Yay, GUNS!

[uncool]

I believe that gun ownership is a right, not merely a privilege, and there is a good reason the founders of the United States were unable to obtain ratification of the Constitution without first ammending it to include "the right to bear arms".

There's a reason they're called "amendments": they were added in after the Constitution had already gone into effect.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Bill_of_Rights#Ratification_process

March 4, 1789 – The Constitution goes into effect.

September 25, 1789 – Congress proposes Bill of Rights.

 

6 month gap. It's true that they were unable to obtain unanimous ratification - that took until May of the next year, which is still 7 months before there were enough states that had ratified the Bill of Rights.

=Uncool-

[Anders Hoveland]

There's a reason they're called "amendments": they were added in after the Constitution had already gone into effect.

Actually, the first ten ammendments (sometimes known as "The Bill of Rights") were made to the Constitution before it was ratified by all of the States that existed at that time. North Carolina, Vermount, and Rhode Island, refused to ratify the Constitution until after the ammendments were made. So in a way, the first ten ammendments are "special" and carry the same weight as the Constitution itself. There was never really a United States of America without a second ammendment; the Constitution may have been accepted by some states, but a Constitutional government had not been elected yet.

 

As for the notion that you can "undo" the second ammendment, good luck with that. It is nearly impossible to change or make a new ammendment to the Constitution. There is a good chance it would trigger a civil war if you tried. But on a somewhat bright side for gun control proponents, the Supreme Court interrpreted that the second ammendment only bars the federal government from infringing on the right to have guns, not necessarily the States.

 

I know many of you who dream of a one world government don't like the idea of separation of powers, or checks and balances. But that is the way it is, and you are going to encounter plenty of deep seated resistance (including from me) if you try to change it.

Edited October 21, 2012 by Anders Hoveland

[mooeypoo]

t necessarily the States.

 

I know many of you who dream of a one world government don't like the idea of separation of powers, or checks and balances. But that is the way it is, and you are going to encounter plenty of deep seated resistance (including from me) if you try to change it.

 

Well, if you know, it must be true.

 

Anders, you have a tendency to state bombastic claims as your opponents' claims just so it's easier for you to argue against, and then generalize positions to make a point. Those two are fallacies that turn any argument void.

 

So, please stop doing that. Thanks.

 

Oh, and my points about the gun which by your logic should be banned, despite the fact you seem to note it should be legal, still stand unanswered.

 

~mooey

[Anders Hoveland]

But they're not designed for that. In fact, they're designed for maximum shrapnel and damage.

Armor piecing anti-tank rockets are not particularly designed to produce shrapnel, and if desired, they could be designed to minimise shrapnel. Whenever an explosive goes off in contact with metal, there is going to be a danger of shrapnel, but anti-tank ammunition is not specifically designed to damage/kill personnel.

 

You seem to be under the misconception that all anti-tank weapons produce a huge explosive cloud. That is not the case.

 

Do you forsee the need for individual civilians to shoot tanks anytime before the Zombie apocalypse?

There might not be any immediately pressing reason for them now, but what about in the distant future? How do we know the situation will not change?

You might argue that we could always change the law if and when the need arrises, but will we actually be able to react fast enough? Laws are not changed overnight. And if the central government did ever become malignant, chances are it would put up much resistance to this type of change. So even though there might not be a need for it just now, now might still be a good time to allow it. Another idea might be just to make a law now that would specifically allow individual local governments to allow rocket launchers at a moments notice, if they so choose.

 

Although it may be difficult to imagine now, unexpected things could happen in the distant future. If we look at all the other ancient kingdoms and Empires in history, none of them lasted forever.

 

So if the explosives were sold on the side to be purchased in the next store, that solves the issue?

There are already regulations against explosives. In a rocket launcher, it is the explosives that do the damage, so there is not so much reason to ban the rocket launcher itself. I suppose one could argue for banning the propellant also, but such an argument would be based more on the grounds of preventing a fire hazard.

 

 

By what you're saying, these guns should be illegal. And yet your conclusion is that they shouldn't be..

Your logic is a bit choppy here.

The rocket rocket launchers containing explosives could be illegal, but not the rocket launcher itself. This is not such is dissimilar situation from the gun laws in several highly restrictive cities. In such cities, it is legal to own a gun and ammunition, but illegal to discharge your firearm. Some cities have made it illegal to have a firearm loaded, either in ones car or in public. This does not matter as much, because the fact remains that you can at least have a gun available if an emergency presents itself.

[swansont]

But on a somewhat bright side for gun control proponents, the Supreme Court interrpreted that the second ammendment only bars the federal government from infringing on the right to have guns, not necessarily the States.

What decision was that? Because the 14th amendment says "No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States". You can't take away a right at the state level if it's guaranteed at the federal level.

[iNow]

What decision was that?

He probably means District of Columbia v. Heller from 2008, specifically Justice Scalia's comments:

 

 

http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/07-290.ZS.html

 

Although we do not undertake an exhaustive historical analysis today of the full scope of the Second Amendment, nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.

 

We also recognize another important limitation on the right to keep and carry arms. Miller said, as we have explained, that the sorts of weapons protected were those “in common use at the time.”… We think that limitation is fairly supported by the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of “dangerous and unusual weapons.”…

 

It may be objected that if weapons that are most useful in military service — M-16 rifles and the like — may be banned, then the Second Amendment right is completely detached from the prefatory clause. But as we have said, the conception of the militia at the time of the Second Amendment’s ratification was the body of all citizens capable of military service, who would bring the sorts of lawful weapons that they possessed at home to militia duty. It may well be true today that a militia, to be as effective as militias in the 18th century, would require sophisticated arms that are highly unusual in society at large. Indeed, it may be true that no amount of small arms could be useful against modern-day bombers and tanks. But the fact that modern developments have limited the degree of fit between the prefatory clause and the protected right cannot change our interpretation of the right.

 

 

Most right-wing blogs and sites have gone a bit ape shit over that language, responding roughly that, "OMG!! The court opens up the possibility that states can regulate guns!!!" ... which, you know... They already do and have for years.

[Phi for All]

I know many of you who dream of a one world government don't like the idea of separation of powers, or checks and balances.

That is an incredibly inaccurate and self-serving assertion. I can't think of a single person here or anywhere else I've heard of that would support this. You're going to leave a lot of animals sleeping on the cold ground if you continue to make your strawmen this big.

[Iggy]

He probably means District of Columbia v. Heller from 2008, specifically Justice Scalia's comments:

 

 

http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/07-290.ZS.html

 

 

 

 

Most right-wing blogs and sites have gone a bit ape shit over that language, responding roughly that, "OMG!! The court opens up the possibility that states can regulate guns!!!" ... which, you know... They already do and have for years.

And after they went ape shit the Supreme Court ruled in 2010 that, of course, the second amendment applies to the states via the 14th amendment like Swansont pointed out.

 

McDonald v. Chicago, 561 US 3025 (2010), was a landmark[1] decision of the Supreme Court of the United States that determined whether the Second Amendment applies to the individual states. The Court held that the right of an individual to "keep and bear arms" protected by the Second Amendment is incorporated by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and applies to the states

 

-wiki

[uncool]

Actually, the first ten ammendments (sometimes known as "The Bill of Rights") were made to the Constitution before it was ratified by all of the States that existed at that time.

Again, that is false. The Bill of Rights only made it into the Constitution by being ratified by 3/4 of the states on December 15, 1791, while all 14 states (including Vermont, which hadn't originally been a state) ratified the Constitution by January 10, 1791 (or by March 4, 1791, since Vermont wasn't a state until March 14, 1791).

North Carolina, Vermount, and Rhode Island, refused to ratify the Constitution until after the ammendments were made.

