Do you support the second amendment?

[JonNC]

The bigger part of this question is How do you actually stop “Law Abiding Citizens” like Stephen Paddock from doing what he did. Before he did what he did, He was the Perfect “Law Abiding Citizen”. Like it or not!!!

Yes. A huge tragedy. But I wish it were the bigger part of the question. He (his type) represents a tiny minority of the gun violence in this country. Most of it is by handguns. Most of it by males under the age of 25. And a significant portion of it in the largest cities

 

[Vonsalza]

The problem is that it doesn’t work.

Jon, only one looking at the problem with eyes fully closed would see that it doesn’t work.

The fact is this; it does. When the supply of self-loading firearms is limited, crime drops far, FAR more often than not. There’s just SO. MUCH. data in support of the fact.

Again, talking about limitations. Not bans. Please limit your reply accordingly.

The toughest gun laws are in DC and Chicago, and gun violence is still incredibly high there.

Because they are readily circumvented with a 20 minute drive to Virginia or Indiana. That short drive does not provide enough of a “cool down” to prevent the crime.

Sounds like poll taxes to me.

Sounds like a “false equivalency” to me.

What other constitutionally protected right would you be okay with having a permit for.

Whoa Whoa WHOA!

Where, precisely, in the US constitution does it guarantee you the right to a self-loading rifle or handgun?
Exact line please.

And if self-loading rifles are constitutionally protected, why not AUTOMATIC self-loading rifles?

Your argument here is nothing more than empty “status quo”, I’m afraid.

It is rather elitist, don’t you think? Let’s make it harder for that poor woman who lives in the city and has to walk 3 blocks home in the dark.

If she can’t afford to shoot it, then she shouldn’t own it. She’s EVERY BIT as great a danger to herself and innocents near her as she is to the “bad guy” she’d try to shoot.

It is amazing to me how some believe, on the one hand that to define healthcare a right, government has to provide, while on the other want to limit an enumerated right.

I know. Weird right? Aside from the fact that this right is already limited. Right now. As we type.

It’s almost like its irrational to expect to be able to solve 21st century problems with 18th century paradigms (hint: it is).

Not for the law abiding.

For everyone. Equally.

 

[JonNC]

Jon, only one looking at the problem with eyes fully closed would see that it doesn’t work.

The fact is this; it does. When the supply of self-loading firearms is limited, crime drops far, FAR more often than not. There’s just SO. MUCH. data in support of the fact.

Then you clearly need to open your eyes. Gun control measures targeted against the law abiding do not stop criminals from getting guns, and do not stop them from committing crimes. One need only look at the data of the last 25 or so years: many many more guns in the hands of the law abiding, and a decline in criminal gun violence

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

Again, talking about limitations. Not bans. Please limit your reply accordingly.

Do you support the Australian model? That was a gun confiscation. A ban.

Because they are readily circumvented with a 20 minute drive to Virginia or Indiana. That short drive does not provide enough of a “cool down” to prevent the crime.

Yeah, why not save the gas and commit the crimes in Virginia or Indiana. The cross the state lines notion doesn’t work in reality. The idea that criminal gangs will be moved by a “cool down” period is silly.

Sounds like a “false equivalency” to me.

Government putting up financial barriers in the form of taxes that prevent a certain segment of the population from exercising their basic rights. Sounds like exactly the same thing.

Whoa Whoa WHOA!

Where, precisely, in the US constitution does it guarantee you the right to a self-loading rifle or handgun?
Exact line please.

And if self-loading rifles are constitutionally protected, why not AUTOMATIC self-loading rifles?

Maybe I missed it. Where did you mention specific types of weapons?
Where are they prohibited? Automatics have been restricted to banned since 1934 and 1986. Why do you think that banning certain types of weapons from the law abiding will prevent crime. Go after the criminals. Adjuducate the mentally ill. Go after the people that kill people, that harm people. There are millions upon millions of semi-automatic handguns and rifles in this country.
Targeting semi-automatics is a red herring. Go after the individuals that hurt people.

If she can’t afford to shoot it, then she shouldn’t own it. She’s EVERY BIT as great a danger to herself and innocents near her as she is to the “bad guy” she’d try to shoot.

Talk about a war on women!! Who are you to decide that? Who are you to propose to impose a tax on a free law abiding citizen to keep her from owning a handgun for self defense?

I know. Weird right? Aside from the fact that this right is already limited. Right now. As we type.

Yeah, but those limits are equal. You seem to want to impose them unequally on economic and gender grounds.

It’s almost like its irrational to expect to be able to solve 21st century problems with 18th century paradigms (hint: it is).

Oh, yeah. I forgot that you don’t believe in individual rights. They’re such a quaint 18th century fad.

For everyone. Equally.

Except for poor folks and women in the inner city.

