Do we really need guns everywhere? Update: it Passes

[quote name='JolietJake']Not all nuclear weapons create huge city destroying explosions. One small strike could take at alot of "guerrillas." Besides that, there are plenty of non nuclear weapons too. Maybe they just drop napalm on everyone.[/quote]

In your version of the government enslaving the masses, is the government going to commit genocide against the masses?

Is the government going to wash their own clothes, clean their own toilets, toil in their own crop fields, cook their own meals, change their own kids' shitty diapers, etc?

If so, the government will win be becoming an egalitarian society. :whistle2:?
 
[quote name='daroga']Am I a bad conservative if I find the fascination with everyone carrying weapons a categorically terrible idea? I'm not going to fight to get the 2nd amendment repealed or anything, but I wouldn't shed too many tears if it was.

I'd be much happier assuming that the drunk guys camping next to me at a national park weren't packing heat, actually. That would make me feel safer than knowing I could defend myself against a wildlife attack or some sort of government coup.[/QUOTE]

Turn in your membership card at the door, commie. ;)

I don't see why this is such a problem to gun-rights types. The precedent *has been* that firearms were prohibited from national parks - it only makes sense in the context of safety for those visiting there.

Now, the problem with gun-rights advocates (just in this case) is this knee-jerk reaction along the lines of "WHAT!??!?!", which happens anytime they find out that guns are prohibited from somewhere else. Like people who avoid the doctor because they're not "sick" until they find out, this wasn't a problem until gun-rights folks became aware of it.

Some people here are touting the second amendment as this catch-all, which it simply isn't. You can't carry a gun down the street (exposed), into a courthouse, college campus, capitol buildings in DC, and several others. Why is conceal and carry fine by those whose philosophies are guided by what the constitution literally says? The second amendment says nothing about the right to keep and bear arms, so long as it's in my pocket!

That's ultimately the problem that I have with those who carry the second amendment around - they act like this is one step on a slippery slope towards the great "gun grab" that has yet to happen. In reality, it's a discussion on whether or not a location where firearms are currently prohibited should be reexamined to see if firearms should be permitted. You should be more concerned that guns aren't permitted in government buildings - where they'd be infinitely more useful in taking over the government than taking them to Yellowstone.
 
[quote name='fatherofcaitlyn']Strict constructionist? I thought I was reading it as it was written.

I'm not saying it is a good amendment.

If you don't like what it says, have the Congress repeal it and replace it with the language you would prefer.[/QUOTE]

Hrm? Is this in response to anything in specific?
 
[quote name='mykevermin']
I don't see why this is such a problem to gun-rights types. The precedent *has been* that firearms were prohibited from national parks - it only makes sense in the context of safety for those visiting there.
[/quote]

While it does make sense not to have a bunch of trigger happy campers roving our national parks, how does this park policy predate the Second Amendment?
 
[quote name='trq']Hrm? Is this in response to anything in specific?[/quote]

Sure.

"Perhaps because, like the bible, people have difficulty interpreting the Second Amendment in light of technological advances. There simply weren't anti-armor sniper rifles or fully automatic shotguns around for the Founding Fathers to even imagine the ramifications of. So perhaps a strict Constitutional Constructionist could argue that the Founding Fathers originally intended the Second Amendment to allow every citizen to bear as many arms as they'd like ... but those arms would then have to be wheellock pistols and flintlock muskets, the weapons the Founding Fathers had in mind as they were writing the Amendment. Anything else is selective interpretation."

Are you of the opinion that the Founding Fathers view of the Second Amendment is based on a gun's rate of fire and accuracy?

Thomas Jefferson: Well, Franklin, you can have any gun you want so long as it can't be fired more than twice a minute.

James Madison: fucking A!
 
[quote name='mykevermin']:wall:[/quote]

My work here is done.

But seriously, the Second Amendment is the first gun law for the United States. It is written in such a way that a literal interpretation means there can be no other gun laws unless they don't infringe on a person's right to keep and bear arms.

I'm not saying it is well written.
 
[quote name='fatherofcaitlyn']My work here is done.

But seriously, the Second Amendment is the first gun law for the United States. It is written in such a way that a literal interpretation means there can be no other gun laws unless they don't infringe on a person's right to keep and bear arms.

I'm not saying it is well written.[/QUOTE]


But you are saying it is not open to interpretation. Which is incorrect. Hell, even the first admendment has restrictions.

Why is the second admendment (one with a built-in restriction) above reproach? It's not.

I like what Dan Klass (the bitterest pill podcast) said about the subject. He is for free and unfettered access to guns but only gun that were available at the time the constitution was written. You wanna be a strict constructionist? There you go.
 
