If you're seeing this topic then another mass shooting hap…

On April 10 2013 06:03 Nisyax wrote:
There really should be stricter regulations in the US, just read about a 4 year old accidentally shooting a woman during a BBQ. There was even a police-officer present (not his weapon though, although he was showing some guns in a room).

Here's a source I googled, since I read it on a Dutch website.
http://www.newser.com/story/165901/4-year-old-kills-deputys-wife.html

On April 10 2013 06:04 Fruscainte wrote:
Edit: HURR how do edit post instead of click "quote", careless mistakes. Might as well put some content here.



What I find funny is that 90% of the country supports stricter gun background checks according to CNN on the TV a few hours ago, but most of what these people are proposing are already in effect in some way or another. All that, arguably, needs more looking into are gun shows.

EDIT: Might I also point this out?

The Second Amendment is the ONLY Amendment IN THE ENTIRE CONSTITUTION that has this little phrase on the tail end of it: "shall not be infringed." Soak this in for a second. Your precious First Amendment about the freedom of speech and gathering and religion doesn't have this phrase. Quartering soldiers in your home doesn't have this. Habeas Corpus doesn't mention this later on in the Constituion. Even the right to an impartial jury/speedy trial and the right to not have to testify against yourself doesn't have this little line on it.

The right to bear arms is the only thing we got that has the line "SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED" upon it. I think that makes it very clear of its intention. It is something the Founding Fathers found critically important. And to all the people who will inevitably say "But they only had muskets back then!", I say this. First of all, you're wrong, there were repeating pistols that were in experimental stages and were used in the Revolutionary War. Second of all, and perhaps most importantly, if the Founding Fathers wanted its citizens to only have access to smoothbore percussion cap muskets, they would have fucking put that instead of "arms". They wanted it to be a document that could adhere to the times of the future.

On April 10 2013 05:38 Jan1997 wrote:
I don't think civillians should carry guns. Only police should be allowed to carry guns. Guns just don't suit civillians as they have no reason to own one.

On April 10 2013 06:54 MidKnight wrote:
So are people really arguing that the current situation in USA where mostly anyone can walk into a store and buy a lethal weapon whose primary function is to, you know, kill people, completely okay?

I don't think too many people are arguing to outlaw guns completely. Even if that was the case, there are far too many manufactured already to stop people from illegally obtaining them. However, I find it ridiculous that people keep defending the current situation where there's very little background check/mental evaluation required to acquire such weapons.

People who try to argue that mass killings would still happen even if guns were regulated better, because "you can kill a person with a spoon/knife too, should we outlaw them as well lololol" don't seem to grasp the fundamental difference in that guns' primary function is to inflict lethal damage. That's their only purpose by design unlike most other tools. So they do that really well. You can't reliably kill 10+ people with a knife or an axe as couple events have shown us.

It seems like what it mostly comes down to is "2nd amendment herp derp" and "if they start regulating our access guns in any way it's only gonna get worse, THEY ARE COMING FOR US!".
It's obviously a mental health issue first and foremost, but that's quite harder to solve than some form of gun control/restrictions.

On April 10 2013 06:02 Fruscainte wrote:


Behold, Fruscainte's Ten Commandments

1) the use of military grade firearms makes communities safer, militia are highly useful for local peacekeeping, even if they have poor application in war

2) the use of rifles gives a lot of carry over knowledge for armed forces and common sense and SAFETY in general

3) name a country without a shooting tradition that produces quality modern rifles of its own design

4) they are the most effective means of self defense

5) it is a proven fact that POLICE AND MILITARY are PSYCHOLOGICALLY NO DIFFERENT than regular humans, they are not safer in government hands

6) criminals have statistically less lethality when using automatic weapons, compared to semi automatic weapons. they lack the training to do this properly

7) the gun control movement began with the "red scare" its roots are not in public safety, but in counter revolution, and counter communism

8) if there are certain people in society, EG cops, army, government who are considered safe to carry any given type of firearm, then there should logically be an ability, no matter how difficult, to acquire anything the government can acquire provided they can prove they are equally trustworthy

