Media Bias To The Extreme-"Dangerous Weapons Loophole"

[eyeeatingfish]

Well quietmike at least I know your position. I would feel real uneasy about someone walking around my town with a publicly known sentiment that Americans should die being legally allowed to purchase a dirty nuclear bomb or an ebola mist making machine. If he goes crazy with a gun someone can shoot him, crazy with the things i mentioned... well game over.

And I think that the fact that so many people read the 2nd amendment differently shows the wording is not so clear. Legal document wording is often not clear to the common man and thus lawyers have a job.

[timcsaw]

I want to pose a question and hear your responses. If instead of going around trying to sidestep the 2nd amendment the gun control crowd wanted to actually amend the 2nd amendment?

A fair question, but it comes with a significant problem; The current "gun control crowd" currently DOES sidestep the 2nd amendment, so any changes to the 2nd would still be sidestepped by that crowd no matter how the 2nd were to be changed. Why would we expect them to act any differently than they do now?

-Would you always be against changing it?
Would you be willing to change it depending on what the new wording was?
-What if the wording was changed so that semi automatic firearms were a strict right but that weapons beyond that such as explosives, full automatic, nukes etc were not legal? So gun ownership would be restricted in one sense but in the other sense there would be no way for the government to restrict and/or prevent the population from having basic firearms (as opposed to now where there are lots of restrictions.)

I think I could support the amending of the 2nd amendment if the wording were made more clear and the above 3rd possibility was part of the new amendment.

And what if the gun control advocates successfully reduced gun rights through the legal process of amending the 2nd amendment? Accept it as constitutional if handguns were subsequently outlawed for example?

Oh, one other question, do you also think biological weapons are arms that we should have the right to keep and bear? A squirt gun filled with Ebola perhaps.

The only change that I MIGHT consider would be to add a restriction against "the people" owning WMD (nukes, biological, chemical) weapons... but I'd have to see the wording. I might support this change because WMD are indiscriminating weapons.

How about this; A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms (except WMD), shall not be infringed.

Essentially; The right of individuals to own, operate, and or carry any weapon in the US Government arsenal, except WMD, shall not be infringed.

Even more simply put; With the exception of WMD, if the government can possess a weapon, so can the individual.

[quietmike]

Well quietmike at least I know your position. I would feel real uneasy about someone walking around my town with a publicly known sentiment that Americans should die being legally allowed to purchase a dirty nuclear bomb or an ebola mist making machine. If he goes crazy with a gun someone can shoot him, crazy with the things i mentioned... well game over.

And I think that the fact that so many people read the 2nd amendment differently shows the wording is not so clear. Legal document wording is often not clear to the common man and thus lawyers have a job.

I have to ask, if you trust the police and military with those weapons, why wouldn't you trust civilians with them. After all the police and military are just civilians who wear matching clothes and took an oath.

[proud2deviate]

Well quietmike at least I know your position. I would feel real uneasy about someone walking around my town with a publicly known sentiment that Americans should die being legally allowed to purchase a dirty nuclear bomb or an ebola mist making machine. If he goes crazy with a gun someone can shoot him, crazy with the things i mentioned... well game over.

So it's the legal aspect that bothers you? Just so long as dirty bombs and bio weapons are illegal (at a constitutional level, no less,) you're fine with folks carrying them around and potentially using them? "Well, we can't go back into New Jersey for the next 200,000 years, but thank goodness we can at least press charges against that guy."

Insofar as the 2A is concerned, WMDs are a non-issue. We have had no problems thus far, and the option of legal recourse is not a deterrent to problems in the future.

The fact is, the 2A has been dying the death of a thousand cuts since prohibition days (roughly.) I can't think of too many 2A advocates who honestly want to have people running around with nukes and anthrax, but then the average 2A advocate knows that if they concede that they don't want "just everyone" to have access to WMDs, the anti-2A bigot crowd will start beating the drum of "reasonable restriction" to death. They'll say triumphantly, "Aha! So we can restrict weapons based on the interests of common good and public safety! What else is too dangerous for people to own?" And it'll never stop. It'll start with WMDs, but before too long, anti-2A bigots will be saying that a .22 short can travel a mile and a half, come through your picture window, and kill your babies. Something that awesomely powerful and dangerous can't be allowed in the hands of an average civilian. . .

The problem isn't with "reasonable restriction", it's the fact that restrictions rarely stay reasonable for long that concerns me. History has provided ample evidence that any concession will be used to open a wound that will bleed the 2A dry.

And I think that the fact that so many people read the 2nd amendment differently shows the wording is not so clear. Legal document wording is often not clear to the common man and thus lawyers have a job.

