Gun (Lack of) Control


A place for the discussion of all things not closely related to the sport and its competitive side. (as always, locked for the duration of major international championship)

Re: Gun (Lack of) Control

Postby jazzcyclist » Wed Dec 19, 2012 11:54 am

Cooter Brown wrote:
jazzcyclist wrote:This suggests to me that any automatic weapons that have been used in a crime have either been smuggled into the U.S., or illegally converted from semi-automatic weapons..


I'd bet in these mass killings, the weapons are rarely set on automatic. You can't purposely hit anything when you empty a magazine in 3 seconds or less. Even most soldiers exclusively set their rifles on semi-automatic or 3-shot burst in fire fights.

As far as I can recall, which is over the last 25-30 years, automatic weapons have never been used in mass killings in the U.S.

Cooter Brown wrote:Get rid of the 30+ round magazines that allow you to keep shooting with no break. There's no legitimate reason for private people to have them. Limit rifle magazines to 3 or 5 rounds.

It's already illegal to hunt with magazines bigger than 3 or 4 rounds in most states.
jazzcyclist
 
Posts: 10857
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Re: Gun (Lack of) Control

Postby jazzcyclist » Wed Dec 19, 2012 12:10 pm

Pego wrote:
preston wrote:One other thing: another police officer friend of mine doesn't even like firing his gun. He said he does the once-per-year target practice and hopes he never has to fire it again.


I like your friend. A lot.

I wish that all policemen and soldiers abhorred killing as much as his friend. My Dad served in Vietnam from the middle of 1967 to the middle of 1968 as an infantry captain, mostly in the Mekong Delta, so if you're 60 or older, you shouldn't have a hard time imagining what he went through. Once when my brother was about 12, he asked my Dad if he had ever killed a man, at which point my Dad just sat on the sofa speechless staring at the wall. Based on his reaction, it didn't take my brother long to realize that he had hit a nerve, at which point he began apologizing to him and trying to console him as his eyes began to tear up.
jazzcyclist
 
Posts: 10857
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Re: Gun (Lack of) Control

Postby jeremyp » Wed Dec 19, 2012 12:47 pm

Obviously the void between the gun lovers and the gun haters will never close. I'm not in favor of "no guns" nor am I in favor of "whatever" but this argument is getting down to one thing, and one thing only. Are you going to get serious about our countries gun deaths or not? Those who love guns never seem to get off the "I'm a hunter and I'm paranoid (but won't admit it), and oh did I mention the constitution?" shtick. The NRA and the gun industry have had us in their scopes and by doing so have paralyzed the politicians. Every excuse has been proffered and every solution has been trotted out except one: WE HAVE TOO MANY GUNS AND IT'S TOO FREAKING EASY TO GET THEM! To change that would be to attack an industry with big bucks and political power and I see no sign of political balls on the horizon. Look how hard it is to get the Republicans to raise taxes on the wealthy! Look how hard it is to cut the military industrial complex! The fix is in. Big business has bamboozled enough people to not mess with PROFITS!
jeremyp
 
Posts: 4541
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: Florida

Re: Gun (Lack of) Control

Postby kuha » Wed Dec 19, 2012 12:57 pm

odelltrclan wrote:The wording of the 2nd amendment is poor.


That, of course, is debatable. There may be some slight linguistic ambiguity there, but not that much, really. The key point is that the wording is inconvenient to certain interpretations.
kuha
 
Posts: 9010
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: 3rd row, on the finish line

Re: Gun (Lack of) Control

Postby jazzcyclist » Wed Dec 19, 2012 1:11 pm

Finally some members of Congress have decided to point at the elephant in the room.
Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D-W.Va.) has introduced one of Congress' first pieces of legislation related to the tragedy in Newtown, Conn.: a bill to study the impact of violent video games on children.

"This week, we are all focused on protecting our children. At times like this, we need to take a comprehensive look at all the ways we can keep our kids safe. I have long expressed concern about the impact of the violent content our kids see and interact with every day," said Rockefeller, who is chairman of the Senate Commerce Committee.

Rockefeller's bill would direct the National Academy of Sciences to lead the investigation on video games' impact and submit a report on its findings within 18 months.

The legislation comes after reports suggested that Sandy Hook shooter Adam Lanza may have played video games like "Call of Duty" and "Starcraft."

Other lawmakers, such as Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.) and Sen. Joe Lieberman (D-Conn.), have also expressed support for scrutinizing the content of video games.

