The Political Quinceañera Thread

[Raithe]

Gun Owner "My Gun Didn't Kill Anyone" Position

 

From my viewpoint over here in merry olde England, it isn't so much about "yes, your gun didn't kill anyone", it's that it seems to damned easy for any idiot to get hold of them over there.

I can point to many friends around the world and say "Yes, they are competent, intelligent people who can be responsible with a car, with a gun, what have you." But I can also point to a whole bunch more of people who are just idiots I wouldn't trust with a stapler, let alone some form of automatic weaponry. But if they are in the good ol US of A...

[Gfted1]

"Automatic weaponry" is illegal for civilian ownership in the US.

[Guard Dog]

I really have no problem with the government telling SNAP recipients what they can and cannot buy. When you are living off the benefit of other peoples hard work you should be giving up a little autonomy on how you are spending their money.

 

Personally I'd rather see the entire food stamp thing go away in favor of a "meals on wheels" type program where meal kits are sent to recipients. Such a system would be a greater benefit to senior and the disabled and people in rural areas where grocery stores are father away. It would cost less and be less open to abuse.

[smjjames]

Gun control is all about, and only about seizing the private property of people who have done no wrong, committed no crime. And there is no such thing as "limited" restrictions.Each restriction is a segue into another, and another, and another. And the people who advocate most strongly for it don't have to worry about being the victim of a crime. Or the forbearance of wildlife. And they don't lose a moment of sleep over the deaths of children that are not theirs except in how they can be exploited. It's not about saving lives, it's about controlling the livestock. And they will never have complete control over an armed population. My firearms killed no one yesterday. And absent some attack on y home or person never, ever will. no one has any standing to demand I give them up. Or any other thing I own. Not my home, my dog, my computer, book, none of it. The rights of the citizen are no subordinate to the will of the state. They day they are we no longer live in a free country. If they want them, they will have to come and take them.

 

No it isn't, that's just the most extreme position some people claim others are taking (though there are a few who do take that position, but they're in the extreme minority).

 

 

 

I still say part of the problem is that the Second Amendment makes it that much harder to talk about gun control or gun safety or whatever term you can think of to describe the conversation around guns. I'm not saying that the Second Amendment itself is the problem or that it should be abolished (though clarifying it may be a good idea), just that trying to work around it or with it is an obstacle that other countries don't and didn't have.

 

Anyways, sounds like Trump is starting to display the same kind of frustration Obama had over the school shootings and stuff. Though I have doubts that even Trump will be able to nudge the Republicans in Congress forward on it. They tried the bump stocks thing but even that fell through. Might take a Democrat controlled Congress (majorities in both chambers, possibly a supermajority in the Senate) and a Democrat President in order to make actual progress on guns, unfortunately.

In what way is the second amendment unclear?

 

 

I was thinking of the militia bit since partly it's vague enough for people to argue over the semantics and what the founders meant by militia isn't exactly the same as today. Not that it'd happen anyway.

[Guard Dog]

 

Gun Owner "My Gun Didn't Kill Anyone" Position

 

From my viewpoint over here in merry olde England, it isn't so much about "yes, your gun didn't kill anyone", it's that it seems to damned easy for any idiot to get hold of them over there.

I can point to many friends around the world and say "Yes, they are competent, intelligent people who can be responsible with a car, with a gun, what have you." But I can also point to a whole bunch more of people who are just idiots I wouldn't trust with a stapler, let alone some form of automatic weaponry. But if they are in the good ol US of A...

 

That is the problem right there. So how do you protect the responsible people from the irresponsible people without violating civil rights? If the freedom of the individual is the paramount concern then I really don't see how we can. And if it isn't a concern, well there is always repression, confiscations, concentration camps, forced hospitalization and just making people disappear.

 

The difference between here and most other countries is the guns are already here. Millions of them. Billions perhaps. Making them suddenly illegal changes nothing. It was illegal for that bastard to bring a gun on school campus yesterday. It was illegal for him to even BE on that campus. It was illegal to use a smoke bomb, pull the fire alarm, and certainly to shoot people. None of those broken laws stopped him. So for gun control to work the government has to go and confiscate them. How do you think that will go?

[Malcador]

"Automatic weaponry" is illegal for civilian ownership in the US.

If the weapon's made after 1986, no ?

[smjjames]

 

 

Gun Owner "My Gun Didn't Kill Anyone" Position

 

From my viewpoint over here in merry olde England, it isn't so much about "yes, your gun didn't kill anyone", it's that it seems to damned easy for any idiot to get hold of them over there.

I can point to many friends around the world and say "Yes, they are competent, intelligent people who can be responsible with a car, with a gun, what have you." But I can also point to a whole bunch more of people who are just idiots I wouldn't trust with a stapler, let alone some form of automatic weaponry. But if they are in the good ol US of A...

 

That is the problem right there. So how do you protect the responsible people from the irresponsible people without violating civil rights? If the freedom of the individual is the paramount concern then I really don't see how we can. And if it isn't a concern, well there is always repression, confiscations, concentration camps, forced hospitalization and just making people disappear.

