Why gun control isn't the answer

[RVonse]

Nonsense. Statistically having a gun in your house is not going to protect you or make you whole in the case of a robbery. If fact it's more likely to be stolen or misused by a child, since most home invaders avoid an occupied house.

Living without the 2nd Amendment is like owning a house without fire insurance. You might feel better off and even be better off today. But it will be at great risk for tomorrow.

The 2nd Amendment has NOTHING to do with protection from robbery. It was put in place to protect the citizens against their own government.

 

[laughing dog]

Living without the 2nd Amendment is like owning a house without nuclear war insurance. It's expensive, and if you ever need to claim you will discover that the policy is useless.

You are being taken for a fool. No rebellion in history has relied upon freedom to bear arms for its success. Nor has any failed solely due to a lack of access to armsoo.

What???

History is filled with examples too numerous to include here. This one comes first to my mind though. Here: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Wizna

According to your link, the Poles lost that battle against the attacking Germans. So, it was neither a rebellion nor a victory.

 

[bilby]

What???

History is filled with examples too numerous to include here. This one comes first to my mind though. Here: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Wizna

According to your link, the Poles lost that battle against the attacking Germans. So, it was neither a rebellion nor a victory.

And the Poles didn't lose because their government hadn't allowed Polish civilian ownership of firearms, so it wouldn't have rebutted my point even if it had been.

Of course, lots of battles have been decided by one side running out of ammunition. But none have been decided by the lack of legal access to guns on the part of a rebelling force.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

Nonsense. Statistically having a gun in your house is not going to protect you or make you whole in the case of a robbery. If fact it's more likely to be stolen or misused by a child, since most home invaders avoid an occupied house.

The 2nd Amendment has NOTHING to do with protection from robbery. It was put in place to protect the citizens against their own government.

So militias had nothing to do with protection from invasion by an outside army from another country?

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Nonsense. Statistically having a gun in your house is not going to protect you or make you whole in the case of a robbery. If fact it's more likely to be stolen or misused by a child, since most home invaders avoid an occupied house.

The 2nd Amendment has NOTHING to do with protection from robbery. It was put in place to protect the citizens against their own government.

For a well regulated militia. That is in the 2nd Amendment... it doesn't say, 'just in case the Federal Government goes bonkers'.

In 1939, SCOTUS said the 2nd Amendment was about maintaining a military.
It wasn't until 2008 when a highly politically charged right-wing controlled SCOTUS decided to go off the tracks about individual gun ownership just for the fuck of it.

 

[Malintent]

You still need bullets and you can't 3D print them, so gun laws will be relevant for a while.
They can ban ammunition sale to the public

Well, I would have thought they could have done this already, since there is no constitutional right to ammunition, that I am aware of.

I'd love to get onboard that with you... I think it would be a pretty funny loophole to end the "protect our slave owners from the massive numbers of slaves that may revolt any day now" law.
Unfortunately, the right to bare arms MAY NOT BE INFRINGED... and taking an essential component of "Arms" away would certainly be an INFRINGEMENT.
I think the best constitutional approach would be to clarify the original definition of "Arms" to be a "long, smooth-barreled device that propels a spherical projectile, or group of projectiles, optionally wrapped in a paper sabot, using black powder, triggered by the combustion of a short cloth fuse.

 

[Malintent]

The 2nd Amendment has NOTHING to do with protection from robbery. It was put in place to protect the citizens against their own government.

For a well regulated militia. That is in the 2nd Amendment... it doesn't say, 'just in case the Federal Government goes bonkers'.

In 1939, SCOTUS said the 2nd Amendment was about maintaining a military.
It wasn't until 2008 when a highly politically charged right-wing controlled SCOTUS decided to go off the tracks about individual gun ownership just for the fuck of it.

All Political Bullshit. The Government always had and always will have a massive military advantage over any number of loosely organized citizens, regardless if the citizens have the same weaponry... I know you all believe that because you all raked me over the coals in another thread when I said otherwise (in the context of "Trump can't send the military after us, because NY will kick the collective asses of every military branch all by themselves if they try any unconstitutional shit).
So, we all know you don't really believe that we need guns to keep the government in check. And they don't believe it either.
The reason for a "well armed militia" is to keep the PEOPLE in check... specifically, the black people that had every reason to violently revolt at the time.

 

[sharon45]

Well, I would have thought they could have done this already, since there is no constitutional right to ammunition, that I am aware of.

