Mega-Thread: Gun Control Thread

[Svifnymr]

Things we've outlawed that have no issue being illegal:
Automatic weapons for civilian use,

It's debatable that there's no issue, but it's been discussed before.

trans fats, CFCs, asbestos,

transfats aren't outlawed yet, are they?
CFC's and asbestos I won't debate

mace (the shit you buy at wal mart is just a slight irritant, commonly referred to as pepper spray), need I keep going?

Mace is a brand name, they produce OC spray (pepper spray) as well as the ON spray (tear gas) that is the original formula. It was never outlawed.

Of course I'm speaking to a USA Federal level, if you meant a regional thing that I withdraw the post.

- - - Updated - - -

so you think people will build their own weapons, or that a gun mafia will arise?

the comparison is ridiculous

There will be home made guns, sure. Doubt the drug cartels will use them, given they have ready sources in other countries already.

Interestingly (well, to me), since the USA and other countries declare different parts of the gun to be The Gun, there was a racket some years ago with folks buying everything but the frame in the USA (where the frame is the gun and the rest are just parts) to the UK where the frame was not controlled, it was IIRC the barrel and breech.

There are some VERY basic designs that any machinist could crank out. A sten gun is little more than a pipe with a trigger in design. 3d printing and CAD and such mean more complex designs are much more available today.

[Eroginous]

Even if we concede that yes, things have been banned/outlawed/prohibited by law before in the US, you still have all your work ahead of you to show why firearms (or specific types/models of firearms) should be banned/outlawed/prohibited. Coming along to say 'we've banned X so we should ban Y' is not a sound argument by any means.

[Mayhem]

You aren't withdrawing from a lack of ethanol.

"Alcohol exerts numerous pharmacological effects through its interaction with various neurotransmitters and neuromodulators. Among the latter, the endogenous opioids play a key role in the rewarding (addictive) properties of ethanol."

ethanol has rewarding properties, but you´re not withdrawing from a lack of these properties... interesting

- - - Updated - - -

Even if we concede that yes, things have been banned/outlawed/prohibited by law before in the US, you still have all your work ahead of you to show why firearms (or specific types/models of firearms) should be banned/outlawed/prohibited. Coming along to say 'we've banned X so we should ban Y' is not a sound argument by any means.

no one even said that, we weren´t talking about banning firearms, but accessories, remember?

[Oktoberfest]

Do people believe that the Constitution is going to last forever? That it's never going to change, or be amended again?

Because history has something to say about that belief.

The Bill of Rights will never be changed. If they try there will not be a Congress left to see it changed.


As civil rulers, not having their duty to the people duly before them, may attempt to tyrannize, and as the military forces which must be occasionally raised to defend our country, might pervert their power to the injury of their fellow-citizens, the people are confirmed by the next article in their right to keep and bear their private arms.
— Tench Coxe (1755–1824), writing as "A Pennsylvanian," in "Remarks On The First Part Of The Amendments To The Federal Constitution," in the Philadelphia Federal Gazette, June 18, 1789, p. 2 col. 1



You really dont think the average gun owner is going to sit at home waiting for them to come collect do you? No, they will be in the bushes 500 yards away down the street popping heads off the collectors standing on their front porch unaware.

[Mayhem]

The Bill of Rights will never be changed. If they try there will not be a Congress left to see it changed.


As civil rulers, not having their duty to the people duly before them, may attempt to tyrannize, and as the military forces which must be occasionally raised to defend our country, might pervert their power to the injury of their fellow-citizens, the people are confirmed by the next article in their right to keep and bear their private arms.
— Tench Coxe (1755–1824), writing as "A Pennsylvanian," in "Remarks On The First Part Of The Amendments To The Federal Constitution," in the Philadelphia Federal Gazette, June 18, 1789, p. 2 col. 1



You really dont think the average gun owner is going to sit at home waiting for them to come collect do you? No, they will be in the bushes 500 yards away down the street popping heads off the collectors standing on their front porch unaware.

i´m always amazed at where and when democracy ends

[TZucchini]

As civil rulers, not having their duty to the people duly before them, may attempt to tyrannize, and as the military forces which must be occasionally raised to defend our country, might pervert their power to the injury of their fellow-citizens, the people are confirmed by the next article in their right to keep and bear their private arms.
— Tench Coxe (1755–1824), writing as "A Pennsylvanian," in "Remarks On The First Part Of The Amendments To The Federal Constitution," in the Philadelphia Federal Gazette, June 18, 1789, p. 2 col. 1

Oh you like quotes? I like them too:

"Every constitution, then, and every law, naturally expires at the end of nineteen years. If it be enforced longer, it is an act of force, and not of right."

