Guns guns guns

[vendic]

Too many people quote this alone: "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
They forget context, history and sanity.

Historically it's only since the late 1970's that the 2A was interpreted as a right for citizens to bear arms. That was because the NRA leadership about that time was overthrown and a more rampant extremist group took leadership. This group pushed forth the concept of unrestricted arms for people. Prior that, it has always been looked at in context rather than in isolation. Even the very first part of the 2nd amendment is now rarely quoted.

Contextually the 2A is about ensuring that the states and congress have access to, and what roles and powers the States and Congress have, with respect to a militia.
Sanity wise, no one would suggest that because the constitution also contains: "The Congress shall have Power To ...provide for organizing, arming... ", then interpret that along with the 2A to mean, that congress should also pay for and give the people arms.

So let's have a look at the texts without isolation or cherry picking.

2nd Amendment:
"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."

The Congress shall have Power To ...provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress....
ARTICLE I, SECTION 8, CLAUSE 16


The Congress shall have Power To ...provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions....
ARTICLE I, SECTION 8, CLAUSE 15

It's pretty clear that the 2a interpretation of late currently being pushed, is a severe corruption of the intent.
If Congress wants all firearms owners trained, the States have an obligation to train them in the manner Congress asks. Very clear cut. Congress has the power to arm the militia and govern them. So they also get to decide what the public can own, which they have done in the past. See fully automatic weapons as an example.

So what the fuss is about is that too many people appear either ignorant of the constitution and their rights or just don't like what they read and want to ignore the parts they disagree with.
So let's dispel the biggest garbage first.
1) The idea that the 2A was intended to prevent a tyrannical government.
Response: complete and utter bullshit with some horseshit on the side.

The constitution explicitly defines the roles of both the States and Congress for training, disciplining, organizing, arming and ordering the militia to suit Congress's desire. No if's or buts. It is explicit. So the notion that the 2A is there to prevent a tyrannical government is complete opposition to the constitution. The same constitution they use to claim rights they don't have.

Bottom line is if you argue that it is your 2A to bear arms to prevent a government from overpowering the people, then you are a complete hypocrite and liar, or are completely ignorant of the relevant portions of the constitution regarding this issue. I can also add delusional but I don't want to get personal. lol

[Rommie]

I was recently pointed to this monologue by Australian comedian Jim Jeffries on gun control. I thought it was pretty awesome myself, and suspect you'd like it.

[vendic]

I've seen that. It was great. Just to let you know though, don't watch the standup show he put out that had that skit in it.
We started watching it based on that firearms skit and it was terrible.
Sitting there with your wife and MIL while a guy starts talking about porn and A2M, not so much fun.
So we called it quits.
The firearms part was however fantastic as mentioned.

[Rommie]

Wait, you mean an Aussie comedian has a raunchy sense of humor? NO WAY DID NOT SEE THAT ONE COMING

[vendic]

Wait, you mean an Aussie comedian has a raunchy sense of humor? NO WAY DID NOT SEE THAT ONE COMING

Pretty sure he could make Iky blush. lol

[vendic]

A bit of a different perspective on the 2A follows. The second link is the actual text at the time of framing so can't be disputed.
It looks like there were a whole lot of reasons why the 2A was introduced, a significant one was to keep slavery alive and well.
Kind of the exact opposite of what most 2A promoters push, you know, to keep freedom...
Omission by choice or omission as a lie?


http://www.truth-out.org/news/item/1389 ... ve-slavery


http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders ... 4_4s9.html

[geonuc]

You can parse the words of the Constitution, including trying to divine original intent or whatever, all you want, but the only parsing or divining that counts today is that of the US Supreme Court. And they have ruled that the 2A constitutes an individual right, not a state's right.

So, until we change the Constitution, or change the Supreme Court, that's the way it stands. Americans have an individual right to bear arms and that right has nothing to do with being in a militia.

The path forward is regulation. Even the most fundamental citizen's rights (speech, religion, due process, etc.) are open to reasonable regulation.

[SciFiFisher]

*reasonable regulation* and there in lies the rub. Because there doesn't seem to be a consensus on what that means.

[Swift]

*reasonable regulation* and there in lies the rub. Because there doesn't seem to be a consensus on what that means.

Actually, I would disagree. Most polls have seen significant majorities favor specific measures.
Washington Post article from June

The Hopkins 2015 study found large majorities favored gun regulations that are stronger than those currently seen in federal or most state laws.