I'd love to get onboard that with you... I think it would be a pretty funny loophole to end the "protect our slave owners from the massive numbers of slaves that may revolt any day now" law.
Unfortunately, the right to bare arms MAY NOT BE INFRINGED... and taking an essential component of "Arms" away would certainly be an INFRINGEMENT.
I think the best constitutional approach would be to clarify the original definition of "Arms" to be a "long, smooth-barreled device that propels a spherical projectile, or group of projectiles, optionally wrapped in a paper sabot, using black powder, triggered by the combustion of a short cloth fuse.

I think they just meant that we have the right to wear sleeveless shirts and blouses.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

For a well regulated militia. That is in the 2nd Amendment... it doesn't say, 'just in case the Federal Government goes bonkers'.

In 1939, SCOTUS said the 2nd Amendment was about maintaining a military.
It wasn't until 2008 when a highly politically charged right-wing controlled SCOTUS decided to go off the tracks about individual gun ownership just for the fuck of it.

All Political Bullshit. The Government always had and always will have a massive military advantage over any number of loosely organized citizens, regardless if the citizens have the same weaponry... I know you all believe that because you all raked me over the coals in another thread when I said otherwise (in the context of "Trump can't send the military after us, because NY will kick the collective asses of every military branch all by themselves if they try any unconstitutional shit).
So, we all know you don't really believe that we need guns to keep the government in check. And they don't believe it either.
The reason for a "well armed militia" is to keep the PEOPLE in check... specifically, the black people that had every reason to violently revolt at the time.

Interesting interpretation. One thing that is often overlooked is that the US already had a Government system before the Constitution and the Bill 'o Rights. Yet, the Constitution and Bill 'o Rights does happen. Why? People always seem to forget about Shay's Rebellion which was an interesting act of problem solving... ie a court and bank can't foreclose on your farm if you keep it from opening.

The US at that point had no interconnected military to deal with such a rebellion. Massachusetts alone had to deal with it. Just imagine school integration in the South without the National Guard.

 

[sharon45]

All Political Bullshit. The Government always had and always will have a massive military advantage over any number of loosely organized citizens, regardless if the citizens have the same weaponry... I know you all believe that because you all raked me over the coals in another thread when I said otherwise (in the context of "Trump can't send the military after us, because NY will kick the collective asses of every military branch all by themselves if they try any unconstitutional shit).
So, we all know you don't really believe that we need guns to keep the government in check. And they don't believe it either.
The reason for a "well armed militia" is to keep the PEOPLE in check... specifically, the black people that had every reason to violently revolt at the time.

Interesting interpretation. One thing that is often overlooked is that the US already had a Government system before the Constitution and the Bill 'o Rights. Yet, the Constitution and Bill 'o Rights does happen. Why? People always seem to forget about Shay's Rebellion which was an interesting act of problem solving... ie a court and bank can't foreclose on your farm if you keep it from opening.

The US at that point had no interconnected military to deal with such a rebellion. Massachusetts alone had to deal with it. Just imagine school integration in the South without the National Guard.

Hence the reason many people say something like every law is ultimately backed up with a gun, and why I think that we have lost so much of our intellectual integrity to primitive emotions.

 

[ksen]

Naturally the one or two Republican congressmen who get caught in the crossfire is an "outrage" and "massive national tragedy" and "proof that liberals shouldn't be allowed to have guns without extensive background checks and mental health screenings."

Many gun owners have a problem with trusting the government to preside over "extensive background checks and mental health screenings."

That's because they are delusional and probably shouldn't even be allowed to feed themselves.

 

[TSwizzle]

Many gun owners have a problem with trusting the government to preside over "extensive background checks and mental health screenings."

You don't have to be a gun owner to not trust the government with such information. Their incompetence alone is enough to make me shudder at the thought never mind their nefarious uses for such data.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Many gun owners have a problem with trusting the government to preside over "extensive background checks and mental health screenings."

You don't have to be a gun owner to not trust the government with such information. Their incompetence alone is enough to make me shudder at the thought never mind their nefarious uses for such data.

I know, Watergate. Am I right.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

In the UK, guns are not hard to come by. A criminal can buy a gun from the traditional dodgy bloke in a pub for about the same price that it would cost a licensed gun owner at a gun shop. But criminals in the UK rarely carry guns, because of the law.

So UK gun laws restrict ownership, but not sale/purchase. And US gun laws restrict sale/purchase, but not ownership. Interesting.

No actual point or argument being made, just finding the difference between UK and US interesting.

