All-purpose gun legislation thread

Great post.

I’d be more interested in having a collaborative discussion about how to limit guns from criminals, Islamic terrorists, and depressed white guys if control advocates weren’t completely ignorant about the subject – and, like Ken mentions, proud of it.

So you’ll never be interested?

Would you discuss a ban on semiautomatic weapons?

In Canada you can get some semiautomatic rifles, but even these there is some controversy over even that limited selection since they also happen to be the rifles favoured by the occasional mass shooter.

Ignoring spree killings, limiting and more carefully controlling handguns helps keep the supply of such weapons to criminals in check. Further limiting it to revolvers I think would help keep more dangerous weapons off the streets.

One thing that is silly about a lot of the discussion, is folks on the right saying, “Terrorists shouldn’t be allowed to have guns.”

Well, no shit. Terrorists should be in prison.

The problem is that the idea that you can somehow predict acts of terrorism is nonsensical on its face. You can’t know that folks are terrorists before they commit acts of terrorism. You may be able to catch some of them, but you will never catch ALL of them.

Because how could you possibly do this? Some sort of magical pre-crime psychic power? If such a thing existed, why not just use it to stop ALL crime? The answer, of course, is that no such magical power exists, or will ever exist.

You can’t just “stop the terrorists from getting guns” because you don’t know who the terrorists are until they start shooting.

Hey, I have complete confidence in our public education system’s ability to produce informed citizens for our republic.

Very much this. Due process is a good thing and denying people rights because they’re on a nebulous government list is anathema to everything we stand for. But people are acting like this is some common sense, easy solution. Fuck that noise. This is the worst possible solution.

I respect your opinion and recognize that it is shared by millions of Americans.

But my position on the second amendment is that it exists to be a bulwark against government. It’s not for hunting. It’s not for personal defense. The second amendment was included in the Bill of Rights to ensure that the militia ie. the people have the ability to stand against a tyrannical government by not being outgunned. That ship has sailed in that the people are never going to have things like tanks, fighter jets, bombers, nukes, etc. and the second amendment has been watered down over time again and again. That said, I don’t want it watered down further.

Laws should be realistic, not based on fantasies of civil war. At this point the main purpose of the 2nd amendment appears to be increasing the profits of firearm manufacturers and paying money to the leeches and sponges in the NRA and orbiting lobby groups.

But wasn’t that the kind of society envisioned by American founders? A society with citizens so educated, involved and able that they do own and operate militias on exactly the same level of power and sophistication as the standing army? If that vision doesn’t even live on as a dream, that would be quite sad.

The Federalist papers #29 disagrees with that; Hamilton envisioned well trained and equipped state militias regulated by the federal government, a militia made out of select individuals (aka The National Guard), not that every citizen become armed to the teeth to protect against imaginary tyrants.

Heck I don’t think the founders were too fond of the idea of a standing army. Time to start disbanding the troops!

If by “not fond” you mean “explicitly and repeatedly against,” you’ve got it!

I’m just asking questions here: Why won’t Jefferson support our troops? What’s he trying to hide? What’s his pastor think, anyway?

House Democrats Hold Sit In on Gun Control

House Democrats led by Civil Rights veteran Rep. John Lewis, D-Georgia, are in the midst of a sit-in on the chamber floor to try and force a vote on gun control.

“Now is the time for us to find a way to dramatize it, to make it real,” Lewis said. “We have to occupy the floor of the House until there is action.”

QFT :) The narrative paths to successful resistance to an oppressive government using small arms are more obscure and fantastic than the security theater scenarios that require people to remove their shoes before boarding a plane. In the modern world, revolution requires the army and the police and security services to be on your side or at least not to intervene on behalf of the government. If they all toe the government line there is just nothing the “people” can do. This is not just because the army, police, and security have infinitely more firepower than a bunch of plucky civilians with carbines, but because the people who are rebelling are opposing the majority and cannot succeed in any event regardless of force.

The sit-in will play well with their base, but not convince anyone outside of it. Basically for things to happen one side is going to have to win all the branches.

This feels… bigger than usual. This is a very noteworthy event, imo. Representatives literally sitting in, protesting their own government? Honestly it’s kind of wild for the USA. Or feels as such anyway at the Federal level.

It’s been a while since i watched cspan. It’s absolutely hilarious watching the totally stone faced lack of response of the host as he takes totally insane random callers.

This is called political grandstanding, and would be called so by the press if this was Republicans. Pure and simple. They know they aren’t going to achieve anything outside of election day, which is the real goal of this. Rep. Jim Clyburn literally thanked the press. This is a political stunt aimed at the press to get earned media.

It should be noted one of the biggest opponents of these Dem bills is the ACLU, hardly a fan of Republican politics.

This isn’t exactly true. The founding fathers were a politically diverse group and while some explicitly opposed a standing army other were wildly supportive of one and pushed for its creation.

One could argue the entirety of the bill of rights is based on “fantasies” of the government encroachment on citizens. Many of the founding fathers thought Jefferson et al. were being paranoid in pushing for the bill of rights when those rights were inherently implied in the constitution itself.

The Irish will be shocked to hear this, as would ISIS. Yes in a toe-to-toe fight a civilian based group will always lose to a professional military, that’s why asymmetric warfare has become so popular these days.

To be clear I’m not arguing as a defender of the 2nd amendment, I just think the arguments above are particularly bad. One could argue that all rights enshrined in the bill of rights have limitations and the 2nd amendment is no different. Just as the 1st amendment faced curtailing in the early 20th century so too must the 2nd amendment face curtailing in the 21st.

I’m amazed they haven’t rammed something through already. That’s what’s so terrifying about Republicans: the only time they correctly stand against a law, like this watch list crap without sufficient due process, is by accident. There’s no mainstream intellectual basis behind it.

I thought for sure they’d get outflanked when Democrats tied this to scary terrorists, but so far they’re able to blindly resist.

I’m sorry, are you bringing up the IRA as a counterargument to “we must allow everyone to have all the guns, otherwise we can’t overthrow the government”?

Good news for you, guns have not been regulated in the UK since ever. In the '70s, they were all like, “Assault rifles? Handguns? Fuck yeah! Everyone, get armed!”

Most insurgencies, including the IRA, tended to achieve their impact via explosives, not small arms.