An observation on gun control

[J.C.MacSwell]

1 hour ago, TheVat said:

The 2nd A was written in the late 1700s, when the US relied on civilian miltias for defense.  Hence the archaic opening phrase a well regulated militia...   But the world and America changed, and we now have large professional armies with weapons that require considerable training and complex systems of command and control.   We left militias behind a couple centuries ago.  Anything a civilian could afford and operate would be like a peashooter when pitted against a modern professional army.  

All of this goes towards explaining why we have a Supreme Court which (if it's doing its job in a fair and impartial way) has to intepret vague constitutional dictums and see that they are implemented in a manner that adapts to changes in society.  That's how we were able to identify machine guns in the 1930s as a socially destructive weapon in the hands of ordinary citizens.  You may recall cities like Chicago had a wee problem with them.  

Constitutional amendments have NEVER been a blank check for doing whatever the hell you want.  They are always subject to interpretation and also to legislative restrictions.  (that's what Congress does, when it's functioning).  You may want to look up Alexander Hamilton, writing on why constitutional provisions are necessarily vague.

His point still stands though, as a substantial part of the intent of the Second Amendment, which needs to be considered by your Supreme Court. Fortunately (or not?) Canada doesn't have that in our constitution so we don't need to consider it for that purpose (though we still need to protect ourselves from potentially oppressive governments and our Guarantees of Rights and Freedoms attempts to do that differently). 

Personally, I prefer gun control despite the potential of an oppressive government, in part because I think any advantage of citizens having guns to overthrow an oppressive government is more than offset by the fact that a subset of said citizens with guns could take over a democratically elected government and form a more permanent and oppressive one.

[Bufofrog]

13 hours ago, Photon Guy said:

Because they had access to them when the Constitution, including the 2A was ratified. When the 2A which identifies the right to keep and bear arms, and that's exactly what it does as it doesn't grant the right it identifies it,

I think it is time to rewrite the 2A so that it is no longer a right to own guns.

[dimreepr]

29 minutes ago, Bufofrog said:

I think it is time to rewrite the 2A so that it is no longer a right to own guns.

Some very rich people will pay alot to stop that happening; people have the right to kill anyone but me and my employees (unless I decide to fire them)...

In the words of Dave Chappelle (almost), "get every black person, in America, to register... for a gun licence, if you want to change the law."...

Edited January 30 by dimreepr

[TheVat]

2 hours ago, Bufofrog said:

I think it is time to rewrite the 2A so that it is no longer a right to own guns.

That was my point about Al Hamilton.  He pointed out that constitutional provisions are deliberately vague, so that they can be tinkered with as society changes.  The 2nd is already vague, so it is  a matter of legislators and the Supremes doing their damned jobs and articulating a modern implementation of that vagueness that's in touch with reality.  (but yes, the Framers did not rule out the repeal or rewording of amendments, too... it's just really difficult due to the ratification process)

11 hours ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

Personally, I prefer gun control despite the potential of an oppressive government, in part because I think any advantage of citizens having guns to overthrow an oppressive government is more than offset by the fact that a subset of said citizens with guns could take over a democratically elected government and form a more permanent and oppressive one.

Yep.  Or take over a wildlife refuge in Oregon because they think they can graze their cattle or set fires anywhere no matter what the ecological effects.  I.e. Ammon Bundy and his extremist band, in 2016.

12 hours ago, iNow said:

Sadly, this bedrock has been blasted and fracked for reasons of avarice and grift and earthquakes are spreading across the justice system like ripples through a scummy pond. 

Impeach Clarence now.  Then Alito.  That would be a start.  First we'd need a Congress that worked for the people.  Guess it might be a while.  

[Phi for All]

2 hours ago, Bufofrog said:

I think it is time to rewrite the 2A so that it is no longer a right to own guns.

I think this would change the entire country for the better. It seems obvious that fear is the #1 tool in the box of corporate America, and maintaining the balance between docility and outrage allows them to charge prices the markets normally don't allow. Fear related to guns makes folks do abnormal things, and we have to stop letting corporations cash in on their social manipulation. 

