Leaderboard

The second amendment is not about hunting. The second amendment is not about a home invasion. The second amendment is not about “toys”. The constitution does not grant rights. Neither does the government. The constitution enumerates our rights. The constitution does not empower government. It limits government. Kinda surprising to be having this conversation on this forum; expecting it from progressives.

Shall not be infringed. It's the only justification necessary.

What's with so many people willing to give something -- anything -- up? This is the strongest legislative position the 2A has been in for decades. I'm not voting to give *anything* up.

It's not ridiculous, because that's how the argument needs to be framed. The world does not have a "gun violence" problem, or a "Ryder truck violence" problem. It has a violence problem. Madmen commit violence. That's where we need to focus our efforts and our arguments. Madmen have used fertilizer, airplanes, fire, gas chambers, trucks, pressure cookers, bombs, guns, knives, hammers, and rope. The chosen method is irrelevant. Guns have taken on this bigger than life persona when they are simply tools. AR-15s are ideally suited for plenty of non-murderous tasks, just like rope is good for a lot more than lynching. If the locomotive of society decides that guns are bad, there's no stopping the degradation of our rights. But we'll simply find that when you peel away the "tool" layer, you're still left with a core of violence. The Brits are learning this now as they move to rearm their police. So as to the better idea, let's start with the family. How can we reinforce the family so it can serve as a training ground for acceptable behavior?

You'll lose. Automatics are illegal. Grenades. We need to do better than arguing the old men who wrote the 2nd amendment surely would have been cool with what happened in Vegas. Automatics are not illegal and neither are grenades. Why would using the Second Amendment cause me to lose? Do you support the Constitution or not?

I disagree. On the long look of human history, violence, war, and untimely death is WAY DOWN. We’re living in a golden age of peace and prosperity.

Absurd, to use your words. A completely arbitrary restriction on a core Constitutionally-protected right because you *think* it should be...not because of any philosophical or legal underpinning of why, and proposed without a shred of evidence as to efficacy or specific purpose. The entire point of Constitutional protection is to put the burden of proof on the proposer of new restrictions to show specifically why those restrictions should be allowed, including proving that philosophical and legal validation and as well as efficacy of the proposal...because you don't just curb rights "to see if it works". The status quo doesn't have to defend itself. So, for anyone making these proposals, start off your discussion by making these points, rather than making the statement and demanding that others prove "why not".

I agree that more laws would not have prevented the massacre. Evil people will do evil things no matter what. But maybe it’s time to start playing the game a little smarter and give the crazy left something that appears like they are trying to solve the problem. I’m not sure if that’s what Lord Ratner is trying to say, but I can sure see that if we don’t agree to something now that they can tout as a ‘win’ for gun control, then the changes that do eventually get made will erode gun rights even further.

Yes, I agree that more gun ownership generally correlates to lower crime. But that doesn’t mean that any jackass with money to burn and no criminal record should be able to buy an AR and modify it to effectively be a full auto weapon with a 200 round capacity. Even though “Congress shall make no law...abridging the freedom of speech” you still can’t yell fire in a crowded theater. All rights have limits. Those limits are where your rights begin to infringe on someone else’s right to life, liberty, and happiness. The catch 22 is that even if you outlaw bump stocks, who’s to say you won’t see people making them with 3D printers. I don’t know what the answer is, but we better start thinking about it before it gets any worse.

I vote we let @HossHarris have his Hellfire.....laissez faire

Some of you are quick to give up rights. Here's the problem: once they're gone, you'll never get it back. The Second Amendment protects our right to bear arms just like the First Amendment protects our right to free speech (Congress shall make no law). It's not a negotiable document. As stated above, we have a violence problem and a mental health problem in this country. Making law abiding citizens into criminals won't solve that. Punishing the millions of law abiding gun owners because of the acts of a few psychopaths won't solve that either. Whether you agree with it or not, the Second Amendment was designed to defend the First Amendment. We are absolutely intended to be as well armed as the military because the founders wanted the government to fear the people and not the other way around. We've already given up enough (NFA, etc). Now is not the time to give up because of one horrific incident. It's a very slippery slope.

