Free GunsFollow

Having the negative outcome publicly blamed on the group and the group responsible actually taking responsibility for the negative outcome are two different things.

Correct. But in this case, it's the former rather than the latter which actually matters. Joph set a standard "will they admit they were wrong?", when what really matters is "will they be blamed if violence/crime goes up"?

It's an unfair standard because there's no one on the other side to admit they were wrong if it turns out violence/crime stays the same or goes down. Hence, why I went with the blame/credit angle.

It's not about percentage Smash. It's about who and how they obtain guns. You set this ridiculous standard of having boxes of guns sitting there untended on every street corner and available for any random person to just pick up and use as needed/wanted. I have never argued against reasonable regulation on gun ownership.

Please articulate clearly what the limits on gun ownership would be. Thanks in advance.

Given that I already answered that question (in advance even!), perhaps you should read that first?

You didn't, but I wasn't as clear as I should have been. Please articulate what the the limits on gun ownership should be and how they are a constitutionally viable and why limits beyond them are not. Thanks.

Um... That was the question you asked initially, and the question I answered very clearly right here:







That's a new question and frankly outside the scope of your "You don't want any limits on any firearms" strawman. Can we accept that your claim is false now? I do accept that there must be limits on weapons available to the general public. My issue is with people who seem to think (or at least base their arguments on the assumption) that there's no range of limits we can apply so we must either argue for no restrictions at all, or complete restrictions.

As to constitutionality? That's not really a problem. The constitutional limits on government intrusion are by nature a matter of degrees. All rights may be infringed to some degree in order to protect other rights. The question always comes about in terms of where those lines should be. I guess my issue is that I disagree with your premise that one degree of restriction is an infringement of the 2nd amendment, while another is not. I suppose this is a typical liberal way of looking at things (that something either violates a right and is thus not allowed, or does not and thus is), but as a conservative I see all restrictions as infringement of the 2nd amendment right to keep and bear arms, but that some level of infringement is necessary and/or acceptable to allow for a civil society to work.

So it's not about some limits being "constitutionally viable", while limits beyond them are not. It's that infringement of rights become necessary when balanced against other rights. So my right to control my body is limited by someone else's right to life if I decide to pick up a hammer and hit them over the head with it. It's wrong to argue that laws against assault are not an infringement of our rights. They are. They are necessary infringements of our rights. Once you adjust your perspective on rights to this understanding, a lot of confusion clears up. We should be free to keep and bear any arm that exists *unless* that arm represents such a clear and overwhelming danger to civil society that it must be infringed.

We can make those arguments easily when it comes to things like missiles, rockets, bombs, nuclear weapons, etc. The odds of those weapons being used by an individual to protect his life or property is pretty low compared to the odds that they'll be used to cause massive harm to others (somewhat indiscriminately). Similarly, we have long banned fully automatic weapons for private use because the risk of errant fire from them is great compared to their benefits for protection of the individual and his life/property. Semi automatic weapons should not be restricted because the "one pull, one shot" nature of these weapons makes them less likely to accidentally hit people not intended by the shooter. The arguments against them are less about the nature of the weapons themselves, than how the user may choose to use them. But that's a separate issue. It's already illegal to kill someone unjustly, right? So if I point a firearm at someone and intentionally kill them, those laws come into effect whether that firearm is a single shot flintlock, or a modern rifle with a 30 round magazine.


That's really how I approach these limits. It's not about whether one is more constitutional than another, but a matter of practical use of the weapons themselves. More to the point, we should not base our restrictions on whether a weapon could be misused to commit a crime (because otherwise we'd have to ban all weapons), or even whether a weapon more easily allows someone to commit many crimes (because that's already illegal). We should base our restrictions on whether a weapon can be limited to only that deliberate and accurate defense of one's own life and property (or community/family/etc) as required by the 2nd amendment itself. Large scale explosives are poor for that task. Sure, they're useful when defending one's country on the battlefield, but don't really serve the dual use purpose of home defense well at all (too indiscriminate). Small arms work well in that role, and are analogous to the kinds of weapons a citizen might have been expected to maintain when the amendment was written. Fully automatic weapons are banned because of the fall into the range of indiscriminate harm. Semi automatic weapons, no matter how many rounds they can fire without reloading, are still discriminate weapons. You are no more likely to accidentally shoot someone you don't intend to with a 30 round AR-15, than with a 5 round Winchester.

