I always play the ignorant UK guy, and I apologise, but I need to do it again - it seems clear there'll be no movement on Gun Control policy without a change to the Constitution because the rights it enshrines are seemingly set in stone. Is that even possible? Has it happened before in modern times? If not, how could that be enabled? How do you convince the populace to support that?
No change to the Constitution is necessary. As several of us have repeatedly pointed out in this thread, for a very long time, it was a settled matter that the Second Amendment was held as a collective right by the states. It was only in the past 30 years that the idea that it should held as an individual right by people in the US was considered anything but a fringe legal theory. This was done in large part by a concerted campaign to push the theory to prominence, and to make the Federal judiciary more amenable to it.
Safe like another country? Because in America aside from moving around literally no people there is no place truly "safe".
Really, Preach?
I live in Hangzhou, China; the prospect of a tense situation with someone, anyone, even a cop, descending into immediate and lethal violence is essentially nonexistent in this city relative to essentially any even remotely comparable area in the US
However, the 2nd amendment does not address guns whatsoever. It can still exist, and we can still ban guns without it.
2nd amendment also relies heavily on a well formed militia as the purpose of arming citizens. So it's basically saying there should be militias that have these weapons, not people. Though historically, people were allowed to own weapons and I don't personally have a problem with the idea.
I feel the same way about people owning guns the same way I do about presumed innocent on trial. If one guilty person goes free, or does something bad, why does that have any bearing on the idea or premise of the whole thing?
That's why we collect evidence and put people on trial.
And in the some vein we can have much tighter regulations on who can get and own guns. Most people should have the right or ability to do so unless there's something that excludes them. But there are still people that think rights shouldn't be modified because that sets a dangerous precedence. I'm honestly not sure how I feel about that, because we make a lot of stipulations on rights. We take them away from prisoners, we suspend habeas corpus during civil unrest for some reason (stupid reasons if you ask me), and do a whole lot of other stupid shit while modifying the constitution. We also do some really good shit when we modify it.
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
So yes people who want gun restrictions are mad, because we get nothing, and people who like guns like yourself don't ever have to worry about any restrictions on your hobby and you can concede all day long on restrictions because you know nothing will ever get done.
This really isn't true. What you haven't gotten is effective legislation. And really only in the last 20 years.
Semi-automatic rifles able to accept detachable magazines and two or more of the following:
Folding or telescoping stock
Pistol grip
Bayonet mount
Flash suppressor, or threaded barrel designed to accommodate one
Grenade launcher mount
Semi-automatic pistols with detachable magazines and two or more of the following:
Magazine that attaches outside the pistol grip
Threaded barrel to attach barrel extender, flash suppressor, handgrip, or suppressor
Barrel shroud safety feature that prevents burns to the operator
Unloaded weight of 50 oz (1.4 kg) or more
A semi-automatic version of a fully automatic firearm.
Semi-automatic shotguns with two or more of the following:
Folding or telescoping stock
Pistol grip
Detachable magazine.
It's such a convoluted mess. It's entirely reactionary and based on fear. Nothing it bans is actually worthwhile, everything it bans is still available and salable. It's also the tipping point for the NRA, when they fully descend from an organization founded by former Union officers after the Civil War who were disheartened by the poor marksmanship of their troops, into "dey tryin ta terk er gunz!" All gun legislation after this point bears the burden of the utter incompetence and failure of the AWB. Even talk of gun control becomes politically toxic. The only two actually attempted gun-related acts since the AWB were the Gun Show Loophole act in 2009 which was killed in committee, and Feinstein's AWB 2: Electric Boogaloo in 2013 which was defeated in the Senate. There has been no realistic, comprehensive legislation attempted in 20 years.
I always play the ignorant UK guy, and I apologise, but I need to do it again - it seems clear there'll be no movement on Gun Control policy without a change to the Constitution because the rights it enshrines are seemingly set in stone. Is that even possible? Has it happened before in modern times? If not, how could that be enabled? How do you convince the populace to support that?
It doesn't happen very often, and not a lot in modern times.
There was an amendment that sat in Congress for over 200 years.
Getting rid of an amendment in the Bill of Rights is unheard of.
Modifying it to make sense in the present is okay, usually it's just a clarification, "When we said people, we didn't just mean white men over 18" sort of thing.
But one thing that should be obvious is that the 2nd was written with total ignorance of what life is like now. Surely that should be up for discussion?
It comes up all the time.
The issue isn't really guns though. I think. Its a cultural issue. A culture bent on power and with a large swath of the population that feels powerless. For what ever reason. So, people gravitate toward violence, and finding a way to take back the power they've lost over their own lives. And, nothing NOTHING makes you feel more powerful than a big gun.
We need to change the CULTURE in this country. I dont mean the "gun" or "antigun" culture, i mean ALL of it.
I bet if our middle class was stronger, if everyone had a fair shake at the $70k American Dream we'd see WAY less shootings, and we would see the change far quicker and safer than banning the second amendment.
Another thing to realize is that, even among gun owners, you are talking to two very different crowds. The first is the hunter/rural resident/homeowner who has a gun for protection or because its a lot easier to hunt with a rifle than a bow.
The second is the gun enthusiast. These guys don't want a revolver, a hunting rifle or a shotgun. They are play-pretend warriors who want weapons that at least look like the ones used by soldiers. It's a very XTREME culture, and the types of guns that lawmaker target are their favorite toys. That's why Dianne Feinstein being mean is, to them, the central issue in the debate.
The problem is that the second group and their friends in the gun industry (of which the NRA is just a lobbying arm) has convinced way too many people in the first that any infringement of their toys is going to lead to government thugs beating down their door and taking grandad's Mossbergs. Since it is no longer possible to separate the first from the second, American society is probably going to end up making both groups very unhappy because the gun control laws that finally end up being passed were written by the leaders of the Million Mom's March to End Gun Violence.
I guess there's also the third group - the insane mass murderers. There aren't that many of them compared to the other two, but they do like to buy in bulk.
There's a third group of hobbyists that don't give a shit about the culture surrounding it.
But the first group is important, there exists a lot of rural areas in the US that are still plagued by wild animals that will attack. If we're writing new laws, how do we include them? I'm sure the UK has a good framework for this.
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
Another thing to realize is that, even among gun owners, you are talking to two very different crowds. The first is the hunter/rural resident/homeowner who has a gun for protection or because its a lot easier to hunt with a rifle than a bow.
The second is the gun enthusiast. These guys don't want a revolver, a hunting rifle or a shotgun. They are play-pretend warriors who want weapons that at least look like the ones used by soldiers. It's a very XTREME culture, and the types of guns that lawmaker target are their favorite toys. That's why Dianne Feinstein being mean is, to them, the central issue in the debate.
The problem is that the second group and their friends in the gun industry (of which the NRA is just a lobbying arm) has convinced way too many people in the first that any infringement of their toys is going to lead to government thugs beating down their door and taking grandad's Mossbergs. Since it is no longer possible to separate the first from the second, American society is probably going to end up making both groups very unhappy because the gun control laws that finally end up being passed were written by the leaders of the Million Mom's March to End Gun Violence.
I guess there's also the third group - the insane mass murderers. There aren't that many of them compared to the other two, but they do like to buy in bulk.
To be fair, though, neither member of your two groups are the ones who you have to worry about committing gun violence. Not really, anyway.
+1
Options
syndalisGetting ClassyOn the WallRegistered User, Loves Apple Productsregular
There's a third group of hobbyists that don't give a shit about the culture surrounding it.
But the first group is important, there exists a lot of rural areas in the US that are still plagued by wild animals that will attack. If we're writing new laws, how do we include them? I'm sure the UK has a good framework for this.
