I'm on my phone and on break at work so my response will be short and sweet:

Guns are bad.

(March 2, 2015 at 11:17 am)Sionnach Wrote: I'm on my phone and on break at work so my response will be short and sweet:

Guns are bad. Mmmkay

Fixt

(March 1, 2015 at 9:07 pm)AFTT47 Wrote: For starters, there is the 2nd Amendment. We need to respect that if we're going to trumpet the separation of church and state - otherwise we are hypocrites. Repealing or modifying it is not realistic in the current climate.

What? One amendment being bad doesn't mean that every amendment should be up for grabs in the same way; they vary so much in terms of content that you need to address them on a case by case basis. The first amendment serves a valuable purpose, while the second only serves to deliver unchecked power to an item that really does need at least some checks. We need to find our context-sensitivity on this issue.

(March 2, 2015 at 11:10 am)AFTT47 Wrote:

(March 2, 2015 at 10:03 am)pocaracas Wrote: In time, the second amendment can be amended by a majority vote.

A constitutional amendment requires a super majority. It must pass with 2/3 of the vote in both houses of congress and then ratification by 3/4 of the states.

The states can amend the US constitution without congress.

http://www.archives.gov/federal-register...cle-v.html

(March 1, 2015 at 11:56 pm)popeyespappy Wrote:

(March 1, 2015 at 11:20 pm)IATIA Wrote: The three big killers are automobiles, tobacco and guns.

Sorry but no. Excessive alcohol use kills more people annually than automobiles and guns combined. Obesity kills more Americans than all three (alcohol, automobiles and guns) together and trails tobacco use only slightly as the second leading preventable killer.

Perhaps I should have elaborated more clearly. As this thread is dealing with gun controls, i was comparing what could be reasonably legislated. How would one go about legislating obesity.

I stand corrected on the alcohol however, I apparently had outdated or errant information, but that has a regulatory history of it's own. Prohibition was a complete failure. I would expect a similar response with guns.

I am all for reasonable regulation of firearms possession. The argument is about what constitutes 'reasonable'. And part of determining 'reasonable' is being pragmatic about 320,000,000+ firearms in the hands of 80,000,000+ civilians and the SCOTUS decisions that the Second Amendment grants the individual right to keep and bear arms.

To enact an outright gun ban would require either amending the Constitution or a future SCOTUS reinterpreting the Second Amendment. Neither is a short-term proposition.

The U.S. has a societal violence problem, not a gun problem per se. Of course, the prevalence of guns makes it more deadly, but guns aren't the cause of the problem.

Switzerland also has a long history of gun culture and a high rate of ownership - they don't have a "gun problem" since they don't have a violent society.

The debate about firearms is highly polarized and full of misinformation and lies from both ends of the spectrum. If you are pro-gun, you might want to be more rational about reasonable restrictions. If you are anti-gun, you might want to be more rational about reasonable restrictions.

For the antis: if you are going to argue for banning or restricting certain firearms, you would do well to learn the facts about firearms and crime before making fools of yourselves.

For the pros: if you are going to argue for no restrictions, you would do well to learn the facts about the risks that firearms pose unless you like sounding like cretinous libertarians.

(March 2, 2015 at 11:39 am)popeyespappy Wrote:

(March 2, 2015 at 11:10 am)AFTT47 Wrote: A constitutional amendment requires a super majority. It must pass with 2/3 of the vote in both houses of congress and then ratification by 3/4 of the states.

The states can amend the US constitution without congress.

http://www.archives.gov/federal-register...cle-v.html

I didn't know about that path. It still leaves the most difficult part: ratification by 3/4 of the states. It only takes 13 states to defeat it. States like:

Alaska
Arizona
Georgia
Kentucky
Louisiana
Mississippi
North Dakota
Oklahoma
South Dakota
Tennessee
Texas
Utah
Wyoming

Can anyone familiar with those states imagine them supporting the gutting of the 2nd Amendment? And just in case Hell freezes over and a few of them do, there is still:

Alabama
Arkansas
Idaho
Montana
New Mexico
North Carolina
South Carolina
West Virginia

Sorry but the 2nd Amendment is safe for a long time.

As for a Supreme Court reinterpretation of it, they only weighed in on it a few years ago. Again, it's safe for a long time.

