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

a reply to: Byrd

It doesn't matter if you think it is true or not. Truth is black and white and we have documents which show the intent. The American revolution had to rely on the French for arms towards the middle of the war as well as the easy taking of Ticonderoga early on due to it's condition. The forefathers of this nation wanted to make sure it's population would never have that problem again.

Why bring up bombs? Red herring much? Why bring up eminent domain? That's a legit law. You can't just decide that you alone are going to go against a law you disagree with. If the POPULATION determines the government has become a tyranny, the POPULACE will react, not a single person mad about eminent domain.

Those are logical fallacies often used in the gun debate.

Edit: Yes, many colonists had guns of their own leftover from the French and Indian War, but did you know the British tried to confiscate all those guns in 1775? What year was it the revolutionary war began? Those were also long guns and small arms. While effective to start a battle, they were not what lasted through the war.

A well armed populace only needs access to enough weapons to get access to more weapons, much like what happened in the Revolutionary war.

originally posted by: icanteven
a reply to: fencesitter85

- Ban certain types of firearms and accessories (those with silencers, magazines over a certain threshold, etc.)

And yet even here, in the land of Extreme Gun Control aka the UK (and in common with many other European countries) we are pro-suppressor because they mitigate noise nuisance and reduce exposure to peak sound levels that can damage hearing.

Once again, we have a poster trying to legislate based on what they've seen in a James Bond film. See my previous posts for my thoughts on this

originally posted by: EvillerBob

originally posted by: icanteven
a reply to: fencesitter85

- Ban certain types of firearms and accessories (those with silencers, magazines over a certain threshold, etc.)

And yet even here, in the land of Extreme Gun Control aka the UK (and in common with many other European countries) we are pro-suppressor because they mitigate noise nuisance and reduce exposure to peak sound levels that can damage hearing.

Once again, we have a poster trying to legislate based on what they've seen in a James Bond film. See my previous posts for my thoughts on this

I have been improved wrong on the silencer, and thank you for bringing it to my attention.

As an aside, I read the second paragraph of your post with a cockney accent... An wha do we 'ave 'ere? Another pooster...

a reply to: EvillerBob

it would be great if i could legally use a suppressor while hunting. No one wants to carry their ears with them into a blind (or, jesus why, while stalking). Since its only a few shots a year, i just deal with it. Being able to reduce that would be really helpful.

a reply to: fencesitter85

The Second Amendment doesn't grant anything. It only recognizes a God given right to self defense. But what only a very few souls know, is that back in 1922, the U.S. permanently Federalized those State Militias ( Regular ). This was to follow the League of Nation's manpower requirements. But we never joined the League, so the National Guard is just a division of the U.S. Army. This enabling law also created a U.S. supplied and trained, Irregular Militia drawn from the common people. So really all of the gun control nonsense is violating a Federal Law, even though the Congress has welched on the money needed to equip and train the common folks. One solution is to de-mobilize the National Guard back into the State Militias, by repealing that 1922 Law. The States have been getting the short end of the stick, right along. Only Neil Knox really understood the finer points about this law. Now that he's gone, it will probably meander along until some State sues the Feds to fish or cut bait.

a reply to: peter vlar
I don't claim to possess superior wisdom. It's clear that you think you do, though, based on the tone of your response. But I digress.

Your post is filled with logical fallacies, and I'm not about to go through and point out each one. But I will address what you said about silencers. I was proven wrong on that by another poster, so I accept it and move on. By all means, if you're concerned about protecting your hearing, use a silencer and ear coverings. And don't target practice too much, I guess.

My list didn't address whether something is a law or not or constitutional or not. I wasn't making a comment about current law. The list of things I wrong are things I believe are sensible. It's great the some states and municipalities have them. I didn't know there was a quiz.

Ugh - firearms policy is such a rat hole to fall into. I regret being suckered in again, so this is my last post on this thread.

a reply to: fencesitter85

Weapons in the time of the Revolutionary war were the equalizer to offset the military. Farm cannons were brought in to use against the British, rifles and muskets were owned privately and were used against the the British as well. People complain that semi auto AR15's don't need to be in the hands of civilians, I disagree. It is what we are "allowed" still and now a days we can never be equalized against any government. Todays government have attack helicopters, stealth planes, drones, naval fleets, and chemical/biological/nuclear weapons. When I hear people call for removed "weapons" of war like the semi auto AR15 or AK47 type rifles I call bulls#it. They have no idea what they are saying, this is all we have these days. As it is we are not allowed to have flame throwers, RPGs, tanks, any automatic weapons (with exceptions of tax stamps for this one), etc. Nothing in comparison to what our military has to evenly offset it.

Today's civilians are yesterdays militia, it's all we have to protect ourselves from lawless anarchy mobs and rouge invading governments. I'm for background checks, sure, but that's all, even working in law enforcement after decades of being a private citizen. I interpret shall not be infringed to be just that, no restrictions on what we can have. It was created for a purpose.

a reply to: fencesitter85

Hi mate,

From LA but lived in London for years, the debate you see playing out in the media is just a circus trick. The second amendment was written long ago so that citizens could rebel against a corrupt government.

