5 ms·

It is very telling that supporters of the 2nd think it should be upheld without ANY limits or backstops. Freedom of speech is not absolute, why in the world sh

It is very telling that supporters of the 2nd think it should be upheld without ANY limits or backstops. Freedom of speech is not absolute, why in the world should owning a device intended to kill be unlimited?

mschuster91 7y ago
Many supporters of the right to bear all arms without limitation are at the same time also supporting the right to absolute freedom of speech, including hate speech like calls for extermination or unconstitutional expulsion of "foreigners" (or what they see as foreigners). I think there's a pattern here...
- sslayer 7y ago
  You are correct, the pattern being evident in the numerous limiting laws that allow an officer of the law or a government official to arrest and detain you for any minor infraction, real or precieved. The erosion of personal freedoms like free speech is just the start down a slippery slope.
xienze 7y ago
> It is very telling that supporters of the 2nd think it should be upheld without ANY limits or backstops. Any additional limits. There are already plenty of laws on the books around gun control, it’s disingenuous to pretend as though none exist.
- MobileVet 7y ago
  Laws yes, substantive laws... debatable. More significant measures like requiring a license or limiting magazine capacity are somehow characterized as over reach. Would be interested to hear how that is rationalized.
  - ChrisLomont 7y ago
    9 states have magazine limits. Does it make a substantive difference? If not, then what is the rationalization to make it Federal? Which other Bill of Rights freedoms require a license to practice? Certainly free speech can and does lead to violence. Should we also require a license for that? Would be interested to hear how that is rationalized.
    - MobileVet 7y ago
      Treating firearms like every other object in our world is a false equivalency. They are created to kill, period. I grew up target shooting weapons of all sizes and shapes. It is a lot of fun, no doubt. But their capabilities to inflict massive damage in seconds should make it clear that they require special consideration. In addition, the objects we are talking about today are orders of magnitude more deadly than those originally considered by the Bill of Rights.
      - kcmastrpc 7y ago
        > orders of magnitude more deadly than those originally considered by the Bill of Rights They had small bore cannons back then, you could legally own those under the 2nd amendment. You're telling me that artillery, which can be fired at effect 1000 yards away from it's intended target, is less deadly than a semi-automatic rifle?
        throwaway082729 7y ago
        Can you conceal these cannons when you walk into a mall before shooting others?
        tempguy9999 7y ago
        As the US allows private guns to prevent government tyranny, in people's views wouldn't it also be right to allow privately owned cannons, assorted artillery, explosives and the entire military toolkit (so long as they could pay for it)? After all it would greatly help civilians throw off oppression, and that's what it's all about. This isn't sark, just pointing out a reasonable logical destination for the reasoning.
  - ryeights 7y ago
    Would you support a license requirement or a word limit for the First Amendment?
    - jl6 7y ago
      Sure, for all the words that can be used to kill people.
      - MobileVet 7y ago
        You just killed...
      - ryeights 7y ago
        Okay. Let’s say we’ve gathered a list of the most dangerous ‘violent’ words (e.g. kill, harm, murder, cleanse, racial epithets, etc.) that could be used in a direct incitement to violence. Would you support a license requirement and word limit on these words? Nevermind that they have various legitimate lawful uses, people’s lives are at stake!
    - throwaway082729 7y ago
      Maybe we should consider one for arguments to avoid arguments like yours
      - ryeights 7y ago
        Thank you for your valuable contribution to the discussion
  - AnIdiotOnTheNet 7y ago
    Because we take the right to bear arms very seriously in the US. In our constitution that right is enumerated second, just after the one about freedom of speech and religion. Licensing is a mechanism of control over who can and cannot exercise this right, and such mechanisms are often abused to suppress minorities and dissidents, which is contrary to the reason the right is enumerated in the first place. Similarly this is why people sometimes oppose mandatory background checks; though you will find much broader support for voluntary background checks by private citizens [0]. Limiting magazine capacity is opposed because it is an ineffectual restriction that largely serves to annoy hobbyists. Many proposed restrictions are like this. That's one of the reasons people encounter so much resistance to proposals, because they're often obviously rooted in ignorance and have little regard for their side effects. For instance, since "history of mental illness" is one of the things that could be used to restrict one's ability to purchase firearms, many enthusiasts who may be suffering from mental health issues will not seek treatment. [0] In many states I can sell a firearm to another individual without involving a licensed middleman (FFA), but I do not have access to the system they use for background checks (NICS).
    - AnIdiotOnTheNet 7y ago
      Please note that 'FFA' in the above should be 'FFL'. Chalk it up to an early morning brain fart.
    - jfnixon 7y ago
      Regarding NICS access, spot on. I believe it would be constitutional to hold private sellers responsible for a limited period (1-2years) for firearm crime by purchasers. Give a safe harbor for private sales which include a NICS check, but this would require opening NICS access in some way.
- cheez 7y ago
  This is the main consideration I give to gun ownership. When there is a tyrannical government in power who is violently oppressing the people, would any new laws eventually prevent me from walking up to an agent of the tyrannical state and shoot them in the head? i.e., would it be possible to have localized insurrections against government? Make no mistake, it is this fear that prevents most governments from overreaching. If the answer is no, then the rule is not allowed. Licensing would be a slippery slope into complete gun control and consolidating power over the people. If you want further proof, look at what is happening in the socialist countries in South America. The government is murdering their own people who are defenseless. If you want further proof that an armed populace is a good check against (real or perceived) tyranny, look at Afghanistan, Iraq, and of course USA (hello UK!)
  - throwaway082729 7y ago
    The right wing people seem to be ok with a dictatorship if it gets them what they want. Left wingers are less likely to open guns so this point is moot. Also what chance do these guns have against the army's artillery.
    - MobileVet 7y ago
      ‘You are bringing a musket to a drone fight’ - Jim Jeffries
      - deleted 7y ago
        [deleted]
      - cheez 7y ago
        He's a brilliant comedian, but he doesn't understand that people have successfully fought off the might of the US army in recent decades. That's why China colonizes economically.
    - cheez 7y ago
      The point is not that the populace can win. It's that the populace can make it difficult enough for them to give up. And just FYI, most government murder of their own citizens has been done by left wing governments in the last century. Want to guess what Nazi was short for? National Socialist Party. Want to guess the first step of murderous left wing governments? Gun confiscation. Am I saying that the US government is going to murder citizens (lol, already does it)? No. But don't make it easier.
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
GVIrish 7y ago
Some 2nd amendment supporters think there should be no limitations but in my experience that is not the majority. Most people agree with background checks, restrictions on automatic weapons, bans on felons buying guns, etc. Many are against the return of the assault weapons ban and banning of higher capacity magazines. In general I find that many 2nd amendment supporters are fearful of an expansion of gun control laws, but they're not out there arguing there should be no gun control laws.
- MobileVet 7y ago
  Agreed, but the majority are not setting the policy agenda.
  - GVIrish 7y ago
    Yep, gun lobbying groups have succeeded in convincing lawmakers to be hardliners despite what most gun owners and non-gun owners actually support.
beatgammit 7y ago
If you look at gun crimes and gun enthusiasts, most gun crimes are not committed by gun enthusiasts, and most gun enthusiasts are willing to go through the hoops required to get a concealed weapons license, which requires a background check and training. Most gun enthusiasts I know hate gun bans because they hurt responsible gun owners far more than criminals. Many gun enthusiasts like "tactical" weapons and mods, and these are precisely what these bans hit. They've already shown willingness to go through hoops, so I think a different approach is in order. I believe all weapons should be legal, but more dangerous weapons should certainly be harder to get. Automatic weapons, for example, should require more training and secure storage than handguns, and some handguns should require more training and secure storage than hunting equipment. Some proposals: - guns unlikely to be used in crimes (single shot hunting rifles and shotguns, revolvers) should require ID + quick background check (submit name to police database for smoke test) to purchase - larger magazines, semi-automatics, and self defense ammunition require passing a basic gun safety course and access to secure storage for protected items (e.g. home safe) - automatic weapons require regular inspection by some local authorities that checks correct storage habits And so on. I think most gun enthusiasts would be okay with this, provided independent third parties can do the checks (gun club, dealers, etc). Gun owners would then bring documentation showing that they're allowed to buy firearms of a given class. Everything should be as anonymous as possible (separate ID from proof of compliance and require a warrant to link the two). That being said, most proposed legislation seeks bans, not reasonable regulation, so it's understandable that gun enthusiasts push back.
- mauvehaus 7y ago
  A lot of what you wrote is reasonable, but it should be clarified that in the United States, at least, (which is presumably the country many of us are talking about) private ownership of automatic weapons has been heavily regulated since the 1930s to the point that it's nearly (but not quite) impossible to own an automatic weapon as a private citizen. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Firearms_Act https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Firearms_Act
  - beatgammit 7y ago
    And I think it should be made more accessible. Automatic firearms are so restricted because they didn't think a complete ban would be upheld by the courts, yet the restrictions are essentially a ban since I cannot reasonably get access as a mentally stable (I hope) person without any record. Automatic weapons are fun, and at least in my area, I can rent them at local shooting ranges. But going the extra step and buying them it apparently way more difficult. The net result is that only the military, police, and criminals have automatic weapons, so average gun owners are the only real people affected. It makes sense that gun owners are against new regulations, because these regulations seem to just restrict their rights without solving anything. Another silly thing is that guns tend to get restricted based on how they look, not on how dangerous they are. "Tactical" guns are considered "assault weapons", while the exact same gun without the trimmings are considered "hunting equipment" and not subject to the same restrictions. Does a pistol grip and some black plastic/metal decorations really make a gun more dangerous? No, but they make a gun more fun to own. It seems people aren't really interested in actually solving problems, they're just interested in looking like they're trying to solve problems, and the average voter isn't educated enough about guns to recognize reasonable regulations. IMO, we should be educating people about guns instead of trying to ban them. Perhaps we need to include gun training in our K-12 education since it's part of the Constitution. IMO, respect for guns is the biggest deterrent to gun crime.

