Well, maybe my last post was unfair. Maybe some private firearms ownership is acceptable, and maybe just putting all the gun nuts in a militia accomplishes nothing much. But Second Amendment absolutism does seem to be a giant stumbling block to addressing these problems–such as the arms race in America today, which leads to the sort of police shootings so recently such a controversy.
It was a different time and place. Like I said, they though slavery was ok too. Times change, and the thing they got right, IMHO, is that the thing is supposed to be a living document that changes as society changes. The means to do that are in the system, and there is precedence for doing this as can be seen in the 18th/21st. So, all you need to do is get the voters on board…and, I think, that will happen eventually. It’s not going to happen tomorrow, but eventually it might. IMHO of course, FWIW.
I don’t see what the anti-gun folks would dislike about this. It seems like it gets them a lot closer to a total gun ban than they’ll get in reality. Also, I don’t see what the pro-gun side is supposed to like about this. Free guns for poor people?
I also don’t understand the point. It doesn’t seem like anything that would appreciably reduce “gun violence”, which I thought was the point of the gun control efforts.
Many constitutional rights are permissibly regulated for reasons that are not directly related to preventing physical harm to others. So I’m not sure why laws affecting the 2d amendment need to pass such a high bar. Some rational people might feel that a society where guns are less available and less prevalent is “preferable,” and more civilized.
And some might feel that a society where obtaining large numbers of guns and ammo were more difficult and more expensive, and consequently less readily available in some instances, would be reasonably likely to have some incremental effect in reducing some types of gun violence. No, I am unable to provide statistics. In other threads, I’ve expressed my dismay at both sides being able to trot out their own stats that they would wish to contend show opposite things. But I’m not sure legislation has to be “statistically provable” to be constitutional.
My personal opinion is that Americans’ love affair with guns is unhealthy and undesirable. IMO, it is sick that images of violence are widely considered more acceptable than images of consensual sex. I trust and rely upon government to provide certain kinds of safety for me, rather than wishing to take that on myself, and i am willing to accept certain risks, if that means retaining my personal freedom/privacy.
I think the only way we will get beyond the current situation, is to completely rethink the way we view our relationship with guns. My proposals are an effort to suggest such a re-examination, instead of the pointless (IMO) efforts such as fiddling over what is or is not an assault weapon, and whether 10 rounds or 30 is enough… Of course, if you think increasing our society’s resemblance to a modern-day wild west is desirable, well, you would not see the point and would strongly oppose what I suggest.
For the same reason that freedom of the press isn’t interpreted to mean that you have have all the coffee presses you want.
These threads are frustrating. Reasonable suggestions are knocked down, not on their intrinsic merits, but solely because of the Second Amendment. (“Natter ♫ natter ♫ natter ♫; to do that you’ll need another ♫ Amendment ♫♫! Ha ha!”)
If the people who worshipped the First Amendment were like the Seconders, they’d be constantly shouting “Fire!” in crowded theaters just because they thought they could.
Let’s please not give the Wild West an undeserved bad name. The famous Gunfight at the O.K. Corral was the epitomic zenith of the Wild West’s use of guns; at that event lawmen killed 3 (three) criminals. Nowadays we have a dozen innocent people killed by maniacs every week, and another dozen killed by lawmen.
The problem is, most of the country disagrees with you as to what is reasonable. If you are able to persuade enough of your countrymen to repeal the 2nd, you’d be able to do things you think that are reasonable that are currently off limits. Please, encourage your politicians to campaign on the issue of repealing the 2nd.
The probem is, it’s frustrating to discuss possible betterments when the Seconders respond to substance only with “Natter ♫ natter ♫ natter ♫; to do that you’ll need another ♫ Amendment ♫♫! Ha ha!”
Recently I mentioned the idea of “tighter background checks.” Discussing what those even might be was off the table – “Natter ♫ natter ♫ natter ♫”
And FYI, in the latest Gallup poll 51% of citizens, even in gun-crazed America, want stricter gun sale restrictions, so even your first sentence is, at best, misleading.
It might be useful to debate the goodness or badness of guns on intrinsic merit, independent of God’s Second Commandment. Instead, even when the “Natter ♫ natter ♫ natter ♫ Ha ha!” is not explicitly offered, it’s implicit and is certain to surface as soon as the debate gets into details.
