Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Ahh...

I see the very fundamental problem with this conversation.

I've been treating your questions as specifically questioning how I myself would do things. So I explain how I would do things. And I am very acutely aware of what the word "I" actually means and who exactly is referred to.

So then I've kinda been expecting you guys to also understand what I mean by "I", but that's not how you've been taking it. You've been taking it as me suggesting that because that's how I would do it, that that's how everyone should do it.

That's simply not true.

I am very well aware that other people have very different self-defence needs than I do, and that what I would do would not work for everyone else, because I live in one of the safest and most crime-free places on the planet. I know very, very well that not everywhere is like this.

But for the love of god, how many times do I have to say it? I am not ever going to suggest guns should be illegal. I'm in favor of regulation because they are dangerous. They are. They should be regulated. Not made illegal, just friggin regulated.

If different areas need guns to be more or less easily accessible, well, I'm never going to suggest that there should be a one-size-fits-all thing. I think you need to be able to adjust these regulations based on the needs of a particular area. I would leave those adjustments in the hands of municipalities.

I'm also not in favor of zero tolerance policies. I think if a person has a legitimate need to store a weapon in a manner which would be unsafe, they should given some leniency if the legal system ever becomes involved.

No legal system should punish a person for defending their own life. That's what I'd see the things you're trying to get across as. Bending/breaking the rules for necessary self-protection.

But, I don't think you can actually create a set of rules to encompass exactly which situations require leniency. I think you need to give some independent choice to the people handling things, which should damned well allow for the option of simply choosing to not charge someone with a crime because they only broke it to save their life and the lives of their family. This is the kind of judgement call I don't think rules can ever be invented to define adequately.

 Pouncey wrote:
A I am not ever going to suggest guns should be illegal. I'm in favor of regulation because they are dangerous. They are. They should be regulated. Not made illegal, just friggin regulated.

They currently are regulated, at the Federal and state and county/municipality levels.

Also, from a civil rights perspective, once you start heavily regulating a right (and the right to own and bear arms has been affirmed as an individual right and incorporated to the states by the supreme court), it quickly ceases to become a right and in turn becomes a privilege, even if otherwise such regulations make sense.

I would be all in favor of requiring mandatory training and education to own a firearm, in concept I dont think that is at all a bad idea, but to do so undermines the concept of firearms ownership as a right, and that same line of thinking could then be used to attack and "regulate" other rights down the road.

 Vaktathi wrote:
Also, from a civil rights perspective, once you start heavily regulating a right (and the right to own and bear arms has been affirmed as an individual right and incorporated to the states by the supreme court), it quickly ceases to become a right and in turn becomes a privilege, even if otherwise such regulations make sense.

I would be all in favor of requiring mandatory training and education to own a firearm, in concept I dont think that is at all a bad idea, but to do so undermines the concept of firearms ownership as a right, and that same line of thinking could then be used to attack and "regulate" other rights down the road.

Didn't the US Supreme Court only start considering gun ownership to be a right in 2008? And before that they consistently insisted that no, that's not what the Second Amendment means?

Also... why is owning guns a right in America?

 Pouncey wrote:


Didn't the US Supreme Court only start considering gun ownership to be a right in 2008? And before that they consistently insisted that no, that's not what the Second Amendment means?

It was affirmed as an individual right (as opposed to a collective right) in 2008, before that it was more of a "gray" area that went both ways in very ambiguous manners, but that was generally seen as guaranteeing common people the right to own them on some level, even if not in the way that some would have preferred.

Also... why is owning guns a right in America?

Why is free speech a right?

There are many reasons, some believe it to be a fundamental and natural right of self defense, others believe that the government should not have a monopoly on the means of force and use of violence to prevent abuse and atrocity by that government, some for national defense of the united states if called to do so (particularly given the old militia system used at the founding of the US), and some have other reasons or combinations of all of the above. Ultimately, it is a right and should be held to the same standards as other rights lest they be open to undermining.

