"Those assault weapons will have to be banned"It won't happen until non-whites start using assault weapons to kill white Republicans on a regular basis.
Pretty big caveat(assuming they don't just get gunned down by the police).
very rarely do "assault" rifles get usedIt won't happen until non-whites start using assault weapons to kill white Republicans on a regular basis.
Statistics only matter if it supports things like more dead bodies this year from white nationalists than from muslim extremists.Rifles account for roughly 2-3% of homicides in America. Tens of thousands of people will still be killed each year whether you ban them or not. There should be more effort on fixing gun violence as a whole, not some tiny subset of the problem.
How 'bout we start somewhere?Rifles account for roughly 2-3% of homicides in America. Tens of thousands of people will still be killed each year whether you ban them or not. There should be more effort on fixing gun violence as a whole, not some tiny subset of the problem.
This was truly the Mercedes of forum posts.start by outlawing car analogies
We can do both, no?There should be more effort on fixing gun violence as a whole, not some tiny subset of the problem.
Obama threatened an assault rifle ban and the only thing that happened was gun ownership in America more than doubled under his presidential terms. People keep pretending this will have a profound impact on the safety in America and it won't. It's not "starting somewhere", it's wasting energy best spent elsewhere.How 'bout we start somewhere?
99% of the outrage is spent on 2% of the problem. Switch it around and that's actually "doing both"We can do both, no?
Interesting. Thanks.A better electoral system would have kept the unfit Donald Trump from ever sniffing the presidency. A better government wouldn't have a president selected by a minority of voters to begin with or maybe even a president at all.
Most of the modern world has recognized the need to get things done and hold the elected government responsible for doing so. If the changes turn out to be not so good, then the responsibility lies with the elected government to get that fixed, too. And the nature of their systems makes it possible for the voters to do this.
It's 2019, the country is big and the world moves fast. This is no time for 18th century governance and the likes of Donald Trump.
"2% of the outrage is spent on 99% of the problem"?99% of the outrage is spent on 2% of the problem. Switch it around and that's actually "doing both"
Any law banning an assault rifle needs to define what it is. Washington, for example, just went the broadest route possible and defined all semiautomatic rifles as assault rifles. This was intentional, because the 1994 federal ban defined them based on certain components or characteristics, which just allowed manufacturers to modify rifles or their components to work around the ban.Or to put it another way: There’s no official criteria for what qualifies as an “assault rifle,” and the government doesn’t keep detailed data on the different types of firearms owned by Americans.
It's hard to even estimate how many there are out there. 15 to 20 million? The AR-15 is the most popular "sporting rifle" in America.
So gun people freaked out over just the threat of a ban? So what's the takeaway, we can't do anything or we'll be held hostage by their paranoia? Is that supposed to suggest something about a better place to start?Obama threatened an assault rifle ban and the only thing that happened was gun ownership in America more than doubled under his presidential terms. People keep pretending this will have a profound impact on the safety in America and it won't. It's not "starting somewhere", it's wasting energy best spent elsewhere.
That is the crux of the pro-gun crowd. Passing new laws only affects the law abiding citizens but does nothing for the criminals.I'd have to think that would be a pretty big thing though. Maybe I'm naive, but lots of people I know who are pro-gun are pretty strongly opposed to breaking the law.
So many more criminals would be caught though.That is the crux of the pro-gun crowd. Passing new laws only affects the law abiding citizens but does nothing for the criminals.
How? Why aren't they caught now?So many more criminals would be caught though.
Because they would get caught having illegal guns in normal day-to-day situations. Not just while committing other crimes.How? Why aren't they caught now?
You didn't answer my questions. How? Why aren't they catching all of the illegal guns now?Because they would get caught having illegal guns in normal day-to-day to situations. Not just while committing other crimes.
And this plays right off of the "criminals wont obey" that the right-wing has professed for decades.
Nobody gets arrested for having guns right now. And none of the guns are currently illegal.You didn't answer my questions. How? Why aren't they catching all of the illegal guns now?
