[Serious] Can we have a discussion about anti-gun control laws? Educate me.

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: neo96
a reply to: Gryphon66

Your ability to buy has been infringed, not your right to bear/own/hold/carry.

Another gold medal for mental gymnastics.

Another gold medal for meaningless, empty statements tossed in.

As locknload asked.

If I can't buy how can I bear ?

a reply to: Gryphon66

LOL ... my argument proves that someone's coming to get your guns?

Your argument boils down that I only have the right to own arms and not the right to acquire them. Ergo, anyone who does not already own arms is de facto unable to exercise their right to own them unless they choose to manufacture their own. And, say, can we make that restriction on selling firearms retroactive? I would still have the right to own firearms, but if course I would have to surrender the ones I own now since they were illegally sold...

No. I want my damn cake back... all of it!

TheRedneck

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: cynicalheathen

Right, if you take your property back by force, you're reinforcing the idea that might equals right. I've stated that's the summation of your position.

You don't have any legal recourse because every government is merely a siphon on your "rights" according to you ... so you can't count on the state to help you enforce your "rights" in your scenario.

In this case, the government is actually doing its job, protecting my right to enjoy my property by providing an avenue to apprehend the person who took my property, punishing said person, and making my loss whole again.

The sole function of government is to protect the rights of its citizenry. Anything else is outside the scope of its mission.

If government is actively violating the individual's rights, then it is illegitimate.

originally posted by: seasonal
a reply to: Gryphon66

If there are items that are guaranteed in the bill of rights being kept from the people, in this case certain firearms, then we are in fact not free.

If you need to ask for permission for a guaranteed freedom, that freedom is not there.

That's nothing more than a somewhat cloudy statement of your opinion. Arms are not guaranteed in the Constitution, the right to bear them is.

Your equation of freedom with the trivial matter of not being able to buy some gun that you want is ... quite limited.

originally posted by: neo96

originally posted by: cynicalheathen
I still haven't been provided with an answer to who is granted the authority to even intepret the 2nd Amendment...

Theres nothing to interpret regarding the second.

It's clearly spelled out separated by comas.

The SCOTUS's job is suppose to make sure the federal state doesn't violate the US constitution.

ALL gun control does.

It was a rhetorical question.

I'm merely trying to point out that there is no specifically granted power of interpretation in the Constitution to any entity, SCOTUS or otherwise.

I yearn for the 70s and early 80s.

The background check did not exist, and I could go buy a machine gun without any snip.

But hey people there has been no 'infringements'.

a reply to: cynicalheathen

So there are times when a government has meaning and isn't automatically antithetical to inherent rights ... so long as it's doing what you think it should do?

That's nothing but pure core authoritarianism.

a reply to: Gryphon66

So you allow the State to define the parameters of a protected right???

So when Utah makes a law to limit the expressing of any religion other then Mormon... Would you be OK with that??? I mean people will still be able to practice their religion, just not with out a special permit and registration with the State to be legal.

In a nutshell I have the right to own firearms but I may or may not have the right to buy them. And if I can't buy them then too bad because the 2nd (and 10th according to Gryphon) doesn't state that you have the right to buy them.

a reply to: Gryphon66

The number of firearm purchases are not an indicator if freedoms have been violated.

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: cynicalheathen

So there are times when a government has meaning and isn't automatically antithetical to inherent rights ... so long as it's doing what you think it should do?

That's nothing but pure core authoritarianism.

The Constitution is a list of enumerated ( i.e. preexisting and inherent ) rights, then a list of things the government is and isn't allowed to do. We The People created the government. It is supposed to work for us by protecting our rights.

Anything it does outside that scope is right out.

Sorry the concept is so hard to understand.

originally posted by: cynicalheathen

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: cynicalheathen

So there are times when a government has meaning and isn't automatically antithetical to inherent rights ... so long as it's doing what you think it should do?

That's nothing but pure core authoritarianism.

The Constitution is a list of enumerated ( i.e. preexisting and inherent ) rights, then a list of things the government is and isn't allowed to do. We The People created the government. It is supposed to work for us by protecting our rights.

