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

[Cubo de Sangre]

Ok, but it doesn't address whether or not it's what the FF's intended for the private citizen. Something has to give. Either the FF's intended for anything to be available to the citizen to defend against tyranny, or there are reasonable limits to what a private person should be able to own that are worth debating without invoking the Constitution.

I've said more than once the FF's clearly meant all arms to be available to the people (who comprise the body of the states and the nation). Additionally, however, I've speculated that even they would agree on prohibiting WMD's. Thereby motivating them to amend the Constitution (not ignore it or pretend it means something than exactly what it says).

 

[Fawlty]

If the public is demanding it then the public should pay for it. Background checks are a law enforcement mechanism so taxpayers should foot the bill for them.




It's a fundamental miscarriage of justice to punish someone for being the victim of a crime. Indefensible in my mind. A crime against losing something is about equally egregious. In what other areas do we have these laws? Would you be willing to punish government employees and business owners under these same circumstances? LEO's lose weapons and have them stolen probably more often than we know.

Here's something else to keep in mind with a registry. Everyone dies. Then what? At least two of the firearms I was to inherit from my dad ended up going missing. Of the dozens I currently own, I give zero fucks if I'm dead or dying and the next owner isn't tracked. Why's that, you ask? As was pointed out by @Gregolian, letting the government know where all the weapons are just enables tyranny via confiscation. And before you start pontificating how that's not a concern, here's what's going on in Hawaii. We have a registry. Not long ago all of us law-abiding folks got put on the federal rap-back list (or whatever that informs one state if you were convicted of something in a another state). More recently the Honolulu PD sent out letter to folks on the registry, who were also on the medical marijuana list, saying they must relinquish possession of their firearms. Although public sentiment squelched that shit quick, the specter looms. Now there's a bill in committee looking to essentially ban semi-autos, with no provision for grandfathering. The registry is about confiscation, not crime-fighting. I once asked @A.C. how the registry helped solve crimes. His response (the specifics I forget) did nothing to make me think otherwise. Now add all that up, plus all the talk of disarming people with "mental issues" and there's my problem. The bar to be separated from you firearms will only get lower and lower. So even if the weapons are able to be purchased, the right and ability to engage in effective self-defense will only be available to fewer and fewer people.

The state (the public, the government of the people) is the victim of fraud if a registered gun is not updated at sale by its owner.

I find the wildly radical arguments about preventable tyranny completely unpersuasive, as the shit has already hit the fan by that point.

 

[Cubo de Sangre]

I think a big issue with the gun debate is the same issue with a lot of debates like this.

It's education. I have known a couple people that are super SUPER anti-gun... like of the "find them and melt them down" variety. I've taken them shooting or been with them when a mutual friend took them shooting and all of them have changed their opinion in some fashion. I think once you remove some of the mystery over how they work, how they feel when you shoot them, and how the way movies/TV portray them is USUALLY far FAR from the reality their opinion changes, at least a little.

As in they go from "prosecute all gun owners and melt them down" to "I would never own one but I no longer see as big a deal in them"

Prohibition and Hollywood are the worst things ever to happen to gun rights in America.

 

[Higus]

I've said more than once the FF's clearly meant all arms to be available to the people (who comprise the body of the states and the nation). Additionally, however, I've speculated that even they would agree on prohibiting WMD's. Thereby motivating them to amend the Constitution (not ignore it or pretend it means something than exactly what it says).

Whats your thought process on that? Why would the FF's make the distinction at WMD's and not at automatic rifles, for instance? And, not to shift the goal posts too much, but how much deference should we give them if they also made it possible to amend the constitution. It would seem to indicate they understood that what worked for them at that time should not be set in stone for eternity.

 

[Cubo de Sangre]

The state (the public, the government of the people) is the victim of fraud if a registered gun is not updated at sale by its owner.

I find the wildly radical arguments about preventable tyranny completely unpersuasive, as the shit has already hit the fan by that point.

Too fuckin' bad for the state. Whoever gets my guns when I'm gone can chose to register (if required), but it won't be something I'd stipulate.

The concept of preventing tyranny is far more complicated than your quick dismissal acknowledges. "Winning" doesn't require defeating in combat the branches of the military.

 

[Cubo de Sangre]

Whats your thought process on that? Why would the FF's make the distinction at WMD's and not at automatic rifles, for instance? And, not to shift the goal posts too much, but how much deference should we give them if they also made it possible to amend the constitution. It would seem to indicate they understood that what worked for them at that time should not be set in stone for eternity.

Firearms are essentially the same as back then. Only big difference is rate of fire, which is incredibly valuable on the battlefield (or any self-defense situation). That's why every cop and soldier is armed with full and semi-autos by the various levels of government. Whereas even with availability of WMD's, they're not part of how we conduct ourselves militarily.

