The Second Amendment Topic

[atomationage]

There are all kinds of people wandering around Florida with guns, including the officer who was supposed to be providing security for Pulse.  Any one of them would be outgunned by an assault weapon with extra magazines. 

Edited October 23, 2016 by atomationage

[Kromm]

2 hours ago, magicdog said:

 

As someone who knows something about concealed carry, it's wrong to assume someone will just shoot back when bullets start flying.  Owning a gun is a great responsibility and using it even for self defense shouldn't be taken lightly.  Not all situations call for a legal gun owner to fire back at a bad guy.    Some situations call for not shooting.  Each scenerio is different.  

The NRA spits in the face of that idea of responsible ownership, because they're against reasonable measures like people having to support that right to carry via mandatory training.

I would never say "fuck gun owners" as a generalization. I've known many who are lovely, responsible good people. But FUCK THE NRA. They are evil. They betray America every day by making gun ownership into a slippery slope battle, where things that an actual majority of responsible gun owners believe in (like background checks) are pissed on by the organization that supposedly represents them. Responsible gun owners, if they can't take back the leadership of the NRA somehow, should at the very least be ashamed of them.

Edited October 23, 2016 by Kromm

[NewDigs]

2 hours ago, InsertWordHere said:

ITA. I was referring to the many people I saw on the interwebs after the Pulse shooting claiming it would have not been as bad if someone in the club had had a gun even though he had been engaged before he entered the club by an armed off duty police officer.

Bold mine.

That and almost every other shooting tragedy. 

It's a mystery.

Does it perhaps speak to the issue of responsible gun ownership because lots and lots of people concealed and/or open carry. Lots. Yet no fish-in-a-barrel type shootings. That I remember.

That said, I think the SC overreached with their decision.

Edited October 24, 2016 by NewDigs

[Archery]

On ‎10‎/‎23‎/‎2016 at 11:23 AM, magicdog said:

Just remember, you can't have a first amendment without the second.

Well, by that logic, you can't have the 19th Amend. (allowing women the right to vote) because the 18th Amend. (prohibition) got repealed. 

[magicdog]

1 hour ago, Archery said:

you can't have the 19th Amend. (allowing women the right to vote) because the 18th Amend. (prohibition) got repealed. 

Since I didn't make it clear earlier, I'll just state what I meant:

Your freedoms (especially that of freedom of speech) will be endangered (if not outright banned) if the populace lacked the ability to have the weapons the second amendment provides for - because sometimes you have to fight for it.  We live in what we think is a civilized society but that veil is a thin one which can tear when you least expect it.

[shok]

13 hours ago, magicdog said:

Since I didn't make it clear earlier, I'll just state what I meant:

Your freedoms (especially that of freedom of speech) will be endangered (if not outright banned) if the populace lacked the ability to have the weapons the second amendment provides for - because sometimes you have to fight for it.  We live in what we think is a civilized society but that veil is a thin one which can tear when you least expect it.

Wow, it's amazing how most other developed countries in the world manage to have freedom of speech without guns.

[magicdog]

1 hour ago, shok said:

Wow, it's amazing how most other developed countries in the world manage to have freedom of speech without guns.

Does this count?

[biakbiak]

3 hours ago, magicdog said:

Does this count?

I don't even comprehend how this is comparable to the discussion on hand. Yes, countries like Russia, China and Vietnam persecute people. 

THIS does not discount the fact that there are many, many, many other democracies that don't have a second amendment, regulate guns effectively, and don't have tyranny. 

Edited October 27, 2016 by biakbiak

[Giselle]

On ‎10‎/‎16‎/‎2016 at 5:10 PM, Kromm said:

Except "people" did not literally mean every citizen specifically. It meant local communities. 

In theory one could argue it meant local communities should be able to use bombs on the Federal government... except... bombs didn't exist when it was written, and the closest parallel were inefficient cannons. They couldn't easily imagine a time when weapons would exist that could kill entire communities, muchless the entire world.