[quote name='fatherofcaitlyn']Are you of the opinion that the Founding Fathers view of the Second Amendment is based on a gun's rate of fire and accuracy?

Thomas Jefferson: Well, Franklin, you can have any gun you want so long as it can't be fired more than twice a minute.

James Madison: fucking A![/QUOTE]

Ah. Then I would say that I'm of the opinion that you can't have it both ways. Either you're a "strict constructionist" and the Second Amendment is written in stone, in which case it means exactly what it meant when it was written -- the "arms" referred to are muskets and black powder weapons -- or you're interpreting the Amendment as a living document, adaptable to the times we live in and the technology available.

Personally, I think that as long as the driving point of the Amendment (people have the right to defend themselves and their property, even from their government) is intact, we're doing okay, but that's at odds with the understanding espoused by the NRA, which combines a "living" interpretation with regard to WHAT you can own with a "constructionist" interpretation with regard to the rest of it. The rule of law is based on consistency, and selectively choosing the bits to take literally and the bits to interpret is, frankly, baloney.

And while we're on the subject of consistency being integral to the rule of law, if you're going to read the Amendment as written, you have to read the whole Amendment, not just the "right to bear arms" part, because it's the "well-regulated militia" bit that puts it in context.
 
[quote name='trq']
And while we're on the subject of consistency being integral to the rule of law, if you're going to read the Amendment as written, you have to read the whole Amendment, not just the "right to bear arms" part, because it's the "well-regulated militia" bit that puts it in context.[/quote]

Can I have any gun I want if I join a militia?
 
[quote name='fatherofcaitlyn']Can I have any gun I want if I join a militia?[/quote]

So long as it's well-regulated :p.
 
Hey! At least for you getting a gun is something possible. Here the gun laws are stupid, the registries are overdated (and thus it takes ages to get the paperwork done) and still don't prevent crimes. And this is when you are over 18. The only good reason for a teenager to own a gun, even a bolt-action rifle would be to shoot people in school. Damn you medias!

At least you folks can own a gun without all the hassle we have. Canada's gun laws are a bitch.
 
[quote name='N1c0_ds']The only good reason for a teenager to own a gun, even a bolt-action rifle would be to shoot people in school.
[/quote]


Isn't caribou edible?

Also, what do you Canadians do when the King of England shows up and starts pushing you around, eh?
 
[quote name='SpazX']So long as it's well-regulated :p.[/quote]

:lol:

And what would determine if a militia is well-regulated? Any local, state or federal laws that were passed. BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

Government Official: You can't have those firearms because nobody in your militia can run a mile in under 3 minutes while carrying a bazooka.
 
[quote name='fatherofcaitlyn']Can I have any gun I want if I join a militia?[/QUOTE]

Basically? Yeah. Just stay away from the "poorly regulated" ones -- everybody's always late, nobody can remember who's supposed to be recording the minutes, and it's IMPOSSIBLE to find a good coordinator for the annual bake-sale & ammo stockpile drive. I do have a swank chrome-plated .38 and more flannel shirts than I know what to do with leftover from mine, though.
 
The meaning of the phrase "well-regulated" in the 2nd amendment


The following are taken from the Oxford English Dictionary, and bracket in time the writing of the 2nd amendment:
1709: "If a liberal Education has formed in us well-regulated Appetites and worthy Inclinations."
​
1714: "The practice of all well-regulated courts of justice in the world."
​
1812: "The equation of time ... is the adjustment of the difference of time as shown by a well-regulated clock and a true sun dial."
​
1848: "A remissness for which I am sure every well-regulated person will blame the Mayor."
​
1862: "It appeared to her well-regulated mind, like a clandestine proceeding."
​
1894: "The newspaper, a never wanting adjunct to every well-regulated American embryo city."
​
The phrase "well-regulated" was in common use long before 1789, and remained so for a century thereafter. It referred to the property of something being in proper working order. Something that was well-regulated was calibrated correctly, functioning as expected. Establishing government oversight of the people's arms was not only not the intent in using the phrase in the 2nd amendment, it was precisely to render the government powerless to do so that the founders wrote it.

:D
 
I think the question really boils down to how many lives a nation is willing to give up in order to allow its citizenry to be armed to the teeth. Guns kill so many more people in the US compared to Canada its ridiculous. Thats the detriment.

There are benefits, other nations sure as hell wouldnt want to invade us. And if there was ever a V for Vendetta type government, the oppressed could fight back.
 
I am a "gun nut" and am conflicted on allowing guns into national parks.

If we required a proficiency test, say hit 1 foot target at 15 yards 5 out of 5 times, then I say go for it.

