Study shows gun control would prevent mass shootings

[Marvin]

I agrued nothing. I asked questions. The answers are yours.

You posed rhetorical questions.

Let's say we do background checks. Then some nut passes his background check and kills 50 people. Now what? Do we ban all guns? Do we add a psych test? Do we make everyone who wants to own a gun for anything tracked and their guns have some mobile kill switch? How far do you go?

The way this is phrased, any reasonable person would understand you're asking these questions not because you genuinely wanted an answer to them, but because you believe they're absurd suggestions. Am I wrong about this?

 

[AnOminous]

I agrued nothing. I asked questions. The answers are yours.

We trust the government with all sorts of things that are more complex than keeping a list of felons with disqualifying crimes, which they already have by virtue of having convicted those people of those crimes. For instance, with national defense, which is something even more critical.

 

[The Master Debater]

Dead people don't have any rights.



Do you trust Dylann Roof with your life?

So if we don't go through with this we'll be killed?

 

[Shugo]

The second amendment is not unlimited. And while, yes, there do exist situations that are completely unworkable, we still have a wide range of constitutionally legal regulations we can use to make pulling off a spree shooting that much harder.

Just because the Supreme Court has ruled in the past that "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" in any way can justify outlawing arms that the military uses, outlawing bearing arms in any state, or outlawing any people from keeping arms.

The Bill of Rights is very clear on this.

As explained in this post:

Also, there's talks of "sensible compromises."

We've compromised so many times with gun control.
This huge (hence the spoilers) image explains it

Spoiler

We have been implementing more, and more, and more, and more gun control ever since the slaves were freed. Gun control in the South began as a way to keep freedmen from becoming armed and defending themselves against lynching. Gun control in the 30s began as a way to stop organized crime (which was fixed mostly by lifting the prohibition of alcohol). Gun control in the 60s was a knee-jerk dipshit reaction to the JFK's assassination. Gun control in the 80s started again the racist trend of keeping Blacks from being armed as the Black Panthers held open carry demonstrations in California, carried by Raegan from California to the White House.

When will "gun control" finally be achieved? The end goal of people arguing to limit guns is complete prohibition of guns. One of the leaders pushing Gun Control in Congress for decades, Dianne Feinstein, has stated she would have door-to-door confiscations of guns if she had enough votes in congress to pass it. The same woman who argued in Congress to outlaw high school educated kids from speaking out against the government online without providing sources.

People who support gun control, especially further gun control than we have now, do not respect the Bill of Rights.

 

[Cthulu]

You posed rhetorical questions.

The way this is phrased, any reasonable person would understand you're asking these questions not because you genuinely wanted an answer to them, but because you believe they're absurd suggestions. Am I wrong about this?

I have nothing against background checks. I'm asking how far do we go? The absurd suggestion you say I make have already been proposed.

We trust the government with all sorts of things that are more complex than keeping a list of felons with disqualifying crimes, which they already have by virtue of having convicted those people of those crimes. For instance, with national defense, which is something even more critical.

Yes we do. So you think the NSA is right in their belief? If you have nothing to hide then you have nothing to worry about?

 

[AnOminous]

Just because the Supreme Court has ruled in the past that "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" in any way can justify outlawing arms that the military uses, outlawing bearing arms in any state, or outlawing any people from keeping arms.

The Bill of Rights is very clear on this.

No it isn't. In fact, it's very unclear, to the point that it was not even interpreted as a personal right by the Supreme Court until well over 200 years after it was written.

 

[Shugo]

No it isn't. In fact, it's very unclear, to the point that it was not even interpreted as a personal right by the Supreme Court until well over 200 years after it was written.

It sounds pretty clear to me. I can't fathom how anyone can read the Second Amendment and find any sort of justification to limit anyone access to arms.

Just because the Supreme Court and other authoritarians blatantly ignore it does not make the language any simpler: "shall not be infringed" is very clear. "The right of the people" is just as clear.

