SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
I keep hearing that folks to the right are unwilling to make "compromises" on gun control. Yet I am uncertain that those that want it understand what the word means.
Various definitions of compromise:
an agreement or a settlement of a dispute that is reached by each side making concessions
settle a dispute by mutual concession.
settlement of differences by arbitration or by consent reached by mutual concessions
something intermediate between or blending qualities of two different things
Current compromises by people who want less gun control:
Assault weapons ban
Automatic weapon ban
Ban on silencers
Bump stock ban
Banning guns that look scary
"Sniper rifle" bans
Magazine size restrictions
Purchase waiting periods
Background checks
Ammunition purchase restrictions
Current compromises by gun control advocates:
Nothing
What are the gun control advocates willing to give up in order to get what they want? What are their top priorities? If the goal is to have a longer waiting period, a longer waiting period specific to a type of firearm, universal background checks, mandatory mental health checks, universal ban on concealed carry, etc... what are they willing to give us in return?
I am willing to discuss options, but I am not going to "compromise" by giving up things without anything in return. The AWS didn't stop Kip Kinkle or Columbine. Background checks didn't stop that kid in Connecticut. Etc.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 03 2019, @08:24AM
The bump stock ban could have been great.
Do a whole rewrite of the law involving machine guns. Neglect to cover selective fire.
Since obviously the bump stock ban would require fixing guns with bump stocks, make sure that anybody can remove a stock or add a non-bump stock to any weapon. The SBR restrictions thus go away.
Yeah, we're just banning bump stocks. :-) Promise.
(Score: 1, Troll) by aristarchus on Thursday January 03 2019, @09:13AM (30 children)
I want death penalty for anyone even seeking to possess a military style weapon. Don't get me started on the definition of "assault weapons", I mean anything that could be vaguely construed as a military weapon. This would include M1 carbines, M4 carbines, Manchiller carbines, you know all the carbine which have no use as hunting guns. And semi-autos. All of them. What kind of nimrod needs a semi-automatic weapon? If you can't do it with the first round, you suck enough to be taken out by any competent liberal marksman, after your first shot reveals your position. "Spray and Pray" is only for the religious, like the Opus Dei and Spray, and molest young boys battalion. So I really worry about where you are going with this, Sulla. Are you afraid of brown bears, or of brown people? Do you not realize that there are far more liberals with marksmanship skills, military trained or not, that all you slobbering right-wing types? We would pick you off like the wackos that you are. And we do not need any of the weapons that should be banned to do it. I have a Winchester Hi-wall, .45-90, that I may have to introduce you to. Just saying.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 03 2019, @04:33PM (1 child)
Do you intend to eliminate such weapons from the ruling class or just the working class?
(Score: 2) by turgid on Sunday January 06 2019, @08:00PM
Please define "the ruling class" and "the working class." Are you by any chance misusing imprecise terminology to refer to those in power (possibly democratically elected) and those not in power (everyone else)? Perhaps by the "ruling class" you mean the police force and the military and "the working class" everyone else? Or do you make special allowances in your term "the ruling class" for very rich people, the aristocracy and so on?
In countries with strict gun control there is less gun crime because criminals find it harder to obtain guns. It's not rocket science.
I refuse to engage in a battle of wits with an unarmed opponent [wikipedia.org].
(Score: 2) by fyngyrz on Thursday January 03 2019, @05:01PM (4 children)
Presuming only that you're speaking of the USA, I want mandatory remedial schooling for those who have no clue whatsoever what "constitutional republic", "arms", and "shall not infringe" mean.
If you want the US government to be able to legitimately infringe on keeping and carrying arms, then get after seeing to it that article 5 of the constitution is followed to that specific effect. Unless/until then, any other legislative steps towards actually implementing your idea should be brought down as unauthorized garbage.
Sadly, they probably won't. And that's why the majority of every other amendment in the constitution's bill of rights has been legislatively compromised.
Yes, it's a tragedy that criminal fucks are hurting others with arms. No, it's not worth damaging the entire nation even further to put constitutionally forbidden laws in place to make something criminal, that is already criminal in the context of the actual problem.
If you want the bill of rights to mean anything at all, for instance (but certainly not limited to) amendments 1 and 4, which tend to be dear to many, then don't advocate for processes that ignore, or use transparently sophist pandering to abuse, the 2nd.