 Vaktathi wrote:
Why is free speech a right?

There are many reasons, some believe it to be a fundamental and natural right of self defense, others believe that the government should not have a monopoly on the means of force and use of violence to prevent abuse and atrocity by that government, some for national defense of the united states if called to do so (particularly given the old militia system used at the founding of the US), and some have other reasons or combinations of all of the above. Ultimately, it is a right and should be held to the same standards as other rights lest they be open to undermining.

Okay...

So...

You do know that you have part of your government that deals with censoring free speech, right?

It's called the FCC.

You have laws restricting you from saying particular things. Like death threats. Shouting fire in a crowded theater.

You have laws against impersonating certain people. There are laws against lying about who you are.

Back in the 1950s, you guys actively arrested anyone who could even partly be seen as advocating communism. That was the McCarthy stuff.

You guys really are more okay with putting limitations on your rights than you like to believe.

And that's okay. Sometimes rights do need limitations.

 Pouncey wrote:


Okay...

So...

You do know that you have part of your government that deals with censoring free speech, right?

It's called the FCC.

The FCC only has the ability to control content on a very limited basis in a small handful of mediums. The FCC can tell ABC or CBS, utilizing publicly managed broadcast bandwidth ranges, that they cannot air hardcore porn, but they cant tell the internet website Pornhub, or a private publisher of a subscription magazine, squat all about what they can show and portray.

You have laws restricting you from saying particular things. Like death threats. Shouting fire in a crowded theater.

Right, and I cant fire a gun in a theater willy nilly either. But I dont need a permit or training or education to go see or buy or rent or talk about a movie.

You guys really are more okay with putting limitations on your rights than you like to believe.

No right is absolute, but youre mistaking use restrictions (like yelling "Fire!" In a crowded theater or brandishing a firearm with the intent to intimidate) with preconditions on the exercise of a right.

I'm fine with not being able to walk onto an airplane with a loaded gun on me. I'm fine with not being able to whip out an AK to intimidate someone in a parking lot. These are use restrictions, but I have issues with being told I need to take a test (usually at some sort of expense to boot) to buy a gun, same way I'm against poll taxes on voting.

I think the right to bear arms should include the state having to issue permits based on competency tests, with the cost of the test being on the state.

Accidental discharge is grounds for loss of rights.

 feeder wrote:
I think the right to bear arms should include the state having to issue permits based on competency tests, with the cost of the test being on the state.

Accidental discharge is grounds for loss of rights.

Should mis-speaking be grounds for losing your 1st Amendment rights? Should someone have to pass some type of test to confirm they understand and practice 'responsible communication' before being allowed to exercise their 1st Amendment rights?

Almost anyone who shoots enough will have an unintended discharge at some point. Thats just the law of large numbers. Ideally that will be on a range with the firearm pointed downrange. A negligent discharge caused by not adhering to basic safety rules and putting a hole in a wall or into a person is generally already covered by many existing l laws, at least in any big city I can think of, it might not always be in rural areas.

That said, accidents are generally not cause for people to lose rights unless there were criminal levels of negligence. Now, the bar for that with firearms is obviously lower than with other things, which I dont think most people have a problem with, but there's a difference between tripping and falling during a course of fire and the free floating firing pin in an SKS detonating a cartridge, and failing to clear a weapon before pointing it at your friend and pulling the trigger. One is an accident that should not result in a loss of rights, the other is criminal negligence on multiple levels and manslaughter of some sort.

 CptJake wrote:

 feeder wrote:
I think the right to bear arms should include the state having to issue permits based on competency tests, with the cost of the test being on the state.

Accidental discharge is grounds for loss of rights.

Should mis-speaking be grounds for losing your 1st Amendment rights? Should someone have to pass some type of test to confirm they understand and practice 'responsible communication' before being allowed to exercise their 1st Amendment rights?

