Gun controll - Can someone put a bullet in this thing?

[Tormund Ukrainesbane]

This is what really bothers you, isn't it? That the country is moving forward, and you don't want to be part of it.

"Forward" heh. If you think civilian disarmament is "forward" thinking let me refer you to a history book.

[Jon Sprunk]

"Forward" heh. If you think civilian disarmament is "forward" thinking let me refer you to a history book.

Actually, yes, I do. I'd be perfectly comfortable wearing a sidearm on my hip everywhere I go, but I realize (as many here and elsewhere do not), that it would be step backward for our society.

oh, and I'd LOVE for you to try to teach me history, TM. I imagine we'd have some spectacular arguments, but please leave your guns outside. I'm completely gentle.

[Seli]

As someone from a country which just scrapped a national gun registry, I can speak to the fact that it does NOTHING at all to prevent gun violence. The simple fact is a criminal doesnt give a rats ass if a gun is registered or not. The criminal is not going to register his guns. And then, even if a gun is registered, it still can be used in a crime. A piece of paper stating its ownership doesnt stop the trigger from being pulled.

Its a MASSIVE waste of money, and even up here in Canada we had substantial non-compliance and serious issues with the system.

Long gun, not gun if I am not mistaken. The reason people own weapons makes a real difference.

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

And why aren't you up in arms about it? Government overreach! (In case you didn't catch it, my response you quoted was dripping with sarcasm.)

When in a hole, eh? Okay....

1) I volunteered for the military when I was 18, making me automatically subject to being re-called up until age 65 anyway, under a completely different federal law. Ergo, the "militia" designation doesn't mean shit to me.

2) My state (and many others) already have laws designating adult males as members of the militia. Most people aren't aware of such laws, though I'd (apparently wrongly) assumed that people participating in a thread like this would be familiar with such things already.

3) The federal militia requirement is functionally no different from the draft registration requirement.

4) How many times in history has the entire "militia" been ordered to active duty in the 100+ years of that law? Zero, I believe. Because it doesn't make practical sense to put the entire adult population under arms. The designation is a legal one with no real practical effect. Of course, you focusing on this complete rhetorical dead-end leaves unaddressed the far more interesting question of whether a state militia law paired with a law directing or permitting militia members to keep weapons at home would insulate private ownership from federal regulation.

Since I've answered your question, how about answering one of mine? Why aren't you outraged about being "shanghaied" into the militia? I mean, the only one here who expressed any outrage at the concept was you, so I assume it bothers you on some level.

But something you said earlier was very revealing...

Yeah, let's leave the topic where you tried to score a rhetorical point but only revealed your own ignorance of existing law....

This is what really bothers you, isn't it? That the country is moving forward, and you don't want to be part of it.

Does it bother me that the country is heading in the direction of depriving law-abiding citizens of guns? Of course -- no offense intended here, but that's kind of an asinine question. Everybody here is "bothered" by any political event or trend that is not consistent with their own POV, and I assume you're no exception to that.

[Jon Sprunk]

Since I've answered your question, how about answering one of mine? Why aren't you outraged about being "shanghaied" into the militia? I mean, the only one here who expressed any outrage at the concept was you.

The outrage was feigned, FLoW, but nevermind that. To answer your question, it's both points 3 and 4 that you made.

Yeah, let's leave the topic where you tried to score a rhetorical point but only revealed your own ignorance of existing law....

But my ignorance isn't the question, as you well know. You, and others, have used these threads to express a sense of American individualism (gun rights vs crime, vs the State, vs freedom-hating hippies, etc...). And what is your grand solution to getting around federal gun control laws? Why, let's add some more government oversight over our lives! That's the ticket. But, of course, it's just the state govt inflicting another layer of control over us, so that must all right. Oh, and we'll craft the law so it really doesn't mean anything except that we don't want them darn feds interfering in our lives. It's just so disingenuous that it boggles the mind.

By the way, I'm not ashamed to admit that you, as a lawyer, must know a great deal more about the law than I, a simple layman. I repeatedly defer to you when our conversations dip into legal matters.

Does it bother me that the country is heading in the direction of depriving law-abiding citizens of guns? Of course -- no offense intended here, but that's kind of an asinine question. Everybody here is "bothered" by any political event or trend that is not consistent with their own POV, and I assume you're no exception to that.

Not really. Some people actually take the time to examine their POV once in a while, especially when trends are flowing in the opposite direction, to make sure we aren't full of shit. Am I to assume from your statement than self-analysis and course-correction aren't your strong suits, or is that an asinine question, too?

[Toshio.Keepiru]

the best gun control is when gun owners can control themselves and not be idiots...

Unfortunately there will always be the idiot and out of control gun owners who ruin it for those who can be responsible.

