2nd amendment / gun discussion thread: Keep it in here

Discussion in 'Politics' started by LogrusMage, Nov 20, 2008.

  1. Chengar Qordath

    Chengar Qordath The Final Pony Prestige

    Joined:
    Apr 12, 2008
    Messages:
    742
    High Score:
    1,802
    Problem is if you make them too hard to get/expensive/unusable you run up against the Heller ruling and similar cases regarding things like poll taxes. When it comes to constitutional rights, imposing so many rules that you make it effectively impossible to exercise that right is the same as outright banning it.
     
  2. Hw597

    Hw597 Seventh Year

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2008
    Messages:
    272
    Location:
    London
    Tbh
    I'm answering the question "What should happen?"

    Rather than-
    "What will happen?" -Nothing
    Or
    "What can actually be done?" -Little
     
  3. Immet

    Immet Seventh Year

    Joined:
    Jan 30, 2012
    Messages:
    232
    Thanks for the explanation.

    That then makes me wonder if the classification of automatic guns is still valid today and if not whether it should be changed.

    I mean, this is probably a stupid question, but for example how fast is the mechanism for semi automatic guns in preparing for the next shot? Is it feasible to have an arbitrary limit on rate of fire of the mechanism (i'm guessing not because for reliability, ease, and expense it is probably better to have the same mechanism with semi and fully automatic guns and just swap the trigger mechanism)?
     
  4. Chengar Qordath

    Chengar Qordath The Final Pony Prestige

    Joined:
    Apr 12, 2008
    Messages:
    742
    High Score:
    1,802
    The cyclical fire rate is far from the only factor take into consideration. Whether the fire rate is 700 rounds a minute (M-16, according to a quick google) or 45 rounds a minute (AR-15, according to a quick google(, it's still limited by operating on the same clip size, aiming/recoil, and a bunch of other factors.
     
  5. Wildfeather

    Wildfeather Seventh Year Prestige

    Joined:
    Oct 18, 2007
    Messages:
    266
    Location:
    Florida
    High Score:
    2,011
    Underline: I don't even know if this is legal. Any mandatory form of storage that rendered the firearm unable to be used in self-defense would violate Heller (which would be anything that kept it from being instant access).

    Bold: Already a component in many states.

    But really, you whole post comes off as "I don't like guns so I'm going to make up hoops for people to jump through so there's less of them". Driving and firearm ownership are not comparable, one of them is fundamental right and the other is a privilege. If you think they're in any way in the same ball-park when it comes to the law, you need to hit the books before you start proposing stuff if you expect to be taken seriously.
     
  6. Joe's Nemesis

    Joe's Nemesis High Score: 2,058 Prestige

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 2012
    Messages:
    982
    High Score:
    2,058
    Sorry I've not gotten back to this until now, and I still don't have a lot of time (stupid end of semester grading). However, too much time has passed so I figured I'd at least give a quick answer.
    Notice that in every situation you provide in the first paragraph, your "reasonable regulation" ends up being reasonable because the regulations stop a person from violating another person's unalienable rights, primarily that of life and liberty.

    My keeping and bearing an AR15 with a laser sight does not impose on your right to life and liberty as only two crimes have occurred with legally owned automatics in 85 or so years. So there is no moral or legal equivalent to your scenarios. However, the moral and legal equivalent is found in the shooting of an AR15 in a crowded city. So, if the polity decides to restrict the firing of a weapon for non-self defense reasons, that is within the right of the polity to do so.

    And no, my "unalienable right" to own a weapon was re-recognized by Heller. It has existed since the creation of the constitution, which is why they included it, to make sure it stayed an unalienable right. Furthermore, you can trace that line of thinking through Scott v. Sandford. On page 65 of the PDF I have of the decision (194 pages), the argument goes that congress cannot deny the people the right to keep and bear arms. Furthermore, rights of property and rights of person are on the same ground according to the fifth amendment. Thus, because rights of person are unalienable, so are rights of property, including the right to keep and bear arms.

    Even MORE important, is the argument on what conferring citizenship in a black man would do.

    In other words, by becoming a citizen, a black man in the 1800s would have immediately had the right not only to bear arms, but to carry that arm ANYWHERE they went. (So much for laws banning carry). Thus, the current court decisions striking down gun laws are simply based on stare decisis of the preceeding 200 years and ignoring the unconstitutional push of the current anti-gun rhetoric.

