Guns, The 2nd Amendment and the Legitimacy of Their Necessity

[aceluby]

Which proves exactly jack shit about how many regulations there are on the books.

And of course, that depends which state you live in, because there already are mandatory background checks for private sales in some states.

It's just an enormous hole in your 'heavily regulated' claim.  I would agree that 'some' guns are 'sometimes' heavily regulated 'under certain circumstances'.  The problem I have is this broad brush you're trying to use.

[Swordfish]

If an adult can walk down and buy and operating something on a whim, i wouldn't call it heavily regulated.  

By that definition, neither cars nor guns are heavily regulated.  Since you can absolutely walk down and buy a car on a whim.

There's a joke of a background check, and a license requirement to carry it concealed or to own automatics/explosives, but that's the only regulation on consumers. Considering what we require for other lethal machines, it's a joke.  

 those are not the only regulations on consumers.

[JonSnow4President]

 

By that definition, neither cars nor guns are heavily regulated.  Since you can absolutely walk down and buy a car on a whim.

 those are not the only regulations on consumers.

You can.  A car that already meets environmental regulations, certain safety standards, and has certain features.  You need a license to operate it (so you can't operate it on a whim unless already licensed).  You then have a metric shit ton of rules you have to follow, with active enforcement, and have to have your car relicensed every year, and in many states inspected to make sure it meets certain standards.  You have to keep a minimum of insurance for the car/your operation of it.  

So yeah, completely the same.

[JonSnow4President]

 

By that definition, neither cars nor guns are heavily regulated.  Since you can absolutely walk down and buy a car on a whim.

 those are not the only regulations on consumers.

Name one besides firing in city limits.

ETA:  Hunting regs don't count, since those tend to be conservation oriented, and not gun oriented.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

Using the fact that there are already a lot of gun laws and regulations isn't a good talking point to oppose new gun laws and regulations. It's meaningless at best, and it can be used to imply that the current laws and regulations aren't effective enough.

[BrettG]

The idea that guns are heavily regulated, in any meaningful sense, is an absolute joke. I really try to see the pro-gun side of the gun control argument, and JonSnow4President has been doing a masterful job of articulating that in this thread, for which I commend him.  But when something as batshit insane as "Guns are heavily regulated" is said with a straight face...

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

The idea that guns are heavily regulated, in any meaningful sense, is an absolute joke. I really try to see the pro-gun side of the gun control argument, and JonSnow4President has been doing a masterful job of articulating that in this thread, for which I commend him.  But when something as batshit insane as "Guns are heavily regulated" is said with a straight face...

Well the oddest thing said in this thread so far definitely goes to FNR and his talk of any limit to a magazine's size is unacceptable because "what if" he needs to fight off 6 or 7 gangbangers breaking into his house and "what if" society collapses and he needs to defend his home and family from hordes of marauding barbarians.

Maybe he's right though, because what if Luis Suarez bites Lionel Messi and kick starts the zombie apocalypse? WHAT IF?!?!?!?

[BrettG]

Well the oddest thing said in this thread so far definitely goes to FNR and his talk of any limit to a magazine's size is unacceptable because "what if" he needs to fight off 6 or 7 gangbangers breaking into his house and "what if" society collapses and he needs to defend his home and family from hordes of marauding barbarians.

Maybe he's right though, because what if Luis Suarez bites Lionel Messi and kick starts the zombie apocalypse? WHAT IF?!?!?!?

Yes, agreed, that's several orders of magnitude higher on the Utter Ridiculousness Scale.

Then again, though, no harm in being prepared, right? Personally that's why I never leave the house without my Scuba gear and ark full of samples of the world's plant and animal population. Sure, the globe probably won't suddenly flood, but you never know, right? Better safe than sorry.

[BloodRider]

Name one besides firing in city limits.

ETA:  Hunting regs don't count, since those tend to be conservation oriented, and not gun oriented.

