Year 12s: what will be the first way you research your future options? >>

How the right allow terrorists to get hold of weapons.

Scroll to see replies

I think it's ridiculous that more people voted against this bill, how can anyone think it's right to let people on the terrorist watch list legally buy guns? Pretty ridiculous, no wonder it's such a big problem over there

Ever heard of the NRA and Republicans?

(edited 7 years ago)

Reply 81

username2228735

Original post by LVRG

This is BS. It would be legislation not an 'experiment'... no repeal. You talk about investing "millions of dollars" in saving tens of thousands of lives per annum like it's a bad thing!? Where are you coming from with this quite frankly robotic argument?

Again, you have now moved your argument from 'trying it out' to 'it will save lives'. There is no evidence to suggest that the latter will work in the United States. The Federal Assault Weapons Ban, for example, yielded mixed results when it expired in 2004.

Where I am coming from is a rational, non-partisan, independent observer. Far too many use emotions in this case and misunderstand the situation. If you want to reduce shootings such as in Orlando, or inner city murders, target the root cause (for example, radical Islam or poverty); misdiagnosing the problem will only postpone the problem.

Reply 82

LVRG

Original post by Aceadria

misdiagnosing the problem will only postpone the problem.

The problem is being able to by a gun like it's a pack of cigarettes. You guys will literally say anything to keep hold of your firearms eh? (not saying you're american but right-wingers)?

Reply 83

username2228735

Original post by LVRG

The problem is being able to by a gun like it's a pack of cigarettes. You guys will literally say anything to keep hold of your firearms eh? (not saying you're american but right-wingers)?

Again, you are making this into a partisan issue when it really isn't. According to some polls, a large majority agree with restrictions on gun ownership (here). The issue isn't with whether restrictions should exist but on who should regulate them (liberals will say the state and conservatives will say an independent body, for example).

The issue of 'freedom' only arises when people suggest an outright ban - such an idea is not productive and nor is there any evidence to suggest it will work in the U.S. (similar measures in the past have done little to lower homicide rates).

Reply 84

Observatory

Original post by nulli tertius

No because this would not have been perceiveD as an "arm"

Not true, they were used as weapons in the Indian wars.

No, because one can make sense of the 1st Amendment without doing so.

One has to define "arms" to make sense of the 2nd Amendment because common sense will not do so.

This sounds rather like the Dworkin school you have complained about in the past in which not agreeing with the reader's politics is grounds for reading a law as saying something other than what it says.

The First Amendment makes sense as it is written and if anything should be much broader than it is (e.g. no restrictions on machine guns or artillery). It may not read in a way that you like but that is a different question.

Reply 85

41b

Original post by Betelgeuse-

What does he barr the exits with? Does he do this on his own whilst multiple police are shooting at him and somehow missing him? How much fuel does he need and where does it need pouring to ensure the building burns quicker than Emergency services are on the scene?

I didnt say it was a gun issue but the access to guns makes atrocities like this easier to carry out. Whether you are mental loner intent on killing grey haired men, or Islamic state wolves looking to kill Gay people... its all so so much easier with an AR-15 at your fingertips

Morally bankrupt LOL ... your suddenly a hysterical lefty now the boot is on the other foot? GTFO boy

If there had been a single armed patron, here, in Paris, in Brussels, in Mumbai, who was trained in the use of firearms, the situation may have turned out very differently.

Further, this guy had a bomb vest, and he was just too stupid to use it. Guns were the second choice, and the possible death toll could have been multiples higher if I had managed to blow himself up in a packed crowd.

When you ban guns, you ensure that only those who break the law have guns.

Reply 86

nulli tertius

Original post by Observatory

Not true, they were used as weapons in the Indian wars..

I know they were used as weapons but no one would have included them in a list of arms any more than they would have included a keg of gunpowder

This sounds rather like the Dworkin school you have complained about in the past in which not agreeing with the reader's politics is grounds for reading a law as saying something other than what it says.

The First [you mean second] Amendment makes sense as it is written and if anything should be much broader than it is (e.g. no restrictions on machine guns or artillery). It may not read in a way that you like but that is a different question.

The problem is the present interpretation is essentially a false originalist position.

What I mean by that is that it is a position that no-one in 1789 would recognise yet the interpreters refuse to accede to the "living document" idea of the Constitution so they ossify what amounts to a view favouring the political position they hold.

There are two problems with the second amendment.

