6 ms·

What you are suggesting is illegal. Its illegal to license a right. We shouldn't penalize the hundreds of millions of legal gun owners in the US because we're

What you are suggesting is illegal. Its illegal to license a right. We shouldn't penalize the hundreds of millions of legal gun owners in the US because we're unable to catch psychopaths before they kill people.

yedava 4y ago
I think it is possible to entertain the notion that these laws are not some inviolable physical property of the Universe, but something we made up and so are also something we can undo.
- buscoquadnary 4y ago
  In this case in the US it requires a constitutional amendment. Although in all honesty even if an amendment did occur the faith and trust in the government at this point is so low it would probably just encourage rather than convince gun owners.
  - taeric 4y ago
    Strictly, it doesn't. A supreme court decision that gave a new interpretation of arms would be needed. But, as stated elsewhere, many arms and guns are already regulated. Quite heavily.
    - wombat-man 4y ago
      I just don't think that after the way things have worked out in the past we'll suddenly see a supreme court decision that is wildly different from what we've seen. I don't think anything will change until congress decides to make an amendment which isn't going to happen unless attitudes broadly shift in this country. Buckle in, this is just how it's going to be I think.
      - taeric 4y ago
        Dismissing that they did just signal a reversal on previous rulings, it is a matter of time until it happens. Long matter of time, but either the US falls to basically fascism, or the courts eventually see a makeup that is more liberal and change things.
        simon1ltd 4y ago
        I'm not sure what point you're trying to make. The conservatives I know believe everyone should know how to handle a firearm safely, and believe people have a right to defend themselves from criminals, as well as the government. It appears to be liberals trying to disarm fellow citizens and make sure the government has all encompassing powers. To state that differently: one side appears to believe that if we pass law "A" or ban object "B" that everything will be better. The other side seems to believe "bad" or "evil" people/governments will always exist, and that everyone has the right to actively defend themselves and their families. Including the people that don't like "B".
        taeric 4y ago
        The "true conservatives" conceit is... Sad. I think it is safe to say that nobody wants kids getting shot. Despite that, most of the conservative voting block has routinely pushed measures that lead us here. So this, "bad people will find a way" is such a "let's ignore the evidence of literally every other nation" to give up and clutch pearls before swine. Directly, though, my point is that most of these extreme conservative views are self consuming and on the way out. I thought it was Carlin that said it, but I can't find a direct quote. Basically the world gets more liberal as old views literally die off.
        wombat-man 4y ago
        I really don't think we should count on such an outcome and idk what it would even look like. A change like this should come from congress, which honestly feels a little more likely than shifting the court to be liberal enough to do whatever it is you're hoping for.
    - tshaddox 4y ago
      Don’t even need the Supreme Court. Congress can simply pass laws. That’s the current reason why you can’t own an M27, for example.
      - taeric 4y ago
        Right, I was just pointing out that we don't strictly need a new law. Reinterpretation of existing laws works just fine. Settled law is clearly not settled for good.
taeric 4y ago
This feels silly. Explosives are general arms for an armed service. Good luck stockpiling c4. Or having a military vehicle. Cannons that can shoot depleted uranium? Surface to air missiles? All arms that would be needed to fend off a real threat. So the idea that guns are special is idiotic. You can already get in trouble for using a gun with too many rounds when bird hunting. Is that actually illegal?
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- Vecr 4y ago
  Yes, all those bans are illegal. If I want to mount a robotic machine gun turret behind my front door, I should be able to without anyone complaining.
  - taeric 4y ago
    All the abortion bans are also currently unenforceable. But that can change with a simple precedent reversal from the supreme court. And note that the precedent to overturn for the guns is not as long standing.
- YATA2 4y ago
  Those are considered destructive devices, not arms, and are regulated totally differently. They are by definition not considered "arms".
  - SigmundA 4y ago
    Arm: a means (such as a weapon) of offense or defense. Firearm: a weapon from which a shot is discharged by gunpowder. Small arm: portable firearms, especially rifles, pistols, and light machine guns. The second amendment as strictly read says only "arms" the definition which has not changed since it was written only the lethality of the arms has increased through technological advancement culminating in nuclear arms. A "destructive device" is a type of arm as defined by the 1934 Firearms act nearly 150 years after the second amendment was written. A machine gun is not considered a destructive device but is still regulated and obviously still a type of arm. So clearly you are ok with adding restrictions on arms not specifically laid out in the constitution if you are ok with the regulation of "destructive devices" and "machine guns" semantic word games aside. Otherwise if you strictly adhere to the wording of the amendment then there should be no regulation on the type of arms a citizen may own up to including nuclear arms.
WhompingWindows 4y ago
Why should it be a right that we are bound to as modern citizens? I didn't sign off on the 2nd amendment, it was signed off on 250 years ago by a small group of pre-modern colonial elites. It originally was considered useful because colonists and local militias needed to be able to defend themselves from the British, and to not lose their means to hunt or protect themselves before police. These days, we have autonomy in our own country, no British will invade us now. What is the purpose of keeping the full right to any gun ownership, if it's not a good thing for the nation? We didn't keep slavery when we realized it was wrong, how bad must it become before we say guns be restricted to use by qualified and safe individuals? And the idea of "arms" as only guns is silly, there are restrictions on many sorts of weaponry, including guns, so there is not an absolute right for any citizen to have guns at any time already. There are already restrictions and they're neither enforced nor strong enough.
- gruez 4y ago
  > Why should it be a right that we are bound to as modern citizens? I didn't sign off on the 2nd amendment, it was signed off on 250 years ago by a small group of pre-modern colonial elites. It originally was considered useful because colonists and local militias needed to be able to defend themselves from the British, and to not lose their means to hunt or protect themselves before police. Did you sign up for the 1st amendment? Maybe next time we're facing a crisis of "facts" (ie. during covid), we should be able to repeal free speech by simple majority? After all, with electronic communications and deep fakes, fake news is much more dangerous now than to the colonists 250 years ago.
  - paulryanrogers 4y ago
    2A says militias were the reason for guns. Now we have the national guard. Private gun ownership is much less useful than it once was. England is doing reasonably well without them. Worth a try here IMO.
    - remarkEon 4y ago
      If you go back and read what the people who wrote that amendment said, they note repeatedly that it was an individual right unbounded to membership in a militia, which, bizarrely, has been conflated today with being in the National Guard - a state run organization.
softcactus 4y ago
This is part of why a sensible discussion cannot be had. "Shall not be infringed" has become axiomatic to many gun owners. Disclaimer: I am a gun owner. I like guns very much. Here's the 2A in full: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." I am not a historian but I believe that this quote from James Madison in The Federalist Papers helps give some context to the second amendment: "Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation, the existence of subordinate governments, to which the people are attached, and by which the militia officers are appointed, forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit of." The idea is that a federalist country needs a power equalizer between states who wish to self-govern, and a federal government that seeks to grow its power. The gun ownership is tied to the idea of a well-regulated state militia, which we have now called the National Guard-- which is a reserve force of the US Military because in the Civil War we basically decided that a federal system was kind of stupid. All of this to say, the second amendment is not scripture from the hand of God. It is a law written with historical context from a different time, by men whose beliefs would disgust most people alive today. It's not Orwellian to discuss licenses or background checks, it's our modern society outgrowing laws from a bygone era.
- wombat-man 4y ago
  Not sure I agree that that's what the Civil War decided, since it ended with the federal government asserting its power. I am not a constitutional law expert, but the way the second amendment has been interpreted has become its meaning. At this point, I think what would have to happen is the 2nd amendment would need to be replaced with another amendment that better describes the limits on individuals rights to bear arms. Until then, these events will continue indefinitely. I simply do not believe that any SCOTUS would make a different decision.
  - softcactus 4y ago
    When I say federal system I mean a system of having semi-autonomous governing regions (states). A centralized government is not a federal system, but the naming conventions make it confusing.
Aeolun 4y ago
> We shouldn't penalize the hundreds of millions of legal gun owners in the US Yes. Yes we should.
- coinbasetwwa 4y ago
  Weird flex but okay
- politician 4y ago
  What does history teach us about the outcomes of disarming an entire population? (collective) Do you think Ukraine would have been invaded if they didn't unilaterally give up their nuclear weapons? (individual) Does the bully pick on the child who stands up for themselves?
tshaddox 4y ago
Is it illegal to require licenses for explosives and fully automatic weapons?
- Vecr 4y ago
  It is, the constitution says "the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed", there's nothing in there about guns in particular.
  - Intermernet 4y ago
    So 18 U.S. Code § 832 is unconstitutional?
shepherdjerred 4y ago
> What you are suggesting is illegal. Unless the law is changed, which is what many are trying to do. The constitution and bill of rights weren't handed down by God himself to the founding fathers. There's always room for improvement, e.g. allowing women to vote, or outlawing slavery. I'm not saying that this is or isn't the right move -- merely that "it's in the constitution" isn't a very good argument any more than "this is the way it's always been done".
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]

yedava 4y ago

I think it is possible to entertain the notion that these laws are not some inviolable physical property of the Universe, but something we made up and so are also something we can undo.

