gun things and the things they do

[rfurtkamp]

I still don't get why the US keeps clinging onto 250 yr old laws because 'founding', that's like saying Germany should've kept their laws from what.. 900 AD, just because 'founding'.

It's not a 250 year old law from nowhere. It's part and parcel of our social contract - today's social contract. It is one of our enumerated rights as citizens.

Accessibility is a thing with guns, as Dos pointed out.

We have over three hundred million of them. They're not going anywhere, they will continue to be accessible, even if banned. If they become hard to find, demand will emerge, and just like drugs, will be imported.

Banning something doesn't make it go away.

And if laws change nothing when applied, then by all means just remove the speed limits then, it's not like 90% of people follow it.

Fine with that, criminalize unsafe driving and penalize those who cannot drive at a safe speed for conditions.

[UglyCasanova]

UK D.o.S. looking back at the US like

[Disarm D'arcy]

Furtkamp.

Your argument is not logical. « Enumerated rights » are laws. However constitutional, rights can be altered / implemented by ordinary law / interpreted by case law / whatever.

Your argument ignores the facts. I doubt the French are subjects. Yet, the right to bear arms doesn’t exist, it’s merely a faculty.
Only certain categories of guns are to be purchased by the general public which has to hold a sports or hunting license. The people that you say you are defending wouldn’t be bothered one bit or even affected by such laws.
Your argument of “rural vs urban” isn’t valid either because nobody needs a full automatic rifle to hunt deer.

Accept you have a bias that isn’t grounded in data. France has 31.2 guns per 100 inhabitant and 0.21 homicides (think about how much terrorist attacks are weighing on this number...) by firearm for 100.000 inhabitants. However the US has 112.6 guns per 100 inhabitant - it is a world record, and 3.60 homicides by firearm for 100.000 inhabitants. Norway, Sweden, Canada, Germany, Iceland, New Zealand, Australia, Croatia, Czech Republic have data in a similar range to France. Are all of those tyrannical?

Seconding DoS, your position is grounded on deformed history and anecdotal perceptions at best. It’s ok, we all do it to some extent. But pretending to yourself it is not the case isn’t enough to refute serious arguments you are consciously avoiding.

[D.o.S.]

There isn't a solution for shootings of this type.

The schmuck had millions of dollars, private planes, and the ability to fly across the boarder.

If he'd wanted to acquire hardware, he could have gotten it.

Same with anybody else willing to commit murder and devote resources to it.

We have over three hundred million guns. They're not going away, even with a total ban, assuming folks agreed to it. Nor do they vanish from the world, nor do homebuilt items and 3D-printed stuff cease to be. There are billions of guns in the world at this point.

Reflexive, yes. It's the proper response at this point, since the reflex is to always call for a ban without indicating how it will actually make a difference (it won't!).

See, this puzzles me: the idea that would-be killers are just murder wizards who are completely unimpeded by any legal barriers.

They're terrible human beings, but they are human beings, and human beings get discouraged, give up, cut corners, have limited resources, etc.

On top of that, anyone who intends to make an attack but gives up, gets busted for something else first, etc - we'll never even hear about.

But somehow making access more difficult is never on the table. And I do mean access for law abiding citizens, because everyone is a law abiding citizen until they go postal. For actual law abiding citizens it shouldn't matter, right?

[rfurtkamp]

Furtkamp.

Your argument is not logical. « Enumerated rights » are laws. However constitutional, rights can be altered / implemented by ordinary law / interpreted by case law / whatever.

Nope. The enumerated rights are there because they echo natural laws and the rights of man. The Second Amendment (and the other Bill of Rights) were done simply because the Founders realized that there needed to be explicit protection for some things that seemed self-evident.

Your argument ignores the facts. I doubt the French are subjects. Yet, the right to bear arms doesn’t exist, it’s merely a faculty.
Only certain categories of guns are to be purchased by the general public which has to hold a sports or hunting license. The people that you say you are defending wouldn’t be bothered one bit or even affected by such laws.

We don't require those permits. That's because have the explicit, enumerated right to have them.

I have restricted weapons beyond the normal allowed (a restriction I don't agree with, but the hoops to jump through were minor enough that I did it and hoped we'd make changes later).

Your argument of “rural vs urban” isn’t valid either because nobody needs a full automatic rifle to hunt deer.

I didn't make that argument, you're strawmanning to a point of laughability.

The Second Amendment isn't about hunting, either.

Accept you have a bias that isn’t grounded in data. France has 31.2 guns per 100 inhabitant and 0.21 homicides (think about how much terrorist attacks are weighing on this number...) by firearm for 100.000 inhabitants. However the US has 112.6 guns per 100 inhabitant - it is a world record, and 3.60 homicides by firearm for 100.000 inhabitants. Norway, Sweden, Canada, Germany, Iceland, New Zealand, Australia, Croatia, Czech Republic have data in a similar range to France. Are all of those tyrannical?

Accept you have a bias that we shouldn't have them if we're going to be playing that game. If you're just going to straw man, then there's no point.

