We didn’t really need an example of your use of “ban” as a magic incantation, and you need to know you’re not helping by providing one.
Or so you guys tell each other - “hoplophobia”, you call it? - but no, it’s really a fear of being killed. IOW sanity.
Maybe we should try it, then.
I know, the gun grabbers found out that the term “ban” resonates poorly with the voters, so even when they proposed a “assault weapons ban” (as in CA) or a handgun ban, they will fight against the use of that term.
I have had people get panic attacks upon the sight of a armed policeman.
We have- it didnt work.
Sigh. You mean, aside from what I already proposed? I assume you mean ‘XT, it’s too hard to change the Constitution, so what do you propose we do in the current context’ or something like that.
Or, you just ignored what I wrote and just like asking me questions you’ve asked me and I’ve answered repeatedly in this and other threads.
Assuming it’s the former, I think that, within the Constitution that limitations are possible. I’ve already outlined some. Bone disagreed, but I think you could reasonably look at things like banning certain types of porn or certain points of assembly as ways you could bring in reasonable regulations or limitations on firearms without violating the core Amendment. You could, I think make a reasonable case for limiting where you can carry, for instance. We have that already, of course, but I think that this is a good example of reasonable limitations while staying within the spirit of the Constitution. I think that background checks and waiting lists could be argued as well, and I’d be for those things. You could even do limited bans, as your Miller example did…the ban on shotguns with less than 18" barrels, for example. Or the automatic weapons limitations. While not an outright ban, it puts seriously difficult barriers for folks acquiring the things.
But as things stand, this is not going to have any sort of serious effect on gun deaths, which I presume is what you are really after. So, the reality is either be patent…the number of US households with a gun was steadily dropping at least as of 2016, which was the last time I really looked at it. The amount of gun violence and deaths has dropped historically as well, though it’s up in the last few years…but it’s a small increase compared to how it’s dropped since the late 60’s and early 70’s (especially the 80’s and 90’s) until today. Or do what I’ve suggested which is start the process of removing the right, then go through the steps to put in more serious controls or outright bans that won’t be un-Constitutional, since there will no longer be protected right. This will mean basically putting this back onto the states, and some states will pretty obviously not put in bans or controls while others go whole hog, but it will open the way for a more strict environment.
Or do nothing and keep whining about Heller and nasty pro-gun folks and gun violence. Gods know this is me wrt nuclear power. There is, literally, nothing I can do about it, nor seemingly any way for me to convince the anti-nuke folks we need it in the short term if we really want to combat global climate change, but I still end up beating the dead horse. So, beat that horse if you must, but you aren’t going to get anywhere with this tactic today except going around a hamster wheel only to come back to the same place you started.
Except when you like the result, as the *Heller *abomination shows. Don’t pretend.
Not in practice, you aren’t.
More of this “side” stuff. You need an enemy, don’t you?
And there is no way to read it except as dismissing the existence of a personal right, or there would be no need to discuss the militia aspect. I know you hate that result, but it comes from the process you *claim *to revere.
The blood is due to the sane “side”? No, more blame-throwing there, already pointed out as an avoidance tactic.
What’s it like to live in constant fear of the world?
It’s your “side’s” term, one of your favorites. You tell us what it means.
Are you willing to join us in it? If not, why not, since what you claim to be the process is sacred to you? Are you actually so driven by result instead, as your insistence on declaring “sides” shows?
We’re doing our damnedest to. It helps that we don’t have “sides” actively opposing doing anything about them.
Except that their design purpose is to kill, it isn’t incidental. Yeah, that’s a difference. If there were a massive effort to make guns nonlethal, then they’d be no different. But no fun either, right?
Within stated limits that you insist on ignoring, despite your claimed reverence for the Constitution.
That happens in war, yes, they did know that.
What are you doing about it, then? Oh yeah, anybody who brings it up is on the other “side”, and you “loathe” them. So stop pretending.
Did I mention that claim is an avoidance tactic?
Has nothing to do with ‘like’. And it’s not a fiat decision, despite you trying to make it one.
