I have questions for 2A absolutists

HomerJS

Lifer
Feb 6, 2002
19,658
4,864
136
By absolutist I mean any change in gun regulations violates 2A rights.

Question: During the assault weapons ban from 1994-2004 how many citizens lost their 2A rights?

Question: How would enforcing a universal background check for all transfers prevent a citizen from exercising their 2A rights?

Question: How would limiting magazine size prevent a citizen from exercising their 2A rights.

BTW - slippery slope is not an answer because these are specific solutions. If someone proposes additional regulations then deal with that.
 

[DHT]Osiris

Diamond Member
Dec 15, 2015
5,439
1,628
116
By absolutist I mean any change in gun regulations violates 2A rights.

Question: During the assault weapons ban from 1994-2004 how many citizens lost their 2A rights?

Question: How would enforcing a universal background check for all transfers prevent a citizen from exercising their 2A rights?

Question: How would limiting magazine size prevent a citizen from exercising their 2A rights.

BTW - slippery slope is not an answer because these are specific solutions. If someone proposes additional regulations then deal with that.
I'll dive in, if only because I tend to be one of the more vocal ones on this board when it comes to 2A.

Q1: This is a complicated question because it depends on who you ask. Strictly speaking, nobody lost their right to bear arms. Everyone can still go buy a gun (within the law). More people are affected by the outlawing of selling guns to felons than this specific ban, if you are going by the strict letter of the 2A. If you take a more broad approach though, the spirit of 2A was lessened by the restriction, if only because it created a divergence between the citizens and the government, in that the government can legally maintain more powerful weaponry than the citizens. Please don't take this statement to mean that I'm personally in favor of citizens owning tanks, missiles, nukes, whatever. Just stating that factually, part of the spirit of the 2A was to maintain an armed populace for self defense, as well as defense of the country against a government gone awry. Anything that curtails that in law, imho, lessens the 2A. Purely opinion/interpretation though.

Q2: Enforcing universal background checks 'technically' places the ability to deny gun ownership in the hands of the government, which is one of the facets that the 2A was designed to protect against. Again, it may not specifically deny 2A from the general populace, but it's an erosion of the right. Whether or not that erosion is acceptable to the people is for the people to decide. IMHO that shouldn't be left up to a single body, or really even representatives. I'd love to see a general populace vote on that one (and others).

Q3: Same as above, it doesn't strictly block 2A, but it erodes it, for the same reasons outlined in 1. If we are working on the assumption that it might be necessary to use these weapons one day to overthrow/defend oneself from an out of control government, any restriction in place technically limits that capability. This is only my interpretation, and doesn't reflect whether or not I personally think magazine sizes should be restricted.

Regarding each of the above, if left to me as a personal ruler of America, I'd probably not restrict 2A. There's other things I'd focus on if left personal ruler of America. If left to me to simply vote on the matter among my peers, I don't know which direction I'd vote on. It'd require me to carefully consider each proposal as they were written, as undoubtedly they'd be written like dogshit.

Final point, as I know it's going to come up. Just because the govt has access to tons of weaponry and troops that completely outclass anything available to the average citizen, that still doesn't mean that the 2A doesn't work. It's a multifaceted concept which is has a role in both deterrence and denial. Remember that throughout history, every country that has denied its citizenry the permission to own weaponry has eventually abused and/or killed its citizenry. Humanity doesn't change very quickly, and for all our hand-wringing over human rights and wokeness and all that shit, we're all about 5 missed meals from total anarchy. Current administration aside, the actions of the conservative party have proven that there's still Americans in power that have zero interest in maintaining the status quo, and would prefer us to slide backwards into an era of hatred, bigotry, and abuse. For that reason, I prefer to have a weapon, if only so that I have an option available when the time comes, rather than being caged into a course of action by an overwhelming force. I have extra fucks to give, so I've chosen to give fucks about this.
 

dank69

Lifer
Oct 6, 2009
23,871
3,527
126
I saw a headline that said Tucker Carlson raved that a gun buyback program would trigger a civil war. So I would like to add another question to your list:

How does a voluntary gun buyback program violate the 2A?
 

