Convince me otherwise: allow guns ownership, ban bullet ownership.

[gamer.tv]

Only allow bullets to be purchased, used, and disposed at gun ranges. Make it illegal to own a bullet. For professions that need them, limit the type/size allowed.

 

Gun enthusiasts still get to own weapons, people less likely to be shot. 
 

Tell me how wrong I am.

[Keyser_Soze]

 

[SaysWho?]

31 minutes ago, Keyser_Soze said:

 

 

Yup, it's impossible for talk about gun control involving bullets to not include this clip.

[johnny]

if we assume people agreed on that, gun owners will demand bullets for self defense at their home 

[gamer.tv]

51 minutes ago, johnny said:

if we assume people agreed on that, gun owners will demand bullets for self defense at their home 

Just don’t let them.

[Guest]

Within the framework of American constitutional law, making it difficult to access a constitutional right by some other means (like banning bullets, restricting their sale, etc.) is considered the same thing as infringing on the right itself. It is also why otherwise neat ideas like requiring insurance to own a gun won't be happening.

[Chris-]

The answer is relatively simple: classify all semi-automatic weapons as Title II weapons under the National Firearms Act. 

[Kal-El814]

The toothpaste is out of the tube. Even if we stopped gun sales immediately and permanently, there are still more guns in the USA than there are people. The second amendment needs to be stricken, mandatory buybacks need to happen.

[Ominous]

2 hours ago, sblfilms said:

Within the framework of American constitutional law, making it difficult to access a constitutional right by some other means (like banning bullets, restricting their sale, etc.) is considered the same thing as infringing on the right itself. It is also why otherwise neat ideas like requiring insurance to own a gun won't be happening.

 

What about that "well regulated" aspect of it? 

[Ominous]

1 hour ago, Kal-El814 said:

The toothpaste is out of the tube. Even if we stopped gun sales immediately and permanently, there are still more guns in the USA than there are people. The second amendment needs to be stricken, mandatory buybacks need to happen.

 

Just let in more illegals, boom less guns than people.

 

Us libs have the best ideas.

[Guest]

18 minutes ago, Ominous said:

 

What about that "well regulated" aspect of it? 

That is just a preface clause, the logical basis for why the operative clause “the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed”.

 

The second means the same thing even if you remove everything before the operative clause. The question that still has very little in the way of answers is how far governments can go before they are “infringing”. There remains a lot of grey area, but I think you’d be hard pressed to look at recent SCOTUS rulings on 2A issues and come away thinking anything that meaningfully restricts things like ammunition or drastically increases prices/lowers access like gun insurance aren’t going to stay in force long.

 

But I still think governments should do it. The GOP has shown their willingness to pass abortion restrictions that they knew were not legal under Roe/Casey and kept doing it over and over until they whittled at the edges such that prior to the upcoming ruling in Dobbs, they dramatically decreased access to legal abortion care in many states.

 

[Biggie]

4 hours ago, gamer.tv said:

Just don’t let them.

The British tried that once. 

[skillzdadirecta]

1 hour ago, Ominous said:

 

What about that "well regulated" aspect of it? 

From 'Fraud' To Individual Right, Where Does The Supreme Court Stand On Guns?

WWW.NPR.ORG

---

The Supreme Court has declined to hear many gun cases in recent years. It has said there is an individual right to own a gun, but it's not an absolute one.

 

 

[Slug]

8 hours ago, Ominous said:

 

What about that "well regulated" aspect of it? 

"Regulated" means something different in this context.  It doesn't mean regulations as in rules and controls.  It means something closer to, "well trained and well equipped".

[CastlevaniaNut18]

Considering we require zero training for gun ownership, that seems to be ignored completely .

[Ominous]

4 hours ago, Slug said:

"Regulated" means something different in this context.  It doesn't mean regulations as in rules and controls.  It means something closer to, "well trained and well equipped".

 

What training is required to buy / own / poses a gun?

[Keyser_Soze]

1 hour ago, Ominous said:

What training is required to buy / own / poses a gun?

 

Well you need to know math so you can give the cashier your money and you probably have to know how to write (I dunno, do you have to sign your name or something when you buy a gun?)

[Slug]

3 hours ago, Ominous said:

 

What training is required to buy / own / poses a gun?

None.  There probably should be. I was just pointing out the meaning of 'regulated' in the context of the 2A. I often see folks say things akin to, "but it says regulated!" thinking it means regulations as we consider the word today, but it does not. 

[SaysWho?]

7 minutes ago, Slug said:

None.  There probably should be. I was just pointing out the meaning of 'regulated' in the context of the 2A. I often see folks say things akin to, "but it says regulated!" thinking it means regulations as we consider the word today, but it does not. 

 

It does depending on who's on the court, but we no longer have that court people pretended was "balanced" in early 2016 that was far-right on gun issues even then.

[Guest]

It literally doesn’t matter what regulated means (though Slug is correct it means something more along the lines of “prepared”), it is not the operative clause in the amendment.

 

If you want to better understand what the 2A means, you can look at state constitutions at the time.

 

PA: That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the state; and as standing armies in the time of peace are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be kept up; And that the military should be kept under strict subordination, to, and governed by, the civil power.

VT: That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the State -- and as standing armies in time of peace are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be kept up; and that the military should be kept under strict subordination to and governed by the civil power.

VA: That a well-regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defense of a free state; that standing armies, in time of peace, should be avoided as dangerous to liberty; and that in all cases the military should be under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power.

 

It may be unclear, but the 2A is actually a really terribly worded mashup of these ideas from the different states. Which makes sense, the same people who wrote their state constitutions were the people in Philly debating and crafting the US constitution.