The founding fathers would not have accepted a restriction on anything that they would have regarded as arms. That must either be limited to weapons current in 1789 or be able to be updated. Even if you accept that the definition is limited to man-portable weapons and excludes men of war, forts and artillery, if you can update, why not fully automatic machine guns, bazookas, and shoulder launched SAMs? The clear connection with military defence implicit in the militia clause supports this. The Supreme Court has held that there is no constitutional right to bear a Tommy gun. How is that justified? The argument that they aren't used for lawful purposes is specious. Anyone can do target practice with any arm and the lawful purpose is keeping redcoats at bay. The US has much more extensive state and federal restrictions on knives than on guns including on types of knife known to be in existence in 1789.

What has been enshrined is a "convenient" definition of arms by people who wish the use of pistols and rifles only to have Constitutional protection.

Secondly, and I think this is unique to the second amendment. What do you do with a constitutional provision containing a false premise? If a well regulated militia is necessary to a free state how could it be constitutional to abolish it? And if it isn't necessary, what does that say about the second part of the Amendment?

Reply 87

41b

Original post by nulli tertius

I know they were used as weapons but no one would have included them in a list of arms any more than they would have included a keg of gunpowder

The problem is the present interpretation is essentially a false originalist position.

What I mean by that is that it is a position that no-one in 1789 would recognise yet the interpreters refuse to accede to the "living document" idea of the Constitution so they ossify what amounts to a view favouring the political position they hold.

There are two problems with the second amendment.

The founding fathers would not have accepted a restriction on anything that they would have regarded as arms. That must either be limited to weapons current in 1789 or be able to be updated. Even if you accept that the definition is limited to man-portable weapons and excludes men of war, forts and artillery, if you can update, why not fully automatic machine guns, bazookas, and shoulder launched SAMs? The clear connection with military defence implicit in the militia clause supports this. The Supreme Court has held that there is no constitutional right to bear a Tommy gun. How is that justified? The argument that they aren't used for lawful purposes is specious. Anyone can do target practice with any arm and the lawful purpose is keeping redcoats at bay. The US has much more extensive state and federal restrictions on knives than on guns including on types of knife known to be in existence in 1789.

What has been enshrined is a "convenient" definition of arms by people who wish the use of pistols and rifles only to have Constitutional protection.

Secondly, and I think this is unique to the second amendment. What do you do with a constitutional provision containing a false premise? If a well regulated militia is necessary to a free state how could it be constitutional to abolish it? And if it isn't necessary, what does that say about the second part of the Amendment?

"A free people ought not only to be armed, but disciplined; to which end a uniform and well-digested plan is requisite; and their safety and interest require that they should promote such manufactories as tend to render them independent of others for essential, particularly military, supplies." George Washington

The real problem with the second amendment is that it doesn't allow society to escape from its problems and temporarily avoid the consequences of bad decisions with authoritarian police statism, like Britain and European countries have done.

PS. Over 90% of mass shooters are the children of single mothers, and the majority of them are on brain altering "anti depressants".

Reply 88

Observatory

Original post by nulli tertius

I know they were used as weapons but no one would have included them in a list of arms any more than they would have included a keg of gunpowder

That is a poor example to my mind because before the invention of one-piece cartridges almost a century later it was impossible to use any firearm without separate stocks of gunpowder. If you argue that the 1st Amendment permits the ownership of firearms but not the means to fire them then the restrictionists have won, but that is a weird interpretation in light of the stated intent of the amendment. So the amendment almost certainly protects owning a keg of gunpowder.

Logically all those things should be legal.

The clear connection with military defence implicit in the militia clause supports this. The Supreme Court has held that there is no constitutional right to bear a Tommy gun. How is that justified?

It isn't. But your position is that random new impositions should be added that clearly contradict the intent of the founders to allow the citizenry to raise an army against a foreign invader or the government, not the remove those unconstitutional restrictions that currently exist.

What has been enshrined is a "convenient" definition of arms by people who wish the use of pistols and rifles only to have Constitutional protection.

I don't think that is even correct history. The federal government has progressively sought to impose more and more restrictions on private firearm ownership with the eventual goal of total prohibition. It proceeded via the supreme court inventing permission for restrictions just as the supreme court invented a constitutional right to abortion. That process was then partially reversed. I don't think any activist group wanted the status quo. It is an equilibrium that has resulted from clashes between people with very different ideas, and not necessarily a stable one.

