So Why Did The Mass Shootings Occur This Last Weekend? Well I Gots The Answers

[Curious George]

The line isn't fixed, which is precisely the point of the discussion. Throwing your hands up and acting as though the second amendment is absolute, unchanging holy writ is just wrong headed

I never stated another amendment couldn't be made. But nice attempt at strawman.

 

[Kangaroo Feathers]

Incorrect. My "interpretation" is based on history and court precedent. Sounds like you are just upset that your "nuclear arms and poison gas" argument was dismissed easily.

Incorrect. You are being irrationally obtuse, and until you are prepared to cultivate the self awareness to discuss this in an intellectually honest manner, I'm done with you.

 

[Curious George]

This is a bull**** argument, and you know it. It was bull**** last time you made it, and it will continue to be bull****. 40,000 Americans will die this year from gun related injuries, not to mention the many thousand more who will suffer non lethal injuries. Unless you can show concrete empirical evidence that > 40,000 people will use guns in cases of imminent self defence from death or grievous injury, you're just spouting crap. And even if you can find that many actual examples, in how many of them was use of a firearm ythe only available option?

It needn't be the only option. I suppose you can play the what if game with other peoples lives if you want. I don't think it is my place to do so when dealing with regular citizens.

How many cases are there where a person put themselves in unnecessary danger explicitly because they were armed?

That sounds like your on the verge of jumping on the victim blaming bus. Hopefully you are only talking about criminal instigation.

And no, every instance where some yahoo pulls out a gun and waves it at some passer by he doesn't like the look of doesn't count.

If you aren't interested in intellectually honest discussion, I'm not going to bother. Frankly I expected better of you

I did not say that every instance of a yahoo waving a gun was self defense. But it sounds like you have preconceived notions of people using guns for self defense.

I don't think i am the one here lacking intellectual honesty.

 

[Curious George]

"Can we please stop pretending that the Second Amendment contains an unfettered right for everyone to buy a gun? It doesn’t, and it never has. The claims made by the small number of extremists, before and after the Orlando, Fla., massacre, are based on a deliberate lie.

The Second Amendment of the U.S. Constitution doesn’t just say Congress shall not infringe the right to “keep and bear arms.” It specifically says that right exists in order to maintain “a well-regulated militia.” Even the late conservative Supreme Court Associate Justice Antonin Scalia admitted those words weren’t in there by accident. Oh, and the Constitution doesn’t just say a “militia.” It says a “well-regulated” militia.

What did the Founding Fathers mean by that? We don’t have to guess because they told us. In Federalist No. 29 of the Federalist Papers, Alexander Hamilton explained at great length precisely what a “well-regulated militia” was, why the Founding Fathers thought we needed one, and why they wanted to protect it from being disarmed by the federal government."

What America’s gun fanatics won’t tell you

This is a strawman. Most who are actually discussing the issue understand that no right is unfettered.

However for a law to pass muster of constitutionality when in direct contravention of a constitutional right we will usually apply strict scrutiny. I am happy to do this. But most of the suggestions by the gun control crowd ignore this.

 

[Curious George]

Incorrect. You are being irrationally obtuse, and until you are prepared to cultivate the self awareness to discuss this in an intellectually honest manner, I'm done with you.

If that is how you feel, then be done. I can only guarantee that i have been intellectually honest every step of the way. Save perhaps the cruel and unusual punishment to immortal flame. But even that wasn't too far off base.

 

[Kangaroo Feathers]

I never stated another amendment couldn't be made. But nice attempt at strawman.

Not remotely a strawman. There are already legal restrictions in weapons in place, the 2nd Amendment is not absolute, nor was it ever intended to be. You are making claims about it that simply aren't accurate, and not addressing the fact that 40000 Americans will die this year because gun fetishists are to obtuse to address simple facts in a logical manner.

So hey, keep living in a society with wild proliferation of unnecessary firearms. I guess poorly rationalised safety blankets matter more to you than thousands of innocent dead and injured. **** 'em, right? Why should anyone take steps to save lives that might inconvenience you in the slightest way?

