Honest and open debate on gun control

[Liminal]

I do. I bo

I have guns that are over a hundred years old in perfect working condition. Those guns will be shooting a hundred years from now.

I have semi-automatic guns that are over 100 years old

Really! Don't tell me you have a Mondragon.

I do. I bought mine 30 years ago.

Really? That is impressive. You must be a serious collector, if it's in good condition it must be worth at least $10,000. I saw a Mondragon once at the big Reno gun show about ten years ago.
Correction, it has to be worth at least $25,000 and possibly as much as 40,000.

I paid around 5 grand for it when I first bought it. Nowadays it's worth upwards of 45k. Fifty K on a good day. What's funny is I bought it at the Shotgun News gun show at the MGM Grand which grew up to be the Big Reno Gun Show.

Your Mondragon is worth about twice as much as my whole collection.

 

[jon_berzerk]

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

BZZZT Wrong!

There is no violation of the constitution limiting the kinds of weapons that can be sold. No one has a 2A right to an ICBM. Equally so they don't have a right to fully automatic weapons because they serve no legitimate civilian purpose. Large magazines are the same. No civilian needs more than 9 rounds for "self defense".

And yes, if those are banned then criminals aren't going to be able to buy them either.

No one has a 2A right to an ICBM.

what a foolish response

No surprise that Gun Fetishists lack the cognitive ability to understand that there are legitimate limitations on the 2nd Amendment.

This is the part where you post the link to the Constitution and cite those limitations.

It can be found here in the Constitution:

'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. 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. 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.'

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA v. HELLER

The Constitution exists solely in the context of its case law, as interpreted by the Supreme Court, authorized by the doctrine of judicial review and Articles III and VI; “but that's not in the Constitution” is a failed and ignorant 'argument.'

no what is foolish and idiotic is a lefttard trying to link that anyone thinks that an ICBM might be a 2nd amendment arm

it is a straw position

 

[jon_berzerk]

BZZZT Wrong!

There is no violation of the constitution limiting the kinds of weapons that can be sold. No one has a 2A right to an ICBM. Equally so they don't have a right to fully automatic weapons because they serve no legitimate civilian purpose. Large magazines are the same. No civilian needs more than 9 rounds for "self defense".

And yes, if those are banned then criminals aren't going to be able to buy them either.

No one has a 2A right to an ICBM.

what a foolish response

No surprise that Gun Fetishists lack the cognitive ability to understand that there are legitimate limitations on the 2nd Amendment.

This is the part where you post the link to the Constitution and cite those limitations.

It can be found here in the Constitution:

'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. 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. 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.'

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA v. HELLER

The Constitution exists solely in the context of its case law, as interpreted by the Supreme Court, authorized by the doctrine of judicial review and Articles III and VI; “but that's not in the Constitution” is a failed and ignorant 'argument.'

Not anymore......it depends on what the one vote majority on the Supreme Court decides.....no matter what the law actually says....

"dangerous and unusual weapons" m-16 certainly is not unusual “in common use at the time” and an m-16 is pretty common

 

[frigidweirdo]

BZZZT Wrong!

There is no violation of the constitution limiting the kinds of weapons that can be sold. No one has a 2A right to an ICBM. Equally so they don't have a right to fully automatic weapons because they serve no legitimate civilian purpose. Large magazines are the same. No civilian needs more than 9 rounds for "self defense".

And yes, if those are banned then criminals aren't going to be able to buy them either.

No one has a 2A right to an ICBM.

what a foolish response

No surprise that Gun Fetishists lack the cognitive ability to understand that there are legitimate limitations on the 2nd Amendment.

This is the part where you post the link to the Constitution and cite those limitations.

It can be found here in the Constitution:

'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. 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. 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.'

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA v. HELLER

The Constitution exists solely in the context of its case law, as interpreted by the Supreme Court, authorized by the doctrine of judicial review and Articles III and VI; “but that's not in the Constitution” is a failed and ignorant 'argument.'

no what is foolish and idiotic is a lefttard trying to link that anyone thinks that an ICBM might be a 2nd amendment arm

it is a straw position

In the Cold War there was an arms race. This had a lot to do with ICBMs. The term "arms" can mean any weapon.

arms definition of arms in Oxford dictionary American English US

"Weapons and ammunition; armaments:"

Definition of arms Collins English Dictionary

"

1. weapons collectively See also small arms"

Definition of bear arms Collins English Dictionary

"

1. to carry weapons"

So, these common dictionaries use the term "arms" to mean weapons. And ICBM is a weapon, it is therefore arms. "The right to keep and bear arms", why would it not include ICBMs?

I mean, it DOESN'T include ICBMs and I know why. But the question is DO YOU?