"Recent court decisions demonstrate that some people still do not get it," added Rockefeller. "They believe that violent video games are no more dangerous to young minds than classic literature or Saturday morning cartoons. Parents, pediatricians, and psychologists know better. These court decisions show we need to do more and explore ways Congress can lay additional groundwork on this issue. This report will be a critical resource in this process."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/12/1 ... 30741.html

It seems that many folks on this board believe that our Second Amendment rights need to be curtailed, but how many would be okay with further restrictions on our First Amendment rights?
jazzcyclist
 
Posts: 10857
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Re: Gun (Lack of) Control

Postby preston » Wed Dec 19, 2012 1:12 pm

jazzcyclist wrote:
Pego wrote:
preston wrote:One other thing: another police officer friend of mine doesn't even like firing his gun. He said he does the once-per-year target practice and hopes he never has to fire it again.


I like your friend. A lot.

I wish that all policemen and soldiers abhorred killing as much as his friend. My Dad served in Vietnam from the middle of 1967 to the middle of 1968 as an infantry captain, mostly in the Mekong Delta, so if you're 60 or older, you shouldn't have a hard time imagining what he went through. Once when my brother was about 12, he asked my Dad if he had ever killed a man, at which point my Dad just sat on the sofa speechless staring at the wall. Based on his reaction, it didn't take my brother long to realize that he had hit a nerve, at which point he began apologizing to him and trying to console him as his eyes began to tear up.

jazz, what is most odd about his stance is he works in the city with the highest crime rate in the entire state - a state that consistently ranks within the top-10 or 20 states nationwide. (The largest city in that state is ranked on the FBI list as one of the top-10 dangerous in the nation.) The only gun he has is his police dept issued gun.
preston
 
Posts: 1075
Joined: Tue Nov 29, 2011 1:09 pm

Re: Gun (Lack of) Control

Postby jeremyp » Wed Dec 19, 2012 1:23 pm

kuha wrote:
odelltrclan wrote:The wording of the 2nd amendment is poor.


That, of course, is debatable. There may be some slight linguistic ambiguity there, but not that much, really. The key point is that the wording is inconvenient to certain interpretations.

You mean like "Thou Shalt Not Kill" really meaning the death penalty is O.K?
OR: "We the people.......and secure the blessings of Liberty to ourselves" only pertains to Europeans.
OR: "Nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted." Except of course torture and the death penalty.

Yes the constitution is so clear to those who have the power to interpret and enforce it.
jeremyp
 
Posts: 4541
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: Florida

Re: Gun (Lack of) Control

Postby jeremyp » Wed Dec 19, 2012 1:27 pm

jazzcyclist wrote:Finally some members of Congress have decided to point at the elephant in the room.
Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D-W.Va.) has introduced one of Congress' first pieces of legislation related to the tragedy in Newtown, Conn.: a bill to study the impact of violent video games on children.

"This week, we are all focused on protecting our children. At times like this, we need to take a comprehensive look at all the ways we can keep our kids safe. I have long expressed concern about the impact of the violent content our kids see and interact with every day," said Rockefeller, who is chairman of the Senate Commerce Committee.

Rockefeller's bill would direct the National Academy of Sciences to lead the investigation on video games' impact and submit a report on its findings within 18 months.

The legislation comes after reports suggested that Sandy Hook shooter Adam Lanza may have played video games like "Call of Duty" and "Starcraft."

Other lawmakers, such as Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.) and Sen. Joe Lieberman (D-Conn.), have also expressed support for scrutinizing the content of video games.

"Recent court decisions demonstrate that some people still do not get it," added Rockefeller. "They believe that violent video games are no more dangerous to young minds than classic literature or Saturday morning cartoons. Parents, pediatricians, and psychologists know better. These court decisions show we need to do more and explore ways Congress can lay additional groundwork on this issue. This report will be a critical resource in this process."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/12/1 ... 30741.html

It seems that many folks on this board believe that our Second Amendment rights need to be curtailed, but how many would be okay with further restrictions on our First Amendment rights?

