2A Question...

[Andy Capp]

Owning slaves is not analogous to owning the means to defend yourself against tyrants and criminals. One is a clear cut moral evil, the other is a clear cut moral good. Also the fact that some people use an object for a horrible purpose does not mean that society should punish a decent law abiding citizen for that misbehavior. Do we outlaw cars because some choose to drive drunk or even run down groups of people with them? Do we outlaw hammers because some use them to bash others in the head?

I'm curious to know your position on this hypothetical that just occurred to me this moment:
Let's say a hammer manufacturer came out with one called Skull Crusher, emphasizing its crushing features in their marketing, running ads during combat sports events, sponsoring political rallies, and what not. Do you think anything ought to be done about that by anybody?

I'm actually pretty neutral on the subject. Since I live in Canada, I have the luxury of not having to think about it too much one way or the other. I'm not personally interested in carrying a gun, but I've fired them, and I would do so again, given the opportunity to do it in a safe manner at a firing range or something. At the same time, I don't know enough about Canadian gun laws to say if they're adequate, or what legislation would improve them, and I agree the greater concern right now is improvement in preventing gun trafficking into the country, but that doesn't mean we ought not strive for better gun laws to keep them out of the wrong hands and bring gun violence to the low rates seen in Japan and in Scandinavian countries. Japan has almost no guns while Switzerland has very high gun ownership per capita yet neither see the rates of gun violence the US does.

In the US it is plain gun laws are far too lax for public safety. I have a lot of trouble understanding the way many people think guns ought to be handled in the US, like it's the Old West from the movies and the value of a life is an ounce or 2 of lead.

 

[Long Branch]

And there are weapons I'm unconvinced need to be obtainable and legally owned by Joe Schmoe.

Please go into details! Let me guess, anything that could help overthrow a far right and more importantly, a far left government.

How far off the mark am I?

 

[Andy Capp]

Lighten up Francis. I fail to see how joking around with an ignorant TS on the Internet is analogous or in any way related to the cause of mass shootings. Now who’s not taking it seriously?

What’s so important about 200 years ago and what technology was available then? The murder rate now is less than 1/3 what it was then.

https://blogs.berkeley.edu/2010/06/16/a-crime-puzzle-violent-crime-declines-in-america/

It’s almost like there’s more to it than guns and sensationalized news stories.

Then why not give a reasoned reply to the OP? It's you who needs to lighten up. You use the term ignorant like it's an insult but correctly apply it in the sense of a lack of information to an OP where TS was genuinely coming from a position of seeking knowledge about a complicated topic. How is one supposed to interpret that, Hulka? Is there some part of trying to start a discussion on a discussion board that gives you cramps in the naughty bits?

 

[OverCoronavirus Pressure]

Please go into details! Let me guess, anything that could help overthrow a far right and more importantly, a far left government.

How far off the mark am I?

You're a fucking idiot and you're picking the wrong target for your anti lib bullshit.

 

[Long Branch]

To our American allies, please excuse the ignorant or too Liberal Canadians that talk about guns. We're not all like this, trust me. Unfortunately Canada has been overrun by the far Left and there's only a few million remaining.

 

[Long Branch]

You're a fucking idiot and you're picking the wrong target for your anti lib bullshit.

Please tell us which weapons shouldn't be legally owned by civilians.

 

[OverCoronavirus Pressure]

Please tell us which weapons shouldn't be legally owned by civilians.

See, you waited around for a post you didn't like so you could yell away at a liberal. But I'm not a liberal and your obnoxious first impression makes you an unappealing poster. Go work on yourself and maybe we'll have good exchanges down the road, noob.

 

[Long Branch]

See, you waited around for a post you didn't like so you could yell away at a liberal. But I'm not a liberal and your obnoxious first impression makes you an unappealing poster. Go work on yourself and maybe we'll have good exchanges down the road, noob.

The far left wants all threats to their big government removed. The poster @Happy Man pointed out how the far left strives for a bigger government that controls us. They love having overlords for some reason.

Can you just answer the question? Which weapons shouldn't be legally owned by civilians?

 

[Andy Capp]

To our American allies, please excuse the ignorant or too Liberal Canadians that talk about guns. We're not all like this, trust me. Unfortunately Canada has been overrun by the far Left and there's only a few million remaining.

LOL see you when you start your next account.

 

[Long Branch]

LOL see you when you start your next account.

lol are you really this ignorant?

The CPC is moving further left every election cycle and have to pander like the Liberals now.

You'll see Mackay in a pride parade.

Sad part is, he's apparently just as dull as Scheer.

 

[ultramanhyata]

Disclaimer: I'm Canadian and very pro gun.

I see the 2nd amendment used all the time by pro gun Americans as a reason why people should be able to keep them, specifically weapons that the media would label an "assault rifle" such as an M4 / AK47 and their variants.

2A was added in 1791, that's over 200 years ago. The Gatling Gun wasn't invented until 1862, almost 100 years later, so unless I'm ignorant about a certain type of gun from the 1790s-1860s period, there were no very rapid firing / automatic type weapons around at that time, at least comparable to what is available today. If I'm wrong here, please let me know.

With this in mind, I refer to the Democrat argument (not mine) that the right to bear arms meant muskets, or rifles of the day which were single shot, not semi automatic pistols with 15+ round magazines, Uzi's, M4s, AKs and in some cases, automatics that can legally be owned, such as in Florida with a class 2 license.

While owning slaves was at one time allowed and widely accepted, society changed and slavery was outlawed. While I understand that owning slaves wasn't an amendment to the constitution, treaties and deals are changed, withdrawn from or just plain ignored quite frequently.

With this said, how do you feel the founding fathers would have written the 2A knowing the issues that mass shootings are causing, especially in the US ?

And why do people think that an amendment written 200 years ago, before "assault rifles", mass shootings, high capacity magazines (etc.) is the only argument they need ? Yes, I'm aware that pistols are frequently used in mass shootings as well, many of these being semi auto, and having stock 15+ round magazines available to empty before needing to reload.

When I read comments on news sites, forums and the like, I frequently see " the second amendment says...", and that just seems so weird to me considering how much society has changed, and the fact that the founding fathers had no knowledge of what was to come 200 years ahead.

For the record I don't like the gun grab that just happened in New Zealand, and I don't like the way Canadian gun laws are going either.

I just don't understand how a lot of people's blanket answer is "the second amendment says..." from 200+ years ago.

Help me out here ?



TL/DR: I don't understand how 2A is an extremely common blanket answer to people's ideas at attempting to reduce gun violence / mass shootings.

This post is too rational. It will not go over well with the gun fetishists in this forum.

 

[SammyPops]

Constitution is the highest legal document, and requires very specific circumstances to alter. So any law alter gun ownership has to mass muster at that level

Also, it's not the Democrat position that 2a only applies to muskets.
https://democrats.org/where-we-stand/the-issues/preventing-gun-violence/

Serious questions from an uninformed Canadian.

The Constitution has been amended many times. What would it taek for the 2A to be amended?

 

[Fugazy]

Your own article states the reasons for the decline in American murder rates, which is still many times higher than countries who don't have a 2A. It's like bragging you won last place.

Interestingly enough, it also fails to mention the rate of mass shootings now, compared to the 1700s.

200 years is important, as I've stated above, due to the changes in society over the last 2 centuries.

I'm not sure if you are being obtuse on purpose, or just don't understand.

No silly rabbit, we get it just fine.

You are the one who is struggling to understand. Like many Americans today even, you don't understand that you are a free human being. Liberty is our nature, our birthright. There may come a time when a man must enact violence to preserve that freedom, and to do so he must be well armed. This ammendment is a reminder (to the government) of that inalienable right. You have the right to defend yourself and protect yourself and to protect your ability to live as a free human, by any means necessary, if need be.

The 2A doesn't protect mass shooters. Every argument you are raising against the 2A in this thread isn't really one against the 2A because you don't actually understand what the ammendment means, and who/what it is actually intended for. Perhaps that is because of your allegiance to the queen. Idk.

Hope this helps.

 

[Trotsky]

Idk what part of “shall not be infringed” you’re having trouble with...

Was this supposed to be a parody?

Because legally it's a really silly argument. "Shall not be infringed" doesn't speak to the class of arms infringed or the level of possession, which is why the first 200 years of 2A jurisprudence inferred a collective, not individual, right.

 

[Fugazy]

I'm curious to know your position on this hypothetical that just occurred to me this moment:
Let's say a hammer manufacturer came out with one called Skull Crusher, emphasizing its crushing features in their marketing, running ads during combat sports events, sponsoring political rallies, and what not. Do you think anything ought to be done about that by anybody?

