Extreme gun control positions

[durangodawood]

Name one.

My goodness, where to start?

I was going to mention speed limits. Or laws against selling ready made bombs. But thats boring.

How about the capacity for law enforcement to arrest you - even if youre actually innocent - based on probable cause?

 

[OK Jeff]

My goodness, where to start?

I was going to mention speed limits. Or laws against selling ready made bombs. But thats boring.

How about the capacity for law enforcement to arrest you - even if youre actually innocent - based on probable cause?

Driving isn’t a privilege.
I’m not sure selling ready made bombs prevents anything. Anyone can easily learn how to build a dozen different kinds. And the restriction of certain ingredients has proven very difficult as a farmer (ammonium nitrate). I don’t think any of it is beneficial of successful. Again, it punishes the innocent.
Probable cause to make an arrest is a stretch at best. But while I respect the law and law enforcement, I think they should be held to a very high standard. And the burden of proof absolutely falls upon their shoulders.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

Difference is driving/owning a car isn’t a constitutionally guaranteed right.

...and constitutionally protected rights aren't unlimited (a sentiment that's been re-affirmed through multiple supreme court rulings).

Meaning, common sense checks that protect the life & liberty of others aren't unconstitutional.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

Although not an American, I would favour an almost complete ban on guns. Exceptions would be for certified collectors, hunters, etc.

I suggest the downside of guns in a modern society greatly outweigh the benefits.

You guys seem to elevate the Constitution to scriptural status. Didn’t it once give you the right to own slaves?

I'd consider myself to be pro-gun... I own 17 of them
(although, liberals would call me a gun-nut since I have ARs, and conservatives would call me anti-gun since I favor universal background checks)

I take the approach that you can achieve low murder rates without confiscation and meaningless regulations, and instead, focus on a few key regulations that are the most effective in reducing the problem.

In these conversations, I always encourage people to look at the Czech gun control model.
Gun laws in the Czech Republic - Wikipedia

You can have a system that's "Shall Issue", that allows for ownership of handguns, AR's, etc..., and allows for concealed carry (a similar percentage of their population has CCW permits compared to us), but still boasts a low murder rate (they're at 0.7).

The key seems to be a few good, meaningful, upstream validations in the gun ownership process.

 

[OK Jeff]

...and constitutionally protected rights aren't unlimited (a sentiment that's been re-affirmed through multiple supreme court rulings).

Meaning, common sense checks that protect the life & liberty of others aren't unconstitutional.

And who determines “common sense”?

 

[durangodawood]

Driving isn’t a privilege.
I’m not sure selling ready made bombs prevents anything. Anyone can easily learn how to build a dozen different kinds. And the restriction of certain ingredients has proven very difficult as a farmer (ammonium nitrate). I don’t think any of it is beneficial of successful. Again, it punishes the innocent.
Probable cause to make an arrest is a stretch at best. But while I respect the law and law enforcement, I think they should be held to a very high standard. And the burden of proof absolutely falls upon their shoulders.

OK. I named one.

 

[OK Jeff]

OK. I named one.

Sort of. But that really isn’t restricting the innocent.
I did notice my corrective text is causing some problems in my posts. I shall be more careful.

 

[durangodawood]

Sort of. But that really isn’t restricting the innocent.
I did notice my corrective text is causing some problems in my posts. I shall be more careful.

Of course its restricting the innocent.

There's plenty of leeway in probable cause for an actual innocent person to look guilty to an officer acting in good faith. He's not a jury. That comes later. "Inncocent until proven guilty".

So there you go. A restriction on your freedom that you willingly endorse. No worries tho. Almost everybody, even libertarian die hards, go along with that.

 

[OK Jeff]

Of course its restricting the innocent.

There's plenty of leeway in probable cause for an actual innocent person to look guilty to an officer acting in good faith. He's not a jury. That comes later. "Inncocent until proven guilty".

So there you go. A restriction on your freedom that you willingly endorse. No worries tho. Almost everybody, even libertarian die hards, go along with that.

Yet I put a very high standard on what constitutes probable cause. Better to let ten guilty go free and to lock one innocent up.