--
No sense being pessimistic, it wouldn't work anyway.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 03 2019, @09:21PM (3 children)
This. Threats are free speech. Juries for traffic tickets. WMDs for everyone. Violent Jihad is free exercise of religion.
Or maybe "rights" were never considered absolute, especially by the Founding Fathers.
(Score: 2) by fyngyrz on Thursday January 03 2019, @09:45PM (1 child)
Your argument is specifically that the constitution is meaningless. That nothing it says means what it says. That the intent was to create a vaguely advisory document that in no way bound the legislators or the courts.
Your argument is sophist and highly superficial. It is so free of value that it doesn't even merit a counterargument.
--
Ignorance is weakness.
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Friday January 04 2019, @03:16AM
Your argument is sophist and lowly superficial. FTFY I think.
Abortion is the number one killed of children in the United States.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by Freeman on Friday January 04 2019, @07:28PM
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_religion_in_the_United_States [wikipedia.org]
The government shouldn't be making laws against Muslims who believe in Violent Jihad. That doesn't mean, that the practice is acceptable or that it will be tolerated. As there are already laws against committing violent acts against others. Essentially, Violent Jihad is Human Sacrifice, just without the expected rituals.
Another interesting section from that Wikipedia article:
Joshua 1:9 "Be strong and of a good courage; be not afraid, neither be thou dismayed: for the Lord thy God is with thee"
(Score: 3, Insightful) by OrugTor on Thursday January 03 2019, @05:06PM (11 children)
I like your style. And substance. Gun nuts can't accept that the only way to prevent gun deaths is to prevent guns. As a once-Brit I thought it entirely natural that no-one gets a gun unless they can demonstrate a reasonable need for it.
(Score: 1) by Sulla on Thursday January 03 2019, @05:51PM (8 children)
Given how your former home is going I suspect you should also concern yourself with making sure no-one gets a truck, car, or van unless they can demonstrate a reasonable need for it.
The left keeps saying the US government is a tyranny, and if the US government is a tyranny that is reason for everyone to have guns.
Ceterum censeo Sinae esse delendam
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 03 2019, @09:29PM (7 children)
The difference is that trucks, cars, and vans all have uses outside of killing things, and those uses drastically exceed the killing of people purposeful or otherwise. Guns and other arms are designed to kill things, and that usage is a much larger proportion than their usage of not killing things.
(Score: 2) by fyngyrz on Thursday January 03 2019, @09:57PM (6 children)
Yes. They are. You remember when we revolted against King George III's government — our government at the time — and killed so many of his soldiers, right? We had a reason to do that. That reason was that King George III was a tyrant, and the English Imperial ass needed to be kicked specifically because of that.
You might consider the GP's point about tyranny in the light of that when you wave the "designed to kill things, oh my" argument around. I'm not even saying you couldn't make a good argument out of this; but so far, you have not.
--
Hypocrisy is the Vaseline of political intercourse.
(Score: 2) by dry on Saturday January 05 2019, @04:41AM (5 children)
What tyrannical things did George the 3rd do? I know he exercised his freedom of speech to say everyone was equal, including the evil Catholics and those Savages that Americans wanted to steal land from (Royal Proclamation of 1763) and he exercised his powers much the same as Queen Elizabeth does now, namely rubber stamping any Act passed by Parliament.
It could be argued that the last King who acted tyrannically was James the 2nd, who got fired for his actions, or perhaps Charles the 1st, who lost his head but after the Revolution of 1688, the King basically only had the power to advise and warn, dissolve Parliament if they couldn't pass a budget, forcing an election and that was about it.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday January 05 2019, @07:30AM (2 children)
Because even today in the UK the people are all subjects under the royalty. In the United States every man woman and child, black white yellow brown orange, are equal to Kings and Queens.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by dry on Saturday January 05 2019, @07:49AM
In practice, it doesn't matter. In the US, the justice system seems to treat different people quite differently. You're also stuck in the feudal ages with felons who have their rights removed, often for life as well as things like sex offender lists and firearms bans that are government mandated. Here, in a Monarchy, only a Judge can ban you from owning a firearm or put you on a sex offenders list, as part of sentencing and it only happens if you did something stupid with a firearm or are actually a sexual threat. No blanket bans or being put on a list for having a pee or sharing a photo with someone about your age.
