Gun Control III - the Gunnening

[Kubrath]

Ahem:

“Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited…”. It is “…not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose.” - Justice Antonin Scalia

Yes, and 8 years later the Supreme Court expanded on this and unanimously declared the second amendment extends, until proven otherwise, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms. The ball is in your court to prove why these things aren't okay.

What does the type of instrument have anything to do with quantity of possession?

[The Empire of Pretantia]

Yes, and 8 years later the Supreme Court expanded on this and unanimously declared the second amendment extends, until proven otherwise, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms. The ball is in your court to prove why these things aren't okay.

What does the type of instrument have anything to do with quantity of possession?

How is the quantity in any way relevant? If anything it only means you can arm your city-boy friend who's fleeing Urbanistan's repressive regime so he can defend rural America from the Cryptosocialist hypercaliphate.

[Washington Resistance Army]

People also need to quit pulling parts of Heller out of context. Owning several guns does not in any way meet the dangerous and unusual criteria laid down in Heller.

Yes, and 8 years later the Supreme Court expanded on this and unanimously declared the second amendment extends, until proven otherwise, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms. The ball is in your court to prove why these things aren't okay.

What does the type of instrument have anything to do with quantity of possession?

If the instruments are protected how can you limit the number people can own? It's as nonsensical as trying to limit the number of newspapers someone can subscribe to.

[Kubrath]

It's not nonsensical. Robberies happen or one of your kids might get a hold of one even if you do have a gun safe.

That's as likely to happen if you only own one gun, more guns don't do anything to increase or decrease the danger.

No, it's not on me. It's on you to justify your actions, because you live with other people. Accountability is one of the basic tenets of society. If you want to disregard that, well that one is on you.

The actions are justified by the second amendment.

Do I need to justify not incriminating myself in a trial for it to be a right? No, it's already justified by the Fifth Amendment.
Do I need to justify why my essay on smelly armpits is so incredibly long? Not, it's justified by the First.
Do I need to justify owning more than one firearm when I'm already trustworthy with one? Not, it's justified by the Second..

It's far easier to safekeep one gun than 100, as proven by reality.

Please don't conflate rights. Also, there are limits on those as well. For example, slander and libel are a thing. If unfettered freedom is what you're advocating, then you should be against any and all defamation laws.

The 2nd Amendment says nothing about regulation of quantity, only about one's right to possess firearms:

"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."

Also, by the wording of it, the right to bear arms is in direct reference to a "well regulated militia".

[Washington Resistance Army]

That's as likely to happen if you only own one gun, more guns don't do anything to increase or decrease the danger.

The actions are justified by the second amendment.

Do I need to justify not incriminating myself in a trial for it to be a right? No, it's already justified by the Fifth Amendment.
Do I need to justify why my essay on smelly armpits is so incredibly long? Not, it's justified by the First.
Do I need to justify owning more than one firearm when I'm already trustworthy with one? Not, it's justified by the Second..

It's far easier to safekeep one gun than 100, as proven by reality.

Please don't conflate rights. Also, there are limits on those as well. For example, slander and libel are a thing. If unfettered freedom is what you're advocating, then you should be against any and all defamation laws.

The 2nd Amendment says nothing about regulation of quantity, only about one's right to possess firearms:

"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."

Also, by the wording of it, the right to bear arms is in direct reference to a "well regulated militia".

1. Well regulated at the time of writing meant in working order, referring to actually having your own arms and ammo and knowing how to use them
2. The militia is just about everybody
3. The right isn't dependant on militia service, as SCOTUS has held in the past

[Kubrath]

People also need to quit pulling parts of Heller out of context. Owning several guns does not in any way meet the dangerous and unusual criteria laid down in Heller.

What does the type of instrument have anything to do with quantity of possession?

If the instruments are protected how can you limit the number people can own? It's as nonsensical as trying to limit the number of newspapers someone can subscribe to.

Because it's in the interest of the community that you reside in that you are held accountable for your actions, including why you want to own 100 guns. And newspapers have much lower lethality than guns, so that analogy is fallacious.

[Kubrath]

It's far easier to safekeep one gun than 100, as proven by reality.

Please don't conflate rights. Also, there are limits on those as well. For example, slander and libel are a thing. If unfettered freedom is what you're advocating, then you should be against any and all defamation laws.

The 2nd Amendment says nothing about regulation of quantity, only about one's right to possess firearms:

"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."

