The Guns thread

[SV Fan]

What is your interpretation then?

My interpretation is I find it stupid that people get all upset when Government wants to make laws surrounding guns that don't infringe on you having the ability to purchase one, then start chanting "but the 2nd amendment" when nothing in the 2nd amendment would make what the Government is pushing for go against the second amendment

 

[Yowza]

While I don't claim to be an expert on the constitutional law, if they don't infringe on ability to purchase one then that goes into other territory or kind of changes the argument on what's 2nd amendment or what's not. It's a shifting off into something else.

 

[DarthSkywalker]

While I don't claim to be an expert on the constitutional law, if they don't infringe on ability to purchase one then that goes into other territory or kind of changes the argument on what's 2nd amendment or what's not. It's a shifting off into something else.

The problem is that the "right to bear arms" itself in an interpretation of the 2nd amendment that ignores the majority of the actual amendment. Even if you believe it is a right to have a gun in the US, restrictions can clearly be made. You don't let 10 year olds walk around with guns. A showing that someone is capable and safe to own a gun should be a bare minimum.

 

[Thundercrack85]

I wouldn't overemphasize the prefatory clause either. From a historical perspective there is an obvious case for individual rights to bear arms.

The right to bear arms was self-evident to Americans in the 18th century. Many – most men certainly – Americans had firearms. Even before the Revolutionary War. Before and during the war, the British started gun grabbing. Skirmishes with Indians were still common before, during, and after the war. And then there was a constant threat of another British invasion.

There was some controversy over concealed weapons in the 19th century, but it was widely accepted that the 2nd Amendment protected the individual citizen's right to own weapons.

Only in the 20th century did guns become controversial, with the proliferation of semiautomatic weapons.

 

[Yowza]

Well we can simply paste and copy the constitution then discuss all the legal history that has developed over the years around the 2nd amendment to the point it is now or just keep it simple.

My understanding is that it refers to the common man not child nor one who falls outside of the common area (due to some gross factor affecting their reasoning or criminal history putting them outside the bounds of normal rights that one is entitled to).

The issue is creating parameters around this in such as is reasonable. We simply don't have that. I for one think in some public circumstances where additional restrictions would be more acceptable (like schools or places people may choose to be where others think likewise). There are going to be people slipping through the cracks all the time. How do we stop this?

The proliferation of new kinds of weaponry is certainly something new and I would say the 2nd amendment doesn't cover this (I outlined this reasoning in an earlier post about what if everyone was entitled to an atom bomb).

Edit: As for gun ownership, there's still danger with everyone carrying no doubt. I think it's unnessary for people to walk up and down sidewalks in front of homes strapping a large gun to their back simply to proclaim their right to carry along with not being messed with. It's poor gun owners who make the debate more painful than it needs to be. It's simply something you have the right to purchase and keep in your house is how I see it. You want to prance around creating opposition then that just compounds the problem.

 

[SV Fan]

The issue is creating parameters around this in such as is reasonable. We simply don't have that. I for one think in some public circumstances where additional restrictions would be more acceptable (like schools or places people may choose to be where others think likewise). There are going to be people slipping through the cracks all the time. How do we stop this?

Personally I think most major(and minor for that fact) cities should be gun free zones(with the exception of law enforcement), and if you are carrying a gun around it has to be in a case that is locked. You can have certain places in that city that you have permits to have exposed guns(gun stores, firing ranges, etc). And before you say if you outlaw guns only outlaws will have guns, I would also make a rule if anybody fires one bullet in the city, the Police have all the right in the world to shoot them(hell I might even lower the limit as long as a guy has a gun in his hand and the police give him fair warning to drop the gun)

Some would say that goes against the 2nd Ammendment, I say it doesn't.

 

[Charlatan]

What do you think the right to bear arms implies?

What do you think "Well Regulated" implies?

Would it include things like psychological tests ,background checks,licenses and insurance,limiting magazine size,limiting the number of guns a single person could own,national registry and other such regulations?

