Law Gun Control: A Global Overview

[SoSo]

You don't have a 2A right to protect your house or family. The 2A explicitly says that arms are for militia purposes, it doesn't mention personal defense.

When it comes to defending me and the ones I love. I don't give a shit about the 2nd. I believe it is a human right to be able to protect yourself and others with the best tools available.

 

[My Spot]

Kamala thinks there are only 2 million "assault weapons" in circulation.

 

[BFoe]

If I'm inside my home and have to perforate an intruder who is also inside my home, I'd say you would be infringing on my rights by taking away said SBR and suppressor option.

I have the right to protect my family and I the best I possibly can. And I believe the weapons system above is the best option. Again, do I need to educate you why? How many suppressors and SBRs are used in crimes anyway? (rhetorical question, I know there's fuck all).

I feel like the next thing you'll be telling me is that it's adequate enough to have a hand sized rock beside my bed for protection.

It's garbage to outlaw SBRs and the like because of what could be. Otherwise we should just go straight to psych evals for everyone and lock up the potential bad actors immediately.

Firstly, we outlaw things all the time because of “what could be.” But also in this case, we’d be outlawing things because of what has already happened (and continues to happen).

Secondly, I think you have a very misguided view of what infringement is. Let’s pretend you live in a state where SBRs and suppressors are illegal. And one night, an intruder tries to break into your home (hopefully this never happens to any of us) and do your family harm, but you grab a handgun, or rifle, and defend your home.

Do you truly believe you could file a lawsuit claiming that your 2nd Amendment rights were infringed by the state because you had to use a handgun to defend your home instead of a SBR with a suppressor?? It’s laughable. Even right wing judges would laugh you out of court.

I'm sure many here will bend over and say this is fine . . .

How Harris and Walz plan to attack Second Amendment | Buckeye Firearms Association

If you’re planning tyranny, at least don’t put it in writing. That seems to be the guiding principle behind the Harris-Walz administration’s 2024 Democratic Party Platform.

www.buckeyefirearms.org

I think the things listed in the bullet-points (no pun intended) are fine, yes.
They follow up by saying “most of these ideas are unconstitutional,” which is nonsense. Obviously increasing funding for government agencies is not.
Background checks are not, and mandatory safe storage laws shouldn’t be, even under Bruen. We have tons of examples of safe storage laws that go all the way back to colonial times.

I think a lot of the editorializing in that article (“ToTaL CiViLiAn DiSaRmAMeNt”) is sensationalist propaganda garbage.

 

[oldshadow]

I was speaking of public carry laws specifically. SCOTUS had never struck down any state’s public carry laws until Bruen in 2022 (my memory serves correctly).

It depends on what right we are talking about, what the text of the amendment states, how it aplies, and how the amendment operates. Almost always when I assert some state’s right regarding the 2A, someone will pipe up and say, “Now do abortion!”

But abortion (for example) is something derived from the 14th Amendment and the concepts of constitutional personhood and substantive due process. The 14th Amendment states totally different things than the 2nd (obviously), protects totally different rights, and therefore operates in a wholly different way.


What exactly “passes constitutional muster” is precisely the issue.

The 14 on abortion was weak in the way the decision was based that's why it was overturned. It no difference then the 2nd as far as the states rights to make restrictions as long as it passes constitutional muster.

As far as what passes constitutional muster that does and has and will continue to be decided.

 

[SoSo]

Firstly, we outlaw things all the time because of “what could be.” But also in this case, we’d be outlawing things because of what has already happened (and continues to happen).

Secondly, I think you have a very misguided view of what infringement is. Let’s pretend you live in a state where SBRs and suppressors are illegal. And one night, an intruder tries to break into your home (hopefully this never happens to any of us) and do your family harm, but you grab a handgun, or rifle, and defend your home.

Do you truly believe you could file a lawsuit claiming that your 2nd Amendment rights were infringed by the state because you had to use a handgun to defend your home instead of a SBR with a suppressor?? It’s laughable. Even right wing judges would laugh you out of court.



I think the things listed in the bullet-points (no pun intended) are fine, yes.
They follow up by saying “most of these ideas are unconstitutional,” which is nonsense. Obviously increasing funding for government agencies is not.
Background checks are not, and mandatory safe storage laws shouldn’t be, even under Bruen. We have tons of examples of safe storage laws that go all the way back to colonial times.

