MacNN Forums (http://forums.macnn.com/)
-   Political/War Lounge (http://forums.macnn.com/political-war-lounge/)
-   -   Gun Rights - right to bear arms (http://forums.macnn.com/95/political-war-lounge/497625/gun-rights-right-to-bear-arms/)

 
Athens Jan 29, 2013 02:45 PM
Gun Rights - right to bear arms
(Assuming I’m not reading and interpreting the second Amendment incorrectly)

I want to narrow a part of the discussion on the focus of the right to bear arms and what it means. I was thinking about this earlier today. Many parts of the US constitution and rights related to either all people with in US authority or citizens only. For example the First Amendment says the rights of the "people" and this means any one in US jurisdiction. So even though I am not American, as a visitor when I am in the United States jurisdiction the first Amendment applies to me. The 14th Amendment outlines specific rights of citizenship and the 12th Amendment is about voting which only applies to American Citizens.

The second Amendment which the right to bear arms falls under is one of those all peoples amendments, not US Citizenship only amendments. So here is the problem I see with the right to bear arms being in the constitution at all. The constitution applies to all people or all citizens. As it stands now as its written any person has the right to bear arms. This includes murders, rapist, drug dealers and foreigners like myself. Foreigners like me under gun laws are actually not allowed to own guns or purchase ammunition and clearly judges and courts have applied restrictions of weapon ownership on convicted criminals because of crimes committed or the violent nature of the person.

So with that in mind is it even possible for the right to bear arms to live up as a constitutional right if we all agree that some people like murders should not be allowed to own guns. Or do we accept that because it’s a constitutional right the man who murdered someone and the newly arrived Mexican drug dealer that entered into US legally or illegally all have the same right as it’s currently written to have guns.
I personally think the wording could be done better in the Second Amendment. Something along the lines for changes to this. All people have the right and the duty to protect these fundamental values and protections from tyranny with whatever means necessary included for the purpose of defending the constitution armed up risings.

Something like that opens the door to any weapons of choice in a time of defending the constitution by all peoples while not making gun ownership itself a fundamental right allowing for criminals to be banned from ownership.


As it stands now I should be able to buy and own a gun while visiting the US :P
 
BLAZE_MkIV Jan 29, 2013 02:56 PM
You're issue is with they way the justice system works and how current politicians try to get around it. The founders intentionally wrote out the spirit of the law knowing that technical details will change. Current laws are full of technical details prevent the judiciary from dealing with the technical issues. When the law was written there wasn't a problem of mass murderers and drug dealers running around with guns. Also its the right of the people to bear arms not an individuals right to bear arms. So you can prevent specific categories of people access but not everyone's.
 
Athens Jan 29, 2013 03:00 PM
My issue with the justice system has nothing to do with gun rights for or against. Thats a totally different topic. So the right of the people to bear arms is not individual, so any one can have guns taken away from them now and its ok under the constitution. Furthermore does that apply to free speech since its written the same way. So specific categories of free speech can be limited as well against specific people?
 
BLAZE_MkIV Jan 29, 2013 03:03 PM
Free speech is already limited.
 
Athens Jan 29, 2013 03:03 PM
My point is while in jail your freedom of speech is still protected. But your freedom to bear arms is obviously not protected. Is it appropriate to make the right to bear arms into a fundamental freedom if it’s impossible to protect it under all situations? Having it as a constitutional right seems to be problematic and I don’t really see it belonging as such.
 
reader50 Jan 29, 2013 03:16 PM
Quote, Originally Posted by Athens (Post 4214313)
I personally think the wording could be done better in the Second Amendment ... All people have the right and the duty to protect these fundamental values and protections from tyranny with whatever means necessary included for the purpose of defending the constitution armed up risings.

Something like that opens the door to any weapons of choice in a time of defending the constitution by all peoples while not making gun ownership itself a fundamental right allowing for criminals to be banned from ownership.
The Founders were concerned about changeling rights abuse by ones own government. Domestic governments have huge power over their subjects, powers a foreign government would need to invade to establish. The changes you suggest would go against the Founders intent, by allowing gun ownership only after a government turns on the citizenry. A hostile government would therefore ignore that right when its not needed, and ignore it when it becomes needed.

After all, if another country invades, the government would be happy to hand out guns. Sometimes called a draft. (they tend to keep the guns after people muster out) Much of the Constitution and Bill of Rights were deliberately designed to keep powers away from the government and in the hands of the people. And unless a person is named Neo, being without a gun is being without the ability to assert your rights. This was true at the time the Constitution was written, and becomes true if a government starts ignoring those laws it considers inconvenient.
 
Shaddim Jan 29, 2013 03:18 PM
Quote, Originally Posted by Athens (Post 4214323)
My point is while in jail your freedom of speech is still protected. But your freedom to bear arms is obviously not protected. Is it appropriate to make the right to bear arms into a fundamental freedom if it’s impossible to protect it under all situations? Having it as a constitutional right seems to be problematic and I don’t really see it belonging as such.
Then there is a process in place to amend the Constitution, all it requires is for 38 states to agree.
 
Athens Jan 29, 2013 03:19 PM
Ok but you didnt address the problems of it being a right that cant be protected under all situations. Does it really belong in its current form as a right. My example of changes is just a example not a well thought out one as you pointed out.
 
BLAZE_MkIV Jan 29, 2013 03:42 PM
No right is protected under all situations. You've heard the euphemism that "There's an exception to every rule." That's why there are courts and judges and precedent.
 
lpkmckenna Jan 29, 2013 06:23 PM
I'm glad someone created yet another gun thread. We don't have enough of those.
 
Mrjinglesusa Jan 29, 2013 08:13 PM
Quote, Originally Posted by lpkmckenna (Post 4214377)
I'm glad someone created yet another gun thread. We don't have enough of those.
I'm actually glad there is another one because I didn't want to bump one of the other ones to bring up something I was thinking about.

The multiple threads here I think are evidence that the uproar over gun control was based on an emotional response to the murder of 20 children with an AR-15. Right after that happened, people were yelling and screaming for more gun control, debating the merits of more gun control, etc. We had MULTIPLE threads on gun control, 2nd amendment rights, etc. going on here with responses being posted multiple times per day.

Now.....not so much. Those threads are slowly making there way down the list, with no responses in any of them having been made in over 4 days. The uproar is dying now and people will soon forget about gun control and move on to something else.

Yes, Feinstein has officially proposed a new Assault Weapon Ban bill that has no chance of passing in its current form. My guess is that a ban on magazines over 10 rounds and a universal background check (requiring background check for ALL gun purchases, including those not made by an FFL) have a good chance of passing.

OK, back on topic. I think it is well established that when one commits a felony, one's rights are immediately curtailed in some form or another, including one's right to purchase a gun.
 
olePigeon Jan 29, 2013 09:01 PM
Taken in its historical context, it was important to the security of the new states in the union and the wellbeing of its citizens that pretty much everyone have a gun. It was as much as an insurance policy against possible tyranny in the fledgling government as it was a tool for everyday life (food, safety, etc.) The 2nd amendment was crafted to protect the right to bear arms, but it was for a fairly specific purpose. That purpose no longer really exists. Currently, the 2nd Amendment is more about political chest thumping and pissing contests than anything else. The U.S.'s relaxed attitude towards gun control and gun safety in general is literally killing people.

Reasonable gun control and gun safety is not a violation of the spirit of the 2nd Amendment, and it certainly should not apply to civilians owning military and modified weapons whose sole purpose is for killing lots of people very quickly. In my opinion, pistols, shotguns, and hunting rifles should be about it, nothing should be automatic, and you don't need high capacity magazines.

I do think the 2nd Amendment is in need of further amending, or a new Federal ban on civilians owning high RPM weapons should be instituted, with the guns removed from possession through a buy-back program (possible exception could be a very restricted use for sport, or with a properly regulated security firm or militia.)

Removing high RPM weapons from public ownership has the added benefit of also simultaneously weeding out most of the crazies.
 
Uncle Skeleton Jan 29, 2013 09:36 PM
Quote, Originally Posted by Athens (Post 4214323)
My point is while in jail your freedom of speech is still protected. But your freedom to bear arms is obviously not protected. Is it appropriate to make the right to bear arms into a fundamental freedom if it’s impossible to protect it under all situations? Having it as a constitutional right seems to be problematic and I don’t really see it belonging as such.
Your freedom of speech is significantly curtailed in prison, as is freedom of assembly, and freedom from unreasonable search and seizure. Prisoners are only allowed rights that don't conflict with prison, like religion, so denial of the right to bear arms doesn't seem out of the ordinary to me.
 
Athens Jan 30, 2013 12:55 AM
Quote, Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton (Post 4214405)
Your freedom of speech is significantly curtailed in prison, as is freedom of assembly, and freedom from unreasonable search and seizure. Prisoners are only allowed rights that don't conflict with prison, like religion, so denial of the right to bear arms doesn't seem out of the ordinary to me.
I'll go with that. Perhaps prison was a bad example. What about the ex con or mentally disturbed person who is no longer in prison.

Quote, Originally Posted by olePigeon (Post 4214402)
Taken in its historical context, it was important to the security of the new states in the union and the wellbeing of its citizens that pretty much everyone have a gun. It was as much as an insurance policy against possible tyranny in the fledgling government as it was a tool for everyday life (food, safety, etc.) The 2nd amendment was crafted to protect the right to bear arms, but it was for a fairly specific purpose. That purpose no longer really exists. Currently, the 2nd Amendment is more about political chest thumping and pissing contests than anything else. The U.S.'s relaxed attitude towards gun control and gun safety in general is literally killing people.

Reasonable gun control and gun safety is not a violation of the spirit of the 2nd Amendment, and it certainly should not apply to civilians owning military and modified weapons whose sole purpose is for killing lots of people very quickly. In my opinion, pistols, shotguns, and hunting rifles should be about it, nothing should be automatic, and you don't need high capacity magazines.

I do think the 2nd Amendment is in need of further amending, or a new Federal ban on civilians owning high RPM weapons should be instituted, with the guns removed from possession through a buy-back program (possible exception could be a very restricted use for sport, or with a properly regulated security firm or militia.)

Removing high RPM weapons from public ownership has the added benefit of also simultaneously weeding out most of the crazies.
Whats the difference between a military style gun vs a hunting rifle. I mean they both go bang. They both send a projectile out at high velocity and when pointed at the head of another human being both result in a very big mess and a very dead person. Is it not a fair assessment that a gun is a gun no matter what its called or how it looks and the use of the gun or the situations of the use are the problem not the gun itself?

For example I can either carry 2 magazines of 20 rounds each on me or I can carry 4 magazines of 10 rounds each. I have the same amount of ammo. In practice I might even be more lethal. In a school shooting setting I might have let go all 20 rounds of cartridge 1 into one class room and all 20 rounds of magazine 2 in another classroom where as with 4 10 round magazines I make it to 4 class rooms.

The difference between full automatic and semi automatic plays a big role in what is classed as a military weapon and not. And the sad fact is semi automatic is way more deadly. Full automatic goes through all the rounds quickly and is hard to aim. Even the military hardly ever use its weapons in full automatic. At best burst mode but the majority of the time its in single fire mode. Accuracy that comes with semi automatic weapons is what makes them far more deadly. Example being that theater shooting where the guy let off hundreds of rounds but only managed to kill 2 people. Compare that the last school shooting where each child was shoot multiple times with precision. Any semi automatic rifle would had the same results

So I ask you again is a gun not a gun?
 
subego Jan 30, 2013 03:33 AM
Quote, Originally Posted by Athens (Post 4214313)
(Assuming I’m not reading and interpreting the second Amendment incorrectly)

I want to narrow a part of the discussion on the focus of the right to bear arms and what it means. I was thinking about this earlier today. Many parts of the US constitution and rights related to either all people with in US authority or citizens only. For example the First Amendment says the rights of the "people" and this means any one in US jurisdiction. So even though I am not American, as a visitor when I am in the United States jurisdiction the first Amendment applies to me. The 14th Amendment outlines specific rights of citizenship and the 12th Amendment is about voting which only applies to American Citizens.

