San Francisco to ban guns?

[His Divine Shadow]

Don't see this as unique to america at all, Finland has more weapons than america per capita(10 times more IIRC) and we got some of the lowest crime rates in the world.

Switzerland has even more weapons than Finland per capita and they hardly got any crime either IIRC.

Well, to be precise the actual meaning is that guns=!=crime. We can find examples of both heavily armed and heavily disarmed cultures where there are low crime rates.

But do carry on, you wild and wonderful gun-loving Finns. Bless ya all.

Yeah but are there heavily armed western countries with high crime rates? Except portions of the US that is.

[SirNitram]

actually the NRA devotes tremendous resources to training people in gun safety and ethical gun ownership. But for lefties to aknowledge that would be to let go of a favorite whipping boy

http://www.nrahq.org/education/training ... aining.asp

He looks at the point, he misses it, he sails off over the horizon and awaaaaaaaaaay. It's there. It's not being made known. This is a bad thing.

I'm sure the Right Wing Kneejerk Option is to claim that's a Leftist Plot too, but I somehow doubt there's a magic Left Wing Fairy preventing television news stations from mentioning this.

[Petrosjko]

Yeah but are there heavily armed western countries with high crime rates? Except portions of the US that is.

That, sir, is a very good question for which I cannot come up with an answer. Perhaps somebody else can illuminate the issue further.

Off the top of my head the only place I can think of is Israel, and they obviously have massively extenuating circumstances.

And thank you very much for giving me a new facet of the issue to mull over.

[Bob the Gunslinger]

You know what would kick ass? You know what would really deliver the gun control I think is most sensible? A national-level, required, gun safety, maintenence, and use education program, for all gun owners. I'm sure some whiny bitches will stamp their feet and yell, but hey, retards. We teach people to use a car before we let them have it, and it's not even designed as a weapon.

Alas and alack, it's not going to happen. How do I know? A similar non-profit group was created years ago, by the government. It wasn't mandatory, but it was supposed to be heavily suggested.

Guess how many news stations reported it? Zip. Zero. Zipall. Zilch.

I think that's a great idea. My brother and I took gun safety classes when we were still in elementary school because my parents owned a gun and were also responsible. As a result: no deaths. Meanwhile a family "friend" shot himself while cleaning his own gun because he hadn't taken any such class. Result: broken arm.
The whole idea of responsible gun ownership would cut down on accidents and gun related crimes of passion.

And I think that the Project Exile laws would kick ass in California.

I'm never giving up my right to defend myself and my family.

[SirNitram]

Nitram, when you must look at the fact that gun ownership is a right, not a privilege; you can not make it a mandatory part of gun ownership. And changing that is never going to happen. Instead what you have to do is look at ways to get around this legality and still get gun safety education to the people. I see two possible ways of doing this.

I'm afraid you'll have to show me where every right is unconditional, where these sorts of measures are forbidden, Alyeska. Because quite frankly, 'It's a RIIIIGHT!' is a downright idiotic argument in the face of increasing safety when it comes to weapons.

With that being said, the idea of using monetary stick-and-carrot methods is exactly the sort of thing I'd promote.

[Petrosjko]

He looks at the point, he misses it, he sails off over the horizon and awaaaaaaaaaay. It's there. It's not being made known. This is a bad thing.

I'm sure the Right Wing Kneejerk Option is to claim that's a Leftist Plot too, but I somehow doubt there's a magic Left Wing Fairy preventing television news stations from mentioning this.

So do you have a theory for why the news isn't getting out there?

[SirNitram]

He looks at the point, he misses it, he sails off over the horizon and awaaaaaaaaaay. It's there. It's not being made known. This is a bad thing.

I'm sure the Right Wing Kneejerk Option is to claim that's a Leftist Plot too, but I somehow doubt there's a magic Left Wing Fairy preventing television news stations from mentioning this.

So do you have a theory for why the news isn't getting out there?

