The War on Guns

[Airman_Doors_USAF]

@Farin

And I think “Assault Weapon” is too vague. Instead of saying “You can’t own a Corvette” you say “You can’t own sporty cars.” Well…what’s “sporty”? How will it’s definition change in 10 years? Will it gradually expand to mean you can only own a Scion xB?

Actually, the definition is luridly specific.

Incidentally, I am most assuredly not a gun-control supporter. I am also not a Second Amendment absolutist, hence my previous post.

[Kable]

@Esox_Lucius

“Abdicating responsibility”? Seriously? Your moral superiority is showing. If that’s what they’re teaching at the gun club, they should apply for religious tax exempt status. In the context of freedom, it doesn’t help your argument any. If carrying guns is a moral duty, and not carrying is a personal failing, it doesn’t sound so much like freedom any more.

More sour grapes? I understand it sucks to live in Canada if you are a gun owner, but please, stop pretending your limitations of freedoms are freedoms.

Of course carrying a gun in public is great–for the gun owner. Look at the power it gives him. I’ve noticed that this is never mentioned by gun advocates. We hear “Freedom!” and “Liberty!” ad nauseum, but we never hear “Power!”. Carrying a gun takes away a level playing field for everyone else. Whatever power he gains, I lose. Virtually every modern country recognizes that and strives to create a level playing field. The U.S. is the outlier. Your Bill of Rights could to be amended to read, "All men are created equal, but men with guns are more equal.

What about the women? Less equal, no matter what in Canada? Do you not like the term “equalizer” or have you never heard of it?

[Esox_Lucius]

@hkepotat

I’ve never carried in public, but I’ve gone hunting on several occasions and used to go to the range fairly often…

Nothing much to add, just wanted to acknowledge a well-thought out post.

My experience is quite similar to yours. I’ve hunted and gone target-shooting, and still have the .22 I got on my 13th birthday, which I used to reduce the local rabbit and gopher population in my teenage years. For whatever reason, I’ve never felt the pull of absolute power that a gun has. It was just a tool for shooting animals or testing my accuracy. The thought of having the power to shoot people never entered the picture. But I’m also addicted to tobacco, and if that were taken away, all bets might be off.

[Esox_Lucius]

@Kable

More sour grapes?

Not at all. I’m thankful to live where you can’t carry a gun. Sweet grapes indeed.

@Kable

What about the women? Less equal, no matter what in Canada? Do you not like the term “equalizer” or have you never heard of it?

What about the children? Let’s give them guns, too. They can’t be free without them.

[Farin]

@Airman_Doors_USAF

Actually, the definition is luridly specific.

Incidentally, I am most assuredly not a gun-control supporter. I am also not a Second Amendment absolutist, hence my previous post.

That was the 94 ban’s definition, but the ban on AWs isn’t consistent everywhere. California’s, for instance, is far more restrictive in what it considers an “Assault Weapon”. That’s why it’s considered “vague”. Everyone gets to define it their own way.

The Federal ban, in my opinion, was laughable because it banned what amounts to cosmetic features. For instance, why does a bayonet lug signal an assault weapon? Why does a 50 ounce handgun become an assault weapon? What will these sorts of cosmetics being banned help to prevent? Pistol whippings and stabbings from the ends of guns?

This is why I advocate for drawing a technical line. “No ammo sized over 9MM” or similar. I also advocate that any laws passed for civilians MUST include police forces and private security. If they aren’t military, they shouldn’t have access to the weapons that civilians can’t have access to.

[Kable]

@Esox_Lucius

Nope, you can’t weasel out of that. Abdicating responsibility means just that–unloading personal responsibility onto someone else. It’s a pejorative term that carries a moral judgement, and indicates a certain self-righteousness I’ve seen in some gun advocates, like they’re somehow better because they have guns. I’d take issue with you for claiming I’m abdicating my personal responsibility, but I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that you’re just mindlessly regurgitating some shit you’ve heard from other gun nuts that you haven’t taken the time and effort to think about.

“Who do you believe is responsible for your personal security and defense?” is a loaded fucking question if there ever was one. There’s only one way to answer without looking like I’ve “abdicated my responsibility”. Instead falling into that trap, I’ll tell you what I believe: I believe in my own personal safety, and my safety is threatened by assholes with guns who think they’re better than me.

In other words you are proudly abdicating your responsibility. Good show!

[Esox_Lucius]

@Damuri_Ajashi

God made men colonel colt made them equal.

Guns are a great equalizer. That doesn’t mean we all need to carry one every day but the notion that it unbalances the palying field is arguable unless only that person is allowed to carry a gun.

I’ll see your equalizer and raise you more and bigger equalizers. Now give me your wallet.

Boy, that was easy.

[hkepotat]

@Farin

And I think “Assault Weapon” is too vague. Instead of saying “You can’t own a Corvette” you say “You can’t own sporty cars.” Well…what’s “sporty”? How will it’s definition change in 10 years? Will it gradually expand to mean you can only own a Scion xB?

We do have specific criteria for what is and is not a street legal car. Similarly, the assault weapon ban named specific features of guns that would be prohibited. It was not vague, though there were loopholes to be found and exploited, allowing manufacturers to make minor cosmetic changes, which did end up making it vague. It was ineffective, as it went after the wrong end of the problem, the tool, not the user. It was also the only thing that could get passed at the time, as registration and background checks were off the table.

People use everything inappropriately. I saw a girl that would pop three or four birth control pills from a pack during a class in college. Asked her what she was doing and she said “They are mint flavored, so I like to use them to keep my breath minty.” Should we ban all birth control because there are some people that…are just plain stupid? No. A greater majority use them appropriately.

First, and possibly TMI, several days of birth control are sugar pills, to keep a regular schedule. I have heard the exact story of girls taking a bunch of the sugar pills in front of someone to mess with them. No idea if that was the case for you, but might give a slightly different perspective on your story.

It’s the same with guns. Most gun owners use them appropriately. A minority are irresponsible. I don’t forgive the people who cause deaths, but I would actually do something to address them instead of “guns”.

Then make sure that the small number of irresponsible people are not entrusted with lethal force. Have those that are responsible show their responsibility by securing their firearms properly, registering them, taking continuing classes on gun safety, and reporting any transfers including theft. There are responsible gun owners that do exactly that with no laws or regulations compelling them to do so, why not require the rest of the gun owners to follow the lead of the responsible ones?

It has a lot to do with violent crimes (All, not just guns), though. Most of the mass shooters had mental health issues. And a lot of non-mass deaths are caused by people who escalate previous violent patterns.

I certainly agree that mental health care is lacking, as is all health care in this country, but even the people who do have interactions with mental health professionals and police that should flag them as unsafe to entrust with a lethal weapon, they are still able to buy a gun.

[Esox_Lucius]

@Kable

In other words you are proudly abdicating your responsibility. Good show!

You got one thing right–those *are *other words. Well done.

[Kable]

@Esox_Lucius

What about the children? Let’s give them guns, too. They can’t be free without them.

Great dodge on the chauvinism! So you agree that without arms people are not equal?

[Esox_Lucius]

Not physically, but that’s no reason to treat them differently. Same goes for people without legs

[Farin]

@hkepotat

We do have specific criteria for what is and is not a street legal car. Similarly, the assault weapon ban named specific features of guns that would be prohibited. It was not vague, though there were loopholes to be found and exploited, allowing manufacturers to make minor cosmetic changes, which did end up making it vague. It was ineffective, as it went after the wrong end of the problem, the tool, not the user. It was also the only thing that could get passed at the time, as registration and background checks were off the table.

Okay, let me clarify:
The original Assault Weapons ban from 94 was not “vague” in what it considered an assault weapon. The term of “Assault Weapon” is vague because every legislature can define what it is against their own devices. And, as I stated, the 94 ban targeted ridiculous items that have no bearing on actually dealing death to people. So even if we went with that set of definitions, exclusively, it is a pointless law.

@hkepotat

First, and possibly TMI, several days of birth control are sugar pills, to keep a regular schedule. I have heard the exact story of girls taking a bunch of the sugar pills in front of someone to mess with them. No idea if that was the case for you, but might give a slightly different perspective on your story.

Pink versus white, my fellow poster. Pink versus white.

@hkepotat

Then make sure that the small number of irresponsible people are not entrusted with lethal force. Have those that are responsible show their responsibility by securing their firearms properly, registering them, taking continuing classes on gun safety, and reporting any transfers including theft. There are responsible gun owners that do exactly that with no laws or regulations compelling them to do so, why not require the rest of the gun owners to follow the lead of the responsible ones?

You seem to think that I haven’t repeatedly advocated for almost all of this in this thread (or, perhaps that other gun thread. Hm… Time to go post historying). My complaints are bans equal or similar to the 94 Federal AWB that do nothing but have politicians pretend they are doing something useful. Or bans that go straight into confiscation territory.

If we go back to the analogy of cars: Imagine that all cars with black paint or black interior are banned. It doesn’t do a dang thing with preventing a motor vehicle crash, but at least you don’t get killed via a black car. It would be a useless legislation that doesn’t even pretend to solve the problem.

@hkepotat

I certainly agree that mental health care is lacking, as is all health care in this country, but even the people who do have interactions with mental health professionals and police that should flag them as unsafe to entrust with a lethal weapon, they are still able to buy a gun.

Yes. And I would like that to stop. You know, pass a restriction on the mentally unstable and restrict their right to a gun (via background check “mentally stable? Y/N” flag for HIPAA concerns) instead of saying that outlawing a bayonet lug on an AR15 is somehow going to stop, prevent, or lessen someone going on a rampage.

[Kable]

@Esox_Lucius

Not physically, but that’s no reason to treat them differently. Same goes for people without legs

OK I see. Your point was that you don’t like guns because they make weak people (like women) as strong or stronger than their attackers.

[Bone]

@Bone

No that’s not a correct reading. The opinion states:

The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.

(my bold)
The opinion does not cast doubt on those restrictions. It only condones them to the extent that Heller was not concerned with any of those things so the opinion is effectively silent on them. It is not an endorsement of those restrictions.

@Damuri_Ajashi

In my experience, thats how you should read those words. Ask Bricker if you don’t believe me.

As esteemed as **Bricker **is, I’m going to go out on a limb and say his analysis of this phrase will not be authoritative (nor would mine). However, if you can point to similar language construction that has been held to support your reading, I’d love to see it. In other words, what experience is that?

Consider that in Moore vs. Madigan at the 7th circuit court of appeals:

The right to “bear” as distinct from the right to “keep” arms is unlikely to refer to the home. To speak of “bearing” arms within one’s home would at all times have been an awkward usage. A right to bear arms thus implies a right to carry a loaded gun outside the home.

So while concealed carry may be prohibited, this reading in Moore suggests that some form of carry must be permitted. Similarly, while Heller mentions some places that are sensitive in nature, this also implies that other places are not sensitive.

@Airman_Doors_USAF

No. The Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms is not infringed upon simply because the government or any state or local government chooses to ban or otherwise control certain types. Take an assault weapons ban, like the one in California. That you cannot possess an unregistered AR-15 or one with certain features does not infringe upon your right to keep and bear arms simply because you can still possess a handgun, permitted rifle, shotgun, or any other firearm as permitted by law. To extend the analogy to something else, it’s like banning Ferraris but permitting Chevrolets. Both are cars, you just can’t have a certain type. That doesn’t infringe on your right to own and operate a car.

If we continue with the Helleropinion from that same section, it states:

Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous **and **unusual weapons. Pp. 54–56.

(my bold)
This implies that arms that are in common use are protected. AR-15 platform firearms are certainly in common use, and I believe with the right legal backdrop the CA assault weapons ban would be overturned. I doubt that a federal assault weapon ban would withstand judicial review given the language in Heller. No, to bad a specific set of arms, it would have to be not in common use, and both “dangerous and unusual”. That construction is similar to “cruel and unusual”. The AND is critical. This is why it is important for gun rights advocates to acquire and use as many variety of firearms as possible, so that these arms would be common, and not unusual.

