NRA sues Florida for passing gun legislation in wake of shooting

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 NEXT
 

Catnip1024:

erttheking:
How is this discrimination? You can complain that you're being discriminated when there's a restriction that's being applied universally and fairly. This isn't discrimination in the slightest. Discrimination would be the new age restriction applying to one gender and not the other. This is literally the opposite of discrimination.

Well, like people have been saying, if there is a constitutional right which has generally been interpreted to allow people to possess weaponry, and you choose to attempt to override that, you need a pretty solid reason to. "Group X is statistically significantly more likely to commit a shooting" would be a good one. 18-21 year old women are not, though, which makes the restriction a little bizarre, and infringes on their constitutional rights for no real gain in statistical safety.

Setting aside the fact that any age-based restriction is by definition age discrimination.

None of what you said has anything to do with how discrimination laws works in the US. If anything, it sounds like you're advocating for discriminating against men. Also your arguments ya e two major flaws. "Group x is more likely to commit a shooting" is not an argument being used. Which is good, because THAT would be discrimination. Funny. For your problems with discrimination you actually advocate it a lot. And, as has been said "generally interpreted to mean" means Jack shit.

Oh, so not letting kids buy porn, cigarettes and booze is discrimination?

erttheking:
Oh, so not letting kids buy porn, cigarettes and booze is discrimination?

my 13 year old cousin was age discriminated against when he couldn't buy booze last week

undeadsuitor:

erttheking:
Oh, so not letting kids buy porn, cigarettes and booze is discrimination?

my 13 year old cousin was age discriminated against when he couldn't buy booze last week

Nah, it's cool, brah. We just need training areas for the kids to know how to handle their booze. I been saying this all the time. What could go wrong? it's only American. They must learn the American way, to be a true hero like all those beautiful films and actors once taught us. Nah, fuck it...might as well put them straight into military training instead, that'll condition some discipline into them while taking all the pressure off of that pesky parenting business

Xsjadoblayde:

undeadsuitor:

erttheking:
Oh, so not letting kids buy porn, cigarettes and booze is discrimination?

my 13 year old cousin was age discriminated against when he couldn't buy booze last week

Nah, it's cool, brah. We just need training areas for the kids to know how to handle their booze. I been saying this all the time. What could go wrong? it's only American. They must learn the American way, to be a true hero like all those beautiful films and actors once taught us. Nah, fuck it...might as well put them straight into military training instead, that'll condition some discipline into them while taking all the pressure off of that pesky parenting business

the second amendment says a well regulated militia. A militia is useless without training so I think everyone applying for a gun permit must pass military boot camp training

we gotta train up this militia man. Florida Man huffin bath salts with an uzi aint doin shit.

Geez, if the Constitution protected rape, would you guys defend it?

Ya know the US exists cause colonial Americans realized that the British government was not suited for the 'modern times' and new situtations that colonial America presented. The founding fathers were tired of the old, out-dated, and unfair laws they were put under.

So they said 'fuck that' illegally rebelled against their government, and made a new one, hoping to make one that could adapt to the times. For awhile they did, but I guess by 2017, thats no longer the case.

If you think kids having murder weapons is ok, then atleast use a better argument than the words of a bunch of slave-owning white men from over 200 years ago who had muskets and thought that 7 people killing 5 was a 'massacre'.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boston_Massacre

Catnip1024:

erttheking:
How is this discrimination? You can complain that you're being discriminated when there's a restriction that's being applied universally and fairly. This isn't discrimination in the slightest. Discrimination would be the new age restriction applying to one gender and not the other. This is literally the opposite of discrimination.

Well, like people have been saying, if there is a constitutional right which has generally been interpreted to allow people to possess weaponry, and you choose to attempt to override that, you need a pretty solid reason to. "Group X is statistically significantly more likely to commit a shooting" would be a good one. 18-21 year old women are not, though, which makes the restriction a little bizarre, and infringes on their constitutional rights for no real gain in statistical safety.

Setting aside the fact that any age-based restriction is by definition age discrimination.

This back-and-forth is missing the point. Discrimination, by itself, is not illegal, nor is it prohibited by anti-discrimination law. Discrimination just refers to the process of separating a thing into two separate things and then treating those things differently. Laws discriminate all the time; a law that stops people from driving on the sidewalk is discriminating between people who are driving cars and people who are walking. A law that says only doctors are allowed to practice medicine is discriminating between people with medical degrees and people without them. Discrimination is a fundamental part of basically every law ever passed.

Unlawful discrimination is discrimination against a protected category of persons that is undertaken without merit. When the manager of a supermarket doesn't give a man a job because he's black, that's unlawful discrimination; the employee's blackness is irrelevant to his ability to man a cash register or whatever. When the same guy doesn't hire someone because they have a criminal record, that's not considered unlawful discrimination because someone's criminal record is directly relevant to whether or not they can be trusted to handle money at a cash register, and ex-convicts are not a protected category under anti-discrimination legislation.