I view an accidental discharge in the same vein as shouting "Fire!". It's grossly irresponsible and should be grounds for losing your constitutional protection.





Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Vaktathi wrote:
Almost anyone who shoots enough will have an unintended discharge at some point. Thats just the law of large numbers. Ideally that will be on a range with the firearm pointed downrange. A negligent discharge caused by not adhering to basic safety rules and putting a hole in a wall or into a person is generally already covered by many existing l laws, at least in any big city I can think of, it might not always be in rural areas.

That said, accidents are generally not cause for people to lose rights unless there were criminal levels of negligence. Now, the bar for that with firearms is obviously lower than with other things, which I dont think most people have a problem with, but there's a difference between tripping and falling during a course of fire and the free floating firing pin in an SKS detonating a cartridge, and failing to clear a weapon before pointing it at your friend and pulling the trigger. One is an accident that should not result in a loss of rights, the other is criminal negligence on multiple levels and manslaughter of some sort.

I am thinking of accidental discharges that result in injury, or have a likely result of injury.

 feeder wrote:

 CptJake wrote:

 feeder wrote:
I think the right to bear arms should include the state having to issue permits based on competency tests, with the cost of the test being on the state.

Accidental discharge is grounds for loss of rights.

Should mis-speaking be grounds for losing your 1st Amendment rights? Should someone have to pass some type of test to confirm they understand and practice 'responsible communication' before being allowed to exercise their 1st Amendment rights?

I view an accidental discharge in the same vein as shouting "Fire!". It's grossly irresponsible and should be grounds for losing your constitutional protection.

Not even remotely comparable.

Yelling 'Fire!' in a crowded theater with the express purpose to create mayhem such that it endangers their safety... yes, you can get in trouble for that. But, if the building is on fething fire, you can yell 'Fire!' into the crowd.

Accidental discharge is... guess what... accidental.

I am thinking of accidental discharges that result in injury, or have a likely result of injury.

Well leaving aside the issues of whether it is a right, under current laws (in the US) it is already against the law (potential felony depending on the statute, the situation and the zealotry of the prosecution), and will also make you civilly liable.

whembly wrote:

 feeder wrote:

 CptJake wrote:

 feeder wrote:
I think the right to bear arms should include the state having to issue permits based on competency tests, with the cost of the test being on the state.

Accidental discharge is grounds for loss of rights.

Should mis-speaking be grounds for losing your 1st Amendment rights? Should someone have to pass some type of test to confirm they understand and practice 'responsible communication' before being allowed to exercise their 1st Amendment rights?

I view an accidental discharge in the same vein as shouting "Fire!". It's grossly irresponsible and should be grounds for losing your constitutional protection.

Not even remotely comparable.

Yelling 'Fire!' in a crowded theater with the express purpose to create mayhem such that it endangers their safety... yes, you can get in trouble for that. But, if the building is on fething fire, you can yell 'Fire!' into the crowd.

Accidental discharge is... guess what... accidental.

Intent is what make something dangerous or someone criminally responsible? I don't think so.

Frazzled wrote:

I am thinking of accidental discharges that result in injury, or have a likely result of injury.

Well leaving aside the issues of whether it is a right, under current laws (in the US) it is already against the law (potential felony depending on the statute, the situation and the zealotry of the prosecution), and will also make you civilly liable.

The following story seems to say otherwise.

Ouze wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
So do people routinely sell weapons fully loaded and chambered with the safety off?

well....

If I accidentally discharge my firearm and injure another person, I expect serious consequences. "Aw shucks, accidents happen" when you are dealing with potentially deadly tools, is not the right attitude to take.

 feeder wrote:

If I accidentally discharge my firearm and injure another person, I expect serious consequences. "Aw shucks, accidents happen" when you are dealing with potentially deadly tools, is not the right attitude to take.

And, as has already been mentioned, there ARE consequences for this. Civil and in some cases criminal.

