Second Amendment Repeal / Gun Control

[Draakonite]

What does Mr. Dixon need with a machine gun?
(Image)
Your fist ends where my nose begins.

Interpret this post however you want. I know you will, anyway (also interpret that however you want. I know...).

Having been in this thread before, you already know that fists kill more people in the US than machine guns.

Or any other firearm type, except handguns.

[Kernen]

Yes it should, and yes, a Democratic Congressman should introduce the bill soon! Preferably: mid October, 2016.

Why?

[Imperializt Russia]

Yes it should, and yes, a Democratic Congressman should introduce the bill soon! Preferably: mid October, 2016.

Why a Democrat? Unsurprisingly, many Democrats and left-leaning independents also support the Second Amendment's existence, if not its implementation.

[Arbolvine]

Why bother posting?

Anyways, fists kill far more people annually than machine guns ever have. Not that I expect you to know the difference between a machine gun and a select-fire rifle.

Well legally, select-fire rifles are classified as "machine guns". Laypeople do seem to struggle wih the difference between semi-auto and select-fire, though.

That's because...news flash...why should you care unless you own a gun?

What does Mr. Dixon need with a machine gun?
(Image)
Your fist ends where my nose begins.

Interpret this post however you want. I know you will, anyway (also interpret that however you want. I know...).

Having been in this thread before, you already know that fists kill more people in the US than machine guns.

So should we ban fists?

Edit: And the saying is "Your right to swing your fist ends where the next man's nose begins." Simply owning something is not equivalent to swinging a fist (i.e. using it offensively).

Nitpicking shows you have nothing to contribute. There is no difference between the two forms of this saying. If I say "your fist ends where my nose begins", that inherently means you must be swinging your fist (your rights) at my nose to violate my nose (my rights). Unless you decide to lame-bop my nose. That's just weird.


And for the 10,000th time, many people advocating gun control don't want a total gun ban. You gun rights advocates constantly assume we want huge restrictions on gun ownership. We only want to restrict it to the point where we can rationally say that the guns still in circulation do not risk more lives than they save.
You don't need 80 Uzis. I consider that kind of collection a greater risk to Americans than it is worth to protect. The rights of Americans to live safely, at that point, outweigh the right of the single gun owner.
Utilitarianism, bruh.

Enjoy yourselves at the shooting range.

[Imperializt Russia]

The kind of person who owns eighty "Uzis", as you described it as a collection, is one of the least likely people to pose a threat with that collection.

[Bezkoshtovnya]

Well legally, select-fire rifles are classified as "machine guns". Laypeople do seem to struggle wih the difference between semi-auto and select-fire, though.

That's because...news flash...why should you care unless you own a gun?

Having been in this thread before, you already know that fists kill more people in the US than machine guns.

So should we ban fists?

Edit: And the saying is "Your right to swing your fist ends where the next man's nose begins." Simply owning something is not equivalent to swinging a fist (i.e. using it offensively).

Nitpicking shows you have nothing to contribute. There is no difference between the two forms of this saying. If I say "your fist ends where my nose begins", that inherently means you must be swinging your fist (your rights) at my nose to violate my nose (my rights). Unless you decide to lame-bop my nose. That's just weird.


And for the 10,000th time, many people advocating gun control don't want a total gun ban. You gun rights advocates constantly assume we want huge restrictions on gun ownership. We only want to restrict it to the point where we can rationally say that the guns still in circulation do not risk more lives than they save.
You don't need 80 Uzis. I consider that kind of collection a greater risk to Americans than it is worth to protect. The rights of Americans to live safely, at that point, outweigh the right of the single gun owner.
Utilitarianism, bruh.

Enjoy yourselves at the shooting range.

Which is fine, no one here has disagreed that logical restrictions are needed despite you consistently thinking the opposite evidently.

You however seem to think gun owners all want to own personal armories of multitudes of uzis and other automatic weapons. And that is certainly not the case.

[Bezkoshtovnya]

Well legally, select-fire rifles are classified as "machine guns". Laypeople do seem to struggle wih the difference between semi-auto and select-fire, though.

That's because...news flash...why should you care unless you own a gun?

If you are going to get into an argument about firearms, best to know what you are talking about no?