People read the 2A differently because it is perfectly clear, but inconvenient to their agenda. Shall not be infringed is pretty damn clear, but it creates a problem for the anti-2A bigots. Thankfully (by their reckoning, at least,) we live in the age of "That depends on what your definition of "is" is. . ." So they niggle away at commas and capitalization to try to cut the 2A off at the knees. The 2nd amendment is perfectly clear as written (SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED) so your average anti-2A bigot has to obfuscate and harp and fall back on hyperbole and worry-mongering to have any kind of a club-footed twice-broken leg to stand on.

[eyeeatingfish]

I have to ask, if you trust the police and military with those weapons, why wouldn't you trust civilians with them. After all the police and military are just civilians who wear matching clothes and took an oath.

I don't think the police have access to suitcase nukes. I would be fine with any regular citizen being able to own what is currently in the police arsenal here. Police also pass psychological tests and background tests too.

As for the military yes they are still regular Americans and one of them could go rouge, though with WMDs the safeguards would make it a lot more difficult. But if you join the military you probably don't want to bomb americans. However if a radical islam dude comes over here and can buy a wmd legally then well I have a lot more reason to worry than the chance of a police officer deciding to lay waste to our citizens.

[eyeeatingfish]

So it's the legal aspect that bothers you? Just so long as dirty bombs and bio weapons are illegal (at a constitutional level, no less,) you're fine with folks carrying them around and potentially using them? "Well, we can't go back into New Jersey for the next 200,000 years, but thank goodness we can at least press charges against that guy."
Insofar as the 2A is concerned, WMDs are a non-issue. We have had no problems thus far, and the option of legal recourse is not a deterrent to problems in the future.
The fact is, the 2A has been dying the death of a thousand cuts since prohibition days (roughly.) I can't think of too many 2A advocates who honestly want to have people running around with nukes and anthrax, but then the average 2A advocate knows that if they concede that they don't want "just everyone" to have access to WMDs, the anti-2A bigot crowd will start beating the drum of "reasonable restriction" to death. They'll say triumphantly, "Aha! So we can restrict weapons based on the interests of common good and public safety! What else is too dangerous for people to own?" And it'll never stop. It'll start with WMDs, but before too long, anti-2A bigots will be saying that a .22 short can travel a mile and a half, come through your picture window, and kill your babies. Something that awesomely powerful and dangerous can't be allowed in the hands of an average civilian. . .
The problem isn't with "reasonable restriction", it's the fact that restrictions rarely stay reasonable for long that concerns me. History has provided ample evidence that any concession will be used to open a wound that will bleed the 2A dry.

Legality is not just words on a paper as you would seem to suggest. If WMDs became legal to sell in America you would almost guaranteed have buyers. Why do you think Las Vegas is so popular? Because gambling is legal there making it easier to do. When you make something legal you will have an increase the consumption of it. If you legalized full auto firearms you would have a huge increase in demand, so no it is not just so we can say it is illegal and prosecute. Besides if people were not afraid of prosecution they would ignore the law anyway.

People read the 2A differently because it is perfectly clear, but inconvenient to their agenda. Shall not be infringed is pretty damn clear, but it creates a problem for the anti-2A bigots. Thankfully (by their reckoning, at least,) we live in the age of "That depends on what your definition of "is" is. . ." So they niggle away at commas and capitalization to try to cut the 2A off at the knees. The 2nd amendment is perfectly clear as written (SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED) so your average anti-2A bigot has to obfuscate and harp and fall back on hyperbole and worry-mongering to have any kind of a club-footed twice-broken leg to stand on.

I still disagree and I have highlighted the words specifically that I believe make the 2nd amendment not as clear as it could be. Those terms should have been defined the same way words are defined in todays laws. What is rape? Everyone know what rape is but if you did not define it for the purposes of arrest and prosecution you could never convict people of it.

[tvranesic]

A few posts back there was a question about whether some would support changes to 2A. I stumbled upon a blog tonight from someone named Mike Algers (after leaving the site I couldn't re-find it to post the link) who was blogging about that very topic because of the school shooting in Ohio. Here's one of his direct quotes: "It's time to change these laws. There is no need for people to have guns. Because of these guns, a student has died today. An innocent student who went to school to learn something and make life better is now dead because people continue to say that the Constitution doesn't need to be changed and that everything is ok as far as gun laws are concerned. Smarten up!" He started out by saying that if someone wanted to keep a shotgun for hunting, that might be okay because "that was probably what the Founding Fathers had in mind anyway."

