Biden "Obama to bypass Bill of Rights, doesn't care"

[Soontir C'boath]

In this thread, the OP proves he doesn't know a lick of the case law about the 2nd Amendment, and beleives a yellow rag run by Rubert Murdoch.

Just a minor correction, Murdoch owns the New York Post which is a shit rag. NYDN is currently owned by a Canadian.

[weemadando]

Why can't they just put the emphasis on the "Well Regulated Militia" part? You can own any gun you goddamn well want as long as you are a current member of a well regulated militia. Regulated by the govt of course, and with exceptionally low membership and exceedingly harsh and restrictive membership requirements. We'll "well regulate" the shit outta that 2nd Amendment.

Oh to dream about actually fixing a problem.

[TimothyC]

Why can't they just put the emphasis on the "Well Regulated Militia" part? You can own any gun you goddamn well want as long as you are a current member of a well regulated militia. Regulated by the govt of course, and with exceptionally low membership and exceedingly harsh and restrictive membership requirements. We'll "well regulate" the shit outta that 2nd Amendment.

It is my understanding that the "Well Regulated" would mean "well equipped" in modern vernacular.

Also, DC v. Heller upheld that the right is, like the rest of the rights in the the constitution, an individual right, just like the rights in the rest of the bill of rights.

Oh to dream about actually fixing a problem.

Yeah, but it's a stupid idea that doesn't fit with the constitutional framework of the United States.

Edit: And I think you've even been told this before.

[weemadando]

If I was really dreaming about fixing the problem that wouldn't be my solution. That was sarcasm about the bill of rights stuff.

And is it really incompatible having an individual right that's contingent on social responsibility?

[Aaron MkII]

If I was really dreaming about fixing the problem that wouldn't be my solution. That was sarcasm about the bill of rights stuff.

And is it really incompatible having an individual right that's contingent on social responsibility?

It is if your society already shuns the concept. Look at America, look at how much the "fuck you I've got mine" is part of public discourse and attitudes.

[Irbis]

So, Obama wants to ban well regulated militia?

Or is it just another idiotic post like "I can't posses 50 kilograms of Anthrax, my civil rights are trampled, waaah!"?

You know, when it comes to regulate tobacco, countries ban/limit it. Apparently, when it comes to guns, another useless luxury that harms others, the correct response is to install huge ventilators in every room instead of regulating the source of problem. That's what all the speeches about restraining 'gun violence' by trying to handle second, not first word are - attempts to shift the discussion into impossible task, changing human nature, instead of just flat admitting guns owning is just as obsolete as carrying duelling sabres is and tackling it at the root.

Oh, and tobacco analogy is more apt that it should. People pointing out that some places in USA that ban guns don't do well? Gee, it's like trying to ban smoking in school where there are no walls and you can freely smoke in some rooms, filling the entirety of the building with harmful gases and then crying crocodile tears banning smoking in some rooms does nothing. Well, of course it doesn't when a next state filled with rednecks sells guns freely to anyone without asking, allowing gangs in all neighbouring states free access to guns regardless of the laws in their own state. And USA poisons the well not only for itself - dozens of other countries have their own gangs and criminals supplied with US weapons, too. Just ask Mexico how it works for them.

[Grumman]

...guns, another useless luxury...

You're an idiot. Guns do have utility, for hunting, for self defense and for farmers who sometimes need to kill an animal.

[Spoonist]

Why can't they just put the emphasis on the "Well Regulated Militia" part?

This "collective rights" as held and regulated by the states, was indeed the stance of all the supreme court rulings up to and including 1939. It was not until the 2008 ruling that this was changed to a "individual right" ruling.
It was quite clear that the intent up to and including 1939 that the 2nd amendment was not a right to own a gun for self protection. As the fameous ruling of blacks not being allowed to arm themselves versus Ku Klux Klan mobs.
But instead that it would be up to the states themselves to regulate ownership of "arms". Also note that "arms" back in the early years included melee weapons as well as artillery, the states were initially 'required' to have some field pieces and tents etc while this was usually skimped on in practice.
All of that was overruled with the 2008 ruling.

It is my understanding that the "Well Regulated" would mean "well equipped" in modern vernacular.

That would not be quite correct.
examples from the Oxford English Dictionary
1709: "If a liberal Education has formed in us well-regulated Appetites and worthy Inclinations."
1714: "The practice of all well-regulated courts of justice in the world."
1812: "The equation of time ... is the adjustment of the difference of time as shown by a well-regulated clock and a true sun dial."
1848: "A remissness for which I am sure every well-regulated person will blame the Mayor."
1862: "It appeared to her well-regulated mind, like a clandestine proceeding."
1894: "The newspaper, a never wanting adjunct to every well-regulated American embryo city."
So it is rather a synonym to "in good working order" or properly, orderly, functioning, etc.

[Aaron MkII]

...guns, another useless luxury...

You're an idiot. Guns do have utility, for hunting, for self defense and for farmers who sometimes need to kill an animal.

Don't bother. Reasonable discussion or compromise cannot be reached with someone who holds these views. They don’t care that we use them for food or I might need to kill a coyote trying to eat my livestock.

You can't talk to someone so ideologically opposed to ownership.

[K. A. Pital]

I think villagers in other nations who have to protect their livestock do not have a problem obtaining guns. I may be wrong, but hunting/farming is one of the permission categories which applies to every nation regardless of how freely guns are sold overall. The other two permission categories are sport (marksmen) and weapon collecting.

[Aaron MkII]

Aye, you didn't even need a hunting license here to protect your livestock. Obviously still have to have a gun license to possess, livestock or not.

[Civil War Man]

I think the main reason that nothing's going to get done is that as long as there is something else that can be blamed, even thinking about discussing the availability of guns as part of the problem leads to the hyperbolic hyperventilating like we see in the OP, or some guy who was on CNN recently screaming that there was going to be armed revolution in the streets.

To channel Jon Stewart for a bit here, why are guns magically immune to discussion? Yes, we need to address the availability and quality of mental health care. We need to take a good long look at the glorification of violence in our culture. We need to address how our lack of a safety net and the war on drugs results in a ripe breeding ground for violence in poor areas. Why does that make it so we aren't allowed to talk about how, for instance, high capacity magazines result in higher bodies counts when these mass shootings occur?

Gun violence in this country is a complex problem that requires a complex solution. If you exempt part of the problem from even being discussed, then you make the problem that much harder to solve. We didn't solve drunk driving by just making it illegal. We lowered blood alcohol limits, increased penalties, penalized bars who knowingly served drunk customers and let them try to drive home, etc.

[Aaron MkII]

I'm all for talking about a solution that involves all the issues. I'm even willing to throw the hardcore anti's a bone with mag restrictions, though I have no confidence it will change anything. A mag change is literally seconds, less if you really practice.

[TheFeniX]

Why does that make it so we aren't allowed to talk about how, for instance, high capacity magazines result in higher bodies counts when these mass shootings occur?

You can't really regulate a $2 piece of metal with a spring. And turning standard capacity mags into hi-cap ones or making your own isn't that difficult and certainly not outside the realm of someone willing to commit mass-murder anyway. You're also fighting the fact that the standard 30-round AR style mag, that fits dozens of different .223/556 models, is literally everywhere and that the US military probably has millions stamped a year, good luck.

We lowered blood alcohol limits, increased penalties, penalized bars who knowingly served drunk customers and let them try to drive home, etc.

I doubt you'll find many gun owners who aren't in favor of harsher penalties against those who sell guns illegally either knowingly or negligently. Same with people against background checks or actually fixing the way authorities routinely fail to report involuntary commitment to mental institutions. But those aren't the types of proposals brought to the table.

Wasting millions of tax-dollars to ban dangerous steel plates and their accompanying springs isn't worth discussing if you're concerned with actually fighting crime. But if you already put law-abiding gun owners just one inch above mass-murdering psychopaths on the morality scale, banning stupid shit like magazines looks sane.

[Azazal]

I think the main reason that nothing's going to get done is that as long as there is something else that can be blamed, even thinking about discussing the availability of guns as part of the problem leads to the hyperbolic hyperventilating like we see in the OP, or some guy who was on CNN recently screaming that there was going to be armed revolution in the streets.

Just for the record I would like to point out that the raving mad man there is Alex Jones. He has been the head cheerleader for the 9/11 truth movement and other wack-a-loon conspiracy theories for years. If he can feed off of people's paranoia to sell a book or DVD set, he will, and has. To say that he represents moderate, sane gun owners is insulting at the very least.

[Terralthra]

...guns, another useless luxury...

You're an idiot. Guns do have utility, for hunting, for self defense and for farmers who sometimes need to kill an animal.

Guns can not be used for self-defense at all. They are a purely offensive weapon. The only way guns serve as any sort of "self-defense" is as a sort of strategic deterrent, like the nuclear arsenals maintained during the Cold War.

Even then, there's a large flaw, as a ballistic missile can't be concealed until fractions of a second before it hits you, unlike a gun+bullet. With nuclear arsenals, the flight time of missiles and so on allows for a response by the nation being attacked, so-called "MAD," along with things like ballistic missile submarines for a second-strike capacity.

Firearms don't really have these sorts of limitations or capabilities. Thus, their ability to act as strategic self-defense is rather low, which I guess is still higher than their ability to act as practical self-defense, which is zero, unless you can shoot a bullet out of the air.

