US Gun Control & Why It Would Fail

[esmith]

You are again saying he really doesn't have a right to express his opinion on the issue of "right to carry", which is not intrinsically covered by the 2nd Amendment.

As one who taught political science for 25 years, which obviously involved spend gobs of time going over the Constitution, there is nothing in that amended document that I disagree with, and that includes the 2nd Amendment. However, I have had difficulty with some interpretations of the 2nd, especially the recent 5-4 decision by the Scalia court that reversed three previous decisions. If you get a chance, read the minority report that was scathing about what was decided and the partisan politics that they claim were heavily involved, plus the dangers of going in that direction. And google Roberts' statement made by him about a year prior to the decision whereas he said that such a decision would be constitutionally illogical and also dangerous.

Read it again..." Your right to swing your arms ends at the tip of my nose; your right to carry a gun ends when I come into range"

Now substitute "pray" for gun and it now reads
"your right to pray ends when I come into range."
got a problem with that metis?

 

[yiostheoy]

As I read through a thread such as this one, I filter a lot of responses through how does military / law enforcement handle this (point being raised)? I've seen that brought up on this thread. The assumption that they (government personnel) are well trained is IMO a good point and one that I believe responsible gun owners have little issue with. But it's not like any possible group authorized to carry is without own issues, biases, prejudice, wrongdoings, etc. Thus, I do think if one truly favors gun control, they'd start with those groups. And if one is advocating for gun control while one also has bodyguards or secret service protection, that ought to be taken into account. Would make as much sense to me to disarm those types as it does to disarm any/all citizens, but really ought to start with how willing are we do disarm 'responsible gun owners' or those authorized to carry? If not at all, why? I feel many of the arguments for gun control apply just as much to government personnel as they do to citizens.

If not going to go in the direction of disarming government, then it ought to be about allowing arms for everyone and doing everything possible to make sure those who carry are as well trained as possible. While also setting up laws that if guns are used in essentially any situation, there is no 'get out of jail free' card able to be played because of 2A. Nothing in 2A suggests you have an inherent right to fire a weapon. Though that is implied and the implication would be impossible to get around except for I do believe all responsible persons that carry get that they will be far removed from their weapon if they fire it at a person, regardless of the reason. I think law enforcement gets this. I think many responsible gun owners get this. I actually do believe it's part of the reason why a responsible gun owner hopes they never have to fire their weapon. Not the main reason, but part of it.

There's so much about this ongoing issue I don't see getting satisfactorily addressed, that I don't think it'll change much in the foreseeable future. As long as the government's right to bear arms is firmly held in place with logic that even I as gun control type can anticipate, I really don't see those who seek to disarm/curtail citizenry desire to bear arms having impact.

It does humor me how protection is constantly framed in this type of discussion. One of these days a gun owner will live forever and it'll be less humorous how that false sense of protection works. Until then, it's funny as heck.

It all depends on the State that you are living in, and also somewhat on the type of firearm you are talking about.

Recall that the "National Firearms Act of 1934" makes Thompson submachine gun ownership all but impossible legally without getting a federal license and paying a high tax for it. I would not be surprised to see the AR-15 and AK-47 and their various clones go the same way.

Recall also that Scalia is adamant in his opinion in Heller that States' Rights to regulate public possession supersedes the 2nd Amendment. I don't know where Scalia got that from, but apparently Roberts, Kennedy, Thomas, and Alito each agreed with him. Maybe Scalia had to strike up a compromise with them on this point. There is no justification for it however other than SCOTUS opinion. And Heller is now the determining law. At least for now.

 

[Acim]

Read it again..." Your right to swing your arms ends at the tip of my nose; your right to carry a gun ends when I come into range"

Now substitute "pray" for gun and it now reads
"your right to pray ends when I come into range."
got a problem with that metis?

How about:

"Your right to free speech (that may offend others) ends when my ears come within range."

Personally, as long as we have a government that equates strength with military might or law enforcement with authorized use to carry weapons AND we have a right to free speech, then we are better off having a second amendment that is not ever used to disarm citizens. This isn't to say a single armed citizen would ever do well against our organized law enforcement, much less our military, but our military/law enforcement is bound to upset enough of the 'wrong' people (outside of our borders) that it would seem like it is a last line of defense against a hostile takeover.

 

[Neo Deist]

But since Roberts and Scalia (RIP) both outrank you in the legal arena, you have to defer to them.

No I don't. They have an opinion, which is politically biased, based on how they interpret things. The same goes for religion.

Their opinions can be wrong...and often are.

 

[Thief]

When a man with a pistol meets a man with a rifle, the man with the pistol is a dead man.

Famous quote. Can you remember where it's from?

The cop took his chances drawing on someone with an assault rifle.

It would have made little difference if it were against a 30-30 Winchester.

The cop was outgunned.

I'll bet his wife and kids wish he had run and hid instead.

The one unusual thing about the shooter Mateen is that he was very well trained with guns.

In any gun battle, you first need to take cover.

Then call for backup, before you start shooting.

Those are procedural and very straightforward.

Nobody is Wyatt Earp. And even Earp did not do things without his brothers with him.

The one unusual thing about the shooter Mateen is that he was very well trained on guns.

granted...when someone can shoot from a distance....
when someone gets the drop on you....
too bad

and what happens when a lone gunman opens fire in a crowd?
many die

if the crowd is armed?.......

