|
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. |
From the very start of your post you go though the steps to take away peoples guns within a decade.
I posited two completely different scenarios. The first one included a severe restriction on firearm purchases, mass confiscations (like Australia did it), and severe law enforcement operations to get guns from criminals. This scenario merely shows that, if enacted through law, it isn't impossible to get guns out of the country, so the line of reasoning that says, "You'll never reduce gun numbers" is ridiculous and useless.
The second scenario is what the vast majority of the population actually wants. It has nothing to do with the first scenario. Do you pay attention in class at all? Do you not understand how a simple debate works? Or do you spend too much time yelling at the top of your lungs at people you don't agree with?
I presented two scenarios. Scenario A to make point X. Scenario B to make point Y. They have very little to do with each other.
Just because you say something with italics, underlined, and bolded doesn't make it any less of a lie if you tell it to yourself or other people.
If you're really trying to compare guns with cars you have no reason to be in this debate at all. Background checks in itself doesn't contribute to confiscating guns. But because you are too partisan to understand how background checks work, pointing to your 90% statistic and assuming the intellectual high ground, you utterly ignore that its not the background checks themselves but the system that the background checks use. You utterly miss the point that there is no way to make an effective background check system without it being an ad hoc gun registry.
For fucks sake don't make fucking strawmans in the same breath as chastizeing the other side for making strawmans. Do you even read your own posts as you are making them?
How is it a lie?
Oh, right, it isn't. You just don't like it so you come in here yelling like a 10-year-old like you do all across this website.
"Background checks don't contribute to confiscation by themselves" That is exactly my point.
Again, how does a gun registry set a legal precedent that allows Congress to enact a law taking away our guns? Unless the NRA (the most powerful lobbying group in the country) is squashed and unless the second amendment suddenly disappears, there is no legal precedent for the government just taking away our guns. This would require completely new legislation (and, most likely, a constitutional amendment to weaken the 2nd amendment), both of which can be fought separately. Even if there was a legal precedent for widespread gun confiscation in the first place, a gun registry to assist in stopping criminals from getting guns does not, in any way, contribute to this precedent. Just pointing to confiscation examples throughout history that have no real bearing on what we're talking about doesn't help your case, and neither does dodging points and calling them bad just because you can't actually address them.
I could say the same things about you being hyper-partisan and needing to read what you are writing, but you are acting like a child at this point, so I'm just going to give up.
|
On May 11 2013 00:46 Kimaker wrote:Show nested quote +On May 10 2013 12:29 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 10 2013 12:01 Millitron wrote:On May 10 2013 11:47 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 10 2013 11:39 Millitron wrote:On May 10 2013 11:29 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 10 2013 11:24 Millitron wrote:On May 10 2013 11:18 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 10 2013 10:55 Millitron wrote:On May 10 2013 10:46 FallDownMarigold wrote:[quote] Are you saying that for every potential gun death avoided via more responsible gun control, there will necessarily be another death created by other means as a direct result? I'd like to see the source for this, thanks  [quote] You have got to be joking. You need freedom of speech and access to due process of the law in order to maintain your civil rights. How on Earth do you compare these needs with the need to own an automatic firearm? Absurd! I don't need freedom of speech, I won't die without it. I'll be pretty pissed off, but I won't die. Need shouldn't matter when it comes to what someone can and cannot own. You don't NEED your car. You don't NEED your house. But we live in a free society and a major part of a free society is property rights. The onus is on you to prove why I can't have an automatic weapon.
Referencing isolated incidents is meaningless unfortunately. The issue is the overall numbers, not specific incidents which may be used to paint any number of pictures based on which incident is selected.
The right to bear arms is a civil right. Hah! I KNEW you were going to pounce on that. That's why I tried to be careful to include AUTOMATIC arms, which are not part of the second amendment. That part is up for debate.
If isolated incidents don't matter, why don't all gun-control proponents stop bringing up Newtown and Aurora? You can't have it both ways. You don't get to say that isolated incidents on my side don't matter, while yours do. Militias were meant to stand up to militaries, ergo any weapon the military uses is protected. Note this doesn't cover nukes or anthrax or whatever because no military actually uses these things. They have them, but don't use them. Well... If we want to get technical... 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 The militia is what is needed for the protection of the state, not the arms. Hence, having your logic of "any weapon the military uses is protected" does not fall in line with a strict reading of the amendment. Now you could say that we shouldn't be so strict with the amendment and do what Scalia did wherein he ignores militia, ignores regulated, and place the emphasis on Infringe thereby allowing Heller to have as much ammo in his guns as he'd like in the 2008 case--but that is not a strict reading of the amendment but is instead a recent interpretation of it. Just to keep things in perspective. A Militia without modern weapons can't do much protecting now can it? Further, in 1787, the English language was quite a bit different than it is now. "Well-regulated" meant well-trained and equipped; it didn't have anything to do with government regulations. That was up for contention in the beginning--mostly they realized that they couldn't figure out how much government support was allowed in regulating and specifically arming people. At some point they pretended militia didn't exist, and then they eventually thought self defense was the thing, then back to tyrrany, now its back to self defense. It really matters who the supreme court justices are and what is happening in the country at the time. At first Well Regulated meant that the government was providing the arms. That was eventually dropped. @Gold Yeah, my bad, I was just mildly annoyed at people saying doctors are not legitimate sources of research. The government never, to my knowledge, armed the militias. Certainly not at first anyways, considering the militias existed BEFORE the government. The Continental Army was practically entirely privately armed. Almost every soldier brought his own musket, and any that had to be replaced were bought privately by one of the founding father's. Washington spent a great deal of his own money buying muskets and powder. They actually got gun supplies from the french and (germany??) specifically newer musket designs that were easier to reload. So yes, they actually did pass around "government" for the same reason that Washington had to spend his money on weapons, and then became the President who still owned those weapons he had passed around to his men. And not "every guy" brought his gun because families were both larger back then and only had a few guns at most--and one had to be left behind just so people could still hunt. Then there's the loyalist who were supporting the British having their guns revoked etc... Anyway--yes, they did have to figure things out. Which is why they made the mistake of having such a vague amendment. What happens if a family doesn't have a gun--should they still be regulated? What if they don't want to be in the militia--are they not allowed to be armed? Etc... The revolution didn't get foreign support until after the Battle of Saratoga. I'd say everyone able to be in the militia should be allowed to have guns, in the hopes that they would choose to, and so would need less training should they need to take action. Given the positions put forth in the Federalist papers, I'd say this is in line with what the drafter's meant. Well, what the drafters "meant" is weird because everyone did have a gun. It wasn't until we started having people who didn't need guns and hence didn't have them (or were too poor, etc...) that it started becoming a thing to care about the nitty gritty of gun control. In the world where everyone in essence had guns, they kind of just wrote it saying we can't take guns away. Arguments started happening when we got more civilized and there discrepancies on who had guns and who didn't have guns and how to handle that power dynamic without stepping on the amendment. The drafters were smart--but they weren't psychics. They wrote what culturally made sense at the time and adapted as they went. That is perhaps the most pretentious and ill-informed Progressive Teleology I've ever heard anyone spout. Ever. Do you honestly believe they just flippantly included the 2nd amendment because, "Well hell, everyone has one, why the fuck not?" Really? These were some of the most educated and liberal minded men of the time. The eyes of the entire world were upon them, judging their every move, and here they were trying to create a nation out of thin air, and they just picked the Right to keep and bear arms as the second enumerated part of the Bill of Rights, "Cause fuck it. Logistics man." That perfectly explains the numerous justifications for the 2nd amendment in their personal correspondences, and journals, and in published articles. It was all logistics. As for the "more civilized" bit...if you believe that statement you know nothing of history. In a relative descriptive sense, you're correct. One person can act more civil than another. In a societal sense? Bull.
