Let's Talk Second Amendment

[theophilus777]

That's ludicrous. Perhaps back in the Founders' day, that made some sense. Today, though, Grandpappy's squirrel rifle doesn't mean squat against a Cruise missile, any sort of armor division, airstrikes... oh hell, pretty much any part of the modern military.

What an armed populace can do, though, is hold off (or at least slow down) an invader long enough for the real military to arrive.

What you're saying amounts to "lets throw away the Constitution because its inapplicable."

No thanks.

 

[theophilus777]

for a group of armed Americans to take on the massed might of the US military? Forget about it.

Totally besides the point. If our "massed might" gets so whack as to need our regulation, we're doomed. If some factions get off kilter and need some ... "regulating," well, we should be able to handle that.

 

[theophilus777]

. While he thinks pistols ought to be banned, since their only purpose is to kill, I don't have a problem with handguns. My problem mostly comes from private citizens owning military-grade weaponry, which I think should be kept in the hands of trained professionals.

What about when trained professionals retire from the service? Why do they need to forfeit their own property? To be consistent here, you'd just want sensible requirements for weapon ownership. (And for them to be sensibly enforced, of course)

With respect, though: nobody is "taking away" your guns. Background checks and limits on carrying in certain places isn't taking away the right to own guns, but simply regulating your use of them.

Use of firearms is not at all under dispute; other laws deal with that, and they are quite thorough. If you can't carry and are in a "gun free zone," and find yourself at the mercy of a merciless mass murderer - your guns have effectively been "taken away." Sadly, recent history proves this is not just a hypothetical talking point.

That's a pretty steep slippery slope. Taxing ammunition is a far cry from banning all gun ownership outright. I'm not saying that making bullets cost more is necessarily the right solution; I haven't formed an opinion on the issue. But it's not "gun grabbing".

Sheer and utter nonsense! This has been the EXACT method of prohibiting weapons deemed too dangerous for public consumption for almost 100 years now. Don't make me use the word sheeple on you

Well unfortunately, trying to implement such common sense measures into law like requiring gun safety classes or the like will probably cause the ire of the NRA.

The NRA - though not necessarily those who are members, mind you - is an extreme organization. It claims to be all for reasonable gun safety measures, but its actions belie its rhetoric.

There is not enough face palm for this. Somebody, please cite this guy something showing how much of the gun safety education in this Country is furnished or assisted by the NRA.

 

[Ringo84]

What about when trained professionals retire from the service? Why do they need to forfeit their own property? To be consistent here, you'd just want sensible requirements for weapon ownership. (And for them to be sensibly enforced, of course)

Which is what I've been advocating since I began this thread.

If you can't carry and are in a "gun free zone," and find yourself at the mercy of a merciless mass murderer - your guns have effectively been "taken away."

If I said that you can't yell 'fire!' in a crowded theater, am I "taking away" your right to free speech, or simply saying that there are sometimes inappropriate places in which to use that freedom?

Sheer and utter nonsense! This has been the EXACT method of prohibiting weapons deemed too dangerous for public consumption for almost 100 years now.

Perhaps a method to control the use of weapons, but not "banning" guns.

Don't make me use the word sheeple on you

If you are one who uses the word "sheeple", I would think that might say more about you than me.

There is not enough face palm for this. Somebody, please cite this guy something showing how much of the gun safety education in this Country is furnished or assisted by the NRA.

And I commend the NRA for its efforts. Genuinely. That's one of the few things I like about the organization: its willingness to educate about guns.

However, that doesn't take away from the fact that nearly ANY legislation about guns is treated nowadays as burdensome on Second Amendment rights, as though even discussing plans to regulate guns or gun ownership in any way is a bridge too far. That's an extreme position.
Ringo

 

[Panzerkamfwagen]

Licensed gun dealers have been performing background checks for decades, and there has never been a registry.
Ringo

In order for a background check law to actually be enforceable, there has to be a registry, otherwise, the law is completely meaningless.

It might not be meaningless for a firearm sold after the law takes effect, but for any firearm sold before the law takes effect, it is completely meaningless. Without a registration of every firearm, which creates a paper trail, the government cannot enforce a mandatory background check law.

It's impossible to prove that someone purchased a firearm after the background check law went into effect, then it's impossible for the government to enforce it.

Of course, the ATF is so good at gun registries now, with a relatively limited number of NFA items...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bO6BQVAZpwU

If you go to page 1016-1042 of this document, you can discover that the ATF, in the opinion of a statistician, is not a reliable record keep for gun registrations.

Here are a couple of gems of what he said about the ATF's current registry:

The audit, the original audit report had a -- found an
error rate of about 18 percent, which is very high. And it
wasn't, I don't think it was expected to be that high. It was
very high. And after they looked at it they went back and
redefined what they called critical errors. And with a
different definition of critical errors, they were able to
lower the error rate to under five percent.