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

The outrage was feigned, FLoW, but nevermind that.

So you say you already knew that? Yeah, count me a skeptic on that one.

But my ignorance isn't the question, as you well know.

But see, this is where I think you're wrong. I think this thread has been remarkably consistent in showing how so many on the pro-gun control side either have their facts wrong, or don't understand the applicable law. It's something that frustrates a relatively informed liberal like RK to no end, because it makes your side look bad.

And yet, the ill-informed almost uniformly talk down do those who actually do have a much better understanding. Regardless of who is right or wrong on the issue -- a point that will never be resolved -- this thread should at least advise those who wish to promote gun control that they need to get better informed so they don't get their ass handed to them repeatedly in discussions.

You, and others, have used these threads to express a sense of American individualism (gun rights vs crime, vs the State, vs freedom-hating hippies, etc...).

I don't think the hippies hate freedom. Some of them grew up into people that do, though. Unfortunate, that is.

And what is your grand solution to getting around federal gun control laws? Why, let's add some more government oversight over our lives! That's the ticket. But, of course, it's just the state govt inflicting another layer of control over us, so that must all right. Oh, and we'll craft the law so it really doesn't mean anything except that we don't want them darn feds interfering in our lives. It's just so disingenuous that it boggles the mind.

Thank you for proving my above point yet again. It's like you can't help but keep scoring own goals. As you just pointed out, my points 3) and 4) show that the militia requirement already exists. All I've proposed is linking to that state requirement the right for individuals to keep their own weapons. My proposal adds nothing in the way of "government oversight", but only gives individuals another right as compensation for the obligation that already exists. You're just so eager to find some hypocrisy or inconsistency that you're levying accusations that make no sense. Shit, most gun owners believe quite fully in the concept of a true militia.

By the way, I'm not ashamed to admit that you, as a lawyer, must know a great deal more about the law than I, a simple layman. I repeatedly defer to you when our conversations dip into legal matters.

Perhaps you should try omitting the mocking sarcasm when firing your intiial salvo, then. There's nothing saying non-lawyers can't participate intelligently in debating some legal issues. It's not always rocket science. But when you come out guns blazing in an area in which you are not an expert, you risk getting hammered. There are a lot of subjects on which I'm nothing close to an expert, and while I'll participate sometimes, I tend not to come in full speed ahead.

Not really. Some people actually take the time to examine their POV once in a while, especially when trends are flowing in the opposite direction, to make sure we aren't full of shit. Am I to assume from your statement than self-analysis and course-correction aren't your strong suits, or is that an asinine question, too?

But if I've examimed my POV and determined that I'm still correct, then it remains my POV. Which is what happens not just to me, but to 98% of the other folks on here. In which case, I'm not going to be happy about trends that are opposed to my views. For example, were you "bothered" by the Bush Administration authorizing waterboarding and rendition (both popular with the public), or by the Obama Administration authorizing drone strikes against American citizens, or did you "course-correct" and come to see the light?

[Jon Sprunk]

So you say you already knew that? Yeah, count me a skeptic on that one.

Again, no. My outrage to your idea was feigned, that you wanted to tie gun rights to some state militia to get around federal gun laws. I really thought that was clear... (maybe my sarcasm font is broken).

But see, this is where I think you're wrong. I think this thread has been remarkably consistent in showing how so many on the pro-gun control side either have their facts wrong, or don't understand the applicable law. It's something that frustrates a relatively informed liberal like RK to no end, because it makes your side look bad.

Oh, save me from your condesention, Lord FLoW. I don't need to know all the ins and outs of state militia law to put in my two cents, especially in a conversation with you which always (and reliably) devolves into a point-by-point nitpicking of one's argument instead of honest engagement.

I believe that gun violence in this country is too damned high (just like the rent). I believe there are things we, as a society and via our govt, can do to reduce said gun violence. I believe that there are 3 sides to this debate. The small minority who wants to ban all guns forever. The small minority who fight tooth-and-nail against any solution that even so much as inconveniences their access to their precious weapons (some on pretenses that would be laughable if people weren't, you know, actually dying.) And a majority who want to solve the damned problem and aren't really interested in kowtowing to either of the other groups.

And yet, the ill-informed almost uniformly talk down do those who actually do have a much better understanding. Regardless of who is right or wrong on the issue -- a point that will never be resolved -- this thread should at least advise those who wish to promote gun control that they need to get better informed so they don't get their ass handed to them repeatedly in discussions.

I may have mocked your disingenuous proposal, but I didn't talk down to you. And you're a long way from handing me my ass, sir. You might strike a pompous tone and sneer at my meager knowledge of legal arcana, but that doesn't mean you have shit for a defensible argument. You're fighting a rearguard action, but perhaps you haven't figured that out yet.