Fine, would you prefer I say "as we got less civilized?" will that make you feel better?
They ousted monarchal rule because they had guns and hence stuck with that mindset when it came to philosophical debates on law and rights. They did not put together the 2nd amendment to justify owning nukes and full auto because it was obviously not yet invented yet. Their arguments were on the how much and how little government influence should be put upon the militia. They didn't care about magazine sizes since they had no magazines. They didn't care about ammunition laws--since people made their own ammunition. There was no wallmart to buy hundreds of rounds. They didn't have a world where 1 person could own 150 guns and a several thousand rounds as a personal stash. The logistics were not the same.
And as we progressed as a society, less and less people had guns because we no longer needed to fucking hunt deer for food. When you live in a city working in a factory and you have a choice of saving up money for a gun or saving up money for something else--getting guns stopped being a big priority. Not because we somehow became better and more peaceful but because it became less and less of a necessity.
Stop hating history.
|
On May 11 2013 00:21 FallDownMarigold wrote:Show nested quote +On May 10 2013 23:31 xDaunt wrote:On May 10 2013 18:11 wei2coolman wrote:On May 10 2013 18:08 norjoncal wrote:On May 10 2013 17:57 wei2coolman wrote:
Converting semi auto versions to full auto versions, is not any harder than 3d printing a gun and putting it together. The whole point of my original post was to point out how fast gov't was to take down the info to make a shitty gun on an overly expensive equipment that almost no one owns. But take no steps in stopping the actual spread of guns, which is the ability for a person to buy a piece(handgun) for a couple hundred dollars, and some rounds for some quarters. If you can find rounds for a quarters right now please let me know where. Some rounds for some quarterS. http://mobile.walmart.com/m/phoenix;jsessionid=38F2BBEAEBB4508C832DF99212665F52#ip/Federal-Champion-9mm-Full-Metal-Jacket-Rounds/17617401Do you guys even google? 50 rounds for 11bucks something, do the math. Keep in mind that those are just target rounds. They aren't what you want in your gun when you need to shoot someone. EDIT: In other words, that's why they're cheaper. Getting a good defense round will cost at least 2-3 times as much. Lol, is it really a concern that "defense rounds" (people killing rounds) are expensive? If you're at the range where you are using your gun the vast majority of the time, if not all the time, then you're using "target rounds", or you should be. And to sort of imply that shooting a person with a target round will not result in a fatality if hit in a vital area is silly. All rounds fired from real guns are potentially lethal -- even rubber bullets if they connect with the right spots! Cheap 9mm rounds are potentially lethal just like other 9mm rounds, and besides, you're using those rounds at the range and keeping a low supply of the more expensive "better rounds" for you home defense needs if you're doing it right. A quick Google search turns up many explanations of FMJ 9mm use and lethality. 2 in the chest and 1 through the head, and the guy is not going to know the difference between FMJ and hollow point. + Show Spoiler +Skip to 1:05 "Being a 9mm, some people might say, well, it's only a 9mm, it won't do anything. But, when I put two rounds through your heart and one through your head, you won't know the difference. And neither will the enemy." And before someone pounces on hunting needing stronger rounds too: Hunting is another story and does not concern the various 9mm rounds raised in this post string
Well no shit. Perfectly placed FMJ rounds will drop anyone. You're totally missing the point. When you have to shoot someone, you want hollow point rounds, because each shot that you hit is more likely to drop someone. The stopping power is important. Also, a lot of people do train with defense rounds because they have a different feel from training rounds. This is especially the case with 9 mm defense rounds where a lot of people opt for +p loads.
|
On May 11 2013 00:49 FallDownMarigold wrote:Comparing in a subjective way car death and injury with gun death and injury is perfectly valid, no matter how many times you get angry and scream that it's not. http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMsb1302631
"Manufacturers can reduce gun accidents if they stop making guns that can go off when dropped."
WTF. Most guns DON'T go off when dropped. It's people trying to catch the gun and accidentally pulling the trigger that causes most "drops" to result in an accidental discharge.
"More effective policing may have been one reason for reductions in gun crimes over the past two decades."
And maybe it was El Nino.
"As the norm about the propriety of social drinking and driving has changed over time, so should norms about guns."
False equivalency. Is alcohol a legitimately analogous point of comparison, or isn't it? If public health is the primary concern here (not some sort of social engineering) then would you not target the comparable culprit of alcohol? It kills more people, AND it's already being more heavily regulated than guns. Now, there's a real social woe. (mind you, I don't think "public health" is a legitimate argument for anything.)
Whole articles assumes:
Safety=Better society.
I say:
Voluntary Society=Better Society
And you can't volunteer for other people.
On May 11 2013 01:01 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On May 11 2013 00:46 Kimaker wrote:On May 10 2013 12:29 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 10 2013 12:01 Millitron wrote:On May 10 2013 11:47 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 10 2013 11:39 Millitron wrote:On May 10 2013 11:29 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 10 2013 11:24 Millitron wrote:On May 10 2013 11:18 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 10 2013 10:55 Millitron wrote:
[quote]
I don't need freedom of speech, I won't die without it. I'll be pretty pissed off, but I won't die. Need shouldn't matter when it comes to what someone can and cannot own. You don't NEED your car. You don't NEED your house. But we live in a free society and a major part of a free society is property rights. The onus is on you to prove why I can't have an automatic weapon.
[quote]
If isolated incidents don't matter, why don't all gun-control proponents stop bringing up Newtown and Aurora? You can't have it both ways. You don't get to say that isolated incidents on my side don't matter, while yours do.