And, if you're rifle malfunctions, you can be charged with possession of an unregistered machine gun.

Yeah...so, why should we trust gun regulators again?

 

[Panzerkamfwagen]

Which is what I've been advocating since I began this thread.

But, the people in charge of enforcing the firearms laws are apparently guilty, at the least, of suborning perjury.

If I said that you can't yell 'fire!' in a crowded theater, am I "taking away" your right to free speech, or simply saying that there are sometimes inappropriate places in which to use that freedom?
[/url]

Funny you should reference the Schenk case. You're using a [later overturned] Supreme Court case that repressed a guy for urging people to stick up for their rights:

"If you do not assert and support your rights, you are helping to deny or disparage rights which it is the solemn duty of all citizens and residents of the United States to retain."

Oh, and by the way, the quote is, "falsely shouting fire in a crowded theater.

Perhaps a method to control the use of weapons, but not "banning" guns.

That sounds like laws that we already have on the books. Murder, assault, robbery. Those sorts of things.

And I commend the NRA for its efforts. Genuinely. That's one of the few things I like about the organization: its willingness to educate about guns.

Anti-gunners aren't even willing to do that.

However, that doesn't take away from the fact that nearly ANY legislation about guns is treated nowadays as burdensome on Second Amendment rights, as though even discussing plans to regulate guns or gun ownership in any way is a bridge too far. That's an extreme position.
Ringo

Because it is an infringement on the Second Amendment rights.

 

[Panzerkamfwagen]

Don't make me beg dude, 'cause I will if I have too!
tulc(isn't above whining either!)

I'm waiting for Ringo's answer to my question.

 

[RDKirk]

In order for a background check law to actually be enforceable, there has to be a registry, otherwise, the law is completely meaningless.

No. I had an extended background check to give me access to TOP SECRET/Compartmented classified information. It did not, however, require a registry of every piece of classified material I handled. Once cleared for access, classified material flowed through my hands like water. I only had to ensure that it was properly transferred to someone who also had the proper access when it left my hands. But there was no big registry of every piece of clasified material we had.

If a person is cleared for access, it does not matter how much he has.

 

[RDKirk]

Is that a reference to recent events in Texas?

I believe that they are carrying rifles, because the open carry of pistols is illegal.

So, basically, it's because of anti-gun legislation.

Texas? Anti-gun? LOL!

Texas has a frontier tradition in which it has always been considered rude and uncouth to openly wear a gun into someone else's house or business establishment, unless invited to do so.

 

[Panzerkamfwagen]

Texas? Anti-gun? LOL!

Texas has a frontier tradition in which it has always been considered rude and uncouth to openly wear a gun into someone else's house or business establishment, unless invited to do so.

The open carry of rifles in Texas is a political protest against legislation that prohibits the open carry of pistols.

 

[Panzerkamfwagen]

No. I had an extended background check to give me access to TOP SECRET/Compartmented classified information. It did not, however, require a registry of every piece of classified material I handled. Once cleared for access, classified material flowed through my hands like water. I only had to ensure that it was properly transferred to someone who also had the proper access when it left my hands. But there was no big registry of every piece of clasified material we had.

If a person is cleared for access, it does not matter how much he has.

Did you process classified information on government security systems? I'm willing to bet that you had to log your access to it.

If I have AR-15 #XYZ in my possession before the government passes a background check law, then the government passes a background check law, unless the government passes a gun registration law [which they've already shown that they cannot manage effectively] they have no way to know who owns AR-15 XYZ, and thus, it's a "ghost gun." I can sell it to guy B without a background check. He can then sell it to guy C without a background check. If the government doesn't know that I owned AR-15 #XYZ, then they can't prove that I sold it to guy B, and thus, they can't prove that he sold it to guy C.

So, they'd probably prosecute as many of those as they do people who lie on 4473s.

 

[RDKirk]

Did you process classified information on government security systems? I'm willing to bet that you had to log your access to it.

I logged on to the fact that I was using a government system. But I also had a desk chock full of classified information that was not registered anywhere. I also created classified information that was not registered anywhere.

If I have AR-15 #XYZ in my possession before the government passes a background check law, then the government passes a background check law, unless the government passes a gun registration law [which they've already shown that they cannot manage effectively] they have no way to know who owns AR-15 XYZ, and thus, it's a "ghost gun." I can sell it to guy B without a background check. He can then sell it to guy C without a background check. If the government doesn't know that I owned AR-15 #XYZ, then they can't prove that I sold it to guy B, and thus, they can't prove that he sold it to guy C.

So, they'd probably prosecute as many of those as they do people who lie on 4473s.

And I could have copied any amount of TOP SECRET material and sold it to unauthorized individuals, or, for that matter, walked out of the door with original TOP SECRET material.

