Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 49 (9181 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: joebialek123
Post Volume: Total: 918,287 Year: 5,544/9,624 Month: 569/323 Week: 66/143 Day: 9/19 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   How can we regulate guns ... ?
Genomicus
Member (Idle past 2060 days)
Posts: 852
Joined: 02-15-2012


(2)
Message 16 of 955 (686374)
12-31-2012 3:17 PM


Incidentally, these tighter regulations would be rendered pretty much irrelevant in the next few years by the rise of technology like 3D printers.
Instead of pushing for tighter gun regulation and control, why not address the root problem - that there is something in modern society that gives birth to a violent mindset.

Replies to this message:
 Message 18 by onifre, posted 12-31-2012 3:47 PM Genomicus has replied

  
Genomicus
Member (Idle past 2060 days)
Posts: 852
Joined: 02-15-2012


(1)
Message 19 of 955 (686387)
12-31-2012 4:12 PM
Reply to: Message 18 by onifre
12-31-2012 3:47 PM


We're not seeing the numbers of shootings and murder going up in rich, white neighboorhoods. It's an inner city problem.
That may be true for the most part, but the CT shooting doesn't fall into that classification.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 18 by onifre, posted 12-31-2012 3:47 PM onifre has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 20 by onifre, posted 12-31-2012 4:22 PM Genomicus has not replied
 Message 21 by RAZD, posted 12-31-2012 4:33 PM Genomicus has replied

  
Genomicus
Member (Idle past 2060 days)
Posts: 852
Joined: 02-15-2012


(2)
Message 23 of 955 (686393)
12-31-2012 5:06 PM
Reply to: Message 21 by RAZD
12-31-2012 4:33 PM


The answer to mass murder rampages will be different to the answer to crime killings, yes?
Yes.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 21 by RAZD, posted 12-31-2012 4:33 PM RAZD has seen this message but not replied

  
Genomicus
Member (Idle past 2060 days)
Posts: 852
Joined: 02-15-2012


(1)
Message 37 of 955 (686432)
01-01-2013 1:16 PM
Reply to: Message 36 by RAZD
01-01-2013 1:13 PM


Re: Regulation Proposal #1 owner licenses
The solid evidence we have is that there are way more gun deaths in the US than in comparable countries with gun regulations.
Yes, but the objective is not to reduce the amount of gun deaths. The goal is to reduce the total number of deaths from violent crime. So, you'd need statistics that show, for example, that in England there is a lower percentage of violent-crime-related deaths than in the U.S.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 36 by RAZD, posted 01-01-2013 1:13 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 39 by Jon, posted 01-01-2013 2:10 PM Genomicus has not replied
 Message 47 by RAZD, posted 01-01-2013 3:43 PM Genomicus has not replied

  
Genomicus
Member (Idle past 2060 days)
Posts: 852
Joined: 02-15-2012


(1)
Message 94 of 955 (686553)
01-02-2013 1:22 PM
Reply to: Message 93 by Tangle
01-02-2013 1:12 PM


Re: the topic is how can we regulate guns ... to reduce gun deaths
An outright ban on the ownership of handguns and assault weapons. A recall of existing guns in those categories and strong Federal - not state - licensing of hunting rifles and shotguns.
Does the federal government have the constitutional right to regulate guns, though?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 93 by Tangle, posted 01-02-2013 1:12 PM Tangle has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 96 by Rahvin, posted 01-02-2013 1:31 PM Genomicus has replied
 Message 121 by hooah212002, posted 01-02-2013 5:28 PM Genomicus has replied

  
Genomicus
Member (Idle past 2060 days)
Posts: 852
Joined: 02-15-2012


(2)
Message 97 of 955 (686557)
01-02-2013 1:42 PM
Reply to: Message 96 by Rahvin
01-02-2013 1:31 PM