Anything it does outside that scope is right out.

Sorry the concept is so hard to understand.

You started out by saying that the Constitution was nothing but a scrap of paper.

Now, as your argument has shifted, it has meaning ... but only if it's used to benefit your own wishes.

As I said, core authoritarian.

originally posted by: seasonal
a reply to: Gryphon66

The number of firearm purchases are not an indicator if freedoms have been violated.

Why not?

Well I'm off to have dinner with the family, I'll check back later to see how must twisting ol'gryphy does.

Happy Easter all!

originally posted by: LockNLoad
a reply to: Gryphon66

So you allow the State to define the parameters of a protected right???

So when Utah makes a law to limit the expressing of any religion other then Mormon... Would you be OK with that??? I mean people will still be able to practice their religion, just not with out a special permit and registration with the State to be legal.

Now you're making strawman arguments.

/bored

originally posted by: fencesitter85
Ok, cards on the table: I'm an Englishman of 31. I follow global politics as much as I can. I'm a centrist; anti-Trump, anti-Hillary, some liberal opinions and some conservative ones; it depends on the matter at hand. Please don't start calling me a liberal snowflake or any of that playground rubbish - let's have a conversation.

I'm pro-guns, but also pro gun-control. I'm not trying to start a partisan slanging match or a left vs right debate. I'm just wanting to have a discussion regarding proposed gun control laws. I'd like to get some opinions from anti-control supporters, regarding what you believe and why you believe it. This isn't me saying 'you're wrong'; it's me acknowledging that I may be missing something obvious or compelling which is skewing my views. Hang up your liberal or conservative hat; it's not a team sport - don't argue just on the basis of doing the opposite of what your opponents say. What do you really, really think?

Here is my understanding thus far - which again is not trolling or trying to rile anyone up. Hence this not being in the mud pit. So please respond accordingly and we can have a productive discussion; hopefully.

- The 2nd amendment was created in a time where current weapons didn't exist, so my thoughts are that the right to bear arms, as written then, is not automatically applicable today. Also from my understanding, the wording "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State..." surely doesn't apply to people's right to have assault rifles at home just for fun? Surely the words "Well regulated" support the notion of gun control laws? Also it's an amendment - of which there are many. So why does it cause such indignation to suggest a further amendment could be issued to bring it more up to date? That's the point of an amendment.

- Surely background checks could only ever be a good thing? If I had children, for example, I'd want to know that mentally ill people can't just go and buy a gun without some checks on their psychiatric health, any criminal records, history of depression etc. Surely this is just good logic? If you have a wife/kids, wouldn't you feel safer knowing that not just anyone can rock up and buy a gun?

- Having a central register of gun owners would surely fall into the same category? I understand there's an argument here on the basis that such records being hacked could make households a target for people who want to steal guns. I'm not quite sure where to stand on this one, but I don't think I'd try to break into a house if I know the home-owner has a gun.

I guess those are my main queries. Why don't people accept that the 2nd amendment was written in 1791, and therefore it's sensible and rational that it may be time to update it? It's a completely different world. And I absolutely can't understand the objection to background checks - please educate me on that one. I can't see a single possible justifiable argument against it in a non-partisan discussion.

Obviously my views are inherently a little biased by my opinions and emotions on the subject, but I just don't see why this subject has to be so divisive. Background checking does not mean anyone taking away your guns - it's literally making you and your family more safe.

Thanks in advance for constructive discussion!
/fs85

Second paragraph - This issue is intertwined with political affiliations, there isn't much getting around that.

4th paragraph - The guns at the time were the most powerful and destructive weapons on the planet, they were not limited to swords or clubs. The only difference now is speed and accuracy, there are still limitations which you obviously are not aware of. For starters, the english language has evolved since those times - the well regulated militia was the people, all the people, no exceptions. Also, since you are very much oblivious to facts, the restrictions placed on owning an assault rifle at home pretty much bar the vast majority from ever owning one. 'Assault rifle' does not mean big black scary looking gun.