What also wasn't intended was that it was a statement about what citizens could use on each other. It DID have an aspect of defending oneself and home from "Indians" (I use that term deliberately in this context because the paranoia and fear back then wasn't communicated as "Native Americans") but OFF of your own property people's rights to carry were hardly considered unlimited. You'd defend your camp in a Wagon Train, for example. But at the same time, many towns and cities in the Old West felt perfectly justified in asking people to surrender their guns to the local Sheriff while they were in town (admittedly that was a bit after the time of the Founders, but I'm just saying that this country, as a historical whole, wasn't always so obsessed with leveraging the Second Amendment to its theoretical most expansive interpretation). 

And that's where we've really gone off the reservation so to speak. All day long people can quite statistics about gun accidents in people's homes, but despite that you can trace the logic behind people defending that even if you don't agree with it. It's the people who argue things like school shootings with "well if everyone had their guns on them this never would have happened!" where the logic gets scary, and well beyond anything the Founders could have ever possibly intended. People on the street, in their normal jobs, in normal society are not acting as a militia. Nor are they defending their homes. Bands of "Indians" are not swooping into settlements of our citizens on the edge of civilization where no law exists otherwise. The logic of people being able to carry in those circumstances is ludicrous. 

It was required in some colonies that males be a part of the militia. Colonial militia in revolutionary times were made up of private citizens who were required to provide their own equipment. They brought and used their personal property (guns) to fight. Some communities had armories and powder stores but for the most part it was BYOG.  Some militia members became a part of the regular Colonial Army but there were many others that fought alongside the Colonial Army but were not a part of it. 

In modern times, while lawlessness raged outside their homes law abiding private citizens wanted to stay and protect their private property in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina the government came and seized their weapons. They were not allowed to protect themselves nor their homes. It should be noted that this happened under the Bush administration.

While there should be some laws regarding firearms we must remember that this only restricts law abiding citizens not criminals. Chicago has some of the toughest gun laws in the country yet it still has the highest number shooting deaths and shooting related crimes in the country  and the laws haven't stopped the criminal element.

http://time.com/4165576/chicago-murders-shootings-rise-2015/

Edited to add: Another instance to disprove that "these things don't happen in modern times." In the 90's my brother lived in the area known as"Korea Town" in Los Angeles. When the Rodney King riots happened the police weren't protecting the area, it was armed citizens on rooftops of businesses and apartments. They weren't roaming the street stopping crime they were protecting their families, homes and livelihoods .

In fear of losing the argument to Godwin's law I will also add the fight put up by Jewish citizens in the Warsaw Ghetto against the Nazi's in WW2.

Edited November 13, 2016 by Giselle

[Moose135]

On 11/13/2016 at 1:20 PM, Giselle said:

While there should be some laws regarding firearms we must remember that this only restricts law abiding citizens not criminals. Chicago has some of the toughest gun laws in the country yet it still has the highest number shooting deaths and shooting related crimes in the country  and the laws haven't stopped the criminal element.

Many of those guns originated somewhere else, where the gun laws aren't as tough.  You either need consistent, nationwide laws, or you need to stop and search every vehicle coming in to the city to stop that.  In New York, for instance, which also has strict gun laws, recent studies show that the majority of guns used in crimes originated out of state.  A Daily News story a couple of years ago reported that in 2011 (the year before their story) 90% of the guns used in crimes in NYC came from out of state.  And this more recent story in the NY Times

Quote

In New York and New Jersey, which have some of the strictest laws in the country, more than two-thirds of guns tied to criminal activity were traced to out-of-state purchases in 2014. Many were brought in via the so-called Iron Pipeline, made up of Interstate 95 and its tributary highways, from Southern states with weaker gun laws, like Virginia, Georgia and Florida.

From that same NYT story:

Chicago offers perhaps the starkest example of trafficking. There are no retail gun dealers within city limits, because Chicago has some of the tightest municipal gun regulations.

Yet bringing a gun into Chicago can be as simple as driving less than an hour to a gun show in Indiana, where private sales are not recorded and do not require a background check.

