metalslimer
Member
You do realize than a repeal of the 2nd amendment would require citizens voting on it?So the citizens would be abusing their power?
-
Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!
Gun enthusiasts pack shows to buy assault weapons they fear will soon be outlawed
- Thread starter Dram
- Start date
- Status
You do realize than a repeal of the 2nd amendment would require citizens voting on it?So the citizens would be abusing their power?
If people have been brain washed enough to sign their own rights away, then we're living in a sad age. I don't think the country will vote in favor of banning guns. So again, unless the government decides to illegally take guns away this isn't an issue.
Mammoth Jones
Member
Um. Do we really want rights to be voted on? I certainly don't want my rights to be up for a popularity contest. They've been doing that in other states with social issues and I don't agree that "Hey we win a vote...I can take your rights away".
And the Second Amendment is limited by the fact that people aren't allowed to just shoot other people in the face. There's a law limiting that action.
You are making all the moderate gun people look bad. That is the most ridiculous position I have ever heard.
If it means taking people's rights away there's no other word for it.
This is a good point. Why should people even have the ability to vote to have our rights taken away in the first place?
metalslimer
Member
We live in at least some sort of democracy so yes if a constitutional amendment was approved or an old one was dismantled (an extremely hard thing to do) I would not care no matter what it was. I disapprove of the state by state mentality to take away people's rights, but if the collective union votes on something it's their right to do so. Actually denying people the right to vote on these amendments would be tyranny.
way more
Member
If you don't have a right to guns you also lose rights like freedom of speech, legal alcohol, and freedom from slavery?
How narrow and limited is is someones understanding that they think slavery, the rise of Nazis, or some future Fahrenheit 451 dystopia is caused by lack of guns?
MaddenNFL64
Member
I would love Canada type laws on the books, but their gun culture is so different from the gun fetish in the U.S. I hope we get something done.
Mammoth Jones
Member
On the chance that's directed at me that's simply not the case. I just enjoy a discussion about these type of issues and it doesn't have to be with people that blindly agree with me.
CHEEZMO
Obsidian fan
Crazy brainwashed Yankees.
Link
The Autumn Wind
Owning slaves was a basic right when the Constitution was drafted too.
IrishNinja
Member
i'm not gonna say there can't be a decent argument for allowing assault rifles, but this sure wasn't it
Mammoth Jones
Member
I completely disagree but fair enough. We've already put rights up to a public vote in the past. Generally didn't work out.
way more
Member
Slavery was caused by black people not owning guns.
I have a graph that shows more guns equal more civil rights. It's up my ass.
I think it's directed at Valnen and I only hope and pray that it's true.
Devolution
Member
The second amendment is worded like shit and it's basically up to the courts to interpret it. Anyone acting like it says anything concrete is full of shit in my opinion.
Mammoth Jones
Member
My argument is that it's my right. Period. If you don't like semi-automatics don't own them and if I want to own one and I'm not hurting anyone then it's a non-issue. Plenty of people use semi-auto's for home defense. Legitimately. Power, accuracy and they don't spray like a 12ga. If it's good enough to protect politicians it's good enough to protect me.
I just think most people are unfamiliar with firearms and are completely afraid of the "big scary black gun". Take a .22 and "tacticool" it and your average person would see it and go "OMG ban that terrible WMD" despite a shotgun or 9mm having far more destructive power.
There's a decent argument for better (notice I didn't say "more" or "guns") laws to make a tangible reduction in violent crime across the board in the US. But fear of picatinny rails isn't it. Focusing on the primary firearm used in crime (pistol) would be a start along with the reasons for said crime. While at the same time reassuring firearm owners that while we may ask a little more of them (registration, secure gun safes) their right to their firearms isn't going anywhere.
Completely agreed. No Amendment is concrete. It's all subject to change. But until that time...
GoldenEye 007
Member
There have been plenty of people even this very thread suggesting full bans.
I'm not opposed to better pre-purchase checks, etc. But I'm not going to support a return to the 1994 style gun legislation that tries to make a useless "boogie-gun" list instead of addressing core societal issues.
Mammoth Jones
Member
The bolded is completely unnessisary. With that said ironically the very first gun control laws in the US were to keep guns out of the hands of freed slaves.
And same with the modern gun control movement.
