M14 Shooter
The Light of Truth
With regard to this op-ed:
Joe Nocera: Stop Worshipping Guns
One of the few gun control advocates Iāve read who openly admits the legitimate individual right of Americans to own a gun and admits the idea of banning guns in the US is nonsense.
He does not claim the pro-gun side is pro-dead kids, and does not immediately think of penises when he thinks of guns.
Soā¦ an adult who supports gun control, not an anti-gun lunatic.
A good many of you could learn from this.
That saidā¦
The first step is that gun owners need to stop assuming that every legislative effort to reduce gun violence is either an attack on the Second Amendment or the first step toward some kind of total gun ban.
Two things:
-Any gun regulation which violates the 2nd Amendment is, necessarily, āattack on the 2nd amendmentā, just as any regulation which violates the 1st amendment is an attack on the first amendment. No matter what someone thinks for the 2nd amendment, it is there, it prhohibits a great many restrictions on the right to keep and bear arms, and you do not get to ignore it, especially by waving your had and declaring this isnāt an attackā.
-While banning guns in the US is a practical absurdity, this in no way means there are not those who seek to do so; while virtually no one on the anti-gun side admits they want a wholesale ban on guns, the fact few, if any, on the anti-gun side will tell us how much gun control is āenoughā or what gun control laws they believe DO violate the constitution leaves us every reason to assume if you do not want an outright ban, you want as many restrictions as you can possibly get. Either way, thereās no reason for us to trust you any further than we can throw you.
But cāmon: Is banning bump stocksāwhich turn semiautomatic weapons into true machine gunsāa violation of the Second Amendment?
-Bump stocks do no such thing. The mechanics of this are well-discussed by the court in Cargill, and while you may not like the ruling, you cannot factually debate the conclusion.
-Semi-automatic rifles ā especially ācommonly availableā semi-automatic rifles ā are indisputably ābearable armsā and therefore fall under the protection of the 2nd Amendment. Banning a ācommonly availableā semi-automatic rifle because of the accessories attached to it is still a ban on a ābearable armā and thus violates the 2nd Amendment.
Is mandating background checks or waiting periods a violation of the Second Amendment? Hardly.
-A police officer, absent reasonable suspicion or probable cause, cannot stop a random person walking down the street, demand their ID, and run them for warrants ā this is prior restraint. This is also exactly what a background check does ā the state restrains the exercise of your rights while it checks to see if you are breaking the law, and in doing so, violates the 2nd. Further, background checks cannot pass the āconsistent with historical traditionsā as while there may have been āprohibited personsā back in the ratification era, there was no restraint on the exercise of the right while the state confirmed you were not one of them.
-Waiting periods -do- violate the 2nd amendment, as noted in Ortega v Grisham, where the 10th Circuit held that the waiting period burdens conduct protected by the Second Amendment, as the right to keep and bear arms necessarily includes the right to acquire them. The court found that such cooling-off periods are not supported by historical tradition or longstanding regulatory exceptions and that the law imposes an unconstitutional burden.
Is writing laws that enforce the safe storage of a gun, to keep them out of the hands of children, a violation of the Second Amendment? Of course not.
-In 2008, the SC ruled legal requirements to secure the firearms in your home violates the 2nd Amendment āUnder any of the standards of scrutiny the Court has applied to enumerated constitutional rightsā. This prohibition is plenary and carves out no exception for children in the house or any other circumstance.
-Further, a legal requirement to secure firearms in the home cannot pass Bruenās āconsistent with historical traditionsā test as there was no widespread.
New York Times columnist Nicholas Kristof has republished a column he first wrote in 2017 advocating these and other measures, none of which would deprive responsible adults from owning guns.
-āShall not be infringedā ā the 2nd amendment prohibits infringement on the right to keep and bear arms ā thus, the ādoes not deprive responsible adults from owning gunsā is an invalid standard. The state can infringe on the right to keep and bear arms in any number of ways which eventually result in a person owning a gun; this fact does not mitigate the infringement on the right.
This is sort of "misunderstanding " on your part serves only to support us not trusting you any further than we can throw you.
The most urgent need is to pass laws that will help prevent people who suffer from some form of mental illness from obtaining guns.
-For this to happen, the laws which define āprohibited personsā must be changed to add āpeople with mental illnessā. Of course, āmental illnessā must be defined in the law, and due process must be met. The anti-gun side ultimately wants people to undergo a mental evaluation before they can buy a gun, which requires at least a visit to an individual qualified to make such an evaluation; the anti-gun side knows this will create incalculable delays in the purchase of firearms due to the limited number of qualified evaluators.
-As with background checks, while there may have been āprohibited personsā back in the ratification era, there was no restraint on the exercise of the right while the state confirmed you were not one of them ā thus, this requirement violates the constitution.
I also believe that smart gunsāwhich use technology that prevents them from being used by anyone except the ownerācould make a big difference.
-500,000,000 guns in the US. Unless these are confiscated and destroyed, smart guns will make no difference; confiscating these guns is impossible and violates the constitution.
If you want one, great, but they wonāt do anything to reduce anything, and a mandate to sell only smart guns violates the constitution.
Surely, the time has now come for Americans to turn not against guns, but against the kind of random gun violence that we too often accept as part of life in America.
Few people, if anyone, is for random gun violence.
And it is ridiculous to do anything but accept the idea there will always be a level if gun violence in the US, for as long as there are guns, there will be gun violence.
We need to stop glorifying semiautomatics, especially among young gun owners.
-What does this even mean? Firearms are universally known, every-day common item in the US ā if you do not own a gun, there is a very high probability that you know someone who does.
-āSemiautomaticsā have been common in the US for over100 years and are the most common kinds of firearm we have. Why? Almost universally, they are more effective for our for legals uses for a firearm than any sort of guns. Should we hide the existence of AR15s from our kids until they turn 18? How will that work?
We also need to stop viewing guns as a way to settle disputes, political or otherwise.
-Butā¦ they are. Force is the ultimate arbiter, the universal currency.
It is the very reason our right to own and use firearms is protected by the constitution.
Most of all, we need the kind of leadership that mimics the work of MADD or the Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids. It canāt come from the liberal sideā¦
-Then it wonāt happen ā for the reasons noted above, thereās no reason for conservatives to take up your cause.
You believe the problem is the messenger, when in fact it is the message ā this is a fundamental failure on your part.
Joe Nocera: Stop Worshipping Guns
One of the few gun control advocates Iāve read who openly admits the legitimate individual right of Americans to own a gun and admits the idea of banning guns in the US is nonsense.
He does not claim the pro-gun side is pro-dead kids, and does not immediately think of penises when he thinks of guns.
Soā¦ an adult who supports gun control, not an anti-gun lunatic.
A good many of you could learn from this.
That saidā¦
The first step is that gun owners need to stop assuming that every legislative effort to reduce gun violence is either an attack on the Second Amendment or the first step toward some kind of total gun ban.
Two things:
-Any gun regulation which violates the 2nd Amendment is, necessarily, āattack on the 2nd amendmentā, just as any regulation which violates the 1st amendment is an attack on the first amendment. No matter what someone thinks for the 2nd amendment, it is there, it prhohibits a great many restrictions on the right to keep and bear arms, and you do not get to ignore it, especially by waving your had and declaring this isnāt an attackā.
-While banning guns in the US is a practical absurdity, this in no way means there are not those who seek to do so; while virtually no one on the anti-gun side admits they want a wholesale ban on guns, the fact few, if any, on the anti-gun side will tell us how much gun control is āenoughā or what gun control laws they believe DO violate the constitution leaves us every reason to assume if you do not want an outright ban, you want as many restrictions as you can possibly get. Either way, thereās no reason for us to trust you any further than we can throw you.
But cāmon: Is banning bump stocksāwhich turn semiautomatic weapons into true machine gunsāa violation of the Second Amendment?
-Bump stocks do no such thing. The mechanics of this are well-discussed by the court in Cargill, and while you may not like the ruling, you cannot factually debate the conclusion.
-Semi-automatic rifles ā especially ācommonly availableā semi-automatic rifles ā are indisputably ābearable armsā and therefore fall under the protection of the 2nd Amendment. Banning a ācommonly availableā semi-automatic rifle because of the accessories attached to it is still a ban on a ābearable armā and thus violates the 2nd Amendment.
Is mandating background checks or waiting periods a violation of the Second Amendment? Hardly.
-A police officer, absent reasonable suspicion or probable cause, cannot stop a random person walking down the street, demand their ID, and run them for warrants ā this is prior restraint. This is also exactly what a background check does ā the state restrains the exercise of your rights while it checks to see if you are breaking the law, and in doing so, violates the 2nd. Further, background checks cannot pass the āconsistent with historical traditionsā as while there may have been āprohibited personsā back in the ratification era, there was no restraint on the exercise of the right while the state confirmed you were not one of them.
-Waiting periods -do- violate the 2nd amendment, as noted in Ortega v Grisham, where the 10th Circuit held that the waiting period burdens conduct protected by the Second Amendment, as the right to keep and bear arms necessarily includes the right to acquire them. The court found that such cooling-off periods are not supported by historical tradition or longstanding regulatory exceptions and that the law imposes an unconstitutional burden.
Is writing laws that enforce the safe storage of a gun, to keep them out of the hands of children, a violation of the Second Amendment? Of course not.
-In 2008, the SC ruled legal requirements to secure the firearms in your home violates the 2nd Amendment āUnder any of the standards of scrutiny the Court has applied to enumerated constitutional rightsā. This prohibition is plenary and carves out no exception for children in the house or any other circumstance.
-Further, a legal requirement to secure firearms in the home cannot pass Bruenās āconsistent with historical traditionsā test as there was no widespread.
New York Times columnist Nicholas Kristof has republished a column he first wrote in 2017 advocating these and other measures, none of which would deprive responsible adults from owning guns.
-āShall not be infringedā ā the 2nd amendment prohibits infringement on the right to keep and bear arms ā thus, the ādoes not deprive responsible adults from owning gunsā is an invalid standard. The state can infringe on the right to keep and bear arms in any number of ways which eventually result in a person owning a gun; this fact does not mitigate the infringement on the right.
This is sort of "misunderstanding " on your part serves only to support us not trusting you any further than we can throw you.
The most urgent need is to pass laws that will help prevent people who suffer from some form of mental illness from obtaining guns.
-For this to happen, the laws which define āprohibited personsā must be changed to add āpeople with mental illnessā. Of course, āmental illnessā must be defined in the law, and due process must be met. The anti-gun side ultimately wants people to undergo a mental evaluation before they can buy a gun, which requires at least a visit to an individual qualified to make such an evaluation; the anti-gun side knows this will create incalculable delays in the purchase of firearms due to the limited number of qualified evaluators.
-As with background checks, while there may have been āprohibited personsā back in the ratification era, there was no restraint on the exercise of the right while the state confirmed you were not one of them ā thus, this requirement violates the constitution.
I also believe that smart gunsāwhich use technology that prevents them from being used by anyone except the ownerācould make a big difference.
-500,000,000 guns in the US. Unless these are confiscated and destroyed, smart guns will make no difference; confiscating these guns is impossible and violates the constitution.
If you want one, great, but they wonāt do anything to reduce anything, and a mandate to sell only smart guns violates the constitution.
Surely, the time has now come for Americans to turn not against guns, but against the kind of random gun violence that we too often accept as part of life in America.
Few people, if anyone, is for random gun violence.
And it is ridiculous to do anything but accept the idea there will always be a level if gun violence in the US, for as long as there are guns, there will be gun violence.
We need to stop glorifying semiautomatics, especially among young gun owners.
-What does this even mean? Firearms are universally known, every-day common item in the US ā if you do not own a gun, there is a very high probability that you know someone who does.
-āSemiautomaticsā have been common in the US for over100 years and are the most common kinds of firearm we have. Why? Almost universally, they are more effective for our for legals uses for a firearm than any sort of guns. Should we hide the existence of AR15s from our kids until they turn 18? How will that work?
We also need to stop viewing guns as a way to settle disputes, political or otherwise.
-Butā¦ they are. Force is the ultimate arbiter, the universal currency.
It is the very reason our right to own and use firearms is protected by the constitution.
Most of all, we need the kind of leadership that mimics the work of MADD or the Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids. It canāt come from the liberal sideā¦
-Then it wonāt happen ā for the reasons noted above, thereās no reason for conservatives to take up your cause.
You believe the problem is the messenger, when in fact it is the message ā this is a fundamental failure on your part.
Last edited:
