Mega-Thread: Gun Control Thread

[Gahagan]

The national Rifle Association and gun manufacturer's lobby. Theyve bought off a lot of local and state governments in the last 10 or so years to loosen restrictions that limit gun sales. They only care about money and not really how the guns are used. To get regular people to support them they run fear ads that promote gun ownership for personal protection which almost no one will ever use them for.

This right here.

I can get a fingerprint scanner for my computer for $50, a set of remote unlock car keys that unlock my car just from me having the keys near it, but building any kind of IDing system into a gun that prevents use from anyone except the owner would hurt profits.

[Prokne]

The assault weapons ban was in effect from 94-04 and did little to nothing. That's why it's a bad idea.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal...ffect_on_Crime

It stopped people from buying rifles with flash suppressors though. I think the only major thing it did was limit magazine sizes to 10 rounds which is a minor barrier to killing a lot of people if you know how to reload.

[BoomChickn]

Sigh... no specific details beyond "10 bullets in a magazine"...

Overall I would support the ban on full auto and 10+ bullets a magazine...
Actually full auto would probably get the guy to waste bullets out of the 10 he has. So yeah just 10+ bullets would really be all that's needed.

Still doesn't do a thing about random idiots killing individuals though. Need more background checks on that.

[Gahagan]

You're going off on silly tangent. How one would acquire a drone or a tank or a nuclear bomb is immaterial. The 2nd Amendment has a clear meaning: to endow the citizens of the US with the inalienable right to obtain the necessary arms to fight the US government. There was never an intent beyond that. If the government has become so adept at killing that citizens cannot realistically fight with the weapons they can legally possess, that means our 2nd Amendment rights are being curtailed.

That being said, I'm not agitating for the right to own an aircraft carrier or whatever. I'm just pointing out that this line of reasoning is utterly fallacious.

This line of reasoning is absolutely fallacious. That's the point. We as citizens no longer have the ability to arm ourselves effectively enough to combat a well-equipped and well-organized military. Therefore, the second amendment, through no fault of its own, has failed to withstand the test of time.

Thus, there are three options: regress the technological advantage of our nation to better allow it to be overthrown by its citizens (horrible idea), provide citizens with weaponry of an equal level as that used by the government (go pick a fight with a Marine and tell me how this works out for you), or revise the intent and purpose of the Second Amendment.

[BrerBear]

Are you expecting your son to murder you?

No.
But I am trying to wrap my head around the argument that arming everyone would prevent gun violence.

[Beavis]

Sigh... no specific details beyond "10 bullets in a magazine"...

Overall I would support the ban on full auto and 10+ bullets a magazine...
Actually full auto would probably get the guy to waste bullets out of the 10 he has. So yeah just 10+ bullets would really be all that's needed.

The sale of automatic weapons has been restricted since 1934. The manufacture of fully automatic weapons for the civilian market has been illegal since 1986. There have been exactly 3 murders with registered automatic weapons since 1934, two of which were committed by cops.

[Latetomyownfuneral]

Doubt the poll is reflective of what US Citizens thinks. However what I want to know is this?

What part of "shall not be infringed" do you not understand? These politicians are sworn in to protect the constitution, not dismember it.

---------- Post added 2012-12-17 at 02:27 AM ----------

But I am trying to wrap my head around the argument that arming everyone would prevent gun violence.

Question. How did disarming that school, help them?

[Gahagan]

Doubt the poll is reflective of what US Citizens thinks. However what I want to know is this?

What part of "shall not be infringed" do you not understand? These politicians are sworn in to protect the constitution, not dismember it.

I'm sure this has been posted endlessly, but I'll post it again for the sake of factual accuracy.

"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."

What part of well-regulated militia do you not understand?

I'm going to assume you understand none of it. Here you go.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Militia...defense_forces

"All able bodied men, 17 to 45 of age, are ultimately eligible to be called up into military service and belong to the class known as the reserve militia, also known as the unorganized militia (10 USC)."

So if you want to get real technical, you aren't constitutionally guaranteed the right to keep and bear arms if you're over 45.

Double-edit: State Defense Forces also apply to this. But I don't think anyone here is in the State Defense Forces. Could be wrong.

[Prokne]

The sale of automatic weapons has been restricted since 1934. The manufacture of fully automatic weapons for the civilian market has been illegal since 1986. There have been exactly 3 murders with registered automatic weapons since 1934, two of which were committed by cops.

Which is why all we really need is to extend some of the restrictions to buying automatic weapons to other guns that arent long guns or shotguns. They should also probably add some kind of psych eval and laws punishing irresponsible gun ownership that leads to a crime with the owner's gun. If you dont secure your guns and someone gets a hold of it and kills someone, you should be held responsible as an accessory.

---------- Post added 2012-12-17 at 02:32 AM ----------

What part of "shall not be infringed" do you not understand? These politicians are sworn in to protect the constitution, not dismember it.[COLOR="red"]

As long as you can own any type of gun your right to own firearms is not infringed. If you can only own a shotgun, you can still keep and bear arms..

[Beavis]

This line of reasoning is absolutely fallacious. That's the point. We as citizens no longer have the ability to arm ourselves effectively enough to combat a well-equipped and well-organized military. Therefore, the second amendment, through no fault of its own, has failed to withstand the test of time.

