Mega-Thread: Gun Control Thread

[PhaelixWW]

Define "arms."

It's not defined by the Constitution, probably intentionally.

I would suggest that the term applies to anything that is capable and suitable for the job of self defense. That, of course, can change with the time. When criminals are armed with only swords, then guns can be considered outside the realm of 2nd Amendment "arms" for the purpose of self defense. But when criminals are commonly armed with firearms, then swords are no longer really capable of providing for your self-defense, so therefore firearms are within the 2nd Amendment scope of "arms".

Grenades, on the other hand, being more destructive and not necessarily more effective than firearms for the purpose of self defense, I would consider them outside the scope of 2nd Amendment "arms" protection. I'd even suggest that automatic firearms are not any more generally effective than semi-automatic firearms for the purpose of self defense, and so should be outside the scope of 2nd Amendment protection.

For tanks, nuclear weapons, etc., see grenades above.

[A dot Ham]

Same reason they refused to accept the UN status on the rights of a disabled person. They sincerely thought by signing that they were giving the UN authority over there own. Some people think messing with 2nd "right to bear arms" means we want to take away ALL their guns and not just some of it. I know it sounds sillly but they're actually pople out there.

Like NRA (National Rifle assciassion) think think the goverment wants to rub us of guns and take over..

Wrong on so many levels. I know its easy to take a dissenting opinion and try to trivialize it so that your opinion sounds like the truth... but stop.

It has NOTHING to do with "Merm da gervernmentz wantz meh gunz!"

The issue is however the 2nd Amendment and the entire bill of rights. Gun control on the whole has always been about skirting those rights without outright ignoring them. They get dangerously close, and if you are willing to see that right be stomped on or ignored, are you prepared to have other rights skirted and ignored?

I myself do not own any guns. But I support the 2nd Amendment because I understand its value, and I understand the implications of NOT protecting it.

The constitution was written at a time when the musket was top of the line military equipment, and more powerful machines of war were simply... bigger muskets. So "arms" was anything that could kill. We have since taken to define "arms" as guns. Now you want to further minimize that scope to hunting rifles and handguns.

Now originally the purpose of the 2nd amendment was really to keep the government from doing what the british were doing under consent of the king which was impose themselves in daily lives. You own a gun so you can say, "No, fuck off, and get the fuck out of my house!" To protect yourself against the government.

Today there is really nothing stopping the government from doing that (if they wanted to). Sure you can organize a militia but a well placed drone missile and that militia is likely to fall apart (if anyone survived) do YOU have access to an armed drone? Probably not... so you aren't "protecting yourself against the government". So being a conservative 2nd amendment supporting citizen... that argument is hog wash.

If the government wanted to "Take muh gunz!" they don't need a law to do it, they'll just do it.

So we are back to the implications of ignoring 1/10 of the bill of rights, and what that means for the other 9.

If you truly support gun control and flat out doing away with the 2nd Amendment, I sincerely hope that your beliefs are never viewed as harmful, or that your religion isn't associated with death, because that freedom is likely to be skirted as well.

My protection of the 2nd Amendment is my protection and value of the constitution. Yes I have the right to bear arms, it is a right I choose not to exercise.

That being said lets take a second to review what has sparked this debate (again).

Stricter laws/gun control would not have saved the lives of the people in that club.

The shooter passed all background checks and was fully eligible to purchase and receive that gun. Likely, he would pass future stricter laws that are supposed to "protect" us from such an event.

Limiting the type of gun doesn't necessarily equate to more lives being saved. A handgun has 6-10 rounds depending, and reloading a clip is an easy and quick process.

Lets also not forget that this was an act of terrorism. You don't need guns to kill people. Fire, bombings, stabbings, panic, chemical there are many ways to commit genocide.

[TITAN308]

It's not defined by the Constitution, probably intentionally.

I would suggest that the term applies to anything that is capable and suitable for the job of self defense. That, of course, can change with the time. When criminals are armed with only swords, then guns can be considered outside the realm of 2nd Amendment "arms" for the purpose of self defense. But when criminals are commonly armed with firearms, then swords are no longer really capable of providing for your self-defense, so therefore firearms are within the 2nd Amendment scope of "arms".

