Author Topic: Firearms in the home  (Read 345577 times)

GuitarStv

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 8157
  • Age: 35
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #2100 on: January 16, 2017, 08:16:38 AM »
I hear tales of what one must go through in the gun-unfriendly county a bit north of me, and that's all the evidence I need to know how a required class would play out.

Those tales are just that.

When I got my firearms license for hunting (at the age of 12) I had to attend a class for part of a day, watch a video, and then pass a pretty short and simple written test.  Then I mailed away for it.  (It arrived in a couple weeks.)  My understanding is that it's a very similar process for your PAL after you turn 18, which lets you buy guns.  It's very easy to find a place to do your test . . . I lived in a remote northern community of less than a thousand people at the time, and it was possible to do test without leaving town.

There's a second course required if you want to own a restricted weapon (handgun, sawed off shotgun, military type rifle, etc.).

None of the above is difficult or onerous.

EricL

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 626
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #2101 on: January 16, 2017, 08:18:11 AM »
The 2nd Amendment has that bit about "A well regulated Militia" being the justification for bearing arms.  This seems to indicate to me that the the government can and should require at least some training proficiency for gun ownership. I can see where special forces quality training standards might be unfairly imposed. But I can't see a justification for no standards at all.

And yeah, I'm a vet who owns a few.
Gentleman of Leisure

KBecks

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 771
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #2102 on: January 16, 2017, 08:44:09 AM »
The 2nd Amendment has that bit about "A well regulated Militia" being the justification for bearing arms.  This seems to indicate to me that the the government can and should require at least some training proficiency for gun ownership. I can see where special forces quality training standards might be unfairly imposed. But I can't see a justification for no standards at all.

And yeah, I'm a vet who owns a few.

Are the words "shall not be infringed" ambiguous in any way whatsoever? 
Citizens have the constitutional right to keep and bear arms. 
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

A hunting license is for hunting -- hunting is regulated and not covered at all in the 2nd amendment.  Hunting licenses and training are not unconstitutional.

We could talk about concealed carry and argue over it-- my state requires training for concealed carry.   You must be 21, have ID and have passed a concealed carry class.   The classes are put on by private organizations and costs vary.  One non profit organization provides free training. A sporting goods shop's class costs $99.  One does not require gun ownership, the other does require you bring a gun and materials to class.  The classes are about 5 -6 hours.  Military and police service also qualifies someone as a trained person.

In my state, I do not need any special permission to buy or use a gun for self defense.  My state requires that I would provide an ID and pass an instant background check / database check.  That's all.

Kris

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2156
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #2103 on: January 16, 2017, 09:05:22 AM »
The 2nd Amendment has that bit about "A well regulated Militia" being the justification for bearing arms.  This seems to indicate to me that the the government can and should require at least some training proficiency for gun ownership. I can see where special forces quality training standards might be unfairly imposed. But I can't see a justification for no standards at all.

And yeah, I'm a vet who owns a few.

Are the words "shall not be infringed" ambiguous in any way whatsoever? 
Citizens have the constitutional right to keep and bear arms. 
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

A hunting license is for hunting -- hunting is regulated and not covered at all in the 2nd amendment.  Hunting licenses and training are not unconstitutional.

We could talk about concealed carry and argue over it-- my state requires training for concealed carry.   You must be 21, have ID and have passed a concealed carry class.   The classes are put on by private organizations and costs vary.  One non profit organization provides free training. A sporting goods shop's class costs $99.  One does not require gun ownership, the other does require you bring a gun and materials to class.  The classes are about 5 -6 hours.  Military and police service also qualifies someone as a trained person.

In my state, I do not need any special permission to buy or use a gun for self defense.  My state requires that I would provide an ID and pass an instant background check / database check.  That's all.

I always find it fascinating when people go to the "shall not be infringed" part and point out how unambiguous it is.

"Well-regulated militia", however...

Well, "well-regulated" in my mind, might mean that one must have training. Untrained militias, I would imagine, tend to be pretty chaotic.

So, you know, just to play devil's advocate, I'd say that it makes most sense to me to read that language as saying that there should be no infringement on the ability for people to be trained to participate in a well-regulated militia.
"Well I'm sure I'd feel much worse if I weren't under such heavy sedation."   - David St. Hubins, This is Spinal Tap

Metric Mouse

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5313
  • FU @ 22. F.I.R.E before 23
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #2104 on: January 16, 2017, 11:20:05 AM »

I always find it fascinating when people go to the "shall not be infringed" part and point out how unambiguous it is.

"Well-regulated militia", however...

Well, "well-regulated" in my mind, might mean that one must have training. Untrained militias, I would imagine, tend to be pretty chaotic.

So, you know, just to play devil's advocate, I'd say that it makes most sense to me to read that language as saying that there should be no infringement on the ability for people to be trained to participate in a well-regulated militia.

While you may be right on the points you mentioned, the 'right to keep and bear arms' is not a subordinate clause to "the well-regulated militia".  Therefore, while a militia may need to be trained to be 'well-regulated', the right to keep and bear arms is not dependent upon the existence or regulation of the militia.

The 2nd Amendment has that bit about "A well regulated Militia" being the justification for bearing arms.

This is not an accurate reading of the text.
« Last Edit: January 16, 2017, 11:26:51 AM by Metric Mouse »
Give me one fine day of plain sailing weather and I can mess up anything.

MustacheMathTM

Lagom

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1073
  • Age: 33
  • Location: SF Bay Area
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #2105 on: January 16, 2017, 11:35:41 AM »
I dunno, it's late and we are but young sophists, arguing minor distinctions in the wee hours. All I'm saying is that what amounts to a drivers safety course for gun owners, while annoying, is a far cry from a threat to liberty. I do not agree that it is unconstitutionally onerous. Yeah, it's a pain in the ass to have to attend a course just because you want to own something. I get it. But it's not an existential threat. It isn't robbing you of your freedom, unless you want to get extremely nitpicky about the term. Being disenfranchised is very obviously worse as far as I'm concerned.

I get what you're saying, and on the face of it, a basic class wouldn't more than an inconvenience. But JUST like voter ID laws, it could be used to disenfranchise potential gun owners... IE, how much the class costs, availability, locations, etc.  If anything, the abuse of voter ID and voter testing is evidence of similar tactics that could be used to make it unconstitutionally onerous. It's not just about it being a pain in the ass. I took a CCW class since I wanted to be able to concealed carry... which amounts to a safety class. I live in a fire-arm friendly county, and that was STILL a pain to get signed off by the sheriff. I hear tales of what one must go through in the gun-unfriendly county a bit north of me, and that's all the evidence I need to know how a required class would play out.

Actually, this is a good point and one area where I will agree comparing ID laws makes perfect sense. After all, many of these gun restriction measures also inordinately affect poor/minority communities. One of my favorite parts of the Ferguson situation was when that black gun club came into town and was walking around in solidarity (but also to encourage calm and peaceful protests), hardware fully on display. It was a powerful message and well executed. It definitely troubles me that many gun regulations have little effect on the wealthy while disarming the working poor.