 

[Kangaroo Feathers]

This is a strawman. Most who are actually discussing the issue understand that no right is unfettered.

However for a law to pass muster of constitutionality when in direct contravention of a constitutional right we will usually apply strict scrutiny. I am happy to do this. But most of the suggestions by the gun control crowd ignore this.

Pick a lane dude.

 

[Kangaroo Feathers]

It needn't be the only option. I suppose you can play the what if game with other peoples lives if you want. I don't think it is my place to do so when dealing with regular citizens.

That sounds like your on the verge of jumping on the victim blaming bus. Hopefully you are only talking about criminal instigation.




I did not say that every instance of a yahoo waving a gun was self defense. But it sounds like you have preconceived notions of people using guns for self defense.

I don't think i am the one here lacking intellectual honesty.

Complete absence of any attempt to address the question speaks for itself.

 

[Curious George]

Pick a lane dude.

Funny you don't realize I have.

 

[Kangaroo Feathers]

I can only guarantee that i have been intellectually honest every step of the way.

I believe you believe that. I had hoped you had a greater level of self awareness and were willing to try to avoid fallacious thinking. Apparently I was wrong. So hey, let every ****wit have a gun. It's only 40000 dead a year.

 

[Kangaroo Feathers]

Funny you don't realize I have.

Obtuse contrarianism is a ****ty lane. Maybe try actually reading the whole article rather than throwing around inaccurate logical fallacy names. See ya.

 

[Curious George]

I believe you believe that. I had hoped you had a greater level of self awareness and were willing to try to avoid fallacious thinking. Apparently I was wrong. So hey, let every ****wit have a gun. It's only 40000 dead a year.

I understand you want me to make this argument, but I have not.

 

[Curious George]

Obtuse contrarianism is a ****ty lane. Maybe try actually reading the whole article rather than throwing around inaccurate logical fallacy names. See ya.

It seems you are having trouble accepting that someone disagrees with your opinion on this matter.

 

[Stevicus]

No, not at all. I can understand the amendment being interpreted as everyone having the right to bear arms (whatever my personal thoughts). But the genesis of it was as a compromise between Federalists and non-Fedaralists.

Comparing Hamilton and Jefferson is an example of why this was required.

There are many writings at the time (eg. Luther Martin) discussing whether state militias should be controlled by Congress (ie. Form a national army) or how they might become tools of a tyrannical future federal govt.

This is all well and good, but it doesn't really help when it comes to interpreting the amendment in the here and now. It's almost akin to trying to attempt to interpret Bible verse, going through the Federalist Papers to try to discern what the Founders actually meant.

It's a good historical exercise, but in the here and now, we have to decide what our laws must be and how things should be governed. If we have to rewrite or repeal the Second Amendment, then so be it. It would be far more productive to do that than to endlessly argue over interpretations of it.

Jefferson was very concerned about state autonomy, and whether Virginia would maintain independence, with control of the state militia an important buttress to Federal control.

Even that would seem to be a dead-end argument in today's interpretations.

Some advocates for the Second Amendment have often argued the same point, that individual gun ownership is a hedge against tyranny and a possible Federal dictatorship. The counterargument is that today's armed forces are so modern, so well-trained, and so well-equipped that any band of people armed with small arms would be wiped out in an instant.

If this is true (and it is), then it's just as true regarding state militias and national guard units, who are lightly armed compared to the massive firepower of the regular federal military.

No one who has studied this, including the Supreme Court, has been able to categorically state what it's about in the way you are here.

Well, maybe they don't have my gifted insight.

That should give you pause when you say it's 'incongruous'.
Similarly, whether it's incongruous with the spirit of OTHER amendments is proof of almost nothing. The amendments were largely added due to the influence of anti-federalists, and it is in that light that discussion of militia should be viewed, in my opinion.

