Another School Shooting

[arthwollipot]

None of these amendments changed our system though. Our process for enacting, enforcing, and adjudicating laws has remained the same.

But the point remains. The process for amending those things is just the same as the process for amending the others.

All it takes is for enough people to want it to happen. Admittedly that's a really high bar. But it's possible.

 

[jeremyp]

You are mostly correct that felons are legally barred from owning guns, but that fact certainly does not "give lie" to the fact that it is next-to-impossible under the current SC to pass gun control laws that would pass SC muster. The myriad law suits against gun control measures and criminal firearms cases currently working their way through the courts in the US are almost impossible to keep track of. If the composition of the SC does not change, the overwhelming majority of these legal challenges to restriction on firearms will ultimately be sustained by the courts. Even the ban on felons owning guns is under legal challenge insofar as it applies to felons convicted of only non-violent crimes.

So the point stands. felons are barred from keeping and bearing arms. There are limits to 2A just like there are limits to 1A (see libel, incitement etc).

But insurance companies would do neither, because they want gun owners' business and their premiums must therefore be competitive and reflect actual risk, rather than the social goals of anti-gun activism.

And actual risk is pretty high. That's the point.

These laws already exist.

Well start using them.

And yet you, like every one else who tells how simple the solution must be, have not presented a single viable solution.

We keep telling you all about the viable solutions but you exceptional Americans just throw your hands up and whine "it can't be done" while the bodies pile up.

It's not going to be easy and it's going to take a while but as long as you all have your attitude it will never happen.

 

[jt512]

It also mentions a "well regulated militia" but this bit gets ignored.

Nobody is ignoring it. It's meaning in the context of the right to keep and bear arms has been discussed over and over again on this forum. In case you didn't already know that, I would suggest you do a search.

 

[jt512]

But the point remains. The process for amending those things is just the same as the process for amending the others.

All it takes is for enough people to want it to happen. Admittedly that's a really high bar. But it's possible.

It's logically possible.

 

[arthwollipot]

It's logically possible.

"Technically correct, which as we all know is the best kind of correct"?

Eh, I'll take it.

 

[jt512]

So the point stands. felons are barred from keeping and bearing arms. There are limits to 2A just like there are limits to 1A (see libel, incitement etc).

I see you have no new arguments and are just going to restate them ignoring my refutations. Yes, some limitations on the right to keep and bear arms have been not been struck down by the SC, at least not yet. Regardless, these laws have not effectively prevented gun violence.

And actual risk is pretty high. That's the point.

Or so you subjectively perceive. In fact, the probability that anybody is going to get hurt with any particular gun is actually extremely low, so the premiums would be correspondingly low. You are much more likely to injure someone one driving, yet just about everybody who has a car manages to afford car insurance.

Well start using them.

Being laws, they are "used," by definition.

We keep telling you all about the viable solutions but you exceptional Americans just throw your hands up and whine "it can't be done" while the bodies pile up.

No, neither you nor a single person in any discussion of this issue I have seen on this website has come up with a single viable solution to the American gun violence problem. Snappy Onion headlines aren't a solution.

It's not going to be easy and it's going to take a while but as long as you all have your attitude it will never happen.

I don't have an attitude. Explaining the facts is not an attitude.

 

[jt512]

"Technically correct, which as we all know is the best kind of correct"?

Eh, I'll take it.

Realistically, it would take a tectonic change in the culture here.

 

[Dr. Keith]

Realistically, it would take a tectonic change in the culture here.

And the culture seems to be drifting the other way. I grew up in a hunting family and we would make fun of the “soldier of fortune” types who wanted black stocks and oversized magazines.

I would often only shoot five shots in a deer season, much less a day or minute. A box of ammo would last years. Why would I want to stock up on cases of ammo?

Shotgun shells were different, but still, a box would get you through a hunt or two. More if the birds weren’t flying.

I just don’t get current gun culture at all. Being around gun people feels like going to your spouse’s high school reunion. They just aren’t my people.

 

[arthwollipot]

Realistically, it would take a tectonic change in the culture here.

Yeah, but tectonic shifts do happen. In fact they're happening constantly, if slowly.

 

[jt512]

I just don’t get current gun culture at all. Being around gun people feels like going to your spouse’s high school reunion. They just aren’t my people.