Yeah man, I've lived in Canada my whole life and I have never even seen a gun except a pellet gun lol.
ThoseDeafMutes
Member
The implementation of gun laws are frequently terrible. Here in Australia, a handgun license will permit you to own 9mm semi automatic handguns, but forbids you from owning a .45 unless you're participating in metallic silhouette shooting competitions. Such a stupid distinction - 9mm is cheaper, has less kick, and is more accurate at range. The difference in lethality is negligable, but they're also less likely to be used in crimes. So why ban it? They have a blanket ban on anything bigger than .38. How many people get killed by Desert Eagles? Hardly any certainly, because they're expensive prestige items and cheaper weapons will do the job more effectively if you do happen to be premeditating a crime.
Who can forget the hilarious Barrel Shroud incident. If they're going to be legislating, they need to sit down and seriously think about harm minimization, not just banning any old thing because it's seen as unnecessary and frightening. Wanting to ban 30rnd magazines makes sense on some level, banning weapons for being black and having a pistol grip is moronic.
I've lived in Canada all my life too, and I've shot all sorts of crazy guns, including 9mm handguns, a .357 Colt Python, and a Winchester lever action rifle. But all those guns were subject to strict storage laws, and required licensing and other restrictions.
MWS Natural
Member
What a dumb ass video. "I need to have an assault rifle because someone might come to kill me so I want to be sure I have a bigger gun than them!"
Ok so what if they come with rocker launchers? When does the race to who has the bigger gun end?
WonkyPanda
Member
lol, "basic right." You're cute, valnen. Did you work off of some AM talkshow radio to give you a historical reading on the 2nd amendment? Cute.
First, the preamble to the 2nd amendment makes it clear that the maintenence and preservation of a militia is its purpose. Language like “militia is necessary to the security of a free State” is proof positive of that. This actually historically aligns with the state provisions passed at the time to define the bounds and scope of militias (e.g. VA and NY). And, as I quote here, “the Second Amendment's omission of any statement of purpose related to the right to use firearms for hunting or personal self-defense, is especially striking in light of the fact that the Declarations of Rights of Pennsylvania and Vermontdid expressly protect such civilian uses at the time.” See Article XIII of Pennsylvania's 1776 Declaration of Rights
The contrast between these two state declarations, the 2nd amendment, and the preamble of said amendment makes its certain that there was a “single-minded” focus in crafting the 2nd amendment. That focus being a “‘constitutional guarantee’"to keep and bear Arms" was on military uses of firearms, which they viewed in the context of service in state militias.” Furthermore, drafts of the 2nd amendment were rewritten for being "too broad" in scope.
And, using Marbury as a guiding post for surplusage, the preamble here is establishing the meaning and guidance for the 2nd amendment.
As to the “people” comment that people use to defend the 2nd amendment as a "basic right". It’s a common argument and one that Stevens would define far more eloquently than I:
“The centerpiece of the Court's textual argument is its insistence that the words "the people" as used in the Second Amendment must have the same meaning, and protect the same class of individuals, as when they are used in the First and Fourth Amendments. According to the Court, in all three provisions--as well as the Constitution's preamble, § 2 of Article I, and the Tenth Amendment--"the term unambiguously refers to all members of the political community, not an unspecified subset." Ante, at 580, 171 L. Ed. 2d, at 650. But the Court itself reads the Second Amendment to protect a "subset" significantly narrower than the class of persons protected by the First and Fourth Amendments; when it finally drills down on the substantive meaning of the Second Amendment, the Court limits the protected class to "law-abiding, responsible citizens," ante, at 635, 171 L. Ed. 2d, at 683. But the class of persons protected by the First and Fourth Amendments is not so limited; for even felons (and presumably irresponsible citizens as well) may invoke the protections of those constitutional provisions. The Court offers no way to harmonize its conflicting pronouncements.”
The key distinction here, Valnen, is the narrowing of the subset of “people” that is not seen in the other amendments that you are pointing to implicitly as a "basic right." Clearly then, there is an equivocation used here with the term “people” used between these amendments. Taken further and actually dissecting the 2nd amendment, recognize the way “the people” used in the 2nd amendment referring BACK to the objected announced in the preamble.