Also, by the wording of it, the right to bear arms is in direct reference to a "well regulated militia".

1. Well regulated at the time of writing meant in working order, referring to actually having your own arms and ammo and knowing how to use them
2. The militia is just about everybody
3. The right isn't dependant on militia service, as SCOTUS has held in the past

1. Not really. It was specifically understood to mean a state-organized and trained militia. Not just any bloke who has guns and knows how to hold them.
2. That's your interpretation.
3. Not everyone in the Supreme Court agreed, which means that SCOTUS could later declare otherwise (as it had prior to Heller, by the way). If that were to happen, what would your stance be?

[Washington Resistance Army]

1. Not really. It was specifically understood to mean a state-organized and trained militia. Not just any bloke who has guns and knows how to hold them.

Source all this shit, because the Federalist Papers written by the guy who wrote the Second Amendment strongly disagree with your claims.

2. That's your interpretation.

No that's United States law, most every man of fighting age and women of certain classes are legally part of the militia.

3. Not everyone in the Supreme Court agreed, which means that SCOTUS could later declare otherwise. If that were to happen, what would your stance be?

That they'd be wrong and all the evidence would be on my side.

[Kubrath]

1. Not really. It was specifically understood to mean a state-organized and trained militia. Not just any bloke who has guns and knows how to hold them.

Source all this shit, because the Federalist Papers written by the guy who wrote the Second Amendment strongly disagree with your claims.

2. That's your interpretation.

No that's United States law, most every man of fighting age and women of certain classes are legally part of the militia.

3. Not everyone in the Supreme Court agreed, which means that SCOTUS could later declare otherwise. If that were to happen, what would your stance be?

That they'd be wrong and all the evidence would be on my side.

""But though the scheme of disciplining the whole nation must be abandoned as mischievous or impracticable; yet it is a matter of the utmost importance that a well-digested plan should, as soon as possible, be adopted for the proper establishment of the militia. The attention of the government ought particularly to be directed to the formation of a select corps of moderate extent, upon such principles as will really fit them for service in case of need. By thus circumscribing the plan, it will be possible to have an excellent body of well-trained militia, ready to take the field whenever the defense of the State shall require it." - Alexander Hamilton

No, that's not exactly true.

All the evidence is not on your side, because prior to Heller, that was precisely the interpretation that was held. All it takes is a change of a few appointees.

[Washington Resistance Army]

""But though the scheme of disciplining the whole nation must be abandoned as mischievous or impracticable; yet it is a matter of the utmost importance that a well-digested plan should, as soon as possible, be adopted for the proper establishment of the militia. The attention of the government ought particularly to be directed to the formation of a select corps of moderate extent, upon such principles as will really fit them for service in case of need. By thus circumscribing the plan, it will be possible to have an excellent body of well-trained militia, ready to take the field whenever the defense of the State shall require it." - Alexander Hamilton

And everything James Madison, the guy who actually wrote the amendment, said on the topic supports my position ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Also le daily reminder that Hamilton was icky

No, that's not exactly true.

This is true, I didn't remember what types of ladies were part of the militia. So most all fighting age men and a very small amount of ladies are.

All the evidence is not on your side, because prior to Heller, that was precisely the interpretation that was held. All it takes is a change of a few appointees.

Really? Because back in the 1800's SCOTUS mentioned the individual right to bear arms at least 3 times. The collective right model only originated in 1939, from the most politicized and bullshit filled court our nation has ever had. Hell, the case in question was so nonsensical that the defendant nor his lawyer were even present when the court decided to just make some shit up and issue the decision.

[Kubrath]

""But though the scheme of disciplining the whole nation must be abandoned as mischievous or impracticable; yet it is a matter of the utmost importance that a well-digested plan should, as soon as possible, be adopted for the proper establishment of the militia. The attention of the government ought particularly to be directed to the formation of a select corps of moderate extent, upon such principles as will really fit them for service in case of need. By thus circumscribing the plan, it will be possible to have an excellent body of well-trained militia, ready to take the field whenever the defense of the State shall require it." - Alexander Hamilton

And everything James Madison, the guy who actually wrote the amendment, said on the topic supports my position ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Also le daily reminder that Hamilton was icky

No, that's not exactly true.

This is true, I didn't remember what types of ladies were part of the militia. So most all fighting age men and a very small amount of ladies are.

All the evidence is not on your side, because prior to Heller, that was precisely the interpretation that was held. All it takes is a change of a few appointees.

Really? Because back in the 1800's SCOTUS mentioned the individual right to bear arms at least 3 times. The collective right model only originated in 1939, from the most politicized and bullshit filled court our nation has ever had. Hell, the case in question was so nonsensical that the defendant nor his lawyer were even present when the court decided to just make some shit up and issue the decision.

Not on this point, no. He too spoke of militia being "conducted" by local governments

Back in the 1800s, SCOTUS very succinctly declared that "The second amendment declares that it shall not be infringed, but this, as has been seen, means no more than that it shall not be infringed by Congress. This is one of the amendments that has no other effect than to restrict the powers of the national government, leaving the people to look for their protection against any violation by their fellow citizens of the rights it recognizes..."

Which means that the 2nd Amendment does not provide you with unfettered freedom. If local governments decide to regulate firearms, they should be free to do so. For example, the "good cause" proposition for concealed carry. I would extend this proposition to ownership as well.

[Kubrath]

I'll leave it at that, because I have work to do. I might pop around later if I don't forget. Take care!

[Washington Resistance Army]

Not on this point, no. He too spoke of militia being "conducted" by local governments

He also spoke about the militia being the whole of the people, how important it is for people to be armed to resist the government and all that other fun stuff.

Back in the 1800s, SCOTUS very succinctly declared that "The second amendment declares that it shall not be infringed, but this, as has been seen, means no more than that it shall not be infringed by Congress. This is one of the amendments that has no other effect than to restrict the powers of the national government, leaving the people to look for their protection against any violation by their fellow citizens of the rights it recognizes..."

Indeed they did, because the 2A wasn't incorporated via the 14A until relatively recently for whatever reason. But before that they still did mention the individual right a few times. It's one of the reasons listed for why Africans couldn't become citizens (because they would then have the right to keep and carry arms wherever they went, no good white man could have that lol) and in that one case whose name I can't spell from the 1880's/90's where the chief Justice says kinda the same thing as your above quote that the 2A only exists to restrict the powers of the government and that all people have the right to bear arms. Iirc there's also Presser which mentions the individual right but I haven't read the decision in a while.

Which means that the 2nd Amendment does not provide you with unfettered freedom. If local governments decide to regulate firearms, they should be free to do so. For example, the "good cause" proposition for concealed carry. I would extend this proposition to ownership as well.

Up until McDonald they were free to do so, but because the 2A has been incorporated they can only go so far nowadays.

I'll leave it at that, because I have work to do. I might pop around later if I don't forget. Take care!

Take care lad.

[The Empire of Pretantia]

That's as likely to happen if you only own one gun, more guns don't do anything to increase or decrease the danger.

The actions are justified by the second amendment.

Do I need to justify not incriminating myself in a trial for it to be a right? No, it's already justified by the Fifth Amendment.
Do I need to justify why my essay on smelly armpits is so incredibly long? Not, it's justified by the First.
Do I need to justify owning more than one firearm when I'm already trustworthy with one? Not, it's justified by the Second..

It's far easier to safekeep one gun than 100, as proven by reality.

That's where you're wrong kiddo. Lemme tell you about how one soldier safeguards every single one of his company's hundred+ weapons: he locks the door.

It's far easier to not to express your opinion, it's much easier to just assent to unwarranted searches and seizures, it's incredibly just to fess up to the judge.

Please don't conflate rights. Also, there are limits on those as well. For example, slander and libel are a thing. If unfettered freedom is what you're advocating, then you should be against any and all defamation laws.

Libel and slander are not free speech, therefore you don't have the right to them.

The 2nd Amendment says nothing about regulation of quantity, only about one's right to possess firearms:

"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."

Was my essay on smelly armpits too long Professor? Am I being a little too quiet at my trial, your honor?

Also, by the wording of it, the right to bear arms is in direct reference to a "well regulated militia".

The Second Amendment does not say you need to be in a militia to legally own weapons.

[Wysten]

That's as likely to happen if you only own one gun, more guns don't do anything to increase or decrease the danger.

The actions are justified by the second amendment.

Do I need to justify not incriminating myself in a trial for it to be a right? No, it's already justified by the Fifth Amendment.
Do I need to justify why my essay on smelly armpits is so incredibly long? Not, it's justified by the First.
Do I need to justify owning more than one firearm when I'm already trustworthy with one? Not, it's justified by the Second..

It's far easier to safekeep one gun than 100, as proven by reality.