Wow? It's because of folks like you that Lincoln had to get the 13th ammendment. Just stand on the corner and say you would like to kill Obama and see where #1 gets you.
jeremyp
 
Posts: 4541
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: Florida

Re: Gun (Lack of) Control

Postby lonewolf » Wed Dec 19, 2012 1:28 pm

I think this, like capital punishment, is a subject that no amount of argument or statistics is likely to change anyone's intuitively held opinion.
lonewolf
 
Posts: 8811
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: Indian Territory

Re: Gun (Lack of) Control

Postby jazzcyclist » Wed Dec 19, 2012 1:45 pm

jeremyp wrote:Wow? It's because of folks like you that Lincoln had to get the 13th ammendment. Just stand on the corner and say you would like to kill Obama and see where #1 gets you.

Please tell me what the hell you're talking about because I have no idea. Are you sure you didn't inadvertently omit a word or a dozen?
jazzcyclist
 
Posts: 10857
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Re: Gun (Lack of) Control

Postby Pego » Wed Dec 19, 2012 1:53 pm

reports suggested that Sandy Hook shooter Adam Lanza may have played video games like "Call of Duty" and "Starcraft."


This is an issue of correlation vs causation. Did those violent videos twist his mind or did his twisted mind seek violent videos? So far, the evidence I saw was never supportive of the former.
Pego
 
Posts: 10196
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: beyond help

Re: Gun (Lack of) Control

Postby kuha » Wed Dec 19, 2012 2:09 pm

jazzcyclist wrote:It seems that many folks on this board believe that our Second Amendment rights need to be curtailed, but how many would be okay with further restrictions on our First Amendment rights?


An entirely valid question. However, I would suggest that it's not a matter of 2nd amendment rights being "curtailed" so much as a burning need to have them reconciled with a) the actual intent of the 2nd Amendment (all of it), and b) the truly profound difference in "arms" and private ownership of arms in the 1780s vs. the 21st century. The general concept of "gun rights" has survived, but that is all--the specifics have changed out of all recognition, and that is a far from trivial or purely technical matter.
kuha
 
Posts: 9010
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: 3rd row, on the finish line

Re: Gun (Lack of) Control

Postby jazzcyclist » Wed Dec 19, 2012 2:17 pm

kuha wrote:
jazzcyclist wrote:It seems that many folks on this board believe that our Second Amendment rights need to be curtailed, but how many would be okay with further restrictions on our First Amendment rights?


An entirely valid question. However, I would suggest that it's not a matter of 2nd amendment rights being "curtailed" so much as a burning need to have them reconciled with a) the actual intent of the 2nd Amendment (all of it), and b) the truly profound difference in "arms" and private ownership of arms in the 1780s vs. the 21st century. The general concept of "gun rights" has survived, but that is all--the specifics have changed out of all recognition, and that is a far from trivial or purely technical matter.

If you think about it, both the First and Second Amendments were crafted at a time when communication and weaponry were much more primitive than they are today.
jazzcyclist
 
Posts: 10857
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Re: Gun (Lack of) Control

Postby kuha » Wed Dec 19, 2012 2:24 pm

Absolutely--vastly more primitive.
kuha
 
Posts: 9010
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: 3rd row, on the finish line

Re: Gun (Lack of) Control

Postby Daisy » Wed Dec 19, 2012 2:49 pm

jazzcyclist wrote:It seems that many folks on this board believe that our Second Amendment rights need to be curtailed, but how many would be okay with further restrictions on our First Amendment rights?

This is the bit I don't really understand. In what way does gun control curtail the second amendment? I just don't see that being the case. Even if every semi-automatic were taken out of circulation, and obviously that is not going to happen, you'd still have guns.
Daisy
 
Posts: 13153
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Re: Gun (Lack of) Control

Postby jazzcyclist » Wed Dec 19, 2012 3:02 pm

Daisy wrote:
jazzcyclist wrote:It seems that many folks on this board believe that our Second Amendment rights need to be curtailed, but how many would be okay with further restrictions on our First Amendment rights?

This is the bit I don't really understand. In what way does gun control curtail the second amendment? I just don't see that being the case. Even if every semi-automatic were taken out of circulation, and obviously that is not going to happen, you'd still have guns.

Using this logic, the government wouldn't be curtailing our Second Amendment rights even if it restricted every one to one musket per household. In this context of this discussion, control is a synonym for curtail.
jazzcyclist
 
Posts: 10857
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Re: Gun (Lack of) Control

Postby Conor Dary » Wed Dec 19, 2012 3:14 pm

Talk about copy cat. What a nutcase.

