Stance on gun control

[Spartan198]

Originally Posted by Excalibur

At least the most extreme so far is one of you thinking we lowly civilians shouldn't have "machine guns" or believe that there is such a thing as the gun show loophole.

I just don't think full auto firearms serve any practical purpose to the average civilian. Nothing to do with being "lowly" or not.

[SPEMack618]

Practical or not shouldn't factor into the equation when discussing Constitutional rights.

[commando552]

Originally Posted by SPEMack618

Practical or not shouldn't factor into the equation when discussing Constitutional rights.

Is there any room for common sense though? You can make the argument that machine guns cost a lot of money so legal ones are not used for crimes, but this is only because they are in very limited supply due to the NFA. With a universal lack of any gun control, there would be companies making POS machine pistols for $300 which would definitely do more harm than good.

[Excalibur]

The problem is when you start on that path of so called "common sense", it's a slippery slope that goes deeper.

During the time when the 2A was written, the founding fathers were well aware of advancing tech of the era. Repeating guns were an idea and the concept of a gun that can shoot faster than one shot at a time was the dream of all gun makers and soldiers of the time. Now, could they have actually thought of machine guns and planes? Perhaps not, but I believe they'd understand how it does not effect what the average free American can have. Remember, the British wanted to confiscate all firearms from the colonists and ban use and it didn't matter what type of gun. All guns.


The fact that there's many cases outside the US where heavily restricted gun control have given birth to small illegal shops all over the place making easy to make machine guns. One case was in Australia. Brazil is another and the Philippines.

You need to understand what kind of people live in America. If anything, the more restrictions we kept passing in America, the larger coverage of deaths with guns seemed to take place following.


And about machine guns in civilian hands. You know how many retired military people are in the US? I think most of them are perfectly trained to handle select fire weapons and again, this goes back to the Right to Bear Arms applies to all arms.

What we should focus at with laws is making the penalty for irresponsible actions and crime with firearms harsher.

[commando552]

Originally Posted by Excalibur

And about machine guns in civilian hands. You know how many retired military people are in the US? I think most of them are perfectly trained to handle select fire weapons and again, this goes back to the Right to Bear Arms applies to all arms.

You cant make the argument though that if one sub-set of the population can be trusted with a type of weapon then it should be available to everybody else. If you make the argument that only those people than the Government deems can be trusted with a weapon can have it, then surely this would go strongly against the universal right to keep and bear arms would it not?

Honestly, I also don't buy the argument that the founding fathers had any idea where firearms technology, society or the world as a whole was going to be 200+ years into the future. A couple of centuries from now we could have practical shoulder fired railguns and plasma rifles that can blast straight through a building, do you think it would be reasonable for anybody to walk into a gun store and buy one of them?

[Excalibur]

Yes, I believe we should have phasers as well. They still falls under arms. The more we let governments restrict certain things, the more power we give over to them and then what can we have? Or decides it? You? Me? Or people who don't know who don't know us but makes a bunch of assumptions that we can't be trusted with certain things. That's not a good mindset for governing or a free country.

Hell, we have means of destroying buildings and punching holes through walls that ISN'T using a weapon. Enough fertilizer will do that for you.

Hell, the NFA wasn't passed until the 1930s and by that time, we had machine guns, short barrelled weapons, etc for years up to that point on guess what kind of people use them in crime? People who are committing crime.

I already said that the found fathers might not have predicted actual machine gun, but they are aware of the then current advancing tech of their era and constantly promote the idea that citizens should have arms equal to the military in the event of oppression and tyranny because they just fought a war of Independence that proved that very point.

It's not about actual trust because regulations alone means there is no trust to begin with. It's assumption that the people will do wrong and a rule needs to be set down in case. That's not a very honest thing.

These types of laws don't actually work. You like a lot of others don't trust the vast majority of people with their own responsibility and believe ink on paper will prevent them from doing crime.


I might need actual training to use a machine gun, but I sure as hell don't want to pay for a tax stamp and wait a year for additional background checks to get one and then can't take it out of my state without additional paper work and then keep it even more guarded than my other guns. I want a suppressor on my guns to protect my ears, not again, pay 200 dollars for a stupid stamp and wait for someone else to prove I'm a law abiding American citizen.

[SPEMack618]

I am willing to compromise.

