View Single Post
Old 01-13-2019, 11:55 AM
k9bfriender k9bfriender is offline
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 10,196
Originally Posted by thelurkinghorror View Post
The 2nd, and the rest of the Bill of Rights, are intended to recognize existing (natural or "God-given") rights, and not act as a permission slip. There was actually a huge debate in the nascent country: some felt that we needed to enumerate rights so that people don't try to take them away, others argued that by creating a list of rights implies that other rights don't exist.
There are no natural rights, other than the right to gravity and the electromagnetic force(weak and strong too, but just try exercising *those* rights). Everything else is something that one (or more) human being has allowed another human being to do.

The founding fathers felt, at the time when the constitution was written, that the rights that they granted with the bill of rights were the appropriate rights to cover the population and the times. They did not prohibit states from making laws restricting gun ownership, as they knew that that would simply interfere with the state's ability to "well regulate" its militia.

To say that the FF's "recognized" this pre-existing right and enshrined it into law would require that they also prohibited states from restricting guns, and they most certainly did not do that. They made a compromise allowing states to make their own laws, and 2A is only a promise that the fed will not interfere with the states on gun laws, allowing them to set the laws they way they felt was best. Now it is turned around, and the fed interferes with states on gun laws, not allowing states to set the laws the way they feel is best. Anyone for state's rights should be against 2A restricting states ability to set gun laws.

We have no rights but the ones that we grant to each other. Rights not enumerated *do not* exist.

Originally Posted by Lumpy View Post
Granted that many people who would like to remove limitations on gun control don't necessarily advocate zero guns. Got it. The problem is that gun control advocates are basically complaining that guns are too good at what they do. It's a bit contradictory to say you're OK with guns provided they're hobbled, restricted guns. Imagine treating free speech that way: "we don't want anyone who criticizes the President to be put in prison; we just want reasonable bounds on hate speech and fake facts". Needless to say, people will have sharply differing opinions on what is "reasonable".
No, we complain about how easy it is to get a gun, and how hard it is to take it away from someone who demonstrates violent or negligence tendencies.

That a gun is good at what it does, killing people, is why we should make some effort to make sure that the people holding them will be responsible with them.

We do have many, many reasonable bounds on speech. If I were to go in public, and say that (your real name here) is a criminal who does these specific criminal acts, and then I call for violence to be taken against you, my speech will be curtailed, do you think it should not be?

We agree to reasonable restrictions on both speech and guns, so it is not a matter of whether or not reasonable restrictions are acceptable, it is only a discussion about what is reasonable.

A discussion on what is reasonable is a good discussion to have. An adamant statement that no gun control is reasonable because of 2A is not only wrong from the start, but never leads to any sort of productive discussion.

And once the precedent has been established that weapons have no special protection, that they're just another thing that falls under the general regulatory power of the government, then given the dubious record of gun control in actually improving society, the natural tendency will be to double-down. Ban more and more and even if it never works "at least we'll be trying". Even when at some point restrictions and bans become not merely useless but counter-productive.
It is not banning guns that is the motivation of the vast, vast majority of those in favor of reasonable gun control, so the constant refrain of banning guns is a strawman.

It is people that should be banned from having guns, based on their demonstrations of responsibility. If you are shooting your gun off in the woods with your friends, and you kill some kid in the back seat of a car driving down the road through the woods, do you think that you should lose the right to have a gun, at least for a little while?

While there are many who think that a mistake, even though it ended in tragedy and senseless loss for a family, that the person who pulled the trigger is punished enough by knowing what he did, he shouldn't lose his gun, I personally think that not only should he lose his gun, so should his friends that were also shooting off, as well as anyone else caught firing in public areas without taking the diligence of ensuring that they have a proper backstop.

People who make threats against the school, their work, their domestic partner, neighbor, or against politicians and public figures should have an easy way to remove them from their guns. It should be a no-brainer that someone making such threats should be heavily restricted from having access to guns, do you disagree with that?

