Moderators: richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 7
 
User avatar
jetmech
Posts: 2383
Joined: Wed Mar 29, 2006 2:14 am

RE: The Ultimate Gun Control / 2nd Amd. Thread Part 1

Mon Dec 24, 2007 11:30 pm



Quoting Halls120 (Reply 99):
But in the end, it doesn't really matter, because the right to own a firearm is specifically (for now at least) guaranteed by the Constitution. The right to drive isn't.

It matters greatly for the reasons I have put forth. Exactly how does this relate to the discussion between the relative merits of firearms and vehicles? This discussion is still waiting for you to state the beneficial utility of firearms that justifies the amount of lives taken by the devices.

Quoting Halls120 (Reply 99):
Do you realize that what you are saying in effect is that the right of law abiding citizens ought to be extinguished by a minority of people who break the law?

We are only taking about the second amendment here. Would it not be wise to look at modifying this amendment if the primary right to life for innocent people continues to be extinguished? In the hierarchy of rights, isn't the right to life the most important?

Quoting Halls120 (Reply 99):
It is the only plausible alternative, because you can't simply wave a magic wand and make guns disappear.

Of course not, we would be foolish to deal with anything but the situation as it is at the present time. Nonetheless, to think that more guns is the answer to the problem is even more foolhardy. More guns is a re-active measure at best, that deals with the consequences after a problem has gotten out of control. If a turning point ever occurs that leaves no alternative but to address the problem, a pro-active approach will be required. This would involve a reduction in the numbers of guns in circulation, not an increase.

Quoting Halls120 (Reply 99):
One can plausibly argue that the mere fact that the American public is armed serves as a valuable check on the other three branches of government.

Yes, and the opposite argument could be advocated for with equal vigour. Currently, the only issue that the armed public seems to hold sway over the other three branches of government is the issue of the second amendment itself.

Regards, JetMech
JetMech split the back of his pants. He can feel the wind in his hair :shock: .
 
halls120
Posts: 8724
Joined: Sun Jun 05, 2005 3:24 am

RE: The Ultimate Gun Control / 2nd Amd. Thread Part 1

Mon Dec 24, 2007 11:47 pm



Quoting JetMech (Reply 100):
This discussion is still waiting for you to state the beneficial utility of firearms that justifies the amount of lives taken by the devices.

Let's recall that the automobile issue popped up in post 69, where another poster remarked "And while we're at it....why not eliminate the real killers from our society, if we're blaming inanimate objects for our troubles....swimming pools. And automobiles. And balconies. ...."

And you responded in post 77 "This is beside the point. Firearms are far more effective at killing than the other objects you mention."

So I'm having trouble understanding why you are waiting for me to justify the beneficial uses of firearms when your initial response to the OP was "that is beside he point."

In the meantime, are you suggesting that we subject every Constitutional right to a beneficial effects balancing test?

Quoting JetMech (Reply 100):
Quoting Halls120 (Reply 99):
Do you realize that what you are saying in effect is that the right of law abiding citizens ought to be extinguished by a minority of people who break the law?

We are only taking about the second amendment here.

Understand, and what you are saying is that because a minority of misguided individuals choose to break the law, it should result in erasing the right of law abiding citizens to own a firearm.

Quoting JetMech (Reply 100):
Would it not be wise to look at modifying this amendment if the primary right to life for innocent people continues to be extinguished? In the hierarchy of rights, isn't the right to life the most important?

If my firearm saves my life, it would seem that my right to own a gun has indeed protected my right to life.
"Suppose you were an idiot. And suppose you were a member of Congress. But I repeat myself." Mark Twain, a Biography
 
D L X
Posts: 12722
Joined: Thu May 27, 1999 3:30 am

RE: The Ultimate Gun Control / 2nd Amd. Thread Part 1

Tue Dec 25, 2007 12:02 am

Quoting MDorBust (Reply 93):
Imfringment of constitutional rights. You can't infringe the right of one person because of the abuse of that right by another person. You can infringe Cho's right to bear arms based on his actions (might be a bit silly to do now), but not my right... based on his actions.

But MD, why is your right absolute? (I'm assuming for sake of argument that you have the right in the first place.)

Other constitutional rights are non-absolute. For instance as you know, you have the right to free speech, but there are still limitations on it. You can't yell fire in a crowded theatre is the oft-said example, but there are many others. You can't burn a draft card, you can't call a woman promiscuous unless you know it to be true, etc. These are all infringements of your first amendment right to free speech, but they are also constitutional.

"The constitution is not a suicide pact." - Abraham Lincoln. Therefore, when someone gives an argument and bases it on the fact that they have a constitutional right, he still has to give a good argument as to why he should have that right in this instance.

[Edited 2007-12-24 16:34:57]
 
User avatar
jetmech
Posts: 2383
Joined: Wed Mar 29, 2006 2:14 am

RE: The Ultimate Gun Control / 2nd Amd. Thread Part 1

Tue Dec 25, 2007 12:12 am

Quoting Halls120 (Reply 101):
"that is beside he point."

My statement of "beside the point" was an attempt to prevent the insidious characteristic that always creeps into gun debates, and one that began to rear it's ugly head in reply 69. The characteristic where pro-gun advocates attempt to water down the devastating effects of guns by comparing them to deaths associated with other in-animate objects.

Quoting Halls120 (Reply 99):
But in the end, it doesn't really matter, because the right to own a firearm is specifically (for now at least) guaranteed by the Constitution. The right to drive isn't.

My interpretation of this post of yours, rightly or wronging, is that you are again attempting to down play the deaths caused by firearms as something that is comparable to deaths associated with other inanimate objects.

Quoting Halls120 (Reply 101):
So I'm having trouble understanding why you are waiting for me to justify the beneficial uses of firearms when your initial response to the OP was "that is beside he point."

So to answer your question, I have said something is beside the point (reply 76), and then said later on that it was important (reply 100) for the same reason, to prevent the downplaying of deaths associated with firearms, and the insidious attempts to equate them with deaths caused by other inanimate objects. So there is no contradiction, merely what appears to be diametrically opposed phrases, but with exactly the same intent in mind.

Quoting Halls120 (Reply 101):
Understand, and what you are saying is that because a minority of misguided individuals choose to break the law, it should result in erasing the right of law abiding citizens to own a firearm.

Nope, I proposed a modification to the amendment, not the elimination of it.

Quoting Halls120 (Reply 101):
If my firearm saves my life, it would seem that my right to own a gun has indeed protected my right to life.

Of course Halls, I'm all for self protection, and I have stated this in recent posts. For some reason however, people always seem to forget the right to life of the victims of VT ,Columbine and other firearm atrocities .

Quoting Halls120 (Reply 101):
we subject every Constitutional right to a beneficial effects balancing test?

Would that not be in line with common sense? Would this not be a good way to modernise the Constitution for the conditions of today's society? Isn't this inline with most people's idea of a democratic society?

Regards, JetMech

[Edited 2007-12-24 16:22:34]
JetMech split the back of his pants. He can feel the wind in his hair :shock: .
 
halls120
Posts: 8724
Joined: Sun Jun 05, 2005 3:24 am

RE: The Ultimate Gun Control / 2nd Amd. Thread Part 1

Tue Dec 25, 2007 12:22 am



Quoting JetMech (Reply 103):
Quoting Halls120 (Reply 101):
"that is beside he point."

My statement of "beside the point" was an attempt to prevent the insidious characteristic that always creeps into gun debates, and one that began to rear it's ugly head in reply 69. The characteristic where pro-gun advocates attempt to water down the devastating effects of guns by comparing them to deaths associated with other in-animate objects.

Understand. Which is why I'm having trouble understanding why you are asking me to justify the beneficial uses of firearms.

Quoting JetMech (Reply 103):
Quoting Halls120 (Reply 99):
But in the end, it doesn't really matter, because the right to own a firearm is specifically (for now at least) guaranteed by the Constitution. The right to drive isn't.

My interpretation of this post of yours, rightly or wronging, is that you are again attempting to down play the deaths caused by firearms as something that is comparable to deaths associated with other inanimate objects.

No, I am trying to illustrate the fallacy behind your apparent intent that we subject every Constitutional right to a beneficial effects balancing test.

Quoting JetMech (Reply 103):
Quoting Halls120 (Reply 101):
Understand, and what you are saying is that because a minority of misguided individuals choose to break the law, it should result in erasing the right of law abiding citizens to own a firearm.

Nope, I proposed a modification to the amendment, not the elimination of it.

Even a modification can result in the partial elimination of a currently guaranteed Constitutional right. Which is, in effect, the act of punishing the majority of law abiding citizens because of the actions of minority of misguided individuals who choose to break the law.
"Suppose you were an idiot. And suppose you were a member of Congress. But I repeat myself." Mark Twain, a Biography
 
User avatar
jetmech
Posts: 2383
Joined: Wed Mar 29, 2006 2:14 am

RE: The Ultimate Gun Control / 2nd Amd. Thread Part 1

Tue Dec 25, 2007 12:42 am



Quoting Halls120 (Reply 104):
Understand. Which is why I'm having trouble understanding why you are asking me to justify the beneficial uses of firearms.

