Author Topic: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days  (Read 59433 times)

MasterStache

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1351
Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
« Reply #950 on: April 09, 2018, 05:34:50 AM »
Quote
but what are you going to do about the guns my neighbor owns?  How are you going to register those?

If registration is compulsory, where non compliance results in instant confiscation, that will motivate many neighbors to follow the law.

Kind of like how no one will have drugs right?

What drugs are you talking about?

Consumer drugs: caffeine, alcohol and over the counter medication?

Prescription medication?

Recreational drugs?

Comparing illegal addictive narcotics (I assume) to legal firearms is a great example of why there is no such thing as "compromise" with the NRA type. It always goes back to why have laws at all, you know, since people are going to break them anyways?
Earn 25K SPG Points after 3K spend: http://refer.amex.us/KYLEDiFKR?xl=cp10

Get $250 statement credit after 1K spend AMEX Blue Cash: http://refer.amex.us/KYLEDk5SI?xl=cp10

NoStacheOhio

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2139
  • Location: Cleveland
Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
« Reply #951 on: April 09, 2018, 06:28:11 AM »
Again with the word “compromise”.  I have yet to see a bill or law proposed that represents a give and take for both sides, I.e. a “compromise”.  I’ve only seen where people are trying to take away my rights. Why would I acquiesce to that?

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/03/09/us/florida-governor-gun-limits.html

If you don't think that's compromise, then I can't help you.
The first step is acknowledging you have a problem, right?

https://forum.mrmoneymustache.com/journals/digging-out-of-a-hole/

GuitarStv

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 10657
  • Age: 36
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
« Reply #952 on: April 09, 2018, 07:30:29 AM »
I'd like to point out that literally nothing about a gun registry violates anybody's rights in any way.

In and of itself, you’re basically correct. However, if you did want to violate my rights and confiscate, ( see, NOLA post Katrina, etc) you’d have a tool to do that where previously you had none.  So no, I am not ever going to agree to allow a registration. Even in Illinois we have FOIDs but there’s nothing that says what guns I have or even if I have a gun, just that I have the ability and license to buy one.

If I was a corrupt government and I wanted to violate your rights and confiscate your weapons, I'd release a bioweapon in the upper atmosphere over your state.  Then I'd close the borders, and wait a few weeks until everyone was dead.  Then I'd confiscate your weapons.

No registry needed.

If I'm in a democratically elected government that is held answerable to the people, I can't do that of course.  I also can't use the registry to confiscate all your guns.


Besides, those types of things have come to bite us in the ass in the past:

https://www.cnn.com/2012/12/25/us/new-york-gun-permit-map/index.html

That's pretty goofy logic there.

Wikileaks got a hold of an awful lot of secret information written by people in the US government.  Therefore it should be illegal for anyone in government to write anything down.  I mean, that solves the problem of future similar leaks . . . consequences be damned, right?

If someone does something illegal or wrong with information, then sue them.  The legal system exists to enforce the law.  If it's not illegal to do something with information collected, then enact a new law.  The whole political system exists to do this.  Saying that it's possible to do something bad, so we should ignore all the certain good that will come from an action doesn't make much sense.

And, even if you succeeded in getting a registry of all new gun sales, which you won’t, but if you did, how are you going to register the 100M+ guns out there now?  I mean, I was inspired by those YouTube clips of people cutting up their guns after Parkland and did the same, so my guns are long gone, but what are you going to do about the guns my neighbor owns?  How are you going to register those?

It will certainly require some thought, effort, and time. It's hard to be convinced by your argument that because something is difficult it should be given up on.

Make it very easy and free to register a gun that already exists.  Do spot checks at shooting ranges.  Make it standard policy to destroy any unregistered firearm found by police, and to levy a punitive fine upon anyone who is found to fails to register a firearm.  Create a hotline and reward people for reporting unregistered firearms.  There's lots of stuff that can be done.





Quote
Well, let's get down to the details. What do you want the average gun guy to do?

Engage in the dialog about solutions, present their ideas and listen. Then express their concern, and ideas to their representatives.

That and stop engaging in the slippery slope arguments.  As it stands you don't want any solutions that place any kind of burden on legal gun owners but you also don't want to do anything else because it may lead to a burden on legal gun owners later.  This stance makes it impossible for you to comprise.

Again with the word “compromise”.  I have yet to see a bill or law proposed that represents a give and take for both sides, I.e. a “compromise”.  I’ve only seen where people are trying to take away my rights. Why would I acquiesce to that?

So why hasn't your side proposed one?

You mean like this?

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-02-26/quick-action-on-gun-background-checks-bill-held-up-in-senate

Yeah, no.  That's not a compromise.  The fix NICS bill would be a bare minimum that everyone already agrees to.  That bill on it's own should pass no problem, all it's doing is attempting to fix the problems with the current background check system. But of course conservatives think they can just add expanded concealed carry without adding anything from the other side like universal background checks because they obviously don't know what the word compromise means.  If you truly want to change my mind how about you show me a gun bill brought up for a vote in the current congress that included a single proposal from the left (universal background checks, a registry, magazine limits, etc)?

The NRA has won on every front for decades by not compromising.  It's possible to openly carry a firearm in 45 states, to covertly carry a firearm in every state, to own any type of firearm (yes, you have to pay more for machine guns and sawed off shotguns).  It's not necessary to have a background check to buy a firearm from someone.  No record of private sales is kept in most states.  No registry of ownership is kept in most states.  It's illegal to keep usable, searchable records of firearms sales for police use.

The NRA has all the power.  They have purchased most of the Republican party, and get the legislation that they want passed.  They have been able to place supreme court judges in power who have altered interpretation of the US Constitution to be more friendly to their cause.  They have deep pockets, which they use to fuel a vast media and advertising empire.  Best of all, they have a sizable army of gun advocates who value their firearms much more than the lives of other people, and who are perfectly happy with the way things are.

When someone is asking for 'compromise' it's a bit disingenuous.  That's like the Nazis saying they'll negotiate with Jews in the concentration camp, and then leaving the discussion in a huff because they didn't get enough concessions.  "The Jews want food, water, medicine, and to not be gassed to death . . . but they're not willing to offer us anything!  They're obviously not negotiating in good faith.  Maybe they'll come back to the table later when they're serious.  Until then I guess it's best we just carry on with the status quo."

The Nazi's are finally here.  I thought the Nazi gun banning trope would be the other shoe to drop but it's the NRA instead.  We've hit the wall of Godwin's Law.

By finally . . . you mean about a month after you brought them up?  (You'll also notice that people considered and responded to your comments in both cases, rather than attempting to dismiss the argument out of hand simply because they mentioned Nazis.)


Here's you telling us that Trump is a tyrant . . . because he supports Nazis:
The irony is that the “theoretical tyranny":
...
- Endorses White Supremacy and Nazis
...

Here's you saying that guns are necessary to face Nazis in reality (also declaring victory, and saying that you won't post in the thread again as posting here is pointless ego masturbation):
I’ll take my “Red Dawn freedom fighter gun fantasy” vs. tyranny over The White Rose resistance vs. Nazis reality...

I’ve stated my opinions.  I’m gonna declare victory.  Not because I “won.”  I’m convinced nobody is ever convinced by internet argument. But because I’m not gonna come back again and again as gun control pops up as a MMM forum topic.  That seems like pointless ego masterbation to me.

:P

TheOldestYoungMan

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 750
Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
« Reply #953 on: April 09, 2018, 02:33:57 PM »

That may be what you're hearing, but what you're actually doing is nothing to fix it.  Literally nothing.  Show me the bill where fixing NICS was introduced, brought to a vote, and failed?  Show me anything at all done to improve the situation in any way in the last twenty years?

Total abdication of responsibility does not lend credence to the "responsible gun ownership is fine."  Like I said, I was 100% a defender of the second amendment until I realized that all of the arguments are so much horseshit.  It's just more important to you to be able to go down to the range and fire off a few rounds than it is to prevent the wholesale slaughter of children.

You've done NOTHING.  You will never support any reasonable measure, because "give 'em an inch."  So fuck it, take all the guns.  Make it illegal to own a gun.  At this point, there is no such thing as a responsible gun owner in this country.  You're all biting your noses off to spite your face.

I'd like to address these thoughts. As usual, I'll take a step back and write a long winded explanation, so apologies ahead of time :-).

I've been having continued discussions about the topic of gun control with a friend of mine. When we discussed the topic and I was bringing up some of our discussions on here about my frustrations with people saying, I want to ban this or that "blanket statement" without defining what it was, he said, they're getting frustrated because you're concerned about hardware details and they're concerned about people's lives. He was intentionally trying to dig at me a little/he's also legitimately on the other side of this issue than me (not an extremist, but more pro-gun control than I am). What he said got me to thinking, though.

That is what it seems like is being presented on this topic with the narrative of (at least some) gun control people on this issue. I want people talking about this issue to learn about it and define what they want, preferably with logical ties to how it would actually help. The push back I get is evidenced most clearly in this bit of demagoguery in your posts about "F you, I'd take away all of your rights (in regards to self defense with guns) if I could, and blanket statements such as "there's no such thing as a responsible gun owner in this country." Now I'm not saying this extremism is representative of everyone, just that it highlights a thought process that is, I believe, underlying many gun control arguments. The example is the perspective my friend said, "you're caring about nuances, hardware, details - they're caring about lives of people." The unstated feeling behind all of this is, I have the moral high ground if I'm pro-gun control because I care about people's lives and you don't care about people's lives as much as you do your philosophical perspective on rights, so I don't have to be as detail oriented on things, I don't have to come up with solutions, I don't have to etc. etc. Well, the fact of the matter is, most pro-gun people I know do care about lives. The perspective is just caring about protecting the lives of people in their family if something terrible were to happen or of people they see in public if they're carrying concealed and something bad were to happen. They legitimately care about lives too and has been said numerous times, the statistics are not behind any of this. No one is likely to be shot or to shoot someone else in defense. It's just not likely to happen, but it doesn't mean pro gun people don't care about lives. So no, I will not cede to you your moral high ground and condescension of people who are pro guns. You don't get to act (at least unchallenged) like you're on the saintly path, so you can ignore learning about an issue and proposing rational and logically justified ideas because you're just so much better than all the ignorant gun owners/supporters. Because news flash, you don't have the moral high ground. I don't have the moral high ground. There's perspectives on both sides. Both people are wanting lives to be saved, they just see it in different ways. If you're wanting to change the status quo, you need to propose some ideas on how to do it.

To address the other side of things - the accusation of a lack of willingness to do anything. You comment something like "oh, everyone who is pro guns obviously doesn't want to do anything at all" and then act like it's all their fault if nothing gets done that you feel needs to get done. Well, let's get down to the details. What do you want the average gun guy to do? They're not dictator of this country. If they truly support gun rights, should they vote for a person who is for restrictions well beyond what they feel are effective or necessary just so they can "be doing something?" I don't believe anyone on here supporting gun rights has literally proposed nothing be done. Ideas have been brought up by pro-gun people too. Maybe you don't feel they're strong enough or good enough, but they are at least proposed ideas (hopefully) in good faith by the people on the board that you are bluntly deriding. These may not be the "reasonable measures" that you feel should happen, and nothing may actually get passed through congress, but again, you can sit on your high horse and act the martyr that has tried and failed to find any rational sense in any person you've ever talked to in your whole life who supports a person's rights to own even a black powder musket (I mean, hey, you're the one talking everything in absolutes), but that's not going to actually accomplish any exchange of dialogue or ideas.

I wasn't talking absolutes in 1999.  I wasn't talking absolutes in 2005.  I wasn't talking absolutes in 2009 or 2012 or 2015.  I'm talking absolutes now.

What do I expect them to do?  Anything.

Have the gun manufacturers done anything to make sure their guns aren't used in crimes?  No.

Gun rights person's response:  Well they don't have to do that!

My response:  That's correct.  They do not have a legal obligation to do that.  But every person who values the right to own a gun should be fucking insist they do it, and refuse to purchase from those that don't.

If the argument is essentially "we don't need a law" just know that all of the ideas that support that argument, all of the philosophy behind it, are born of the American experiment that people can govern themselves.  In this case, the entire group engaged in the sales/distribution of fireams has failed to govern themselves.  Where the perpetrators of this shit were thwarted from purchasing firearms legally, it was exclusively the result of legislation that was opposed by the NRA.

And then when any sort of legislation is proposed, as a completely constitutional way of forcing the distributors of firearms to behave in a way that any free-thinking person can see is totally reasonable, the "they're coming to take our guns" crowd argues against the entirely non-existent goal of gun control folks.

So I've had it.  I'm done.  They didn't want to talk about solutions and they aren't engaging with the argument in an honest way.  Every argument hinges on that right, and as they like to point out, we're a nation of laws, not one where people can govern themselves and so are often left to do just that.  So those laws are enacted in a certain way, and one of them is an amendment to the constitution, lets strip that amendment out.

And fucking take their guns.

Right now, it's not a serious policy position, and hasn't been for the last couple hundred years.  But it gets brought up in these conversations by the gun right's folks.  Nobody WAS suggesting stripping YOUR ability to own a gun and shoot it for legally and morally acceptable reasons.  But then you totally failed to rectify this situation on your own.  So now I'm proposing it, and it's enough of an issue that I'll switch my vote to whichever candidate supports it.  I can say that with confidence that it will never change my vote, because it isn't a thing anyone is actually trying to do.  But gun rights people will continue to insist that this possibility is why they "cannot give an inch."  It's also why they won't think of anything as a compromise, because they've forgotten the whole deal with having the right in the first place is that they would be responsible about it.  That responsibility includes holding each other accountable.

If after Columbine no gun owner in the U.S. ever purchased a Stevens again, other manufacturers would have taken note of that.  Instead, hardly anything is as good for business as one of their weapons being involved in a mass shooting.  Out of fears that the weapon will soon be banned, gun enthusiasts rush out to buy it.  The maker of Stevens, Savage, also produced one of the weapons used by the Sandy Hook asshole.  His other weapon of choice was made by Bushmaster Firearms International.  If after even one of these incidents those people in this country that care about the right to own guns boycotted a manufactuer, you'd have 100% never-false-fail biometrics on every gun made in the U.S. within a year.  Or some other workable solution.

There's no push to protect the right from the people with a vested interest in protecting the right, that's what they aren't seeing, that's what they don't get.  And one at a time, people without a vested interest in that right are converted to the realization that those folks honestly do not give a shit.  They just can't be bothered, their right is constitutionally protected so go fuck yourself.

I am not taking the moral high ground here, there's nothing moral about the right to own a gun, there's nothing immoral about the right to own a gun.  Rights are something that should only be curtailed due to gravest need.