Originally Posted by postpic200 View Post
I hate to be the one to break this to you, but if you think making guns illegal would keep guns out of the hands of criminals, or that they wouldn't be able to get them you're wrong.
If a criminal really wants a gun, they can get a gun, sure. But if a criminal doesn't really want a gun, they can still get one very, very easily. You can get a gun off the black market for less than you can in the gun store.

If that changed, and the supply of guns flooding into the black market slowed down, due to higher restrictions on sales and storage, then guns will be more expensive on the black market, and they will be harder to get ahold of.

If you really, really want one, then you can always get one. I'd like to see it limited to only those who really really want one, and are willing to go to great expense, effort, and risk, in order to get a gun, rather than simply having a gun because it was cheap and easy to get.
First if that were true then we wouldn't have an illegal drug problem in the US. We have a long list of drugs that are illegal and unless you live in a very tiny town, the odds are you can get any drug you wish with little or no problem. So, making those drugs illegal didn’t stop criminals from not only getting them but also selling them.
Drugs are far easier to smuggle than guns, and they have a much, much higher value based on either weight or on volume. They also have a steady market, where you have returning customers over and over, building up a relationship and lowering the perceived risk for both dealer and purchaser, as opposed to gun purchases, that would be more infrequent, and would be a higher risk entailed for both seller and buyer.

Stopping the flow of guns into the hands of criminals is impossible, you are correct, but drastically slowing the deluge that is available is very doable, so long as we do not insist that the perfect must be the enemy of the good.
Second criminals get guns even in places where they are banned or restricted. True they have fewer shooting as the criminals move on the cheaper methods bombs, trucks etc. for mass murder, but you'll notice the murder rate stays about the same or follows the same trend as before any ban. Australia being an example of that after their "ban" it wasn't really a ban, but they restricted many guns, the murder rate went up then back down then continued the same trend as before the ban, on a downward trend.
Fewer toddlers shot though, right?
Third the plans for build a fully automatic gun (machine gun) are freely available on the internet and use common parts, and if you don't already have all the tools you can buy them at harbor freight for a very small price. We’re seeing more and more of these on the street, with the rise of more restrictions on guns.

Forth and the biggest one, we can now 3d print guns, the semi-automatic fired more than 600 rounds, yes that was the lower receiver, which is what the government defines as a gun. All the other parts can be purchases without a background check or built with common tools. So sooner than you think any gun law, ban, restriction will become mute as far as criminals are concerned, need a gun print it out, toss it away when you’re done. No real way to trace it.
These are once again objections that you consider the perfect to be the enemy of the good.

Yes, people can do things if they dedicate themselves to doing them. The problem is, is that right now, they can do these same things on a whim. Putting up barriers to someone's access to lethal weaponry will dissuade the vast majority from very easily and casually acquiring guns for use in crime will reduce the guns used in crime.

To object that it will not drop it to zero implies that you do not think that any laws at all should ever be passed or enforced, as no law has ever had 100% compliance.
As to your last point, assuming you could get all the armed forces to go along with attacking fellow Americans on American soil and didn't have a number of armed forces members join with those fighting. And assuming they ignored all the rights of those fighting, and the president would agree to kill an American, on that point you do have recent history on your side on this on as Obama order an American killed in a country in which we were not at war with, but tell me how did that work out in Vietnam? Or better yet, how did the British do against the IRA? That's the kind or war you'd be looking at, so while there may be a tank sitting on the corner. It wouldn't stop the guns and it would probably lead to a huge split in this country.
The armed forces wouldn't be attacking because they are ignoring the rights of those fighting, if it came to that, the forces would be attacking because you have carried through with your terroristic threats of making a bloodbath if you don't get your way democratically.
BTW here's the short list of what the IRA turned in

1,000 rifles
2 tonnes of Semtex
20–30 heavy machine guns
7 surface-to-air missiles
7 flame throwers
1,200 detonators
11 rocket-propelled grenade launchers
90 hand guns
100+ grenades

And don't forget they were all banned. And that just what they turn in who know what they didn’t turn in, just in case that deal went south.
I'm not sure what your point is here. Is it that banning surface to air missiles, RPGs, and heavy machine guns is useless and ineffective?