Dems introduce HR Bill 5717 severely attacking 2nd Amendment rights

Page 5 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
85,581
50,768
136
Not if there's none made.

So the research dictates all?

So how do I buy a gun of people aren't selling what they have (because there are no more) and none are made. How do I exercise my rights?

Oh to be clear I think the second amendment should be eliminated. It was a dumb idea.

Personally I would be safer although I don't feel the need to go around with a firearm.
Could be true for you personally but the average American is less safe if they own a gun.
 

Hayabusa Rider

Admin Emeritus & Elite Member
Jan 26, 2000
50,879
4,266
126
Oh to be clear I think the second amendment should be eliminated. It was a dumb idea.


Could be true for you personally but the average American is less safe if they own a gun.

Get rid of the Second Amendment.
The average american, which does not exist in reality, can with compromise be subject to levels of examinations.

First, a "keep at home for defense" level or "how not to shoot your family" with real exercises like I and others had to do with a mock up home final.

Public carry? Another level of training.

Eff me if I don't get pissed that people do not even know what trigger discipline is or use it. That should be a fail on a test.

I think there should be a compromise that the ability for responsible individuals to own weapons is perfectly allowable and responsibility and accountability should be real at an owner level.
 
  • Like
Reactions: JEDIYoda

JEDIYoda

Lifer
Jul 13, 2005
33,986
3,320
126
Trying to compare the requirements for various rights to be exercised is silliness so comparing voter ID to gun requirements is a bad idea.

Would you say all the government has to do to quarter soldiers in your house is have them show ID?
Now lets me honest here.....let us give paladin the benefit of the doubt! As far as we know he could be spouting stuff from gun nutter forums and pasting it as his own thoughts ion these forums! After all who would be stupid enough to compare voter ID to gun requirements other than some gun nutter who has ventured off into the deep end of the pool??
We really need to understand that id paladin is doing a copy and paste from some gun nutter forum such as www.GunNutter.com then perhaps he isn`t even reading the nonsense that he is posting.......
2nd amendment.jpg
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
85,581
50,768
136
Get rid of the Second Amendment.
The average american, which does not exist in reality, can with compromise be subject to levels of examinations.

Well sure, but we have no problem acknowledging that smoking makes the average person more likely to develop lung cancer so I don’t know why we should ignore the dangers of smoking.

First, a "keep at home for defense" level or "how not to shoot your family" with real exercises like I and others had to do with a mock up home final.

Public carry? Another level of training.

Eff me if I don't get pissed that people do not even know what trigger discipline is or use it. That should be a fail on a test.

I think there should be a compromise that the ability for responsible individuals to own weapons is perfectly allowable and responsibility and accountability should be real at an owner level.

The problem isn’t with accidents, those comprise a small percentage of fatalities. The problem is that the presence of a gun turns a fistfight into a gun fight. There’s no training that can solve that, it’s just an inherently dangerous thing to own and provides negative value for the average person.
 
Jun 18, 2000
11,151
728
126
Without reading a ton of pages of this thread, most of the stuff in the OP seems like common sense. I'd love to see nearly all of it passed (knowing it wont).
 

Hayabusa Rider

Admin Emeritus & Elite Member
Jan 26, 2000
50,879
4,266
126
Well sure, but we have no problem acknowledging that smoking makes the average person more likely to develop lung cancer so I don’t know why we should ignore the dangers of smoking.



The problem isn’t with accidents, those comprise a small percentage of fatalities. The problem is that the presence of a gun turns a fistfight into a gun fight. There’s no training that can solve that, it’s just an inherently dangerous thing to own and provides negative value for the average person.

Then there is no possible compromise nor trust because if the vast majority of lives lost were not then there's always one guy that justifies any action.

I can't trust the Republicans and I can't trust the Dems.
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
85,581
50,768
136
Then there is no possible compromise nor trust because if the vast majority of lives lost were not then there's always one guy that justifies any action.

I can't trust the Republicans and I can't trust the Dems.

This isn’t about democrats or republicans, this is about what the science says. I go with science.
 

Hayabusa Rider

Admin Emeritus & Elite Member
Jan 26, 2000
50,879
4,266
126
This isn’t about democrats or republicans, this is about what the science says. I go with science.

No, you use science to justify your position. There could be compromise except it won't be tolerated. Only one perspective is allowed on each side and each will deceive to achieve their ends. Proof? Any mitigation to any degree isn't acceptable because one can always find an exception that didn't meet the absolute standard. In other words, the perfect must oppose the good in this case.

Perhaps our mass extinction will be unavoidable and at this time I'm becoming more accepting of it. Too bad our children will suffer, but with few exceptions won't be any better than the majority of the species.

Cosmic justice served perhaps.
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
85,581
50,768
136
No, you use science to justify your position.

No, my opinion is based on science. Regardless it is irrelevant because even if I did use science to justify my position as long as my position is in accordance with it it doesn’t matter why I hold it.

There could be compromise except it won't be tolerated. Only one perspective is allowed on each side and each will deceive to achieve their ends. Proof? Any mitigation to any degree isn't acceptable because one can always find an exception that didn't meet the absolute standard. In other words, the perfect must oppose the good in this case.

Perhaps our mass extinction will be unavoidable and at this time I'm becoming more accepting of it. Too bad our children will suffer, but with few exceptions won't be any better than the majority of the species.

Cosmic justice served perhaps.

I don’t care about exceptions that don’t meet an absolute standard, I’m just telling you what’s true - owning a gun makes the average person less safe.

Compromises are not inherently good, they have to serve some purpose. I don’t think it’s worthwhile in this case as your proposed mitigation strategy would do basically nothing to stem the death.
 

JEDIYoda

Lifer
Jul 13, 2005
33,986
3,320
126
Do you really need me to start a thread about how non-existent voter ID fraud is? Or how Republicans only want to make it that much harder on poor voters who historically vote democratic? I think there has been a few already. -- No we don`t need you to go off as a babbling lunatic!!

I'm more of a personal responsibility guy. I don't kill so leave my guns alone. When you figure out how to rid America of guns, please let me know. Making it hard on the lawful gun owners to own legal guns for lawful purposes hasn't done a damn thing to stop illegal gun violence, just like the 1993 assault weapons ban did noting and that was exactly why it could not be renewed after 10 years. 10 years on just that one ban and it did nothing! And now you want to do it again, double down on taking away the rights of the lawful in the idiotic belief that it will somehow stop criminals? Kind of like they keep trying to do with the war on drugs? Or remember prohibition?
*more incoherent babble*

When has the government EVER been able to keep something out of the hands of the public when they really want it? When has any prohibition ever done more than keep that item out of the hands of the lawful who willingly give it up? The lawful aren't the problem. -- Good question! So why not do away with the 2nd amendment ?? After all people will get guns anyway!!

Or just tell me I'm a dirty republican and ignore the truth. Keep lying to yourself that disarming the lawful will disarm the criminal by osmosis. Remember, according to FBI statistics for 2013, over 99.92% of civilian owned guns didn't hurt a fly. Well, maybe a few deer and such. There are several other common legal items I wish had such a safety record. So your whole premise that guns are too dangerous for civilians to have is just plain B.S. -- *yawn* I see you have visited http://www.GunNutter.com
But that is OK -- Jesus Loves you and your guns....
 

JEDIYoda

Lifer
Jul 13, 2005
33,986
3,320
126
Exactly and that's why we have courts to decide what 'unreasonably restricted' is. I (as well as anyone) can offer my opinion as to what is but ultimately it's the courts until (wait for it) we have a constitutional amendment to change the game.
hahahahhaaaaaaa
 

JEDIYoda

Lifer
Jul 13, 2005
33,986
3,320
126
You know what is truly sad?
There are good people on both sides who if you even mention any form of gun control based on that issue alone they will vote for the opposite party!
It doesn`t matter if they lost all their family due to the coronavirus, they will still vote Republican! Why? Because you don`t mes with my gunz!!
 

Hayabusa Rider

Admin Emeritus & Elite Member
Jan 26, 2000
50,879
4,266
126
No, my opinion is based on science. Regardless it is irrelevant because even if I did use science to justify my position as long as my position is in accordance with it it doesn’t matter why I hold it.



I don’t care about exceptions that don’t meet an absolute standard, I’m just telling you what’s true - owning a gun makes the average person less safe.

Compromises are not inherently good, they have to serve some purpose. I don’t think it’s worthwhile in this case as your proposed mitigation strategy would do basically nothing to stem the death.

