The Thread Where We Discuss Guns and Gun Control

[Samson]

I understand the obvious objections to locking other people into a room, but locking one's own room? Really?

Yeah, really. All parents I know have told stories of children coming into their bedroom and waking them up.

 

[Manfred Belheim]

That doesn't imply that the idea of locking the room when they were not around would not go down well with them.

 

[rah]

While I applaud those that are responsible and teach gun safety and responsibility the access issue is still critical.
I would probably trust my daughter if properly trained but would worry if when she was in her teen years any depression due to bullying or other influences that might raise any thoughts of suicide. Many attempts fail but less so if a gun is available. Or a party while I was out that got out of hand. Booze breeds stupidity.
As unlikely as either of those events might be, a deadly outcome would likely be more terrible than failing to stop a home burglary.
I can understand the desire to protect one's home and family, but I would choose how I do that differently.

 

[EgonSpengler]

We've already been over this though. Like it or not, gun ownership is something the Founding Fathers included as a fundamental right in this country, and the exercising of a right requires no justification, nor does it need to be rational or reasonable. That's why most death threats and hate speech are protected by the 1st Amendment.

The only limits on the exercising of a right is when doing so would violate the rights of others. Merely owning a gun does not violate the rights of anyone else, so there is no reason to restrict firearm ownership. Hell, I would say even openly carrying a firearm doesn't violate the rights of others, unless one is doing it in such a way as to threaten someone who is not attacking or threatening the individual with the firearm. The only time owning a firearm violates the rights of another is when it is used in a criminal manner, in which case the offender is arrested and punished appropriately.

This is why I'm in favor of repealing (or amending, I suppose, if only for clarity) the 2nd Amendment. "Because I can" isn't a justification for anything, imo. I could certainly discuss freedom of religion, freedom of speech, the media, free assembly, and petitioning of the government on their merits, if someone wanted to. I'm assuming you don't need those explained, since you're using them as examples of things that don't need to be explained, but I would disagree that the value of those things lies in the fact that they're protected by the Constitution. It's actually the opposite; they're Constitutionally-protected rights because they're valuable.

I'm not sure I agree that having a gun doesn't violate anyone else's rights, because a gun is an inherent risk. If we're talking about a theoretical Supreme Court case, I bet a person could make a case that the presence of a gun without a demonstrable reason for it represents an unnecessary risk to another party's well-being. But I'd have to research that, which I don't feel like doing right now. It's an interesting idea, though.

 

[Yeekim]

Locked gun cabinets are an infringement... no, abhorrent violation! of Constitutional rights.
Locking up kids and teenagers clearly is the right way to go.

 

[rah]

The scary part is, like our Commodore, their main argument goes along the founding fathers intended... blah blah blah
So let's say a constitutional amendment is passed infringing on that right. Amendments have happened.
Do you really think the Commodore types are going to care? What will be their justification then. I don't think they'll accept any change regardless of how lawful it is.

Commodore, what would you do if an amendment was passed?

 

[Lexicus]

Locked gun cabinets are an infringement... no, abhorrent violation! of Constitutional rights.
Locking up kids and teenagers clearly is the right way to go.

I have to say I found the attempted conceptual separation of "bad parent" and "left gun unlocked" the most amusing. It's like saying, after someone killed two people while driving drunk, that their problem was carelessness, not drunk driving.

 

[Farm Boy]

The scary part is, like our Commodore, their main argument goes along the founding fathers intended... blah blah blah
So let's say a constitutional amendment is passed infringing on that right. Amendments have happened.
Do you really think the Commodore types are going to care? What will be their justification then. I don't think they'll accept any change regardless of how lawful it is.

Commodore, what would you do if an amendment was passed?

Oh so scawwy. The commodore monster in your closest is going to molest your dog tomorrow too.

Moderator Action: Please contribute positively to the thread or don't post at all. Thank you. --LM

 

[rah]

If that was all, I wouldn't worry. Besides I have cats, and they would probably just claw his privates.

I'm just saying that people that think an amendment will end the problem may be surprised.

And wanted his opinion.

 

[Farm Boy]

Most of the straight laced will abide, don't you think? Any such amendment that would possibly pass will be written so as to favor their rights and their perceived takes on the risk their social inferiors impose on their rights without a profitable, thus necessary, excuse.

 

[rah]

While I generally agree with that, I don't think I'm quite as optimistic. There are a lot of crazy people out there.

 

[Lexicus]

I'm just saying that people that thing an amendment will end the problem may be surprised.