At its heart, this is an issue of personal responsibility.  And all of our efforts to curtail access to firearms to those that are incapable or unwilling to exercise personal responsibility are met with resistance from groups like the NRA.  Those that refuse to govern themselves will find government forced upon them.  That's just how it goes.
Notice is turned in! 35 days until FIRE!  I am excited and at the same time terrified!
Don't burn your bridges folks. 4 days prior to the date lost my home and rental property to Hurricane Harvey.  Still workin' Never quittin'

EricL

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 758
Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
« Reply #954 on: April 09, 2018, 10:47:14 PM »
I'd like to point out that literally nothing about a gun registry violates anybody's rights in any way.

In and of itself, you’re basically correct. However, if you did want to violate my rights and confiscate, ( see, NOLA post Katrina, etc) you’d have a tool to do that where previously you had none.  So no, I am not ever going to agree to allow a registration. Even in Illinois we have FOIDs but there’s nothing that says what guns I have or even if I have a gun, just that I have the ability and license to buy one.

If I was a corrupt government and I wanted to violate your rights and confiscate your weapons, I'd release a bioweapon in the upper atmosphere over your state.  Then I'd close the borders, and wait a few weeks until everyone was dead.  Then I'd confiscate your weapons.

No registry needed.

If I'm in a democratically elected government that is held answerable to the people, I can't do that of course.  I also can't use the registry to confiscate all your guns.


Besides, those types of things have come to bite us in the ass in the past:

https://www.cnn.com/2012/12/25/us/new-york-gun-permit-map/index.html

That's pretty goofy logic there.

Wikileaks got a hold of an awful lot of secret information written by people in the US government.  Therefore it should be illegal for anyone in government to write anything down.  I mean, that solves the problem of future similar leaks . . . consequences be damned, right?

If someone does something illegal or wrong with information, then sue them.  The legal system exists to enforce the law.  If it's not illegal to do something with information collected, then enact a new law.  The whole political system exists to do this.  Saying that it's possible to do something bad, so we should ignore all the certain good that will come from an action doesn't make much sense.

And, even if you succeeded in getting a registry of all new gun sales, which you won’t, but if you did, how are you going to register the 100M+ guns out there now?  I mean, I was inspired by those YouTube clips of people cutting up their guns after Parkland and did the same, so my guns are long gone, but what are you going to do about the guns my neighbor owns?  How are you going to register those?

It will certainly require some thought, effort, and time. It's hard to be convinced by your argument that because something is difficult it should be given up on.

Make it very easy and free to register a gun that already exists.  Do spot checks at shooting ranges.  Make it standard policy to destroy any unregistered firearm found by police, and to levy a punitive fine upon anyone who is found to fails to register a firearm.  Create a hotline and reward people for reporting unregistered firearms.  There's lots of stuff that can be done.





Quote
Well, let's get down to the details. What do you want the average gun guy to do?

Engage in the dialog about solutions, present their ideas and listen. Then express their concern, and ideas to their representatives.

That and stop engaging in the slippery slope arguments.  As it stands you don't want any solutions that place any kind of burden on legal gun owners but you also don't want to do anything else because it may lead to a burden on legal gun owners later.  This stance makes it impossible for you to comprise.

Again with the word “compromise”.  I have yet to see a bill or law proposed that represents a give and take for both sides, I.e. a “compromise”.  I’ve only seen where people are trying to take away my rights. Why would I acquiesce to that?

So why hasn't your side proposed one?

You mean like this?

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-02-26/quick-action-on-gun-background-checks-bill-held-up-in-senate

Yeah, no.  That's not a compromise.  The fix NICS bill would be a bare minimum that everyone already agrees to.  That bill on it's own should pass no problem, all it's doing is attempting to fix the problems with the current background check system. But of course conservatives think they can just add expanded concealed carry without adding anything from the other side like universal background checks because they obviously don't know what the word compromise means.  If you truly want to change my mind how about you show me a gun bill brought up for a vote in the current congress that included a single proposal from the left (universal background checks, a registry, magazine limits, etc)?

The NRA has won on every front for decades by not compromising.  It's possible to openly carry a firearm in 45 states, to covertly carry a firearm in every state, to own any type of firearm (yes, you have to pay more for machine guns and sawed off shotguns).  It's not necessary to have a background check to buy a firearm from someone.  No record of private sales is kept in most states.  No registry of ownership is kept in most states.  It's illegal to keep usable, searchable records of firearms sales for police use.

The NRA has all the power.  They have purchased most of the Republican party, and get the legislation that they want passed.  They have been able to place supreme court judges in power who have altered interpretation of the US Constitution to be more friendly to their cause.  They have deep pockets, which they use to fuel a vast media and advertising empire.  Best of all, they have a sizable army of gun advocates who value their firearms much more than the lives of other people, and who are perfectly happy with the way things are.

When someone is asking for 'compromise' it's a bit disingenuous.  That's like the Nazis saying they'll negotiate with Jews in the concentration camp, and then leaving the discussion in a huff because they didn't get enough concessions.  "The Jews want food, water, medicine, and to not be gassed to death . . . but they're not willing to offer us anything!  They're obviously not negotiating in good faith.  Maybe they'll come back to the table later when they're serious.  Until then I guess it's best we just carry on with the status quo."

The Nazi's are finally here.  I thought the Nazi gun banning trope would be the other shoe to drop but it's the NRA instead.  We've hit the wall of Godwin's Law.

By finally . . . you mean about a month after you brought them up?  (You'll also notice that people considered and responded to your comments in both cases, rather than attempting to dismiss the argument out of hand simply because they mentioned Nazis.)


Here's you telling us that Trump is a tyrant . . . because he supports Nazis:
The irony is that the “theoretical tyranny":
...
- Endorses White Supremacy and Nazis
...

Here's you saying that guns are necessary to face Nazis in reality (also declaring victory, and saying that you won't post in the thread again as posting here is pointless ego masturbation):
I’ll take my “Red Dawn freedom fighter gun fantasy” vs. tyranny over The White Rose resistance vs. Nazis reality...

I’ve stated my opinions.  I’m gonna declare victory.  Not because I “won.”  I’m convinced nobody is ever convinced by internet argument. But because I’m not gonna come back again and again as gun control pops up as a MMM forum topic.  That seems like pointless ego masterbation to me.

:P

I will concede I went back on what I said I would.  But I never directly compared anyone to Nazis - the "White Rose" reference was a hypothetical statement.  Though the movement is worth reading about. 

YOU compared the NRA to Nazis.  :P

Since we're here: The NRA are not Nazis or Nazi like.  If the "NRA has all the power" they a damn poor job of exercising it.  To date they've: not repealed severe (sometimes stupid) Blue state gun regulations, kept the conservative President they endorsed from flipping on them, failed to ensure open or concealed carry nationwide.  Instead it's an organization that's an extension of toxic gun industry marketing and PR.  And doing a pretty shitty job at it, IMO.  They're helped a lot when anti-gun advocates give speeches and carry signs that say "Confiscate All Guns" and "Repeal the 2nd Amendment."  That those Liberals aren't mainstream Democrats or doing that just to trigger gun advocates doesn't matter.  It still gives the NRA credibility for a "no compromise stance."  Curiously, the NRA DID offer to compromise on bump stocks.*  They need as much credibility as they can get. 

To say gun advocates value their lives more than other people's is straight up insulting.  Cars kill more people than guns.  I understand it's not an apt comparison.  But I don't see you campaigning so relentlessly for banning cars.  Does that mean YOU don't value human life?  I trash talk about cars but don't advocate banning them either.  There's a whole host of causes as desperate, if not more desperate, than US gun policies neither of us do jack squat about.  Does that make us BOTH insensitive fucks? 

Just because the NRA advocates policies you don't like but can't let go even though you don't have a dog in this fight doesn't make them Nazis.  Trump is not a Nazi.  He's a stupid asshole easily influenced by his far right element hangers on to be a Nazi stooge.  But he's no Nazi.  The Liberals (and often Republicans) who want to regulate guns (rationally or irrationally) are not Nazis.  Not even radical Liberals ready to leverage the US's militarized police force to confiscate them without due process.  And they're not "proof" the anti-gun movement won't compromise or has ulterior motives either. 

The Holocaust comparison is almost as bad as the insult above.  There was no negotiation with the Nazis because they never offered to negotiate.  They successfully demonized the Jews (and gays and communists and Gypsies and Slavs) to such an extent there was no negotiation - just a slippery slope of rights infringement, incarceration and extermination.  They have no place in the US gun control debate.  The Nazi gun banning trope is common in dumber pro gun circles - usually hand in hand with equally lame "Nazis were Socialists" argument.  German gun regulations were restrictive before Nazis came to power.  They restricted ownership for targeted groups, loosened restrictions for party members, and eased them for young men to further marksmanship for future cannon fodder Soldiers.

*https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YcfVQutaXRk (Yeah, I think the NRA panicked.  Whatever you think should be done about guns, bump stock regulations will do nothing.)
Gentleman of Leisure

GuitarStv

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 10657
  • Age: 36
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
« Reply #955 on: April 10, 2018, 07:48:23 AM »
I'd like to point out that literally nothing about a gun registry violates anybody's rights in any way.

In and of itself, you’re basically correct. However, if you did want to violate my rights and confiscate, ( see, NOLA post Katrina, etc) you’d have a tool to do that where previously you had none.  So no, I am not ever going to agree to allow a registration. Even in Illinois we have FOIDs but there’s nothing that says what guns I have or even if I have a gun, just that I have the ability and license to buy one.

If I was a corrupt government and I wanted to violate your rights and confiscate your weapons, I'd release a bioweapon in the upper atmosphere over your state.  Then I'd close the borders, and wait a few weeks until everyone was dead.  Then I'd confiscate your weapons.

No registry needed.

If I'm in a democratically elected government that is held answerable to the people, I can't do that of course.  I also can't use the registry to confiscate all your guns.


Besides, those types of things have come to bite us in the ass in the past:

https://www.cnn.com/2012/12/25/us/new-york-gun-permit-map/index.html

That's pretty goofy logic there.

Wikileaks got a hold of an awful lot of secret information written by people in the US government.  Therefore it should be illegal for anyone in government to write anything down.  I mean, that solves the problem of future similar leaks . . . consequences be damned, right?

If someone does something illegal or wrong with information, then sue them.  The legal system exists to enforce the law.  If it's not illegal to do something with information collected, then enact a new law.  The whole political system exists to do this.  Saying that it's possible to do something bad, so we should ignore all the certain good that will come from an action doesn't make much sense.

And, even if you succeeded in getting a registry of all new gun sales, which you won’t, but if you did, how are you going to register the 100M+ guns out there now?  I mean, I was inspired by those YouTube clips of people cutting up their guns after Parkland and did the same, so my guns are long gone, but what are you going to do about the guns my neighbor owns?  How are you going to register those?

It will certainly require some thought, effort, and time. It's hard to be convinced by your argument that because something is difficult it should be given up on.

Make it very easy and free to register a gun that already exists.  Do spot checks at shooting ranges.  Make it standard policy to destroy any unregistered firearm found by police, and to levy a punitive fine upon anyone who is found to fails to register a firearm.  Create a hotline and reward people for reporting unregistered firearms.  There's lots of stuff that can be done.





Quote
Well, let's get down to the details. What do you want the average gun guy to do?

Engage in the dialog about solutions, present their ideas and listen. Then express their concern, and ideas to their representatives.

That and stop engaging in the slippery slope arguments.  As it stands you don't want any solutions that place any kind of burden on legal gun owners but you also don't want to do anything else because it may lead to a burden on legal gun owners later.  This stance makes it impossible for you to comprise.

Again with the word “compromise”.  I have yet to see a bill or law proposed that represents a give and take for both sides, I.e. a “compromise”.  I’ve only seen where people are trying to take away my rights. Why would I acquiesce to that?

So why hasn't your side proposed one?

You mean like this?

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-02-26/quick-action-on-gun-background-checks-bill-held-up-in-senate

Yeah, no.  That's not a compromise.  The fix NICS bill would be a bare minimum that everyone already agrees to.  That bill on it's own should pass no problem, all it's doing is attempting to fix the problems with the current background check system. But of course conservatives think they can just add expanded concealed carry without adding anything from the other side like universal background checks because they obviously don't know what the word compromise means.  If you truly want to change my mind how about you show me a gun bill brought up for a vote in the current congress that included a single proposal from the left (universal background checks, a registry, magazine limits, etc)?

The NRA has won on every front for decades by not compromising.  It's possible to openly carry a firearm in 45 states, to covertly carry a firearm in every state, to own any type of firearm (yes, you have to pay more for machine guns and sawed off shotguns).  It's not necessary to have a background check to buy a firearm from someone.  No record of private sales is kept in most states.  No registry of ownership is kept in most states.  It's illegal to keep usable, searchable records of firearms sales for police use.

The NRA has all the power.  They have purchased most of the Republican party, and get the legislation that they want passed.  They have been able to place supreme court judges in power who have altered interpretation of the US Constitution to be more friendly to their cause.  They have deep pockets, which they use to fuel a vast media and advertising empire.  Best of all, they have a sizable army of gun advocates who value their firearms much more than the lives of other people, and who are perfectly happy with the way things are.

When someone is asking for 'compromise' it's a bit disingenuous.  That's like the Nazis saying they'll negotiate with Jews in the concentration camp, and then leaving the discussion in a huff because they didn't get enough concessions.  "The Jews want food, water, medicine, and to not be gassed to death . . . but they're not willing to offer us anything!  They're obviously not negotiating in good faith.  Maybe they'll come back to the table later when they're serious.  Until then I guess it's best we just carry on with the status quo."

The Nazi's are finally here.  I thought the Nazi gun banning trope would be the other shoe to drop but it's the NRA instead.  We've hit the wall of Godwin's Law.

By finally . . . you mean about a month after you brought them up?  (You'll also notice that people considered and responded to your comments in both cases, rather than attempting to dismiss the argument out of hand simply because they mentioned Nazis.)


Here's you telling us that Trump is a tyrant . . . because he supports Nazis:
The irony is that the “theoretical tyranny":
...
- Endorses White Supremacy and Nazis
...

Here's you saying that guns are necessary to face Nazis in reality (also declaring victory, and saying that you won't post in the thread again as posting here is pointless ego masturbation):
I’ll take my “Red Dawn freedom fighter gun fantasy” vs. tyranny over The White Rose resistance vs. Nazis reality...

I’ve stated my opinions.  I’m gonna declare victory.  Not because I “won.”  I’m convinced nobody is ever convinced by internet argument. But because I’m not gonna come back again and again as gun control pops up as a MMM forum topic.  That seems like pointless ego masterbation to me.

