You have a constitutional right to travel, but that doesn't mean you get free tickets on amtrak. You have a constitutional right to free speech, but you still have to pay to get an ad on tv. Financial restrictions on constitutional rights are all over the place.
..via mobile.
Hence my specification of ALL guns. You might not get a free cadillac, but nobody can stop you from walking.
You don't get free airtime on CBS, but nobody can stop you from standing on a street corner and talking.
do you see what I'm saying here? You are talking about extensive restrictions on ALL firearms. Not some. All. There is a difference.
I agree with you that fully automatics should require extensive hoop jumping. I don't agree that all semi-autos should go in that same category, but we can get on the same page with the "firehose" weapons. Definitely.
The weapons aren't licensed. The possessors have to be.
...maybe a two tiered structure. One for operators (those who want to shoot them) that requires training, etc... and one for mere possessors (like a spouse in the same dwelling) that would be cheaper / easier to get.
That would count as the equivalent of walking, no?
ETA... And the easier to get license for historic guns. Also cheaper and easier. Also = walking.
Post by basilosaurus on Jul 20, 2012 14:12:26 GMT -5
And, druid, I like and agree with their quotes.
I think I'm more anti-gun than even momi, so I don't think I'll come to common ground with any of the pro-gun folks. I'm pretty sure I'll piss a lot of people off with what I think about guns and their defenders, so this is probably a thread I should back out of. And plan a return trip to Japan and their gun free ways.
I'm also an NRA certified sharpshooter Thanks to summer camp. Yeah, it was fun, I'll admit that, but that kind of means nothing to me when it comes to how awful I think our gun laws are.
Post by secretlyevil on Jul 20, 2012 14:19:12 GMT -5
Witnesses interviewed on the Today show mentioned SWAT type outfit. This article mentions he was arrested wearing "full riot gear." And is also calling it the largest mass shooting in history.
Post by Daria Morgandorffer on Jul 20, 2012 14:28:33 GMT -5
"I tend to think that gun violence is not the result of our lax gun laws, but that our lax gun laws are the result of our cultural reverence for violence."
do you see what I'm saying here? You are talking about extensive restrictions on ALL firearms. Not some. All. There is a difference.
Do ALL firearms have the ability to maim/kill? That's really all that matters to me when I think there should be extensive restrictions, so the differences you pick out are irrelevant to my POV.
I assumed many on this board would. But they get to the guts of why I'm for smaller government. I'd love to see how things would go over if we applied those quotes to other freedoms.
Has anyone read how they captured him? I heard something on the news about him walking to the car, but nothing has been confirmed. It doesn't seem as if he fought the police or tried to run, right?
do you see what I'm saying here? You are talking about extensive restrictions on ALL firearms. Not some. All. There is a difference.
Do ALL firearms have the ability to maim/kill? That's really all that matters to me when I think there should be extensive restrictions, so the differences you pick out are irrelevant to my POV.
Sure, but so do all knives, and all hammers, and all rocks. As a wise folk singer once said, "every tool is a weapon if you hold it right".
If a person wants to kill you badly enough, they'll most likely succeed- gun or no gun.
Do you want all weapons to be restricted like this? Serious question.
Oh lord...yes, of course you can't walk across private property or walk away when legally detained by LE. Of course all rights have restrictions. But there is a big disconnect between saying, "well these other rights are non-absolute, so obviously these sweeping across the board restrictions on this other right are totally reasonable."
I get the logic behind wanting much stricter gun control. Up to and including UK style across the board bans. But I do NOT see how you can put that together with the 2nd Am. and say that you can have both. So if you really want way less guns out there, and you want to be able to keep a tight grip on where they go and who owns them - you need to seriously challange that particular right. But nobody is ever willing to go there, which I find strange.
I will say - I know very few people who aren't legit "the gubment wants to steal my guns also Muslims. And maybe hitler" that couldn't get on board with heavy heavy restrictions on fully automatic guns. (I'm assuming this is what you mean by "death-shower" kinds of guns) So I'm down with declaring that a unity horse. So can we stop using them as an example?