 

In essence, they borrowed the language from VA as the prefatory clause, and the language from VT and PA as the operative clause.

 

 

The reason we need to repeal the 2A is that it is completely a relic of the past. It confers a right based on a set of very outdated assumptions, like militia membership being ubiquitous, or the constant threat of both foreign invasion or domestic tyranny. It is interesting to read gun rights protections in state constitutions in the 1800s as they already shift away from the “shall not be infringed” language.

 

TX in 1876: Every citizen shall have the right to keep and bear arms in the lawful defense of himself or the State; but the Legislature shall have power, by law, to regulate the wearing of arms, with a view to prevent crime.

 

Once you skip ahead another 100 years to the 1970s, gun rights activists have begun to win battles in states to get “shall not infringe” and explicit self defense language put in to state constitutions all over the country.

[Keyser_Soze]

Some of these senators are old enough to have lived back then so they probably know what they meant by "well regulated"

[Ominous]

1 hour ago, Keyser_Soze said:

Some of these senators are old enough to have lived back then so they probably know what they meant by "well regulated"

 

Doesn't that mean you can shit a few times a day? Maybe that's regular...but it seems like these senators spew nothing but crap.

[unogueen]

Still fail to see how guns need to be a common consumer product. Hunting licenses should extend to the rental of firearms in the designated areas.

Or extend park duties to culing. See, more jobs!

[Ominous]

Why do you need a gun?

To protect myself

Protect yourself from what?

Other people with guns.

 

Mericaaaaaaa

[TheLeon]

43 minutes ago, Ominous said:

Why do you need a gun?

To protect myself

Protect yourself from what?

Other people with guns.

 

Mericaaaaaaa

But if you outlaw guns, only outlaws will have guns. So the only solution is: guns for everyone! 

[gamer.tv]

12 minutes ago, TheLeon said:

But if you outlaw guns, only outlaws will have guns. So the only solution is: guns for everyone! 

Knives and grenades are the answer. 

[unogueen]

1 minute ago, gamer.tv said:

Knives and grenades are the answer. 

Don't go all Brazil now.

[SaysWho?]

4 hours ago, sblfilms said:

It literally doesn’t matter what regulated means (though Slug is correct it means something more along the lines of “prepared”), it is not the operative clause in the amendment.

 

If you want to better understand what the 2A means, you can look at state constitutions at the time.

 

PA: That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the state; and as standing armies in the time of peace are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be kept up; And that the military should be kept under strict subordination, to, and governed by, the civil power.

VT: That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the State -- and as standing armies in time of peace are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be kept up; and that the military should be kept under strict subordination to and governed by the civil power.

VA: That a well-regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defense of a free state; that standing armies, in time of peace, should be avoided as dangerous to liberty; and that in all cases the military should be under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power.

 

It may be unclear, but the 2A is actually a really terribly worded mashup of these ideas from the different states. Which makes sense, the same people who wrote their state constitutions were the people in Philly debating and crafting the US constitution.

 

In essence, they borrowed the language from VA as the prefatory clause, and the language from VT and PA as the operative clause.

 

 

The reason we need to repeal the 2A is that it is completely a relic of the past. It confers a right based on a set of very outdated assumptions, like militia membership being ubiquitous, or the constant threat of both foreign invasion or domestic tyranny. It is interesting to read gun rights protections in state constitutions in the 1800s as they already shift away from the “shall not be infringed” language.

 

TX in 1876: Every citizen shall have the right to keep and bear arms in the lawful defense of himself or the State; but the Legislature shall have power, by law, to regulate the wearing of arms, with a view to prevent crime.

 

Once you skip ahead another 100 years to the 1970s, gun rights activists have begun to win battles in states to get “shall not infringe” and explicit self defense language put in to state constitutions all over the country.

 

I love this kind of historical context.  

[gamer.tv]

Can you have a referendum in America? They should have a referendum…

[unogueen]

That sounds dangerously like democracy.

[SaysWho?]

1 hour ago, gamer.tv said:

Can you have a referendum in America? They should have a referendum…

 

There are state referenda, but nothing national besides the presidency.

[gamer.tv]

1 minute ago, SaysWho? said:

 

There are state referenda, but nothing national besides the presidency.

Seems worth a go, test the feeling of the nation. 

[Keyser_Soze]

I'll be damned if we take ideas from some bloody Brit, the whole country we fled from just so we could have the freedom to kill each other!

 

Piss off ya wanker!

 

[BloodyHell]

On 5/30/2022 at 12:30 PM, unogueen said:

Still fail to see how guns need to be a common consumer product. Hunting licenses should extend to the rental of firearms in the designated areas.

Or extend park duties to culing. See, more jobs!

Its a constitutional right. The government making arms artificially harder to get would be infringement. It's quite simple. And today's Supreme Court would gut it immediately.  It also has nothing to do with hunting, which I often see people reference. But firearms are the right, not hunting. Hunting was never a consideration of the framers decisions on the 2nd. 

 

On 5/30/2022 at 2:54 PM, gamer.tv said:

Can you have a referendum in America? They should have a referendum…

No, it would require a constitutional convention, and that requires agreement of 2/3 of congress and 3/4 of states (or vice versa, I forget) to agree, and that most assuredly won't happen. 

[unogueen]

14 hours ago, BloodyHell said:

Its a constitutional right. The government making arms artificially harder to get would be infringement. It's quite simple. And today's Supreme Court would gut it immediately.  It also has nothing to do with hunting, which I often see people reference. But firearms are the right, not hunting. Hunting was never a consideration of the framers decisions on the 2nd. 

 

 

Insisting that law is law is not a value judgement. Just the same stonewalling as thoughts and prayers.