SlowSpyder

Lifer
Jan 12, 2005
17,173
964
126
By absolutist I mean any change in gun regulations violates 2A rights.

Question: During the assault weapons ban from 1994-2004 how many citizens lost their 2A rights?

Question: How would enforcing a universal background check for all transfers prevent a citizen from exercising their 2A rights?

Question: How would limiting magazine size prevent a citizen from exercising their 2A rights.

BTW - slippery slope is not an answer because these are specific solutions. If someone proposes additional regulations then deal with that.

I'm not an absolutist based on your definition, but I'll give it a whirl.

Question: During the assault weapons ban from 1994-2004 how many citizens lost their 2A rights?
Technically every American citizen's rights were whittled away with that useless do nothing ban. Actions like that ban are why people like me are very skeptical to allowing more regulation. All that was done is lawful gun owners had rights taken away, meanwhile there was zero tangible affect on gun crimes.

Question: How would enforcing a universal background check for all transfers prevent a citizen from exercising their 2A rights?
I don't think it would, this is one of the few areas I side with the anti-2A'ers. Background checks on sales do not harm our rights and over time can help ensure some that shouldn't have guns will not be able to do so through plain legal channels. My ask is that those that cannot buy guns are put in that category following due process of law, not a red flag phone call that anyone can make and take away rights with. All that being said, criminals will always be able to get guns illegally. But, maybe we can stop some of the low hanging fruit here.

Question: How would limiting magazine size prevent a citizen from exercising their 2A rights.
You have decided that the slippery slope cannot apply here, for some reason. But, history shows that the left has been trying to whittle away gun rights for quite some time, and this would be just another step to that direction. First autos were already taken away, today semi-auto restrictions are being discussed, eventually it'll be repeating arms altogether. Also, I don't think magazine capacity limits will do much if anything to help with gun crimes. It is comically easy to add capacity to a magazine that has been artificially limited in most cases, and swapping a mag can literally be done in less than two seconds. It doesn't take lots of skill or training to be come very quick at reloading via external magazine. Also, having other loaded ready to fire guns on your person is plenty easy to pull off as well.
 

SlowSpyder

Lifer
Jan 12, 2005
17,173
964
126
I saw a headline that said Tucker Carlson raved that a gun buyback program would trigger a civil war. So I would like to add another question to your list:

How does a voluntary gun buyback program violate the 2A?

Gun buybacks often backfire. Gun buybacks will take pretty much any gun off the street. I personally know people that brought old crappy hunting rifles in, got their $500 gift card, and then went handgun shopping.
 

dank69

Lifer
Oct 6, 2009
23,871
3,527
126
Gun buybacks often backfire. Gun buybacks will take pretty much any gun off the street. I personally know people that brought old crappy hunting rifles in, got their $500 gift card, and then went handgun shopping.
That does not answer my question.
 

SlowSpyder

Lifer
Jan 12, 2005
17,173
964
126
That does not answer my question.

I guess I'd have to see the clip. Based on what you said alone, I don't see it sparking a civil war. A mandatory buy back? Who knows. There are many millions of us that are very staunch in our opinion, you're not taking our guns, a protected right in the Constitution.
 
  • Like
Reactions: hoorah

[DHT]Osiris

Diamond Member
Dec 15, 2015
5,439
1,628
116
I saw a headline that said Tucker Carlson raved that a gun buyback program would trigger a civil war. So I would like to add another question to your list:

How does a voluntary gun buyback program violate the 2A?
IMHO, it would not. If the govt wants to spend taxpayer dollars to buy back things it doesn't like people having, it's welcome to. I'll have some strong opinions (read: votes) regarding that though, as I'd prefer my tax dollars not go in that direction.

