who should we not allow to buy guns

[Artdeco]

So I got to thinking, what exactly constitutes a "well-regulated militia"? The left loves to point out that verbiage.

First thought is of course a group with a formal chain of command, etc. But that would be more the army or national guard. But that's more an issue of chain of command.

It occurred to me that well-regulated can simply refer to a group of folks that aim to defend the constitution. They are regulated because they abide by rights granted within. Therefore they are simply law abiding citizens...assuming the government hasn't written laws crippling our rights.

Thoughts?

It seems that the system has failed us, the FBI is afraid of being considered racist when interviewing Muslims than our legislators are of abridging our constitutional rights.

But you're right, the second is written the way it is to preclude exactly what the left wants to do.

I guess a closeted bisexual extremist wife beating, murdering Muslim trumps the second Ammendment, terrorists win, let's make the whole country a gun free zone.

Seriously, what the hell kind of logic is that?

Obama and the left's threats have literally blown gun sales through the roof over the last 8 years.

 

[Paladin3]

So I got to thinking, what exactly constitutes a "well-regulated militia"? The left loves to point out that verbiage.

First thought is of course a group with a formal chain of command, etc. But that would be more the army or national guard. But that's more an issue of chain of command.

It occurred to me that well-regulated can simply refer to a group of folks that aim to defend the constitution. They are regulated because they abide by rights granted within. Therefore they are simply law abiding citizens...assuming the government hasn't written laws crippling our rights.

Thoughts?

I think THIS video by Penn and Teller sums up the 2nd Amendment pretty well. The commas separating "the right of the people to keep and bare arms shall not be infringed" from the rest of the amendment make it clear that it is a complete idea granting that right to the people, not people in a militia.

Please ignore the propaganda at the end of the video linked. It was the only copy I could find.

 

[xgsound]

So I got to thinking, what exactly constitutes a "well-regulated militia"? The left loves to point out that verbiage.

First thought is of course a group with a formal chain of command, etc. But that would be more the army or national guard. But that's more an issue of chain of command.

It occurred to me that well-regulated can simply refer to a group of folks that aim to defend the constitution. They are regulated because they abide by rights granted within. Therefore they are simply law abiding citizens...assuming the government hasn't written laws crippling our rights.

Thoughts?

It was always my understanding that at the time "well regulated militia" meant people who could hit what they're aiming at when called upon.

Jim

 

[Svnla]

So your contention is that once something is legal it is never reasonable to reconsider and change course? There is nothing enshrined in the constitution that sais you are allowed to buy an assault rifle and not a hand grenade, so obviously it is up to lawmakers to decide what weapons are reasonable for the populace to possess, and they should be able to change course if the situation dictates. We do not have a problem with murder by howitzer's in this country because we don't allow ANYONE to buy them. Isn't a howitzer just a really large bore rifle? Surely you dont think howitzer restrictions are reasonable just because of what a relatively few number of bad actors would do with them, right?

See, now you are double down on being obstute, and playing dumb, and putting your own words into my mouth.

Nothing in the Constitution that states you could say freely on the internet, on the cell phone, on texting, social media, chat, and on and on because those things did NOT exist when the Constitution was created (just as the AR15s were not created back then) but we do have that freedom of 1A right now, right? And of course, you can't just use 1A to say anything you want such as yelling "fire" in a crowed movie theater or advocating violence to overthrow the US government or attack any members of lawmakers. Just as you can't just buy anything under the sun such as howitzer, RGP, tanks with full load of weapons, or jets with all of their missiles and bombs, etc. by using the 2A. Do you see my points yet?

As I said before in this thread and other threads, why Swiss and Israel have more guns per capita than the US yet they do not have mass shootings problem? Why there are more mass shootings in Mexico and Brazil even guns are restricted there? Why AR15s and their cousins have been around for civilians since the 60s/70s but we did not have any mass shooting by people using those guns until recently, why is that? Funny how you guys that advocate guns restriction "forgot" to mention any of that.