Thank you for proving my above point yet again. It's like you can't help but keep scoring own goals. As you just pointed out, my points 3) and 4) show that the militia requirement already exists. All I've proposed is linking to that state requirement the right for individuals to keep their own weapons. My proposal adds nothing in the way of "government oversight", but only gives individuals another right as compensation for the obligation that already exists. You're just so eager to find some hypocrisy or inconsistency that you're levying accusations that make no sense. Shit, most gun owners believe quite fully in the concept of a true militia.

You're initial post did sound ("codifying the existence of the unorganized militia") as if you wanted to form a new, additional militia. Even Tormund seemed to think so, since he advocated limiting the calling up of that militia to repel foreign invasions. (Unless he thinks that no militia should ever be called up except in that instance, which is also possible.) So forgive me if that's how I read your proposal. But also, I was mocking your idea of getting around federal law with legal hankypanky. You're losing the national argument, so let's change the rules--that's your game.

And, yeah, I love catching you in some inconsistent b.s..

Perhaps you should try omitting the mocking sarcasm when firing your intiial salvo, then. There's nothing saying non-lawyers can't participate intelligently in debating some legal issues. It's not always rocket science. But when you come out guns blazing in an area in which you are not an expert, you risk getting hammered. There are a lot of subjects on which I'm nothing close to an expert, and while I'll participate sometimes, I tend not to come in full speed ahead.

yeah, not quite. I think my involvement in this thread has, overall, been thoughtful and participatory. Having read just about every post in this long string of threads, nothing you've posted has convinced me you know anything more about the issue than I do.

But if I've examimed my POV and determined that I'm still correct, then it remains my POV. Which is what happens not just to me, but to 98% of the other folks on here. In which case, I'm not going to be happy about trends that are opposed to my views. For example, were you "bothered" by the Bush Administration authorizing waterboarding and rendition (both popular with the public), or by the Obama Administration authorizing drone strikes against American citizens, or did you "course-correct" and come to see the light?

Ah, so here you try to catch me in some inconsistency. Sauce for the goose or you just can't help but inflict a double-standard?

Yes, I was bothered by a lot of things starting with the govt's actions following 9/11, although I don't recall massive waves of public support for either torture or torture-by-proxy (extraordinary rendition). In 2009, a CNN poll showed that 60% of people thought waterboarding was torture and 50% agreed with the govt using it on terrorists. I call that a govt using fear to convince the public that heinous acts were necessary to "protect us." Not exactly the same as the 90%+ of people who want expanded gun control laws (univ. checks). What do the polls today say about torture? Have we, as a country, corrected our course?

I did course-correct on the drone strikes. In fact, I did it publicly on these boards. I was initially of the opinion that the drones were a cheaper and more efficient way of killing off terrorists overseas, but changed my mind during the debate to come down against them, even when my chosen president was in charge.

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

.... especially in a conversation with you which always (and reliably) devolves into a point-by-point nitpicking of one's argument instead of honest engagement.

Honest engagement? You've got to be kidding. I made a perfectly serious post -- not directed at you, and with no invectives or ad hominem attacks against any individuals or even gun control proponents in general -- about the Second Amendment and state militias. Your entire response was this:

This from a member of the party that claims to be promoting individualism? LOL. Sure, let's just shanghai every non-felon adult into a govt-run militia. Why stop at non-felons? Doesn't that create a two-class society? That provision would probably be struck down. And why stop at 18+ age? Why can't children have the right to protect themselves? The second amendment doesn't mention age. Stop trampling my delinquent child's rights!!!!

Your post didn't even attempt honest engagement. It was snide non-substance (given that universal militia service already exists on the federal level) "dripping with sarcasm" -- that's your characterizaation of your post, not mine. And since that's the kind of conversation you apparently wanted to have, you got snide condescension right back. And you still haven't even attempted a substantive response to what I posted initially.

I believe that gun violence in this country is too damned high (just like the rent). I believe there are things we, as a society and via our govt, can do to reduce said gun violence. I believe that there are 3 sides to this debate. The small minority who wants to ban all guns forever. The small minority who fight tooth-and-nail against any solution that even so much as inconveniences their access to their precious weapons (some on pretenses that would be laughable if people weren't, you know, actually dying.) And a majority who want to solve the damned problem and aren't really interested in kowtowing to either of the other groups.

Polemics aside, that gridlock was acknowledged about 5 iterations of this thread ago. The point I was raising was a new one about the legal repercussions is Heller is reversed.

I may have mocked your disingenuous proposal, but I didn't talk down to you.

