Guns
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
25-05-2014, 11:58 PM
RE: Guns
(25-05-2014 11:49 PM)WhiskeyDebates Wrote:  It's over reaching and would not work anyway and here is a single quick example as to why it would not work.

The best work on the ways that criminals get guns was done by Wright and Rossi (1986), who surveyed over 1,800 imprisoned felons in 10 states about their guns. On page 185:

Among 943 felon handgun owners:

44% Bought the gun privately.
32% had stolen the gun
9% percent rented or borrowed it
16% Bought it from a retailer

All regulation only effect retailers (government can not track thefts or private citizen to citizen sales) and any laws that crack down on retailers will not stop that 16% from getting guns but rather force criminals to resort to 1-3, #2 in fact being even less desirable then current trends.


Now I'm just going to speak from my own point of view: Gun Control Laws always seemed extremely paradoxical to me. You can't be against gun violence and for gun control because the only way to enforce gun control...is with gun violence or the threat of gun violence.
If they are aware of it or not pro gun control always struck me as an argument that says "I as an individual believe in and support a government monopolization of the use of force" because at the end of the day that's what you get: a centralization of the ability to use coercive force in the government. A system that I should like to think history bears out as a really really bad idea.

To me though it's always come down to two fundamental questions.

1.) Does an individual have an right to the defense of their person, loved ones or property?
2.) Does an individual have a right to initiate force or to delegate to a different individual or any group of individuals the right to initiate force?

To me the answers have always been a obvious and resounding yes and no respectively, though I know there are others that will think differently. I will not be surprised if many many people here disagree with me and that is perfectly fine haha

Where I expect to get a lot of flack is in this statement: America does not have a gun problem, it has a gang problem.

This isn't meant to be a debate thread. This is looking for a debater, and I'd prefer someone on the anti-gun side, at least for the first bout.

E 2 = (mc 2)2 + (pc )2
614C → 714N + e + ̅νe
2 K(s) + 2 H2O(l) → 2 KOH(aq) + H2 (g) + 196 kJ/mol
It works, bitches.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
25-05-2014, 11:59 PM
RE: Guns
(25-05-2014 11:42 PM)Phaedrus Wrote:  It would still upset the majority of gun owners, only the last two blocks of points would be seen as beneficial. As for Constitutional law, there would be strong arguments against it on basis of the 10th Amendment, and weak arguments against it on basis of the 2nd and 4th.

If we are taking it from a Constructionist view of the Constitution ( ie. what the intent of the writers of the document) then the 10th would actually utterly prohibit any kind of Federal gun control, but would also prevent the Federal government from interfering in a State gun control law.

Under the 10th any State that set up a state wide gun control law, of any kind, could not be interfered with, however the Federal government could not in any way shape or form set up one of it's own.

Though the government has not actually followed the 10th since long be for Lincoln.

In fact it's kinda an open joke that if you take a Bar Exam as a lawyer (even a Constitutional Law Exam) if one of the possible answers is 10th Amendment...you can cross it off cause it wont be in the exam. They kinda pretend it does not exist.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
26-05-2014, 12:02 AM
RE: Guns
(25-05-2014 11:56 PM)Phaedrus Wrote:  The government gets around this by exploiting the "Interstate Commerce" clause in the Constitution. Basically, they argue that anything which effects the economies of two or more states is a matter of Interstate Commerce, a matter the federal government does have jurisdiction over.

Which is, ironically, the literal and exact opposite of what the Interstate Commerce Clause actually means.

Government. It's kinda funny that way Weeping
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
26-05-2014, 12:04 AM
RE: Guns
(25-05-2014 11:58 PM)Phaedrus Wrote:  This isn't meant to be a debate thread. This is looking for a debater, and I'd prefer someone on the anti-gun side, at least for the first bout.

Ah, apologies! I tend to ramble a bit but I do hope you find a debater. I always look forward to a good gun control debate...cause I'm odd like that. Tongue
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
26-05-2014, 12:08 AM
RE: Guns
(25-05-2014 11:56 PM)Phaedrus Wrote:  
(25-05-2014 11:48 PM)Vosur Wrote:  I don't think I follow. The 10th Amendment states that "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

I must be missing something because I don't see any connection to gun policies.