I don’t need an enemy, nor do I consider you one. It’s to laugh. The irony aspect is off the charts as well. YOU are the one who needs and wants an enemy…those pro-gun types are your enemy.
Except there is a lot of controversy about how it’s read and what it means that you essentially (by fiat of course :p) handwave away as if it isn’t there. The thing is, when both sides think they won and that it empowers them you know there are at least two ways to read it.
And it, flat out doesn’t dismiss ‘the existence of a personal right’. Sorry, but you are, as usual, flat out and categorically wrong. What it does is address weapons that a militia might reasonably use or not use, and put that in the context of what might reasonably be banned from the general public’s use or access. Personally, I think it was politically motivated and wrong, but regardless it doesn’t come down and state, specifically, that there is no personal right to keep and bear arms. You are INTERPRETING it to say that, but it doesn’t actually say anything about it. And, regardless, the position has been clarified wrt the USSC with Heller.
You really like that ‘avoidance tactic’ horseshit, don’t you?
Irony abounds. You should really take a step back and look at what you are writing. It’s freaking hilarious.
I’ve been ready to join a side that is actually trying to work within the process and change things. Your side, patently, is not, so no…I won’t be joining your side, since to me it’s the side trying to circumvent the Constitution.
Blame avoidance and fantasy. YOUR side has specifically not done fuck all to help the situation and has only made things so much worse. The pro-gun side is hog wild now, bloated on the victories. You guys never learn (and they don’t either)…that which doesn’t kill you makes you stronger. You fucking tried to kill a Constitutional right by fiat, and the backlash is what we have today. Probably in 10 years the backlash from the pro-gun side will be more fiat judiciary shit. And we will fucking be back to this point on the hamster cage again…and again…and again.
But you can’t even deal with what I’m writing. You have to make me out to not only be pro-gun but rabidly so, and you can’t fucking deal with what I wrote. Not in all of this, you haven’t bothered addressing any of the solutions I gave, despite you asking me for them several times. Instead, it’s a bunch of strawmen and horseshit spewing from you with every post. That’s because YOU really need a boogie man to fight, and ‘enemy’, and can’t fathom that someone not in lock step with you could be opposed to what you are and still think your side is bad. You can’t grasp that I could not be pro-gun and staunchly opposed to you and your sides tactics…hell, you can’t even seemingly grasp WHY I’m opposed to them, since you are just spewing out your tape recorded responses to anyone you think is pro-gun.
What’s the purpose of alcohol and tobacco? Not to kill, but to intoxicate and addict. What difference if you die from a bullet or lung cancer, or liver disease…or a drunk driver slamming into your car one night? I have never gotten this argument from the anti-gun side, especially if we look at the numbers. The stuff that’s supposedly fun and for entertainment kill a hell of a lot more folks than the stuff supposedly designed only to be lethal. Yet that matters to you guys for some reason.
It’s a mystery that has no actual meaning, since one of those things is Constitutionally protected, so we have to live with the reality of that, and if it’s necessary to change we have to change it within the scope of our system.
I ignore nothing. You simply have your fingers in your ears and a tape recorded response.
Yet they didn’t say in times of war, so your response here is letting them off the hook.
I’m not pretending at all. What am I doing? I’m arguing on the hamster wheel about it on a message board going no where. Why? Because no one is seriously attempting to actually use the process to change the Constitution because, whine whine, it’s hard and stuff. Mean pro-gunnies are mean and stopping us. Sniff sniff.
Instead, your side continues to pine for the good old days and wish they would come back, and hope for some change in the USSC so you can go back to subverting the Constitution by fiat instead of having to do the hard work of changing it through the process. And beating those poor dead horses.
I think we’ve run into a basic disconnect here.
“Democracy is great, except for that part about letting just anybody vote.”
If, as you say, law-abiding citizens aren’t going to give up their guns or their right to keep and bear guns unless they are forced to do so, then it appears they won’t go along with you amending the Second. They probably won’t go along with the idea of appointing Supreme Court justices who interpret “shall not be infringed” as “should be infringed, because those dummies don’t know what’s good for them”.
