Honest and open debate on gun control

[WinterBorn]

And the Supreme Court has already validated that understanding. All the gun grabbers have now is old, failed arguments.

Generally what people think the Supreme Court said and what the Supreme Court actually said are two different things.

The US Supreme Court has repeatedly ruled that the 2nd amendment is an individual right.

 

[Ame®icano]

Requiring a license would provide the educational foundation for the proper handling, storage and permissible use of weapons. Also, in the time it takes to receive the training to obtain a license, a more thorough background check to include a mental assessment.

Who would pay for the course? who paid for your drivers education so that you could get a drivers license? Never mentioned requiring a tax. Are you?

Excellent plan, isn't it? Only thing you didn't explain and I guess it remains to figure out is, how to force criminals get thru all required steps of getting license.

 

[frigidweirdo]

The US Supreme Court has repeatedly ruled that the 2nd amendment is an individual right.

I'm wondering why you've decided to explain this right now. Was anyone saying anything about some kind of collective right? No they weren't. So......... what is your point.

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

And the Supreme Court has already validated that understanding. All the gun grabbers have now is old, failed arguments.

Generally what people think the Supreme Court said and what the Supreme Court actually said are two different things.

Let me dumb it down for your percentile of comprehension.

SUPREME COURT: Leftwats no can take away guns.

If that's still too academic I can draw a picture:

 

[frigidweirdo]

Let me dumb it down for your percentile of comprehension.

SUPREME COURT: Leftwats no can take away guns.

If that's still too academic I can draw a picture:

Whatever a "Leftwats" is. Maybe you could try speaking properly instead of putting and another thread into the pits of stupidity.

But I'll say again, most people don't understand it, and the way you're talking I'd bet you're one of those who hasn't got much of a clue.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Nah. British soldiers were the best in thew world back then - like ours, now.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Your question and subsequent responses only show your unwillingness to have an open and honest debate.

Mine?
You're joking, right?

First, criminals have and will always find a way to get weapons illegally.

Very true - it is impossible to enact a law that will prevent people from breaking the law.

However, that does not mean that certain provisos would not be prudent concerning personally owed firearms in today's society....
Require that a person be earn and be issued a firearms license in order to legally buy, own, carry, or use a weapon. Requirement would be to attend a course (much like getting a drivers license) and have to update periodically.

Earn the right to exercise a right? Why do you think this does not violate the constitution?
Obtain a license to exercise a right? Why do you think this does violate the constitution?

Ban fully automatic weapons

On what grounds? How ofen are they used illegally?

As for those that chose to not abide by the enacted laws, they must be dealt with individually and swiftly. Adding additional law/restrictions/prohibitions effectively accomplishes nothing.

And yet, you seek to add those law/restrictions/prohibitions...?

 

[M14 Shooter]

"Honest and open debate on gun control"

This can only occur if those participating acknowledge the fact that although inalienable, the Second Amendment right is not absolute, and subject to reasonable restrictions by government.

Such a debate would then address what regulatory policies are appropriate and warranted, and what policies are not – not whether or not government is authorized to enact regulations at all, as is often times the case, rendering 'debate' impossible.

Moreover, those participating must also acknowledge current Second Amendment jurisprudence, where although one may disagree with how the courts have ruled concerning a given regulatory measure, those measures are nonetheless Constitutional and not in violation of the Second Amendment.

Consequently, and unfortunately, given the usual participants in these threads and their unwillingness to abide by the above provisions, such a debate can prove only pointless and futile.

Pity, as Second Amendment jurisprudence is in its infancy, where many important topics merit discussion.

Lots of words.. No actual response.
No surprise.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Ban all weapons with semi or fully automatic firing systems. Such weapons belong in the hands of 'well regulated militias', not on the streets. Permit long barrel rifles and shotguns for sporting purposes. Permit revolvers. Ban handguns equipped with magazines holding more than nine rounds.

Violates the constitution. Fail.
Does not prevent criminals from getting guns. Fail.

And here we see the OP himself with this post demonstrate why an “honest and open debate on gun control” is impossible.

Measures prohibiting the possession of some semi-automatic firearms such as AR platform rifles have been upheld as Constitutional by the courts, such as New York's Safe Act.

Cite?

Measures limiting the magazine capacity of semi-automatic handguns have also been upheld as Constitutional, such as enacted in Colorado.

