America..why won't you just ban the fucking gun?

[Green Habit]

This is a preemptive post that will preserve one of N&D's most popular thread titles.

This also gives me a chance to make sure that my (somewhat) unique views on guns are made clear, as they seem to be have been scattered all over the place in the old thread.

Let's start with the Second Amendment. I do see it as including a firm declaration of a constitutional right to individual self defense, of which includes the ability to fortify that right with tools, such as weapons. However, where I think Scalia goes astray in his Heller decision is by saying that a certain class of weapons is constitutionally protected: namely, "to weapons that were not specifically designed for military use and were not employed in a military capacity." I think comparing the AR-15 to the M16 is an example of how superficial that classification can be. I don't think that any weapon, armor, or what have you should be granted automatic constitutional protection. If governments can find a way to affirm that right of self defense with less lethal options available, then I could see a complete ban on more lethal options be more justifiable in that regard.

Nonetheless, Heller is likely to be sound law for at least the near future (it likely comes down to who replaces Kennedy), and generally speaking, I'm fine with the notion that a person has a right to own a gun. I also have no issue with those who own guns for recreational purposes, like hunting, shooting ranges, or what have you. It's not my cup of tea, for sure, but it's not my business to say what should and shouldn't entertain you.

When it comes to self defense, however, I say this: even if people to have a right to own a gun, I strongly question the notion that owning a gun is a wise proposition for most people. I'm fine for the few people who have had extensive training with a gun, such as military veterans or police officers. But for many others, I fear that too many are buying guns with the minimal requirements required, and then falling under the delusion that they will be able to successfully protect themselves when faced with the sudden and intense stress that they'll face in that situation. I fear that on the whole, it's more likely that adding a gun to the conflict will make things more dangerous instead of less dangerous. To use an NFL analogy, I fear that the Jovan Belcher scenario is more common than the Sean Taylor scenario.

Finally, I've never understood for most people as to why they feel that owning a gun is necessary for their sense of well-being and self-defense. Home intrusions, mass shootings, and the like are tragic and regrettable, but don't most of us make it through life without having to endure such horrible situations? Is the United States really that dangerous that we have to resort to gun ownership to feel safe? I'm skeptical.

[simple schoolboy]

Scalia basically reversed Miller? We went from the 2nd ammendment protecting only weapons appropriate for militia use to the 2nd ammendment protecting only weapons not intending for military use. Does he go into further detail on this?

[harmless]

It's not my cup of tea, for sure, but it's not my business to say what should and shouldn't entertain you.

Sure it is.

[harmless]

It's not my cup of tea, for sure, but it's not my business to say what should and shouldn't entertain you.

Sure it is.

[Green Habit]

Scalia basically reversed Miller? We went from the 2nd ammendment protecting only weapons appropriate for militia use to the 2nd ammendment protecting only weapons not intending for military use. Does he go into further detail on this?

Not sure what you mean by this. Didn't we already discuss this on the old board, anyway?

[Green Habit]

It's not my cup of tea, for sure, but it's not my business to say what should and shouldn't entertain you.

Sure it is.

Oh ok, then I should go tell everyone to listen to Pearl Jam and be a Broncos fan.

[Dr. Van Nostrand]

im not gonna cry out for all guns to be banned, but if it got to a vote i would vote for them to be gone. reason being, if no one has access to guns then there is no need to own one to protect yourself. but as it is, i dont think guns should be take away, but they should be very heavily regulated, and things like automatic weapons should have a very strong penalty for anyone found in position of them, there is no reason for anyone to have one, not for hunting or protection of any kind.

[harmless]

It's not my cup of tea, for sure, but it's not my business to say what should and shouldn't entertain you.

Sure it is.

Oh ok, then I should go tell everyone to listen to Pearl Jam and be a Broncos fan.

Well yeah, why not? They don't have to listen, but if that's what you believe, go for it. There's nothing wrong with having an outspoken opinion and I would argue that what we think about guns is more important than bands and sports teams.

[Self]

I would argue that what we think about guns is more important than bands and sports teams.

Man, you'd make a terrible American.

[harmless]

I would argue that what we think about guns is more important than bands and sports teams.

Man, you'd make a terrible American.

[simple schoolboy]

Scalia basically reversed Miller? We went from the 2nd ammendment protecting only weapons appropriate for militia use to the 2nd ammendment protecting only weapons not intending for military use. Does he go into further detail on this?

