NOT Gun Control

[zukiphile]

Nate, your sense that murders that don't involve firearms and rights that aren't described in the 2d Am. aren't part of this conversation is not well reasoned. It demonstrates a lack of concern with public safety or civil liberties in your analysis. When you use it as an excuse not to reason through comparable issues, you re-enforce an appearance that you are tightly focused on reducing the protection of the 2d Am.

Was your distinction [between rights that permit direct harm and those the exercise of which may cause harm less directly] also present when the BOR were adopted?

Who can say? Not you or I.

Arms were a means of direct harm at the adoption of the BOR, just as they are now, so that can't be a reason to change the scope of the BOR.

This logic makes murder legal and constitutional, as long as one uses a "arm" to accomplish the task because that is their original purpose and was during the formation of the BOR.

At this point, you should be more cautious about your use of the word logic. Your offered distinction between the 2d Am. and all others is that the 2d involves the use of arms that may harm (or protect) people directly. Of course that isn't really a principled distinction, but it also doesn't describe a difference in condition at the time of the adoption of the BOR.

There is nothing in the logic of that observation that makes murder legal, and your erroneous factual assertion that the BOR made murder legal is bizarre. Your response isn't even a well turned fallacy.

Your argument has problems where it lacks principle, lacks a factual basis and doesn't withstand the standards applied to other harms and other rights.

 

[adamBomb]

A terrorist recently mowed down a number of people on a bike path in New York City with a rented vehicle. Can we conclude that you are now advocating for more stringent background checks on everyone who wants to buy or rent a motor vehicle> If not ... why not? Obviously we need to raise the standard for possession of a motor vehicle.

These types of arguments make no sense. Motor vehicles are meant for driving. Guns are meant for killing. Making something that is meant for killing harder for a crazy to get doesn't seem like a crazy thing.

 

[adamBomb]

Now imagine a far left president, congress, and supreme court, and then combine that with another school shooting. The owner of the "cake" now has a gun put to his head and his cake taken anyway, every crumb. It's stone headed, unyielding thinking like this that makes me believe the 2nd amendment will be repealed sometime in my children's lifetime. It's just matter of the right factors lining up. Ownership rates and public opinion are not in our favor.

This is exactly what is going to happen. Bu bye 2nd amendment when the dems get control. Why? The right refuses to negotiate and try to do something to stop mass shootings. There are 50 different things that could be done and some forms of gun control are part of that solution. Doing nothing is going to cost much more.

 

[zukiphile]

Now imagine a far left president, congress, and supreme court, and then combine that with another school shooting. The owner of the "cake" now has a gun put to his head and his cake taken anyway, every crumb. It's stone headed, unyielding thinking like this that makes me believe the 2nd amendment will be repealed sometime in my children's lifetime. It's just matter of the right factors lining up. Ownership rates and public opinion are not in our favor.

This is exactly what is going to happen. Bu bye 2nd amendment when the dems get control. Why? The right refuses to negotiate and try to do something to stop mass shootings. There are 50 different things that could be done and some forms of gun control are part of that solution. Doing nothing is going to cost much more.

The idea that the RTKBA will blow away in the wind with the next confluence of exec, congress and court doesn't support an argument for compromise now. People without regard for the BOR won't respect anything you've offered as a compromise.

 

[NateKirk]

Your argument has problems where it lacks principle, lacks a factual basis and doesn't withstand the standards applied to other harms and other rights.

Hmph, I disagree.

There is nothing in the logic of that observation that makes murder legal, and your erroneous factual assertion that the BOR made murder legal is bizarre. Your response isn't even a well turned fallacy.

You take my words out of context. I did not make the allusion that murder is constitutional if carried out with a weapon protected under the second amendment. I used this as an example to show the a flaw in your line of thinking. You state that since the purpose for a weapons existence has not changed since the adoption of the bill of rights, one can not use that as a reason to change the scope of the right. However this equates the exercise of the right with murder as the things pertaining to it are solely for killing. I think the reasoning is sound, however the purpose of the statements use an example may have been lost on you and for that I apologize.

Your statement that since the purpose of arms has not changed since the adoption of the bill of rights we can not use this as a reason to change the scope of the right. This would make sense in a static, theoretical, textbook environment, however, technology has changed, culture has changed, population densities have changed and these have a serious effect on the ramifications of the exercise of the right to bear arms.

In the same way that paved roads were developed to accommodate faster cars, laws can be implemented to curb the side effects of changing situations. Whether these laws are constitutional is up for the supreme court to decide.

 

[zukiphile]

Your argument has problems where it lacks principle, lacks a factual basis and doesn't withstand the standards applied to other harms and other rights.

