The Thread Where We Discuss Guns and Gun Control

[Manfred Belheim]

It would seem reasonable at a glance, and I will certainly agree that the most dangerous type of gun owner is one that doesn't know how to handle their firearm. However, gun ownership is a right, and it has been established in our legal system that you can't force people to pay the government to exercise their rights. That's why things like poll taxes and passing a test to be able to register to vote were ruled to be unconstitutional. It's also why the government is obligated to provide you an attorney to defend you if you are unable to afford one. These gun training courses and licenses you are talking about would surely carry some sort of fee, which would automatically make them unconstitutional because that would be forcing the people to pay the government to exercise their right to bear arms. Even if you made them free, they would still be unconstitutional for the same reason voter eligibility tests are unconstitutional. You simply cannot put up those kind of barriers when it comes to Constitutional rights. Because if someone fails the course/test, you are essentially saying the Constitution doesn't apply to them simply because they didn't meet some arbitrary criteria.

So you agree that it is reasonable and sensible and would probably be a good idea to implement, but it just can't be done because something some dead people wrote down hundreds of years ago takes precedence over the needs and desires of people alive today.

 

[Commodore]

So you agree that it is reasonable and sensible and would probably be a good idea to implement, but it just can't be done because something some dead people wrote down hundreds of years ago takes precedence over the needs and desires of people alive today.

No. I said it seems reasonable at a glance, but when viewed in the context of how rights work, such requirements become entirely unreasonable. It also sets the dangerous precedent of the government being allowed to put arbitrary requirements on the exercising of rights. I mean, if gun licenses are okay, why aren't free speech licenses? If you can be denied firearm ownership because you can't afford the license, then why can't you be denied an attorney because you can't afford one?

And yes, what the Constitution says does take precedent over the wants and desires of the people. That's how "rule of law" works. It means that what is written down as the legal framework of how a given nation is to be governed should not be subject to the whims of a population who's "needs and desires" change every few weeks. What you are describing (and clearly in favor of) is mob rule, where whatever is popular at the moment becomes the law of the land. Such a society is a society in which you only have rights if you happen to agree with the majority opinion, but lose all rights and legal protections as soon as the majority turns against you. I don't know about you, but that's not the society I want to live in. I prefer the system as laid out in the Constitution because, while certainly not completely immune to mob rule, does provide very strong safeguards against it and goes a long way to ensure the minority opinion carries just as much weight as the majority opinion.

 

[Yeekim]

However, gun ownership is a right, and it has been established in our legal system that you can't force people to pay the government to exercise their rights. That's why things like poll taxes and passing a test to be able to register to vote were ruled to be unconstitutional. It's also why the government is obligated to provide you an attorney to defend you if you are unable to afford one.

It logically follows that the government should be obligated to provide a gun to anyone who is unable to afford one.

 

[Commodore]

It logically follows that the government should be obligated to provide a gun to anyone who is unable to afford one.

I've actually floated that idea before. If not outright providing a gun, perhaps they should subsidize the purchase of one for those that wish to have one but cannot afford it.

 

[Manfred Belheim]

No. I said it seems reasonable at a glance, but when viewed in the context of how rights work, such requirements become entirely unreasonable. It also sets the dangerous precedent of the government being allowed to put arbitrary requirements on the exercising of rights. I mean, if gun licenses are okay, why aren't free speech licenses? If you can be denied firearm ownership because you can't afford the license, then why can't you be denied an attorney because you can't afford one?

And yes, what the Constitution says does take precedent over the wants and desires of the people. That's how "rule of law" works. It means that what is written down as the legal framework of how a given nation is to be governed should not be subject to the whims of a population who's "needs and desires" change every few weeks. What you are describing (and clearly in favor of) is mob rule, where whatever is popular at the moment becomes the law of the land. Such a society is a society in which you only have rights if you happen to agree with the majority opinion, but lose all rights and legal protections as soon as the majority turns against you. I don't know about you, but that's not the society I want to live in. I prefer the system as laid out in the Constitution because, while certainly not completely immune to mob rule, does provide very strong safeguards against it and goes a long way to ensure the minority opinion carries just as much weight as the majority opinion.

Honestly I think it's unfair to label suggesting that the allowance of the slightest flexibility in rules written long ago by people who have died is the same as wanting mob rule. Rather I'm just saying that refusing to ever question certain rules ever just on the basis that (essentially) "God said so", is not a sensible way to go about things. There should always be some way to effect change in the laws and legislations you live under, they should not be set in absolute eternal concrete.

