I don't know. I really don't care what that collection of slave-raping plutocrats meant, but
"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."
seems pretty straightforward to me.
I don't think you have to ignore the "well-regulated militia" part in order to see that it says the people have the right to own guns.
What you replied with isn't what you asked.
Is the constitution of the US worth more than 26 lives? Yes.
Better question is, can you legislate away irresponsible behavior?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
What you replied with isn't what you asked.
Is the constitution of the US worth more than 26 lives? Yes.
Better question is, can you legislate away irresponsible behavior?
The behavior, no.
The toys that make the behavior far worse, yes.
|
[thread derailment]
A few people in this thread have referred to AR-15's as "automatic weapons" and "military grade"...
Neither is true...
Does an AR-15 look like an M-16/M-4? Yeah, but crack an AR-15 open and you'll see a different firearm from an M-16/M-4... Because the receivers are different between the two...
Can some of the parts of an M-16/M-4 be used in an AR-15? Yes, but NOT the most important part, the sear (that's the part that actually makes a fully automatic machnine gun go "rat-a-tat-tat")... That part will simple not fit within an AR-15 receiver. And if you just put the other parts of an M-16/M-4 in an AR-15 then you've made a firearm that is: a) Illegal (because it is considered "intent to manufacture a machine gun") b) Dangerous, as the firearm could very easily blow up because of an out of battery discharge, and c) Simply malfunction, because it was not designed to be used in that fashion...
Also, because it is not a "military grade" firearm, it is not automatic, but semi-auto, which means one pull of the trigger per round fired...
So, an AR-15 is no different than any other semi-auto rifle or handgun. It just looks like different...
[/end thread derailment]
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
DIgital elf:
Look, the damned gun is shooting an awful lot of bullets at a rate of fire far greater than any purpose other than killing a whole lot of people in a very short amount of time. That makes it a military weapon.
|
|
DIgital elf:
Look, the damned gun is shooting an awful lot of bullets at a rate of fire far greater than any purpose other than killing a whole lot of people in a very short amount of time. That makes it a military weapon.
And this can be achieved with EVERY OTHER semi-auto firearm on the market today; handgun or rifle, makes no difference... SAME AS EVERY OTHER SEMI-AUTO FIREARM ON THE MARKET TODAY!
An AR-15 only looks like a military rifle, but I guess looks are all that matter huh?
One can buy a 100 round drum magazine for ANY rifle or handgun on the market today, but let’s go after the AR-15 because it looks so darn evil compared to other firearms that are EQUALLY as capable of doing the same thing.
But those get a free pass because they aren't the ones being used in crimes like Connecticut right (they’re not as popular, so they don’t count I guess)?
...but suggesting that it can't be amended or completely scrapped because it's somehow perfect is absurd at best, decidedly diabolical at worst.
I did not do this thing. Not agreeing that the current gun laws in CT didn't go far enough, is not the same as saying the constitution can not be amended. Since there are quite a few amendments, that would be a ludicrous position to take.
Restricting these items seems like common sense to me...
Hey Scott, there it is again...
...but then again I live in a country where armed militias and street gangs don't roam the streets in a state of constant war, a veritable post apocalyptic hell scape, where the only way to survive is to have a weapon ready at all times.
I don't live in one of those either.
What you replied with isn't what you asked.
Is the constitution of the US worth more than 26 lives? Yes.
I mean, shiznit, if America's foreign policy goals are worth half a million dead babies, then the Constitution's got to be worth at least a couple of dozen.
An AR-15 only looks like a military rifle, but I guess looks are all that matter huh?
If all you can do is turn anything that's said against your position into a caricature of a gun opponent, even when what was said is the EXACT OPPOSITE of the words you are putting into my mouth, then you do not have, nor will you ever have, anything to add to the conversation because you are not having a conversation you are yelling at an empty chair.
One can buy a 100 round drum magazine for ANY rifle or handgun on the market today, but let’s go after the AR-15 because it looks so darn evil compared to other rifles that are EQUALLY as capable of doing the same thing...
Or you know, ban 100 round drum magazines or come up with a mechanism for slowing down the rate of fire.
5 Guns to Buy Before the Ban
Well, when someone points out that your best investment is a 15 dollar clip rather than the 300 dollar gun its a pretty good bet they believe their own hype at least.
If the Second Amendment isn't worth 26 lives, is gun control worth 82?
