Can we have a rational discussion about guns and why the typical arguments for gun control and its implementation won't work?

[highfigh]

Maybe the SCOTUS originalists should wake up about the 2nd amendment and apply it to muskets only. After all that is what they had at the time. And I don't see where it stated that guns cannot be regulated. No, they are not blameless.

How would muskets allow anyone to defend themselves against a tyrannical government, NOW? Remember, they had just done that before the Bill of Rights was written, so they would have considered common arms at the time, but there's no way they could have known what would come in the future.

When will gun control people wake up and realize that the problems we face, in all aspects of life, are bad people? It's almost as if they can't bring themselves to admit that the World has bad people, yet they can be as full of hatred as anyone- the difference is that they don't have weapons or they can't consider violence as an option. People who CAN consider violent acts or who facilitate them can be seen every day and THEY'RE the problem.

People seem to think there's a boogeyman behind every corner- that's called 'paranoia' if it's an all-consuming thought. Some want to play Army, some want to be a badass. they need to get on with their lives and live in the real world.

I think the FBI application for gun purchases needs to be improved- it's too easy to lie and gain approval. The question of mental illness is a great example-

Q 11f - "Have you ever been adjudicated as a mental defective OR have you ever been committed to a mental institution?
A- "No"

OK, you win.

That question is on the application in the link.

The FBI investigated this kid last year and it still happened. That's complete bullshyte but it's good that they have also arrested his dad. It's about time the parent(s) are charged.

 

[mtrycrafts]

I think the founders were keenly aware that technology was a thing back then and it changed. There's a reason specific weapons weren't mentioned. Then you also need to look at the other end of the spectrum and they had no clue you would wipe out a city in the future with a single munition.

Just as the 1st amendment is not absolute why does it seem that the 2nd is close to it.
While machineguns were outlawed, why is a bump stock not outlawed? It acts like a machinegun.
It can be just as the 1st has lots of limitations.

 

[mtrycrafts]

How would muskets allow anyone to defend themselves against a tyrannical government, NOW? ... charged.

Well, @jinjuku thinks otherwise 

"I think the founders were keenly aware that technology was a thing back then and it changed. There's a reason specific weapons weren't mentioned. Then you also need to look at the other end of the spectrum and they had no clue you would wipe out a city in the future with a single munition."

Where is the militia, well regulated? You think the citizenry would stand up to the power of a tyrannical president's army with all its might? Unless of course they stand down and defend the constitution in which case you don't need the armed citizens.

 

[mtrycrafts]

One thing key I read in that article " Studies by the U.S. Department of Homeland Security have shown that around 75% of all school shooters obtained their weapons at home. ". Locking up more parents might have some real impact. If a parent doesn't want to go to jail, take action on your firearms at home, secure your guns. . But like anything over here, guns of any kind can be bought on the streets of any-town USA.

Yes, all after the fact, unfortunately.

 

[mtrycrafts]

He thinks daily mass shootings is an acceptable price to pay for not having better gun safety laws and reduced number of weapons in circulation.

Wonder if his family, grandkids perhaps were killed, if he would change his mind?

 

[Trell]

Wonder if his family, grandkids perhaps were killed, if he would change his mind?

Thoughts and prayers he’ll never experience that.

 

[jinjuku]

Well, @jinjuku thinks otherwise 

"I think the founders were keenly aware that technology was a thing back then and it changed. There's a reason specific weapons weren't mentioned. Then you also need to look at the other end of the spectrum and they had no clue you would wipe out a city in the future with a single munition."

Where is the militia, well regulated? You think the citizenry would stand up to the power of a tyrannical president's army with all its might? Unless of course they stand down and defend the constitution in which case you don't need the armed citizens.

I think there has been a bunch of pivoting around a 'well regulated militia'.

And how do I think otherwise? Do you think the only arms that the colonist bore were muskets? No naval or ground based cannon?

To answer the military question: Soldiers take an oath to the Constitution. Not the government. You can go read studies where it's estimated that you'd have about a 40% defection rate (and the associated equipment along with it) out of the services.

 

[TLS Guy]

NO citizens need, or should have guns in their homes, cars or on their person. When you go hunting, take you gun out of a secure armory and return it in the evening.