 

[yiostheoy]

granted...when someone can shoot from a distance....
when someone gets the drop on you....
too bad

and what happens when a lone gunman opens fire in a crowd?
many die

if the crowd is armed?.......

There are tactical training courses that teach you how to shoot in a crowd.

Make sure you take one or two before you try this yourself.

 

[Altfish]

and what happens when a lone gunman opens fire in a crowd?
many die

if the crowd is armed?.......

Many more die in the chaos that would ensue

 

[Thief]

Many more die in the chaos that would ensue

well if we all take aim at the guy with the assault weapon.....
maybe.....just maybe.....

a smaller number of innocents will perish

 

[Thief]

There are tactical training courses that teach you how to shoot in a crowd.

Make sure you take one or two before you try this yourself.

finally.....some advice in a pro/action direction

 

[esmith]

Read very carefully: there is no intrinsic provision in the 2nd Amendment that necessitates that everyone and any one has a right to carry. What the Constitution says I feel is important even if you don't. My problem with you is that you are such a raving fanatic on this that you can't even think straight and you simply do not have any inclination to do any homework on what the Constitution actually says and doesn't say. It's like trying to have a serious discussion with a middle-school student who thinks he's such a know-it-all that he doesn't have to ever do any homework.

Post whatever you want back, but I've had enough of your sarcasm and dishonesty. We're done.

It is useless to discuss with you anything having to do with firearms. You seem to see a red flag and your mind closes. But I will attempt one more time then give it up.
My State gives me the legal right to carry either a concealed or open carry firearm. No private individual has the right or legal authority to tell me I can not within the State of Idaho
Now If you do not see that. Which I doubt you can since anything dealing with firearms is a closed subject with you and others.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

It is useless to discuss with you anything having to do with firearms. You seem to see a red flag and your mind closes. But I will attempt one more time then give it up.
My State gives me the legal right to carry either a concealed or open carry firearm. No private individual has the right or legal authority to tell me I can not within the State of Idaho
Now If you do not see that. Which I doubt you can sense anything dealing with firearms is a closed subject with you and others.

I'm interested more in moral rights, ethics, and what the law should be. I trust that the lawyers and judges will settle what the law is now.

Regardless of whether it's legal to do so, why do you consider it ethical to carry a concealed weapon in a public place?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

No private individual has the right or legal authority to tell me I can not within the State of Idaho

What? Of course they do. Anyone has the right to criticize what you're doing and tell you to stop - the law protects their freedom of speech just as strongly as it protect your legal right to bear arms. You just don't have a legal obligation to obey.

 

[esmith]

I'm interested more in moral rights, ethics, and what the law should be. I trust that the lawyers and judges will settle what the law is now.

Regardless of whether it's legal to do so, why do you consider it ethical to carry a concealed weapon in a public place?

You seem to want an answer. But any answer I give you will not satisfy you, so no answer.

 

[esmith]

It is useless to discuss with you anything having to do with firearms. You seem to see a red flag and your mind closes. But I will attempt one more time then give it up.
My State gives me the legal right to carry either a concealed or open carry firearm. No private individual has the right or legal authority to tell me I can not within the State of Idaho
Now If you do not see that. Which I doubt you can since anything dealing with firearms is a closed subject with you and others.

What? Of course they do. Anyone has the right to criticize what you're doing and tell you to stop - the law protects their freedom of speech just as strongly as it protect your legal right to bear arms. You just don't have a legal obligation to obey.

Then can criticize me but that is not what the argument is about. The argument is that you can not tell me that I can not carry a weapon in the State of Idaho, or any other State that recognizes my Idaho permit.
Your original statement was
"your right to carry a gun ends when I come into range"

Now I don't know exactly what you meant by that statement. However I took it to mean that my right to carry is predicated on your permission. Which is false.

 

[McBell]

Regardless of whether it's legal to do so, why do you consider it ethical to carry a concealed weapon in a public place?

Are you saying that it is unethical for me to carry a firearm concealed?

I ask because I do not understand what you are looking for in answer to the above quoted question.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Well think about McVeigh. Circumstances were different with different motivation, but there were no guns involved with what he did. That was mass murder too.

I dunno why the lethality of firearms is so center stage and demonized when there are literally countless ways to indiscriminately and effectively kill masses of people even without any firearms whatsoever.

Maybe because the US has a ridiculous amount of mass shootings? That could be it.

 

[SkepticThinker]

I think one bit of his sarcastic posts has merit:

That is until you are involved in a situation that you wish you had a weapon, that is if you live.

I think this is hard to deny. I'm not saying it would be good for everyone else around me, but if I'm somewhere and ess hits the fan, esmith is right, I'd rather have a gun than not have one.

The only time I can think of that I'd actually want a gun is during a zombie apocalypse.

 

[fantome profane]

Read it again..." Your right to swing your arms ends at the tip of my nose; your right to carry a gun ends when I come into range"

Now substitute "pray" for gun and it now reads
"your right to pray ends when I come into range."
got a problem with that metis?

There is no evidence that anyone has ever been killed by someone wielding a prayer.

 

[Twilight Hue]

Maybe because the US has a ridiculous amount of mass shootings? That could be it.

Maybe that's the problem. Your focused on mass shootings as opposed to mass killings.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Maybe that's the problem. Your focused on mass shootings as opposed to mass killings.

Is there some difference? Or are you trying to get off on a technicality to evade the point?

If I had said "mass killings" instead, what would you be saying?