No. All potential ones die in the stage where I consider what it would take to create a news blackout on the subject. If anyone can work out how that slips under everyone's radars without invoking Grand Conspiracies(tm), lemme know.

[frigidmagi]

So do you have a theory for why the news isn't getting out there?

I gotta wonder why the "great champions" of gn control aren't going out of their way to tell us about this personally and I found the damn link myself.

Paranoidia Sense Tiggling!

[Alyeska]

Nitram, when you must look at the fact that gun ownership is a right, not a privilege; you can not make it a mandatory part of gun ownership. And changing that is never going to happen. Instead what you have to do is look at ways to get around this legality and still get gun safety education to the people. I see two possible ways of doing this.

I'm afraid you'll have to show me where every right is unconditional, where these sorts of measures are forbidden, Alyeska. Because quite frankly, 'It's a RIIIIGHT!' is a downright idiotic argument in the face of increasing safety when it comes to weapons.

With that being said, the idea of using monetary stick-and-carrot methods is exactly the sort of thing I'd promote.

Constitutionaly protected rights can not have requirements given to them before you can use those rights. You will NEVER get required safety testing as a requirement for gun ownership in the US because gun ownership is a garunteed right. Thats why you have to look at alternatives. You can't legaly force people to be safe, but you can coerce them into being safe through creative incentive programs.

[SirNitram]

Nitram, when you must look at the fact that gun ownership is a right, not a privilege; you can not make it a mandatory part of gun ownership. And changing that is never going to happen. Instead what you have to do is look at ways to get around this legality and still get gun safety education to the people. I see two possible ways of doing this.

I'm afraid you'll have to show me where every right is unconditional, where these sorts of measures are forbidden, Alyeska. Because quite frankly, 'It's a RIIIIGHT!' is a downright idiotic argument in the face of increasing safety when it comes to weapons.

With that being said, the idea of using monetary stick-and-carrot methods is exactly the sort of thing I'd promote.

Constitutionaly protected rights can not have requirements given to them before you can use those rights. You will NEVER get required safety testing as a requirement for gun ownership in the US because gun ownership is a garunteed right. Thats why you have to look at alternatives. You can't legaly force people to be safe, but you can coerce them into being safe through creative incentive programs.

You know, Alyeska, positions like this would be so much easier to argue if you weren't starting off proven wrong. There are conditions to gun ownership. Like: Not being a felon. So as much as you'd like to jump up and down, yes, conditions can be attached.

[frigidmagi]

Constitutionaly protected rights can not have requirements given to them before you can use those rights.

Your Pardon, but doesn't voting have requirements that must be met before one can use that right? If so what makes one Constitutional Right more protected than the other?

[Petrosjko]

Constitutionaly protected rights can not have requirements given to them before you can use those rights. You will NEVER get required safety testing as a requirement for gun ownership in the US because gun ownership is a garunteed right. Thats why you have to look at alternatives. You can't legaly force people to be safe, but you can coerce them into being safe through creative incentive programs.

Not precisely true. There are limitations, and I don't believe you would disagree with certain of them... for example, age restrictions for purchase.

My fear for a mandated program is the potential for abuse, if it is not clearly established as a shall-issue program in the fashion of shall-issue concealed carry, as compared to the 'Why do you wanna gun' statutes of NYC and so on.

There are a couple of other problems. First, the people who most often need weapons of self-defense are people who live in low-income areas, and they may not be able to afford the cost of training on top of the cost of a weapon. Also there are times when people who have never contemplated owning a weapon may have a rapid need of one, such as in the case of a woman leaving an abusive and dangerous spouse.

[Alyeska]

The only legal limitations on any constitutionaly protected right is that of age discrimination or rights discrimination bassed on legal status because of mental judgement or fellon status. Test requirements to excercise constitutionaly protected rights have already been rulled unconstitutional (re voter tests designed to keep blacks from voting). And there is the important fact that if testing and training was required for gun ownership, there will be instances of abuse in which overly anti-gun towns will intentionaly prevent people from passing the tests to keep guns out of their hands.