Grenades, on the other hand, being more destructive and not necessarily more effective than firearms for the purpose of self defense, I would consider them outside the scope of 2nd Amendment "arms" protection. I'd even suggest that automatic firearms are not any more generally effective than semi-automatic firearms for the purpose of self defense, and so should be outside the scope of 2nd Amendment protection.

For tanks, nuclear weapons, etc., see grenades above.

The main problem with the strawmen arguments revolving around biologic and nuclear weapons is very simple: those arms kill people indiscriminately and also continue to kill once used for a period of time.

It is the same reasoning as to why booby traps are expressly illegal in every state as far as I am aware.

[PhaelixWW]

No, registration isn´t pointless, it opens up reasonable gun control legislation. "Oh, that firearm? It was stolen a while back." - Ok, so since you haven´t reported the theft you are now fined for three times the worth of the stolen firearm.

Registration does not automatically imply a requirement to report a stolen firearm. If you want to talk about a requirement to report a stolen firearm, then do so.

But all that will happen then is that people will report the firearm stolen when they sell it illegally. How do you prove them wrong?

Once again, registration is pointless.

[Paranoid Android]

You're right, and they've interpreted the 2nd amendment to include the rights of individual citizens to keep and bear arms (in two different recent rulings, no less). It's pretty delusional to think that you could pass gun legislation contradictory to the 2nd amendment, without needing to repeal/amend the 2nd amendment.

That's why the fucking constitution exists, so that politicians can't just ignore it and do whatever they want.

They pass laws many times that contradict the U.S. Constitution. You cannot incite riots or violence (1st Amendment). Many exceptions to privacy (4th Amendment) and so on.

Nothing contradictory to passing better background checks or no fly list. Also in my opinion, I do think we need semi-auto, high capacity rifles.

[Mayhem]

There are some cases where some people didn't even realize a gun was stolen until the police where knocking on their door. Not saying its the norm, but it happens.

Most of the cases I've seen its older people who have a pile of them in a closet they haven't cleaned out in years and then someone breaks in or a family member takes them.

Yeah, but i´m ok with people who don´t realize that something has been stolen to pay a fine because i wouldn´t call them reasonable gunowners. Would you agree? Also this is obviously not targeting senile folks but people who legally purchase firearms that get constantly stolen from them or straw purchasers.

[Paranoid Android]

Arms is shorthand for Armaments as far as I know.

Okay. So by the constitution should we have the right to rocket propelled weapons and other military arms? I see armament defined in dictionary including military weapons.

[Wildtree]

Senate filibuster on gun control


http://www.politico.com/story/2016/0...control-224369

http://www.politico.com/livestream-2

[TITAN308]

Okay. So by the constitution should we have the right to rocket propelled weapons and other military arms? I see armament defined in dictionary including military weapons.

We can buy rocket propelled grenades. However it requires ATF approval and various taxes. One $200 tax for the weapon itself, then $200 per ammunition. Then you have to find a company willing to sell you the weapon and the ammunition and at the price they demand.

You'll have a hard time finding anything outside of 30mm flare or smoke grendages just FYI on the civilian market.

[Mayhem]

Registration does not automatically imply a requirement to report a stolen firearm. If you want to talk about a requirement to report a stolen firearm, then do so.

I didn´t imply it automatically does.

But all that will happen then is that people will report the firearm stolen when they sell it illegally. How do you prove them wrong?

Once again, registration is pointless.

Yes, because after you illegally sold a gun the first thing you want to do is call the cops to have them sniff around and verify the theft. Why would you do that? Unless of course you are a criminal, but criminals tend to not call the cops. And if you´re not a criminal, there´s no need for you to illegally sell a gun, you can do it legally.

[PhaelixWW]

The main problem with the strawmen arguments revolving around biologic and nuclear weapons is very simple: those arms kill people indiscriminately and also continue to kill once used for a period of time.

It is the same reasoning as to why booby traps are expressly illegal in every state as far as I am aware.

Exactly, which is why even though explosives may have some situational benefit in some defensive use scenario, it's not generally more effective than a firearm for that purpose. And when evaluating general effectiveness, I would absolutely consider the effectiveness of eliminating the threat mitigated by the possibility for collateral damage.