All it really illustrates is the conflicting values which existed during the Founders' time, just as they exist today.

What I've seen at the core of it all is the question of whether or not "the people" can be adequately trusted with power, whether it's the power of the vote or the power of the gun. Should the individual citizen have power in today's society? Is it even possible or practical?

Of course, related to this was the issue of states and their role in relation to the federal government. But there were also other practical reasons for having an armed populace, no matter if it was part of a well-regulated militia or not. For one thing, there was this lingering fear that the British could return - or some other European power might invade. But there was also a certain drive towards armed expansionism, and all of the states were pretty much on board with that idea.

But the point is, all this hand-wringing over the phraseology of the Second Amendment and all this talk about a "well-regulated militia" is as much as saying that the Second Amendment is all but obsolete. And maybe it is.

It's like the Third Amendment, which forbids the quartering of troops - something that would be unheard of nowadays. But we might as well just keep that amendment, just in case.

Perhaps some people feel the same about the Second Amendment, even if it doesn't seem relevant in this day and age, it might still be necessary.

But as I said, the Second Amendment can be rewritten with greater clarity, or it can be repealed. All this hand-wringing over conflicting interpretations - which seems to plague everyone, including the aforementioned Supreme Court - it seems to be so much beating around the bush.

 

[Stevicus]

I think "self defence" is, for the most part, an ad hoc rationalisation.
A. most people will never be in a situation where they require a firearm for self defence,
B. In most cases, some form of prevention is far more effective at providing security than a firearm, e.g. a decent dead bolt and security screens will do much more to prevent robbery than a firearm you may or may not be in a position to use if someone actually gets in.
C. I maintain that possessing a firearm is likely to give a sense of "false courage" leading to needless escalation in an otherwise non-lethal situation

Firearms have legitimate uses, but for the most part, people who claim they need them for "self defence", are either woefully paranoid/insecure and use their gun as a crutch, or are simply rationalising a n ad hoc justification to excuse the fact they like guns. Hey, I get it, guns make you feel cool and all, but I'm not going to lie to myself or others to justify the fact I like guns. The discussion could generally be a whole lot more constructive if people could just admit to themselves and others "I have a gun 'cos I like guns", rather than constructing arcane fantasy scenarios around needing a gun for self defence against nebulous, ill defined evil doers.

There are some cases where people have successfully used guns in self-defense. I don't know the actual stats, but there's plenty of anecdotal evidence of such. Of course, oftentimes it doesn't always work out, and there are other cases where self-defense is claimed but not necessarily believed.

But I've also heard some of these concocted scenarios, usually starting with "what if."

"What if you were home and a band of marauders comes breaking through your door? You, and your wife and children, are in grave danger. What would you do?"

And yes, you're probably right that many people like guns. But that may also be related to the reason why people might blame movies and TV, since guns might seem glorified. Some people might identify with Clint Eastwood saying "Go ahead, make my day."

I remember when I was younger, a lot of kids would try to pass themselves off as some kind of "******," and a lot of that seems to carry a love of guns.

 

[Kangaroo Feathers]

There are some cases where people have successfully used guns in self-defense. I don't know the actual stats, but there's plenty of anecdotal evidence of such. Of course, oftentimes it doesn't always work out, and there are other cases where self-defense is claimed but not necessarily believed.

But I've also heard some of these concocted scenarios, usually starting with "what if."

"What if you were home and a band of marauders comes breaking through your door? You, and your wife and children, are in grave danger. What would you do?"

And yes, you're probably right that many people like guns. But that may also be related to the reason why people might blame movies and TV, since guns might seem glorified. Some people might identify with Clint Eastwood saying "Go ahead, make my day."

I remember when I was younger, a lot of kids would try to pass themselves off as some kind of "******," and a lot of that seems to carry a love of guns.

