After Las Vegas massacre, Democrats urge gun laws; Republicans silent
853 replies, posted
[QUOTE=Lambeth;52744351]Most people with mental disorders do not attack other people. The issue is guns and the access that those with mental disorders have to them.
Which is pretty irrelevant to this particular mass shooting but in [url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2012_Aurora_shooting]Aurora, Colorado[/url] maybe it would have made a difference[/QUOTE]
Exactly.
[editline]4th October 2017[/editline]
[QUOTE=UncleJimmema;52744352]So basically people who sell private property who aren't checking to make sure people are legally eligable, which is illegal, and law enforcement not doing enough. Sounds like the later half is the problem mate.[/QUOTE]
I'd say lack of unified legal framework which is a HELL of a lot stricter than you have now is the actual problem. Law enforcement can only do as much as your states let them.
Of course, any time anyone tries to start tightening up gun law at a federal level (which is where it needs to happen), the gun rights crowd go nuts and froth at the mouth about "Gubmint comin' for mah guns".
Which is pretty unhealthy in and of itself.
[QUOTE=Craigewan;52744355]Exactly.
[editline]4th October 2017[/editline]
I'd say lack of unified legal framework which is a HELL of a lot stricter than you have now is the actual problem. Law enforcement can only do as much as your states let them.
Of course, any time anyone tries to start tightening up gun law at a federal level (which is where it needs to happen), the gun rights crowd go nuts and froth at the mouth about "Gubmint comin' for mah guns".
Which is pretty unhealthy in and of itself.[/QUOTE]
There's a reason for that. It's called states rights. Because what works for California doesn't work for Minnesota.
[QUOTE=Craigewan;52744280]Except that is not as easy as you make out, that's the whole point. By making it illegal you make it hard for a murderer or a school shooter to get their hands on them.
You want to know what happened after the UK introduced stricter gun control after Dunblane? Mass shootings all but stopped. They're not illegal, just heavily licensed and regulated.
Crazy, right?
In 2014, in the US, there was around 4.5 homicides per 100 000 people. 3.6 of those were firearm homicides (And boy finding the data for that was fun... Wikipedia has some very helpful articles but the total homicide data was from 2015, had to go to the FBI website for 2014s). In the equivalent timespan the UK had 0.92 homicides per 100 000 people. I can't find the data on how many of those were committed with a firearm because it is so insignificant as to have not been mentioned on any public source, and I'm not going to submit an FOI request just to beat the (self-evident) point in any further. (It was 0.06 in 2011, though)[/QUOTE]
The UK has had 3 major mass shootings. Hungerford, Dunblane, and Cumbria. Hungerford was the first in 1987, where someone took a semi-auto AK rifle they owned and killed 17 people. Afterwards, the UK banned all semi-auto centrefire rifles. Then there was Dunblane in 1996, where a man took 2 semi-automatic pistols he legally owned and killed 18 children in a school. Afterwards, the UK banned all handguns. Then in 2010, there was Cumbria. A man took a double-barrelled shotgun and a .22 rifle, some of the only guns left in England following the bans on all the guns "traditionally" used in mass shootings, and killed 12 other people. The response? David Cameron responded to calls for basically all guns to be banned by saying "You can't legislate a switch flicking in someone's head." And that's exactly what happened there, and exactly what happened here. Banning guns did not stop mass shootings in England, they happened infrequently as it is already, and one was recently averted thanks to some form of investigative work. However based on the timelines between these 3 shootings, it's coming up on a time where a 4th wouldn't be unexpected with the patters of when these occurred.
[QUOTE=DaCommie1;52744388]The UK has had 3 major mass shootings. Hungerford, Dunblane, and Cumbria. Hungerford was the first in 1987, where someone took a semi-auto AK rifle they owned and killed 17 people. Afterwards, the UK banned all semi-auto centrefire rifles. Then there was Dunblane in 1996, where a man took 2 semi-automatic pistols he legally owned and killed 18 children in a school. Afterwards, the UK banned all handguns. Then in 2010, there was Cumbria. A man took a double-barrelled shotgun and a .22 rifle, some of the only guns left in England following the bans on all the guns "traditionally" used in mass shootings, and killed 12 other people. The response? David Cameron responded to calls for basically all guns to be banned by saying "You can't legislate a switch flicking in someone's head." And that's exactly what happened there, and exactly what happened here. Banning guns did not stop mass shootings in England, they happened infrequently as it is already, and one was recently averted thanks to some form of investigative work. However based on the timelines between these 3 shootings, it's coming up on a time where a 4th wouldn't be unexpected with the patters of when these occurred.[/QUOTE]
You're right, I had forgotten the Cumbria shooting, and we both omitted Monkseaton in 1989, although that had only one fatality.
