Mega-Thread: Gun Control Thread

[Deleted]

Of course it's a vague definition; the Second Amendment, just like much of the Constitution, was vague by design. Strict enumeration causes legislation to become stale and irrelevant over time, and the Founders wanted the Constitution to remain relevant over time.

Even if you think it is a mistake, the situation is fait accompli in the United States. Guns are never going away, and you need to accept that fact.



What if people want to hunt with them, or practice with them at the range, or carry them for self defense?

Please be more specific with what you define as an assault weapon.

Then again, logic rarely enters crazed rants.

You NEED to be specific here, as CLEARLY back when the constitution was written, the whole world of weapon was way simpler then ours nowadays.
Guns are never going to go away, but you could start to even begin considering a different approach to limit the number of gun related deaths which is appalling for a first world country.
97 deaths related to guns since Newtown. None of them covered by the media by the way.
Some might be your normal everyday crime scene, but some might not.
And those are the ones you need to reduce.

People want to hunt with "assault" weapons? too bad for them, the law has changed, buy a new one.
Hunting is a hobby, as is practicing at range.

As i told you before, i can't be specific at all when it comes to define assault weapons. It's not my job, and i don't get paid for it. It's a messy job and i'll gladly let some overpaid fat cat deal with it while stealing YOUR money.

Oh and i like how, being oh so civil, you end up addressing my post as "rant".
You're right, i'm clearly a 15 years old kid ranting on the net on things he doesn't care about.
They all are aren't they? All those kids that disagree with you huh?

[ovm33]

rights are food, home (possibly) work (going too far), education, Health (good luck on that one).
THESE are right.
shooting targets at range isnt a human right nevermind what a constitution written centuries ago says.
And by the way you guys have some balls quoting the founding fathers. I'm really sure those heroes werent considering people would fight to keep full automatic guns with 100+ magazines.

I will respond with:

ARTICLE 118. Citizens have the right to work, that is, are guaranteed the right to employment and payment for their work in accordance with its quantity and quality.

ARTICLE 119. Citizens have the right to rest and leisure. The right to rest and leisure is ensured by the reduction of the working day to seven hours for the overwhelming majority of the workers, the institution of annual vacations with full pay for workers and employees and the provision of a wide network of sanatoria, rest homes and clubs for the accommodation of the people.

ARTICLE 120.Citizens have the right to maintenance in old age and also in case of sickness or loss of capacity to work. This right is ensured by the extensive development of social insurance of workers and employees at state expense, free medical service for the people and the provision of a wide network of health resorts for the use of the people.

ARTICLE 121. Citizens have the right to education. This right is ensured by universal, compulsory elementary education; by education, including higher education, being free of charge; by the system of state stipends for the overwhelming majority of students in the universities and colleges; by instruction in schools being conducted in their native language.

ARTICLE 122. Women are accorded equal rights with men in all spheres of economic, state, cultural, social and political life. The possibility of exercising these rights is ensured to women by granting them an equal right with men to work, payment for work, rest and leisure, social insurance and education, and by state protection of the interests of mother and child, pre-maternity and maternity leave with full pay, and the provision of a wide network of maternity homes, nurseries and kindergartens.

ARTICLE 123. Equality of rights of citizens, irrespective of their nationality or race, in all spheres of economic, state, cultural, social and political life, is an indefeasible law. Any direct or indirect restriction of the rights of, or, conversely, any establishment of direct or indirect privileges for, citizens on account of their race or nationality, as well as any advocacy of racial or national exclusiveness or hatred and contempt, is punishable by law.

ARTICLE 124. In order to ensure to citizens freedom of conscience, the church is separated from the state, and the school from the church. Freedom of religious worship and freedom of anti-religious propaganda is recognized for all citizens.

Guess what declaration of human rights this is? Do any of my fellow Americans notice what isn't listed as a right? (Right to bear arms for those who don't want to read it.)

So has anyone guessed what constitution this is? It's the 1937 Soviet Constitution. How many untold millions were killed despite the above? My next sentence should really end the thread but we all know it won't.

All other rights are meaningless without the ability to defend them.

[Elegiac]

You NEED to be specific here, as CLEARLY back when the constitution was written, the whole world of weapon was way simpler then ours nowadays.

Your point being what?

Guns are never going to go away, but you could start to even begin considering a different approach to limit the number of gun related deaths which is appalling for a first world country.