The 10th Amendment says EVERY power not explicitly outlined in the Constitution is reserved to the states. This would reasonably include the power to regulate firearm ownership. It also includes roads, education, corporate regulations, etc. etc. etc. The government gets around this by exploiting the "Interstate Commerce" clause in the Constitution. Basically, they argue that anything which effects the economies of two or more states is a matter of Interstate Commerce, a matter the federal government does have jurisdiction over.

Since everything effects the economy in some way, this allows the govt to do just about anything (and is necessary for our present government to function); as long as it doesn't piss off too many legislators and/or Supreme Court justices, in which case the 10th Amendment can be used to strike it down.
But that only means that your suggestions would have to be implemented at the state level instead of the federal level, doesn't it?

[Image: 7oDSbD4.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
26-05-2014, 12:10 AM
RE: Guns
(26-05-2014 12:08 AM)Vosur Wrote:  
(25-05-2014 11:56 PM)Phaedrus Wrote:  The 10th Amendment says EVERY power not explicitly outlined in the Constitution is reserved to the states. This would reasonably include the power to regulate firearm ownership. It also includes roads, education, corporate regulations, etc. etc. etc. The government gets around this by exploiting the "Interstate Commerce" clause in the Constitution. Basically, they argue that anything which effects the economies of two or more states is a matter of Interstate Commerce, a matter the federal government does have jurisdiction over.

Since everything effects the economy in some way, this allows the govt to do just about anything (and is necessary for our present government to function); as long as it doesn't piss off too many legislators and/or Supreme Court justices, in which case the 10th Amendment can be used to strike it down.
But that only means that your suggestions would have to be implemented at the state level instead of the federal level, doesn't it?

Well when I said there were strong arguments based on the 10th Amendment... That's in theory. In practice, the 10th is the weakest amendment by far. Though the 1st, 2nd, 4th, 5th, and 6th aren't in great shape either.

It wouldn't be practical to implement this in 50 states separately. It would have to be federal.

E 2 = (mc 2)2 + (pc )2
614C → 714N + e + ̅νe
2 K(s) + 2 H2O(l) → 2 KOH(aq) + H2 (g) + 196 kJ/mol
It works, bitches.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
26-05-2014, 01:01 AM
RE: Guns
(26-05-2014 12:10 AM)Phaedrus Wrote:  
(26-05-2014 12:08 AM)Vosur Wrote:  But that only means that your suggestions would have to be implemented at the state level instead of the federal level, doesn't it?

Well when I said there were strong arguments based on the 10th Amendment... That's in theory. In practice, the 10th is the weakest amendment by far. Though the 1st, 2nd, 4th, 5th, and 6th aren't in great shape either.

It wouldn't be practical to implement this in 50 states separately. It would have to be federal.

Which is unfortunate because Jefferson viewed the 10th as THE foundation of the entire Constitution.

While it might not be "practical" to implement state by state (I would actually disagree) it would be much better for the actual people that would have to live under the law. Municipal by municipal would be even better for any law really.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
26-05-2014, 01:25 AM
RE: Guns
(25-05-2014 10:20 PM)Phaedrus Wrote:  Honestly I could go either way on a registry like that, the main argument for would be accountability and tracking for third-party sales, where you don't have a 4473 to check back on like you do with a gun shop. It could be very handy for tracking theft or straw purchases.

On the other hand, I can definitely see where concern over abuse of a system like that could occur. I did mention the abuse of NYC CCW permit holders. Any registry system would need extensive protection, both legal and electronic.


In the US (--- are you in the US and pretty much talking about the US...?), you have to consider where and how the 2nd Amendment originated. It was heavily influenced by, if not specifically/almost exclusively in answer to, the British colonial government's efforts to disarm citizens in order to prevent them from pursuing a rebellion. Which in turn were aimed at exercising control over the citizenry, who had had enough of this whole business of having control exercised over them. The 2nd Amendment was written to head off such an out-of-control government-control scenario re-occurring.