[Stark]

I'm all for talking about a solution that involves all the issues. I'm even willing to throw the hardcore anti's a bone with mag restrictions, though I have no confidence it will change anything. A mag change is literally seconds, less if you really practice.

How did the thread go from hilarious legal nonsense to you and your hilarious use of language? Perhaps you are unaware you have radicalised and are now unproductive?

EDIT - uh oh

[TheFeniX]

Guns can not be used for self-defense at all. They are a purely offensive weapon. The only way guns serve as any sort of "self-defense" is as a sort of strategic deterrent, like the nuclear arsenals maintained during the Cold War.

Even then, there's a large flaw, as a ballistic missile can't be concealed until fractions of a second before it hits you, unlike a gun+bullet. With nuclear arsenals, the flight time of missiles and so on allows for a response by the nation being attacked, so-called "MAD," along with things like ballistic missile submarines for a second-strike capacity.

Firearms don't really have these sorts of limitations or capabilities. Thus, their ability to act as strategic self-defense is rather low, which I guess is still higher than their ability to act as practical self-defense, which is zero, unless you can shoot a bullet out of the air.

Man, I've heard some long-winded tripe before, but never something this laughably bad to try and redefine both the legal and literal definition of self-defense or to try and compare it to the Cold War. It's nice that you conveniently left out that the mere act of drawing a firearm has a large chance of ending hostilities from both sides of the fence (attacker/defender) and said act being used by police and military to do so all the time. But that's really not even worth noting due to the utter hilarity of this post, and it seems so serious on the surface.

I just... oh man, I assume that since I've seen a few ninja movies where they catch arrows, crossbows would qualify as self-defense weapons? How about rocks? Can I throw rocks at people since they are hard, but not impossible, to block? Should we start another thread? "Rocks and their viability in self-defense." Would we then need to discuss banning hi-capacity rock bags?

[Terralthra]

Is your approach to simply mock what you think I said in hopes that if you misrepresent my argument and make it seem like what I said didn't make sense, everyone else will simply not read my post?

[Aaron MkII]

I'm all for talking about a solution that involves all the issues. I'm even willing to throw the hardcore anti's a bone with mag restrictions, though I have no confidence it will change anything. A mag change is literally seconds, less if you really practice.

How did the thread go from hilarious legal nonsense to you and your hilarious use of language? Perhaps you are unaware you have radicalised and are now unproductive?

EDIT - uh oh

Pardon?

[Stark]

While you're aware of the gulf between the crazy people on both sides, have you considered that your views are becoming more and more extreme over time? If your views eventually become effectively identical to the crazy people or you consider them irreconcilable with the other crazy people, how does this help the situation?

I mean its not worth asking the rest of these jokers because I don't think they have any kind of self-awareness, but you do. I'm just curious if you've noticed how your expressed views have changed over the last few years.

[Aaron MkII]

I have yes. A lot of it is just burnout, the same arguments over and over, the same talking points over and over. Some of it is the realization that a lot of the gun control arguments are based on fear, rather then data. Something which my side is guilty of as well, hello NRA.

You may have noticed that I've backed off quite a bit on Facebook, twitter, etc because I don't want to a radical. I just want to be left alone to plink/hunt but if you hang around extremists...you can be in danger of becoming one.

Thanks though.

[Grumman]

Guns can not be used for self-defense at all. They are a purely offensive weapon.

Someone breaks into your house. You shoot them, rendering them physically incapable of continuing their attack. How is that not self-defence?

[Aaron MkII]

I have yes. A lot of it is just burnout, the same arguments over and over, the same talking points over and over. Some of it is the realization that a lot of the gun control arguments are based on fear, rather then data. Something which my side is guilty of as well, hello NRA.

You may have noticed that I've backed off quite a bit on Facebook, twitter, etc because I don't want to a radical. I just want to be left alone to plink/hunt but if you hang around extremists...you can be in danger of becoming one.

Thanks though.

Siege mentality is the phrase I was looking for but couldn't remember.

[TimothyC]

It is my understanding that the "Well Regulated" would mean "well equipped" in modern vernacular.

That would not be quite correct.
examples from the Oxford English Dictionary
1709: "If a liberal Education has formed in us well-regulated Appetites and worthy Inclinations."
1714: "The practice of all well-regulated courts of justice in the world."
1812: "The equation of time ... is the adjustment of the difference of time as shown by a well-regulated clock and a true sun dial."
1848: "A remissness for which I am sure every well-regulated person will blame the Mayor."
1862: "It appeared to her well-regulated mind, like a clandestine proceeding."
1894: "The newspaper, a never wanting adjunct to every well-regulated American embryo city."
So it is rather a synonym to "in good working order" or properly, orderly, functioning, etc.

Huh, you learn something new every day. Thank you.