Honest and open debate on gun control

[Darkwind]

They will not be issued equipment? Any equipment issued will be taken back if the condition of mental stability isn't met.

You don't understand what is being asked of you.

A criminal will get a gun regardless of what equipment you issue. How does your issuing equipment prevent the criminal from getting the gun?

 

[Darkwind]

Reintroduce the draft!

All males either graduating from school and/or 18 years of age are required to spend 6 months in basic training.

Training will include both firearms and psychological evaluations.

Follow up training of 2 weeks every 2nd year for the next 30 years.

Gun sales will be dependent upon producing certificates of course completion.

Anyone failing either firearms or psychological evals will have to apply through the courts for an exemption if they want to obtain a firearm.

In essence this is similar to the Swiss system that works so well.

Only those who are either incompetent with firearms or who are identified as being mentally unstable will have any problem obtaining firearms.

Everyone else will be fully trained in how to use them properly.

Only males?

Sexist much?

 

[WinterBorn]

Reintroduce the draft!

All males either graduating from school and/or 18 years of age are required to spend 6 months in basic training.

Training will include both firearms and psychological evaluations.

Follow up training of 2 weeks every 2nd year for the next 30 years.

Gun sales will be dependent upon producing certificates of course completion.

Anyone failing either firearms or psychological evals will have to apply through the courts for an exemption if they want to obtain a firearm.

In essence this is similar to the Swiss system that works so well.

Only those who are either incompetent with firearms or who are identified as being mentally unstable will have any problem obtaining firearms.

Everyone else will be fully trained in how to use them properly.

In addition to ignoring women completely, as has been pointed out already, I would want to know more about the psychological eval.

Who will create the process and who will have the authority to change it. More than a few people would consider the desire to own a firearm as proof of mental illness.

 

[PratchettFan]

This is the part where you post the link to the Constitution and cite those limitations.

It can be found here in the Constitution:

'Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons. Pp. 54–56.'

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA v. HELLER

The Constitution exists solely in the context of its case law, as interpreted by the Supreme Court, authorized by the doctrine of judicial review and Articles III and VI; “but that's not in the Constitution” is a failed and ignorant 'argument.'

no what is foolish and idiotic is a lefttard trying to link that anyone thinks that an ICBM might be a 2nd amendment arm

it is a straw position

In the Cold War there was an arms race. This had a lot to do with ICBMs. The term "arms" can mean any weapon.

arms definition of arms in Oxford dictionary American English US

"Weapons and ammunition; armaments:"

Definition of arms Collins English Dictionary

"

1. weapons collectively See also small arms"

Definition of bear arms Collins English Dictionary

"

1. to carry weapons"

So, these common dictionaries use the term "arms" to mean weapons. And ICBM is a weapon, it is therefore arms. "The right to keep and bear arms", why would it not include ICBMs?

I mean, it DOESN'T include ICBMs and I know why. But the question is DO YOU?

explain it weirdo

The issue with the 2A is that it is about the Militia. I've already written a post on this, unanswered, which I assume means that no one has the desire to contradict what I said.

The first words of the Amendment are "A well regulated militia" because this is what it's all about.

The militia needs two things in order to function properly. It needs guns and it need people to fight with those guns.

All that the 2A does is stops the US govt (and now the states) from stopping individuals from having guns that would be useful for the militia, and it stops the US govt (and now the states) from stopping individuals from being in the militia.

The second part was easy. They simply wrote the Dick Act which said most adults are in the militia. The unorganised militia. But most males can't complain they're not in the militia, because they actually are.

So, the first part, about guns. What guns can be had? Well first we need to look at what the US govt can and can't do.

The US govt CAN ban guns for certain reasons, like they're not safe, for example. So, if a gun were to explode and kill the user every time it was used, the feds could ban it, close down the company that made it etc etc.

What is not protected then? This moves away from what the feds can and can't do, to what protection an individual may have (ie, there might not be protection from the 2A but the feds might also not have the power to stop someone from having a gun).
Not all weapons are protected. Only those weapons which are considered "normal" militia weapons. Ie, what guns is is normal for a US citizen to have in their home and with which they would use if they happened to bear arms in the militia. So we're talking modern weaponry, that's an important part, modern weaponry is a must for being protected. An antique firearm is NOT protected by the 2A (doesn't mean the feds can stop you having it though, that's a different issue), mostly we're talking handguns.

Nukes are not normal for individuals to own, also, they're dangerous even if not used. Hence why they're not protected. Tanks, fighter aircraft, SAMs etc are not normal for people to keep at home either. The fact that they could be used for mass killing is also a factor.

Where the line gets close is when you get to larger guns. Clearly some larger guns are "normal" as they are used for hunting etc. However an automatic rifle, is it "normal" for a hunter to have one? Is it "normal" for a person who wants to defend themselves to have one?

Not really. So it probably doesn't come under the term "normal". But then again this all comes down to interpretation.

It's clear what is and what isn't to a certain extent, but gets blurred at a point too.

There was no response because it is irrelevant. That something can be limited does not mean it should be limited. You do not limit something just for the sake of limiting it. The argument that nuclear weapons can't be owned by citizens therefore magazines should be limited to 9 cartridges is absurd. So bring it out of the rafters and:

1 - State what you want to accomplish
2 - State your plan for accomplishing it
3 - Support that your plan will accomplish it

 

[2aguy]

Define "Well Regulated".

That is easier to do if we substitute the words organized and trained for the word, regulated," which was a component of a seventeenth century vocabulary. Just keep in mind that the Second Amendment protects the People's right to "keep and bear," not the militia's, and it's easier to understand.

If we are relegated to regard the 2nd amendment in 18th century terms, we should remember the state of weapon technology during the 18th century.

I have no problem with our remembering the state of weapon technology during the 18th century.

The citizens were armed with the same weapons that the finest armies in the world carried.

The finest armies had rockets, mortar bombs and ships of the line with cannons.

How many citizens had those weapons?

As has already been pointed out private citizens at the time owned canon......and ship owners also owned their own cannon as well...to protect their ships from pirates...especially muslim pirates along the african coast....

 

[frigidweirdo]

There was no response because it is irrelevant. That something can be limited does not mean it should be limited. You do not limit something just for the sake of limiting it. The argument that nuclear weapons can't be owned by citizens therefore magazines should be limited to 9 cartridges is absurd. So bring it out of the rafters and:

1 - State what you want to accomplish
2 - State your plan for accomplishing it
3 - Support that your plan will accomplish it

It's relevant. It's the facts of the thing.

If something can be limited it's relevant. If you have the right, it's not limitable.

Also, I didn't make the argument about nukes to magazines. You brought that up. Again, I was stating the facts. If you understand what something means, you will then make the right conclusions. If you don't understand, then you will make the wrong conclusions.

So, do I take it that you agree with what I have said, regardless of whether you want to be pedantic about whether you think it's relevant or not?

 

[Nosmo King]

Define "Well Regulated".

That is easier to do if we substitute the words organized and trained for the word, regulated," which was a component of a seventeenth century vocabulary. Just keep in mind that the Second Amendment protects the People's right to "keep and bear," not the militia's, and it's easier to understand.

If we are relegated to regard the 2nd amendment in 18th century terms, we should remember the state of weapon technology during the 18th century.

I have no problem with our remembering the state of weapon technology during the 18th century.

The citizens were armed with the same weapons that the finest armies in the world carried.

But that is no longer the case. Citizens should not avail themselves of all weapons held by national governments today.

 

[PratchettFan]

There was no response because it is irrelevant. That something can be limited does not mean it should be limited. You do not limit something just for the sake of limiting it. The argument that nuclear weapons can't be owned by citizens therefore magazines should be limited to 9 cartridges is absurd. So bring it out of the rafters and:

1 - State what you want to accomplish
2 - State your plan for accomplishing it
3 - Support that your plan will accomplish it

It's relevant. It's the facts of the thing.

If something can be limited it's relevant. If you have the right, it's not limitable.

Also, I didn't make the argument about nukes to magazines. You brought that up. Again, I was stating the facts. If you understand what something means, you will then make the right conclusions. If you don't understand, then you will make the wrong conclusions.

So, do I take it that you agree with what I have said, regardless of whether you want to be pedantic about whether you think it's relevant or not?

Ok, you have no suggestions or goals. You just wanted to make a point having nothing to do with the thread. Consider it made.

 

[PratchettFan]

There was no response because it is irrelevant. That something can be limited does not mean it should be limited. You do not limit something just for the sake of limiting it. The argument that nuclear weapons can't be owned by citizens therefore magazines should be limited to 9 cartridges is absurd. So bring it out of the rafters and:

1 - State what you want to accomplish
2 - State your plan for accomplishing it
3 - Support that your plan will accomplish it

It's relevant. It's the facts of the thing.

If something can be limited it's relevant. If you have the right, it's not limitable.

Also, I didn't make the argument about nukes to magazines. You brought that up. Again, I was stating the facts. If you understand what something means, you will then make the right conclusions. If you don't understand, then you will make the wrong conclusions.

So, do I take it that you agree with what I have said, regardless of whether you want to be pedantic about whether you think it's relevant or not?

Forgot to respond to your last question. Of course it is limited. There is no such thing as an unlimited right. Now what?

 

[2aguy]

Define "Well Regulated".

That is easier to do if we substitute the words organized and trained for the word, regulated," which was a component of a seventeenth century vocabulary. Just keep in mind that the Second Amendment protects the People's right to "keep and bear," not the militia's, and it's easier to understand.

If we are relegated to regard the 2nd amendment in 18th century terms, we should remember the state of weapon technology during the 18th century.

I have no problem with our remembering the state of weapon technology during the 18th century.

The citizens were armed with the same weapons that the finest armies in the world carried.

But that is no longer the case. Citizens should not avail themselves of all weapons held by national governments today.

Why? You do realize that "assault" style weapons are responsible for at most, a handful of deaths each year...vs. knives which are over 650.

And why should the police and military have access to small arms that are provided by their employers, and yet those supplying the weapons should be banned from having them?

Has assualt weapon bans for civilians worked out very well in countries with evil, corrupt government?

 

[Nosmo King]

Define "Well Regulated".

That is easier to do if we substitute the words organized and trained for the word, regulated," which was a component of a seventeenth century vocabulary. Just keep in mind that the Second Amendment protects the People's right to "keep and bear," not the militia's, and it's easier to understand.

If we are relegated to regard the 2nd amendment in 18th century terms, we should remember the state of weapon technology during the 18th century.

I have no problem with our remembering the state of weapon technology during the 18th century.

The citizens were armed with the same weapons that the finest armies in the world carried.

The finest armies had rockets, mortar bombs and ships of the line with cannons.

How many citizens had those weapons?

My mistake, I should have said "The citizens had the same rifles that the finest armies in the world carried".

Not in every household. Rifles were hand built in the 18th century and prohibitively expensive. Most individuals were NOT armed, or at least not as well armed as any soldier in the British Army.

 

[2aguy]

That is easier to do if we substitute the words organized and trained for the word, regulated," which was a component of a seventeenth century vocabulary. Just keep in mind that the Second Amendment protects the People's right to "keep and bear," not the militia's, and it's easier to understand.

If we are relegated to regard the 2nd amendment in 18th century terms, we should remember the state of weapon technology during the 18th century.

I have no problem with our remembering the state of weapon technology during the 18th century.

The citizens were armed with the same weapons that the finest armies in the world carried.

The finest armies had rockets, mortar bombs and ships of the line with cannons.

How many citizens had those weapons?

My mistake, I should have said "The citizens had the same rifles that the finest armies in the world carried".

Not in every household. Rifles were hand built in the 18th century and prohibitively expensive. Most individuals were NOT armed, or at least not as well armed as any soldier in the British Army.

Wrong...in fact the colonists had better rifles than the British.....and they all had them since they lived on the frontier........

 

[M14 Shooter]

Has assualt weapon bans for civilians worked out very well in countries with evil, corrupt government?

The Clinton era 'assault weapon' ban expired in 2004.
Since 2004, violent crime fell 14.5% - which, to the anti-gun loons means nothing.
Had violent crime risen 14.5%, the same anti--gun loons would cite this as proof for a need to reinstate it.

 

[2aguy]

Has assualt weapon bans for civilians worked out very well in countries with evil, corrupt government?

The Clinton era 'assault weapon' ban expired in 2004.
Since 2004, violent crime fell 14.5% - which, to the anti-gun loons means nothing.
Had violent crime risen 14.5%, the same anti--gun loons would cite this as proof for a need to reinstate it.

Thanks....yeah, great point.........do you have any stats on how many people each year are killed by actual AR-15s....I know he category of rifle is about 300 so AR-15s are way below that?

 

[Nosmo King]

Define "Well Regulated".

That is easier to do if we substitute the words organized and trained for the word, regulated," which was a component of a seventeenth century vocabulary. Just keep in mind that the Second Amendment protects the People's right to "keep and bear," not the militia's, and it's easier to understand.

If we are relegated to regard the 2nd amendment in 18th century terms, we should remember the state of weapon technology during the 18th century.

I have no problem with our remembering the state of weapon technology during the 18th century.

The citizens were armed with the same weapons that the finest armies in the world carried.

But that is no longer the case. Citizens should not avail themselves of all weapons held by national governments today.

Why? You do realize that "assault" style weapons are responsible for at most, a handful of deaths each year...vs. knives which are over 650.

And why should the police and military have access to small arms that are provided by their employers, and yet those supplying the weapons should be banned from having them?

Has assualt weapon bans for civilians worked out very well in countries with evil, corrupt government?

That 'handful of deaths' happens in mass shootings when a mad man with easy access to assault weapons shoots up a school or church. But when those weapons are used in crimes like drive by shootings and other crimes involving drug trafficking, you seem to ignore those incidents.


criminals armed to the teeth makes for a very dangerous situati9n on the streets and during interaction with law enforcement.

And nobody should have the same weaponry as law enforcement or the military. Those weapons are designed for purposes other than sport. If you advocate holding the same weaponry, you are advocating taking the law into your own hands.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Has assualt weapon bans for civilians worked out very well in countries with evil, corrupt government?

The Clinton era 'assault weapon' ban expired in 2004.
Since 2004, violent crime fell 14.5% - which, to the anti-gun loons means nothing.
Had violent crime risen 14.5%, the same anti--gun loons would cite this as proof for a need to reinstate it.

Thanks....yeah, great point.........do you have any stats on how many people each year are killed by actual AR-15s....I know he category of rifle is about 300 so AR-15s are way below that?

I do not, but even if all 300 were killed by an AR....
2013: 285 rifles used.

 

[WinterBorn]

That is easier to do if we substitute the words organized and trained for the word, regulated," which was a component of a seventeenth century vocabulary. Just keep in mind that the Second Amendment protects the People's right to "keep and bear," not the militia's, and it's easier to understand.

If we are relegated to regard the 2nd amendment in 18th century terms, we should remember the state of weapon technology during the 18th century.

I have no problem with our remembering the state of weapon technology during the 18th century.

The citizens were armed with the same weapons that the finest armies in the world carried.

But that is no longer the case. Citizens should not avail themselves of all weapons held by national governments today.

Why? You do realize that "assault" style weapons are responsible for at most, a handful of deaths each year...vs. knives which are over 650.

And why should the police and military have access to small arms that are provided by their employers, and yet those supplying the weapons should be banned from having them?

Has assualt weapon bans for civilians worked out very well in countries with evil, corrupt government?

That 'handful of deaths' happens in mass shootings when a mad man with easy access to assault weapons shoots up a school or church. But when those weapons are used in crimes like drive by shootings and other crimes involving drug trafficking, you seem to ignore those incidents.


criminals armed to the teeth makes for a very dangerous situati9n on the streets and during interaction with law enforcement.

And nobody should have the same weaponry as law enforcement or the military. Those weapons are designed for purposes other than sport. If you advocate holding the same weaponry, you are advocating taking the law into your own hands.

That last paragraph is nonsense, unless you care to show how the 2nd amendment is about only sporting firearms.

 

[M14 Shooter]

That last paragraph is nonsense, unless you care to show how the 2nd amendment is about only sporting firearms.

By now you understand why NK is DQd from any sort of honest and open discussion - right?

 

[2aguy]

That is easier to do if we substitute the words organized and trained for the word, regulated," which was a component of a seventeenth century vocabulary. Just keep in mind that the Second Amendment protects the People's right to "keep and bear," not the militia's, and it's easier to understand.

If we are relegated to regard the 2nd amendment in 18th century terms, we should remember the state of weapon technology during the 18th century.

I have no problem with our remembering the state of weapon technology during the 18th century.

The citizens were armed with the same weapons that the finest armies in the world carried.

But that is no longer the case. Citizens should not avail themselves of all weapons held by national governments today.

Why? You do realize that "assault" style weapons are responsible for at most, a handful of deaths each year...vs. knives which are over 650.

And why should the police and military have access to small arms that are provided by their employers, and yet those supplying the weapons should be banned from having them?

Has assualt weapon bans for civilians worked out very well in countries with evil, corrupt government?

That 'handful of deaths' happens in mass shootings when a mad man with easy access to assault weapons shoots up a school or church. But when those weapons are used in crimes like drive by shootings and other crimes involving drug trafficking, you seem to ignore those incidents.


criminals armed to the teeth makes for a very dangerous situati9n on the streets and during interaction with law enforcement.

And nobody should have the same weaponry as law enforcement or the military. Those weapons are designed for purposes other than sport. If you advocate holding the same weaponry, you are advocating taking the law into your own hands.

Gang members in the U.S. do not use AR-15s often if at all...they are hard to conceal.....

In Europe, where they have extreme gun control, and fully automatic rifles are highly illegal, their criminals get them easily.

Explain why that is?

 

[Nosmo King]

If we are relegated to regard the 2nd amendment in 18th century terms, we should remember the state of weapon technology during the 18th century.

I have no problem with our remembering the state of weapon technology during the 18th century.

The citizens were armed with the same weapons that the finest armies in the world carried.

The finest armies had rockets, mortar bombs and ships of the line with cannons.

How many citizens had those weapons?

My mistake, I should have said "The citizens had the same rifles that the finest armies in the world carried".

Not in every household. Rifles were hand built in the 18th century and prohibitively expensive. Most individuals were NOT armed, or at least not as well armed as any soldier in the British Army.

Wrong...in fact the colonists had better rifles than the British.....and they all had them since they lived on the frontier........

They did not ALL have them. Such rifles were expensive. Colonist also lived in cities where the need for an expensive rifle did not exist.

You seem to think that the average American colonist could walk down to Ye Olde Wal-Mart and pick up a rifled musket at any time. Mass production was decades away. Weapons were hand crafted and expensive