Which has lost a lot of its teeth in light of the current disparity between the most powerful weapons an ordinary citizen or group of citizens could possibly obtain vs. the most powerful weapons the local, county, state, and federal governments, should they fall to some catastrophic corruption (Like Germany did in the '30s), could obtain.


Don't get me wrong, I am just as concerned about batshit-crazy paramilitary groups arming themselves as anyone else is. And I admit that the possible answers to the quandary are quite complicated.


Quote:Like I said, I could go either way on that one.


Well, that's the really hard part about it all, isn't it? Pro-2A folks aren't the strawman hillbillies that the anti's love to portray them as. And the Anti's really are driven by a sincere concern for advancing public safety, and not a desire to "take away rights".

It's fucking complicated.

If *"the shit hits the fan", I want to be able to protect myself, my loved ones, my community, my "tribe", and my people in any way I can. '

*I think a big argument is what constitutes "the shit hitting the fan".

And for me, in some ways, I think the shit has already hit the fan.

It's late and I need to think some more about all this....cheers...

It's Special Pleadings all the way down!


Magic Talking Snakes STFU -- revenantx77


You can't have your special pleading and eat it too. -- WillHop
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like Taqiyya Mockingbird's post
26-05-2014, 05:58 AM
RE: Guns
(25-05-2014 11:22 PM)Vosur Wrote:  As I see it, one of the major problems with international debates on gun politics is that it's more often than not unclear if the focus is on how things should be in the USA or if it's on how they should be ideally/in general.

You may think that this is a trivial difference, but depending on which one of the two it is, trying to judge the merit of a gun policy based solely on whether or not it would work in the United States is unreasonable at best and naïve at worst.

In Germany, for example, it takes several years to acquire a firearm and even then you cannot buy one for self-defense. I think we all know that this is never going to happen in the US for obvious reasons, one of them being that most citizens would have to return the gun(s) they already own.

Seriously?

The merits of gun policy in the U.S. and in Germany have little or nothing to do with each other.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
26-05-2014, 06:02 AM
RE: Guns
(25-05-2014 11:49 PM)WhiskeyDebates Wrote:  It's over reaching and would not work anyway and here is a single quick example as to why it would not work.

The best work on the ways that criminals get guns was done by Wright and Rossi (1986), who surveyed over 1,800 imprisoned felons in 10 states about their guns. On page 185:

Among 943 felon handgun owners:

44% Bought the gun privately.
32% had stolen the gun
9% percent rented or borrowed it
16% Bought it from a retailer

All regulation only effect retailers (government can not track thefts or private citizen to citizen sales) and any laws that crack down on retailers will not stop that 16% from getting guns but rather force criminals to resort to 1-3, #2 in fact being even less desirable then current trends.

Some states require reporting private gun transfers, e.g. Massachusetts.

Quote:Now I'm just going to speak from my own point of view: Gun Control Laws always seemed extremely paradoxical to me. You can't be against gun violence and for gun control because the only way to enforce gun control...is with gun violence or the threat of gun violence.
If they are aware of it or not pro gun control always struck me as an argument that says "I as an individual believe in and support a government monopolization of the use of force" because at the end of the day that's what you get: a centralization of the ability to use coercive force in the government. A system that I should like to think history bears out as a really really bad idea.

To me though it's always come down to two fundamental questions.

1.) Does an individual have an right to the defense of their person, loved ones or property?
2.) Does an individual have a right to initiate force or to delegate to a different individual or any group of individuals the right to initiate force?

To me the answers have always been a obvious and resounding yes and no respectively, though I know there are others that will think differently. I will not be surprised if many many people here disagree with me and that is perfectly fine haha

Where I expect to get a lot of flack is in this statement: America does not have a gun problem, it has a gang problem.

The U.S. certainly has a gang problem, but that is only one aspect of larger societal problems of inequity, lack of opportunity, uneven education, dreadful mental health care, etc.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Chas's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: