Parody becomes tragedy when it’s not just make-believe any more.
Gun control is a local issue in states that do not have the legal right of preemption. For instance, New York City does not recognize CCW permits issued by the state of New York.
In cases where preemption exists, it becomes a regional issue. Wisconsin and Illinois have no right to carry a concealed weapon and localities cannot override that no matter what they might wish to do.
I hear it’s reasonably safe to walk in Central Park now (compared with fifteen years ago). What specific changes to gun ownership laws were made in NYC when Rudy was the mayor? Do these changes conflict with 2nd Amendment rights?
Are you saying that that is your belief or the belief of liberals? We can’t just forfeit one ideal for another that even a majority agrees is more worthwhile. The Constitutional Rights of the individual trump the desires of the majority.
I support the reppeal of the 2nd Amendment. Until then, I support a strict interpretation of it and the banning of assault weapons, the production of assault weapon ammunition, the registration of handguns and as much gun control as is legally possible while still in line with the Supremes’ interpretation of the 2nd Amendment.
And I think that crossbows should be illegal in hunting. (That’s another debate.)
I don’t think that people should make generalizations about the South and gun ownership. I’ve lived in several Southern households over sixty years, but none of them with a hunter or anyone who was interested in guns. Nor should they make generalizations about what members of different groups believe.
Zoe: What’s the difference between an ‘assault weapon’ and a non-‘assault weapon’?
What is ‘assault weapon ammunition’?
Liberal/lefty here. I have nothing particular against guns (unless somebody’s pointing one at me) and do not favor draconian gun control measures. I personally would prefer to live in a culture with fewer guns and less gun violence, but I think if a significant number of Americans feel differently, their views should be respected.
However, I think that the concept of gun ownership as an individual “right” is silly and counterproductive. It made some sense back in the late 18th century when individual weapon ownership actually could have some impact on government control. At this point, though, individual gun ownership doesn’t do jack to protect individuals from the government, nor does it have any connection with the concept of a “well-regulated militia”. The only practical purpose served by the Second Amendment today is to give a few militaristic hotheads an excuse for fetishizing gun ownership, and for pretending that the mere ownership of firearms somehow counts as some kind of noble stand for liberty.
People (at least, rational law-abiding people) who like guns and want to own them are fine in my book. People who want to glorify gun ownership for its own sake, on the other hand, range from merely tiresome to downright scary. I say we keep the guns and get rid of the Second Amendment.
If you can guarantee that nobody would have access to firearms under any circumstances, I’m all for it. Fists and broadswords appeal to me, if only because I have a considerable size advantage on most people. Too bad for the weaker people, though, they’ll just have to adapt to the new realities that were purportedly adopted for their welfare.
Also, what Johnny L.A. said.
…and with this screed, I’m finished. So much for reasonable discourse, as per norm with this topic. :rolleyes:
I’m saying it’s my belief that this is the way people justify taking away a right…it’s ok if it’s for a higher good. (And, again, I’m not just pinning this on the liberals…everyone does this kind of rationalization to a certain degree over one issue or another.)
We can foreit ideals all we want…and although in principle we can’t forfeit rights, people do it by deciding that X isn’t a “right” to begin with. It’s very easy to re-define what is a right and what isn’t, in order to support an agenda…
…and this is a perfect example. Our Constitution gives us a “right” to gun ownership, and although the definition of that is apparently up for debate. You, on the other hand, want to repeal that amendment, effectively taking away ANY right to gun ownership. In this case, the desires of the majority WOULD trump Constitutional rights…meaning that you are advocating what you just said couldn’t be done.
So it wasn’t just me.
Good.
Excuse me?
I’m a Lefty. I am not anti-military, but I do object to the way they have been used recently. I’m not a vigilante or survivalist. I don’t keep a firearm for protection. Nor to ‘defend liberty’. I’m not a hothead. And yet I do enjoy shooting occasionally. My collection would probably scare the crap out of you. And yet I’m one of the most non-violent people I know. There’s no fetish. It’s just an enjoyable pastime.
Easy. One group wants the right to speak freely, and the other wants the right to shoot 'em for it.
“Screed”? What was screedy about that? I am not saying that anybody who supports the idea of gun ownership as a right is necessarily a militaristic hothead. I’m merely saying that the idea of gun ownership as a constitutional right serves no constructive purpose in today’s world, other than to juice up the militaristic hotheads.
You are certainly free to disagree with that opinion, but I’m a little surprised at your dismissive tone and eye-rolling. I didn’t think I was generally considered to be one of the more screedy types among lefties around here, or one who interferes with the conduct of reasonable discourse.
It appears that things like a bayonet lug and a large capacity magazine make it an assault weapon. It doesn’t appear to be caliber, and automatic weapons are virtually illegal due to expensive licenses. 
Here you are mistaken. Private ownership fo firearms in fact does have an impact on govt control.
Consider the costs differential of the Waco siege if there had been no firearms in the compound.
It’s quite clear that firearms increase the costs of Govt action against members of the populace. This makes other means of obtaining cooperation from the populace more efficient relatively than they otherwise would be.
This is a good thing.
I also encourage you to read up on some what been going on in Iraq the past few years. Apparently, the armed populace has been able to have a non-neglible impact on govt control with their firearms.
Which, as I said already, I’m perfectly fine with. To repeat, I am not opposed to gun ownership or to (most) people who like to own guns, or to shoot guns, or to carry guns. I simply think that considering gun ownership a constitutional right in today’s world is silly and counterproductive. It makes no more sense than considering car ownership or swimming pool ownership a constitutional right.
A bayonette lug is cosmetic. I could put one on any number of firearms and it wouldn’t make it an ‘assault weapon’. And many firearms that are clearly not ‘assault weapons’ can accept a large capacity magazine. Unless it’s capable of automatic fire, which as you point out is regulated to the point of illegality – and which is specifically illegal in many places – ‘assault weapon’ is a meaningless term. We may as well ban raggets and RIZZ-a-misers.
You can hardly criticize others (especially Kimstu) for unreasonable discourse when you’ve dropped gems like this. What do you mean by “the literature?” I can’t think of a single reasonable definition that doesn’t make this statement demonstrably false. If “the literature” is legal scholarship or Supreme Court opinions, it’s mixed–if anything, it leans on the side of making it a collective right. If the literature is primary historical documents, it’s also mixed. So what did you mean by this?
The right I respect as a lefty isn’t the right to own a gun, it’s the right to defend oneself and one’s family. And that is a fundamental right I am willing to fetishize.
I cringe when I see the view all too prevalent on some parts of the left that we should (rightly) work hard to defend the rights of accused criminals from the police and judicial system, yet at the same time ignore the rights of the potential victims of crime to defend themselves.
But that’s because they live in a failed society where the rule of law is not maintained. Sure, if you want to live in a state of multi-front civil war not far from anarchy, individual weapon ownership is very important in helping determine one’s relationship to the government. In a stable society, however, it’s not.
Fine by me. But since you yourself say that the right of self-defense in general is not the same as a right to gun ownership in particular, why derail the topic (and insinuate that I don’t care about the rights of crime victims) by introducing this into a discussion of the Second Amendment?