Another 2nd Amendment/gun control thread.

[Father Heathen]

Your question is already answered by current laws.

Nobody is using rocket launchers for mass shootings so there is no reason to talk about that. Full autos are heavily restricted and most citizens do not own full autos.

So what is you question then that's not already currently covered by law?

...

How in the hell did you get that from the OP?

You know what? Nevermind. I'll let others answer it.

 

[Father Heathen]

People shouldn't be allowed to buy full autos (without proper permits and licenses) and explosive devices.

Of course not. My point was that most 2nd amendment supporters (as far as I'm aware) have no qualms with such arms being inaccessible, meaning they accept that a line must be drawn somewhere. I'm asking where they personally think the line must be drawn, and why? Yes, I know what the law is, but "assault weapons" (like the ones used in the recent mass shootings) were once banned by the law, too. Laws can and often do change.

 

[Enoch07]

...

How in the hell did you get that from the OP?

You know what? Nevermind. I'll let others answer it.

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?

If you wanna play ignorant that's fine.

First of all what do you mean by rocket launcher?

Bazookas?
Mortars?
Grenade Launcher?

Because they are all heavily regulated and to own one legally requires a lot of documentation, tax stamps, and registration. To own one is extremely difficult and only an extremely small % of people can even afford to own them legally. The same for full Auto rifles/pistols. They are already restricted. So the criteria for what is and is not acceptable for civilians to own is already set by law.

National Firearms Act - Wikipedia

If you don't understand current laws that ignorance is on your part.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

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.

The Second Amendment was not an original part of the Constitution.

 

[Father Heathen]

If you wanna play ignorant that's fine.

First of all what do you mean by rocket launcher?

Bazookas?
Mortars?
Grenade Launcher?

Because they are all heavily regulated and to own one legally requires a lot of documentation, tax stamps, and registration. To own one is extremely difficult and only an extremely small % of people can even afford to own them legally. The same for full Auto rifles/pistols. They are already restricted. So the criteria for what is and is not acceptable for civilians to own is already set by law.

National Firearms Act - Wikipedia

If you don't understand current laws that ignorance is on your part.

I'm not asking about current laws. I'm aware of them, and they're not relevant beyond the fact that such arms are very hard if not impossible for the average citizen to obtain. I only brought them up to illustrate the fact that even the most adamant supporter of the 2nd amendment accepts that there should be limits on what civilians should be able to get their hands on. Thus there is a line, and I'm asking where people personally feel it should be drawn, and their rationale behind it. See post #62

 

[Revoltingest]

The Second Amendment was not an original part of the Constitution.

It can be seen as part of the original...or rather one of the many later originals.
Ref...
History of the United States Constitution - Wikipedia

 

[sayak83]

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.

I agree that it is the foundation. But I believe it should be subject to period review and updated. Not rashly, but through a careful process with checks and balances. The framers were no less and no more wiser than anybody else, and they were necessary constrained by the time they lived. The current method where judges etc. "read in" modern necessities and needs into the words of the 300 year old document is looking increasingly like rabbinical midrash to me.

 

[Enoch07]

I'm not asking about current laws. I'm aware of them, and they're not relevant beyond the fact that such arms are very hard if not impossible for the average citizen to obtain. I only brought them up to illustrate the fact that even the most adamant supporter of the 2nd amendment accepts that there should be limits on what civilians should be able to get their hands on. Thus there is a line, and I'm asking where people personally feel it should be drawn, and their rationale behind it. See post #62

I understand that but how is it relevant?

Nobody is using the weapons you are talking about for mass shootings.

Except for gang related mass shootings such as drive by shootings. In drive by shooting full auto is used but these are obtained on the black market illegally.

Nobody is arguing criminals should be allowed to have these types of weapons.

But law abiding citizens are allowed to legally own the weapons you talk about because of the 2nd amendment. Which allows us to have weapons to defend ourselves, either from criminals, foreign Invaders, or even our own government becoming corrupted.

 

[Father Heathen]

I understand that but how is it relevant?

Nobody is using the weapons you are talking about for mass shootings.

Except for gang related mass shootings such as drive by shootings. In drive by shooting full auto is used but these are obtained on the black market illegally.

Nobody is arguing criminals should be allowed to have these types of weapons.

