Although this thread does not function under the same strict guidelines as the USPMT, it is still a general practice on TL to provide a source with an explanation on why it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion. Failure to do so will result in a mod action.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
"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.
On April 10 2013 06:02 Fruscainte wrote:
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.
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.
And:
On April 10 2013 07:05 Thieving Magpie wrote:
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.
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).
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.
....
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.
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!"
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.
Just because a lot of people agree on something doesn't make it true. The Chinese all thought Mao was great in the 50's and 60's, hell a lot still do. A lot of people all agreed that slavery was A-OK.
On April 10 2013 09:13 Fruscainte wrote: It's funny how your entire post is completely refuted by the thing I've been beating down your throat this entire time.
The 2nd Amendment talks about how arms shall be permitted to be owned by all citizens, and this right shall not be infringed. Infringed is important. Reducing the amount of bullets a weapon can hold is infringing a right to bear arms because it is a limitation. Again, this case explicitly protects this notion. Saying you can ban all this shit as long as no guns themselves are being banned is the legal equivalent of saying all free speech but free speech said through the internet is banned.
Cars and Y2K and shit are completely irrelevant because none of those are explicitly protected under the Constitution. This isn't the "economics of governmental means of production" thread, this is the "should people be allowed to own guns thread".
And I'm going to say this again just for emphasis -- the second amendment is not only about being able to own a gun. It's about being able to own ANY weapon and that right never being infringed upon. That means you can't regulate how big of a sword someone can legally own, or how big of a sling someone can legally own, or many bullets are allowed in a magazine. If that last line "and this can not be infringed upon" was not in the Amendment, your entire argument would be 100% correct. However, the "shall not be infringed" clause along with the 2008 DC vs Heller decision completely nullifies your entire argument.
I'm not even going to respond to your "regulation" argument because it's semantics built upon semantics built upon even more semantics. The militia refers to the people. The militia is an example of the necessity of the second amendment because militia's are inherently non-government regulated. "Regulated" refers to discipline. It's saying that every citizen has an almost civic duty to stay trained in their weapons independent of government control.
The decision was that triggers couldn't be kept separate from guns (goes against keep arms part of amendment) and that you can't ban handguns due to handguns being of common use.
It did not allow for full range of handgun use (for example, can't be concealed and requires a permit for use in the home).
None of which really matches up with how you're using it.
Also, the comment about "able bodied" according to that link matters in defining what a militia is--not what regulated means. So that's also just a part of the amendment you're ignoring.
Although, I do think their decision to base the protection of a weapon based on commonality of use is interesting. Allows us to say no nukes (not common) without banning ridiculous things like steak knives (common) but still be able to put laws against awkward weapons like falcions (uncommon)
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
"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.
On April 10 2013 06:02 Fruscainte wrote:
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.
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.
And:
On April 10 2013 07:05 Thieving Magpie wrote:
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.
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).
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.
....
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.
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!"
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.
Just because a lot of people agree on something doesn't make it true. The Chinese all thought Mao was great in the 50's and 60's, hell a lot still do. A lot of people all agreed that slavery was A-OK.
You seem to take the constitution as some unarguable and infallible document on what is right to do. How about instead of just repeating that the constitution says we should be able to have whatever we want, you give a logical argument that will convince someone. As far as I am concerned you might as well be quoting the bible.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
"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.
On April 10 2013 06:02 Fruscainte wrote:
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.
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.
And:
On April 10 2013 07:05 Thieving Magpie wrote:
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.
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).
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.
....
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.
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!"
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.
Just because a lot of people agree on something doesn't make it true. The Chinese all thought Mao was great in the 50's and 60's, hell a lot still do. A lot of people all agreed that slavery was A-OK.
You seem to take the constitution as some unarguable and infallible document on what is right to do. How about instead of just repeating that the constitution says we should be able to have whatever we want, you give a logical argument that will convince someone. As far as I am concerned you might as well be quoting the bible.
