YAGT: Woman was trying to shoot someone in a road rage incident, but shot her husband instead

[Paladin3]

You may be right back where you started, but I'm still of the opinion that small changes can be useful while people remain the variable. The verbage of the 2nd amendment has not aged well with our society. A person could not single handedly mow down dozens or hundreds in minutes when the 2a was formulated. The question remains how thoroughly will we vet gun owners, while closing loopholes that can allow unchecked transfers, IMO.

I've got no problem with the government, law enforcement, military and states working to improve the NICS background check system. Half the time they don't even talk to each other. I do have a problem when folks start taking about making gun owners get a psych evaluation from a doctor, because that subverts the due process in a court of law system. Any doctor could now decide that for the good of the world his patients should lose their 2A rights regardless of how mentally fit they are. There is a damn good reason our government was set up to not put too much power in any one set of hands.

I don't mind closing the gun show loophole either, but that loophole is vastly misunderstood. First of all, it was never a loophole, as it was an intended exception for individuals making individual sales, not folks doing business selling guns regularly at gun shows. We should prosecute those who run a gun selling business under the table very strictly so the practice stops.

But, if you know a way to make grandpa handing down his guns to his family safer without adding undue burdens on the process let me know. Just remember that we consider requiring a legal state photo ID too much of an unfair burden on poor voters, we can't make it $$$ prohibitive for grandpa to pass on his property. We can't ethically have it both ways.

My objection to the push to make it overall harder to get a gun is that it is often done at the expense of the law-abiding. That's understandable, as we already have tons of laws on the books that should prevent gun violence, yet some people will always break the law regardless of the consequences. I don't know if it is even possible to stop them with more laws, unless we enact the very level of blanket restrictions that ends the concept of a (relatively) free country, with constitutional rights that cannot be suspended without due process under the law.

It remind me of when we know someone is guilty of a crime but cannot prove it. But with gun violence it seems we are willing to judge every gun owner guilty for the dream that it might stop the actual murderers.

 

[Paladin3]

Interpreting the meaning behind a 150 year old text, and applying it to how a modern society should function, is by definition a word game.

The 2A gives you the right to bare arms.

So that could be a wooden spoon.
Or it could be a gun.
Or an Apache attack helicopter.
Or an Abrams Tank.
Or a nuclear device.
Etc.

Does the 2A give you the right to own a nuclear device? No, it does not.

So how can it give you the right to own a gun, but not a nuclear device?

Because, via our courts and legislative branches of government, we have come together to decide what is and isn't a reasonable "arm" for a civilian to own. Democracy in action.

But it sounds a lot like you are saying that because a civilian can't own a nuke that they can't own a gun. Rubbish. All laws are open to interpretation via our courts, as they should be. I'm not parsing words trying to get subvert the intention of the 2A.

 

[Bird222]

Interpreting the meaning behind a 150 year old text, and applying it to how a modern society should function, is by definition a word game.

The 2A gives you the right to bare arms.

So that could be a wooden spoon.
Or it could be a gun.
Or an Apache attack helicopter.
Or an Abrams Tank.
Or a nuclear device.
Etc.

Does the 2A give you the right to own a nuclear device? No, it does not.

So how can it give you the right to own a gun, but not a nuclear device?

Some would argue it does. (I guess I need to say this. The previous statement is not my opinion. I'm just stating that the logic you used above for some people does mean they can have a nuke.)

 

[Fenixgoon]

Interpreting the meaning behind a 150 year old text, and applying it to how a modern society should function, is by definition a word game.

The 2A gives you the right to bare arms.

So that could be a wooden spoon.
Or it could be a gun.
Or an Apache attack helicopter.
Or an Abrams Tank.
Or a nuclear device.
Etc.

Does the 2A give you the right to own a nuclear device? No, it does not.

So how can it give you the right to own a gun, but not a nuclear device?

because like many rights, it is not unlimited. people somehow ignore this very important point.

 

[Paladin3]

You can't put quotes around something I didn't say. Come back when you want to debate like an adult. If you just want to label me and insult me then think up something more colorful. You have no idea who the fuck I am.

Or am I supposed to call you a "librul commie faget" to complete your fantasies?