Australia has the best framework for this, we really should be looking at their model because they have the best mix of dense urban, suburban, and undeveloped frontier that best parallels ours, and their laws still let people in the fringes protect themselves from... lets be honest, EVERYTHING in Australia, while drastically reducing incidents of gun violence.
SW-4158-3990-6116
Let's play Mario Kart or something...
There's a third group of hobbyists that don't give a shit about the culture surrounding it.
But the first group is important, there exists a lot of rural areas in the US that are still plagued by wild animals that will attack. If we're writing new laws, how do we include them? I'm sure the UK has a good framework for this.
You don't outlaw shotguns and hunting rifles. Unless we have a resurgence of the Cave Bear or a sudden rhino infestation, that will take care of every animal native to North America.
I always play the ignorant UK guy, and I apologise, but I need to do it again - it seems clear there'll be no movement on Gun Control policy without a change to the Constitution because the rights it enshrines are seemingly set in stone. Is that even possible? Has it happened before in modern times? If not, how could that be enabled? How do you convince the populace to support that?
No change to the Constitution is necessary. As several of us have repeatedly pointed out in this thread, for a very long time, it was a settled matter that the Second Amendment was held as a collective right by the states. It was only in the past 30 years that the idea that it should held as an individual right by people in the US was considered anything but a fringe legal theory. This was done in large part by a concerted campaign to push the theory to prominence, and to make the Federal judiciary more amenable to it.
Is there any reading I can do on this (ie it being a very recent development that owning a gun is an individual right)?
Another thing to realize is that, even among gun owners, you are talking to two very different crowds. The first is the hunter/rural resident/homeowner who has a gun for protection or because its a lot easier to hunt with a rifle than a bow.
The second is the gun enthusiast. These guys don't want a revolver, a hunting rifle or a shotgun. They are play-pretend warriors who want weapons that at least look like the ones used by soldiers. It's a very XTREME culture, and the types of guns that lawmaker target are their favorite toys. That's why Dianne Feinstein being mean is, to them, the central issue in the debate.
The problem is that the second group and their friends in the gun industry (of which the NRA is just a lobbying arm) has convinced way too many people in the first that any infringement of their toys is going to lead to government thugs beating down their door and taking grandad's Mossbergs. Since it is no longer possible to separate the first from the second, American society is probably going to end up making both groups very unhappy because the gun control laws that finally end up being passed were written by the leaders of the Million Mom's March to End Gun Violence.
I guess there's also the third group - the insane mass murderers. There aren't that many of them compared to the other two, but they do like to buy in bulk.
To be fair, though, neither member of your two groups are the ones who you have to worry about committing gun violence. Not really, anyway.
No. They just do everything in their power to prevent any laws being passed that could lessen gun violence.
So, they are more mass murderer enablers than actual mass murderers.
[...] Since reducing lead exposure would raise IQs, we likely could see educational and economic dividends that substantially pay for cleanup spending in addition to the criminal element. I don't have a good study about that specific prediction, but my intuition is if we got responsible policymakers willing to take a long term view, it could well turn out to be cheap, free, or even revenue generating, and that's just in financial terms, not even counting the human benefits of reduced crime, increased opportunities, etc.
But of course beefing up regulation/enforcement is seen as an attack on guns so y'know.
The indoor range near me is always freezing ass fucking cold because of the unbelievably loud and powerful ventilators that keep all the lead dust sucked downrange and through their filtering system.
I come out of that place shivering even in August.
There's a third group of hobbyists that don't give a shit about the culture surrounding it.
But the first group is important, there exists a lot of rural areas in the US that are still plagued by wild animals that will attack. If we're writing new laws, how do we include them? I'm sure the UK has a good framework for this.
You don't outlaw shotguns and hunting rifles. Unless we have a resurgence of the Cave Bear or a sudden rhino infestation, that will take care of every animal native to North America.
That works for me.
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
Another thing to realize is that, even among gun owners, you are talking to two very different crowds. The first is the hunter/rural resident/homeowner who has a gun for protection or because its a lot easier to hunt with a rifle than a bow.
The second is the gun enthusiast. These guys don't want a revolver, a hunting rifle or a shotgun. They are play-pretend warriors who want weapons that at least look like the ones used by soldiers. It's a very XTREME culture, and the types of guns that lawmaker target are their favorite toys. That's why Dianne Feinstein being mean is, to them, the central issue in the debate.
The problem is that the second group and their friends in the gun industry (of which the NRA is just a lobbying arm) has convinced way too many people in the first that any infringement of their toys is going to lead to government thugs beating down their door and taking grandad's Mossbergs. Since it is no longer possible to separate the first from the second, American society is probably going to end up making both groups very unhappy because the gun control laws that finally end up being passed were written by the leaders of the Million Mom's March to End Gun Violence.
I guess there's also the third group - the insane mass murderers. There aren't that many of them compared to the other two, but they do like to buy in bulk.
We should probably ban the bottom one, right? Because it looks scary. It's got stuff on it. It's definitely not the exact same rifle in the exact same caliber as the top one. Much like flame decals on a Civic adding 50 bhp, all that black and those rails make the bottom one a murder-only-machine while the top one is only owned by farmers and hunters. Of course.
I always play the ignorant UK guy, and I apologise, but I need to do it again - it seems clear there'll be no movement on Gun Control policy without a change to the Constitution because the rights it enshrines are seemingly set in stone. Is that even possible? Has it happened before in modern times? If not, how could that be enabled? How do you convince the populace to support that?
No change to the Constitution is necessary. As several of us have repeatedly pointed out in this thread, for a very long time, it was a settled matter that the Second Amendment was held as a collective right by the states. It was only in the past 30 years that the idea that it should held as an individual right by people in the US was considered anything but a fringe legal theory. This was done in large part by a concerted campaign to push the theory to prominence, and to make the Federal judiciary more amenable to it.
Is there any reading I can do on this (ie it being a very recent development that owning a gun is an individual right)?
There's a third group of hobbyists that don't give a shit about the culture surrounding it.
But the first group is important, there exists a lot of rural areas in the US that are still plagued by wild animals that will attack. If we're writing new laws, how do we include them? I'm sure the UK has a good framework for this.
You don't outlaw shotguns and hunting rifles. Unless we have a resurgence of the Cave Bear or a sudden rhino infestation, that will take care of every animal native to North America.
That works for me.
With a rider that local municipalities can have rules regarding the storage of rifles and shotguns that are stronger than the federal one.
Like, NYC? Nobody living in the five boroughs should have a rifle or a shotgun in their residence - that shit should be stored off site in a non-residential zone.
SW-4158-3990-6116
Let's play Mario Kart or something...
Another thing to realize is that, even among gun owners, you are talking to two very different crowds. The first is the hunter/rural resident/homeowner who has a gun for protection or because its a lot easier to hunt with a rifle than a bow.
The second is the gun enthusiast. These guys don't want a revolver, a hunting rifle or a shotgun. They are play-pretend warriors who want weapons that at least look like the ones used by soldiers. It's a very XTREME culture, and the types of guns that lawmaker target are their favorite toys. That's why Dianne Feinstein being mean is, to them, the central issue in the debate.
The problem is that the second group and their friends in the gun industry (of which the NRA is just a lobbying arm) has convinced way too many people in the first that any infringement of their toys is going to lead to government thugs beating down their door and taking grandad's Mossbergs. Since it is no longer possible to separate the first from the second, American society is probably going to end up making both groups very unhappy because the gun control laws that finally end up being passed were written by the leaders of the Million Mom's March to End Gun Violence.
I guess there's also the third group - the insane mass murderers. There aren't that many of them compared to the other two, but they do like to buy in bulk.
We should probably ban the bottom one, right? Because it looks scary. It's got stuff on it. It's definitely not the exact same rifle in the exact same caliber as the top one. Much like flame decals on a Civic adding 50 bhp, all that black and those rails make the bottom one a murder-only-machine while the top one is only owned by farmers and hunters. Of course.