All this carnage is ridiculous and preventable. Over half the population are too stupid to ever handle a gun, I suspect.

 

[mtrycrafts]

I think there has been a bunch of pivoting around a 'well regulated militia'.

And how do I think otherwise? Do you think the only arms that the colonist bore were muskets? No naval or ground based cannon?

To answer the military question: Soldiers take an oath to the Constitution. Not the government. You can go read studies where it's estimated that you'd have about a 40% defection rate (and the associated equipment along with it) out of the services.

@highfigh said "How would muskets allow anyone to defend themselves against a tyrannical government, NOW? Remember, they had just done that before the Bill of Rights was written, so they would have considered common arms at the time, but there's no way they could have known what would come in the future."

and you said "I think the founders were keenly aware that technology was a thing back then and it changed. There's a reason specific weapons weren't mentioned. Then you also need to look at the other end of the spectrum and they had no clue you would wipe out a city in the future with a single munition."

Sound a bit different idea between the two, or my imagination is screwed up. Need to reboot.
Yes, they had cannons, sailing ships that could go up the Mississippi if needed but that belonged to the military or whatever army we had back then. None in civilian hands as muskets were allowed.

In either way, there may be some in the military, a general comes to mind, who cares more being loyal to a president than the constitution. How many others are out there is unknowable.

Let's just hope this issue will not be tested in the foreseeable future.

 

[jinjuku]

It’s a very silly after-the-fact Dunning-Kruger rationalization by @jinjuku.

Anything goes and then some.

Not at all. When the Constitution was written the the ability to resist a tyrannical government made it in 2nd out of all the amendments.

I also said they didn't specifically name any arms because technology happens.

I also agree that it needs to be a well regulated militia.

I also think if it really comes to a tyrannical government it will take portions of the military cleaving off and we will be in another civil war.

Gun ownership is too pervasive, too permissive, and needs to be severely curbed. full stop.

I'm pointing out how many legal scholars have spoken about the 2nd. It may need to be repealed to only apply to the well regulated militia and I agree with that.

 

[highfigh]

Well, @jinjuku thinks otherwise 

"I think the founders were keenly aware that technology was a thing back then and it changed. There's a reason specific weapons weren't mentioned. Then you also need to look at the other end of the spectrum and they had no clue you would wipe out a city in the future with a single munition."

Where is the militia, well regulated? You think the citizenry would stand up to the power of a tyrannical president's army with all its might? Unless of course they stand down and defend the constitution in which case you don't need the armed citizens.

When has the US had a "tyrannical president's army"? The closest this country has come to that was before the revolution and it was the King's army & Navy. And the Colonists not only used musket, but also cannon and any other weapons they could acquire.

As far as a regulated militia, the US has enough former military and law enforcement, as well as hunters, competitive shooters and non-members of these who can shoot well that if something ridiculous happens, it wouldn't take long to assemble large groups who would want to participate.

I don't see anything that might need an immediate response occurring anytime soon, though.

The gun nuts who twitch every time they think of buying, looking at, handling guns aren't well- the US government are directly responsible for the non-institutionalized mentally ill and the violence in this country and IMO, the media are a large part of the problem because they cram 'live, local, late-breaking' news down our throats when it could have waited until more details are available but they have to be first in order to grab people by the snout and gobble up the ad revenue.......

This country has problems that aren't being addressed, at every level- locally, state by state and nationally.

 

[TankTop5]

Just as the 1st amendment is not absolute why does it seem that the 2nd is close to it.
While machineguns were outlawed, why is a bump stock not outlawed? It acts like a machinegun.
It can be just as the 1st has lots of limitations.

The purpose of the First Amendment is a regress of grievances against the government, one of the purposes of the Second Amendment is to guarantee the First.

 

[highfigh]

NO citizens need, or should have guns in their homes, cars or on their person. When you go hunting, take you gun out of a secure armory and return it in the evening.

All this carnage is ridiculous and preventable. Over half the population are too stupid to ever handle a gun, I suspect.

And far too many of the 'too stupid to handle a gun' own them legally.

The sheer number of guns means that even if the government institutes a buy-back or confiscation, not all will be turned in- some owners are too hard core to want to, criminals certainly won't and I suspect some will conveniently 'forget' where they are.