For example, support for background checks for all gun sales stood above 80 percent for both gun owners and non-gun owners.

And even where support dropped between 2013 and 2015, clear majorities remained. People who supported an assault weapons ban fell from 69 percent to 63 percent. Banning large-capacity ammunition magazines went from 68.4 to 59.9 percent.

“The big picture shows Americans support these policies,” Barry said.

They just don’t support gun control in the abstract.

This just doesn't get translated into actual laws.

[geonuc]

*reasonable regulation* and there in lies the rub. Because there doesn't seem to be a consensus on what that means.

The only consensus that is important lies also with the Supreme Court.

[vendic]

You can parse the words of the Constitution, including trying to divine original intent or whatever, all you want, but the only parsing or divining that counts today is that of the US Supreme Court. And they have ruled that the 2A constitutes an individual right, not a state's right.

So, until we change the Constitution, or change the Supreme Court, that's the way it stands. Americans have an individual right to bear arms and that right has nothing to do with being in a militia.

The path forward is regulation. Even the most fundamental citizen's rights (speech, religion, due process, etc.) are open to reasonable regulation.

I agree with you, that still doesn't stop people using old arguments which I can address.

Didn't they also say in the same ruling that they can also regulate firearms?

[vendic]

My response to a person who said this:

The Anti 2A side doesn't give a flying fuck about body count, In fact, the more death the better, as it plays into their narrative.

was

The reality is this: almost all gun related deaths are caused directly or indirectly by people who support gun rights. They wouldn't have guns if they didn't believe in them.

It evolved into this with another person:

Most people killed by firearms were killed by someone that owned the firearm that killed them, or, somehow through negligence on the owners behalf acquired the owners firearm to do the killing. The owner of the firearm is responsible in most cases for this, directly as in shooting the person himself, or indirectly for allowing another to possess his firearm. The responsibility is on the owner of the firearm always with the rare exceptions when their weapon was taken by someone and they did everything reasonable to ensure this could not happen. Leaving a loaded handgun on a coffee table that a 5 year old uses to kill someone for example, is the owners responsibility. They had the obligation to ensure their weapon was not accessible and they failed. That is indirect responsibility on the owners behalf.

That other person says I'm an extremist because I hold these views and need mental help. Try as I might, I could not get them to understand the basic facts of the argument.

But, I'm an extremist because, according to him, I am wrong and you are more likely to get killed with a firearm by someone that doesn't own a firearm. I asked for his evidence to support this position. He blocked me.

Just thought I'd share some fun times and why I really don't want to post much anymore online, not withstanding the huge time wasted when I could be more productive elsewhere.

In other news, the latest just in:
Sailors are more likely to get hit by the boom of a sailboat and fall overboard than non-sailors.
Orca trainers are more likely to get killed by Orca's than non Orca trainers.
Pilots are more likely to crash a plane than people that don't fly.
Idiots are more likely to have a lower IQ than the average person.
Sexually active people are more likely to get a sexually transmitted disease than virgins.
Oh the list just goes on and on and...

[SciFiFisher]

My response to a person who said this:

The Anti 2A side doesn't give a flying fuck about body count, In fact, the more death the better, as it plays into their narrative.

was

The reality is this: almost all gun related deaths are caused directly or indirectly by people who support gun rights. They wouldn't have guns if they didn't believe in them.

I beleive the person you were debating was espousing a theory that the Anti 2A crowd was willing to use the death count as a reason for banning all guns. Did you choose to ignore the conspiracy reference or were you honestly trying to reply to his comment?

[geonuc]

Didn't they also say in the same ruling that they can also regulate firearms?

Yes, essentially. That's why I said the path forward is regulation.

[Swift]

I have a few friends and a few relatives who have very different opinions about this issue than I do.

When I'm rational, I know I shouldn't discuss politics on Facebook, but sometimes I am foolish and do so; particularly when one "pro-gun" friend (is there another term for that side of the debate?) posts stuff, and he posts a lot. Sometimes I can't help myself and I have to reply.

Anyway... that friend and my nephew-in-law will give the arguments that it's not guns that kill people, it's people and that these mass shootings are mental health issues, not gun regulation issues, and that more regulations for guns will not stop this problem.

On several occasions, I've responded with "OK, if it is a mental health issue, what would propose to try to address that?". I've gotten silence every time I've asked that question...

