The right to bear arms
Replies
-
Also, saying 'well I just can't understand why such and such' doesn't leave any room for debate.
Sure you can understand why. You might not agree with it, but if you truly can't understand what's going on and the motives of your opposition, why bother with the discussion?
I'm assuming this is directed at me? Actually, as someone who has always lived in countries with gun control laws, and many fewer mass-murders assisted by uncontrolled gun ownership than seen in America, I genuinely do not understand why so many Americans are so virulently opposed to their legislature taking common-sense basic steps in this direction, and nothing I've read here has illuminated this point for me.
I cannot see any rational need for any private citizen to own armed forces-grade weaponry, though I sympathise with the desire to defend oneself, and the needs of sport/hunting (I shoot clays and game birds myself), both of which aims can be achieved without mass-ammunition or rapid-fire devices. I also don't see any justifiable or rational reason to resist the registration and licensing of gun ownership and the enforcement of safe practice.
Most of the 'defence' seems to boil down to "because we wanna own guns", "we don't trust government" and "because the constitution says we can" - a document of several centuries age, written when guns were a significantly different proposition to those now available. None of that, to me, qualifies as an adequate reason to resist basic controls and amendments to existing laws that would demonstrably (see Australia, UK, New Zealand, among others) significantly reduce the incidence of school and public-place mass shootings the US experiences every year. I am truly baffled that anyone should think their 'right' to own a weapon designed to kill dozens in mere moments should trump the value of the lives lost every year in the USA to these shootings, and the grief of the victims' families and friends.0 -
And knives not being the culprit behind mass murder? Have you heard of a small-ish continent sometimes known as Africa? Look it up.
How about bows? Should we heavily regulate all those murderous wannabe Robin Hoods?
How many arrows a minute does a bow fire? And how many knives a minute can one man throw, assuming we're talking distance-killing? How accurate and how fast are those weapons, and how often are the wounds inflicted fatal? How much chance does an intended victim have to save him or her self? The difference is obvious, unless one is being deliberately obtuse.
Your definition re. Africa is flawed - a mass murder in the context we're talking about is one or two aggressors against a large number of victims, not an entire continent engaged at various times in internecine war with itself.0 -
I'm assuming this is directed at me? Actually, as someone who has always lived in countries with gun control laws, and many fewer mass-murders assisted by uncontrolled gun ownership than seen in America, I genuinely do not understand why so many Americans are so virulently opposed to their legislature taking common-sense basic steps in this direction, and nothing I've read here has illuminated this point for me.
I cannot see any rational need for any private citizen to own armed forces-grade weaponry, though I sympathise with the desire to defend oneself, and the needs of sport/hunting (I shoot clays and game birds myself), both of which aims can be achieved without mass-ammunition or rapid-fire devices. I also don't see any justifiable or rational reason to resist the registration and licensing of gun ownership and the enforcement of safe practice.
Most of the 'defence' seems to boil down to "because we wanna own guns", "we don't trust government" and "because the constitution says we can" - a document of several centuries age, written when guns were a significantly different proposition to those now available. None of that, to me, qualifies as an adequate reason to resist basic controls and amendments to existing laws that would demonstrably (see Australia, UK, New Zealand, among others) significantly reduce the incidence of school and public-place mass shootings the US experiences every year. I am truly baffled that anyone should think their 'right' to own a weapon designed to kill dozens in mere moments should trump the value of the lives lost every year in the USA to these shootings, and the grief of the victims' families and friends.
Actually a number of folks on this thread have posted similar comments. The initial post was a call against semi automatic weapons (I guess leaving breach loaded shotguns and bolt action rifles...and muskets?). This was not a discussion against whether or not folks should be able to own tanks and anti-aircraft rocket launchers; this was a question of pistols and semi automatic rifles.
My point was that this style of debate is incredibly combative. You at least tried to bring a point of common ground (sport shooting), but saying 'I can't understand how you can possibly believe this' is synomyous with 'well if you believe this you're completely illogical and stupid'. This is exacerbated by boiling down all arguments opposing your view to 5 word cliches. It doesn't give any acknowledgement of intelligence or thoughtfullness.
