Senate Gun Control

Discussion in 'Community' started by Ghost, Dec 14, 2012.

  1. Ender Sai Chosen One

    Member Since:
    Feb 18, 2001
    star 9
    Common sense? More like COMMUNIST sense. Next you'll be comparing it to the arms race during the cold war; or nuclear proliferation.

    It's obviously the case that Satan is arming blacks malcontents to tear down his Divine Kingdom on Earth, America. Therefore the only thing you can do to turn Satan back is buy a few guns.

    Wouldn't be wonderful if companies had to rename their firearms with accurate names for the US market? You know, like the Suicide Enabler; the Childkiller (and the Childkiller SF, with a stainless steel slide!); the Wifebeater 9000, and the Linecutter's Comeuppance?
  2. yankee8255 Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    May 31, 2005
    star 6
    A rather interesting (and imo alarming) Federal Appellate Court decision on gun control laws:


    Get ready for a major Supreme Court decision on gun control and the Second Amendment in the next few years.
  3. dp4m Chosen One

    Member Since:
    Nov 8, 2001
    star 9
    Except that ruling sort of makes sense, in context, doesn't it?

    If there is a) the Second Amendment, b) existing gun control laws in the state of CA (which are valid by the court) and c) concealed-carry permit laws in the state of CA (which are valid by the court)...

    Then it makes total sense that there should not be an additional requirement to show cause for receiving a permit if a + b + c are in order.

    NYS has specific rules (including, for Ender's sake), including not being a prior felon, not having an outstanding court order and not being crazy. And the licensing officer has final say, with virtually no chance of overturn unless capriciousness can be shown.

    CA's statute only basically contains the "show good cause" which is... pretty stupid.
    Jedi Merkurian likes this.
  4. Kimball_Kinnison Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Oct 28, 2001
    star 6
    Actually, the real core of the decision isn't that there was a requirement to show "good cause", it was that because California made open carry illegal and also imposed the "good cause" threshold (which San Diego was interpreting such to make an effective prohibition on all forms of carry), the combination of the two was an impermissible burden, to the point of a prohibition, on the right to bear arms.

    Essentially, while Heller allows the states to regulate the manner of carry, they cannot do so in such a way as to have it be a de facto prohibition on carry for the average, law-abiding citizen.
  5. Rogue1-and-a-half Manager Emeritus who is writing his masterpiece

    Member Since:
    Nov 2, 2000
    star 8
    ITS BACK ITS BACK THIS IS AWESOME POST POST POST YOU GUYS WELCOME BACK KIMBALL
  6. Ender Sai Chosen One

    Member Since:
    Feb 18, 2001
    star 9
    When your society finishes circling the drain and gurgles down the hole, I would put money on the second amendment being a if not the main culprit. Your "right" to bear arms is morally indefensible.
  7. dp4m Chosen One

    Member Since:
    Nov 8, 2001
    star 9

    ... except at the time the Amendment was written.
  8. I Are The Internets Chosen One

    Member Since:
    Nov 20, 2012
    star 7
    KK, welcome back. Now get out.
  9. Ender Sai Chosen One

    Member Since:
    Feb 18, 2001
    star 9
    Internets... I'd rather KK posts than your Dane Cook-esque attempts at humour. Don't talk to him that way.


    Well we're talking now about the actual amendment to the Constitution, which specifically calls for a well regulated militia and not a bunch of drunken yokels and fascist Christians. It has gone from the need to maintain a militia in the days when standing armies weren't common place to you can have as many guns as you want, and ain't nobody gonna done tell you otherwise.
  10. dp4m Chosen One

    Member Since:
    Nov 8, 2001
    star 9

    Except that is what it meant back then, and was perfectly valid, especially in conjunction with That Amendment That No One Ever Talks About When Talking About The Second Amendment (Hint: 2 + 1).

