If the Sandy Hook incident does not bring on changes due to the NRA NO

[Underhill]

The reality is that the 2nd Amendment itself is silly in modern times.

Yes - because, clearly, the people, neither individually nor collectively, no longer need access to the most effective means to protect their rights with lethal force because they no longer have the need to protect their rights with said lethal force.

Well you can choose to delude yourselves if you want to.

But the reality is a gun isn't much protection from government. Oh you can shoot it out with police if you like. But everyone is outgunned eventually.

And I am not anti gun. I am simply looking for a better discussion. I own 6 guns. I hunt and I shoot trap.

I just don't think the constitutional argument holds much water. It makes for a good slogan, but it's like arguing the constitutional rights of a business to discriminate based on color. Even setting aside the morality, there are just too many precedents in place for the argument to hold water.

 

[M14 Shooter]

The reality is that the 2nd Amendment itself is silly in modern times.

Yes - because, clearly, the people, neither individually nor collectively, no longer need access to the most effective means to protect their rights with lethal force because they no longer have the need to protect their rights with said lethal force.

Well you can choose to delude yourselves if you want to.

Wait.... you REALLY beleive that there's no need for the people to use deadly force to protect their rights?

I just don't think the constitutional argument holds much water. It makes for a good slogan, but it's like arguing the constitutional rights of a business to discriminate based on color.

Yeah... they're the same... except, of course, that discrimination based on color harms those that are discriminated agianst, while simple ownership/posession of firearms harms no one.

 

[Nosmo King]

Hypothetically, if the constitution was drafted in 2013 and the Bill of Rights added at the same time, would the second amendment be included? Would the wording be the same?

A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

 

[Koios]

Hypothetically, if the constitution was drafted in 2013 and the Bill of Rights added at the same time, would the second amendment be included? Would the wording be the same?

A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

It means, unambiguously, rednecks can have have assualt rifles!!!!

 

[paulitician]

But we can obtain fully automatic weapons so the question becomes: Why don't you think?

Ooh, ooh, can I say???

Maybe because doing so is a big no-no but some still do it, even if it's against the LAW???

It is not against the law, asshat.

Typical ignorant Obama sycophant. They're so damn dumb. You did try though. But i wouldn't waste anymore of your valuable time debating an entitlement dipshit. You'll never get through.

 

[Underhill]

Wait.... you REALLY beleive that there's no need for the people to use deadly force to protect their rights?

I think that at the time, our democracy was on the brink. We could have been over-run or taken over by a tyrant relatively easily after the forming of our country. It was no sure thing that our democracy would last 50 years.

We live in a different country now.

I think defending yourself from the government sounds like a pipe dream. They will always outgun you. Not to mention our democracy is plenty strong. The biggest threat to our country right now is the apathy of it's citizens.

Yeah... they're the same... except, of course, that discrimination based on color harms those that are discriminated agianst, while the simple ownership of firearms harms no one.

I said setting aside the moral issues for a reason. Use anything you like that is a standing precedent for decades. The chances of that precedent being changed is extraordinarily low.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Wait.... you REALLY beleive that there's no need for the people to use deadly force to protect their rights?

I think defending yourself from the government sounds like a pipe dream.

Since you failed to mention anything else, I must assume you believe that the government is the only legitimate threat to your rights that might require the use of deadly force in self-defense, and so there is no need to guarantee access to the most effective means or projecting deadly force in self-defense as there is no other need to project deadly force in self-defense.
Am I correct?

Yeah... they're the same... except, of course, that discrimination based on color harms those that are discriminated agianst, while the simple ownership of firearms harms no one.

I said setting aside the moral issues for a reason.

I see no moral issue with regard to the right to arms, as anything immoral stands outside it.

Use anything you like that is a standing precedent for decades. The chances of that precedent being changed is extraordinarily low.

And this aplies to the right to arms... how?

 

[Underhill]

Wait.... you REALLY beleive that there's no need for the people to use deadly force to protect their rights?

I think defending yourself from the government sounds like a pipe dream.

