Guns

[Danoff]

Obviously we do, and acknowledging that in the appropriate manner, as has been indicated, demonstrates the ability to redefine the text to suit societal shifts.

As I mentioned in the other thread, it isn't a matter of a societal shift so much as it is a deeper understanding of human rights. In the case of the 2nd amendment, it doesn't say "white man", I put that part in because that's what it meant at the time. We did the right thing when it came to race/gender discrimination in the law, we amended the constitution to include equal protection. So even if the 2nd amendment did say "white man" or we construed militia to only possibly be reasonably interpreted to have meant that, we'd still have to view it in a way that was consistent with equal protection.

We can develop a deeper understanding of human rights, but it's not a societal shift.

As I have asked elsewhere, why not? You indicated that it's not actually illegal to possess such things if one seeking to do so has gone through proper channels, but why are such requirements imposed for some and not others? One imagines those arms requiring further criteria be met (criteria that I'm still ignorant of, as I have never sought to acquire such an implement through proper--or illicit--means) have been deemed more of a threat if in the wrong hands, so shouldn't arms that can be modified to function in a similar manner be treated the same?

Just about anything can be modified to function in just about any way. What are guns? Metal, wood, sometimes plastic. It's all raw materials that have been modified to function in a particular manner. You could melt one down and re-form it into something else. The question is what is it. Not what it might become.

Yes I think you're exactly right that the reason that some weapons require additional levels of authorization over others has entirely to do with how much destruction it can cause - and that has a lot to do with whether the weapon effectively used to preserve liberty. It's much harder to see how a bomb (though it can be argued) can preserve an individual's rights than a pistol, and the potential for the violation of the rights of others is higher.

Keep in mind that governments are generally the entity that bombs get used against for the purpose of preserving liberty, and our government is the one deciding what's dangerous.

 

[Blood Eagle]

In a nutshell, the government classified certain guns if they met a certain criteria and destructive devices in the 1930s. Machine guns - guns that are capable of firing multiple projectiles for 1 trigger pull. Short barreled rifles - Any rifle with a stock and a barrel length under 16" and an overall length under 26". Short barreled shotguns - any shotgun with a barrel under 18" and an overall length under 26". Destructive devices - grenades, bombs , missiles, poison gas, flamethrowers, firearms with a bore over 1/2" (this does not include 10 and 12 gauge shotguns). Any Other Weapon (AOW) - cane guns, pen guns, James Bond stuff.

Semi automatic rifles like an AR15 don't meet any of that criteria unless one were to somehow convert it to full auto or put a barrel under 16" on one while retaining the shoulder stock. Example: An M4 has a 14" barrel and is capable of shooting more than 1 pound per trigger pull. AR15s are missing components in the fire control group of an M16 or M4 which has an additional setting for either fully automatic fire or a 3 round burst. These parts are regulated and you can't buy them without proof of ownership of a restricted item. These items are worth their weight in gold and mostly owned by wealthy private collectors or used on movie sets. There have been attempts to reclassify civilian approved AR and AK variants as assault weapons but they do not meet the real factual government definition of a real assault weapon. Bumpstocks do not change the rate of fire to more than 1 projectile per trigger pull therefore does not convert something to a machine gun. It's legal to take the saw to grandpa's old shotgun's barrel and stock so long as one does not cut the barrel under 18" and make the entire thing under 26".

 

[Liquid]

Posted here because it isn't directly related to the Parkland shootings.

Your gunz wont do anything. So called tyranny takeover in the usa made sense when everybody had muskets. I doubt a tyranny or a dictaorship will happen as the US political system and constituion limits any sort of dictatorship from happening.

It does but that doesn't mean it hasn't happened in other countries. It's unfair to be dismissive of the point like that however your initial point had some merit:

Good luck fighting an army which has drones, f22's and f35's and a million well trained personnel.

As TV Tropes calls it, Technology Marches On. With the advent of technology, arming yourself with conventional firearms/guns to protect yourself if the government comes knocking seems pretty pointless when, as @Pupik said in the original Parkland thread, if the bad guys really wanted to, they could drop a MOAB or Fatman into your kitchen.

There's nothing inherently wrong or immoral about self-defence and making provisions for yourself in the event of some sort of coup d'etat or change in political climate but how they would or could do it to you now is so much greater in resources compared to how they could have done it in the 1790s.

In the 1790s, the Redcoats had guns. Let's have our own guns to protect ourselves.
In the 2010s, the Generals who wear sunglasses indoors have thermonuclear devices. Should the public be entitled to maintain their own nuclear arsenal?

"Well no, the government wouldn't be stupid enough to drop nuclear devices on their own citizens."
"Yes and the government is probably not dumb or arrogant enough to use guns on their own citizens either."

et cetera, et cetera, ad nauseum

My scenario is deliberately obtuse with regards to "We need guns to defend ourselves from a hypothetical autocratic or oligarchic state". Just as a thought provoker. It isn't unreasonable to discuss changes to the existing laws.