I think a lot of the editorializing in that article (“ToTaL CiViLiAn DiSaRmAMeNt”) is sensationalist propaganda garbage.

Let's say I'm a sloppy shot with a handgun compared to a SBR, there's an armed intruder in my home doing a home invasion. I miss a couple of shots I would certainly make with a SBR, the report of the handgun inside the home deafens me and I react to it. I am then shot and killed along with my family.

I'm then not filing any lawsuit.

 

[BFoe]

The 14 on abortion was weak in the way the decision was based that's why it was overturned. It no difference then the 2nd as far as the states rights to make restrictions as long as it passes constitutional muster.

As far as what passes constitutional muster that does and has and will continue to be decided.

I don’t think it was weak and I don’t think that’s why it was overturned.

But we can use interracial marriage as an example then.
There’s not a whole lot of “states rights” when it comes to whether or not to allow interracial marriage. As long as the state is in the marriage business, they have to treat everyone equally under the law.

This is very different than the 2A, which only restrained the federal government and not the states until 2010, when SCOTUS decided it did, despite that already having been ruled on by previous SCOTUS twice already, right after the 14th was ratified.

Like all Americans, I have to live with that decision—but I also believe it was wrong. SCOTUS got it right in 1876 and 1886 when they said otherwise.

Let's say I'm a sloppy shot with a handgun compared to a SBR, there's an armed intruder in my home doing a home invasion. I miss a couple of shots I would certainly make with a SBR, the report of the handgun inside the home deafens me and I react to it. I am then shot and killed along with my family.

I'm then not filing any lawsuit.

Sounds like you should spend more time practicing with your firearm then. Your “2nd Amendment rights” aren’t being infringed because you’re a crappy shot.

 

[oldshadow]

I was speaking of public carry laws specifically. SCOTUS had never struck down any state’s public carry laws until Bruen in 2022 (my memory serves correctly).

It depends on what right we are talking about, what the text of the amendment states, how it aplies, and how the amendment operates. Almost always when I assert some state’s right regarding the 2A, someone will pipe up and say, “Now do abortion!”

But abortion (for example) is something derived from the 14th Amendment and the concepts of constitutional personhood and substantive due process. The 14th Amendment states totally different things than the 2nd (obviously), protects totally different rights, and therefore operates in a wholly different way.


What exactly “passes constitutional muster” is precisely the issue.

The 14 on abortion was weak in the way the decision was based that's why it was overturned. It no difference then the 2nd as far as the states rights to make restrictions as long as it passes constitutional muster.

As far as what passes constitutional muster that does and has and

I don’t think it was weak and I don’t think that’s why it was overturned.

But we can use interracial marriage as an example then.
There’s not a whole lot of “states rights” when it comes to whether or not to allow interracial marriage. As long as the state is in the marriage business, they have to treat everyone equally under the law.

This is very different than the 2A, which only restrained the federal government and not the states until 2010, when SCOTUS decided it did, despite that already having been ruled on by previous SCOTUS twice already, right after the 14th was ratified.

Like all Americans, I have to live with that decision—but I also believe it was wrong. SCOTUS got it right in 1876 and 1886 when they said otherwise.

Sounds like you should spend more time practicing with your firearm then. Your “2nd Amendment rights” aren’t being infringed because you’re a crappy shot.

The Constitution doesn't give you any rights no matter the amendment. It restricts the government right to infringe.

I believe it was the right decision.

 

[SoSo]

I don’t think it was weak and I don’t think that’s why it was overturned.

But we can use interracial marriage as an example then.
There’s not a whole lot of “states rights” when it comes to whether or not to allow interracial marriage. As long as the state is in the marriage business, they have to treat everyone equally under the law.

This is very different than the 2A, which only restrained the federal government and not the states until 2010, when SCOTUS decided it did, despite that already having been ruled on by previous SCOTUS twice already, right after the 14th was ratified.

Like all Americans, I have to live with that decision—but I also believe it was wrong. SCOTUS got it right in 1876 and 1886 when they said otherwise.

Sounds like you should spend more time practicing with your firearm then. Your “2nd Amendment rights” aren’t being infringed because you’re a crappy shot.

Can you bang silhouettes at 100 yards with pistols from 22lr to 475 linebaugh all day long? Get out of here with that nonsense. Nothing wrong with my shooting boss. SBRs are much more controllable, pointable, quicker for follow up shots, and can be maneuvered well in tight spaces like hallways. I like you as a poster, so don't take this the wrong way, but you are full of shit when it pertains to this particular issue at hand.

 

[My Spot]

@SoSo If you really want an SBR then just get a brace. This is classified as a pistol per the ATF and isn't NFA.

 

[SoSo]

@SoSo If you really want an SBR then just get a brace. This is classified as a pistol per the ATF and isn't NFA.

Gotcha bro. Thanks. Have one. I didn't want to pay the 600 buck stamp and the waiting period. So I'm sorted. Kind of. It's still bullshit I can't just buy a normal damn stock without jumping through hoops. And the ATF giveith us braces, take them away, then giveith us again. Can't trust those bastards...

 

[My Spot]

Gotcha bro. Thanks. Have one. I didn't want to pay the 600 buck stamp and the waiting period. So I'm sorted. Kind of. It's still bullshit I can't just buy a normal damn stock without jumping through hoops. And the ATF giveith us braces, take them away, then giveith us again. Can't trust those bastards...

You can also look at other non-AR options like the Tavor X95 which is only 26.1" in overall length and still has a 16.1" barrel.

 

[BFoe]

The 14 on abortion was weak in the way the decision was based that's why it was overturned. It no difference then the 2nd as far as the states rights to make restrictions as long as it passes constitutional muster.

No, Roe was overturned by right-wing Federalist Society judges trying to enact an agenda, and who were literally selected from a list so that they could do just that.
Personally, I think the decision as written by Alito as incredibly weak, and I don’t believe I know of another example in which SCOTUS:

A) Reversed multiple precedents in the name of taking away a right (as opposed to reversing a precedent to expand rights, as they did in Brown v the Board, for example)

B) Reversed existing precedents without taking up all of the central holdings in those cases (they entirely sidestepped the issue of constitutional personhood).

Really a remarkable exercise in judicial activism.

The Constitution doesn't give you any rights no matter the amendment. It restricts the government right to infringe.

I believe it was the right decision.

Correct, and who did it restrain? The federal government. The Bill of Rights restrained the federal government solely, not the states; it was only when the 14th Amendment was passed that *some* rights—not all—were incorporated to the states. The SCOTUS addressed the question of whether the 2A was incorporated twice, and they did it just a few years after the 14th Amendment was ratified. It was ratified in 1868, and the SCOTUS told us that the 2A was NOT incorporated to the states by the 14th Amendment in 1876, and again in 1886. It’s not until 124 years later, in 2010, that some right wing “originalist” justices tell us that these other SCOTUS justices, who were actually alive at the time the 14th Amendment was passed, somehow got it wrong.
It’s ridiculous.

Can you bang silhouettes at 100 yards with pistols from 22lr to 475 linebaugh all day long? Get out of here with that nonsense. Nothing wrong with my shooting boss. SBRs are much more controllable, pointable, quicker for follow up shots, and can be maneuvered well in tight spaces like hallways. I like you as a poster, so don't take this the wrong way, but you are full of shit when it pertains to this particular issue at hand.

I can bang Boise Dimes at close range, does that count?

I don’t take anything in the WR (or Sherdog in general) personally. This argument you’re trying to make—that you have decided some particular firearm is “best” for home defense, and if you can’t have that exact firearm in the precise configuration you’d like, then your “2nd Amendment rights” are being infringed—is one of the weirdest, and weakest, arguments I have ever seen anyone try to make.

You strike me as a gun enthusiast who can speak competently on specific firearms’ specs, but are incredibly ignorant of the text of the 2A and what it historically meant, what it historically did, what types of prohibitions were historically viewed as constitutional, and what SCOTUS precedents exist.

There’s no hard feelings, I am very used to people whose views on the 2A have been shaped mainly by the NRA and gun lobbies, not understanding what I am saying and thinking I am some far left radical because I advocate for the 2A to function exactly as it did between 1792-2008, before the Roberts Court bastardized the shit out of it.

 

[oldshadow]

No, Roe was overturned by right-wing Federalist Society judges trying to enact an agenda, and who were literally selected from a list so that they could do just that.
Personally, I think the decision as written by Alito as incredibly weak, and I don’t believe I know of another example in which SCOTUS:

A) Reversed multiple precedents in the name of taking away a right (as opposed to reversing a precedent to expand rights, as they did in Brown v the Board, for example)

B) Reversed existing precedents without taking up all of the central holdings in those cases (they entirely sidestepped the issue of constitutional personhood).

Really a remarkable exercise in judicial activism.


Correct, and who did it restrain? The federal government. The Bill of Rights restrained the federal government solely, not the states; it was only when the 14th Amendment was passed that *some* rights—not all—were incorporated to the states. The SCOTUS addressed the question of whether the 2A was incorporated twice, and they did it just a few years after the 14th Amendment was ratified. It was ratified in 1868, and the SCOTUS told us that the 2A was NOT incorporated to the states by the 14th Amendment in 1876, and again in 1886. It’s not until 124 years later, in 2010, that some right wing “originalist” justices tell us that these other SCOTUS justices, who were actually alive at the time the 14th Amendment was passed, somehow got it wrong.
It’s ridiculous.


I can bang Boise Dimes at close range, does that count?

I don’t take anything in the WR (or Sherdog in general) personally. This argument you’re trying to make—that you have decided some particular firearm is “best” for home defense, and if you can’t have that exact firearm in the precise configuration you’d like, then your “2nd Amendment rights” are being infringed—is one of the weirdest, and weakest, arguments I have ever seen anyone try to make.

You strike me as a gun enthusiast who can speak competently on specific firearms’ specs, but are incredibly ignorant of the text of the 2A and what it historically meant, what it historically did, what types of prohibitions were historically viewed as constitutional, and what SCOTUS precedents exist.

There’s no hard feelings, I am very used to people whose views on the 2A have been shaped mainly by the NRA and gun lobbies, not understanding what I am saying and thinking I am some far left radical because I advocate for the 2A to function exactly as it did between 1792-2008, before the Roberts Court bastardized the shit out of it.

So your who argument is I don't agree or like a conservative view.

When liberal judges are the majority they rule with liberal views.

It's supposed to be only on what is constitution in an unbiased way but that is impossible as long as humans are involved.

This courts rulings are just as constitutionally sound as any others.

 

[SoSo]

No, Roe was overturned by right-wing Federalist Society judges trying to enact an agenda, and who were literally selected from a list so that they could do just that.
Personally, I think the decision as written by Alito as incredibly weak, and I don’t believe I know of another example in which SCOTUS:

A) Reversed multiple precedents in the name of taking away a right (as opposed to reversing a precedent to expand rights, as they did in Brown v the Board, for example)

B) Reversed existing precedents without taking up all of the central holdings in those cases (they entirely sidestepped the issue of constitutional personhood).

Really a remarkable exercise in judicial activism.


Correct, and who did it restrain? The federal government. The Bill of Rights restrained the federal government solely, not the states; it was only when the 14th Amendment was passed that *some* rights—not all—were incorporated to the states. The SCOTUS addressed the question of whether the 2A was incorporated twice, and they did it just a few years after the 14th Amendment was ratified. It was ratified in 1868, and the SCOTUS told us that the 2A was NOT incorporated to the states by the 14th Amendment in 1876, and again in 1886. It’s not until 124 years later, in 2010, that some right wing “originalist” justices tell us that these other SCOTUS justices, who were actually alive at the time the 14th Amendment was passed, somehow got it wrong.
It’s ridiculous.


I can bang Boise Dimes at close range, does that count?

I don’t take anything in the WR (or Sherdog in general) personally. This argument you’re trying to make—that you have decided some particular firearm is “best” for home defense, and if you can’t have that exact firearm in the precise configuration you’d like, then your “2nd Amendment rights” are being infringed—is one of the weirdest, and weakest, arguments I have ever seen anyone try to make.

You strike me as a gun enthusiast who can speak competently on specific firearms’ specs, but are incredibly ignorant of the text of the 2A and what it historically meant, what it historically did, what types of prohibitions were historically viewed as constitutional, and what SCOTUS precedents exist.

There’s no hard feelings, I am very used to people whose views on the 2A have been shaped mainly by the NRA and gun lobbies, not understanding what I am saying and thinking I am some far left radical because I advocate for the 2A to function exactly as it did between 1792-2008, before the Roberts Court bastardized the shit out of it.

I enjoyed the Boise Dime comment. I got a chuckle out of that one.

But I don't think you understand my point. Being, I don't give a fuck about the 2nd Amendment when it comes to defense of life or property. I know the second. I think it's great. Just doesn't apply to my rights as a human being to protect myself and others the best I can. If we have to use the 2nd to accomplish that goal, so be it. But I really wish we wouldn't have to. Because it is an innate right. And we all should be able to recognize this.

 

[My Spot]

So your who argument is I don't agree or like a conservative view.

When liberal judges are the majority they rule with liberal views.

It's supposed to be only on what is constitution in an unbiased way but that is impossible as long as humans are involved.

This courts rulings are just as constitutionally sound as any others.

Well he also freaked out when SCOTUS overturned Trump's bump stock ban.

 

[spamking]

I enjoyed the Boise Dime comment. I got a chuckle out of that one.

But I don't think you understand my point. Being, I don't give a fuck about the 2nd Amendment when it comes to defense of life or property. I know the second. I think it's great. Just doesn't apply to my rights as a human being to protect myself and others the best I can. If we have to use the 2nd to accomplish that goal, so be it. But I really wish we wouldn't have to. Because it is an innate right. And we all should be able to recognize this.

Ultimately Heller says we're perfectly fine to be individually armed for lawful purposes. One of which is protecting our homes and family.

 

[Deorum]

But I don't think you understand my point. Being, I don't give a fuck about the 2nd Amendment when it comes to defense of life or property. I know the second. I think it's great. Just doesn't apply to my rights as a human being to protect myself and others the best I can. If we have to use the 2nd to accomplish that goal, so be it. But I really wish we wouldn't have to. Because it is an innate right. And we all should be able to recognize this.

This has been explained multiple times throughout the thread to various posters, and it just isn't getting through. The problem is that we live in a fake and gay society, subject to its laws. What good is it to exercise the natural and primal right of self-defense and protection of property with the most effective means of doing so if the result is the total loss of your liberty and livelihood anyway?

That's why the constitutional right to keep and bear arms in the first place is utterly essential, so you don't go to fucking prison for it. It's why constitutional interpretation of keeping and bearing them for that expressed purpose is paramount, so you don't go to fucking prison for it. Unfortunately, even with the 2A and recent SCOTUS victories in Heller, McDonald, and Bruen, it still isn't good enough.

The risk of flushing your life down the toilet and facing criminal charges simply because you took action to defend it and your property is far too great and utterly unacceptable.

 

[Deorum]

Yeah we defiinitely have mag capacity restrictions

Nobody needs a 30 round magazine.

They need several.

 

[terrapin]

This has been explained multiple times throughout the thread to various posters, and it just isn't getting through. The problem is that we live in a fake and gay society, subject to its laws. What good is it to exercise the natural and primal right of self-defense and protection of property with the most effective means of doing so if the result is the total loss of your liberty and livelihood anyway?

That's why the constitutional right to keep and bear arms in the first place is utterly essential, so you don't go to fucking prison for it. It's why constitutional interpretation of keeping and bearing them for that expressed purpose is paramount, so you don't go to fucking prison for it. Unfortunately, even with the 2A and recent SCOTUS victories in Heller, McDonald, and Bruen, it still isn't good enough.

The risk of flushing your life down the toilet and facing criminal charges simply because you took action to defend it and your property is far too great and utterly unacceptable.

i agree totally on the NEED and RIGHT to bear arms. I have three guns and am planning on getting a DP-12 double barrel 12 Gauge shotgun that holds 16 rounds. I'm not anti gun in any way.

but what about some common sense regulations that could really help? why not make it law that your guns have to be stored in safes and that those safes register when a gun is put in and taken out and if the safe was locked when accessed? this way we could hold irresponsible owners accountable for how their guns are used by family members, neighbors and criminals.

why not also have a law that they must be locked up while being left in a vehicle for the same reasons?

why not make all gun sales and purchases be registered with the gov and have universal background checks on ALL gun sales or purchases too?

I feel like these measures would go a long way towards mitigating some of the risk that gun owners offgas onto society. hell it would be ok with me that the safe law would only be prosecuted in the case of that gun being used in a crime.

I suppose a lockroom with secure safety doors and deadbolts cold/would also be acceptable.

I don't support biometric triggers because they could fail in a life and death situation.

seems to me gun owners do not want to allow ANY restrictions whatsoever in the the cause of trying to mitigate gun violence in this country. gun owners deflect to what they can do nothing about and obfuscate the things they could do something about.

 

[Deorum]

Seems to me gun owners do not want to allow ANY restrictions whatsoever in the the cause of trying to mitigate gun violence in this country. gun owners deflect to what they can do nothing about and obfuscate the things they could do something about.

It's "Give An Inch, Take A Mile" mentality.