    No. Because there are people who can pull a trigger almost as fast as an automatic weapon can fire (depending on the cyclic rate of the weapon). We really don't want to get into laws saying "You can only pull the trigger ___ times a second."

    In short, the "one trigger pull, one round fired" is the absolute best classification. And, I would only be for amending the law to allow something that said, "or other devices attached that mimic automatic weapon fire such as bump firing" if the '86 law banning the sale of new automatics to the public was also struck down. (Thus, new automatics could be sold to the public, but they'd have to go through the class 3 verification). That is a fair trade, I believe.
     
  7. Sorrows

    Sorrows Professor Prestige DLP Supporter

    Joined:
    Jun 17, 2008
    Messages:
    447
    Gender:
    Female
    Location:
    Edinburgh
    High Score:
    1,819
    You know I looked into getting a shotgun in the UK a while back, this is the process for a bit of perspective:

    In order to issue a shotgun certificate, the police need to be satisfied that the applicant can possess a shotgun without danger to the public safety or the peace. Part of this involves checking if the applicant has any previous convictions.

    You must declare any physical or mental health condition that may affect your ability to possess and use a firearm or shotgun safely. These include epilepsy, stroke, stress-related illness, depression, alcoholism, heart disease, cancer. They will check your medical history with your GP.

    You will then have to give details of where your gun is to be stored. (Bolted down locked special shotgun cabinet which will be inspected by the police in person before they hand over you licance.

    The next important bit of the form has to filled in by a counter signatory who has known you personally for at least two years. Such a person cannot be a relative, a serving policeman or police civilian employee, or a registered firearms dealer and should have a responsible and honest reputation.

    With your shotgun license application you must also provide four passport-sized photographs of yourself, one of which must be signed on the back by your counter signatory. You then return the completed form to the firearms licensing unit of your local police, together with the fee (£79.50 for a new licence, £49 for a renewal at the time of writing).

    You will not be able to buy ammo without your license to hand

    You can get about 10 years in jail for possession of an unlicensed firearm.

    All this gets you a 5 year license, which does surprisingly include some semiautomatics though most people use double barrel hand loaded sport guns. But then gun crime makes up less than 0.2% of recorded crime in the UK and its been seven years since someone went on a shooting spree (the one before that was in 96) so it does to the job its intended to do.
     
    Last edited: Dec 9, 2017
  8. Darth_Revan

    Darth_Revan Secret Squirrel Prestige DLP Supporter

    Joined:
    Mar 13, 2006
    Messages:
    294
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    The Empire City
    High Score:
    2810
    You don't seem to recognize that Heller changed the law. Before that case, the SCOTUS had never recognized an absolute right absent the militia clause, or deemed it an incorporated right. It overturned the entire understanding of the right that had been on the books since Miller.
     
  9. Joe's Nemesis

    Joe's Nemesis High Score: 2,058 Prestige

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 2012
    Messages:
    982
    High Score:
    2,058
    And yet, I JUST showed you where that right was recognized in the 1800s absent the militia clause.
     
  10. Darth_Revan

    Darth_Revan Secret Squirrel Prestige DLP Supporter

    Joined:
    Mar 13, 2006
    Messages:
    294
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    The Empire City
    High Score:
    2810
    Well, funny thing, that wasn't the operating precedent.
     
  11. Joe's Nemesis

    Joe's Nemesis High Score: 2,058 Prestige

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 2012
    Messages:
    982
    High Score:
    2,058
    Not in the late mid-twentieth century when the courts were abandoning stare decisis and original intent. That's the funny little thing about precedent. It gets to be ignored whenever a court decides to ignore it. Thankfully, that's stopped in the case of gun rights.
     
  12. Darth_Revan

    Darth_Revan Secret Squirrel Prestige DLP Supporter

    Joined:
    Mar 13, 2006
    Messages:
    294
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    The Empire City
    High Score:
    2810
    That's rich considering that Heller is an abandonment of stare decisis, and you're in no position to claim any understanding original intent when no one, then or now, could or can understand why the Amendment is so poorly written. It's what we make of it, and always has been, because they couldn't bother to be clear about it.
     