Militias were meant to stand up to militaries, ergo any weapon the military uses is protected. Note this doesn't cover nukes or anthrax or whatever because no military actually uses these things. They have them, but don't use them. Well... If we want to get technical... 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 The militia is what is needed for the protection of the state, not the arms. Hence, having your logic of "any weapon the military uses is protected" does not fall in line with a strict reading of the amendment. Now you could say that we shouldn't be so strict with the amendment and do what Scalia did wherein he ignores militia, ignores regulated, and place the emphasis on Infringe thereby allowing Heller to have as much ammo in his guns as he'd like in the 2008 case--but that is not a strict reading of the amendment but is instead a recent interpretation of it. Just to keep things in perspective. A Militia without modern weapons can't do much protecting now can it? Further, in 1787, the English language was quite a bit different than it is now. "Well-regulated" meant well-trained and equipped; it didn't have anything to do with government regulations. That was up for contention in the beginning--mostly they realized that they couldn't figure out how much government support was allowed in regulating and specifically arming people. At some point they pretended militia didn't exist, and then they eventually thought self defense was the thing, then back to tyrrany, now its back to self defense. It really matters who the supreme court justices are and what is happening in the country at the time. At first Well Regulated meant that the government was providing the arms. That was eventually dropped. @Gold Yeah, my bad, I was just mildly annoyed at people saying doctors are not legitimate sources of research. The government never, to my knowledge, armed the militias. Certainly not at first anyways, considering the militias existed BEFORE the government. The Continental Army was practically entirely privately armed. Almost every soldier brought his own musket, and any that had to be replaced were bought privately by one of the founding father's. Washington spent a great deal of his own money buying muskets and powder. They actually got gun supplies from the french and (germany??) specifically newer musket designs that were easier to reload. So yes, they actually did pass around "government" for the same reason that Washington had to spend his money on weapons, and then became the President who still owned those weapons he had passed around to his men. And not "every guy" brought his gun because families were both larger back then and only had a few guns at most--and one had to be left behind just so people could still hunt. Then there's the loyalist who were supporting the British having their guns revoked etc... Anyway--yes, they did have to figure things out. Which is why they made the mistake of having such a vague amendment. What happens if a family doesn't have a gun--should they still be regulated? What if they don't want to be in the militia--are they not allowed to be armed? Etc... The revolution didn't get foreign support until after the Battle of Saratoga. I'd say everyone able to be in the militia should be allowed to have guns, in the hopes that they would choose to, and so would need less training should they need to take action. Given the positions put forth in the Federalist papers, I'd say this is in line with what the drafter's meant. Well, what the drafters "meant" is weird because everyone did have a gun. It wasn't until we started having people who didn't need guns and hence didn't have them (or were too poor, etc...) that it started becoming a thing to care about the nitty gritty of gun control. In the world where everyone in essence had guns, they kind of just wrote it saying we can't take guns away. Arguments started happening when we got more civilized and there discrepancies on who had guns and who didn't have guns and how to handle that power dynamic without stepping on the amendment. The drafters were smart--but they weren't psychics. They wrote what culturally made sense at the time and adapted as they went. That is perhaps the most pretentious and ill-informed Progressive Teleology I've ever heard anyone spout. Ever. Do you honestly believe they just flippantly included the 2nd amendment because, "Well hell, everyone has one, why the fuck not?" Really? These were some of the most educated and liberal minded men of the time. The eyes of the entire world were upon them, judging their every move, and here they were trying to create a nation out of thin air, and they just picked the Right to keep and bear arms as the second enumerated part of the Bill of Rights, "Cause fuck it. Logistics man." That perfectly explains the numerous justifications for the 2nd amendment in their personal correspondences, and journals, and in published articles. It was all logistics. As for the "more civilized" bit...if you believe that statement you know nothing of history. In a relative descriptive sense, you're correct. One person can act more civil than another. In a societal sense? Bull. Fine, would you prefer I say "as we got less civilized?" will that make you feel better? They ousted monarchal rule because they had guns and hence stuck with that mindset when it came to philosophical debates on law and rights. They did not put together the 2nd amendment to justify owning nukes and full auto because it was obviously not yet invented yet. Their arguments were on the how much and how little government influence should be put upon the militia. They didn't care about magazine sizes since they had no magazines. They didn't care about ammunition laws--since people made their own ammunition. There was no wallmart to buy hundreds of rounds. They didn't have a world where 1 person could own 150 guns and a several thousand rounds as a personal stash. The logistics were not the same. And as we progressed as a society, less and less people had guns because we no longer needed to fucking hunt deer for food. When you live in a city working in a factory and you have a choice of saving up money for a gun or saving up money for something else--getting guns stopped being a big priority. Not because we somehow became better and more peaceful but because it became less and less of a necessity. Stop hating history.
You totally missed the point of my logistics arguments. I was saying that your claim that (and I'm paraphrasing), "Everyone had guns, so they just decided to arbitrarily include the guarantee for something people already had in droves in the founding legal document of the nation." is chalking their decision up to, "It was logistically impossible to restrict firearms, so they didn't do it."
But onto the part where you're wrong...
You are tacitly admitting "Need" is the criteria for allowance. That's a Marxist ideology, and one that has proven to fail in practice. Who decides what a need is? Do we all need the same thing? Are all needs equal? What if two needs are at odds with one another?
Absolute shit way to determine what is allowed and what isn't.
And I'm not sure where I was "hating history". Could you point it out for me? Because you seem concerned with it, I'll rescind my hate proactively if that will help you feel better about my feelings on history. I didn't mean it! History, I'm sorry!
|
On May 11 2013 00:52 Stratos_speAr wrote:Show nested quote +
From the very start of your post you go though the steps to take away peoples guns within a decade.
I posited two completely different scenarios. The first one included a severe restriction on firearm purchases, mass confiscations (like Australia did it), and severe law enforcement operations to get guns from criminals. This scenario merely shows that, if enacted through law, it isn't impossible to get guns out of the country, so the line of reasoning that says, "You'll never reduce gun numbers" is ridiculous and useless. The second scenario is what the vast majority of the population actually wants. It has nothing to do with the first scenario. Do you pay attention in class at all? Do you not understand how a simple debate works? Or do you spend too much time yelling at the top of your lungs at people you don't agree with? I presented two scenarios. Scenario A to make point X. Scenario B to make point Y. They have very little to do with each other. Show nested quote +
Just because you say something with italics, underlined, and bolded doesn't make it any less of a lie if you tell it to yourself or other people.
If you're really trying to compare guns with cars you have no reason to be in this debate at all. Background checks in itself doesn't contribute to confiscating guns. But because you are too partisan to understand how background checks work, pointing to your 90% statistic and assuming the intellectual high ground, you utterly ignore that its not the background checks themselves but the system that the background checks use. You utterly miss the point that there is no way to make an effective background check system without it being an ad hoc gun registry.
For fucks sake don't make fucking strawmans in the same breath as chastizeing the other side for making strawmans. Do you even read your own posts as you are making them?
How is it a lie? Oh, right, it isn't. You just don't like it so you come in here yelling like a 10-year-old like you do all across this website. "Background checks don't contribute to confiscation by themselves" That is exactly my point. Again, how does a gun registry set a legal precedent that allows Congress to enact a law taking away our guns? Unless the NRA (the most powerful lobbying group in the country) is squashed and unless the second amendment suddenly disappears, there is no legal precedent for the government just taking away our guns. This would require completely new legislation (and, most likely, a constitutional amendment to weaken the 2nd amendment), both of which can be fought separately. Even if there was a legal precedent for widespread gun confiscation in the first place, a gun registry to assist in stopping criminals from getting guns does not, in any way, contribute to this precedent. Just pointing to confiscation examples throughout history that have no real bearing on what we're talking about doesn't help your case, and neither does dodging points and calling them bad just because you can't actually address them. I could say the same things about you being hyper-partisan and needing to read what you are writing, but you are acting like a child at this point, so I'm just going to give up.
