Observations on the anti-gun crowd

[forkup]

The items required to manufacture napalm in your home are also widely available. Please try to provide knowledgeable responses and not your knee-jerk opposition.

Never said they weren't available. I said those items have other uses that aren't the manafacturing of napalm.

Pretty bad strawmanning.

 

[markef]

There's plenty of countries that have "gun-grabbing laws", ALL of them have fewer violent lawbreakers shooting people.

Is the goal to simply attempt to lower the incidences of gun murders by disarming and stripping greater numbers of law-abiding Americans of their 2nd Amendment rights?

 

[toobfreak]

Reasonable gun control laws would be the same as what would be considered reasonable SPOON control laws. IOW--no laws.

I'm cornfused, CA---- why do we have talk of reasonable gun control? Guns are not even in the top ten list of leading causes of death, and not even in the top of list of cause of accidental deaths? Why do we talk of reasonable gun control and not reasonable diet and exercise control? Reasonable car control? Knife control? Healthcare control? Doctor control? Lawyer control? Reasonable drug control? With so many things contributing to more deaths than guns, I don't understand why we are not discussing 30 other reasonable controls?

Maybe we should start with reasonable:

• Politician control.
• Teacher control.
• Government control.
• Education control.

Maybe a good place to start would be throwing politicians in prison for inciting hate and violence calling their president Hitler, a dictator, a fascist and a Nazi?

Here's a crazy idea: return to a moralistic society teaching faith, religion, family values and core principles instead of how to be a transgender behind your parent's backs.

 

[forkup]

Is the goal to simply attempt to lower the incidences of gun murders by disarming and stripping greater numbers of law-abiding Americans of their 2nd Amendment rights?

Post 37 adresses most of this.

But yes, sort-of. The goal is to balance personal rights against public safety.

A role the government routinely takes in other contexts.

 

[toobfreak]

I didn't on purpose. That would introduce my own framework into the discussion.

Non sequitur. You cannot have a "discussion" without adding your own framework to the mix.

If you're interested. I think the second amendment doesn't make sense in today's context, and should be amended.

Or maybe the 2A is just fine and what has changed and needs corrected is societal issues and the disintegration of the people themselves? Moral decay is the first victim of leftwing ideology.

As my personal view on guns. Their shoukd be extensive background checks on guns, and a person has to show they can handle guns safely.

There already are extensive background checks. Not always an accurate indicator of future actions. As to gun training, we used to have that, but progressives banned that also from our schools and society instilling FEAR of guns instead.

Long guns not designed for hunting should be banned.

Where is hunting ever mentioned in the 2A? The essential basis for the 2A is not so you can feed yourself in the woods, but as an ultimate restriction on government abuse.

 

[markef]

Post 37 adresses most of this.

But yes, sort-of. The goal is to balance personal rights against public safety.

A role the government routinely takes in other contexts.

Should we make alcohol illegal in the interest of saving thousands of lives each year or is safety an issue that depends on political allegiances?

 

[Concerned American]

Never said they weren't available. I said those items have other uses that aren't the manafacturing of napalm.

Pretty bad strawmanning.

Not strawman simply because you refuse to see the obvious correlation. Just because you would feel safer because of your ineffective solution to ban anything is no reason to ban it. You are attempting to usurp my rights in order for you to 'feel' safer. A criminal will not pay attention to your bans, however you have no qualms about taking my right to own whatever firearm I choose.

 

[forkup]

Should we make alcohol illegal in the interest of saving thousands of lives each year or is safety an issue that depends on political allegiances?

The US tried that before. It pushed alcohol underground and caused a massive increase in crime.

As I said, it's a balancing act.

The thing about the gun issue is though that there are plenty of indications on what effects gun restrictions have on society.

As I said there's plenty of countries that restrict gun access now. Not that I claim that it will translate perfectly but it does give an idea.

In any case, the goverment poses restrictions on alcohol now. I'm pretty sure you agree with most of them. So why is restricting guns not acceptable if it saves lives.

 

[Concerned American]

But yes, sort-of. The goal is to balance personal rights against public safety.

You are addressing none of that. If this ^^ was the case, the public would be greatly served if we banned automobiles if public safety was in fact what you wanted. Banning firearms does nothing for public safety as criminals will still obtain them but the public that you are denying will have no defense. I have never committed a crime with a firearm in spite of owning them for in excess of 60 years. When was the last time you exceeded the speed limit in your car?

 

[Failzero]

Post 37 adresses most of this.

But yes, sort-of. The goal is to balance personal rights against public safety.

A role the government routinely takes in other contexts.

