Law POTWR 2019 Vol 4: Repeal Or Respect The 2nd Amendment?

[Dirt Road Soldier]

I voted for keep it and the laws, it it most closely aligns with my views. I'll expand upon this later, when I have more time and am not restricted my a fucking phone keypad.

 

[Quipling]

The federal Bill of Rights applies to US citizens and protections of those rights can be enforced on the states.

Either the state regulations are lawful or they aren't. What gives the federal government the power to impose an arbitrary cutoff on the size of fines? Why can the fed approve a $50 fine but prohibit a $100 fine? Or force one state to accept the regulations of another?

Give us your take on a modern version.

Why? I'm pointing out that the possibility of a new version as an alternative to what you have presented, not drafting one just yet.
We could discuss the underlying purpose of being able to bear arms: it may be possible to come up with something that meets that while making it easier to address some of the problems Kevin described.

What poll option should there be that doesn't represent some level of infringement? It's either allow all guns for everyone or restrict access in some manner.

Well, first, any regulation that doesn't presumptively restrict the right to bear arms. Perhaps because it doesn't put any restrictions on the bearer, but instead on the manufacturer.

Second, there is disagreement as to what the right to bear arms actually encompasses, and therefore any regulation limited to things lying outside of that would not constitute an "infringement." You construe this broadly, but I think that it is possible to recognize room for reasonable disagreement on just how broad this should be.

Third, I want to focus in on something you said:

"It's either allow all guns for everyone or restrict access in some manner"

I agree that this could follow from a strict interpretation of that clause.

But I think that you don't buy that strict interpretation either. Do you think that prisoners should be allowed firearms? I don't. But I don't see how that isn't an infringement under the quoted interpretation.

 

[Stoic1]

The left's premise is that guns kill people. And it is the guns that need regulation. This is a bad position to argue. The guns are not the problem. The people are the problem.


Here is a waltz down memory lane for you:
My grandfather bought my dad a Winchester 62A .22LR rifle when he was like 10 years old. He used to ride to school with it on his bicycle and they had a shooting club there at the school. Nowadays if a child draws a picture of a gun at school he will be put in detention or suspended. That same Winchester resides in my closet. The gun hasn't changed.

 

[My Spot]

For the record, I'd like to keep it and remove the silly SBR restriction (s). Russian hookers really are the best though.

 

[sloppypie]

how about another option "keep it but accurately interpret it to apply to what it was meant to apply to, and that's a restriction on the federal government and not the states."

a little more long winded, but since when should that stop the truth.

 

[Sano]

I’m not a legislator but I would certainly make it much more difficult to obtain a firearm such as a long waiting period, universal background checks. I’d probably do away with high capacity magazines and make punishments for illegally selling a gun insanely harsh.

Invest more in smart technology such as a fingerprint locking system or something like that.

I think buying a gun should be similar to buying a car, owners should be licensed and even possibly insured. Raising the age to purchase to 21, force all owners to undergo a moderate training programs. We should implement a program where a relative or law enforcement can petition the court to temporarily ban an individual from possessing a firearm if they are deemed a danger to themselves or others.

Eliminate funding restrictions on gun violence research.

But the first thing I would do is make it less taboo to have the debate and stop both sides from being so extreme

Very good points. You need several hours of training and the ability to pass an exam to get a drivers license. Why not a gun? That is how we do it here. Anything else is entirely unacceptable and irresponsible.

 

[Jorge Luis Borges]

But the first thing I would do is make it less taboo to have the debate and stop both sides from being so extreme

Lol at less taboo to have debate. There are very few political topics debated more consistently over the years than gun control. At least several times a year we have a vigorous national debate about the topic. How in the world did you ever get the idea in your head that it is somehow taboo to debate gun rights?

 

[nac386]

Keep the 2nd amendment and the laws as they currently stand.

I've gone back and forth on this for years. There have been times that I have thought some sort of mandatory training course, much like you need for a drivers license, would be a reasonable way to slow down the sale of guns into the hands of people who have no intentions of learning how to use them, storing them properly, or showing any other trait of being responsible owners.

But the reason that I have stepped away from that idea is that guns, at the most basic level, are a means of self-protection. It is a way to defend your home, your property, and most importantly the lives of yourself and your family. Who is the most in need of protection? Poor people who live in high crime areas. Who is the least likely to be able to afford or make time for a mandatory training course? Poor people who live in high crime areas. This is actually already demonstrated by the fact that ever since they removed Driver's Ed from high school curriculum, and began requiring people to pay the course fees themselves (up to $500), kids in low income neighborhoods are simply not getting their licenses anymore until they are much older. It's pretty hard to get to a job without a car, so this is just another road block for poor kids.

