This topic has been locked by a moderator.
As a non-gun person, this is about reason and logic. It’s emotion and fear when any story involving a gun is said to prove that guns need to be banned.
The story doesn’t prove anything that wasn’t proven long ago, it just prompts questions about whether we’re going to do anything about it or kick the can down the road a few more years.
I do care about the Constitution’s protection of liberty too.
Sure, me too.
If you wish to deny people a basic right of self defense or hunting with a gun,
That assumes they have that right to begin with. It’s a legal theory, sure, but it’s not in the Constitution. And even granting some sort of basic right, there’s legal theories regarding what sort of gun, etc. e.g. very few people argue fully automatic machine guns are needed for basic self-defense today, but it hasn’t always been that way. Whether or not you’re denying the right hinges upon how you define the right.
that will take a very long time no matter what party is in power.
Agreed, the Democrats never really seemed that interested in gun control so much as looking busy.
And sometimes people are going to hurt other people. If you want to talk about how certain kinds of guns or certain kinds of people pose a danger, fine. But the OMG a gun view doesn’t seem reasonable to me.
“Certain kinds of guns” is exactly the argument I’m making. It’s just a larger subset than the subset you’d prefer to talk about. And my subset happens to include pretty much every gun used in the violent crimes making the news, so it’s just a matter of the same basic policy proposal being applicable to multiple situations, not a mindless knee-jerk response.
Agreed, the Democrats never really seemed that interested in gun control so much as looking busy.
This chaps me for how much it’s probably true.
chyron just put a big Ric pic in your sig and be done with it.
As a non-gun person, this is about reason and logic. It’s emotion and fear when any story involving a gun is said to prove that guns need to be banned.
The story doesn’t prove anything that wasn’t proven long ago, it just prompts questions about whether we’re going to do anything about it or kick the can down the road a few more years.
I do care about the Constitution’s protection of liberty too. If you wish to deny people a basic right of self defense or hunting with a gun, that will take a very long time no matter what party is in power. And sometimes people are going to hurt other people. If you want to talk about how certain kinds of guns or certain kinds of people pose a danger, fine. But the OMG a gun view doesn’t seem reasonable to me.
Almost nobody is asking for that. That’s a huge problem too, the right’s desire to paint all gun control as a denial of basic self-defense and hunting.
The Person in Question
I’m asking for that. The idea that hunting WITH A GUN or self defense WITH A GUN has to be allowed because it’s a right is fucking stupid and most of the rest of the world agrees with me.
The only thing dumber than that is claiming it’s a god-given right, which is so baffflingly stupid I can’t even spell baffling correctly.
Death and violence is not going to end, subject to a total remaking of the world.
Nah, it would require further evolution of the human species.
As a non-gun person, this is about reason and logic. It’s emotion and fear when any story involving a gun is said to prove that guns need to be banned.
The story doesn’t prove anything that wasn’t proven long ago, it just prompts questions about whether we’re going to do anything about it or kick the can down the road a few more years.
I do care about the Constitution’s protection of liberty too.
Yes, and our unalienable and self-evident rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness are being impaired to many due to the number of guns in this country. Glad we’re on the same page.
Yes, I know, different document.
I’m asking for that. The idea that hunting WITH A GUN or self defense WITH A GUN has to be allowed because it’s a right is fucking stupid and most of the rest of the world agrees with me.
The only thing dumber than that is claiming it’s a god-given right, which is so baffflingly stupid I can’t even spell baffling correctly.
I meant that no one is wanting to ban any and all guns: antique revolvers, AR-15s, AK-47s, bazookas, and pinfire pistols alike.
The Person in Question
Personally, I don’t think many people are intelligent or responsible enough to operate a gun (including cops). I also think it should be much more difficult to legally own and operate a car.
The Person in Question
CatBus, just as one shouldn’t ignore the beginning of the 2nd Amendment, one shouldn’t ignore the “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms.” When you recall that the 2nd Amendment was a restriction on the federal government and a preservation of state authority, the existence and meaning of each phrase makes perfect sense. You’re correct there are legal theories for all kinds of rights not explicit in the Constitution.
The blue elephant in the room.
CatBus, just as one shouldn’t ignore the beginning of the 2nd Amendment, one shouldn’t ignore the “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms.” When you recall that the 2nd Amendment was a restriction on the federal government and a preservation of state authority, the existence and meaning of each phrase makes perfect sense. You’re correct there are legal theories for all kinds of rights not explicit in the Constitution.
How would you feel if the second amendment were to be repealed?
Personally, I don’t think many people are intelligent or responsible enough to operate a gun (including cops). I also think it should be much more difficult to legally own and operate a car.
I wish that were the case, but most cities in the US just don’t have the infrastructure to support that. Cities here were built for cars, and I think it’s mostly too late to change that.
Is it too late for that or is it just the right time to invent transporters like in star trek?
CatBus, just as one shouldn’t ignore the beginning of the 2nd Amendment, one shouldn’t ignore the “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms.” When you recall that the 2nd Amendment was a restriction on the federal government and a preservation of state authority, the existence and meaning of each phrase makes perfect sense. You’re correct there are legal theories for all kinds of rights not explicit in the Constitution.
How would you feel if the second amendment were to be repealed?
As a fan of federalism and someone who appreciates that self-defense and hunting are legitimate activities and basic liberties, not good. States should have broader authority to restrict firearms. Let Texans have their guns but outlaw them in NYC if that’s what they want. Even if it can’t go that far, given that we have the 14th Amendment, there are greater restrictions on firearms that might be allowed.
The blue elephant in the room.
CatBus, just as one shouldn’t ignore the beginning of the 2nd Amendment, one shouldn’t ignore the “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms.”
If you call “restricting scope via definition” ignoring, then we all ignore that part of the Second Amendment. Arms doesn’t even mean guns. Arms can mean chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons. So what we’ve done is scale back to something less, something that the courts consider sensible. Right now that so-called sensible line is at fully-automatic weapons. It hasn’t always been there and won’t always be there. This flexible expanding and contracting line of what qualifies for Second Amendment protections is your “living document” approach, and it reached its current level only fairly recently via activist interpretation.
You could also scale the term “arms” back to what the framers of the Constitution literally meant when they wrote “arms” (your true Strict Constructionist approach, not a Scalia Fake Constructionist approach), and then you could ban everything more modern than muskets and the Second Amendment would be fine with that.
You can take the Second Amendment seriously and come up with wildly different interpretations. Part of that is because it’s so poorly worded and anachronistic.
CatBus, the Bill of Rights were not a grant of power to the government. In terms of the scope of the right, you quickly run into problems if the federal government imposes all manner of restrictions on individual ownership: it tramples on the state prerogative to have militias. The Amendment pretty clearly protected individual ownership of arms because of the state prerogative. It says so. You’re right that arms are not only guns. For example knives are a kind of arm. The Court held that the scope of the right extends only to weapons that would be normally posessed for use in a militia and excludes dangerous and unusual weapons. That is the originalist holding. The idea that state militias would be compelled to use outdated technology doesn’t make sense. When we consider the free exercise clause we don’t limit it to religions that existed at our founding but that doesn’t make it non-originalist.
The blue elephant in the room.
possessed
Hey
possessed
Hey
If that weren’t the most important part I’d call you self-centered!
The blue elephant in the room.
Aren’t all weapons dangerous?
Aren’t all weapons dangerous?
Shit, you could probably beat a guy to death with a Sunday New York Times, couldn’t ya? If you really cared enough.*
*Line stolen from George Carlin.
The Person in Question
Aren’t all weapons dangerous?
“Dangerous and unusual” appears to be used as a hendiadys.
It’s been argued that how “cruel and unusual” should be read, rather than as independent terms.
The blue elephant in the room.
Aren’t all weapons dangerous?
Equally? No.
The idea that state militias would be compelled to use outdated technology doesn’t make sense.
The fact that state militias were thrown over for a standing army before the ink was dry on the Constitution makes a whole lot of things about the Second Amendment not make sense.
dangerous and unusual weapons
You cannot say that there is any greater chance more than these two people would now be dead if the perpetrator had used a suitcase nuke instead of a gun. You can’t.
CatBus, just as one shouldn’t ignore the beginning of the 2nd Amendment, one shouldn’t ignore the “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms.” When you recall that the 2nd Amendment was a restriction on the federal government and a preservation of state authority, the existence and meaning of each phrase makes perfect sense. You’re correct there are legal theories for all kinds of rights not explicit in the Constitution.
How would you feel if the second amendment were to be repealed?
As a fan of federalism and someone who appreciates that self-defense and hunting are legitimate activities and basic liberties, not good. States should have broader authority to restrict firearms. Let Texans have their guns but outlaw them in NYC if that’s what they want.
That idea is appealing to me, because then most of the gun owners will congregate in particular places that I can avoid. Also speeds the Darwinian process through its natural progression.
"Close the blast doors!"
Puggo’s website | Rescuing Star Wars
Lol.
Aren’t all weapons dangerous?
Shit, you could probably beat a guy to death with a Sunday New York Times, couldn’t ya? If you really cared enough.*
*Line stolen from George Carlin.
Didn’t Carlin also point out you could threaten someone with a sheet of paper?
There is a old story I’ve heard about a small dog getting flattened by the Sunday edition of the L.A. times.
Where were you in '77?