I hate arguments of personal rights meaning we don't care about the rights of victims or what have you. You know what else killed dozens in mere moments? 9/11. The Patriot Act was put in place with provisions to better enable the government to combat terrorism. They've had some success with it too. So I guess that means the people crying out against it don't care about the victims of 9/11? I feel the rights afforded to me as a US Citizen are damned important, and that includes the second amendment. This doesn't mean my heart doesn't go out to the families in CT, and across the country and world, that have been devastated by tragedy.
I think gun regulation is important and is something that should be considered, but for the prevention of future events like Sandy Hook, I think the detection and treatment of mental illness is far more important. Care for the mentally ill in this country is apalling, and it's not much better elsewhere in the world. I think we need to take a LONG, hard look at the system we have in place to find and care for the mentally ill first and foremost. That's a harder and more complex problem to solve though, and it's easier to rally around a idea like taking guns out of the hands of would-be killers.
There isn't a simple solution to this problem. You can't explain why someone would walk into a school and slaughter young children. It defies reason.
http://thegrio.com/2010/03/08/hundreds-massacred-with-machetes-in-nigeria/
To use the language of this thread: 'If we just took away their machetes it would solve the issue in that area'0 -
How many arrows a minute does a bow fire? And how many knives a minute can one man throw, assuming we're talking distance-killing? How accurate and how fast are those weapons, and how often are the wounds inflicted fatal? How much chance does an intended victim have to save him or her self? The difference is obvious, unless one is being deliberately obtuse.
Your definition re. Africa is flawed - a mass murder in the context we're talking about is one or two aggressors against a large number of victims, not an entire continent engaged at various times in internecine war with itself.
A 1:26 ratio is not unheard of in that part of the world. The tactics are very generally small groups of 'soldiers' sent to communities lacking the means to defend themselves. That's not war, it's genocide and it is mass murder.
The claim, stated MANY times over was that the sole purpose of a gun was to kill. Throwing knives and bows are the same, regardless of their efficacy at it.
My point is that if he had gone in with a sword or a baseball bat with nails hammered through it, and only managed to kill 4 or 5 people instead of 26, it probably wouldn't be plastered all over the news as it is now, but that doesn't make it any less terrible. We need to get to the underlying root of the problem: his mental condition.0 -
If you're going to quote the constitution, use it in context:
"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."
So to what part of being "a well regulated militia" does an individual owning a firearm belong?
Surely the US Army is your country's well-regulated militia and unless you are a member of the armed forces, why should you have any right to keep and bear arms? Are you intending to rise-up and enact a coup d'etat?
Just because someone has the right to do something, doesn't mean they have to automatically exercise that right.
And saying I don't understand or cannot imagine why leaves plenty room for debate, because what I am asking for then is an explanation to help me comprehend.
Ultimately, I believe there is a fundamental difference in the psyche between peoples of different nations and in the US gun ownership is as normal as owning a powertool, a washing machine or a motorcar. But I also think that the normality of owning a item designed exclusively as a weapon somehow blurs the edges of one's ability to reason. In a fugue or disturbed state of mind, you might imagine getting a gun and setting the world to right. The difference is, in the US, you have access to firearms and so making the leap from wishful thinking to reality is all too horrifically easy.
Changing beliefs that are so inherent, so entrenched, is not an easy task, but it can de done. That may require some high-level (statutory) intervention initially, but if it is for the greater good, then so be it.0 -
If you're going to quote the constitution, use it in context:
"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."
So to what part of being "a well regulated militia" does an individual owning a firearm belong?
Surely the US Army is your country's well-regulated militia and unless you are a member of the armed forces, why should you have any right to keep and bear arms? Are you intending to rise-up and enact a coup d'etat?
Just because someone has the right to do something, doesn't mean they have to automatically exercise that right.
And saying I don't understand or cannot imagine why leaves plenty room for debate, because what I am asking for then is an explanation to help me comprehend.