Hmph, I disagree.

You don't have to agree that an argument benefits from principle, a factual basis and being able to withstand the standards applied to other harms and other rights.

If those things don't matter, what distinguishes a good argument from a poor one?

Arms were a means of direct harm at the adoption of the BOR, just as they are now, so that can't be a reason to change the scope of the BOR.

This logic makes murder legal and constitutional, as long as one uses a "arm" to accomplish the task because that is their original purpose and was during the formation of the BOR.

You take my words out of context. I did not make the allusion that murder is constitutional if carried out with a weapon protected under the second amendment. I used this as an example to show the a flaw in your line of thinking.

Emphases added.

Nate, it isn't effective to deny making an allusion you've just made. I don't doubt that you think your reasoning is sound; that's part of the problem.

However this equates the exercise of the right with murder as the things pertaining to it are solely for killing.

I have not equated the right to keep or bear an arm with murder. Here you've conflated a right to have an arm to legitimately employ deadly force, killing and murder. That you fail to make these pertinent distinctions doesn't transform a defense of the RTKBA into a defense of murder.

 

[Bartholomew Roberts]

Now imagine a far left president, congress, and supreme court, and then combine that with another school shooting. The owner of the "cake" now has a gun put to his head and his cake taken anyway, every crumb. It's stone headed, unyielding thinking like this that makes me believe the 2nd amendment will be repealed sometime in my children's lifetime. It's just matter of the right factors lining up. Ownership rates and public opinion are not in our favor.

This is exactly what is going to happen. Bu bye 2nd amendment when the dems get control. Why? The right refuses to negotiate and try to do something to stop mass shootings. There are 50 different things that could be done and some forms of gun control are part of that solution. Doing nothing is going to cost much more.

Already happened in 2008, less than a month into the Obama Administration.. Nothing happened. Folding before the fight has even started while your allies control the Congress and White House will sure cause you some losses though.

And adamBomb, it takes a lot more than control of Congress to get rid of the Second Amendment. If it were as easy as you suggest, they'd have done that before NateKirk was even born.

 

[ammo.crafter]

snooping?

What the heck are all those buildings in Utah?

 

[Aguila Blanca]

They're not, when discussing murder rates. But the discussion pertains to firearms specifically.

Which only demonstrates that we are allowing the other side to control the narrative. This issue is NOT specific to guns; the issue is people who want to kill other people. So far, nobody in the U.S. has driven a car into a school to kill people, but they have done so on public streets. Bombs have been used to attack schools. There was an incident in Europe (Germany, I think) a few years ago in which a guy attacked a school with a home-made flamethrower. Eliminate guns entirely, and they'll just use something else. Lick, say, an airplane.

"But wait," you say, "that can't ever happen again." Well, yes, it can. There was an incident within (I think) the past year in which a student pilot flying out of Hartford, Connecticut, somehow managed to miss the entire airport he was supposed to land at and crashed just short of a Pratt & Whitney factory building across the river. I don't remember the details clearly, but my fuzzy recollection is that there was suspicion that it was an attempted terroristic act. Bottom line -- they'll use whatever they can get.

Here it is: http://www.courant.com/breaking-news/hc-plane-crash-1012-20161011-story.html

Hey, has anybody seen my pressure cooker?

This logic makes murder legal and constitutional, as long as one uses a "arm" to accomplish the task because that is their original purpose and was during the formation of the BOR.

Murder has always been constitutional. So have bank robbery, blackmail, libel and slander.They have also been illegal. We always have a right to commit illegal acts -- we also have a right to be arrested, prosecuted, and punished for doing so. The Constitution is a document defining the form and limits of authority of the federal government. It has nothing to do with murder. Nothing about pointing out that "arms" meant deadly weapons when the 2A was written and that "arms" means the same thing today in any way serves to suggest that murder has suddenly become legal.

 

[Aguila Blanca]

Incidents such as this are terrible and tragic. It's a natural reaction to want to do something to prevent it from happening again. I understand that -- I fell into that trap myself. Then, a few hours later, I woke up and realized that "doing something" just for the sake of doing something is not a useful, constructive, or effective approach. It's a knee-jerk reaction generated by a feeling of helplessness, and the helplessness is engendered by the realization that, if we're honest, we CAN'T prevent such incidents.

