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

Which option is closets to how you feel about the 2nd Amendment?

  • Repeal it and outlaw all firearms

  • Repeal it and allow everything but semi-automatics

  • Keep it and the laws as they currently stand

  • Keep it and allow more restrictions and prohibitions that appeal to popular sentiment

  • Remove all restrictions on the law-abiding because "shall not be infringed" means exactly that

  • The best hookers are Russian

  • Un-incorporate it, end all federal prohibitions, and states can decide


Results are only viewable after voting.
Splashy headlines whip up the ratings. Nobody is interested in the details of an overdose and the motivations of the dead person.

Allot to that. Seems no one cared when the mass shooting was in the hood, happening at 1000 times the rate, as what we think of as a mass shooting today.

This shit could happen in my neighborhood, hold up. This seems important.

Of course as NHB pointed out. Due to the history of what happened when we let one group have guns, and banned another group, IE. Plantations and slavery, the idea of taking guns from black people wasn't the best optics, so perhaps that is why the 2nd amendment arguments weren't as loud when mass shootings were an inner city problem.
 
There should be a choice of "Keep it but construe it in the way that was customary for the first 200 years of the country's existence."
 
I didn't want to make it that easy for Russian hookers to win the poll. :D

Seriously though, which other choices would you select?

I think #1, #5, and #7 all have decent legal and normative arguments.
 
If your concern is with preventable deaths, you could save so many more people, on issues that are not constitutionally protected.

Most aren't really concerned about doing anything other than further infringement . . . I've already tried that approach and fell on deaf ears.
 
A sincere debate about the 2nd is always fun . . . it's when you have folks who refuse to fact check anything, immediately blame the NRA or refuse to blame the criminal and paint all gun owners as evil child killers that things go south. Social media has made this phenomenon even more prevalent. Simply pointing out to some that there isn't really anything called an "assault rifle" or that the "gun show loophole" isn't a thing often enough to get them to label you as "one of those people" or not even discuss anything factual at all. It can be very frustrating.

I fully support the 2nd . . . I think we should be able to buy whatever small arms we can afford. I think the NFA should die in a fire . . . suppressors should be as easy to buy as a magazine and shouldn't cost an arm and a leg.

I think if folks are going to insist on the existence of gun free zones that the property owner be required to provide armed security . . . otherwise, take the gun free zone and shove it. Criminals love to attack soft targets where they think they'll face the least resistance.

Before the anti-2nd folks start pushing for more laws please advocate for better enforcement of what we have now. That's a more useful endeavor and will actually win you some favor with the pro-2nd folks.
 
Last edited:
Wondering what people think of this?

Makes the idea of passing gun control without the vast majority of public consent a bit messy, yes?

In Washington State, Sheriffs Refuse to Enforce New Gun-Control Law

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.ws...se-to-enforce-new-gun-control-law-11550066400
Same way I feel about this:

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/montreal/long-gun-registry-quebec-1.4976610

Or this:



Open letter from the ex-police against the register.

It was claimed by the supporters of the creation of the Quebec arms register that it was a request by the police. We are retired police officers from different services in different regions. But our observation is the same.

The reality is that the employer and the trade union party have both positioned themselves in favour of the register. But everything indicates that it is for political and social reasons. After the killing of the polytechnic, the anti-firearms lobby became extremely powerful. We can easily understand that. What politician would dare say no to women who were victims of such terrible drama?

They were exposed to a war scene, while even soldiers trained to face these situations often come back when they face it. But should this suffering justify penalising honest citizens?

And the police, those who do work on the ground and allegedly need this tool, have not been consulted on this. The Police Act (Chapter 13.1) requires reservation and neutrality. Add the culture present in the police bodies where it is wrong to get out of the ranks. This leads to pressure to remain discreet on the issue, especially when an active policeman is against the register.

In this debate surrounding the application of the firearms register, we retired police officers believe that it is relevant to make our position heard in order to counterbalance the expected silence of our still active colleagues.

The Nature of police work has changed much over time. Organized crime is becoming increasingly difficult and more and more mental health and drug abuse interventions are being undertaken. The reality of the field brings us back to the critical needs in these areas. In the exercise of our daily functions, inadequate services and frameworks for disorganized patients and drug addicts are obvious.

The law on the protection of persons whose mental state poses a danger to themselves or to others limits our scope to those who present a serious and immédiat' danger. Are released quickly when they have a clear need for care and mentoring.

So disorganized people are left to themselves shortly after we have intervened. The phenomenon of revolving doors is known and documented. The Criminal Act becomes the front door for services until next time. It became the daily police work.

We believe that the money placed on the firearms register would be much more useful to the work of the police if it was invested in mental health care, the supervision of patients who do not take their treatment and the rehabilitation of drug addicts.

We also believe that the creation of a register of shoulder weapons held by honest citizens is an unjustified erosion of our rights. We know from experience that it is better to always assume that there are weapons than to rely on a bureaucratic tool.

So if the objective is to help the police, the creation of a Quebec arms register misses the target and exposes very badly the real nature of the problems they encounter in the performance of their duties.

* 125. The provisions of this chapter shall apply without prejudice to the provisions of the code of ethics of the police of Quebec (Chapter P-13.1, 1), including those relating to the duty of political neutrality in the performance of their duties, the duty of reserve in the public demonstration of political opinions, the duty of discretion, the duty of impartiality in the performance of their duties and the Conflicts of interest. They shall also apply without prejudice to discipline rules. 12, a. 125.

Jean-guy dagenais, retired since 2011, Quebec security and Senator.

Dominique Corneau, retired since 2015, municipal police in saguenay, filed a memory in the National Assembly against the creation of the register, but the elected members refused to hear it in parliamentary committee.

Éric Létourneau, retired since 2013, Quebec security, Rouyn-Noranda.

Pierre Addy, retired since 1999, Quebec security, st-Jean on richelieu and Montreal HQ.

Germain roussel retired since 2012, Quebec security, matan1e.

Roland Side, retired RCMP.

Gordon Chicoine, retired sergeant since 2004, Quebec security, who worked half his career in indigenous circles.

Ronald Lussier, retired since 2005, Quebec security, Prowler and homicide investigator.

Henry Lafresnaye retired since 2006, Quebec security, Chandler.

Jacques Thomassin, retired captain, Quebec security, BAS-St-Laurent, gaspésie.

Claude Roussel, retired since 1995, RCMP in several Canadian provinces, including Quebec.

Odilon Emond, retired since 1998, has worked in three Canadian provinces, including Quebec.

Serge Bayard, retired policeman of the city of Huntingdon, 1980.

Alain Dallaire, retired 2016 RCMP. Investigation work organized crime 20/35 years.

Carol Dugas, retired Quebec Security Officer, Prowler, post manager. Caplan, QC.

Alain Beaulieu, retired in 2004, criminal investigator 14 years and lieutenant at sq.

David Joncas, retired from sq. 2017, supervisor, 40 years of service.

André Langlois, retired from the sq. 1995, big rocks.

Claude Cheff, retired from the sq. 2000, corporal of indigenous connections.

Michel Blackburn retired from the since 1996.

<Goldie11>

Write enough laws and everyone becomes a criminal. When you treat enough people like criminals, there's little incentive to follow an unjust law.
 
Increasing access to health care, improving education, economic stability, not caging people for ingesting substances, encouraging responsible gun ownership with tax incentives; all better ways than infringing on rights to reduce gun deaths.

Anyway, I chose to give states the power to deal with gun laws.
 
The bill was passed on public referendum, so the bill being passed without public consent isn't the issue.

My statement was massive and overwhelming public consent.

This issue makes people so passionate, life long police chiefs are risking career and legal action to resist this.

That is a unique problem.
 
One problem that the gun control argument has is that the laws are different between states and executed differently between counties. So Chicago as a district can have some very gun purchasing requirements, but most of the guns used in crimes can be purchased more easily in a different county or state. You have a situation where the vast majority of gun crimes are being performed with guns purchased from outside the areas where the law is in effect.
I think some people are happy to dismiss it as evidence that laws don't work when in reality it is more complicated than that. Gun crimes are going to be a problem at an intersection of population density, income inequality, and proximity to easily purchasable firearms. Of the three factors, the only one that seems feasible to adjust is the last one.
 
My statement was massive and overwhelming public consent.

This issue makes people so passionate, life long police chiefs are risking career and legal action to resist this.

That is a unique problem.
I agree that it's a unique problem, although perhaps not for the same reasons. 60% passing is about as close to a landslide as you can get in most referendums, and as of yet, no courts have deemed the laws unconstitutional.
The laws itself didn't seem unreasonably restrictive, but to a certain segment any law change is a slippery slope.
 
One problem that the gun control argument has is that the laws are different between states and executed differently between counties. So Chicago as a district can have some very gun purchasing requirements, but most of the guns used in crimes can be purchased more easily in a different county or state. You have a situation where the vast majority of gun crimes are being performed with guns purchased from outside the areas where the law is in effect.
I think some people are happy to dismiss it as evidence that laws don't work when in reality it is more complicated than that. Gun crimes are going to be a problem at an intersection of population density, income inequality, and proximity to easily purchasable firearms. Of the three factors, the only one that seems feasible to adjust is the last one.
It goes both ways, though. Why should a region, which doesn't have that problem, be subject to the whims of one that does?

When the Firearms Act was introduced, Western Canada wanted to opt out and Quebec threw a tantrum about federalism. When the Government on Canada scrapped the long gun registry...Quebec threw a tantrum, and wanted to keep their own provincial registry.

Be careful what you wish for.
 
You have a situation where the vast majority of gun crimes are being performed with guns purchased from outside the areas where the law is in effect.

Do the stats back that up though? Could folks legally buy and then suddenly become criminals if they move into one of these areas?

I think some people are happy to dismiss it as evidence that laws don't work when in reality it is more complicated than that. Gun crimes are going to be a problem at an intersection of population density, income inequality, and proximity to easily purchasable firearms. Of the three factors, the only one that seems feasible to adjust is the last one.

Folks within one of these areas could still sell privately and skirt the local laws . . .

How would you remedy that? Require every State to have Chicago-like laws? If so, why?

It would also help if straw purchasers were charged and punished.
 
@nhbbear

Incredibly well-written posts to start this thread.

I will have to give your posts the full time and consideration they deserve.

I'm hoping to do a point-by-point analysis of your posts, but to give that any justice I'll have to be in front of a PC to do it.

Thank you for this in-depth research, I suspect I will reference it in the future.
 
Back
Top