--Thomas Jefferson to James Madison, 1789. ME 7:459, Papers 15:396

You really dont think the average gun owner is going to sit at home waiting for them to come collect do you? No, they will be in the bushes 500 yards away down the street popping heads off the collectors standing on their front porch unaware.

You're all talk, Oktoberfest. You'd probably puke in your own mouth if you ran over a squirrel on the road. You don't posses the will, 'courage', nor ability to kill people legally repossessing your fun pieces of metal (which is something I'm not even calling for). It's why you talk a big game, and just copy pasta out of context quotes all day long. No one's scared. You can drop the act.

[Ghostpanther]

Oh you like quotes? I like them too:

"Every constitution, then, and every law, naturally expires at the end of nineteen years. If it be enforced longer, it is an act of force, and not of right."

--Thomas Jefferson to James Madison, 1789. ME 7:459, Papers 15:396




You're all talk, Oktoberfest. You'd probably puke in your own mouth if you ran over a squirrel on the road. You don't posses the will, 'courage', nor ability to kill people legally repossessing your fun pieces of metal (which is something I'm not even calling for). It's why you talk a big game, and just copy pasta out of context quotes all day long. No one's scared. You can drop the act.

But Jefferson was wrong to some extent. The human rights in the Constitution have stayed basically unchanged for over 200 years and is still considered to be among our most important rights. That is if you think Jefferson meant the US Constitution expires at the end of every 19 years and needs to be rewritten to be valid to reestablish the rights we have. :P

And people will resist tyranny. Even those who talk tough, have died doing so. I would not assume too much about a person if I was you.

[Eroginous]

no one even said that, we weren´t talking about banning firearms, but accessories, remember?

Accessories are no different.

[Tinykong]

You're all talk, Oktoberfest. You'd probably puke in your own mouth if you ran over a squirrel on the road. You don't posses the will, 'courage', nor ability to kill people legally repossessing your fun pieces of metal (which is something I'm not even calling for). It's why you talk a big game, and just copy pasta out of context quotes all day long. No one's scared. You can drop the act.

Repealing the second amendment and putting in place arbitrary qualifications in order to earn ownership would require some people (whoever didn't meet the criteria) to turn over their firearms. If they refused, the government would seize them.

So yes, it's what you're calling for.

[lockedout]

Oh you like quotes? I like them too:

"Every constitution, then, and every law, naturally expires at the end of nineteen years. If it be enforced longer, it is an act of force, and not of right."

--Thomas Jefferson to James Madison, 1789. ME 7:459, Papers 15:396

Do you know what he meant by that statement?

"Between society and society, or generation and generation, there is no municipal obligation, no umpire but the law of nature. . . . By the law of nature, one generation is [therefore] to another as one independent nation to another."

Just as the entailed estate analogy, with its terminology of usufruct and waste, lends itself to issues of land use and property rights, the national sovereignty analogy is well suited to the analysis of power, control, and authority issues which arise between generations. To characterize generations as separate nations is to impliedly reject any generation's authority to legislate for a later generation. The analogy almost presupposes Jefferson's conclusion: that no constitution or law can be perpetual, that every constitution and law requires periodic re-ratification to remain effective.

Jefferson maintains that re-ratification of constitutions and other legislation is required once every generation, and he defines a generation as the period after which a majority of those alive at the time of a law's passage shall themselves have passed away. Applying tables of mortality from the period, Jefferson calculates that:

"Every constitution, then, and every law, naturally expires at the end of 19 years. If it be enforced longer, it is an act of force, and not of right."

He also believed in inalienable rights like the right to defend yourself. So even if a new set of laws and constitution was drafted every 19 years with the coming of a new generation of people the right to defend yourself/bare arms would most likely still be included. Life liberty and the pursuit of happiness and all that.

The same principles which invalidate perpetual constitutions and hereditary monarchies also invalidate, by implication, other perpetual legislation. Complementing the generational right of re-constitution, then, must be a generational right of re-legislation. Paine had applied the principle of generational sovereignty to ordinary legislation in a 1786 communication to the Pennsylvania legislature, in language which closely anticipated the tone of Jefferson's 1789 letter to Madison. Defending the state's right to revoke the Bank of North America's charter, Paine explained that a perpetual charter could not exist:

"As we are not to live for ever ourselves, and other generations are to follow us, we have neither the power nor the right to govern them, or to say how they shall govern themselves. . . . [It is] the summit of human vanity . . . to be dictating to the world to come." f188

He went on to suggest that 30 years was the average length of a generation, that any public act could not be in force longer than that term, and that it would be useful to have an explicit notation to that effect in the constitution. f189

Reflecting the same general philosophy, numerous state constitutions forbade the legislative creation of perpetual or hereditary privileges.

- - - Updated - - -

You're all talk, Oktoberfest. You'd probably puke in your own mouth if you ran over a squirrel on the road. You don't posses the will, 'courage', nor ability to kill people legally repossessing your fun pieces of metal (which is something I'm not even calling for). It's why you talk a big game, and just copy pasta out of context quotes all day long. No one's scared. You can drop the act.

There would be a civil war if the government tried to outright ban and confiscate firearms from legal carriers/owners. That's why if you give an inch expect for them to take a mile.

[TZucchini]

Repealing the second amendment and putting in place arbitrary qualifications in order to earn ownership would require some people (whoever didn't meet the criteria) to turn over their firearms. If they refused, the government would seize them.

So yes, it's what you're calling for.

If I didn't support a grandfather clause, then I suppose you'd be correct. Confiscating weapons that people, at one point in time, bought and possessed legally, would not be a good idea.

Do you know what he meant by that statement?

It doesn't matter what he meant. I'm replying to Oktoberfest. Just post out-of-context quotes and call it a day!


But just for good measure, why don't you copy and paste something you read on the internet, in an attempt to explain what Jefferson meant.

Oh. Never mind. You've already done that.

[Tinykong]

If I didn't support a grandfather clause, then I suppose you'd be correct. Confiscating weapons that people, at one point in time, bought and possessed legally, would not be a good idea.

So, you're fine with: "Jan 1st, 2016 all firearms acquisitions are banned unless you meet XYZ criteria."

[Cthulhu 2020]

Somehow it works for every other free nation. Must be witchcraft. Or non addictive alcohol.

[Rukentuts]

Somehow it works for every other free nation. Must be witchcraft. Or non addictive alcohol.

Free(er) nations, ironically enough.

[Cthulhu 2020]

Free(er) nations, ironically enough.

But do they have non addictive kinds of alcohol?

[Tinykong]

Somehow it works for every other free nation. Must be witchcraft. Or non addictive alcohol.

hashtag anecdotes hashtag #

But do they have non addictive kinds of alcohol?

- - - Updated - - -

Free(er) nations, ironically enough.

This is wildly subjective.

[TZucchini]

So, you're fine with: "Jan 1st, 2016 all firearms acquisitions are banned unless you meet XYZ criteria."

No. Getting rid of the 2nd Amendment doesn't mean all firearm acquisitions are banned barring XYZ criteria. It simply means that lawmakers now have the ability to create restrictive laws on firearms if the public deems them necessary.

[Aeno]

So how come the poll is bifurcating the solutions to guns into two answers for one type of a gun?

[Tinykong]

No. Getting rid of the 2nd Amendment doesn't mean all firearm acquisitions are banned barring XYZ criteria. It simply means that lawmakers now have the ability to create restrictive laws on firearms if the public deems them necessary.

They already have this ability.

[Rukentuts]

But do they have non addictive kinds of alcohol?

Depends on if you just ignore the entirety of the concept of physical dependency, despite me linking it to you a number of times explicitly.