The second Amendment which the right to bear arms falls under is one of those all peoples amendments, not US Citizenship only amendments. So here is the problem I see with the right to bear arms being in the constitution at all. The constitution applies to all people or all citizens. As it stands now as its written any person has the right to bear arms. This includes murders, rapist, drug dealers and foreigners like myself. Foreigners like me under gun laws are actually not allowed to own guns or purchase ammunition and clearly judges and courts have applied restrictions of weapon ownership on convicted criminals because of crimes committed or the violent nature of the person.

So with that in mind is it even possible for the right to bear arms to live up as a constitutional right if we all agree that some people like murders should not be allowed to own guns. Or do we accept that because it’s a constitutional right the man who murdered someone and the newly arrived Mexican drug dealer that entered into US legally or illegally all have the same right as it’s currently written to have guns.
I personally think the wording could be done better in the Second Amendment. Something along the lines for changes to this. All people have the right and the duty to protect these fundamental values and protections from tyranny with whatever means necessary included for the purpose of defending the constitution armed up risings.

Something like that opens the door to any weapons of choice in a time of defending the constitution by all peoples while not making gun ownership itself a fundamental right allowing for criminals to be banned from ownership.


As it stands now I should be able to buy and own a gun while visiting the US :P

Don't forget, the language in the Bill of Rights wasn't meant to apply to the states, most only do now because of the power given to the Federal Government by the 14th amendment. This didn't happen automatically. Earlier amendments were applied to the states via SCOTUS decisions.

The Second Amendment wasn't determined to be covered by the 14th until two years ago.

To put it another way, while I think you bring up good questions, WRT the practical concern of "the Constitution says I can buy a gun as a foreigner", it doesn't say that. It wasn't until recently the Constitution was determined to say that (via a later amendment) for actual citizens.
 
Shaddim Jan 30, 2013 10:22 AM
Quote, Originally Posted by Athens (Post 4214434)
I'll go with that. Perhaps prison was a bad example. What about the ex con or mentally disturbed person who is no longer in prison.
History of mental illness? No, they shouldn't be eligible. Ex-cons? I've thought about that, and I'm willing to amend the laws to possibly allow those who were convicted of nonviolent crimes, if they've not had any repeat offenses for 7 years. My state has a review process for such individuals, on a case by case basis, and a judge can rule to wave the offense.
 
Uncle Skeleton Jan 30, 2013 10:37 AM
Quote, Originally Posted by Athens (Post 4214434)
I'll go with that. Perhaps prison was a bad example. What about the ex con or mentally disturbed person who is no longer in prison.
Felons also lose the right to vote, and some rights of free assembly. Mental illness is a good point, although the only legal forms of this I've seen are restricted to "involuntarily committed," which means they already lost certain rights the rest of us take for granted. I agree, the 2nd amendment is the most out-dated in the bill of rights. It seems silly to assume there will never come a time when it is no longer appropriate, and the only reason I don't think that day is today is because of consensus.
 
Mrjinglesusa Jan 30, 2013 10:55 AM
Quote, Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton (Post 4214498)
It seems silly to assume there will never come a time when it is no longer appropriate, and the only reason I don't think that day is today is because of consensus.
Simply not true. We will ALWAYS need our right to keep and bear arms protected because the very first thing almost every dictator, tyrannical government, etc. does before stripping away rights and taking complete power is disarm its citizens. A disarmed, defenseless citizenship is absolutely POWERLESS against tyranny and a police state.

Quote
"Our task of creating a Socialist America can only succeed when those who would resist us have been totally disarmed." Sarah Brady, Chairman, Handgun Control Inc.Source: The National Educator, January 1994, Pg.3
Quote
"History shows that all conquerors who have allowed their subjected peoples to carry arms have prepared their own fall." Adolf Hitler, Edict of 18 March 1939
Quote
"This year will go down in history. For the first time, a civilized nation has full gun registration! Our streets will be safer, our police more efficient, and the world will follow our lead into the future!" Adolph Hitler, 15 April 1935, in address to the Reichstag
First it's the guns, then slowly but surely EVERY right we take for granted will be diminished and/or completely taken away because we will be powerless to stop it.
 
Uncle Skeleton Jan 30, 2013 11:55 AM
Yeah but the very first thing almost every internet debate needs is a Reductio ad Hitlerum and a generous serving of ALLCAPS, so... thanks?
 
Mrjinglesusa Jan 30, 2013 01:00 PM
Quote, Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton (Post 4214513)
Yeah but the very first thing almost every internet debate needs is a Reductio ad Hitlerum and a generous serving of ALLCAPS, so... thanks?
Great response. Well done. :thumbsup:

Rather than respond to the points made, attack the writing style.

So I take it you have no argument against the fact that a defenseless citizenship would be powerless against potential tyranny and/or police state and the first step towards tyranny/police state is taking guns away from law-abiding citizens?

"Reductio ad Hitlerum". Funny. Do you deny that Hitler said these things?
 
BLAZE_MkIV Jan 30, 2013 01:09 PM
Fortuitously in this situation it's an apt example of kinds of things our government was specifically designed to prevent so Reductio ad Hitlerum doesn't apply.
 