While people scramble to grasp onto whichever side of the circus, the corruption goes unnoticed and unreported and meanwhile the government has amassed an unequivocal amount of firepower and manpower.

The only gun control should be on the government, and the people should have access to firearms except in limited circumstances. Background checks and other measures are sensible and should be followed strictly. Felons of gun related crimes should never be allowed to buy a gun ever again. I'm not an expert but that's my opinion.

The US government has the most sophisticated weaponry on the planet, we have lost the battle that the bill of rights fought so hard to protect us from. Our liberty is gone in the form of mass surveillance and controlled media swaying public opinion. People are brainwashed to think that the battle rages on between the left and right over the 2nd Amendment, but in reality it's a circus trick.

I don't want to be unarmed if a burglar breaks into my home, but I'm not starting a revolution with a hand gun either.

a reply to: Byrd

I have to say, it is simply untrue that to take over the government we have to get our people into office.

You either have not thought about this topic long and deliberately enough or misunderstand how the government operates. There is a clear systemic problem that cannot be fixed by "our people" and that is the size and role of government in America. Also there is a clandestine element to all governments that is not effected directly by elections and politics.

a reply to: fencesitter85

I am a 37 year old male who believes in what I preach. I'm not a gun loving, god fearing, mindless follower. I believe that if you don't bother me, I won't bother you. When I read the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, I see more than just legal precedents to be manipulated to fit any cause. Look at things as a whole. Every sentence talks about uniting the people and limiting the power we the people give to our elected representatives. Our forefathers had the knowledge of political corruption, and gave us the powers to subvert individuals that would try to destroy our nation. From the press, speech, and freedom of religion allowing us to investigate and congregate about corruption, to our right to bear arms for the protection of not only our own selves, but for our brothers and sisters around us. Every word, every phrase, giving the people the power to reign wrong doings back in to our righteous beliefs. My view of the discussion starts now!

This is a very welcome discussion to educate others. The 2nd amendment was created by our forefathers so that we the people, can keep the government in check. We broke free from the oppressive taxes and tariffs placed upon us unjustly by the use of firearms that could match the British army. When you are as well armed as your opponent you are then equal and not an underling.

By placing a ban on assault weapons, the government would be giving itself the upper hand against rebellion. (Think of a just rebellion where the government acts as an oppressor, no longer working for the people, but making the people work for the government.) Assault style weapons, are only a danger in the hands of a criminal. Criminals are not concerned about the legality of the weapon they intend to use. A ban on assault rifles only hurts law abiding citizens.

Registry is also a bad idea for much of the same reasons. If the government knows where every firearm is supposedly housed, they can then disarm law abiding citizens who could be potential rebellion leaders.

Background checks go against the whole system of innocence until proven guilty. Just because a person has been depressed, has autism, or some other so called mental disorder, should not be a consideration to own or use a firearm. Such a law places guilt on people with disorders, without the committal of any crimes. Again, I will restate that CRIMINALS, will simply disregard this law. Again only law abiding citizens get hurt.


Now let's add in something that would be helpful and not harmful to law abiding citizens. Why not offer gun safety classes nation wide on a monthly basis. Where a trained instructor can help people learn about their firearm and the proper usage of it. Proper cleaning techniques, correct grip, suggestions for the right size of gun for an intended use.

Open more firing ranges, and invite local 4h clubs, NRA members, and law enforcement to engage with people about guns. Promote safety, and proper procedures in a friendly manner. An environment where guns are present in a cool and calm atmosphere, where you promote confidence and the idea of using a gun as a last resort. The communication alone with local law enforcement would stop most of the crime before it even happens.

Well that is my argument and suggestions for guns. If you would like to speak about any part of it, just send me a message, I'm glad to hear constructive opinions.

[Sirius, Can we have a discussion about anti-gun control laws? Educate me :-)

In regards to a "well regulated militia" you have to understand their context in that era of time. Well regulated today many are going to think "red tape" and conditions/controls that need to be meet in order to do something. Try building a house today and look at all the regulations you need to hurdle. Well regulated in the context of 200-300 years ago was more about conditioning. A well regulated clock. (Machine..ie) as in "well maintained and proper working order". Guns are a mere tool. They're efficiently effective and that's why they want to control them. You don't see an cries to ban rope because whites were lynching blacks decades ago or knives because of stabbings. Well regulated in this context would mean such weapons. A militia in proper working order would need today's tools to be in proper working condition. I don't expect to still be using muskets. Would we still be using an abacus or Windows 3.1 in todays business world? I know.. different context but it is all about your view.

I'm in my early-mid forties. The older I have gotten I've seen it is more about perspective. Glass half full/empty kind of things and politics is exactly that. How we look at it. I feel the tangent branching off and its about myself and not needing the government for anything (personally). I could go on more here but I'll slow down.