That is your feelings, not facts speaking. You make a claim you state as true but in every situation where proper training is given and passing required there are fewer injured and I'm not taking only about weapons as we don't toss the keys to commercial vehicle operators or anything else.

Training, passing, and recertification are equal to greater safety. The worst case people you imagine would have to pass and if they shoot someone? Draconian penalties.

You should understand that I place great faith in science, but not as a basis for societal decisions alone. All the political philosophers concerned with rights would, I think, absolutely reject this.

Science? Here's science. Joe Biden is the people that many wanted here. Joe did the right thing apparently by lying that a large minority of US citizens, over 100,000,000 died because of Bernie not supporting what you want. He might have scared enough voters to help his election, maybe not, but the real threat, catastrophic warming, the killer beyond all the guns ever, will be met by someone who considers that to be nothing, go vote for another candidate.

Yet people who are concerned with the science of things allow a lie if it aids them and disregards the next planet killer level extinction. It's hard to credit decisions supposedly made on science when risk assessment isn't even thought of.

Back to the circumvention of the Constitution, I think after this election I need to reconsider my political alliances as in principle there's not much difference in their methods, just about what they intend to erode accepted rights.

The friggin end can't come too soon I think because we collectively are bent over and begging for it.
 

Hayabusa Rider

Admin Emeritus & Elite Member
Jan 26, 2000
50,879
4,266
126
You know what is truly sad?
There are good people on both sides who if you even mention any form of gun control based on that issue alone they will vote for the opposite party!
It doesn`t matter if they lost all their family due to the coronavirus, they will still vote Republican! Why? Because you don`t mes with my gunz!!

I think I'm going to go back to voting for my dogs after November.
 
  • Wow
Reactions: JEDIYoda

Bird222

Diamond Member
Jun 7, 2004
3,641
132
106
No, my opinion is based on science. Regardless it is irrelevant because even if I did use science to justify my position as long as my position is in accordance with it it doesn’t matter why I hold it.



I don’t care about exceptions that don’t meet an absolute standard, I’m just telling you what’s true - owning a gun makes the average person less safe.

Compromises are not inherently good, they have to serve some purpose. I don’t think it’s worthwhile in this case as your proposed mitigation strategy would do basically nothing to stem the death.

And going swimming makes you more likely to drown. :rolleyes: Seriously, I'm sure it does, but as I've said many times it should be the individual's choice to defend him/herself as they see fit. Not up to you.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Paladin3

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
85,581
50,768
136
That is your feelings, not facts speaking. You make a claim you state as true but in every situation where proper training is given and passing required there are fewer injured and I'm not taking only about weapons as we don't toss the keys to commercial vehicle operators or anything else.

Of course it’s not my feelings speaking as personally I don’t care one way or the other. If the science said owning a gun made you safer I would be all for it.

Accidental shootings comprise about 500 of the 35,000 gun deaths per year, so we are talking about 1.5% of gun deaths. Of these deaths, many are children who wouldn’t get any benefit from training. So what we are really doing here is talking about some wonderful compromise to prevent some fraction of one percent of gun deaths. That’s just not worth enough to compromise for. The better answer is no gun ownership.

Training, passing, and recertification are equal to greater safety. The worst case people you imagine would have to pass and if they shoot someone? Draconian penalties.

You should understand that I place great faith in science, but not as a basis for societal decisions alone. All the political philosophers concerned with rights would, I think, absolutely reject this.

Science surely isn’t the be all end all but I don’t find the protection of people’s ability to own lethal weapons to be a particularly worthwhile moral hill to die on. Maybe you do!

Science? Here's science. Joe Biden is the people that many wanted here. Joe did the right thing apparently by lying that a large minority of US citizens, over 100,000,000 died because of Bernie not supporting what you want. He might have scared enough voters to help his election, maybe not, but the real threat, catastrophic warming, the killer beyond all the guns ever, will be met by someone who considers that to be nothing, go vote for another candidate.

Yet people who are concerned with the science of things allow a lie if it aids them and disregards the next planet killer level extinction. It's hard to credit decisions supposedly made on science when risk assessment isn't even thought of.

Back to the circumvention of the Constitution, I think after this election I need to reconsider my political alliances as in principle there's not much difference in their methods, just about what they intend to erode accepted rights.

The friggin end can't come too soon I think because we collectively are bent over and begging for it.

If you think both parties are the same and employ similar methods then you must not have been paying attention all these years. For example the coronavirus stimulus bill. What do you think the vote would have been with a democratic president?

