2nd amendment discussion + taking tweets to task (Split from news thread)

[Tolvo]

Well you know, Lobbyists don't have to be a problem. If we just, ya know.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cQKzesTq0Wo

(Just kidding I'm not that sort of Communist, also Socialism would protect against that too).

I'm trying to remember, didn't the NRA rise to power off the backs of gun activists who were fighting for sporting and hunting rights? Like they co-opted the movement and took it over.

[Icelandic]

Skynet seems pretty accurate. The NRA are quite different from hunting and sport enthusiasts who want protections for gun owners. They're also deeply in bed with various people like Trump. They also make more money every time there is a mass shooting, gun sales in general go up after every mass shooting with how they stoke fear and people feel the need to stock up in case the government finally comes for their guns. Money matters more than lives to them.

I kinda wanted to avoid this thread due to how it was mentioned that this kinda thread keeps popping up buuuuuuuuut...

The NRA does not cause people to buy guns out of fear. It's democratic politicians blatantly and explicitly calling for the end of the second amendment.

[TheGlyphstone]

I kinda wanted to avoid this thread due to how it was mentioned that this kinda thread keeps popping up buuuuuuuuut...

The NRA does not cause people to buy guns out of fear. It's democratic politicians blatantly and explicitly calling for the end of the second amendment.

My father is an avid NRA member and supporter, and I still remember an issue of the monthly magazine that was sitting on the counter table when i visited pre-election - a picture of Clinton yelling about something with the headline 'Your Last Chance to Get These Guns That Hillary Wants To Ban'. I remember it so vividly because it was a perfect example of the fearmongering they deliberately stir up.

[Icelandic]

My father is an avid NRA member and supporter, and I still remember an issue of the monthly magazine that was sitting on the counter table when i visited pre-election - a picture of Clinton yelling about something with the headline 'Your Last Chance to Get These Guns That Hillary Wants To Ban'. I remember it so vividly because it was a perfect example of the fearmongering they deliberately stir up.

Clinton has applauded gun confiscation regiments in Australia and the UK before, and said that the Supreme Court was wrong in the 'DC vs Heller' case that officially established that the Second Amendment protects the right to individuals possessing firearms.

Is it fearmongering when those fears are reasonably founded? Am I fearmongering when I say 'Hey, don't stick your hand in a hornets nest because you are gunna get hurt"?

[Yvellakitsune]

In reference to the original article, I see the argument made a lot and I have to laugh every time.  It shows that whoever is making the argument, in this case a politician, doesn't know the US Military.

The military is not a thing.  It is people.  In the USA, the majority of the people in the military actually support the Second Amendment.  If it came to a "war," it is a questionable assumption there would still be a military or that the anti-2nd Amendment Government Side of this hypothetical war had control of what force there was.  In the US Civil War, the military fractured and the Union Army had to be reconstituted with volunteers and drafts.  The main effort of the Union Army was essentially untrained and humiliated for the first half of the war.  It would probably be a fight just to control military equipment and facilities before action against any opposition could take place by the government.  Especially since a war like this wouldn't be based on geographical location from the onset like it was in 1860.       

So I don't share this politician's opinion that it would be short or his assumption that the military as it is would support it.  I served 20 years in US Army myself from team level up to a joint headquarters. The people in the military would split like the population or sit it out as best they could if a civil war happened. 

[Deamonbane]

Clinton has applauded gun confiscation regiments in Australia and the UK before, and said that the Supreme Court was wrong in the 'DC vs Heller' case that officially established that the Second Amendment protects the right to individuals possessing firearms.

Is it fearmongering when those fears are reasonably founded? Am I fearmongering when I say 'Hey, don't stick your hand in a hornets nest because you are gunna get hurt"?

Sources?

[Skynet]

I dunno, mang. I mean it is true that gun lobbyists aren't necessarily paragons of virtue, but to paint them as almost being malicious makes it creep eerily close to concern trolling. They serve as a voice for something, which is important in the creation of public policy.