But you don't typically strip constitutionally protected rights due to an accident. IF there is a criminal violation (criminal negligence/negligent homicide, etc...) and the person who had the negligent discharge is found guilty of a felony, they will lose their right to own a firearm. We don't need new laws to cover it.

The following story seems to say otherwise.

I can't open it.

 CptJake wrote:

 feeder wrote:

If I accidentally discharge my firearm and injure another person, I expect serious consequences. "Aw shucks, accidents happen" when you are dealing with potentially deadly tools, is not the right attitude to take.

And, as has already been mentioned, there ARE consequences for this. Civil and in some cases criminal.

But you don't typically strip constitutionally protected rights due to an accident. IF there is a criminal violation (criminal negligence/negligent homicide, etc...) and the person who had the negligent discharge is found guilty of a felony, they will lose their right to own a firearm. We don't need new laws to cover it.

Do you know what the threshold for criminal negligence is? (I don't and my google -fu is weak on this). I would hope that an accidental discharge while taking your gun out of it's case would qualify, but it seems that is not the case.

I would expand the definition of criminal negligence to "discharge that results or is likely to result in injury or death to self or another person". With exceptions for self-defense, etc.

 feeder wrote:

 CptJake wrote:

 feeder wrote:

If I accidentally discharge my firearm and injure another person, I expect serious consequences. "Aw shucks, accidents happen" when you are dealing with potentially deadly tools, is not the right attitude to take.

And, as has already been mentioned, there ARE consequences for this. Civil and in some cases criminal.

But you don't typically strip constitutionally protected rights due to an accident. IF there is a criminal violation (criminal negligence/negligent homicide, etc...) and the person who had the negligent discharge is found guilty of a felony, they will lose their right to own a firearm. We don't need new laws to cover it.

Do you know what the threshold for criminal negligence is? (I don't and my google -fu is weak on this). I would hope that an accidental discharge while taking your gun out of it's case would qualify, but it seems that is not the case.

I would expand the definition of criminal negligence to "discharge that results or is likely to result in injury or death to self or another person". With exceptions for self-defense, etc.

You'll have to ask the local prosecutor responsible.

 Frazzled wrote:

The following story seems to say otherwise.

I can't open it.

It's a USA Today piece describing 5 accidental discharges resulting in injuries at a gun show. (taking gun from a case, not clearing the gun, firing gun while loading)
None seem to result in charges being laid.

Our definitions for negligence are different then that. Thats more along the line of a civil action.

I'd personally rather that if you accidentally shoot someone, you are guest of the state for a while (PoPo included).


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 feeder wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

The following story seems to say otherwise.

I can't open it.

It's a USA Today piece describing 5 accidental discharges resulting in injuries at a gun show. (taking gun from a case, not clearing the gun, firing gun while loading)
None seem to result in charges being laid.

I won't discuss specific cases in that context as I don't know the facts of those cases nor the underlying law.

Washington also has something about a 2nd Amendment Sanctuary City thing going on.

POKANE, Wash. (AP) - A Spokane Valley councilman has brought forward a proposal aimed at protecting residents’ rights to keep and bear arms.

The Spokesman-Review reports (http://bit.ly/2cVyIZR ) that Councilman Caleb Collier has asked that the city be declared a “Second Amendment Sanctuary City.” He says his plan comes in response to state Attorney General Bob Ferguson’s recent announcement that he’s seeking a ban on the sale of semi-automatic rifles.

The sanctuary city proclamation wouldn’t give Spokane Valley the authority to stop enforcement of state and federal gun laws.

But Councilman Ed Pace says the move could be used as a lobbying tool and to send a message to state legislators.

Collier has requested the council discuss the proposal at an upcoming meeting.

Counties in Oregon and Maryland have declared themselves Second Amendment sanctuaries.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/sep/23/spokane-valley-weighs-2nd-amendment-city-proclamat/

 feeder wrote:

 CptJake wrote:

 feeder wrote:

If I accidentally discharge my firearm and injure another person, I expect serious consequences. "Aw shucks, accidents happen" when you are dealing with potentially deadly tools, is not the right attitude to take.

