The Second Amendment must go

[Darwin333]

Im not sure I agree with this. If somebody is a collector and wants to have 75 guns that should be OK, they just need to be locked up so that some random burglar doesnt have easy access to smash and grab them.

Now, a limit on ammo might not be too bad of an idea, but I dont want to touch that with a 10 foot pole.

Other than the argument for having them stolen a person can only use a max of two guns at once. With long guns you can only really use one at a time in any efficient way whatsoever unless they are full auto and you are just spray and praying.

As far as ammo, any reasonable limit you put on it won't be enough. Sure we catch people who do crazy shit with 10K rounds after the fact but how many did they actually use while doing their crazy shit? 100? 200?

I don't go to the range without at least 100 rounds and I highly doubt anyone else does either. So even "reasonable" restrictions on ammo wouldn't stop anything that has happened to date. Neither would any "reasonable" restriction on the number of guns one could own. Magazine restrictions didn't work out all that well in Cali and you can easily, and only getting easier, 3D print them anyway.

 

[ivwshane]

The problem is what law can you pass that people who don't abide by the law will follow? How long have drugs been illegal in this country and it's still easier for a high school kid to get a bag of weed than it is a 6 pack of beer that is legal for people over 21.

To add fuel to the fire is the continuing advancing of 3D printing. Pass all the magazine bans that you want but that just opens the market for people to either illegally import and/or make their own and sell. Just like drugs.

I might have a bit more faith if we've ever had success at banning shit that people actually want. Hell even the sorta kinda itsy bitsy "wins" like putting a serious dent in prescription opiate abuse have actually been gigantic fuckups. Sure you got prescription opiate abuse down but heroin use (and even higher addiction than before, overdose, death, and all associated medical costs on the taxpayers dime) skyrockets. Woohoo, we reduced the number of people taking powerful drugs made by pharmaceutical companies that they knew exactly what was in and increased the amount of people taking the most addictive and powerful drug in the world.

The bottom line is that when we try to ban things as broad as guns or drugs the effects of the "fix" are often worse than the initial problem.

Besides, other than the huge number of guns already in the country we have already successfully 3D printed guns and high capacity mags almost 3 years ago. Can you imagine how much easier it will be in 5 or 10 years? Of course if they make it illegal then law abiding citizens won't be 3D printing guns but criminals by their very nature don't care much for laws...

So laws don't deter people from committing what would be criminal acts? That's interesting because crime has been dropping while punishments for crimes has been increasing. So either people are committing less crime or those that commit crime are being put away at a rate that cause the overall crime rate to drop.





***Note***
I don't think more punishment and therefore an even larger prison population is the answer I just think that line of reasoning is idiotic.

 

[ivwshane]

If we are taking about terrorism then the issue isn't how many guns one person can use, it's a matter of how many people can that one person supply other people with weapons to commit an act of terrorism.

Other than the argument for having them stolen a person can only use a max of two guns at once. With long guns you can only really use one at a time in any efficient way whatsoever unless they are full auto and you are just spray and praying.

As far as ammo, any reasonable limit you put on it won't be enough. Sure we catch people who do crazy shit with 10K rounds after the fact but how many did they actually use while doing their crazy shit? 100? 200?

I don't go to the range without at least 100 rounds and I highly doubt anyone else does either. So even "reasonable" restrictions on ammo wouldn't stop anything that has happened to date. Neither would any "reasonable" restriction on the number of guns one could own. Magazine restrictions didn't work out all that well in Cali and you can easily, and only getting easier, 3D print them anyway.

 

[Darwin333]

So laws don't deter people from committing what would be criminal acts? That's interesting because crime has been dropping while punishments for crimes has been increasing. So either people are committing less crime or those that commit crime are being put away at a rate that cause the overall crime rate to drop.





***Note***
I don't think more punishment and therefore an even larger prison population is the answer I just think that line of reasoning is idiotic.

Well you did forget to add our exploding, and #1 in the entire world by number or per capita, prison population into your equation.

I mean we only had to increase the amount of people currently in prison 7ish fold to get, wait what was the decrease in overall crime again?

EDIT: No I do not think that laws deter people from murdering people or going on crazed shooting sprees as is the context of this thread. You can only be lock someone up for one lifetime or put them to death once. Once they reach the point of cold blooded murder I am pretty sure the law doesn't deter them from doing shit but that's just my opinion.

