Mega-Thread: Gun Control Thread

[Mormolyce]

Because the 2nd Amendment doesn't specifiy "for hunting animals." It, in fact, implies for killing other people.

So taken literally it would imply that you could own guns if you were a part of a well regulated state militia, but the federal government and the states could ban firearm ownership for hunting or self-defence and still be constitutional.

Luckily for gun owners a 2008 decision by the Supreme Court extended the Second Amendment to cover private firearm ownership regardless of purpose.

[GreatOak]

The supreme court has ruled on our side every single time, and people still insist we don't have an individual right to bear arms that cannot be infringed.

[Nakura Chambers]

People are ignoring him because he is patently the most flagrant and abrasive devil advocate's troll, and glimpsing his sources (mostly right-wing think tank blogs) reveal him for what he really is. Calling Obama the most "anti-gun president" made me smile really wide.

More than likely he copy-pasted it from dark corner of the internet.

I actually wrote it myself and did research myself. The sources I used were scholarly sources, not "right-wing blogs." I was unaware that the United States Supreme Court, University of California, British Home Office, Al Jazeera, etc. are "right-wing blogs" now.

[Moadar]

That is what I'm saying. Weapons that are greater force multipliers are unneeded in the hands of civilians and honestly shouldn't be there.

Then they obviously don't need to be in the hands of law enforcement or military.

[Anowyn]

I do support a ban on assault weapons. I do also believe people should have the right to own guns, especially for hunting purposes. However, there is certainly no need for fully automatic or high capacity magazines.

[PizzaSHARK]

I do support a ban on assault weapons. I do also believe people should have the right to own guns, especially for hunting purposes. However, there is certainly no need for fully automatic or high capacity magazines.

I don't think you understand guns very well.

[obdigore]

No, the first part does not mean government regulation. It just means strong. Read the federalist papers. They were very clear. The purpose of the amendment is to stop a tyrannical government, even if the proposition seems outrageous to you.


"The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government...Laws that forbid the carrying of arms..disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes. Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed one." - Thomas Jefferson
"A militia, when properly formed, are in fact the people themselves...and include all men capable of bearing arms." (Richard Henry Lee, Additional Letters from the Federal Farmer
"The Constitution shall never be construed....to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms" (Samuel Adams, Debates and Proceedings in the Convention of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, 86-87)
"Are we at last brought to such humiliating and debasing degradation, that we cannot be trusted with arms for our defense? Where is the difference between having our arms in possession and under our direction, and having them under the management of Congress? If our defense be the real object of having those arms, in whose hands can they be trusted with more propriety, or equal safety to us, as in our own hands?" (Patrick Henry, 3 J. Elliot, Debates in the Several State Conventions 45, 2d ed. Philadelphia, 1836)


I guess you're John Adams then; the lone voice against the second amendment

Check out United States vs Miller.
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/script...=307&invol=174

The Supreme Court read the Second Amendment in conjunction with the Militia Clause in Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution, and concluded that “[i]n the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a [sawed-off] shotgun . . . has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument.” 307 U.S. at 178.

A later case which essentially reversed the above decision (and then said it didn't through handwaving) is Parker vs District of Columbia turned that around, despite the previous court saying the second amendment in no way stops states from enacting firearm laws. Scalia (you know, 'originalism when he wants it, conservative interpretation when he doesn't?) wrote the majority opinion, and he even stated

The Court stated that the right to keep and bear arms is subject to regulation, such as concealed weapons prohibitions, limits on the rights of felons and the mentally ill, laws forbidding the carrying of weapons in certain locations, laws imposing conditions on commercial sales, and prohibitions on the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons. It stated that this was not an exhaustive list of the regulatory measures that would be presumptively permissible under the Second Amendment.

The two dissenting opinions, (the vote was 5-4 on this one) one stated just as I am now

examined historical evidence on the meaning of the Second Amendment to conclude that the amendment protects militia-related interests.

and the other stated

even if the Second Amendment protects a separate interest in individual self-defense, the District of Columbia provisions at issue are permissible forms of regulation.

Acting as if the federal government has no rights to regulate firearms is even beyond what hardcore right wing Scalia says. I'm sorry but none of the supreme court judges agree that the federal government has no rights to regulate firearms, as numerous people in this thread are saying.

Edit -> Sorry, forgot to source. All quotes are taken from http://www.loc.gov/law/help/second-amendment.php (That is the Library of Congress, btw.)

[Phader]

I do support a ban on assault weapons. I do also believe people should have the right to own guns, especially for hunting purposes. However, there is certainly no need for fully automatic or high capacity magazines.

