I have questions for 2A absolutists

[HomerJS]

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.

So far I'm not seeing a denial of 2A in any of the questions, its all about any restrictions being considered erosion.

Same argument could have been made when automatic weapons were banned. One of the strictest 2A people Antonin Scalia said in the Heller decision government restricting certain type of firearms is within the bounds of 2A rights.

 

[Sunburn74]

Guns don't make people safer. Cops don't feel safer she they pull you over and you tell the you're armed. People don't feel safer when you realize someone in the room is packing heat. It's a fallacy to believe that. Every study on this topic shows: the more guns are around the more violence is around them.

 

[SlowSpyder]

But banning AR15's, mag capacity limits, etc. are letting the headlines lead over the facts.

 

[pcgeek11]

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!

Like a poll tax?

 

[Sunburn74]

Like a poll tax?

This has been discussed in other threads. In summary, taxes on weapons are legal. Either you can tax them or you can't and we currently tax them. However if you tax them too much it may be seen as restrictive by some judges though it's not clear that will stand up in the SCOTUS due to broad powers for taxation in the government as long as there is a credible and reasonable explanation for the high tax rate (ie to cover the related government expenses for the related issues like deaths and hospitalizations)
Poll taxes are illegal due to an amendment being passed.

 

[dainthomas]

I've actually said exactly that a few times on this forum, when these topics come up. I personally think we actually do have reasonable regulations on firearms, and I personally accept gun violence as a cost of our freedoms. That's not something shared by basically anyone I know, so I accept that I'm an outlier on that.

I do think that many people are cowards, but I don't think it has any specific correlation to gun ownership or not.

Good for you admitting that. Although human beings naturally believe statistics don't apply to them. It's reasonable to assume that at least subconsciously you believe the cost won't be borne by anyone you love.

 

[[DHT]Osiris]

This has been discussed in other threads. In summary, taxes on weapons are legal. Either you can tax them or you can't and we currently tax them.

I wonder if it would be possible to codify the worship of the 2A/firearms and officially make them tax exempt? /ponder

 

[Sunburn74]

I wonder if it would be possible to codify the worship of the 2A/firearms and officially make them tax exempt? /ponder

Again with voting an amendment was added to do just that. We do however currently tax guns (sales tax) and can modify that as needed for legitimate purposes with the key word being legitimate.

 

[[DHT]Osiris]

Good for you admitting that. Although human beings naturally believe statistics don't apply to them. It's reasonable to assume that at least subconsciously you believe the cost won't be borne by anyone you love.

I cannot make guarantees about such situations since I'm only human, but I hope that my opinions on this matter wouldn't change even if it affected me or someone I love. I know that on at least one occasion a firearm has saved the life/well-being of a loved one, and I've either witnessed first-hand or through knowledge the evils that can be perpetrated by both individuals and governments. So far that's been enough for me to defend 2A rights. Maybe that'll change if my nephews get gunned down hiding under a desk in school.

Edit: Note that I do believe statistics apply to me, I also understand statistics, and I know there's a few hundred things that I and my loved ones are more likely to die from than a firearm. I also acknowledge that the chances of being oppressed by a government/large body of humans is pretty minimal, but I feel that if I'm going to irrationally care about an event that's not likely to happen, I should irrationally care about the more serious one.

 

[pcgeek11]

I'm glad you can admit guns contribute to gun violence.

I certainly don't see any leading Republican 2a absolutists having the balls to say the violence is an acceptable exchange for our freedumbs. A couple anonymous keyboard warriors on the internet doesn't really say much of anything.

How could Guns NOT Contribute to Gun Violence?

 

[dainthomas]

How could Guns NOT Contribute to Gun Violence?

Don't let the NRA/Trump hear you. It's only a mental health issue. That only the United States has.

Just as many people would be killed if they had knives, clubs, nunchucks, or whatever. Which is why the army long ago decided to get rid of guns since these other weapons are cheaper and just as effective.

 

[glenn1]

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.

No 2A supporter is an "absolutist" anymore than folks who support any other right. That being said your questions imply an inherent belief that limiting rights is the natural and prudent thing to do, and people should need to explain why the rights should not be limited. The Bill of Rights is clearly meant to put the situation the other way around, where the government needs to present a clear and "beyond a reasonable doubt" reason why a right needs to be limited. Sure you could impose any of those things from background checks to magazine size limits, but think about (1) why you're doing them, (2) how those measures could be defeated and (3) whether they're more just to burden the law abiding then actually achieve some quantifiable goal. And think about your "success criteria" in a fair minded way where you consider both the benefits AND costs - for example the TRAP laws (Targeted Restrictions on Abortion Providers) may provide some vanishing level of additional "safety" by mandating hospital admitting privileges for abortion providers, but how much do they REALLY make women safer compared to the expense and loss of access?

With the above said, I empathize with folks who have little familiarity with firearms, zero desire to own one, and wish they'd simply go away. But realize others do, and simply explaining to a bear why it shouldn't eat you isn't a substitute for a large caliber long gun to defend yourself against one while in the wilds of Alaska. Or competitive target shooters. Or any of the other countless reasons why folks own firearms that don't involve targeting @HomerJS in a mass shooting anymore than folks can be transgender and not target @glenn1 for sexual assault in a restroom. Or whatever else you can come up with.

 

[SlowSpyder]

How could Guns NOT Contribute to Gun Violence?

I hear pools contribute to drownings. Brilliant, isn't it?

 

[Moonbeam]

Perhaps the Democrats need a new 2020 campaign promise: "A chicken in every pot and a car with a musket in it's boot in every backyard"

 

[pcgeek11]

I hear pools contribute to drownings. Brilliant, isn't it?

It is amazing!

Maybe we should ban pools.

 

[[DHT]Osiris]

Perhaps the Democrats need a new 2020 campaign promise: "A chicken in every pot and a car with a musket in it's boot in every backyard"

I'd prefer 'an end to political shitfits, and a newfound focus on domestic policies which benefit the lowest, and the majority'.

 

[vi edit]

It is amazing!

Maybe we should ban pools.

If a homeowner has a pool their homeowners insurance goes up and they are heavily encouraged to purchase additional liability insurance. Just saying...

 

[[DHT]Osiris]

If a homeowner has a pool their homeowners insurance goes up and they are heavily encouraged to purchase additional liability insurance. Just saying...

Some states (like mine, NY) also have regulatory requirements for pools, that are ever increasing. I think starting this year? they require motion sensors/some kind of monitor/alarm to let people know if a kid fell in.

 

[Moonbeam]

No 2A supporter is an "absolutist" anymore than folks who support any other right. That being said your questions imply an inherent belief that limiting rights is the natural and prudent thing to do, and people should need to explain why the rights should not be limited. The Bill of Rights is clearly meant to put the situation the other way around, where the government needs to present a clear and "beyond a reasonable doubt" reason why a right needs to be limited. Sure you could impose any of those things from background checks to magazine size limits, but think about (1) why you're doing them, (2) how those measures could be defeated and (3) whether they're more just to burden the law abiding then actually achieve some quantifiable goal. And think about your "success criteria" in a fair minded way where you consider both the benefits AND costs - for example the TRAP laws (Targeted Restrictions on Abortion Providers) may provide some vanishing level of additional "safety" by mandating hospital admitting privileges for abortion providers, but how much do they REALLY make women safer compared to the expense and loss of access?

With the above said, I empathize with folks who have little familiarity with firearms, zero desire to own one, and wish they'd simply go away. But realize others do, and simply explaining to a bear why it shouldn't eat you isn't a substitute for a large caliber long gun to defend yourself against one while in the wilds of Alaska. Or competitive target shooters. Or any of the other countless reasons why folks own firearms that don't involve targeting @HomerJS in a mass shooting anymore than folks can be transgender and not target @glenn1 for sexual assault in a restroom. Or whatever else you can come up with.

You are right. People like me who love guns for what I see as masterpieces of craft and engineering and wish I could own a huge collection of them and wish too I had my own private range to plink on, we have to die so that terrified mothers can feel safe taking their kids to school. You don't have to fear yourself to suffer from fear, the fear of others, but it is inevitable that we must. If my country says I can no longer have guns then so be it. I would not survive in a jungle alone and those are also vanishing. But then Death takes it all anyway. Good practice, I guess.

Among the founding principles of our revolution was the right of the people to institute government as they saw fit to secure in part their state of happiness and so no guns if that's what makes them happy.

 

[glenn1]

Some states (like mine, NY) also have regulatory requirements for pools, that are ever increasing. I think starting this year? they require motion sensors/some kind of monitor/alarm to let people know if a kid fell in.

Maybe we should outlaw "assault pools" since they're so deadly. Maybe background checks before folks are allowed to purchase them.

 

[[DHT]Osiris]

You are right. People like me who love guns for what I see as masterpieces of craft and engineering and wish I could own a huge collection of them and wish too I had my own private range to plink on, we have to die so that terrified mothers can feel safe taking their kids to school. You don't have to fear yourself to suffer from fear, the fear of others, but it is inevitable that we must. If my country says I can no longer have guns then so be it. I would not survive in a jungle alone and those are also vanishing. But then Death takes it all anyway. Good practice, I guess.

Is it a requirement for every few generations to face something truly horrifying that renews their fear of others, and the death and destruction those others bring? Why do we not have the capacity to establish a steady-state of learning from our past and not repeating it? Why must our fear of oppression fade, and why must our government's fear of its people fade?

 

[[DHT]Osiris]

Maybe we should outlaw "assault pools" since they're so deadly. Maybe background checks before folks are allowed to purchase them.

Cute, but if guns only killed people by accident they'd be regulated in the same way, with mandatory locks and/or gun safes, maybe some other measures. This would be an allegory to pool fences, pool covers, pool motion detectors, and whatever other newfangled doodads they have for pools.

As for me, I just filled our pool full of dirt to plant stuff. Rather deal with weeds than fines, taxes, and paperwork.

 

[Moonbeam]

In the fourth grade I begin to design weapons of mass destruction, some of which we later actually created and some not yet achieved, and all because I was insecure and wanted to feel safe. I figured if I could just destroy the other I would be safe. But then it occurred to me this is toxic crazy and I put away my drawings and I saw them for the first time in years and years just the other day. Weapons and their magnetic ability to make you feel safe. It's a disease that's hard to shake. And what an ego rush............. How proud one can be of a weapon that can destroy the world. One of the stresses of growing up military, I guess, is the fear a long absent parent will never come home. We so want to be loved.

 

[Jhhnn]

Yes, people I've spoke to on gun forums in the past have said this and one person I've gone shooting with before traded in his gun at a buyback outside of Chicago, he told me he got $500 for one of his old rifles. If I remember correctly he put that money towards a higher end 1911.

Yeh, you went from people you know to some guy you went shooting with long, long ago & the usual bullshit found on gun forums.

Anybody can get an idea of what a gun is worth by using their fucking cellphone. Gun buybacks are run by cops. They know guns. They generally won't pay too much because they'll run out of funds before they run out of people willing to sell & because they want guns off the street. What a shocker, huh?

 

[pcgeek11]

If a homeowner has a pool their homeowners insurance goes up and they are heavily encouraged to purchase additional liability insurance. Just saying...

Having a pool isn't a right.

Just saying.