 

[SP33Demon]

I didn't read the thread. I strongly disagree. The right to individual sovereignty is essential to liberal democracy. Just like the right to vote. Plus an armed populace is better than any 'defense' budget.
The reality is that crime in the US is actually down dramatically, and that it would be more likely that alcohol prohibition would succeed than a gun ban.
So get over it and stop getting the crazies all worked up.

Agree, stop hitting them with logic.

 

[Darwin333]

If we are taking about terrorism then the issue isn't how many guns one person can use, it's a matter of how many people can that one person supply other people with weapons to commit an act of terrorism.

To date terrorists have been able to use more commercial aircraft in a single terrorist act than guns in the United States.

Is the left really worried about 1,000 Muslims getting all their guns from one guy and then going batshit crazy or something? Even if you limit it to 3 guns per person (1 rifle, 1 shotgun, 1 handgun) exactly which terrorist attack in the United States would have been prevented?

Seriously, I'm curious on how many 10+ people shooting sprees we've had in the last 50 years or so? 5+?

The more people involved in batshit crazy stuff exponentially increases the odds that they will be caught. Terrorists have been able to pull off exactly one coordinated attack in this country during my lifetime and they didn't use guns they used planes.

 

[ivwshane]

To date terrorists have been able to use more commercial aircraft in a single terrorist act than guns in the United States.

Is the left really worried about 1,000 Muslims getting all their guns from one guy and then going batshit crazy or something? Even if you limit it to 3 guns per person (1 rifle, 1 shotgun, 1 handgun) exactly which terrorist attack in the United States would have been prevented?

Seriously, I'm curious on how many 10+ people shooting sprees we've had in the last 50 years or so? 5+?

The more people involved in batshit crazy stuff exponentially increases the odds that they will be caught. Terrorists have been able to pull off exactly one coordinated attack in this country during my lifetime and they didn't use guns they used planes.

That's kind of the whole point isn't it? Overreaction and jumping to extreme positions using horrible logic doesn't make sense no matter what side of the issue you are on.
No serious proposals have been made to ban guns so why are people debating it? Second, using flawed logic to counter a straw man doesn't help your argument

But like I've said in several previous gun threads, having a discussion about guns with a gun nutter is a useless endeavor.

 

[Rakehellion]

Subtract suicides and killings related to gangs and drugs (I.e., killings done with illegally owned firearms). You are probably left with a pretty small number.

So we should end the war on drugs to remove that motive? Great idea!

 

[HumblePie]

Thank you, I stand corrected.

That data was in the link I originally gave had you bothered to go read it. It has nifty footnote links to the FBI, and CDC data and other stuff.

 

[Texashiker]

Call me naive or any number of other things, but my suggestion is no more naïve than most of the arguments that gun advocates trot out on a daily basis. It’s also no more naïve than thinking that we’ll solve our gun problem with half measures or, even worse, doing nothing.

Why do we have the second?

Please explain why the founding fathers made the right to keep and bear arms #2.

 

[CZroe]

The Second Amendment must go: We ban lawn darts. It’s time to ban guns.

We are one nation, forever f*cked by the NRA and an outdated and dangerous read of the Constitution. Let's fix it.

Call me naïve or any number of other things, but my suggestion is no more naïve than most of the arguments that gun advocates trot out on a daily basis. It’s also no more naïve than thinking that we’ll solve our gun problem with half measures or, even worse, doing nothing.

http://www.salon.com/2015/12/04/the_second_amendment_must_go_we_ban_lawn_darts_its_time_to_ban_guns/

You don't think it's TOTALLY SCREWED UP that they can ban lawn darts in a free country? The law isn't supposed to protect the public from injuring themselves. It's supposed to guarantee CONSEQUENCES for injuring others.

It IS supposed to protect the public's ability to protect themselves, which is yet another way it guarantees consequences for infringing on another's pursuit of life, liberty, property, and happiness. IOW: The public is supposed to be somewhat self-policing in a way that is supported by law, courts, and actual police. That's how the law is supposed to deal with dangerous activities that endanger others.

 

[glenn1]

You don't think it's TOTALLY SCREWED UP that they can ban lawn darts in a free country? The law isn't supposed to protect the public from injuring themselves. It's supposed to guarantee CONSEQUENCES for injuring others.