This law does not violate anti-discrimination law because the discrimination in this case is not without merit, and the category being discriminated against (people between the age of 18 and 21) isn't a listed protected category.. The law doesn't prohibit only black people between the age of 18 and 21 from buying a gun. It doesn't prohibit only women from buying a gun. It doesn't prohibit only people who are right-handed from buying a gun. All it does is raise an existing minimum age requirement from 18 to 21.

The mere fact that an age requirement of any kind existed prior to this law without any controversy implies that the state's actions do not constitute age-based discrimination.

runic knight:
For something that solves nothing and causes more problems, I have to wonder why anyone supports it in the first place, outside of those cowards in politics who have to pretend they are doing something just to appease the mob with any action instead of making a good one.

I honestly don't care what age a person should be allowed to buy a gun. Age isn't the problem. It's the lack of background checks, lack of training, and absence of any licensing structure.

This is essentially just Gov. Scott trying to make it look like he's taking action in response to pressure without making any meaningful changes to the existing system. Which makes the NRA's lawsuit basically an exercise in lawfare rather than a serious legal complaint. They don't give a shit what the law actually does or does not do; they're just opposing it because it's a gun control law and their official position is that absolutely no gun control measures whatsoever should ever be made law.

Speaking of - good Lord, 2012 feels like a long time ago.

Politico c. 2012:
LaPierre's speech Tuesday was his first public appearance since a Dec. 23 appearance on "Meet the Press." His initial response to the Newtown shootings was a widely panned Dec. 21 speech at which he called for armed guards in every school and blamed the media, entertainment industry and mental illness for the nation's mass shootings.

Remember when calling for armed guards in schools was something that would get you "widely panned?"

erttheking:
None of what you said has anything to do with how discrimination laws works in the US. If anything, it sounds like you?re advocating for discriminating against men. Also your arguments ya e two major flaws. ?Group x is more likely to commit a shooting? is not an argument being used. Which is good, because THAT would be discrimination. Funny. For your problems with discrimination you actually advocate it a lot. And, as has been said ?generally interpreted to mean? means Jack shit.

Oh, so not letting kids buy porn, cigarettes and booze is discrimination?

Any restriction that isn't a blanket restriction is discrimination of some kind. The question is, whether it is fair or unfair discrimination.

And, as has been said "generally interpreted to mean" refers to a vast body of legal precedence, rather than what any numpty on the street thinks. You can disregard it if you want. The courts tend not to.

bastardofmelbourne:

Catnip1024:

erttheking:
How is this discrimination? You can complain that you're being discriminated when there's a restriction that's being applied universally and fairly. This isn't discrimination in the slightest. Discrimination would be the new age restriction applying to one gender and not the other. This is literally the opposite of discrimination.

Well, like people have been saying, if there is a constitutional right which has generally been interpreted to allow people to possess weaponry, and you choose to attempt to override that, you need a pretty solid reason to. "Group X is statistically significantly more likely to commit a shooting" would be a good one. 18-21 year old women are not, though, which makes the restriction a little bizarre, and infringes on their constitutional rights for no real gain in statistical safety.

Setting aside the fact that any age-based restriction is by definition age discrimination.

This back-and-forth is missing the point. Discrimination, by itself, is not illegal, nor is it prohibited by anti-discrimination law. Discrimination just refers to the process of separating a thing into two separate things and then treating those things differently. Laws discriminate all the time; a law that stops people from driving on the sidewalk is discriminating between people who are driving cars and people who are walking. A law that says only doctors are allowed to practice medicine is discriminating between people with medical degrees and people without them. Discrimination is a fundamental part of basically every law ever passed.

Unlawful discrimination is discrimination against a protected category of persons that is undertaken without merit. When the manager of a supermarket doesn't give a man a job because he's black, that's unlawful discrimination; the employee's blackness is irrelevant to his ability to man a cash register or whatever. When the same guy doesn't hire someone because they have a criminal record, that's not considered unlawful discrimination because someone's criminal record is directly relevant to whether or not they can be trusted to handle money at a cash register, and ex-convicts are not a protected category under anti-discrimination legislation.

This law does not violate anti-discrimination law because the discrimination in this case is not without merit, and the category being discriminated against (people between the age of 18 and 21) isn't a listed protected category.. The law doesn't prohibit only black people between the age of 18 and 21 from buying a gun. It doesn't prohibit only women from buying a gun. It doesn't prohibit only people who are right-handed from buying a gun. All it does is raise an existing minimum age requirement from 18 to 21.

The mere fact that an age requirement of any kind existed prior to this law without any controversy implies that the state's actions do not constitute age-based discrimination.

runic knight:
For something that solves nothing and causes more problems, I have to wonder why anyone supports it in the first place, outside of those cowards in politics who have to pretend they are doing something just to appease the mob with any action instead of making a good one.

I honestly don't care what age a person should be allowed to buy a gun. Age isn't the problem. It's the lack of background checks, lack of training, and absence of any licensing structure.

This is essentially just Gov. Scott trying to make it look like he's taking action in response to pressure without making any meaningful changes to the existing system. Which makes the NRA's lawsuit basically an exercise in lawfare rather than a serious legal complaint. They don't give a shit what the law actually does or does not do; they're just opposing it because it's a gun control law and their official position is that absolutely no gun control measures whatsoever should ever be made law.

