Mega-Thread: Gun Control Thread

[Nakura Chambers]

Ironically that is wrong too.

United States v Cruikshank actually states that the Second Amendment only guarantees the states the rights to have militias, not an individual right to bear arms. Presser V Illinois affirmed the US v Cruikshank ruling. Miller v Texas wasn't even ruled on by the Supreme Court because Miller failed to bring up Federal Issues only when appealing instead of in the first case.

The rest of these cases are all much later, aka end of the 20th century, after decades of political buyouts by the NRA.

Where in United States v Cruikshank did the court rule this? The Supreme Court didn't even mention a militia in United States v Cruikshank.

Political buyouts from the NRA, rofl. Is that what we're calling the Supreme Court doing it's job, as opposed to following partisanship and disregarding the Constitution?

[Orion2032]

If you want to know how to have a REAL democracy and an active, politically engaged, armed and non-domesticated citizenry...Move to Switzerland.

Google "Gun politics in Switzerland" and read the wikipedia article that shows up.

This is the template our Founding Fathers had for America. Don't like it? Afraid of the responsibilities and complexities of true freedom? Move to North Korea.

Those who believe the Armed Forces and peace officers of our nation should be the sole authorities of the law, and have the prime right to possess thosefirearms necessary in the excerise of law enforcement, are ultimately misguided and naive.

The government cannot protect you when you need it the most.

Let's state this here: A law abiding and armed population is the best deterrent of crime. Comments?

Our opinions need to be much more refined and critical than the CNN/MSNBC garbage-rhetoric that's being regurgitated by so-called "liberals" these days, who really live in a naive and historically-ignorant worldview.

Read your history and get informed. Come back later and let's play some real hardball.

Peace.

[obdigore]

Where in United States v Cruikshank did the court rule this? The Supreme Court didn't even mention a militia in United States v Cruikshank.

Political buyouts from the NRA, rofl. Is that what we're calling the Supreme Court doing it's job, as opposed to following partisanship and disregarding the Constitution?

Are you really, really, trying to tell me that US v Cruikshank ruling has nothing to say about the second amendment? I suggest you read the ruling again.

[Nakura Chambers]

Our opinions need to be much more refined and critical than the CNN/MSNBC garbage-rhetoric that's being regurgitated by so-called "liberals" these days, who really live in a naive and historically-ignorant worldview.

Interesting that you said "so-called 'liberals," which is absolutely correct. How in the world did the left hijack the term liberal, a term that originally meant someone who supports a small government, including the right to bear arms and the free market, and turn it into a word that means the exact opposite?

[Wells]

You guys realize that Switzerland has conscription right? I mean seriously, that's your model for freedom? Mandatory military service?

[obdigore]

Interesting that you said "so-called 'liberals," which is absolutely correct. How in the world did the left hijack the term liberal, a term that originally meant someone who supports a small government, including the right to bear arms and the free market, and turn it into a word that means the exact opposite?

It was the other way. Check out the southern strategy.

[Phader]

Are you really, really, trying to tell me that US v Cruikshank ruling has nothing to say about the second amendment? I suggest you read the ruling again.

He did not state that it did not reference the second amendment but that it did not mention militia's in the ruling. I believe the ruling was pretty much as follows: the Second Amendment "has no other effect than to restrict the powers of the national government."

[obdigore]

If you want to know how to have a REAL democracy and an active, politically engaged, armed and non-domesticated citizenry...Move to Switzerland.

Google "Gun politics in Switzerland" and read the wikipedia article that shows up.

This is the template our Founding Fathers had for America. Don't like it? Afraid of the responsibilities and complexities of true freedom? Move to North Korea.

Those who believe the Armed Forces and peace officers of our nation should be the sole authorities of the law, and have the prime right to possess thosefirearms necessary in the excerise of law enforcement, are ultimately misguided and naive.

The government cannot protect you when you need it the most.

Let's state this here: A law abiding and armed population is the best deterrent of crime. Comments?

Our opinions need to be much more refined and critical than the CNN/MSNBC garbage-rhetoric that's being regurgitated by so-called "liberals" these days, who really live in a naive and historically-ignorant worldview.

Read your history and get informed. Come back later and let's play some real hardball.

Peace.

So you ignore everything posted in thread. Ignore all the current arguments, and post the same drivel that an armed population is the best deterrent without a shred of evidence. Fabulous.

---------- Post added 2012-12-19 at 02:39 AM ----------

He did not state that it did not reference the second amendment but that it did not mention militia's in the ruling. I believe the ruling was pretty much as follows: the Second Amendment "has no other effect than to restrict the powers of the national government."

Correct. The second amendment is binding for the federal government, but not the states. Now, suddenly, it is being brought up as binding for states and DoC as well as a right. You do not have a right to firearms. The federal government, in the second amendment, does not have the right to remove your rights to firearms. That does not mean the states or cities you live in do not have the rights to remove your rights to firearms, regardless of what the NRA believes.

Edit -> I may have mixed US v Heller with US v Cruikshank in my first reply about militias to him, and if I did so, I apologize.

[Wells]

Also worth pointing out that Switzerland, that "gun in every house" land of guns-a-plenty, still has half the guns per capita that the US does.

[Naxere]

I asked it before and got not a single reply so I'll ask it again to the pro-ban people: How would you classify an assault weapon, and what would you do about the current "assault weapons" already in circulation?

[Wells]

I asked it before and got not a single reply so I'll ask it again to the pro-ban people: How would you classify an assault weapon, and what would you do about the current "assault weapons" already in circulation?

