Thoughts on gun control?

[Guest Ranterbach]

well i wasnt that sure about the vehicle laws in the us ill give you that and i see how them already beeing out there is a problem but my point stands firearms shouldnt only be forbidden for the mentally unfit but for everyone no guns fo anyone but the police and military. listen im not saying im an expert on this matter but this is just my take on it.

 

I get what you're saying, and I won't disagree that the world might be better off if guns didn't exist. I just cannot see any possible way to get rid of firearms completely in the US. The fact that they do exist means that everybody who is mentally stable and understand the responsibility must have access to them if needed.

I personally don't like the idea of only police having firearms. I'm not anti-police by any means, but I prefer a level playing field. Police are people too, and people are fallible. Just as responsible gun owners sometimes do wrong with their firearms, responsible police are not immune to human shortcomings. That's mostly just an American vs European mindset, though. I don't like the idea of having cameras watching me at all times either. Not that I'm committing any crimes, I just don't care for have my every move observed and recorded somewhere. 

[Slash003]

Guns do not cause crimes, guns are not inherently evil, and you cannot simply remove guns from the US. As I'm sure you've heard a million times before, if you outlaw guns, only outlaws will have guns. Think about it, if someone is planning to commit a crime with a firearm, would they choose any old place, or would they gravitate towards a posted gun-free zone? Civilians HAVE to have the ability to defend themselves and their families. 

@Tie Lightning 

Guns are not bad. They just are. It's the user who is at fault.

 

Take a gun. Put a full mag next to it. Yell at it. Call it stupid. Tell it, that it is a fucking retard. Punch it. Verbally abuse the crap out of it.

 

Now as you notice it did not load itself and shoot you. That is because a gun on its own cant do anything and is just a bunch of materials that are assembled into an item that if has another item in it and then is instructed by the user, only then becomes a tool with a potential for damage ( or in other peoples case a weapon)

[Guest Ranterbach]

This isn't strictly relevant to the discussion, but I would like to add that, given the choice, I would much rather be shot than stabbed. The argument comes up a lot that without guns, you can just carry a knife to defend yourself. I think this is a terrible option. I carry a knife everyday, but I have no desire to ever be involved in a knife fight. Given the choice, I would always pick a firearm over a knife to defend myself, if only because I would never want to inflict that kind of pain and suffering on another human being. 

Altercations involving a blade are bloody and horrific. A bullet wound to the chest is no laughing matter, but multiple knife lacerations is the stuff of nightmares. 

[stconquest]

If the US government would accept a more robust regulatory body for gun ownership, maybe the current laws for gun control could actually be enforced properly. 

 

... and sorry guys... open carry/concealed carry should be slowly dissolved.  One stupid person ruins it for everyone and not understanding this concept just means you are a little kid that wants to keep playing with his/her toys.

[Guest Ranterbach]

If the US government would accept a more robust regulatory body for gun ownership, maybe the current laws for gun control could actually be enforced properly. 

 

... and sorry guys... open carry/concealed carry should be slowly dissolved.  One stupid person ruins it for everyone and not understanding this concept just means you are a little kid that wants to keep playing with his/her toys.

More robust meaning what? Police and military confiscation weapons from people? As I stated earlier, if that ever becomes a reality in the US, I will no longer call the US home. I refuse to live under a government that has so little respect for my privacy and rights as a human being. 

What part of "defense" don't you understand? The entire point of the 2nd Amendment is to protect the American people. How can that happen if your arms must be kept locked in a safe? If someone with the will to act is present when an individual decides to open fire on a group of people, how is he to stop it without a firearm of his own? That's what you're not getting here, I don't give a shit how many laws you pass, you CANNOT stop criminals from obtaining and using firearms. They are criminals, that's what they do. That's the entire point. You need to do some more research, because I have never encountered someone with a concealed carry permit that does not understand and accept the responsibility of their choice. They made that choice out of a desire and will to protect those who cannot protect themselves, even if it means placing themselves in harms way. It has nothing to do with "playing with his/her toys." I find that insulting, considering the men and women I know personally who have made the decision to carry a concealed firearm. 

Furthermore, making such an absolute blanket statement like that is indicative of a lack of an actual argument. Rather than debating this issue logically, you have now stooped to insulting the intentions and responsibility of those who are willing to do whatever it takes to protect innocent people from those who would do them harm.  