Hey, Pohemi420

What do you find boring about me calling someone on their lies and stereotyping?

 

[dank69]

Then we need some evidence that any new regulations or restrictions would do more than just unfairly add new burdens on the law-abiding using legal guns for lawful purposes. We can't just make it harder across the board for everyone to have guns. Everyone hasn't lost their 2A rights. Without legal due process, you can't prohibit folks from their constitutional rights. And you can't make it so burdensome or expensive that it works as a defacto ban.

I agree, and that is all that most Democrats are asking for. Common sense regulations. Not bans.

Can you imagine the outcry if we tried to do the same to voters? Or those wanting to enjoy free speech? Or started taxing religion out of existence without actually banning it?

When voting or speaking or religion starts killing people, then we can start to regulate it. For example, you will be arrested for shouting fire in a crowded theater.

 

[Paladin3]

I agree, and that is all that most Democrats are asking for. Common sense regulations. Not bans.

When voting or speaking or religion starts killing people, then we can start to regulate it. For example, you will be arrested for shouting fire in a crowded theater.

Then you just need to come up with some constitutional "common sense" regulation with a bit of evidence it will do the intended job without squashing the law-abiding's ability to enjoy their 2A rights.

And religion has killed more folks in the history of mankind than any other single institution. Yet we still accept reasonable forms of it as we enjoy the freedom more than we would the supposed "safety" banning it might bring.

Reasonable is the key concept for the interpretation of most of our laws and I personally like it that way. For example, you will be arrested for shooting someone without legal cause, but you should 80 million people should not be made criminals for enjoying the legal shooting sports.

 

[nakedfrog]

You can't have freedom* without a whole bunch of innocent people dying on a regular basis, after all.


*Offer only valid in the US

 

[ch33zw1z]

I've got no problem with the government, law enforcement, military and states working to improve the NICS background check system. Half the time they don't even talk to each other. I do have a problem when folks start taking about making gun owners get a psych evaluation from a doctor, because that subverts the due process in a court of law system. Any doctor could now decide that for the good of the world his patients should lose their 2A rights regardless of how mentally fit they are. There is a damn good reason our government was set up to not put too much power in any one set of hands.

Actually, that's exactly the method I would proceed with. But it wouldn't be simply one medical doctor calling the shots. And if medical professionals are found to be skewing the numbers to reduce gun ownership specifically, then they should lose their license. Doctors operate ethically or not at all. Mental health is not a game or a joke.

I don't mind closing the gun show loophole either, but that loophole is vastly misunderstood. First of all, it was never a loophole, as it was an intended exception for individuals making individual sales, not folks doing business selling guns regularly at gun shows. We should prosecute those who run a gun selling business under the table very strictly so the practice stops.

Whatever the intention is or was, we know the reality. So I agree, do both....prosocute those until we can stop it.

But, if you know a way to make grandpa handing down his guns to his family safer without adding undue burdens on the process let me know.

Obviously, common sense indicates common sense. What guns is grandpa handing down exactly? Lol, I dont see this verbage particular ly as a threat to others safety. Now, if 70 YO dementia grandpa has a stockpile of weapons, I would *hope* the responsible adults in his life would take necessary precautions.

Just remember that we consider requiring a legal state photo ID too much of an unfair burden on poor voters, we can't make it $$$ prohibitive for grandpa to pass on his property. We can't ethically have it both ways.

Voter suppression really isn't the topic here. If you wanna discuss heirlooms, sure, but that's not really the topic.

My objection to the push to make it overall harder to get a gun is that it is often done at the expense of the law-abiding. That's understandable, as we already have tons of laws on the books that should prevent gun violence, yet some people will always break the law regardless of the consequences. I don't know if it is even possible to stop them with more laws, unless we enact the very level of blanket restrictions that ends the concept of a (relatively) free country, with constitutional rights that cannot be suspended without due process under the law.

What's that I always hear in the USA? Oh yeah, freedom isn't free. Seems a fitting reply here.

It remind me of when we know someone is guilty of a crime but cannot prove it. But with gun violence it seems we are willing to judge every gun owner guilty for the dream that it might stop the actual murderers.

