Gun Political Issues Megathread. (Control for or Against?)
- Thread starter Free-Stater 101
- Start date
prinCZess
Warrior, Writer, Performer, Perv
*tosses scarf*
*adjusts wayfarer glasses*
*sips from latte-flavored craft beer*
"I have no idea why you'd think such a thing. Now if you'll excuse me, I need to go to a concert for a band so indie I don't even know their name yet."
Terthna
Professional Lurker
You're going to a concert to listen to music? Hah! How pedestrian. I 3D-print all of my music to play on a children's toy from the 70's:
Is your hair in a eierd design
Arch Dornan
Oh, lovely. They've sent me a mo-ron.
Partygoers kill gunman with bricks after he opened fire at Texas home
The gunman fatally shot one person and wounded another in a Fort Worth backyard.
www.nbcnews.com
When in doubt bring a brick.
When the otherside matches or exceeds their own parody...
You know how people joke that politicians probably decided what "assault weapons" are by looking through gun catalogs and picking out the ones they didn't like?
That's literally what they did. California's long history on assault weapons on the line in court battle
You need standing. Which means someone needs to actually, at least, pay the tax first. Depending upon the specifics of the law, that might not happen for months.
And with a case that is as relatively easy to get standing for as this is, it pays to take the time to get all your legal ducks in a row and figure out your entire legal strategy before you actually bring the case.
Oh I know.
Im just saying we have seen how certain states are treating these things
Bear Ribs
Well-known member
There are two issues with this line of reasoning. First, gun control advocates in the US tend to always go after "assault weapons," big scary guns or large calibers, or magazine bans on having too many bullets. But suicide with a large caliber hunting rifle is ridiculously rare, and nobody needs a large magazine or semi-auto to shoot themself in the head, so suicide rates are pretty much a smokescreen as the proposed laws won't do anything about the tools used for suicide.
Actual suicide statistics and records also fly in the face of this claim. F'rex here's the UK's suicide rate over a period of about forty years:
Can you tell when the first Fiream Amendment Act happened? How about the second one? Or the Violent Crimes Reduction Act? Can you tell which ones actually involved pistols? No, of course not. Suicide wasn't visibly affected even by laws so stringent the freakin' UK Olympic Shooting Team wasn't allowed to practice for the 2004 Olympics.
Further, real psychologists consider spontaneous suicide a myth. It's mostly found in the realm of fiction, real suicides are planned out.
“This is a pervasive and entrenched misunderstanding,” he states. He then demonstrates that behind the scenes of several so-called “impulsive suicides” are details that show planning. He says we find impulsive suicides only in fiction. [Perhaps that’s why the notion sounds plausible – our heads are filled with such stories and they’ve made a dramatic impression.]
Well gang in the Great State of South Carolina on Aug 15th if you have a concealed weapons permit. You will be able to open carry in my state. https://www.indexjournal.com/news/s...cle_6747cfa1-2a49-54ed-99b4-30b89014587b.html
PeaceMaker 03
Well-known member
So the state still made it an unconstitutional law?
“In a first amendment case involving freedom of the press and religion, the Supreme Court ruled "The power to impose a license fee on a constitutional right amounts to prior restraint and the power to restrict or deny the right ... a tax laid specifically on the exercise of these freedoms would be unconstitutional."
Murdock v. Pennsylvania, 1943 319 US 105
Legal definition it is not unconstitutional( see above), but the state is establishing “ it's power” to take, define, or limit the power of the 2nd amendment.
Interesting precedent, “ You can exercise your liberty to free speech and to assemble you just have to take this class, and fill out this form, and we will let you know when you can publicly speak”.
Unfortunately, it is a sign of the sad state of our country, that a state setting precedent that it has power over the constitution, and can determine who can exercise the enumerated civil liberties, in the bill of rights is a win for civil liberties and freedom in the USA.
Neither the first nor the second Amendment were ever absolute. You can open carry all you want in Constitutional Carry states but if you want to enter private property or a private business and the individual that owns that property has a no firearms policy. Guess what you can't exercise your 2A there. And this bill was a compromise. The antigun groups could not go against it because they already agreed to Concealed Carry 20 years ago. Though they still tried and failed because of that. If you want to beat the left you have to learn to use the law against them. Just screaming the constitution has been causing 2A groups to lose ground for decades. Only by using lawfair has the 2A community started to win again.
Yinko
Well-known member
I think most states have it the other way around. Open carry with no pre-reqs, concealed carry only with a license.
"Anyone who wants a gun can have one and do whatever they want with it, whether or not they know anything about it" is not a good policy, constitutional right or not, for the same reasons that "anyone who wants to vote can wander into the polling place and do so, whether or not they know anything about the issue at hand or not" or "anyone who wants to can publicly argue for any cause they want to, regardless of if their arguments are true or not" are not good policies.
We don't restrict the latter two because any possible alternative would be worse as any possibly scheme to regulate people's ability would be abused and used to discriminate against disfavored groups, and there's no agreed upon standards for either. That is not the case for firearms, there are very clear standards for what is and isn't safe and those standards can be objectively defined and taught, standards that are not open to change, and the government doesn't gain nearly as much by trying to clamp down (blocking votes or speech directly impacts the power of the people to influence the government, firearms do not do the same).
We don't restrict the latter two because any possible alternative would be worse as any possibly scheme to regulate people's ability would be abused and used to discriminate against disfavored groups, and there's no agreed upon standards for either. That is not the case for firearms, there are very clear standards for what is and isn't safe and those standards can be objectively defined and taught, standards that are not open to change, and the government doesn't gain nearly as much by trying to clamp down (blocking votes or speech directly impacts the power of the people to influence the government, firearms do not do the same).
Morphic Tide
Well-known member
*laughs in 1776*
Firearms do, in fact, impact the power of the people to influence the government. Because an armed population cannot be governed without its consent. This sets some basic outer bounds on any sensible government. Of course, then you get politicians who aren't sensible running things and they eventually run into why it is that armed populations need consent to be governed.
Or get replaced by politicians closer to sensible before this breaking point is reached. Either or. Very preferably the latter, as civil wars tend to gut a country for a while.