 

[starshiptrooper]

Constitutional rights evolve based on technology. The police have to get a warrant before searching your computer, and bloggers enjoy the protections of free speech. Likewise the 2nd Amendment protects modern firearms.

As per one of the explicitly stated purposes of the 2nd Amendment, the people’s right to bear arms is protected in case they need to act as a militia. Therefore small arms as carried by modern soldiers are protected.

 

[jcrichton]

…all I could do is laugh… how small the world is!

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[Lemuel]

Constitutional rights evolve based on technology.

Ugh. I gotta take issue with this. There’s NO SUCH THING as constitutional rights. My rights come from God, not from any man-made government.

 

[Theo520]

I would like to note that neither registration nor a waiting period prevents any one from owning a fire arm and in no way infringes on the Second Amendment.

Why bother, there is no evidence either would reduce crime.
The only benefit of registration is to enable confiscation from law abiding citizens.

 

[upant]

“Control the poor”? Why does it always have to be some tin-foil conspiracy???

Why can’t it just be “poor people commit most gun crime, so make it harder for poor folks to get guns”?

because the policy of singling out “the right people” is racially discriminatory

Judge Scheindlin was clearly speaking of Mayor Michael Bloomberg when she concluded: “The City’s highest officials have turned a blind eye to the evidence that officers are conducting stops in a racially discriminatory manner. In their zeal to defend a policy that they believe to be effective, they have willfully ignored overwhelming proof that the policy of singling out “the right people” is racially discriminatory and therefore violates the United States Constitution. (NY Times)

You literally could not be more incorrect. Please rephrase your objection here to “permits and wait times are not proven to do reduce crime in a way I’m willing to accept”.

did you read the study i posted above? it looks at sample quality and concludes those that show a positive effect are low sample quality whereas higher quality samples show no effect. you can interpret the data as you want but you can’t change what he wrote.

the problem is it looks only at gun homicides; did the overall violent death rate goes up or down. it looks at gun related suicides but what about the non-gun related suicides during the period. it doesn’t address the overall decline that was going on and how it played out during the period.

australia is famous for saying they have had no mass gun killings since the ban/confiscation/buyback but in the 20 year period prior to the ban the had 14 mass killings. in the 20 years since they have had 14 mass killings. so they don’t use the gun just another tool. what those pushing an australian type ban don’t say is that there are more guns in australia now then before the ban and about 250,000 illegal ones smuggled in. they have such a problem they had another amnesty to turn in their guns.

 

[upant]

they drop the gun charge now so they get an easy conviction. this is part of the problem. we keep putting the criminals back on the street for a variety of reasons and wonder why crime doesn’t go down.

 

[starshiptrooper]

Come on now, this is being slightly nitpicky. I wrote that in the context of answering a question of the proper interpretation of the 2nd Amendment. I will also hasten to point out that the Constitution is worded to imply that the rights preexist independent of the government. The Bill of Rights merely prevents the government from infringing upon them, it does not create them.

 

[Vonsalza]

Then you clearly need to open your eyes.

Take another look at the junk chart you provided. The increase in gun ownership is nearly linear. But the drop in homicide drops sharply between 93’ and 00’ and remains fairly static from that point on.

Not only does it fail to provide any evidence of causation, but it also correlates very, very poorly as well. What it also fails to include is 2016 where homicide jumps up nearly 8% while the fear of bans since that time have promoted an explosion of gun sales; particularly for AR-style rifles - DIRECTLY refuting your claim.

If this was the cornerstone of your argument, you’ll need to do a lot better.

Do you support the Australian model? That was a gun confiscation. A ban.

I don’t like the idea of bans, but their homicide rates compared to America are quite enviable, I hope you’d agree.

You’re what? 4 times more likely to be shot an killed in the US than in Ozzland? Something like that. And when most folks look at the Aussies, they don’t see a tyrannically oppressed people.

Yeah, why not save the gas and commit the crimes in Virginia or Indiana. The cross the state lines notion doesn’t work in reality. The idea that criminal gangs will be moved by a “cool down” period is silly.

The vast majority of gun crime isn’t committed by criminal gangs.
It’s intellectually lazy and irresponsible to use the 1% to damn or praise the other 99 and you do it oh-so often.

Government putting up financial barriers in the form of taxes that prevent a certain segment of the population from exercising their basic rights. Sounds like exactly the same thing.

They’ve done exactly the same thing with full-autos. Anyone who is willing to submit to the fees and checks required for a class 3 FF license can own one. We agree it works pretty well there.

Maybe I missed it. Where did you mention specific types of weapons?

You did miss it. I’ve mentioned limitations on the ownership of semi-autos all throughout this thread.

Where are they prohibited? Automatics have been restricted to banned since 1934 and 1986. Why do you think that banning certain types of weapons from the law abiding will prevent crime.

