General / Off-Topic Gun Nut America

[Monk]

Yeah but how much majority you need to do that? 2/3 4/5 and by referendum, or government / senate whatever? In a such big and diverse country like the states? To get the necessary majority, is near to impossible. what means is really really hard. And this is why i saying is chiseled into stone.

2/3 of the House and Senate must ratify the amendment. Then it goes to the states where there must be 3/4 of the states must affirm the amendment. It is unclear to me whether each individual state gets a referendum or of the elected state legislature votes, but they get 7 years to attempt to ratify.

Alternatively, 2/3 of states (34) may demand a constitutional convention. That may granted if 2/3 of House and Senate agree (it would be political suicide to vote against your constituency anyhow). A convention would be used for a major overhaul of the constitution with multiple amendments removed or added. Then it all must be ratified by the states. This has never occurred.

So, yes, it is pretty tough...but that is why I chose the word consensus rather than majority. It has got to be something more than just most of us want.

 

[Minonian]

Furthermore, the second amendment when read correctly does not limit the right to keep and bear arms to well regulated militias, it simply states that this right is necessary for a free state. A well regulated militia is not doorway to regulate and limit arms to militia.

But neither doorway to the other way around and not makes automatically possible to extend this rights to the whole civil sphere. For that you need other laws, guided down from this, with harmony at the constitution.
And such laws are more easily shaped.

You see my point?

- - - - - Additional Content Posted / Auto Merge - - - - -

2/3 of the House and Senate must ratify the amendment. Then it goes to the states where there must be 3/4 of the states must affirm the amendment. It is unclear to me whether each individual state gets a referendum or of the elected state legislature votes, but they get 7 years to attempt to ratify.

Alternatively, 2/3 of states (34) may demand a constitutional convention. That may granted if 2/3 of House and Senate agree (it would be political suicide to vote against your constituency anyhow). A convention would be used for a major overhaul of the constitution with multiple amendments removed or added. Then it all must be ratified by the states. This has never occurred.

So, yes, it is pretty tough...but that is why I chose the word consensus rather than majority. It has got to be something more than just most of us want.

Yeah... Just like i said you have the possibility in theory, but in reality? Its almost impossible...

 

[Stigbob]

Two things on that.

1. Clearly the constitutions of the states, many of which pre-date the adoption of the federal constitution, shed light on the intentions of the drafters of the constitution. Clearly my writing is not to delineate the sequence of laws as to which is superior. My point is as it relates to intention. CLEARLY they intended an individual right to keep and bear arms. It is interesting to note that at the time of the drafting individuals had superior weaponry to the army, especially the British army. Perhaps that is a discussion for another time.

I dont agree, I think it's all about raising a militia when required and has nothing at all to do with private ownership based purely on the wording. But I'm viewing it from the perspective of a country where we banned guns following mass shootings, and you view it from the perspective of a country where gun ownership is considered a basic human right as a result of repeated reinterpretations of the same sentence.

As a brit ex-soldier I can tell you the british army has a long tradition of issuing terrible gear usually through sheer tight-fistedness (I carried an SA80 for more than 2 years operational so I'm an expert in useless weapons), but brit sqauddies make the rubbish work.

2. Furthermore, the second amendment when read correctly does not limit the right to keep and bear arms to well regulated militias, it simply states that this right is necessary for a free state. A well regulated militia is not doorway to regulate and limit arms to militia in the sense of the word as we use it now. We could talk about this comma for hours... but I will tell you what is really revealing about the comma argument. It is this..... Even the dissenters on the Supreme Court Heller decision did not make the "well regulated miltia" argument because it requires a mis-reading of the sentence.

Opposing mass gun ownership in america for a politician is about as popular as being an atheist or gay. All that proves is that politicians try to appeal to popular prejudices.

 

[Monk]

I guess, for me, it comes down to a cultural issue more than a right to possession issue.

A quick disclaimer, I'm an oddball of American political landscape. Almost none of my fellow patriots would agree with me.

There is a cultural problem in the US. Even if you were to successfully ban the sale of guns, it would not stop the personal manufacture (small shops and 3D printing). There would still be mass shootings as anyone motivated enough would be able to acquire the weapons. Keeping things on a regulated legal market is the best way to prevent the wrong people from getting armed, though there would still be ways around that for those so inclined.

If instead, we could address the seething undercurrent of anger, the blatant flaunting of wealth disparity, the deep seeded hatred between races, the culture of excess, the obsession over wealth and the overall degradation of the American community...then, I would bet all of my money on it that we could have guns and not kill each other like this. There is a sickness in this country...and it is not guns alone.

 

[lysan]

By banning guns you only leave the criminals with guns, however the law-abiding citizen will be left defenceless. We see that all over the world. Its a pipe dream and only people who live in high security countries, or in part of a country where there are high security sectors.

Regarding the US, to start confiscating the guns will only lead to 1776 2.0

 

[Minonian]

By banning guns you only leave the criminals with guns, however the law-abiding citizen will be left defenceless. We see that all over the world. Its a pipe dream and only people who live in high security countries, or in part of a country where there are high security sectors.

Regarding the US, to start confiscating the guns will only lead to 1776 2.0

I know he can't hear me but non the less, this is a stupid reasoning heard thousands of times, and not true. In short term, there is a this kind of difference that's true, but in long term its only a spike, what disappears. Thats also in the statistics, what he refers into.

Arms race works in both way too. If you step up, the other are forced to step up, to keep his edge. If you step down, the other also can step down, and he can still keep his edge. And he will going to step down eventually.

Reason? To maintain an unnecessary level of preparedness, is a waste of resources, and we all conserve as much what we can.

Second reason;
Why this is stupid? The criminals are always make sure to have the upper hand, otherwise they can't commit crimes. So? no changes in this matter whenever you go up, or down, in the arms race, but if you go up in the arms race? Than that's makes the conflicts and crime spree more bloodier.

Conclusion? I'ts well worth it to step down, if it's possible, there might be no changes in the power ratio, but there is changes in the power level, and thus the troubles caused by conflicts.

 

[lysan]

I think there has been some Ninja MODS here lately

@Minonian I hear you, I just not always respond

Weapons in the hands of the civil population is always controversial, however I stand firm on my rights as a free person.

I always carry some kind of protection even in Europe, its legal, its a huge fuzz and not easy at all, but I do because the police will not always be there to protect me. It will never go away, until we as human beings solve the violence in our society, I will do whatever to protect myself and my family.

 

[Minonian]

And i learned kung - fu, futhermore? i aggroed over my elementary school years. Got myself kicked out from 3 because of this, until my blood cooled down.

So as the way i see it weapons and lehal threats it's for      es whom too afraid to face with others. So as threats in general, i don't do that. I tell you how it will be, and if you don't belíve it? Than you face the consequences.
That's all.

 

[Nerwan]

By banning guns you only leave the criminals with guns, however the law-abiding citizen will be left defenceless. We see that all over the world. Its a pipe dream and only people who live in high security countries, or in part of a country where there are high security sectors.

Regarding the US, to start confiscating the guns will only lead to 1776 2.0

That doesn't appear to be the case in the UK, criminals committed 42 gun crimes in 2015 in the UK which resulted in fatalities. Criminals killed 30 times that number in the US even though interestingly the US murder rate is not that much higher than the UK if you excluded gun deaths. Or take police officers. The US loses more police officers each year to guns than we've ever lost in our history.. Or even criminals themselves? More criminals are killed by police in a year in the US that have ever been killed in UK history. I know our population is about 5 times smaller, but the decrease in gun related deaths is so much bigger than that...

I don't really understand why anyone would want guns in society.. It really is fantastic living in a country where even if someone breaks into your house, you can be pretty sure that they won't have a gun. And the policeman that comes to help you? He won't have a gun either.. It quite literally never occurs to me that anyone I meet would have one because virtually nobody does with the exception of special poice units, the army and the odd eastern European organised crime gang (but I don't run into them very often ;-) Bliss

It's true of course that if the US outlawed guns now, it would have issues with criminals holding on to them for some time into the future. This actually happened in the UK briefly when they were restricted here. But eventually they came out of circulation and now we're where we are today. Of course the were fewer back then in the UK than there are in the US today.. but I still think eventually the numbers would become very small..

 

[Minonian]

I don't really understand why anyone would want guns in society.. It really is fantastic living in a country where even if someone breaks into your house, you can be pretty sure that they won't have a gun. And the policeman that comes to help you? He won't have a gun either.. It quite literally never occurs to me that anyone I meet would have one because virtually nobody does with the exception of special poice units, the army and the odd eastern European organised crime gang (but I don't run into them very often ;-) Bliss

Just as i said. Threats and guns for criminals and cowards, so as to use others to carry out your threats. When to kill, beat or frighten the others is the right resolution on your book you are one or the another.

So as to rather die than live with the consequences, or try to make it right. That's the easy way out.

 

[Adept]

I don't really understand why anyone would want guns in society.. It really is fantastic living in a country where even if someone breaks into your house, you can be pretty sure that they won't have a gun. And the policeman that comes to help you? He won't have a gun either.. It quite literally never occurs to me that anyone I meet would have one because virtually nobody does with the exception of special poice units, the army and the odd eastern European organised crime gang (but I don't run into them very often ;-) Bliss

The Finnish cops on the beat didn't used to carry guns, but they have since the seventies. It is not a good change. As a result they are worried about getting into a physical altercation because they could get shot with their own Glock. We are forced to see police in annoyingly paramilitary looking getup, openly armed. It's not a good thing, and I wish Finland would learn the lessons that the UK has put to such good use.

 

[lysan]

The Finnish cops on the beat didn't used to carry guns, but they have since the seventies. It is not a good change. As a result they are worried about getting into a physical altercation because they could get shot with their own Glock. We are forced to see police in annoyingly paramilitary looking getup, openly armed. It's not a good thing, and I wish Finland would learn the lessons that the UK has put to such good use.

Scandinavia has changed a lot the last 20 years, and in my opinion not for the better in all departments. Regarding the UK, it all depends where you are, ofc in high security sectors you are relative safe, however there are areas where you are not.

