Parkland School Shooting

sturg33 said:
Cool... so ignoring how prohibition has worked in other fields, and ignoring the data showing more guns have correlated with less deaths, you still favor drastically reducing a law abiding citizen's right to defend him/herself

Why is it not unconstitutional? The 26th amendment made the legal voting age 18. The age of being in a militia at the time of the writing was 18. The age of being in the military today is 18. The onus is on your to prove why it is NOT unconstitutional to deny an 18 year old a firearm. Can you do that?

And the information about it making difference? The data shows that almost no mass shootings happen from people between those ages. So you're going to deny the rights of millions of people in order to potentially stop 5 mass shootings over 30 years... and that's making the assumption that those 5 people don't get their hands on a gun anyway.
Click to expand...

We prohibit lots of things as a society (murder, theft, assault) and they still happen. Using Prohibition as an example is pretty poor.
 
goldfly said:
except laws have worked to keep automatic firearms out of the hands of people

criminals don't even use them

so your point is garbage
Click to expand...

Here is a link to a CAD for a drop in sear for an AR 15. It's a simple part swap that converts the rifle from semi automatic to fully automatic. All you need is a buddy with a CNC machine to machine it for you. They aren't hard to find. I'm sure I could pick one up over the weekend if I really wanted to.

Beyond the legality issue, the problem is that a fully automatic rifle is virtually useless. That's one of the first lessons new soldiers learn on the firing range. The Army trains soldiers to use semi auto or at most the 3 round burst setting, which fires fully auto for 3 rounds. It's just not humanly possible to use a hand held weapon accurately in full automatic mode because the recoil of each shot drives the aim of the rifle higher, so after a couple of shots are fired in less than a second, you are just shooting at the sky. Weapons that are designed to be used in full auto mode come with some type of support to alleviate that problem You also empty a 30 round mag in an eye blink when firing auto, which is about $15 worth of ammo for the common AR calibers. It just isn't practical for anything beyond firing into a massive crowd.

I agree with you that making them illegal makes them much less common, my point is that I believe the illegal status works because altering the weapon to be fully automatic provides no utility over a legal semi automatic rifle. I do not think banning semi autos would have the same success because the added utility of a semi auto over the alternatives is infinitely more useful.
 
goldfly said:
how does automatic weapon regulation work but if we regulate anything else it won't work?

and if more guns made us more safe, we would be the safest country in the world
Click to expand...

Gun violence has gone down overall since the 70's and the NRA did not have the power then they have now, so do we really have a gun issue or a MENTAL issue which we closed most of those type of facilities and now have a bigger issue as schooling does not really go after this part of human psyche.

The last two decades we have had more problems in schools than ever before, I wonder why? Taking things out of class like prayer, pledge of allegiance, corporal punishment, things that liberals fought to get rid of and did for and now reaping the aftermath. This stuff did not happen in the 70's when I went to school and we had all those things above. I received several corporal punishments I deserve for bullying and it made me a better and respectful person.
 
goldfly said:
except laws have worked to keep automatic firearms out of the hands of people

criminals don't even use them

so your point is garbage
Click to expand...

WHAT THE FU*K? Criminals don't use them?

Get off the weed or peyote dude, you are not making any sense.
 
For anyone unclear about what the goal of all this is:

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/03/27/opinion/john-paul-stevens-repeal-second-amendment.html

Also, bravo to the NYT for having the courage to publish an op-ed that contains the following excerpt after the events of the past few years in Venezuela:

Concern that a national standing army might pose a threat to the security of the separate states led to the adoption of that amendment, which provides that “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.” Today that concern is a relic of the 18th century.
 
Jaw said:
For anyone unclear about what the goal of all this is:

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/03/27/opinion/john-paul-stevens-repeal-second-amendment.html

Also, bravo to the NYT for having the courage to publish an op-ed that contains the following excerpt after the events of the past few years in Venezuela:

Concern that a national standing army might pose a threat to the security of the separate states led to the adoption of that amendment, which provides that “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.” Today that concern is a relic of the 18th century.
Click to expand...

Yes, I was coming here to post that very op-ed. I think it's a succinct encapsulation about how out-of-whack our contemporary gun dialogue is with our historical understanding and jurisprudence.

During the years when Warren Burger was our chief justice, from 1969 to 1986, no judge, federal or state, as far as I am aware, expressed any doubt as to the limited coverage of that amendment. When organizations like the National Rifle Association disagreed with that position and began their campaign claiming that federal regulation of firearms curtailed Second Amendment rights, Chief Justice Burger publicly characterized the N.R.A. as perpetrating “one of the greatest pieces of fraud, I repeat the word fraud, on the American public by special interest groups that I have ever seen in my lifetime.”
Click to expand...