Since you failed to mention anything else, I must assume you believe that the government is the only legitimate threat to your rights that might require the use of deadly force in self-defense, and so there is no need to guarantee access to the most effective means or projecting deadly force in self-defense as there is no other need to project deadly force in self-defense.
Am I correct?

I said setting aside the moral issues for a reason.

I see no moral issue with regard to the right to arms, as anything immoral stands outside it.

Use anything you like that is a standing precedent for decades. The chances of that precedent being changed is extraordinarily low.

And this aplies to the right to arms... how?

I wasn't saying there is a moral issue with fire arms. You managed to miss the point entirely.

And no, I believe in the notion of self defense. That is the discussion I would like to have rather than this 2nd Amendment tripe I see all over.

What is necessary for self defense? Arming ourselves for the unfortunate thief? The zombie apocalypse? Does it matter? If not why not?

At what point does the welfare of the people trump the rights of the individual? Does it ever?

Where are criminals getting these guns? Illegally? Legally? Can we stop that? How? Are they stealing them? What do we do about that?

What is the real source of our gun violence problem in this country? What do we do about that? How can we solve it in a reasoned way without needlessly taking away guns from lawful owners? Can we?

These are the discussions I would like to be having. Unfortunately it will have to wait for the time being as I have a scout camping trip to attend with my son this weekend and I have to get ready. I may pop in again before we leave tomorrow.

 

[M14 Shooter]

I think defending yourself from the government sounds like a pipe dream.

Since you failed to mention anything else, I must assume you believe that the government is the only legitimate threat to your rights that might require the use of deadly force in self-defense, and so there is no need to guarantee access to the most effective means or projecting deadly force in self-defense as there is no other need to project deadly force in self-defense.
Am I correct?


I see no moral issue with regard to the right to arms, as anything immoral stands outside it.

Use anything you like that is a standing precedent for decades. The chances of that precedent being changed is extraordinarily low.

And this aplies to the right to arms... how?

And no, I believe in the notion of self defense.

How then is the 2nd "silly in modern times"?

What is necessary for self defense?

"Necessary" is up to the person in question.
What it protected by the constitution? An entirely different matter.

At what point does the welfare of the people trump the rights of the individual?

The that iondividual does something to harm some one or place them in a condition of clear, present or immediate danger.
Simple posession/ownership of a firearm does not do this.

 

[asterism]

This will be an atrocity. There are so many things that could be done to assure that this never happens again. But if there is mention of gun laws or anything to do with guns the NRA says NO.

They don't represent the majority of gun owners anymore. They respresent the manufactorers. Sooner or later, the NO, is going to start costing them memberships.

While we agree in essence, nothing will assure that mass killings do not happen again. Sure; we can mitigate the severity, by reducing the lethality of weapons the general public can purchase, which we've always done since nasty ones came on line: nukes, grendades, full auto, etc. And the only reason to bar ownership of nukes, grenades, etc, vis a vis "well regulated," is they're massively lethal.

Whoa, back up here. This brings up a previous question that was never addressed.

If the Second Amendment is sacrosanct, then why can't I have a nuke? A grenade? Even a simple tank?
I don't remember any part of the Second Amendment referring to what's "massively lethal" and what isn't. Why isn't the NRA protesting these egregious tramplings of the Constitution?

Who drew that line? And if we accept that line, why do we accept that one and not another one?

The reason a societal consensus has been reached at that arbitrary point is because political compromise doesn't follow strict logic. One cannot yell fire in a crowded movie theater and pornography is not allowed on public airwaves but the exact enforcement of both are subjective.

Why not accept the new line being proposed? Because generally 2nd Amendment advocates see no benefit to these additional limits. For the most part, those who are not proficient with firearms are the ones arguing strenuously in favor of further limits. People proficient with firearms recognize that the limits are mere feel-good gestures.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

If Butchie holds a classIII FFL, yes.
The shop up the road from me has a class III and has one of these on the floor. They ain't cheap. The rifle and the whole 9 yards will set you back 12 grand.