mschuster91 7y ago

Many supporters of the right to bear all arms without limitation are at the same time also supporting the right to absolute freedom of speech, including hate speech like calls for extermination or unconstitutional expulsion of "foreigners" (or what they see as foreigners). I think there's a pattern here...

sslayer 7y ago
You are correct, the pattern being evident in the numerous limiting laws that allow an officer of the law or a government official to arrest and detain you for any minor infraction, real or precieved. The erosion of personal freedoms like free speech is just the start down a slippery slope.

xienze 7y ago

> It is very telling that supporters of the 2nd think it should be upheld without ANY limits or backstops. Any additional limits. There are already plenty of laws on the books around gun control, it’s disingenuous to pretend as though none exist.

MobileVet 7y ago
Laws yes, substantive laws... debatable. More significant measures like requiring a license or limiting magazine capacity are somehow characterized as over reach. Would be interested to hear how that is rationalized.
- ChrisLomont 7y ago
  9 states have magazine limits. Does it make a substantive difference? If not, then what is the rationalization to make it Federal? Which other Bill of Rights freedoms require a license to practice? Certainly free speech can and does lead to violence. Should we also require a license for that? Would be interested to hear how that is rationalized.
  - MobileVet 7y ago
    Treating firearms like every other object in our world is a false equivalency. They are created to kill, period. I grew up target shooting weapons of all sizes and shapes. It is a lot of fun, no doubt. But their capabilities to inflict massive damage in seconds should make it clear that they require special consideration. In addition, the objects we are talking about today are orders of magnitude more deadly than those originally considered by the Bill of Rights.
    - kcmastrpc 7y ago
      > orders of magnitude more deadly than those originally considered by the Bill of Rights They had small bore cannons back then, you could legally own those under the 2nd amendment. You're telling me that artillery, which can be fired at effect 1000 yards away from it's intended target, is less deadly than a semi-automatic rifle?
      - throwaway082729 7y ago
        Can you conceal these cannons when you walk into a mall before shooting others?
      - tempguy9999 7y ago
        As the US allows private guns to prevent government tyranny, in people's views wouldn't it also be right to allow privately owned cannons, assorted artillery, explosives and the entire military toolkit (so long as they could pay for it)? After all it would greatly help civilians throw off oppression, and that's what it's all about. This isn't sark, just pointing out a reasonable logical destination for the reasoning.
- ryeights 7y ago
  Would you support a license requirement or a word limit for the First Amendment?
  - jl6 7y ago
    Sure, for all the words that can be used to kill people.
    - MobileVet 7y ago
      You just killed...
    - ryeights 7y ago
      Okay. Let’s say we’ve gathered a list of the most dangerous ‘violent’ words (e.g. kill, harm, murder, cleanse, racial epithets, etc.) that could be used in a direct incitement to violence. Would you support a license requirement and word limit on these words? Nevermind that they have various legitimate lawful uses, people’s lives are at stake!
  - throwaway082729 7y ago
    Maybe we should consider one for arguments to avoid arguments like yours
    - ryeights 7y ago
      Thank you for your valuable contribution to the discussion
- AnIdiotOnTheNet 7y ago
  Because we take the right to bear arms very seriously in the US. In our constitution that right is enumerated second, just after the one about freedom of speech and religion. Licensing is a mechanism of control over who can and cannot exercise this right, and such mechanisms are often abused to suppress minorities and dissidents, which is contrary to the reason the right is enumerated in the first place. Similarly this is why people sometimes oppose mandatory background checks; though you will find much broader support for voluntary background checks by private citizens [0]. Limiting magazine capacity is opposed because it is an ineffectual restriction that largely serves to annoy hobbyists. Many proposed restrictions are like this. That's one of the reasons people encounter so much resistance to proposals, because they're often obviously rooted in ignorance and have little regard for their side effects. For instance, since "history of mental illness" is one of the things that could be used to restrict one's ability to purchase firearms, many enthusiasts who may be suffering from mental health issues will not seek treatment. [0] In many states I can sell a firearm to another individual without involving a licensed middleman (FFA), but I do not have access to the system they use for background checks (NICS).
  - AnIdiotOnTheNet 7y ago
    Please note that 'FFA' in the above should be 'FFL'. Chalk it up to an early morning brain fart.
  - jfnixon 7y ago
    Regarding NICS access, spot on. I believe it would be constitutional to hold private sellers responsible for a limited period (1-2years) for firearm crime by purchasers. Give a safe harbor for private sales which include a NICS check, but this would require opening NICS access in some way.
cheez 7y ago
This is the main consideration I give to gun ownership. When there is a tyrannical government in power who is violently oppressing the people, would any new laws eventually prevent me from walking up to an agent of the tyrannical state and shoot them in the head? i.e., would it be possible to have localized insurrections against government? Make no mistake, it is this fear that prevents most governments from overreaching. If the answer is no, then the rule is not allowed. Licensing would be a slippery slope into complete gun control and consolidating power over the people. If you want further proof, look at what is happening in the socialist countries in South America. The government is murdering their own people who are defenseless. If you want further proof that an armed populace is a good check against (real or perceived) tyranny, look at Afghanistan, Iraq, and of course USA (hello UK!)
- throwaway082729 7y ago
  The right wing people seem to be ok with a dictatorship if it gets them what they want. Left wingers are less likely to open guns so this point is moot. Also what chance do these guns have against the army's artillery.
  - MobileVet 7y ago
    ‘You are bringing a musket to a drone fight’ - Jim Jeffries
    - deleted 7y ago
      [deleted]
    - cheez 7y ago
      He's a brilliant comedian, but he doesn't understand that people have successfully fought off the might of the US army in recent decades. That's why China colonizes economically.
  - cheez 7y ago
    The point is not that the populace can win. It's that the populace can make it difficult enough for them to give up. And just FYI, most government murder of their own citizens has been done by left wing governments in the last century. Want to guess what Nazi was short for? National Socialist Party. Want to guess the first step of murderous left wing governments? Gun confiscation. Am I saying that the US government is going to murder citizens (lol, already does it)? No. But don't make it easier.