 

[jon_berzerk]

No one has a 2A right to an ICBM.

what a foolish response

No surprise that Gun Fetishists lack the cognitive ability to understand that there are legitimate limitations on the 2nd Amendment.

This is the part where you post the link to the Constitution and cite those limitations.

It can be found here in the Constitution:

'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. 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. 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.'

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA v. HELLER

The Constitution exists solely in the context of its case law, as interpreted by the Supreme Court, authorized by the doctrine of judicial review and Articles III and VI; “but that's not in the Constitution” is a failed and ignorant 'argument.'

no what is foolish and idiotic is a lefttard trying to link that anyone thinks that an ICBM might be a 2nd amendment arm

it is a straw position

In the Cold War there was an arms race. This had a lot to do with ICBMs. The term "arms" can mean any weapon.

arms definition of arms in Oxford dictionary American English US

"Weapons and ammunition; armaments:"

Definition of arms Collins English Dictionary

"

1. weapons collectively See also small arms"

Definition of bear arms Collins English Dictionary

"

1. to carry weapons"

So, these common dictionaries use the term "arms" to mean weapons. And ICBM is a weapon, it is therefore arms. "The right to keep and bear arms", why would it not include ICBMs?

I mean, it DOESN'T include ICBMs and I know why. But the question is DO YOU?

explain it weirdo

 

[MikeK]

Such weapons belong in 'well regulated militias', not on the streets of America.

Although many authoritative opinions have been advanced it has never been firmly established what the Framers meant by a "well regulated militia." But it's abundantly clear that a militia would derive from the whole People, whose "right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." Thus a militia would be drawn from an armed populace.

Law abiding citizens can still hold as many sporting weapons as they please.

The word "sport" does not appear anywhere in the Second Amendment.

But weapons designed exclusively for slaughtering as many humans as possible are anathema to the purposes of the constitution.

When the Constitution was framed the muzzle-loader was the most efficient (individual's) weapon available for slaughtering as many humans as possible. The purpose of the Second Amendment was to make ordinary citizens as effective at killing as many of their human oppressors as possible, or to throw off an oppressive government -- such as they had just done. The purpose of the Second Amendment is to ensure that the American People shall remain armed and dangerous.

The constitution is not a suicide pact. It was written when weapons wear muzzle loaded, not from automatic firing systems and high capacity magazines..

Maybe it would be better if more efficient firearms were never developed. But they were. And because they were it makes no sense for the ordinary, law-abiding citizen to remain armed with the modern equivalent of muzzle-loaders when he could be confronted with efficient auto-loading firearms.

 

[MikeK]

Define "Well Regulated".

That is easier to do if we substitute the words organized and trained for the word, regulated," which was a component of a seventeenth century vocabulary. Just keep in mind that the Second Amendment protects the People's right to "keep and bear," not the militia's, and it's easier to understand.

 

[MikeK]

[QUOTE="Derideo_Te, post: 11665367, member: 42916"
The founding fathers passed gun registration shortly after the nation was established.

But there doesn't need to be any gun registration if you reintroduce the draft.

Then you have everyone registered and you have their fingerprints and DNA on file. You can do mental evaluations and have them repeated every 2 years.

The draft will eliminate many of the firearm accidents since there will be a consistent level of training nationwide.

The draft will also provide a recruiting tool for the military and other agencies.[/QUOTE]
Suspending the draft was a bad move. Restoring it will have a constructive effect in many ways.

 

[MikeK]

How about we don't let violent criminals out of jail unless they have been cleared to rejoin society as a first class citizen that is allowed to have guns. [...]

Cleared by what process? And by whose determination?

 

[PratchettFan]

228 posts, no sound responses.
Impressive.

Face it. You don't want "an open and honest debate". Each and every suggestion made has been rejected out of hand by you as either 'argument based in emotion' or totally unworkable. You have utterly failed to proffer any solution to the gun violence problem we are saddled with in this nation. Rather, you simply reinforce your love and devotion to the culture of the gun.

What you fail to realize is, while your personal experiences with guns might be, how should I describe this...'pleasurable', too many American families and communities have suffered under the terror wrought by guns and are fed to the gills with frustration over the intractable positions taken by the gun lobby and their devoted minions.

So I challenge you. Give us what you think are answers to your own OP. Otherwise, we have all been educated in your circular logic and inflexible mindset.

The reaction to the recent mass murder in South Carolina morphed into a debate about the Confederate flag because Democrats lack the intestinal fortitude to directly address gun control. Democrat politicians seem to have learned that Second Amendment issues cut across party lines.

And yet when a mad man with ready access to a gun designed for warfare not sport walked int a Connecticut elementary school, the debate was all about back ground checks.