Yes. Yes we should.
Bolt action rifles are appropriate for every utilitarian need.
Another thing to realize is that, even among gun owners, you are talking to two very different crowds. The first is the hunter/rural resident/homeowner who has a gun for protection or because its a lot easier to hunt with a rifle than a bow.
The second is the gun enthusiast. These guys don't want a revolver, a hunting rifle or a shotgun. They are play-pretend warriors who want weapons that at least look like the ones used by soldiers. It's a very XTREME culture, and the types of guns that lawmaker target are their favorite toys. That's why Dianne Feinstein being mean is, to them, the central issue in the debate.
The problem is that the second group and their friends in the gun industry (of which the NRA is just a lobbying arm) has convinced way too many people in the first that any infringement of their toys is going to lead to government thugs beating down their door and taking grandad's Mossbergs. Since it is no longer possible to separate the first from the second, American society is probably going to end up making both groups very unhappy because the gun control laws that finally end up being passed were written by the leaders of the Million Mom's March to End Gun Violence.
I guess there's also the third group - the insane mass murderers. There aren't that many of them compared to the other two, but they do like to buy in bulk.
We should probably ban the bottom one, right? Because it looks scary. It's got stuff on it. It's definitely not the exact same rifle in the exact same caliber as the top one. Much like flame decals on a Civic adding 50 bhp, all that black and those rails make the bottom one a murder-only-machine while the top one is only owned by farmers and hunters. Of course.
Yes. Yes we should.
Bolt action rifles are appropriate for every utilitarian need.
They're both semi-automatic Ruger Mini-14's. They are literally identical guns in function, differing only in form.
This is the same reason Feinstein failed so miserably. You don't actually understand the thing you want to get rid of.
Another thing to realize is that, even among gun owners, you are talking to two very different crowds. The first is the hunter/rural resident/homeowner who has a gun for protection or because its a lot easier to hunt with a rifle than a bow.
The second is the gun enthusiast. These guys don't want a revolver, a hunting rifle or a shotgun. They are play-pretend warriors who want weapons that at least look like the ones used by soldiers. It's a very XTREME culture, and the types of guns that lawmaker target are their favorite toys. That's why Dianne Feinstein being mean is, to them, the central issue in the debate.
The problem is that the second group and their friends in the gun industry (of which the NRA is just a lobbying arm) has convinced way too many people in the first that any infringement of their toys is going to lead to government thugs beating down their door and taking grandad's Mossbergs. Since it is no longer possible to separate the first from the second, American society is probably going to end up making both groups very unhappy because the gun control laws that finally end up being passed were written by the leaders of the Million Mom's March to End Gun Violence.
I guess there's also the third group - the insane mass murderers. There aren't that many of them compared to the other two, but they do like to buy in bulk.
We should probably ban the bottom one, right? Because it looks scary. It's got stuff on it. It's definitely not the exact same rifle in the exact same caliber as the top one. Much like flame decals on a Civic adding 50 bhp, all that black and those rails make the bottom one a murder-only-machine while the top one is only owned by farmers and hunters. Of course.
Actually, yes I would, but not because it looks scary. The first one is the rifle of someone who sees rifles as tools used to kill. The second is the rifle of someone who sees rifles as toys used to kill.
I don't want anyone in the second category to be armed, so anything that makes weapons less appealing to them is a good idea.
There's a third group of hobbyists that don't give a shit about the culture surrounding it.
But the first group is important, there exists a lot of rural areas in the US that are still plagued by wild animals that will attack. If we're writing new laws, how do we include them? I'm sure the UK has a good framework for this.
You don't outlaw shotguns and hunting rifles. Unless we have a resurgence of the Cave Bear or a sudden rhino infestation, that will take care of every animal native to North America.
That works for me.
With a rider that local municipalities can have rules regarding the storage of rifles and shotguns that are stronger than the federal one.
Like, NYC? Nobody living in the five boroughs should have a rifle or a shotgun in their residence - that shit should be stored off site in a non-residential zone.
You guys have shooting ranges in the city? Could mandate that shooting ranges must have enough storage for all members?
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
Another thing to realize is that, even among gun owners, you are talking to two very different crowds. The first is the hunter/rural resident/homeowner who has a gun for protection or because its a lot easier to hunt with a rifle than a bow.
The second is the gun enthusiast. These guys don't want a revolver, a hunting rifle or a shotgun. They are play-pretend warriors who want weapons that at least look like the ones used by soldiers. It's a very XTREME culture, and the types of guns that lawmaker target are their favorite toys. That's why Dianne Feinstein being mean is, to them, the central issue in the debate.
The problem is that the second group and their friends in the gun industry (of which the NRA is just a lobbying arm) has convinced way too many people in the first that any infringement of their toys is going to lead to government thugs beating down their door and taking grandad's Mossbergs. Since it is no longer possible to separate the first from the second, American society is probably going to end up making both groups very unhappy because the gun control laws that finally end up being passed were written by the leaders of the Million Mom's March to End Gun Violence.
I guess there's also the third group - the insane mass murderers. There aren't that many of them compared to the other two, but they do like to buy in bulk.
We should probably ban the bottom one, right? Because it looks scary. It's got stuff on it. It's definitely not the exact same rifle in the exact same caliber as the top one. Much like flame decals on a Civic adding 50 bhp, all that black and those rails make the bottom one a murder-only-machine while the top one is only owned by farmers and hunters. Of course.
Actually, yes I would, but not because it looks scary. The first one is the rifle of someone who sees rifles as tools used to kill. The second is the rifle of someone who sees rifles as toys used to kill.
I don't want anyone in the second category to be armed, so anything that makes weapons less appealing to them is a good idea.
That's strange, I see the bottom one as someone who wants a lighter stock to make it less fatiguing to hold, a pistol grip to make it more controllable when firing, and a scope rail so they can practice shooting paper targets at a greater range.
+7
Options
syndalisGetting ClassyOn the WallRegistered User, Loves Apple Productsregular
There's a third group of hobbyists that don't give a shit about the culture surrounding it.
But the first group is important, there exists a lot of rural areas in the US that are still plagued by wild animals that will attack. If we're writing new laws, how do we include them? I'm sure the UK has a good framework for this.
You don't outlaw shotguns and hunting rifles. Unless we have a resurgence of the Cave Bear or a sudden rhino infestation, that will take care of every animal native to North America.
That works for me.
With a rider that local municipalities can have rules regarding the storage of rifles and shotguns that are stronger than the federal one.
Like, NYC? Nobody living in the five boroughs should have a rifle or a shotgun in their residence - that shit should be stored off site in a non-residential zone.
You guys have shooting ranges in the city? Could mandate that shooting ranges must have enough storage for all members?
All for that.
I am also all for storage facilities having smaller lockers that people can rent to store lockboxes with their guns inside of them, and that any transport of guns in the city happen in those lockboxes.
And I see no reason why those rules would need to apply to a place where you really might need that rifle at a moments notice because coyotes are attacking your dogs.
SW-4158-3990-6116
Let's play Mario Kart or something...
Another thing to realize is that, even among gun owners, you are talking to two very different crowds. The first is the hunter/rural resident/homeowner who has a gun for protection or because its a lot easier to hunt with a rifle than a bow.
The second is the gun enthusiast. These guys don't want a revolver, a hunting rifle or a shotgun. They are play-pretend warriors who want weapons that at least look like the ones used by soldiers. It's a very XTREME culture, and the types of guns that lawmaker target are their favorite toys. That's why Dianne Feinstein being mean is, to them, the central issue in the debate.