97 deaths related to guns since Newtown. None of them covered by the media by the way.
Some might be your normal everyday crime scene, but some might not.
And those are the ones you need to reduce.

True, but banning them is not the answer. Blanket bans are never the answer whether it's prostitution, drugs, guns, or alcohol.

People want to hunt with "assault" weapons? too bad for them, the law has changed, buy a new one.
Hunting is a hobby, as is practicing at range.

Liberty is the norm, it should never be the exception. Again, what defines an assault weapon?

As i told you before, i can't be specific at all when it comes to define assault weapons. It's not my job, and i don't get paid for it. It's a messy job and i'll gladly let some overpaid fat cat deal with it while stealing YOUR money.

I can define an assault weapon for you. A weapon capable of fully automatic fire with an intermediate cartridge. Then again, my definition is not another man's, and therein lies the difficulty. Even if you ban such weapons, people can just as easily kill others with bolt action, lever action, pump action, or semiautomatic weapons. Hell, you can kill people with muzzle-loaded weapons.

[Wildtree]

Liberty is the norm, it should never be the exception. Again, what defines an assault weapon?

http://www.jud.ct.gov/ji/criminal/gl...aultweapon.htm

[Deleted]

did anyone else shiver when they heard him say "and addressing a culture that too often glorifies guns and violence" here we go again video games are evil gta 5 will never be released.

[Deleted]

Please note that when I say 'handle' in regards to gun safety, I do not mean 'point and shoot'. Gun safety is more about how to treat guns, behave around them, etc.

US culture, and indeed most western cultures, already introduce weapons and war to children at a very young age; be it through toys, video games, television, movies. Even the news. So if you are trying to eliminate that, you've failed already and should just give up.

And here we have another case of "the morality and environment kids are being raised in today is different, ergo bad". It is not better or worse, it is different, and thus to you, scary. Our age is actually becoming -less- violent as regards crime. And there is no evidence to suggest that video games, television, etc. have any significant impact in terms of aggression.

First of all

"Besides, I am sure many kids would pay attention to gun safety given that firing weapons tends to be part of the course."

That IS what you said so, yes, you DO want kids to physically handle guns.

Your second point is... weird.... i don't understand it.
So basically since in SOME cases (not all parents are reckless) kids are introduced to a world of "weapons and war" (are they?), we should give them a proper full course on gun safety letting them HANDLE guns so they realise... what? that guns are dangerous? that guns are powerful? that what they see in tv is true? that they should be afraid?
What exactly?

And finally, it's different, and you don't get to see the result now. oh no my friend what you see NOW is the result of what happened 20 years ago in terms of educations of our children and the support they had from society.
It'd be too easy otherwise.
Wait 20 more years see what this generation turns into then we'll meet back here we'll have a chat about it ok?

[Nadev]

Knee-jerk legislation for an irrelevant factor. Woo-hoo!

[Elegiac]

First of all

"Besides, I am sure many kids would pay attention to gun safety given that firing weapons tends to be part of the course."

That IS what you said so, yes, you DO want kids to physically handle guns.

"Tends to" does not mean "always is".

Your second point is... weird.... i don't understand it.
So basically since in SOME cases (not all parents are reckless) kids are introduced to a world of "weapons and war" (are they?), we should give them a proper full course on gun safety letting them HANDLE guns so they realise... what? that guns are dangerous? that guns are powerful? that what they see in tv is true? that they should be afraid?
What exactly?

To deprogram certain instincts relating to handling guns, and to teach them a number of principles about guns that are not advertised by the culture.

And finally, it's different, and you don't get to see the result now. oh no my friend what you see NOW is the result of what happened 20 years ago in terms of educations of our children and the support they had from society.
It'd be too easy otherwise.
Wait 20 more years see what this generation turns into then we'll meet back here we'll have a chat about it ok?

Every generation says this, but it rarely if ever turns out to be true. It is more a result of conservatism and being afraid of change.

---------- Post added 2012-12-21 at 03:18 PM ----------

http://www.jud.ct.gov/ji/criminal/gl...aultweapon.htm

What Connecticut defines as an assault weapon might differ from say, Texas, or Washington.

The point is that people blame "assault weapons"; it's a scapegoat. Most don't even know what an assault weapon is, if there is even a strict definition. The problem is not the guns, its the culture of the people that use them.

[Deleted]

Your point being what?

My point being when you refer to "armaments" you want to be specific. When it was written you had muskets guns and knives.
Now you have a various entity of weapons some of which MUST be regulated as they are way too dangerous.