It would be a good first step in fixing our problems with capitalism too. It's also obvious that we want to be happy, but happy people don't spend money the way fearful, sad, depressed people do. 

[iNow]

2 hours ago, dimreepr said:

Some very rich people will pay alot to stop that happening

So will very many very poor and poverty stricken people. Guns are often a religion in the US, but those practicing it are hardly Mandalorians. 

[Moontanman]

This whole gun thing is crazy, When I go to get gas the local gasoline seller, the gas "service station" died a long time ago, they have around 12 pumps and it's not unusual for there to be 6 or more cars fueling up. I filled up last week and out of 7 people fueling their vehicles 3 had pistols openly on their hips. One had a god damned 50 cal. Desert Eagle! I guess he wanted to make sure he could defend himself from any stray Bradley Fighting Vehicles that might attack while he was pumping gas. I live in a well known liberal university town! This shit is out of control! I think the path forward is clear, far from the general population needing the same guns as the military guns need to be confined... at the very least! Confined to your home and restricted to pump shotguns with #5 shot shells, 410 gauge at most! 

Personally I think we should be able to open carry knives not guns, but show up in public with a bowie knife on your belt and spend a few days in jail and be fined big bucks but carry a gun and you get special treatment. Yes I think crazy pretty much says it all about gun culture in the US. 

[StringJunky]

I find it crazy that politicians wave the flag, call each other "Fellow Americans", but they need to arm themselves against their fellow Americans.

[OldChemE]

6 hours ago, StringJunky said:

I find it crazy that politicians wave the flag, call each other "Fellow Americans", but they need to arm themselves against their fellow Americans.

Well, yes.

Personally, I have long thought that the 2A will get repealed or heavily modified one of these days, and if things keep going as they are I might even vote in favor of the changes.  That, for me is a shame, because I am one of the many, many Americans that own guns as a hobby.  I own old guns and/or unique guns.  Why?  I like to work with my hands and restore/reuse old things.  Old cars are too costly and hard to fit on a work-bench in the winter.  Many old guns are, with all their drawbacks, marvels of engineering.  Ammunition is equally interesting, particularly if you have to search out the brass casings or modify newer casings to fit, and make your own bullets and run the tests to determine which type of gunpowder works best, etc, etc, etc.  And then, when you think you have everything just perfect, you can go out to the shooting range and kill pieces of paper, find out things are not perfect, and go back to the work bench for further improvements.

And I don't carry a gun, and they go to the range unloaded and come home unloaded.  And I don't belong to the NRA either.

I would say, however, that the oft-repeated thing about the huge number of guns owned in the US is a red-herring.  Many of us that own many guns are hobbyists such as myself, and most of those guns are old -- not the ones that are best for the killing.

[Moontanman]

37 minutes ago, OldChemE said:

Well, yes.

Personally, I have long thought that the 2A will get repealed or heavily modified one of these days, and if things keep going as they are I might even vote in favor of the changes.  That, for me is a shame, because I am one of the many, many Americans that own guns as a hobby.  I own old guns and/or unique guns.  Why?  I like to work with my hands and restore/reuse old things.  Old cars are too costly and hard to fit on a work-bench in the winter.  Many old guns are, with all their drawbacks, marvels of engineering.  Ammunition is equally interesting, particularly if you have to search out the brass casings or modify newer casings to fit, and make your own bullets and run the tests to determine which type of gunpowder works best, etc, etc, etc.  And then, when you think you have everything just perfect, you can go out to the shooting range and kill pieces of paper, find out things are not perfect, and go back to the work bench for further improvements.

And I don't carry a gun, and they go to the range unloaded and come home unloaded.  And I don't belong to the NRA either.

I would say, however, that the oft-repeated thing about the huge number of guns owned in the US is a red-herring.  Many of us that own many guns are hobbyists such as myself, and most of those guns are old -- not the ones that are best for the killing.

Are you for or against providing citizens with military grade weapons? 

[OldChemE]

25 minutes ago, Moontanman said:

Are you for or against providing citizens with military grade weapons? 

That is a good question that I have not thought about a lot.  It's also a bit too open-ended to answer easily.  I see no sense in the proliferation of assault rifles (AR-15's and such) to the general public.  On the other hand, virtually any semi-auto handgun could be construed by someone to be 'military grade.'  The 1911 pistol was adopted by the US military in 1911-- the design is over 100 years old and still in use (and I own one).  If we ban public ownership of anything that is 'military grade' we probably need to go back to revolvers (I own several of those).  Assuming, however, we could work out a definition that could rationally be expected to prevent mass killings I would be in favor of the limitation.  Maybe we should just ban 'factory made' ammunition but let shooters buy the components to build the ammo 😏

Edited January 31 by OldChemE

[StringJunky]

2 hours ago, OldChemE said:

Well, yes.

Personally, I have long thought that the 2A will get repealed or heavily modified one of these days, and if things keep going as they are I might even vote in favor of the changes.  That, for me is a shame, because I am one of the many, many Americans that own guns as a hobby.  I own old guns and/or unique guns.  Why?  I like to work with my hands and restore/reuse old things.  Old cars are too costly and hard to fit on a work-bench in the winter.  Many old guns are, with all their drawbacks, marvels of engineering.  Ammunition is equally interesting, particularly if you have to search out the brass casings or modify newer casings to fit, and make your own bullets and run the tests to determine which type of gunpowder works best, etc, etc, etc.  And then, when you think you have everything just perfect, you can go out to the shooting range and kill pieces of paper, find out things are not perfect, and go back to the work bench for further improvements.

And I don't carry a gun, and they go to the range unloaded and come home unloaded.  And I don't belong to the NRA either.

I would say, however, that the oft-repeated thing about the huge number of guns owned in the US is a red-herring.  Many of us that own many guns are hobbyists such as myself, and most of those guns are old -- not the ones that are best for the killing.

You and people like you aren't the problem. My ire is directed at those that feel the need to be armed and generally do what they like without regard to human frailty and risk. One is playing with matches next to an open bucket of petrol.

[Moontanman]

2 hours ago, OldChemE said:

That is a good question that I have not thought about a lot.  It's also a bit too open-ended to answer easily.  I see no sense in the proliferation of assault rifles (AR-15's and such) to the general public.  On the other hand, virtually any semi-auto handgun could be construed by someone to be 'military grade.'  The 1911 pistol was adopted by the US military in 1911-- the design is over 100 years old and still in use (and I own one).  If we ban public ownership of anything that is 'military grade' we probably need to go back to revolvers (I own several of those).  Assuming, however, we could work out a definition that could rationally be expected to prevent mass killings I would be in favor of the limitation.  Maybe we should just ban 'factory made' ammunition but let shooters buy the components to build the ammo 😏

Let's not mince words, both of us know that the military grade weapons we are discussing is not semi auto handguns, how ever I am willing to include them in the set of guns that no one really needs to own. Handguns are very dangerous and prone to killing bystanders or people in their houses nearby, the danger is exacerbated by the general public thinking that handguns are the safest option and that anyone can handle a handgun. I'm betting you already know this being familiar with hand guns. 

I am sympathetic to hobbyists like you but the general excuse for owning a gun is home protection. A rifle, hand gun, or AR15 is not required for home defense. A small shotgun, like a 410 with number 5 shot will do the job and make it much less likely you'll kill the neighbors if you miss. 

The idea that anyone should be able to buy any gun and carry them around is nuts, nothing but postering. Owning a gun is a serious thing at least as serious as owning and operating a car. If nothing else owning a gun should require the same type of training, licensing, and insurance as owning and or driving a car. 

Hunting is a different issue but can be controlled in a similar way. 

I personally know people who own various semi auto weapons and shouldn't have access to a slingshot. 

I also own guns, shot guns, but still guns, and no I don't think no one should own a gun but the ownership of guns has got to be controlled... our children are being killed by this crazy idea of gun ownership being a right. 