Guns don't scare me. Guns in improper hands do.


Anyways for all you anti gun guys and gals in here freedom is a choice NOT a right. You can choose to defend it or you can choose to give it away but nowhere on this earth is it handed to you. So DON'T say we should give up our best bet of upholding our freedom.
 
[quote name='pittpizza']And if there was ever a V for Vendetta type government, the oppressed could fight back.[/QUOTE]

Marx was dead wrong about there ever being a collective recognition of exploitation followed by a blody revolution and overthrow of the government and bourgeoisie elite. But it's understandable how he failed to realize this; after all, while he identified one opiate in religion, he wasn't around to see the opiate of beer and American Gladiators.
 
[quote name='Magehart']I am a "gun nut" and am conflicted on allowing guns into national parks.

If we required a proficiency test, say hit 1 foot target at 15 yards 5 out of 5 times, then I say go for it.

Guns don't scare me. Guns in improper hands do.


Anyways for all you anti gun guys and gals in here freedom is a choice NOT a right. You can choose to defend it or you can choose to give it away but nowhere on this earth is it handed to you. So DON'T say we should give up our best bet of upholding our freedom.[/QUOTE]

How about a gun safety test instead? if you just test for accuracy you can still have improper hands on a person who's a really good shot and who can kill you better. Accuracy with a firearm has no bearing on judgment. There are many ways to fight for your freedom and killing your oppressor is merely the simplest way. You can't shoot the NSA guy at AT&T who's reading your email.
 
[quote name='Milkyman']How about a gun safety test instead? if you just test for accuracy you can still have improper hands on a person who's a really good shot and who can kill you better. Accuracy with a firearm has no bearing on judgment. There are many ways to fight for your freedom and killing your oppressor is merely the simplest way. You can't shoot the NSA guy at AT&T who's reading your email.[/quote]

My point is people who are proficient with guns and train on a regular basis are (more likely) to handle their firearms in a safe manner. Granted there are exceptions like the Columbine case where they trained for the sheer sport of killing but no laws would've stopped them.

Gun safety tests are a joke as well (and this is coming from a kid in the Peoples Republik of Kalifornia).

Who said anything about shooting your way to freedom? It's the idea that the citizens are armed. Not the act of armed rebellion. Here's an example... why do criminals commit armed robbery in liquor stores and gas stations more frequently than casinos or banks?
 
[quote name='Magehart']My point is people who are proficient with guns and train on a regular basis are (more likely) to handle their firearms in a safe manner. Granted there are exceptions like the Columbine case where they trained for the sheer sport of killing but no laws would've stopped them.
[/quote]



i would really like to know where you pulled that nugget from. We can play the assumption game all you want, but just because you are well versed in shooting does not make you safer. In fact i would imagine most people who own gun would consider themselves a proficient gun owner. See I can assume too.
 
[quote name='Ikohn4ever']i would really like to know where you pulled that nugget from. We can play the assumption game all you want, but just because you are well versed in shooting does not make you safer. In fact i would imagine most people who own gun would consider themselves a proficient gun owner. See I can assume too.[/quote]

Every shooting range I have ever visited has made every shooter practice proper firearm handling procedures and every "regular" there I would trust completely with my life. It's these little twits who buy a gun to impress their friends that pull off all these stupid stunts and get people killed. Case in point during a line break a guy loads his shotgun and fires it at a clay his friend chucked.

We are the sum of all our experiences. How versed are you in the handling, operation, and shooting of a firearm that you are able to critique them? I myself am an avid shooter, NRA member, and frequent voice in local gun laws (albeit a mute voice since it is California).


Anyways guns are dangerous, yes, I will never argue that. But so are many other tools. Why would you ever need a machete or K-bar in a National Forest when you're not allowed to damage the natural environment. Riddle me that Batman. (Hint: try fighting a bear with a K-bar... then argue self defense with me).
 
[quote name='Magehart']Every shooting range I have ever visited has made every shooter practice proper firearm handling procedures and every "regular" there I would trust completely with my life. It's these little twits who buy a gun to impress their friends that pull off all these stupid stunts and get people killed. Case in point during a line break a guy loads his shotgun and fires it at a clay his friend chucked.

We are the sum of all our experiences. How versed are you in the handling, operation, and shooting of a firearm that you are able to critique them? I myself am an avid shooter, NRA member, and frequent voice in local gun laws (albeit a mute voice since it is California).


