The Thread Where We Discuss Guns and Gun Control

[Farm Boy]

My respect for Common Law really wishes y'all would just amend it. These hacks are a little offensive, in a legal sense, even if they're necessary to prevent kids from shooting their parents or finding their hopeless parents in a brainless and spattered state.

Dangling is much cleaner.

 

[Spidernova]

The Second Amendment is going nowhere... fast... faster than a speeding bullet. Its not going to be amended, repealed, or otherwise curtailed, ever... or at least not in our lifetimes. I've said many times that I think this is a quixotic issue for Democrats. I fully understand why so many people are so passionate about it, but its just an absolute albatross around Democrats neck, that does nothing but serve to galvanize opposition.

I live in Texas, so my sample is going to be biased. But I know lots of people who very much lean toward to the left, and own "assault weapons". And when people like Beto make it a cornerstone of their platform to take away people's rifles, that doesn't exactly encourage them to vote, even if they're on board with expanded welfare, gay rights, minority representation, etc.

 

[Sommerswerd]

For me the issue is easy to conceptualize. Some people just like guns, some people, use guns regularly, some people at least arguably need guns as tools, some more arguably, some less arguably, and some people really want access to guns for various utilitarian reasons, convenience, peace of mind, etc.

Obviously, a human being only needs food, water, and shelter... clothing, maybe, depending on climate (and love/companionship... but that's a separate issue)... so the rest are arguably just wants. But "wants" can be pretty compelling, based on the stuff I mention above and more. So I take something I really like, and put it in place of guns, and imagine what it would be like if the government just banned it outright.

For me that's football. I really like football (Murican). I coach football and have a kid who absolutely loves football, which is admittedly, a near euphoric experience unto itself... having a child who loves what you love, and gets to experience it all with new eyes... In any case, football is near and dear to my heart. If the government wanted to ban football, I would be motivated to vote against that.

A difference, is that the right to play football is not a Constitutionally enshrined right, but if it was, and had been for centuries, I'd probably be pretty self-righteously opinionated about the regulation of football... cause I like it.

Guns... for lots of folks... is their hobby... But its a Constitutionally protected hobby. So I get... and am less enthusiastic about opposing, their Constitutionally protected right, to their hobby... and again, that's putting aside people who actually use guns as tools in their livelihood.

 

[Bamspeedy]

It's not clear to me what "cases" means, though. Is he saying 41% of guns used in crimes, or 41% of guns seized? I followed the link in the Times article to the ABC News story, but that wasn't any clearer. I guess it doesn't matter, for purposes here*, it's a lot either way.

41% of the ATF agent's cases. My guess would be it's skewed because he is ATF. Local police finds an untraceable gun, my guess would be they ask the ATF for help.

 

[EgonSpengler]

For me the issue is easy to conceptualize. Some people just like guns, some people, use guns regularly, some people at least arguably need guns as tools, some more arguably, some less arguably, and some people really want access to guns for various utilitarian reasons, convenience, peace of mind, etc.

Obviously, a human being only needs food, water, and shelter... clothing, maybe, depending on climate (and love/companionship... but that's a separate issue)... so the rest are arguably just wants. But "wants" can be pretty compelling, based on the stuff I mention above and more. So I take something I really like, and put it in place of guns, and imagine what it would be like if the government just banned it outright.

For me that's football. I really like football (Murican). I coach football and have a kid who absolutely loves football, which is admittedly, a near euphoric experience unto itself... having a child who loves what you love, and gets to experience it all with new eyes... In any case, football is near and dear to my heart. If the government wanted to ban football, I would be motivated to vote against that.

A difference, is that the right to play football is not a Constitutionally enshrined right, but if it was, and had been for centuries, I'd probably be pretty self-righteously opinionated about the regulation of football... cause I like it.

Guns... for lots of folks... is their hobby... But its a Constitutionally protected hobby. So I get... and am less enthusiastic about opposing, their Constitutionally protected right, to their hobby... and again, that's putting aside people who actually use guns as tools in their livelihood.