 

[Paladin3]

Firstly, very few people would advocate banning guns outright and going door to door to round them up. If I had some magic genie that could make them all disappear in an instant I absolutely would, but I obviously dont. It is going to take a generational long effort to tackle this problem in America. However, this endless cycle of needing your guns because criminals have guns, who only have their guns because you need your guns, has to stop. It's an endless escalation that would seem to eventually result in every citizen walking around packing heat. Is that the kind of society you want? Are we just going to wait this problem out until humans are perfect and never have a desire to harm each other?

First you say that you don't want to ban guns outright. Then you say that the "endless escalation" needs to stop. What exactly does that mean?

The AR-15 was introduced in 1959 and the AK-47 in 1946. The first semi-auto firearms date back to 1885. It's not like today's semi-auto weapons are any more deadly than they were 50+ years ago. What exactly is escalating that we need to stop? You can't say that you don't want to outright ban guns, then imply that law abiding citizens needing guns needs to stop.

And you vastly underestimate how traditional gun ownership is. Guns are passed down from generation to generation. I just gave a pistol my father owned to my daughter. She's very proud to own something from her grandfather. I'm going to take her deer hunting for the first time this fall. Do you think any law, especially one that is so contradictory to deep seeded values many of us hold dear, would ever trump (no pun intended) such a tradition and belief.

Yes, for many of us, you would have to go door to door and confiscate our guns. I sure know my kids aren't going to turn in my guns just because you want them. Neither are their children. And since we feel so strongly about personal gun ownership, how are you even going to get such a draconian law passed? We vote just like everyone else does.

And this is just us gun owners we are talking about. How do you get criminals to turn in their guns? You can't, so what you are propose would disarm law abiding gun owners only.

So don't say you don't want to ban guns, but somehow we must stop criminals from having them and law abiding citizens from needing them. It's just not something you can do in a free and democratic society when the personal gun ownership is guaranteed by our constitution.

 

[adairusmc]

 

[Zodiark1593]

Which is illegal.

Not the point I was trying to get across. You certainly think in the box quite well though,

Law merely provides for a consequence. Nothing more, and nothing less. If I were to suddenly decide that the benefit of converting my rifle to full-auto outweighs the potential risk of consequence from the law, then...

a) the only barrier would therefore be the knowledge, easily remedied by (literally) anyone via a quick internet search,

and

b) the law becomes nothing more to me than a statement on a piece of paper that I chose to disregard.


The law is utterly meaningless unless it were taken for an absolute truth (which luckily many happen to). Unless there were technical means of preventing a law from being broken (or making it difficult), then I am merely a whim away from committing numerous felonies, as is anyone else here for that matter.

 

[pontifex]

Not the point I was trying to get across. You certainly think in the box quite well though,

Law merely provides for a consequence. Nothing more, and nothing less. If I were to suddenly decide that the benefit of converting my rifle to full-auto outweighs the potential risk of consequence from the law, then...

a) the only barrier would therefore be the knowledge, easily remedied by (literally) anyone via a quick internet search,

and

b) the law becomes nothing more to me than a statement on a piece of paper that I chose to disregard.


The law is utterly meaningless unless it were taken for an absolute truth (which luckily many happen to). Unless there were technical means of preventing a law from being broken (or making it difficult), then I am merely a whim away from committing numerous felonies, as is anyone else here for that matter.

Whoa! Did an antigunner just realize that more laws wont make a difference?

 

[pontifex]

Haha this is what i said earlier.

 

[sdifox]

Hopefully with the demographic shift the NRA can be curtailed. Fucking racist organization with Teg Nugent on the board.

 

[NutBucket]

What's wrong with Uncle Ted? He (and most NRA folks) aren't racist.

 

[pontifex]

Hopefully with the demographic shift the NRA can be curtailed. Fucking racist organization with Teg Nugent on the board.

posts like yours are hilarious

how is the NRA racist? I didn't know racist organizations allowed minorities on their board of directors or allowed minorities to become members?