[OldChemE]

10 minutes ago, Moontanman said:

Let's not mince words, both of us know......

 

You're getting a bit 'testy' here, which I can understand because it is a sensitive subject.  Actually, we both don't know for sure what we mean by military grade firearms, primarily because it will depend on whomever is in control of a legislature when a law is passed.  As for training, licensing and insurance-- that too is dependent on the whims of government.  But I have no problem with that because I voluntarily chose to be trained and licensed, and my liability insurance has no exclusions for firearms.

Home defense?  In the 12 years I have lived in my current home I have never heard of a home invasion-- that's why my guns are unloaded and locked in the safe.

But-- I joined this discussion merely to offer a perspective and I've answered your questions, so I think I will check out.

[Moontanman]

2 minutes ago, OldChemE said:

You're getting a bit 'testy' here, which I can understand because it is a sensitive subject.  Actually, we both don't know for sure what we mean by military grade firearms, primarily because it will depend on whomever is in control of a legislature when a law is passed.  As for training, licensing and insurance-- that too is dependent on the whims of government.  But I have no problem with that because I voluntarily chose to be trained and licensed, and my liability insurance has no exclusions for firearms.

Home defense?  In the 12 years I have lived in my current home I have never heard of a home invasion-- that's why my guns are unloaded and locked in the safe.

But-- I joined this discussion merely to offer a perspective and I've answered your questions, so I think I will check out.

I apologize for that, not what I meant to do, in fact I am glad to see you in this thread. Few of us... well I can only really speak for me, and I have no training whatsoever, it's why hunting shotguns are all I own and one of those was bought by me when i was 12, I hitchhiked about 20 miles to get to a feed store ad bought it money I had earned by working for the local famers for the summer. That gun means a lot to me, I understand completely how a gun can be a part of who we are. But at some point we all have to stop making excuses for guns and I am not talking about you. Your expertise and desire to have a safe hobby is up lifting to me. I can honestly say you are the only person i know of who has the foresight to take yours and the safety of others seriously. Around here about all I get when trying to talk safety is how big a hole they can make in a person they decide to kill. 

All of us need people who can engage this issue without getting "testy" again I am sorry about that, please let that slide and stick with us here.  

[dimreepr]

20 hours ago, iNow said:

So will very many very poor and poverty stricken people. Guns are often a religion in the US, but those practicing it are hardly Mandalorians. 

Every time I read about a new gun related atrocity in America, I think surely this time the scales will, at least start, fall from their eyes.

[zapatos]

2 hours ago, dimreepr said:

Every time I read about a new gun related atrocity in America, I think surely this time the scales will, at least start, fall from their eyes.

I on the other hand become more and more convinced that we will never do anything about it. It's a bit depressing.

[StringJunky]

22 minutes ago, zapatos said:

I on the other hand become more and more convinced that we will never do anything about it. It's a bit depressing.

I'm not sure either. I think you have intractable problems because you are a nation of states that each have probably too much independence and autonomy to ever really align on major issues like this, and have policies that could be applied consistently across the country.

[Phi for All]

28 minutes ago, zapatos said:

I on the other hand become more and more convinced that we will never do anything about it. It's a bit depressing.

Last year in Colorado, our state passed a law banning "ghost guns" that are 3D printed or sold as kits, which are untraceable. There's only one main reason somebody would want to own one of these: they don't want the gun traced back to them, so you'd think it's a no-brainer to ban them, right? Lawsuits have been filed against the state by gun lobbyists and shooting clubs who want the law struck down on principle. It's another "If we give you an inch, you'll take a mile" argument from inhumans who don't much care about mass murder and children dying in school.

What kind of responsible gun owner would want unregulated, untraceable firearms being manufactured by anyone with an inexpensive printer?

[Janus]

16 minutes ago, Phi for All said:

Last year in Colorado, our state passed a law banning "ghost guns" that are 3D printed or sold as kits, which are untraceable. There's only one main reason somebody would want to own one of these: they don't want the gun traced back to them, so you'd think it's a no-brainer to ban them, right? Lawsuits have been filed against the state by gun lobbyists and shooting clubs who want the law struck down on principle. It's another "If we give you an inch, you'll take a mile" argument from inhumans who don't much care about mass murder and children dying in school.