Remove SBSs, SBRs, and suppressors form the NFA. Disband the BATFE. The IRS can get my money and the FBI can run a back ground check.

Keep the tax stamp for machine guns but repeal the Hughes Amendment.

The Founding Fathers didn't expect the internet, either. Does the first amendment not cover it?

[commando552]

Originally Posted by Excalibur

Yes, I believe we should have phasers as well. They still falls under arms. The more we let governments restrict certain things, the more power we give over to them and then what can we have? Or decides it? You? Me? Or people who don't know who don't know us but makes a bunch of assumptions that we can't be trusted with certain things. That's not a good mindset for governing or a free country.

Hell, we have means of destroying buildings and punching holes through walls that ISN'T using a weapon. Enough fertilizer will do that for you.

Hell, the NFA wasn't passed until the 1930s and by that time, we had machine guns, short barrelled weapons, etc for years up to that point on guess what kind of people use them in crime? People who are committing crime.

I already said that the found fathers might not have predicted actual machine gun, but they are aware of the then current advancing tech of their era and constantly promote the idea that citizens should have arms equal to the military in the event of oppression and tyranny because they just fought a war of Independence that proved that very point.

It's not about actual trust because regulations alone means there is no trust to begin with. It's assumption that the people will do wrong and a rule needs to be set down in case. That's not a very honest thing.

These types of laws don't actually work. You like a lot of others don't trust the vast majority of people with their own responsibility and believe ink on paper will prevent them from doing crime.


I might need actual training to use a machine gun, but I sure as hell don't want to pay for a tax stamp and wait a year for additional background checks to get one and then can't take it out of my state without additional paper work and then keep it even more guarded than my other guns. I want a suppressor on my guns to protect my ears, not again, pay 200 dollars for a stupid stamp and wait for someone else to prove I'm a law abiding American citizen.

Maybe it is just my rather dim view on humanity, but I will freely admit that I don't trust most people. I also do not think that gun control will necessarily prevent people from intending to commit crime, but if it is possible to limit the scope or severity of a crime then I think it is something that is worth looking at.

Another big difference in our opinions is that I think it is totally reasonable that police and military forces are allowed to use weapons that civilians do not have access to. I am a British firearms officer, and in order for me to carry and use the weapons that I do I was vetted, trained, tested, and am held constantly accountable for my actions. This is not the case with the man on the street. From a more selfish point of view, I do a job that on occasion puts me in harms way, and am happier in the knowledge that 99.99% of the time I am better armed and equipped than the other guy.

[StanTheMan]

I see where Nyles is coming from and even agree to a point, but again, that heel-digging attitude didn't come out of nowhere. While I agree that I too don't like the stigma being placed there as he mentions, keep in mind just where it's being applied from.

I find it rather hypocritical and disingenuous that many on the 'pro-gun' side (which I'll admit are mainly right-leaning) are being demanded to be so accepting in other social and civil issues from the 'other' (left-leaning) side while also being demanded to allow the further chipping away at rights and privileges they care about. Again, our attitude didn't come in a vacuum. Liberty is a door that swings both ways. I've no problem with individual freedoms - I want gays to be married if they want, people to worship as they please (or not), and so on - Yet I can't enjoy my firearms rights as-is (when things are already quite irksome in spots)? Bah.

Bans and many other gun control proposals reek of the same flawed, if not absurd mentality used in applying the War on Drugs. And we know how well that's gone. The Drug War just doesn't fuckin' work in its intended purpose and has lead to a whole culture of abuse and shitting on the citizenry. Much more serious 'gun control' will lead down the same path, all in the same or similar canned excuses of 'common sense', 'public safety', and so on.

Meh, I think I'm repeating myself and as I've said my piece and stand by it I will only repeat that I would consider some stronger measures IF I didn't feel they would be abused by those Excalibur speaks of that wish to ban away anything they find objectionable. It's not like I'm unwilling to accept some restrictions, as indeed there are some limitations on other rights. But for the most part, I believe what is present is plenty enough - short of things like some mandatory training/familiarization I'm really just reluctant to accept them. c552, I share that same distrust, in fact even moreso than you do. But things like bans ignore if not disavow the very concept of trust, automatically assuming it can't be attained. Like Ex I agree that's just a crummy mentality to go with.

