Another Fucking Mass Shooting At US School

[Oleg]

You are conflating different parts of 2A, and assembling a specious argument from cherry picked phrases.
I am not here to spoon feed you, but it is apparent that you have swallowed the NRA talking points, hook line & sinker.

What conflate? Here's the Bill of Rights: https://www.archives.gov/founding-docs/bill-of-rights-transcript

When the drafters used the phrase "the people," why would you think it means something different in the 2nd Amendment from its meaning in the other amendments?

the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievancess

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures,

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

 

[Elixir]

I want to see where the possession of weapons of mass murder are expressly prescribed.

 

[ZiprHead]

I want to see where the possession of weapons of mass murder are expressly prescribed.

Like the right to have an abortion?

 

[ZiprHead]

It's also part of why I favor a license-based approach. The transfer check becomes simply seeing their license, akin to what we do today with cars.

Cars are also individually registered.

And you're going to see huge opposition to that. The gun-banners holy grail is a list of who owns what guns--of course the gun people will not trust that the list will be kept with honest intent. They have already shown their dishonesty with the background checks. The law said they can't keep the records--they kept them anyway. At this point it's fool me twice, shame on me.

What is it about "well regulated" gun nuts don't get?

What is it about "the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed" that gun grabbers don't get?

Are you a member of the militia? When was the last time you mustered? Who was your commanding officer?

Uh. The purpose of the Bills of Rights was to check the power of the new national government. To say that the Bill of Rights secured for the govenrment, as opposed to the people, a right to bear arms is just absurd.

Answer the questions. Are you a member of the militia? When was the last time you mustered? Who was your commanding officer?

You're saying the 2nd amendment gives the people the right to take up arms against the government. That's absurd.

 

[Cheerful Charlie]

It's also part of why I favor a license-based approach. The transfer check becomes simply seeing their license, akin to what we do today with cars.

Cars are also individually registered.

And you're going to see huge opposition to that. The gun-banners holy grail is a list of who owns what guns--of course the gun people will not trust that the list will be kept with honest intent. They have already shown their dishonesty with the background checks. The law said they can't keep the records--they kept them anyway. At this point it's fool me twice, shame on me.

What is it about "well regulated" gun nuts don't get?

What is it about "the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed" that gun grabbers don't get?

All God's crazy people needs they guns! Just because all this gun nuttery has turned America into a shooting gallery is no reason to regulate this crazed militia.

 

[Elixir]

I want to see where the possession of weapons of mass murder are expressly prescribed.

Like the right to have an abortion?

Yeah, we will have case law soon enough I suppose.

All God's crazy people needs they guns! Just because all this gun nuttery has turned America into a shooting gallery is no reason to regulate this crazed militia.

Amen, brudda, amen prayza load.

 

[ZiprHead]

Amen, brudda, amen prayza load.

and pass the ammo.

 

[Rhea]

It will do almost nothing to the criminals, though, and will almost certainly increase the criminal death toll because people won't be able to defend themselves. (Hint: Self defense killings exceed mass shooting killings and self defense cases are less likely to actually kill.)

Banning all firearms may be like that but that Isn’t what I, nor most moderates, are suggesting.

What you fail to understand is that anything you do disarms the law abiding before it disarms the criminals. You can't stop the criminals without disarming everyone.

A great deal of study has been done on this and shows quite strongly that the decrease in criminally held guns happens quikly when the penalty for being caught with an illegal gun becomes severe.. IN locales where the penalty for being caught with an illegal gun is an extremely long incarceration, the instances of people walking around with illegal guns drops precipitously, while in places where the risk of walking around with it is weeks or months of jailtime or easy getting off on the charges, there are many more cases.

Your argument is a straw man, because it assumes no action whatsover on sellers (we have a LOT we can do here) and no action whatsoever on penalties for possession (we have a LOT we can do here) and no action on penalties for failure to report a theft of a gun, nor for the inadequate storage/protection of a gun (we have a LOT we could do here.)

If you care about actually reducing gun trafficking, then it does indeed work. But you can’t sabotage the effort by stopping at only placing restrictions on legal purchasing and then claiming it only harms legal purchasers.