[QUOTE=Craigewan;52744355]Exactly.
[editline]4th October 2017[/editline]
I'd say lack of unified legal framework which is a HELL of a lot stricter than you have now is the actual problem. Law enforcement can only do as much as your states let them.
Of course, any time anyone tries to start tightening up gun law at a federal level (which is where it needs to happen), the gun rights crowd go nuts and froth at the mouth about "Gubmint comin' for mah guns".
Which is pretty unhealthy in and of itself.[/QUOTE]
I'd much rather protect my right to bear arms as much as possible, and I've yet to see any solid suggestions that won't ruin that.
[QUOTE=Craigewan;52744350]Why not do both? A stricter licensing system benefits everyone. People who require guns for legitimate purposes here in the UK still get access to them (Hunting and Sport Shooting) whilst undergoing a rigorous system of background and health checks (their doctor is involved in the licensing process, clearing them to the Police).
Law abiding citizens with need and reason get access to guns here.[/QUOTE]
Does not seem unreasonable. I would be perfectly fine with a licensing program similar to that.
[QUOTE=Nookyava;52744401]I'd much rather protect my right to bear arms as much as possible, and I've yet to see any solid suggestions that won't ruin that.[/QUOTE]
If I said you might have to give a little in order to prevent anything like Las Vegas from ever happening again, would you go along with it?
[QUOTE=MR-X;52744421]Does not seem unreasonable. I would be perfectly fine with a licensing program similar to that.[/QUOTE]
I wouldn't object to a more effective licensing system than we have now (it's a joke in my state, it's basically a redundant background check and a 30-day wait on your first purchase), maybe something requiring a bare minimum of training on safe handling and laws, like Canada's PAL. I also wouldn't object to UBC requirements, provided the NICS were made available to the public for use in private transfers.
I have zero interest in technical restrictions like semi-auto/full-auto bans, magazine capacity restrictions, asinine shit like assault weapon bans and 922r, or laws telling me I cannot legally make preparations to use a firearm in self-defense like what the UK and Canada has.
[QUOTE=ilikecorn;52744473]Kind of asinine considering that we have 0 guarantee that regulations would do anything at all. Also, given how much farmland there is in the US we could pretty easily source ammonium nitrate instead of firearms, would you be OK with less shooting deaths, but more homemade bombs going off?
You OK with another vegas, only instead of a guy randomly shooting, its a dude driving a VBIED into a crowd and detonating it? Instead of ~50 deaths, we can have ~400 deaths. I mean, at least he didn't use a gun, am I right?
These regulations that are being proposed are laughable at best, and would constitute a "band aid" solution in the absolute best situations, assuming you had 100% compliance with the regulations. (which would never happen, considering its the US's past time to say "fuck the system")[/QUOTE]
Do you have any proposals that aren't bandaid solutions that will do anything then?
Also since when has an IED killed 400 people ever
[QUOTE=MR-X;52743944]I get why they did it, it isn't the right time to bring it up at the moment. We don't need suppressors to defend ourselves or to hunt. I'm sure it will be brought back up at a later time. They're honestly damned if they do or don't and anyone who wants to give them shit for pulling it in the wake of this massacre needs to rethink priorities.[/QUOTE]
It's because Hillary Clinton fucking brought it up and made the soccer moms piss their pants.
"OMG, imagine how many more would be dead if he used a suppressor. Nobody would know where it was coming from."
It's not that now wasn't the right time, it was already on the docket. Has been for over a month.
[editline]3rd October 2017[/editline]
[QUOTE=SIRIUS;52744134]Nevermind 57 or whatever the number is now[/QUOTE]
Dude was a pilot with his own plane, he could've just crashed it into the crowd.
[QUOTE=Zero-Point;52744138]Don't infantrymen have grenades? Where can I pick up some of those?