...but suggesting that it can't be amended or completely scrapped because it's somehow perfect is absurd at best, decidedly diabolical at worst.I did not do this thing. Not agreeing that the current gun laws in CT didn't go far enough, is not the same as saying the constitution can not be amended. Since there are quite a few amendments, that would be a ludicrous position to take.Then explain to me why the 2nd amendment is more valuable then even one life?
It's like Bill Hicks said about the American flag: NSFW language
Are you even reading what I've posted?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
What you replied with isn't what you asked.
Is the constitution of the US worth more than 26 lives? Yes.
Better question is, can you legislate away irresponsible behavior?
No, the real question is why you think there's a constitutionally guaranteed right to an Ar-15
You have a right to bear arms, but its not unlimited. There are reasonable restrictions on them. You cannot own a tank, a nuke, armed missles, or machine guns. There is a balance between your right to be armed and everyone elses right not to live in a constant hail of gunfire that is already laid out in the law. Tilting that law slightly one way or the other is not by any means tearing up the Constitution.
|
|
Really? 100 round drums for any rifle or handgun? I assume you mean semi-auto, since I have trouble seeing that for revolvers or bolt action rifles.
Yes, semi-auto...
Even so, I don't think that's true.
Any semi-auto pistol?
It is true... Here's an example: For the Colt 1911
Now, the less popular the handgun, the harder it would be to find a higher than normal capacity magazine for it (like anything more than say, 25 rounds)...
And I will say, that 32 round magazines for handguns are by far more prevalent than magazines that hold 50 rounds and above.
So we just have to ban the magazines then, right?
Perhaps, but there are far more high capacity magazines out there than there are firearms for them to be used for. California has a ban on the sale or importation of any magazine that can hold more than 10 rounds, but quite honestly, only us law abiders are the ones not using them...
|
Sooooo... all this about cows producing greenhouse gases via flatulence is a hoax?
Hoax? No... but certainly not the major issue it is sometimes painted as.
See, in that case the cows are emitting methane rather than carbon dioxide. The greenhouse effect of methane is significantly greater than that of carbon dioxide both because of its chemical composition and because the atmosphere is less 'saturated' with methane.
HOWEVER, there is one little problem with the 'methane emissions from cow farts are a huge cause of global warming' bit... specifically, methane doesn't last long in the atmosphere before it breaks down into water and... carbon dioxide (refer back to carbon cycle circle). Methane doesn't remain in the atmosphere and accumulate the way that carbon dioxide does. Thus, the only way to significantly increase the amount of methane in the atmosphere from cows would be to significantly increase the number of cows... which frankly isn't sustainable.
That said, the 'do not eat meat' people do have a partial point... if there were no cows at all, the level of methane in the atmosphere would drop quite a bit. Maybe enough to produce ~0.1 C worth of cooling in the short term (as opposed to the ~0.8 C warming from greenhouse gas increases since the industrial revolution). Of course... that would require killing all the cows. At which point I really have to question how this is more 'humane'.
If you had 100 billion people eating, breathing and growing crops for food, that would mean the same amount of emissions due to human breathing etc as 0 people eating, breathing and growing crops, so long as the 100 billion people did not use carbon-emitting fuels?
More people emit more carbon... but they also take in more carbon. Indeed, since our bodies are partially MADE of carbon, humans count as short term carbon sinks... that is, over our lifetimes we take in more carbon than we release. Even after death we tend to seal our bodies underground or cremate them and seal the ashes away somewhere... both of which can sequester some of that carbon for hundreds to thousands of years.
In short, contrary to the paranoid 'controlling carbon levels means killing humans' ravings sometimes found in the blogosphere... natural human processes actually DECREASE the level of atmospheric CO2.
Are you even reading what I've posted?...but suggesting that it can't be amended or completely scrapped because it's somehow perfect is absurd at best, decidedly diabolical at worst.I did not do this thing. Not agreeing that the current gun laws in CT didn't go far enough, is not the same as saying the constitution can not be amended. Since there are quite a few amendments, that would be a ludicrous position to take.Then explain to me why the 2nd amendment is more valuable then even one life?
It's like Bill Hicks said about the American flag: NSFW language
It's alright, Kryzbie, no one reads my stuff anymore, either.
What you replied with isn't what you asked.
Is the constitution of the US worth more than 26 lives? Yes.