Because you wrote earlier on that you respectfully disagreed with my assertion that there was no utility offered by firearms that justified the deaths caused by the devices.

Quoting Halls120 (Reply 88):
Quoting JetMech (Reply 88):
There is no utility associated with firerms that is of such value to society that we are prepared to forgo the deaths caused by the device

I respectfully disagree.

I am merely curious as to your view on this particular element of the debate.

Quoting Halls120 (Reply 104):
I am trying to illustrate the fallacy behind your apparent intent that we subject every Constitutional right to a beneficial effects balancing test.

What fallacy? What is exactly false about having a modernisation of the Constitution to make it more workable hundreds of years after it was originally penned? To me, there does seem to be a conflict in many situations between the right to life and the right to bear arms. Either we balance out the Constitution rights to prevent such conflicts, or we apply a hierarchy to the Constitutional rights such as that proposed by Asimov in relation to robots.

Regards, JetMech
JetMech split the back of his pants. He can feel the wind in his hair :shock: .
 
MDorBust
Posts: 4914
Joined: Fri Sep 30, 2005 10:10 pm

RE: The Ultimate Gun Control / 2nd Amd. Thread Part 1

Tue Dec 25, 2007 12:43 am



Quoting D L X (Reply 102):
But MD, why is your right absolute?

Reading the passage you quoted should clearly indicated that I do not hold rights to be absolute or I would not have written, "You can infringe Cho's right to bear arms based on his actions..."

Quoting D L X (Reply 102):
For instance as you know, you have the right to free speech, but there are still limitations on it. You can't yell fire in a crowded theatre is the oft-said example...

And you have the right to bear arms, but not in a threatening manner.

Quoting D L X (Reply 102):
Therefore, when someone gives an argument and bases it on the fact that they have a constitutional right, you still have to give a good argument as to why you should have that right in this instance.

Did you really just say that you have to provide reason to exercise your rights? That concept flies in the face of the very purpose of the Bill of Rights. It is the government that must prove why you can't exercise your rights, not the citizens who must prove why they can.
"I KICKED BURNING TERRORIST SO HARD IN BALLS THAT I TORE A TENDON" - Alex McIlveen
 
halls120
Posts: 8724
Joined: Sun Jun 05, 2005 3:24 am

RE: The Ultimate Gun Control / 2nd Amd. Thread Part 1

Tue Dec 25, 2007 12:57 am



Quoting JetMech (Reply 105):
Quoting Halls120 (Reply 88):
Quoting JetMech (Reply 88):
There is no utility associated with firerms that is of such value to society that we are prepared to forgo the deaths caused by the device

I respectfully disagree.

I am merely curious as to your view on this particular element of the debate.

I don't believe that we should or need to subject every Constitutional right to a beneficial effects balancing test.

Quoting JetMech (Reply 105):
Quoting Halls120 (Reply 104):
I am trying to illustrate the fallacy behind your apparent intent that we subject every Constitutional right to a beneficial effects balancing test.

What fallacy? What is exactly false about having a modernisation of the Constitution to make it more workable hundreds of years after it was originally penned? To me, there does seem to be a conflict in many situations between the right to life and the right to bear arms. Either we balance out the Constitution rights to prevent such conflicts, or we apply a hierarchy to the Constitutional rights such as that proposed by Asimov in relation to robots.

The beauty of our Constitution is that is has survived for over 200 years with a minimal amount of tinkering.

I am a huge fan of Azimov - as a science fiction writer. Not as a drafter of a "how to" guide for how we apply the U.S. Constitution.
"Suppose you were an idiot. And suppose you were a member of Congress. But I repeat myself." Mark Twain, a Biography
 
User avatar
jetmech
Posts: 2383
Joined: Wed Mar 29, 2006 2:14 am

RE: The Ultimate Gun Control / 2nd Amd. Thread Part 1

Tue Dec 25, 2007 1:10 am



Quoting Halls120 (Reply 107):
I don't believe that we should or need to subject every Constitutional right to a beneficial effects balancing test.

It doesn't have to be the complete document, just sections which could benefit from changes to make them more workable for contemporary times.

Quoting Halls120 (Reply 107):
The beauty of our Constitution is that is has survived for over 200 years with a minimal amount of tinkering.

Yes, but just because an important document survives relatively intact for hundreds of years, does not mean that changes would not be of benefit.

Quoting Halls120 (Reply 107):
I am a huge fan of Azimov - as a science fiction writer. Not as a drafter of a "how to" guide for how we apply the U.S. Constitution.

Obviously I did not mean for (the late) Asimov to re-write the Constitution. I was only suggesting that a hierarchy of constitutional rights might be something that could reduce conflict between the various amendments, an arrangement similar to that proposed by Asimov for robots.

Regards, JetMech
JetMech split the back of his pants. He can feel the wind in his hair :shock: .
 
MDorBust
Posts: 4914
Joined: Fri Sep 30, 2005 10:10 pm

RE: The Ultimate Gun Control / 2nd Amd. Thread Part 1

Tue Dec 25, 2007 1:13 am



Quoting JetMech (Reply 105):
or we apply a hierarchy to the Constitutional rights such as that proposed by Asimov in relation to robots.

The three laws of robotics didn't end up working out so well in the long run.
"I KICKED BURNING TERRORIST SO HARD IN BALLS THAT I TORE A TENDON" - Alex McIlveen
 
User avatar
jetmech
Posts: 2383
Joined: Wed Mar 29, 2006 2:14 am

RE: The Ultimate Gun Control / 2nd Amd. Thread Part 1

Tue Dec 25, 2007 1:16 am



Quoting MDorBust (Reply 109):
The three laws of robotics didn't end up working out so well in the long run.

OK. What was the reason for this?

Regards, JetMech
JetMech split the back of his pants. He can feel the wind in his hair :shock: .
 
MDorBust
Posts: 4914
Joined: Fri Sep 30, 2005 10:10 pm

RE: The Ultimate Gun Control / 2nd Amd. Thread Part 1

Tue Dec 25, 2007 1:24 am



Quoting JetMech (Reply 110):
OK. What was the reason for this?



Quoting JetMech (Reply 108):
an arrangement similar to that proposed by Asimov for robots.

"I KICKED BURNING TERRORIST SO HARD IN BALLS THAT I TORE A TENDON" - Alex McIlveen
 
halls120
Posts: 8724
Joined: Sun Jun 05, 2005 3:24 am

RE: The Ultimate Gun Control / 2nd Amd. Thread Part 1

Tue Dec 25, 2007 1:51 am



Quoting JetMech (Reply 108):
Quoting Halls120 (Reply 107):
I don't believe that we should or need to subject every Constitutional right to a beneficial effects balancing test.

It doesn't have to be the complete document, just sections which could benefit from changes to make them more workable for contemporary times.

We've amended the Constitution seventeen times since the original 10 "Bill of Rights" amendments, and each time the process took into account the "workability" of the document.

Quoting JetMech (Reply 108):
Quoting Halls120 (Reply 107):
The beauty of our Constitution is that is has survived for over 200 years with a minimal amount of tinkering.

Yes, but just because an important document survives relatively intact for hundreds of years, does not mean that changes would not be of benefit.

.

We have such a procedure already in place. It's called the amendment process, and it works pretty well.

I'm not aware of any groundswell of public opinion calling for an amendment to change the right to keep and bear arms - are you?

Quoting JetMech (Reply 108):
Quoting Halls120 (Reply 107):
I am a huge fan of Azimov - as a science fiction writer. Not as a drafter of a "how to" guide for how we apply the U.S. Constitution.

Obviously I did not mean for (the late) Asimov to re-write the Constitution. I was only suggesting that a hierarchy of constitutional rights might be something that could reduce conflict between the various amendments, an arrangement similar to that proposed by Asimov for robots.

An interesting but ultimately unworkable and unnecessary suggestion.
"Suppose you were an idiot. And suppose you were a member of Congress. But I repeat myself." Mark Twain, a Biography
 
User avatar
jetmech
Posts: 2383
Joined: Wed Mar 29, 2006 2:14 am

RE: The Ultimate Gun Control / 2nd Amd. Thread Part 1

Tue Dec 25, 2007 10:37 am



Quoting Halls120 (Reply 112):
We've amended the Constitution seventeen times since the original 10 "Bill of Rights" amendments, and each time the process took into account the "workability" of the document. We have such a procedure already in place. It's called the amendment process, and it works pretty well.

Great, it's good to see that a provision exists to allow some flexibility with the Constitution.

Quoting Halls120 (Reply 112):
I'm not aware of any groundswell of public opinion calling for an amendment to change the right to keep and bear arms - are you?

Does there not tend to be opinions precisely for gun control in the aftermath of prominent firearm massacres? I sometimes feel that such atrocities have become "common" enough that the amount of shock generated is becoming less and less. Any opinions for gun control tend to get drowned out by the powerful and well connected NRA.

Regards, JetMech
JetMech split the back of his pants. He can feel the wind in his hair :shock: .
 
halls120
Posts: 8724
Joined: Sun Jun 05, 2005 3:24 am

RE: The Ultimate Gun Control / 2nd Amd. Thread Part 1

Tue Dec 25, 2007 2:29 pm



Quoting JetMech (Reply 113):
Does there not tend to be opinions precisely for gun control in the aftermath of prominent firearm massacres?