Edited November 19, 2016 by Moose135

[Giselle]

On 11/18/2016 at 8:49 PM, Moose135 said:

Many of those guns originated somewhere else, where the gun laws aren't as tough.  You either need consistent, nationwide laws, or you need to stop and search every vehicle coming in to the city to stop that.  In New York, for instance, which also has strict gun laws, recent studies show that the majority of guns used in crimes originated out of state.  A Daily News story a couple of years ago reported that in 2011 (the year before their story) 90% of the guns used in crimes in NYC came from out of state.  And this more recent story in the NY Times

From that same NYT story:

 

Even if you had nationwide gun restrictions it would still only affect law abiding citizens. Criminals would still have access to illegal weapons brought across our borders. Cocaine isn't legal yet it still gets into our country.

[Kromm]

On 11/21/2016 at 0:45 AM, Giselle said:

Even if you had nationwide gun restrictions it would still only affect law abiding citizens. Criminals would still have access to illegal weapons brought across our borders. Cocaine isn't legal yet it still gets into our country.

That's just not true, but I doubt I could persuade you otherwise.

The point of many gun restrictions isn't just to 'take guns away from people', some of the ideas also have the intent on expanding the toolset law enforcement has to stop criminals. But the NRA are traitors to America and don't care. For example, the NRA doesn't want any kind of registry of gun owners, even though it would help identify what weapons were used to commit crimes. It's all too easy to say "the criminals would just get other guns which aren't registered" but that takes the rather insane position that all crimes are planned and/or that all criminals are smart. The NRA also doesn't care what KIND of guns people have, and to insist that an AK47 is just as easy to hide, smuggle and distribute as a pistol is also totally insane. So again the logic "they could just get them elsewhere" is pretty limited if we are dealing with facts and not propaganda. And in the next few Trump years I reckon it's likely to come to pass that it won't even be illegal to carry under any circumstances. Is that really the world you want? Where a police officer can't arrest someone for flaunting a gun? Or check on them, see that they're convicted criminals, and arrest them for carrying? That's what's coming, I think--that kind of "acceptance". 

Also, what steps has the NRA EVER taken to ensure that gun owners get training? The answer: almost none. Sure there are classes, but bring up the idea that people should be required to get training to use a gun?  Suddenly there's a dead silence from those traitors.  How would such a requirement be answered with the "it would only affect law abiding citizens"?  Because yes. If law-abiding citizens had to be trained in gun safety, marksmanship, etc. isn't that a good thing? Oh wait. Not if you are the NRA.

[Shannon L.]

I have to tread carefully in the gun threads online because we are gun owners (and I grew up with hunters, so.....), but when it comes to the NRA, my husband has said that he thinks they've gotten so bad that they should be listed as a hate group. 

We both agree that there should be nationwide federal laws that would stop people from crossing over the state lines to buy weapons and that sensible gun laws/restrictions are important.

2 hours ago, Kromm said:

Also, what steps has the NRA EVER taken to ensure that gun owners get training? The answer: almost none. Sure there are classes, but bring up the idea that people should be required to get training to use a gun?  Suddenly there's a dead silence from those traitors.  How would such a requirement be answered with the "it would only affect law abiding citizens"?  Because yes. If law-abiding citizens had to be trained in gun safety, marksmanship, etc. isn't that a good thing? Oh wait. Not if you are the NRA.

Think of how much money they could make if they offered even low cost gun training classes?  When I was a kid, my parents made me and my brother take an NRA safety course because of the guns we ran into on a regular basis, but back then, the NRA wasn't so extreme.  Neither my husband, nor I, would be a part of their organization now. 

[Kromm]

On 11/23/2016 at 3:59 PM, Shannon L. said:

I have to tread carefully in the gun threads online because we are gun owners (and I grew up with hunters, so.....), but when it comes to the NRA, my husband has said that he thinks they've gotten so bad that they should be listed as a hate group. 

We both agree that there should be nationwide federal laws that would stop people from crossing over the state lines to buy weapons and that sensible gun laws/restrictions are important.

Think of how much money they could make if they offered even low cost gun training classes?  When I was a kid, my parents made me and my brother take an NRA safety course because of the guns we ran into on a regular basis, but back then, the NRA wasn't so extreme.  Neither my husband, nor I, would be a part of their organization now. 