Ok.
What harm is there in law-abiding citizens owning weapons, regardless of how powerful they are? I've got a rifle, and I shoot quite a bit. But I only ever shoot cardboard and tin cans. Why can't I shoot cardboard and tin cans with a howitzer if I want? And if I, a completely law-abiding citizen, can't be trusted to have them, why can the police and military have them? They're just as human as I am. Moreso in fact, remember the shooting in Times Square? The police shot more innocent people than the gunman. Remember Chris Dorner? Again, the police shot a bunch of innocent people? Remember Ruby Ridge? Remember Kent State?
Don't take this to mean I think all regulation is bad, I'm absolutely OK with background checks (assuming their requisite fees don't constitute a ban). I'd be fine with requiring stricter checks and even safety courses on howitzers, fully automatic weapons, and other dangerous things, but there's no reason to prevent a good citizen from having them.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
"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.
On April 10 2013 06:02 Fruscainte wrote:
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.
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.
And:
On April 10 2013 07:05 Thieving Magpie wrote:
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.
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).
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.
....
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.
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!"
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.
Just because a lot of people agree on something doesn't make it true. The Chinese all thought Mao was great in the 50's and 60's, hell a lot still do. A lot of people all agreed that slavery was A-OK.
You seem to take the constitution as some unarguable and infallible document on what is right to do. How about instead of just repeating that the constitution says we should be able to have whatever we want, you give a logical argument that will convince someone. As far as I am concerned you might as well be quoting the bible.
Ok.
What harm is there in law-abiding citizens owning weapons, regardless of how powerful they are? I've got a rifle, and I shoot quite a bit. But I only ever shoot cardboard and tin cans. Why can't I shoot cardboard and tin cans with a howitzer if I want? And if I, a completely law-abiding citizen, can't be trusted to have them, why can the police and military have them? They're just as human as I am. Moreso in fact, remember the shooting in Times Square? The police shot more innocent people than the gunman. Remember Chris Dorner? Again, the police shot a bunch of innocent people? Remember Ruby Ridge? Remember Kent State?
Don't take this to mean I think all regulation is bad, I'm absolutely OK with background checks (assuming their requisite fees don't constitute a ban). I'd be fine with requiring stricter checks and even safety courses on howitzers, fully automatic weapons, and other dangerous things, but there's no reason to prevent a good citizen from having them.
I hate people who own guns.
I also hate people who own gas guzzling trucks.
Neither of them should be banned just because I don't like them.
You do realize that Supreme Court decisions have more far reaching effects than the direct issue being presented...right?
DC vs Heller was not about whether or not it's legal to force someone to have a permit to have a pistol in their own home. That notion was thrown out the window once it reached the ol' Supreme Court. No Supreme Court cases are that cut and dry, they're about Constitutional issues. The case was about the extent of rights protected by the Second Amendment as a whole, and whether or not the State has the right to impose restrictions on guns simply because they are more modern.
Here's the important part:
They also specified that infringements on the 2nd Amendment require constitutional scrutiny at a level above rational basis. Banning a modern arm because it "might" help does not satisfy rational basis, and that goes the same for banning a single component of a firearm as well such as magazine size or barrel length or whether or not it can have a buttstock because all of those things being banned infringes on the right of a citizen bear his arm to their fullest extent, which is a distinct violation of the clause at the end of the Second Amendment.
Again, the Second Amendment does not just say "you can own weapons", it says "these rights shall not be infringed upon" -- which means that the government has no right to impose artificial restrictions on said arms. Saying you can't use this much ammo in a magazine or whatever other restrictions are being presented on the guns themselves is an infringement. It is directly against the Constitution. There is no interpretation, it's that simple. Heller's license for his gun was initially rejected because it has a bottom-fed magazine. Not because it's a type of gun, but because of how the gun intakes ammunition. The Supreme Court ruled this unconstitutional.