  13. Arthellion

    Arthellion High Inquisitor

    Joined:
    Apr 14, 2017
    Messages:
    524
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Georgia, USA
    High Score:
    0

    Respectfully, Revan, have you read any of the writings of the founding fathers? It's pretty clear what they meant by it...
     
  14. Joe's Nemesis

    Joe's Nemesis High Score: 2,058 Prestige

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 2012
    Messages:
    982
    High Score:
    2,058
    I'll just leave Arthellion's answer as my answer. Well, that an once again refer to Scott v. Sandford, which is pretty damn clear that by becoming a citizen, a person has the right not only to bare arms, but to carry arms wherever he or she went in the states. Do whatever mental gymnastics is necessary to negate that clear opinion by the court in the 1800s, but to claim Heller is moving away from stare decisis when I provided an 19th century decision in which it is completely in line with in the opinion is rich, to use your term.
     
  15. Darth_Revan

    Darth_Revan Secret Squirrel Prestige DLP Supporter

    Joined:
    Mar 13, 2006
    Messages:
    294
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    The Empire City
    High Score:
    2810
    Of course. And considering that they took pains to stipulate the militia clause, you'd think current 2nd Amd originalists would give it more weight.

    The point, though, is that while the rest of the Constitution is written in clear English, the 2nd is not.

    We've been arguing over this for almost as long as the Constitution has been around precisely because of that lack of clarity.
    --- Post automerged ---
    Also, I can't believe you're citing the Dred Scott case for anything. It was bad law then, it's bad law now, and that's not even what the ruling was about. "Slaves aren't people, and by the way, I get to have guns."
     
  16. Sauce Bauss

    Sauce Bauss Death Eater DLP Supporter

    Joined:
    Apr 4, 2008
    Messages:
    905
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Texas
    Except the Militia Act of 1792 defines the militia, and was drafted at the time of the founders. The Militia is the draftable citizenry, though we've extended that since to African Americans/Women/residents who want to be citizens. I've quoted the relevant parts of the act and its revisions in the early 1900's in this thread before.

    The militia is divided into two parts. The organized militia is the National Guard, and the unorganized or reserve militia is the citizenry. At the time of drafting of the Constitution, the phrase "well regulated" referred to being in proper working order as in clocks as the most common usage.
     
  17. Arthellion

    Arthellion High Inquisitor

    Joined:
    Apr 14, 2017
    Messages:
    524
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Georgia, USA
    High Score:
    0
    Revan, can you please stop with the revisionist history.

    You’re against guns. It’s an understandable and justifiable stance to take. You can argue that the law should not be what it is. You can argue that the founding fathers were wrong in their view that the right to bear arms should be an inalienable right.

    You can argue these things, but don’t try to make the law say what it does not.

    The constitution and philosophy of the founding fathers are against you in this. That is truth. Doesn’t mean you’re wrong for believing they are wrong but stop twisting history and the law to fit your interpretation.
     
  18. Chengar Qordath

    Chengar Qordath The Final Pony Prestige

    Joined:
    Apr 12, 2008
    Messages:
    742
    High Score:
    1,802
    Seconded.

    Really, abandoning originalism is a far more practical argument when it comes to regulating guns. Not all laws written in the 1790s hold up well in the 2010s. Both society and guns have undergone some pretty huge changes in the last 200+ years.

    Granted, at that point you face the prospect of needing to change the constitution, which is borderline impossible without a broad national consensus.
     
  19. Joe's Nemesis

    Joe's Nemesis High Score: 2,058 Prestige

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 2012
    Messages:
    982
    High Score:
    2,058
    I see, we're now resorting to a poisoning the well type argument. Of course, you completely misrepresent Scott v. Sandford as well. "Former Slaves aren't citizens, because if they are, then they get to have all sorts of rights and become equivalent to whites, including having guns and carry them anywhere, and then we might have an uprising."

    Moreover, the entire point about mentioning Scott v. Sandford is to show the supreme court, in the 1800s, believed citizens had the right to own guns outside of state-sponsored militias, and that was at least partly the reason for their refusal to recognize citizenship for any black person, let alone freed slaves.
     
  20. Hw597

    Hw597 Seventh Year

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2008
    Messages:
    272
    Location:
    London
    Evidence of storage is part of the law in UK- (its possible)- evidence of secure gun case- Receipt, photo etc
    Its not about liking or disliking guns. Its just admitting that the current situation is ridiculous and needs to change.