Gun Talk

[Lord Ratner]

1 hour ago, HeloDude said:

Shocker.  This is the same slippery slope rationalization used to continue to erode our rights.  How about the 2nd Amendment means what it means?

Yeah dude, I know your thoughts. Boring. Libertarians get to shout their absolutist nonsense at the sky while everyone else has to create a functional society. Got it. 

 

We should have muskets, and we shouldn't have nukes. Where the dividing line is in the middle is the hard part. 

[HeloDude]

2 minutes ago, Lord Ratner said:

Yeah dude, I know your thoughts. Boring. Libertarians get to shout their absolutist nonsense at the sky while everyone else has to create a functional society. Got it. 

 

We should have muskets, and we shouldn't have nukes. Where the dividing line is in the middle is the hard part. 

Why specifically should Americans not be able to go a store, purchase and leave with a firearm that fires more than one round with pull of the trigger?

[Lord Ratner]

1 hour ago, brabus said:

I’m not saying abolish background checks, because really what does the NFA do besides trample constitutional rights…the same background check. If you can pass a background check, then there should be no limit to what firearm you can buy/own. I’m not advocating people should be able to buy RPGs, tanks with functional main guns, etc. The worst part about the NFA is it’s a gun registry, which is the last thing we should ever let those fucks in DC do. That is communist dictatorship 101, yet here we are, with a form of a gun registry. It needs to be completely killed immediately.

Wait a sec. No limit, but not tanks? Where is the line? 

 

I agree that registries are bad, but so are deranged/evil/retarded people with disproportional force. I do not believe the gun laws in the US should be *more* restrictive, but I find the conversation about what existing restrictions we should abolish much harder. Silencers and SBR/SBS seem like easy ones to me. Automatic weapons not so much. 

 

Usually my philosophy is to only support a restriction if there is a real-world example of the threat. Hypothetical dangers do not justify laws as far as I'm concerned. But with the Glock switches quickly showing up on the streets, there's more than just a hypothetical threat to the legalization of full-auto weapons under the 2A. 

[Lord Ratner]

2 minutes ago, HeloDude said:

Why specifically should Americans not be able to go a store, purchase and leave with a firearm that fires more than one round with pull of the trigger?

Because the ability of a single person to disproportionately infringe on the right to life of many others must be measured against the constitutional need for the assortment freedom. 

 

What do automatic weapons actually provide the citizen that justifies the cost? 

 

With semi-automatic weapons the math is easy. Government overreach and tyranny is greatly curtailed when the cost of government overreach is blood and lives. Do fully-automatic weapons meaningful increase that deterrent? I don't believe it does, because the deterrent was *never* about being able to out-gun the feds, it was about the public outcry associated with the bloodshed. No automatic weapons required. As far as defending against foreign or domestic threats, full auto isn't exactly the default mode of the world's most effective military forces. 

 

The Vegas shooter had the money to buy an M-134. How many more would be dead if he had? And what freedom (natural right, not just "I want it") are you losing by *not* having an M-134?

[HeloDude]

1 hour ago, Lord Ratner said:

Because the ability of a single person to disproportionately infringe on the right to life of many others must be measured against the constitutional need for the assortment freedom. 

 

What do automatic weapons actually provide the citizen that justifies the cost? 

 

With semi-automatic weapons the math is easy. Government overreach and tyranny is greatly curtailed when the cost of government overreach is blood and lives. Do fully-automatic weapons meaningful increase that deterrent? I don't believe it does, because the deterrent was *never* about being able to out-gun the feds, it was about the public outcry associated with the bloodshed. No automatic weapons required. As far as defending against foreign or domestic threats, full auto isn't exactly the default mode of the world's most effective military forces. 

 

The Vegas shooter had the money to buy an M-134. How many more would be dead if he had? And what freedom (natural right, not just "I want it") are you losing by *not* having an M-134?

These same arguments are made as to why you shouldn’t be able to own an AR-15.  If it’s so important that our military and LE can have select fire weapons if needed then it’s just as important that civilians be able to own them.   

You can have your opinions, just don’t claim to be pro-2A.

Edited June 16 by HeloDude

[M2]

48 minutes ago, Lord Ratner said:

Wait a sec. No limit, but not tanks? Where is the line? 

There shouldn't be a line, none whatsoever, which was the intended purpose of the 2A in the first place.  We all should have the opportunity to own whatever we can afford without government restriction.  This man is an excellent example of what should be allowed and what I would inspire to be, just without having to jump through the bureaucratic hoops to get it!



If you can't see it's a controlling issue by the government, there is no other explanation.  Even if all restrictions where lifted, there's no chance civilians would ever be able to own major weaponry that would challenge the Federal government.  They just want us to be subjects, something the Founding Fathers were very experience with and wanting to avoid in the future.  Unfortunately, we've slipped further down that slope over the years; and given their druthers, the Fed would have similar restrictions to civilian weaponry that exists in the UK where a pointy stick can get you in trouble!

[Smokin]

I have always thought we should be able to buy any firearm that is standard issue for every US infantry.  So, under the current norms, that would be a 3 round burst, but not full auto.  However, there is a considerable argument to be made that there should be absolutely no restriction as long as it is reasonable that the weapon could be used to defend our homes, cities, and states against a tyrannical government.  That would mean artillery, tanks, and even fighters.  That has historical precedent as our country was founded by a revolution that started when the British tried to take military grade weapons including artillery.  The British did not march to Concorde to confiscate pistols, shotguns, and hunting rifles.

[Lord Ratner]

9 hours ago, HeloDude said:

These same arguments are made as to why you shouldn’t be able to own an AR-15.  If it’s so important that our military and LE can have select fire weapons if needed then it’s just as important that civilians be able to own them.   

You can have your opinions, just don’t claim to be pro-2A.

Look I know from your posts that nuance isn't exactly in your wheelhouse, But even in your simplistic perspective there are lines. Now if you believe that nukes aren't permissible for civilians to own, and you are simply drawing your own arbitrary line at select fire weapons. Which makes you about as pro second amendment as I am. 

 

And if you do believe civilians should own nukes, you're just an idiot.

[HeloDude]

3 minutes ago, Lord Ratner said:

Look I know from your posts that nuance isn't exactly in your wheelhouse, But even in your simplistic perspective there are lines. Now if you believe that nukes aren't permissible for civilians to own, and you are simply drawing your own arbitrary line at select fire weapons. Which makes you about as pro second amendment as I am. 

 

And if you do believe civilians should own nukes, you're just an idiot.

Where did I say I was against a civilian from owning a nuke?  If our government is able to have them then why not the people?  And yes, I am being very honest.  40%+ of the  country literally thinks Trump is like Hitler or whatever, and yet, there’s a good chance he will win, and if so, he can launch a nuke at anytime and at will.  And I don’t know too many people that have the ability, money, desire, etc to build a nuclear weapon as a civilian when entire countries can’t even seem to be able to procure one.  Maybe Elon could do it?

So if you think I’m an idiot, that’s fine—but at least I’m principled, which is more than I can say about you not wanting an American citizen to be able to own a firearm that fires more than one round with a single action of a trigger.  

[Lord Ratner]

1 hour ago, Smokin said:

I have always thought we should be able to buy any firearm that is standard issue for every US infantry.  So, under the current norms, that would be a 3 round burst, but not full auto.  However, there is a considerable argument to be made that there should be absolutely no restriction as long as it is reasonable that the weapon could be used to defend our homes, cities, and states against a tyrannical government.  That would mean artillery, tanks, and even fighters.  That has historical precedent as our country was founded by a revolution that started when the British tried to take military grade weapons including artillery.  The British did not march to Concorde to confiscate pistols, shotguns, and hunting rifles.

That's all well and good, but to pretend the founders were able to consider modern weaponry is farce.

 

It's also irrelevant. What matters is what you can do in a large society, not what a simplistic principal dictates. If you fuck up and allow the ownership of a weapon that gets used to slaughter too many children, you will lose it entirely, and a while lot of weapons that weren't directly related. This is why there are, 100%, limitations on the freedom of speech. No where in the first amendment does it say "unless your speech is inviting violence against others." Or "unless your speech is defamatory or libelous." Yet we have those restrictions because without them the people will lose faith in their government and take matters into their own hands. Dueling was exactly the problem with this. 

