Summations Only

I'm interested in what gun control measures the Second Amendment allows, but until it's repealed it's a major obstacle to much of the control measures that have been floating around.

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the standard that it sets, and that's the reality in which any gun control effort has to operate until the amendment is repealed.

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. 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. 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.)

What other explanation is there but fear when someone opposed gun ownership even by people who are never once in their life going to point that weapon at another human being? What other explanation is there but fear when someone sees even locked, unloaded firearms as more dangerous than an automobile?I'm willing to consider an alternate explanation for your viewpoint, but if the only thing you can say for your position is that you think these weapons present an unacceptable danger and you can't explain why, you're just proving my point that this is about gun-phobia, not an accurate risk assessment. They don't have the Second Amendment, or an especially murderous populace.

Look, right or wrong, the Constitution is the law. You can't just ignore it.

Only if you want me to believe it's something other than fear. I see. So it's not only your fear of guns, it's your fear of embarassment.

Well, there's a procedure by which the Constitution becomes amended. You'd have to convince a lot of people that the risk of a handful of nuts with firearms (or laser arms, I guess) outweighed the cost of ending a uniquely American tradition and the risks of disarming the populace and leaving them unable to defend themselves. If you could convince people that it was worth it I guess you could change the Constitution. But you can't even convince any of us that it would be worth it. You've barely even tried.

I'm simply noting your new justification for disarming Americans: other countries do it, and the people of those countries disapprove of American gun ownership, and as a result when you're in those countries you feel embarrassed to be identified as an American.

And it's the fact that you can't explain why that led me to characterize your argument as inchoate and fear-based. You've given no evidence whatsoever that I'm wrong about that.

No.

Well, if you're not trying to connect that to any particular policy or prescription - who cares? The topic of this thread is "gun control", not "attitudes about the United States as held by foreigners." What's the relevance of what you or anyone else considers "insane"? Many of us in the US believe that it's "insane" to leave one's own defense and the defense of the people in the hands of corrupt cops and a distant government. But that's not true, now is it? The truth is that those countries disarmed because they were safe, not because disarming in the face of armed threats somehow made them safer. And yet you can't explain why. Inchoate fear.

It's illegal in the US for psychopaths to own firearms. It's illegal to use them to murder people, even to murder a great deal of people. It's illegal to plan to use them to murder people. It's illegal to buy them for the purpose of murdering people.What else do you want? Does nothing that is against Belgium's laws happen in Belgium? Somehow I think that even in Belgium they have murders, even murders with firearms, even though I'm sure both of those things are against your laws. And again, we have something you don't - a constitutional amendment that prevents the government from making laws that would make it a lot harder for law-abiding citizens to purchase firearms. Yeah, they saw it as soon as he entered the theater. Since it was a movie with SWAT team gun battles, they thought it was part of the movie, or a promotion by the theater. Because the number of Americans murdered by any means is so wildly out of proportion compared to the rest of the world. We have a lot more murderers in our population than you do. I believe that justifies widespread ownership of handguns for personal defense, since they have significant defensive utility. (That's why they're carried by police and military, even in Belgium.) The opposing position that it's the presence of the guns that makes people into murderers, and there's been no evidence put forward for that view. You're obviously wrong about that, since our rate of stabbings and clubbings is disproportionately higher as well. We have more murderers in our midst than you do, that's just objective fact. Yes, I'm sure it does. It was a direct response to the efforts of the British government to disarm American colonists to ensure that they could be subjugated by the British military, even in contravention of British law. No, of course not. But the guns would still exist. That's the point - by preventing the legitimate government from disarming US citizens, US citizens preserve the material capacity to defend themselves from an illegitimate government. Sure. Frequently, the way they disallow you is by allowing the government that didn't deserve to be overthrown to disarm the populace. The Second Amendment prevents an illegitimate, dictatorial government from enjoying a populace disarmed by a legitimate government. How easy do you think it is? How hard do you think it should be? "Easy" and "hard" are meaningless. I need to know what kind of policy you're promoting. We have a system of background checks before you can buy a gun here, as well. Many states collect ballistics fingerprints for all guns registered in the state.But not even the Belgian system would prevent someone with no criminal record from purchasing a firearm and then using it to murder as many people as they could. Because guns are a fear-totem for you. Why would you be afraid of an "arsenal"? How many guns do you think your neighbor can fire at once?

I'm asking for you to support your contention that it is worth it to have a completely disarmed populace. You know, with evidence. Or basically anything beyond "I'm afraid of people who own guns." Yeah, absolutely, if they've broken in to commit a crime. People have a right to be safe in their homes, and criminals who violate that security and put people at risk deserve to be the ones who shoulder that risk. Can you explain why you think criminals have a right to expect perfect physical safety as they damage, destroy, and pilfer other people's property?

I used to think that, but the wars and occupations I've seen in my lifetime - as well as the nations that have actually won their freedom by armed insurrection in the last couple of decades, or for that matter the last couple of months - have proved otherwise. It's not easy for an armed populace to overthrow its own government against a modern mechanized army, but it's entirely possible and has happened several times in recent years. It's entirely possible for an armed populace to defend itself against a superior invader; look at Iraq and how the might of the US army was held nearly completely at bay by people with dynamite and AK-47's.If you think the Second Amendment is no defense against a tyrannical government you're just not watching the news.

Correct positions aren't invalidated by the fact that many who hold them also hold other idiotic ideas. Wrong ideas are not made right by the fact that those who hold them may be on the side of the angels in other areas.