They're not afraid of Registries in and of themselves. They're afraid of the fact that when other first world countries made registries they then passed (separate) laws to confiscate guns and used the registries to find the guns. If you live in a world where you feel a ban is coming, the last thing you want is a map to your stash.
|
On May 11 2013 00:52 Stratos_speAr wrote:Show nested quote +
From the very start of your post you go though the steps to take away peoples guns within a decade.
I posited two completely different scenarios. The first one included a severe restriction on firearm purchases, mass confiscations (like Australia did it), and severe law enforcement operations to get guns from criminals. This scenario merely shows that, if enacted through law, it isn't impossible to get guns out of the country, so the line of reasoning that says, "You'll never reduce gun numbers" is ridiculous and useless. The second scenario is what the vast majority of the population actually wants. It has nothing to do with the first scenario. Do you pay attention in class at all? Do you not understand how a simple debate works? Or do you spend too much time yelling at the top of your lungs at people you don't agree with? I presented two scenarios. Scenario A to make point X. Scenario B to make point Y. They have very little to do with each other. Show nested quote +
Just because you say something with italics, underlined, and bolded doesn't make it any less of a lie if you tell it to yourself or other people.
If you're really trying to compare guns with cars you have no reason to be in this debate at all. Background checks in itself doesn't contribute to confiscating guns. But because you are too partisan to understand how background checks work, pointing to your 90% statistic and assuming the intellectual high ground, you utterly ignore that its not the background checks themselves but the system that the background checks use. You utterly miss the point that there is no way to make an effective background check system without it being an ad hoc gun registry.
For fucks sake don't make fucking strawmans in the same breath as chastizeing the other side for making strawmans. Do you even read your own posts as you are making them?
How is it a lie? Oh, right, it isn't. You just don't like it so you come in here yelling like a 10-year-old like you do all across this website. "Background checks don't contribute to confiscation by themselves" That is exactly my point. Again, how does a gun registry set a legal precedent that allows Congress to enact a law taking away our guns? Unless the NRA (the most powerful lobbying group in the country) is squashed and unless the second amendment suddenly disappears, there is no legal precedent for the government just taking away our guns. This would require completely new legislation (and, most likely, a constitutional amendment to weaken the 2nd amendment), both of which can be fought separately. Even if there was a legal precedent for widespread gun confiscation in the first place, a gun registry to assist in stopping criminals from getting guns does not, in any way, contribute to this precedent. Just pointing to confiscation examples throughout history that have no real bearing on what we're talking about doesn't help your case, and neither does dodging points and calling them bad just because you can't actually address them. I could say the same things about you being hyper-partisan and needing to read what you are writing, but you are acting like a child at this point, so I'm just going to give up.
Mass confiscations after a national gun registry in australia. At least have your history right. Also get the history right where they've had a huge jump in violent crime and home invasions. I bet you're also the type of guy who says that stop and frisk is unconstitutional, yet you want cops to do something else unconstitutional to get guns away from "bad guys"?
You have no reasoning and you have no logic at all. Its a flat lie that your trying to twist around to support your side when reality doesn't. Neither of your senerios have any bearing in reality and its disgusting that your insisting on useing them.
You completely miss the point of my entire post. You can't fucking have background checks without a background check system. that is what throws out your "90% want this herp derp". The fact that you can't understand this simple fact shows how much of a child you really are.
Lets break down how insane the rest of your post is. Your hypothizeing about a law that you want congress to pass, ignore whats happened when it pass's in other countries (literaly hitler), ignore the gun confiscation thats already legal and is happening in california, ignore that criminals don't follow the law, all to insist that making one law doesn't make a legal president to another law. You are literally saying that your fantasy future law will not create any legal precedent to create more laws that already exist. Thats fucking insane bro. The fact that you need to use all the above to justify your position shows how weak it is. Glad you are giveing up when you know you lost.
|
Mass confiscations after a national gun registry in australia. At least have your history right. Also get the history right where they've had a huge jump in violent crime and home invasions. I bet you're also the type of guy who says that stop and frisk is unconstitutional, yet you want cops to do something else unconstitutional to get guns away from "bad guys"?
What is unconstitutional about background checks? Seriously, go through the actual logic here. Don't just say "it's unconstitutional". Show me how it is actually unconstitutional to regulate (NOT BAN) who can get an incredibly deadly weapon.
Huge spike in violent crimes in Australia? http://www.aic.gov.au/statistics/violent crime.html
You have no reasoning and you have no logic at all. Its a flat lie that your trying to twist around to support your side when reality doesn't. Neither of your senerios have any bearing in reality and its disgusting that your insisting on useing them.
I have repeatedly offered up logic to back up my points. You just refuse to actually address them and keep saying that I'm lying, or that I have no logic.
You completely miss the point of my entire post. You can't fucking have background checks without a background check system. that is what throws out your "90% want this herp derp". The fact that you can't understand this simple fact shows how much of a child you really are.
I haven't mentioned 90% once. Also, I never said background checks don't need a registry. Again, you are making up points to argue against.
Lets break down how insane the rest of your post is. Your hypothizeing about a law that you want congress to pass, ignore whats happened when it pass's in other countries (literaly hitler), ignore the gun confiscation thats already legal and is happening in california, ignore that criminals don't follow the law, all to insist that making one law doesn't make a legal president to another law. You are literally saying that your fantasy future law will not create any legal precedent to create more laws that already exist. Thats fucking insane bro. The fact that you need to use all the above to justify your position shows how weak it is. Glad you are giveing up when you know you lost.
The burden of proof is on you. Show me how Norway and Australia's gun registry laws set a legal precedent for guns to be confiscated. Furthermore, show me how they had laws like ours protecting gun ownership in the first place, and how gun registries eroded those protections. Once you do that, then those countries can be a valid example of "registry -> gun confiscation". Until then, no dice.
Oh, and please, don't go with the Hitler line. It makes you sound ridiculous.
"Criminals don't follow the law". Ridiculous line of reasoning. So we should just legalize cocaine and meth because not everyone follows the law? We should legalize theft, murder, rape, just because not everyone follows the law?
Gun confiscation in California? http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/04/19/california-gun-confiscation-bill_n_3117238.html
You mean the confiscation of illegally owned guns? Helps your point a ton, "bro".
And I am saying the bold part, because I have been repeatedly asking you to show me otherwise, which you have yet to do.
Keep 'em coming, because you're only making a fool out of yourself.
|
On May 10 2013 23:14 Stratos_speAr wrote:Show nested quote +On May 10 2013 15:26 LuckyFool wrote:
Is a gun ban to improve the suicide rate even the right way to try and improve the suicide rate.
I view gun bans like sweeping dust under the rug- it might make things look better but you haven't really resolved the root cause of the issues. There's hundreds of millions of firearms floating around in this country, banning them won't make them all go away. Bad guys and guys who really want them will still find ways. Drugs are illegal in most states and a hell of alot of users carry on. I don't view guns much different, and unlike a random crackhead who illegally pots it up next door, now there's a criminal next door who could be a threat because the only real way to defend myself from him is illegal.