Context like Prohibited persons are ( Prison escapees ) ( Enemy Combatants and their Spy Sapper Handlers ) ( Illegal Aliens & Cartel Henchmen ) ( Folks judged mentally unstable who for whatever reason are not Locked up ) ( Mental Facility escapees ) ( People with 21 previous arrests / convictions with 3 warrants for arrest and 9 pending court appearances ) ( Felons let out of Prison early due to overcrowding or activist judiciary ) ( Folks with 2 Restraining orders and a pending one ) …

 

[Concerned American]

As I said there's plenty of countries that restrict gun access now.

Move there. Problem solved without taking my constitutional rights.

 

[forkup]

Move there. Problem solved without taking my constitutional rights.

I am there.

Doesn't adress why your perception of your constitutional rights, a perception that even this Supreme Court doesn't share, should be more important than the tens of thousands of lives lost yearly, due to guns.

Lives that aren't lost in other countries with more restrictive laws, including mine.

 

[Failzero]

Context like Prohibited persons are ( Prison escapees ) ( Enemy Combatants and their Spy Sapper Handlers ) ( Illegal Aliens & Cartel Henchmen ) ( Folks judged mentally unstable who for whatever reason are not Locked up ) ( Mental Facility escapees ) ( People with 21 previous arrests / convictions with 3 warrants for arrest and 9 pending court appearances ) ( Felons let out of Prison early due to overcrowding or activist judiciary ) ( Folks with 2 Restraining orders and a pending one ) …

Bump for effect

 

[toobfreak]

Doesn't adress why your perception of your constitutional rights, a perception that even this Supreme Court doesn't share,

How so? Do tell us how and in what aspect the SCOTUS doesn't share the views spelled out in the BOR?

should be more important than the tens of thousands of lives lost yearly, due to guns.

False equivalency. Show me how you know that if 10,000 were all killed by guns that they would have been saved by gun-control laws? Do you not understand that most criminals do not obey gun laws? So how would their crimes be changed? How do you know many of them still would not have committed the same crime and just used a knife, a car, or a bomb or something instead?

Never mind the fact that there are many more instances where carrying a gun, without even firing it often, just brandishing it, often PREVENTS crimes! Criminals just LOVE a disarmed, helpless victim. In fact, many times more often than the crimes themselves. But most crimes that didn't happen don't get reported, crimes thwarted are not tracked by the government, and the media almost never reports on a crime stopped or prevented because of an armed citizen, so, all of your claims and data are worthless.

I just love it when Europeans "prove" the efficacy of gun control by stating their low instance of gun crime while ignoring the fact that they also don't have 340 million people, have much other different crime in its place, and a savage curtailing of their freedom and liberty few Americans would tolerate--- like being arrested at home by the police just for simply stating your reasonable opinion about some topic on a website.

 

[markef]

The US tried that before. It pushed alcohol underground and caused a massive increase in crime.

As I said, it's a balancing act.

The thing about the gun issue is though that there are plenty of indications on what effects gun restrictions have on society.

As I said there's plenty of countries that restrict gun access now. Not that I claim that it will translate perfectly but it does give an idea.

In any case, the goverment poses restrictions on alcohol now. I'm pretty sure you agree with most of them. So why is restricting guns not acceptable if it saves lives.

How about making mind-altering drugs illegal? Will that lower drug abuse deaths like lefties imagine stripping tens of millions of law-abiding Americans of their 2nd Amendment gun rights will reduce the number of illegal gun crimes?

 

[Tumblin Tumbleweed]

Thank for supporting the premise of the OP.

I haven't supported/condemned anything. You jump to conclusions knowing absolutely nothing. WTF is wrong with you?

 

[Tumblin Tumbleweed]

So lessee-- -- -- you joined a discussion board and engaged a thread where when someone gives you an informed rebuttal to your post, your best response is that you just didn't expect to hear from anyone but the OP, so want them to just go away???

And when the OP replies to you, I expect you to have an equally dismissive and evasive post, thus proving both West and the OP right in that none of you quacks can ever defend (or even define) your position on /anything/ in any clear, rational way without deflections and a lot of horsecrap.

I've stated no position to defend.

 

[forkup]

How about making mind-altering drugs illegal? Will that lower drug abuse deaths like lefties imagine stripping tens of millions of law-abiding Americans of their 2nd Amendment gun rights will reduce the number of illegal gun crimes?

Same story. Their are restrictions on "mind altering drugs." Want to take Benadryl, go right ahead. Cocaine... not so much. Do you need Vicodin, doctors perscription. Buy it of the street... crime.

The point is this. The government poses restrictions. Restrictions you will likely mostly agree with.

It doesn't really matter what analogy you try to give me. The answer will be the same. The government as a matter of routine balances personal freedom against the public interest, it doesn't matter if that freedom is drinking alcohol, taking drugs or driving a car. Their are limits on that freedom.