The problem is that the second group and their friends in the gun industry (of which the NRA is just a lobbying arm) has convinced way too many people in the first that any infringement of their toys is going to lead to government thugs beating down their door and taking grandad's Mossbergs. Since it is no longer possible to separate the first from the second, American society is probably going to end up making both groups very unhappy because the gun control laws that finally end up being passed were written by the leaders of the Million Mom's March to End Gun Violence.
I guess there's also the third group - the insane mass murderers. There aren't that many of them compared to the other two, but they do like to buy in bulk.
We should probably ban the bottom one, right? Because it looks scary. It's got stuff on it. It's definitely not the exact same rifle in the exact same caliber as the top one. Much like flame decals on a Civic adding 50 bhp, all that black and those rails make the bottom one a murder-only-machine while the top one is only owned by farmers and hunters. Of course.
Yes. Yes we should.
Bolt action rifles are appropriate for every utilitarian need.
They're both semi-automatic Ruger Mini-14's. They are literally identical guns in function, differing only in form.
This is the same reason Feinstein failed so miserably. You don't actually understand the thing you want to get rid of.
Did you actually read what I said? Looks like you went on auto-pilot there.
Neither of those guns is a bolt-action rifle. I said I supported civilian ownership of bolt-action rifles.
And before you bring up one of the famous Texan shooters, I'll turn the conservation over to my friend R. Lee Ermy:
ERMEY: The deadliest weapon in the world is a marine and his rifle. It is your killer instinct which must be harnessed if you expect to survive in combat. Your rifle is only a tool. It is a hard heart that kills. If your killer instincts are not clean and strong you will hesitate at the moment of truth. You will not kill. You will become dead marines. And then you will be in a world of shit. Because marines are not allowed to die without permission! Do you maggots understand?
RECRUITS: Sir, yes, sir!
ERMEY: Do any of you people know who Charles Whitman was? None of you dumbasses knows? Private Cowboy?
COWBOY: Sir, he was that guy who shot all those people from that tower in Austin, Texas, sir!
ERMEY: That's affirmative. Charles Whitman killed twelve people from a twenty-eight-storey observation tower at the University of Texas from distances up to four hundred yards. Anybody know who Lee Harvey Oswald was? Private Snowball?
SNOWBALL: Sir, he shot Kennedy, sir!
ERMEY: That's right, and do you know how far away he was?
SNOWBALL: Sir, it was pretty far! From that book suppository building, sir!
ERMEY: All right, knock it off! Two hundred and fifty feet! He was two hundred and fifty feet away and shooting at a moving target. Oswald got off three rounds with an old Italian bolt action rifle in only six seconds and scored two hits, including a head shot! Do any of you people know where these individuals learned to shoot? Private Joker?
JOKER: Sir, in the Marines, sir!
ERMEY: In the Marines! Outstanding! Those individuals showed what one motivated marine and his rifle can do! And before you ladies leave my island, you will be able to do the same thing!
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?
Another thing to realize is that, even among gun owners, you are talking to two very different crowds. The first is the hunter/rural resident/homeowner who has a gun for protection or because its a lot easier to hunt with a rifle than a bow.
The second is the gun enthusiast. These guys don't want a revolver, a hunting rifle or a shotgun. They are play-pretend warriors who want weapons that at least look like the ones used by soldiers. It's a very XTREME culture, and the types of guns that lawmaker target are their favorite toys. That's why Dianne Feinstein being mean is, to them, the central issue in the debate.
The problem is that the second group and their friends in the gun industry (of which the NRA is just a lobbying arm) has convinced way too many people in the first that any infringement of their toys is going to lead to government thugs beating down their door and taking grandad's Mossbergs. Since it is no longer possible to separate the first from the second, American society is probably going to end up making both groups very unhappy because the gun control laws that finally end up being passed were written by the leaders of the Million Mom's March to End Gun Violence.
I guess there's also the third group - the insane mass murderers. There aren't that many of them compared to the other two, but they do like to buy in bulk.
We should probably ban the bottom one, right? Because it looks scary. It's got stuff on it. It's definitely not the exact same rifle in the exact same caliber as the top one. Much like flame decals on a Civic adding 50 bhp, all that black and those rails make the bottom one a murder-only-machine while the top one is only owned by farmers and hunters. Of course.
Actually, yes I would, but not because it looks scary. The first one is the rifle of someone who sees rifles as tools used to kill. The second is the rifle of someone who sees rifles as toys used to kill.
I don't want anyone in the second category to be armed, so anything that makes weapons less appealing to them is a good idea.
That's strange, I see the bottom one as someone who wants a lighter stock to make it less fatiguing to hold, a pistol grip to make it more controllable when firing, and a scope rail so they can practice shooting paper targets at a greater range.
I can assure you without any doubts that those characteristic are not why those rifles look like that. Kinda like flame decals don't look like they do because it makes cars go faster, in fact.
Another thing to realize is that, even among gun owners, you are talking to two very different crowds. The first is the hunter/rural resident/homeowner who has a gun for protection or because its a lot easier to hunt with a rifle than a bow.
The second is the gun enthusiast. These guys don't want a revolver, a hunting rifle or a shotgun. They are play-pretend warriors who want weapons that at least look like the ones used by soldiers. It's a very XTREME culture, and the types of guns that lawmaker target are their favorite toys. That's why Dianne Feinstein being mean is, to them, the central issue in the debate.
The problem is that the second group and their friends in the gun industry (of which the NRA is just a lobbying arm) has convinced way too many people in the first that any infringement of their toys is going to lead to government thugs beating down their door and taking grandad's Mossbergs. Since it is no longer possible to separate the first from the second, American society is probably going to end up making both groups very unhappy because the gun control laws that finally end up being passed were written by the leaders of the Million Mom's March to End Gun Violence.
I guess there's also the third group - the insane mass murderers. There aren't that many of them compared to the other two, but they do like to buy in bulk.
We should probably ban the bottom one, right? Because it looks scary. It's got stuff on it. It's definitely not the exact same rifle in the exact same caliber as the top one. Much like flame decals on a Civic adding 50 bhp, all that black and those rails make the bottom one a murder-only-machine while the top one is only owned by farmers and hunters. Of course.
Actually, yes I would, but not because it looks scary. The first one is the rifle of someone who sees rifles as tools used to kill. The second is the rifle of someone who sees rifles as toys used to kill.
I don't want anyone in the second category to be armed, so anything that makes weapons less appealing to them is a good idea.
That's strange, I see the bottom one as someone who wants a lighter stock to make it less fatiguing to hold, a pistol grip to make it more controllable when firing, and a scope rail so they can practice shooting paper targets at a greater range.
I don't believe the mindset of the individuals that would own those respective guns would be remotely similar.
There's a third group of hobbyists that don't give a shit about the culture surrounding it.
But the first group is important, there exists a lot of rural areas in the US that are still plagued by wild animals that will attack. If we're writing new laws, how do we include them? I'm sure the UK has a good framework for this.
You don't outlaw shotguns and hunting rifles. Unless we have a resurgence of the Cave Bear or a sudden rhino infestation, that will take care of every animal native to North America.
That works for me.
With a rider that local municipalities can have rules regarding the storage of rifles and shotguns that are stronger than the federal one.
Like, NYC? Nobody living in the five boroughs should have a rifle or a shotgun in their residence - that shit should be stored off site in a non-residential zone.
You guys have shooting ranges in the city? Could mandate that shooting ranges must have enough storage for all members?
All for that.
I am also all for storage facilities having smaller lockers that people can rent to store lockboxes with their guns inside of them, and that any transport of guns in the city happen in those lockboxes.
And I see no reason why those rules would need to apply to a place where you really might need that rifle at a moments notice because coyotes are attacking your dogs.
What kind of numbers are we looking at for NYC in regards to people keeping a pistol in their home for protection?