So it leaves us feeling like Jonathan Winters: https://youtu.be/uJPdTJ3n1RI?t=13

 

[5whiskey]

So the basic argument that I see is... We should have greater licensing, restrictions, education, fees, and registration requirements of gun ownership because (using the explanation given by many proponents of said scheme) it might prevent greater restrictions in the future. One poster even said a constitutional convention is just an election or two away to repeal the 2nd. I advise anyone that believes this to go re-read exactly what a constitutional convention entails. Do you honestly, sincerely believe that 2/3rds of the states will ratify the repeal of the 2nd amendment in any foreseeable future? We can't guess 50 years from now, but 10 is fair. While anything CAN happen, to try and say that its likely is either ignorance of the process or fear mongering. Surely you cannot intelligently articulate that this will actually happen in an election cycle or two.

There are flaws with this argument that we need to SETTLE (thank you zuke for the analogy). And yes, from what I'm seeing the argument is being framed as we need to settle now to prevent losing more rights in the future. America is currently at critical mass for gun ownership. Any gun legislation, even out-right Australian style mandatory buy-backs and confiscation, at this point is like shutting the gate once the horses have all run off. There are over a hundred million guns in circulation, with no "registry" to track them. Yeah, some will turn them in... But a whole lot will be buried or stashed in the basement. The black market will abound for quite some time as the value will undoubtedly increase. The otherwise law-abiding guy who just couldn't let go of his will see that they're doing no good buried under the oak tree in the back yard, and another "collector" is willing to pay top dollar for them. Arms proliferation will not go away. It just will not happen in the light of day anymore.

Even "common sense" compromises are of little value. Were we to be INTELLECTUALLY HONEST, you would see that the crime rate (murder rate) has decreased as firearms ownership increases. On top of that in a previous post I provided numerous examples of people who should have been investigated, or should have failed a background check, obtained a firearm LEGALLY despite government dropping the ball. GOVERNMENT CAN NOT EFFECTIVELY COMPLY WITH CURRENT BACKGROUND CHECK LAWS! Why would we introduce and even more stringent one when they suck at effectively conducting the current check?

Another important point is that the people who carry out mass shootings would rather I'm sure be remembered as a killer or a murderer, the label the gun provides, rather than as a psychopath or terrorist, the label that bombs, trucks, machetes, etc, provides

You speak as one with authority on the topic. Are you a psychologist who specializes in mass casualty shooters? What education, training, or experience do you have to justify this assertation? You're aware that guns were plan B for the columbine killers, right? Just like a constitutional convention is coming to take the 2nd away if we don't act now as well. Just like someone supposed that we are to trust our constitutional rights to an AI algorithm doing a social media search.



I'm not knee-jerk reacting to this as a gun nut either. If there was a restriction that could sincerely be shown through research and scientific study to reduce mass murder, while being narrowly tailored and specific in scope to protect the rights of the innocent... Well I'm all ears. I'm probably one of the few here who isn't dead set against universal background checks (current NICS checks, not computer AI). And I see no loss in a bump stock ban. Its not something I advocate for, but I wouldn't pick that hill to die on.

In the end, the current take away in my opinion is numerous recent cases aren't solely gun issues. Government knew some of these individuals had issues, and several were already prohibited persons. Yet they passed a NICS check and bought a gun because many someone's in the current system dropped the ball. That is where our current focus should lie, IMO.

 

[LogicMan]

This is exactly what is going to happen. Bu bye 2nd amendment when the dems get control. Why? The right refuses to negotiate and try to do something to stop mass shootings. There are 50 different things that could be done and some forms of gun control are part of that solution. Doing nothing is going to cost much more.

Why should the Right "negotiate?" All that ever happens with such negotiations is that it leads to more demands for gun control down-the-line. The gun controllers do not just become satisfied and go away.

You know I hear Democratic party politicians and the media saying, "When is the time to talk about gun control?" To which if we had some more gutsy politicians, some of them might say, "Gun control should never be something even considered for debate, no more than we debate or consider restricting the other rights in the Bill of Rights."

 

[LogicMan]

This logic makes murder legal and constitutional, as long as one uses a "arm" to accomplish the task because that is their original purpose and was during the formation of the BOR.

That makes absolutely no sense. Arms are tools for killing, yes, but their purpose is not for murder. Their purpose is to allow an individual to engage in combat for purposes of self-defense and resistance to tyranny and/or defense of the state if required. They can be used for murder, sure, but that is not their primary purpose. Nowhere does the right to keep and bear tools that allow one to kill mean a right to engage in murder.

Obviously any restriction to or limit of a right instantly turns it into a privilege, if you want to look at it that way. I have the right to use the facilities when I like. I have the right to sing Broadway showtunes loudly outside my neighbor's house at 2 am, but I'll more than likely be arrested or ticketed for disturbing the peace. So much for the "right" to free speech, huh?

