All the gun legislation going down in flames!!!

[HumblePie]

If you read what I wrote you'd find I said something like ... not many hunters use assault weapons... they use, generally, what meets the task at hand and generally that tends to be bolt action weapons and shot guns and pistols - generally large bore.

I did not say that there is a difference tween a round from an assault weapon and a 'normal' hunting rifle... well, there is in the twist ratio, barrel length and how the tumble of the round is affected by the coefficient of friction with the air by the assault weapon, I presume.

I figure you have a half of a clue regarding the issue so must, therefore, be like the rest of the folks who post in threads. I feel comfortable posting in this thread as I also have half a clue in the usage of the language.

Again, proving you have zero clue.

Modern Sporting rifles are the same as a bolt action. They come in all bores, twist rates, and what not. Someone hunting birds is not going to use the same setup as someone hunting varmit. Nor are either going to use the same setup as someone hunting hog, deer, elk, mouse, or anything else that is typically hunted. Many hunters only have 2 or 3 rifles although they may hunt a wide range. While ideally they may use a more optimum setup, people without a whole lot of cash to spend on a gun/ammo setup for every circumstance are going to pick the most flexible options.

Modern Sporting rifles are the most flexible. They aren't the cheapest though. Usually that is why bolt action rifles such as Savage or Remington are generally bought more often than Modern Sporting Rifles. Price is a big factor for most people. You get more out of a modern sporting rifle than a cheaper rifle, but it's a bigger chunk of cash to put up front.

Modern sporting rifles allow people to change the barrel and upper to change the ammo type they want to run through it. Need a bigger bore? Change it out. Need something smaller? Change it out. Looking to hunt game from really far? Change it out.

The key to modern sporting rifles is their flexibility and modularization. One firearm can be configured dozens of different ways. That was the intent and design of the rifle. The cheaper rifles just don't have that flexibility. Which is fine for the hunter that only wants to hunt deer only every year and do so the same way. For that person a single gun setup suits them perfect and they don't need to spend more on other setups.


Anyhow, the point is, the 2nd Amendment was NEVER about hunting. Stop trying to conflate and confuse the issue with misinformation. The purpose of guns by the 2nd Amendment has always been for DEFENSE. Defense of one home/life from criminals, defense of one's country from invaders, or defense of one's way of life from our own government as a last resort. Those needs have NEVER changed and never will for the rest of human history.

Many people see the complacency in their lives and think they are secure. They don't think the need guns. Not everyone will need access to a firearm in their lives. Great for those people that never get into a car wreck, never need a gun, never develop cancer, or never have anything bad happen to them. Some people lead a charmed life. That is not the case for everyone though. Just because person A leads a life where they never have a need to use a gun as a tool doesn't mean that person B has been privy to the same circumstances that person A went through their life with.

 

[dank69]

Magazine ban is dead 46-54.

I think you meant 54-46. 46 beats 54 just the way it should work. I'm sure you'd be ecstatic if something you wanted to pass was defeated by a vocal minority.

 

[thraashman]

Anyhow, the point is, the 2nd Amendment was NEVER about hunting. Stop trying to conflate and confuse the issue with misinformation. The purpose of guns by the 2nd Amendment has always been for DEFENSE. Defense of one home/life from criminals, defense of one's country from invaders, or defense of one's way of life from our own government as a last resort. Those needs have NEVER changed and never will for the rest of human history.

Actually from some of the writings of Madison who wrote the Second Amendment there's evidence that the exact wording chosen was done so to allow slave states to form militias to police their own runaway slaves without having to rely on the federal government. So, it's quite possible that the Second Amendment was originally about maintaining a elimination of rights for a group of human beings.

 

[corwin]

Actually from some of the writings of Madison who wrote the Second Amendment there's evidence that the exact wording chosen was done so to allow slave states to form militias to police their own runaway slaves without having to rely on the federal government. So, it's quite possible that the Second Amendment was originally about maintaining a elimination of rights for a group of human beings.

And gee, the first gun control laws on the books were done to keep former slaves from owning them...now some people want to treat us all like slaves

 

[HumblePie]

Actually from some of the writings of Madison who wrote the Second Amendment there's evidence that the exact wording chosen was done so to allow slave states to form militias to police their own runaway slaves without having to rely on the federal government. So, it's quite possible that the Second Amendment was originally about maintaining a elimination of rights for a group of human beings.

No, it was about quelling insurrections. That was ONE other reason for it. Not an exclusive reason. Nor was it ever mentioned as one. Insurrections such as that seen in ... the Rodney King riots for example? There are other forms of insurrections where an individual may require a gun to defend themselves with besides a plantation farmer having to deal with slaves. That last bit exists no longer, but insurrection as a threat has never gone away. Nor will it ever.