Let's remember that Burger was a Nixon appointee and quite conservative.

I'd encourage everybody reading Stevens's dissent in Heller as a companion piece to this.

I really wouldn't have picked you, Jaw, as a "guns-protect-us-from-the-government" guy. IMO, it's the weakest pro-gun argument--legally, practically, and morally.

How comparable is Venezuela to the US, really? Do you honestly believe that citizens with guns are the thin line between us and oppression?

"I am not an advocate for frequent changes in laws and constitutions, but laws and institutions must go hand in hand with the progress of the human mind. As that becomes more developed, more enlightened, as new discoveries are made, new truths discovered and manners and opinions change, with the change of circumstances, institutions must advance also to keep pace with the times. We might as well require a man to wear still the coat which fitted him when a boy as a civilized society to remain ever under the regimen of their barbarous ancestors."

-Thomas Jefferson, from a letter to Samuel Kercheval, 1816
 
It's not worth it Sturg. We all know what the left wants. That's why a vague 'common sense gun laws' phrase is used.
 
I think you're blurring the lines between incremental and politically feasible legislation supported by pragmatists and extreme positions supported by more avid activists. I'm in the latter category, but I don't see the former as a means to that end.

And let's not forget that the current understanding of the 2nd Amendment is both novel and, in historical context, extreme. If I'm an extremist, so are you.
 
I'd like to hear a thoughtful explanation for why, in a contemporary context, we should accept that gun rights exist to protect the citizenry from its government. How does that work, in practice?
 
Julio3000 said:
I really wouldn't have picked you, Jaw, as a "guns-protect-us-from-the-government" guy. IMO, it's the weakest pro-gun argument--legally, practically, and morally.

How comparable is Venezuela to the US, really? Do you honestly believe that citizens with guns are the thin line between us and oppression?
Click to expand...

I think it is an idea that is too often thought of as crazy militia members practicing in the woods with wanna-be weapons and tactics to bring down a government they have decided is corrupt. Of course that would fail. Any armed insurrection that opposed the military would fail, militarily. Disqualifying armed resistance in a military way does not disqualify it completely.

Against an unarmed population, or a population armed with rocks and farm tools, troops can walk out and brandish weapons to suppress some of the crowd. Batons and riot shields and a willingness to use both will suppress even more. Tear gas, bean bag guns, and other non-lethal weapons pretty much round out the necessary equipment. It's all pretty easy to solve as long as the rioters don't have a realistic chance of inflicting damage on the government personnel suppressing the riot. The hardest part is containing the political fallout, which is why we have watched sections of cities burn down over and over again instead of enforcing the law in those situations. It's just easier, safer.

We've seen all around the world that this all changes once troops or police start taking potshots from apartment windows or dumpsters. Troops eventually defend themselves, bystanders get caught in the crossfire, mass casualties occur. In this country, such a street battle would be extremely one sided for as long as it lasted. Then news would spread that soldiers are killing innocents. Riots would break out in protest, police or troops would be sent in to subdue them, rinse and repeat, always escalating. How long do you think that goes on before the kids wearing uniforms decide they aren't going to do it anymore? I've known too many of them to believe it would take long. Then orders aren't followed, authority breaks down, and this imaginary corrupt government falls.

So no, as far as the way I suspect you asked it, an armed citizenry will not in and of itself prevent oppression. But I do believe that as a result of having to suppress an armed citizenry, the military would stop the oppression. That may be optimistic of me, drones and AI may change all of that math within a few years.
 
Jaw said:
I think it is an idea that is too often thought of as crazy militia members practicing in the woods with wanna-be weapons and tactics to bring down a government they have decided is corrupt. Of course that would fail. Any armed insurrection that opposed the military would fail, militarily. Disqualifying armed resistance in a military way does not disqualify it completely.

Against an unarmed population, or a population armed with rocks and farm tools, troops can walk out and brandish weapons to suppress some of the crowd. Batons and riot shields and a willingness to use both will suppress even more. Tear gas, bean bag guns, and other non-lethal weapons pretty much round out the necessary equipment. It's all pretty easy to solve as long as the rioters don't have a realistic chance of inflicting damage on the government personnel suppressing the riot. The hardest part is containing the political fallout, which is why we have watched sections of cities burn down over and over again instead of enforcing the law in those situations. It's just easier, safer.

We've seen all around the world that this all changes once troops or police start taking potshots from apartment windows or dumpsters. Troops eventually defend themselves, bystanders get caught in the crossfire, mass casualties occur. In this country, such a street battle would be extremely one sided for as long as it lasted. Then news would spread that soldiers are killing innocents. Riots would break out in protest, police or troops would be sent in to subdue them, rinse and repeat, always escalating. How long do you think that goes on before the kids wearing uniforms decide they aren't going to do it anymore? I've known too many of them to believe it would take long. Then orders aren't followed, authority breaks down, and this imaginary corrupt government falls.

