Gun control, which side wins?

[dimreepr]

It's about which side will pack the biggest political punch, after all, there's no-one more determined to end smoking than an ex-smoker. It was a throwaway line with a satirical twist about which side wins; when only one side can ever really win. 

[Raider5678]

And since both sides seem to have a relatively equal powered punch, it doesn't seem to go anywhere.

[dimreepr]

11 minutes ago, Raider5678 said:

And since both sides seem to have a relatively equal powered punch, it doesn't seem to go anywhere.

Do I have to quote you?

[Raider5678]

17 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

Do I have to quote you?

I guess?

I'm not really sure what you're referring to.

 

 

Anyways, somebody learned something because a boy in California was promptly arrested after threatening to shoot up his school as well.

Edited February 22, 2018 by Raider5678

[swansont]

3 hours ago, Raider5678 said:

And since both sides seem to have a relatively equal powered punch, it doesn't seem to go anywhere.

Not so much. The elected officials are split to the point where nothing has been done, but the people elect them, and their sentiments are much more lopsided. Plus, there has already been some evidence of a swing away from the GOP. Their current hesitation to do anything may just galvanize young voters to turn out in much greater numbers, and be single-issue voters.

So you vote out some of the resistance, and anyone who remains may re-evaluate their position before the next voting cycle.

[rangerx]

In countries with well-regulated gun laws, there are no "sides".

So long as that is a term of reference, any discussion or action will always be self-defeating.

[Raider5678]

7 minutes ago, rangerx said:

In countries with well-regulated gun laws, there are no "sides".

 

On the issue of gun control? Take a look at Mexico.

They have much stricter gun control. In the entire country of Mexico, you can only buy guns in one location. And you can only own handguns up to .380(home defense only), rifles up to .22, and shotguns up to 12 gauge. Everything else is legal only in the hands of law enforcement or the military.

Nobody in the country may own more than 2 guns without justifying why they have them.

 

Private citizens wishing to acquire a firearm and ammunition are required by law to do the following:

1. Apply for a firearm acquisition permit from the General Directorate of the Federal Firearms Registry and Explosives Control (DGRFAFyCE) in the Secretariat of National Defense (SEDENA) either by mail or in person by submitting the following:

• (for Mexican citizens, males under 40) Copy of liberated National Military Service card; (for females or males over 40) certified birth certificate. Foreigners must provide documentation establishing legal presence (FM2 card),
• Proof of income by submitting original employment letter stating position, time of employment and salary. If self-employed or retired, proof of such status,
• Criminal background check showing no convictions, issued by the state's Attorney General where applicant resides (dated no older than six months),
• Copy of proof of address (any utility bill in name of applicant; if different, head of household must sign a letter authorizing firearms and ammunition in the home),
• Copy of government-issued photo identification (Voter ID Card if Mexican citizen, passport and FM2 card if foreign citizen),
• If weapons are requested for shooting or hunting, must submit copy of hunting and/or shooting club membership card, indicating day, month and year of the beginning and end of validation,
• Copy of birth certificate. Name(s) and last names must match all other documents, and
• Copy of the Unique Key of Population Registry (Clave Única de Registro de Población - CURP) Analogous to US social security card and number.

1. Upon being granted the firearm acquisition permit, fill out form and make payment of MX$95.00 (US$7.60) for Permit to Purchase Firearm, Accessories and/or Ammunition,
2. Fill out form and make payment of MX$39.00 (US$3.12) for Registration of Firearm (one form and payment per gun),
3. Contact the Directorate of Commercialization of Arms and Munitions (DCAM) by internet or in person to make payment of firearm.
4. With all receipts and documentation, along with photo ID, appear in person at DCAM to pick up firearm. A temporary transportation permit (valid for 24 to 72hrs) is granted, which permits the owner to transport the firearm from DCAM to his or her home by personal or public transportation (ground or air).

 

 

 

I see what you're trying to say, but just because you have well-regulated gun laws, doesn't mean there are no sides. It's a lot more complicated than that. Mexico has much stricter gun laws and much higher gun crime.

 

[HB of CJ]

Respectfully ...

This entire discussion at hand is irrelevant.  What should be discussed, (if possible) is the significance of the Second Amendment of the United States Constitution.  It is not about hunting.  It is about the required necessity of a armed citizens ability to overthrow a bad tyrannical government.

We can no more hack at the Second Amendment than we can discuss restricting Freedom Of Speech.  Consider not having the right to post threads and opinions on this Fine Forum.  Consider many real deal restrictive laws, rules and regulations PROHIBITING free speech under threat of prison.

