The Thread Where We Discuss Guns and Gun Control

[Estebonrober]

Remember your economic theory! Just because a state is not a net taxpayer doesn't mean that it's not a net contributor. It could be true, but it need not be. It's very similar to insisting that someone who is not a net taxpayer is not a net contributor. If it's said about an ally, you know why it's wrong. We only think it's true when it is said about an opponent

You're kind of preaching to the choir here, I'm not keen on seeing Alabama leave the Union. My point was intentionally hyperbolic in nature. I should have been more clear.

 

[Estebonrober]

Any attempt to modify or infringe upon the Bill of Rights should be a potential civil war issue. Because if any individual isn't willing to fight for every single right they have, then they don't really have any room to complain if those rights get trampled on.

Except its not clear to many of us that gun rights to this degree is protected in the Bill of Rights. I'd protect your right to own a lot of different types of guns but I think lines are fair in any discussion. Forty years ago we put gay people in jail for sodomy when it was convenient, I think that would be much more worthy of riotous rebellion over then your hobby target practice rifle.

 

[Sommerswerd]

I mean, McCain wasn't near as cool and I've been missing him too. Went out like a badass at least.

That he did. Disinviting Trump to his funeral as a final eff-you, I win, no tags backsies, was a cherry on top.

You're kind of preaching to the choir here, I'm not keen on seeing Alabama leave the Union. My point was intentionally hyperbolic in nature. I should have been more clear.

Nobody's "leaving the Union." That's been debated and settled and it was a pretty expensive "discussion" at that. Its cheaper to keep'er. That's all there is to it.

 

[hobbsyoyo]

You sure that was me? Because I was all for states defying the FCC for net neutrality.

Yes you were, using the exact opposite reasoning as what you used here to deny states rights. That's my point - you are OK with overruling states rights when it suits, but not when it doesn't.

I made the case that allowing the states to overrule the FCC was bad precedent, as well as technically hard/impossible to implement and also a violation of international law. You argued against that point then and yet here you are adopting the opposite stance vis a vis precedent.

 

[hobbsyoyo]

Fair enough!

 

[IglooDame]

The fact that WV is considering this over stupid AR 15s to me shows how insane the right has gotten in the last 40 years. When I was a kid "assault rifles" were banned. I remember it being an issue but not like now, not a potential civil war issue.

The high water mark of gun control restrictions were when you were a kid (apparently mid-to-late 90s). The Gun Control Act of 1968 outlawed mail-order rifles, can you imagine? But it's not like gun control is currently as lax as it's ever been, except perhaps in the area of concealed-carry permits, and ideologically after the Heller decision finally had SCOTUS define the 2A as an individual right (vs the militia interpretation).

 

[hobbsyoyo]

The Gun Control Act of 1968 outlawed mail-order rifles, can you imagine?

Oswald got the Italian rifle he used to kill Kennedy through the mail.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

Nobody's "leaving the Union." That's been debated and settled and it was a pretty expensive "discussion" at that. Its cheaper to keep'er. That's all there is to it.

General dissolution is an option that may be available though. It worked for the USSR.

 

[Sommerswerd]

General dissolution is an option that may be available though. It worked for the USSR.

In Soviet Russia... country dissolve YOU!

 

[IglooDame]

Oswald got the Italian rifle he used to kill Kennedy through the mail.

Exactly. The history of gun control is mostly of passing laws trying to prevent the most recent very high-profile murder.

 

[Estebonrober]

Exactly. The history of gun control is mostly of passing laws trying to prevent the most recent very high-profile murder.

which is fine and repealing the assault rifle ban I supported but after dozens of random mass shootings I think it needs further review. Preferably something written up by people educated in firearms and not random politicians. Unfortunately the way the culture breaks down, the people with the best knowledge in coming up with suitable restrictions are so anti any restrictions no head way can be made. Even things that are universally popular don't pass because of same said gun zealot types.

 

[Bugfatty300]

which is fine and repealing the assault rifle ban I supported but after dozens of random mass shootings I think it needs further review. Preferably something written up by people educated in firearms and not random politicians. Unfortunately the way the culture breaks down, the people with the best knowledge in coming up with suitable restrictions are so anti any restrictions no head way can be made. Even things that are universally popular don't pass because of same said gun zealot types.

Which isn't really true. The typical 2nd amendment absolutist "molon labe" type is often as uneducated and ignorant as anyone else. And lots of people get professional training in firearms who aren't gun enthusiast and may be as hard anti-gun as they come. Education tends to bring nuance which is why I think the best approach is general firearm education from the ground up in public schools.

But there's probably a reason why the outlook of the irearm educated and knowledgeable differs so much from that of the typical laypersons. The laypeople hear red herring terms like AR-15 and assault weapon in the media and tunnel vision ensues; and damn anyone who dares contradicts it.

 

[Estebonrober]

In response to this I also want to note that if you are so worried about the Constitutionality of our laws, then you should be against any federal gun laws. Nowhere in the Constitution does it say the federal government has any authority to regulate firearms. And the 10th Amendment is pretty clear that any power not expressly granted to the federal government falls to the states and/or the people.

Now I know you are going to try to counter this with the fact that the government can regulate interstate commerce. Problem with that though is the overwhelming majority of gun sales are conducted intrastate, rather than interstate. So for any sale that doesn't cross state lines, the federal government has absolutely no authority to regulate. At least they shouldn't if we really want to stick to the Constitution here.

And that's where I think West Virginia's proposed law passes legal muster since all they are really doing is fighting back against decades of the federal government overstepping its Constitutional authority.

I'm going to disagree here as even though heller is the law of the land atm I do not agree with it and many many others do not as well. Its the law of the land now and so we live by it atm. Fed overstepping its constitution is no excuse for WV to overstep its bounds.

 

[hobbsyoyo]

Nowhere in the Constitution does it say the federal government has any authority to regulate firearms

"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."
How that's interpreted is obviously an open question but let's not pretend the document doesn't say the things it actually says.

 

[Manfred Belheim]

Maybe you should just decide what makes sense in 2020, rather than arguing over different interpretations of a sacred text.

 

[hobbsyoyo]

Well yeah but unfortunately due to the way our system of government is constructed, we are forced to go back to the source material.

 

[Lexicus]

But there's probably a reason why the outlook of the irearm educated and knowledgeable differs so much from that of the typical laypersons. The laypeople hear red herring terms like AR-15 and assault weapon in the media and tunnel vision ensues; and damn anyone who dares contradicts it.

Can you please explain how AR-15 is a "red herring term"?

 

[IglooDame]

which is fine and repealing the assault rifle ban I supported but after dozens of random mass shootings I think it needs further review. Preferably something written up by people educated in firearms and not random politicians. Unfortunately the way the culture breaks down, the people with the best knowledge in coming up with suitable restrictions are so anti any restrictions no head way can be made. Even things that are universally popular don't pass because of same said gun zealot types.

Bugfatty said so too (howdy, Bugfatty!!), but surely there are some experts very familiar with the technical elements of gun manufacture, usage, and "gun culture" generally, that are willing for whatever reason to help anti-gun politicians' staffs flesh out bills. That is one of my larger complaints, that bills (and laws) are fairly uninformed in the way they approach the issue. The AWB was roundly mocked among gun enthusiasts for focusing on appearance and irrelevant features (really, bayonet lugs are some kind of serious problem?) and listing specific models (manufacturers immediately coming out with similar models having different names). More recently the push for microstamping was equally stupid - serial numbers are already routinely obliterated, so two additional minutes with a hammer on the tip of a firing pin is going to make the microstamp useless, and unlike blanking serial numbers it is something that lots of gun owners would do. And not to get on a rant here, but "smart guns" were similar as well. I'd actually be willing to buy a "smart gun" myself, not wanting my gun to be operational in a criminal's hand, but my criteria for it working adequately was whether it was reliable enough for police to start using them en masse (as surely they have even more incentive than me to not want a criminal to be able to fire it). How many departments have picked them up so far? Right. None, that I'm aware of. So don't mandate them for me, please.

 

[Lexicus]

How many departments have picked them up so far? Right. None, that I'm aware of. So don't mandate them for me, please.

I'm 100% okay with mandating police departments to use smartguns as well. In fact, I think we should probably make it a higher priority to disarm the police than to disarm the general public. For that matter, I think we should start to reduce spending on armaments for the military as well.

 

[cardgame]

Can you please explain how AR-15 is a "red herring term"?

Probably something to do with its emotional weight and being the only gun people can name among the 'ban the scary guns to end mass shootings' lib crowd? 90% of firearm homicides are done with pistols. Pistols are more concealable than an AR-15 for mass shooting events too. Pistols can even carry more ammo in a magazine (glock 33rnd mags are common enough).