In general, what kind of gun law do we want?

Status
Not open for further replies.
The OP's original question is valid. I vote NONE.

However, the OP's subsequent arguments seem to come from a "victim" mindset. I overlooks the fact that, without gun laws, we would all have access to the same weapons, thus empowering each of us - law-abiding, or not, with the tools to effect a null outcome, or for those adequately trained and skilled, a positive self-defense outcome (and reduction in the number of those who choose to do harm).
 
Some of you here want laws that would continue to prohibit Mr. Tyler.

The three-judge panel of the Sixth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals unanimously ruled that a federal ban on gun ownership for those who have been committed to a mental institution violated the Second Amendment rights of 73-year-old Clifford Charles Tyler.

Tyler attempted to buy a gun and was denied on the grounds that he had been committed to a mental institution in 1986 after suffering emotional problems stemming from a divorce. He was only in there for a month.

http://gunssavelives.net/blog/court...an-former-mental-patients-from-gun-ownership/
 
But nukes aren't guns... They don't even serve the same purpose.

Should we remove mandatory schooling and certification for surgeons? Who are you to decide if I'm qualified to perform surgery, right? Just like who are you to decide whether or not I have "enough" knowledge to operate a nuke?


I have no right to tell you any of those things, in a free world you are free to do as you please unless you harm someone else

it's a very very scary thing for many people to think about
 
OP, you need to pursue this intellectual exercise and get back to us.

First, go read up on and fully understand "Strict Scrutiny".

Next, go read up on the various, relevant SCOTUS decisions on 2A issues. I'll make it easy for you: Cruikshank, Presser, Miller, Heller, McDonald. Make sure you read them correctly.

Third, go investigate the various federal level gun control legislation that is in effect. NFA, GCA, FOPA, AWB.

Fourth, investigate the totality of state level gun control legislation in effect and the trends in that area. Odds are good you live in CT or MA if you're here, so it should be easy.

Finally, get back to us on how effective any of these have been.

The argument at this point should not be what we'd accept. When one wants to go through an exercise of organization and cleaning, if things are so far gone, you first have to completely clear out the space you're trying to clean/organize. When all this bulls**t stops getting rammed down our throats, maybe at that point we can talk about something that might be acceptable (go back to step one on that).

I am pretty sure that's what OP was saying. If we had to have laws/controls and could start again from the beginning, what would be ok with you. If your response is no laws, so be it. Tell the man. That's what he's asking.
 
Last edited:
I meant that nuclear weapons cannot be used with any level of precision. You may hit the intended but you'll probably hit your children and mine in the schoolyard as well.

again, replace with "AR-15", "AK-47", etc.

are you realistically suggesting someone would spend millions of dollars to carelessly nuke a school in the same manner in which they toss a round over a berm at a gun club?

can we please stop talking about nuclear weapons already? you tried to make your point, failed, and now we're on to the "nuking schools" part of the discussion?

M60 wat r u doin? M60 stahp.
 
The OP's original question is valid. I vote NONE.

However, the OP's subsequent arguments seem to come from a "victim" mindset. I overlooks the fact that, without gun laws, we would all have access to the same weapons, thus empowering each of us - law-abiding, or not, with the tools to effect a null outcome, or for those adequately trained and skilled, a positive self-defense outcome (and reduction in the number of those who choose to do harm).

Now that's perfect. An actual answer to OP's question.
 
If we've reached the point of saying that mandatory schooling, testing, and licensing of surgeons is inappropriate because omg it like totally tramples on my rights! then I'm done here. Seriously, some of the stupidest anarchic bullshit I've ever read. Having ANY form of government or any societal structure involves giving up SOME freedom. If you either can't see that or think anarchy is good, then there is no helping you.
 
I am pretty sure that's what OP was saying. If we had to have laws/controls and could start again from the beginning, what would be ok with you. If your response is no laws, so be it. Tell the man. That's what he's asking.

There's a vast gulf between what he's saying and what I'm saying.

I'm saying that I'm willing to accept the results of the current SCOTUS decisions that we play under as long as those are interpreted correctly without reading in a bunch of crap that isn't in there. Given strict scrutiny, I think pretty much all of the federal gun control statute we have should be fought. However, as a practical matter, if I were subjected to the gun control laws that a state like NH has, and I knew there would be no new end runs around the Constitution in this regard, I'd be a lot less uppity about the subject.

If someone can think up a gun control measure that truly passes strict scrutiny, I'd at least listen to it. My money is on it not being possible.

As a slight aside, the whole nuke canard is completely retarded and anyone who uses it as a discussion point should be waterboarded.
 
again, replace with "AR-15", "AK-47", etc.

are you realistically suggesting someone would spend millions of dollars to carelessly nuke a school in the same manner in which they toss a round over a berm at a gun club?

can we please stop talking about nuclear weapons already? you tried to make your point, failed, and now we're on to the "nuking schools" part of the discussion?

M60 wat r u doin? M60 stahp.

atilla, thanks for asking what I'm doing. I'm answering the mans question as simpy as he asked it. If you don't like it, you can certainly skip over my response to him as it wasn't directed to you in the first place. Are you saying it's ok to ask a question but not to answer a question! What happened to this is merica.
 
I meant that nuclear weapons cannot be used with any level of precision. You may hit the intended but you'll probably hit your children and mine in the schoolyard as well.

we elect and fun people we have never met or known to be in charge of nukes that we pay for but the thought of someone down the street whom you don't know having one scares you

again, can be related perfectly to an argument made by an anti gun ownership wackjob.

nuclear weapons are scary, no one should have them. I happen to personally agree with this. but people do have them, I don't get to tell them no
 
There's a vast gulf between what he's saying and what I'm saying.

I'm saying that I'm willing to accept the results of the current SCOTUS decisions that we play under as long as those are interpreted correctly without reading in a bunch of crap that isn't in there. Given strict scrutiny, I think pretty much all of the federal gun control statute we have should be fought. However, as a practical matter, if I were subjected to the gun control laws that a state like NH has, and I knew there would be no new end runs around the Constitution in this regard, I'd be a lot less uppity about the subject.

If someone can think up a gun control measure that truly passes strict scrutiny, I'd at least listen to it. My money is on it not being possible.

As a slight aside, the whole nuke canard is completely retarded and anyone who uses it as a discussion point should be waterboarded.

I agree pretty much with everything you've said here. Including no nuke talk.
 
Having ANY form of government or any societal structure involves giving up SOME freedom. If you either can't see that or think anarchy is good, then there is no helping you.

following this progression, I guess it's safe to say that absolute personal freedom is bad?
 
There's a vast gulf between what he's saying and what I'm saying.

I'm saying that I'm willing to accept the results of the current SCOTUS decisions that we play under as long as those are interpreted correctly without reading in a bunch of crap that isn't in there. Given strict scrutiny, I think pretty much all of the federal gun control statute we have should be fought. However, as a practical matter, if I were subjected to the gun control laws that a state like NH has, and I knew there would be no new end runs around the Constitution in this regard, I'd be a lot less uppity about the subject.

If someone can think up a gun control measure that truly passes strict scrutiny, I'd at least listen to it. My money is on it not being possible.

As a slight aside, the whole nuke canard is completely retarded and anyone who uses it as a discussion point should be waterboarded.

If a gun control measure did pass strict scrutiny, would it affect you're gun ownership or someone else's?
 
If it was a truly free society I would want a Bofors.
bofors.jpg

Take care of those GD geese once and for all.
 
If we've reached the point of saying that mandatory schooling, testing, and licensing of surgeons is inappropriate because omg it like totally tramples on my rights! then I'm done here. Seriously, some of the stupidest anarchic bullshit I've ever read. Having ANY form of government or any societal structure involves giving up SOME freedom. If you either can't see that or think anarchy is good, then there is no helping you.

Bad surgeons should be eliminated by market forces. If you think government force is necessary for there to be regulation, you are either ignoring systems that currently self regulate, or you are halfway to communism. Take heart comrade, once you fully embrace the idea that government should tell people what to do, you can give up the responsibility and pressures of owning anything!
 
If a gun control measure did pass strict scrutiny, would it affect you're gun ownership or someone else's?

Are you talking in some theoretical world where we wiping the slate clean first or we still have all the current BS? If the latter, it would be highly unlikely to affect mine. If the former, no idea.

And to be clear, I don't think much of the NFA really passes strict scrutiny and the '86 ban on new machine guns certainly doesn't.
 
This is where Eddie Coyle explained things beautifully last night:

Let me explain my "coward" comment.

You said this:



OK. Let's negotiate.

You're a gun owner willing to negotiate and I want to take your guns.

What are you going to give up? You personally don't think you'll give up anything because you're not a felon, and you're certainly not mentally ill. So let's make it so that felons and people that I decide are mentally ill can't have guns.

So the negotiation involves you giving away someone else's rights. Fair enough.

A negotiation implies that you give something up and get something in return.

You gave up some poor bastard's rights. What did you get in return?

More safety and security? No, not really. You already agreed that laws won't stop a truly dangerous person from committing mayhem.

You gave up rights for the illusion of security.

That's being a coward. If it's not, please tell me where I missed.

Are you talking in some theoretical world where we wiping the slate clean first or we still have all the current BS? If the latter, it would be highly unlikely to affect mine. If the former, no idea.

And to be clear, I don't think much of the NFA really passes strict scrutiny and the '86 ban on new machine guns certainly doesn't.

Most people are happy to negotiate other peoples' rights away.
 
This is where Eddie Coyle explained things beautifully last night:





Most people are happy to negotiate other peoples' rights away.

That's not what I'm saying, thank you very little. I'm saying I don't know if I'd support because I don't know what "it" is exactly. If some measure passed strict scrutiny and somehow I wasn't affected but someone else was, depending on what the measure is, I may or may not support it. If it did affect my right, the same thing goes. As an extreme example, if SCOTUS found that the government has a compelling interest in not allowing felons IN PRISON to not have guns/knives/etc and further found that to be narrowly tailored, yes, I'd support that. So do me a favor and don't read in to what I'm saying and spare me the ZOMG YOU'RE A STATIST bulls**t.

We have a Constitutional process that I respect and appreciate. With the topic we're currently discussing, it's hardly ever followed, but as a citizen in this country, I'm willing to go along with the process that's been laid down.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom