• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Scotus "2A rights equal other rights", NYSRPA vs Bruen

theprestige said:
Regressive. Intrusive. Not commensurate with requirements for similarly life-endangering things like automobiles. And still wouldn't solve Chicago's gun violence problem. Or LA's. Or any other large city's, which represent the bulk of gun violence in America. Cracking down on legal gun ownership isn't the solution.
Click to expand...

Making sure all legal gun owners are mentally fit to posses a gun, isn't "cracking down".

Sad that you would see it that way.

Do you also oppose NICS checks?
 
Hercules56 said:
Making sure all legal gun owners are mentally fit to posses a gun, isn't "cracking down".
Click to expand...
It's ridiculously intrusive.

Do you also oppose NICS checks?
Click to expand...
No.

But they're not a solution to the problem of gun violence in America, because the vast majority of gun violence is with guns illegally obtained, often in the hands of people who wouldn't pass an NICS check anyway.

I think NICS checks are good, and I support them, but I don't think they're magic.
 
theprestige said:
It's ridiculously intrusive.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I can see how making sure the people with the lethal weapons aren't ******* nuts is far too intrusive. It's a lot less intrusive to just clean up the bodies of the victims later.

theprestige said:
But they're not a solution to the problem of gun violence in America, because the vast majority of gun violence is with guns illegally obtained, often in the hands of people who wouldn't pass an NICS check anyway.
Click to expand...

Where are these illegally obtained guns all coming from, anyway? I do know of some guns that were stolen, but that can't make up the majority of them, surely. Oh, wait, the most common way criminals get guns is the same way Rittenhouse did it: getting someone else to buy the gun legally. The second most common way: sales by licensed but corrupt gun dealers.

Huh, seems like cracking down on gun sales would actually do something about the most common ways criminals get guns, and thus are actually part of a solution to gun violence after all!
 
theprestige said:
Regressive. Intrusive. Not commensurate with requirements for similarly life-endangering things like automobiles. And still wouldn't solve Chicago's gun violence problem. Or LA's. Or any other large city's, which represent the bulk of gun violence in America. Cracking down on legal gun ownership isn't the solution.
Click to expand...

It should be part of the solution. There should be clearly stated condition to own a gun, and there should be way for the state to get the guns back, if needed. Guns also must 100% be prevented from being traded without state knowing, so black market is not being supplied from legal market.
AFAIK gun owners are not required to prove they still own the guns they bought, and there is no digital registry anyway.

Czech Republic has relatively non-restrictive laws for guns, compared to rest of EU, but the oversight over the ownership is very tight. For example you can't buy ammo for guns you don't have. Sales are registered at police, not gun shop. Gun shop just checks and reports the sale. Owner is required to present the guns at any time, and is required to store them appropriately, which again he has to prove upon notice, which usually means allowing police to your house. And of course, if you lose your license (or if you die), you have to sell the guns (or your heirs) and prove it or they can be right out confiscated.

I think such tight oversight is needed to fight the black market.
 
Dr.Sid said:
It should be part of the solution.
Click to expand...
"It" being a mental health exam. I disagree that it should be part of the solution. It is far too intrusive, for the minimal difference it would make.

There should be clearly stated condition to own a gun,
Click to expand...
As far as I'm aware, every single jurisdiction that puts conditions on gun ownership does in fact state those conditions clearly.

and there should be way for the state to get the guns back, if needed.
Click to expand...
Like a list of the names and addresses of every gun owner?

Guns also must 100% be prevented from being traded without state knowing, so black market is not being supplied from legal market.
Click to expand...
If the state could do this with guns, it could do it with drugs (and if the state could do this with drugs, I bet it would have a big effect on gun violence - a much bigger effect than mental health exams).

AFAIK gun owners are not required to prove they still own the guns they bought, and there is no digital registry anyway.

Czech Republic has relatively non-restrictive laws for guns, compared to rest of EU, but the oversight over the ownership is very tight. For example you can't buy ammo for guns you don't have. Sales are registered at police, not gun shop. Gun shop just checks and reports the sale. Owner is required to present the guns at any time, and is required to store them appropriately, which again he has to prove upon notice, which usually means allowing police to your house. And of course, if you lose your license (or if you die), you have to sell the guns (or your heirs) and prove it or they can be right out confiscated.

I think such tight oversight is needed to fight the black market.
Click to expand...

