Colorado passes Gun Control Laws

[drone]

Oz was populated with criminals. You just knew they would eventually have to ban the guns.

[Ironside]

Why?

Last I checked americans were humans. Is there something you're not telling us? Is there something inherent about the american people that makes them drop dead if the arms to person ratio drops too low? Do you turn into globs of ectoplasm when you are witheld gunpowder? Are arms so incorporated in your national psyche that your brains slow down when the number of guns are reduced in the same way computers run slower when you take away RAM?

They have a different breed of politicians.

[ICantSpellDawg]

If you are still wondering why Americans who believe in gun ownership think that people are trying to take their guns, at least you can recognize that people are trying to take their guns. We hear that they arent trying to take their guns, but in Australia pump action shotguns were confiscated and you have to show a "need" to own a bolt action .22. Nobody believes gun controllers that "nobody" is coming for your guns" because people emphatically ARE coming from your guns.

As stated earlier; The homicide rate among similar population groups between the 2 nations is very similar. It is when you consider the hyper violent ethnic cultures who drive our homicide rates, you realize that they are effectively absent from Australian society. Sounds harsh? It is, but it is true. I believe that people are equal, but cultures are certainly not.

Reasonable people should recognize that a ban of firearms, like in Australia, will likely have the effect of reducing homicides. It may also have the effect of increasing violent crime. If our culture is progressing correctly, it is conceivable that we can keep our guns and keep violent crime and murder rates decreasing exponentially as they have been for the past 20 years.

[Greyblades]

If you are still wondering why Americans who believe in gun ownership think that people are trying to take their guns, at least you can recognize that people are trying to take their guns.

Logic, you fail at it.

[ICantSpellDawg]

Yes, I'm stupid, I get it.
I'm incapable of quoting the daily show in place of my own argument, saying "nuff said" and then accusing people who construct an alternative argument of being twits.

Australia had a massive confiscation of firearms for those results. They didn't enact an expansion of commercial background checks, instead they showed dump trucks full of peoples previously registered property being made in to steel rods. Australia had a low homicide rate, they now have a low homicide rate. The point of that video is that confiscation can happen and the world doesn't end. If you think that they will never have a mass killing again, I would wager against it. When people say that registration will likely lead to confiscation, remember the example you've cited.

Australia has a population the size of the NYC metropolitan area. In a landmass the size of the continental United States. They are a highly educated, economically affluent, ethnically homogeneous nation whose immigrants and minorities consist of those with some of the lowest criminal proclivities in the world. They are a different nation with a similar colonial history, although the right to bear arms was never fought for and the government was never violently overthrown.

[Papewaio]

The British Empire didn't want Australia and it setup several prison colonies in the some of the provinces.

So a country they didn't need full of people they didn't want. Not very hard to see why they encouraged independence.

[Husar]

If you are still wondering why Americans who believe in gun ownership think that people are trying to take their guns, at least you can recognize that people are trying to take their guns. We hear that they arent trying to take their guns, but in Australia pump action shotguns were confiscated and you have to show a "need" to own a bolt action .22. Nobody believes gun controllers that "nobody" is coming for your guns" because people emphatically ARE coming from your guns.

I'm coming for your guns, except I'm not really coming, I'd rather stay here where we have fewer guns.
Your president is not really coming for your guns, neither is the NWO or whoever "they" are.

Maybe some criminals are coming to steal your guns because that'd probably be easier than breaking into a well-secured store or government building.

The whole apples and oranges argument boils down to Americans looking really bad and brainless/stubborn/outdated yet again, I'm not sure why it's so proudly presented all the time.
You're basically saying that America is a hopeless case as far as positive changes are concerned, so that's either really bad for America or you're an un-american defeatist. I thought America is great because it has the spirit of exploration and because Americans grab problems by the horns and work hard until they can solve them? You might've just as well told MLK that trying to get rid of racism is hopeless because the KKK, racism in general and slavery are far too entrenched in the american psyche since the beginning and whatnot.