Ultimately, I believe there is a fundamental difference in the psyche between peoples of different nations and in the US gun ownership is as normal as owning a powertool, a washing machine or a motorcar. But I also think that the normality of owning a item designed exclusively as a weapon somehow blurs the edges of one's ability to reason. In a fugue or disturbed state of mind, you might imagine getting a gun and setting the world to right. The difference is, in the US, you have access to firearms and so making the leap from wishful thinking to reality is all too horrifically easy.
Changing beliefs that are so inherent, so entrenched, is not an easy task, but it can de done. That may require some high-level (statutory) intervention initially, but if it is for the greater good, then so be it.
And yet again you're missing the second half of my quote, the right for an individual to bear arms. Also, the federal army is different from a state militia, in fact one of the primary reasons for the second amendment was to provide states with protection from the federal government should they need it. 'I can't understand how you don't get that.' To me at least, that seems very combative.
I say all of these things not owning a gun myself. I have not yet exercised my right to bear arms. I may in the future, or I may not, but it is still my right. Additionally, I already defined a number of weapons designed exclusively as such with no other practical purpose (admittedly less effective than firearms).
The ubiquitous 'people of the US' don't all see owning a gun as normal as owning a power tool. Some see it as a very real responsibility with plenty of risks involved. I WISH people would take owning a car with similar prudence. Some people don't treat gun ownership with the respect it deserves, and that's a serious issue. I do not think that means that as a result we should ban the use of semi automatic gun ownership.0 -
There's no reason any citizen needs to own an assault rifle. There just isn't.
Deer don't wear Kevlar.
I'm not opposed to gun ownership. I'm just a rational person is all. I don't think people should be prohibited from owning a pistol, shotgun, even a hunting rifle.
But the weapon that guy used was a damn hand cannon.
And if you want to bring up the Constitution...they had muskets back then. You had to pour gun powder and jam a ball down in between each shot which more often than not missed and wasn't anywhere near as lethal as today's weapons.
You show Thomas Jefferson the gun used at that school and he'd quickly put a big f'ing asterisk next to that second amendment.0 -
There's no reason any citizen needs to own an assault rifle. There just isn't.
Deer don't wear Kevlar.
I'm not opposed to gun ownership. I'm just a rational person is all. I don't think people should be prohibited from owning a pistol, shotgun, even a hunting rifle.
But the weapon that guy used was a damn hand cannon.
And if you want to bring up the Constitution...they had muskets back then. You had to pour gun powder and jam a ball down in between each shot which more often than not missed and wasn't anywhere near as lethal as today's weapons.
You show Thomas Jefferson the gun used at that school and he'd quickly put a big f'ing asterisk next to that second amendment.
I feel the same way on the issue. You want to own a gun for protection or hunting? Fine. You want an assault rifle or a machine gun? Uh, why?0 -
I don't see anything wrong with this
\m/ 0 -
My honest opinion is that I as an American refrain from condeming things I disagree with in other countries/cultures so I would appreciate it if you don't do so with ours.0
-
There are people that own and use AR-15's (which are not supposed to be fully automatic nor easily converted) for hunting (usually boar, wild hogs, things of that nature) and sport shooting... Hell, even in Germany and Finland this is legal for individuals. Although in Germany, nor more that 2 or 3 bullets are allowed in the clip as they are only allowed to use 3 shots for hunting purposes (which I honestly wouldn't be opposed to) and their application and registration process is stricter.
But I agree with Mara, a ban is not going to solve anything... the guys that shot up Columbine got their hands on AR's DURING the Assualt Weapons ban. It didn't solve anything in Washington DC (which if I remember correctly had a higher homicide rate during the ban than Oklahoma City).
But then, being from rural BFE West Texas were it takes 20 minutes for the Sheriff or Troopers to get to just about anywhere outside of the outskirts of the county seat, I have somewhat an affinity to guns.
People need to be more careful with storing their weapons.0 -
There's no reason any citizen needs to own an assault rifle. There just isn't.
Deer don't wear Kevlar.
I'm not opposed to gun ownership. I'm just a rational person is all. I don't think people should be prohibited from owning a pistol, shotgun, even a hunting rifle.
But the weapon that guy used was a damn hand cannon.
And if you want to bring up the Constitution...they had muskets back then. You had to pour gun powder and jam a ball down in between each shot which more often than not missed and wasn't anywhere near as lethal as today's weapons.
You show Thomas Jefferson the gun used at that school and he'd quickly put a big f'ing asterisk next to that second amendment.
So, according to conservative "originalists", the 2nd Amendment allows Americans only the right to own 18th century flintlock rifles. That's how Scalia is going to rule, right?0 -
And blunderbusses. Don't forget blunderbusses.
To Scalia, "orginalist" means "whatever it needs to mean to get the policy outcome I prefer."0 -
Here's a video that contains some statistics on guns and violence.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bFfWYYCfCZI
The one I found most surprising was that if assaulted, gun owners are more likely to get shot than those who don't own guns.0 -
I think we should go back to the ban that expired in 2004. I think we should ban magazines with more than 10 rounds.
In addition to that I think America needs to have a come to Jesus about the mentally ill elephant in the room. I think most people can agree that sane people are not shooting up schools and shopping malls but sadly many times their kids are and they are using their guns. Even kids who are diagnosed with ADHD are on mind altering drugs that can and do cause them to behave in ways they might not normally because it changes their brain chemistry. Violence, mania, suicide, depression even. I think if you have someone in your house with a severe psychological problem or one who is on mind altering prescription medicine they might want to pass laws about where citizens can keep their guns or how they can keep their guns. In the very least make it a public safety issue where their is some Awareness about it. Adam Lanza's mother imo was a complete moron. She knew this kid had serious issues. Yet she left him alone with these weapons. People do this all the time. Its like people don't want to think the worst of their children but at the same time you have to be honest about what kind of situation you're dealing with.
Currently our back ground checks for purchasing guns is missing many court orders that would prevent people from buying guns because of their mental history. This imo needs to be restored. I would also add that psychologists should be able to flag people on this registry that have not had their day in court yet so that they can not easily purchase guns from a distributor.
I also think if you want the freedom of owning guns and someone steals your gun that has been shown was not locked up you should be held criminally liable on some level for the damage.
Would that solve all of the worlds problems? No, but I think it would help to prevent many of these mass shootings.0 -
You know the statistics on the fact that you're more likely to be shot be your own weapon?
No, actually, I am not aware of the statistics that say I'm more like to be shot "be" my own weapon. Actually, I have no idea what your sentence is even supposed to mean--am I aware of that statistic? Or am I aware of it as opposed to something?0 -
the guys that shot up Columbine got their hands on AR's DURING the Assualt Weapons ban.
I think it's important to point out the the assault weapons ban only banned the manufacture of assault weapons. It didn't ban the sale, ownership, or use of assault weapons or high capacity magazines that were already legally manufactured. Manufacturers actually increased production before the ban took place so they could sell as many as possible after the ban went into effect. A new assault weapons ban could go try to go as far as making the sale or ownership of such guns illegal as well.
Edited to specify, the ban was on manufacture for civilian use. They could still be legally manufactured for export or for law enforcement.0 -
Crazy people are always going to find a way to get weapons.
Therefore, I will protect MYSELF any way I can. Yes, I have guns. Do I go crazy and shoot places up? No. But I will shoot someone if they enter my home uninvited.the weak mental health system in the US is also to blame. Basically, several decades ago, there was a major scandal about abuse in a living facility for mentally ill adults, which led many states to close their mental hospitals. There has also been a major move away from mandatory institutionalization and medication of the mentally ill. As a result, untreated cases of mental illness have skyrocketed, and many patients end up in jail or living on the street. If you actually need a gun, it is frustrating for that process to be held up because of poor social policy decisions.
I personally agree with bathsheba_c here.