I agree with everything but this, if you or I stored classified information on a server in the basement, we would be in jail.

Close - I'd substitute the word restored for retained. If they're too dangerous to own guns then they're too dangerous to be on the street. Conversely, if they've paid their debt to society/been rehabilitated then their rights should be restored. edit: Hacker said pretty much the same thing. So I'll also add that there should be enhanced sentencing guidelines for crimes committed with firearms if "we have to do something!" That serves the purpose of keeping those convicted off the streets. It shouldn't be a crime to merely possess a gun with a barrel shorter than an arbitrary 16" *rifle* or 18" *shotgun*.

There's a big movement to restore felons' constitutional rights, at least as far as it relates to voting. And both voting and firearms are guaranteed by an amendment, but the voting one is a lot more strictly limited. The Second just says that the right "shall not be infringed."

There's a large body of clear philosophy and federal caselaw that covers this, if you care to study it. The discussion on the RKBA in the Federalist Papers (and SCOTUS case law in Miller, Heller, and McDonald) does limit the scope of its protection to essentially arms that can be borne and used by a single individual (vs a team or crew). US v Miller states that the 2A only protects arms that have reasonable relation to use in a militia. DC v Heller stipulates that "longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms" are within the scope of government power. That being said, can you show me that part in the Constitution where it says the conditions under which the government is allowed to deny people their natural, enumerated, and civil rights? Maybe you can show me that part in any of the Federalist Papers where the founders discuss that? Or any of the philosophical works that the Founders were influenced by? So, I don't personally see the philosophical or legal backstop to the restrictions that are given a pass in Heller.

But my, we’ve certainly strayed far from that initial construct and philosophical intent, haven’t we.

Regarding the discussion about "answers", remember to play chess and not checkers. The RKBA is a philosophical argument, not a policy argument. Gun control folks want to argue policy, and want to do it with absolutely no proof of efficacy of any of it. So, first, make sure you understand the philosophical foundation of why the right to keep and bear arms exists, and why it is protected in the Bill of Rights. Understand that it is rooted in the right to life, and the logical derivation of the right to self defense to protect life and property under assault. Understand further what the philosophical purpose of government is. Philosophy determines the purpose of government, and in a free liberal democracy the purpose of government is to protect individual rights to life, liberty and property. Remember that people have rights and governments have powers that are granted to them by the people. It isn't the government's purpose to take care of people like a parent. Remember that living in a free society means that individuals are free to think, do, say, and possess whatever they please so long as it does not infringe on the natural, constitutional, or derived civil rights of other humans. Again, it isn't the purpose of government to tell us what we can and cannot do outside their basic charter.

Good discussion gents. Too much for me to unpack on a normal work day, so here's just a few responses over lunch. Gearpig I wouldn't bother fighting a law to restrict or ban bump fire stocks. However, would such a law have prevented this event? As mentioned below, bump fire is not a difficult effect to replicate even without a specialized stock. The shooter doesn't have to "whittle one out of a table leg" and even if he did, apparently he was fastidious enough in planning that he might have done so. So ok, we ban bump fire stocks. Since this was the first high profile shooting to utilize one, do you expect said law to diminish the chances of another mass shooting? I just don't see banning stuff as a way to prevent a determined mass killer. But I don't care enough about bump-fire to object their banning. Let's just all acknowledge that we're doing it just to do it. But I do award you 1 fake internet point as promised, for your well thought out reply! Concur. And a psycho who wants to make their own facsimile of a bump fire stock could do so without much effort. A big problem gun owners face in these discussions is how many folks have opinions without knowledge. Interesting reply, thanks. I have more spears to throw than time to throw them, but a couple things stand out: First, I reject your 4 categories. Not only are there more than 4 types of people who own guns, but many folks fit more than one profile yet want one gun that works for multiple scenarios. Here's another category you entirely forgot- good guys who require weapons proficiency for their job and buy a gun to practice on their own. There's a lot of mil & LE folks who fit that description. I've shot many times with small town SWAT who don't have an official budget for the quantity of ammo required to actually be good. Lot's of LE are optioned to purchase their own weapons, and funny enough many of them were directly affected by the AWB we previously discussed. Wrap your mind around the reality that many firearm restrictions affect police. And a lot of military folks buy ARs because shooting for qual every other year just isn't enough to make them comfortable walking around with one on a FOB. No gun laws that I know of make accommodations for these people; it's not a trivial point. Second, your idea that "a reliable semi-auto shotgun is far more effective and practically lethal in a home invasion scenario" I have to ask, no disrespect intended, what exactly is your background? Are you making this argument because it seems logical, or are you an actual firearms expert? Because that is the opposite advice I would give, and the opposite I've received from any class (I've attended several) or any expert. Do you think my wife is comfortable using an 18" barrel shotgun inside a home? What about old people, think they'll stay on target after more than 1 shot? Think they'll hit the target with the first shot? Think it's easy to maneuver in a house with a giant ass shotgun? I frankly think a short barreled pistol caliber carbine is the best tool for most users in that scenario, but prior to this new brace fad a short barreled anything was NFA. Third, it's noteworthy you admit there is no law to prevent a diabolical, committed and well funded dude from perpetrating a mass casualty attack.... right after you call for restricting magazine capacity to 10. So, to be clear, mag restrictions wouldn't stop this but we should do it anyway? Did those restrictions (in place at the time) prevent the Columbine massacre? Are those restrictions (in place currently) preventing regular mass shootings in Chicago? So if that proposed law hasn't worked in the past, isn't working currently, and wouldn't stop a similar psycho in the future..... why should we do it? Where did you get the number 10? Where's your proof it'll make a difference? I care because mil/LE all do not accept those magazine restrictions. No one I know who has been in a gunfight ever wanted smaller mags. Your arbitrary numerical restriction without any evidence of achieving desired effects is exactly the kind of knee-jerk nonsense that erodes freedom without increasing security. Finally, as for your comment about Robert O'Niell not using FA..... think through that one a bit. Those guys definitely use FA if the situation warrants: break contact, cover, etc. Sneaking into someones house, with all your heavily armed friends, with a massive support package overhead, and targeting a small number of enemy.... yea, I get it, he didn't use FA. I'm not sure his niche experience is directly relevant to this discussion except for one part: he used "high" capacity mags on every mission. I agree we need better answers (I don't have them), and I agree that seemingly quick-fix bans by the gun control crowd are enticing to the uninformed. Einstein said "if you can't explain it to a 6 year old you don't understand it yourself." So I applaud your questioning mind and your self-awareness. However, other than bump-fire, which of your suggested law changes would have prevented this massacre? Fixed magazines? The guys had 40 guns in his room, and was rotating them for cooling. Pre-purchase cooling off periods? Reports are that he began purchasing weapons months in advance. As I said earlier, looking for the right thing to ban is not, in my opinion, the right approach to prevent a future recurrence of something so anomalous. What would? Well I can't say until the investigation ascertains his motive. But I'm comfortable saying we should seek legislative mechanisms to address mental health problems.

What is this gunshow loophole? Private face to face transactions were not included under Brady. Characterize it as a loophole if you like, but in reality it's perfectly legal under the law as written. The real issue that laws are written by politicians who have no clue about "the shoulder thingy that goes up." How is someone with that level of expertise going to write a law banning bumpfire stocks that doesn't also outlaw belt loops? (No, i'm not being sarcastic).

Absolute confiscation is the only answer. Hell, it works for the war on drugs.