[Kernen]

And for the 10,000th time, many people advocating gun control don't want a total gun ban. You gun rights advocates constantly assume we want huge restrictions on gun ownership. We only want to restrict it to the point where we can rationally say that the guns still in circulation do not risk more lives than they save.
You don't need 80 Uzis. I consider that kind of collection a greater risk to Americans than it is worth to protect. The rights of Americans to live safely, at that point, outweigh the right of the single gun owner.
Utilitarianism, bruh.

Enjoy yourselves at the shooting range.

How does owning 80 Uzis a threat, though? How does my owning one semi-auto rifle any more or less dangerous then me owning 50?

If you are going to get into an argument about firearms, best to know what you are talking about no?

Thank you. I don't support beating laymen over the head with technicalities to demean an argument, but basic information on the laws and firearms themselves is pretty necessary for a decent debate.

[Sevvania]

Well legally, select-fire rifles are classified as "machine guns". Laypeople do seem to struggle wih the difference between semi-auto and select-fire, though.

That's because...news flash...why should you care unless you own a gun?
As Bezkoshtovnya said, if you're going to get into a debate about something, it would make sense to at least try to educate yourself on the subject. Ignorance and misinformation are why we have people rallying against cosmetic features and other things that look or sound scary, as opposed to things that actually make up a substantial percentage of violent crimes. It's why we have people making arguments and legal decisions based on fearmongering for a false sense of security as opposed to targeting things that actually matter.

Fully-automatics can fire as long as the trigger is depressed. Semi-automatics can only fire once per trigger pull. Fully-automatics are expensive, and while they were available to regular civilians for a few years around the time of the Great Depression, they have been heavily regulated since the '30s. Semi-automatics, on the other hand, are relatively cheap, and have proliferated throughout the civilian population over the course of the last hundred years or so they've been available. Semi-autos are something that many, many people have. Full-autos are not.

Having been in this thread before, you already know that fists kill more people in the US than machine guns.

So should we ban fists?
The opposite: Why bother banning something that is already heavily regulated when it accounts for fewer crimes than something that practically everyone owns two of?

Edit: And the saying is "Your right to swing your fist ends where the next man's nose begins." Simply owning something is not equivalent to swinging a fist (i.e. using it offensively).

Nitpicking shows you have nothing to contribute.
This is a bold statement considering how much I've posted to this thread, especially when it seems that you just now got here and have already expressed what seems to be a, "Pfft, who cares about details?" point of view.
There is no difference between the two forms of this saying. If I say "your fist ends where my nose begins", that inherently means you must be swinging your fist (your rights) at my nose to violate my nose (my rights). Unless you decide to lame-bop my nose. That's just weird.
In the context of Wallenburg's argument, he was saying that ownership was equal to abuse. This isn't the case. Gun ownership isn't a perpetual fist-to-the-face of everyone in the vicinity.

You gun rights advocates constantly assume we want huge restrictions on gun ownership.
Assumptions are generally less than ideal, however....
You don't need 80 Uzis. I consider that kind of collection a greater risk to Americans than it is worth to protect. The rights of Americans to live safely, at that point, outweigh the right of the single gun owner.
"The opposition to gun rights advocates constantly assume that gun owners want huge collections of fully-automatic weapons."
How many hands do you think that single gun owner has? One for all eighty of his Uzis? Even in this silly scenario, if he legally acquired his collection, then odds are that you'd have little to worry about, considering ~2 homicides have been commited with legally-owned fully-automatic weapons since the 1930s. Both of them were commited by police officers.

[Spirit of Hope]

And for the 10,000th time, many people advocating gun control don't want a total gun ban. You gun rights advocates constantly assume we want huge restrictions on gun ownership.

So what do you support? I have seen a vast amount of support on this web-sight for practical restrictions and moves forward, including universal back ground checks, permits to carry in public, ideas for better ways to target guns likely to be used in crime, etc. In stead of saying what you aren't going to do, say what you are going to do, or support.

We only want to restrict it to the point where we can rationally say that the guns still in circulation do not risk more lives than they save.

Then depending on what studies you use we have already reached that point. The lowest claim for the number of defensive gun uses I have seen is ~108,000, roughly 10 times as high as the number of homicides committed with a gun, and three times as large as all gun deaths. Other studies have shown far higher defensive gun uses, up to a possible 2 million!