Anyways guns are dangerous, yes, I will never argue that. But so are many other tools. Why would you ever need a machete or K-bar in a National Forest when you're not allowed to damage the natural environment. Riddle me that Batman. (Hint: try fighting a bear with a K-bar... then argue self defense with me).[/QUOTE]

As a gun enthusiast would you say that most people who buy guns go to firing ranges? I could see that in densely populated states but not in the midwest but maybe you know better. That's an actual question there I'm not trying to argue with your statement.

I've been to a firing range (in the middle of manhattan can you believe it?) and it seems to me that basic gun safety stuff like engaging safeties, not pointing a loaded gun at anyone, not leaving a loaded gun around, taking out the magazine and clearing the chamber are things that you don't need to be an expert to understand but perhaps could become lax in someone who spends a great deal of time with firearms and who, as you say, are twits. Is there more to these basic things that novices wouldn't know?

I don't really have an issue with people having guns or knives but if I was bringing weapons into a national park it would be to defend against other people not bears.
 
[quote name='Magehart']Guns don't scare me. Guns in improper hands do.[/quote]I couldn't agree with this more.

The problem is that we can't make people less stupid and incompetent. And the thought of training those devoid of common sense to make them proficient in gun use frightens me.

It's my personal belief that those tested and trained and who handle firearms for a profession should be the ones to have them (military, police, etc.). There certainly could be bad eggs in that bunch too, but it'd be a whole lot safer in my mind than supplying every person in this country with a gun a bit of training on how to use it.
 
I'm not going to get too far in this debate, because I have a very strong opinion over this (I've done multiple speeches on gun control). Personally, I feel there are too many guns and gun control laws aren't harsh enough.

I personally feel the 2nd amendment is bogus now and should be removed. At the time it was made, the country had to protect themselves from some soldier from some other country attacking along with having to hunt for food. At the time, guns were difficult to make and weren't as powerful as they can be now (such as those automatic assault guns). If guns were as powerful back then and easy to use (like now), I doubt that would have been an amendment. Part of the reason I have a lot of disliking for the NRA is using the 2nd amendment argument way too much.
 
[quote name='level1online']The phrase "well-regulated" was in common use long before 1789, and remained so for a century thereafter. It referred to the property of something being in proper working order. Something that was well-regulated was calibrated correctly, functioning as expected. Establishing government oversight of the people's arms was not only not the intent in using the phrase in the 2nd amendment, it was precisely to render the government powerless to do so that the founders wrote it.

:D[/quote]

I have to disagree. If group #1 of citizens contends they are a well-regulated militia and group #2 of citizens contends group #1 is not a well-regulated militia, a third party would have to rule as to whether or not group #1 is well-regulated. That third party would have to be the government.
 
[quote name='The Mana Knight']I personally feel the 2nd amendment is bogus now and should be removed. [/quote]

It’s bogus? Is that your legal opinion? Are the other Amendments “bogus” too?

[quote name='The Mana Knight']At the time it was made, the country had to protect themselves from some soldier from some other country attacking along with having to hunt for food. [/quote]

People still have to protect themselves from being attacked by others. Newsflash, the courts have consistently ruled that the police have no duty to protect an individual. Whether you like it or not, you’re responsible for your own safety.

Also, plenty of people still hunt for their food. For many families hunting is about staying fed, not about sport.

[quote name='The Mana Knight']At the time, guns were difficult to make and weren't as powerful as they can be now (such as those automatic assault guns). [/quote]

What is an “automatic assault gun” and how can I get one legally?

[quote name='The Mana Knight']If guns were as powerful back then and easy to use (like now), I doubt that would have been an amendment. [/quote]

If power was their concern then it would have been mentioned. Besides, they had weapons that were a lot more powerful than the average rifle.

[quote name='The Mana Knight']Part of the reason I have a lot of disliking for the NRA is using the 2nd amendment argument way too much. [/quote]

That’s like saying that you don’t like the ACLU because they use the 1st Amendment argument too much.
 
[quote name='fatherofcaitlyn']I have to disagree. If group #1 of citizens contends they are a well-regulated militia and group #2 of citizens contends group #1 is not a well-regulated militia, a third party would have to rule as to whether or not group #1 is well-regulated. That third party would have to be the government.[/QUOTE]

You're sittin' at my table, chum. Here, have a brownie and an extended mag.

[quote name='CannibalCrowley']If power was their concern then it would have been mentioned.[/QUOTE]

Well ... "power" wasn't a concern because they didn't have any inkling that it was even a relevant issue. The firearms they were using had been more or less the same -- needed a powderhorn and all that -- for literally centuries. The big improvement in lethality in their time was simply drilling your troops to reload fast enough that they could fire every twenty seconds instead of every thirty. The Founding Fathers weren't psychic -- they didn't anticipate weapons capable of 600 rounds per minute, yet decide to not mention them because they were making a point.