 

[AmazonQueen]

They do. What makes you think they don't? If I'm shooting at the range and somehow unintentionally shoot someone else, I'm going to to jail for manslaughter. Even if I don't, the family of the victim can sue for damages under wrongful death statutes. This idea that you can shoot someone and not face any consequences as long as you can show it was unintentional is simply not true and I have no idea why people think it is.

Your being in jail doesn't compensate the victim. The law is expensive and biased in favour of those who can afford the best lawyers.

It would seem reasonable at a glance, and I will certainly agree that the most dangerous type of gun owner is one that doesn't know how to handle their firearm. However, gun ownership is a right, and it has been established in our legal system that you can't force people to pay the government to exercise their rights. That's why things like poll taxes and passing a test to be able to register to vote were ruled to be unconstitutional. It's also why the government is obligated to provide you an attorney to defend you if you are unable to afford one. These gun training courses and licenses you are talking about would surely carry some sort of fee, which would automatically make them unconstitutional because that would be forcing the people to pay the government to exercise their right to bear arms. Even if you made them free, they would still be unconstitutional for the same reason voter eligibility tests are unconstitutional. You simply cannot put up those kind of barriers when it comes to Constitutional rights. Because if someone fails the course/test, you are essentially saying the Constitution doesn't apply to them simply because they didn't meet some arbitrary criteria.

So basically the constitution protects the right of irresponsible idiots, drunkards etc to own guns and you think thats a good thing?

 

[Estebonrober]

I think it means he likes pork chops with applesauce.

@Commodore seriously though do you chose to rebel against the nation over say new regulations on firearms? Say if we passed a measure stating all high velocity rounds have to be in single shot rifles only? Or all high velocity rifles with high capacity magazines be stored with a trusted third party like a gun range or dealer? Would this start your war?

@Commodore would an amendment repealing the 2nd amendment cause you to rise up against your nation? Where is this line for you personally? I'm curious on this count, we had an "assault rifle" ban before and no one organized a rebellion. Furthermore the ban was lifted, meaning that there was no grand conspiracy to "disarm" the american people. Anyways I'm just curious.

 

[metalhead]

However, gun ownership is a right, and it has been established in our legal system that you can't force people to pay the government to exercise their rights.

This isn't true. For example, the right to a jury trial in a common law court (7th amendment) requires fees for filing. These fees are only waived if you provide evidence you can't afford to pay them. You have to pay fees to apply for a patent, which is a right guaranteed by Article I. And there are plenty of other examples as well.

Also, gun "ownership" is not protected by the 2nd amendment. The right to "keep and bear" arms is what is protected. That does not equate to "ownership." The Supreme Court stated that restrictions on purchase or transfer of guns are allowed within the framework of the Second Amendment, so there is no right to "ownership" as that term is understood to encompass free transfer.

 

[Commodore]

There should always be some way to effect change in the laws and legislations you live under, they should not be set in absolute eternal concrete.

Laws and legislation, sure. And we do have ways of changing them in the US. Rights, however, should be non-negotiable and every measure should be taken to stop the people from voting their rights away, no matter how much popular support there may be for voting a certain right or rights away.

So basically the constitution protects the right of irresponsible idiots, drunkards etc to own guns and you think thats a good thing?

The Constitution protects all the rights of irresponsible idiots, not just their right to own guns. And yes, I think that's a good thing. Funny thing about rights is that they apply to everyone without people having to prove they are "worthy" of them.

The Supreme Court stated that restrictions on purchase or transfer of guns are allowed within the framework of the Second Amendment,

The Supreme Court also once said "separate but equal" was Constitutional, but I'm sure you'd agree they got that one wrong.

I'm curious on this count, we had an "assault rifle" ban before and no one organized a rebellion.

Because legal options to reverse that ban still existed. Rebellions (in general, not just over gun rights) tend to not occur until a government gives its people no other choice but to rebel. You also clearly are not aware of the details of the ban. If you were, then you would know why it made people angry, but not enough to get violent. The Federal Assault Weapons Ban of 1994 did not prohibit the ownership, transfer, or purchase of semi-automatic firearms. All it really did was limit the number of certain additional features one could have on their semi-automatic firearm and most of those features were just cosmetic ones anyway. The ban also grandfathered in any firearms that were purchased before the law went into effect.

In short, the ban wasn't really a ban at all and was really nothing more than an inconvenience to gun owners, sellers, and manufacturers.

Furthermore the ban was lifted, meaning that there was no grand conspiracy to "disarm" the american people.

The ban was not lifted, it expired and was not renewed. And that only happened because there was a Republican majority in Congress at the time and, if I remember right, they wouldn't even let a renewal of the ban come up for a vote. Democrats though, fought tooth and nail to get that ban renewed and only failed because they didn't have the political power to do it. I believe it expired during Bush Jr.'s administration, so he would have vetoed the renewal anyway even if they could get it passed.

