Any chance for a reasonable discussion about firearms laws? (v.2023, Dialectic Bubbaloo)

Toyman! said:

Why is the anti-gun lobby unwilling to change the only thing that allows guns in this country? 

If you aren't willing to do the work to change the Constitution, I'm not willing to discuss regulations that make the Constitution nothing more than a scrap of paper to be ignored when it's inconvenient. 

If you are willing to ignore the 2nd, should we also just ignore the 1st and have the Christians or Muslims set up a state religion or you get to catch a government bullet for speaking out against the president? Maybe we ignore the 4th and allow the police or any government drudge to ramble through your house without any due process? 

Anyone willing to ignore the Constitution is not to be trusted. They are the people that become bureaucrats and dictators who think they know better than everyone else.   

 

For the sake of debate, that depends greatly on how one interprets the Second Amendment:

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

It could be argued the 2A does regulate firearm ownership with being part of a well regulated militia as a requirement for bearing said arms. 

The currently accepted interpretation, whether one agrees with it or not, was developed by firearms advocacy groups over decades of lobbying and influence to get judges into the positions to agree with their beliefs during court rulings.

Any whining by the anti-gun groups will need to follow a similar route - which will take time.  Expectations for a quick change to a system that had been patiently built up over many, many years is simply not being realistic.

Or... you make a deal - somewhere in the middle where some sort of regulatory safeties can be put in place in an effort to keep guns away from the crazies, along with removing some of the archaic restrictions left over from previous rules - say removing suppressors and SBRs from NFA regulation and perhaps opening up the NFA registry to post-1968 full automatics. 

In reply to Noddaz :

More importantly will these laws actually fix the problem you're addressing, or is it just a knee-jerk emotional reaction meant to do "something" even if that "something" has the opposite effect. For instance, "assault weapons" are used in 3% of murders. Actually less, because they classify all rifles in the same category, but let's go with the 3%. 630 total murders with these weapons. Handguns are used in 59%, or over 12k. But what we are flooded with by both the media and our legislators are "assault weapons" and "weapons of war" when in reality they are a statistical insignificance. 

but, once again, we can use made up words that sound evil to illicit an emotional response to get the desired effect and ignore reality.

jmabarone said:

Suppressors shouldn't require a tax stamp to purchase.  

I agree, I hate hearing protection and would love to never use it

In reply to Antihero :

I didn't for a long time and am now paying that price.

Yeah this thread is going about how I expected.

Didn't we already do this one? If I recall, both the title and the responses are virtually identical. I'm keeping my distance because I want to like you as a car guy, not dislike you because of your position on a topic like this.

I apologize for being a naive idiot.

Not at all related, something interesting I saw recently, quoted to avoid the original context:

Overly simplistic thinking plus a strong emotional attachment skips them right past “How can I be actually effective for my cause?” to “How can I cater the most intensely to my own feelings?” [...]

All persuasion falls into one of three categories:

1. Effective

2. Ineffective

3. Counterproductive

“Counterproductive” isn’t just a strong version of “ineffective”. It’s an agent attacking (inadvertently or ignorantly) their own cause, and that’s a qualitatively different outcome. The biological equivalent is cancer — cells that get so excited about the organism’s mission to grow that they think their zeal is the organism’s mission.

Ian F (Forum Supporter) said:

For the sake of debate, that depends greatly on how one interprets the Second Amendment:

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

It could be argued the 2A does regulate firearm ownership with being part of a well regulated militia as a requirement for bearing said arms. 

 

As others have noted, times have changed. There was no standing army back then, so the militia became whatever it needed to be in times of crisis. Weapons were provided to the militia by private citizens- they either brought their own or the individuals buying/holding a commission would provide them to their troops. 

Those days are long gone, and no modification to the Constitution has been made to address the changes. Making a change to the Constitution regarding firearms will be a serious challenge, as the prevailing "all or nothing" mentality on both sides of the debate remains a serious wedge issue.