Actually no particular gun is protected by the second amendment other than a muzzle loading musket rifle. Because that's all they knew.Assault rifles aren't protected by the second amendment the same way handguns are, so it is much easier to pass enforceable gun control relating to them. Since they are used in a disproportionate amount of mass shootings, it should be a no-brainer to add more controls, up to an including a ban. The bigger problem is that semiautomatic handguns are our main source of gun violence, and the second amendment prevents any meaningful restriction on them.
As shown by the pro-gun side, this argument is a favorite of the gun lobby--why address a weapon that isn't the main problem? The way that our Supreme Court has interpreted the second amendment and completely eliminated the "well-regulated militia" portion has led us here. The Supreme Court says, well, if you want to fix it then revise the second amendment. Good luck with that.
This seems illogical to me. I mean, I’m glad it’s so but it still doesn’t make any sense.Assault rifles aren't protected by the second amendment the same way handguns are
According to the Supreme Court, you're wrong. Miller and Heller are our controlling decisions. It doesn't matter what you think the second amendment says. This is what we're stuck with, and with the makeup of the current court, it's either going to stay the same or get worse.Actually no particular gun is protected by the second amendment other than a muzzle loading musket rifle. Because that's all they knew.
Think of the prison system but everyone can have a gun if they want. Now take away the walls and add a bunch of innocent civilians. Welcome to America.think of the prison system
100% ban on just about every weapon imaginable and many items you and I would never consider a weapon. Strict monitoring of everyone.
does that stop murdering and assaults from happening? why not ?
Ok, since you acknowledge that gun violence is a problem, where should we start on how to fix it?99% of the outrage is spent on 2% of the problem. Switch it around and that's actually "doing both"
because it's prison and many of them have lost hope?think of the prison system
100% ban on just about every weapon imaginable and many items you and I would never consider a weapon. Strict monitoring of everyone.
does that stop murdering and assaults from happening? why not ?
This...a million times this. And I'll say again, this changes from the bottom up, not the top down.We dont need a constitutional amendment. We just need to stop purposely misinterpreting the one we have. The founders were familiar with gun control. It was legal prior to ratification and it was legal after.
No I'm right and it's likely the judges who voted that way know it. Especially given the nearly 200 years of jurisprudence on my side of the argument.According to the Supreme Court, you're wrong. Miller and Heller are our controlling decisions. It doesn't matter what you think the second amendment says. This is what we're stuck with, and with the makeup of the current court, it's either going to stay the same or get worse.
Not just the Supreme Court. That form of argument is rejected by nearly everybody in other contexts.According to the Supreme Court, you're wrong.Actually no particular gun is protected by the second amendment other than a muzzle loading musket rifle. Because that's all they knew.
Actually no its different. The purpose of the Second Amendment was to ensure states could maintain militias instead of there being a standing federal army. The idea was every man would have the right to a rifle so he could serve in the state militia. Now I was having a bit of fun but not much the musket rifle is what that amendment was protecting. Given we have a standing army and no state militias the second is outdated, like the musket, and is now being applied erroneously.Not just the Supreme Court. That form of argument is rejected by nearly everybody in other contexts.
Blogs are not protected speech? Bahá'í is not a protected religion? To the extent that we have a constitutional right to interstate travel, it must be on foot or by horseback rather than by motorcar?
I suspect that banning weapons in prison stops a huge number of murders and assaults from happening.think of the prison system
100% ban on just about every weapon imaginable and many items you and I would never consider a weapon. Strict monitoring of everyone.
does that stop murdering and assaults from happening? why not ?
Again, this argument is wrong. Gun control, or the right to bear arms, have nothing whatsoever to do with militias anymore. This entire line of thinking has been rendered meaningless by our Supreme Court. The words, "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State" doesn't mean a thing anymore. The Court decided that it was the founders clearing their throats--a meaningless prefatory clause. You're pissing in the wind making arguments that will never go anywhere.NCCommish said:Actually no its different. The purpose of the Second Amendment was to ensure states could maintain militias instead of there being a standing federal army. The idea was every man would have the right to a rifle so he could serve in the state militia. Now I was having a bit of fun but not much the musket rifle is what that amendment was protecting. Given we have a standing army and no state militias the second is outdated, like the musket, and is now being applied erroneously.
