"Country with enforced assault gun ownwership ..." Topic

What about the men who wrote, debated and voted on that amendment?

They didnt say much and werent able to make it's meaning clear in the way that gun advocates want it to be. Only the NRA, Gun Makers and and some dedicated gun crazies think the 2nd Amendment means 100% gun ownership anytime, anywhere. Which is why it is propaganda and marketing working on the unsuspecting.

Is the original intent of no possible concern to you or do you want make me believe Anthony Scalia's opinion is somehow more valid?

Scalia's opinion is more valid.

Being condescending doesn't give you a better argument.

I wasnt making an argument and neither were you. You made a proclamation. Let's take a look:

And that's where you got it backwards. Owning a gun is a right, driving a car or flying a plane is not within the Bill of Rights. "…shall not be infringed" doesn't give you the ability to add your special limits to it.

This is you saying that the 2nd Amendment is an absolute, unlimited right. Doesn't leave much room for discussion, does it? Belief in 100% righteousness of viewpoint "end of story" isn't exactly an argument, it is more the stance of the fanatic. One cant have a reasonable discussion with a fanatic because fanatics believe it can only be their way.

As much damage as voting does to society by the uneducated and malevolent among us, they still have that right.

Unless you only meant yourself, this sounds very condescending but it still isnt an argument against gun regulation and it wouldn't be a good one because voting rights are modifiable.

The right to self defense is not something many of us are going to let you strip from us because of your feelings.

This sounds like a warning at best and perhaps a threat. That a suggestion for responsible gun ownership would lead you to post this response comes across very angry, emotional, heated, paranoid and militant. Just the last sort of person who should own firearms.

In addition, your response to me suggests you are thin skinned and easily offended which makes it worse. It cannot be that you are able to issue warnings and threats as a sort of mark of bravery and a substitute for thought but pointing out that those warnings are both unstable and irresponsible is condescension.

We spend too much time tarring the mentally ill, most of whom are both defenseless and an easy target but we ignore the emotionally frustrated, the hateful, the angry…basically people who always think there is an "US" and a "THEM".

Your tone indicates you don't support that amendment and that's fine.

Your insinuation that supporting the law in Heller by one of the most conservative Justices in the modern era is somehow an attack on the 2nd Amendment indicates extremism and an anti-government stance. Two other groups that probably really shouldnt be deciding firearms rights.

But you aren't going to be the one who enforce the gun removal, you will be the guy sitting at home expecting other guys to go risk their lives disarming people.

I wouldnt wish that job on anyone. Bans on guns would be a purely legal affair. The weapons in the list would have to be turned over or provably disposed of by a certain date or fines/prosecution would follow. No one would be going door to door asking hare trigger owners for their guns.

Pardon me if I believe it is you who are frightened and are projecting.

Based on the quality and rationale of your other beliefs so far, I find this inconsequential.

However, I am concerned about thin skinned gun owners who see threats everywhere and are unable to express themselves or assert their validity except by firearm ownership.

The Founding Fathers established the right to bear single-shot muzzle-loading firearms accurate to about 100 metres max. I would have thought that this would appeal to the cold-handed gun-nuts on this forum. It essentially creates a wargamer/re-enactor militia as you guys will know where to get these weapons and take the time to drill with them to get three shots off a minute. Your average criminal or liberal will probably not bother.

For now, though, powerful social factors continue to have a restraining effect on indiscriminate violence. Philippine academic Raymund Narag, a criminology associate professor at Southern Illinois University and a former prisoner himself, says mass shootings in his native country are in part deterred by hiyâ, a Tagalog word meaning shame or embarrassment. Avoidance of hiyâ, and sparing one's family and community from it, is often described as a core Philippine value.

"It reflects on you, and reflects on your family," Narag
says. "When I was jailed, our entire clan felt humiliated."

link

Only the NRA, Gun Makers and and some dedicated gun crazies think the 2nd Amendment means 100% gun ownership anytime, anywhere. Which is why it is propaganda and marketing working on the unsuspecting.