    A man was arrested after entering Sandy Hook Elementary School in Strasburg, Va., Wednesday with a 2 x 4 labeled "High Powered Rifle," the NBC affiliate in Washington, D.C., reports. "He was met by school staff, then detained by a sheriff’s school resource officer. He was arrested and taken into custody without incident," according to the report.

http://livewire.talkingpointsmemo.com/e ... mentary-in
Conor Dary
 
Posts: 6297
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: कनोर दारी in Ronald MacDonald's Home Town, and once a Duck always a Duck.

Re: Gun (Lack of) Control

Postby gh » Wed Dec 19, 2012 3:15 pm

jazzcyclist wrote:...
Using this logic, the government wouldn't be curtailing our Second Amendment rights even if it restricted every one to one musket per household. In this context of this discussion, control is a synonym for curtail.



That's right, we all know that drunk- and reckless-driving laws are just an excuse to take our cars away!
gh
 
Posts: 46290
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am
Location: firmly at Arya's side!

Re: Gun (Lack of) Control

Postby Daisy » Wed Dec 19, 2012 3:18 pm

jazzcyclist wrote:Using this logic, the government wouldn't be curtailing our Second Amendment rights even if it restricted every one to one musket per household.

Actually, as many muskets as you want, since it says 'bare arms'.

So how is the second amendment right actually curtailed? You have your arms.
Daisy
 
Posts: 13153
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Re: Gun (Lack of) Control

Postby Pego » Wed Dec 19, 2012 3:27 pm

jazzcyclist wrote:
Daisy wrote:
jazzcyclist wrote:It seems that many folks on this board believe that our Second Amendment rights need to be curtailed, but how many would be okay with further restrictions on our First Amendment rights?

This is the bit I don't really understand. In what way does gun control curtail the second amendment? I just don't see that being the case. Even if every semi-automatic were taken out of circulation, and obviously that is not going to happen, you'd still have guns.

Using this logic, the government wouldn't be curtailing our Second Amendment rights even if it restricted every one to one musket per household. In this context of this discussion, control is a synonym for curtail.


The Second Amendment uses the word "infringed?" Does control=infringe?
Pego
 
Posts: 10196
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: beyond help

Re: Gun (Lack of) Control

Postby Marlow » Wed Dec 19, 2012 6:55 pm

jazzcyclist wrote:It seems that many folks on this board believe that our Second Amendment rights need to be curtailed, but how many would be okay with further restrictions on our First Amendment rights?

Sorry to pile on, but . . . that statement is a logical fallacy of the First Magnitude - actually it's several logical fallacies, including
red herring
slippery slope
scare tactics
conflation of different premises
misrepresentation of evidence
etc., etc.

Just to take the bait, however, it someone used their First Amendment rights to cause bodily harm, as in the case of, oh say, yelling 'fire' in a crowded theater, setting off a panic that hurt people, then yes, those rights should be infringed upon. What some people perceive (incorrectly, of course) as their 2nd Amendment rights, are not rights at all, but privileges that may be granted under government oversight (like driving a car). Nowadays the 'militia' are given arms and drilled in their correct usage and then taken up again and stored safely, away from people who could misuse them.
Marlow
 
Posts: 21075
Joined: Thu Jan 24, 2008 5:00 pm
Location: Somewhere over the . . . hill

Re: Gun (Lack of) Control

Postby Blues » Wed Dec 19, 2012 7:18 pm

jazzcyclist wrote:Using this logic, the government wouldn't be curtailing our Second Amendment rights even if it restricted every one to one musket per household. In this context of this discussion, control is a synonym for curtail.


On the other hand, considering the broad "all inclusive" interpretation of the "right to keep and bear arms" that many gun advocates prefer to use, using your logic you must feel that the government is already blatantly curtailing your second amendment rights, since regulations restrict you from having a nuclear warhead in your living room and a Tomahawk missile in the backyard.
Blues
 
Posts: 1087
Joined: Sun Apr 05, 2009 9:58 am

Re: Gun (Lack of) Control

Postby jazzcyclist » Wed Dec 19, 2012 7:55 pm

gh wrote:
jazzcyclist wrote:...
Using this logic, the government wouldn't be curtailing our Second Amendment rights even if it restricted every one to one musket per household. In this context of this discussion, control is a synonym for curtail.



That's right, we all know that drunk- and reckless-driving laws are just an excuse to take our cars away!