(Score: 2) by fyngyrz on Saturday January 05 2019, @05:49PM
FTFY
--
Knowledge is strength. Unless the opposition has more money.
(Score: 2) by fyngyrz on Saturday January 05 2019, @06:29PM (1 child)
Here's one take on that:
source [ouramericanrevolution.org]
A great deal of the responsibility was also your Parliament's, for idiocies such as the Townshend Duties and the Stamp Act. By backing the war, King George III became just as complicit as any English parliamentarian.
In the end (pun intended) the English government got exactly what it deserved. An armed ass kicking, complete loss of the American colonies, and loss of respect throughout the civilized world.
England had this as of 1869:
Then England lost the war with the American colonies. And since then, the English/UK government has effectively disarmed its citizens, and engages in constant surveillance of them.
Coincidence?
--
Sex on television won't hurt you.
As long as you don't fall off.
(Score: 2) by dry on Saturday January 05 2019, @06:45PM
As I said, basically used his free speech to damn the Americans. Parliament had all the power and, along with the electorate (and democracy was limited and corrupt at the time) actually made the decisions.
Can't help but notice that being armed hasn't slowed down the surveillance of the American people and it seems the ones that are armed are the same ones supporting the current tendency to go full scale authoritarian. Having an armed population in favour of authoritarianism may be worse then having an unarmed population.
You'll notice that the Bill of Rights of 1689 along with other acts tried to remove the standing army of the Crown. At the time it was observed that standing armies led to tyranny and I believe that was one of the big reasons for the 2nd amendment, having militia instead of a standing army.
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Friday January 04 2019, @03:20AM (1 child)
No one should have a weapon unless he can demonstrate a reasonable need. But, you don't apply that idea to government? Government need explain nothing, they just get all the weapons they want? Imagine that - doesn't it sound awfully sheep-like?
Abortion is the number one killed of children in the United States.
(Score: 2) by dry on Saturday January 05 2019, @04:48AM
Rein in your government. You are a Representative Republic with elections and even the means to update your Constitution, whether the Federal government agrees or not.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Friday January 04 2019, @02:00AM
Sounds reasonable. We should have kinder, gentler weapons that reflect our civility and culture when these people go on their killing sprees. I think I would die with gratitude, if I got nailed with a few shots from a Hello Kitty assault rifle [cnet.com]. It's so cute!
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Friday January 04 2019, @03:03AM (6 children)
Stop the bullshit. All firearms do the exact same thing - they hurl a chunk of metal downrange to impact with a target. Every single firearm on earth performs the same task, in very much the same way. Some do that hurling extremely quickly, others are much slower. Some have ammo capacities that are out of this world, others are single shot. There are no specific characteristics of any firearms that the left hates - it is that common denominator that the left hates. The owner of a firearm can strike a target from some distance, at which the target cannot strike back.
That M-1 carbine? Common sporting arms exceed the abilities of the M-1, in all respects, today.
I notice that the common denominator of your little tirade is "carbine". What is it about carbine that you dislike so much? The word only describes a shortened rifle. Up to some point, a longer barrel is more accurate. A carbine is simply shortened some, to save on weight, and awkwardness. If a 26" barrel renders optimum accuracy, and I opt for a 23" barrel, then I have a "carbine". It's not some magical extra-deadly weapon for having been shortened. This is what kills us about so many lefties - they have no idea what the terms they use even mean.
Oddly, I half-way agree with you about the "spray and pray". That is a common characteristic of Muslims. Often enough, they don't even look at what they are shooting. Extend the arms around the corner, fire away on full auto, and mutter something like "Allah be willing!"
I was a marksman, some time ago. I hunted with single shots and bolt actions. First shot hits, or not at all, mostly. Very rarely was there an opportunity for a second shot. On the other hand, why NOT have the second or the tenth shot available? Oh - because you're afraid of anything that goes "BOOM", so you are more afraid of anything that goes "BOOM" multiple times.
Actually, you haven't said much of anything. You don't like weapons, and you sure as hell don't like private citizens owning weapons. We already knew that.
Abortion is the number one killed of children in the United States.
(Score: 1, Troll) by aristarchus on Friday January 04 2019, @06:03AM (5 children)
Do you expect us to believe that a Navy man knows anything about carbines? Admit it, Runaway, you just love to piss of what you perceive to be "libruls", and that is why you love guns, hoplophilism, or ammosexuality. What I don't like is stolen valor, alt-lite alt-right types who think that a gun gives them power and security, when all it does it make them more dangerous to law enforcement and their fellow citizens. You might be one of those.