It IS supposed to protect the public's ability to protect themselves, which is yet another way it guarantees consequences for infringing on another's pursuit of life, liberty, property, and happiness. IOW: The public is supposed to be somewhat self-policing in a way that is supported by law, courts, and actual police. That's how the law is supposed to deal with dangerous activities that endanger others.

That presumes a level of trust in their fellow man that the left in general and gun control supporters in particular do not possess.

 

[QuantumPion]

Limits on ammo is a really stupid idea. Maybe it is hard to understand for people not into shooting sports, but think about it. Who are you more worried about - a guy that buys 10,000 rounds, or a guy that buys one box and ask which way is the nearest gun-free zone?

Someone buying lots of ammo in bulk online is almost certainly someone who shoots at the range frequently and is a normal gun enthusiast. Anyone who is in to shooting knows 1 box of ammo is not very much at all and goes fast. Who buys only 1 box of ammo? Someone who knows they only need one box because they are up to no good lol.

 

[CZroe]

...The more people involved in batshit crazy stuff exponentially increases the odds that they will be caught. Terrorists have been able to pull off exactly one coordinated attack in this country during my lifetime and they didn't use guns they used planes.

You realize that they coordinated and attacked the WTC TWICE in a decade, right?

 

[CZroe]

That presumes a level of trust in their fellow man that the left in general and gun control supporters in particular do not possess.

It does not. It presumes that if you don't trust your fellow man then it is your responsibility to protect yourself from said fellow men. Preventing and protecting is your job. Punishing is the government's job. The active discouragement the government is supposed to be doing is making examples of others after the fact.

 

[cubby1223]

The Second Amendment must go: We ban lawn darts. It’s time to ban guns.

We are one nation, forever f*cked by the NRA and an outdated and dangerous read of the Constitution. Let's fix it.

Call me naïve or any number of other things, but my suggestion is no more naïve than most of the arguments that gun advocates trot out on a daily basis. It’s also no more naïve than thinking that we’ll solve our gun problem with half measures or, even worse, doing nothing.

http://www.salon.com/2015/12/04/the_second_amendment_must_go_we_ban_lawn_darts_its_time_to_ban_guns/

Luckily there is a well-defined process to change the constitution. If enough people agree with you, then the 2nd amendment can be altered by a new amendment. I personally do not agree with you, but you don't need 100% support. Best of luck!

 

[glenn1]

It does not. It presumes that if you don't trust your fellow man then it is your responsibility to protect yourself from said fellow men. Preventing and protecting is your job. Punishing is the government's job. The active discouragement the government is supposed to be doing is making examples of others after the fact.

So since I use my firearms for target shooting rather than defense I'm free and clear from your gun control measures since I'm not buying for "fear" reasons?

Plus it's hard to reason with a bear and explain why firearms are such a bad idea and should be prohibited. I'm sure if the average gun control person was dropped in the woods they could probably bore to death a bear with their insane logic of how millions of gun owners are mass shooters in waiting unless we remove their Bill of Rights guarantees.

 

[bshole]

So we should end the war on drugs to remove that motive? Great idea!

......

Few teenagers say they've tried marijuana, but teens say it's easier to buy than cigarettes or beer, according to a national survey.

More than one-third of teens polled by the National Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse said they could buy marijuana in just a few hours, 27 percent in an hour or less.

For the first time since the study began in 1996, marijuana edged out cigarettes and beer as the easiest drug for teenagers to buy — 34 percent said it's the easiest of the three, compared with 31 percent for cigarettes and 14 percent for beer.

Overall, however, 75 percent of students said they have not smoked marijuana.

The annual survey of 1,000 teenagers was being released Tuesday. It did not specify whether drugs are easy or difficult to buy at school, but 63 percent of students said their schools are "drug-free," nearly double the number who said the same in 1998.

 

[CZroe]

So since I use my firearms for target shooting rather than defense I'm free and clear from your gun control measures since I'm not buying for "fear" reasons?

Plus it's hard to reason with a bear and explain why firearms are such a bad idea and should be prohibited. I'm sure if the average gun control person was dropped in the woods they could probably bore to death a bear with their insane logic of how millions of gun owners are mass shooters in waiting unless we remove their Bill of Rights guarantees.

"My gun control measures?"