 

The difference between here and most other countries is the guns are already here. Millions of them. Billions perhaps. Making them suddenly illegal changes nothing. It was illegal for that bastard to bring a gun on school campus yesterday. It was illegal for him to even BE on that campus. It was illegal to use a smoke bomb, pull the fire alarm, and certainly to shoot people. None of those broken laws stopped him. So for gun control to work the government has to go and confiscate them. How do you think that will go?

 

 

Your previous post aside, that's a completely valid point about responsible people vs the irresponsible people. You say that regulating who can have what guns (outside of the really heavy weapon stuff only the military can use) will just lead to a slippery slope, then what are your ideas for solutions? It seems like the exact same ideological impasse between the two of us (though at least we can agree to disagree without going all knives at each others throats) is part of the problem in that neither side has solutions the other likes, though it often seems like one side often does not want solutions at all.

 

I've heard about regulating guns the same way we regulate cars might be a solution, though I'm not sure how that would work exactly since the function of a gun and a car are completely different.

Edited February 15, 2018 by smjjames

[Guard Dog]

@smjames. The second amendment has two clauses:

1. A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, this is called a prefatory clause. They are used four other times in the Constitution. The purpose it to explain what follows
2. the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall no be infringed. That is the operative clause

The Constitution uses the words The People a number of times. In the first amendment:

 

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

 

The 4th Amendment: The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

 

9th amendment: The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

 

In no other case is the use of the words The People presumed to mean anything other than an individual right. Yet somehow they tell us in the 2nd Amendment it does not. It is completely clear, the right to keep and bear arms IS and individual right. Now... what KIND of arms is up to debate.

Edited February 15, 2018 by Guard Dog

[Guard Dog]

 

"Automatic weaponry" is illegal for civilian ownership in the US.

If the weapon's made after 1986, no ?

 

If you owned them BEFORE the date that law took effect they were grandfathered in. Was it the 80's? I seem to remember it being the '60's. But after that no matter how old the weapon you still have to go through a pretty intensive and expensive process to buy an automatic weapon.

Edited February 15, 2018 by Guard Dog

[Gfted1]

I think Malc is referring to FOPA.

[Guard Dog]

 

 

 

Gun Owner "My Gun Didn't Kill Anyone" Position

 

From my viewpoint over here in merry olde England, it isn't so much about "yes, your gun didn't kill anyone", it's that it seems to damned easy for any idiot to get hold of them over there.

I can point to many friends around the world and say "Yes, they are competent, intelligent people who can be responsible with a car, with a gun, what have you." But I can also point to a whole bunch more of people who are just idiots I wouldn't trust with a stapler, let alone some form of automatic weaponry. But if they are in the good ol US of A...

 

That is the problem right there. So how do you protect the responsible people from the irresponsible people without violating civil rights? If the freedom of the individual is the paramount concern then I really don't see how we can. And if it isn't a concern, well there is always repression, confiscations, concentration camps, forced hospitalization and just making people disappear.

 

The difference between here and most other countries is the guns are already here. Millions of them. Billions perhaps. Making them suddenly illegal changes nothing. It was illegal for that bastard to bring a gun on school campus yesterday. It was illegal for him to even BE on that campus. It was illegal to use a smoke bomb, pull the fire alarm, and certainly to shoot people. None of those broken laws stopped him. So for gun control to work the government has to go and confiscate them. How do you think that will go?

 

 

Your previous post aside, that's a completely valid point about responsible people vs the irresponsible people. You say that regulating who can have what guns (outside of the really heavy weapon stuff only the military can use) will just lead to a slippery slope, then what are your ideas for solutions? It seems like the exact same ideological impasse between the two of us (though at least we can agree to disagree without going all knives at each others throats) is part of the problem in that neither side has solutions the other likes, though it often seems like one side often does not want solutions at all.

 

I've heard about regulating guns the same way we regulate cars might be a solution, though I'm not sure how that would work exactly since the function of a gun and a car are completely different.

 

Honestly I don't know. Raising the age of full legal majority nationwide to 21 makes sense to me. It could have prevented the shooter from buying his weapon legally. However much of a hindrance that is. Force hospitalization of people deemed mentally ill sounds very Nazi-like to me. Now people are having their freedom taken over a subjective standard that is way too likely to be abused. Infringing on individual rights is not the way to go either. Increasing the availability of mental health can't hurt but in they end the best system can only help the willing. Turning schools into armed camps does not strike me as the best way to go, although one armed teacher could have stopped this yesterday. Maybe plain clothes security, like Air Marshals for each campus. But even then they can't be everywhere at once.

[Gfted1]

*NSFW*

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OuX-nFmL0II

 

*NSFW*

[Ethics Gradient]

If you owned them BEFORE the date that law took effect they were grandfathered in. Was it the 80's? I seem to remember it being the '60's. But after that no matter how old the weapon you still have to go through a pretty intensive and expensive process to buy an automatic weapon.