I’ve read all your posts and I think I understand your viewpoint excepting the above and similar statements. What are you talking about? The AWB of 94-04 (I think those were the years) never made ARs illegal. In fact, this entire Vegas massacre could have been prosecuted with the same ARs available for purchase during the AWB era, as the ban was cosmetic, not functional. The sole piece of hardware banned during that period but used in this attack was “high capacity” magazines; under the AWB era mags were limited to 10. However, mags produced before the ban date were grandfathered in and readily available for purchase. And that’s really key to your debate: the previous ban would not have stopped this attack, just like it didn’t stop Columbine. Crazy people kill. Nothing you’ve suggested would stop this incident, other than magazine capacity restrictions. However then we’re left facing the fact that law breakers don’t follow laws.... so, your inability to justify high capacity magazines wouldn’t stop this guy from using them. Given the level of lucidity he showed during attack prep & execution, in addition to financial resources, this guy seems like he could make his own magazines. Yes that’s a real thing. I’m solidly on the side of maintaining gun rights as they exist; I’d even repeal the NFA. But for arguments sake let’s say you banned all semi-autos. Do you think we’d not have shootings still? The US is not Australia (to cite a commonly held comparison): were already flooded with weapons, have easy borders to cross, have a culture of gun ownership, etc. Mexican cartels move cocaine shipments protected by full auto weapons, do you think they aren’t business savvy enough to start moving weapons instead? Where I’m going is this: there is no putting the gun genie back in the bottle here. It’s impossible. There is no law which can prevent this kind of tragedy from happening when an intelligent and rich and insane person sets his mind to doing it. if the gun control lobby wants to find a middle ground and work together, I’m happy to discuss potential legislation on mental health issues. That they are laser focused on restricting the 2A, despite years of data disproving a correlation between legal gun ownership and gun crime, tells me they’re uninterested in “solving” the mass shooting issue, and instead shamelessly using these tragedies to advance their partisan agenda. I get your point- we gun owners should brace ourselves for inevitable forthcoming bans and be prepared to question the necessity of every weapon and weapon add on. I get it, but I reject your entire premise. What law would have stopped this crime? The same laws that stopped Nice & Paris attacks in France? The laws that stopped the Utoya massacre in Norway? The laws that keep Mexico so safe? I reject the notion of gun-violence, it’s just violence. What fixes violence? Culture. I took the time to type this out because I think your original questions were well intended, and demanded a reasoned reply. Hope you found something in here we can agree upon.

Well, first off, The Constituition never mentioned anything about race when counting slaves. Second off, since slavery was banned in 1865 by The Constitution (yep, same one I'm referring to), not a single person has been counted as "3/5 of a person". So yes, I still do support The Constitution and its banning of slavery.

It's against the law to shoot somebody unless in self-defense, right? It's against the law to murder somebody, right? Let's pass more laws. Riiiiiight....

Yes. Next question.

Funny how so many people on here took an oath to support and defend The Constitiution are also the ones who are not supporting and defending The Constitution... Oh and Ratner and the others who are saying they are "Pro-2A" are clearly not. That's like saying you're against slavery...but that some amounts of slavery are ok...

Eagle Driver Commemorative Watch

And back in the founding father’s days, you could buy or make weapons on par with, or superior to, the military and government weapons of the day. I want a hellfire missile.

Because the law can be changed. Hell, let's not forget that you couldn't buy the AR15 we see everywhere today back in the 90s. If your plan for the debate is to hold a document up that can be changed by the majority and tell them they can't change it, you may not get the results you expect. I'm very pro-second Amendment, but the one thing I hate about the people on my side is that they refuse to engage in the debate. They say stupid things like, knives kill people too, or guns don't kill people people kill people. These are stupid arguments by stupid people. Of course knives kill people, but they don't kill as many people as someone with a fully automatic gun in the top of the Mandalay Bay can kill. You don't need a 30 round magazine for hunting. Most reasonable people would say that you don't need an entire Arsenal to fend off a home invasion by a group of well-trained Highly coordinated and numerous villains. We have to do better if we want to keep these toys. And we're not going to convince anyone that the framers of the Constitution foresaw the type of weaponry available to people today. In their day, if someone went on a rampage with a musket, they'd kill maybe two people before they got punched in the face.

They are not synonymous in the social sciences, and they have very specific meanings in the context of this discussion. Equality refers to the quality of being equal in objective status in society -- that people are all the same under the law. Equity refers to the equal quality of balance and fairness in society in terms of means and ways -- it is most applicable to discussion of relative economic means and perceived/actual social power. One refers to opportunity and access, the other refers to outcomes. One is the core of individualism. The other is the core of collectivism. But, thanks.

