Debate about Gun Control

[Eric the Green]

[Bob Butler 54]

(06-13-2016, 12:33 PM)Eric the Green Wrote:

This is an interesting cartoon, though it can be revealing in more than one way.  We have two cultures who view two issues very differently.  Should an interventionist government do everything in its power to preserve lives?  Or is it a question of basic rights where the individual should make their own choices without government interference?

I don't think I need to reprise how intensely people will cleave to values issues like these.  Minds aren't apt to be changed.  Personally, I'm with the right to choose on these two.  This doesn't mean I don't favor restricting the criminal or insane on the gun issue.  It also doesn't mean I can't entirely understand how people with opposite viewpoints can disagree quite sincerely and intensely.

I am not one to take part in the latest fashion to call any interventionist government that takes action to curtail the rights of the people authoritarian or fascist.  A lot of people are deeply concerned for good reason with both sides of both issues.  It is easy to see how governments can and must both protect the people and protect people's freedom.

But it is very human, once one embraces one side of an issue, to be unable to comprehend the other.

[Mikebert]

Not mentioned is the question of prudence. 

The position of a strong 2nd Amendment supporter is that the shooter had the right to purchase powerful weapons.  He has the right to caress his weapons and fantasize about shooting a roomful of faggots.  He has the right to carry them into gay nightclub. 

They support this even though they know that someone in this situation is prone to use his weapons, resulting in the deaths of innocent people.

On the other hand, the same people deny the right of a people (e.g. Iran) to acquire or have powerful weapons because they fear they may use them, resulting in the deaths of innocent people.

How does one justify these two contradictory positions?  I think the answer lies in proportionality or scale.  Does the right of a potentially irrational sovereign nation/individual to be able bear powerful arms outweigh the threat of deaths of innocent people from the inappropriate use of such powerful arms?

[Bob Butler 54]

(06-13-2016, 07:49 PM)Mikebert Wrote: Not mentioned is the question of prudence. 

The position of a strong 2nd Amendment supporter is that the shooter had the right to purchase powerful weapons.  He has the right to caress his weapons and fantasize about shooting a roomful of faggots.  He has the right to carry them into gay nightclub. 

They support this even though they know that someone in this situation is prone to use his weapons, resulting in the deaths of innocent people.

On the other hand, the same people deny the right of a people (e.g. Iran) to acquire or have powerful weapons because they fear they may use them, resulting in the deaths of innocent people.

How does one justify these two contradictory positions?  I think the answer lies in proportionality or scale.  Does the right of a potentially irrational sovereign nation/individual to be able bear powerful arms outweigh the threat of deaths of innocent people from the inappropriate use of such powerful arms?

Good questions.  I hope you aren't expecting easy answers?

One factor not to be forgotten is biases related to world view.  It is obvious that people that share one's own world view and values deserve freedom, deserve to have their rights protected, are justified in supporting and extending their values.  However, someone with opposing world views and values ought to be contained and rendered harmless by powerful government.  We can talk in abstract about where the line should be drawn between freedom protecting rights and life protecting enforcement.  Moving from the abstract to the specific gets harder.  

In the United States there are all sorts of precedents set on what one has to do before stripping people of Bill of Rights protections.  They involve things like proof beyond reasonable doubt and juries of one's peers.  It is easy to suggest that traditional law should not apply if someone puts an anti-gay or anti-anything rant on a Facebook page.  With benefit of 20 20 hindsight, one can work one's self into a full out rage that the government didn't step in.  Do we throw away the Constitution and centuries of precedent in order to mess up the life of anyone who posts something politically incorrect on his Facebook page?  

I'm all for denying weapons to the criminal and the insane, but 20 20 hindsight is useless as a preventative tool.  People are upset that the FBI had identified this guy as a potential threat, but hadn't achieved a degree of evidence that could be considered actionable.  Do you have a good solid idea what degree of evidence ought to be actionable?  Can this idea be made compatible with the traditional US legal system?  Asking impossible questions isn't a bad thing.  Proposing a specific solution might make for a more interesting conversation.

As for Iran and other states that might be interested in large scale killing...  Different question on a different scale.  We tend to believe western nations can be trusted with impressive armaments as we haven't abused them.  We are fighting for things like rights, freedom, and the privilege of major corporations to rape foreign culture for profits, which is OK.  (Well...   Sorta...  Maybe...)  I can quite understand how other cultures who were victims of colonial imperialism have quite different perspective on western values and the difference between what the West says and what they end up doing to those they oppress.  I can quite understand how a people or a government can be dubious about Western promises and goals while wishing for armaments compatible to the Wests so their own religious values (obviously superior from their perspective) have a chance.