Poor argument on your part.

 

[thraashman]

And gee, the first gun control laws on the books were done to keep former slaves from owning them...now some people want to treat us all like slaves

I'm sure many things in the US originated from horrible beginnings and became good or originated from good beginnings and became horrible. I don't see how background checks is treating us like slaves and have to say that's a bit dramatic on your part. And I'm not trying to say that the potential beginnings of the Second Amendment make it evil. I'm only pointing out that it is quite possible that the Second Amendment was not ALWAYS about defense like Humble claimed but actually about allowing states to oppress.

I am actually not for the magazine capacity limits, assault weapons ban, or any other ban. I am for improvements in gun control. The only one that's been brought forth that I've supported is enhanced background checks. And the NRA has clearly become a corporation that profits from an increase in gun violence and fostering a paranoia when that occurs, so I reject everything they say.

 

[schneiderguy]

I think you meant 54-46. 46 beats 54 just the way it should work. I'm sure you'd be ecstatic if something you wanted to pass was defeated by a vocal minority.

I'd be perfectly fine with every piece of legislation requiring at least a 2/3 majority to pass. It's far too easy to pass legislation, since about 99.9999% of it is useless and stupid.

 

[HumblePie]

I'm sure many things in the US originated from horrible beginnings and became good or originated from good beginnings and became horrible. I don't see how background checks is treating us like slaves and have to say that's a bit dramatic on your part. And I'm not trying to say that the potential beginnings of the Second Amendment make it evil. I'm only pointing out that it is quite possible that the Second Amendment was not ALWAYS about defense like Humble claimed but actually about allowing states to oppress.

I am actually not for the magazine capacity limits, assault weapons ban, or any other ban. I am for improvements in gun control. The only one that's been brought forth that I've supported is enhanced background checks. And the NRA has clearly become a corporation that profits from an increase in gun violence and fostering a paranoia when that occurs, so I reject everything they say.

And your points are quite wrong. You need to read the dictum to Miller, Heller, and McDonald in the recent SCOTUS rulings regarding the 2nd amendment. You also need to read things like the federalist articles as well as many other publications and private writings of those people that were apart of the decision making process of the Bill of Rights and the 2nd Amendment.

Your argument here is flat out wrong.

As for background checks, I am both for an against in a way. If background checks could be done on an "instant" basis of decision response from NICS, cost people nothing to perform the background check, and NO firearm type/serial number was required as part of the check then I could go for them for a private transaction.

Or an even better way is to change the license of people. Have someone on your record that prevents you from purchasing guns legally? Then your license will be marked somehow. Maybe make the whole thing bright red. Most states do something like this for adults under 21. In Texas, those under 21 have their license displayed in portrait versus landscape mode. This way those serving alcohol or have age based business restrictions can easily identify those individuals that are under 21.

If you sell to a person with a bright red license (either a state issued ID or a driver's license) then you are breaking the law. Simple, easy, and actually effective.

 

[Greenman]

It would appear that we have evolved quite a bit from the conditions that existed when the 2nd was being considered. I think the language of the 2nd pointed to a need to enable the population to be armed for a particular reason that does not seem to be relevant today.

On the contrary, I think the reasons for the second amendment are every bit as valid today as they were on the day they were drafted.

 

[cubby1223]

I'd be perfectly fine with every piece of legislation requiring at least a 2/3 majority to pass. It's far too easy to pass legislation, since about 99.9999% of it is useless and stupid.

In an ideal world I want legislation passed that the overwhelming majority of America agrees to, not legislation that 49% of the country opposes.

I want the parties to work together instead of being at each other's throats. It is up to us as citizens to elect representatives who are not closed-minded activists. I don't want closed-minded activists running the country.

But as each year passes those hopes fade even farther...

 

[dank69]

I'd be perfectly fine with every piece of legislation requiring at least a 2/3 majority to pass. It's far too easy to pass legislation, since about 99.9999% of it is useless and stupid.

Well then you libertarians have your work cut out for you, getting to 67% majority.

 

[shira]

The reason we have to the right to bear arms is the same as it was then. To protect person, property, and rights.

I've lost a lot of respect for the Democrats on this issue, and every time I get lulled into thinking they have dropped it they decide to attempt a full frontal assault on my 2nd amendment rights.

When was the last time the republicans openly attacked one of your constitutional rights?

I may disagree with them on many issues, and I may dislike many of them personally but I will vote Republican as long as the Democrats pursue this agenda.

I'll answer your question in a moment, and thereby demonstrate what fucking hypocrites the right-wingers in this thread are, but first a comment on rights under the Constitution.