Up next we shall see Swordfish claim that you are not making any sense, and that therefore it is impossible to understand this nonsense, ergo, gun control is immoral.

[Swordfish]

You can.  A car that already meets environmental regulations, certain safety standards, and has certain features.  

Wait...  I thought we were only talking about regulation on consumers, not on manufacturers?

 

You need a license to operate it (so you can't operate it on a whim unless already licensed).  You then have a metric shit ton of rules you have to follow, with active enforcement, and have to have your car relicensed every year, and in many states inspected to make sure it meets certain standards.  You have to keep a minimum of insurance for the car/your operation of it.  

So yeah, completely the same.

 I didn't say it was the same,  You're the one who set the definition at 'i can't jsut go buy it ona whim'.  Now you want to change that definition.

 

Name one besides firing in city limits.

 

You can't carry a gun into a federal courthouse.

 

ETA:  Hunting regs don't count, since those tend to be conservation oriented, and not gun oriented.

The ever expanding list of gun regulations you have to keep excluding is pretty much making my point for me.

 

Up next we shall see Swordfish claim that you are not making any sense, and that therefore it is impossible to understand this nonsense, ergo, gun control is immoral.

Nostradamus you are not.

[JonSnow4President]

 

Wait...  I thought we were only talking about regulation on consumers, not on manufacturers?

 

 I didn't say it was the same,  You're the one who set the definition at 'i can't jsut go buy it ona whim'.  Now you want to change that definition.

 

You can't carry a gun into a federal courthouse.

 

The ever expanding list of gun regulations you have to keep excluding is pretty much making my point for me.

 

 

Nostradamus you are not.

I didn't just say buy on a whim.  Buy and use.  I can buy a 2,000,000 car capable of going 200+ mph tomorrow if someone gave me the money.  That doesn't mean I can drive it without prior licensing.

As far as the hunting regs, adding a plug to limit a shotgun to 3 rounds isn't really a gun control thing.  It's to promote a sustainable population of waterfowl.

As far as regulations, we have a few prohibited buildings, and in most places prohibitions against firing in city limits.  SOOOOooooo heavily regulated.  

[Swordfish]

I didn't just say buy on a whim.  Buy and use.  I can buy a 2,000,000 car capable of going 200+ mph tomorrow if someone gave me the money.  That doesn't mean I can drive it without prior licensing.

You can on private property.  Though I still don't know why this is relevant, since i've never suggested that cars are not heavily regulated.  Quite the contrary, I conceded that they are a long time ago.  It would be silly to suggest otherwise.

 

 

As far as the hunting regs, adding a plug to limit a shotgun to 3 rounds isn't really a gun control thing.  It's to promote a sustainable population of waterfowl.

.

well, ok.  let's go ahead and just exclude that one then.  

But if your assertion is that there are no hunting regulations that are about anything other than conservation, then you don't know your hunting regulations very well.

 

 

As far as regulations, we have a few prohibited buildings, and in most places prohibitions against firing in city limits.  SOOOOooooo heavily regulated.  

 

You asked for one, i gave you one.  it was not meant to be a comprehensive list.

As I said, there are thousands of these regulations on the books in this country. 

 

A simple wiki search would have provided you with a summary of the laws in place just in California, if you were really interested:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_laws_in_California

Another summary, with links to local regs:

http://smartgunlaws.org/california-state-law-summary/

Google can provide you with thousands more examples at the federal state and local levels, if you're truly curious..

 

 

 

 

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

 

As I said, there are thousands of these regulations on the books in this country.

 

A simple wiki search would have provided you with a summary of the laws in place just in California, if you were really interested:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_laws_in_California

Another summary, with links to local regs:

http://smartgunlaws.org/california-state-law-summary/

Google can provide you with thousands more examples at the federal state and local levels, if you're truly curious..