Better question is, can you legislate away irresponsible behavior?No, the real question is why you think there's a constitutionally guaranteed right to an Ar-15
You have a right to bear arms, but its not unlimited. There are reasonable restrictions on them. You cannot own a tank, a nuke, armed missles, or machine guns. There is a balance between your right to be armed and everyone elses right not to live in a constant hail of gunfire that is already laid out in the law. Tilting that law slightly one way or the other is not by any means tearing up the Constitution.
Dunno. Going to have to think about this one.
My problem, when things come up like this, is that you're limiting the rights of others because of the actions of a few.
I am:Are you even reading what I've posted?Then explain to me why the 2nd amendment is more valuable then even one life?
It's like Bill Hicks said about the American flag: NSFW language
Is the constitution of the US worth more than 26 lives? Yes.
For the thousands that have died for it, the resounding answer is yes.
|
|
I don't think you have to ignore the "well-regulated militia" part in order to see that it says the people have the right to own guns.
The clearest proof against the 'individual right' interpretation of the 2nd amendment is the fact that it didn't EXIST 50 years ago. The supreme court had upheld laws prohibiting firearms ownership over and over again without the argument even coming up.
That said, given that the militia acts passed at the same time REQUIRED all able bodied men to purchase a rifle (contrary to another recent Supreme Court ruling that congress cannot compel people to buy a product) and attend regular militia drills there originally was no effective difference between the 'militia right' and the 'individual right'. However, after the War of 1812 showed the complete inadequacy of the militia system and the country switched back to a standing army the interpretation was very clearly that the armed forces could have weapons, but the states could and did regulate civilian access to firearms.
Of course, if we were to pretend that claims like Scalia's of 'textualism' in Constitutional interpretation were more than sophist BS we'd follow the doctrine that the 2nd amendment could only apply to things which existed at the time it was written. In which case... the 2nd amendment allowed long disbanded state militias and/or individuals to own muzzle loading firearms with which an expert could fire a couple of shots per MINUTE. Modern firearms did not exist and thus CANNOT be covered by the 2nd amendment. Funny how flexible 'textualist interpretation' actually turns out to be.
|
|
If all you can do is turn anything that's said against your position into a caricature of a gun opponent, even when what was said is the EXACT OPPOSITE of the words you are putting into my mouth...
So there's another way to take: "the damned gun is shooting an awful lot of bullets at a rate of fire far greater than any purpose other than killing a whole lot of people in a very short amount of time. That makes it a military weapon"
You said "the gun", meaning the AR-15, which says you are singling that gun out...
I said the AR-15 is no different from every other semi-auto on the market, because every other semi-auto on the market can do the exact same thing.
So then, why are you singling that gun out and not the other semi-autos (because again, those others can do the exact same thing)?
Or you know, ban 100 round drum magazines or come up with a mechanism for slowing down the rate of fire.
Ban 100 round magazines? If only!
I could live with JUST a ban on 100 round magazines. But I seriously do not believe you want just that...
As for a slower rate of fire, it's called single action... Unfortunately, you'll probably get your ban of AR-15's (which is silly because they really are no different than any other semi-auto, but whatever)... But good luck however, with trying to ban generic semi-auto firearms.
Are you even reading what I've posted?It's alright, Kryzbie, no one reads my stuff anymore, either.
I do, if it's any consolation.
My problem, when things come up like this, is that you're limiting the rights of others because of the actions of a few.
WHAT rights?
You're taking it as a given that its peoples right to own an AR 15, which is the very thing I'm questioning. You can't use the question as the answer.
Right now, any citizen that doesn't fit into a number of caveats (feons, mentaly ill, etc.) can own an AR-15.
If it's not protected by the 2nd Amendment or not, the SCotUS will have to decide.
Whether or not I think it should be, is beside the point. And frankly, I dunno.
You're taking it as a given that its peoples right to own an AR 15, which is the very thing I'm questioning.Again with the AR-15! Internally they are EXACTLY the same as any other semi-auto rifle; there is NO difference mechanically!
Then ban semi automatic rifles. I have no problem with that. They serve no useful function.
I'm talking about any serviceman, ever, that swore an oath to uphold it, and died in service to it.
Of course I wasn't talking about the children.
The hyperbole is strong with this one.
|
|
Then ban semi automatic rifles. I have no problem with that. They serve no useful function.
You have no problem with banning them because they clearly do not serve any useful function TO YOU...
But the fact, the FACT, that the AR-15 is THE single most popular rifle in America speaks volumes to the effect that it (and by default, semi-automatic firearms) do indeed serve a useful function to the millions of responsible gun owners in America...
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
While I disagree with many of the NRA's politics and am not currently a member, the sad fact is that they are the most effect gun ownership advocacy group in the United States. Those of us who are firearms owners and who find the concept that criminals will somehow decide not to break laws that would empower them excessively laughable
Really?
The evidence suggests that more restrictive gun laws are actually fairly effective in reducing criminal gun violence.
Why do you find this laughable? Because it flies in the face of the 30 seconds of thought you decided to give the issue before deciding on a stance?
have few other options in the face of the constant campaign to demonize firearms and firearms ownership.
Firearms and their owners do a perfectly fine job of demonizing themselves. Just as there is no War on Christmas or War on Christianity or War on Traditional Marriage, you are not being persecuted. Stop acting like you are.
I find the phrase “shall not be infringed upon” relatively straight forward
Me too! So, presumably, you're in favor of private nuclear weapon ownership, right?
and am often appalled at how freely others are willing to try to look the other way while others stomp rampantly over the Constitution.
No, just your silly interpretation of it.
To me it is akin to requiring testing for voting rights and determining “how much negro” is in one’s ancestry to determine if they should legally be considereda person.
Really? You place the right to own any firearm you want on par with the ability to have a say in how you are governed? That is how important unregulated firearm ownership is, to you?
The belief that one can and should pass laws based on horrible outlier events is beyond stupid to me.
We're not passing laws based on outlier events. We're passing laws based on evidence. All the outlier events are doing is providing the impetus. It's really kind of terrible that it takes a mass murder to kickstart the legislative process, but unfortunately the NRA and rabid gun owners have systematically shut down discussion of firearms regulation over the past thirty years.
You won't let us talk about gun control normally, so I guess we'll have to talk about it now.
It’s reprehensible and irresponsible in the extreme
No, it's not.
You're throwing those words around like they are appropriate here. "Reprehensible" is the massacre of twenty schoolkids. "Irresponsible" is allowing your mentally unstable son to gain access to three of your six firearms.
Enacting reasonable gun control measures in the face of appalling levels of gun violence compared to nearly all other first-world countries is neither of those things.
and I’m saddened and disappointed to see so much support for it here amongst others that I otherwise respect.
If you're unwilling to give their positions an intellectually honest examination, you never really respected them in the first place. And your post is anything but.
5. To those stating that the NRA or responsible gun owners should somehow feel responsible for the acts of morons or sociopaths who happen to also own or have stolen firearms: I would equate that the loved ones of the victims of the idiots who have maimed or killed others “because role playing games made them do it” asking the role-playing game community to keep their crazies in line.
If the culture created and fostered by the NRA and firearms enthusiasts encourages an irresponsible attitude towards firearms ownership and contributes to a level of firearms proliferation where the mentally unstable have easy access to weapons capable of killing dozens of people in quick succession, then yes, the NRA and those who support it bear some responsibility.
The comical attempts at deflection we saw at the NRA's press conference show pretty clearly that they're worried about how much responsibility they'll need to take for what happened, too.
I’m probably going to regret posting in this thread, but I'm writing primarily to reassure any other lurkers who may share my belief that they are not alone in the stance that a rapid response to a tragedy by writing policy is a wholly stupid way to allow others to run your government.
And you would say that after every mass shooting. Even though they have been coming one week apart. If we listened to you, there would never be a good time to legislate.
You don't have a problem with writing hasty gun control legislation. You have a problem with any gun control legislation.
We've spent years listening to you, and people like you, telling us to wait before legislating. And, inevitably, the only thing we end up waiting for is another classroom full of dead kids.
But the fact, the FACT, that the AR-15 is THE single most popular rifle in America speaks volumes to the effect that it (and by default, semi-automatic firearms) do indeed serve a useful function to the millions of responsible gun owners in America...
No, actually, I'm pretty sure it doesn't. AR-15 owners just like to have them, and go to the range and shoot inanimate things with them, and maybe hunt with them (though, seriously, why not just go to the supermarket at that point), and delude themselves into thinking that they're safer with a gun in the house even though the evidence demonstrates otherwise.
It's a little weird that you think the fact that a lot of people have guns means that they have a legitimate, worthwhile function.
Right now, any citizen that doesn't fit into a number of caveats (feons, mentaly ill, etc.) can own an AR-15.
If it's not protected by the 2nd Amendment or not, the SCotUS will have to decide.