Right, exactly. The fact that something isn't in the Constitution doesn't mean the government or other institutions can just do what it wants wrt that thing, and there are lot of things that pretty much everyone agrees are rights or liberties that aren't in the Constitution (the right to privacy, most famously). A school or town choosing to cancel its youth football program might cause a stir, but it isn't a constitutional issue (and I can't imagine that a government could actually ban football, even if they decided not to fund it with public money). There are things that are privileges the government grants, that the government can't deny to a citizen without due cause. A driver's license is a privilege, I think a passport is too, but the government needs to have a good reason to deny those, they can't be capricious about it. Is marriage considered a right? I would think it is, at least as an adjunct of the right to privacy, but if you have to get a license, then maybe it's a privilege. So anyway, the question of whether gun ownership ought to be a Constitutionally-protected right is something that needs to be reexamined, imho, and if the answer ends up being 'yes', then the 2nd Amendment should be rewritten, 'cause it sucks.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

Is marriage considered a right? I would think it is

It depends what you mean when you say "marriage". In the legal/government sense, there is no right to marriage provided by the constitution or generally. Insofar as it exists, it exists because of normal law, not inalienable rights.

The government has no authority to deny religious marriages, but nobody has a "right" to legal marriage/enforcement...at least not constitutionally protected. A state could decide to ignore marriages entirely and there would be no legal/federal basis to compel otherwise. A state could not legally decide to ban marriages, though.

Also, marriage requires more than one person, and under sane law nobody has a "right" to it w/o consent of the other person. Even though governments have occasionally ruled otherwise/fabricated contracts on behalf of parties that did not willingly enter them.

It is the same with guns; rights to them "shall not be infringed" (though that might be hard to grasp based on some posts here). But this does not mean the government has to make its taxpayers give you one. You still have to acquire it yourself.

 

[EgonSpengler]

I don't actually think it's a useful parallel for gun ownership, but if we can allow the marriage rights digression for one more moment, Chief Justice Earl Warren wrote in Loving v. Virginia (1967),

The freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men.

Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival. Skinner v. Oklahoma, 316 U. S. 535, 316 U. S. 541 (1942). See also Maynard v. Hill, 125 U. S. 190 (1888). To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State's citizens of liberty without due process of law. The Fourteenth Amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by invidious racial discriminations. Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual, and cannot be infringed by the State.

It does seem noteworthy, in these times, that the decision was signed by 7 other justices, and the 8th wrote a separate, concurring opinion.

 

[Samson]

I don't actually think it's a useful parallel for gun ownership, but if we can allow the marriage rights digression for one more moment, Chief Justice Earl Warren wrote in Loving v. Virginia (1967),

It does seem noteworthy, in these times, that the decision was signed by 7 other justices, and the 8th wrote a separate, concurring opinion.

Whatever those highfalutin beaks said, for most of history in most of the world the decision to marry had much more to do with the parents than the couple, particularly the woman.

 

[Farm Boy]

Somewhat of conceptual improvement over, "lie back and think of England."

 

[TheMeInTeam]

I don't actually think it's a useful parallel for gun ownership, but if we can allow the marriage rights digression for one more moment, Chief Justice Earl Warren wrote in Loving v. Virginia (1967),

It does seem noteworthy, in these times, that the decision was signed by 7 other justices, and the 8th wrote a separate, concurring opinion.

Under the hypothetical of "state ignores X entirely" and leaves it up to individual activity, there can't possibly be a 14th amendment violation. Doing nothing equally, for everybody, can't be a due process violation.

The case you cite is in relation to actively blocking marriage in certain race contexts, which is an objective due process clause violation in contrast.

Whatever those highfalutin beaks said, for most of history in most of the world the decision to marry had much more to do with the parents than the couple, particularly the woman.

There's that too. Which isn't something we'd want to go back to. Though I don't think it's really the place of the state in general.

Guns are property, which is an important distinction. Property kept in part as a final measure to oppose the state, should the state resort to tyranny.

 

[Sommerswerd]

Guns are property, which is an important distinction. Property kept in part as a final measure to oppose the state, should the state resort to tyranny.

Which is why the arguments about assault rifles and high capacity magazines being too dangerous and/or deadly and not reasonably useful for hunting... and similar, are just pointless. The 2nd Amendment wasn't about hunting, or even home/self defense. It was about being able to raise a citizen army at a moments notice to fight the tyrannical government. Citizens rights to arms shouldn't be able to be "infringed" by the very government that they are protecting themselves against.

So the Second Amendment's strongest purpose/justification, is also arguably the most compelling reason to claim that its obsolete. Because unless you are going to allow private citizens to own fully armed fighter jets, Apache helicopters, Abrams tanks, RPG's, rocket/missile launchers, nuclear subs and so on... the notion that private citizens could raise a citizen army to defeat the US military is... quaint, to be polite.