[quote name='CannibalCrowley']Besides, they had weapons that were a lot more powerful than the average rifle.[/QUOTE]

What, you mean like cannon? I'm afraid I don't follow.
 
[quote name='trq']No. The government isn't crazier than David Koresh. The government isn't crazier than Tim McVeigh.[/quote]

I meant crazier in the sense of being obsessed with - as in "that online guy who is crazy about the GOW videogame". The government types always want bigger and badder guns. People join the marines and spec forces partially because they like blowing stuff up.

[quote name='trq']Perhaps because, like the bible, people have difficulty interpreting the Second Amendment in light of technological advances. There simply weren't anti-armor sniper rifles or fully automatic shotguns around for the Founding Fathers to even imagine the ramifications of. So perhaps a strict Constitutional Constructionist could argue that the Founding Fathers originally intended the Second Amendment to allow every citizen to bear as many arms as they'd like ... but those arms would then have to be wheellock pistols and flintlock muskets, the weapons the Founding Fathers had in mind as they were writing the Amendment. Anything else is selective interpretation.[/quote]

That's like saying the first amendment should only apply to religions that existed at the time of the founding fathers, that they never invisioned dangerous religions or religions that advocated illegal activities such as the Rastafarians, and that these religions therefore have no right to exist.
 
[quote name='trq']Well ... "power" wasn't a concern because they didn't have any inkling that it was even a relevant issue. The firearms they were using had been more or less the same -- needed a powderhorn and all that -- for literally centuries. The big improvement in lethality in their time was simply drilling your troops to reload fast enough that they could fire every twenty seconds instead of every thirty. The Founding Fathers weren't psychic -- they didn't anticipate weapons capable of 600 rounds per minute, yet decide to not mention them because they were making a point.[/quote]

By that reasoning, only items which existed at the time of writing are covered under the Constitution, including the Bill of Rights.

[quote name='trq']What, you mean like cannon? I'm afraid I don't follow.[/quote]

Yes, that would be one item.
 
That's pretty much the worst analogy I've ever seen. While "new" religions have come up they aren't really all that different in function from any religion at that time. FYI- no religion can back illegal activities without raising the suspection from the authorities.

for fuck's sake, the technology you are using is a better example of something the founders couldn't have envisioned.

[quote name='CannibalCrowley']By that reasoning, only items which existed at the time of writing are covered under the Constitution, including the Bill of Rights.
[/QUOTE]

The point of this rabbit hole is really the question of if you are a "strict constructionist" or do you allow interpretations of the constitution. You can't have it both ways.
 
[quote name='camoor']I meant crazier in the sense of being obsessed with - as in "that online guy who is crazy about the GOW videogame". The government types always want bigger and badder guns. People join the marines and spec forces partially because they like blowing stuff up.[/QUOTE]

Fair enough.

[quote name='usickenme']The point of this rabbit hole is really the question of if you are a "strict constructionist" or do you allow interpretations of the constitution. You can't have it both ways.[/QUOTE]

"Rabbit hole." That's a good way of putting it. I'm gonna steal that next time I'm trying to make this point.
 
[quote name='CannibalCrowley']It’s bogus? Is that your legal opinion? Are the other Amendments “bogus” too? [/quote]I'm only calling the 2nd amendment bogus.

People still have to protect themselves from being attacked by others. Newsflash, the courts have consistently ruled that the police have no duty to protect an individual. Whether you like it or not, you’re responsible for your own safety.
Click to expand...
But would there be attacks if there were more strict gun laws keeping guns out of the wrong hands.

What is an “automatic assault gun” and how can I get one legally?
Click to expand...
If some criminals are getting them easily, there has to be a problem.

If power was their concern then it would have been mentioned. Besides, they had weapons that were a lot more powerful than the average rifle.
Click to expand...
Guns back then couldn't shoot 600 times in one minute or something. The only thing really powerful were cannons, yet many didn't own them. Guns now these days take very little effort to fire them, compared to the past.

That’s like saying that you don’t like the ACLU because they use the 1st Amendment argument too much.
Click to expand...
The ACLU doesn't get on my nerves like the NRA, because they definitely try to abuse the 2nd amendment like nothing other.

[quote name='trq']

Well ... "power" wasn't a concern because they didn't have any inkling that it was even a relevant issue. The firearms they were using had been more or less the same -- needed a powderhorn and all that -- for literally centuries. The big improvement in lethality in their time was simply drilling your troops to reload fast enough that they could fire every twenty seconds instead of every thirty. The Founding Fathers weren't psychic -- they didn't anticipate weapons capable of 600 rounds per minute, yet decide to not mention them because they were making a point.[/QUOTE]Basically what I was thinking. There wasn't a variety in guns and they just weren't anywhere near as powerful.
 