Taken even further, the first and fourth amendments refer to PEOPLE as a collective body using collective action. “no words define the class of individuals entitled to speak, to publish, or to worship; in that Amendment it is only the right peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances, that is described as a right of "the people." These rights contemplate collective action .” And, as you know, the right to assemble protects individual rights of people who work in assembly, as a group, and not as a single person as the 2nd amendment you referenced would.
EDIT: It has only been in modern history, e.g. ~50 years, that the 2nd amendment has been seen as a basic right for the common people to bear arms for the shit of it.
First, the preamble to the 2nd amendment makes it clear that the maintenence and preservation of a militia is its purpose. Language like “militia is necessary to the security of a free State” is proof positive of that. This actually historically aligns with the state provisions passed at the time to define the bounds and scope of militias (e.g. VA and NY). And, as I quote here, “the Second Amendment's omission of any statement of purpose related to the right to use firearms for hunting or personal self-defense, is especially striking in light of the fact that the Declarations of Rights of Pennsylvania and Vermontdid expressly protect such civilian uses at the time.” See Article XIII of Pennsylvania's 1776 Declaration of Rights
The contrast between these two state declarations, the 2nd amendment, and the preamble of said amendment makes its certain that there was a “single-minded” focus in crafting the 2nd amendment. That focus being a “‘constitutional guarantee’"to keep and bear Arms" was on military uses of firearms, which they viewed in the context of service in state militias.” Furthermore, drafts of the 2nd amendment were rewritten for being "too broad" in scope.
And, using Marbury as a guiding post for surplusage, the preamble here is establishing the meaning and guidance for the 2nd amendment.
As to the “people” comment that people use to defend the 2nd amendment as a "basic right". It’s a common argument and one that Stevens would define far more eloquently than I:
“The centerpiece of the Court's textual argument is its insistence that the words "the people" as used in the Second Amendment must have the same meaning, and protect the same class of individuals, as when they are used in the First and Fourth Amendments. According to the Court, in all three provisions--as well as the Constitution's preamble, § 2 of Article I, and the Tenth Amendment--"the term unambiguously refers to all members of the political community, not an unspecified subset." Ante, at 580, 171 L. Ed. 2d, at 650. But the Court itself reads the Second Amendment to protect a "subset" significantly narrower than the class of persons protected by the First and Fourth Amendments; when it finally drills down on the substantive meaning of the Second Amendment, the Court limits the protected class to "law-abiding, responsible citizens," ante, at 635, 171 L. Ed. 2d, at 683. But the class of persons protected by the First and Fourth Amendments is not so limited; for even felons (and presumably irresponsible citizens as well) may invoke the protections of those constitutional provisions. The Court offers no way to harmonize its conflicting pronouncements.”
The key distinction here, Valnen, is the narrowing of the subset of “people” that is not seen in the other amendments that you are pointing to implicitly as a "basic right." Clearly then, there is an equivocation used here with the term “people” used between these amendments. Taken further and actually dissecting the 2nd amendment, recognize the way “the people” used in the 2nd amendment referring BACK to the objected announced in the preamble.
Taken even further, the first and fourth amendments refer to PEOPLE as a collective body using collective action. “no words define the class of individuals entitled to speak, to publish, or to worship; in that Amendment it is only the right peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances, that is described as a right of "the people." These rights contemplate collective action .” And, as you know, the right to assemble protects individual rights of people who work in assembly, as a group, and not as a single person as the 2nd amendment you referenced would.
EDIT: It has only been in modern history, e.g. ~50 years, that the 2nd amendment has been seen as a basic right for the common people to bear arms for the shit of it.
Exactly.
phosphor112
Banned
I wonder if someone came up to them and shot them all in the back while waiting in line that it would disprove their more guns = better thing.
Mammoth Jones
Member
That video was cringeworthy. And that's the problem with getting anything done that will have an impact. People want to legislate something they know nothing about. I think if a politician were serious about controlling something they'd get to learn what they're about at least on a basic level so a fair deal could be reached. I'd be willing to agree to a 15rd magazine limit nationwide. To be honest, I live in NY so I'm already UNDER and Assault Weapons Ban. NY kept the Assault Weapons Ban from 94. We have 10rd limits here. Yet now the Governor is talking about a 7rd limit. As if 3 rounds less is going to change anything when someone can change a magazine extremely quickly.
