"I am not anti-guns. I am anti-bullet holes in my patients."

In My Humble Opinion
343

Oh, bullshit.

For the purposes of general debate, knowing that civilians can buy guns that are able to kill a shitload of people in a hurry, and wanting to ban guns that can do that, is quite sufficient.

If I were a Congressman drafting legislation, I’d make sure I, or a committee I served on, had knowledgeable staff to help address any necessary technical issues.

But since I’m not a Congressperson, it suffices to point out that there are guns out there that are weapons of mass slaughter, and they need to be banned. You can defend your home with a freakin’ 19th-century six-shooter. You can hunt with a bolt-action rifle. You don’t need an AR-15 for a successful DGU. But I don’t need technical knowledge to know that I’ve had enough of one mass shooting after another after another, with barely time for thoughts and prayers in between.

If you gun people have brilliant ideas for finding a sweet spot where the carnage mostly stops happening with minimal infringement on your so-called rights, you guys are welcome to put your technical knowledge to work. Instead, you seem to be quite willing to let other people die to preserve a very expanded interpretation of your alleged rights. What a bargain - for you! How brave! How patriotic! The gun nut’s motto: “Sacrifice them - for me!”

Well, I don’t need to have all sorts of technical knowledge to recognize a stance that’s horribly, bloodthirstily immoral. As Terry Pratchett said, “sin is treating people as things.” And if your things - your guns, and your ‘rights’ - are more important than people’s lives, then what’s to be said? I don’t need technical knowledge to tell right from wrong, good from evil.

344

Very few subjects on the SDMB bring out so many people so aggressively proud of their ignorance as guns.

345

I’m old enough to have heard this before, only it was about how Southern society worked during the Jim Crow era. Oh, we Northerners just didn’t understand the complex relationships between whites and blacks in the South.

And maybe we didn’t. But we could recognize evil.

346

Yes, and in fact pretty much all guns are capable of that.

There arent, really. Even so, “assault weapons” are used in less than 4% of the murders in this nation. I don’t want to tear up the Bill of Right for a possible, doubtful, insignificant decrease in murders.

Hey, I just defend the **Constitution of the United States. ** I am not a “gun nut”. I have never owned a “assault weapon”.

Yes, our Rights under the Constitution are more important. Look, there have been articles that hypothesis that the media, by publicizing and glorifying the mass shooters have actually caused the increase. But yes, I defend their rights under the Constitution also.

I defend people’s rights under the 4th & 5th, even tho yes, many clearly guilty violent killers get to go free as the Police violated their rights, and are hobbled by the inability to search anyone anytime, anyplace. We could cut crime way down if we just threw away the 5th ad. But I support those Amendments, 100%, despite that fact we could lower crime by getting rid of them.

We have to let prisoners free, as their rights were being violated under the 8th. Still, I support that amendment too, 100%.

Even though we could live more safely by becoming a Police state and wiping our asses with the Bill of Rights, I am willing to forego that little bit of safety for those rights. Clearly, you are not. I think it is evil to give up those rights just so you can feel a little safer.
Benjamin Franklin once said: “*Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.”
*

347

“Essential”, and “a little temporary” are very important qualifiers. You can very easily read it the other way around for America right now. Your gun in your hand is a little temporary safety, and the loss of one’s life is the loss of the most essential liberty (there can be none higher).

348

Do you feel that convicted felons in many cases being unable to legally own guns is a gross violation of their Constitutional rights?

349

Nope. I feel that convicted felons should not have the right to own guns.

However, that being said, if the felony was long ago, non violent, and no further offenses, maybe there should be a way to get that right back.

Maybe the Governor’s office could review it like pardons and commutations and on a occasional case-by-case basis a few people could get something along the lines of a limited pardon?

350

There are people out there that want to take away your rights under the First Amendment, that they think if we got rid of all those godless atheist commies, the Jews, “the gays” and especially the “Muslims with their Sharia law” we’d all be a lot safer also.

I think that they are wrong also, and I will stand up for everyone’s rights under the 1st also.

351

If you couldn’t tell from my posts that I’m aware that the civilian AR-15 is not fully auto, the ignorance isn’t mine. I’m aware of the differences, I just don’t agree with you that they matter.

Like I said, auto/semi doesn’t matter to my point - the semi-auto is just a *variant *of the same design, hence same designer. One who designed it to kill people.

352

So would an airsoft replica, but that’s not what they’re buying…

353

How can you reconcile this with the plain text of the Constitution of “shall not be abridged”?

Seems like the rights of felons are being abridged.

354

Amendment 13

*Section 1. Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.
*
Amendment 8

Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.

It is a punishment and it is not cruel nor unusual.

355

I don’t understand. Amendment 13 doesn’t seem to mention Amendment 2. Neither does Amendment 8.

356

Oh come on, you’re just trying to bait me now.

357

No, I’m actually not. I consider not allowing convicted felons to own guns a gross violation of their 2nd Amendment rights. I’m wondering why you don’t. The Constitution is clear “shall not be abridged”

358

Which you erroneously take as absolutism when it’s actually pragmatic politics from a masterly practitioner of the art ;
i.e. that it is sound and reasonable to renounce some small measure of non-essential liberty to obtain a large measure of long-term safety .

Which is the precisely the argument of those agin you.

359

I somehow doubt that, as your posts have shown a aversion to gun rights.

However, no right is without qualifications- you have the right to a free press and speech, but not for kiddie porn, libel, copyright infringement, plagiarism, etc. Those indeed are abrigments.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, or abridging the freedom of speech or of the press,…

360

Well, as has been shown, restricting assault weapons would not result in any large measure.

361

I’m always staggered by interpretations of the second amendment.
Clearly the meaning is to establish a militia , and clearly all the reasons for said militia have been spectacularly overtaken by events .

362

… except where that has actually been tried.

But you consider guns are about essential liberty and naught about safety becasue you know the most probable gun victim will be it’s owner or their family (which is a misfortune because that’s not what they are designed to do) but it’s necessary the civilian population continues buy these cool fashion items (despite being the primary supply arm of the illegal gun market) so as the gun manufacturers can stay in business.

How much of that is really essential liberty?