Let us take it some steps further.  Freedom of Religion.  Can you imagine machine gun toting death troopers storming into your place of worship and arresting or gunning down the preacher?  Or you?  We already have this regarding the many insanities of existing gun control laws.  Very scary indeed.

Or ... if you are not religiously oriented and many are not, consider armed government agents busting down your front door of your castle and seizing papers and possessions without a warrant or legal due process.  Can you imagine that in the USA?  We already have it with the many gun laws. 

The discussion at hand considering "Each Side Being Equal" is ridiculous and may indicate very limited knowledge of the US Constitution and what it means to US Citizens.  If you do not live and work in the USA then some ignorance is acceptable.  But NOT if you are a USA Citizen and use this Forum.

Respectfully..

[Raider5678]

2 minutes ago, HB of CJ said:

Respectfully ...

This entire discussion at hand is irrelevant.  What should be discussed, (if possible) is the significance of the Second Amendment of the United States Constitution.  It is not about hunting.  It is about the required necessity of a armed citizens ability to overthrow a bad tyrannical government.

We can no more hack at the Second Amendment than we can discuss restricting Freedom Of Speech.  Consider not having the right to post threads and opinions on this Fine Forum.  Consider many real deal restrictive laws, rules and regulations PROHIBITING free speech under threat of prison.

Let us take it some steps further.  Freedom of Religion.  Can you imagine machine gun toting death troopers storming into your place of worship and arresting or gunning down the preacher?  Or you?  We already have this regarding the many insanities of existing gun control laws.  Very scary indeed.

Or ... if you are not religiously oriented and many are not, consider armed government agents busting down your front door of your castle and seizing papers and possessions without a warrant or legal due process.  Can you imagine that in the USA?  We already have it with the many gun laws. 

The discussion at hand considering "Each Side Being Equal" is ridiculous and may indicate very limited knowledge of the US Constitution and what it means to US Citizens.  If you do not live and work in the USA then some ignorance is acceptable.  But NOT if you are a USA Citizen and use this Forum.

Respectfully..

Would you be opposed to universal background checks and mental fitness checks for anyone buying a gun?

[rangerx]

I'm certain you an I'd agree Mexico isn't particularly well-regulated, which also serves to suggest numerous other underlying social-economic issues.

The same is also true in the USA. Mental health is a healthcare issue, which is also under siege. Likewise, the states often thwart federal laws.

Technically, everyone has a right to guns in any regulated country. The greater part of those who lost that right, did so by their own undoing not by the influence of politicians as many would have everyone believe.  Gun safety, not the right to them, should be at the forefront of federal legislation, while state laws should have the discretion to their usefulness by restricting other things in the public interest. Limiting rounds for hunting and conservation, for example.

The "sides" thing is too polarized, because it misses a broader point. In America, there basically two kinds of guns (or at least that's the way the narrative goes). Legal guns and banned guns. In Canada, there are three... legal guns, banned guns and restricted guns (semi-auto and hand guns). The latter requires strict licensing and affirmed accountability, irrespective of the purpose for owning them.

 

[Raider5678]

1 minute ago, rangerx said:

I'm certain you an I'd agree Mexico isn't particularly well-regulated, which also serves to suggest numerous other underlying social-economic issues.

 

I defined regulated as having strict laws, however, you are correct. I agree.

2 minutes ago, rangerx said:

he same is also true in the USA. Mental health is a healthcare issue, which is also under siege. Likewise, the states often thwart federal laws.

I'm not sure I follow, but that's a whole other ballpark. If you start a thread on it I'll be happy to participate in it, however.

3 minutes ago, rangerx said:

  Gun safety, not the right to them, should be at the forefront of federal legislation, while state laws should have the discretion to their usefulness by restricting other things in the public interest. Limiting rounds for hunting and conservation, for example.

States do have the right to put pretty much whatever restrictions they like on guns unless deemed unlawful by the Supreme Court. I've participated a little in judiciary programs, however, I am not familiar with a case where the Supreme Court ruled that states had to repeal a gun law of any kind. I could be mistaken.

So if the politics on a national level are too corrupt, states do have the ability to place their own laws. That being said, my state in particular is pretty corrupt. 

[rangerx]

1 minute ago, Raider5678 said:

So if the politics on a national level are too corrupt, states do have the ability to place their own laws. That being said, my state in particular is pretty corrupt. 

You've identified a problem. Would you agree, that removing the states legislative ability to thwart federal laws on safety is a workable solution?