[SirNitram]

The only legal limitations on any constitutionaly protected right is that of age discrimination or rights discrimination bassed on legal status because of mental judgement or fellon status. Test requirements to excercise constitutionaly protected rights have already been rulled unconstitutional (re voter tests designed to keep blacks from voting). And there is the important fact that if testing and training was required for gun ownership, there will be instances of abuse in which overly anti-gun towns will intentionaly prevent people from passing the tests to keep guns out of their hands.

Then have the standards created on the highest level. Or, hell, actually exercise those local rights I'm told exist in this country.

As for the concept of whether or not one is allowed to place conditions on a right? I repeat the request I already made in this thread to you: Prove It.

[Petrosjko]

What is your view of concealed carry licensing, Alyeska? Do you believe that the right to bear arms extends to Vermont-style carry as a universal right, and an open-carry right as well?

[Alyeska]

The very concept of a constitutionally protected right is something that can not be restricted from a citizen with full rights. Felons and minors are not full citizens and can not automatically exercise every constitutional right. Felons have their rights taken away as punishment for their crimes. They first must be convicted of a crime for this to occur. Minors are not considered full adults and thus not mature enough to fully exercise their constitutional rights because of potential dangers to themselves and others. Beyond those two very limited situations citizens are automatically given rights and you must go through very rigid procedures in order to remove their rights.

Just to clear things up with you Nitram, I actually agree with you. I think mandatory training for gun ownership is a good thing. I’ve been in debates with some gun rights advocates and when they pointed out the constitutional issues with a proposal I had made, I told them to ignore the constitution for a moment and debate my plan on its merits as a law to give citizens rights to use guns but also make sure they are safely trained. Strangely (sarcasm meter alert) they couldn’t divorce themselves of the whole 2nd amendment issue and couldn’t fathom a coherent response to counter the claim that safety training as a requirement to gun ownership is a good thing.

[Alyeska]

What is your view of concealed carry licensing, Alyeska? Do you believe that the right to bear arms extends to Vermont-style carry as a universal right, and an open-carry right as well?

I think that people who want to conceal carry should be able to take a federal firearms safety training program that is recognized by all 50 states. The training would be about safety and would not be designed to attempt to limit access of conceal carry. The training itself would be free on the first attempt. Once you have completed the training you are issued a federal conceal carry liscense and you may legaly carry a concealed weapon in any US state or territory under a universal set of rules.

I think that open-carry should be an automatic right, but sadly your likely to get the cops called on you every 5 minutes by panicky people. BTW, this is going under the assumption that general firearms education is already taken in the first place before you even can carry in the open, as a requirement of ownership.

[SirNitram]

Beyond those two very limited situations citizens are automatically given rights and you must go through very rigid procedures in order to remove their rights.

So, in short, you don't have anything to actually support your stance, and just repeat it as if it's divine truth. I'm sorry, Alyeska. That hasn't flown in fiction debates, and there's no reason for it to fly here.

Just to clear things up with you Nitram, I actually agree with you. I think mandatory training for gun ownership is a good thing.

Oh, I doubt you agree with me all that much. I don't see a reason for the average person to be guaranteed a right to a gun at all; there's simply too many stupid, stupid people in the world for that to be a sensible position.

However, I recignize two facts:

One, it's the current interpretation of the 2nd amendment. Despite being pretty sure it was put there to make raising a militia possible, that's what it grants here and now, no point in trying to yell about it.

Two, even without the Constitution involved, the situation in the States simply has too many illegally owned guns for clamping down on the common citizen to be justified. Maybe when someone actually addresses the real ways to cut down gun crime(Not gun control, but border control, and actually getting illegal firearms off the streets). But that's for another day.