I wish I had that in my collection!

 

[Underhill]

Since you failed to mention anything else, I must assume you believe that the government is the only legitimate threat to your rights that might require the use of deadly force in self-defense, and so there is no need to guarantee access to the most effective means or projecting deadly force in self-defense as there is no other need to project deadly force in self-defense.
Am I correct?


I see no moral issue with regard to the right to arms, as anything immoral stands outside it.


And this aplies to the right to arms... how?

And no, I believe in the notion of self defense.

How then is the 2nd "silly in modern times"?

What is necessary for self defense?

"Necessary" is up to the person in question.
What it protected by the constitution? An entirely different matter.

At what point does the welfare of the people trump the rights of the individual?

The that iondividual does something to harm some one or place them in a condition of clear, present or immediate danger.
Simple posession/ownership of a firearm does not do this.

Okay but that is not the standard we use for most other laws.

Many explosives are restricted. A person driving without a seatbelt or helmet isn't harming anyone else. The justification comes from the potential cost, if someone has an accident. Much like guns actually. Restrictions aren't about inherent harm, but the potential for violence. And there are many other examples.

As for the 2nd being "silly", my point is a simple one. It was written at a time when none of these things existed. It would be like depending on rules of the road written in 1790.

I'm not saying protecting gun rights holds no importance. But there is no question about it, the document was not written with modern weapons in mind.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

The reality is that the 2nd Amendment itself is silly in modern times.

It was written when the norm was a gun which fired roughly 2-3 shots a minute (if you knew what you were doing). The entire notion of a mass shooting by an individual didn't exist back then.

The damage a single weapon could do was extremely limited.

Sure, you could buy a cannon. But since they took a team of people to fire, cost a fortune, and were virtually useless anywhere but the battlefield, why bother?

Our society decided a long time ago (1934), that certain things are too dangerous to have in the public. They basically made it illegal to own automatic weapons and shot guns with a short barrel. And that hasn't changed for 80 years.

Like it or not, that is when this shift happened. The idea that new regulations (like those passed in NY) are a constitutional issue have long since been decided.

You might think that these regulations have gone too far, and it is a valid opinion. But it is getting really old to hear people wrapping themselves in a flag talking about their second amendment rights. I don't know what the founding fathers intended. But I know they had no idea the issues we would have to deal with. So a it's pointless discussion (if you can even call it that).

On a related note, I heard a funny little story recently.

A woman walks into a psychiatrist office complaining because her friends tell her she is crazy. So the psychiatrist asks, "what seems to be the problem"?

"My friends say I am crazy because I like canned corn."

The councilor thinks for a second and says, "well that isn't crazy, I've found myself enjoying canned corn on occasion".

"Really?" the woman says. "You should come over sometime. I have 1200 cases of the stuff in my front room!"

It was written so "we the people" can protect ourselves from a tyrannical government. The type of arms doesn't matter.

 

[asterism]

And no, I believe in the notion of self defense.

How then is the 2nd "silly in modern times"?


"Necessary" is up to the person in question.
What it protected by the constitution? An entirely different matter.

At what point does the welfare of the people trump the rights of the individual?

The that iondividual does something to harm some one or place them in a condition of clear, present or immediate danger.
Simple posession/ownership of a firearm does not do this.

Okay but that is not the standard we use for most other laws.

Many explosives are restricted. A person driving without a seatbelt or helmet isn't harming anyone else. The justification comes from the potential cost, if someone has an accident. Much like guns actually. Restrictions aren't about inherent harm, but the potential for violence. And there are many other examples.

As for the 2nd being "silly", my point is a simple one. It was written at a time when none of these things existed. It would be like depending on rules of the road written in 1790.

I'm not saying protecting gun rights holds no importance. But there is no question about it, the document was not written with modern weapons in mind.

It wasn't written with the Internet or abortion in mind either. That doesn't stop advocates of those issues from holding the Constitution sacrosanct.

 

[Underhill]

The reality is that the 2nd Amendment itself is silly in modern times.