:P

I will concede I went back on what I said I would.  But I never directly compared anyone to Nazis - the "White Rose" reference was a hypothetical statement.  Though the movement is worth reading about. 

YOU compared the NRA to Nazis.  :P

Since we're here: The NRA are not Nazis or Nazi like.  If the "NRA has all the power" they a damn poor job of exercising it.  To date they've: not repealed severe (sometimes stupid) Blue state gun regulations, kept the conservative President they endorsed from flipping on them, failed to ensure open or concealed carry nationwide.  Instead it's an organization that's an extension of toxic gun industry marketing and PR.  And doing a pretty shitty job at it, IMO.  They're helped a lot when anti-gun advocates give speeches and carry signs that say "Confiscate All Guns" and "Repeal the 2nd Amendment."  That those Liberals aren't mainstream Democrats or doing that just to trigger gun advocates doesn't matter.  It still gives the NRA credibility for a "no compromise stance."  Curiously, the NRA DID offer to compromise on bump stocks.*  They need as much credibility as they can get. 

To say gun advocates value their lives more than other people's is straight up insulting.  Cars kill more people than guns.  I understand it's not an apt comparison.  But I don't see you campaigning so relentlessly for banning cars.  Does that mean YOU don't value human life?  I trash talk about cars but don't advocate banning them either.  There's a whole host of causes as desperate, if not more desperate, than US gun policies neither of us do jack squat about.  Does that make us BOTH insensitive fucks? 

Just because the NRA advocates policies you don't like but can't let go even though you don't have a dog in this fight doesn't make them Nazis.  Trump is not a Nazi.  He's a stupid asshole easily influenced by his far right element hangers on to be a Nazi stooge.  But he's no Nazi.  The Liberals (and often Republicans) who want to regulate guns (rationally or irrationally) are not Nazis.  Not even radical Liberals ready to leverage the US's militarized police force to confiscate them without due process.  And they're not "proof" the anti-gun movement won't compromise or has ulterior motives either. 

The Holocaust comparison is almost as bad as the insult above.  There was no negotiation with the Nazis because they never offered to negotiate.  They successfully demonized the Jews (and gays and communists and Gypsies and Slavs) to such an extent there was no negotiation - just a slippery slope of rights infringement, incarceration and extermination.  They have no place in the US gun control debate.  The Nazi gun banning trope is common in dumber pro gun circles - usually hand in hand with equally lame "Nazis were Socialists" argument.  German gun regulations were restrictive before Nazis came to power.  They restricted ownership for targeted groups, loosened restrictions for party members, and eased them for young men to further marksmanship for future cannon fodder Soldiers.

*https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YcfVQutaXRk (Yeah, I think the NRA panicked.  Whatever you think should be done about guns, bump stock regulations will do nothing.)

You said "I’ll take my “Red Dawn freedom fighter gun fantasy” vs. tyranny over The White Rose resistance vs. Nazis reality...".  Typically people use the term reality to denote that something isn't a hypothetical situation, but whatever.  I'm not going to argue about your logical inconsistencies, because it's well beside the point.

But my arguments all still stand whether you choose to focus on the last four sentences or not.

Gun rights advocates are in a very powerful position over the rest of US society.  They've enjoyed this position for quite a while, they've steadily increased this power (typically by refusing to compromise), and many people die every year because of the power that they hold.  Given this, it's completely unreasonable to complain that people aren't willing to 'compromise' with you.

Sure, it's true that in states where they've been unable to buy politicicians they have less power.  I'll concede that.  However, by influencing supreme court appointments and steadily working against even the most common sense gun laws, they have created the current situation in the US.

I don't believe that gun advocates value their own lives over the lives of others.  I believe that they value their ability to own a gun over the lives of others.  That directly explains their actions regarding gun rights.

If you'll recall, you are the one who compared Trump to a Nazi . . . not me.  I don't believe that conservatives (beyond a very small fringe element who happen to be very vocally pro-Trump supporters and like to hold Nazi flags at rallies), or the people in the NRA (again, beyond perhaps those who happen to have swastika tattoos) are Nazis.  I did compare the situation of power that the NRA has over the American people to Jewish people bargaining with Nazis, because it's a similar disparity.  There was no negotiating with the Nazis for the Jews because the Nazis felt no real need to negotiate . . . and that certainly seems to be the same thing that's happening with the NRA and gun advocates right now.

Chris22

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2974
  • Location: Chicago NW Suburbs
Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
« Reply #956 on: April 10, 2018, 08:43:01 AM »
You’d have a point if NRA members were killing people. Except in exceptionally rare cases...they aren’t. The vast majority of gun violence is caused by illegally-gotten handguns.  Slandering NRA members for not wanting to sacrifice the rights of law-abiding citizens to put up another barrier that will be easily trampled by criminals is absurd.
"If I could get all the money back I ever spent on cars, I'd spend it on cars." - Nick Mason

TexasRunner

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 698
  • Location: Somewhere in Tejas
Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
« Reply #957 on: April 10, 2018, 08:54:58 AM »
You’d have a point if NRA members were killing people. Except in exceptionally rare cases...they aren’t. The vast majority of gun violence is caused by illegally-gotten handguns.  Slandering NRA members for not wanting to sacrifice the rights of law-abiding citizens to put up another barrier that will be easily trampled by criminals is absurd.

Good Point.  Also relevant...

https://crimeresearch.org/2017/04/number-murders-county-54-us-counties-2014-zero-murders-69-1-murder/

Quote
Gun Ownership
According to a 2013 PEW Research Center survey, the household gun ownership rate in rural areas was 2.11 times greater than in urban areas (“Why Own a Gun? Protection is Now Top Reason,” PEW Research Center, March 12, 2013).   Suburban households are 28.6% more likely to own guns than urban households. Despite lower gun ownership, urban areas experience much higher murder rates. One should not put much weight on this purely “cross-sectional” evidence over one point in time and many factors determine murder rates, but it is still interesting to note that so much of the country has both very high gun ownership rates and zero murders.

Conclusion
This study shows how murders in the United States are heavily concentrated in very small areas. Few appreciate how much of the US has no murders each year.  Murder isn’t a nationwide problem.  It’s a problem in a very small set of urban areas, and any solution must reduce those murders.
"The mathematical formula for the number of motorcycles you need is   x+1, where x is the number of motorcycles you currently have."

MasterStache

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1351
Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
« Reply #958 on: April 10, 2018, 08:59:22 AM »
You’d have a point if NRA members were killing people. Except in exceptionally rare cases...they aren’t. The vast majority of gun violence is caused by illegally-gotten handguns.  Slandering NRA members for not wanting to sacrifice the rights of law-abiding citizens to put up another barrier that will be easily trampled by criminals is absurd.

The real irony of that is the vast majority were obtained from legal "law abiding gun owners." You are correct they are illegally gotten. But what's staggering is that roughly 30% were stolen (with 40% of those folks failing to even report the theft) from law abiding gun owners. Over 60% of guns recovered, the original law abiding owner had no clue where they even lost the firearm. 

Yeah I suppose NRA members aren't killing anyone, but they are providing guns at an astounding rate to those with ill intent. I suppose if we leave out the word responsible, all is well. ( :

I suppose you could be correct though. No laws are going to prevent bad people form obtaining and doing bad things with firearms. So long as there are good people with guns, there were be an abundant supply of guns for the bad folks as well (they just take them from the good guys).  How's that for irony?
« Last Edit: April 10, 2018, 09:03:34 AM by MasterStache »
Earn 25K SPG Points after 3K spend: http://refer.amex.us/KYLEDiFKR?xl=cp10

Get $250 statement credit after 1K spend AMEX Blue Cash: http://refer.amex.us/KYLEDk5SI?xl=cp10

caracarn

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1146
  • Age: 47
  • Location: Ohio
Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
« Reply #959 on: April 10, 2018, 09:16:19 AM »
You’d have a point if NRA members were killing people. Except in exceptionally rare cases...they aren’t. The vast majority of gun violence is caused by illegally-gotten handguns.  Slandering NRA members for not wanting to sacrifice the rights of law-abiding citizens to put up another barrier that will be easily trampled by criminals is absurd.
I'm going to suggest another point here and see where it goes.

Why is it that there is not the perceived "need" of other amendments in our Constitution to have a group to "protect" it?  I don't see a group out there fighting for the need to avoid repeal of the right to due process or see a group out there fighting for the right of law-abiding citizens not to have to avoid incriminating themselves.  There is no need to "fight" for the 5th amendment because it makes sense.  We don't have foreign individuals talking with us saying they don't understand why that exists in our Constitution.  But yet we do have those types of questions about the 2nd Amendment, so should that not make us stand back and question why?  If the 2nd Amendment is so clearly good, then why does a group of vocal people who claim it is need to fight for it when that does not happen for nearly any other amendment.  I'm not talking about cases where an amendment is violated such as all the cases for the 1st Amendment which I'm sure would be the first "defense" against my question.  Those are legal cases where the law is violated.  If a legal gun owner was restricted from buying a gun after following all the regulations then they would have the right to do the same thing.  So can any of the pro-gun folks provide a clear answer on how an amendment that needs to be "protected" makes sense?  Isn't that the whole point of our process than if it needs to be protected then maybe it's wrong and needs to be changed or removed?  Isn't that what happened with the other things in the Constitution that needed to be "protected" like the three-fifths compromise and Prohibition?  The fact that the 2nd Amendment has faced the same treatment should open our eyes to the fact that we learned in Sesame Street:  one of these things doesn't belong, or at least maybe it needs to be changed a bit.

GuitarStv

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 10657
  • Age: 36
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
« Reply #960 on: April 10, 2018, 09:17:23 AM »
You’d have a point if NRA members were killing people. Except in exceptionally rare cases...they aren’t. The vast majority of gun violence is caused by illegally-gotten handguns.  Slandering NRA members for not wanting to sacrifice the rights of law-abiding citizens to put up another barrier that will be easily trampled by criminals is absurd.

The NRA stands in the way of gun control laws.  Things like universal background checks, and a gun registry.  Preventing criminals from being caught is the same thing as arming them.  The NRA works hard to ensure that this occurs.  Remember a couple pages earlier where we proved that a background check and gun registry result in higher prosecution for straw purchasers, and lower rates of criminals getting guns using the case of Baltimore?

That's what the NRA and gun owners appear to be fighting against.

Midwest

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1284
Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
« Reply #961 on: April 10, 2018, 10:40:50 AM »
You’d have a point if NRA members were killing people. Except in exceptionally rare cases...they aren’t. The vast majority of gun violence is caused by illegally-gotten handguns.  Slandering NRA members for not wanting to sacrifice the rights of law-abiding citizens to put up another barrier that will be easily trampled by criminals is absurd.

The NRA stands in the way of gun control laws.  Things like universal background checks, and a gun registry.  Preventing criminals from being caught is the same thing as arming them.  The NRA works hard to ensure that this occurs.  Remember a couple pages earlier where we proved that a background check and gun registry result in higher prosecution for straw purchasers, and lower rates of criminals getting guns using the case of Baltimore?

That's what the NRA and gun owners appear to be fighting against.

Didn't Canada give up on the gun registry?  You keep hammering on US gun owners, but my understanding is even your own country has largely given up on the idea -
 https://www.forbes.com/sites/danielfisher/2013/01/22/canada-tried-registering-long-guns-and-gave-up/#1d048fd45a1b

You don't need a registry to open up the NICS to citizens and require background checks on sales.  Most gun owners in the forum have agreed to that.

If you catch a violent felon with a gun, ruin their life.  Not a 2 or 3 year sentence.  For the most part, these are the people who are going to do bad things with guns.

Those 2 changes would give you more impact than an unenforceable gun registry.

For the record, I'm not an NRA member.
« Last Edit: April 10, 2018, 10:48:44 AM by Midwest »

GuitarStv

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 10657
  • Age: 36
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
« Reply #962 on: April 10, 2018, 11:14:57 AM »
You’d have a point if NRA members were killing people. Except in exceptionally rare cases...they aren’t. The vast majority of gun violence is caused by illegally-gotten handguns.  Slandering NRA members for not wanting to sacrifice the rights of law-abiding citizens to put up another barrier that will be easily trampled by criminals is absurd.

The NRA stands in the way of gun control laws.  Things like universal background checks, and a gun registry.  Preventing criminals from being caught is the same thing as arming them.  The NRA works hard to ensure that this occurs.  Remember a couple pages earlier where we proved that a background check and gun registry result in higher prosecution for straw purchasers, and lower rates of criminals getting guns using the case of Baltimore?

That's what the NRA and gun owners appear to be fighting against.

Didn't Canada give up on the gun registry?  You keep hammering on US gun owners, but my understanding is even your own country has largely given up on the idea -
 https://www.forbes.com/sites/danielfisher/2013/01/22/canada-tried-registering-long-guns-and-gave-up/#1d048fd45a1b

Yep.  When we were ruled by a right wing government, they scrapped our long gun registry (over law enforcement protests) largely as a cost savings measure.



You don't need a registry to open up the NICS to citizens and require background checks on sales.  Most gun owners in the forum have agreed to that.

If you catch a violent felon with a gun, ruin their life.  Not a 2 or 3 year sentence.  For the most part, these are the people who are going to do bad things with guns.

Those 2 changes would give you more impact than an unenforceable gun registry.

We've already discussed this, but it's not possible to prove that private citizens are using background checks when selling weapons without a dated record of the transaction - effectively a gun registry.  I know that some people would adhere to this new law simply out of the desire to do the right thing . . . but I suspect that the type of person who would be comfortable selling a weapon to a criminal now would probably abuse this honor system related to gun sales.

Sure, you can argue for stricter jail terms for felons caught with guns.

A gun registry isn't unenforcable.  It's pretty easy to enforce.  You buy a new gun, it is recorded.  You sell the gun, it is recorded.  If you bought a gun and didn't sell it . . . but then the gun turns up somewhere else you are legally responsible for any damages done with the weapon, and given an appropriate penalty.



For the record, I'm not an NRA member.

Me neither.

RetiredAt63

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 8079
  • Location: Eastern Ontario, Canada
Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
« Reply #963 on: April 10, 2018, 11:25:36 AM »

Yep.  When we were ruled by a right wing government, they scrapped our long gun registry (over law enforcement protests) largely as a cost savings measure.


A government that was probably our most right wing ever.  A government that only lasted one term with a majority mandate. A political party that got funding from right wing American businessmen (and Americans fuss over the Russians).  A government that ignored the wishes of a province that wanted to keep it (Quebec, the province that had the first long-gun massacre in recent memory).

And don't forget that was only long guns, our basic gun laws are still pretty tight, and hand guns are very strictly regulated. 
The measure of civilization is how people treat one another.

http://forum.mrmoneymustache.com/meetups-and-social-events/ontario's-own-camp-mustache-2017/ - MEET US THERE!