True, but banning them is not the answer. Blanket bans are never the answer whether it's prostitution, drugs, guns, or alcohol.

Never said that. I would simply keep them at home, locked. And way way harder to obtain.

Liberty is the norm, it should never be the exception. Again, what defines an assault weapon?

Liberty is the norm until someone with higher powers tells you it's not anymore.
Then it does not becomes norm anymore. Then you respect the law.

I thank the lord almighty in the blue blue sky for the kind of education i received.
Which by the way did NOT include guns and firearms into the specific.
You keep asking as if you didn't know yourself. I told you i can't and i don't want to. Someone else, designed by the government, will wake up at 10 am for a couple of months, getting a huge monthly wage, sipping coffee while on facebook, then write a list that a normal person with common sense like yourself could have wrote.
It's ok it's only taxpayers money anyway.

I can define an assault weapon for you. A weapon capable of fully automatic fire with an intermediate cartridge. Then again, my definition is not another man's, and therein lies the difficulty. Even if you ban such weapons, people can just as easily kill others with bolt action, lever action, pump action, or semiautomatic weapons. Hell, you can kill people with muzzle-loaded weapons.

See i knew you could do it. So why d'you ask me?
Your definition is not another man's and so on so on so on UNTIL someone with legislative power will come up with a definition.
And THAT definition will be same as yours, another man's, and so on and so on and so on.

[Wildtree]

What Connecticut defines as an assault weapon might differ from say, Texas, or Washington.

The point is that people blame "assault weapons"; it's a scapegoat. Most don't even know what an assault weapon is, if there is even a strict definition. The problem is not the guns, its the culture of the people that use them.

No, I am pretty sure that the definitions outlined in the laws from Connecticut are applicable for every state... yet that's irrelevant, because it's a federal issue anyway.
It is not state legislation. It's a federal topic. And becomes even more clear just now with congress having to deal with it.
No one can argue the 2nd amendments, nor ever does anyone argue it, that it has everything to do with the federal government, and the right to a well regulated militia. Well regulated, that part is therefore currently in neglect. And whereas no one can argue the right, for now. There's a positive aspect for the responsible gun owners. The amendment speaks a clear language towards regulation. And there's a positive aspect for those who want that very regulation.
Laws are in place, for a long time even. They just have been neglected, and it is time to bring them up to par, and then also enforce them.
I don't think any responsible gun owner will have a problem with it. I can only see that happen, if someone's intentions aren't true and honest.

[Elegiac]

My point being when you refer to "armaments" you want to be specific. When it was written you had muskets guns and knives.
Now you have a various entity of weapons some of which MUST be regulated as they are way too dangerous.

What danger level is acceptable, then?

Never said that. I would simply keep them at home, locked. And way way harder to obtain.

You can keep them at home if you want. I will continue to take my Ruger with me when I venture into an unsafe area.

Liberty is the norm until someone with higher powers tells you it's not anymore.
Then it does not becomes norm anymore. Then you respect the law.

To quote the Declaration of the Rights of Man and the Citizen: Nothing can be prohibited which does not injure someone else. This should be the overrarching principle of law, a sentiment I am sure the Framers would agree with.

And before you say killing someone with a gun is hurting them, murder is already illegal.

See i knew you could do it. So why d'you ask me?
Your definition is not another man's and so on so on so on UNTIL someone with legislative power will come up with a definition.
And THAT definition will be same as yours, another man's, and so on and so on and so on.

The fact that the term "assault weapons" is so poorly defined is precisely a reason why they should -not- be blanket banned. The thing about legislation is that unless you make it specific, you increase the scope of unenumerated power that the government is able to leverage from that law.

For an American, you're surprisingly pro government.

[Seranthor]

You NEED to be specific here, as CLEARLY back when the constitution was written, the whole world of weapon was way simpler then ours nowadays.
Guns are never going to go away, but you could start to even begin considering a different approach to limit the number of gun related deaths which is appalling for a first world country.
97 deaths related to guns since Newtown. None of them covered by the media by the way.
Some might be your normal everyday crime scene, but some might not.
And those are the ones you need to reduce.

People want to hunt with "assault" weapons? too bad for them, the law has changed, buy a new one.
Hunting is a hobby, as is practicing at range.

As i told you before, i can't be specific at all when it comes to define assault weapons. It's not my job, and i don't get paid for it. It's a messy job and i'll gladly let some overpaid fat cat deal with it while stealing YOUR money.