And of course the court is never wrong. Seperate but equal right?Again, this argument is wrong. Gun control, or the right to bear arms, have nothing whatsoever to do with militias anymore. This entire line of thinking has been rendered meaningless by our Supreme Court. The words, "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State" doesn't mean a thing anymore. The Court decided that it was the founders clearing their throats--a meaningless prefatory clause. You're pissing in the wind making arguments that will never go anywhere.
Yeah I think I missed that time an inmate killed 58 with his toothbrush shiv.Maurile Tremblay said:I suspect that banning weapons in prison stops a huge number of murders and assaults from happening.
Whether you agree with the Court or not is irrelevant. The law is what it is and it isn't going anywhere, so arguing gun control from a perspective of what you believe the second amendment should mean doesn't really accomplish a lot, and is probably harmful as it just confuses people about what is actually possible and what the Second Amendment really means to us today. Assault rifles aren't covered by the Second Amendment (for now) because under Miller they're dangerous and unusual weapons. Handguns are nearly impossible to regulate because they're commonly used for home defense. Those are the factors at this point, and nothing else really matters. There's very little chance that the Court is moving in any different direction in the near future. The NRA is going to push hard on the narrative that AR-15s and the like are "commonly used for home defense" because they're popular. Kavanaugh has already indicated that is his position. If the Supremes get to that point, we'll no longer be able to ban assault weapons either.And of course the court is never wrong. Seperate but equal right?
People die. Even younger people who knows the make up of the court 5 years from now? People also drift in their beliefs. A yes vote today is a no down the road. So to me discussing and educating on what the amendment says, its history and how it's being misused does serve a purpose. Saying you can't change anything doesn't.Whether you agree with the Court or not is irrelevant. The law is what it is and it isn't going anywhere, so arguing gun control from a perspective of what you believe the second amendment should mean doesn't really accomplish a lot, and is probably harmful as it just confuses people about what is actually possible and what the Second Amendment really means to us today. Assault rifles aren't covered by the Second Amendment (for now) because under Miller they're dangerous and unusual weapons. Handguns are nearly impossible to regulate because they're commonly used for home defense. Those are the factors at this point, and nothing else really matters. There's very little chance that the Court is moving in any different direction in the near future. The NRA is going to push hard on the narrative that AR-15s and the like are "commonly used for home defense" because they're popular. Kavanaugh has already indicated that is his position. If the Supremes get to that point, we'll no longer be able to ban assault weapons either.
I don't disagree at all with what you said, but would like to point out that the Supreme Court effectively edited the Constitution by choosing to ignore words that it contains.Again, this argument is wrong. Gun control, or the right to bear arms, have nothing whatsoever to do with militias anymore. This entire line of thinking has been rendered meaningless by our Supreme Court. The words, "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State" doesn't mean a thing anymore. The Court decided that it was the founders clearing their throats--a meaningless prefatory clause. You're pissing in the wind making arguments that will never go anywhere.
Exactly. Militias would be better with people armed with assault rifles than they would be with hand guns. But the present day court believes the 2nd has nothing to do with militias. And yes, it's illogical.This seems illogical to me. I mean, I’m glad it’s so but it still doesn’t make any sense.
Scalia would say you're wrong on what it says and its history, and a majority of the court agreed with him. Your position is not helpful at all for discussing what gun control measures can be adopted now, and it misleads people when you pretend that your interpretation of the constitution hasn't already been refuted. Sure, laws can change in the future. But for now, what you wish the constitution means is completely irrelevant to a discussion of what can be done today.People die. Even younger people who knows the make up of the court 5 years from now? People also drift in their beliefs. A yes vote today is a no down the road. So to me discussing and educating on what the amendment says, its history and how it's being misused does serve a purpose. Saying you can't change anything doesn't.
Ironically, this judicial editing was done by a claimed strict constructionist.I don't disagree at all with what you said, but would like to point out that the Supreme Court effectively edited the Constitution by choosing to ignore words that it contains.
In other words, they failed us.
Strict interpretation is only a little white out away.Ironically, this judicial editing was done by a claimed strict constructionist.