Political Compass

[Brisco Bold]

We sure do. Unfortunately, I'm not one of them.

When it comes to guns though, that's one of those things that you have to have respect for and treat in the same manner anytime you are around them (they are all loaded) or irresponsability leads to death.



What context would that be? There are states that have little to 0 gun controls, where people can easily get a permit to carry a handgun on them that have markedly lower murder rates than states that have strict gun controls.

Gun control does not = fewer murders.

Less criminals does.

Context as in historical. You compared two American states.

[Jimmy Carter]

As for gun control, Minnesota recently made it "easier" to obtain a handgun license. The problem that some people were facing, was that certain constables of certain area just flat out refused to give people a license (in Minnesota, not sure about other places, one needs to ask the local authorities for the right to own a handgun); so, the state mandated that, if people have clean records/etc., they must be allowed to receive the license.

In any case, the state, despite some alarmists predictions, has not experienced a rise in gun crimes. And, in fact, no licensed gun owner, not one single owner, ever, has commited a gun crime against a person in Minnesota.

The thing is, people who buy guns from shops are not going to commit crimes, because they're in the system after buying one. I bought a .22 rifle for my dad for Christmas one year and they did everything they could to find out my history. And if you buy a handgun, they not only grab the same info, they have a handgun license.

Think about it, if you wanted to shoot someone, why would you bother going to Sam's Gun Shop? Sam is going to ask you for proofs of ID (Driver's license, SSN, gun license if required) and then he's going to call your information into the government and get a report on you. After they have all of your information, and the government knows you have a weapon (particularly, you have a Smith & Wesson .45 handgun of a certain make... or something), why would you even try?

They're gonna be able to tag the bullet immediately (.45), the make soon after. They'll come up with a list of those who own the make of gun, and ask questions. They'll look thorugh your ammunition and find that five people have the same make of bullet. Then they look for other traces, proof, etc. They'll get you.

Gun crime, then, doesn't come from legal, well-meaning gun buyers (self-defense, hunting, sport shooting, varmint culling); it comes from people who buck the system. People who buy from shadow dealers and the black market.

The idea of controlling crime by punishing the well-meaning, and innocent, gun buyers is both asinine and frightening. It's like spanking your youngest kid to assure that the oldest kid learns a lesson.

How can we control gun crimes?

This is, in and of itself, a difficult question. We already know that criminals are not getting their weapons from the local gun shops, so we cannot use those to stop it. Instead, we need to find a way to stop under-the-table gun/ammo sales. But how, that I do not know.

[Diff-chan]

(in Minnesota, not sure about other places, one needs to ask the local authorities for the right to own a handgun); so, the state mandated that, if people have clean records/etc., they must be allowed to receive the license.

Uhh... we dont need to ask anyone for the "right" to own a handgun, that right is ours, secured permanently in the Bill of Rights. That's fucking amazing. I wonder where the ACLU was there (ha!).

Of course citizens must be allowed to receive handguns. This is insane.

Gun crime, then, doesn't come from legal, well-meaning gun buyers (self-defense, hunting, sport shooting, varmint culling); it comes from people who buck the system. People who buy from shadow dealers and the black market.

Exactly. Criminals want the government to take away their right to own guns for just that reason.

[Jimmy Carter]

Uhh... we dont need to ask anyone for the "right" to own a handgun, that right is ours, secured permanently in the Bill of Rights. That's fucking amazing. I wonder where the ACLU was there (ha!).

Of course citizens must be allowed to receive handguns. This is insane.

I find it funny that, with the high population of hunters in Minnesota, that we have that law. But, it's a true law. You can't buy a handgun unless you have a handgun license.

[Drewbacca]

my political compass is broken. How do you get "sort of near the middle" on a compass anyway? Definitely a broken term. Unless they're referring to the paper circle cutting compass.... which still doesn't make any sense. But atleast it's well rounded nonsense.

[The_Meach]

Gun crime, then, doesn't come from legal, well-meaning gun buyers (self-defense, hunting, sport shooting, varmint culling);

The idea of controlling crime by punishing the well-meaning, and innocent, gun buyers is both asinine and frightening. It's like spanking your youngest kid to assure that the oldest kid learns a lesson.

Truer words were never spoken.

