The Gun Control Debate Thread

[Popeman38]

Copy/paste Australia's laws from the 90s.

Or were you talking about a proposal that has a chance in hell of passing?

And yet people swear they don't want to abolish the 2nd Amendment. If you have to present a case to the govt as to why you need to own a gun (and self defense is not allowed to be a reason) you have abolished the 2nd Amendment. You no longer have a right to bear arms.

[AsburySkinsFan]

"Content with the results" (and the entire portion that you quoted) was referring to legislature aimed at curbing drinking and driving deaths (again, down 50%), not gun deaths.  

Gotcha.

That said...Is anyone really content with the number of drunk driving deaths? Someone has seriously said that there is no more work to be done to reduce drunk driving?

50% reduction can always be reduced 50% more.

[PleaseBlitz]

The theory that the second amendment provides for an individual right to own a gun outside of military service has only been around since 2008.  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_of_Columbia_v._Heller

 

District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008), was a landmark case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held in a 5-4 decision that theSecond Amendment to the United States Constitution applies to federal enclavesand protects an individual's right to possess a firearm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. The decision did not address the question of whether the Second Amendment extends beyond federal enclaves to the states,^[1] which was addressed later by McDonald v. Chicago(2010). It was the first Supreme Court case to decide whether the Second Amendment protects an individual right to keep and bear arms for self-defense.

 

 

I'm not advocating for the Australian model, but the 2nd Amendment doesn't say what the NRA generally says it says. 

[Larry]

I'm not advocating for the Australian model, but the 2nd Amendment doesn't say what the NRA generally says it says.

I've actually read that. And it was from one of our legal posters who I certainly assume knows a lot more about precedent and constitutional interpretation than I do.

But still, I have to say that a simple reading of English sure seems to say that, to me.

(And, I'll observe, I WANT people to have the right to be armed).

[PleaseBlitz]

Gotcha.

That said...Is anyone really content with the number of drunk driving deaths? Someone has seriously said that there is no more work to be done to reduce drunk driving?

50% reduction can always be reduced 50% more.

 

 

I think that generally people feel that the current state of drunk-driving laws (which basically outlaws driving after 1 or 2 drinks, depending on the person's physical size, on top of all the regular driver's licensing and car safety rules in effect for everyone) strikes a good balance of keeping the roads safe without causing an undue burden on people that drive cars or, separately, people that drink alcohol.  

 

There are always people who are going to break the law, and the law provides for adequate punishments in most cases (unless they have affluenza).  Yes, the number can be reduced further, but don't forget that it is still currently trending that way.  Changes don't always happen overnight.  

 

On the other hand, many people do not feel that the current state of gun laws strikes a good balance where pretty much anyone can buy a gun with no questions asked, if they know how to go about it.  Many people feel that requiring gun purchasers to pass a background check, for instance, is not an undue burden on a person who wishes to own a gun.  

 

Most people arent saying BAN ALL GUNS, the same way the arent saying BAN ALL CARS AND ALCOHOL.  But the laws regarding the latter have done a good job, on balance, of making illegal activity much more rare without overly inconveniencing everyone, and there is no reason law regarding the former can't do the same thing.  

[SkinssRvA]

Gotcha.

That said...Is anyone really content with the number of drunk driving deaths? Someone has seriously said that there is no more work to be done to reduce drunk driving?

50% reduction can always be reduced 50% more.

When human beings are the subject and their thoughts are not constant and predictable, it's hard to continue trends.  Saying we can always cut drunk driving rates by 50% isn't something I think is feasible.

 

Everyone wants to cut drunk driving rates. ideally we want 0.  Humans, however, tend to behave in a way which cannot always be predicted.  meaning for both murder, and to an even more extreme extent drunk driving, people will always do it.  I think that's the constant we have.

 

So if we agree that no matter what we do, no matter what regulations we put in place, there will always be a level of drunk driving (or gun violence for that matter), we have to do two things: 

 

1. Define what a controlled environment is

2. Implement steps to get there

 

Both are up for debate, although I think 1 is closer to compromise than 2.  There are certainly other variables like cost, priority, etc. but I think we have drunk driving relatively under control.  There is also no political debate surrounding it because even if it isn't under control, the president will always find ways to implement steps to lower what we deem acceptable.  

[PleaseBlitz]

I've actually read that. And it was from one of our legal posters who I certainly assume knows a lot more about precedent and constitutional interpretation than I do.

But still, I have to say that a simple reading of English sure seems to say that, to me.

(And, I'll observe, I WANT people to have the right to be armed).

 

 

What do you think the text of the 2nd Amendment says?

[The Evil Genius]

[Larry]

What do you think the text of the 2nd Amendment says?

