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

a reply to: Gryphon66

In all fairness, however, "licensing" is simply the government taking away a right and then selling it back to you. "Shall not be infringed" seems to preclude licensing the right to bear and keep arms.

I own several guns, and im a fervent 2A supporter...but im far from a zealot. At least not for guns. For liberty...yeah, mea culpa.

a reply to: fencesitter85

I'm in a similar boat with you. I don't have a problem with responsible, mentally stable individuals owning or possessing firearms and it seems like common sense that the language "well-regulated" is a catch-all for determining those factors. That doesn't mean it is, of course, but I'm not a constitutional lawyer.

What drives me crazy about these discussions is the way we entrench into default positions as if picking an amendment to champion was like picking an alignment in D&D.

For example -- many who champion their rights under the second give no truck to the argument that "people v. citizens united" was a drastic reinterpretation of the first amendment/ judicial activism in the part of the SCOTUS. Yet, by giving the deepest pockets the greater access to the exercise of "free speech," singular citizens had their rights under the first truncated.

"Crickets" from the NRA/ NRA supporters on that one.

Yet, if a SCOTUS decision came down that reinterpreted the 2nd to require membership (and vetting) in a "well-regulated Militia" in order to own/ possess/ use firearms, there would be uproar.

Similarly, few speak out against asset fortification by law enforcement -- for people who are NOT convicted of a crime -- as a clear violation of the 4th. Why?

This team nonsense is killing rational thought, along with with political discourse, IMO.

originally posted by: cynicalheathen
Why even bring up the NRA? They are a bunch of charlatans. Pretending to support the rights of the individual while actually looking after the interests of the gun manufacturers.

They talk tough, right up until a gun bill which further infringes rights is passed. Then they bend over and spread to Washington while offering the mea culpas of "we had to work with them or else they'd take ALL your guns!"

The NRA is for protecting gun rights... That's the best one I've heard all week.

The NRA went from being a organization focused on gun safety to being a shill for the Gun Lobby.

The new interpretation that there can be no limitations of any sort whatever on firearms is a decades-long marketing program by the NRA.

That has never been the case, and it isn't now. A little history demonstrates this. Additionally, speaking of history, one can fairly easily discover that a lot of the gun control legislation was modeled after what Reagan did as Governor of CA ... when his interest was to keep guns out of the hands of "the wrong people."

a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

That's a general definition of governmental "licensing" that I can't argue with. Also, it gives a greater degree of control over who has what where.

"Shall not be infringed" is not absolute. It's never been absolute in over 200 years of jurisprudence.

Again, none of this is even a minor issue in 36 states ... and I've quoted Scalia on the matter until I'm nauseous.

To me, a zealot is an absolutist. I will admit I paint with a wide brush, but given the nature of most of the dialogue here ... I can't seem to manage a lot of concern to be more concise or specific.

FWIW, I don't think of you as a zealot on the issue.

a reply to: Gryphon66

i think the problem is that the NRA and its members/supporters are, as a result of increasingly close scrutiny from all corners, constantly in a hair trigger response mode. so attempts to discuss or frame the issue of gun rights, here and anywhere else, is often assumed to be a kind of 'enemy action', as it were. thus legitimate and hopefully productive debate often devolves rapidly to name-calling and argument. not always, and by no means exclusively by the pro-gun contingent, but often enough that merely commenting on the issue can become sidetracked by reflexive and exponential textual arm-wrestling.

for myself, i sit on the fence between both camps, pro and anti, and try to listen to both sides on an equal footing. but i do see that this matter is one of the most problematic and divisive facing Americans.

a reply to: 0zzymand0s

The evils of citizens united were not obvious to most for years after the fact. Same with the Smith Mundt deal....its one of those landmark issues that passes without so much as a byline mention. The gravity of what happened is realized later, once liberties have eroded.