[Petrosjko]

I think that people who want to conceal carry should be able to take a federal firearms safety training program that is recognized by all 50 states. The training would be about safety and would not be designed to attempt to limit access of conceal carry. The training itself would be free on the first attempt. Once you have completed the training you are issued a federal conceal carry liscense and you may legaly carry a concealed weapon in any US state or territory under a universal set of rules.

I think that open-carry should be an automatic right, but sadly your likely to get the cops called on you every 5 minutes by panicky people. BTW, this is going under the assumption that general firearms education is already taken in the first place before you even can carry in the open, as a requirement of ownership.

Okay, I can largely agree with that but for one point- in states where open carry is allowed, people do tend to get used to it. And especially in the environment you're postulating here, with a much greater degree of general education, I don't think it would be such a 'call the cops!' issue.

[Alyeska]

So, in short, you don't have anything to actually support your stance, and just repeat it as if it's divine truth. I'm sorry, Alyeska. That hasn't flown in fiction debates, and there's no reason for it to fly here.

So in short, you have nothing to actually support your stance. I already pointed out that denying constitutional rights occurs in extremely limited situations and to take away a right you have to go through a very set in stone process. Citizens are granted the right to bear arms. Felons are NOT full citizens and thus do not get this right. Minors are not full citizens, and do not get this right. It is not legal to set pre-conditions on constitutionally protected rights when it comes to full citizens.

However, I recognize two facts:

One, it's the current interpretation of the 2nd amendment. Despite being pretty sure it was put there to make raising a militia possible, that's what it grants here and now, no point in trying to yell about it.

Two, even without the Constitution involved, the situation in the States simply has too many illegally owned guns for clamping down on the common citizen to be justified. Maybe when someone actually addresses the real ways to cut down gun crime(Not gun control, but border control, and actually getting illegal firearms off the streets). But that's for another day.

Actually, stopping gun crime in any real meaningful way is impossible. The United States has massively large borders that can easily be traversed through. And criminals who don’t think about getting caught or don’t care just don’t pay attention to laws like Exile. You can reduce gun crime, but you can’t outright get rid of it. The 2nd amendment allows people to protect themselves with guns as well as use them for sport shooting and hunting.

Now here is a fun little fact. You can get rid of the whole constitutional argument if the 2nd amendment were amended with clear wording and safety training added into it. Though the likely hood of that happening is rather low.

[Alyeska]

I think that people who want to conceal carry should be able to take a federal firearms safety training program that is recognized by all 50 states. The training would be about safety and would not be designed to attempt to limit access of conceal carry. The training itself would be free on the first attempt. Once you have completed the training you are issued a federal conceal carry liscense and you may legaly carry a concealed weapon in any US state or territory under a universal set of rules.

I think that open-carry should be an automatic right, but sadly your likely to get the cops called on you every 5 minutes by panicky people. BTW, this is going under the assumption that general firearms education is already taken in the first place before you even can carry in the open, as a requirement of ownership.

Okay, I can largely agree with that but for one point- in states where open carry is allowed, people do tend to get used to it. And especially in the environment you're postulating here, with a much greater degree of general education, I don't think it would be such a 'call the cops!' issue.

You would be surprised. I have a friend who likes Guns just as much as I do, and when he worked a quick stop and had a customer walk in with a gun on his hip, my friend had his finger resting on the panic button (but not pressing it) the whole time. And as I said, my friend likes guns. We get californians in state who call the cops all the time about people with guns, ie people loading rifles into their car to go hunting or sport shooting.

If gun safety education became mandatory in school, thats the only way I could see people getting used to open carry.

[SirNitram]

So, in short, you don't have anything to actually support your stance, and just repeat it as if it's divine truth. I'm sorry, Alyeska. That hasn't flown in fiction debates, and there's no reason for it to fly here.

So in short, you have nothing to actually support your stance. I already pointed out that denying constitutional rights occurs in extremely limited situations and to take away a right you have to go through a very set in stone process. Citizens are granted the right to bear arms. Felons are NOT full citizens and thus do not get this right. Minors are not full citizens, and do not get this right. It is not legal to set pre-conditions on constitutionally protected rights when it comes to full citizens.

