2013 America (and Friends!) Gun Violence Thread No Plows Allowed!

[archibaldcrane]

Gun control isn't infringing on your rights no matter how you want to slice it.

um...

[archibaldcrane]

See, this is why I hate gun control arguments. I have to spend as much time countering the dumb arguments of pro-gun-control people as I do the free-for-all crowd.

[Ksandra]

um...

Right to bear arms =/= right to bear whatever the fuck you want.

[edit] as you even said, is the fact I can't have a cannon on my porch infringing on my rights? No. I have a million other choices at hand.

[wipers]

Gun control isn't infringing on your rights no matter how you want to slice it.

All kinds of dumb here.

[Fhqwghads]

Given that there's no universally accepted definition of an assault rifle, you'd like discussions to become impossible. I suppose that's one way to quash an argument.

Plenty of "arms" are severely "rights infringed", from Revolutionary War cannons that the founding fathers may have considered as "arms", to fully-automatic weapons they couldn't have dreamed of. You know full well that when people say "asssault rifles" in this context they mean semi-auto "military style" rifles not designed for hunting. You and I know that there may not be a huge difference in killing capacity between an AR-15-style rifle and a, for example, http://www.basspro.com/Ruger-Mini14-...duct/10218120/ (well, other than standard magazine size) - but don't pretend you don't know what people mean when they say "assault rifle".

When you say it's not "universally accepted" what you're saying is people who know next to nothing about firearms can't agree on what an assault rifle is. Everyone who is moderately knowledgeable will readily agree that an assault rifle is a center-fire rifle with select fire capabilities (semi, 3-round burst, and on some models - full auto). The MSM is the one who's confused everyone since they label any polymer rifle as an "assault rifle". Has nothing to do with trying to sidestep any argument.

There is no infringing on cannons either, or tanks, or fully automatic firearms and many other weapons that the public thinks are illegal for private citizens to own. All one has to do is get a $200 tax stamp and anyone who fills out the form and qualifies can buy them (assuming they have the money). It's another myth perpetrated by MSM, most liberals, and almost all progressives. Let's not confuse "military style" with "military weapon". Visual similarity does not equate functionally identical. And where are you getting the idea that modern sporting rifles (which is the correct term, although it sounds much less scary than "assault weapon" which is what liberal/progressive MSM would rather have them labeled since it's much more ominous sounding) aren't used for hunting? There's a reason why platforms like the AR are the most popular rifle in the country, and despite what those who want to disarm America would lead everyone to believe, their sole purpose isn't killing people.

With regard to what the founders believed, there are articles written by them which stated they wanted Americans to be armed with weapons which kept pace with the ones the military used. Did you know that in many of the wars back then privateers used their ships under contract with the military to help with battles fought at sea? These privately owned ships were decked out with weapon on par, and even sometimes better than, the ships owned by the Navy. They wanted this nation to be ready to fight against all enemies, whether foreign or domestic. To say that the founders wouldn't agree with civilians being armed with the same types of weapons available to our modern military is disingenuous given the evidence.

Also - let me prefix my side of the debate regarding this topic. I hold zero expectations that anyone will change their position regarding firearms. I just flipped through some of these pages and I see most of the discussion is one sided, and feel compelled to stick up for those of us who value our 2nd amendment rights. And before anyone goes down that path - I am a firm believer in *all* of our constitutional rights, not just the 2nd.

[archibaldcrane]

Right to bear arms =/= right to bear whatever the fuck you want.

In Alsaka, for example, you have the right to open carry.

In Florida, you do not. You do not in Florida because of a piece of gun control legislation. That is clearly gun control legislation infringing on a right you would otherwise have.

[BaneTheBrawler]

i am a well regulated militia gib guns plz

[Fhqwghads]

Gun control isn't infringing on your rights no matter how you want to slice it.

Ok, but I slice it with the definition of "infringe", which is exactly what gun control does.

[Ksandra]

Feel free to point out where in the second amendment it says that the right to bear arms = without any sort of restriction whatsover and you'd have a point.

Even the the most recent court decision (District of Columbia v. Heller) states:

" Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. Miller's holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those "in common use at the time" finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons."

[archibaldcrane]

There is no infringing on cannons either, or tanks, or fully automatic firearms and many other weapons that the public thinks are illegal for private citizens to own. All one has to do is get a $200 tax stamp and anyone who fills out the form and qualifies can buy them (assuming they have the money).

Wait, so the tax stamp, form filing, (inevitable waiting period for processing) and qualification requirements aren't infringing?

Sweet! Let's get some of that going for all center-fire rifles with select-fire capabilities! It's not an infringement at all, let's tax and restrict qualification til the cows come home.

[wipers]

Next we are going to find out that you can only be killed with legally purchased guns. And we all know criminals purchase guns legally.

[archibaldcrane]

I'd say that most of the incidents posted in this thread involve legally purchased guns.

I mean, we aren't talking about black people getting shot in here most of the time.

[Fhqwghads]

Wait, so the tax stamp, form filing, (inevitable waiting period for processing) and qualification requirements aren't infringing?

Sweet! Let's get some of that going for all center-fire rifles with select-fire capabilities! It's not an infringement at all, let's tax and restrict qualification til the cows come home.

Sorry, it is infringing in the pure sense of the definition. Unfortunately the SCOTUS has decided that some restrictions are fine and up to the states to decide on how far those restrictions go.

[Ksandra]

Unfortunately the SCOTUS has decided that some restrictions are fine and up to the states to decide on how far those restrictions go.

Which is exactly my argument.

Claiming "mah freedoms getting infringed!" gets my goat because in every court case deciding the interpretation of the amendment has always been with the caveat that the right is not unlimited.

[Fhqwghads]

Feel free to point out where in the second amendment it says that the right to bear arms = without any sort of restriction whatsover and you'd have a point.

Even the the most recent court decision (District of Columbia v. Heller) states:

" Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. Miller's holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those "in common use at the time" finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons."

"the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" - that's pretty cut & dry. Restrictions are infringement. Regarding the SCOTUS decision, I disagree. I obey the rules, but that doesn't mean I like them.

[archibaldcrane]

And regarding background checks - given that only FFL sellers are required to participate, and there are no restrictions on unknowingly selling guns privately (at gun shows or otherwise) to people who are convicted felons, mentally ill, etc., I find your argument that "the background check system works fine" is ridiculous.

[archibaldcrane]

"the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed"

Oh come fucking on dude

you don't get to claim that's cut and dry when you only excerpt the part you want people to read.

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

It's not even grammatically correct, much less describing whether said right shall not be infringed for well-regulated militia members or for everyone or what.

Shit I mean it even has the word "regulated" in the fucking amendment lol.

[archibaldcrane]

I think it's patently obvious at this point, nearly 250 years into this nation, that a well-regulated militia is not necessary to the security of a free state. Their initial premise is incorrect.

[Fhqwghads]

Which is exactly my argument.

Claiming "mah freedoms getting infringed!" gets my goat because in every court case deciding the interpretation of the amendment has always been with the caveat that the right is not unlimited.

I'm still not sure what your argument is. From what I've read all the arms you've mentioned people are allowed to own. There are extra steps to be taken, but they can legally own them.

[Fhqwghads]

And regarding background checks - given that only FFL sellers are required to participate, and there are no restrictions on unknowingly selling guns privately (at gun shows or otherwise) to people who are convicted felons, mentally ill, etc., I find your argument that "the background check system works fine" is ridiculous.

Why is that? Should you be required to get approval from the state for personal transactions? Because that's really what this boils down to. If you want to make the argument that private sales of firearms are inherently dangerous then there needs to be some data to back up that assertion.