But do I feel warm and comfortable about a nation that has sworn to destroy Israel having nukes?  No way.  The fallout will come down everywhere.

If one is interested in understanding another culture's world view, it is possible to do so.  Understanding is not the same as finding common ground.  For the west to cease and desist abhorrent behaviors practiced regularly in the past might be a start.  However, these were practice long enough and persistently enough that deeply set prejudices about western behavior and lack of morality aren't going away any time soon.  I am not by any means a big fan of radical Islam.  Their actions bring much suffering, more to their own people than to foreigners.  They are fighting the tide of history and losing badly.  Still, I don't find it hard to understand where they are coming from or expect them to discover better alternatives any time soon.

I suppose we could step back and have a fine abstract idealistic discussion about how differences might be resolved if everyone weren't locked into values created by years and years of history.  Alas, the results of such a conversation won't much apply to solving problems in the real world.

Specific suggestions might be appreciated.  The devil lies in reality.

[Eric the Green]

I have predicted that these horrible, ridiculous massacres would continue and get worse as long as people continue with these silly arguments about bans not working and so on. My prediction has come true, over and over again. So, I make it again. When will people in America drop their illusions and the gun fetish? "How many deaths does it take till he knows, that too many people have died?" This is one mixed up, crazy country. Look who's running for president. Look who controls congress. Look at who congress listens to: the NRA. Case closed; this country is too mentally ill to be trusted with gun ownership. The USA fails its background check. Big time.

[Galen]

(06-13-2016, 11:41 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: I have predicted that these horrible, ridiculous massacres would continue and get worse as long as people continue with these silly arguments about bans not working and so on. My prediction has come true, over and over again. So, I make it again. When will people in America drop their illusions and the gun fetish? "How many deaths does it take till he knows, that too many people have died?" This is one mixed up, crazy country. Look who's running for president. Look who controls congress. Look at who congress listens to: the NRA. Case closed; this country is too mentally ill to be trusted with gun ownership. The USA fails its background check. Big time.

Well they don't.  If the did then the War on Drugs would a success and no one would be using certain recreational pharmaceuticals that are deemed unacceptable.

Just love that collective outlook of yours.  One person goes off the rails and the entire US is insane.

Some data on the subject might be in order.

[Galen]

(06-14-2016, 01:53 AM)taramarie Wrote:

(06-13-2016, 11:41 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: I have predicted that these horrible, ridiculous massacres would continue and get worse as long as people continue with these silly arguments about bans not working and so on. My prediction has come true, over and over again. So, I make it again. When will people in America drop their illusions and the gun fetish? "How many deaths does it take till he knows, that too many people have died?" This is one mixed up, crazy country. Look who's running for president. Look who controls congress. Look at who congress listens to: the NRA. Case closed; this country is too mentally ill to be trusted with gun ownership. The USA fails its background check. Big time.

While I am not a gun owner nor have any desire to own one I have to say historically bans do not work. Obama I believe is not for banning them. Just for tighter regulation. I have seen a video of him saying so so that is where I get that notion from. I believe though you sound like you are for banning them. It will never happen. That is the failure here. The failure to see that reality. If you take them away, say hello to the next civil war matey. THEN real bloodshed will really begin.

For a kiwi you have a better feel for the state of the US then many people who live here.  I am pretty sure that Obozo does want a ban but he knows he isn't getting one, being a lame duck president.  Obama is a liar just like almost all politicians but that is a function of people not wanting to face the truth.  Eric the Obtuse is an extreme case of this sort of willful ignorance and would almost certainly be one of the early casualties.

You might want to take a closer look into the shooter's background.  There are a number of things about this that don't smell right.  In any event there are no laws that are going to catch a guy with a squeaky clean record who suddenly goes off the rails.

[Galen]

(06-14-2016, 02:18 AM)taramarie Wrote:

(06-14-2016, 02:13 AM)Galen Wrote:

(06-14-2016, 01:53 AM)taramarie Wrote:

(06-13-2016, 11:41 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: I have predicted that these horrible, ridiculous massacres would continue and get worse as long as people continue with these silly arguments about bans not working and so on. My prediction has come true, over and over again. So, I make it again. When will people in America drop their illusions and the gun fetish? "How many deaths does it take till he knows, that too many people have died?" This is one mixed up, crazy country. Look who's running for president. Look who controls congress. Look at who congress listens to: the NRA. Case closed; this country is too mentally ill to be trusted with gun ownership. The USA fails its background check. Big time.