That's a classic gun-nut argument, and experience elsewhere in the world does not support that. The gun regulations of elsewhere in the world keep guns out of the hands of a lot of casual criminals and unstable people and the like, so the criminals most likely to have guns are criminal gangsters and the like, and that kind of criminal is usually careful to avoid provoking the authorities.

Exactly.

When the drafters used the phrase "the people," why would you think it means something different in the 2nd Amendment from its meaning in the other amendments?

LOL. A huge number of enslaved Black people would like to point out a major flaw in your argument.

What the founders meant by “The People,” indeed.

 

[Shadowy Man]

It's also part of why I favor a license-based approach. The transfer check becomes simply seeing their license, akin to what we do today with cars.

Cars are also individually registered.

And you're going to see huge opposition to that. The gun-banners holy grail is a list of who owns what guns--of course the gun people will not trust that the list will be kept with honest intent. They have already shown their dishonesty with the background checks. The law said they can't keep the records--they kept them anyway. At this point it's fool me twice, shame on me.

What is it about "well regulated" gun nuts don't get?

What is it about "the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed" that gun grabbers don't get?

We have rights that are regulated. Even speech is regulated: not all of it is free. Religious freedoms are regulated too. They all are. That doesn’t mean you don’t retain the right.

 

[bilby]

It's also part of why I favor a license-based approach. The transfer check becomes simply seeing their license, akin to what we do today with cars.

Cars are also individually registered.

And you're going to see huge opposition to that. The gun-banners holy grail is a list of who owns what guns--of course the gun people will not trust that the list will be kept with honest intent. They have already shown their dishonesty with the background checks. The law said they can't keep the records--they kept them anyway. At this point it's fool me twice, shame on me.

What is it about "well regulated" gun nuts don't get?

What is it about "the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed" that gun grabbers don't get?

Are you a member of the militia? When was the last time you mustered? Who was your commanding officer?

Uh. The purpose of the Bills of Rights was to check the power of the new national government. To say that the Bill of Rights secured for the govenrment, as opposed to the people, a right to bear arms is just absurd.

Yeah. The people. The people in that well regulated militia, as opposed to a government run army.

To say that the Bill of Rights secured for random fuck-knuckles the right to wander around with an AR-15 is far more absurd than your simpleton's example.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

We have lots of good data on crimes in other countries and can easily compare the crime rates and homicide rates to our own.
If we have the guts.

And we find that the US is an outlier in murder rates but not in other crimes. If anything, we are below average. It's just we have a lot of criminals that kill other criminals.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

The gun-banners holy grail is a list of who owns what guns--of course the gun people will not trust that the list will be kept with honest intent. They have already shown their dishonesty with the background checks. The law said they can't keep the records--they kept them anyway. At this point it's fool me twice, shame on me.

There are no "gun banners". Even nations with really strict gun licensing haven't banned gun ownership.

What's the problem with a list of who owns what guns anyway?

Fuck "fool me once", I don't want anyone fooled, at all.

I want to know what the problem is with having a list of who owns what guns, that's not also a problem for a list of who owns what cars.

If the law says that records can't be kept, it's a fucking stupid law. Why not? What is the harm that arises from the existence of such a list?

You're weaseling on "gun banners". Most people regard those who would deny most people gun ownership to be gun banners. The existence of some civilian guns does not change this.

And both sides regard a list of who owns what as a big step towards seizing the guns. When both sides of an argument agree on something they're probably right.

And the law specifically prohibited keeping the records for the very reason that they're a list of who owns what. Given that betrayal it's no surprise that the gun nuts aren't interested in compromise. It's the same as the Democrats no longer seeking compromise with the Republicans because the Republicans keep trying to back for another bite at the apple.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

You are conflating different parts of 2A, and assembling a specious argument from cherry picked phrases.
I am not here to spoon feed you, but it is apparent that you have swallowed the NRA talking points, hook line & sinker.

