New anti-gun legislation

[Rob Allen]

I've read two accounts now that it does indeed have bear stopping power, not to mention that the magazine holds more rounds than the .44 magnum revolver. However, the 10 mm is hard for most people to shoot, especially with hard cast bear ammo. So Swimmy would need another pistol to practice with in order to be proficient with the 10 mm. I've only shot my SIL's 10 mm once, and I'd need to practice with it a lot before I felt confident about pointing it at Mr. Bear.

the 44 magnum is way cooler... If i can't get it done with 6 shots more rounds will not help..

 

[Salmo_g]

quite frankly that people thing the bill of rights is amendable scares the hell out of me.. if it is any of our rights can be taken away..

Yeah, they can be amended, just as with any part of the Constitution. Of course, amending the Constitution is no easy thing, and that is by design. I don't think you need to lose any sleep over the 2nd A being amended. But keep a sharp eye on what some advocates will propose as "reasonable" restrictions in order to fall within the bounds of current case law.

 

[Canuck from Kansas]

quite frankly that people thing the bill of rights is amendable scares the hell out of me.. if it is any of our rights can be taken away..

Rob, sorry to give you dyspepsia, but it's not that I "think" it is amendable, it is amendable by way of amendment (see below), do some reading - Article V of the US Constitution provides for how the Constitution can be amended - there is no carve-out (exemption) for the Bill of Rights, which are themselves amendments to the Constitution.

The 5th Article of the U.S. Constitution

The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States,

constitutioncenter.org

Thankfully, and by design, it is not easy, and currently, almost impossible to do (think equal rights amendment). The only amendment that was amended was actually repealed; amendment (XVIII), which prohibited the sale of alcohol, was repealed by another amendment (XXI).

The Bill of Right is likely safe.

Cheers

 

[Rob Allen]

well if any of the bill of rights is amended as to take them away or limit them it is just cause for violent revolution and anyone with any common decency would join said revolution.. and Only evil people would support such amendments..

 

[quilbilly]

Any ammendment can be ammended, it's fully constitutional, written in plain text exactly what the process is and how it should be followed. Anyone with a rudimentary background in civics knows this.

Clearly, you hate America and your repeated incitement for violent revolution puts you squarely in the realm of advocating sedition.

Copies of your posts advocating for rebellion and violent revolution ( you've made dozens of them on this site) should be sent to the Pueblo Colorado FBI so they can keep an eye on your seditious ass.

I hear they're not taking such talk too lightly these days...so just keep letting your fingers do the talking.

---

 

[jasmillo]

How about we focus on what they did say and not what they didn't say.
We all know the quotes so I'll only rehash a little.

The rights of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed..
Pretty darn

Although we likely agree on a lot of issues gun related, the problem with this argument is it is not at all clear. The constitution is a framework, not a set of laws and the drafters were very smart in making that very clear.

There is a reason there are 4 gazillion lawyers in this country. That simple sentence “The rights of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be “infringed” is very interpretable and that is by design. Our founding fathers new that “infringed meant one thing if 1780 and might mean another in 2021. Any lawyer worth their weight in legal pads could come up with arguments as to why most proposed gun laws are not an “infringement” under the current context of which they are being evaluated. Every society on earth is too complex to be governed by a document that contains only ~4,500 words.

The constitution is a framework or lattice of which laws are built on, and courts exists to make interpretations as to whether or not laws fall within that framework.

That is our government by design. Simple but a very effective way to govern.

 

[matchu865]

I've read two accounts now that it does indeed have bear stopping power, not to mention that the magazine holds more rounds than the .44 magnum revolver. However, the 10 mm is hard for most people to shoot, especially with hard cast bear ammo. So Swimmy would need another pistol to practice with in order to be proficient with the 10 mm. I've only shot my SIL's 10 mm once, and I'd need to practice with it a lot before I felt confident about pointing it at Mr. Bear.

I have a Glock 20. I don’t find it hard at all to shoot, in fact I think it recoils less than a 45 1911. Went swimming with it on accident in brackish water in Alaska and it still seems to work fine with no noticeable corrosion found when I cleaned it that night in the sink. I also bought a 40 S&W barrel for it and it shoots that ammo just fine with the same magazines for a lot cheaper and with less recoil than the full-power 10mm ammo.