I mean they couldn't even do it in the Civil War, with comparable armaments and that was over 150 years ago. In reality, they didn't even do it during the Revolutionary War, despite our romantic notions about it. The Colonials had a full fledged veteran army of regular soldiers doing most of the fighting.

 

[Samson]

So the Second Amendment's strongest purpose/justification, is also arguably the most compelling reason to claim that its obsolete. Because unless you are going to allow private citizens to own fully armed fighter jets, Apache helicopters, Abrams tanks, RPG's, rocket/missile launchers, nuclear subs and so on... the notion that private citizens could raise a citizen army to defeat the US military is... quaint, to be polite.

The taliban beat the US army with a few kalashnikovs and some fertiliser.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

So the Second Amendment's strongest purpose/justification, is also arguably the most compelling reason to claim that its obsolete. Because unless you are going to allow private citizens to own fully armed fighter jets, Apache helicopters, Abrams tanks, RPG's, rocket/missile launchers, nuclear subs and so on... the notion that private citizens could raise a citizen army to defeat the US military is... quaint, to be polite.

I thought that at one point too, but I don't believe it any longer. For evidence, we can look to the "war on terror" conducted by the US military.

Realistically, if enough of the country rose up against tyranny, it would not be trivial for the military to stay 100% on either side. It would then also be faced with the prospect of killing US citizens standing up for something soldiers also swore to protect. So the military would lose some % of its people, to the other side. It would also be faced with combat against people it doesn't want to kill, inside structures/infrastructure they want to destroy even less than they wanted to in the middle east. The military is also simply not equipped to run extended occupation on such large % of the population at scale.

The real force that citizens would have to overcome in such a scenario is the police/local authority trying to crack down on them. Those guys have some better hardware than a random person off the street. But a rifle still matters in that context. 300,000 rifles matter in that context a lot. Enough to change a hypothetical enforcement officer's conclusions about what he should do in response. Ballistic vests only do so much.

The 1800s civil war split the country across a readily identifiable line, with identifiable uniforms, and operated in a way that resembled a conventional war between nations. I strongly suspect any such uprising today would not look like that, and point to what has happened in low-stability countries in recent times for an example of why I strongly doubt the US military would find occupation of the US trivial. It was hard enough occupying 1-2 countries in the middle east. There are multiple single states that would be many times harder than that on their own.

 

[Farm Boy]

I think the analysis is that it changes the cost benefit of enforcing laws for psychopaths in power. Deeply unpleasant laws will increasingly trigger "shooting stars," let's say, that burn bright and go out. The cost is pretty extreme, but, to the extent that we actually care about our countrymen, ot makes us pause when something upsets people so much.

Yes, the answer could always be just kill them all if they don't fall in line, and there have been empires that formed in that rule. But really, we didn't mow down the autonomous zone in Seattle. Rittenhouse was sympathetic for good reason. Listening to who wants to kill over Mac n cheese in a closed out of season nature preserve is an excellent lunatic test.

Obsolete? I think not. Militias did not stand against regulars for a damn in the 18th century either.

 

[EgonSpengler]

The case you cite is in relation to actively blocking marriage in certain race contexts, which is an objective due process clause violation in contrast.

It is, but I was mainly citing Warren's assertion that marriage is a right.

Guns are property, which is an important distinction. Property kept in part as a final measure to oppose the state, should the state resort to tyranny.

Which is why the arguments about assault rifles and high capacity magazines being too dangerous and/or deadly and not reasonably useful for hunting... and similar, are just pointless. The 2nd Amendment wasn't about hunting, or even home/self defense. It was about being able to raise a citizen army at a moments notice to fight the tyrannical government. Citizens rights to arms shouldn't be able to be "infringed" by the very government that they are protecting themselves against.

So the Second Amendment's strongest purpose/justification, is also arguably the most compelling reason to claim that its obsolete. Because unless you are going to allow private citizens to own fully armed fighter jets, Apache helicopters, Abrams tanks, RPG's, rocket/missile launchers, nuclear subs and so on... the notion that private citizens could raise a citizen army to defeat the US military is... quaint, to be polite.

I mean they couldn't even do it in the Civil War, with comparable armaments and that was over 150 years ago.