Besides, I consider one of the primary benefits of a firearm for defense to be its intimidation factor, ideally to prevent a violent confrontation before injury is caused. An explosive is almost always a trap, which is just like hiding in your bushes in a ghillie suit waiting for a burglar to set prybar to windowsill. That shit is premeditated violence, which is pretty much inexcusable.

[Paranoid Android]

We can buy rocket propelled grenades. However it requires ATF approval and various taxes. One $200 tax for the weapon itself, then $200 per ammunition. Then you have to find a company willing to sell you the weapon and the ammunition and at the price they demand.

Why I know it is not you making the argument of some previous poster who defined that the 2nd Amendment should not be touched at all. Thus, it seems he is saying you there should be no laws, while we all know that there a laws that "curb" every Amendment in the U.S. Constitution.

[TITAN308]

Why I know it is not you making the argument of some previous poster who defined that the 2nd Amendment should not be touched at all. Thus, it seems he is saying you there should be no laws, while we all know that there a laws that "curb" every Amendment in the U.S. Constitution.

I don't disagree. I will say however that the government has already gone to far in violation of multiple amendments, I'd rather not see even more added in.

As you pointed out, the government has had many years to master the ability to circumvent the constitution. It also doesn't help that the bloody thing can swing one way or the other based purely on who is sitting their ass in a SCOTUS seat at the time. (this goes both ways)

[cubby]

Looks like they might be moving towards No Fly, No Buy regulations for gun control.

Imo if they do pass that legislation, someone will go ahead and sue, and perhaps we can get a Supreme Court ruling on the limitations of the 2nd Amendment (finally).

[TITAN308]

I don't personally care if people on the No Fly List are red flagged for firearms, but under one strict condition:

The process to find out why one is on the No Fly List and the ability to fight it if it is an illegitimate claim is quick and doesn't involved months, if not years, of bureaucratic red tape.

Sadly we all know this is not possible with the federal government.

If for some reason I am put on a No Fly List by accident or mistake, I can't begin to imagine the legal fees and time I would have to spend trying to correct something of this nature. If its even possible to fix without a lawsuit...

[Eviscero]

It's not defined by the Constitution, probably intentionally.

I would suggest that the term applies to anything that is capable and suitable for the job of self defense. That, of course, can change with the time. When criminals are armed with only swords, then guns can be considered outside the realm of 2nd Amendment "arms" for the purpose of self defense. But when criminals are commonly armed with firearms, then swords are no longer really capable of providing for your self-defense, so therefore firearms are within the 2nd Amendment scope of "arms".

Grenades, on the other hand, being more destructive and not necessarily more effective than firearms for the purpose of self defense, I would consider them outside the scope of 2nd Amendment "arms" protection. I'd even suggest that automatic firearms are not any more generally effective than semi-automatic firearms for the purpose of self defense, and so should be outside the scope of 2nd Amendment protection.

For tanks, nuclear weapons, etc., see grenades above.

So we agree that the 2nd amendment doesn't grant everyone the right to own literally any conceivable weapon now until the end of humanity (caused by some yet-to-be-conceived weapon no doubt <- bold claim).

Where we disagree, I think, is where the line should be drawn and what is meant by 'A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State.' Honestly, the better regulated 'the militia' and its access to guns, the more I'm willing to slide my threshold of what kind of weapons it should have access to.

[PhaelixWW]

I didn´t imply it automatically does.

Sure you did. I said registration was pointless. You said it wasn't pointless because of a second thing that you hadn't brought up before. If you wanted to talk about whether or not requiring stolen firearms to be reported would be beneficial, then do that.

And as I've said before, ad nauseam, the information you'd find in a registry already exists by current law at the point of sale, hence the ability for the ATF to perform firearm traces.

So yet again, pointless.

Yes, because after you illegally sold a gun the first thing you want to do is call the cops to have them sniff around and verify the theft.

Are you seriously implying that the police will do a detailed investigation for every single report of a stolen firearm? And how exactly would the police prove that said report was fraudulent?

[Hammerfest]

Hmmm... I wonder what the Japanese commander-in-chief of the combined fleet during WWII thought about America and its guns...

[Kalador]

Hmmm... I wonder what the Japanese commander-in-chief of the combined fleet during WWII thought about America and its guns...

http://www.factcheck.org/2009/05/misquoting-yamamoto/

never said that

[Hammerfest]

never said that

Sure he didn't.