The concept or idea of "armed citizens" says people own modern arms. Not modern arms with restrictions, not inferior arms, not 100 year old arms, modern arms. Limiting people to inferior arms whether by banning guns or by banning magazine types is infringement. It really doesn't matter how many times you say it isn't, it is. The founders agree, and most importantly, the Supreme Court in 2008 agrees.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
"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.
On April 10 2013 06:02 Fruscainte wrote:
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.
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.
And:
On April 10 2013 07:05 Thieving Magpie wrote:
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.
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).
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.
....
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.
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!"
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.
Just because a lot of people agree on something doesn't make it true. The Chinese all thought Mao was great in the 50's and 60's, hell a lot still do. A lot of people all agreed that slavery was A-OK.
You seem to take the constitution as some unarguable and infallible document on what is right to do. How about instead of just repeating that the constitution says we should be able to have whatever we want, you give a logical argument that will convince someone. As far as I am concerned you might as well be quoting the bible.
Want to know a fun fact?
We're discussing law.
Want to know what all of our law is based upon? The Constitution.
Want to know what has complete and total monopolistic rule over law decisions if it's implicitly mentioned?
The Constitution.
The Constitution, in terms of law, IS an unarguable document. It's not infallible but it's unarguable. If it says we have the right to free speech, or that the rights not explicitly given to the Feds are given to the States or that the individual has the right to own a weapon, it's fucking LAW. There is no if or buts about it. If you want to change it, you better get 2/3rds of the vote in both houses and a majority vote in 3/4th's of the States to ratify said change.
Wow, nice find ! Two mass murder attempt without guns and no one was killed. Didn't thought it was that hard to kill with only a knife but that is some good food for thought. Thanks
Wow, nice find ! Two mass murder attempt without guns and no one was killed. Didn't thought it was that hard to kill with only a knife but that is some good food for thought. Thanks
And yes, you're right. The Berlin Hauptbahnhof and that China example in my first example had no casualties. Their purpose isn't to demonstrate that. The purpose is to demonstrate ludicrous notion that anti-gun proponents have that people with knives cant' cause nearly as much damage as someone with a gun because people can subdue them. If someone can stab 41 fucking people before being subdued, I think that kind of proves a point.
Ban guns because "mass murder potential is reduced" and people will just find another tool. It's probably not going to be knives for the mass murder portion and we'll see a lot more arsons and explosive attacks. The issue isn't the tool the issue is that crazies aren't being properly treated. Oh and here's another little food for thought on that Berlin stabbing:
One of the first stabbing victims was HIV-positive, leading to worries that other victims may have been infected
Thank Christ this didn't turn out to be the case but imagine that. No one died so it doesn't matter but 41 people being infected with HIV because of some lunatic.
And yes, you're right. The Berlin Hauptbahnhof and that China example in my first example had no casualties. Their purpose isn't to demonstrate that. The purpose is to demonstrate ludicrous notion that anti-gun proponents have that people with knives cant' cause nearly as much damage as someone with a gun because people can subdue them. If someone can stab 41 fucking people before being subdued, I think that kind of proves a point.
Im kinda confused by this. I'd say someone stabbing 100 people but not killing any is techncially far "less damage" than shooting dead 20 people in 5 minutes.
And yes, you're right. The Berlin Hauptbahnhof and that China example in my first example had no casualties. Their purpose isn't to demonstrate that. The purpose is to demonstrate ludicrous notion that anti-gun proponents have that people with knives cant' cause nearly as much damage as someone with a gun because people can subdue them. If someone can stab 41 fucking people before being subdued, I think that kind of proves a point.
Im kinda confused by this. I'd say someone stabbing 100 people but not killing any is techncially far "less damage" than shooting dead 20 people in 5 minutes.
I'd stay stabbing 41 people and causing serious injury is a tragedy and 20 people being shot to death is a tragedy and trying to quantify which is "more" tragic is not only petty but extremely disrespectful and the focus should be "why are people stabbing and shooting people to death" and not "let's ban these specific weapons but let the crazies continue doing their thing with just a slightly lower kill/hospitalization count"
If guns were not available in Newton whatsoever, want to know what Lanza would have done? He would have walked into the school, stabbed his mother to death and either cut his own throat right there or went on a nice attempted stabbing spree and stabbed, heavily injuring or killing quite a few children before being stopped. Which I'm sure there would not have been that much resistance due to it being a building full of children. The damage would have been significantly "less", but the problem is not fucking gone. A crazy just killed his mom and tried to stab a bunch of children and then slit his own throat. The issue isn't the tool the crazy person is using it's the damn crazy person and we need to work on stopping the crazy person.
Well I'm confused. When you say your posts "purpose is to demonstrate ludicrous notion that anti-gun proponents have that people with knives cant' cause nearly as much damage as someone with a gun because people can subdue them" I kind of thought you were already quantifying things and comparing "damage".
On April 10 2013 21:53 DannyJ wrote: Well I'm confused. When you say your posts "purpose is to demonstrate ludicrous notion that anti-gun proponents have that people with knives cant' cause nearly as much damage as someone with a gun because people can subdue them" I kind of thought you were already quantifying things and comparing "damage".
I'm saying that if someone can stab and seriously injure 41 people, the notion of "someone with a knife can't cause damage" is completely ludicrous. That if someone can kill almost 150 people by starting a fire because he's peeved at his place of employment, people suddenly won't stop being crazy and finding ways to murder lots of people. That if someone can stab and kill 8 people and seriously wound 13 in Osaka, when 4-10 is about the average deaths in our countries history of mass shootings, I think it's quite easy to say that someone can do a lot without a gun.
My point was that trying to quantify the ratio between hospitalizations/HIV transmissions from a blade vs the amount of deaths as which is "more damage" is pedantic. The point is that someone can walk into a crowd and stab 41 people or set something on fire and kill 147 people or blow something up and kill 44 people. The point isn't "which causes more damage", because that leads to a completely pointless discussion and takes away from the main point and that is banning guns doesn't stop crazy people from wanting to kill a whole lot of people when they have their mental breakdowns and we should fix on identifying and fixing these crazy people and not taking weapons out of responsible gun owners.
On April 10 2013 12:46 Fruscainte wrote: You do realize that Supreme Court decisions have more far reaching effects than the direct issue being presented...right?
DC vs Heller was not about whether or not it's legal to force someone to have a permit to have a pistol in their own home. That notion was thrown out the window once it reached the ol' Supreme Court. No Supreme Court cases are that cut and dry, they're about Constitutional issues. The case was about the extent of rights protected by the Second Amendment as a whole, and whether or not the State has the right to impose restrictions on guns simply because they are more modern.
Here's the important part:
They also specified that infringements on the 2nd Amendment require constitutional scrutiny at a level above rational basis. Banning a modern arm because it "might" help does not satisfy rational basis, and that goes the same for banning a single component of a firearm as well such as magazine size or barrel length or whether or not it can have a buttstock because all of those things being banned infringes on the right of a citizen bear his arm to their fullest extent, which is a distinct violation of the clause at the end of the Second Amendment.
Again, the Second Amendment does not just say "you can own weapons", it says "these rights shall not be infringed upon" -- which means that the government has no right to impose artificial restrictions on said arms. Saying you can't use this much ammo in a magazine or whatever other restrictions are being presented on the guns themselves is an infringement. It is directly against the Constitution. There is no interpretation, it's that simple. Heller's license for his gun was initially rejected because it has a bottom-fed magazine. Not because it's a type of gun, but because of how the gun intakes ammunition. The Supreme Court ruled this unconstitutional.
The concept or idea of "armed citizens" says people own modern arms. Not modern arms with restrictions, not inferior arms, not 100 year old arms, modern arms. Limiting people to inferior arms whether by banning guns or by banning magazine types is infringement. It really doesn't matter how many times you say it isn't, it is. The founders agree, and most importantly, the Supreme Court in 2008 agrees.
I see where you're coming from--I personally don't see how that conclusion can be made from the supreme court decision, but if that's how that decision is being interpreted then I'll just have to admit being wrong. It still sounds like the decision determined the state of the owned weapon and the licensing of the weapon as opposed to the selling and development of weapons--but I'm not a lawmaker so it is what it is.
I don't see how "armed citizens" translates to modern arms according to the Heller case so I still don't agree with your last statement--but that's really a separate discussion since how armed the citizens are is not clarified in the amendment itself and hence requires a different discussion on property rights and corporate rights more so than amendment rights. (Similar to when you asked "why are cars allowed to go over 70mph when the speed limit is 65mph" where its a question of product ownership and not safety)
But you're right, the supreme court of 2008 agrees with the ruling so until another case comes up that is the law.
Remember SOPA? How the government miserably failed at controlling the internet? Well that concept is brought back to life as CAD files containing gun schematics (mostly of the AR15) are going to be distrubuted and 3D printed. Anyone with an internet connection and a 3D printer will, in the near future, be able to print a gun in their own home. Granted, not everyone owns a 3D printer, but it is rising technology, some say most homes will have one in the near future. Furthermore, anyone who does already own a 3D printer becomes a source for guns, whether qualified or not; sounds extremely similar to the war on drugs currently going on, a war that the government is losing. Here is a documentary (not mine):
- 3D Printable Guns
So screw the bans or the legislation, this is coming up to a level where its impossible to restrict, just like its impossible to stop the pirating of music on the internet..
I remember just after sandy hook that I saw this where this guy was just creating assult weapons and magazines and there was nothing the federal government could do to stop it.
scares the shit out of me. Now everyone can become an arms manufacturer with a few thousand dollars.
On April 11 2013 01:26 BBoyXELAnt wrote: Remember SOPA? How the government miserably failed at controlling the internet? Well that concept is brought back to life as CAD files containing gun schematics (mostly of the AR15) are going to be distrubuted and 3D printed. Anyone with an internet connection and a 3D printer will, in the near future, be able to print a gun in their own home. Granted, not everyone owns a 3D printer, but it is rising technology, some say most homes will have one in the near future. Furthermore, anyone who does already own a 3D printer becomes a source for guns, whether qualified or not; sounds extremely similar to the war on drugs currently going on, a war that the government is losing. Here is a documentary (not mine):
So screw the bans or the legislation, this is coming up to a level where its impossible to restrict, just like its impossible to stop the pirating of music on the internet..
On April 11 2013 01:26 BBoyXELAnt wrote: Remember SOPA? How the government miserably failed at controlling the internet? Well that concept is brought back to life as CAD files containing gun schematics (mostly of the AR15) are going to be distrubuted and 3D printed. Anyone with an internet connection and a 3D printer will, in the near future, be able to print a gun in their own home. Granted, not everyone owns a 3D printer, but it is rising technology, some say most homes will have one in the near future. Furthermore, anyone who does already own a 3D printer becomes a source for guns, whether qualified or not; sounds extremely similar to the war on drugs currently going on, a war that the government is losing. Here is a documentary (not mine):
So screw the bans or the legislation, this is coming up to a level where its impossible to restrict, just like its impossible to stop the pirating of music on the internet..
Call me back when you can 3D print gunpowder.
I mean, this post is just silly.
It's technically not silly--its not like gunpowder is the hard part of gun manufacturing...
Most people simply don't have the tools (or the inclination) to be able to forge metal and fiberglass into rifles. However, if all they need is a zipfile and a printer--they hard part is already taken over.
His conclusion is bonkers though. If anything, gun companies will be the most adamantly against gun printing in much the same way the entertainment industry is against piracy. The US government won't have to do jack to attack gun printing since gun manufacturers will do the attacking for them.
On April 10 2013 09:13 Fruscainte wrote: It's funny how your entire post is completely refuted by the thing I've been beating down your throat this entire time.
The 2nd Amendment talks about how arms shall be permitted to be owned by all citizens, and this right shall not be infringed. Infringed is important. Reducing the amount of bullets a weapon can hold is infringing a right to bear arms because it is a limitation. Again, this case explicitly protects this notion. Saying you can ban all this shit as long as no guns themselves are being banned is the legal equivalent of saying all free speech but free speech said through the internet is banned.
Cars and Y2K and shit are completely irrelevant because none of those are explicitly protected under the Constitution. This isn't the "economics of governmental means of production" thread, this is the "should people be allowed to own guns thread".
And I'm going to say this again just for emphasis -- the second amendment is not only about being able to own a gun. It's about being able to own ANY weapon and that right never being infringed upon. That means you can't regulate how big of a sword someone can legally own, or how big of a sling someone can legally own, or many bullets are allowed in a magazine. If that last line "and this can not be infringed upon" was not in the Amendment, your entire argument would be 100% correct. However, the "shall not be infringed" clause along with the 2008 DC vs Heller decision completely nullifies your entire argument.
I'm not even going to respond to your "regulation" argument because it's semantics built upon semantics built upon even more semantics. The militia refers to the people. The militia is an example of the necessity of the second amendment because militia's are inherently non-government regulated. "Regulated" refers to discipline. It's saying that every citizen has an almost civic duty to stay trained in their weapons independent of government control.
If you yourself are going to make an argument based on emantics built upon semantics built upon even more semantics, as though "shall not infringe" is some special semantics, it doesn't make sense to criticize other people being semantic. Likewise, if you are going to make an argument based on Heller, you should probably actually read Heller and see what it says. The Supreme Court actually did rule that certain arms can be restricted and even banned, but that semiautomatic pistols are not among those arms.
On April 10 2013 09:13 Fruscainte wrote: It's funny how your entire post is completely refuted by the thing I've been beating down your throat this entire time.
The 2nd Amendment talks about how arms shall be permitted to be owned by all citizens, and this right shall not be infringed. Infringed is important. Reducing the amount of bullets a weapon can hold is infringing a right to bear arms because it is a limitation. Again, this case explicitly protects this notion. Saying you can ban all this shit as long as no guns themselves are being banned is the legal equivalent of saying all free speech but free speech said through the internet is banned.
Cars and Y2K and shit are completely irrelevant because none of those are explicitly protected under the Constitution. This isn't the "economics of governmental means of production" thread, this is the "should people be allowed to own guns thread".
And I'm going to say this again just for emphasis -- the second amendment is not only about being able to own a gun. It's about being able to own ANY weapon and that right never being infringed upon. That means you can't regulate how big of a sword someone can legally own, or how big of a sling someone can legally own, or many bullets are allowed in a magazine. If that last line "and this can not be infringed upon" was not in the Amendment, your entire argument would be 100% correct. However, the "shall not be infringed" clause along with the 2008 DC vs Heller decision completely nullifies your entire argument.
I'm not even going to respond to your "regulation" argument because it's semantics built upon semantics built upon even more semantics. The militia refers to the people. The militia is an example of the necessity of the second amendment because militia's are inherently non-government regulated. "Regulated" refers to discipline. It's saying that every citizen has an almost civic duty to stay trained in their weapons independent of government control.
If you yourself are going to make an argument based on emantics built upon semantics built upon even more semantics, as though "shall not infringe" is some special semantics, it doesn't make sense to criticize other people being semantic. Likewise, if you are going to make an argument based on Heller, you should probably actually read Heller and see what it says. The Supreme Court actually did rule that certain arms can be restricted and even banned, but that semiautomatic pistols are not among those arms.
Thats kind of what I understood--but I'm not a lawyer so I thought I might have misunderstood something.
EPT
