Second Amendment Repeal / Gun Control

[Imperializt Russia]

Well, legally-owned, NFA-registered ones, at least.

Very true, but I feel like it would be stupid to use crimes committed by already illegal weapons as a reason for more regulations.

I mean, if someone modifies a gun like that they're already breaking the law anyways. No point in slapping more regulations on Average Joe because of that.

During the height of gang violence in LA, a former police commander testified before state congress that over a twelve-year period, not one of fifty thousand "convertible" semi-automatic weapons had ever been converted to fully-automatic.

[Spirit of Hope]

Well, legally-owned, NFA-registered ones, at least.

Very true, but I feel like it would be stupid to use crimes committed by already illegal weapons as a reason for more regulations.

I mean, if someone modifies a gun like that they're already breaking the law anyways. No point in slapping more regulations on Average Joe because of that.

Funny thing is I have seen no statistics that show fully automatics being used to commit crimes with any regularity. I haven't even seen news stories about fully automatic weapons being used to commit crimes in like ten years.

[Big Jim P]

1: cars are not an inherent human/civil/Constitutionally enumerated right.
2: not all guns are designed to kill.
3: Guns are already heavily regulated.
4: Carrying a gun in public (the equivalent of driving a car) in many places already require a permit. Mere ownership of either does not, (and should not).

1. and I think it's really idiotic that guns are. Law does not mean right.
2. every firearm is designed to cause lethal harm. That some of them generally don't is not a design feature, but a design flaw.
3. You can buy an assault rifle without a background check. That's not actual regulation.
4. Again, that's what i think is pure stupidity.

1. The inherent right to self defense is an inherent human right and guns are the most efficient means of exercising that right.
2. The whole "all guns are designed to kill" argument has been shot down many times. There are a lot of guns that are not designed for anything other than shooting paper targets.
2a:Not all killing is wrong, or bad, and in a self-defense situation, killing is not even the point. Stopping the attack is. If an attacker is stopped without being shot or being shot and surviving, good. If the attacker is killed, then that is merely collateral damage.
3. No you can't.
4. Self defense is stupid?

[Washington Resistance Army]

Very true, but I feel like it would be stupid to use crimes committed by already illegal weapons as a reason for more regulations.

I mean, if someone modifies a gun like that they're already breaking the law anyways. No point in slapping more regulations on Average Joe because of that.

During the height of gang violence in LA, a former police commander testified before state congress that over a twelve-year period, not one of fifty thousand "convertible" semi-automatic weapons had ever been converted to fully-automatic.

Huh, I could have sworn I read something a while back about the topic that said some convertible weapons were used occasionally in places like LA. Might have to go try and dig that up again.

[Imperializt Russia]

During the height of gang violence in LA, a former police commander testified before state congress that over a twelve-year period, not one of fifty thousand "convertible" semi-automatic weapons had ever been converted to fully-automatic.

Huh, I could have sworn I read something a while back about the topic that said some convertible weapons were used occasionally in places like LA. Might have to go try and dig that up again.

Well, this was a statement made two decades ago, referring to a previous decade of seized weapons. I'm sure these weapons did exist - they were just rare enough to evade seizure.

[Occupied Deutschland]

...Personally, i think it's moronic that guns have a relative absence of regulation. They're items designed to kill things.

You know, I get really tired of this talking point. Yes, guns were designed (as in CENTURIES ago when the concept was 'first' utilized by a bunch of Chinese peasants in a rebellion) to kill people (and any objection around their being used to kill 'things' is useless and bankrupt on its face because KILLING THINGS ISN'T NECESSARILY A PROBLEM). In much the same way rockets were designed decades ago by a bunch of Nazis to kill Londoners and sow terror. Are rockets nowadays designed to do such a thing? Not really. It is patently preposterous to claim that NASA's rockets, for example, overlap with that designed purpose. Because they don't and they aren't utilized in such a manner as to produce such an effect. At most, to extend the analogy, there are some people killed due to the misuse or failures of such rockets resulting in deaths. In the same manner, civilian-owned firearms (and I shall limit this claim to the US because it's the only country I have looked at numbers on) don't overlap with their supposedly 'designed' purpose of killing people, and 'killing things' isn't a useful descriptor unless one attaches it to actual objectionable killing such as poaching. Hunting a deer is actively beneficial to the hunter, the society, and the environment, so their having a firearm to kill it with is not an objectionable event. At most what can be said is that some people (and things which shouldn't be) are killed due to the misuse or failures of such firearms. This is not a designed purpose. Particularly when one understands that poaching isn't a majority activity of hunters (who, in fact, are usually the ones with the most visceral opposition to it) and that MORE than 99.99% of civilian-owned firearms in the US aren't used to kill people, accidentally or purposefully, including suicides and homocides.

