Unlimited "Guns, Fuck Yeah!" Thread

[LMNO]

Roger, I want to go back for a second.  Without addressing the efficacy (or lack there of) regarding regulation, your position seems to be that the 2nd amendment establishes a rule of law that gives Americans a right to own any kind of gun.

Apologies if I missed some nuance, it was a few pages back.  Please amend/adjust/correct me where I got it wrong.

But my question is, what about the commerce clause (Article I, Section 8, Clause 3)?  [The Congress shall have Power] To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian tribes.  That seems to mean that the Fed can restrict which types of guns are sold, correct?

[Cain]

Only those sold to non-Americans.

Congress has the power to regulate commerce, but the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed suggests that firearms are not covered by that.

[AFK]

Disagree, I personally think it is a bit of a leap to assume that the right to bear arms = the right to dictate the gun market.

[The Good Reverend Roger]

Roger, I want to go back for a second.  Without addressing the efficacy (or lack there of) regarding regulation, your position seems to be that the 2nd amendment establishes a rule of law that gives Americans a right to own any kind of gun.

Apologies if I missed some nuance, it was a few pages back.  Please amend/adjust/correct me where I got it wrong.

But my question is, what about the commerce clause (Article I, Section 8, Clause 3)?  [The Congress shall have Power] To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian tribes.  That seems to mean that the Fed can restrict which types of guns are sold, correct?

1.  Yep.  The 2nd is pretty clear on that.

2.  Nothing wrong with regulating commerce between states.  Doesn't seem to me that they can restrict firearms based on that, but it does mean they can tax them and inspect them.  To say otherwise would also imply that they could restrict the sales of newspapers (another protected item) between one state and another.

[The Good Reverend Roger]

Disagree, I personally think it is a bit of a leap to assume that the right to bear arms = the right to dictate the gun market.

The 2nd doesn't try to dictate to the market.  You're the one wanting to dictate to the market.

[Bebek Sincap Ratatosk]

Wow what a discussion.

I think, that the biggest issue is this:

As long as guns exist, people will use them to harm other people.

While a single, "assault weapon" might mow down 20 kids with a single pull of the trigger, two 9 mm handguns with 10 bullets apiece will do the same thing with a minimal amount of effort. Sure it would be more than a single badabadabadabadabadabada... but if you're aiming at 5 year olds in a small room, I'm pretty sure that bang bang bang bang will work just as well (after all the attacker didn't have ANY auto weapon). Alternatively, a couple shotguns with 5 cartridges apiece would probably do pretty well in that situation... though you might only take out 10-15 instead of 20.

In fact, since the attacker at Sandy Hook brought a semi-auto rifle and a Glock, he could have just as easily brought two handguns or two shotguns. The semi-auto Bushmaster wasn't necessary to wreak that level of carnage.

These same problems apply to the attack on Rep. Giffords.

Columbine, also, was executed with shotguns, two 9 mm's and a rifle. No assault or fully automatic weapons were used.

The theater shooting in Aurora was done with a shotgun, a glock and a semi-auto rifle.

So it comes down to this. IF you want to protect 5 year olds from another Sandy Hook, you MUST ban all guns, even hunting rifles and shotguns... well maybe you could leave muzzle loaders on the market.

IF you believe AT ANY LEVEL that "some" guns should be legal based on the second amendment, then you MUST accept that those LEGAL guns could have done exactly what happened at Sandy Hook, Columbine and Aurora.

ADDITIONALLY, we can argue that mental health evaluation and waiting periods will help. However, the owner of the guns used at Sandy Hook were owned by the mother, who from all accounts didn't have mental problems. So unless we demand mental health evaluations for EVERYONE in the household, mental health evaluations would not have stopped the massacre. The guns used in Columbine were acquired by individuals other than the shooters.  Further, issues such as income disparity, gang violence etc may very well help with many kinds of gun violence, it doesn't appear that in any of the examples, the shooter(s) was poor and desperate or a member of a gang. Maybe mental health evals could have spared the victims in Aurora, though I am not sure if the shooter was the gun owner.

