Mega-Thread: Gun Control Thread

[TwoNineMarine]

I am aware of that, but other people reading this thread may not be.

Touche.

On another point my wife is going to (finally) get her concealed carry. Gonna look around at various weapons for her this weekend.

[Zoranon]

Touche.

On another point my wife is going to (finally) get her concealed carry. Gonna look around at various weapons for her this weekend.

Congratulations, a little advice if I may: the gun needs to fit into her smallest hand bag, especially if that one is her favourite one.

[TwoNineMarine]

Congratulations, a little advice if I may: the gun needs to fit into her smallest hand bag, especially if that one is her favourite one.

Yep already brought that up to her. She has really small hands so it would need to be small regardless. My XD .45 looks fucking huge in her hands lol.

I do like the Ruger LC9's. But it'll be her call. Whatever feels good and shoots well for her.

[Stormdash]

My own unsolicited advice is against off-body carry at all if she can help it. They make those belly bands and such. I also like the M&P Shield as a carry option for a smaller person (most women).

[Ghostpanther]

[QUOTE=Daelak;36771248]That's an interpretation, I am using the literal text from the constitution, liberal.

[COLOR="#417394"][SIZE=1]

Except their interpretation is what matters. Not yours.

[lockedout]

How many incidents take place each year where a civilian legally discharges a firearm in self-defense?





Do you have any evidence that self-reporting of DGU's is uncommon? Both the NCVS and the survey from Kleck suggest that over 50% of the incidents are reported to police.

So it's possible 49% are not reported to the police then.

[Ghostpanther]

So it's possible 49% are not reported to the police then.

Lol! Good job.

[TwoNineMarine]

My own unsolicited advice is against off-body carry at all if she can help it. They make those belly bands and such. I also like the M&P Shield as a carry option for a smaller person (most women).

I've never used one so I'd have to check it out. But if she likes it I'll definitely pick it up for her.

And I agree with the off-body carry. I'll see what her comfort level is though.

[TITAN308]

Insanity: the act of doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result.

This is basically everyone since probably the inception of the 2nd Amendment claiming it is not an individual right. Yet time after time they are proven to be wrong, by the majority, and by SCOTUS.

Yet what do they do?

Insanity. Fits perfectly.

[Stormdash]

That's interesting. Do you have any examples?

I've never gotten too bogged down in the intention of the founding fathers, as I feel it shouldn't really matter much.

The only thing that makes a law derived by popular sovereignty (like the Constitution and all its amendments) valid at all is the mutual understanding of those who proposed and those who adopted it; that is the very soul of "consent of the governed". It wasn't written for the purpose of being a set of words that mean only whatever the priests and oracles of the latter day decide they should mean. The best we can or should do today is posit "okay, if this circumstance had been present at the time of ratification, how would it fit into what they did". If anything is truly novel or outside the sphere, or public sentiment of the day is that policy be something other than the Framers would have done -- it's time for an amendment, not an "interpretation".

[Tasttey]

On another point my wife is going to (finally) get her concealed carry. Gonna look around at various weapons for her this weekend.

If she's going to carry on body, I second taking a look at the S&W Shield for striker fired. If she prefers DA/SA like my girl does, the Colt XSP might be a good fit. My other half loves hers and carries it on body, cocked and locked in a custom IWB holster.

[TZucchini]

The only thing that makes a law derived by popular sovereignty (like the Constitution and all its amendments) valid at all is the mutual understanding of those who proposed and those who adopted it; that is the very soul of "consent of the governed". It wasn't written for the purpose of being a set of words that mean only whatever the priests and oracles of the latter day decide they should mean. The best we can or should do today is posit "okay, if this circumstance had been present at the time of ratification, how would it fit into what they did". If anything is truly novel or outside the sphere, or public sentiment of the day is that policy be something other than the Framers would have done -- it's time for an amendment, not an "interpretation".

It's definitely time for an amendment. My point being, an argument against the passage of such an amendment should not be "individual ownership is what the founding fathers intended."

Although at this point and time, an amendment may not even be necessary to pass Constitutional scrutiny. Just look to the most recent AWB and magazine capacity legislation that was upheld by Federal Courts due to said legislation being "substantially related to the important governmental interests of public safety and crime reduction". As the science becomes more and more clear, it will be harder for rational judges to ignore.

- - - Updated - - -

So it's possible 49% are not reported to the police then.

Yes, lockedout. It's possible that 49% are not reported to police, and that 51% are reported to police. Meaning it's reported to the police the majority of the time.

Which would directly refute your unsourced claim of "It's usually only reported when someone is actually shot or killed."

You are wrong. Again.

[Oktoberfest]

It's definitely time for an amendment. My point being, an argument against the passage of such an amendment should not be "individual ownership is what the founding fathers intended."

Although at this point and time, an amendment may not even be necessary to pass Constitutional scrutiny. Just look to the most recent AWB and magazine capacity legislation that was upheld by Federal Courts due to said legislation being "substantially related to the important governmental interests of public safety and crime reduction". As the science becomes more and more clear, it will be harder for rational judges to ignore.

- - - Updated - - -



Yes, lockedout. It's possible that 49% are not reported to police, and that 51% are reported to police. Meaning it's reported to the police the majority of the time.

Which would directly refute your unsourced claim of "It's usually only reported when someone is actually shot or killed."

You are wrong. Again.

The only Amendment that needs to be passed is taking away the 1st from Anti-gun nutters

- - - Updated - - -

You do not want a Constitutional Convention. The Left will be running for the fucking borders afterwards

[TwoNineMarine]

If she's going to carry on body, I second taking a look at the S&W Shield for striker fired. If she prefers DA/SA like my girl does, the Colt XSP might be a good fit. My other half loves hers and carries it on body, cocked and locked in a custom IWB holster.

Ah I never even considered the Colt XSP. I'll take that into account. Thank you for the suggestions!

I will definitely need to get her a solid IWB holster. Frankly I need a new one as well.

[Daelak]

The only thing that makes a law derived by popular sovereignty (like the Constitution and all its amendments) valid at all is the mutual understanding of those who proposed and those who adopted it; that is the very soul of "consent of the governed". It wasn't written for the purpose of being a set of words that mean only whatever the priests and oracles of the latter day decide they should mean. The best we can or should do today is posit "okay, if this circumstance had been present at the time of ratification, how would it fit into what they did". If anything is truly novel or outside the sphere, or public sentiment of the day is that policy be something other than the Framers would have done -- it's time for an amendment, not an "interpretation".

Yet you still ignore the first and most important part of the 2nd amendment, the formation and continued maintenance and well-supplied condition of the local militia.

[Tinykong]

It's definitely time for an amendment. My point being, an argument against the passage of such an amendment should not be "individual ownership is what the founding fathers intended."

Although at this point and time, an amendment may not even be necessary to pass Constitutional scrutiny. Just look to the most recent AWB and magazine capacity legislation that was upheld by Federal Courts due to said legislation being "substantially related to the important governmental interests of public safety and crime reduction". As the science becomes more and more clear, it will be harder for rational judges to ignore.

The amount of "crime" being reduced, even if you made all long guns illegal and uninvented them, is laughable.

It's feel good legislation, tooting your horn here like it's some indicator of a shift in public opinion/policy is also laughable.

[Stormdash]

Yet you still ignore the first and most important part of the 2nd amendment, the formation and continued maintenance and well-supplied condition of the local militia.

Not ignoring it, I am just not sharing your wholesale falsehood or historical ignorance that the Militia existed independently of individual citizens who would muster to form it -- and that its effectiveness is why the individual right to keep and bear arms is the thrust of the amendment. It isn't going anywhere. If there was any effort to amend it, the only thing that could muster that level of support would be clarify and strengthen it against fringe hostility to gun ownership.

I still openly mock and disdain the idea that the prefatory clause is so much more important than the operant clause that it has the effect that the phrase "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" doesn't refer to a right of the people to keep or bear arms. That is just cloyingly stupid, to insist the militia language renders that completely meaningless as relates to an individual liberty interest, despite using the same language written in the same collection of amendments that exists solely to declare an individual liberty interest.

[Daelak]

Not ignoring it, I am just not sharing your wholesale falsehood or historical ignorance that the Militia existed independently of individual citizens who would muster to form it -- and that its effectiveness is why the individual right to keep and bear arms is the thrust of the amendment. It isn't going anywhere. If there was any effort to amend it, the only thing that could muster that level of support would be clarify and strengthen it against fringe hostility to gun ownership.

It isn't a falsehood, firearm ownership at the time of ratification was rare, most firearms were stored in armories with the munitions, supplied and maintained by the militiamen and the wealthy landowners who could buy out of participating in the militia. Read the history of the American Revolution and you will understand why it is the 2nd amendment.

Again, if it was the thrust of the amendment it would of declared it as such at the beginning to give the context of the militia, but it is the opposite, the militia has the right to bear arms against foreign enemies.

[Stormdash]

It isn't a falsehood, firearm ownership at the time of ratification was rare, most firearms were stored in armories with the munitions, supplied and maintained by the militiamen and the wealthy landowners who could buy out of participating in the militia. Read the history of the American Revolution and you will understand why it is the 2nd amendment.

Again, if it was the thrust of the amendment it would of declared it as such at the beginning to give the context of the militia, but it is the opposite, the militia has the right to bear arms against foreign enemies.

You are an embarrassment to everyone who has ever studied or taught, or indeed read or spoken, the English language. "I'm pretty tired, so I'm going to bed" -- in deepest, darkest Daelakia, the important thing here is that I am tired, and I may not actually be going to bed at all. Holy shit.

[Ghostpanther]

It's definitely time for an amendment. My point being, an argument against the passage of such an amendment should not be "individual ownership is what the founding fathers intended."

[/B]Although at this point and time, an amendment may not even be necessary to pass Constitutional scrutiny. Just look to the most recent AWB and magazine capacity legislation that was upheld by Federal Courts due to said legislation being "substantially related to the important governmental interests of public safety and crime reduction". As the science becomes more and more clear, it will be harder for rational judges to ignore.

- - - Updated - - -

Except that is what they meant. You are wrong. Again.

- - - Updated - - -

Yet you still ignore the first and most important part of the 2nd amendment, the formation and continued maintenance and well-supplied condition of the local militia.

And you continue to ignore the most important opinion which is one which matters. And they ruled it was a right separate from the militia.