 

[DJ_KiDDvIcIOUs]

There are common sense steps we can take that would help avoid more shootings such as extensive background checks that include psych eval's as well as access to mental health records (I am a person with schizophrenia, I take meds but just in case they stop working I don't want to have access to a weapon), requiring all gun sales to be conducted through a licensed dealer so we can keep track of who has weapons, if a weapon has been sold without this and is used in a violent crime you will bear responsibility (if stolen you have a small window to report it and if you constantly get your guns "stolen" you no longer get access to firearms, and the end all be all, make all new weapons with tech to ensure the owner of the weapon is the only one who can fire said weapon. Considering gun nuts were sending death threats to the owners of these companies I can already see how well that will turn out if it's ever implemented

 

[Yowza]

What do you think "Well Regulated" implies?

Would it include things like psychological tests ,background checks,licenses and insurance,limiting magazine size,limiting the number of guns a single person could own,national registry and other such regulations?

I think the baseline platform to start from would be to keep things relatively simple. The common man implies an adult whose judgement isn't grossly impaired (we can only say grossly as it's hard to fine tune this kind of stuff; if someone has down syndrome or can't take care of themselves from a layman's point of view for example). Beyond that, it's hard to really map things out without impinging on people's freedoms.

I diverge from the gun camp in some ways in that I'd support constructive developments where groups of professionals come together to discuss on a local level how to make a safer public environment. It should also be noted that I also support gun owner accountability. People who fire a gun or threaten someone I think bring them away from the common man rule if found in violation of the law; if not in direct violation I don't necessarily denounce having them undergo some sort of further evaluation if in fact an incident has taken place (now of course the argument goes with what laws and evaluation should be in place which is a further subject that I'll just leave at that). The basis for this idea is to protect from them impinging on other people's liberties if indeed a local nut job.

Personally I think most major(and minor for that fact) cities should be gun free zones(with the exception of law enforcement), and if you are carrying a gun around it has to be in a case that is locked. You can have certain places in that city that you have permits to have exposed guns(gun stores, firing ranges, etc). And before you say if you outlaw guns only outlaws will have guns, I would also make a rule if anybody fires one bullet in the city, the Police have all the right in the world to shoot them(hell I might even lower the limit as long as a guy has a gun in his hand and the police give him fair warning to drop the gun)

Some would say that goes against the 2nd Ammendment, I say it doesn't.

Well, that's your point of view but I think it's a fascist ideology that goes against the 2nd amendment. There are wrongful cop shootings that do take place. The cops don't always use the best discernment even though they are trained; some choose to wear it a bit looser around the hip than others.

As for carrying a locked gun around the waist, that's no compromise when you have a target on your head for simply carrying one. Cops have no right to impinge on an individuals freedoms in a free society. I'm all about keeping people safe but a notion like that just is simply not going to work.

 

[Mike_D202]

Revise the 2nd amendment to "Right to wear a bullet proof vest."

I'd feel more safe wearing a concealed vest rather than carrying a weapon.

 

[Charlatan]

I think the baseline platform to start from would be to keep things relatively simple. The common man implies an adult whose judgement isn't grossly impaired (we can only say grossly as it's hard to fine tune this kind of stuff; if someone has down syndrome or can't take care of themselves from a layman's point of view for example). Beyond that, it's hard to really map things out without impinging on people's freedoms.
.

So if someone had a history of aggressive behavior (i.e. peace bonds taken out against them,misdemeanor battery,harassment,road rage etc) that wouldn't disqualify them?

also does someone's freedom to walk the street unafraid of gun nuts with Rambo mentalities just looking for an excuse to play Billy Badass ever get consideration? Or is the reply always going to be "carry a gun yourself"?

Our culture has reached the point now that little old ladies are popping caps at shoplifters in the Home Depot parking lot and being lauded as a hero instead of being charged for reckless endangerment and vigilantism.

She just self deputized herself and acted as cop,judge, jury and could have well been executioner and they're cheering her on. Like shoplifting being a capital offense is ok with us.