And, as has already been mentioned, there ARE consequences for this. Civil and in some cases criminal.

But you don't typically strip constitutionally protected rights due to an accident. IF there is a criminal violation (criminal negligence/negligent homicide, etc...) and the person who had the negligent discharge is found guilty of a felony, they will lose their right to own a firearm. We don't need new laws to cover it.

Do you know what the threshold for criminal negligence is? (I don't and my google -fu is weak on this). I would hope that an accidental discharge while taking your gun out of it's case would qualify, but it seems that is not the case.

I would expand the definition of criminal negligence to "discharge that results or is likely to result in injury or death to self or another person". With exceptions for self-defense, etc.

Frankly, your definition is gak. ANY discharge, accidental or not, could meet your 'or is likely to result in injury or death' definition, and there should not be any way an 'accidental' or negligent discharge is involved in a self=defense shooting. That last point really helps make the first, if your proposed law ONLY covered accidents, then you would not put in an exception for self defense shootings.

And as already stated, there ARE already consequences. Vote for harsher ones in your area, let us worry about ours.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Which, in my opinion, goes a long way towards WHY more laws regulating an already heavily regulated right in most cases are just not worth it. Most are written poorly, making enforcement spotty at best.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Breotan wrote:

 CptJake wrote:
What do they consider 'high capacity magazine'?

More than ten rounds.

 CptJake wrote:
Does the number of rounds making it 'high capacity' vary by gun type (pistols/rifles and so on?)

Nope.

 CptJake wrote:
I personally find it funny when the number of rounds chosen to equal 'high capacity' is less than the STANDARD capacity magazine for a given weapon.

It's all part of the plan. Gun control advocates can't win outright with any sort of ban because of the Constitution and recent SCOTUS rulings so they use the "death by a thousand cuts" strategy to get what they can.

Interestingly enough EVERY rifle magazine I own (all are standard for their respective rifles) and most of my handgun magazines would require a license. Some of my hand guns don't have 10 round magazines even available.

 CptJake wrote:

 feeder wrote:

 CptJake wrote:

 feeder wrote:

If I accidentally discharge my firearm and injure another person, I expect serious consequences. "Aw shucks, accidents happen" when you are dealing with potentially deadly tools, is not the right attitude to take.

And, as has already been mentioned, there ARE consequences for this. Civil and in some cases criminal.

But you don't typically strip constitutionally protected rights due to an accident. IF there is a criminal violation (criminal negligence/negligent homicide, etc...) and the person who had the negligent discharge is found guilty of a felony, they will lose their right to own a firearm. We don't need new laws to cover it.

Do you know what the threshold for criminal negligence is? (I don't and my google -fu is weak on this). I would hope that an accidental discharge while taking your gun out of it's case would qualify, but it seems that is not the case.

I would expand the definition of criminal negligence to "discharge that results or is likely to result in injury or death to self or another person". With exceptions for self-defense, etc.

Frankly, your definition is gak. ANY discharge, accidental or not, could meet your 'or is likely to result in injury or death' definition, and there should not be any way an 'accidental' or negligent discharge is involved in a self defense shooting. That last point really helps make the first, if your proposed law ONLY covered accidents, then you would not put in an exception for self defense shootings.


Which, in my opinion, goes a long way towards WHY more laws regulating an already heavily regulated right in most cases are just not worth it. Most are written poorly, making enforcement spotty at best.

Not at all. An accidental discharge down range would not meet the definition. An accidental discharge into the air while hunting would not meet the definition.

An accidental discharge could easily happen in a self defense situation. The trip and discharge example given earlier is one. It's a high stress situation. I would not want someone penalized for reasonably defending themselves.

We aren't writing laws here, just discussing ways to make everyone safer from idiots with guns.

