Honest and open debate on gun control

[Ame®icano]

Are you complaining or bragging about the notorious terrorist record of White American Conservatives?

Do you, by any chance, have any proof of what you just said? We both know you pulled that out of your ass.
Now, have you clicked on the link and find out what the study is actually about? Based on your reply, you haven't. This study doesn't state that anywhere. However, as typical liberal, you had to shitpost something, regardless of knowing it's a lie. This thread calls for an open and honest debate. Why are you here?

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

"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.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

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.

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

Discussing the merits of these provisions is appropriate and warranted, and one is at liberty to disagree with these rulings by the courts, but as a fact of law it is incorrect to refer to these measures as 'un-Constitutional.'

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

I',m all for making it harder for violent criminals from getting out of jail, but that doesn't prevent other criminals from getting guns.

The perpetrators of mass shootings seem to be, in the words of the gun lovers, "law abiding citizens" right up to the point they pull the trigger in a school or theater or church.

Keeping criminals in jail is a good point of departure. But that costs more money than most Conservatives want to spend. We already lead the world in incarceration. And mass shooting. Given that fact, If the notion of banning weapons of warcraft, not sport, is an unacceptable idea,

No, the evidence says the opposite. They are not "normal" people. They are almost all on some type of psychotropic drug or have been in some form of mental therapy, they have had run ins with the law in many cases, Klebold for instance had a felony arrest hanging over his head, in other words there should have been a way to keep these people under control but the government failed to do so.

As far as the huge number of locked up criminals, I agree with you that the majority should be released. The only people who should be in prison are violent offenders. Those who are non violent should be in work camps working off their sentences.

And yet, background checks are seen as an infringement.

Only by some. Most want them, we just don't want gun registration to be part of it.

Because registration leads to confiscation? Ridiculous! The ballistic fingerprint of each gun should be registered along with each serial number. We deserve to know whose guns are committing crimes.

You register your car. You register your boat. And yet no one has come knocking at your door to take them away unless you fail to make the payments.

Correct.

The notion that gun registration would result in 'confiscation' is ignorant and ridiculous, failing as a post hoc fallacy.

Indeed, 'gun confiscation' by government would never occur because such a measure authorizing government to do so would violate the Second, Fourth, and Fifth Amendments to the Constitution.

A 'gun confiscation' argument is unfounded, paranoid idiocy and demagoguery.

Although measures authorizing gun registration have been upheld as Constitutional, registration should nonetheless be challenged on undue burden grounds, where there is no evidence that registration prevents gun crimes, or serves a legitimate government interest to place such a restriction on the Second Amendment right. That a gun 'might' be used in the commission of a crime is does not justify the burden of registration.

 

[Politico]

Honest discussion. You can't have our guns. Discussion complete.

 

[PratchettFan]

No one has a 2A right to an ICBM.
what a foolish response

What does an anti-gun loon do when he has nothing of substance to add to the conversation?
He brings up nuclear weapons.

It proves two things. First, the argument that weapons are reserved to fight the federal government is patently ridiculous. The Feds have really really potent weaponry and holding the Fourth Armored Division with Glocks and AR-15s is just the wet dream of Rambo wannabes, not serious scholars of constitutional law.

Second, it points out the lunacy of the "no restrictions" on a citizen's right to bear arms. Citizens cannot bear all the arms in the Defense Department arsenal. No citizen can bear a thermonuclear device, an aircraft carrier or a battleship.

I don't think anyone has suggested that 2nd amendment rights are unlimited. All rights have limitations. However, if you want to limit a right then you need to do more than just say "because". So explain why the limitations you do want to apply are justified.

 

[PratchettFan]

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

First, criminals have and will always find a way to get weapons illegally. This is not just a U.S. problem this is a World problem. However, that does not mean that certain provisos would not be prudent concerning personally owed firearms in today's society.

Owning a weapon is part of the U.S. culture, instilled as a necessity to defend oneself and property from since the first arrived on the eastern seaboard to settlers traveling westward. And the U.S. was founded with the idea of having only a small peacetime military. In the 1700's it was NECESSARY for citizens to own weapons in order for states to be able to form militias. The wealthiest citizens even owned cannons, that is why many of the colonial time artillery units were referred to by a name (Hamilton's battery) vice a numerical designation and state (i.e. 5th Maine Infantry Regiment) However, times changes and so must the people that live in them. There are no absolutes in this debate. To think that an all out ban on any type weapon is idiocy. Gun proliferation within the society is too far gone. It is also idiocy and utter stupidity to void any weapons restrictions currently in place. SO........

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.

Ban fully automatic weapons (already the case in most of the U.S.) there is absolutely NO NEED for an individual to own/possess and automatic weapon.

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.

