It wouldn’t even be a start. You think if high-capacity magazines are banned they will slowly but surely go away as they’re confiscated over the years? Bull. They can be made by any skilled machinist, and the illegal supply would keep up with the demand indefinitely. A ban would never get rid of them, except from the people inclined to obey the law already.
ETA: Oh, I forgot, of course that means there shouldn’t be laws against rape or murder because people will do them anyway. :smack:
Sell one now and buy two a year from now. Hold onto your mags.
Abortions after the 20th week are really rare so it shouldn’t matter to anyone if we banned them. Right? I think its ironic that people who defend a right that is mentioned nowhere in the constitution also think that the second amendment is more like a guideline than a constitutional right. Sure its a constitutional right that you don’t like but you have to deal with the fact taht it is a constitutional right, don’t you?
Why does a policeman need a better weapon to deal with the guy that breaks into my house than I do? They may need it more often but thats about it.
Repeal the second amendment and I could be swayed.
Would you feel better if he had said duty? I think I have a duty to protect my family.
I think this is reasonable as long as the registration and licensing is “shall issue”
Within the constraints of my right to effective self defense, I think that the federal government and my state could get together and limit my access to firearms in a way that does not limit my right to effective self defense.
Its too ripe for abuse, the standards as we have them right now are fine, increased legal gun ownership does not lead to higher rates of gun violence.
The AWB is a stupid law. I thought we had established it was a stupid law in the first few posts.
The alternatives have to be effective and you need both state and federal government toa gree to banning the gun.
Which amendment protects my right to carry lots of cash again?
An illegal justification is not a justification at all in a nation that follows the rule of law.
[quote]
Its more than that, I think its really unfortunate you’re resorting to that type of back-and-forth sniping and juvenile debating tactics.
[quote]
Like i said, I don’t put second amendment rights in the same league as voting rights (I don’t put ANY rights in tthe same league as voting rights) but unconstitutional limitations on my rights are unconstitutional nonetheless.
Getting an ID is not a barrier to voting. Anyone can get an ID and they are free. The government can certainly restrict rights but not on an aarbitrary and capricious basis. They need a good reason and when you try to reinstitute a ban that everyone concedes didn’t do jack shit that last time you tried it, you are curtailing constitutional rights with no rational reason.
The first AWB was ineffective, now you tweak it and assure us that it will work better this time so we should let you curtail our rights again.
Nope not yet.
You act as if voter ID laws are an impenetrable barrier. It serves to reduce voter participation but its not impacting rights, its destroying the democracy.
You are curtailing a right that didn’t prove to serve anty legitimate state purpose the alst time around. How do you jsutify it this time around?
Cite that voter ID laws increases voter fraud?
It would be just as ineffective as the AWB. that horse has left the barn and no matter HOW hard you shut the barn door, the horse isn’t coming back.
It doesn’t take a particularly skilled gunsmith to increase the capacity on a magazine.
Sure, if you consider the supreme court “those in government”
Not if the supreme court says they don’t
The terms you are using have objective definitions. It undermines your credibility when you don’t know what these terms mean.
The second amendment also gives states a right, so it would take at least my state and the federal government agreeing to take away my AR-15 and it would take the supreme court agreeing that they can do it.
We might end up like Mexico where the criminals are armed to the teeth and the civilians are limited to .22lr rifles.
Under a national licensing requirement, you can own a gun in any state. You can keep a gun in your home in any state. It is not clear that the right to self defense gives you a right to carry outside your home and you can defintiely be restricted from carrying in any property where the owner of the property (including government property), restricts guns.
People have a false sense of security when it comes to how much the police can protect you. Unless they are standing right ther, they can’t. I’m sure they would like to, but they can’t be everywhere at once.
I’m against it generally on principle (and the fact taht its retarded to make me load 10 rounds in my 15 round magazine) but I don’t think I will ever need more than the 10 rounds in my 27.
You don’t really need to be that skilled to convert a low capacity magazine into a high capacity magazine.
Personally? Yes, most of them. What can realistically get through Congress even in the best of times? Some of them.
I have no problems with my arguments, nor admitting that you know more about guns than I do. As I said, I was referring to a type of gun used in Newton, and some of the types of guns that appear in the AWB list. If you want to confuse me with the hundred different variations you know that I don’t, go ahead, you’ll score no points except with those who already believe in your side.
Why don’t we do this? You list a gun, its capabilities, and I’ll tell you if I’m in favor of banning it
Maybe you’re right, but I feel that the purpose of a debate is to possibly get the other person to change their mind using rational arguments and logic. If you come into it admitting that nothing will sway you, how should I take that? I could say that nothing will sway me and end the discussion right here, but I enjoy talking to you about this.
Its not the disagreement that I feel makes you dishonest, its the lack of open mindedness. Shoot down my arguments if you must, but if I come up with one you can’t refute, you should at least admit you’re open to the possibility that you are wrong. Again going back to science, what is often necessary to verify a hypothesis is falsifiability. If something can observe or tested to be false, then the hypothesis fails. If I come up with a hypothesis with no possible way to falsify it, like “God exists and everything that shows he doesn’t exist is just a test”, then its not a hypothesis and not a good theory, its just a belief.
Do you want to think that you believe you’re right because of evidence, or because simply that you want to believe it regardless of the facts? If its evidence, then there may exist some evidence that will convince you otherwise, and it would be honest to admit the possibility that it exists, rather than reject outright that even if it exists, you will reject it. Even morally, I could ask you, do you hold your morals on guns because you are convinced of its validity through evidence, or do you hold those beliefs simply because you want to believe it and don’t want to disbelieve it?
Well, I won’t call you dishonest since it bothers you so much, but I do believe my reasoning is sound in this aspect. There is something wrong, and you can call that whatever you like, with coming into an argument without being open to the possibility that you are wrong. So far, to you and others, I’ve given you guys percentages or thresholds that would convince me otherwise. I simply think you guys should do the same, or else admit that you are not interested in a debate rather than a lecture
Well, it is semantics to call what you want to do a job. It is not semantics to say that by the definition of a job, the police are expected to wade knee-deep into danger if ordered to do so. It is meaningless to say that your specific family’s safety is not their job. When you call 911, it is their job to respond, and make safe whatever situation they are called to. They cannot ignore it without consequences to their job like you can, and they have to answer to someone unlike you.
I think your desire to protect your family doesn’t take away the fact that there can and should be reasonable restrictions in doing so. You don’t have the right to kill someone else to protect your family. If a murderer held your family hostage and said you had to blow up a bus full of kids, the moral thing to do isn’t to do as he asks but to call the police and let them handle it, even if you think the police will botch it, you have no right to infringe upon someone else’s rights or violate the law (in certain cases) to protect your own. That’s why I think gun regulation is fine. If society deems that in most realistic situations, a handgun or a shotgun is enough to protect your family, then I’m morally ok if that’s all you get.
I’m a bit confused as to what you’re asking. Can you explain?
Can you envision a scenario in which the abuse is minimized to a manageable level?
I do. I think that by the nature of their job, they are more qualified and have extra accountability with respect to their job to allow them special privileges. Now before you go off saying I’m supporting second class citizenship (and if you’re not going to say that, I apologize, but usually in these topics somebody always does), I would qualify that by saying that depending on what you do, even by the nature of what you are, you are affording more or less privileges than others. As a man, you can’t use the women’s restroom. As a person born outside the country, there are many elected positions I can’t hold. States give their citizens special rights that other states don’t. So I have absolutely no problems if the police get special rights owing to what they do than the rest of us. So I’m fine with qualified immunity. I think that is sufficient to both allow the police to do their jobs without nitpicking, and prosecute them in case of something egregious
Why assume that:
Believe it or not, I’m not telling you what you need. Those who have crafted the AWB and other gun control laws are doing it. I do not have the expertise to parse out a selection of gun types to ban, nor would I try to except in the very broad sense like what we’re talking about here. I think you misunderstand me. What I am claiming in those quoted paragraphs is simply that your arms should be **based **on need, but nowhere do I say that I am the sole arbiter of what you need. I’m arguing you should use that criteria, but not saying what the criteria is. Better?
I admit that, yes. But I see that as the problem. The way I see it, we have too MANY gun rights. I think that in order to start from a common ground, gun rights need to be brought down by regulations. Registration, licensing, yada yada yada should be the baseline. And THEN we can talk about what more we need. But you guys have won, so we are starting from little to no gun control in many jurisdictions and talking about what little more we need, with a tradeoff of giving you even more rights. I don’t think you need any more, you have too much as it is
As you said, there are many identical items. Its not about just the name, though it serves as a common base we can start from. If I were in government and had the ability to enact the ban, I would first gather information on what exactly about the AR-15 makes it such a dangerous weapon. A few common things have been debated in public already, that of magazine capacity and malleability. Once I have that information, I would designate restrictions on such a thing, for example, and this is only an example, if the AR-15 has a magazine capacity of 30, only capacities of 10 are legal, all others are illegal. If it can be modified to be more dangerous, then such modifications are illegal. This would apply not only to the AR-15, but all other guns with the capabilities that I would be trying to restrict. Like if a shotgun could be modified to hold a capacity of 30, then even though its not an AR-15, it should be banned.
I suppose the easiest way, however, to make this is to simply list what is allowed rather than what is banned. All legal guns must have a magazine of 10 rounds or less, must not be automatic, cannot be modified to have X, Y, and Z. That’s the kind of law I would enforce. Sorry, that must have made your eyes pop out. I swear I’m not a communist! Not that there’s anything wrong with that… 
This could lead to some nonsensical results. Like in CA, where one pistol in black color is legal, and the exact same pistol in two –tone tan color is banned. Yay CA is stupid as shit.
Well its not that simple. Police are trained, registered, etc. You are not. Unless you’re willing to do that, my answer would still be to call the police
The goal of limiting weapons isn’t to make things as nightmarishly one-sided as you believe. You may not think it will happen, but the goal is so that guy you’re afraid of doesn’t have all those weapons like in Sandy Hook and Virginia Tech. He’ll be similarly handicapped by magazine restrictions, and if we also can agree on some common sense laws like background checks, and psych tests, the guy in Virginia Tech would have been caught. And with no AR-15’s, maybe Sandy Hook would have been prevented as well. Don’t think that gun control is in a vacuum, affecting only the law-abiding. It is unrealistic and unfair for you to postulate a world where criminals have free reign and the honest have stuck with a peashooter with a couple of bullets. Gun restrictions would have hindered many massacres, possibly like the ones we just experienced. That is why I want them.
You have made your point abundantly clear, based upon your own opinions rather than facts. Regardless of what impact any particular class of gun has on gun violence as a whole, if you think it needs to be banned, it is on your ban list. What would be the point of continuing the discussion?
Looks like you answered your own question. I’m going to go murder someone now because apparently, anti-murder laws are incapable of stopping the bad guys :rolleyes:
Dude, you’re better than this. Seriously?
Banning abortion after any week is basically banning abortion. Somewhere, there will be someone who is unable to have one. Banning a type of gun, when there is admittedly plenty of other similar guns, does not prevent anyone from owning a gun. Abortion has a timeline, guns don’t. Besides, the arguments over the two is completely different. Abortion is about privacy and control of your own body, and the rejection of a clump of cells that shouldn’t have rights because its not a person. Gun regulation exists already in the 2nd Amendment, the first 4 words are “A well regulated militia…” things like self-defense isn’t harmed at all if you have viable alternatives. I’ll agree with you about abortions and guns when you give me a viable alternative for a banned abortion. Perhaps go back in time and have it earlier? Seriously :rolleyes:
I wouldn’t expect a policeman to bring an automatic weapon to that, would you? And who says the policemen are sent only to home robberies? They are sent to hostage situations, bank robberies, massacres. Are you? Did you read when I said the average policeman faces both more severe and more numerous crimes?
Glad to know that your argument seems to be only because of that law, and that without it, you also think your arguments are invalid. So there’s no reason to talk about how many threats you face or the type of threats you face, you want guns unregulated only because of the 2nd Amendment. I’ll remember that
Slightly better. But he still doesn’t have the duty to own whatever he wants in defense. Its safer for his family if he kills everyone he sees, less chance of him missing out on a psycho. But he can’t do that, he has to live in a society where we tolerate certain small levels of uncertainty
I’ll ask you what I asked that other guy, can you envision a way to enact these psych tests with a minimum of corruption?
The alternatives are effective enough. You don’t need an AR-15 to protect your family (where would you even hide that on your person anyway to sneak up on the bad guys?), a handgun will do in most cases. That should be what you’re limited to, plus a few other types
What amendment gives you free unrestricted access to firearms again?
The word you’re looking for is “ineffective”. You believe the justification is ineffective. Its not illegal, as the government has every right to make it, just as you have every right to disagree with it, but not the right to ignore it if its the law
Yes it is. Many people in Florida were taken off the voting rolls by Rick Scott. Efforts to prove they were legal voters were often stymied by the short hours in which these institutions were available, the lack of accessibility to those without ready transportation, and the lack of notification that an ability already exercised were being taken away. None of these things apply to guns, and none of them are naked partisan spins designed to disenfranchise a group of people.
Like its been mentioned many times, gun owners are both Democrats and Republicans, it is a bipartisan issue that we do not want to wrongly restrict guns from any one. Voter ID laws are designed with one thing in mind: to lower the amount of Democratic voters. Getting an ID when the only office to get one is an hour away and has long lines and open only on weekdays is a barrier, and not all of these are free (hell, even the DMV charges you a few bucks to replace an ID). What you are saying is wrong, probably culled only from the easiest low-hanging fruit, but certainly does not apply to the majority of Voter ID laws, which is why there was such a huge outcry over them with 8 hours lines, early voting being cut down only for certain people, and Republicans openly bragging about doing it to try to give Romney the win.
There is too much support in this country for guns to ever have it happen to gun owners. You do not need to be so afraid of regulation. Just support the common sense ones like registration, licensing, training, etc. and you will still be able to go to your local gun shop and pick one up, but hopefully after a psych test and going through a mandatory waiting period.
Considering that the first one didn’t curtail your rights, I find this wording to be troubling. The most you can claim, if you believe it, is that it was ineffective, but since you have so many options for guns, restoring it doesn’t affect your rights at all
They are for some people. The old and infirm, the poor with a lack of transportation, and those who cannot readily take time off from their jobs to go stand in line for hours for an ID. None of that applies to guns
I justify it by disagreeing that it had no legitimate purpose, and disagreeing that it curtailed any rights.
You might want to look at the last election. Attempted voter ID laws were tried in Florida, Pennsylvania, and Ohio, just to name a few. By all accounts, they would have made it impossible for thousands, if not hundreds of thousands, of people to vote. This is in addition to the hours long lines resulting from cutting voting hours and number of polling places by Rick Scott, who knows how many people were unable to vote in that state? And remember in Ohio, when they tried to have extended absentee balloting for only military personnel but not for everyone else, and then the Republicans who tried to do that called Obama evil and against the military for saying that all people should have equal time to submit their absentee ballots? Did you forget all that? To me, those are all attempted and actual voter fraud, maybe not as dramatic as that idiot in Nevada who tried to vote twice but was caught and was a Republican operative, but its fraud nonetheless.
So what would be effective gun regulations to you, one that would cut down on gun violence?
It should be illegal to make such a modification except for LEOs
The supreme court has not struck down the AWB and I would think that they would not if it passes. I know they are generally seen as more open to gun rights, and even if I disagree I would accept their decision on things like Heller. I think the AWB would be something they would uphold, and so I hope it passes
You want it to undermine my credibility, but it does not. I do not have to know how a car works to drive one, and neither do I need to know the difference between an AR-15 and an M16 (one shoots automatic clips right?) to say that certain characteristics of guns should be banned. In your mind, I will never know as much as you on guns, so I should never have any say in it. I say simply that I don’t want to get shot, and that’s good enough for me to say that you only need handguns and shotguns to defend yourself and none of the other machine guns floating out there
What are these “opinions” you speak of? The FACT that the government has a right and a justification to regulate the rights given to you? The FACT that restriction of a gun doesn’t automatically cause everyone criminal to pop up with one? The FACT that every common sense shows that unregulated and unlicensed guns are a danger? Those are all facts. My opinion only applies to when someone asks me how I personally feel about guns. In every response, I’ve tried to focus solely on the role of government (they can regulate your rights) and the rights of gun owners (you have alternatives to banned weapons). As for violence, there is precious little unbiased statistics on violence, starting with the FACT (there’s that word again) that for a while now, pro gun people have protected gun manufacturers from lawsuits and prevented the government from doing studies on gun violence.
We know from the last election that Republicans and conservatives lie about statistics all the time, and will lie about anything so long as it suits them (ie. Dick Morris, Rush Limbaugh, Romney, Paul Ryan). Well, we’ve known that sooner but the election just happened and those lies were pretty well documented. The only study I would trust on gun violence is one that was conducted by the Obama Administration. He is an honest man trying to do the best he can to eliminate gun violence. If the CDC comes out next year with a study saying the AWB was a crock of shit, I’ll concede that. But if you quote Alex Jones or some NRA lackey, I’m going to laugh in your face. Same thing if you quote anything done during the Bush years.
People have rights and give governments authority, not the other way around. Or do you really believe that government/society is a superorganism of which we are merely cells?
Seriously, I’ve heard this “you owe the government your absolute unquestioned obedience because chaos is the only alternative” before. It’s pretty much the position Thomas Hobbes took in Leviathan, and it ought to be repugnant to anyone who believes in individualism, freedom or human rights. This is why the pro-gun crowd tends to be Second Amendment absolutist- because of the very mindset behind the rationale for restricting or banning guns.
You can start by not accusing people who disagree with you of lying or being dishonest and/or hypocritical. Simple courtesy would tell you that. Again, my point is not to persuade you or convince you. It is to do the same to other readers. You would accuse anyone who has an unwavering opinion dishonest but it is not so. One who would tell you that is being more honest than most.
The error you are making, is that the decision on whether to support people’s ability to own certain classes or capacities of firearms is not one of science.
I did give you a response. You didn’t like the answer. It is an answer none the less, and a direct one at that.
I’m not talking about carrying M-4s or otherwise restricted weapons. I’m talking about shall issue concealed carry with the same time/place restrictions as police. Nothing about the specific weapon, but if a police officer can carry there, so can a person with a CCW. Like I said, I support eliminating non-FFL private sales, universal registration and licensing. That is in exchange for federal shall issue CCW with little to no restrictions. That is a compromise, because really, CCW already exists in 40 of 50 states, and through litigation, will likely be n place for all others as well very soon. So again, would you support that?