And yes, I do consider it an abridgement on your human rights to not have access to same as citizens.

[Disarm D'arcy]

UK D.o.S. looking back at the US like

Also Turn is a pretty good show. Fiction can help getting a better perception of a complicated history.

[rfurtkamp]

See, this puzzles me: the idea that would-be killers are just murder wizards who are completely unimpeded by any legal barriers.

They're terrible human beings, but they are human beings, and human beings get discouraged, give up, cut corners, have limited resources, etc.

On top of that, anyone who intends to make an attack but gives up, gets busted for something else first, etc - we'll never even hear about.

Same way we only hear about the murder wizards who succeed at being them, not the inept idiots who can't manage the plot once they get the hardware.

But somehow making access more difficult is never on the table. And I do mean access for law abiding citizens, because everyone is a law abiding citizen until they go postal. For actual law abiding citizens it shouldn't matter, right?

We've tried outright bans in some of the highest-crime areas. It didn't accomplish anything but disarm the law-abiding.

[D.o.S.]

1. You're the only one talking about bans.

2. This is George Washington talking about individual rights after putting down a tax rebellion in Pennsylvania. (Also a reminder that the founders took into account the failure of Shay's Rebellion prior to writing the bill of rights)
To yield to the treasonable fury of so small a portion of the United States, would be to violate the fundamental principle of our constitution, which enjoins that the will of the majority shall prevail."

[rfurtkamp]

1. You're the only one talking about bans.

You haven't seen the press of the last few days, have you? It's always about a ban.

What exactly isn't going to be banned?

The guns?

The magazines?

Gun parts?

My access to them?

Etc.

2. This is George Washington talking about individual rights after putting down a tax rebellion in Pennsylvania. (Also a reminder that the founders took into account the failure of Shay's Rebellion prior to writing the bill of rights)
To yield to the treasonable fury of so small a portion of the United States, would be to violate the fundamental principle of our constitution, which enjoins that the will of the majority shall prevail."

The Founders are pretty much all about the guns, sorry.

Just a few I've used in the last couple days dealing with the whole "Founders didn't want this":

Washington also said in his First Inaugural, "A free people ought not only to be armed, but disciplined."

Patrick Henry, “Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are inevitably ruined.”

George Mason, "To disarm the people ― that was the best and most effectual way to enslave them."

Samuel Adams, "The Constitution shall never be construed...to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms"

[D.o.S.]

I haven't seen the press actually, what with the moving continents etc

I'm not saying they weren't in favor of guns, though. I'm saying that they evidently thought very little of the "enumerated right" to take up arms against the government.

[rfurtkamp]

Actually, most of the Founders were dead for it as a last resort, after all, they'd just done exactly that.

See Patrick Henry, Mason, Madison, etc.

[D.o.S.]

That fails the very basic logistic test we've just described, though.

Having lived through a rebellion you'd think they wouldn't want to give the average citizen the right to liquidate the more perfect form of gvt they were hoping to set up. And, again, see the whiskey Rebellion for proof that they didn't give a shot about fighting people who protested about taxation.

The radical thing about the second amendment at the time of its writing was that each state had complete control of its own militia.

[behndy]

yeah, i was raised as patriotic and gung ho about guns and Beware The Slippery Slope as anybody here (my father ran the NRA website forever, was a founder with Project Boresnake, founded and still runs Ammo Guide)..... and i have still always had problems with the Unaliable Rights.... natural rights? to own firearms?

we, as a country, have changed many things since our founding. for good reason. making guns harder to get and having harsher punishments is something to discuss.

...... and it scares the butts off of me people stockpiling hundreds (or did you say thousands?) of guns?

[rfurtkamp]

And that militia was each person, providing their own weapons.

The Founders don't change their tone on weapons ownership after the Revolution.

Washington may not have loved the Whiskey Rebellion, but no one was disarmed.

People still had weapons of war, including cannons and privately owned warships, along with small arms.

The Second Amendment was about both personal ownership *and* the militias, the latter of which are effectively toast in a modern sense (and well, I'm all for restoring those to the proper place as well under the direct state control).

[Disarm D'arcy]

Furtkamp, your posts fail at disproving any argument that have been put on the table.

You ignore the data. Invocation of an history you don’t necessarily has a complete understand of as DoS pointed doesn’t change that.

You ignore the logics. Yet you said yourself that you own more than the limit because the hoops are easy enough to jump through, justifying DoS’s entire position.

You ignore the basic principles of law - you postulate natural rights when they have to be received by the social contract and are therefore relative to time and place... much like anything law (philosophy is different from law).

Ultimately anyway, if I follow you, conservation and security are natural rights, being inherent to individual freedom in most if not all legal systems. Therefore, it had the same value than the right to bear arms, which poses a threat to conservation and security. These 2 are contradictory, and therefore need to be conciled by... law.

And law evolves much like societies, like Behndy pointed. Or else, you and I would live in the Roman Empire.