The 2nd Amendment is an example of why laws need to be verbose. It is not clear what the intent of the 2nd is! You can argue that it's about guns in the hands of the militia, or you can argue that it's about guns in the average person's hand in order to permit a militia to operate.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

A great deal of study has been done on this and shows quite strongly that the decrease in criminally held guns happens quikly when the penalty for being caught with an illegal gun becomes severe.. IN locales where the penalty for being caught with an illegal gun is an extremely long incarceration, the instances of people walking around with illegal guns drops precipitously, while in places where the risk of walking around with it is weeks or months of jailtime or easy getting off on the charges, there are many more cases.

Your argument is a straw man, because it assumes no action whatsover on sellers (we have a LOT we can do here) and no action whatsoever on penalties for possession (we have a LOT we can do here) and no action on penalties for failure to report a theft of a gun, nor for the inadequate storage/protection of a gun (we have a LOT we could do here.)

But that's not what's being proposed. I'm fine with a heavy sentence for possession of a firearm by a prohibited person, assuming they clearly know they are prohibited. (Remember what happened recently with voting in Florida--the state told them they were legal to vote, then arrested them for voting. Set up a system that lets people know where they stand. (And I would make this more broad--if multiple interpretations of a law are possible the defendant gets to choose which applies. The law should not be a gotcha system!))

You aren't doing anything about illegal possession, just throwing roadblocks in the path of legal possession.

 

[bilby]

You're weaseling on "gun banners". Most people regard those who would deny most people gun ownership to be gun banners. The existence of some civilian guns does not change this.

No, I am pointing out your weaseling.

And the existence of lawful guns in civilian hands is the very definition of a jurisdiction in which guns are not banned.

 

[bilby]

And both sides regard a list of who owns what as a big step towards seizing the guns.

Prove it. This is a paranoid fantasy. And there's far more than two "sides", so it's also a false dichotomy.

 

[bilby]

And the law specifically prohibited keeping the records for the very reason that they're a list of who owns what. the people who wrote it were influenced by paranoid idiots

FTFY.

 

[bilby]

You are conflating different parts of 2A, and assembling a specious argument from cherry picked phrases.
I am not here to spoon feed you, but it is apparent that you have swallowed the NRA talking points, hook line & sinker.

The 2nd Amendment is an example of why laws need to be verbose. It is not clear what the intent of the 2nd is! You can argue that it's about guns in the hands of the militia, or you can argue that it's about guns in the average person's hand in order to permit a militia to operate.

And both interpretations are a world away from guns in the average person's hand because he just feels like owning one, even though he has no intention of joining a militia at all.

 

[bilby]

A great deal of study has been done on this and shows quite strongly that the decrease in criminally held guns happens quikly when the penalty for being caught with an illegal gun becomes severe.. IN locales where the penalty for being caught with an illegal gun is an extremely long incarceration, the instances of people walking around with illegal guns drops precipitously, while in places where the risk of walking around with it is weeks or months of jailtime or easy getting off on the charges, there are many more cases.

Your argument is a straw man, because it assumes no action whatsover on sellers (we have a LOT we can do here) and no action whatsoever on penalties for possession (we have a LOT we can do here) and no action on penalties for failure to report a theft of a gun, nor for the inadequate storage/protection of a gun (we have a LOT we could do here.)

But that's not what's being proposed. I'm fine with a heavy sentence for possession of a firearm by a prohibited person, assuming they clearly know they are prohibited. (Remember what happened recently with voting in Florida--the state told them they were legal to vote, then arrested them for voting. Set up a system that lets people know where they stand. (And I would make this more broad--if multiple interpretations of a law are possible the defendant gets to choose which applies. The law should not be a gotcha system!))

You aren't doing anything about illegal possession, just throwing roadblocks in the path of legal possession.

It's not difficult. If you haven't got a license, you're prohibited from driving, and you are reasonably expected to know it. If your vehicle isn't registered, you can't use it; And again, you are reasonably expected to know that too.

The same exact process can work in the same exact way for gun licenses.

Your desperation to make this seem impossible is noted and derided.

 

[southernhybrid]

It's also part of why I favor a license-based approach. The transfer check becomes simply seeing their license, akin to what we do today with cars.

Cars are also individually registered.

Not necessarily. Our cars are registered in both of our names. So, if guns were required to be registered and a husband and wife both wanted to be legally able to use that gun, why couldn't they be registered in both parties names?