Ah, so, the fact that most gun owners are not criminals only furthers your argument that all gun owners are potential criminals. Got it. :rolleyes:
Yes, out of 10,000 law-abiding gun owners, 1 will turn out to not be law-abiding after all. What is your point?
What do you mean, “all the others”? You mean, all the other 74,990,000 people who are law-abiding gun owners as well? Or are you starting out by demanding that I prove I am not the 1 criminal among 10,000 law-abiding citizens? A fair and just society does not demand that people prove their innocence before they have even committed a crime.
How would you like it if you were walking by a store and a cop pulls up and says “Hey you fucking lowlife, prove you weren’t about to rob that store just now! Can’t prove it? You’re under arrest! There are tons of criminals, why should I believe you are unlike all the others!?!”
We seem to think that a few tens of thousand of deaths per year are worth the pleasure of drinking fermented vegetables. Why is this logic irrational and inhumane for guns but not for alcohol?
I support universal background checks as an example of a reasonable regulation. You appear to be arguing for a total ban on private ownership of firearms. Is that what you consider to be “reasonable gun regulations”?
Why don’t you read the post of mine you quoted and try this again. I was not talking about automobile crashes, I was talking about alcohol. If you think a few tens of thousands deaths from alcohol is acceptable, then you should at least understand the thought process by which some number of deaths by gun violence are considered acceptable.
This has been done to death. Self-defense under all kinds of scenarios, and recreation. It is just as justifiable as alcohol, which is useful purely for recreation.
This is total bullshit. You are saying “It is well-known that guns are often misused, therefore this is proof that an ordinary user is not aware of the potential for misuse.” I am really getting tired of arguing someone who cannot be bothered to even think about what he is writing.
Exactly! Which proves the very point that guns are not unreasonably dangerous, because an ordinary user can foresee the danger.
There were plenty of problem before 1934 with machine guns when the federal government required the licensing and registration of all machine guns. You could still go down to the store and buy a new machine gun but you had to get licensed and registered. It toom a while to leech all the machine guns out of the criminal population but THAT is what kept machine guns out of the hands of criminal hands. Taking them out of the hands of law abiding citizens only achieved the goal of taking them away from law abiding citizens.
New ones cost $500, used ones routinely cost over $10,000. All the ban did was make a few gun nuts millionaires over night. That is part of the reason there was a run on assault weapons.
Cite. Unless you consider domestic abusers law abiding citizens I don’t think you are correct.
And how exactly do you think you are going to eliminate guns in society? Are all the criminals going to just hand them in when you make them illegal? Go get the criminals to give up their guns and then come back. Disarming the populace is not a good way to disarm the criminals.
How about permitting a licensed national CCW holder to carry concealed everywhere in the United states other than federal buildings and any other place that does not allow guns (“place” can’t be something like NYC limits).
Hand grenades?
The thing is that they are the exception that proves the rule. 300 million firearms in the united states and a vanishingly small number of law abiding citizens flip out and go on rampages.
I have a firearms dealership in Wisconsin. During the first “assault weap:rolleyes:ns” ban I made buko bucks selling junk people didn’t otherwise want.
Like the TEC-9 and TEC-22 Scorpion. I don’t care if they sue me. Those are unbelievable pieces of shit. I had a few in storage that I could never sell. I paid $109 wholesale with 2 32 round mags included. Before the ban I couldn’t sell them for cost. Nobody wanted them. Then they banned them and I was able to get hundreds of dollars more than I paid. At one time few people wanted AK style rifles. Depending on the make the whole sale was about $240. Then the ban went through and I was getting multiple times that. It was a good time to buy revolvers if you wanted one because everybody was clamoring for semi-autos and revolver sales and prices dropped like crazy.
Has anybody checked Feinsteins portfolio? I wonder if she has stock in CDNN or S.O.G..
I’ve been thinking about the “owning nuclear weapons” conundrum I stated previously, and how could you draw a line between what’s absurdly unallowable and what isn’t. (Let’s presume that some level of privately held force is allowable. If you disagree that’s another debate.) I think I have a logical criteria I’d like to throw out and see what people here think. It’s in line with limitations others have mentioned, such as that arms should be “born”- individually carried and wielded by one person, and that they shouldn’t be indiscriminate, such as explosives.
It’s this: the line is what amount of force would any single person individually need for self-defense? Take for example a Stinger anti-aircraft missile: Under what circumstances could you need to use one for self-defense? If an attack helicopter is shooting at you, you’re almost certainly not facing an individual self-defense situation. It would be in the context of war or rebellion, in which case there would be no point in you acting on your own. If you weren’t fighting as part of an army or a militia your single act of resistance would be irrelevant. Same for shoulder-launched RPGS, grenade launchers, and heavy (non-man portable) machine guns. If you NEED that much firepower, you’re facing a situation where you’re screwed if you’re acting on your own. In a way, this actually is in line with proponents of the collective theory of the right to keep and bear arms. You shouldn’t individually own weapons that are of no practical use unless you’re acting collectively. Or if you did own them, possessing such heavy weaponry could effectively be regulated under the federal government’s explicit power to issue (and regulate) letters of marque, governing private possession of military force such as armed private ships once were.
