Without 2A, What Good Are the Other Amendments?

[dualstow]

This is one of the most entertaining threads I’ve read in a long time.
Mark, your blowing out the windows reminds me of a young Steven Spielberg. I think I remember reading that his mother let him put things in a pressure cooker as a curious child just to see what would happen. And look what happened ...

[doodle]

Tom,


I would argue that a gun is the quickest and easiest force multiplier that exists. No other weapon compares to the amount of damage a fully automatic gun can inflict in a crowded setting.

Sure, people can still make pipe bombs or whatever but that requires a degree of preparation and premeditation. In a fit of rage a person who has been fired, jilted, bullied, whatever has the ability to grab a gun an unload holy hell on anyone within eyeshot in a moments notice. That doesn't exist with other weapons.

If a person suffers from some form of psychosis I don't think they need to be locked up. I've worked with many schizophrenics who functioned just fine as long as they were on their meds. I've also dealt with many drug addicts who were trying to get their life together and would occasionally fall back into bad habits. Also, worked with people with developmental disorders who had the judgement and mental capacity of 10 year olds. Are you suggesting that everyone of these people needs to be jailed or institutionalized in perpetuity because it's inconceivable that we limit their access to fully automatic weapons? I just don't understand that line of thinking.

[Kriegsspiel]

Okay guys no more tomfoolery. Back on topic

I have never received a satisfactory response from anyone, in this thread or elsewhere to my question of:

If a person is psychotic and a danger to others, why are we allowing them to roam society freely and not imprisoning them? If they are a danger to others, shouldn't they be locked up in some capacity? If they are not so much of a danger we need to lock them up, why restrict their rights to own guns?

Seems like a society-wide application of Blackstone's Ratio, where letting crazy and dangerous people roam is better than unjustly imprisoning someone who only seems dangerous.

[yankees60]

Okay guys no more tomfoolery. Back on topic

I have never received a satisfactory response from anyone, in this thread or elsewhere to my question of:

If a person is psychotic and a danger to others, why are we allowing them to roam society freely and not imprisoning them? If they are a danger to others, shouldn't they be locked up in some capacity? If they are not so much of a danger we need to lock them up, why restrict their rights to own guns?

Couldn't someone who is psychotic and a danger to others, and allowed to roam free, find multiple ways to spree murder people without access to guns? Such as borrowing, renting, buying or stealing a pickup truck/SUV/van and driving into a crowd of pedestrians? Or acquiring a knife or sharpened stick and stabbing bunches of people on a subway? Or going to Home Depot and buying some chemical Mark Leavy used to make chlorine gas with, and set that in an air intake of a commercial building?

I will concede that a semi-automatic carbine with normal capacity 30-round magazines would make it easier for the psychotic person to injure or kill innocent people. But, if this person is such a danger to others, he will find a way to use a vehicle, knife, or chemicals to injure others.

I will also concede this hypothetical person might be able to injure/kill more people with a carbine than with a vehicle/knife/chemicals. However, if we've established this hypothetical person as a bonifide threat, one whom access to guns will result in innocent lives lost, then is this not a person who will use a vehicle/knife/chemicals and injure or kill some number of people, even if that number is less than if he had a gun?

So why are we allowing this hypothetical person to roam around, to whom it's too dangerous to allow him to have a gun, but it's simultaneously not dangerous to allow him to roam society with full access to vehicles/knives/chemicals?

If anyone can give me an actual answer to this question, I will strongly reconsider my stance on gun control. To date, all I've received from any liberal I've brought this up to is a hyperbolic deflection about access to nuclear bombs or tanks. Or to a reference to Repubicans cutting funding to psychiatric institutions. None of this solves my more immediate concern of this dangerous hypothetical person roaming free.

Let's say I agree, okay no guns allowed for "crazy people" and I'll even allow the liberals to define crazy in whatever way they want. Now I'm scared that we're allowing crazy people to roam the streets free with access to tons of improvised weapons everywhere that can injure or kill a dozen people easily.

Maybe not directly answering your question but it seems that making it more difficult to acquire guns does result in less gun deaths.

Massachusetts has one of the strictest gun laws in the country, I believe. I also believe that Massachusetts has not had a mass shooting. Is it faulty logic to assume some kind of correlation there?

