Game of Cops and Robbers gets a little too real

[Thekri]

Again, if your guns will only be handled by those who are committed to follow the four rules, it shouldn't matter. But one could also reasonably store a magazine in place but an empty chamber as well.

I suppose, but one of the basic principles of safety is to put as many steps between you and disaster as practical. Storing a magazine next to a firearm is considerably safer and just as convenient, storing your magazines somewhere else entirely is slightly more safe and slightly less convenient, so most gun enthusiasts don't bother with that if it is in a safe household. But storing it in the weapon seems foolish.

[Endus]

You say that as though there's something self-evident about a government that does more things doing a better job. Governments do not exist to manage the lives and choices of the citizens they serve -- serve, not rule.

The thing you're missing is that a government that does things like mandating taxation and enforcing rule of law is serving its people. Through rule.

You've manufactured a false dichotomy. The entire concept of representative government is fundamentally about a government ruling in the service of its people.

[Stormdash]

Well that, and also the fact that after 2 centuries and a civil war we know have a much more federally centered government than we began with. Things that we weren't supposed to have included a central bank and the US Army, both of which conservatives seem to be fine with. We don't have a lot of complains about the existence of the interstate system either, which couldn't have been done by state governments.

A standing army and navy are both explicit article I powers of the Congress. What's troubling to me isn't that the federal government has grown so much as that the federal government now has a finger deeper into the... life of the citizens of these former colonies and several States than ever did George III or his Parliament. Deeper than they'd have ever been interested, even.

I suppose, but one of the basic principles of safety is to put as many steps between you and disaster as practical. Storing a magazine next to a firearm is considerably safer and just as convenient, storing your magazines somewhere else entirely is slightly more safe and slightly less convenient, so most gun enthusiasts don't bother with that if it is in a safe household. But storing it in the weapon seems foolish.

The safety tradeoff is with readiness; there's only so "safe" you can make the weapon and still plausibly have it as means of self-defense in the nearly-immediate basis you'd ever need it. As rare as people like to stress that the need would be to defend yourself with lethal force, if or when it ever happens, it's not going to be with a lot of warning. This scenario -- empty chamber, empty magazine, loaded magazine in same secured location -- is about as many steps as you can put between the gun and firing and still have any intention of using it for self-defense if needed. I think storing it in any condition you'd be willing to carry it is also not that unreasonable on its face.

[Thekri]

A standing army and navy are both explicit article I powers of the Congress. What's troubling to me isn't that the federal government has grown so much as that the federal government now has a finger deeper into the... life of the citizens of these former colonies and several States than ever did George III or his Parliament. Deeper than they'd have ever been interested, even.

You really need to read article I of the constitution...

A standing navy is provided for, a standing Army is not. The much misquoted second amendment is the national defense clause for land forces. In case you forgot what the second amendment actually says

A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

The reason a well regulated militia is needed is because there wasn't supposed to be a standing Army, federally controlled troops were considered a threat to the states and the people as they could be used to gain political advantage, as actually happened in every other republic before the US. The right to keep and bear arms is the second part of the same sentence, it is the same sentence because it is the same thought as the first part, not a separate issue. It prevents the federal government from disarming a local community to enforce its will.

The supreme court's syllabus to the much vaunted DC vs. Heller states in section (b)

(b) The prefatory clause comports with the Court’s interpretation of the operative clause. The “militia” comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. The Antifederalists feared that the Federal Government would disarm the people in order to disable this citizens’ militia, enabling a politicized standing army or a select militia to rule. The response was to deny Congress power to abridge the ancient right of individuals to keep and bear arms, so that the ideal of a citizens’ militia would be preserved.

So yeah, the second amendment it is claimed to do, but it wasn't the initial purpose of the amendment, it was a side effect.

edit: One more quote, the specific portion of Article I, Section 8 of the US Constitution dealing with the Army

To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;

Pretty expressly against a standing army, although how it is interpreted now is that the Congress needs to set the defense budget at least every two years. Notice how their is no such restriction on the Navy.

[Gestopft]

A thread about a stupid and/or reckless person doing a stupid and/or reckless thing to his brother. He could have fed him a clorox smoothie, could have cut off a finger playing mumblety-peg, nobody would question the underlying safety of household chemicals or cutlery. Sigh, I already know the answer is going to be "guns are designed to kill, so different", not sure why I bother. The gun doesn't have telos, the gun's purpose is to contain a chemical reaction directionally to fling a solid projective over a distance. That tool can be used for good or ill. It can be used to kill, an attacking person, an attacking animal, to shoot out a pane glass window keeping you away from a burning child, etc. It has no anima, though, it doesn't sit there whisper 'kill kill kill'.