Regardless, you do you. If you want to enable American fascism by not voting for its opponents after this November then that’s a moral choice you will have to live with.
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
85,581
50,768
136

And going swimming makes you more likely to drown. :rolleyes:

That argument would make sense if owning a gun only made you more likely to be the victim of GUN homicide. Instead it is a risk factor for ALL homicides.

Seriously, I'm sure it does, but as I've said many times it should be the individual's choice to defend him/herself as they see fit. Not up to you.

That would be great if people only used their guns to defend themselves, which they do not.
 

JEDIYoda

Lifer
Jul 13, 2005
33,986
3,320
126
Driving a car is not a constitutional right.
That is besides the point.........In order to drive you have to have a license.....
In order to have gun you should also prove that you are competent to use the gun!
 

ondma

Platinum Member
Mar 18, 2018
2,999
1,520
136
Not if there's none made.

So the research dictates all?

So how do I buy a gun of people aren't selling what they have (because there are no more) and none are made. How do I exercise my rights?

Personally I would be safer although I don't feel the need to go around with a firearm.
Typical exaggeration of the gun rights lobby. For crying out loud, no reasonable anti-gun violence advocate want to eliminate the right to manufacture handguns or even long guns except for assault rifles. Nor do they want to eliminate the right to buy them, with reasonable safeguards. Neither are they going to come into your house and take your handguns. Just stop with the hysteria.
 

JEDIYoda

Lifer
Jul 13, 2005
33,986
3,320
126
What's funny is that you are laughing at someone on your side (hint: I don't mean me).
No I am laughing at you....I am still laughing at you!
But I did find this read interesting....
“Americans have been thinking about the second amendment as an individual right for generations,” said Adam Winkler, a law professor at UCLA and author of Gunfight: The Battle over the Right to Bear Arms in America. “You can find state supreme courts in the mid-1800s where judges say the second amendment protects an individual right.”

But for the 70 years or so before a supreme court decision in 2008, he said, “the supreme court and federal courts held that it only applied in the context of militias, the right of states to protect themselves from federal interference”.

In 2008, the supreme court decided the District of Columbia v Heller, 5-4 , overturning a handgun ban in the city. The conservative justice Antonin Scalia wrote the opinion in narrow but unprecedented terms: for the first time in the country’s history, the supreme court explicitly affirmed an individual’s right to keep a weapon at home for self-defense.

Justice John Paul Stevens dissented, saying the decision showed disrespect “for the well-settled views of all of our predecessors on the court, and for the rule of law itself”. Two years later, he dissented from another decision favoring gun rights, writing:

The reasons that motivated the framers to protect the ability of militiamen to keep muskets, or that motivated the Reconstruction Congress to extend full citizenship to freedmen in the wake of the Civil War, have only a limited bearing on the question that confronts the homeowner in a crime-infested metropolis today.
This fight over history, waged by supreme court justices and unlikely allies and foes, goes all the way back.

“People look at the same record and come to wildly different conclusions about what the view was in the 18th century, in the 19th century,” said Nicholas Johnson, a Fordham University law professor who argues against Winkler’s view of 20th-century case law.

Attempts to parse “original” intent go all the way back to the revolution and its aftermath, when the country’s founders bickered about what exactly they were talking about. Carl Bogus, a law professor at Roger Williams University, has argued that James Madison wrote the second amendment in part to reassure his home state of Virginia, where slave owners were terrified of revolts and wary of northerners who would undermine the system.

“The militia were at that stage almost exclusively a slave-control tool in the south,” he said. “You gave Congress the power to arm the militia – if Congress chooses not to arm our militia, well, we all know what happens.”

The federalist Madison’s compromise, according to Bogus, was to promise a bill of rights. After weeks of tense debate, his federalists narrowly won the vote to ratify the constitution. “He writes an amendment that gives the states the right to have an armed militia, by the people arming themselves.”

A year later, the federal government passed a law requiring every man eligible for his local militia to acquire a gun and register with authorities. (The law was only changed in 1903.)

After the civil war, second amendment rights were again debated by Congress, which abolished militias in the former Confederate states and passed the 1866 Civil Rights Act, explicitly protecting freed slaves’ right to bear arms. A century later, the founders of the Black Panthers took up guns, symbolically and literally, to press for equal civil rights in California.