Had Citizens United been discussed in the context of "people with more money will have a louder voice now" there may have been more movement against it. Or not....its easy to trick cockroaches into using their social mentality against them. Humans are no different. All it would take is the right social issue to push a "citizens united" issue through the courts regardless of our better judgement. In fact, it could be that the burn from such instance is what fuels much of the heels being dug in regarding 2A.

Ill tell you, as a member of NRA its ridiculous the nonsense they send out. "There is an army of legislators ready to march against your second amendment rights as we speak, and you must act to stop them" kind of nonsense. And there's no doubt that the dimwitted are easily influenced by that kind of stuff.

a reply to: Gryphon66

Im more of the kind of guy that is going to do what he wants, disregarding the law. I am amoral, as I am nonreligious. But my ethics are above reproach, so my ignorance of the law has less to do with choosing to behave in an immoral/unethical manner and more with seizing those rights which I believe are mine.

I'd say 99% of the time im in line with law. But that other 1% represents the tyranny that i quietly protest.

originally posted by: RoScoLaz5
a reply to: Gryphon66

i think the problem is that the NRA and its members/supporters are, as a result of increasingly close scrutiny from all corners, constantly in a hair trigger response mode. so attempts to discuss or frame the issue of gun rights, here and anywhere else, is often assumed to be a kind of 'enemy action', as it were. thus legitimate and hopefully productive debate often devolves rapidly to name-calling and argument. not always, and by no means exclusively by the pro-gun contingent, but often enough that merely commenting on the issue can become sidetracked by reflexive and exponential textual arm-wrestling.

for myself, i sit on the fence between both camps, pro and anti, and try to listen to both sides on an equal footing. but i do see that this matter is one of the most problematic and divisive facing Americans.

Your summation is spot on and insightful.

My position is simple; I support the US Constitution. The Second Amendment is just as vital and as much a part of our freedoms and a part of America as any of the other factors in the other 26 Amendments.

I support the right to carry. I support the right to own as many guns as anyone wants to. I have no skin in the game of "assault/semi-assault/automatic" semantics.

It is quite clear to me, however, that every right has limitations, and further, that the States are well-within their 10th Amendment rights (as well as the innate right of being a Sovreign State) to formulate such laws regarding what weapons will be available and how they are purchased IN SO LONG AS these laws are not a ban on all gun ownership, etc.

a reply to: 0zzymand0s

I have to set the record straight on this:

I am torn on the Citizens United case because I see both sides. I want to see every political advertisement simply forced to divulge all contributions over a set amount, similar to how drug or lawyer commercials must give complete disclaimers. Things would be a lot different if it took 90 seconds to list contributors, or if that list included a large number of foreign dignitaries/companies. And all it would be is a law demanding full disclosure, not some bloated 'system.'

I am wholly against asset forfeiture. It is a violation of the Constitution. Period.

I am also not, nor have I ever been, a member of the NBA. I have never sent them a single dime. They do not hold positions I find appealing on many issues, do not represent me, and like to use far too much propaganda and scare tactics in their promotions.

I have guns, and I use them for their intended purposes: food and/or protection. That's it. Leave them alone.

TheRedneck

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan
a reply to: Gryphon66

Im more of the kind of guy that is going to do what he wants, disregarding the law. I am amoral, as I am nonreligious. But my ethics are above reproach, so my ignorance of the law has less to do with choosing to behave in an immoral/unethical manner and more with seizing those rights which I believe are mine.

I'd say 99% of the time im in line with law. But that other 1% represents the tyranny that i quietly protest.

So say we all, if we are honest. (Well, not the non-religious part, sadly, all too many are, pardon the word, zealots.)

I hate the government, every level, every politician, every thing that seeks to establish power over another person.

That's an inexhaustible well of irony in reflection upon what I choose to argue about here.

originally posted by: Gryphon66


That's an inexhaustible well of irony in reflection upon what I choose to argue about here.

LOL, the human condition tends to be fairly paradoxical. We call it "rational behavior". LMAO...talk about irony.