So while I feel like a mandatory course (like drivers ed) would reduce gun sales into the "wrong" hands, I also think it would reduce gun flow into the hands of those who actually need them. I think it would be pretty low of me to enjoy my own guns, which I'd have no problem acquiring because of my adequate free time and disposable income, while forcing others into an even more difficult situation.

 

[Cubo de Sangre]

Why?

For the sake of discussion.

Well, first, any regulation that doesn't presumptively restrict the right to bear arms. Perhaps because it doesn't put any restrictions on the bearer, but instead on the manufacturer.

Second, there is disagreement as to what the right to bear arms actually encompasses, and therefore any regulation limited to things lying outside of that would not constitute an "infringement." You construe this broadly, but I think that it is possible to recognize room for reasonable disagreement on just how broad this should be.

Third, I want to focus in on something you said:

"It's either allow all guns for everyone or restrict access in some manner"

I agree that this could follow from a strict interpretation of that clause.

But I think that you don't buy that strict interpretation either. Do you think that prisoners should be allowed firearms? I don't. But I don't see how that isn't an infringement under the quoted interpretation.

Not sure what you mean on your first part.

Yes, there are plenty of laws relating to operating firearms that would not be an infringement. Nobody would consider the right to keep and bear to include murder, robbery, threatening, shooting indiscriminately, etc. But it was certainly meant to include prohibiting the federal government from limiting the peoples' choice of firearms. Traditional access to arms in America supports this. Taxation (NFA) and controlling imports (1968 law) are at least tethered to something the feds are authorized to do. And even with those in place people could still get what they wanted, it just required some domestic manufacturing. It wasn't until 1986 than an outright ban on weapons suitable for common defense (clearly protected) was passed.

When I said "It's either allow all guns for everyone or restrict access in some manner", that was a statement of logic that was in response to your objection about how the poll is framed. But now that you bring it up, that's exactly what an honest reading of the 2nd gets us, thanks to incorporation (which is an interpretation of the 14th that still baffles me). Personally I'd consider un-incorporating the 2nd and restating that all decision on arms remain with the people and the states. Except for chemical, biological, and nuclear. Keep those at the federal level, if they even need to exist at all.

how about another option "keep it but accurately interpret it to apply to what it was meant to apply to, and that's a restriction on the federal government and not the states."

a little more long winded, but since when should that stop the truth.

I like it.

 

[Greoric]

I'm aware that guns exist, as does the second amendment. I am discussing a hypothetical amendment that would modernize the second amendment

2nd amendment is protected as it should be but that law was written in 1789 and it’s now 2019. The law should be looked at again and improved if at all possible to get into the 21st century.

Before I’m attacked for even wanting discussion I’m pro 2nd amendment but feel firearms are far too easy to get and it may be time to take a deeper look at how the meaning when written applies to the present day.

To what extent have humans in terms of their power lust and psychosis been updated since 1791 that requires revision of the amendment?

 

[Cubo de Sangre]

I think buying a gun should be similar to buying a car, owners should be licensed and even possibly insured. Raising the age to purchase to 21, force all owners to undergo a moderate training programs. We should implement a program where a relative or law enforcement can petition the court to temporarily ban an individual from possessing a firearm if they are deemed a danger to themselves or others.

Treat 'em like cars 'eh?

• No license to buy or operate on private property
• No insurance required for use on private property
• No age restrictions on private property
• No training required for use on private property
• No revocation of driving privileges over concern expressed by relatives
• And I'll add, no restrictions whatsoever on type of car or performance capabilities on private property

 

[Cubo de Sangre]

Very good points. You need several hours of training and the ability to pass an exam to get a drivers license. Why not a gun? That is how we do it here. Anything else is entirely unacceptable and irresponsible.

Gun is to car as carrying in public is to driving on public roads.

 

[zebby23]

Treat 'em like cars 'eh?

• No license to buy or operate on private property
• No insurance required for use on private property
• No age restrictions on private property
• No training required for use on private property
• No revocation of driving privileges over concern expressed by relatives
• And I'll add, no restrictions whatsoever on type of car or performance capabilities on private property

And I’m fine with all that. The moment you remove them from private property they should be insured and licensed. They are deadly and could end up in the wrong hands just like a vehicle

 

[Cubo de Sangre]

Keep the 2nd amendment and the laws as they currently stand.