Suicide rates by guns would go down, mass shootings would probably go down, but can anyone really predict what new problems could arise if guns were banned and if we would actually be any better off really. 3 mass shootings a year avoided at the cost of 3,000 additional home invasions per year? Who knows.
I have pretty libertarian views on gun control in general. The reason gun control is such a hot topic is it's one of the few tangible things a citizen has a right to that they can use to defend themselves against even unthinkable things like an oppressive government. It might not happen in our lifetimes or even in 3 or 4 generations from now but I feel that removing guns is the first step down a path of a potential monopoly where only one side has all the power, that has rarely done good things in the past and throughout history. Today we could be banning assault rifles, tomorrow it's all the rest of the firearms and who knows where it stops from there...Guns are different than most other things for those reasons I think and which is why people care about this so much.
It's really quite a heavy decision that lots of people don't really think through fully I feel. We can't even know exactly what it would do, either in the short term or the long. Or if it would really even help. Take Chicago for example, one of the harder areas of the country to buy a gun and yet their gun crime is among the highest in the nation. First off, guns don't have an infinitely long street life; introduce strict gun bans, confiscate guns, etc. and you can severely reduce the number of guns in the country within a decade. That said, only the most hardcore liberals want guns banned. It would be perfectly acceptable to simply have some common-sense regulation on guns like we have on cars and alcohol. Things like background checks and a gun registry so you can trace guns used in a crime. Make people more responsible if their guns are used in a crime. Force people to actually take firearms safety courses if they intend to buy a gun. Things like this. It would have no effect on law-abiding citizens, as they could still get a gun if they wanted to, it would just be slightly less convenient. Yet, that's the sad part; groups like the NRA don't like these measures because, apparently, their convenience is more important than others' lives. And don't bring up that nonsense about privacy in background checks or confiscation of guns. I have had a background check done on me for all kinds of jobs, so you can deal with it if you want to own an incredibly deadly tool, and a worry about mass confiscation is simply fear-mongering and has nothing to do with an actual gun registry that could track firearms to their owner or point of purchase.
You really need to stop using words like 'common-sense' and assuming your opinion is exactly that. Also, do you realize the irony of saying "only the most hardcore liberals want guns banned" and then continue to talk about "groups like the NRA"?
Also, the fear-mongering goes both ways like it or not.
The burden of proof is on you. Show me how Norway and Australia's gun registry laws set a legal precedent for guns to be confiscated. Furthermore, show me how they had laws like ours protecting gun ownership in the first place, and how gun registries eroded those protections. Once you do that, then those countries can be a valid example of "registry -> gun confiscation". Until then, no dice.
Wrong.
"When debating any issue, there is an implicit burden of proof on the person asserting a claim. If this responsibility or burden of proof is shifted to a critic, the fallacy of appealing to ignorance is committed".
Source:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_burden_of_proof
You claim we need more gun regulation. Burden of proof is stuck on you buddy.
Oh, and please, don't go with the Hitler line. It makes you sound ridiculous.
Godwin's law
"Criminals don't follow the law". Ridiculous line of reasoning. So we should just legalize cocaine and meth because not everyone follows the law? We should legalize theft, murder, rape, just because not everyone follows the law?
False analogy. You are comparing a weapon to an act of crime.
You sure showed him.
|
@kmillz
He's comparing illegal activities that criminals do despite being illegal. Meth and Cocaine are both illegal and just because people still snort it doesn't mean that it should be made legal. Which is the same argument for everthing else that is illegal.
Its a bad argument to say that "criminals will do it anyway" because is true for all laws--if no one does something then we don't need a law telling them to stop doing it.
|
On May 11 2013 02:09 Thieving Magpie wrote:
@kmillz
He's comparing illegal activities that criminals do despite being illegal. Meth and Cocaine are both illegal and just because people still snort it doesn't mean that it should be made legal. Which is the same argument for everthing else that is illegal.
Its a bad argument to say that "criminals will do it anyway" because is true for all laws--if no one does something then we don't need a law telling them to stop doing it.
Owning a gun isn't a crime. (for the record I disagree with our drug laws)
I was addressing the legalizing rape, murder, theft part anyway.
|
You really need to stop using words like 'common-sense' and assuming your opinion is exactly that. Also, do you realize the irony of saying "only the most hardcore liberals want guns banned" and then continue to talk about "groups like the NRA"?
Also, the fear-mongering goes both ways like it or not.
The NRA is a fringe ideology but an incredibly mainstream influence. The stance of banning guns has no equivalent.
It's also "common sense" because we have similar restrictions on other items that are less dangerous. It is literally easier for me to buy a gun in Minnesota than it is to get my hands on alcohol or to get a prescription drug or to get a car, and most states are in a similar situation.
Wrong. When debating any issue, there is an implicit burden of proof on the person asserting a claim. "If this responsibility or burden of proof is shifted to a critic, the fallacy of appealing to ignorance is committed".
You claim we need more gun regulation. Burden of proof is stuck on you buddy.
I made the claim that a gun registry doesn't set a legal precedent to start mass gun confiscation. Norway and Australia were then brought up as counter-examples. The burden of proof is on the person to actually show how these examples are counter-examples. So no, it isn't on me to show how these examples are not counter-examples when I didn't bring them up.
Godwin's law
Doesn't make it any better.
False analogy. You are comparing a weapon to an act of crime.
Sure, but you didn't address the drug part of the analogy.
|
On May 11 2013 02:10 kmillz wrote:Show nested quote +On May 11 2013 02:09 Thieving Magpie wrote:
@kmillz
He's comparing illegal activities that criminals do despite being illegal. Meth and Cocaine are both illegal and just because people still snort it doesn't mean that it should be made legal. Which is the same argument for everthing else that is illegal.
Its a bad argument to say that "criminals will do it anyway" because is true for all laws--if no one does something then we don't need a law telling them to stop doing it. Owning a gun isn't a crime. (for the record I disagree with our drug laws anyway)
I didn't say it was a crime.
I'm saying that we can't use the argument of "criminals will break the law anyway so why bother with such and such law" because that is true for all laws.
Much like we can't say "Let's make guns illegal, because why not?"
Some people believe the US will be a better place without guns. (I'm one of those people)
Some people believe that the government have no rights to our property without sufficient proof (I am also one of those people)
Depending on which person you are will determine your stance on guns.
|
I don't think anyone in America has an issue with registering their car with the dmv under the premise that gov't is going to take their vehicles away. Just saying...
|
Yes. But only as long as you pass both strict background/mentality checks. And even then you should only be eligible to a handgun. Being able to buy an AR-15 in USA is just ridiculous.
|
On May 11 2013 02:53 w1nter wrote:
Yes. But only as long as you pass both strict background/mentality checks. And even then you should only be eligible to a handgun. Being able to buy an AR-15 in USA is just ridiculous.
