Gun control

I don't know what to say man, obviously you were that drooling kid that kept on trying to shove the square peg through the round hole all through kindergarten. Do you so utterfly fail to see the difference between those two comparisons? You boasted the false claim that assault weapons aren't used to commit crimes so therefore (trisomy drumroll) aren't worth banning, so it's a perfectly fair analogy to apply the same dumfuck logic to hand grenades which have equal if not greater killing power, but share the same distinct feature of serving no practical purpose in real life besides maybe giving you a hard-on because you get to "fuck some inaminate shit up". Your "cars" comparison is full retard and a pathetic analogy because cars are 1)necessary in the modern world and 2) serve many viable purposes besides killing people.

Gavinrad_sl said:

Are you fucking retarded or what? You're the raging dumbfuck who busted out the 'hurr durr I guess we should just legalize grenades' argument.

Click to expand...

Simas_sl said:

I genuinely don't understand you here. What cases do you mean? Heller or the previous ones? And what part of the statement do you think is "grey"?

Additionally, I don't understand Eyashusa's point in linking the statement in response to that which he quoted. Heller and McDonald were close decisions and some people don't agree with how SCOTUS handled those cases, but they are still the law of the land. E, are you saying those decisions are likely to be overturned, should be overturned, should be ignored, are unpopular with some people, broke with precedent, what?

Click to expand...

I just wanted an excuse to link what I linked. Reading about Heller and McDonald reminded me of that article.

While you have failed to provide any valid logical counter argument besides "you're fucking stupid". Shit man, I really expected better from a "Doctor". Come work the ER at Parkland Hospital here in Dallas, might change your mind after you work the endless conveyer belt of gun wounds.

But it seems like the anti-gun liberals like myself have long fled this thread, so I bid you all adieu and look forward to the wild west environment you all yearn for.

aychamo_aycono_sl said:

Did you have any other lame cliches you wanted to use before you exited this thread? You have honestly presented the stupidest series of anti-gun arguments and suggestions that I've read here yet. Congratulations.

Click to expand...

Frenzied Wombat_sl said:

Jesus Christ.. Give up on this 2nd amendment bullshit ok? If there is going to be any improvement it will have to start with people realizing that the Constitution was not handed down by God. You can't just say "it violates the 2nd amendment mmkayy" and blindly not even to question it one bit, or the context in which it was drafted.. It isn't inviolate-- it was written by human beings in a time before electricity when loading your rifle involved a flask of gunpowder and a plunger. YES, there are principles there that are timeless, like the 1st amendment, and YES the basic principle of the 2nd amendment holds true, but are you going to tell me that those that drafted the constitution even imagined the ability to fire twelve rounds from a handgun in under ten seconds? Or armor piercing ammo? Or freaking Assault Rifles??? I'm not even going to go into the whole concept of how a "militia" doesn't really fit in with 21st century USA.

Click to expand...

And all of this is why the Constitution can be amended--because it's not infallible. Jefferson even thought it should be burned with every generation (Not a direct quote)...So yes, even in their day, they didn't believe it should be a "document handed down by God"...Which given our numerous amendments, I'm pretty sure Americans get the big picture the document can be changed.

But that's the key there, isn't?It can be changed.Until it's changed by the will of the people, it's the law of the land. And people have a right--no, a DUTY, to bring up the protections enshrined there in. You don't side step the secular institution of law simply because you think it needs to be changed--You use the fucking process given to change it. If people think the second amendment is archaic, then there should be MORE than enough impetus among the population to change the law.

But people don't think that. In fact, in another month or two we will once again go back to high gun rights figures in polls--because MOST, if not all Americans are willing to sacrifice a little safety in order to own a gun. That is why the second Amendment stays...Because the PEOPLE wish to be governed by it. So fuck you and your minority for thinking they can side step the god damn law just because you don't like what it says. If you REALLY had the will of the people to change it, there are methods that allow such change.

Frenzied Wombat_sl said:

Even in light of irrefutable statistical facts, such that the US has 10,000+ gun homicides a year, while other modern civilized nations in the range of 50-100, these gunfreaks still can't accept the truth, and when cornered and obviously outgunned both mentally and statistically, will just fall back on the blanket statement that "it's my 2nd amendment right", as if some demi-god last week just descended from the sky and dictated "thou shalt have the right to wield assault rifles", and is not in fact a document written before electricity was invented and the best gun you could buy was a flintlock. Ridiculous.

Click to expand...

Statistically the U.S. has about 4 times (Per capita adjustment) the gun deaths as other Western Nations. We also have significantly higher rates of urbanization (As defined by the WB) than even much smaller European Countries (Yes, even though they have more ppl per square mile). Also, our urbanization/high population centers directly converge with impoverished areas--unlike Europe where increased urbanization is usually synonymous with wealth (The Ghettos in Europe are usually the suburbs--Which, given the correlation between population+poverty, in relation to violent, this has a large effect.)

