Wanted: Meaningful response backed by a sound argument

Discussion in 'Gun Control' started by TOG 6, Feb 18, 2021.

  1. TOG 6

    TOG 6 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 23, 2015
    Messages:
    47,848
    Likes Received:
    19,638
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Looking for a meaningful response with a sound argument behind it.

    Please describe at what point you will say 'OK, this is the proper amount of gun control, we should not and need not go any further".
    Please support your response with a sound argument.

    Thank you in advance.
     
    ButterBalls and modernpaladin like this.
  2. Chrizton

    Chrizton Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 4, 2020
    Messages:
    7,707
    Likes Received:
    3,785
    Trophy Points:
    113
    We probably shouldn't go any further as long as the 2nd Amendment exists and focus more on policies and programs that do not need to be litigated to death like mitigating poverty, possibly completely legalizing some illicit drugs like hash and weed (not "decriminalizing"). We probably need to figure out ways to adapt our educational models so fewer people end up dropping out and falling into the street crimes world. We should stop incentivizing out of marriage births through our welfare system so kids have more stable families. We should open up all adoptions and foster parenting to any stable married couple, gay, straight, lesbian, trans-queer circus clown/Lion Tamer couples. We need to break up concentrated poverty, We need to get people off the Big Pharma drug train. Have free mental health coverage for all; free in and out patient substance abuse treatment for all.
     
    Seth Bullock and Doofenshmirtz like this.
  3. Cybred

    Cybred Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2020
    Messages:
    20,147
    Likes Received:
    7,343
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Stop any and all innovation in guns and then gun control stops.
     
  4. modernpaladin

    modernpaladin Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Apr 23, 2017
    Messages:
    27,706
    Likes Received:
    21,105
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    The point at which it can be factually proven that the laws prevent more violence than they cause. This would take into account all dynamics, including but not limited to: how many ppl the laws prevented from defending themselves, the violence committed while enforcing the laws, the violence that resulted from paying for the laws instead of reducing poverty, the violence that would've been prevented had criminals merely feared that their victims were more likely armed, etc. Until we start researching tracking such things, the actual 'effectiveness' of gun control on violence is entirely unknown. We cant know, or even guess whether its helping or hurting society. This is why I maintain that gun control in the US has nothing to do with reducing violence. And until it does, then we have too much already.

    And of course, all gun laws are illegitimate until we vote to modify the 2A of the constitution. That should really be step 1.
     
    Last edited: Feb 19, 2021
    ButterBalls likes this.
  5. Cybred

    Cybred Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2020
    Messages:
    20,147
    Likes Received:
    7,343
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Nope, rights are not unlimited.
     
  6. modernpaladin

    modernpaladin Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Apr 23, 2017
    Messages:
    27,706
    Likes Received:
    21,105
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Of course not. No strawmen, plz and thx. The constitution has a built-in amendment procedure designed specifically for limiting our rights. The reason 'we' (they) dont want to use that procedure is because it makes it very difficult to limit our rights. Its supposed to be difficult to limit our rights.
     
    Last edited: Feb 19, 2021
  7. Cybred

    Cybred Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2020
    Messages:
    20,147
    Likes Received:
    7,343
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    And of course, all gun laws are illegitimate until we vote to modify the 2A of the constitution.
    This says you think they are.
     
  8. modernpaladin

    modernpaladin Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Apr 23, 2017
    Messages:
    27,706
    Likes Received:
    21,105
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Yes. Why not modify the 2A to finish with "except for NBC weapons, high explosives and indiscriminate firearms"? We all know that would have a high enough majority everywhere to easily pass a ConCon. ...but then it would set a precedent to make it a lot harder to ban all the other things the elites don't want us to have. Did you know marijuana was banned via precisely the same illegitimate bureaucratic regulations that were used to ban machine guns back in the 30s with no votes by anyone? Our system is all about precedent, and the precedent they've set is that the constitution doesnt mean squat and they can regulate whatever they want to effect a ban outside of the law.
     
  9. garyd

    garyd Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 18, 2012
    Messages:
    56,578
    Likes Received:
    16,662
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Limited only by due process.
     
  10. drluggit

    drluggit Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 17, 2016
    Messages:
    30,989
    Likes Received:
    28,455
    Trophy Points:
    113
    The words, "shall not be infringed" seems quite clear.
     
  11. Marcotic

    Marcotic Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 12, 2014
    Messages:
    1,883
    Likes Received:
    558
    Trophy Points:
    113
    My idea for gun control would be the establishment of citizen militia consisting of at least 3 people. Within a militia any firearm would be permissible provided that the militia is comfortable with it.

    They would set policy within the milita regarding proper storage and maintenance, however they saw fit.

    However, if a member goes Buffalo, or if an inordinate number of injuries/ mishaps occur, then the entire militia would be placed under federal scrutiny and punishment, up to and including the temporary or permanent baring of firearms for all members.