Since when are Constitutional rights absolute? Freedom of Speech: Is it the position of the right-wingers in this thread that freedom of expression is absolute? If so, where's the outrage that we have laws against libel, slander, fighting words, incitement to riot, incitement to engage in unlawful acts, and threats to the U.S. President, to name a few? What, not outrage? Hmmm

If rights under the Constitution are absolute, then where's the right-wing outrage at all of the right-wing states passing laws to limit a woman's options to obtain abortions? Oh, gee, I guess the right doesn't agree with THAT Supreme Court opinion, so infringing on THAT right is no problem. Is that the "principled" stance of the right on the Constitution?

We agree, then, that rights are NOT absolute. So, please explain to me how universal background checks are unacceptably infringing on the 2nd Amendment. Do universal background checks PREVENT anyone who is not disqualified (by virtue of having committed a felony or being on a terrorist watch-list) from purchasing a firearm from obtaining firearms? No, they don't. So explain to me again why universal background checks are unacceptable.

What's that? Oh, their effect on school mass-shootings and other gun violence would be extremely small, if not nil? Is that the objection? Let me see if I can express that as a general principle:

If the consequence of a proposed law is to significantly limit a Constitutionally-protected right without providing any appreciable benefit, then that law is unconstitutional.

Would the right-wingers so vehemently participating in this thread sign on to that principle? Is this why universal background checks are unacceptable?

Okay. On to Agent11's question. Keep that principle I just cited in mind. Ready? Here we go:

Voter ID laws.​

You fvcking hypocrites.

 

[schneiderguy]

Well then you libertarians have your work cut out for you, getting to 67% majority.

Yes we do

 

[corwin]

If rights under the Constitution are absolute, then where's the right-wing outrage at all of the right-wing states passing laws to limit a woman's options to obtain abortions?

Where in the constitution does it say you have a right to an abortion?

I'll go ahead and answer that for you...It's not...It's a tenuous legal precedent based on a broad interpretation of the due process clause of the 14th amendment...nowhere near as defined as the second amendment.

 

[thraashman]

Where in the constitution does it say you have a right to an abortion?

I'll go ahead and answer that for you...It's not...It's a tenuous legal precedent based on a broad interpretation of the due process clause of the 14th amendment...nowhere near as defined as the second amendment.

If we wanna go with what's directly in the Constitution then let's do that. You know what is in the Constitution "a well-regulated militia". So what militia are you a part of?

 

[corwin]

If we wanna go with what's directly in the Constitution then let's do that. You know what is in the Constitution "a well-regulated militia". So what militia are you a part of?

The United States...militia at the time meant all able bodied men of fighting age

 

[irishScott]

If we wanna go with what's directly in the Constitution then let's do that. You know what is in the Constitution "a well-regulated militia". So what militia are you a part of?

Under the law, my shooting buddies and I could decide to call ourselves a militia, and we'd be one. A pretty well regulated one too by most standards.

 

[irishScott]

The United States...militia at the time meant all able bodied men of fighting age

Government should provide funding so each neighborhood can have its own "well-regulated" arsenal, mandatory PT on the weekends. We'd be the most ripped nation on the planet after Israel.

 

[corwin]

Government should provide funding so each neighborhood can have its own "well-regulated" arsenal, mandatory PT on the weekends. We'd be the most ripped nation on the planet after Israel.

I'd go for that:thumbsup:

 

[Agent11]

I'll answer your question in a moment, and thereby demonstrate what fucking hypocrites the right-wingers in this thread are, but first a comment on rights under the Constitution.

Since when are Constitutional rights absolute? Freedom of Speech: Is it the position of the right-wingers in this thread that freedom of expression is absolute? If so, where's the outrage that we have laws against libel, slander, fighting words, incitement to riot, incitement to engage in unlawful acts, and threats to the U.S. President, to name a few? What, not outrage? Hmmm

If rights under the Constitution are absolute, then where's the right-wing outrage at all of the right-wing states passing laws to limit a woman's options to obtain abortions? Oh, gee, I guess the right doesn't agree with THAT Supreme Court opinion, so infringing on THAT right is no problem. Is that the "principled" stance of the right on the Constitution?

We agree, then, that rights are NOT absolute. So, please explain to me how universal background checks are unacceptably infringing on the 2nd Amendment. Do universal background checks PREVENT anyone who is not disqualified (by virtue of having committed a felony or being on a terrorist watch-list) from purchasing a firearm from obtaining firearms? No, they don't. So explain to me again why universal background checks are unacceptable.