I also don't think it'd make an ounce of difference on shootings, suicide, accidental, or mass. It'd be the literal definition of a feel-good action.
 

dank69

Lifer
Oct 6, 2009
23,871
3,527
126
I guess I'd have to see the clip. Based on what you said alone, I don't see it sparking a civil war. A mandatory buy back? Who knows. There are many millions of us that are very staunch in our opinion, you're not taking our guns, a protected right in the Constitution.
This was the headline I saw:
https://www.yahoo.com/entertainment/tucker-carlson-claims-dems-calling-for-civil-war-with-gun-buyback-policy-070422203.html

I clicked it and it turns out he was talking about a mandatory assault weapon buyback policy. However, I would still like to know if a voluntary buyback program would violate the 2A.
 

Paratus

Lifer
Jun 4, 2004
13,092
4,706
146
I guess I'd have to see the clip. Based on what you said alone, I don't see it sparking a civil war. A mandatory buy back? Who knows. There are many millions of us that are very staunch in our opinion, you're not taking our guns, a protected right in the Constitution.
Lol. You said CLIP in a gun thread. It’s a video SEGMENT. No way anyone could take you seriously now. (Not that they did before :p )
 
  • Like
Reactions: purbeast0

MrSquished

Diamond Member
Jan 14, 2013
6,244
1,096
126
I guess I'd have to see the clip. Based on what you said alone, I don't see it sparking a civil war. A mandatory buy back? Who knows. There are many millions of us that are very staunch in our opinion, you're not taking our guns, a protected right in the Constitution.
Well Regulated. You guys have perverted the constitution to make up for your small wee wees.
 

vi edit

Elite Member
Super Moderator
Oct 28, 1999
60,001
2,804
126
Personal liability insurance on all firearms. Must be renewed annually. Can't sell a gun without proof of liability insurance to your state records. I can't transfer a car without proving it. Shouldn't be able to sell a gun without it either.

"Liability" tax on all ammo and parts required to case/refill your own. It will be indexed to the death toll and hospital costs of gun violence the previous year.

If we can't ban something, we can tax the shit out of it. It's the 'Murican way!
 

SlowSpyder

Lifer
Jan 12, 2005
17,173
964
126
This was the headline I saw:
https://www.yahoo.com/entertainment/tucker-carlson-claims-dems-calling-for-civil-war-with-gun-buyback-policy-070422203.html

I clicked it and it turns out he was talking about a mandatory assault weapon buyback policy. However, I would still like to know if a voluntary buyback program would violate the 2A.

I don't see how a voluntary program would be a problem. Gun owners are free to sell their gun to the government or private parties. If they're not forced to do so, I don't think it will be an issue.
 
  • Like
Reactions: pcgeek11

MrSquished

Diamond Member
Jan 14, 2013
6,244
1,096
126
"Well regulated" is pretty vague and can vary widely from person to person. But, you can't regulate without a gun.
It's informative enough to imply that the 2A is not a free for all to own guns willy nilly, which is how most of you hicks want it. But ignore that inconvenient fact. You guys don't give two shits about the constitution, it's all just a game so you can own your guns to make up for your small wee wees
 

SlowSpyder

Lifer
Jan 12, 2005
17,173
964
126
It's informative enough to imply that the 2A is not a free for all to own guns willy nilly, which is how most of you hicks want it. But ignore that inconvenient fact. You guys don't give two shits about the constitution, it's all just a game so you can own your guns to make up for your small wee wees

"...the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

Actually, the wording is pretty clear. Can't have a militia if no one is armed, then you just have a group of people, not a militia.

Also, as a gun owner and knowing the size of my own dick, I can tell you that you're either a liar or ignorant.
 

MrSquished

Diamond Member
Jan 14, 2013
6,244
1,096
126
"...the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

Actually, the wording is pretty clear. Can't have a militia if no one is armed, then you just have a group of people, not a militia.

Also, as a gun owner and knowing the size of my own dick, I can tell you that you're either a liar or ignorant.
Right to bear arms, within a well regulated context. It's pretty well laid out. Nobody said no guns, just within a well regulated context. But reading is not the strong point of the right. And also in the constitution slavery was permitted and women couldn't vote. Do you want us to go back to those days or do you feel the constitution is fallible?
 

SlowSpyder

Lifer
Jan 12, 2005
17,173
964
126
Right to bear arms, within a well regulated context. It's pretty well laid out. Nobody said no guns, just within a well regulated context. But reading is not the strong point of the right. And also in the constitution slavery was permitted and women couldn't vote. Do you want us to go back to those days or do you feel the constitution is fallible?
I feel we are well regulated.

Of course the constitution isn't the word of some perfect god, it is an attempt by some people to codify rights and our form of government. Part of that, as it is written, is that gun ownership is an individual right. Our country was forged out of backlash against a tyrannical government. It shouldn't be a surprise that the founders wouldn't want a situation where the government can oppress citizens. We aren't Hong Kong.
 
  • Like
Reactions: pcgeek11

MrSquished

Diamond Member
Jan 14, 2013
6,244
1,096
126
I feel we are well regulated.

Of course the constitution isn't the word of some perfect god, it is an attempt by some people to codify rights and our form of government. Part of that, as it is written, is that gun ownership is an individual right. Our country was forged out of backlash against a tyrannical government. It shouldn't be a surprise that the founders wouldn't want a situation where the government can oppress citizens. We aren't Hong Kong.
well then we should start selling bazookas and anti-personnel mines to the people, plus artillery. after all the right to bear arms shall not be infringed and in order to overthrow a modern government you are gonna need some of those.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Meghan54 and dank69

dank69

Lifer
Oct 6, 2009
23,871
3,527
126
I feel we are well regulated.

Of course the constitution isn't the word of some perfect god, it is an attempt by some people to codify rights and our form of government. Part of that, as it is written, is that gun ownership is an individual right. Our country was forged out of backlash against a tyrannical government. It shouldn't be a surprise that the founders wouldn't want a situation where the government can oppress citizens. We aren't Hong Kong.
The government could suppress the shit out of you and everyone else anytime they please, and there is nothing you or anyone else with guns could do about it.
 

dank69

Lifer
Oct 6, 2009
23,871
3,527
126
well then we should start selling bazookas and anti-personnel mines to the people, plus artillery. after all the right to bear arms shall not be infringed and in order to overthrow a modern government you are gonna need some of those.
I'll take a few Predators while we are at it.
 

[DHT]Osiris

Diamond Member
Dec 15, 2015
5,439
1,628
116
The government could suppress the shit out of you and everyone else anytime they please, and there is nothing you or anyone else with guns could do about it.
The fact we're currently negotiating with the Taliban proves otherwise. Barring incredibly advanced future-tech (like drones with lasers kind of shit), guerrilla warfare can still starve out modern armed forces.
 
  • Like
Reactions: rommelrommel

SlowSpyder

Lifer
Jan 12, 2005
17,173
964
126
The government could suppress the shit out of you and everyone else anytime they please, and there is nothing you or anyone else with guns could do about it.

I can't say I agree. All that it'd take is the populace to revolt on a sizable scale. Try and take our guns, you might just see. And all this talk the anti-2A'ers bring up about how the government would win for sure, I think you're looking at things all wrong. The government certainly has more capable hardware than the average citizens, an AR15 is nice and all, but it isn't a F22. But, asking the military to drop bombs on their fellow citizens within our borders is a whole different task than dropping bombs over the mideast. You very well could see a large chunk of the military side with the revolting populace.

Plainly said, anyone that says they know that the populace would be crushed by the government in a civil war situation today is projecting what they would want to happen, not necessarily what would happen. Did you see how Vietnam went? Bunch of people with guns in the jungle vs. the almighty USA and overwhelming firepower.
 
  • Like
Reactions: hoorah

ASK THE COMMUNITY