But law abiding citizens are allowed to legally own the weapons you talk about because of the 2nd amendment. Which allows us to have weapons to defend ourselves, either from criminals, foreign Invaders, or even our own government becoming corrupted.

None of that has anything at all to do with my question... sigh, okay. Let me reword it...

Let's say you were visited by a magical genie. He tells you that an evil wizard zapped away all of the laws regarding arms, but this genie can use his power to reinstate the laws according to your own specifications. I assume that you wouldn't choose to have all guns banned, and I also assume that you wouldn't choose to allow citizens to possess nuclear warheads, either. So, between those two extremes, what would you allow citizens to possess, and what would you forbid? Why?

 

[Enoch07]

None of that has anything at all to do with my question... sigh, okay. Let me reword it...

Let's say you were visited by a magical genie. He tells you that an evil wizard zapped away all of the laws regarding arms, but this genie can use his power to reinstate the laws according to your own specifications. I assume that you wouldn't choose to have all guns banned, and I also assume that you wouldn't choose to allow citizens to possess nuclear warheads, either. So, between those two extremes, what would you allow citizens to possess, and what would you forbid? Why?

You think you are a step ahead but you are really 10 steps behind here.

I would want the laws to return to as they are now. The current laws are sufficient, as far as full auto etc is concerned. Which has been my position the whole time. To which I have already explained as to why as well.

I am waiting to hear why you or anyone else thinks the current laws are insufficient, to justify why your magical wizard is zapping our rights away.

 

[suncowiam]

Surprisingly, there are some over the top views & imprecations hurled at us pro-gunners.
It can be impossible to get many anti-gun types to even discuss new stricter regulations.
They're too busy telling us how evil we are, & our impending fate in the Lake Of Fire.

I didn't literally say gun advocates we're evil. That was a different person. I addressed the subject and even apologized to you when you thought I was being demeaning to you.

Again, I was saying many will simply use the second amendment as their only justification with little to nothing else.

I've asked gun advocates for data to support their position, and they obfuscate with opinions, speculations and doubt.

If you have something relevant outside of opinions then I'm all ears.

 

[Revoltingest]

I didn't literally say gun advocates we're evil. That was a different person. I addressed the subject and even apologized to you when you thought I was being demeaning to you.

Again, I was saying many will simply use the second amendment as their only justification with little to nothing else.

I've asked gun advocates for data to support their position, and they obfuscate with opinions, speculations and doubt.

If you have something relevant outside of opinions then I'm all ears.

The particular excess I had in mind wasn't yours.
Anyway, having given my views & reasons, I sense that they were invisible to many
on the other side because the discussion didn't change.....it even went downhill.

 

[Father Heathen]

You think you are a step ahead but you are really 10 steps behind here.

I'm pretty sure I know what my own damn OP is about.

I would want the laws to return to as they are now. The current laws are sufficient, as far as full auto etc is concerned. Which has been my position the whole time.

That is a perfectly acceptable answer. However, you have not sufficiently explained why you feel the current limits are reasonable. For example, a military issued M16 is very hard to get, whereas the civilian variant is extremely easy to get. Is the difference in restriction proportionate to the difference in effectiveness between the two?

I am waiting to hear why you or anyone else thinks the current laws are insufficient, to justify why your magical wizard is zapping our rights away.

I was asking for opinions. I wasn't seeking to debate or prove anything with this thread. The magical wizard was written on whim when I was trying to dumb down my initial question. There's nothing to justify because the wizard nor the genie don't actually represent anything.

 

[Enoch07]

That is a perfectly acceptable answer. However, you have not sufficiently explained why you feel the current limits are reasonable. For example, a military issued M16 is very hard to get, whereas the civilian variant is extremely easy to get. Is the difference in restriction proportionate to the difference in effectiveness between the two?

I already explained why I think the current limits are reasonable, so I won't repeat that here. See post # 68.

An ar-15 is **** poor civilian equivalent to an military issued m-16.

The ar-15 is a semi-automatic rifle. 1 trigger pull = 1 bullet holding down the trigger still only releases a single bullet.

The m-16 is a weapon of war.
Select fire means you can chose between semi-auto fire like an ar-15, 1 trigger pull = 1 bullet fired holding down the trigger still only fires 1 bullet, burst fire which is 1 trigger pull = 2-3 rounds fired holding down the trigger only fires those 2-3 rounds and then it stops, full auto=1 trigger pull held equals it fires repeatedly until the trigger is released or magazine is empty.

Yes the difference in difficulty acquiring a full auto is because of full autos destructive capability. I have owned guns my whole life and I do not own a full auto because I can't justify spending $10,000-$20,000+ for a single full auto gun. Which is why so few law abiding citizens actually own these weapons.

 

[Father Heathen]

I already explained why I think the current limits are reasonable, so I won't repeat that here. See post # 68.

Well let's take a gander:

Nobody is using the weapons you are talking about for mass shootings.

Because they're not available to the general public due to legal restrictions.

Except for gang related mass shootings such as drive by shootings. In drive by shooting full auto is used but these are obtained on the black market illegally.
Nobody is arguing criminals should be allowed to have these types of weapons.

Irrelevant. I hadn't suggested otherwise.

But law abiding citizens are allowed to legally own the weapons you talk about because of the 2nd amendment.
Which allows us to have weapons to defend ourselves, either from criminals, foreign Invaders, or even our own government becoming corrupted.

Yeah, no ****.

So how did any of this answer the question in the OP? You do realize that you're the only one struggling with this, right?

 

[Enoch07]

Well let's take a gander:

Obviously you are the one struggling.

But law abiding citizens are allowed to legally own the weapons you talk about because of the 2nd amendment. Which allows us to have weapons to defend ourselves, either from criminals, foreign Invaders, or even our own government becoming corrupted.

That is all the justification that is needed. If you disagree that's fine, but don't act like it's invalid just because you can't find a flaw with it.

 

[suncowiam]

The particular excess I had in mind wasn't yours.
Anyway, having given my views & reasons, I sense that they were invisible to many
on the other side because the discussion didn't change.....it even went downhill.

I think we're at a point from both sides that change should come not from opinions, speculations and emotions.

It should come from what's been proven or capable of being proven.

I might have told you this before, but you are the reason why I changed my original stance of prohibition to stricter gun controls 3-4 years ago. I trust you with your knowledge of guns. I might not agree with all your ideologies, but I do trust you as a responsible gun owner. If US can enforce laws that produce similar gun owners like yourself, then I do think we would see a correlation of less gun violence.

 

[Father Heathen]

Obviously you are the one struggling.

Everyone else seems to have understood the OP just fine, so I doubt it.

That is all the justification that is needed. If you disagree that's fine, but don't act like it's not a valid just because you can't find a flaw with it.

It's not valid because it's not even relevant to the question. My question had nothing to do with "justifying" anything. I'm asking for an opinion regardless of any laws, past or present, which is why I had that nasty wizard zap them away. The OP wasn't a criticism, nor was it a challenge. The question was simply thus "In your opinion, at what point does an arm become too powerful for the average citizen to be permitted possession"? That's all.

 

[Revoltingest]

I think we're at a point from both sides that change should come not from opinions, speculations and emotions.

It should come from what's been proven or capable of being proven.

I might have told you this before, but you are the reason why I changed my original stance of prohibition to stricter gun controls 3-4 years ago. I trust you with your knowledge of guns. I might not agree with all your ideologies, but I do trust you as a responsible gun owner. If US can enforce laws that produce similar gun owners like yourself, then I do think we would see a correlation of less gun violence.

If you & I can agree (on enuf), then is it possible for politicians to do better?

 

[Enoch07]

It's not valid because it's not even relevant to the question. My question had nothing to do with "justifying" anything. I'm asking for an opinion regardless of any laws, past or present, which is why I had that nasty wizard zap them away. The OP wasn't a criticism, nor was it a challenge. The question was simply thus "In your opinion, at what point does an arm become too powerful for the average citizen to be permitted possession"? That's all.

How hard is it to understand that I believe in the right to defend myself?

Which allows us to have weapons to defend ourselves, either from criminals, foreign Invaders, or even our own government becoming corrupted.

There is no weapon too powerful to defend myself which I also covered in post #68.

Perhaps some things are negotiable, but I would need specific examples to say yes or no to on a case by case basis.

But as it stands if someone can afford it, and do the proper paperwork work, tax stamps, and registration requirements the NFA requires them to do. They should be able to own just about any weapon.

*With the exclusion of nuclear or biological/chemical weapons etc. But you already took those out of the discussion so we good.