Opinions for tighter measures on gun ownership, yes. Calls fro rewriting the Second Amendment to eliminate gun ownership, no.
"Suppose you were an idiot. And suppose you were a member of Congress. But I repeat myself." Mark Twain, a Biography
 
D L X
Posts: 12722
Joined: Thu May 27, 1999 3:30 am

RE: The Ultimate Gun Control / 2nd Amd. Thread Part 1

Tue Dec 25, 2007 3:37 pm



Quoting MDorBust (Reply 106):
Reading the passage you quoted should clearly indicated that I do not hold rights to be absolute or I would not have written, "You can infringe Cho's right to bear arms based on his actions..."

But you're also saying that we cannot infringe on your right because you haven't done anything yet. I think that's equally false. I believe we can infringe on your right so that you can't do something in the future. Forbidding someone from yelling fire in a crowded theatre is not contingent on whether they've done bad things before (even just before). They simply can't do it, ever.

Quoting MDorBust (Reply 106):
Did you really just say that you have to provide reason to exercise your rights?

No, I am saying that when you base your argument on a sentence fragment in the constitution, you need to explain why that fragment applies to you, and why it applies to the extent that you want it to.

Quoting MDorBust (Reply 106):
It is the government that must prove why you can't exercise your rights, not the citizens who must prove why they can.

Done and done. We have the highest murder rate in the industrialized world because of the amazing access to guns not present elsewhere. That's proof enough why the right should be curtailed.
 
halls120
Posts: 8724
Joined: Sun Jun 05, 2005 3:24 am

RE: The Ultimate Gun Control / 2nd Amd. Thread Part 1

Tue Dec 25, 2007 3:52 pm



Quoting D L X (Reply 115):
I believe we can infringe on your right so that you can't do something in the future.

Sounds like you are advocating a "Department of Precrime" as in the movie Minority Report.

I'm glad you aren't a federal magistrate issuing search warrants.
"Suppose you were an idiot. And suppose you were a member of Congress. But I repeat myself." Mark Twain, a Biography
 
D L X
Posts: 12722
Joined: Thu May 27, 1999 3:30 am

RE: The Ultimate Gun Control / 2nd Amd. Thread Part 1

Wed Dec 26, 2007 5:59 am



Quoting Halls120 (Reply 116):
Sounds like you are advocating a "Department of Precrime" as in the movie Minority Report.

I'm glad you aren't a federal magistrate issuing search warrants.

Halls, you're really slanting what I'm saying.

I am consistent on a higher degree of regulation and licensing for guns and gun owners. I want to see EVERY sale of a gun require a license before the sale can be made. I also want the license to show what serial numbers this user is allowed to possess, or at least an online database for quick retrieval. And I want to throw in jail any person who is found to be in noncompliance by possessing a gun not licensed to him. Finally, no gun SALES at gun shows. Period. Before you pick nits, the details can be worked out. but this is the overarching idea for what I want to see happen. Gun-fetishers get to keep their guns, but they have to tell the state exactly which guns they have.
 
halls120
Posts: 8724
Joined: Sun Jun 05, 2005 3:24 am

RE: The Ultimate Gun Control / 2nd Amd. Thread Part 1

Wed Dec 26, 2007 12:27 pm



Quoting D L X (Reply 117):
Halls, you're really slanting what I'm saying.

Well, when you make statements like "I believe we can infringe on your right so that you can't do something in the future" without explaining it, I don't believe my inference was unfair.

Quoting D L X (Reply 117):
I am consistent on a higher degree of regulation and licensing for guns and gun owners. I want to see EVERY sale of a gun require a license before the sale can be made.

I see no problem with the above.

Quoting D L X (Reply 117):
I also want the license to show what serial numbers this user is allowed to possess, or at least an online database for quick retrieval.

That's silly, at least with regard to having the serial number of a gun on your personal license. That is what databases are for.

Quoting D L X (Reply 117):
Finally, no gun SALES at gun shows. Period.

Disagree. If a licensed FFD can comply with the law at a gun show, why shouldn't the sale be permitted?
"Suppose you were an idiot. And suppose you were a member of Congress. But I repeat myself." Mark Twain, a Biography
 
SBBRTech
Posts: 403
Joined: Sat Jul 28, 2007 2:32 am

RE: The Ultimate Gun Control / 2nd Amd. Thread Part 1

Wed Dec 26, 2007 12:52 pm



Quoting MDorBust (Reply 2):
Time to scrap the whole damn mess, allow people who can pass a background check and basic skills demonstrations to own and carry whatever they want, and enforce harsh penalties for the use of a firearm in a crime.

This discussion is a lost cause, no doubt, but the only thing I don't get in this whole love affair with weapons is this: ain't a revolver or a pistol enough to defend yourself ?
Why should anyone but the military or police forces be allowed to carry M-16s, shotguns, MP-5s...? Is that really necessary?
"I'm beginning to get the hang of this flying business" - C3PO
 
miamiair
Posts: 4249
Joined: Thu Jul 15, 2004 9:42 pm

RE: The Ultimate Gun Control / 2nd Amd. Thread Part 1

Wed Dec 26, 2007 1:13 pm



Quoting D L X (Reply 117):
Finally, no gun SALES at gun shows.

And why is that?

At the gun shows in FL, the people selling firearms are FFL holders and everyone goes through the same hoops as at a shop.
Molon Labe - Proud member of SMASH
 
D L X
Posts: 12722
Joined: Thu May 27, 1999 3:30 am

RE: The Ultimate Gun Control / 2nd Amd. Thread Part 1

Wed Dec 26, 2007 2:24 pm



Quoting Halls120 (Reply 118):
Well, when you make statements like "I believe we can infringe on your right so that you can't do something in the future" without explaining it, I don't believe my inference was unfair.

Well, it's in context. I was talking about how we can peel back your first amendment rights in certain situations without regard to what crimes you have already committed, and how I saw the second amendment no differently. In other words, it is analogous to say "no yelling fire in a crowded theatre" and "no purchases without having a license".

Quoting Halls120 (Reply 118):
Quoting D L X (Reply 117):
I also want the license to show what serial numbers this user is allowed to possess, or at least an online database for quick retrieval.

That's silly, at least with regard to having the serial number of a gun on your personal license. That is what databases are for.

Why is that silly?

Quoting Miamiair (Reply 120):
And why is that?

At the gun shows in FL, the people selling firearms are FFL holders and everyone goes through the same hoops as at a shop.

I don't know if that's a universal rule. All I know is that the Columbine kids got their guns through a loophole at a gunshow. Have those loopholes been closed up?
 
ANCFlyer
Posts: 21391
Joined: Mon Nov 15, 2004 3:51 pm

RE: The Ultimate Gun Control / 2nd Amd. Thread Part 1

Wed Dec 26, 2007 2:30 pm



Quoting SBBRTech (Reply 119):
Why should anyone but the military or police forces be allowed to carry M-16s, shotguns, MP-5s...?

Shotguns you ask?

Here's a simple answer . . . in Alaska we have these creatures, pictured below, that generally speaking get very irritated if forced to be shot only with a small caliber rifle round of a pistol. Now, I've always appreciated my Remington 870 while on duty . . . but I also appreciate my personal Shotgun when off duty as well.




FOR THOSE THAT FOUGHT FOR IT, FREEDOM HAS A FLAVOR THE PROTECTED WILL NEVER KNOW OR UNDERSTAND
 
ORFflyer
Posts: 3142
Joined: Sat Apr 09, 2005 2:42 am

RE: The Ultimate Gun Control / 2nd Amd. Thread Part 1

Wed Dec 26, 2007 2:38 pm

Gun control is being able to hit what your aiming at, everytime you aim at it.

Quoting ANCFlyer (Reply 122):
Here's a simple answer . . . in Alaska we have these creatures, pictured below,

But ANC, couldn't you just use a taser?  stirthepot 
 
halls120
Posts: 8724
Joined: Sun Jun 05, 2005 3:24 am

RE: The Ultimate Gun Control / 2nd Amd. Thread Part 1

Wed Dec 26, 2007 2:43 pm



Quoting D L X (Reply 121):
Quoting Halls120 (Reply 118):
Well, when you make statements like "I believe we can infringe on your right so that you can't do something in the future" without explaining it, I don't believe my inference was unfair.

Well, it's in context. I was talking about how we can peel back your first amendment rights in certain situations without regard to what crimes you have already committed, and how I saw the second amendment no differently.

Let's see, can you stop me in advance from yelling "fire" in a crowded theater?

Quoting D L X (Reply 121):
Quoting Halls120 (Reply 118):
Quoting D L X (Reply 117):
I also want the license to show what serial numbers this user is allowed to possess, or at least an online database for quick retrieval.

That's silly, at least with regard to having the serial number of a gun on your personal license. That is what databases are for.

Why is that silly?