    It's obviously somewhat different now when one legal handgun can kill 14 people with muskets, let alone the differential in armament between the civilian populace and the military populace. But that doesn't abrogate a) the necessity of the Amendment at the time, nor b) that it's an Amendment of the Constitution of the United States. So, realistically you need to address this in terms of gun control rather than Amendment repeat, since one is a bazillionty percent more likely.

    And FYI, you know I'm in favor of it -- but I'm also in favor of the other Amendments of the Constitution and don't think you can just pick and choose which ones to follow/ignore.

    Would a repeal of the Second Amendment help? Probably.
    Is it likely?

    [IMG]
  11. GenAntilles Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Jul 24, 2007
    star 4
    Whose morality are you talking about Ender? The morality of the fascist christian drunks you assume are every gun owner finds not owning guns morally indefensible. You claim differently. Morality is subjective. Using morality as an excuse for gun control is just as bad as those drunk facist christians wanting to shoot all the minorities with their boom sticks as 'they be immoral heathens!'

    If you want to argue leave morality out of serious discussions. Morality has no place in policy.

    People should be disarmed not for any moral reason but for the simple facts it will prevent violence which will allow for more stability in the state and less expenses. It will allow more people to live and be productive for the state.
  12. Ender Sai Chosen One

    Member Since:
    Feb 18, 2001
    star 9
    GenAntillies, the argument speaks in favour of a moral clause because for some reason you foolishly enacted the second amendment. You have a legislative basis for owning a shedload of guns.
  13. GenAntilles Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Jul 24, 2007
    star 4
    I can ask 100 people and get 100 different answers on why having guns and not having guns is moral. None of them are correct. Basing an argument on 'it's moral' or 'it's immoral' is foolish.

    Policy should be decided on facts and evidence. Morality is a subjective feeling people have that helps them justify their actions, it is never a sound basis for making a policy decision.

    Appealing to morality to support a cause is no different than appealing to a deity. All it does is garner support from the uneducated masses and make them feel they are on the 'right' side of something.

    Murder is illegal not because it is immoral but because society had decided to make it illegal as it is harmful to society. Guns should be illegal for the same reason. There is no moral component.
  14. Ender Sai Chosen One

    Member Since:
    Feb 18, 2001
    star 9
    Oh, ok. So let's talk facts, shall we? We can point to a tonne of statistical evidence that shows less guns = better societies, but if pro-gun people gave a damn about facts they wouldn't argue the point. They'd argue having phallic implement whose dominant purpose is to kill makes them feel empowered and without it they'd lose that feeling.
  15. dp4m Chosen One

    Member Since:
    Nov 8, 2001
    star 9

    Doesn't Sweden have a much higher per capita suicide rate and virtually no gun ownership?

    How is that fewer guns = better society?
  16. GenAntilles Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Jul 24, 2007
    star 4
    And the pro gun side is incorrect. That does not make the gun prohibition side some paragon of morality, they are simply on the correct and factual side of a policy debate.
    Rogue1-and-a-half likes this.
  17. dp4m Chosen One

    Member Since:
    Nov 8, 2001
    star 9

    Let's not pretend that there are not valid pro-gun arguments to be made. It's better than arbitrarily blanket stating there is no good pro-gun position.

    Instead, let's focus on what's reasonable in terms of a pro-gun argument (hunting weapons, very rare concealed carry permits, carry permits for valid people like off duty peacekeepers, etc.) unless you find none of those reasonable, in which case that's lunacy... :p
  18. Ender Sai Chosen One

    Member Since:
    Feb 18, 2001
    star 9

    Isn't there a correlation between cold weather and suicide, and hot weather and violence?

    In any event, Australia does not have a blanket ban on firearms. Up until maybe 10 years ago I owned two Walther firearms - a KK Match GX-1 target rifle, and a PPK/S with a stainless steel frame and black plastic grips. The PPK lived on site at the range, as we didn't have an appropriate safe for it. But my rifle was stored in a gun safe with my father's Voere .22 bolt action.

    See, the point is to make gun ownership difficult enough that only people who are sports shooters will apply. People stroking the long barrel on a Taurus Raging Bull aren't really in scope for firearm law here. And in storing the rifle, ammunition was kept separate. So was the bolt, but for other reasons.

    There's literally no point at which having the gun in my family home made me safer. Nor have I, since moving out, felt less safe not having any firearms. So self-defence and concealed carry outside of official reasons (security, intelligence, law enforcement, defence) don't feel like valid reasons to me.

    Hunting, sports shooting? That's fine, go nuts. But anything else? Not convinced.
  19. Rogue1-and-a-half Manager Emeritus who is writing his masterpiece

    Member Since:
    Nov 2, 2000
    star 8
    Oh, Jesus. This is even better than I'd hoped. You do realize it was your great drive to do the whole JCC/Senate melting pot that allows us to have such Dane Cook-esque attempts at humor show up in this serious discussion thread, right? And, by the way, Internets is funnier than Dane Cook.

    Jesus . . . "Don't talk to him that way." My God, you're a satirical wonder, Ender.
  20. dp4m Chosen One

    Member Since:
    Nov 8, 2001
    star 9

    I generally agree with you, that hunting weapons should be the primary gun ownership, but I do acknowledge there are other scenarios:

    1) Off-duty law enforcement personnel should be free to carry.

    2) Off duty security personnel licensed to carry for their job (e.g. security guards, armored car drivers, etc.) should not be allowed to carry off the job.

    3) Bodyguards / private security, yes with licensing.

    4) Legal professionals (judges, lawyers, etc.) for the government (city / state / federal) who work in criminal court should have the option to be licensed to carry on at least a temporary basis, depending on current cases and proof of threat (I can assure you this happens, at least in NYC, more than you might think)...

    At a bare minimum I can see cases for those scenarios -- which all seem fairly reasonable in most regards?
  21. Jabba-wocky Chosen One

    Member Since:
    May 4, 2003
    star 8
    I can sort of see your point four as it regards judges. On the other hand, though, if the security situation is so hopeless that not even the government's personnel can be temporarily secured from violence, I really have to despair for everyone else in the society.
  22. dp4m Chosen One

    Member Since:
    Nov 8, 2001
    star 9

    It's a matter of specific threats against those personnel (which is why I mentioned temporary licensing); presumably there is security in the courts and potentially drivers to/from home and courts. But, without having security with them out of hours (e.g. shopping, etc.) then it makes some kind of sense.
  23. Ender Sai Chosen One

    Member Since:
    Feb 18, 2001
    star 9
    I agree with Wocky there. Because next thing is what, teachers in inner city schools where there's more violence? Bus and train drivers on night shift? You end up back where you are. Society in peril.

    I would agree scenarios one through three are valid though.
  24. MarcusP2 Games and Community Reaper

    Manager
    Member Since:
    Jul 10, 2004
    star 6
    I don't see why off-duty personnel should be any different to any other member of the public.
  25. Jabba-wocky Chosen One

    Member Since:
    May 4, 2003
    star 8
    But why wouldn't you handle those in the same way other temporary threats are handled? People may be diverted to a temporary alternative residence or receive a more permanent escort.

    On other hand, what is this proposed measure really offering? Less than half of households and only 30% of individuals even have guns of any kind. So your offering the ability to do something that a majority of people would neither want nor know how to take advantage of. The percentage of those who could do so effectively, especially if you are otherwise restricting gun ownership and usage, becomes only a fraction of what you have the small group that might avail themselves of it. Really, this doesn't signal much to me beyond "we can't protect you."

    EDIT: I agree with Marcus. Especially in consideration of how much of policing, even in violent areas, is not about the use of violence. What is the argument that they should be armed at all times? I understand thinking that someone should be, but that's why there are different shifts of police working at different times. Those that are off-duty should be exactly that: off-duty.
    Last edited by Jabba-wocky, Feb 20, 2014