Phatmasser Gun Leanings

[Socrates]

Historically, the entire Bill of Rights was intended to protect the rights of the individual states and their people specifically against the federal government, by clarifying the limits on federal power.  The restrictions on government power referred specifically to the federal government.  State governments were limited by their own state constitutions.  (For instance, originally, most states had their own official state church.)

In 1925, the SCOTUS used the "incorporation doctrine" to declare (based on an interpretation of the 14th amendment) that the Bill of Rights also applied against the state governments.  This is how the courts have typically ruled since.

But if liberals want to do away with incorporation regarding the Second Amendment,  they'd have to also de-incorporate the rest of the Bill of Rights, and leave state laws on these rights, including First Amendment rights to freedom of speech and freedom of religion, to the individual states if they wished to be consistent.

But of course the Left has no interest in logic,consistency, nor the Constitution itself, only in forcing through its own agenda at any cost.  We have the absurdity of liberals saying second amendment rights don't apply against state laws, while at the same time declaring that all states must be forced to recognize "gay marriages."  Nor, of course, are they interested in simply turning gun laws over to the respective states, but they demand to infringe on the right to keep and bear arms by federal law, in blatant defiance of the Second Amendment, as well as the entire concept of enumerated powers.

And historically, the state militias were seen as providing a bulwark against potential federal government tyranny.

Edited June 24, 2016 by Socrates

[dairygirl4u2c]

Conservatives rail against the idea of a living constitution but they'd have to believe that to change what it means to bear arms as my post said a couple posts back. They r the hypocrites. But really its just mostly ignorance most people just don't know history

[Socrates]

Personally, overall, I'd probably prefer to do away with the incorporation doctrine, and leave everything to the states, as the incorporation doctrine has too often been used to justify federal overreach and forcing the states to recognize bogus "rights" such as gay marriage and abortion.  I'd just stay in gun-friendly states like Texas.  

But certain leftists/"liberals" need to make up their minds whether they accept or reject the incorporation doctrine.  Either the Bill of Rights applies to local and state governments, or it doesn't.  You can't pick and choose which of those rights should and shouldn't be protected (though that's exactly what some leftists want to do).

The left, it seems, only wants to reject incorporation doctrine with regards to allowing state and local gun control laws, or other such laws that they like, while accepting it for everything else.

Of course, if they rejected the incorporation doctrine entirely, they'd lose what little flimsy basis they have for most "liberal" legislation.  Roe v. Wade would be rendered null and void, and states would be free to restrict or outlaw abortion as they saw fit.  States would be free to refuse to recognize same-sex "marriage," and to decide whether or not Christian religion should be taught in public schools, or the Ten Commandments displayed in courthouses.  (Though, unlike the right to keep and bear arms, the "rights" to abortion and gay marriage, etc. never had sound constitutional basis to begin with, but that's another discussion.)

And, of course, if we applied a strict originalist interpretation of the Constitution, any and all federal laws restricting ownership or sales of guns or other weapons would have to be immediately rejected.  "Gun control" advocates aren't interested in the Constitution nor the intent of the framers, but in doing whatever they can to punish gun-owners at the federal, state, and local levels.

The left has no interest whatever in honest and consistent interpretation of the Constitution, but simply declares the "living" constitution to mean whatever the heck they want it to mean for any given issue.

Edited June 25, 2016 by Socrates

[cooterhein]

On 6/21/2016 at 3:07 PM, Nihil Obstat said:

Maybe this is what you meant to be getting at, but that is basically the current situation. Fully automatic weapons are... well, not illegal, but effectively so for your average American. And fully automatic ability is really the only substantive feature that makes a rifle more military oriented.

I want to point out that if you know a gunsmith who's willing to keep his mouth shut, many types of semi-automatic weapons can be altered so they're fully automatic, and it can be done for less than 30 dollars.

[Nihil Obstat]

4 hours ago, cooterhein said:

I want to point out that if you know a gunsmith who's willing to keep his mouth shut, many types of semi-automatic weapons can be altered so they're fully automatic, and it can be done for less than 30 dollars.

Which is already illegal under current American laws.

[cooterhein]

17 hours ago, Nihil Obstat said:

Which is already illegal under current American laws.

It is illegal, what people may not know however is that there's an easy and inexpensive workaround.

[Nihil Obstat]

1 hour ago, cooterhein said:

It is illegal, what people may not know however is that there's an easy and inexpensive workaround.

My point is primarily that more onerous, stricter laws will not make it any less easy or inexpensive.

[Socrates]

Generally speaking, those intent on committing suicidal mass-murder aren't going to be too concerned with following laws.