For the record, I personally interpret the 2A similarly to Excalibur. I also agree with him that the bigger thing is that more uniform and harsher penalties should be applied to those that break firearms regs and laws. I've read only a small percentage of failed background checks on sales are even prosecuted, which is absurd given we have two if not three whole federal law enforcement agencies that can be involved in that, one supposedly dedicated to that specifically. Granted checks can fail for ridiculous reasons, again, I'm hesitant to trust to gov't there as well. Nonetheless, when serious laws are broken, that's indeed not something that should warrant a mere wrist-slapping. Firearms laws are serious. Or at least they should be.

I agree having the right means having the responsibility - And while I concede that is partly on the user and requires due diligence on their part (again, why I've little problem with checks and training) that has to include backing it up with stiff penalties and the willingness to use them on those that willfully shirk that responsibility.

Eh, just adding a scant bit to some already good and fair thoughts. As I said, I've no real solutions. All I really have is a lot of worry about my rights (not just 2A) being pissed on from other people's misplaced outrage and overbearing sensibilities.

[MT2008]

Looking back at the posts that Nyles and Commando552 wrote in 2016, here are some of my thoughts. I do recognize that I have the benefit of 7 years of retrospect that neither of them had, and that the world is a very different place compared to 2016 (i.e., Trump hadn't been elected U.S. POTUS yet, no pandemic and post-Floyd riots, no Jan 6 insurrection/riot, no Bruen decision, no conflicts in Ukraine and Israel, etc.) But I still think there's value in re-visiting the thoughts of both.

I'm going to begin by pointing out a fundamental difference in my American perspective vs. their non-American perspectives: I think that it is very uncommon for most non-Americans to accept and get behind the idea of the "militia" being comprised of people armed with personal weapons. I understand that many people in the 21st century regard the very notion of the citizen "militia" as outdated at best, and suspicious at worst - indeed, I think many on the left, and in the federal government, now regard the "militia" as synonymous with anti-state sentiments. While I understand those sentiments, I don't agree with them, even if I think there's an argument to be made that many current U.S. proponents of the "militia" concept are extremists and that they discredit the concept with their radicalism. But I can't get behind the idea that the concept of a militia is obsolete. Not when events in Ukraine and Israel in the past two years have demonstrated why a civilian "gun culture" and "militia" still plays a major role in 21st century warfare, and when (here in the States) our elected officials have demonstrated an unwillingness to uphold law and order if it conflicts with their personal ideologies. I spent quite a bit of 2020 and 2021 living in a U.S. city that saw major riots and political violence, and I'm really glad that I own multiple AR-15s and handguns.

I'll at least agree with the notion that while there is a universal right to bear arms, that presumption still has exceptions. There are plenty of people who are clearly not suited to being members of the "militia", whether due to age (too young or too old), anti-social personality characteristics (i.e., felons), or mental health issues. There is no benefit to society, or the defense of either persons or society, by arming such people. Those responsible for enforcing law and order face the daunting challenge of figuring out who those people are, and it's not always obvious. But in a liberal democratic republic like the U.S., the presumption is that someone has the rights enumerated in our Constitution are protected at a societal level, and the burden is on the government to demonstrate that individuals must be deprived of those rights. What gun controllers, by and large, are promoting is the inverse of that very concept, and that's why, whatever their intentions (i.e., I know that they're not all freedom-hating Marxists), I question their logic.

Originally Posted by commando552

The problem that I have with the 2nd amendment, is that it is really not very clear cut at all. In fact, to me at least, it is very ambiguous to whom the right is being bestowed. To me the wording "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" would seem that the right to bear arms is only protected if you are part of a regulated Militia. This was also the opinion of the US Supreme Court until 2008 when they ruled that it also applied to individuals (in a split 5-4 decision).

There's been a lot, and I mean a LOT, of Constitutional scholarship to the contrary. Most of that work revolves around the writings of James Madison, and his thoughts on who the "militia" really were. There's also ample discussion about what "well-regulated" meant back then, and it does not mean what you think it means now, in the modern English language in the 2020s (i.e., it meant something more like "in issue/properly equipped" - the opposite of how gun controllers have historically portrayed it). The Supreme Court in Heller (2008) did not so much change its mind, so much as recognized and accepted that Constitutional scholarship had changed quite a bit since previous decisions (such as the Miller decision of the 1930s, which is a decision that is anathema to many gun controllers, anyway). There is no longer much debate about what the 2nd Amendment means, and who it applied to - only whether it needs to be amended or removed completely. (And as I've said previously in this topic, I've long harbored worries that a "repeal the 2nd Amendment" will come to fruition in America.)