So it comes down to this. If you want to stop future incidents like Sandy Hook or Columbine, then the ONLY option is to ban ALL guns. If you believe that the second amendment entitles citizens to own some guns, then gun control WILL NOT stop future incidents like these.

We can pass some gun controls laws (disregarding for a moment the constitutional issues) but this will only make us feel better rather than actually solving or helping to solve the problem.

Personally, based on my interpretation of the Second Amendment, it is clear that, at least handguns, shotguns and rifles are protected. Thus, unless we wish to change the Constitution, we cannot constitutionally pass a law that would 'save the children'.

[zen_magick]

When it comes to Sandy Hook,

The mother owned the guns because she was FRIGHTENED of her own son. The movie theater shooter's mother's first response was "You have the right person". This implies known psychological problems and a lack of action due to parents.

Should we be looking at responsible parenting and not guns?

Just asking

[LMNO]

As long as guns exist, people will use them to harm other people.

If you believe that the second amendment entitles citizens to own some guns, then gun control WILL NOT stop future incidents like these.

We can pass some gun controls laws (disregarding for a moment the constitutional issues) but this will only make us feel better rather than actually solving or helping to solve the problem.

I have to agree with Rat on this one.  And from that, we should be looking at a wider context and work at reducing the larger culture's propensity for violence.  Which leads us (me, at least) to agree with Nigel's idea regarding income disparity.

[Bebek Sincap Ratatosk]

When it comes to Sandy Hook,

The mother owned the guns because she was FRIGHTENED of her own son. The movie theater shooter's mother's first response was "You have the right person". This implies known psychological problems and a lack of action due to parents.

Should we be looking at responsible parenting and not guns?

Just asking

Legislating responsible parenting would take care of guns, drugs, teenage pregnancy... of course, I have no idea how one wouldd go about legislating responsible parenting.

I think it really boils down to "The world is a dangerous place, full of crazy people. You will die someday. You may die today because of a crazy person."

That seems to have been the case since we evolved enough brains to have something go very wrong with their wiring. There were probably some crazy people using clubs, stone axes, bronze blades etc to harm people for no reason other than short circuits in their head.

[zen_magick]

As long as guns exist, people will use them to harm other people.

If you believe that the second amendment entitles citizens to own some guns, then gun control WILL NOT stop future incidents like these.

We can pass some gun controls laws (disregarding for a moment the constitutional issues) but this will only make us feel better rather than actually solving or helping to solve the problem.

I have to agree with Rat on this one.  And from that, we should be looking at a wider context and work at reducing the larger culture's propensity for violence.  Which leads us (me, at least) to agree with Nigel's idea regarding income disparity.

I agree with this considering inner city violence but the larger scale blow ups seem to be from wealthy families. It maybe a case of our family can't have these problems so we ignore them?

[Bebek Sincap Ratatosk]

As long as guns exist, people will use them to harm other people.

If you believe that the second amendment entitles citizens to own some guns, then gun control WILL NOT stop future incidents like these.

We can pass some gun controls laws (disregarding for a moment the constitutional issues) but this will only make us feel better rather than actually solving or helping to solve the problem.

I have to agree with Rat on this one.  And from that, we should be looking at a wider context and work at reducing the larger culture's propensity for violence.  Which leads us (me, at least) to agree with Nigel's idea regarding income disparity.

It would certainly help with many instances of gun violence, but it doesn't seem to have been a factor in the massacres I mentioned. There is only so much we can do to curb horrific incidents like those, unless we toss out the constitution and implement a police state with armed guards all over the place. :-/

I'm not a gun nut. I learned to use guns when I was quite young and used them for many years. However, I have never owned one as an adult, and I don't see that likely to change in the future. However, passing laws that don't fix the problem seems like an effort in futility to me.