 

[Radagast]

Complete ban - no way.

Options I'd consider:

-6 round max capacity

That would ban the overwhelming majority of handguns. According to past SCOTUS decisions, that would be unconstitutional.

 

[disciple Clint]

Fair enough.

My point is the constitution is not set in stone nor is it a sacred nor perfect document. Eventually, it needs to be updated and amended to match the society it governs.

And the courts have been working real hard on that. But maybe not in the future

 

[USincognito]

No such right ever existed. Not by the constitution anyway.

LOL

Just because slavery isn't mentioned in the bill of rights doesn't mean it wasn't a right. Slavery is mentioned three times in the Constitution.

 

[disciple Clint]

I often hear conservatives say that if liberals in America had their way, any kind of private gun ownership would be completely illegal, and all privately-owned firearms would be confiscated by the government.

I certainly don't support that. In my opinion that would be ridiculous. I just support stricter background checks, less NRA influence on politicians, and more required training and safety classes - just like you need to pass a test and get a license to drive a car, the same should go for using a gun. So I was just wondering, how many self-identified liberals here believe that a a complete ban of firearms would be beneficial, practical, and Constitutional?

I have no problem with what you are suggesting BUT I doubt that it will do much to make anyone safer. Criminals steal guns or they buy stolen guns. People with mental health issues legally buy guns and can pass the background checks (unless they have a history of serious mental problems). I also doubt that gun control would solve the problem because as we see in countries that have gun control, people who want to kill just use another weapon such as a bomb, knife, chemical or even an automobile. It is not the gun that is killing people, it is people that are killing people and they do not care what they use to get the job done. No I don't have a solution either but I think we need to invest in better mental health services and better security.

 

[Sparagmos]

I often hear conservatives say that if liberals in America had their way, any kind of private gun ownership would be completely illegal, and all privately-owned firearms would be confiscated by the government.

I certainly don't support that. In my opinion that would be ridiculous. I just support stricter background checks, less NRA influence on politicians, and more required training and safety classes - just like you need to pass a test and get a license to drive a car, the same should go for using a gun. So I was just wondering, how many self-identified liberals here believe that a a complete ban of firearms would be beneficial, practical, and Constitutional?

Not me! I just want weapons designed for mass murder to be banned, and the stuff you said too. Total straw man that liberals want to ban guns.

 

[Sparagmos]

I have no problem with what you are suggesting BUT I doubt that it will do much to make anyone safer. Criminals steal guns or they buy stolen guns. People with mental health issues legally buy guns and can pass the background checks (unless they have a history of serious mental problems). I also doubt that gun control would solve the problem because as we see in countries that have gun control, people who want to kill just use another weapon such as a bomb, knife, chemical or even an automobile. It is not the gun that is killing people, it is people that are killing people and they do not care what they use to get the job done. No I don't have a solution either but I think we need to invest in better mental health services and better security.

Why don’t we just do what other countries that have much lower gun death rates do, instead of speculating? They’ve already tested stuff out.

 

[OK Jeff]

LOL

Just because slavery isn't mentioned in the bill of rights doesn't mean it wasn't a right. Slavery is mentioned three times in the Constitution.

It’s not mentioned directly. And is certainly not a guaranteed right.

 

[OK Jeff]

Why don’t we just do what other countries that have much lower gun death rates do, instead of speculating? They’ve already tested stuff out.

Or maybe if we try it in certain crime ridden areas of the US. Kind of a small scale test. How about Chicago, maybe DC.....oh wait.

 

[Sparagmos]

Or maybe if we try it in certain crime ridden areas of the US. Kind of a small scale test. How about Chicago, maybe DC.....oh wait.

How does gun control in a place where people can easily get them a few miles away make for a good comparison? And you have to look at all the data together, not just anecdotes you pick and choose.

 

[FireDragon76]

Thanks to the NRA, there's not even critical public money available to do research on firearms deaths and how they might be prevented. The NRA wants ideology, not facts, to dominate.

 

[OK Jeff]

And half the population understands why they’re right.