 

[Yowza]

That's because people have a bandwagon group mentality when it comes to issues like this especially when one is trying to fall on 1 side or the other; everything becomes conflated. Our media doesn't help any.

There's no perfect solution. I mentioned I would support additional background checks myself. It makes people behave themselves whether on the road or otherwise. There's still the issue of senility though. Someone gets older sometimes they go the heck with it.

There are issues; it's all about constructive problem solving yet there will still be things we just can't do to resolve the issue. People are just too difficult. I think maintaining individual freedom is important while dealing with these issues is all I'm getting at.

 

[SerialPeacemake]

The Second Amendment is possibly one of the most ridiculously obsolete and pointless thing that could still persist in an advanced nation.Of course being non-American I can't really expect myself to understand this strange love and obsession people have with guns.

 

[SV Fan]

The Second Amendment is possibly one of the most ridiculously obsolete and pointless thing that could still persist in an advanced nation.Of course being non-American I can't really expect myself to understand this strange love and obsession people have with guns.

Guns(or at least buying more then one gun, 2 if you are a hunter) to me seem sort of like a cheaper Corvette. They are something you buy when your ego deep down feels a deficiency elsewhere in your life.

 

[Thundercrack85]

Guns are awesome. Anyone who thinks otherwise is uneducated or lying. They were a game changer. Used to be Colt's slogan. God made man, Colt made them equal.

I fully understand people's desire to own them, and I do believe in a right to self-defense. But part of the social contract is limiting your own freedom for the greater good.

It's very hard for people to give up such a right. Especially when you look at places that have banned them. Remember those 2011 London riots? People had to stand by and watch as their homes and shops were destroyed.

 

[SerialPeacemake]

Guns are awesome. Anyone who thinks otherwise is uneducated or lying. They were a game changer. Used to be Colt's slogan. God made man, Colt made them equal.

I fully understand people's desire to own them, and I do believe in a right to self-defense.

Oh ,I understand the appeal of weaponry(both mele and projectile weapons) and of military hardwares, .What I don't understand is the stiff resistance to measures that would increased gun safety and the sacrosant views on the Second Amendment (which can no longer serve its original purpose decades ago).

But part of the social contract is limiting your own freedom for the greater good.

Quoted for truth.

It's very hard for people to give up such a right. Especially when you look at places that have banned them. Remember those 2011 London riots? People had to stand by and watch as their homes and shops were destroyed.

Really ? Anyone still remember the 1992 riots in Los Angeles?
Liberal gun ownerhip doesn't stop riots from happening in the USA too.

 

[Thundercrack85]

No. But I do remember Korean storeowners with guns protecting their families and stores rather effectively. The gun advocates still uses that memory.

 

[SerialPeacemake]

No. But I do remember Korean storeowners with guns protecting their families and stores rather effectively. The gun advocates still uses that memory.

I actually remember that part, I recall seeing images of them shooting into the crowd(presumably at looters).Despite that effort ,nearly half of damage during the riots (looting and arson) were directed at them.I also remembers that tension against the Korean business owners started when a Korean storeowner shot dead a fifteen year old Afrian American girl after accusing her of trying to shoplift a bottle of drink.She was clucthing some cash in her hand during her death, some presumed it to pay for that drink.

 

[Charlatan]

Imma just leave this here

[YT]LORVfnFtcH0[/YT]

 

[GreenKToo]

Over 10,000 people a year are killed in the U.S. due to drunk driving. Should we ban cars and alcohol because a small percentage of the population can't control their urges. Afterall, if you take it away from all, even the responsible ones, the drunk driving problem would disappear.
A person that chooses to drive drunk is no better than a nut with a firearm.

To be honest, i'm not for or against guns, but it seems a very small percentage of the pop is the problem.

 

[Unbreakable Lex]

Technically arms would be the Gun itself. I guess one could make an argument arms is any weapon but if that is the case why can't I own a bomb

Arms stands for armament or weapons one would store in an "armory".

If you were to look up the definition of "Arms" you'd find that ammunition is part of it. Arms are "weapons AND ammunition".