My interpretation?

It says that the government cannot forbid people from owning, and carrying, weapons.

And it says that the REASON it can't, is because it's necessary, to defend the nation.

Now, I could see an argument that, since the preamble, so to speak, is no longer the case, that therefore the reason for the second no longer applies.

(I'd have trouble with that argument, because I think the government needs a better reason, before restricting liberties, than "well, we don't NEED that freedom any more". I'm just saying that such an argument doesn't conflict with my interpretation of the second).

But, arguing that the Second NEVER applied to The People? Sure seems to say so, in plain English, to me.

[PleaseBlitz]

My interpretation?

It says that the government cannot forbid people from owning, and carrying, weapons.

And it says that the REASON it can't, is because it's necessary, to defend the nation.

Now, I could see an argument that, since the preamble, so to speak, is no longer the case, that therefore the reason for the second no longer applies.

(I'd have trouble with that argument, because I think the government needs a better reason, before restricting liberties, than "well, we don't NEED that freedom any more". I'm just saying that such an argument doesn't conflict with my interpretation of the second).

But, arguing that the Second NEVER applied to The People? Sure seems to say so, in plain English, to me.

 

I wasn't really asking about your interpretation, i was asking you what the text of the amendment says.  

 

The 2nd Amendment says "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."  

 

So a plain reading of that, and the understood meaning until the 2008 case DC v. Heller (referenced above), was that the right to keep and bear arms was somehow connected to being part of "a well regulated Militia" to ensure "the security of a free State" and not a right of every individual however situated so that he can ensure the security of his home, or his shed in Oregon or whatever.

 

The NRA has effectively crossed both of those parts out, so their interpretation of the 2nd Amendment is "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." *

 

The thing about Constitutional interpretation is that you can't just cross words out.  

 

THEN, you get to the definition of what "arms" means, and that is a whole different can of worms, but i don't think anyone except Wayne LaPierre thinks the 2nd Amendment grants a right to bear all arms, up to and including nukes.  

 

 

*Here is a picture from the lobby of the NRA hq in Fairfax (notice some missing words?)

 

Edited January 8, 2016 by PleaseBlitz

[tshile]

oh sweet we're back to parsing the second amendment.

[The Evil Genius]

Just lightening the mood.

 

 

[PleaseBlitz]

oh sweet we're back to parsing the second amendment.

 

 

Maybe it'll stay parsed this time.  

[The Evil Genius]

Careful now. Gun owners might feel parsecuted.

Edited January 8, 2016 by The Evil Genius

[tshile]

Maybe it'll stay parsed this time.  

that's cute

[Larry]

I wasn't really asking about your interpretation, i was asking you what the text of the amendment says.

And that's what I gave you. My interpretation of what the Second SAYS.

[Popeman38]

I wasn't really asking about your interpretation, i was asking you what the text of the amendment says.  

 

The 2nd Amendment says "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."  

 

So a plain reading of that, and the understood meaning until the 2008 case DC v. Heller (referenced above), was that the right to keep and bear arms was somehow connected to being part of "a well regulated Militia" to ensure "the security of a free State" and not a right of every individual however situated so that he can ensure the security of his home, or his shed in Oregon or whatever.

 

The NRA has effectively crossed both of those parts out, so their interpretation of the 2nd Amendment is "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." *

 

The thing about Constitutional interpretation is that you can't just cross words out.  

 

THEN, you get to the definition of what "arms" means, and that is a whole different can of worms, but i don't think anyone except Wayne LaPierre thinks the 2nd Amendment grants a right to bear all arms, up to and including nukes.  

 

 

*Here is a picture from the lobby of the NRA hq in Fairfax (notice some missing words?)

 

So what is a militia? Back when it was written, it was a group of able bodied males that would be used to defend the state. It wasn't a group that met and trained on a regular basis. And they had to provide their own weapons since there was no standing army to assign weapons. If one can't own weapons individually, how would the militia exist? You can't parse words to make a point and ignore context. We get it. You don't like the NRA.

[TheGoodBits]

And yet people swear they don't want to abolish the 2nd Amendment. If you have to present a case to the govt as to why you need to own a gun (and self defense is not allowed to be a reason) you have abolished the 2nd Amendment. You no longer have a right to bear arms.

The question posed was what policies could reduce gun violence by 50%. Is there any doubt that a drastic reduction in the number of firearms available would result in a drastic reduction in firearm deaths?

[tshile]

So what is a militia?

 

People who take over empty federal buildings, then ask for snow camo on the internet because they wore their green camo and no one thought to check if it was summer or winter.