I understand the issue of personal defense and I give some latitude to individuals on that issue. I see it as one of those "macro vs micro" issue. Statistically, as others have and will point out, someone who owns a gun for "defense" is multiple, multiple times more likely to be killed by someone they know, by an accident, or by suicide than by any intruder--or to use that weapon on someone they know. In terms of general statistics, there is little argument that I know of in favor of personal gun ownership for "personal defense".
OTOH, at the "micro" level, there are numerous instances where people HAVE successfully defended themselves in their homes or at their business with guns. So for those people, the "statistics" are meaningless--and I respect that. I don't everyone's personal situation, so I am not going to dismiss anyone's personal concerns for their safety.
But you don't need assault rifles, large capacity magazines, military weapons, thousands of rounds lethal ammo, etc, to defend yourself. Fighting mandatory background checks doesn't make you any safer, nor does tighter regulation of gun shows, etc.
I don't NEED a lot of things, but I still have them. We do have assault rifles in our home, as well as the largest legal capacity magazines available for them. We have quite a bit of ammo stock-piled, too. Do we need it? Time will tell. Are we paranoid crazies? Not in the least. Some of our weapons are purely for collector's purposes, and are never, at any time, loaded. Some are strictly used for hunting (I don't hunt, so I don't even touch those). But we do have a couple of them loaded and ready to go in case someone tries to funk with us in our home.
I will grant you, that some people really take it way too far. Personally, I am in favor of people getting background checks before they're allowed to buy guns. I also think everyone should be made to take a safety course for handling them, as well as shooting and storing them properly. 0 -
And guns have one purpose which is to kill. (Or injure at best) You can dress it up any way you want (protecting my family and all he other excuses) but its sole purpose is to kill.
No ****. I'm 100% sure no one says otherwise, unless they strictly like to go to the target range. Perhaps you're a pacifist, but if someone comes into MY home trying to do me harm, then I'm going to shoot them, stab them, do anything I can do prevent harm to myself. Not going to apologize for my way of thinking. Whether I shoot an intruder with a tiny pistol, or an AK-47, it really doesn't matter.0 -
You know the statistics on the fact that you're more likely to be shot be your own weapon?
No, actually, I am not aware of the statistics that say I'm more like to be shot "be" my own weapon. Actually, I have no idea what your sentence is even supposed to mean--am I aware of that statistic? Or am I aware of it as opposed to something?
Obviously she was referring to statistics like the one from the Harvard School of Public Health that guns in the home "are far more likely to be used in violence, an accident, or a suicide attempt than self defense." It wasn't that hard to understand what she was trying to say.
Source:
http://arstechnica.com/science/2011/04/guns-in-the-home-lots-of-risk-ambiguity/0 -
As an Australian can someone explain to me the rational behind having semi automatic weapons available legally? I know the second amendment but its a right to a WELL REGULATED militia. Not a free for all.
supreme court ruling in 2008 has complicated language, but essentially talks about the fact that the second amendment has prefatory and operative phrases. sort of breaks down to the fact that when they refer to a militia, they are referring to every able-bodied, of-age man -- because that's who made up the militia.
in summary, they said:We start therefore with a strong presumption that the Second Amendment right is exercised individually and belongs to all Americans.I'd also argue that a law made I'm the 1700s when guns could fire maybe one or two bullets before having to be reloaded shouldn't be relevant in a time whe weapons are being made that can shoot hundreds of bullets in a minute.
first, citizens can't own that type of gun legally.
but, more from the decision:The term was applied, then as now, to weapons that were not specifically designed for military use and were not employed in a military capacity.
Some have made the argument, bordering on the frivolous, that only those arms in existence in the 18th century are protected by the Second Amendment. We do not interpret constitutional rights that way. Just as the First Amendment protects modern forms of communications, e.g., Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union, 521 U. S. 844, 849 (1997), and the Fourth Amendment applies to modern forms of search, e.g., Kyllo v. United States, 533 U. S. 27, 35-36 (2001), the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding.
The phrase "keep arms" was not prevalent in the written documents of the founding period that we have found, but there are a few examples, all of which favor viewing the right to "keep Arms" as an individual right unconnected with militia service.