---

Yes, I'm a fence sitter and I prefer to speculate rather than be assertive in my arguments; I don't feel qualified or experienced enough to have a reasonable opinion on a situation like this.

 

[Imari]

We can develop a deeper understanding of human rights, but it's not a societal shift.

I would have said that moving from treating blacks and women as second class citizens to equals is a pretty big societal shift. The US was essentially built with slavery, and to abolish that is a massive, massive deal. So much so that a non-trivial part of the country still disagrees with it to this day.

 

[Famine]

"Yes and the government is probably not dumb or arrogant enough to use guns on their own citizens either."

The Spanish government did so in Catalonia last year - even using weaponry that wasn't legal under Catalonian law.

 

[Liquid]

The Spanish government did so in Catalonia last year - even using weaponry that wasn't legal under Catalonian law.

Yes, it was quite strange seeing some sections of vehemently anti-gun types wondering how and why the Catalonians didn't have their own guns to defend themselves.

 

[Famine]

Yes, it was quite strange seeing some sections of vehemently anti-gun types wondering how and why the Catalonians didn't have their own guns to defend themselves.

And that was just because a bunch of people were having an opinion poll in their quasi-autonomous state that the larger state didn't want them to have. A state-sponsored military response, with illegal weapons, on civilians who were only voting (and not even that - the referendum wasn't binding).

Even today, the politicians behind that opinion poll are in prison or on the run. In Belgium.

 

[Dennisch]

Just popped up on my FB that both WalMart and Kroger raise the age limit for guns to 21, and that Apple and Amazon are getting flak for their ties with the NRA.

Which makes me wonder, if this ball keeps rolling, how long will the NRA be able to keep their position?

 

[CodeRedR51]

Just popped up on my FB that both WalMart and Kroger raise the age limit for guns to 21

Never even knew that Kroger sold guns. Their affiliate stores down here do not. Must be a regional thing.

 

[Johnnypenso]

Just popped up on my FB that both WalMart and Kroger raise the age limit for guns to 21, and that Apple and Amazon are getting flak for their ties with the NRA.

Which makes me wonder, if this ball keeps rolling, how long will the NRA be able to keep their position?

Position as what? If anything their donations and funding will increase, as will gun sales, when lawmakers threaten or impose more and more restrictions.

 

[Dennisch]

Position as what? If anything their donations and funding will increase, as will gun sales, when lawmakers threaten or impose more and more restrictions.

Their position on opposing any kind of change.

 

[Johnnypenso]

Their position on opposing any kind of change.

IMO they've taken a very literal position on the second amendment and don't really have any choice but to continue down the path that all mentally fit adults have the right to keep and bear arms. Any backing away from that position will probably do them in as an organization. It's what their members want and expect. Coincidentally, any time the 2A is threatened, their position is strengthened and donations and activity surge.

 

[Dennisch]

all mentally fit adults have the right to keep and bear arms.

It's seems that that isn't the issue apart from raising the limit to 21, ignoring the flakes who want to ban all guns of course.

 

[Joey D]

Companies removing ties with the NRA makes me happy. Nice to see the free market working the way it should.

It is funny how bent out of shape people are getting they can no longer save a few bucks with their membership. If you support what the NRA does, then you'll continue giving them money. If you only had a membership for the discounts, then you'll just go somewhere else.

Never even knew that Kroger sold guns. Their affiliate stores down here do not. Must be a regional thing.

Me either. We had Kroger stores in Michigan and we have Smith's out here in Utah, both only sell food and a handful of home goods. I know they own Fred Meyer though and I think its more like a gigantic Target store than anything else, so maybe they sell guns?

 

[TexRex]

I know they own Fred Meyer though and I think its more like a gigantic Target store than anything else, so maybe they sell guns?

Not to those under 21.

 

[Michael88]

Oh, just felt like throwing that link into the discussion, for all those that always say that guns in the hands of civilians don't help in emergencies and that they are too dumb and unskilled to react properly.

Mass shootings stopped by legal handgun owners: http://memepoliceman.com/list-of-mass-shootings-stopped-by-armed-civilians/

 

[Johnnypenso]

It's seems that that isn't the issue apart from raising the limit to 21, ignoring the flakes who want to ban all guns of course.

Most people consider the age at which you become an adult lower than 21 so I'd assume they'd oppose that measure.

 

[Dennisch]

Most people consider the age at which you become an adult lower than 21 so I'd assume they'd oppose that measure.

And kids nowadays need to be told not to eat laundry detergents. Times changes. So it's probably for the best that laws and regulations change with it.

 

[Johnnypenso]

And kids nowadays need to be told not to eat laundry detergents. Times changes. So it's probably for the best that laws and regulations change with it.

I'm sure the NRA position would be that when Tide Pods are outlawed give us a call. Hard to legislate against stupidity.

 

[TexRex]

*cough*

 

[Dennisch]

Never even knew that Kroger sold guns. Their affiliate stores down here do not. Must be a regional thing.

Me either. We had Kroger stores in Michigan and we have Smith's out here in Utah, both only sell food and a handful of home goods. I know they own Fred Meyer though and I think its more like a gigantic Target store than anything else, so maybe they sell guns?

