Senate Gun Control

That's true, but it would put a halt to future acqusitions.

 

Actually, you can't. You can argue all day long that ease of access somehow correlates to mass shootings, but you'd be on the same shaky ground as saying video games produce increased violent behaviour. You're a dollar short of outright blaming an inanimate object. Do you think cops should own guns?

Fire_Ice_Death People get fired all the time, people have their hearts broken in relationships by the second, and generally bad things happen -- how often is the result a mass shooting? Do you discount the millions of gun owners that never do anything with their firearms other than keep them well oiled? You can easily lookup the facts and see gun violence is not a major cause of death in the US. To counter the above posted mass shooting, where's the post regarding the Islamic guy beheading the woman in OK due to being workplace disagreements/termination and then subsequently shot to death by a concealed license holder? Doesn't fit the narrative?

Ender Sai Actually didn't bother me at all, and I had to point out it out to the person I was with. Carrying a pistol in a market. Uh, ok. Obviously guns don't bother me. Which is why I don't target practice with unsafe or unstable people. But I wouldn't expect you to understand anything about gun culture, as your country is so restrictive and ignorant in regards to gun control.

 

It's hardly ignorant of gun control. That's a profoundly stupid remark.

 

"If not in prototype or actual use". What did you think I was talking about? I was talking about their availability to everyone guaranteed under the 2nd amendment, not some inventor offering up an experimental gun. We have incredibly powerful weapons available to the common person unlike ever before. That is our topic, not when something was first invented. It's their proliferation and availability under the 2nd amendment and the emergence of gun control.
So you are technically correct rifled weapons did exist during the revolutionary war, but they were not heavily used. The muzzleloading flintlock was in heavy use. They were mostly used by settlers in the Adirondack area of Viriginia and Pennsylvania and Carolina as "America" didn't exist at the time and they were great for the hunters who lived in those areas.

deathraygun
Do you discount the millions of gun owners that never do anything with their firearms other than keep them well oiled? You can easily lookup the facts and see gun violence is not a major cause of death in the US. To counter the above posted mass shooting, where's the post regarding the Islamic guy beheading the woman in OK due to being workplace disagreements/termination and then subsequently shot to death by a concealed
license holder?

So you're arguing an OK nut beheads a woman and a guy shooting him to death makes an argument in favor of your position?

You do realize those two statements make an argument against concealed firearms being A) a deterrent and B) worthwhile for the public to own privately

You do understand that right?

 

Seriously? A law abiding concealed handgun owner shoots a murderer. And prevents said murderer from further murder. Yeah, I understand that. Sounds kosher to me. Not sure why that would hurt the cause for gun owners.

Ender Sai "Firearms license applicants would be required to take a safety course and show a “genuine reason” for owning a firearm, which could not include self-defense". Is this true? Because that's stupid.

 

You claimed that the 2nd Amendment was written "before we even had rifled weapons". As I pointed out, that is outright false. The Kentucky Long Rifle (which, as its name suggests, was rifled) was developed in Pennsylvania in the early 1700s, and was in common use throughout the Colonies during the Revolution, a good 15 years before the 2nd Amendment was ratified.

The Kentucky Long Rifle was accurate out to 100 yards for the average shooter, and out to 300 yards for a skilled marksman. That's roughly equivalent to the accuracy of modern rifles using iron sights.

Joseph Belton's repeater could fire 20 rounds in 5 seconds, in 1777. The 2nd Amendment was ratified in 1792 by many of the same people who saw that demonstration 15 years earlier. At the time the 2nd Amendment was ratified, it was not unheard of for private individuals to own entire warships.

Modern firearms are not that different from what the Founders had or easily could have foreseen.

 

Yes; we're not total ****wits who shoot each other for no provocation. You will in fact find that only one country has gun laws which are broadly regarded as stupid. Whilst I could give hints like "they execute their citizens", "have profound human rights violations" and "have a completely unequal society", I worry doing so may cause you to incorrectly conclude that I was referring to a third world autocracy when in fact, I meant 'Murica.

 

Yeah, and who do you think "we" is in the context of the second amendment? And your last statement: what the heck do you mean by foreseen? Were the founders Nostradamus?

And it is correct to suggest modern firearms are more advanced in accuracy, range, and firepower(as well as capacity) than ever before. You're cherry-picking your firearms.

 

Yes, the prescient Founders, the drafters of the All-Important Third Amendment, the people who forgot to include anything about a Presidential line of succession because no head of state is ever incapacitated or killed, and-- oh, yes-- the guys who thought the whole slavery thing would work itself out on its own. They obviously had a great idea of what the implications and interpretations of the Second Amendment would be nearly 230 years later, where U.S. society has remained static.

I wouldn't give a **** if Ben Franklin was salivating at picking up French women with an M1-A1. It's irrelevant.

 

But... the Constitution! Authored by Jaysus himsaylf!

 

I just had an image of George Washington sitting on the Death Star's throne:

I shalt not tell a lie….everything is proceeding as I have foreseen.

 

I'm not cherry picking. I'm simply pointing out the technology that they had at the time and the advancements they saw in their own lifetimes. If they saw a firearm demonstrated that could fire 20 rounds in 5 seconds (240 rounds per minute) in 1777, they could easily have foreseen a gun that could hold 30 rounds and fire at a rate of 800 rounds per minute, like the AR15/M16.