Speaking of - good Lord, 2012 feels like a long time ago.

Politico c. 2012:
LaPierre's speech Tuesday was his first public appearance since a Dec. 23 appearance on "Meet the Press." His initial response to the Newtown shootings was a widely panned Dec. 21 speech at which he called for armed guards in every school and blamed the media, entertainment industry and mental illness for the nation?s mass shootings.

Remember when calling for armed guards in schools was something that would get you "widely panned?"

Should probably replace 'unlawful' with 'unfair' or 'unjust'. Cause laws can and too often are bigoted.

I mean, thats really the crux of this topic's arguments, cause some people are criticizing gun control for its legal aspect, while people like ert and I are going on about how kids with guns is bad, regardless if it is 'legal'.

Catnip1024:

erttheking:
None of what you said has anything to do with how discrimination laws works in the US. If anything, it sounds like you?re advocating for discriminating against men. Also your arguments ya e two major flaws. ?Group x is more likely to commit a shooting? is not an argument being used. Which is good, because THAT would be discrimination. Funny. For your problems with discrimination you actually advocate it a lot. And, as has been said ?generally interpreted to mean? means Jack shit.

Oh, so not letting kids buy porn, cigarettes and booze is discrimination?

Any restriction that isn't a blanket restriction is discrimination of some kind. The question is, whether it is fair or unfair discrimination.

And, as has been said "generally interpreted to mean" refers to a vast body of legal precedence, rather than what any numpty on the street thinks. You can disregard it if you want. The courts tend not to.

No. Discrimination, by its very nature, is unjust. If it isn't unfair, by definition it isn't discrimination.

https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/discriminatory

If we?re gonna be bringing up legal precedents, I?m going to need to ask for an example of a law like this being declared unconstitutional.

Saelune:

Ya know the US exists cause colonial Americans realized that the British government was not suited for the 'modern times' and new situtations that colonial America presented.

Yeah, the British government was impeding their ability to dispossess and drive out the native Americans sitting on all that potentially lucrative territory.

erttheking:
No. Discrimination, by its very nature, is unjust. If it isn?t unfair, by definition it isn?t discrimination.

Semantic arguments, ahoy...

The two of you are mostly talking about the difference between "discrimination" in a legal sense, and in a vernacular sense. However, what is legal discrimination is basically self-referential. Bridging the gap I suppose there's a sort of philosophical sense, about what is ethically disciminatory, where we're arguing about degrees of justification and "fairness". But...

...it is clearly valid to ask why an 18-year-old should be able to vote and join the army, but not buy a gun. On the other hand, following that through, we also need to seriously ask a lot of other questions, like why US 18-year-olds aren't allowed to buy alcohol. In the end, it's usually a metric shit-ton of fudging: cobbling practality, inconsistency, arbitrariness and ideology together to something that's at least defensible enough not to look like an idiot.

Agema:

...it is clearly valid to ask why an 18-year-old should be able to vote and join the army, but not buy a gun.

Because when an 18 year old joins the army, they aren't instantly given a rifle. They go through boot camp and rigorous training to use it, and only in specific situations.

I can't say the exact logistics of getting a gun license and buying a gun in Florida, but I'm betting it's not that rigorous.

Don't conflate something as innocuous as voting to owning a weapon

undeadsuitor:

Agema:

...it is clearly valid to ask why an 18-year-old should be able to vote and join the army, but not buy a gun.

Because when an 18 year old joins the army, they aren't instantly given a rifle. They go through boot camp and rigorous training to use it, and only in specific situations.

I can't say the exact logistics of getting a gun license and buying a gun in Florida, but I'm betting it's not that rigorous.

Don't conflate something as innocuous as voting to owning a weapon

Just for the sake of accuracy, Army recruits do get a rifle as soon as they get to basic training. They just don't get any ammo until and unless they are on a shooting range. And they search every recruit's pockets on the way out of the shooting range so they don't try to sneak some ammo out.

erttheking:
snip

Well, according the Cambridge dictionary: "treating a person or particular group of people differently, especially in a worse way from the way in which you treat other people, because of their skin colour, sex, sexuality, etc." Note that it is not necessarily worse. Same way that segregation would have been discrimination even if it had actually been "separate but equal".

Back to the subject, not all discrimination is an unjust thing. To sue against a decision / a law, you would have to prove that it is unjust, or that it breaches existing equality laws, and preferably that it infringes on some existing right. Like the right to bear arms.

As for the legal precedence, it supports the right to own a gun by and large - which is what I was referring to when I first raised the subject. I'm not talking about this specific law.

Agema:
...it is clearly valid to ask why an 18-year-old should be able to vote and join the army, but not buy a gun. On the other hand, following that through, we also need to seriously ask a lot of other questions, like why US 18-year-olds aren't allowed to buy alcohol. In the end, it's usually a metric shit-ton of fudging: cobbling practality, inconsistency, arbitrariness and ideology together to something that's at least defensible enough not to look like an idiot.

Yup. The age restrictions are a little farcical.

That said, beer isn't a constitutional right, whereas firearms are. Shows how wrong the priorities of the Founding Fathers were.

