Do you support the second amendment?

[JonNC]

JonNC:

LeafByNiggle:

The Constitution may claim to recognize certain rights as pre-existing, but the Constitution can be wrong in doing so. In this case I think it is wrong.

The SCOTUS affirms that antecedent right in unequivocal terms.

SCOTUS can be wrong too. Especially when they are affirming something beyond their domain, which is US law. If the SCOTUS affirmed something about quantum mechanics or the authenticity of the Mona Lisa, you would not expect their affirmation to carry any weight in those domains either.

They can, but in this case the majority decision delineates the history of the recognition of this inherent individual human right, long before the existence of the United States. This affirmation reflects not only that historic truth, but also the original intent of the founders to perpetuate that truth.
It is not outside their domain to acknowledge this history

 

[Cathoholic]

LeafbyNiggle:

.

The Constitution may claim to recognize certain rights as pre-existing, but the Constitution can be wrong in doing so. In this case I think it is wrong.

.
Yes I understand that LeafbyNiggle.

But the Colonists thought this as part and parcel to include.

Remember, some of the Colonists resisted founding a Country.

These ingrained rights were (part of) the reassurances the Colonists saw as a prerequisite to go forth with our nation.

You don’t agree to such terms, then lie about it to your own citizens.

So the question centers around repeal of the Second Amendment or not.

Obviously from my posts, I believe the Government should be true to their word (the Second Amendment is NOT going to be repealed).

 

[starshiptrooper]

The poor also are more likely to be nonwhite. So he apparently wants to discriminate against black people too.

 

[starshiptrooper]

Good point, especially in light of that conflict in 1861.

 

[JonNC]

The poor also are more likely to be nonwhite. So he apparently wants to discriminate against black people too.

He says it isn’t about race, only about the fact that much of the gun crime is by the poor. He also says it isn’t about gender, even though the vast majority of gun crimes (and gun suicides) are by men.

 

[starshiptrooper]

Wonder how he feels about voter ID?

 

[LeafByNiggle]

LeafByNiggle:

JonNC:

LeafByNiggle:

The Constitution may claim to recognize certain rights as pre-existing, but the Constitution can be wrong in doing so. In this case I think it is wrong.

The SCOTUS affirms that antecedent right in unequivocal terms.

SCOTUS can be wrong too. Especially when they are affirming something beyond their domain, which is US law. If the SCOTUS affirmed something about quantum mechanics or the authenticity of the Mona Lisa, you would not expect their affirmation to carry any weight in those domains either.

They can, but in this case the majority decision delineates the history of the recognition of this inherent individual human right, long before the existence of the United States. This affirmation reflects not only that historic truth, but also the original intent of the founders to perpetuate that truth.
It is not outside their domain to acknowledge this history

The SCOTUS decision and the view of the founders are still just their opinion. It is clear that their view is not universal since so many other nations do not recognize this right as inherent. It is not clear that this right is a universal truth beyond what the founders of a nation that comprises only 4% of the world’s people happened to think. The authority of the SCOTUS and the founders of the US does not extend beyond the legal borders of this one nation.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

LeafbyNiggle:
.

The Constitution may claim to recognize certain rights as pre-existing, but the Constitution can be wrong in doing so. In this case I think it is wrong.

So the colonists promised something. They also provided a structure whereby we can amend the document that promised things. We are under no obligation not to use the legal means that they provided. Prohibition was also an amendment to the Constitution. The leaders who passed that amendment promised to the American people that we would never allow alcohol to be consumed freely. After a while we realized our mistake and amended the Constitution again to repeal Prohibition. No promises were broken. No one was lied to. We tried something we thought would work, and we decided to stop that.

You don’t agree to such terms, then lie about it to your own citizens.

The leaders that swore to uphold the Constitution did not swear never to amend it. Amending it is not lying.

So the question centers around repeal of the Second Amendment or not.

Obviously from my posts, I believe the Government should be true to their word (the Second Amendment is NOT going to be repealed).

If your opinion carries the day in the legal process, then the 2nd amendment will not be repealed. If not, well,…

 

[starshiptrooper]

Perhaps readily available assault style weapons empowers would-be baddies a little too much; which is why other “arms” have been reasonably restricted for that very reason.

Do you have a reason to think that or is this just personal opinion?

On #1, I don’t care about “crime” for the purposes of this discussion. I care about “gun crime” as its inherently heightened lethality. And this misleading statistic, even if demonstrably true (and I have my doubts) says nothing about causality; which is the most important thing here.

Crime, is crime, is crime, is crime. It makes little difference whether I was robbed by someone using a knife or a handgun.

On #2 Awesome! I think this plays somewhat to my point. These are people “on-record” and are willing to put up the time and money (and training) required to get that permit.

Not really, plenty states will just give those permits out for free or a minimal processing fee, basically the cost of few coffees at Starbucks.

Though if your concern is really about training, how about a mandatory class in safe handling of firearms and legal aspects of their use in highschool?

You’d have to be a little more specific than the over-vague “disarm me and other citizens”.

I’m not challenging your right (or my right) to own a generically labelled “weapon”. I’m challenging the over-availability of assault-style weapons in particular and semi-automatics in general. Thus I think they should probably require a permit to own.

No, you just happen to be happen to be discriminating against one of the more useful weapons for self-defense. That is like requiring a license for posting opinions on the internet and then claiming you are not putting up obstacles against freedom of speech.