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Friday January 04 2019, @03:14PM (4 children)
Your ignorance is showing , Ari. Where have the Marines ever gone, where the Navy didn't take them? We're brothers - us better looking brothers dress in blue, the homely brothers dress in green, but we're never far apart. Yes, I know a thing or two about carbines. The homely brothers got the cool AR-16's, and us good looking brothers were stuck with M-14's, but when the shit hit the fan, we stood shoulder to shoulder.
Abortion is the number one killed of children in the United States.
(Score: 1) by Sulla on Friday January 04 2019, @03:17PM (3 children)
Hard to be stuck with the superior option
Ceterum censeo Sinae esse delendam
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Friday January 04 2019, @03:27PM (2 children)
Mmmmmm, true, and false. Wherever we went with the M-14, our squad carried it's own ammo. The jarheads might have a couple of jeeps loaded with M-16 ammo, but we couldn't use it. We humped our own, and if we ran out, we were just out. I prefer the heavier weapon, TBH, but the heavier weapon uses heavier ammo, and with no resupply available, that counts for a lot. Fortunately for us, our most extended mission only lasted a few days, and we didn't need what we did carry.
Abortion is the number one killed of children in the United States.
(Score: 1) by Sulla on Friday January 04 2019, @03:41PM (1 child)
At least with the m-14 if you run out of ammo you can use it to beat someone to death and steal their gun.
Ceterum censeo Sinae esse delendam
(Score: 2) by Freeman on Friday January 04 2019, @07:59PM
That's assuming, you can get close enough. That was a common practice in the early days of firearms, but a very unlikely scenario nowadays. Should be good for holding a white undershirt over your head, though.
Joshua 1:9 "Be strong and of a good courage; be not afraid, neither be thou dismayed: for the Lord thy God is with thee"
(Score: 1) by Sulla on Friday January 04 2019, @04:23PM
Two things. First is that I think it is a good thing that people to the left of center in the US own and know how to use firearms because every person with a gun is one more reason for the fed to leave us alone. Second you need to cite your sources on this, if you are talking the whole world so you can include the armies of China and Russia. I know antifa likes to post youtubes of them larping with guns at the range, but larp=/ marksmanship, it makes then just as fuddy as rednecks.
Only person threatening other people in this thread is you, knock it off and stop being so radical. All i want to do is shoot cans and old boots at the range
Ceterum censeo Sinae esse delendam
(Score: 2) by Bot on Friday January 04 2019, @09:23PM (1 child)
I can understand those seeking to avoid deaths by removing a relevant factor, even if statistically one can easily argue most arms do not pose threats.
I do not understand why those same people are not advocating a ban on islamists.
(there, outtrolled you, in 2 sentences)
Account abandoned.
(Score: 2) by aristarchus on Friday January 04 2019, @11:23PM
One cannot out-troll bots, expecially armed and armored bots, which, by the way, are banned under the Hague Conventions as booby-traps.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by RandomFactor on Thursday January 03 2019, @12:28PM
The time has come to make these ubiquitous and cheap.
Destroying or degrading the hearing of millions in LE, Military, and civilian populations because OMG assassins! needs to end.
Give them bump stocks for silencers. No more one sided compromise.
В «Правде» нет известий, в «Известиях» нет правды
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 03 2019, @03:57PM (1 child)
From Trotsky's The Transitional Program, The Picket Line, Defense Guards/Workers’ Militia and The Arming of the Proletariat [marxists.org]:
One of the things the right-wing nutjobs get right is that the people must be armed, because that is the only credible means of resistance to tyranny.
However, the right-wing nutjobs only feel this impulse when there's a D-teamer president, and then it promptly evaporates when the ruling class rotates in an R-teamer. That clockwork vacillation reveals the lack of objective political orientation in their Second Amendment rhetoric.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Friday January 04 2019, @02:03AM
And then it comes back when the next D-teamer comes in and actually does something to threaten gun ownership. What exactly was supposed to be the problem again?
(Score: 4, Informative) by fyngyrz on Thursday January 03 2019, @04:39PM (10 children)
The problem here is that any law that infringes on the keeping or carrying of arms is an unauthorized fiat law as per the US constitution's amendment 2. There is no legislative or judicial body in the USA that is authorized to make such a law.