Does your drivers license list what cars you are permitted to operate?
"Suppose you were an idiot. And suppose you were a member of Congress. But I repeat myself." Mark Twain, a Biography
 
Queso
Topic Author
Posts: 3109
Joined: Sat Jul 08, 2006 12:28 pm

RE: The Ultimate Gun Control / 2nd Amd. Thread Part 1

Wed Dec 26, 2007 2:51 pm



Quoting D L X (Reply 117):
I want to see EVERY sale of a gun require a license before the sale can be made.

How will that stop someone who wants to use a gun in an already illegal manner from doing so?

Quoting D L X (Reply 117):
I also want the license to show what serial numbers this user is allowed to possess, or at least an online database for quick retrieval.

How will that stop someone who wants to use a gun in an already illegal manner from doing so?

Quoting D L X (Reply 117):
And I want to throw in jail any person who is found to be in noncompliance by possessing a gun not licensed to him.

How will that stop someone who wants to use a gun in an already illegal manner from doing so?

Quoting D L X (Reply 117):
Finally, no gun SALES at gun shows.

How will that stop someone who wants to use a gun in an already illegal manner from doing so?

Quoting D L X (Reply 117):
Gun-fetishers get to keep their guns, but they have to tell the state exactly which guns they have.

How will that stop someone who wants to use a gun in an already illegal manner from doing so?
 
Queso
Topic Author
Posts: 3109
Joined: Sat Jul 08, 2006 12:28 pm

RE: The Ultimate Gun Control / 2nd Amd. Thread Part 1

Wed Dec 26, 2007 2:59 pm



Quoting D L X (Reply 121):
I don't know if that's a universal rule. All I know is that the Columbine kids got their guns through a loophole at a gunshow. Have those loopholes been closed up?

Incorrect. There was no "loophole". The weapons used were all obtained illegally.

"In the months prior to the attacks, Harris and Klebold acquired two 9 mm firearms and two 12-gauge shotguns. A rifle and the two shotguns were bought in what was perhaps a straw purchase in December, 1998 by a friend, Robyn Anderson, who had purchased the shotguns at the Tanner Gun Show in December, in private sales from individual(s). Harris and Klebold later bought a handgun from a friend, Mark Manes for $500. Manes was jailed after the massacre for selling a handgun to a minor, as was Philip Duran, who had introduced the duo to Manes."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Columbine_High_School_massacre#Firearms

Yes, it's Wikipedia but it summarizes the situation simply and is well-sourced.
 
D L X
Posts: 12722
Joined: Thu May 27, 1999 3:30 am

RE: The Ultimate Gun Control / 2nd Amd. Thread Part 1

Wed Dec 26, 2007 3:51 pm

Quoting Halls120 (Reply 124):
Let's see, can you stop me in advance from yelling "fire" in a crowded theater?

Halls, you're nit-picking, and that's not what I'm saying. I'm saying that it is illegal to do so, and that is reasonable. I believe that reasonability is a factor in the second amendment also.

Quoting Halls120 (Reply 124):
Does your drivers license list what cars you are permitted to operate?

No, the equivalent in the driving world is the registration. The registration does say "this car can be possessed by this person."
But again, this is a nit.

Quoting Queso (Reply 125):

How will that stop someone who wants to use a gun in an already illegal manner from doing so?

FUD.

Non-compliance with the licensing law equates to higher penalties when caught. And not just caught for gun-crime - for example, if you get pulled over for a traffic violation, you could get searched. If the cop finds a gun, and you don't have proof that you are licensed to possess that gun, the gun should be confiscated, and you should be sent to Club Fed for a while.

Now the question is, why do lawful gun owners so despise the idea of licensing and disclosure?

[Edited 2007-12-26 07:52:44]
 
Queso
Topic Author
Posts: 3109
Joined: Sat Jul 08, 2006 12:28 pm

RE: The Ultimate Gun Control / 2nd Amd. Thread Part 1

Wed Dec 26, 2007 4:05 pm



Quoting D L X (Reply 127):
Non-compliance with the licensing law equates to higher penalties when caught. And not just caught for gun-crime - for example, if you get pulled over for a traffic violation, you could get searched. If the cop finds a gun, and you don't have proof that you are licensed to possess that gun, the gun should be confiscated, and you should be sent to Club Fed for a while.

How will any of that stop someone who wants to USE a gun in an already illegal manner from doing so?

Quoting D L X (Reply 127):
Now the question is, why do lawful gun owners so despise the idea of licensing and disclosure?

Because it's a useless and empty "feel-good" gesture that inhibits no actions that are not already illegal and the only people who will comply with the measures you propose are those who are already in compliance with the law.

+++++++++++++++++++

Two real-world scenarios based on what you propose:

1) Me, a law-abiding citizen, jumps through the additional hoops and has to update the government every other week when I add a new gun to my collection. Government spends tons of money keeping up with someone who isn't breaking the law anyway,

2) Mongo, twice-convicted felon acquires firearms in the same manner the "Columbine kids" acquired theirs and commits another assaultive crime with them. Cops catch him and throw him in jail, but the damage has already been done and his charges for non-compliance of firearms licensing laws pale in the face of multiple murder and other felony charges.

What good was done by the measures you propose?
 
ANCFlyer
Posts: 21391
Joined: Mon Nov 15, 2004 3:51 pm

RE: The Ultimate Gun Control / 2nd Amd. Thread Part 1

Wed Dec 26, 2007 4:06 pm



Quoting D L X (Reply 127):
Now the question is, why do lawful gun owners so despise the idea of licensing and disclosure?

I don't necessarily think that's the case . . . at least not in my case. Why do I care? I'm not doing anything illegal. I'll license whatever weapon of mine you want. I bought them, legally, and they are registered to me. I don't care who knows I have them. That is not the issue here.


What most lawful gun owners despise is the elimination of/confiscation of weapons. At that point, as cliche' as this sounds, only unlawful gun owners would possess guns.

It's a fairly simple concept really . . . I fail to comprehend why it's so hard for those of you that want guns removed from the hands of law abiding citizens to grasp that simple concept. When guns are banned only criminals will have them.
FOR THOSE THAT FOUGHT FOR IT, FREEDOM HAS A FLAVOR THE PROTECTED WILL NEVER KNOW OR UNDERSTAND
 
halls120
Posts: 8724
Joined: Sun Jun 05, 2005 3:24 am

RE: The Ultimate Gun Control / 2nd Amd. Thread Part 1

Wed Dec 26, 2007 4:10 pm



Quoting D L X (Reply 127):
Quoting Halls120 (Reply 124):
Let's see, can you stop me in advance from yelling "fire" in a crowded theater?

Halls, you're nit-picking, and that's not what I'm saying. I'm saying that it is illegal to do so, and that is reasonable. I believe that reasonability is a factor in the second amendment also.

I'm nit-picking because we are talking about Constitutional rights. While you might not be intending to do so, your posts sound dangerously like you are in favor of prior restraint.

Quoting D L X (Reply 127):
Quoting Halls120 (Reply 124):
Does your drivers license list what cars you are permitted to operate?

No, the equivalent in the driving world is the registration. The registration does say "this car can be possessed by this person."
But again, this is a nit.

Again, it is not a "nit" when you are talking about a Constitutional right.

Sorry, but when it comes to ANY governmental regulation of ANY Constitutional right, I am naturally suspicious.

And I'm not going to apologize for it.
"Suppose you were an idiot. And suppose you were a member of Congress. But I repeat myself." Mark Twain, a Biography
 
MDorBust
Posts: 4914
Joined: Fri Sep 30, 2005 10:10 pm

RE: The Ultimate Gun Control / 2nd Amd. Thread Part 1

Wed Dec 26, 2007 4:45 pm



Quoting D L X (Reply 115):
But you're also saying that we cannot infringe on your right because you haven't done anything yet.

Yes. I am exactly and specifically saying that the government can not infringe my rights without action on my part.

Quoting D L X (Reply 115):
Forbidding someone from yelling fire in a crowded theatre is not contingent on whether they've done bad things before (even just before).

But you don't do anything to prevent them from yelling fire in a theatre, you punish them after they've done it. Much like it is illegal to brandish a firearm in a threatening manner. You don't prevent them from owning the firearm, or even carrying the firearm. You punish them after they've committed an illegal act. Action on their part was necessary.

Quoting D L X (Reply 115):
No, I am saying that when you base your argument on a sentence fragment in the constitution, you need to explain why that fragment applies to you, and why it applies to the extent that you want it to.

Because it's in the Constitution of the United States of America, and I am one of the "people".

Quoting D L X (Reply 115):
Done and done. We have the highest murder rate in the industrialized world because of the amazing access to guns not present elsewhere. That's proof enough why the right should be curtailed.

That's not proof of anything. Correlation is not causation. If your statement that guns equal crime were true, then the opposite would also hold true.. no guns equals no crime... which would definately make certain periods of history a lot less interesting and Robin Hood the most boring book ever written.

Depsite the false nature of your statement, it still fails at a constitutional level. How is my exercising my right to own a weapon in any way influencing the national crime rate in an adverse manner?

Quoting D L X (Reply 117):
I also want the license to show what serial numbers this user is allowed to possess

What about firearms that do not have serial numbers?

Quoting D L X (Reply 117):
Finally, no gun SALES at gun shows. Period.