While I am not a gun owner nor have any desire to own one I have to say historically bans do not work. Obama I believe is not for banning them. Just for tighter regulation. I have seen a video of him saying so so that is where I get that notion from. I believe though you sound like you are for banning them. It will never happen. That is the failure here. The failure to see that reality. If you take them away, say hello to the next civil war matey. THEN real bloodshed will really begin.

For a kiwi you have a better feel for the state of the US then many people who live here.  I am pretty sure that Obozo does want a ban but he knows he isn't getting one, being a lame duck president.  Obama is a liar just like almost all politicians but that is a function of people not wanting to face the truth.  Eric the Obtuse is an extreme case of this sort of willful ignorance and would almost certainly be one of the early casualties.

You might want to take a closer look into the shooter's background.  There are a number of things about this that don't smell right.  In any event there are no laws that are going to catch a guy with a squeaky clean record who suddenly goes off the rails.

Yes while i was typing out my response i was actually thinking Obama says one thing but may be wanting to do something else. I distrust politicians and as i have said elsewhere politicians 99% of the time are telling sweet lies for power. I felt like mentioning that but just going by what i have seen. My thoughts are primarily what i am thinking which may not be based on fact.

Someone who just wants to tweak the laws a bit wouldn't keep harping on the subject so much.  I always like to pay more attention to what they do than what they say.  It is one of my many tricks for spotting lies.

[Bob Butler 54]

(06-13-2016, 11:20 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: Well let's see; Obama and Hillary both commented on the shooting that there's a great need for gun control and an assault weapons ban. Now, that's "news." It certainly was on the news. Here in CA, our legislature is moving. Now, when will some posters here start to move in response to the reality?

California does have it's toes in the legal side now.  They have court rulings that it is not unreasonable to regulate concealed carry to the point that there is effectively a ban on concealed carry.  They have another ruling that it is not unreasonable to regulate open carry to the point that there is effectively a ban on open carry.  I can sort of see how either of these arguments are plausible.  However, if neither form is allowed, there is a problem.  The dissent on the open carry case pointed this out.  While neither set of regulations alone are unconstitutional, CA gun regulation as a whole is another matter.

The court system works slowly.  We'll see how things flow.

[Eric the Green]

(06-14-2016, 01:51 AM)Galen Wrote:

(06-13-2016, 11:41 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: I have predicted that these horrible, ridiculous massacres would continue and get worse as long as people continue with these silly arguments about bans not working and so on. My prediction has come true, over and over again. So, I make it again. When will people in America drop their illusions and the gun fetish? "How many deaths does it take till he knows, that too many people have died?" This is one mixed up, crazy country. Look who's running for president. Look who controls congress. Look at who congress listens to: the NRA. Case closed; this country is too mentally ill to be trusted with gun ownership. The USA fails its background check. Big time.

Well they don't.  If the did then the War on Drugs would a success and no one would be using certain recreational pharmaceuticals that are deemed unacceptable.

Just love that collective outlook of yours.  One person goes off the rails and the entire US is insane.

If the behavior fits, then yes. The USA is not a nation of murderers who go off the rails; just an enabler of those who do. And what did Einstein say about persisting on the same course that has failed? That's what we're doing.

Guns are not drugs. People don't need assault rifles unless they are going to kill people. Anyone who gets one is already insane. Comparing the desire for guns to that of drugs, is to say that people get assault rifles in order to use it on themselves to kill themselves. But people don't need an AR-15 to kill themselves. I suppose libertarians want possession of bombs and ordnance to be legal too. How about nuclear weapons? Libertarians say we should have the right to make our own?

Beyond assault weapons, comparing gun control to the war on drugs is itself insane. Gun control is not making possessing guns illegal.

You lose the argument, but since you are Galen the Clueless, your ideology is more important to you than the safety of the people.

[radind]

(06-14-2016, 01:51 AM)Galen Wrote:

(06-13-2016, 11:41 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: I have predicted that these horrible, ridiculous massacres would continue and get worse as long as people continue with these silly arguments about bans not working and so on. My prediction has come true, over and over again. So, I make it again. When will people in America drop their illusions and the gun fetish? "How many deaths does it take till he knows, that too many people have died?" This is one mixed up, crazy country. Look who's running for president. Look who controls congress. Look at who congress listens to: the NRA. Case closed; this country is too mentally ill to be trusted with gun ownership. The USA fails its background check. Big time.