    Thus militia's themselves have incentive to ensure the mental well being of all members and the government is hands off unless and until it goes down.

    There would be no scrutiny of the Militia when it gets formed, they simply register with the government with the names of all members. If a member has been jettisoned from a militia previously or if a member is barred from gun ownership then the militia will be informed, but it will be their call to let that person in. The militia cannot have more then 1/4 of its members otherwise unable to own a firearm.

    They must update their membership every 3 months or so, unless they jettison a member in which case they must inform the government immediately.
    I know this could never happen, but a guy can dream.
     
    Last edited: Feb 19, 2021
  12. garyd

    garyd Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 18, 2012
    Messages:
    56,578
    Likes Received:
    16,662
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Okay there is no logical reason to deny honest law abiding citizens effective self defense which is the only thing gun banning does convert the citizenry into victims rather than citizens.
     
    Last edited: Feb 19, 2021
  13. drluggit

    drluggit Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 17, 2016
    Messages:
    30,989
    Likes Received:
    28,455
    Trophy Points:
    113
    The problem with what folks want vis a vis the regulation of the 2nd amendment is unfortunately forbidden to them via the document itself. "Shall not be infringed" is the phrase always overlooked, because there are those who feel government, or more specifically government controlled by their party, are the only folks who should be able to use force in this country. That actually is the motivation of the gun control crowd. Frankly the only reason for this is to induce dependence. When has it been otherwise? Legal gun owners have really never been the problem with guns. It is always criminality. Our leftists believe that instead of you being able to fend for yourself and protect your own, you have to rely on their provided services instead. Police, local, national, it doesn't matter as long as you no longer have the ability to protect or defend yourself, you must then rely on their well regimented unionized police force for your protection. It also allows the elite of that party to then ration how much protection you are able to receive, and when necessary have said protection pulled away so you endure the most fear possible. Hence why in democratic cities, the police didn't engage the "mostly peaceful" rioters and looters in large democratic cities. This is why whenever folks do defend themselves, folks in the democratic party loose their minds.

    How dare folks defend themselves?? How dare folks not be dependent on their good works... The Second amendment was put in place because the founders recognized that the English policy of reserving weapons for the crown meant they would always be subservient to it. That idea was flatly rejected, and codified into our constitution for the simple reason that they understood that the actual problem could be repressive government. Of course this flies in the fact of modern leftist dogma that would require you to be dependent on their good graces to keep you safe in our society.

    When I see folks trying to grab guns, I see folks who are terrified that their entitled positions are as tenuous as the rest of us see they are. Why do only the elite deserve the right to build their own private armies to protect themselves? That's the question we should start to address here.
     
    joesnagg, garyd and Eleuthera like this.
  14. Indlib

    Indlib Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 7, 2020
    Messages:
    1,868
    Likes Received:
    1,140
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I always find it odd how people from both parties usually asscoicate the 2nd with guns. Guns are a small part of the 2nd as "arms" are defined as weapons.

    That said, if we followed the 2nd literally as written, most likely America would be have been finished a while ago.
     
  15. fmw

    fmw Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 21, 2009
    Messages:
    37,763
    Likes Received:
    14,563
    Trophy Points:
    113
    That would have been the laws we had in 1967. We had all the gun control we needed back then. Since then we have added layers and layers of gun control to no avail. Criminals continue to commit crimes and guns are an important tool of their trade. All gun control does is control law abiding citizens. Criminals ignore gun laws. Pretty simple.
     
    Collateral Damage likes this.
  16. Eleuthera

    Eleuthera Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2015
    Messages:
    22,694
    Likes Received:
    11,760
    Trophy Points:
    113
    If the standard you're using is constitutional governance, America has been finished for quite some time.

    Our elected officials got together to urinate on the document when Congress passed the USA Patriot Act. The Military Commissions Act. The AUMF and so many more, including assaults on the 2nd Amendment.
     
    joesnagg, modernpaladin and Indlib like this.
  17. Indlib

    Indlib Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 7, 2020
    Messages:
    1,868
    Likes Received:
    1,140
    Trophy Points:
    113
    No. Not what I mean. As I stated, the 2nd refers to "arms", not guns. Arms are weapons. Rocket launchers, missile launchers, mustard gas are all weapons (arms).

    So, if we lived by the 2nd amendments actual meaning (shall not be infringed etc.) then picture this scenario...(this got really long and embellished but Fridays are slow at work so I got carried away).

    You are BBQing in your back yard with your NRA ballcap on and you look over the fence and see your new North Korean neighbor is flying his favorite Kim Jong-un flag and appears to be assembling, with help of course, a missile launcher. You go up to the fence all neighborly and ask what he is doing and if he wants a burger. He says with a thick accent, "I love the 2nd amendment" and "yes please, hold the kechup". You ask him what the missile launcher costs and he says, "I have no idea, North Korea funded it for me." He then says several other North Koreans around American suburbs also got one.