Infantrymen have access to fully-automatic weapons, if not those then weapons with three-shot bursts, and last I checked you can't buy one of those without a shit-ton of red tape, if at all.[/QUOTE]
You can buy all of the above through NFA. There are over 2 million destructive devices (included, but not limited to explosives) on the registry.
[URL]http://metrocosm.com/map-of-federally-regulated-weapons/[/URL]
[QUOTE=Lambeth;52744448]If I said you might have to give a little in order to prevent anything like Las Vegas from ever happening again, would you go along with it?[/QUOTE]
That's not a fair question at all considering it will never happen, and you can't pit that hypothetical like so.
The entire point of having the right to bear arms is to not only protect yourselves and your loved ones, but to make sure that the citizens are properly armed to defend themselves if the Government ever turned on the people.
Plus like many have stated making it harder for legitimate people to get will not lower the rate at which crimes are occurring.
[QUOTE=ilikecorn;52744522]
Also detonate an IED near that many people, especially a VBIED, and tell me casualties wouldn't be in the hundreds.[/QUOTE]
Unless we're talking multiple IEDs(which would make pulling said attack off less likely to be successful) I doubt it would get close to 400. The largest amount of deaths from a single IED terrorist attack seems to be closer to 160, just from perusing wikipedia. Still a lotta deaths but skipping over to 400 is a bit of a jump.
[QUOTE=Nookyava;52744553]That's not a fair question at all considering it will never happen, and you can't pit that hypothetical like so.
The entire point of having the right to bear arms is to not only protect yourselves and your loved ones, but to make sure that the citizens are properly armed to defend themselves if the Government ever turned on the people.
Plus like many have stated making it harder for legitimate people to get will not lower the rate at which crimes are occurring.[/QUOTE]
Gonna take that as a no.
edit:
I feel like we give up some basic freedoms just by living in society. Like nobody has absolute freedom of speech. Go walk into a movie theatre and shout "fire!", see what happens.
[QUOTE=Craigewan;52744350]Why not do both? A stricter licensing system benefits everyone. People who require guns for legitimate purposes here in the UK still get access to them (Hunting and Sport Shooting) whilst undergoing a rigorous system of background and health checks (their doctor is involved in the licensing process, clearing them to the Police).
Law abiding citizens with need and reason get access to guns here.[/QUOTE]
Because, in the history of humanity, governments have proven to be transient at best.
We are currently at a point where corporate interests outweigh the say of the people. How could you possibly, even remotely, believe that we are somehow safe from tyranny?
The whole "if you ban guns then knives will be the weapon of choice" argument is all bullshit. If you ban guns, then homicides go down. The problem with that argument is that it fundamentally misses the point. The homicide rate is, and always has been, irrelevant (and also weirdly disconnected from the rates of gun ownership). Americans reserved the right to own firearms for the explicit purpose of fighting the government.
Whether you agree with the feasibility of a modern resistance movement or not is irrelevant. The US government currently does not have the legal right or authority to remove firearms from the hands of Americans. This was by design. They are the entity intended to remain in check by the ownership of firearms.
Mind you, the US constitution was written in such a fashion that any powers not granted to the government were considered automatically reserved for the people. Some rights, however, were thought to be of such paramount importance, that we needed to specifically restrict the government from ever encroaching on them. It was such a fundamental principle, that it was considered second only to freedom of speech and religion.
[QUOTE=Lambeth;52744558]Unless we're talking multiple IEDs(which would make pulling said attack off less likely to be successful) I doubt it would get close to 400. The largest amount of deaths from a single IED terrorist attack seems to be closer to 160, just from perusing wikipedia. Still a lotta deaths but skipping over to 400 is a bit of a jump.
Gonna take that as a no.
edit:
I feel like we give up some basic freedoms just by living in society. Like nobody has absolute freedom of speech. Go walk into a movie theatre and shout "fire!", see what happens.[/QUOTE]
That's... dumb. I'm sorry but no shit you're going to get in trouble for shouting fire in a movie theater. You're causing a mass disturbance which could potentially lead to injuries.
Also just saying "gonna take that as a no" is not a proper response, so no idea why you'd even bring it up if you're not gonna keep going on it.