First, to the extent there is any distinction between "mocking my disingenuous proposal" and "talking down to me", it's a distinction without a difference as far as I'm concerned. You chose to mock rather than discuss, so you deservedly got condescension in return. Boo fucking hoo. I don't even know why you felt compelled to respond at all to that particular post. I didn't direct it to you, and your only objection appears to be just repeating the same objection you've been making all along.

Second, my proposal wasn't remotely "disingenuous". It's a perfectly serious, legitimate response if an activist court chooses to try to read the Amendment out of existence. It is particularly serious given that the majority decision in Heller actually cited to the U.S. statute making us all members of the militia -- as well as the historical definitions of "militia" -- in holding that the Amendment necessarily creates an individual right because individuals are the militia.

But if the four justices who do not believe it to be an individual right got one more vote, they'd have eliminated the individual right and made it a right that only exists for "the militia". Okay, then give them exactly what they're asking for. Make it explicit (and fully in accordance with pre-existing federal law, the law in many states, and the common understanding of what the militia is) that adults are members of the militia, and then add that militia members are expected to provide their own weapons if called up. Which also is completely consistent with the historical understanding of the militia.

Under current law, "the militia" would be close to 70+ million, people and governments simply do not have that many weapons in stock (nor did federal/state/local governments ever have enough weapons to arm the entire militia). If the militia isn't able to provide their own weapons, then they won't be armed, which I don't think anyone in their right mind would suggest is what the Founders intended. In fact, John Adams expressed horror when he learned that some militia were showing up without any weapons at all. In that context, then, the wording of the Second Amendment makes absolute sense -- the people have to have the right to keep and bear arms so that they will have their arms (and some familiarity with them) if called up to the militia. You may not like that argument, but it is far more in keeping with both the letter and intent of the Second Amendment than would be a federal effort to deprive individuals of the right to bear arms.

And you're a long way from handing me my ass, sir. You might strike a pompous tone and sneer at my meager knowledge of legal arcana

Wrong. I sneer at you deciding to enter a discussion with a post "dripping with sarcasm", when you are unaware of the background. Had you made your point -- whatever it was -- in a cordial manner, you wouldn't have gotten anything nasty in response.

You're initial post did sound ("codifying the existence of the unorganized militia") as if you wanted to form a new, additional militia.

It's not my fault you haven't bothered to read the only major Supreme Court decision actually interpreting the Second Amendment. Apparently, you didn't read the last thread either, where I specifically noted the discussion of the statutory unorganized militia in Scalia's opinion. The new part of my idea is simply adding language directing or authorizing members of the militia to keep their guns at home in the event they are called up, which is something our ancestors would have assumed to be the case anyway.. And pressing that as a legal argument if the non-individual right folks get one more vote on the Supreme Court.

But also, I was mocking your idea of getting around federal law with legal hankypanky. You're losing the national argument, so let's change the rules--that's your game.

The entire premise of my point was that it would be a new Court majority. If it would be anyone "changing the rules", it would be the Justices (four of whom already are on board) who claim the people do not have an individual right to keep and bear arms. It's the feds who would be trying to get around the Constitution (the BIg Rule) with legal hanky-panky. I'm keeping the rules exactly as the Constitution says they're supposed to be.

[danro]

I wish some americans could refrain from panic-buying. This have to be an over reaction, doesn't it?

Surly noone is trying to ban single stack competition handguns in the US?

I wanted a new STI for the national championships. But they are out of stock everywhere over here and it is nigh impossible to get one imported from the US as they are all sold locally now. So I'll either have to find a pre owned or start looking at europeean made 1911s like SPS.

[Jon Sprunk]

All right, this post is going to be a mixed bag. I'll try to keep it brief because I don't know who else besides you and I even care at this point.

Honest engagement? You've got to be kidding. I made a perfectly serious post -- not directed at you -- about the Second Amendment and state militias. Your entire response was this:

I apologize. You're 100% correct. You made a post, not directed at me, and I jumped on it/you with a mocking reply. That's not cool. I only hope that you'll accept my excuse that after all the posts on this topic, my attitude has gone from something like thoughtful debate to exasperated astonishment to mocking sarcasm. I will attempt to rein that in. Again, I'm sorry I aimed that at you.

Second, my proposal wasn't remotely "disingenuous". It's a perfectly serious, legitimate response if an activist court chooses to try to read the Amendment out of existence. It is particularly serious given that the majority decision in Heller actually cited to the U.S. statute making us all members of the militia -- as well as the historical definitions of "militia" -- in holding that the Amendment necessarily creates an individual right because individuals are the militia.. But if the four justices who do not believe it to be an individual right got one more vote, then an express state statute directing or authorizing members of the militia to keep guns at home would seem to absolutely square within the coverage of the Amendment. A perfectly serious, legal response.