If changes are to be made (which I am not against, frankly), then using article 5 to get them done is the only valid path. If that path won't work, then no change is reasonable to make. Anything else erodes our entire system.
Which is what's been happening for quite some time, and what is most likely to keep happening.
"Arms" doesn't mean "muskets", either. That's just disingenuous tripe. The range of arms available when the constitution was written was very wide indeed; and they knew quite well that arms was an area of continuous development. They knew of chemical, biological, stabbing, projectile, burning, cutting, bludgeoning and other categories of arms, and they certainly didn't say, or imply, "firearms." They said arms. So "arms" is what amendment 2 meant then, and therefore, that's what it legitimately means today.
--
Knowledge is strength. Unless the opposition has more money.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 03 2019, @05:24PM (2 children)
Nope! Sorry, fyngyrx, but you only get to bear a standard Committee of Safety musket, .75 smoothbore, no bayonet. We follow the original Constitution around these parts!
(Score: 2) by fyngyrz on Thursday January 03 2019, @08:01PM
What parts are those? Certainly not in the USA.
--
Cats know how we feel. They just don't care.
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Friday January 04 2019, @03:27AM
Utterly stupid. Everyone in the civil war carried the best weapon he could afford. He carried weapons comparable to the weapons carried by the enemy's soldiers.
The only thing that makes sense today, is to apply the very same standards. If the enemy carries an AR-15, then I need to carry an AR-15 - or better.
Abortion is the number one killed of children in the United States.
(Score: 1) by Sulla on Thursday January 03 2019, @05:55PM
Everything pretty much turned out how I expected. People leaning right in the conversation are willing to negotiate to get back rights previously lost by giving up others they have no right to give away and people to the left demanding capitulation.
I haven't moderated anything negatively in almost a year, but it is safe to say at this point that anytime a gun-control advocate mentions "compromise" it can be modded troll because they are lying.
Ceterum censeo Sinae esse delendam
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 03 2019, @08:05PM (5 children)
This just in, fyngyrz support random private citizens being able to make and own nukes and WMDs. Anything less is infringing on the Rights of the People.
But in all seriousness, when the Founding Fathers wrote "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances," they literally didn't mean "no law" as they wrote all sorts of laws that would seem to violate that plain reading. Similarly, they passed laws regarding larger weapons (not so much firearms), even more so after large losses in the War of 1812, as that and other incidents proved that the militia system didn't work. The reason being that the right to bear arms was intrinsically linked to the militias.
(Score: 1) by fustakrakich on Thursday January 03 2019, @08:29PM (3 children)
The reason being that the right to bear arms was intrinsically linked to the militias.
Wrong, the right to bear arms and to form a *well disciplined* militia are intrinsically linked to the protection of a free state and, I believe it says, *shall not be infringed*. The irony being that you can't have a state and be free at the same time. Regardless, like the man says, you gotta change the law, not apply your your personal feelings to it.
they literally didn't mean "no law"
Then they shouldn't have written "no law". Besides, how do you know what they "literally" meant? Were you there? If you want restrictions, you gotta spell them out. Sloppy law doesn't work. "No law" means no law, quite explicitly. If they wanted it to be more vague they could have said *no unreasonable law*, but they didn't. It couldn't be more exact than what it says right there on the paper.
La politica e i criminali sono la stessa cosa..
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 03 2019, @09:08PM (2 children)
Because the exact same people who wrote and passed that Amendment were the same people to turn around and pass laws that violated the "plain reading." The obvious conclusion being that either the "plain reading" of the Amendments is wrong or their definition of the rights enshrined are different than people understand them to mean. Wouldn't be the first time something has fallen into the denotation/connotation gap.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by Sulla on Thursday January 03 2019, @09:16PM
It is the best show they could possibly give us that power corrupts. Maybe you should read less from the federalists and more from the anti-federalists. Perhaps Jefferson, the one who owned a Girandoni air rifle. Semi-automatic .46 caliber ball rifle capable of 30 lethal shots before needing to be re-pressurized.
Ceterum censeo Sinae esse delendam
(Score: 1) by fustakrakich on Thursday January 03 2019, @09:30PM
The obvious conclusion being that either the "plain reading" of the Amendments is wrong or their definition of the rights enshrined are different than people understand them to mean.