In the US what the crazy gun lobby fears is any ruling that restricts gun ownership. Why? Because if one court rules for restrictions that sets a precedent for other courts and establishes that it is OK to make rulings restricting gun ownership which opens the flood gates for more restrictions. I saw this happen in California.

The dedicated anti-gun crazies are well aware of this and have $$ for attorneys to shop additional restrictive gun legislation to judges at lower levels that they know will rule in their favor. Then the gun lobby attorneys appeal it to send it to the next level, etc until it gets to the Supreme Court where it normally gets defeated. These tactics allow legislation from the judicial branch of government without going through the legislative branch where they know they would fail.

The other tactic is to go straight to Congress to get restrictive Federal gun laws passed which according to the Constitution is not legal, it's up to the individual states to do that. Letting the states do it is Democracy in action. When the Federal Government forces laws on the states and citizens that is not Constitutional it is tyranny and the main reason we own guns is to prevent that type of thing from happening.

The dedicated anti-gun crazies are able to manipulate the mass media and public opinion to gain more support from the Useful Idiots that vote and do not know how the system is supposed to work. The anti-gun crazies know that if they try enough times and use propaganda they will eventually sway the people and get their rulings.

This tactic keeps lots of lobbyists busy and attorneys and politicians rich.

Unfortunately all gun restriction laws are doomed to fail because you cannot legislate morality. People kill people, not guns or other inanimate objects that have no Free Will.

We can't control guns anymore than we can control drugs or other commodities. If there is a demand for something someone will fill it legally or illegally. Even so called "Common Sense" guns laws will have little impact. The best way to increase gun ownership (legally or illegally) is for the Federal Government to declare a war on guns. It will have the opposite effect just like the war on poverty, terror and drugs.

This is also what those crazy gun owners are worried about – History repeating itself and politicians clearly stating their intentions:
PDF link

Wolfhag

As far as gun control, I dont care what happens in the Philippines unless you care what happens in Japan?

In the US what the crazy gun lobby fears is any ruling that restricts gun ownership. Why? Because if one court rules for restrictions that sets a precedent for other courts and establishes that it is OK to make rulings restricting gun ownership which opens the flood gates for more restrictions. I saw this happen in California.

I was going to ask you if you realize that this makes no sense but then I realized that you probably don't.

Why would I care about what the gun lobby fears? Further, the fear is that there will be rules around gun ownership? Why do some gun owners fear rules? Are they too stupid to follow them? That wouldn't be a good "look" for gun owners that they have trouble with rules.

The other tactic is to go straight to Congress to get restrictive Federal gun laws passed which according to the Constitution is not legal, it's up to the individual states to do that. Letting the states do it is Democracy in action. When the Federal Government forces laws on the states and citizens that is not Constitutional it is tyranny and the main reason we own guns is to prevent that type of thing from happening.

You are in error that Federal gun laws aren't legal under the Constitution. Is this a State's rights argument? When was the last time using guns to assert State's rights worked out well?

So, having guns to commit violence prevents violence? Do you have examples where people have prevented this tyranny because they owned guns? Even in the Revolution we seemed have gotten most of our guns from the French or by raiding the British army.

The dedicated anti-gun crazies are able to manipulate the mass media and public opinion to gain more support from the Useful Idiots that vote and do not know how the system is supposed to work. The anti-gun crazies know that if they try enough times and use propaganda they will eventually sway the people and get their rulings.

"Anti-Gun Crazies"? You mean all those insane people who dont want insane people to own guns?

Now you believe in propaganda? Basically, the NRA and the gun manufacturers aren't in the business of propaganda but the Anti-Gun Crazies are using idiots to vote but voting isnt the way things are supposed to work in a democracy? You dont think there are people who just vote for gun rights?

Then the gun lobby attorneys appeal it to send it to the next level, etc until it gets to the Supreme Court where it normally gets defeated. These tactics allow legislation from the judicial branch of government without going through the legislative branch where they know they would fail.

Where have these anti gun cases been defeated in SCOTUS?

It isnt just liberals who use the SCOTUS to get laws they cant get enacted in Congress, conservative groups do the same.

Unfortunately all gun restriction laws are doomed to fail because you cannot legislate morality. People kill people, not guns or other inanimate objects that have no Free Will.

By your own statement guns have no morality. Although, if you cant legislate morality why did we have to do so to end slavery and then Jim Crow?

Do we only have laws against things in order to stop them from occurring? I noticed you didn't say laws against abortion or rape? Can I assume you are in favor of allowing those to occur because you cant legislate morality? or is it that you cant legislate morality when you don't want to?

If we shouldnt have Federal legislation regulating guns then should we strike down the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act?

And from another thread you've suggested that people exposed to certain socialist ideas cant control themselves from becoming socialists. Above, you suggested that anti-gun crazies use propaganda to sway useful idiots. I take it that the only people proof to both socialism and gun violence are the true blue gun rights advocates who stock up on firearms?

Are they planning to rise up soon? I mean to prevent this "tyranny" from taking place? What event exactly triggers this gun event to stop tyranny? Is the only even the taking of guns away? Now that would be ironic if the only event that triggers gun use is the attempt to take guns.

Maybe you can explain why the gun lobby and the NRA spend so much on advertising and lobbying? You don't think it is propaganda to tell people they need to own guns because "certain people" want to silence them? Does that make sense to any well adjusted brain that the antidote to being silenced is violence?

Further, do we really want people who think owning guns makes them a living part of the Spirit of '76 painting to actually own guns?

We can't control guns anymore than we can control drugs or other commodities. If there is a demand for something someone will fill it legally or illegally. Even so called "Common Sense" guns laws will have little impact.

Then why would you care if there are laws around guns?

The best way to increase gun ownership (legally or illegally) is for the Federal Government to declare a war on guns.

I take it then that you are in favor of this action in order to boost gun ownership?

This is also what those crazy gun owners are worried about – History repeating itself and politicians clearly stating their intentions:

PDF link

The first author is being dishonest about laws and when and why they came into existence. I never read about Kristallnacht as a search for guns, smacks of revisionism. But, let's say this was the case. Can we assume that the event that should've triggered an opportunity to resist with guns was missed? Would that mean that by the time guns need to be used to prevent tyranny, it's too late?

That Lisa Haven article makes me think she is a dyed in the wool conspiracy theorist and nut job. Some of her statements are deranged, baseless conclusions she wants to be true. The United Nations is plotting to disarm the world in order to control it when there is an economic collapse or disaster?

Restrictions on certain types of ammo and body armor puts Obama in the same category as Stalin and Hitler? Do you think we vilify Stalin and Hitler because they wouldnt let dum dum rounds get produced? Or, maybe, just maybe, this author has lost the ability to see past her own interests and is unreasonable?

She comes across as the sort of paranoid personality disorder who should never own a gun. Frankly, she might belong in a straight jacket.

Are you you submitting that you believe this article to be true?
Did you bother to fact check any of it? Or did you just decide you liked what it said so it had to be accurate?

But let me get your reasoning straight here. The Nazis take people's guns and then murder them? And this is what Beto O'Rourke has in store for us?

I would like to point out that the Nazis killed a lot more people WITH guns than without. Maybe they didnt get the memo on legislating morality?

I don't think anyone would ever equate the majority of Americans wanting some sort of gun control to Nazis. Beto O'Rourke is a threat? Kristallnacht was a search for guns??

We have nearly half a billion guns here. We can't make and sell them fast enough no matter how many there are per person. It is crazy to argue that gun rights are being threatened. We never do anything about guns. How is it that people are so worried about being able to own guns? Anybody can get one, just about anywhere, legally or otherwise, and they are all over the place. Hundreds of millions of guns in America. I am not too worried about 2nd Amendment rights.

Life, liberty, pursuit of happiness is another matter.

Moreover, the SCOTUS decision today on the 2nd Amendment is a very extremist, irresponsible decision. It may even result in impeachments.

Unfortunately, in the last few years, the court has become increasingly unstable and irrationally ideological. The idea that they are going to pronounce judgments irrespective of realities taking place in society has the cast of unhinged fanaticism about it. It's probably the beginning of the end of this body.

I agree that they are done re: justice. Just politics now.

Not two weeks later and we have a SCOTUS decision on guns and quite a few shootings over July 4th including a parade massacre. I had to remark on WOlfhag's comment:

The other tactic is to go straight to Congress to get restrictive Federal gun laws passed which according to the Constitution is not legal, it's up to the individual states to do that. Letting the states do it is Democracy in action.

Except that SCOTUS has just struck down a law saying the states cant easily impose restrictions on carrying concealed weapons. I take it that he is opposed to this decision because it goes against states rights? It would be interesting to hear his take on this.

The 2nd Amendment might be the most misunderstood and abused Amendment in the Constitution. In spite of the Gun Lobby's manipulation of both the 2nd Amendment and SCOTUS, every mass shooting is another tick towards banning guns wholesale. It would be smarter to come up with responsible regulations and standards but who ever said gun advocates were reasonable?

Congress does not pass very much legislation anymore, getting this new law through was unusual, but it's not much of a bill.

"Well regulated" is probably impossible at this point anyway. I think the founders did not mean for the 2nd to permit the country at large to be so heavily armed re numbers of weapons and type.

The Founding Fathers established the right to bear single-shot muzzle-loading firearms accurate to about 100 metres max.

And the right to press only includes those available in 1789.
Radio, TV, Cable, Internet are not covered by First Amendment by the same logic.

The US Constitution can be amended. It has been multiple times.

It would be smarter to come up with responsible regulations and standards but who ever said gun advocates were reasonable?

Define "reasonable". There are an estimated 20,000 firearms related laws of various flavors. Gun advocates may have become less reasonable because every time a change comes about then soon the next level of control is proposed. And when you have fairly senior politicians saying outright "ban everything" then we know there is no place that "reasonable" stops.

Please show where the "Gun Lobby" manipulated SCOTUS. If that is in fact the case then that could be a violation of law.

And for an aside in the 18th century military history, "regulated" at the time meant in one form "drilled", as in could perform the manual of arms with their weapon and move in formation. It has nothing to do except tangentially with modern "regulation" that are a different set of thou shall/shall nots.

Plus another meaning of "regulated" with firearms refers to where two (or more) barrels of a multiple barreled weapon strike, or are intended to, the same point of aim. This is mostly a concern with things like the double-rifles used in big game hunting.

And the right to press only includes those available in 1789.
Radio, TV, Cable, Internet are not covered by First Amendment by the same logic.

The US Constitution can be amended. It has been multiple times.

It's curious how the 2nd Amendment is the sole Amendment that needs a "whataboutism" defense. When we speak about the 1st Amendment, no one really says, "well look at the 2nd Amendment".

Although the "Press" is a concept rather than a technology, you might have something there. However the two constitutional protections arent equal, the 1st Amendment prohibits the government from making laws against it, the 2nd suggests that people might be able to have guns but can expect a whole lot of regulations around ownership.

The Constitution has also been interpreted 1000s of times, thus you don't always need an Amendment.

Define "reasonable". There are an estimated 20,000 firearms related laws of various flavors. Gun advocates may have become less reasonable because every time a change comes about then soon the next level of control is proposed. And when you have fairly senior politicians saying outright "ban everything" then we know there is no place that "reasonable" stops.

Reasonable would be something other than the Gun Lobby's current stance which is 100% no compromise. I believe that that is the most extreme version of unreasonable and thus any move away from that stance would at least start to look like reasonable.

Im not sympathetic that gun advocates seem to have less patience than the rest of society and get angry over regulations. Frankly, it makes me wonder if that sort of personality should have guns at all.

This new fangled originalism approach to the Constitution isnt a conservative one, it's a extremist and populist one for reactionaries who dont like change. I get dragged into these conversations on here about how we cant judge the Founders because blah blah, they were different and the times were different. And yet, we're supposed to live our lives according the way things were in 1789; according to their understanding and morals?

Thus, the Militia should be organized by the states whether the Founders intended private militias or not.

Please show where the "Gun Lobby" manipulated SCOTUS. If that is in fact the case then that could be a violation of law.

Dark money to influence SCOTUS and groom judges and judicial candidates. Here are some articles which might get you up to speed.

link

link

link

link