Gun control status poll

[TurtleDude]

There are people who can’t read. They are called illiterate. Obviously the SC justices are not illiterate. So that’s hyperbole. Then their are others (like you seemingly) who can obviously read, but assume that the way they interpret something must be the only interpretation. The sentence to me is conditional. The right shall not be infringed for a militia to keep and bear arms. I’m very familiar with the argument that we’re all in the militia, but that’s not really a good argument in this age of a highly advanced standing military, and National Guard—not to mention modern policing. We pay people to defend us. We put our trust in them, and when they violate that trust we prosecute them in accordance with our laws.
My advice to gun control opponents is to help their own side to stop making ridiculous arguments and declaratory, full stop, arguments that give very smart people in the opposition an easy excuse to dismiss them. Assuming you’re smarter than people you are obviously not smarter than, is a losing argument, and you WILL lose your rights if it persists.

In my opinion, the best argument I’ve heard around the gun control debate surrounds “states rights.” Essentially there, you can say: “**** you, we won’t do it. Other states may choose to but that is irrelevant to us. Otherwise, the sentence in the constitution is a poorly worded one. It may have been intentionally vague—law makers sometimes do that, but as it stands it is open to interpretation. The founders could have easily made it clearer. They were all very good writers.

when I see someone who has obviously spent a fair amount of time trying to reverse engineer the second amendment: working backwards to try to twist the second amendment to allow all sorts of federal gun control laws, I first ask this: what is the motivation for this effort?

 

[PirateMk1]

There are people who can’t read. They are called illiterate. Obviously the SC justices are not illiterate. So that’s hyperbole. Then their are others (like you seemingly) who can obviously read, but assume that the way they interpret something must be the only interpretation. The sentence to me is conditional. The right shall not be infringed for a militia to keep and bear arms. I’m very familiar with the argument that we’re all in the militia, but that’s not really a good argument in this age of a highly advanced standing military, and National Guard—not to mention modern policing. We pay people to defend us. We put our trust in them, and when they violate that trust we prosecute them in accordance with our laws.
My advice to gun control opponents is to help their own side to stop making ridiculous arguments and declaratory, full stop, arguments that give very smart people in the opposition an easy excuse to dismiss them. Assuming you’re smarter than people you are obviously not smarter than, is a losing argument, and you WILL lose your rights if it persists.

In my opinion, the best argument I’ve heard around the gun control debate surrounds “states rights.” Essentially there, you can say: “**** you, we won’t do it. Other states may choose to but that is irrelevant to us. Otherwise, the sentence in the constitution is a poorly worded one. It may have been intentionally vague—law makers sometimes do that, but as it stands it is open to interpretation. The founders could have easily made it clearer. They were all very good writers.

This is incorrect and any english instructor will tell you this. To say the justices of the Supreme Court are illiterate is not hyperbole, considering they have aptly demonstrated time and again, they very much do not read or understand the Constitution which is a fairly simple document.

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

This is called a prefatory statement, it states a reason for the for the following statement or order. This basic english 101.

The reason we have a Constitution with enumerated powers is exactly because our founders rightly did not trust people or the government they would run. Just because we have police and a very good military does not in any way allow our government to infringe on our rights to keep and bear arms in any way shape matter or form unless this infringement is from due process via a trial by a jury of our peers. Just because some of us trust in our police or military does not obviate an inalienable right we have to defend ourselves or allows the government to ignore an obvious order to not infringe on an enumerated right without an amendment passed according to law.

 

[Bok Tuklo]

I recall several cases of people being attacked mistakenly. A girl and her brother I knew well (she just died of cancer at 57) were orphaned when their parents were murdered by a drug gang in the early 70s. the DA stated that the victims-living in a very wealthy neighborhood, -were located next to the home of a guy who was a big coke head and when he wouldn't pay, the dealer's goons went to kill him but got the wrong house

Mostly by the police but still exceedingly rare. Not sure I am going to be able to fend off that SWAT team no matter what I have if I'm not expecting it.