I'm not entirely opposed to this, but gun registries seem to be widely viewed as a stalking horse or launching pad for further, much more intrusive government action. Basically nobody trusts the government or gun-control activists to manage such a registry responsibly, or refrain from using it to further persecute legal gun owners.
 
theprestige said:
"It" being a mental health exam. I disagree that it should be part of the solution. It is far too intrusive, for the minimal difference it would make.
Click to expand...

I think when I'm balancing gun crime and mass shootings with showing you aren't a crazy wack-job itching to gun down your neighbors, I favor the option that has way fewer dead people as the least intrusive.


theprestige said:
If the state could do this with guns, it could do it with drugs (and if the state could do this with drugs, I bet it would have a big effect on gun violence - a much bigger effect than mental health exams).
Click to expand...

And yet, most illegal drugs aren't bought through trackable methods like licensed dealers, while drugs are. So it sorta seems like you're comparing legally manufactured, serial numbered, and tracked right up until the point of sale things with stuff that was never legally manufactured, nor has a traceable serial number, nor tracked right up until the point of sale and saying they're both equally difficult to track. That's not even apples and oranges.

theprestige said:
I'm not entirely opposed to this, but gun registries seem to be widely viewed as a stalking horse or launching pad for further, much more intrusive government action. Basically nobody trusts the government or gun-control activists to manage such a registry responsibly, or refrain from using it to further persecute legal gun owners.
Click to expand...

It's almost like there has been decades of dishonest propaganda from the NRA and the GOP (but I repeat myself) to that effect, huh?
 
theprestige said:
I'm not entirely opposed to this, but gun registries seem to be widely viewed as a stalking horse or launching pad for further, much more intrusive government action. Basically nobody trusts the government or gun-control activists to manage such a registry responsibly, or refrain from using it to further persecute legal gun owners.
Click to expand...

Why would you further persecute them ? Similar registers for car exist. You need licence for car. Why is it so hard for guns ?
 
theprestige said:
It's ridiculously intrusive.
Click to expand...

Yet you guys want a ******* ID and proof of citizenship in order to vote.

Votes don't kill people, but guns do. And yet you want the check system for voting to be a million times stronger than for guns.

Making sure crazy people aren't buying a guy is intrusive???????????

LOLOLOLOLOL!!! Im truly shocked that you want schizophrenics, bipolar and psychopaths and other very dangerous people to be able to buy a gun.

WTF bro.
 
Last edited:
Hercules56 said:
Yet you guys want a ******* ID and proof of citizenship in order to vote.

Votes don't kill people, but guns do. And yet you want the check system for voting to be a million times stronger than for guns.
Click to expand...
My view is that ballot integrity and public trust in integrity of the ballot is much more important to the long-term success of our democracy than further restrictions on legal gun purchases.

Making sure crazy people aren't buying a guy is intrusive???????????
Click to expand...
Yes.

LOLOLOLOLOL!!! Im truly shocked that you want schizophrenics, bipolar and psychopaths and other very dangerous people to be able to buy a gun.
Click to expand...
These people legally buying guns are a very tiny fraction of the gun violence problem in the US. The degree of intrusion is out of proportion to the amount of good it would do.

WTF bro.
Click to expand...
"What": Identify the major categories of gun violence in the US.

"The **** ": Come up with policy proposals that focus on significantly reducing violence in those categories.

And I'm not your "bro".
 
Dr.Sid said:
Why would you further persecute them ? Similar registers for car exist. You need licence for car. Why is it so hard for guns ?
Click to expand...
Guns are explicitly called out as a human right in our constitution, and our system of government has a fairly high bar for imposing restrictions on rights.

Hercules56 said:
Because gun registration means confiscation which means tyranny!!!!!


:P
Click to expand...
That is indeed the perception. Being unserious about it won't address the concern. Plus, you were just now proposing an immoral and unconstitutional sin tax on a constitutional right, via procedural shenanigans in the legislature. So I think it's reasonable to worry that you might at any moment decide it's time to exploit a gun registry for mass confiscations and other abuses of power.

I don't know how representative of gun control activism in general your views are, but your views are the representation that activism is getting here right now.
 
theprestige said:
Guns are explicitly called out as a human right in our constitution, and our system of government has a fairly high bar for imposing restrictions on rights.
Click to expand...

It already restricts access to most of military weapons, it restrict based on age and to perpetrators. It already requires record of purchase.
Also if the constitution is obsolete, simply change it ..
 