No, it only means those people were in violation. It is unfortunate nobody held them to account, but that's as far as it goes. The written law is still the law. "No law" leaves no room for error.
La politica e i criminali sono la stessa cosa..
(Score: 4, Interesting) by fyngyrz on Thursday January 03 2019, @09:27PM
Sigh. Okay, I'll walk you through this:
First: You read where I wrote "which I am not against", right? What that should have clearly told you, and which you completely missed, was that I don't think the 2nd is holding up well. We should be clear on this now though, right?
Second: It's not that I think all these unauthorized laws should be tossed wholesale, right now, and leave us with nothing; it's that I think that the constitution should be amended to be relevant to today's society — which should certainly address the issue of weapons of mass destruction, and more — and then the unauthorized laws which we labor under should be swept away and replaced with actual, legitimate legislation that actually meets constitutional muster. Right now, we've got a huge mess made by generations of legislators not doing their damn jobs. Jumping to anarchy to "fix" that is not something I advocate. Because, to be perfectly clear, that "solution" is far, far, worse than the problem it would solve.
Third: When modern weapons of mass destruction became a serious concern — nuclear, chemical, biological — that was the time, right then, when action should have been taken to amend the 2nd, because yes, that's exactly what it implies, and that needed fixed as-soon-as-bloody-possible. Fiat law was the wrong path to choose, because it is illegal. Constitution: "highest law in the land." Remember? To put a fine point on it, making good law is good; making unsupportable, illegal, shit law is bad, m'kay? Both because one only has to look just beneath its surface, which may well be formed of nothing but good intent, to see that such law is purely toxic to the system because it is, again, fiat law, not constitutionally compliant law and as such, encourages making more of the same, which may be (has often proved to be) not based on good intentions.
Fourth: The problem is that congress has not been doing their job, which is writing legislation that is constitutional, and seeing to it that the constitution is timely and relevant. Instead, they've been throwing garbage legislation at the wall and hoping it'll stick because some SCOTUS pinhead can't assemble multiple ideas in dependent order. And a great deal of it has stuck. Some has not. That's not a good way to go about this. The right thing here is to see to it that the constitution matches what our society needs; and the tools to do that were put in legislator's hands. That they very rarely use them is not a condemnation of the constitution, nor is it a condemnation on the legislative process, it is a direct and profound condemnation of their own incompetence. Once the constitution is seen to, then, and only then, should we reasonably go back and look at legislation in this area (arms) and make sure it meets the demands therein. I do not advocate "going bare" here.
Yes, the authors literally meant "no law." Legislators have never been immune to weaseling and sophist trudging about in the muck. The point of having a constitution in the first place is so that there are important points that are clearly stated such that nothing gets around them, and so we have a clear set of rules that allows us to say "oh no you don't."
If we are so foolish as to wave our hands at X in the constitution and say "oh, but they didn't literally mean that", then the very next thing that happens is there is waving at Y, Z, and A through W, and things like requiring warrants dependent upon probable cause, the prohibition against ex post facto law and double jeopardy all turn into "well, but not literally", and we get things like "free speech zones", "interstate commerce" morphing into "intrastate commerce", "speedy and public trials" deliquescing into secret courts, "excessive bail shall not be required" becoming awfully bloody excessive, endlessly increasing punishment and so on, and so forth. It's all caused by the very reasoning you're trying to sell here (and completely failing) about "well, but they didn't actually mean that." Well, I have news for you, they did actually mean that. That's why they spent so much time and effort putting it all together.
They gave is the tools to update and change as needed; it's not their fault if people with your attitude spent so much effort trying to make the whole damned thing irrelevant. It's yours, and that of people like you who can't think their way past the top level of a problem.
That it is, but that, just like the rest of the constitution, doesn't mean it isn't also linked to other things. Such as hunting for food, and being able to act if/when the government turned into a constitution-violating enterprise. Quite aside from which, the phrase about the militia is an explanation, and the phrase about "keep and bear" is an instruction.
And again, the fact that legislation was passed doesn't mean it was good or valid legislation, nor does it mean that it somehow abrogates the limits the constitution places on the government. I can cite you bad legislation imposed by evildoers all day. Slavery laws, repression of women, "morality" laws, etc... really, I could go on for an entire book. You simply can't legitimately argue "but someone made a law" and/or "but SCOTUS" and expect that to be taken seriously when the letter of the constitution explicitly says "you may not legislate that." It doesn't mean that the constitution is invalid; it means that the law is fiat crapola.