Do minorities like to join racist organizations?

 

[Artdeco]

Hopefully with the demographic shift the NRA can be curtailed. Fucking racist organization with Teg Nugent on the board.

Seriously, WTF are you talking about?

Uncle Ted isn't racist as far as I know.

 

[Fritzo]

The problem with this analogy is the cake has to keep getting larger and larger.

 

[Fritzo]

What's wrong with Uncle Ted? He (and most NRA folks) aren't racist.

Ted is definitely not racist, but WOW are his views out there. If we had his way, we'd all be living in compounds and no meat would be sold in stores---if you want it you have to kill it.

 

[Kwatt]

What's wrong with Uncle Ted? He (and most NRA folks) aren't racist.

Against gun control = racist and/or terrorist.


Try to keep up...

.

 

[sdifox]

Seriously, WTF are you talking about?

Uncle Ted isn't racist as far as I know.

Were these quotes fabricated? Educate me if so

http://mediamatters.org/blog/2014/02/21/here-are-13-other-repugnant-comments-ted-nugent/198174

https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Ted_Nugent

http://www.politico.com/gallery/state-of-the-union-2013-ted-nugents-10-wildest-quotes?slide=0

 

[Artdeco]

Were these quotes fabricated? Educate me if so

http://mediamatters.org/blog/2014/02/21/here-are-13-other-repugnant-comments-ted-nugent/198174

https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Ted_Nugent

http://www.politico.com/gallery/state-of-the-union-2013-ted-nugents-10-wildest-quotes?slide=0

Well, one could argue he's exercising his 1st Ammendment rights, and honestly, I don't find that stuff racist.

And what he says is nothing compared to moderate Islamic beliefs.

 

[Fritzo]

I just think it's funny that those same people that are so quick to to paint every Muslim as a terrorist get butt hurt when they paint every gun owner in a negative light. Not every Muslim is a terrorist, not every gun owner is a murderer, but if you're gonna paint broad strokes, they can do that against you too.

I don't think it's so much guns or Muslims, it's the fact there are war-grade weapons freely available for anyone to obtain: terrorist or not. Guns are fine, but if a gun owner suddenly goes into a rage, that person has access to an instrument designed to instantly kill someone. This happens daily. We live with it.

HOWEVER

With war-grade weapons freely available, if that same person goes into a rage, dozens---potentially even 100's of people can die in seconds. There is absolutely NO reason high capacity rapid fire weapons should be available to the public.

Home protection: handguns/rifles are just as effective
Hunting: same
Government invasion: Governments have tanks, drones, and missiles. Long guns are only good against soft targets. If you live in paranoia about some kind of dystopian takeover, your AR-15 isn't going to help much.

What exactly is the cut-off for weapons anyway?
I can't own a nuclear weapon - it can kill too many people all at once
I can't own a chemical weapon - it can kill to many people all at once
I can't own a tank - it can kill too many people all at once
I can't own a machine gun - it can too kill too many people all at once
I can't own a hand grenade - it can kill too many people all at once
I CAN own a long gun with up to a 100 round capacity - it can kill too many people all at once

Not much logic here.

 

[Fritzo]

Were these quotes fabricated? Educate me if so

http://mediamatters.org/blog/2014/02/21/here-are-13-other-repugnant-comments-ted-nugent/198174

https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Ted_Nugent

http://www.politico.com/gallery/state-of-the-union-2013-ted-nugents-10-wildest-quotes?slide=0

He's nuts, for sure. However, he's also good friends with a lot of musicians from all over the world. It's hard to filter what he says/does for shock value and what he actually believes. He is an entertainer after all.

 

[Artdeco]

I don't think it's so much guns or Muslims, it's the fact there are war-grade weapons freely available for anyone to obtain: terrorist or not. Guns are fine, but if a gun owner suddenly goes into a rage, that person has access to an instrument designed to instantly kill someone. This happens daily. We live with it.