[Infected Mushroom]

I used to be firmly anti-gun (because guns enabled school shootings) but now I am no longer sure.

After having watched movies like Django and the Good, the Bad, and the Ugly... I have a feeling that guns may be too cool to get done away with. America simply wouldn't be America aesthetically and existentially without guns. Its a part of the culture.

Also, it would be cool if I were allowed to walk around with a six shooter myself (for my own self-defence). How many times have we watched a horror movie where the villain was a masked killer with a knife and thought... ''Well if only the main character had a gun.''

I think there may be some merit to the self-defence arguments.

[Themiclesia]

Personally, I believe the 2nd Amendment to the US constitution recognizes liberty to bear all types of arms, including melée and blunt weapons.

What's your take on this issue?

[Appiron]

...Personally, i think it's moronic that guns have a relative absence of regulation. They're items designed to kill things.

*snip*

and just as a side note, the Soyuz launching platform was based off of older ICBM designs. so there's that.
and how may Soyuz were used to kill people? right, none.

[Appiron]

Personally, I believe the 2nd Amendment to the US constitution recognizes liberty to bear all types of arms, including melée and blunt weapons.

What's your take on this issue?

I'm pretty sure it's about firearms. the melée and blunt weapon part would be kinda redundant, because you can use pretty much anything you can lift as a melée/blunt weapon, so there's really no point in saying "yes, you can own man-portable hitty things"

[Frenline Delpha]

Personally, I believe the 2nd Amendment to the US constitution recognizes liberty to bear all types of arms, including melée and blunt weapons.

What's your take on this issue?

I'm pretty sure it's about firearms. the melée and blunt weapon part would be kinda redundant, because you can use pretty much anything you can lift as a melée/blunt weapon, so there's really no point in saying "yes, you can own man-portable hitty things"

You, sir, have won the internet.

[Appiron]

I'm pretty sure it's about firearms. the melée and blunt weapon part would be kinda redundant, because you can use pretty much anything you can lift as a melée/blunt weapon, so there's really no point in saying "yes, you can own man-portable hitty things"

You, sir, have won the internet.

i don't see how, i thought my point was pretty apparent.

[Infected Mushroom]

Personally, I believe the 2nd Amendment to the US constitution recognizes liberty to bear all types of arms, including melée and blunt weapons.

What's your take on this issue?

''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''

That seems to say to me, ''Since a well regulated militia of citizens is necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear weapons shall not be infringed.''

The main problem is... they were Wrong. Factually. Many countries continue to survive and be ''free'' without a ''well regulated militia.'' Is the UK not free because it doesn't have a ''well regulated militia''? Is France not? How about Japan?

This is a very ridiculous and somewhat shameful thing to have on a constitution because it is FACTUALLY wrong. Its not even an aesthetic statement; its making a grand claim about what is NECESSARY and that claim has been shown time and time against to be factually wrong. Its presumptively Wrong.

So HALF of the 2nd Amendment, is literally a nonsense.

So my first objection to it... I don't like the way it is written at all. It might as have said ''The Earth... being flat... the right to paint the Earth as flat shall not be infringed upon.'' What would you do with THAT if it were in the Constitution?

Now the legal issue is whether or not the first part is a condition precedent or serves as merely an interpretative guide (with limiting capabilities) or mere puffery. Clearly, a literal interpretation goes out the window because then you have an immediate problem of the law not making sense after having just read half of the sentence (it is factually no longer the case (if it ever was), that a militia is necessary or close to necessary to have a free state).

