About America And Guns.

[Revoltingest]

ion.

There has only been one claim..... that assault rifles need tighter controls.


No


You're backed up over this one.
......hundreds and hundreds of grievously injured, scores of murdered, and the NRA obviously feels that the voters who would support further gun control are rising.

You play about with your terms such as 'millions for gun ban' or Star wants NRA folks executed, or all those other sidesteps, obstructions, re-directions, but you can't lead anybody away from the simple fact that masses and masses of US voters are gonna be supporting tighter gun controls.

Why.... any reasonable person would.....

Bless your heart.

 

[oldbadger]

What @Revoltingest put forth is an excellent answer.

Damme..... but I missed it.
There was me, wondering how a reload, if used in self defence, could be a higher legal risk, and there's you telling me that another member already answered this question clearly.

Oh well...... never mind.

 

[oldbadger]

Bless your heart.

Why, that's sweet of you.

 

[leibowde84]

Have you noticed that when military conflicts occur in other countries, small arms are
still always involved? I offer this as evidence that they still play a role.
This could change, but a constitutional amendment doesn't go away just because it's been
effectively obsolete, eg, the 3rd's restrictions on government quartering soldiers in private homes.

The 2nd Amendment invalidates itself if a well-regulated militia is no longer necessary, though. So, that is completely different than the 3rd Amendment. It's not like they threw in the first clause for no reason. Military conflicts are not in question.

A "militia" is a military force that is raised from the civil population to supplement a regular army in an emergency. Now, the U.S. does not have this anymore. So, why do you think it is necessary?

 

[Revoltingest]

The 2nd Amendment invalidates itself if a well-regulated militia is no longer necessary, though.

I disagree because it is not worded that way.
But I know the argument you make well.
Against it, I argue that a well regulated militia could very well be useful some day.

So, that is completely different than the 3rd Amendment. It's not like they threw in the first clause for no reason. Military conflicts are not in question.

Don't carry the analogy to areas of difference.
The similarity is in that they do not fade away as a constitutional right just because some find them disused.

A "militia" is a military force that is raised from the civil population to supplement a regular army in an emergency. Now, the U.S. does not have this anymore. So, why do you think it is necessary?

Historical definitions of "the militia" are broader.
A male of age is in it.
But we always have the right to organize if needed.

 

[leibowde84]

I disagree because it is not worded that way.
But I know the argument you make well.
Against it, I argue that a well regulated militia could very well be useful some day.

How is it not worded that way? How is it worded?

 

[esmith]

Assault Rifle
noun

1. a rapid-fire, magazine-fed automatic rifle designed for infantry use.

This is the meaning I am referring to. The only caveat I would make is that automatic rifles that are gerry-rigged to be semi-automatic (a.k.a. technically legal) would qualify as such.

"Scariness" has no relevance. And, unless you are specific about what weapons you are referring to when you say, "firearms people incorrectly label as assault weapons", I can't be reasonably expected to provide any kind of answer. So, please specify what you are referring to.

Well there has been the idea that firearms that "looked" like a M-16, are "assault weapons put forward by certain political groups and politicians.
However if one looks at the 1994 Assault Weapon ban and the 2013 ban (did not become law) one might get the idea
Assault Weapons Ban summary - United States Senator for California

I sincerely appreciate you bringing this fact up. After reading your post, I did some of my own research on the subject. I incorrectly thought that automatic weapons were illegal in the U.S., but they most certainly are not. If you have the money, which, obviously, the Vegas shooter did, it isn't that difficult to get a machine gun.
http://thefederalist.com/2017/10/02/actual-federal-laws-regulating-machine-guns-u-s/
I really don't see the purpose of automatic weapons being legally available to civilians. We now know that reasonable gun regulations are perfectly legal and constitutional, as they do not infringe a person's right to bear arms. The 2nd Amendment certainly does not guarantee civilians to be able to purchase every weapon, if they can afford it. It merely guarantees our right to own a weapon. If you are able to buy a gun, your right to bear arms is not infringed according to the SCOTUS. There is no requirement to make all firearms available.