The National Firearms Act was 1986.  If a NFA firearm existed before the law was enacted, and has a proper trail of documentation, it can still be resold to this day.  However, even if you come across a transferrable pre-1986 automatic, federal and local laws still apply.  Possession is still prohibited in many states and localities, and you better make sure all the paperwork is in order.  Due to their rarity, they might be 10-20x the price of a comparable semi-auto.

 

 

Keeping them in working order is also sometimes difficult due to many of the parts inside being classified by the ATF as "machine guns" in their own right.  Repairing an "old" auto is occasionally legally indistinguishable from manufacturing a "new" one.

[Guard Dog]

Thanks, I just looked that up. I'm thinking of something different.

[ShadySands]

I blame England

 

If they had just let us go in the first place we might never have built up such a militia culture

[Raithe]

I blame England

 

If they had just let us go in the first place we might never have built up such a militia culture

 

I blame the founding fathers who wanted to ignore lower tax rates than you currently suffer under, and also wanted to grab land from the natives we had treaties with and wouldn't let those treasonous colonials steal from.

 

Oh, and the French for supplying money and arms, just because they wanted to give us a diplomatic black eye.

[Raithe]

Some Language...

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0rR9IaXH1M0

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a9UFyNy-rw4

Edited February 15, 2018 by Raithe

[HoonDing]

"You can't arrest someone BEFORE they commit a crime."

 

[Elerond]

 

 

I've heard about regulating guns the same way we regulate cars might be a solution, though I'm not sure how that would work exactly since the function of a gun and a car are completely different.

 

 

In Finland we changed our gun regulations to be morelike our car regulations after school shooting:

1. Person needs to be over 18 or over 20 in case of pistols and revolvers

2. Person needs to pass mental evaluation (which is done for majority by our military during enrollment [as we have compulsory military service]) and get green light from interviewing police officer who handles their gun permit case

3. People whose medical records show drug abuse and other things that may interfere in person's ability to handle guns, will most likely be denied permit

4. When person seeks permit they need to state purpose for why they want to buy the gun.

5. There are five accepted purposes, hobby shooting, hunting, sport shooting, job and weapon collecting

6. In case of hobby shooting you need to show testimony from certified gun trained that you have practices shooting continuously for 2 years (if you served in military during that time half of your service time is counted). In case of hunting you need to show testimony from your hunting club that you have actively participated in type of hunting where such gun is needed. In case of job you need to show certificate that you now how to handle gun and testimony from your employer that job requires a gun. In case of collecting weapons you need weapon collector permit (which is its own quite lengthy process to acquire).

7. Gun which you seek permit needs to be suitable to purpose which you seek it, meaning that its caliber, ammunition capacity or other features can't be such that it has unnecessary firepower or is too effective in stated purpose.

8. Person seeking gun permit needs to have storage space for the gun/s which police has accepted to be suitable for storing guns or parts of guns which you seek permit.

Edited February 15, 2018 by Elerond

[ShadySands]

Problem is that gun ownership is a right, for us anyway, and driving a car is a privilege. You have to prove you're capable of operating a vehicle before you can drive but the opposite it true for firearms, you have to prove they shouldn't have them.  I don't see how we could change it without a constitutional amendment.

[Gfted1]

I would LOVE mental evaluations for drivers licenses. The more people off the road the better!

[HoonDing]

I rember when they came for my gun.

[smjjames]

Number 5 and the general idea of proving you’re going to use it for what you want to use it for seem reasonable to me. Speaking of burying gun purchases in red tape, Japan takes it to the extreme.

 

If we are using the Florida shooting as a specific case, it’s hard to tell what could have stopped him from obtaining the gun. Sure, there’s the mental illness angle, but as guarddog said, there are ethical problems with confiscating a firearm due to mental illness. Police officers and FBI agents aren’t psychologists and we shouldn’t necessarily ask them to be one.

[Gfted1]

The thought of cops going door to door inspecting gun storage spaces makes me lol.

[Ethics Gradient]

Problem is that gun ownership is a right, for us anyway, and driving a car is a privilege. You have to prove you're capable of operating a vehicle before you can drive but the opposite it true for firearms, you have to prove they shouldn't have them.  I don't see how we could change it without a constitutional amendment.

Yeah.  From the American perspective, it's sometimes difficult to convey the thorny way constitutional rights fit into our political landscape.

 

Sure, we can argue the precise limit of which the Second Amendment grants the right of firearm ownership; we've been fine-tuning that angle for well over 50 years now.  But civilian ownership of firearms in some extent is ensconced in both the Constitution and the American cultural fabric.  When there is already an explicit guarantee that you are allowed to own a firearm, it is hard, if not impossible, to take that off the table.

 

America already tried a constitutional amendment to ban a thing during the Prohibition Era, and politicians along all ends of the spectrum are loathe to even consider further "you can't have that!" alterations to America's founding document.

 

Anyway, with the 75% state ratification threshold for any additional amendments, any top-level change is about as likely as getting the majority of EU member states to agree on who has the best football team.