[Suu]

When I was 13, I was brought outside to my grandfather's porch in Alabama. There on the table he had a shotgun, a .22 pistol, and a 9mm pistol. (Do not ask me the makes, I was a kid.)

Him and his cousin sat my brother (who was 10) and myself down, and gave us each a tour of the weapon. What they did, how they worked. How they came apart. How to hold it, how to load it, etc. We sat there, we drank iced tea, and we each had a turn, with our familys' guidance, on taking apart each gun, putting it back together, and loading it safely.

Targets were set up in the backyard near the woodpile, and we were taught to fire each weapon, to gain confidence, and to not be afraid. We also learned that the minute we starting giggling or getting careless, they were going back inside and we were NEVER allowed to touch them again. That safety stayed on and that finger was off the trigger until we were both comfortable enough with the idea we were about to put a bullet into a downed tree. If at any time I went, "I don't like this, this doesn't feel right." Cousin Ed came over and said, "Okay, tell me what you don't think is right." And we would go over hand position, posture, etc, again and again until I felt comfortable.

When the ammo was spent, we brought the weapons back to the table, took them apart and were taught to clean them. Then we were shown where they went in the safe, and a tour of the other guns he had. My parents were right there the whole time. In fact, I believe it was my mom's idea that he did this with us.

My brother inherited most of my grandfather's guns. (I can't have them up here.) He actually just bought a new piece this weekend (Springfield XD .45), and the first thing he did with it was not skip off to the range, it took it home, took it apart, and learned the weapon. The thing stays in his safe. He does not stockpile ammunition. He does not talk about them, and everything is transported safely in the back of the car in a case to and from the range.

A little education and a lot of discretion goes a long way. Most people don't believe me when I said I've done a fair amount of shooting. It has nothing to do with the fact that I was raised in the South (please to note that my grandfather and that entire side of the family were all Long Islanders, and Cousin Ed was NYPD for YEARS.)

If anything, I say, we need to teach more and remove the stigma. Will this help sick people? No, probably not, but it would make people as a whole less afraid of what they may not understand.

Just 2 cents.

[The Good Reverend Roger]

While a single, "assault weapon" might mow down 20 kids with a single pull of the trigger,

See, this is EXACTLY what ECH and I have been talking about.  That isn't what happened.

[The Good Reverend Roger]

As long as guns exist, people will use them to harm other people.

If you believe that the second amendment entitles citizens to own some guns, then gun control WILL NOT stop future incidents like these.

We can pass some gun controls laws (disregarding for a moment the constitutional issues) but this will only make us feel better rather than actually solving or helping to solve the problem.

I have to agree with Rat on this one.  And from that, we should be looking at a wider context and work at reducing the larger culture's propensity for violence.  Which leads us (me, at least) to agree with Nigel's idea regarding income disparity.

In WWII, only 20% of front line soldiers pulled the trigger, even when fired upon.

In Vietnam, it was 65%.

In the Iraq invasion, it was 95%.

So, in a period of about 60 years, 75% more people were willing to shoot other people.  This isn't caused by individual gun ownership, because that hasn't changed over that time period (hell, between the world wars, you could own a fully-automatic Thompson submachine gun). 

No, it has to do with the changes in our culture between the end of WWII and today.  And what have those changes been? 

Television (24 is a great example, as are most "crime dramas").
Movies (Rambo being a prime example).
Video games (The DoD subsidizes some development, and even produced their own ("Real War").

All of the above are used to desensitize people to killing, to a degree that would have made a dark ages knight blush.

The problem here isn't the tool being used.

[Bebek Sincap Ratatosk]

While a single, "assault weapon" might mow down 20 kids with a single pull of the trigger,

See, this is EXACTLY what ECH and I have been talking about.  That isn't what happened.

Precisely. That isn't what happened in any of the incident I discussed. All of them used pistols, shotguns, rifles etc. The most crazy of all the guns used was the rifle with 100 rounds used at the theater, which wasn't fully automatic and jammed after a third of the rounds had been fired.