NOT Gun Control

[NateKirk]

I think French's idea of implementing more widespread use of GVRO's is a mostly good idea and one that I support. However, you mention:

If an angry girlfriend seeks vengeance and obtains such an order against you, how will the police store your arms? Will they file a number across the top of your trap gun? Will you get them back? How much time and money it take to get them back?

I guess those are all things to be determined. There is always a risk when it comes to this sort of thing, but I think the potential for good outweighs the risk of abuse.

This really confirms a focus on limiting the rights described in the 2d Am. rather than an overriding public safety goal. If you aren't really concerned with the array of things that efficiently take a life, your focus on arms seems political. That's not a personal indictment, but a comment on the gist of your commentary.

The myriad other ways there are to kill someone besides guns are irrelevant. As I stated before it's generally accepted that the 2nd pertains to firearms.

"Arms" obviously includes, swords, spears, bows, arrows, ninja stars, catapults, pointed sticks, fresh fruit, and about a million other things too, and if you like we can consider them added into my position. However the issue we are discussing is the conflicts surrounding firearms specifically, and firearms are the reason this thread was started.

Was your distinction also present when the BOR were adopted?

Who can say? Not you or I. I don't think they could account for all the changes between then and now.

[zukiphile]

Originally Posted by Nate Kirk

The myriad other ways there are to kill someone besides guns are irrelevant.

The myriad other ways there are to kill someone can't be irrelevant to the issue of murder and a desire to reduce murder rates.

Originally Posted by Nate Kirk

Who can say? Not you or I.

Arms were a means of direct harm at the adoption of the BOR, just as they are now, so that can't be a reason to change the scope of the BOR.

[carguychris]

<deactivate lurk mode>

Originally Posted by zukiphile

https://www.nationalreview.com/2018/...consider-grvo/

One potential issue with the GVRO idea is how to enforce it without UBCs being enacted simultaneously.

One of my concerns here is that all roads potentially lead to UBCs.

[BBarn]

If laws were an effective answer to this problem, the problem would have been solved long ago.

As far as applying “science” to this problem, a good “scientific” approach would require repeated demonstrable proof that a solution works or would work. If anything, “science” would seem to say laws don't work regarding this problem (since laws haven't effectively stopped the problem).

I suggest history might be better than science as a tool for finding some solutions.

[Aguila Blanca]

And a link to an interview with the police chief of a school district that decided not to wait until after it happens:

http://dailycaller.com/2018/02/19/te...-on-the-floor/

The chief missed one point, though. The news guy asked if it's wise to bring guns into a school when the threat is on the outside. Reality check, Mr. Newsman -- if you have a shooter in your school, the threat is not on the outside, it's inside. The police are on the outside -- and who knows how far away. All the guns in the world on the OUTSIDE can't help when the bad guy with a gun is already inside.

[xandi]

Colordoredneck, are you saying that only medically trained ppl can talk about meds and effects??? Guess i can talk about guns cause I’m not a armorer, or trucks cuz I’m not a gressmonkey...
You ever had any drugs? They all screw with your mind

[Aguila Blanca]

Originally Posted by zukiphile

Bart, the argument I see being made is essentially for a settlement. We tell clients to make a settlement so they control the terms rather than gamble on total victory with a stranger who may also hand the client a total defeat. We tell clients how smart they are to fashion a settlement that preserves what they really need.

It seems appropriate to insert this here. Many of you may have seen it before:

https://thelawdogfiles.blogspot.com/.../a-repost.html

[Aguila Blanca]

Originally Posted by NateKirk

What I am talking about is raising the standard for firearm ownership. More and better training and education and more stringent background checks, accomplished through a process to obtain a license to own a firearm (probably similar to drivers training) would raise the standard. If a fee must be implemented for the license to offset the cost of the more in depth background checks and personnel then so be it. Firearms would be in the hands of less ignorant and unstable people, and all the people have to suffer is the inconvenience of educating themselves on the lethal weapon they wish to purchase.

In other words, scrap the Second Amendment, and convert the right (to keep and bear arms -- sometimes) into a privilege.

[Aguila Blanca]

Originally Posted by NateKirk

No I'm not. My point was that one right is being abused by a few in order to violate another's right to live. This doesn't brand all firearms owners as murderers.

