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

On April 11 2013 05:49 Fruscainte wrote:
The primary function of a firearm is to project a small object at high velocities in a specific, targeted direction. Nothing more. This has many uses ranging from target shooting, sport shooting, hunting, fishing, and self defense.

On April 11 2013 06:00 Nachtwind wrote:


Touché. Not that it delude me but it´s a tricky argumentation.

Hm. Why people invented firearms?

On April 11 2013 03:33 Fruscainte wrote:


The origin of the case was because Heller had his license denied because of how his pistol loaded ammunition.

How pistols and subsequently all guns load ammunition is a byproduct of modern weaponry. That is why the Court outright said in their explanation after the case that "common" weaponry shall not be infringed upon in anyway. In essence, guns can not be banned or can not have mechanisms of themselves banned (ie: magazine size, rates of fire, etc.) restricted simply because they are more modern or dangerous or what have you. If the weapon or mechanism is common to the times, it is completely protected. This leaves some room for interpretation of course, it was a pretty vague decision.

However, one thing is clear. Placing a restriction on a gun not because of the type of gun it is (ie: shotgun, pistol, assault rifle, etc.) but because of some aspect of it (ie: how it intakes ammunition, how fast it fires, what kind of magazine it has) is just as unconstitutional as banning a certain type of gun altogether. All that can be restricted are, as the Court put it, "weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons. Pp. 54–56."

I know it seems like a stretch, but that's what these cases are. They are not cut and dry rulings on whether or not you can ban pistols or not. It is an entire analysis of the Constitutional reach of the Second Amendment, and if ruling that banning a certain function of a pistol is unconstitutional then ANY banning of ANY subset function of ANY weapon is thereby unconstitutional until someone brings a case to the Court arguing otherwise. Let me make this entirely clear for you: You are correct. It may be completely constitutional to ban magazine sizes under our Second Amendment. However, as it stands right now and the casework that has been decided by the Supreme Court it can only be inferred that it is, in fact, unconstitutional as of now. The thing you have to keep telling yourself reading over that case is that it was not a ban on pistols, but a ban on pistols that loaded from the bottom and automatically chambered another bullet after every shot.

Also, I want to touch on something you said earlier Magpie, about how our Second Amendment rights are already infringed since Felons cant own weapons. Firstly let me say that I agree that making people second class citizens is completely ludicrous. Secondly however, our Fourteenth Amendment handles that area. This is another example that kind of illustrates how I'm seemingly taking this ruling so far. The Fourteenth Amendment has a Due Process Clause which states that an individuals right to life, liberty, or rights may not be taken without due process. That implies, however, that a persons rights CAN be taken IF there is due process. Taking a felons right to own guns away after the due process of our court system is completely constitutional.

Why they were invented is completely irrelevant, all that matters is their current state.

I think this entire discussion comes down to

average humans cannot be trusted with the power to take life

The purpose of a weapon is always the same. They are designed for harming, stunnig, killing liveforms

On April 11 2013 07:47 Nachtwind wrote:


.... ....

So the purpose of a weapon back then changed to a new purpose for weapons we producing now? The purpose of a weapon is always the same. They are designed for harming, stunnig, killing liveforms. While a weapon can be used for sports or self defense the main purpose of why they were inventend, why they are mainly produced and used is always that of a weapon - imho and you won´t change my opinion on this.

If the day comes where guns are only used for sports, hunting, fishing i will hurray.

If you want to do this things now as a normal citizen though i demand a deeply psychological and social analisys from a state organisation and a visit from those organisation where you must show them that you´re able to lock away your weapons safty. Arms and ammunition seperated. You´re only allowed to hunt/ do sports in allowed areas. You´re not allowed to go outside armed except you´re moving to/or come from the next allowed area. You must visit a psychologist every year. Every weapon that is oversized in it´s functions for sports/hunting shouldn´t be allowed to aquire except you´re a collector and proofed that your weapons can´t be used anymore.

That is my opinion on this for years and no one will change this. I just wanted to share my opinion while i think most US readers here won´t give a fuck about my opinion. Cheers.

On April 11 2013 08:17 Kickboxer wrote:
Wtf? You must somehow trust sociopathic, depressed, manic, crackhead, drugged and similarly unstable persons to the same extent as the police now? Are things THAT bad in the US? Who would you rather trust your kid with, Klebold or the average policeman? Is that even a serious argument lol? Normal citizens can't have guns because many of them are astoundingly fucked up. If you have policemen over there as fucked up as the batman movie shooter you need to change the police.

Wtf? You must somehow trust sociopathic, depressed, manic, crackhead, drugged and similarly unstable persons to the same extent as the police now?

Are things THAT bad in the US?

Who would you rather trust your kid with, Klebold or the average policeman?

Normal citizens can't have guns because many of them are astoundingly fucked up.

If you have policemen over there as fucked up as the batman movie shooter you need to change the police

On April 11 2013 08:05 Millitron wrote:

The problem with your position is that you never really defend it. If normal citizens can't have guns, why should the police? They're just as human, and not trained much better. Even if they were better trained, big whoop. The guards at Auschwitz were all well trained. Training doesn't make someone morally good, it makes them effective.

Either you can trust everyone (without a criminal background of course), or you can trust no one. Anything else is hypocrisy.

On April 11 2013 08:28 Thieving Magpie wrote:


The police are very highly trained and are constantly evaluated. When they fire one shot they go through psychiatric evaluation, and their gun is taken from them just in case to make sure they're okay.

There is a lot of oversight to them.

Random person on the street doesn't require such regulations. They "could" be trained, or they could be stoned. And if he had a gun, I'd be scared.

On April 11 2013 08:31 Fruscainte wrote:


The police are very trained and constantly evaluated. When they get in one crash they severely punished and constantly have their driving habits monitored by dash cams.

There is a lot of oversight on them.

Random person on the street doesn't require such regulations. They "could" be trained, or they could be drunk. And if he had a car, I'd be scared.

---------------

If a police officer can take a course/tests that qualify them for carrying and owning a certain type of weapon, that means logically any citizen should as well without having to quit their job and put on a badge. If the people decide that that means we need to have yearly proficiency tests, by all means. However, in some reasonable way or another, if a police officer has the right to take a test and then walk the streets with a pistol by his side there is absolutely no logical reason that your average citizen should not also have the right to take a similar test and get that same right.

On April 11 2013 08:35 Thieving Magpie wrote:


I also trust police cars on the road more so than random drivers on the road. because I know they *should* have oversight.

I trust people less, because I'm not certain they have oversight. I don't think it means we need to ban cars--but it's not accurate to say that we can't trust cops more than we can trust a random guy on the street.

If a police officer can take a course/tests that qualify them for carrying and owning a certain type of weapon, that means logically any citizen should as well without having to quit their job and put on a badge. If the people decide that that means we need to have yearly proficiency tests, by all means. However, in some reasonable way or another, if a police officer has the right to take a test and then walk the streets with a pistol by his side there is absolutely no logical reason that your average citizen should not also have the right to take a similar test and get that same right.

And let me make this clear -- I personally hold the belief carrying a weapon while being over the legal drinking limit should be a major crime. Like, go to jail and a fine the first time and a felony the second time. I honestly think it's that big of a deal. I don't disagree with you at all that intoxication is a major issue with firearm safety.

On April 11 2013 08:39 Fruscainte wrote:


And yet here you are, not petitioning for the banning of cars on the street.



I don't think it's accurate to say we should trust cops more than we trust a random guy on the street. In fact, if anything, I trust someone with that kind of authority even less. But again, it has NOTHING to do with trust. It's this fucking simple: Cops are just the same as you and me. They masturbate, they got in arguments with their parents, they have fetishes, some are fucked up, some are great people, some are average, some are white, some are black, some are introverted and some are extroverted.

They are HUMANS, just like us. And if those HUMANS can take a test that makes them morally and logically qualified to carry and own a certain type of weapon, then any citizen should also have the ability to take a similar test of intelligence, mental stability, and weapon proficiency to have that same right without having to quit their job and become a police officer.

On April 11 2013 08:43 Rhino85 wrote:


I just took the concealed handgun license class/test in Texas. The legal limit to drink and carry your firearm in public is 0.00 where as the driving legal limit is .08

Texas has a very strict no drinking while packing heat policy.

On April 11 2013 08:44 Thieving Magpie wrote:


If every citizen was required to have a psych evaluation everytime they fired their gun in public then I'd be okay with that too. Especially if them getting their gun back was decided by the results of the evaluation and not simply going through the evaluation.

If they were required to have to practice regularly and to have the necessary paperwork in public record so as to keep track of them. Yeah, I'd trust the random guys in the street.

I guess I feel that police officers have more tests than non-officers.

I don't want anything banned, but there's a reason we trust cops with guns and its not because they're humans.