If you refuse to even think about how to solve a problem then it's no surprise that you won't be able to solve it but it's not the fault of the circumstances, it's the fault of your own lack of initiative. And don't even dare to argue this, it's what you keep telling unemployed people.

[Papewaio]

Guns are a Consitutional right for Americans.

And you cannot change that because it is part of the Consitution.

After all the second amendment has been shown to allow the individual the right to bear arms as they see fit.

[Lemur]

After all the second amendment has been shown to allow the individual the right to bear arms as they see fit.

I don't know if "shown to allow" is quite the right way of looking at things. That's how we, as a nation, choose to read a sentence that could be read at least a couple of ways. 2A is remarkably short:

A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

There's a few different things going on there. Security of the state is given as the rationale, not tyranny-fighting with Patrick Swayze in Red Dawn. "Well regulated" is emphasized, which would seem to imply some sort of hierarchy and organization, things that 2A activists generally ignore. Also note that the right is given to "the people," not to individuals as such. You can choose to read "the people" as each and every individual on their own merits, but that's a deliberate choice, and not the only reading.

Anyway. For the last eighty years or so we've chosen to read "shall not be infringed" as the crucial sentence clause, and that's just how we roll, yo. But that's a function of politics, courts, case law, and so forth. It's not the inevitable or only reading of 2A.

[Papewaio]

Shown by the Supreme Court that the individual rights model outranks the collective rights one.

[Lemur]

Shown by the Supreme Court that the individual rights model outranks the collective rights one.

I guess what rubs me the wrong way is the verb "shown." The Supreme Court chooses an interpretation; they don't dig up golden plates left in their backyard by the angel Moroni and reveal God's wisdom. It's a decision based on logic, precedent, morals, and yes, politics.

So ... we've interpreted the Second Amendment in a particular way for 80 years or so. That doesn't make it Holy Writ, inarguable, or the Founders' True Intent. It's a consensus. This distinction may seem minor, but to me it's important.

[Papewaio]

That's fine. I'm sure you can appeal with a higher court. Oops apparently public opinion doesn't outrank the Supreme Court, neither does any other Court in the US.

So until the amendment is amended it has been shown by the highest rank Judiciary that individualism in this instance trumps collective rights.

[Lemur]

it has been shown by the highest rank Judiciary that individualism in this instance trumps collective rights.

There you go with "shown" again; nobody is showing anything. That's how we choose to read that part of the amendment. A future court could legitimately decide on a different reading. Language is imprecise and elastic, which is why lawyers stay employed, and why nobody codes in English grammar. Not even Strunk and White can get a game of Pong onscreen.

[ICantSpellDawg]

You hear people say that "It isn't an individual right, it's only for militia's, which should be well regulated by the government. Also, we don't need them anymore because the government is good and they are outdated fighting forces which could never be successful at opposing tyranny. So, the amendment is stupid and outdated and should be overturned. We just want to know where your guns are and who has them - this is just reasonable and common sense. We can do this because it hasn't resulted in the end of the world in the UK or Australia, who we emulate on gun control. Also, once we know who has them we won't confiscate them, even though we want to and don't believe that you have a right to them as individuals and even though other countries have had success confiscating after they've had them registered. We only want the ones that look especially dangerous anyway, even though they are functionally equivalent to handguns, shotguns, and rifles that nearly everyone has. But we won't come for them, probably. But why shouldn't we? Anyone who says that we will is crazy and paranoid"

It's a rambling mess.

And you wonder why people who like guns and don't see gun crime don't want anything to do with this. You all know why we don't want to start down that path, we know what is down the path. This isn't a slippery slope, it's merely your stated objective, which can't get off the ground at the moment.

[Lemur]

You're conflating about three different arguments, making them badly, and then using this self-generated caricature to justify your own position. Weaksauce.

Try responding to an individual rather than your imagined foe.

[ICantSpellDawg]

You're conflating about three different arguments, making them badly, and then using this self-generated caricature to justify your own position. Weaksauce.

Try responding to an individual rather than your imagined foe.

I've heard all of these things in this thread. What is your argument? I've only heard support for every democratic proposal from you. The only time you find fault with them is when they don't have the ability to pass in this climate. There simply is no "too far" when it comes to gun rights. You don't even believe that we have an individual right, that was merely the error in judgement by the court. How much respect for an individuals right to own a gun when you don't believe that right exists? You simply have no common ground with me on this issue. You flat out do not believe that I have a right to own my firearms. I oppose you and your ideas to remove these rights.

If you had the final vote to overturn 2A, you would do it.

[Lemur]

Well, I was talking to Pape about the use of the verb "shown" in the context of the Supreme Court interpreting the Second Amendment. I was saying that the Supreme Court's decisions are not revealed holy truth, but rather decisions on how to interpret language, which is (by virtue of being a human language) vague, imprecise, and prone to multiple readings.

If you read the last six posts or so you'd be crystal clear on that bit of discussion.

You jumping in to slay your straw man was a bit of a non sequitur.

-response to the edit-

Right, by saying that the current reading of 2A is not the only or inevitable reading, I reveal myself as the boogeyman. Boo!

I shoot guns, I was raised in a military family, and I enjoy guns. I don't want to see 2A repealed, although I do think our collective interpretation of it is particular, and not inevitable.

You flat out do not believe that I have a right to own my firearms. I oppose you and your ideas to remove these rights.

If you had the final vote to overturn 2A, you would do it.

And if I actually believed any of that, or expressed such a belief anywhere, you might have the beginnings of a point.

Please feel free to show me where I have expressed those opinions. The Backroom is now searchable. Please, go ahead. Bring the noise, brutha.

[ICantSpellDawg]

It's not just their musings and whims, it is stare decisis. It cannot just be ignored if it is shown to be the body of the interpretation of law. Or, it could be, but seldom is for justices deciding cases. They don't just wake up after years of it clearly being an individual and collective right and say "nope, our mistake". You make it sound like they just shake a magic 8-ball.

Thanks for dodging and not offering your own underlying ideological concept of the right to bear arms or defend oneself or possessions. Cover yourself with your wiki logical fallacy terminology as you often do, but you still have done nothing but criticize the ideas of your opposition and appeal to emotion. Let's see some principle other than your beloved "moderation". Where do you want laws to go?

[Papewaio]

Thing with law and precedence is that once a ruling is made it becomes precedence. Only thing that can change that is a ruling by a higher court or a change in the law the precedence refers to. There is no higher court, so it will take a change in the law. In this case an amendment as it is a Consitutional change.

The highest courts are very unlikely to change their predecessors decisions until a law is significantly changed.

[ICantSpellDawg]

Well, I was talking to Pape about the use of the verb "shown" in the context of the Supreme Court interpreting the Second Amendment. I was saying that the Supreme Court's decisions are not revealed holy truth, but rather decisions on how to interpret language, which is (by virtue of being a human language) vague, imprecise, and prone to multiple readings.

If you read the last six posts or so you'd be crystal clear on that bit of discussion.

You jumping in to slay your straw man was a bit of a non sequitur.

-response to the edit-

Right, by saying that the current reading of 2A is not the only or inevitable reading, I reveal myself as the boogeyman. Boo!

I shoot guns, I was raised in a military family, and I enjoy guns. I don't want to see 2A repealed, although I do think our collective interpretation of it is particular, and not inevitable.


And if I actually believed any of that, or expressed such a belief anywhere, you might have the beginnings of a point.

Please feel free to show me where I have expressed those opinions. The Backroom is now searchable. Please, go ahead. Bring the noise, brutha.

Ok, so you are against the repeal of 2A. Why?

[Lemur]

Again, show me where I have called for the repeal of 2A.

Also, stare decisis just means "abiding by precedent." If you actually read what I was saying to Pape, you'd see that I mentioned precedent, as well as moral, logical, and political considerations. All of which factor into a judge's decisions. How is that controversial?

Thing with law and precedence is that once a ruling is made it becomes precedence. Only thing that can change that is a ruling by a higher court or a change in the law the precedence refers to. There is no higher court, so it will take a change in the law. In this case an amendment as it is a Consitutional change.