 

[Rob Allen]

Although we likely agree on a lot of issues gun related, the problem with this argument is it is not at all clear. The constitution is a framework, not a set of laws and the drafters were very smart in making that very clear.

There is a reason there are 4 gazillion lawyers in this country. That simple sentence “The rights of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be “infringed” is very interpretable and that is by design. Our founding fathers new that “infringed meant one thing if 1780 and might mean another in 2021. Any lawyer worth their weight in legal pads could come up with arguments as to why most proposed gun laws are not an “infringement” under the current context of which they are being evaluated. Every society on earth is too complex to be governed by a document that contains only ~4,500 words.

The constitution is a framework or lattice of which laws are built on, and courts exists to make interpretations as to whether or not laws fall within that framework.

That is our government by design. Simple but a very effective way to govern.

I don't agree. The bill of rights was intended to be concrete and unchanging.. the founding fathers would be passed at our current state of affairs..

My arguments have very little to do with guns. They are about the liberty our founding fathers had in mind. They had it in mind that people could forever practice their religion, have free speech and be able to defend themselves and the free state. They intended for those rights to never ever go away no matter what.. they intended for them to remain unchanged forever. They are the cornerstone of their purpose in writing the constitution to begin with..

 

[jasmillo]

I don't agree. The bill of rights was intended to be concrete and unchanging.. the founding fathers would be passed at our current state of affairs..

My arguments have very little to do with guns. They are about the liberty our founding fathers had in mind. They had it in mind that people could forever practice their religion, have free speech and be able to defend themselves and the free state. They intended for those rights to never ever go away no matter what.. they intended for them to remain unchanged forever. They are the cornerstone of their purpose in writing the constitution to begin with..

Sure, take the right to bear arms out of the conversation and the same design applies amendments 1-10 (is stop and frisk unlawful, what about the death penalty or solitary confinement). There are a lot of very impactful cases that tackle the interpretation of the language used in all the amendments and that was by design....and it was genius.

The founding fathers were intelligent and were humble in that they understood history and their place in it. They knew what applied in 1780 would not have applied in 1280 and also would not apply in 1980, so the language they used, the document they created and the system of government they set up by design allowed for differing interpretation, as long as laws that were created fundamentally fit within the framework they designed. Because this was a gun control thread to start, let’s stick with the 2nd amendment:

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

I am not a lawyer so I am not doing this point justice but I’ll give it a layman’s shot. That one sentence is clearly not a law. It is a set of guard rails to help guide laws impacting this right. The language is purposefully nebulous and the judicial branch of government was designed help make these interpretations. Look at that sentence; how do you define “well regulated”, what is a “militia” what did they mean by “necessary”,’what is “security”, what did they mean by “free state”, who are the “people”, what does it mean to “bear”, technically, what are “arms” and how would you define “infringed”?

In the end, why would we need 3 branches of government if the founding fathers did not expect there would be a need for laws written by the legislative branch to be evaluated against the framework of the constitution by the judicial branch. A framework that by design, was clearly open to interpretation which can be seen if by nothing else, by the fact the second amendment is only 27 words.

 

[Rob Allen]

Sure, take the right to bear arms out of the conversation and the same design applies amendments 1-10 (is stop and frisk unlawful, what about the death penalty or solitary confinement). There are a lot of very impactful cases that tackle the interpretation of the language used in all the amendments and that was by design....and it was genius.

The founding fathers were intelligent and were humble in that they understood history and their place in it. They knew what applied in 1780 would not have applied in 1280 and also would not apply in 1980, so the language they used, the document they created and the system of government they set up by design allowed for differing interpretation, as long as laws that were created fundamentally fit within the framework they designed. Because this was a gun control thread to start, let’s stick with the 2nd amendment:

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

I am not a lawyer so I am not doing this point justice but I’ll give it a layman’s shot. That one sentence is clearly not a law. It is a set of guard rails to help guide laws impacting this right. The language is purposefully nebulous and the judicial branch of government was designed help make these interpretations. Look at that sentence; how do you define “well regulated”, what is a “militia” what did they mean by “necessary”,’what is “security”, what did they mean by “free state”, who are the “people”, what does it mean to “bear”, technically, what are “arms” and how would you define “infringed”?

In the end, why would we need 3 branches of government if the founding fathers did not expect there would be a need for laws written by the legislative branch to be evaluated against the framework of the constitution by the judicial branch. A framework that by design, was clearly open to interpretation which can be seen if by nothing else, by the fact the second amendment is only 27 words.

The language isn't nebulous at all. It's very specific..

A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the rights of the people shall not be infringed.

Context gives the answers to your questions.
1. the most important part. " the people" as with the rest of the bill of rights, it means every person residing in the United States.
2. The militia, at the time the militia was every able bodied man between the ages of 18 and 40
They were expected to serve if needed.
3. Necessary, that word is simply, it means a free state cannot exist without it.
4. Free state is simply a place where the people are free.
5 security means the ability to repulse threats against the free state
6 infringe. Means to attack the edges of..
7. Well regulated.. means prepared. No need for basic training. Easy to assemble and lead.

So here is a paraphrase.

Freedom of the people is our paramount concern, that is why we fought the British, therefore we acknowledge that the people have a right to defend themselves and our country , to that end the American government will do nothing to prevent the American people from having the means of such defense, one day it may be vital to have them well equipped to defend our freedom and our country.

 

[jasmillo]

The language isn't nebulous at all. It's very specific..

A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the rights of the people shall not be infringed.

Context gives the answers to your questions.
1. the most important part. " the people" as with the rest of the bill of rights, it means every person residing in the United States.
2. The militia, at the time the militia was every able bodied man between the ages of 18 and 40
They were expected to serve if needed.
3. Necessary, that word is simply, it means a free state cannot exist without it.
4. Free state is simply a place where the people are free.
5 security means the ability to repulse threats against the free state
6 infringe. Means to attack the edges of..
7. Well regulated.. means prepared. No need for basic training. Easy to assemble and lead.

So here is a paraphrase.

Freedom of the people is our paramount concern, that is why we fought the British, therefore we acknowledge that the people have a right to defend themselves and our country , to that end the American government will do nothing to prevent the American people from having the means of such defense, one day it may be vital to have them well equipped to defend our freedom and our country.

Those are your definitions, not legal ones and there in lies the whole need for the judicial branch of government.

 

[Hookset]

I am a firearm owner, life member of the NRA. I don't agree with much the NRA puts out however, and wish we could move forward with anything that would keep mentally ill whack jobs from getting their hands on a firearm and causing the kind of mayhem that hurts people, and enrages the public and the politicians that then threaten my 2nd amendment rights.
Gun registration will not lead to the gubbermint coming to confiscate all our firearms. That is a scare tactic with absolutely no evidence associated with it. You can't keep felons and crazies from acquiring firearms without a system of monitoring who buys them. Tell me a way to do that without registration, FFL holders involvement in sales and other transfers of ownership and I'll listen, but without completely reinventing this system, I think that's the best we can hope for.
I can't support the restrictions on semi autos, high capacity magazines, suppressors etc. These all work the way they are supposed to. We just need to keep the defective people separated from them.

I appreciate your ability to support the NRA and firearm registration. I own firearms and have always believed that registration was the only way to stem the tide of mass shootings in this country.

I traveled internationally for my job and met hunters from many countries. Conversations generally got around to the “gun problem” in the U.S. As firearm registration (and training) is required in most countries I’ve visited, this was the suggestion forwarded by business associates.

Registration makes sense. While it can’t cover all firearms in circulation, it would be a start on new sales. We register vehicles and that system works well. We have to start somewhere.

 

[Roper]

I own firearms and have always believed that registration was the only way to stem the tide of mass shootings in this country.

Registration makes sense. While it can’t cover all firearms in circulation, it would be a start on new sales. We register vehicles and that system works well. We have to start somewhere.

We don't have a gun violence problem, we have a violence problem. Too great of a percentage of the population have no problem with creating violence. Take a look at the "summer of love". Then you have a few homicidal maniacs that think nothing of killing lots of people, with guns. Or, diesel and fertilizer.

We have laws against murder, yet that doesn't prevent murder, it only punishes after the fact. Registration will do nothing to prevent any violence. If it did the registration on your car would prevent you from getting drunk and killing someone. All registration does is collect your car tab fees that our government already showed they have no regard for the will of the people. Registration is about revenue creation, period. For now...

Go into any sporting or guns shop and look around. The shelves are bare. Why? Because folks are afraid. Afraid of what you ask? I'll wager they will say the need to protect themselves. From what you ask? From the violence that they feared from "peaceful protests". From the fact that in greater Seattle criminals have a get out of jail free card. Free to commit crimes over and over again. Add to that the nearly total disregard for the Seattle Police and the defunding. So now the very social activists that want to get rid of guns has caused a fire sale on that very thing. And this is just the local picture.

And there you have Roper's view on the subject...Happy Saturday Y'all

 

[bhudda]

I for some reason still haven’t seen where anyone’s gun rights are being taken away....

 

[Nick Clayton]

I am not anti gun. I grew up with guns and hunting. I dont currently own any, but no real reason for that other than after my ex wife stole all my guns I never replaced them just because I really didn't miss them. Occasionally I start thinking of purchasing another just for home defense but have never gotten around to it.

I have always supported gun rights, and while I still do to an extent, things in my life have changed my outlook to a degree.

A while back my brother in Alaska shot and killed a man in cold blood. No if ands or butts about it. No self defense. Just a deranged act of violence.

My brother has always had a violent side, a major temper, and mental issues. Over the last five years his issues have gotten much worse, as he fell deeper and deeper into an anti government, survivalist sort. He has always owned many guns but over this time has added to his arsenal in a major way. Purchasing guns that are not designed for shooting, or hunting, but for killing and little else.

I have always been close with my brother. We grew up with a single mother, very poor, and were best friends most of my life. His changes over the last 5 years made us grow apart to a large degree, but let me tell you that receiving the phone call that my brother was arrested for first degree murder, then finding out the details of said murder was possibly the most jarring experience of my life. To say that this has impacted me greatly and turned my life upside down is an understatement. I have not yet begun to figure out how to process this. So many thoughts, so many emotions. There is one less human being on this planet and the direct cause of that is my own flesh and blood.

Now I dont know the answers, and I definitely see both sides of the coin in these discussions. But at this point in time I know one thing very, very well. A man's life was removed simply due to the fact that my brother had a gun on him. Period. Ya he could have ran the guy over with his car or stabbed him with a fork etc etc etc but there is ZERO doubt in my mind that the ONLY reason that man is dead is because my brother owned guns. My brother is simply not the type to pursue violence in other less convenient methods. If something happens at the bar and someone pissed him off, he wasn't going to fight it out. That would risk him losing. He'd simply get a gun because that was guaranteeing him the power and control. He's just that way. Always one to take the easy way out in all walks of life.

My brother was the poster child for someone who should not be allowed to own guns. He'd threatened gun violence several times in his life. He threatened to shoot his wife, his kids, his dogs and himself in more than one violent outburst and loss of his grip on reality. He had been reported to police several times in Alaska. He once pointed a gun at our mother. When he was a freshman in high school he walked into the police station in Port Angeles and told them he was having thoughts of shooting kids at school. Hes had issues his whole life, and anyone who knew him well was aware of this. These issues stemmed from some traumatic events when he was a child. Still, he had no problem owning a large arsenal.

My brother should not have been allowed to own a gun. Period. Others like him should not be allowed to own guns. I dont know how to create a world where law abiding, sound of mind people can own guns while people such as my brother cannot, but I do know that not everyone should own one. I believe this more strongly today, as I look forward at a life without my brother in it, than ever before.

I think of the man he killed often. By all accounts he was far from a saint himself, but that doesn't mean he should be dead. My brother will sit in a cell for a long time, if not the rest of his life. This could have all been avoided. It just wouldn't have happened without a gun in the equation. It just wouldn't have.

I dont know the solution. I dont pretend to know. But I am now 100% in support of anything that could keep guns out of the hands of people like my brother.

I've often enjoyed a good spirited gun control debate, but I find my outlook on things has changed drastically with this recent turn. Its one thing to talk hypothetical but when it hits home like this it has just changed things for me. Guns need to be kept out of the hands of many people. Does Roper owning guns concern me? Absolutely not. He is the type of person who's rights should be steadfastly supported. But if there is something that can be done, including registration, that would keep guns out of the hands of people like my brother, that would keep my life and so many others from being turned so topsy turvy, then I am one hundred percent behind it.