The state’s conservative lawmakers promptly took up the cause of gun control. In 1967, Governor Ronald Reagan signed the Mulford Act, banning the public carry of loaded guns in cities. The governor said he saw “no reason why on the street today a citizen should be carrying loaded weapons”.

Reagan later supported the Brady Act, a gun control law named after his aide, who was shot during an assassination attempt on Reagan in Washington DC. The National Rifle Association supported the Mulford Act but opposed the Brady Act, signed into law 26 years later.

Winkler, the UCLA professor, said that during the 1970s, a “revolt among the membership profoundly altered the NRA overnight. Since the 1930s, the group had supported restrictions on machine guns and public carry, but angry hardliners took control over the organization in 1977, when moderates wanted to retreat from lobbying work. The group then began a decades-long campaign to popularize its uncompromising positions.

“The NRA goes far beyond what the second amendment requires – people walking around with permits, on college campuses,” Winkler said. “Their argument is it’s a fundamental right and freedom. People care more about values than they care about policy.”

In the late 1990s, several prominent liberal attorneys, such as Laurence Tribe and Akhil Reed Amar, also argued for an individual right while advocating gun regulation. Gun control activists say they have not changed tack since the supreme court’s 2008 decision. Scalia wrote a narrow opinion and listed several exceptions, such as bans on “unusual and dangerous weapons” and sales to domestic abusers and people with mental illness. He also wrote that states and cities could ban firearms fro

Lower courts have upheld many gun laws around the country since 2008, and the supreme court has declined to hear any second amendment cases since 2010. Attorneys and activists on both sides expect a looming fight over the right to carry guns in public, which the Heller decision does not address.

“The courts generally strike a balance between the need for lawmakers to protect public safety and this notion of second amendment rights,” said Avery Gardiner, co-president of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence. The Heller decision, she said, was “entirely consistent” with gun laws like background checks.

“There’s a mythology here that the supreme court has said something about the second amendment that it hasn’t,” she said. “I think most Americans don’t like reading the footnotes.”
 

Hayabusa Rider

Admin Emeritus & Elite Member
Jan 26, 2000
50,879
4,266
126
Of course it’s not my feelings speaking as personally I don’t care one way or the other. If the science said owning a gun made you safer I would be all for it.

Accidental shootings comprise about 500 of the 35,000 gun deaths per year, so we are talking about 1.5% of gun deaths. Of these deaths, many are children who wouldn’t get any benefit from training. So what we are really doing here is talking about some wonderful compromise to prevent some fraction of one percent of gun deaths. That’s just not worth enough to compromise for. The better answer is no gun ownership.



Science surely isn’t the be all end all but I don’t find the protection of people’s ability to own lethal weapons to be a particularly worthwhile moral hill to die on. Maybe you do!



If you think both parties are the same and employ similar methods then you must not have been paying attention all these years. For example the coronavirus stimulus bill. What do you think the vote would have been with a democratic president?

Regardless, you do you. If you want to enable American fascism by not voting for its opponents after this November then that’s a moral choice you will have to live with.


When the actions equate to an extinction level event which seems more likely, then why should your trivial concerns matter? I'll vote for Biden this time, but "vote for someone else Joe" is the pick?

You know I might contract and die from COVID-19 and other than to my family, it's meaningless when I see people who focus more on gun killing legislation so they can sleep in ignorance.

AOC is the only person I know of in office who gets the magnitude of the problem and I think the Dem party, not just the Republicans will do anything to stonewall her.

Hell, I need to get away from this place for a while. I'm becoming impatient with humanity again and that's unproductive and annoying.
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
85,581
50,768
136
When the actions equate to an extinction level event which seems more likely, then why should your trivial concerns matter? I'll vote for Biden this time, but "vote for someone else Joe" is the pick?

You know I might contract and die from COVID-19 and other than to my family, it's meaningless when I see people who focus more on gun killing legislation so they can sleep in ignorance.

AOC is the only person I know of in office who gets the magnitude of the problem and I think the Dem party, not just the Republicans will do anything to stonewall her.

Hell, I need to get away from this place for a while. I'm becoming impatient with humanity again and that's unproductive and annoying.

I have asthma and residual lung damage from bleomycin so I’m in a risk group as well. I just have no time for the #bothsides nonsense.
 
  • Like
Reactions: JEDIYoda