[stconquest]

More robust meaning what? Police and military confiscation weapons from people? As I stated earlier, if that ever becomes a reality in the US, I will no longer call the US home. I refuse to live under a government that has so little respect for my privacy and rights as a human being. 

What part of "defense" don't you understand? The entire point of the 2nd Amendment is to protect the American people. How can that happen if your arms must be kept locked in a safe? If someone with the will to act is present when an individual decides to open fire on a group of people, how is he to stop it without a firearm of his own? That's what you're not getting here, I don't give a shit how many laws you pass, you CANNOT stop criminals from obtaining and using firearms. They are criminals, that's what they do. That's the entire point. You need to do some more research, because I have never encountered someone with a concealed carry permit that does not understand and accept the responsibility of their choice. They made that choice out of a desire and will to protect those who cannot protect themselves, even if it means placing themselves in harms way. It has nothing to do with "playing with his/her toys." I find that insulting, considering the men and women I know personally who have made the decision to carry a concealed firearm. 

Furthermore, making such an absolute blanket statement like that is indicative of a lack of an actual argument. Rather than debating this issue logically, you have now stooped to insulting the intentions and responsibility of those who are willing to do whatever it takes to protect innocent people from those who would do them harm.  

 

We have a real American hero here.

 

Yes, the mentality of gun culture in the USA keeps on falling deeper into the depths of absurdity.  On to manifest destiny... enjoy your diminishing social fabric.

[Guest Ranterbach]

You can patronize all you want, every concealed carry holder I have ever spoken to made that decision based on a desire to protect their families and innocent people around them. 
 

You don't seem to comprehend that people will always have guns. Adding more and more regulation only hinders the good guys. 

If you'd like to answer my questions, I'm more than willing to have this debate with you. If all you're going to do is flaunt your condescending attitude towards gun-owning Americans, there is no reason for us to continue this discussion. 

[stconquest]

No thank you.

[Guest Kloaked]

But it seems that there is a correlation between gun bans and violent crimes. In places with stricter gun laws there seems to be a higher violent crime rate. So there is a chance, if they ban guns, that crime will actually increase. Is it worth the few less shootings a year that will increase crime, or keep those few shootings and have less crime, and let the people have their right to bear arms. Also how would they ban them? Would they just come to our house and take them? I sure hope not, the people taking them would probably be shot, there are collectible guns from wars that there are less than 10 of and people have those. People spend thousands of dollars on collectible guns, and shooting guns. If they come take my guns they better be paying me double or triple what I paid for them.

 

There lies the issue with how people perceive gun control in the states as opposed to other countries.

 

Many people don't understand that other countries have had uptight gun control for so long, and it's hard to even find examples of gun violence (unless you're in the Middle East, but that's on rabbit trail) because of that. They've had it under control.

 

America let Americans have more lenience on guns. Even today in some licensed gun stores you can obtain a weapon without an actual background check or proper firearm training (at least that's what I've been reading on the internet, and we all know how information on the internet is always 100% truth (that was sarcasm)).

 

But what I'm trying to say, as best as I can, is that it's too little too late for America to just outright ban guns. I would love to be in a world without firearms or weapons at all. Such a perfect world that doesn't exist, sadly.

[Real_PhillBert]

America let Americans have more lenience on guns. Even today in some licensed gun stores you can obtain a weapon without an actual background check or proper firearm training (at least that's what I've been reading on the internet, and we all know how information on the internet is always 100% truth (that was sarcasm)).

 

Every FFL (firearms dealer) must fill out a 4473 (federal NICS background check) for ever firearms sale if the firearm was made after 1898.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Instant_Criminal_Background_Check_System

 

Here are the prohibited persons qualifications:

 

• Shipping or transporting any firearm or ammunition in interstate or foreign commerce;
• Receiving any firearm or ammunition that has been shipped or transported in interstate or foreign commerce.^[7]

A prohibited person is one who:

• Has been convicted in any court of a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year;
• Is under indictment for a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year;
• Is a fugitive from justice;
• Is an unlawful user of or addicted to any controlled substance;
• Has been adjudicated as a mental defective or committed to a mental institution;
• Is illegally or unlawfully in the United States;
• Has been discharged from the Armed Forces under dishonorable conditions;
• Having been a citizen of the United States, has renounced U.S. citizenship;
• Is subject to a court order that restrains the person from harassing, stalking, or threatening an intimate partner or child of such intimate partner;
• Has been convicted in any court of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence.