The argument's neither here nor there and has zero bearing on the fact the 2nd prohibits the federal government from relegating the people to substandard equipment. I've only touched on it in the context of weapons we surely overwhelmingly agree should be prohibited, and that the honest way to do so is to enact an Amendment.

 

[Gregolian]

Whats your thought process on that? Why would the FF's make the distinction at WMD's and not at automatic rifles, for instance? And, not to shift the goal posts too much, but how much deference should we give them if they also made it possible to amend the constitution. It would seem to indicate they understood that what worked for them at that time should not be set in stone for eternity.

To be fair in the FF's day and age a private citizen could own a frigate with equal power to what the Navy had.

Just like now though it was super cost prohibitive.

This obsession with banning of essentially machine guns has always frustrated me. Have anyone, even military guys shoulder like an M60 or M249 and starting holding the trigger down and it's wildly inaccurate... and a HUGE waste of money with the rounds spent.

 

[Higus]

Firearms are essentially the same as back then. Only big difference is rate of fire, which is incredibly valuable on the battlefield (or any self-defense situation). That's why every cop and soldier is armed with full and semi-autos by the various levels of government. Whereas even with availability of WMD's, they're not part of how we conduct ourselves militarily.

The argument's neither here nor there and has zero bearing on the fact the 2nd prohibits the federal government from relegating the people to substandard equipment. I've only touched on it in the context of weapons we surely overwhelmingly agree should be prohibited, and that the honest way to do so is to enact an Amendment.

I feel like this is going in circles.

 

[Cubo de Sangre]

I feel like this is going in circles.

I'm honestly shocked you appear this confused. In my view, after the first two panels your meme goes off the rails.

Maybe this more clearly conveys some of my positions.

• The 2nd prohibits the federal government from undermining the militia system the nation is built on. It does that by explicitly stating that particular level of government has no right to interfere with the people arming themselves as they see fit. It does this even though nothing in the rest of the Constitution grants the feds the right to prohibit personal ownership, only the calling up those resources in aid of national defense.
• I think we should amend the Constitution to prohibit non-federal control of nukes. Same with chemical and biological weapons, even to the point of outlawing the feds from any further development.
• With explosives I'd leave that at the state level and the domain of the organized militia (i.e. state guardsmen).
• All firearms and less lethal weapons would continue to be a right of the people. I'd add that anyone not on parole or probation could possess them. Saves us onerous laws that are poorly enforced and encourages a harder look at how we handle violent criminals.

Maybe we've shifted contexts too often and hopefully this clear is up.

 

[nhbbear]

It's amazing how much something like this would improve society . . . actually enforcing this one particular aspect of existing gun laws.

These are the guys that are shooting people in the big cities. I don’t want to see mass incarceration or anything, but some people do not deserve to remain in society. In my 16 years as a police officer, I read a lot of triple I’s, which are the criminal history compiled by the fbi. Many of these histories would blow your mind. Many have six or more felonies, most violent, as well as many drug trafficking convictions, and they do so little time, often, just probation. So when people claim that some guy gets ten years for a joint, I have to laugh. In some states, unfortunately that may be true, but I read so many criminal records that I know that to be false in so many states.

And one other thing that would help, at least with the mass shootings and suicides, is to locate those individuals who do have severe mental issues and violent ideals. I am 100% not saying that anyone seeking treatment for depression or anxiety should be flagged, hell, I see a therapist and am on medication for severe depression, but there are definitely some people that should not be able to legally own a firearm. We have background checks for firearms, as well as a waiting period, but for rifles, if they are not felons or convicted of domestic violence, they walk out with the gun that day. Plus there gun shows do not have a waiting period especially with private sales.

I don’t know what the answer is to locate these individuals before they shoot up a school l, workplace, place of worship, or some random public place-but many had indications in their past-be it social media posts(parkland), or those that belong to gangs or hate groups.

 

[Cubo de Sangre]

These are the guys that are shooting people in the big cities. I don’t want to see mass incarceration or anything, but some people do not deserve to remain in society. In my 16 years as a police officer, I read a lot of triple I’s, which are the criminal history compiled by the fbi. Many of these histories would blow your mind. Many have six or more felonies, most violent, as well as many drug trafficking convictions, and they do so little time, often, just probation. So when people claim that some guy gets ten years for a joint, I have to laugh. In some states, unfortunately that may be true, but I read so many criminal records that I know that to be false in so many states.