So anyone should have access to the full range of military weapons? This is where the pro-2A argument goes off the rails. Musket v musket, it made sense. With today's military weapons, not so much. Like I said before, there's a reasonable limit beyond which your average joe doesn't need to be armed. So if that's the case, where do you draw the line? Does a semi-automatic AR with a 100 round drum magazine and a bump stock make sense? Should a full-auto rifle be allowed? Should we let Hoss have his Hellfire missile? The other side see's our arguments FOR bearing arms as a slippery slope in that direction.

You'll lose. Automatics are illegal. Grenades. We need to do better than arguing the old men who wrote the 2nd amendment surely would have been cool with what happened in Vegas.

You're talking theory. We agree on the theory. I'm talking reality. And the reality is that gun owners, including the people in this thread, do a shitty job of persuading people of these theories. If enough people disagree with you, you lose your guns. That's it. Sure, a bunch of us will puff up and say something silly like "pry them from my cold dead hands." But most of us will hand them over when forced to choose between being a martyr and one day walking your daughter down the isle. We have three options. 1) Continue refusing to educate and debate, and rule out all changes to the law/new restrictions. Law changes, guns are confiscated. Freedom suffers. 2) Continue refusing to educate and debate, and rule out all changes to the law/new restrictions. Law changes. 2a) Some gun owners refuse and are killed/imprisoned in their righteous stand 2b) Most gun owners refuse and we get a catalyst to a civil war. 3) Gun owners accept that the 2nd amendment never envisioned what is possible with firearms today. They further accept that even if the framers would have loved machine guns, amendments can be amended. They start working to put a real argument together as to why 59 people should be executed at a concert so they can have removable magazines, silencers, hollow points, etc. This is not an impossible task, but it will take more than "freedom isn't free" or "Do you support the Constitution or not." You know what's great about a civil war? All the early adopters die. I'd rather avoid that. I think republicans/conservatives need to unilaterally pass legislation (important to not include any anti-gun people, to avoid legislative creep) that makes it harder for someone to go crazy and kill people. Lots of fucking people. I think limitations on how quickly one can obtain weapons is a fair trade. Cooling off periods, limitations to how many guns you can buy at once. Expanded background checks. I don't know if those are the right answers, but I know "do nothing" isn't. You can disagree, and I'm sure many do, but I know I wouldn't be able to look a widow, or daughter, or father in the eye and say "sucks dude, but this is the cost of freedom." This wasn't a battle. No one took a stand, no one made a choice. There will be no justice; the killer is already gone, just how he wanted it. I'm not trying to change your minds. I'm really not. I'm still trying to internalize this disaster and work my way through what I believe it means for the future of gun rights. What I want is for you to think about where your head would be if your wife just had her head canoed while enjoying some music. If we don't argue it from that position, we lose. https://www.slate.com/blogs/browbeat/2017/10/03/country_musician_changes_mind_on_gun_control_after_las_vegas_shooting.html That's the only chance we have at keeping our guns. /Devil'sAdvocate

Funny how people like you believe that black people should only be counted as 3/5s of a person for the purposes of representation and taxation. Jesus do you not see how f&*king ironic your post is. You equate my position to a partial endorsement of slavery, by waiving around a document that originally endorsed slavery! The second amendment is proof that the Constitution was not perfect. The other 26 amendments are additional proof. I'm honestly baffled that you could think that way. It makes me think our gun rights are in bigger peril than I suggested. If the "pro-gun" folks think and debate the issue as you just did, we have no hope of winning this battle after the next few mass murders tilt the balance of public opinion.

If the only outcome is that bump fire stocks are outlawed, the NRA will be lucky. And they should have been illegal already. I'm a big fan of the 2nd. Bigly in favor of it. But you can't answer this massacre with "that's the price of freedom." Gun owners need to be ready to justify all the toys we have access to. At the moment I'm having a difficult time thinking of a justification for removable magazines.