Half of your argument is pointless. The purchase of FULLY Automatic weapons in the US is NOT legal already.

[Nakura Chambers]

Exactly. The moment Machine Guns, mobile Artillery, Assault Rifles, Body Armour, Tanks, Helecopters, etc were invented the concept of 'defending yourself from the government' became rather laughable.

ITT people who don't know how guerrilla warfare works. The government cannot use high yield weapons on the population, as it would only result in more people taking up arms against the government. Also, the people would have body armor, assault rifles, etc. if you didn't always try to ban them.

[obdigore]

Then they obviously don't need to be in the hands of law enforcement or military.

Law enforcement, no. SWAT would still need to have them to deal with people who have illegal/smuggled firearms, but then I'm not for removing all firearms, I'm for removing those that have no use beyond killing as many things as fast as possible.

The military is a whole different playing field.

[Nakura Chambers]

Acting as if the federal government has no rights to regulate firearms is even beyond what hardcore right wing Scalia says. I'm sorry but none of the supreme court judges agree that the federal government has no rights to regulate firearms, as numerous people in this thread are saying.

Allow me to show you the door.

[Extrazero8]

Law enforcement, no. SWAT would still need to have them to deal with people who have illegal/smuggled firearms, but then I'm not for removing all firearms, I'm for removing those that have no use beyond killing as many things as fast as possible.

The military is a whole different playing field.

Can you name that weapon because I have no idea what you're talking about.

[PizzaSHARK]

Half of your argument is pointless. The purchase of FULLY Automatic weapons in the US is NOT legal already.

It is in many states, but it's extremely expensive. The weapons themselves usually run five digits, and you have to pay additional taxes and whatnot. Anyone that owns one isn't going to leave it just lying around for someone to steal.

[Phader]

Can you name that weapon because I have no idea what you're talking about.

I am with this guy because if you can point out one of these then ill be impressed

[obdigore]

Allow me to show you the door.

Gun control advocates try to claim that the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution does not refer to an individual right, but instead refers to the right of individual states to form militias (such as National Guards).

So you disagree with the supreme court of the early 1900's and 4 of the current sitting members, and somehow you think that is correct? Congrats?

---------- Post added 2012-12-19 at 01:47 AM ----------

Can you name that weapon because I have no idea what you're talking about.

If you can show me why you need a semi-automatic rifle or handgun with more than ~ 12 rounds in the chamber for anything but target shooting, I may rethink my stance?

[Moadar]

Law enforcement, no. SWAT would still need to have them to deal with people who have illegal/smuggled firearms, but then I'm not for removing all firearms, I'm for removing those that have no use beyond killing as many things as fast as possible.

The military is a whole different playing field.

Until the military and law enforcement are staffed by some superior human incapable of error then they are no more deserving of such weapons. I will gladly turn my weapons in right a long side the government.

[obdigore]

Until the military and law enforcement are staffed by some superior human incapable of error then they are no more deserving of such weapons. I will gladly turn my weapons in right a long side the government.

Military are not police and should not be used in policing actions. If the military 'turns in' all their weapons as you suggest, then the second amendment would once again be imperative for defense of the land, and so that would be a foolish move on your part :P

[PizzaSHARK]

Until the military and law enforcement are staffed by some superior human incapable of error then they are no more deserving of such weapons. I will gladly turn my weapons in right a long side the government.

Heh, and then get bent over by all the gangs that no longer have to worry about homeowners or police being armed ;P

[Phader]

It is in many states, but it's extremely expensive. The weapons themselves usually run five digits, and you have to pay additional taxes and whatnot. Anyone that owns one isn't going to leave it just lying around for someone to steal.

Pardon I miss spoke the ownership of weapons that are fully automatic is extremly difficult and requires more permits than most will ever have. The registration and control is extreme. The ownership of Assult Rifles (Defined as firearms with selective fire capabilities (can change from full to semi or single shot)) are illegal.

[GreatOak]

So you disagree with the supreme court of the early 1900's and 4 of the current sitting members, and somehow you think that is correct? Congrats?

---------- Post added 2012-12-19 at 01:47 AM ----------



If you can show me why you need a semi-automatic rifle or handgun with more than ~ 12 rounds in the chamber for anything but target shooting, I may rethink my stance?

Aside from needing the weapon for defense against government, you could use them to defend yourself against mobs or rioters. Besides, magazines take seconds to replace and they are easy to make at home

Hunting rifles are the same as "assault weapons" in most cases

The burden is on you to prove why we don't need our freedom