I think the restrictions on machine guns now plainly contradict the current body precedent, but it is hard to challenge them. Want to illegally purchase a machine gun just so you can push the case to the supreme court? There also just aren't that many machine guns about, the court system in the US tends to prefer to settle individual cases without turning them into constitutional test cases, so any legitimate grounds to convict, or non-constitutional grounds to acquit, would be taken.

Secondly, and I think this is unique to the second amendment. What do you do with a constitutional provision containing a false premise? If a well regulated militia is necessary to a free state how could it be constitutional to abolish it? And if it isn't necessary, what does that say about the second part of the Amendment?

I don't understand the question.

(edited 7 years ago)

Reply 89

Betelgeuse-

[QUOTE=41b;65835769]If there had been a single armed patron, here, in Paris, in Brussels, in Mumbai, who was trained in the use of firearms, the situation may have turned out very differently.

Further, this guy had a bomb vest, and he was just too stupid to use it. Guns were the second choice, and the possible death toll could have been multiples higher if I had managed to blow himself up in a packed crowd.

When you ban guns, you ensure that only those who break the law have guns.

I dont disagree with the bolded... but you increase the likelihood of bad guys with guns tenfold if you go Americas way.

Reply 90

41b

Original post by Betelgeuse-

I dont disagree with the bolded... but you increase the likelihood of bad guys with guns tenfold if you go Americas way.

Guns are easily acquired, even in the UK. If you know how, you can make an assault rifle using fairly common materials. My father was in the navy, and even a navy man can make a rudimentary gun without much difficulty. But he doesn't, because he's a good person who follows the law. What happens if a criminal breaks into the house with a gun? He's defenceless because he followed the law. The law abiding guy dies while the criminal enjoys a vacation in jail. This is the purely dysgenic and a horrible way to organise society.

The argument is similar to the one for nuclear weapons. We all agree that nuclear weapons are bad, but we also all agree that all a ban would achieve is letting rogue states gain the upper hand. Yes, the world would be safer if nuclear weapons were totally banned. But that is impossible, because that requires the banning of ideas, rather than materials. Knowledge of how to make nukes cannot be disappeared, and so any country that has the resources and determination to get them, will get them. And no amount of nuclear disarmament will stop them. All disarming achieves is weakening one's own position.

Now, guns are perhaps a billion times harder to regulate, and easier to manufacture, than nuclear weapons. It would be nice if bad people didn't have guns. But they do. And that will never change. The ideal world cannot exist. Only the real one can. We have already reached the stage that anyone with a 3d printer can make a military capable automatic assault rifle. Nothing will achieve gun control now.

In light of the real world, it is foolish and suicidal to disarm in the face of malevolents who won't.

Reply 91

nulli tertius

Original post by Observatory

I don't think it does, any more than it protects the right to gun oil and lead or any of the materiel needed to keep an army in the field.

Logically all those things should be legal.

It isn't. But your position is that random new impositions should be added that clearly contradict the intent of the founders to allow the citizenry to raise an army against a foreign invader or the government, not the remove those unconstitutional restrictions that currently exist.

I don't think that is even correct history. The federal government has progressively sought to impose more and more restrictions on private firearm ownership with the eventual goal of total prohibition. It proceeded via the supreme court inventing permission for restrictions just as the supreme court invented a constitutional right to abortion. That process was then partially reversed. I don't think any activist group wanted the status quo. It is an equilibrium that has resulted from clashes between people with very different ideas, and not necessarily a stable one.

I think the restrictions on machine guns now plainly contradict the current body precedent, but it is hard to challenge them. Want to illegally purchase a machine gun just so you can push the case to the supreme court? There also just aren't that many machine guns about, the court system in the US tends to prefer to settle individual cases without turning them into constitutional test cases, so any legitimate grounds to convict, or non-constitutional grounds to acquit, would be taken.

The reasoning of the Supreme Court majority about interpreting the Constitution permanently fixes an interpretation that neither permits modification with changing social conditions but nor is a literal reading of the Constitution which is probably so unacceptable it would prompt a constitutional amendment.

I don't understand the question.

The militia as a military force was abolished in the 19th century (it isn't the National Guard). It is not certainly not the case that the right to bear arms was only for militia purposes. However there is clearly a link with the militia. A militia was said to be necessary to a free state but the militia has gone. The premise from which the right to bear arms was derived appears to no longer be true. What effect does that have on the conclusion?

Reply 92

ChaoticButterfly

Original post by physicsphysics91

Yet Hillary and the Obama administration gave a lot of weapons, equipment and vehicles that ended up in the hands of ISIS... used to kill many more people LOL. Typical liberal.