I doubt you fully understand sales at gunshows if you think the are substantially differant than sales at a physical gun store.

Quoting SBBRTech (Reply 119):
Why should anyone but the military or police forces be allowed to carry M-16s, shotguns, MP-5s...? Is that really necessary?

AR pattern rifles and shotguns are very common hunting tools.
The AR pattern rifle, loaded with the right ammunition is an excellent home defense weapon... however it's a distanct second to the pump shotgun.
The MP-5 series and P90 series are excellent tools for civilian armed security.

Quoting D L X (Reply 127):
Now the question is, why do lawful gun owners so despise the idea of licensing and disclosure?

Licensing the owner? There are a great many pro-gun people, myself included, that think licensing the owner is a good idea. Licensing and registering each firearm? No, never again. Not after the absolute betrayal of residents of CA by their own government which in the stroke of a pen made a great many people felons over night... and incidentally demonstrated that the "silly" fears of many gun owners were exactly right.

You can read about it here:
US Most Armed Country In The World (by Hkg82 Aug 29 2007 in Non Aviation)

In short, they will register your guns pretending to be on your side. Then they will outlaw the guns you own, and come for you.
"I KICKED BURNING TERRORIST SO HARD IN BALLS THAT I TORE A TENDON" - Alex McIlveen
 
Pope
Posts: 3995
Joined: Thu Mar 24, 2005 5:57 am

RE: The Ultimate Gun Control / 2nd Amd. Thread Part 1

Wed Dec 26, 2007 5:27 pm



Quoting MDorBust (Reply 131):
How is my exercising my right to own a weapon in any way influencing the national crime rate in an adverse manner?

Given the incredibly expansive interpretation of the commerce clause by the SCOTUS since the 1950's there is almost nothing that escapes the nation affectation argument. Interestingly enough - of the TWO cases the Supreme Court has struck DOWN on commerce clause reason, one is a gun case - (possessing a firearm within x feet of a school was a violation of federal law at some point).

My problem with the left on this matter is that while constantly lamenting the erosion of "rights" under the Constitution, 99% of people complaining about this have never read the Constitution let alone understand it. I've said it once and I'll say it a thousand times again, the single biggest infringment on the rights of the individual and the states under our Constitution is the expansion of Congressional legislative power under the Commerce Clause.

For every one person who is (or ever will be affected) by the PATRIOT Act / NSA spying or any other program which exists I'll bet that there's at least 100,000 if not a 1,000,000 other Americans whose rights are directly impacted by the SCOTUS position on the commerce clause.

If true conservatives ever got their asses out of their heads and stopped making abortion the litmus test, they would make huge strides in advancing a conservative agenda, which by its logical extension eventually would incorporate the Roe precedent, by focusing on a jurists position on the commerce clause.

But again, most people think that overturning Roe means that abortion is instantly illegal in the United States when in fact overturning Roe would do nothing but allow WE THE PEOPLE to decide whether abortion should or should not be legal.
Hypocrisy. It's the new black for liberals.
 
MDorBust
Posts: 4914
Joined: Fri Sep 30, 2005 10:10 pm

RE: The Ultimate Gun Control / 2nd Amd. Thread Part 1

Wed Dec 26, 2007 5:31 pm



Quoting JetMech (Reply 113):
Any opinions for gun control tend to get drowned out by the powerful and well connected NRA.

Oops, I missed this one.

"But, The NRA..." has become a quite common mantra of late. It's actually a very false mantra.

The NRA helped write the 1986 FOPA which is the Federal law which dictates who is and is not allowed to purchase a firearm.

The NRA was the driving force behind the creation of the NICS.

The NRA is also the prime pushing factor in passing the NICS reforms which require states to actually obey federal laws.

The NRA wrote the law which made armor piercing ammunition for pistols illegal.


People should take the time to find out what the NRA actually stands for and what laws they support before making claims about the NRA being the problem in relation to gun control.
"I KICKED BURNING TERRORIST SO HARD IN BALLS THAT I TORE A TENDON" - Alex McIlveen
 
D L X
Posts: 12722
Joined: Thu May 27, 1999 3:30 am

RE: The Ultimate Gun Control / 2nd Amd. Thread Part 1

Wed Dec 26, 2007 10:58 pm



Quoting Queso (Reply 128):
How will any of that stop someone who wants to USE a gun in an already illegal manner from doing so?

I can only explain it so many times. As with all crime, we stop it through deterrence. We make it more unpleasant to commit a crime. Under a stricter licensing regime, it becomes a crime to possess a gun that you are not licensed to own. Now, are you going to be pulled over for having an unlicensed gun? Of course not -- the cops aren't going to know that you have an unlicensed gun unless you tell them somehow. But if you give a cop a clear, articulable particularized suspicion that you are or just have committed a crime (amongst them, carrying an unlicensed wep), you can get searched, and when caught, your penalty goes up. Way up. Comply, or go to jail. It certainly isn't waiting for an unlicensed gun owner to kill someone before it gets enacted. You can complain, but fact is fact: this would be no "feel-good" measure.

Quoting Halls120 (Reply 130):
While you might not be intending to do so, your posts sound dangerously like you are in favor of prior restraint.

Is requiring a person to get a driver's license prior restraint?

Quoting Halls120 (Reply 130):
Again, it is not a "nit" when you are talking about a Constitutional right.

I'll tell you the same thing I said to MD then: when you're basing your argument on the idea that it is a constitutional right, you have to explain how the abrogation as prescribed does not square with the right. Do you believe the Second Amendment gives an absolute right to own a gun without restriction? Or shall we say, without "well regulation?"

Quoting MDorBust (Reply 131):
Yes. I am exactly and specifically saying that the government can not infringe my rights without action on my part.

Well, what would end up happening is that the government would tell you that you never actually had the right the way you thought.

Quoting MDorBust (Reply 131):
But you don't do anything to prevent them from yelling fire in a theatre, you punish them after they've done it.

Well, that's exactly what I'm talking about also, when I talk about licensing.

Quoting MDorBust (Reply 131):
Quoting D L X (Reply 115):
No, I am saying that when you base your argument on a sentence fragment in the constitution, you need to explain why that fragment applies to you, and why it applies to the extent that you want it to.

Because it's in the Constitution of the United States of America, and I am one of the "people".

That's nonresponsive.

Quoting MDorBust (Reply 131):
If your statement that guns equal crime were true, then the opposite would also hold true.. no guns equals no crime

No, that is faulty logic (or a straw man, take your pick). Analogy: drunk drivers cause traffic deaths. But a lack of drunk drivers would not equate to no traffic deaths.
(I never said that guns=crime. I say that guns increases crime.)

Quoting MDorBust (Reply 131):
How is my exercising my right to own a weapon in any way influencing the national crime rate in an adverse manner?

I'm not particularly worried about YOUR gun ownership. From what I know, you are likely a pretty responsible one. You're probably a good driver, too. Doesn't mean you shouldn't be licensed.

Quoting MDorBust (Reply 131):
What about firearms that do not have serial numbers?

That's a nit. We can uniquely identify every gun ever produced in order to license it out.

Quoting MDorBust (Reply 131):
I doubt you fully understand sales at gunshows if you think the are substantially differant than sales at a physical gun store.

I won't claim to be an expert on gun shows - all I know is the news I'd heard that a lot of guns were obtained legally then used unlawfully at gun shows because of lax standards, and the avoidance of the 3 day waiting period.

Quoting MDorBust (Reply 131):
Licensing the owner? There are a great many pro-gun people, myself included, that think licensing the owner is a good idea.

Good on ya! My statement was not directed at anyone in particular, but rather those gun owners that resist licensing.

Quoting MDorBust (Reply 131):
Licensing and registering each firearm? No, never again. Not after the absolute betrayal of residents of CA by their own government which in the stroke of a pen made a great many people felons over night... and incidentally demonstrated that the "silly" fears of many gun owners were exactly right.

Well, that could very well be a taking. If the government rounded up particular types of guns (which does not imo rise to infringing your 2nd Amendment right, it probably infringed your 5th Amendment right, which means you get $$$. Use that money to buy a wep not on the list.

Do you agree that there are arms that should not be in private possession?




My fingers hurt.  Smile
 
miamiair
Posts: 4249
Joined: Thu Jul 15, 2004 9:42 pm

RE: The Ultimate Gun Control / 2nd Amd. Thread Part 1

Wed Dec 26, 2007 11:08 pm



Quoting D L X (Reply 134):
and the avoidance of the 3 day waiting period.

You still have the mandatory waiting period unless you are a CWP holder.
Molon Labe - Proud member of SMASH
 
Queso
Topic Author
Posts: 3109
Joined: Sat Jul 08, 2006 12:28 pm

RE: The Ultimate Gun Control / 2nd Amd. Thread Part 1

Wed Dec 26, 2007 11:21 pm



Quoting D L X (Reply 134):
As with all crime, we stop it through deterrence.

It will not work. That is akin to saying drunk driving laws will stop drunk driving. It's still a HUGE problem in spite of more stringent laws and bigger penalties. There are already laws in place to prevent people who shouldn't have firearms from having them and they do not work in keeping a criminal from using a firearm if that is his/her intent. More laws will not work.