So where is the line between personal and collective weapons? I would maintain that it’s a select-fire assault rifle. Doubtless this will enrage people who feel that semi-automatics are already too dangerous; but a lone person could legitimately require such a level of force to meet a purely personal threat, such as being attacked by a gang of people.
Point out where I’ve dismissed the tragedy of gun violence at all, much less as irrational.
You have shown no sign of recognizing that [positive utility of widespread gun ownership] in your posts to date. But I’m glad you’re up to the task of weighing the positive and negative consequences for everyone else. And as a bonus you’ve decided which side is winning and losing. Congratulations!
To show your true support for reducing gun violence, you are going to need to ban guns (for young black males, 17-27) and enforce the laws on the books at a much greater rate (for the same demographic)
What lengths are you willing to go to take their guns away?
I’m just trying to point out aht licensing and registration was effective in leeching these weapons out of the hands of criminals without the ban and was probably much more effective than a ban would have been without the licensing and registration.
No I’m saying that the 1986 closing of the registry made machine gun owerns in 1986 millionaires overnight and in anticipation of something similar happening with assault weapons, people have been bidding up the price of assault weapons up to 300%.
I think that after Heller, the second amendment is multi-layered. I think there is a personal right of self defense that exists regardless of what my state or federal government want. I think that the federal government or the state can impose a minimum standard on what I can possess. So if the state wants me to be proficient in some weapon of whatever sort I feel most comfortable with, the federal government cannot come in and say no unless they could restrict the state itself from possessing that weapon. On the other hand if the federal government wants me to be proficient in M-16s full automatic machine guns, states cannot prohibit my possession of that firearm.
Could the federal government regulate the possession of these weapons by the state of California?
I think this right of self defense only lays out the inviolable personal right to self defense. I think the standard is probably much lower than selective fire (you could probably be limited to a small number of firearms with a limit on size and quantity of magazines, and the quantity of ammunition you can store. But I think that any state that has a mind to do so can grant their citizens the right to more than their personal defense requires under their militia power.
I don’t think this analysis is correct. Heller states that those arms protected are those that are in common use. The specific case was about a particular handgun, however if the issue were raised, I’m sure it would be found that semi-automatic rifles like the AR-15 platform are in common use. The other comment about what types of restrictions would be permissible described firearms that were “dangerous and unusual”. Like the 8th amendment, the operative word is “and”. Something must be both dangerous and unusual. A 30 round magazine is neither. Having thousands of rounds of ammunition is neither.
Noone knows the answer for sure and I’m not a second amendment expert but I think my interpretation is the most sensible reading of the second amendment that doesn’t essentially ignore parts of the constitution that Scalia finds inconvenient (the prefatory clause of the second amendment).
How many AR-15s do you think there are out there? Do you think there are more or less AR-15s per capita than there were sawed off shotguns per capita in 1934 (see the 1939 Miller case)? I think the AR-15 can be prohibited by the states if the federal government agrees but neither the states nor the federal government cannot prohibit AR-15s on their own.
I think that if M-16s are in common use by the military and the state of Virginia decides it wants its citizens familiar with and armed with M-16s then the federal government cannot stop them.
On the other hand if both a state and the federal government want to ban assault weapons for whatever reason then as long as it is not necessary for effective self defense, assault weapons can be banned in a particular state.
Obviously these issues haven’t been litigated so the outcome is unknown (this may make Gura a very rich man).
Miller is not really a good example. Though the court did not rule explicitly on short barreled shotguns since Miller didn’t present any defense or evidence. The court ruled without evidence being presented to the contrary, that short barreled shotguns weren’t in common use of the military. That was actually false at the time. Short barreled shotguns enjoyed wide spread use in trench warfare and had that evidence been presented I’m not sure the outcome would have been the same. Regardless, Heller severed the prefatory clause from the core meaning so it’s not like there’s some reliance on it given the current jurisprudence.
Right now, I’d say there are millions of AR-15 platform rifles owned by civilians. It would be absurd to assert that the AR-15 rifle is not in common use. Manufactures can’t make them fast enough. Hell, I’d buy 10 more right now if I could find any. I think any prohibition of the AR-15 platform rifle will run afoul of 2nd amendment and would be litigated.
If a state wishes to defy federal regulations of firearms, I’m not sure the outcome. I know that there are certain states that have stated they do not plan to adhere to federal firearms regulations for firearms manufactured and sold completely within their state but that has yet to be litigated. I believe Montana is one of those states.