Here’s where you are wrong. Police are not hired to give up their life for mine. They have no obligation to respond to 911.And even moreso, They have no constitutional duty to protect someone.
Your position was that because police face higher accountability, they are afforded greater weaponry. However, police face lower accountability due to qualified immunity. A regular individual is subject to massive criminal and civil penalties if they ever operate their weapon in a negligent way. Police are afforded much greater protections. Your claim that they are more accountable than an ordinary citizen is false.
No.
I am not assuming it would be narrow. I am stating that that specific outcome would be permissible within the framework you established. That is an unacceptable result, and therefore an unacceptable framework. An acceptable framework must not have the possibility of absurd or unacceptable results. If you can come up with a framework that would not have that possibility, to incrementally ban more and more, then we can talk about it.
But you support it, and agree with it. You’ve espoused the same reasoning. I’m grouping you with others that hold your position. The right to arms is not based on need. Never will a discussion be fruitful if you rely on determining what someone needs – you will be wrong.
Really? In my state, I have no legal way to carry a firearm, of any kind. Certain colors of firearms of the exact same model are prohibited. If I place a stock on my rifle that allows both my wife and I to fire it because it is adjustable and she is smaller than me, I can be convicted of a felony. You think I have too many rights? The phrase “too many rights” is paradoxical to me, like “too much freedom”.
So you’re idea of reasonable compromises is something like, give us what we want first, you get nothing. Then we can talk about what you want. You can see why that’s untenable and to date has been unsuccessful.
Your predictions of effective limits on criminals I’d say charitably is overly optimistic. Magazines over 10 rounds have been banned in CA since 1989. It is illegal to manufacture, sell, buy, import, or create them. There are hundreds of thousands of them around. And if you engage in a hypothetical where Sandy Hook could have been prevented with no AR-15’s, I will engage in the hypothetical that maybe if the school administrator who used her body to shield those children were armed, she could have killed him and prevented the whole thing.
I have no problem if someone is ignorant on any particular topic. If you wish to seriously speak to it however, you should at a minimum attempt to educate yourself in areas that make a difference to the topic at hand. And again, you’re trying to tell someone what they need.
So is Feinsten heself told you that deaths by AW’s since the ban expired totaled 400 since 2004, would you believe that number? That’s ALL AW’s not just your hated AR-15. What would your opinion be then?
This is the perhaps single most nauseating thing I’ve ever read in all the Dope’s gun control threads.
I laughed, which helped to offset my nausea a bit. You do know there was a reason the CDC got the smackdown for their gun “studies” right? And it wasn’t because they were too objective.
By “the best of times” do you mean right after a mass shooting so something similar?
pray tell, you have a cite for this? bonus points for something that resembles an unbiased position. Thanks!
You’re asking for a primer on guns. Can’t you read the wiki page on guns?
You can get a long gun or hand gun that does not have automatic or selective fire.
I think there have been a small handful of gun crimes committed by people with concealed carry permits. I know there is some self selection but I don’t see why we wouldn’t try some sort of licensing requirements on par with CCW requirements before we subjected 50 million people to psych evaluations. I run into a lot of these guys at the range and if you spent some time with them, you would definitely be able to point to a couple of guys that don’t seem to pass the smell test but historically, they don’t commit gun crime. They don’t flip out.
For the individual right to self defense that Scalia created from the penumbra of the second amendment, I believe you are correct but I don’t think this is correct for the states militia rights.
I don’t think you appreciate the effect licensing and registration might have. It might be ALL that is necessary to significantly reduce gun violence over time. If I was a gun control advocate, I would trade a national CCW for national licensing and gun registry. Of course we have a gun violence problem and I think this would go a long way to fixing it without ill conceived ineffective bans.
It depends. Range time is free, ammo is free and yet a lot of cops still don’t spend a lot of time at the range. And frankly, half the ones that DO spend a LOT of time at the range might strike you as the ones that wouldn’t pass you psych eval, everyone else wants to catch happy hour or spend time with their kids.
NYPD only requires their cops to fire 150 rounds a year at the range (they have other training kinda like a firearms obstacle course). I fire at least 100 rounds a month.
When you make argument by anecdote then you also have to accept the anecdotal cases of young boys fighting off home invaders with their dad’s AR-15, don’t you?
You do realize that the guy at Sandy Hook had other guns, right? And yes, new guns laws affect the law abiding first and only affect criminals as a long term by product.
I don’t want to make the “automobiles are dangerous too” analogy because cars obviously have uses that might justify all the deaths so lets find something noone NEEDS but comes with a whole lot of externalities.
Alcohol.
Cigarrettes.
Sports cars.
Trampolines.
etc.
I bet more bystanders die from alcohol than guns.
Some people think more bystanders die from cigarrettes than guns.
Heck, I bet there’s a bunch of stuff that serves no real societal benefit and yet we don’t ban them. Why the focus on guns again?
I think you are mistaking how law affect the law abiding and how they affect criminals.
Thats a good point. How did you feel about the partial birth abortion ban? Stupid right? :smack: I don’t see the AWB being any more effective in achieving the goal people think its going to achieve.
Depends on your situation. Time can be of the essence if you are being stalked or something but I’m not sure why that matters.
Those words at the beginning of the second amendment don’t mean what you think they mean. If you want to learn about the second amendment and come back to discuss it then fine but understanding the second amendment takes more than just looking at the word “regulated” and declaring victory. And remind me again where the constitution mentions abortions?
I know that you aren’t as familiar with firearms as some but the difference between semi-automatic and automatic is HUMONGOUS. I only bring that up because if you make that mistake in an IRL conversation, you will immediately lose all credibility and noone will care what you think. Automatic weapons are ALREADY banned (in the sense that you can’t buy one new) and highly regulated (you have to register with the ATF and it takes months to get approved to own one. You also go through a very thorough background check.
Where did I say that?
Where did I say that?
I think I’ve been a pretty staunch advocate for universal licensing and registration to reduce the flow of guns into criminal hands and to make sure people who own guns know how to them.