--
Some drink from the fountain of knowledge. Others gargle.
(Score: 2) by DeathMonkey on Thursday January 03 2019, @07:05PM (15 children)
I don't know if I count as a gun control advocate.
All I'm working for is the following:
Background checks
Stricter age limits for high capacity weapons
That's it.
(Score: 2) by NewNic on Thursday January 03 2019, @07:12PM (3 children)
Because older people don't use high capacity weapons to kill people. [wikipedia.org] LOL.
lib·er·tar·i·an·ism ˌlibərˈterēənizəm/ noun: Magical thinking that useful idiots mistake for serious political theory
(Score: 3, Insightful) by DeathMonkey on Thursday January 03 2019, @07:20PM (2 children)
I don't know if you've noticed this but highschool kids are fucking retarded. Giving them a weapon that can kill tens of their classmates at a time is not a very smart thing to do.
While the Vegas shooting was a tragedy there have been multiple, maybe as many as 20, school shootings since that occurred.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 03 2019, @08:41PM (1 child)
Killing isn't the problem. Just teach the kid to point the gun at the enemy before pulling the trigger. Don't suppress their anger and depression, redirect it, and you will have a winning army.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 04 2019, @06:08AM
"They drew first blood!"
"Stand down, John, this isn't 'Nam."
(Score: 1) by Sulla on Thursday January 03 2019, @08:03PM (7 children)
What all would your ideal background check take into account?
Ceterum censeo Sinae esse delendam
(Score: 1, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 03 2019, @08:50PM (6 children)
Questionnaire:
1) What, are you nuts?
2) Whaddya wanna buy a gun for?
3) Oh, the in-laws are that bad, huh?
4) Need more than one box of ammo?
5) If you do, don't you think a bit a target practice might be in order?
6) Cash or charge?
(Score: 1) by Sulla on Thursday January 03 2019, @09:24PM (5 children)
I can only guess from your comment that you have never actually gone shooting. If I am going to go out with my wife or a buddy for a morning shoot on a Saturday I will end up cycling through five or six different firearms and 300-400 rounds of ammunition. That said if I am just using the M1A I can get away with only needing one case/box of ammunition, but that is because they contain 500 rounds. Some people find it fun to go drinking at bars or smoke pot with friends or whatever, I like to go and shoot cans and old shoes for a couple of hours in the woods.
If you want me to have less ammunition on hand at any given moment, convince the stores selling the stuff to give discounts for smaller quantities or something.
Ceterum censeo Sinae esse delendam
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 04 2019, @12:06AM
Yeah, but for the in-laws, you only need two rounds, at most.
Jesus, man! I can blow a thousand dollars or more at the range too.
And I also like shootin' at 'cans, Mexi-cans, Afri-cans, Puerto Ri-cans...
But seriously, I can bust the budget with .22s. Plinking is that much fun. And the .22 won't make you deaf. But it's the GP-100 that I have to feed. That's why I don't have a good video card yet!
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Friday January 04 2019, @03:39AM (3 children)
OMG!! Sulla is one of those GUN NUTS!!!!
LOL, I've never shot that much. A typical day on the range, in the Navy, each person might shoot up a box of ammo, maybe two. My own shooting is comparable. Generally, I only take one weapon to the "range", and I only take a box of ammo. Provided the rifle is properly zero'd in at the start of the shooting session, I put five or six rounds on target, twice, and call it good. The weapon functions properly, and I am capable of hitting the target, all is well. ;^)
There have been some times when I go out with a group. They get crazy with the shooting, and I might go along. But, I've never fired hundreds of shots in a day. POSSIBLY a hundred.
Abortion is the number one killed of children in the United States.
(Score: 1) by Sulla on Friday January 04 2019, @04:16AM
Well I like to fire my M1A the most so i gotta break them out and put some mags through them. Easy to load because of clips so fun as hell with minimal annoyance. Malaysian ball is cheap as hell online so might as well waste 762 NATO. The wife likes the 357 henry so we end up shooting at least two boxes of .38 and mix some 357 in there for fun. I recently had fun with some three inch brenneke black magic bear rounds that rangers use in AK for polar/grizzley and they can fuck a tree pretty good. As i am waiting between mags on the more expensive rounds its fun to play with the 1911 and various 22s. Have this sweet savage 23aa sporter that my grandfather used in his highschool marksmanship classes in the 20s. I want to fire the mini-14 in 300 BLK more often but more expensive than 762.