[NeoZeon]

I always love it when I find someone way more eloquent than me... he was my team's center, one of the most intelligent men to ever write for time: 

 

"But the economics on the other side may be even more compelling. According to a 2015 Mother Jones report, gun-related deaths and injuries cost American taxpayers about about $229 billion per year. To put that in context, Medicaid spending in 2014 totaled $251 billion and the 2015 requested defense budget was $495.6 billion. So, we’re spending $229 billion a year of taxpayers’ money to protect a $6 billion industry. Gun deaths are expected to surpass auto deaths this year and continue to do so in the coming years, which is an increase in taxpayer costs, not to mention an increase in lives lost. The economics don’t seem to support our pry-the-gun-from-my-cold-dead-fingers position."

 

http://time.com/4065124/democratic-debate-gun-control/?xid=homepage

[TheWeeknd]

I am writing an argument essay on gun control in my English class and I was wondering what some peoples ideas were on this, I already have my own and you will not change my thoughts on it, but I just want to see what you have to say. 

 

Should there be more gun control?

My opinion - No, there should not be, there will always be those crazy people who will shoot someone. We cannot stop these people from getting guns, if they want to do it, they will find a way, even with more gun control. What would keep them from stealing a gun, or buying one off of the black market? They are already committing a crime, so what would stop them from committing another one? 

 

Should there be safety training at gun ranges?

My opinion - Yes, I believes in order to shoot at a gun range you should have to take a safety class by them. The reason I support this is because when I lived in Texas, we just joined a gun range that didn't have a safety training, and when we were visiting it finding out if we wanted to join someone was shot. The person was shot because the person in the bay next to him had a hang fire (When you pull the trigger and the bullet does not go off) and didn't know what to do, so he looked at the gun, which meant pointing it to the left of him, towards another person, and the gun went off. The man had two kids and a wife, and that is why I support this. 

 

Should it be required that you lock up ALL guns inside your own house? 

My opinion - No. You have the right in your own home to keep your guns unlocked, do I think it's smart, no because if someone breaks into your house and commits a crime with that weapon you're in trouble. If someone does break into your house when you are home with your family, and they have a gun and yours are all locked up, you wont have time to get your gun, and if you do, the intruder might already have a gun to your family. 

 

 

I would go a lot more into depth on this, but I don't want to start a war on here. 

 

Any other things you want to talk about on guns? Post it too!

 

Exactly my thoughts on that!

[SansVarnic]

I am not entirely sure as to why this thread is still content to discuss the USA issue on firearms. 

 

It does not matter how many points will be presented here, the only way any type of real change that can occur in the US about firearms is to change the 2nd Amendment.

 

Quote: "The Constitution provides that an amendment may be proposed either by the Congress with a two-thirds majority vote in both the House of Representatives and the Senate or by a constitutional convention called for by two-thirds of the State legislatures. None of the 27 amendments to the Constitution have been proposed by constitutional convention. The Congress proposes an amendment in the form of a joint resolution. Since the President does not have a constitutional role in the amendment process, the joint resolution does not go to the White House for signature or approval. The original document is forwarded directly to NARA's Office of the Federal Register (OFR) for processing and publication. The OFR adds legislative history notes to the joint resolution and publishes it in slip law format. The OFR also assembles an information package for the States which includes formal "red-line" copies of the joint resolution, copies of the joint resolution in slip law format, and the statutory procedure for ratification under 1 U.S.C. 106b."

Link: https://www.archives.gov/federal-register/constitution/

 

I am not saying I support this for the 2nd amendment but this is what it will take. The US is not like other country's were as the Government can take certain liberties away, the people the ones that can do this. As I have stated in a previous post.

 

Quoting myself;

"If you where to look at how the US Government system works you would see that it is the States that give the power to the Federal Government not the other way around. This why the US is Republic/Federalist System not a Democracy like so many like to say incorrectly."

http://linustechtips.com/main/topic/465842-thoughts-on-gun-control/page-9

 

Now I am not saying that nobody can give their opinion on this subject, it is just that right now unless a Constitutional Convention or a Congressional vote takes place this argument about American gun rights/control is more or less mute. 

 

Sorry but I am just being realistic here.

 

 

*Edit 

I am referring to Gun Bans not Gun Control in this post, apologies for any confusion.

Edited October 21, 2015 by SansVarnic

[stconquest]

I am not entirely sure as to why this thread is still content to discuss the USA issue on firearms. 