What kind of responsible gun owner would want unregulated, untraceable firearms being manufactured by anyone with an inexpensive printer?

The argument you so often hear is that gun regulations won't stop gun violence.  It's the all or nothing approach; that if a regulation doesn't prevent all gun deaths of innocents, it shouldn't be enacted.  Saving 10 lives a year isn't worth it, nor is saving 100 or, 1000...

 

[Bufofrog]

23 minutes ago, Phi for All said:

gun lobbyists and shooting clubs who want the law struck down on principle.

Every time gun laws are struck down or not passed the law makers or judges throw up their hands and say there is nothing we can do because it would violate the 2nd amendment.  Clearly the second amendment is in need of a rewrite.  How many needless gun deaths are going to happen before we change the amendment, I shudder to think.

[StringJunky]

49 minutes ago, Bufofrog said:

Every time gun laws are struck down or not passed the law makers or judges throw up their hands and say there is nothing we can do because it would violate the 2nd amendment.  Clearly the second amendment is in need of a rewrite.  How many needless gun deaths are going to happen before we change the amendment, I shudder to think.

Show the consequences as seen by the first responders. Watching drone videos in Ukraine soon takes out the 'fun' of war and playing soldiers. 

Edited January 31 by StringJunky

[Phi for All]

41 minutes ago, Janus said:

The argument you so often hear is that gun regulations won't stop gun violence.  It's the all or nothing approach; that if a regulation doesn't prevent all gun deaths of innocents, it shouldn't be enacted.  Saving 10 lives a year isn't worth it, nor is saving 100 or, 1000...

Right?! And while the hobbyists are usually more responsible people, they still vote with/are members of/add their voice to groups that are defending the use of bump stocks, silencers, extended clips, printed firearms, and military-grade assault rifles, claiming the 2A is what keeps people off their hair triggers. You can't get any progress when so many are against ANY progress.

48 minutes ago, Bufofrog said:

Every time gun laws are struck down or not passed the law makers or judges throw up their hands and say there is nothing we can do because it would violate the 2nd amendment.  Clearly the second amendment is in need of a rewrite.  How many needless gun deaths are going to happen before we change the amendment, I shudder to think.

It doesn't seem that difficult to me. There is clearly an interpretation of the 2A that takes into account that we were a fledgling nation that took control away from a colonizing force, that private ownership of "arms" included even things like cannons so we could protect what we had accomplished. We needed a citizen militia in the early days because the whole country was too porous and indefensible otherwise.

Since that time, citizen militias have become unable to handle modern threats. All they've given us are civil wars, compound mentality, far right manifestos, and wastes of life like Ruby Ridge and Waco. Many modern militias are actively trying to overthrow our democracy. We should use this opportunity to rewrite the 2A and stop the erosion of our real rights, like voting, equality, clean air/water, and all the liberties that make life a pursuit of happiness.

 

[StringJunky]

1 hour ago, Janus said:

The argument you so often hear is that gun regulations won't stop gun violence.  It's the all or nothing approach; that if a regulation doesn't prevent all gun deaths of innocents, it shouldn't be enacted.  Saving 10 lives a year isn't worth it, nor is saving 100 or, 1000...

 

'Don't throw away the good in pursuit of perfection' comes to mind.

[Bufofrog]

1 minute ago, Phi for All said:

It doesn't seem that difficult to me. There is clearly an interpretation of the 2A that takes into account that we were a fledgling nation that took control away from a colonizing force, that private ownership of "arms" included even things like cannons so we could protect what we had accomplished. We needed a citizen militia in the early days because the whole country was too porous and indefensible otherwise.

It doesn't seem difficult to me either, unfortunately the SC ruled in 2008 that the 2nd amendment says that gun ownership is the right of every citizen.  So now I hope I never accidently cut off someone in traffic or heaven forbid that I get lost and have to turn around in someone's driveway.