Like I said up-thread, it will take a radical culture change. It might be a realistic possibility in 30 years but I would guess more like 50.

(March 1, 2015 at 7:44 pm)Esquilax Wrote: In Australia the gun laws are eminently logical, and were prompted into existence for logical reasons. A rash of gun violence happened, and as a result tighter gun laws were enacted. Another shooting happened- one shooting, after violent crime went down following the first restrictions- and the laws got tighter still. Crime continues to drop, and yet... you can own a gun. You need to have a firearms license, register the piece, and so on, but you can have one. The government even takes the reason you want one into account: you can't have a gun just to have one, but if you want one for a reason, like sport shooting or competitive marksmanship, it's yours, so long as you're willing to be responsible.

I look at America, and apparently simple expectations like that are a bad thing?

We actually have similar gun laws in the UK. People misunderstand our gun laws as being some kind of a blanket ban. If you attend a target shooting club or something similar getting your hands on guns is fairly straight forward so long as you don't have a criminal record. I think the police are allowed to turn up and ask to see where you keep your guns to make sure its kept secured and safely. Though I think as it stands you are allowed to decline and ask them to turn up another time.

(March 2, 2015 at 12:28 pm)IATIA Wrote:

(March 1, 2015 at 11:56 pm)popeyespappy Wrote: Sorry but no. Excessive alcohol use kills more people annually than automobiles and guns combined. Obesity kills more Americans than all three (alcohol, automobiles and guns) together and trails tobacco use only slightly as the second leading preventable killer.

Perhaps I should have elaborated more clearly. As this thread is dealing with gun controls, i was comparing what could be reasonably legislated. How would one go about legislating obesity.

I stand corrected on the alcohol however, I apparently had outdated or errant information, but that has a regulatory history of it's own. Prohibition was a complete failure. I would expect a similar response with guns.

Obesity is being legislated now in the form of health care penalties for obese people and food labeling. Other things that could be done include better education on how to cook and eat a more healthy diet, and restrictions on the amount of sugar and fats in prepared foods.

---

(March 2, 2015 at 1:54 pm)AFTT47 Wrote:

(March 2, 2015 at 11:39 am)popeyespappy Wrote: The states can amend the US constitution without congress.

http://www.archives.gov/federal-register...cle-v.html

I didn't know about that path. It still leaves the most difficult part: ratification by 3/4 of the states. It only takes 13 states to defeat it. States like:

Alaska
Arizona
Georgia
Kentucky
Louisiana
Mississippi
North Dakota
Oklahoma
South Dakota
Tennessee
Texas
Utah
Wyoming

Can anyone familiar with those states imagine them supporting the gutting of the 2nd Amendment? And just in case Hell freezes over and a few of them do, there is still:

Alabama
Arkansas
Idaho
Montana
New Mexico
North Carolina
South Carolina
West Virginia

Sorry but the 2nd Amendment is safe for a long time.

As for a Supreme Court reinterpretation of it, they only weighed in on it a few years ago. Again, it's safe for a long time.

Like I said up-thread, it will take a radical culture change. It might be a realistic possibility in 30 years but I would guess more like 50.

Fortunately the second amendment doesn't need to be changed in order to make many of the changes gun control groups would like to see. Out right bans on specific types of weapons, ammunition and magazine size have constantly been ruled as legal by the courts. So have waiting periods, licensing, registration, background checks, and restrictions on where guns are allowed. In fact about the only thing the courts have ruled on that goes against gun control groups wishes is that you can't pass laws that effectively prevent all civilians from obtaining and keeping any gun.

Yup, they could absolutely do the brady style ban again (but the DOJ isn't interested..it didn't help -at all-). If we're going to ban certain types of firearms (and why not?) then we should probably ban the right ones next time.......? Pro-tip, they're small and fit in your pocket (which handily explains why they're a problem). Somewhere along a reasonable road (and this is ignoring the fact that we seem to be intent on writing more laws when we don;t enforce the ones we have) people lose their shit and start banning things that are black, have rails on top, and magazines on the bottom. None of this is remotely well thought out - and that's why our results were shit the last time.

Don't forget Florida btw...... liberal snowbirds love guns........for some strange reason........and the rest of the state is red, so they aint gonna pass shit for a constitutional amendment facilitating a ban of any kind (or even reasonable restrictions).