The highest courts are very unlikely to change their predecessors decisions until a law is significantly changed.

Incorrect. The highest courts are certainly bound to pay more attention to their own precedent, but by your logic, Dred Scott could never have been overturned, and the Supreme Court would never reverse itself on a position. Ever. Okay, it's a little more complicated than I'm making it sound, but I think the Org's legal eagles will back me up here. The Supremes do change interpretations over time. This is not a bad thing. I, for one, am glad to see interracial marriage and consensual buggery made legal by Supreme fiat.

Ok, so you are against the repeal of 2A. Why?

Why am I not in favor of a position I have never advocated? Dude, you either need to drink more or less. Not sure which applies.

[ICantSpellDawg]

Thing with law and precedence is that once a ruling is made it becomes precedence. Only thing that can change that is a ruling by a higher court or a change in the law the precedence refers to. There is no higher court, so it will take a change in the law. In this case an amendment as it is a Consitutional change.

The highest courts are very unlikely to change their predecessors decisions until a law is significantly changed.

I agree. 2A has been incorporated to the States as well. It really would take an amendment process to change that now.

[ICantSpellDawg]

Again, show me where I have called for the repeal of 2A.

Also, stare decisis just means "abiding by precedent." If you actually read what I was saying to Pape, you'd see that I mentioned precedent, as well as moral, logical, and political considerations. All of which factor into a judge's decisions. How is that controversial?

The idea that the 2nd amendment was ever viewed by anyone as a purely collective right exists in the mind of a leftist fantasy. It's a reading that could have been the case at the nations founding, with difficulty from English common law, but not since then.

[ICantSpellDawg]

Incorrect. The highest courts are certainly bound to pay more attention to their own precedent, but by your logic, Dred Scott could never have been overturned, and the Supreme Court would never reverse itself on a position. Ever. Okay, it's a little more complicated than I'm making it sound, but I think the Org's legal eagles will back me up here. The Supremes do change interpretations over time. This is not a bad thing. I, for one, am glad to see interracial marriage and consensual buggery made legal by Supreme fiat.

Dred Scott was overturned after the 14th amendment was ratified. His point stands that the law itself would need to be amended in reality.

[ICantSpellDawg]

Can you outline your understanding of what the right means and why it is still relevant? It's a cop-out to just say "2A can stay, guns are ok". You have to have a deeper understanding of it and believe that rights should not be withdrawn as easily as some would suggest.

[Lemur]

The idea that the 2nd amendment was ever viewed by anyone as a purely collective right exists in the mind of a leftist fantasy. It's a reading that could have been the case at the nations founding, with difficulty from English common law, but not since then.

So by suggesting an alternate legitimate reading of 2A, I'm indulging in "leftist fantasy"? Seems more like I stepped on the toe of a sacred cow, and you're indulging in some internet rage.

Oh look, I poked the sacred 2A cow. I MUST BE A MARXIST LEFTIST SOCIALIST HIPPIE!

Read the damn sentence without the NRA looking over your shoulder. Read the actual effing words. There's more than one way to read the intent. That's not leftis, rightist, communist, Keynesian, Muslim, or anarchist. It's common sense.

Sorry I poked your cow.

-edit-

Loving v. Virginia, no amendment needed, reinterpretation.

Lawrence v. Texas, no amendment needed, reinterpretation.

-edit of the edit-

Can you outline your understanding of what the right means and why it is still relevant? It's a cop-out to just say "2A can stay, guns are ok". You have to have a deeper understanding of it and believe that rights should not be withdrawn as easily as some would suggest.

Sure, happy to do so. First of all, it's in the effing Constitution, and we, as a society, have chosen to interpret it to mean an individual's right to bear arms. I'm cool with that.

Secondly, guns have played a huge cultural and practical role in the USA since before our founding as a nation. I am a conservative (using the word in the classical, not modern sense) in that I don't like to see big changes to things that have been around a long time (unless someone can demonstrate a compelling rationale for such a change, and an ironclad plan for the aftermath of a change). I'm much more Burke than Rousseau. Very gradual change we can believe in.