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
The second is the gun enthusiast. These guys don't want a revolver, a hunting rifle or a shotgun. They are play-pretend warriors who want weapons that at least look like the ones used by soldiers. It's a very XTREME culture, and the types of guns that lawmaker target are their favorite toys. That's why Dianne Feinstein being mean is, to them, the central issue in the debate.
This is the same reason Feinstein failed so miserably. You don't actually understand the thing you want to get rid of.
I did, in fact. Which is why it was obvious you don't actually know what you're talking about. You're here to be condescending and engage in political brinkmanship. You don't want to fix anything, you want to "win".
I always play the ignorant UK guy, and I apologise, but I need to do it again - it seems clear there'll be no movement on Gun Control policy without a change to the Constitution because the rights it enshrines are seemingly set in stone. Is that even possible? Has it happened before in modern times? If not, how could that be enabled? How do you convince the populace to support that?
No change to the Constitution is necessary. As several of us have repeatedly pointed out in this thread, for a very long time, it was a settled matter that the Second Amendment was held as a collective right by the states. It was only in the past 30 years that the idea that it should held as an individual right by people in the US was considered anything but a fringe legal theory. This was done in large part by a concerted campaign to push the theory to prominence, and to make the Federal judiciary more amenable to it.
Is there any reading I can do on this (ie it being a very recent development that owning a gun is an individual right)?
Hedgie is wildly misrepresenting how "settled" this matter was. To get some reading on it from the non-Hedgie PoV, check this out for starters, by Constitutional Law professor Glenn Geynolds:
The Wikipedia articles on DC vs. Heller and McDonald vs. City of Chicago are a good place to get a straight factual explanation for the modern recognition of first an individual right (really a negative right, i.e. that the government can't infringe upon the individual's right to bear arms), and secondly the "incorporation" of that right, which means that like the 1st Amendment, it trumps individual state laws that might try to be more restrictive than the Amendment would allow.
Another thing to realize is that, even among gun owners, you are talking to two very different crowds. The first is the hunter/rural resident/homeowner who has a gun for protection or because its a lot easier to hunt with a rifle than a bow.
The second is the gun enthusiast. These guys don't want a revolver, a hunting rifle or a shotgun. They are play-pretend warriors who want weapons that at least look like the ones used by soldiers. It's a very XTREME culture, and the types of guns that lawmaker target are their favorite toys. That's why Dianne Feinstein being mean is, to them, the central issue in the debate.
The problem is that the second group and their friends in the gun industry (of which the NRA is just a lobbying arm) has convinced way too many people in the first that any infringement of their toys is going to lead to government thugs beating down their door and taking grandad's Mossbergs. Since it is no longer possible to separate the first from the second, American society is probably going to end up making both groups very unhappy because the gun control laws that finally end up being passed were written by the leaders of the Million Mom's March to End Gun Violence.
I guess there's also the third group - the insane mass murderers. There aren't that many of them compared to the other two, but they do like to buy in bulk.
We should probably ban the bottom one, right? Because it looks scary. It's got stuff on it. It's definitely not the exact same rifle in the exact same caliber as the top one. Much like flame decals on a Civic adding 50 bhp, all that black and those rails make the bottom one a murder-only-machine while the top one is only owned by farmers and hunters. Of course.
Actually, yes I would, but not because it looks scary. The first one is the rifle of someone who sees rifles as tools used to kill. The second is the rifle of someone who sees rifles as toys used to kill.
I don't want anyone in the second category to be armed, so anything that makes weapons less appealing to them is a good idea.
That's strange, I see the bottom one as someone who wants a lighter stock to make it less fatiguing to hold, a pistol grip to make it more controllable when firing, and a scope rail so they can practice shooting paper targets at a greater range.
I can assure you without any doubts that those characteristic are not why those rifles look like that. Kinda like flame decals don't look like they do because it makes cars go faster, in fact.
This is a large portion of why anti gun stuff fails to lead to honest discussions between the sides. You presume to KNOW what someone else thinks/feels/see's in something . And, you wish to impose your perceptions and regulations on them because of that.
I always play the ignorant UK guy, and I apologise, but I need to do it again - it seems clear there'll be no movement on Gun Control policy without a change to the Constitution because the rights it enshrines are seemingly set in stone. Is that even possible? Has it happened before in modern times? If not, how could that be enabled? How do you convince the populace to support that?
No change to the Constitution is necessary. As several of us have repeatedly pointed out in this thread, for a very long time, it was a settled matter that the Second Amendment was held as a collective right by the states. It was only in the past 30 years that the idea that it should held as an individual right by people in the US was considered anything but a fringe legal theory. This was done in large part by a concerted campaign to push the theory to prominence, and to make the Federal judiciary more amenable to it.
Is there any reading I can do on this (ie it being a very recent development that owning a gun is an individual right)?
Hedgie is wildly misrepresenting how "settled" this matter was. To get some reading on it from the non-Hedgie PoV, check this out for starters, by Constitutional Law professor Glenn Geynolds:
thje Wiki articles on DC vs. Heller and McDonald vs. City of Chicago for the modern recognition of first an individual right (really a negative right, i.e. that the government can't infringe upon the individual's right to bear arms), and secondly the "incorporation" of that right, which means that like the 1st Amendment, it trumps individual state laws that might try to be more restrictive than the Amendment would allow.
...yes, Reynolds may be a conlaw professor. But, he's also a very well known conservative pundit who publishes under the name Instapundit.
That's a pretty big lie of omission there.
Second, show me the legal scholarship on the individualist reading predating the Cincinnati Revolt. One of the elements of the push was to flood legal academia with papers reinforcing the theory from the conservative side of the community.
Another thing to realize is that, even among gun owners, you are talking to two very different crowds. The first is the hunter/rural resident/homeowner who has a gun for protection or because its a lot easier to hunt with a rifle than a bow.
The second is the gun enthusiast. These guys don't want a revolver, a hunting rifle or a shotgun. They are play-pretend warriors who want weapons that at least look like the ones used by soldiers. It's a very XTREME culture, and the types of guns that lawmaker target are their favorite toys. That's why Dianne Feinstein being mean is, to them, the central issue in the debate.
The problem is that the second group and their friends in the gun industry (of which the NRA is just a lobbying arm) has convinced way too many people in the first that any infringement of their toys is going to lead to government thugs beating down their door and taking grandad's Mossbergs. Since it is no longer possible to separate the first from the second, American society is probably going to end up making both groups very unhappy because the gun control laws that finally end up being passed were written by the leaders of the Million Mom's March to End Gun Violence.
I guess there's also the third group - the insane mass murderers. There aren't that many of them compared to the other two, but they do like to buy in bulk.
We should probably ban the bottom one, right? Because it looks scary. It's got stuff on it. It's definitely not the exact same rifle in the exact same caliber as the top one. Much like flame decals on a Civic adding 50 bhp, all that black and those rails make the bottom one a murder-only-machine while the top one is only owned by farmers and hunters. Of course.
Actually, yes I would, but not because it looks scary. The first one is the rifle of someone who sees rifles as tools used to kill. The second is the rifle of someone who sees rifles as toys used to kill.
I don't want anyone in the second category to be armed, so anything that makes weapons less appealing to them is a good idea.
That's strange, I see the bottom one as someone who wants a lighter stock to make it less fatiguing to hold, a pistol grip to make it more controllable when firing, and a scope rail so they can practice shooting paper targets at a greater range.
I can assure you without any doubts that those characteristic are not why those rifles look like that. Kinda like flame decals don't look like they do because it makes cars go faster, in fact.
This is a large portion of why anti gun stuff fails to lead to honest discussions between the sides. You presume to KNOW what someone else thinks/feels/see's in something . And, you wish to impose your perceptions and regulations on them because of that.
That shouldn't be the way things are done.
No we fail to get any kind of gun regulation because the gun lobby has more money and people in america don't care. We as a country will not care about the people who die to gun violence. I don't even remember the names of the people who died on wednesday. They're just another statistic, another isolated incident.
That's america, we wring our hands, run off to our camps and then pretend its not a problem until the next one. That we have a classification system for the different types of gun episodes is appalling, more so when people write off 7 dead to guns as a domestic violence situation and thus not a real mass shooting.
God Bless America.
I would like some money because these are artisanal nuggets of wisdom philistine.
Another thing to realize is that, even among gun owners, you are talking to two very different crowds. The first is the hunter/rural resident/homeowner who has a gun for protection or because its a lot easier to hunt with a rifle than a bow.
The second is the gun enthusiast. These guys don't want a revolver, a hunting rifle or a shotgun. They are play-pretend warriors who want weapons that at least look like the ones used by soldiers. It's a very XTREME culture, and the types of guns that lawmaker target are their favorite toys. That's why Dianne Feinstein being mean is, to them, the central issue in the debate.
The problem is that the second group and their friends in the gun industry (of which the NRA is just a lobbying arm) has convinced way too many people in the first that any infringement of their toys is going to lead to government thugs beating down their door and taking grandad's Mossbergs. Since it is no longer possible to separate the first from the second, American society is probably going to end up making both groups very unhappy because the gun control laws that finally end up being passed were written by the leaders of the Million Mom's March to End Gun Violence.
I guess there's also the third group - the insane mass murderers. There aren't that many of them compared to the other two, but they do like to buy in bulk.
We should probably ban the bottom one, right? Because it looks scary. It's got stuff on it. It's definitely not the exact same rifle in the exact same caliber as the top one. Much like flame decals on a Civic adding 50 bhp, all that black and those rails make the bottom one a murder-only-machine while the top one is only owned by farmers and hunters. Of course.
Actually, yes I would, but not because it looks scary. The first one is the rifle of someone who sees rifles as tools used to kill. The second is the rifle of someone who sees rifles as toys used to kill.
I don't want anyone in the second category to be armed, so anything that makes weapons less appealing to them is a good idea.
That's strange, I see the bottom one as someone who wants a lighter stock to make it less fatiguing to hold, a pistol grip to make it more controllable when firing, and a scope rail so they can practice shooting paper targets at a greater range.
I can assure you without any doubts that those characteristic are not why those rifles look like that. Kinda like flame decals don't look like they do because it makes cars go faster, in fact.
No, that's actually exactly why that rifle looks like that. Every part on that gun is to customize it how the user wants it. Just because you see guys who get off on slapping as many accessories as they can on a gun to impress their friends down at the range doesn't mean those things don't have purpose when used correctly.
Another thing to realize is that, even among gun owners, you are talking to two very different crowds. The first is the hunter/rural resident/homeowner who has a gun for protection or because its a lot easier to hunt with a rifle than a bow.
The second is the gun enthusiast. These guys don't want a revolver, a hunting rifle or a shotgun. They are play-pretend warriors who want weapons that at least look like the ones used by soldiers. It's a very XTREME culture, and the types of guns that lawmaker target are their favorite toys. That's why Dianne Feinstein being mean is, to them, the central issue in the debate.
The problem is that the second group and their friends in the gun industry (of which the NRA is just a lobbying arm) has convinced way too many people in the first that any infringement of their toys is going to lead to government thugs beating down their door and taking grandad's Mossbergs. Since it is no longer possible to separate the first from the second, American society is probably going to end up making both groups very unhappy because the gun control laws that finally end up being passed were written by the leaders of the Million Mom's March to End Gun Violence.
I guess there's also the third group - the insane mass murderers. There aren't that many of them compared to the other two, but they do like to buy in bulk.
We should probably ban the bottom one, right? Because it looks scary. It's got stuff on it. It's definitely not the exact same rifle in the exact same caliber as the top one. Much like flame decals on a Civic adding 50 bhp, all that black and those rails make the bottom one a murder-only-machine while the top one is only owned by farmers and hunters. Of course.
Yes. Yes we should.
Bolt action rifles are appropriate for every utilitarian need.
They're both semi-automatic Ruger Mini-14's. They are literally identical guns in function, differing only in form.
This is the same reason Feinstein failed so miserably. You don't actually understand the thing you want to get rid of.
Just want to follow-up here, because this is a great example of what I was talking about earlier.
In this thread, I and others have told stories about how we have been the direct victims of gun violence, seen gun violence, and known people killed/maimed by gun violence. Beyond any other personal history, that's definitely a form of knowledge and experience about guns.
But we see how - in what I guess what designed as a trick post - our friend here tried to undermine my credibility by doing the "You don't know guns! Why you talk guns!" thing. It was done badly here, because the automatic zinger he had prepared was undermined by the fact that I do know the difference between a semi-automatic rifle and a bolt-action rifle.
It is a cheap and nasty rhetorical device, even if I had not realized that the two guns were the same model with different styling, because it says that the gun enthusiast (who knows these details like an otaku knows their Gundam) is the only one has the expertise to participate in this discussion. This is directly relevant to Feinstein, whose relationship with guns is defined by the fact that she was the one to discover her murdered friend Harvey Milk's body when he and San Francisco Mayer George Moscone were murdered by a disgruntled gunman.
Another thing to realize is that, even among gun owners, you are talking to two very different crowds. The first is the hunter/rural resident/homeowner who has a gun for protection or because its a lot easier to hunt with a rifle than a bow.
The second is the gun enthusiast. These guys don't want a revolver, a hunting rifle or a shotgun. They are play-pretend warriors who want weapons that at least look like the ones used by soldiers. It's a very XTREME culture, and the types of guns that lawmaker target are their favorite toys. That's why Dianne Feinstein being mean is, to them, the central issue in the debate.
The problem is that the second group and their friends in the gun industry (of which the NRA is just a lobbying arm) has convinced way too many people in the first that any infringement of their toys is going to lead to government thugs beating down their door and taking grandad's Mossbergs. Since it is no longer possible to separate the first from the second, American society is probably going to end up making both groups very unhappy because the gun control laws that finally end up being passed were written by the leaders of the Million Mom's March to End Gun Violence.
I guess there's also the third group - the insane mass murderers. There aren't that many of them compared to the other two, but they do like to buy in bulk.
We should probably ban the bottom one, right? Because it looks scary. It's got stuff on it. It's definitely not the exact same rifle in the exact same caliber as the top one. Much like flame decals on a Civic adding 50 bhp, all that black and those rails make the bottom one a murder-only-machine while the top one is only owned by farmers and hunters. Of course.
Actually, yes I would, but not because it looks scary. The first one is the rifle of someone who sees rifles as tools used to kill. The second is the rifle of someone who sees rifles as toys used to kill.
I don't want anyone in the second category to be armed, so anything that makes weapons less appealing to them is a good idea.
That's strange, I see the bottom one as someone who wants a lighter stock to make it less fatiguing to hold, a pistol grip to make it more controllable when firing, and a scope rail so they can practice shooting paper targets at a greater range.
I can assure you without any doubts that those characteristic are not why those rifles look like that. Kinda like flame decals don't look like they do because it makes cars go faster, in fact.
This is a large portion of why anti gun stuff fails to lead to honest discussions between the sides. You presume to KNOW what someone else thinks/feels/see's in something . And, you wish to impose your perceptions and regulations on them because of that.
That shouldn't be the way things are done.
Are you really arguing that there's not a significant "this is cooooooooool" marketing campaign selling toys based on the label "tactical," combined with this general aesthetic ?
FFS, I have seen tactical pen. This is not about utility, this is about cool toys.
There's a third group of hobbyists that don't give a shit about the culture surrounding it.