buscoquadnary 4y ago
In this case in the US it requires a constitutional amendment. Although in all honesty even if an amendment did occur the faith and trust in the government at this point is so low it would probably just encourage rather than convince gun owners.
- taeric 4y ago
  Strictly, it doesn't. A supreme court decision that gave a new interpretation of arms would be needed. But, as stated elsewhere, many arms and guns are already regulated. Quite heavily.
  - wombat-man 4y ago
    I just don't think that after the way things have worked out in the past we'll suddenly see a supreme court decision that is wildly different from what we've seen. I don't think anything will change until congress decides to make an amendment which isn't going to happen unless attitudes broadly shift in this country. Buckle in, this is just how it's going to be I think.
    - taeric 4y ago
      Dismissing that they did just signal a reversal on previous rulings, it is a matter of time until it happens. Long matter of time, but either the US falls to basically fascism, or the courts eventually see a makeup that is more liberal and change things.
      - simon1ltd 4y ago
        I'm not sure what point you're trying to make. The conservatives I know believe everyone should know how to handle a firearm safely, and believe people have a right to defend themselves from criminals, as well as the government. It appears to be liberals trying to disarm fellow citizens and make sure the government has all encompassing powers. To state that differently: one side appears to believe that if we pass law "A" or ban object "B" that everything will be better. The other side seems to believe "bad" or "evil" people/governments will always exist, and that everyone has the right to actively defend themselves and their families. Including the people that don't like "B".
        taeric 4y ago
        The "true conservatives" conceit is... Sad. I think it is safe to say that nobody wants kids getting shot. Despite that, most of the conservative voting block has routinely pushed measures that lead us here. So this, "bad people will find a way" is such a "let's ignore the evidence of literally every other nation" to give up and clutch pearls before swine. Directly, though, my point is that most of these extreme conservative views are self consuming and on the way out. I thought it was Carlin that said it, but I can't find a direct quote. Basically the world gets more liberal as old views literally die off.
      - wombat-man 4y ago
        I really don't think we should count on such an outcome and idk what it would even look like. A change like this should come from congress, which honestly feels a little more likely than shifting the court to be liberal enough to do whatever it is you're hoping for.
  - tshaddox 4y ago
    Don’t even need the Supreme Court. Congress can simply pass laws. That’s the current reason why you can’t own an M27, for example.
    - taeric 4y ago
      Right, I was just pointing out that we don't strictly need a new law. Reinterpretation of existing laws works just fine. Settled law is clearly not settled for good.

taeric 4y ago

This feels silly. Explosives are general arms for an armed service. Good luck stockpiling c4. Or having a military vehicle. Cannons that can shoot depleted uranium? Surface to air missiles? All arms that would be needed to fend off a real threat. So the idea that guns are special is idiotic. You can already get in trouble for using a gun with too many rounds when bird hunting. Is that actually illegal?

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
Vecr 4y ago
Yes, all those bans are illegal. If I want to mount a robotic machine gun turret behind my front door, I should be able to without anyone complaining.
- taeric 4y ago
  All the abortion bans are also currently unenforceable. But that can change with a simple precedent reversal from the supreme court. And note that the precedent to overturn for the guns is not as long standing.
YATA2 4y ago
Those are considered destructive devices, not arms, and are regulated totally differently. They are by definition not considered "arms".
- SigmundA 4y ago
  Arm: a means (such as a weapon) of offense or defense. Firearm: a weapon from which a shot is discharged by gunpowder. Small arm: portable firearms, especially rifles, pistols, and light machine guns. The second amendment as strictly read says only "arms" the definition which has not changed since it was written only the lethality of the arms has increased through technological advancement culminating in nuclear arms. A "destructive device" is a type of arm as defined by the 1934 Firearms act nearly 150 years after the second amendment was written. A machine gun is not considered a destructive device but is still regulated and obviously still a type of arm. So clearly you are ok with adding restrictions on arms not specifically laid out in the constitution if you are ok with the regulation of "destructive devices" and "machine guns" semantic word games aside. Otherwise if you strictly adhere to the wording of the amendment then there should be no regulation on the type of arms a citizen may own up to including nuclear arms.