Metric Mouse

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5313
  • FU @ 22. F.I.R.E before 23
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #2106 on: January 16, 2017, 11:58:24 AM »
Actually, this is a good point and one area where I will agree comparing ID laws makes perfect sense. After all, many of these gun restriction measures also inordinately affect poor/minority communities. One of my favorite parts of the Ferguson situation was when that black gun club came into town and was walking around in solidarity (but also to encourage calm and peaceful protests), hardware fully on display. It was a powerful message and well executed. It definitely troubles me that many gun regulations have little effect on the wealthy while disarming the working poor.

I don't mean to sound patronizing because I genuinely appreciate your contributions to this topic (and many of the contributions to other topics on this forum that I have read) (and I know it will sound patronizing anyway) but - now you are beginning to see the similarities in the problem with restrictions upon rights.
Give me one fine day of plain sailing weather and I can mess up anything.

MustacheMathTM

Lagom

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1073
  • Age: 33
  • Location: SF Bay Area
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #2107 on: January 16, 2017, 12:38:55 PM »
Actually, this is a good point and one area where I will agree comparing ID laws makes perfect sense. After all, many of these gun restriction measures also inordinately affect poor/minority communities. One of my favorite parts of the Ferguson situation was when that black gun club came into town and was walking around in solidarity (but also to encourage calm and peaceful protests), hardware fully on display. It was a powerful message and well executed. It definitely troubles me that many gun regulations have little effect on the wealthy while disarming the working poor.

I don't mean to sound patronizing because I genuinely appreciate your contributions to this topic (and many of the contributions to other topics on this forum that I have read) (and I know it will sound patronizing anyway) but - now you are beginning to see the similarities in the problem with restrictions upon rights.

I always saw them for the most part (this particular wrinkle I had thought about before during Ferguson, but only remembered again now), but thank you. As I've mentioned many times, I am also not particularly pro gun control (although I once was), but not because of "mumble mumble FREEDOM!." The thing is, I really am more open than most to being convinced to change my views. My frequent frustration here is that I am consistently treated as some wet behind the ears liberal by many of the forum's conservative posters just because I dare to disagree with them on any topic, when I actually empathize with many of their stances. I know my tendency towards sarcasm/strident posting does me no favors, but I'm working on it :)

Despite my empathy with aspects of conservatism, I still stand behind only the arguments where I see clear evidence and reason. Emotion based arguments are not convincing. Neither are hyperbolic claims that having to take a class infringes on your freedom in your own home or that a gun is always optimal for home defense (as we discussed many pages back). My goal in these sorts of conversations is to improve my understanding, but also to get people to acknowledge the limits of their stances, expand their appreciation for how other people are impacted on both sides of an issue, and/or provide more compelling arguments in general. To wit, I would bet good money that a clear majority of 2nd amendment activists don't give a shit about poor black people's ability to buy guns. Many might even argue their disarmament is some kind of silver lining to these gun laws (not saying anyone here is doing this). I also still maintain that the vote is the single most fundamental aspect of democracy (or democratic republic, etc.). Owning a gun is fundamental to our constitution, sure,  and guns were literally used during the revolution, sure, but they are still an order of magnitude less critical to our existence as a nation of free individuals than our right to have a voice. It is the second amendment, after all!

Kris

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2156
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #2108 on: January 16, 2017, 12:44:25 PM »

I always find it fascinating when people go to the "shall not be infringed" part and point out how unambiguous it is.

"Well-regulated militia", however...

Well, "well-regulated" in my mind, might mean that one must have training. Untrained militias, I would imagine, tend to be pretty chaotic.

So, you know, just to play devil's advocate, I'd say that it makes most sense to me to read that language as saying that there should be no infringement on the ability for people to be trained to participate in a well-regulated militia.

While you may be right on the points you mentioned, the 'right to keep and bear arms' is not a subordinate clause to "the well-regulated militia".  Therefore, while a militia may need to be trained to be 'well-regulated', the right to keep and bear arms is not dependent upon the existence or regulation of the militia.


Well, the sentence is kind of wonky as it's written, in that there's a comma in there that seems to be misplaced, or something.

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

The subject of the sentence, then, seems to be "a well regulated militia." Followed by a dependent clause, separated by commas describing the reason a militia is important. So far, so good. But then, following the rules of modern grammar, what follows should be a verb plus a complement, e.g. "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, IS..." 

This isn't what happens, though, which creates some ambiguity.

(And interestingly, following the grammatical logic of that argument, then the verb we're looking for is shall not... In which case, there's even some argument to be made that the subject of "shall not" is "A well regulated Militia," and not "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms." Reading it that way, the clause about the right of the people to keep and bear arms seems kind of like a weirdly tacked-on bit that doesn't really belong. But I'll leave that one alone.)

One could assume that the first comma is superfluous, in which case the first clause would be all of a piece, and not the subject of the sentence as it originally appears to be. If we do so, the idea would be "A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free state," (in other words, "since a well-regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free state"), "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." (Note that there's a comma after Arms, too, and that further inserts the possibility for ambiguity.)

If we do presume that the correct way to interpret the amendment is the second one, then we still have to contend with two things: One, that the authors chose to put the idea of a well-regulated militia first in the sentence. In other words, in a stronger, more prominent position. And two, that they even chose to include the language about a well-regulated militia at all. Why didn't they simply write "The right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed"?


The fact that they did include that language, and that they put it in the front of the sentence, in a position of prominence, ought to be considered, or at least not ignored, in discussions of the amendment's meaning.

Constitutional scholars -- people far more knowledgeable about the document than you or I (assuming you're not a constitutional scholar) -- have been examining and debating the language of this amendment for years. Which indicates that, despite the original intent to be as clear as possible, the authors still managed to insert some ambiguity.
« Last Edit: January 16, 2017, 01:05:55 PM by Kris »
"Well I'm sure I'd feel much worse if I weren't under such heavy sedation."   - David St. Hubins, This is Spinal Tap

zolotiyeruki

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1901
  • Location: State: Denial
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #2109 on: January 16, 2017, 02:59:14 PM »
To wit, I would bet good money that a clear majority of 2nd amendment activists don't give a shit about poor black people's ability to buy guns. Many might even argue their disarmament is some kind of silver lining to these gun laws (not saying anyone here is doing this). I also still maintain that the vote is the single most fundamental aspect of democracy (or democratic republic, etc.). Owning a gun is fundamental to our constitution, sure,  and guns were literally used during the revolution, sure, but they are still an order of magnitude less critical to our existence as a nation of free individuals than our right to have a voice. It is the second amendment, after all!
I'm afraid you just lost me here.  A couple of things:
1)  Maybe I've never lived in the right/wrong parts of the country, but I have NEVER heard a pro-gun person say ANYTHING that could be understood as a desire to disarm black people.  In fact, since black people are more likely to live in higher-crime areas (that's a correlative, not causal, link), they would benefit disproportionately benefit from relaxation of gun regulations.
2) The right to vote actually isn't mentioned in the constitution until the 14th amendment, so if we're ranking individual rights by their order in the constitution, guns are more important! :P

Cathy

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1043
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #2110 on: January 16, 2017, 03:09:13 PM »
The right to vote actually isn't mentioned in the constitution until the 14th amendment ...