[quote name='fatherofcaitlyn']Also, what do you Canadians do when the King of England shows up and starts pushing you around, eh?[/QUOTE]

Well, seeing as he would be our head of state we'd probably say "Yes, Your Majesty. Most excellent pushing, Your Majesty."

Just a bunch of fun-lovin', gun-fearin' monarchists, we are. :D
 
we have limits to free speech, i dont see anyone bitching about that. I mean saying fire in a crowded theater is a limit on free speech. It doesnt say anything about that in the first Amendment or that High Schoolers don't have free speech in school. There are many limits to free speech and most people accept them because they are reasonable to some extent. But gunnies are so insecure they act like we are trying to take away their penile compensation if we want smart guns or god forbid keep a national park gun free.
 
[quote name='usickenme']That's pretty much the worst analogy I've ever seen. While "new" religions have come up they aren't really all that different in function from any religion at that time. FYI- no religion can back illegal activities without raising the suspection from the authorities.

for fuck's sake, the technology you are using is a better example of something the founders couldn't have envisioned.[/quote]

Not really. Religions are vastly diff in function (some have prayer service, some have manditory charity work, some have meditation, some have fire dances...) and purpose (some have aims to get you in heaven, others have aims to make you one with nature, etc etc)

You want to take one amendment and Amish it - but then let all of the others evolve with society and technology.

A gun is a gun. A gun could kill someone back in 1777 same as it can in 2007. Founders knew what they were doing (in the late 18th century any rational individual could see that weaponry would evolve and become more deadly - just as it had for centuries) and the ability to modify the constitution is always there if you want to lead the charge on creating another amendment nullifing the second one.
 
[quote name='The Mana Knight'][quote name='CannibalCrowley'] It’s bogus? Is that your legal opinion? Are the other Amendments “bogus” too?[/quote]
I'm only calling the 2nd amendment bogus.[/quote]
Why only the 2nd? What logically differentiates the 2nd Amendment from the other 9 which were written at the same time?

[quote name='The Mana Knight'][quote name='CannibalCrowley'] People still have to protect themselves from being attacked by others. Newsflash, the courts have consistently ruled that the police have no duty to protect an individual. Whether you like it or not, you’re responsible for your own safety. [/quote]
But would there be attacks if there were more strict gun laws keeping guns out of the wrong hands.[/quote]
A – You’re working on the false assumption that more gun laws would equal fewer guns in the hands of criminals. Felons are already prohibited by law from purchasing or even possessing a firearm; how would a law prohibiting a cosmetic feature go further in keeping the felon from acquiring a firearm?
B – Gun laws affect law-abiding citizens, not criminals.
C – A criminal is going to attack people whether he has a firearm or not. He often doesn’t need the force multiplier anyway. However; the majority of law-abiding citizens would (and have) benefit greatly by using a firearm as an equalizer against an assailant.

[quote name='The Mana Knight'][quote name='CannibalCrowley'] What is an “automatic assault gun” and how can I get one legally? [/quote]
If some criminals are getting them easily, there has to be a problem.[/quote]
I’m still waiting for you to tell me what an “automatic assault gun” is.
As for criminals being able to get them easily through illegal means, that’s a problem with current laws not being enforced as well as the simple fact that prohibition doesn’t work.

[quote name='The Mana Knight'][quote name='CannibalCrowley'] That’s like saying that you don’t like the ACLU because they use the 1st Amendment argument too much. [/quote]
The ACLU doesn't get on my nerves like the NRA, because they definitely try to abuse the 2nd amendment like nothing other.[/quote]
The ACLU “abuses” the 1st Amendment as much as the NRA “abuses” the 2nd. Unless, that is, you believe that organizations such as NAMBLA should be allowed to thrive and continue to encourage their members to commit illegal acts.

[quote name='The Mana Knight']Basically what I was thinking. There wasn't a variety in guns and they just weren't anywhere near as powerful. [/quote]

There are a variety of tools concerning free speech which weren’t anywhere near as powerful as there were at the time that the 1st Amendment was written. Is your double standard based on logic and legal precedent or on emotion?

[quote name='Ikohn4ever'] we have limits to free speech, i dont see anyone bitching about that. [/quote]

The current federal limits on free speech all concern one’s speech doing harm to another. Free speech that doesn’t harm another is not limited by the federal government in any way.