Some may be tempted to argue that the current state of affairs is working exactly as intended.

 

This is going much better than I expected, you all are being much nicer than what happens on this topic elsewhere.  The 2nd has been interpreted  in so many ways depending on one's motivation.  The current supreme court cannot do justice to a view of it that would benefit the majority of us and the politicians will not work together to make the country safer for all regarding gun ownership.  But maybe someday the pendulum may swing far enough to one side to make a difference.  In the meantime lets all hope we get to discuss this for another day before some nut case shoots the walmart/home depot/school/sports event/church/highway/house where we are.

Kreb (Forum Supporter) said:

Didn't we already do this one? If I recall, both the title and the responses are virtually identical. I'm keeping my distance because I want to like you as a car guy, not dislike you because of your position on a topic like this.

Plenty dislike me for lots of reasons. Might as well add to the list. 

Ian F (Forum Supporter) said:

Toyman! said:

Why is the anti-gun lobby unwilling to change the only thing that allows guns in this country? 

If you aren't willing to do the work to change the Constitution, I'm not willing to discuss regulations that make the Constitution nothing more than a scrap of paper to be ignored when it's inconvenient. 

If you are willing to ignore the 2nd, should we also just ignore the 1st and have the Christians or Muslims set up a state religion or you get to catch a government bullet for speaking out against the president? Maybe we ignore the 4th and allow the police or any government drudge to ramble through your house without any due process? 

Anyone willing to ignore the Constitution is not to be trusted. They are the people that become bureaucrats and dictators who think they know better than everyone else.   

 

For the sake of debate, that depends greatly on how one interprets the Second Amendment:

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

It could be argued the 2A does regulate firearm ownership with being part of a well regulated militia as a requirement for bearing said arms. 

The currently accepted interpretation, whether one agrees with it or not, was developed by firearms advocacy groups over decades of lobbying and influence to get judges into the positions to agree with their beliefs during court rulings.

Any whining by the anti-gun groups will need to follow a similar route - which will take time.  Expectations for a quick change to a system that had been patiently built up over many, many years is simply not being realistic.

Or... you make a deal - somewhere in the middle where some sort of regulatory safeties can be put in place in an effort to keep guns away from the crazies, along with removing some of the archaic restrictions left over from previous rules - say removing suppressors and SBRs from NFA regulation and perhaps opening up the NFA registry to post-1968 full automatics. 

Ian, regardless of my views on gun control/laws, the wording isn't really open to interpretation.  It doesn't say "You can give people guns if you call up the militia," it pretty clearly says "people can have guns so that you CAN call up a militia."  That wording and its interpretation have been through the courts a few thousand times and they always reach the same consensus.

I also feel that the specific wording in the document that says you have the right and the responsibility to change (amend) the document as times change.  We have used that responsibility 17 times for important stuff - abolishing slavery, women's right to vote, etc.

Toyman, I agree with you completely, but there are a truckload of entities who consistently violate the 1st, 14th and 15th with impunity.  You can't pick one amendment to cuddle with, you have to realize that many people think it's just fine to scream "cold dead hands," out of one side of their mouth while also supporting practices in which certain communities are undermined.  We even tried to make an amendment (ERA) to bolster the rampantly-ignored 15th and it didn't pass.

Just saying that it's hard for me to insist that demanding absolute adherence to one amendment that aligns with my own values is meaningless to me unless all of them are treated equally in the law.  I'm not suggesting we ignore 2A because we ignore 1A, 14A, and 15A, I'm saying that if 1, 14, and 15 were given equal weight and thereby not causing the social inequities and malfeasance in government, I don't think that 2A would be as much of a discussion because there wouldn't be as much violence to begin with.

In reply to bobzilla :

I like you for your full body hugs.  