Lets take a look at full-autos then. Since their banning, how many crimes have been committed with fully automatic weapons in the US? For the legally owned, it’s practically less than none. For the illegally owned, its barely more than none, since if you’re just caught holding one it’s a roughly $10k fine and prison time.

The ban on full-autos is pretty darn effective. But with that said, I don’t like bans. Permit them and make the permit somewhat expensive. Which is actually what they’ve done with full autos.

Talk about a war on women!!

LOL, what utter nonsense. It’s not targeted toward women. it’s targeted toward low-income folks, who happen to be men too.

Any port in a storm, right Jon?

 

[Vonsalza]

Constitutional rights evolve based on technology. The police have to get a warrant before searching your computer, and bloggers enjoy the protections of free speech. Likewise the 2nd Amendment protects modern firearms.

As per one of the explicitly stated purposes of the 2nd Amendment, the people’s right to bear arms is protected in case they need to act as a militia. Therefore small arms as carried by modern soldiers are protected.

No it isn’t. You can’t own an automatic M4. You can’t own a crew-serve and you can’t own grenades.

(without proper licensing, of course).

 

[Lemuel]

I agree it’s nitpicky. It’s just one of those things that pushes my buttons. Two phrases which I abjure are “constitutional rights” and “our democracy”. Neither exist and it gets me when people say them. Sorry . . . carry on!

 

[JonNC]

=“Vonsalza, post:1029, topic:452415, full:true”]
Take another look at the junk chart you provided. The increase in gun ownership is nearly linear. But the drop in homicide drops sharply between 93’ and 00’ and remains fairly static from that point on.

Not only does it fail to provide any evidence of causation, but it also correlates very, very poorly as well. What it also fails to include is 2016 where homicide jumps up nearly 8% while the fear of bans since that time have promoted an explosion of gun sales; particularly for AR-style rifles - DIRECTLY refuting your claim.

It is amazing how the left uses similar faulty arguments regardless of topic. If there is a static rise in guns in the hands of civilians, there ought to be a corresponding rise in homicides due to guns. There is not. The two trend lines continue in opposite directions. Even after the tick up between 2004 to 2006, gun the crime line continues its trend downward. More guns in the hands of civilians does not translate to more gun vcrime.

I don’t like the idea of bans, but their homicide rates compared to America are quite enviable, I hope you’d agree.

There were roughly 11,000 gun homicides in the US in 2016. In a country of 320,000,000 people.
You’re noticing the increase recently: about 20% of that increase is in Chicago alone!!!

You’re what? 4 times more likely to be shot an killed in the US than in Ozzland? Something like that. And when most folks look at the Aussies, they don’t see a tyrannically oppressed people.

11,000 divided by 320,000,000 is 0.000034375. That’s your chances of being shot and killed in the US. And it is much higher in portions of major US cities and anywhere else. Now, any murder, by gun or otherwise, is a tragedy, and we must do all that we can to stop people from murdering, but you don’t confiscate an enumerated constitutionally protected inherent human and civil right.

The vast majority of gun crime isn’t committed by criminal gangs.
It’s intellectually lazy and irresponsible to use the 1% to damn or praise the other 99 and you do it oh-so often.

I’m not the one damning or praising. I’m not the one who wants to target the law abiding inner city resident with higher taxes that won’t stop the criminal. But I darn well will target the criminal element, including gangs in the cities for their brutalizing the very people you target for disarming.
Otis MacDonald must be spinning in his grave over your discriminatory idea.

They’ve done exactly the same thing with full-autos. Anyone who is willing to submit to the fees and checks required for a class 3 FF license can own one. We agree it works pretty well there.

Okay. I’m cool with that. Place your $100 tax on the purchase of automatic weapons.

 

[JonNC]

You did miss it. I’ve mentioned limitations on the ownership of semi-autos all throughout this thread.

Regarding your target the poor tax plan, you made no mention of the type of weapon.

Lets take a look at full-autos then. Since their banning, how many crimes have been committed with fully automatic weapons in the US? For the legally owned, it’s practically less than none. For the illegally owned, its barely more than none, since if you’re just caught holding one it’s a roughly $10k fine and prison time.

The ban on full-autos is pretty darn effective. But with that said, I don’t like bans. Permit them and make the permit somewhat expensive. Which is actually what they’ve done with full autos.

Permit what? Be specific, because you’ve played the vagueness ploy before.
If it is on semi-automatics handguns or rifles, no chance. It is, again, a discriminatory attempt to keep the law abiding poor person from defending themselves.

LOL, what utter nonsense. It’s not targeted toward women. it’s targeted toward low-income folks, who happen to be men too.