 

Many laws are a balance between what sounds good on paper and what large groups of people will actually tolerate. Fuck up on either side of the line and you get mobs, something of great concern to the founders. 

 

And of course "that's the same argument against AR-15s." That's how arguments work. The hard part isn't making the argument, it's rationalizing it against the costs and benefits to the society. Semi-automatic rifles are used in very few shootings while providing a meaningful defence against tyrannical government action, as well as providing for self defense. 

If you accept that civilians shouldn't have nukes, you've already conceded that there is a line *somewhere.*

 

If you think civilians should have nukes, you're a fool.

 

[Lord Ratner]

11 minutes ago, HeloDude said:

So if you think I’m an idiot, that’s fine—but at least I’m principled, which is more than I can say about you not wanting an American citizen to be able to own a firearm that fires more than one round with a single action of a trigger

Ah yes, only those who agree with me are principled. Cute. 

 

The same arrogance of those who are sure they wouldn't have been Nazis, slavers, confederates, communists, etc, because they are enlightened and principled, it's just a coincidence that their righteous views align with the society they were born into. 

[HeloDude]

30 minutes ago, Lord Ratner said:

Ah yes, only those who agree with me are principled. Cute. 

 

The same arrogance of those who are sure they wouldn't have been Nazis, slavers, confederates, communists, etc, because they are enlightened and principled, it's just a coincidence that their righteous views align with the society they were born into. 

I agree with the 2A…that’s being principled.  You think “the founders weren’t able to consider modern weaponry”, which is as far from the Constitution as you can get.  It’s the same argument the progressives use for banning semi-auto firearms, and not just the scary “AR-15s”.  So if believing that the Constitution shouldn’t always be followed because the founders couldn’t conceive technological advancements then freedom of speech doesn’t apply to the internet, the 4th Amendment doesn’t apply to your electronic device, the electoral college shouldn’t exist because who would have thought you would have a state like California compared to a state like Wyoming wrt population and electoral votes…on and on.

Change the Constitution if you’d like.  But I’ve read it, and it says nothing about “modern weaponry”.

Edited June 17 by HeloDude

[M2]

16 hours ago, Lord Ratner said:

That's all well and good, but to pretend the founders were able to consider modern weaponry is farce.

Did the Founding Fathers consider radio, television, computers, the Internet, etc.?

Then why isn't the First Amendment impacted by that technology?

And if you truly think those running the government are actually smarter than the citizens of this country, you are just as much of a fool!

[ClearedHot]

On 6/16/2024 at 11:46 AM, M2 said:

There shouldn't be a line, none whatsoever...

So nuclear arms are approved as well?

[M2]

9 minutes ago, ClearedHot said:

So nuclear arms are approved as well?

If the government can have them...

And what if civil aircraft were next, would you be willing to hand yours over if told to?

[ClearedHot]

2 hours ago, M2 said:

If the government can have them...

And what if civil aircraft were next, would you be willing to hand yours over if told to?

Not sure the leap from a weapons of mass destruction to a civil airplane. 

Nukes and I presume chemical weapons...interesting interpretation of 2A.

[Lord Ratner]

7 hours ago, M2 said:

Did the Founding Fathers consider radio, television, computers, the Internet, etc.?

Then why isn't the First Amendment impacted by that technology?

And if you truly think those running the government are actually smarter than the citizens of this country, you are just as much of a fool!

No, I absolutely do not think that. In fact I think we are at a point in the cycle where we have the dumbest possible leaders. That will revert in due time, but for now, it's a clown show. 

 

I also never said I thought the NFA was constitutional. I suspect it is not, especially under the bruen decision. That doesn't change the fact that I lean towards automatic weapons being too dangerous to simply buy the gun store. The right way to do that very well might be a constitutional amendment, and that should happen.