That's a false analogy for two reasons:

    1) Driving a motor vehicle on open highways isn't a constitutional right.
    2) Drunk-driving laws only punishes drunk drivers, not everyone.
jazzcyclist
 
Posts: 10857
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Re: Gun (Lack of) Control

Postby jazzcyclist » Wed Dec 19, 2012 7:57 pm

Daisy wrote:
jazzcyclist wrote:Using this logic, the government wouldn't be curtailing our Second Amendment rights even if it restricted every one to one musket per household.

Actually, as many muskets as you want, since it says 'bare arms'.

So how is the second amendment right actually curtailed? You have your arms.

I'm sorry, I thought you wanted to have a thoughtful debate, but now you're just trolling.
jazzcyclist
 
Posts: 10857
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Re: Gun (Lack of) Control

Postby jazzcyclist » Wed Dec 19, 2012 8:01 pm

Blues wrote:
jazzcyclist wrote:Using this logic, the government wouldn't be curtailing our Second Amendment rights even if it restricted every one to one musket per household. In this context of this discussion, control is a synonym for curtail.


On the other hand, considering the broad "all inclusive" interpretation of the "right to keep and bear arms" that many gun advocates prefer to use, using your logic you must feel that the government is already blatantly curtailing your second amendment rights, since regulations restrict you from having a nuclear warhead in your living room and a Tomahawk missile in the backyard.

Now you're getting ridiculous and you evidently, you didn't bother to read my previous posts including my answer to kuha's question in which I spelled out exactly where I would draw the line.
jazzcyclist
 
Posts: 10857
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Re: Gun (Lack of) Control

Postby Marlow » Wed Dec 19, 2012 8:18 pm

From USA Today

http://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2 ... +-+Wickham)

Excerpt:
Australia has much in common with the United States. It was initially settled by teeming masses — in its case, largely convicts — fleeing England. But the similarities end when it comes to guns. While gun ownership has been a part of Australians' way of life, they have a much more utilitarian view of their purpose.

So, when a gunman killed 35 people in 1996 with a semiautomatic rifle in the tourist town of Port Arthur, on the island of Tasmania, the Australian people decided it was time for a change.
A new law, backed by a conservative prime minister, divided firearms into five categories. Some of the deadliest assault-style weapons and large ammunition clips are now all but impossible for individuals to lawfully own.

Firearms are subject to a strict permitting process, and dealers are required to record sales, which are tracked by the national and territorial governments. What's more, the law encouraged people to sell their firearms back to the government, which purchased and destroyed about 700,000 of them.

The results are hard to argue with. According to a Harvard University study, 13 gun massacres (in which four or more people died) occurred in the 18 years before the law was enacted. In the 16 years since there has been none. Zero. The overall firearm homicide rate dropped from 0.43 per 100,000 in the seven years before the law to 0.25 in the seven years after. By 2009, the rate had dropped further, to just 0.1 per 100,000, or one per million.
Marlow
 
Posts: 21075
Joined: Thu Jan 24, 2008 5:00 pm
Location: Somewhere over the . . . hill

Re: Gun (Lack of) Control

Postby jazzcyclist » Wed Dec 19, 2012 8:35 pm

Marlow wrote:Sorry to pile on, but . . . that statement is a logical fallacy of the First Magnitude - actually it's several logical fallacies, including
red herring
slippery slope
scare tactics
conflation of different premises
misrepresentation of evidence
etc., etc.

Just to take the bait, however, it someone used their First Amendment rights to cause bodily harm, as in the case of, oh say, yelling 'fire' in a crowded theater, setting off a panic that hurt people, then yes, those rights should be infringed upon. What some people perceive (incorrectly, of course) as their 2nd Amendment rights, are not rights at all, but privileges that may be granted under government oversight (like driving a car). Nowadays the 'militia' are given arms and drilled in their correct usage and then taken up again and stored safely, away from people who could misuse them.