[quote name='Ikohn4ever'] I mean saying fire in a crowded theater is a limit on free speech. [/quote]
You can say fire in a theater all you want as long as the theater is on fire. Of course you’ll suffer consequences if you do so falsely; but that’s because falsely claiming fire in a theater would likely result in harm coming to someone as a result.

[quote name='Ikohn4ever'] It doesnt say anything about that in the first Amendment or that High Schoolers don't have free speech in school. [/quote]
Students have free speech in school. Examples:
http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/\news.aspx?id=19101
http://www.aclu.org/studentsrights/expression/12812prs20020515.html
http://www.aclu.org/freespeech/youth/27414prs20061116.html

[quote name='Ikohn4ever'] There are many limits to free speech and most people accept them because they are reasonable to some extent. But gunnies are so insecure they act like we are trying to take away their penile compensation if we want smart guns or god forbid keep a national park gun free.[/quote]
If you want a “smart gun” then by all means get one. As far as I know, there’s no law against owning one. I’d suggest that you get a backup though because they have so many issues that you’ll probably need it. There are plenty of good reasons why police agencies haven’t adopted so-called “smart guns.”

As for national parks, how are you harmed if a law-abiding citizen lawfully carried a firearm into a national park?
 
[quote name='CannibalCrowley']As for national parks, how are you harmed if a law-abiding citizen lawfully carried a firearm into a national park?[/QUOTE]

Simply put, when you look at where accidetal firearms deaths occur each year, they occur where people are allowed to display and use them - shooting ranges, the home, police stations, and automobiles (not necessarily a "use" place, but even where firearms are prohibited, such as college campuses, they are permitted to be stored in the car). So, when you open up another location for firearm carry and use, there should be alongside it an explicit understanding that there *will* be an increase in accidental firearms-related deaths as a result. Likewise, with the naive "more guns in people's hands will prevent another Virginia Tech/NIU" argument, if you extend conceal and carry permits to college campuses, you have to be able to effectively demonstrate that the resulting increase in firearms-related deaths on campus will be fewer than the lives saved by "preventing another shooting." Otherwise the net effect of allowing more guns to be carried by "law abiding civilians" in more places means *more* deaths than otherwise.

Also, cut the shit out with the "us" and "criminals" dichotomy. Life ain't a Cassavettes flick, and crimes are committed all the time with people who buy their weapons quite legally (both aforementioned school shootings, for example), and plenty of otherwise law-abiding citizens acquire their guns illegally, and never use it for criminal purposes - so your false compartmentalization of people into this "either/or" is a red herring, and irrelevant posturing.
 
The argument that the Founders couldn't envision arms as potent as today's isn't persuasive because they couldn't envision other advances such as medicine.

Even comparatively minor gunshot wounds 100-200 years ago had a good chance of killing someone weeks later through infection that couldn't be treated.
 
[quote name='camoor']:shock:[/quote]


Yeah...that was a serious Typo. I have to admit that it was pretty funny though.

If you read the rest of the text, you would figure out that I was referring to my ex-con neighbor.
 
[quote name='camoor']You want to take one amendment and Amish it - but then let all of the others evolve with society and technology.[/QUOTE]

See, we're all talking in circles here, because this is exactly what usickenme and I have been saying*. The "pro-gun" argument supposedly comes from a "strict constructionist" interpretation. "The Second Amendment guarantees every citizen the right to own and bear any weapon in whatever quantity they wish" the argument goes. Well, no. That's an INTERPRETATION, unless you're literally suggesting Alexander Hamilton and his pals foresaw everything from the Sig-226 to the Steyr Aug to the .50 cal to the Calico to the Desert Eagle, ad infinitum. So if the Second Amendment is open to interpretation -- and again, unless you believe the above, or are going to limit yourself to the firearms available when the Amendment was written -- then we can view the Amendment in light of a changing society, and restricting increasingly lethal guns is a very valid option in said society. So once more, with feeling: you can't have it both ways, which is a point you seem to agree with.

* U, feel free to correct me if I'm misrepresenting you.

[quote name='camoor']A gun is a gun. A gun could kill someone back in 1777 same as it can in 2007.[/QUOTE]

That's really not true. If it were, we'd still be fighting our wars with muskets.

[quote name='camoor'](in the late 18th century any rational individual could see that weaponry would evolve and become more deadly - just as it had for centuries)[/QUOTE]

Also not true. The firearms available in 1777 were much closer to the firearms Columbus had when he discovered the New World -- three hundred years earlier -- than the repeating rifles that would practically wipe out the Indians only seventy years later, or the machine guns that would change the face of warfare forever only seventy years after that. So yes, of course guns -- like all technology -- would improve. But it's one thing to expect gradual improvements, and another to expect a total revolution. An M-60 isn't just "a smidge better" than an arquebus.