There are many who will, but many who won't. IMO, responsible Gun owners will need to step up if they want to enjoy their freedoms for a long time. The next generation has seen a ton of shootings, that will stay with them for life. Like I said before, the 2a has not aged well with our society.

 

[Paratus]

Okay, I'll play 20 questions.

I've never been legally drunk in my life. It should be or is already illegal to consume alcohol when carrying, or if you're firearm isn't secured assuming you are drinking at home to the point of intoxication.

I don't believe I will ever be angry enough to want to hurt someone unless it is in self-defense and I have no other option, or if I am in defense of a loved-one. If you think so little of yourself then how do you control your fists when you are angry? You can't lock up your fists, can you? Aren't we all just a irresponsible moment away from shooting our husbands? (the answer is actually NO.)

Delirious? What? Does that happen to you often?

Groggy? Like when I wake up? Like if I woke up with the house on fire, say, I would be unable to make a rational decision? I would be unable to decide to leave the house or run into the flames? Really?

Frightened? As if when there is a real and genuine fear I will suddenly lose the ability to think and reason?

You must think very little of yourself if you believe simple emotions will suddenly turn you into an unthinking killer. Do you not have any moral sense of personal responsibility? Do you not believe your average fellow human being has such?

I guess I just have a bit more faith than you do in my fellow human being. Most of them are good people. That's why incidences like the one we are discussing are so very rare that they make the news and we create threads to discuss them. You insult us all by lying things are otherwise.

Your responses confirms my suspicion you’re not understanding my point. It has nothing to do with being a “good person”.

I’m not approaching the topic from an emotional point of view. I’m approaching it as I would any other hazard as an Ops Safety Engineer.

The list of reactions I asked you about are all human factors that can affect anyone’s performance. You are being naive if you think they don’t, won’t or can’t affect you.

I work for an organization that employs exceptionally capable people and spends millions training them. We are over 99.9% accurate in our operations. Yet we still design our vehicles and equipment to protect against human error and our people still make the occasional mistake. Human factors play a role in most of them.

People end up fatigued (groggy), ill (delirious), stressed, etc and make a mistake.

The fact that you don’t acknowledge that circumstances exist where your judgement can be impaired, does impair others, means you may not always be responsible.

You will never become ill while carrying. You will always wake up completely lucid in the middle of the night when you hear a bump and can always identify between an intruder and a loved one.

If you say yes I don’t believe you. If you are truly responsible you’ll have thought about those scenarios and have plans in place to mitigate the risk.

 

[Atreus21]

And when the constitution was created, did they take into account, people arm themselves with 7.62mm caliber AR's or just muskets?

Most worryingly, they accounted for people arming themselves with muskets, which put them at parity with the army in terms of weaponry.

 

[Atreus21]

You've missed the point entirely.

The 2A allows you to bear arms, nothing more.

A wooden spoon is arms.
A gun is arms.
A nuclear missile is arms.

It isn't legal for a civilian to own a nuclear missile, yet I don't hear anyone complaining that their 2A rights are being infringed upon.

Therefore, banning ownership of guns wouldn't infringe upon your 2A rights.

Would banning spoons infringe on it? Would banning any arms at all be considered an infringement on the right to bear arms by your definition?

 

[rommelrommel]

Advancement in tech to kill hasn't been matched by advancement in tech to not get killed. Namely there's no bulletproof vest that'll save you from a 7.62mm cartridge and it doesn't even have to be a headshot.

That’s not true. You’ve never been more likely to survive a gunshot than today. Hard armor which is wearable will defend from 7.62.

Interpreting the meaning behind a 150 year old text, and applying it to how a modern society should function, is by definition a word game.

The 2A gives you the right to bare arms.

So that could be a wooden spoon.
Or it could be a gun.
Or an Apache attack helicopter.
Or an Abrams Tank.
Or a nuclear device.
Etc.

Does the 2A give you the right to own a nuclear device? No, it does not.

So how can it give you the right to own a gun, but not a nuclear device?

Scotus has already ruled on this, they’ve made it clear it’s an individual right and that it applies to at least some guns.

And when the constitution was created, did they take into account, people arm themselves with 7.62mm caliber AR's or just muskets?

They had personally owned warships and cannon.