Observations on the anti-gun crowd

[Concerned American]

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.

Wrong, not due to guns. Guns by themselves cause no harm to anyone. Start convicting the PEOPLE who are using the guns to create havoc. More people were killed in one single incident using a rental truck, fertilizer and diesel than any mass shooting in the US ever, but you want to blame guns.

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.

Thanks for that---you aren't an American. IDGAF, what your opinion is. You have no standing in MY domestic issues. BTW, if guns cause gun crime as you assert, please explain Switzerland.

 

[M14 Shooter]

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?

The SC said so.

As previously quoted:

(a) 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.

(1) 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. Pp. 9–15.

Thus:
The right to own and use all instruments that constitute bearable arms is not subject to interest balancing or means-end tests you suggest.

 

[Concerned American]

it doesn't matter if that freedom is drinking alcohol, taking drugs or driving a car.

None of those are 'rights.' Two relate to drugs and the third is a privilege not a right. The 'right' to keep and bear arms is enumerated in the bill of rights of the constitution. Run along, you have no clue and you still haven't responded to my question about Switzerland? 1 in 4 Swiss own weapons and they don't have noticeable gun crime--maybe because they hold criminals accountable. Wow, such a novel approach.

 

[Leo123]

If everyone open carried, there would be a lot less crime because, by far, most gun owners are law-abiding American patriots.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

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

In my experience that just makes people talk past oneanother both giving their opinion without ever adressing the other persons view.

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

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.

Having passed those check the possesion of hunting weapons should be unrestricted because there's many peoply who use hunting as a means to feed themselves. Hand guns should be allowed for personal defense although I think doing so is a bad idea.

Long guns not designed for hunting should be banned.

I don't know how many words that is, but I have no problem stating my opinion.

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

And the First Amendment should be changed in the same way, right?

 

[Captain Caveman]

What is the point of this OP? Legit research, or more ways to develop new rhetoric to hate on the left?

Just to hate on the Left. Have a debate with a gun nut and inject logic in the argument, they can only mouth froth and default back to "2nd Amendment" to halt the argument because they know they're fupped.

 

[Tumblin Tumbleweed]

Just to hate on the Left. Have a debate with a gun nut and inject logic in the argument, they can only mouth froth and default back to "2nd Amendment" to halt the argument because they know they're fupped.

Thank you. I appreciate the answer.

 

[Captain Caveman]

Thank you. I appreciate the answer.

Been there done that several times. I'm surprised how many gun nuts on this board are dentists, it's like pulling teeth debating guns with them. They've no brain power beyond a piece of paper, 2nd Amendment.

I know the Left are an emotional bunch using emotional words, but gun nuts go into that mode with guns.

 

[Tumblin Tumbleweed]

Been there done that several times. I'm surprised how many gun nuts on this board are dentists, it's like pulling teeth debating guns with them. They've no brain power beyond a piece of paper, 2nd Amendment.

I know the Left are an emotional bunch using emotional words, but gun nuts go into that mode with guns.

To be clear, I like guns. I own guns. I shoot guns. I'm a big advocate for our 1st Amendment.

 

[forkup]

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.

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.

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

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

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

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


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.

Cite these rulings.
Copy/paste the text of the ruling that upholds the gun control law under consideration by the court in that ruling.

I don't need a pro-tip. I can read and I've got Heller. You know that case you claimed only dealt with handguns and one by the way that deviates signifocantly from other SC decisions. Who interpreted the right to bear arms much more narrow amd constrictive.

District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008)

District of Columbia v. Heller: Private citizens have the right under the Second Amendment to possess an ordinary type of weapon and use it for lawful, historically established situations such as self-defense in a home, even when there is no relationship to a local militia.

supreme.justia.com

Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited. From Blackstone through the 19th-century cases, commentators and courts routinely explained that the right was not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose.

We also recognize another important limitation on the right to keep and carry arms. Miller said, as we have explained, that the sorts of weapons protected were those “in common use at the time.” 307 U. S., at 179. We think that limitation is fairly supported by the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of “dangerous and unusual weapons.
It may be objected that if weapons that are most useful in military service—M-16 rifles and the like—may be banned, then the Second Amendment right is completely detached from the prefatory clause. But as we have said, the conception of the militia at the time of the Second Amendment’s ratification was the body of all citizens capable of military service, who would bring the sorts of lawful weapons that they possessed at home to militia duty. It may well be true today that a militia, to be as effective as militias in the 18th century, would require sophisticated arms that are highly unusual in society at large. Indeed, it may be true that no amount of small arms could be useful against modern-day bombers and tanks. But the fact that modern developments have limited the degree of fit between the prefatory clause and the protected right cannot change our interpretation of the right.