Also you gotta have like 15 guns to be in the top 1%, which i don't have. Next purchase is going to be a double trigger 12 gauge over-under.
Ceterum censeo Sinae esse delendam
(Score: 2) by Freeman on Friday January 04 2019, @07:37PM (1 child)
.22 ammo is cheap, so a couple hundred rounds or so isn't unreasonable, if you're just plinking targets with a .22 rifle and / or pistol. A couple hundred rounds of 9mm, etc. starts to get a lot more expensive, though. I also like fireworks, they are great fun. Though, I've slowly moved away from the artillery style fireworks that make the big cool displays. I enjoy a good fountain or two just as much as the giant booms and sparkles of the big ones. With young ones around, it's a lot safer and they're a lot more likely to enjoy the ones that don't have such a big bang as well.
Joshua 1:9 "Be strong and of a good courage; be not afraid, neither be thou dismayed: for the Lord thy God is with thee"
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday January 05 2019, @09:28AM
We used to like filling those great big six foot balloons with acetylene and oxygen and shoot 'em with old surplus tracers at night. Best to be about a hundred yards away or more. They didn't always work though, and for kids in the 70s, a buck a round was a bit high.
(Score: 2) by fyngyrz on Thursday January 03 2019, @09:35PM (2 children)
If the consequence of a background check is "you can't keep or bear", then you are advocating gun control that exceeds explicit constitutional bounds.
That seems to me to have the same problem: the limits there have traditionally been parent/guardian-imposed, and there's nothing presently that says that the constitution doesn't apply if you are, for instance, a minor.
In both cases, I think you'd be doing us all a favor if you'd advocate for constitutional change, and then those laws, once (if) the constitution was modernized a bit.
--
There are three kinds of people; those who can count, and those who can't.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 04 2019, @12:11AM
Well if "you can't keep yer bear", what the hell did you shoot it for??
(Score: 1) by khallow on Friday January 04 2019, @02:23AM
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 03 2019, @09:31PM
There doesn't have to be a compromise just because there are two extreme sides.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_to_moderation [wikipedia.org]
(Score: 3, Informative) by Runaway1956 on Friday January 04 2019, @03:13AM (1 child)
Gun control advocates are willing to give up absolutely NOTHING. They have their own form of sniping. They just keep plinking away at what seem to be weak spots in the gun rights platform. It's like erosion - wash a little away here, then wash a little more there, reassess, then start washing at whatever appears weakest.
Bump stocks - that is probably the weakest thing in any gun rights platform at the moment. The bump stock is largely uncontrollable, it seems, making the weapon less accurate. It's pretty hard (in my mind at least) to justify the things. I can give them up, easily, since I've never owned one, or wanted one. But - if the gun control freaks get what they want in this one respect, it only emboldens them. They'll be back tomorrow for something more. The Danegeld never ends. The Danes always want more, tomorrow, the next day, and the next.
But - the gun control crowd's top priority? That's simple. They want everyone to be helpless against them, when they finally decide it's time for a revolution. Gun control has it's roots in authoritarian government, after all. Nazi Germany, Communist Russia, and Communist China epitomize the goals of gun control.
The gun control people will never give up anything. They will only ever demand more authority, and ever more helpless citizens.
BTW - for all you gun control people: The second amendment has NOTHING to do with hunting, or sporting arms. It has EVERYTHING to do with YOU! You, the authoritarians, are the reason for the second amendment. The constitution guarantees that we can shoot YOU. It is just that plain, and just that simple.
Abortion is the number one killed of children in the United States.
(Score: 1, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 04 2019, @06:07AM
We're coming for your guns, Chuck, and after that your capital gains. But for Runaway, is it not about bump-stocks, it is about his booty-bump, and he his deathly, painfully, agonizingly afraid that he will lose it.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by Arik on Friday January 04 2019, @12:32PM
When parties have cross-claims there is room for compromise. When both sides want to dominate the other, you can compromise and have neither dominated.
But when one party simply wants to be left alone, and the other party simply wants to dominate them, then 'compromise' isn't really possible - what happens instead is completely one-sided.
If laughter is the best medicine, who are the best doctors?