[PeterMP]

They don't need executive orders to go after drunk drives. There is no pro drunk driver lobby out there. We've seen laws change over time to try dealing with this. Is it solved? No. But there is a community out there that constantly tries to help people who are drinking, get home safely.

 

At some level, I don't think you are really right or making the right comparison.  The NRA isn't a pro kill people with guns or shoot people lobby.  They are a pro-sell gun lobby (really they are run by and sponsored by the gun industry).  And there isn't a pro-drunk driver lobby, but there is a pro-sell alcoholic beverages lobby (American Beverage Institute).

 

And they regularly fight laws like requiring the breathylers in every car.

 

And its at least a similar part of the population that gets up in arm about the proposed laws.

 

http://patriotupdate.com/congresswoman-proposes-a-breathalyzer-be-placed-on-every-new-car/

 

I don't know why anybody would say that putting a breathylzer in every car would be easier to pass than (some) gun laws.

 

(Read the comments. And note, it was a Dem that proposed the law)

 

(And I'm pro-good gun laws.)

Edited January 9, 2016 by PeterMP

[DogofWar1]

The 1st and the 2nd are roughly similar but in today's climate they are treated somewhat differently.

 

 

The 1st says no laws shall abridge speech.

Supreme Court has said it's not an unlimited blank check.

Congress makes laws restricting speech in some forms.

Lots get challenged in court.  Some stand, some don't.

General understanding pervades society that 1st Amendment's free speech is not unlimited (well, most of the time, comment sections on the internet notwithstanding).

 

 

Copy, Paste for 2nd Amendment.

 

Except lobby and supporters get WAY more pissed off about anything done to it.

 

I'm trying to think of a specific time frame where the 1st's Free Speech was defended as zealously as the 2nd is today.  I would imagine it'd be around the time of the 1918 Sedition act, but a quick glance at Wikipedia doesn't seem to suggest it was opposed widely and zealously.  Not sure of other instances.

[Popeman38]

The 1st and the 2nd are roughly similar but in today's climate they are treated somewhat differently.

The 1st says no laws shall abridge speech.

Supreme Court has said it's not an unlimited blank check.

Congress makes laws restricting speech in some forms.

Lots get challenged in court. Some stand, some don't.

General understanding pervades society that 1st Amendment's free speech is not unlimited (well, most of the time, comment sections on the internet notwithstanding).

Copy, Paste for 2nd Amendment.

Except lobby and supporters get WAY more pissed off about anything done to it.

I'm trying to think of a specific time frame where the 1st's Free Speech was defended as zealously as the 2nd is today. I would imagine it'd be around the time of the 1918 Sedition act, but a quick glance at Wikipedia doesn't seem to suggest it was opposed widely and zealously. Not sure of other instances.

Bull****. There are more gun laws on the books than there are free speech laws. Orders of magnitude more. Can a felon use free speech? Can a mentally ill person use free speech. Has free speech ever been suggested to be repealed? Are there ip-Ed pieces in the major newspapers suggesting we abolish free speech? Is there a group in Congress on record as wanting to end free speech? You can't tell fire in a crowded room. Minors are restricted from exercising free speech in school. See the reaction to one professor in Missouri asking for some muscle to silence a reporter. They want to fire her. How many professors have been fired for wanting to end private gun ownership?

[bcl05]

True, and if you free-speech up a room full of first graders, they all go home at the end of the day. The right to free speech gets limits when it becomes dangerous. The comparison can't be taken very far.

[Larry]

You can't tell fire in a crowded room.

But you can shoot somebody in a movie theater for throwing popcorn at you, and claim self defense.

 

See the reaction to one professor in Missouri asking for some muscle to silence a reporter.

1) I must have missed this one. Gould you point me at the actual facts that this sound bite is no doubt loosely based on?

 

2)  And, even if the facts are as you portray them, do you really want to make your rant about how downtrodden the poor, oppressed, gun owners are, revolve around somebody who supposedly "asked for some muscle to silence a reporter"? 

[Popeman38]

But you can shoot somebody in a movie theater for throwing popcorn at you, and claim self defense.

1) I must have missed this one. Gould you point me at the actual facts that this sound bite is no doubt loosely based on?

2) And, even if the facts are as you portray them, do you really want to make your rant about how downtrodden the poor, oppressed, gun owners are, revolve around somebody who supposedly "asked for some muscle to silence a reporter"?

Larry, Google is your friend. It has been in the news cycle for a month now.

True, and if you free-speech up a room full of first graders, they all go home at the end of the day. The right to free speech gets limits when it becomes dangerous. The comparison can't be taken very far.

So what your saying is that murder is a right protected by the 2nd? Oh, it's not? Ok then. Doing something illegal while exercising your right results in jail.