Explain machine guns and the 2nd Amendment to me.

[MrFloppy]

@SenorBeef

Yes, the survival of our species is certainly at risk.
Did I miss something? Wasn’t this shooting that everyone is in a big tiff over done with completely run of the mill handguns? Why are we using a shooting committed with the most vanilla, common guns as a springboard to talk about assault weapons?

It appears that the Bushmaster was used to kill most of the kids at Sandy Hook.

[Bricker]

@Sleeping_Synapse

Machine guns in their current form weren’t invented when the Second Amendment was passed, so the US Constitution does not apply to these weapons.

The Second Amendment needs its own ‘new testament’.

And the Internet was not invented when the First Amendment was passed, so the US Constitution does not protect your blog.

Is that right?

[artemis]

@DragonAsh

:rolleyes: Guess you get your hat re-tinfoiled on a regular basis?

Are you aware that several state and local governments in the US did in fact use the “register, then confiscate” approach to force gun owners living there to surrender certain types of weapons? Why should gun owners trust that the Federal government wouldn’t someday do the same thing?

It’s not paranoia when they really ARE out to get you.

[Bricker]

@Sleeping_Synapse

I find it difficult to entertain the notion that the founding fathers of the United States had the foresight or desire for weapons that can make the mowing down of toddlers by disgruntled adolescents idiot-proof, readily available to every yokel and his social pariah progeny.
.

How do you feel about the notion that the founding fathers intended to protect visual images of people having sex, or to protect the right of a man to marry another man? You think that was their goal?

[Bricker]

(Duplicate)

[MrFloppy]

@artemis

Are you aware that several state and local governments in the US did in fact use the “register, then confiscate” approach to force gun owners living there to surrender certain types of weapons? Why should gun owners trust that the Federal government wouldn’t someday do the same thing?

Can you provide a cite for that please?

Thanks.

[trabajabamos]

@Peremensoe

The Second refers to borne arms. It’s reasonable to me to take that to mean weapons that can be carried and employed by an individual.

So I ought to be able to use any weapon I can carry? That seems to be at odds with current interpretations of the Second Amendment. Correct me if I’m wrong, but I don’t believe I’m permitted to traipse about with a loaded rocket launcher. I think Martin Hyde hit the nail on the head: I can have whatever SCOTUS or Congress arbitrarily declare I can have and nothing more.

[Acsenray]

I think people are missing the point that tanks, nuclear missiles, and aircraft carriers have never been used in the commission of a crime. Thus, if you support a law banning private ownership of such things, it shows that you have no interest in rational methods for protecting the public interest, but merely have a reflexive need to support any kind of ban.

[Martin_Hyde]

@Acsenray

I think people are missing the point that tanks, nuclear missiles, and aircraft carriers have never been used in the commission of a crime. Thus, if you support a law banning private ownership of such things, it shows that you have no interest in rational methods for protecting the public interest, but merely have a reflexive need to support any kind of ban.

That’s actually not equivalent to what I’ve said about the assault weapons ban. The assault weapons ban prohibited certain classes of semiautomatic rifles that had certain features.

However, many, many semiautomatic rifles remained legal that had just as much potential lethality and further, the gun manufacturers quickly released “slightly modified” versions of the banned weapons that were totally legal (and take this from someone who has experience with actual assault rifle training and use) just as effective at mayhem as the banned versions.

Further, what many do not realize is that AWB was just a manufacturing ban. “Pre-ban” magazines and weapons were never criminalized and trade in them was healthy throughout the ban.

So forgive me if I insist the AWB type legislation is pointless because it:

a) bans almost nothing in fact
b) addressed weapons mostly unused in ordinary crime
c) accomplished nothing whatsoever

If my alternative was “do nothing”, fine, complain. But owner-licensing is the best alternative and from all evidence (see: Finland, Norway, countries that permit semiautomatic rifles) appear to be far more effective than playing at banning individual weapons.

Also, tanks have been used in crime: see Shawn Nelson. And nuclear weapons and aircraft carriers don’t need banned since it’s a flat impossibility to get the U.S. government to sell you one, and if you’re acquiring them from some other entity you’re already deep into serious illegal shit anyway.

[trabajabamos]

@SenorBeef

I think the people who pushed the machine gun banning amendment to the FOPA wanted to ban private gun ownership in the US. They probably did so because they felt like they were doing the right thing.

Thanks for that.

@SenorBeef

However, that doesn’t mean they’re interested in the efficacy of any particular law they support. They aren’t interested in arguing in good faith, or reaching a compromise solution.

Never mind.

@SenorBeef

It’s just that they happened to succeed on the issue of fully automatic arms, because most people have the same reaction you did - why are these weapons with super military mass destruction abilities even legal in the first place!? I watch Miami Vice! I don’t want our police battling criminals with those guns!

Would is surprise you terribly to find that I own an a handgun and an assault rifle? Please don’t dictate my experiences or opinions to me. I’m not advocating for a repeal of the Second Amendment or a blanket ban on guns but I’d love a reasonable discourse in which gun advocates could at least acknowledge the possibility that more restrictive gun laws could have a positive effect on our society.

