The Thread Where We Discuss Guns and Gun Control

[JollyRoger]

That doesn't stop it from being true. Every piece of gun legislation that imposes any kind of restriction on gun ownership represents a compromise 2nd Amendment advocates have made.

Most 2nd Amendment advocates I know are in favor of certain infringements - dispossession for a criminal record being one.

 

[Commodore]

I wasn't expecting any responses in the Rants thread, but since I did it's time to carry the discussion here:

I've seen similar tricks used on liquor stores and it hasn't stopped the sale of that.

The difference is there are laws in place that, when combined with this law, will make it almost impossible for someone to buy a gun. That's because you can't buy a gun in a state you are not a resident of without going through an FFL dealer. And guess who the only FFL dealers are? Yep, the gun shops. This would also kill the online gun ordering business since you can't have the gun shipped directly to yourself unless you are an FFL dealer. So again, if no one has a gun shop within reasonable driving distance, that's going to discourage a lot of people from purchasing guns.

If this actually goes through and catches on, the only option people are going to have would be to purchase individual components and assemble them into a complete firearm since you can have individual components shipped directly to your residence. The problem is building a gun, even if you already have all the pre-manufactured components isn't like putting together a table from IKEA. It requires special tools and a lot of testing to make sure everything is working properly so the gun doesn't eventually blow up in your face. That will also turn a lot of people off to the prospect of gun ownership.

Somehow...I doubt this. Laws like this won't pass in red towns and counties.

That's what a lot of people said about these "red flag" laws too and yet Texas's Republican legislature passed one and its Republican governor happily signed it into law. Gun owners are being abandoned by politicians and we have certainly been abandoned by the courts for a long time now.

There's a good chance if these laws become too inconvenient they'll be struck down.

Not likely. The Supreme Court has steadfastly refused to hear any 2nd Amendment case since 2008 and they only heard Heller v. DC because there was pretty much no getting around hearing that one. Like the politicians, the Supreme Court has abandoned gun owners and left us to the mercy of the district courts, which have not been very 2nd Amendment friendly in recent decades.

 

[rah]

Gun owners are being abandoned by politicians and we have certainly been abandoned by the courts for a long time now.

Considering the falling support of public opinion on the subject, the politicians are just following the will of their constituents. Some might see that as very democratic.

 

[Lexicus]

Gun owners are being abandoned by politicians and we have certainly been abandoned by the courts for a long time now.

You think that a "red flag" law means that politicians are "abandoning" gun owners? How?

Like the politicians, the Supreme Court has abandoned gun owners

This is obviously not true, but even if it were, I'd have no sympathy. Too many dead people. I know you don't care about the dead people but most people do.

 

[Commodore]

Some might see that as very democratic.

Some might also see it as politicians caving to mob rule, which is very undemocratic. Modern understandings of democracy define democracy as ensuring the rights of everyone are protected, no matter how much of a minority they may be.

I mean, the whole point of having the Constitution in the first place was to prevent people from voting their rights away.

 

[rah]

But they can vote their rights away. The Constitution has been amended on many occasions.
I expect that the 2nd amendment will be changed in the future. Maybe not in our lifetime, but the direction public opinion is going on this, I believe, makes it inevitable.

 

[Commodore]

You think that a "red flag" law means that politicians are "abandoning" gun owners? How?

Actually read those laws and you'll see why gun owners hate them so much. They are back door gun confiscation since they allow pretty much anyone to go running to the police and say that a gun owner is a danger and the police will come in, take their guns, and force the gun owner to prove they aren't a danger before getting them back. And since these red flag law cases are considered low priority cases, people that have already had their guns taken away under these laws are given court dates that are up to two years in the future. These laws are way too open to abuse since there has already been a case of a guy whose ex-wife reported him as a danger and got his guns taken away because she was angry with him and she knew he loved his guns. The guy still hasn't had his guns returned to him even though he had his court date and the judge ordered his guns returned.

And all of this was Trump's idea with his "take the guns first, due process later" comment.

The Constitution has been amended on many occasions.

But never has the Bill of Rights been amended. Which is another argument I have made for why the 2nd Amendment should remain unaltered. Doing so sets a dangerous precedent that the Bill of Rights is open to amendment as well. And is that a slope we really want to go down? Because hey, if we could amend or get rid of the 2nd, why can't we amend or get rid of the 4th, 5th, 6th, or hell even the 1st? Rights are not supposed to be something that are negotiable.

Maybe not in our lifetime, but the direction public opinion is going on this, I believe, makes it inevitable.

That depends. The media keeps talking up the prospect of a civil war occurring in the near future in the US. If that happens whoever wins that civil war will likely engage in a purge of their political opponents that would make Stalin blush.

Normally I would laugh off such talk, but the way the Democrats are talking now...I don't know. I think if the midterms go badly for the Democrats, that might be what finally pushes them over the edge and force them to try...something. And that something could kick off Civil War 2.

 

[Lexicus]

Actually read those laws and you'll see why gun owners hate them so much. They are back door gun confiscation since they allow pretty much anyone to go running to the police and say that a gun owner is a danger and the police will come in, take their guns, and force the gun owner to prove they aren't a danger before getting them back.

That's...pretty much a lie. And of course many gun owners actually do support these kinds of laws. Not everyone who owns guns shares your "any restriction or regulation at all is unacceptable" attitude.

 

[rah]

I think if the midterms go badly for the Democrats, that might be what finally pushes them over the edge and force them to try...something. And that something could kick off Civil War 2.

Which party owns more guns.

 

[Takhisis]

I'll remain unsubscribed just to keep my sanity, but you started this in a thread to which I am subscribed.
A few months ago you posted this:

Moderator says this:

But keep it civil.

And six posts in, we get this:

Wait, wut? Actual RESPONSIBILITY attached to muh rights? NEVAH I SAY!!! Muh rights are gur-un-teed bah the con-steeee-tution! Ya cain't be attachin' no responsibilities!

Yeah...I think I'll stay clear of this thread. Plus, I've said pretty much everything I have to say on the matter and certain members (can't name names because somehow merely talking about people is "trolling" ) have already stuck their fingers in their ears and refuse to listen to anything that challenges their narrative.

And now you went for this:

Rant: Congratulations gun control crowd. You've finally found a way to ban guns without actually banning guns and it's 100% Constitutional. In Piscataway, New Jersey they are considering an ordinance that will pretty much make it impossible for a gun shop to open up in the town and force existing ones to shut down. Basically it says a gun shop cannot exist within 1000 feet of a school, place of worship, courthouse, park, bar, or "other facilities" they will define later. If this passes in Piscataway, I guarantee this crap will spread throughout the entire country and there won't be a single gun shop left. And manufacturers can't sell to people directly so that will essentially kill the private firearm industry and kill gun ownership without actually having to ban guns.

I guess you anti-gun idiots had to get smart eventually...

So the former is not civil but the latter is?

 

[Farm Boy]

Depends on your media bubble, I guess, for where you see this going? Only thing I know is that we don't have enough hunters anymore. Need to fix that or hire more game wardens and start charging hikers/campers much heavier usage fees. Sporting clays as a competitive youth sport is back on the rise. Apparently some state rep in Manhattan would like to ban it as a high school sport, but is getting a flat-eyed stare from about everyone. Proposed law is expected to go nowhere.

 

[Cutlass]

Depends on your media bubble, I guess, for where you see this going? Only thing I know is that we don't have enough hunters anymore. Need to fix that or hire more game wardens and start charging hikers/campers much heavier usage fees. Sporting clays as a competitive youth sport is back on the rise. Apparently some state rep in Manhattan would like to ban it as a high school sport, but is getting a flat-eyed stare from about everyone. Proposed law is expected to go nowhere.

Hunting is in decline, at least in this part of the country. But part of the problem is more of the game is in areas which are unsuitable for hunting. And the fact that more and more people are building in the middle of nowhere is narrowing the available range even more. Now I don't have any idea of why fewer people are choosing to hunt. But I do no why more game is concentrating in places where hunting can't really be allowed. And I do know why more lands that would be suitable for hunting are being taken off the table.

 

[JollyRoger]

But never has the Bill of Rights been amended.

The 14th was a pretty solid diminishment of the 10th.

 

[Lexicus]

The 14th was a pretty solid diminishment of the 10th.

Technically, each Amendment supersedes any part of the Constitution that comes before it and also comes into conflict with it.

 

[Arwon]

Normally I would laugh off such talk, but the way the Democrats are talking now...I don't know. I think if the midterms go badly for the Democrats, that might be what finally pushes them over the edge and force them to try...something. And that something could kick off Civil War 2.

I think you've invented a new genre of art here

 

[Cutlass]

Actually read those laws and you'll see why gun owners hate them so much. They are back door gun confiscation since they allow pretty much anyone to go running to the police and say that a gun owner is a danger and the police will come in, take their guns, and force the gun owner to prove they aren't a danger before getting them back. And since these red flag law cases are considered low priority cases, people that have already had their guns taken away under these laws are given court dates that are up to two years in the future. These laws are way too open to abuse since there has already been a case of a guy whose ex-wife reported him as a danger and got his guns taken away because she was angry with him and she knew he loved his guns. The guy still hasn't had his guns returned to him even though he had his court date and the judge ordered his guns returned.

And all of this was Trump's idea with his "take the guns first, due process later" comment.



But never has the Bill of Rights been amended. Which is another argument I have made for why the 2nd Amendment should remain unaltered. Doing so sets a dangerous precedent that the Bill of Rights is open to amendment as well. And is that a slope we really want to go down? Because hey, if we could amend or get rid of the 2nd, why can't we amend or get rid of the 4th, 5th, 6th, or hell even the 1st? Rights are not supposed to be something that are negotiable.



That depends. The media keeps talking up the prospect of a civil war occurring in the near future in the US. If that happens whoever wins that civil war will likely engage in a purge of their political opponents that would make Stalin blush.

Normally I would laugh off such talk, but the way the Democrats are talking now...I don't know. I think if the midterms go badly for the Democrats, that might be what finally pushes them over the edge and force them to try...something. And that something could kick off Civil War 2.

Every single person who is talking about causing a new civil war is extremist hard right.

 

[Bootstoots]

Normally I would laugh off such talk, but the way the Democrats are talking now...I don't know. I think if the midterms go badly for the Democrats, that might be what finally pushes them over the edge and force them to try...something. And that something could kick off Civil War 2.

Which would be...what? The hardcore Democrat-aligned types don't have many of the guns, obviously. How do you get from Democrats being unhappy with their midterm results to Civil War 2?

 

[Ajidica]

How do you get from Democrats being unhappy with their midterm results to Civil War 2?

 

[Timsup2nothin]

Which would be...what? The hardcore Democrat-aligned types don't have many of the guns, obviously. How do you get from Democrats being unhappy with their midterm results to Civil War 2?

By failing to deep tongue kiss the right wing lunatics on their eager waiting butts. Failure to give "the respect they are due" will have serious consequences. Approximately the same consequences as can be expected from election results that don't satisfy them.

 

[Sommerswerd]

Which would be...what? The hardcore Democrat-aligned types don't have many of the guns, obviously. How do you get from Democrats being unhappy with their midterm results to Civil War 2?

I see you're unfamiliar with this really awesome game called Civilization... let me explain to you how it works...

Spoiler :