(look for part E, point III)



So no, not a "non-sequitur", a term by the way you should really look up because it doesn't mean what you think it means. But an accurate representation of the SC decision YOU cited.

 

[forkup]

Wrong, not due to guns. Guns by themselves cause no harm to anyone. Start convicting the PEOPLE who are using the guns to create havoc. More people were killed in one single incident using a rental truck, fertilizer and diesel than any mass shooting in the US ever, but you want to blame guns.

Thanks for that---you aren't an American. IDGAF, what your opinion is. You have no standing in MY domestic issues. BTW, if guns cause gun crime as you assert, please explain Switzerland.

Key Aspects of Swiss Gun Laws

• Acquisition Permit: A "shall-issue" permit is required for most firearms, obtainable with a clean criminal record and no safety concerns.
• Categories: Bolt-action and basic hunting rifles require fewer restrictions, while semi-automatic weapons require a "may-issue" permit and explicit justification.
• Prohibited Weapons: Fully automatic weapons are prohibited except for specific military or authorized purposes.
• Carrying in Public: A "permit for carrying weapons" is rarely granted and requires proving a "tangible" need (e.g., security work) and passing an exam.
• Military Service: Citizens completing service may keep their service rifle, but it is converted to semi-automatic, as noted on Quora. [1, 2, 3, 4, 5]

By the way, first of, both my wife an kid are American so I do got skin in the game. In fact, part of the reason we aren't in America is that neither of us is keen on sending our daughter to schools that need to be built like a fortress and have mass shooter drills. And do you understand the irony of someone who dismisses an opinion of someone who isn't a citizen of a country, just to turn around and give their opinion on another countries gun laws.

 

[forkup]

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

And the First Amendment should be changed in the same way, right?

Nope, the first amendment is still relevant. The right to keep and bear arms for the establishment of a militia not so much. Even Heller recognizes that a militia having small arms is useless in modern day.

but as we have said, the conception of the militia at the time of the Second Amendment’s ratification was the body of all citizens capable of military service, who would bring the sorts of lawful weapons that they possessed at home to militia duty. It may well be true today that a militia, to be as effective as militias in the 18th century, would require sophisticated arms that are highly unusual in society at large. Indeed, it may be true that no amount of small arms could be useful against modern-day bombers and tanks.

District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008)

District of Columbia v. Heller: Private citizens have the right under the Second Amendment to possess an ordinary type of weapon and use it for lawful, historically established situations such as self-defense in a home, even when there is no relationship to a local militia.

supreme.justia.com

 

[markef]

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?

Leftists don't want to ban alcohol to save lives, and I do not want Americans stripped of their 2nd Amendment rights to possibly lower gun deaths some.

 

[Captain Caveman]

To be clear, I like guns. I own guns. I shoot guns. I'm a big advocate for our 1st Amendment.

I'm UK, we have guns, it's just that you are in charge of your own character, police record, health record etc.. Our laws just do one simple thing, you apply for a shotgun or firearm, the local police check you out. It's carried out objectively, if you feel the process wasn't, you appeal and then take the police to court. The system is so anal in the UK, you can sue the police, government etc.. an you will get a fair trial.

I've had shotguns in the past, I still shoot on a very ad hoc basis, just clay with my lads and we just hire the guns. The system means, it vastly reduces the nutters with guns, it doesn't stop, it just vastly reduces. Most can't be bothered owning a gun, never crosses our minds. Apparently gun nuts believe all the criminals have a gun, not sure if they obtain one before or after becoming a criminal, it's tricky when they come out with stupid cliches.

When I go out in the sticks, some days I hear shotguns. Gamekeepers, farmers etc.. probably shooting vermin.

We all know the process to make driving on the roads safer, the logic around driving tests, driving licence, points system, no drink/drugs, car condition, speed limits etc.. In a way, that's applied to shotguns and firearms in the UK. Look at countries with poor road regulations, far much higher road accidents/deaths/injuries. So logically, have such a system with firearms abd you get UK gun stats.

NEVER EVER have I met an American gun nut say, "Yes I agree, having such a system in the US would vastly reduce gun incidents and still allow the suitable to enjoy guns, but at the moment our constitution allows the vast majority, irrelevant of character, to arm up". And gun nuts are AFRAID to say that, they feel if they did, all guns would magically vanish.

Most Yanks can only think and see in binary, all guns v no guns.

 

[Captain Caveman]

As for this tyrant government scenario

 

[Tumblin Tumbleweed]

I'm UK, we have guns, it's just that you are in charge of your own character, police record, health record etc.. Our laws just do one simple thing, you apply for a shotgun or firearm, the local police check you out. It's carried out objectively, if you feel the process wasn't, you appeal and then take the police to court. The system is so anal in the UK, you can sue the police, government etc.. an you will get a fair trial.