Rate of fire and magazine size is how the current Democratic bill defines them. They grandfather in existing weapons and make roughly 900 exceptions for various sport and hunting model weapons. This seems reasonable to me.

Additionally I would like a buy back program where you can trade in legally possessed grandfathered weapons for money.

[Sariengrey]

good, hope it passes, please tell me what a "common man" needs with an assault weapon?......... they are instruments for war.

gun nuts will still have guns they can obtain, but sorry, no "ordinary person" needs an assault rifle..........

period.

[Phader]

I asked it before and got not a single reply so I'll ask it again to the pro-ban people: How would you classify an assault weapon, and what would you do about the current "assault weapons" already in circulation?

Ill give you the definition that was stated in the original assault weapons ban:
Assault weapon (semi-automatic) refers primarily (but not exclusively) to firearms that possess the cosmetic features of an assault rifle (which are fully-automatic). Actually possessing the operational features, such as 'full-auto', is not required for classification as an assault weapon; merely the possession of cosmetic features is enough to warrant such classification as an assault weapon. Semi-automatic firearms, when fired, automatically extract the spent cartridge casing and load the next cartridge into the chamber, ready to fire again; they do not fire automatically like a machine gun; rather, only one round is fired with each trigger pull.[2]
In the former U.S. law, the legal term assault weapon included certain specific semi-automatic firearm models by name (e.g., Colt AR-15, TEC-9, non-select-fire AK-47s produced by three manufacturers, and Uzis) and other semi-automatic firearms because they possess a minimum set of cosmetic features from the following list of features:

Semi-automatic rifles able to accept detachable magazines and two or more of the following:
Folding or telescoping stock
Pistol grip
Bayonet mount
Flash suppressor, or threaded barrel designed to accommodate one
Grenade launcher (more precisely, a muzzle device that enables launching or firing rifle grenades, though this applies only to muzzle mounted grenade launchers and not those mounted externally).

Semi-automatic pistols with detachable magazines and two or more of the following:
Magazine that attaches outside the pistol grip
Threaded barrel to attach barrel extender, flash suppressor, handgrip, or suppressor
Barrel shroud that can be used as a hand-hold
Unloaded weight of 50 oz (1.4 kg) or more
A semi-automatic version of a fully automatic firearm.

Semi-automatic shotguns with two or more of the following:
Folding or telescoping stock
Pistol grip
Fixed capacity of more than 5 rounds
Detachable magazine.

This is the definition that was used in the previous law


Same Calliber gun both semi automatic. One legal under the original ban one not.

[PizzaSHARK]

Rate of fire and magazine size is how the current Democratic bill defines them. They grandfather in existing weapons and make roughly 900 exceptions for various sport and hunting model weapons. This seems reasonable to me.

Additionally I would like a buy back program where you can trade in legally possessed grandfathered weapons for money.

Yeah, nothing like turning in a fucking StG44 for like $300.

Christ, I'm glad they gave it back.

[Extrazero8]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinio...X_story_1.html

Per the study linked in the article.

http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056...articleMethods

People who keep guns in their homes appear to be at greater risk of homicide in the home than people who do not. Most of this risk is due to a substantially greater risk of homicide at the hands of a family member or intimate acquaintance.

Also

A majority of the homicides (50.9 percent) occurred in the context of a quarrel or a romantic triangle.

Well, I guess I know better than get into a quarrel or a romantic triangle. Either way, this study uses data from 1992 at the earliest and only draws its data from 3 counties.

Per http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crime_in_the_United_States the homicide rate has fallen a great deal since this study was done.

The data in used in the study is far out dated and is very region specific.

[obdigore]

Yeah, nothing like turning in a fucking StG44 for like $300.

Christ, I'm glad they gave it back.

Hahaha. Yea that was a cool story. Big evil gubberment! I'd love to be able to try shooting a StG44.

---------- Post added 2012-12-19 at 02:58 AM ----------

Per the study linked in the article.

http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056...articleMethods



Also

Well, I guess I know better than get into a quarrel or a romantic triangle. Either way, this study uses data from 1992 at the earliest and only draws its data from 3 counties.

Per http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crime_in_the_United_States the homicide rate has fallen a great deal since this study was done.

The data in used in the study is far out dated and is very region specific.

Did you not read the entire rest of anything I've been writing? OF COURSE it is outdated, the federal government has killed all study into gun related deaths due to NRA pressure. Why do we spend so much studying why people die in car crashes, why they get hit when jogging, why they die at the workplace but we spend next to nothing trying to figure out why they die to gun violence. The NRA has quashed scientific studies that would lead to things like psych evals before purchasing a firearm because it would mean a few less firearms are able to be purchased.

[PizzaSHARK]

Hahaha. Yea that was a cool story. Big evil gubberment! I'd love to be able to try shooting a StG44.

I was with RICH on that one. The idea of some dumbshit gun buy-back program turning a work of art like that into razor blades makes my skin crawl.

[Mayhem]

I was with RICH on that one. The idea of some dumbshit gun buy-back program turning a work of art like that into razor blades makes my skin crawl.

did i misread this? work of art? the StG44 = work of art? oh boy

[obdigore]

did i misread this? work of art? the StG44 = work of art? oh boy

It would be like the first jet engine for people who are into planes or the first ironclad for people who are into ships. Tolkien for people who like fantasy books and the first hard drives for people who like computers.

[Fitzgerald77]

It's about fucking time yes?