Well they don't.  If the did then the War on Drugs would a success and no one would be using certain recreational pharmaceuticals that are deemed unacceptable.

Just love that collective outlook of yours.  One person goes off the rails and the entire US is insane.

Some data on the subject might be in order.

I am ready to legalize or at least decriminalize all drugs. Put wasted funds on education and drug rehab.

[pbrower2a]

(06-14-2016, 02:26 AM)Galen Wrote:

(06-14-2016, 02:18 AM)taramarie Wrote:

(06-14-2016, 02:13 AM)Galen Wrote:

(06-14-2016, 01:53 AM)taramarie Wrote:

(06-13-2016, 11:41 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: I have predicted that these horrible, ridiculous massacres would continue and get worse as long as people continue with these silly arguments about bans not working and so on. My prediction has come true, over and over again. So, I make it again. When will people in America drop their illusions and the gun fetish? "How many deaths does it take till he knows, that too many people have died?" This is one mixed up, crazy country. Look who's running for president. Look who controls congress. Look at who congress listens to: the NRA. Case closed; this country is too mentally ill to be trusted with gun ownership. The USA fails its background check. Big time.

While I am not a gun owner nor have any desire to own one I have to say historically bans do not work. Obama I believe is not for banning them. Just for tighter regulation. I have seen a video of him saying so so that is where I get that notion from. I believe though you sound like you are for banning them. It will never happen. That is the failure here. The failure to see that reality. If you take them away, say hello to the next civil war matey. THEN real bloodshed will really begin.

For a kiwi you have a better feel for the state of the US then many people who live here.  I am pretty sure that Obozo does want a ban but he knows he isn't getting one, being a lame duck president.  Obama is a liar just like almost all politicians but that is a function of people not wanting to face the truth.  Eric the Obtuse is an extreme case of this sort of willful ignorance and would almost certainly be one of the early casualties.

You might want to take a closer look into the shooter's background.  There are a number of things about this that don't smell right.  In any event there are no laws that are going to catch a guy with a squeaky clean record who suddenly goes off the rails.

Yes while i was typing out my response i was actually thinking Obama says one thing but may be wanting to do something else. I distrust politicians and as i have said elsewhere politicians 99% of the time are telling sweet lies for power. I felt like mentioning that but just going by what i have seen. My thoughts are primarily what i am thinking which may not be based on fact.

Someone who just wants to tweak the laws a bit wouldn't keep harping on the subject so much.  I always like to pay more attention to what they do than what they say.  It is one of my many tricks for spotting lies.

The Second Amendment provides for states to have their own militias (National Guard, state police). Possession of firearms in a way contrary to the "well-regulated militia" does not mean the right to bear arms if one would be rejected from being a member of the militia due to some gross turpitude (such as a criminal conviction or membership in a criminal organization like ISIS or MS-13) or incompetence (lunacy, idiocy, addiction, habitual drunkenness). Military service can be a civic duty, but it usually implies some hardships. Enlistment in the Armed Services or even in reserve units may be attractive, but it does not give one more freedom. One obviously has certain responsibilities attached to any 'militia' weapon. Likewise, join a police force (even if the job has such attractions as good pay and a spiffy uniform) and recognize that the job entails some significant control of one's life.

The militia could own anti-aircraft guns, hand grenades, tear gas, and tanks -- only rarely can you.

...Seeking to tweak the laws may be as far as one wants to go, or as far as one knows that one can go. At the time that the Second Amendment was written the military weapons were little different from hunting weapons. A deer rifle can kill a man.

[Mikebert]

Robert Butler says "As for Iran and other states that might be interested in large scale killing..(getting a nuke) ....  Different question on a different scale." (statement in parentheses added by me)

Is it really a different question?  For example replace the state (Iran) with an NGO (al Qaeda).  Does that really change the question? 

Now take it to it logical conclusion and replace Iran with the smalles possible scale, an individual (terrorist.  Does the question really change?   Isn't it the same question regardless of the size of the entity wishing to acquire a powerful weapon?

I submit that the issues is the scale of the weapon that the problematic actor is attempting to acquire.

[Bob Butler 54]

(06-15-2016, 03:10 PM)taramarie Wrote: Agree with Eric here. Until America decides to change it will get the same results. It makes me glad i live in a country with tight regulations on guns and guns designed for mass kills are banned here as well as the fact it is illegal to carry a gun or any weapon on you. Take a lesson from other countries America. It won't hurt you to learn from others every so often. England is another prime example so I hear.