I'm actually pretty neutral on the subject. Since I live in Canada, I have the luxury of not having to think about it too much one way or the other. I'm not personally interested in carrying a gun, but I've fired them, and I would do so again, given the opportunity to do it in a safe manner at a firing range or something. At the same time, I don't know enough about Canadian gun laws to say if they're adequate, or what legislation would improve them, and I agree the greater concern right now is improvement in preventing gun trafficking into the country, but that doesn't mean we ought not strive for better gun laws to keep them out of the wrong hands and bring gun violence to the low rates seen in Japan and in Scandinavian countries. Japan has almost no guns while Switzerland has very high gun ownership per capita yet neither see the rates of gun violence the US does.

In the US it is plain gun laws are far too lax for public safety. I have a lot of trouble understanding the way many people think guns ought to be handled in the US, like it's the Old West from the movies and the value of a life is an ounce or 2 of lead.

I'm sure there it lots of online content available anywhere in the west, but what you are describing doesn't exist.

If someonw only values life as much as 2oz of lead that not the gun's fault.

The US is pretty much safer than it's ever been. If you take suicides out of the equation gun deaths drop significantly. Very few are killed by rifles every year, even fewer by shotguns. Most murders, the majority, are committed with handguns and by the poorest segments of society and gangbangers. Culture & education is the problem, guns are just a tool.

 

[shankmcgank]

Buddeh,

The 2A is written in way which allows the citizens to defend themselves against a tyrannical government. The clause about a milita being necessary refers to the people; back in the day the term militia meant basically "all the people."

So the idea of the 2A is that if the government has the weaponry then it should be legal for the citizenry to own it as well. How would you defeat a tyrannical government of today if the citizens were only allowed to carry muskets? Where would the cut off be in terms of what weapons the citizens (or militia) can own versus what the government can own? Who would make that call...the government right? Well, if you look at our politicians today they are talking about taking away everything outside of single-shot rifles and shotguns. That would make the citizens completely noncompetitive against a much more well armed government. But what happens if we just let them take everything outside of single shot rifles and shotguns? How long would it be before they would want those as well? Who's going to stop them? I'm not trying to get all crazy here but it's a simple check and balance of government power.

There's a reason that communists dictators take the weapons away from the people...especially the plebs.

I understand. The issue I see with this argument is that the citizens with AKs and ARs are no match for a government with F22's, A-10s, Apaches with FLIR and Hellfire missiles, MOABs, and Tomahawk cruise missiles.

Should citizens be able to own these too ? Would you be ok with a rich private citizen owning his own, armed F22 or Apache ?

I've seen a lot of combat videos from Iraq and Afghanistan where 1 Apache wipes out an entire enemy fighting force armed with AKs and RPGs. How is Joe Smith going to fare any better with his M4 ?

You realize the real argument you made, right?

That citizens had the same, and in reality, better arms than the government when the law was written.

So really the argument here is that people should be allowed to own machine guns and anything the military and government have.

As I replied to another poster above, where do you draw the line at what private citizens should be able to own ?

If you're so against the Liberal agenda then why are you supporting a very far Left idea? Do you think it's crazy that Canadians can own a Type 81 (Chinese attempt at a redesign of the AK) VZ 58s AR-10s and AR-15s with a slightly different upper and lower receiver design? None of these have to be registered.

https://www.armseast.ca/stag_arms_stag_10/
http://www.tacticalimports.ca/type-81-folding-stock-p-426.html
https://albertatacticalrifle.com/modern-hunter/modern-varminter

I don't support it, my disclaimer before I even wrote my OP said I am pro gun. My father in law owns an SKS, but AFAIK you can't own an AK, yet they fire the same round, and you can legally buy kits that make your SKS look almost identical to an AK.

Did you know you can buy anti tank rifles like the Boys, PTRD, PTRS etc in Canada?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boys_anti-tank_rifle

Want a 20mm?

https://www.northernelitefirearms.ca/products/firearms/20-mm-lahti/


You can also own artillery.

Thanks for the links, I did not know that you can own anti tank weapons in Canada. Another one of our firearms laws that makes no sense.

