A proposal to solve the gun crisis

[TurtleDude]

List of massacres in Great Britain - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Europeans complaining about our gun rights remind me of Aesop's fox

 

[Antiwar]

It's not about the guns...it's about the maladjusted, malfunctioning POS's and mentally ill that CHOOSE to do this.

Dehumanizing people that misuse guns in society isn't helpful.

 

[trixare4kids]

The guns definitely allowed them to fulfill their twisted fantasies

Without the actions of the deranged killers the guns would still be inanimate objects.
Why do you blame inanimate objects instead of animate killers?

 

[Winston]

Is there any legal scholar you can find, who claims the second amendment should be limited to the weapons that the Founders had access to?

I haven’t looked. And I’m not going on a wild goose chase so that you can continue to not care about gun violence in America

 

[TurtleDude]

Dehumanizing people that misuse guns in society isn't helpful.

trying to blame those who own them legally and using them properly for the criminal actions of others is both incredibly dishonest and destructive

 

[Winston]

Without the actions of the deranged killers the guns would still be inanimate objects.
Why do you blame inanimate objects instead of animate killers?

it’s pretty simple. I’d rather they be armed with a sock full of change than weapons of war. Would you rather they had more firepower that day or less?

 

[TurtleDude]

it’s pretty simple. I’d rather they be armed with a sock full of change than weapons of war. Would you rather they had more firepower that day or less?

I'd rather that all those who would want to harm others for unlawful purposes instantly be vaporized. But since that won't happen (nor will the pie in the sky hope that they are not armed with firearms), I plan on being armed myself in case I am attacked by some such scum bag

 

[trixare4kids]

Europeans complaining about our gun rights remind me of Aesop's fox

Sour

 

[natman]

The 2nd amendment was written at a time when muskets were the primary weapon of choice. the founders could not have foreseen the semi-automatic weapons some people think they are entitled to own.
So, I propose that gun owners may take an originalist interpretation of the 2A and conclude that muskets shall be permitted in society. But other weapons will not be allowed since the Founders died before they were invented, therefore they fall outside of the purview of the 2nd amendment.

Really? This old chestnut? Constitutional rights are principles. They are not dependent on specific technologies. Unless you think that the First Amendment doesn't apply to the internet and the Fourth Amendment doesn't apply to your computer, this is nonsense.

The Supreme Court of the United States addressed this quite clearly:

Some have made the argument, bordering on the frivolous, that only those arms in existence in the 18th century are protected by the Second Amendment. We do not interpret constitutional rights that way. Just as the First Amendment protects modern forms of communications,... and the Fourth Amendment applies to modern forms of search, ... the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding. DC v Heller, page 8


That was in 2008, thirteen years ago. Try to keep up.

 

[lurchadams]

What "gun crisis" are you talking about?

The fact that there are more guns than people and that anyone can get one, even insane people. There should be a mental exam for anyone purchasing a gun.

 

[trixare4kids]

it’s pretty simple. I’d rather they be armed with a sock full of change than weapons of war. Would you rather they had more firepower that day or less?

I'd rather they weren't deranged. Perhaps you should stop putting the cart before the horse and at least try to address the origins of violent behavior...

 

[TurtleDude]

Really? This old chestnut? Constitutional rights are principles. They are not dependent on specific technologies. Unless you think that the First Amendment doesn't apply to the internet and the Fourth Amendment doesn't apply to your computer, this is nonsense.

The Supreme Court of the United States addressed this quite clearly:

Some have made the argument, bordering on the frivolous, that only those arms in existence in the 18th century are protected by the Second Amendment. We do not interpret constitutional rights that way. Just as the First Amendment protects modern forms of communications,... and the Fourth Amendment applies to modern forms of search, ... the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding. DC v Heller, page 8


That was in 2008, thirteen years ago. Try to keep up.

As the late William F Buckley Jr (and others) have noted, the rights recognized in the Bill of rights, are not limited by the current state of the art.

 

[Winston]

Really? This old chestnut? Constitutional rights are principles. They are not dependent on specific technologies. Unless you think that the First Amendment doesn't apply to the internet and the Fourth Amendment doesn't apply to your computer, this is nonsense.

The Supreme Court of the United States addressed this quite clearly:

Some have made the argument, bordering on the frivolous, that only those arms in existence in the 18th century are protected by the Second Amendment. We do not interpret constitutional rights that way. Just as the First Amendment protects modern forms of communications,... and the Fourth Amendment applies to modern forms of search, ... the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding. DC v Heller, page 8


That was in 2008, thirteen years ago. Try to keep up.

I just think that’s a bad call. The weapons did not exist then so, we have no evidence on how the Founders would have decided on them

 

[TurtleDude]

I just think that’s a bad call. The weapons did not exist then so, we have no evidence on how the Founders would have decided on them

If the British and the Barbary pirates had them, I think how they believed would be obvious. You are clearly trying to pretend that the second amendment does not serve as an obstacle to the schemes you want to use to harass honest gun owners and you are failing to support what the court clearly stated was close to being a frivolous argument.

 

[Winston]

I'd rather they weren't deranged. Perhaps you should stop putting the cart before the horse and at least try to address the origins of violent behavior...

I don’t know if you’ve ever tried to help someone with a mental health problem but you can’t just fix them yourself. They have to want to change. Until then for the safety of society gun ownership should be taken as a more serious matter.

 

[TurtleDude]

I haven’t looked. And I’m not going on a wild goose chase so that you can continue to not care about gun violence in America

one of the biggest lies we get from anti gun extremists pretending that we don't care about gun violence if we don't support the stupid laws gun banners want to impose on us. It is akin to saying that monogamous gays don't care about the spread of AIDS or responsible drinkers don't care about drunk drivers and the thousands killed by them.

 

[Winston]

If the British and the Barbary pirates had them, I think how they believed would be obvious. You are clearly trying to pretend that the second amendment does not serve as an obstacle to the schemes you want to use to harass honest gun owners and you are failing to support what the court clearly stated was close to being a frivolous argument.

you have no evidence of how the Founders would have viewed civilian possession of modern weapons because the world has developed beyond their comprehension

 

[Winston]

When we have stats like those and the left are arguing to actually do something about it versus the right saying do nothing..

right lol one side doesn’t care nice try

 

[natman]

I just think that’s a bad call. The weapons did not exist then so, we have no evidence on how the Founders would have decided on them

It's quite easy, if you understand what a "principle" is. The government can't control your speech, regardless of the medium. The government can't search your computer without a warrant, even though computers didn't exist then. The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. The technology may change, but the principle remains.

 

[Winston]

It's quite easy, if you understand what a "principle" is. The government can't control your speech, regardless of the medium. The government can't search your computer without a warrant, even though computers didn't exist then. The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. The technology may change, but the principle remains.

Then our current laws which control fully automatic weapons are a violation of your rights?

 

[natman]

Then our current laws which control fully automatic weapons are a violation of your rights?

I'll agree that there has to be a line somewhere. The Supreme Court in Heller clearly defined it as "weapons in common use for lawful purposes". Fully automatic weapons are not in common use. So called "assault weapons" are.

 

[Gaius46]

I still consider it a conservative notion because it's trying to subtly threaten that in order for the BOR to be applicable in America we need to accept that guns should and will always be a part of our supposedly civil society.

I'm not interested in analyzing the 2A any further because IIRC you made the illegitimate and melodramatic claim that the 2A is obvious or else you're idiotic. The 2A is a mess.

Yes, they're implicit. But they're not explicit.

The 1A is obviously about "freedom of speech and religion" (not printing press ownership). The 2A is obviously about "the security of a free state." The 3A is obviously about the quartering of soldiers not being unjustly forced, and the 4A is obviously about privacy (neither are about home ownership).

Gun proliferation proponents claim that the 2A is about unrestricted gun ownership and self-defense. If that's the case, those words should be explicit. They aren't.

Adjust your abrasive rhetoric ("idiotic") about the 2A and start discussing and debating more (intellectually) honestly.

You need to accept ALL the of the BoR if you want you preferred rights to be protected. That's not a conservation notion. It's not a liberal notion. It's the natural result of the fact that all of those amendments are part of the original Constitution and were thought important by the framers. You don't like that? There are ways to change it.

The 2A meaning is obvious to anyone who has bothered to actually read into it's history and the history of the drafting and interpretation of similar provisions. The statement is neither is neither illegitimate or idiotic. What is idiotic is not being interested in further looking into it while continuin to spout the same line. If someone was even marginally interested in figuring out whether Heller was properly decided - instead of having a knee jerk reaction because because the outcome was not their preferred outcome I'd expect that they might actually like to understand the reasoning.

I never said the 3A or 4A were about homeownership. I said the use the word house to describe what the founders were trying to protect. You claimed that the 2A was the only amendment that dealt with things. The 3A and 4A essentially define the castle doctrine - a man's home is his castle - and protects his rights while in his home. Freedom of speech, especially for a newpaper, is useless without presses and other technology to broadcast that speech. They all deal with objects in the real world and not abstract concepts.

Or if you prefer the 2A deals with the abstract concept of self defense and the ability to defend against a tyrannical government. It has nothing to do with guns. Pick whichever you prefer. Or don't. It's just sideshow anyway.

 

[Antiwar]

You need to accept ALL the of the BoR if you want you preferred rights to be protected. That's not a conservation notion. It's not a liberal notion. It's the natural result of the fact that all of those amendments are part of the original Constitution and were thought important by the framers. You don't like that? There are ways to change it.

The 2A meaning is obvious to anyone who has bothered to actually read into it's history and the history of the drafting and interpretation of similar provisions. The statement is neither is neither illegitimate or idiotic. What is idiotic is not being interested in further looking into it while continuin to spout the same line. If someone was even marginally interested in figuring out whether Heller was properly decided - instead of having a knee jerk reaction because because the outcome was not their preferred outcome I'd expect that they might actually like to understand the reasoning.

I never said the 3A or 4A were about homeownership. I said the use the word house to describe what the founders were trying to protect. You claimed that the 2A was the only amendment that dealt with things. The 3A and 4A essentially define the castle doctrine - a man's home is his castle - and protects his rights while in his home. Freedom of speech, especially for a newpaper, is useless without presses and other technology to broadcast that speech. They all deal with objects in the real world and not abstract concepts.

Or if you prefer the 2A deals with the abstract concept of self defense and the ability to defend against a tyrannical government. It has nothing to do with guns. Pick whichever you prefer. Or don't. It's just sideshow anyway.

Your rehash and abrasiveness don't suffice. It's not worth any further effort to ~debate the few new things you've posted.

 

[PoS]

The fact that there are more guns than people and that anyone can get one, even insane people. There should be a mental exam for anyone purchasing a gun.

So the total number of guns that exist is a "crisis" to you?

 

[Lursa]

if reality has a left wing bias, why is it that the left wing views concerning guns are invariably dishonest, ignorant and completely devoid of having any understanding of our constitution?

What?