Jump to content
Washington Football Team Logo
Extremeskins
Forum Rules and Guidelines

The Gun Control Debate Thread

Dont Taze Me Bro

By Dont Taze Me Bro
in The Tailgate

 Share

Recommended Posts

TheGreatBuzz

TheGreatBuzz

Posted
Posted (edited)

Burgold I guess I don't have a problem with it because it wouldn't effect me much.  But that doesn't mean I think it's RIGHT!  I can't think of one example where a person was able to do something bad with 1000's of rounds that they couldn't do with 100.  I guess I see some potential but when has it actually happened?  Sure someone probably does NEED it but why stop them?  Does Jay Leno NEED that many cars at his house?  If you can show me what it would actually prevent maybe I can get more on board.  Also, the people that want that much ammo because they are doomsday preppers or what ever you want to call them would certainly have issue with it.  Also, the people that believe that the 2nd is a control against government, etc would have a problem with it as well.  Again, I don't mind the idea to much because it wouldn't effect me a whole lot.  But I don't see a benefit other than trying to control something you don't understand and makes you uncomfortable.

 

EDIT:  In a way I would actually like it because it would be one less thing for me to carry to the range.  But I wonder what it would do to ammo cost now that you are having to pay for a range to store it and keep it all sorted by who it belongs to.  Most ranges aren't set up for that.  They are usually a trailer in a big field with some berms at one end. 

Edited by TheGreatBuzz
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Burgold

Burgold

Posted
Posted

In simplest terms and using the number you picked... would Sandyhook or Orlando happen if the gunman only had 20 bullets? Maybe the death toll would have been five instead of so much higher. Not every bullet hits and not every bullet that hits, kills. So, but reducing the number of rounds a nut can shoot you add lives.

 

Mind you, this is all abstract educational talk because I'm sure there are workarounds and people would find ways to cheat the numbers, but it seems this idea might be a good way for gun owners to have their cake and eat it too. They get to have their guns, have the self defense they need, but keep the insane amount of ammo out of hand's reach.

 

I'm sure there are multiple holes in this idea I haven't thought of, but on the surface at least one gun control nut and one gun rights nut think it has merit. :)


now ya wanna control that too?  :rolleyes:

Only when ya driving.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
stevenaa

stevenaa

Posted
Posted

So, thinking about this need for the thousands of rounds of ammo. From the discussion here, it seems mostly linked to the shooting range. Therefore, what if we devised a two part scenario:

 

Pt. 1-- You have your right to bare arms and have some ammo at home. Is three cartridges enough for personal defense? Pick a relatively small number that would work to stave off burglars, bad guys, and the random alien invasion.

 

Pt. 2-- Your 10,000 rounds of ammo is still yours, you can buy it, you can possess it, but it is housed at your "well regulated militia" Maybe that means a locker at the shooting range or gun club. Maybe it means a safe deposit box at Gringots, but the mass quantities which the gun owner only really needs at that location stays at that location.

 

In a way, that would satisfy both parts of the 2nd. You have your right to bare arms and your armaments are part of well regulated militia.

 

(I suspect everyone will hate the idea and I know it could never pass, but it seems to me a sane compromise)

 

It would have no affect on anything.  These attacks are not about people spewing thousands of rounds of ammo.    Plus,  a large portion of gun owners aren't just shooting at ranges.  They shoot on private property.  "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."  does not mean right to own guns but not ammo.  Arms encompasses both. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
PeterMP

PeterMP

Posted
Posted (edited)

It would have no affect on anything.  These attacks are not about people spewing thousands of rounds of ammo.    Plus,  a large portion of gun owners aren't just shooting at ranges.  They shoot on private property.  "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."  does not mean right to own guns but not ammo.  Arms encompasses both. 

 

You've dropped part of that off, and it includes the words "well regulated".

 

And realistically, your right to bear arms are being infringed.  Try and buy an operational tank or build a nuclear weapon.

 

Everybody has essentially agreed some infringement is allowed and have for decades.  The only question is where to draw the line.

Edited by PeterMP
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Popeman38

Popeman38

Posted
Posted

So which well regulated militia does everyone belong to?

 

~Bang

Wanna provide the definition of militia back when the Constitution was written? Or do you like to continue to try to change the meaning based on your opinion? Funny how the SC can rule on abortion and everyone accepts it as settled law but when they rule over and over and over and over on the 2nd Amendment it just means try again.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TheGreatBuzz

TheGreatBuzz

Posted
Posted

Well playing development advocate, I belong to GreatBuzz's militia. Membership: one. I consider it quite well regulated. How many people must belong to a militia for it to count?

http://www.thefederalistpapers.org/us/want-a-gun-free-zone-tennessee-says-thats-on-you-literally?utm_source=DC&utm_medium=DC&utm_campaign=DC

Not sure how I feel about this. I see pro's and con's to both sides.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
PeterMP

PeterMP

Posted
Posted (edited)

Wanna provide the definition of militia back when the Constitution was written? Or do you like to continue to try to change the meaning based on your opinion? Funny how the SC can rule on abortion and everyone accepts it as settled law but when they rule over and over and over and over on the 2nd Amendment it just means try again.