I don't see it that way at all. I see your "solution" being a way for states to try to get around federal law, which runs contrary to my concept of this country. (sorry, sermon incoming.) We are not 50 autonomous states, no matter what anyone might think and no matter what the original intent of the framers. We are a single nation. I do not like the prospect of a law being passed by congress, signed by the executive, upheld by the courts, and then a state decides it doesn't like the law so it tries an end-around.

It's not my fault you haven't bothered to read the only major Supreme Court decision actually interpreting the Second Amendment. Apparently, you didn't read the last thread either, where I specifically noted the discussion of the statutory unorganized militia in Scalia's opinion.

I have not read the entire opinion, but yes, I read your post. As I said in my last response, it was my understanding that you were proposing something new, another level of militia in addition to the existing structure. (And, sorry, but you have to admit that a conservative proposing an entirely new level of bureacracy and government control in an area they agree with isn't exactly beyond the pale.)

If it would be anyone "changing the rules", it would be the Justices (four of whom already are on board) who claim the people do not have an individual right to keep and bear arms. It's the feds who would be trying to get around the Constitution (the BIg Rule) with legal hanky-panky. I'm keeping the rules exactly as the Constitution says they're supposed to be. My proposal is completely consistent with both the spirit and the language of the Constitution at the time of ratification.

Come on. Barring the notion that we're 200 years past due for a new Constitution, the sheer tonnage of laws passed since ratification that have illuminated, expanded, shrunk, and outright twisted the original language are a reality we all have to live with. We cannot get back to original intent of the entirety of the Constitution, and I don't think many people would want to if we could. It was the first step in what the founders hoped would be a long, long journey. Perhaps the most important step? Yes, but not the be-all-end-all of the nation and certainly not the endpoint envisioned.

If the Feds are going to twist the meaning of the Second Amendment so as to deprive the People of the right to bear arms,

See. This right here. The Constitution is not a holy text. It's a framework for an 18th-century government with a much smaller landmass, population, and security situation than we have today. I know progressive is now an evil word like liberal, but I think even you have to admit that we -- as a nation, as a society, as a species -- have progressed since the colonial days. It matters much less what worked in 1775, and much more what will work now.

and are able to do that because they've essentially bought off the former militia (national guard) into being army reservists as well, then the obvious recourse is for states to clarify, by statute, who the militia is.

This seems, to me, to be a wonderful argument for getting rid of the idea of militias for good. They are no longer needed, and if their mere existence can be twisted (aye) for the purpose of countering federal law, then it would be better if they ceased to exist.

And historically, the militia were supposed to bring their own weapons when called up.

We don't live in the 18th-century. A lot of things have been done in the past that we no longer accept.

For the state to require (or at least authorize) members of the militia to maintain firearms at home is about as consistent with the concept of a militia as you can get. Don't like it, pass a new Amendment.

As has been pointed out by smarter people than I, we don't have to pass a new amendment (although I would support the effort). The government has the authority and the power to make new laws and new interpretations. And since this country can't even pass an equal-rights amendment, the old "pass a new amendment" adage is pretty much the same as saying suck an egg.

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

I apologize.

New start. Cool.

I don't see it that way at all. I see your "solution" being a way for states to try to get around federal law, which runs contrary to my concept of this country. (sorry, sermon incoming.) We are not 50 autonomous states, no matter what anyone might think and no matter what the original intent of the framers. We are a single nation.

That's a perfectly legitimate POV, but it is not the POV of the Constitution. And even if you want to ignore the intent of the Framers (strictly speaking, I think the intent of those who ratified is more important), that's fine. But I still think the plain text of the Amendment clearly supports the idea that the feds may not deprive the members of the state militia of their weapons.

I do not like the prospect of a law being passed by congress, signed by the executive, upheld by the courts, and then a state decides it doesn't like the law so it tries an end-around.

But if the "end-around" is constitutionally valid and survives court challenge, then I don't think it really counts as an end-around at all. It's simply the people, and the states, asserting their rights under the Constitution. In this case, by taking the presumed Court decision literally, and complying with it to the letter. If that impedes what the Feds want to do in some instances, then it's the Feds trying to get around the Constitution, not the other way around.

Come on. Barring the notion that we're 200 years past due for a new Constitution...,

I think this is really the crux of your whole point. If you think the Second is an anachronism, then the proper course is to pass an Amendment with the required supermajority. But that's a different issue from what I proposed here, which is addressing the Amendment as currently written.

We cannot get back to original intent of the entirety of the Constitution, and I don't think many people would want to if we could.

My proposal doesn't even require original intent . In fact, I'd suggest that a Court decision overturning Heller -- which is the predicate for my proposal -- itself would overturn the original intent. But fine, if that's what they're going to do, I'm simply pointing out that even their alternative construction would leave a gaping hole because of the militia language.