WhompingWindows 4y ago

Why should it be a right that we are bound to as modern citizens? I didn't sign off on the 2nd amendment, it was signed off on 250 years ago by a small group of pre-modern colonial elites. It originally was considered useful because colonists and local militias needed to be able to defend themselves from the British, and to not lose their means to hunt or protect themselves before police. These days, we have autonomy in our own country, no British will invade us now. What is the purpose of keeping the full right to any gun ownership, if it's not a good thing for the nation? We didn't keep slavery when we realized it was wrong, how bad must it become before we say guns be restricted to use by qualified and safe individuals? And the idea of "arms" as only guns is silly, there are restrictions on many sorts of weaponry, including guns, so there is not an absolute right for any citizen to have guns at any time already. There are already restrictions and they're neither enforced nor strong enough.

gruez 4y ago
> Why should it be a right that we are bound to as modern citizens? I didn't sign off on the 2nd amendment, it was signed off on 250 years ago by a small group of pre-modern colonial elites. It originally was considered useful because colonists and local militias needed to be able to defend themselves from the British, and to not lose their means to hunt or protect themselves before police. Did you sign up for the 1st amendment? Maybe next time we're facing a crisis of "facts" (ie. during covid), we should be able to repeal free speech by simple majority? After all, with electronic communications and deep fakes, fake news is much more dangerous now than to the colonists 250 years ago.
- paulryanrogers 4y ago
  2A says militias were the reason for guns. Now we have the national guard. Private gun ownership is much less useful than it once was. England is doing reasonably well without them. Worth a try here IMO.
  - remarkEon 4y ago
    If you go back and read what the people who wrote that amendment said, they note repeatedly that it was an individual right unbounded to membership in a militia, which, bizarrely, has been conflated today with being in the National Guard - a state run organization.

softcactus 4y ago

This is part of why a sensible discussion cannot be had. "Shall not be infringed" has become axiomatic to many gun owners. Disclaimer: I am a gun owner. I like guns very much. Here's the 2A in full: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." I am not a historian but I believe that this quote from James Madison in The Federalist Papers helps give some context to the second amendment: "Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation, the existence of subordinate governments, to which the people are attached, and by which the militia officers are appointed, forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit of." The idea is that a federalist country needs a power equalizer between states who wish to self-govern, and a federal government that seeks to grow its power. The gun ownership is tied to the idea of a well-regulated state militia, which we have now called the National Guard-- which is a reserve force of the US Military because in the Civil War we basically decided that a federal system was kind of stupid. All of this to say, the second amendment is not scripture from the hand of God. It is a law written with historical context from a different time, by men whose beliefs would disgust most people alive today. It's not Orwellian to discuss licenses or background checks, it's our modern society outgrowing laws from a bygone era.

wombat-man 4y ago
Not sure I agree that that's what the Civil War decided, since it ended with the federal government asserting its power. I am not a constitutional law expert, but the way the second amendment has been interpreted has become its meaning. At this point, I think what would have to happen is the 2nd amendment would need to be replaced with another amendment that better describes the limits on individuals rights to bear arms. Until then, these events will continue indefinitely. I simply do not believe that any SCOTUS would make a different decision.
- softcactus 4y ago
  When I say federal system I mean a system of having semi-autonomous governing regions (states). A centralized government is not a federal system, but the naming conventions make it confusing.

Aeolun 4y ago

> We shouldn't penalize the hundreds of millions of legal gun owners in the US Yes. Yes we should.

coinbasetwwa 4y ago
Weird flex but okay
politician 4y ago
What does history teach us about the outcomes of disarming an entire population? (collective) Do you think Ukraine would have been invaded if they didn't unilaterally give up their nuclear weapons? (individual) Does the bully pick on the child who stands up for themselves?

tshaddox 4y ago

Is it illegal to require licenses for explosives and fully automatic weapons?

Vecr 4y ago
It is, the constitution says "the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed", there's nothing in there about guns in particular.
- Intermernet 4y ago
  So 18 U.S. Code § 832 is unconstitutional?

shepherdjerred 4y ago

> What you are suggesting is illegal. Unless the law is changed, which is what many are trying to do. The constitution and bill of rights weren't handed down by God himself to the founding fathers. There's always room for improvement, e.g. allowing women to vote, or outlawing slavery. I'm not saying that this is or isn't the right move -- merely that "it's in the constitution" isn't a very good argument any more than "this is the way it's always been done".

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]