[SciFiFisher]

There seems to be two broad camps of Pro Gun people. The first camp is against almost all regulation. They see registration, background checks, and any other government intrusion as a basic violation of thier rights. It's not just 2A they feel is being violated. There is a belief that thier right to privacy, due process, the 4th (unreasonable seizure), 8th (unreasonable fees/fines), and 9th (rights not enumerated in the constitution) amendments, etc, etc are all being broken.

The second camp seems to fall (mostly) into a group that says that we already have a plethra of regulation(s) and that we merely need to enforce the ones we do have or improve the process to eliminate most of the "gun problem".

The first camp is just vocal enough that they pretty much drown out the second camp. Of course, the first camp has a lot of help drowning the second camp from the gun control proponents who want a total overhaul of our current system and laws.

technically, there is a group somewhere in the middle who don't trust the anti-gun lobby and their intentions or their long term goals. They are ok with some regulation that is sensible. But, they don't seem to get much traction with any of the groups.

Not saying I have any answers just observations.

[vendic]

My response to a person who said this:

The Anti 2A side doesn't give a flying fuck about body count, In fact, the more death the better, as it plays into their narrative.

was

The reality is this: almost all gun related deaths are caused directly or indirectly by people who support gun rights. They wouldn't have guns if they didn't believe in them.

I beleive the person you were debating was espousing a theory that the Anti 2A crowd was willing to use the death count as a reason for banning all guns. Did you choose to ignore the conspiracy reference or were you honestly trying to reply to his comment?

I was replying to point out that the the reality was the exact opposite of his view. You can't get killed with a firearm by someone that does not have one. Very simple argument to understand, at least, so I thought.

Later when replying to another person, I expanded that to say, if you own a firearm you are also more likely to be a 2A supporter than a someone who wants to remove 2A rights. In the 40 years I've been shooting and hunting, I've never met a fellow shooter or hunter that says they should not have the right to own a firearm. Never heard of anyone meeting one either, because it makes no sense.
The logical conclusion: almost all people killed by firearms in the USA are pro 2A supporters.
No great leaps in logic were used to get to that conclusion.
But, apparently I am extremist for concluding it.

[vendic]

When I'm rational, I know I shouldn't discuss politics on Facebook, but sometimes I am foolish and do so; particularly when one "pro-gun" friend (is there another term for that side of the debate?)

I'd hate to say it, but, gun nut fits a vast majority of people.
That's coming from a long time shooter and supporter of the right for people to own firearms.

No honest shooter or hunter with any actual experience can claim they have never met or spoken to a "gun nut".
It's like the bat shit crazy relative no one wants to acknowledge, except that there are a lot of them out there.

Then there are several species of gun nuts.
1) The true gun nut. I know plenty of these guys. They love their guns. They also know their guns and their safety. What makes them nuts, is that they also know of the other types of gun nuts and have either refused to go shooting/ hunting with them because they are dangerous, no longer hunt because they have almost been killed. They don't really trust other shooters because they have almost been shot, but, they will not under any circumstances support tighter gun laws and believe that guns don't kill people, people do.

2) The DK (dunning Kruger) Gun Nut. These guys think they know everything about guns and gun laws and safety but they basically know little more than which is the dangerous end. They are also mad keen on gun rights for everyone. They are highly likely to shoot at something that looks like a deer but is in fact a person. They are likely to shoot at a target on ridges of hills not factoring that their projectile will continue and they no have no back stop etc.

3) The ignorant Nut. These are the ones that own a gun but have so little knowledge about it that they are a danger to themselves and others. These idiots are likely to shoot a person because it's "only a .22' so is harmless. These are the types that shoot their friends accidentally as a joke. These are the types that think a 6.5mm Swedish Mauser has an effective range of 20 yards (it's lethal range is beyond the 1000m range). One of my friends of type (1) has met a guy that thought exactly that.

The best way I can explain gun nuts is to relate a story where I was debating with a person and made the point that firearms safety is so complex that some people don't have the mental capacity to understand it let alone adhere to it. Then I made the point, the average IQ is 100, have you spoken to a person with an IQ of 100? They aren't that bright. There are a lot of people that are below that. They can own a gun and not know how to safely use it. That's scary to me.
The response was, why should we stop dumb people from having guns. They have a right to own them too...