9) there are no governments in the western world that have not broken human rights conventions in the twentieth century. even the united kingdom gunned down peaceful Irish demonstrators in the 70's

10) if average humans cannot be trusted with the power to take life, it cannot be adequately proven that anyone does and therefore if you do not believe in civilian ownership you should not believe in ownership full stop, government or otherwise

And allow me to close with this -- why does anyone need a car that can go over 70mph? That is the maximum legal speed limit on highways in the United States. There is absolutely no functional purpose to going over 70mph. So why do we sell big, scary, black cars that can easily do 100mph over the designated speed limit? There are more deaths per year in the States from automobiles than from guns. Ban cars going over 70mph, make the streets a safer place.

On April 10 2013 07:05 Thieving Magpie wrote:


....

I think you're directing that at me when I asked for clarification about how we're only supposed to think about militia in the context of 1776 which made me ask him why we were stuck only with 1776 where single shot muskets were the norm.

No one is saying "muskets are okay"

Either we take it literally--where its only for militias who are trained for the defense of the society in threat. Or we take it abstractly to mean ownership of weapons.

If we take it abstractly--then so long as the US doesn't knock on your door and pull the guns from your hands--then anything is fair game. It does not talk about controlling the distribution, marketing, and development of arms, merely talking about ownership of arms.

If we take it literally--then you can have guns while working in the militia and only after sufficient training which, as far as I understand, is subject to the federal or state standards.

It does not prevent laws against gun sale restrictions. It does not prevent restrictions of gun development, weapon firepower caps, etc... It simply is a constitutional right that uncle sam can't enter your home and take your gun. Gun control laws literally have no affect on the 2nd amendment.

On April 10 2013 07:16 Fruscainte wrote:


Firstly, the primary function of a firearm is to project a small object at high velocities in a specific, targeted direction. This has many uses ranging from target shooting, sport shooting, hunting, fishing, and self defense.

Secondly, you can not just "walk into a store and buy a gun". Please educate yourself on the basics of U.S. legal code of the matter before you deem it necessary to speak on it. There are waiting periods on guns so that you can't go in and impulse buy a gun and shoot your spouse that day because you got in an argument. There are SEVERE restrictions placed on gun distributors on who they can sell guns to. If you have a felony you can not purchase a firearm, getting the license to carry a firearm with you concealed is a lengthy process and many Sheriff's across the country flat out won't give everyone one even if they perfectly qualify for one. Open carry is not even allowed in a lot of States and to get it in the states that it is is extraordinarily costly and strict.



This is blatantly false. You may or may not notice that these guns acquired for these mass shootings over the course of history were not the persons guns, but their completely mentally stable parents or relatives guns. What's the problem is not the availability of guns, it's the disavailability of mental healthcare in our country. Meds for mental health are beyond bank breaking and insurance regularly doesn't cover them, let alone the psychological treatment with a trained physician which isn't also covered under most insurance companies and is extraordinarily costly.



http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/15/world/asia/man-stabs-22-children-in-china.html?_r=0
http://www.cnn.com/2013/04/09/justice/texas-college-stabbing/index.html?hpt=hp_inthenews

See first point posted.



"2nd amendment hurp durp"? Is that really the best you got? A fucking fundamental right given to us that, according to our Constitutions own words, "SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED". As I said before, this is the ONLY amendment or line in our Constitution that has this line following it. So yes, it's a big fucking deal that the second amendment has that line in it. Owning a gun for sport and self defense from criminals and government is a fundamental right given to us by our Constitution and no matter how much you want to try and skew that into some illogical paranoid sentiment it doesn't change the fact it's there.

Oh, and my post from the last page is also quite helpful.



And:



Peculiar how it doesn't say "arms that are to be defined by the governmental bodies", but "arms"

Hm.

I think it's being quite silly to say "Keep your guns, it's the Constitution! But we'll make laws that say you can't own all of THESE guns, and can't buy THIS ammo, or sell ammo in THIS location, and can't use magazines THIS large!"

On April 10 2013 07:28 Zealotdriver wrote:


Maybe you are the one who should educate yourself? There are no federal waiting periods for semi-automatic and bolt-action guns. I have never had to wait to buy a gun other than the 2 minute phone call background check by the store owner.

The 2nd amendment is ALREADY infringed. Felons, habitual drug users, and people judged mentally incompetent are not allowed to buy or possess firearms. Expensive license is required to legally get fully automatic weapons. It is really OK to infringe upon the 2nd amendment. Most people agree with the status quo with respect to the above restrictions.

On April 10 2013 07:31 Thieving Magpie wrote:
@Fruscainte

If you read the last two pages of this thread--you would have read what I wrote in that it is dishonest to believe that the 2nd amendment only pertains to gun ownership. Not because it says so, but because it's an incomplete execution of the amendment to do so.

However, being that as it may--if you want to go through the whole literal reading of the text, it doesn't restrict commercial and market restrictions of firearms. Nor does it give automatic rights of ownership to unowned guns. ie--a gun that you don't own does not automatically get owned by you.

This means that it has no literal connection to gun purchasing, gun development, or gun sales. If you want a literal reading of the constitution--gun sale laws are up for grams. If you want a liberal reading of the constitution--"well trained militia" means that gun ownership requires a level of training that needs to be standardized.

So which one do you want? The literal reading where the feds can do whatever they please to gun sales, or do you want the liberal reading where the feds can do whatever they want with training standards?

Because if you want to stick to the constitution--you will lose the fight to protect guns rights.

OR

We could treat it like we treat all other property rights laws. The federal government cannot simply take our property nor can they determine a company's product development practices for the safety of personal and corporate rights. The fact that its a gun does not mean we treat it differently than an air conditioner, or a fridge, or duct tape.

The project of disciplining all the militia of the United States is as futile as it would be injurious, if it were capable of being carried into execution. A tolerable expertness in military movements is a business that requires time and practice. It is not a day, or even a week, that will suffice for the attainment of it. To oblige the great body of the yeomanry, and of the other classes of the citizens, to be under arms for the purpose of going through military exercises and evolutions, as often as might be necessary to acquire the degree of perfection which would entitle them to the character of a well-regulated militia, would be a real grievance to the people, and a serious public inconvenience and loss.

On April 10 2013 07:43 Fruscainte wrote:


Remember how you had to diagram sentences in High School? You thought you'd never see those bitches again, would you? Well you're wrong.

+ Show Spoiler +

It's clearly the liberal interpretation of the law. Don't create a false dichotomy.

Every able-bodied male between 17-45 is legally part of the militia. (The Militia Act of 1903), so your entire argument of "training standards" is completely void. A militia is an informal group consisting of all individuals, and is something you automatically joined when you became adult. The 2nd Amendment applies to all adults across our country. There's no going around this.

And here's a nice quote from our founding fathers:



http://www.foundingfathers.info/federalistpapers/fed29.htm

On April 10 2013 07:54 Thieving Magpie wrote:


Cool, let's go this route then.

A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

Is the federal government attempting to ban ownership of guns? No? 2nd Amendment not touched.
Is the federal government attempting to ban the sales of guns? No? 2nd Amendment not touched.
Is the united states currently in danger and its states requiring military protection? No? "Well regulated militia being necessary" no longer applies then.

What is the federal government doing?

Adding restrictions to gun sales? Yes. Like they do for anything the find too dangerous such as grenades, tanks, nukes, etc... It's something they do all the time really.

And that's about it.

Federally speaking, citizens are neither having their guns taken from them nor are they prevented from getting weapons of many times excluding a few here and there.

Now lets go even further into the sentence.

"A well regulated militia"

I guess, verbatim, regulations are necessary and constitutionally required for gun ownership. Thanks for playing

Is the united states currently in danger and its states requiring military protection? No? "Well regulated militia being necessary" no longer applies then.