Mind if I start using that turn of phrase in r/l gun-control debates?

[sleeve]

Uhh... we dont need to ask anyone for the "right" to own a handgun, that right is ours, secured permanently in the Bill of Rights. That's fucking amazing. I wonder where the ACLU was there (ha!).

Of course citizens must be allowed to receive handguns. This is insane.

You do not have the constitutional right to own a handgun.

[Jimmy Carter]

Truer words were never spoken.

Mind if I start using that turn of phrase in r/l gun-control debates?

Be my guest. I'm sure that somehow, in the pits of sewage and despair in the back of my mind, I am using a phrase or analogy that I'd also once heard.

You do not have the constitutional right to own a handgun.

That can be debated. The right is to "keep and bear arms", but the question becomes, "What arms?" This is the source of constant disagreement between the two camps.

As far as I'm concerned, it means that any American has the right to own any armament he chooses. That does not, however, mean I support the notion. As it is, there are reasonable restrictions that should be added to the general statement. Such as, "well-standing" (read: non-criminal) Americans.

Then of course, there is the whole "assault weapon" debate. What "assault weapons" are has yet to really be defined, as far as I know. Most weapons, in fact all weapons, can be used for assault. I see the reason for banning automatic rifles, but I'm mixed as to whether or not I think we shouldn't allow people to own them. As far as I'm concerned, a well-standing member of the community should, if he truly desires to, be able to own an M-16 for sport (read: target) shooting or collection purposes. But I don't think that an M-16 should be available at Sam's Gun Shop. Maybe an exclusive government distributor should be set up.

In any case, the point being, the "right to bear arms" is debatable, and I don't think that, with one fell swoop, we can definitively say that "you have no right to this" when the meaning is quite up in the air.

[Diff-chan]

I believe that every upstanding citizen who has not broken their compact with society has the right to own any gun they choose, save for weapons of mass destruction, hand grenades, etc. What right is it of the government to tell me which guns are okay for me to do this and that with? If I want an AK-47 I should be allowed to get one.

[sleeve]

That can be debated. The right is to "keep and bear arms", but the question becomes, "What arms?" This is the source of constant disagreement between the two camps.

As far as I'm concerned, it means that any American has the right to own any armament he chooses. That does not, however, mean I support the notion. As it is, there are reasonable restrictions that should be added to the general statement. Such as, "well-standing" (read: non-criminal) Americans.

That may be. But as the Constitution stands, there is no constitutionally-protected individual right to own a firearm. Unlike, say, the First and Fifth Amendments which proscribe the federal government (and by incorporation of the Fourteenth Amendment, the states) from infringing freedom of speech, due process, and other "liberty interests", the Second Amendment forbids neither the federal government nor the states from restricting individual gun ownership rights.

If you went into a state or federal court tomorrow claiming that your state's gun control law violated the Second Amendment, your complaint would be dismissed for failure to state a claim.

Then of course, there is the whole "assault weapon" debate. What "assault weapons" are has yet to really be defined, as far as I know. Most weapons, in fact all weapons, can be used for assault. I see the reason for banning automatic rifles, but I'm mixed as to whether or not I think we shouldn't allow people to own them. As far as I'm concerned, a well-standing member of the community should, if he truly desires to, be able to own an M-16 for sport (read: target) shooting or collection purposes. But I don't think that an M-16 should be available at Sam's Gun Shop. Maybe an exclusive government distributor should be set up.

"Assault weapons" are defined in the federal statute that bans their sale.

In any case, the point being, the "right to bear arms" is debatable, and I don't think that, with one fell swoop, we can definitively say that "you have no right to this" when the meaning is quite up in the air.

My point is simply that you do not have a right to bear arms in the same way that you have a right to speak freely, practice religion freely, etc. People may disagree on what the Framers meant in writing the Second Amendment, but under current law, it's moot.

Some federal gun-control laws in recent years have been struck down as unconstitutional, but for reasons unrelated to the Second Amendment (e.g. violative of the Commerce Clause).

Second Amendment law is surprisingly underdeveloped. There's been only one, maybe two Supreme Court cases dealing with it in the past 60-70 years. It'll probably stay that way, unless Congress goes batshit crazy one day and outlaws all guns.