From our review of founding-era sources, we conclude that this natural meaning was also the meaning that "bear arms" had in the 18th century. In numerous instances, "bear arms" was unambiguously used to refer to the carrying of weapons outside of an organized militia. The most prominent examples are those most relevant to the Second Amendment: Nine state constitutional provisions written in the 18th century or the first two decades of the 19th, which enshrined a right of citizens to "bear arms in defense of themselves and the state" or "bear arms in defense of himself and the state." 8 It is clear from those formulations that "bear arms" did not refer only to carrying a weapon in an organized military unit. Justice James Wilson interpreted the Pennsylvania Constitution's arms-bearing right, for example, as a recognition of the natural right of defense "of one's person or house"--what he called the law of "self preservation."
c. Meaning of the Operative Clause. Putting all of these textual elements together, we find that they guarantee the individual right to possess and carry weapons in case of confrontation. This meaning is strongly confirmed by the historical background of the Second Amendment. We look to this because it has always been widely understood that the Second Amendment, like the First and Fourth Amendments, codified a pre-existing right. The very text of the Second Amendment implicitly recognizes the pre-existence of the right and declares only that it "shall not be infringed." As we said in United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U. S. 542, 553 (1876), "[t]his is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. The Second amendment declares that it shall not be infringed ... ."0 -
There's no reason any citizen needs to own an assault rifle. There just isn't.
Deer don't wear Kevlar.
I feel the same way on the issue. You want to own a gun for protection or hunting? Fine. You want an assault rifle or a machine gun? Uh, why?
a semi-automatic weapon is not an assault rifle. an assault rifle is a weapon which is either fully automatic or has the option to switch between single shot, three-shot burst and fully automatic. in order to own such weapons, you have to have a highly regulated FFL, and general citizens don't.
which also means machine guns? not allowed to own those, either.0 -
a semi-automatic weapon is not an assault rifle. an assault rifle is a weapon which is either fully automatic or has the option to switch between single shot, three-shot burst and fully automatic. in order to own such weapons, you have to have a highly regulated FFL, and general citizens don't.
which also means machine guns? not allowed to own those, either.
Thanks for the info. I didn't realize that there was a big difference between "assault rifle" and "assault weapon."
Here's a quick summary for everyone:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assault_weapon0 -
first, citizens can't own that type of gun legally.I'd also argue that a law made I'm the 1700s when guns could fire maybe one or two bullets before having to be reloaded shouldn't be relevant in a time whe weapons are being made that can shoot hundreds of bullets in a minute.
Indeed. This proves that there is nothing unconstitutional about banning private ownership of classes of weapons. The discussion is about where the line should be drawn, not about whether it is constitutional to draw a line.0 -
first, citizens can't own that type of gun legally.I'd also argue that a law made I'm the 1700s when guns could fire maybe one or two bullets before having to be reloaded shouldn't be relevant in a time whe weapons are being made that can shoot hundreds of bullets in a minute.
Indeed. This proves that there is nothing unconstitutional about banning private ownership of classes of weapons. The discussion is about where the line should be drawn, not about whether it is constitutional to draw a line.
I have the right to free speech. I cannot yell "fire" in a theater. I do have the right to hate speech, but not if the aim is to incite violence. There are certain portions of our constitutional rights we give back for the good of society.
There are already many limits on guns. Those limits, we allow, for the good of society. But how much do we give? How far do we allow the line to be moved? Because at a certain point, it has been moved so far back we no longer have any ground to stand upon.
There are already many gun laws. It is harder to buy a gun than any other item out there. Many we can't buy. The gun used here? Legal under the expired assault weapon ban. Legal in the state with one of the strictest set of gun laws in the country.
A gun is a tool. It can be misused. Sadly, if the gun he used was unavailable, he uses one of two handguns he had. So we ban handguns. He uses another semi auto rifle. So we ban all of those. So then he uses a shotgun - which, honestly, could have been equally as deadly in that circumstance. So, what, we then ban shotguns? No more hunting, folks. Sorry. We had to move the line again.
