Does the 2nd amendment bind the states?

[Thermodolia]

OR, wear hearing protection.

Its almost like your entire argument is you rationalizing backwards your personal dislike for firearms rather than starting from a rational position and reasoning to a conclusion.

I use logic but everyone says the 2A.

You need to apologize to logic

[VoVoDoCo]

Still loud enough for hearing damage. Normal vocal conversation is around 60db.

Pain starts at 130. Yes concerts are not the best but 1 bullet shot can make you deaf.

ONE?!?!?! You're psychotic. Not to mention very basic hearing protection gets rid of that entire problem.

[Kernen]

OR, wear hearing protection.

Its almost like your entire argument is you rationalizing backwards your personal dislike for firearms rather than starting from a rational position and reasoning to a conclusion.

I use logic but everyone says the 2A.

That isn't logic. It's willfully ignoring least impact alternatives in favor of your viewpoint. Every argument you've thus made has been the result of you rationalizing your position rather than logically concluding from the facts that it is necessary.

If hearing impact from gunfire is an issue, it is a lesser impact on the Constitutional rights of individuals to use or compel hearing protection rather than eradicating the right entirely. Ergo, the logical solution in a government where Constitutional violations are avoided, is not to ban firearms. Only one who needs to rationalize would make that argument. Like you.

[Dormill and Stiura]

OR, wear hearing protection.

Its almost like your entire argument is you rationalizing backwards your personal dislike for firearms rather than starting from a rational position and reasoning to a conclusion.

I use logic but everyone says the 2A.

What makes me think you had a "really" good point there but entirely forgot the other half of your sentence?

Anyways, assuming you were going to say, "I use logic, but everyone who says the 2A applies to the States doesn't use logic.", you're putting yourself extremely far from the truth because that would mean that us, and by mere association, the framers of the entire bill of rights (a lot of reasonable folk using the logic of their era to defend the interests of themselves, their states, and their citizens from whatever the future held) should also be seen as illogical. The same would equally apply to any Judge who has reviewed any such a case regarding the Second Amendment and decided "Maybe this should be applied against the States as well because where would the point of it existing be if they could do what Congress is expressly forbidden from doing.", meaning they should be removed from their office for being bad judges of the Constitution.

In all, and I'll quote my earlier point that you ignored for clarity:

The only way you're going to ever see a nationwide personal firearm ban is if you first cripple the NRA and all Gun Rights Lobbyists, then stack Congress in favor of a new amendment to repeal the 2nd, then stack the legislatures of 38 states in favor of its adoption.

Anyways, I still can't understand why you think banning guns from sale would be a good idea, as that would simply open the door for even more illegal gun smuggling and possession. I wouldn't know if that is necessarily true, but history has shown that an outright ban on products a large amount of the average population uses eventually leads to a massive underground market for such things in combination with a very substantial increase in violent crime. I stand by the idea that reasonable restrictions are the best form of gun control available in this situation.

[Sovaal]

Oh btw guns are louder then is safe for the ears. So just hearing them can cause deafness. Thats another reason to ban them

Guess you've never heard of suppressors and hearing protection.

[A Rational Anarchist]

Concerts are loud and can cause deafness, therefore concerts should be banned. ----

All the more reason to remove suppressors from the NFA and allow them to be sold as like any other firearm accessory.

So what does a suppressor do that a proper set of PPE doesn't?

Alter the sound of a discharge sufficiently such that with sufficient background noise, it isn't immediately obvious to the target that what they are hearing is gunfire.

It's essentially a muffler, like on your car. Said car is not silent, but the sound it makes without the muffler is very different.

Where suppressors are illegal, they are generaly made so for the obvious way they facilitate the use of firearms in a more difficult to detect way. That's what they're for.

However, supressors do not necessarily reduce the intensity of the sound to a level safe for human hearing,for either impulse damage (sustained in a single shot) or sustained exposure (many shots over time). Human hearing is tricky in that the threshold of damage (impulse or sustained) is often below the threshold of pain.

And all of this is still irrelevant to OPs central points and claims, etc.

[The Two Jerseys]

Still loud enough for hearing damage. Normal vocal conversation is around 60db.

Pain starts at 130. Yes concerts are not the best but 1 bullet shot can make you deaf.

You're confusing "deaf" with "death".

[BonziNation]

Oh btw guns are louder then is safe for the ears. So just hearing them can cause deafness. Thats another reason to ban them

Anything up to 22. Hornet is tolerable without ear protection, anything above that and you can literally just put some cheap-ass headphones on and completely negate that problem.

[LimaUniformNovemberAlpha]

Doing gun control state-by-state is comically pointless anyway, as security between states isn't remotely comparable to security between countries.

No more half-measures. Either scrap the second amendment and enact gun control nationally, or protect the right of the people to protect themselves in a country that refuses to control guns.

[Gig em Aggies]

Doing gun control state-by-state is comically pointless anyway, as security between states isn't remotely comparable to security between countries.

No more half-measures. Either scrap the second amendment and enact gun control nationally, or protect the right of the people to protect themselves in a country that refuses to control guns.

Well scrapping the 2nd amendment won't happen so don't know why you brought it up oh and ps we have gun control laws the problem isn't with law abiding citizens but with criminals who don't obey the laws anyways. So with all this new gun control bills coming out it's just affecting law abiding citizens and not the ones who don't need guns such as criminals.

[Valgora]

OR, wear hearing protection.

Its almost like your entire argument is you rationalizing backwards your personal dislike for firearms rather than starting from a rational position and reasoning to a conclusion.

I use logic but everyone says the 2A.

I assume 2A means 2nd Amendment.

I don't quote the 2nd Amendment, I quote Marx:
"Under no pretext should arms and ammunition be surrendered; any attempt to disarm the workers must be frustrated, by force if necessary."

[Neutraligon]

I find it funny that I, someone who supports regulation, know that the second amendment applies to the states. That is of course ignoring all the states that have something like 2A in their state constitution. 40 of them according to this
https://www.guntrustlawyer.com/2008/06/ ... ional.html

[LimaUniformNovemberAlpha]

Doing gun control state-by-state is comically pointless anyway, as security between states isn't remotely comparable to security between countries.

No more half-measures. Either scrap the second amendment and enact gun control nationally, or protect the right of the people to protect themselves in a country that refuses to control guns.

Well scrapping the 2nd amendment won't happen so don't know why you brought it up oh and ps we have gun control laws the problem isn't with law abiding citizens but with criminals who don't obey the laws anyways. So with all this new gun control bills coming out it's just affecting law abiding citizens and not the ones who don't need guns such as criminals.

Tell that to Australia.

[Sovaal]

Well scrapping the 2nd amendment won't happen so don't know why you brought it up oh and ps we have gun control laws the problem isn't with law abiding citizens but with criminals who don't obey the laws anyways. So with all this new gun control bills coming out it's just affecting law abiding citizens and not the ones who don't need guns such as criminals.

Tell that to Australia.

Tell them what? That the current trend in crime reduction started the same, that many people didn't even turn in their now illegal weapons? That they don't have a land border with crime ridden hell holes that is already the source of smuggling contraband into the US?

[Poland-and-Lithuania]

@OP Hey I've actually read through all 8 pages of this and I've come to the conclusion that you have no clue what you're talking about. Now I'm not as intelligent as everyone here and I still have much to learn about our governmental system, but after looking through all the information (Or what little of it) you posted compared to what everyone have posted you've been proven wrong constantly.

I understand your beliefs, and I'm sure there are reasons as to why you say what you say, but I think you just need to educate yourself a little more about the topic before dropping yourself in one of the most controversial topics in America.