See, this is a good example of why the 2nd Amendment is such a fustercluck. Three Americans - I don't think any of us is an expert, but we've read a book or three - and we have three different takes on it. What a friggin' disaster. We can't even agree on some of the basic assumptions that the authors probably took for granted. For the record, I don't believe that the 2nd Amendment or the 18th-Century concept of a citizen militia was about fighting the government.

In reality, they didn't even do it during the Revolutionary War, despite our romantic notions about it. The Colonials had a full fledged veteran army of regular soldiers doing most of the fighting.

Quite right. Cannons, cavalry, the whole nine yards, circa 1777.

 

[Farm Boy]

The takes aren't that different. I think we have been told they are, however.

 

[Sommerswerd]

Listening to who wants to kill over Mac n cheese in a closed out of season nature preserve is an excellent lunatic test.

Apparently... this happened today:

40 Person Brawl at a Golden Corral Erupts Over Restaurant Running Out of Steak

I mean... I like steak... but I've also had Golden Corral steak... let's just say its not worth spending $8.99 over, let alone arguing over... let alone... throwing a chair over.

Obsolete? I think not. Militias did not stand against regulars for a damn in the 18th century either.

Exactly. It was damn near obsolete then, its even moreso now.

The taliban beat the US army with a few kalashnikovs and some fertiliser.

That's not accurate

 

[Farm Boy]

Yeahhhh, I agree. Maybe I'd get excited for crab legs. The sea is very far away. I don't think I've ever wasted space at a GC on their steak. They have strawberries and a chocolate fountain. I mean, seriously!

You don't have to win to fight. Sometimes winning is the least important aspect.

 

[Sommerswerd]

The real force that citizens would have to overcome in such a scenario is the police/local authority trying to crack down on them. Those guys have some better hardware than a random person off the street. But a rifle still matters in that context. 300,000 rifles matter in that context a lot. Enough to change a hypothetical enforcement officer's conclusions about what he should do in response. Ballistic vests only do so much.

I will grant you that during the COVID lockdown summer protests a couple police stations were basically overwhelmed. I can also remember during Katrina when the New Orleans police were basically deserting in droves. I remember an officer on TV screaming at them for being cowards. Now that was a natural disaster, but the point is police departments certainly aren't invincible.

The Jan 6th insurrection was another pretty clear demonstration what a large crowd of people can do to overwhelm a relatively small number of police. Thankfully that didn't turn into an all out shooting war, but the point remains.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

It is, but I was mainly citing Warren's assertion that marriage is a right.

I don't think the assertion survives scrutiny. Nobody is guaranteed to want to marry someone. And I strongly advocate against the state providing otherwise.

Similarly, don't think the state's messing around with marriage via tax incentives or w/e qualifies as a "right" either. Marriage is inherently a personal choice/freedom, similar to buying food or walking in a public park. You are free to walk in a public park. It is illegal to arbitrarily restrict you from doing that. But you don't have a right to that public park existing in the first place.

For the record, I don't believe that the 2nd Amendment or the 18th-Century concept of a citizen militia was about fighting the government.

I think we have good reason to conclude this, especially if you read the language/rationale provided in the US declaration of independence. It might not be the ONLY reason the framers put the second amendment in place, but it's hard to believe they didn't have it in mind as a non-trivial part of the reason for including it.

Exactly. It was damn near obsolete then, its even moreso now.

Militias are not designed to go toe to toe with professional armed forces, and haven't been for centuries (last example that I can sort of buy is when medieval levees were still pretty common). That's not their purpose.

The Jan 6th insurrection was another pretty clear demonstration what a large crown of people can do to overwhelm a relatively small number of police. Thankfully that didn't turn into an all out shooting war, but the point remains.

Compared to what we've seen in other countries, and what I hope we'd see if the government actually started straight up taking rights away, Jan. 6 was trivial/nothing. That was tens of thousands of people, with only the tiniest fraction of them armed with something more meaningful than a blunt instrument. If you have 100,000 people with firearms, police aren't going to stick around for that. Even the most corrupt officers still have a sense of self-preservation, on average. Hard to power-trip or engage in banditry on larger numbers of people with rifles.

Chaz/Chop wasn't done by people working productive jobs at scale, either. If 30-50% of your tax base is out there not paying them and arguing with guns, you've failed as a government. If not directly, then soon enough via what happens to the economy, purchasing power, foreign legitimacy, etc. This isn't a situation that stays in equilibrium, and it doesn't end well. I'd rather we get our act together and just...not engage in tyranny in the first place.