God humans are a stupid animal sometimes…
L.O.L. @ lawmakers
I think the notion of a civil war in this nation being American civilian versus the US military is pretty delusional. If it were to come to that I imagine there would be more soldiers willing to fight for America than the American government, the government can be replaced. Why kill your countrymen for the politicians? That scenario is for the movies.
I think what it really comes down to is there’s a huge gun culture in America and has been for centuries. The days of militias are long gone, the desire to own and use firearms for one reason or another aren’t. Even back in the days of the founding fathers there’s a huge difference between having a militia and having a militia that opposed the government, they weren’t too keen on opposing supposed tyranny. But since there’s gun violence in this nation you’ve opportunists wanting to exploit it and make a career off of it. When a mass shooting like this happens it’s natural for people to take sides and things have played out to where a certain group appeals to people that don’t care for firearms. Since hunting and gun ownership is somewhat taboo now it’s just easier to oppose it than in previous eras of American history. But throughout the history of this nation there’s always been some controversy over 2nd amendment rights.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]groo wrote:
Hmm? Because I think its treated the same way, there are many laws limiting speech.
To focus on guns broadly speaking I think most should be legal because I think most things should be legal.
most people won’t abuse owning them, street gangs apparently already have most small and medium arms the military had according to this touching show I just saw and they dont care what the law is. And there are likely better ways to keep the crazies disarmed.
That being said I think the idea of a populace holding off any modern military with solely small arms is ludicrous.[/quote]
Sorry, but you do not need a permit to petition the government. You do not need a background check to start a newspaper or online blog. You do not to go through a governmental screening process to attend the church of your choice.
All of these things pertain to the 2nd Amendment, wrongly for sure. They do not apply to the First. And that is a double standard. An unacceptable one.
You also don’t need permits for any of the rights enumerated in the 3rd - 8th Amendments. But people who think themselves reasonable insist that citizens still need governmental “permission” for the inherent, natural right expressed in the 2nd. It’s logically inconsistent.
Are there some limits on speech? Yes, but not even close to being comparable with what we encounter with the right to keep and bear.[/quote]
I am not trying to evade any question I didn’t think there was a specific one given. Ask away I’ll give my opinion.
I think there are many laws restricting speech in all mediums. Libel, slander, copyright, perjury, obscenity for a few. You do have do get a permit to parade in many locales, permits being controlled by the government which seems to limit speech. I think a lot of these are probably overused and likely applied in a manner inconsistent with the constitution, but people aren’t able to bring a challenge.
Currently its a pita to legally own an automatic weapon. Maybe in the future it will be surface to air missiles or a baby nuke who knows, but the line will likely always be drawn somewhere. And in my opinion its drawn less because of government intent to disarm and more because its the law people want. Clearly there is some level of weaponry though that the average guy shouldn’t own and likely its at the level of a weapon that would pose a real threat to a modern military things like bio or chemical weapons.
I think it would be difficult to say get the infantry to attack a group of American citizens more likely it would be some megalomaniac with a bunch of drone bombers. That is mostly why I don’t think small arms would be a big help.
If your question is something like do I think having to get a permit to own some types of guns is unconstitutional? I don’t think so. Or not more so than restrictions imposed on political speech using permits. I’d say both could be used unconstitutionally and sometimes are, but they aren’t inherently unconstitutional.
Quit buying into forced perceptions. At the slightest allusion to a gun ban, what has happened to gun sales? The will of the people is evident in the people, not what the media wants you to see.
Infringe: Act so as to limit or undermine.
Gun permits, gun bans and gun registration are unconstitutional. That is FACT.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]groo wrote:
I am not trying to evade any question I didn’t think there was a specific one given. Ask away I’ll give my opinion.
I think there are many laws restricting speech in all mediums. Libel, slander, copyright, perjury, obscenity for a few.
[/quote]
You failed. Here’s why. You mentioned libel, etc. Fine, those are consequences to acts where one violates the law. However, you do NOT need the governments permission a priori to speak, or petition, or worship. However IF you violate the laws pertaining to free speech and worship you CAN be prosecuted. Got it?
Now here’s the deal. When the govt REQUIRES a permit to speak or petition or write, or restricts the speech before it ever leaves one’s mouth or fingers THEN…THEN…you have an analogous situation with the gun restrictions you support.
We already have consequences - we already have laws - that are akin to libel, slander, copyright, etc, in place that prohibit abuse of our Second Amendment rights. It IS illegal to commit a burglary with a gun. It IS illegal to use a gun to murder. It is illegal to use a gun to intimidate a person outside of a self defense situation. There ARE all kinds of laws against wrong behavior with guns. But we should NOT restrict gun ownership and “bearing” from the get-go.