 

[RDKirk]

The open carry of rifles in Texas is a political protest against legislation that prohibits the open carry of pistols.

I understand what they're doing and why. But the Texas laws are not "anti gun." They are anti-rudeness.

 

[Panzerkamfwagen]

And I could have copied any amount of TOP SECRET material and sold it to unauthorized individuals, or, for that matter, walked out of the door with original TOP SECRET material.

You had original classification authority?

 

[Panzerkamfwagen]

I understand what they're doing and why. But the Texas laws are not "anti gun." They are anti-rudeness.

Some of those guys walking around with rifles are complete toolbags.

But still...Texas.

Washington is an open carry state, and Texas isn't.

 

[RDKirk]

Some of those guys walking around with rifles are complete toolbags.

But still...Texas.

Washington is an open carry state, and Texas isn't.

And as I said earlier about a conversation between me and a gun dealer friend, if I owned a restaurant and saw someone enter with his AR in his hands, I'd shoot him as he walked through the door. I owe my customers that much.

 

[katautumn]

Just to sum up my opinions on this topic, because I'm not well versed on well regulated militias and all of that fun stuff. I'm a huge proponent of responsible carry conceal. I'm not a fan of open carry, especially rifles. To me, it's like seeing pictures of teachers in Israel having to carry sub machine guns to protect their class. Seeing a large group of people with rifles slung across their backs makes me feel like I'm in a war zone. It's unnecessarily intimidating. I'm not a fan of open carrying pistols, either, but it's not quite as shocking as seeing someone toting a rifle into a clothing boutique or Taco Bell.

 

[Ringo84]

Just to sum up my opinions on this topic, because I'm not well versed on well regulated militias and all of that fun stuff. I'm a huge proponent of responsible carry conceal. I'm not a fan of open carry, especially rifles. To me, it's like seeing pictures of teachers in Israel having to carry sub machine guns to protect their class. Seeing a large group of people with rifles slung across their backs makes me feel like I'm in a war zone. It's unnecessarily intimidating. I'm not a fan of open carrying pistols, either, but it's not quite as shocking as seeing someone toting a rifle into a clothing boutique or Taco Bell.

Agreed.

Funny you should reference the Schenk case. You're using a [later overturned] Supreme Court case that repressed a guy for urging people to stick up for their rights:

I was not referencing any Supreme Court case. It was a hypothetical.

But since you posted that link, let me say that contrary to what the author of that article says, there are limitations on the First Amendment. A civilized society, in order to remain civilized, sets certain 'ground rules' to govern how and in what situations using one's free speech is appropriate.

If that weren't so, I would have the ability to go on national television and make disparaging comments about your mother (not that I would; it's an example). My rights end where yours begin. Why should the Second Amendment be any different?

That's the point I've been trying to make since the OP.

That sounds like laws that we already have on the books. Murder, assault, robbery. Those sorts of things.

Such laws don't control the dissemination of firearms to those who shouldn't have them, however, which is why we should better regulate guns.

Anti-gunners aren't even willing to do that.

That's them. I think that better education would help quite a bit.

Because it is an infringement on the Second Amendment rights.

No more so than libel and slander laws are an infringement on First Amendment rights.

I'm waiting for Ringo's answer to my question.

I missed it the first time; thank you for the reminder.

The answer is that I don't know. But again: if the laws truly don't make sense, that's a good reason to involve gun owners who are familiar with firearms and who can give expert advice.
Ringo

 

[abdAlSalam]

Pop quiz. Which of these rifles is "military grade hardware in your definition of the term:

1. Is a mosin nagant (looks like a 91/30).
2. This can be deceptive. It's either a run of the mill 5.56 ar 15 or something made to look like one. Can't tell from the pic but it could very well be converted to shoot .22. Just gonna guess that it.s run of the mill ar.
3. Looks like maybe an SKS but I'm not super familiar with semi auto rifles.

The answer (assuming the ar isn't in fact a nodded .22) is all of them, but for different reasons. It is incredibly disingenuous to imply that just because 5.56 is a smaller round that it is somehow less military hardware than the 7.62 of the mosin that it is more deserving of the label 'military'. After all the mosin is no longer used on the battlefield except by the incredibly destitute. There's a reason why the US uses 5.56 and it has absolutely nothing to do with reduced lethality.

Edit
3 might be a Gewehr 43. Either way the original point still stands.

 

[keith99]

The phrase "well regulated" has got to mean something doesn't it?

Why?

What seems the most reasonable interpretation of the 2nd amendment is that the introductory phrase is just that, and introduction stressing the importance of the right. Not just to the individuals but to the country itself.

Oh I guess the 'well regulated' part is still important.

Guys who can shot are the building blocks, but if the effort to organize them is missing they remain just potential building blocks. It is a caution that a rabble that can shoot is just that. So the second amendment just insures the building blocks will be there.