[Anomaly]

There was a radio interview last week with a military or swat officer discussing Orlando police response, specifically the hours of delay.  He said it was a sort of relief that Omar only had guns.   Since he had specifically referred to the Boston bombers, they were very concerned he may have pipe bombs or worse.   He pointed out that many people were only wounded with bullets and a shooter can only inflect limited carnage once engaged.   However, bombs can be incredibly more lethal, have a larger kill zone, and with timers or remote triggering, they provide a much greater kill range to perpetrators.  He said if two pressure cooker bombs with shrapnel were set off like in Boston, the initial death toll would have been many times greater and would have delayed police response even more.  He felt Orlando police did more than was prudent in responding, engaging, and monitoring Omar early on considering the strong possibility of explosives. 

Again, we are distracted arguing about guns instead of discussing how to monitor or intervene with increasingly unstable people voicing threats of violence.  Was there a way for the wife able to safely voice concerns?   What should the FBI have done or continued monitoring?  What if Omar couldn't get a gun and used a pressure cooker, nails, and firework powder like in Boston or Brussels airport?   

Edited July 1, 2016 by Anomaly

[cooterhein]

On 6/30/2016 at 4:09 PM, Nihil Obstat said:

My point is primarily that more onerous, stricter laws will not make it any less easy or inexpensive.

Of course it will, if the proper things are restricted. There are plenty of semi-automatic weapons that can pretty easily be made fully automatic, so if appropriate laws and restrictions are put in place wrt semi-automatic weapons (without necessarily eliminating the legality of all semi-automatic weapons), it's possible for there to be much less easy access to those types of weapons.

Gun control does work. Restrictions are quite effective, when they actually exist. For example, it's incredibly difficult and expensive to get your hands on a silencer. Or a machine gun. Or grenades. Or fully automatic weapons in the proper sense. They are restricted, they are controlled, and it works. It's hard to get those things, it's expensive and it doesn't happen much. On the other hand, it is incredibly easy to obtain semi-automatic weapons that are easily and cheaply turned into fully automatic weapons. They are legal and distributed in very large numbers. "Onerous" is a loaded word that basically identifies all gun control as oppressive and burdensome (as if it's a basic right to have access to the weapons in question, while ignoring the inconsistency with which you accept restrictions on regular fully automatic weapons)....but the point is, it works. It just has to be something that's actually done.

[dairygirl4u2c]

Its possible to turn into an automatic but a lot of people don't. If it was legal to have automatics more people would die. Control guns has positive effects. 

Tangent. Bob is not allowed to have a gun. He's generally law abiding so he doesn't get one illegally. He has a temper tantrum but doesn't kill anyone cause he don't have a gun. Gun control sometimes works  to say othwer wise is idiotic

[Winchester]

Levels of violence show a short spike after guns are banned. They then return to normal. So gun control really appears to have little effect in the long term.

 

[dairygirl4u2c]

Academic studies are consistent places with more gun control have less death than less control places

http://m.epirev.oxfordjournals.org/content/38/1/140.abstract?ID=209249

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2015/oct/06/barack-obama/obama-more-gun-laws-means-fewer-gun-deaths/

That is a literature review that makes the conclusion. You can find evidence to say the opposite must be true.  Just like to science its next to a fact that places with more guns means more murder  some people try to pretend it isn't true but they r ignoring science

That's suppose to say you can't find opposite conclusions of general academic study

[Peace]

I am way too late into this thread but I think that any law abiding and mentally stable person should be able to carry a hand gun to defend himself or herself.

I would probably be in favor of some kind of ammunition limit. And I am definitely in favor of background checks. I think that when you go beyond carrying 12 bullets or so, you are venturing beyond the realm of defending your person and into the realm of folks who might want to use the weapon for other reasons.  But maybe folks who use guns can inform me on whether or not that is true.

I have actually thought about buying a handgun. My GF is very against the idea. I dunno if I can really blame her either. One thing about it, at least living in the USA I think, is that I would have some serious doubts as to whether an African American such as myself could benefit from carrying a gun in the same way that a Caucasian person could. All of my evidence is anecdotal, but just based on my general experiences of having lived here for 30+ years, I just don't see myself being able to open carry a handgun, walk into a MacDonald's and not have someone call the police. And I just don't see the police not shooting me the moment they see that I am carrying a gun. Not every police officer would shoot me on sight, of course. But let me walk around for 1 or 2 years with a gun and I would guess that my chances of being shot by a police officer would be pretty darn high.  I would guess that in my particular case, the benefit of carrying a gun would be outweighed by the increased risk I would face of having some call the cops on me, or having a police officer shoot me out of fear.  Maybe that is an overly bleak look and the reality of the situation is different, but that would be my honest fear about carrying a weapon.

[Socrates]

As has been pointed out many times before, extremely strict gun laws in cities such as Chicago, D.C., and New York did nothing to reduce gun crime.  The cities with the harshest gun laws also have the highest rates of gun homicide. 

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/30/us/strict-chicago-gun-laws-cant-stem-fatal-shots.html?_r=0

But, of course, the whole notion that people's rights should be dependent on statistics and such is asinine, as well as dangerous.