Your position would require us to believe that they couldn't believe that firearm technology would improve from what they had actually seen.

You made an easily disproven claim that they didn't have rifled weapons, and now you are doubling down by ignoring the actual technology available at the time.

 

So you agree with me weapons technology does advance then? From 20 rounds in 5 seconds in 1777 to 800 rpm modern day. Thanks for advancing my argument.

 

Kimball, how many of the people who wrote this run-of-the-mill document have you personally spoken to?

 

Shane,

You are really stretching here. I never claimed that firearms haven't advanced. What I have claimed is that most of the fundamental technology involved was known to the Founders, and it is unreasonable to think that there weren't going to be improvements. They knew that there was potential for more powerful weapons, and yet they didn't include any text to restrict the right to keep and bear arms to only a certain technology level. In their day, private citizens could own fully armed warships, and they chose not to restrict that in the 2nd Amendment.

Your argument here is akin to saying that the 1st Amendment is outdated because the Founders couldn't foresee radio, television, or the Internet. It fails on so many levels.

 

Again, I thank you for advancing the core argument. And I never said the second amendment was outdated. So that's irrelevant. But also, you ignore the idea radio, the internet, and television are not WEAPONS that kill. Try to think of the topic. It is gun control not gun abolition.

 

Well but even so, I think the issue is that they made the mistake of not only making a document that was pregnant with wanky symbolism, but that wasn't a living document. So in effect they made an immutable set of prescriptive laws that are supposed to be adequate for the challenges ahead. That they can still barely function in the way the 1st Amendment does with the interwebs is not a testament to the cherubic bottoms that wrote it, but pure happy chance. Serendipity, if you prefer.

 

Your argument was based on a false claim, which you haven't retracted in your rush to claim your "core argument" is advanced: rifles were common at the time the 2nd Amendment was written. Those rifles were about as accurate as modern rifles are. (The key difference is a combination of modern optics and stronger materials that can withstand greater pressure.)

The Founders knew the risks of having an armed populace. They knew that technology was advancing, including with firearms. Even knowing all that, they chose to protect the right to keep and bear arms without restricting it from future advances in technology.

In the same way, they knew the risks of allowing free speech. The power of the press did as much as the power of the gun to win the Revolution. Both are powerful weapons that can be turned against either the government or the people.

You cannot argue that their limited technology in one area limits the rights they protected, while simultaneously claiming that other rights they protected at the same time advanced alongside technology.

 

Again, Kimball - how can you be certain?

Do you know what firearm technology will look like in 200 years time? Accurately?

 

My argument wasn't based on just shouldered rifles. Do you know what a handgun is? Do you know what a Judge is? My argument was based on the idea firearms tech has advanced and the founders/framers created an amendment during a time period that didn't have firearms technology as advanced as today.

You helped make my argument by showing magazine/chamber capacity and RPM had increased drastically.

I will gladly give you the rifle time period of invention. You are right. I was incorrect. I forgot about Morgan's rifles and Kings Mtn. in my haste. However, the point I was making was the weaponry available has advanced and those things should be considered when talking about gun control today.

What is a well-regulated militia?

 

But Shane even still, it's preposterous to argue that 200 years of foresight was inherent in the Founding Fathers. I mean, it's time you imbued a little humanity and a little less divinity in the people who wrote the Constitution and its amendments, as a nation. People prior to the advent of television had no idea what their world would look like - they could not reasonably forsee how the end of the century would not resemble the start of it. Yet KK wants us to believe these guys foresaw subcompact pistols like the Beretta Storm Compact?

el oh el.

 

I'm going to say that if the Founding Fathers were alive today and saw the problems we face with gun violence, they'd be in favor of scrapping the Second Amendment. The amendment was written at a time when American towns and settlements needed militias to defend from marauding Indians or Canadians, and both those threats have ceased to exist.

 

I don't know. Assuming we're talking some time travel scenario where they were magically transported to our time and given a crash-course on contemporary politics, the anti-Federalists would probably not be in favor of scrapping the Second Amendment. But they'd be too busy marveling/being horrified at everything in the modern world anyway.

 

Ender Sai The framers deserve the plaudits for starting the whole thing in the first place. However, this notion we should "go back" or "return to the original intent of the constitution" is really a terrible idea. One, it can't be done. Second, at least half of our nation resembled an agrarian republic at the time.
So…we want to return to a time of large slave farms and smaller ones owned by yeomans? Great!



Honestly, I think we need to seriously consider changing our government.

Alpha-Red I think you may be right in one respect to the founders/framers looking at the second amendment: they seemed very interested in revisiting the constitution and thats why they put the amendment process in place. So they did look at it as a document that needed some flexibility.

 

The will of the Founding Fathers is alive and well today in the form of the Supreme Court anyway. The Constitution and Bill of Rights is not frozen in time, as it is interpreted by people who live in today's world. The Supreme Court was very close to opening the door to meaningful gun control in Heller but unfortunately the majority prevailed. It might have been a different outcome though, so there is still hope for the future. The Supreme Court is not bound by its own decisions.