Of course, the current legal efforts by supporters of the RKBA is focused on carry. The “bear” part of the 2nd. When that is resolved, the other restrictions on the books across the many jurisdictions will be litigated as well. But the language in Heller certainly leaves much to be fleshed out, and most of it in favor of the RKBA.

@Esox_Lucius

Nope, you can’t weasel out of that. Abdicating responsibility means just that–unloading personal responsibility onto someone else. It’s a pejorative term that carries a moral judgement, and indicates a certain self-righteousness I’ve seen in some gun advocates, like they’re somehow better because they have guns.

Who is weaseling? I’m stating things as clearly as possible. If you take offense to the phrase that’s unfortunate, but it is not a moral judgement. We abdicate our responsibility all the time. For the national defense, for fire protection, environmental protection - there are many things that we can not do well on our own and we entrust others to do on our behalf. I’ve said before, carrying a firearm for personal protection is a choice. Each person makes the cost / benefit analysis and for some the calculus comes out on the side of the costs of carrying outweighing the benefit. I have no problem with this and don’t think any less of that decision. What I have a problem with is if that calculus is forced on others prohibiting them from making their own decision and carrying themselves.

“Who do you believe is responsible for your personal security and defense?” is a loaded fucking question if there ever was one.

Could you phrase the question in way you think is not loaded?

[HurricaneDitka]

@Airman_Doors_USAF

Actually, the definition is luridly specific.

When manufacturers design weapons specifically to comply with that definition, gun grabbers like Feinstein cry “foul” and say they are using “loopholes” and then try to expand the definition of “assault weapon”. The “Bullet Button” is a prime example.

[HurricaneDitka]

@hkepotat

We do have specific criteria for what is and is not a street legal car. Similarly, the assault weapon ban named specific features of guns that would be prohibited. It was not vague, though there were loopholes to be found and exploited, allowing manufacturers to make minor cosmetic changes, which did end up making it vague. It was ineffective, as it went after the wrong end of the problem, the tool, not the user. It was also the only thing that could get passed at the time, as registration and background checks were off the table.

You realize that the “specific features of guns that would be prohibited” were largely cosmetic, right? Manufacturers removed the cosmetic features to comply with the idiotic law, and then got accused of using loopholes. They didn’t use any loophole! The law (utterly irrational as it was, and we tried to tell you it was back then) said basically, “you can’t have a bayonet lug or telescoping stock on your rifle”. The industry response was essentially, “OK; that doesn’t make any sense. Bayonet lugs aren’t really a factor in how deadly the gun is, but whatever, I guess we’ll take it off then” and they did. They removed the bayonet lugs and the response from the gun control crowd was basically, “Hey, that’s not what we meant! All you did was take the bayonet lug off!” Well, duh, that’s what your stupid law required. The moral of the story: Don’t right stupid laws that ban cosmetic features.

[Bone]

CA law for assualt weapons are quite convoluted. To determine if you have an assault weapon under CA definitions, refer tothis flowchart. (pdf) So simple right?

[HurricaneDitka]

@HurricaneDitka

Don’t write stupid laws that ban cosmetic features.

ETA: Please do “right” them though. We’d appreciate that.

[Damuri_Ajashi]

@hkepotat

There are laws, sure. But there are no laws that actually give any burden of liabilty to the gun owner for being responsible with it.

So we can all agree there are plenty of gun laws out there. Just not the ones you want, right? Thats fine ebcause the ones we have right now are not the ones I want either, I’d like to repeal much of the NFA and have national licensing and registration (with no state laws).

My bad on that one, had a long rant about hunting that I realized was pretty irrelevant, deleted it and forgot I was still talking about handguns, even though I ended up linking the two statements into one. You’ll agree a bullseye at 50’ with a rifle isn’t too impressive.

OK, that makes a lot more sense. You sound like you could be a crappy shot. Thats OK, I’m a crappy shot too, we can’t all be snipers.

Still, handgun wise I can certainly hit the target at 20-25’, may not be a kill shot everytime, but certainly a more effective way to kill someone than any other legal object I can carry.