 
Problem is we have a right to self defense here.  We have a Constitution that makes it very difficult to strip folk of their rights and a very divided electorate.  When Eric is on his meds he is aware that he isn't going to get his daydreams manifest any time soon.

It would be much easier legal wise to allow the right to self defense work.  Right now we're stuck between two world views.  Prohibition is illegal and impossible to enforce, but the blue folk are stubborn enough to keep pushing it anyway.  In Orlando, they created enough of a no-self-defense zone for a bunch of people to die.

Insane, but apt to continue.

[Bob Butler 54]

(06-14-2016, 09:33 AM)pbrower2a Wrote: The Second Amendment provides for states to have their own militias (National Guard, state police). Possession of firearms in a way contrary to the "well-regulated militia" does not mean the right to bear arms if one would be rejected from being a member of the militia due to some gross turpitude (such as a criminal conviction or membership in a criminal organization like ISIS or MS-13) or incompetence (lunacy, idiocy, addiction, habitual drunkenness). Military service can be a civic duty, but it usually implies some hardships. Enlistment in the Armed Services or even in reserve units may be attractive, but it does not give one more freedom. One obviously has certain responsibilities attached to any 'militia' weapon. Likewise, join a police force (even if the job has such attractions as good pay and a spiffy uniform) and recognize that the job entails some significant control of one's life.

Your ability to blather away while remaining ever so ignorant of the basics is amazing. The National Guard is paid and was organized by Teddy Roosevelt as a standing army so it can be sent abroad. It is not the militia. The militia can be used by the Feds to enforce laws, suppress insurrections and repel invasions, but not to go abroad. The state police is also paid. By the standards of the revolutionary era, the would be paid for by the government and thus assumed to be under the influence and control of the government. Thus they are organized under very different statutes than the militia.

The militia is all adult males. It was assumed that the security of a free state required that they be armed and trained. Security included defending one's self and one's community from everything from hostile natives to criminals. The laws were written accordingly.

You are also still sticking with the Jim Crow interpretation of the 2nd, invented by bigots and rejected along with the rest of the Jim Crow precedents by modern courts.

It is dull and tedious to keep correcting your deliberate ignorance, but I'll keep doing it.

[Bob Butler 54]

(06-14-2016, 02:00 PM)Mikebert Wrote: Robert Butler says "As for Iran and other states that might be interested in large scale killing..(getting a nuke) ....  Different question on a different scale." (statement in parentheses added by me)

Is it really a different question?  For example replace the state (Iran) with an NGO (al Qaeda).  Does that really change the question? 

Now take it to it logical conclusion and replace Iran with the smallest possible scale, an individual (terrorist.  Does the question really change?   Isn't it the same question regardless of the size of the entity wishing to acquire a powerful weapon?

I submit that the issues is the scale of the weapon that the problematic actor is attempting to acquire.

The size of the opposition, how they are armed, their legal standing, their tactics, their motivations...

Are you trying to find a one size fits all solution?  I don't think this is expedient or wise.  One should tune one's response to the nature of the threat.  Orlando illustrates that spree shooters are a problem.  That this one may or may not have been influenced by a foreign terrorist organization might not effect the tactics one might use to stop spree shooters generally.  Do we start tracking down people who visit certain web pages?  That might be a possible exception.

Still, even for one enemy like ISIL, there are often multiple approaches to nullifying them.  One shuts down access to international banking.  One bombs their oil producing infrastructure.  One launches hellfire missiles from drones to kill their leadership.  One monitors the international mayday guard frequencies as terrorists occasionally use them to communicate.  One might monitor who visits their web pages as well.  One puts a carrier in the Mediterranean and special forces on the ground.  The hydra has many heads.  One might use a different sort of weapon to deal with each head.

Iran is a different problem.  We don't entirely trust them, but we're not doing to them what we're doing to ISIL.  I don't think I should really have to tell you why we're not.

And your typical spree shooter isn't like either ISIL or Iran.  In many ways, the spree shooter is a different beast, much harder to find, regardless of whether there is a political motivation. 

You seem interested into plopping various problems into a limited number of buckets.  The fewer buckets, the simpler the problem becomes, the easier it is to solve?  If we call as many people as possible 'Radical Islam' with we be closer to solving the problem?  I'd rather identify the real threats and address each one individually, independently of any other threats.  This might be a perceptive - judger thing.  I'd rather deal with the world as it is rather than build some arbitrary system for categorizing things.  Others think differently.

[Eric the Green]

There were armed guards at the Orlando nightclub, and FL is the most permissive open carry state in the USA. So, what does Trump and the other gun nuts have to complain about?

The gun advocates claim that gun control is prohibition. Even the Scalia Supreme Court disagreed with them.

The National Guard is never sent abroad. It is used to quell domestic disturbances and meet emergencies here at home. Where does Bob get this stuff?

Insane, and apt to continue. A great description of America with no gun control and its mass shootings and under the thumb of the evil NRA.

[Galen]

(06-14-2016, 09:33 AM)pbrower2a Wrote:

(06-14-2016, 02:26 AM)Galen Wrote:

(06-14-2016, 02:18 AM)taramarie Wrote:

(06-14-2016, 02:13 AM)Galen Wrote:

(06-14-2016, 01:53 AM)taramarie Wrote: While I am not a gun owner nor have any desire to own one I have to say historically bans do not work. Obama I believe is not for banning them. Just for tighter regulation. I have seen a video of him saying so so that is where I get that notion from. I believe though you sound like you are for banning them. It will never happen. That is the failure here. The failure to see that reality. If you take them away, say hello to the next civil war matey. THEN real bloodshed will really begin.

For a kiwi you have a better feel for the state of the US then many people who live here.  I am pretty sure that Obozo does want a ban but he knows he isn't getting one, being a lame duck president.  Obama is a liar just like almost all politicians but that is a function of people not wanting to face the truth.  Eric the Obtuse is an extreme case of this sort of willful ignorance and would almost certainly be one of the early casualties.

You might want to take a closer look into the shooter's background.  There are a number of things about this that don't smell right.  In any event there are no laws that are going to catch a guy with a squeaky clean record who suddenly goes off the rails.

Yes while i was typing out my response i was actually thinking Obama says one thing but may be wanting to do something else. I distrust politicians and as i have said elsewhere politicians 99% of the time are telling sweet lies for power. I felt like mentioning that but just going by what i have seen. My thoughts are primarily what i am thinking which may not be based on fact.

Someone who just wants to tweak the laws a bit wouldn't keep harping on the subject so much.  I always like to pay more attention to what they do than what they say.  It is one of my many tricks for spotting lies.

The Second Amendment provides for states to have their own militias (National Guard, state police).

You might want to look at what an English professor has to say on the language of the Second Amendment.  If you had bothered to understand the history of the American Revolution then you would know that it was about making sure that the new government would not have a monopoly on the use of force.  Thomas Jefferson was very clear about the purpose of the Second Amendment.  It was about the individual being able to defend themselves from the random criminal and an oppressive government.  This implies that the citizens must have arms equivalent to the infantry.

[Mikebert]

(06-15-2016, 04:21 PM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote: Problem is we have a right to self defense here.  We have a Constitution that makes it very difficult to strip folk of their rights and a very divided electorate.  

That is not the issue.  Rights are not absolute.  Your free speech rights does not give you the right to commit libel.  Your right to bear arms does not give you the right the bear ANY kind of arms, for example WMDs  In fact machine guns were banned 80 years ago and based on a quick search it appears nobody has brought this matter to the Supreme Court.  As far as I can tell the argument is that one does not need a WMD or even a machine gun to provide self protection.  Similar arguments could be made for tanks, flamethrowers, rpgs and most military arms of the present day or recent past.  Even today self-defense efforts typically employ weapons of much smaller firepower (see Table 11) than the large-magazine semiautomatic weapons often used in mass-casualty shootings.  When I see a police officer on duty he/she is typically armed with a pistol, not something like this.

I think it is pretty clear than if both parties decided they wanted to ban "assault weapons" the courts would have no problem upholding the constitutionality of this ban.  The Second Amendment is no barrier to gun control.  Politics is.  The US is being increasingly drenched in guns because the Republican party sees fit to focus on the rights of owners and makers of guns.  Similarly the US is being drenched with sexual politics (e.g. the silly campus antics discussed elsewhere on this site) because the Democratic party sees fit to focus on the rights of sexual deviants.

In both cases this serves to distract Americans from other issues, which elites would prefer they not focus on.

[Odin]

(06-16-2016, 06:14 AM)Mikebert Wrote: the rights of sexual deviants.

Are you calling Trans people "sexual deviants?