I like to read Heller differently than you and I would think the language of “dangerous and unusual” was specifically chosen. Banning something that is in common use, or is not both dangerous and unusual should run into problems.
The court opinion purports NOT to have severed the first clause so…
I don’t know how many AR-15s there are out there but I don’t think they are in common use.
Its hoarders like you that are creating this insane price bubble
Many other states will not enforce federal firearms laws. ATF can’t do it alone.
Yeah, maybe we need to agree to disagree.
dammit, you guys are creating a pricing bubble. You better sell it before the prices come back down. They’re already coming back down and i think prices will be back at equipoise by the end of the year.
Any prediction I make is based on the current composition of the court. If that changes, then all bets are off. There are two very significant cases right now that has a chance to make it by next term. I’m hoping to have a very nice result around the end of June 2014. I’m hoping the Heller 5 stay until that time.
The first holding, #1 and 1a:
#1 says that the 2nd amendment protects individual right to possess…unconnected with service in a militia #1a says that the prefatory clause does not limit or expand the operative clause.
To me, that says they are severed. Both have a purpose, but one does not depend on the other.
You’d have to define common use. Here’s an articlethat attempts to quantify just the number of AR-15 platform rifles there are, ignoring other popular rifles like the min-14. It estimates between 2.4M and 3.2M of them. That fits my definition of common use. Also consider that the M-4 is the standard US Military rifle, parts and accessories for the AR-15 platform are common and ubiquitous. They’d have better luck banning saigas, but even those I’d say are in common use or are not both unusual and dangerous.
I actually am just looking for lower receivers. All the other stuff the prices are crazy, but I’m willing to pay a bit more for a lower receiver. At least if there is a ban then I can get in before hand and then make whatever I want.
Interesting factoid: gun owners who reload their casings are complaining that there are no primers currently for sale: the entire production is being used for cartridges.
I disagree. There are many legal things you have the right to do. But in some specific instances, you DO have to justify yourself to authorities before you do them. Your response that the burden is on those who wish to restrict a right misses 2 things:
First, the government, by arguing that certain things present an immediate danger, DID justify themselves. And second, even if they did not, in specific instances like the ones I’ve listed, the government may as you to justify yourself without feeling the need to do it themselves. Often they will do it voluntarily, or give some specious reason, or only offer up a defense if challenged, but it is untrue to say that those who wish to restrict rights always must bear the burden of justification. In all situations this does not apply, either logically, legally, or, I believe, morally
I find this intellectually dishonest and hypocritical. Given the facts I’ve stated above, that in certain instances government will ask you to prove you deserve to exercise a right before they defend themselves, you basically said I had to give you an answer to a hypothetical that you yourself are unwilling to do. Granted, that is often what pro-gun people fall back on, which is fine if that is their tactic, but it is intellectually dishonest. I would say that so long as you refuse to give some realistic number that would make you want to restrict magazine capacity, I don’t have to do it either. I do, however, because that is what I believe in and I want realistic and pragmatic solutions to the gun problem. I’m not interested in defending myself against hoards of rampaging people if that doesn’t happen and I would not want you to have that ability either if you won’t concede that there is a rational reason to limit magazine capacity.
Why do you think that the probability of getting shot does not allow government to regulate magazine capacity? Being shot violates your rights much more than limiting, but not banning, guns.
No, that is a self-imposed goal. Its no more a job than to say my “job” is to do the dishes or mow the lawn. Nobody looks over your shoulder to make sure you’re doing it. You are not paid, except with satisfaction. You are answerable to no one, and failing that “job”, you are not punished. Sorry, but don’t claim that your desires equal a real job. A police officer is a job. Desiring to protect your family is noble, but not a job. Besides, you can do your job just fine with limited clips and restrictions on other types of weapons. Not even the military brings a sniper rifle to a door-to-door firefight, nor do they use grenades to rescue a hostage being held on a liferaft
What I recognize is that different responsibilities require different tools. You do not have the responsibilities of a cop. You can run from danger, they are sent to fight it. Therefore, they need different tools than you. They have a real job that they can be disciplined for if they fail to do it, you do not. Plus, we can at least be sure that cops pass a psych test, receive training, and have their guns linked to them through official documents. I would love to have that for all gun owners. Would you?
Does a the fact that the military have access to certain types of weapons mean that too? Would you want tanks and bombs purchaseable for the everyday public, with no restrictions?
I will agree with your somewhat. Any restriction on any form of defense limits one’s ability to defend oneself. However, like the military example above, I feel that is ok. Plus, we’re just talking about firearms. You wouldn’t use a gun to wipe out a city would you? I would prefer anthrax. Would you like to end all restrictions on the type of biological and chemical agents one may use for offense as well? Talk about slippery slope! Its about time gun control people start using it too, right? If you unrestrict guns, what’s next? Fighter jets, surface to surface missiles, ricin, smallpox? I will take the somewhat controversial position here that you do NOT have the right to have the most effective defense possible using anything that may be used for offense. That in a society as part of a civilization, your right to defend yourself should have common sense restrictions. You have access to guns, lots of them, lots of types. That’s good enough.
Absolute immunity? I guess Rodney King was faking it then huh?
At this point I will bow out of my discussion with you. You cannot have a reasonable debate if you cling to the belief that gun control advocates will ALWAYS aim to ban all guns. There’s no talking with that. Whatever common sense, small, insignificant thing I propose will be countered with “but you’re going to take all our guns!”
Someday, if just for the purposes of a message board discussion, you may want to drop that and debate with an open mind. I’ll welcome the discussion then
(btw, you don’t find it silly at all that you’re expecting me, some guy on a message board, to reassure you about laws in real life just so you can support, on a message board, a position that is, by itself, non-threatening to your guns? its like if I said I will never support, even on a message board, any laws restricting public decency because somewhere, someone wants to force all earthlings to wear the same uniforms)
Perhaps we shouldn’t allow unrestricted access to these weapons for the sole sake of collectors? If someone wanted to collect rare and endangered species, I don’t think that’s justification enough to remove the law regulating the ownership of wild and exotic animals.
LOL! I get it, you MUST be doing this on purpose. You cannot possibly think that restricting something and not restricting something makes absolutely no difference. I look forward to your thread about removing the restriction on all drugs, murder, rapes, and child porn. Because criminals are all masterminds and will always get what they want no matter what, right? And no truly good people will ever murder, rape, or have child porn. You’re so fun to talk to
Why shouldn’t it be phrased in that matter? Like I replied to Bone above, I believe there are lots of legitimate reasons why one needs to defend his desire to exercise a right.
Its funny you call us a free country when, for your purposes, we can be free, unfree, semi-free, or on the way to some totalitarian dystopia simply by the subject of the debate at hand. Tell the people who wants to own a gorilla how free we are. Tell people who wants to incite riots or take down the goverment in a bloody coup how free we are. Or, conversely, tell the women in Mississippi who needs an abortion how unfree we are, or the parent in Kansas how semi-free we are when her child has to listen to both evolution and intelligent design taught in the same science classroom. The point this is that we are a nation of laws, and ANY right of yours is not totally free, ANY thing you consider a right has some restrictions. And society is ok with that, most of us are ok with that, and if you remind them how truly free they are when they cannot shout death threats at the president, most people will realize that it is a good thing we have restrictions on our rights. I just believe those restrictions need to be put on guns as well, because for most of us, you don’t really need to have fully automatic weapons or magazines of over 10 clips just as you don’t need it to be legal for your neighbor to own an elephant.
Sure you can have one. So long as you guarantee to me somehow that it is the ONLY reason you’ll ever use that gun, that it will never be lost or stolen, never be lent out to anyond, borrowed for a time, or out of your sight, and that you will have it destroyed with you when you die. Then you can have it.
Oh, don’t like that? Can’t guarantee it? Then people, stop asking gun advocates to guarantee that we’ll never ever ever push for a gun ban. Its unrealistic. I want common sense legislation now to fix a problem we have now. What the future holds is up in the air.
Would banning high-capacity magazines keep them out of the hands of criminals and sociopaths? I’d say at most it would make them somewhat harder and more expensive to buy. Would it make a worthwhile difference to the murder rate caused by the gangs and narcotics dealers who already routinely trade in contraband? Doubtful, and at the cost of forbidding them to the people who’ve never misused them.
Should we remove the restrictions on drugs? Arguably yes. Opiates and cocaine were banned at the beginning of the twentieth century after they were widely misused in patent medicines, and because of fear of rampages by “drug fiends”. Today it would be trivially simple to forbid consumer products to contain them while allowing them to be sold in clean, cheap generic form. Anyone who used them would be well aware of the detrimental effects, and the law could adopt a zero-tolerance attitude towards anyone who committed a felony while high.
Murder and rape? Let’s draw a distinction between hurting people, which is and should be illegal, and possessing objects which might be misused to hurt people. Aggravated assault, manslaughter and murder are already crimes; by any theory of justice based on personal moral responsibility, that should address the misuse of firearms. Let’s not ban condoms because rapists use them to avoid leaving DNA evidence.
Child porn? Illegal on the grounds that possessors are accomplices to child abuse. Although many already complain that the law has gone overboard on criminalizing anything that anyone could perceive as a sexual depiction of a child, and the laws considering nubile teenagers as victims of “statutory rape” border on the absurd.
So yes, I do think a magazine-limit law as pointlessly ineffectual as Prohibition wouldn’t be worth it. And no, that doesn’t mean toss out all laws. Talk about the fallacy of the excluded middle!