I mean, I personally think that people should be able to have even more guns with even fewer restrictions, because the 2nd Amendment was created to allow the gamers people to rise up against a tyrannical government and be able to properly protect their claim to land/freedom. So while I may not agree with gun lobbyists on all issues, their beliefs are sometimes tangentially related to my own.

It's not trolling when you cite multiple sources like I did in my link or point out their hypocritical behavior. If they weren't malicious, then why is the NRA explicitly making it harder for law enforcement to track down and prosecute actual criminals, like in this link?

And why didn't they invoke the 2nd Amendment to defend Philando Castile, whose spokeswoman instead implied he deserved to be shot because the police officer smelled marijuana in his car?

I kinda wanted to avoid this thread due to how it was mentioned that this kinda thread keeps popping up buuuuuuuuut...

The NRA does not cause people to buy guns out of fear. It's democratic politicians blatantly and explicitly calling for the end of the second amendment.

If they're not fearmongerers, then why did their spokeswoman claim that Thomas the Tank Engine having a more diverse cast was on the same moral level as the KKK?

[Deamonbane]

In reference to the original article, I see the argument made a lot and I have to laugh every time.  It shows that whoever is making the argument, in this case a politician, doesn't know the US Military.

The military is not a thing.  It is people.  In the USA, the majority of the people in the military actually support the Second Amendment.  If it came to a "war," it is a questionable assumption there would still be a military or that the anti-2nd Amendment Government Side of this hypothetical war had control of what force there was.  In the US Civil War, the military fractured and the Union Army had to be reconstituted with volunteers and drafts.  The main effort of the Union Army was essentially untrained and humiliated for the first half of the war.  It would probably be a fight just to control military equipment and facilities before action against any opposition could take place by the government.  Especially since a war like this wouldn't be based on geographical location from the onset like it was in 1860.       

So I don't share this politician's opinion that it would be short or his assumption that the military as it is would support it.  I served 20 years in US Army myself from team level up to a joint headquarters. The people in the military would split like the population or sit it out as best they could if a civil war happened.

Might You say that the argument is as laughable as the concept of the US actually banning weapons, or going to war with their citizens over the right to bear arms, as these militias seem to believe will happen?

[Icelandic]

Sources?

Here you go: https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/oct/26/hillary-clinton-gun-rights-second-amendment

[TheGlyphstone]

Clinton has applauded gun confiscation regiments in Australia and the UK before, and said that the Supreme Court was wrong in the 'DC vs Heller' case that officially established that the Second Amendment protects the right to individuals possessing firearms.

Is it fearmongering when those fears are reasonably founded? Am I fearmongering when I say 'Hey, don't stick your hand in a hornets nest because you are gunna get hurt"?

I just don't think those are reasonably founded fears at all. You say 'don't stick your hand in a hornet's nest because it might hurt', I hear 'don't stick your hand in a hornet's nest because it might be full of AFRICAN KILLER BEES!!!!". I'm sure a hypothetical Clinton presidency wouldn't have been entirely great for gun sales, but 4-8 years later the 2nd would have still been there exactly like it was before.

Clinton's actual record on gun issues, which I did read up on, is remarkably spotty and inconsistent (machine politician, hello). She was strongly anti-gun in 2001, much softer and pro-gun/hunter in 2008, and more strident in 2016. But she was still repeatedly quoted on the record as supporting the individual mandate:

"I think what the court said about there being an individual right is in line with constitutional thinking," Clinton said about two weeks ago on "Fox News Sunday," affirming individual gun rights.

https://www.cnn.com/2016/08/11/politics/hillary-clinton-gun-control-second-amendment/index.html
https://www.thetrace.org/2016/08/hillary-clinton-quotes-on-guns/

BUT backing up a bit to your previous point in general, rather than derailing this into a Clinton argument (she's severely wrong in a few other ways, like removing the ban on suing gun manufacturers when their product is used in a crime)...

The NRA does not cause people to buy guns out of fear. It's democratic politicians blatantly and explicitly calling for the end of the second amendment.

I have no doubt that such politicians exist. In a country this big, if someone combs through enough newspapers, interviews, and tweets, they will have no problem finding people who have said something which can interpreted that way. But I'm equally certain that if someone else put similar effort into looking for evidence of republican politicians blatantly and explicitly calling for the end of the first amendment - prayer in public schools, public teaching of creationism, suppression of hostile press, etc. - you'd be able to find it. That doesn't mean said politicians represent the majority of their electorate, or even that they represent the majority of their colleagues. When pundits and special interest groups who benefit from stirring up their supporters use those quotes blown out of proportion to further their ends, that's the fearmongering I'm decrying.

The quote that started this whole thing off, for example. If I look at it with an angle of 'how can I take offense at this man's words', I can fairly easily imagine a tone of rather smug condescension. 'His side' has the biggest toys and will win any real fight, so 'the other side' might as well just give up now and negotiate instead of struggling. As other people in-thread have said this idea is in itself ludicrous, any hypothetical US civil war will be Military vs. Military, not Military vs. Militia. But that's still a very long way from twisting his words into 'we're gonna nuke American citizens!" the way Ben Shapiro did.

[Deamonbane]

Here you go: https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/oct/26/hillary-clinton-gun-rights-second-amendment

Clinton had dodged giving a clear answer about her opinion of the ongoing case during a presidential primary debate in early 2008, though she suggested that the supreme court would probably find a full ban on handguns unconstitutional. But in 2015, the Washington Free Beacon reported, Clinton told an audience at a private event that “the supreme court is wrong on the second amendment. And I am going to make that case every chance I get.”

I'm going to go ahead and take what the Washington Free Beacon has to say about democrat politicians with a grain of salt.

The rest of the article has nothing of substance to say that would prove that Hillary would ever find herself in a position to actually try and 'take guns away'. I'm not saying that in defense to her, mind. I still think she's a trashy person.

Any sources on this comment?

Clinton has applauded gun confiscation regiments in Australia and the UK before *snips*

[TheGlyphstone]

I'm going to go ahead and take what the Washington Free Beacon has to say about democrat politicians with a grain of salt.

The rest of the article has nothing of substance to say that would prove that Hillary would ever find herself in a position to actually try and 'take guns away'. I'm not saying that in defense to her, mind. I still think she's a trashy person.

Any sources on this comment?

That specific quote's legit (The one about the SC), I found it in the sources I linked as well.

[Tolvo]

She specifically said that the Supreme Court is wrong on assault weapons, though that definition can be murky. She basically wanted semi-automatic weapons with high capacity magazines banned in the leaked audio.

“I was proud when my husband took [the National Rifle Association] on, and we were able to ban assault weapons, but he had to put a sunset on so 10 years later. Of course [President George W.] Bush wouldn’t agree to reinstate them…. And here again, the Supreme Court is wrong on the Second Amendment. And I am going to make that case every chance I get.”

https://www.forbes.com/sites/frankminiter/2016/08/11/proof-that-hillary-does-want-to-make-the-second-amendment-meaningless/#209e2ad1297c

[Deamonbane]

Fair enough. I stand by my thoughts on the Washington Free Beacon though. Call it a difference of opinion.

Edit: Hearing her say assault weapons still makes me cringe.

[Icelandic]

I'm going to go ahead and take what the Washington Free Beacon has to say about democrat politicians with a grain of salt.

The rest of the article has nothing of substance to say that would prove that Hillary would ever find herself in a position to actually try and 'take guns away'. I'm not saying that in defense to her, mind. I still think she's a trashy person.

Any sources on this comment?

The Washington Free Beacon has the audio right in the link of the private fundraiser in question.

I've linked you an article that gives several examples of Clinton's fast-and-loose beliefs on the second amendment. The topic I was responding to was about whether or not people were right to be worried about a Clinton presidency from a second amendment standpoint. Let's not forget that she nearly became the president.

And for your second source: https://www.c-span.org/video/?c4590516/hillary-clinton-lauding-australia-uk-gun-control-laws

And before you go "Oh that's just buybacks". The program she is talking about was a mandatory buyback.

[Deamonbane]

The point is conceded :D

Thanks for the sourcing.