[QUOTE=Lambeth;52744558]Unless we're talking multiple IEDs(which would make pulling said attack off less likely to be successful) I doubt it would get close to 400. The largest amount of deaths from a single IED terrorist attack seems to be closer to 160, just from perusing wikipedia. Still a lotta deaths but skipping over to 400 is a bit of a jump.[/QUOTE]
I'd say it's feasible with a little practice and preparation. AQI was routinely daisy-chaining IEDs in an attempt to destroy entire convoys, back when US forces still had a significant footprint in the country. Hell, I wouldn't be surprised to hear IS is still doing it against IGF convoys.
[QUOTE=GunFox;52744586]Because, in the history of humanity, governments have proven to be transient at best.
We are currently at a point where corporate interests outweigh the say of the people. How could you possibly, even remotely, believe that we are somehow safe from tyranny?
The whole "if you ban guns then knives will be the weapon of choice" argument is all bullshit. If you ban guns, then homicides go down. The problem with that argument is that it fundamentally misses the point. The homicide rate is, and always has been, irrelevant (and also weirdly disconnected from the rates of gun ownership). Americans reserved the right to own firearms for the explicit purpose of fighting the government.
Whether you agree with the feasibility of a modern resistance movement or not is irrelevant. The US government currently does not have the legal right or authority to remove firearms from the hands of Americans. This was by design. They are the entity intended to remain in check by the ownership of firearms.
Mind you, the US constitution was written in such a fashion that any powers not granted to the government were considered automatically reserved for the people. Some rights, however, were thought to be of such paramount importance, that we needed to specifically restrict the government from ever encroaching on them. It was such a fundamental principle, that it was considered second only to freedom of speech and religion.[/QUOTE]
Thank you for posting this, it's a very insightful opinion.
Personally I've been very left-leaning, but I've also never once believed in banning any kind of gun in the 21st century, even now. I also don't know the first thing about them.
My question from here is, if governments can misuse their firepower, what's in place to prevent citizens from doing the same?
It would be really awesome if everyone kept their guns to themselves and the 2nd amendment did its work. But that's just not how humans work.
If anything, I would just like it if no kind of confrontation between humans in any position ended in guns being drawn. There is nothing more frightening to me than seeing people pulling guns in bars/road rage/personal arguments/crime scenes. Like, the whole concept of any one person being a hand movement away from deciding the life or death of another human is just unreal to me.
If guns are a right to protect us from an oppressive government, why do we need one by our waist, one in the glovebox, two in the trunk, and four in the cabinet back home? This is an honest question, which has nothing to do with the incident in Vegas.
Guns are ingrained in America. How do we improve on it to benefit the people doing the right things while punishing the people who do the wrong things, all in a meaningful, unified way?
[QUOTE=GunFox;52744586]Because, in the history of humanity, governments have proven to be transient at best.
We are currently at a point where corporate interests outweigh the say of the people. How could you possibly, even remotely, believe that we are somehow safe from tyranny?
The whole "if you ban guns then knives will be the weapon of choice" argument is all bullshit. If you ban guns, then homicides go down. The problem with that argument is that it fundamentally misses the point. The homicide rate is, and always has been, irrelevant (and also weirdly disconnected from the rates of gun ownership). Americans reserved the right to own firearms for the explicit purpose of fighting the government.
Whether you agree with the feasibility of a modern resistance movement or not is irrelevant. The US government currently does not have the legal right or authority to remove firearms from the hands of Americans. This was by design. They are the entity intended to remain in check by the ownership of firearms.
Mind you, the US constitution was written in such a fashion that any powers not granted to the government were considered automatically reserved for the people. Some rights, however, were thought to be of such paramount importance, that we needed to specifically restrict the government from ever encroaching on them. It was such a fundamental principle, that it was considered second only to freedom of speech and religion.[/QUOTE]
The constitutional argument for gun ownership at any cost fully fails to take into account two important facts.
First: if the intention was to allow the public to outgun the military in the event that open rebellion somehow became necessary, it has already [B]fully[/B] failed to allow that. No matter how many assault rifles are in the hands of everyday people, military technology so massively outpaces that which is available to the public that any hope of armed insurrection is doomed. Thus, the amendment has failed and is now fully irrelevant in that regard.
Second: the drafters of the constitution literally could not even fathom a reality in which a single person could climb to the 32nd floor of a skyscraper and shoot over 500 people in nine minutes. While I may respect the spirit behind the amendment, it is clearly one that is fully removed from the reality we live in today, and that's to be expected. The constitution is old. There are bound to be cracks.