I felt the same way until less than a year ago. Except for a .22 rifle I had as a kid, I had never owned a gun in my life. I thought it was crazy that there are more guns than people in the U.S. A year later my 2-person household has four guns and we have a good 2,000 rounds of ammo (albeit mostly range ammo). And gun people are actually some of the nicest, most honest people I have ever met.

On the other hand, hunting I don't get.

 

[a_unique_person]

Short version: Look, seriously, coming from a guy that's actually been in the army: do you ACTUALLY want to serve your country in the spirit of what 2A meant? Join a flippin' paintball club, or airsoft CQB club, or even laser tag. Even being able to work coherently with team mates in paintball or airsoft will be a MUCH more useful thing in case your country needs you, than your owning some hunting rifle.

Like, <bleep> me, you can even join some video game clan for a team-based FPS. Or, hell, do raids in WOW. Just the fact that you can work in a hierarchy and follow orders and coordinate with the others will be a MUCH more useful skill when your country needs you, than whether you can aim down iron sights.

I'm not even kidding.

You've never watched Red Dawn, have you.

 

[Andy_Ross]

A barrel shorter than 16" make the weapon legally an SBR, and hence restricted.

Not all that restricted. Pay the fee and wait a short while.

 

[smartcooky]

What is this supposed to mean?

Its just more word salad!

 

[The Atheist]

And the culture seems to be drifting the other way. I grew up in a hunting family and we would make fun of the “soldier of fortune” types who wanted black stocks and oversized magazines.

I would often only shoot five shots in a deer season, much less a day or minute. A box of ammo would last years. Why would I want to stock up on cases of ammo?

Shotgun shells were different, but still, a box would get you through a hunt or two. More if the birds weren’t flying.

I just don’t get current gun culture at all. Being around gun people feels like going to your spouse’s high school reunion. They just aren’t my people.

What I find fascinating is taking a trip to gun shops, which we do frequently, almost always just to look, but it does bring us into contact with gun nuts as well as hunters, and the difference between the two is stark.

And gun culture outside of hunting is very small here, thankfully, although it did include a bloke named Brenton Tarrant.

And gun people are actually some of the nicest, most honest people I have ever met.

On the other hand, hunting I don't get.

That is pure gold.

 

[arthwollipot]

On the other hand, hunting I don't get.

Subsistence hunting, or wildlife management hunting, I have zero problem with. Trophy hunting is ****** up.

 

[novaphile]

Subsistence hunting, or wildlife management hunting, I have zero problem with. Trophy hunting is ****** up.

Same here.

I have similar concerns with 'catch and release' fishing. It looks a lot like torturing animals for fun to me.

 

[erwinl]

Same here.

I have similar concerns with 'catch and release' fishing. It looks a lot like torturing animals for fun to me.

Indeed.
'But fish don't have any nerve endings there, so they don't feel any pain!', you get told, when pointing this out.

Hmmm.
And how would those anglers (is that the correct term for people, who fish for sport?) feel if a bunch of weirdos go hunt them on their motorcycles and catch them with a lasso, collecting and then releasing them, like in that last Mad Max movie?

I'd guess they would have some strong opinions about it, that that would be torture, or at the very least severely stress inducing!

 

[jeremyp]

Yes, precedent is the way the law in the U.S. will continue to work for generations if not forever because it is one of the most deeply ingrained principles in the law, inheriting from English Common law that dates back to the 11th Century. It ain't going away...it is a fundamental principle.

This is not true. We can cite several cases where the Supreme Court has ignored precedent. Even 2A has been interpreted in different ways over the years.

You need to get a Supreme Court that is not politically partizan. When you have one that interprets the law rationally, you'll find it a lot easier to not have your gun laws struck down.

 

[a_unique_person]

Yes, precedent is the way the law in the U.S. will continue to work for generations if not forever because it is one of the most deeply ingrained principles in the law, inheriting from English Common law that dates back to the 11th Century. It ain't going away...it is a fundamental principle.

Not empirically true.

 

[jt512]

Yes, precedent is the way the law in the U.S. will continue to work for generations if not forever because it is one of the most deeply ingrained principles in the law, inheriting from English Common law that dates back to the 11th Century. It ain't going away...it is a fundamental principle.

This is not true.

Of course it is true!

We can cite several cases where the Supreme Court has ignored precedent. Even 2A has been interpreted in different ways over the years.

I know and said as much in posts before and after the one you quoted. But that does not contradict U.S. law being precedent based.