Now to hopefully get back on point with your question. I'm assuming that some of the people you describe above are not allowed to acquire guns in Massachusetts. But it also seems that none of them are resorting to any of the alternative methods you describe above.
I think you are agreeing that if one is intent on inflicting as much damage as possible on one's fellow humans using a gun is going to be the most efficient and effective way to accomplish that goal.

This is not a black and white situation. Not unlimited access or no access. Just put laws in place (and followed) for smart access.

Finally, for those who many not know, several decades ago, for years, when one was crossing the line to drive into Massachusetts you'd see large billboards informing you that if you are caught with an unlicensed gun, you automatically go to jai for a year.

Vinny

[Libertarian666]

Okay guys no more tomfoolery. Back on topic

I have never received a satisfactory response from anyone, in this thread or elsewhere to my question of:

If a person is psychotic and a danger to others, why are we allowing them to roam society freely and not imprisoning them? If they are a danger to others, shouldn't they be locked up in some capacity? If they are not so much of a danger we need to lock them up, why restrict their rights to own guns?

Couldn't someone who is psychotic and a danger to others, and allowed to roam free, find multiple ways to spree murder people without access to guns? Such as borrowing, renting, buying or stealing a pickup truck/SUV/van and driving into a crowd of pedestrians? Or acquiring a knife or sharpened stick and stabbing bunches of people on a subway? Or going to Home Depot and buying some chemical Mark Leavy used to make chlorine gas with, and set that in an air intake of a commercial building?

I will concede that a semi-automatic carbine with normal capacity 30-round magazines would make it easier for the psychotic person to injure or kill innocent people. But, if this person is such a danger to others, he will find a way to use a vehicle, knife, or chemicals to injure others.

I will also concede this hypothetical person might be able to injure/kill more people with a carbine than with a vehicle/knife/chemicals. However, if we've established this hypothetical person as a bonifide threat, one whom access to guns will result in innocent lives lost, then is this not a person who will use a vehicle/knife/chemicals and injure or kill some number of people, even if that number is less than if he had a gun?

So why are we allowing this hypothetical person to roam around, to whom it's too dangerous to allow him to have a gun, but it's simultaneously not dangerous to allow him to roam society with full access to vehicles/knives/chemicals?

If anyone can give me an actual answer to this question, I will strongly reconsider my stance on gun control. To date, all I've received from any liberal I've brought this up to is a hyperbolic deflection about access to nuclear bombs or tanks. Or to a reference to Repubicans cutting funding to psychiatric institutions. None of this solves my more immediate concern of this dangerous hypothetical person roaming free.

There's a very simple answer to the question of why "guns are bad" but those other ways of killing or injuring lots of people aren't a big problem to liberals: None of those other ways of killing or injuring a lot of people can be used defensively to protect life or property.

[Xan]

A "license" for a gun?

What's the penalty for an unlicensed printing press?

[yankees60]

A "license" for a gun?

What's the penalty for an unlicensed printing press?

I am obviously NOT a gun person so do not stay up on all the terminologies related to gun laws. After I read what you wrote, I was going to amend "unlicensed" to "unregistered" but I decided to see what the actual law is:

Massachusetts Gun Laws and Penalties

https://www.oberhauserlaw.com/blog/criminal/gun-laws/


To legally possess or carry a handgun and certain large capacity weapons in Massachusetts, you must have a valid License to Carry (LTC); Class A or Class B. To lawfully possess a rifle, shotgun, certain munitions or chemical spray, you must have a valid FID card.

For a first offense of carrying a firearm without a license, you face mandatory minimum jail time of 18 months if convicted. You face severe penalties and felony charges for a second or subsequent offense of carrying a firearm without a license.


Vinny

[doodle]

A "license" for a gun?

What's the penalty for an unlicensed printing press?

You don't see any distinction between the two?

[Xan]

A "license" for a gun?

What's the penalty for an unlicensed printing press?

You don't see any distinction between the two?

Legally, yes. The Constitution forbids Congress from interfering with the printing press "Congress shall make no law". Certainly back before the 14th amendment and its "incorporation", that would have allowed states to limit the printing press, just not the Feds.

