Discussion: Guns, The Second Amendment, NRA - Part II

[Sithborg]

Madden tournament. Sort of strikes closer to home than a lot of them.

And it was being streamed on twitch when things went down. I am not looking for that video.

 

[squeekness]

It's all so stupid and sad.

 

[TheCardPlayer]

I'm just tired of this. Again and again.

 

[Mike5575]

In my country we don't have any outlet to sell guns, and it's illegal for citizens to own arms. I'm fine with this system.

Unless you have a profession that requires gun use, why should one want the right to own one? Why would a person defend the rights of others to bear arms?
I see people rally with "rights to own firearms", but how many talk about the responsibilities that come with owning a weapon? Why is it that their words are not as out and visible as words demanding the right to own guns?

Guns are fun to shoot. Hunting is an American pastime. More importantly, people have a right to self-defense.

If you watch the news, you won't hear much about responsible gun ownership, because such behavior doesn't result in a tragedy. People talk about firearm safety, the NRA still teaches firearm safety.

 

[Mike5575]

People constantly appealing to the constitution (and ****ing amendments of all things, talk about ironic) as a substitute for reasoning skills is becoming exceptionally tiresome.

A constitution is only as good as the material circumstances it creates, when the constitution lags behind the times it may perhaps be time to amend it once more.

Funny. Liberals only make this argument with the 2nd Amendment. "The 2nd Amendment is about muskets, right? Why do you own an AR-15?" Nobody asks you why you're not writing on parchment instead of typing on an internet forum, do they?

The problem with government ruling against Cody Wilson and Defense Distributed should be obvious. I don't want to live in a world where Chuck Schumer, Nancy Pelosi, or anyone else for that matter gets to decide which files can be shared online or which amendments to arbitrarily violate because of "safety concerns."

 

[DeadPresident]

Yes, because guns are comparable to information and moving from parchment to technology was a right afforded by an outdated amendment...oh wait, neither of those things are true.

Jesus, the analogies in this place sometimes.

 

[moviedoors]

Funny. Liberals only make this argument with the 2nd Amendment. "The 2nd Amendment is about muskets, right? Why do you own an AR-15?" Nobody asks you why you're not writing on parchment instead of typing on an internet forum, do they?

The problem with government ruling against Cody Wilson and Defense Distributed should be obvious. I don't want to live in a world where Chuck Schumer, Nancy Pelosi, or anyone else for that matter gets to decide which files can be shared online or which amendments to arbitrarily violate because of "safety concerns."

I legitimately am not following your analogy.

 

[Handsome Rob]

Think of it this way:

One of the arguments by the pro-gun control/ban side is basically this: The Founding Fathers never envisioned the rapid fire semi-assault (or full-auto) weapons available today, so the 2nd Amendment really only applies to arms available at the time. So, single fire muskets are all you really have a right to own.*

One could respond in the following manner: The Founding Fathers never envisioned the way information (i.e., speech or the press) could be rapidly disseminated to such a wide group of people. Therefore, your right to free speech really extends only to what you say and can print via printing press or by free hand writing. Ideas can spread much faster on the Internet than the Founders ever dreamed, after all.

The point is that you can't use the "Founding Fathers never envisioned this technological advancement" argument in limiting rights when it comes to those enumerated in the Constitution and then demand that the argument only be used against specific rights and not others. I mean, is anyone here seriously going to argue that speech can't be just as or more dangerous than an AR-15?

*By the way, owning a cannon was legal at the time, so I suppose the people arguing that the 2nd Amendment limits us to muskets also need to include cannon--you know, to be consistent.

 

[The Incredible Hulk]

^ Go ahead, I'd like to see someone try and shoot up a school with a piece of technology that hasnt been manufactured in 150+ years and that takes 3-5 minutes to reload. LOL

That being said, the people trying to make the technological argument against 2A are barking up the wrong tree. If you want to go after the validity of 2A, you go after it on it's intent, which was a right to bear arms to form militias, which at the time it was written was what most of the American forces were composed of because the standing colonial army was pretty ragtag from engaging a far superior British army. The US having any kind of substantial organized military was about 50-60 years away.

Militias are irrelevant at this point much to the chagrin of these backwoods bozos who pretend to be special forces but are really just overweight adults playing "army" in the woods. You say you need your AR-15 to protect you from a tyrannical government? Bad news, that ship sailed about 40-50 years ago. Your automatic weapon isnt going to do much against a government equipped with tanks, drones, snipers, etc.

There should be a right to gun ownership in this country, but it needs to have common sense limits. Too many civilians get their hands on gear, I couldnt get a clearance to use in the military without extensive training. Stop treating 2A like it's some kind of immunity to have any conceivable firearm.

 

[Handsome Rob]

^ Go ahead, I'd like to see someone try and shoot up a school with a piece of technology that hasnt been manufactured in 150+ years and that takes 3-5 minutes to reload. LOL

All you had to do was a quick Google search to find companies that still manufacture cannon. Here's one:

Steen Cannons

So . . .

 

[DeadPresident]

I forget the part where free speech’s function and design is expressly for the purpose of inflicting lethal wounds on living things.

This analogy is still terrible and reason and logic have to be bent to within breaking point t sustain any significant overlaps.

 

[moviedoors]

I mean, is anyone here seriously going to argue that speech can't be just as or more dangerous than an AR-15?

I think I'll take words over bullets actually.

 

[jolldan]

In my country we don't have any outlet to sell guns, and it's illegal for citizens to own arms. I'm fine with this system.

Unless you have a profession that requires gun use, why should one want the right to own one? Why would a person defend the rights of others to bear arms?
I see people rally with "rights to own firearms", but how many talk about the responsibilities that come with owning a weapon? Why is it that their words are not as out and visible as words demanding the right to own guns?

Where about you from man. Im UK based so we don't have guns either.

Speaking to a few Americans I used to work with gives you a bit of new perspective on their whole gun issue. I would still love for them to announce tomorrow they're melting them all down but now I have a very minor understanding of why that's not going to happen.

1. There are just so many guns in the US. Even if they had an amnesty or a government programme that paid you for your guns it would get nowhere near them all. (Now you have a unarmed law abiding population living alongside a unlawful armed population)
2. It's very much ingrained in a lot of the culture. Don't think there's a much better explanation that the one that one of American lads told me. "You could present the most intelligent, thought out speech that makes complete sense in terms of why having guns is a bad thing but if you started that speech with this is why guns are bad about 50% tuned you out before you even got started."

 

[MaceB]

Funny. Liberals only make this argument with the 2nd Amendment. "The 2nd Amendment is about muskets, right? Why do you own an AR-15?" Nobody asks you why you're not writing on parchment instead of typing on an internet forum, do they?

The problem with government ruling against Cody Wilson and Defense Distributed should be obvious. I don't want to live in a world where Chuck Schumer, Nancy Pelosi, or anyone else for that matter gets to decide which files can be shared online or which amendments to arbitrarily violate because of "safety concerns."

The right to privacy is never mentioned in the constitution, but it was created by the Supreme Court. The first amendment had limits placed on it as people recognized it needed tweaking in modern times.
The constitution is a living document. It was designed to evolve as needed.

 

[The Incredible Hulk]

All you had to do was a quick Google search to find companies that still manufacture cannon. Here's one:

Steen Cannons

So . . .

You do realize those aren't being made to fire live rounds right? They're for displays and for reenactments where they effectively fire off "noise clouds".

Even if we ignore that fact, those are Civil War era artillery tech, which was about 70 years after the Bill of Rights was ratified.

So.....

 

[Handsome Rob]

You do realize those aren't being made to fire live rounds right? They're for displays and for reenactments where they effectively fire off "noise clouds".

Even if we ignore that fact, those are Civil War era artillery tech, which was about 70 years after the Bill of Rights was ratified.

So.....

They can be used as "fully operable firing pieces," according to the website. Plus, owning cannon is still largely legal in the United States.

And, not all their models are Civil War era. Several models predate the Civil War (you can easily see this by scrolling through what they offer), and at least one model is *gasp!* Revolutionary War era:

British Light 6-Pounder (Circa 1776)

None of this matters, though, because it doesn't change the fact that private citizens have been legally allowed to own cannon from the founding of the country. And, unless one is ignorantly going to argue that cannon are incapable of killing several people with one shot, the "only own muskets" crowd has to face the reality that their argument is utter crap.

If the Founders never imagined weapons that could easily kill several people when the 2nd Amendment was added to the Constitution, why could people and private businesses legally own cannon?

 

[Teelie]

I doubt the Founders had the idea every man in the country could affordably own a cannon at the time either. Those things aren't exactly Walmart store buys even now let alone back in the 1700's.

 

[moviedoors]

Let me know the next time someone wheels a cannon around to shoot up a school.

I frankly don't care what people where allowed to own at the founding of the country. That's just an appeal to tradition, not an argument. People also owned people at the founding of the country.

 

[Joeyjojo72]

Analogy

 

[Aximili86]

Where about you from man. Im UK based so we don't have guns either.

Well, that's just plain not true. It's more limited than Canada or Australia or whatever, but you guys can still get rifles & shotguns if the government's satisfied you need one for farming or sport shooting.

You're not, you know, Japan.

 

[MaceB]

If the Founders never imagined weapons that could easily kill several people when the 2nd Amendment was added to the Constitution, why could people and private businesses legally own cannon?

That seems like a weak argument to me. Look, it was a different time with vastly different technology. It's obvious that the framers couldn't have foreseen ballistics as it is today. And even if they could, who cares? In their wisdom, they made the constitution a living document exactly so we wouldn't be chained to defunct beliefs or outdated traditions.

But to say, "See, the framers would have been totally cool with hundreds of thousands of Americans arming themselves with 1-round-per-second killing machines, because folks could buy 1 round canons for warfare back in the day" is just.... it seems like an outlandish comparison, and a disingenuous one. If you're going to defend your position, then do it supporting semi-autos as they are today. Don't hide behind the possible, unknowable beliefs of the founding fathers 200 + years ago... because the far easier assumption is to believe that the Founding Fathers would be aghast at the gun violence of today.

 

[Herofan]

The Founders themselves would probably be aghast at the Internet too, that doesn't mean the Constitution they framed doesn't or shouldn't protect it.

 

[MaceB]

Speech on the Internet is regulated. Libel laws still apply. you can't threaten people. You can't provoke people in a way that is meant to inflict harm (like yelling fire in a full theater). The same free speech restrictions apply to the Internet that apply to all speech. If anything, yeah they should be more rigorous.

The constitution made freedom of speech an inalienable right. Does the constitution really make owning a semiautomatic rifle without restrictions an inalienable right? I honestly don't think so. I mean... maybe if you ignore the first half of the second amendment, you could think that. But the amendment literally mentions regulation in it. Meanwhile, the Supreme court has restricted certain rights before. They're well within their power to do the same here.

Like I said, the constitution was purposely designed as a legal document precisely so we wouldn't be shackled to outdated laws in this way. If we were to wake up tomorrow, and the Internet was provably causing thousands of deaths, and it advanced in some way that made it no longer a good tool for exercising free speech... then, yeah... I'd say we better regulate it more.

We shouldn't be shackled by framers intent when the framers intended us to govern ourselves with good sense and to change the laws when it was necessary. Using the 2nd amendment to justify killing machines that have no purpose except to kill people in mass is going against the framers intent, if anything.

 

[Mike5575]

Yes, because guns are comparable to information and moving from parchment to technology was a right afforded by an outdated amendment...oh wait, neither of those things are true.

Jesus, the analogies in this place sometimes.

We have freedom of speech not freedom to right to write on parchment. We have the right to bear arms, not the right to bear black powder firearms. The idea that technology changes is not a recent concept. Ever heard of the Industrial Revolution? It happened within the Founders lifetime. It's kind of why those "pesky" Bill of Rights were written the way they were. Benjamin Franklin was an inventor. The printing press is an excellent example of how technology affected speech and that was back in the 16th century.

Also, sharing information on how to make a firearm is not illegal. It is not the same thing as advocating violence. Not even close. The reasoning behind restricting certain types of freedoms is to prevent people from infringing on other people's rights.

How is a cad file infringing on your rights?

 

[Mike5575]

Think of it this way:

One of the arguments by the pro-gun control/ban side is basically this: The Founding Fathers never envisioned the rapid fire semi-assault (or full-auto) weapons available today, so the 2nd Amendment really only applies to arms available at the time. So, single fire muskets are all you really have a right to own.*

One could respond in the following manner: The Founding Fathers never envisioned the way information (i.e., speech or the press) could be rapidly disseminated to such a wide group of people. Therefore, your right to free speech really extends only to what you say and can print via printing press or by free hand writing. Ideas can spread much faster on the Internet than the Founders ever dreamed, after all.

The point is that you can't use the "Founding Fathers never envisioned this technological advancement" argument in limiting rights when it comes to those enumerated in the Constitution and then demand that the argument only be used against specific rights and not others. I mean, is anyone here seriously going to argue that speech can't be just as or more dangerous than an AR-15?

*By the way, owning a cannon was legal at the time, so I suppose the people arguing that the 2nd Amendment limits us to muskets also need to include cannon--you know, to be consistent.

Cannons were legal, some people even owned their own warships. That doesn't mean they were protected by the 2nd Amendment. Cannons are not "arms." Arms are defined as a weapon you can carry about on your person. The weapons of the militia were generally understood to be the weapons of the infantry. There is an obvious difference between "arms" and "ordnance."

What is ARMS? definition of ARMS (Black's Law Dictionary)