What's that? Oh, their effect on school mass-shootings and other gun violence would be extremely small, if not nil? Is that the objection? Let me see if I can express that as a general principle:



Would the right-wingers so vehemently participating in this thread sign on to that principle? Is this why universal background checks are unacceptable?

Okay. On to Agent11's question. Keep that principle I just cited in mind. Ready? Here we go:

Voter ID laws.​

You fvcking hypocrites.

How many shootings would have been prevented with more background checks? How would preventing you from making a private transaction with your uncle, cousin or friend stop a madman who has no paper trail from passing a check?

The answer is mental health care reform. There is room for argument on some increase in background checks, however I think it is better for state legislature to hash that out.

The issue with voter ID is a monetary gate to voting, gun owners have suffered such gates for years. Call me when they restrict voting to landowners.

Abortion is a completely different subject being as it involves killing a human being legally. A tricky subject. Personally I think we should have a cutoff after the first trimester.(like most of europe...damn righties)

 

[ivwshane]

How many shootings would have been prevented with more background checks? How would preventing you from making a private transaction with your uncle, cousin or friend stop a madman who has no paper trail from passing a check?

The answer is mental health care reform. There is room for argument on some increase in background checks, however I think it is better for state legislature to hash that out.

I answered this question in another thread.

Background checks prevented 150k from getting guns. Does that mean it prevented another mass shooting? No one can say but it certainly made it harder for those people to acquire a gun and it certainly didnt cause more mass shootings.

https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/bjs/grants/239272.pdf

And if your basis for passing laws is that the law must prevent such acts from occurring then you probably think all laws should be abolished as no law prevents anything. I doubt you are that retarded though but feel free to correct me.

 

[schneiderguy]

If we wanna go with what's directly in the Constitution then let's do that. You know what is in the Constitution "a well-regulated militia". So what militia are you a part of?

Every able bodied citizen between the ages of 18-45 is part of the militia in the United States. IIRC that's been in law since the early 1790's.

 

[Incorruptible]

It's always nice to see the usual gun control morons bitching and moaning how they lost. It's going to be hilarious seeing piers morgan react.

 

[HumblePie]

I'll answer your question in a moment, and thereby demonstrate what fucking hypocrites the right-wingers in this thread are, but first a comment on rights under the Constitution.

Since when are Constitutional rights absolute? Freedom of Speech: Is it the position of the right-wingers in this thread that freedom of expression is absolute? If so, where's the outrage that we have laws against libel, slander, fighting words, incitement to riot, incitement to engage in unlawful acts, and threats to the U.S. President, to name a few? What, not outrage? Hmmm

If rights under the Constitution are absolute, then where's the right-wing outrage at all of the right-wing states passing laws to limit a woman's options to obtain abortions? Oh, gee, I guess the right doesn't agree with THAT Supreme Court opinion, so infringing on THAT right is no problem. Is that the "principled" stance of the right on the Constitution?

We agree, then, that rights are NOT absolute. So, please explain to me how universal background checks are unacceptably infringing on the 2nd Amendment. Do universal background checks PREVENT anyone who is not disqualified (by virtue of having committed a felony or being on a terrorist watch-list) from purchasing a firearm from obtaining firearms? No, they don't. So explain to me again why universal background checks are unacceptable.

What's that? Oh, their effect on school mass-shootings and other gun violence would be extremely small, if not nil? Is that the objection? Let me see if I can express that as a general principle:



Would the right-wingers so vehemently participating in this thread sign on to that principle? Is this why universal background checks are unacceptable?

Okay. On to Agent11's question. Keep that principle I just cited in mind. Ready? Here we go:

Voter ID laws.​

You fvcking hypocrites.

Wow. First off, there are ABSOLUTES in the Bill of Rights. To claim otherwise is gross stupidity.

Actually, quite a few of them are absolutes. Just because a few rights aren't "absolutes" as they are written doesn't mean all the rights are therefore able to be interpreted at a whim by any government official high enough to do so. That horrible thought process is simply horrible to even think.

As for your example of Voter ID laws. How is that an attack on a Constitutional right? You have yet to demonstrate this.

 

[HumblePie]

If we wanna go with what's directly in the Constitution then let's do that. You know what is in the Constitution "a well-regulated militia". So what militia are you a part of?

You have zero ground to stand on with this argument. As been shown by both Miller and Heller. The first part about the militia, is the prefactory part of the 2nd amendment. It's not the objective clause. Grammatically speaking, it does not stand by itself without the objective part. Of which, the objective part does stand on it's own. That second comma was originally a semi colon for a reason until a scribe fucked up in the original copying of the BoR into the Constitution. It was well understood that one couldn't have a militia made up of citizenry if the citizenry could not keep and bear arms individually as an individual right.