Thoughts on gun control?

[SansVarnic]

I have read the thread in its entirety, you might notice how early I got in

 

This does not sound like a limited statement, as you now claim it to be...

 

Then you go on to say this:

 

 

Which is entirely untrue, again the 1994 AWB, the NFA, the Hughes Amendment, all have had a significant effect on American gun rights/control, without effecting the second amendment. So, no. This is absolutely not a moot argument. Many of the responses in this thread have not been advocating the banning of all firearms, but of much lower level regulations; registration, background checks and so on. 

Darn you caught me /s 

 

OK maybe I need to re-word it a bit to make that clearer. I am doing this at work and I get interrupted so I have to keep putting my thoughts back together. Apologies.

 

No, not all the arguments here are about banning guns but as I stated that post was to address that specifically. I have address gun control in other posts earlier in the thread as well.

 

I do not deny that those had impact without denying 2nd amendment rights (I did not state as much either).

 

I am arguing now about how this thread has become a US vs the World in terms of gun control and how the US needs to ban its guns or evoke more restrictions. There is also other arguments on this thread that I have commented on that I am sure you read and saw I made a point about how more restrictions wont help, the laws we have already are there and not being enforced good bad or indifferent. Unfortunately I have to cater to many aspects of an argument here to several points of view to people all over the world that are involved. 

As you know the US has all the proper gun control necessities in place but many don't see it as enough and want more. We background checks NICs, we have local and federal laws. Are the laws enforceable the way they are currently written? Yes and mostly No.

 

So yes as I have stated before in another one is that the argument is a mute subject right now at this moment. I did not make a blanket statement that the subject of gun control is absolutely mute but in the context of other arguments in this thread it is mute as the arguments themselves cannot make headway in the method they are being made which I have also stated before in this thread. You are re-debating what I and @stconquest were going back and forth over previously. The grounds of which the argument needs to change to make a better point of reconciliation over gun control and gun rights. If we want to make a fundamental change in gun rights in the US then we need to address the wording in the 2nd amendment which have been addressed in the 1994 AWB, the NFA, the Hughes Amendment and District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008) and there are more.

 

But I guess I should have worded better when addressing how and what method is dictated in proposing a second amendment. Those that have made comments about the US government how it should take action and how I ranted on about how it irked me that people get it wrong.

[Real_PhillBert]

Regulation already exists, and you see how well that's been working. It's been said again and again, but apparently needs to be said one more time: You cannot, and will not disarm those who intend to commit crimes with a firearm. They are the constant. The only people you can affect are the law-abiding citizens.

Additionally, you have to consider that maybe the American people, a supposedly "free" people, are never going to accept the government keeping track of which firearms they own. I personally do not own any registered firearms. All of them were passed down, given as gifts, or purchased in private sales. I point again to the NY SAFE Act, requiring (among MANY other things) that all "assault weapons" be registered with the state. The deadline was April 14th, 2014. A week after that deadline, less than 5000 had been registered. I'm sure numbers have changed, and I can't seem to find more recent statistics, but that would mean about 99.99% of "assault weapons" that exist in NY are unregistered.

You seem to be under the impression that I support gun control, that's not the case. See my several posts earlier in the thread.

Even the post you quoted is not pushing for further regulations, merely pointing out that not all gun control measures are all out bans.

I am a competitive shooter with a small collection of NFA firearms.

[Guest Ranterbach]

You seem to be under the impression that I support gun control, that's not the case. See my several posts earlier in the thread.

Even the post you quoted is not pushing for further regulations, merely pointing out that not all gun control measures are all out bans.

I am a competitive shooter with a small collection of NFA firearms.

 

My mistake, I tend to look at profile pictures moreso than names, and mistook yours for someone else's. The point still stands, just don't take it to be directed at you personally. 

[SansVarnic]

*this was a double post *

[stconquest]

You guys are way beyond my scope of American gun laws, but I love the read.

 

As to the post regarding the US government/police attacking only unarmed civilians, that could not be farther from the truth. 

 

Sure when police act up, the ones that itch to harm people will escalate situations where citizens are unarmed with greater confidence.  Is the only solution to this to carry a gun wherever you go? 

[SansVarnic]

The government would never fire on an unarmed populace, right?

 

Spoiler

Okay, that was one time... It doesnt count though, the army felt threatened.

Spoiler

Oh God, I'm sorry... I meant only twice. They'd never do something like this recently...

Spoiler

Spoiler

Okay.... I'm starting to see a pattern here....

 

Sarcasm ends here.

You guys never learn, do you? every time the US government has opened fire on it's own citizens, or mass detained them, whether native americans in the 1800s, Japanese in the 1940s, or even regular college students in the 1970s, they were all unarmed.

Still trust your government?

Maybe this old quote from good ol' mister Hitler will help.

 

"To conquer a nation, first disarm it's citizens" - Adolf Hitler

 

First Pic:

American Indians were discriminated greatly up to that point in history and they were not well regarded as US citizens. They were disarmed as they were considered a threat. But in reality US Government was scared of them. I cannot ague against this as it was wrong how American Indians were treated since the mid 1700's. I have Cherokee ancestry. Not a very goo example.

 

Second Pic: 

Holy freaking cow how ignorant. It was WW2 and the the US took great precautions as it was the Japanese that had just declared war on the US, and any of those Japanese immigrants could have been not what they said they were. Subterfuge was big during that period. What they did could be questioned but even most of those Japanese knew why this happened.

Bad Example.

 

Third pic:

I cannot speak to this much as I know little but I do know it was the first and only time this has happened.

 

The problem with this post is you are making a bad point about how Americans were bad as I can go back into the history books and name oh i don't know how times this has happened in European history? African History? the Middle East? China? Japan? Vietnam? South America? 

Do you know anything about Stalin? Marx? Adolf? Pol Pot? Lenin? Ho Chi Menh? Sadam Hussien? Ismail Enver Pasha? Omar al-Bashir? and so many more.

Each killed their own people from anywhere as much as 500k - 1.6million compared to the 4killed and 9 wounded US citizens. Wow.

 

Before pointing fingers . . . . . . . . 

And this post is not relevant to the discussion in this thread.

[GrassFedTofuJesus]

Much stricter background. Much stricter before every purchase and no person to person sales, only legit businesses. 

[Guest Ranterbach]

Much stricter background. Much stricter before every purchase and no person to person sales, only legit businesses. 

 

Good luck enforcing that. 

[NeoZeon]

 

 

Apparently you need to do a bit more research to add to your post, this court decision is only a verification if the founders intent.

If you go back and read the notes from the continental congress during the debates of what to include in the constitution the 2nd amendment was included (over many different variations) to guaranty individual right of gun ownership as at the time prior to the revolution England (Parliament specifically) was attempting to outlaw the ownership of guns in colonies to prevent the colonies from being able to revolt against the empire as described by George Mason. The founders found it best to ensure this right in case the US government became corrupt and the same thing was to be repeated. The founders also inserted the clause about removal of the federal government for the same reason and the 2nd amendment guarantied the citizens ability to rise up and defend itself from such tyranny by providing each state the ability to protect itself, the militia were individuals that had the ability to be called upon (now referred to as the National guard) but in the beginning anyone that owned a rifle. The only thing that the supreme court did is verify this for those that wanted to interpret the amendment differently. Remember you cannot read the constitution  from the point of today's culture you have to view it from the cultural meaning of 1778. This is the biggest mistake everyone makes when reading the Constitution.

 

This is has nothing to do with my post, I was mearly showing how the supreme court can change the scope of an amendment by a court ruling. For example, in the second amendment, a ruling can decide what the scope of "well regulated" means.  There are plenty of court hearings to back this up. You don't need to pass an amendment to regulate guns, the supreme court can do it. 

 

If you want to live in a world where we live based on the whims of people 300 years ago, then that's fine, but remember if we are really talking about "original intent" they built a government (and constitution) that had the capacity to change with the times.  Why don't you quote that? 

 

But please, continue to make straw man arguments. 

[SansVarnic]

Much stricter background. Much stricter before every purchase and no person to person sales, only legit businesses. 

So how do you propose a gun that is owned by a person that passes on be handled?

How do you propose stopping the person to person sale of guns?

[Guest Ranterbach]

So how do you propose a gun that is owned by a person that passes on be handled?

How do you propose stopping the person to person sale of guns?

The NY SAFE Act is trying to do that very thing. Any firearms you currently own must be turned into the state (presumably to be destroyed) when you die. You are not allowed to pass on any firearms. 

That still doesn't answer how they intend to enforce any of it. 

[GrassFedTofuJesus]

So how do you propose a gun that is owned by a person that passes on be handled?

How do you propose stopping the person to person sale of guns?

A. I am fine with family to family guns sales. I mean like person to random person (aka outside of family), If outside family you can only sell to a licensed dealer.

B. Gun registry and stricter permit laws. 

[Jack.EXE]

First Pic:

American Indians were discriminated greatly up to that point in history and they were not well regarded as US citizens. They were disarmed as they were considered a threat. But in reality US Government was scared of them. I cannot ague against this as it was wrong how American Indians were treated since the mid 1700's. I have Cherokee ancestry. Not a very goo example.

Second Pic:

Holy freaking cow how ignorant. It was WW2 and the the US took great precautions as it was the Japanese that had just declared war on the US, and any of those Japanese immigrants could have been not what they said they were. Subterfuge was big during that period. What they did could be questioned but even most of those Japanese knew why this happened.

Bad Example.

Third pic:

I cannot speak to this much as I know little but I do know it was the first and only time this has happened.

The problem with this post is you are making a bad point about how Americans were bad as I can go back into the history books and name oh i don't know how times this has happened in European history? African History? the Middle East? China? Japan? Vietnam? South America?

Do you know anything about Stalin? Marx? Adolf? Pol Pot? Lenin? Ho Chi Menh? Sadam Hussien? Ismail Enver Pasha? Omar al-Bashir? and so many more.

Each killed their own people from anywhere as much as 500k - 1.6million compared to the 4killed and 9 wounded US citizens. Wow.

Before pointing fingers . . . . . . . .

And this post is not relevant to the discussion in this thread.

As this discussion is mostly about US policy, I decided to use examples from within the US to drivr the point home.

[SansVarnic]

This is has nothing to do with my post, I was mearly showing how the supreme court can change the scope of an amendment by a court ruling. For example, in the second amendment, a ruling can decide what the scope of "well regulated" means.  There are plenty of court hearings to back this up. You don't need to pass an amendment to regulate guns, the supreme court can do it. 

 

If you want to live in a world where we live based on the whims of people 300 years ago, then that's fine, but remember if we are really talking about "original intent" they built a government (and constitution) that had the capacity to change with the times.  Why don't you quote that? 

 

But please, continue to make straw man arguments. 

 

Yes it is valid as I am adding on to what you said. My reply supports your post.

 

But OK lets go that route. The Supreme court has no power change law in any manner, it is only allowed to, by law, to interpret a law and/or rule that a law being passed by congress resides within the confines of the constitution. Courts cannot make or change laws only rule them as legal or not legal within the confines of the constitution. Only Congress can create law or change a standing law.

"All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives."

 

"If you want to live in a world where we live based on the whims of people 300 years ago, then that's fine, but remember if we are really talking about "original intent" they built a government (and constitution) that had the capacity to change with the times.  Why don't you quote that?"

You missed my meaning. And I haven't quoted that because it hasn't become a valid point of argument yet. Yes the Constitution is a 'living document' and should reflect just that but if we were to ignore the founding principles on which the document was written then it makes all of it invalid and stagnant. Its the principles that make it what is.

[ionbasa]

 

 

Regarding gun control: 

 

People with ill intent will always have ways of acquiring arms to use in harming others. I'm not against requiring some form of screening for 1st time buyers or requiring an gun safety and technical skills course that buyers should take. But restricting guns on a nationwide scale would be a dumb move in my opinion. You essentially take away:  defense, CCW for people who need it, sport, hobby and most of all safety from the general gun-owning population (and fun if you're like me and shoot at ranges or BLM locations).

 

Tightening down on gun control won't stop bad people from having guns, there's a whole worlds of cartel items, and illegal goods, services that many ill intent people use. They'll still have access to their providers, while the rest of us are essentially worse off.

 

 

Disclosure: I'm an gun owner, but not an NRA member.

[thekeemo]

Guns are stupid

They are tools of death

We need to stop manufacturing them

And they will eventually disappear

[ionbasa]

Guns are stupid

They are tools of death

We need to stop manufacturing them

And they will eventually disappear

But there's an issue with that logic, it's not effective.

 

Example:

 

Ban on Nuclear arms, ballistics missles.

 

Did the ban stop North Korea from testing and having a stockpile of ballistics missles? NOPE.

[Guest Ranterbach]

I don't know why it's so difficult to understand. You can make as many laws as you want. It does not matter. The only people you are hurting are the good guys. The bad guys will ALWAYS have guns. End of story. You cannot change that by creating some law that prevents an old man from passing that K98 he picked up in WWII to his son when he dies. All that you are achieving is stomping all over the rights and freedoms of the average American. 

Even if you pass these laws, you cannot enforce them without involving a multitude of government agencies and the military. Good luck doing that without starting a goddamn war. 

[SansVarnic]

A. I am fine with family to family guns sales. I mean like person to random person (aka outside of family), If outside family you can only sell to a licensed dealer.

B. Gun registry and stricter permit laws. 

A. Ok cool. Unless your completely stupid lawful gun owners wont sell to just any joe on the street. There laws in place for this and no I cant link them atm as I cant remember them of the top of my head so I will have to look them up.

B. Of sorts gun registry already exists, by law reseller have to log all sales of guns including the serial number of who and where the gun was sold. But I am against government run gun registry. Stricter laws than we already have? Unfortunately they are already pretty strict, the thing is they are not readily enforced. So this is a repeat thing that is why there is already 20,000 guns laws that exist, to many to enforce. So instead you should be asking for Gun law reform, condensing the laws to a manageable amount that are enforceable. Also there many repeat laws that say the same but are worded differently that allow loopholes.

[GrassFedTofuJesus]

A. Ok cool. Unless your completely stupid lawful gun owners wont sell to just any joe on the street. There laws in place for this and no I cant link them atm as I cant remember them of the top of my head so I will have to look them up.

B. Of sorts gun registry already exists, by law reseller have to log all sales of guns including the serial number of who and where the gun was sold. But I am against government run gun registry. Stricter laws than we already have? Unfortunately they are already pretty strict, the thing is they are not readily enforced. So this is a repeat thing that is why there is already 20,000 guns laws that exist, to many to enforce. So instead you should be asking for Gun law reform, condensing the laws to a manageable amount that are enforceable. Also there many repeat laws that say the same but are worded differently that allow loopholes.

You seem to know much more than I, when it comes to gun laws. 

[SansVarnic]

You seem to know much more than I, when it comes to gun laws. 

That's ok but I do suggest that when you make a suggestion about something you know only so much on, you should research your response first.

As a gun owner is it my responsibility to know (I don't know it by heart as it is way to much but I know the basic ones and the rest in reach to refer to) and understand the law concerning my rights and usage of such same as anything else not a gun. It is reckless for someone to not know at least the most basic laws.

[GrassFedTofuJesus]

That's ok but I do suggest that when you make a suggestion about something you know only so much on, you should research your response first.

As a gun owner is it my responsibility to know (I don't know it by heart as it is way to much but I know the basic ones and the rest in reach to refer to) and understand the law concerning my rights and usage of such same as anything else not a gun. It is reckless for someone to not know at least the most basic laws.

Not to say I don't know what I am doing. I grew up in a gun owning family, I have been taught to handle guns, I've been thru hunters safety. I do have knowledge on guns and the laws surrounding them, just not as in depth as you it seems. They do vary state to state. 

[SansVarnic]

Disclosure:

I was a member of the NRA, but not currently.

I am a member of the USCCA. The association is strong in Gun law and responsible gun ownership education. I am not purposely advocating (not sure if I am breaking CoC) the USCCA but showing that I am not an NRA drone, the USCCA goal is educate the what, why & how's of proper, responsible gun ownership to reduce and eliminate ignorance and stupidity found in some irresponsible individuals. Which is what I believe in, knowledge.

[SansVarnic]

Not to say I don't know what I am doing. I grew up in a gun owning family, I have been taught to handle guns, I've been thru hunters safety. I do have knowledge on guns and the laws surrounding them, just not as in depth as you it seems. They do vary state to state. 

Awesome. I only said what I did as I did not know the depth of your own experience/knowledge. A general suggestion.

[thekeemo]

But there's an issue with that logic, it's not effective.

Example:

Ban on Nuclear arms, ballistics missles.

Did the ban stop North Korea from testing and having a stockpile of ballistics missles? NOPE.

that's because missiles aren't used regularly...