The Second Amendment must go

[Harabec]

Would you happen to have a better photo of that rooster?

 

[wetech]

When the right says to round up and deport 11m illegal immigrants, the left says, that's impossible, and there will be violence. Now the left wants to round up 270m guns.... that's sure to go well.

 

[theeedude]

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/...s-assault-weapons-semiautomatic-ban/73817344/

WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court refused Monday to hear a challenge to a Chicago suburb's ban on semiautomatic "assault" weapons, an indication that a majority of justices feel such bans are constitutional or should be left up to state and local governments.

Only Thomas and Alito wanted to hear the challenge.

 

[Ackmed]

Agreed. We need to ban guns and the sooner the better. It is a bloodfest here in Milwaukee with over 125 dead this year of which nearly all were gun homicides.

This is hilariously funny. I hope you are being sarcastic.

 

[glenn1]

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/...s-assault-weapons-semiautomatic-ban/73817344/


Only Thomas and Alito wanted to hear the challenge.

SCOTUS is only able to hear a limited amount of cases each year. I think most of these types of laws are stupid and shouldn't exist but given the near infinite amount of cases the court *could* choose to review I don't know if I'd necessarily prioritize this either. Given the favorable rulings lately in DC v. Heller and also McDonald v Chicago, the court may not see the need to dip into this same subject again.

 

[NesuD]

In real practice I always find this argument hilarious....and delusional.

If the gvt had a reason to "go against someone", do you think that them owning guns would stop them? Do you think that in a hypothetical scenario of a clash of "the people" vs. "the government" the people have a chance, even with them owning guns?
(For me this is as delusional as the random serial killer/criminal barricading themselves in a house with guns, standing against SWAT teams, thinking he would "win" in a stand-off). The "security" that guns would give someone "against a bad government" only exists in those people's heads, it's not real.

Ah a Shill for our despotic overlords has outed himself. ;-)

 

[NesuD]

serious question: how would people go hunting if guns were illegal?

Spears? But then we would need background checks to purchase things like conduit and flat blade stock.

 

[waggy]

Remington 700s are awesome rifles. Very impressive. The real difference in our rifles though is the $800 gold ring Leupold scope on mine. It is a world changer. That scope on that rifle makes hunting a joke, just too damn easy. Always preferred bows to guns. I have taken about 30 deer in my life and only 5 of them were with a gun.

I always preferred bow hunting over rifle. not because the rifle makes it to easy but because its a lot quieter. Those guns are fucking loud!

During bow season its great just sitting in the tree.

 

[bshole]

This is hilariously funny. I hope you are being sarcastic.

About the 125 dead? No, that is absolutely true and it is not in the least bit funny. We could set a record for the most homicides ever in Milwaukee and we already set a new record for homicides per capita. Milwaukee is a very unsafe place to live right now.

 

[OverVolt]

Archery is something I've always wanted to do. Sounds way more fun.

 

[Londo_Jowo]

I prefer bow hunting as well. I also would not hesitate to use a bow in self defense either.

 

[Ackmed]

About the 125 dead? No, that is absolutely true and it is not in the least bit funny. We could set a record for the most homicides ever in Milwaukee and we already set a new record for homicides per capita. Milwaukee is a very unsafe place to live right now.

No, 125 dead is not funny. It is a tragedy. What is funny is that you think the 2nd Amendment has to go. And that you seem to think it will make all murders stop.

 

[bshole]

No, 125 dead is not funny. It is a tragedy. What is funny is that you think the 2nd Amendment has to go. And that you seem to think it will make all murders stop.

Oh that. My opinion is that more restrictive gun laws will do nothing. There are only two ways to really overcome it. One is to ban guns altogether like in Japan. That way will EVENTUALLY have a dramatic impact on gun violence. The other way is to have many more highly paid unskilled jobs. Currently less than half of African American males in Milwaukee have jobs. That is a huge problem and directly impacts the gun murder rate.

I would of course prefer the second option but that ship appears to have sailed forever. The era of high-paying unskilled labor was a unique event in American history.

I am not aware of many other alternatives out there other than throwing even more people in prison. I believe that we have the highest incarceration rate in the world and that option is enormously expensive.

I could be all wrong, this is just my opinion after all.

 

[theeedude]

SCOTUS is only able to hear a limited amount of cases each year. I think most of these types of laws are stupid and shouldn't exist but given the near infinite amount of cases the court *could* choose to review I don't know if I'd necessarily prioritize this either. Given the favorable rulings lately in DC v. Heller and also McDonald v Chicago, the court may not see the need to dip into this same subject again.

The assault weapons bans stand in the meantime. And a conservative majority isn't forever.

 

[Ackmed]

Oh that. My opinion is that more restrictive gun laws will do nothing. There are only two ways to really overcome it. One is to ban guns altogether like in Japan. That way will EVENTUALLY have a dramatic impact on gun violence. The other way is to have many more highly paid unskilled jobs. Currently less than half of African American males in Milwaukee have jobs. That is a huge problem and directly impacts the gun murder rate.