 

The fact of the matter is it is not settled.  The last decision (with Scalia) recognized a new "individual right".

 

And the Constitution also says:

 

"To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;"

 

Clearly, they viewed the militia as an organized entity, which would include officers and training.

Edited by PeterMP
Link to comment
Share on other sites
twa

twa

Posted
Posted

The fact of the matter is it is not settled.  The last decision (with Scalia) recognized a new "individual right".

 

 

 

so it is like abortion?

 

ignoring that it has been recognized long before by lower courts

 

or is it more like slavery?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Larry

Larry

Posted
Posted

Wanna provide the definition of militia back when the Constitution was written? Or do you like to continue to try to change the meaning based on your opinion? Funny how the SC can rule on abortion and everyone accepts it as settled law but when they rule over and over and over and over on the 2nd Amendment it just means try again.

"Over and over and over"?

I seem to recall one of the actual constitutional lawyers on ES, making the statement that the SC has ruled on the 2nd EXACTLY ONCE. And that that ruling was in the last decade, and went against 200 years of legal writings.

(Although, granted, said ruling sure seems to agree with MY reading of the thing.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites
PeterMP

PeterMP

Posted
Posted (edited)

so it is like abortion?

 

ignoring that it has been recognized long before by lower courts

 

or is it more like slavery?

 

Roe v. Wade was decided in 1973, and realistically if you brought Roe v. Wade before the court today, it would decide the same thing.

 

Heller happened in 2008 and was a 5-4 decision then, and if the same case was brought today it isn't at all clear what the decision would be (realistically, I suspect it would be 4-4, but that just leads the next Justice as swinging it back 5-4 against potentially).

 

In addition, in the context of the conversation that started it (Burgold's suggestion that we limit ammunition), even the Heller decision didn't rule out regulation like that.  Heller clearly states there are limits.  Now, I don't know for sure if that limit would include 100 rounds of ammo or not.

 

If you can't see the difference between the two, I don't know what to tell you.

Edited by PeterMP
Link to comment
Share on other sites
PeterMP

PeterMP

Posted
Posted (edited)

"Over and over and over"?

I seem to recall one of the actual constitutional lawyers on ES, making the statement that the SC has ruled on the 2nd EXACTLY ONCE. And that that ruling was in the last decade, and went against 200 years of legal writings.

(Although, granted, said ruling sure seems to agree with MY reading of the thing.)

 

Heller was the 2nd decision by the court and the other decision very much focused on the "well regulated militia" component of the 2nd.

 

(and note, it isn't just a militia- it is a well regulated militia where the Constitution clearly gives states the power to train and provide leadership to said militia.).

Edited by PeterMP
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TheGreatBuzz

TheGreatBuzz

Posted
Posted

"Over and over and over"?

I seem to recall one of the actual constitutional lawyers on ES, making the statement that the SC has ruled on the 2nd EXACTLY ONCE. And that that ruling was in the last decade, and went against 200 years of legal writings.

(Although, granted, said ruling sure seems to agree with MY reading of the thing.)

Not exactly true......

 

https://www.loc.gov/law/help/second-amendment.php

 

http://www.guncite.com/gc2ndsup.html

Heller was the 2nd decision by the court and the other decision very much focused on the "well regulated militia" component of the 2nd.

 

(and note, it isn't just a militia- it is a well regulated militia where the Constitution clearly gives states the power to train and provide leadership to said militia.).

Clearly?  If it is so clear than why haven't we seen the SC say so with a 9-0 vote in the last.....ever?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
PeterMP

PeterMP

Posted
Posted (edited)

Not exactly true......

 

https://www.loc.gov/law/help/second-amendment.php

 

http://www.guncite.com/gc2ndsup.html

Clearly?  If it is so clear than why haven't we seen the SC say so with a 9-0 vote in the last.....ever?

 

Because nobody has brought the case before the Supreme court.  The Supreme Court for the most part only rules on what is brought before it.  Here's the Constitution:

 

Congress shall have the power...

 

"To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;"

 

Who gets to appoint officers for the militia?

 

The states.

 

If you don't think that's clear, I don't know what to tell you.

 

DC doesn't have a militia that they said that Heller had to be part of to own a gun where he'd have to follow the orders of their officers.

 

They said he can't own a gun.

 

(Now, with DC you get into an odd situation where it isn't even a state so I could see the Court ruling that doesn't apply to DC.)

 

**EDIT**

We need to be clear about what happened to.  We got the decision we got because the pro-gun people waited to bring their case.  The law that was struck down was from 1975.  The lawsuit wasn't brought until 2003.  They waited 28 years to bring the case for a reason.

Edited by PeterMP
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share
Go to topic listing

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...