Restrictions of rights do not make them into privileges when certain abuses of the right are restricted. Making it illegal to engage in murder with guns does not turn the right to keep and bear arms into a privilege. Making it illegal to cry "Fire!" in a crowded theater does not turn the right to free speech into a privilege. Making it where if a police officer comes to a door and hears someone inside screaming for help and being beaten, that said officer can then forcefully enter the home, does not make the right against unreasonable search and seizure a privilege.

Rather, what makes a right into a privilege is when you have to get permission from the Government to exercise the right. If I have to get a license to be a journalist, that turns the right to free speech and freedom of the press into privileges. However, saying I do not have a right to falsely claim someone is a rapist (libel), does not make the right to free speech into a privilege.

 

[44 AMP]

Ever wonder why the media and the anti gun advocates ignore the elephant in the room?

I suppose if they did, they would also have to admit that laws don't stop people who don't care if they get caught or killed afterwards.

The problem isn't guns its people, people who shoot other people for no better reason than they feel like it.

No law will stop that. Actual punishment (not just incarceration) might. Capital punishment is argued endlessly and may not be a deterrent for some people, but it absolutely prevents repeat offenses by the same individual.

It is a fact in biology that in certain species of mammals, individuals go crazy and run amok. When we see that kind of behavior in humans we classify it as mental illness.

It is also observed that certain species of mammals, when crowded together beyond a certain level, generally go violently insane. (put too many rats in a cage, they eat their young - first...)

Biologically, Homo Sapiens is a mammal.

perhaps mankind has some of the same traits as other mammals??

There are times when I wonder if, as a species, we are not dangerously close to the tipping point. Or maybe its just 24/7 "news" that makes it seem so??

 

[LogicMan]

The only type of gun control that "might" help stop these kinds of mass shootings would be a complete, 100% ban on ALL semiautomatic firearms that take detachable magazines. That would mean both handguns and rifles. So anything from a 1911 or 9mm to a Ruger Mini 14 or the AR-15, banned. Now here are the problems with arguing for such:

1) It would be a huge infringement on people's right to keep and bear arms

2) Assuming it could even be passed, it would take decades to have any real effect without mass confiscation, which would likely not be doable in this country. And the thing is then, if it would take decades to really have any effect, we might end up fixing the problem of mass shootings by other means during that period of time.

3) Contrary to what is claimed by many, the guns really are not the cause. The AR-15 has been on the market since 1964 for civilians, and Tommy guns before then. Before the Gun Control Act of 1965, you could have guns shipped right to your house via mail order, no background check or anything. And before the National Firearms Act of 1934, you could go into gas stations or hardware stores and buy automatic fire Tommy guns. They were expensive, but so are many guns today. But yet the mass shootings are a very recent phenomenon.

Now the Gun Controllers may retort that, "Yes, technically those guns were available, but they were a lot rarer then, whereas today, they are a lot more widely available." It is true that they were rarer, but, given the propensity of some of these mass shooters to have a huge obsession with firearms, it is likely that even in the 1930s, 40s, 50s, 60s, 70s, and 80s, such an individual would have become very much aware of the existence of such weapons and thus singled it out for purchase as an ideal weapon for conducting a planned mass shooting.

So there is something else going on in society that is causing these mass shootings as of late. Terrorism (San Bernadino, Fort Hood, Orlando nightclub) has been the cause for some of them, and plain mental illness for some of the others. And then a combination of mental illness/evil on the part of some others.

4) Just because you "can" enact a certain policy to stop some form of societal scourge does not mean that you should. France had a terrorist attack that killed around 30+ people and in response, the entire country was placed under martial law with civil liberties suspended. All for just a few dozen deaths. On the other hand, the United States gets hit with a terrorist attack in 2001 that kills 3,000 people and what happens? Do we suspend civil liberties? Nope. Instead, to the extent that anything was done, the Bush administration was LAMBASTED up and down, called fascist, Hitler, Nazi, you name it, over things like the Patriot Act, waterboarding, enhanced interrogation, No Fly List, etc...now I'm not arguing for or against those policies, my point is that we could have suspended civil liberties in the name of security, but didn't, and there was fierce resistance to what was done. This is because of how Americans cherish individual freedom and liberty so much in comparison to the peoples of other nations. Could suspending civil liberties have helped the government better protect us? Maybe. But that doesn't mean we should allow it. Same with guns and banning them.

 

[Prndll]

The concept of guns in their basic design and function haven't changed much, except for getting better...higher quality, variety, accuracy, availability.

