The Thread Where We Discuss Guns and Gun Control

[El_Machinae]

So you say, but yet guns are not top 10 in leading causes of death. How many of the others get similarly frequent/extensive pushes for legislation?

They aren't "randomly" targeted. They're targeted to push an agenda, using arbitrary reasoning as the basis.

I won't deny there are greater causes of death. You'll notice that I will comment on cancer, cardiovascular diseases, dementia, poverty, and global warming quite a bit more strenuously than I comment on guns.

But yeah, if you believe that gun ownership is an actual right, then it might look like that people going after the low-hanging fruit when it comes to reducing the dangers of guns is based on spurious reasoning.

 

[Berzerker]

It's just what Commodore was talking about, giving the minority a louder voice, so they're not drowned out by the majority. At the time of the Constitutional Convention, slavery was being phased out in several Northern states, and at least one, Vermont, had made it fully illegal. It wasn't an overnight thing in most places - Pennsylvania's 1780 law was even formally called "An Act for the Gradual Abolition of Slavery" - but the Southern states could see which way the wind was starting to blow. And right before the Constitutional Convention, slavery had been outlawed in the Northwest Territory and in any westward expansion (which the Southern states never let go of - they were still sore about it when the Civil War started). I suppose it was easier to ban slavery in the Northwest Territories overnight because they weren't states and had no representation in the single-chamber 'Congress of the Confederation', which probably didn't go unnoticed by the delegates of the Southern states. So the dismantling of slavery was very much underway and those states who relied on it were fighting to protect it, even in 1789. That's also where we got the "3/5 Compromise."

Oh, I thought mh was saying the electoral college and the senate existed to protect slavery from abolition. I dont know how they do that. We got the Senate largely from small northern states wanting more power to offset the bigger states and their growing populations. The 3/5ths compromise hurt the slave states by reducing their House representation and electoral college clout.

 

[Arwon]

So you say, but yet guns are not top 10 in leading causes of death. How many of the others get similarly frequent/extensive pushes for legislation?

They aren't "randomly" targeted. They're targeted to push an agenda, using arbitrary reasoning as the basis.

Do you like, not drive?

 

[Arwon]

Carcinogens are also quite heavily regulated, and where they're not, there's common calls for more intervention.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

Do you like, not drive?

I do drive. I'm also not advocating 0 regulations on firearms (see earlier discussion on 2nd amendment original purpose being effectively dead by tech advance), and firearms are also "already heavily regulated". I will say that its media attention relative to its casualty rate/actual problem is disproportionate...even the proportion of mass shootings vs smaller scale homicide gets ridiculous disproportionate coverage. From what I've read/heard the overwhelming majority of criminal incidents involving a gun get "resolved" in ~4 bullets or fewer. This isn't the territory of bump stocks, automatic fire, magazine capacity, or any other nonsense that gets pushed in the public view, nor is there any media sensationalism against tailgating for example.

 

[Lexicus]

and firearms are also "already heavily regulated".

This is such an utterly ridiculous statement it is hard to believe you mean it seriously. Cars are regulated far more heavily than firearms. FIrearms are in fact virtually unregulated in this country.

 

[Commodore]

It also states explicitly that the right is for defense of the State and not the individual,

That is actually a point of contention. It is unknown what exactly the Founders meant by "free state". It is assumed they used the word "state" to mean the political entity, but they could just as well have been using the word "state" in the "mode or condition of being" sense.

However, even if we agree they used "state" in the political sense, the part of the 2nd Amendment you are referring to is in regards to to formation of militias. The right to bear arms is a separate right in the 2nd Amendment and the wording on that is quite clear: that right belongs to the people and it "shall not be infringed". We know the right to form a militia and the right to bear arms are separate because they are separated by a comma, just like the four separate rights protected by the 1st Amendment.

There are also Supreme Court rulings dating all the way back to 1886 that establish the right to self-defense and the bearing of arms to do so as an individual right, not a "militia" or state right.

The states = the people

as in the 10th Amendment: The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

Not only that, but the 2nd Amendment itself very clearly states that the right to bear arms belongs to the people. And for those who like to bring up the "well-regulated" part of the Amendment (even though "well-regulated" back in 1789 meant something different than it does today), it may say "well-regulated" but it does not say "well-regulated by Congress". That means any federal gun laws should be struck down as unconstitutional and any gun regulation should only be allowed at the state level. However, state laws must also comply with the Constitution of the United States, and that Constitution very clearly states that (say it with me class) "the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."

Those things don't exist because the Framers believed they were optimal. They exist because they protected slavery from abolition,

You're point? Even if the original purpose was to protect slavery doesn't change the fact that our system of government provides a lot more protection for the few from the "tyranny" of the many than most other systems of government. It also doesn't change the fact that giving the minority opinion just as loud of a voice as the majority opinion is a good thing. You just don't like it because you perceive yourself as being in the majority and are getting frustrated that being in the majority isn't giving you any more political power.

Remember: A good idea, even if implemented for the wrong reasons, is still a good idea.

This is such an utterly ridiculous statement it is hard to believe you mean it seriously. Cars are regulated far more heavily than firearms. FIrearms are in fact virtually unregulated in this country.

I don't have to ask the FBI for permission every time I go to buy a car, nor am I prevented from buying a car if I am convicted of a felony. But whatever, let's go with the "cars are more regulated than guns" thing. Cars are more regulated than guns because you don't have a right to keep and utilize a mode of transportation.

Also let's assume your factually false statement of "FIrearms are in fact virtually unregulated in this country" were true. They should be unregulated. Why? Because every other right in Constitution is also unregulated so leaving guns unregulated would just be consistent with the law of land.

 

[Lexicus]

I don't have to ask the FBI for permission every time I go to buy a car, nor am I prevented from buying a car if I am convicted of a felony.

Neither of these applies in practice to guns either.

But whatever, let's go with the "cars are more regulated than guns" thing.

Yes, let's. Mandatory safety features. A license you have to take a test for. Mandatory registration and liability insurance.

Also let's assume your factually false statement of "FIrearms are in fact virtually unregulated in this country" were true. They should be unregulated. Why? Because every other right in Constitution is also unregulated so leaving guns unregulated would just be consistent with the law of land.

No other right in the Constitution is unregulated: not a single one.

 

[rah]

Time to yell 'FIRE" in the movie theater again huh.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

This is such an utterly ridiculous statement it is hard to believe you mean it seriously. Cars are regulated far more heavily than firearms. FIrearms are in fact virtually unregulated in this country.

On what basis do you make this assertion? There are vehicles that aren't street legal, but this is also true for guns. To my knowledge, simply owning the former isn't illegal, which suggests that guns might be more heavily regulated...though it's hard to make a one to one comparison between these.

 

[Commodore]

Yes, let's. Mandatory safety features. A license you have to take a test for. Mandatory registration and liability insurance.

The only objective way to measure if one thing is "more regulated" than another thing is how many laws are "on the books" for each respective thing. Counting all federal, state, and local laws for both cars and firearms, there are a lot more laws regulating firearms than there are regulating cars. It's your complete ignorance of firearm laws that make you think otherwise.

Also, the penalties for violating firearm laws are a lot more severe than the penalties for violating car or traffic laws. Most firearm violations carry a minimum 5 year prison sentence and a permanent loss of your 2nd Amendment rights. And that can be for something as minor as making an "illegal modification" to your firearm. Most violations of car or traffic laws only carry a fine and MAYBE a suspension of your license unless you actually kill someone. Also, please tell me what Constitutional right you permanently have stripped from you for violating car and traffic laws? When you can do that, maybe I'll start listening to the argument that cars are more regulated than firearms.

No other right in the Constitution is unregulated: not a single one.

In the context of the type of regulations you are talking about, they are certainly unregulated, and they should be unregulated. It has long been established in the US that you cannot attach any kind of licensing requirement or fee to a Constitutional right that would prevent the free exercise of that right. That's why we don't have free speech licenses and poll taxes were determined to be unconstitutional. So any kind of licensing requirement for the ownership or use of a firearm is automatically unconstitutional.

 

[rah]

You can't yell Fire in a movie theater due to general safety reasons. Why should guns be treated differently?

 

[Glassfan]

This is such an utterly ridiculous statement it is hard to believe you mean it seriously. Cars are regulated far more heavily than firearms. FIrearms are in fact virtually unregulated in this country.

Respectfully disagree. There are a vast number of gun control laws on the books. Every town and city has laws, all the 50 states and 7 Territories have laws, and the Federal Government has laws and regulations. In addition, law enforcement and the military and other entities have their own regulations.

When I got my CCL, I had to download a rulebook from the Ohio Attorney General's website which was just a sampling of Ohio's laws. It was incredibly restrictive - few "rights", mostly responsibilities {ie., "Duty to Retreat"}. One could only wish Abortion had so many rules and restrictions.

I would hazard a guess, that across the United States, in a multitude of venues and entities, there must be hundreds of thousands of gun control laws.

Perhaps by "regulation", you mean something else. Please define.

 

[rah]

When I got my driver's license I had to read the rules of the roads to understand all the traffic laws on the books. Every different state has traffic laws and regulations. Of course to get a driver's license they take it a step further and require you take a test to verify that you understand the laws then make you take a test to verify that you can safely operate a vehicle. Let me know when they do that for guns in every state.

 

[Commodore]

You can't yell Fire in a movie theater due to general safety reasons. Why should guns be treated differently?

They aren't treated differently though. Last time I checked it is also illegal to shoot a gun inside a movie theater. So I'm not really sure what point you were trying to make here...

When I got my driver's license I had to read the rules of the roads to understand all the traffic laws on the books. Every different state has traffic laws and regulations. Of course to get a driver's license they take it a step further and require you take a test to verify that you understand the laws then make you take a test to verify that you can safely operate a vehicle. Let me know when they do that for guns in every state.

When my car can be banned from a specific location under penalty of prison time if I don't comply, then you can talk to me about cars being more regulated than firearms.

And in case you don't know what I'm referencing: If an establishment puts one of those "gun free zone" signs up, then you absolutely cannot bring a firearm to that location and you will be arrested for doing so. The worst that happens if you park your car in a no parking zone is that it gets towed and you have to pay a fine.

 

[Lexicus]

On what basis do you make this assertion? There are vehicles that aren't street legal, but this is also true for guns. To my knowledge, simply owning the former isn't illegal, which suggests that guns might be more heavily regulated...though it's hard to make a one to one comparison between these.

The basis on which I'm making that assertion is that I know for a fact that I could get and use a gun with a lot less hassle than I would need to get and drive a car.

The only objective way to measure if one thing is "more regulated" than another thing is how many laws are "on the books" for each respective thing.

That isn't true at all. The ease with which you can actually obtain the thing is actually a better measure. There are many laws on the books that go almost entirely unenforced: for example here in DC where I live it is a $500 ticket to block the box in an intersection, but I have never seen or heard of a cop giving anyone a ticket for this despite the fact that drivers doing it make my commute to work less safe every single day.

In the context of the type of regulations you are talking about, they are certainly unregulated, and they should be unregulated. It has long been established in the US that you cannot attach any kind of licensing requirement or fee to a Constitutional right that would prevent the free exercise of that right. That's why we don't have free speech licenses and poll taxes were determined to be unconstitutional. So any kind of licensing requirement for the ownership or use of a firearm is automatically unconstitutional.

Is this some kind of a joke? You need to apply for a permit to hold a peaceable assembly. There are quite explicit restrictions on free speech as rah has pointed out. You do need to register and in many places present photo ID to vote! In many places in this country regardless of laws on the books it is actually easier to get a gun than to vote!

One could only wish Abortion had so many rules and restrictions.

I mean, imagine actually believing this.

Perhaps by "regulation", you mean something else. Please define.

Yes, let's. Mandatory safety features. A license you have to take a test for. Mandatory registration and liability insurance.

And that's only scratching the surface. You are allowed to use cars only on "roads", leaving the vast majority of the country's area off-limits to cars entirely, and must follow "traffic laws" all the while, further restricting the space of acceptable car use compared to the space of possible car use. Perhaps more importantly every car is required to have a unique identifier called a "license plate number" which must be clearly displayed on the car, that makes it far more difficult to use a car than a gun in committing a crime, without being caught.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

When I got my driver's license I had to read the rules of the roads to understand all the traffic laws on the books. Every different state has traffic laws and regulations. Of course to get a driver's license they take it a step further and require you take a test to verify that you understand the laws then make you take a test to verify that you can safely operate a vehicle. Let me know when they do that for guns in every state.

It's questionable to make a case that this, by itself, trumps the larger volume of laws and penalties regarding guns. Note the ownership example per above.

I'm not opposed to classes that teach people how to operate and store firearms more safely though.

The basis on which I'm making that assertion is that I know for a fact that I could get and use a gun with a lot less hassle than I would need to get and drive a car.

That "use" part will come with considerable hassle unless you live near both the place you're procuring the gun and the place you expect to legally use it.

 

[rah]

There are also Supreme Court rulings dating all the way back to 1886 that establish the right to self-defense and the bearing of arms to do so as an individual right, not a "militia" or state right.

I do find it hilarious that he points to a Supreme Court ruling to validate his rights but when asked what he would do if the Supreme Court ruled against said rights, that he'd take up arms to resist it. That's why we need more restrictions on guns.

I'm not opposed to classes that teach people how to operate and store firearms more safely though.

They should be mandatory and people should be officially licensed. Thats my only goal here. But it seems whenever this sensible idea is brought up it is resisted by people saying they want to take our guns.

 

[Glassfan]

When I got my driver's license I had to read the rules of the roads to understand all the traffic laws on the books. Every different state has traffic laws and regulations. Of course to get a driver's license they take it a step further and require you take a test to verify that you understand the laws then make you take a test to verify that you can safely operate a vehicle. Let me know when they do that for guns in every state.

In Ohio, you must take a Gun Safety course (lecture and range time) and pass it. You must pay several fees and pass at least two criminal background checks.

I was only challenging Lexicus' contention that guns are "virtually unregulated" - which is simply untrue. Such can only be believed by someone who has never tried to legally own and carry a gun. Let's us all agree that both cars and guns are regulated.

 

[rah]

While I can agree to that, I will point out that not every state requires Gun safety courses or pay fees. I don't know of any state that doesn't require a test for driving.