See. This right here. The Constitution is not a holy text. It's a framework for an 18th-century government with a much smaller landmass, population, and security situation than we have today. I know progressive is now an evil word like liberal, but I think even you have to admit that we -- as a nation, as a society, as a species -- have progressed since the colonial days. It matters much less what worked in 1775, and much more what will work now.

First, the folks who wrote and ratified the Constitution knew all that. It's why they created a legislature with the power to make new laws, which by definition acknowledges the need for change in the future. Had they truly wanted to freeze in place 1787, they wouldn't have granted Congress any legislative powers at all. And that's leaving aside the issue of all the power left to the people via their state governments.

But second, they also agreed on some very fundamental rights that they didn't want erased by the whim of a temporary legislative majority, so they limited Congress' affirmative power, as well as specifically enumerating certain rights that I suspect you do value pretty highly even today.

And third, despite those Constitutional limitations, they also created a process to amend that document so that even the rights they deemed fundamental could be changed by the people. That's a pretty damn clever and workable framework, if you ask me.

This seems, to me, to be a wonderful argument for getting rid of the idea of militias for good. They are no longer needed, and if their mere existence can be twisted (aye) for the purpose of countering federal law, then it would be better if they ceased to exist.

First, I'm a bit puzzled by this whole line of argument from you. I thought you weren't actually in favor of taking guns away from people, and did think there was an individual right to have guns. So I'm not sure why this proposal offends you so much. And just to be clear, my proposal (if Heller was overturned) would still give states the green light to do whatever gun control they wanted. All this does is prevent the Feds from taking guns from people in those states where a majority want to keep them. I hardly think that's an extreme position.

Second, you have not only the second Amendment, but other parts of the Constitution that specifically refer to the militia. You'd need to amend that as well.

As has been pointed out by smarter people than I, we don't have to pass a new amendment (although I would support the effort). The government has the authority and the power to make new laws and new interpretations.

That's true. But then, what's your objection? I'm going with the interpretation that a new Court would give the Amendment. I'm simply pointing out that interpretation (the militia as opposed to individual right) argument leaves a gaping hole that states could fill by authorizing militia members to keep their weapons in their home. And if that state response complies with the new interpretation, you shouldn't have an objection to it. Now, if you think my idea wouldn't fit within the Second, then you could say why.

BTW, are you consistent in terms of your willingness to ignore/reinvent the Constitution when it comes to those Constitutional rights that you really do think matter, and should be a bulwark against pure majoritarianism?

[Guest RK Unsmoteable]

I suppose sensible people can disagree about what sensible gun control is. I always viewed gun control as being able to hit the target, but you seem to believe its taking away peoples rights, but I guess YMMV.

Like. But now that your point has gone well over the head of the person saying you can't make an intelligent argument, I'm sure you feel chastised.

Jon, the point K is making is that you said a registry is sensible because it's part of a sensible gun control policy. K's response here is pure satire, directly on point, and fucking funny.

[Jon Sprunk]

Like. But now that your point has gone well over the head of the person saying you can't make an intelligent argument, I'm sure you feel chastised.

Jon, the point K is making is that you said a registry is sensible because it's part of a sensible gun control policy. K's response here is pure satire, directly on point, and fucking funny.

Yeah, I got my point and his satire. Sheesh. Cheerleading now?

His point is still taken and still rejected. A modfication of rights isn't taking away said rights. For instance, some people agree that abortion should be legal in this country. A subset of those people believe that that procedure should not be allowed after the pregnancy is too far along. Placing a reasonable limit on the right to having an abortion is a compromise and does not, imo, "take away" an individual's rights.

That's what I'm after. A reasonable solution that both respects the individual's right to own weapons for lawful uses, and protects society as much as is feasible. Some folks just don't want that at all. They don't want reasonable. They don't want to compromise.

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

That's what I'm after. A reasonable solution that both respects the individual's right to own weapons for lawful uses, and protects society as much as is feasible. Some folks just don't want that at all. They don't want reasonable. They don't want to compromise.

Here's the problem. The gun rights side see most of the measures you propose as sounding much more effective in theory than they will in practice. That, really, is a fundamental disconnect.

And once you get that disconnect, then you can see how wide the gulf is in terms of determining what is "reasonable".

[Guest RK Unsmoteable]

Yeah, I got my point and his satire. Sheesh. Cheerleading now?

I have a lot of respect for the way you dial back your own rhetoric when necessary and get the discussion back to the issue. It improves the whole quality of discussion here. And I always read your posts because I don't find you to be overly driven by ideology. I actually think we're probably closer to agreement on most issues than I might be with anyone else who regularly posts here, but you're just less of an asshole about it.