The root of the problem with needless deaths and injuries is in the number of mentally ill and violent/over-reactive people and not much is being done about them. Then, there are those who are addicted to something and clearly not making good decisions or are out of control when under the influence.

So much for 'the greatest country" but before anyone posts it, this didn't start with any one President.

 

[jinjuku]

The purpose of the First Amendment is a regress of grievances against the government, one of the purposes of the Second Amendment is to guarantee the First.

As I've heard it put: The ballot box, the jury box, the bullet box.

 

[mtrycrafts]

The purpose of the First Amendment is a regress of grievances against the government, one of the purposes of the Second Amendment is to guarantee the First.

Yet one seems to be absolute when courts keep rejecting safeguards, the other is not absolute as there are a number of laws restricting it.

 

[davidscott]

I don't have a problem with people owning guns except maybe some AR rifles (WTF are they used for?) But I don't get why anyone would have a problem with background checks.

 

[Trell]

I don't have a problem with people owning guns except maybe some AR rifles (WTF are they used for?) But I don't get why anyone would have a problem with background checks.

The vast majority of Americans supports background checks, criminal as well as health, so there is a tiny minority that is against. Over the years there've been many polls done by different pollsters with about the same result.

Here is one done April 2023 and is from Fox "News". It shows similar to other polls:

>>>After a series of mass shootings this spring, including the killing of several students at a private Christian school in Tennessee, voters would prefer focusing on specific gun control measures rather than arming citizens to reduce gun violence.

A new Fox News Poll finds most voters favor the following proposals:

-- Requiring criminal background checks on all gun buyers (87%)

-- Improving enforcement of existing gun laws (81%)

-- Raising the legal age to buy a gun to 21 (81%)

-- Requiring mental health checks on gun buyers (80%)

-- Allowing police to take guns from those considered a danger to themselves or others (80%)

-- Requiring a 30-day waiting period for all gun purchases (77%) ...<<<

Fox News Poll: Voters favor gun limits over arming citizens to reduce gun violence

A new Fox News poll found that most voters favored more limits on gun rights rather than an increase in arming Americans to combat gun violence.

www.foxnews.com

 

[Trell]

 

[highfigh]

I don't have a problem with people owning guns except maybe some AR rifles (WTF are they used for?) But I don't get why anyone would have a problem with background checks.

Apparently, it's the most popular rifle for hunting, but I have also seen arguments against using it for Deer and other larger game because of the caliber. I don't hunt, so I don't know for sure but the one thing I have heard from those who have fired them is that it's a lot of fun at a good outdoor range.

Then, there are the paranoid pinheads like the husband of a cousin, whom I have posted about. He really seems to think their area will be ground zero for some kind of siege but IMO, he would be one of the first to soil himself if it hits the fan. He doesn't even stay in a crowded grocery store because he just can't handle a crowd- it might be part of he "They're all around us! Run! Run for the hills!!!!!!" issue.

WRT background checks- the US has a large number of people who don't want the government to know ANYTHING about them- have you heard someone say "I like to stay under the radar"? The ones I have heard tended to be:

- Dirtbags
- Have had minor police contact but nothing that would prevent them buying a gun
- Country bumpkins
- Wannabes- a soldier, a cop, a whatever.

The ones I know who own these are very responsible- they're cops and military, former members of each, practice regularly and store their weapons very securely.

OTOH, I saw a cop (who also collected & sold guns) head sweep someone with a .45 when we were at work- one of us asked what he was carrying and when he pulled it out, we scattered. Trained, but it doesn't always stick.

MKE just had an incident where the PD went to a motel with an arrest warrant and three of them were shot by the guy, who was also shot. He's a multiple-felony dirtball and he had guns- they refuse to stop being idiots & criminals.

I can only think of a few ways to find & confiscate illegal guns but it will require that the event be full national scale, military-style sweep of cities, going block to block and locking everything down, so nobody comes or goes. Law enforcement will need to have every iota of the warrants & searches conform to the law and it will take decades to slog through the lawsuits. Criminals and guns are very similar to a tub filled with ball bearings- remove some and others fill the space.

 

[davidscott]

View attachment 69302

Sorta hits home