Oh and i like how, being oh so civil, you end up addressing my post as "rant".
You're right, i'm clearly a 15 years old kid ranting on the net on things he doesn't care about.
They all are aren't they? All those kids that disagree with you huh?

Specific you say, where as the proposed legislation is NOT? Wow, hmm... 97 deaths since last friday to guns, vs the 210 that were murdered by drunk drivers... hmm... Why should she be specific when you willfully are not.

The solutions are there to limiting the number of gun related deaths, but the only solution you know is to get rid of the guns, which may or may NOT solve the gun-related part... it does NOT solve the problem with the lack of personal responsibility, the lack of respect, nor does it address WHY folks want to kill. So, it doesn't do a fucking thing to solve the problem with violence. Which you continually and willfully chose to ignore as the root problem.

[Elegiac]

No, I am pretty sure that the definitions outlined in the laws from Connecticut are applicable for every state... yet that's irrelevant, because it's a federal issue anyway.

They're not, because the definition of assault weapon differs from state to state.

It is not state legislation. It's a federal topic. And becomes even more clear just now with congress having to deal with it.

Technically speaking because arms regulation is not outlined as federal territory, it defaults to the states. If you're into Federal Republicanism, that is.

No one can argue the 2nd amendments, nor ever does anyone argue it, that it has everything to do with the federal government, and the right to a well regulated militia. Well regulated, that part is therefore currently in neglect. And whereas no one can argue the right, for now. There's a positive aspect for the responsible gun owners. The amendment speaks a clear language towards regulation. And there's a positive aspect for those who want that very regulation.
Laws are in place, for a long time even. They just have been neglected, and it is time to bring them up to par, and then also enforce them.
I don't think any responsible gun owner will have a problem with it. I can only see that happen, if someone's intentions aren't true and honest.

The 2nd Amendment says the militia needs to be regulated, not individual ownership. Nor does it give power to the Federal government to regulate it...well, no, that's a grey area because of the 14th.

[Wildtree]

Specific you say, where as the proposed legislation is NOT? Wow, hmm... 97 deaths since last friday to guns, vs the 210 that were murdered by drunk drivers... hmm... Why should she be specific when you willfully are not.

That is utterly silly....
Comparing, and with that justifying gun related victims?
The highest amount of deaths per year comes from legally obtained prescription drugs. No, not indirectly legal. Directly.
The amount of deaths by legal drugs illegally obtained is a separate number.
Do we now discard gun crimes AND car deaths altogether, because the real danger lies in our doctors offices?
Come on.... Two wrongs don't make a right..
We are not discussing traffic safety.

[eodusaf]

not only is education on a federal level difficult, its actually illegal, see the tenth amendment "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

but thats another arguement

[Destruktion]

Seems like a good case was made for the ban, so I'll get behind it. Why do people need to own assault weapons?

[Elegiac]

not only is education on a federal level difficult, its actually illegal, see the tenth amendment "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

but thats another arguement

If the states wanted to get the Federal government out of their business they could. But they'd lose federal funding. They chose to sell their rights, no Constitutional breach has been committed.

[Wildtree]

The 2nd Amendment says the militia needs to be regulated, not individual ownership. Nor does it give power to the Federal government to regulate it...well, no, that's a grey area because of the 14th.

A Militia can only be well regulated when you regulate the contribution of the arms needed for it. That's common sense, right there, I believe.
The federal government has that power to regulate it. Or else it's obsolete to have one in the first place.
The Federal Govt. Holds the judicial, legislative and executive power. It's been given that by the people.

[Elegiac]

Seems like a good case was made for the ban, so I'll get behind it. Why do people need to own assault weapons?

Why do you need to own a car when there are buses and bicycles?

---------- Post added 2012-12-21 at 03:45 PM ----------

A Militia can only be well regulated when you regulate the contribution of the arms needed for it. That's common sense, right there, I believe.
The federal government has that power to regulate it. Or else it's obsolete to have one in the first place.
The Federal Govt. Holds the judicial, legislative and executive power. It's been given that by the people.

You believe, but you'd be wrong. The militia and individual gun ownership are two seperate issues. The former is not even an issue.

You don't seem to grasp the concept of federalism.

[Deleted]

All other rights are meaningless without the ability to defend them.

And by defend, you mean shoot people right?

Why do you need to own a car when there are buses and bicycles?

Absolutely the same argument......wait no.....means of transport, means of defence. Not even remotely the same