Whether I need something or not is irrelevant. You wish to limit what I can do. Explain exactly what these limitations will accomplish and why.

 

[2aguy]

No one has a 2A right to an ICBM.
what a foolish response

What does an anti-gun loon do when he has nothing of substance to add to the conversation?
He brings up nuclear weapons.

It proves two things. First, the argument that weapons are reserved to fight the federal government is patently ridiculous. The Feds have really really potent weaponry and holding the Fourth Armored Division with Glocks and AR-15s is just the wet dream of Rambo wannabes, not serious scholars of constitutional law.

Second, it points out the lunacy of the "no restrictions" on a citizen's right to bear arms. Citizens cannot bear all the arms in the Defense Department arsenal. No citizen can bear a thermonuclear device, an aircraft carrier or a battleship.

Um.....are you unaware that the Soviet Union was driven out of Afghanistan by tribesmen armed with small arms and other equipment The soviets had tanks, jets and attack helicopters.....and that in Iraq and Afganistan they fought the U.S. military to the point our political leadership just got tired and walked away and we have the most advanced military in the world...with little more than small arms and IEDs.......and yet you guys think that a well armed American Population will just submit to a murdererous U.S. government....

And besides, the whole point to an armed society is to make them decide it wouldn't be worth trying in the firs place...

 

[frigidweirdo]

Wry Catcher lamented the fact that there was no such debate (see sig) so I thought I would present everyone the same opportunity that I presented him. He ran away from this opportunity; hopefully you will show a little more honesty.

If you have a suggestion for new/additional gun control that (1) prevents criminals from getting guns and (2) does not infringe on the rights of the law-abiding. I'm all ears.
Please proceed.
Be sure to show how your suggestion meets he two points, above.

I'll have a go.

Firstly it's education. Improve education and educational opportunities for all. This doesn't mean throwing money at education. It means putting in place an educational system that teaches kids what they need to know.
So, this first means you need to know what kids need. Aim of education, producing decent adults with the skills they need to thrive in society. This would mean having some kids in technical schools which teach them the relevant education they need for whatever job it is they're going for, and more. So a future plumber would learn more than just plumbing, but things they need to be an electrician and other such jobs that are similar. Along side this useful skills like maths, critical thinking and many other such things. Also with learning about how to be a decent human being. This includes things like cooking and how to be in a relationship with someone and what to expect from such a relationship. Many divorces happen because people have the wrong attitude to marriage.

Secondly it's about improving parenting, especially in inner city areas and poorer areas. Schools should be teaching kids how to cook healthily and understand nutritional information and all of that, however parents also need to be on board. There are many ways this sort of thing could be implemented, I don't know the best ways, but this is something that needs to be looked at.

Thirdly it's about job opportunities. The govt needs to stop funding big corporations to hire people for extremely cheap labor. It's a weird US phenomenon but it does nothing to help.

Fourthly it's about helping kids through their teenage years with mental health issues. Not just teenagers, but all people.
http://bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/mhppji.pdf

"At midyear 2005 more than half of all prison and jail inmates had a mental health problem, including 705,600 inmates in State prisons, 78,800 in Federal prisons, and 479,900 in local jails. These estimates represented 56% of State prisoners, 45% of Federal prisoners, and 64% of jail inmates."

Imagine if many of these people with mental health problems hadn't committed their crimes because their mental health issues had been dealt with. Then with lower prisoner populations, and the massive spending on housing prisoners and putting them through the court system, you'd have billions of dollars to spend on treating such people.

 

[2aguy]

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

First, criminals have and will always find a way to get weapons illegally. This is not just a U.S. problem this is a World problem. However, that does not mean that certain provisos would not be prudent concerning personally owed firearms in today's society.

Owning a weapon is part of the U.S. culture, instilled as a necessity to defend oneself and property from since the first arrived on the eastern seaboard to settlers traveling westward. And the U.S. was founded with the idea of having only a small peacetime military. In the 1700's it was NECESSARY for citizens to own weapons in order for states to be able to form militias. The wealthiest citizens even owned cannons, that is why many of the colonial time artillery units were referred to by a name (Hamilton's battery) vice a numerical designation and state (i.e. 5th Maine Infantry Regiment) However, times changes and so must the people that live in them. There are no absolutes in this debate. To think that an all out ban on any type weapon is idiocy. Gun proliferation within the society is too far gone. It is also idiocy and utter stupidity to void any weapons restrictions currently in place. SO........

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.

Ban fully automatic weapons (already the case in most of the U.S.) there is absolutely NO NEED for an individual to own/possess and automatic weapon.

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.

What does a license do exactly.....No one who has ever suggested that can point out what that does to stop criminals or mass shooters? Criminals currently avoid all laws pertaining to guns, and mass shooters for the most part obey every law pertaining to guns before they commit their mass murder....or they too steal the weapons or buy them illegally....so what would licensing do exactly?

Who would pay for the course? You cannot require voters to pay a poll tax or take a literacy test since voting is a right and those are infringements on that right so requiring a fee and a test to exercise the right to bear arms would be unConstitutional as well.

 

[Dan Daly]

Wry Catcher lamented the fact that there was no such debate (see sig) so I thought I would present everyone the same opportunity that I presented him. He ran away from this opportunity; hopefully you will show a little more honesty.

If you have a suggestion for new/additional gun control that (1) prevents criminals from getting guns and (2) does not infringe on the rights of the law-abiding. I'm all ears.
Please proceed.
Be sure to show how your suggestion meets he two points, above.

This notion that one can prevent criminals from "getting guns" is the logical fallacy that all gun control laws are based upon...so either those that advocate for such laws are not the brightest bulbs on the tree, or their goal is to disarm law abiding citizens. I'll let them decide which category they fall into.

 

[2aguy]

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.

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

Discussing the merits of these provisions is appropriate and warranted, and one is at liberty to disagree with these rulings by the courts, but as a fact of law it is incorrect to refer to these measures as 'un-Constitutional.'

But they are wrong...there is no reason to keep the standard weapon the tax payers provide for their employees, the police and miltary, from the people who pay for them, the tax payers...and in fact the wide spread ownership of these arms deters government hostility and violence against the citizens.

Magazine limits are pointless and do nothing to stop criminals and mass shooters from getting them. Again, if the police and military can use standard magazines then the people who employ the police and military and pay for their equipment get to have them as well.

 

[Dan Daly]

Banning these weapons will make them prohibitively expensive and therefore out of reach for street thugs and maniacs bent on killing the innocent.

Because criminals NEVAR get anything via the black market, right?

What color is the sky in your world?

 

[2aguy]

The perpetrators of mass shootings seem to be, in the words of the gun lovers, "law abiding citizens" right up to the point they pull the trigger in a school or theater or church.

Keeping criminals in jail is a good point of departure. But that costs more money than most Conservatives want to spend. We already lead the world in incarceration. And mass shooting. Given that fact, If the notion of banning weapons of warcraft, not sport, is an unacceptable idea,

No, the evidence says the opposite. They are not "normal" people. They are almost all on some type of psychotropic drug or have been in some form of mental therapy, they have had run ins with the law in many cases, Klebold for instance had a felony arrest hanging over his head, in other words there should have been a way to keep these people under control but the government failed to do so.

As far as the huge number of locked up criminals, I agree with you that the majority should be released. The only people who should be in prison are violent offenders. Those who are non violent should be in work camps working off their sentences.

And yet, background checks are seen as an infringement.

Only by some. Most want them, we just don't want gun registration to be part of it.

Because registration leads to confiscation? Ridiculous! The ballistic fingerprint of each gun should be registered along with each serial number. We deserve to know whose guns are committing crimes.

You register your car. You register your boat. And yet no one has come knocking at your door to take them away unless you fail to make the payments.

Correct.

The notion that gun registration would result in 'confiscation' is ignorant and ridiculous, failing as a post hoc fallacy.

Indeed, 'gun confiscation' by government would never occur because such a measure authorizing government to do so would violate the Second, Fourth, and Fifth Amendments to the Constitution.

A 'gun confiscation' argument is unfounded, paranoid idiocy and demagoguery.

Although measures authorizing gun registration have been upheld as Constitutional, registration should nonetheless be challenged on undue burden grounds, where there is no evidence that registration prevents gun crimes, or serves a legitimate government interest to place such a restriction on the Second Amendment right. That a gun 'might' be used in the commission of a crime is does not justify the burden of registration.

Because registration leads to confiscation? Ridiculous!

Wiemar Germany registered guns....the 3rd Reich confiscated them.

Britain registered guns, the government then confiscated them.

Australia registered guns, then mandated a forced buy back.

various states have enacted bans on various types of firearms, which have been made easier through previous registration programs.

You are a fucking moron......

 

[Dan Daly]

Criminals doesn't show the mental ability to be armed. Hence, license (and plight) removed.

I'm sorry my friend, but that statement seems to indicate that it is you who doesn't show the mental ability to be armed...or engage in logical debate.

 

[2aguy]

No one has a 2A right to an ICBM.
what a foolish response

What does an anti-gun loon do when he has nothing of substance to add to the conversation?
He brings up nuclear weapons.

It proves two things. First, the argument that weapons are reserved to fight the federal government is patently ridiculous. The Feds have really really potent weaponry and holding the Fourth Armored Division with Glocks and AR-15s is just the wet dream of Rambo wannabes, not serious scholars of constitutional law.

Second, it points out the lunacy of the "no restrictions" on a citizen's right to bear arms. Citizens cannot bear all the arms in the Defense Department arsenal. No citizen can bear a thermonuclear device, an aircraft carrier or a battleship.

I don't think anyone has suggested that 2nd amendment rights are unlimited. All rights have limitations. However, if you want to limit a right then you need to do more than just say "because". So explain why the limitations you do want to apply are justified.

They can't...their limits do nothing to stop crimnals or mass shootings, they just keep law abiding citizens from owning guns. History has shown this over and over again.....

 

[Nosmo King]

Are you complaining or bragging about the notorious terrorist record of White American Conservatives?

Do you, by any chance, have any proof of what you just said? We both know you pulled that out of your ass.
Now, have you clicked on the link and find out what the study is actually about? Based on your reply, you haven't. This study doesn't state that anywhere. However, as typical liberal, you had to shitpost something, regardless of knowing it's a lie. This thread calls for an open and honest debate. Why are you here?

I asked a question and you demand proof. Do you speak English as a second language?

 

[LTCArmyRet]

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

First, criminals have and will always find a way to get weapons illegally. This is not just a U.S. problem this is a World problem. However, that does not mean that certain provisos would not be prudent concerning personally owed firearms in today's society.

Owning a weapon is part of the U.S. culture, instilled as a necessity to defend oneself and property from since the first arrived on the eastern seaboard to settlers traveling westward. And the U.S. was founded with the idea of having only a small peacetime military. In the 1700's it was NECESSARY for citizens to own weapons in order for states to be able to form militias. The wealthiest citizens even owned cannons, that is why many of the colonial time artillery units were referred to by a name (Hamilton's battery) vice a numerical designation and state (i.e. 5th Maine Infantry Regiment) However, times changes and so must the people that live in them. There are no absolutes in this debate. To think that an all out ban on any type weapon is idiocy. Gun proliferation within the society is too far gone. It is also idiocy and utter stupidity to void any weapons restrictions currently in place. SO........

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.

Ban fully automatic weapons (already the case in most of the U.S.) there is absolutely NO NEED for an individual to own/possess and automatic weapon.

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.

Whether I need something or not is irrelevant. You wish to limit what I can do. Explain exactly what these limitations will accomplish and why.

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

You can't go hunting with it, doesn't make you any safer in defending yourself or your property (unless you consider the impeding zombie apocalypse). 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.

By licensing an individual and including the training of proper use, society as a whole is safer and any violations are more efficiently handled by the authorities.

 

[PratchettFan]

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

First, criminals have and will always find a way to get weapons illegally. This is not just a U.S. problem this is a World problem. However, that does not mean that certain provisos would not be prudent concerning personally owed firearms in today's society.

Owning a weapon is part of the U.S. culture, instilled as a necessity to defend oneself and property from since the first arrived on the eastern seaboard to settlers traveling westward. And the U.S. was founded with the idea of having only a small peacetime military. In the 1700's it was NECESSARY for citizens to own weapons in order for states to be able to form militias. The wealthiest citizens even owned cannons, that is why many of the colonial time artillery units were referred to by a name (Hamilton's battery) vice a numerical designation and state (i.e. 5th Maine Infantry Regiment) However, times changes and so must the people that live in them. There are no absolutes in this debate. To think that an all out ban on any type weapon is idiocy. Gun proliferation within the society is too far gone. It is also idiocy and utter stupidity to void any weapons restrictions currently in place. SO........

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.

Ban fully automatic weapons (already the case in most of the U.S.) there is absolutely NO NEED for an individual to own/possess and automatic weapon.

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.

Whether I need something or not is irrelevant. You wish to limit what I can do. Explain exactly what these limitations will accomplish and why.

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

You can't go hunting with it, doesn't make you any safer in defending yourself or your property (unless you consider the impeding zombie apocalypse). 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.

By licensing an individual and including the training of proper use, society as a whole is safer and any violations are more efficiently handled by the authorities.

I don't have to explain it to you. I don't have to justify it to you. Maybe I think it would be a cool lamp. I'm not the one saying my will should be imposed upon you, you want to impose your will upon me. So justify it. How would society be safer?

 

[WinterBorn]

It proves two things. First, the argument that weapons are reserved to fight the federal government is patently ridiculous. The Feds have really really potent weaponry and holding the Fourth Armored Division with Glocks and AR-15s is just the wet dream of Rambo wannabes, not serious scholars of constitutional law.

Second, it points out the lunacy of the "no restrictions" on a citizen's right to bear arms. Citizens cannot bear all the arms in the Defense Department arsenal. No citizen can bear a thermonuclear device, an aircraft carrier or a battleship.

Well said. You must be educated. Or not.

Actually there are plenty of examples of insurgents harassing militaries with superior numbers and arms, and causing havoc.