Lastly, my education (before it was so polluted and re-written as we see it today) taught me the constitution and bill of rights were purposely written in a manner that it could span time. It was written to be interpreted for the time and as constraints for a government, not constraints for its people. WE THE PEOPLE set the limits for the government. As for Amendments. It is also purposely structured as a difficult process (to make absolutely really-really sure) we want to do this. 2/3 of both houses and 3/4 of all states must approve it before passage.

I think we have enough laws. I think we need to enforce the ones we have and they need to use Trumps Executive Order on executive regulations as a template for the legislature. (For every new proposed item one must be abolished.) That's another topic.

-Cheers from across the pond!

but she can never speak proper english. how weird.

originally posted by: cynicalheathen
a reply to: ForteanOrg

In the 2nd Amendment text, does it say "right of the people" or "right of the Militia"?

The right to self-defense is never obsolete.

Governments throughout history have always respected their citizens and have never gone on genocidal killing sprees...

Second amendment: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." So, though the English is not really what we are used to today - it is totally clear what he meant. You don't bring up the militia if you don't have a very good reason for it.

In modern English he would have written: "Because a well regulated Militia is necessary to secure a free State, to that end the people should be allowed to keep and bear Arms." I guess that if you live in a neck of the woods where wild boars, bears and Southern women live, you need arms to defend yourself. In all other cases, the arms clearly are only meant to be used when you are part of that "well regulated Militia".

Yes, governments have killed millions. But in the US, you don' t need a government to kill the citizens. The citizens take care of that themselves...

a reply to: mcsjr454

Excellent synopsis! Bravo!

Here in Alabama, a law was passed some time back that required a state-provided gun safety course to be completed in order to obtain a concealed carry permit (not sure how that applies today, since we just passed another law allowing unpermitted concealed carry). I always thought that, if overreach had to exist, that was a relatively good form of overreach.

In High School JROTC in my day, we had a weapons instructor. We took trips to the nearby Armory and practised with actual military weapons. I have fired an M-1 and an M-16... not too shabby with the M-16. No one ever got hurt. Our instructor was a harsh stickler for gun safety, and everyone learned a lot about guns in general from him.

The issues we in America face today come not from guns, but from the lack of education, formal and societal, in how to use them and how to interact with others. My father taught me from an early age three simple rules that I, in turn, passed to my children and fully expect them to pass down to theirs:

• Always assume every gun is loaded and off safety.
  
• Never point a gun at anything you don't intend to kill, even inadvertently.
  
• Only kill for food or self-protection.

Every single gun crime or gun accident can be traced to a violation of one of those rules. Every one.

TheRedneck

a reply to: Byrd

You're right, the constitution WAS meant to be changed, and the methods allowing such change are prescribed in said document. All you need are 2/3rds of both houses, and 3/4ths of the states or the people and/or a constitutional convention...

Have at it.

Jaden

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: mcsjr454

Excellent synopsis! Bravo!

Here in Alabama, a law was passed some time back that required a state-provided gun safety course to be completed in order to obtain a concealed carry permit (not sure how that applies today, since we just passed another law allowing unpermitted concealed carry). I always thought that, if overreach had to exist, that was a relatively good form of overreach.

In High School JROTC in my day, we had a weapons instructor. We took trips to the nearby Armory and practised with actual military weapons. I have fired an M-1 and an M-16... not too shabby with the M-16. No one ever got hurt. Our instructor was a harsh stickler for gun safety, and everyone learned a lot about guns in general from him.

The issues we in America face today come not from guns, but from the lack of education, formal and societal, in how to use them and how to interact with others. My father taught me from an early age three simple rules that I, in turn, passed to my children and fully expect them to pass down to theirs:

• Always assume every gun is loaded and off safety.
  
• Never point a gun at anything you don't intend to kill, even inadvertently.
  
• Only kill for food or self-protection.

Every single gun crime or gun accident can be traced to a violation of one of those rules. Every one.

TheRedneck

Same three rules here.

0 firearm related accidents.
4 firearm related self defense uses.
0 persons shot.
From Grandpa to his now 9 descendants.

a reply to: ForteanOrg

You obviously haven't been paying attention, even rewritten the way you stated, which isn't how it would've been written in modern times btw, it still doesn't say what you want it to.

The first part is a qualifier, not a caveat. It is stating that because a well regulated (practiced) militia (gathering of the general populace when called to arms) is necessary to the security of a free state (Not controlled and limited by the government beyond what the people have granted the government the authority to control and limit), the right of the PEOPLE (individual citizens) shall not be INFRINGED (controlled, limited or altered).

The above is a comprehensive description of the 2A as all of the documents from the times and illustrations from the coiners suggest. Not any where NEAR what you wrote regarding its meaning.

The point of mentioning a well regulated militia was only giving a qualification as to WHY the right of the people to bear arms shouldn't be infringed. They needed to practice regularly and that meant having the arms themselves. It was considered a responsibility of every citizen to be well practiced (regulated) so that when a call to arms was necessary (call for a militia to form), they were prepared. A militia could be and was expected to be formed for either foreign invasion OR for a governmental overreach.

Jaden