magically turn that privilege into a right.

pwrserge, are you retarded?

You literally just said “Voting, however, is restricted to…

American citizens
Over 18 years of age
With no felony record

As such, it is a privilege as it is, by definition, not universal.
The 15th amendment doesn’t magically turn that privilege into a right.”

You know what else is restricted to American citizens over 18 years of age with no felony record? Ownership of a firearm. So are you saying that firearm ownership is also a privilege?

Adam – If you agree that the government can set and enforce those standards, then yes, the right to keep and bear arms is a privilege. If you disagree, as the Founding Fathers did, then the RKBA is a natural, civil and Constitutionally protected right.

The Second Amendment says, “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.”

Do you see anything in those 27 words even remotely qualifying the RKBA based on age? Or based on presenting a valid government issued I.D.? Or not being a felon, for that matter?

If the government has the authority to infringe on the Second Amendment by establishing an age under which you may not exercise your RKBA then they also have the authority to change that age to 21 years old, or 35 years old (as it is for running for president), or any arbitrary age they decide.

A little bit infringed is like a little bit pregnant – either you is or you ain’t.

Hey Adam… Tell me more about how non-American citizens have a “right” to vote in US elections… I’ll wait.

Serge has a point.

We have allowed the government to pick and choose how things apply to minors and often there are exceptions.

You can’t buy a gun but most states allow possession and use in some way or another, some regardless of age.

Minor’s generally can’t enter into contracts but can work, or buy a car, in many states at 16.

Minors generally can’t join the military or get a tattoo but parents can give permission for both, with the caveat that people under 18 can’t be given a combat posting. That last is a bit odd since the Militia Code specifically mentions the age of 17.

Being under 18 has some odd implications for legal problems as well.

On the other hand, I’m not aware of a single place in the land that says the 1A’s religious protections don’t extend to children. Ditto the 4th or 5th Amendments. But 1A free speech rights vary based on the minor’s location. Saying something in a public street at 15 may not be protected if you say it in a public school.

One could argue that we’re a bit schizophrenic about how we treat people under the age of 18. So for the purposes of this discussion I’d call them a “special case” for the sake of simplicity.

Speaking strictly of legal adults however, all the legal protections of the Bill of Rights extend to everyone on our soil be they a legal tourist, citizen or illegal immigrant they all have the same rights which are recognized by this country. Yet only one group can vote. We’re voting in U.S. elections a “natural and civil right” then a French tourist, who happened to be here on election day, could vote. Similarly, you could cross state lines and [legally] vote in mutliple states the same way you can speak or go to church in multiple states.

I think you are all missing my point. Pwrserge was saying that voting is a privilege because it has an age restriction and only things without an age restriction can be considered a right. If that is the case, it can be said that firearm ownership is a privilege as well. I disagree with this as does our constitution when it says that both firearm ownership and voting are a right.

I see this garbage quite frequently in the firearm community where people are just fine with voter registration and licensing but freak out when the same is applied to firearm ownership. Fact is, rights and rights and no one should be allowed to take them away from me, force me to register them, or for me to pay to use them.

I see this garbage quite frequently in the firearm community where people are just fine with voter registration and licensing but freak out when the same is applied to firearm ownership.

That’s because the number of firearms possessed (or used) by another person has zero impact on your exercise of the right to keep and bear arms. Likewise, where you live and to whom your pay taxes has (in theory) zero impact on your exercise of the right to keep and bear arms.

Unlike the right to keep and bear arms, the concept of voting in a democratic process requires that each person be limited to one vote. Likewise, the freedom of association and the right not to be taxed without representation require that only those who live in a given constituency, and/or those are impacted by the actions of a given elected office be able to vote for that office.

Felons cannot vote (though IMHO they should be able to, once they have served their sentence). Felons cannot possess firearms (likewise, IMHO they should be able to, once they have served their sentence). That comparison, then, tells us nothing.

Non-citizens and/or non-residents cannot vote. Non-citizens and or non-residents can exercise the right to keep and bear arms.

Minors cannot vote. Minors may possess (though they may not purchase) firearms.

Multiple ballots cast by a given individual dilutes the democratic power of every other individual participating in a given election. Multiple firearms owned by a given individual have no impact on, and do not interfere with, any other individual’s exercise of the right to keep and bear arms.