5 ms·

I support strict gun control, however I feel it's wrong for the politicians to be meddling in gun control how they are. The US constitution is fairly clear (I a

I support strict gun control, however I feel it's wrong for the politicians to be meddling in gun control how they are. The US constitution is fairly clear (I accept people will always argue specific) that citizens to have access to firearms. From this I find it dangerous that any politician would seek to override or 'reinterpret' the constitution without the peoples mandate to do so. This seems ot be happening at an increasingly accelerated rate e.g. government eavesdropping and civil forfeiture. Firearm ownership should be taken to the vote. If the nations decides to leave firearm availability as a citizen right that's democracy and the inevitable shooting are the price. Potentially more dangerous is a government that feels they can bend a nations constitution away from its spirit to their personal agenda.

koenigdavidmj 11y ago
Should freedom of unpopular speech and the right to be free of unreasonable searches be decided by popular vote? Or is it understood that constitutional rights all have the risk of making us less safe and making the government's job harder, and that removing them is hard for a reason?
- jedmeyers 11y ago
  I believe he means that constitutional issues should be decided by a "constitutional convention" which is kind of a "majority" vote in such cases. And of course why wouldn't constitutional convention be able to decide on freedom of unpopular speech?
  - Anon1096 11y ago
    The process to amend the Constitution requires 3/4 of the states to agree on the amendment. It is not a majority vote situation, for the very good reason that the Constitution protects the basic freedoms of US citizens, including free speech (and yes, that means hate or unpopular speech as well) and right to bear arms. The founders anticipated future generations that would attempt to take away rights, and thus made it extremely difficult for any such process to be done.
deciplex 11y ago
I support strict gun control as well. I believe we should re-open the NFA registry (closed in 1986 for basically no reason at all), and add most or all handguns to it and probably semi-automatic rifles as well. The NFA proved very effective at reducing (eliminating, actually) murders committed with automatic weapons on the registry, and there is every reason to think it would enjoy the same considerable success at reducing gun violence with handguns and semi-automatic rifles. The SCOTUS has ruled already that such a registry is constitutional and I agree. However, doing this would also re-open the production and importation of new automatic weapons for civilian use, and so is a non-starter for the gun-control crowd - in spite of the fact that that legal regime actually worked very well for around 50 years. Instead, it appears we will stick to the same ineffective bullshit we've been doing for the past twenty years, restricting ownership based on meaningless distinctions like magazine capacity, forward pistol grips, etc. etc., which accomplish little else than to piss off gun owners (which I suspect, for much of the gun control crowd, is considered a feature rather than a bug).
- jlcx 11y ago
  "The NFA proved very effective at reducing (eliminating, actually) murders committed with automatic weapons on the registry" That might be a bit too optimistic about the NFA. The NFA likely did reduce the possession and use of machine guns, but one reason for that is that people could just buy semi-automatics instead without dealing with the NFA-related headache, which suited most people just fine. Also, a lot of the crimes committed with NFA-regulated weapons prior to passage of the NFA were related to Prohibition, weren't they?
- masonic 11y ago
  "I believe we should re-open the NFA registry" There has been essentially zero gun crime committed with legally-owned and possessed NFA weapons.
  - deciplex 11y ago
    I know this, and even refer to that fact in my argument. It's not clear to me what you're trying to say.
runamok 11y ago
A "well regulated" militia. Many people do want strict gun control but there is presumably a fairly equal and opposite amount that do not. I think perhaps there could be some kind of universal federal background check at least required at a minimum.
- nhod 11y ago
  AFAIK it is not a fairly equal and opposite amount that do not. Per the WP citing a recent CBS/NYT poll, it appears as if >=90% of the country is in favor of stricter gun control than we currently have, at least as far as background checks are concerned.
- Turing_Machine 11y ago
  "A "well regulated" militia." I've never understood this argument. It strikes me (and, apparently, every court that's ever ruled on the matter) as legalistic sophistry of the worst kind. If the First Amendment read "A well educated legislature, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and read books, shall not be infringed." you would argue, what... that only the legislature had the right to read books? That only well educated people had the right to read books? No, you would not, and neither would anyone else, because that would be a nonsensical interpretation. You are trying to make words mean what you want them to mean, rather than what they actually do mean.