The drawbacks are
[ul][li]That kind of goes against the whole notion of representative democracy. [/ul][/li][ul][li]How are you going to force them? They’ve got the numbers on their side, **and **they’ve got all the guns.[/ul][/li]Regards,
Shodan
Because, apparently, asking “how the dickens is that going to help?” is an avoidance tactic.
Regards,
Shodan
Yeah, there is that tiny drawback. I THINK what Elvis was getting at is it’s only those very mean pro-gun folks who THINK they are ‘law-abiding citizens’ who are in the way, and they will be the ones who have to have the righteous jackboots of the proletariat come down on their stubborn necks to give up their guns. Or something like that.
Certainly, if a majority of Americans don’t want to give up their Constitutional right to keep and bear arms it isn’t going to happen. That’s kind of what Elvis’s side tried to do in the last 60 years or so…they knew that a majority of Americans wouldn’t support a new Amendment that re-addresses the 2nd and basically and specifically removes the personal right. Instead, they have tried to reinterpret the Amendment as saying there never was a personal right (despite the writings of folks like Madison on the subject), so we never really had it, so we’ll just take that away shall we?
Personally, I think that over time the average person in the US has grown away from the need or desire for a personal firearm, and if that trajectory had been followed there would probably be a majority willing to give it up in the face of gun violence. Especially the highly broadcast mass shootings, which really triggered a lot more restrictions and bannings in other countries. However, at this point the pro-gun side is so riled up and motivated that basically anything gets stomped on if it smacks of gun control, since they see slippery slopes everywhere now. I do believe that the overall trajectory of the country is that, eventually, a majority of Americans simply won’t care enough about keeping the right, since they will have no personal experience with firearms anyway, that a new Amendment could be brought in. But not today, not now. Today, the only way to do what Elvis et al want to do is by fiat through the judiciary…but the election of Trump and the trajectory of the USSC has fucked them wrt that happening any time soon.
I must have missed the reports of the Crips v. Bloods massed bayonet charges in the streets of South Central in the late 80s…
It wasn’t that - it was the drive-by stabbings.
Regards,
Shodan
Even tho the murder and violent crime rate in the USA is higher than it could be, it is insane to “live in constant fear”.
Well, if the purpose of a gun is to kill, why do so few ever do it? Guns are mostly bought to collect and to target shoot. Then hunt, which I guess is killing but then so is eating a McDonalds burger. Making people* feel safe is next, but even I admit that few guns are used in self protection (more than are used in crime, but not a large number, still). Murdering people is so far down on the list you might as well say the purpose of a car is to kill people. Oddly there are about as many guns as cars in the USA. Guns murder under 10,000 Americans a year, while cars kill over 30,000.
There are about 2000 stabbing murders in the USA each year- compared to 8000+ gun murders.
Yes, guns are more lethal and used more often, but still, 2000 is not a small number.
“You guys”:rolleyes:
As I have said before, I am by no means a “gun nut”. I own a old .22 rifle my dad gave me when I was in the scouts, and my service weapon from when I was a State Security guard. That’s it.
But I am a “small l” libertarian, and since gun control laws in the USA have never significantly reduced violent crime, I am against more laws that do nothing but put otherwise law abiding citizens in prison, or take away their property without compensation.
If Gun control laws worked- that would be different. But they don’t. Even if they did, I’d have to see a VERY significant effect.
Those who give up their liberty for more security neither deserve liberty nor security.
But, once again, you are using a term “ban” when it is a restriction. If someone under 21 is not allowed to buy a gun, is that a gun ban? If someone with a criminal record is not able to buy a gun, is that a gun ban?
There you go, once again trying to divert by bringing up what people that are not in this conversation are about.
And you point, how does that relate?
No, I just don’t see you as being in a potion to demand anything from anyone, especially when the only reason for demanding it is to divert, once again from the topic.
For all that it matters, lets say I am proposing the model they have in Switzerland. Now, explain how that is relevant, and I may go into more detail.