Just because I'm relatively anti-gun control doesn't mean I think people should be able to keep one of these next to their bed:
I just think that we either have a right to bear arms or we don't. and if you want to really restrict guns, beyond just consistant enforcement of the laws we already have, then that right needs to be repealed. Because pretending the framers of the constitution just meant it for a little light target shooting and deer hunting is fucking laughable.
ETA: this started out mostly responding to sbp, but it's really addressed to a bunch of different people so I took out the quotes. Just so you don't think I'm jumping on your ass based on your relatively mild comments sbp.
Do ALL firearms have the ability to maim/kill? That's really all that matters to me when I think there should be extensive restrictions, so the differences you pick out are irrelevant to my POV.
Sure, but so do all knives, and all hammers, and all rocks. As a wise folk singer once said, "every tool is a weapon if you hold it right".
If a person wants to kill you badly enough, they'll most likely succeed- gun or no gun.
Do you want all weapons to be restricted like this? Serious question.
Let's see if I beat them to it: THOSE aren't created to kill people. Guns are.
YES, this sums it up better for me. Are they quoting this from an article? HOw do the know there were military? I need a link.
the women on my other board seem to think their H's could have taken this guy down with one shot.
Yeah, I would need a link too. I read a comment earlier that said the guy was wearing a riot helmet and a bulletproof vest, but wouldn't state their source and I haven't seen it in any of the articles from people who were on the scene. And now this one has elaborated to include the helmet, vest, leggings (?) and a junk protector, and again, no source.
I'm just curious. 'Cause really... where in the hell do you get an actual riot helmet without rousing any curiosity? I don't think they sell those at the local Army surplus store.
I'd like to take this moment to thank hawkeye and msmerymac for the best quotes summarizing the nanny-state mentality I have seen in a while on here:
And yet, part of living in society is the delicate balance between individual rights and the safety of the public. I don't think "because a small amount of people think it's fun" trumps the possibility of saving lives. - msmerymac
And
Just because people think of something as recreational and enjoyable, doesn't automatically mean they have a right to it. - hawkeye
You heard it here, peeps.
Puh-lease. How it is instituting the "nanny state" when a government tries to protect the lives of its citizens (which is a constitutional right)?
Seriously, what is the role of government if not to create a functional society? We have the military and the police to keep law and order. So we can live in peace and get shit done.
well...if by twisted sense of entitlement, you mean "it's specifically laid out in our constitutional rights" well then, yes, yes we do.
Momin - I see what you're saying. But if you're going to require that kind of restriction on gun ownership (giving up privacy rights, extensive time and money commitment for ALL guns), then you're going to have to repeal the 2nd ammendment first. I just don't see how you can leave the right to bear arms standing and then restrict it THAT far.
You have a constitutional right to travel, but that doesn't mean you get free tickets on amtrak. You have a constitutional right to free speech, but you still have to pay to get an ad on tv. Financial restrictions on constitutional rights are all over the place.
..via mobile.
You have a constitutional right to travel?
I'm totally on your side, but to play devil's advocate, I also think there would be an issue with that much regulation when it comes to the second amendment. You don't have a constitutional right to drive a car, so yeah, the government can check your eyes.
I mean, the DC hand gun ban was struck down. I can't see requirements this stringent as instituted by the federal government being upheld.
I'd be curious to see a poll on people who are anti TSA but pro stricter gun control. IMO, it's all just infringing on your rights in the name of safety. But I'm curious to hear what the difference is for people who disagree.
Do ALL firearms have the ability to maim/kill? That's really all that matters to me when I think there should be extensive restrictions, so the differences you pick out are irrelevant to my POV.
Sure, but so do all knives, and all hammers, and all rocks. As a wise folk singer once said, "every tool is a weapon if you hold it right".
If a person wants to kill you badly enough, they'll most likely succeed- gun or no gun.
Do you want all weapons to be restricted like this? Serious question.
I have a friend who used to have that quote on the back of a t-shirt. The front was the logo for Righteous Babe Records.
Yeah, I would need a link too. I read a comment earlier that said the guy was wearing a riot helmet and a bulletproof vest, but wouldn't state their source and I haven't seen it in any of the articles from people who were on the scene. And now this one has elaborated to include the helmet, vest, leggings (?) and a junk protector, and again, no source.
I'm just curious. 'Cause really... where in the hell do you get an actual riot helmet without rousing any curiosity? I don't think they sell those at the local Army surplus store.
I just put it in the "facts" thread.
Yep, just saw it. Thanks.
Where in the hell does one obtain ballistics gear?! WTF.
And just for funsies in case my tone is being misread at all - this has been an actually fairly delightful debate thus far. I find this topic interesting, and only mildly personal thanks to all my gun loving friends, and I'm thick skinned.
that and it's fun to really get into one of the only topics where I am totally on the other side of the fence from most of my lovely CEPers.
Sure, but so do all knives, and all hammers, and all rocks. As a wise folk singer once said, "every tool is a weapon if you hold it right".
If a person wants to kill you badly enough, they'll most likely succeed- gun or no gun.
Do you want all weapons to be restricted like this? Serious question.
Let's see if I beat them to it: THOSE aren't created to kill people. Guns are.
YWIA
Show me the knife, the hammer, the rock, that can kill or injure 50+ people before the individual wielding it can be stopped, and I'll show you an object that should be regulated.
I'd like to take this moment to thank hawkeye and msmerymac for the best quotes summarizing the nanny-state mentality I have seen in a while on here:
And yet, part of living in society is the delicate balance between individual rights and the safety of the public. I don't think "because a small amount of people think it's fun" trumps the possibility of saving lives. - msmerymac
And
Just because people think of something as recreational and enjoyable, doesn't automatically mean they have a right to it. - hawkeye
You heard it here, peeps.
Puh-lease. How it is instituting the "nanny state" when a government tries to protect the lives of its citizens (which is a constitutional right)?
Seriously, what is the role of government if not to create a functional society? We have the military and the police to keep law and order. So we can live in peace and get shit done.
what is the role of government... and therein, my friend, lies the key to our dichotomy of beliefs and why you see nothing worrying about those quotes and I do.
Puh-lease. How it is instituting the "nanny state" when a government tries to protect the lives of its citizens (which is a constitutional right)?
Seriously, what is the role of government if not to create a functional society? We have the military and the police to keep law and order. So we can live in peace and get shit done.
what is the role of government... and therein, my friend, lies the key to our dichotomy of beliefs and why you see nothing worrying about those quotes and I do.
But how will we have the ability to produce unrestrained capitalist ventures if there's no government to establish a safe society?
what is the role of government... and therein, my friend, lies the key to our dichotomy of beliefs and why you see nothing worrying about those quotes and I do.
But how will we have the ability to produce unrestrained capitalist ventures if there's no government to establish a safe society?
Let's see if I beat them to it: THOSE aren't created to kill people. Guns are.
YWIA
Show me the knife, the hammer, the rock, that can kill or injure 50+ people before the individual wielding it can be stopped, and I'll show you an object that should be regulated.
..via mobile.
Ok, but guns are regulated. there is a pretty established bunch of restrictions on this right.
You are arguing for more. But the people on the other side aren't arguing for NONE. (at least not here. I don't speak for crazy people) So....?
I'm fine with certain restrictions. I'm fine with states having strict requirements for concealed carry (as much as I think marylands are actually too restrictive). I'm fine with restrictions on fully-automatic weapons. I think the expired assault weapons ban was stupid for a variety of reasons and woudln't want to see it come back without a serious re-write, but I am in no way anti ALL regulation. Just anti MORE regulation, and particularly poorly thought out kneejerk regulation.
I'd be curious to see a poll on people who are anti TSA but pro stricter gun control. IMO, it's all just infringing on your rights in the name of safety. But I'm curious to hear what the difference is for people who disagree.