  - smsm42 11y ago
    I find it fascinating that people seriously argue that the Framers spent whole amendment on essentially saying "the state army must be able to have guns, and the state can not infringe this right!". What thought process could lead to an idea that the state would want to ban its own army from having guns and to prevent this, we need a constitutional amendment? The whole concept only makes sense if we're talking about right that can be - and potentially may be - infringed by the state, so treating it as it is concerning any state function literally makes no sense to me. How is it supposed to work?
    - 11y ago
Mendenhall 11y ago
Just wanted to say the United States of America is not a democracy, it is a republic. In fact many framers of the constitution warned of democracy and spoke strongly against it. Not trying to be petty but I do think details like that are important. There is a massive difference between the two forms of government.
- workitout 11y ago
  Agree, it's a democratic republic which is unique. It blends and contrasts the best and worst of the two, historically acceptable methods of governing and keeps the two locked in a permanent struggle; with the inevitable hope that it strengthens the country over the longest tests of time.
  - Mendenhall 11y ago
    I would again disagree and the facts in the constitution would agree with me. The word democracy never appears in the constitution, only Republic. The framers were strongly against democracy and the term "constitutional republic" has only recently been wrongly attributed as the form of government. The representatives and president are chosen by votes, but that does not make it a democracy or a democratic republic.The actual legal founding document is clear, it is only a republic.
mtanski 11y ago
The constitution is a document that was written well over 200 years ago. And while the document has held up extremely well there's part of it that didn't. For we got rid of things like having slaves be counted as 3/5 of a person of representation. I think the gun provisions have not. For starters it's crazy to think that a militia equipped with a stock pile of firearms can overtake a intrusive government with tanks, choppers etc. It's just not realistic. Guns were much more important for protection back then. There were parts of the country that were the frontier with no policing ability. Nowadays places around the world when gun ownership is substantially restricted are generally safer places. Just google Australasia before and after. Gun ownership as touted by constitutional nuts is an idea that had it's time come. Sadly, I think give the political climate a amendment that could fix this (put in wording that lets the government legislate gun ownership) is untenable.
- masonic 11y ago
  For we got rid of things like having slaves be counted as 3/5 of a person of representation __ ... by amending it via formal, open process; not by selectively ignoring it.
- lloyddobbler 11y ago
  That is precisely why the Constitution includes a specific means to change it. If that's what is deemed necessary, then there's a process to accomplish it. Sidestepping the Constitution, or ignoring its enumerated rights and restrictions, however, is unacceptable, and should not be tolerated by We the People.
  - irixusr 11y ago
    Thank you. Yes the document is old. If we feel is outdated there is a mechanism * within the law* to change it!
  - irixusr 11y ago
    Thank you. Yes the document is old. If we feel is outdated there is a mechanism * within the law* to change it!
  - 11y ago
mmcconnell1618 11y ago
There has been a lot of debate over the second amendment to the constitution as it relates to gun ownership. Some say it clearly defines an individual's right to own firearms while other say it clearly refers to the rights of state militias to posses guns. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Miller https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Miller
- jakeogh 11y ago
  (1939) Here's, Heller(2008)[1]: https://s3.amazonaws.com/oyez.case-media.ogg/case_data/2007/07-290/20080626o_07-290.ogg https://s3.amazonaws.com/oyez.case-media.ogg/case_data/2007/... [1] https://www.oyez.org/cases/2007/07-290 https://www.oyez.org/cases/2007/07-290
  - microcolonel 11y ago
    What a well-conveyed opinion, and a great dictation of it. The debate in the oral argument is a great listen as well. District of Columbia v. Heller will be one of my sources from now on. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_of_Columbia_v._Heller https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_of_Columbia_v._Heller It's a shame that the transcripts are not great. They contain, at times, the complete opposite of what is said.
microcolonel 11y ago
Without a clear correlation with better outcomes, I don't see why you would support strict gun control. It seems like you'd be adding complexity and technicality to the system, but admitting that it's pointless.
- Gustomaximus 11y ago
  There is clear correlation via looking at other countries control measures - Australia, UK etc.