After all, the states still have the power to enforce and to charge for federal crimes in any case, not just guns.

[Raider5678]

1 minute ago, rangerx said:

You've identified a problem. Would you agree, that removing the states legislative ability to thwart federal laws on safety is a workable solution?

After all, the states still have the power to enforce and to charge for federal crimes in any case, not just guns.

As far as I know, if the supreme court orders a state to do something, they have to do it. That hardly sounds like thwarting the federal laws.

[rangerx]

1 minute ago, Raider5678 said:

As far as I know, if the supreme court orders a state to do something, they have to do it. That hardly sounds like thwarting the federal laws.

If the court over ruled it, then the state laws did thwart the feds.

Meanwhile people die.

So your state is corrupt, but that's acceptable, so long as the feds might step in later then?

Doesn't sound like a solution to me. It sounds more like maintaining the status quo.

[Raider5678]

32 minutes ago, rangerx said:

If the court over ruled it, then the state laws did thwart the feds.

Meanwhile people die.

So your state is corrupt, but that's acceptable, so long as the feds might step in later then?

Doesn't sound like a solution to me. It sounds more like maintaining the status quo.

I'm not sure you understand how the legal system in the U.S. works.

There's a 9-month course I took that went over it.

It's a lot more complicated than just "if the court overruled it, then the state laws did thwart the feds."

Edited February 22, 2018 by Raider5678

[beecee]

Am I allowed to make an observation here?

OK, we have the good old USA, who have had their war of Independence and as a result their bill of rights and this second ammendment, allowing anyone to bear arms...1791 wasn't it? Just three years after Australia received its first European settlers in the form of convicts from old Mother England.

So why can't this second ammendment formulated in 1791 be changed or scrapped to reflect changing conditions and values in the year 2018? 

Some observations of mine; The US has risen to be the so called "leader of the free world" since WWII. Australia as a relatively small nation, has fought many wars including both world wars, on the side of the US. Our people are fairly similar in many ways, yet Australia had no qualms about enforcing strict gun laws and implementing a gun buy back scheme, after our worst ever gun massacre in 1996....It worked and is still working with no one disadvantaged. We also implemented change in the mid sixties with regards to the metric system of measurement and money: That wasn't easy, particularly for the oldies, but again it all worked and worked well to no disadvantage to anyone. The US also failed to follow this new innovation: Why? I do remember them losing a Mars probe due to a mix up of imperial and metric data sent to the probe for orbital insertion. So, could one conclude that the US is just totally adverse to change? Do they as the leaders of the free world, see any sort of " reduction of status" in implementing change either as an example from other free world nations,  or to any supposed shame in changing what was accepted in 1791? Or are they clinging to the macho wild west image, so often portrayed by Hollywood in film...the cowboy mentality shown in many western films, along with the gun fights, Indian massacres etc. 

Let me say that my own country has nothing to be proud of in that regard, and with relation to the indigenous people, but we are attempting to make amends and progress is obvious with our country's original inhabitants. My Son just got a new car, and guess what? It has no bloody cd player in it! I was mortified!! But he explained to me with the advent of MP players and other devices for holding music, the old cd is just out of date!!!

In my opinion the bottom line is guns were made to kill...the less of them about, the better for all of society. And while we are only a small populated country of 25 million people, we implement change when it is needed. Perhaps, just perhaps, your politicians could learn from us down under.

 

Edited February 22, 2018 by beecee

[rangerx]

15 minutes ago, Raider5678 said:

I'm not sure you understand how the legal system in the U.S. works.

There's a 9-month course I took that went over it.

It's a lot more complicated than just "if the court overruled it, then the state laws did thwart the feds."

Cut with the false narrative.

I understand the US legal system more than you think. I represented a class action against an oil company in the 9th Circuit and Appellate Court for more than 10 years.

And prevailed.

[Ken Fabian]

Looking from outside, I don't expect gun control to be introduced in the USA in any meaningful way.  Rebellion as a last resort is always implicit, irrespective of legality, but I've never thought an explicit right to overthrow tyrannical governments has ever been a necessity - most democratic nations with high levels of personal freedom do quite well at avoiding tyranny without it, which suggests the essential ingredient for avoiding tyranny isn't an armed populace but relies on things like an independent judiciary and honest and courageous news services. But it seems like it's a widely held belief that US democracy depends on ordinary people being armed - and for many of them the prospect of access to arms being restricted is sufficient evidence of tyranny to prompt a call to arms. Not a good circumstance for attempting to introduce gun control.