deleted 7y ago

[deleted]

GVIrish 7y ago

Some 2nd amendment supporters think there should be no limitations but in my experience that is not the majority. Most people agree with background checks, restrictions on automatic weapons, bans on felons buying guns, etc. Many are against the return of the assault weapons ban and banning of higher capacity magazines. In general I find that many 2nd amendment supporters are fearful of an expansion of gun control laws, but they're not out there arguing there should be no gun control laws.

MobileVet 7y ago
Agreed, but the majority are not setting the policy agenda.
- GVIrish 7y ago
  Yep, gun lobbying groups have succeeded in convincing lawmakers to be hardliners despite what most gun owners and non-gun owners actually support.

beatgammit 7y ago

If you look at gun crimes and gun enthusiasts, most gun crimes are not committed by gun enthusiasts, and most gun enthusiasts are willing to go through the hoops required to get a concealed weapons license, which requires a background check and training. Most gun enthusiasts I know hate gun bans because they hurt responsible gun owners far more than criminals. Many gun enthusiasts like "tactical" weapons and mods, and these are precisely what these bans hit. They've already shown willingness to go through hoops, so I think a different approach is in order. I believe all weapons should be legal, but more dangerous weapons should certainly be harder to get. Automatic weapons, for example, should require more training and secure storage than handguns, and some handguns should require more training and secure storage than hunting equipment. Some proposals: - guns unlikely to be used in crimes (single shot hunting rifles and shotguns, revolvers) should require ID + quick background check (submit name to police database for smoke test) to purchase - larger magazines, semi-automatics, and self defense ammunition require passing a basic gun safety course and access to secure storage for protected items (e.g. home safe) - automatic weapons require regular inspection by some local authorities that checks correct storage habits And so on. I think most gun enthusiasts would be okay with this, provided independent third parties can do the checks (gun club, dealers, etc). Gun owners would then bring documentation showing that they're allowed to buy firearms of a given class. Everything should be as anonymous as possible (separate ID from proof of compliance and require a warrant to link the two). That being said, most proposed legislation seeks bans, not reasonable regulation, so it's understandable that gun enthusiasts push back.

mauvehaus 7y ago
A lot of what you wrote is reasonable, but it should be clarified that in the United States, at least, (which is presumably the country many of us are talking about) private ownership of automatic weapons has been heavily regulated since the 1930s to the point that it's nearly (but not quite) impossible to own an automatic weapon as a private citizen. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Firearms_Act https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Firearms_Act
- beatgammit 7y ago
  And I think it should be made more accessible. Automatic firearms are so restricted because they didn't think a complete ban would be upheld by the courts, yet the restrictions are essentially a ban since I cannot reasonably get access as a mentally stable (I hope) person without any record. Automatic weapons are fun, and at least in my area, I can rent them at local shooting ranges. But going the extra step and buying them it apparently way more difficult. The net result is that only the military, police, and criminals have automatic weapons, so average gun owners are the only real people affected. It makes sense that gun owners are against new regulations, because these regulations seem to just restrict their rights without solving anything. Another silly thing is that guns tend to get restricted based on how they look, not on how dangerous they are. "Tactical" guns are considered "assault weapons", while the exact same gun without the trimmings are considered "hunting equipment" and not subject to the same restrictions. Does a pistol grip and some black plastic/metal decorations really make a gun more dangerous? No, but they make a gun more fun to own. It seems people aren't really interested in actually solving problems, they're just interested in looking like they're trying to solve problems, and the average voter isn't educated enough about guns to recognize reasonable regulations. IMO, we should be educating people about guns instead of trying to ban them. Perhaps we need to include gun training in our K-12 education since it's part of the Constitution. IMO, respect for guns is the biggest deterrent to gun crime.