Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 85 (8936 total)
24 online now:
DrJones*, GDR, PaulK (3 members, 21 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: ssope
Upcoming Birthdays: AdminPhat
Post Volume: Total: 861,616 Year: 16,652/19,786 Month: 777/2,598 Week: 23/251 Day: 0/23 Hour: 0/0


EvC Forum Side Orders Coffee House Gun Control

Summations Only

Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Gun Control
fearandloathing
Member (Idle past 2399 days)
Posts: 990
From: Burlington, NC, USA
Joined: 02-24-2011


Message 1 of 310 (668922)
07-25-2012 5:55 PM


The Aurora Colorado Violence topic has turned into a debate on gun control, lets discuss gun control in the USA further here.

Edited by fearandloathing, : No reason given.


“A nation of sheep will beget a government of wolves.”
― Edward R. Murrow

"You don't have to burn books to destroy a culture. Just get people to stop reading them" - Ray Bradbury


Replies to this message:
 Message 2 by jar, posted 07-25-2012 6:17 PM fearandloathing has not yet responded
 Message 3 by crashfrog, posted 07-25-2012 6:31 PM fearandloathing has not yet responded

    
jar
Member
Posts: 31258
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 2.8


(1)
Message 2 of 310 (668926)
07-25-2012 6:17 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by fearandloathing
07-25-2012 5:55 PM


I prefer a two hand modified Weaver.

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by fearandloathing, posted 07-25-2012 5:55 PM fearandloathing has not yet responded

  
crashfrog
Inactive Member


Message 3 of 310 (668928)
07-25-2012 6:31 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by fearandloathing
07-25-2012 5:55 PM


I'm interested in what gun control measures the Second Amendment allows, but until it's repealed it's a major obstacle to much of the control measures that have been floating around.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by fearandloathing, posted 07-25-2012 5:55 PM fearandloathing has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 4 by hooah212002, posted 07-25-2012 7:27 PM crashfrog has not yet responded
 Message 170 by onifre, posted 07-29-2012 5:50 AM crashfrog has not yet responded

  
hooah212002
Member (Idle past 76 days)
Posts: 3183
Joined: 08-12-2009


(1)
Message 4 of 310 (668934)
07-25-2012 7:27 PM
Reply to: Message 3 by crashfrog
07-25-2012 6:31 PM


Who decides what the definition of "arms" is as it relates to "the right to keep and bear arms"? I saw you alluding to arms used in partaking in or starting a militia, but is that not your particular interpretation? Yes, it is evident based on context, but it has also been argued that we already have our militia: the National Guard (note: I am not taking, nor am I defending, that position). I am merely stating that certain parts of the constitution are very subject to interpretation. Perhaps it was meant that way so as to make it a document that is fluid and able to change as society changes. I, personally, see a militia as more relavant at the inception of the government/country when we were high on revolt, lawlessness was a plenty and the possibility that we could be overtaken by the redcoats again was high, thus legally allowing a second revoltion if necessary.

I am for at least some sort of further control, but I am not sure what sort. I don't follow every major shooting, but the ones that make big headlines don't strike me as being at the hands of "responsible" gun owners. Are there guns that I, personally, think a civilian has no business owning? Sure, but that's my personal opinion and matters of opinion are worthless in matters such as this.


"Science is interesting, and if you don't agree you can fuck off." -Dawkins

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by crashfrog, posted 07-25-2012 6:31 PM crashfrog has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 5 by Jon, posted 07-25-2012 7:42 PM hooah212002 has responded

    
Jon
Inactive Member


(1)
Message 5 of 310 (668935)
07-25-2012 7:42 PM
Reply to: Message 4 by hooah212002
07-25-2012 7:27 PM


Yes, it is evident based on context, but it has also been argued that we already have our militia: the National Guard

Sure. Except what happens when it's the National Guard that we all need to protect ourselves from?


Love your enemies!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by hooah212002, posted 07-25-2012 7:27 PM hooah212002 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 6 by hooah212002, posted 07-25-2012 7:53 PM Jon has responded
 Message 9 by DevilsAdvocate, posted 07-26-2012 12:40 AM Jon has responded

  
hooah212002
Member (Idle past 76 days)
Posts: 3183
Joined: 08-12-2009


Message 6 of 310 (668936)
07-25-2012 7:53 PM
Reply to: Message 5 by Jon
07-25-2012 7:42 PM


Do you have a reading problem? Immediately following the sentence you quoted, I said the following:

me writes:

(note: I am not taking, nor am I defending, that position).I am merely stating that certain parts of the constitution are very subject to interpretation.

What part of that made you think I was making that argument. EVERYTHING in my post was indicative of my intent to point out the fluidity of the constitution.


"Science is interesting, and if you don't agree you can fuck off." -Dawkins

This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by Jon, posted 07-25-2012 7:42 PM Jon has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 7 by Jon, posted 07-25-2012 8:57 PM hooah212002 has responded

    
Jon
Inactive Member


(1)
Message 7 of 310 (668938)
07-25-2012 8:57 PM
Reply to: Message 6 by hooah212002
07-25-2012 7:53 PM


Simmer Down...
What part of that made you think I was making that argument.

What part of my post made you think I was doing anything other than bringing up another possible line of thought?

Do you think that maybe you overreacted just a little?


Love your enemies!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by hooah212002, posted 07-25-2012 7:53 PM hooah212002 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 8 by hooah212002, posted 07-25-2012 9:15 PM Jon has acknowledged this reply

  
hooah212002
Member (Idle past 76 days)
Posts: 3183
Joined: 08-12-2009


Message 8 of 310 (668939)
07-25-2012 9:15 PM
Reply to: Message 7 by Jon
07-25-2012 8:57 PM


Re: Simmer Down...
Then perhaps you should be more clear. Better yet, you could have addressed the point I was making instead of responding to something I specifically said I had no intention of discussing.

What part of my post made you think I was doing anything other than bringing up another possible line of thought?

Could it be that, oh, I don't know, you responded to me about something I wrote in a manner that appears as a question directed towards me and in no way indicative of a second line of discourse?

Do you think that maybe you overreacted just a little?

No. I think you need to get some thicker skin. Overreacting would have been me calling you an illiterate cunt who has the reading comprehension skills of a peasant.


"Science is interesting, and if you don't agree you can fuck off." -Dawkins

This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by Jon, posted 07-25-2012 8:57 PM Jon has acknowledged this reply

Replies to this message:
 Message 11 by AdminPhat, posted 07-26-2012 7:10 AM hooah212002 has not yet responded

    
DevilsAdvocate
Member (Idle past 1355 days)
Posts: 1548
Joined: 06-05-2008


(2)
Message 9 of 310 (668947)
07-26-2012 12:40 AM
Reply to: Message 5 by Jon
07-25-2012 7:42 PM


Yes, it is evident based on context, but it has also been argued that we already have our militia: the National Guard

Sure. Except what happens when it's the National Guard that we all need to protect ourselves from?

Do you think it is going to make a hill of beans difference what the 2nd Amendment states if individual citizens are defending themselves against the National Guard or the US Military. At that point federal and even state legislation is a moot point. Not that I think this will ever happen.

The purpose of the 2nd Ammendment was to allow the individual citizen the right to have weapons for the protection of himself and his loved ones through militias and the like against any future tyranical powers that could possibly take away his 'God-given' freedoms. That is most likely what the framers and ratifiers of the Consitition and Bill of Rights intended.

Certain gun enthusiasts have taken this freedom to a whole new extreme wanting very few if any restrictions on highly lethal weaponry (automatic and semi-automtic machine guns, unlimited ammo and weapon stashing, high capacity magazines, etc) that no 18th century patriot could dare imagine much less advocate.

Regulation of firearms does not mean taking away your right to bear arms any more than restricting people from incite fear and violence without just cause (i.e. yelling fire in a crowded room when there is no fire or saying there is a bomb on a plane or bus when there isn't one) takes away from your freedom of speach. All inalienable rights require a certain amount of qualifiers and controls to protect other people's freedoms and allow for public safety.

Edited by DevilsAdvocate, : No reason given.

Edited by DevilsAdvocate, : No reason given.


"It is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring." - Carl Sagan, The Demon-Haunted World

This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by Jon, posted 07-25-2012 7:42 PM Jon has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 10 by Jon, posted 07-26-2012 6:51 AM DevilsAdvocate has responded
 Message 12 by Buzsaw, posted 07-26-2012 7:17 AM DevilsAdvocate has not yet responded
 Message 13 by crashfrog, posted 07-26-2012 8:27 AM DevilsAdvocate has responded

  
Jon
Inactive Member


Message 10 of 310 (668959)
07-26-2012 6:51 AM
Reply to: Message 9 by DevilsAdvocate
07-26-2012 12:40 AM


Do you think it is going to make a hill of beans difference what the 2nd Amendment states if individual citizens are defending themselves against the National Guard or the US Military. At that point federal and even state legislation is a moot point. Not that I think this will ever happen.

The point I was making is that if people's guns are taken away from them now, it gives them no defense against an oppressive tyranny in the future.

The purpose of the 2nd Ammendment was to allow the individual citizen the right to have weapons for the protection of himself and his loved ones through militias and the like against any future tyranical powers that could possibly take away his 'God-given' freedoms.

Exactly—'future tyranical powers'. Such as the U.S. government. The former Brits had just fought the British king—their own leader—to defend their rights. They were well aware of the potential necessity for people to fight against their own government.

Certain gun enthusiasts have taken this freedom to a whole new extreme wanting very few if any restrictions on highly lethal weaponry (automatic and semi-automtic machine guns, unlimited ammo and weapon stashing, high capacity magazines, etc) that no 18th century patriot could dare imagine much less advocate.

If the only arms allowed are useless in protecting someone from 'future tyranical powers', then the amendment is as good as non-existent.

All inalienable rights require a certain amount of qualifiers and controls to protect other people's freedoms and allow for public safety.

Sure. The purpose of the amendment is to create a check against tyrannical nutjobs. So it is clearly in the best interest of the people to keep weapons out of the hands of such tyrannical nutjobs.

This does, of course, raise the issue of just what constitutes a 'nutjob'. But that is an issue for the people to decide...

Jon


Love your enemies!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by DevilsAdvocate, posted 07-26-2012 12:40 AM DevilsAdvocate has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 53 by xongsmith, posted 07-26-2012 11:50 AM Jon has not yet responded
 Message 173 by DevilsAdvocate, posted 07-29-2012 6:34 AM Jon has not yet responded

  
AdminPhat
Administrator
Posts: 1920
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-03-2004


Message 11 of 310 (668960)
07-26-2012 7:10 AM
Reply to: Message 8 by hooah212002
07-25-2012 9:15 PM


Re: Simmer Down...
This reaction is meritorious for a time out.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by hooah212002, posted 07-25-2012 9:15 PM hooah212002 has not yet responded

    
Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 12 of 310 (668961)
07-26-2012 7:17 AM
Reply to: Message 9 by DevilsAdvocate
07-26-2012 12:40 AM


Re: 2nd Admentment Limit
DA writes:

The purpose of the 2nd Ammendment was to allow the individual citizen the right to have weapons for the protection of himself and his loved ones through militias and the like against any future tyranical powers that could possibly take away his 'God-given' freedoms. That is most likely what the framers and ratifiers of the Consitition and Bill of Rights intended

The 2nd Ammendment seems to imply that the rights are limited to what it takes to defend one's self.


BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The Immeasurable Present Eternally Extends the Infinite Past And Infinitely Consumes The Eternal Future.

Someone wisely said something ;ike, "Before fooling with a fool, make sure the fool is a fool." :)


This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by DevilsAdvocate, posted 07-26-2012 12:40 AM DevilsAdvocate has not yet responded

  
crashfrog
Inactive Member


(3)
Message 13 of 310 (668962)
07-26-2012 8:27 AM
Reply to: Message 9 by DevilsAdvocate
07-26-2012 12:40 AM


Certain gun enthusiasts have taken this freedom to a whole new extreme wanting very few if any restrictions on highly lethal weaponry (automatic and semi-automtic machine guns, unlimited ammo and weapon stashing, high capacity magazines, etc) that no 18th century patriot could dare imagine much less advocate.

I think what an 18th Century patriot imagined is what had actually happened - that the British colonial government had attempted to pacify the colonial response to tyranny by seizing private arms in the name of public safety. And certainly you could go forward and make the argument that sometimes that actually needs to happen for the public safety, and I'm not here to make any arguments about tyranny, etc., only to say that unfortunately for you the Second Amendment constitutionally prohibits disarming the American people in the name of public safety.

As for what types of weapons the Second Amendment protects under the guise of "arms", I would refer you to the Supreme Court's ruling in United States vs Miller, where they ruled that a sawed-off shotgun could not be a Second Amendment-protected armament precisely because it was not a "military weapon", and therefore could not meaningfully assist in "the common defense" by a militia.

The purpose and text of the Second Amendment is quite clear. It's not an amendment that permits citizens to have nothing but the barest permissible level of armament for sport shooting and hunting. It's an amendment that prevents the government from enacting nothing but the barest permissible level of regulation on firearms to protect the public safety. It's precisely because something like an AR-15 approaches a military level of effectiveness that the Second Amendment protects its ownership.

Maybe you think it doesn't make any sense that public safety concerns are supposed to be balanced - and disadvantaged - against the prospect of the necessity of an armed insurrection against a tyrranical US government, or against a foreign invader. Maybe it doesn't make any sense. But the Second Amendment exists and that's the standard that it sets, and that's the reality in which any gun control effort has to operate until the amendment is repealed.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by DevilsAdvocate, posted 07-26-2012 12:40 AM DevilsAdvocate has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 90 by DevilsAdvocate, posted 07-26-2012 5:34 PM crashfrog has responded

  
ScientificBob
Member (Idle past 2517 days)
Posts: 48
From: Antwerp, Belgium
Joined: 03-29-2011


(5)
Message 14 of 310 (668963)
07-26-2012 8:32 AM


I don't post here often and am more a lurker then anything else. But this is a topic I would want to add my 2 cents to as a European looking at gun policies in the US.

Frankly, I am amazed that there is even discussion about this. I am amazed that so many people don't see anything wrong with being able to buy guns in a freaking supermarket. I am amazed that so many people don't see the difference between keeping a small handgun hidden somewhere safely in your bedroom and having a garage stuffed with M16's and whatnot.

I am amazed at how people in the US view guns in general. It's burried so deeply that people don't even see anything wrong with receiving a shotgun as a present in a freaking bank when opening up a bank account during the promotion period.

Are any of you gun-proponents actually surprised by kids turning up at schools with a bunch of grenades and automatic weapons and start killing people?

Are any of your surprised at the level of violence and murder with firearms in the US, vastly outperforming any other first world country?

There are more guns in the hands of civilians then there are actual civilians in the US.

I think that at the VERY LEAST, there should be a clear line between defensive weapons and assault/war weapons. Be serious, no civilian needs a Rambo-sized gun.

Frankly, I think it's sickening. Getting a hold of massive weaponry in the US is FAR to easy.

When it becomes easier to buy a massive automatic gun then it is to buy a freaking joint, then you know your country is in serious trouble. That's my take on it anyway.


Replies to this message:
 Message 15 by crashfrog, posted 07-26-2012 8:58 AM ScientificBob has responded
 Message 18 by Briterican, posted 07-26-2012 10:22 AM ScientificBob has not yet responded
 Message 19 by New Cat's Eye, posted 07-26-2012 10:23 AM ScientificBob has not yet responded
 Message 85 by Huntard, posted 07-26-2012 3:22 PM ScientificBob has not yet responded
 Message 126 by Hyroglyphx, posted 07-27-2012 5:16 PM ScientificBob has not yet responded

    
crashfrog
Inactive Member


(4)
Message 15 of 310 (668969)
07-26-2012 8:58 AM
Reply to: Message 14 by ScientificBob
07-26-2012 8:32 AM


Frankly, I am amazed that there is even discussion about this. I am amazed that so many people don't see anything wrong with being able to buy guns in a freaking supermarket. I am amazed that so many people don't see the difference between keeping a small handgun hidden somewhere safely in your bedroom and having a garage stuffed with M16's and whatnot.

I'm amazed that people like you can never seem to articulate any basis for your amazement.

I mean, I get it - you're scared of guns. They're a kind of fear-totem for you because they're so far from your everyday experience, and you only seem to hear about them in the hands of maniacs.

But look. Why do you consider one handgun safer than a garage full of battle rifles? You can only fire one rifle at a time. When you carry a rifle, everybody knows that you are. There's no concealing it. A handgun can just pop up anywhere; in a theater, in a school, in a restaurant. It's a lot easier to bring a handgun into almost any situation where others might not be expecting guns to be present, and that's the reason why so many Americans are killed by handguns.

I think that at the VERY LEAST, there should be a clear line between defensive weapons and assault/war weapons. Be serious, no civilian needs a Rambo-sized gun.

But that's exactly where you're wrong. I think what many people outside the United States don't understand is that we have the Second Amendment to our Constitution, which is unique in that it protects, in perpetuity, the military capacity of the American people to violently overthrow our own government. I know that you don't have anything similar. In fact it probably seems inconceivable that the Belgian government would ever legally enshrine the right of Belgians to violently overthrow the government.

But we have that. It's the highest law in the United States. I'm not celebrating it or glorifying guns, I'm just explaining to you that the Second Amendment exists. People act like the Second Amendment exists to protect the right of the American people to own .22 caliber varmint guns and participate in biathlons. That's exactly wrong. The Second Amendment isn't for any of that shit - the government could ban target shooting and hunting tomorrow with no Constitutional objection. The purpose of the Second Amendment - this is abundantly obvious in the text - is to protect the right of the American people to constitute a credible, armed threat to our own government or any foreign invader. That's something you don't have in Belgium, and that's why you don't understand the American relationship to firearms.

Are any of your surprised at the level of violence and murder with firearms in the US, vastly outperforming any other first world country?

Yeah, but our level of violence and murder with knives and clubs is higher, too. We're a uniquely murderous people unrelated to what weapons people choose for that. But murder is illegal here (except in Florida.)


This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by ScientificBob, posted 07-26-2012 8:32 AM ScientificBob has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 17 by Briterican, posted 07-26-2012 10:08 AM crashfrog has responded
 Message 42 by ScientificBob, posted 07-26-2012 11:13 AM crashfrog has responded

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019