koenigdavidmj 11y ago

Should freedom of unpopular speech and the right to be free of unreasonable searches be decided by popular vote? Or is it understood that constitutional rights all have the risk of making us less safe and making the government's job harder, and that removing them is hard for a reason?

jedmeyers 11y ago
I believe he means that constitutional issues should be decided by a "constitutional convention" which is kind of a "majority" vote in such cases. And of course why wouldn't constitutional convention be able to decide on freedom of unpopular speech?
- Anon1096 11y ago
  The process to amend the Constitution requires 3/4 of the states to agree on the amendment. It is not a majority vote situation, for the very good reason that the Constitution protects the basic freedoms of US citizens, including free speech (and yes, that means hate or unpopular speech as well) and right to bear arms. The founders anticipated future generations that would attempt to take away rights, and thus made it extremely difficult for any such process to be done.

deciplex 11y ago

I support strict gun control as well. I believe we should re-open the NFA registry (closed in 1986 for basically no reason at all), and add most or all handguns to it and probably semi-automatic rifles as well. The NFA proved very effective at reducing (eliminating, actually) murders committed with automatic weapons on the registry, and there is every reason to think it would enjoy the same considerable success at reducing gun violence with handguns and semi-automatic rifles. The SCOTUS has ruled already that such a registry is constitutional and I agree. However, doing this would also re-open the production and importation of new automatic weapons for civilian use, and so is a non-starter for the gun-control crowd - in spite of the fact that that legal regime actually worked very well for around 50 years. Instead, it appears we will stick to the same ineffective bullshit we've been doing for the past twenty years, restricting ownership based on meaningless distinctions like magazine capacity, forward pistol grips, etc. etc., which accomplish little else than to piss off gun owners (which I suspect, for much of the gun control crowd, is considered a feature rather than a bug).

jlcx 11y ago
"The NFA proved very effective at reducing (eliminating, actually) murders committed with automatic weapons on the registry" That might be a bit too optimistic about the NFA. The NFA likely did reduce the possession and use of machine guns, but one reason for that is that people could just buy semi-automatics instead without dealing with the NFA-related headache, which suited most people just fine. Also, a lot of the crimes committed with NFA-regulated weapons prior to passage of the NFA were related to Prohibition, weren't they?
masonic 11y ago
"I believe we should re-open the NFA registry" There has been essentially zero gun crime committed with legally-owned and possessed NFA weapons.
- deciplex 11y ago
  I know this, and even refer to that fact in my argument. It's not clear to me what you're trying to say.

runamok 11y ago

A "well regulated" militia. Many people do want strict gun control but there is presumably a fairly equal and opposite amount that do not. I think perhaps there could be some kind of universal federal background check at least required at a minimum.

nhod 11y ago
AFAIK it is not a fairly equal and opposite amount that do not. Per the WP citing a recent CBS/NYT poll, it appears as if >=90% of the country is in favor of stricter gun control than we currently have, at least as far as background checks are concerned.
Turing_Machine 11y ago
"A "well regulated" militia." I've never understood this argument. It strikes me (and, apparently, every court that's ever ruled on the matter) as legalistic sophistry of the worst kind. If the First Amendment read "A well educated legislature, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and read books, shall not be infringed." you would argue, what... that only the legislature had the right to read books? That only well educated people had the right to read books? No, you would not, and neither would anyone else, because that would be a nonsensical interpretation. You are trying to make words mean what you want them to mean, rather than what they actually do mean.
- smsm42 11y ago
  I find it fascinating that people seriously argue that the Framers spent whole amendment on essentially saying "the state army must be able to have guns, and the state can not infringe this right!". What thought process could lead to an idea that the state would want to ban its own army from having guns and to prevent this, we need a constitutional amendment? The whole concept only makes sense if we're talking about right that can be - and potentially may be - infringed by the state, so treating it as it is concerning any state function literally makes no sense to me. How is it supposed to work?
  - 11y ago