I've had shotguns in the past, I still shoot on a very ad hoc basis, just clay with my lads and we just hire the guns. The system means, it vastly reduces the nutters with guns, it doesn't stop, it just vastly reduces. Most can't be bothered owning a gun, never crosses our minds. Apparently gun nuts believe all the criminals have a gun, not sure if they obtain one before or after becoming a criminal, it's tricky when they come out with stupid cliches.

When I go out in the sticks, some days I hear shotguns. Gamekeepers, farmers etc.. probably shooting vermin.

We all know the process to make driving on the roads safer, the logic around driving tests, driving licence, points system, no drink/drugs, car condition, speed limits etc.. In a way, that's applied to shotguns and firearms in the UK. Look at countries with poor road regulations, far much higher road accidents/deaths/injuries. So logically, have such a system with firearms abd you get UK gun stats.

NEVER EVER have I met an American gun nut say, "Yes I agree, having such a system in the US would vastly reduce gun incidents and still allow the suitable to enjoy guns, but at the moment our constitution allows the vast majority, irrelevant of character, to arm up". And gun nuts are AFRAID to say that, they feel if they did, all guns would magically vanish.

Most Yanks can only think and see in binary, all guns v no guns.

Not 'most.' Some. Give me a break, man, Stereotyping 330+ million 'Yanks' isn't a great look for you either. I'm a first generation Briton myself born on American soil. My mother was born in Widnes but went through the process to become a naturalized citizen. I could say the same for some of the arguments seen from UK anti-gun bellends.

 

[Concerned American]

By the way, first of, both my wife an kid are American so I do got skin in the game. In fact, part of the reason we aren't in America is that neither of us is keen on sending our daughter to schools that need to be built like a fortress and have mass shooter drills. And do you understand the irony of someone who dismisses an opinion of someone who isn't a citizen of a country, just to turn around and give their opinion on another countries gun laws.

You're happy with wherever it is that you are--I'm not trying to change your laws--why are you trying to change mine? You've made your choice, so live with it and I'll live with mine--you have no skin in the game. As for my opinion on Swiss laws---don't read things into my statement that are running around in your pea brain. I simply used the Swiss to prove that your opinion on gun laws was flawed. The Swiss have a high rate of gun ownership and similar laws to the US -- yet they don't have mass shootings. Maybe that would suggest that enforcing laws against criminals and not against law abiding citizens is the way to go. Try again.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Just to hate on the Left. Have a debate with a gun nut and inject logic in the argument, they can only mouth froth and default back to "2nd Amendment" to halt the argument because they know they're fupped.

Thank you for proving the point made in the OP, just as I knew you would.

 

[M14 Shooter]

I don't need a pro-tip.

You very clearly did, as you were unable to cite the rulings you claimed and copy/paste the text of the ruling that upholds the gun control law under consideration by the court in that ruling.

Thus, you claim that "While the SC holds many more gun control laws to be constitutional" is " is dishonest, unreasonable, irrational, false - and directly supports the OP.

I can read and I've got Heller.

Heller ruled each and every gun control law before the court as unconstitutional, and upheld exactly none of laws before it as constitutional.
Thus, you present another dishonest, unreasonable, irrational and false claim - which directly supports the OP.

In fact, thus far, as demonstrated, you have not offered anything other than dishonest, unreasonable, irrational and false claims - which directly supports the OP.

I thank you for so very clearly supporting the premise of the OP, and applaud you for a job well done.
You are now back on ignore.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Nope, the first amendment is still relevant. The right to keep and bear arms for the establishment of a militia not so much. Even Heller recognizes that a militia having small arms is useless in modern day.

but as we have said, the conception of the militia at the time of the Second Amendment’s ratification was the body of all citizens capable of military service, who would bring the sorts of lawful weapons that they possessed at home to militia duty. It may well be true today that a militia, to be as effective as militias in the 18th century, would require sophisticated arms that are highly unusual in society at large. Indeed, it may be true that no amount of small arms could be useful against modern-day bombers and tanks.

District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008)

District of Columbia v. Heller: Private citizens have the right under the Second Amendment to possess an ordinary type of weapon and use it for lawful, historically established situations such as self-defense in a home, even when there is no relationship to a local militia.

supreme.justia.com

Nope, the first amendment is still relevant.

Absolutely.

There should be extensive background checks on speech, and a person has to show they can handle speech safely.
If they pass the background check, an IQ test should be given before their speech should be allowed in public.

Even Heller recognizes that a militia having small arms is useless in modern day.

I live in Chicago, that's hilarious!

It may well be true today that a militia, to be as effective as militias in the 18th century, would require sophisticated arms that are highly unusual in society at large.

The right to bear arms existed before the Founders had the need for a militia.