I'm not for a moment saying there aren't cases of legitimate "self defence" with firearms. But as a general rule, I really don't think it's a good justification for allowing the US's massive gun proliferation. Apart from anything else, you have to wonder just how many of the legitimate cases would have happened if there weren't so many guns out there to begin with? There are inherent feedback loops in the issue.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

This is all well and good, but it doesn't really help when it comes to interpreting the amendment in the here and now. It's almost akin to trying to attempt to interpret Bible verse, going through the Federalist Papers to try to discern what the Founders actually meant.

It's a good historical exercise, but in the here and now, we have to decide what our laws must be and how things should be governed. If we have to rewrite or repeal the Second Amendment, then so be it. It would be far more productive to do that than to endlessly argue over interpretations of it.



Even that would seem to be a dead-end argument in today's interpretations.

Some advocates for the Second Amendment have often argued the same point, that individual gun ownership is a hedge against tyranny and a possible Federal dictatorship. The counterargument is that today's armed forces are so modern, so well-trained, and so well-equipped that any band of people armed with small arms would be wiped out in an instant.

If this is true (and it is), then it's just as true regarding state militias and national guard units, who are lightly armed compared to the massive firepower of the regular federal military.



Well, maybe they don't have my gifted insight.



All it really illustrates is the conflicting values which existed during the Founders' time, just as they exist today.

What I've seen at the core of it all is the question of whether or not "the people" can be adequately trusted with power, whether it's the power of the vote or the power of the gun. Should the individual citizen have power in today's society? Is it even possible or practical?

Of course, related to this was the issue of states and their role in relation to the federal government. But there were also other practical reasons for having an armed populace, no matter if it was part of a well-regulated militia or not. For one thing, there was this lingering fear that the British could return - or some other European power might invade. But there was also a certain drive towards armed expansionism, and all of the states were pretty much on board with that idea.

But the point is, all this hand-wringing over the phraseology of the Second Amendment and all this talk about a "well-regulated militia" is as much as saying that the Second Amendment is all but obsolete. And maybe it is.

It's like the Third Amendment, which forbids the quartering of troops - something that would be unheard of nowadays. But we might as well just keep that amendment, just in case.

Perhaps some people feel the same about the Second Amendment, even if it doesn't seem relevant in this day and age, it might still be necessary.

But as I said, the Second Amendment can be rewritten with greater clarity, or it can be repealed. All this hand-wringing over conflicting interpretations - which seems to plague everyone, including the aforementioned Supreme Court - it seems to be so much beating around the bush.

I agree, and your points are well made.
Until it's rewritten, though, you're stuck with its somewhat anachronistic and confusing language.

I think the point you made about having to interpret it in a modern sense is important too. For me, though, that doesn't preclude the importance of historical intent.

Still, my position on this is pretty simple, and (as a non-American) completely without impact. Still, to state clearly...

I don't think the Second Amendment precludes gun control, particularly at the state level.

That's about it. I do think the gun lobby as a whole is extremely political, and don't see that as good. This includes their interest in Australian politics, incidentally.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

And no where in there did it say that anyone should be well regulated, and certainly not well regulated to preserve the right. It is clear that the drafters thought a well regulated militia was necessary and that people having the right to keep and bear arms was necessary to having a well regulated militia. Never is it said that people should be well regulated or militias should be well regulated, let alone must be well regulated which I am guessing you want to imply.

You've already agreed that "militia" means "able bodied persons". The amendment specifies "A well regulated militia", meaning "well regulated able persons", and further it says that this is NECESSARY. It doesn't say "able bodied persons with guns are necessary", it says "well regulated able bodied persons with guns are necessary".

You really can't twist that. Regulation is implied by the amendment.

I do not see how you think it is not.

Because it is literally not what we are saying. End of. If you imagine something different is being said, then that is down to you.

Yes.

Then you admit that "elimination of freedom" is not argument against regulation - unless you believe parents should have the right to feed their children bleach.

Instead, debate the actual issue: whether or not guns cause more harm than they prevent, and what measures can be put in place to limit this harm.

We can and do. What you are talking about is making extra hoops for everyone to jump through when buying bleach because a very small minority give it to their kids.

There already are hoops for buying bleach, and there are strict rules and laws about feeding it to children, as well as numerous preventative measures and regulation regarding the storage and sale of bleach.

It's not about "a minority" misusing guns - it only takes ONE person to kill dozens. We are talking about thousands of lives every year. I think asking law-abiding people to jump through a couple more hoops in order to reduce that number is not a big ask. Convenience is not more important than lives.

Background checks are in place already for commercial sales (and even private sales in many states).

Not in most states. 35 still have no background checks for private sellers.

Licensing legality would depend upon the requirements. But generally I would oppose it. It is true that if law enforcement must wait for illegal action or imminent harm they are not going to prevent nearly as much. However that is preferable to arresting people for being black on a friday night.

Except we aren't talking about arresting people because of prejudice. We are simply talking about requiring a license and a background check.

Again it does not.

It very clearly and unambiguously does.

There is no question that some firearms are not considered under the scope of the second amendment because of historical precedent. The government may regulate these. There is also no question that the government may regulate commerce and if guns are regulated incidentally to this then that is ok. Finally, it is truethat thegovernment may regulate guns as they are related to certain classes of people. Specifically felons and minors. In the former there has been specific articulable crimes and due process; in the latter the courts have long regarded minors as a special class with whom the state can impose greater restrictions of freedoms. Though even in the regulations within these classes the government must exercise both care and caution. However, in general it is not true that the government can regulate firearms if that regulation infringes on the people's right to keep and bear arms.

You do realize that this entire paragraph is self-contradictory, right?

"The government is allowed to regulate firearms, but they're not allowed to regulate firearms."

That is essentially what you have just written - everything else is just window-dressing. You have already agreed that regulation not only is possible, but already exists. So now the question isn't about the right to bear arms, it's about how much regulation their should be. To frame ANY further regulation as an infringement of that right is baseless unless you consider all existing regulation an infringement as well.

2 is false.

Lie. I have never called for a gun ban or a removal of the right to own guns.

Regarding your declaration that you do not want the removal of any right:

It isnot just the removal of a right that constitutes infringement.

Apparently, you can just call whatever you want infringement. Since the amendment specifies that people should be regulated, it is not an infringement on the right to own guns to regulate their sale and possession.

I am merely suggesting other methods to achieve your goals. If you don't respect and honor the right to keep and bear arms then I figured we could ignore theprohibition on cruel and unusual punishment and disregard due process while we are at it.

Since I have already said I respect the right to keep and bear arms, and have made this clear multiple times, you are engaged in a strawman. And you have provided no reason whatsoever why regulation of firearms should not be considered an option in this debate.

Lol, that is rhetoric. I think we can agree that the problem we are discussing is gun murders (possibly even gun deaths if weare generous) but i would say that homicide and suicide are problems regardless of means.

Again, this is just rhetoric. Of course homicide and suicide are problems regardless of means - that's painfully obvious - the problem is the function that guns play in contributing to violence, homicide, crime and suicide. Study after study shows that guns play an active role in encouraging violent crime and suicide, as areas with higher numbers of guns see a similar rise in violent crime, and a person is more likely to attempt and succeed at a suicide if they have access to a firearm.

Not really. If we are discussing restricting rights, we aregenuinely discussing freedom.

Again, this is just rhetorical nonsense. If you accept that a parent feeding their child bleach could be considered a "freedom", then that word has basically not meaningful function in debate other than emotional connotation. If you accept that restricting the "freedom" to allow parents to feed their children bleach is correct in order to prevent child death, you must accept that "freedom" is irrelevant when discussing the actual safety of people and has no meaningful application in rational discussion of the issue.

Except we do limit a parents freedom to feed their child bleach. We do not restrict the ability of all parents to buy bleach based on this.

But it IS regulated, and suppliers of bleach manufacture its containment in such a way, to prevent children from drinking it. That's the point.

Hah, right back at ya.