Let's not forget that slavery was permissible under the Constitution and it took an amendment to fix it. There were lots of things the framers either couldn't foresee or couldn't get through based on the societal reality of the time. That's why they created a process to update the Constitution. It is, by design, a living document.

 

And the First amendment is affected by technology, that's why we are still having the debate societally and in Congress over what aspects of social media fall under publishing and what aspects fall under distribution.

I've said this in this forum before, but the second amendment is not a method of being able to overpower the standing army of the federal government. That's an irrational and unnecessary interpretation. Hell, the South tried and failed to overcome the federal government. 

The more practical application of the second amendment is that when you have an unarmed populace, government order reach can exceed the point where a person is willing to lose their life in support of the cause, and it is for nothing. Without a sufficiently asymmetric weapon, two dozen feds can simply walk into your house and drag you out of it, no one dies, no one even bleeds. That simply won't get the public's attention. But when you have an AR-15, either the cops die or you die if it matters enough to you. That blood forces a conversation. This happened in Waco, and it happened with the bundys grazing land. 

 

Anyways, automatic weapons are not necessary to elicit that effect.

 

Edit to clarify: so the second amendment, and primarily the focus on a regulated militia, was absolutely a method of countering a standing army. In fact the second amendment was a watered-down version of the Virginia amendment, which explicitly opposed a standing army. That became impractical after the revolutionary war, so that language was watered down and we got the somewhat ambiguous second amendment we have today. But technology and the military evolved to a point where the standing military is absolutely more dominant than any militia is going to be. It also doesn't matter as much I suspect due to the distributed nature of our military. I simply don't believe the airmen and soldiers stationed in Texas are going to go door-to-door collecting weapons or shooting Texans for refusing to surrender their arms. 

 

The concerns of the 1700s are very different from the concerns today. Therefore the effective mechanism of the second amendment is also different. But no less important.

Edited June 18 by Lord Ratner

[M2]

If you are not following William Kirk at Washington Gun Law, you should!
 

 

[HeloDude]

And Schumer wants to hold a vote to ban bump stocks…when all the GOP Senate seats up for election are relatively safe, and yet Tester from Montana and Brown from Ohio (both Dems from “redder” states and up for reelection) are going to be forced to take a vote which doesn’t help them IMO.

[M2]

Anyone shoot a PSA Jakl yet?  They've got my interest...

https://palmettostatearmory.com/jakl.html

[Smokin]

No, but I'm still trying to find parts to turn my existing Form 1 guns into this.  Looks like the perfect truck gun.

[ClearedHot]

Huge SCOTUS ruling on gun rights today and now a VERY slippery slope.

Supreme Court upholds federal gun ban for those under domestic violence restraining orders

 

[Lord Ratner]

6 hours ago, ClearedHot said:

Huge SCOTUS ruling on gun rights today and now a VERY slippery slope.

Supreme Court upholds federal gun ban for those under domestic violence restraining orders

 

It's probably not that huge of a ruling if it's 8 to 1. But they did clarify the difference between posing a danger and lacking responsibility, which is a move in the right direction. Slow and steady, this court is the most pro gun court in my lifetime.

[ClearedHot]

14 minutes ago, Lord Ratner said:

It's probably not that huge of a ruling if it's 8 to 1. But they did clarify the difference between posing a danger and lacking responsibility, which is a move in the right direction. Slow and steady, this court is the most pro gun court in my lifetime.

While I understand and agree with the ruling, it does open the door to other not as clear encroachments.  You are arrested for a crime, will they take your weapons in the name of "safety" even though you have not been convicted.  This is indeed a huge ruling that will open new attacks on 2A.

I agree they are very pro 2A, I am more concerned about rulings on silencers, braces and NFA.

[Smokin]

I am also concerned about the potential ways that the libs will try to push this doctrine, but one saving item for this is that there is a court hearing in order to issue a violence restraining order. 

The part I'm worried about is how the libs will try to set up kangaroo court hearings for "violence" as a restraining order is a temporary measure so the evidence threshold is pretty low.  A liberal city or state could set up a special court system to handle these requests and pack those courts with anti-gun judges and use that for their gun confiscation efforts.