But many other things HAVE changed. People HAVE changed. We have an entire generation coming up that has embraced something that (to me anyway) resembles stagnation. Perhaps it's time to consider setting the minimum age for civilian ownership at 21. We have a split nation with a very low sense of patriotism flowing through a growing portion of the population. Life itself has been so cheapened by the strong push for abortion, drugs, parents the are absent or don't care, and the fantasy land of social media. It has become so much easier for someone to get lost and end up depressed. Many people cannot handle it. Not just kids but alot of adults go crazy over this stuff. It's very hard to know who/what to trust. There is alot of uselessness out there and the liberalism of our education system ends up pushing young people over the edge. Too many people simply are ill equipped to handle life.

In a word....the problem is 'liberalism'.

Any sense of responsibility, morality, and common sense has been getting systematically removed from society. This is not by accident. The transformation Obama talked about is part of this. This isn't new but it has been there long enough to start showing in a major way....it's taking a tole. We've always had 'crazies' among us. But what we have now is people being pushed into it at an alarming rate. Part of the legalizing of weed is done with the intent of making people NOT care anymore.

We are witnessing the very real product of Lennon's Imagine. What Jim Morrison referred to by "let my tell you about heartache and the loss of God".

Hearts, minds, and souls are being split and they are going out with a bang. Radical Islam eggs this on and kids get fed a steady diet of insanity through the very same social media that killers use. Instead of being on sites like this one, they happily take in whatever Soros has decided they need. More gun laws can't fix this. We are losing a generation.

 

[adamBomb]

In a word....the problem is 'liberalism'.

Any sense of responsibility, morality, and common sense has been getting systematically removed from society.

Uhmmm, have you looked at the President's twitter account? Not sure I would be blaming liberalism for morality/responsibility issues. Dude lies, makes fun of someone, puts people down, etc daily on there and he is supposed to be our leader. He lies 24/7. I went to a speech of his and he said he 'would not have time to play golf'. Yea how's that working? He is out there more than Obama and we are bucking the bill. So you want to know who to blame for kids these days, look no farther than our commander in chief. And he is as conservative as you get.

But many other things HAVE changed. People HAVE changed. We have an entire generation coming up that has embraced something that (to me anyway) resembles stagnation.

Things have changed. People not so much. Kids coming up just want to get a good job, be able to afford rent (let alone a house), pay for a car, etc. You know things that your generation could do off a crappy job. The older generations have destroyed the economy. Have destroyed the american factory workers etc. Yea thanks for that. Thanks for sending our jobs overseas. Don't blame kids for that. Blame your democrat and republican politicians. Blame the baby boomers. Blame the WW2 generation. You all messed us up really good.

 

[Prndll]

I have no interest for what Trump (or the rest of the twits) puts into Twitter. If you follow Twitter, your making a mistake. Personally, I have no use for that system. I do find it quite interesting that Trump is ACTUALLY PROVING himself a bit more 'transparent' than anyone else in Washington simply because of his use of Twitter. Obama assured us he would be the most transparent administration but Trump actually did it....and people don't like it.

Who 'wants' to see how sausage gets made? Certainly no twit on Twitter.

As for lies....
I would happily take Trumps lies over Clinton's any day of the week. Infact, People seem quite happy to be lied to by Obama and the Clintons. People were happy to be lied to by the entire Kennedy family. We've all lived with lies from Washington for so long, we don't know any other way to live. Trump is not 'conservative'. I knew that when I voted for him. I did not need him to be conservative. He has done absolutely NOTHING so far that indicates to me that I should vote against him on the next go around. So far, he still has my vote.

As for the kids....
I haven't seen what your describing. What I see is sloth worshiping at the alter of Steve Jobs while crying if they can't spend all day on Facebook/Twitter.

 

[Onward Allusion]

Maybe I'm just dense. After 7 pages of this going back and forth, I still don't understand how doing a better job of ID'ing prohibited persons and individuals who are a danger to themselves or others is any form of gun control.

 

[Bartholomew Roberts]

The vast majority of mass shooters passed the background check. Expanding that system will demonstrably not stop mass shootings. It can’t even stop people who are already prohibited people. When there is another mass shooting after you’ve folded what then? Are you going to scream at us about the new restriction we must adopt even though we were right about the previous 20,000 not fixing the problem? No, need to answer - that was purely rhetorical as we all know the answer.

Several here have characterized this as unreasonable demands for perfection from their proposed solution. Yet, every time you point out that better than 98% of the last 20 or 30 mass shooters went through NICS and passed it, silence.

“If we don’t do this thing that has repeatedly failed to stop mass shootings, it will be worse for us the next time there is a mass shooting. “ I mean, even if I agreed with the need to urgently agree to some kind of settlement - that’s about the stupidest settlement you could make since it guarantees you’ll give up ground and still not do anything to stop your problem.