It was written when the norm was a gun which fired roughly 2-3 shots a minute (if you knew what you were doing). The entire notion of a mass shooting by an individual didn't exist back then.

The damage a single weapon could do was extremely limited.

Sure, you could buy a cannon. But since they took a team of people to fire, cost a fortune, and were virtually useless anywhere but the battlefield, why bother?

Our society decided a long time ago (1934), that certain things are too dangerous to have in the public. They basically made it illegal to own automatic weapons and shot guns with a short barrel. And that hasn't changed for 80 years.

Like it or not, that is when this shift happened. The idea that new regulations (like those passed in NY) are a constitutional issue have long since been decided.

You might think that these regulations have gone too far, and it is a valid opinion. But it is getting really old to hear people wrapping themselves in a flag talking about their second amendment rights. I don't know what the founding fathers intended. But I know they had no idea the issues we would have to deal with. So a it's pointless discussion (if you can even call it that).

On a related note, I heard a funny little story recently.

A woman walks into a psychiatrist office complaining because her friends tell her she is crazy. So the psychiatrist asks, "what seems to be the problem"?

"My friends say I am crazy because I like canned corn."

The councilor thinks for a second and says, "well that isn't crazy, I've found myself enjoying canned corn on occasion".

"Really?" the woman says. "You should come over sometime. I have 1200 cases of the stuff in my front room!"

It was written so "we the people" can protect ourselves from a tyrannical government. The type of arms doesn't matter.

So, as a good American citizen we should all be packing suitcase nukes and surface to air missiles. Can't have the government getting out of control can we?

 

[Underhill]

How then is the 2nd "silly in modern times"?


"Necessary" is up to the person in question.
What it protected by the constitution? An entirely different matter.


The that iondividual does something to harm some one or place them in a condition of clear, present or immediate danger.
Simple posession/ownership of a firearm does not do this.

Okay but that is not the standard we use for most other laws.

Many explosives are restricted. A person driving without a seatbelt or helmet isn't harming anyone else. The justification comes from the potential cost, if someone has an accident. Much like guns actually. Restrictions aren't about inherent harm, but the potential for violence. And there are many other examples.

As for the 2nd being "silly", my point is a simple one. It was written at a time when none of these things existed. It would be like depending on rules of the road written in 1790.

I'm not saying protecting gun rights holds no importance. But there is no question about it, the document was not written with modern weapons in mind.

It wasn't written with the Internet or abortion in mind either. That doesn't stop advocates of those issues from holding the Constitution sacrosanct.

And how are they doing with that argument? Last I knew the patriot act was still going strong...

 

[asterism]

The reality is that the 2nd Amendment itself is silly in modern times.

It was written when the norm was a gun which fired roughly 2-3 shots a minute (if you knew what you were doing). The entire notion of a mass shooting by an individual didn't exist back then.

The damage a single weapon could do was extremely limited.

Sure, you could buy a cannon. But since they took a team of people to fire, cost a fortune, and were virtually useless anywhere but the battlefield, why bother?

Our society decided a long time ago (1934), that certain things are too dangerous to have in the public. They basically made it illegal to own automatic weapons and shot guns with a short barrel. And that hasn't changed for 80 years.

Like it or not, that is when this shift happened. The idea that new regulations (like those passed in NY) are a constitutional issue have long since been decided.

You might think that these regulations have gone too far, and it is a valid opinion. But it is getting really old to hear people wrapping themselves in a flag talking about their second amendment rights. I don't know what the founding fathers intended. But I know they had no idea the issues we would have to deal with. So a it's pointless discussion (if you can even call it that).

On a related note, I heard a funny little story recently.

A woman walks into a psychiatrist office complaining because her friends tell her she is crazy. So the psychiatrist asks, "what seems to be the problem"?

"My friends say I am crazy because I like canned corn."

The councilor thinks for a second and says, "well that isn't crazy, I've found myself enjoying canned corn on occasion".