Why is it ridiculous? It's not like holding one will overwhelm you with the need to shoot someone.
|
On May 11 2013 03:03 Zergneedsfood wrote:Show nested quote +On May 11 2013 02:53 w1nter wrote:
Yes. But only as long as you pass both strict background/mentality checks. And even then you should only be eligible to a handgun. Being able to buy an AR-15 in USA is just ridiculous. Why is it ridiculous? It's not like holding one will overwhelm you with the need to shoot someone.
the worry is the reverse of that.
If you had the overwhelming need to shoot someone--you can just buy an AR-15 and do it. The worry is that people who enjoy products like these http://workthatmatters.blogspot.ca/2013/05/shooting-game-company-literally-makes.html?spref=fb are the same people who love buying guns.
|
On May 11 2013 01:01 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On May 11 2013 00:46 Kimaker wrote:On May 10 2013 12:29 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 10 2013 12:01 Millitron wrote:On May 10 2013 11:47 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 10 2013 11:39 Millitron wrote:On May 10 2013 11:29 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 10 2013 11:24 Millitron wrote:On May 10 2013 11:18 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 10 2013 10:55 Millitron wrote:
[quote]
I don't need freedom of speech, I won't die without it. I'll be pretty pissed off, but I won't die. Need shouldn't matter when it comes to what someone can and cannot own. You don't NEED your car. You don't NEED your house. But we live in a free society and a major part of a free society is property rights. The onus is on you to prove why I can't have an automatic weapon.
[quote]
If isolated incidents don't matter, why don't all gun-control proponents stop bringing up Newtown and Aurora? You can't have it both ways. You don't get to say that isolated incidents on my side don't matter, while yours do.
Militias were meant to stand up to militaries, ergo any weapon the military uses is protected. Note this doesn't cover nukes or anthrax or whatever because no military actually uses these things. They have them, but don't use them. Well... If we want to get technical... 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 The militia is what is needed for the protection of the state, not the arms. Hence, having your logic of "any weapon the military uses is protected" does not fall in line with a strict reading of the amendment. Now you could say that we shouldn't be so strict with the amendment and do what Scalia did wherein he ignores militia, ignores regulated, and place the emphasis on Infringe thereby allowing Heller to have as much ammo in his guns as he'd like in the 2008 case--but that is not a strict reading of the amendment but is instead a recent interpretation of it. Just to keep things in perspective. A Militia without modern weapons can't do much protecting now can it? Further, in 1787, the English language was quite a bit different than it is now. "Well-regulated" meant well-trained and equipped; it didn't have anything to do with government regulations. That was up for contention in the beginning--mostly they realized that they couldn't figure out how much government support was allowed in regulating and specifically arming people. At some point they pretended militia didn't exist, and then they eventually thought self defense was the thing, then back to tyrrany, now its back to self defense. It really matters who the supreme court justices are and what is happening in the country at the time. At first Well Regulated meant that the government was providing the arms. That was eventually dropped. @Gold Yeah, my bad, I was just mildly annoyed at people saying doctors are not legitimate sources of research. The government never, to my knowledge, armed the militias. Certainly not at first anyways, considering the militias existed BEFORE the government. The Continental Army was practically entirely privately armed. Almost every soldier brought his own musket, and any that had to be replaced were bought privately by one of the founding father's. Washington spent a great deal of his own money buying muskets and powder. They actually got gun supplies from the french and (germany??) specifically newer musket designs that were easier to reload. So yes, they actually did pass around "government" for the same reason that Washington had to spend his money on weapons, and then became the President who still owned those weapons he had passed around to his men. And not "every guy" brought his gun because families were both larger back then and only had a few guns at most--and one had to be left behind just so people could still hunt. Then there's the loyalist who were supporting the British having their guns revoked etc... Anyway--yes, they did have to figure things out. Which is why they made the mistake of having such a vague amendment. What happens if a family doesn't have a gun--should they still be regulated? What if they don't want to be in the militia--are they not allowed to be armed? Etc... The revolution didn't get foreign support until after the Battle of Saratoga. I'd say everyone able to be in the militia should be allowed to have guns, in the hopes that they would choose to, and so would need less training should they need to take action. Given the positions put forth in the Federalist papers, I'd say this is in line with what the drafter's meant. Well, what the drafters "meant" is weird because everyone did have a gun. It wasn't until we started having people who didn't need guns and hence didn't have them (or were too poor, etc...) that it started becoming a thing to care about the nitty gritty of gun control. In the world where everyone in essence had guns, they kind of just wrote it saying we can't take guns away. Arguments started happening when we got more civilized and there discrepancies on who had guns and who didn't have guns and how to handle that power dynamic without stepping on the amendment. The drafters were smart--but they weren't psychics. They wrote what culturally made sense at the time and adapted as they went. That is perhaps the most pretentious and ill-informed Progressive Teleology I've ever heard anyone spout. Ever. Do you honestly believe they just flippantly included the 2nd amendment because, "Well hell, everyone has one, why the fuck not?" Really? These were some of the most educated and liberal minded men of the time. The eyes of the entire world were upon them, judging their every move, and here they were trying to create a nation out of thin air, and they just picked the Right to keep and bear arms as the second enumerated part of the Bill of Rights, "Cause fuck it. Logistics man." That perfectly explains the numerous justifications for the 2nd amendment in their personal correspondences, and journals, and in published articles. It was all logistics. As for the "more civilized" bit...if you believe that statement you know nothing of history. In a relative descriptive sense, you're correct. One person can act more civil than another. In a societal sense? Bull. Fine, would you prefer I say "as we got less civilized?" will that make you feel better? They ousted monarchal rule because they had guns and hence stuck with that mindset when it came to philosophical debates on law and rights. They did not put together the 2nd amendment to justify owning nukes and full auto because it was obviously not yet invented yet. Their arguments were on the how much and how little government influence should be put upon the militia. They didn't care about magazine sizes since they had no magazines. They didn't care about ammunition laws--since people made their own ammunition. There was no wallmart to buy hundreds of rounds. They didn't have a world where 1 person could own 150 guns and a several thousand rounds as a personal stash. The logistics were not the same. And as we progressed as a society, less and less people had guns because we no longer needed to fucking hunt deer for food. When you live in a city working in a factory and you have a choice of saving up money for a gun or saving up money for something else--getting guns stopped being a big priority. Not because we somehow became better and more peaceful but because it became less and less of a necessity. Stop hating history.
The Second Amendment was to justify owning military equipment, because as I said before, the militia can't do much protecting if its stuck with muskets against tanks. Fully-automatic weapons are a part of that. Remember, the NFA admits that. It doesn't outright ban fully-automatic weapons, but it does essentially ban them by forcing big fees and mountains of paperwork.
People still make their own ammunition, and its not hard, look up reloading.
|
On May 11 2013 03:07 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On May 11 2013 03:03 Zergneedsfood wrote:On May 11 2013 02:53 w1nter wrote:
Yes. But only as long as you pass both strict background/mentality checks. And even then you should only be eligible to a handgun. Being able to buy an AR-15 in USA is just ridiculous. Why is it ridiculous? It's not like holding one will overwhelm you with the need to shoot someone. the worry is the reverse of that. If you had the overwhelming need to shoot someone--you can just buy an AR-15 and do it. The worry is that people who enjoy products like these http://workthatmatters.blogspot.ca/2013/05/shooting-game-company-literally-makes.html?spref=fb are the same people who love buying guns.