Not sure what you mean by this. Didn't we already discuss this on the old board, anyway?

You really expect me to check the archive?

Miller held that laws prohibiting sawed off shotguns and other 'exotic' weapons were permissible because such weapons were not appropriate for militia use. This seems to indicate that weapons appropriate for milita use are protected, but now Scalia says military arms are not acceptable for civilian ownership. These two positions do not seem compatible, do they?

[Strat]

http://www.businessinsider.com/jon-stew ... how-2013-1

[4/5]

It's not my cup of tea, for sure, but it's not my business to say what should and shouldn't entertain you.

Sure it is.

Oh ok, then I should go tell everyone to listen to Pearl Jam and be a Broncos fan.

Well yeah, why not? They don't have to listen, but if that's what you believe, go for it. There's nothing wrong with having an outspoken opinion and I would argue that what we think about guns is more important than bands and sports teams.

The issue isn't about having an opinion. It's about whether or not you believe your opinion should be forced upon others.

[McParadigm]

The issue isn't about having an opinion. It's about whether or not you believe your opinion should be forced upon others.

It's your opinion that advocating preferences is equatable to forcing your opinion on others, and I'll thank you not to force it upon me in this way any more, thanks.

I would argue that what we think about guns is more important than bands and sports teams.

Man, you'd make a terrible American.

Yeah. He misses American on all marks, really.

1. Doesn't discuss serious debate issues solely in terms of what he feels he is entitled to, how his favored rights supersede any and all human rights claimed by others, or what the world is obligated to allow or provide for him.
2. Posts a comment that centers on the issue, rather than on the people on TV and in print who are discussing it for him.
3. Wants to "think" about guns, not use them to shoot at other people's thinks.
4. Uses the phrase "sports teams," clearly implying that there isn't a clear and sizable division in quality between REAL sports and pretend things like volleyball, polo, soccer, and women's basketball.
5. Probably hesitated a moment when he saw that I'd included soccer in the above list.
6. Pretty sure he talked about the Lord of the Rings for like a page and a half without focusing on blood, gore, awesome screeching zombie kings, or the potential ease of and best strategem for glorious Hobbit rape.
7. Recently described as "introspective thinker."
8. Poet. I said poet.

[4/5]

The issue isn't about having an opinion. It's about whether or not you believe your opinion should be forced upon others.

It's your opinion that advocating preferences is equatable to forcing your opinion on others, and I'll thank you not to force it upon me in this way any more, thanks.

[harmless]

The issue isn't about having an opinion. It's about whether or not you believe your opinion should be forced upon others.

It's your opinion that advocating preferences is equatable to forcing your opinion on others, and I'll thank you not to force it upon me in this way any more, thanks.

I would argue that what we think about guns is more important than bands and sports teams.

Man, you'd make a terrible American.

Yeah. He misses American on all marks, really.

1. Doesn't discuss serious debate issues solely in terms of what he feels he is entitled to, how his favored rights supersede any and all human rights claimed by others, or what the world is obligated to allow or provide for him.
2. Posts a comment that centers on the issue, rather than on the people on TV and in print who are discussing it for him.
3. Wants to "think" about guns, not use them to shoot at other people's thinks.
4. Uses the phrase "sports teams," clearly implying that there isn't a clear and sizable division in quality between REAL sports and pretend things like volleyball, polo, soccer, and women's basketball.
5. Probably hesitated a moment when he saw that I'd included soccer in the above list.
6. Pretty sure he talked about the Lord of the Rings for like a page and a half without focusing on blood, gore, awesome screeching zombie kings, or the potential ease of and best strategem for glorious Hobbit rape.
7. Recently described as "introspective thinker."
8. Poet. I said poet.

[E.H. Ruddock]

Has LW made the jump to the new board?

[broken iris]

It appears the moves against the gun lobby have actually strengthened the gun lobby.

[Strat]

alifornia's San Joaquin Valley
Article by: Associated Press Updated: January 10, 2013 - 12:05 PM


TAFT, Calif. - A city official says a shooting has been reported at a high school in Taft, Calif., a community in the southern San Joaquin Valley.

City manager's assistant Debra Elliott says the shooting was reported shortly after 9 a.m. Thursday.

No further details are immediately available.

[harmless]

It appears the moves against the gun lobby have actually strengthened the gun lobby.

Louder doesn't mean stronger.