Your husband sounds like a wise man.

IMO hunters are not the enemy. Gun owners as a whole are not the enemy.

The coopted insane traitorous NRA is the enemy.

This is not what the organization originally stood for. The earlier NRA wanted reasonable controls on gun ownership. They focused on marksmanship and training. Sure the NRA still has components of both of those things, but they tie it to an agenda that polls show a MAJORITY of their members don't actually agree with. Those members want different statusus for assault rifles. They tend to support restrictions on criminals and mentally incompetent people having guns. Many of them are at least willing to talk about mandatory testing/training and a gun registry, even if there are shades of opinion. And I think enough of them have brains that they know the "it won't stop the criminals" logic is a paper tiger, because the simple fact is that having (reasonable) restrictions means that accidents will be reduced, and that law enforcement will have better tools to stop a certain portion of gun crimes, even if yes, there are others it won't stop. Arguing that it won't stop ALL criminals, therefore don't do it, is like arguing that having Fire Departments won't stop all fires, therefore don't even bother to have Firemen. 

The radical takeover of the NRA actually started 40 years ago now, and I know that sounds like forever, but they'd been around for a HUNDRED years before that takeover happened.  When I call the current NRA leadership "traitors", I don't just mean to America as a whole (although they are) but also their own members, and their own history.

[windsprints]

Quote

IMO hunters are not the enemy. Gun owners as a whole are not the enemy.

I agree. I'm not a fan at all but I can respect people's rights to own them. I think that the vast majority of legal gun owners wouldn't have a problem with reasonable restrictions. Laws evolve as society does and the right to own a weapon can be protected while taking some measures for safety. I honestly think a part of the issue is that many people buy into "HILLARY (or whoever) WILL TAKE YOUR GUNS AND THE SECOND AMENDMENT WILL BE GONE" because they have no idea what it would actually take to do so. 

[scarynikki12]

Constitutional amendments require a lot to become law and repealing the second would be an amendment. It would be extremely difficult to overturn and it shows the ignorance of the voters that so many genuinely believe that the President can do it alone. 

[Duke Silver]

[Kromm]

38 minutes ago, scarynikki12 said:

Constitutional amendments require a lot to become law and repealing the second would be an amendment. It would be extremely difficult to overturn and it shows the ignorance of the voters that so many genuinely believe that the President can do it alone. 

You don't have to repeal the Second Amendment. Using that logic as a argument disruptor ignores the fact that the interpretation being argued by the NRA didn't even exist before 40 years ago. 

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/jurisprudence/2016/06/how_the_nra_perverted_the_meaning_of_the_2nd_amendment.html

No less a personage than Warren Burger--a RICHARD NIXON Supreme Court Appointee, pointed that out.

[Duke Silver]

FWIW, in general, I believe in the right to bear arms.  I grew up in a family that hunts; I own a single 12 gauge shotgun, locked in a case, that I take to my parents with me once in a while to hunt birds.  However, I also believe said right is subject to regulation & limitations.

Gun nuts and the insane gun lobby turn-off average gun peeps like me.  This type of thing is ridiculous:

Washington State Legislature Introduces Bill Allowing Fans To Carry Guns Into Stadiums

Quote

 

Here are a few items that fans are banned from bringing into the Seattle Seahawks’ stadium: air horns, laptops, “specialty coffees,” personal footballs. And here’s one banned item that three Washington state Representatives would like to allow: guns.

A new bill, introduced for the legislative session beginning in January, would allow concealed carry weapons in stadiums and arenas in Washington. In its current form, the bill would keep public stadium authorities, and private groups that operate facilities under a public stadium authority, from setting any rules against concealed carry weapons.

 

[Shannon L.]

Living somewhere like I do, where confrontations and arguments over opposing sports fans have turned violent (even deadly, I believe, in one case), I have to say that the Washington State legislature is insane.

[Bastet]

Oh, yeah, that will end well [/sarcasm] - drunk football fans and guns (and I say this as a drunk football fan).