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan

originally posted by: Gryphon66


That's an inexhaustible well of irony in reflection upon what I choose to argue about here.

LOL, the human condition tends to be fairly paradoxical. We call it "rational behavior". LMAO...talk about irony.

Indeed.

Spot on.

a reply to: fencesitter85

A hunting rifle? Fine by me as long as used for hunting. A pistol? Fine by me as long as its used for personal defense. But assault rifles and SMG's? that's over the top.

Yes the second was drafted at a time of war but that war is long over, but what the paranoid preppers and psychotic martyrs don't realise is they are not an army. A drone strike could wipe them out without warning, a strike team with flash bangs could down them without warning, so why the obsession with assault rifles?

You want a M-16? join the army as they have no place on the streets or in homes unless they are harmless replicas.

originally posted by: Thecakeisalie
a reply to: fencesitter85

A hunting rifle? Fine by me as long as used for hunting. A pistol? Fine by me as long as its used for personal defense. But assault rifles and SMG's? that's over the top.

Yes the second was drafted at a time of war but that war is long over, but what the paranoid preppers and psychotic martyrs don't realise is they are not an army. A drone strike could wipe them out without warning, a strike team with flash bangs could down them without warning, so why the obsession with assault rifles?

You want a M-16? join the army as they have no place on the streets or in homes unless they are harmless replicas.

M-16s and M-4s are pretty much impossible to get ahold of for the average citizen.

Semi-auto AR-pattern rifle =/= M-16.

Quit buying into the rhetoric.

a reply to: fencesitter85
Just a small question for you from another Englishman.
Why are you concerned about checks to acquire a weapon?
Could it be that you are gathering information to push for gun ownership in the UK?
Cos any sane rational man knows what's coming to us in the future and our wise government, since the second world war, saw fit to dis-arm the citizenry. So all you people in the Uk don't say "but we have access to firearms" yea 12 gauges and target pistols.
Sooner or later we are going to have to fight for our existence with an enemy which is slowly infiltrating our country that is well educated with weapons from an early age. Or am I being alarmist. Only you can tell.

Off the topic of guns, Citizens United is B.S.

Corporations are a juristic person, not a natural person. They are entitled to privileges, not endowed with rights. The First Amendment does not apply to a corporation.

Corporations should not be treated as being on the same level as a natural person.

a reply to: fencesitter85

I also don't think for one second that the "they're coming for your guns" rhetoric is anything other than guerrilla marketing for the weapons companies.

It's happened before in other places.

Look at what happened in Australia.

a reply to: D8Tee

The US has had several Port Arthur's, and it hasn't effected the majority opinion (or, rather, the mired down discussion involving the majority...squeaky wheels shut down discussion in both parties)

I don't think we will see what happened in Australia happen here any time soon. There is still too much rural America, not to mention the ridiculously gerrymandered voting districts.

originally posted by: crayzeed
a reply to: fencesitter85
Just a small question for you from another Englishman.
Why are you concerned about checks to acquire a weapon?
Could it be that you are gathering information to push for gun ownership in the UK?
Cos any sane rational man knows what's coming to us in the future and our wise government, since the second world war, saw fit to dis-arm the citizenry. So all you people in the Uk don't say "but we have access to firearms" yea 12 gauges and target pistols.
Sooner or later we are going to have to fight for our existence with an enemy which is slowly infiltrating our country that is well educated with weapons from an early age. Or am I being alarmist. Only you can tell.

Not sure I understand the question, but I appreciate that this site is a place for conspiracies. I had only two motives for this thread:
1. Have an interesting discussion
2. Learn some stuff

I've accomplished both. There's no need to call Mulder and Scully.

a reply to: crayzeed

yes and the channel is not very wide in places and you would be shocked at how much you can sneak in from europe on a speed boat a few cases of ak s could easily fit on one and be on your shores in about 35 minutes at narrowest part of channel.