I don't think anyone is under the impression that the ammosexuals will change their ways due to a little thing like a Constitutional Amendment.

 

[Farm Boy]

Always has been.

Lots more cameras now, tho. Can probably continue to do a better job of arresting the algorithmically weird/suspicious.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

This is why I'm in favor of repealing (or amending, I suppose, if only for clarity) the 2nd Amendment. "Because I can" isn't a justification for anything, imo. I could certainly discuss freedom of religion, freedom of speech, the media, free assembly, and petitioning of the government on their merits, if someone wanted to. I'm assuming you don't need those explained, since you're using them as examples of things that don't need to be explained, but I would disagree that the value of those things lies in the fact that they're protected by the Constitution. It's actually the opposite; they're Constitutionally-protected rights because they're valuable.

I'm not sure I agree that having a gun doesn't violate anyone else's rights, because a gun is an inherent risk. If we're talking about a theoretical Supreme Court case, I bet a person could make a case that the presence of a gun without a demonstrable reason for it represents an unnecessary risk to another party's well-being. But I'd have to research that, which I don't feel like doing right now. It's an interesting idea, though.

A car is an inherent risk. A 30 pound dumbell is an inherent risk. A kitchen knife is an inherent risk. Acid is an inherent risk.

A significant part of the reasoning for the second amendment is a safeguard against oppressive government behaviors. Home invasion defense was kind of a given/normal expectation back then best I can tell, but the American revolution itself was still a very recent memory when the constitution was created.

If an oppressive government has all your guns it gets a lot harder to do anything about it.

 

[rah]

Yeah, but back then this MILITIA was serving as the national army. Now we have one. So intent comes into question again.

 

[Lexicus]

Home invasion defense was kind of a given/normal expectation back then best I can tell,

Not really, not in the modern sense. "Home invasions" by furious rebelling slaves, on the other hand...

 

[Sommerswerd]

It can be, sure. However, what one group may see as tyranny, another may see as a perfectly legitimate use of government power. So with what constitutes "tyranny" being extremely subjective, I think we are entering dangerous territory if we start allowing local governments to defy laws that aren't overtly unconstitutional.

So I guess what I'm saying is I would only support such municipal defiance if it were in defiance of a law that was blatantly unconstitutional, like outright banning the worship of a certain religion or something like that.

Of course its subjective, whether we call it "tyranny", or "overreach" or whatever, but its also subjective when we say "overtly" and "blatantly". I mean I get the spirit of what you are saying about the religious ban, but you recognize that some folks... me for example, would characterize the Travel-ban as an overtly, blatant Muslim ban. So is that an example where you would support municipal defiance? Or is my "blatant" different from yours?

Google is your friend. Typing "home invasions on the rise" will yield quite a few results. Most of them are local media reports about home invasions in that specific locality being on the rise, but the fact that those local results are spread across the country, it is reasonable to assume home invasions in general are on the rise.

This does not follow, logically. For just one example of why, if home invasions are on the rise in a specific town, it makes perfect sense that the local reporters might want to cover that... the saying goes "if it bleeds it leads" as @Estebonrober points out. But what that also means... is that for every one town reporting increases, all the myriad towns who aren't reporting increases must be experiencing decreases, right?

If you don't accept the logic of that, and would respond that the simple fact that they aren't reporting increases doesn't necessarily mean they aren't experiencing them, then you have to acknowledge that its at least equally, if not more reasonable to say that the simple fact that they aren't reporting decreases doesn't necessarily mean they aren't experiencing them.

 

[Estebonrober]

A car is an inherent risk. A 30 pound dumbell is an inherent risk. A kitchen knife is an inherent risk. Acid is an inherent risk.

A significant part of the reasoning for the second amendment is a safeguard against oppressive government behaviors. Home invasion defense was kind of a given/normal expectation back then best I can tell, but the American revolution itself was still a very recent memory when the constitution was created.

If an oppressive government has all your guns it gets a lot harder to do anything about it.

I’m just required by common sense to point out that cars, dumbbells, and kitchen knives are not designed to kill humans.

 

[AmazonQueen]

I’m just required by common sense to point out that cars, dumbbells, and kitchen knives are not designed to kill humans.

Also we require people to pass a test, and have a license and insurance before we let them loose on the highways in a car. There are also some cars that are banned in the US for being too dangerous. A mode of transport is regulated much more strictly than a lethal weapon.

 

[Farm Boy]

Neither are airplanes. Or cigarettes. Or chocolate. Or Flint's municipal water system. Or alcohol. But young men might be.