It's also true that you can just say that you will never carry any weapons because that is for cowards, i agree with that, but sadly that will not keep you alive for very long in some areas in the world. Its sad and it should not be like that, but it is the reality.

There are places where I live some periods of the year where you can't walk to far out without protection, wild dogs run in packs and you can't stop them if you only carry a stick, and they will attack you if they get the chance. In this example there are only a few and not a big problem, but sometimes there are 10 or more dogs and you are pretty helpless, so its not only to protect yourself against people.

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=e5f_1462470488&safe_mode=off

 

[Minonian]

It's also true that you can just say that you will never carry any weapons because that is for cowards, i agree with that, but sadly that will not keep you alive for very long in some areas in the world. Its sad and it should not be like that, but it is the reality.

I worked as guard for years you don't need to tell that. Pepper spray, (throwing)knife, baton shocker, gas pistol, taser, ects ects, in hight sec jobs even lethal firearms is necessary, what i'm sayin is to give firearms everyone is not a good resolution, and only makes things worst.

For my part i saying for an average person if he wants to defend himself self defensive weaponry, and knowledge in self defense is more than enough.
Edit; The point is lethal firearms are just not for everyone. Lets face it! Some persons are just too stupid, irresponsible, hiding psycho or blood lusty to give them this kind of chance.

 

[Oddball]

The stats in the original video are flawed because many people in the USA own more than one gun but he doesn't mention this.

 

[lysan]

I worked as guard for years you don't need to tell that. Pepper spray, (throwing)knife, baton shocker, gas pistol, taser, ects ects, in hight sec jobs even lethal firearms is necessary, what i'm sayin is to give firearms everyone is not a good resolution, and only makes things worst.

For my part i saying for an average person if he wants to defend himself self defensive weaponry, and knowledge in self defense is more than enough.
Edit; The point is lethal firearms are just not for everyone. Lets face it! Some persons are just too stupid, irresponsible, hiding psycho or blood lusty to give them this kind of chance.

I don't disagree with you, truly I don't. I've seen full grown men take a full hit from a taser and still walk and fight! same with paper spray.
That is why, you have to go through a lot of hazel to get a gun permit, its not that easy in the US, and its even more difficult in Europe, but its doable if you really want to.
The problem I have is that, you need to jump through so many loops that is really not aimed towards safety, its just made to make it so difficult that most people give up.

 

[Minonian]

I don't disagree with you, truly I don't. I've seen full grown men take a full hit from a taser and still walk and fight! same with paper spray.

Same goes to regular bullets. Some people are just too stubborn to know when they are KO-ed / killed, and refuse to die.

Stopping power is a relative thing.

That is why, you have to go through a lot of hazel to get a gun permit

The problem is, for the fact P spray is not working, does not necessary means you are in the middle of a life or death, kill or be killed situation. But if mr average joe have a gun in his hands in a middle of a beat down, tell me how he going to choose? Kill the other man, or take the bruises?

Oblivious for a man who can't take the wounds, and never learned the true value of life, and meaning of death, who never ever had the idea, what true power means, and how easy to snuff out another life just by accident. You don't need any more just a wrong punch. He stumbles, his neck is breaks, or something like that.

 

[Cydramech]

"I will accept the rules that you feel necessary to your freedom. I am free, no matter what rules surround me. If I find them tolerable, I tolerate them; if I find them too obnoxious, I break them. I am free because I know that I alone am morally responsible for everything I do." - Robert Heinlein

Restrict guns. Ban them. Get rid of all legal access. With 3D-printed guns and other similar advancements becoming a thing, every gun control law will soon be a logistical impossibility to enforce.

 

[Stigbob]

"I will accept the rules that you feel necessary to your freedom. I am free, no matter what rules surround me. If I find them tolerable, I tolerate them; if I find them too obnoxious, I break them. I am free because I know that I alone am morally responsible for everything I do." - Robert Heinlein

Restrict guns. Ban them. Get rid of all legal access. With 3D-printed guns and other similar advancements becoming a thing, every gun control law will soon be a logistical impossibility to enforce.

3D printers don't really change the game on firearms, homemade guns are nothing new https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Improvised_firearm.

 

[Cydramech]

3D printers don't really change the game on firearms, homemade guns are nothing new https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Improvised_firearm.

The ability to download a schematic off the internet and have a 3D-printer fully craft each and every part according to specification gives everyone with a 3D printer access to a grade of weaponry and precision one cannot obtain with homemade tools. Even potentially-military grade hardware in time. It has nothing to do with the fact homemade guns are nothing new, but that it increases accessibility of higher-grade weaponry.

In fact, the DHS itself made my case for me back in 2013.

Furthermore, there's always a greater value by virtue of a fruit being forbidden than its other characteristics. No intrinsic value in a law or following it (what value is associated with the law itself or following it depends entirely on the faith of its supporters and enforcers), but there is intrinsic value in breaking it. So for every forbidden fruit the book creates, that's just one more demand for the black market to supply (and thus futile to resist; the black market always wins).

 

[Minonian]

Not entirely true. 3D printed weapons at the moment are just way too unreliable, and thus self endangering.