Uncle Skeleton Jan 30, 2013 01:18 PM
Reductio ad Hitlerum always applies, because it makes it impossible to criticize anything you say without defending Hitler, that is the whole point. If you want a serious reply, feel free to rephrase without stooping so low.
 
Athens Jan 30, 2013 01:24 PM
Quote, Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton (Post 4214498)
Felons also lose the right to vote, and some rights of free assembly. Mental illness is a good point, although the only legal forms of this I've seen are restricted to "involuntarily committed," which means they already lost certain rights the rest of us take for granted. I agree, the 2nd amendment is the most out-dated in the bill of rights. It seems silly to assume there will never come a time when it is no longer appropriate, and the only reason I don't think that day is today is because of consensus.
Ex cons can't vote? I didn't know that. That is actually very shocking. In Canada you can vote even in prison. Freedom of speech is still protected. Criminals have published papers and books from Jail. I always assumed it was the same in the US. I really was unaware of the restrictions in jail and after jail.
 
Uncle Skeleton Jan 30, 2013 01:36 PM
I didn't realize it until your surprise prompted me to look it up, but this is apparently a state choice:
State Felon Voting Laws - Felon Voting - ProCon.org
 
Athens Jan 30, 2013 01:39 PM
I never suggested removing the rights to bear arms. I was just pointing out that the current 2nd amendment has room for improvement and clarification. Seems like a very broad amendment that leaves a lot to interpretation which is partially responsible for the debate and the over reactions of many.

Additionally a lot has changed since it was written. Back when ti was written a gun was a single shot flint weapon. Not a 100 round rapid fire machine gun. Nor did they have RPGs and other modern day military weapons.

The one thing most of us and those on both sides of the debates can agree on is the spirit of the amendment which is the protection of democracy through a armed populous.

But does that equate to the freedom being so broad that you can carry a hand gun any place you want and get into fire fights with any one you want or is it more limited to being able to own what ever you want on your own land and limited to your own land while malls, stores and other public places remain gun free zone.

Its obvious to some of us that limits are required, while others for ideological reasons or because of the interpretation of the spirit of the meaning of the amendment wont accept any limitations at all.

I don't know the amendments well enough but where they not changed to allow black men full freedoms at one point, The same amendment that was twisted and used to allow corporations personhood as well?
 
Athens Jan 30, 2013 01:42 PM
Quote, Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton (Post 4214545)
I didn't realize it until your surprise prompted me to look it up, but this is apparently a state choice:
State Felon Voting Laws - Felon Voting - ProCon.org
That must amount to a lot of people that can not vote. I mean the US has the largest number of criminals in the world thanks to the simple possession of pot being criminal in most places. Forget the high number of people currently in jail now but look at all the people that have ever been in jail at any point in there lives. Leaves a lot of people unable to vote.
 
Uncle Skeleton Jan 30, 2013 01:52 PM
Felon doesn't mean everyone who has been in jail.
 
olePigeon Jan 30, 2013 02:34 PM
Quote, Originally Posted by Athens (Post 4214434)
Whats the difference between a military style gun vs a hunting rifle. I mean they both go bang. They both send a projectile out at high velocity and when pointed at the head of another human being both result in a very big mess and a very dead person.
A military grade weapon kills lots of people very quickly. A hunting rifle may kill several people, but it takes a lot longer, and there is a better chance to stop an assailant if the rate of fire is drastically reduced.

Quote, Originally Posted by Athens (Post 4214434)
Is it not a fair assessment that a gun is a gun no matter what its called or how it looks and the use of the gun or the situations of the use are the problem not the gun itself?
It is not a fair assessment. For example, a bow and arrow takes skill and accuracy. You have to learn how to shoot it through many, many hours of practice. When the crossbow came about, it was seen as an idiot's weapon. Anyone could pick up the crossbow and kill someone. The same goes with a hunting rifle versus an automatic assault rifle. Children with no training can shoot an assault rifle and kill many, many people (and they do, unfortunately, in several countries.) Give a child a hunting rifle or a pistol and it is unlikely they'll hit anything at which they're aiming.

The type of weapon makes a big difference.

Quote, Originally Posted by Athens (Post 4214434)
For example I can either carry 2 magazines of 20 rounds each on me or I can carry 4 magazines of 10 rounds each. I have the same amount of ammo.
Jared Loughner's massacre was stopped when people tackled him to the ground when he was forced to reload. Forcing an assailant to reload gives people options. Code Red training (I work at a school) now indicates that -- assuming we can't escape -- we need to rush the assailant if he is forced to reload. It's a short period of time when you aren't shooting that gun and killing people, and that's long enough to take you out. The more times you have to reload, the more opportunities I have to stab you in the f**king eyeball with my car keys.

Quote, Originally Posted by Athens (Post 4214434)
Full automatic goes through all the rounds quickly and is hard to aim.
Which is where the high capacity magazines come into play.

Quote, Originally Posted by Athens (Post 4214434)
Example being that theater shooting where the guy let off hundreds of rounds but only managed to kill 2 people.
You're ignoring that the theater is fairly large, he obstructed his own vision using the gas canisters, and there are rows and rows of chairs to hide behind so he can't see you.

Quote, Originally Posted by Athens (Post 4214434)
Compare that the last school shooting where each child was shoot multiple times with precision.
They were grouped together, sometimes hidden in closets. You don't need to aim when the fish are in a barrel.

Quote, Originally Posted by Athens (Post 4214434)
So I ask you again is a gun not a gun?
It's always a gun. If I had absolute control, I'd have them all banned. But that isn't the reality. I'm trying to reach somewhere in the middle where people can still observe their 2nd Amendment rights while reducing risk to everyone else.

I think the middle ground there is an outright ban and removal of high RPM weapons and high capacity magazines (with very, very few exceptions.) For the guns that we do get to use (pistols, shotguns, and rifles), I'd like to see a 10x increase in fines for violations, and a 100% passing requirement for gun safety when you apply for a gun license.
 
Uncle Skeleton Jan 30, 2013 02:52 PM
Quote, Originally Posted by olePigeon (Post 4214569)
It is not a fair assessment. For example, a bow and arrow takes skill and accuracy. You have to learn how to shoot it through many, many hours of practice. When the crossbow came about, it was seen as an idiot's weapon. Anyone could pick up the crossbow and kill someone. The same goes with a hunting rifle versus an automatic assault rifle.
Automatic weapons are already banned, and have been for decades.

Quote
Children with no training can shoot an assault rifle and kill many, many people (and they do, unfortunately, in several countries.) Give a child a hunting rifle or a pistol and it is unlikely they'll hit anything at which they're aiming.
This is not believable, not with equivalent users. Please cite.

Quote
I think the middle ground there is an outright ban and removal of high RPM weapons and high capacity magazines (with very, very few exceptions.)
Please give specifics. What RPM is "high?" What RPM is acceptable?

Merely saying "the rent current RPM is too damn high" is not useful, in fact it can be downright clownish.
 
Mrjinglesusa Jan 30, 2013 02:54 PM
Quote, Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton (Post 4214542)
Reductio ad Hitlerum always applies, because it makes it impossible to criticize anything you say without defending Hitler, that is the whole point. If you want a serious reply, feel free to rephrase without stooping so low.
See, I fail to understand how pointing out the fact that Hitler (among most other dictators and tyrants) made it a point to disarm the populance during his rise to power is "stooping so low". This was in direct response to what you said:

Quote
I agree, the 2nd amendment is the most out-dated in the bill of rights. It seems silly to assume there will never come a time when it is no longer appropriate, and the only reason I don't think that day is today is because of consensus.
I am making the point that there will in fact never (I used underline here instead of all caps, is that better, or can one not emphasize something in responding to you?) come a time when the 2nd Amendment is no longer appropriate for the reasons I mentioned and the reasons it was established in the first place.

Removing the 2nd Amendment will eventually lead to confiscation of all guns. Once that happens, wait how long it is before other rights are taken away and/or we become a police state. It may take years, maybe decades, maybe even a century, but it will happen - always does.
 
Athens Jan 30, 2013 03:07 PM
Quote, Originally Posted by olePigeon (Post 4214569)
A military grade weapon kills lots of people very quickly. A hunting rifle may kill several people, but it takes a lot longer, and there is a better chance to stop an assailant if the rate of fire is drastically reduced.
You have never used a gun, its very obvious....

Quote
It is not a fair assessment. For example, a bow and arrow takes skill and accuracy. You have to learn how to shoot it through many, many hours of practice. When the crossbow came about, it was seen as an idiot's weapon. Anyone could pick up the crossbow and kill someone. The same goes with a hunting rifle versus an automatic assault rifle. Children with no training can shoot an assault rifle and kill many, many people (and they do, unfortunately, in several countries.) Give a child a hunting rifle or a pistol and it is unlikely they'll hit anything at which they're aiming.

The type of weapon makes a big difference.
You have never used a gun, its very obvious....

Quote

Jared Loughner's massacre was stopped when people tackled him to the ground when he was forced to reload. Forcing an assailant to reload gives people options. Code Red training (I work at a school) now indicates that -- assuming we can't escape -- we need to rush the assailant if he is forced to reload. It's a short period of time when you aren't shooting that gun and killing people, and that's long enough to take you out. The more times you have to reload, the more opportunities I have to stab you in the f**king eyeball with my car keys.
He was forced to reload because he used up a entire clip in 2 seconds because automatics do that. If he was in semi automatic mode he would have killed a LOT more people. This is the failure of full automatic. This is why in war zones the ARMY does not USE full automatic mode except for cover fire situations. When they are shooting to kill its in burst or semi automatic mode only.

Quote

Which is where the high capacity magazines come into play.
10 rounds, 50 rounds, can easily carry additional magazines which allows for more controlled expenditure of ammo. It seems to help the assailant not hinder them.
Quote

You're ignoring that the theater is fairly large, he obstructed his own vision using the gas canisters, and there are rows and rows of chairs to hide behind so he can't see you.
But it was a full automatic gun, a evil military style gun. You already said above it should have killed hundreds of people.

Quote
They were grouped together, sometimes hidden in closets. You don't need to aim when the fish are in a barrel.
And in full automatic mode only a couple children would have been hit even grouped together and half the rounds would have been in the ceiling because thats the tendency of full automatics to cause a uncontrollable rise of the gun. Again You have never used a gun, its very obvious....


Quote
It's always a gun. If I had absolute control, I'd have them all banned. But that isn't the reality. I'm trying to reach somewhere in the middle where people can still observe their 2nd Amendment rights while reducing risk to everyone else.

I think the middle ground there is an outright ban and removal of high RPM weapons and high capacity magazines (with very, very few exceptions.) For the guns that we do get to use (pistols, shotguns, and rifles), I'd like to see a 10x increase in fines for violations, and a 100% passing requirement for gun safety when you apply for a gun license.
You have never used a gun, its very obvious....

Canada and the United States have absolute requirements of gun ownership. We have dangerous animals. We have sparse populations in the middle of no where. We don't have complete and universal law enforcement coverage. The urban areas like Vancouver, Toronto, Seattle, Denver, New York don't really require guns. But rural locations, farming locations absolutely do. We don't even have complete and total cell phone coverage between major urban locations. So not only cant you call for police where there is no police you cant call for help of any kind in the majority of Canada and much of the USofA.

If Europe has 100% cell phone coverage and no dangerous animals. Its so over populated in such a small area that this concept of rural does does not work for you guys. Have you ever been totally isolated in nature with no ability to even make a phone call? Doubt it. Have you ever fired a gun at all? Doubt it.
 
Uncle Skeleton Jan 30, 2013 03:25 PM
Quote, Originally Posted by Mrjinglesusa (Post 4214575)
See, I fail to understand how pointing out the fact that Hitler (among most other dictators and tyrants) made it a point to disarm the populance during his rise to power is "stooping so low". This was in direct response to what you said:
If you are a lawyer, or like me you only watch them on tv, you might be familiar with the problem of "inflammatory" evidence which even if true, distorts the discussion because its emotional associations overshadow its probative value. I can think of numerous reasons why the advice you're taking from Hitler is inapplicable, not the least of which is that he ultimately lost so he must not have been the flawless strategist you imply, but the reason not to make those arguments is that it would derail the thread (and my poor Jewish brain), which is precisely why "inflammatory" evidence is blocked from trial (at least on TV ;))

If Hitler is the only example that supports your argument, then that is reason enough to think it's wrong, and if he is not, then use one of the others, as they will necessarily have less problems with being inflammatory. Does that satisfy your curiosity about the reasoning behind the hitlerum fallacy?



Quote
Removing the 2nd Amendment will eventually lead to confiscation of all guns.
What is the reasoning behind this? Or the evidence? Since the US is the only society that has or ever had a 2nd amendment, then why are there still so many countries that haven't had all their guns confiscated? You did say "all."

You also ignored the possibility of replacing the 2nd amendment with a lesser protection, one that is more compatible with modern arms, but which still protects against the "take all the guns" doomsday scenario.

Quote
Once that happens, wait how long it is before other rights are taken away and/or we become a police state. It may take years, maybe decades, maybe even a century, but it will happen - always does.
Yet there are more countries with strict gun control and no police state than with a police state. Mexico, for example, has strict gun control and the opposite of a police state: their police is a shambles and they are a "crime state."
 
BLAZE_MkIV Jan 30, 2013 03:38 PM
Quote, Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton (Post 4214584)
Yet there are more countries with strict gun control and no police state than with a police state. Mexico, for example, has strict gun control and the opposite of a police state: their police is a shambles and they are a "crime state."
Mexico is currently a police state. The police are chosen by an oligarchy made up of criminals.
 
Uncle Skeleton Jan 30, 2013 04:43 PM
Quote, Originally Posted by BLAZE_MkIV (Post 4214591)
Mexico is currently a police state. The police are chosen by an oligarchy made up of criminals.
I don't agree that police corruption qualifies as a police state. Police state means that the police are used to control or at least spy on the citizenry, not to turn a blind eye to or be complicit in crime.
 
BLAZE_MkIV Jan 30, 2013 04:46 PM
Quote, Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton (Post 4214607)
I don't agree that police corruption qualifies as a police state. Police state means that the police are used to control or at least spy on the citizenry, not to turn a blind eye to or be complicit in crime.
No, the enforces of the criminal organizations are the defacto police.
 
Uncle Skeleton Jan 30, 2013 05:06 PM
Quote, Originally Posted by BLAZE_MkIV (Post 4214608)
No, the enforces of the criminal organizations are the defacto police.
I don't see how that changes anything. Police state to me means a motive of sovereignty, not of profit, and not of sovereignty in pursuit of profit. So long as financial profit remains the principle motivation, I don't think that qualifies as a police state.
 
Athens Jan 30, 2013 05:39 PM
A police state is the suppression of regular citizens activities to fall in line with the state wishes and desires. Mexico is far from that.
 
BLAZE_MkIV Jan 30, 2013 05:52 PM
Quote, Originally Posted by Athens (Post 4214623)
A police state is the suppression of regular citizens activities to fall in line with the state wishes and desires. Mexico is far from that.
Depends on who you consider to be in control of the country and therefore be "the state."
 
Athens Jan 30, 2013 06:12 PM
There is no consideration, police state defines the state. If its some one else in control they are called terrorists or rebels or freedom fighters or criminals and its a rebellious state or a terrorist state. Def not a Police State.
 
Mrjinglesusa Jan 30, 2013 06:26 PM
Quote, Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton (Post 4214584)
If Hitler is the only example that supports your argument, then that is reason enough to think it's wrong, and if he is not, then use one of the others, as they will necessarily have less problems with being inflammatory.
Fine.

Quote, Originally Posted by Joseph Stalin
“If the opposition disarms, well and good. If it refuses to disarm, we shall disarm it ourselves.”
- Joseph Stalin
In 1929, the Soviet Union established gun control. From 1929 to 1953, about 20 million dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated. By 1987 that figure had risen to 61,911,000.

Quote, Originally Posted by Benito Mussolini
“The measures adopted to restore public order are: First of all, the elimination of the so-called subversive elements. … They were elements of disorder and subversion. On the morrow of each conflict I gave the categorical order to confiscate the largest possible number of weapons of every sort and kind. This confiscation, which continues with the utmost energy, has given satisfactory results.”
- Benito Mussolini, address to the Italian Senate, 1931
Quote, Originally Posted by Mao Tze Tung
“All political power comes from the barrel of a gun. The communist party must command all the guns, that way, no guns can ever be used to command the party.”
- Mao Tze Tung, Nov 6 1938
China established gun control in 1935. From 1948 to 1952 10,076,000 political dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated in Kuomintang China, and by 1987 another 35,236,000 exterminations were carried out under the Communists.

Quote, Originally Posted by Pol Pot
“I did not join the resistance movement to kill people, to kill the nation. Look at me now. Am I a savage person? My conscience is clear.”
- Pol Pot
Cambodia established gun control in 1956. During the short four years of its rule in Cambodia, Pol Pot’s Khmer Rouge government murdered over 31 percent of the entire Cambodian population.
 
Athens Jan 30, 2013 06:32 PM
can you go into a little detail about the gun control. Was it a total ban on guns or just limits. Gun Control is so vast.
 
Uncle Skeleton Jan 30, 2013 07:04 PM
Quote, Originally Posted by Mrjinglesusa (Post 4214633)
Fine.

In 1929, the Soviet Union established gun control. From 1929 to 1953, about 20 million dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated. By 1987 that figure had risen to 61,911,000.
...
China established gun control in 1935. From 1948 to 1952 10,076,000 political dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated in Kuomintang China, and by 1987 another 35,236,000 exterminations were carried out under the Communists.
...
Cambodia established gun control in 1956. During the short four years of its rule in Cambodia, Pol Pot’s Khmer Rouge government murdered over 31 percent of the entire Cambodian population.
Yet gun control in the UK, Japan, Australia, Canada, even Mexico has not resulted in the wholesale extermination of its own people by the government. So... what?

Gun control is a useful tool for dictators. But it is also a useful tool for non-dictators. The tool itself doesn't turn people from good to bad. Does this remind you of anything?

A gun itself is a useful tool for criminals. But it is also a very useful tool for non-criminals. The tool itself doesn't turn people from good to bad.

This is just guilt-by-association. It's correlation, not causation, and the correlation isn't even very strong. Gun control doesn't cause genocide, it only makes it easier. It is the quest for genocide that results in gun control. Without the quest for genocide, there is no risk of genocide. Genocide requires intent. Therefore, if you think the gun control advocate has the slightest interest in genocide, then you have a very good point. Otherwise, it's completely irrelevant. So here's your chance to prove me wrong: do you believe any of the gun control advocates on MacNN or in the US at large are interested in genocide?
 
Mrjinglesusa Jan 30, 2013 07:49 PM
Quote, Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton (Post 4214640)
So here's your chance to prove me wrong: do you believe any of the gun control advocates on MacNN or in the US at large are interested in genocide?
Of course not. That's not the point though.

The founding fathers recognized that the risk of a government becoming tyrannical could be significantly, if not completely, reduced by its citizens having a means to defend themselves against such tyranny. That's the primary purpose of the 2nd Amendment.

The above mentioned dictators recognized this too - that is why the first thing they did is ban guns so the people they wanted to subjugate and rule over had no means to defend themselves.

Do I think that the current debate about gun control is about providing a means for genocide or tyranny? Of course not.

Do I think that once you ban certain firearms, a complete ban is the next logical step? Yes.

Do I think that once you completely ban firearms that the risk of a tyrannical government is significantly increased, if not now then sometime in the future? Yes.

While no tyranny has raised its ugly head in those countries you mentioned (yet), if/when it does the people of those countries have no means to defend themselves.

Again, this whole discussion is in response to your post saying that it seems silly to assume there will never come a time when it [the 2nd Amendment] is no longer appropriate, and the only reason you don't think that day is today is because of consensus.

I am making the point that the 2nd Amendment will always be appropriate. That is all.
 
Athens Jan 30, 2013 07:56 PM
The founding fathers recognized a central bank as a bad idea yet one was established. The founding fathers recognized corporations as bad and placed strong limits on them, this changed. So a lot has changed since the founding fathers.

Quote
While no tyranny has raised its ugly head in those countries you mentioned (yet), if/when it does the people of those countries have no means to defend themselves.
Excuse me, we have guns in Canada and Australia. Its the people in the UK that are screwed :P

Question back to the rights to bear arms, does a requirement to be licensed to purchase and own fire arms go against the amendment. I ask this because clearly you can already restrict criminals and insane people from owning guns. Criminals that forfeited there rights under there own doing and the grey area of preventing arms to crazy people who maybe not by there own actions deserved to be restricted (a area we have not fully touched on) but for public good is generally recognized to prevent them from owning firearms. Does it not allow enough leeway to put in a license system in place just to make background checks easier for the sale and purchase of weapons. One good background check at time of getting licensed vs a check at every purchase and sale? The reason I ask this is because while it could limit some who might not be able to past tests or afford a license it really does not prevent the ownership of guns to the general public so I fail to see how that would actually go against the 2nd.
 
Uncle Skeleton Jan 30, 2013 08:37 PM
Quote, Originally Posted by Mrjinglesusa (Post 4214645)
Of course not. That's not the point though.

The founding fathers recognized that the risk of a government becoming tyrannical could be significantly, if not completely, reduced by its citizens having a means to defend themselves against such tyranny. That's the primary purpose of the 2nd Amendment.
"Primary" is arguable, but even to the extent that's true, the asymmetry of the population against the institutional army didn't exist back then, and is hugely less symmetric than the era of Mao and Stalin, and will only grow more over time. At some point the resistance offered by personal weapons will be truly symbolic, and then it will be hard to argue the benefit of the 2nd for checking tyranny.

Quote
Do I think that the current debate about gun control is about providing a means for genocide or tyranny? Of course not.

Do I think that once you ban certain firearms, a complete ban is the next logical step? Yes.

Do I think that once you completely ban firearms that the risk of a tyrannical government is significantly increased, if not now then sometime in the future? Yes.
That's a slippery slope fallacy, the same one that can be used to argue against gun freedom. The fallacy could easily be disarmed by replacing the 2nd with a more applicable modern protection against the slippery slope. One that actually allows us to address crime without needing to find a way to ignore the plain language of the amendment in order to do it.

If the amendment was reasonable and updated to be applicable to modern weaponry, then we wouldn't have to "work around" it in order to fight crime. We're not going to stop fighting crime, that's off the table, so the work-arounds are going to keep reducing the credibility of the amendment. A protection that is violated as a matter of routine is weaker than one that's not. An updated, more reasonable amendment that balanced the protection of reasonable gun rights with an ability to curb gun crime, would actually provide more secure gun rights and checks on tyranny, by virtue of actually being obeyed.


Quote
Again, this whole discussion is in response to your post saying that it seems silly to assume there will never come a time when it [the 2nd Amendment] is no longer appropriate, and the only reason you don't think that day is today is because of consensus.

I am making the point that the 2nd Amendment will always be appropriate. That is all.
The world has changed a lot, and there's no reason to think it won't keep changing. "Always" is a long time.
 
BLAZE_MkIV Jan 30, 2013 09:31 PM
Quote
At some point the resistance offered by personal weapons will be truly symbolic, and then it will be hard to argue the benefit of the 2nd for checking tyranny.
Only if the gun control people keep restricting the exactly the types of guns needed for this purpose and not the ones actually responsible for the majority of gun crime.
 
Uncle Skeleton Jan 30, 2013 10:22 PM
Quote, Originally Posted by BLAZE_MkIV (Post 4214669)
Only if the gun control people keep restricting the exactly the types of guns needed for this purpose and not the ones actually responsible for the majority of gun crime.
You mean repeal the full-auto ban, and give civilian access to the ever increasing technology of the military? Napalm, WMDs, and death stars? Or do you mean stifle military R&D so it doesn't get too far ahead of what we can sanely allow civilians to have?
 
olePigeon Jan 30, 2013 10:37 PM
Quote, Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton (Post 4214574)
Automatic weapons are already banned, and have been for decades.
Not at a Federal level. It's a $200 fee, finger printing, and background check for states that allow them.

Quote, Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton (Post 4214574)
This is not believable, not with equivalent users. Please cite.
Just Google it, man. As many as half of the world's child soldiers are in Africa alone. It's a serious problem in developing nations as warlords and tyrants conscript children into their military.

Quote, Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton (Post 4214574)
Please give specifics. What RPM is "high?" What RPM is acceptable?
If I had to put a number on it, I'd say 350 rounds per minute would be the cutoff. Assault rifles enter in around 450 rounds per minute.

Quote, Originally Posted by Athens (Post 4214580)
You have never used a gun, its very obvious....
I attend a gun range fairly regularly with my buddies and I do sport shooting with my cousin and uncles every year. So I'll save you the time and baseless accusations.

Quote, Originally Posted by Athens (Post 4214580)
He was forced to reload because he used up a entire clip in 2 seconds because automatics do that.
Irrelevant.

Quote, Originally Posted by Athens (Post 4214580)
If he was in semi automatic mode he would have killed a LOT more people.
Hence why high capacity magazines should be banned.

Quote, Originally Posted by Athens (Post 4214580)
10 rounds, 50 rounds, can easily carry additional magazines which allows for more controlled expenditure of ammo. It seems to help the assailant not hinder them.
Forcing them to reload puts him at a disadvantage. Period. Keeping the magazines small would probably make fully-automatic weapons almost obsolete.

Quote, Originally Posted by Athens (Post 4214580)
But it was a full automatic gun, a evil military style gun. You already said above it should have killed hundreds of people.
And by your logic, he shouldn't have killed more than 2 or 3 people because automatic weapons are impossibly inaccurate. :rolleyes: He killed 26 people in a matter of minutes. They weren't all bunched up in a single room, either, he had to go to different classrooms. I don't need to recite the specifics of the shooting for your remarks to look ridiculous.

Quote, Originally Posted by Athens (Post 4214580)
And in full automatic mode only a couple children would have been hit even grouped together and half the rounds would have been in the ceiling because thats the tendency of full automatics to cause a uncontrollable rise of the gun.
If it was absolutely the very first time that a person had fired that gun, perhaps. But anyone who's had a few minutes with the weapon can learn to bring the gun under moderate control, at least enough to shoot upon 20 children huddled on the ground. Children in waring countries already do it. These aren't AK-47s. Any rifle produced in the past 30 years has had significant reduction in recoil and have added ingenious muzzle breaks to the point where you can practically fire them one handed.

Quote, Originally Posted by Athens (Post 4214580)
IHave you ever been totally isolated in nature with no ability to even make a phone call? Doubt it.
Yep. Trail hiking, camping, & hunting.

Quote, Originally Posted by Athens (Post 4214580)
Have you ever fired a gun at all? Doubt it.
Lots of guns, lots of times. Lots of bows. A few crossbows. Even a blow dart.
 
subego Jan 30, 2013 10:41 PM
Quote, Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton (Post 4214678)
You mean repeal the full-auto ban, and give civilian access to the ever increasing technology of the military? Napalm, WMDs, and death stars? Or do you mean stifle military R&D so it doesn't get too far ahead of what we can sanely allow civilians to have?
Semi-autos are full-autos with a limiter built in. It's almost a trivial exercise to get rid of the limiter.
 
subego Jan 30, 2013 10:43 PM
Quote, Originally Posted by Athens (Post 4214646)
The founding fathers recognized a central bank as a bad idea yet one was established. The founding fathers recognized corporations as bad and placed strong limits on them, this changed. So a lot has changed since the founding fathers.



Excuse me, we have guns in Canada and Australia. Its the people in the UK that are screwed :P

Question back to the rights to bear arms, does a requirement to be licensed to purchase and own fire arms go against the amendment. I ask this because clearly you can already restrict criminals and insane people from owning guns. Criminals that forfeited there rights under there own doing and the grey area of preventing arms to crazy people who maybe not by there own actions deserved to be restricted (a area we have not fully touched on) but for public good is generally recognized to prevent them from owning firearms. Does it not allow enough leeway to put in a license system in place just to make background checks easier for the sale and purchase of weapons. One good background check at time of getting licensed vs a check at every purchase and sale? The reason I ask this is because while it could limit some who might not be able to past tests or afford a license it really does not prevent the ownership of guns to the general public so I fail to see how that would actually go against the 2nd.
If you buy into the "protection from tyranny" argument, letting the government compile a list of who has guns isn't that swell an idea.
 
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 01:22 PM.

Copyright © 2005-2007 MacNN. All rights reserved.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.


Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO 3.3.2