[Yvellakitsune]

Might You say that the argument is as laughable as the concept of the US actually banning weapons, or going to war with their citizens over the right to bear arms, as these militias seem to believe will happen?

True. The whole scenario is highly unlikely. 

It is a right.  Doing an amendment like that is nearly impossible with how we have grown.  Even just mandatory background checks are going to be nearly impossible.  A background check means you are asking government permission.  If you have to ask government permission, it’s not a right anymore, it’s a government granted privilege.  That’s why any change will be an uphill legal battle. 

[Deamonbane]

Honestly, it would be a step in the right direction just to have mandatory gun safety and use lessons beforehand, if only to reduce accidental deaths and the like. Something similar to what's required for, say, owning and driving a car? It is a right, anyone above a certain age can take the test and then be allowed to own weapons. More advanced weapons require more advanced tests, like when you want a license for driving a truck or a van, or something like that.

Not sure how drivers' licenses work, but in some countries, licences have expiration dates and you are required to take the test again to have your license reinstated.

Similarly, if you are caught misusing the weapon, you have your license revoked for a certain period of time/ How long depends on the severity of the crime.

I'm not a gun owner, so I ask folks who are gun owners: Does this seem like a reasonable system? Do you feel like it imposes on your rights? Would you, as a gun owner, feel comfortable under a system similar to this?

[Deamonbane]

Double post edit for the above post: Not sure how drivers' licenses work in the US.

[Yvellakitsune]

Again the issue is a right versus a privilege.  Driving is a government granted privilege, not a right.  That is why there is no issue in the USA to change requirements for a driver’s license.  In fact that is why it is a driver’s license, the government gives you a privilege and the license is the proof.  Since the bearing arms is a right, the government’s hands are tied on it.  To change it would require an amendment to the Constitution. 

When the USA’s Constitution was written, the Bill of Rights was a list of limitations the government had, things it could not deny citizens.  That’s why Obama called them “negative rights” and wanted positive rights such as healthcare as an example, something the government provides.  The term for it would actually be entitlement. 

That’s the legal issue with the driver’s license concept.   

[Tilt]

Clinton has applauded gun confiscation regiments in Australia and the UK before, and said that the Supreme Court was wrong in the 'DC vs Heller' case that officially established that the Second Amendment protects the right to individuals possessing firearms.

Is it fearmongering when those fears are reasonably founded? Am I fearmongering when I say 'Hey, don't stick your hand in a hornets nest because you are gunna get hurt"?

I've yet to meet anyone on the "far-left" who sincerely believes in banning all forms of fire arms in the United States. I myself do applaud both Australia and Great Britain for implementing gun control laws which have helped to save countless lives. I also oppose that ruling, because I feel like it was politically fueled and helped to contribute to a toxic gun culture. However, I personally don't advocate for a complete ban on firearms. America is just too different from Great Britain and Australia.

So it is fully possible to applaud Australia and hate DC vs Heller, and still not want to burn all guns. And when you look at Clinton's actual proposals, none of them state she wants to ban guns altogether. Her actual proposals tend to be that she wants to prevent gun lobbyists from influencing policy, get military-grade weaponry off the streets, and expand background checks so known abusers and people with serious mental health conditions can't own guns. None of which are extreme positions.

And look, it's a fact that America has to face sooner or later, our gun culture is out of control. We are valuing the right to own deadly machines with literally no other purpose than to kill, above the lives of people who are killed by these weapons. There is literally no reason why anyone needs to own a semi-automatic rifle. But despite the fact that semi-automatic rifles tend to be used heavily in mass shootings, any time anyone talks about even keeping these weapons away from people we know are dangerous, the far right throws a collective tantrum.

Just last year, one man killed almost 50 people and injured 851 more - 422 by gunfire. That's about 1,000 victims, total. He did so a thousand feet from his target, locked in a room, and it took him about ten minutes. Had he had tracer rounds, which he could have gotten easily and legally, far more people could have died. There was literally nothing anyone could have done to stop him from the moment he opened fire. Not the police, not security, not a good guy with a gun. He legally owned weapons that made it possible to target people so far away he couldn't even see them and all they could do was run. As of right now, there are some people who won't even support banning bumpstocks.

We have to do something about these shootings, because thoughts and prayers aren't working. Blaming Clinton for appreciating that other countries have actually passed laws isn't working, either.

[Tolvo]

The irony is currently not lost on me that while posting this there is reportedly an active shooter within an hour of me and I'm messaging people I know there to check if they're alive. Just thought, for some perspective ya know. It's actually hard to have a debate about guns in the USA without an actual mass shooting happening during it.

[Icelandic]

Oooooh I like this one. There is a lot to unpack here. I'm probably not gunna quote point by point though because I'll be spending far too much time doing that.


If you know Hilary Clinton. You already know someone who supports the idea of a total firearm ban. DC vs Heller established that the second amendment means the right for individuals to own firearms. Disagreeing with that necessarily means you disagree with the right to own firearms. believing in the right to possess firearms and that the supreme court was mistaken in DC vs Heller is to believe in two mutually contradictory beliefs.

Also, the gun grabs in Australia and the UK did absolutely nothing to curb homicide rates, which has risen and fallen as if it completely ignored the gun bans. Homicide by firearms went down, sure. But other means filled that void instantly. So unless you think that someone who died by gunshot is somehow more dead then someone who died by a knife wound, then the gun bans indeed did nothing.

Beyond that, do you know how rare mass shootings are? Especially compared to gun violence not involving semi-automatic rifles? You have roughly the same chance of dying from a lightning strike as dying from a mass shooting. And as far as non-mass shooting firearms deaths go, firearm homicides have decreased in the US by 50% since 1993. The decrease in firearm homicides has been attributed to better policing, a better economy and environmental factors such as the removal of lead from gasoline. Not tighter gun laws.

Look. I do know that mass shootings are horrific, especially when the media actively promotes them. But like any other complex and nuanced issue, it's not smart to instantly react to it out fear every time something bad happens. That's not how good policy is made.

[Icelandic]

The irony is currently not lost on me that while posting this there is reportedly an active shooter within an hour of me and I'm messaging people I know there to check if they're alive. Just thought, for some perspective ya know. It's actually hard to have a debate about guns in the USA without an actual mass shooting happening during it.

It does fucking suck. Believe me I don't like how it is either. I just disagree with many here about how to solve that issue.

[Deamonbane]

Again the issue is a right versus a privilege.  Driving is a government granted privilege, not a right.  That is why there is no issue in the USA to change requirements for a driver’s license.  In fact that is why it is a driver’s license, the government gives you a privilege and the license is the proof.  Since the bearing arms is a right, the government’s hands are tied on it.  To change it would require an amendment to the Constitution. 

When the USA’s Constitution was written, the Bill of Rights was a list of limitations the government had, things it could not deny citizens.  That’s why Obama called them “negative rights” and wanted positive rights such as healthcare as an example, something the government provides.  The term for it would actually be entitlement. 

That’s the legal issue with the driver’s license concept.

It seems more like a right that you have to show yourself responsible enough to earn rather than a priviledge, but I understand the legal problem with it. Anyways, I digress.

Again, I'm not sure how the license thing works in the states, so this is based on my knowledge of the process in the countries in which I have lived.

The laws as I've seen them are that you are allowed to own a car and drive it on your own private property or on locations in which it is allowed (autodromes, and the like) without a license, hence there are professional drivers that are underage. Examples include the likes of Max Verstappen, who drove a F1 car at 17 years of age. There are special licenses for that too, but the point stands that you don't need a government-issued license for it.

So perhaps the license law could apply to the likes of open and concealed carry, since carrying you are carrying a firearm somewhere where improper use or care could result in injury to the public.

In short, you can own a weapon and use it on your property or in a location where the open use of it is permitted like a shooting range (though those locations have the right to ask for you to be certified first), but to be able to carry a firearm in public requires safety certifications of both the weapon and the owner.

Would that be acceptable? I'm not being intentionally thick, or sarcastic. It's something that I've been thinking about some and would like to know if my thoughts are feasible or not.