The 2nd amendment is worded much more strongly: "shall not be infringed". By anyone.

[doodle]

Xan,

Would you feel comfortable living in a neighborhood where a mentally incapacitated person on medication had the ability to own a machine gun? Would you feel comfortable with your kids riding their hotwheels in the street in front of his house while he polished his guns in the driveway while carrying on a conversation with the voices in his head because maybe he forgot to take his meds?

[Xan]

I'm not claiming to have all the answers. Just pointing out that when you want to take somebody's rights away, you have to clear some extremely high bars.

[doodle]

A "license" for a gun?

What's the penalty for an unlicensed printing press?

You don't see any distinction between the two?

Legally, yes. The Constitution forbids Congress from interfering with the printing press "Congress shall make no law". Certainly back before the 14th amendment and its "incorporation", that would have allowed states to limit the printing press, just not the Feds.

The 2nd amendment is worded much more strongly: "shall not be infringed". By anyone.

I think Glendds made the point that one problem with the United States is so much focus on the "law" with little regard for wrong or right. Grey areas make some people uncomfortable. They want everything to be black and white. If it's legal then it should be completely legal without any restrictions. I just don't see this same line of thinking being applied to other issues. Pilots certified on cesnas can't own fighter jets. Regular drivers licenses aren't allowed to drive semi trucks full of hazardous materials. Most people with common sense would support these laws. Somehow with guns people think that because some guys 200+ years ago (when you could maybe get a single bullet off every 60 seconds if you were good) talked about right to bear arms they could conceive of the weapons we have at our disposal today. If it's the fact that the wording that is in the bill of rights is so vague that it makes you uncomfortable then maybe we need to rework that amendments language if that makes you more comfortable. But not regulating something with as much killing capacity as a machine gun has is not smart thinking in my opinion.

[doodle]

I'm not claiming to have all the answers. Just pointing out that when you want to take somebody's rights away, you have to clear some extremely high bars.

Rights go both ways. Your right to life by allowing people to protect themselves with machine guns impacts my right to life when my kids have to live next to a mentally incapacitated person that owns 50 of them.

[doodle]

After all, the 2nd ammendant is a 'minor' right. It serves the major rights which are life and liberty . A machine gun being a tool of destruction can both protect life and liberty or destroy it. It therefore requires oversight and judgement

[Xan]

After all, the 2nd ammendant is a 'minor' right. It serves the major rights which are life and liberty . A machine gun being a tool of destruction can both protect life and liberty or destroy it. It therefore requires oversight and judgement

You may be right. But you need a Constitutional amendment to enforce your view. Just making a Constitutional right go away with a wink and a nod is not okay.

[Mountaineer]

I'm not claiming to have all the answers. Just pointing out that when you want to take somebody's rights away, you have to clear some extremely high bars.

Rights go both ways. Your right to life by allowing people to protect themselves with machine guns impacts my right to life when my kids have to live next to a mentally incapacitated person that owns 50 of them.

Machine guns are regulated, lots of hoops to jump through to have one legally. Look up the regs. Machine guns are not what the media commonly portrays as such. FWIW, I am a staunch believer in gun control; the ability to place six bullets from a revolver or pistol inside a two inch diameter circle 25 yards away is quite a skill.

[doodle]

I'm not claiming to have all the answers. Just pointing out that when you want to take somebody's rights away, you have to clear some extremely high bars.

Rights go both ways. Your right to life by allowing people to protect themselves with machine guns impacts my right to life when my kids have to live next to a mentally incapacitated person that owns 50 of them.

Machine guns are regulated, lots of hoops to jump through to have one legally. Look up the regs. Machine guns are not what the media commonly portrays as such. FWIW, I am a staunch believer in gun control; the ability to place six bullets from a revolver or pistol inside a two inch diameter circle 25 yards away is quite a skill.

I'm aware. But that is a violation of rights according to many on this forum. A gun is a gun after all. The amendment makes no stipulations.

[Mountaineer]

I'm not claiming to have all the answers. Just pointing out that when you want to take somebody's rights away, you have to clear some extremely high bars.

Rights go both ways. Your right to life by allowing people to protect themselves with machine guns impacts my right to life when my kids have to live next to a mentally incapacitated person that owns 50 of them.