You need to follow this logically. You’re not getting the job done with the response you gave.
[/quote]
I think permits that regulate speech would fall into the permits required for public assembly or parades. Certainly such restrictions could be used in an unconstitutional manner, but not necessarily so. Often ones political bent is what determines if they think the speech restrictions are being used unfairly. Many many conservatives thought it ok to use permits to move Occupy Wall Street off of public property for example. Whether or not one agrees with their position certainly it would seem to be political speech and I agree should be more protected.
Guns is a tough one because many of the advocates have blinders and think arms equals guns which it certainly doesn’t. Where would you draw the line on modern weaponry? Is it just guns that are ok to own or all arms? Should the average citizen not be able to own things we ban by treaty like flamethrowers and chemical weapons or should the common position of con law be taken that treaties can’t override constitutional law? I would imagine, though I could be wrong, that there is some level of arms that you think a regular citizen shouldn’t own. If you simply want to equate arms to handheld guns that is merely a personal preference.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]CornSprint wrote:
…I just feel that drawing parallels between guns and cars to argue against further gun regulation is nonsensical.
[/quote]
Yes, but for an altogether different reason than the one you intended. Gun rights are constitutionally protected in addition to being a natural law.
Cars? Not so much.
[/quote]
A little bit confused by the assertion of natural law-could you elaborate on that point?
I stand by my main point. One is a mode of transportation that can harm others. One is a mode of harming others that can be used in other ways. I would imagine the reason they did not feel the need to specifically single out transportation would be the same reason they did not single out any number of items-it was obvious that there was no question as to their legality. Normal laws can be applied to reasonably regulate. Arms, given the inherent purpose, do require special consideration (and thank goodness they gave them this attention-without the second amendment it would be a far different discussion we are having today).
[quote]groo wrote:
Where would you draw the line on modern weaponry? Is it just guns that are ok to own or all arms? Should the average citizen not be able to own things we ban by treaty like flamethrowers and chemical weapons or should the common position of con law be taken that treaties can’t override constitutional law? I would imagine, though I could be wrong, that there is some level of arms that you think a regular citizen shouldn’t own. If you simply want to equate arms to handheld guns that is merely a personal preference.[/quote]
Flame throwers aren’t banned by any treaty signed by the US nor by any other country to my knowledge. The US just stopped using them voluntarily in 1978. Civilians can own and use flamethrowers quite legally.
[quote]CornSprint wrote:
A little bit confused by the assertion of natural law-could you elaborate on that point?
[/quote]
I can answer that. John Locke asserted that the right to self defence is the first law of nature. Man has a right to protect his own life. Locke was the main philosophical influence on the founders and the basis for the rights espoused and enshrined in the declaration and bill of rights. The philosophical basis for the 2nd amendment is the first law of nature.
[quote]CornSprint wrote:
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]CornSprint wrote:
…I just feel that drawing parallels between guns and cars to argue against further gun regulation is nonsensical.
[/quote]
Yes, but for an altogether different reason than the one you intended. Gun rights are constitutionally protected in addition to being a natural law.
Cars? Not so much.
[/quote]
A little bit confused by the assertion of natural law-could you elaborate on that point?
I stand by my main point. One is a mode of transportation that can harm others. One is a mode of harming others that can be used in other ways. I would imagine the reason they did not feel the need to specifically single out transportation would be the same reason they did not single out any number of items-it was obvious that there was no question as to their legality…[/quote]
My reason for bringing the subway as an example was NOT to compare subways as weapons to machine guns.
The comparison was in the way the media and public perception handled it: Hysteria for the gun issue and denial for all the others.
It was more about asking why the double standard and an attempt to show up the dysfunction of an emotionally driven mass reactivity.
Adults should be in control of their emotions not driven by them.
As for your point that cars are a means of transportation and therefore legal and guns are for the sole purpose of harm to others, I am curious: how did you arrive at that opinion?
In Switzerland guns are part of the culture in a very positive fashion.
Cars are used in sport in the same way guns are used in sport.
Fast, capable drivers are considered dangerous when in fact the most dangerous drivers are the ones that drive 10 mph below the speed limit and enter a 70 mph highway at the speed of 40 because they are afraid.
And yet, the bad image falls on the fast capable driver.
And lastly, can I ask you: Do you not think it would be more reasonable and less hysterical to have the approach of gun education before gun control?