Agema:

...it is clearly valid to ask why an 18-year-old should be able to vote and join the army, but not buy a gun. On the other hand, following that through, we also need to seriously ask a lot of other questions, like why US 18-year-olds aren't allowed to buy alcohol. In the end, it's usually a metric shit-ton of fudging: cobbling practality, inconsistency, arbitrariness and ideology together to something that's at least defensible enough not to look like an idiot.

That is a fair question, albeit it's hardly the one that cat was asking before now. To be frank, I think more effective background checks are needed more than a higher age limit, I just found the idea of a higher age to be discriminatory to be a little bit of an overreaction. Frankly if you ask me, I'd be ok with a drinking age of 18 and an enlistment age of 18, but I'm leaning towards 21 as an age in order to privately own a gun. Like undeadsuitor said, joining the army is a lot more strict and regimented when it comes to guns.

Catnip1024:

erttheking:
snip

Well, according the Cambridge dictionary: "treating a person or particular group of people differently, especially in a worse way from the way in which you treat other people, because of their skin colour, sex, sexuality, etc." Note that it is not necessarily worse. Same way that segregation would have been discrimination even if it had actually been "separate but equal".

Back to the subject, not all discrimination is an unjust thing. To sue against a decision / a law, you would have to prove that it is unjust, or that it breaches existing equality laws, and preferably that it infringes on some existing right. Like the right to bear arms.

As for the legal precedence, it supports the right to own a gun by and large - which is what I was referring to when I first raised the subject. I'm not talking about this specific law.

Considering that the Oxford English dictionary is considered an authority on the English language, you'll forgive me if I defer to it.

That depends on the definition to apply to discrimination.

You brought up legal precedent and the courts in terms of this being discrimination. No one is talking about people not being allowed to own a gun ever.

undeadsuitor:
Don't conflate something as innocuous as voting to owning a weapon

No-one who has lived through Donald Trump being elected can think of voting as innocuous.

Because when an 18 year old joins the army, they aren't instantly given a rifle. They go through boot camp and rigorous training to use it, and only in specific situations.

Does it take them three years to the age of 21 to learn how to use one?

I have no objection making prospective gun owners undergo rigorous training before they're allowed one, mind. In a way, I think it's more sensible and less complicated than an arbitrary age restriction.

Catnip1024:
That said, beer isn't a constitutional right, whereas firearms are. Shows how wrong the priorities of the Founding Fathers were.

Oh, I don't know. Alcohol - directly or indirectly - kills a lot more people in the USA than guns do. Perhaps they were wiser than you think ;)

erttheking:
Considering that the Oxford English dictionary is considered an authority on the English language, you'll forgive me if I defer to it.

They are pretty much equivalent, and the preferred one tends to vary on what field you are in. Much the way that referencing systems and the like vary.

But feel free to use whatever dictionary you choose to continue being petty about semantics.

Catnip1024:

That said, beer isn't a constitutional right, whereas firearms are. Shows how wrong the priorities of the Founding Fathers were.

If I can recall, the second amendment was born out of paranoia and compromise between the factions in the government at the time. There was this heavy paranoia about having an official military after the Revolutionary war. Hell, the Continental Army was disbanded after they won. There were people in the government heavily pushing against the idea of forming a permanent standing army, with the idea that militias could do everything. A standing army was eventually formed though, because it turns out militias are rather shit at being organized and fighting effectively.

If you look back at that time, the factions were clashing into each other just as they always have and still do. One side basically wanted there to be little to no federal power at all, while the other side argued about how damn unrealistic that was. The Bill of Rights itself was born out of compromise between the two, and now here we are. We also now live in a time where that damn document is viewed as holy scripture that can never be amended or replaced and it's interpreted quite interestingly, so the odds of things ever changing are...well...slim.

I'd love to see a candidate run on making beer a constitutional right though. I had a good chuckle thinking about it getting passed and then sometime in the future there basically being a crazed, NRA equivalent for beer. We live in wild times.

Agema:

undeadsuitor:
Don't conflate something as innocuous as voting to owning a weapon

No-one who has lived through Donald Trump being elected can think of voting as innocuous.

And yet 18 year olds weren't the ones voting for him.

Maybe we should be talking about making a maximum age on these things instead.

Catnip1024:

erttheking:
Considering that the Oxford English dictionary is considered an authority on the English language, you'll forgive me if I defer to it.

They are pretty much equivalent, and the preferred one tends to vary on what field you are in. Much the way that referencing systems and the like vary.

But feel free to use whatever dictionary you choose to continue being petty about semantics.

So you just gonna not reply to anything else that said?

Just one note, Dictionaries are NOT good authorities on language. Dictionaries at best are observers of language, and thus attempt to describe it, not prescribe it (hence why we have so many different ones). We are often taught in school to consult the dictionary, but this is just to give some basic consistency. The real world's usage of terms unfortunately does not correspond well with what Dictionaries often say. Even worse, dictionary makers do not put in anywhere near the effort necessary to provide a good basis to say they are accurate observers, mostly because it would be near impossible to do given the size of the English language makes it utterly impractical to keep up. Instead they use far less work intensive, and thus heavily flawed, methods for keeping their listings up to date. And finally we also know from some recent BS that dictionary makers are often influenced by political matters which tosses what little credibility they do have up to question.