Not true. The right to vote makes it first explicit appearance near the beginning of the Constitution in Art I, 2, cl 1, which provides that: "The House of Representatives shall be composed of Members chosen ... by the People of the several States ..." (emphasis mine).

Or, one could argue that the right to vote appears even earlier than that in the document, specifically in the first three words of the preamble. As Justice Douglas described it: "Under our Constitution it is We The People who are sovereign. The people have the final say.". United States v. Automobile Workers, 352 US 567, 593 (1957) (Douglas, J, dissenting), cited with approval in Buckley v. Valeo, 424 US 1, 43 (1976) and in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, 558 US 310, 130 S Ct 876, 904 (2010).
« Last Edit: January 16, 2017, 03:17:10 PM by Cathy »
This post contains only general information on the issues raised by this topic. This post does not provide help tailored to your specific situation. There are many facts that could be relevant to your specific situation and I am not in possession of those facts. If you need help tailored to your specific situation, you should retain an appropriate professional and not rely on this post.

jamesvt

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 51
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #2111 on: January 16, 2017, 04:09:10 PM »
I hear tales of what one must go through in the gun-unfriendly county a bit north of me, and that's all the evidence I need to know how a required class would play out.

Those tales are just that.

When I got my firearms license for hunting (at the age of 12) I had to attend a class for part of a day, watch a video, and then pass a pretty short and simple written test.  Then I mailed away for it.  (It arrived in a couple weeks.)  My understanding is that it's a very similar process for your PAL after you turn 18, which lets you buy guns.  It's very easy to find a place to do your test . . . I lived in a remote northern community of less than a thousand people at the time, and it was possible to do test without leaving town.

There's a second course required if you want to own a restricted weapon (handgun, sawed off shotgun, military type rifle, etc.).

None of the above is difficult or onerous.
Some states in the US it is more difficult than that. In Massachusetts a license is required to own or posses any firearms.  With the exception of a mandatory training course, a background check, fingerprinting, and application fee, any additional requirements are up to the police chief in your town. Those additional requirements can include extra training, letters of recommendation, essay on why you want to own firearms, or an interview with the chief. Chiefs also have the authority to deny a person a license for any reason or for no reason at all. There isn't much a person can do at the point other than move.


« Last Edit: January 16, 2017, 04:33:54 PM by jamesvt »

EricL

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 626
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #2112 on: January 16, 2017, 04:26:19 PM »
Eh.  Perhaps I erred.  Apparently firearms ownership cannot be infringed no matter what.  AND that owners should be part of a well regulated militia.  So all gun owners should enlist in their respective National Guards.  Having served in the Guard I can vouch that "well regulated" can be an exaggeration.  But close enough for government work.
Gentleman of Leisure

Lagom

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1073
  • Age: 33
  • Location: SF Bay Area
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #2113 on: January 16, 2017, 08:17:28 PM »
To wit, I would bet good money that a clear majority of 2nd amendment activists don't give a shit about poor black people's ability to buy guns. Many might even argue their disarmament is some kind of silver lining to these gun laws (not saying anyone here is doing this). I also still maintain that the vote is the single most fundamental aspect of democracy (or democratic republic, etc.). Owning a gun is fundamental to our constitution, sure,  and guns were literally used during the revolution, sure, but they are still an order of magnitude less critical to our existence as a nation of free individuals than our right to have a voice. It is the second amendment, after all!
I'm afraid you just lost me here.  A couple of things:
1)  Maybe I've never lived in the right/wrong parts of the country, but I have NEVER heard a pro-gun person say ANYTHING that could be understood as a desire to disarm black people.  In fact, since black people are more likely to live in higher-crime areas (that's a correlative, not causal, link), they would benefit disproportionately benefit from relaxation of gun regulations.
2) The right to vote actually isn't mentioned in the constitution until the 14th amendment, so if we're ranking individual rights by their order in the constitution, guns are more important! :P

Cathy covered #2 quite well, although you also missed my point, which has to do with the definition of democracy, but I'll grant it was marginally opaque in this instance with the tongue in cheek comment. As for #1, chill your craw. I'm not crying "racist." I shouldn't have included the sentence about seeing it as a silver lining in retrospect as it was certain someone would hone in on it and take umbrage. As for the main point, this thread represents exactly the second time in decades of internet squabbling on this topic that I have heard others besides myself explicitly mention the plight of urban blacks as relevant to the gun debate (other than well-meaning but misguided liberals claiming gun control will help end gang violence). Perhaps this is widely believed but not seen as the most important argument? All I'm telling you, as a former gun control zealot, is that that argument is far more compelling from where I'm sitting than crying about FREEDOM.*

In my opinion, the real reason we hear this argument less is not because most gun advocates are racist (they are not), but because most are republican, and things like the illegality of voter ID laws (which we have established represent a comparable burden to some gun laws) are not things that most republicans are willing to concede. Thus if you accept the argument that gun laws unfairly target minority groups you have to accept the same argument for other laws. Of course, this goes both ways and I don't exactly hear liberals making this argument either.

*ETA - other more compelling arguments focus on the things gun control advocates worry about, namely gun deaths. So, for example, the best way to reduce gun deaths in this country would be to end the drug war. School shootings are horrific, but gun control is not likely to prevent them and they are a small portion of gun deaths anyway. Of course, that's another argument centered on the urban poor and it also advocates legalizing drugs, which is (needlessly) controversial.
« Last Edit: January 16, 2017, 08:38:44 PM by Lagom »

Shane

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 647
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #2114 on: January 16, 2017, 11:04:12 PM »
to try to argue that requiring that somebody get a photo ID to vote is anywhere even close to the burden placed on people who want to purchase a firearm in some states is disingenuous, IMO.

Good thing that' not what I'm arguing although it sounds like you don't realize how burdensome it actually can be for some people to obtain IDs (see the links below). Again, all I'm saying is having your right to vote restricted is obviously a greater threat to freedom with a capital F than having your access to guns restricted. Not sure how many ways I can rephrase before it sticks. As I've said repeatedly, I think many instances of restricting gun access are unconstitutional and yes, a restriction on freedom. Just less so by a fair margin. It's ridiculous to call me disingenuous in this instance when I'm not even making the argument you are referring to.

Sorry if I misrepresented the argument you were making, Lagom. I think I understand, now.

I agree with you that voter ID laws are intentionally being used to deny (mostly) poor people of color their right to vote. I also think, though, that all the time spent arguing that people shouldn't have to show IDs to vote could be more productively spent helping people who need them to get IDs, which would also be useful to them in other aspects of their lives, like, for example, if they wanted to take a hunter education class and get qualified to legally purchase a firearm in my state.

As I've posted elsewhere on this forum, I've known a couple of people who didn't have IDs, and I think I understand how difficult it can be for some people to get them. It's not impossible, though, and, rather than wasting our time trying to justify some people's not having IDs, we could more easily just help them to get IDs. Problem solved.