If by "made", you mean "proposed". Not only that, but they ratified the Constitution long before they ever ratified the Bill of Rights.

So in a way, the first ten ammendments are "special" and carry the same weight as the Constitution itself.

The fact that you don't think this is true of the other amendments shows that you don't understand how the Constitution works in the first place. These are amendments - they are changes to the constitution; once they go into effect, they are part of the constitution and automatically carry the same weight as any other part of the Constitution.

There was never really a United States of America without a second ammendment; the Constitution may have been accepted by some states,

By a 3/4 majority of the states, which was sufficient for the Constitution to go into effect. Yes, there was a United States of America before the second amendment.

but a Constitutional government had not been elected yet.

False. George Washington was elected under the Constitution in January 1789, 8 months before the Bill of Rights was proposed and 2 years before the Bill of Rights went into effect.

As for the notion that you can "undo" the second ammendment

Who said that?

I know many of you who dream of a one world government

Who?

 

What decision was that? Because the 14th amendment says "No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States". You can't take away a right at the state level if it's guaranteed at the federal level.

Only once that right has been "incorporated"; not all of the Bill of Rights have been incorporated. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incorporation_of_the_Bill_of_Rights

 

Right to indictment by a grand jury

This right has been held not to be incorporated against the states. See Hurtado v. California, 110 U.S. 516 (1884).

 

Right to a jury selected from residents of the state and district where the crime occurred

This right has not been incorporated against the states. See Caudill v. Scott, 857 F.2d 344 (6th Cir. 1988); Cook v. Morrill, 783 F.2d 593 (5th Cir. 1986); Zicarelli v. Dietz, 633 F.2d 312 (3d Cir. 1980).

 

Protection against "excessive fines"

This provision has not been incorporated.

=Uncool-

Edited October 21, 2012 by uncool

[mooeypoo]

Armor piecing anti-tank rockets are not particularly designed to produce shrapnel, and if desired, they could be designed to minimise shrapnel. Whenever an explosive goes off in contact with metal, there is going to be a danger of shrapnel, but anti-tank ammunition is not specifically designed to damage/kill personnel.

That's what I said, it's designed to shoot tanks, which means that if it shoots people, it kills them without a doubt. Unlike a gun, where if you know how to use it you may choose to either kill or "just" injure.

 

You seem to be under the misconception that all anti-tank weapons produce a huge explosive cloud. That is not the case.

Well, I was a Lieutenant in the military, dealing with guns on a personal loving level. But yeah, what do I know.

 

You said "IF X, then Y"

Your X turned out to be not-so, by your logic, it should be not-Y.

 

Hence, "if the guns are not designed for shrapnel" --> they might not be DESIGNED to produce shrapnel, but unless you want to claim to me that individual people are going to shoot tanks on an individual level, then they were not meant to be shot directly AT people (without a tank) and when they are shot at people (without a tank) the only reason you would say there's no "shrapnel" is because the human shrapnel is soft and squishy.

 

I might not be anti guns (which I am not) but your logic in this case really doesn't follow, Anders. Are you really saying anti tank weaponary is okay to be bought in a store? If so, then your initial "if .." conditions should be ammended, since those guns fail on them.

 

There might not be any immediately pressing reason for them now, but what about in the distant future? How do we know the situation will not change?

When the Zombie apocalypse come, do what Milla did, and break into the abandoned police station to take your fill of weapons.

 

Until that happens, I would much rather people don't get access to these unless they have proper training, which in the case of anti tank and armor-piercing weapons, it takes A LOT of training, as well as lack of any dissernable PURPOSE.

 

They're clearly not for self defense.

 

You might argue that we could always change the law if and when the need arrises, but will we actually be able to react fast enough? Laws are not changed overnight.

 

You can say that about everything with equal amount of lack of logic.