Curtis73 (Forum Supporter) said:

Ian F (Forum Supporter) said:

Toyman! said:

Why is the anti-gun lobby unwilling to change the only thing that allows guns in this country? 

If you aren't willing to do the work to change the Constitution, I'm not willing to discuss regulations that make the Constitution nothing more than a scrap of paper to be ignored when it's inconvenient. 

If you are willing to ignore the 2nd, should we also just ignore the 1st and have the Christians or Muslims set up a state religion or you get to catch a government bullet for speaking out against the president? Maybe we ignore the 4th and allow the police or any government drudge to ramble through your house without any due process? 

Anyone willing to ignore the Constitution is not to be trusted. They are the people that become bureaucrats and dictators who think they know better than everyone else.   

 

For the sake of debate, that depends greatly on how one interprets the Second Amendment:

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

It could be argued the 2A does regulate firearm ownership with being part of a well regulated militia as a requirement for bearing said arms. 

The currently accepted interpretation, whether one agrees with it or not, was developed by firearms advocacy groups over decades of lobbying and influence to get judges into the positions to agree with their beliefs during court rulings.

Any whining by the anti-gun groups will need to follow a similar route - which will take time.  Expectations for a quick change to a system that had been patiently built up over many, many years is simply not being realistic.

Or... you make a deal - somewhere in the middle where some sort of regulatory safeties can be put in place in an effort to keep guns away from the crazies, along with removing some of the archaic restrictions left over from previous rules - say removing suppressors and SBRs from NFA regulation and perhaps opening up the NFA registry to post-1968 full automatics. 

Ian, regardless of my views on gun control/laws, the wording isn't really open to interpretation.  It doesn't say "You can give people guns if you call up the militia," it pretty clearly says "people can have guns so that you CAN call up a militia."  That wording and its interpretation have been through the courts a few thousand times and they always reach the same consensus.

I also feel that the specific wording in the document that says you have the right and the responsibility to change (amend) the document as times change.  We have used that responsibility 17 times for important stuff - abolishing slavery, women's right to vote, etc.

Toyman, I agree with you completely, but there are a truckload of entities who consistently violate the 1st, 14th and 15th with impunity.  You can't pick one amendment to cuddle with, you have to realize that many people think it's just fine to scream "cold dead hands," out of one side of their mouth while also supporting practices in which certain communities are undermined.  We even tried to make an amendment (ERA) to bolster the rampantly-ignored 15th and it didn't pass.

Just saying that it's hard for me to insist that demanding absolute adherence to one amendment that aligns with my own values is meaningless to me unless all of them are treated equally in the law.  I'm not suggesting we ignore 2A because we ignore 1A, 14A, and 15A, I'm saying that if 1, 14, and 15 were given equal weight and thereby not causing the social inequities and malfeasance in government, I don't think that 2A would be as much of a discussion because there wouldn't be as much violence to begin with.

I demand we hold all of them as the highest law in this country. The blatant disregard for the Constitution is why the country is so polarized. There is nothing I would like more than a hard reset. 

The problem is, the legislature, the courts, and the citizens have gotten so use to ignoring it that it is now standard procedure. What was once a clear and beautiful thing is now a murky mess that everyone is willing to ignore to suit their own version of reality. 

Changing the Constitution is hard. It's supposed to be hard. But it can be done and has been done when the citizens came together to do it. 

If you want gun regulation, go for it. All I ask is you do it by the book and in the light of day. Not with underhanded deals bought from corrupt legislators and biased courts. 

Edited a couple of times because typing on a phone sucks. 

Toyman! said:

Curtis73 (Forum Supporter) said:

Ian F (Forum Supporter) said:

Toyman! said:

Why is the anti-gun lobby unwilling to change the only thing that allows guns in this country? 

If you aren't willing to do the work to change the Constitution, I'm not willing to discuss regulations that make the Constitution nothing more than a scrap of paper to be ignored when it's inconvenient. 