If its a condition precedent, then it would be taken to mean ''Only so long as it remains the case that militias are necessary or close to being necessary for the preservation of a free state... shall the rights of the citizenry to bear arms be assuredly NOT be infringed upon.''

If its an interpretative guidance, then it would go ''The reason we came up with this is because at the time we were worried about whether or not we needed militias in the future. Now court... go change it, limit it, expand it or whatever keeping this purpose in mind and just do... well whatever is a reasonable departure from this. I dunno.''

If its just puffery.... then it would go ''It sounded cool, let's just add it in. It has as much impact as if we had said Given Its Epicness as the opening instead. It was not meant to have any binding impact whatsoever.''

If I had to guess?

I think the Courts LIKE the second approach because it gives them the most power to change the scope of the Amendment to conform with their own ideals of justice and their own agenda.

However, if I had to guess WHY the writers actually put it in and what went through their heads when they did it, I'd say its the first interpretation (its really conditional). They put it in, thinking ''Well we better have it so long as it makes sense to have it... but we're in such a hurry that we could have drafted it better but meh.''

I am fairly certain the Founders did NOT mean... ''No matter what happens, no one shall ever have the right to touch anyone's guns... EVAH''

[Xanama]

My post was offensive...

[Sanctissima]

Personally, I believe the 2nd Amendment to the US constitution recognizes liberty to bear all types of arms, including melée and blunt weapons.

What's your take on this issue?

''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''

That seems to say to me, ''Since a well regulated militia of citizens is necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear weapons shall not be infringed.''

The main problem is... they were Wrong. Factually. Many countries continue to survive and be ''free'' without a ''well regulated militia.'' Is the UK not free because it doesn't have a ''well regulated militia''? Is France not? How about Japan?

This is a very ridiculous and somewhat shameful thing to have on a constitution because it is FACTUALLY wrong. Its not even an aesthetic statement; its making a grand claim about what is NECESSARY and that claim has been shown time and time against to be factually wrong. Its presumptively Wrong.

So HALF of the 2nd Amendment, is literally a nonsense.

So my first objection to it... I don't like the way it is written at all. It might as have said ''The Earth... being flat... the right to paint the Earth as flat shall not be infringed upon.'' What would you do with THAT if it were in the Constitution?

Now the legal issue is whether or not the first part is a condition precedent or serves as merely an interpretative guide (with limiting capabilities) or mere puffery. Clearly, a literal interpretation goes out the window because then you have an immediate problem of the law not making sense after having just read half of the sentence (it is factually no longer the case (if it ever was), that a militia is necessary or close to necessary to have a free state).

If its a condition precedent, then it would be taken to mean ''Only so long as it remains the case that militias are necessary or close to being necessary for the preservation of a free state... shall the rights of the citizenry to bear arms be assuredly NOT be infringed upon.''

If its an interpretative guidance, then it would go ''The reason we came up with this is because at the time we were worried about whether or not we needed militias in the future. Now court... go change it, limit it, expand it or whatever keeping this purpose in mind and just do... well whatever is a reasonable departure from this. I dunno.''

If its just puffery.... then it would go ''It sounded cool, let's just add it in. It has as much impact as if we had said Given Its Epicness as the opening instead. It was not meant to have any binding impact whatsoever.''

If I had to guess?

I think the Courts LIKE the second approach because it gives them the most power to change the scope of the Amendment to conform with their own ideals of justice and their own agenda.

However, if I had to guess WHY the writers actually put it in and what went through their heads when they did it, I'd say its the first interpretation (its really conditional). They put it in, thinking ''Well we better have it so long as it makes sense to have it... but we're in such a hurry that we could have drafted it better but meh.''

I am fairly certain the Founders did NOT mean... ''No matter what happens, no one shall ever have the right to touch anyone's guns... EVAH''

While I mostly agree with you, I will point out that when the amendment was made, the founding fathers had a very good reason to believe that their country's existence was threatened.

Keep in mind that America has just won the War of Independence, and had barely beaten the British Army. That, on top of the fact that the country was at this time a loose union of former colonies with differing interests, made national defense quite the priority.

Of course, nowadays, the concept is utterly ridiculous. Then again, the founding fathers probably didn't expect their newfound country to become the most powerful country on Earth 200 years down the road.

So basically, it was an important part of national defense back then, but like you said, it's definitely not nowadays.

[Appiron]

While I mostly agree with you, I will point out that when the amendment was made, the founding fathers had a very good reason to believe that their country's existence was threatened.

Keep in mind that America has just won the War of Independence, and had barely beaten the British Army. That, on top of the fact that the country was at this time a loose union of former colonies with differing interests, made national defense quite the priority.

Of course, nowadays, the concept is utterly ridiculous. Then again, the founding fathers probably didn't expect their newfound country to become the most powerful country on Earth 200 years down the road.

So basically, it was an important part of national defense back then, but like you said, it's definitely not nowadays.

i guess that's why, to this day, America spends several and a half assloads of money on defence.

[Sanctissima]

While I mostly agree with you, I will point out that when the amendment was made, the founding fathers had a very good reason to believe that their country's existence was threatened.

Keep in mind that America has just won the War of Independence, and had barely beaten the British Army. That, on top of the fact that the country was at this time a loose union of former colonies with differing interests, made national defense quite the priority.

Of course, nowadays, the concept is utterly ridiculous. Then again, the founding fathers probably didn't expect their newfound country to become the most powerful country on Earth 200 years down the road.

So basically, it was an important part of national defense back then, but like you said, it's definitely not nowadays.

i guess that's why, to this day, America spends several and a half assloads of money on defence.

Precisely.

The military's so well-funded, militias (let alone individual civilians being armed to defend their land) aren't really about national defense anymore. At most, one could argue that they're for domestic defense (which for a developed country, isn't something that regular civilians should be doing).

[Great Confederacy of Commonwealth States]

While I mostly agree with you, I will point out that when the amendment was made, the founding fathers had a very good reason to believe that their country's existence was threatened.

Keep in mind that America has just won the War of Independence, and had barely beaten the British Army. That, on top of the fact that the country was at this time a loose union of former colonies with differing interests, made national defense quite the priority.

Of course, nowadays, the concept is utterly ridiculous. Then again, the founding fathers probably didn't expect their newfound country to become the most powerful country on Earth 200 years down the road.

So basically, it was an important part of national defense back then, but like you said, it's definitely not nowadays.

i guess that's why, to this day, America spends several and a half assloads of money on defence.

Yeah, more than the next thirteen nations or so combined. Far too much, actually. I don't know why so much money goes into defence, but defence is not the most important aspect.

[Appiron]

i guess that's why, to this day, America spends several and a half assloads of money on defence.

Yeah, more than the next thirteen nations or so combined. Far too much, actually. I don't know why so much money goes into defence, but defence is not the most important aspect.

even if we cut out budget by 50% we'd still have the #1 highest-funded military.

[Themiclesia]

Personally, I believe the 2nd Amendment to the US constitution recognizes liberty to bear all types of arms, including melée and blunt weapons.

What's your take on this issue?

''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''

That seems to say to me, ''Since a well regulated militia of citizens is necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear weapons shall not be infringed.''

The main problem is... they were Wrong. Factually. Many countries continue to survive and be ''free'' without a ''well regulated militia.'' Is the UK not free because it doesn't have a ''well regulated militia''? Is France not? How about Japan?

This is a very ridiculous and somewhat shameful thing to have on a constitution because it is FACTUALLY wrong. Its not even an aesthetic statement; its making a grand claim about what is NECESSARY and that claim has been shown time and time against to be factually wrong. Its presumptively Wrong.

So HALF of the 2nd Amendment, is literally a nonsense.

So my first objection to it... I don't like the way it is written at all. It might as have said ''The Earth... being flat... the right to paint the Earth as flat shall not be infringed upon.'' What would you do with THAT if it were in the Constitution?

Now the legal issue is whether or not the first part is a condition precedent or serves as merely an interpretative guide (with limiting capabilities) or mere puffery. Clearly, a literal interpretation goes out the window because then you have an immediate problem of the law not making sense after having just read half of the sentence (it is factually no longer the case (if it ever was), that a militia is necessary or close to necessary to have a free state).

If its a condition precedent, then it would be taken to mean ''Only so long as it remains the case that militias are necessary or close to being necessary for the preservation of a free state... shall the rights of the citizenry to bear arms be assuredly NOT be infringed upon.''

If its an interpretative guidance, then it would go ''The reason we came up with this is because at the time we were worried about whether or not we needed militias in the future. Now court... go change it, limit it, expand it or whatever keeping this purpose in mind and just do... well whatever is a reasonable departure from this. I dunno.''

If its just puffery.... then it would go ''It sounded cool, let's just add it in. It has as much impact as if we had said Given Its Epicness as the opening instead. It was not meant to have any binding impact whatsoever.''

If I had to guess?

I think the Courts LIKE the second approach because it gives them the most power to change the scope of the Amendment to conform with their own ideals of justice and their own agenda.

However, if I had to guess WHY the writers actually put it in and what went through their heads when they did it, I'd say its the first interpretation (its really conditional). They put it in, thinking ''Well we better have it so long as it makes sense to have it... but we're in such a hurry that we could have drafted it better but meh.''

I am fairly certain the Founders did NOT mean... ''No matter what happens, no one shall ever have the right to touch anyone's guns... EVAH''

Mushy, you've misinterpreted the whole point of my post.

I was saying that if the liberty to bear firearms be recognized, so ought be the liberty to bear melée and blunt weapons.

And no, I don't think that the liberty to bear arms is absolute; as with any other liberty, it is subject to restriction and interpretation by legislation, which the Congress of the USA have, from time to time, enacted as statutory law.

[Spirit of Hope]

At most, one could argue that they're for domestic defense (which for a developed country, isn't something that regular civilians should be doing).

Why not? Police are not everywhere and can not arrive in time to intervene in all cases, they may not even make it a priority to intervene in some cases.

The right to self defense can not be taken away, and the best form of protection for an individual is a firearm.

[Big Jim P]

At most, one could argue that they're for domestic defense (which for a developed country, isn't something that regular civilians should be doing).

Why not? Police are not everywhere and can not arrive in time to intervene in all cases, they may not even make it a priority to intervene in some cases.

The right to self defense can not be taken away, and the best form of protection for an individual is a firearm.

Indeed. Self defense in an inherent human right, regardless of what the Second Amendment say. In fact, the right precedes its enumeration.

[Great Confederacy of Commonwealth States]

Why not? Police are not everywhere and can not arrive in time to intervene in all cases, they may not even make it a priority to intervene in some cases.

The right to self defense can not be taken away, and the best form of protection for an individual is a firearm.

Indeed. Self defense in an inherent human right, regardless of what the Second Amendment say. In fact, the right precedes its enumeration.

Self defence is a right, with all the same limitations that other rights have as well. When your right to self defence collides with another person's right to life, which one should give way first? Lethal force should only be an acceptable defence against lethal force. Against anything other than that, it's a violation of another human being's rights.

[Sanctissima]

At most, one could argue that they're for domestic defense (which for a developed country, isn't something that regular civilians should be doing).

Why not? Police are not everywhere and can not arrive in time to intervene in all cases, they may not even make it a priority to intervene in some cases.

The right to self defense can not be taken away, and the best form of protection for an individual is a firearm.

Depends on the area, or State, and whether or not said government is capable of defending you.

Although in general, the right to self defense is not synonymous with the right to bear firearms. Since the most dangerous home-invader most people in the developed world have to be cautious of is girl-scouts selling cookies, firearms as a means of defense is a bit excessive.

[Big Jim P]

Indeed. Self defense in an inherent human right, regardless of what the Second Amendment say. In fact, the right precedes its enumeration.

Self defence is a right, with all the same limitations that other rights have as well. When your right to self defence collides with another person's right to life, which one should give way first? Lethal force should only be an acceptable defence against lethal force. Against anything other than that, it's a violation of another human being's rights.

There is also defending ones family and property, and as we stand, that is only allowed if one is threatened by death or severe bodily harm. This is as it should be.