You wish to restrict me. I do not care to be restricted. What is there to discuss? There is only what you can do. Given that my side is all dumb and lacking substance and shit, your job should be easy. I’ll do you the courtesy of not repeating it.
Very succinctly and insightfully put. With the addition or subtraction of a word here or there could well suit many (most?) folk all along the spectrum on either side of this issue.
OK so I’m trying to figure out how your proposal is an improvement on licensing and registration. It seems like a much more offensive and and intrusive way to achieve something that you can get much more simply and less intrusively through licensing and registration.
There is no second amendment argument against more background checks unless they start to become prohibitive. So maybe you were thinking of something else.
Most of them don’'t want the retarded bullshit that the gun control folks are pushing.
I rarely see people saying “well yes all those are good ideas but second amendment so HAHA”
I usually see it when someone proposes some stupid form of gun control and the gun rights folks say “thats stupid” and the gun control folks say “well we should try it anyway” and then proceed to try and shift the burden of not passing the law to the gun rights side; and the gun Control folks say no but you are welcome to try to get it past the second amendment.
When there is a deep difference of opinion, then the law is how we settle those differences. The law is on our side, you cannot change that law without our cooperation (for the time being). The burden is on your side to make a convincing argument to persuade us to change the law. It really doesn’t help when the proposals are retarded, when your side vilifies all gun owners, when your side cherry picks or distorts facts, or when your side displays a very high level of ignorance. It just seems like you guys are frequently reacting emotionally without knowing very much.
That’s not to say there isn’t emotion on our side but I call out folks on my side when they say things that are incorrect. There was a time when people used to post “what part of ‘shall not be infringed’ don’t you understand?” I corrected them, they accepted the correction and we moved on but your side keeps saying the same wrong things over and over again and noone on your side sees fit to correct people on your side (there has recently been a spate of pro-choice folks who realize that their precarious rights are jeopardized when we undermine the constitution and the Supreme Court’s interpretation of it and they make honest attempts to address the problem of gun violence).
The various debates on Gun Control are fun to read and participate in. This Sunday in the LA Times there was a good column on the problem with the debate in cultural bundling -
I personally don’t think background checks are prohibited by the 2nd amendment. That is not why UBC doesn’t exist. UBC hasn’t come to pass because the people don’t want it, enough to vote on it. That’s why your 51% doesn’t really matter. It only matters if people vote on it, and they don’t. I think the gun rights issue drives more single issue votes than any other, but that’s just me.
So it may be frustrating, but that’s how our system of laws works.
There is A LOT of sense to what anti-gun control folk say. The way our system works, there may be little immediate incentive for them to give an inch. And I readily acknowledge that any direct correlation between any specific proposed regulation and a likely reduction in crime/violence is tenuous at best.
I wonder, however, if there may be an emotional tipping point. Right now, there is at least a committed group of single issue voters/contributors who can effectively maintain the status quo. But if the perceived level of gun violence continues/increases, it is possible that a majority might become motivated to enact changes which exceed what might have been put into place had gun advocates willingly cooperated to enact reasonable controls. But perhaps not.
Well, yes, but the "gun grabbers’ always use the term “Natter ♫ natter ♫ natter ♫ Well,we have to do something!”- which strikes fear into civil libertarians hearts.
No, we have to do the right thing, not something.
Hey, I am in favor of tighter background checks. Even the NRA was in favor until the gun grabbers fucked them in the ass. (The NRA ect agreed to tighter background checks in return for the “instant check” service- which some states got funding for but never set up. In fact they have the tech for it, but wont use it, so the "gun grabbers’ lied)
51% are in favor of doing something. 51% dont agree on what it should be.
This is a bizarre speculation.
The preponderance of evidence is now that, as expressed in Thomas’s recent dissent over denial of a hearing on gun controls, “the second amendment guarantees nothing.” I didn’t make this up. Here’s a constitutional law professor, who is on your side, writing much the same:
So… You won’t blame Thomas? You’ll admit you were wrong?
I’m no lawyer but even I know that freedom of the press means the government can’t make you wear wrinkly shirts.