I've gone back and forth on this for years. There have been times that I have thought some sort of mandatory training course, much like you need for a drivers license, would be a reasonable way to slow down the sale of guns into the hands of people who have no intentions of learning how to use them, storing them properly, or showing any other trait of being responsible owners.

But the reason that I have stepped away from that idea is that guns, at the most basic level, are a means of self-protection. It is a way to defend your home, your property, and most importantly the lives of yourself and your family. Who is the most in need of protection? Poor people who live in high crime areas. Who is the least likely to be able to afford or make time for a mandatory training course? Poor people who live in high crime areas. This is actually already demonstrated by the fact that ever since they removed Driver's Ed from high school curriculum, and began requiring people to pay the course fees themselves (up to $500), kids in low income neighborhoods are simply not getting their licenses anymore until they are much older. It's pretty hard to get to a job without a car, so this is just another road block for poor kids.

So while I feel like a mandatory course (like drivers ed) would reduce gun sales into the "wrong" hands, I also think it would reduce gun flow into the hands of those who actually need them. I think it would be pretty low of me to enjoy my own guns, which I'd have no problem acquiring because of my adequate free time and disposable income, while forcing others into an even more difficult situation.

Great post. I think schools should offer both driver's ed and firearms safety. I just did a multi-hour hunter's safety course online. No guns or live ammo involved. Heck, the reason I started wearing a seat-belt wasn't because of being out there driving around. It was from seeing some scenes from accidents, during a defensive driving course while sitting in a classroom.

Right now you can't even point your finger like a gun in school anymore. Can't imagine the receptiveness to learning safety, let alone actually handling any type of firearm.

 

[zebby23]

Lol at less taboo to have debate. There are very few political topics debated more consistently over the years than gun control. At least several times a year we have a vigorous national debate about the topic. How in the world did you ever get the idea in your head that it is somehow taboo to debate gun rights?

Is this a serious post? Can’t even conduct studies on gun deaths and as soon as someone starts talking about regulating firearms more they get attacked and it divolves into a clusterfuck of a debate.

I have yet to ever have a debate about firearms without the gun owner calling me all kinds of names and getting all upset. It’s weird

 

[Cubo de Sangre]

And I’m fine with all that. The moment you remove them from private property they should be insured and licensed. They are deadly and could end up in the wrong hands just like a vehicle

I'd trade licensing to carry in public for eliminating all prohibitions on what I can own and operate on private property. Insurance you'd need to make a case for. I doubt there are many similarities between firearms accidents in public and the circumstances leading towards mandatory insurance for drivers.

 

[jlagman]

Treat 'em like cars 'eh?

• No license to buy or operate on private property
• No insurance required for use on private property
• No age restrictions on private property
• No training required for use on private property
• No revocation of driving privileges over concern expressed by relatives
• And I'll add, no restrictions whatsoever on type of car or performance capabilities on private property

I'll bring up my old argument about "universal background checks", when was the last time you did a "background check" for the private sale of the vehicle?

- Did you ask for proof of insurance?
- Did you do a credit check to ensure that the buyer could even afford the vehicle?
- Did you ask the buyer for a driver's abstract?
- Did you ask to see the buyer's driver's license?
- Did you verify any of this information with the DMV?

 

[Cubo de Sangre]

I have yet to ever have a debate about firearms without the gun owner calling me all kinds of names and getting all upset. It’s weird

You're having one now so you and @IngaVovchanchyn please keep it that way.

 

[Cubo de Sangre]

I'll bring up my old argument about "universal background checks", when was the last time you did a "background check" for the private sale of the vehicle?

- Did you ask for proof of insurance?
- Did you do a credit check to ensure that the buyer could even afford the vehicle?
- Did you ask the buyer for a driver's abstract?
- Did you ask to see the buyer's driver's license?
- Did you verify any of this information with the DMV?

Indeed.

 

[zebby23]

I'd trade licensing to carry in public for eliminating all prohibitions on what I can own and operate on private property. Insurance you'd need to make a case for. I doubt there are many similarities between firearms accidents in public and the circumstances leading towards mandatory insurance for drivers.

I think as far as insurance goes it would make individuals far more responsible gun owners. I don’t know the stats on gun accidents or thefts that end up being used in crimes but if a responsible gun owner had to maintain insurance and for a moment they became irresponsible and that irresponsibility lead to a gun death they would no longer be able to be insured and therefore not be able to legally own a firearm.