A terrorist recently mowed down a number of people on a bike path in New York City with a rented vehicle. Can we conclude that you are now advocating for more stringent background checks on everyone who wants to buy or rent a motor vehicle> If not ... why not? Obviously we need to raise the standard for possession of a motor vehicle.

[ZeroJunk]

In my little pea brained opinion the only thing that is ever going to work is to make schools a hard target. Gun control and mental health screening has more holes in it than a colander. Now, I know parents don't like the optics of it. I don't like the optics of it. But, it is not the 50's anymore. And, it is the only solution that will actually work.

[Glenn E. Meyer]

I would point out there are myriad of soft targets besides schools. School shooters sometimes have some beef with the school (not always). But someone dedicating to killing can look at lots of places to carry out such an act. A better solution is for people to be able to act to defend themselves. The debate about mandatory training is complex. I would prefer highly educated voters on the issues but we went down that road of using tests to discriminate.

Morally, I think gun carriers and voters have the responsibility to get up to speed. Should we mandate it? I had no problem with the CCW experiences in TX and OR, I would support them for concealed carry. For simple ownership, no.

[Bartholomew Roberts]

Originally Posted by NateKirk

What I am talking about is raising the standard for firearm ownership. More and better training and education and more stringent background checks, accomplished through a process to obtain a license to own a firearm (probably similar to drivers training) would raise the standard. If a fee must be implemented for the license to offset the cost of the more in depth background checks and personnel then so be it. Firearms would be in the hands of less ignorant and unstable people, and all the people have to suffer is the inconvenience of educating themselves on the lethal weapon they wish to purchase.

Why is it the job of government to raise the standard for firearm ownership? For that matter, who has done more to propagate good info and raise standards for gun ownership - government or NRA? What are you doing personally to help the people you see around you that you think need more knowledge?

There are a lot of things that can only be done by a community but people don't want to do the work of taking care of their own garden.

[NateKirk]

The myriad other ways there are to kill someone can't be irrelevant to the issue of murder and a desire to reduce murder rates.

They're not, when discussing murder rates. But the discussion pertains to firearms specifically.

Arms were a means of direct harm at the adoption of the BOR, just as they are now, so that can't be a reason to change the scope of the BOR.

This logic makes murder legal and constitutional, as long as one uses a "arm" to accomplish the task because that is their original purpose and was during the formation of the BOR.

In other words, scrap the Second Amendment, and convert the right (to keep and bear arms -- sometimes) into a privilege.

Obviously any restriction to or limit of a right instantly turns it into a privilege, if you want to look at it that way. I have the right to use the facilities when I like. I have the right to sing Broadway showtunes loudly outside my neighbor's house at 2 am, but I'll more than likely be arrested or ticketed for disturbing the peace. So much for the "right" to free speech, huh?

A terrorist recently mowed down a number of people on a bike path in New York City with a rented vehicle. Can we conclude that you are now advocating for more stringent background checks on everyone who wants to buy or rent a motor vehicle> If not ... why not?

I covered this:
"People use guns to kill each other because they are convenient not just effective. Requiring more of a shooting education and investment in order to access firearms legally, will make them less convenient. Someone will make the argument that people are going to just kill each other anyway, even if they have to use a different method; that is besides the point. The point is that firearms will be less convenient to the unstable making mass shootings less feasible, and by making these compromises the firearms community will be protected."

And:
"Many mass shootings are not about the act but inflating the killer. Many tie firearms into their ego (as I believe the latest perpetrator did) and are more inclined to use a firearm to carry out the act.

Another important point is that the people who carry out mass shootings would rather I'm sure be remembered as a killer or a murderer, the label the gun provides, rather than as a psychopath or terrorist, the label that bombs, trucks, machetes, etc, provides."

[DaleA]

It seems appropriate to insert this [the LawDog 'Cake' post] here. Many of you may have seen it before:
https://thelawdogfiles.blogspot.com/.../a-repost.html

Yes we have seen it many times and I for one will be quite happy if you post it every time we get a push like this so we don't forget it. Thanks.

P.S. Another article I think is worth mentioning is Larry Correia's thoughts on gun control.

http://monsterhunternation.com/2012/...n-gun-control/

[NateKirk]

It seems appropriate to insert this [the LawDog 'Cake' post] here. Many of you may have seen it before:
https://thelawdogfiles.blogspot.com/.../a-repost.html

Inspiring.