 

It does not matter how many points will be presented here, the only way any type of real change that can occur in the US about firearms is to change the 2nd Amendment.

 

Quote: "The Constitution provides that an amendment may be proposed either by the Congress with a two-thirds majority vote in both the House of Representatives and the Senate or by a constitutional convention called for by two-thirds of the State legislatures. None of the 27 amendments to the Constitution have been proposed by constitutional convention. The Congress proposes an amendment in the form of a joint resolution. Since the President does not have a constitutional role in the amendment process, the joint resolution does not go to the White House for signature or approval. The original document is forwarded directly to NARA's Office of the Federal Register (OFR) for processing and publication. The OFR adds legislative history notes to the joint resolution and publishes it in slip law format. The OFR also assembles an information package for the States which includes formal "red-line" copies of the joint resolution, copies of the joint resolution in slip law format, and the statutory procedure for ratification under 1 U.S.C. 106b."

Link: https://www.archives.gov/federal-register/constitution/

 

I am not saying I support this for the 2nd amendment but this is what it will take. The US is not like other country's were as the Government can take certain liberties away, the people the ones that can do this. As I have stated in a previous post.

 

Quoting myself;

"If you where to look at how the US Government system works you would see that it is the States that give the power to the Federal Government not the other way around. This why the US is Republic/Federalist System not a Democracy like so many like to say incorrectly."

http://linustechtips.com/main/topic/465842-thoughts-on-gun-control/page-9

 

Now I am not saying that nobody can give their opinion on this subject, it is just that right now unless a Constitutional Convention or a Congressional vote takes place this argument about American gun rights/control is more or less mute. 

 

Sorry but I am just being realistic here.

 

Right.  The second amendment was written not to stop crazy people in the middle of the street, but to give states the power to defend themselves if the federal government ever decided to break the law.

 

Banning guns is a moot point.

 

Having no gun regulations is a moot point as well.

 

There is a grey area that has to protect the public.  That should be discussed.  It is just not an easy topic and requires a good amount of data.  More than I am personally will to drudge up. 

[LAwLz]

I am not entirely sure as to why this thread is still content to discuss the USA issue on firearms. 

 

It does not matter how many points will be presented here, the only way any type of real change that can occur in the US about firearms is to change the 2nd Amendment.

 

Quote: "The Constitution provides that an amendment may be proposed either by the Congress with a two-thirds majority vote in both the House of Representatives and the Senate or by a constitutional convention called for by two-thirds of the State legislatures. None of the 27 amendments to the Constitution have been proposed by constitutional convention. The Congress proposes an amendment in the form of a joint resolution. Since the President does not have a constitutional role in the amendment process, the joint resolution does not go to the White House for signature or approval. The original document is forwarded directly to NARA's Office of the Federal Register (OFR) for processing and publication. The OFR adds legislative history notes to the joint resolution and publishes it in slip law format. The OFR also assembles an information package for the States which includes formal "red-line" copies of the joint resolution, copies of the joint resolution in slip law format, and the statutory procedure for ratification under 1 U.S.C. 106b."

Link: https://www.archives.gov/federal-register/constitution/

 

I am not saying I support this for the 2nd amendment but this is what it will take. The US is not like other country's were as the Government can take certain liberties away, the people the ones that can do this. As I have stated in a previous post.

 

Quoting myself;

"If you where to look at how the US Government system works you would see that it is the States that give the power to the Federal Government not the other way around. This why the US is Republic/Federalist System not a Democracy like so many like to say incorrectly."

http://linustechtips.com/main/topic/465842-thoughts-on-gun-control/page-9

 

Now I am not saying that nobody can give their opinion on this subject, it is just that right now unless a Constitutional Convention or a Congressional vote takes place this argument about American gun rights/control is more or less mute. 

 

Sorry but I am just being realistic here.

Jim Jefferies has a good response to that.

[SansVarnic]

Right.  The second amendment was written not to stop crazy people in the middle of the street, but to give states the power to defend themselves if the federal government ever decided to break the law.

 

Banning guns is a moot point.

 

Having no gun regulations is a moot point as well.

 

There is a grey area that has to protect the public.  That should be discussed.  It is just not an easy topic and requires a good amount of data.  More than I am personally will to drudge up. 

I agree.

 

As this thread is an example unto itself the the gun/firearm issue is a controversial subject.

Firearms will be with us until the end of time. This is a 'laid in stone' fact.