For instance, it's illegal to commit theft. But when the Zombies come ad there is a block on the immediate supply of water and food, it may be necessary to go to your local Zombie-infested supermarket and steal some bottles of water.

 

By your logic, we should already allow people to steal bottles of water RIGHT NOW, because god knows what might happen in the future.

 

And if the central government did ever become malignant,

This is again where I leave you to your ranting. No one said "central government" and (SURPRISE) the people who might be against automatic assault rifles or anti-zombietank missiles might not be anti weapons in general, or for a central malignant government.

 

This is just a huge strawman that's extremely not useful.

 

There are already regulations against explosives. In a rocket launcher, it is the explosives that do the damage, so there is not so much reason to ban the rocket launcher itself. I suppose one could argue for banning the propellant also, but such an argument would be based more on the grounds of preventing a fire hazard.

If you know wha you're doing, you can make a gun from anything. That's not the issue here, just like it's not the issue of banning guns to prevent criminals from having them since CLEARLY criminals will not listen to any ban law.

 

The issue is selling a shoot-ready (and having the ammo on the side is still shoot-ready) weapon for people who have no need for the particular weapon (OVERKILL!) and are not TRAINED to use the weapon. Do you know why "anti tank" weapons are usually the job of two or three particular soldiers in a platoon? Because they take extra training on how to properly and effectively use them. Even to soldiers who know how to use guns, know how to do tactics, and shoot actual bad guys with actual guns.

 

You're making no sense.

 

That is an incredibly inaccurate and self-serving assertion. I can't think of a single person here or anywhere else I've heard of that would support this. You're going to leave a lot of animals sleeping on the cold ground if you continue to make your strawmen this big.

Yes, but Phi, when the Zombies come, it might happen, so we have to get ready for it RIGHT NOW!

[Sergeant Bilko]

Looks like the Zombies are on the march already Anders

 

 

 

http://news.blogs.cnn.com/2012/10/21/shooting-reported-at-wisconsin-spa/

 

 

 

Yayy Guns!

[iNow]

There was another mass shooting today, this time near a mall in Wisconsin.

 

 

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-504083_162-57536895-504083/wisconsin-mall-shooting-3-dead-4-injured-after-gunman-opens-fire-at-salon/

 

Three people are dead and at least four injured after a gunman opened fire at a spa near a suburban Milwaukee shopping mall on Sunday, reports CBS affiliate WDJT.

 

The gunman, who police had identified as Radcliffe Franklin Haughton, 45, is still at large and police are asking for the public's help in tracking him down.

 

Police said Haughton may be wearing a grey sweater, blue jeans, carrying a white and black backpack, and driving a black 2003 Mazda.

 

After the shooting, police said an improvised explosive device was found at the spa, but they did not indicate whether the suspect ever tried to set the device off.

 

The shooting occurred about 11 a.m. Sunday at the Azana Day Spa, a two-story, 9,000-square-foot building across the street from the Brookfield Square Mall in a middle- to upper-class community west of Milwaukee.

Edited October 21, 2012 by iNow

[swansont]

He probably means District of Columbia v. Heller from 2008, specifically Justice Scalia's comments:

 

 

http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/07-290.ZS.html

 

 

 

 

Most right-wing blogs and sites have gone a bit ape shit over that language, responding roughly that, "OMG!! The court opens up the possibility that states can regulate guns!!!" ... which, you know... They already do and have for years.

That's what I was suspecting too, but recognizing that a right has limits is not the same as saying that the states can ignore it, which is why I wanted Anders to clarify what he posted.

[Iggy]

You said "IF X, then Y"

Your X turned out to be not-so, by your logic, it should be not-Y.

Denying the antecedent a bit aren't we?

 

I mean, to quote the first couple lines of wiki,

 

Denying the antecedent, sometimes also called inverse error, is a formal fallacy, committed by reasoning in the form:

 

If P, then Q.

Not P.

Therefore, not Q.

 

Arguments of this form are invalid.

