Another 2nd Amendment/gun control thread.

[Revoltingest]

Obviously... Which makes the point of us interpreting the law arbitrary which was really the point of my first comment.

It's arbitrary to you, but as an Americastanian citizen,
I propose regulation which passes constitutional muster.
Ferriners wouldn't care about that.

 

[Skipper]

For those who support the 2nd Amendment, do you consider the ban on full autos and rocket launchers a violation of the 2nd amendment, or do you consider it a reasonable restriction (I assume most do)? If so, then what criteria do you believe should be used to separate what is and isn't acceptable for civilians to own?

No, it is not a violation. The only reason to have such weapons is to kill people, like kids in school. No one needs such weapons. Military style weapons should not be sold to the public.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

My perspective is constitutional originalism, ie, the framers intent is what governs.
Assume that the framers intended citizens to own militarily capable small arms
(which they did at the time). This standard of weapon would be what's protected,
not the technology of the day. So as technology changes, so do the kinds of
small arms which meet that standard.

It's important to note another major change: at that time, milita members were often expected to provide their own weapons. Their weapons had to be military-capable because they were literally the weapons of the military of the time.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

It's arbitrary to you, but as an Americastanian citizen,
I propose regulation which passes constitutional muster.
Ferriners wouldn't care about that.

They might, they're just not directly impacted.

 

[Revoltingest]

They might, they're just not directly impacted.

My hat's off to any ferriner who likes the rule of law here.
It's good for a free visa to visit Revoltistan!

 

[Subduction Zone]

Yes to rocket launchers, no to fully automatic weapons.

And mortars. I always wanted to go deer hunting with a mortar.

 

[Kuzcotopia]

For those who support the 2nd Amendment, do you consider the ban on full autos and rocket launchers a violation of the 2nd amendment, or do you consider it a reasonable restriction (I assume most do)? If so, then what criteria do you believe should be used to separate what is and isn't acceptable for civilians to own?

The original intent was to raise a militia, because here was a distrust of government controlled military and government controlled police forces.

The irony is that if you was an originalist view of trhe constitution, then your level of support for armed citizens should be inversely proportional to your support of military and police. Because that's the goal of th amendment.

Any pro 2nd amendment citizen who is also pro military/police/enforcement is contradicting themselves. As someone who prefers police and state intervention and enforcement of laws, l think the 2nd amendment should be quite limited. Anyone here pro second amendment should feel the same way about police and military.

Who are we kidding here anyway? If the might of the US government seriously wanted your beer-belly militia compound destroyed, it's going to be tr cameras of a free press that prevents it from happening. . . Not your AR-15 and a wardrobe full of store-bought camo.

 

[Father Heathen]

And mortars. I always wanted to go deer hunting with a mortar.

Flamethrowers are surprisingly unregulated in most states. Kill and cook in one easy step.

 

[Revoltingest]

The irony is that if you was an originalist view of trhe constitution, then your level of support for armed citizens should be inversely proportional to your support of military and police. Because that's the goal of th amendment.

There isn't an inverse relationship.

If the might of the US government seriously wanted your beer-belly militia compound destroyed, it's going to be tr cameras of a free press that prevents it from happening. . . Not your AR-15 and a wardrobe full of store-bought camo.

You envision a convenient but unrealistic scenario.
Consider that US experience in fighting overseas still involves small arms similar to
the AR15, & that the foe is not so easy to destroy as simply finding a compound.
I'll be that even with your beer belly, you could still be an effective armed revolutionary.

 

[Curious George]

And mortars. I always wanted to go deer hunting with a mortar.

Lol, whoops...strike that, reverse it.

 

[wandering peacefully]

Constitution is not scripture. Framers don't matter. What matters is what the current citizenry want or don't want. Ideally a constitution should undergo mandatory revision and review ever 20-30 years.

I would like to see an actual list of all of the amendments to constitution and if any at all have ever been changed because of cultural or other changes in society. If any can be changed then all are subject to change. People seem to forget one of the actual constitutional rights which is not an amendment. That is the inalienable right to the peaceful enjoyment of property. When these automatic loving gun folks are out playing with them in my backyard all day, I am being denied my constitutional right. This gun thing has gotten totally out of control. Now they want to arm more teachers with guns in the classroom.

When ever has a problem been solved by adding more of the same problem?

Something has got to change.

 

[suncowiam]

It's arbitrary to you, but as an Americastanian citizen,
I propose regulation which passes constitutional muster.
Ferriners wouldn't care about that.

I'm an american. I can make a proposal too, right?

What makes your interpretation better than mine?

 

[Revoltingest]

I'm an american. I can make a proposal too, right?

What makes your interpretation better than mine?

Huh...I thought you were a ferriner.
We each get to think our own interpretations & proposals are better.
(And I won't call yours a "farce".)

 

[Enoch07]

They react to the suggestion of further restrictions or requirements as if it were a push for a complete ban and seizure; like there's no middle ground.

Nope, we 2nd amendment supporters are always willing to talk about improving laws to help avoid tragedies. But here on RF for example I have only talked with 2 or 3 people willing to talk about adjusting laws, vs the vast majority of anti-gun people wanting to repeal the 2nd amendment or a gun ban (to different degrees, some want to ban semi-autos, some want a total gun ban).

 

[suncowiam]

Huh...I thought you were a ferriner.
We each get to think our interpretations & proposals are better.

Then what purpose does that support? That's simply free speech. How does that conclude the greater problem of a person's right to bear arms and the safety of the public?

 

[Revoltingest]

Then what purpose does that support? That's simply free speech. How does that conclude the greater problem of a person's right to bear arms and the safety of the public?

This isn't clear.

 

[Revoltingest]

Nope, we 2nd amendment supporters are always willing to talk about improving laws to help avoid tragedies. But here on RF for example I have only talked with 2 or 3 people willing to talk about adjusting laws, vs the vast majority of anti-gun people wanting to repeal the 2nd amendment or a gun ban (to different degrees, some want to ban semi-autos, some want a total gun ban).

And there are public calls for bans too.
Are we the only ones who see them?

 

[dfnj]

Yes to rocket launchers, no to fully automatic weapons.

At least you have some balls to say what you think.

We all know lobbyists coerce politicians to pass laws creating cartels and monopolies in exchange for campaign financing. This is why gun legislation always mentions gun models. It's PURE BS!!!

If you want to regulate guns, you need to do it based on intelligent thought. Guns should be regulated by the following:

1. Bullet caliber size
2. Possible rounds that can be fired per minute
3. Magazine size
4. Muzzle velocity
5. Range

I'm sure there are others. But once you have regulations, it has nothing to do with manufacturers or gun type or model.

If you think fully automatic weapons should be legal you are one sick individual. For hunting or personal protection there's no reason to have automatic weapons. There's no reason to turn a deer into hamburger when hunting. All you need is 1 or 2 rounds to scare off a home intruder. There's no reason to cannon handguns. There's no reason to have machine guns. There's no reason to have rifles capable of shooting 30 rounds per minute by pulling the trigger really fast. This is insanity.

These numbers are sick:

Mass Shooting Tracker

If Democrats and Liberals are to blame for killing babies by abortion then who do we blame for mass shootings like the one in Florida?

 

[Twilight Hue]

Constitution is not scripture. Framers don't matter. What matters is what the current citizenry want or don't want. Ideally a constitution should undergo mandatory revision and review ever 20-30 years.

I disagree. A constitution is a foundation for a country. The framers of the Constitution for the US knew what they were doing and placed in essential safeguards that cannot be messed around with.

 

[Father Heathen]

we 2nd amendment supporters are always willing to talk about improving laws to help avoid tragedies.

Except for those who've criticized and even harassed survivors for speaking out against gun culture ("How dare they question the sacred gun! So what if they've just witnessed the murder of their class mates?"), some even go as far to accuse them of being "crisis actors", claiming that the whole thing is a "false flag" hoax and a conspiracy to disarm the citizenry.