Now imagine a far left president, congress, and supreme court, and then combine that with another school shooting. The owner of the "cake" now has a gun put to his head and his cake taken anyway, every crumb. It's stone headed, unyielding thinking like this that makes me believe the 2nd amendment will be repealed sometime in my children's lifetime. It's just matter of the right factors lining up. Ownership rates and public opinion are not in our favor.

[zukiphile]

Nate, your sense that murders that don't involve firearms and rights that aren't described in the 2d Am. aren't part of this conversation is not well reasoned. It demonstrates a lack of concern with public safety or civil liberties in your analysis. When you use it as an excuse not to reason through comparable issues, you re-enforce an appearance that you are tightly focused on reducing the protection of the 2d Am.

Was your distinction [between rights that permit direct harm and those the exercise of which may cause harm less directly] also present when the BOR were adopted?

Originally Posted by Nate Kirk

Who can say? Not you or I.

Arms were a means of direct harm at the adoption of the BOR, just as they are now, so that can't be a reason to change the scope of the BOR.

Originally Posted by Nate Kirk

This logic makes murder legal and constitutional, as long as one uses a "arm" to accomplish the task because that is their original purpose and was during the formation of the BOR.

At this point, you should be more cautious about your use of the word logic. Your offered distinction between the 2d Am. and all others is that the 2d involves the use of arms that may harm (or protect) people directly. Of course that isn't really a principled distinction, but it also doesn't describe a difference in condition at the time of the adoption of the BOR.

There is nothing in the logic of that observation that makes murder legal, and your erroneous factual assertion that the BOR made murder legal is bizarre. Your response isn't even a well turned fallacy.

Your argument has problems where it lacks principle, lacks a factual basis and doesn't withstand the standards applied to other harms and other rights.

[adamBomb]

A terrorist recently mowed down a number of people on a bike path in New York City with a rented vehicle. Can we conclude that you are now advocating for more stringent background checks on everyone who wants to buy or rent a motor vehicle> If not ... why not? Obviously we need to raise the standard for possession of a motor vehicle.

These types of arguments make no sense. Motor vehicles are meant for driving. Guns are meant for killing. Making something that is meant for killing harder for a crazy to get doesn't seem like a crazy thing.

[adamBomb]

Now imagine a far left president, congress, and supreme court, and then combine that with another school shooting. The owner of the "cake" now has a gun put to his head and his cake taken anyway, every crumb. It's stone headed, unyielding thinking like this that makes me believe the 2nd amendment will be repealed sometime in my children's lifetime. It's just matter of the right factors lining up. Ownership rates and public opinion are not in our favor.

This is exactly what is going to happen. Bu bye 2nd amendment when the dems get control. Why? The right refuses to negotiate and try to do something to stop mass shootings. There are 50 different things that could be done and some forms of gun control are part of that solution. Doing nothing is going to cost much more.

[zukiphile]

This is exactly what is going to happen. Bu bye 2nd amendment when the dems get control. Why? The right refuses to negotiate and try to do something to stop mass shootings. There are 50 different things that could be done and some forms of gun control are part of that solution. Doing nothing is going to cost much more.

The idea that the RTKBA will blow away in the wind with the next confluence of exec, congress and court doesn't support an argument for compromise now. People without regard for the BOR won't respect anything you've offered as a compromise.

[NateKirk]

Your argument has problems where it lacks principle, lacks a factual basis and doesn't withstand the standards applied to other harms and other rights.

Hmph, I disagree.

There is nothing in the logic of that observation that makes murder legal, and your erroneous factual assertion that the BOR made murder legal is bizarre. Your response isn't even a well turned fallacy.

You take my words out of context. I did not make the allusion that murder is constitutional if carried out with a weapon protected under the second amendment. I used this as an example to show the a flaw in your line of thinking. You state that since the purpose for a weapons existence has not changed since the adoption of the bill of rights, one can not use that as a reason to change the scope of the right. However this equates the exercise of the right with murder as the things pertaining to it are solely for killing. I think the reasoning is sound, however the purpose of the statements use an example may have been lost on you and for that I apologize.

Your statement that since the purpose of arms has not changed since the adoption of the bill of rights we can not use this as a reason to change the scope of the right. This would make sense in a static, theoretical, textbook environment, however, technology has changed, culture has changed, population densities have changed and these have a serious effect on the ramifications of the exercise of the right to bear arms.