I'm not sure a repetition of the War of Independence, with similar, clear goals, clear enemy and potential for decisive and ultimately positive outcomes is reasonable; even if it worked once those who put this 'safeguard' in could not foresee the full range of consequences. I doubt a rebellion could be carried out effectively in a modern USA without making things worse and would have a high risk of replacing it with a different kind of tyrannical government. Empirically - looking around at examples - armed freedom fighters (where they are not acting as the tools of outside interests) leave horrendous, intractable messes from their battles with tyranny in their wake. It makes me think armed insurrection is less than ideal solution;  rebellions rarely win decisive victories against professional armed forces and it is usually when those armed forces change sides that resolution becomes possible. With a high likelihood that military dictatorship - differently flavoured tyranny - will be the result.

I think an armed populace as the essential bulwark against tyranny is illusory but a lot of Americans appear to take it seriously.

Edited February 22, 2018 by Ken Fabian
improve clarity

[swansont]

2 hours ago, rangerx said:

If the court over ruled it, then the state laws did thwart the feds.

Meanwhile people die.

So your state is corrupt, but that's acceptable, so long as the feds might step in later then?

Doesn't sound like a solution to me. It sounds more like maintaining the status quo.

Federal law is enforced by federal officials, e.g. the FBI or ATF

For example, the feds could (and recently threatened to) enforce marijuana laws despite legalization at the state level.

If federal gun legislation is passed, the states will not be able to "thwart" it.

44 minutes ago, Ken Fabian said:

Looking from outside, I don't expect gun control to be introduced in the USA in any meaningful way.  Rebellion as a last resort is always implicit, irrespective of legality, but I've never thought an explicit right to overthrow tyrannical governments has ever been a necessity  

The US has the opportunity to legally overthrow the bulk of the government every 2 years. All of the house and 1/3 of the senate.

[rangerx]

6 minutes ago, swansont said:

Federal law is enforced by federal officials, e.g. the FBI or ATF

Of course.

I was suggesting local and state police still make arrests and detain offenders pending escalation to the feds for charges.

Not necessarily for ongoing investigations, but certainly in cases that rear themselves on the spot.

 

[Raider5678]

3 hours ago, rangerx said:

Cut with the false narrative.

I understand the US legal system more than you think. I represented a class action against an oil company in the 9th Circuit and Appellate Court for more than 10 years.

And prevailed.

Alright, then you should understand that if the State passes laws that contradict the federal government, the federal government overrules the state's regulations.

[rangerx]

29 minutes ago, Raider5678 said:

Alright, then you should understand that if the State passes laws that contradict the federal government, the federal government overrules the state's regulations.

That what I said, FFS.

5 hours ago, rangerx said:

If the court over ruled it, then the state laws did thwart the feds.

How does that suggest anything other than the feds over-ruling state laws when they are wrong? Arguing over something we agree on. For shame.

Quite obviously, your comment was driven by the narrow-mindedness that because I'm a Canadian I have no idea about your legal system, even as far as throwing the odd anti-American epithet (from the other thread) into the mix for no other than to disqualify me from the discussion.

This is a science forum, fallacies fall flat on this board.

[CharonY]

3 hours ago, Ken Fabian said:

I think an armed populace as the essential bulwark against tyranny is illusory but a lot of Americans appear to take it seriously.

I think only part of it does. But at the same time they overlook that the idea of having militias is also connected to the fact that many of the founding fathers were suspicious of a standing army. Madison famously said :

Quote

 A standing military force, with an overgrown Executive will not long be safe companions to liberty. The means of defence agst. foreign danger, have been always the instruments of tyranny at home. Among the Romans it was a standing maxim to excite a war, whenever a revolt was apprehended. Throughout all Europe, the armies kept up under the pretext of defending, have enslaved the people.

I am no constitutional scholar, but I kind of doubt that the 2nd amendment was created with also having the largest military power in mind. Rather,  militias could have risen in response and/or to prevent the creation of a large military force that could be used to suppress the populace. But that ship has clearly sailed (or taken out by a laser guided missile).

 

[Raider5678]

16 minutes ago, rangerx said:

That what I said, FFS.

 

Your own quote suggested that states could just thwart the federal government.

They can't, and you very clearly stated it:

17 minutes ago, rangerx said:

If the court over ruled it, then the state laws did thwart the feds.

 

Unless your opinion is that someone who breaks the law automatically thwarted the legal system even if they're caught and punished, then your quote doesn't hold up.

 

[rangerx]

That's not my opinion or what I said at all, quit putting words in my mouth.

I said DID (in the past tense) NOT DOES in the present and future. FFS.