Gun Industry's Killing in Killing

[stromboli]

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.

There is nothing there that either curtails or allows use of any type of weapon.

Read the Wikipedia article. Be informed on the reasons for it. Doubt it will change anyone's mind, but at least you will understand it better.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution

[Shiranu]

You're funny! 
It sure can be and was just fine in my example. 
Again, thats your interpretation of the 2nd.  Its not mine and the reality is, its your argument that is irrelevant as demonstrated by separate rulings by SCotUS. 


Only when the 'militia' is doing the states business!  If Bubba is gonna be riding shotgun because the ETs have just taken over the football stadium, yeah, I want him to follow the same rules the cops have to, until they take back the stadium.   Once Bubba is headed back to the homestead, it ain't none of the states business.  It is still illegal for Bubba to shoot at the roadsigns on the way home regardless of what caliber bullet his gun barrel is designed for, just like its still illegal for him to be over-celebratory on the victory for the team. ie his BAC better be below 0.08... until he gets home that is... 

And finally, because you don't feel the need to read the hunting link, there are wide variations on the rules regarding kids and hunting with guns.  Again, not militia related but individual right to keep and bear arms outside of doing the states business.

There are clearly two issues addressed in #2. The state right and the individual right. 

Just like the 1st deals with multiple issues.  Religion, speech/press, assembly and petition government.

No point arguing with someone who thinks the English language can be subjectively changed to have definitions mean things they don't and that syntax is "funny"...

[Jack89]

If the intended reason to own guns freely no longer exists, then the right to own guns freely logically ceased as well.

So there has to be a reason to own something?  That's ridiculous. 

[Jack89]

The problem with guns related to suicide are their availability and lethality. The vast majority of people I see who attempt suicide, and I see about five each day, attempt to overdose on various substances: pills, heroin, bleach, etc or they slice their wrists open or both. These things are available but not as lethal as the average person believes. Imagine if there was a suicide pill in your home that was ninety eight percent lethal. When feeling depressed, anxious and hopeless, when your girlfriend dumps you, you lose your job, you are diagnosed with cancer, instead of having to find a tall building, drive there, climb to the top and look down at the drop you can just impulsively pop that pill in your bedroom and it would be over. This is the problem with guns and suicide- they are available and lethal. Whether you like or dislike guns, this is how they relate to suicide.

Suppose there is such a suicide pill.  Why is it your place, or that of anyone else, to say a person can't have it?  Autonomy and personal responsibility are principles that I value and I won't advocate depriving others of them.  I strongly disapprove of suicide for almost any reason, but I can understand why some choose that route.  There is a distinction between doing your best to convince someone to not kill themselves and forcing them not too.  Where do we draw the line?  If a person suffering chronic incurable pain from cancer wants to commit suicide, should you force them not to, or make them choose a slower, less sure method of accomplishing it?  What if it's chronic depression, or grief from a loss of a loved one?  It's my strong opinion that we should do our best to convince a suicidal person to choose life, but not to deprive them of the choice.   

[Shiranu]

So there has to be a reason to own something?  That's ridiculous. 

When something is a tool used to end the live of other human beings (and that's what handguns are for), then yes I think having a valid reason for owning one is necessary.

Guns aren't a book, or a piece of candy, or some other inconsequential item. They are a tool, and like so many other tools you need to prove you have a need and the responsibility to own one. You have to have a license and be proven competent to use certain tools, and I don't see why one intended to harm other living beings should somehow be exempt. You can call that rediculous all you want, but that is simple common sense.

And all that aside, my remark was that the Second Amendment shows that the need for one is no longer existent and so they right to own a gun is not protected by the Second Amendment but rather separate Supreme Court rulings and/or lack of laws. If people want to argue that the SC and lack of laws prove that everyone should have the right to a gun, that is perfectly fine and fits the reality of the world we live in, but arguing that the SA protects that right is, at least linguistically, wrong.

[stromboli]

If the intended reason to own guns freely no longer exists, then the right to own guns freely logically ceased as well.

Intended reason? SCOTUS decision below.

A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, is a dependent clause.The entire  argument depends on whether you see it as a simple lead in statement or a qualifier to the second part:

the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

Hence the mishmash and why there have been SCOTUS attempts at defining it further. NRA et al claims it to be a lead in statement, gun opponents that it is an important qualifier.