A loophole, by definition, is a place where courts do not have agency to say anything about it, so your comment here is utterly irrelevant. It is the legislative branch that would be tasked with identifying and closing loopholes, and the legislative branch has in fact looked at this loophole and tried to close it, but are thwarted by all the cries of “Well, what about this widow of a police officer, how will she sell his guns?”
You are correct in that I am too set in my thinking that the lives of people is more important than the convenience of gun owners.
Right, the joke is that you need guns, not people. I got it, I just didn’t think it was very funny, as I am too “set” in my thinking to enjoy jokes that are at the expense of the dead and injured.
I played no card, I made an analogy to jokes that people of one sort of thinking think are funny, and that people with another set of thinking don’t.
That it would drive you into such a foam speckled rage was not my intent, and I may say, way to infer something about your perceptions of my intelligence and get it past the mods.
No, those are restriction on people, not guns, so they cant be “gun bans”. But yes, you could say that felons are banned from owning guns.
I am the OP, so I kinda know what the Topic is, *which you clearly don’t.
Switzerland is interesting. Not really relevant to the USA, but interesting.
I said “Because the federal Government, it’s agencies and the courts”. You are ignoring the first two. *Congress has not called it a loophole, and I dont know how they could be 'thwarted" by that. Or do you mean that public opinion *is against it?
That they work in every other country that has tried them is a bit of an example that they do work, and all this, “But what works everywhere else int eh world could never work here.” is the laziest case of special pleading I have ever seen, and yet it is the well that we keep coming back to.
We do not have gun control in this country, not when you can sell a gun to an unknown person with no ID or background check. That you don’t think that that is a loophole is bizarre.
If you can tell me what law that you would break if you sold your legally acquired gun to someone who you had never met before who just liked you gun and wanted to buy it, then I will agree that there is no loophole. Unless you do, though, then there is a way for people to make money off of selling guns into the criminal black market, and as long as there is profit to be made there, people will continue to do it, and guns will continue to flow into the hands of criminals.
They dont. Mexico and Russia have strong gun controls but high violent crime rates. I could list another hundred or so nations where gun control also didnt work.
Heck, there’s even plenty of debate whether or not Australia’s recent gun ban has worked.
America is flat in the middle of murder rates vs all nations of the world.
It’s not my opinion or yours that counts. The Federal Government, it’s agencies and the courts dont call it a loophole. So since the people whose opinion counts dont call it s loophole, then it isn’t.
Foam flecked rage? Try laughing fit. You STILL don’t get it. Hell, it wasn’t even that funny…it wasn’t even really a joke, just a one line comment. But it’s fucking funny now that you are still without a clue as to the point. Here is a free clue…my comment? It had zero to do with guns. Nada. I know, I know…you STILL don’t get it. Sorry, that’s the only free clue you get as I’m tiring rapidly of this ridiculous conversation with you on this.
And, yeah, you played that card and it was stupid. But it did pass mod scrutiny so I guess it’s all good. Anyway, I think we are done here. Thanks for playing, here are your fine parting gifts…a nice ceramic dog, the board game edition of the Straight Dope and your racist play card for the next round…
So, would you would not say that a restriction on someone owning a gun is a ban, thank you for that, it’s been like pulling teeth.
I don’t know what you were thinking when you wrote it, but I can read it, and it is talking about how guns are carried in public, not about purchasing or possessing them.
Would you say that guns are banned in Switzerland?"
What are you talking about? Plent of legilsatures and wanna be legilatures talk about this loophole all the time. Remeber the guns how loophole that gets gun advocates in a twist everytime they here it? That’s what they are talking about.
For instance, when I typed into google just now “priave sal” with the misspelling and the not finishing of the word “sale”, it helpfully autocompleted with “private gun sales loophole”, which of course takes me to a bunch of articles about it, but we’ll just go with the wiki page for right now.
The legislators in charge of making laws call it a loophole, they even put it in the names of the bills they try to pass to close it. That it hasn’t been closed doesn’t mean that it is not.
I don’t know why you keep going back to this “it’s not a loophole” thing, but you have been shown repeatedly that you are wrong on this. It may be a loophole of which you approve, but it is still a loophole, a way to get around a law to defeat the purpose of the law.