And this is the problem. A good portion of the anti-gun lobby doesn't want 2A modified, they basically want it eliminated. Yeah, I know this is just one guy on the internet...but his views are shared by many on the left who simply keep most of their comments among "proper company". Most will state publicly that just a little bit of regulation wouldn't hurt, as they know it's one of those "eating the horse one bit at a time" type of undertakings.

[quietmike]

A few posts back there was a question about whether some would support changes to 2A. I stumbled upon a blog tonight from someone named Mike Algers (after leaving the site I couldn't re-find it to post the link) who is was blogging about that very topic because of the school shooting in Ohio. Here's one of his direct quotes: "It's time to change these laws. There is no need for people to have guns. Because of these guns, a student has died today. An innocent student who went to school to learn something and make life better is now dead because people continue to say that the Constitution doesn't need to be changed and that everything is ok as far as gun laws are concerned. Smarten up!" He started out by saying that if someone wanted to keep a shotgun for hunting, that might be okay because "that was probably what the Founding Fathers had in mind anyway."

And this is the problem. A good portion of the anti-gun lobby doesn't want 2A modified, they basically want it eliminated. Yeah, I know this is just one guy on the internet...but his views are shared by many on the left who simply keep most of their comments among "proper company". Most will state publicly that just a little bit of regulation wouldn't hurt, as they know it's one of those "eating the horse one bit at a time" type of undertakings.

I wonder if Mike Algers realizes that guns are already illegal on most school campuses?

When was the last mass shooting at a gun store or police station where guns are guaranteed to be in abundance?

[tvranesic]

I wonder if Mike Algers realizes that guns are already illegal on most school campuses?

When was the last mass shooting at a gun store or police station where guns are guaranteed to be in abundance?

He also made no mention of the fact that the shooter was a minor, or that the weapon was a .22....a caliber many liberals consider to be one of those "reasonable" calibers.

[not2sharp]

He also made no mention of the fact that the shooter was a minor, or that the weapon was a .22....a caliber many liberals consider to be one of those "reasonable" calibers.

....and here I was under the impression that shooting people was already illegal, especially by a minor...

Guns are just a tool of convenience; a can of gasoline would have been cheaper and easier to buy, transport and use; and it likely would have done significantly more damage. IIRC a few years back someone had a fight with their girlfriend and decided to use gasoline. They torched a nighclub while she was there and chained the doors - the girl friend and many innocent by-standers were killed. We would have been much better off to have provided that killer with a gun.

n2s

[quietmike]

The arguments of gun control activists remind me of the "b" movie westerns and tarzan type movies I watched when I was a kid. The natives would see a gun for the first time and were mesmerized by the "magic stick that makes thunder".

All logic goes out the window when one is afraid. Rational argument is no match against the "boomstick".

[lepto]

All logic goes out the window when one is afraid.

Your quote is dead on the money--as regards the truth of gun control in the US (as in there ain't none with a snowball's chance in hell of making it to the President's desk). Even though there aren't any serious efforts at gun control by Obama, or any other rep/sen with clout, or movements of any size supporting gun control the right-wing constantly beats the fear drum. I know people who bought numerous guns and thousands of rounds of ammunition when Obama was elected because he was going to take away their guns which, of course, we know didn't happen. The really interesting thing is, rather than admit their fear was silly and got the best of them, they are doubling down on the issue by claiming a lame-duck Obama will, surely, scoop up guns in the millions. The whole issue appears to be more phobic than substantive; call it "Right-wing Gun Control Fear Syndrome". Right-wing Gun Control Fear Syndrome is emblematic of the free-floating fear that appears to reside at the core of our nation's right-wing. I suppose the only other maladies that come anywhere close are Homosexuals Are Going To Destroy The Institution Of Marriage Complex and, more recently, Obama's Gonna Keep You From Going To Church Anxiety Disorder.

[quietmike]

Your quote is dead on the money--as regards the truth of gun control in the US (as in there ain't none with a snowball's chance in hell of making it to the President's desk). Even though there aren't any serious efforts at gun control by Obama, or any other rep/sen with clout, or movements of any size supporting gun control the right-wing constantly beats the fear drum. I know people who bought numerous guns and thousands of rounds of ammunition when Obama was elected because he was going to take away their guns which, of course, we know didn't happen. The really interesting thing is, rather than admit their fear was silly and got the best of them, they are doubling down on the issue by claiming a lame-duck Obama will, surely, scoop up guns in the millions. The whole issue appears to be more phobic than substantive; call it "Right-wing Gun Control Fear Syndrome". Right-wing Gun Control Fear Syndrome is emblematic of the free-floating fear that appears to reside at the core of our nation's right-wing. I suppose the only other maladies that come anywhere close are Homosexuals Are Going To Destroy The Institution Of Marriage Complex and, more recently, Obama's Gonna Keep You From Going To Church Anxiety Disorder.