HOWEVER

With war-grade weapons freely available, if that same person goes into a rage, dozens---potentially even 100's of people can die in seconds. There is absolutely NO reason high capacity rapid fire weapons should be available to the public.

Home protection: handguns/rifles are just as effective
Hunting: same
Government invasion: Governments have tanks, drones, and missiles. Long guns are only good against soft targets. If you live in paranoia about some kind of dystopian takeover, your AR-15 isn't going to help much.

What exactly is the cut-off for weapons anyway?
I can't own a nuclear weapon - it can kill too many people all at once
I can't own a chemical weapon - it can kill to many people all at once
I can't own a tank - it can kill too many people all at once
I can't own a machine gun - it can too kill too many people all at once
I can't own a hand grenade - it can kill too many people all at once
I CAN own a long gun with up to a 100 round capacity - it can kill too many people all at once

Not much logic here.

Soooo, to play the devil's advocate here, how many rounds can I have in a detachable magazine?

 

[sdifox]

Well, one could argue he's exercising his 1st Ammendment rights, and honestly, I don't find that stuff racist.

And what he says is nothing compared to moderate Islamic beliefs.

Threatening POTUS is a class E felony.

 

[Artdeco]

Threatening POTUS is a class E felony.

Tell the SS, not me

PSA, our CIC has done more for the gun industry sales figures than any president in history.

 

[Muse]

The last part was lazy. a talking point. I should have written that I do not like knee jerk reactionary legislation to any issue. We keep having our rights eroded in an effort to increase safety. That legislation finds its momentum in tragedies like 9-11 and O-town.

The utterly intractable opposition, when large enough a group, is important during these moments. Even if their position is drastic and unreasonable, dragging out any equally drastic and unreasonable reaction helps preserve existing rights long enough for cooler heads to usually prevail.

I am among those that think we can improve on our current firearms legislation. Without punishing law abiding citizens in the process. Though many of the most vociferous opponents of that legislation equate inconvenience with punishment. Turning the whole thing into a shit show. However, their being so intractable is something I understand. Because that attitude is due, in part, to the knee jerk responses of our society, to tragedies. Which in turn, often results in that group experiencing knee jerk reactions too. And the circle of fail perpetuates itself.

A reasoned position on gun ownership, the rights to access of guns, ammunition, screening, etc. is something of an oxymoron. Guns are not a reasonable instrument of persuasion in a sane society. I maintain that sanity will prevail when and only when guns are removed from the equation. 2nd amendment advocates biggest argument seems to be that an armed citizenry is in a position to counter a possible advent of repressive government. I believe that this is regressive thinking, that it is possible and preferable to have a society where people do not feel compelled to own guns, keep them on their premises, person, etc. and that there's a concomitant confidence that the government, in whatever form it takes and can morph into, will not subjugate the citizenry. Part of this is a commitment to limiting access to guns for law enforcement personnel, no question about that.

All this "can't happen overnight," to use the cliche. It can't happen in 5 years. I think it requires decades. Just like slavery was not vanquished with the Emancipation Proclamation, the problem of gun violence will not be solved by any gun legislation initiatives in the short term.

To remove guns from American society would likely require an entire, generations long restructuring in the thinking process of it's civilians. Not an insurmountable obstacle, mind you, but requires careful thought and co-operation of both government and all media outlets.

This is far from impossible, in fact a "restructuring in the thinking process" is something that happens again and again in the history of our species. Let go and move on, it's evolution and it's accelerating, exponentially.

 

[NutBucket]

I don't care about law enforcement personnel. In utopia one wouldn't feel the need to protect themselves but that is ridiculous. The fact of the matter is there will always be situations where the only person you can rely on for protection is yourself. Law enforcement is great but they're not of much use if someone kicks down your door. Heck, remember Biden's infamous suggestion of firing warning shots?

And as far as the government is concerned, the left and the right are always working to take away rights. And yes, I do fear that someday it will go too far.