In my state, you don't have to show ID to vote, but you do have to show ID to purchase a firearm. If it's unreasonable to require that a person show ID to vote, then why would it be okay to require he show ID to buy a gun? Wouldn't poor people of color, who are most likely to not have ID, be the most likely to benefit from being able to legally purchase a gun to use to protect themselves?


Lagom

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1073
  • Age: 33
  • Location: SF Bay Area
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #2115 on: January 16, 2017, 11:34:59 PM »
Indeed, we are on the same page. I actually think this is a bit of a breakthrough in our collective conversation, or at least I feel good about it! I hope all of you pro gun people will notice that this angle is an important one, and perhaps one more likely to appeal to knee-jerk anti gun liberals (of which I used to be one, though not for some time now). I care very much about civil rights, and viewing gun laws as in some ways representing yet another example of disempowering poor/minority communities is a good way to draw parallels to the standard civil rights agenda.

The thing is, I think most of you know what kind of stereotypical image liberals have of gun "nuts." It's totally unfair, but based in enough truth that when you get righteously angry and go on and on about your white middle class* "freedom" being threatened, its no wonder few who disagree are inclined to listen. Same goes for hand-wringing over a supposed right to be able to overthrow the government, or even to take out that potential school shooter with your concealed weapon. But perhaps reframing this as a conversation also concerned with protecting disadvantaged groups from systemic disempowerment might go over better. Or maybe I'm being too optimistic.

*Intentionally generalizing here for the point, I know this is far from universally true.
« Last Edit: January 16, 2017, 11:38:18 PM by Lagom »

MoonLiteNite

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 379
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #2116 on: January 17, 2017, 04:27:55 AM »
1.   Why don't you move to a less dangerous area?    It can't be much fun, being constantly on edge that someone is going to invade your house or assault you on the street.
My area is very safe for my city, state and country. I have a firearm in my home JUST IN CASE. Same as having house ins, or a fire extinguisher, or smoke alarm. I rather give myself that little edge then no edge in case something happens.

Quote
2.  Do you regularly practice with your firearm?   (I used to shoot cans with a .22 when I was a kid, but that's about the limit of my experience.   When I eventually FIRE, I'd like to try some practical shooting if I can find a good range.   But I don't have time for another hobby right now.)
Not really, kinda pricey to go out shooting, and it hurts my ears, even with decent protection. Not really into sport shooting, or hunting, to me a firearm is a self defence tool

Quote
3.  If you have children or a spouse, how have you trained them to stay out of the way if there's an incident?  i.e. so they don't get shot?
Roomates, one has his kid over from time to time. All understand my guns are loaded, with no safety on. It is THEIR job to keep themselves and their kids off of my property

Quote
4.  How to you plan to deal with the first responders after an incident?    Will the police arrest you?   Do you have a lawyer ready to call on your phone?  Or does your jurisdiction take the view that you're allowed to shoot in your home, so you don't expect to have issues with the authorities?
If i were to use the firearm to defend myself in my house, which i have. Then most likely there will be no arrest, at worst i would be detained for up to 24 hours (the most they can without charging you). I do not have a lawyer ready to go, but i will tell the cops, as i have done before. "please no talking until i talk to lawyer", it is the best thing to do for ANYTHING dealing with a cop.


I fully support constitutional carry. I do not believe it is OK for a group of people charge me money for a right to defend myself in my house, or at the local store.


hoosier

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 76
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #2117 on: January 17, 2017, 07:08:21 AM »
Here's my thing when it comes to the 2A and its "ambiguity":  If the 2A is too ambiguous we have a very specific process for fixing that - ratify a new constitutional amendment that nullifies the 2A and replaces it with something "better".  Put all the language in there about right to carry, safe storage, training, capacity and action limitations, etc.  Boom (pun).  Done.


Drifterrider

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 955
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #2118 on: January 17, 2017, 07:26:09 AM »
Eh.  Perhaps I erred.  Apparently firearms ownership cannot be infringed no matter what.  AND that owners should be part of a well regulated militia.  So all gun owners should enlist in their respective National Guards.  Having served in the Guard I can vouch that "well regulated" can be an exaggeration.  But close enough for government work.

Back when the documents were written, that was the case.  All free adult men were required to be a member of the militia AND furnish their own firearms.

cheapass

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 314
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #2119 on: January 17, 2017, 07:42:27 AM »
AND that owners should be part of a well regulated militia.  So all gun owners should enlist in their respective National Guards.

According to US CFR, the militia consists of organized (national guard) and unorganized components. The unorganized militia is all males between the ages of 17 and 45.

Also,  "well regulated" during the founders' time did not mean restricted/controlled, rather it meant well functioning.

Malum Prohibitum

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 623
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #2120 on: January 17, 2017, 08:17:24 AM »
A well educated electorate, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and read books shall not be infringed.

Does this mean that only the well educated can own or read books?

Does this mean that libraries must check the education level before admitting a patron?

Would children's access to books be protected under this provision?

Would registration of readers and tracking the books they read be permissible without violating this provision?

Would a $200 tax on each book violate this provision?

Would only registered voters, that is, the likely electorate, have access to books, with all others being denied, be a statutory scheme consistent with the provision?

Would this provision protect ownership or reading of Kindle books and online sources, or only paper-printer-press-bound books?

robartsd

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 833
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #2121 on: January 17, 2017, 01:58:21 PM »
The punctuation of the second amendment varies among different copies of the document. The three comma version quoted earlier in this thread is as written by the scribe in Congress. The text: "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." was ratified by the states and authenticated by the Secretary of State.

Kris

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2156
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #2122 on: January 17, 2017, 02:01:13 PM »
The punctuation of the second amendment varies among different copies of the document. The three comma version quoted earlier in this thread is as written by the scribe in Congress. The text: "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." was ratified by the states and authenticated by the Secretary of State.

Cool.

So, then we still have to contend with two things: One, that the authors chose to put the idea of a well-regulated militia first in the sentence. In other words, in a stronger, more prominent position. And two, that they even chose to include the language about a well-regulated militia at all. Why didn't they simply write "The right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed"?

(And arguably three: that at the time the amendment was written, all free men were obligated to participate in the militia, and furnish their own guns. As was pointed out earlier in the thread.)
"Well I'm sure I'd feel much worse if I weren't under such heavy sedation."   - David St. Hubins, This is Spinal Tap

GuitarStv

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 8157
  • Age: 35
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #2123 on: January 17, 2017, 02:05:38 PM »
A lot of debate about rights in this thread.

I can only assume that you all must fully support the right of any person to choose to die whenever they want?  You can't get a more fundamental right than control over your own life.  Suicide is by far the largest cause of death from gun use, so are you all pro-suicide?

Malum Prohibitum

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 623
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #2124 on: January 17, 2017, 02:08:20 PM »
The punctuation of the second amendment varies among different copies of the document. The three comma version quoted earlier in this thread is as written by the scribe in Congress. The text: "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." was ratified by the states and authenticated by the Secretary of State.

Cool.

So, then we still have to contend with two things: One, that the authors chose to put the idea of a well-regulated militia first in the sentence. In other words, in a stronger, more prominent position. And two, that they even chose to include the language about a well-regulated militia at all. Why didn't they simply write "The right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed"?