It is actually a known logical fallacy, appeal to definition.

Nedoras:

I'd love to see a candidate run on making beer a constitutional right though. I had a good chuckle thinking about it getting passed and then sometime in the future there basically being a crazed, NRA equivalent for beer. We live in wild times.

You are late to the party. There TWO amendments dealing with beer. The 18th made it illegal to have any type of alcohol at all. The 21st null and voided the 18th. It wasn't till the National Minimum Drinking Age Act of 1984 that mandated the 21 drinking age or states lost some highway funding. Before had it was up to the states to determine the drinking age.

To be more on topic I wonder how this will play out with the Militia Act of 1903 that states that one type of militia is any man that is between 17 and 45 and is not enlisted with the National Guard or Naval Militia. This law would be messing with the current legal definition of militias.

undeadsuitor:

To be more on topic I wonder how this will play out with the Militia Act of 1903 that states that one type of militia is any man that is between 17 and 45 and is not enlisted with the National Guard or Naval Militia. This law would be messing with the current legal definition of militias.

With that in mind, would it be too much to ask that if we're going to define everyone as part of the militia and can thus get a gun, that we require said members to fulfill certain requirements and responsibilities?

Such as....Being accountable for your weapon, proving you are trained with your weapon to use it correctly, being of sound mind to have a weapon, being available to be called up for service in time of general emergency, etc. You know, with actual legal definitions and requirements instead of the current "I'm in the militia, I get to have any and all guns I want because".

Because there seriously seems to be this sense of entitlement of "I want all this freedom but not to be responsible at all for any of it" among some members of the gun community.

Your weapon is lost, stolen, etc? You're responsible as a member of the militia. You want to sell your weapon? Fine, have a transfer record filed so it's accounted for. You know, like actual people in the military have to deal with for their weapons, where there are actual consequences for being a fuck up with it or allowing someone else to use your weapon to shoot up a school or something.

I'm kinda surprised there isn't more support for this, considering most of the "2nd Amendment folks" and conservatives in general seem to have a serious hard on for the military.

See, the "well regulated" part of the amendment is bracketed off by commas, therefore it doesn't count.

Or at least, that's what the Supreme Court said in '08.

Nedoras:
If I can recall, the second amendment was born out of paranoia and compromise between the factions in the government at the time. There was this heavy paranoia about having an official military after the Revolutionary war. Hell, the Continental Army was disbanded after they won. There were people in the government heavily pushing against the idea of forming a permanent standing army, with the idea that militias could do everything. A standing army was eventually formed though, because it turns out militias are rather shit at being organized and fighting effectively.

If you look back at that time, the factions were clashing into each other just as they always have and still do. One side basically wanted there to be little to no federal power at all, while the other side argued about how damn unrealistic that was. The Bill of Rights itself was born out of compromise between the two, and now here we are. We also now live in a time where that damn document is viewed as holy scripture that can never be amended or replaced and it's interpreted quite interestingly, so the odds of things ever changing are...well...slim.

I do agree that the Bill of Rights is rather over-respected, but while it is in place, and while the case law remains, you're going to struggle against it.

I mean, in an ideal world you'd have a 21st century update to it, but an ideal world wouldn't have politics so heavily influenced by lobbying, absurdly bipolar politics or Donald Trump.

erttheking:
So you just gonna not reply to anything else that said?

Nope. Because I'd just be repeating points at this point. Have a nice day.

Catnip1024:
I do agree that the Bill of Rights is rather over-respected, but while it is in place, and while the case law remains, you're going to struggle against it.

Yes and no.

In reality, the supreme court of the USA has considerable latitude to decide for themselves what they feel like accepting, particularly over something as vague as the second amendment. It would generally be considered polite and normal practice to take into consideration prior rulings, but the court is certainly not above overturning prior rulings when it suits. Thus theoretically, the USA could permit gun ownership anywhere from very stringent conditions or barely any at all, even despite the Constitution.

I would suggest that if public and political turned heavily against gun ownership, the supreme court might be quite pliable with regards to gun control.

Catnip1024:

Nedoras:
If I can recall, the second amendment was born out of paranoia and compromise between the factions in the government at the time. There was this heavy paranoia about having an official military after the Revolutionary war. Hell, the Continental Army was disbanded after they won. There were people in the government heavily pushing against the idea of forming a permanent standing army, with the idea that militias could do everything. A standing army was eventually formed though, because it turns out militias are rather shit at being organized and fighting effectively.

If you look back at that time, the factions were clashing into each other just as they always have and still do. One side basically wanted there to be little to no federal power at all, while the other side argued about how damn unrealistic that was. The Bill of Rights itself was born out of compromise between the two, and now here we are. We also now live in a time where that damn document is viewed as holy scripture that can never be amended or replaced and it's interpreted quite interestingly, so the odds of things ever changing are...well...slim.

I do agree that the Bill of Rights is rather over-respected, but while it is in place, and while the case law remains, you're going to struggle against it.