I would of course prefer the second option but that ship appears to have sailed forever. The era of high-paying unskilled labor was a unique event in American history.

I am not aware of many other alternatives out there other than throwing even more people in prison. I believe that we have the highest incarceration rate in the world and that option is enormously expensive.

I could be all wrong, this is just my opinion after all.

I think your second point is far better, and I tend to agree with the premise of it. Fixing the root of the problem is the better option, but sadly it is not that easy. The problem you highlighted is nationwide, with some areas worse than others. It would be easy to go down a rabbit hole about it, but no sense really. Nobody has been able to come up with anything that just magically fixes it. It would take years and years, hopefully we get there one day. Just my opinion too.

 

[HumblePie]

The assault weapons bans stand in the meantime. And a conservative majority isn't forever.

You mean the military styled rifle ban stands. Because so long as it isn't black and tactical scary it isn't banned.

 

[glenn1]

The assault weapons bans stand in the meantime. And a conservative majority isn't forever.

Lots of undesirable laws stand for want of a SCOTUS review. However, I recognize there's a distinction between dumb/undesirable and completely unconstitutional laws, plus feel local/state voters should be given some degree of deference in what laws they voluntarily choose to live under. For me this ban falls into a category of laws that are odious and I would oppose but still not necessarily unconstitutional on their face like targeted abortion laws (e.g. 'admitting privileges') or use of eminent domain (like Kelo v. New London).

To me a close analogue of this law would be the attempted ban on 'partial birth abortion.' Like that case, the difference between assault vs. hunting rifle and partial birth vs. 'normal' abortion are mainly ones of semantics. And likewise in both the proposed ban is simply the one side just taking whatever it could get since they couldn't eliminate outright all guns/abortions.

 

[BurnItDwn]

I am very liberal on most topics, and I strongly support gun control that will help to prevent dangerous criminals from getting their hands on guns, but, law abiding citizens should absolutely continue to have the right to arm and defend themselves, as well as go hunting, or go plinking, or do as they please provided they do not threaten, harm, or otherwise harass the unarmed people.

 

[Suspicious-Teach8788]

While this is a very extremist title, I will admit that I don't think you'll see a downtick in weapons violence due to any kind of gun control that's being proposed.

The really only way to start decreasing shooting incidents is for the government to take all your weapons. Now that clearly won't fly, so we're stuck at an impasse.

While I'm pro 2nd amendment, I will also admit that owning and carrying a gun really doesn't benefit much of society today besides being a hobbyist of guns or using them for actual hunting.

 

[HumblePie]

While this is a very extremist title, I will admit that I don't think you'll see a downtick in weapons violence due to any kind of gun control that's being proposed.

The really only way to start decreasing shooting incidents is for the government to take all your weapons. Now that clearly won't fly, so we're stuck at an impasse.

While I'm pro 2nd amendment, I will also admit that owning and carrying a gun really doesn't benefit much of society today besides being a hobbyist of guns or using them for actual hunting.

Most gun owners tend to live in rural areas or high violence areas. Of which there are several practical daily applications for those kinds of gun owners. The average person that lives in a mostly safe town with little violence, crime, or drug problems won't have a daily need to own a gun beyond as you said being a hobbiest. Just because many people in safe city USA don't have a daily need to own a gun doesn't mean squat to the rest of America.

 

[ivwshane]

When the right says to round up and deport 11m illegal immigrants, the left says, that's impossible, and there will be violence. Now the left wants to round up 270m guns.... that's sure to go well.

Excellent straw man!

 

[SP33Demon]

Oh that. My opinion is that more restrictive gun laws will do nothing. There are only two ways to really overcome it. One is to ban guns altogether like in Japan. That way will EVENTUALLY have a dramatic impact on gun violence. The other way is to have many more highly paid unskilled jobs. Currently less than half of African American males in Milwaukee have jobs. That is a huge problem and directly impacts the gun murder rate.

I would of course prefer the second option but that ship appears to have sailed forever. The era of high-paying unskilled labor was a unique event in American history.

I am not aware of many other alternatives out there other than throwing even more people in prison. I believe that we have the highest incarceration rate in the world and that option is enormously expensive.

I could be all wrong, this is just my opinion after all.

It's easy, open more prisons, throw half of them in there and hire the other half to work for the prison. Use half of them for cheap labor contracts. Profit.

 

[SP33Demon]

The assault weapons bans stand in the meantime. And a conservative majority isn't forever.

And a liberal president isn't forever.

 

[Hugo Drax]

What about a middle ground. Limit the household to 50,000 rounds and 30 guns/rifles?

Anything more and it would be suspect.

 

[BurnItDwn]

What about a middle ground. Limit the household to 50,000 rounds and 30 guns/rifles?

Anything more and it would be suspect.

Im not sure I agree with this. If somebody is a collector and wants to have 75 guns that should be OK, they just need to be locked up so that some random burglar doesnt have easy access to smash and grab them.

Now, a limit on ammo might not be too bad of an idea, but I dont want to touch that with a 10 foot pole.