O.K. So owning firearms means reducing safety standards to something the lowest common denominator can understand.
Then we wonder why there are so many needless deaths.
Clearly, regulation cannot get traction if it has to cater to the stupid.
That's where we are now.

Hope that helps.

[Swift]

Thanks for the replies vendic and SciFiFisher and the stuff about the different types of pro-gunners is interesting (and sounds reasonable), but that wasn't my question.

My question was to those who say we don't need more gun regulation, for whatever reason. And the question is, if it isn't too many or too many unregulated guns, then what is the cause of all these mass shootings and gun violence, and what would you propose to do about it.

[vendic]

Thanks for the replies vendic and SciFiFisher and the stuff about the different types of pro-gunners is interesting (and sounds reasonable), but that wasn't my question.

I was responding to this:

particularly when one "pro-gun" friend (is there another term for that side of the debate?)

The term as I see it is gun nut.

My question was to those who say we don't need more gun regulation, for whatever reason. And the question is, if it isn't too many or too many unregulated guns, then what is the cause of all these mass shootings and gun violence, and what would you propose to do about it.

I can't answer that for you as I think we do need regulation. Specifically, good regulation.
I was pointing out the various types of gun owners for a bit of humour (though its also largely true) and to give everyone an idea as to why you will never get one to give any other alternative.
If you ignore the large bull the room, it's pretty hard to find an alternative solution to not getting any bullshit in the house. Just saying.

[vendic]

technically, there is a group somewhere in the middle who don't trust the anti-gun lobby and their intentions or their long term goals. They are ok with some regulation that is sensible. But, they don't seem to get much traction with any of the groups.

That group apparently gets to be labeled extremists. lol

[SciFiFisher]

"Swift wrote:
My question was to those who say we don't need more gun regulation, for whatever reason. And the question is, if it isn't too many or too many unregulated guns, then what is the cause of all these mass shootings and gun violence, and what would you propose to do about it.

Ok, the short answer is... there isn't any ONE cause. However, most of the perpetrators had several things in common.

Mass murderers tend to have a history of pent-up frustration and failures, are socially isolated and vengeful, blaming others for their unhappiness, experts say.

From this article

And they are almost always male.

IMO this points to a cultural and societal failing. We are failing people because we don't make them feel like they are part of our society. And we are failing to give them purpose and an identity.

Now, since it is almost impossible to fix this issue most people get fixated on trying to fix the what they see as the "real problem" GUNS! if the killers didn't have access to guns their rampage would be limited to far fewer victims or no victims. Of course, they *might* be right. Or the murderers might start resorting to home made bombs or creating ricin in their bathtubs.

There are other places where access to guns is quite plentiful yet the per capita number of mass shootings is nowhere close to the U.S. This is IMO empirical evidence that the issue is not per se access to guns that is real issue. However, I will admit that it may be easier to fix the access issue than the larger societal issues. All that means is that it is one answer to the problem. And the truth is that we are probably going to have to design a solution that attacks this issue from multiple approaches.

My biases are that I don't trust the anti-gun lobby or the government. And I am a firm believer in the second amendment. So, I see gun regulation as being a very slippery slope that we must navigate very carefully.

[vendic]

Wasn't it Regan that severely screwed up mental health treatment in this country?
Isn't it the Republican party that continue to push the line that most people doing it hard don't deserve anything?
Isn't it the Republican party that refuses to raise minimum wage, tries to limit health care to the poor, tries to reduce voting rights, want to reduce spending on education etc etc?

Not trying to project blame here, but, when you stack up the list of things that make peoples lives miserable, they are doing pretty damned good on that front. If it's a social issue, then guess whose policies have helped create misery for many people.

If the argument is that happy people don't do this shit, then, the logical conclusion is to ban the Republican party.

[geonuc]

... And I am a firm believer in the second amendment. ...

What does this mean exactly?

[SciFiFisher]

... And I am a firm believer in the second amendment. ...

What does this mean exactly?

Just that. I pretty much agree with the SCOTUS ruling that says 2A applies to individuals. And that you should not create a de facto ban by making it too onerous to own a gun. Too much regulation. Raising the cost of gun ownership through hugh fees so that only a rich person can afford to own a gun. Banning gun ownership of any kind. etc etc.

Does that mean I object to background checks or a three day "cooling off" period for handguns? Technically I do not. The devil is in the details. for example, what if we started charging people $500 for a background check? IMO that would be a de facto ban for everyone but the rich. Not good.