As Agema said right above me, yes and no. The current interpretation of the 2nd amendment is only ~10-30 years old (depending on which case you want to use as the start) and brought into being by one of the most conservative and more than happy to overturn major precedent by a 5-4 vote courts that has been in place in the history of the US.

Dalisclock:

undeadsuitor:

To be more on topic I wonder how this will play out with the Militia Act of 1903 that states that one type of militia is any man that is between 17 and 45 and is not enlisted with the National Guard or Naval Militia. This law would be messing with the current legal definition of militias.

With that in mind, would it be too much to ask that if we're going to define everyone as part of the militia and can thus get a gun, that we require said members to fulfill certain requirements and responsibilities?

Such as....Being accountable for your weapon, proving you are trained with your weapon to use it correctly, being of sound mind to have a weapon, being available to be called up for service in time of general emergency, etc. You know, with actual legal definitions and requirements instead of the current "I'm in the militia, I get to have any and all guns I want because".

Because there seriously seems to be this sense of entitlement of "I want all this freedom but not to be responsible at all for any of it" among some members of the gun community.

Your weapon is lost, stolen, etc? You're responsible as a member of the militia. You want to sell your weapon? Fine, have a transfer record filed so it's accounted for. You know, like actual people in the military have to deal with for their weapons, where there are actual consequences for being a fuck up with it or allowing someone else to use your weapon to shoot up a school or something.

I'm kinda surprised there isn't more support for this, considering most of the "2nd Amendment folks" and conservatives in general seem to have a serious hard on for the military.

"All of the freedom and none of the responsibility" sums up the NRA and gun culture pretty well in the end.

I hope the people fervently holding onto the second amendment realize that it's pretty much only protected on capital hill in the interest of keeping profits high for gun manufacturers

Not to call all gun supporters capitalistic stooges who are only pawns to support the NRAs bottom line, but that's preeeeetty much what they are.

undeadsuitor:

Dalisclock:

undeadsuitor:

To be more on topic I wonder how this will play out with the Militia Act of 1903 that states that one type of militia is any man that is between 17 and 45 and is not enlisted with the National Guard or Naval Militia. This law would be messing with the current legal definition of militias.

With that in mind, would it be too much to ask that if we're going to define everyone as part of the militia and can thus get a gun, that we require said members to fulfill certain requirements and responsibilities?

Such as....Being accountable for your weapon, proving you are trained with your weapon to use it correctly, being of sound mind to have a weapon, being available to be called up for service in time of general emergency, etc. You know, with actual legal definitions and requirements instead of the current "I'm in the militia, I get to have any and all guns I want because".

Because there seriously seems to be this sense of entitlement of "I want all this freedom but not to be responsible at all for any of it" among some members of the gun community.

Your weapon is lost, stolen, etc? You're responsible as a member of the militia. You want to sell your weapon? Fine, have a transfer record filed so it's accounted for. You know, like actual people in the military have to deal with for their weapons, where there are actual consequences for being a fuck up with it or allowing someone else to use your weapon to shoot up a school or something.

I'm kinda surprised there isn't more support for this, considering most of the "2nd Amendment folks" and conservatives in general seem to have a serious hard on for the military.

"All of the freedom and none of the responsibility" sums up the NRA and gun culture pretty well in the end.

I hope the people fervently holding onto the second amendment realize that it's pretty much only protected on capital hill in the interest of keeping profits high for gun manufacturers

Not to call all gun supporters capitalistic stooges who are only pawns to support the NRAs bottom line, but that's preeeeetty much what they are.

Along with that, the NRA has a solid lock on one of the two viable parties in the US and since the GOP will always have enough seats to prevent any legislation from moving forward, even if only through the senate filibuster.

Perhaps the only way to break their lock on gun politics would be to make third parties viable, or for people to decide they are sick enough of this shit to stop voting Republican. I've given up on the GOP acting sane in the near future, since they've been on the crazy train for over a decade now and their adoration/enablement of Trump no matter what he says or does is proof of that.

Agema:
Yes and no.

In reality, the supreme court of the USA has considerable latitude to decide for themselves what they feel like accepting, particularly over something as vague as the second amendment. It would generally be considered polite and normal practice to take into consideration prior rulings, but the court is certainly not above overturning prior rulings when it suits. Thus theoretically, the USA could permit gun ownership anywhere from very stringent conditions or barely any at all, even despite the Constitution.

I would suggest that if public and political turned heavily against gun ownership, the supreme court might be quite pliable with regards to gun control.

While I get that it can be overturned by the courts, now seems like a bizarre time to be trying considering the latest appointment to the Supreme Court. Unless there's hope of some sort of anti-Trump effect.

The thing is, I'm not sure what the US public does think about gun control. The media has its slant, the parties have theirs. There is very little that is unbiased at this point.

The NRA, represented, funded, and with the support of millions of Americans, sues government for infringing on civil liberties (again).

Fixed that for you.

Bobular:
The people of Florida will have to be constantly on guard to make sure that the NRA doesn't succeed in this.

I just love this puppet show where the NRA is this big, powerful, political web of mustache-tweaking villains, and people take their places in the audience, booing and hissing at them like they're supposed to.

