Which is why I said, "Yes. I support banning both of them." That's because, as I have said multiple times, I support restricting gun ownership to shotguns (and not tactical urban warfare shotguns) and bolt-action rifles.
You are literally baying at the strawman here. If I did not know what your little trick was, I would not have directly mentioned bolt action rifles.
It's actually a little hilarious. You had this whole tangent lined up, got it shot down, but you keep on going because you really wanted to have the "You know not guns!" discussion.
Your words, not mine.
What are you even talking about!
... Do you understand how questions and answers work? I asked, "We should probably ban the bottom one, right?" It's the only question in that entire comment. You answered "Yes. Yes we should." This would indicate that, to the question "We should probably ban the bottom one, right?" You answered "Yes. Yes we should.", indicating that you would indeed ban the bottom gun in that image.
Let's clarify and move on.
I would ban both of those guns. I would allow the ownership of bolt-action rifles. Neither of those two guns are bolt-action rifles.
Incidentally, I do support the ability to own a larger variety of weapons so long as they are stored with registered and regulated gun clubs. Just like Australia does.
This is what I take away from it though.
In 2006, the lack of a measurable effect from the 1996 firearms legislation was reported in the British Journal of Criminology. Using ARIMA analysis, Dr Jeanine Baker and Dr Samara McPhedran found no evidence for an impact of the laws on homicide.
Weatherburn described the Baker and McPhedran article as "reputable" and "well-conducted" and stated that the available data are insufficient to draw stronger conclusions. Weatherburn noted the importance of actively policing illegal firearm trafficking and argued that there was little evidence that the new laws had helped in this regard.
Subsequently, a study by McPhedran and Baker compared the incidence of mass shootings in Australia and New Zealand. Data were standardised to a rate per 100,000 people, to control for differences in population size between the countries and mass shootings before and after 1996/1997 were compared between countries. That study found that in the period 1980–1996, both countries experienced mass shootings. The rate did not differ significantly between countries. Since 1996-1997, neither country has experienced a mass shooting event despite the continued availability of semi-automatic longarms in New Zealand. The authors conclude that "the hypothesis that Australia's prohibition of certain types of firearms explains the absence of mass shootings in that country since 1996 does not appear to be supported... if civilian access to certain types of firearms explained the occurrence of mass shootings in Australia (and conversely, if prohibiting such firearms explains the absence of mass shootings), then New Zealand (a country that still allows the ownership of such firearms) would have continued to experience mass shooting events."
Most recently, McPhedran and Baker found there was little evidence for any impacts of the gun laws on firearm suicide among people under 35 years of age, and suggest that the significant financial expenditure associated with Australia's firearms method restriction measures may not have had any impact on youth suicide.
And the multiple reputable studies in the wiki article you linked say exactly opposite. And point out that both New Zealand and Australia had mass shootings in the same time period, but neither have since, despite New Zealand still allowing the guns Australia banned.
Which is why I said, "Yes. I support banning both of them." That's because, as I have said multiple times, I support restricting gun ownership to shotguns (and not tactical urban warfare shotguns) and bolt-action rifles.
You are literally baying at the strawman here. If I did not know what your little trick was, I would not have directly mentioned bolt action rifles.
It's actually a little hilarious. You had this whole tangent lined up, got it shot down, but you keep on going because you really wanted to have the "You know not guns!" discussion.
Your words, not mine.
What are you even talking about!
... Do you understand how questions and answers work? I asked, "We should probably ban the bottom one, right?" It's the only question in that entire comment. You answered "Yes. Yes we should." This would indicate that, to the question "We should probably ban the bottom one, right?" You answered "Yes. Yes we should.", indicating that you would indeed ban the bottom gun in that image.
Let's clarify and move on.
I would ban both of those guns. I would allow the ownership of bolt-action rifles. Neither of those two guns are bolt-action rifles.
Incidentally, I do support the ability to own a larger variety of weapons so long as they are stored with registered and regulated gun clubs. Just like Australia does.
This is what I take away from it though.
In 2006, the lack of a measurable effect from the 1996 firearms legislation was reported in the British Journal of Criminology. Using ARIMA analysis, Dr Jeanine Baker and Dr Samara McPhedran found no evidence for an impact of the laws on homicide.
Weatherburn described the Baker and McPhedran article as "reputable" and "well-conducted" and stated that the available data are insufficient to draw stronger conclusions. Weatherburn noted the importance of actively policing illegal firearm trafficking and argued that there was little evidence that the new laws had helped in this regard.
Subsequently, a study by McPhedran and Baker compared the incidence of mass shootings in Australia and New Zealand. Data were standardised to a rate per 100,000 people, to control for differences in population size between the countries and mass shootings before and after 1996/1997 were compared between countries. That study found that in the period 1980–1996, both countries experienced mass shootings. The rate did not differ significantly between countries. Since 1996-1997, neither country has experienced a mass shooting event despite the continued availability of semi-automatic longarms in New Zealand. The authors conclude that "the hypothesis that Australia's prohibition of certain types of firearms explains the absence of mass shootings in that country since 1996 does not appear to be supported... if civilian access to certain types of firearms explained the occurrence of mass shootings in Australia (and conversely, if prohibiting such firearms explains the absence of mass shootings), then New Zealand (a country that still allows the ownership of such firearms) would have continued to experience mass shooting events."
Most recently, McPhedran and Baker found there was little evidence for any impacts of the gun laws on firearm suicide among people under 35 years of age, and suggest that the significant financial expenditure associated with Australia's firearms method restriction measures may not have had any impact on youth suicide.
And the multiple reputable studies in the wiki article you linked say exactly opposite. And point out that both New Zealand and Australia had mass shootings in the same time period, but neither have since, despite New Zealand still allowing the guns Australia banned.
...which still allow for semi-automatics to be purchased and owned. I'm really not sure what you're going for here. Yeah, Australia got rid of a lot of guns. One study says "it had a huge effect", several others say "it had little to no effect". The mass shootings that prompted it went away after the ban, but also went away in a country with a similar culture and no ban.
Which is why I said, "Yes. I support banning both of them." That's because, as I have said multiple times, I support restricting gun ownership to shotguns (and not tactical urban warfare shotguns) and bolt-action rifles.
You are literally baying at the strawman here. If I did not know what your little trick was, I would not have directly mentioned bolt action rifles.
It's actually a little hilarious. You had this whole tangent lined up, got it shot down, but you keep on going because you really wanted to have the "You know not guns!" discussion.
Your words, not mine.
What are you even talking about!
... Do you understand how questions and answers work? I asked, "We should probably ban the bottom one, right?" It's the only question in that entire comment. You answered "Yes. Yes we should." This would indicate that, to the question "We should probably ban the bottom one, right?" You answered "Yes. Yes we should.", indicating that you would indeed ban the bottom gun in that image.
Let's clarify and move on.
I would ban both of those guns. I would allow the ownership of bolt-action rifles. Neither of those two guns are bolt-action rifles.
Incidentally, I do support the ability to own a larger variety of weapons so long as they are stored with registered and regulated gun clubs. Just like Australia does.
This is what I take away from it though.
In 2006, the lack of a measurable effect from the 1996 firearms legislation was reported in the British Journal of Criminology. Using ARIMA analysis, Dr Jeanine Baker and Dr Samara McPhedran found no evidence for an impact of the laws on homicide.
Weatherburn described the Baker and McPhedran article as "reputable" and "well-conducted" and stated that the available data are insufficient to draw stronger conclusions. Weatherburn noted the importance of actively policing illegal firearm trafficking and argued that there was little evidence that the new laws had helped in this regard.
Subsequently, a study by McPhedran and Baker compared the incidence of mass shootings in Australia and New Zealand. Data were standardised to a rate per 100,000 people, to control for differences in population size between the countries and mass shootings before and after 1996/1997 were compared between countries. That study found that in the period 1980–1996, both countries experienced mass shootings. The rate did not differ significantly between countries. Since 1996-1997, neither country has experienced a mass shooting event despite the continued availability of semi-automatic longarms in New Zealand. The authors conclude that "the hypothesis that Australia's prohibition of certain types of firearms explains the absence of mass shootings in that country since 1996 does not appear to be supported... if civilian access to certain types of firearms explained the occurrence of mass shootings in Australia (and conversely, if prohibiting such firearms explains the absence of mass shootings), then New Zealand (a country that still allows the ownership of such firearms) would have continued to experience mass shooting events."
Most recently, McPhedran and Baker found there was little evidence for any impacts of the gun laws on firearm suicide among people under 35 years of age, and suggest that the significant financial expenditure associated with Australia's firearms method restriction measures may not have had any impact on youth suicide.
And the multiple reputable studies in the wiki article you linked say exactly opposite. And point out that both New Zealand and Australia had mass shootings in the same time period, but neither have since, despite New Zealand still allowing the guns Australia banned.
...which still allow for semi-automatics to be purchased and owned. I'm really not sure what you're going for here. Yeah, Australia got rid of a lot of guns. One study says "it had a huge effect", several others say "it had little to no effect". The mass shootings that prompted it went away after the ban, but also went away in a country with a similar culture and no ban.
Read the article again.
From the Wikipedia article:
A standard firearms licence allows the use of "A Category" firearms. To possess firearms of another category a person is required to get an endorsement to their licence. There are different endorsements for different classes of firearm but they all require a higher level of storage security, stricter vetting requirements and the applicant must have an end use for wanting the endorsement. Be it pest control for E cat, cowboy shooting and 3-gun for B cat, or just wanting to collect (provided one has adequate storage security) for C cat.
...
E Endorsement – Military Style Semi-Automatics (M.S.S.A)
New class of restricted weapon that was created after the Aramoana tragedy. At the time anyone with an M.S.S.A that wanted to keep it in that configuration was given a E endorsement (after going through the vetting and extra security requirements). But presently few are issued. Common reasons for wanting an E endorsement are professional pest destruction, collecting, 3-gun and service rifle shooting. Those people that did not want the extra hassle and expense of the endorsement converted their rifles into 'A' configuration by removing the components that made it an 'E'.
I personally feel its value was diminished greatly when state militias were folded into the national guard. Which goes a long way towards explaining my view on it. The 2nd amendment is one statement and not two; "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." Note the commas and not the periods. This was never meant for single individuals to own dozens of guns in a collection, and never considered the force projection of a fully or semi automatic weapon that did not need to reload between shots.
It's an outdated amendment written to protect the rights of state militias which largely do not exist any more.
But I do not suggest killing it - I suggest reframing it to meet the needs of a modern world and the "arms" that exist today.
Nobody thinks us running on laws written regarding computers in the 60s is a good idea today. The tech changed, so the laws had to also.
OK, let's dig into this for a minute. Maybe we can break away from the emotional stuff - I feel pretty low for the way this thread turned sour for @Enc.
You want to reframe it for the needs of a modern world, but I don't know what you mean by that. Rather than put forward my own thoughts first, lemme ask you some questions:
What do you think is the philosophical underpinning of the 2nd, if you think there is one?
Do you think there's any worth to the majority opinions in Heller and McDonald that recognized an individual, incorporated right?
What are the needs of the modern world as it stands today (rather than the magic "all guns vanish" world, for example)?
What would your rewritten 2nd Amendment look like?
There would be minutiae having little to do with the amendment itself, which could then get us to where an amendment alteration makes sense.
All guns MUST be purchased through a state managed broker, even private trades, and all guns must have a registration number that follows it from manufacture to dealer to owner to next owner - a lineage of ownership.
Every single gun that is not a bolt action rifle or a shotgun would need to be stored somewhere non residential. The right to protect your homestead with shotgun or rifle would be protected and remain for all localities that choose to not further restrict it due to population density issues.
I would welcome the introduction of state registered gun clubs that members could join, and after passing a quick background check they could pay a small, REASONABLE dues to be a part of. In turn, they get access to a shooting range, a broad number of guns to shoot, and a place to store their own collection. Pistols, AR-15, fucking machine guns - why not. In the confines of the club, amongst dues paying members.
All current guns in the country can be grandfathered into this ownership state with a free registration, state funded, with no corncern of the prior paper trail, with the understanding that all future sale and trades of guns must follow the rules stated above, and all guns falling outside the purview of a rifle or shotgun must be stored at a gun club you are a member of. Any guns not a part of this system after X years found that are not immediately surrendered to the authorities or deactivated in a permanent fashion is a felony offense full stop.
And after all of that legwork, a modern amendment would be something close to "For those in areas where the laws of nature can threaten the homesteads of the people, the right to bear bolt action rifles and pump action shotguns in the defense of one's property, life and family shall not be infringed"
someone better with the specifics of language can do better than that, but this is a framework that would still let hobbyists have their fun, still let farmers and people in the areas where rifles and shotguns are a part of life still have them, and drastically reduces the number of guns most often used in crime off the streets, especially after a decade or two of this law being in effect.
I'm gonna leave off talking about the guts of the regulatory regime you want imposed (except to say that the end result will be that gun ownership will be the domain of the rich and the white) and dig into the proposed amendment...
What you're proposing bans all semi-automatic weapons of all kinds, all handguns of all kinds, bans hunting, bans gun ownership completely for all metro area citizens, and criminalizes the use of any firearm in defense against a person.
This is your intended result?
I am going to beg that you stop making any mention of registration a race thing, because it is a cheap tactic and not relevant to the conversation at hand. Unless you can show me how car ownership is racist, please drop this tactic, it is not a good one and it makes it hard for me to focus on the rest of the post.
I am proposing a ban on having pistols, and semi-auto weapons outside of a lockbox outside of state-sanctioned clubs, yup.
I am in no way proposing an end to hunting, unless you need a semi automatic weapon to hunt, which I never have. Rifles are great hunting weapons, as are bows, birdshot, buckshot, etc.
OK we'll leave off race for another tangent. I object to referring to it as a 'tactic' though; it's a legitimate point to argue, and your car analogy is mega-bad. I need to go back and reply to Elki's post from a while ago on this anyway, so moving on.
Your proposed revision to the 2nd doesn't protect handguns but does specifically protect certain other guns, so it's reasonable to argue that you left out handguns because you wanted them left out. Since they're not protected, they can be banned entirely, and of course they will be (as demonstrated by DC and Chicago).
Your proposed revision only protects the right to bear arms "in the defense of one's property, life, and family", but only in "areas where the laws of nature can threaten". This does not protect ownership for anything other than defense. Since the Amendment only bars restrictions on defending oneself, restrictions, up to and including an outright ban, on hunting are permissible. Likewise, in areas where "nature" doesn't threaten, no protection of any kind is offered by the Amendment so total bans are on the table.
This is a pretty radical revision. I know the regulatory regime you set out is a lot more permissive, but there's no reason to assume any State would follow it when they can just outright ban huge swaths of weapons, or all weapons (in some areas). We have to work from what the Amendment protects, and assume that governments will restrict as broadly as they can until they run into the Constitutional limit. Why do we have to assume that? Because that's what lots of city governments try to do right now, today... and because when talking about Rights, anything we don't stop the government from doing as part of the foundational document is up for grabs. See also: arguments for a privacy amendment, arguments for abortion rights, arguments against voter ID, and so on.
So if more of the regulatory regime was present in the amendment - essentially, "Furthermore, the states must permit and license the existence of gun clubs in non residential areas and not within 500 yards of a residential zone for the use and ownership of pistols, longarms, and automatic weapons kept within the confines of these premises, and the right to do so shall not be infringed"
Would that allay some of your issues with it?
It gets closer. We've still banned hunting, banned transport of weapons (another way DC is fucking with the Heller ruling) and banned the possession all weapons inside cities. But closer.
Still a pretty radical disarming of the population. This is your intention?