GuitarStv

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 10657
  • Age: 36
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
« Reply #964 on: April 10, 2018, 11:32:46 AM »

Yep.  When we were ruled by a right wing government, they scrapped our long gun registry (over law enforcement protests) largely as a cost savings measure.


A government that was probably our most right wing ever.  A government that only lasted one term with a majority mandate. A political party that got funding from right wing American businessmen (and Americans fuss over the Russians).  A government that ignored the wishes of a province that wanted to keep it (Quebec, the province that had the first long-gun massacre in recent memory).

And don't forget that was only long guns, our basic gun laws are still pretty tight, and hand guns are very strictly regulated.

The same government that mysteriously axed Canada's long form census over the protests of both businesses and governmental department heads alike.  What a strange period the Harper years were . . .

RetiredAt63

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 8079
  • Location: Eastern Ontario, Canada
Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
« Reply #965 on: April 10, 2018, 01:04:16 PM »

Yep.  When we were ruled by a right wing government, they scrapped our long gun registry (over law enforcement protests) largely as a cost savings measure.


A government that was probably our most right wing ever.  A government that only lasted one term with a majority mandate. A political party that got funding from right wing American businessmen (and Americans fuss over the Russians).  A government that ignored the wishes of a province that wanted to keep it (Quebec, the province that had the first long-gun massacre in recent memory).

And don't forget that was only long guns, our basic gun laws are still pretty tight, and hand guns are very strictly regulated.

The same government that mysteriously axed Canada's long form census over the protests of both businesses and governmental department heads alike.  What a strange period the Harper years were . . .

Oh yes.  I read somewhere that a lot of his thinking was to decrease federal power and increase provincial power, which is odd in a federal politician but makes sense in a weird way, because that is something you can only accomplish at the federal level.  So first you cut taxes (especially to your big business friends) so the federal government has less revenue, and then you cut programs because the money is no longer there for them, and you cut the programs you don't like anyway.  (Like the long form census, God forbid you have actual data on which to make decisions.)  It wasn't obvious during the minority governments, but look at the majority one.  Not to mention the Phoenix fiasco, which might have worked if the civil service were half the size it actually is.  I don't agree with everything the Liberals are doing, but they sure have had lots of messes handed to them to try to clean up.

@GuitarStv   ETA to add  Just saw this:
http://pressprogress.ca/former-prime-minister-stephen-harper-condemned-for-congratulating-far-right-authoritarian-leader/

I feel for conservative Canadians, this is the party they get?

And for the Americans, this is how a democracy gets subverted, not by registering guns.
« Last Edit: April 10, 2018, 03:29:44 PM by RetiredAt63 »
The measure of civilization is how people treat one another.

http://forum.mrmoneymustache.com/meetups-and-social-events/ontario's-own-camp-mustache-2017/ - MEET US THERE!

Midwest

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1284
Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
« Reply #966 on: April 10, 2018, 01:20:50 PM »

We've already discussed this, but it's not possible to prove that private citizens are using background checks when selling weapons without a dated record of the transaction - effectively a gun registry.  I know that some people would adhere to this new law simply out of the desire to do the right thing . . . but I suspect that the type of person who would be comfortable selling a weapon to a criminal now would probably abuse this honor system related to gun sales.

Sure, you can argue for stricter jail terms for felons caught with guns.

A gun registry isn't unenforcable.  It's pretty easy to enforce.  You buy a new gun, it is recorded.  You sell the gun, it is recorded.  If you bought a gun and didn't sell it . . . but then the gun turns up somewhere else you are legally responsible for any damages done with the weapon, and given an appropriate penalty.


If you require a 4473 and NICS on each sale, you can trace the transfers.  The ATF has 4473's on all sales from FFL now and can trace the weapons from those sales.  The ATF can store the 4473 just like they do for FFK gun sales.

You avoid turning lawful gun owners into criminals for failing to register and you don't create another significant burden for them. 

You don't need a registry for the above to work.

MW

GuitarStv

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 10657
  • Age: 36
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
« Reply #967 on: April 10, 2018, 01:52:25 PM »

We've already discussed this, but it's not possible to prove that private citizens are using background checks when selling weapons without a dated record of the transaction - effectively a gun registry.  I know that some people would adhere to this new law simply out of the desire to do the right thing . . . but I suspect that the type of person who would be comfortable selling a weapon to a criminal now would probably abuse this honor system related to gun sales.

Sure, you can argue for stricter jail terms for felons caught with guns.

A gun registry isn't unenforcable.  It's pretty easy to enforce.  You buy a new gun, it is recorded.  You sell the gun, it is recorded.  If you bought a gun and didn't sell it . . . but then the gun turns up somewhere else you are legally responsible for any damages done with the weapon, and given an appropriate penalty.


If you require a 4473 and NICS on each sale, you can trace the transfers.  The ATF has 4473's on all sales from FFL now and can trace the weapons from those sales.  The ATF can store the 4473 just like they do for FFK gun sales.

You avoid turning lawful gun owners into criminals for failing to register and you don't create another significant burden for them. 

You don't need a registry for the above to work.

MW

The current 4473 record keeping that you seem to be so enamored with (typically paper copies, extremely difficult/time consuming for law enforcement to search, destroyed after a period of time, no backups so data is lost if there's a flood/fire they are permanently lost, legally cannot be computerzed/searchable by the ATF) is rather problematic to begin with.

Here are some common use case problems that law enforcement runs into today:
- A gun is sold by an FFL and the 4473 record of sale is damaged in a flood.  Now the gun is untraceable.
- A gun is sold by an FFL.  Time passes, the FFL destroys the records because they're older than 20 years.  Now the gun is untraceable.
- A gun is sold by an FFL.  The FFL goes out of business.  As per the law, they box up their paper copies of 4473s and send them to the ATF.  It is illegal for the ATF to computerize these files and make them searchable . . . so they are stored in giant warehouses with millions of other similar files.  Every time a trace has to be done, these files are manually gone through (or more likely - not . . . because the chance of catching a straw purchaser isn't worth the expense required to actually find the records).

The above system will obviously miss a lot of people.  If you want law enforcement to use it to find straw purchasers, it needs to be fast and easy to search, or there needs to be a massive tax increase to fund the additional manpower necessary to jump through the ridiculous legal hoops surrounding these records.  Otherwise they won't be caught (this is what we currently see).  Pretending that the system as it exists works well does everyone a big disservice.


Lawful gun owners already have to register by filling out a 4473.  All that I'm suggesting is that these files be kept by law enforcement in a decentralized and searchable system.  That's zero additional burden on lawful gun owners.  When they sell their weapon, they inform law enforcement of the change of ownership (which can be done along with the NCIS check).

Midwest

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1284
Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
« Reply #968 on: April 10, 2018, 02:26:33 PM »

We've already discussed this, but it's not possible to prove that private citizens are using background checks when selling weapons without a dated record of the transaction - effectively a gun registry.  I know that some people would adhere to this new law simply out of the desire to do the right thing . . . but I suspect that the type of person who would be comfortable selling a weapon to a criminal now would probably abuse this honor system related to gun sales.

Sure, you can argue for stricter jail terms for felons caught with guns.

A gun registry isn't unenforcable.  It's pretty easy to enforce.  You buy a new gun, it is recorded.  You sell the gun, it is recorded.  If you bought a gun and didn't sell it . . . but then the gun turns up somewhere else you are legally responsible for any damages done with the weapon, and given an appropriate penalty.


If you require a 4473 and NICS on each sale, you can trace the transfers.  The ATF has 4473's on all sales from FFL now and can trace the weapons from those sales.  The ATF can store the 4473 just like they do for FFK gun sales.

You avoid turning lawful gun owners into criminals for failing to register and you don't create another significant burden for them. 

You don't need a registry for the above to work.

MW

The current 4473 record keeping that you seem to be so enamored with (typically paper copies, extremely difficult/time consuming for law enforcement to search, destroyed after a period of time, no backups so data is lost if there's a flood/fire they are permanently lost, legally cannot be computerzed/searchable by the ATF) is rather problematic to begin with.

Here are some common use case problems that law enforcement runs into today:
- A gun is sold by an FFL and the 4473 record of sale is damaged in a flood.  Now the gun is untraceable.
- A gun is sold by an FFL.  Time passes, the FFL destroys the records because they're older than 20 years.  Now the gun is untraceable.
- A gun is sold by an FFL.  The FFL goes out of business.  As per the law, they box up their paper copies of 4473s and send them to the ATF.  It is illegal for the ATF to computerize these files and make them searchable . . . so they are stored in giant warehouses with millions of other similar files.  Every time a trace has to be done, these files are manually gone through (or more likely - not . . . because the chance of catching a straw purchaser isn't worth the expense required to actually find the records).

The above system will obviously miss a lot of people.  If you want law enforcement to use it to find straw purchasers, it needs to be fast and easy to search, or there needs to be a massive tax increase to fund the additional manpower necessary to jump through the ridiculous legal hoops surrounding these records.  Otherwise they won't be caught (this is what we currently see).  Pretending that the system as it exists works well does everyone a big disservice.


Lawful gun owners already have to register by filling out a 4473.  All that I'm suggesting is that these files be kept by law enforcement in a decentralized and searchable system.  That's zero additional burden on lawful gun owners.  When they sell their weapon, they inform law enforcement of the change of ownership (which can be done along with the NCIS check).

Despite your love of a registry, your own country gave up on the idea for most firearms despite your much smaller population and lower guns per capita.

As to the 4473 and destruction, straw purchasers aren't keeping the guns for 20 years.  Under the scenario I gave you, entirely traceable.  If they are sold during the 20 year period, clock resets.

A registry is a burden on gun owners because it will be hacked or misused.  It's already happened -  https://www.cnn.com/2012/12/25/us/new-york-gun-permit-map/index.html so this isn't just theoretical.

You want to fix this, punish the lawbreakers not the legal gun owners.  When I suggested throwing the book at straw purchasers, there was pity for wives and girlfriends buying guns for felons. 

BlueMR2

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1941
Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
« Reply #969 on: April 10, 2018, 06:49:25 PM »
Why is it that there is not the perceived "need" of other amendments in our Constitution to have a group to "protect" it?  I don't see a group out there fighting for the need to avoid repeal of the right to due process or see a group out there fighting for the right of law-abiding citizens not to have to avoid incriminating themselves.  There is no need to "fight" for the 5th amendment because it makes sense.  We don't have foreign individuals talking with us saying they don't understand why that exists in our Constitution.  But yet we do have those types of questions about the 2nd Amendment, so should that not make us stand back and question why?  If the 2nd Amendment is so clearly good, then why does a group of vocal people who claim it is need to fight for it when that does not happen for nearly any other amendment.  I'm not talking about cases where an amendment is violated such as all the cases for the 1st Amendment which I'm sure would be the first "defense" against my question.  Those are legal cases where the law is violated.  If a legal gun owner was restricted from buying a gun after following all the regulations then they would have the right to do the same thing.  So can any of the pro-gun folks provide a clear answer on how an amendment that needs to be "protected" makes sense?  Isn't that the whole point of our process than if it needs to be protected then maybe it's wrong and needs to be changed or removed?  Isn't that what happened with the other things in the Constitution that needed to be "protected" like the three-fifths compromise and Prohibition?  The fact that the 2nd Amendment has faced the same treatment should open our eyes to the fact that we learned in Sesame Street:  one of these things doesn't belong, or at least maybe it needs to be changed a bit.

I find this approach fundamentally flawed.  I'm not sure how you exempt the first amendment.  It seems to match up very well with the second in regard to the assaults on it and the need to be protected in today's environment.  As far as lack of organizations protecting other aspects of the bill of rights in general, have you forgotten the ACLU (also vilified by segments of the population in a manner similar to the NRA)?

Wolfpack Mustachian

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 47
Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
« Reply #970 on: April 10, 2018, 09:12:17 PM »

I wasn't talking absolutes in 1999.  I wasn't talking absolutes in 2005.  I wasn't talking absolutes in 2009 or 2012 or 2015.  I'm talking absolutes now.

What do I expect them to do?  Anything.

Have the gun manufacturers done anything to make sure their guns aren't used in crimes?  No.

Gun rights person's response:  Well they don't have to do that!

My response:  That's correct.  They do not have a legal obligation to do that.  But every person who values the right to own a gun should be fucking insist they do it, and refuse to purchase from those that don't.

If the argument is essentially "we don't need a law" just know that all of the ideas that support that argument, all of the philosophy behind it, are born of the American experiment that people can govern themselves.  In this case, the entire group engaged in the sales/distribution of fireams has failed to govern themselves.  Where the perpetrators of this shit were thwarted from purchasing firearms legally, it was exclusively the result of legislation that was opposed by the NRA.

And then when any sort of legislation is proposed, as a completely constitutional way of forcing the distributors of firearms to behave in a way that any free-thinking person can see is totally reasonable, the "they're coming to take our guns" crowd argues against the entirely non-existent goal of gun control folks.

So I've had it.  I'm done.  They didn't want to talk about solutions and they aren't engaging with the argument in an honest way.  Every argument hinges on that right, and as they like to point out, we're a nation of laws, not one where people can govern themselves and so are often left to do just that.  So those laws are enacted in a certain way, and one of them is an amendment to the constitution, lets strip that amendment out.

And fucking take their guns.

Right now, it's not a serious policy position, and hasn't been for the last couple hundred years.  But it gets brought up in these conversations by the gun right's folks.  Nobody WAS suggesting stripping YOUR ability to own a gun and shoot it for legally and morally acceptable reasons.  But then you totally failed to rectify this situation on your own.  So now I'm proposing it, and it's enough of an issue that I'll switch my vote to whichever candidate supports it.  I can say that with confidence that it will never change my vote, because it isn't a thing anyone is actually trying to do.  But gun rights people will continue to insist that this possibility is why they "cannot give an inch."  It's also why they won't think of anything as a compromise, because they've forgotten the whole deal with having the right in the first place is that they would be responsible about it.  That responsibility includes holding each other accountable.

If after Columbine no gun owner in the U.S. ever purchased a Stevens again, other manufacturers would have taken note of that.  Instead, hardly anything is as good for business as one of their weapons being involved in a mass shooting.  Out of fears that the weapon will soon be banned, gun enthusiasts rush out to buy it.  The maker of Stevens, Savage, also produced one of the weapons used by the Sandy Hook asshole.  His other weapon of choice was made by Bushmaster Firearms International.  If after even one of these incidents those people in this country that care about the right to own guns boycotted a manufactuer, you'd have 100% never-false-fail biometrics on every gun made in the U.S. within a year.  Or some other workable solution.