Thankfully, the drafters also gave us the means by which to [I]amend[/I] the constitution in the event that aspects of it needed to change to suit a changing world. The 2nd amendment desperately needs to be amended to reflect the fact that guns are no longer single shot muzzle loaders capable of firing, in highly trained hands, a maximum of three rounds per minute.
[QUOTE=Big Dumb American;52744691]The constitutional argument for gun ownership at any cost fully fails to take into account that the drafters of the constitution literally could not even fathom a reality in which a single person could climb to the 32nd floor of a skyscraper and shoot over 500 people in nine minutes. While I may respect the spirit behind the amendment, it is clearly one that is fully removed from the reality we live in today, and that's to be expected. The constitution is old. There are bound to be cracks.
Thankfully, the drafters also gave us the means by which to [I]amend[/I] the constitution in the event that aspects of it needed to change to suit a changing world. The 2nd amendment desperately needs to be amended to reflect the fact that guns are no longer single shot muzzle loaders capable of firing, in highly trained hands, a maximum of three rounds per minute.[/QUOTE]
The exact same argument could be made for the founders having no clue about free speech and radio, TV, and the internet.
The fundamental concept applies today just as much as it did in the 1700s, for both the right to bear arms and the right to free speech.
[QUOTE=Rossy167;52741991]Here's a magical idea: stop letting people buy lethal murder weapons designed to be the most efficient lethal murder weapons for like literally no reason other than just for fun.[/QUOTE]
What an extremely useful idea! I'm glad someone finally came up with the most feasible and effective solution!
[QUOTE=sgman91;52744697]The exact same argument could be made for the founders having no clue about free speech and radio, TV, and the internet.
The fundamental concept applies today just as much as it did in the 1700s, for both the right to bear arms and the right to free speech.[/QUOTE]
That argument [I]could[/I] be made, but it would be founded on false equivalencies and irrationality.
The advancement of communications technology has created a world in which the freedom of speech is as strong as it's ever been. One voice can reach millions of people in an instant, and that's pretty amazing. The advancements to communications technology have not changed the fundamental consequences of free speech, but [I]reinforced[/I] them. The founders would, in all likelihood, be amazed and delighted with the power that the internet has brought in bringing truth and accountability to bear against corruption and exploitation.
Weapons technology? The exact opposite. Every passing year, every advancement in lethality, accuracy, ease of use, etc directly cracks the foundation of the 2nd amendment. It creates an ever more dangerous world in which one lone nutjob can look out his window and destroy the lives of hundreds, even thousands of people. For them to see the leap from somebody struggling to learn how to load and fire a single bullet in less than a minute, to seeing somebody pick up an assault rifle that he's never seen before and easily fire out several hundred rounds in that same period, would, in all likelihood, [I]absolutely horrify them.[/I]
[QUOTE=Big Dumb American;52744707]The advancement of communications technology has created a world in which the freedom of speech is as strong as it's ever been. One voice can reach millions of people in an instant, and that's pretty amazing. The advancements to communications technology have not changed the fundamental consequences of free speech, but [I]reinforced[/I] them.[/QUOTE]
Of course those technologies have changed the nature of free speech. It is now possible for a rogue agent, anywhere in the world, to spread totally false information to millions under the guise of legitimacy. You no longer need the support of a printer, who everyone in the city knew about, to spread your rhetoric.
It's a totally different beast.
Your differentiation seems more based on your own biases than any real difference. In both situations, the possible dangers are far greater than they were when the laws were written.
[QUOTE=HAKKAR!!!;52741882]I'm all for stricter gun laws, but in this case. The guy was a model citizen was he not? he wasn't known to police and nobody suspected him, I don't think gun laws would have stopped him in this case, seems like maybe a major reform to the mental health network in America is probably needed (maybe in addition to gun laws)[/QUOTE]
Yeah just pull out the mental health radar for those who clearly DON'T want to speak up
[QUOTE=sgman91;52744712]Of course those technologies have changed the nature of free speech. It is now possible for a rogue agent, anywhere in the world, to spread totally false information to millions under the guise of legitimacy. You no longer need the support of a printer, who everyone in the city knew about, to spread your rhetoric.
It's a totally different beast.