That's pretty disturbing. o_O
And while I think it's true that if you had the overwhelming need to shoot someone you can buy an automatic assault weapon and do it, the concern becomes if such a person wanted to kill someone anyway (as I wouldn't see many reasons why you'd want to shoot someone and want them to live), it seems quite easy for such a person to use any objects at their disposal for nefarious purposes.
I think the main concern I have is that these weapons are enablers that allow for the mass shooting of people, which is horrifying and tragic. But even then, I have my concerns that a strategy of gun control would do much as deterrence. I've always been a favor of both a way of trying to fix our culture/nature towards gun alongside a reasonable gun control proposal, because I don't think just stopping people from buying AR-15s would be anywhere close to a good solution.
On May 11 2013 03:12 Millitron wrote:Show nested quote +On May 11 2013 01:01 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 11 2013 00:46 Kimaker wrote:On May 10 2013 12:29 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 10 2013 12:01 Millitron wrote:On May 10 2013 11:47 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 10 2013 11:39 Millitron wrote:On May 10 2013 11:29 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 10 2013 11:24 Millitron wrote:On May 10 2013 11:18 Thieving Magpie wrote:
[quote]
Well... If we want to get technical...
[quote]
The militia is what is needed for the protection of the state, not the arms. Hence, having your logic of "any weapon the military uses is protected" does not fall in line with a strict reading of the amendment.
Now you could say that we shouldn't be so strict with the amendment and do what Scalia did wherein he ignores militia, ignores regulated, and place the emphasis on Infringe thereby allowing Heller to have as much ammo in his guns as he'd like in the 2008 case--but that is not a strict reading of the amendment but is instead a recent interpretation of it.
Just to keep things in perspective. A Militia without modern weapons can't do much protecting now can it? Further, in 1787, the English language was quite a bit different than it is now. "Well-regulated" meant well-trained and equipped; it didn't have anything to do with government regulations. That was up for contention in the beginning--mostly they realized that they couldn't figure out how much government support was allowed in regulating and specifically arming people. At some point they pretended militia didn't exist, and then they eventually thought self defense was the thing, then back to tyrrany, now its back to self defense. It really matters who the supreme court justices are and what is happening in the country at the time. At first Well Regulated meant that the government was providing the arms. That was eventually dropped. @Gold Yeah, my bad, I was just mildly annoyed at people saying doctors are not legitimate sources of research. The government never, to my knowledge, armed the militias. Certainly not at first anyways, considering the militias existed BEFORE the government. The Continental Army was practically entirely privately armed. Almost every soldier brought his own musket, and any that had to be replaced were bought privately by one of the founding father's. Washington spent a great deal of his own money buying muskets and powder. They actually got gun supplies from the french and (germany??) specifically newer musket designs that were easier to reload. So yes, they actually did pass around "government" for the same reason that Washington had to spend his money on weapons, and then became the President who still owned those weapons he had passed around to his men. And not "every guy" brought his gun because families were both larger back then and only had a few guns at most--and one had to be left behind just so people could still hunt. Then there's the loyalist who were supporting the British having their guns revoked etc... Anyway--yes, they did have to figure things out. Which is why they made the mistake of having such a vague amendment. What happens if a family doesn't have a gun--should they still be regulated? What if they don't want to be in the militia--are they not allowed to be armed? Etc... The revolution didn't get foreign support until after the Battle of Saratoga. I'd say everyone able to be in the militia should be allowed to have guns, in the hopes that they would choose to, and so would need less training should they need to take action. Given the positions put forth in the Federalist papers, I'd say this is in line with what the drafter's meant. Well, what the drafters "meant" is weird because everyone did have a gun. It wasn't until we started having people who didn't need guns and hence didn't have them (or were too poor, etc...) that it started becoming a thing to care about the nitty gritty of gun control. In the world where everyone in essence had guns, they kind of just wrote it saying we can't take guns away. Arguments started happening when we got more civilized and there discrepancies on who had guns and who didn't have guns and how to handle that power dynamic without stepping on the amendment. The drafters were smart--but they weren't psychics. They wrote what culturally made sense at the time and adapted as they went. That is perhaps the most pretentious and ill-informed Progressive Teleology I've ever heard anyone spout. Ever. Do you honestly believe they just flippantly included the 2nd amendment because, "Well hell, everyone has one, why the fuck not?" Really? These were some of the most educated and liberal minded men of the time. The eyes of the entire world were upon them, judging their every move, and here they were trying to create a nation out of thin air, and they just picked the Right to keep and bear arms as the second enumerated part of the Bill of Rights, "Cause fuck it. Logistics man." That perfectly explains the numerous justifications for the 2nd amendment in their personal correspondences, and journals, and in published articles. It was all logistics. As for the "more civilized" bit...if you believe that statement you know nothing of history. In a relative descriptive sense, you're correct. One person can act more civil than another. In a societal sense? Bull. Fine, would you prefer I say "as we got less civilized?" will that make you feel better? They ousted monarchal rule because they had guns and hence stuck with that mindset when it came to philosophical debates on law and rights. They did not put together the 2nd amendment to justify owning nukes and full auto because it was obviously not yet invented yet. Their arguments were on the how much and how little government influence should be put upon the militia. They didn't care about magazine sizes since they had no magazines. They didn't care about ammunition laws--since people made their own ammunition. There was no wallmart to buy hundreds of rounds. They didn't have a world where 1 person could own 150 guns and a several thousand rounds as a personal stash. The logistics were not the same. And as we progressed as a society, less and less people had guns because we no longer needed to fucking hunt deer for food. When you live in a city working in a factory and you have a choice of saving up money for a gun or saving up money for something else--getting guns stopped being a big priority. Not because we somehow became better and more peaceful but because it became less and less of a necessity. Stop hating history. The Second Amendment was to justify owning military equipment, because as I said before, the militia can't do much protecting if its stuck with muskets against tanks. Fully-automatic weapons are a part of that. Remember, the NFA admits that. It doesn't outright ban fully-automatic weapons, but it does essentially ban them by forcing big fees and mountains of paperwork. People still make their own ammunition, and its not hard, look up reloading.