You don't need 80 Uzis. I consider that kind of collection a greater risk to Americans than it is worth to protect. The rights of Americans to live safely, at that point, outweigh the right of the single gun owner.
Utilitarianism, bruh.

First that isn't how a constitutionally guaranteed right works, the constitution is not a Utilitarian document. We could have mush safer lives if we surrendered our rights and allowed cops much easier ability to search for criminals and criminal activity and a much lower bar for arrests. The number of people wrongfully imprisoned or hurt by such actions would be small but it could have a huge benefit to society at large. We are however protected against that by the constitution, and the Second Amendment is one such specifically protected right.

Second, as has been noted, the gun collector with 80 guns isn't a large threat. Especially if we are talking fully automatics since those are further restricted and expensive. Additionally mass shootings, which is where the danger of fully automatics may exist, are incredibly rare. So overall the hypothetical you present isn't actually that dangerous.

Third there are approximately 100 million gun owners in the United States, and 300 million people in the United States. Placing restrictions on firearms automatically restricts every one one of the gun owners rights, and possibly restricts everyone else's rights if they were to choose to become a gun owner.

Enjoy yourselves at the shooting range.

Overwhelmingly gun owners do. Out of the estimated 300 million guns in the United States there are only around half a million gun crimes in the United States. To put that in perspective that means there is about a .16% chance any gun will be used in a crime and a .5% chance that a gun owner will carry out a crime with a gun.

So in conclusion, please state a clear position and support it with facts.

[Occupied Deutschland]

Yes it should, and yes, a Democratic Congressman should introduce the bill soon! Preferably: mid October, 2016.

Why a Democrat? Unsurprisingly, many Democrats and left-leaning independents also support the Second Amendment's existence, if not its implementation.

Heck, there's even plenty of Democrats who support its implementation currently (or even seek to expand it in manners that would horrify some others). The phenomenon of the 'pro-gun-control' Democrat is a decidedly coastal/urban occurrence. Those from 'flyover states' are, at best, oftentimes dismissive of many 'gun control' measures proposed and would balk at just those proposals. A call for the wholesale repeal of the amendment would attract virtually no votes.

Which is fine, no one here has disagreed that logical restrictions are needed despite you consistently thinking the opposite evidently.

You however seem to think gun owners all want to own personal armories of multitudes of uzis and other automatic weapons. And that is certainly not the case.

Well, I might. It'd be cool to have a bunch of examples of historical automatic firearms that one could actually shoot and use. Doubly so if they were produced way back in time and been through so much history. History like that is cool in the same way that historical cars or planes (particularly military ones) are really cool. Makes it come alive a lot more than reading about something in a book or such.

But yeah, that's not a universal desire by any means and to each their own.

[Big Jim P]

Well legally, select-fire rifles are classified as "machine guns". Laypeople do seem to struggle wih the difference between semi-auto and select-fire, though.

That's because...news flash...why should you care unless you own a gun?

Having been in this thread before, you already know that fists kill more people in the US than machine guns.

So should we ban fists?

Edit: And the saying is "Your right to swing your fist ends where the next man's nose begins." Simply owning something is not equivalent to swinging a fist (i.e. using it offensively).

Nitpicking shows you have nothing to contribute. There is no difference between the two forms of this saying. If I say "your fist ends where my nose begins", that inherently means you must be swinging your fist (your rights) at my nose to violate my nose (my rights). Unless you decide to lame-bop my nose. That's just weird.


And for the 10,000th time, many people advocating gun control don't want a total gun ban. You gun rights advocates constantly assume we want huge restrictions on gun ownership. We only want to restrict it to the point where we can rationally say that the guns still in circulation do not risk more lives than they save.
You don't need 80 Uzis. I consider that kind of collection a greater risk to Americans than it is worth to protect. The rights of Americans to live safely, at that point, outweigh the right of the single gun owner.
Utilitarianism, bruh.

Enjoy yourselves at the shooting range.

All guns in circulation (300+million) already pose a negligible risk to life, and their defensive use already outweighs that risk, not to mention their other beneficial uses.

[-The Unified Earth Governments-]

No, at the most it will need to be updated down the road, but we'll likely be fucking dead when that issue crops up, so...

No not really.

[Gun Manufacturers]

Yes it should, and yes, a Democratic Congressman should introduce the bill soon! Preferably: mid October, 2016.

Incidentally, the wild west may not have been excessively violent. It's merely assumed it was, but evidence on such pervasive widespread (nonwar) violence is hard to come by.

I always kind of got the impression that the rumors of ever-pervasive lawlessness were the result of failed prospectors whom returned east telling the 19th century's equivalent of "I swear the fish was *this* big" or "I got *so* laid after the frat party" stories in Boston bars or whatever.

It's going to take a lot more to pass a repeal of an amendment, than it would take to pass a repeal of a normal law. That, and the Republicans currently control Congress, so a bill to repeal the 2nd won't have anywhere near enough support to pass (it would take 2/3 of Congress). Then, there's getting it ratified by (currently) 38 states. The problem for the "repeal" crowd is, 44 states currently have the right to bear arms in their state constitutions. I don't see them voting for a repeal at the federal level, while still protecting it at the state level.

[Gun Manufacturers]

The kind of person who owns eighty "Uzis", as you described it as a collection, is one of the least likely people to pose a threat with that collection.

The kind of person who legally owns 80 transferable "Uzis" is a rich person, and someone I would like to have as a friend.

[The Empire of Pretantia]

The kind of person who owns eighty "Uzis", as you described it as a collection, is one of the least likely people to pose a threat with that collection.

The kind of person who legally owns 80 transferable "Uzis" is a rich person, and someone I would like to have as a friend.

The kind of person who has 80 uzis is an IDF quartermaster.

[Big Jim P]

That's because...news flash...why should you care unless you own a gun?

If you are going to get into an argument about firearms, best to know what you are talking about no?

Relevant.

[Dastardly Dark Empire of Evil Bastards]

The kind of person who legally owns 80 transferable "Uzis" is a rich person, and someone I would like to have as a friend.

The kind of person who has 80 uzis is an IDF quartermaster.

The guy who has eighty Uzi's may instead belong to a militia arming ordinary citizens against an oppressive government which has repeatedly violated numerous civil rights and shows no signs of stopping.

[Independent Carolina]

We do need better gun regulation, but no, we shouldn't repeal the amendment. We've had the right to bear arms for over two hundred years, and no one will want to voluntarily give that up so easily.

[Imperializt Russia]

The kind of person who has 80 uzis is an IDF quartermaster.

The guy who has eighty Uzi's may instead belong to a militia arming ordinary citizens against an oppressive government which has repeatedly violated numerous civil rights and shows no signs of stopping.

Collection pieces aren't worth sacrificing to the meat grinder, are you mad?

[Rhoderberg]

The guy who has eighty Uzi's may instead belong to a militia arming ordinary citizens against an oppressive government which has repeatedly violated numerous civil rights and shows no signs of stopping.

Collection pieces aren't worth sacrificing to the meat grinder, are you mad?

Yes, but if you have eighty of the aforementioned collection pieces, you can probably afford to spare a few.

[Imperializt Russia]

Collection pieces aren't worth sacrificing to the meat grinder, are you mad?

Yes, but if you have eighty of the aforementioned collection pieces, you can probably afford to spare a few.

Philistine.

[Rhoderberg]

Yes, but if you have eighty of the aforementioned collection pieces, you can probably afford to spare a few.

Philistine.

There are only so many variants of the Uzi, though, and it's not like you can fire all eighty Uzis at once.

Personally, I'd rather have eighty FALs.

[Lordieth]

Perhaps I'll never come to understand the need for the second amendment in the modern-age, but it seems to me that a right that was ratified for the times of 1791 might be a little outdated for a modern-day world, and many countries get on just fine without similar universal rights. Although it's difficult to compare crime on a country-by-country basis, overall, I don't think America is any better or worse, on average, so there's no strong argument either way on that front.

I think more safeguards should be put in place on who can carry arms, but beyond that I don't have a strong opinion on the subject. Too many variables. It comes down to whether it makes law-abiding citizens safer or less safe, on average.

[Imperializt Russia]

Philistine.

There are only so many variants of the Uzi, though, and it's not like you can fire all eighty Uzis at once.

Personally, I'd rather have eighty FALs.

Same, but still.