There's no push to protect the right from the people with a vested interest in protecting the right, that's what they aren't seeing, that's what they don't get.  And one at a time, people without a vested interest in that right are converted to the realization that those folks honestly do not give a shit.  They just can't be bothered, their right is constitutionally protected so go fuck yourself.

I am not taking the moral high ground here, there's nothing moral about the right to own a gun, there's nothing immoral about the right to own a gun.  Rights are something that should only be curtailed due to gravest need.

At its heart, this is an issue of personal responsibility.  And all of our efforts to curtail access to firearms to those that are incapable or unwilling to exercise personal responsibility are met with resistance from groups like the NRA.  Those that refuse to govern themselves will find government forced upon them.  That's just how it goes.

OK, so, not to be offensive, but you’re kind of all over the place on this one. With that in mind, I’ll hit a few of the highlights as I see them.

First, you pick 1999 but fail to mention it is right in the middle of an assault weapons ban that had very debatable at best impact on any crime rates. Something literally was done in the time you mentioned. It either failed or certainly was no rousing success.

You comment "And then when any sort of legislation is proposed, as a completely constitutional way of forcing the distributors of firearms to behave in a way that any free-thinking person can see is totally reasonable, the "they're coming to take our guns" crowd argues against the entirely non-existent goal of gun control folks." The problem is, blanket statements like "any free-thinking person can see is totally reasonable," are seen very differently by actual free-thinking people, and your anger and animosity towards those people fights against your cause.

Let's take, for example, your statement "It's also why they won't think of anything as a compromise, because they've forgotten the whole deal with having the right in the first place is that they would be responsible about it.  That responsibility includes holding each other accountable." Yet gun rights is great example of an issue where this is not nearly as clear as you pretend it to be. Yes, there are other rights that are held in check. They difference is, they're pretty typically held in check when they're misused. You can't yell fire in a theater. It's the misuse of a right that's regulated by the person who does the offending typically. This is a more special case of something that is declared a right and being regulated against people who have not done anything wrong (a harder sell on personal responsibility when they have done nothing to be responsible for)...not to say we can't regulate against people who have done nothing wrong, but it's not the same as typical regulations on Constitutional rights.

Along this line, you mention again and again that people who don't want regulations "don't give a shit." You talk of only removing rights in if we have to because it's in "gravest need." Every death is a tragedy, certainly to the family and friends of the people that it happens to. Every shooting is a tragedy. That being said, I don't see how our situation in America with regards to guns is in the gravest of needs. As has been mentioned countless times, there's tons of things that affect more people's lives than guns (especially if you take out suicides, which I think is a very fair thing to do). Alcohol kills more people. More young kids die in swimming pools than from guns. We can parse the numbers a million ways, but the fact of the matter is we have a very small chance of dying by a gun. I fully expect to be berated over this standpoint, and yes, again, every death is a tragedy and should be grieved, but when blanket statements like we're in the gravest of needs are made, we have to rely on some level of scope to see if this even makes sense, and I can't see how the numbers say that.

Look, I get that you're frustrated. Thanks to TrudgingAlong for expressing this point. Although, I feel that your examples show a bit of how, in my opinion, your frustration has taken you into some strange places (because a bad guy at Columbine used a particular brand of gun, people should boycott the brand of gun, why...just because it was a particular brand...?...it doesn't seem like sound logic to me). Back to the point of frustrations - I personally am not a big NRA fan. They present themselves as a bunch of jerks IMO. Their presentation doesn't define the situation though. I also agree that if something is not done that there will be a backlash and gun rights will be curtailed more significantly when political powers shift. That's just a fact of human nature, though, not an inherent rightness or wrongness of a cause.

Gun rights people are not happy when people are hurt. They're not abdicating themselves of responsibilities. If they do feel that their rights to have guns outweigh the potential of risk for others, though, it's not a ridiculous point at least from an overall logical premise. We give away safety all the time in favor of rights. Safety would mean we live in total surveillance with no privacy, freedom of movement, etc. (not that we're not moving in that direction). People on this thread have commented about how we submit to curtailing things like restrictions on driving all the time, and it's true. The other side of it that is rarely mentioned is that we "submit" to rights that put us at risk all the time as well without this level of scrutiny. Sorry that you don't see it as worth it. Many people do.

GuitarStv

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 10657
  • Age: 36
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
« Reply #971 on: April 11, 2018, 08:21:31 AM »

We've already discussed this, but it's not possible to prove that private citizens are using background checks when selling weapons without a dated record of the transaction - effectively a gun registry.  I know that some people would adhere to this new law simply out of the desire to do the right thing . . . but I suspect that the type of person who would be comfortable selling a weapon to a criminal now would probably abuse this honor system related to gun sales.

Sure, you can argue for stricter jail terms for felons caught with guns.

A gun registry isn't unenforcable.  It's pretty easy to enforce.  You buy a new gun, it is recorded.  You sell the gun, it is recorded.  If you bought a gun and didn't sell it . . . but then the gun turns up somewhere else you are legally responsible for any damages done with the weapon, and given an appropriate penalty.


If you require a 4473 and NICS on each sale, you can trace the transfers.  The ATF has 4473's on all sales from FFL now and can trace the weapons from those sales.  The ATF can store the 4473 just like they do for FFK gun sales.

You avoid turning lawful gun owners into criminals for failing to register and you don't create another significant burden for them. 

You don't need a registry for the above to work.

MW

The current 4473 record keeping that you seem to be so enamored with (typically paper copies, extremely difficult/time consuming for law enforcement to search, destroyed after a period of time, no backups so data is lost if there's a flood/fire they are permanently lost, legally cannot be computerzed/searchable by the ATF) is rather problematic to begin with.

Here are some common use case problems that law enforcement runs into today:
- A gun is sold by an FFL and the 4473 record of sale is damaged in a flood.  Now the gun is untraceable.
- A gun is sold by an FFL.  Time passes, the FFL destroys the records because they're older than 20 years.  Now the gun is untraceable.
- A gun is sold by an FFL.  The FFL goes out of business.  As per the law, they box up their paper copies of 4473s and send them to the ATF.  It is illegal for the ATF to computerize these files and make them searchable . . . so they are stored in giant warehouses with millions of other similar files.  Every time a trace has to be done, these files are manually gone through (or more likely - not . . . because the chance of catching a straw purchaser isn't worth the expense required to actually find the records).

The above system will obviously miss a lot of people.  If you want law enforcement to use it to find straw purchasers, it needs to be fast and easy to search, or there needs to be a massive tax increase to fund the additional manpower necessary to jump through the ridiculous legal hoops surrounding these records.  Otherwise they won't be caught (this is what we currently see).  Pretending that the system as it exists works well does everyone a big disservice.


Lawful gun owners already have to register by filling out a 4473.  All that I'm suggesting is that these files be kept by law enforcement in a decentralized and searchable system.  That's zero additional burden on lawful gun owners.  When they sell their weapon, they inform law enforcement of the change of ownership (which can be done along with the NCIS check).

Despite your love of a registry, your own country gave up on the idea for most firearms despite your much smaller population and lower guns per capita.

Yep.  Scrapping the registry was an unpopular, politically motivated move by a government intent on ignoring the advice of law enforcement.  I'll be the first to admit . . . we screw up sometimes.



As to the 4473 and destruction, straw purchasers aren't keeping the guns for 20 years.  Under the scenario I gave you, entirely traceable.  If they are sold during the 20 year period, clock resets.

Sure, I can agree that most straw purchasers are probably buying new guns.  (You then run into the problem of anyone with a gun older than 20 years knowing that it's OK to sell to a criminal . . . but let's ignore that for now as you appear to want to do.)

Are you arguing that the records we do have are easily searchable by law enforcement . . . or do they end up not being searched because of the ridiculous rules regarding storage?  The records are never destroyed by flood/fire/natural disaster, or does this happen under the (flawed) current system?



A registry is a burden on gun owners because it will be hacked or misused.  It's already happened -  https://www.cnn.com/2012/12/25/us/new-york-gun-permit-map/index.html so this isn't just theoretical.

This is a patently ridiculous argument.

Driver's license records have been hacked in the past.  This will be a burden to drivers.  Therefore we should not have driver's licenses.  Just operate your vehicles on the honor system.

If a database is hacked, go after the hackers.  Go after the people in charge of security for the database.



You want to fix this, punish the lawbreakers not the legal gun owners.

Again I ask you, how exactly are the legal gun owners punished by having a registry?  The same way that people with a driver's license are punished?  Is that really so onerous?



When I suggested throwing the book at straw purchasers, there was pity for wives and girlfriends buying guns for felons.

It's impossible to 'throw the book' at someone if you can't prosecute.

We were discussing Maryland - a place where registering guns was allowing prosecution of straw purchasers to take place, resulting in significant drops in criminals getting guns this way (you obviously forgot to read the results of the gun registry on straw purchasers - https://muse.jhu.edu/article/677236).

You can certainly argue that harsher penalties for straw purchasers will be beneficial if you want.  The facts show that even without implementing harsher penalties though, a gun registry significantly reduced straw purchases.

caracarn

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1146
  • Age: 47
  • Location: Ohio
Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
« Reply #972 on: April 11, 2018, 12:50:25 PM »
Why is it that there is not the perceived "need" of other amendments in our Constitution to have a group to "protect" it?  I don't see a group out there fighting for the need to avoid repeal of the right to due process or see a group out there fighting for the right of law-abiding citizens not to have to avoid incriminating themselves.  There is no need to "fight" for the 5th amendment because it makes sense.  We don't have foreign individuals talking with us saying they don't understand why that exists in our Constitution.  But yet we do have those types of questions about the 2nd Amendment, so should that not make us stand back and question why?  If the 2nd Amendment is so clearly good, then why does a group of vocal people who claim it is need to fight for it when that does not happen for nearly any other amendment.  I'm not talking about cases where an amendment is violated such as all the cases for the 1st Amendment which I'm sure would be the first "defense" against my question.  Those are legal cases where the law is violated.  If a legal gun owner was restricted from buying a gun after following all the regulations then they would have the right to do the same thing.  So can any of the pro-gun folks provide a clear answer on how an amendment that needs to be "protected" makes sense?  Isn't that the whole point of our process than if it needs to be protected then maybe it's wrong and needs to be changed or removed?  Isn't that what happened with the other things in the Constitution that needed to be "protected" like the three-fifths compromise and Prohibition?  The fact that the 2nd Amendment has faced the same treatment should open our eyes to the fact that we learned in Sesame Street:  one of these things doesn't belong, or at least maybe it needs to be changed a bit.

I find this approach fundamentally flawed.  I'm not sure how you exempt the first amendment.  It seems to match up very well with the second in regard to the assaults on it and the need to be protected in today's environment.  As far as lack of organizations protecting other aspects of the bill of rights in general, have you forgotten the ACLU (also vilified by segments of the population in a manner similar to the NRA)?
No did not forget about it.  The ACLU protects it as any other amendment would be, when violated they help with the legal case.  The NRA method is different.  The ACLU according to their own website exists to litigate against abuses, i.e. after something went wrong.  The NRA primarily exists to keep things from going wrong in their worldview, which they need to constantly defend because it is a twisted view of what the second amendment actually says.  The ACLU is not out there explaining why free speech needs to exist, they deal in minutiae of what free speech means from a legal sense.  No organization exists to protect the 13th Amendment.  So why does one exist who's main reason for being at this point is to focus on how it became politicized in the 70s and used their flawed view of the second amendment as their locus? 
« Last Edit: April 11, 2018, 12:58:52 PM by caracarn »

Chris22

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2974
  • Location: Chicago NW Suburbs
Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
« Reply #973 on: April 11, 2018, 08:21:49 PM »
Why is it that there is not the perceived "need" of other amendments in our Constitution to have a group to "protect" it?  I don't see a group out there fighting for the need to avoid repeal of the right to due process or see a group out there fighting for the right of law-abiding citizens not to have to avoid incriminating themselves.  There is no need to "fight" for the 5th amendment because it makes sense.  We don't have foreign individuals talking with us saying they don't understand why that exists in our Constitution.  But yet we do have those types of questions about the 2nd Amendment, so should that not make us stand back and question why?  If the 2nd Amendment is so clearly good, then why does a group of vocal people who claim it is need to fight for it when that does not happen for nearly any other amendment.  I'm not talking about cases where an amendment is violated such as all the cases for the 1st Amendment which I'm sure would be the first "defense" against my question.  Those are legal cases where the law is violated.  If a legal gun owner was restricted from buying a gun after following all the regulations then they would have the right to do the same thing.  So can any of the pro-gun folks provide a clear answer on how an amendment that needs to be "protected" makes sense?  Isn't that the whole point of our process than if it needs to be protected then maybe it's wrong and needs to be changed or removed?  Isn't that what happened with the other things in the Constitution that needed to be "protected" like the three-fifths compromise and Prohibition?  The fact that the 2nd Amendment has faced the same treatment should open our eyes to the fact that we learned in Sesame Street:  one of these things doesn't belong, or at least maybe it needs to be changed a bit.

I find this approach fundamentally flawed.  I'm not sure how you exempt the first amendment.  It seems to match up very well with the second in regard to the assaults on it and the need to be protected in today's environment.  As far as lack of organizations protecting other aspects of the bill of rights in general, have you forgotten the ACLU (also vilified by segments of the population in a manner similar to the NRA)?
No did not forget about it.  The ACLU protects it as any other amendment would be, when violated they help with the legal case.  The NRA method is different.  The ACLU according to their own website exists to litigate against abuses, i.e. after something went wrong.  The NRA primarily exists to keep things from going wrong in their worldview, which they need to constantly defend because it is a twisted view of what the second amendment actually says.  The ACLU is not out there explaining why free speech needs to exist, they deal in minutiae of what free speech means from a legal sense.  No organization exists to protect the 13th Amendment.  So why does one exist who's main reason for being at this point is to focus on how it became politicized in the 70s and used their flawed view of the second amendment as their locus?