So I'll ask again, what excludes weapons from those kinds of restrictions?

 

[M14 Shooter]

I'm cornfused, CA---- why do we have talk of reasonable gun control?

Perfectly good question, as arguments of "reasonable", |necessary" and effective" are off the table when discussing constitutionally acceptable restrictions on the right to keep and bear arms.

As the court said:

In District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U. S. 570, and McDonald v. Chicago, 561 U. S. 742, the Court held that the Second and Fourteenth Amendments protect an individual right to keep and bear arms for self-defense. Under Heller, when the Second Amendment’s plain text covers an individual’s conduct, the Constitution presumptively protects that conduct, and to justify a firearm regulation the government must demonstrate that the regulation is consistent with the Nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation. Pp. 8–22

Since Heller and McDonald, the Courts of Appeals have developed a “two-step” framework for analyzing Second Amendment challenges that combines history with means-end scrutiny. The Court rejects that two-part approach as having one step too many. Step one is broadly consistent with Heller, which demands a test rooted in the Second Amendment’s text, as informed by history. But Heller and McDonald do not support a second step that applies means-end scrutiny in the Second Amendment context. Heller’s methodology centered on constitutional text and history. It did not invoke any means-end test such as strict or intermediate scrutiny, and it expressly rejected any interest-balancing inquiry akin to intermediate scrutiny.

Put simply:
It doesn't matter how good an idea it may be to restrict the right to keep and bear arms in a certain way, if the state cannot demonstrate the regulation is consistent with the Nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation, it presumptively violates the 2nd.

 

[M14 Shooter]

-Asking questions to establish the framework that you use to determine if something is rational or reasonable in no way makes me irrational or unreasonable.

My response deals specifically with statement I quoted, not any question, you may have asked.
The statement I responded to is unreasonable, irrational and false, and directly supports the OP, as demonstrated below.

In fact, before you can have a conversation, it's vital that you at least have such a framework. In this case, your premise seemingly is predicated on the notion that your personal framework is the only correct one, and that not accepting that framework makes me definitionally wrong.

The framework I presented is that supplied to us by the SC, not me; as such, your statement, above, is unreasonable, irrational and false, and directly supports the OP.

-Your framework, besides it being rigid, to the point of being unreasonabke,

You cannot in any way demonstrate the framework created by the SC is rigid or unreasonable, as the holding in Bruen clearly demonstrates
As such, your statement, above, is unreasonable, irrational and false, and directly supports the OP

Since it is clear by your response that you yourself don't accept the current interpretation of the second amendment since this is the only gun control you are willing to accept.

You asked:
What gun control law, if any, do you believe does not infringe on the Second Amendment?
I have you an example, as your question required; your question in no way necessitated an exhaustive list of such laws.
As such, your claim that the example I gave is "the only gun control you are willing to accept" is dishonest, unreasonable, irrational and false -- and directly supports the OP

While the SC holds many more gun control laws to be constitutional.

Cite these rulings.
Copy/paste the text of the ruling that upholds the gun control law under consideration by the court in that ruling.
Pro tip:
You will find one, and that law was upheld because the state demonstrated the law was consistent with the Nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation, as per the court's ruling in Bruen.

Thus, your claim the SC has held " more gun control laws to be constitutional" is is dishonest, unreasonable, irrational and false -- and directly supports the OP

Even your quote from Scalia refers to handguns specifically. Implying that the SC recognizes that there should be limitations on the type of arms citizens should have.

You present a non-sequitur; the fact only handguns were specifically mention in a case which concerned only handguns in any way shape of form, supports the conclusion that all other types of firearms should or could be limited.

Further, Scalia also says in Heller:
Some have made the argument, bordering on the frivolous, that only those arms in existence in the 18th century are protected by the Second Amendment . We do not interpret constitutional rights that way. Just as the First Amendment protects modern forms of communications, and the Fourth Amendment applies to modern forms of search, the Second Amendment extends, prima facie,to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding.

That is, the 2nd amendment protects the right of the people to own and use "all bearable arms" - firearms, as the court says, are those “in common use at the time”

Thus, your claim the fact Heller only mentions handguns necessitates that other kinds of firearms can and should be regulated is dishonest, unreasonable, irrational and false -- and directly supports the OP

Your argument seems to be. The only reasonable argument about gun control should start from what M14 Shooter personal interpretation is about the 2nd amendment, regardless of how the SC thinks of it.

As demonstrated above, your claim is dishonest, unreasonable, irrational and false -- and directly supports the OP


Now then -- as previously challenged:
Provide an example of a gun control law you believe constitutes an infringement upon the exercise of the right to keep and bear arms as protected by the 2nd amendment, and thus violates the constitution.