 

[Crazy Eddie]

Nonsense. Statistically having a gun in your house is not going to protect you or make you whole in the case of a robbery. If fact it's more likely to be stolen or misused by a child, since most home invaders avoid an occupied house.

The 2nd Amendment has NOTHING to do with protection from robbery. It was put in place to protect the citizens against their own government.

No it wasn't. It was put in place to give citizens the power to protect their town/state/county against OTHER governments and/or insurrections by slaves, Indians and foreign agents. The 2nd amendment DOES NOT empower citizens to take up arms against their government, nor was it intended to provide a check against government tyranny. At the time the constitution was written, local militias were crucial to the country's defense, and it was for THAT purpose that the 2nd amendment was written.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

The government imposes reasonable limits on slander, libel, and incitement to commit mayhem.

...

There is no law that can perfectly prevent criminals and lunatics from getting their hands on firearms, but that doesn't mean that we should remove reasonable barriers to them getting their hands on firearms.

I'm glad you agree that the restrictions should be reasonable. And since I define my position as the reasonable one, that means you agree with me. Unless you no longer think you are fooling us with the rhetorical trick of using the word "reasonable" every time you describe your position.

 

[Crazy Eddie]

The government imposes reasonable limits on slander, libel, and incitement to commit mayhem.

...

There is no law that can perfectly prevent criminals and lunatics from getting their hands on firearms, but that doesn't mean that we should remove reasonable barriers to them getting their hands on firearms.

I'm glad you agree that the restrictions should be reasonable. And since I define my position as the reasonable one, that means you agree with me. Unless you no longer think you are fooling us with the rhetorical trick of using the word "reasonable" every time you describe your position.

I'm curious if you think a blanket ban -- or at least severe restrictions -- on semi-automatic rifles would fall into the category of "reasonable." Equally curious if you would support a ban on automatic and/or magazine-fed handguns. The combination of which would aim to limit gun ownership to weapons which are difficult to use in combat situations (e.g. homicides, mass shootings, massacres, robberies, etc) but still useful in other situations (sport shooting, hunting, self defense).

This would leave gun owners with:
Bolt, lever and pump action rifles and shotguns
Single or double action revolvers
Breach-loaded high-powered pistols (punt guns)
Concealable single-shot pistols (derringers)

Not even a ban on guns. Just severe restrictions and hard-to-meet licensing requirements on REALLY ADVANCED guns that can be used to cause a lot more damage than any one person should ever reasonably need to do.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

I'm still waiting for Libertarians to admit that their interpretation of the second amendment allows citizens to have nuclear arms.

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

 

[Elixir]

Nonsense. Statistically having a gun in your house is not going to protect you or make you whole in the case of a robbery. If fact it's more likely to be stolen or misused by a child, since most home invaders avoid an occupied house.

The 2nd Amendment has NOTHING to do with protection from robbery. It was put in place to protect the citizens against their own government.

Zackly. It was to preserve military parity between the government and its citizens. That's why we all need to have nukes.

Let's be real: The government will always have the upper hand in any confrontation against its citizens.
Whether or not private citizens are permitted to have automatic assault rifles makes no difference to that equation. So the remaining issue is whether it's a good thing for citizens in general to allow other citizens such armaments.
The track record is not favorable.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

I'm glad you agree that the restrictions should be reasonable. And since I define my position as the reasonable one, that means you agree with me. Unless you no longer think you are fooling us with the rhetorical trick of using the word "reasonable" every time you describe your position.

I'm curious if you think a blanket ban -- or at least severe restrictions -- on semi-automatic rifles would fall into the category of "reasonable." Equally curious if you would support a ban on automatic and/or magazine-fed handguns. The combination of which would aim to limit gun ownership to weapons which are difficult to use in combat situations (e.g. homicides, mass shootings, massacres, robberies, etc) but still useful in other situations (sport shooting, hunting, self defense).

This would leave gun owners with:
Bolt, lever and pump action rifles and shotguns
Single or double action revolvers
Breach-loaded high-powered pistols (punt guns)
Concealable single-shot pistols (derringers)

Not even a ban on guns. Just severe restrictions and hard-to-meet licensing requirements on REALLY ADVANCED guns that can be used to cause a lot more damage than any one person should ever reasonably need to do.

I said my position is the reasonable one and I don't define those as reasonable.

I'm still waiting for Libertarians to admit that their interpretation of the second amendment allows citizens to have nuclear arms.

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Sure. If you want me to admit it I'll admit it. Not that it adds to or detracts from any conversation actually occurring.