@SenorBeef

You’d give the ATF an unreasonable ability to violate the rights of gun owners.

I guess that’d be a matter for the courts. If restrictions on one sort of gun are constitutional, you’d think they could legally justify restrictions for all guns. Are there not legal mechanisms in place even now that can essentially strip a particular individual of their Second Amendment rights?

@SenorBeef

But even if you could - and let’s assume the best case scenario, no one ever committed a crime with these newly regulated guns - history shows that your kind would try to ban them anyway.

My kind? Cute.

@SenorBeef

The fact that you’d try to look at machine gun ownership in the US as some sort of model to follow is extremely ironic, since it’s one of the clearest examples of the true agenda of gun control.

Here’s a clue: The “true agenda of gun control”, if there even is such a thing, is to curtail the negative impact of gun violence on society. Naturally, some people take that too far. But those people don’t invalidate the notion that reasonable controls are necessary.

[trabajabamos]

@Martin_Hyde

The problem America has in getting gun reform is it appears the only people who care about it are zealots. Gun owners that believe there should be no regulation and gun control advocates who do not want reasonable gun control ala Sweden or Norway but just want to ban all guns and call gun owners names. Pretty much the moment I hear someone advocate we can’t register firearms because it’d allow the government to take them or I hear someone say gun owners are using guns as penis extension I pretty much k now that person isn’t really worth listening to on gun control issues.

Yes. A thousand times, yes.

[trabajabamos]

@Acsenray

I think people are missing the point that tanks, nuclear missiles, and aircraft carriers have never been used in the commission of a crime. Thus, if you support a law banning private ownership of such things, it shows that you have no interest in rational methods for protecting the public interest, but merely have a reflexive need to support any kind of ban.

Is it your contention that nothing should be regulated until such a time as it has already been used illegally to the detriment of public interests?

[kopek]

@Martin_Hyde

You see bad guys fighting police with automatic weapons all the time in movies and on TV, but the truth of the matter is that just doesn’t happen in real life.

No disrespect intended but what about LA? There was also an incident in Texas that I remember and a few others that left less impact in my brain. So they do happen.

In your defense I will say that usually homicide isn’t the underlying crime - more likely bank robbery or a gang/drug turf war where cars and houses are as much the target as people. Or I’ll throw in the out that in such cases the firearm is an illegally modified semi-automatic and not a true automatic (one made as such). But spray and pray does happen now and then.

[Kobal2]

trabajamos: Woosh.

[Marley23]

@DragonAsh

Yes, good to know that gun nuts are nothing if not consistent.

I hope you gun freaks say a little thank you to the 20 little kids that died at Sandy Hook so that you could continue to overcompensate. Maybe you can pin a little Purple Heart to each of their little blown-out chests to show the world what patriots they were, so willing to die so that you can play Rambo with your little death toys.

Gun owners aren’t interested in ‘safety’ and ‘self defense’. They want to feel manly.

@DragonAsh

:rolleyes:

Guess you get your hat re-tinfoiled on a regular basis?

DragonAsh, I’m giving you a warning here for personal insults. You can’t call people nuts or freaks in this forum, you can’t mock them personally with this type of childish language, and you can’t accuse people of being paranoid and crazy. Don’t do this again.

[Fiddle_Peghead]

@SenorBeef

I think the people who pushed the machine gun banning amendment to the FOPA wanted to ban private gun ownership in the US. They probably did so because they felt like they were doing the right thing. However, that doesn’t mean they’re interested in the efficacy of any particular law they support. They aren’t interested in arguing in good faith, or reaching a compromise solution.

Just out of curiosity, if there were people who felt that banning all guns was the right thing to do, presumably because they felt it would result in no gun violence or deaths, why would you expect them to compromise? If they feel many deaths are a tragedy, which of course they are, why would they feel any differently about just a reduced number?

[artemis]

@MrFloppy

Can you provide a cite for that please?

Thanks.

Probably not the best sites, but the ones I could find on short notice:

http://www.thehighroad.org/archive/index.php/t-187049.html

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20100626143039AAIVbUH

(The examples from American are mixed in with ones from other countries, alas.)

[Trinopus]

@Acsenray

I think people are missing the point that tanks, nuclear missiles, and aircraft carriers have never been used in the commission of a crime. . . .

How soon they forget… A guy stole a tank from a National Guard armory and went wild, crushing cars, knocking over fire hydrants, and blocking traffic on a major freeway.

I’ll give you missiles and carriers…as yet…

[Acsenray]

Well, now we can cross tanks off the list. But would we still be violating Second Amendment rights?

[Magiver]

@Sleeping_Synapse

I find it difficult to entertain the notion that the founding fathers of the United States had the foresight or desire for weapons that can make the mowing down of toddlers by disgruntled adolescents idiot-proof, readily available to every yokel and his social pariah progeny.

Actually that’s probably pretty close to what the Founding Fathers had in mind. It’s the ability to fight tyranny and not the ability to hunt deer that drove the 2nd amendment. The gun used fits their intended ownership exactly. That an individual example of such a weapon was stolen and used for a heinous crime does not change the rights granted by the amendment.