For example, my understanding is that children in Switzerland go to shooting festivals with their parents instead of an indoor isolated experience learning to shoot through video games and watching violent movies while their parents make millions to buy more toys that focus on developing the brain without engaging the body or touching the heart of the child.
Again, is it the car, the subway and the gun that need control?
Is it a control issue, and if so how?
Or is it an education and a facing up and growing up issue?
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]groo wrote:
People could own machine guns if it weren’t for the minority of people that would abuse it. It comes down to a benefit cost analysis. The prevailing wisdom is that current gun laws either don’t have any effect on mass killings or that its an acceptable cost to have a few lives lost for keeping the status quo. It is what it is. There are a ton of things that are legal that hurt people to one degree or another.
[/quote]
Same thing with freedom of speech. A minority of people abuse it. Solution? Ban it for everyone. Problem solved.
After all it just comes down to a benefit cost analysis.[/quote]
I dont pretend to understand the U.S. love for guns, so I wont try to argue against it.
but, surely we (intelligent, adult, law abiding citizens) would like the killing of innocents to be minimized in general.
so what ways could the U.S. do that without breaking your 2nd amendment?
[quote]NikH wrote:
Everyone should have a machine gun to protect their home. I think it’s unfair that the military only has it and if a burglar breaks in a semiautomatic assault rifle surely isnt enough. And armed tanks if you can afford.
It’s a constitutional right, I want to protect my property and myself against a tyrannical government.
I am also installing a nuclear safe bunker under my house were I lock my children with a teacher so no driveby shooting ricochet will mistakenly hit them and they will be safe from everything.[/quote]
I prefer a flamethrower. Imagine the sheer joy that arises when some scumbag comes in, to rape your wife, kill your kids, burn your house down …and you get to see the look in their eyes right before you light 'em up. “Dance you mthrfcker…!!” LOLOLOLOLOLOL!
[quote]CornSprint wrote:
For what it’s worth, I would imagine the reason people don’t even consider making cars/subways/other things that can kill illegal is that they have an easily visible purpose beyond bringing harm to another being. In 99.9999% of cases, people buy/use cars for reasons other than harming another being.
Guns, even if used defensively, are ultimately tools that were created for bringing harm to another being. Now, that harm can be justified (self-defense), for sport (hunting/target shooting), or for simple peace of mind against a variety of factors. You can even argue that greater prevalence of guns ultimately prevents more harm on the whole, as the threat of harm is enough of a deterrent to dissuade would-be-aggressors. I would imagine however that the ultimate intended use of guns is the major driver for regulation/banning.
Granted, I do not support further gun regulation. I just feel that drawing parallels between guns and cars to argue against further gun regulation is nonsensical.[/quote]
This is non-sense. I have a couple dozen guns. Some are for collecting, some are antiques, some are for hunting. I have two that are for self-defense…and one is for self-defense against animals. I don’t believe most guns are for harming humans. Even most assault rifles owned by private individuals. I have several buddies who are in AR clubs, most would not wish to use their AR in a self-defense situation, much rather opt for a side arm.
[quote]bluebrasil wrote:
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]groo wrote:
People could own machine guns if it weren’t for the minority of people that would abuse it. It comes down to a benefit cost analysis. The prevailing wisdom is that current gun laws either don’t have any effect on mass killings or that its an acceptable cost to have a few lives lost for keeping the status quo. It is what it is. There are a ton of things that are legal that hurt people to one degree or another.
[/quote]
Same thing with freedom of speech. A minority of people abuse it. Solution? Ban it for everyone. Problem solved.
After all it just comes down to a benefit cost analysis.[/quote]
I dont pretend to understand the U.S. love for guns, so I wont try to argue against it.
but, surely we (intelligent, adult, law abiding citizens) would like the killing of innocents to be minimized in general.
so what ways could the U.S. do that without breaking your 2nd amendment?
[/quote]
The Swiss have a pretty good model, though I’d be interested in seeing how the populace would deal with all males 18 and up being enrolled in militia service.
Love the wording, Brother Chris. I absolutely agree. Mandatory enrollment in the militia (barring religious convictions or mental deficiency) at 18 would train people how and when to use firearms, plus give an opportunity to teach them the consequences of carelessness when operating. Just consider it grades 13 and 14, the last bit of stuff you need to know before you jump out into the real world.
I would have definitely gone into the military if it wasn’t for what I learned from my dad about the U.N. while I was growing up. I don’t believe in fighting wars for people who won’t fight for themselves, so I would not be in favor of mandatory military service, as it stands now.