Volkswagen Passat Forum banner

1 - 20 of 31 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,216 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
This thought occurred to me while I was debating with some people on another car forum that doesn't allow any political discourse (i.e. there's no black hole)

I wonder how many gun rights advocates that claim to support the 2A because the constitution should upheld in its purest, most basic interpretation actually believe that?

For instance, lets say that a constitutional amendment were passed that codified the current level of gun control into the constitution. Would this segment of the population support it or continue to fight with the same intensity as they fight the existing gun control laws?

Obviously, this is a purely theoretical question since this theoretical amendment would never be ratified.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,071 Posts
It would appear that most Pro-Gun people are more Pro-Gun than Pro-Constitution.

Gun people love their guns and it's a possession they have protected by the Constitution.
 

·
I'm just itching to be Banned
Joined
·
13,882 Posts
I don't think those people would support changes in the constitution, because the changes you mentioned directly infringe on the rights they are attempting to protect. Personally speaking, I think the right to bear arms should be preserved. How far does that get taken with the way modern day weaponry has advanced? I'm not sure, that's a difficult question to answer.
 

·
Moderator/Administrator
Joined
·
24,600 Posts
I believe they go with whatever supports their ideals. Don't get me wrong, I'm pro gun but I also abide by the law. However much I may disagree with it on a personal level.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,216 Posts
Discussion Starter #6
Right, but let's hypothetically say that the 2nd Amendment limited individual gun ownership to SA/DA hand guns, lever/pump/bolt-action rifles and shotguns. Would you still support it (as a theoretical pure constitutionalist would) or would you work to revise the Constitution to remove these restrictions (as a theoretical pure gun rights advocate would)?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,204 Posts
Okay, I might not be qualified to wade in here...but answer me this trivia question about guns:

As a kid, I watched my share of Westerns, and cowboy shows as part of growing up in Vancouver, British Columbia the 1960-1980's, I recall that the Sheriff in town would store a bunch of guns and deputize able citizens if there was an impending attack from Indians / Black Hats / Banditos / wild dogs / loose wimmen. These scenes were all set in the 1800's....after the US of A constitution was in place...

It seems to me that the directors of these shows, if not promoting their own passivist stance on gun ownership, must have had some historical reference to put this scenario of segregated gun control in place. I also would say that the average resident in these 1800's towns had far more justification of gun ownership than does today's average US of A citizen given that the local Sheriff was not exactly a phone call away 24/7.

Okay, so now am I to be told that the risk that justifies gun ownership to the average citizen today is so much greater than it was to the average frontier person of the 1800's :hmmm:

or am I full of hogwash :eek:(
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,071 Posts
First off... 'Merica! :)

Using Westerns, particularly ones from the hay day of the genre, as any sort of reference to the US is pretty inaccurate. Unless you want to call Strange Brew an accurate representation of Canadians, then we'll call it even.

The Second Amendment says the government can't take our guns away, it doesn't grant our citizens the right to bear them. So right there is an argument...

The idea behind the Second Amendment was that the framers of the Constitution felt the citizens need to defend themselves from an oppressive government was to be preserved. And self defense. And repel an invasion (in case you Canucks got your toques in a bunch over something, for example).

How much of that still applies..? Good question. Beats me.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
88 Posts
Is the wording still viable for the 2nd? Probably not. Does the idea still need to be a right, absolutely. The right to bear arms was written to defend against a tyrannical Government. When the weapons of the day were the same to citizens as they were to armed soldiers. Now, today, that same standard would mean that Joe Schmuck-pants could own a fully operational tan... beings that horses were tanks back then and no one would ever think to take a horse. That being said, I support the second, and defend it. At home, and on my beat. I think one point that gets overlooked during the debates on gun control is that the SAME men who wrote the 2nd as well as the rest of the BOR and Constitution are the same ones who said "all men are created equal..................except you darkies over there." And before anyone says I am racist, it was to prove a point.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,204 Posts
I think one point that gets overlooked during the debates on gun control is that the SAME men who wrote the 2nd as well as the rest of the BOR and Constitution are the same ones who said "all men are created equal..................except you darkies over there." And before anyone says I am racist, it was to prove a point.
And your point was? that these men were reflecting the average ignorant sentiments of the day? If USA can get updated on race issues, why not guns? And no, I don't pretend to assume that racism is gone, reduced, but still there.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
88 Posts
^^

The point was, that while the founding fathers had ideas that were sound and applicable to all men in all times, they were flawed because of the times they were written. The idea that every person has the right to bear the same arms as our military is silly. If you want to play with those types of weapon systems, sign the line and swear in. I am all for people owning ar's, ak's, and other small arms. Hell, even a .50 cal is fine in my book. But the extreme 2nd'ers that go out and say "shall not be infringed" means I can own anything I want and my past behavior doesn't matter? Please. There is no reason why back ground checks and felon not to possess should not be acceptable. The alternatives are every one has a gun and can do what they want---probably not good or no one legally has guns and we get gun free zones like Chi-raq and our lovely nations capital.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,071 Posts
And your point was? that these men were reflecting the average ignorant sentiments of the day? If USA can get updated on race issues, why not guns? And no, I don't pretend to assume that racism is gone, reduced, but still there.
I think the US is updated on guns. The Constitution is often considered a living document, open to interpretation at any time. The 2nd Amendment itself has been up in front of the Supreme Court a few time for further debate.