So yes, the 2nd amendment does in fact cover bullets.

 

[Unbreakable Lex]

Over 10,000 people a year are killed in the U.S. due to drunk driving. Should we ban cars and alcohol because a small percentage of the population can't control their urges. Afterall, if you take it away from all, even the responsible ones, the drunk driving problem would disappear.
A person that chooses to drive drunk is no better than a nut with a firearm.

To be honest, i'm not for or against guns, but it seems a very small percentage of the pop is the problem.

That's a really bad argument.

What is the purpose of alcohol?

What is the purpose of a car?

Now, what's the purpose of a gun?

 

[Charlatan]

Over 10,000 people a year are killed in the U.S. due to drunk driving. Should we ban cars and alcohol because a small percentage of the population can't control their urges. Afterall, if you take it away from all, even the responsible ones, the drunk driving problem would disappear.
A person that chooses to drive drunk is no better than a nut with a firearm.

To be honest, i'm not for or against guns, but it seems a very small percentage of the pop is the problem.

a couple of things.

1. you must take tests and have licenses and insurance to drive a car. you are not going to consciously use it to hurt someone and risk hurting yourself and your property in the process.

2.. cars are necessary for transportation and every day life. unlike a gun which is only good just in case you need it. the chance of which most likely will never come in your lifetime. it's like wearing a helmet around all the time just in case something falls out of the sky and could hit you on the head. Do you do that? Because the chances are about the same.

so that's a terrible analogy.

 

[Charlatan]

another example of our culture

 

[Taarna]

A yes the Myth of Chicago being the worst city in terms of gun violence that is pushed by gun nuts.

https://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/u...rime-in-the-u.s.-2012/tables/6tabledatadecpdf

Murder and nonnegligent manslaughter(per 100k)

New Orleans-Metairie, LA - 20.6
Memphis, TN-MS-AR - 11.5
Detroit-Warren-Dearborn, MI - 10.9
Baltimore-Columbia-Towson, MD - 9.5
Birmingham-Hoover, AL - 9.4
Philadelphia-Camden-Wilmington, PA-NJ-DE-MD - 8.6
Jacksonville, FL - 8.0
Oklahoma City, OK - 8.0
Kansas City, MO-KS - 7.7
St. Louis, MO-IL - 7.3
Chicago-Naperville-Elgin, IL-IN-WI - 7.1
Milwaukee-Waukesha-West Allis, WI - 6.9
Richmond, VA - 6.8
Virginia Beach-Norfolk-Newport News, VA-NC - 6.8
San Francisco-Oakland-Hayward, CA - 6.5
Miami-Fort Lauderdale-West Palm Beach, FL - 6.3
Louisville/Jefferson County, KY-IN - 6.2
Atlanta-Sandy Springs-Roswell, GA - 6.1
Indianapolis-Carmel-Anderson, IN - 6.0
Houston-The Woodlands-Sugar Land, TX - 5.7
Tucson, AZ - 5.7
Phoenix-Mesa-Scottsdale, AZ - 5.3
Nashville-Davidson--Murfreesboro--Franklin, TN - 5.1
San Antonio-New Braunfels, TX - 5.1
Los Angeles-Long Beach-Anaheim, CA - 5.0
Orlando-Kissimmee-Sanford, FL - 5.0

Why don't the pro gun people talk about New Orleans or Memphis or Birmingham or Jacksonville or Oklahoma City or Kansas City and all the problem the gun laws there cause. It should be pointed out since the 70s Chicago has cut it's homicide rate in half and the majority of that drop has been in the past 10 years, how come that is never mentioned by the people trashing Chicago?

You didn’t list Chicago by itself, you lumped them with two other states.

On the chart Chicago has 500. Higher than any other city I saw. Next up Detroit at 450

New Orleans is not surprising. Almost of all of these areas vote Democrat, yet the media wants paint a conservative voter picture on the problem.

The best solution for now it to increase security in the schools. Clearly tough gun laws do not stop shootings from happening.