Indifferent to the 2nd Amendment?

Great Debates
41

Yet when the NRA and such work against attempts to ban Chinese rifles that emit bursts of automatic fire when bumped, or against attempts to ban fingerprint resistant handgrips, somehow that’s perfectly reasonable. And it’s perfectly reasonable when they say that they will vote for politicians they oppose on every other subject because the Democrats are “gun grabbers”.

From where I sit, the pro-gun people appear pretty much as monomaniacs, nearly sociopathic; they don’t care about anything but their stupid guns. They’ll sacrifice any person, any principle if they can just keep clutching those hunks of metal.

Require people to keep their guns at the range, problem solved. I believe several European countries do it that way.

42

First, if these Chinese rifles “emit bursts of automatic fire” by any means, they are illegal already (or heavily regulated under the NFA)

Fingerprint resistant handgrips are to protect the finish from the oils of the skin.

Why pick on the NRA for this? Every special interest group is like this. NARAL or the National Right to Life only care about the issue of abortion. The candidate could kill puppies in his spare time, but if he is on the right side of the abortion issue, he gets the endorsement.

43

Sorry I got here so late, but this one wasn’t destined to stay in IMHO for very long. It’s just not in people’s nature to stricly answer the OP on such a hot-button topic. Too many off track posts to warn posters, so,…off to GD.

samclem Moderator, IMHO.

44

Why not give some mod notes and bring it back on track? There’s a perfectly cromulent IMHO thread here, you just need to quash the gun debate.

45

I thought that after 42 posts, about one third or more which had been off track, I’d be fighting a losing battle.

Hey! I’m a new mod in IMHO. If you still had czarcasm in here, there’d be some new assholes ripped by now. He and I have different work hours.

46

. Cite? Do you really think the NRA supports the import of fully automatic weapons from China?

Cite? The NRA supports fingerprint resistant handgrips?

I and many gun owners are Democrats. Use a smaller brush next time.

But you stand on the principle that you can take rights away from people. And, without educating yourself about those rights or what you want to take away. Gotcha.

Won’t work for many gun owners, as we don’t shoot at a range. Many of us shoot on our own property. But of course you would not know that since you, and other anti-gun folks refuse to educate themselves about guns or gun owners.

47

I fired quite a few guns, wouldn’t be averse to owning one, but the entire 2nd Amendment issue just gets a big ‘Meh’ from me.

The fringe feel the need to establish militias and use their AK-47’s to protect their freedom, and there are plenty with masterbatory fantasies about shooting an intruder, which both get a big :rolleyes: from me. But the general population of NRA members are just hunters that want to protect their sport. While I wouldn’t hunt myself I really have no moral qualms about others doing so.

48

I’m pretty much on the same page. If we were re-writing the constitution, I wouldn’t care much one or the other if we kept the 2nd amendment, per se.

Having said that, I’d probably want something much broader, that limited Congress’s authority to tell people what they can and cannot own. I mean… I don’t need to tell Congress that they can’t prevent me from owning a knife, do I?

49

I don’t consider it to BE a right. And you and your fellow gun lovers have seldom shown any concern at all for the rights of anyone. Including your own. You just want your guns, no matter who has to be oppressed or suffer or die.

I’m well aware of it; I simply don’t care. In such a scenario, you wouldn’t be allowed to target shoot anywhere except at the range.

50

I’m also much more sympathetic to local gun laws. In a country as large and geographically diverse as the US, federal gun laws don’t make a lot of sense.

51

On the contrary; local gun laws are fairly pointless since no matter what restrictions you make, it’s too easy to just go to the next city or state and get what you want.

52

  1. The NRA is not in favor of the import of full-automatic Chinese weapons, particularly because such importation is illegal and has been for a long time. I’m sure you’re referring to the SKS and their tendency to “slam-fire”. This is seen by gun owners as a problem that can be easily remedied by appropriate maintenance, not as a benefit or a desirable characteristic.

  2. So-called “smart guns” introduce another element of failure to a weapon. You may think that’s a good thing, but I do not. If I am compelled to use a weapon defensively (which I hope I never have to), what good is it if I cannot be certain that it will work? The technology, in spite of what you may have read, is not mature and is unreliable. A firearm needs to work the first time, every time, and that’s hard to achieve even with some technological gobbledygook getting in the way.

  3. In spite of what you may think, there were large numbers of gun owners that voted for Barack Obama in the last election (me included). As always, it somehow turns into us against them, when the same people you piss on are frequently largely in agreement with you. Pay that no mind, though, you never do.

It’s one thing to be willfully ignorant, but you go beyond that. Not one thing you asserted here is true, and you know it. You have an agenda, and on this subject that agenda does not include honest debate, just more rhetoric and nonsense.

53

The track record of blanket nationwide prohibition (e.g. alcohol prohibition) and even blanket prohibition across most if not all of the planet (e.g. hard drugs) indicates this to be a minor factor at most.

54

Yes, and Stalin didn’t consider free speech to be a right (“Ideas are more powerful than guns. We would not let our enemies have guns, why should we let them have ideas?”). We find neither his nor your opinion to be persuasive.

55

Large numbers of people are still going to keep being killed by cars. The notion of abolishing or seriously curtailing private car ownership will continue to be absent from the nation’s political debate beyond the very occasional “look at the cute crackpot!” human-interest snippet.

56

Guns do not really make sense to me, but oh well. When younger, I was a believer in Congress’ ability to ban guns due to the 2nd Amendment clearly (to me) being a collective right covering militias. I still believe in that original interpretation. However, as someone that believes that the constitution is a “living document”, I have come to recognize the need to interpret the amendment to cover individuals. Guns still do not make sense to me, but have at them.

57

Good luck crafting gun legislation that is appropriate for both Wasila, Alasaka and NYC. Unless your goal is to ban guns, which wouldn’t surprise me. And that’s a complete non-starter in the US.

58

If I can point to polls showing a majority of Americans believe the earth is less than 10,000 years old and dinosaurs and Babylonians co-existed, should we re-write history books because of the idiocy of the majority?

I know for a fact I’ve seen “polls” in the past where a majority of Americans want an anti-Flag burning amendment. Whoops, there goes the First Amendment! After 9/11, what percentage of Americans wanted to bring back internment camps and stick all them thar’ towelheads in them?

Basing fundamental rights on the good horse sense of the average American
…
Sorry, I was laughing so hard it was difficult to type…anyhow letting the average American, whose DVD player is still flashing “12:00” after 6 years, thinks Jesus rode a stegosaurus, who can’t figure out what “adjustable” means in “adjustable rate mortgage”, and who thinks maybe it would be better if we took all those scary black people and sent them back to Africa decide our basic human rights is worse than giving guns to monkeys.

59

Sadly a lot of anti-gun people take a fairly offensive and evil position on this subject. They want to disarm responsible people like me, based on their fear of the irresponsible people, and at the same time refuse to support a Constitutional Amendment mandating that the police and Society have a direct and absolute responsibility to protect me from crime. Usually the backpedaling is “oh, our courts would be clogged with lawsuits”, which is amazing considering that such concern rarely shows itself on other subjects.

Or it’s “but guns make you less safe…” which doesn’t seem to be strongly backed up one way or another (on the more or less safe) from the available stats. And which is completely ignorant of the individual and their circumstances.

In short, they want to remove the ability I would have to mount an effective defense against a large male who wants to victimize me, and at the same time deny that Society, having made me a victim-in-waiting, has any responsibility to protect me.

When the anti-gun posters start coming forward in unambiguous support of a Constitutional Amendment making the police as both a force and as individuals directly liable for my security and safety, then I’ll listen to their prohibitionist arguments with much more interest. Honestly.

But I fear the goalposts are mounted on the back of a Ford F-350 and will merrily take off down the road as soon as the “debate” starts. Sort of like when I talk to a person about the subject of CCW:

Anti: “The problem with gun owners is they don’t have training! You need to have a driver’s license to drive!”

Me: “OK, I have written and practical training and a certificate to boot.”

Anti: “And there needs to be regular re-training!”

Me: “Done.”

Anti: “We need mandatory serious background checks on every gun owner!”

Me: “I’ve had all that, at the local, State, and National level. More than you’ve ever had.”

Anti: “We need fingerprinting and photographs of gun owners! Registration!”

Me: “Done, done, and done.”

Anti: “And we need mental health screening!”

Me: “Passed.”

Anti: “Um…we need the police to approve every gun owner!”

Me: “Done that. Got the card.”

Anti: “Um…I don’t like guns! Fuck you, killer!”

Me: “Touche.”

60

I don’t like guns personally. Too dangerous for too many people. I don’t think we need personal gun ownership rights at the moment either. But the Constitution is explicit, and clear. The 2nd states, with equivocation, that a well regulated militia is necessary for the security of a free state. It also states that the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. It doesn’t explicitly state the connection between those statements, but it takes a stretch to find a connection that allows guns to generally be banned, even though it’s not the way I would have preferred the Constitution to be written. If we allow the explicit portions of the Constitution to be interpreted as something else entirely, we are allowing all of our rights to be taken away. What if your right to free speech was denied because there are plenty of media outlets that can take care of free speech, so it seems unnecessary on an individual basis? What if your individual right to seek redress of grievances was limited because there are lobbyists who can be paid to do that? If there is something wrong with the Constitution, it can be amended, but changing it through judicial review is a problem. When the Constitution is unclear, or doesn’t address a matter, interpretation may be necessary, but I just don’t see how the 2nd amendment can be taken by so many to mean something that is not stated, even if you disagree with it.