When somebody passes reasonable legislation (like background checks, which I am hugely for) gun lobby people start yelling and hollering about their rights. Since they have some pretty heavy supporters, they get heard and manage to muddle everything up and then nothing is enforced etc...

It's a giant load of political bullshit in my opinion. People should able to own reasonable weapons, shot guns, hunting rifle, pistols and the like, but when we start talking automatic weapons, I think that's a bit much but I'm flexible. And since the primary purpose of these items is to kill, I think we should be limiting access to them in some regard.

And if you want to talk the differences between now and then.. Back then it took a while to get your weapon ready to fire. You sort of lose the heat of the moment when it takes a minute to load your blunderbuss. I don't think the framers had any idea the amount of firepower a person could carry in the future. If they saw what one person could do with today's weapons, I think they would have thought to limit that power in some way.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
88 Posts
I think the US is updated on guns. The Constitution is often considered a living document, open to interpretation at any time. The 2nd Amendment itself has been up in front of the Supreme Court a few time for further debate.

When somebody passes reasonable legislation (like background checks, which I am hugely for) gun lobby people start yelling and hollering about their rights. Since they have some pretty heavy supporters, they get heard and manage to muddle everything up and then nothing is enforced etc...

It's a giant load of political bullshit in my opinion. People should able to own reasonable weapons, shot guns, hunting rifle, pistols and the like, but when we start talking automatic weapons, I think that's a bit much but I'm flexible. And since the primary purpose of these items is to kill, I think we should be limiting access to them in some regard.

And if you want to talk the differences between now and then.. Back then it took a while to get your weapon ready to fire. You sort of lose the heat of the moment when it takes a minute to load your blunderbuss. I don't think the framers had any idea the amount of firepower a person could carry in the future. If they saw what one person could do with today's weapons, I think they would have thought to limit that power in some way.
This. Exactly. Although I will add that Modern sporting rifles such as S/A AR-15s and AK47s as well. Most people think hunting rifle and think of a bolt gun or lever action. Which is funny, because with an AR MER is about 600 ayrds. Whereas a bolt action .308 "hunting rifle" is good to touch someone at around 1500 yards
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
14,046 Posts
When somebody passes reasonable legislation (like background checks, which I am hugely for) gun lobby people start yelling and hollering about their rights. Since they have some pretty heavy supporters, they get heard and manage to muddle everything up and then nothing is enforced etc...
Define reasonable, since the NRA supports "reasonable" legislation. Not sure why you mix legislation with enforcement since they are completely different things.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,071 Posts
Reasonable... backup checks of public information are reasonable. Have you been to jail? Any mental issues? Any reason you shouldn't have something that was made to kill quickly and efficiently?

Enforcement is the application of legislation. If people are allowed to circumvent the law (non-enforcement) then the legislation is meaningless.
 

·
I'm just itching to be Banned
Joined
·
13,882 Posts
Reasonable... backup checks of public information are reasonable. Have you been to jail? Any mental issues? Any reason you shouldn't have something that was made to kill quickly and efficiently?

Enforcement is the application of legislation. If people are allowed to circumvent the law (non-enforcement) then the legislation is meaningless.
Therein lies the issue, the United States is literally filled with unregistered, unmarked, illegal, etc weapons, how does requiring people to register their guns help protect us against nutcases, when the nutcases aren't going to play by the rules? I think that is the differentiation people need to understand, gun laws will help track heat of the moments killers that purchased guns legally (after the fact), but it isn't going to stop (IMO) pre meditated events.

(FWIW I am all for setting up background checks to stop obviously mentally unstable individuals from getting weapons, but I'm not going to pretend that gun laws are going to making any noticeable dents when it comes to actual hardcore crime like drug wars, gangs, etc)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
997 Posts
Completely agree Newman, further more we've had proof of this in many cities that have outlawed guns, or handguns, etc. Heck DC had the highest crime rate in our country before they got rid of the hand gun ban. Criminals do not follow the law, anyone that thinks a new gun law will make them suddenly start following the law is smoking something good :).
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,071 Posts
Personally I'm not for any more legislation outside of closing loopholes or updating standards. There's enough laws out there as it is.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,216 Posts
Discussion Starter #19
Completely agree Newman, further more we've had proof of this in many cities that have outlawed guns, or handguns, etc. Heck DC had the highest crime rate in our country before they got rid of the hand gun ban. Criminals do not follow the law, anyone that thinks a new gun law will make them suddenly start following the law is smoking something good :).
I agree that, in the current environment, outlawing guns doesn't work. That said, the relationship between gun bans and gun crime isn't as cut and dry as your words imply. There are far too many other socio-economic-political variables at work to make that claim. Furthermore, this argument doesn't need to be made; it's an illogical response to a logical fallacy (the assertion that legal guns are directly linked to gun crime).
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
127 Posts
I would absolutely support the 2nd amendment if it limited ownership! I'm an LEO, hunter and gun owner. I have four, a lever action, two shotguns and a 9mm handgun. I personally have never felt the need to own an assault rifle and don't agree with there ownership.
 
1 - 20 of 31 Posts
Top