His point is still taken and still rejected. A modfication of rights isn't taking away said rights.

Well, it isn't until it is. That's the whole problem. If I were going to formally frame the issue, I would say something like "whether the [restriction] is a reasonable restriction or violation of the second amendment right to bear arms/liberty interest in preventing government intrusion into the decision to bear a child."

Placing a reasonable limit on the right to having an abortion is a compromise and does not, imo, "take away" an individual's rights.

Right, exactly. The issue turns on whether the proposed restriction is "reasonable," whether it's a restriction on abortion rights, a "reasonable" time, place, and manner restriction on free speech rights, or a proposed restriction on the right to bear arms.

That's what I'm after. A reasonable solution that both respects the individual's right to own weapons for lawful uses, and protects society as much as is feasible. Some folks just don't want that at all. They don't want reasonable. They don't want to compromise.

K is not unreasonable. And I don't say that from personal experience - he posted a dozen or so proposed restrictions in an earlier version of this thread. I think you might have decided that a registry is reasonable and are now using that as a benchmark to say whether other people are reasonable, when in fact there are people who are in favor of restrictions you might even object to who still aren't in favor of a registry. For a lot of people who support second amendment rights, a registry is really far out there.

So hear me out on this, if you will - a registry is a privacy issue for many people. Accept that in the gun-owning community, stories like the one I told earlier in a version of this thread where the ATF showed up at my friend's parents' house to inspect their registered weapons and treated them like criminals actually happen and are widely known in those circles. A lot of people avoid buying weapons that would put them on ATF's radar for that reason. With a registry, that is no longer an option. The only way to avoid ATF coming to your house and harassing you would be to not own weapons at all. Which is, on its face, an unreasonable restriction.

I absolutely get that not having a registry is a sloppy solution. Fixing the abuses of ATF is the solution. Three cheers for that proposal all around, I'm sure. But that's unlikely to happen. And even if it did, what's to keep it from backsliding?

I made this analogy before, but what if every abortion had to be registered and four years after the procedure HHS showed up at your doorstep to survey you about your health post-procedure for data collection/health safety tracking purposes? There would be really good reason to do this - many abortion clinics have some sub-standard safety practices and preventable avoidable complications are not rare and almost certainly statistically correspond to certain facilities. But it would violate the hell out of the person's privacy rights. And a lot of people just wouldn't want their name on a registry like that just because. I'm betting you understand the "just because" in that context. But even if you don't, the practical resulting government intrusions from having such a registry cannot be ignored.

So, instead - forget the registry. But absolutely have a record-keeping system. Like they are now, FFL licensed dealers keep purchaser forms. Private sellers could file their purchaser forms with an FFL, maybe even for a statutory minimal fee - like $15. Then, you could still run a trace just like ATF and FBI do now, but there is no national registry. Would this not meet all interests of all parties?

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

Would this not meet all interests of all parties?

Well, speaking only for myself, no. I proceed from the assumption that promises as to what the government won't do in the future are worthless. I assume that once the government has actual legal access to certain information, the best assumption is that whatever limits exist on its use don't matter much as a practical matter. So, I see no practical difference between a bill of sale for all private transactions that the FFL is required to maintain for ATF inspection, and a federal database, because I think the latter would likely follow from the former at some point.

[Jon Sprunk]

That's a perfectly legitimate POV, but it is not the POV of the Constitution. And even if you want to ignore the intent of the Framers (strictly speaking, I think the intent of those who ratified is more important), that's fine. But I still think the plain text of the Amendment clearly supports the idea that the feds may not deprive the members of the state militia of their weapons.

I agree that the amendment seems to read that way, although I don't think everyone agrees with that interpretation. I also agree that the best solution would be to change the second amendment, but does anyone really think that's feasible right now? We've reached a political place where even routine legislation and appointments are being bogged down, and congress limps from one self-imposed crisis to the next.

But if the "end-around" is constitutionally valid and survives court challenge, then I don't think it really counts as an end-around at all. It's simply the people, and the states, asserting their rights under the Constitution. In this case, by taking the presumed Court decision literally, and complying with it to the letter. If that impedes what the Feds want to do in some instances, then it's the Feds trying to get around the Constitution, not the other way around. [...]

It's an end-around in the sense that a majority of the electorate (via their representatives) call for a certain action. Having lost the national debate on the issue, a minority decides to defy the federal govt. Now, your solution might be elegant in a legal sense, but it erodes the national identity.

First, the folks who wrote and ratified the Constitution knew all that. It's why they created a legislature with the power to make new laws, which by definition acknowledges the need for change in the future. Had they truly wanted to freeze in place 1787, they wouldn't have granted Congress any legislative powers at all. And that's leaving aside the issue of all the power left to the people via their state governments.