I am debating the issue at hand. I'm not forming distractions and strawmen like you are to avoid discussing the actual harm guns cause.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Semi auto weapons are not designed to kill people,

You may want to think about that statement for a few minutes.

Obviously, you know little about firearms. When it comes to pistols, revolvers like I carry are old school, semi auto pistols as weapons of self defense and target shooting took over perhaps twenty years ago. I don´t have a ¨ study¨ but as an NRA member I know what firearms are being manufactured and purchased, semi autoś. I go to gun stores, both semi auto rifles and pistols are represented perhaps three to one over other types for sale. I even own one, but I prefer one of my revolvers. I do love my semi auto rifle though, it is a great target gun.

So you don't have any actual information to support that the majority gun owners own semi-automatic guns?

You are ignorant of home defense needs, and I say that because you simply don´t know them. You probably don´t own a firearm, probably have never fired one, You are taught blather by others who have been taught blather.

These are baseless personal attacks unworthy of being in this debate.

An AR-15 is perfect for home defense, it is light, relatively short so it is not difficult to handle in a dark crowded bedroom, it is easy to fire and very accurate, and has enough capacity to ensure the threat is eliminated.

In what way does it provide greater protection than a handgun?

The AR 15 is the most rifle being sold in the US, it is used as a hunting rifle, more than any other rifle.

Okay then. That doesn't mean it is suitable for that use or for use for home defense.

However you want to decide that semi auto firearms should be eliminated, you want to dictate to these millions what is best for them, knowing little about firearms, hubris indeed.

Please present a study that shows that semi-automatic firearms are more successful at self-defense than non-automatic firearms.

As I recall, James Brady was shot with a .22 caliber revolver. Do you and his organization want to ban those too ?

Stop with this childish equivocation. I've given my position and arguments - do not erect strawmen.

I got my first .22 rifle when I was 12. My father, a WW2 vet taught me how do use it and the safety rules. It was a single shot rifle, later I got a semi auto .22 rifle. This was common for my generation, no mass shootings though, I wonder why ?

Well, one factor to consider is the number and availability of guns, which has increased exponentially since the previous generation.

You represent the reason why we fight every infringement of the second amendment. As each new law fails, stronger laws are required, and we know each of these laws that fail is building a foundation for the ultimate goal. A disarmed American populace.

Tin-foil hattery.

It is a slippery slope that each new law increases the momentum to the bottom.

And yet you agree with implementing Universal background checks. This is cognitive dissonance.

You, knowing nothing about firearms or their usage want to ban semi auto firearms, which Americans have owned for close to a century.

I know that guns cause more crime and death than they prevent, and I know that every other country in the world which has stricter gun control and/or an outright gun ban does not see the level of mass murder that America does, and I know this is largely down to a very powerful gun lobby who has a vested interest in keeping gun laws loose and discouraging research into the causes of gun violence.

These are the actual facts. You have presented none.

When that doesn´t do what you want, what next ?

Evidence shows they will, and you won't know until you try.

Anti gunners have an insatiable appetite for laws, restrictions and bans. They will never be satisfied till the second amendment is obliterated, and only the wolves of society will have guns.

Tin foil hattery. Please stop falling down the conspiracy hole in order to debate this issue. Your emotions are preventing reasonable discussion.

Nope, every stupid effort will be fought. Yet we are not adverse to addressing the problems that create killers.

You just will never consider the possibility that guns are part of that. Until you do, you can never be truly open to addressing the issue.

Antigunners are fixated on the shiny ball of banning all firearms, and care little about the causes that create killers.

I've never mentioned banning all firearms. In fact, I've explicitly said that was not my position.

We know bans cannot work, we know that there is a large firearms black market that the government cannot stop, the only thing curtailed is one of the bill of rights.