 

or maybe "by your logic" indicates rather the depths of illogical that I dared not venture into with my meager skimming of the thread.

Edited October 29, 2012 by Iggy

[john5746]

What about in Mexico? Guns are virtually illegal there, yet there is still plenty of gun violence. How do all those Mexican criminals get all those automatic guns that are even illegal in the USA ?

 

Unfortunately, Mexico borders a country that has a bunch of money and gets orgasmic pleasure from drugs and guns. Their government is relatively weak in comparison.

 

Many of the gun control freaks also have no idea what things are actually like in rural areas, where it is just not practical or feasible to be entirely reliant on a professional police force for protection.

 

I lived quite a bit of my life in Poor Valley, TN. You can't get there from here, that's how rural it is. I got a .22 before I got a 10-speed bike. I euthanized both of my dogs with a pistol while on spring break from college. I tried hunting, but never had the patience. Guns can be useful, I understand.

 

Yes, there will occasionally be deranged gun men going on shooting sprees. But this is just a fact of life we are going to have to accept. It is not worth sacrificing our freedom for. I don't really have a problem with making automatic guns illegal though.

 

We shouldn't be interested in making this "fact of life" easier. You can accept it, because you think it will never happen to you.

 

One of the arguments for gun ownership is preventing the government from monopolising the means of force, and thus securing liberty against potential tyranny in the future....

 

It is interesting to read some of the deliberations on the amendments. These men argued and compromised and had major concerns not relevant today. Some did not want a standing army. Some were concerned with religious sects fighting amongst each other. Some were concerned about religious sects who would not fight if asked.

 

They did not stop slavery, they did not include ALL people in these rights. Do you think they might have seen the gun issue more clearly if slaves were allowed to own guns? That a populace armed with guns might come at a cost greater than a standing army?

 

 

A useful video on reducing violence. From 11:30 onward is particularly relevant.

Pinker - Ted Talks

[john5746]

Unfortunately, looks like this thread is going to stay relevant indefinitely. Just sad.

[iNow]

There are like 350 million people in the US, and at least that many guns. Banning guns isn't going to do much unless you confiscate all of those already existing in peoples basements and safes and closets and pickups... which is itself not really an option, IMO.

 

What can we do instead?

[zapatos]

The only way I see to limit the frequency of these types of incidents is to limit the number of guns, and to raise the bar for what it takes to be allowed to purchase a gun. Given the strength of the gun lobby and the attitudes of US citizens this is not something that can be done quickly.

 

Perhaps it is time to take a lesson from the Right to Life folks and start chipping away slowly at the laws in place. City by city, state by state, law by law, make it more and more difficult to purchase a gun. Make potential buyers look at pictures of people who have been shot, make them get their parent's approval. Maybe we can even make them first be examined by a doctor first. If we can get gun purchases designated a sin, there will be a lot of support.

 

(This post is only somewhat tongue-in-cheek.)

[mooeypoo]

Denying the antecedent a bit aren't we?

 

I mean, to quote the first couple lines of wiki,

 

 

 

or maybe "by your logic" indicates rather the depths of illogical that I dared not venture into with my meager skimming of the thread.

I didn't mean it as a simplistic "this is true" and "this is false" statement, I was trying to demonstrate what happens when I take the specific posters' invalid logic and use it against them.

The invalid statement is invalid either way, that's the point.

[StringJunky]

The only way I see to limit the frequency of these types of incidents is to limit the number of guns, and to raise the bar for what it takes to be allowed to purchase a gun. Given the strength of the gun lobby and the attitudes of US citizens this is not something that can be done quickly.

 

Perhaps it is time to take a lesson from the Right to Life folks and start chipping away slowly at the laws in place. City by city, state by state, law by law, make it more and more difficult to purchase a gun. Make potential buyers look at pictures of people who have been shot, make them get their parent's approval. Maybe we can even make them first be examined by a doctor first. If we can get gun purchases designated a sin, there will be a lot of support.

