Mass Shooting Las Vegas...

[rogue06]

I think we need to ban Teal from Alabamastan. We can't have a gun control supporter living in Alabama. It's unamerican!

Burn the Witch!!!

She turned me into a newt!













But I got better.

[RumTumTugger]

The question was way would a "law abiding" citizen use his guns to prevent the government from taking them away. Of course he would not be "law abiding" if they changed the constitution and made guns illegal, but the owner would still believe that the constitution never gave the government the right to take away his right to own a gun. The 2nd amendment just says that the government can't infringe on his right. You can take that away but that doesn't mean that he doesn't still have the right to own a gun. If the government tried to remove his guns, he would be fighting an unjust law.

You would have gun owners across the country using their guns to protect their right to own guns when they came to remove them.

IF you could actually talk the cops or the ATF into actually complying with the "law" and confiscate the guns. I think most would ignore the new law.

I suspect the Police officer spoken of in this video would not comply with that unjust law. He understood the need for citizens to have the right to bear arms.

[Teallaura]

She turned me into a newt!


But I got better.

pond-pig-2383010_1920.jpg

Did not.

[Sparko]

The Constitution is the supreme law of the land - no, you don't get to pretend rights exist that it specifically denies, even if that denial is by amendment. So at that point, they are no longer law abiding in any sense - they are criminals. Any belief to the contrary is mere self-justification and has no basis in reality.

FYI - I oppose abolition. I'd prefer it but I can't justify it. I am not in favor of repealing the second (dis-incorporating, not repealing).

I can't even parse that. What denial? The second amendment says "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." - It doesn't GIVE the right to bear arms to the people, it acknowledges that they already HAVE that right and the government can't infringe upon it. If you take away the 2nd amendment that doesn't remove the right to bear arms. And if they create a new law that says you can't bear arms it is doing exactly what the 2nd amendment was addressing - infringing upon a right we already have. The second amendment is just a clarification of what we already have. The right to bear arms. Any attempt to take that away is unjust and illegal. The constitution doesn't endow rights, it restricts the government from interfering with the rights we have.

and I acknowledge that they would be criminals at that point. I am saying they would not care. They would take the position that the US government were the criminals by infringing on their rights and they would rebel. Just like the US did with Britain. We were criminals when we set up our own country. so what?

[Mountain Man]

https://www.theguardian.com/commenti...cerning-future

Nobody is arguing that banning guns will have no impact on incidences of gun violence. The problem is that banning guns has historically had a negligible impact on violent crime overall. Specifically, Australia's infamous "buyback program" had virtually no impact on violent crime rates. In some cases, violent crime actually continued its upward trend even after the program was enacted.

[Teallaura]

I can't even parse that. What denial? The second amendment says "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." - It doesn't GIVE the right to bear arms to the people, it acknowledges that they already HAVE that right and the government can't infringe upon it. If you take away the 2nd amendment that doesn't remove the right to bear arms. And if they create a new law that says you can't bear arms it is doing exactly what the 2nd amendment was addressing - infringing upon a right we already have. The second amendment is just a clarification of what we already have. The right to bear arms. Any attempt to take that away is unjust and illegal. The constitution doesn't endow rights, it restricts the government from interfering with the rights we have.

and I acknowledge that they would be criminals at that point. I am saying they would not care. They would take the position that the US government were the criminals by infringing on their rights and they would rebel. Just like the US did with Britain. We were criminals when we set up our own country. so what?

As long as you realize it's an active rebellion and not 'law abiding', fine. I think you missed the point of the original example but I don't think it's worth arguing any further.

[Jedidiah]

The question was way would a "law abiding" citizen use his guns to prevent the government from taking them away. Of course he would not be "law abiding" if they changed the constitution and made guns illegal, but the owner would still believe that the constitution never gave the government the right to take away his right to own a gun. The 2nd amendment just says that the government can't infringe on his right. You can take that away but that doesn't mean that he doesn't still have the right to own a gun. If the government tried to remove his guns, he would be fighting an unjust law.

You would have gun owners across the country using their guns to protect their right to own guns when they came to remove them.

IF you could actually talk the cops or the ATF into actually complying with the "law" and confiscate the guns. I think most would ignore the new law.

This goes back to the fact that the Constitution does not give us the right, it just specifies that it exists. Eliminating the 2nd would not give the government the right to take guns. (Not that that would stop them.)

[JimL]

I can't even parse that. What denial? The second amendment says "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." - It doesn't GIVE the right to bear arms to the people, it acknowledges that they already HAVE that right and the government can't infringe upon it. If you take away the 2nd amendment that doesn't remove the right to bear arms. And if they create a new law that says you can't bear arms it is doing exactly what the 2nd amendment was addressing - infringing upon a right we already have. The second amendment is just a clarification of what we already have. The right to bear arms. Any attempt to take that away is unjust and illegal. The constitution doesn't endow rights, it restricts the government from interfering with the rights we have.

and I acknowledge that they would be criminals at that point. I am saying they would not care. They would take the position that the US government were the criminals by infringing on their rights and they would rebel. Just like the US did with Britain. We were criminals when we set up our own country. so what?

A well regulated militia. Get it? That was the purpose of the law, the need for a militia, and the only firearms were muskets. Those were different times, for one thing we don't need a militia any longer, and for another, firearms, and the sale thereof, can be regulated. The idea that the 2nd amendment allows for people to possess any kind of firearms they want, lets say nuclear weapons, is ridiculous, and when interpreting the constitution one needs to take into consideration the nature of the times in which it was written. I'm sure there would be no controversy today over the 2nd Amendment, and the peoples right to bear arms, if the only firearms available were still muskets!

[Mountain Man]

This goes back to the fact that the Constitution does not give us the right, it just specifies that it exists. Eliminating the 2nd would not give the government the right to take guns. (Not that that would stop them.)

More to the point, the Constitution places explicit limitations on the government. It doesn't tell citizens what they can do, it tells the government what it can't do.

[seer]

A well regulated militia. Get it? That was the purpose of the law, the need for a militia, and the only firearms were muskets. Those were different times, for one thing we don't need a militia any longer, and for another, firearms, and the sale thereof, can be regulated. The idea that the 2nd amendment allows for people to possess any kind of firearms they want, lets say nuclear weapons, is ridiculous, and when interpreting the constitution one needs to take into consideration the nature of the times in which it was written. I'm sure there would be no controversy today over the 2nd Amendment, and the peoples right to bear arms, if the only firearms available were still muskets!

BTW Jim, a musket was the most advanced firearm of the day, and a private person could actually own a cannon. And the Second Amendment does not only apply to a militia, per the Founders and the Supreme Court. If you take the time to read the majority opinion in the Heller case you will see it tied into the writings of the Founders and back to English common law: https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/07-290.ZO.html

[Sparko]

A well regulated militia. Get it? That was the purpose of the law, the need for a militia, and the only firearms were muskets. Those were different times, for one thing we don't need a militia any longer, and for another, firearms, and the sale thereof, can be regulated. The idea that the 2nd amendment allows for people to possess any kind of firearms they want, lets say nuclear weapons, is ridiculous, and when interpreting the constitution one needs to take into consideration the nature of the times in which it was written. I'm sure there would be no controversy today over the 2nd Amendment, and the peoples right to bear arms, if the only firearms available were still muskets!

1. The militia is regulated, not the people or the arms.
2. it doesn't specify the arms. So who cares if they only had muskets. It means any arms: knives, guns, bows and arrows, canons etc.
3. Do you know how many people were killed with "just muskets?" - better brush up on history.
4. It acknowledges that the people (that's the citizens of the USA, you, me, etc) have the RIGHT to keep and bear arms. Whether we use that for a militia or target practice, we still have the right.
5. They ARE regulated, as I have said to you already. Lots of regulations. Permits, background checks, limits on types of weapons and ammunition, etc.

[Roy]

Interesting that your chart shows the same massive drop since the 1990s. The reason that decade was picked was it also corresponds to when the ownership of firearms started to sharply rise.

So it's just a coincidence that your chart starts in the exact year with the highest ever gun homicide rate and omits the preceding years when it was lower?

It is the subject of FBI studies and a PEW report -- but then I guess they were just cherry picking data as well

The PEW reports I can find state that while the number of guns in the US is rising, gun ownership is dropping. More guns owned by less people.

[JimL]

1. The militia is regulated, not the people or the arms.
2. it doesn't specify the arms. So who cares if they only had muskets. It means any arms: knives, guns, bows and arrows, canons etc.
3. Do you know how many people were killed with "just muskets?" - better brush up on history.
4. It acknowledges that the people (that's the citizens of the USA, you, me, etc) have the RIGHT to keep and bear arms. Whether we use that for a militia or target practice, we still have the right.
5. They ARE regulated, as I have said to you already. Lots of regulations. Permits, background checks, limits on types of weapons and ammunition, etc.

Yes, firearms are regulated, and so they can be further regulated, and those regulations can be strengthened. According to the logic you people seem to be using, the people should be able to have nuclear weapons.

[rogue06]

A well regulated militia. Get it? That was the purpose of the law, the need for a militia, and the only firearms were muskets. Those were different times, for one thing we don't need a militia any longer, and for another, firearms, and the sale thereof, can be regulated. The idea that the 2nd amendment allows for people to possess any kind of firearms they want, lets say nuclear weapons, is ridiculous, and when interpreting the constitution one needs to take into consideration the nature of the times in which it was written. I'm sure there would be no controversy today over the 2nd Amendment, and the peoples right to bear arms, if the only firearms available were still muskets!

So I guess the First Amendment doesn't cover conversations over telephones, news broadcast over TV and radio, or anything over the internet since they weren't around then

Further it was the near universal understanding up until the 20th century that the militia meant the people -- the citizens. I'll be delighted to go over that one again

[seer]

So it's just a coincidence that your chart starts in the exact year with the highest ever gun homicide rate and omits the preceding years when it was lower? The PEW reports I can find state that while the number of guns in the US is rising, gun ownership is dropping. More guns owned by less people.

Again Roy, the gun homicide rate is still lower today than it was in the early 70s or 80s and the fact that more guns are in the hands of fewer people just shows how law abiding gun owners are.