Machine guns are regulated, lots of hoops to jump through to have one legally. Look up the regs. Machine guns are not what the media commonly portrays as such. FWIW, I am a staunch believer in gun control; the ability to place six bullets from a revolver or pistol inside a two inch diameter circle 25 yards away is quite a skill.

I'm aware. But that is a violation of rights according to many on this forum. A gun is a gun after all. The amendment makes no stipulations.

Sorry. I mistook your comment as being unaware of the actual machine gun regs. And, FWIW, I'd much rather have a railgun in my front yard than a measly 50 cal. Better yet, a bunch of F-22s, F-35s, A-10s, M1A3s, and AH64s would be great for defending the hood.

[doodle]

After all, the 2nd ammendant is a 'minor' right. It serves the major rights which are life and liberty . A machine gun being a tool of destruction can both protect life and liberty or destroy it. It therefore requires oversight and judgement

You may be right. But you need a Constitutional amendment to enforce your view. Just making a Constitutional right go away with a wink and a nod is not okay.

Don't you think that scope of rights is subject to judicial interpretation? Does this really require another amendment or perhaps judicial conscripment similar to other rights? There are limitations placed on speech for example that are not delineated in the bill of rights.

[doodle]

Ok, so where does the definition of arms or 'armaments' stop for you then? Landmines? Tanks? Missiles? Is there no line to what weapons a civilian can own? Can they build their own personal nuclear arsenal should they have resources?

[doodle]

Ok, so where does the definition of arms or 'armaments' stop for you then? Landmines? Tanks? Missiles? Is there no line to what weapons a civilian can own? Can they build their own personal nuclear arsenal should they have resources?

That's generally how these conversations go. Ultimately the person against the 2A will bring up tanks and nuclear bombs.

I think it is reasonable to ask the party to establish a line or say that they don't think there should be any lines. If the former then they aknowledge there should be limitations and philosophically speaking are setting a boundary thereby indicating that they at least agree there can be such a thing as a boundary. After we have established that some boundary is merited at some point, we can discuss where that boundary should be. If no boundaries exist then at least theoretically speaking they are suggesting that it is fine for private citizens to own any type of weapon they get can their hands on including nuclear and chemical weapons.

[doodle]

Fun fact. The average hit rate for a police officer in America to get a hit on the person they are shooting at is 10%.

90% of the time they miss completely.

So the psychotic person who isn’t competent enough to make a pipe bomb, but in a libertarian world with free access to guns, is somehow going to fare better than a trained police officer?

Those statistics sound accurate...funny then that guns are marketed as these great self defense tools. Probably would be more effective to just carry a can of bear spray and a club.

[Smith1776]

That's why I bought a shotgun instead of a handgun. Harder to miss, and often just the sound of the pump action will deter any intruders/attackers.

Dave Chappelle, is that you?

[Xan]

Fun fact. The average hit rate for a police officer in America to get a hit on the person they are shooting at is 10%.

90% of the time they miss completely.

So the psychotic person who isn’t competent enough to make a pipe bomb, but in a libertarian world with free access to guns, is somehow going to fare better than a trained police officer?

Those statistics sound accurate...funny then that guns are marketed as these great self defense tools. Probably would be more effective to just carry a can of bear spray and a club.

That's why I bought a shotgun instead of a handgun. Harder to miss, and often just the sound of the pump action will deter any intruders/attackers.

Makes a lot of sense. It's a great sound. Unmistakable. A lot of fun at the trap/skeet range too!

[Tortoise]

That's why I bought a shotgun instead of a handgun. Harder to miss, and often just the sound of the pump action will deter any intruders/attackers.

Makes a lot of sense. It's a great sound. Unmistakable. A lot of fun at the trap/skeet range too!

When I first bought my shotgun (a home defense model with a short 18-inch barrel), I took it to a trap/skeet range with a few friends to try it out.

Within the first 10 minutes, some guy walked up to us (another customer, not an employee), scowled at us with a look of utter disdain and said in a condescending tone, "That's not a shotgun meant for skeet shooting. Its barrel is too short."

I said something like, "Uh, okay..." He continued to stare at us disapprovingly for a few more seconds, then shook his head and walked away.