Without writing a dissertation on it (shuddup), here are a few key differences:
There is relatively little SCOTUS or even Cir. Ct. App. 2nd Amendment case law out there. So the debate is active because the issue is very much unresolved. There is quite a bit of case law on the 4th Amendment and while the TSA in its mere existence does not violate the 4th Amendment, there is already 4th Amendment case law which extrapolated to the Porn Scanners and Freedom gropes makes it pretty clear those things are unconstitutional.
Additionally, for most constitutional analyses, there's an analysis of whether there's any evidence that the restriction on the personal liberty actually results in the benefit the law in drafted to accomplish and whether it is narrow enough that it doesn't restrict things its not supposed to restrict. So I think the TSA (i.e. airport security) probably meets this test. Again, the Porn Scanners and the Freedom Fondles really probably do not.
Turning to gun control laws, the Chicago "ban" on hand guns is probably overly broad and I seriously doubt there was any kind of mountain of research showing how oh-so-effective it was.
Would laws that made it illegal to manufacture certain kinds of guns be effective? To sell them? To sell them to certain people? To carry them to certain places? I think that's more of a case by case basis kind of a thing, but I don't think the fact that I oppose the Porn Scanners AND support narrow gun bans means I'm inconsistent in my regard for Constitutional liberties.
With the inclusion of the bolded, I don't think that's inconsistent at all.
Post by basilosaurus on Jul 20, 2012 15:10:09 GMT -5
So, wawa, you think current restrictions are fine and nothing needs to change if you're anti MORE regulation? How can you say that when states vary so much?
I totally get that I'm way outside of the norm with my views, and I don't make it a priority to push for them. I'm pretty sure my views wouldn't be constitutional anyway, and I'm ok with acknowledging that, saying I don't care, and ignoring the issue.
But I definitely think more restrictions are needed. Maybe not in every state, but certainly in every state that has recently relaxed them.
This just in: he purchased the firearms legally. 1:57PM: James Holmes did purchase the weapons he used in the attack legally, though he did not have a permit to carry concealed weapons. Also, Holmes is scheduled to make his first court appearance at 8 a.m. Monday. from kdvr.com/2012/07/20/at-least-14-killed-dozens-injured-in-shooting-at-aurora-movie-theater/
Someone mentioned guns and hammers and I would just point out that at least in MI, there are certain types of knives that are illegal to carry (blades of a certain length, switchblades, double sided, etc) at all. And you can be charged with assault with a deadly weapon if you use nearly any object as a weapon intending to commit bodily harm on someone, things like shoes, hammers, furniture, etc. plus you can't CCW unless you have a permit, whether that weapon is a gun, legal knife or whatever. So state legislatures have addressed these issues as to other types of weapons. This may be neither here nor there in the context, but wanted to throw it out there. Oh, and ditto SBP.
So, wawa, you think current restrictions are fine and nothing needs to change if you're anti MORE regulation? How can you say that when states vary so much?
I totally get that I'm way outside of the norm with my views, and I don't make it a priority to push for them. I'm pretty sure my views wouldn't be constitutional anyway, and I'm ok with acknowledging that, saying I don't care, and ignoring the issue.
But I definitely think more restrictions are needed. Maybe not in every state, but certainly in every state that has recently relaxed them.
Yeah, sorry that wasn't really accurate. I should have been more clear.
Things are very different state to state - and living in one of the biggest contrast areas I'm familiar with that fact. Maryland is ridiculous - but PA you can have a concealed carry permit just by filling out a half page form.
I think somewhere in between the two would be a better idea, but their differences are more a factor of where you can go and what you can do with your guns.
What we've been talking about here is more what*types*of firearms you can possess. When it comes to that I've said here a couple of times that I'm actually perfectly ok with tight restrictions on fully automatic weapons, so yes, I guess I'm ok with more restrictions in this one very narrow sense. Right now you can buy them, but it takes a LOT of paperwork. I could see adding more restrictions to the used gun market - maybe up to and including an all out ban on owning existing automatics outside of specialized historical collectors. But once you start getting into the semi-autos it gets excessive and largely arbitrary. the arbitary part is what gets me honestly. And that's where I don't think more restriction is logically compatible with the right to bear arms.