In the same way that paved roads were developed to accommodate faster cars, laws can be implemented to curb the side effects of changing situations. Whether these laws are constitutional is up for the supreme court to decide.

[zukiphile]

Your argument has problems where it lacks principle, lacks a factual basis and doesn't withstand the standards applied to other harms and other rights.

You don't have to agree that an argument benefits from principle, a factual basis and being able to withstand the standards applied to other harms and other rights.

If those things don't matter, what distinguishes a good argument from a poor one?

Originally Posted by Nate Kirk

This logic makes murder legal and constitutional, as long as one uses a "arm" to accomplish the task because that is their original purpose and was during the formation of the BOR.

Originally Posted by Nate Kirk

You take my words out of context. I did not make the allusion that murder is constitutional if carried out with a weapon protected under the second amendment. I used this as an example to show the a flaw in your line of thinking.

Emphases added.

Nate, it isn't effective to deny making an allusion you've just made. I don't doubt that you think your reasoning is sound; that's part of the problem.

Originally Posted by Nate Kirk

However this equates the exercise of the right with murder as the things pertaining to it are solely for killing.

I have not equated the right to keep or bear an arm with murder. Here you've conflated a right to have an arm to legitimately employ deadly force, killing and murder. That you fail to make these pertinent distinctions doesn't transform a defense of the RTKBA into a defense of murder.

[Bartholomew Roberts]

Originally Posted by adamBomb

This is exactly what is going to happen. Bu bye 2nd amendment when the dems get control. Why? The right refuses to negotiate and try to do something to stop mass shootings. There are 50 different things that could be done and some forms of gun control are part of that solution. Doing nothing is going to cost much more.

Already happened in 2008, less than a month into the Obama Administration.. Nothing happened. Folding before the fight has even started while your allies control the Congress and White House will sure cause you some losses though.

And adamBomb, it takes a lot more than control of Congress to get rid of the Second Amendment. If it were as easy as you suggest, they'd have done that before NateKirk was even born.

[ammo.crafter]

What the heck are all those buildings in Utah?

[Aguila Blanca]

Originally Posted by NateKirk

They're not, when discussing murder rates. But the discussion pertains to firearms specifically.

Which only demonstrates that we are allowing the other side to control the narrative. This issue is NOT specific to guns; the issue is people who want to kill other people. So far, nobody in the U.S. has driven a car into a school to kill people, but they have done so on public streets. Bombs have been used to attack schools. There was an incident in Europe (Germany, I think) a few years ago in which a guy attacked a school with a home-made flamethrower. Eliminate guns entirely, and they'll just use something else. Lick, say, an airplane.

"But wait," you say, "that can't ever happen again." Well, yes, it can. There was an incident within (I think) the past year in which a student pilot flying out of Hartford, Connecticut, somehow managed to miss the entire airport he was supposed to land at and crashed just short of a Pratt & Whitney factory building across the river. I don't remember the details clearly, but my fuzzy recollection is that there was suspicion that it was an attempted terroristic act. Bottom line -- they'll use whatever they can get.

Here it is: http://www.courant.com/breaking-news...011-story.html

Hey, has anybody seen my pressure cooker?

Originally Posted by NateKirk

This logic makes murder legal and constitutional, as long as one uses a "arm" to accomplish the task because that is their original purpose and was during the formation of the BOR.

Murder has always been constitutional. So have bank robbery, blackmail, libel and slander.They have also been illegal. We always have a right to commit illegal acts -- we also have a right to be arrested, prosecuted, and punished for doing so. The Constitution is a document defining the form and limits of authority of the federal government. It has nothing to do with murder. Nothing about pointing out that "arms" meant deadly weapons when the 2A was written and that "arms" means the same thing today in any way serves to suggest that murder has suddenly become legal.

[Aguila Blanca]

Incidents such as this are terrible and tragic. It's a natural reaction to want to do something to prevent it from happening again. I understand that -- I fell into that trap myself. Then, a few hours later, I woke up and realized that "doing something" just for the sake of doing something is not a useful, constructive, or effective approach. It's a knee-jerk reaction generated by a feeling of helplessness, and the helplessness is engendered by the realization that, if we're honest, we CAN'T prevent such incidents.

So it leaves us feeling like Jonathan Winters: https://youtu.be/uJPdTJ3n1RI?t=13