So, that means that there must be sufficient reasoning to make automatic weapons available to the public. Can you provide your reasoning as to why you think it is necessary for the public interest? What makes automatic weapons necessary in addition to semi-automatic weapons? Often I hear the slippery slope argument, but that is obviously fraudulent reasoning whenever it is used, as it doesn't address the actual question ... it is merely a side-step to avoid even talking about it.
So, are you saying that it being used as a hobby is reason enough to make it available to civilians? What comes to mind is drugs. Drugs can be used safely and in good health. I know many people from my younger days who used drugs at concerts, were safe, healthy, never got addicted or anything, and stopped using them when they got older. I know many, many successful, honorable, dedicated and driven people who smoke marijuana regularly. Yet, federally, it is the same classification as heroin, while automatic weapons are not. Actually, cocaine and crystal meth are schedule 2 drugs, but that is beside the point. Are you in favor of legalizing marijuana federally for the same reason? That some people are able to use it safely?

My answer to that is that the majority of law abiding firearm owners are not the problem. In other words the weapon is not the problem the person using the weapon is. Therefore vice looking at the weapon look at the person behind the weapon.

 

[jonathan180iq]

Guns are ******. That's why people don't want to them "banned."
They're awesome. And people like them. All other arguments are secondary to that fact.

Guns are also dangerous as $hit! They make crazy people more effective at doing crazy things. And since we have some serious societal problems with crazy, we are going to continue seeing crazy f-ing people doing crazy f-ing things.(Notice that this is a multi-part problem.)

The two sides of this argument are not mutually exclusive, but no one ever wants to have a conversation about both statements because they don't want to recognize that they are both equally valid.

Until both sides are accepted and appreciated as part of the dialogue, these conversations are going to remain these endless cycles of weak political talking points followed by ad hominem attacks.

 

[Jesster]

I never really know how to approach this topic. I am a military veteran and a gun owner, but I am in favor of gun regulation (not banning) beyond what we are currently doing. Both extremes of the conversation keep shouting at each other on each side of me and I can never seem to find anyone to side with.

 

[leibowde84]

Well there has been the idea that firearms that "looked" like a M-16, are "assault weapons put forward by certain political groups and politicians.
However if one looks at the 1994 Assault Weapon ban and the 2013 ban (did not become law) one might get the idea
Assault Weapons Ban summary - United States Senator for California

OK. That has nothing to do with my suggestion though.

My answer to that is that the majority of law abiding firearm owners are not the problem. In other words the weapon is not the problem the person using the weapon is. Therefore vice looking at the weapon look at the person behind the weapon.

So, are you advocating stricter, more intrusive background checks?

 

[Revoltingest]

How is it not worded that way? How is it worded?

We both know the wording of the 2nd.
I don't read it such that if one isn't in a well regulated militia, one doesn't have the 2nd Amendment right.
I've endured the grammatical arguments before, & don't want to relive that tedium which leads nowhere.

 

[Revoltingest]

I never really know how to approach this topic. I am a military veteran and a gun owner, but I am in favor of gun regulation (not banning) beyond what we are currently doing. Both extremes of the conversation keep shouting at each other on each side of me and I can never seem to find anyone to side with.

It's too easily polarized....& there goes reasonable discourse.
And there are some with whom I just cannot get to find any common ground.
Leiby is one of the better nutjo.....I mean advocates for more gun control.
Any thoughts on my proposal to require more training for gun owners, particularly concealed carriers?

 

[esmith]

So, are you advocating stricter, more intrusive background checks?

No, what I'm saying is that background checks are not in themselves the total answer to the problem. Sure background checks will stop a felon from obtaining a firearm from a FFL dealer. However, if one is intent on obtaining a firearm if they are not legally able to do so they can. Therefore emphases should be placed the prosecution and penalties adjudicated to those who knowingly violate the law by selling a weapon or weapons to someone who legally can not purchase a firearm. Also I do not have the answer for the mental health issue associated with purchasing a firearm, but somehow should be looked at.
I don't have the answers and don't know if I ever could. But I do know that what is going on now is the wrong way to go. Again the problem is not with the firearm it is the problem with the person wielding it. This has to be the major push.
For example I constantly hear that suicides and firearms are linked and there are those that want to address the firearm not the reason behind the suicide. But there is almost as many suicides by other than firearm than firearms but the focus is on the firearm not the reason for the suicide

 

[Jesster]

Any thoughts on my proposal to require more training for gun owners, particularly concealed carriers?