Exercising ones constitutional rights is now an anxiety disorder?

Liberalism gets stranger by the day.

[lepto]

Exercising ones constitutional rights is now an anxiety disorder?

Liberalism gets stranger by the day.

There's that fear again. No one is preventing you from exercising your constitutional rights. You didn't buy a bunch of guns and thousands of rounds of ammunition when Obama was elected did you?

[quietmike]

There's that fear again. No one is preventing you from exercising your constitutional rights. You didn't buy a bunch of guns and thousands of rounds of ammunition when Obama was elected did you?

Not really. I go through a couple thousand a year anyway.

[jbmonkey]

There's that fear again. No one is preventing you from exercising your constitutional rights. You didn't buy a bunch of guns and thousands of rounds of ammunition when Obama was elected did you?

Actually the fear is legit. Remember the 1986 automatic gun ban? Started by a democrat but signed into law by none other than the republican hero ronald reagan. The govt as a whole has been whittling away at the 2nd amendment rights since the end of the civil war. Had those pesky southern boys not had their own shotguns and muskets they wouldnt have been able to defend themselves from the northern aggression at all. point being killing the 2nd amendment is bigger than just one party. There are plenty of antigun and anti knife nuts in both parties.

The constitution was written so the govt would fear its people, and keep it more honest and limit corruption. What those in power have done is whittled it down through constitutionally illegal laws and by placing incompetent judges to set legal interpretations basically rewriting the constitution to allow them to change it so the people fear its govt, and so far they are winning. I say this as some folks today actually do question what the 2nd amendment means. Its as clear as day taken into the context of when it was written.

Militias were every male citizen of the state back then. Allowed to be armed to defend themselves from an overzealous govt much like king george and the english. The 2nd amendment says nothing about arms having to be kept under control by the state, and back then the states didn't have enough arms to arm all its militia members aka citizens. These men brought their own weapons to fight with. Hence we get to own and bear(carry openly and concealed) arms and laws against this right are illegal. No one says anyone has to like it, but it is a right that cannot be infringed. Unless we disband the union and start over.

[timcsaw]

The liberals have realized that there is no need to ban guns or in any way directly attack the 2nd amendment. They try to ban "bullets" instead, and the constitution doesn't say anything about the right to keep and bear bullets. It's become a "game" of disarmament by proxy to them... "The 2nd Amendment is SAFE! We are NOT banning ALL guns (you can STILL own your single-shot .410 in a police station locker, and "keep and bear" it during hunting season after the police give it to you)."

I think it's called meeting the letter of the law, while ignoring the spirit of the law.

As for Obama, remember that he's just working on gun control "behind the sceens"... think Holder and project gun runner (prove that US guns are killing people in Mexico and the US to add emphasis to the call for Americans to see then need to regulate US weapons).

[Triton]

The only change that I MIGHT consider would be to add a restriction against "the people" owning WMD (nukes, biological, chemical) weapons... but I'd have to see the wording. I might support this change because WMD are indiscriminating weapons.

How about this; A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms (except WMD), shall not be infringed.

Essentially; The right of individuals to own, operate, and or carry any weapon in the US Government arsenal, except WMD, shall not be infringed.

Even more simply put; With the exception of WMD, if the government can possess a weapon, so can the individual.

I can understand and even agree with the sentiment, but I don't see how that could be reasonably accomplished. For example what is a "WMD." You and I might say a thermonuclear device or a vial of anthrax spores but what's to keep our liberal friends from saying that those nasty "assault rifles" you own aren't "WMDs?"

[timcsaw]

I can understand and even agree with the sentiment, but I don't see how that could be reasonably accomplished. For example what is a "WMD." You and I might say a thermonuclear device or a vial of anthrax spores but what's to keep our liberal friends from saying that those nasty "assault rifles" you own aren't "WMDs?"

Good point... and then we'd have to listen to their convoluted definitions of the individual words "weapon", "mass" and "destruction" (and perhaps even "of").

[eyeeatingfish]

I can understand and even agree with the sentiment, but I don't see how that could be reasonably accomplished. For example what is a "WMD." You and I might say a thermonuclear device or a vial of anthrax spores but what's to keep our liberal friends from saying that those nasty "assault rifles" you own aren't "WMDs?"

Well this would be easily solved by a section of definitions saying what constitutes a WMD and what does not. The founders would have been wise to have done something like this but unfortunately they did not.