Of course I could use a blender to mark pages in my book, a beer stein to break someone's nose, a gun to crack walnuts, or a screwdriver to mix vodka in with my OJ. Anyway, I'm looking for a new coat rack. Should I go with a Hoover, a Dirt Devil, or a Dyson? Or maybe can we stop sidestepping the obvious with bullshit semantics and admit that guns were invented to be weapons, and that discharging highly dangerous rounds is what they are most often used for.

Every time these threads come up there is the chorus of "well, this was just people being irresponsible." How many times does this story have to come up before we can admit that there are LOTS of irresponsible people out there, and that maybe such dangerous "tools" should have stricter regulations?

[Deleted]

Responsible people do not have guns, period.

[Stormdash]

You really need to read article I of the constitution...

Good idea...

To raise and support armies, but no appropriation of money to that use shall be for a longer term than two years;

To provide and maintain a navy;

US Constitution, Article I, Section 7.

Pretty expressly against a standing army, although how it is interpreted now is that the Congress needs to set the defense budget at least every two years. Notice how their is no such restriction on the Navy.

That interpretation is entirely consistent with the text, though, which is ultimately what matters -- I'd concede that it's probably not what was intended, though. And for that matter, I'm not opposed to a stricter enforcement as a general principle. There are worse culprits for "dead letter" treatment of provisions in the Constitution, if that one upsets you -- like the origination clause that effectively no longer means anything, or the commerce clause that is no effectively a general police power.

Every time these threads come up there is the chorus of "well, this was just people being irresponsible." How many times does this story have to come up before we can admit that there are LOTS of irresponsible people out there, and that maybe such dangerous "tools" should have stricter regulations?

Or maybe we should be more punitive with violations of the standards of responsible conduct, not stricter categorically with the rules of ownership. I know, it's unfair to actually judge people's actions and hold them accountable for them.

Responsible people do not have guns, period.

Except for the 99% + of gun owners who never have an ND other than maybe with a muzzle pointed down range.

[Nakura Chambers]

Oh no no, as a European from a country where guns are banned I should definitely note how evil guns are and should be banned. The sheer fact that Americans haven't figured this out is a sign that they are beneath us and I need to express this in every gun topic ever. It is simply the right thing to do. We insult you untill you hurr durr muricans accept it, just like you accepted our communist health insurance system!

Now we only need an American to come in and cry about every European nationbashing and we have covered at least the first 50 pages of the thread.

I can't tell if you're serious or not.

[Thekri]

That interpretation is entirely consistent with the text, though, which is ultimately what matters -- I'd concede that it's probably not what was intended, though. And for that matter, I'm not opposed to a stricter enforcement as a general principle. There are worse culprits for "dead letter" treatment of provisions in the Constitution, if that one upsets you -- like the origination clause that effectively no longer means anything, or the commerce clause that is no effectively a general police power.

Well I am in the US Army, as an officer no less, so clearly it doesn't upset me. My point is that the federal government has become larger than it was intended in the constitution and that is not an entirely bad thing. Although a significant amount of time was spent arguing against a standing army in 1786, and ultimately its opponents won, it was not a practical solution, and when state militias got obliterated by the Western Confederacy (Shawnee and Delaware tribes) in 1981, just 5 years later, the government was forced to create an Army (Amusingly called the Legion of the United State, because Washington had a hard-on for the Roman republic), and despite it only supposed to exist until the end of the current war, in fact it never went away, and is the US Army of today.

The point of all this is to say that I am not a strict constructionist of the Constitution. I love the document, but it is over two centuries old, times change, and saying that the government is too big because the founding fathers wouldn't like it is not a good argument. The question is rather; is it the best choice for us today?

[Stormdash]

Well I am in the US Army, as an officer no less, so clearly it doesn't upset me. My point is that the federal government has become larger than it was intended in the constitution and that is not an entirely bad thing. Although a significant amount of time was spent arguing against a standing army in 1786, and ultimately its opponents won, it was not a practical solution, and when state militias got obliterated by the Western Confederacy (Shawnee and Delaware tribes) in 1981, just 5 years later, the government was forced to create an Army (Amusingly called the Legion of the United State, because Washington had a hard-on for the Roman republic), and despite it only supposed to exist until the end of the current war, in fact it never went away, and is the US Army of today.