You made a specific comment that If she can’t afford to shoot it, then she shouldn’t own it. She’s EVERY BIT as great a danger to herself and innocents near her as she is to the “bad guy” she’d try to shoot. You didn’t say they. You said she.
But I suspect you’re right. Your target seems to be all law abiding poor people. The arrogance of the left. “We know what’s better for you. We know what kind of healthcare you should or shouldn’t have. You don’t deserve your second amendment right because you’re poor.”

Give me a break, Von.

Any port in a storm, right Jon?

You seem to want to close the ports to some people

 

[pnewton]

Why bother, there is no evidence either would reduce crime.

The only benefit of registration is to enable confiscation from law abiding citizens.

First, I already have presented the Harvard study, so to say that there is no evidence is a lie. Second, any evidence, even the slimmest is more substantial than exists that there will be a gun confiscation from law-abiding citizens. Third, fine, repeal the Dickey Amendment and let us garner more evidence if what we have is insufficient. Doing nothing because we can’t do everything is crazy.

 

[Theo520]

First, I already have presented the Harvard study, so to say that there is no evidence is a lie. Second, any evidence, even the slimmest is more substantial than exists that there will be a gun confiscation from law-abiding citizens. Third, fine, repeal the Dickey Amendment and let us garner more evidence if what we have is insufficient. Doing nothing because we can’t do everything is crazy.

Are you sure the harvard study proved registration by legal owners would reduce gun crime, same with a waiting period?

If so, I’ll read up if you can confirm the post with the study link.

 

[upant]

Third, fine, repeal the Dickey Amendment and let us garner more evidence if what we have is insufficient.

you keep saying this but it isn’t true. the funds can be used for research but they can not be used to push gun control. why isn’t this good enough?

This Amendment did not preclude the CDC from doing research on gun safety, just that it defined the lines between the research of gun safety related incidents and the perceived advocation for control of those guns.

The CDC funded a research project in 2013 and conducting their own study in 2015

 

[upant]

Second, any evidence, even the slimmest is more substantial than exists that there will be a gun confiscation from law-abiding citizens.

not true, a case is pending in california on the ban and confiscation of large capacity magazines. note in the judges conclusion on granting a stay that magazines are considered arms by california law. tell me again it can’t happen. if the law is upheld it will happen

IV. CONCLUSION
Every injury or death caused by the misuse of a firearm is a tragedy. That the mentally ill and violent criminals choose to misuse firearms is well known. This latest incremental incursion into solving the “gun violence” problem is a reflexively simple solution. But as H.L. Mencken wrote, “There is always a well-known solution to every human problem – neat, plausible, and wrong.”18

Magazines holding more than 10 rounds are “arms.” California Penal Code Section 32310, as amended by Proposition 63, burdens the core of the Second Amendment by criminalizing the mere possession of these magazines that are commonly held by law-abiding citizens for defense of self, home, and state. The regulation is neither presumptively legal nor longstanding. The statute hits close to the core of the Second Amendment and is more than a slight burden. When the simple test of Heller is applied, a test that persons of common intelligence can understand, the statute is adjudged an unconstitutional abridgment. Even under the more forgiving test of intermediate scrutiny, the statute is not likely to be a reasonable fit. It is not a reasonable

fit because, among other things, it requires law-abiding concealed carry weapon permit holders and Armed Forces veterans to dispossess themselves of lawfully-owned gun magazines that hold more than 10 rounds – or suffer criminal penalties.

The Court does not lightly enjoin a state statute, even on a preliminary basis. However, just as the Court is mindful that a majority of California voters approved Proposition 63 and that the government has a legitimate interest in protecting the public from gun violence, it is equally mindful that the Constitution is a shield from the tyranny of the majority. Plaintiffs’ entitlements to enjoy Second Amendment rights and just compensation are not eliminated simply because they possess “unpopular” magazines holding more than 10 rounds.

If this injunction does not issue, hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of otherwise law-abiding citizens will have an untenable choice: become an outlaw or dispossess one’s self of lawfully acquired property. That is a choice they should not have to make. Not on this record.

Accordingly, with good cause appearing for the reasons stated in this opinion, Plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction is GRANTED.

H.L. Mencken, Prejudices: Second Series, Alfred A. Knopf, Inc. (1920), p. 158. 18
64
17cv1017-BEN
Case 3:17-cv-01017-BEN-JLB Document 28 Filed 06/29/17 PageID.4180 Page 64 of 66

 

[jcrichton]

Theo, do you truly believe that if there’s no checks on who is able to purchase, legally, a weapon, criminals and those intent on committing crimes with guns would not avail themselves of those weapons… it is irrational to think that those bent on killing would not buy these weapons in larger quantities than are procured illegally. Any study that dismisses this factor is void and null from the first thought/letter.

Maran atha!

Angel