What do you mean by paperwork? Are you referring to background checks? Sorry I'm a bit confused, but if you are referring to checks, I was under the impression that it isn't really a big hassle to deal with.
|
On May 11 2013 03:14 Zergneedsfood wrote:Show nested quote +On May 11 2013 03:07 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 11 2013 03:03 Zergneedsfood wrote:On May 11 2013 02:53 w1nter wrote:
Yes. But only as long as you pass both strict background/mentality checks. And even then you should only be eligible to a handgun. Being able to buy an AR-15 in USA is just ridiculous. Why is it ridiculous? It's not like holding one will overwhelm you with the need to shoot someone. the worry is the reverse of that. If you had the overwhelming need to shoot someone--you can just buy an AR-15 and do it. The worry is that people who enjoy products like these http://workthatmatters.blogspot.ca/2013/05/shooting-game-company-literally-makes.html?spref=fb are the same people who love buying guns. That's pretty disturbing. o_O And while I think it's true that if you had the overwhelming need to shoot someone you can buy an automatic assault weapon and do it, the concern becomes if such a person wanted to kill someone anyway (as I wouldn't see many reasons why you'd want to shoot someone and want them to live), it seems quite easy for such a person to use any objects at their disposal for nefarious purposes. I think the main concern I have is that these weapons are enablers that allow for the mass shooting of people, which is horrifying and tragic. But even then, I have my concerns that a strategy of gun control would do much as deterrence. I've always been a favor of both a way of trying to fix our culture/nature towards gun alongside a reasonable gun control proposal, because I don't think just stopping people from buying AR-15s would be anywhere close to a good solution.
Put it this way: if you know that there are going to be random outliers that lose control and perpetrate violence, would you rather the nearest object at their disposal was a plastic knife or an atom bomb? The control debate needs to be framed around how much general threat is enough to warrant implementing controls. I think that no headway will be made until both sides put some actual rules in place regarding this. How dangerous would guns need to be for you to accept controls for them?
|
On May 11 2013 03:12 Millitron wrote:Show nested quote +On May 11 2013 01:01 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 11 2013 00:46 Kimaker wrote:On May 10 2013 12:29 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 10 2013 12:01 Millitron wrote:On May 10 2013 11:47 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 10 2013 11:39 Millitron wrote:On May 10 2013 11:29 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 10 2013 11:24 Millitron wrote:On May 10 2013 11:18 Thieving Magpie wrote:
[quote]
Well... If we want to get technical...
[quote]
The militia is what is needed for the protection of the state, not the arms. Hence, having your logic of "any weapon the military uses is protected" does not fall in line with a strict reading of the amendment.
Now you could say that we shouldn't be so strict with the amendment and do what Scalia did wherein he ignores militia, ignores regulated, and place the emphasis on Infringe thereby allowing Heller to have as much ammo in his guns as he'd like in the 2008 case--but that is not a strict reading of the amendment but is instead a recent interpretation of it.
Just to keep things in perspective. A Militia without modern weapons can't do much protecting now can it? Further, in 1787, the English language was quite a bit different than it is now. "Well-regulated" meant well-trained and equipped; it didn't have anything to do with government regulations. That was up for contention in the beginning--mostly they realized that they couldn't figure out how much government support was allowed in regulating and specifically arming people. At some point they pretended militia didn't exist, and then they eventually thought self defense was the thing, then back to tyrrany, now its back to self defense. It really matters who the supreme court justices are and what is happening in the country at the time. At first Well Regulated meant that the government was providing the arms. That was eventually dropped. @Gold Yeah, my bad, I was just mildly annoyed at people saying doctors are not legitimate sources of research. The government never, to my knowledge, armed the militias. Certainly not at first anyways, considering the militias existed BEFORE the government. The Continental Army was practically entirely privately armed. Almost every soldier brought his own musket, and any that had to be replaced were bought privately by one of the founding father's. Washington spent a great deal of his own money buying muskets and powder. They actually got gun supplies from the french and (germany??) specifically newer musket designs that were easier to reload. So yes, they actually did pass around "government" for the same reason that Washington had to spend his money on weapons, and then became the President who still owned those weapons he had passed around to his men. And not "every guy" brought his gun because families were both larger back then and only had a few guns at most--and one had to be left behind just so people could still hunt. Then there's the loyalist who were supporting the British having their guns revoked etc... Anyway--yes, they did have to figure things out. Which is why they made the mistake of having such a vague amendment. What happens if a family doesn't have a gun--should they still be regulated? What if they don't want to be in the militia--are they not allowed to be armed? Etc... The revolution didn't get foreign support until after the Battle of Saratoga. I'd say everyone able to be in the militia should be allowed to have guns, in the hopes that they would choose to, and so would need less training should they need to take action. Given the positions put forth in the Federalist papers, I'd say this is in line with what the drafter's meant. Well, what the drafters "meant" is weird because everyone did have a gun. It wasn't until we started having people who didn't need guns and hence didn't have them (or were too poor, etc...) that it started becoming a thing to care about the nitty gritty of gun control. In the world where everyone in essence had guns, they kind of just wrote it saying we can't take guns away. Arguments started happening when we got more civilized and there discrepancies on who had guns and who didn't have guns and how to handle that power dynamic without stepping on the amendment. The drafters were smart--but they weren't psychics. They wrote what culturally made sense at the time and adapted as they went. That is perhaps the most pretentious and ill-informed Progressive Teleology I've ever heard anyone spout. Ever. Do you honestly believe they just flippantly included the 2nd amendment because, "Well hell, everyone has one, why the fuck not?" Really? These were some of the most educated and liberal minded men of the time. The eyes of the entire world were upon them, judging their every move, and here they were trying to create a nation out of thin air, and they just picked the Right to keep and bear arms as the second enumerated part of the Bill of Rights, "Cause fuck it. Logistics man." That perfectly explains the numerous justifications for the 2nd amendment in their personal correspondences, and journals, and in published articles. It was all logistics. As for the "more civilized" bit...if you believe that statement you know nothing of history. In a relative descriptive sense, you're correct. One person can act more civil than another. In a societal sense? Bull. Fine, would you prefer I say "as we got less civilized?" will that make you feel better? They ousted monarchal rule because they had guns and hence stuck with that mindset when it came to philosophical debates on law and rights. They did not put together the 2nd amendment to justify owning nukes and full auto because it was obviously not yet invented yet. Their arguments were on the how much and how little government influence should be put upon the militia. They didn't care about magazine sizes since they had no magazines. They didn't care about ammunition laws--since people made their own ammunition. There was no wallmart to buy hundreds of rounds. They didn't have a world where 1 person could own 150 guns and a several thousand rounds as a personal stash. The logistics were not the same. And as we progressed as a society, less and less people had guns because we no longer needed to fucking hunt deer for food. When you live in a city working in a factory and you have a choice of saving up money for a gun or saving up money for something else--getting guns stopped being a big priority. Not because we somehow became better and more peaceful but because it became less and less of a necessity. Stop hating history. The Second Amendment was to justify owning military equipment, because as I said before, the militia can't do much protecting if its stuck with muskets against tanks. Fully-automatic weapons are a part of that. Remember, the NFA admits that. It doesn't outright ban fully-automatic weapons, but it does essentially ban them by forcing big fees and mountains of paperwork. People still make their own ammunition, and its not hard, look up reloading.
Intent and what is written are two very different things. What is written hinges the defense of the state to the existence of a militia and, the arms and infringement being linked to the existence of a militia because otherwise it'd be a non-violent protest.
The intent was military grade--but tech was so low back then that the difference between owning a hunting rifle and owning a military rifle was not that different. (ie, tanks and nukes weren't around yet)
As time passes we adapt it to tech available.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