Anyway, I'm glad that Commando still acknowledges the following...

Originally Posted by commando552

Having said this I am against any additional forms of gun control in the US. This isn't because I think gun control is in and of itself a bad thing, but it just wouldn't work due to the history/culture of the USA and the huge amount of firearms that are already in circulation.

Here, you and I are in violent agreement, and I think that it's ultimately the bottom line to the entire discussion. Gun control advocates in the United States need to accept that at this point in time, the vast majority of gun control laws that are being proposed today amount to little more than legislative virtue signaling, and are unlikely to make any practical difference in the near or even long terms. Even if one thinks that the U.S. would be a better, safer country without so many guns around (or ANY guns around), the fact is that when there are already 400 million firearms in circulation, a society has already passed the point of no return. There just aren't enough people who will comply, and there aren't enough mil/LEOs in the U.S. to make them comply. The fact that so many gun registration schemes in the U.S. at the state level have been met with non-compliance illustrates this fact. And the fact that so many state and local gun control laws make little difference on affecting crime rates illustrates the practical futility of signing them into law in the first place.

Another consideration: Ultimately, gun control is likely going to be made obsolete as additive manufacturing/3D printing continues to advance. Right now, additive manufacturing techniques are mostly making frames for polymer handguns, but inevitably, there will come a time when a person at home can print a complete pistol with the same QC and tolerances as a factory firearm. In 2016, nobody knew what "ghost guns" were - now the U.S. government is trying in vain to put that toothpaste back in the tube, recognizing that gun control is about to become an obsolete concept. I've also found it hilarious that gun control groups like Everytown for Gun Safety are actually encouraging USG (with a straight face) to ban or strictly regulate 3D printers for civilian ownership, without considering the massive economic ramifications for the U.S. if that were to happen. (Spoiler alert: Nobody in a million years will ever listen to them.)

Originally Posted by Nyles

I find the older I get, and the more time I spend around "gun people", the more moderate I get. Working 5 years at the gun counter did a lot to open my eyes about how many idiots and yahoos out there own guns, and 9 months in Kandahar showed me what a society that has NO gun control really looks like.

Agree with this absolutely, and nobody here disputes that (1.) there is a minority (perhaps a significant minority) of gun owners who are irresponsible and no value added to the "militia", and (2.) we don't want to become like Afghanistan or Somalia. With that being said, we also live in a liberal democratic republic with a very different culture than those countries. A fundamental of living in such a society is that we trust each other based on shared commitment to common values, not a free-for-all/quasi-anarchic society, or a society where everybody rigidly adheres to a code that is enforced by a totalitarian government. So it's not really fair to argue that gun control (or lack thereof) explains why Afghanistan is in chaos - the lack of a coherent national identity and shared commitment to the vision of a nation-state is the main reason that Afghanistan is a failed state, not the presence of guns. I would at least agree that in a society like that, guns are a hindrance, not an assistance, to the creation and/or preservation of a free society.

Originally Posted by Nyles

Is there any reason an intelligent, responsible gun owner shouldn't be able to own whatever they want? Not really, no. But the reality is there's no real legal way to distinguish the responsible people for the irresponsible ones - just because you've never been convicted of a criminal offense does not mean you're responsible enough to own a machine gun.

Agree in part - though I wouldn't say that there's ZERO way to distinguish the "bad" gun owners from the "good" gun owners. A recurring theme in most mass shootings is that there are almost always major warning signs that either get ignored, or not acted upon quickly enough (the most recent mass shooting in Lewiston, ME being a good example). Often, many gun controllers are quick to scapegoat law-abiding gun owners, when there are identifiable failures on the part of law enforcement or others who failed to act when warning signs presented themselves. Saying, "it's too hard to find the bad guys, so nobody should be allowed to own guns" or "everyone should be presumed bad unless demonstrated otherwise" is the refuge of (a.) those who value security over liberty, (b.) those who don't know how to create effective laws, and (c.) those without the will to enforce them.