They even have chemical weapons.

 

[Northstar]

After thinking about the increased age limit I'm actually kind of happy it failed and also wonder why the NRA didn't actually push it. It very much feels like it was a piece of feel good legislation that probably wouldn't actually prevent things like Parkland from happening considering the failsafes already in place failed miserably. Had the NRA pushed it they could save face by saying they are willing to compromise while at the same time getting the furor to calm faster.

Now that it's failed, the firestorm is even stonger so there is more pressure on politicians to actually do something. This of course will probably also fail though once society moves onto the next hot button issue like whether or not something is a sandwich.

 

[Johnnypenso]

After thinking about the increased age limit I'm actually kind of happy it failed and also wonder why the NRA didn't actually push it. It very much feels like it was a piece of feel good legislation that probably wouldn't actually prevent things like Parkland from happening considering the failsafes already in place failed miserably. Had the NRA pushed it they could save face by saying they are willing to compromise while at the same time getting the furor to calm faster.

Now that it's failed, the firestorm is even stonger so there is more pressure on politicians to actually do something. This of course will probably also fail though once society moves onto the next hot button issue like whether or not something is a sandwich.

I'd guess their thinking is because it's a slippery slope. Compromise one thing, then you are seen as unreasonable if you don't comprimise on the next reasonable thing and it never ends. You know their opposition isn't going to be happy until all the guns are out of the hands of law abiding citizens and only in the hands of the criminals so why even bother to try and appease them when they'll never be appeased?

 

[mustafur]

If your Law abiding citizens kill 50 plus from a Building and nearly 20 at a school wonder what the criminals do.

Because it seems like each side wants the extreme no one gets common sense policy.

 

[LMSCorvetteGT2]

If your Law abiding citizens kill 50 plus from a Building and nearly 20 at a school wonder what the criminals do.

Because it seems like each side wants the extreme no one gets common sense policy.

They were law abiding? Because last time I checked those doing mass killings aren't law abiding no matter what tool they use.

 

[Imari]

I'd guess their thinking is because it's a slippery slope. Compromise one thing, then you are seen as unreasonable if you don't comprimise on the next reasonable thing and it never ends. You know their opposition isn't going to be happy until all the guns are out of the hands of law abiding citizens and only in the hands of the criminals so why even bother to try and appease them when they'll never be appeased?

It's unfortunate because it's not a slippery slope. There isn't free access to weapons now, there are controls and restrictions. Changing some of those isn't a slippery slope, it's just adapting to a modern weapons market.

It's a shame it's degenerated into this all or nothing argument, where one side wants the broadest interpretation of the ability to bear arms possible and the other is zero firearms (although I'm not sure I've actually seen anyone make that argument). Realistically, the idea is to restrict arms to people who either need them or are proven trustworthy and capable of handing them, and only up to levels of power that actually make sense with modern weapons. But that requires having a reasoned discussion, which is something that you can't do with slogans, billboards and attack ads.

 

[mustafur]

They were law abiding? Because last time I checked those doing mass killings aren't law abiding no matter what tool they use.

It also seems to be perfectly law abiding for mentally unstable people to purchase guns legally.

Alot of the last big shootings have all been legal purchases, if there isn't something to learn from this it's a downward spiral, as more copy the tactics.

Removing bump stocks, and more thorough mental health checks surely are reasonable steps.

 

[LMSCorvetteGT2]

It also seems to be perfectly law abiding for mentally unstable people to purchase guns legally.

No it doesn't and in many cases they're suppose to say that they are. Virginia tech shooter had court ordered psych and didn't specify it for the background, thus not law abiding.

Alot of the last big shootings have all been legal purchases, if there isn't something to learn from this it's a downward spiral, as more copy the tactics.

Removing bump stocks, and more thorough mental health checks surely are reasonable steps.

No one disagrees with that to some extent, so what are you arguing? Can't call it law abiding if there is something with in the background that goes unsaid or not enforced that would have stopped said purchase in the first place. Vegas is the only situation I can think of that isn't the case.

 

[mustafur]

No it doesn't and in many cases they're suppose to say that they are. Virginia tech shooter had court ordered psych and didn't specify it for the background, thus not law abiding.


No one disagrees with that to some extent, so what are you arguing? Can't call it law abiding if there is something with in the background that goes unsaid or not enforced that would have stopped said purchase in the first place. Vegas is the only situation I can think of that isn't the case.

I can call it incompetent as a regulation that you need them to confess rather then find the problem.

Technically not law abiding, but the fact is the person who sold to the shooter didn't break any laws himself that he was actually aware of and that's a massive problem.

 

[Northstar]

I can call it incompetent as a regulation that you need them to confess rather then find the problem.

Currently medical records are very protected so you would be opening a whole different can of worms by going down that route. Granted it's a can that probably needs to be opened, but than you would have the ACLU on your back and they are on an entirely different level than the NRA.

https://www.aclu.org/blog/disability-rights/gun-control-laws-should-be-fair