Quoting D L X (Reply 134):
We make it more unpleasant to commit a crime.

See above. It will not work. There are already laws in place to prevent people who shouldn't have firearms from having them and they do not work in keeping a criminal from using a firearm if that is his/her intent. More laws will not work.

Quoting D L X (Reply 134):
I can only explain it so many times.

And it still will not make it work. There are already laws in place to prevent people who shouldn't have firearms from having them and they do not work in keeping a criminal from using a firearm if that is his/her intent. More laws will not work.

Quoting D L X (Reply 134):
You can complain, but fact is fact: this would be no "feel-good" measure.

The measures you propose would not inhibit any action that is not already illegal and the only people who will comply with the measures you propose are those who are already in compliance with the law. That makes it, by definition, a "feel-good" measure.

+++++++++++++++++++

Two real-world scenarios based on what you propose:

1) Me, a law-abiding citizen, jumps through the additional hoops and has to update the government every other week when I add a new gun to my collection. Government spends tons of money keeping up with someone who isn't breaking the law anyway,

2) Mongo, twice-convicted felon acquires firearms in the same manner the "Columbine kids" acquired theirs and commits another assaultive crime with them. Cops catch him and throw him in jail, but the damage has already been done and his charges for non-compliance of firearms licensing laws pale in the face of multiple murder and other felony charges.

Please consider this and tell me what good was done in these scenarios by the measures you propose? Can we not agree these are valid, every day examples to which your proposal would apply?
 
MDorBust
Posts: 4914
Joined: Fri Sep 30, 2005 10:10 pm

RE: The Ultimate Gun Control / 2nd Amd. Thread Part 1

Wed Dec 26, 2007 11:42 pm



Quoting D L X (Reply 134):
Well, what would end up happening is that the government would tell you that you never actually had the right the way you thought.

And we've always been at war with Eastasia?

I'm sorry, but just because the government one day up and tells me that I've never had a right, that the American people have held for more than two and a quarter centuries.. doesn't mean it's in any way true.

Quoting D L X (Reply 134):
That's nonresponsive.

No, it's the undeniable, unavoidable truth. The US Constitution and the rights there in apply to me, without any debate or need to prove so, because I am an American citizen. I do not need to prove any reason other than my whim to exercise my rights unless my exercise of those rights comes into direct conflict with the rights of other people. Possessing a hunk of metal (or synthetic for you combat Tupperware guys) does not in any way, shape or form infringe on any persons rights and therefore is not open to restriction. When you demonstrate that the mere possession of a firearm somehow conflicts with another persons rights, then you can talk about restricting ownership.

You can only start restricting that right when I carry it in public since the ultimate application of carrying in public is using the firearm. At the point of usage, other peoples rights come into conflict. That is why some pro-gun people support licensing... because the government has the responsibility to ensure that our usage of firearms is likely to be conducted in a manner that will not conflict with the rights of others. In the same way that the government (through the fire/theater example) has an interest in ensuring that speech does not conflict with the rights of others. Not because we believe in any way that recording what guns are owned is a constitutional form of gun control, because that is none of the governments business.

Quoting D L X (Reply 134):
Analogy: drunk drivers cause traffic deaths. But a lack of drunk drivers would not equate to no traffic deaths.

False analogy. A drunk driver directly causes a traffic death. Have any of my firearms ever caused directly or indirectly any crime? No, they haven't. So, you can reduce traffic fatalities by removing drunk drivers, but you can't reduce crime by removing my guns.

Quoting D L X (Reply 134):
(I never said that guns=crime. I say that guns increases crime.)

I sure hope you can produce a study that directly equates the presence of firearms to an increase in crime? You should also produce a corollary study to show why my home isn't thirty times more violent than my moms house.

Quoting D L X (Reply 134):
That's a nit. We can uniquely identify every gun ever produced in order to license it out

Uh no, it's not a nit. It's actually a major problem under your scheme. Not all firearms are required to have unique designations (serial numbers). How do you plan to account for these firearms? Particularly, how do you plan to account for historic firearms, and home produced firearms?

Quoting D L X (Reply 134):
...all I know is the news I'd heard that a lot of guns were obtained legally then used unlawfully at gun shows because of lax standards...

A literal reading of your post would indicate a large crime rate at gun shows... I'm sure you meant to say that they were purchased legally at gun shows, then used unlawfully later. This is true. But it's also true of firearms sold in normal gun shops. Guns purchased at gun shows are subject to the exact same regulations and paper work as those purchased at gun shops.

Quoting D L X (Reply 134):
If the government rounded up particular types of guns (which does not imo rise to infringing your 2nd Amendment right, it probably infringed your 5th Amendment right, which means you get $$$. Use that money to buy a wep not on the list.

Seriously? You really don't see the problem with what happened in CA? You think that it's okay for the government to create a firearms registry, lie to the populace to go on record on it, then declare those weapons illegal, make the general populace unwitting felons, and seize the guns voluntarily registered?

And you don't see why that makes gun owners distrustful of the government?

Really?

Seriously?

I kind of expected everyone who didn't know that story to respond with: "OMFG!!! No wonder the gun community doesn't trust the government to know who owns what!"

Quoting D L X (Reply 134):
Do you agree that there are arms that should not be in private possession?

Not really, no.

Well, maybe a nuke.
"I KICKED BURNING TERRORIST SO HARD IN BALLS THAT I TORE A TENDON" - Alex McIlveen
 
halls120
Posts: 8724
Joined: Sun Jun 05, 2005 3:24 am

RE: The Ultimate Gun Control / 2nd Amd. Thread Part 1

Thu Dec 27, 2007 12:32 am



Quoting D L X (Reply 134):
Quoting Halls120 (Reply 130):
While you might not be intending to do so, your posts sound dangerously like you are in favor of prior restraint.

Is requiring a person to get a driver's license prior restraint?

No, but then again, I never suggested that registering firearms was unconstitutional, so I'm not really sure what point you are trying to make.

Quoting D L X (Reply 134):
Quoting Halls120 (Reply 130):
Again, it is not a "nit" when you are talking about a Constitutional right.

I'll tell you the same thing I said to MD then: when you're basing your argument on the idea that it is a constitutional right, you have to explain how the abrogation as prescribed does not square with the right. Do you believe the Second Amendment gives an absolute right to own a gun without restriction? Or shall we say, without "well regulation?"

I've never said the Second Amendment created an unfettered right to own firearms.

You seem to forget that the power of the federal government - which is conferred by the Constitution - was in the beginning, power granted by the people. Not by the state. You do remember the preamble, don't you? "We the People of the United States...."

Quoting D L X (Reply 134):
Quoting MDorBust (Reply 131):
I doubt you fully understand sales at gunshows if you think the are substantially differant than sales at a physical gun store.

I won't claim to be an expert on gun shows - all I know is the news I'd heard that a lot of guns were obtained legally then used unlawfully at gun shows because of lax standards, and the avoidance of the 3 day waiting period.

You are ready to rail against gun shows based on what you "heard" goes on at gun shows? You are ready to enact a restriction on a Constitutional right based on something you have no personal knowledge of?

Quoting Queso (Reply 136):
Quoting D L X (Reply 134):
You can complain, but fact is fact: this would be no "feel-good" measure.

The measures you propose would not inhibit any action that is not already illegal and the only people who will comply with the measures you propose are those who are already in compliance with the law. That makes it, by definition, a "feel-good" measure.

Through all of this discussion, not once have any of the "let's take guns away crowd" been able to address the point you've made above - none of the increased regulation they desire will affect criminals, as they don't obey the law.

Quoting D L X (Reply 134):
Well, that could very well be a taking. If the government rounded up particular types of guns (which does not imo rise to infringing your 2nd Amendment right, it probably infringed your 5th Amendment right, which means you get $$$. Use that money to buy a wep not on the list.

Amazing. We're supposed to be placated by a financial settlement offered in place of the exercise of a Constitutional right.  crazy 
"Suppose you were an idiot. And suppose you were a member of Congress. But I repeat myself." Mark Twain, a Biography
 
halls120
Posts: 8724
Joined: Sun Jun 05, 2005 3:24 am

RE: The Ultimate Gun Control / 2nd Amd. Thread Part 1

Thu Dec 27, 2007 12:40 am



Quoting D L X (Reply 134):
Quoting MDorBust (Reply 131):
Yes. I am exactly and specifically saying that the government can not infringe my rights without action on my part.

Well, what would end up happening is that the government would tell you that you never actually had the right the way you thought.

DLX - do you really believe that the rights we enjoy come from the government?
"Suppose you were an idiot. And suppose you were a member of Congress. But I repeat myself." Mark Twain, a Biography
 
User avatar
jetmech
Posts: 2383
Joined: Wed Mar 29, 2006 2:14 am

RE: The Ultimate Gun Control / 2nd Amd. Thread Part 1

Thu Dec 27, 2007 1:28 am



Quoting Halls120 (Reply 124):
Does your drivers license list what cars you are permitted to operate?

No, but haven't I put forward arguments why vehicles as an inanimate object are different to firearms?

Quoting Queso (Reply 125):
How will that stop someone who wants to use a gun in an already illegal manner from doing so?



Quoting Queso (Reply 128):
How will any of that stop someone who wants to USE a gun in an already illegal manner from doing so?

Additional laws will never work. Reducing the number of guns in circulation will. I know this is unpalatable to many, but can they put forward a more effective solution?

Quoting MDorBust (Reply 133):
Oops, I missed this one.

"But, The NRA..." has become a quite common mantra of late. It's actually a very false mantra.

The NRA helped write the 1986 FOPA which is the Federal law which dictates who is and is not allowed to purchase a firearm.

The NRA was the driving force behind the creation of the NICS.

The NRA is also the prime pushing factor in passing the NICS reforms which require states to actually obey federal laws.

The NRA wrote the law which made armor piercing ammunition for pistols illegal.


People should take the time to find out what the NRA actually stands for and what laws they support before making claims about the NRA being the problem in relation to gun control.

Fair enough MD. I will read up on these admirable reforms promoted by the NRA. In the end however, doesn't the NRA strongly support the second amendment? Isn't the second amendment use as a pillar of the argument for firearms, and hasn't this lead to the proliferation of firearms in U.S. society?

It does seem a little strange to me that the pre-eminent organisation promoting firearms rights is also the one that seems to be so involved in restricting certain aspects to do with the very same devices.

Regards, JetMech

[Edited 2007-12-26 17:34:05]
JetMech split the back of his pants. He can feel the wind in his hair :shock: .
 
ANCFlyer
Posts: 21391
Joined: Mon Nov 15, 2004 3:51 pm

RE: The Ultimate Gun Control / 2nd Amd. Thread Part 1

Thu Dec 27, 2007 1:35 am



Quoting JetMech (Reply 140):
inanimate object are different to firearms

A firearm IS an inanimate object . . . . can't do a dang thing unless a person touches it. Never, ever once, ever have I seen a weapon simply go bang all but it's lonesome. Never, ever.
FOR THOSE THAT FOUGHT FOR IT, FREEDOM HAS A FLAVOR THE PROTECTED WILL NEVER KNOW OR UNDERSTAND
 
Queso
Topic Author
Posts: 3109
Joined: Sat Jul 08, 2006 12:28 pm

RE: The Ultimate Gun Control / 2nd Amd. Thread Part 1

Thu Dec 27, 2007 1:51 am



Quoting JetMech (Reply 140):
Additional laws will never work. Reducing the number of guns in circulation will. I know this is unpalatable to many, but can they put forward a more effective solution?

Speaking purely from opinion based on my own observation, you're on the right track here but it's a little more complex than that. What is needed is to reduce the number of guns in the wrong hands and increase the number of guns in the right hands. This might seem like a radical approach but nothing complex is ever easy. The increase in the number of states with concealed handgun laws has increased dramatically over the past couple of decades with a corresponding decrease in violent crime rates in most of those same states I am aware of after right-to-carry laws are passed....

http://www.gun-nuttery.com/rtc.gif

The solution? Enforce existing laws, improve the process of background checks and give some teeth to mental health screening and you'll see the improvements you're looking for in gun-related crime.
 
User avatar
jetmech
Posts: 2383
Joined: Wed Mar 29, 2006 2:14 am

RE: The Ultimate Gun Control / 2nd Amd. Thread Part 1

Thu Dec 27, 2007 1:57 am

Quoting ANCFlyer (Reply 141):
A firearm IS an inanimate object . . . . can't do a dang thing unless a person touches it. Never, ever once, ever have I seen a weapon simply go bang all but it's lonesome. Never, ever.

Precisely ANC, you will not get any arguments from me about this fact, and if you did not misqoute me, you will see that the sentence you highlighted does include firearms as inanimate objects. It is also this very same fact however, that many people have attempted to use to some how equate the deaths associated with firearms to those associated with other inamnimate objects such as vehicles. I have put forward views as to why this is not true.

Quoting JetMech (Reply 76):
Many firearms are designed to kill as effectively as possible. Cars, balconies and swimming pools are not. A firearm represents a far greater risk to a human than the other objects you mention. You can hardly put a swimming pool in your pocket and then force people into it to drown them can you?



Quoting JetMech (Reply 85):
Yes, and would you care to enlighten me as to the beneficial aspect of firearms to society as a whole that justifies the number of lives lost to such devices? If any such benefit exists, is it anywhere near as useful as the transportation function provided by cars? If firearms or vehicles where completely removed from existence tomorrow, would you care to think what would have a more detrimental effect on society?



Quoting JetMech (Reply 89):
If we look at the numbers of deaths associated with vehicles, the great majority would be accidents, pure and simple. Sure, there are cases of vehicular homicide, but these are much rarer than accidents. Deaths caused by drink drivers are a grey area, as for most cases, it would be very difficult if not impossible to prove intent; proof of intent being essential to convict one with murder.

If we look at gun related deaths we see the diametrically opposed situation. By far the great majority of gun deaths are intentional acts, whether it be straight up first degree murder, or a firearm death incurred during the commission of another crime. The number of pure accidental guns deaths is much, much lower. Of course, there is also a fair number of personal defense and law enforcement related firearm incidents as well.

The above, coupled with my earlier responses on this subject is the reason why deaths caused by vehicles are accepted by society much more readily than gun related deaths, despite the greater number of deaths related to vehicles.

As you see, although a firearm is an inanimate object, attempts to equate them to other inamnimate objects and play down the deaths caused by the devices is simply misguided.

Regards, JetMech

[Edited 2007-12-26 18:01:06]
JetMech split the back of his pants. He can feel the wind in his hair :shock: .
 
ANCFlyer
Posts: 21391
Joined: Mon Nov 15, 2004 3:51 pm

RE: The Ultimate Gun Control / 2nd Amd. Thread Part 1

Thu Dec 27, 2007 2:00 am



Quoting JetMech (Reply 143):
It is also this very same fact however, that many people have attempted to use to some how equate the deaths associated with firearms to those associated with other inamnimate objects such as vehicles. I have put forward views as to why this is not true.

I understand . . .

I've never seen a car just up and drive off by itself either. (Well, there was this Rookie cop that occasionally forgot to put the squad in Park . . . but that's another thread).

That's the point I'm trying to make.

A car can't drive into an intersection and cause an accident all by itself. Someone must be driving it.

A gun can't simply shoot by itself. Someone must be pulling the trigger.
FOR THOSE THAT FOUGHT FOR IT, FREEDOM HAS A FLAVOR THE PROTECTED WILL NEVER KNOW OR UNDERSTAND
 
Queso
Topic Author
Posts: 3109
Joined: Sat Jul 08, 2006 12:28 pm

RE: The Ultimate Gun Control / 2nd Amd. Thread Part 1

Thu Dec 27, 2007 2:03 am



Quoting ANCFlyer (Reply 141):
A firearm IS an inanimate object . . . . can't do a dang thing unless a person touches it. Never, ever once, ever have I seen a weapon simply go bang all but it's lonesome. Never, ever.

At least there's someone hot on the case! Here's a cam someone set up to see if a firearm is causing a violent crime:

http://www.roughwheelers.com/montego/gun_cam.html

This is the Smith & Wesson Gun-Cam™

 
User avatar
jetmech
Posts: 2383
Joined: Wed Mar 29, 2006 2:14 am

RE: The Ultimate Gun Control / 2nd Amd. Thread Part 1

Thu Dec 27, 2007 2:28 am



Quoting Queso (Reply 142):
What is needed is to reduce the number of guns in the wrong hands and increase the number of guns in the right hands.

Precisely Queso. And please forgive me if it seems I have been advocating a complete ban on firearms. Law enforcement and the military should have access to firearms no question. Even enthusiasts like yourself should, as even I can see the attraction and fascination firearms hold for so many. I'm not sure of the situation in the U.S., but I think it would be a good measure that enthusiasts firearms should be held at a gun club, not in private dwellings.

Quoting Queso (Reply 142):
The increase in the number of states with concealed handgun laws has increased dramatically over the past couple of decades with a corresponding decrease in violent crime rates in most of those same states I am aware of after right-to-carry laws are passed....

It's good to see that the may be a decrease in violent crime with an introduction of CWP's. I my self would purchase a firearm and undergo training if I ever had the fortune to live in the U.S.

Quoting Queso (Reply 142):
The solution? Enforce existing laws, improve the process of background checks and give some teeth to mental health screening and you'll see the improvements you're looking for in gun-related crime.

I'm still of the opinion more laws will not work. They will definitely help, but there is a far more effective solution. Would CWP's help in the case of idiots intent on carrying out a massacre? To a point. A feature of a lot of these despicable acts, is the fact that the shooter intends to die as well, thus, the greater presence of CWP holders will not deter them. Arguably, lives may be saved, but I don't think it will reduce the number of atrocities, nor the fact that some innocent people will be killed.

Quoting ANCFlyer (Reply 144):
A gun can't simply shoot by itself. Someone must be pulling the trigger.

Exactly ANC, but herein lies the hard part about gun control. The weapon itself is not at fault, the person is, but exactly how do we prevent a person making a decision to go and shoot innocent others? I understand that we can be partly proactive in this area by looking at the mental history of potential purchasers, but what about people who snap after what to them are extreme short term negative situations such as loss of employment or the ending of relationships?

Now to bring out an often stated chestnut in the guns debate, "Guns don't kill people, people kill people" I would agree fully with this. However, if a massacre occurred of such magnitude and grotesqueness that there was no choice but to act, what would have to go out of guns or people? There is also no argument that as an instrument, firearms greatly enhance the effectiveness of the process of killing, more so than other inanimate objects.

Regards, JetMech
JetMech split the back of his pants. He can feel the wind in his hair :shock: .
 
halls120
Posts: 8724
Joined: Sun Jun 05, 2005 3:24 am

RE: The Ultimate Gun Control / 2nd Amd. Thread Part 1

Thu Dec 27, 2007 2:42 am



Quoting JetMech (Reply 146):
I'm not sure of the situation in the U.S., but I think it would be a good measure that enthusiasts firearms should be held at a gun club, not in private dwellings.

Sigh. I'm sure all the criminals that have guns will be more than happy to store their weapons at the local gun club.  sarcastic 

I know you are searching for a positive solution to the problem of illegal gun use in the US, but up to this point, all of your solutions do more harm to law abiding citizens than to the criminals that misuse firearms.
"Suppose you were an idiot. And suppose you were a member of Congress. But I repeat myself." Mark Twain, a Biography
 
User avatar
jetmech
Posts: 2383
Joined: Wed Mar 29, 2006 2:14 am

RE: The Ultimate Gun Control / 2nd Amd. Thread Part 1

Thu Dec 27, 2007 3:06 am



Quoting Halls120 (Reply 147):

I understand Halls, but look at it from another angle. Suppose we have a firearm related massacre of such incredible foulness, that there is no choice but to act. I'm sure you would appreciate that the understandable knee-jerk reaction from the large majority of the community would be a draconian total ban. It is foreseeable that politicians, who are driven by public opinion would act.

Would it not be better for the community and gun owners that there is at least some pro-active measures that have been thought through before such an event ever happens? No doubt they will be difficult and costly to enforce, but that's life for you, no simple answers unfortunately.

Quoting Halls120 (Reply 147):
I know you are searching for a positive solution to the problem of illegal gun use in the US, but up to this point, all of your solutions do more harm to law abiding citizens than to the criminals that misuse firearms.

True. What I find most painful is the aftermath of situations like VT and Columbine. So many innocent lives taken so cruelly. So much pain for those left behind. The idealist in me never wants to see this happen ever again. The realist in me realises that it will continue to happen, and that there is also a legitimate reason for guns.

Because situations in life are hardly ever one extreme or the other, we need to reach a compromise for the greatest balance of practicality and effectiveness. All I have been trying to do is throw out some ideas that hopefully have this balance in mind.

Regards, JetMech
JetMech split the back of his pants. He can feel the wind in his hair :shock: .
 
D L X
Posts: 12722
Joined: Thu May 27, 1999 3:30 am

RE: The Ultimate Gun Control / 2nd Amd. Thread Part 1

Thu Dec 27, 2007 5:00 am



Quoting Queso (Reply 136):
It will not work. That is akin to saying drunk driving laws will stop drunk driving. It's still a HUGE problem in spite of more stringent laws and bigger penalties. There are already laws in place to prevent people who shouldn't have firearms from having them and they do not work in keeping a criminal from using a firearm if that is his/her intent. More laws will not work.

You don't think drunk driving laws have curtailed drunk driving?! Wow. I think MADD would beg to differ.
Would you support decriminalizing DUI, since in your opinion it has no effect?

Quoting Queso (Reply 136):
Please consider this and tell me what good was done in these scenarios by the measures you propose?

Sorry, but that's a strawman. You've failed to consider the scenario I've repeated at least twice in this thread: that someone who has an unlicensed gun in his possession will have ANY crime, big or small, escalated.

Quoting MDorBust (Reply 137):
And we've always been at war with Eastasia?

 confused  Whatchutalkin' bout, Willis?

Quoting MDorBust (Reply 137):
The US Constitution and the rights there in apply to me, without any debate or need to prove so, because I am an American citizen.

The Supreme Court has not yet decided on what right you actually have in the second amendment.

And, where in the US Constitution does it say you have the right to free speech, but not to yell fire in a crowded theatre? It's not in there. There's an awful lot of US Constitution that is not written in the Articles and Amendments. There's a whole body of Constitutional Law that you must consider.

Quoting MDorBust (Reply 137):
Possessing a hunk of metal (or synthetic for you combat Tupperware guys) does not in any way, shape or form infringe on any persons rights and therefore is not open to restriction.

Are you talking about a gun or a car? Could be either, couldn't it?

Quoting MDorBust (Reply 137):
Uh no, it's not a nit. It's actually a major problem under your scheme. Not all firearms are required to have unique designations (serial numbers).

Yes dude, it's a nit. It is a nit because it is an easily solved problem. You weren't born with a serial number on you either, but the government had no problem assigning you one. I'm not going to argue nits. Sorry.

Quoting MDorBust (Reply 137):
I'm sure you meant to say that they were purchased legally at gun shows, then used unlawfully later.

Yes. Thanks for giving me the benefit of the doubt.  Smile

however, cutting part of the sentence is BAD form. Can you respond to the 3-day waiting period issue? If I'm wrong, just say so.

Quoting MDorBust (Reply 137):
You think that it's okay for the government to create a firearms registry, lie to the populace to go on record on it, then declare those weapons illegal, make the general populace unwitting felons, and seize the guns voluntarily registered?

Well, what kind of weapons are they? And do you believe that the Second Amendment allows you to have any armament under the sun?

Quoting MDorBust (Reply 137):
False analogy.

No, perfectly aligned analogy, even with the straw man.

Quoting MDorBust (Reply 137):
So, you can reduce traffic fatalities by removing drunk drivers, but you can't reduce crime by removing my guns.

Who are you talking to? I didn't say I'd take your guns away.

Quoting Halls120 (Reply 138):
No, but then again, I never suggested that registering firearms was unconstitutional, so I'm not really sure what point you are trying to make.

I'm just presenting the counterargument for your statement (I think it was in response to a belief that I want to round up the guns).

Quoting Halls120 (Reply 138):
I've never said the Second Amendment created an unfettered right to own firearms.

Okay, we are in agreement in that statement, but what exactly are you arguing against then?

Quoting Halls120 (Reply 138):
You do remember the preamble, don't you? "We the People of the United States...."

I'm very certain that nothing in the preamble is operative law. (But the 9th and 10th Amendments are!  Wink)

Quoting Halls120 (Reply 138):
You are ready to rail against gun shows based on what you "heard" goes on at gun shows? You are ready to enact a restriction on a Constitutional right based on something you have no personal knowledge of?

It's just an internet chatboard. I promise you when I'm a senator, I will hold a hearing and call you, Queso, and MD as witnesses.  Smile

Quoting Halls120 (Reply 138):
Through all of this discussion, not once have any of the "let's take guns away crowd" been able to address the point you've made above - none of the increased regulation they desire will affect criminals, as they don't obey the law.

Then you've ignored my comment! I'm BANKING on the fact that criminals don't obey the law, and I'm also banking on the ability of our finest to catch crooks for the little crimes, as well as the big. Get stopped for suspicion of doing weed, go to jail for your unlicensed gun.

Quoting Halls120 (Reply 138):
Amazing. We're supposed to be placated by a financial settlement offered in place of the exercise of a Constitutional right.

You don't have a constitutional right to own an assault rifle.

Quoting Halls120 (Reply 139):
DLX - do you really believe that the rights we enjoy come from the government?

No. This is the problem of trying to speak in lay terms when lawyers are present too.  Wink
The rights we enjoy come from the Constitution. BUT, the Supreme Court tells us what the Constitution says. (And, Andrew Jackson, if you believe him.) That's the point - MD may believe that he had the right, but the S.Ct. may come back and say he never did. Kind of like how blacks thought they could sit in that railcar because the 14th Amendment said so. Ooops!
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 7

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Number6, Paars and 21 guests

Popular Searches On Airliners.net

Top Photos of Last:   24 Hours  •  48 Hours  •  7 Days  •  30 Days  •  180 Days  •  365 Days  •  All Time

Military Aircraft Every type from fighters to helicopters from air forces around the globe

Classic Airliners Props and jets from the good old days

Flight Decks Views from inside the cockpit

Aircraft Cabins Passenger cabin shots showing seat arrangements as well as cargo aircraft interior

Cargo Aircraft Pictures of great freighter aircraft

Government Aircraft Aircraft flying government officials

Helicopters Our large helicopter section. Both military and civil versions

Blimps / Airships Everything from the Goodyear blimp to the Zeppelin

Night Photos Beautiful shots taken while the sun is below the horizon

Accidents Accident, incident and crash related photos

Air to Air Photos taken by airborne photographers of airborne aircraft

Special Paint Schemes Aircraft painted in beautiful and original liveries

Airport Overviews Airport overviews from the air or ground

Tails and Winglets Tail and Winglet closeups with beautiful airline logos