 

(This post is only somewhat tongue-in-cheek.)

 

I'd be happy to interpret your every word as sincere and to any nominally intelligent person, commonsense. The only hint of a joke is in your last sentence...you know your country well. Don't you find it rather perverse that, collectively, the US is so religious yet covets such a violent symbol as a gun?

 

Edited December 16, 2012 by StringJunky

[John Cuthber]

There are like 350 million people in the US, and at least that many guns. Banning guns isn't going to do much unless you confiscate all of those already existing in peoples basements and safes and closets and pickups... which is itself not really an option, IMO.

 

What can we do instead?

Stop selling ammunition.

 

I'm not saying it entirely stops the problem, but it sure helps and you need help.

Edited December 16, 2012 by John Cuthber

[rigney]

I think Ben Stein has a very good concept of our gun control problems here in the United States.

http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=7418644n

Edited December 16, 2012 by rigney

[iNow]

He argues that cities with strict gun control laws have lots of killings, and that in areas where obtaining guns is quite simple crime tends to be low. He does this by using a small handful of anecdotes instead of looking at nationwide evidence to see if there truly is a trend here.

 

He also fails to address how those cities with very strict gun control tended to have a much higher incidence of gun crime in years past, and that the crime has FALLEN since implementation of the gun regulations. Saying that they have a high gun crime rate now and arguing that "data shows higher gun crime in areas with gun laws" sort of misses the point. In nearly all cases, the gun crime rate is lower now than it was before the gun laws took effect. It's a classic lawyers trick designed to trick ignorant people who aren't paying too close of attention.

 

It's like arguing that despite blood pressure medication patients on medication still tend to have higher blood pressure then people not on medication. Well, no shit... that's why we put them on meds in the first place. The proper comparison is to look at where their blood pressure was before versus now, not how they compare to the people who don't need blood pressure meds.

 

Also, Ben Stein is an ignorant fool who thinks evolution is a big lie and that god intelligently designed our spleen and our poop hole right beside our pleasure parts, so there's always that, too.

Edited December 16, 2012 by iNow

[zapatos]

 

Don't you find it rather perverse that, collectively, the US is so religious yet covets such a violent symbol as a gun?

 

 

Yes I do, but I'm struggling a bit to come up with a connection. It's not an authority thing; people who are bowing down to the authority of God are certainly not bowing down to the authority of the government. I guess it could be a violence thing but I don't really think so. There may be a lot of violence in the bible, but religious leaders are generally advocates of peace.

 

So why is there so much overlap between religion and gun rights? Perhaps it is more of a rural/urban, more education/less education thing. I suppose if you are in a rural area where hunting is more common, you may see the gun problem as a city problem, not really your problem. And if Missouri is representative of the rest of the country, the rural areas are certainly more religious.

[John Cuthber]

 

I think Ben Stein has a very good concept of our gun control problems here in the United States.

http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=7418644n

 

He says he doesn't understand why there's a flaw in the argument that, if you outlaw guns then only outlaws will have guns.

Which means he's an idiot because nobody is seriously considering disarming the police.

 

If he has that poor an understanding of the issues (and he's prepared to say so on TV) why is he given airtime?

EDIT

It gets worse.

I didn't know who the guy was so I looked on wiki where I found this evidence concerning his views on science.

"Stein: When we just saw that man, I think it was Mr. Myers, talking about how great scientists were, I was thinking to myself the last time any of my relatives saw scientists telling them what to do they were telling them to go to the showers to get gassed ... that was horrifying beyond words, and that’s where science—in my opinion, this is just an opinion—that’s where science leads you.

Crouch:

That’s right.

Stein:

... Love of God and compassion and empathy leads you to a very glorious place, and science leads you to killing people.

Crouch:

Good word, good word."

Edited December 16, 2012 by John Cuthber