I feel like you continue to trot out this argument every thread and every thread it is pointed out to you that all that is functionally necessary to enact most gun control legislation is a change in the majority of the supreme court and a willing legislative and executive branch.
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
President Barack Obama preparing to issue Executive Order on gun control
- Thread starter RustyNails
- Start date
- Status
I feel like you continue to trot out this argument every thread and every thread it is pointed out to you that all that is functionally necessary to enact most gun control legislation is a change in the majority of the supreme court and a willing legislative and executive branch.
If you call an executive order "illegal" I don't think you're capable of judging arguments. You're already disqualified from the discussion.
Ryan242004
Member
How many of those incidents occurred 10+ years after leaving office?
But clay shooting is done with shotguns, which are much less dangerous than guns used in homicides. Most sport shooting on the international level is done with air guns much less powerful that ones being used in the US. The disconnect is still there when it comes to people who shoot for fun. If these were motorcycles, then the US has the problem of millions of people going 200mph on public streets with no safety gear or proper training.
Agreed. Sadly, that's way too many people. People who actually use guns responsibly are a rarity, and probably getting rarer as fewer and fewer people actual go hunting.
So... You don't know what facts are confirmed?
Well, again it isn't really his choice as he gets a detail because he's the president. And what does this have to do with the point you're trying to make?
Are you still seriously pursuing that ridiculous line of reasoning from earlier?
The secret service are highly trained, licensed, monitored and vetted employees with the purpose of protecting highly valuable members of our government.
That level of requirement is far above the suggested regulations Obama has sought to implement. So this whole line of reasoning makes very little sense.
I believe this is inevitable in the long term. You can't be the only developed country in the world that believes in an idea that the vast majority of outsiders seeing it as madness. There are similarities to Jim Crow laws or the right to slave ownership; ideas that lagged the rest of the western world by decades, and as such inevitably came crumbling down regardless of the local opposition because of the global condemnation.
It's been established over and over again that this puts you in more danger than not owning a gun.
Obama can't overturn the word of God silly.
If anyone is expecting outright bans, you're crazy. I fully expect stricter background checks as well as more regulation on what's made available to those without some sort of licencing, or requiring the license to buy a gun at all. A CCW is as easy as hopping online and answering some questions in some states so forcing people to go through some mandatory classroom and range time in order to get the license could go a long way to a) discouraging people from getting guns and b) teaching gun safety from the beginning.
I am currently enrolled to get my CCW early next year and every over month go to a range training session where I can work on handling each of the guns I own in a safe and controlled fashion.
I am currently enrolled to get my CCW early next year and every over month go to a range training session where I can work on handling each of the guns I own in a safe and controlled fashion.
Your Entertainer
Member
What people fail to state is why owning a gun should be a "right". Just stating so (and it's not, btw) doesn't constitute an argument. Additionally, the constitution isn't an infalliable, flawless document - that much is evident from its very inception and the fact that it has been added to multiple times.
I'm not claiming to know your specific situation at home. But what I can say is that for every crime/protection stopped using a gun by a non-police person, many, many more have been committed using one. Are you speaking about animals? Making guns significantly more difficult to obtain would undoubtedly cut down on the amount criminals can have as well and the overall number of gun deaths, period. We have data from other countries reaffirming this.
timetokill
Banned
Damn, right now I'm wishing I held gun stocks
Sales are gonna skyrocket again
Sales are gonna skyrocket again
It doesn't matter. Owning the gun is owning PEACE OF MIND (just ignore the actual data and statistics).
It's like how my grandmother, who lives alone out in the country, has an electric fence, two rottweilers, three padlocks per door, an electronic security system, and just for good measure she fires off a few rounds every night at precisely 3 a.m.
Sure, she doesn't sleep well. Sure, she's paranoid that someone crazy will come stumbling out of the woods and break in. Sure, she's always on edge. Sure, she's almost shot me when I decided to drop by and visit her on a whim.
But PEACE OF MIND, guys. Nothing is going to get to her. NOTHING.
Australian model was reasonable and worked for that country. People who wanted guns for sport, fun, hunting and agriculture can still have them. Self defense is and was a statistical red herring, even in the States.
However, the American issue is more complex than mere availability of guns. It's cultural.
However, the American issue is more complex than mere availability of guns. It's cultural.
tearsintherain
Member
The Supreme Court hates to revisit recent rulings. Even if the majority of a court disagrees with a previous ruling they will let pass 20-30 years before they revisit it. In 2008 and 2010 the SC ruled that handguns are a core element of the 2nd amendment and that there is historical precedent for citizens to own and bear arms, independent of any affiliations with militias. Essentially they ruled all US citizens have the fundamental right to own and bear handguns, full stop. It was only handguns because the court challenge was against a handgun ban in D.C. and Chicago (overturned by the SC, obviously).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_of_Columbia_v._Heller
You are completely right that Congress could pass gun control laws, they may be challenged to the SC but they could dismiss it as long as it doesn't fall afoul of the Heller decision - ie any ban on handguns would be struck down, but for example if they changed all long guns to be classified as NFA weapons that could perhaps be ignored by the court for a later court to decide.
So all you need to do is get a filibuster proof majority in the House and Senate and a President who won't veto the legislation. The last time one party had a filibuster proof majority in Congress was 1937. Oh, in the current climate any politician who supports gun control is also immediately recalled out of office, but no doubt that will also be easy to get around.
To pass a full gun ban you would also need 2/3'd's of the states to vote to amend the Bill of Rights.
Ryan242004
Member
RustyNails
Member
Doesn't matter.
Fenderputty
Banned
A shotgun is extremely dangerous at close range. It's probably the best close quarters weapon as it has less need to be aimed accurately like a handgun. It's not easily concealed though, and it is illegal to modify the gun to have a shorter barrel. Handguns remain choice number one.
We can have regulation to reduce their impact though. Clip size reduction. License renewals. Maybe make them a special class for handguns that requires more hoops to jump through. Tax handgun ammo more. People freak about AR-15 because they look scary but handguns are the real problem when it comes to gun violence IMO.
If this is a give and take thing I believe gun ownership advocates will have to give more when it comes to handguns.
Ooccoo
Member
What would realistically happen if Obama outright banned guns? Would Americans be plunged into a civil war? I doubt it. There'd be resistance groups sure, but nothing that could stand a chance against an army. It's coming sooner or later. In the eyes of the government, having armed citizens is excessively dangerous for a number of reasons. Invoking something that was written aeons ago when the world was a totally different place is wrong. Mind you I'm not American, but people don't need guns. Period.
It seems to me that the crux is the right to own a gun is fundamental because the government has said the right to own a gun is fundamental, and the government declares those rights as fundamental because...? Which is still not a logical reason for preserving the right to own a gun.
Eh, not sure i agree. The Supreme court has re-vistied cases hovering around gay rights on and off every decade.
You are also ignoring that the current supreme court has been conservative for a while now. There hasn't been much need to re-affirm.
If the court turned liberal though, legislation like comprehensive gun control would certainly get pushed to the supreme court and the new liberal court(where many of which dissented the first time against the case you are talking about) would now be in the majority. No real reason why all of the sudden they would change their views simply because of historical trends.
SolicitorPirate
Member
There was a reasonably strong gun culture in Australia prior to gun control. Perhaps not to the fetishistic levels of modern America, but still pretty strong.
The important takeaway is that we came around to supporting gun control once we realized it was a good thing.
He would be assassinated within a week, probably. As would many political figures who support this position.
There are millions of people who care more about their guns than feeding their families.
Ryan242004
Member
If the number is zero I think it does.
Also, Regan who qualified for the life long protection before it was cut ended up declining it after the first 10 years and never had an issue despite surviving an assassination attempt during his presidency.
In today's world it's more about stoping the threat before it happens with Intel.
CharminUltra
Member
I don't think Ronald Reagan wrote the constitution, silly.
That sort is my point though. People who handguns or ar-15s for "target practice" are clearly doing for far more than shooting for fun. If the hobby was reduced to just shotgun owners for clay pigeon shooting purposes, we wouldn't be having this conversation. Also, you can't pretend ar-15s aren't a problem. We've had several very high profile mass shootings done with them recently. Any serious talk of gun control will inevitably circle back to banning ar-15 and similar weapons on account of this.
In a country where one of the "gives" is merely allowing research being done on gun violence, there will have to be a lot more give before we reach anything resembling fairness here. I see the gun control crowd getting louder and more powerful for a long time before the gun-owning advocates can legitimately take anything back.
timetokill
Banned
Sure, there would be a civil war.
Everyone likes to trot out the "stand a chance against an army" like they're playing Risk. It's woefully simplistic to look at it like that. For one, the army is made up of people, and a lot of those people like guns. Then Obama's going to ask the army to kill the nation's own citizens en masse? Ask these people to kill their friends and family and loved ones for defending a right that was unconstitutionally and unjustly taken from them?
At that moment Obama would be the living embodiment of WHY many feel we need the 2nd amendment.
appaws
Banned
Presumably the people who want to ban all emissions would continue to work toward their goal. That is all I am saying, and that is all I said about anti-gunners. That is not the "slippery slope" fallacy. Sorry.
Believe me, I know that there are reasonable people like Mammoth and Piggus who favor civilian ownership of weapons with a higher level of restriction, and would stop there. I just don't think they are at all reflective of the anti-gunners. Let's just say I think you, Hyperion, and PBY are more representative of the anti-gun movement as a whole.
I am not saying Obama's silly, unenforceable, meaningless executive order will lead to gun confiscation. That would be a "slippery slope" argument.
what is silly or unenforceable about saying that the ATF should now interpret "people who are in the business of selling guns" as anyone engaging in a gun transaction, rather than a business which sells guns?
So you are making an appeal to emotion then. Trying to discourage piggus because of the assumption they will be insulted in the future once a piece of gun control legislation they favor passes and some people might end up calling them out for not wanting more?
So basically the argument is we need guns to protect us against a government that tries to enforce laws we don't like even if they are laws that are ultimately legally sound and democratically supported. I.E. I need my guns to shoot people that pass and enforce laws I don't like.
appaws
Banned
OH NO! I am disqualified from the discussion!