Re: the topic is how can we regulate guns ... to reduce gun deaths
The Constitution guarantees the "right to bear arms." It does not say what those arms are, or limit Congress from making laws limiting the types of arms that can be owned.
That's why it's illegal to have weapons like RPGs or armed tanks (you can own a tank, but the gun must be disabled).
It would be perfectly fitting within the Constitution to ban all guns and limit the arms that can be borne to escrima sticks.
But that's not the meaning of the word "arms" in the 2nd amendment. "Arms" in this context means firearms, not simply "weapon." That would seem to be the interpretation of the founding fathers, at least.
E.g., Federalist paper 46:
"Let a regular army, fully equal to the resources of the country, be formed; and let it be entirely at the devotion of the federal government; still it would not be going too far to say, that the State governments, with the people on their side, would be able to repel the danger. The highest number to which, according to the best computation, a standing army can be carried in any country, does not exceed one hundredth part of the whole number of souls; or one twenty-fifth part of the number able to bear arms. This proportion would not yield, in the United States, an army of more than twenty-five or thirty thousand men. To these would be opposed a militia amounting to near half a million of citizens with arms in their hands, officered by men chosen from among themselves, fighting for their common liberties, and united and conducted by governments possessing their affections and confidence. It may well be doubted, whether a militia thus circumstanced could ever be conquered by such a proportion of regular troops. Those who are best acquainted with the last successful resistance of this country against the British arms, will be most inclined to deny the possibility of it."
I'm pretty sure James Madison was not referring to escrima sticks, but rather to firearms.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 96 by Rahvin, posted 01-02-2013 1:31 PM Rahvin has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 102 by onifre, posted 01-02-2013 2:15 PM Genomicus has not replied

  
Genomicus
Member (Idle past 2060 days)
Posts: 852
Joined: 02-15-2012


Message 118 of 955 (686622)
01-02-2013 4:30 PM
Reply to: Message 111 by onifre
01-02-2013 3:12 PM


Re: the topic is how can we regulate guns ... to reduce gun deaths
There was a Continental Army during the conception of the United States and the Constitution.
There was no Continental Army during the conception of the Constitution:
"A small residual force [of Continentals] remained at West Point and some frontier outposts until Congress created the United States Army by their resolution of June 3, 1784."
The Constitution hadn't even been drafted by 1784. The U.S. Army was already in existence when the Constitution was written.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 111 by onifre, posted 01-02-2013 3:12 PM onifre has not replied

  
Genomicus
Member (Idle past 2060 days)
Posts: 852
Joined: 02-15-2012


(1)
Message 124 of 955 (686645)
01-02-2013 5:36 PM
Reply to: Message 121 by hooah212002
01-02-2013 5:28 PM


Re: the topic is how can we regulate guns ... to reduce gun deaths
No to both, but they sure as fuck enacted legislation that gives them the power to do it and nobody says a fucking word. People only give a shit about the constitution when its convenient.
Are you sure no one actually says anything about both of those, though?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 121 by hooah212002, posted 01-02-2013 5:28 PM hooah212002 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 125 by hooah212002, posted 01-02-2013 5:41 PM Genomicus has not replied

  
Genomicus
Member (Idle past 2060 days)
Posts: 852
Joined: 02-15-2012


(2)
Message 134 of 955 (686659)
01-02-2013 6:24 PM
Reply to: Message 132 by Taq
01-02-2013 6:15 PM


Re: What some of the founders had to say about it:
So we should allow slavery, end women's suffrage, and re-enact the Dredd Scott decision?
Umm, no. I think what the quotes Faith provided demonstrate is the founding father's interpretation of the 2nd Amendment. In other words, no, we can't twist the 2nd Amendment so that it only covers "arms" in the sense of clubs, etc., because that's not its meaning.
Now, one could argue that the 2nd Amendment should be repealed, or heavily modified. That's an altogether different approach; presently, the 2nd Amendment means that any excessive regulation of firearms is unconstitutional.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 132 by Taq, posted 01-02-2013 6:15 PM Taq has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024