Anyone who denies that the amendment could mean anything but protecting an individual right, and all individuals' right to keep and bear arms, to me are authoritarians who are promoting doublespeak to distort this clear language.

 

[Some JERK]

No it isn't. In fact, it's very unclear, to the point that it was not even interpreted as a personal right by the Supreme Court until well over 200 years after it was written.

I've always wondered about this and why it's unclear. The term "The people" also appears in the 1st, and 4th amendments, yet nobody argues about whether or not those rights are intended for the state or federal governments rather than individuals.

 

[Cthulu]

It sounds pretty clear to me. I can't fathom how anyone can read the Second Amendment and find any sort of justification to limit anyone access to arms.

Just because the Supreme Court and other authoritarians blatantly ignore it does not make the language any simpler: "shall not be infringed" is very clear. "The right of the people" is just as clear.

Anyone who denies that the amendment could mean anything but protecting an individual right, and all individuals' right to keep and bear arms, to me are authoritarians who are promoting doublespeak to distort this clear language.

The ambiguity lies in the words militia and free state.
"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."

 

[AnOminous]

It sounds pretty clear to me. I can't fathom how anyone can read the Second Amendment and find any sort of justification to limit anyone access to arms.

Just because the Supreme Court and other authoritarians blatantly ignore it does not make the language any simpler: "shall not be infringed" is very clear. "The right of the people" is just as clear.

No it isn't. In fact, "right of the people" was, until recently, viewed as a collective right to form a militia, not as a right belonging to any individual person. That is why it was not seen as prohibiting the states from passing laws against gun ownership.

In fact, until the Fourteenth Amendment, the Bill of Rights did not apply to the states at all, which were the main government entities regulating gun ownership. The Bill of Rights, after all, was drafted only to limit the power of the federal government, not the state governments.

Thus, the Second Amendment was essentially to protect the rights of the people of the States as against the federal government, not to protect any individuals, who were subject to laws passed by states, since the Bill of Rights didn't even apply to state governments anyway.

 

[Marvin]

We have been implementing more, and more, and more, and more gun control ever since the slaves were freed.

Quality over quantity.

I have nothing against background checks. I'm asking how far do we go? The absurd suggestion you say I make have already been proposed.

Which suggestion was that?

One-by-one:

• Do we ban all guns? - No, that's illegal in the United States.
• Do we add a psych test? - Probably a waste of resources.
• Do we make everyone who wants to own a gun for anything tracked and their guns have some mobile kill switch? - It's probably illegal to track people who are merely exercising constitutional rights. A mobile kill switch isn't technically feasible.

Bringing these things up in the same post about background checks is goofy.

Yes we do. So you think the NSA is right in their belief? If you have nothing to hide then you have nothing to worry about?

I don't understand what this has to do with gun rights.

It sounds pretty clear to me. I can't fathom how anyone can read the Second Amendment and find any sort of justification to limit anyone access to arms.

Just because the Supreme Court and other authoritarians blatantly ignore it does not make the language any simpler: "shall not be infringed" is very clear. "The right of the people" is just as clear.

Anyone who denies that the amendment could mean anything but protecting an individual right, and all individuals' right to keep and bear arms, to me are authoritarians who are promoting doublespeak to distort this clear language.

It's primarily the militia reference. And that's not doublespeak, that's a legit legal issue.

Even if the right to bear arms is an individual right, that doesn't preclude regulation. So I don't understand why you're bringing it up.

 

[Shugo]

I've always wondered about this and why it's unclear. The term "The people" also appears in the 1st, and 4th amendments, yet nobody argues about whether or not those rights are intended for the state or federal governments rather than individuals.

And the fact that every other amendment besides the 9th and 10th in the Bill of Rights is a protection of individual rights of people, not some asinine idea of a "group right" wherein you can deny the rights of people, as long as it's not everyone.

Can someone explain the concept of a Group Right to me? How is a right protected if it can easily be infringed upon?

Even if the right to bear arms is an individual right, that doesn't preclude regulation.