    You are concerned about this turn of events and call the police. The police show up and ask what the problem is and why you don't support the 2nd. They leave disgusted with your anti American complaint.

    2 months later your favorite rerun of Seinfeld (probably "the contest" maybe "the bris") is cut off with a special news report that all major US cities have been devastated by rockets launched within the US and rockets continue to fly. Suddenly you hear a huge noise and look out your window and see your neighors rocket just launched. You grab your camo jacket and glock, which seems woefully inadequate at this point, and hunker down for action. END OF CHAPTER ONE.
     
    Lucifer and Golem like this.
  18. Darthcervantes

    Darthcervantes Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Oct 4, 2018
    Messages:
    16,906
    Likes Received:
    17,148
    Trophy Points:
    113
    This is a difficult topic.
    Especially when you start talking about what kinds of guns are OK
    What if your house gets broken into by 4 armed intruders? A rifle won't do squat to protect you at that point. you would need something automatic
    just saying!
    oh and i'm not saying its OK to have those guns, I'm just saying there is no GOOD answer (at least not one that I can think of)
     
    Indlib likes this.
  19. AZ.

    AZ. Banned

    Joined:
    Oct 19, 2017
    Messages:
    2,174
    Likes Received:
    2,196
    Trophy Points:
    113
    You beat your wife, you lose your right.
    You have mental background problems, you lose your right.
    Most states that have Medical Marijuana cards, state you cant have any firearms, yet the town drunk gets DUI's and he loses no gun rights?

    Mandatory background checks every few years....
    Pretty simple, keep weapons out of the hands of people who probably arnt responsible
     
  20. Daniel Light

    Daniel Light Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 12, 2015
    Messages:
    31,455
    Likes Received:
    34,888
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Problem is that there is no consistent data to either ban guns or make their availability universal. The US on a whole
    has very lax gun laws, and it has high rates of gun violence in some areas, and less violence in others.

    For many gun owners, the gun is just a tool. The problems come from those who look at guns as a penis extension
    or from whacked out conspiracy nuts who have lost touch with reality. So do we base our laws on the actions
    of the small minority or the vast majority?

    Is there a tipping point where a weapon becomes such a danger that
    in the hands of the whack jobs it poses too much of a threat? We wouldn't allow the average citizen access to
    nukes or chemical weapons. Would you be comfortable knowing your angry, crazy neighbor has unlimited access
    to all weapons? Is there a line that most of can agree on? What if a new hand held weapon is developed
    that can literally level a city block or kill a thousand people in seconds? Does Joe Blow need to have it?

    I don't think there are absolutes in this argument.
     
    Lucifer likes this.
  21. Golem

    Golem Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2016
    Messages:
    42,519
    Likes Received:
    18,647
    Trophy Points:
    113
    That's easy for me: when national security is at stake. Like the Constitution literally says. There might be a few very qualified and very restricted cases that I'd be willing to analyze on an individual to individual basis. Like owning a firearm for hunting or sports(maybe) But I see no other reason why the general public should ever be allowed to own firearms, in my opinion. I know it's not the most popular opinion. And, for that reason, it might never come to fruition. But it is the most reasonable.
     
    Last edited: Feb 19, 2021
  22. Golem

    Golem Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2016
    Messages:
    42,519
    Likes Received:
    18,647
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I like the point you make.

    Of course, if we use the actual (original) meaning of the 2nd A, your neighbor would not be protected because they are not part of a well-regulated militia that is protecting the security of a free state.
     
    Indlib likes this.
  23. garyd

    garyd Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 18, 2012
    Messages:
    56,578
    Likes Received:
    16,662
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Nope as a general rule of the criminally inclined year in and year out kill far more people than either the nutbars, who get all the attention while being responsible for 1 to 2 % of the deaths criminals cause. There are around 35 gun deaths in the US every year roughly 2/3 of them are suicides. Of the remaining 11 to 12 k crazies kill about 100, another 800 or so are accidentsthat leaves 10100 plus killed by the criminally inclined and the majority, if not overwhelming majority, of those are people with quite lengthy rap sheets who aren't allowed to own guns now by reason of a previous felony conviction.
     
  24. Indlib

    Indlib Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 7, 2020
    Messages:
    1,868
    Likes Received:
    1,140
    Trophy Points:
    113
    The definition of militia when the constitution was written is certainly a point of contention. This contention is exacerbated by seemingly contradictory definitions of militias as defined in the federalist papers...mainly 29 and 46. It tends to frame militias as citizens in general but then talks about how militias are uniformed amd meet periodically.

    I guess that is why we have a SCOTUS, to examine constitutional intent.
     
    Lucifer likes this.
  25. TOG 6

    TOG 6 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 23, 2015
    Messages:
    47,848
    Likes Received:
    19,638
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I'm not sure what this means, and how does it meaningfully address the OP?
     

Share This Page