But the first group is important, there exists a lot of rural areas in the US that are still plagued by wild animals that will attack. If we're writing new laws, how do we include them? I'm sure the UK has a good framework for this.
You don't outlaw shotguns and hunting rifles. Unless we have a resurgence of the Cave Bear or a sudden rhino infestation, that will take care of every animal native to North America.
That works for me.
With a rider that local municipalities can have rules regarding the storage of rifles and shotguns that are stronger than the federal one.
Like, NYC? Nobody living in the five boroughs should have a rifle or a shotgun in their residence - that shit should be stored off site in a non-residential zone.
You guys have shooting ranges in the city? Could mandate that shooting ranges must have enough storage for all members?
All for that.
I am also all for storage facilities having smaller lockers that people can rent to store lockboxes with their guns inside of them, and that any transport of guns in the city happen in those lockboxes.
And I see no reason why those rules would need to apply to a place where you really might need that rifle at a moments notice because coyotes are attacking your dogs.
Even in the latter, regulations requiring gun safes are a good idea.
I always play the ignorant UK guy, and I apologise, but I need to do it again - it seems clear there'll be no movement on Gun Control policy without a change to the Constitution because the rights it enshrines are seemingly set in stone. Is that even possible? Has it happened before in modern times? If not, how could that be enabled? How do you convince the populace to support that?
No change to the Constitution is necessary. As several of us have repeatedly pointed out in this thread, for a very long time, it was a settled matter that the Second Amendment was held as a collective right by the states. It was only in the past 30 years that the idea that it should held as an individual right by people in the US was considered anything but a fringe legal theory. This was done in large part by a concerted campaign to push the theory to prominence, and to make the Federal judiciary more amenable to it.
Is there any reading I can do on this (ie it being a very recent development that owning a gun is an individual right)?
That article leaves out the paragraph between #5 and #6 where they explain how the Supreme Court is an illegitimate body whose opinions should be ignored.
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.
SW-4158-3990-6116
Let's play Mario Kart or something...
Another thing to realize is that, even among gun owners, you are talking to two very different crowds. The first is the hunter/rural resident/homeowner who has a gun for protection or because its a lot easier to hunt with a rifle than a bow.
The second is the gun enthusiast. These guys don't want a revolver, a hunting rifle or a shotgun. They are play-pretend warriors who want weapons that at least look like the ones used by soldiers. It's a very XTREME culture, and the types of guns that lawmaker target are their favorite toys. That's why Dianne Feinstein being mean is, to them, the central issue in the debate.
The problem is that the second group and their friends in the gun industry (of which the NRA is just a lobbying arm) has convinced way too many people in the first that any infringement of their toys is going to lead to government thugs beating down their door and taking grandad's Mossbergs. Since it is no longer possible to separate the first from the second, American society is probably going to end up making both groups very unhappy because the gun control laws that finally end up being passed were written by the leaders of the Million Mom's March to End Gun Violence.
I guess there's also the third group - the insane mass murderers. There aren't that many of them compared to the other two, but they do like to buy in bulk.
We should probably ban the bottom one, right? Because it looks scary. It's got stuff on it. It's definitely not the exact same rifle in the exact same caliber as the top one. Much like flame decals on a Civic adding 50 bhp, all that black and those rails make the bottom one a murder-only-machine while the top one is only owned by farmers and hunters. Of course.
Actually, yes I would, but not because it looks scary. The first one is the rifle of someone who sees rifles as tools used to kill. The second is the rifle of someone who sees rifles as toys used to kill.
I don't want anyone in the second category to be armed, so anything that makes weapons less appealing to them is a good idea.
That's strange, I see the bottom one as someone who wants a lighter stock to make it less fatiguing to hold, a pistol grip to make it more controllable when firing, and a scope rail so they can practice shooting paper targets at a greater range.
I don't believe the mindset of the individuals that would own those respective guns would be remotely similar.
I'd love to hear how you plan on crafting the mindset test for gun ownership to prevent people from buying a shape of weapon they think looks cool.
This line of argument is as nonsensical as glyph's police state.
Posts
No change to the Constitution is necessary. As several of us have repeatedly pointed out in this thread, for a very long time, it was a settled matter that the Second Amendment was held as a collective right by the states. It was only in the past 30 years that the idea that it should held as an individual right by people in the US was considered anything but a fringe legal theory. This was done in large part by a concerted campaign to push the theory to prominence, and to make the Federal judiciary more amenable to it.
I live in Hangzhou, China; the prospect of a tense situation with someone, anyone, even a cop, descending into immediate and lethal violence is essentially nonexistent in this city relative to essentially any even remotely comparable area in the US
and it feels that way
2nd amendment also relies heavily on a well formed militia as the purpose of arming citizens. So it's basically saying there should be militias that have these weapons, not people. Though historically, people were allowed to own weapons and I don't personally have a problem with the idea.
I feel the same way about people owning guns the same way I do about presumed innocent on trial. If one guilty person goes free, or does something bad, why does that have any bearing on the idea or premise of the whole thing?
That's why we collect evidence and put people on trial.
And in the some vein we can have much tighter regulations on who can get and own guns. Most people should have the right or ability to do so unless there's something that excludes them. But there are still people that think rights shouldn't be modified because that sets a dangerous precedence. I'm honestly not sure how I feel about that, because we make a lot of stipulations on rights. We take them away from prisoners, we suspend habeas corpus during civil unrest for some reason (stupid reasons if you ask me), and do a whole lot of other stupid shit while modifying the constitution. We also do some really good shit when we modify it.
This really isn't true. What you haven't gotten is effective legislation. And really only in the last 20 years.
The 1934 NFA restricted several types of guns - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Firearms_Act
The 1938 FFA created the requirement for licensing to sell guns commercially and maintain records- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Firearms_Act_of_1938
The 1968 GCA superseded the 1938 FFA and restricted transfers of guns - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_Control_Act_of_1968
The 1986 FOPA - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firearm_Owners_Protection_Act banned the registration or civilian sale of any automatic weapon made after 1986, and laid the groundwork for the NICS, which was put into effect by...
The 1993 Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brady_Handgun_Violence_Prevention_Act
After this things go to shit. With the 1994 Violent Crime Control Act we get the Assault Weapons Ban tucked in - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Assault_Weapons_Ban which does... nothing.
It's such a convoluted mess. It's entirely reactionary and based on fear. Nothing it bans is actually worthwhile, everything it bans is still available and salable. It's also the tipping point for the NRA, when they fully descend from an organization founded by former Union officers after the Civil War who were disheartened by the poor marksmanship of their troops, into "dey tryin ta terk er gunz!" All gun legislation after this point bears the burden of the utter incompetence and failure of the AWB. Even talk of gun control becomes politically toxic. The only two actually attempted gun-related acts since the AWB were the Gun Show Loophole act in 2009 which was killed in committee, and Feinstein's AWB 2: Electric Boogaloo in 2013 which was defeated in the Senate. There has been no realistic, comprehensive legislation attempted in 20 years.
It comes up all the time.
The issue isn't really guns though. I think. Its a cultural issue. A culture bent on power and with a large swath of the population that feels powerless. For what ever reason. So, people gravitate toward violence, and finding a way to take back the power they've lost over their own lives. And, nothing NOTHING makes you feel more powerful than a big gun.
We need to change the CULTURE in this country. I dont mean the "gun" or "antigun" culture, i mean ALL of it.
I bet if our middle class was stronger, if everyone had a fair shake at the $70k American Dream we'd see WAY less shootings, and we would see the change far quicker and safer than banning the second amendment.
The second is the gun enthusiast. These guys don't want a revolver, a hunting rifle or a shotgun. They are play-pretend warriors who want weapons that at least look like the ones used by soldiers. It's a very XTREME culture, and the types of guns that lawmaker target are their favorite toys. That's why Dianne Feinstein being mean is, to them, the central issue in the debate.