But I think the second amendment gives states the right to arm their citizens at the very least with the common soldier’s firearm.
You know why AR-15s are so popular? They’re are not the best semi-automatic “battle rifle” out there. AK-47s are frequently considered better guns. The ballistics are considerably better and unless you are shooting something several football fields away, the accuracy is comparable, the ammunition is significantly cheaper (heck the GUNS are significantly cheaper), they are more durable and dependable. And yet, the AR-15 is more popular. You know why? Because a lot of people in the military already know their way around the AR-15 and feel comfortable with them. A lot of today’s hunting rifles are civilian versions of military rifles (sometimes sniper rifles). The most popular handguns are based on military handguns or handguns used by law enforcement.
:rolleyes: Isn’t there something in the middle you are excluding?
Yeah, let the NRA (overseen by the civil rights division of the DOJ) run the psych tests. You OK with that? Now, about the 50 million current gun owners and their 50 million household members. When were you going to give them all a psych evaluation?
I agree that the INDIVUDAL right does not protect the right to AR-15s but I think the state right does. So if California wants to ban AR-15s and the federal government agrees then so be it. But if Georgia wants AR-15s and the federal government tries to ban it, then i think you have a constitutional problem.
As for the legitimate use of an AR-15 I will once again refer you to the LA riots. When you are without rule of law, having an AR-15 is handy.
And where does ANYONE argue for free unrestricted access to firearms? Whether you like it or not, there is a constitutional right to bear arms and the constitutional tests place the burden on those who would limit those rights to justify that limitation.
Yes, I meant ineffective. But, I can ignore unconstitutional laws (of course I am taking the chance that I am wrong about the constitutionality).
Now you are talking about more than voter ID.
Yes, gun rights are not voting rights. So what? None of the voter ID laws were designed to limit anyone’s access to guns. Now, I don’t think any right is as important as the right to vote but I wanted to take an example where conservatives try to address a problem by attacking it in the least effective manner possible because it helps them achieve some OTHER objective.
In this case, I think licensing and registration would be infinitely more effective than an AWB but gun control advocates are pursuing an AWB because it will help them achieve their goal of getting rid of all the guns. If they really thought banning would be effective, then they would focus on handguns but they don’t.
Charging for a voter ID would make them unconstitutional. Its called a poll tax.
I’m not trying to apologize for the Republicans. I’m trying to shame you by pointing your similarities. I think Reid should have shoved some shit down their throats because it is clear as day to me that if the Republicans had taken over in 2012, they would have shit down’ Reid’s throat and gotten rid of the filibuster entirely.
What does a waiting period do other than make me burn gas to go back to pick up the gun? And if you know you can’t get an AWB passed (primarily because its so fucking retarded), why spend so much political capital on it without even bringing up the licensing and registration (so you can give up the AWB for the licensing and registration). Its stupid, illogical and does our country a disservice.
Let me be entirely clear. Its not that I would tolerate a licensing and registration requirement. I would ADVOCATE for it. I think it would make us all safer and perhaps in THAT environment you can swing some more restrictions.
The first one curtailed our rights too, but back then, in the absence of information about the effect of weapons bans, we just kind of went along. It is the fact that the first one was ineffective that a second one would be unconstitutional.
And when I say ineffective, I don’t just mean that it was incredibly easy to circumvent the cosmetic prohibitions in the act I also mean that it had no discernable effect on gun violence.
I’m not expressing my opinion here. I am presenting facts. A law that reduces my right to something is curtailing it, that’s not an opinion, that is the definition of curtailing or infringing if you prefer. When your justification for that infringement proves to be false (no discernable change in gun violence results from an AWB) and you do not present an alternative justification then you have no legitimate state purpose. You effectively want to ban these weapons just to ban them.
What the Republican did was not voter fraud. It was voter suppression and other violations of voting rights. FAR more serious than some penny ante voter fraud. Once again, I am not apologizing for Republicans, I am comparing you to them and in the process hoping to shame you into using logic and rationality.
Universal gun licensing and gun registration.
You cannot buy own or fire a gun unless you are licensed. Licensing involves a background check, passing a written exam and passing a practical exam where you show you can safely operate gun. Every gun in the country must be registered and if you transfer your gun to anyone else, you must change the registration on the gun, (this can be done at any gun dealer, the DMV, the post office, a police station, etc.). The government keeps a confidential record of gun ownership and the penalty for disclosure is at least as severe as the penalty for disclosing tax information or classified information. The license allows you to own a gun in ANY state and allows you to carry concealed in ANY state (subject to the normal rules against carrying in places where the owner restricts guns, government buildings, and other places where concealed carry are traditionally not allowed unless explicitly permitted (like churches)).
How would you know. Magazines don’t have serial numbers like guns do.
I was just pointing out that congress doesn’t have plenary power in this arena. I don’t think an AWB has a snowballs chance in hell because its fucking retarded. I also think that if the states refuse to enforce an AWB took the federal government to court over this, the federal government would lose.
I think you can have an opinion on gun violence especially when it clear that we have a gun violence problem. You’re opinion about the importance of reducing that violence against the importance of preserving a Constitutional right are just as valid as mine. I’m not a gun expert and it wouldn’t take you very long to know at least as much as me about guns if you owned a few. I’m just saying that when you talk about how dangerous guns are and conflate machine guns with guns that are mechanically indistinguishable from some hunting rifles, you demonstrate that you are forming your opinion on inaccurate information. Having the right information might not change your mind at all but there are a LOT of people who want to keep semi-automatic rifles but would never want to see machine guns widely available.
Actually, didn’t she already say this as part of her argument to ban assault weapons (and I think the number of deaths was over 300 and the injuries was over 400)?
Yes she did, I was hoping Yog would take the bait since he was looking for an unbiased source. She is far from being unbiased, so rather than take her at her word, and admitting that his much hated AR-15 really isn’t a problem, I expected some sort of appeal to emotion fallacy from Yog.
That’s semantics. The authority vested in the governmental body allows it to do certain things, one of which is guaranteed in the Constitution, spelling out what powers the government has. It can change surely as you can amend the rights people receive, but in practical matters there’s no difference. However, just to get past this, I’ll concede to your definition
I said that? :dubious:
Hypocrisy is determined by your actions, I see you trying to do one thing by debating the merits of your position and probably trying to change my mind, but not being open to the same. How do I take that? Suppose I tell you that nothing you say can change my mind, how do you respond? I’ll take back the dishonest comment, as I was assuming you came into this with the same purpose I did: to convince the other person while being open to change in your own position.
If you are not basing your beliefs on evidence and reasoning, then, seriously question, why would anyone bother to talk to you about this topic? And secondly, why shouldn’t you base your beliefs on science and evidence?
Alright, I will accept your answer as the only one you are giving
I do believe that is a good compromise, and I would support that although it would not go as far as I would like. Realistically, I don’t even think in this country we can get that, so I must take a pragmatic approach and get what I can get.
From what I understand of the 2nd link, the plaintiff sued to try and establish some constitutional right of protection of “property”, which was struck down in a majority opinion by Scalia. I would agree with him that this does not meet the traditional definition of property. Also, the article doesn’t state what a “constitutional” right of protection means, if its any more legitimate than simply saying you have to do your job but not enshrining that into the Constitution. Its confusing. Plus, it says that the police have discretion in how they proceed, which I believe is a good thing, as we can have just as many non-arrests as what happened here compared to zealous prosecutions in which the police have to arrest you, even if you’re a 10 year old child who went “bang bang”. Its a double edged sword, but one I believe is proper. As for the first link, I agree, and I don’t think I’ve ever made any statements to the contrary, that no one has to be compelled to die for anyone else, but that is outside the topic at hand.
This particular issue is about accountability and responsibility, which you likened to a job that you had to do and must have the best possible tools in order to do it. I pointed out that your definition of job isn’t what you think it means, and that lead to this discussion which I believe has gone off the tracks. I would ask you so what if the police don’t have compelling duty to protect you or throw themselves in harms way for you? I don’t expect that of any person. That doesn’t mean in the vast majority of the time, the police is there for your protection, and owing to the nature of their jobs, if they’re not doing it, then they better have a damn good reason. Each officer likely has a sergeant or a captain to answer to, or a commissioner, and the public. You do not. I don’t believe that just because they don’t have to throw themselves in front of a bullet for you, that gives you the right to own bombs, or insinuate that police are just out for themselves. I think they do a pretty good job for the most part, are in harm’s way a lot more than you, and the instances in which they are unable or unwilling to do their jobs are outliers and should be treated as such and that it does NOT give you a justification to own any type of weapon you want with no restrictions.
I think simply that they have qualified immunity isn’t the be all, end all of police accountability. They have to do plenty of paperwork if shots are fired, and their jobs can be threatened and they can be disciplined in a way you cannot. If a policeman decides to even wear his uniform and represent some special interest group, he can be disciplined. If he takes out his service gun and shoots some empty cans, he can be disciplined on the discretion of his superiors. As an ordinary citizen, you have different, maybe not more, maybe not less, accountability. Unless you’re breaking the law, you can’t be held accountable. But if the police break internal rules, they can be. Qualified immunity only applies to certain things that happen, it doesn’t mean that if a police neglects his duties, drives across the state and decides to attend Mardi Gras in uniform and fire his guns into the air, he is treated just like you, who can probably do that though I’m not sure about the guns in the air thing. They have different protections, but you do as well.
Lots of things are permissible while being impossible to do practically. Within our framework of the Constitution, we can repeal the 2nd Amendment and force everyone to own actual Bear arms, like from a grizzly bear. But somehow you feel any framework that allows a restriction on arms must seemingly lead to something greater and more restrictive. This is an example of an argument I cannot respond to, as I have no control or knowledge of the future. I only ask that you please confine your response to the present and ignore what might happen for what would be a good law now. I don’t think it would be narrow, like I mentioned before, nor would such a singular decrease in gun availability be the target (singular decreasing referring to an unjust restriction).
I agree with it because I neither have the time nor the effort to exert researching all types of guns that exist and how to deal with every single one. I trust the people who crafted the legislation knows more about it than me, but mostly I believe that Need is a criteria that should be looked at.
What state do you live in? I find that characterization highly unusual, given the gun laws that have been struck down in recent years. Even DC lost their case. And you can certainly have too much freedom. Too much freedom is anarchy and is good for only the person, ironically, with the biggest and most guns. In order to have a working society, we need rules that limit freedom so you can’t force children to labor in a factory full of smoke for 12 hours for pennies a day, and laws that says you can’t kill anyone who looks at you cockeyed
I’m simply being honest with what I see as the situation. And no, that’s not my idea of a compromise, though I think it would be reasonable. I know that pro gun people have the upper hand and in order to get anything done, us gun control people have to acknowledge that reality. I accept that as the norm, but nowhere do I give up my right to lament that sad state of reality. I think pro gun people like to do what you did, which is to take what we gun controllers feel as should be the ideal, and whip up emotions based on something that’s not happening.
Hand guns are not going to be banned, ever. Nobody’s going door to door to take your guns. You will always have a means to protect yourself with some type of firearm. The 2nd Amendment will never be repealed. Given those realities, you need not be afraid or upset at compromising, nor do you need to beat the dead horse that our side is on the losing end.
Well at least that’s a start. So far in gun topics most people operate on the assumption that those on the pro gun side give realistic scenarios. I choose not to, partly because I don’t believe things are that dire, and partly because pro gun Congressmen have blocked any studies into guns for years. All I know is banning something will have a noticeable effect on it. I think Prohibition was the outlier, that in general, bans tend to decrease the item or behavior affected. With guns, you can’t grow it, most people can’t make it, you can’t hide it in your rectum, and even if you could create pieces of it like prisoners sometimes do, you’re left with something that is far weaker than a real gun. I choose to believe my scenario is more likely because people in general are stupid, and banning something like guns would have an effect on its supply. But we have to do it for more than just 10 years. The more guns we have in the country, the longer it needs to be restricted
I can speak to your needs much more than I can speak to the technical details of a gun. I don’t think you need more than a handgun or shotgun to exercise your right to defend yourself
Considering that the AWB is her brainchild, I would say that even if she said it, the context was still in favor of banning assault weapons. You’d have to provide a link to why she said that
Hyperbole doesn’t help your case, though you can certainly try
I believe its the same reason why Republicans gave the gun manufacturer industry blanket lawsuit protection. It was because THEY weren’t too objective. And if objectiveness is your reasoning, why not ban studies about how abstinence reduces sex among kids, or pro-life campaigns reduce abortions? The fact that they felt a need to shield the gun industry is far less objective than competing studies. Plus, banning such studies means that no objective study can ever be done, which destroys any point of having the debate if no information can be obtained except by the NRA. So no, until the CDC or Obama administration comes out with a comprehensive study on gun violence, I am not going to pretend that the NRA or its affiliates have any credible information
Does it make me a bad person if I say yes, or does it make you a bad person to admit that it takes the death of 20 children just to even bring up the topic? I tend to place the blame on those who think that the death of children is nothing more than a statistic that requires no action on our part. I guess I’m different from you in that I want to prevent the next massacre from happening rather than ignoring it and thinking it makes us more free
Is that your way of saying yes? Yeah, I think that makes you a bad person. FTR I’ve been against “gun free zones” since long before Sandy Hook.
You can take it however you like, perhaps that I am sure that my position is correct and yours is incorrect, but unless you are using the word hypocrisy in a non-standard way, it does not mean what you think it means.
Do you believe questions of ethics and morality are rooted in science with evidence to gather and hypothesis to test? That is not to say that evidence of the efficacy of widespread gun ownership is not in my favor, however heretofore I have not made that claim since it is not germane to this thread. The establishment and exercise of fundamental rights is a question of morality and ethics, not science.
Your original position was that police are held to higher standards of accountability than an ordinary citizen and therefore ordinary citizens should be afforded less freedom with regard to firearms possession. Ordinary citizens face massive criminal and civil penalties should they ever use their firearm. The protections that police enjoy in using their firearms greatly surpass that of an ordinary citizen. Your rationale that police are held to higher standards of accountability is not based in reality.
Then we have a fundamental disagreement in the role of government and what criteria should be used to craft laws.
I live in CA. Open carry is prohibited, and sheriffs in the most populated counties will not issue permits to anyone that is not politically connected, a celebrity, or someone who donates large amounts of money to the sheriff’s re-election funds. And yes while Heller and McDonald did lay the groundwork for changing the existing landscape, they did not directly overturn any of the number of anti-gun laws that have been passed in CA over the years. CA has no functional equivalent of the 2nd amendment in its state constitution so any gun rights were subject to legislative whim. Each of these anti-gun laws, like banning a tan two tone tan color pistol but allowing the black color pistol, or not allowing more than one pistol purchase within a 30 day period, or maintaining the current assault weapon ban based on cosmetics, will have to be litigated individually in CA unless there is a 9th circuit or SCOTUS decision overturning something. This is a case where your ignorance of existing laws weakens your position. Your claim that I enjoy too much gun freedom is laughable.
I agree, though I think your ability to speak to either is zero. Ask the people who defended their stores during the Rodney King riots in LA if they needed rifles. Rifles which are more accurate at distance and had greater magazine capacity facing hundreds of looters.
Police use standard capacity magazines for their pistols (17+) and routinely deploy AR-15 pattern rifles with 30 round mags. The efficacy of those magazines and rifles is a given.
I moved this part of your response to the top, because I figured it would do more good if you read my response to this first rather than near the end. But I think you have great ideas here and I would be totally supportive of this and abandon my support of the AWB and my desire to see restrictions on concealed carry in my response to Bone. We have a lot in common. However, I see this as almost a fairy tale, it will never happen because of political opposition. Democrats can debate whether parts of your proposed laws are good or needs tweaking, but Republicans in general will all be lined up against it. Partly because they are a traitorous, evil lot, and know such regulations would be more effective than an AWB that they can poke hole in. I think they are playing a game, they know something must pass after Sandy Hook, but they don’t want effective legislation, they want something like the AWB in which the banned weapons have similar alternatives. So keep that in mind as you read the rest of my responses to you please.
How about we limit all legal guns to that, and make it illegal to own, sale, or manufacture any other type for regular citizens?
The point of me asking for that from** JXJohns** is both because I know less about guns than him, and if he have a specific objection to a type of gun or a capability of a gun, we can discuss why or why not it should be restricted. Since he objected to some of the provisions of the ban because I didn’t know enough, and I will never know enough, then I thought perhaps he’d like to air his concerns over why a specific type or capability shouldn’t be restricted. But he punted on that, so whatever
We (me and Bone) weren’t talking about abuse of CCP people, we were talking about minimizing abuse of government entities of the psych tests. He thinks it would be abused and I think there would be a way to minimize it to make such a requirement manageable.
It sounds like you really believe that national licensing and registration might actually do some good. Why not support that whole-heartedly instead of doing this song and dance about how you’d only support this if us gun controllers gave up our dream of banning all firearms like that’s a serious goal?
Guns are the only thing on the list that, when used correctly, causes harm. They are the only item on that list that you can use to kill a lot of people really quickly, which is kind of the point of why I’m against guns. Other injuries and death results from misuse. Use a gun correctly and somebody’s getting shot. Sure, people might drink themselves to death but few do it as the goal. And I shouldn’t have to list all of the other functions cars have that guns don’t. I focus on guns because out of all those things, there exist many regulations (maybe not trampolines) but to even talk about regulating guns gets people all riled up. If you agree that all guns should be similarly registered like cars, able to pass regular inspections, and people have to be qualified to use it, then I would totally be up for that. But many people want guns to be on that same list but unregulated, unlicensed, able to be bought by any untrained idiot and passed around freely with no regulation. Those are the people I’m against
And I think Lumpy mistook how little criminals would be affected by laws
Its stupid because it prevents people in that position from having an abortion of which there is no alternative. The AWB allows you to have an alternative, which is precisely why I don’t think it infringes upon anyone’s rights. If there exists some class of people who are only able to own assault weapons and no other type of weapons, then I would be against the AWB
Call the police
I would disagree with your interpretation and the interpretation of others but concede that it has been ruled by courts to read the way you believe it should. However, that doesn’t mean I can’t have a desire to get it changed and I believe it should be.
Hey, I didn’t bring abortion into this, you did. You tell me why it should be relevant
No need to bring this up everytime a gun controller mentions the word “automatic”, I’ve learned through some of you guys’ posts about the difference, and about how those are regulated. However, that’s besides the point. The issue isn’t automatic vs. semi-automatic, its Need. The cop doesn’t need a bazooka (better?) for a traffic stop and neither do you need every single type of weapon in existence for you to defend yourself in most reasonable situations.
You said “Repeal the 2nd Amendment and I could be swayed” That tells me that your arguments are based not on some justification for the 2nd Amendment, but that just the existence of that law is justification enough. In a world where such an amendment doesn’t exist, you’d be where I am, arguing guns are bad, ignoring any evidence you see because there’s no law saying you can own a gun. I find that incredibly disingenuous. If that’s not how I intended to take that quoted statement, then please clarify yourself
Personally, I don’t care about the 2nd Amendment as a justification. I think justification should be made that owning guns, and all types of guns, is a good thing. The 2nd Amendment simply makes the reality one of gun proliferation but nowhere is its existence justification in and of itself.
And I commend you for your position on that
Maybe it does and maybe it doesn’t. The question is: should it?
I do, and the middle is that he is allowed to own guns but not every type in existence, even if, say, a gatling gun mounted to point at the front door increases his family’s safety by 0.001% percent. I think that as a society, we have a tradeoff between personal and public safety. I think that he should be allowed to own guns, but that things like assault weapons should be banned. He can make do with handguns and shotguns, and maybe some other type
Is that a serious answer?
I believe federal law takes precedent when they conflict with state law, though I’m sure there are exceptions when a power is delegated to the states specifically. Nevertheless, I find that to be not part of the discussion on Why but rather a discussion on justification of current laws. I don’t believe in this case Georgia should be allowed to do that
Who protected themselves with an AR-15 during the LA Riots?
Not you, but off the top of my head Lumpy, jtgain, Kable, JXJohns. If they haven’t been arguing that, then I either missed the post in which they said they’d agree with some restrictions or they have simply made it their MO to shoot down all suggested gun regulations without offering up any compromise on what restrictions they are willing to accept. Also, the NRA wants less regulations, so does many conservative pundits you see on the news. So yeah, lots of people.
Like abortion, which you brought up, losing one’s ability to exercise the vote once means your rights have been infringed. Losing the right to own one type of gun does not infringe on your right to own guns
Realistically, there’s no chance to restrict handguns to a significant degree. I’d rather they focus on what they can pass. Keep in mind that I think the AWB can have an effect, so its not just a matter of me wanting to pass a law for the sake of it
I don’t believe the similarities are apt at all, as I have explained before (whoa, 5 a’ words in a row!) ;))
First, I’m not spending political capital, the Dems are, not that I agree with all of their decisions but I’ll take what I can get. And second, so you spend some gas, so what? Maybe you’ll reconsider killing yourself or your boss given a few days to think it over. It is not unreasonable to force you to do that considering the alternatives
Are laws trying lower abortions unconstitutional because they don’t work? Abstinence education, reducing abortion clinics, making unreasonable demands of clinics are all useless to reducing abortion, are they unconstitutional too?
Besides, I think the AWB wasn’t given enough time to do its work. Plus, like you said, there are problems with it. Instead of attacking the law as unconstitutional in the first place, maybe you should help to close the loopholes that you see in it. The reason why such a law was possible was because of heinous opposition. They pro gun people want a law with loopholes so they can claim it doesn’t work. Instead of doing that, let’s just close the loopholes
Its your opinion. Does reduction of pollution curtail our rights? Does mandating that restaurants must uphold some health standard a violation? When the right protected is your ability to go about your day and not be harmed, then that’s the right you should be concerned about. Right wing fantasies (not you, but others) about taking down a government should they become uppity, or holding the fort against marauding bands of immigrants are unrealistic delusions. I believe that ultimately the AWB had some small effect, but like you said, it was full of holes that could be circumvented. Only cartoon logic states that once you try something and it doesn’t work like you hoped, you abandon it. The right course of action is to pass it again, with eliminated loopholes, for 50 years, so that we see a tangible difference. Precious few people are talking about registration and stuff like that, to your credit you do so, but once more, banning a few types of guns, like we do with bazookas, automatic weapons, bombs, etc. is NOT an infringement.
Let me ask you something, do you claim that the ban on automatic weapons is an infringement that is unconstitutional? Or the ban on bazookas? I haven’t heard much about repealing those
Yes you’re right, it is not voter fraud but voter suppression by definition. However, the basic concept is to empower certain groups of voters while disenfranchising others. Whatever name you call it, it is evil and must be stopped. I see little overlap in the two issues
That’s irrelevant. The point is that this should be the law. We can find a way to enforce it later on, and I can think of a few. But do you think that it should be illegal to modify weapons to illegal version except for LEOs? I ask you because of the nature of your response will speak to whether you have an intrinsic opposition to LEOs being able to own more effective weapons than non-LEOs. I think they should, they are, after all, law enforcement, and are sent into trouble instead of running away from it. Therefore, their job dictates that they need better weapons than you or I. I am not paranoid, I don’t think we’ll turn into a dictatorship, so I trust LEOs with more firepower.
Well from reading these responses, I’ve learned that automatic weapons are all banned due to some law decades ago, and those types of weapons are when you hold down the trigger, it keeps shooting by itself. Semi-automatics require one trigger pull for one shot, but can be shot many many times before they can reload. Is that accurate? Before talking about this, I had always thought that semi’s were guns where if you pulled the trigger it would shoot like 3 bullets or something but then you’d have to pull the trigger again. What are those called? And knowing what I know about semi’s now, it makes even more sense to me to limit magazine capacity. Sure, you can still shoot fast. But if we can’t force you to shoot slower, then you should at least be able to shoot less bullets in a row. Extreme pro gun people see ways around that, like those reloaders with multiple bullets in them, and they brag how quickly they can reload a gun. But every little thing that may cut down on speedy shooting may help, and these little restrictions might be annoying but perfectly lawful. To me, they don’t see the big picture and that’s what sad. Thank you for your response, its rare that someone acknowledges that one doesn’t have to be an expert with guns to want to curtail its violence. Too many people would see lack of knowledge as being unqualified, but if any yokel can give their minor child a gun and teach him to use it, then this yokel can at least say we should have limits.