You'll note that I didn't give a damn about the assault weapons ban or the magazine capacity ban. Bad ideas. What lit me off was the defeat of the background checks.

All of our rights have boundaries. My First Amendment right to religion, for example, does not allow me to engage in human sacrifice to Cthulhu. My right of assembly does not mean I can have a party in the middle of the street. My right to free speech does not mean I can make verbal or written threats to another citizen without repercussions. And so on and so forth; our rights are not and never have been absolutes.

So yeah, when I see common-sense measures to control the flow of guns to criminals and the insane beaten down by fanatics, I get mad. What makes me extra-special crazy is that in the long run, such limitations will be good for gun rights. By way of comparison, if there were driving absolutists who insisted that there must be no stop signs and no crosswalks, they would make cars less popular in the long run. I would be irritated by those people. Not because I hate cars, but because I like cars and I like driving.

Does that serve to answer?

[ICantSpellDawg]

So by suggesting an alternate legitimate reading of 2A, I'm indulging in "leftist fantasy"? Seems more like I stepped on the toe of a sacred cow, and you're indulging in some internet rage.

Oh look, I poked the sacred 2A cow. I MUST BE A MARXIST LEFTIST SOCIALIST HIPPIE!

Read the damn sentence without the NRA looking over your shoulder. Read the actual effing words. There's more than one way to read the intent. That's not leftis, rightist, communist, Keynesian, Muslim, or anarchist. It's common sense.

Sorry I poked your cow.

-edit-

Loving v. Virginia, no amendment needed, reinterpretation.

Lawrence v. Texas, no amendment needed, reinterpretation.

I guard the rights protected in the Constitution jealously. I look to expand them. Increasingly all of them, even the ones that I have to hold my nose about (like the anti-sodomy laws overturning). I try to have principle in the things that I think and believe deeply. I don't just believe in them because most people believe in them and because I don't care enough about them to have a strong opinion. like some others might. It's good to know that you give superficial support to the right to own "guns". I just know the arguments that you were using and you were equivocating. It seems that you could easily support either interpretation based on the wind change. It suggests that if one were to gain popularity, you wouldn't fight for individual right. You've called me unethical. My ethics don't value fair-weather friends when the going gets rough.

Good points about Loving & Lawrence. Dred Scott point was a bad point.

EDIT:

Does that serve to answer?

I's a bit squishy, but I can tolerate it. what do you think about the common use standard?

[Lemur]

It's good to know that you give superficial support to the right to own "guns".

Son, you might want to look into the passive-aggressive use of "quotes." If you want to slam me, put on your big boy pants and do it "properly."

If you read the bit I wrote in response to your WHY U LIKE 2A question, you will see that I believe absolutism is bad for our rights in the long run. You win battles with fanaticism, but you lose wars.

Ever read King Lear? "I loved her not wisely, but too well." In the case of the NRA, I'd amend it to, "I loved guns not wisely, but too well."

[ICantSpellDawg]

Son, you might want to look into the passive-aggressive use of "quotes." If you want to slam me, put on your big boy pants and do it "properly."

If you read the bit I wrote in response to your WHY U LIKE 2A question, you will see that I believe absolutism is bad for our rights in the long run. You win battles with fanaticism, but you lose wars.

Ever read King Lear? "I loved her not wisely, but too well." In the case of the NRA, I'd amend it to, "I loved guns not wisely, but too well."

I read it. You don't have to tell me. I wanted background checks enough that I was willing to just take the Manchin-Toomey agreement and be done with it. I still think it can work if it originates in the House. Why are you against this plan? If it comes from the House and expands gun rights at the same time as it closes up sales loopholes, why are you ideologically opposed to the point of wrath? Would you prefer to wait 2 more years in case the Democrats take the House? The blood will be on your hands for the lives lost in the interim!... How does that feel?

[Papewaio]

I didn't say they won't reverse. I just said that they are just unlikely too... that is the idea about precedence. it gives a guideline to future interpretations of the law.