Until the NRA and their hordes of loyal minions stopped that common sense measure.

Thanks, Republicans for the ostrich reaction. Stick your head in a hole and the problem goes away.

Okay genius.....he murdered to get the gun.....and how would the background check, which he didn't go through stop him....and the shooter in Santa barbara, got three guns with 3 different background checks, no AR-15, and used 10 round magazines........

I notice you didn't explain the mechanics of any of your gun control laws that you support.....

Also...in Europe they have extreme gun control......all guns are inaccessible to law abiding citizens.....and 3 terrorists, 2 on government terrorist watch lists, 1 a convicted felon, easily got fully automatic rifles, with 30 round magazines, the same for the gang members in Marseille, France who used fully automatic rifles to shoot up a neighborhood just before the French Prime minister was supposed to speak about crime there....dittos, Denmark, Sweden and Belgium....all fully automatic rifles in Countries with gun control laws far more extreme than ours....

And they got fully automatic rifles easily....

So how do you propose that our gun laws would be any better? Please explain?

Grand fears of terrorism aside, consider the conveinence store clerk shot in a hold up or the drive by shooting on the MLK or the kids caught in crossfire or the kid who finds his Dad's gun and blows herself away.

The gun culture excuses or ignores the everyday crimes while telling the world that mass shootings are unavoidable and the world had better just get used to them because THEIR guns are too precious.

Selfishness coupled with willful ignorance is a dangerous condition.

Shooting clerks, drive by shootings, etc. are crimes. Making them crimes did not stop the people from committing them. A child getting her hands on her parent's guns is irresponsibility on the part of the parents. The same could be said for leaving rat poison under the sink where the kid can get at it. I have done none of those things and you are proposing limiting my rights. Before you are getting my agreement on that you are going to have to clearly show that the limitations you are proposing are actually going to accomplish something. That is the consistent failure demonstrated here. Lot's of suggestions for limitations, but not even an attempt to show any of those limitations will do anything at all to accomplish a goal. Hell, aside from limiting access to guns, I haven't even seen a goal expressed. So go back to the beginning and a) tell us what it is you want to accomplish and b) how your suggestions will accomplish it.

 

[Nosmo King]

Define "Well Regulated".

That is easier to do if we substitute the words organized and trained for the word, regulated," which was a component of a seventeenth century vocabulary. Just keep in mind that the Second Amendment protects the People's right to "keep and bear," not the militia's, and it's easier to understand.

If we are relegated to regard the 2nd amendment in 18th century terms, we should remember the state of weapon technology during the 18th century.

 

[WinterBorn]

Define "Well Regulated".

That is easier to do if we substitute the words organized and trained for the word, regulated," which was a component of a seventeenth century vocabulary. Just keep in mind that the Second Amendment protects the People's right to "keep and bear," not the militia's, and it's easier to understand.

If we are relegated to regard the 2nd amendment in 18th century terms, we should remember the state of weapon technology during the 18th century.

I have no problem with our remembering the state of weapon technology during the 18th century.

The citizens were armed with the same weapons that the finest armies in the world carried.

 

[Ame®icano]

I have no problem with our remembering the state of weapon technology during the 18th century.

The citizens were armed with the same weapons that the finest armies in the world carried.

And it should stay that way.

 

[Derideo_Te]

Define "Well Regulated".

That is easier to do if we substitute the words organized and trained for the word, regulated," which was a component of a seventeenth century vocabulary. Just keep in mind that the Second Amendment protects the People's right to "keep and bear," not the militia's, and it's easier to understand.

If we are relegated to regard the 2nd amendment in 18th century terms, we should remember the state of weapon technology during the 18th century.

I have no problem with our remembering the state of weapon technology during the 18th century.

The citizens were armed with the same weapons that the finest armies in the world carried.

The finest armies had rockets, mortar bombs and ships of the line with cannons.

How many citizens had those weapons?

 

[WinterBorn]

Define "Well Regulated".

That is easier to do if we substitute the words organized and trained for the word, regulated," which was a component of a seventeenth century vocabulary. Just keep in mind that the Second Amendment protects the People's right to "keep and bear," not the militia's, and it's easier to understand.

If we are relegated to regard the 2nd amendment in 18th century terms, we should remember the state of weapon technology during the 18th century.

I have no problem with our remembering the state of weapon technology during the 18th century.

The citizens were armed with the same weapons that the finest armies in the world carried.

The finest armies had rockets, mortar bombs and ships of the line with cannons.

How many citizens had those weapons?

My mistake, I should have said "The citizens had the same rifles that the finest armies in the world carried".

 

[PratchettFan]

Define "Well Regulated".

That is easier to do if we substitute the words organized and trained for the word, regulated," which was a component of a seventeenth century vocabulary. Just keep in mind that the Second Amendment protects the People's right to "keep and bear," not the militia's, and it's easier to understand.

If we are relegated to regard the 2nd amendment in 18th century terms, we should remember the state of weapon technology during the 18th century.

I have no problem with our remembering the state of weapon technology during the 18th century.

The citizens were armed with the same weapons that the finest armies in the world carried.

The finest armies had rockets, mortar bombs and ships of the line with cannons.

How many citizens had those weapons?

Any who could afford them.

 

[frigidweirdo]

No surprise that Gun Fetishists lack the cognitive ability to understand that there are legitimate limitations on the 2nd Amendment.

This is the part where you post the link to the Constitution and cite those limitations.

It can be found here in the Constitution:

'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. 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. 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.'

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA v. HELLER

The Constitution exists solely in the context of its case law, as interpreted by the Supreme Court, authorized by the doctrine of judicial review and Articles III and VI; “but that's not in the Constitution” is a failed and ignorant 'argument.'

no what is foolish and idiotic is a lefttard trying to link that anyone thinks that an ICBM might be a 2nd amendment arm

it is a straw position

In the Cold War there was an arms race. This had a lot to do with ICBMs. The term "arms" can mean any weapon.

arms definition of arms in Oxford dictionary American English US

"Weapons and ammunition; armaments:"

Definition of arms Collins English Dictionary

"

1. weapons collectively See also small arms"

Definition of bear arms Collins English Dictionary

"

1. to carry weapons"

So, these common dictionaries use the term "arms" to mean weapons. And ICBM is a weapon, it is therefore arms. "The right to keep and bear arms", why would it not include ICBMs?

I mean, it DOESN'T include ICBMs and I know why. But the question is DO YOU?

explain it weirdo

The issue with the 2A is that it is about the Militia. I've already written a post on this, unanswered, which I assume means that no one has the desire to contradict what I said.

The first words of the Amendment are "A well regulated militia" because this is what it's all about.

The militia needs two things in order to function properly. It needs guns and it need people to fight with those guns.

All that the 2A does is stops the US govt (and now the states) from stopping individuals from having guns that would be useful for the militia, and it stops the US govt (and now the states) from stopping individuals from being in the militia.

The second part was easy. They simply wrote the Dick Act which said most adults are in the militia. The unorganised militia. But most males can't complain they're not in the militia, because they actually are.

So, the first part, about guns. What guns can be had? Well first we need to look at what the US govt can and can't do.

The US govt CAN ban guns for certain reasons, like they're not safe, for example. So, if a gun were to explode and kill the user every time it was used, the feds could ban it, close down the company that made it etc etc.

What is not protected then? This moves away from what the feds can and can't do, to what protection an individual may have (ie, there might not be protection from the 2A but the feds might also not have the power to stop someone from having a gun).
Not all weapons are protected. Only those weapons which are considered "normal" militia weapons. Ie, what guns is is normal for a US citizen to have in their home and with which they would use if they happened to bear arms in the militia. So we're talking modern weaponry, that's an important part, modern weaponry is a must for being protected. An antique firearm is NOT protected by the 2A (doesn't mean the feds can stop you having it though, that's a different issue), mostly we're talking handguns.

Nukes are not normal for individuals to own, also, they're dangerous even if not used. Hence why they're not protected. Tanks, fighter aircraft, SAMs etc are not normal for people to keep at home either. The fact that they could be used for mass killing is also a factor.

Where the line gets close is when you get to larger guns. Clearly some larger guns are "normal" as they are used for hunting etc. However an automatic rifle, is it "normal" for a hunter to have one? Is it "normal" for a person who wants to defend themselves to have one?

Not really. So it probably doesn't come under the term "normal". But then again this all comes down to interpretation.

It's clear what is and what isn't to a certain extent, but gets blurred at a point too.

 

[M14 Shooter]

It can be found here in the Constitution:
'Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited....

The fact that it is not unlimited in no way means that any given limitation is constitutional.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Define "Well Regulated".

That is easier to do if we substitute the words organized and trained for the word, regulated," which was a component of a seventeenth century vocabulary. Just keep in mind that the Second Amendment protects the People's right to "keep and bear," not the militia's, and it's easier to understand.

If we are relegated to regard the 2nd amendment in 18th century terms, we should remember the state of weapon technology during the 18th century.

I have no problem with our remembering the state of weapon technology during the 18th century.
The citizens were armed with the same weapons that the finest armies in the world carried.

Sometimes better.

 

[M14 Shooter]

300 posts, no sound responses..