Can't an executive order be illegal? Go read about Executive Order 9066 and get back to me.
Good for you. Safety and training are the most important things.
No. Not insulted. Who cares if adults feel insulted when people disagree with them. You misunderstood. That eventually the type of firearms that they value would come under attack.
DonasaurusRex
Online Ho Champ
I don't think you understand the US doesn't dole out rights. The government has nothing to do with your right to defend yourself. In a socialist society it is the state that is supreme and provides and decides rights. This is a free society in which the only reason we have any government is to secure the rights which are SELF evident. There is no right to bear arms because the government said so, there is a right to bear arms because any human who wants to defend himself may do so and no government can infringe upon those rights. The bill of rights was made to codify more specifically the rights of PEOPLE that cannot be infringed upon because Republics are notoriously hard to keep over time.
Pretty much. I mean part of the war against the British was they wanted to take away people's guns. You'll never fucking ban them. Not in this lifetime.
So you are making an appeal to emotion. What exactly are you contesting at this point?
And clearly you do care or perceive others to care otherwise you wouldn't of made a long winded post pointing out that more moderate supporters of gun control may one day find themselves the target of verbal ire.
Or what?
I am just trying to get this line of logic, if the government legally bans guns and has both the support of the law and the people, what are you going to do exactly?
what?
Dude Abides
Banned
How'd that work out for David Koresh?
appaws
Banned
It depends on the level of government intrusion that you want. It is unenforceable with they level of law enforcement intrusiveness that we have now. How, practically speaking, will we regulate private sales between individuals? They would presumably have to go to an FFL and document the private transfer somehow, right? How do we do it. As someone who works with law enforcement, I will just say that this is very difficult. I'll give Obama the benefit of the doubt and say that this is mostly politics and will change very little.
Beautiful. Absolutely correct.
Like the individual right to own slaves amiright?
Your right to self defense is not a guarantee to carte blanche use of any method available in pursuit of that self defense.
Probably wake up from this dream world.
The right to self defense != the right to bear arms.
The right to bear arms was about the self-evident right of the people to secure their own society. It was about saying "Yes, if the government has become so out of touch with the needs of the masses, it is their right to rise up against it and take it for themselves, and, in fact, focussing the military might of the nation in the masses, rather than a standing army, serves the purpose of keeping the government in line with the wishes of the masses"
But hypothetically speaking, government enacts legally sound legislation and it mirrors the will of the people and the consequence is it bans guns.
By agreeing with that post it would seem you are saying that is justifiable to take up arms.
timetokill
Banned
The response was to a question asking, "What if Obama outright banned guns?"
In order for him to do it it wouldn't be democratically supported (as a gun ban isn't supported, not by any stretch, in this country). It would be a dictatorial move, bypassing every check and balance in this country in order to take away a constitutional right.
Ding ding ding!
I think the problem a lot of people have, especially outside of this country, in understanding American rights is that they are not government-issued. The bill of rights especially is a protection of the people FROM the government.
This won't actually do anything but rile up conservative gun owners more. Even if it's something reasonable. Obama is already labeled as some kind of executive order issuing tyrant. Going for the guns isn't going to help that.
I want gun policy reform but I'd rather the republican party not be given something to unite behind.
I want gun policy reform but I'd rather the republican party not be given something to unite behind.
DonasaurusRex
Online Ho Champ
the individual short comings of citizens does not throw out the SELF evident nature of what our Republic stood for, there were plenty of people on both sides of the slavery issue. But the personal and cultural moment does not dilute the idea that since no one human is responsible for the world/reality we are in, or the biology that produces all the life in the world we have RIGHTS that are inherit to our humanity. Just because people willfully chose to ignore that with respect to slaves does not mean change the law, its means hold those who fell short of it accountable. It is folly to try and achieve legislation in a response to poor decisions and behavior of people...our very human nature being the reason we have laws and governments to secure our rights.
Sure it can be. This one isn't. And you know that. Otherwise you wouldn't have adjusted your phrasing in a subsequent post.
If you're gonna argue for the wrong side of history at least make an effort and don't trip over your own intellectual dishonesty.
Dude Abides
Banned
But this is nonsense. Who does the protecting? The courts - i.e. the government. When private citizens try it they get roflstomped.
A problem a lot of people have is that they think that they way they think things ought to be is the way they actually are.
appaws
Banned
Obviously this is not going to happen anytime soon. But it is fun to speculate about.
There would be a massive refusal by law enforcement to enforce the law. Nullification ordinances would be passed within weeks in most of the south, midwest, and plains.
Attempts at federal enforcement would lead to secession movements springing up and active duty military would refuse to follow orders to suppress their countrymen.
There would be bloodshed, but surprisingly most of it would be in "blue" states, primarily because no red state will allow any enforcement to happen.
If it got to this point, I think we would be better off breaking up the U.S. because I don't think there would be any room for compromise. The U.S. could become more European/Canadian in structure as many want. And the other republic could continue the Lockean thing.
We would really have to make sure the sports leagues held together.
- Status