This technology has been around for .... what since 1364 when it was first invented? so a long time then, Pandora is not going back in her box. The real problem that plagues this subject is the duplicity on so called facts and myths that surround the gun/firearm, the amount of negative influence on misinformation that is spread around and may I say it the amount of poorly scripted skepticism and opinion based on false information about guns. A gun is a tool that is misused just like anything else is and some people just cannot handle it. Anything made for a positive use can be used in a negative way.

 

My biggest beef with this thread up to point of my last post is the constant aggression toward the US on this subject, US citizens are not what some of the descriptions here say and irks me to no end to read such stupidity repeated with out properly researching the issue thoroughly. Especially when people say things that just do not make sense like the US president needs to do something or the US Government should something, what is he going to do? sign an executive order? EO are not law and the President does not have that kind of power, anyone who has taken basic US history or looked it up on Wikipedia (even they have it right) can say this. Unfortunately the US system of government is the only one of its kind, but it will always get gruff since it gets it power from the people not royalty or hierarchy (for lack of better wording atm).

OK that was my rant.... <_<  been needing to get that one out.

 

This conversation will never end and I am glad that this thread has stayed civil and has yet to be locked. Kudos to the Mods.I have enjoyed most points of view though, I am always happy to another angle of thought.

[SansVarnic]

Jim Jefferies has a good response to that.

I'm not following you point here. That guys argument has little value, comparing slavery to gun ownership is like me comparing candy to cocaine <_< . Also not knowing the most fundamental laws ones country is bound to is an ignorant way to live.

We have 27 amendments to the constitution.

I did state that another amendment can be proposed. Did you not read the quote I placed in the post? The process takes about 2 years to complete but not longer than 7. The amendment must pass by 2/3 vote of congress (House and Senate) and then be ratified by each state after the fact before it becomes enforceable.

Edited October 21, 2015 by SansVarnic

[stconquest]

I agree.

 

As this thread is an example unto itself the the gun/firearm issue is a controversial subject.

Firearms will be with us until the end of time. This is a 'laid in stone' fact.

This technology has been around for .... what since 1364 when it was first invented? so a long time then, Pandora is not going back in her box. The real problem that plagues this subject is the duplicity on so called facts and myths that surround the gun/firearm, the amount of negative influence on misinformation that is spread around and may I say it the amount of poorly scripted skepticism and opinion based on false information about guns. A gun is a tool that is misused just like anything else is and some people just cannot handle it. Anything made for a positive use can be used in a negative way.

 

My biggest beef with this thread up to point of my last post is the constant aggression toward the US on this subject, US citizens are not what some of the descriptions here say and irks me to no end to read such stupidity repeated with out properly researching the issue thoroughly. Especially when people say things that just do not make sense like the US president needs to do something or the US Government should something, what is he going to do? sign an executive order? EO are not law and the President does not have that kind of power, anyone who has taken basic US history or looked it up on Wikipedia (even they have it right) can say this. Unfortunately the US system of government is the only one of its kind, but it will always get gruff since it gets it power from the people not royalty or hierarchy (for lack of better wording atm).

OK that was my rant.... <_<  been needing to get that one out.

 

This conversation will never end and I am glad that this thread has stayed civil and has yet to be locked. Kudos to the Mods.I have enjoyed most points of view though, I am always happy to another angle of thought.

 

Very well said.

 

People get frantic when violence becomes common occurrence, understandably.  I would.  I can't imagine what it is like to feel the need to carry when I leave the house.  It is just not what I am used to. 

 

Concurrently, children have to grow up in much worse environments than the worst of the worst in North America.  I have that natural reflex to hate weapons when I really think about it.  I also have the part of me that finds the tools intriguing, and more a benefit than a detriment. 

 

As I tell my cousin:  Not everyone is level-headed like you.  So you can't judge the effectiveness of firearms in the hands of the general public based on your demeanor or intelligence.

 

IDK, tough stuff... this set of circumstances.

[Real_PhillBert]

I am not entirely sure as to why this thread is still content to discuss the USA issue on firearms. 

 

It does not matter how many points will be presented here, the only way any type of real change that can occur in the US about firearms is to change the 2nd Amendment.