But on the whole, I'm still trying to figure out which other "modern civilization" has 50-100 gun deaths per year? Even low death states like France has 1k+ per year. (With about 1/5 of our total population). So..explain how these people are outmatched statistically and mentally, when your numbers don't reflect any current nation (With a comparable population--say 1/5 the size of the U.S.)?

Eyashusa_sl said:

I just wanted an excuse to link what I linked. Reading about Heller and McDonald reminded me of that article.

Click to expand...

Right on, like a here's the link for those interested. I got ya.

Frenzied Wombat_sl said:

I'm not saying to ban all guns...Any plan in the US has to be a progressive slow tightening of the noose over years..

Begin with a ban on assault weapons. Can't buy them, can't transport them, illegal to fire them.

Click to expand...

You start by saying you don't want to ban firearms but then lay out a plan by which you will progressively disarm the entire country and even refer to it as tightening the noose. If that isn't calling for a ban on firearms, albeit slowly over time, then I think you need to work on how you word your arguments. My reference to cars was an analogy to banning certain aspects of firearms people view as excessive such as high capacity magazines or pistol grips; no one needs a car that goes faster then 80 mph or does 0-60 in 3.6s but people enjoy owning them despite their higher danger both to the driver as well as everyone on the road with them. An outright firearms ban is more analogous to alcohol or smoking as neither one serves a necessary purpose for society and between them cause hundreds of thousands of deaths every year but it's deemed an acceptable price to pay for something that is purely enjoyment.

The whole argument over grenades is stupid because explosives, and things like fully automatic weapons, are already controlled under the NFA; which is why you don't see statistics on grenade murders. It's also why people like Klebold and Harris made homemade pipe bombs, because they couldn't buy explosives legally but they were planning a crime and didn't care about the law. In fact that 1st amendment that you love so much and label non-violent in nature is what allows things like the Anarchist Cookbook to be widely available which includes all sorts of recipes for explosives and other dangerous items.

As someone called me on it; the reason I referred to Wombat as similar to Alex Jones is because they are both examples of people who are completely closed minded, they have decided already what their opinion is on a certain topic and refuse to acknowledge even the possibility of there being legitimate arguments for the opposing viewpoint. It's what makes 'discussions' on issues like gun control and abortion so frustrating and ultimately futile, because 60% of people are willing to talk and come to a reasonable accord and then the other 20% to each side are the most extreme and rabid in their views so they end up with all the media attention and in the end rarely is anyone happy with the result.

Renault_sl said:

As someone called me on it; the reason I referred to Wombat as similar to Alex Jones is because they are both examples of people who are completely closed minded, they have decided already what their opinion is on a certain topic and refuse to acknowledge even the possibility of there being legitimate arguments for the opposing viewpoint. It's what makes 'discussions' on issues like gun control and abortion so frustrating and ultimately futile, because 60% of people are willing to talk and come to a reasonable accord and then the other 20% to each side are the most extreme and rabid in their views so they end up with all the media attention and in the end rarely is anyone happy with the result.

Click to expand...

I really do not see how you can compare a seething rampant raving retard to a poster that has their mind completely made up on the issue.

I would actually go out on a limb and say that 100% of the people in this thread are already 100% decided on what they believe.

Actually thinking that any of this 'discourse' is going to change someone's opinion online is fucking stupidly ignorant. We all have our minds made up.

We are all set in our beliefs, the difference is how we present them, and that is where you, my friend, are wrong. Frienzed Wombat is actually stating his opinion and not doing too bad of a job of staying on point, while Jones is a whackjob. You cannot discredit Wombat and call him a Jones type character when the only fault he has committed is believing differently than you.

I don't think all pro-gun people are lunatics- I just think that the lunatics that are pro-gun are lunatics. Get it?

Simas_sl said:

I genuinely don't understand you here. What cases do you mean? Heller or the previous ones? And what part of the statement do you think is "grey"?

Additionally, I don't understand Eyashusa's point in linking the statement in response to that which he quoted. Heller and McDonald were close decisions and some people don't agree with how SCOTUS handled those cases, but they are still the law of the land. E, are you saying those decisions are likely to be overturned, should be overturned, should be ignored, are unpopular with some people, broke with precedent, what?

Click to expand...

I was referring to this part.

"During all those years defendants frequently raised the Second Amendment defense when prosecuted for violating gun control laws, and they were never successful."

I'd like to know of the specific cases, the gun laws at that time and the precedent it set; specifically, how the case supports the position that the second amendment doesn't apply to the individual citizen, which appears to be his position.

Big Derg_sl said:

I was referring to this part.

"During all those years defendants frequently raised the Second Amendment defense when prosecuted for violating gun control laws, and they were never successful."

I'd like to know of the specific cases, the gun laws at that time and the precedent it set; specifically, how the case supports the position that the second amendment doesn't apply to the individual citizen, which appears to be his position.

Click to expand...

I don't think that's his position. I think his position was that 2A didn't apply to individual citiznes until Heller. I think that's mostly right.