Cite?

 

[WinterBorn]

The US Supreme Court has repeatedly ruled that the 2nd amendment is an individual right.

I'm wondering why you've decided to explain this right now. Was anyone saying anything about some kind of collective right? No they weren't. So......... what is your point.

You have posted long rants about what the militia is or is not. And you posted that most people do not understand what the Supreme Court has said. I covered both with one sentence.

 

[M14 Shooter]

What is it exactly that you wish to do with an automatic weapon? Please explain.

There are any number of traditionally legal uses for a gun; an automatic weapon is suitable for use in any number of them.

You can't go hunting with it....

I hunt with an AR-15 - why can't I hunt with an M16A2?

doesn't make you any safer in defending yourself or your property

I have a semi-auto M1928 Thompson for home defense -- how is the full-auto version any less effective to that end?

The only reason for a person in our current day society would WANT an automatic weapon, is to commit such atrocities like what happened in the movie theater in Denver.

That's the ONLY reason, eh?
Explain how/why none of the legal machine guns in the US have been used for this purpose?

 

[M14 Shooter]

Requiring a license...

Licensing and registration are two sides of the same coin - a precondition to the exercise of a right not inherent to same, where law-abiding citizens are required by the state to tell the state when/how they will exercise their right before said state allows them to do so.

This is an unjustified and unwarranted infringement for which the state has no compelling need.

 

[M14 Shooter]

An effective illustration of liberal lunacy.
Well done.

 

[M14 Shooter]

And the Supreme Court has already validated that understanding. All the gun grabbers have now is old, failed arguments.

Generally what people think the Supreme Court said and what the Supreme Court actually said are two different things.

The US Supreme Court has repeatedly ruled that the 2nd amendment is an individual right.

Explicitly, as well.

 

[M14 Shooter]

The US Supreme Court has repeatedly ruled that the 2nd amendment is an individual right.

I'm wondering why you've decided to explain this right now. Was anyone saying anything about some kind of collective right? No they weren't. So......... what is your point.

You have posted long rants about what the militia is or is not. And you posted that most people do not understand what the Supreme Court has said. I covered both with one sentence.

That's because he will only lie to you, and you will not.

 

[PratchettFan]

We are now on page 20 of the thread and there still has not been a single supported reason provided. The closest thing was the statement that no one needs an automatic weapon. Not that there is anything to show having one is an issue, only that it is not needed. I don't need to wear black jeans, but I expect some argument stronger than that before I accept a law preventing me from wearing them.

This just shows that laws addressing guns do nothing to impact the actual problem - violence. The only benefit these laws provide is that they are simplistic and relatively cheap, so politicians can use them to pretend they are doing something.

 

[frigidweirdo]

You have posted long rants about what the militia is or is not. And you posted that most people do not understand what the Supreme Court has said. I covered both with one sentence.

The issue about whether the 2A is individual or collective is rather a silly one. The left make the argument because they don't understand the amendment. HOWEVER, the amendment is not simply one of "it's ind

We are now on page 20 of the thread and there still has not been a single supported reason provided. The closest thing was the statement that no one needs an automatic weapon. Not that there is anything to show having one is an issue, only that it is not needed. I don't need to wear black jeans, but I expect some argument stronger than that before I accept a law preventing me from wearing them.

This just shows that laws addressing guns do nothing to impact the actual problem - violence. The only benefit these laws provide is that they are simplistic and relatively cheap, so politicians can use them to pretend they are doing something.

You didn't read what I wrote then? No one replied to it, hardly surprising, people just stick to what they're comfortable with.

 

[M14 Shooter]

We are now on page 20 of the thread and there still has not been a single supported reason provided. The closest thing was the statement that no one needs an automatic weapon. Not that there is anything to show having one is an issue, only that it is not needed. I don't need to wear black jeans, but I expect some argument stronger than that before I accept a law preventing me from wearing them.

This just shows that laws addressing guns do nothing to impact the actual problem - violence. The only benefit these laws provide is that they are simplistic and relatively cheap, so politicians can use them to pretend they are doing something.

Specifically, none of the responses have met condition 1, and almost all of them meet condition 2.

Setting up a system where private sellers can easily and voluntarily run a background check is not a terrible idea, but does not meet condition 1.

 

[frigidweirdo]

You have posted long rants about what the militia is or is not. And you posted that most people do not understand what the Supreme Court has said. I covered both with one sentence.

The issue of whether it is collective or individual is silly. The left based their "collective right" argument on nothing, and were massively clutching at straws.

However the real issue, what I'm talking about is, what is individual?

The right to keep and bear arms.

Well, what does that mean? This is the issue. Then you have the Heller case and what they said which is often misinterpreted or just misunderstood.

"(1) The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. Pp. 2–53."

So, there's an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in the militia. This does NOT mean you can possess ANY firearm. It's a simple as that. The US govt cannot prevent you, before due process (even if they do) from being able to own firearms. That doesn't mean you can own any kind of firearm. There are regulations and certain firearms can simply be banned for various reasons.

You can use arms for traditionally lawful purposes. This means that you have the right to own the weapon, and you can use it. There's no right to use it protected in the 2A, that's not what the 2A is all about. However the govt can't stop you from using your weapon, and here's the key point "lawfully". Which is a little weird to say that you can use your gun lawfully. Of course you can, it's lawful, so you're not breaking the law.

Now, what constitutes "traditionally lawful" is about interpretation. Most people would say self defense and hunting. Carry and conceal is a dodgy one because even in English Common Law carry and conceal was not a right, so it's not really traditional.

"(a) The Amendment’s prefatory clause announces a purpose, but does not limit or expand the scope of the second part, the operative clause. The operative clause’s text and history demonstrate that it connotes an individual right to keep and bear arms. Pp. 2–22."

So it's individual, whatever "it" is.

"(d) The Second Amendment’s drafting history, while of dubious interpretive worth, reveals three state Second Amendment proposals that unequivocally referred to an individual right to bear arms. Pp. 30–32."

Great, an individual has the right to bear arms. But what does it mean? Many people believe it means the right to carry a gun, but in Presser this was not the case and that was before the 2A was a real issue. So, an individual has the right to be in the militia, is basically what it says. How many people read it like that? Very, VERY few. Even when presented with loads of evidence from George Washington, documents from the House debating the 2A and Supreme Court decisions take in the hundred years or so after the Bill of Rights were past ALL point to the right to bear arms being the right to be in the militia.

"(e) Interpretation of the Second Amendment by scholars, courts and legislators, from immediately after its ratification through the late 19th century also supports the Court’s conclusion. Pp. 32–47."

Great, support that it's an individual right. Woopie.

"(f) None of the Court’s precedents forecloses the Court’s interpretation. Neither United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U. S. 542 , nor Presser v. Illinois, 116 U. S. 252 , refutes the individual-rights interpretation. United States v. Miller, 307 U. S. 174 , does not limit the right to keep and bear arms to militia purposes, but rather limits the type of weapon to which the right applies to those used by the militia, i.e., those in common use for lawful purposes."

So, Presser, which said that parading with a gun, ie carry and not concealed, was not protected by the 2A was UPHELD by the Heller court. Hence why "bear arms" does not mean to carry a gun.

"(2) Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues."

So, carry and conceal is NOT protected by the 2A.

"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."

Again, this is NOT the right to carry.

But again, many Americans will misinterpret this.

(is this a rant in your eyes? To me this is just knowledge presented to make a point.)

 

[Liminal]

Ban all weapons with semi or fully automatic firing systems. Such weapons belong in the hands of 'well regulated militias', not on the streets. Permit long barrel rifles and shotguns for sporting purposes. Permit revolvers. Ban handguns equipped with magazines holding more than nine rounds.

The death tolls from mass shootings is directly attributable to weapons which can fire greater than nine rounds. Such weaponry was designed to be used on a battlefield, not on the street. After a few years, these bans will result in criminals no longer able to obtain such weapons.

Crack down on the manufacturers. Keep them from making commercially available weapons of war. Incentivize them by giving them tax credits for units of sporting weapons produced and fine them heavily for producing weapons of warfare for commercial sale.

Perhaps you can elaborate on how banning semi auto weapons will make them unavailable. All kinds of guns are illegal in many countries in Europe; yet just like with illegal drugs, anyone can get them if they want them. There is a huge underground gun market in Europe. Maybe you'd just like to see all the gun owners go underground so you won't know who they are. Great solution genius.