OTOH, you don’t premptively lose your 1A rights because of something you or someone else MIGHT do.  You don’t have the right to yell Fire in a crowded theater but no one makes you wear a muzzle to prevent you from doing it.
"If I could get all the money back I ever spent on cars, I'd spend it on cars." - Nick Mason

caracarn

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1146
  • Age: 47
  • Location: Ohio
Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
« Reply #974 on: April 12, 2018, 09:52:34 AM »
Why is it that there is not the perceived "need" of other amendments in our Constitution to have a group to "protect" it?  I don't see a group out there fighting for the need to avoid repeal of the right to due process or see a group out there fighting for the right of law-abiding citizens not to have to avoid incriminating themselves.  There is no need to "fight" for the 5th amendment because it makes sense.  We don't have foreign individuals talking with us saying they don't understand why that exists in our Constitution.  But yet we do have those types of questions about the 2nd Amendment, so should that not make us stand back and question why?  If the 2nd Amendment is so clearly good, then why does a group of vocal people who claim it is need to fight for it when that does not happen for nearly any other amendment.  I'm not talking about cases where an amendment is violated such as all the cases for the 1st Amendment which I'm sure would be the first "defense" against my question.  Those are legal cases where the law is violated.  If a legal gun owner was restricted from buying a gun after following all the regulations then they would have the right to do the same thing.  So can any of the pro-gun folks provide a clear answer on how an amendment that needs to be "protected" makes sense?  Isn't that the whole point of our process than if it needs to be protected then maybe it's wrong and needs to be changed or removed?  Isn't that what happened with the other things in the Constitution that needed to be "protected" like the three-fifths compromise and Prohibition?  The fact that the 2nd Amendment has faced the same treatment should open our eyes to the fact that we learned in Sesame Street:  one of these things doesn't belong, or at least maybe it needs to be changed a bit.

I find this approach fundamentally flawed.  I'm not sure how you exempt the first amendment.  It seems to match up very well with the second in regard to the assaults on it and the need to be protected in today's environment.  As far as lack of organizations protecting other aspects of the bill of rights in general, have you forgotten the ACLU (also vilified by segments of the population in a manner similar to the NRA)?
No did not forget about it.  The ACLU protects it as any other amendment would be, when violated they help with the legal case.  The NRA method is different.  The ACLU according to their own website exists to litigate against abuses, i.e. after something went wrong.  The NRA primarily exists to keep things from going wrong in their worldview, which they need to constantly defend because it is a twisted view of what the second amendment actually says.  The ACLU is not out there explaining why free speech needs to exist, they deal in minutiae of what free speech means from a legal sense.  No organization exists to protect the 13th Amendment.  So why does one exist who's main reason for being at this point is to focus on how it became politicized in the 70s and used their flawed view of the second amendment as their locus?

OTOH, you don’t premptively lose your 1A rights because of something you or someone else MIGHT do.  You don’t have the right to yell Fire in a crowded theater but no one makes you wear a muzzle to prevent you from doing it.
I still have had no one actually answer the question.  Nor has the question of why anyone feels if the Second Amendment did not exist that that automatically translates to you cannot own a gun.  There is not an amendment to own a house, or a car or a toothbrush.  There is not an amendment to allow my to buy alcohol.  The only way you could NOT own a gun if the Second Amendment was repealed would be to have added legislation making it illegal to own a gun.  This attachment to the Second Amendment being the only way you can own a gun is way overblown.  As I said before, people in other countries own guns yet we are the only one to address anything about it in our founding documents because at that time it was a big deal since King George did not allow armed insurreciton, but guess what, the colonists still owned guns before that.  It was not illegal even under a monarch that understood a colony could rebel.  So in that time people did not feel hindered because there was no legislation to stop them, and without the Second Amendment you'd be in the same place.  The NRA rhetoric has only added in the belief that without it it would be banned.  That is a bridge too far.

Chris22

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2974
  • Location: Chicago NW Suburbs
Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
« Reply #975 on: April 12, 2018, 11:47:28 AM »
Why is it that there is not the perceived "need" of other amendments in our Constitution to have a group to "protect" it?  I don't see a group out there fighting for the need to avoid repeal of the right to due process or see a group out there fighting for the right of law-abiding citizens not to have to avoid incriminating themselves.  There is no need to "fight" for the 5th amendment because it makes sense.  We don't have foreign individuals talking with us saying they don't understand why that exists in our Constitution.  But yet we do have those types of questions about the 2nd Amendment, so should that not make us stand back and question why?  If the 2nd Amendment is so clearly good, then why does a group of vocal people who claim it is need to fight for it when that does not happen for nearly any other amendment.  I'm not talking about cases where an amendment is violated such as all the cases for the 1st Amendment which I'm sure would be the first "defense" against my question.  Those are legal cases where the law is violated.  If a legal gun owner was restricted from buying a gun after following all the regulations then they would have the right to do the same thing.  So can any of the pro-gun folks provide a clear answer on how an amendment that needs to be "protected" makes sense?  Isn't that the whole point of our process than if it needs to be protected then maybe it's wrong and needs to be changed or removed?  Isn't that what happened with the other things in the Constitution that needed to be "protected" like the three-fifths compromise and Prohibition?  The fact that the 2nd Amendment has faced the same treatment should open our eyes to the fact that we learned in Sesame Street:  one of these things doesn't belong, or at least maybe it needs to be changed a bit.

I find this approach fundamentally flawed.  I'm not sure how you exempt the first amendment.  It seems to match up very well with the second in regard to the assaults on it and the need to be protected in today's environment.  As far as lack of organizations protecting other aspects of the bill of rights in general, have you forgotten the ACLU (also vilified by segments of the population in a manner similar to the NRA)?
No did not forget about it.  The ACLU protects it as any other amendment would be, when violated they help with the legal case.  The NRA method is different.  The ACLU according to their own website exists to litigate against abuses, i.e. after something went wrong.  The NRA primarily exists to keep things from going wrong in their worldview, which they need to constantly defend because it is a twisted view of what the second amendment actually says.  The ACLU is not out there explaining why free speech needs to exist, they deal in minutiae of what free speech means from a legal sense.  No organization exists to protect the 13th Amendment.  So why does one exist who's main reason for being at this point is to focus on how it became politicized in the 70s and used their flawed view of the second amendment as their locus?

OTOH, you don’t premptively lose your 1A rights because of something you or someone else MIGHT do.  You don’t have the right to yell Fire in a crowded theater but no one makes you wear a muzzle to prevent you from doing it.
I still have had no one actually answer the question.  Nor has the question of why anyone feels if the Second Amendment did not exist that that automatically translates to you cannot own a gun.  There is not an amendment to own a house, or a car or a toothbrush.  There is not an amendment to allow my to buy alcohol. The only way you could NOT own a gun if the Second Amendment was repealed would be to have added legislation making it illegal to own a gun.  This attachment to the Second Amendment being the only way you can own a gun is way overblown.  As I said before, people in other countries own guns yet we are the only one to address anything about it in our founding documents because at that time it was a big deal since King George did not allow armed insurreciton, but guess what, the colonists still owned guns before that.  It was not illegal even under a monarch that understood a colony could rebel.  So in that time people did not feel hindered because there was no legislation to stop them, and without the Second Amendment you'd be in the same place.  The NRA rhetoric has only added in the belief that without it it would be banned.  That is a bridge too far.

And that has happened in other countries. And it would happen here. Chicago has a handgun ban until it was thrown out. In other countries they have the right to “own” a gun where own means keep locked up at a shooting club except when in use for sporting purposes

Note that in the US we don’t have the right to own a gun, we have the right to “bear arms” which means “A person's right to bear arms is their right to own and use guns, as a means of defense.”  That’s different than “you can keep it at your sportsman’s club”.


https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.collinsdictionary.com/us/amp/english/bear-arms

"If I could get all the money back I ever spent on cars, I'd spend it on cars." - Nick Mason

caracarn

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1146
  • Age: 47
  • Location: Ohio
Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
« Reply #976 on: April 12, 2018, 03:05:21 PM »
Why is it that there is not the perceived "need" of other amendments in our Constitution to have a group to "protect" it?  I don't see a group out there fighting for the need to avoid repeal of the right to due process or see a group out there fighting for the right of law-abiding citizens not to have to avoid incriminating themselves.  There is no need to "fight" for the 5th amendment because it makes sense.  We don't have foreign individuals talking with us saying they don't understand why that exists in our Constitution.  But yet we do have those types of questions about the 2nd Amendment, so should that not make us stand back and question why?  If the 2nd Amendment is so clearly good, then why does a group of vocal people who claim it is need to fight for it when that does not happen for nearly any other amendment.  I'm not talking about cases where an amendment is violated such as all the cases for the 1st Amendment which I'm sure would be the first "defense" against my question.  Those are legal cases where the law is violated.  If a legal gun owner was restricted from buying a gun after following all the regulations then they would have the right to do the same thing.  So can any of the pro-gun folks provide a clear answer on how an amendment that needs to be "protected" makes sense?  Isn't that the whole point of our process than if it needs to be protected then maybe it's wrong and needs to be changed or removed?  Isn't that what happened with the other things in the Constitution that needed to be "protected" like the three-fifths compromise and Prohibition?  The fact that the 2nd Amendment has faced the same treatment should open our eyes to the fact that we learned in Sesame Street:  one of these things doesn't belong, or at least maybe it needs to be changed a bit.

I find this approach fundamentally flawed.  I'm not sure how you exempt the first amendment.  It seems to match up very well with the second in regard to the assaults on it and the need to be protected in today's environment.  As far as lack of organizations protecting other aspects of the bill of rights in general, have you forgotten the ACLU (also vilified by segments of the population in a manner similar to the NRA)?
No did not forget about it.  The ACLU protects it as any other amendment would be, when violated they help with the legal case.  The NRA method is different.  The ACLU according to their own website exists to litigate against abuses, i.e. after something went wrong.  The NRA primarily exists to keep things from going wrong in their worldview, which they need to constantly defend because it is a twisted view of what the second amendment actually says.  The ACLU is not out there explaining why free speech needs to exist, they deal in minutiae of what free speech means from a legal sense.  No organization exists to protect the 13th Amendment.  So why does one exist who's main reason for being at this point is to focus on how it became politicized in the 70s and used their flawed view of the second amendment as their locus?

OTOH, you don’t premptively lose your 1A rights because of something you or someone else MIGHT do.  You don’t have the right to yell Fire in a crowded theater but no one makes you wear a muzzle to prevent you from doing it.
I still have had no one actually answer the question.  Nor has the question of why anyone feels if the Second Amendment did not exist that that automatically translates to you cannot own a gun.  There is not an amendment to own a house, or a car or a toothbrush.  There is not an amendment to allow my to buy alcohol. The only way you could NOT own a gun if the Second Amendment was repealed would be to have added legislation making it illegal to own a gun.  This attachment to the Second Amendment being the only way you can own a gun is way overblown.  As I said before, people in other countries own guns yet we are the only one to address anything about it in our founding documents because at that time it was a big deal since King George did not allow armed insurreciton, but guess what, the colonists still owned guns before that.  It was not illegal even under a monarch that understood a colony could rebel.  So in that time people did not feel hindered because there was no legislation to stop them, and without the Second Amendment you'd be in the same place.  The NRA rhetoric has only added in the belief that without it it would be banned.  That is a bridge too far.

And that has happened in other countries. And it would happen here. Chicago has a handgun ban until it was thrown out. In other countries they have the right to “own” a gun where own means keep locked up at a shooting club except when in use for sporting purposes

Note that in the US we don’t have the right to own a gun, we have the right to “bear arms” which means “A person's right to bear arms is their right to own and use guns, as a means of defense.”  That’s different than “you can keep it at your sportsman’s club”.


https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.collinsdictionary.com/us/amp/english/bear-arms
I'm not going down that ridiculous rabbit hole again.  It's a right to bear arms in the context of a well regulated militia until spread more thinly by judicial rulings I think went too far.  I get you disagree with that.  It was never meant to be "just carry around your guns wherever you want" and the need for that is not something I feel.  At this point I'll just go back to my happy state where I just think the founding father who wrote that clause was dyslexic and he just wanted to give us the right to "bare arms".  After all it's hot as hell in Virginia and if I'm marching around in my well-regulated militia I certainly don't want to do it in the long duds they used to wear back then, so he was giving us the right the wear t-shirts but just misspelled the damn thing.  That's about as real an interpretation of the amendment as that is justifies individual citizens to just go get them some guns.
« Last Edit: April 13, 2018, 06:52:37 AM by caracarn »

Rightflyer

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 341
  • Location: Cotswolds
Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
« Reply #977 on: April 14, 2018, 01:30:18 AM »
Not sure how helpful it is comparing the need for Canadian and American gun registries.

Firearm-related death rate per 100,000 population per year:

Canada 2.05

USA 11.96

BlueMR2

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1941
Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
« Reply #978 on: April 14, 2018, 08:33:34 AM »
I'm not going down that ridiculous rabbit hole again.  It's a right to bear arms in the context of a well regulated militia until spread more thinly by judicial rulings I think went too far.  I get you disagree with that.  It was never meant to be "just carry around your guns wherever you want" and the need for that is not something I feel.  At this point I'll just go back to my happy state where I just think the founding father who wrote that clause was dyslexic and he just wanted to give us the right to "bare arms".  After all it's hot as hell in Virginia and if I'm marching around in my well-regulated militia I certainly don't want to do it in the long duds they used to wear back then, so he was giving us the right the wear t-shirts but just misspelled the damn thing.  That's about as real an interpretation of the amendment as that is justifies individual citizens to just go get them some guns.

That's a popular, but terribly faulty view, when taken in context of the bill of rights.  The entire bill of rights are targeted at protecting individual rights (by way of enumerating the most fundamental human rights).  The militia clause provides additional justification for, not the whole justification of.

MasterStache

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1351
Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
« Reply #979 on: April 14, 2018, 12:17:31 PM »
I'm not going down that ridiculous rabbit hole again.  It's a right to bear arms in the context of a well regulated militia until spread more thinly by judicial rulings I think went too far.  I get you disagree with that. It was never meant to be "just carry around your guns wherever you want" and the need for that is not something I feel. At this point I'll just go back to my happy state where I just think the founding father who wrote that clause was dyslexic and he just wanted to give us the right to "bare arms".  After all it's hot as hell in Virginia and if I'm marching around in my well-regulated militia I certainly don't want to do it in the long duds they used to wear back then, so he was giving us the right the wear t-shirts but just misspelled the damn thing.  That's about as real an interpretation of the amendment as that is justifies individual citizens to just go get them some guns.

That's a popular, but terribly faulty view, when taken in context of the bill of rights.  The entire bill of rights are targeted at protecting individual rights (by way of enumerating the most fundamental human rights).  The militia clause provides additional justification for, not the whole justification of.

What exactly is the "terribly faulty view?" In the original context of the Bill of Rights, only able bodied males of a certain age had the right to bear arms (militia capable). DC vs Heller changed that narrowly. But that case also stated that right is not unlimited. 

Earn 25K SPG Points after 3K spend: http://refer.amex.us/KYLEDiFKR?xl=cp10

Get $250 statement credit after 1K spend AMEX Blue Cash: http://refer.amex.us/KYLEDk5SI?xl=cp10

caracarn

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1146
  • Age: 47
  • Location: Ohio
Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
« Reply #980 on: April 16, 2018, 12:13:31 PM »
I'm not going down that ridiculous rabbit hole again.  It's a right to bear arms in the context of a well regulated militia until spread more thinly by judicial rulings I think went too far.  I get you disagree with that.  It was never meant to be "just carry around your guns wherever you want" and the need for that is not something I feel.  At this point I'll just go back to my happy state where I just think the founding father who wrote that clause was dyslexic and he just wanted to give us the right to "bare arms".  After all it's hot as hell in Virginia and if I'm marching around in my well-regulated militia I certainly don't want to do it in the long duds they used to wear back then, so he was giving us the right the wear t-shirts but just misspelled the damn thing.  That's about as real an interpretation of the amendment as that is justifies individual citizens to just go get them some guns.

That's a popular, but terribly faulty view, when taken in context of the bill of rights.  The entire bill of rights are targeted at protecting individual rights (by way of enumerating the most fundamental human rights).  The militia clause provides additional justification for, not the whole justification of.
We'll agree to disagree as to the degree.  I agree they do refer to the individual however I do think that the way it is utilized today could never have been envisioned by the founders.  It would have been unheard of for an individual to have a cache of weapons as the individual citizen can amass today because the wealth required to do so would have been exorbitant and out of reach of the common man, so they were likely thinking of a single gun, perhaps two, per individual. 

ncornilsen

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 778
Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
« Reply #981 on: April 16, 2018, 04:11:43 PM »
I'm not going down that ridiculous rabbit hole again.  It's a right to bear arms in the context of a well regulated militia until spread more thinly by judicial rulings I think went too far.  I get you disagree with that.  It was never meant to be "just carry around your guns wherever you want" and the need for that is not something I feel.  At this point I'll just go back to my happy state where I just think the founding father who wrote that clause was dyslexic and he just wanted to give us the right to "bare arms".  After all it's hot as hell in Virginia and if I'm marching around in my well-regulated militia I certainly don't want to do it in the long duds they used to wear back then, so he was giving us the right the wear t-shirts but just misspelled the damn thing.  That's about as real an interpretation of the amendment as that is justifies individual citizens to just go get them some guns.

That's a popular, but terribly faulty view, when taken in context of the bill of rights.  The entire bill of rights are targeted at protecting individual rights (by way of enumerating the most fundamental human rights).  The militia clause provides additional justification for, not the whole justification of.
We'll agree to disagree as to the degree.  I agree they do refer to the individual however I do think that the way it is utilized today could never have been envisioned by the founders.  It would have been unheard of for an individual to have a cache of weapons as the individual citizen can amass today because the wealth required to do so would have been exorbitant and out of reach of the common man, so they were likely thinking of a single gun, perhaps two, per individual.

Citation please.

caracarn

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1146
  • Age: 47
  • Location: Ohio
Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
« Reply #982 on: April 17, 2018, 08:52:15 AM »
I'm not going down that ridiculous rabbit hole again.  It's a right to bear arms in the context of a well regulated militia until spread more thinly by judicial rulings I think went too far.  I get you disagree with that.  It was never meant to be "just carry around your guns wherever you want" and the need for that is not something I feel.  At this point I'll just go back to my happy state where I just think the founding father who wrote that clause was dyslexic and he just wanted to give us the right to "bare arms".  After all it's hot as hell in Virginia and if I'm marching around in my well-regulated militia I certainly don't want to do it in the long duds they used to wear back then, so he was giving us the right the wear t-shirts but just misspelled the damn thing.  That's about as real an interpretation of the amendment as that is justifies individual citizens to just go get them some guns.

That's a popular, but terribly faulty view, when taken in context of the bill of rights.  The entire bill of rights are targeted at protecting individual rights (by way of enumerating the most fundamental human rights).  The militia clause provides additional justification for, not the whole justification of.
We'll agree to disagree as to the degree.  I agree they do refer to the individual however I do think that the way it is utilized today could never have been envisioned by the founders.  It would have been unheard of for an individual to have a cache of weapons as the individual citizen can amass today because the wealth required to do so would have been exorbitant and out of reach of the common man, so they were likely thinking of a single gun, perhaps two, per individual.

Citation please.
If I could find you a citation of exactly what the founders were thinking I could have saved the Supreme Court a lot of time as we would not have apply our own interpretation to it.  I'm pretty sure your request was sarcastic, but if it was not not I thought I'd be kind enough to reply what I'm sure you already knew, that there have been no source documents back from the late 18th century that explain exactly what they meant for us to do with that clause. 

TexasRunner

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 698
  • Location: Somewhere in Tejas
Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
« Reply #983 on: April 17, 2018, 04:30:17 PM »
If I could find you a citation of exactly what the founders were thinking I could have saved the Supreme Court a lot of time as we would not have apply our own interpretation to it.  I'm pretty sure your request was sarcastic, but if it was not not I thought I'd be kind enough to reply what I'm sure you already knew, that there have been no source documents back from the late 18th century that explain exactly what they meant for us to do with that clause.

How about the original iteration of the 2nd amendment...  Very clearly a personal right.

"The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; a well armed and well regulated militia being the best security of a free country: but no person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person."

Clearly the dominant clause, with militia as the supporting (and expanded justification) clause.

James Madison (June 8, 1789). Gales & Seaton's History of Debates in Congress Archived 2011-01-11 at the Wayback Machine., "Amendments to the Constitution", House of Representatives, 1st Congress, 1st Session: pp. 448–459 [451].
"The mathematical formula for the number of motorcycles you need is   x+1, where x is the number of motorcycles you currently have."

tyort1

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1833
  • Age: 46
  • Location: Denver, Colorado
Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
« Reply #984 on: April 17, 2018, 06:11:59 PM »
We should just repeal the 2nd Amendment. 
Frugalite in training.

Rightflyer

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 341
  • Location: Cotswolds
Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
« Reply #985 on: April 18, 2018, 12:46:37 AM »
If I could find you a citation of exactly what the founders were thinking I could have saved the Supreme Court a lot of time as we would not have apply our own interpretation to it.  I'm pretty sure your request was sarcastic, but if it was not not I thought I'd be kind enough to reply what I'm sure you already knew, that there have been no source documents back from the late 18th century that explain exactly what they meant for us to do with that clause.

How about the original iteration of the 2nd amendment...  Very clearly a personal right.

"The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; a well armed and well regulated militia being the best security of a free country: but no person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person."

Clearly the dominant clause, with militia as the supporting (and expanded justification) clause.

James Madison (June 8, 1789). Gales & Seaton's History of Debates in Congress Archived 2011-01-11 at the Wayback Machine., "Amendments to the Constitution", House of Representatives, 1st Congress, 1st Session: pp. 448–459 [451].

Also... very clearly "the first iteration".

You're cherry picking.

PKFFW

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 356
Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
« Reply #986 on: April 18, 2018, 01:09:18 AM »
Also... very clearly "the first iteration".

You're cherry picking.
Exactly.

Obviously, by the fact that the wording was changed prior to its inclusion in the Constitution, the intention of the writers was not what this first iteration stated.  If their intention had been that, they would not have chosen to reword it to state something different.

caracarn

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1146
  • Age: 47
  • Location: Ohio
Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
« Reply #987 on: April 18, 2018, 11:28:33 AM »
Also... very clearly "the first iteration".

You're cherry picking.
Exactly.

Obviously, by the fact that the wording was changed prior to its inclusion in the Constitution, the intention of the writers was not what this first iteration stated.  If their intention had been that, they would not have chosen to reword it to state something different.
The fact that the wording was reversed in the final inclusion also reverses the dominant clause and the supporting clause, so if we agree with @TexasRunner's logic, would seem the people are an expanded justification. 

TexasRunner

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 698
  • Location: Somewhere in Tejas
Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
« Reply #988 on: April 18, 2018, 02:08:29 PM »
Also... very clearly "the first iteration".

You're cherry picking.
Exactly.

Obviously, by the fact that the wording was changed prior to its inclusion in the Constitution, the intention of the writers was not what this first iteration stated.  If their intention had been that, they would not have chosen to reword it to state something different.
The fact that the wording was reversed in the final inclusion also reverses the dominant clause and the supporting clause, so if we agree with @TexasRunner's logic, would seem the people are an expanded justification.

Sigh....

I'm sorry but thats just not accurate.

http://englishplus.com/grammar/00000390.htm

https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/nominative_absolute

And the fact that the militia cannot be disregarded, but even those on the opposing side of the debate recognize the syntax.

And if you look at the Bill of Rights in completion, please find any one other place where the rights therein described have not been directly, and personally attributable to individual persons of the citizenry.  The only exception being the 10th amendment, which was (probably) placed last in the list as a summarizing factor (that has been widely ignored by SCOTUS and the Federal Government...).

Or is it the right of Texas to have free speech?

Is it the right of Alaska to practice whatever religion it (she?) desires to hold?

The Bill of Rights is plainly attributable to individuals.  To state otherwise is to be blatantly dishonest.  If you want to repeal the 2nd amendment, at least we are now being honest in the conversation.  I readily welcome that conversation over the back-bending reading of the 2nd amendment that somehow only applies it to states and not to the citizens of the state.
"The mathematical formula for the number of motorcycles you need is   x+1, where x is the number of motorcycles you currently have."

TexasRunner

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 698
  • Location: Somewhere in Tejas
Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
« Reply #989 on: April 18, 2018, 02:21:30 PM »
I'm not going down that ridiculous rabbit hole again.  It's a right to bear arms in the context of a well regulated militia until spread more thinly by judicial rulings I think went too far.  I get you disagree with that.  It was never meant to be "just carry around your guns wherever you want" and the need for that is not something I feel.  At this point I'll just go back to my happy state where I just think the founding father who wrote that clause was dyslexic and he just wanted to give us the right to "bare arms".  After all it's hot as hell in Virginia and if I'm marching around in my well-regulated militia I certainly don't want to do it in the long duds they used to wear back then, so he was giving us the right the wear t-shirts but just misspelled the damn thing.  That's about as real an interpretation of the amendment as that is justifies individual citizens to just go get them some guns.

That's a popular, but terribly faulty view, when taken in context of the bill of rights.  The entire bill of rights are targeted at protecting individual rights (by way of enumerating the most fundamental human rights).  The militia clause provides additional justification for, not the whole justification of.
We'll agree to disagree as to the degree.  I agree they do refer to the individual however I do think that the way it is utilized today could never have been envisioned by the founders.  It would have been unheard of for an individual to have a cache of weapons as the individual citizen can amass today because the wealth required to do so would have been exorbitant and out of reach of the common man, so they were likely thinking of a single gun, perhaps two, per individual.

Citation please.
If I could find you a citation of exactly what the founders were thinking I could have saved the Supreme Court a lot of time as we would not have apply our own interpretation to it.  I'm pretty sure your request was sarcastic, but if it was not not I thought I'd be kind enough to reply what I'm sure you already knew, that there have been no source documents back from the late 18th century that explain exactly what they meant for us to do with that clause.

"No source documents from the late 18th century that explain exactly what they meant for us to do with that clause"

Presenting a source document from the mid 19th century outlining the 2nd amendment as a personal right...  Or was the NRA evil back then too?

I'm sure it will be ignored...

The Political Manual, 1861.

Look at page 205.

https://ia800304.us.archive.org/2/items/politicalmanualb00mansuoft/politicalmanualb00mansuoft.pdf

Quote
The term militia is a Latin word, and signifies the being a soldier. In our country it is applied only to that species of soldiery which is composed wholly of enrolled citizens, held ready for service, but not actual- ly under arms. It is scarcely necessary to say, that the right of the people thus to bear arms is the foundation
of their liberties ; for, without it, they would be with- out any power of resistance against the existing gov- ernment.
"The mathematical formula for the number of motorcycles you need is   x+1, where x is the number of motorcycles you currently have."

caracarn

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1146
  • Age: 47
  • Location: Ohio
Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
« Reply #990 on: April 18, 2018, 02:23:03 PM »
Also... very clearly "the first iteration".

You're cherry picking.
Exactly.

Obviously, by the fact that the wording was changed prior to its inclusion in the Constitution, the intention of the writers was not what this first iteration stated.  If their intention had been that, they would not have chosen to reword it to state something different.
The fact that the wording was reversed in the final inclusion also reverses the dominant clause and the supporting clause, so if we agree with @TexasRunner's logic, would seem the people are an expanded justification.

Sigh....

I'm sorry but thats just not accurate.

http://englishplus.com/grammar/00000390.htm

https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/nominative_absolute

And the fact that the militia cannot be disregarded, but even those on the opposing side of the debate recognize the syntax.

And if you look at the Bill of Rights in completion, please find any one other place where the rights therein described have not been directly, and personally attributable to individual persons of the citizenry.  The only exception being the 10th amendment, which was (probably) placed last in the list as a summarizing factor (that has been widely ignored by SCOTUS and the Federal Government...).

Or is it the right of Texas to have free speech?

Is it the right of Alaska to practice whatever religion it (she?) desires to hold?

The Bill of Rights is plainly attributable to individuals.  To state otherwise is to be blatantly dishonest.  If you want to repeal the 2nd amendment, at least we are now being honest in the conversation.  I readily welcome that conversation over the back-bending reading of the 2nd amendment that somehow only applies it to states and not to the citizens of the state.
Yes, I've read Scalia's argument of the same in Heller, and the opposing argument by Stevens that aligns with my view that the founders would have made the individual right aspect express if it was intended just as they do in all the other areas of the Bill of Rights.  I'm just not agreeing with you that because the others are that way, we should just assume that to be the case in the Second.  Legal minds that are much better than you or me, like Judge Stevens, Ginsburg et. al agree.  I'd encourage you to examine Breyer's further examination of the topic and how the civilian firearms application is flawed.
« Last Edit: April 18, 2018, 02:26:37 PM by caracarn »

TexasRunner

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 698
  • Location: Somewhere in Tejas
Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
« Reply #991 on: April 18, 2018, 02:51:29 PM »
Yes, I've read Scalia's argument of the same in Heller, and the opposing argument by Stevens that aligns with my view that the founders would have made the individual right aspect express if it was intended just as they do in all the other areas of the Bill of Rights.  I'm just not agreeing with you that because the others are that way, we should just assume that to be the case in the Second.  Legal minds that are much better than you or me, like Judge Stevens, Ginsburg et. al agree.  I'd encourage you to examine Breyer's further examination of the topic and how the civilian firearms application is flawed.

So Scalise is an idiot and Judge Stevens, Ginsburg et. al are genius....

I have read both the majority opinion and the dissenting opinion.

Can recognize that the SCOTUS is extremely politically partisan (unlike what it was intended to be) and that the dissent needed to be written as well to fit the partisan nature of the current SCOTUS.  Or do you think everything written that you agree with is genius and everything written that you disagree with is fabricated?

I get there are different opinions on the interpretation but to act as if Scalise made the whole thing up as he went along with no justification is lunacy.  Have you read the majority opinion?  In full? 