In Caetano v. Massachusetts (2016), the Supreme Court reiterated its earlier rulings that "the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding" and that its protection is not limited to "only those weapons useful in warfare".[15]

Hate to tell you this, but even if you are right morally, the SCOTUS decision justifies the ownership of firearms. I don't agree with the absolute right to own firearms. There should be conditions and qualifications to ownership.

States have the right to implement controls so far as they deem it within the bounds of the amendment, but there again you have conflict. I would personally like to see, at the state level, qualifiers for gun ownership such as background checks and providing courses- at the buyer's expense- for handling firearms, especially handguns. More accidental deaths occur with handguns than any other. In Utah you have to clear a background check concerning your police record and driving record. You can only buy a firearm without a background check if you have a concealed carry permit, which requires an initial background check. And you have to demonstrate competency with the weapon as well.

Bear in mind that millions of people own many millions of firearms. If mere ownership constituted imminent danger, there would be dead people all over the place. It doesn't. And yet gun crimes are most often done with illegal weapons, and the victims themselves are often criminals

http://www.gunfacts.info/gun-control-myths/crime-and-guns/

71% of gunshot victims had previous arrest records.
64% had been convicted of a crime.
Each had an average of 11 prior arrests. 1, 2
63% of victims had criminal histories and 73% of that group knew their assailant (twice as often as victims without criminal histories). 3
74% of homicides during the commission of a felony involve guns. 4
Most gun violence is between criminals. This should be the public policy focus.

Versus mass shootings which have been done with legally purchased weapons. So if you institute regulations that scrutinize purchasers of firearms, you can in theory control the use of them for mass shootings.

Gun crime apart from inner city environments is vanishingly small by comparison. Chicago is a shooting gallery. Rural Illinois isn't. Based on number of weapons alone, the number of total deaths is actually miniscule- less than 1% of total owned guns and owners.

[GSOgymrat]

Suppose there is such a suicide pill.  Why is it your place, or that of anyone else, to say a person can't have it?  Autonomy and personal responsibility are principles that I value and I won't advocate depriving others of them.  I strongly disapprove of suicide for almost any reason, but I can understand why some choose that route.  There is a distinction between doing your best to convince someone to not kill themselves and forcing them not too.  Where do we draw the line?  If a person suffering chronic incurable pain from cancer wants to commit suicide, should you force them not to, or make them choose a slower, less sure method of accomplishing it?  What if it's chronic depression, or grief from a loss of a loved one?  It's my strong opinion that we should do our best to convince a suicidal person to choose life, but not to deprive them of the choice.   

I didn't argue it was my place, or the place of anyone else, to say a person can't have access to lethal means. I used the example of a suicide pill to explain the consequences of having lethal means, such as a gun, readily available to explain known factors for completed suicides; access to lethal means is a major factor in completed suicides. Whether suicide or euthanasia is acceptable is a different topic.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

The problem with the Cafeteria Constitutionalists is that if the 2A is legally changed they'll ignore the new amendment and then they're prediction will come true, "If guns are outlawed only outlaws will have guns." It just won't be the outlaws they were talking about, it will be them.

I find it ludicrous that people hug the Constitution solely because it currently supports them.

[stromboli]

The problem with the Cafeteria Constitutionalists is that if the 2A is legally changed they'll ignore the new amendment and then they're prediction will come true, "If guns are outlawed only outlaws will have guns." It just won't be the outlaws they were talking about, it will be them.

I find it ludicrous that people hug the Constitution solely because it currently supports them.

Constitutional interpretations. wonder how many lawyers that phrase employs.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Constitutional interpretations. wonder how many lawyers that phrase employs.

Lies, damn lies, and attorneys.

[stromboli]

Lies, damn lies, and attorneys.

You should get between doctors and lawyers. its a trade off. Have experience in that area.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

You should get between doctors and lawyers. its a trade off. Have experience in that area.

Happily, I use the VA for medical care, no attorneys around.

[stromboli]

Happily, I use the VA for medical care, no attorneys around.

I've never had anything to do with the VA other than GI Bill for education, but my son went the rounds with them for 3 years. I had to loan him $1,000 to stay afloat because they were "too busy" to see him at the local hospital and were months late on reimbursing for costs. That when he was between jobs and a daughter with severe health issues. Nice people.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

I've never had anything to do with the VA other than GI Bill for education, but my son went the rounds with them for 3 years. I had to loan him $1,000 to stay afloat because they were "too busy" to see him at the local hospital and were months late on reimbursing for costs. That when he was between jobs and a daughter with severe health issues. Nice people.

Like everything else, it varies from place to place. I love the VA here in St. Loser. Indy, not so much.