Texas Church Shooting

[Asun]

It's almost (almost!) silly to talk about Constitution in this context. (a) They were writing about muskets that took a minute per shot, (b) the direct context is regulated militias, not individual rights, and (c) there are already many forms of arms that are already banned.

The reason it's easy to buy guns in America is not because of some strict constitutionalism, it's because that's what is politically expedient in the present.

Careful with using that argument. It can be easily turned to say FIrst Amendments shouldn't cover radio, TV and Internet since it can reach so many people in such a short time.

 

[R Cameron]

I respectfully disagree, it is about strict constitutionalism for the most part. You are far from the first person making the argument about muskets. The constitution is only one part of it. The law is what the Supreme Court says it is, and they have decided that the musket argument has no merit.
...

I really should have but my point (a) and (c) together. The legislature and courts have already ruled that there can be limitations on the firepower citizens may own, so somewhere between musket and artillery a line is drawn. I'm simply arguing that this line was not drawn by the constitution, it is drawn by current political conditions, and by the same logic there is no reason it couldn't be pushed closer to the musket end of the spectrum. Furthermore, I don't believe the 2nd amendment in any way prevents requirements for background checks, training, licensing and registries. In fact I think those would fall perfectly under making a militia "well regulated".

...
Logically you can say that a law written for 13 little states isn't necessarily suitable to govern the 3rd most populous country on earth. However, until it is overturned by the people or interpreted differently by the Supreme Court, it stands as is.

I appreciate this perspective, too many of the 2nd amendment crowd think it was passed down by god himself.

 

[R Cameron]

Careful with using that argument. It can be easily turned to say FIrst Amendments shouldn't cover radio, TV and Internet since it can reach so many people in such a short time.

Just like the 2nd amendment, there already are many restrictions on the first amendment.

No artillery, no land mines, no mortars, (mostly) no automatics, etc.

No libel, no false advertising, no shouting 'fire' in a crowded theater, etc.

 

[steveandpenny]

Actually the constitution doesn't say "guns", it says "arms". The rights protected are to keep (own) and to bear (use). Since a gun is next to useless without bullets, then by extension bullets are also "arms", thus afforded the same constitutional protection.

Damn I was trying to be cute with that. But with that thinking why can't I have a mortar or a hellfire missile as home defence. Please don't take ANYTHING I say serious.

 

[Nimbus]

I really should have but my point (a) and (c) together. The legislature and courts have already ruled that there can be limitations on the firepower citizens may own, so somewhere between musket and artillery a line is drawn. I'm simply arguing that this line was not drawn by the constitution, it is drawn by current political conditions, and by the same logic there is no reason it couldn't be pushed closer to the musket end of the spectrum. Furthermore, I don't believe the 2nd amendment in any way prevents requirements for background checks, training, licensing and registries. In fact I think those would fall perfectly under making a militia "well regulated".

Now you're talking about allowing the government to regulate the types of firearms available to civilians, which is a completely different argument than an appeal to historic technology. The current precedent says that the government can (and does) limit the types of firearms available to the people, it just can't ban them outright. California has all sorts of restrictions, and they seem to survive legal scrutiny.

By the way, a muzzle loader (like an antique musket) is not considered a firearm by federal law. Basically there is no restriction around it. Your right is truly not infringed when it comes to muskets, or cap-and-ball revolvers.

I appreciate this perspective, too many of the 2nd amendment crowd think it was passed down by god himself.

For some people the right to keep and bear arms is a foundation to their way of life, to me it is simply one of many laws guaranteeing my civil rights. To them it is about the right to overthrow tyrants, to me it is about equality.

I didn't grow up with guns. I have no problem being unarmed in a country where guns are not common, so criminals and fascists aren't armed either. However, in USA I'm not playing Gandhi.

 

[Nimbus]

Damn I was trying to be cute with that. But with that thinking why can't I have a mortar or a hellfire missile as home defence. Please don't take ANYTHING I say serious.

The way they get around it is by declaring cannons, bombs and missiles as "destructive devices" rather than "firearms".

Guns is a contentious issue in USA. Believe me when I say that anything that people can think of has been said, maybe even litigated in court.

 

[scouser59]

The Latest: 5 dead in California shootings, including gunman,,

The sad carnage in the US continues , when will they learn ? very sad .

 

[Nimbus]

The Latest: 5 dead in California shootings, including gunman,,

The sad carnage in the US continues , when will they learn ? very sad .

Well, California is one of the most restrictive states when it comes to gun ownership and carry. How much does it help?

 

[waarmstrong]

I suppose you are attempting to imply that firearms restrictions cannot work. My takeaway is that the restriction in place don't and need to be revised until they do work.

 

[steveandpenny]

Well, California is one of the most restrictive states when it comes to gun ownership and carry. How much does it help?

Calif had 7.7 gun deaths out of every 100,000 people . In other words if you rated the states with #1 having the most deaths per 100,000 people there are 44 states above Calif. Calif has major drug, gang, and road rage problems. All the others states with less all have strict gun laws in place. So don't say that gun laws don't work.

 

[Nimbus]

Calif had 7.7 gun deaths out of every 100,000 people . In other words if you rated the states with #1 having the most deaths per 100,000 people there are 44 states above Calif. Calif has major drug, gang, and road rage problems. All the others states with less all have strict gun laws in place. So don't say that gun laws don't work.

I'm not saying gun laws don't work. The jury is still out on that.

http://www.factcheck.org/2015/10/gun-laws-deaths-and-crimes/

 

[Nimbus]

I suppose you are attempting to imply that firearms restrictions cannot work. My takeaway is that the restriction in place don't and need to be revised until they do work.

And my conclusion is that until the 300 million guns in USA are taken out of circulation, there's very little that any paper law can do.

 

[R Cameron]

I know people in CA who drove a couple hours to NV to go gun shopping and get the large (50 round?) magazines they can't get in CA. Traffic flows freely between states, so nationally implemented restrictions would be more effective than state by state.

 

[Nimbus]

I know people in CA who drove a couple hours to NV to go gun shopping and get the large (50 round?) magazines they can't get in CA. Traffic flows freely between states, so nationally implemented restrictions would be more effective than state by state.

Standard magazine capacity for AR-15 type rifles is 30 rounds, but they sell various after market mags carrying up to 100 rounds.

Until very recently Californians who already own "high capacity" magazines carrying more than 10 rounds were fine, they just couldn't buy or sell these legally. The thing is, magazines are not usually stamped with serial number or date of manufacture. They could (and did) go to vegas, buy used magazines, then go back to CA and claim they had them all along.

The latest law in CA bans all magazines with higher than 10-round capacity, regardless of when you bought them. It means you have to either sell them out of state, surrender them to the police, or destroy them. The law has been challenged in court, and at least one judge has made a decision against it.

 

[Anglian]

Well here’s a funny thing, just watching National Geographic on TV, and man has a real tank with a working 75mm gun, puts all your automatic guns in the shade, it’s for sale if anyone wants to it, $240000 plus 10 75mm rounds, the next segment of the show is someone selling fully operational 1944 flame throwers, I think it’s taking the right to bear arms a bit far

 

[Daniel50]

Of course realistically speaking, practically speaking etc. etc. etc. but historical changes have often happened against realistic /practical probabilities, it takes effort, time and will depending in how entrenched the dogma/ideas are.