Your differentiation seems more based on your own biases than any real difference. In both situations, the possible dangers are far greater than they were when the laws were written.[/QUOTE]
The methods have changed, but not the nature. It was just as easy for rogue agents to spread misinformation then, just on a much smaller scale. Regardless, truth and untruth have [I]always[/I] been the nature of freedom of speech. Information and misinformation, news and propaganda, these were not alien concepts to the founders when the drafted the first amendment. So, I fully disagree that the nature of free speech has changed.
Can you say the same in regards to the second amendment? Can you say that the founders saw a future in which one lone wolf senior citizen attacker could kill or injure five hundred people in less than ten minutes with the guns he was allowed to have because of that amendment? Do you reckon that it would have given them pause to consider the consequences of allowing such weapons to be freely sold and traded to civilians if they knew how easy it was for [I]one person[/I] to acquire weapons and kill [I]dozens[/I], even hundreds, in mere moments? The nature of gun ownership has [B]definitely[/B] changed, and the consequences of it have grown incomprehensibly severe compared to the worst case scenarios of 1787.
The argument that there is too many guns out there for gun control to be effective is kind of funny since it concedes that gun control is effective but that the problem is just insurmountable. Well duh if you paralyze yourself from doing anything before doing anything nothing will be done.
[QUOTE=Big Dumb American;52744720]The methods have changed, but not the nature. It was just as easy for rogue agents to spread misinformation then, just on a much smaller scale. Regardless, truth and untruth have [I]always[/I] been the nature of freedom of speech. Information and misinformation, news and propaganda, these were not alien concepts to the founders when the drafted the first amendment. So, I fully disagree that the nature of free speech has changed.
Can you say the same in regards to the second amendment? Can you say that the founders saw a future in which one lone wolf senior citizen attacker could kill or injure five hundred people in less than ten minutes with the guns he was allowed to have because of that amendment? Do you reckon that it would have given them pause to consider the consequences of allowing such weapons to be freely sold and traded to civilians? The nature of gun ownership has [B]definitely[/B] changed, and the consequences of it have grown incomprehensibly severe compared to the worst case scenarios of 1787.[/QUOTE]
To just re quote you with some words changed: "The methods have changed, but not the nature. It was just as easy for rogue agents to kill people with guns, just on a much smaller scale. Regardless, safety and danger has always been the nature of the right to bear arms. Self defense and murder, life and death, these were not alien concepts to the founders when they drafted they second amendment. So, I fully disagree that the nature of the right to bear arms has changed."
The difference you're applying isn't based in any inherent difference between the two. One just seems more drastic to you because you like one and don't like the other. You, personally, are OK with the increased risk from free speech in the modern era, but you are not OK with the increased risk from modern firearms. That's a personal weighing of cost and benefit. It isn't some inherent logical difference. The interesting question is whether cost/benefit is even relevant when it comes to talking about basic rights. Isn't the whole point of basic rights that they need to be given, no matter the cost?
[QUOTE=Lonestriper;52744724]The argument that there is too many guns out there for gun control to be effective is kind of funny since it concedes that gun control is effective but that the problem is just insurmountable. Well duh if you paralyze yourself from doing anything before doing anything nothing will be done.[/QUOTE]
It's not totally wrong to say that gun control won't have any immediately obvious impact due to the massive stockpile of weapons already in existence. We need to [I]halt the production[/I] of new weapons, and focus on slowly chipping down that stockpile. It will take decades, but it's the only realistic way to regain control of this. Our country is flooded with guns, and our only hope to drain it is to plug the leak and grab a bucket.
[QUOTE=Big Dumb American;52744707]That argument [I]could[/I] be made, but it would be founded on false equivalencies and irrationality.
The advancement of communications technology has created a world in which the freedom of speech is as strong as it's ever been. One voice can reach millions of people in an instant, and that's pretty amazing. The advancements to communications technology have not changed the fundamental consequences of free speech, but [I]reinforced[/I] them. The founders would, in all likelihood, be amazed and delighted with the power that the internet has brought in bringing truth and accountability to bear against corruption and exploitation.