And once again I'll ask you to back this up. This is the third time.

However, I recognize two facts:

One, it's the current interpretation of the 2nd amendment. Despite being pretty sure it was put there to make raising a militia possible, that's what it grants here and now, no point in trying to yell about it.

Two, even without the Constitution involved, the situation in the States simply has too many illegally owned guns for clamping down on the common citizen to be justified. Maybe when someone actually addresses the real ways to cut down gun crime(Not gun control, but border control, and actually getting illegal firearms off the streets). But that's for another day.

Actually, stopping gun crime in any real meaningful way is impossible. The United States has massively large borders that can easily be traversed through. And criminals who don’t think about getting caught or don’t care just don’t pay attention to laws like Exile. You can reduce gun crime, but you can’t outright get rid of it. The 2nd amendment allows people to protect themselves with guns as well as use them for sport shooting and hunting.

Now here is a fun little fact. You can get rid of the whole constitutional argument if the 2nd amendment were amended with clear wording and safety training added into it. Though the likely hood of that happening is rather low.

Oh I don't know. They talk about blatantly pissing on the 14th Amendment these days. They already have done it on local levels.

[Alyeska]

And once again I'll ask you to back this up. This is the third time.

Actualy I have to ask you to back up your claim. I have stated that full citizens can not have their constitutional rights removed without just cause and going through a process. A counter claim has been made that minors and felons may not own guns and that is a restriction on their constitutional rights. I have pointed out that minors are not yet full citizens and that felons have had their full citizenship stripped from them through the judicial system. The statement that full citizens can not have their constitutionaly protected rights restricted stands. That courts routinely strike down the government for violating the first ammendment, 4th, and 5th ammendments is further proof that restrictions on constitutional rights against full citizens is not legal.

Oh I don't know. They talk about blatantly pissing on the 14th Amendment these days. They already have done it on local levels.

SCOTUS, the great equalizer.

[SirNitram]

And once again I'll ask you to back this up. This is the third time.

Actualy I have to ask you to back up your claim. I have stated that full citizens can not have their constitutional rights removed without just cause and going through a process.

Yes. And you haven't backed that up. At all. You made a fucking claim and refuse to simply support it, as I have asked three times. And now, a fourth time. You can reword it all you fucking want, but simply trying to shift the burden of proof around in some retarded shellgame is still a fallacy.

So. Fourth time. Back up your claim that, and I quote, full citizens can not have their constitutional rights removed without just cause and going through a process.

[Alyeska]

And once again I'll ask you to back this up. This is the third time.

Actualy I have to ask you to back up your claim. I have stated that full citizens can not have their constitutional rights removed without just cause and going through a process.

Yes. And you haven't backed that up. At all. You made a fucking claim and refuse to simply support it, as I have asked three times. And now, a fourth time. You can reword it all you fucking want, but simply trying to shift the burden of proof around in some retarded shellgame is still a fallacy.

So. Fourth time. Back up your claim that, and I quote, full citizens can not have their constitutional rights removed without just cause and going through a process.

Thats the whole fucking point behind the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. These are rights the people have that the government can NOT trample, can not restrict. The Bill of Rights is actualy designed to limit what the government can do in regards to the people.

Now I ask you for the final time to prove that the government can just restrict and alter constitutional rights of citizens on a whim.

YOU are making the claim they can just shit on constitutional protected rights (these are rights the government can NEVER violate (except in the issue of martial law, but thats covered before the Bill of Rights and we aren't talking martial law).

So enough with the fucking red herrings Nitram. Stop avoiding the topic. I've pointed out the intent of the Constitution, I've countered examples of restrictions by pointing out their specifics. You on the other hand continue to repeat your groundless position. You prove that the government has the legal right and capability to shit on citizens rights.