Without looking into it too much, before Heller, SCOTUS had never said (over a few hundred years) there was an individual right to bear arms. Some people thought that meant there wasn't such an individual right, and others thought, no, it's an open question. In Heller (where the court dealt with a law passed in 1975), SCOTUS said there was such an individual right and settled it.

Prior to Heller, you'd have felons who were not allowed to possess weapons caught with em and charged with possession, and I expect that defense attorneys would try to argue the 2nd amendment there. It didn't work. After Heller it still won't work. But those weren't really big cases, I don't think, and I'm not sure that one ever made it to SCOTUS. If one did the felon almost certainly lost.

The Heller wiki does point to a few big cases though. One is Presser, from 1886, where SCOTUS held that 2A limits only the federal government's power to regulate arms, and not the states' powers (McDonald, the case after Heller, changed that).

We think it clear that the sections under consideration, which only forbid bodies of men to associate together as military organizations, or to drill or parade with arms in cities and towns unless authorized by law, do not infringe the right of the people to keep and bear arms. But a conclusive answer to the contention that this amendment prohibits the legislation in question lies in the fact that the amendment is a limitation only upon the power of congress and the national government, and not upon that of the state.

Click to expand...

Next is Miller, from 1939. Wiki mentions both sides of the gun debate claim it supports their arguments (check wiki for more). It appears a statute required guns to be registered with some tax agency and someone sued, claiming that violated the 2A. At the time the court held:

"In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a 'shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length' at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument."

Click to expand...

I hope that helps.

Heller -->http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Distric...mbia_v._Heller

Presser -->http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Presser_v._Illinois

Miller -->http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Miller

Additionally, this website appears to catalog (mostly state) cases in which gun regulations are upheld -->http://smartgunlaws.org/tag/second-amendment/

The Supreme Court?s landmark Heller decision in 2008 effectively upended the legal understanding of the Second Amendment that had existed for almost eighty years. When it comes to gun litigation, courts are now having to evaluate how to keep our communities safe with little Second Amendment case law to guide them.

The Law Center is helping to fill that void through amicus curiae (?friend of the court?) briefs in significant Second Amendment cases across the country. Because we are the only organization in the country that tracks Second Amendment litigation, national, state, and local firearms laws, and pending firearms legislation nationwide, we have unique expertise that can help courts understand the critical importance of smart laws to prevent gun violence.

Click to expand...

All those rulings you link can be interpreted in different ways and have been by gun control and pro-gun activists.

Certainly in the distant past it was seen as an individual right. For a different take on those rulings and some understanding of how in the 1930s the media and some judges decided to try and take it away as an individual right, check outhttp://davekopel.org/2A/Mags/Collective-Right.html.

Holy shit I refused to click on this thread for a long time because I expected the same circle jerk of liberal fucktardery as most political discussions. But most of you have a very clearly thought out nuanced opinion of gun ownership and it makes me hopeful that there is still rational thought possible on many of these important issues.

Also I own one of these with multiple 30 round clips and several hundred rounds of ammunition. So yeah I guess I'm one of the "crazies".

khalid_sl said:

All those rulings you link can be interpreted in different ways and have been by gun control and pro-gun activists.

Click to expand...

Certainly. I even said as much. But, as your link points out, one reason Heller is a big deal is because the Court explicitly recognized an individual right to bear arms. And today, there is no question, there is an individual right to bear arms.

Thanks for the link the Dave Kopel piece. He posts over at the Volokh Conspiracy, which I've mentioned a few times as a place to read mostly reasonable and intelligent conservative/libertarian arguments. However, Kopel is not one of the posters there that I particularly like.

Simas_sl said:

Volokh Conspiracy, which I've mentioned a few times as a place to read mostly reasonable and intelligent conservative/libertarian arguments. However, Kopel is not one of the posters there that I particularly like.

Click to expand...

Yeah, I really like volokh.com.

relevant, inspiring, and challenging. from a marine recon vet:

I do quite enjoy the fact that the most hardcore anti-gun people in this thread aren't American. If you don't even have any experience with firearms, arguing the topic probably isn't in your best interest. Doing nothing but spewing "AMERICANS ARE CRAZY WITH THEIR MILITARY WEAPONS AND HUGE CLIPS THAT ARE ONLY GOOD FOR KILLING LOTS OF PEOPLE" rhetoric is mildly amusing (at best).

The framers were quite smart people. Through thier lives they would have seen many things improve technologically; ships, guns, etc. It is not logical to believe or to put forward the premise, that they would not have been aware that arms would advance technologically. Whether they could have foreseen the degree of technological advance, or whether they did foresee same is unknown. That they choose not to put conditions on the second amendment is not proof that they did not foresee dramatic advancement in arms technology. Rather, it is that they did not wish to limit this amendment, whether arms improved technologically or not. To argue against the second amendment with the premise that the framers could not foresee the present killing power of modern day arms is weak, and cannot be supported by diligent analysis or thought. It may very well be that if they could have foreseen, or may have foreseen this, it would have strengthened, or did strengthen, thier resolve for a strong, second amendment.