Your links indicate that a lot of the numbers thrown out about how there are so many regulations can be very misleading. First of all it includes a lot of non-germane laws/regulations/ordnances that have nothing to do with the debate about reducing violent gun crime in America (like hunting standards and laws/regulations/ordnances that effect gun ranges). Then it includes a lot of laws/regulations/ordnances that pro-gun advocates support, like for example, an ordnance in support of expanding concealed carry permits. Finally it double and triple counts a lot of overlapping, and at times, identical laws/regulations/ordnances pertaining to guns (like if a city passes an ordnance and then the county the city is in also passes the same ordnance).

That's not to say there aren't a lot of laws/regulations/ordnances on the books already and that a lot of them could be pointless or frivolous. It's just not a great talking point since a lot of it's substance could be viewed as meaningless noise. The number of laws pales in comparison to their overall effectiveness.

[Swordfish]

Your links indicate that a lot of the numbers thrown out about how there are so many regulations can be very misleading. First of all it includes a lot of non-germane laws/regulations/ordnances that have nothing to do with the debate about reducing violent gun crime in America (like hunting standards and laws/regulations/ordnances that effect gun ranges). Then it includes a lot of laws/regulations/ordnances that pro-gun advocates support, like for example, an ordnance in support of expanding concealed carry permits. 

What difference does it make to the context of how heavily regulated guns are whether gun owners support the regulation or not? So background checks, for example,  don't count as regulation because gun owners support them?  What kind of nonsense is that?

Finally it double and triple counts a lot of overlapping, and at times, identical laws/regulations/ordnances pertaining to guns (like if a city passes an ordnance and then the county the city is in also passes the same ordnance).

Again, so what?  I haven't offered any specific counts, so i'm not sure what you are trying to add to the conversation here, other than the fact that there are enough regulations on the books that some of them overlap between local/regional/state, which i'm gonna go out on a limb and guess was not your intent.

 

That's not to say there aren't a lot of laws/regulations/ordnances on the books already 

There are.  As I believe I've mentioned.

 

and that a lot of them could be pointless or frivolous. It's just not a great talking point since a lot of it's substance could be viewed as meaningless noise. The number of laws pales in comparison to their overall effectiveness.

Anything can be viewed in any way at any time by any person.  

You are essentially validating what  my assertion, which is that  that when someone says 'Guns are not heavily regulated', what they actually mean is 'guns are not regulated in the way i think they should be regulated'.

 

 

 

 

 

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

I'm saying it's an empty, BS argument to claim there are so many gun laws already so why add more when in that large number you include thousands of laws that effect non-germane issues, thousands of laws that expand, not restrict, access to guns, and thousands of laws that overlap and are thus over counted.

[Swordfish]

I'm saying it's an empty, BS argument to claim there are so many gun laws already so why add more

Well, it's a good thing i haven't made that argument then, MIRITE?

 

 when in that large number you include thousands of laws that effect non-germane issues, thousands of laws that expand, not restrict, access to guns, and thousands of laws that overlap and are thus over counted.

Nonsense. I've done no such thing.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

I'm curious how many people, besides me, believe in the indivudual right to keep an bear firearms but believe that there should be stronger regulation of that right without outright bans or regulation that functions as a ban?

[Swordfish]

I'm curious how many people, besides me, believe in the indivudual right to keep an bear firearms but believe that there should be stronger regulation of that right without outright bans or regulation that functions as a ban?

Many.  But you are not going to find widespread agreement in this group on the detail of what constitutes 'stronger regulation of that right'.

The devil is in the details.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

I'm curious how many people, besides me, believe in the indivudual right to keep an bear firearms but believe that there should be stronger regulation of that right without outright bans or regulation that functions as a ban?

That would be me.

Many.  But you are not going to find widespread agreement in this group on the detail of what constitutes 'stronger regulation of that right'.

The devil is in the details.

I agree. You could get them in the room together, but finding broad agreement would be unlikely.

[HexMachina]

If I understand correctly (based on This article) Obama is in the process of trying to pass gun regulations by some kind of executive order (I'm unfamiliar with the US system so don't get how this works). For those more up to date on these issues, are their any more details about this?