This is called representation. The government is being challenged because it threw political bones to victims and agitators, and politicians need to navigate an increasingly hostile terrain for leaders who don't blindly support a gun control agenda.

This legislation was a response to cyclical outrage that literally says: do something. It's not serious. It's not fair. It's not sensible. The result is a predictably bad deal for everyone. It's politicians compromising. You wanted "something" done, well you get "something" from government.

I can understand politicians. The real problem is a travesty of citizenry.

Pecola:
The NRA, represented, funded, and with the support of millions of Americans, sues government for infringing on civil liberties (again).

Fixed that for you.

Bobular:
The people of Florida will have to be constantly on guard to make sure that the NRA doesn't succeed in this.

I just love this puppet show where the NRA is this big, powerful, political web of mustache-tweaking villains, and people take their places in the audience, booing and hissing at them like they're supposed to.

This is called representation. The government is being challenged because it threw political bones to victims and agitators, and politicians need to navigate an increasingly hostile terrain for leaders who don't blindly support a gun control agenda.

This legislation was a response to cyclical outrage that literally says: do something. It's not serious. It's not fair. It's not sensible. The result is a predictably bad deal for everyone. It's politicians compromising. You wanted "something" done, well you get "something" from government.

I can understand politicians. The real problem is a travesty of citizenry.

Yes, because there aren't millions who are sick of mass shootings happening over and over again, especially those whose kids and friends got murdered. Because doing nothing but "Thoughts and Prayers" has worked so well each time. Can't do anything about it, might as well do nothing at all. See you next time a school gets shot up in a month or so.

The only reason something hasn't been done yet, not even fixing the background check system after Sandy Hook because the NRA pretty much owns the Republican Party and thus can kill pretty much any bill it doesn't like. And yet, despite that control, the feeling of persecution emanating from them and their supporters is fucking amazing.

Catnip1024:

The thing is, I'm not sure what the US public does think about gun control. The media has its slant, the parties have theirs. There is very little that is unbiased at this point.

http://news.gallup.com/poll/1645/guns.aspx

The US government, although nominally representing the populace, often does not in practice.

Pecola:

I just love this puppet show where the NRA is this big, powerful, political web of mustache-tweaking villains, and people take their places in the audience, booing and hissing at them like they're supposed to.

This is called representation...

Representation of what, though?

It is well known that government is beholden in large part to well-organised and funded special interest groups (& rich individuals & corporations) - largely of course because they fund hugely expensive re-election campaigns, and because they often involve highly politically motivated grassroots supporters over-represented in party memberships and candidate selection.

The NRA, all credit to it, is immensely influential - sufficiently to reliably kill gun control policies in Congress despite various gun control measures being supported by 60-90% of the population.

This legislation was a response to cyclical outrage that literally says: do something. It's not serious. It's not fair. It's not sensible.

And what legislation occurs after a year, or two years, or five years, of sober reflection and evaluation? Er, nothing.

It's a simple cycle, isn't it? Outrage leads to calls for legislation. Legislation opposed as "too soon" or "emotional". Everyone distracted by new issues, legislation buried on the quiet. New outrage leads to calls for legislation... repeat ad infinitum.

Chances are, if they've been lucky, the NRA has even managed to remove the odd gun control law in a cycle.

No wonder some people are confused and frustrated about why nothing is ever done.

Dalisclock:
Yes, because there aren't millions who are sick of mass shootings happening over and over again, especially those whose kids and friends got murdered. Because doing nothing but "Thoughts and Prayers" has worked so well each time. Can't do anything about it, might as well do nothing at all. See you next time a school gets shot up in a month or so.

Advocates of gun control do not own the disgust, frustration, anger, and desire to change things because of mass shootings. Stop acting like you do. Every time this happens, you people take over the debate and say: gun control, with us or against us. You don't allow debate. You don't allow other conversations. I've been told on this forum that the topic of mental health is a distraction tool of the NRA. Everything leads back to the NRA, Republicans, and money, according to you.

Your obsession with bad laws and blind hatred and scapegoating is why nothing gets done. Innocent people, only trying to defend their liberty, have to stop and fight with you. People are entitled to liberty you're trying to trash only because it will make you feel better. That's on you, not them.

The only reason something hasn't been done yet, not even fixing the background check system after Sandy Hook because the NRA pretty much owns the Republican Party and thus can kill pretty much any bill it doesn't like. And yet, despite that control, the feeling of persecution emanating from them and their supporters is fucking amazing.

The Sandy Hook killer went to buy a rifle days before he planned the shooting. He was told he had to wait 14 days for a background check. He didn't want to do that, so he was denied the purchase. His mother had guns. He took them, murdered her in her bed, and then went on a rampage. You don't even know what you're talking about.

Projecting persecution much? People have rights. You're trying to run them over and then complaining that they're in your way and attacking your car. How about you stop driving on the sidewalk to get where you want to go?

Agema:
The NRA, all credit to it, is immensely influential - sufficiently to reliably kill gun control policies in Congress despite various gun control measures being supported by 60-90% of the population.

What part of "millions of people are behind this and support gun rights" doesn't register? Why do people keep talking and insisting that the NRA is some autonomous, elite lobbying group that doesn't represent people? Funny how all the Republican voters, you know, Americans who love and defend their rights, don't fit into any stories of boogeymen and wealthy villains here.

And you're missing how basic liberties work. These are not up for referendum. You can't get a majority together and declare a moral victory. It doesn't matter if 90% of people favor a law if it violates people. It's about the individual. One person can sue a major corporation.

And what legislation occurs after a year, or two years, or five years, of sober reflection and evaluation? Er, nothing.

Er, every time there's a shooting, the same legislation is pushed, regardless of the circumstances. These people who scream "do something" don't even learn about the shooting and try to figure out what happened, why, and how to prevent it. The default action is gun control. Serving the same pile of crap year after year and trying to force it down people's throats is not working. Why does nothing happen? Well it starts with people who keep trying to shove crap down people's throats. Maybe they can stop doing that and acting like the other people are the problem.

Pecola:

Dalisclock:
Yes, because there aren't millions who are sick of mass shootings happening over and over again, especially those whose kids and friends got murdered. Because doing nothing but "Thoughts and Prayers" has worked so well each time. Can't do anything about it, might as well do nothing at all. See you next time a school gets shot up in a month or so.

Advocates of gun control do not own the disgust, frustration, anger, and desire to change things because of mass shootings. Stop acting like you do. Every time this happens, you people take over the debate and say: gun control, with us or against us. You don't allow debate. You don't allow other conversations. I've been told on this forum that the topic of mental health is a distraction tool of the NRA. Everything leads back to the NRA, Republicans, and money, according to you.

That's fair enough. I agree that there should be a conversation between both sides. For that reason, I'll ask you a simple question: What do you think should be done to prevent more school shootings like this that doesn't involve limiting who can get their hands on a gun?

Your obsession with bad laws and blind hatred and scapegoating is why nothing gets done. Innocent people, only trying to defend their liberty, have to stop and fight with you. People are entitled to liberty you're trying to trash only because it will make you feel better. That's on you, not them.

What was that you said about "projecting persecution"? I can only speak for myself, but I am not trying to take away guns from everybody who happens to own them, or has proven themselves responsible with firearms.

The Sandy Hook killer went to buy a rifle days before he planned the shooting. He was told he had to wait 14 days for a background check. He didn't want to do that, so he was denied the purchase. His mother had guns. He took them, murdered her in her bed, and then went on a rampage. You don't even know what you're talking about.

Projecting persecution much? People have rights. You're trying to run them over and then complaining that they're in your way and attacking your car. How about you stop driving on the sidewalk to get where you want to go?

First off, I do give you credit for pointing out the Sandy Hook killer didn't use his own rifle, and I do agree that pretty much any kind of gun control would not have prevented that particular scenario, short of requiring the mother to, you know, properly secure her damn guns, but that's not something that can be legislated.

For the second point...you do realize that, if someone were to do something as insane as drive their car on a sidewalk, they'd have their license revoked, and more than likely have their car impounded, right?

What part of "millions of people are behind this and support gun rights" doesn't register? Why do people keep talking and insisting that the NRA is some autonomous, elite lobbying group that doesn't represent people? Funny how all the Republican voters, you know, Americans who love and defend their rights, don't fit into any stories of boogeymen and wealthy villains here.

And you're missing how basic liberties work. These are not up for referendum. You can't get a majority together and declare a moral victory. It doesn't matter if 90% of people favor a law if it violates people. It's about the individual. One person can sue a major corporation.

On some level, every law violates people. DUI laws violate anyone who wants to go to a party and drive themselves back. Anti-drug laws violate anyone who wants to tap their breakfast out on a mirror. In this case, the question is this: does the ability of anyone to get a gun outweigh the risk of that same person going on a rampage? I will admit the question is quite personal and blurry, as does any ethical consideration, but it is neither as cut-and-dried as you or Agema make it sound.

Er, every time there's a shooting, the same legislation is pushed, regardless of the circumstances. These people who scream "do something" don't even learn about the shooting and try to figure out what happened, why, and how to prevent it. The default action is gun control. Serving the same pile of crap year after year and trying to force it down people's throats is not working. Why does nothing happen? Well it starts with people who keep trying to shove crap down people's throats. Maybe they can stop doing that and acting like the other people are the problem.

To close this out, I repeat: what, besides some form of gun control, would prevent school shootings, in terms of legislation? Not trying to be a smart-ass, I'm legitimately curious.

Pecola:

Agema:
The NRA, all credit to it, is immensely influential - sufficiently to reliably kill gun control policies in Congress despite various gun control measures being supported by 60-90% of the population.

What part of "millions of people are behind this and support gun rights" doesn't register? Why do people keep talking and insisting that the NRA is some autonomous, elite lobbying group that doesn't represent people?

Because they don't
http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2017/07/05/among-gun-owners-nra-members-have-a-unique-set-of-views-and-experiences/

Time and time again. Poll after poll. Shows that the American people favor gun regulation. Gun owners favor gun regulation. Republican gun owners favor gun regulation. Republican NRA Members favor gun regulation.

The NRA officials represent their corporate interests, not the people.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 NEXT

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Register for a free account here