Biden announces proposed gun control measures

[orionthehunter1]

Tell me why any law abiding citizen can not own any weapon that the government can

 

[Billinsd]

The Supreme Court has noted that the 2nd is not unlimited, just like the 1st, and similar to how the 4th has been all but thrown out. You could make the argument that a well regulated militia includes a vetting process and training. And the subsequent ability to purchase a brand new M240B for you private collection because it is “part of ordinary military equipment” (Miller v US 1939)....

The supreme court interprets what the 2nd Amendment means. They do this for the Constitution and in my opinion some judges past and present have changed the actual meaning and intent of the Constitution, the 2nd Amendment being one of them that the Supreme court has watered down and restricted. The problem is when Supreme Court and other judges legislate, because it's ABSOLUTELY not their job. However, they have been doing this for centuries and continue to do so. Huge problem. The 2nd Amendment good or bad should have never been watered down by the court. It should have been done by the legislature. We did this with prohibition both outlawing liquor by amendment and then repealing by amendment.

 

[Billinsd]

Tell me why any law abiding citizen can not own any weapon that the government can

Because the supreme court has watered down the Constitution.

 

[Newtosavage]

According to the 2nd Amendment where it says "SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED UPON" Yes! Of course the 2nd Amendment meaning has been changed by the courts over the centuries and it means what "they" say it means. Personally I'm ok on some infringements like not having unfettered access to fully auto machine guns, however we have too many restrictions now, especially in California and many must be repealed.

The right to bear arms shall not be infringed, but what constitutes "arms" is open to debate.

 

[orionthehunter1]

Arms should be anything. Again any law abiding citizen should be able to own anything the government can. Why people are ok with infringements of any kind is mind boggling to me.

 

[Dos Perros]

Reminder: Please keep it civil and leave out the personal attacks.

You want to sway opinions, use facts and references.

Carry on!

I agree that discussion should be civil, but people don't make decisions with facts. They make it with emotion, and then they seek facts to support their emotionally derived decision.

Folks wanting to change the opinions of others should make more emotional arguments if they want to be effective.

 

[brocksw]

Arms should be anything. Again any law abiding citizen should be able to own anything the government can. Why people are ok with infringements of any kind is mind boggling to me.

I say this smiling and half laughing....but I'm just not sure if I want some people I've met to own grenades and RPGs, much less tanks and surface to air missiles. Shit I just met a guy in line at the post office the other day who def should not have had access to a grenade at the particular moment in time. He was entirely to upset about waiting in line.

 

[Hoodie]

Iḿ a believer in the principle of charitable interpretation when it comes to arguing. It´s designed to be sort of a check on the tendency to make straw man arguments. You´re supposed to interpret your opponentś argument as rationally as possible and argue against the strongest possible interpretation of what they´re saying. Sometimes this is easier said than done.

The people I personally know who are in favor of restrictions on ¨assault rifles¨ are not making an attempt to chip away at the 2A bit by bit in an outright effort to infringe upon anyone´s rights or to make it easier to eventually oppress their political opponents. They are essentially suggesting that the social costs of ARs being legal outweigh the risks of placing restrictions on the 2A. As a poster before me mentioned, without fail they bring up school shootings. Note: I am NOT saying that there aren´t people out there who are ideologically opposed to the 2nd. I´m saying that those people do not, in reality, represent the average voter in this country with concerns about ARs. The average voter in support of an AWB a) doesn´t own an AR, and b) has seen an alarming number of mass shootings on the news in recent years, a sizeable portion of which were unfortunately committed with ARs. The question isn´t whether or not that´s a fact, it´s how relevant that fact is.

The US does have a relatively high per capita rate of gun deaths compared to other countries.

List of countries by firearm-related homicide rates - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

I think the issue becomes, is it high enough to warrant compromising the 2A? Per capita gun deaths in the US are absolutely higher than, say, Canada. So is the total number of firearms in this country. Presumably counties in the US with the most swimming pools have the most drownings, etc.

But they´re still pretty low overall. A person´s absolute risk of dying a firearm related death in the US in 12.21/100000. A small fraction of a percent.

Interestingly enough, the per capita death rate of vehicle accidents is 12.4/100000. Just a smidge higher.

In arguing against gun control measures I usually point out the low absolute risk of being a victim of gun violence. People can argue that cars are more ¨necessary¨ than guns, but it´s still helpful to point out that in terms of absolute risk, they pose an essentially equal threat.

Within the last two centuries we´ve had to amend the constitution to prevent ownership of human beings. We´ve had to amend it to prohibit denying people the right to vote based on gender. Neither of those amendments came particularly early. I understand that the 2A is itself an amendment, but the broader point is that laws change due to shifting circumstances all the time.

Nothing is so sacred as to be beyond questioning. When gun owners in America dismiss these concerns we come off as tone deaf. It´s absolutely reasonable for someone who doesn´t own guns to ask me why I think ARs should be legal. The onus is absolutely on me to make a coherent, rational argument for my position.

 

[Billinsd]

The right to bear arms shall not be infringed, but what constitutes "arms" is what is open to debate.

Restricting "arms" infringes on the 2nd Amendment by definition. The 2nd Amendment has been infringed upon by the courts. The Amendment itself needs to be revised by the correct process to legally restrict it. Politicians on both sides don't want to go through the correct procedure because it is difficult and lengthy on purpose. Both sides go around the Constitution frequently to their own benefit.

 

[orionthehunter1]

I say this smiling and half laughing....but I'm just not sure if I want some people I've met to own grenades and RPGs, much less tanks and surface to air missiles. Shit I just met a guy in line at the post office the other day who def should not have had access to a grenade at the particular moment in time. He was entirely to upset about waiting in line.

you do know you can own almost everything you listed

 

[brocksw]

Nothing is so sacred as to be beyond questioning. When gun owners in America dismiss these concerns we come off as tone deaf. It´s absolutely reasonable for someone who doesn´t own guns to ask me why I think ARs should be legal. The onus is absolutely on me to make a coherent, rational argument for my position.

And "you aint freedom loving if you don't like ARs" doesn't seem to be a very good rational argument.

 

[Hoodie]

Arms should be anything. Again any law abiding citizen should be able to own anything the government can. Why people are ok with infringements of any kind is mind boggling to me.

Would you support the idea of a background check prior to someone purchasing, say, an M2? What about a JDAM (GPS guided bomb)?

Would background checks for weapons like the above constitute infringement? Is there a class of weaponry for which you would support a certain level of bureaucratic red tape?

These are serious questions, Iḿ not trying to pull a reductio ad absurdum on you.

 

[Billinsd]

I say this smiling and half laughing....but I'm just not sure if I want some people I've met to own grenades and RPGs, much less tanks and surface to air missiles. Shit I just met a guy in line at the post office the other day who def should not have had access to a grenade at the particular moment in time. He was entirely to upset about waiting in line.

The 2nd Amendment should have been revised correctly through legislation and amending it to what we the people want. Very few think we should have tanks and RPGs, so the Amendment should be revised if we don't want that. The courts decide what they want it to mean.

 

[brocksw]

you do know you can own almost everything you listed

To some degree yes, I'm sure its a form 4 or some type of tax stamp....
But I think you're missing the point...Like they're difficult to get and expensive, not just anyone can get any of that in a short amount of time. And if a bunch of people start getting them....someone would inevitably do something stupid and it wouldn't be long and congress would say "alright no more RPG's"... and I feel like no one would really argue with that.

I do feel like if you started putting serious feelers out to the world about getting a tank or surface to air missile or what have you....the ATF might knock on your door and be like...hey man, just want to check in and see what's going on.

 

[BjornF16]

I agree that discussion should be civil, but people don't make decisions with facts. They make it with emotion, and then they seek facts to support their emotionally derived decision.

Folks wanting to change the opinions of others should make more emotional arguments if they want to be effective.

Maybe it’s one of my idiosyncrancies, but I’m not swayed by other’s emotions. Give me facts and a logical explanation and I will ponder upon it

 

[Newtosavage]

What I was trying to say that the "right" shall not be infringed, but that "arms" needs to be more well defined. Not sure if that makes sense.

If we look at the intent of the amendment and apply it to our situation today, I think a reasonable person would conclude that "arms" are what a person would need to defend themselves and their loved ones in the event of an attack on their person. But then, you have to consider who the attacker could be, and how they are armed, and then it gets real unclear real fast...

It's no longer reasonable to believe that a citizen or group of citizens can or should be well enough armed to defend themselves against an attack by a nation with modern weaponry. I don't want my neighbor installing a ICBM in his back yard and I don't think anyone else does either.

 

[orionthehunter1]

Would you support the idea of a background check prior to someone purchasing, say, an M2? What about a JDAM (GPS guided bomb)?

Would background checks for weapons like the above constitute infringement? Is there a class of weaponry for which you would support a certain level of bureaucratic red tape?

These are serious questions, Iḿ not trying to pull a reductio ad absurdum on you.

There is already all kinds of paperwork and bureaucratic red tape to own certain firearms or even suppressors. Do you think its ridiculous i have to pay a 200 tax stamp, give two photo id's and fingerprint cards, and then wait 3-12 months for a suppressor?

 

[Dos Perros]

Maybe it’s one of my idiosyncrancies, but I’m not swayed by other’s emotions. Give me facts and a logical explanation and I will ponder upon it

Maybe I should have said "Folks wanting to change the opinions of others should make arguments that appeal to the emotions of others if they want to be effective." That's what I meant.

 

[WCB]

I agree with most of what you say. But I do struggle with this idea that we need to arm teachers, or just the fact that we need armed security at an elementary school. I mean, I understand logically that there might not be another option if we want to defend kids in school from atrocities. I think what I'm saying is that this goes to a much greater problem, its more conceptual.

Like seriously, the argument for grade school kids getting shot can't always be we need to arm teachers so I don't have to fill out extra paperwork or wait 3 days or I dunno some other seemingly minuscule encroachment. I mean, we gladly give up 4th amendment rights all the damn time in the name of safety and no one here talks about that.

I'm not sure if the answer is looking for middle ground or if we just need to start being more honest about how we talk about and handle gun issues as gun owners.

Name one school shooting that would have been stopped by paper work or a waiting period. Even if someone did buy a gun and 2 days later committed a crime with it later there is no proof they wouldn't just wait another day.

Also, no one is saying force teachers to carry or just open it up so anyone can carry in the school. But allowing a qualified individual in the building to carry is not a bad idea applicated right. However we would be expecting government to regulate it correctly and they can't do anything right. Which again brings up the point why the hell would anyone want more government rules and regulations.

 

[Hoodie]

There is already all kinds of paperwork and bureaucratic red tape to own certain firearms or even suppressors. Do you think its ridiculous i have to pay a 200 tax stamp, give two photo id's and fingerprint cards, and then wait 3-12 months for a suppressor?

Per your question, yes I do think the suppressor situation is silly. Really silly.

But saying that the red tape already exists isn´t the same as saying that you´re in favor of it, or that you don´t consider it infringement.

For heavy machine guns, missiles, etc. does the paperwork constitute infringement? And if so is it reasonable given what we´re talking about?

I personally feel that suppressors shouldn´t require any more red tape than a firearm purchase. I feel very differently regarding things like heavy machine guns, RPGs, etc.