5th p.- On background checks - if someone is too dangerous to own a firearm, maybe they shouldn't be walking freely in the first place. Also background checks have proven unreliable - the Florida night club shooter passed his. The metal healthcare in the US is atrocious, so if that is your concern, maybe focus on mental health care instead of having crazies running around eh?

6th - There are more concerns than simple hacking to worry about. The Jews were the first ones to have to register there guns, they were thrown in the ovens soon after...

7th - Blah blah blah, No tomahawks missiles, no A-bombs, no low orbit kinetic energy weapons. Get over it, your emotions make you weak, basing your opinions off feelings rather than logic.

a reply to: Gryphon66

If full auto was allowed-imagine that. Allowed. That should tell you that there are freedoms being segregated from the people.

Anyway, if full auto was allowed, the AR15-AK variants would have selector switches and there would be few semi rifles sold.

Why are we not free to buy full auto (with out hoops and fees and restrictions)? Because it is a freedom we the people are thought not to be able to handle by our owners. Simple.

a reply to: Gryphon66

And that argument still holds. The Constitution is merely a symbol. Burn it, destroy all copies, ban ownership of it. It doesn't affect the inherent rights in any way.

The Constitution didn't grant squat. It is a legal trust between We The People and our government.

Government exists to protect rights, period full stop.

Rights exist regardless of the existence of government. Government is inferior to inherent natural rights.

Again, not seeing why this is hard to grasp.

a reply to: Gryphon66

Now you're making strawman arguments.

Is there some inherent difference between the 1st and 2nd Amendments that I am unaware of?

Seems to me that restrictions on one are just as relevant to the other.

TheRedneck

a reply to: fencesitter85

I disagree with you regarding 2As modern applicability. As long as it exists, it is a valid protection of the right of the citizenry to keep and bear arms. Where do the limits exist? Based on a literal reading, I don't think there are any. If we take the founders at face value, they viewed the armed militias as 'necessary to the security of a free state,' and if that's true, then that purpose is functionally eliminated if we were to limit the militias to obsolete technology. I don't think the founders ever intended for that to be the case, either.

On that basis, I think 2A is clearly more applicable to those semi-automatic 'assault rifles' than it is to your grandpa's old duck gun. In the 1939 Miller vs US decision, the Supreme Court actually made a ruling along those lines, finding that the NFA's restrictions on sawed off shotguns didn't violate 2A because the court could find no suitable militia purpose for a sawed off shotgun. In more recent times, there's also the 2008 Heller decision, where the court found that firearms in common use for legal purpose could not be banned under 2A. That case dealt with handguns, but with tens of millions of semi-automatic 'assault rifles' in public circulation, they'd seem to pass that test easily, too, and the fact is, there's no fundamental difference in the operation of a semi-automatic handgun and a semi-automatic 'assault rifle.' Therefore, if we accept the US Supreme Court's logic in those two cases, which I do, there's no reason to ban semi-automatic 'assault rifles', especially given that handguns are used in almost 20 times as many yearly homicides as any kind of rifle.

Background checks? We already have background checks on all new or used firearm sales that are conducted by licensed dealers and yes, their criminal and psychiatric records with the court system are checked in that process. That's a law I fully support, too. Private party sales between individuals may not require one, depending on state law, but I can fundamentally support the idea as well. In practice, it usually gets bogged down in nonsense when gun controllers make it an inheritance rights issue, or try to force background checks when a friend or relative tries a firearm at the range or while hunting in the owners' immediate vicinity/supervision. As long as they push for that, I'm going to have to withhold my support.

Likewise, with the idea of a registry, in theory, I'm indifferent to it. In practice, I don't trust those in charge not to abuse it. It doesn't matter, anyway. The government would never, ever admit it, but they already have an unofficial registry. Technically, the federal government is prohibited from maintaining a registry by the 1986 Firearms Owners Protection Act. In reality, licensed dealers are required to keep complete records of their sales for 25 years and the feds can search them any time they want. That's what the whole push for background checks on private sales is really all about. They know it will expand their de-facto registry to include ALL firearms, not just ones sold by dealers.

I suspect that we're far apart on gun rights, but I do appreciate that you seem willing to have a civil, constructive discussion of the issue. Too many non-US members aren't willing to do that.