At the end of the day in the US this is a conversation we need to have. But I just don't believe "ban the bad things" (that are a statistical minority of gun crime) is a realistic solution. Now mandating a gun safe in every home with a semi-automatic would be a realistic start that would save lives today.
You have that right because of a constitutional amendment granting you that right. If federal agents were coming to take your gun, presumably this is because first the Constitution was amended to abridge the right guaranteeing the right to own firearms, and secondly because a law at some level then explicitly outlawed the ownership of firearms. Or in the case of a assault weapons ban, though there would not be a constitutional amendment in that case, it would still be the result of duly elected representatives voting to revoke that right.
So I'm not sure how you could formulate this as "Defending my rights" when that right in this scenario was revoked by a duly elected representative government through a legal process. I would understand it even less in the case of an assault weapons ban, because even now you acknowledge that there are some weapons that people should not be able to own, yes? Why does redrawing the line cause such a conniption?
The only scenario I can think of where the promises of violent defenses of one's guns is one in which the government decides to start seizing guns en masse in defiance of the second amendment or any legal process, but no one is suggesting something extralegal so I'm not sure why that would even come up.
Thanks! last I'll be seeing of you.
Mammoth Jones
Member
People love to bring up rocket launchers. So now a semi-automatic is a rocket launcher? Really?
This is not a rocket launcher. It looking scary doesn't make it contain anything near the destructive capability of a rocket launcher.
WonkyPanda
Member
That would be pretty disappointing, since I want a Supreme Court that supports the right to privacy and to abortions, and that requires a broad reading of the Constitution. People advocating for a strict reading of the Constitution with regards to the Second Amendment only are just being hypocrites. Just be honest and say you don't care what the Constitution says about guns.
Mammoth Jones
Member
Doesn't that go both ways?
An anti-gun person focuses on the "well regulated militia" part.
Pro-gun focuses on the "shall not be infringed" part.
All vying to support their view in a healthy debate?
The problem with our laws is certain things are banned based on names or weird rules. For example, 32 acp is a prohibted handgun caliber but if its from a gun classified as a short barreled rifle like this it is somehow legal.
All ak 47 variants are banned except for Valmets. So if you want a legit AK 47 in Canada prepare to plop down over 5 grand. We can buy a pump action shotgun with a 8.5 inch barrel that is considered non restricted, but in the US it would require a federal tax stamp. We have no waiting periods for buying guns. I can have a bullpup .50 cal semi auto rifle but I cant own a semi auto FAL. I can own a Tavor but I cant own a .22 rifle that looks like a mp5.
How about an AR 15 example. AR 15s are limited to 5 round magazines in Canada because they are semi auto center fire rifles. But since there are AR 15s classified as pistols, those are allowed 10 Rounds. So magazines designated for those guns are allowed to hold 10 rounds. You can legally use those magazines in the AR 15 Rifles so now you have 10 rounds legally. Rimfire calibers have no ammo capacity limits. You want a 100 round drum on your Ruger 10/22 go get one. Nothing illegal there.
Technosteve
Banned
are these people starting militias?
Anticitizen One
Banned
That's not what the constitution says it says a well regulated militia can own guns. You are not well regulated
ClovingWestbrook
Banned
This was uncalled for.
Or well =p
I agree, there are lots dumb rules, not to mention the laughable failed gun registry, But every gun is required to be locked up at all times, and we have no "right" to them, and I'm glad for that.
Yes, I would hope so, but at the same time I would hope that both sides would espouse consistent constitutional philosophies. Personally, I support a broad reading of the Constitution, one that calls for civil rights laws, abortions, etc., but also must protect the individual right to bear arms. It's possible that America would be a safer place without that right, but that doesn't mean I get to change my entire theory of constitutional law just for this one issue. One of my goals in life is to be a better person than Antonin Scalia.
GoldenEye 007
Member
You don't have to. They're necessary if one is to be created, though.
Sad part is that people are begging the government to take their rights away.
Whats even worse is we are at the mercy of americans when it comes to ammo prices. So that shortage will trickle up here and all of a sudden I need to pay more for ammo because of hoarders in the states. In 2008 I couldnt go to walmart to pick up my winchester value pack of 12 gauge because it was all gone. Thanks a lot america. Sold out at every walmart in the entire city and dry for weeks on end and then when it came back the price went up.
Its like buying gas. Oil spill? Prices go up! Everything is fine? Prices go up.
- Status