Wrong, wrong, wrong! Are you unfamiliar with "District of Columbia v. Heller" and "McDonald v. Chicago" in which the Supreme Court ruled that the right to bear arms is constituionally protected? The truth of the matter is that the government limits all of our rights. With regards to the First Amendment, you can't yell fire in a crowded theatre, you can't incite riots, you can't possess child porn, you can't threaten to assassinate the President, you can't walk around nude in public spaces, etc. As for the Second Amendment, you can't purchase F-16's, Apache gunships, Tomahawk cruise missiles, ICBM's, MI Abrams tanks, bazookas, etc. So the question isn't whether or not the government can limit our rights (it already does), its about where the government draws the line. And since the Supreme Court has already ruled that the right to private gun ownership for personal protection is protected by the constitution, I'm pretty certain that any law that drew the line at muskets would be struck down immediately, since no reasonable person would deem muskets as suffucient for home defense in a day and age where semi-automatic weapons are widely available to criminals.
jazzcyclist
 
Posts: 10857
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Re: Gun (Lack of) Control

Postby Marlow » Wed Dec 19, 2012 8:41 pm

jazzcyclist wrote:Wrong, wrong, wrong! Supreme Court ruled that the right to bear arms is constituionally protected? . . . So the question isn't whether or not the government can limit our rights (it already does), its about where the government draws the line. And since the Supreme Court has already ruled that the right to private gun ownership for personal protection is protected by the constitution,

You just contradicted yourself. You say I'm wrong, but then admit that the gov't can draw the line where it chooses. No one is asking that ALL guns must go away, just that we severely restrict them, so yes, law-abiding citizens CAN buy some kinds of them persuant to regulation.
Marlow
 
Posts: 21075
Joined: Thu Jan 24, 2008 5:00 pm
Location: Somewhere over the . . . hill

Re: Gun (Lack of) Control

Postby Blues » Wed Dec 19, 2012 9:01 pm

jazzcyclist wrote:
Blues wrote:
jazzcyclist wrote:Using this logic, the government wouldn't be curtailing our Second Amendment rights even if it restricted every one to one musket per household. In this context of this discussion, control is a synonym for curtail.


On the other hand, considering the broad "all inclusive" interpretation of the "right to keep and bear arms" that many gun advocates prefer to use, using your logic you must feel that the government is already blatantly curtailing your second amendment rights, since regulations restrict you from having a nuclear warhead in your living room and a Tomahawk missile in the backyard.

Now you're getting ridiculous and you evidently, you didn't bother to read my previous posts including my answer to kuha's question in which I spelled out exactly where I would draw the line.


I read your posts, but some of your later responses didn't necessarily seem to jibe with what you'd previously stated...

Well then, without being evasive, do you or do you not feel that restricting possession of assault rifles and high capacity magazines violates your rights based on the wording of the second amendment? And if you feel those restrictions do "curtail" or violate your rights, why? Daisy has asked that question to you several times, but you haven't answered... To many of us, "the right to keep and bear arms" doesn't automatically mean the right to keep and bear any and all types of arms that mankind can create... I'm not asking what safety changes you feel would be acceptable to you personally as a gun enthusiast, I'm asking what regulations or changes you feel would violate the constitution, and what regulations wouldn't, and why...
Blues
 
Posts: 1087
Joined: Sun Apr 05, 2009 9:58 am

Re: Gun (Lack of) Control

Postby jazzcyclist » Wed Dec 19, 2012 9:03 pm

Marlow wrote:
jazzcyclist wrote:Wrong, wrong, wrong! Supreme Court ruled that the right to bear arms is constituionally protected? . . . So the question isn't whether or not the government can limit our rights (it already does), its about where the government draws the line. And since the Supreme Court has already ruled that the right to private gun ownership for personal protection is protected by the constitution,

You just contradicted yourself. You say I'm wrong, but then admit that the gov't can draw the line where it chooses. No one is asking that ALL guns must go away, just that we severely restrict them, so yes, law-abiding citizens CAN buy some kinds of them persuant to regulation.

There's no contradiction at all. I'm saying that the government gets to draw the line, but if laws are passed that attempt to circumvent the constitution, and undermine the spirit of its amendemnts, it's the job of the courts to strike them down. For example, "Brown vs Board of Education" was used to strike down Jim Crow laws since they violated the 14th Amendment. Similarly, poll taxes and literacy tests were struck down by the courts since they were just thinly veiled attempts to circumvent the 15th Amendment. I believe that the courts would take similar action if the government tried to draw the line too narrowly on private gun ownership.

Now my question to you is why did you falsely state that the right to bear arms is just a privilege when the courts have stated in unambiguous language that its a constitutionally protected right? Did you not know any better or were you just trying to put one over on me?
jazzcyclist
 
Posts: 10857
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Re: Gun (Lack of) Control

Postby Tuariki » Wed Dec 19, 2012 10:40 pm

Now that he has secured his second term Obama now has nothing to lose in going all out to do something about gun control. While I doubt he has much chance of making a whole lot of progress during this term of office he has the chance to sow the seeds of gun reform in the USA that hopefully will eventually bare fruit.

Lincoln (my apologies to Americans if I have gotten this wrong) was the catalyst for starting the process for black rights and black equality. And while the US is still not there yet massive progress has been made over the past 150 years.

Someone needs to have the courage to remove guns from the American psyche. I hope that someone is Obama. I believe that if James Madison, Noah Webster, George Mason and Patrick Henry, Robert Whitehill, James Munro and all of the other founding fathers could have looked into the future and seen Sandy Hook, Columbine, Virginia Tech, Aurora, Oak Creek and other mass murder scenes they would have removed the Second Amendment from the Constitution - or at worst amended it to ban many of the weapons we see today.
Tuariki
 
Posts: 1288
Joined: Tue Dec 14, 2010 9:39 pm
Location: Rohe o Te Whanau a Apanui

Re: Gun (Lack of) Control

Postby Daisy » Thu Dec 20, 2012 12:20 am

Daisy wrote:
odelltrclan wrote:And Daisy, who is stopping the conversations?

Gutless politicians who pander to the NRA, based on the fear of not being re-elected, since their constituents believe the NRA's red herrings (one being that gun control is synonymous with no guns).

Interesting op-ed on the NRA's protection racket by Richard Painter, who was the chief White House ethics lawyer for Bush from 2005 to 2007.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/20/opini ... acket.html
Daisy
 
Posts: 13153
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Re: Gun (Lack of) Control

Postby Daisy » Thu Dec 20, 2012 12:21 am

Daisy wrote:
jazzcyclist wrote:It seems that many folks on this board believe that our Second Amendment rights need to be curtailed, but how many would be okay with further restrictions on our First Amendment rights?

This is the bit I don't really understand. In what way does gun control curtail the second amendment? I just don't see that being the case. Even if every semi-automatic were taken out of circulation, and obviously that is not going to happen, you'd still have guns.

jazzcyclist wrote:
Daisy wrote:
jazzcyclist wrote:Using this logic, the government wouldn't be curtailing our Second Amendment rights even if it restricted every one to one musket per household.

Actually, as many muskets as you want, since it says 'bare arms'.

So how is the second amendment right actually curtailed? You have your arms.

I'm sorry, I thought you wanted to have a thoughtful debate, but now you're just trolling.

Not at all, you're the one that brought up the muskets. And I already stated above that it is unlikely that all semi-automatics would be banned, but that is a reasonable hypothetical scenario in the context of this discussion.

The constituional right is to bare arms, not anything 'the people' wish. See "District of Columbia v. Heller", Justice Scalia said that laws banning “dangerous and unusual weapons” are “another important limitation on the right to keep and carry arms.”

So, again, even if every semi-automatic were taken out of circulation, you'd still have guns. Shotguns and revolvers are not pea shooters. How is the second amendment right actually impinged on in that scenario?
Daisy
 
Posts: 13153
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Re: Gun (Lack of) Control

Postby j-a-m » Thu Dec 20, 2012 12:59 am

jazzcyclist wrote:
Daisy wrote:
jazzcyclist wrote:It seems that many folks on this board believe that our Second Amendment rights need to be curtailed, but how many would be okay with further restrictions on our First Amendment rights?

This is the bit I don't really understand. In what way does gun control curtail the second amendment? I just don't see that being the case. Even if every semi-automatic were taken out of circulation, and obviously that is not going to happen, you'd still have guns.

Using this logic, the government wouldn't be curtailing our Second Amendment rights even if it restricted every one to one musket per household. In this context of this discussion, control is a synonym for curtail.

Also by the same logic, it wouldn't be curtailing the First Amendment by outlawing free speech in English; you'd still be allowed to say all you want in other languages, after all.
j-a-m
 
Posts: 2449
Joined: Thu May 24, 2012 8:21 pm

Re: Gun (Lack of) Control

Postby j-a-m » Thu Dec 20, 2012 1:10 am

Marlow wrote:What some people perceive (incorrectly, of course) as their 2nd Amendment rights, are not rights at all, but privileges that may be granted under government oversight (like driving a car).

Of course it's a right, not a privilege. Now to what extent it's justified to restrict that right is another question, but it's still a right.

Actually, the Second Amendment is based not just on one but on two rights that are inherent in human nature, the right to own the fruits of your labor (i.e. property rights) and the right to self-defense.
j-a-m
 
Posts: 2449
Joined: Thu May 24, 2012 8:21 pm

Re: Gun (Lack of) Control

Postby jazzcyclist » Thu Dec 20, 2012 6:54 am

This morning Chuck Schumer summed up in a nutshell the biggest obstacle to gun control when he pointed out that it's not a partisan issue, it's regional issue, and there are too many Democratic Congressmen who have majority pro gun rights voters in the districts. Michael Bloomberg would have a tough time getting elected dog catcher in upstate New York. New York Senator Kirsten Gillibrand (D) is a classic example of this phenomenon. In 2008, before she was a Senator, she was a Congresswoman from upstate New York who recieved a 92% rating from the NRA. Then she was appointed to replace Hillary Clinton in the Senate and realized that she would need to attract voters statewide as opposed to her rural congressional district when she ran for reelection, and suddenly she had an epiphany on the gun issue. The result of this epiphany is that in 2012 she recieved a 0% rating from the NRA.
jazzcyclist
 
Posts: 10857
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Re: Gun (Lack of) Control

Postby jazzcyclist » Thu Dec 20, 2012 7:11 am

Daisy wrote:The constituional right is to bare arms, not anything 'the people' wish. See "District of Columbia v. Heller", Justice Scalia said that laws banning “dangerous and unusual weapons” are “another important limitation on the right to keep and carry arms.”

So, again, even if every semi-automatic were taken out of circulation, you'd still have guns. Shotguns and revolvers are not pea shooters. How is the second amendment right actually impinged on in that scenario?

Of course the government can limit our rights. Even the NRA doesn't think we should be able to buy F-16's. I guess it's all going to come down to what the courts deem as the minimum firepower that's necessary for home defense. Perhaps the courts would uphold a law that drew the line at revolvers and non semi-automatic long guns, but I don't think such a law is politically feasible because too many people in rural America own guns like this:

http://delgranado.com/pictures/Alf%20pi ... %20742.jpg

Also, too many people rely on semi-automatic pistols as their weapon of choice for personal protection. A few days ago, a co-worker of mine said that even if he did want to get rid of his Glock that he keeps in the bedroom, his wife would be vehemently opposed to him doing so.
jazzcyclist
 
Posts: 10857
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Re: Gun (Lack of) Control

Postby preston » Thu Dec 20, 2012 7:39 am

I don't think you can just ban and grandfather in the people who already own these things (like jazz's clips). Without a total ban there just becomes a market for over-sized clips. I think there has to be a "ban and remove" mentality where whatever gets banned is then made illegal and bought back by government. That's expensive. And, it doesn't speak to political will, it speaks to the will of the people. If people are that righteous about removal of these guns and accessories than they have to be willing to buy them back. If we assume that of the 270 million guns that are in circulation in the US that 60% would become illegal ... at $500 per gun (many are WAY more expensive) ... it would cost $81 billion! (it cost Australia $500 million).
preston
 
Posts: 1075
Joined: Tue Nov 29, 2011 1:09 pm

Re: Gun (Lack of) Control

Postby Marlow » Thu Dec 20, 2012 8:04 am

jazzcyclist wrote:Now my question to you is why did you falsely state that the right to bear arms is just a privilege when the courts have stated in unambiguous language that its a constitutionally protected right? Did you not know any better or were you just trying to put one over on me?

Are you counting the angels on that pin? Let's get semantically real. If a right can be suppressed (like free speech), it has become, de facto, a privilege, subject to restriction. Gun 'rights' are actually currently a privilege with some govt restriction; the amount of that restriction is in question now. The Supreme Court won't get involved in major way unless all guns are BANNED, which, of course, they never will be.
Marlow
 
Posts: 21075
Joined: Thu Jan 24, 2008 5:00 pm
Location: Somewhere over the . . . hill

Re: Gun (Lack of) Control

Postby jazzcyclist » Thu Dec 20, 2012 8:20 am

Meanwhile, here's a clip of Dianne Feinstein from 1995:

http://www.c-spanvideo.org/clip/4234389

Like most people, when they're concerned for their personal safety, she made the deision that she would rather be tried by 12 than carried by six. This reminds me of Plaxico Burress, who was robbed at gunpoint twice outside his home before he made the decison he was going to start packing, which led to his unfortunate accident in a nightclub.
jazzcyclist
 
Posts: 10857
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

PreviousNext

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bruce Kritzler and 4 guests