Which is why I said, "Yes. I support banning both of them." That's because, as I have said multiple times, I support restricting gun ownership to shotguns (and not tactical urban warfare shotguns) and bolt-action rifles.
You are literally baying at the strawman here. If I did not know what your little trick was, I would not have directly mentioned bolt action rifles.
It's actually a little hilarious. You had this whole tangent lined up, got it shot down, but you keep on going because you really wanted to have the "You know not guns!" discussion.
Your words, not mine.
What are you even talking about!
... Do you understand how questions and answers work? I asked, "We should probably ban the bottom one, right?" It's the only question in that entire comment. You answered "Yes. Yes we should." This would indicate that, to the question "We should probably ban the bottom one, right?" You answered "Yes. Yes we should.", indicating that you would indeed ban the bottom gun in that image.
Let's clarify and move on.
I would ban both of those guns. I would allow the ownership of bolt-action rifles. Neither of those two guns are bolt-action rifles.
Incidentally, I do support the ability to own a larger variety of weapons so long as they are stored with registered and regulated gun clubs. Just like Australia does.
This is what I take away from it though.
In 2006, the lack of a measurable effect from the 1996 firearms legislation was reported in the British Journal of Criminology. Using ARIMA analysis, Dr Jeanine Baker and Dr Samara McPhedran found no evidence for an impact of the laws on homicide.
Weatherburn described the Baker and McPhedran article as "reputable" and "well-conducted" and stated that the available data are insufficient to draw stronger conclusions. Weatherburn noted the importance of actively policing illegal firearm trafficking and argued that there was little evidence that the new laws had helped in this regard.
Subsequently, a study by McPhedran and Baker compared the incidence of mass shootings in Australia and New Zealand. Data were standardised to a rate per 100,000 people, to control for differences in population size between the countries and mass shootings before and after 1996/1997 were compared between countries. That study found that in the period 1980–1996, both countries experienced mass shootings. The rate did not differ significantly between countries. Since 1996-1997, neither country has experienced a mass shooting event despite the continued availability of semi-automatic longarms in New Zealand. The authors conclude that "the hypothesis that Australia's prohibition of certain types of firearms explains the absence of mass shootings in that country since 1996 does not appear to be supported... if civilian access to certain types of firearms explained the occurrence of mass shootings in Australia (and conversely, if prohibiting such firearms explains the absence of mass shootings), then New Zealand (a country that still allows the ownership of such firearms) would have continued to experience mass shooting events."
Most recently, McPhedran and Baker found there was little evidence for any impacts of the gun laws on firearm suicide among people under 35 years of age, and suggest that the significant financial expenditure associated with Australia's firearms method restriction measures may not have had any impact on youth suicide.
And the multiple reputable studies in the wiki article you linked say exactly opposite. And point out that both New Zealand and Australia had mass shootings in the same time period, but neither have since, despite New Zealand still allowing the guns Australia banned.
If Australia showed us anything it is that actually applying our laws, across the board, would be the best first stop and would have a very good measured affect. But it, and other countries where guns are banned or extremely limited, has also showed us we would still have to work on mental health, etc issues as well. As it doesn't automatically stop all instances of attempted multi murdering.
Which is why I said, "Yes. I support banning both of them." That's because, as I have said multiple times, I support restricting gun ownership to shotguns (and not tactical urban warfare shotguns) and bolt-action rifles.
You are literally baying at the strawman here. If I did not know what your little trick was, I would not have directly mentioned bolt action rifles.
It's actually a little hilarious. You had this whole tangent lined up, got it shot down, but you keep on going because you really wanted to have the "You know not guns!" discussion.
Your words, not mine.
What are you even talking about!
... Do you understand how questions and answers work? I asked, "We should probably ban the bottom one, right?" It's the only question in that entire comment. You answered "Yes. Yes we should." This would indicate that, to the question "We should probably ban the bottom one, right?" You answered "Yes. Yes we should.", indicating that you would indeed ban the bottom gun in that image.
Let's clarify and move on.
I would ban both of those guns. I would allow the ownership of bolt-action rifles. Neither of those two guns are bolt-action rifles.
Incidentally, I do support the ability to own a larger variety of weapons so long as they are stored with registered and regulated gun clubs. Just like Australia does.
This is what I take away from it though.
In 2006, the lack of a measurable effect from the 1996 firearms legislation was reported in the British Journal of Criminology. Using ARIMA analysis, Dr Jeanine Baker and Dr Samara McPhedran found no evidence for an impact of the laws on homicide.
Weatherburn described the Baker and McPhedran article as "reputable" and "well-conducted" and stated that the available data are insufficient to draw stronger conclusions. Weatherburn noted the importance of actively policing illegal firearm trafficking and argued that there was little evidence that the new laws had helped in this regard.
Subsequently, a study by McPhedran and Baker compared the incidence of mass shootings in Australia and New Zealand. Data were standardised to a rate per 100,000 people, to control for differences in population size between the countries and mass shootings before and after 1996/1997 were compared between countries. That study found that in the period 1980–1996, both countries experienced mass shootings. The rate did not differ significantly between countries. Since 1996-1997, neither country has experienced a mass shooting event despite the continued availability of semi-automatic longarms in New Zealand. The authors conclude that "the hypothesis that Australia's prohibition of certain types of firearms explains the absence of mass shootings in that country since 1996 does not appear to be supported... if civilian access to certain types of firearms explained the occurrence of mass shootings in Australia (and conversely, if prohibiting such firearms explains the absence of mass shootings), then New Zealand (a country that still allows the ownership of such firearms) would have continued to experience mass shooting events."
Most recently, McPhedran and Baker found there was little evidence for any impacts of the gun laws on firearm suicide among people under 35 years of age, and suggest that the significant financial expenditure associated with Australia's firearms method restriction measures may not have had any impact on youth suicide.
And the multiple reputable studies in the wiki article you linked say exactly opposite. And point out that both New Zealand and Australia had mass shootings in the same time period, but neither have since, despite New Zealand still allowing the guns Australia banned.
...which still allow for semi-automatics to be purchased and owned. I'm really not sure what you're going for here. Yeah, Australia got rid of a lot of guns. One study says "it had a huge effect", several others say "it had little to no effect". The mass shootings that prompted it went away after the ban, but also went away in a country with a similar culture and no ban.
Read the article again.
From the Wikipedia article:
A standard firearms licence allows the use of "A Category" firearms. To possess firearms of another category a person is required to get an endorsement to their licence. There are different endorsements for different classes of firearm but they all require a higher level of storage security, stricter vetting requirements and the applicant must have an end use for wanting the endorsement. Be it pest control for E cat, cowboy shooting and 3-gun for B cat, or just wanting to collect (provided one has adequate storage security) for C cat.
...
E Endorsement – Military Style Semi-Automatics (M.S.S.A)
New class of restricted weapon that was created after the Aramoana tragedy. At the time anyone with an M.S.S.A that wanted to keep it in that configuration was given a E endorsement (after going through the vetting and extra security requirements). But presently few are issued. Common reasons for wanting an E endorsement are professional pest destruction, collecting, 3-gun and service rifle shooting. Those people that did not want the extra hassle and expense of the endorsement converted their rifles into 'A' configuration by removing the components that made it an 'E'.
Yes. You can still own and purchase a semi-automatic rifle in New Zealand. They aren't banned.
Which is why I said, "Yes. I support banning both of them." That's because, as I have said multiple times, I support restricting gun ownership to shotguns (and not tactical urban warfare shotguns) and bolt-action rifles.
You are literally baying at the strawman here. If I did not know what your little trick was, I would not have directly mentioned bolt action rifles.
It's actually a little hilarious. You had this whole tangent lined up, got it shot down, but you keep on going because you really wanted to have the "You know not guns!" discussion.
Your words, not mine.
What are you even talking about!
... Do you understand how questions and answers work? I asked, "We should probably ban the bottom one, right?" It's the only question in that entire comment. You answered "Yes. Yes we should." This would indicate that, to the question "We should probably ban the bottom one, right?" You answered "Yes. Yes we should.", indicating that you would indeed ban the bottom gun in that image.
Let's clarify and move on.
I would ban both of those guns. I would allow the ownership of bolt-action rifles. Neither of those two guns are bolt-action rifles.
Incidentally, I do support the ability to own a larger variety of weapons so long as they are stored with registered and regulated gun clubs. Just like Australia does.
This is what I take away from it though.
In 2006, the lack of a measurable effect from the 1996 firearms legislation was reported in the British Journal of Criminology. Using ARIMA analysis, Dr Jeanine Baker and Dr Samara McPhedran found no evidence for an impact of the laws on homicide.
Weatherburn described the Baker and McPhedran article as "reputable" and "well-conducted" and stated that the available data are insufficient to draw stronger conclusions. Weatherburn noted the importance of actively policing illegal firearm trafficking and argued that there was little evidence that the new laws had helped in this regard.
Subsequently, a study by McPhedran and Baker compared the incidence of mass shootings in Australia and New Zealand. Data were standardised to a rate per 100,000 people, to control for differences in population size between the countries and mass shootings before and after 1996/1997 were compared between countries. That study found that in the period 1980–1996, both countries experienced mass shootings. The rate did not differ significantly between countries. Since 1996-1997, neither country has experienced a mass shooting event despite the continued availability of semi-automatic longarms in New Zealand. The authors conclude that "the hypothesis that Australia's prohibition of certain types of firearms explains the absence of mass shootings in that country since 1996 does not appear to be supported... if civilian access to certain types of firearms explained the occurrence of mass shootings in Australia (and conversely, if prohibiting such firearms explains the absence of mass shootings), then New Zealand (a country that still allows the ownership of such firearms) would have continued to experience mass shooting events."
Most recently, McPhedran and Baker found there was little evidence for any impacts of the gun laws on firearm suicide among people under 35 years of age, and suggest that the significant financial expenditure associated with Australia's firearms method restriction measures may not have had any impact on youth suicide.
And the multiple reputable studies in the wiki article you linked say exactly opposite. And point out that both New Zealand and Australia had mass shootings in the same time period, but neither have since, despite New Zealand still allowing the guns Australia banned.
...which still allow for semi-automatics to be purchased and owned. I'm really not sure what you're going for here. Yeah, Australia got rid of a lot of guns. One study says "it had a huge effect", several others say "it had little to no effect". The mass shootings that prompted it went away after the ban, but also went away in a country with a similar culture and no ban.
Read the article again.
From the Wikipedia article:
A standard firearms licence allows the use of "A Category" firearms. To possess firearms of another category a person is required to get an endorsement to their licence. There are different endorsements for different classes of firearm but they all require a higher level of storage security, stricter vetting requirements and the applicant must have an end use for wanting the endorsement. Be it pest control for E cat, cowboy shooting and 3-gun for B cat, or just wanting to collect (provided one has adequate storage security) for C cat.
...
E Endorsement – Military Style Semi-Automatics (M.S.S.A)
New class of restricted weapon that was created after the Aramoana tragedy. At the time anyone with an M.S.S.A that wanted to keep it in that configuration was given a E endorsement (after going through the vetting and extra security requirements). But presently few are issued. Common reasons for wanting an E endorsement are professional pest destruction, collecting, 3-gun and service rifle shooting. Those people that did not want the extra hassle and expense of the endorsement converted their rifles into 'A' configuration by removing the components that made it an 'E'.
Yes. You can still own and purchase a semi-automatic rifle in New Zealand. They aren't banned.
So how do Kiwis go about getting their hands on guns?
The process for obtaining a basic firearms license is long, complicated and expensive. In other words, designed to weed out a broad portion of the population that the law deems unsuitable to possess a firearm.
After submitting your application to the NZ Police, you are signed up for a mandatory firearm safety course put on by the New Zealand Mountain Safety Council. The course runs about three hours. Experienced instructors offer advice covering the handling, operation and storage of firearms. It ends with a written exam. If you fail the exam, you must go back to the police station to register for the next available class, with no exceptions.
If you pass, your results are reported back to the NZ Police Arms Officer in preparation for the next step, the interview.
About a week following the safety class, the Arms Officer rang us to set up a personal interview. He came to our house in the evening with a huge booklet filled with questions. He interviewed each of us alone; me, my partner, and our personal reference (which must be a non-relative who has known you for at least two years and can attest to your ‘good character’).
The interview was intense and personal. I observed the Arms Officer taking notice of the general state of our home as well as our demeanor. He confirmed we had a lockable cabinet for firearm storage, and separate lockable storage for ammunition. He asked pointed questions about alcohol and drug consumption, our domestic situation and our general mental health.
He also asked what we intended to use firearms for. Hint: personal or home protection is not an accepted rationale and would likely get you rejected – acceptable reasons are limited to hunting and/or target shooting.
0
Options
syndalisGetting ClassyOn the WallRegistered User, Loves Apple Productsregular
I personally feel its value was diminished greatly when state militias were folded into the national guard. Which goes a long way towards explaining my view on it. The 2nd amendment is one statement and not two; "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." Note the commas and not the periods. This was never meant for single individuals to own dozens of guns in a collection, and never considered the force projection of a fully or semi automatic weapon that did not need to reload between shots.
It's an outdated amendment written to protect the rights of state militias which largely do not exist any more.
But I do not suggest killing it - I suggest reframing it to meet the needs of a modern world and the "arms" that exist today.
Nobody thinks us running on laws written regarding computers in the 60s is a good idea today. The tech changed, so the laws had to also.
OK, let's dig into this for a minute. Maybe we can break away from the emotional stuff - I feel pretty low for the way this thread turned sour for @Enc.
You want to reframe it for the needs of a modern world, but I don't know what you mean by that. Rather than put forward my own thoughts first, lemme ask you some questions:
What do you think is the philosophical underpinning of the 2nd, if you think there is one?
Do you think there's any worth to the majority opinions in Heller and McDonald that recognized an individual, incorporated right?
What are the needs of the modern world as it stands today (rather than the magic "all guns vanish" world, for example)?
What would your rewritten 2nd Amendment look like?
There would be minutiae having little to do with the amendment itself, which could then get us to where an amendment alteration makes sense.
All guns MUST be purchased through a state managed broker, even private trades, and all guns must have a registration number that follows it from manufacture to dealer to owner to next owner - a lineage of ownership.
Every single gun that is not a bolt action rifle or a shotgun would need to be stored somewhere non residential. The right to protect your homestead with shotgun or rifle would be protected and remain for all localities that choose to not further restrict it due to population density issues.
I would welcome the introduction of state registered gun clubs that members could join, and after passing a quick background check they could pay a small, REASONABLE dues to be a part of. In turn, they get access to a shooting range, a broad number of guns to shoot, and a place to store their own collection. Pistols, AR-15, fucking machine guns - why not. In the confines of the club, amongst dues paying members.
All current guns in the country can be grandfathered into this ownership state with a free registration, state funded, with no corncern of the prior paper trail, with the understanding that all future sale and trades of guns must follow the rules stated above, and all guns falling outside the purview of a rifle or shotgun must be stored at a gun club you are a member of. Any guns not a part of this system after X years found that are not immediately surrendered to the authorities or deactivated in a permanent fashion is a felony offense full stop.
And after all of that legwork, a modern amendment would be something close to "For those in areas where the laws of nature can threaten the homesteads of the people, the right to bear bolt action rifles and pump action shotguns in the defense of one's property, life and family shall not be infringed"
someone better with the specifics of language can do better than that, but this is a framework that would still let hobbyists have their fun, still let farmers and people in the areas where rifles and shotguns are a part of life still have them, and drastically reduces the number of guns most often used in crime off the streets, especially after a decade or two of this law being in effect.
I'm gonna leave off talking about the guts of the regulatory regime you want imposed (except to say that the end result will be that gun ownership will be the domain of the rich and the white) and dig into the proposed amendment...