If you are willing to ignore the 2nd, should we also just ignore the 1st and have the Christians or Muslims set up a state religion or you get to catch a government bullet for speaking out against the president? Maybe we ignore the 4th and allow the police or any government drudge to ramble through your house without any due process? 

Anyone willing to ignore the Constitution is not to be trusted. They are the people that become bureaucrats and dictators who think they know better than everyone else.   

 

For the sake of debate, that depends greatly on how one interprets the Second Amendment:

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

It could be argued the 2A does regulate firearm ownership with being part of a well regulated militia as a requirement for bearing said arms. 

The currently accepted interpretation, whether one agrees with it or not, was developed by firearms advocacy groups over decades of lobbying and influence to get judges into the positions to agree with their beliefs during court rulings.

Any whining by the anti-gun groups will need to follow a similar route - which will take time.  Expectations for a quick change to a system that had been patiently built up over many, many years is simply not being realistic.

Or... you make a deal - somewhere in the middle where some sort of regulatory safeties can be put in place in an effort to keep guns away from the crazies, along with removing some of the archaic restrictions left over from previous rules - say removing suppressors and SBRs from NFA regulation and perhaps opening up the NFA registry to post-1968 full automatics. 

Ian, regardless of my views on gun control/laws, the wording isn't really open to interpretation.  It doesn't say "You can give people guns if you call up the militia," it pretty clearly says "people can have guns so that you CAN call up a militia."  That wording and its interpretation have been through the courts a few thousand times and they always reach the same consensus.

I also feel that the specific wording in the document that says you have the right and the responsibility to change (amend) the document as times change.  We have used that responsibility 17 times for important stuff - abolishing slavery, women's right to vote, etc.

Toyman, I agree with you completely, but there are a truckload of entities who consistently violate the 1st, 14th and 15th with impunity.  You can't pick one amendment to cuddle with, you have to realize that many people think it's just fine to scream "cold dead hands," out of one side of their mouth while also supporting practices in which certain communities are undermined.  We even tried to make an amendment (ERA) to bolster the rampantly-ignored 15th and it didn't pass.

Just saying that it's hard for me to insist that demanding absolute adherence to one amendment that aligns with my own values is meaningless to me unless all of them are treated equally in the law.  I'm not suggesting we ignore 2A because we ignore 1A, 14A, and 15A, I'm saying that if 1, 14, and 15 were given equal weight and thereby not causing the social inequities and malfeasance in government, I don't think that 2A would be as much of a discussion because there wouldn't be as much violence to begin with.

I demand we hold all of them as the highest law in this country. The blatant disregard for the Constitution is why the country is so polarized. There is nothing I would like more than a hard reset. 

The problem is, the legislature, the courts, and the citizens have gotten so use to ignoring it that it is now standard procedure. What was once a clear and beautiful thing is now a murky mess that everyone is willing to ignore to suit their own version of reality. 

Changing the Constitution is hard. It's supposed to be hard. But it can be done and has been done when the citizens came together to do it. 

If you want gun regulation, go for it. All I ask is you do it by the book and in the light of day. Not with underhanded deals bought from corrupt legislators and biased courts. 

Edited a couple of times because typing on a phone sucks. 

 

This. Or worse make rules from unelected officials with no oversight and have no repercussions if they cross a line. 

GameboyRMH said:

The record for the number of people killed by an attacker in a single mass stabbing event remains at 4.

It's hard to have a serious discussion when people make stuff up. I know you have google, try again. 

Steve_Jones said:

GameboyRMH said:

The record for the number of people killed by an attacker in a single mass stabbing event remains at 4.

It's hard to have a serious discussion when people make stuff up. I know you have google, try again. 

That's my honest and I think well-informed understanding, that record stands from the 2014 Kunming attack (with an average of just under 4 kills per attacker). The only attack that's come close to beating it was the 2022 Saskatchewan attacks, but that was a series of ambushes rather than a single mass stabbing. If you know of a deadlier kills-per-attacker mass stabbing than the 2014 Kunming attack, I'd be glad to be informed.