I think bolt-guns and maybe pump action shotguns should continue to be pretty unregulated, particularly in small things like .22lr. Their destructive capacity just isn’t that high, anecdotal stories aside.

To kill or wound 500 people from a hotel window with a bolt action, 5 round .30-06 would take a very long time. Own as many of those as you want.

Mass shootings are rare. I probably have a better chance of accidentally shooting myself than dying in a mass shooting.

 

[starshiptrooper]

So good, amend the Constitution. Just remember that we fought the first American Revolution because the government tried to take guns from the people.

 

[JonNC]

The authority of the SCOTUS and the founders of the US does not extend beyond the legal borders of this one nation.

Sadly, you are correct. Think of the tens of millions who might not have died at the hands of government in the last century

 

[Cathoholic]

starshiptrooper:

.

Though if your concern is really about training, how about a mandatory class in safe handling of firearms and legal aspects of their use in highschool?

.
Good suggestion.

But I think these gun-grabbers are using the “training” issue as yet another dishonest excuse to ban guns from law-abiding citizens.

Why?

I’ve suggested the same thing as you (as a matter-of-fact, I suggest the NRA’s Eddie Eagle program as has been used for many years in many schools).

When I suggest this, the gun-grabbers just about choke on their proverbial coffee.

When I suggest other well-trained gun people to teach the school kids they resist that TOO.

(Suggesting yet again to me, these guys don’the REALLY care about training in firearms for youth. Rather this suggests to me they are using the “training” issue as yet another pretext to incrementally ban firearms.)

Why be against safety education if you claim to worry about “safety”? What many of the schools have now is propaganda and indoctrination but NO substantial gun safety education for our children.

I’ve never had a gun-grabber come to me on their initiative, saying children should have practical firearms safety education in schools. Ever.

I don’t think the grabbers are particularly concerned about qualification in this sphere, but as others have said: “They talk a good game” as they attempt to fool you.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

Starshoptrooper:

Though if your concern is really about training, how about a mandatory class in safe handling of firearms and legal aspects of their use in highschool?

If the so called “gun-grabbers” were to agree to having gun safety training classes in high school, would you agree to making such training a requirement for owning a gun? Now we will see if you are using the training issue as yet another dishonest excuse to get kids to oppose gun control.

 

[MonteRCMS]

Provide free gun safety training in high school, NOT as a requirement, but as an element of good citizenship. Same as reading, writing and arithmetic.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

Provide free gun safety training in high school, NOT as a requirement, but as an element of good citizenship. Same as reading, writing and arithmetic.

OK, I can see you are not serious about gun training, since you decline to make it mandatory.

 

[MonteRCMS]

Driving lessons are not mandatory.

Guns are not magickal. They are simple machines that require simple lessons.

 

[Vonsalza]

So now you are targeting young people, making it harder for them to exercise their rights.
You list of targeted groups is growing.
Slippery slope?

No, it affects anyone that wants to buy one regardless of age. If it passes next week, it will apply to the 80-year-old would-be purchaser as well.

And no, not a slippery slope. Respectfully, it appears you don’t really know what that means.

Vonsalza:

While there will always be exceptions to everything, most of your criminals (particularly repeat offenders) are lower income. This effectively keeps these weapons out of more and more of their hands.

Your plan, however, is not to target the repeat offender, but to also target the law abiding poor

It applies to everyone equally. While it will have a greater affect on those with limited incomes, there will be plenty of wealthier folks who’d decline to buy a rifle due to the pricey permit. Wealth doesn’t mean “value ignorant”. Usually quite the opposite, actually.

 

[Vonsalza]

The poor also are more likely to be nonwhite. So he apparently wants to discriminate against black people too.

Nonsense, especially coming from someone who is so sold on the errant racial factor, judging by your posts.

The permit wouldn’t be priced any differently if you’re white, black, brown or green.

 

[JonNC]

No, it affects anyone that wants to buy one regardless of age. If it passes next week, it will apply to the 80-year-old would-be purchaser as well.

It is obvious that a new restriction will impact most broadly those who haven’t yet been allowed to buy a gun - those turning 18 or 21, depending on locale.
You’re targeting one group at a time

 

[Vonsalza]

Crime, is crime, is crime, is crime.

No, no it isn’t. For example, I think there’s some merit to Rand Paul’s notion that perhaps “victimless” crimes like prostitution aren’t worth the resources to fight.

Gun crime is obviously unique due to the higher, more mortal stakes involved. At least a man wielding a knife has to be able to over-power you with it, physically. A gun has no such requirement. A Polish granny holding a blunderbuss could drop the khanate’s mightiest warrior, which the mongols learned when they expanded to Europe.

Not really, plenty states will just give those permits out for free or a minimal processing fee, basically the cost of few coffees at Starbucks.

I would imagine that a pricing scheme would likely be included in the law that enacted it, as that’s really the fundamental mechanism.

No, you just happen to be happen to be discriminating against one of the more useful weapons for self-defense.

Objectively wrong. In your modern drywall-constructed house, firing a weapon that uses a high-velocity rifle round is a dumb choice, particularly if others live with you. A missed shot over-penetrates the wall and flies into the next room - which could be your child’s bedroom.
Weapons that fire scatter-shot or low velocity rounds are a superior choice for defending your home against a sudden invader.

Your AR is a poor choice in this application.