And one other thing that would help, at least with the mass shootings and suicides, is to locate those individuals who do have severe mental issues and violent ideals. I am 100% not saying that anyone seeking treatment for depression or anxiety should be flagged, hell, I see a therapist and am on medication for severe depression, but there are definitely some people that should not be able to legally own a firearm. We have background checks for firearms, as well as a waiting period, but for rifles, if they are not felons or convicted of domestic violence, they walk out with the gun that day. Plus there gun shows do not have a waiting period especially with private sales.

I don’t know what the answer is to locate these individuals before they shoot up a school l, workplace, place of worship, or some random public place-but many had indications in their past-be it social media posts(parkland), or those that belong to gangs or hate groups.

Let's take that firearms prohibition-enforcement money and funnel it into mental-health and long-term incarceration for violent offenders.

 

[nhbbear]

Let's take that firearms prohibition-enforcement money and funnel it into mental-health and long-term incarceration for violent offenders.

Yes! Or, how about taking all of the money being given to politicians by the nra and gun manufacturers, and using it to fund this, as well as a tax on guns and ammo. I am not saying a huge tax, but with all of the guns and ammo being sold, 2 percent would generate a lot of money for mental health treatment and schools.

 

[Cubo de Sangre]

Yes! Or, how about taking all of the money being given to politicians by the nra and gun manufacturers, and using it to fund this, as well as a tax on guns and ammo. I am not saying a huge tax, but with all of the guns and ammo being sold, 2 percent would generate a lot of money for mental health treatment and schools.

If there's a moritorium on gun laws then the NRA (nor anyone else) has a need to donate for that cause.

Guns and ammo (or just ammo?) are already taxed for wildlife preservation. How about he mental health tax be on those contributing to whatever problem exists there? Sure ain't gun manufacturers. It's pill companies, and social media outlets, and shitty parents fucking people up. Not gun owners.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pittman–Robertson_Federal_Aid_in_Wildlife_Restoration_Act

 

[Stoic1]

Yes! Or, how about taking all of the money being given to politicians by the nra and gun manufacturers, and using it to fund this, as well as a tax on guns and ammo. I am not saying a huge tax, but with all of the guns and ammo being sold, 2 percent would generate a lot of money for mental health treatment and schools.

I dislike this idea.

Don't tax a right. It opens the door towards inaccessibility.

 

[N13]

PLEASE READ THIS ENTIRE OP BEFORE POSTING.

Greetings War Room Sherbros,

Welcome to the next installment of the Presidential sticky-threads. This one will be centered around your views on the 2nd Amendment. Should it be repealed altogether, infringed upon somewhat, or adhered to without compromise? Let's hear what you think. Special thanks to @nhbbear for kicking things off here.

Cheers,

Cubo

***IMPORTANT***​

These are in addition to normal War Room Rules.

• No insulting the other posters
• Certain words should be avoided to describe someone's position/ideas (stupid, dumb, retarded)
• Don't refer to groups using demeaning terms such as libtards, conservatards, gun-nuts, gun-grabbers, etc.
• Stay on topic
• Humor is fine, but if your post is a joke that doesn't add to the topic then don't post it
• Posts that don't comply will be removed and the poster may be issued a reply ban
• All questions over deleted posts and reply bans please direct privately to @Cubo de Sangre

***This is an ongoing series of sticky-threads that will take on various topics in varying ways. If you're interested in leading a discussion on something please take a look at this thread and then send me a PM with your ideas.

POTWR 2019 Vol 1: Shots Fired! Examining Police Shootings In America
POTWR 2019 Vol 2: Happy Happy Joy Joy
POTWR 2019 Vol 3: Examining Opioid Addiction In America

I'm too torked off about Fawlty right now.

You have a spelling error in the post title mang, and I would like to see the "EXPAND" option. The government has advanced weaponry and if we ever need to make a move, we need good shit too. Plus, it is a major deterrent to other nations who might start thinking that they can Fuck with us in non-hidden ways, like Weather tech where you have a hard time identifying and then even a harder time to laying blame.

Taser might not be enough.

@Fawlty Checky ^

 

[abiG]

Let's sum up:

 

[My Spot]

Should blunt objects like hammers have to be registered since they're responsible for more death annually than "assault" rifles? What about knives?

 

[Greoric]

I find the wildly radical arguments about preventable tyranny completely unpersuasive, as the shit has already hit the fan by that point.

Can you elaborate on this point? Is your point that insurgencies never win, or that power doesn't tend to get intolerably abused?

 

[nhbbear]

I dislike this idea.

Don't tax a right. It opens the door towards inaccessibility.

No one is taxing a right, but the purchase of guns and ammunition, which are not a right.

 

[JudoThrowFiasco]

Pro gun and gun owner, but for training and testing before being granted a license to own a fire arm.