Even Antonin Scalia in the famous Heller decision had this to say:

"Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons."

When the current position of the NRA and their financed representatives in Congress and the White House is far to the right of Antonin Scalia, then we have a problem.

Not only that, but alcohol is heavily regulated in this country as well. Liquor licenses cost quite a bit of money and those that serve are subject to many regulations. Cigarettes have been regulated so heavily and so fast as to be socially unacceptable.

Those three weren't the best examples.

Unlikely. CU is the same person who once argued that "Giants" was as offensive as "Redskins" because people suffer from gigantism.

I'll bite. What is your idea of a solution?

This got me. Nice one.

Not sure where you are coming from with this "advice". It seems you saying this nation of 325 million is stupid given there is such an easy solution. You are blaming all of us and offering a feckless solution from a country with 1/10 the popualtion.

I would suggest you might be more effective if come at this with more empathy and realize so many of us right now are sad and vulnerable.

Admittedly Im not up to speed on rural culture of european nations. Enlighten me please, how do they handle those situations? I know some countries have horrendous track records of species annihilation because they couldnt control, otherwise I dont know of a moderate solution.


All that is fine and dandy. Call me names (brain-washed) make false comparisons, but you still didnt answer my question.

Remember this country was founded on different principles than your own and its people are free to leave and seek citizenship elsewhere. We were founded on the very tenant of resistance to a tyrannical government AT ANY COST. It is one of the core beliefs of an American. If you dont share that belief it is understood and you are not inhibited in any way from leaving (unlike many other counties)


I wont answer that question on a public forum. More than 1.
How many video games do you own? How many phones? TVs? Cars?
1 of each is certainly adequate for usage, right? Same answer for me.
Guns are tools. Different styles have different jobs. I dont use a screw driver to hammer a nail for hanging a picture.


And if little Tommy's parents allow this access then imprison them and charge them with the murders themselves. If you make the adults who should have bred in the first place accountable for the actions of their offspring they never parented maybe it would provide the motivation to make them care about Little Tommy' actions.


But what about those other people. Who don't buy safe cars. Who don't pay for insurance or have a license. They KILL people daily. A quick googling showed that there were 11,000 gun related homicides in the US last year compared to 35,000 automotive deaths.

Cars are literally killing 3x as many innocent folks as guns, yet you dont care because CARS MAKE YOUR LIFE EASIER AND BETTER.


I think this is a main point of disagreement. We use the term accident and it makes it all ok. How many of those "accidents" are the result of careless or reckless operation. Operating at a speed above your skill level, not paying attention, looking at a phone, not checking your tires pre trip.ALl those things are categorized as accidents, when I maintain they all are preventable.




The primary use of cars in transportation. The primary use of guns is recreation and hunting. People mis-use both. People die from a mis-use of both.

Automakers and gun makers are both regulated heavily. We have lots of laws about who can own a gun, where they can carry it, how they can use it, etc. People still break those laws, just like they break driving laws.

"You literally cant participate in parts of society without a car"
Guess what you literally cant participate in parts of society without a gun. I havent bought meat n a grocery store in almost 10 years now. Im not alone, Im just by far the minority on FOFC. In my neighborhood, Im the norm. In your neighborhood you are the norm.
It gets back to the Electoral College argument in some ways...what more important the 1 Million people living in NYC or the 100,000 in the country.

I think at this point many of us should be angry and demanding the government focus more on a solution that protects our kids, while leaving our rights intact. The 2nd amendment was drawn up at a time when people loaded their muskets and pistols one shot at a time. Surely there is room within it's framework to come up with some reasonable restrictions on types of weapons, while requiring more comprehensive background checks and increasing the penalties for owning an unregistered gun.

I totally agree with you about taking away guns. However, I'm wondering where you stand on access. For example, the AR-15 has been a destructive machine, is it reasonable to make the access to it more secure? I have no problem with people like you owning that weapon, it just seems like driving, owning such a destructive weapon should require more merit. Kind of like how how you have to have a standard drivers licence before you can drive a semi.

I honestly dont have fully developed thought of a solution. Just that punishment as a whole needs to be more of a deterrent.

I'm fine with gun crimes carrying a much stiffer penalty.

But I'm not a lawyer, Im not sure how to write legislation that is simultaneously a major deterrent and also not susceptible to misapplication.

I'll have to think on this some and respond later.

In short I am all for much, much tougher punishments for definite criminals.

CU, what about the Japan solution from the previous page (the video). I know we are not Japan, but how do you feel about those restrictions while still allowing legal gun ownership and usage.

This is honestly an area where my opinion has changed in recent years.

[For most of my life I have been staunchly, no limits no matter what. Because frankly I distrust most government actions, not because they are big evil corrupt demons hell bent on taking my guns, but because they are big ignorant corrupt bafoons who will pass legislation intended to stop mass murder weapons and get corrupted by lobbyists into outlawing bb guns- IN CASE IT ISNT OBVIOUS THAT IS EXAGGERATION FOR AFFECT]

I now do believe that we need to better shape who has what weapon.

I think the discussion gets nuanced, because terminology bleeds everywhere here. What is an AR style weapon, what is an assault rifle etc. (Im not going down that path again, Ive written some long posts on it you can find here easily) ...but I do think there is a different level of responsibility between a pump, or breakdown shotgun and a 30 clip magazine semi auto rifle. To be clear, I think I m entitled to the right to purchase and own both. But I do agree that the threshold to get the latter should be higher than the former.

I furthermore wonder if there shouldn't be a learner's permit type introduction. A "black rifle" maybe shouldnt be allowed to be your first purchase. But I am not resolved in my own mind fully there.

At a minimum there needs to be some evaluation threshold on acquiring high potential damage weapons. It doesnt need to cost the purchaser tons of money, and it shouldnt take months to complete. But I do agree we need some multiple levels of clearance.

Well Canada is just to the North. There are wild animals in that country too. Same goes for Switzerland, Netherlands, Sweden, Finland, Denmark and most of Europe.

New Zealand and Australia have some brutal wildlife too. Again, all these countries are vastly superior to American in gun deaths and somehow are not all eaten up by Bears.

So much for this strategy:

BREAKING: Florida sheriff says high school campus had an armed officer who never encountered the suspected shooter during attack.

— The Associated Press (@AP) February 15, 2018

I am not sure if it actually means anything to the school shooting discussion. and we will probably have to wait for the official statement from the Republic of Florida but.

https://www.adl.org/blog/florida-whi...r-nikolas-cruz



I can get behind this idea.


Let's be honest. We don't have a very good history in our country with writing legislation that is simultaneously a major deterrent and also not susceptible to misapplication. As long as we have the good, we have pretty much gone along with the bad and the absurd. I don't think that you will get much disagreement with tougher punishments for definite criminals though. What is done on the front end to mitigate/eliminate these type of massacres is the issue for me.

Come on man. You've known me too long to not know how I'm going to answer.

An all out ban on handguns and rifles is a non-starter for me.
Annual invasion of my privacy and searching through my home?

Because something is recreational doesn't mean it should be legal. Child porn is recreation to pedophiles but I don't think it should be allowed.

The guns primary purpose is to kill. The cars primary purpose is to transport people from one point to another.


The automobile industry is regulated much more stringently. Same for alcohol and many others.


I'm sure there are a tiny percent of the population who live off the land like you. I have no problem with people like that owning guns. I have no problem with police, security officers, or people who live in fear of wildlife or others.

But I do think you should have to apply for it, state your needs for it, have a background check, and so on. You would be easily approved given your situation. Now the 19 year old with a history of threatening to shoot up schools who says he needs an AR-15 and a shit ton of ammo, he probably doesn't get approved.

This isn't terribly complex. I can't just start driving a truck around if I want. I have to get a special license. I can't prescribe drugs or perform surgery on someone without a medical license. Why would owning an AR-15 and enough ammo to take out a school be different?

You're a smart dude overall, but these comparisons are way beneath you.

You have to be 21 to buy a handgun in Florida. There is a 3-day waiting period.

You only have to be 18 to buy a semiautomatic rifle and there is no waiting period.

Why?

Because the science, the numbers and the analysis all point the finger at the number of guns. The more denial, the more ignorant.

I realize you are clearly pro-gun, but let's stick to actual meanings and not alternative wishful thinking.

Hunting can be considered a recreation. Guns by definition are a weapon. A weapon is defined as a thing that is designed to inflict bodily harm or physical damage. A guns purpose is to inflict damage/kill period end of story.

We disagree here. So completely that it probably prevents any reasonable compromise between us.

A guns primary purpose is to fire a bullet. I would say its primary usage is recreation and protection not kill.

A cars primary purpose is to make life easier. Why allow gas guzzling SUVs, hell why allow 4 door cars. Just get smart cars or compacts if you have kids. Maybe if you have more than 2 kids you can apply for a permit to buy a bigger car.



I think we can both argue either side of this. I'm not sure there is a metric to determine "more regulated"...though I will submit a car maker can sell their product to ANYONE there is no requirement to be a licensed driver to buy a car.


Here we agree. But Im going back to my draconian methods. If you have social media and post about killing folks, you have just voided your right to own a firearm. Ditto if you produce music, books, papers, or movies about killing people you too cant own a gun. Hell maybe if you BUY music about killing people you shouldnt own a gun.


But here in lies the rub. You actually can buy and start driving a truck if you want. You may get pulled over and you may get fined. But you physically can. They will sell it to you.

But this is not accurate. Many guns primary purpose is to shoot targets. Its is a test of user skill. A small, fractional percentage of all guns owned will kill ANYTHING human or animal in a given year.


To beat the car analog into the ground - it's like watching an NHRA drag race and saying that a car's primary purpose is to go as fast as possible. Sure those purpose built cars are designed to go as fast as possible but not all cars.

As an onlooker it is very frustrating. I am sorry if my empathy doesn't come across but I wouldn't waste the time posting if I didn't care. My frustration is you have a problem that is out of control yet despite looking at other countries that don't have the problem many won't take the cue. That pisses me off quite frankly. Brained washed by their own culture.

Nationalism is installed in us to try to control us in my opinion. It's bullshit. It bothers me every bit as much hearing American children getting killed as British children.

I am not blaming all of you, as you suggest. It seems most guys here on this forum have their heads screwed on. That said if you think my country has 1/10 of the population of yours maybe you are one of those guys who could do with spend a little time researching what is going on in the rest of the world?

I would put it to you some people are obviously not "sad and vulnerable" enough if they are not ready to give up their gun privileges.

You could do target practice with many items that do not have the capability to kill someone. My Hyundai Accent would not fare very well in a drag race, but that gun you take to target practice can still kill someone.

I want to talk a bit about this. I'd argue that you've never been a no limits guy. Haven't their always been weapons that you agree are too dangerous for most individuals? Almost everyone agrees that fully automatic machine guns, RPGs, etc. should be strictly regulated. So arguing whether the line should be this or that side of AR-15s isn't an argument about freedom vs. tyranny. Almost everyone agrees there should be a line, the argument is about where that line should be drawn.

We might be able to get somewhere if we all agreed that we're perfectly capable of banning some things and allowing others. We've been doing it for years with near universal agreement.

Yet another fun turn at this debate.

Without the annual search thing, which would probably be unconstitutional anyway.

Second amendment doesn't guarantee you the right to any type of gun you want. So let's say we landed on a ban of some types of guns that you own. Would you give them up?

It goes back to the culture. I watched that video on Japan. Great video. They were a very violent country at times in their history. But chose to install a different culture.
Same with the European countries. Lots of violence. But they have a different culture.
But they were also countries not built on freedom.

This country was built on freedom. Where you were not going to allow the government "enslave" you. Where your freedom and freedoms were more important than anything else.
As originally written, the 2A was to keep the government from becoming a controlling entity that took freedoms away from its citizens.

This is a freedom vs. security issue. Do we give up freedoms for security? Or not?

Many people believe that when the government is giving the people security by taking away freedoms, the government is infringing on the rights of the people.

This will not be a "it will change in 30 years" thing. This something that will always be debated and will always happen.

Its a terrible thing, but it is what the country is. Freedom is more important than security.

That wont change

All these other countries have freedom too. In fact, most rank much higher on freedom indices than America. They somehow are capable of being vastly superior to us in this area.

This really hasn't been true since 9/11.

I would argue it is more about MY freedom and security being more important than YOUR freedom and security and vice versa.

Let me clear up my point.

Those countries have a history of kingdoms and tribes with one leader that made the decisions that the people followed. The people int he middle ages or earlier and even up through the 20th century did not have a culture where the people have the freedom to choose their destinies.

If you were born into a peasant family, you did not become a king. If a lord wanted your land they took it.

The United States was built upon the freedom of the individual. Where the individual had the right to become anything they choose to be if they worked hard.

That wasnt how other countries were built.

Germany as late as 1944 was a dictatorship where the freedoms were severely limited.

There has never been a time in our country where all our freedoms were limited. And those that had no freedom, we fought to give the those freedoms.

My point is that the United States is a country built on giving people freedom. While other countries had centuries where people didnt have freedom.

Things have changed. One reason I rarely fly anymore.

One reason I watch what I say on my phone.

Yes, it is still about freedom and security. The government took some of our freedoms away after 9/11, And many people are upset by that.

But as a country, we still have our basic rights and freedoms. After 9/11 the government didnt shut down the press or out law Islam.

They made it more of a hassle to fly and opened up a can worms when it comes to surveillance. But our freedoms were not largely infringed upon.

Well, if you are/were a white male.

Absolutely.

Seriously. This country was built on owning black people. Some 'freedom'.

Im not arguing that. But, out west many people that were not white males owned property and guns and lived a life of freedom. Back in the 1800s.

And this country had a civil war to free slaves.

And we went through sufferage to get women the right to vote.

And the civil rights movement to equalize these freedoms and rights.

Im not saying this is a perfect country, Im saying the culture of the country is built on freedom.

In Germany during the 30s and 40s, Jews could have risen up and fought for equal rights? No, but black people did here. And laws changed and things were equalized.

And how were women treated in other countries in the world? And who sold african people into slavery?

The world is corrupt. Its a bad place. But this country was founded to give a person to live their own life and make what they can out of it.

Yes, and black people are still slaves. And we didnt just elect a black president a few years ago. And there are no black doctors or lawyers.

The victim card is tired.

So you agree America can change and has changed. Why not on this issue? Why such stubbornness when it comes to guns?

Oh we had a black president and black doctors and lawyers, everything is fine and racism has been defeated! Suuuure. And what about that millions in wealth that was confiscated from the efforts of black men and women for hundreds of years? What about the 100 years of second class citizenship for black men and women? What about even today, where legal equality may exist, but social equality definitely does not.

That's a piss poor defense of being born out of freedom. You needed to completely forget that you enslaved and subjugated black people in order to pretend that your narrative of a country birthed in freedom is even close to true.

Its a basic right to bear arms to keep the government in check.

Im not a huge pro-gun guy. I dont own one. But I like my freedom. And I dont want a Hitler type guy taking those away. And if it takes an uprising by the population, because they own guns, than so be it.

We can merge both. Convince Black Lives Matter activists to all get guns and wear them during protests in any state there is open carry. IIRC, that's what got guns restricted in California when Reagan was Governor - the Black Panthers were openly carrying guns.

Interestingly enough, the folks I know who are least in favor of gun restrictions are Communists. They want to be able to acquire firearms to as deterrents against agents of the state (police, mostly) and for any future potential uprisings of the people.

Yeah, blacks have it bad. And I never said they didnt. My point is that this country was founded on freedom. That isnt a narrative, it is a fact.
Im sorry that the people that founded this country were white and make. I didnt have a choice in that. But they were and they put together a constitution that was pretty darn good.

Was it followed all the time? Nope. It says all men are created equal. But they didnt follow their words.

But this isnt a race issue, this is a freedom issue.

Shoot, how many black people own guns? I know in St. Louis it is a lot. Because we are considered one of the most dangerous cities in the nation.

Again, we are not talking about slavery or social subjugation. We are talking about the freedoms spelled out in our constitution.

Again, people are not right. That doesnt make what this country was built on wrong.

Preface: Please don't take this the wrong way as I'm not trying to attack you personally at all (conversations on an online forum quickly degenerate because tonality doesn't come across).

I go back to why can't America change as it has for other items you listed previously?

The argument is that the right to bear arms is a basic right. Ok. This is only true because the Constitution says so, correct? If it wasn't in the Constitution, would you feel the same way?

I think we all can agree that the Constitution can change via amendments so why not the 2nd?

Many of those other countries fought violent conflicts to gain their freedom too. They had their women's suffrage movements and earned their rights. We aren't as unique as you think.

I mean if we're talking about fighting for freedom, France should be much worse off than we are. They've constantly been battling for hundreds of years while we've mostly been stable since the Civil War.

No, it's a narrative and a bullshit one as well.


And they FUCKING OWNED PEOPLE. All this talk about 'freedom', but a good portion of them owned slaves. So, like I said, this country was found on bullshit notions of freedom. Hell in the Constitution it even defined what percentage of a person a slave was. Bullshit notions of freedom.


Why is the US revolution based on freedom, but say, the Irish one isn't? Why is Ireland's culture so anti-freedom considering since they never have a King or lords since their independence from the United Kingdom? Or does the British rule of the North American colonies prior to the War of Independence not count?

True, but those countries were built on a system of keeping the people in their place. The rich owned all the land and had serfs run it.
The kigs appointed the lords.
And the peasants were at the will of those above them.

This country was built be people who ran away from those systems. We dont have that inherent built in "we are peasants, we have always been peasants" mentality.
Our country has been built on "work hard and you can be what you want to be"

It has only been recently that other countries have done this. Not the 250 years of our country.

Which is completely unlike today's situation.


Sure, unless you were a black slave, I guess.