Please don't conflate rights. Also, there are limits on those as well. For example, slander and libel are a thing. If unfettered freedom is what you're advocating, then you should be against any and all defamation laws.

The 2nd Amendment says nothing about regulation of quantity, only about one's right to possess firearms:

"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."

Also, by the wording of it, the right to bear arms is in direct reference to a "well regulated militia".

HELLER
VS
DC
*Takes shot*

[Kubrath]

It's far easier to safekeep one gun than 100, as proven by reality.

That's where you're wrong kiddo. Lemme tell you about how one soldier safeguards every single one of his company's hundred+ weapons: he locks the door.

It's far easier to not to express your opinion, it's much easier to just assent to unwarranted searches and seizures, it's incredibly just to fess up to the judge.

Please don't conflate rights. Also, there are limits on those as well. For example, slander and libel are a thing. If unfettered freedom is what you're advocating, then you should be against any and all defamation laws.

Libel and slander are not free speech, therefore you don't have the right to them.

The 2nd Amendment says nothing about regulation of quantity, only about one's right to possess firearms:

"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."

Was my essay on smelly armpits too long Professor? Am I being a little too quiet at my trial, your honor?

Also, by the wording of it, the right to bear arms is in direct reference to a "well regulated militia".

The Second Amendment does not say you need to be in a militia to legally own weapons.

Dang, a locked door? That's some impenetrable security right there.

I can't believe you made such an obviously fallacious statement as to say that libel and slander don't concern free speech in order to prop up your indefensible point. The fact of the matter is that rights were never intended to offer unlimited freedom.

Legal ownership of weapons is not dependent on the 2nd Amendment. If tomorrow it was repealed, you could still legally obtain weapons.

[The Empire of Pretantia]

That's where you're wrong kiddo. Lemme tell you about how one soldier safeguards every single one of his company's hundred+ weapons: he locks the door.

It's far easier to not to express your opinion, it's much easier to just assent to unwarranted searches and seizures, it's incredibly just to fess up to the judge.

Libel and slander are not free speech, therefore you don't have the right to them.

Was my essay on smelly armpits too long Professor? Am I being a little too quiet at my trial, your honor?

The Second Amendment does not say you need to be in a militia to legally own weapons.

Dang, a locked door? That's some impenetrable security right there.

I invite you to break into an armory and see how penetrable it is.

People breaking into where you store your guns is a separate issue from how many guns I own. After all, them stealing your only gun is as bad as them stealing one gun from a dozen. More guns doesn't magically make them more likely to be stolen.

I can't believe you made such an obviously fallacious statement as to say that libel and slander don't concern free speech in order to prop up your indefensible point.

They don't, they're deliberate falsehoods devoid of sincerity meant to inhibit conversation rather than foster it.

The fact of the matter is that rights were never intended to offer unlimited freedom.

Neither was the 2A. Obviously you can't own a nuke or other WMDs.

Legal ownership of weapons is not dependent on the 2nd Amendment. If tomorrow it was repealed, you could still legally obtain weapons.

Of course, most states have an amendment to the effect of the 2nd Amendment after all.

[The South Falls]

Who is saying that locked doors protect people from guns? Have you ever shot a door lock? Or, hell, shot through the door! That's BS if I've ever seen it.

[Kubrath]

Not on this point, no. He too spoke of militia being "conducted" by local governments

He also spoke about the militia being the whole of the people, how important it is for people to be armed to resist the government and all that other fun stuff.

Back in the 1800s, SCOTUS very succinctly declared that "The second amendment declares that it shall not be infringed, but this, as has been seen, means no more than that it shall not be infringed by Congress. This is one of the amendments that has no other effect than to restrict the powers of the national government, leaving the people to look for their protection against any violation by their fellow citizens of the rights it recognizes..."

Indeed they did, because the 2A wasn't incorporated via the 14A until relatively recently for whatever reason. But before that they still did mention the individual right a few times. It's one of the reasons listed for why Africans couldn't become citizens (because they would then have the right to keep and carry arms wherever they went, no good white man could have that lol) and in that one case whose name I can't spell from the 1880's/90's where the chief Justice says kinda the same thing as your above quote that the 2A only exists to restrict the powers of the government and that all people have the right to bear arms. Iirc there's also Presser which mentions the individual right but I haven't read the decision in a while.

Which means that the 2nd Amendment does not provide you with unfettered freedom. If local governments decide to regulate firearms, they should be free to do so. For example, the "good cause" proposition for concealed carry. I would extend this proposition to ownership as well.

Up until McDonald they were free to do so, but because the 2A has been incorporated they can only go so far nowadays.

I'll leave it at that, because I have work to do. I might pop around later if I don't forget. Take care!

Take care lad.

He indeed spoke thusly, but I don't believe it supersedes the other statements. As for the rest of what you said, I don't have much disagreement but I also I don't actually have much further to say on this issue without repeating myself. My position continues to be that ownership should be accountable in the way that I previously described.

Much appreciated for the discussion. This has been cordial, for the most part. I'd be happy to continue the conversation via telegram, if you do want to continue.

[Wysten]

Who is saying that locked doors protect people from guns? Have you ever shot a door lock? Or, hell, shot through the door! That's BS if I've ever seen it.

Usually they are metal and shooting the lock has a nasty habit of literally blowing up in your face.

[Washington Resistance Army]

Who is saying that locked doors protect people from guns?

Nobody, that's not what they're discussing.

[Kubrath]

Dang, a locked door? That's some impenetrable security right there.

I invite you to break into an armory and see how penetrable it is.

People breaking into where you store your guns is a separate issue from how many guns I own. After all, them stealing your only gun is as bad as them stealing one gun from a dozen. More guns doesn't magically make them more likely to be stolen.

I can't believe you made such an obviously fallacious statement as to say that libel and slander don't concern free speech in order to prop up your indefensible point.

They don't, they're deliberate falsehoods devoid of sincerity meant to inhibit conversation rather than foster it.

The fact of the matter is that rights were never intended to offer unlimited freedom.

Neither was the 2A. Obviously you can't own a nuke or other WMDs.

Legal ownership of weapons is not dependent on the 2nd Amendment. If tomorrow it was repealed, you could still legally obtain weapons.

Of course, most states have an amendment to the effect of the 2nd Amendment after all.

People already don't seem to be having an issue robbing gun sellers and households, so that point is moot at best. It's much easier to locate a stash of guns than a single gun.

Yes, they do. Any statement you make is an issue of free speech by default. Falsehoods don't inhibit conversation. They might muddy it, but not inhibit it. If you believe in absolute free speech, then you have to allow for lies, regardless of their intent or target, to be freely expressed.

You don't even need a constitutional right of any kind, be it state or federal, to pass laws allowing gun ownership. But from that point onward gun ownership becomes a privilege, rather than a "right" per se. Although I would argue that any and all legislation is practically a privilege that is constantly being negotiated.

[The South Falls]

Who is saying that locked doors protect people from guns?

Nobody, that's not what they're discussing.

Woops. Well, lemme say it again, more guns are just a bad meme. So are banning all guns.

[Ors Might]

Nobody, that's not what they're discussing.

Woops. Well, lemme say it again, more guns are just a bad meme. So are banning all guns.

I dunno, More Dakka has had a pretty good run. Just as good as that “AR-15s ARE INSTANT KILL ASSAULT RIFLES!!!!” meme that pops up every now and again

[The Empire of Pretantia]

I invite you to break into an armory and see how penetrable it is.

People breaking into where you store your guns is a separate issue from how many guns I own. After all, them stealing your only gun is as bad as them stealing one gun from a dozen. More guns doesn't magically make them more likely to be stolen.

They don't, they're deliberate falsehoods devoid of sincerity meant to inhibit conversation rather than foster it.

Neither was the 2A. Obviously you can't own a nuke or other WMDs.

Of course, most states have an amendment to the effect of the 2nd Amendment after all.

People already don't seem to be having an issue robbing gun sellers and households, so that point is moot at best. It's much easier to locate a stash of guns than a single gun.

That's on the ones who are supposed to store them, not the number of guns.

Yes, they do. Any statement you make is an issue of free speech by default.

It's an issue of whether it is free speech or not, which libel is not.

Falsehoods don't inhibit conversation. They might muddy it, but not inhibit it.

They do inhibit it. They inherently lead to misguidance, and distract from sincere debate.

If you believe in absolute free speech, then you have to allow for lies, regardless of their intent or target, to be freely expressed.

But lies aren't free speech. They are inherently counter to free speech.

You don't even need a constitutional right of any kind, be it state or federal, to pass laws allowing gun ownership. But from that point onward gun ownership becomes a privilege, rather than a "right" per se. Although I would argue that any and all legislation is practically a privilege that is constantly being negotiated.

And your point is?