Whether or not I think it should be, is beside the point. And frankly, I dunno.
*headscratch* This is where you're confusing the hell out of me.
There is a difference between a right and something you can legally do.
I can legally go ahead and burn leaves in my back yard. If my town passed an ordinance against that (they've had them in the past) I wouldn't say that my rights have been violated.
A right is something that you inherently have the justification to do, and the government has no moral or legal authority to stop you from doing it. I don't see how you can assume it for a specific peice of hardware.
You'd enshrining the laws of some past congress that with some mystical morality that is (for some inexplicable reason)greater than those of the current or any other congress.
Then ban semi automatic rifles. I have no problem with that. They serve no useful function.You have no problem with banning them because they clearly do not serve any useful function TO YOU...
Or to anyone that i ask "what the hell do you need THAT thing for?"
But the fact, the FACT, that the AR-15 is THE single most popular rifle in America speaks volumes to the effect that it (and by default, semi-automatic firearms) do indeed serve a useful function to the millions of responsible gun owners in America...
Just like the sale of millions of new kids on the block albums prove that they're great music.
Yeah, it's impossible for something to be popular, but not have any legitimate or worthwhile purpose, right?
Ok, I should just stay out of this, but oh well. First off, as I have posted in other similiar threads, I dont like guns myself and have never owned one. I grew up in a household with fire arms and was taught to respect them. I am for banning anything but regular rifles and shotguns, let people have those for hunting and self protection.
But, its simply naive to think any sort of gun ban will put and end to gun violence. A friend of mine, who has reformed his life from quite a shady past, put it best when he recently commented,"Name anything that's currently illegal that you want to. Then give me thirty minutes, and I will return with it in hand."
Simply put, we cant get rid of them. No way. Its pandora's box. It's open and we have to learn to deal with it.
I dont know what the answer is. My usual suggestion is to make laws so severe that if you use a gun in the commission of a crime we put you away for life and you never get out. Problem is, these murder spree nutcases make their last victim themselves in alot of cases, so long jail terms are not a deterrent.
While I am up here on my soapbox, let me share another rant. Why is killing a cop a capital offense and killing me is not? Why is one life somehow worth more than another? Murder is murder. Simple. We should treat all killings the same and go for the jugular as recompense.
Right now, any citizen that doesn't fit into a number of caveats (feons, mentaly ill, etc.) can own an AR-15.
If it's not protected by the 2nd Amendment or not, the SCotUS will have to decide.
Whether or not I think it should be, is beside the point. And frankly, I dunno.*headscratch* This is where you're confusing the hell out of me.
There is a difference between a right and something you can legally do.
I can legally go ahead and burn leaves in my back yard. If my town passed an ordinance against that (they've had them in the past) I wouldn't say that my rights have been violated.
A right is something that you inherently have the justification to do, and the government has no moral or legal authority to stop you from doing it. I don't see how you can assume it for a specific peice of hardware.
You'd enshrining the laws of some past congress that with some mystical morality that is (for some inexplicable reason)greater than those of the current or any other congress.
The point is the arbitrary loss of things you can now do, not based on any behavior on your part, but because of the behavior of a very few people. I don't like being held accountable for the actions of others. Even more so in cases where there will most likely be little to no actual benefit for the loss of the ability.
That being said, I do not own an AR-15. I have no dog in the fight.
|
|
Those of us who are firearms owners and who find the concept that criminals will somehow decide not to break laws that would empower them excessively laughable have few other options in the face of the constant campaign to demonize firearms and firearms ownership.
Heh.
Do you realize that you effectively just argued that eliminating firearms would eliminate crime? I think that's overstating the case, but not exactly an argument against.
I've always laughed at the inherent ridiculousness of the whole 'if guns are illegal than only criminals will have guns' argument. I mean... think about it. That would mean the police could arrest people and send them to prison simply for possession of a firearm. Issue those hand held metal detectors to police and they can easily stop 'suspicious characters' on the street and check them for weapons. So yes... the vast majority of criminals WOULD give up their guns. They'd be idiots not to. Otherwise they're walking around with this thing that says, 'Hey... look at me! I'm a criminal!' and which they can get sent to jail for in and of itself. Which would result in the guns being seized by the police and thus taking them out of circulation. As time went by that would mean fewer and fewer guns available for the criminals to get hold of.
Sure, there would still be gun crimes. Just a lot fewer of them than we have now.