Thus, there are three options: regress the technological advantage of our nation to better allow it to be overthrown by its citizens (horrible idea), provide citizens with weaponry of an equal level as that used by the government (go pick a fight with a Marine and tell me how this works out for you), or revise the intent and purpose of the Second Amendment.

The 2nd Amendment cannot be rendered obsolete, it can only be curtailed.

"...the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

If our ability to obtain the necessary tools to resist the government is limited by the laws of that government, then our rights are being infringed upon. The nature of warfare is irrelevant. The expense of arms is irrelevant.

[Gahagan]

The 2nd Amendment cannot be rendered obsolete, it can only be curtailed.

"...the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

If our ability to obtain the necessary tools to resist the government is limited by the laws of that government, then our rights are being infringed upon. The nature of warfare is irrelevant. The expense of arms is irrelevant.

See my post above. You cut out the important part, about being a well-regulated militia.

That would be like if I did this with the 1st Amendment:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion..."

And cut out the other important part:

"...or prohibiting the free exercise thereof."

[Latetomyownfuneral]

I can get a fingerprint scanner for my computer for $50, a set of remote unlock car keys that unlock my car just from me having the keys near it, but building any kind of IDing system into a gun that prevents use from anyone except the owner would hurt profits.

As a gun owner I, for now, would like such a system. That way my gun, cant shoot unless I pull the trigger. However..... how easy would it be to hack the sensor?

[Beavis]

See my post above. You cut out the important part, about being a well-regulated militia.

That would be like if I did this with the 1st Amendment:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion..."

And cut out the other important part:

"...or prohibiting the free exercise thereof."

1903 Militia Act. Every male from 18 - 45 and all individuals under 65 with prior service in the regular military, national militia, or state milita are automatically part of the reserve militia. Try again.

[Ayonel]

And since im not an american could you explain to me ( since you seem a reasonble person ) why the hell doesnt this become law ?! Before the discussion about banning any specific kind of weapon even starts .
I am not sure i understand you americans well but i dont see how or why anyone would opose this ! Seems like a win-win to me. Things will get safer and people who want guns for their safety wont have to take all this shit . I am confused......

The short answer is that these laws and regulations are already in place, but we don't enforce them because they restrict the rights of criminals and mentally ill people.

You can't buy a gun if you have been convicted. You can't buy a gun if you take illegal drugs. You can't buy a gun if you have been deemed mentall ill. You can't buy a gun if you are taking certain types of antipsychotics. But since all but the first of these is not in any database, the Federal background check comes back negative and it comes down to you lying on the form you fill out when you buy the gun.

For a law-abiding citizen in a liberal state, buying a gun is a pain in the ass and a massive procedural humiliation - they treat us like criminals. If you don't care about the law, buying illegals guns on the street is a piece of cake.

[Latetomyownfuneral]

You cut out the important part, about being a well-regulated militia.

Nope. The bill allows for us to have a militia. Allows for it to be well regulated (trained). It allows for citizens to keep, and bear arms. These rights shall not be infringed.
You cannot have a militia without private citizens and their personal weapons.

[Prokne]

So if you want to get real technical, you aren't constitutionally guaranteed the right to keep and bear arms if you're over 45.

Double-edit: State Defense Forces also apply to this. But I don't think anyone here is in the State Defense Forces. Could be wrong.

Well the grammar of the amendment results in a list of rights. Replace the comma with "and."

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

State militias arent used anymore because they were generally unreliable, not well trained, and couldnt be used to fight on foreign soil. They were replaced by the National Guard which is a type of Army Reserve that is funded and controlled by a state until it gets activated and absorbed into the Federal armed forces. The national Guard isnt around to protect the state from the federal government, its around to protect the state from other things until the federal government can come in and help.

I do believe that states can still form militias if they wanted to but there isnt a reason to have one all the time.

[Gahagan]

1903 Militia Act. Every male from 18 - 45 and all individuals under 65 with prior service in the regular military, national militia, or state milita are automatically part of the reserve militia. Try again.

Very good. But that isn't everyone, is it?

[Beavis]

As a gun owner I, for now, would like such a system. That way my gun, cant shoot unless I pull the trigger. However..... how easy would it be to hack the sensor?

You can already get gun safes and lockboxes with fingerprint scanners. It isn't on the firearm, but that's close enough.

[Gahagan]

Well the grammar of the amendment results in a list of rights. Replace the comma with "and."

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

State militias arent used anymore because they were generally unreliable, not well trained, and couldnt be used to fight on foreign soil. They were replaced by the National Guard which is a type of Army Reserve that is funded and controlled by a state until it gets activated and absorbed into the Federal armed forces. The national Guard isnt around to protect the state from the federal government, its around to protect the state from other things until the federal government can come in and help.

I do believe that states can still form militias if they wanted to but there isnt a reason to have one all the time.

Explain this to me, then. If the 2nd Amendment is talking about how everyone can own guns, what's the part about militias doing in there? With the and, that would read, in plain English:

"A well-regulated militia is important to the freedom of the state, and so, everyone should be able to buy and own guns and not have them taken away."

Why even mention the importance of a militia if you're just claiming that everyone should own guns.

[Beavis]

Very good. But that isn't everyone, is it?

The Supreme Court and the Militia Act are clear about the 2nd Amendment as an individual right. Do you have anything else to say on the point we were discussing or is it constitutional semantics time?