What's new
Frozen in Carbonite

Welcome to FiC! Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

The Gun Rights Thread

Lord Inquisitor Adornable

The Community Outreach Mod
A thread for general discussion of gun rights, and firearm related policy typically within the US, but not necessarily.
 
I am a very pro second amendment individual, but recognize that my live in a rural and at times subsistence based environment has shaped my opinion. A lifelong New Yorker whose only seen firearms in the hands of criminals and law enforcement would naturally have a different, but also valid view.

Given that I'm satisfied more or less with the current state of affairs in regards to gun law could an "anti-gun" individual provide their opinion and proposed solution on the matter to start our civil debate?
 
It is right that should not be taken away from the genereal poupulation
Home defense and self defense is very important in this day and age in America after all. Not to mention recratinal use. Shooting firearms is fun.
 
I'm going to be quite honest here, as i'm from Australia I find US gun laws incredibly stupid, and don't see why action isn't being taken on the issue.
A lot of it is because the gun manufacturers have puppeteer-ed the NRA rather completely mind you. While people won't admit it, the gun manufacturers pretty much have the NRA by the balls. It doesn't help that they're also been taken over by the Dixies and other horrible elements of the GOP as well. It also doesn't help that this is heavily on the urban/rural divide and the US is still mostly untamed territory... with animals that either will mess your shit without a care (bores, mountain cats, moose, etc.) or simply vermin but larger (in the US deer are pretty much this, alongside genuine vermin like gophers)
 
It is right that should not be taken away from the genereal poupulation
Home defense and self defense is very important in this day and age in America after all. Not to mention recratinal use. Shooting firearms is fun.
Bolded section is bullshit.

Regardless, possession of firearms should not be a right. It should be a Privilege earned by proving that you can handle it (mental health screening and safety training course), and easily lost for even minor infractions. In particular, it should involve a background check into social media with noone who has ever expressed support for overthrowing the US government, or for white (or any race) nationalism being able to have a gun.
 
Bolded section is bullshit.

Regardless, possession of firearms should not be a right. It should be a Privilege earned by proving that you can handle it (mental health screening and safety training course), and easily lost for even minor infractions. In particular, it should involve a background check into social media with noone who has ever expressed support for overthrowing the US government, or for white (or any race) nationalism being able to have a gun.
Query? You can never be too paranoid these days
Bolded section is not bullshit
 
Honestly? The military-industrial complex, and megalithic weapons manufacturers and military contractors such as Lockheed-Martin and Raytheon are far more dangerous than the NRA, regardless of what pro-Russian tendencies they may have. Russia is a shell of the former Soviet Union, and large shadowy corporations that have no patriotic motives or obligations are a far greater threat to humankind than Russians. We need to stop being so beholden to corporate media and echo-chambers to do our thinking for us.
 
Honestly? The military-industrial complex, and megalithic weapons manufacturers and military contractors such as Lockheed-Martin and Raytheon are far more dangerous than the NRA, regardless of what pro-Russian tendencies they may have. Russia is a shell of the former Soviet Union, and large shadowy corporations that have no patriotic motives or obligations are a far greater threat to humankind than Russians. We need to stop being so beholden to corporate media and echo-chambers to do our thinking for us.
Not exactly. If the Military-Industrial Complex/Weapons manufacturers tried to do the 'merchants of death' thing again, they'll get slaughtered in the court of public opinion... and they know it.
 
Bolded section is bullshit.

Regardless, possession of firearms should not be a right. It should be a Privilege earned by proving that you can handle it (mental health screening and safety training course), and easily lost for even minor infractions. In particular, it should involve a background check into social media with noone who has ever expressed support for overthrowing the US government, or for white (or any race) nationalism being able to have a gun.
Raven in your world, if several Neo-naizs found your home address and decided to break in and make an example of you, you'd be punished for defending your own life with a firearm.

At it's core the second amendment is an acknowledgement of your natural right to defend your own life when threatened regardless of the tool.
 
Raven in your world, if several Neo-naizs found your home address and decided to break in and make an example of you, you'd be punished for defending your own life with a firearm.

At it's core the second amendment is an acknowledgement of your natural right to defend your own life when threatened regardless of the tool.
Umm... pretty sure that I could pass a mental health screening, and I know that I've no history of membership in violent supremacist groups. So, no I could probably pass. But that's the thing. I'm not paranoid enough to assume that something incredibly unlikely (like your example) will happen to me. It's that same sort of paranoia that makes me want to take guns away from so many 2nd amendment supporters, because they don't seem to live in the real world.
 
Umm... pretty sure that I could pass a mental health screening, and I know that I've no history of membership in violent supremacist groups. So, no I could probably pass. But that's the thing. I'm not paranoid enough to assume that something incredibly unlikely (like your example) will happen to me. It's that same sort of paranoia that makes me want to take guns away from so many 2nd amendment supporters, because they don't seem to live in the real world.
A fair dose of paranoia is good to have.
 
Umm... pretty sure that I could pass a mental health screening, and I know that I've no history of membership in violent supremacist groups. So, no I could probably pass. But that's the thing. I'm not paranoid enough to assume that something incredibly unlikely (like your example) will happen to me. It's that same sort of paranoia that makes me want to take guns away from so many 2nd amendment supporters, because they don't seem to live in the real world.
Ravan,
possession of firearms should not be a right. It should be a Privilege earned by proving that you can handle it, and easily lost for even minor infractions. In particular, it should involve a background check into social media with noone who has ever expressed support for overthrowing the US government
Are you claiming in all honesty you've never expressed sentiments online that the Trump administration could construe as supporting the overthrow of the US government?

The Neo Nazi hypothetical was intended to be humerus, but just last month I was accosted by a group of (presumably) crackheads in a safeway parking lot, they threatened me with violence for disrespecting them and qoute "coming up on them like that".

Fortunately my grandfather was waiting in the car for me, saw this, and intervened honking the horn and driving towards the group at a concerning speed with his high beams on. They dispersed and I enterd the car. We then drove away and calles 911.

This situation could of easily resulted in me beaten and robed had my grandfather not wanting to accompany me to acquire rolling tobacco.

Just becouse you're fortunate enough to live within a safe american community does not mean others don't have a right to defend themselves.
 
Ravan,

Are you claiming in all honesty you've never expressed sentiments online that the Trump administration could construe as supporting the overthrow of the US government?

The Neo Nazi hypothetical was intended to be humerus, but just last month I was accosted by a group of (presumably) crackheads in a safeway parking lot, they threatened me with violence for disrespecting them and qoute "coming up on them like that".

Fortunately my grandfather was waiting in the car for me, saw this, and intervened honking the horn and driving towards the group at a concerning speed with his high beams on. They dispersed and I enterd the car. We then drove away and calles 911.

This situation could of easily resulted in me beaten and robed had my grandfather not wanting to accompany me to acquire rolling tobacco.

Just becouse you're fortunate enough to live within a safe american community does not mean others don't have a right to defend themselves.
By minor infractions, I meant related ones. So assault even at the misdemeanor level, domestic abuse even in those states where they've made it a misdemeanor, negligent discharge of a firearm, etc...

And no I gave nover advocated the violent overthrow of the united states government. That part was included to strip guns from the militia movement and the sovereign citizens movement, which have both produced violence in the past but explicitly operate in such a way as to avoid having more than one or two caught for any crime even though the entire organizations exist to promote crime.
 
Im a strong supporter if the east asian model of gun control. Start under the premise that all guns banned then begin making exceptions where necesary so people who genuinely need a gun like hunters and sports marksmen can get them. It has undeniably worked in these countrys given that they have some of the lowest murder rates in the world and thats despite the fact that japan in particular has one of the largest and wealthiest criminal organizations operating within its borders. So there clearly doing something right.
 
I'm open to guns being avaliable, but not as a Right. Conversely, I think Americans just need to get some new lawmaking entirely for their "Gun rights" because the 2nd amendment is just factually not advocating for civilian gun rights, and saying it does is ignorance at best, and historical revisionism at worst.

because the whole "muh 2nd amendment" thing is a flimsy sham, and if you actually cared about your rights, you'd advocate having something new written up.
 
I'm open to guns being avaliable, but not as a Right. Conversely, I think Americans just need to get some new lawmaking entirely for their "Gun rights" because the 2nd amendment is just factually not advocating for civilian gun rights, and saying it does is ignorance at best, and historical revisionism at worst.

because the whole "muh 2nd amendment" thing is a flimsy sham, and if you actually cared about your rights, you'd advocate having something new written up.
Seriously though next time liberald control the scotus we should seriously look into reinterpreting the second ammendment back to its original.
 
Im just gonna say that the 3d printed guns which are now in public attention are visually unappealing
 
Seriously though next time liberald control the scotus we should seriously look into reinterpreting the second ammendment back to its original.
Which would be... Literally obligating state governors to purchase full military arsenals, and would perfectly allow literally every person who hasn't commited a crime to obtain damn near anything, if they can get the money to pay for it. The point was, in fact, for the citizens to be able to mount armed resistance against their state, and the states to mount armed resistance against the government. It's the final check and balance, the ultimate prevention of tyranny by undermining the monopoly of force, such that egregious abuses of the force of governance can be responded to meaningfully by force in return.

The point of the Second Amendment was specifically to enable a civil war. To make it so that, in the event of the federal government performing egregious abuses, the states could overthrow the federal government by force of arms. While the civil war that actually occurred was almost entirely unrelated to the point of the Second Amendment (the state's rights argument, as well as the plantation economy of the south, do give some legitimate basis to argue in favor, but the point was to avoid active oppression of the people, not uphold unsustainable traditions), a large chunk of the reason it was so bloody is because the Second Amendment made it so that all the states of the south had a standing military force. Same for the North.
 
Which would be... Literally obligating state governors to purchase full military arsenals, and would perfectly allow literally every person who hasn't commited a crime to obtain damn near anything, if they can get the money to pay for it. The point was, in fact, for the citizens to be able to mount armed resistance against their state, and the states to mount armed resistance against the government. It's the final check and balance, the ultimate prevention of tyranny by undermining the monopoly of force, such that egregious abuses of the force of governance can be responded to meaningfully by force in return.

The point of the Second Amendment was specifically to enable a civil war. To make it so that, in the event of the federal government performing egregious abuses, the states could overthrow the federal government by force of arms. While the civil war that actually occurred was almost entirely unrelated to the point of the Second Amendment (the state's rights argument, as well as the plantation economy of the south, do give some legitimate basis to argue in favor, but the point was to avoid active oppression of the people, not uphold unsustainable traditions), a large chunk of the reason it was so bloody is because the Second Amendment made it so that all the states of the south had a standing military force. Same for the North.
No, it actually wasn't. Washington made it very clear that citizens have no right whatsoever to defy the federal government with weapons. It's called the Whisky Rebellion.

The point of the 2nd was to keep a readily mobilized militia trained and ready in case Britain tried to attack again.
 
No, it actually wasn't. Washington made it very clear that citizens have no right whatsoever to defy the federal government with weapons. It's called the Whisky Rebellion.

The point of the 2nd was to keep a readily mobilized militia trained and ready in case Britain tried to attack again.
To quote Wikipedia (I sadly lack the google-fu to dredge up less-secondary sources) on one of the arguments surrounding it:
There was substantial opposition to the new Constitution, because it moved the power to arm the state militias from the states to the federal government. This created a fear that the federal government, by neglecting the upkeep of the militia, could have overwhelming military force at its disposal through its power to maintain a standing army and navy, leading to a confrontation with the states, encroaching on the states' reserved powers and even engaging in a military takeover.

An explicit concern was the federal government performing a military takeover of the states. As was using the right to bear arms as a defense against government tyranny. The people who literally passed the Bill of Rights were arguing on the basis of being able to fend off the federal government, not the British. Hell, some of the southerners were arguing in favor of it on the basis of maintaining armed slave patrols as a branch of the militia.

The argument that the Second Amendment represents a collective right has landed in the courts a number of times, and the courts flip-flop on which side they land. However, a 1939 supreme court case widely seen as supporting it very particularly pointed out that the Second Amendment defense would have been valid had the firearm in question been of clear military relevance. Which, due to said firearm being a sawed-off shotgun, was not the case. A later 1998 case (Wikipedia citation, also source of previous case, and goes over a bundle of the circumstances the amendment was passed in) supported the interpretation as an individual right in the case of illegal possession of a firearm while subject to a restraining order. The relevant legal clause was amended to require reasonable cause to believe physical harm would occur, nullifying the charge.

The intent, as it was written, was to allow the people to have the arms to oppose the federal government, primarily in the form of state-operated militias. The closest to the interpretation you're looking at supported by the text, in the context of the reason for its wording, inclusion and ratification, is much the same as the 1939 case, wherein it covers personal ownership of military arms on the basis of enabling militia service.
 
Im a strong supporter if the east asian model of gun control. Start under the premise that all guns banned then begin making exceptions where necesary so people who genuinely need a gun like hunters and sports marksmen can get them. It has undeniably worked in these countrys given that they have some of the lowest murder rates in the world and thats despite the fact that japan in particular has one of the largest and wealthiest criminal organizations operating within its borders. So there clearly doing something right.
Doesn't Japan A have a cultural bias against classifying deaths as murders, and B said criminal orginiazation so widely and openly tolerated they don't need violence to solve problems, they can just sue and report to the authorities?
 
Doesn't Japan A have a cultural bias against classifying deaths as murders, and B said criminal orginiazation so widely and openly tolerated they don't need violence to solve problems, they can just sue and report to the authorities?
Yes japan does have a bias against murders but its unlikely it affects the murder rate on the large scale. Its only the ones that are basically unsolvable that sometimes end up getting vlassified as "suicides" thats a small percsntage of there murders and thus is unlikely to affect the murder rate by more than a decimal point or two.
 
No, it actually wasn't. Washington made it very clear that citizens have no right whatsoever to defy the federal government with weapons. It's called the Whisky Rebellion.

The point of the 2nd was to keep a readily mobilized militia trained and ready in case Britain tried to attack again.

"As civil rulers, not having their duty to the people before them, may attempt to tyrannize, and as the military forces which must be occasionally raised to defend our country, might pervert their power to the injury of their fellow citizens, the people are confirmed by the article in their right to keep and bear their private arms."

"The prohibition is general. No clause in the Constitution could by any rule of construction be conceived to give to Congress a power to disarm the people. Such a flagitious attempt could only be made under some general pretense by a state legislature. But if in any blind pursuit of inordinate power, either should attempt it, this amendment may be appealed to as a restraint on both."

"The best we can hope for concerning the people at large is that they be properly armed."


"If the representatives of the people betray their constituents, there is then no recourse left but in the exertion of that original right of self-defense which is paramount to all positive forms of government, and which against the usurpations of the national rulers may be exerted with infinitely better prospect of success than against those of the rulers of an individual State. In a single State, if the persons entrusted with supreme power become usurpers, the different parcels, subdivisions, or districts of which it consists, having no distinct government in each, can take no regular measures for defense. The citizens must rush tumultuously to arms, without concert, without system, without resource; except in their courage and despair."

"[The Constitution preserves] the advantage of being armed which Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation...(where) the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms."

"Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops that can be, on any pretense, raised in the United States. A military force, at the command of Congress, can execute no laws, but such as the people perceive to be just and constitutional; for they will possess the power, and jealousy will instantly inspire the inclination, to resist the execution of a law which appears to them unjust and oppressive."

"What country can preserve its liberties if its rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms."


There's more quotes from the founding fathers and their contemporaries online. Safe to say, you're incorrect. The 2nd amendment certainly was to oppose a congressional tyranny.
 
Indeed. And all gun control measures do is consolidate firearms into the hands of criminals and government. But, I repeat myself.
 
Back
Top Bottom