What you're proposing bans all semi-automatic weapons of all kinds, all handguns of all kinds, bans hunting, bans gun ownership completely for all metro area citizens, and criminalizes the use of any firearm in defense against a person.
This is your intended result?
I am going to beg that you stop making any mention of registration a race thing, because it is a cheap tactic and not relevant to the conversation at hand. Unless you can show me how car ownership is racist, please drop this tactic, it is not a good one and it makes it hard for me to focus on the rest of the post.
I am proposing a ban on having pistols, and semi-auto weapons outside of a lockbox outside of state-sanctioned clubs, yup.
I am in no way proposing an end to hunting, unless you need a semi automatic weapon to hunt, which I never have. Rifles are great hunting weapons, as are bows, birdshot, buckshot, etc.
OK we'll leave off race for another tangent. I object to referring to it as a 'tactic' though; it's a legitimate point to argue, and your car analogy is mega-bad. I need to go back and reply to Elki's post from a while ago on this anyway, so moving on.
Your proposed revision to the 2nd doesn't protect handguns but does specifically protect certain other guns, so it's reasonable to argue that you left out handguns because you wanted them left out. Since they're not protected, they can be banned entirely, and of course they will be (as demonstrated by DC and Chicago).
Your proposed revision only protects the right to bear arms "in the defense of one's property, life, and family", but only in "areas where the laws of nature can threaten". This does not protect ownership for anything other than defense. Since the Amendment only bars restrictions on defending oneself, restrictions, up to and including an outright ban, on hunting are permissible. Likewise, in areas where "nature" doesn't threaten, no protection of any kind is offered by the Amendment so total bans are on the table.
This is a pretty radical revision. I know the regulatory regime you set out is a lot more permissive, but there's no reason to assume any State would follow it when they can just outright ban huge swaths of weapons, or all weapons (in some areas). We have to work from what the Amendment protects, and assume that governments will restrict as broadly as they can until they run into the Constitutional limit. Why do we have to assume that? Because that's what lots of city governments try to do right now, today... and because when talking about Rights, anything we don't stop the government from doing as part of the foundational document is up for grabs. See also: arguments for a privacy amendment, arguments for abortion rights, arguments against voter ID, and so on.
So if more of the regulatory regime was present in the amendment - essentially, "Furthermore, the states must permit and license the existence of gun clubs in non residential areas and not within 500 yards of a residential zone for the use and ownership of pistols, longarms, and automatic weapons kept within the confines of these premises, and the right to do so shall not be infringed"
Would that allay some of your issues with it?
It gets closer. We've still banned hunting, banned transport of weapons (another way DC is fucking with the Heller ruling) and banned the possession all weapons inside cities. But closer.
Still a pretty radical disarming of the population. This is your intention?
I would word it differently, more "shifting the location of owned guns out of the homes and into secure facilities," but the end result is yes - I am all for less guns being on the street and making legislative moves to achieve that.
And if you think Texas, Wyoming, Montana, South Dakota, Missouri, or pretty much anywhere that it makes sense for hunting to be a thing will ban people going into the woods with their rifles and bagging a buck, I don't know what to tell you - hunting will be protected for a very long time, as it should be.
SW-4158-3990-6116
Let's play Mario Kart or something...
I personally feel its value was diminished greatly when state militias were folded into the national guard. Which goes a long way towards explaining my view on it. The 2nd amendment is one statement and not two; "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." Note the commas and not the periods. This was never meant for single individuals to own dozens of guns in a collection, and never considered the force projection of a fully or semi automatic weapon that did not need to reload between shots.
It's an outdated amendment written to protect the rights of state militias which largely do not exist any more.
But I do not suggest killing it - I suggest reframing it to meet the needs of a modern world and the "arms" that exist today.
Nobody thinks us running on laws written regarding computers in the 60s is a good idea today. The tech changed, so the laws had to also.
OK, let's dig into this for a minute. Maybe we can break away from the emotional stuff - I feel pretty low for the way this thread turned sour for @Enc.
You want to reframe it for the needs of a modern world, but I don't know what you mean by that. Rather than put forward my own thoughts first, lemme ask you some questions:
What do you think is the philosophical underpinning of the 2nd, if you think there is one?
Do you think there's any worth to the majority opinions in Heller and McDonald that recognized an individual, incorporated right?
What are the needs of the modern world as it stands today (rather than the magic "all guns vanish" world, for example)?
What would your rewritten 2nd Amendment look like?
There would be minutiae having little to do with the amendment itself, which could then get us to where an amendment alteration makes sense.
All guns MUST be purchased through a state managed broker, even private trades, and all guns must have a registration number that follows it from manufacture to dealer to owner to next owner - a lineage of ownership.
Every single gun that is not a bolt action rifle or a shotgun would need to be stored somewhere non residential. The right to protect your homestead with shotgun or rifle would be protected and remain for all localities that choose to not further restrict it due to population density issues.
I would welcome the introduction of state registered gun clubs that members could join, and after passing a quick background check they could pay a small, REASONABLE dues to be a part of. In turn, they get access to a shooting range, a broad number of guns to shoot, and a place to store their own collection. Pistols, AR-15, fucking machine guns - why not. In the confines of the club, amongst dues paying members.
All current guns in the country can be grandfathered into this ownership state with a free registration, state funded, with no corncern of the prior paper trail, with the understanding that all future sale and trades of guns must follow the rules stated above, and all guns falling outside the purview of a rifle or shotgun must be stored at a gun club you are a member of. Any guns not a part of this system after X years found that are not immediately surrendered to the authorities or deactivated in a permanent fashion is a felony offense full stop.
And after all of that legwork, a modern amendment would be something close to "For those in areas where the laws of nature can threaten the homesteads of the people, the right to bear bolt action rifles and pump action shotguns in the defense of one's property, life and family shall not be infringed"
someone better with the specifics of language can do better than that, but this is a framework that would still let hobbyists have their fun, still let farmers and people in the areas where rifles and shotguns are a part of life still have them, and drastically reduces the number of guns most often used in crime off the streets, especially after a decade or two of this law being in effect.
I'm gonna leave off talking about the guts of the regulatory regime you want imposed (except to say that the end result will be that gun ownership will be the domain of the rich and the white) and dig into the proposed amendment...
What you're proposing bans all semi-automatic weapons of all kinds, all handguns of all kinds, bans hunting, bans gun ownership completely for all metro area citizens, and criminalizes the use of any firearm in defense against a person.
This is your intended result?
I am going to beg that you stop making any mention of registration a race thing, because it is a cheap tactic and not relevant to the conversation at hand. Unless you can show me how car ownership is racist, please drop this tactic, it is not a good one and it makes it hard for me to focus on the rest of the post.
I am proposing a ban on having pistols, and semi-auto weapons outside of a lockbox outside of state-sanctioned clubs, yup.
I am in no way proposing an end to hunting, unless you need a semi automatic weapon to hunt, which I never have. Rifles are great hunting weapons, as are bows, birdshot, buckshot, etc.
OK we'll leave off race for another tangent. I object to referring to it as a 'tactic' though; it's a legitimate point to argue, and your car analogy is mega-bad. I need to go back and reply to Elki's post from a while ago on this anyway, so moving on.
Your proposed revision to the 2nd doesn't protect handguns but does specifically protect certain other guns, so it's reasonable to argue that you left out handguns because you wanted them left out. Since they're not protected, they can be banned entirely, and of course they will be (as demonstrated by DC and Chicago).
Your proposed revision only protects the right to bear arms "in the defense of one's property, life, and family", but only in "areas where the laws of nature can threaten". This does not protect ownership for anything other than defense. Since the Amendment only bars restrictions on defending oneself, restrictions, up to and including an outright ban, on hunting are permissible. Likewise, in areas where "nature" doesn't threaten, no protection of any kind is offered by the Amendment so total bans are on the table.
This is a pretty radical revision. I know the regulatory regime you set out is a lot more permissive, but there's no reason to assume any State would follow it when they can just outright ban huge swaths of weapons, or all weapons (in some areas). We have to work from what the Amendment protects, and assume that governments will restrict as broadly as they can until they run into the Constitutional limit. Why do we have to assume that? Because that's what lots of city governments try to do right now, today... and because when talking about Rights, anything we don't stop the government from doing as part of the foundational document is up for grabs. See also: arguments for a privacy amendment, arguments for abortion rights, arguments against voter ID, and so on.
So if more of the regulatory regime was present in the amendment - essentially, "Furthermore, the states must permit and license the existence of gun clubs in non residential areas and not within 500 yards of a residential zone for the use and ownership of pistols, longarms, and automatic weapons kept within the confines of these premises, and the right to do so shall not be infringed"
Would that allay some of your issues with it?
It gets closer. We've still banned hunting, banned transport of weapons (another way DC is fucking with the Heller ruling) and banned the possession all weapons inside cities. But closer.
Still a pretty radical disarming of the population. This is your intention?
I would word it differently, more "shifting the location of owned guns out of the homes and into secure facilities," but the end result is yes - I am all for less guns being on the street and making legislative moves to achieve that.
And if you think Texas, Wyoming, Montana, South Dakota, Missouri, or pretty much anywhere that it makes sense for hunting to be a thing will ban people going into the woods with their rifles and bagging a buck, I don't know what to tell you - hunting will be protected for a very long time, as it should be.
In some rural areas, banning hunting would literally lead to poor families going without food.
0
Options
syndalisGetting ClassyOn the WallRegistered User, Loves Apple Productsregular
I mean, we already regulate hunting with licenses and hunting seasons and animal size and all sorts of stuff! Those laws are not in any way connected to the second amendment, they are just our hunting laws and they would remain on the books.
SW-4158-3990-6116
Let's play Mario Kart or something...
Which is why I said, "Yes. I support banning both of them." That's because, as I have said multiple times, I support restricting gun ownership to shotguns (and not tactical urban warfare shotguns) and bolt-action rifles.
You are literally baying at the strawman here. If I did not know what your little trick was, I would not have directly mentioned bolt action rifles.
It's actually a little hilarious. You had this whole tangent lined up, got it shot down, but you keep on going because you really wanted to have the "You know not guns!" discussion.
Your words, not mine.
What are you even talking about!
... Do you understand how questions and answers work? I asked, "We should probably ban the bottom one, right?" It's the only question in that entire comment. You answered "Yes. Yes we should." This would indicate that, to the question "We should probably ban the bottom one, right?" You answered "Yes. Yes we should.", indicating that you would indeed ban the bottom gun in that image.
Let's clarify and move on.
I would ban both of those guns. I would allow the ownership of bolt-action rifles. Neither of those two guns are bolt-action rifles.
Incidentally, I do support the ability to own a larger variety of weapons so long as they are stored with registered and regulated gun clubs. Just like Australia does.
This is what I take away from it though.
In 2006, the lack of a measurable effect from the 1996 firearms legislation was reported in the British Journal of Criminology. Using ARIMA analysis, Dr Jeanine Baker and Dr Samara McPhedran found no evidence for an impact of the laws on homicide.
Weatherburn described the Baker and McPhedran article as "reputable" and "well-conducted" and stated that the available data are insufficient to draw stronger conclusions. Weatherburn noted the importance of actively policing illegal firearm trafficking and argued that there was little evidence that the new laws had helped in this regard.
Subsequently, a study by McPhedran and Baker compared the incidence of mass shootings in Australia and New Zealand. Data were standardised to a rate per 100,000 people, to control for differences in population size between the countries and mass shootings before and after 1996/1997 were compared between countries. That study found that in the period 1980–1996, both countries experienced mass shootings. The rate did not differ significantly between countries. Since 1996-1997, neither country has experienced a mass shooting event despite the continued availability of semi-automatic longarms in New Zealand. The authors conclude that "the hypothesis that Australia's prohibition of certain types of firearms explains the absence of mass shootings in that country since 1996 does not appear to be supported... if civilian access to certain types of firearms explained the occurrence of mass shootings in Australia (and conversely, if prohibiting such firearms explains the absence of mass shootings), then New Zealand (a country that still allows the ownership of such firearms) would have continued to experience mass shooting events."
Most recently, McPhedran and Baker found there was little evidence for any impacts of the gun laws on firearm suicide among people under 35 years of age, and suggest that the significant financial expenditure associated with Australia's firearms method restriction measures may not have had any impact on youth suicide.
And the multiple reputable studies in the wiki article you linked say exactly opposite. And point out that both New Zealand and Australia had mass shootings in the same time period, but neither have since, despite New Zealand still allowing the guns Australia banned.
...which still allow for semi-automatics to be purchased and owned. I'm really not sure what you're going for here. Yeah, Australia got rid of a lot of guns. One study says "it had a huge effect", several others say "it had little to no effect". The mass shootings that prompted it went away after the ban, but also went away in a country with a similar culture and no ban.
Read the article again.
From the Wikipedia article:
A standard firearms licence allows the use of "A Category" firearms. To possess firearms of another category a person is required to get an endorsement to their licence. There are different endorsements for different classes of firearm but they all require a higher level of storage security, stricter vetting requirements and the applicant must have an end use for wanting the endorsement. Be it pest control for E cat, cowboy shooting and 3-gun for B cat, or just wanting to collect (provided one has adequate storage security) for C cat.
...
E Endorsement – Military Style Semi-Automatics (M.S.S.A)
New class of restricted weapon that was created after the Aramoana tragedy. At the time anyone with an M.S.S.A that wanted to keep it in that configuration was given a E endorsement (after going through the vetting and extra security requirements). But presently few are issued. Common reasons for wanting an E endorsement are professional pest destruction, collecting, 3-gun and service rifle shooting. Those people that did not want the extra hassle and expense of the endorsement converted their rifles into 'A' configuration by removing the components that made it an 'E'.
Yes. You can still own and purchase a semi-automatic rifle in New Zealand. They aren't banned.
So how do Kiwis go about getting their hands on guns?
The process for obtaining a basic firearms license is long, complicated and expensive. In other words, designed to weed out a broad portion of the population that the law deems unsuitable to possess a firearm.
After submitting your application to the NZ Police, you are signed up for a mandatory firearm safety course put on by the New Zealand Mountain Safety Council. The course runs about three hours. Experienced instructors offer advice covering the handling, operation and storage of firearms. It ends with a written exam. If you fail the exam, you must go back to the police station to register for the next available class, with no exceptions.
If you pass, your results are reported back to the NZ Police Arms Officer in preparation for the next step, the interview.
About a week following the safety class, the Arms Officer rang us to set up a personal interview. He came to our house in the evening with a huge booklet filled with questions. He interviewed each of us alone; me, my partner, and our personal reference (which must be a non-relative who has known you for at least two years and can attest to your ‘good character’).
The interview was intense and personal. I observed the Arms Officer taking notice of the general state of our home as well as our demeanor. He confirmed we had a lockable cabinet for firearm storage, and separate lockable storage for ammunition. He asked pointed questions about alcohol and drug consumption, our domestic situation and our general mental health.
He also asked what we intended to use firearms for. Hint: personal or home protection is not an accepted rationale and would likely get you rejected – acceptable reasons are limited to hunting and/or target shooting.
Ok? What's your point? You said you wanted everything but shotguns and bolt action rifles banned, then linked to things to support your reasoning that haven't really supported it, and are now talking about a more comprehensive licensing process to own a semi-automatic.
I personally feel its value was diminished greatly when state militias were folded into the national guard. Which goes a long way towards explaining my view on it. The 2nd amendment is one statement and not two; "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." Note the commas and not the periods. This was never meant for single individuals to own dozens of guns in a collection, and never considered the force projection of a fully or semi automatic weapon that did not need to reload between shots.
It's an outdated amendment written to protect the rights of state militias which largely do not exist any more.
But I do not suggest killing it - I suggest reframing it to meet the needs of a modern world and the "arms" that exist today.
Nobody thinks us running on laws written regarding computers in the 60s is a good idea today. The tech changed, so the laws had to also.
OK, let's dig into this for a minute. Maybe we can break away from the emotional stuff - I feel pretty low for the way this thread turned sour for @Enc.
You want to reframe it for the needs of a modern world, but I don't know what you mean by that. Rather than put forward my own thoughts first, lemme ask you some questions:
What do you think is the philosophical underpinning of the 2nd, if you think there is one?
Do you think there's any worth to the majority opinions in Heller and McDonald that recognized an individual, incorporated right?
What are the needs of the modern world as it stands today (rather than the magic "all guns vanish" world, for example)?
What would your rewritten 2nd Amendment look like?
There would be minutiae having little to do with the amendment itself, which could then get us to where an amendment alteration makes sense.
All guns MUST be purchased through a state managed broker, even private trades, and all guns must have a registration number that follows it from manufacture to dealer to owner to next owner - a lineage of ownership.
Every single gun that is not a bolt action rifle or a shotgun would need to be stored somewhere non residential. The right to protect your homestead with shotgun or rifle would be protected and remain for all localities that choose to not further restrict it due to population density issues.
I would welcome the introduction of state registered gun clubs that members could join, and after passing a quick background check they could pay a small, REASONABLE dues to be a part of. In turn, they get access to a shooting range, a broad number of guns to shoot, and a place to store their own collection. Pistols, AR-15, fucking machine guns - why not. In the confines of the club, amongst dues paying members.
All current guns in the country can be grandfathered into this ownership state with a free registration, state funded, with no corncern of the prior paper trail, with the understanding that all future sale and trades of guns must follow the rules stated above, and all guns falling outside the purview of a rifle or shotgun must be stored at a gun club you are a member of. Any guns not a part of this system after X years found that are not immediately surrendered to the authorities or deactivated in a permanent fashion is a felony offense full stop.
And after all of that legwork, a modern amendment would be something close to "For those in areas where the laws of nature can threaten the homesteads of the people, the right to bear bolt action rifles and pump action shotguns in the defense of one's property, life and family shall not be infringed"
someone better with the specifics of language can do better than that, but this is a framework that would still let hobbyists have their fun, still let farmers and people in the areas where rifles and shotguns are a part of life still have them, and drastically reduces the number of guns most often used in crime off the streets, especially after a decade or two of this law being in effect.
I'm gonna leave off talking about the guts of the regulatory regime you want imposed (except to say that the end result will be that gun ownership will be the domain of the rich and the white) and dig into the proposed amendment...
What you're proposing bans all semi-automatic weapons of all kinds, all handguns of all kinds, bans hunting, bans gun ownership completely for all metro area citizens, and criminalizes the use of any firearm in defense against a person.
This is your intended result?
I am going to beg that you stop making any mention of registration a race thing, because it is a cheap tactic and not relevant to the conversation at hand. Unless you can show me how car ownership is racist, please drop this tactic, it is not a good one and it makes it hard for me to focus on the rest of the post.
I am proposing a ban on having pistols, and semi-auto weapons outside of a lockbox outside of state-sanctioned clubs, yup.
I am in no way proposing an end to hunting, unless you need a semi automatic weapon to hunt, which I never have. Rifles are great hunting weapons, as are bows, birdshot, buckshot, etc.
OK we'll leave off race for another tangent. I object to referring to it as a 'tactic' though; it's a legitimate point to argue, and your car analogy is mega-bad. I need to go back and reply to Elki's post from a while ago on this anyway, so moving on.
Your proposed revision to the 2nd doesn't protect handguns but does specifically protect certain other guns, so it's reasonable to argue that you left out handguns because you wanted them left out. Since they're not protected, they can be banned entirely, and of course they will be (as demonstrated by DC and Chicago).
Your proposed revision only protects the right to bear arms "in the defense of one's property, life, and family", but only in "areas where the laws of nature can threaten". This does not protect ownership for anything other than defense. Since the Amendment only bars restrictions on defending oneself, restrictions, up to and including an outright ban, on hunting are permissible. Likewise, in areas where "nature" doesn't threaten, no protection of any kind is offered by the Amendment so total bans are on the table.
This is a pretty radical revision. I know the regulatory regime you set out is a lot more permissive, but there's no reason to assume any State would follow it when they can just outright ban huge swaths of weapons, or all weapons (in some areas). We have to work from what the Amendment protects, and assume that governments will restrict as broadly as they can until they run into the Constitutional limit. Why do we have to assume that? Because that's what lots of city governments try to do right now, today... and because when talking about Rights, anything we don't stop the government from doing as part of the foundational document is up for grabs. See also: arguments for a privacy amendment, arguments for abortion rights, arguments against voter ID, and so on.
So if more of the regulatory regime was present in the amendment - essentially, "Furthermore, the states must permit and license the existence of gun clubs in non residential areas and not within 500 yards of a residential zone for the use and ownership of pistols, longarms, and automatic weapons kept within the confines of these premises, and the right to do so shall not be infringed"
Would that allay some of your issues with it?
It gets closer. We've still banned hunting, banned transport of weapons (another way DC is fucking with the Heller ruling) and banned the possession all weapons inside cities. But closer.
Still a pretty radical disarming of the population. This is your intention?
I would word it differently, more "shifting the location of owned guns out of the homes and into secure facilities," but the end result is yes - I am all for less guns being on the street and making legislative moves to achieve that.
And if you think Texas, Wyoming, Montana, South Dakota, Missouri, or pretty much anywhere that it makes sense for hunting to be a thing will ban people going into the woods with their rifles and bagging a buck, I don't know what to tell you - hunting will be protected for a very long time, as it should be.
In some rural areas, banning hunting would literally lead to poor families going without food.
This is an argument for welfare, not hunting.
+1
Options
syndalisGetting ClassyOn the WallRegistered User, Loves Apple Productsregular
I personally feel its value was diminished greatly when state militias were folded into the national guard. Which goes a long way towards explaining my view on it. The 2nd amendment is one statement and not two; "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." Note the commas and not the periods. This was never meant for single individuals to own dozens of guns in a collection, and never considered the force projection of a fully or semi automatic weapon that did not need to reload between shots.
It's an outdated amendment written to protect the rights of state militias which largely do not exist any more.
But I do not suggest killing it - I suggest reframing it to meet the needs of a modern world and the "arms" that exist today.
Nobody thinks us running on laws written regarding computers in the 60s is a good idea today. The tech changed, so the laws had to also.
OK, let's dig into this for a minute. Maybe we can break away from the emotional stuff - I feel pretty low for the way this thread turned sour for @Enc.
You want to reframe it for the needs of a modern world, but I don't know what you mean by that. Rather than put forward my own thoughts first, lemme ask you some questions:
What do you think is the philosophical underpinning of the 2nd, if you think there is one?
Do you think there's any worth to the majority opinions in Heller and McDonald that recognized an individual, incorporated right?
What are the needs of the modern world as it stands today (rather than the magic "all guns vanish" world, for example)?
What would your rewritten 2nd Amendment look like?
There would be minutiae having little to do with the amendment itself, which could then get us to where an amendment alteration makes sense.
All guns MUST be purchased through a state managed broker, even private trades, and all guns must have a registration number that follows it from manufacture to dealer to owner to next owner - a lineage of ownership.
Every single gun that is not a bolt action rifle or a shotgun would need to be stored somewhere non residential. The right to protect your homestead with shotgun or rifle would be protected and remain for all localities that choose to not further restrict it due to population density issues.
I would welcome the introduction of state registered gun clubs that members could join, and after passing a quick background check they could pay a small, REASONABLE dues to be a part of. In turn, they get access to a shooting range, a broad number of guns to shoot, and a place to store their own collection. Pistols, AR-15, fucking machine guns - why not. In the confines of the club, amongst dues paying members.
All current guns in the country can be grandfathered into this ownership state with a free registration, state funded, with no corncern of the prior paper trail, with the understanding that all future sale and trades of guns must follow the rules stated above, and all guns falling outside the purview of a rifle or shotgun must be stored at a gun club you are a member of. Any guns not a part of this system after X years found that are not immediately surrendered to the authorities or deactivated in a permanent fashion is a felony offense full stop.
And after all of that legwork, a modern amendment would be something close to "For those in areas where the laws of nature can threaten the homesteads of the people, the right to bear bolt action rifles and pump action shotguns in the defense of one's property, life and family shall not be infringed"
someone better with the specifics of language can do better than that, but this is a framework that would still let hobbyists have their fun, still let farmers and people in the areas where rifles and shotguns are a part of life still have them, and drastically reduces the number of guns most often used in crime off the streets, especially after a decade or two of this law being in effect.
I'm gonna leave off talking about the guts of the regulatory regime you want imposed (except to say that the end result will be that gun ownership will be the domain of the rich and the white) and dig into the proposed amendment...
What you're proposing bans all semi-automatic weapons of all kinds, all handguns of all kinds, bans hunting, bans gun ownership completely for all metro area citizens, and criminalizes the use of any firearm in defense against a person.
This is your intended result?
I am going to beg that you stop making any mention of registration a race thing, because it is a cheap tactic and not relevant to the conversation at hand. Unless you can show me how car ownership is racist, please drop this tactic, it is not a good one and it makes it hard for me to focus on the rest of the post.
I am proposing a ban on having pistols, and semi-auto weapons outside of a lockbox outside of state-sanctioned clubs, yup.
I am in no way proposing an end to hunting, unless you need a semi automatic weapon to hunt, which I never have. Rifles are great hunting weapons, as are bows, birdshot, buckshot, etc.
OK we'll leave off race for another tangent. I object to referring to it as a 'tactic' though; it's a legitimate point to argue, and your car analogy is mega-bad. I need to go back and reply to Elki's post from a while ago on this anyway, so moving on.
Your proposed revision to the 2nd doesn't protect handguns but does specifically protect certain other guns, so it's reasonable to argue that you left out handguns because you wanted them left out. Since they're not protected, they can be banned entirely, and of course they will be (as demonstrated by DC and Chicago).
Your proposed revision only protects the right to bear arms "in the defense of one's property, life, and family", but only in "areas where the laws of nature can threaten". This does not protect ownership for anything other than defense. Since the Amendment only bars restrictions on defending oneself, restrictions, up to and including an outright ban, on hunting are permissible. Likewise, in areas where "nature" doesn't threaten, no protection of any kind is offered by the Amendment so total bans are on the table.
This is a pretty radical revision. I know the regulatory regime you set out is a lot more permissive, but there's no reason to assume any State would follow it when they can just outright ban huge swaths of weapons, or all weapons (in some areas). We have to work from what the Amendment protects, and assume that governments will restrict as broadly as they can until they run into the Constitutional limit. Why do we have to assume that? Because that's what lots of city governments try to do right now, today... and because when talking about Rights, anything we don't stop the government from doing as part of the foundational document is up for grabs. See also: arguments for a privacy amendment, arguments for abortion rights, arguments against voter ID, and so on.
So if more of the regulatory regime was present in the amendment - essentially, "Furthermore, the states must permit and license the existence of gun clubs in non residential areas and not within 500 yards of a residential zone for the use and ownership of pistols, longarms, and automatic weapons kept within the confines of these premises, and the right to do so shall not be infringed"
Would that allay some of your issues with it?
It gets closer. We've still banned hunting, banned transport of weapons (another way DC is fucking with the Heller ruling) and banned the possession all weapons inside cities. But closer.
Still a pretty radical disarming of the population. This is your intention?
I would word it differently, more "shifting the location of owned guns out of the homes and into secure facilities," but the end result is yes - I am all for less guns being on the street and making legislative moves to achieve that.
And if you think Texas, Wyoming, Montana, South Dakota, Missouri, or pretty much anywhere that it makes sense for hunting to be a thing will ban people going into the woods with their rifles and bagging a buck, I don't know what to tell you - hunting will be protected for a very long time, as it should be.
In some rural areas, banning hunting would literally lead to poor families going without food.
This is an argument for welfare, not hunting.
An argument for both.
We straight up need more people my age and younger to hunt. Hunting is super important, as it keeps certain populations from becoming disease vectors or overpopulated/dangerous.
Welfare + responsible hunting is a great recipe for success in fighting poverty in rural areas.
SW-4158-3990-6116
Let's play Mario Kart or something...
Which is why I said, "Yes. I support banning both of them." That's because, as I have said multiple times, I support restricting gun ownership to shotguns (and not tactical urban warfare shotguns) and bolt-action rifles.
You are literally baying at the strawman here. If I did not know what your little trick was, I would not have directly mentioned bolt action rifles.
It's actually a little hilarious. You had this whole tangent lined up, got it shot down, but you keep on going because you really wanted to have the "You know not guns!" discussion.
Your words, not mine.
What are you even talking about!
... Do you understand how questions and answers work? I asked, "We should probably ban the bottom one, right?" It's the only question in that entire comment. You answered "Yes. Yes we should." This would indicate that, to the question "We should probably ban the bottom one, right?" You answered "Yes. Yes we should.", indicating that you would indeed ban the bottom gun in that image.
Let's clarify and move on.
I would ban both of those guns. I would allow the ownership of bolt-action rifles. Neither of those two guns are bolt-action rifles.
Incidentally, I do support the ability to own a larger variety of weapons so long as they are stored with registered and regulated gun clubs. Just like Australia does.
This is what I take away from it though.
In 2006, the lack of a measurable effect from the 1996 firearms legislation was reported in the British Journal of Criminology. Using ARIMA analysis, Dr Jeanine Baker and Dr Samara McPhedran found no evidence for an impact of the laws on homicide.
Weatherburn described the Baker and McPhedran article as "reputable" and "well-conducted" and stated that the available data are insufficient to draw stronger conclusions. Weatherburn noted the importance of actively policing illegal firearm trafficking and argued that there was little evidence that the new laws had helped in this regard.
Subsequently, a study by McPhedran and Baker compared the incidence of mass shootings in Australia and New Zealand. Data were standardised to a rate per 100,000 people, to control for differences in population size between the countries and mass shootings before and after 1996/1997 were compared between countries. That study found that in the period 1980–1996, both countries experienced mass shootings. The rate did not differ significantly between countries. Since 1996-1997, neither country has experienced a mass shooting event despite the continued availability of semi-automatic longarms in New Zealand. The authors conclude that "the hypothesis that Australia's prohibition of certain types of firearms explains the absence of mass shootings in that country since 1996 does not appear to be supported... if civilian access to certain types of firearms explained the occurrence of mass shootings in Australia (and conversely, if prohibiting such firearms explains the absence of mass shootings), then New Zealand (a country that still allows the ownership of such firearms) would have continued to experience mass shooting events."
Most recently, McPhedran and Baker found there was little evidence for any impacts of the gun laws on firearm suicide among people under 35 years of age, and suggest that the significant financial expenditure associated with Australia's firearms method restriction measures may not have had any impact on youth suicide.
And the multiple reputable studies in the wiki article you linked say exactly opposite. And point out that both New Zealand and Australia had mass shootings in the same time period, but neither have since, despite New Zealand still allowing the guns Australia banned.
...which still allow for semi-automatics to be purchased and owned. I'm really not sure what you're going for here. Yeah, Australia got rid of a lot of guns. One study says "it had a huge effect", several others say "it had little to no effect". The mass shootings that prompted it went away after the ban, but also went away in a country with a similar culture and no ban.
Read the article again.
From the Wikipedia article:
A standard firearms licence allows the use of "A Category" firearms. To possess firearms of another category a person is required to get an endorsement to their licence. There are different endorsements for different classes of firearm but they all require a higher level of storage security, stricter vetting requirements and the applicant must have an end use for wanting the endorsement. Be it pest control for E cat, cowboy shooting and 3-gun for B cat, or just wanting to collect (provided one has adequate storage security) for C cat.
...
E Endorsement – Military Style Semi-Automatics (M.S.S.A)
New class of restricted weapon that was created after the Aramoana tragedy. At the time anyone with an M.S.S.A that wanted to keep it in that configuration was given a E endorsement (after going through the vetting and extra security requirements). But presently few are issued. Common reasons for wanting an E endorsement are professional pest destruction, collecting, 3-gun and service rifle shooting. Those people that did not want the extra hassle and expense of the endorsement converted their rifles into 'A' configuration by removing the components that made it an 'E'.
Yes. You can still own and purchase a semi-automatic rifle in New Zealand. They aren't banned.
So how do Kiwis go about getting their hands on guns?
The process for obtaining a basic firearms license is long, complicated and expensive. In other words, designed to weed out a broad portion of the population that the law deems unsuitable to possess a firearm.
After submitting your application to the NZ Police, you are signed up for a mandatory firearm safety course put on by the New Zealand Mountain Safety Council. The course runs about three hours. Experienced instructors offer advice covering the handling, operation and storage of firearms. It ends with a written exam. If you fail the exam, you must go back to the police station to register for the next available class, with no exceptions.
If you pass, your results are reported back to the NZ Police Arms Officer in preparation for the next step, the interview.
About a week following the safety class, the Arms Officer rang us to set up a personal interview. He came to our house in the evening with a huge booklet filled with questions. He interviewed each of us alone; me, my partner, and our personal reference (which must be a non-relative who has known you for at least two years and can attest to your ‘good character’).
The interview was intense and personal. I observed the Arms Officer taking notice of the general state of our home as well as our demeanor. He confirmed we had a lockable cabinet for firearm storage, and separate lockable storage for ammunition. He asked pointed questions about alcohol and drug consumption, our domestic situation and our general mental health.
He also asked what we intended to use firearms for. Hint: personal or home protection is not an accepted rationale and would likely get you rejected – acceptable reasons are limited to hunting and/or target shooting.
Ok? What's your point? You said you wanted everything but shotguns and bolt action rifles banned, then linked to things to support your reasoning that haven't really supported it, and are now talking about a more comprehensive licensing process to own a semi-automatic.
You were the one who brought up New Zealand, suggesting that the similarity in shooting statistics between it and Australia showed the ineffectiveness of gun bans. I just posted information to show that, actually, New Zealand has a very intense process to regulate and license gun ownership. In fact, I'd go so far as to say the process sounds more intense than the ones in Canada and Australia.
I personally feel its value was diminished greatly when state militias were folded into the national guard. Which goes a long way towards explaining my view on it. The 2nd amendment is one statement and not two; "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." Note the commas and not the periods. This was never meant for single individuals to own dozens of guns in a collection, and never considered the force projection of a fully or semi automatic weapon that did not need to reload between shots.
It's an outdated amendment written to protect the rights of state militias which largely do not exist any more.
But I do not suggest killing it - I suggest reframing it to meet the needs of a modern world and the "arms" that exist today.
Nobody thinks us running on laws written regarding computers in the 60s is a good idea today. The tech changed, so the laws had to also.
OK, let's dig into this for a minute. Maybe we can break away from the emotional stuff - I feel pretty low for the way this thread turned sour for @Enc.
You want to reframe it for the needs of a modern world, but I don't know what you mean by that. Rather than put forward my own thoughts first, lemme ask you some questions:
What do you think is the philosophical underpinning of the 2nd, if you think there is one?
Do you think there's any worth to the majority opinions in Heller and McDonald that recognized an individual, incorporated right?
What are the needs of the modern world as it stands today (rather than the magic "all guns vanish" world, for example)?
What would your rewritten 2nd Amendment look like?
There would be minutiae having little to do with the amendment itself, which could then get us to where an amendment alteration makes sense.
All guns MUST be purchased through a state managed broker, even private trades, and all guns must have a registration number that follows it from manufacture to dealer to owner to next owner - a lineage of ownership.
Every single gun that is not a bolt action rifle or a shotgun would need to be stored somewhere non residential. The right to protect your homestead with shotgun or rifle would be protected and remain for all localities that choose to not further restrict it due to population density issues.
I would welcome the introduction of state registered gun clubs that members could join, and after passing a quick background check they could pay a small, REASONABLE dues to be a part of. In turn, they get access to a shooting range, a broad number of guns to shoot, and a place to store their own collection. Pistols, AR-15, fucking machine guns - why not. In the confines of the club, amongst dues paying members.
All current guns in the country can be grandfathered into this ownership state with a free registration, state funded, with no corncern of the prior paper trail, with the understanding that all future sale and trades of guns must follow the rules stated above, and all guns falling outside the purview of a rifle or shotgun must be stored at a gun club you are a member of. Any guns not a part of this system after X years found that are not immediately surrendered to the authorities or deactivated in a permanent fashion is a felony offense full stop.
And after all of that legwork, a modern amendment would be something close to "For those in areas where the laws of nature can threaten the homesteads of the people, the right to bear bolt action rifles and pump action shotguns in the defense of one's property, life and family shall not be infringed"
someone better with the specifics of language can do better than that, but this is a framework that would still let hobbyists have their fun, still let farmers and people in the areas where rifles and shotguns are a part of life still have them, and drastically reduces the number of guns most often used in crime off the streets, especially after a decade or two of this law being in effect.
I'm gonna leave off talking about the guts of the regulatory regime you want imposed (except to say that the end result will be that gun ownership will be the domain of the rich and the white) and dig into the proposed amendment...
What you're proposing bans all semi-automatic weapons of all kinds, all handguns of all kinds, bans hunting, bans gun ownership completely for all metro area citizens, and criminalizes the use of any firearm in defense against a person.
This is your intended result?
I am going to beg that you stop making any mention of registration a race thing, because it is a cheap tactic and not relevant to the conversation at hand. Unless you can show me how car ownership is racist, please drop this tactic, it is not a good one and it makes it hard for me to focus on the rest of the post.
I am proposing a ban on having pistols, and semi-auto weapons outside of a lockbox outside of state-sanctioned clubs, yup.
I am in no way proposing an end to hunting, unless you need a semi automatic weapon to hunt, which I never have. Rifles are great hunting weapons, as are bows, birdshot, buckshot, etc.
OK we'll leave off race for another tangent. I object to referring to it as a 'tactic' though; it's a legitimate point to argue, and your car analogy is mega-bad. I need to go back and reply to Elki's post from a while ago on this anyway, so moving on.
Your proposed revision to the 2nd doesn't protect handguns but does specifically protect certain other guns, so it's reasonable to argue that you left out handguns because you wanted them left out. Since they're not protected, they can be banned entirely, and of course they will be (as demonstrated by DC and Chicago).
Your proposed revision only protects the right to bear arms "in the defense of one's property, life, and family", but only in "areas where the laws of nature can threaten". This does not protect ownership for anything other than defense. Since the Amendment only bars restrictions on defending oneself, restrictions, up to and including an outright ban, on hunting are permissible. Likewise, in areas where "nature" doesn't threaten, no protection of any kind is offered by the Amendment so total bans are on the table.
This is a pretty radical revision. I know the regulatory regime you set out is a lot more permissive, but there's no reason to assume any State would follow it when they can just outright ban huge swaths of weapons, or all weapons (in some areas). We have to work from what the Amendment protects, and assume that governments will restrict as broadly as they can until they run into the Constitutional limit. Why do we have to assume that? Because that's what lots of city governments try to do right now, today... and because when talking about Rights, anything we don't stop the government from doing as part of the foundational document is up for grabs. See also: arguments for a privacy amendment, arguments for abortion rights, arguments against voter ID, and so on.
So if more of the regulatory regime was present in the amendment - essentially, "Furthermore, the states must permit and license the existence of gun clubs in non residential areas and not within 500 yards of a residential zone for the use and ownership of pistols, longarms, and automatic weapons kept within the confines of these premises, and the right to do so shall not be infringed"
Would that allay some of your issues with it?
It gets closer. We've still banned hunting, banned transport of weapons (another way DC is fucking with the Heller ruling) and banned the possession all weapons inside cities. But closer.
Still a pretty radical disarming of the population. This is your intention?
I would word it differently, more "shifting the location of owned guns out of the homes and into secure facilities," but the end result is yes - I am all for less guns being on the street and making legislative moves to achieve that.
And if you think Texas, Wyoming, Montana, South Dakota, Missouri, or pretty much anywhere that it makes sense for hunting to be a thing will ban people going into the woods with their rifles and bagging a buck, I don't know what to tell you - hunting will be protected for a very long time, as it should be.
In some rural areas, banning hunting would literally lead to poor families going without food.
This is an argument for welfare, not hunting.
Well.. yes and no.
Generally these places have a hard time getting food in general because of logistics.
So giving them food stamps or an extra hundred dollars a month so they can go to walmart doesn't solve anything since walmart isn't nearby.
not a doctor, not a lawyer, examples I use may not be fully researched so don't take out of context plz, don't @ me
Which is why I said, "Yes. I support banning both of them." That's because, as I have said multiple times, I support restricting gun ownership to shotguns (and not tactical urban warfare shotguns) and bolt-action rifles.
You are literally baying at the strawman here. If I did not know what your little trick was, I would not have directly mentioned bolt action rifles.
It's actually a little hilarious. You had this whole tangent lined up, got it shot down, but you keep on going because you really wanted to have the "You know not guns!" discussion.
Your words, not mine.
What are you even talking about!
... Do you understand how questions and answers work? I asked, "We should probably ban the bottom one, right?" It's the only question in that entire comment. You answered "Yes. Yes we should." This would indicate that, to the question "We should probably ban the bottom one, right?" You answered "Yes. Yes we should.", indicating that you would indeed ban the bottom gun in that image.
Let's clarify and move on.
I would ban both of those guns. I would allow the ownership of bolt-action rifles. Neither of those two guns are bolt-action rifles.
Incidentally, I do support the ability to own a larger variety of weapons so long as they are stored with registered and regulated gun clubs. Just like Australia does.
This is what I take away from it though.
In 2006, the lack of a measurable effect from the 1996 firearms legislation was reported in the British Journal of Criminology. Using ARIMA analysis, Dr Jeanine Baker and Dr Samara McPhedran found no evidence for an impact of the laws on homicide.
Weatherburn described the Baker and McPhedran article as "reputable" and "well-conducted" and stated that the available data are insufficient to draw stronger conclusions. Weatherburn noted the importance of actively policing illegal firearm trafficking and argued that there was little evidence that the new laws had helped in this regard.
Subsequently, a study by McPhedran and Baker compared the incidence of mass shootings in Australia and New Zealand. Data were standardised to a rate per 100,000 people, to control for differences in population size between the countries and mass shootings before and after 1996/1997 were compared between countries. That study found that in the period 1980–1996, both countries experienced mass shootings. The rate did not differ significantly between countries. Since 1996-1997, neither country has experienced a mass shooting event despite the continued availability of semi-automatic longarms in New Zealand. The authors conclude that "the hypothesis that Australia's prohibition of certain types of firearms explains the absence of mass shootings in that country since 1996 does not appear to be supported... if civilian access to certain types of firearms explained the occurrence of mass shootings in Australia (and conversely, if prohibiting such firearms explains the absence of mass shootings), then New Zealand (a country that still allows the ownership of such firearms) would have continued to experience mass shooting events."
Most recently, McPhedran and Baker found there was little evidence for any impacts of the gun laws on firearm suicide among people under 35 years of age, and suggest that the significant financial expenditure associated with Australia's firearms method restriction measures may not have had any impact on youth suicide.
And the multiple reputable studies in the wiki article you linked say exactly opposite. And point out that both New Zealand and Australia had mass shootings in the same time period, but neither have since, despite New Zealand still allowing the guns Australia banned.
...which still allow for semi-automatics to be purchased and owned. I'm really not sure what you're going for here. Yeah, Australia got rid of a lot of guns. One study says "it had a huge effect", several others say "it had little to no effect". The mass shootings that prompted it went away after the ban, but also went away in a country with a similar culture and no ban.
Read the article again.
From the Wikipedia article:
A standard firearms licence allows the use of "A Category" firearms. To possess firearms of another category a person is required to get an endorsement to their licence. There are different endorsements for different classes of firearm but they all require a higher level of storage security, stricter vetting requirements and the applicant must have an end use for wanting the endorsement. Be it pest control for E cat, cowboy shooting and 3-gun for B cat, or just wanting to collect (provided one has adequate storage security) for C cat.
...
E Endorsement – Military Style Semi-Automatics (M.S.S.A)
New class of restricted weapon that was created after the Aramoana tragedy. At the time anyone with an M.S.S.A that wanted to keep it in that configuration was given a E endorsement (after going through the vetting and extra security requirements). But presently few are issued. Common reasons for wanting an E endorsement are professional pest destruction, collecting, 3-gun and service rifle shooting. Those people that did not want the extra hassle and expense of the endorsement converted their rifles into 'A' configuration by removing the components that made it an 'E'.
Yes. You can still own and purchase a semi-automatic rifle in New Zealand. They aren't banned.
So how do Kiwis go about getting their hands on guns?
The process for obtaining a basic firearms license is long, complicated and expensive. In other words, designed to weed out a broad portion of the population that the law deems unsuitable to possess a firearm.
After submitting your application to the NZ Police, you are signed up for a mandatory firearm safety course put on by the New Zealand Mountain Safety Council. The course runs about three hours. Experienced instructors offer advice covering the handling, operation and storage of firearms. It ends with a written exam. If you fail the exam, you must go back to the police station to register for the next available class, with no exceptions.
If you pass, your results are reported back to the NZ Police Arms Officer in preparation for the next step, the interview.
About a week following the safety class, the Arms Officer rang us to set up a personal interview. He came to our house in the evening with a huge booklet filled with questions. He interviewed each of us alone; me, my partner, and our personal reference (which must be a non-relative who has known you for at least two years and can attest to your ‘good character’).
The interview was intense and personal. I observed the Arms Officer taking notice of the general state of our home as well as our demeanor. He confirmed we had a lockable cabinet for firearm storage, and separate lockable storage for ammunition. He asked pointed questions about alcohol and drug consumption, our domestic situation and our general mental health.
He also asked what we intended to use firearms for. Hint: personal or home protection is not an accepted rationale and would likely get you rejected – acceptable reasons are limited to hunting and/or target shooting.
Ok? What's your point? You said you wanted everything but shotguns and bolt action rifles banned, then linked to things to support your reasoning that haven't really supported it, and are now talking about a more comprehensive licensing process to own a semi-automatic.
You were the one who brought up New Zealand, suggesting that the similarity in shooting statistics between it and Australia showed the ineffectiveness of gun bans. I just posted information to show that, actually, New Zealand has a very intense process to regulate and license gun ownership. In fact, I'd go so far as to say the process sounds more intense than the ones in Canada and Australia.
Your Wikipedia article said the mass shootings in both countries stopped at the same time in spite of the fact only Australia outright banned semi-automatics. The thing you linked to make the case for your stated position on the matter, which is that you want everything but shotguns and bolt action rifles banned.
We straight up need more people my age and younger to hunt. Hunting is super important, as it keeps certain populations from becoming disease vectors or overpopulated/dangerous.
Welfare + responsible hunting is a great recipe for success in fighting poverty in rural areas.
Eh we don't need private hunters to do this, game wardens would be perfectly capable of culling herds and providing the meat to foodbanks. I don't think we need to encourage civilian hunting anymore than our general culture already does.
I would like some money because these are artisanal nuggets of wisdom philistine.
We straight up need more people my age and younger to hunt. Hunting is super important, as it keeps certain populations from becoming disease vectors or overpopulated/dangerous.
Welfare + responsible hunting is a great recipe for success in fighting poverty in rural areas.
Eh we don't need private hunters to do this, game wardens would be perfectly capable of culling herds and providing the meat to foodbanks. I don't think we need to encourage civilian hunting anymore than our general culture already does.
Wasteful. There's people who do it for free and fun. Why not let them donate instead?
not a doctor, not a lawyer, examples I use may not be fully researched so don't take out of context plz, don't @ me
Which is why I said, "Yes. I support banning both of them." That's because, as I have said multiple times, I support restricting gun ownership to shotguns (and not tactical urban warfare shotguns) and bolt-action rifles.
You are literally baying at the strawman here. If I did not know what your little trick was, I would not have directly mentioned bolt action rifles.
It's actually a little hilarious. You had this whole tangent lined up, got it shot down, but you keep on going because you really wanted to have the "You know not guns!" discussion.
Your words, not mine.
What are you even talking about!
... Do you understand how questions and answers work? I asked, "We should probably ban the bottom one, right?" It's the only question in that entire comment. You answered "Yes. Yes we should." This would indicate that, to the question "We should probably ban the bottom one, right?" You answered "Yes. Yes we should.", indicating that you would indeed ban the bottom gun in that image.
Let's clarify and move on.
I would ban both of those guns. I would allow the ownership of bolt-action rifles. Neither of those two guns are bolt-action rifles.
Incidentally, I do support the ability to own a larger variety of weapons so long as they are stored with registered and regulated gun clubs. Just like Australia does.
This is what I take away from it though.
In 2006, the lack of a measurable effect from the 1996 firearms legislation was reported in the British Journal of Criminology. Using ARIMA analysis, Dr Jeanine Baker and Dr Samara McPhedran found no evidence for an impact of the laws on homicide.
Weatherburn described the Baker and McPhedran article as "reputable" and "well-conducted" and stated that the available data are insufficient to draw stronger conclusions. Weatherburn noted the importance of actively policing illegal firearm trafficking and argued that there was little evidence that the new laws had helped in this regard.
Subsequently, a study by McPhedran and Baker compared the incidence of mass shootings in Australia and New Zealand. Data were standardised to a rate per 100,000 people, to control for differences in population size between the countries and mass shootings before and after 1996/1997 were compared between countries. That study found that in the period 1980–1996, both countries experienced mass shootings. The rate did not differ significantly between countries. Since 1996-1997, neither country has experienced a mass shooting event despite the continued availability of semi-automatic longarms in New Zealand. The authors conclude that "the hypothesis that Australia's prohibition of certain types of firearms explains the absence of mass shootings in that country since 1996 does not appear to be supported... if civilian access to certain types of firearms explained the occurrence of mass shootings in Australia (and conversely, if prohibiting such firearms explains the absence of mass shootings), then New Zealand (a country that still allows the ownership of such firearms) would have continued to experience mass shooting events."
Most recently, McPhedran and Baker found there was little evidence for any impacts of the gun laws on firearm suicide among people under 35 years of age, and suggest that the significant financial expenditure associated with Australia's firearms method restriction measures may not have had any impact on youth suicide.
And the multiple reputable studies in the wiki article you linked say exactly opposite. And point out that both New Zealand and Australia had mass shootings in the same time period, but neither have since, despite New Zealand still allowing the guns Australia banned.
...which still allow for semi-automatics to be purchased and owned. I'm really not sure what you're going for here. Yeah, Australia got rid of a lot of guns. One study says "it had a huge effect", several others say "it had little to no effect". The mass shootings that prompted it went away after the ban, but also went away in a country with a similar culture and no ban.
Read the article again.
From the Wikipedia article:
A standard firearms licence allows the use of "A Category" firearms. To possess firearms of another category a person is required to get an endorsement to their licence. There are different endorsements for different classes of firearm but they all require a higher level of storage security, stricter vetting requirements and the applicant must have an end use for wanting the endorsement. Be it pest control for E cat, cowboy shooting and 3-gun for B cat, or just wanting to collect (provided one has adequate storage security) for C cat.
...
E Endorsement – Military Style Semi-Automatics (M.S.S.A)
New class of restricted weapon that was created after the Aramoana tragedy. At the time anyone with an M.S.S.A that wanted to keep it in that configuration was given a E endorsement (after going through the vetting and extra security requirements). But presently few are issued. Common reasons for wanting an E endorsement are professional pest destruction, collecting, 3-gun and service rifle shooting. Those people that did not want the extra hassle and expense of the endorsement converted their rifles into 'A' configuration by removing the components that made it an 'E'.
Yes. You can still own and purchase a semi-automatic rifle in New Zealand. They aren't banned.
So how do Kiwis go about getting their hands on guns?
The process for obtaining a basic firearms license is long, complicated and expensive. In other words, designed to weed out a broad portion of the population that the law deems unsuitable to possess a firearm.
After submitting your application to the NZ Police, you are signed up for a mandatory firearm safety course put on by the New Zealand Mountain Safety Council. The course runs about three hours. Experienced instructors offer advice covering the handling, operation and storage of firearms. It ends with a written exam. If you fail the exam, you must go back to the police station to register for the next available class, with no exceptions.
If you pass, your results are reported back to the NZ Police Arms Officer in preparation for the next step, the interview.
About a week following the safety class, the Arms Officer rang us to set up a personal interview. He came to our house in the evening with a huge booklet filled with questions. He interviewed each of us alone; me, my partner, and our personal reference (which must be a non-relative who has known you for at least two years and can attest to your ‘good character’).
The interview was intense and personal. I observed the Arms Officer taking notice of the general state of our home as well as our demeanor. He confirmed we had a lockable cabinet for firearm storage, and separate lockable storage for ammunition. He asked pointed questions about alcohol and drug consumption, our domestic situation and our general mental health.
He also asked what we intended to use firearms for. Hint: personal or home protection is not an accepted rationale and would likely get you rejected – acceptable reasons are limited to hunting and/or target shooting.
Ok? What's your point? You said you wanted everything but shotguns and bolt action rifles banned, then linked to things to support your reasoning that haven't really supported it, and are now talking about a more comprehensive licensing process to own a semi-automatic.
You were the one who brought up New Zealand, suggesting that the similarity in shooting statistics between it and Australia showed the ineffectiveness of gun bans. I just posted information to show that, actually, New Zealand has a very intense process to regulate and license gun ownership. In fact, I'd go so far as to say the process sounds more intense than the ones in Canada and Australia.
Your Wikipedia article said the mass shootings in both countries stopped at the same time in spite of the fact only Australia outright banned semi-automatics. The thing you linked to make the case for your stated position on the matter, which is that you want everything but shotguns and bolt action rifles banned.
I mean, we already regulate hunting with licenses and hunting seasons and animal size and all sorts of stuff! Those laws are not in any way connected to the second amendment, they are just our hunting laws and they would remain on the books.
Why would they? NYC voters can easily outweigh the rest of the state, and ban hunting altogether since it's not covered under the specific allowance for defense in your amendment.
+1
Options
syndalisGetting ClassyOn the WallRegistered User, Loves Apple Productsregular
We straight up need more people my age and younger to hunt. Hunting is super important, as it keeps certain populations from becoming disease vectors or overpopulated/dangerous.
Welfare + responsible hunting is a great recipe for success in fighting poverty in rural areas.
Eh we don't need private hunters to do this, game wardens would be perfectly capable of culling herds and providing the meat to foodbanks. I don't think we need to encourage civilian hunting anymore than our general culture already does.
Our current deer density is roughly ten times higher in the east coast than it was in the 1700s due to the relocation or extinction of their natural predators, and due to a recent upswing in aversion to hunting. This has lead to more car accidents/fatalities, a reduction in forest growth due to seed distribution issues, and a variety of other well studied problems.
It is another case of man-made environmental impact, and we could address this simply by taking over in our duty as predators and culling the herds.
Plus, venison is tasty.
I dont think we need to set up an army of government employees to do the hunting in this instance, we just need to promote responsible hunting culture in the places where it is needed, and make sure that the hunting seasons are well known.
SW-4158-3990-6116
Let's play Mario Kart or something...
Incidentally, I do support the ability to own a larger variety of weapons so long as they are stored with registered and regulated gun clubs. Just like Australia does.
We straight up need more people my age and younger to hunt. Hunting is super important, as it keeps certain populations from becoming disease vectors or overpopulated/dangerous.
Welfare + responsible hunting is a great recipe for success in fighting poverty in rural areas.
Eh we don't need private hunters to do this, game wardens would be perfectly capable of culling herds and providing the meat to foodbanks. I don't think we need to encourage civilian hunting anymore than our general culture already does.
Wasteful. There's people who do it for free and fun. Why not let them donate instead?
Chain of custody for one, safety for another, amateurs hurt each other and themselves in the woods all the time. I'm not saying we ban private hunting, I just don't think we have to encourage it like Syndalis advocates, just about every state has game wardens/rural sheriffs who can do the job and would probably love to hunt for the less privileged.
This also has the added benefit of allowing those who can't afford a quality fire arm access to game meat as a supplement to their normal eating habit and helps build trust in rural areas between their authority figures and the people they are assigned to protect. If rural sheriff's showed up at the lesser privileged members of their community with meat in tow it would be a helpful reminder that yes the government you pay taxes for directly looks out for you.
I would like some money because these are artisanal nuggets of wisdom philistine.
We straight up need more people my age and younger to hunt. Hunting is super important, as it keeps certain populations from becoming disease vectors or overpopulated/dangerous.
Welfare + responsible hunting is a great recipe for success in fighting poverty in rural areas.
Eh we don't need private hunters to do this, game wardens would be perfectly capable of culling herds and providing the meat to foodbanks. I don't think we need to encourage civilian hunting anymore than our general culture already does.
Why not? Hunting is a perfectly fine thing to do. Just because you don't like it doesn't mean it should be banned.
The onus is on you to prove why people shouldn't be able to hunt, not on the hunters to prove why they should.
And don't use the "gun violence" argument either, because -i think, but will have to confirm- none of the current mass shootings were carried out by hunters.
For that matter, they weren't carried out by the avid "Tacticool" gun collectors either.
I personally feel its value was diminished greatly when state militias were folded into the national guard. Which goes a long way towards explaining my view on it. The 2nd amendment is one statement and not two; "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." Note the commas and not the periods. This was never meant for single individuals to own dozens of guns in a collection, and never considered the force projection of a fully or semi automatic weapon that did not need to reload between shots.
It's an outdated amendment written to protect the rights of state militias which largely do not exist any more.
But I do not suggest killing it - I suggest reframing it to meet the needs of a modern world and the "arms" that exist today.
Nobody thinks us running on laws written regarding computers in the 60s is a good idea today. The tech changed, so the laws had to also.
OK, let's dig into this for a minute. Maybe we can break away from the emotional stuff - I feel pretty low for the way this thread turned sour for @Enc.
You want to reframe it for the needs of a modern world, but I don't know what you mean by that. Rather than put forward my own thoughts first, lemme ask you some questions:
What do you think is the philosophical underpinning of the 2nd, if you think there is one?
Do you think there's any worth to the majority opinions in Heller and McDonald that recognized an individual, incorporated right?
What are the needs of the modern world as it stands today (rather than the magic "all guns vanish" world, for example)?
What would your rewritten 2nd Amendment look like?
There would be minutiae having little to do with the amendment itself, which could then get us to where an amendment alteration makes sense.
All guns MUST be purchased through a state managed broker, even private trades, and all guns must have a registration number that follows it from manufacture to dealer to owner to next owner - a lineage of ownership.
Every single gun that is not a bolt action rifle or a shotgun would need to be stored somewhere non residential. The right to protect your homestead with shotgun or rifle would be protected and remain for all localities that choose to not further restrict it due to population density issues.
I would welcome the introduction of state registered gun clubs that members could join, and after passing a quick background check they could pay a small, REASONABLE dues to be a part of. In turn, they get access to a shooting range, a broad number of guns to shoot, and a place to store their own collection. Pistols, AR-15, fucking machine guns - why not. In the confines of the club, amongst dues paying members.
All current guns in the country can be grandfathered into this ownership state with a free registration, state funded, with no corncern of the prior paper trail, with the understanding that all future sale and trades of guns must follow the rules stated above, and all guns falling outside the purview of a rifle or shotgun must be stored at a gun club you are a member of. Any guns not a part of this system after X years found that are not immediately surrendered to the authorities or deactivated in a permanent fashion is a felony offense full stop.
And after all of that legwork, a modern amendment would be something close to "For those in areas where the laws of nature can threaten the homesteads of the people, the right to bear bolt action rifles and pump action shotguns in the defense of one's property, life and family shall not be infringed"
someone better with the specifics of language can do better than that, but this is a framework that would still let hobbyists have their fun, still let farmers and people in the areas where rifles and shotguns are a part of life still have them, and drastically reduces the number of guns most often used in crime off the streets, especially after a decade or two of this law being in effect.
I'm gonna leave off talking about the guts of the regulatory regime you want imposed (except to say that the end result will be that gun ownership will be the domain of the rich and the white) and dig into the proposed amendment...
What you're proposing bans all semi-automatic weapons of all kinds, all handguns of all kinds, bans hunting, bans gun ownership completely for all metro area citizens, and criminalizes the use of any firearm in defense against a person.
This is your intended result?
I am going to beg that you stop making any mention of registration a race thing, because it is a cheap tactic and not relevant to the conversation at hand. Unless you can show me how car ownership is racist, please drop this tactic, it is not a good one and it makes it hard for me to focus on the rest of the post.
I am proposing a ban on having pistols, and semi-auto weapons outside of a lockbox outside of state-sanctioned clubs, yup.
I am in no way proposing an end to hunting, unless you need a semi automatic weapon to hunt, which I never have. Rifles are great hunting weapons, as are bows, birdshot, buckshot, etc.
OK we'll leave off race for another tangent. I object to referring to it as a 'tactic' though; it's a legitimate point to argue, and your car analogy is mega-bad. I need to go back and reply to Elki's post from a while ago on this anyway, so moving on.
Your proposed revision to the 2nd doesn't protect handguns but does specifically protect certain other guns, so it's reasonable to argue that you left out handguns because you wanted them left out. Since they're not protected, they can be banned entirely, and of course they will be (as demonstrated by DC and Chicago).
Your proposed revision only protects the right to bear arms "in the defense of one's property, life, and family", but only in "areas where the laws of nature can threaten". This does not protect ownership for anything other than defense. Since the Amendment only bars restrictions on defending oneself, restrictions, up to and including an outright ban, on hunting are permissible. Likewise, in areas where "nature" doesn't threaten, no protection of any kind is offered by the Amendment so total bans are on the table.
This is a pretty radical revision. I know the regulatory regime you set out is a lot more permissive, but there's no reason to assume any State would follow it when they can just outright ban huge swaths of weapons, or all weapons (in some areas). We have to work from what the Amendment protects, and assume that governments will restrict as broadly as they can until they run into the Constitutional limit. Why do we have to assume that? Because that's what lots of city governments try to do right now, today... and because when talking about Rights, anything we don't stop the government from doing as part of the foundational document is up for grabs. See also: arguments for a privacy amendment, arguments for abortion rights, arguments against voter ID, and so on.
So if more of the regulatory regime was present in the amendment - essentially, "Furthermore, the states must permit and license the existence of gun clubs in non residential areas and not within 500 yards of a residential zone for the use and ownership of pistols, longarms, and automatic weapons kept within the confines of these premises, and the right to do so shall not be infringed"
Would that allay some of your issues with it?
It gets closer. We've still banned hunting, banned transport of weapons (another way DC is fucking with the Heller ruling) and banned the possession all weapons inside cities. But closer.
Still a pretty radical disarming of the population. This is your intention?
I would word it differently, more "shifting the location of owned guns out of the homes and into secure facilities," but the end result is yes - I am all for less guns being on the street and making legislative moves to achieve that.
Well, let's call a spade a spade. If you can't get to your gun unless the range is open and you go there, and if you're not allowed to transport it yourself from place to place, you've been disarmed.
Once again I wasn't saying we ban hunting, I just don't think we have to advocate for young people to hunt! Good lord guys at I just suggested for animal culling purposes we literally have game wardens who can accomplish this task.
I would like some money because these are artisanal nuggets of wisdom philistine.
Once again I wasn't saying we ban hunting, I just don't think we have to advocate for young people to hunt! Good lord guys at I just suggested for animal culling purposes we literally have game wardens who can accomplish this task.
Why not teach younger folks to? It teaches responsibility, personal reliance, troubleshooting skills, patience, hard work, a respect for life, connects them to environment.....
I personally feel its value was diminished greatly when state militias were folded into the national guard. Which goes a long way towards explaining my view on it. The 2nd amendment is one statement and not two; "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." Note the commas and not the periods. This was never meant for single individuals to own dozens of guns in a collection, and never considered the force projection of a fully or semi automatic weapon that did not need to reload between shots.
It's an outdated amendment written to protect the rights of state militias which largely do not exist any more.
But I do not suggest killing it - I suggest reframing it to meet the needs of a modern world and the "arms" that exist today.
Nobody thinks us running on laws written regarding computers in the 60s is a good idea today. The tech changed, so the laws had to also.
OK, let's dig into this for a minute. Maybe we can break away from the emotional stuff - I feel pretty low for the way this thread turned sour for @Enc.
You want to reframe it for the needs of a modern world, but I don't know what you mean by that. Rather than put forward my own thoughts first, lemme ask you some questions:
What do you think is the philosophical underpinning of the 2nd, if you think there is one?
Do you think there's any worth to the majority opinions in Heller and McDonald that recognized an individual, incorporated right?
What are the needs of the modern world as it stands today (rather than the magic "all guns vanish" world, for example)?
What would your rewritten 2nd Amendment look like?
There would be minutiae having little to do with the amendment itself, which could then get us to where an amendment alteration makes sense.
All guns MUST be purchased through a state managed broker, even private trades, and all guns must have a registration number that follows it from manufacture to dealer to owner to next owner - a lineage of ownership.
Every single gun that is not a bolt action rifle or a shotgun would need to be stored somewhere non residential. The right to protect your homestead with shotgun or rifle would be protected and remain for all localities that choose to not further restrict it due to population density issues.
I would welcome the introduction of state registered gun clubs that members could join, and after passing a quick background check they could pay a small, REASONABLE dues to be a part of. In turn, they get access to a shooting range, a broad number of guns to shoot, and a place to store their own collection. Pistols, AR-15, fucking machine guns - why not. In the confines of the club, amongst dues paying members.
All current guns in the country can be grandfathered into this ownership state with a free registration, state funded, with no corncern of the prior paper trail, with the understanding that all future sale and trades of guns must follow the rules stated above, and all guns falling outside the purview of a rifle or shotgun must be stored at a gun club you are a member of. Any guns not a part of this system after X years found that are not immediately surrendered to the authorities or deactivated in a permanent fashion is a felony offense full stop.
And after all of that legwork, a modern amendment would be something close to "For those in areas where the laws of nature can threaten the homesteads of the people, the right to bear bolt action rifles and pump action shotguns in the defense of one's property, life and family shall not be infringed"
someone better with the specifics of language can do better than that, but this is a framework that would still let hobbyists have their fun, still let farmers and people in the areas where rifles and shotguns are a part of life still have them, and drastically reduces the number of guns most often used in crime off the streets, especially after a decade or two of this law being in effect.
I'm gonna leave off talking about the guts of the regulatory regime you want imposed (except to say that the end result will be that gun ownership will be the domain of the rich and the white) and dig into the proposed amendment...
What you're proposing bans all semi-automatic weapons of all kinds, all handguns of all kinds, bans hunting, bans gun ownership completely for all metro area citizens, and criminalizes the use of any firearm in defense against a person.
This is your intended result?
I am going to beg that you stop making any mention of registration a race thing, because it is a cheap tactic and not relevant to the conversation at hand. Unless you can show me how car ownership is racist, please drop this tactic, it is not a good one and it makes it hard for me to focus on the rest of the post.
I am proposing a ban on having pistols, and semi-auto weapons outside of a lockbox outside of state-sanctioned clubs, yup.
I am in no way proposing an end to hunting, unless you need a semi automatic weapon to hunt, which I never have. Rifles are great hunting weapons, as are bows, birdshot, buckshot, etc.
OK we'll leave off race for another tangent. I object to referring to it as a 'tactic' though; it's a legitimate point to argue, and your car analogy is mega-bad. I need to go back and reply to Elki's post from a while ago on this anyway, so moving on.
Your proposed revision to the 2nd doesn't protect handguns but does specifically protect certain other guns, so it's reasonable to argue that you left out handguns because you wanted them left out. Since they're not protected, they can be banned entirely, and of course they will be (as demonstrated by DC and Chicago).
Your proposed revision only protects the right to bear arms "in the defense of one's property, life, and family", but only in "areas where the laws of nature can threaten". This does not protect ownership for anything other than defense. Since the Amendment only bars restrictions on defending oneself, restrictions, up to and including an outright ban, on hunting are permissible. Likewise, in areas where "nature" doesn't threaten, no protection of any kind is offered by the Amendment so total bans are on the table.
This is a pretty radical revision. I know the regulatory regime you set out is a lot more permissive, but there's no reason to assume any State would follow it when they can just outright ban huge swaths of weapons, or all weapons (in some areas). We have to work from what the Amendment protects, and assume that governments will restrict as broadly as they can until they run into the Constitutional limit. Why do we have to assume that? Because that's what lots of city governments try to do right now, today... and because when talking about Rights, anything we don't stop the government from doing as part of the foundational document is up for grabs. See also: arguments for a privacy amendment, arguments for abortion rights, arguments against voter ID, and so on.
So if more of the regulatory regime was present in the amendment - essentially, "Furthermore, the states must permit and license the existence of gun clubs in non residential areas and not within 500 yards of a residential zone for the use and ownership of pistols, longarms, and automatic weapons kept within the confines of these premises, and the right to do so shall not be infringed"
Would that allay some of your issues with it?
It gets closer. We've still banned hunting, banned transport of weapons (another way DC is fucking with the Heller ruling) and banned the possession all weapons inside cities. But closer.
Still a pretty radical disarming of the population. This is your intention?
I would word it differently, more "shifting the location of owned guns out of the homes and into secure facilities," but the end result is yes - I am all for less guns being on the street and making legislative moves to achieve that.
Well, let's call a spade a spade. If you can't get to your gun unless the range is open and you go there, and if you're not allowed to transport it yourself from place to place, you've been disarmed.
We are going to start from basics here.
1) I am not a lawmaker
2) Neither are you
And we can go to the pendantic back and forth of trying to find holes in the arguments put here - work that would be better served by actual lawmakers and lawyers, or you can state that the spirit intended (which was the bulk of the work put in the original post above the suggested language for an amendment) is fair or not.
The amendment doesnt say anything about hours of operation so because it doesn't you are disarmed at 2am is a level of hyper specificity that will keep any chance of finding a middle ground from happening.
So before I even continue the dance at this point - is what I wrote in the beginning - the SPIRIT, not THE LETTER which you are trying to find holes in currently, something you could get behind?
SW-4158-3990-6116
Let's play Mario Kart or something...
Once again I wasn't saying we ban hunting, I just don't think we have to advocate for young people to hunt! Good lord guys at I just suggested for animal culling purposes we literally have game wardens who can accomplish this task.
Why not teach younger folks to? It teaches responsibility, personal reliance, troubleshooting skills, patience, hard work, a respect for life, connects them to environment.....
I guess because I don't hunt, I don't want to teach my son to hunt, and in our ever increasing technology centric world I think there are more important things to impart on the next generation? I mean I can teach my boy all of those things without ever having him pick up a gun.
I would like some money because these are artisanal nuggets of wisdom philistine.
Incidentally, I do support the ability to own a larger variety of weapons so long as they are stored with registered and regulated gun clubs. Just like Australia does.
Ah, I see.
I posted a link to the Wikipedia page because it contained a summary of the gun laws in Australia. You countered with that study found in the "Research" section of the article, so I followed up with the Vox article.
Then I learned more about the New Zealand model (turns out it is really restrictive, beyond both Canada and Australia). This was interesting new information, but it also makes me really wonder about the efficacy of that linked study.
Of course, the Wikipedia article also contains research that showed the gun ban did decrease the rate of gun violence (except for suicide). And the Vox article cites research that shows much stronger links between the laws and a reduction in gun deaths than any in the Wikipedia.
My takeaway on all of this:
New Zealand, Australia, and Canada all have much more stringent controls on gun ownership and on the proper use and storage of guns among the licensed owners, and their rates of gun violence are in line with the rest of the Western World. The United States does not have any of these legal mechanisms, and thus has much higher gun violence.
Once again I wasn't saying we ban hunting, I just don't think we have to advocate for young people to hunt! Good lord guys at I just suggested for animal culling purposes we literally have game wardens who can accomplish this task.
Why not teach younger folks to? It teaches responsibility, personal reliance, troubleshooting skills, patience, hard work, a respect for life, connects them to environment.....
I guess because I don't hunt, I don't want to teach my son to hunt, and in our ever increasing technology centric world I think there are more important things to impart on the next generation? I mean I can teach my boy all of those things without ever having him pick up a gun.
That's on you. Absolutely zero people are forcing you to do so.
But you cannot say OTHER people cant do something just because YOU wouldn't do something. That isn't the way this country (should) work. That's not how things are done.
You know that. I've seen you advocate it in other threads.
Incidentally, I do support the ability to own a larger variety of weapons so long as they are stored with registered and regulated gun clubs. Just like Australia does.
Ah, I see.
I posted a link to the Wikipedia page because it contained a summary of the gun laws in Australia. You countered with that study found in the "Research" section of the article, so I followed up with the Vox article.
Then I learned more about the New Zealand model (turns out it is really restrictive, beyond both Canada and Australia). This was interesting new information, but it also makes me really wonder about the efficacy of that linked study.
Of course, the Wikipedia article also contains research that showed the gun ban did increase the rate of gun violence (except for suicide). And the Vox article cites research that shows much stronger links than any in the Wikipedia.
My takeaway on all of this:
New Zealand, Australia, and Canada all have much more stringent controls on gun ownership and on the proper use and storage of guns among the licensed owners, and their rates of gun violence are in line with the rest of the Western World. The United States does not have any of these legal mechanisms, and thus has much higher gun violence.
So you're saying it's not the type of gun that's the problem then, it's the regulation or lack thereof.
Incidentally, I do support the ability to own a larger variety of weapons so long as they are stored with registered and regulated gun clubs. Just like Australia does.
Ah, I see.
I posted a link to the Wikipedia page because it contained a summary of the gun laws in Australia. You countered with that study found in the "Research" section of the article, so I followed up with the Vox article.
Then I learned more about the New Zealand model (turns out it is really restrictive, beyond both Canada and Australia). This was interesting new information, but it also makes me really wonder about the efficacy of that linked study.
Of course, the Wikipedia article also contains research that showed the gun ban did increase the rate of gun violence (except for suicide). And the Vox article cites research that shows much stronger links than any in the Wikipedia.
My takeaway on all of this:
New Zealand, Australia, and Canada all have much more stringent controls on gun ownership and on the proper use and storage of guns among the licensed owners, and their rates of gun violence are in line with the rest of the Western World. The United States does not have any of these legal mechanisms, and thus has much higher gun violence.
So you're saying it's not the type of gun that's the problem then, it's the regulation or lack thereof.
Well, if you want to ignore that all of the regulations I cited are extremely stringent about banning or limiting access to certain types of guns along with being very thorough about vetting the fitness and need of license applicants, I guess you could say that. For my arguments, I am not ignoring that fact.
Once again I wasn't saying we ban hunting, I just don't think we have to advocate for young people to hunt! Good lord guys at I just suggested for animal culling purposes we literally have game wardens who can accomplish this task.
Why not teach younger folks to? It teaches responsibility, personal reliance, troubleshooting skills, patience, hard work, a respect for life, connects them to environment.....
I guess because I don't hunt, I don't want to teach my son to hunt, and in our ever increasing technology centric world I think there are more important things to impart on the next generation? I mean I can teach my boy all of those things without ever having him pick up a gun.
That's on you. Absolutely zero people are forcing you to do so.
But you cannot say OTHER people cant do something just because YOU wouldn't do something. That isn't the way this country (should) work. That's not how things are done.
You know that. I've seen you advocate it in other threads.
AGAIN FOR THE CHEAP SEATS I NEVER SAID PEOPLE SHOULDN'T HUNT! I just said I don't believe we necessarily are required to have civilians hunters. That's all! Syndalis said we need to advocate for the younger generation to hunt and I said I don't think we do. I never ever ever ever fucking said at anytime people shouldn't hunt. STOP SAYING I FUCKING DID I SWEAR TO CHRIST!
Preacher on
I would like some money because these are artisanal nuggets of wisdom philistine.
I personally feel its value was diminished greatly when state militias were folded into the national guard. Which goes a long way towards explaining my view on it. The 2nd amendment is one statement and not two; "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." Note the commas and not the periods. This was never meant for single individuals to own dozens of guns in a collection, and never considered the force projection of a fully or semi automatic weapon that did not need to reload between shots.
It's an outdated amendment written to protect the rights of state militias which largely do not exist any more.
But I do not suggest killing it - I suggest reframing it to meet the needs of a modern world and the "arms" that exist today.
Nobody thinks us running on laws written regarding computers in the 60s is a good idea today. The tech changed, so the laws had to also.
OK, let's dig into this for a minute. Maybe we can break away from the emotional stuff - I feel pretty low for the way this thread turned sour for @Enc.
You want to reframe it for the needs of a modern world, but I don't know what you mean by that. Rather than put forward my own thoughts first, lemme ask you some questions:
What do you think is the philosophical underpinning of the 2nd, if you think there is one?
Do you think there's any worth to the majority opinions in Heller and McDonald that recognized an individual, incorporated right?
What are the needs of the modern world as it stands today (rather than the magic "all guns vanish" world, for example)?
What would your rewritten 2nd Amendment look like?
There would be minutiae having little to do with the amendment itself, which could then get us to where an amendment alteration makes sense.
All guns MUST be purchased through a state managed broker, even private trades, and all guns must have a registration number that follows it from manufacture to dealer to owner to next owner - a lineage of ownership.
Every single gun that is not a bolt action rifle or a shotgun would need to be stored somewhere non residential. The right to protect your homestead with shotgun or rifle would be protected and remain for all localities that choose to not further restrict it due to population density issues.
I would welcome the introduction of state registered gun clubs that members could join, and after passing a quick background check they could pay a small, REASONABLE dues to be a part of. In turn, they get access to a shooting range, a broad number of guns to shoot, and a place to store their own collection. Pistols, AR-15, fucking machine guns - why not. In the confines of the club, amongst dues paying members.
All current guns in the country can be grandfathered into this ownership state with a free registration, state funded, with no corncern of the prior paper trail, with the understanding that all future sale and trades of guns must follow the rules stated above, and all guns falling outside the purview of a rifle or shotgun must be stored at a gun club you are a member of. Any guns not a part of this system after X years found that are not immediately surrendered to the authorities or deactivated in a permanent fashion is a felony offense full stop.
And after all of that legwork, a modern amendment would be something close to "For those in areas where the laws of nature can threaten the homesteads of the people, the right to bear bolt action rifles and pump action shotguns in the defense of one's property, life and family shall not be infringed"
someone better with the specifics of language can do better than that, but this is a framework that would still let hobbyists have their fun, still let farmers and people in the areas where rifles and shotguns are a part of life still have them, and drastically reduces the number of guns most often used in crime off the streets, especially after a decade or two of this law being in effect.
I'm gonna leave off talking about the guts of the regulatory regime you want imposed (except to say that the end result will be that gun ownership will be the domain of the rich and the white) and dig into the proposed amendment...
What you're proposing bans all semi-automatic weapons of all kinds, all handguns of all kinds, bans hunting, bans gun ownership completely for all metro area citizens, and criminalizes the use of any firearm in defense against a person.
This is your intended result?
I am going to beg that you stop making any mention of registration a race thing, because it is a cheap tactic and not relevant to the conversation at hand. Unless you can show me how car ownership is racist, please drop this tactic, it is not a good one and it makes it hard for me to focus on the rest of the post.
I am proposing a ban on having pistols, and semi-auto weapons outside of a lockbox outside of state-sanctioned clubs, yup.
I am in no way proposing an end to hunting, unless you need a semi automatic weapon to hunt, which I never have. Rifles are great hunting weapons, as are bows, birdshot, buckshot, etc.
OK we'll leave off race for another tangent. I object to referring to it as a 'tactic' though; it's a legitimate point to argue, and your car analogy is mega-bad. I need to go back and reply to Elki's post from a while ago on this anyway, so moving on.
Your proposed revision to the 2nd doesn't protect handguns but does specifically protect certain other guns, so it's reasonable to argue that you left out handguns because you wanted them left out. Since they're not protected, they can be banned entirely, and of course they will be (as demonstrated by DC and Chicago).
Your proposed revision only protects the right to bear arms "in the defense of one's property, life, and family", but only in "areas where the laws of nature can threaten". This does not protect ownership for anything other than defense. Since the Amendment only bars restrictions on defending oneself, restrictions, up to and including an outright ban, on hunting are permissible. Likewise, in areas where "nature" doesn't threaten, no protection of any kind is offered by the Amendment so total bans are on the table.
This is a pretty radical revision. I know the regulatory regime you set out is a lot more permissive, but there's no reason to assume any State would follow it when they can just outright ban huge swaths of weapons, or all weapons (in some areas). We have to work from what the Amendment protects, and assume that governments will restrict as broadly as they can until they run into the Constitutional limit. Why do we have to assume that? Because that's what lots of city governments try to do right now, today... and because when talking about Rights, anything we don't stop the government from doing as part of the foundational document is up for grabs. See also: arguments for a privacy amendment, arguments for abortion rights, arguments against voter ID, and so on.
So if more of the regulatory regime was present in the amendment - essentially, "Furthermore, the states must permit and license the existence of gun clubs in non residential areas and not within 500 yards of a residential zone for the use and ownership of pistols, longarms, and automatic weapons kept within the confines of these premises, and the right to do so shall not be infringed"
Would that allay some of your issues with it?
It gets closer. We've still banned hunting, banned transport of weapons (another way DC is fucking with the Heller ruling) and banned the possession all weapons inside cities. But closer.
Still a pretty radical disarming of the population. This is your intention?
I would word it differently, more "shifting the location of owned guns out of the homes and into secure facilities," but the end result is yes - I am all for less guns being on the street and making legislative moves to achieve that.
Well, let's call a spade a spade. If you can't get to your gun unless the range is open and you go there, and if you're not allowed to transport it yourself from place to place, you've been disarmed.
We are going to start from basics here.
1) I am not a lawmaker
2) Neither are you
And we can go to the pendantic back and forth of trying to find holes in the arguments put here - work that would be better served by actual lawmakers and lawyers, or you can state that the spirit intended (which was the bulk of the work put in the original post above the suggested language for an amendment) is fair or not.
The amendment doesnt say anything about hours of operation so because it doesn't you are disarmed at 2am is a level of hyper specificity that will keep any chance of finding a middle ground from happening.
So before I even continue the dance at this point - is what I wrote in the beginning - the SPIRIT, not THE LETTER which you are trying to find holes in currently, something you could get behind?
What I'm trying to do is not only poke holes in your amendment, but poke holes in the idea of trying to make a specific amendment that doesn't guarantee a principle that we refine through law and the courts. That's why I started out by asking some questions about why we needed a revision at all, and what your principle is.
I can't get behind an amendment that broadly disarms the populace, even one that tries to make an effort to protect hunting and self defense. I don't think that (as an example) Belasco should be prevented from carrying a .38 out on the ranch. She's not in the best of health and managing a 12 gauge pump action for dealing with rattlesnakes is outside her ability right now.
I also don't think she should be prevented from carrying her .38 in a grocery store, and that gets to a philosophical difference here that we're going to have a lot of trouble bridging.
Incidentally, I do support the ability to own a larger variety of weapons so long as they are stored with registered and regulated gun clubs. Just like Australia does.
Ah, I see.
I posted a link to the Wikipedia page because it contained a summary of the gun laws in Australia. You countered with that study found in the "Research" section of the article, so I followed up with the Vox article.
Then I learned more about the New Zealand model (turns out it is really restrictive, beyond both Canada and Australia). This was interesting new information, but it also makes me really wonder about the efficacy of that linked study.
Of course, the Wikipedia article also contains research that showed the gun ban did increase the rate of gun violence (except for suicide). And the Vox article cites research that shows much stronger links than any in the Wikipedia.
My takeaway on all of this:
New Zealand, Australia, and Canada all have much more stringent controls on gun ownership and on the proper use and storage of guns among the licensed owners, and their rates of gun violence are in line with the rest of the Western World. The United States does not have any of these legal mechanisms, and thus has much higher gun violence.
So you're saying it's not the type of gun that's the problem then, it's the regulation or lack thereof.
Well, if you want to ignore that all of the regulations I cited are extremely stringent about banning or limiting access to certain types of guns along with being very thorough about vetting the fitness and need of license applicants, I guess you could say that. For my arguments, I am not ignoring that fact.
Your argument was that you wanted everything but bolt action rifles and shotguns banned, though. No one is arguing less regulation in the US besides possibly spool32 in a few specific cases. Most people on both sides are arguing for more comprehensive regulation that isn't simply "this looks scary, ban it." I'd also contend the Australian model of outright banning is just a bit more restrictive than the New Zealand model of thorough checks.
Posts
Yup.
No matter what your position on AWB everyone's concerns could be met if the gun industry started making detachable magazines only hold 5 rounds.
New Zealand has had severe firearms restriction since 1983. Pistols, specifically, are restricted to registered gun club owners.
There's always the issue of aftermarket magazines, but at least the bolt-action only restrictions limit the rate of fire.
...which still allow for semi-automatics to be purchased and owned. I'm really not sure what you're going for here. Yeah, Australia got rid of a lot of guns. One study says "it had a huge effect", several others say "it had little to no effect". The mass shootings that prompted it went away after the ban, but also went away in a country with a similar culture and no ban.
Read the article again.
From the Wikipedia article:
It gets closer. We've still banned hunting, banned transport of weapons (another way DC is fucking with the Heller ruling) and banned the possession all weapons inside cities. But closer.
Still a pretty radical disarming of the population. This is your intention?
If Australia showed us anything it is that actually applying our laws, across the board, would be the best first stop and would have a very good measured affect. But it, and other countries where guns are banned or extremely limited, has also showed us we would still have to work on mental health, etc issues as well. As it doesn't automatically stop all instances of attempted multi murdering.
Yes. You can still own and purchase a semi-automatic rifle in New Zealand. They aren't banned.
They also are not that easy to get. This sounds like a pretty intense process.
I would word it differently, more "shifting the location of owned guns out of the homes and into secure facilities," but the end result is yes - I am all for less guns being on the street and making legislative moves to achieve that.
And if you think Texas, Wyoming, Montana, South Dakota, Missouri, or pretty much anywhere that it makes sense for hunting to be a thing will ban people going into the woods with their rifles and bagging a buck, I don't know what to tell you - hunting will be protected for a very long time, as it should be.
Let's play Mario Kart or something...
In some rural areas, banning hunting would literally lead to poor families going without food.
Let's play Mario Kart or something...
Ok? What's your point? You said you wanted everything but shotguns and bolt action rifles banned, then linked to things to support your reasoning that haven't really supported it, and are now talking about a more comprehensive licensing process to own a semi-automatic.
This is an argument for welfare, not hunting.
An argument for both.
We straight up need more people my age and younger to hunt. Hunting is super important, as it keeps certain populations from becoming disease vectors or overpopulated/dangerous.
Welfare + responsible hunting is a great recipe for success in fighting poverty in rural areas.
Let's play Mario Kart or something...
You were the one who brought up New Zealand, suggesting that the similarity in shooting statistics between it and Australia showed the ineffectiveness of gun bans. I just posted information to show that, actually, New Zealand has a very intense process to regulate and license gun ownership. In fact, I'd go so far as to say the process sounds more intense than the ones in Canada and Australia.
Well.. yes and no.
Generally these places have a hard time getting food in general because of logistics.
So giving them food stamps or an extra hundred dollars a month so they can go to walmart doesn't solve anything since walmart isn't nearby.
These hunters that want to donate food typically can't because of local laws or the taboo that comes with accepting hunted meat.
Your Wikipedia article said the mass shootings in both countries stopped at the same time in spite of the fact only Australia outright banned semi-automatics. The thing you linked to make the case for your stated position on the matter, which is that you want everything but shotguns and bolt action rifles banned.
Eh we don't need private hunters to do this, game wardens would be perfectly capable of culling herds and providing the meat to foodbanks. I don't think we need to encourage civilian hunting anymore than our general culture already does.
pleasepaypreacher.net
Wasteful. There's people who do it for free and fun. Why not let them donate instead?
You mean the Vox article? The Wikipedia article was just a list of New Zealand gun regulations.
Why would they? NYC voters can easily outweigh the rest of the state, and ban hunting altogether since it's not covered under the specific allowance for defense in your amendment.
Our current deer density is roughly ten times higher in the east coast than it was in the 1700s due to the relocation or extinction of their natural predators, and due to a recent upswing in aversion to hunting. This has lead to more car accidents/fatalities, a reduction in forest growth due to seed distribution issues, and a variety of other well studied problems.
It is another case of man-made environmental impact, and we could address this simply by taking over in our duty as predators and culling the herds.
Plus, venison is tasty.
I dont think we need to set up an army of government employees to do the hunting in this instance, we just need to promote responsible hunting culture in the places where it is needed, and make sure that the hunting seasons are well known.
Let's play Mario Kart or something...
Chain of custody for one, safety for another, amateurs hurt each other and themselves in the woods all the time. I'm not saying we ban private hunting, I just don't think we have to encourage it like Syndalis advocates, just about every state has game wardens/rural sheriffs who can do the job and would probably love to hunt for the less privileged.
This also has the added benefit of allowing those who can't afford a quality fire arm access to game meat as a supplement to their normal eating habit and helps build trust in rural areas between their authority figures and the people they are assigned to protect. If rural sheriff's showed up at the lesser privileged members of their community with meat in tow it would be a helpful reminder that yes the government you pay taxes for directly looks out for you.
pleasepaypreacher.net
Why not? Hunting is a perfectly fine thing to do. Just because you don't like it doesn't mean it should be banned.
The onus is on you to prove why people shouldn't be able to hunt, not on the hunters to prove why they should.
And don't use the "gun violence" argument either, because -i think, but will have to confirm- none of the current mass shootings were carried out by hunters.
For that matter, they weren't carried out by the avid "Tacticool" gun collectors either.
Well, let's call a spade a spade. If you can't get to your gun unless the range is open and you go there, and if you're not allowed to transport it yourself from place to place, you've been disarmed.
pleasepaypreacher.net
Why not teach younger folks to? It teaches responsibility, personal reliance, troubleshooting skills, patience, hard work, a respect for life, connects them to environment.....
We are going to start from basics here.
1) I am not a lawmaker
2) Neither are you
And we can go to the pendantic back and forth of trying to find holes in the arguments put here - work that would be better served by actual lawmakers and lawyers, or you can state that the spirit intended (which was the bulk of the work put in the original post above the suggested language for an amendment) is fair or not.
The amendment doesnt say anything about hours of operation so because it doesn't you are disarmed at 2am is a level of hyper specificity that will keep any chance of finding a middle ground from happening.
So before I even continue the dance at this point - is what I wrote in the beginning - the SPIRIT, not THE LETTER which you are trying to find holes in currently, something you could get behind?
Let's play Mario Kart or something...
I guess because I don't hunt, I don't want to teach my son to hunt, and in our ever increasing technology centric world I think there are more important things to impart on the next generation? I mean I can teach my boy all of those things without ever having him pick up a gun.
pleasepaypreacher.net
Ah, I see.
I posted a link to the Wikipedia page because it contained a summary of the gun laws in Australia. You countered with that study found in the "Research" section of the article, so I followed up with the Vox article.
Then I learned more about the New Zealand model (turns out it is really restrictive, beyond both Canada and Australia). This was interesting new information, but it also makes me really wonder about the efficacy of that linked study.
Of course, the Wikipedia article also contains research that showed the gun ban did decrease the rate of gun violence (except for suicide). And the Vox article cites research that shows much stronger links between the laws and a reduction in gun deaths than any in the Wikipedia.
My takeaway on all of this:
New Zealand, Australia, and Canada all have much more stringent controls on gun ownership and on the proper use and storage of guns among the licensed owners, and their rates of gun violence are in line with the rest of the Western World. The United States does not have any of these legal mechanisms, and thus has much higher gun violence.
That's on you. Absolutely zero people are forcing you to do so.
But you cannot say OTHER people cant do something just because YOU wouldn't do something. That isn't the way this country (should) work. That's not how things are done.
You know that. I've seen you advocate it in other threads.
So you're saying it's not the type of gun that's the problem then, it's the regulation or lack thereof.
Well, if you want to ignore that all of the regulations I cited are extremely stringent about banning or limiting access to certain types of guns along with being very thorough about vetting the fitness and need of license applicants, I guess you could say that. For my arguments, I am not ignoring that fact.
AGAIN FOR THE CHEAP SEATS I NEVER SAID PEOPLE SHOULDN'T HUNT! I just said I don't believe we necessarily are required to have civilians hunters. That's all! Syndalis said we need to advocate for the younger generation to hunt and I said I don't think we do. I never ever ever ever fucking said at anytime people shouldn't hunt. STOP SAYING I FUCKING DID I SWEAR TO CHRIST!
pleasepaypreacher.net
What I'm trying to do is not only poke holes in your amendment, but poke holes in the idea of trying to make a specific amendment that doesn't guarantee a principle that we refine through law and the courts. That's why I started out by asking some questions about why we needed a revision at all, and what your principle is.
I can't get behind an amendment that broadly disarms the populace, even one that tries to make an effort to protect hunting and self defense. I don't think that (as an example) Belasco should be prevented from carrying a .38 out on the ranch. She's not in the best of health and managing a 12 gauge pump action for dealing with rattlesnakes is outside her ability right now.
I also don't think she should be prevented from carrying her .38 in a grocery store, and that gets to a philosophical difference here that we're going to have a lot of trouble bridging.
Your argument was that you wanted everything but bolt action rifles and shotguns banned, though. No one is arguing less regulation in the US besides possibly spool32 in a few specific cases. Most people on both sides are arguing for more comprehensive regulation that isn't simply "this looks scary, ban it." I'd also contend the Australian model of outright banning is just a bit more restrictive than the New Zealand model of thorough checks.