If guns took too much time and effort to get good at, people wouldn’t use them. The fact that you can shoot a dollar bill from the other side of a football field with a few hours of practice is what makes them so useful.

Handguns are a tradeoff. You lose accuracy, power, ease of use and cost efficiency for the ability to be able to have something that will dig into your lower back as you carry it around under your shirt.

@ChickenLegs

I have long suspected that this is correct. Many antis know, I think, that if push came to shove, they could neither push nor shove back, and are envious of those that can. The envy turns to hate, and rather that raising themselves up to an admirable level of behavior, they attempt to bring every one else down to theirs. If they’re gonna cower in the corner, well dammit, everyone else should too.

Same with the misuse of weapons. They don’t trust themselves not to shoot themselves, or their friends, or other innocents. So they assume you can’t be trusted either.

Nauseating, really.

I don’t think this is exactly true. I think a LOT of it has to do with a lack of familiarity with firearms.

When friends from NYC come down to visit me, I don’t take them to see the monuments or the pandas at the zoo. I take them to a gun show or the range. They act like I’m taking them to go see dragons and unicorns. They are a little bit afraid of them and “fear is the path to the dark side”

http://thinkexist.com/quotation/fear_is_the_path_to_the_dark_side-fear_leads_to/255552.html

@Esox_Lucius

It’s a pejorative term that carries a moral judgement, and indicates a certain self-righteousness I’ve seen in some gun advocates, like they’re somehow better because they have guns.

I’m not familiar with this phenomenon. Have you seen it here? Can you point to a few examples?

“Who do you believe is responsible for your personal security and defense?” is a loaded fucking question if there ever was one.

How so? Couldn’t you say “the police” You wouldn’t be the first person to do so.

Instead falling into that trap, I’ll tell you what I believe: I believe in my own personal safety, and my safety is threatened by assholes with guns who think they’re better than me.

After you show us that these people think they’re better than you, can you show us how your safety is threatened by them?

@Airman_Doors_USAF

No. The Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms is not infringed upon simply because the government or any state or local government…

@XT

Exactly. The Constitution and Amendments were never supposedly to be cast in stone, nor absolutes. …

I have seen several people on the gun ntus side of the debate denouce the more extreme arguments on the gun nut side of the debate but i have not seen quite as much of it coming from the other side. I wonder why.

@Esox_Lucius

I’ll see your equalizer and raise you more and bigger equalizers. Now give me your wallet.

Boy, that was easy.

I think the word you’re looking for is facile.

@Bone

As esteemed as **Bricker **is, I’m going to go out on a limb and say his analysis of this phrase will not be authoritative (nor would mine). However, if you can point to similar language construction that has been held to support your reading, I’d love to see it. In other words, what experience is that?

I guess I would point to the dozen or so circuit court decisions that have interpreted those words to uphold all sorts of gun regulations that have been challenged since Heller.

So while concealed carry may be prohibited, this reading in Moore suggests that some form of carry must be permitted. Similarly, while Heller mentions some places that are sensitive in nature, this also implies that other places are not sensitive.

I agree that the second amendment includes a right to bear arms. Not really sure where we are disagreeing. Are you saying that licensing and registration would be unconstitutional or that Heller had nothing to say about that?

This is why it is important for gun rights advocates to acquire and use as many variety of firearms as possible, so that these arms would be common, and not unusual.

Well, people seem to have realized that short barreled anything just doesn’t matter anymore (see bullpups) so we should get rid of the NFA restsrictions on short barreled rifles and shotguns.

I agree that the momentum of gun cases is on the side of gun rights but I beleive this is largely the result of decades of the NRA shying away from the courts and preferring to do things through lobbying. They left a lot of low hanging fruit on the tree for fear that one of them might contain a serpent.

[Bone]

@Damuri_Ajashi

I agree that the second amendment includes a right to bear arms. Not really sure where we are disagreeing. Are you saying that licensing and registration would be unconstitutional or that Heller had nothing to say about that?

Heller was silent on licensing and registration.