Sure. I think people should be required to know at least basic gun safety before legally using them.

 

[leibowde84]

We both know the wording of the 2nd.
I don't read it such that if one isn't in a well regulated militia, one doesn't have the 2nd Amendment right.
I've endured the grammatical arguments before, & don't want to relive that tedium which leads nowhere.

Well, that is not what I was suggesting.

My argument is that the 2nd clause rests on the 1st clause being true. It specifically says "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State". So, If a well-regulated militia is no longer necessary to the security of a free-state (which I would argue it is no longer necessary, as we don't even have one anymore), there is no need for the right to bear arms to be protected.

 

[Revoltingest]

Well, that is not what I was suggesting.

My argument is that the 2nd clause rests on the 1st clause being true. It specifically says "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State". So, If a well-regulated militia is no longer necessary to the security of a free-state (which I would argue it is no longer necessary, as we don't even have one anymore), there is no need for the right to bear arms to be protected.

Yep...that's exactly what I referenced.
Arguing over it won't be fruitful.

 

[leibowde84]

No, what I'm saying is that background checks are not in themselves the total answer to the problem. Sure background checks will stop a felon from obtaining a firearm from a FFL dealer. However, if one is intent on obtaining a firearm if they are not legally able to do so they can. Therefore emphases should be placed the prosecution and penalties adjudicated to those who knowingly violate the law by selling a weapon or weapons to someone who legally can not purchase a firearm. Also I do not have the answer for the mental health issue associated with purchasing a firearm, but somehow should be looked at.
I don't have the answers and don't know if I ever could. But I do know that what is going on now is the wrong way to go. Again the problem is not with the firearm it is the problem with the person wielding it. This has to be the major push.
For example I constantly hear that suicides and firearms are linked and there are those that want to address the firearm not the reason behind the suicide. But there is almost as many suicides by other than firearm than firearms but the focus is on the firearm not the reason for the suicide

What is the harm of outlawing automatic weapons though? What do we lose? I understand that some people who like to shoot/collect guns might be put out, but that is a miniscule price to pay to get some of these weapons off the street.

Obviously, gun control will not and should not be expected to cure the problem completely. Anyone who claims that is off their rocker. But, if it even helps the problem a little bit, it seems worth it. Do you agree?

 

[Revoltingest]

What is the harm of outlawing automatic weapons though?

Are automatic weapons involved in many crimes (excluding war crimes)?

 

[leibowde84]

Are automatic weapons involved in many crimes (excluding war crimes)?

They were used in Las Vegas, which was the biggest mass shooting in modern US history. But, I don't see why it matters at all. I think your question is unreasonable, or at least irrelevant to the issue at hand, as automatic weapons, while legal, are harder and much more expensive to get. So, of course they aren't used as much for illegal and legal uses. The problem isn't how many times they have been used illegally. The problem lies in the fact that they can kill far more people far quicker from longer distances, giving the shooter far more opportunity to murder more people. They will still be available, as they are out there already, but the more illegal / harder to get they are, the more expensive they will be to attain.

I think it is good to remove as many automatic weapons from the streets as possible. What is the harm? Beyond some gun enthusiasts being put out, what do we lose?

 

[Revoltingest]

They were used in Las Vegas, which was the biggest mass shooting in modern US history. But, I don't see why it matters at all. I think your question is unreasonable, or at least irrelevant to the issue at hand, as automatic weapons, while legal, are harder and much more expensive to get. So, of course they aren't used as much for illegal and legal uses. The problem isn't how many times they have been used illegally. The problem lies in the fact that they can kill far more people far quicker from longer distances, giving the shooter far more opportunity to murder more people. They will still be available, as they are out there already, but the more illegal / harder to get they are, the more expensive they will be to attain.

I think it is good to remove as many automatic weapons from the streets as possible. What is the harm? Beyond some gun enthusiasts being put out, what do we lose?

What makes you think those were fully automatic?