The Thread Where We Discuss Guns and Gun Control

[EgonSpengler]

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.

If an oppressive government is your concern, you have means at your disposal for avoiding it that would be more effective than violently resisting it after it happens. What's the old saying? "An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure?" Something like that. Anyway, the effectiveness of armed resistance against law enforcement & government is marginal, perhaps symbolic at best. You're also leaving it up to each armed person, or group, to decide for themselves when armed resistance is warranted. Basically, you're saying that the Weather Underground, and Timothy McVeigh and Terry Nichols, had the right to do what they did. The guy who shot Steve Scalise and the guy who killed 5 police officers in Dallas in 2016 also felt they were resisting a tyrannical government. These are the people you're throwing in with when you talk about violently resisting the government today, not George Washington and Nathaniel Greene.

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

Back then, the militia also served roles and duties that we assign to various law enforcement agencies today. There were no police officers back then. The first, formal police department in the U.S. was established in the early 19th C. There were "night watchmen" before then, but I don't know much about them - I think they were mainly a firewatch (there also weren't any fire departments) who had some law enforcement authority.

 

[Lexicus]

There are also some cars that are banned in the US for being too dangerous.

In fact, the mandatory safety features and standards mean that the vast majority of potentially working car designs are banned for being too unsafe.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

These are the people you're throwing in with when you talk about violently resisting the government today, not George Washington and Nathaniel Greene.

Unless there are several hundred million of them in the country, no.

A mode of transport is regulated much more strictly than a lethal weapon.

It's impractical to regulate knives, exercise equipment, and large rocks.

Modes of transport in question are also lethal weapons btw.

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

Quoted is a disingenuous non-argument.

 

[AmazonQueen]

Modes of transport in question are also lethal weapons btw.

So why not regulate guns in the same way as cars?
Insurance for damage/injury caused which the user was responsible for
Require the user to pass a test to show competency
Make guns registered and a licence required to own one

 

[Lexicus]

Quoted is a disingenuous non-argument.

The actual argument would be that all those things bring plenty of easily-demonstrable utility whereas guns are so necessary to have around because...ah, yes, because it's important to you to be able to mentally LARP the War of Independence:

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.

 

[Estebonrober]

Quoted is a disingenuous non-argument.

In that case so is comparing cars, knives, and exercise equipment to guns. This goes both ways.

 

[Phrossack]

Any home security system that routinely killed thousands of people a year by accident would be subject to immediate recall and prosecution of its makers.

Don't think of guns as home security. For something ostensibly meant to protect families, they're exceptionally good at killing family members.

 

[Zardnaar]

No surprise banned within a week.

https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/ch...ional-haka-broke-out-near-christchurch-mosque

MSSA banned
assault rifles banned
high capacity magazine banned
All parts to convert guns banned

Effective immediately, sales banned from 3pm

Compulsory buyback costing millions.

Might be some sort of permit allowed.

They have to write the legislation, goal by April 11.

 

[cardgame]

So why not regulate guns in the same way as cars?
Insurance for damage/injury caused which the user was responsible for
Require the user to pass a test to show competency
Make guns registered and a licence required to own one

Show me the functional difference between a poll tax and a gun tax, given that both would impede on constitutional rights. Yes, your insurance proposal is basically just another form of tax, given that it is both expected forever and legally mandated.

We could play the same dirty awful incremental game the right plays with abortion, or we could just amend the constitution.

 

[Zardnaar]

Leave guns legal make the companies that make them liable for what happens. In the USA anyway.

 

[Samson]

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

When you are not around you do not need easy access to a gun, and I would hope they would be properly locked then in any situation. It is when you are there that you need (?) easy access to your gun.

 

[Manfred Belheim]

When you are not around you do not need easy access to a gun, and I would hope they would be properly locked then in any situation. It is when you are there that you need (?) easy access to your gun.

So perhaps by... locking the door to the room then?

 

[AmazonQueen]

Show me the functional difference between a poll tax and a gun tax, given that both would impede on constitutional rights. Yes, your insurance proposal is basically just another form of tax, given that it is both expected forever and legally mandated.

We could play the same dirty awful incremental game the right plays with abortion, or we could just amend the constitution.

So is car insurance a tax on cars?

 

[Samson]

So perhaps by... locking the door to the room then?

I am not sure how we are going round in circles:

• When you are not at home you do not need access to your guns at home, and they should be securely locked up.
• When you are at home you do want access to your guns, so no lock between you and guns
• When you are at home you want you children to have access to you, so no lock between you and children
• Therefore you cannot have a lock between your children and your guns when you are at home

Is this clear, or am I missing something (I have neither children or guns)?

 

[Sommerswerd]

So is car insurance a tax on cars?

Technically no, of course, however, it is a government mandated additional periodic expense that you must pay to own and use your car so... from the user end I can understand why people feel like its a tax and describe it as such.

 

[Commodore]

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.

Because there is nothing in the Constitution that guarantees your right to own any form of transportation. That's why if the government wanted to ban all cars, it would be perfectly constitutional for them to do so.

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.

Just because you see no value in a particular right doesn't mean that right doesn't have value. I'm not trying to insult you with the following, but people like you are the exact reason the Founding Fathers designed our system of government to work the way it does. They wanted certain rights to be protected no matter what, which is why they made a system that makes it extremely difficult for the population to vote their rights away. The 2nd Amendment is supposed to be the codification of the part of the Founding Fathers' general philosophy that people have an inherent and unalienable right to self-defense and that it is up to each individual to decide how best to defend their lives and property.

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

Let me put it this way and I'll let you interpret whatever meaning you want from it: If I were willing to go to some far off land and fight a war for a cause I didn't even really care about, what do you think I'll be willing to do for a cause that I care deeply about?

Just out of interest, whos bedroom door are you advocating locking?

Mine since that's the room where the guns are. But I rarely have to lock the bedroom door since it's upstairs and we have a baby gate that blocks our youngest from going up there and my oldest doesn't go up there unless told to. This is mostly because, in her words, there is "nothing fun" upstairs.

 

[Farm Boy]

Hooboy. And in a thread full of, "but your not wearing a seat belt might theoretically inconvenience ME indirectly, MY rights!" sorts, eh?

Considering how worked up things get over Thomas Jefferson quotes, you're just winding em up. Going to be checking on the cats all night.

 

[hobbsyoyo]

Hooboy. And in a thread full of, "but your not wearing a seat belt might theoretically inconvenience ME indirectly, MY rights!" sorts, eh?

Considering how worked up things get over Thomas Jefferson quotes, you're just winding em up. Going to be checking on the cats all night.

You certainly do inconvenience me when a minor traffic incident ends with you going through the windshield and taxpayer resources have to be expended to save you. It gets worse when you outright die from what would have been a minor accident and taxpayers are stuck with a massive bill taking care of the family you left behind (if you're the primary breadwinner).

 

[hobbsyoyo]

I am more than a bit amused that we have yet a new term for certain weapons - MSSR - military style semiautomatic rifles.

 

[Manfred Belheim]

I am not sure how we are going round in circles:

• When you are not at home you do not need access to your guns at home, and they should be securely locked up.
• When you are at home you do want access to your guns, so no lock between you and guns
• When you are at home you want you children to have access to you, so no lock between you and children
• Therefore you cannot have a lock between your children and your guns when you are at home

Is this clear, or am I missing something (I have neither children or guns)?

I have no idea, I don't really know what your point is. It seemed initially that you had some sort of moral objection to parents having locks on their bedrooms.