Weapons technology? The exact opposite. Every passing year, every advancement in lethality, accuracy, ease of use, etc directly cracks the foundation of the 2nd amendment. It creates an ever more dangerous world in which one lone nutjob can look out his window and destroy the lives of hundreds, even thousands of people. For them to see the leap from somebody struggling to learn how to load and fire a single bullet in less than a minute, to seeing somebody pick up an assault rifle that he's never seen before and easily fire out several hundred rounds in that same period, would, in all likelihood, [I]absolutely horrify them.[/I][/QUOTE]
The founding fathers weren't stupid men, to say that they couldn't have predicted advancements in weapons technology is frankly insulting to them. The entire reason the constitution is written with broad, generally all-encompassing wording is because they knew that things would change, but they had a set of principles that they wanted enforced even as technology advanced. Whether or not they'd be horrified at the power of modern weaponry is irrelevant, they believed in principle that every man should be able to arm himself equivalent to a soldier, so they'd damn well want people to be able to own the same automatic firearms that are issued to the military. That's what the principle of the 2nd Amendment was, was for the citizenry to be equivalently armed to a military, no matter what weaponry that military was using in what age.
To say "The 2nd Amendment should only apply to muskets because that's all that was around back then," but then to go and say "The government can't censor internet or television because that's a violation of the 1st Amendment" is completely hypocritical. The 1st Amendment existed in a time before modern technology, and if one section of the constitution only applies to technology available at the time, then the same can be equally said to all other aspects of it. If the 2nd protects only muskets, then the 1st protects only newsprint and literature, not the radio, telephone, CDs, television, movies, video games, or the internet, because of course the founding fathers could have never imagined all the ways those could potentially be abused to support tyranny and terrorism and crime. Therefore since those weren't around back then, it's not a violation of the 1st Amendment to have the government censor the news, the internet, ban video games, CDs, and movies for corrupting the populace, and tap phone lines and monitor text communications to ensure that terrorists aren't coordinating attacks through unforeseen electronic means.
Or you accept that the constitution was written to be a document that applied to advancements in technology through the ages because it espouses a set of principles rather than explicits, and that therefore the 2nd Amendment still applies, in principle, to today's weaponry because of what it was meant to stand for, and the 1st Amendment still protects communication and publication through electronic means without government interference.
[QUOTE=sgman91;52744731]To just re quote you with some words changed: "The methods have changed, but not the nature. It was just as easy for rogue agents to kill people with guns, just on a much smaller scale. Regardless, safety and danger has always been the nature of the right to bear arms. Self defense and murder, life and death, these were not alien concepts to the founders when the drafted they second amendment. So, I fully disagree that the nature of the right to bear arms has changed."
The difference your applying isn't based in any inherent difference between the two. One just seems more drastic to you because you like one and don't like the other.[/QUOTE]
Okay, but that makes no sense.
The freedom of speech has been [I]empowered[/I] by modern technology. It was the a right conceived to give people a voice to speak out without fear of censorship. Technology has empowered people to do that, not undermined it.
The right to bear arms was conceived when the understanding of firearms and military tactics necessitated militias bearing single-shot muskets for defense of villages and homesteads. The entire [I]foundation[/I] of the right to bear arms no longer even [I]exists[/I], as militias are fully irrelevant in the modern age. Looking at the advancement of weapons technology has also made it abundantly clear just how [I]shortsighted[/I] that amendment really was in considering the future consequences of gun ownership.
Has the entire foundation of the first amendment been made completely irrelevant, sgman?
[QUOTE=Big Dumb American;52744756]Okay, but that makes no sense.
The freedom of speech has been [I]empowered[/I] by modern technology. It was the a right conceived to give people a voice to speak out without fear of censorship. Technology has empowered people to do that, not undermined it.
The right to bear arms was conceived when the understanding of firearms and military tactics necessitated militias bearing single-shot muskets for defense of villages and homesteads. The entire [I]foundation[/I] of the right to bear arms no longer even [I]exists[/I], as militias are fully irrelevant in the modern age. Looking at the advancement of weapons technology has also made it abundantly clear just how [I]shortsighted[/I] that amendment really was in considering the future consequences of gun ownership.
Has the entire foundation of the first amendment been made completely irrelevant, sgman?[/QUOTE]
I guess we just fundamentally disagree. I don't think personal ownership is as irrelevant as you make it seem. There a huge difference between the government forcefully subduing a large group of people when that group has guns and when the group doesn't have guns. The cost of the prior is massively higher than the latter, and would definitely have an effect.
Not all physical resistance is a full revolution.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.