And yet gun bans have worked in practically every country in the world, and the gun bans that have been put in place in America have only failed because of the sheer number and availability of guns (and the lax gun laws of all surrounding areas). Nevertheless, I am not discussing a total firearm ban, nor have I proposed a gun ban as a solution to America's gun problem. I have mentioned a series of possible solutions, and of the ones I have presented you have only really presented a counter-argument against the semi-automatic weapons and high-caliber ammunition ban.

So let's say that any kind of ban on those weapons is off the table. Do you have any further issues with my proposed solutions?

 

[Curious George]

You've already agreed that "militia" means "able bodied persons". The amendment specifies "A well regulated militia", meaning "well regulated able persons", and further it says that this is NECESSARY. It doesn't say "able bodied persons with guns are necessary", it says "well regulated able bodied persons with guns are necessary".

You really can't twist that. Regulation is implied by the amendment.

What it specifically does not say is that the militia should be well regulated. The constitution says only that a well regulated militia is necessary:
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

Nowhere in there does it say a militia should be well regulated. Rather it says that a well regulated militia is necessary. This is all. There is no command to ensure the militia is well regulated only a proscription of the infringement on the people's right to keep and bear arms. Presumably, in part, because doing this would then render what was regarded as a well regulated militia impossible.

Because it is literally not what we are saying. End of. If you imagine something different is being said, then that is down to you.

You are not saying that the peoples current ability to buy, keep, and bear arms needs restricting?

Then you admit that "elimination of freedom" is not argument against regulation - unless you believe parents should have the right to feed their children bleach.

I admit that when there is a specific action and intent demonstrated it is okay to limit individual's freedoms in those particular cases. This is regulation. This is the elimination of freedom. But this is for a specific articulable cause.

Instead, debate the actual issue: whether or not guns cause more harm than they prevent, and what measures can be put in place to limit this harm.

The first part is not an issue, let alone the actual issue. It is irrelevant whether or not guns cause more harm than they prevent if the regulation we are discussing is outside of the authority of the government to regulate. The second part--what measures can be put in place to limit the harm by individuals with guns--is most certainly an issue. And we arediscussing that. Some seem to think the government should act outside of government authority to limit guns. I think it should not.

There already are hoops for buying bleach, and there are strict rules and laws about feeding it to children, as well as numerous preventative measures and regulation regarding the storage and sale of bleach.

For private citizens you believe there are laws regarding the storing of bleach? Cite them.

It's not about "a minority" misusing guns - it only takes ONE person to kill dozens. We are talking about thousands of lives every year. I think asking law-abiding people to jump through a couple more hoops in order to reduce that number is not a big ask. Convenience is not more important than lives.

One is a minority.

Not in most states. 35 still have no background checks for private sellers.

I said many, not most. Though I would caution you to consider what constitutes a private sale before criticizing those states that allow private transfers without a background check. Also this does not mean there is no liability for a private seller if they do sell a gun to someone who intends to, (or does), commit a crime with that gun.

Except we aren't talking about arresting people because of prejudice. We are simply talking about requiring a license and a background check.

Again with the license. Depending on licensing requirements Licensing may or may not be constitutional. Background checks are not unconstitutional, but if it is not interstate commerce it is hardly the federal governments area of concern. The states can make their own laws regarding this. If the government wants to incentivize states doing so, that is within their authority.

It very clearly and unambiguously does.

No not does not, and clearly not clearly so.

You do realize that this entire paragraph is self-contradictory, right?

Yeah, it would be much easier if people challenged the laws as they came down the pike so we would have a less contradictory perspective, but there are very specific areas that are carved out of the second amendment. It is similar with the first amendment also i.e. slander, libel, fighting words, child porn, time, place,m manner.. but generally the government cannot regulate speech. The same is true for guns. You see, no right is unfettered. I am happy to take the time to answer your questions if you think there is a specific contradiction that doesn't make sense.

"The government is allowed to regulate firearms, but they're not allowed to regulate firearms."

No. The government is allowed to regulate non-military firearms because historically they slid by a case unchallenged in the 30's. (Disregard of course the fact that the weapons they discussed do have military uses). It was held nonetheless in Miller and then in stayed that way. Because Americans did not object and there was no controversy Americans essentially acquiesced that authority. The government has established massive (though some limitations exist) power in the commerce clause, so they can very much limit guns in some respects through that . Felons should be self explanatory. Kids is a little tricky. As long as the laws have exceptions for kids then they are ok. Without the exceptions they are no longer ok. But making broader restrictions than these are problematic. There are surely some categories that still exist that would be less problematic to regulate.

That is essentially what you have just written - everything else is just window-dressing. You have already agreed that regulation not only is possible, but already exists.

Only in as much as one can say that regulation of speech is not only possible, but already exists. Again no right is unfettered. But generally speaking, broad regulation of guns is outside the authority of law.

So now the question isn't about the right to bear arms, it's about how much regulation their should be. To frame ANY further regulation as an infringement of that right is baseless unless you consider all existing regulation an infringement as well.

Some I do. But as I said, not challenging a law can show an acquiescence to some authority. Therefore ANY further regulation should be challenged. Even if that regulation does not, in fact, infringe on the people's right to keep and bear arms. I have already acknowledged that depending on Licensing requirements, for instance, a law requiring Licensing may or may not be unconstitutional (i.e. infringement on the people's right to keep and bear arms).

So if you wantto call that regulation fine. However i specifically stated the type of regulation that i said was impermissible. And that is "regulation [that] infringes on the people's right to keep and bear arms."

It seems you want to strawman me as saying no regulation is permissible.

Lie. I have never called for a gun ban or a removal of the right to own guns.

I said 2, not your second bullet point. was listed as "2) the amendment already states that citizens should be well regulated." If you have a problem following your own labels perhaps you should label more clearly. So no, not a "lie." Cheers though.

Apparently, you can just call whatever you want infringement. Since the amendment specifies that people should be regulated, it is not an infringement on the right to own guns to regulate their sale and possession.

Again, it does not say people should be regulated.

Re: calling whatever one likes "infringement." That is tricky as well. I would suggest it is similar to "respecting" in the establishment clause. I personally read "infringe" as very broad. There is definitely room for reading "infringe" much more narrowly. But pretty much everyone would read preventing all sales or any possession (and i know you are not saying this) as infringement.

Since I have already said I respect the right to keep and bear arms, and have made this clear multiple times, you are engaged in a strawman. And you have provided no reason whatsoever why regulation of firearms should not be considered an option in this debate.

I have no objection to regulation of firearms that does not infringe on the people's right to keep and bear arms.

Again, this is just rhetoric. Of course homicide and suicide are problems regardless of means - that's painfully obvious -

Then we agreethat the issue is the homicide and suicide rate. That seems like a good place to start.

the problem is the function that guns play in contributing to violence, homicide, crime and suicide. Study after study shows that guns play an active role in encouraging violent crime and suicide, as areas with higher numbers of guns see a similar rise in violent crime, and a person is more likely to attempt and succeed at a suicide if they have access to a firearm.

Tell that to japan

Again, this is just rhetorical nonsense. If you accept that a parent feeding their child bleach could be considered a "freedom", then that word has basically not meaningful function in debate other than emotional connotation. If you accept that restricting the "freedom" to allow parents to feed their children bleach is correct in order to prevent child death, you must accept that "freedom" is irrelevant when discussing the actual safety of people and has no meaningful application in rational discussion of the issue.

That is not true. Just because I accept that some freedoms must be necessarily limited does not mean I accept that all freedom should be necessarily limited.

But it IS regulated, and suppliers of bleach manufacture its containment in such a way, to prevent children from drinking it. That's the point.

Is the purchase bleach limited for individual citizens? Can i sell you bleach in a bag? Yes we regulate suppliers and manufacturers but ththiththis is different than regulating individual citizens.

I am debating the issue at hand. I'm not forming distractions and strawmen like you are to avoid discussing the actual harm guns cause.

That is great you think that, now you can empathize with how I feel about what you are doing.