(And arguably three: that at the time the amendment was written, all free men were obligated to participate in the militia, and furnish their own guns. As was pointed out earlier in the thread.)
  I do not understand why these are things with which we need to contend.  Those who wrote and ratified the Bill of Rights had a firm belief that a well regulated militia was important.  This is the reason they put the Second Amendment in the bill of rights.  You can't have a militia with a disarmed populace (not in the sense that the Founders meant it).  Skim through the Federalist Papers some time. There is quite a lot in it discussing arms and militia and therefore some of their thoughts on the subject.  There is plenty more out there to read as well.  Basically, there was no counter viewpoint of the Second Amendment existing at that period of history.  Current arguments arose much later.

 * * *

Out of curiosity, was my post #2120 helpful to anybody?  The language does not seem so hard to understand, either the text or intent, if you remove the "gun" issue by replacing some of the words.
Out of curiosity, did my post # 2120

Lagom

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1073
  • Age: 33
  • Location: SF Bay Area
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #2125 on: January 17, 2017, 02:10:33 PM »
A lot of debate about rights in this thread.

I can only assume that you all must fully support the right of any person to choose to die whenever they want?  You can't get a more fundamental right than control over your own life.  Suicide is by far the largest cause of death from gun use, so are you all pro-suicide?

Supporting the right to choose to die (which I do) is not the same as supporting suicide, just like supporting the right to choose to have an abortion (which I do) is not about supporting all abortions.

Kris

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2156
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #2126 on: January 17, 2017, 02:11:54 PM »
The punctuation of the second amendment varies among different copies of the document. The three comma version quoted earlier in this thread is as written by the scribe in Congress. The text: "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." was ratified by the states and authenticated by the Secretary of State.

Cool.

So, then we still have to contend with two things: One, that the authors chose to put the idea of a well-regulated militia first in the sentence. In other words, in a stronger, more prominent position. And two, that they even chose to include the language about a well-regulated militia at all. Why didn't they simply write "The right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed"?

(And arguably three: that at the time the amendment was written, all free men were obligated to participate in the militia, and furnish their own guns. As was pointed out earlier in the thread.)
  I do not understand why these are things with which we need to contend.  Those who wrote and ratified the Bill of Rights had a firm belief that a well regulated militia was important.  This is the reason they put the Second Amendment in the bill of rights.  You can't have a militia with a disarmed populace (not in the sense that the Founders meant it).  Skim through the Federalist Papers some time. There is quite a lot in it discussing arms and militia and therefore some of their thoughts on the subject.  There is plenty more out there to read as well.  Basically, there was no counter viewpoint of the Second Amendment existing at that period of history.  Current arguments arose much later.

 * * *

Out of curiosity, was my post #2120 helpful to anybody?  The language does not seem so hard to understand, either the text or intent, if you remove the "gun" issue by replacing some of the words.
Out of curiosity, did my post # 2120

Because the right to bear arms is qualified by the reason that the young country needed a militia.

Personally, I didn't find your post 2120 helpful. I didn't reply because I mostly found it confusing. Replacing one word/concept with another very different word/concept did not make clear to me how the two were to be equated, in your mind. Sorry.
"Well I'm sure I'd feel much worse if I weren't under such heavy sedation."   - David St. Hubins, This is Spinal Tap

JLee

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3352
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #2127 on: January 17, 2017, 02:14:53 PM »
A lot of debate about rights in this thread.

I can only assume that you all must fully support the right of any person to choose to die whenever they want?  You can't get a more fundamental right than control over your own life.  Suicide is by far the largest cause of death from gun use, so are you all pro-suicide?

That's pretty much a textbook 'affirming the consequent' fallacy.

Malum Prohibitum

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 623
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #2128 on: January 17, 2017, 02:20:11 PM »
Because the right to bear arms is qualified by the reason that the young country needed a militia.
  Ah.  So was it a qualification on the right, or a purpose for the right?  See the difference?  These men knew how to qualify something and bring it to an end, as they did in several other places in the same document with other issues.


Sorry my other one was confusing.  I thought it would make the issue more plain English and get the emotion and preconceived notions (like a well regulated militia being a "qualification") out of the discussion for a moment.  It is, actually the same sentence, substituting only the importance of a well educated electorate for the importance of a well regulated militia and the right to books for the right to arms.  If a well regulated militia is a qualification on the right protected by the Second Amendment, then a well educated electorate is a qualification on the right protected by the Second Amendment right to keep and read books.   Give it a chance to sink in (if you haven't, which I am not assuming), and, if not, oh, well, I tried.  thanks for at least giving it a shot.  :)

Kris

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2156
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #2129 on: January 17, 2017, 02:32:02 PM »
Because the right to bear arms is qualified by the reason that the young country needed a militia.
  Ah.  So was it a qualification on the right, or a purpose for the right?  See the difference?  These men knew how to qualify something and bring it to an end, as they did in several other places in the same document with other issues.



Of course I see the difference. And I think that question is quite lacking from most of what very pro-gun people say about the amendment. One can pretend as much as one wants that the language in the amendment about the right to bear arms is absolute and completely unambiguous/unqualified. But the fact is that the language about the militia is there. And to dismiss it as unimportant feels so disingenuous to me that it's hard for me to take those people seriously.

And again, before I have to get into a big sh*tstorm all over again with a bunch of people who have either not read what I've said above or just decided to jump over it:

- I am talking about dialogue, not digging in my heels on a particular stance
- I own guns
- I have a permit to carry

So, please, before you (not you, Malum, but people reading this thread in general) jump on me, please don't make me into the big "gun control freak straw man" you want to poke at.
"Well I'm sure I'd feel much worse if I weren't under such heavy sedation."   - David St. Hubins, This is Spinal Tap

Kris

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2156
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #2130 on: January 17, 2017, 02:37:19 PM »

Sorry my other one was confusing.  I thought it would make the issue more plain English and get the emotion and preconceived notions (like a well regulated militia being a "qualification") out of the discussion for a moment.  It is, actually the same sentence, substituting only the importance of a well educated electorate for the importance of a well regulated militia and the right to books for the right to arms.  If a well regulated militia is a qualification on the right protected by the Second Amendment, then a well educated electorate is a qualification on the right protected by the Second Amendment right to keep and read books.   Give it a chance to sink in (if you haven't, which I am not assuming), and, if not, oh, well, I tried.  thanks for at least giving it a shot.  :)

Yeah, I'm sorry, it's still not really doing it for me. Sorry, I guess the ideas are too dissimilar. Plus (sadly in many ways), a well educated electorate is not a qualification even for the right to vote, in this country.


Hell, it's not even a qualification for the right to a decent education, apparently.
"Well I'm sure I'd feel much worse if I weren't under such heavy sedation."   - David St. Hubins, This is Spinal Tap

Malum Prohibitum

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 623
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #2131 on: January 17, 2017, 02:40:17 PM »
You kind of made the point with that last one.