Dr.Sid said:
It already restricts access to most of military weapons, it restrict based on age and to perpetrators. It already requires record of purchase.
Click to expand...
Gradual erosions over time, and it's still difficult to go further.

Also if the constitution is obsolete, simply change it ..
Click to expand...
Tell me you're unserious without telling me you're unserious...
 
theprestige said:
...



I'm not entirely opposed to this, but gun registries seem to be widely viewed as a stalking horse or launching pad for further, much more intrusive government action. Basically nobody trusts the government or gun-control activists to manage such a registry responsibly, or refrain from using it to further persecute legal gun owners.
Click to expand...

California's DOJ just "leaked" the entire CCW list on the internet. 10 years of applicants, plus those granted, by job and county, with name and address. Of 2,500 in L.A. county, 234 are judges. San Francisco county, FOUR total. PLUS, the rest if us who had applied for the extreme ammo ID card. (no other state does ammo ID).

The data was supposed to be for researchers looking into gun safety. But several columns of the spread sheet were not redacted.

No numbers mentioned of how many down loads.

I'd be interested to see how many are Anti-Gun-Democrats, like out of the 234 judges on L.A. county. 220? :D
 
Last edited:
Dr.Sid said:
No, I'm serious. Laws should not be museum ..
Click to expand...

Nobody says otherwise (ETA: About laws being museum pieces; obviously I'm saying otherwise about your apparent unseriousness). There's a whole huge serious conversation to be had about the US constitution, its value, the difficulty of changing it, etc. But you want to throw out lazy platitudes instead of having that conversation. So, not serious about it.

Anyway, I answered your question about why it's difficult to further restrict gun ownership.

If you're serious about making it easier to restrict gun ownership by changing the constitution, then I invite you to start a thread about it, and give your serious, detailed views on exactly how easy it should be to change a foundational legal document that (among other things) secures certain human rights.

There's a lot of bathwater there, and I would like you to think and talk seriously about how much of it you're prepared to throw out, just to get at the gun problem as you see it.
 
Last edited:
theprestige said:
Nobody says otherwise (ETA: About laws being museum pieces; obviously I'm saying otherwise about your apparent unseriousness). There's a whole huge serious conversation to be had about the US constitution, its value, the difficulty of changing it, etc. But you want to throw out lazy platitudes instead of having that conversation. So, not serious about it.

Anyway, I answered your question about why it's difficult to further restrict gun ownership.

If you're serious about making it easier to restrict gun ownership by changing the constitution, then I invite you to start a thread about it, and give your serious, detailed views on exactly how easy it should be to change a foundational legal document that (among other things) secures certain human rights.

There's a lot of bathwater there, and I would like you to think and talk seriously about how much of it you're prepared to throw out, just to get at the gun problem as you see it.
Click to expand...

I get your points, I just assure you about my seriousness. US constitution has 27 amendments. While it still seems somewhat low number for how long it exists, I don't see why there couldn't be 28th. Well besides the fact there really isn't big demand for it ..
 
arthwollipot said:
No it isn't. Lots of people all over the world get by without recognising such a right.
Click to expand...

I'd like to debate that, but this isn't really the thread for it. I know you can reason about a right, in the context of something defined as a right in constitutional law. Rather than derail this discussion about the interpretation and limitation of a right enumerated in the US constitution, would you mind starting a separate thread for your separate (but related) point? If you're interested, that is.
 
Hercules56 said:
What if any gun regulations do you support?
Click to expand...

Criminal background checks. Prohibition of automatic and burst modes for civilian use. A written test of basic firearms safety knowledge, similar to the written portion of a driver's license exam. A non-punitive registration fee. Probably a few other things here and there, that I'm not thinking of right now but might be on someone else's mind in this thread.
 
theprestige said:
Criminal background checks. Prohibition of automatic and burst modes for civilian use. A written test of basic firearms safety knowledge, similar to the written portion of a driver's license exam. A non-punitive registration fee. Probably a few other things here and there, that I'm not thinking of right now but might be on someone else's mind in this thread.
Click to expand...
How about live-fire exam for handguns?

Close quarter training for carry permits?

Mental health checks? Only a crazy country allows crazy people to possess guns.
 
Hercules56 said:
How about live-fire exam for handguns?

Close quarter training for carry permits?

Mental health checks? Only a crazy country allows crazy people to possess guns.
Click to expand...

a) akin to Hunter's Safety class, which used to be taught in high school.

b) "the only reason to shoot someone is to make them stop what they are doing".

c) Prove you are sane? Not doable. You can't prove a negative. Instant back ground check should suffice for past issues. (1)

But you don't need to do any of that to vote, or write, or speak you political mind.