 

Quote: "The Constitution provides that an amendment may be proposed either by the Congress with a two-thirds majority vote in both the House of Representatives and the Senate or by a constitutional convention called for by two-thirds of the State legislatures. None of the 27 amendments to the Constitution have been proposed by constitutional convention. The Congress proposes an amendment in the form of a joint resolution. Since the President does not have a constitutional role in the amendment process, the joint resolution does not go to the White House for signature or approval. The original document is forwarded directly to NARA's Office of the Federal Register (OFR) for processing and publication. The OFR adds legislative history notes to the joint resolution and publishes it in slip law format. The OFR also assembles an information package for the States which includes formal "red-line" copies of the joint resolution, copies of the joint resolution in slip law format, and the statutory procedure for ratification under 1 U.S.C. 106b."

Link: https://www.archives.gov/federal-register/constitution/

 

I am not saying I support this for the 2nd amendment but this is what it will take. The US is not like other country's were as the Government can take certain liberties away, the people the ones that can do this. As I have stated in a previous post.

 

Quoting myself;

"If you where to look at how the US Government system works you would see that it is the States that give the power to the Federal Government not the other way around. This why the US is Republic/Federalist System not a Democracy like so many like to say incorrectly."

http://linustechtips.com/main/topic/465842-thoughts-on-gun-control/page-9

 

Now I am not saying that nobody can give their opinion on this subject, it is just that right now unless a Constitutional Convention or a Congressional vote takes place this argument about American gun rights/control is more or less mute. 

 

Sorry but I am just being realistic here.

 

I'm afraid you have hugely oversimplified the issue here; firearms in the US are not a black and white issue as your post infers. There have been many many many laws regulating firearms without changing the second amendment. The Supreme court has even ruled that some fire arms restrictions are not in violation of the second amendment.

 

So of coarse you can effect change in the firearms laws in the us without changing or eliminating the second amendment. Look at the differences between states for further proof of this fact. Look at the National Firearms Act, Hughes Amendment, Gun Control Act of 1968, the list goes on. 

[NeoZeon]

The second amendment can have different meanings through interpretation. Look at all the SCOTUS hearings expanding and contracting its scope. It wasn't until 2008 that the 2nd amendment  protected someone's right to own a gun for lawful purposes(Like self defense).

 

 

 

District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008), was a landmark case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held in a 5-4 decision that the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution applies to federal enclaves and protects an individual's rightto possess a firearm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. The decision did not address the question of whether the Second Amendment extends beyond federal enclaves to the states,^[1] which was addressed later by McDonald v. Chicago (2010). It was the first Supreme Court case to decide whether the Second Amendment protects an individual right to keep and bear arms for self-defense.^[2]

 

 

Maybe before you guys argue about this you learn a little bit about the legal process in this country. 

[TopDollar]

Just going to throw in my own experience in here rather than try and debate any political point.

 

Coming from upstate New York, guns (handguns mostly) have always seemed kind of taboo due to how strict NY's gun laws are (not talking about New York City as that is a whole other animal on it's own). After moving to the south however, it's a whole different world. Guns are a lot more accepted here and I'm to the point where I'm surprised if I don't see someone open carrying any time I go to Walmart. I live in a heavily populated area as well, so it's not like I'm in the country in the middle of no where. It doesn't feel any more unsafe, just different. Personally, I'm a bit of a history buff and mechanically inclined person, so I really enjoy the technical operation and history of firearms..and taking my Sig Sauer to the range every so often is fun too.

[SansVarnic]

I'm afraid you have hugely oversimplified the issue here; firearms in the US are not a black and white issue as your post infers. There have been many many many laws regulating firearms without changing the second amendment. The Supreme court has even ruled that some fire arms restrictions are not in violation of the second amendment.

 

So of coarse you can effect change in the firearms laws in the us without changing or eliminating the second amendment. Look at the differences between states for further proof of this fact. Look at the National Firearms Act, Hughes Amendment, Gun Control Act of 1968, the list goes on. 

You misunderstand my post. You need to go back several pages and read the other posts (by me) leading up to the last one.

My last point has nothing to do with regulating gun control it is about those that want to remove/ban guns. . .  which cannot happen without changing the 2nd amendment first and to do that it takes more effort than what is being called for. If you was to put all of my posts together you will see this. I have not oversimplified the issue at all.

This post was specific to the topic in which I was writing about. I do address each part of each argument separately and if you want say that I am still oversimplifying this then all I have to say is you making it to complicated of a subject to argue because realistically this subject is pretty straight forward. A gun/firearm is a tool for either hunting, law enforcement or engineered for war no more no less.

 

Quoting myself:

"You and I are on the same page and I absolutely agree that it is not cut and dry. I had much more to say in that last reply but I was having a bit of a time putting it to words so I left it at what I had. *edit: If you refer back to some of my previous posts in this thread you will see this.  ;)"

http://linustechtips.com/main/topic/465842-thoughts-on-gun-control/page-16

 

Your not the first to tell me this. Click the link and read the rest of what I said.

 

The second amendment can have different meanings through interpretation. Look at all the SCOTUS hearings expanding and contracting its scope. It wasn't until 2008 that the 2nd amendment  protected someone's right to own a gun for lawful purposes(Like self defense).

 

District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008), was a landmark case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held in a 5-4 decision that the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution applies to federal enclaves and protects an individual's rightto possess a firearm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. The decision did not address the question of whether the Second Amendment extends beyond federal enclaves to the states,[1] which was addressed later by McDonald v. Chicago (2010). It was the first Supreme Court case to decide whether the Second Amendment protects an individual right to keep and bear arms for self-defense.[2]

 

 

Maybe before you guys argue about this you learn a little bit about the legal process in this country. 

Please fix your post font it is very difficult to read in dark theme.

 

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.

 

I will have to go and find links to add to this that show what I am saying but for starters read the following:

 

As Noah Webster put it in a pamphlet urging ratification of the Constitution, "Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom in Europe." George Mason remarked to his Virginia delegates regarding the colonies' recent experience with Britain, in which the Monarch's goal had been "to disarm the people; that [that] . . . was the best and most effectual way to enslave them." A widely reprinted article by Tench Coxe, an ally and correspondent of James Madison, described the Second Amendment's overriding goal as a check upon the national government's standing army: As civil rulers, not having their duty to the people duly before them, may attempt to tyrannize, and as the military forces which must be occasionally raised to defend our country, might pervert their power to the injury of their fellow citizens, the people are confirmed by the next article in their right to keep and bear their private arms.

Thus, the well regulated militia necessary to the security of a free state was a militia that might someday fight against a standing army raised and supported by a tyrannical national government. Obviously, for that reason, the Framers did not say "A Militia well regulated by the Congress, being necessary to the security of a free State" -- because a militia so regulated might not be separate enough from, or free enough from, the national government, in the sense of both physical and operational control, to preserve the "security of a free State." ~ by Daniel J. Schultz

http://www.lectlaw.com/files/gun01.htm

 

I like what Mr Schultz writes but this still is not the whole of the story, I will work on finding links to the actual notes from the debates. Also notice he to refers to the remarks made by George Mason about how England wanted the colony to disband the ownership of guns.

 

*edit to add missed information i didn't type out, brain running faster than my fingers on the keyboard. 

Edited October 21, 2015 by SansVarnic

[Jack.EXE]

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

 

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

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

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

[Real_PhillBert]

You misunderstand my post. You need to go back several pages and read the other posts (by me) leading up to the last one.

My last point has nothing to do with regulating gun control it is about those that want to remove/ban guns. . . which cannot happen without changing the 2nd amendment first and to do that it takes more effort than what is being called for. If you was to put all of my posts together you will see this. I have not oversimplified the issue at all.

This post was specific to the topic in which I was writing about. I do address each part of each argument separately and if you want say that I am still oversimplifying this then all I have to say is you making it to complicated of a subject to argue because realistically this subject is pretty straight forward. A gun/firearm is a tool for either hunting, law enforcement or engineered for war no more no less.

Quoting myself:

"You and I are on the same page and I absolutely agree that it is not cut and dry. I had much more to say in that last reply but I was having a bit of a time putting it to words so I left it at what I had. *edit: If you refer back to some of my previous posts in this thread you will see this. ;)"

http://linustechtips.com/main/topic/465842-thoughts-on-gun-control/page-16

Your not the first to tell me this. Click the link and read the rest of what I said.

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

It does not matter how many points will be presented here, the only way any type of real change that can occur in the US about firearms is to change the 2nd Amendment.

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

Then you go on to say this:

Now I am not saying that nobody can give their opinion on this subject, it is just that right now unless a Constitutional Convention or a Congressional vote takes place this argument about American gun rights/control is more or less mute.

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.

This thread is about gun control, but not all forms of gun control are bans.

[Guest Ranterbach]

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.

This thread is about gun control, but not all forms of gun control are bans.

 

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.