Yes, you're making my point. They left room for a changing country/society/world, as much as they could. But I'm going a step further. Even if they did foresee the future and even if they intended these outcomes 200 years later, I'm saying it still doesn't matter. We are not constrained by their vision.

But second, they also agreed on some very fundamental rights that they didn't want erased by the whim of a temporary legislative majority, so they limited Congress' affirmative power, as well as specifically enumerating certain rights that I suspect you do value pretty highly even today.

Of course. I don't think this country has rushed to judgement regarding the 2nd amendment. We've been debating it a hell of a long time. I think it's the opposite of a temporary legislative majority; it's a swelling tide moving in a specific direction over the course of generations.

And third, despite those Constitutional limitations, they also created a process to amend that document so that even the rights they deemed fundamental could be changed by the people. That's a pretty damn clever and workable framework, if you ask me.

Yep, no argument there.

First, I'm a bit puzzled by this whole line of argument from you. I thought you weren't actually in favor of taking guns away from people, and did think there was an individual right to have guns. So I'm not sure why this proposal offends you so much.

I don't know if you've been reading my posts on these threads, but I think I've been pretty clear. I support the right for individuals to own firearms, but I also want tight restrictions on the ownership, transfer, and trafficking of guns. I do not want guns taken away from responsible, lawful owners -- at all -- but I do want them taken away from the criminal and dangerous elements of our society.

Your proposal offends me (well, offends is a strong word) because it is another (imo) attempt to keep firearms easily accessible. I understand it jives with your states' rights beliefs, but it reminds me of the "more guns everywhere" mantra.

And just to be clear, my proposal (if Heller was overturned) would still give states the green light to do whatever gun control they wanted. All this does is prevent the Feds from taking guns from people in those states where a majority want to keep them. I hardly think that's an extreme position.

States don't have border guards and checkpoints, FLoW. You know as well as I do what happens when a higher-restricted region abuts against a lower-restricted region. The weapons flow across state lines with no reasonable way to stop them. And I don't buy the "taking guns away" argument either. I'm not talking about a ban. Personally, I think lawful persons who are willing to subject themselves to a higher level of scrutiny and oversight should possibly be allowed to own even the dreaded "assault weapons." Why do I care if someone wants to destroy glass bottles or even a buck with an AR-15? I don't. But we damned well better do a better job of keeping tose weapons out of the wrong hands. And that means more restrictions and better tools for the govt to track these weapons, not less.

That's true. But then, what's your objection? I'm going with the interpretation that a new Court would give the Amendment. I'm simply pointing out that interpretation (the militia as opposed to individual right) argument leaves a gaping hole that states could fill by authorizing militia members to keep their weapons in their home. And if that state response complies with the new interpretation, you shouldn't have an objection to it. Now, if you think my idea wouldn't fit within the Second, then you could say why.

No, my problem isn't that idea wouldn't be Constitutional (because, honestly, I'm the last person you'd ask about that). It's that it doesn't fit with the concept of America as a united nation. And unlike an issue like gay marriage, for example, which really only affects the individuals seeking to be married, guns are life-and-death. It's as if the lawful gun owners of this country don't understand that the lack of restriction they are protecting/seeking doesn't also (greatly) benefit the criminal element.

BTW, are you consistent in terms of your willingness to ignore/reinvent the Constitution when it comes to those Constitutional rights that you really do think matter, and should be a bulwark against pure majoritarianism?

I try to be, but I think it would depend on the situation.

[Guest RK Unsmoteable]

Well, speaking only for myself, no. I proceed from the assumption that promises as to what the government won't do in the future are worthless. I assume that once the government has actual legal access to certain information, the best assumption is that whatever limits exist on its use don't matter much as a practical matter. So, I see no practical difference between a bill of sale for all private transactions that the FFL is required to maintain for ATF inspection, and a federal database, because I think the latter would likely follow from the former at some point.

How do you square that with being okay with any amount of records of sales being kept? Or would you repeal the current requirement for FFL holders to keep such records?

[lupis42]

So, instead - forget the registry. But absolutely have a record-keeping system. Like they are now, FFL licensed dealers keep purchaser forms. Private sellers could file their purchaser forms with an FFL, maybe even for a statutory minimal fee - like $15. Then, you could still run a trace just like ATF and FBI do now, but there is no national registry. Would this not meet all interests of all parties?

Depends a lot on the presumption when the last recorded individual doesn't have the weapon, and claims to have transferred it legally 10 years ago via Dickabelas Trading Post, which doesn't have any record any more because they've been closed for the last 9 years - i.e., whether, if transfer is alleged, the burden of proof lies with the owner, the FFL, or the state.