So no, as far as the way I suspect you asked it, an armed citizenry will not in and of itself prevent oppression. But I do believe that as a result of having to suppress an armed citizenry, the military would stop the oppression. That may be optimistic of me, drones and AI may change all of that math within a few years.
Click to expand...

We've been there, for all intents and purposes. In the '60s there were numerous riots with multiple fatalities across law enforcement, protestors, and bystanders (heavily weighted towards the latter two, obviously). The same cycle of escalation generally prevailed, to a point. But I don't think this was viewed by society at large through the same lens that you're suggesting here.

There were also relatively numerous calls for armed resistance in those years (which, ironically, caused a lot of law and order conservatives to embrace gun control measures against openly packing Black Panthers,etc...but that's another story). We've been there before that, too, I suppose...the Bonus Army and various violent labor disturbances. I'm not really sure if your answer gets to the heart of the question I'm asking.

Is stockpiling guns really a bulwark against tyranny in this day and age? Should the people who have the most to fear from state violence be encouraged to arm themselves? I think cajun takes that position but doesn't get a lot of support from the population here.

I'm just not sure I really understand that aspect of the pro-gun argument, and I'm really interested in seeing it expounded upon.

As sturg is often chivvying gun-control advocates to admit that their end goal is gun confiscation, I'm asking if the flip side of the coin is stockpiling guns for an endgame of armed resistance against the government. He seems to say yes. You seem to being saying yes. thethe seems to be saying yes.

I'm just going to say, as respectfully as I can, that this seems utterly bonkers to me.
 
Julio3000 said:
We've been there, for all intents and purposes. In the '60s there were numerous riots with multiple fatalities across law enforcement, protestors, and bystanders (heavily weighted towards the latter two, obviously). The same cycle of escalation generally prevailed, to a point. But I don't think this was viewed by society at large through the same lens that you're suggesting here.

There were also relatively numerous calls for armed resistance in those years (which, ironically, caused a lot of law and order conservatives to embrace gun control measures against openly packing Black Panthers,etc...but that's another story). We've been there before that, too, I suppose...the Bonus Army and various violent labor disturbances. I'm not really sure if your answer gets to the heart of the question I'm asking.

Is stockpiling guns really a bulwark against tyranny in this day and age? Should the people who have the most to fear from state violence be encouraged to arm themselves? I think cajun takes that position but doesn't get a lot of support from the population here.

I'm just not sure I really understand that aspect of the pro-gun argument, and I'm really interested in seeing it expounded upon.

As sturg is often chivvying gun-control advocates to admit that their end goal is gun confiscation, I'm asking if the flip side of the coin is stockpiling guns for an endgame of armed resistance against the government. He seems to say yes. You seem to being saying yes. thethe seems to be saying yes.

I'm just going to say, as respectfully as I can, that this seems utterly bonkers to me.
Click to expand...

To your argument, and it's one I've thought of as well, I think it's a mistake to equate the environment of people demanding more or equal rights with the environment of people refusing to surrender existing rights. I'm not hypothesizing some Trump or Obama situation, we'll have those nonstop in a world where at least 40% of the country feels like its losing all the time. I'm talking about a genuine threat to whatever the vast majority consider liberty to be at the time. Do you think that even 60% of the population passionately cared about the Vietnam War or Civil Rights issues? Not agreed or disagreed with, but cared enough to take a beating and jail time? With respect to those movements, I think a government seizure of food during a food shortage like we saw in Venezuela would be much more universally motivating. And I think it would be met with a great deal of mortal violence.

As to your question about the stockpiling of guns, I can't answer for anyone but myself. I have a few so that I will always have enough, but I don't plan to ever use one for anything besides targets, wild game, training my kids, or defense of me and mine in a life threatening situation. I think of the whole "2nd Amendment insures the First" slogan as being like birth control. It's existence often precludes it's utility.
 
I've got an ongoing intra-family debate about the 2nd Amendment guaranteeing the 1st, and I admit to the same confusion about that logic to you that I do in that case. I just don't get it. My neighbor's closet full of guns doesn't guarantee my right of free speech. Our collective accession to the rule of law, our ostensible agreement to a state monopoly on sanctioned violence, our collective agreement about civilian control over the application of that violence does that...if imperfectly, in some cases. What you seem to be arguing is that I have to be armed in order to assert my rights, or defer to those that are and subordinate myself to their good graces, and that seems to me to be frighteningly reductive and quite at odds with my understanding of our collective rights as citizens.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top