Quote
But apart from that clarifying function, a prefatory clause does not limit or expand the scope of the operative clause. See F. Dwarris, A General Treatise on Statutes 268–269 (P. Potter ed. 1871) (hereinafter Dwarris)T. Sedgwick, The Interpretation and Construction of Statutory and Constitutional Law 42–45 (2d ed. 1874).3 “ ‘It is nothing unusual in acts … for the enacting part to go beyond the preamble; the remedy often extends beyond the particular act or mischief which first suggested the necessity of the law.’ ” J. Bishop, Commentaries on Written Laws and Their Interpretation §51, p. 49 (1882) (quoting Rex v. Marks, 3 East, 157, 165 (K. B. 1802)). Therefore, while we will begin our textual analysis with the operative clause, we will return to the prefatory clause to ensure that our reading of the operative clause is consistent with the announced purpose.4

Quote
It is clear from those formulations that “bear arms” did not refer only to carrying a weapon in an organized military unit. Justice James Wilson interpreted the Pennsylvania Constitution’s arms-bearing right, for example, as a recognition of the natural right of defense “of one’s person or house”—what he called the law of “self preservation.” 2 Collected Works of James Wilson 1142, and n. x (K. Hall & M. Hall eds. 2007) (citing Pa. Const., Art. IX, §21 (1790)); see also T. Walker, Introduction to American Law 198 (1837) (“Thus the right of self-defence [is] guaranteed by the [Ohio] constitution”); see also id., at 157 (equating Second Amendment with that provision of the Ohio Constitution). That was also the interpretation of those state constitutional provisions adopted by pre-Civil War state courts.9 These provisions demonstrate—again, in the most analogous linguistic context—that “bear arms” was not limited to the carrying of arms in a militia.

Quote
In any event, the meaning of “bear arms” that petitioners and Justice Stevens propose is not even the (sometimes) idiomatic meaning. Rather, they manufacture a hybrid definition, whereby “bear arms” connotes the actual carrying of arms (and therefore is not really an idiom) but only in the service of an organized militia. No dictionary has ever adopted that definition, and we have been apprised of no source that indicates that it carried that meaning at the time of the founding. But it is easy to see why petitioners and the dissent are driven to the hybrid definition. Giving “bear Arms” its idiomatic meaning would cause the protected right to consist of the right to be a soldier or to wage war—an absurdity that no commentator has ever endorsed. See L. Levy, Origins of the Bill of Rights 135 (1999).

Quote
Justice Stevens points to a study by amici supposedly showing that the phrase “bear arms” was most frequently used in the military context. See post, at 12–13, n. 9; Linguists’ Brief 24. Of course, as we have said, the fact that the phrase was commonly used in a particular context does not show that it is limited to that context, and, in any event, we have given many sources where the phrase was used in nonmilitary contexts. Moreover, the study’s collection appears to include (who knows how many times) the idiomatic phrase “bear arms against,” which is irrelevant. The amici also dismiss examples such as “ ‘bear arms … for the purpose of killing game’ ” because those uses are “expressly qualified.” Linguists’ Brief 24. (Justice Stevens uses the same excuse for dismissing the state constitutional provisions analogous to the Second Amendment that identify private-use purposes for which the individual right can be asserted. See post, at 12.) That analysis is faulty. A purposive qualifying phrase that contradicts the word or phrase it modifies is unknown this side of the looking glass (except, apparently, in some courses on Linguistics). If “bear arms” means, as we think, simply the carrying of arms, a modifier can limit the purpose of the carriage (“for the purpose of self-defense” or “to make war against the King”). But if “bear arms” means, as the petitioners and the dissent think, the carrying of arms only for military purposes, one simply cannot add “for the purpose of killing game.” The right “to carry arms in the militia for the purpose of killing game” is worthy of the mad hatter. Thus, these purposive qualifying phrases positively establish that “to bear arms” is not limited to military use.11

Quote
Finally, Justice Stevens suggests that “keep and bear Arms” was some sort of term of art, presumably akin to “hue and cry” or “cease and desist.” (This suggestion usefully evades the problem that there is no evidence whatsoever to support a military reading of “keep arms.”) Justice Stevens believes that the unitary meaning of “keep and bear Arms” is established by the Second Amendment ’s calling it a “right” (singular) rather than “rights” (plural). See post, at 16. There is nothing to this. State constitutions of the founding period routinely grouped multiple (related) guarantees under a singular “right,” and the First Amendment protects the “right [singular] of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.” See, e.g., Pa. Declaration of Rights §§IX, XII, XVI, in 5 Thorpe 3083–3084; Ohio Const., Arts. VIII, §§11, 19 (1802), in id., at 2910–2911.14 And even if “keep and bear Arms” were a unitary phrase, we find no evidence that it bore a military meaning. Although the phrase was not at all common (which would be unusual for a term of art), we have found instances of its use with a clearly nonmilitary connotation. In a 1780 debate in the House of Lords, for example, Lord Richmond described an order to disarm private citizens (not militia members) as “a violation of the constitutional right of Protestant subjects to keep and bear arms for their own defense.” 49 The London Magazine or Gentleman’s Monthly Intelligencer 467 (1780). In response, another member of Parliament referred to “the right of bearing arms for personal defence,” making clear that no special military meaning for “keep and bear arms” was intended in the discussion. Id., at 467–468.15

    c. Meaning of the Operative Clause. Putting all of these textual elements together, we find that they guarantee the individual right to possess and carry weapons in case of confrontation. This meaning is strongly confirmed by the historical background of the Second Amendment . We look to this because it has always been widely understood that the Second Amendment , like the First and Fourth Amendment s, codified a pre-existing right. The very text of the Second Amendment implicitly recognizes the pre-existence of the right and declares only that it “shall not be infringed.” As we said in United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U. S. 542, 553 (1876) , “[t]his is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. The Second amendment declares that it shall not be infringed … .”16


...but if it was not not I thought I'd be kind enough to reply what I'm sure you already knew, that there have been no source documents back from the late 18th century that explain exactly what they meant for us to do with that clause. 

And Caracarn obviously hasn't read the majority opinion. Lots of stuff there from the time period in question...
"The mathematical formula for the number of motorcycles you need is   x+1, where x is the number of motorcycles you currently have."

caracarn

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1146
  • Age: 47
  • Location: Ohio
Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
« Reply #992 on: April 18, 2018, 03:05:01 PM »
Wow.  Always fun to see how worked up people can become.

I never said Scala was an idiot or Stevens a genius.  You did.  I just pointed out there are opinions that differ from yours.  They may be partisan but our legal system as a common law system is based on these rulings.  All I said about Scalia's argument was that I've read it including his interpretation of all the writings which were from the 19th century (1800s).  I was speaking about writings from the founders themselves specifically about the Second Amendment.  I'm not talking about all the quotes from Jefferson where he clearly falls into your line of thinking.  I love Jefferson but a guy who's primary guiding force was that we should overthrow our government every few years is a little too radical for me. 

You've added a lot of things to fill in the gaps you think exist in my comment.  Not sure what that indicates as I'm not a psychiatrist.  I have equal respect for Scalia's and Steven's intellect.  Never said I thought one was an idiot and one was a genius.  I just said I find the dissenting arguments more compelling.  That's how common law works.  You state your case and then it is judged.  The whole individual rights law we live under now hinges mainly on this ruling.  I don't like it, you do.  Just because I think Scalia's points are flawed does not automatically imply I presume he's an idiot.  I agree with most of Scalia's arguments, just not this one.

tyort1

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1833
  • Age: 46
  • Location: Denver, Colorado
Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
« Reply #993 on: April 18, 2018, 03:21:27 PM »
Also... very clearly "the first iteration".

You're cherry picking.
Exactly.

Obviously, by the fact that the wording was changed prior to its inclusion in the Constitution, the intention of the writers was not what this first iteration stated.  If their intention had been that, they would not have chosen to reword it to state something different.
The fact that the wording was reversed in the final inclusion also reverses the dominant clause and the supporting clause, so if we agree with @TexasRunner's logic, would seem the people are an expanded justification.

Sigh....

I'm sorry but thats just not accurate.

http://englishplus.com/grammar/00000390.htm

https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/nominative_absolute

And the fact that the militia cannot be disregarded, but even those on the opposing side of the debate recognize the syntax.

And if you look at the Bill of Rights in completion, please find any one other place where the rights therein described have not been directly, and personally attributable to individual persons of the citizenry.  The only exception being the 10th amendment, which was (probably) placed last in the list as a summarizing factor (that has been widely ignored by SCOTUS and the Federal Government...).

Or is it the right of Texas to have free speech?

Is it the right of Alaska to practice whatever religion it (she?) desires to hold?

The Bill of Rights is plainly attributable to individuals.  To state otherwise is to be blatantly dishonest.  If you want to repeal the 2nd amendment, at least we are now being honest in the conversation.  I readily welcome that conversation over the back-bending reading of the 2nd amendment that somehow only applies it to states and not to the citizens of the state.

I tend to think that the right to bear arms is only valid within the context of serving within the militia (as the clause plainly states).  But it's a moot point if we repeal the 2nd Amendment.  And we should.  Many people will be unhappy.  But if the votes are there to repeal it, then that's the best option, IMO. 
Frugalite in training.

Rightflyer

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 341
  • Location: Cotswolds
Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
« Reply #994 on: April 19, 2018, 07:12:58 AM »


Quote
The term militia is a Latin word, and signifies the being a soldier. In our country it is applied only to that species of soldiery which is composed wholly of enrolled citizens, held ready for service, but not actual- ly under arms. It is scarcely necessary to say, that the right of the people thus to bear arms is the foundation
of their liberties ; for, without it, they would be with- out any power of resistance against the existing gov- ernment.
[/quote]

Yes, exactly. Thank You TexasRunner.

This is the argument many of us are making.

"A well regulated militia..."



TexasRunner

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 698
  • Location: Somewhere in Tejas
Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
« Reply #995 on: April 21, 2018, 01:12:35 PM »
http://reason.com/blog/2018/04/20/cdc-provides-more-evidence-that-plenty-o#comment
https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3124326

Quote
It is less widely known that CDC itself conducted surveys in which huge nationally
representative samples of the U.S. adult population were asked about DGU (Defensive Gun Uses), as part of their
Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System (BRFSS). CDC never reported the results of those
surveys, does not report on their website any estimates of DGU frequency, and does not even
acknowledge that they ever asked about the topic in any of their surveys.

I only recently discovered that CDC had indeed asked about DGU in their BRFSS
surveys, stumbling across the DGU question while searching through the questionnaires used in
the surveys for questions on other topics. Once I found the key question in the questionnaire for
one year’s BRFSS, I searched through the questionnaires for all the other years, from 1984
through 2016, and found the DGU question had been asked in the 1996, 1997, and 1998 surveys.
3


Quote
A prevalence of 1.24% may seem quite small at first, but it implies enormous numbers of
DGUs. The adult (age 18+) resident population of the U.S. in 1997 was 198,108,000 (U.S.
Bureau of the Census 1998, p. 17). The final adjusted prevalence of 1.24% therefore implies that
in an average year during 1996-1998, 2.46 million U.S. adults used a gun for self-defense. This
estimate, based on an enormous sample of 12,870 cases (unweighted) in a nationally
representative sample, strongly confirms the 2.5 million past-12-months estimate obtained Kleck
and Gertz (1995).

Quote
Why didn’t the CDC report their DGU results? The agency clearly regarded the topic as
sufficiently important to insert DGU questions into a very expensive national survey that had
never previously included any questions about self-defense, and to do so in three of the surveys.
All surveys have limitations, but this cannot serve as a legitimate justification for completely
suppressing important results. Accepted scholarly standards dictate reporting the findings
accompanied by appropriate caveats about limitations and possible problems with the survey.
This allows readers to judge for themselves whether the limitations were so severe that the
10
findings must be discounted altogether. Every one of the critics’ claims that surveys overstate
DGU prevalence have been thoroughly refuted (Kleck and Gertz 1997; Kleck 2001), but even if
they had not the ethical course for CDC still would have been to release the DGU prevalence
findings.
If doubts about the validity of these findings cannot justify their suppression, why did
CDC personnel decide not to report them? One obvious explanation would be that they
recognized that their own surveys’ finding of a high DGU prevalence was unfriendly to gun
control efforts - efforts repeatedly endorsed by CDC-financed researchers (Kates 2001). Such a
decision could have been made at the level of administrators who supervise the BRFSS, or
perhaps just lower-level personnel who understood that these findings would be unwelcome
news to their bosses. Regardless of how the decision was made, it was a disservice to the
American people, who paid for the survey and the information it yielded, but who were not
allowed to see it and judge its worth for themselves.
"The mathematical formula for the number of motorcycles you need is   x+1, where x is the number of motorcycles you currently have."

TexasRunner

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 698
  • Location: Somewhere in Tejas
Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
« Reply #996 on: April 22, 2018, 12:00:39 PM »
So nobody is going to touch this with a ten-foot-pole.  Got it.

:Sigh:
"The mathematical formula for the number of motorcycles you need is   x+1, where x is the number of motorcycles you currently have."

gooki

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2280
  • Location: NZ
Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
« Reply #997 on: April 22, 2018, 04:08:27 PM »
I'll bite.  What was the question?

Quote
“During the last 12 months, have you confronted another person with a firearm, even if
you did not fire it, to protect yourself, your property, or someone else?"

It's a well written question, and assuming it extrapolates across the population, that's a very worrying result.

2 million incidents ever year were adults felt they had to draw a firearm to defend what they value. Why has US society fallen into such a situation. That's fucking alarming, why are no further studies being conducted to track this over time, and address the root cause?
Follow me on my journey to FI.

GuitarStv

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 10657
  • Age: 36
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
« Reply #998 on: April 22, 2018, 06:03:10 PM »
Also valid to ask . . . are gun owners the proverbial man with a hammer, where everything looks like a nail to them?  We all like to think of ourselves as being the good guy.  Few people who draw a gun are going to admit that they did it for the wrong reason.  It would be interesting to have a similar defensive use survey question for taking up other arms (baseball bat, fists, etc.) to compare results.

PoutineLover

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 702
Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
« Reply #999 on: April 22, 2018, 08:53:24 PM »
Also is drawing a gun to defend property really reasonable or desirable situation? I can understand using it for protection for your life or family's lives, but I'd never shoot someone who was trying to steal my tv (if I had a tv or a gun). Life > stuff, even if it is the life of someone committing a crime. And how many of those were drunken brawls where both people are better off not drawing at all? I just don't see how more guns = more safety in the vast majority of cases.
My Journal: It's all gravy
Tangerine Referral Code (we each get $50!): 49886083S1