The point being that Democrats certainly do want to disarm the American people.

As a side note: While fact-checking myself to make sure what I'm saying is correct, I saw on the Wikipedia article for the Federal Assault Weapons Ban, that a study was done in 2014 and it showed the ban had absolutely no impact on reducing homicide rates in the US while it was in effect.

 

[Sommerswerd]

Or this kind of nuance (though truck drivers can buy and bring food in advance).

Ever driven a truck? Its not a 9 to 5 where you pack your lunch the night before. Truck driver in the Bay Area signs on to pick up a load at the dock that has to go to Louisiana on a tight time frame... meaning there is only enough time to use highway rest-stops to use the bathroom, etc. When he gets to Louisiana he drops his load, and picks up a load destined for Colorado, again on a tight time frame, because tight time frames are the only way to be profitable and meet shipping schedules/deadlines... gets to Colorado and he drops off, then picks up a load in Colorado that is bound for Florida... and so on. This process goes on for months... remember, that at all times he is driving a giant Rig with millions of dollars worth of someone else's product strapped to the back.

So when is he supposed to get off the highway and risk his whole load/delivery schedule to go to the local Whole Foods for organic arugula to make himself a gluten free salad? Truck stops flourish because the convenience they provide is a necessity... not because truck drivers are too stupid to pack a bag lunch before they leave the house.

 

[Berzerker]

I've actually floated that idea before. If not outright providing a gun, perhaps they should subsidize the purchase of one for those that wish to have one but cannot afford it.

If I cant afford a church or printing press should government buy them for me?

 

[Sommerswerd]

If I cant afford a church or printing press should government buy them for me?

Well, churches are tax exempt... just sayin...

 

[Berzerker]

Good point

 

[Sommerswerd]

I'm not. It's just yet another term to make a certain type of firearm sound scarier so people will be more likely to support banning them. When someone uses the term "military style" when describing a firearm, they are referring solely to its cosmetic look rather than its functionality.

I think that you're mostly correct about this... like I said earlier...

Oooh... sounds sinister and scary... like "USSR"

However, you've got to admit that the AR-15 is a formidable, powerful, versatile weapon... much moreso than a .22 revolver or Glock pistol, or even a shotgun. Even putting the appearance aside, you're not going to get far trying to convince people that they should regard an AR-15 the same as someone's trusty Magnum for home defense.

 

[Lexicus]

I think that you're mostly correct about this... like I said earlier...

Except he himself gives as a reason for people liking the AR-15, that it is functionally the same as many weapons people work with in the military...

 

[Estebonrober]

Laws and legislation, sure. And we do have ways of changing them in the US. Rights, however, should be non-negotiable and every measure should be taken to stop the people from voting their rights away, no matter how much popular support there may be for voting a certain right or rights away.



The Constitution protects all the rights of irresponsible idiots, not just their right to own guns. And yes, I think that's a good thing. Funny thing about rights is that they apply to everyone without people having to prove they are "worthy" of them.



The Supreme Court also once said "separate but equal" was Constitutional, but I'm sure you'd agree they got that one wrong.



Because legal options to reverse that ban still existed. Rebellions (in general, not just over gun rights) tend to not occur until a government gives its people no other choice but to rebel. You also clearly are not aware of the details of the ban. If you were, then you would know why it made people angry, but not enough to get violent. The Federal Assault Weapons Ban of 1994 did not prohibit the ownership, transfer, or purchase of semi-automatic firearms. All it really did was limit the number of certain additional features one could have on their semi-automatic firearm and most of those features were just cosmetic ones anyway. The ban also grandfathered in any firearms that were purchased before the law went into effect.

In short, the ban wasn't really a ban at all and was really nothing more than an inconvenience to gun owners, sellers, and manufacturers.



The ban was not lifted, it expired and was not renewed. And that only happened because there was a Republican majority in Congress at the time and, if I remember right, they wouldn't even let a renewal of the ban come up for a vote. Democrats though, fought tooth and nail to get that ban renewed and only failed because they didn't have the political power to do it. I believe it expired during Bush Jr.'s administration, so he would have vetoed the renewal anyway even if they could get it passed.

The point being that Democrats certainly do want to disarm the American people.

As a side note: While fact-checking myself to make sure what I'm saying is correct, I saw on the Wikipedia article for the Federal Assault Weapons Ban, that a study was done in 2014 and it showed the ban had absolutely no impact on reducing homicide rates in the US while it was in effect.