So the question I'd ask you in return: Why is there necessity to infringe the 2nd amendment with regard to one, but not with regard to the other?

Edited, Oct 2nd 2013 4:06pm by gbaji

No they're not. They were banned (heavily restricted, really) in 1934 because the government was tired of fighting gangsters with Tommy guns. Not because you might accidentally hit a bystander while defending your home but because the police didn't want to get shot at with machine guns. Nothing to it more complex than that.

The same law that banned machine guns also outlawed sawed-off shotguns, "roomsweepers" and the like. Again, purely as a means of disarming criminals of their most common weapons and a way of arresting said gangsters when they were found in possession of those weapons.

Edited, Oct 2nd 2013 6:54pm by Jophiel

You are confusing why there was a motivation to ban them and why it is constitutionally acceptable to ban them (or heavily restrict them, whatever). A common mistake, but a mistake nonetheless.



And you're making the same mistake again. Smash specifically asked "why some restrictions, but not others?". The explanations you're using could be used to ban any and all firearms, right? I'm sure that cops don't like being shot at by pistols and regular shotguns either. It was not about disarming criminals of their "most common weapons", but disarming them of weapons that could not be justified as a legitimate and safe tool to use to defend ones life/property.

You're arguing why the police might not want them in the hands of the citizens. But that's not the question we're attempting to answer here. The question is about why it's acceptable to limit one type of weapon, but not another. I've answered that question. Simply responding with an explanation of why we might want to limit a weapon in the first place completely avoids the issue at hand. If the only question to consider was whether a weapon was dangerous (to police or other citizens), we'd conclude that all of them are, so all should be equally limited. But the very question at hand assumes that this isn't the case.

Want to try addressing the actual question? Why limit one type of weapon, but not another? Why are some restrictions ok, but others are not?

Cite what? It's an observation. There is a difference between why we want to do something, and why it's legal for us to do so. Please tell me you understand this? There's nothing to cite. If you can't grasp this, then you can't grasp why we have any limits on government power at all (or rights for that matter).

Why shouldn't the police be able to search your house anytime they want? Why require them to get a warrant? I mean, they want to search your house, right? That should be enough reason for them to do it, right? Oh wait! Because our legal system places restrictions on our actions. We can't do something just because we want to. It has to not violate people's rights (the need to search the house has to outweigh that right really). Guess what? Just because the police would like to ban some firearm isn't justification by itself for banning it. We have to look at the rights issue involved. So saying "they banned those weapons because the police didn't like getting shot at by them" isn't a sufficient explanation. It explains why the police might want those weapons banned. But it does not address the key issue at hand, which is why was it acceptable with regard to the 2nd amendment to do so.


I'm addressing that question. I'm not sure what the hell you're talking about (or why you think it's relevant). If it was just about what guns the cops don't want criminals to have, we'd ban all guns. But that's not the only thing to consider. Not unless you're just dismissing the 2nd amendment entirely, that is.

As to constitutionality? That's not really a problem. The constitutional limits on government intrusion are by nature a matter of degrees. All rights may be infringed to some degree in order to protect other rights. The question always comes about in terms of where those lines should be. I guess my issue is that I disagree with your premise that one degree of restriction is an infringement of the 2nd amendment, while another is not. I suppose this is a typical liberal way of looking at things (that something either violates a right and is thus not allowed, or does not and thus is), but as a conservative I see all restrictions as infringement of the 2nd amendment right to keep and bear arms

What do you take "well regulated" in the text to mean, then? I mean, no darkies, obviously, but beyond that?