The problem is that the second group and their friends in the gun industry (of which the NRA is just a lobbying arm) has convinced way too many people in the first that any infringement of their toys is going to lead to government thugs beating down their door and taking grandad's Mossbergs. Since it is no longer possible to separate the first from the second, American society is probably going to end up making both groups very unhappy because the gun control laws that finally end up being passed were written by the leaders of the Million Mom's March to End Gun Violence.
I guess there's also the third group - the insane mass murderers. There aren't that many of them compared to the other two, but they do like to buy in bulk.
But the first group is important, there exists a lot of rural areas in the US that are still plagued by wild animals that will attack. If we're writing new laws, how do we include them? I'm sure the UK has a good framework for this.
To be fair, though, neither member of your two groups are the ones who you have to worry about committing gun violence. Not really, anyway.
Australia has the best framework for this, we really should be looking at their model because they have the best mix of dense urban, suburban, and undeveloped frontier that best parallels ours, and their laws still let people in the fringes protect themselves from... lets be honest, EVERYTHING in Australia, while drastically reducing incidents of gun violence.
Let's play Mario Kart or something...
You don't outlaw shotguns and hunting rifles. Unless we have a resurgence of the Cave Bear or a sudden rhino infestation, that will take care of every animal native to North America.
Is there any reading I can do on this (ie it being a very recent development that owning a gun is an individual right)?
Steam: adamjnet
No. They just do everything in their power to prevent any laws being passed that could lessen gun violence.
So, they are more mass murderer enablers than actual mass murderers.
The indoor range near me is always freezing ass fucking cold because of the unbelievably loud and powerful ventilators that keep all the lead dust sucked downrange and through their filtering system.
I come out of that place shivering even in August.
That works for me.
We should probably ban the bottom one, right? Because it looks scary. It's got stuff on it. It's definitely not the exact same rifle in the exact same caliber as the top one. Much like flame decals on a Civic adding 50 bhp, all that black and those rails make the bottom one a murder-only-machine while the top one is only owned by farmers and hunters. Of course.
Here's a good New Yorker article on it.
With a rider that local municipalities can have rules regarding the storage of rifles and shotguns that are stronger than the federal one.
Like, NYC? Nobody living in the five boroughs should have a rifle or a shotgun in their residence - that shit should be stored off site in a non-residential zone.
Let's play Mario Kart or something...
Yes. Yes we should.
Bolt action rifles are appropriate for every utilitarian need.
They're both semi-automatic Ruger Mini-14's. They are literally identical guns in function, differing only in form.
This is the same reason Feinstein failed so miserably. You don't actually understand the thing you want to get rid of.
Actually, yes I would, but not because it looks scary. The first one is the rifle of someone who sees rifles as tools used to kill. The second is the rifle of someone who sees rifles as toys used to kill.
I don't want anyone in the second category to be armed, so anything that makes weapons less appealing to them is a good idea.
You guys have shooting ranges in the city? Could mandate that shooting ranges must have enough storage for all members?
That's strange, I see the bottom one as someone who wants a lighter stock to make it less fatiguing to hold, a pistol grip to make it more controllable when firing, and a scope rail so they can practice shooting paper targets at a greater range.
All for that.
I am also all for storage facilities having smaller lockers that people can rent to store lockboxes with their guns inside of them, and that any transport of guns in the city happen in those lockboxes.
And I see no reason why those rules would need to apply to a place where you really might need that rifle at a moments notice because coyotes are attacking your dogs.
Let's play Mario Kart or something...
Did you actually read what I said? Looks like you went on auto-pilot there.
Neither of those guns is a bolt-action rifle. I said I supported civilian ownership of bolt-action rifles.
And before you bring up one of the famous Texan shooters, I'll turn the conservation over to my friend R. Lee Ermy:
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?
I can assure you without any doubts that those characteristic are not why those rifles look like that. Kinda like flame decals don't look like they do because it makes cars go faster, in fact.
I don't believe the mindset of the individuals that would own those respective guns would be remotely similar.
What kind of numbers are we looking at for NYC in regards to people keeping a pistol in their home for protection?
I did, in fact. Which is why it was obvious you don't actually know what you're talking about. You're here to be condescending and engage in political brinkmanship. You don't want to fix anything, you want to "win".
Hedgie is wildly misrepresenting how "settled" this matter was. To get some reading on it from the non-Hedgie PoV, check this out for starters, by Constitutional Law professor Glenn Geynolds:
http://www.guncite.com/journals/reycrit.html
The Wikipedia articles on DC vs. Heller and McDonald vs. City of Chicago are a good place to get a straight factual explanation for the modern recognition of first an individual right (really a negative right, i.e. that the government can't infringe upon the individual's right to bear arms), and secondly the "incorporation" of that right, which means that like the 1st Amendment, it trumps individual state laws that might try to be more restrictive than the Amendment would allow.
This is a large portion of why anti gun stuff fails to lead to honest discussions between the sides. You presume to KNOW what someone else thinks/feels/see's in something . And, you wish to impose your perceptions and regulations on them because of that.
That shouldn't be the way things are done.
...yes, Reynolds may be a conlaw professor. But, he's also a very well known conservative pundit who publishes under the name Instapundit.
That's a pretty big lie of omission there.
Second, show me the legal scholarship on the individualist reading predating the Cincinnati Revolt. One of the elements of the push was to flood legal academia with papers reinforcing the theory from the conservative side of the community.
No we fail to get any kind of gun regulation because the gun lobby has more money and people in america don't care. We as a country will not care about the people who die to gun violence. I don't even remember the names of the people who died on wednesday. They're just another statistic, another isolated incident.
That's america, we wring our hands, run off to our camps and then pretend its not a problem until the next one. That we have a classification system for the different types of gun episodes is appalling, more so when people write off 7 dead to guns as a domestic violence situation and thus not a real mass shooting.
God Bless America.
pleasepaypreacher.net
No, that's actually exactly why that rifle looks like that. Every part on that gun is to customize it how the user wants it. Just because you see guys who get off on slapping as many accessories as they can on a gun to impress their friends down at the range doesn't mean those things don't have purpose when used correctly.
Just want to follow-up here, because this is a great example of what I was talking about earlier.
In this thread, I and others have told stories about how we have been the direct victims of gun violence, seen gun violence, and known people killed/maimed by gun violence. Beyond any other personal history, that's definitely a form of knowledge and experience about guns.
But we see how - in what I guess what designed as a trick post - our friend here tried to undermine my credibility by doing the "You don't know guns! Why you talk guns!" thing. It was done badly here, because the automatic zinger he had prepared was undermined by the fact that I do know the difference between a semi-automatic rifle and a bolt-action rifle.
It is a cheap and nasty rhetorical device, even if I had not realized that the two guns were the same model with different styling, because it says that the gun enthusiast (who knows these details like an otaku knows their Gundam) is the only one has the expertise to participate in this discussion. This is directly relevant to Feinstein, whose relationship with guns is defined by the fact that she was the one to discover her murdered friend Harvey Milk's body when he and San Francisco Mayer George Moscone were murdered by a disgruntled gunman.
Are you really arguing that there's not a significant "this is cooooooooool" marketing campaign selling toys based on the label "tactical," combined with this general aesthetic ?
FFS, I have seen tactical pen. This is not about utility, this is about cool toys.
Even in the latter, regulations requiring gun safes are a good idea.
That article leaves out the paragraph between #5 and #6 where they explain how the Supreme Court is an illegitimate body whose opinions should be ignored.
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.
Let's play Mario Kart or something...
I'd love to hear how you plan on crafting the mindset test for gun ownership to prevent people from buying a shape of weapon they think looks cool.
This line of argument is as nonsensical as glyph's police state.