Because when you start adding in regulations, waiting periods, taxes, you infringe upon rights. What is your constitutional justification for the federal government to regulate arms?

Do you support waiting periods for exercising your right to freedom of speech? Tax stamps to exercise your freedom of speech? Tax stamps to exercise your right to a lawyer? Why is it okay to add barriers to the right?

Why do you support adding on a cost that is expressly imposed to restrict someone from exercising their right to keep and bear arms? It doesn't sound like you support the right to me, or any rights, if you include legal and monetary barriers to exercise rights expressly defended from such government overreach.

Even if the right to bear arms is an individual right, that doesn't preclude regulation.

What regulations of freedom of speech do you support? What regulations of other constitutionally-protected rights do you support? Or do you single out one piece of the Bill of Rights and ignore that the 2nd amendment is not a legitimate right?

 

[Cthulu]

- It's probably illegal to track people who are merely exercising constitutional rights. A mobile kill switch isn't technically feasible.

Really? Monitoring the Internet wasn't feasiable either but the Snowden files showed its done.
I did state this wasn't just about gun rights. IMO.

:Spelling edit

 

[Shugo]

It's probably illegal to track people who are merely exercising constitutional rights

Yet the ATF drives to gun shows and logs the license plates of attendees. You really overestimate how benevolent government agencies are.

 

[Cthulu]

My whole point to everyone is for a compromise to work you have to listen and understand both sides. Lol I'm rated autistic for asking questions and stating my views? These are serious questions with no good answers. I'm glad you have the answers @Marvin because I don't. You think you do but is it the answers for everyone? No debate allowed? No questions allowed? No free speech? The point of debate is understanding the other persons point of view. I willing to try. Are you?

 

[The Master Debater]

No it isn't. In fact, it's very unclear, to the point that it was not even interpreted as a personal right by the Supreme Court until well over 200 years after it was written.

You're saying the constitution is uninterpretable

It's very clear. These rights shall not be infringed.

 

[Marvin]

Because when you start adding in regulations, waiting periods, taxes, you infringe upon rights.

Do you support waiting periods for exercising your right to freedom of speech? Tax stamps to exercise your freedom of speech? Tax stamps to exercise your right to a lawyer? Why is it okay to add barriers to the right?

Oh, I agree. Regulation waters down rights. So we need to be very careful with that.

But to go with your freedom of speech comparison, freedom of speech isn't absolute either. There's fighting words and things like that, as there should be. I think background checks fit a nice balance between enabling people to exercise their rights while curbing the dangerous people. I don't have much of an opinion on tax stamps and similar things because I haven't looked into the subject.

Really? Monitoring the Internet wasn't feasialbe either but the Snowden files showed its done.
I did state this wasn't just about gun rights. IMO.

No, a mobile kill switch really isn't feasible. It would require the same sort of infrastructure as centralized encryption setups. Backdoors. Governments all over the place keep trying to set up backdoors, but it never works. All security goes to shit, both customers and corporations get pissy, and the government backs down.

Also, in general, people are really ignorant about what the Snowden files showed.

Yet the ATF drives to gun shows and logs the license plates of attendees. You really overestimate how benevolent government agencies are.

I don't think they're benevolent. I do think our system of government (which includes private activist groups) is very effective at tracking and curbing those kind of fuckups. I find 1984-esque comparisons to be goofy as hell. No crazy oppressive government nonsense lasts. And I'm confident in saying that because of groups like the ACLU.

 

[Cthulu]

You're saying the constitution is uninterpretable

It's very clear. These rights shall not be infringed.

No it's not clear. You have to interpret intent. What is the intent behind the words they chose.

 

[AnOminous]

You're saying the constitution is uninterpretable

It's very clear. These rights shall not be infringed.

I guess we should get rid of the Supreme Court and just put you in charge since it's very easy to you.

Okay, then. What's the right? And what would or would not infringe it?

 

[The Master Debater]

No it's not clear. You have to interpret intent. What is the intent behind the words they chose.

The second amendment is very clear. Read it. Do it. It's not ambigious.