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

Hardly. I think my best was about .7 but that was forty years ago but under 2 seconds is easy. I have seen my son shoot 8 shots out of a SW Performance Center 9mm revolver, reload it and fire another 8-all in the A zone at 10 yards in less than 6 seconds. Five seconds for a semi is about 2.5 X normal. But you are right about your average thug

I hardly claim to be in the top 10%, but I'm sure one hell of a lot better than any thug I'm even remotely likely to run across.

I will admit, that (and I don't question your numbers), I'd have difficulty dealing with any thug who was as good as your son most certainly is.

Of course, the fact that I would likely have the first shot advantage because the thug simply wouldn't believe that anyone was actually going to shoot at them just might give me a slim edge (well, that and the fact that the thug would most likely be "shooting at" and I would be "shooting to kill").

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

At nine years old children’s brains are not fully formed. They are not neurologically able to be as competent as an adult in anything. I’m not saying you shouldn’t teach your kids to hunt or shoot, but this statement is just bullshit. I’m sure you knew that when you made it though.

The nine year old may very well be " as competent at handling firearms" (emphasis added), but the odds are that they are no where near as competent in knowing (and applying that knowledge to) WHEN to USE firearms.

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

That is an excellent point, but was covered by my initial post (#10) which was ”exactly the same individual qualifications (limitations?) should be used for the right to vote and the right to keep and bear arms”.

OK, so why should someone who is 60 years old, who was convicted of "possession of marijuana" when they were 18, and who hasn't received as much as a traffic ticket since then, NOT be allowed to vote?

 

[TurtleDude]

OK, so why should someone who is 60 years old, who was convicted of "possession of marijuana" when they were 18, and who hasn't received as much as a traffic ticket since then, NOT be allowed to vote?

he should be allowed to vote and own a gun. Possession of marijuana should never have been illegal in the first place

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

This is incorrect and any english instructor will tell you this. To say the justices of the Supreme Court are illiterate is not hyperbole, considering they have aptly demonstrated time and again, they very much do not read or understand the Constitution which is a fairly simple document.

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

This is called a prefatory statement, it states a reason for the for the following statement or order. This basic english 101.

The reason we have a Constitution with enumerated powers is exactly because our founders rightly did not trust people or the government they would run. Just because we have police and a very good military does not in any way allow our government to infringe on our rights to keep and bear arms in any way shape matter or form unless this infringement is from due process via a trial by a jury of our peers. Just because some of us trust in our police or military does not obviate an inalienable right we have to defend ourselves or allows the government to ignore an obvious order to not infringe on an enumerated right without an amendment passed according to law.

Other than the fact that the Founding Fathers were talking about "security" FROM OTHER STATES, you might have a point there.

The Founding Fathers had absolutely no qualms about who was going to be running the US government because they wrote a constitution that ensured that "the right people" (read as "themselves and those like themselves - NOT the general populace") would be running the US government.

If the Founding Fathers ever thought that the Second Amendment would be used as a cover to allow the arming of "the general populace" (read as "those who are not already rich and powerful like we are") for the purpose of tossing out the US government and installing a new one, they wouldn't have written it so loosely.

 

[brianpatrick]

when I see someone who has obviously spent a fair amount of time trying to reverse engineer the second amendment: working backwards to try to twist the second amendment to allow all sorts of federal gun control laws, I first ask this: what is the motivation for this effort?

That’s an excellent question. It’s the right question here and now, and I’m sure you know it. Hopefully for the pro gun community, you feel obligated to help your side not make obviously silly arguments, and to stay on track, just as I feel obligated to mitigate some on my side to not make silly arguments. I take issue with your statement that people are “working backwards” or “twisting” a very unclear sentence, written in a time where nobody could have imagined what our country would look like in 200 years. The founders were great men, but nobody is that great. So, again, maybe they left it vague on purpose to allow others to define it?

I believe guns are tools. I know that guns don’t kill people, but people kill people. But people kill people Including themselves, with these tools at fairly high rates compared to other countries. And sure, much of that is gang and drug related, and responsible gun owners are going to be “punished” because there are a lot of stupid people in the world. For me what they’re calling common sense regulations would give us more tools to handle this problem in the US. It wouldn’t keep responsible owners from owning and enjoying their firearms, it would just make it harder for idiots to get them legally, and easier to prosecute criminals and solve crimes committed by them.

 

[TurtleDude]

That’s an excellent question. It’s the right question here and now, and I’m sure you know it. Hopefully for the pro gun community, you feel obligated to help your side not make obviously silly arguments, and to stay on track, just as I feel obligated to mitigate some on my side to not make silly arguments. I take issue with your statement that people are “working backwards” or “twisting” a very unclear sentence, written in a time where nobody could have imagined what our country would look like in 200 years. The founders were great men, but nobody is that great. So, again, maybe they left it vague on purpose to allow others to define it?

I believe guns are tools. I know that guns don’t kill people, but people kill people. But people kill people Including themselves, with these tools at fairly high rates compared to other countries. And sure, much of that is gang and drug related, and responsible gun owners are going to be “punished” because there are a lot of stupid people in the world. For me what they’re calling common sense regulations would give us more tools to handle this problem in the US. It wouldn’t keep responsible owners from owning and enjoying their firearms, it would just make it harder for idiots to get them legally, and easier to prosecute criminals and solve crimes committed by them.

what additional laws are needed to prosecute those who use guns criminally?
and you really didn't answer my question. I am a competitive shooter who once (too old now) had Olympic aspirations and shot at a high enough level to at least contend for such status. I am still a regionally competitive speed shooter. I used to hunt a fair amount, and I enjoy teaching youth how to shoot and adults defensive shooting skills. So my position on the second amendment and my advocacy of it, comport with my interests and, honestly, what the founders intended.

So when I see someone who has invested in a fair amount of effort trying to argue that gun restrictions are consistent with what the founders intended (at a federal level) I am interested to learn what motivates this

 

[brianpatrick]

This is incorrect and any english instructor will tell you this. To say the justices of the Supreme Court are illiterate is not hyperbole, considering they have aptly demonstrated time and again, they very much do not read or understand the Constitution which is a fairly simple document.

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

This is called a prefatory statement, it states a reason for the for the following statement or order. This basic english 101.

The reason we have a Constitution with enumerated powers is exactly because our founders rightly did not trust people or the government they would run. Just because we have police and a very good military does not in any way allow our government to infringe on our rights to keep and bear arms in any way shape matter or form unless this infringement is from due process via a trial by a jury of our peers. Just because some of us trust in our police or military does not obviate an inalienable right we have to defend ourselves or allows the government to ignore an obvious order to not infringe on an enumerated right without an amendment passed according to law.

That was my point. It can be interpreted in a couple different ways. It’s not clear to everyone. You are not doing your side any good by parroting things you’ve been told by pro gun propagandists. I don’t even have to try and refute you here; you’re doing that on your own. And that’s what I was warning you about. This idea that you can ram something down the throats of the other side is mistaken and will result in your loss of rights eventually. You need to be able to appeal to the other side and win them over. If this is all you got, it’s not enough.

 

[Montgomery]

Such a tired topic.

Yes it sure the hell is, but avoiding to address the issues will be to the detriment of 'extremist' gun owners. And make little difference to those who truly cherish legal and sensible use of firearms.

The assault weapons will have to go eventually but it will start on a regional basis and be expanded to heavily populated areas.

 

[TurtleDude]

Yes it sure the hell is, but avoiding to address the issues will be to the detriment of 'extremist' gun owners. And make little difference to those who truly cherish legal and sensible use of firearms.

The assault weapons will have to go eventually but it will start on a regional basis and be expanded to heavily populated areas.

what's an assault weapon and why will they have to go? To make people who live in countries where the nanny government doesnt' trust them to own such firearms, feel better?

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

he should be allowed to vote and own a gun. Possession of marijuana should never have been illegal in the first place

Under Canadian law, the "right to vote" IS a constitutionally protected right which cannot be taken away through any measure whatsoever - not even through a court order.

Under American law, the "right to vote" IS NOT a constitutionally protected right and it can be taken away even without a specific court order and for reasons that have absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with the way that the person exercised their voting privileges.

Under Canadian law, the "right to own firearms" IS NOT a constitutionally protected right, it is a deniable privilege, but one that can only be exercised if certain, specific, and objectively measurable conditions have been satisfied - however even that privilege can be denied permanently (or for a specific period) by court order PROVIDED that the person is allowed to make full answer and defence AND the application to remove that privilege has a direct connection to that person's use of either firearms or violence.

Under American law, the "right to own firearms" IS a constitutionally protected right - unless, of course, the person falls into a category wherein no member of the category is allowed to own firearms AND the fact that the person is in that category many have absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with that person's use of either firearms or violence.

Actually, possession of Marijuana is NOT (exactly) "illegal" in most of the US. What IS "illegal" is possessing Marijuana without either a federal permit or paying the federal and state taxes levied on it. Mind you, there is no known application form to obtain the federal permit and, of course, in order to pay the federal and state taxes, you have to find out where to pay them (only possession of the appropriate "Tax Stamp" is considered proof of payment and only the authorized offices can issue the stamps [and they don't have any of the "Tax Stamps" in stock in any event {so they won't take your money}]) - which no one seems to know. And, of course, since the tax rates are incredibly extortionate, people do what they did in 1776 et seq. - they avoid/evade payment.

 

[Wayne Jr]

Look what you tried to sneak in(LOL)

Bold of you to assume I tried to sneak anything.

 

[ttwtt78640]

OK, so why should someone who is 60 years old, who was convicted of "possession of marijuana" when they were 18, and who hasn't received as much as a traffic ticket since then, NOT be allowed to vote?

Agreed, thus they should also have their 2A rights restored.

 

[Montgomery]

To make people who live in countries where the nanny government doesnt' trust them to own such firearms, feel better?

Yes, that has to be the right answer even though it lacks details on why the people don't feel good with assault style weapons being permissable.

I would feel uncomfortable in the presense of an American who is carrying an assault style weapon who is dressed up in his camo costume and who uses human silouette targets at a range.
And especially if the weapon was black or pink. There's a dangerous attitude problem at work in that kind of individuals.

That's a little more explanation than what you offered.

 

[TurtleDude]

Yes, that has to be the right answer even though it lacks details on why the people don't feel good with assault style weapons being permissable.

I would feel uncomfortable in the presense of an American who is carrying an assault style weapon who is dressed up in his camo costume and who uses human silouette targets at a range.
And especially if the weapon was black or pink. There's a dangerous attitude problem at work in that kind of individuals.

That's a little more explanation than what you offered.

In other words, you don't have a rational argument for wanting to ban something in a country you don't even live in. I use humanoid targets all the time. What's wrong with that?

 

[brianpatrick]

what additional laws are needed to prosecute those who use guns criminally?
and you really didn't answer my question. I am a competitive shooter who once (too old now) had Olympic aspirations and shot at a high enough level to at least contend for such status. I am still a regionally competitive speed shooter. I used to hunt a fair amount, and I enjoy teaching youth how to shoot and adults defensive shooting skills. So my position on the second amendment and my advocacy of it, comport with my interests and, honestly, what the founders intended.

So when I see someone who has invested in a fair amount of effort trying to argue that gun restrictions are consistent with what the founders intended (at a federal level) I am interested to learn what motivates this

To be very honest, I don’t have a real dog in this fight. I mean, I’d like the chances I get caught in some crossfire somewhere to be less, but I live in a very safe neighborhood. My neighborhood is very conservative and I’m surrounded by guns. I don’t feel unsafe in general at all, personally. I’m interested in language, sentences, and communication. Sure, there is body language and actions (subject to interpretations) but mostly what we have here now is language and how it’s used. I notice that our current level of hyperbole and disagreement is rising, and at the same time there are so few people willing to really listen to what another side is actually saying, and resorting to vitriol and insults and declaratory statements to try and win. In my own small way, I’m interested in mitigating those interactions where I can, and helping people have more productive conversations.

You and I both know if it keeps going the way it’s going (broadly) that 2A will be reassessed. So again, I would stick to the states rights argument, and maybe find a few new ones that are more compelling.