"Really?" the woman says. "You should come over sometime. I have 1200 cases of the stuff in my front room!"

It was written so "we the people" can protect ourselves from a tyrannical government. The type of arms doesn't matter.

So, as a good American citizen we should all be packing suitcase nukes and surface to air missiles. Can't have the government getting out of control can we?

That's a disingenuous argument.

The government can and should be mindful of 20 million well-armed citizens protecting their homes and way of life. Suitcase nukes not needed.

 

[asterism]

Okay but that is not the standard we use for most other laws.

Many explosives are restricted. A person driving without a seatbelt or helmet isn't harming anyone else. The justification comes from the potential cost, if someone has an accident. Much like guns actually. Restrictions aren't about inherent harm, but the potential for violence. And there are many other examples.

As for the 2nd being "silly", my point is a simple one. It was written at a time when none of these things existed. It would be like depending on rules of the road written in 1790.

I'm not saying protecting gun rights holds no importance. But there is no question about it, the document was not written with modern weapons in mind.

It wasn't written with the Internet or abortion in mind either. That doesn't stop advocates of those issues from holding the Constitution sacrosanct.

And how are they doing with that argument? Last I knew the patriot act was still going strong...

Which hasn't impeded a single abortion ever.

non sequitur

 

[Lonestar_logic]

The reality is that the 2nd Amendment itself is silly in modern times.

It was written when the norm was a gun which fired roughly 2-3 shots a minute (if you knew what you were doing). The entire notion of a mass shooting by an individual didn't exist back then.

The damage a single weapon could do was extremely limited.

Sure, you could buy a cannon. But since they took a team of people to fire, cost a fortune, and were virtually useless anywhere but the battlefield, why bother?

Our society decided a long time ago (1934), that certain things are too dangerous to have in the public. They basically made it illegal to own automatic weapons and shot guns with a short barrel. And that hasn't changed for 80 years.

Like it or not, that is when this shift happened. The idea that new regulations (like those passed in NY) are a constitutional issue have long since been decided.

You might think that these regulations have gone too far, and it is a valid opinion. But it is getting really old to hear people wrapping themselves in a flag talking about their second amendment rights. I don't know what the founding fathers intended. But I know they had no idea the issues we would have to deal with. So a it's pointless discussion (if you can even call it that).

On a related note, I heard a funny little story recently.

A woman walks into a psychiatrist office complaining because her friends tell her she is crazy. So the psychiatrist asks, "what seems to be the problem"?

"My friends say I am crazy because I like canned corn."

The councilor thinks for a second and says, "well that isn't crazy, I've found myself enjoying canned corn on occasion".

"Really?" the woman says. "You should come over sometime. I have 1200 cases of the stuff in my front room!"

It was written so "we the people" can protect ourselves from a tyrannical government. The type of arms doesn't matter.

So, as a good American citizen we should all be packing suitcase nukes and surface to air missiles. Can't have the government getting out of control can we?

We're talking about "arms" not artillery.

 

[M14 Shooter]

And no, I believe in the notion of self defense.

How then is the 2nd "silly in modern times"?


"Necessary" is up to the person in question.
What it protected by the constitution? An entirely different matter.

At what point does the welfare of the people trump the rights of the individual?

The that iondividual does something to harm some one or place them in a condition of clear, present or immediate danger.
Simple posession/ownership of a firearm does not do this.

Okay but that is not the standard we use for most other laws.

It IS the standard we use for determining when something lies outside the constitutional protection of a right - its why the 1st does not protect libel, slander and falsely yelling fire in a theater.

Restrictions aren't about inherent harm, but the potential for violence.

Incorrect. We do not restrict rights because someone - might - harm someone else - that's called prior restraint and it violates the constitution.

As for the 2nd being "silly", my point is a simple one. It was written at a time when none of these things existed. It would be like depending on rules of the road written in 1790....But there is no question about it, the document was not written with modern weapons in mind

Cable news networks, the internet and cell phones did not exist in 1790.
You agree then that the 1st and 4th amendment do not apply to them?