5 ms·

> 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

• 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.
          • mgkimsal 7y ago
            "so long as they could pay for it" what if they can't pay for it? are gun manufacturers now violating the "equal protection" clause? they're denying people the ability to exercise a constitutional amendment simply based on their ability to pay.
            • tempguy9999 7y ago
              Currently it doesn't matter whether they can pay for it or not as legally they can't have it (gov't tyranny?) So let's ignore the cost; in principle, for defence against an out of control government for which guns are needed, are USAians who are pro gun also pro the idea private citizens owning serious artillery, explosives, tanks etc?
              • jfnixon 7y ago
                It is legal to own tanks and flame throwers now.
          • deleted 7y ago
            [deleted]
          • kcmastrpc 7y ago
            If you have enough money you can actually own and operate fully automatic weapons, cannons, flame throwers, artillery, etc. ... and if you're the leader of a large enough nation, the US will even sell you planes and tanks. In our shortsightedness we are dismissing the future possibility of foreign invasions, domestic tyranny, and civil war. Let's consider the former; if the US has registration laws and China invades/wins, then all of a sudden Chinese officials have the addresses of every potential source of violent dissent in their hands. I realize the threat of invasion isn't really practical today, but with policies we put in place today we'd effectively be putting our ancestors in the worst possible situation in the event they ever had to defend themselves against tyranny whether foreign or domestic. I understand that gun violence sucks, but regulation/registration has consequence - we may see benefit, some of it we may never see but our children will (for a rather recent example, see Venezuela). Our communities are living with these monsters, we are ignoring them because our lives have become so centered around live news, social media, and debating over the internet instead of talking to each other. Banning guns, knives, bats, fertilizer, whatever isn't going to stop this epidemic - and doing so will just prevent ourselves from being able to prevent those who are determined to do so.
      • dewyatt 7y ago
        They had warships when the 2A was written, some of which were privately owned. They also had things like the puckle gun and the founders were aware of advancing weaponry.
    • 7952 7y ago
      Can you argue that the bill of rights is just wrong and should be ammended?
    • acdha 7y ago
      > 9 states have magazine limits. Does it make a substantive difference? If not, then what is the rationalization to make it Federal? Your questions point to the answer: city and state laws are far less effective when someone can bypass them by taking a short drive. > Which other Bill of Rights freedoms require a license to practice? Note that in this case, the freedom in question starts with “well-regulated” and that was commonly accepted as having meaning until the post-civil rights act backlash caused major reversals at groups like the NRA. Accepting some limits is literally just rolling back to the mainstream consensus position from the founding of the republic until the 1970s.
      • kcmastrpc 7y ago
        You don't even need firearms to inflict mass causalities, so magazine limits are political theater imho. https://www.cnbc.com/2019/07/19/japan-arson-attack-on-anime-studio-is-worst-mass-killing-since-2001.html https://www.cnbc.com/2019/07/19/japan-arson-attack-on-anime-... Firearm restrictions also inhibits civilians from resisting state violence if it ever came down to it. I've heard the tanks/planes arguments, but if those are so effective why are we still in Afghanistan? (hint: they have firearms)
        • MobileVet 7y ago
          > magazine limits are political theater imho Wow. Seriously? The best chance of subduing (by any means) an attacker is when they aren’t actively shooting at you. That only happens when they need to stop to reload or change weapons.
          • jrnichols 7y ago
            I would agree that it's political theater. A few of the shootings, the criminal didn't empty the magazine anyway. (I'm purposely not mentioning the shooters names or the incident.) Others, the criminal simply carried extra "California legal" magazines or extra firearms. Reloading time is negligible. There are many youtube videos showing this. It takes no time to switch to a different weapon.
          • deleted 7y ago
    • kcmastrpc 7y ago
      What most people fail to grep is the Bill of Rights were put in place to _limit_ the tyranny of government. You start taking those things away, restricting them, marginalizing, licensing, etc. what you'll get is tyranny in one way or another. Do some research on Venezuela, it happened in this decade. You can go back further if you'd like.
  • 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.