I may not own or be interested in guns but I have never advocated any restrictions beyond the logical ones (those guilty of gun violence in the past should not be allowed guns, for example).

It does not. It presumes that if you don't trust your fellow man then it is your responsibility to protect yourself from said fellow men[, same as an animal or any natural threat]. Preventing and protecting[ from such things] is your job[ and always has been, even though people still move into flood plains and blame the government for Katrina and all that jazz]. Punishing[ those who perpetrate such attacks on Liberty unnaturally] is the government's job. The active discouragement the government is supposed to be doing is making examples of others after the fact.[ They aren't supposed to be preemptively protecting us from ourselves]

Expanded.

 

[soundforbjt]

Limits on ammo is a really stupid idea. Maybe it is hard to understand for people not into shooting sports, but think about it. Who are you more worried about - a guy that buys 10,000 rounds, or a guy that buys one box and ask which way is the nearest gun-free zone?

Someone buying lots of ammo in bulk online is almost certainly someone who shoots at the range frequently and is a normal gun enthusiast. Anyone who is in to shooting knows 1 box of ammo is not very much at all and goes fast. Who buys only 1 box of ammo? Someone who knows they only need one box because they are up to no good lol.

Or someone who only has a gun for protection.

 

[kage69]

OP and those like him are welcome to try, but they certainly won't get much support or sympathy from me.

I personally don't think gun rights and gun safety is a zero sum game. There are plenty of law abiding gun owners like me who are perfectly fine with implementing some comprehensive, common sense precautions when it comes to acquiring firearms.

 

[kage69]

Or someone who only has a gun for protection.

Ermmm, problem with that answer is that anyone relying on a gun for protection needs to practice with it. Quantity really is key there.

My first thought when I saw what you highlighted was, "Depends on the gun." I've only purchased a single small pack of .22WMR because I wanted soft points for hunting rabbit with friends and all I had were plinkers of low quality. On the other end of the bore spectrum I've only bought single boxes of .375H&H and .500S&W because shooting those things is rare and seldom involves a shooter wanting to pull the trigger more than 2 or 3 times.

Pretty sure I avoided committing any felonies there due to my shopping needs.

 

[glenn1]

Limits on ammo is a really stupid idea. Maybe it is hard to understand for people not into shooting sports, but think about it. Who are you more worried about - a guy that buys 10,000 rounds, or a guy that buys one box and ask which way is the nearest gun-free zone?

Someone buying lots of ammo in bulk online is almost certainly someone who shoots at the range frequently and is a normal gun enthusiast. Anyone who is in to shooting knows 1 box of ammo is not very much at all and goes fast. Who buys only 1 box of ammo? Someone who knows they only need one box because they are up to no good lol.

<shrug> I've bought just one or two boxes before for the range. To me one of the advantages to being a civilian is that shooting can be done for brief periods for pleasure. Not to mention a reasonable hobby cost, I can justify to my wife spending $40 on two boxes of 9mm and $20 for an hour of range time. Compared with spending $300 on a case of .223 and another $125 to spend all day the at the range while she watches the kids.

Plus it's nice to get in and out of the range in a lunch hour rather than shooting being a drudge of hours to zero in, shoot your qualifications round (ho hum expert again) and possibly load up magazines all afternoon while dozens of other idiots struggle to hit the silhouette.

 

[soundforbjt]

Ermmm, problem with that answer is that anyone relying on a gun for protection needs to practice with it. Quantity really is key there.

My first thought when I saw what you highlighted was, "Depends on the gun." I've only purchased a single small pack of .22WMR because I wanted soft points for hunting rabbit with friends and all I had were plinkers of low quality. On the other end of the bore spectrum I've only bought single boxes of .375H&H and .500S&W because shooting those things is rare and seldom involves a shooter wanting to pull the trigger more than 2 or 3 times.

Pretty sure I avoided committing any felonies there due to my shopping needs.

All I have now is a 410 shotgun, don't pheasent hunt anymore (bad leg) so I don't really need to practice. I go to my Sister's farm and shoot a bit every now & then.

 

[Chiropteran]

I can think of one piece of legislation that would immediately reduce the so-called gun violence.

Legalize doctor assisted suicides and/or legalize painless suicide pills.

Since the gun violence numbers always seem to lump in suicide deaths, the numbers should drop very quickly if people have better legal alternatives.