[quote name='CannibalCrowley']Yes, that would be one item.[/QUOTE]

Okay... I really still feel like I don't see your point. Cannons are more lethal, by whatever measure you're using, than period firearms. They're also not covered by the Second Amendment. If anything, I'd say that makes the point that the Founding Fathers DID have it in mind to limit the destructive capacity of the weapons available to the average citizen; there's no "right to bear arms, and maybe artillery if you can afford it."

Hell, let's cut to the chase: "arms" are just weapons. They aren't even necessarily firearms at all. If we're going to ignore historical context, why do we assume that the Second Amendment isn't about swords and knives (still very practical options for defense at the time) and yet mostly admit that granting everyone permission to own wire-guided missiles and flamethrowers would be a bad idea? If we're going to interpret the Second Amendment to allow weapons beyond the literal, why limit the weapons available at all?
 
[quote name='fatherofcaitlyn']The argument that the Founders couldn't envision arms as potent as today's isn't persuasive because they couldn't envision other advances such as medicine.

Even comparatively minor gunshot wounds 100-200 years ago had a good chance of killing someone weeks later through infection that couldn't be treated.[/QUOTE]

As did being stabbed by a rapier -- puncture wounds were notorious for going septic and killing slowly and painfully. So again: why isn't the Second Amendment about swords?
 
[quote name='fatherofcaitlyn']The argument that the Founders couldn't envision arms as potent as today's isn't persuasive because they couldn't envision other advances such as medicine.
.[/QUOTE]


humm, exactly how many constitutional amendments deal with medicine directly?
 
I recall reading something about a "well-regulated enema."

But was it in the constitution, or an old issue of Swank? I get 'em all confused when they're stuffed in my magazine pile by the toilet, you know.
 
[quote name='Xevious']Yeah...that was a serious Typo. I have to admit that it was pretty funny though.

If you read the rest of the text, you would figure out that I was referring to my ex-con neighbor.[/quote]

Totally. I hope you understand I still had to point it out (all in good fun) :lol:
 
[quote name='trq']That's really not true. If it were, we'd still be fighting our wars with muskets.[/quote]

Muskets kill people. I stand by my statement

[quote name='trq'] Also not true. The firearms available in 1777 were much closer to the firearms Columbus had when he discovered the New World -- three hundred years earlier -- than the repeating rifles that would practically wipe out the Indians only seventy years later, or the machine guns that would change the face of warfare forever only seventy years after that. So yes, of course guns -- like all technology -- would improve. But it's one thing to expect gradual improvements, and another to expect a total revolution. An M-60 isn't just "a smidge better" than an arquebus.[/quote]

The founding fathers were learned men. They would have known the military history from the period of Ancient Greece through their time. They would have known how weapons - especially guns - naturally evolve. There's no comparison between a group of 15th century infantry armed with matchlock muskets and a well organized militia of the late 18th century - they knew this!

You're trying to paint the founding fathers as babes in the woods who could never imagine a gun capable of firing multiple rounds in a short period of time - it's downright insulting to insinuate that a gentleman scholar such as the inventive Ben Franklin or the brilliant military leader George Washington couldn't have foreseen that guns would one day be more accurate, more powerful, and more effective then they were in the late 18th century.

If you disagree with their opinion about the people's right to bear arms, please, by all means, attempt to add an amendment to the Constitution.
 
quit being intentionally obtuse by pretending that all guns are the same or that the second amendment is not open to interpretation. Talk about insulting. The founding father may have had enough foresight to forsee AK-47 and tactical nukes as you claim, but they certainly didn't have enough foresight to word the amendment clearly enough to avoid multiple interpretations.
 
[quote name='camoor']You're trying to paint the founding fathers as babes in the woods who could never imagine a gun capable of firing multiple rounds in a short period of time - it's downright insulting to insinuate that a gentleman scholar such as the inventive Ben Franklin or the brilliant military leader George Washington couldn't have foreseen that guns would one day be more accurate, more powerful, and more effective then they were in the late 18th century.[/QUOTE]

Actually, I believe his point is that by making the claim you have above, or making the counter-claim that they were unable to envision what arms would look like 200 years from now, that in either case the person making the argument is absolutely imposing a particular interpretation on the text of the second amendment (thusly, those people who falsely claim to "literal interpretations" or "strict constructionalist/constitutionalist" arguments can suck a big fat egg, 'cuz they're lying).

Well, let me set you up, then. Tell us: what will "arms" be in the year 2240? (and, more importantly, will we finally have space cars that fold up into briefcases that can be carried into our office at Spaceley Sprockets?)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top