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

On April 10 2013 08:05 Fruscainte wrote:




I would like for you to cite me, exactly, where in the Constitution it states "a well regulated militia only in times of crisis or war", and not "a well regulated militia". "Militia" were self trained and armed locals, not administered by the government whatsoever, and that we're also ALL legally militiamen (Militia Act of 1903), as are all able bodied male citizens between 17 and 45 years

and here is the most important part, the second amendment is NOT about militia's. Let's quote it and analyze it:



A well regulated Militia is necessary to the security of a free state. It is an EXAMPLE of a REASON that gun ownership is important. It is not the fucking law though. See that sentence after it? "The right of the PEOPLE to keep and bear Arms, shall NOT be infringed"

WOAH, it's almost like the Constitution is explicitly stated that gun ownership is not in the hands of the militia, but the people themselves! Wicked sick! It's almost like the founding fathers knew that militias were completely unregulated by the government and thought it necessary that the people should be able to own weapons without having to worry about government regulation and regimentation or something!

The right to bear arms is guaranteed unconditionally to the people of the United States. The line about the militia isn't a qualifier or a legal catch. It's merely there to let everyone know the reasoning behind letting everyone have guns.

Finally, "Well regulated" Means to be in shape, in practice and well armed. Not beleaguered by red tape. You should really research this stuff before trying to debate about it.

Well regulated does not mean government regulated. Thanks for playing.

On April 10 2013 08:05 Fruscainte wrote:




I would like for you to cite me, exactly, where in the Constitution it states "a well regulated militia only in times of crisis or war", and not "a well regulated militia". "Militia" were self trained and armed locals, not administered by the government whatsoever, and that we're also ALL legally militiamen (Militia Act of 1903), as are all able bodied male citizens between 17 and 45 years

and here is the most important part, the second amendment is NOT about militia's. Let's quote it and analyze it:



A well regulated Militia is necessary to the security of a free state. It is an EXAMPLE of a REASON that gun ownership is important. It is not the fucking law though. See that sentence after it? "The right of the PEOPLE to keep and bear Arms, shall NOT be infringed"

WOAH, it's almost like the Constitution is explicitly stated that gun ownership is not in the hands of the militia, but the people themselves! Wicked sick! It's almost like the founding fathers knew that militias were completely unregulated by the government and thought it necessary that the people should be able to own weapons without having to worry about government regulation and regimentation or something!

The right to bear arms is guaranteed unconditionally to the people of the United States. The line about the militia isn't a qualifier or a legal catch. It's merely there to let everyone know the reasoning behind letting everyone have guns.

Finally, "Well regulated" Means to be in shape, in practice and well armed. Not beleaguered by red tape. You should really research this stuff before trying to debate about it.

Well regulated does not mean government regulated. Thanks for playing.

EDIT: Fun fact, owning tanks, greandes, and rocket launchers are not banned federally. Everyone can own them if they pay extremely heavy taxes on the ammunition/weapons and get permits for them. Private citizens. I suggest you go read DC vs Heller, it's a fun little case about this coincidentally.

I guess regulated means different things to different people? To you it seems things are regulated if people are fit and healthy, to others it could mean having strong bans, or heavy need of paperwork. I wonder how we can standardize that so that its clear--oh right! That's what governments are for

The first half requires that the militia (which to you means the people)

The project of disciplining all the militia of the United States is as futile as it would be injurious, if it were capable of being carried into execution. A tolerable expertness in military movements is a business that requires time and practice. It is not a day, or even a week, that will suffice for the attainment of it. To oblige the great body of the yeomanry, and of the other classes of the citizens, to be under arms for the purpose of going through military exercises and evolutions, as often as might be necessary to acquire the degree of perfection which would entitle them to the character of a well-regulated militia, would be a real grievance to the people, and a serious public inconvenience and loss.

On April 10 2013 08:36 Fruscainte wrote:
How many times do I have to say this. It does NOT say a "A well government regulated militia", it says a "well regulated militia". Secondly, "militia" is NOT the purpose of the Amendment.



Thirdly, for the fourth or fifth time now, EVERY SINGLE UNITED STATES CITIZEN BETWEEN THE AGES OF 17 AND 45 YEARS OF AGE IS LEGALLY PART OF THEIR STATE MILITIAS DUE TO THE MILITIA ACT OF 1903

Go read DC vs Heller, again. It's a recent Supreme Court case on this very topic. It says that guns in common use of the time are protected, a criteria which semi automatic rifles fully satisfy.



yes, to me, who coincidentally shares the opinion with the Federally enacted "Militia Act of 1903", which states that all peoples 17-45 who are legal United States citizens are part of the militia.

Stop focusing on the word "regulated" because it's completely fucking irrelevant to the discussion. It's not "government regulated". Regulated means disciplined. This is backed up by our founding fathers in the Federalist Papers. Do I really need to quote it again?



http://www.foundingfathers.info/federalistpapers/fed29.htm

You're completely correct. The banning of high capacity magazines is an infringement on our 2nd Amendment Rights because the 2nd Amendment outright says that the right to bear arms shall not be infringed. Infringed means impeded in any way whatsoever. The banning of grenades is an infringement on our 2nd Amendment Rights and also the DC vs Heller decision of 2008.

Let me make this clear -- I am NOT against background checks or increased checks. I seriously don't care and in fact am for increased regulation, especially at things such as gun shows which have next to none. However, it is a statistical fact that 100% of policemen and military men are human and act like humans too and if they can get training that deems them qualified to operate an automatic rifle, any citizen should therefore also have a test to deem them qualified to own an automatic rifle.

Again, in terms of grenades, tanks and shit that you brought up earlier:

Grenades are Legal under the National Firearms Act (NFA), provided it is registered as a Destructive Device (DD). Tanks are merely a vehicle if the weapons are disabled, no regulation other than needing to be roadworthy (another matter entirely) to drive on public roads. If a tank's main gun is not deactivated, then it must be registered under the NFA as a DD.

The government can not ban certain types of guns. That's decision that was made in 2008 by our Supreme Court. Banning all types of guns beside .22's because "at least you still got guns!" is the legal equivalent, according to DC vs Heller, the government saying "You only get free speech online! At least you still got it!" You can't fucking compare it to bans on computer chips or cars because computer chips and cars aren't explicitly protected in our Federal Constitution.

On April 10 2013 06:02 Fruscainte wrote:


Behold, Fruscainte's Ten Commandments

1) the use of military grade firearms makes communities safer, militia are highly useful for local peacekeeping, even if they have poor application in war

2) the use of rifles gives a lot of carry over knowledge for armed forces and common sense and SAFETY in general

3) name a country without a shooting tradition that produces quality modern rifles of its own design

4) they are the most effective means of self defense

5) it is a proven fact that POLICE AND MILITARY are PSYCHOLOGICALLY NO DIFFERENT than regular humans, they are not safer in government hands

6) criminals have statistically less lethality when using automatic weapons, compared to semi automatic weapons. they lack the training to do this properly

7) the gun control movement began with the "red scare" its roots are not in public safety, but in counter revolution, and counter communism

8) if there are certain people in society, EG cops, army, government who are considered safe to carry any given type of firearm, then there should logically be an ability, no matter how difficult, to acquire anything the government can acquire provided they can prove they are equally trustworthy

9) there are no governments in the western world that have not broken human rights conventions in the twentieth century. even the united kingdom gunned down peaceful Irish demonstrators in the 70's

10) if average humans cannot be trusted with the power to take life, it cannot be adequately proven that anyone does and therefore if you do not believe in civilian ownership you should not believe in ownership full stop, government or otherwise

And allow me to close with this -- why does anyone need a car that can go over 70mph? That is the maximum legal speed limit on highways in the United States. There is absolutely no functional purpose to going over 70mph. So why do we sell big, scary, black cars that can easily do 100mph over the designated speed limit? There are more deaths per year in the States from automobiles than from guns. Ban cars going over 70mph, make the streets a safer place.