The point of all this is to say that I am not a strict constructionist of the Constitution. I love the document, but it is over two centuries old, times change, and saying that the government is too big because the founding fathers wouldn't like it is not a good argument. The question is rather; is it the best choice for us today?

Which always brings me rocketing back to Article V. If there is an obviously better choice for us today, the document provides readily available means by which to codify that choice. I'm not a strict constructionist per se, but I do at least make that the first sanity check. Pragmatic-originalist would be more how I'd describe my school of interpretation; "how would the framers have dealt with X had it been present for them to deal with". That's about all the 'bend' I see in it. I also think that the only reason the federal courts have taken longstanding historical shits on the 9th and 10th Amendment is because if those Amendments were given the effect of their pretty clear language, federal judges would have a lot less to do in general.

[Thekri]

Which always brings me rocketing back to Article V. If there is an obviously better choice for us today, the document provides readily available means by which to codify that choice. I'm not a strict constructionist per se, but I do at least make that the first sanity check. Pragmatic-originalist would be more how I'd describe my school of interpretation; "how would the framers have dealt with X had it been present for them to deal with". That's about all the 'bend' I see in it. I also think that the only reason the federal courts have taken longstanding historical shits on the 9th and 10th Amendment is because if those Amendments were given the effect of their pretty clear language, federal judges would have a lot less to do in general.

We are not very different in our views, I shall cease to quible over the details and return this thread back to its intended topic...

However, the topic of this thread seems to be a 1st grader argument of "Guns are bad" "Are not" "Are so" "Nuh uh!" "My dad can beat your dad" "Well you're stupid" "You're Stupider"...

Which is probably why I got distracted by a constitutional debate in the first place, since I lost interest in that.

[Thekri]

Yes, but my dad can shoot up your dad.

Probably, my dad isn't a great shot. My brothers and I are a better choice if you need something shot. Which is why shooting up my dad is a very bad idea, BTW.

[Gestopft]

Or maybe we should be more punitive with violations of the standards of responsible conduct, not stricter categorically with the rules of ownership. I know, it's unfair to actually judge people's actions and hold them accountable for them.

Of course individuals should be punished for violations. However, that approach is just a bucket that catches the drops when what we should be doing is fixing the leaks in our roof. Instead of just waiting for violations to occur and punishing the responsible parties after their children have died, we should be looking for ways to reduce the number of violators to begin with. The fact that these occurrences happen multiple times daily should tell us that there are already too many stupid and irresponsible people with firearms in their homes. Education and additional safety measures can help, but only if people are willing to listen and learn. Call me pessimistic, but I don't trust stupid and irresponsible people to wise up and make the necessary changes to avoid these senseless tragedies.

[zephid]

I once played with a butter knife I snuck out of my parents' kitchen with and almost impaled my friend at the time with it when I threw it past him. Should ban kitchenware.

No you didn't. There is no way you would have been able to throw the butter knife hard enough to impale him.

[Thekri]

My dad is a mythical figure that can win any competition, not a person.

Ah, so you are another son of Zeus? That guy does get around.

[KievanAquinus]

Except for the 99% + of gun owners who never have an ND other than maybe with a muzzle pointed down range.

Everyone is a responsible gun owner until they aren't.

[lockedout]

Everyone is a responsible gun owner until they aren't.

Everyone is a responsible person until they aren't. What's your point?

[shimerra]

The point is it was an accident that was only possible by irresponsible parents. This was an accident at the homeowners home, same place a pool would be located.

I'm aware of the point you were making thank you very much. Trying to explain the point to me because I countered your snippy remark with my own though was kinda funny.


Since you apparently missed the point I was making was that if a pool was a concealable, transportable, and as easily usable weapon like a gun then yes we would be having the exact same discussion as we do with Gun Control threads. See what I did was I took the opposite of you likening a privately owned gun to a privately owned pool as objected you'd fine at home and threw it back on you by making my own equally useless comparison.


It was not only possible by irresponsible parents. It was also possible because they were irresponsible parents who owned a gun. The gun was an important piece in why someone died and you don't get to ignore that as much as gun control proponents dont get to ignore the stupidity of the human element.

[WillFeral]

My dad is a mythical figure that can win any competition, not a person.

Why are you in every thread it seems? Almost 15,000 post? Go outside ffs, not sure if you're sad or just creepy.