So it is decidedly a mixed bag when it comes to what the reality of what that ban achieved. I'd agree with you that to the gun enthusiast it was largely cosmetic. I've read enough from your gun's rights enthusiast to know that it was an ignorant law. Of course criminals tend to be ignorant and most gun enthusiasts tend not to be so it might have helped homicide rates which did certainly decline from 94 - 04.

https://www.factcheck.org/2013/02/did-the-1994-assault-weapons-ban-work/

So I'm one of those lib types who defend your right to own a firearm, and I was a NRA member as a young kid before it turned into a gun industry front. I email my reps on this count. In short I tell my reps that I support the right to keep arms. That I believe that most firearms are fine to have and keep in a house, but whereas certain ammunition becomes a concern for public safety I promote two ideas for the public good.

1) All firearms of a certain velocity and capacity are kept with a trusted firearm broker. Be it a gun range owner or a registered gun smith. This allows the proper storage of ammunition that is considered extremely deadly to humans to be kept safe with a third party that is inherently unfriendly to government interference.

2) That all owners of ammunition that is high velocity acquire a license for proper use of high velocity rounds. This allows most people to own handguns and shotguns for home defense. All hunters and definitely anyone who wants a high capacity and velocity rifle would require registration for that privilege to carry such a human killing weapon. Single shot rifles would be exempt.

The idea behind this is that I support hunters and the general premise of an armed civilian population. I do not support the idea of AR-15s running around with a bunch of borderline illiterate morons who let their unstable children blow away schools of children. Somewhere we can negotiate a reasonable middle ground for the good of the USA that is both defensive of the second amendment and of the safety of innocent urbanites in the USA.

 

[cardgame]

So it is decidedly a mixed bag when it comes to what the reality of what that ban achieved. I'd agree with you that to the gun enthusiast it was largely cosmetic. I've read enough from your gun's rights enthusiast to know that it was an ignorant law. Of course criminals tend to be ignorant and most gun enthusiasts tend not to be so it might have helped homicide rates which did certainly decline from 94 - 04.

https://www.factcheck.org/2013/02/did-the-1994-assault-weapons-ban-work/

So I'm one of those lib types who defend your right to own a firearm, and I was a NRA member as a young kid before it turned into a gun industry front. I email my reps on this count. In short I tell my reps that I support the right to keep arms. That I believe that most firearms are fine to have and keep in a house, but whereas certain ammunition becomes a concern for public safety I promote two ideas for the public good.

1) All firearms of a certain velocity and capacity are kept with a trusted firearm broker. Be it a gun range owner or a registered gun smith. This allows the proper storage of ammunition that is considered extremely deadly to humans to be kept safe with a third party that is inherently unfriendly to government interference.

2) That all owners of ammunition that is high velocity acquire a license for proper use of high velocity rounds. This allows most people to own handguns and shotguns for home defense. All hunters and definitely anyone who wants a high capacity and velocity rifle would require registration for that privilege to carry such a human killing weapon. Single shot rifles would be exempt.

The idea behind this is that I support hunters and the general premise of an armed civilian population. I do not support the idea of AR-15s running around with a bunch of borderline illiterate morons who let their unstable children blow away schools of children. Somewhere we can negotiate a reasonable middle ground for the good of the USA that is both defensive of the second amendment and of the safety of innocent urbanites in the USA.

The devil is in the details, of course, but this, or something like this, sounds like a decent compromise that might actually be politically viable to boot.

Except he himself gives as a reason for people liking the AR-15, that it is functionally the same as many weapons people work with in the military...

Too right, everybody and their brother goes on about full auto, meanwhile the military uses semi as a standard because it's more accurate and efficient.

 

[hobbsyoyo]

that might actually be politically viable to boot.

Not so long as ammosexual hysteria exists and rural populations punch well above their weight in elections thanks to our EC and gerrymandering.

 

[cardgame]

Yeah, it's not viable right now, but give it ten years or so and it might become something

 

[Manfred Belheim]

Laws and legislation, sure. And we do have ways of changing them in the US. Rights, however, should be non-negotiable and every measure should be taken to stop the people from voting their rights away, no matter how much popular support there may be for voting a certain right or rights away.

What's the practical difference between a right (which is a legal construct) and a law? You already called the constitution the "rule of law".

Anyway, you've said that you think gun training is a good thing and one of your main objections to gun training being mandatory is that no-one should be forced to pay the government for a right. But you've also said you think it would be a good idea for the government to actually supply guns to the populace. So would you be in favour of mandatory training and licensing if this were made available to all and paid for by the government? I suspect you're going to still say no.