Steve_Jones said:

GameboyRMH said:

The record for the number of people killed by an attacker in a single mass stabbing event remains at 4.

It's hard to have a serious discussion when people make stuff up. I know you have google, try again. 

You mean like this?

Knife attack at China train station leaves at least 27 dead. March 1st 2014

Actually, that was a bit difficult to find.  Google mixing string of mass killings (think Jack the Ripper) with mass at one time killings.  But in Googles defense, it did bring up a lot of ads to buy knives.

Back to the reasonable firearms discussion.

In reply to GameboyRMH :

A quick search shows 19 dead and 26 injured in an attack in Japan.

https://www.cnn.com/2016/07/25/world/japan-knife-attack-deaths/index.html

GameboyRMH said:

Steve_Jones said:

GameboyRMH said:

The record for the number of people killed by an attacker in a single mass stabbing event remains at 4.

It's hard to have a serious discussion when people make stuff up. I know you have google, try again. 

That's my honest and I think well-informed understanding, that record stands from the 2014 Kunming attack (with an average of just under 4 kills per attacker). The only attack that's come close to beating it was the 2022 Saskatchewan attacks, but that was a series of ambushes rather than a single mass stabbing. If you know of a deadlier kills-per-attacker mass stabbing than the 2014 Kunming attack, I'd be glad to be informed.

It's 19  

It took under 30 seconds.

Steve_Jones said:

It took under 30 seconds. 

https://www.cnn.com/2020/03/16/asia/japan-knife-attack-sentence-hnk-intl/index.html

I actually hadn't heard of that one so thanks for letting me know, but I don't think that qualifies as a mass stabbing, rather a series of ambushes like the Saskatchewan attacks.

In reply to GameboyRMH :

One guy stabbing a bunch of people is the definition of a mass stabbing, but you do you. 

It's pretty simple, here's the definition:

A mass stabbing is a single incident in which multiple victims are harmed or killed in a knife-enabled crime. In such attacks, sharp objects are thrust at the victim, piercing through the skin and harming the victim.

You can try and twist yourself into a pretzel trying to make it fit your agenda, but a simple "I was mistaken" would have been the better move, you should have been man enough to do that first. 

In reply to Curtis73 (Forum Supporter) :

Every text is open to interpretation, depending on the way you want to read it. All that matters is having enough people to agree with your interpretation. Or in reality, enough people in the right places who agree.

All I'm saying is the interpretation we have now took decades of long-term planning to mature. Any change is that situation will also take decades. Generations, most likely.  

There is no discussion to be had here. Everyone is too entrenched in their beliefs. 

A criminal is someone who violates laws.

murder is a crime.  
shooting someone is a crime.  
using a gun in a crime, is a crime. 
having a gun, as a criminal, is a crime. 

trying to control criminal with laws is.. ?

If'n we are talking about gun laws though, just look up ITAR and 922r compliance. 
 

i have a ak-47 that has a thinner single stack magazine and thinner magazine opening. Its all russian. If i want to make that ak-47 use the normal thicker double stack magazine that is the standard, i can totally do that legally(florida, no mag restrictions). Only hiccup is 922r states that i must remove a certain amount of russian parts and replace them with some domestic parts, despite their being NO difference in the parts, other than their supposed country of origin.  If i swap a few parts, i can open up the mag well and use the double stack mags all i want. If i dont have enough domestic parts and i open up the magazine well, i would be a super terrorist felon.  
 

because after all, if a criminal is determined to go shoot people, a parts compliance list is #1 on their checklist. 
 

also, i have 2 tax stamps for "silencers". Its an acessory, not a "firearm", it should not be lumped with firearms.  I can go shoot in the woods all day, nobody would care. Its just going to be far less annoying for them if a person had a suppresor.