For the most part, further gun restrictions don't solve this issue. This is a deeper issue than that. And the answer is not to simply keep moving the line back on guns.0 -
Just for the sake of information, the state militias in the US are the National Guard. The purpose of the militia is to act as a check on the military power of the national military. The reason for the 2nd Amendment is that the first thing the British tried to do during the revolution was to disarm the Massachusetts militia.
Also, if you don't have the skills to stop a home intruder with just the bullets in a simple, six-bullet chamber, then I'm not sure I want you to have guns in the first place. There is no need for a civilian to have a magazine clip that holds dozens of bullets.
Lastly, machetes are not knives. You can't say that a steak knife is comparable to a semi-automatic weapon because, in Africa, guys slaughter people with massive knives.0 -
first, citizens can't own that type of gun legally.I'd also argue that a law made I'm the 1700s when guns could fire maybe one or two bullets before having to be reloaded shouldn't be relevant in a time whe weapons are being made that can shoot hundreds of bullets in a minute.
Indeed. This proves that there is nothing unconstitutional about banning private ownership of classes of weapons. The discussion is about where the line should be drawn, not about whether it is constitutional to draw a line.
I have the right to free speech. I cannot yell "fire" in a theater. I do have the right to hate speech, but not if the aim is to incite violence. There are certain portions of our constitutional rights we give back for the good of society.
There are already many limits on guns. Those limits, we allow, for the good of society. But how much do we give? How far do we allow the line to be moved? Because at a certain point, it has been moved so far back we no longer have any ground to stand upon.
There are already many gun laws. It is harder to buy a gun than any other item out there. Many we can't buy. The gun used here? Legal under the expired assault weapon ban. Legal in the state with one of the strictest set of gun laws in the country.
A gun is a tool. It can be misused. Sadly, if the gun he used was unavailable, he uses one of two handguns he had. So we ban handguns. He uses another semi auto rifle. So we ban all of those. So then he uses a shotgun - which, honestly, could have been equally as deadly in that circumstance. So, what, we then ban shotguns? No more hunting, folks. Sorry. We had to move the line again.
For the most part, further gun restrictions don't solve this issue. This is a deeper issue than that. And the answer is not to simply keep moving the line back on guns.
As stated before, drawing the line is the debate. Ultimately, it is a debate that should be based on facts and research. We all have opinions. You are drawing an arbitrary line and saying "it's here". My opinion is that we have not even begun to seriously regulate the sale and ownership of guns in this country--at least not in any effective way. The regulations we have are so full of loopholes and so poorly enforced that they don't represent a "line" as much as a couple of random dots.
It's kind of hard to make the case that gun regulations are too onerous when, in many states, it is harder to register to vote than it is to purchase a firearm.0 -
Lastly, machetes are not knives. You can't say that a steak knife is comparable to a semi-automatic weapon because, in Africa, guys slaughter people with massive knives.
And machetes are not illegal, I have a couple in my house right now, purchased from Home Depot.Indeed. This proves that there is nothing unconstitutional about banning private ownership of classes of weapons. The discussion is about where the line should be drawn, not about whether it is constitutional to draw a line.
I repeat, yet again, that the OP was a claim against semi automatic weapons. No mention was made of automatic fire or of magazine size.
If there was a thoughtful and intelligent proposition put forward that would make the process behind purchasing and owning a firearm more uniform across the country, I would be in support of it. Specifically I think things like psychiatric evaluations and effective firearms safety courses would make the most sense.It's kind of hard to make the case that gun regulations are too onerous when, in many states, it is harder to register to vote than it is to purchase a firearm.
I still think the crux of the issue is one of mental health. It's really easy to argue about magazine size or which firearms people should and should not be able to buy, but what about increasing funding to psychiatric wards? What about training and staffing schools with psychiatrists that can identify potential threats? What about funding programs where parents can take problem children to receive care?0 -
Right. The Republicans who oppose stricter gun laws are going to increase funding for mental health services. Pull the other one.0
-
I'm all in favor of increasing mental health services. A $200 tax per gun and $1 per bullet ought to pay for it just fine.0