(1) The latest federal "gun control" bill passed, Safer Cities Act, does include due process for Red Flag procedures. But that is a fringe issue?
 
casebro said:
c) Prove you are sane? Not doable. You can't prove a negative. Instant back ground check should suffice for past issues. (1)
Click to expand...

Certainly doable where I live. But it's quite vague. You have to have a attestation from a doctor. Usually you get that from your general doctor. He should know about all your history. But if you have psychological issue, he might not know, unless you told him. Also I guess it's easy to get one for money or from a friend.
Also, if the doctor learns you have a condition, let's say schizophrenia, and he knows you have a license (as you asked for the attestation) he has to report it, and you will lose your license. The information can get lost, and this mechanism didn't work last time we had mass shooting (legal gun, 5 dead IIRC) .. but it's certainly possible.
 
theprestige said:
I'd like to debate that, but this isn't really the thread for it. I know you can reason about a right, in the context of something defined as a right in constitutional law. Rather than derail this discussion about the interpretation and limitation of a right enumerated in the US constitution, would you mind starting a separate thread for your separate (but related) point? If you're interested, that is.
Click to expand...
There have been many threads on the subject over the years. I think I hit my stride somewhere around 2015-2017 in the Social Issues and Current Events sub, if you'd like to poke around there. This is a good one: You Do Not Have The Right To Kill. Keep in mind that my personal views have evolved over the years, partially due to discussions like this.
 
casebro said:
a) akin to Hunter's Safety class, which used to be taught in high school.

b) "the only reason to shoot someone is to make them stop what they are doing".

c) Prove you are sane? Not doable. You can't prove a negative. Instant back ground check should suffice for past issues. (1)

But you don't need to do any of that to vote, or write, or speak you political mind.

(1) The latest federal "gun control" bill passed, Safer Cities Act, does include due process for Red Flag procedures. But that is a fringe issue?
Click to expand...

Strawman. Never said anything about having to "prove you are sane".

USA should have a firearms license that includes a check of mental health records and an interview.
 
theprestige said:
"It" being a mental health exam. I disagree that it should be part of the solution. It is far too intrusive, for the minimal difference it would make.


As far as I'm aware, every single jurisdiction that puts conditions on gun ownership does in fact state those conditions clearly.


Like a list of the names and addresses of every gun owner?


If the state could do this with guns, it could do it with drugs (and if the state could do this with drugs, I bet it would have a big effect on gun violence - a much bigger effect than mental health exams).



I'm not entirely opposed to this, but gun registries seem to be widely viewed as a stalking horse or launching pad for further, much more intrusive government action. Basically nobody trusts the government or gun-control activists to manage such a registry responsibly, or refrain from using it to further persecute legal gun owners.
Click to expand...

Can you explain this “persecution” of legal gun owners?

And yes, I’ll say it.
Gun ownership registries are indeed so guns can be confiscated. From formerly legal owners who lose the right to have them.
That solves a majority of the illegal gun problem.
I don’t trust a pinkie swear by felons that they certainly will get rid of their guns, (wink!), with no ability for citizens to know it happened.
 
I see nothing wrong with a mental health check being mandatory to possess firearms.

If you are being successfully treated for mental illness, you should be allowed to possess a gun.

I think the only people who oppose this, are suffering from untreated mental illness and KNOW they may be considered a danger to themselves or others.
 
Violent extremists should not even be in open society. Even for contrarians it is adorable to argue just for the sake of disagreeing with the crowd and no other reason to argue they shouldn't also armed.
 
NY's latest law- Shall Issue, subject to 'good character'. Wanna see whether POCs are of good enough character? Can they ask are YOU of good enough character to vote? express a political opinion? I bet most of their legislators are lawyers too...
 
Last edited:
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news...ults-carrying-guns?CMP=Share_AndroidApp_Other

Texas judge overturns state ban on young adults carrying guns

In June, the US supreme court ruled for the first time that the second amendment guaranteed an individual right to carry weapons in public for self-defense. The decision also ordered the federal judiciary to apply a “history-only” test when considering challenges to weapons regulations, saying a regulation was constitutional only if it was similar to those around in the 18th century when the second amendment was ratified.
Click to expand...

So. They should also apply a history only guns people can carry too. Muskets for all
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom