RobAnybody
Emperor
- Joined
- Feb 21, 2009
- Messages
- 1,952
Who are you arguing against?
Last edited:
The Thread Where We Discuss Guns and Gun Control
- Thread starter Lemon Merchant
- Start date
-
- Tags
- all guns suck
Lexicus
Deity
Those people
FWIW, America's position on free speech also seems to be an outlier in the developed world, with Canada and most European countries having at least some restrictions on hate speech, and some countries in Europe have extensive bans on things like Nazi political speech or imagery, sometimes to the point of banning Nazi symbols and figures from being used in contexts like entertainment that clearly aren't supporting the Nazis (or in some cases, even if they're being used in cases that are pretty clearly anti-Nazi). Where we tend to take the position of "say whatever you want, as long as you aren't yelling fire in a crowded theater or being very specific in threatening someone or inciting criminal behavior it's legal, even if it's really awful", other countries would lean more on the "intolerance must not be tolerated" side.
And that stops mass shooting better than traditional door locks how?And they even make them red. The horror.
"Caused by", in this case, means black male children dying.
Spoiler The referenced data :
Repeal is not necessary. I would run on the platform of appointing judges to the supreme court until they rule that the second amendment applies specifically to well regulated militias.
How does this happen? He was a school resource officer. Why did he have a gun if it was not for this exact situation? If the person and their tools was not appropriate for the primary task they were there for then someone did something terribly wrong.
Surely what changed was guns became cheap enough that most people could buy they easily. They are everywhere in america because of the interpretation of the second amendment.
I don't know. Words are quite effective at killing people. The people with the largest kill count usually use words.
To direct people using guns or other types of weapon. Let's not try to be obtuse here.
While I'd never argue that words cannot hurt (the whole sticks and stones mantra is just worthless, on the whole), the point is protecting speech is different from protecting the ownership of guns. The people in a position of power such that they can use words to inflict physical violence isn't really covered by either Amendment (or laws, generally).
The response to this would be for opponents to accuse you of trying/wanting to "gut the 2nd Amendment", which would have virtually the same impact politically as accusing you of wanting to repeal it.
Last edited:
It would not need a super majority of states though.
Creating a Democratic majority on the SCOTUS isn't something that can be realistically done by one POTUS's appointing opportunities. Right now the SCOTUS is 6 to 3 Republican/Conservative majority. The 4 oldest Justices are currently Thomas, 74, Alito, 73, Roberts, 68, who are all Republican, and Sotomayor, 68, who is Democrat. Scalia was 79 when he died. RBG was 87. Breyer retired at 83.. Even assuming that all four of those oldest Justices leave the Court at 83 years of age (which is the average of the last 3 to leave), and assuming Biden is reelected, none of them would leave during his term. Harris, or some other Democrat would have to win after Biden, to have a shot at replacing Thomas and Alito with Democrats.
Also... I used to subscribe to something similar to this approach you generally describe, however, I've come to realize, that this kind of tactic has already been anticipated by gun enthusiasts nationwide, which is at least partly why many 2nd Amendment advocates and/or gun enthusiasts have already joined clubs, groups, organizations, etc., that explicitly self-describe as "militias" in one way or another. Restricting gun ownership to "militia" members is just creating a new loophole that the country's gun enthusiasts and hobbyists will be all to willing to jump through, and thus it will likely have little impact on actual gun consumption/acquisition/use in the country.
My idea would involve not waiting for them to die. It would be something like "From my first day as president I will make sure the SC has a case they can take that could restrict the 2A to militias. On the first of every month that the 2A is not restricted to militias I will appoint a new justice who agrees with me. Then I will appoint no more until it gets back down to 9."
Sure. As long as part of the regulations include the guns being lock up somewhere that needs multiple responsible people to unlock when not being used for militia activities then the guns should not be available for the domestic violence/suicide/mass shootings that seem to be the main problem. It does also maintain the whole having the means to do a revolution point that is the justification for the whole thing. The gun types can go and play soldiers or shoot at bits of cardboard or whatever they do and call it militia training. As long as it happens away from everyone else where is the problem?
EgonSpengler
Deity
- Joined
- Jun 26, 2014
- Messages
- 12,260
If you could somehow overturn D.C. v Heller, and lean on militia service as being a crucial component to the 2nd Amendment, not just an incidental "for instance...", you could enforce the 'well-regulated' part to restrain these Proud Boys morons and their ilk. But good luck with that. One of the things I loathe about this conservative Supreme Court is that they've used the years-long conservative mantra about the "activist" liberal Court to implement their own activist court* and pretty much reject the concept of stare decisis**. I think Scalia's interpretation of the 2nd Amendment was stupid, but I wouldn't really know what to do about it now. For me, not only would you need a liberal-leaning Court, you'd need a new case to reach them, one that's compelling enough to overturn Heller and not just carve out a narrow exception. No, I think we're stuck with a version of the 2nd Amendment that says, "if you only claim to want a gun for self-defense, you can have a gun."
fwiw (which is nothing), my position on repealing the 2nd would very much be open to rewriting it instead, as a compromise, but that's no less a pipe-dream than trashing it completely. There's no reason the pro-gun folks would need to compromise, and it doesn't seem like they want to, which is why I want to trash the 2nd in the first place.
* This is another example of the tactic of accusing your opponents of some unethical or norm-breaking behavior, in order to justify subsequently doing the same thing yourself. "They started it."
** I guess I'm assuming Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health is just the beginning, but maybe that will turn out to be an isolated case over the next 10 years.
fwiw (which is nothing), my position on repealing the 2nd would very much be open to rewriting it instead, as a compromise, but that's no less a pipe-dream than trashing it completely. There's no reason the pro-gun folks would need to compromise, and it doesn't seem like they want to, which is why I want to trash the 2nd in the first place.
* This is another example of the tactic of accusing your opponents of some unethical or norm-breaking behavior, in order to justify subsequently doing the same thing yourself. "They started it."
** I guess I'm assuming Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health is just the beginning, but maybe that will turn out to be an isolated case over the next 10 years.
Spidernova
Warlord
- Joined
- Jul 3, 2008
- Messages
- 258
If we’re going to go down the path of needing additional general licenses, fees for gun ownership, why not take suppressors, SBRs, and the like off the NFA list? Seems kind of silly to me that if a person can pass a background check and the state thinks they can own a gun, They can’t own a device to make it slightly less loud.
In the Euro countries with sport shooting, thy encourage suppressor use iirc.
You might actually get folks on board with something of that nature as an honest compromise. More hoops to jump through, but if you do, more privileges.
Honestly, I would be on board with that kind of solution too, if I wasn’t in the demographic that would get priced out.
In the Euro countries with sport shooting, thy encourage suppressor use iirc.
You might actually get folks on board with something of that nature as an honest compromise. More hoops to jump through, but if you do, more privileges.
Honestly, I would be on board with that kind of solution too, if I wasn’t in the demographic that would get priced out.
I was thinking something similar, that if you could restrict it to real militias you could get rid of the rules that actually could stop it doing its job, like the restriction on anti-tank weaponry and such.
Snowygerry
Deity
Could it be because you're more densely populated now ? Your population tripled since 1920.
EgonSpengler
Deity
- Joined
- Jun 26, 2014
- Messages
- 12,260
I'm on the fence about Court-packing, but I suppose if a President could get elected on a platform that included that, I wouldn't have any objection under the circumstances*. I believe a SCOTUS nominee only needs a majority in the Senate. Multiple Republicans have introduced bills to restrict Court-packing, but I don't know if any of those have gone anywhere. And I wonder if fixing the number of seats on the Court would require a Constitutional Amendment, which would be even more difficult.
* "Under the circumstances" basically sums up my whole reservation. I don't like the Republican efforts to limit Court-packing because I know they're motivated purely by politics and because they have a conservative majority on the Court right now that they want to protect. I don't believe they have any principles at all.
It kind of seems a bit suspect, but if that is a power given to the president and the people elect a president who says they will use it in a particular way is that not exactly how democracy is supposed to work?
Given that it currently doesn't exist, I'm going to say "of no import". It's a useful club against the people who aren't currently in (in other words, the Democrats), but that bird has already flown the coop. No reason to argue against it except as a defense of the status quo, which goes the other way.
Similar threads