Malum Prohibitum

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 623
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #2132 on: January 17, 2017, 02:51:55 PM »
I think that question is quite lacking from most of what very pro-gun people say about the amendment. One can pretend as much as one wants that the language in the amendment about the right to bear arms is absolute and completely unambiguous/unqualified. But the fact is that the language about the militia is there. And to dismiss it as unimportant feels so disingenuous to me that it's hard for me to take those people seriously.
  I do not think the language is unimportant at all.  I just do not think that those who wrote and ratified it thought of it as a qualification so much as a purpose, if that makes sense.

This was the view (a predominate view) for at least half a century after its adoption (and the only viewpoint for most of that time).

This was my own state's Supreme Court ruling on it in 1846 (striking down a law banning the carry of weapons, but upholding it as applied to arms carried "secretly," that is, concealed).
Quote
Nor is the right involved in this discussion less comprehensive or valuable: "The right of the people to bear arms shall not be infringed." The right of the whole people, old and young, men, women and boys, and not militia only, to keep and bear arms of every description, and not such merely as are used by the militia, shall not be infringed, curtailed, or broken in upon, in the smallest degree; and all this for the important end to be attained: the rearing up and qualifying a well-regulated militia, so vitally necessary to the security of a free State. Our opinion is, that any law, State or Federal, is repugnant to the Constitution, and void, which contravenes this right, originally belonging to our forefathers, trampled under foot by Charles I. and his two wicked sons and successors, re-established by the revolution of 1688, conveyed to this land of liberty by the colonists, and finally incorporated conspicuously in our own Magna Charta! And Lexington, Concord, Camden, River Raisin, Sandusky, and the laurel-crowned field of New Orleans, plead eloquently for this interpretation!
Nunn v. State, 1 Ga. 243 (1846)

I share that only as an insight into how the law and men of learning looked at it as late as almost the mid-nineteenth century.  There is more, lots more, but I do not want to bog down the thread with lots of quotes nobody will read.

I am with you on this point, however, that I hate the twisting of history to fit one's viewpoint.  For one thing, while I like carrying concealed from time to time, the Founders basically thought anybody who did so was up to no good.  The majority of states in the early Republic banned carrying arms "secretly."  They upheld carrying arms openly.  Even the case I cited above did the same.  They quashed his indictment because he had a pistol in his hand, carrying it openly in other words, but they took pains to say that the statute is valid as against carrying arms "secretly," even though that was not at issue in the case.

The US Supreme Court, even in this century, Heller v. DC, remarked upon this, noting that concealed carry basically was not protected by the Second Amendment.

As a Second Amendment activist, I cannot have that conversation with another activist without watching their head explode and being accused of being a traitor.  I have to patiently explain that no, I favor protecting concealed carry, but it has to be done legislatively, as the Second Amendment did not and was never intended to protect bearing arms "secretly."  Anything contrary is just a revisionist history.

With that having been said, I see notes occasionally from that period of history about concealed arms, but that is not the same thing.  The first time I see arguments that the "right to bear arms" in the constitution protects concealed weapons is from the late nineteenth century, and even then it is a minority viewpoint.

Kris

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2156
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #2133 on: January 17, 2017, 03:01:39 PM »
I think that question is quite lacking from most of what very pro-gun people say about the amendment. One can pretend as much as one wants that the language in the amendment about the right to bear arms is absolute and completely unambiguous/unqualified. But the fact is that the language about the militia is there. And to dismiss it as unimportant feels so disingenuous to me that it's hard for me to take those people seriously.
  I do not think the language is unimportant at all.  I just do not think that those who wrote and ratified it thought of it as a qualification so much as a purpose, if that makes sense.

This was the view (a predominate view) for at least half a century after its adoption (and the only viewpoint for most of that time).

This was my own state's Supreme Court ruling on it in 1846 (striking down a law banning the carry of weapons, but upholding it as applied to arms carried "secretly," that is, concealed).
Quote
Nor is the right involved in this discussion less comprehensive or valuable: "The right of the people to bear arms shall not be infringed." The right of the whole people, old and young, men, women and boys, and not militia only, to keep and bear arms of every description, and not such merely as are used by the militia, shall not be infringed, curtailed, or broken in upon, in the smallest degree; and all this for the important end to be attained: the rearing up and qualifying a well-regulated militia, so vitally necessary to the security of a free State. Our opinion is, that any law, State or Federal, is repugnant to the Constitution, and void, which contravenes this right, originally belonging to our forefathers, trampled under foot by Charles I. and his two wicked sons and successors, re-established by the revolution of 1688, conveyed to this land of liberty by the colonists, and finally incorporated conspicuously in our own Magna Charta! And Lexington, Concord, Camden, River Raisin, Sandusky, and the laurel-crowned field of New Orleans, plead eloquently for this interpretation!
Nunn v. State, 1 Ga. 243 (1846)

I share that only as an insight into how the law and men of learning looked at it as late as almost the mid-nineteenth century.  There is more, lots more, but I do not want to bog down the thread with lots of quotes nobody will read.

I am with you on this point, however, that I hate the twisting of history to fit one's viewpoint.  For one thing, while I like carrying concealed from time to time, the Founders basically thought anybody who did so was up to no good.  The majority of states in the early Republic banned carrying arms "secretly."  They upheld carrying arms openly.  Even the case I cited above did the same.  They quashed his indictment because he had a pistol in his hand, carrying it openly in other words, but they took pains to say that the statute is valid as against carrying arms "secretly," even though that was not at issue in the case.

The US Supreme Court, even in this century, Heller v. DC, remarked upon this, noting that concealed carry basically was not protected by the Second Amendment.

As a Second Amendment activist, I cannot have that conversation with another activist without watching their head explode and being accused of being a traitor.  I have to patiently explain that no, I favor protecting concealed carry, but it has to be done legislatively, as the Second Amendment did not and was never intended to protect bearing arms "secretly."  Anything contrary is just a revisionist history.

With that having been said, I see notes occasionally from that period of history about concealed arms, but that is not the same thing.  The first time I see arguments that the "right to bear arms" in the constitution protects concealed weapons is from the late nineteenth century, and even then it is a minority viewpoint.

Thanks for that perspective. It was interesting, and I did learn some things from it.

I always wonder whether hard-core Second Amendment types are really, truly for absolutely anyone being allowed to keep and bear arms of absolutely any description. Surely most of them would be able to come up with some limits that seem "reasonable" to them. In which case, to me that seems like an opening to establish a reasonable dialogue.

It truly saddens me that this is unlikely to ever happen because both sides are so firmly dug in.

"Well I'm sure I'd feel much worse if I weren't under such heavy sedation."   - David St. Hubins, This is Spinal Tap

Lagom

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1073
  • Age: 33
  • Location: SF Bay Area
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #2134 on: January 17, 2017, 03:03:24 PM »
As a Second Amendment activist, I cannot have that conversation with another activist without watching their head explode and being accused of being a traitor.  I have to patiently explain that no, I favor protecting concealed carry, but it has to be done legislatively, as the Second Amendment did not and was never intended to protect bearing arms "secretly."  Anything contrary is just a revisionist history.

Ha! As someone who regularly disagrees with conservatives and liberals despite sharing views with both, I can relate to this. Not sure why it's so hard for people to realize that you can stick to your guns (pun totally intended!) while acknowledging that you may be wrong about some things. It's no sin to concede small points, or even change your view dramatically.

Malum Prohibitum

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 623
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #2135 on: January 17, 2017, 03:14:24 PM »
It truly saddens me that this is unlikely to ever happen because both sides are so firmly dug in.
  LOL! I'm pretty firmly dug in!  I just recognize reality and spend a lot of time (probably way too much time that ought to be put to some productive use) reading law and history . . .

KBecks

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 771
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #2136 on: January 17, 2017, 03:17:10 PM »
Out of curiosity, was my post #2120 helpful to anybody?  The language does not seem so hard to understand, either the text or intent, if you remove the "gun" issue by replacing some of the words.
Out of curiosity, did my post # 2120

I thought it was a wonderful example, but I also support the 2nd amendment.

Kris

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2156
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #2137 on: January 17, 2017, 03:34:47 PM »
You kind of made the point with that last one.

So wait, I'm really, really not getting your point.

Instead of an analogy, could you just spell out in very plain terms how you see that guns, the right to bear arms and a militia are analogous to books, creating an educated populace and voting?

I shouldn't assume, but I think it's possible that there are others who aren't very clear on it, either, because no one else responded to it before you asked for comments either.
"Well I'm sure I'd feel much worse if I weren't under such heavy sedation."   - David St. Hubins, This is Spinal Tap

RangerOne

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 501
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #2138 on: January 17, 2017, 04:14:55 PM »
The line between sensible gun control and terrible gun control laws are obviously easy to cross. The 2nd amendment should never be an excuse to dismiss all gun laws as bad or harmful. But I understand that legal gun owners can feel burdened by our numerous and sometimes ridiculous laws.

One of the biggest issues I see with new gun laws is that while it is pretty easy to add more laws, it tends to be difficult to kill old ones that have not necessarily help increase public safety.

I think we need to allow the CDC or some other government agency to once again do research into gun control laws and there impact on safety. Then I think all gun control laws should focus on removing keeping guns away form the mentally unstable and known violent criminals, while holding private gun owners accountable when carelessness allows one of their firearms to be used in a crime.

Of course the limiting factor with this approach is the capacity of law enforcement to get criminals off the streets and our terrible mental health systems ability to identify potentially violent individuals mentally ill people.

Honestly, though this could all be a nightmare for privacy rights, I think eventually we will be able to handle gun violence purely through the augmentation of the police force by surveillance technology. Maybe even in the near future it should be possible to equip public areas in such a way that potential violent actors in possession of firearms can be quickly intercepted and detained before they could do much harm.

GuitarStv

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 8157
  • Age: 35
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #2139 on: January 17, 2017, 05:55:37 PM »
A lot of debate about rights in this thread.

I can only assume that you all must fully support the right of any person to choose to die whenever they want?  You can't get a more fundamental right than control over your own life.  Suicide is by far the largest cause of death from gun use, so are you all pro-suicide?

Supporting the right to choose to die (which I do) is not the same as supporting suicide

Isn't it?  This is a question I've personally been having trouble coming to terms with.

I strongly believe that someone should be allowed to choose to die when he or she wants . . . far too many stories of elderly living in misery have brought me to that decision.  But if I believe that the elderly should be allowed to choose to die, what about someone in mid-life who has a disease that will cause pain for the rest of his life?  Again, my reasoning tells me that this is OK.

Yet, something doesn't sit right about granting the same right to a 20 year old who wants to exercise this right, despite the logical inconsistency.  (And given that guns are much more likely to be used on yourself than a potential robber, maybe I should be supporting gun rights as a way for people to more effectively kill themselves to be logically consistent.)

waltworks

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2139
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #2140 on: January 17, 2017, 08:10:17 PM »
FWIW, there are legal limits on "destructive devices" (ie, large caliber machine gun, rocket launcher, howitzer, ICBM) that require a permit (which is not easy to get). So we already have limits on weapons/arms which I suppose in theory are unconstitutional - but nobody is willing to stomach the thought of random drunk rednecks with military artillery. The question is just exactly where to draw the line (the "assault weapons" laws are an example).

Lots of destructive tech (and nonlethal weapons, too) exist now that did not in the 18th/19th centuries. Figuring out what to do about that wrt the 2nd amendment is an interesting problem. Even machine guns/artillery are generally not legal, though they are the same basic explosive slug-thrower tech that a musket is, just more/faster.

Personally, I think a reasonable standard might be any device that will help defend your home/property (or hunt) without endangering bystanders = legal. In other words, if I want to kill one dude, or at most a couple - good to go. Anything capable of killing a lot of people really fast or with more destructive power than needed for self defense or hunting = illegal. Problem is how to draw that line.

Personally I think having this stuff in the constitution is a bad idea - it is not a document that works well for technology-specific issues over long periods of time (hard to imagine a document that would be, really). I'd rather see weapons control done entirely legislatively so that new tech can be easily incorporated and super destructive stuff isn't legal just because constitution.

-W

Kris

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2156
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #2141 on: January 17, 2017, 08:40:50 PM »
FWIW, there are legal limits on "destructive devices" (ie, large caliber machine gun, rocket launcher, howitzer, ICBM) that require a permit (which is not easy to get). So we already have limits on weapons/arms which I suppose in theory are unconstitutional - but nobody is willing to stomach the thought of random drunk rednecks with military artillery. The question is just exactly where to draw the line (the "assault weapons" laws are an example).

Lots of destructive tech (and nonlethal weapons, too) exist now that did not in the 18th/19th centuries. Figuring out what to do about that wrt the 2nd amendment is an interesting problem. Even machine guns/artillery are generally not legal, though they are the same basic explosive slug-thrower tech that a musket is, just more/faster.

Personally, I think a reasonable standard might be any device that will help defend your home/property (or hunt) without endangering bystanders = legal. In other words, if I want to kill one dude, or at most a couple - good to go. Anything capable of killing a lot of people really fast or with more destructive power than needed for self defense or hunting = illegal. Problem is how to draw that line.

Personally I think having this stuff in the constitution is a bad idea - it is not a document that works well for technology-specific issues over long periods of time (hard to imagine a document that would be, really). I'd rather see weapons control done entirely legislatively so that new tech can be easily incorporated and super destructive stuff isn't legal just because constitution.

-W

Well put.
"Well I'm sure I'd feel much worse if I weren't under such heavy sedation."   - David St. Hubins, This is Spinal Tap

waltworks

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2139
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #2142 on: January 17, 2017, 09:40:31 PM »
I like to fall back on the "double barrel shotgun" rule. With a double barrel shotgun, you get 2 chances to nail the bad guy (or whatever you're trying to shoot) before you have to spend some time reloading. It's pretty hard to miss, it's pretty hard to pick up/handle/load/fire for a child. Unless a bystander is standing right next to the bad guy, you're not going to shoot through the wall or over a long distance and injure anyone else. There's no way you'll outgun the cops.

Add basic hunting rifles (again, a couple shots is all you should really need before reloading) and just call it good right there.

More tech and functional stopping power (ok, maybe not more *pure* stopping power than a freaking musket... but much more functional) than the founders had. Very little danger for any innocents around, relatively speaking. Hard to commit atrocities with. Perfection.

Of course there are a billion handguns and random other much more dangerous stuff around of all kinds. That's fine. Just stop manufacturing those and let them rust away over the next 30 or 40 years (or be collected by high-end enthusiasts, who are about as likely to go murder someone as I am to win the Eurovision song contest).

-W

Shane

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 647
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #2143 on: January 18, 2017, 04:38:00 AM »
A lot of debate about rights in this thread.

I can only assume that you all must fully support the right of any person to choose to die whenever they want?  You can't get a more fundamental right than control over your own life.  Suicide is by far the largest cause of death from gun use, so are you all pro-suicide?

Absolutely. Every person should have the right to decide to die whenever he wants to, for any reason whatsoever.

hoosier

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 76
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #2144 on: January 18, 2017, 06:04:25 AM »
I like to fall back on the "double barrel shotgun" rule. With a double barrel shotgun, you get 2 chances to nail the bad guy (or whatever you're trying to shoot) before you have to spend some time reloading. It's pretty hard to miss, it's pretty hard to pick up/handle/load/fire for a child. Unless a bystander is standing right next to the bad guy, you're not going to shoot through the wall or over a long distance and injure anyone else. There's no way you'll outgun the cops.

Add basic hunting rifles (again, a couple shots is all you should really need before reloading) and just call it good right there.

More tech and functional stopping power (ok, maybe not more *pure* stopping power than a freaking musket... but much more functional) than the founders had. Very little danger for any innocents around, relatively speaking. Hard to commit atrocities with. Perfection.

Of course there are a billion handguns and random other much more dangerous stuff around of all kinds. That's fine. Just stop manufacturing those and let them rust away over the next 30 or 40 years (or be collected by high-end enthusiasts, who are about as likely to go murder someone as I am to win the Eurovision song contest).

-W

So much to address here.

1.) Shotguns, with a typical defense load (0 or 00 buck), will go through MULTIPLE indoor walls.  You could easily take out somebody in the next room, or even next door on your typical vinyl sided home.
2.)  Shotguns, with a slug, are adequately accurate to hit a human sized target at 100 yards in 2 shots.  Is that considered long distance?
3.)  A "basic hunting rifle" holds 4-6 rounds, and can easily deliver them out to 500 - 800 yards.  Plenty of time for a reload when you're shooting that far out.  I thought long distances were a bad thing, hence the shotgun?
4.)  The founders' muskets were military grade weapons.  Here's an interesting thought - If the AR15 was available to the founders, do you think they would have carried the AR or the musket?  And why?
5.) You're going to need more like 100-x00 years for all the handguns to "rust away".  There are MANY WW1 Colts still out there and shoot just as good today as they did 100 years ago.  Modern pistols are made from stainless steel and polymer.  They literally don't rust away.
« Last Edit: January 18, 2017, 08:39:12 AM by hoosier »

GuitarStv

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 8157
  • Age: 35
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #2145 on: January 18, 2017, 06:25:06 AM »
4.)  The founders' muskets were military grade weapons.  Here's an interesting thought - If the AR15 was available to the founders, do you think they would carried the AR or the musket?  And why?

Probably neither.  They would have used biological and chemical weapons in this hypothetical world where future technology is available in the past.  There were no treaties prohibiting the use of such weapons back then, and small arms are a total waste of time when you can just wipe out a populace with a well planted disease, and then move in a year or two later once the corpses have all degraded into nothing.

KBecks

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 771
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #2146 on: January 18, 2017, 06:34:22 AM »
Your response assumes our founders had no morals.  That's incorrect.

GuitarStv

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 8157
  • Age: 35
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #2147 on: January 18, 2017, 06:49:33 AM »
Your response assumes our founders had no morals.  That's incorrect.

As moral as they may have been, executing prisoners of war after they've surrendered was not uncommon in the American revolution (Fort Grierson for example).  I figure when you're willing to kill unarmed prisoners you probably wouldn't have too much compunction about the use of biological or chemical weapons.

KBecks

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 771
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #2148 on: January 18, 2017, 07:10:07 AM »
I like to fall back on the "double barrel shotgun" rule. With a double barrel shotgun, you get 2 chances to nail the bad guy (or whatever you're trying to shoot) before you have to spend some time reloading. It's pretty hard to miss, it's pretty hard to pick up/handle/load/fire for a child. Unless a bystander is standing right next to the bad guy, you're not going to shoot through the wall or over a long distance and injure anyone else. There's no way you'll outgun the cops.

Add basic hunting rifles (again, a couple shots is all you should really need before reloading) and just call it good right there.

More tech and functional stopping power (ok, maybe not more *pure* stopping power than a freaking musket... but much more functional) than the founders had. Very little danger for any innocents around, relatively speaking. Hard to commit atrocities with. Perfection.

Of course there are a billion handguns and random other much more dangerous stuff around of all kinds. That's fine. Just stop manufacturing those and let them rust away over the next 30 or 40 years (or be collected by high-end enthusiasts, who are about as likely to go murder someone as I am to win the Eurovision song contest).

-W

Let's put you up against a gang of 4 armed home invaders, or the Orlando shooter, etc. etc. with a fucking double barrel shotgun and see how you do.  We need to be practical.  It's not like one bullet immediately stops an attacker.  And most humans are moving targets.  I get that you have opinions but they're not really relevant.

Gin1984

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4105
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #2149 on: January 18, 2017, 07:13:03 AM »
I like to fall back on the "double barrel shotgun" rule. With a double barrel shotgun, you get 2 chances to nail the bad guy (or whatever you're trying to shoot) before you have to spend some time reloading. It's pretty hard to miss, it's pretty hard to pick up/handle/load/fire for a child. Unless a bystander is standing right next to the bad guy, you're not going to shoot through the wall or over a long distance and injure anyone else. There's no way you'll outgun the cops.

Add basic hunting rifles (again, a couple shots is all you should really need before reloading) and just call it good right there.

More tech and functional stopping power (ok, maybe not more *pure* stopping power than a freaking musket... but much more functional) than the founders had. Very little danger for any innocents around, relatively speaking. Hard to commit atrocities with. Perfection.

Of course there are a billion handguns and random other much more dangerous stuff around of all kinds. That's fine. Just stop manufacturing those and let them rust away over the next 30 or 40 years (or be collected by high-end enthusiasts, who are about as likely to go murder someone as I am to win the Eurovision song contest).

-W

Let's put you up against a gang of 4 armed home invaders, or the Orlando shooter, etc. etc. with a fucking double barrel shotgun and see how you do.  We need to be practical.  It's not like one bullet immediately stops an attacker.  And most humans are moving targets.  I get that you have opinions but they're not really relevant.
Most people don't have the training to go up against someone like that regardless of what gun they use.  Which is why I am pro-training.  If you have a weapon, you need to be able to use it properly.
And for all the people that flipped out on Kris, let me be clear, when I said you need to be in control of your weapons, how you do is up to you.  However, if you are wrong and someone gets hurt based on your negligence, you should be fiscally liable.