Mendenhall 11y ago

Just wanted to say the United States of America is not a democracy, it is a republic. In fact many framers of the constitution warned of democracy and spoke strongly against it. Not trying to be petty but I do think details like that are important. There is a massive difference between the two forms of government.

workitout 11y ago
Agree, it's a democratic republic which is unique. It blends and contrasts the best and worst of the two, historically acceptable methods of governing and keeps the two locked in a permanent struggle; with the inevitable hope that it strengthens the country over the longest tests of time.
- Mendenhall 11y ago
  I would again disagree and the facts in the constitution would agree with me. The word democracy never appears in the constitution, only Republic. The framers were strongly against democracy and the term "constitutional republic" has only recently been wrongly attributed as the form of government. The representatives and president are chosen by votes, but that does not make it a democracy or a democratic republic.The actual legal founding document is clear, it is only a republic.

mtanski 11y ago

The constitution is a document that was written well over 200 years ago. And while the document has held up extremely well there's part of it that didn't. For we got rid of things like having slaves be counted as 3/5 of a person of representation. I think the gun provisions have not. For starters it's crazy to think that a militia equipped with a stock pile of firearms can overtake a intrusive government with tanks, choppers etc. It's just not realistic. Guns were much more important for protection back then. There were parts of the country that were the frontier with no policing ability. Nowadays places around the world when gun ownership is substantially restricted are generally safer places. Just google Australasia before and after. Gun ownership as touted by constitutional nuts is an idea that had it's time come. Sadly, I think give the political climate a amendment that could fix this (put in wording that lets the government legislate gun ownership) is untenable.

masonic 11y ago
For we got rid of things like having slaves be counted as 3/5 of a person of representation __ ... by amending it via formal, open process; not by selectively ignoring it.
lloyddobbler 11y ago
That is precisely why the Constitution includes a specific means to change it. If that's what is deemed necessary, then there's a process to accomplish it. Sidestepping the Constitution, or ignoring its enumerated rights and restrictions, however, is unacceptable, and should not be tolerated by We the People.
- irixusr 11y ago
  Thank you. Yes the document is old. If we feel is outdated there is a mechanism * within the law* to change it!
- irixusr 11y ago
  Thank you. Yes the document is old. If we feel is outdated there is a mechanism * within the law* to change it!
- 11y ago

mmcconnell1618 11y ago

There has been a lot of debate over the second amendment to the constitution as it relates to gun ownership. Some say it clearly defines an individual's right to own firearms while other say it clearly refers to the rights of state militias to posses guns. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Miller https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Miller

jakeogh 11y ago
(1939) Here's, Heller(2008)[1]: https://s3.amazonaws.com/oyez.case-media.ogg/case_data/2007/07-290/20080626o_07-290.ogg https://s3.amazonaws.com/oyez.case-media.ogg/case_data/2007/... [1] https://www.oyez.org/cases/2007/07-290 https://www.oyez.org/cases/2007/07-290
- microcolonel 11y ago
  What a well-conveyed opinion, and a great dictation of it. The debate in the oral argument is a great listen as well. District of Columbia v. Heller will be one of my sources from now on. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_of_Columbia_v._Heller https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_of_Columbia_v._Heller It's a shame that the transcripts are not great. They contain, at times, the complete opposite of what is said.

microcolonel 11y ago

Without a clear correlation with better outcomes, I don't see why you would support strict gun control. It seems like you'd be adding complexity and technicality to the system, but admitting that it's pointless.

Gustomaximus 11y ago
There is clear correlation via looking at other countries control measures - Australia, UK etc.