Are you allowed to posses the shells fire by said artillery ? If not, it really makes owning the artillery useless. I'd be interested to read a link about it if you have the time to provide one.

The internet wasn't invented until 1990, Cleary freedom of speach didn't mean you could say/type something online and have it be viewed by hundreds of thousands or millions of people. They just meant you could audibly say stuff in your home or town Square on a soapbox clearly.

Modern freedom of speach is too effective and dangerous and should be curtailed from any technology usage.

I see what you did there. The downside to your post is that freedom of speech isn't killing kids in classrooms or people in movie theaters.

Great OP.

I'm a strong 2A supporter who feels that our gun laws need to be enforced more stringently as a first remedy.

And there are weapons I'm unconvinced need to be obtainable and legally owned by Joe Schmoe.

Other than that, I've got nothing. I used to laugh at the idea that the Dems were "coming for our guns", but then Beto showed up, saying exactly what I'd laughed off.

Appreciate it. I get it's the internet and Sherdog, but the trolls who showed up rather quickly are the reason people don't try and have civil discussions on the internet. Also likely why Reps/Dems resort to name calling and escalate quickly to violence. Lots of people can't have a normal conversation about controversial topics these days it seems.

To our American allies, please excuse the ignorant or too Liberal Canadians that talk about guns. We're not all like this, trust me. Unfortunately Canada has been overrun by the far Left and there's only a few million remaining.

Not sure if you're referring to me, but if you are, i put a disclaimer above my OP before I even typed the rest of it. I voted PC last election which would make me as far from left as you can get.

I just find it interesting and confusing at the same time, that a frequent answer given is "words written 200+ years ago", which ignores 2 centuries of societal changes. That's why I made my OP. It wasn't meant to troll, support gun grabs or shit on the constitution, just genuine curiosity.

 

[PlayswellwithLawnDarts]

I’m hopeful we can argue Ray Gun Capacity for Civilian use here in another 200 years.

 

[Long Branch]

I understand. The issue I see with this argument is that the citizens with AKs and ARs are no match for a government with F22's, A-10s, Apaches with FLIR and Hellfire missiles, MOABs, and Tomahawk cruise missiles.

Should citizens be able to own these too ? Would you be ok with a rich private citizen owning his own, armed F22 or Apache ?

I've seen a lot of combat videos from Iraq and Afghanistan where 1 Apache wipes out an entire enemy fighting force armed with AKs and RPGs. How is Joe Smith going to fare any better with his M4 ?

​

As I replied to another poster above, where do you draw the line at what private citizens should be able to own ?

Who's going to be able to afford an apache or F22? A billionaire is highly unlikely to massacre people in an apache. How many kills do you think he'd get before being shot down by AA?

I don't support it, my disclaimer before I even wrote my OP said I am pro gun. My father in law owns an SKS, but AFAIK you can't own an AK, yet they fire the same round, and you can legally buy kits that make your SKS look almost identical to an AK.

Thanks for the links, I did not know that you can own anti tank weapons in Canada. Another one of our firearms laws that makes no sense.

Are you allowed to posses the shells fire by said artillery ? If not, it really makes owning the artillery useless. I'd be interested to read a link about it if you have the time to provide one.

Thousands of AK-47s were never registered in Canada because Canadians back then were smart and knew what was coming. Same with AR-15s and machine guns.

Being able to own anti tank guns makes perfect sense!

Yes you can own the artillery shells and make your own.

Who doesn't want a self-propelled howitzer?
https://militarymuster.ca/vehicles.html

https://saultonline.com/2019/09/look-who-acquired-a-new-gun-dedication-ceremony-this-saturday/

You can even own black powder cannons.

https://www.loyalistarms.ca/cannons.html

 

[Long Dark Blues]

Was this supposed to be a parody?

Because legally it's a really silly argument. "Shall not be infringed" doesn't speak to the class of arms infringed or the level of possession, which is why the first 200 years of 2A jurisprudence inferred a collective, not individual, right.

Does this collective interpretation not facilitate the individual right?

Firearms were scarce in the colonies, but not completely absent. They were a necessity of frontier life before and after the revolution.

 

[Trotsky]

Does this collective interpretation not facilitate the individual right?

Firearms were scarce in the colonies, but not completely absent. They were a necessity of frontier life before and after the revolution.

Yeah, it definitely facilitates it. But it doesn't guarantee it.