 

[TurtleDude]

To be very honest, I don’t have a real dog in this fight. I mean, I’d like the chances I get caught in some crossfire somewhere to be less, but I live in a very safe neighborhood. My neighborhood is very conservative and I’m surrounded by guns. I don’t feel unsafe in general at all, personally. I’m interested in language, sentences, and communication. Sure, there is body language and actions (subject to interpretations) but mostly what we have here now is language and how it’s used. I notice that our current level of hyperbole and disagreement is rising, and at the same time there are so few people willing to really listen to what another side is actually saying, and resorting to vitriol and insults and declaratory statements to try and win. In my own small way, I’m interested in mitigating those interactions where I can, and helping people have more productive conversations.

You and I both know if it keeps going the way it’s going (broadly) that 2A will be reassessed. So again, I would stick to the states rights argument, and maybe find a few new ones that are more compelling.

I think the legal scholarship is eating away at the idiocy of Wickard v. Filburn but will not undermine " institutions-if removed would cause social upheaval" (Professor Steven Calabresi discussing the Scalia view of the unconstitutional expansion of the commerce clause)

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

what's an assault weapon and why will they have to go? To make people who live in countries where the nanny government doesnt' trust them to own such firearms, feel better?

An assault rifle is a selective-fire rifle that uses an intermediate cartridge and a detachable magazine.

Because the M16A1 is NOT capable of fully automatic fire, it (technically) is not an "assault rifle".

When most people use the term "assault rifle" what they actually mean is "something scary that looks like I think soldiers use in warfare". Thus, they would classify an AR-15 that had been permanently modified to fire ONLY single rounds and to REQUIRE re-cocking between rounds as an "assault rifle" but would not include the M-14 (because it "looks like a rifle").

Since an "assault rifle" is capable of fully automatic fire their possession is already (effectively) illegal in the US UNLESS that feature (including the ability for "burst fire") has been permanently disabled..

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

We should not be violating the rights of ALL Americans to protect against a few "deranged, mentally sub-normal" people. We should find ways to deal with those people.

I see, so your position is that "only the right people" should enjoy what you consider to be an unalienable constitutional right - is that it?

 

[Montgomery]

Under American law, the "right to own firearms" IS a constitutionally protected right - unless, of course, the person falls into a category wherein no member of the category is allowed to own firearms AND the fact that the person is in that category many have absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with that person's use of either firearms or violence.

Under American law it's a constitutional right with some qualifications.

Under Canadian law it's a right that isn't stated to be a right under a Constitution.

There's a good argument to say that there really isn't any practical difference.

Is there a good arument to say that there 'is' a difference in the final analysis? That question could be worth entertaining here, considering that everything else concerning gun control is just treading water.

 

[TurtleDude]

An assault rifle is a selective-fire rifle that uses an intermediate cartridge and a detachable magazine.

Because the M16A1 is NOT capable of fully automatic fire, it (technically) is not an "assault rifle".

When most people use the term "assault rifle" what they actually mean is "something scary that looks like I think soldiers use in warfare". Thus, they would classify an AR-15 that had been permanently modified to fire ONLY single rounds and to REQUIRE re-cocking between rounds as an "assault rifle" but would not include the M-14 (because it "looks like a rifle").

Since an "assault rifle" is capable of fully automatic fire their possession is already (effectively) illegal in the US UNLESS that feature (including the ability for "burst fire") has been permanently disabled..

The M16A1 is an assault rifle under federal law. that is because it is capable of firing MORE than ONE round with a single pull of the trigger (federal legal definition of "automatic fire"). The rest of your points are well taken

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

Bullshit.

Here's a nine year old girl who is MORE competent at singing than a LOT of adults.



As my son, the musician, says about this girl...it's all about training.

And, to circle back to the topic at hand, with the training they received from me regarding firearms they WERE just as competent as I am. We spent many hours at the range with them proving their competency.

How many hours did you spend on live-fire training them to be able to "spot the bad guy" in a crowd and to hit ONLY "the bad guy"?