My opinion is that everyone has a right to bear arms, and a responsibility to do so safely. Can't do the latter? Lose the former.

 Pouncey wrote:
They should be regulated. Not made illegal, just friggin regulated.

Guns are actually quite strictly regulated in the USA. You need to go through a background check to take possession, can't buy or sell across State lines without using FFL holders as intermediaries, and everything listed as Class III needs a $200 tax stamp from the Fed. Then there are the sundry State laws that regulate when, where, and how you can carry.

America may be known for its gun culture but our guns really are highly regulated.




Automatically Appended Next Post:
Okay, this is interesting. NRA bulletin says 1387 and its substitute bill died in committee. House Bill 1122 was passed out of committee and is headed to the House floor for full consideration.

To remind everyone, HB-1122 is the poorly worded bill imposing penalties for not "safely storing" your firearms.

http://lawfilesext.leg.wa.gov/biennium/2017-18/Pdf/Bills/House%20Bills/1122.pdf

Republicans are the minority party in Washington State so if this bill is to be defeated, it will most likely need to killed by the Senate.

 Pouncey wrote:
They should be regulated. Not made illegal, just friggin regulated.

When I see comments like this, it reminds me of this.



People always go on about how there needs to be more regulation. There is a ton of regulation. The problem is people who tend to use firearms for violent purposes (spoiler alert here), typically don't give a gak about laws.

 Breotan wrote:

 Pouncey wrote:
They should be regulated. Not made illegal, just friggin regulated.

Guns are actually quite strictly regulated in the USA. You need to go through a background check to take possession, can't buy or sell across State lines without using FFL holders as intermediaries, and everything listed as Class III needs a $200 tax stamp from the Fed. Then there are the sundry State laws that regulate when, where, and how you can carry.

America may be known for its gun culture but our guns really are highly regulated.




Automatically Appended Next Post:
Okay, this is interesting. NRA bulletin says 1387 and its substitute bill died in committee. House Bill 1122 was passed out of committee and is headed to the House floor for full consideration.

To remind everyone, HB-1122 is the poorly worded bill imposing penalties for not "safely storing" your firearms.

http://lawfilesext.leg.wa.gov/biennium/2017-18/Pdf/Bills/House%20Bills/1122.pdf

Republicans are the minority party in Washington State so if this bill is to be defeated, it will most likely need to killed by the Senate.

I am not certain HB-1122 is constitutional due to its vagueness.

 Vaktathi wrote:
Also, from a civil rights perspective, once you start heavily regulating a right (and the right to own and bear arms has been affirmed as an individual right and incorporated to the states by the supreme court), it quickly ceases to become a right and in turn becomes a privilege, even if otherwise such regulations make sense.

I would be all in favor of requiring mandatory training and education to own a firearm, in concept I dont think that is at all a bad idea, but to do so undermines the concept of firearms ownership as a right, and that same line of thinking could then be used to attack and "regulate" other rights down the road.

I am not sure if I agree with the slippery slope argument. The 2nd amendment is unique because the other rights are not related to weapons. It's far more difficult to make a compelling case to limit, say, the 1st amendment.

The particular legislation being proposed here is one thing, but I do not feel like any right should be beyond scrutiny if it is so potentially harmful.

 Ashiraya wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:
Also, from a civil rights perspective, once you start heavily regulating a right (and the right to own and bear arms has been affirmed as an individual right and incorporated to the states by the supreme court), it quickly ceases to become a right and in turn becomes a privilege, even if otherwise such regulations make sense.

I would be all in favor of requiring mandatory training and education to own a firearm, in concept I dont think that is at all a bad idea, but to do so undermines the concept of firearms ownership as a right, and that same line of thinking could then be used to attack and "regulate" other rights down the road.

I am not sure if I agree with the slippery slope argument. The 2nd amendment is unique because the other rights are not related to weapons. It's far more difficult to make a compelling case to limit, say, the 1st amendment.

The particular legislation being proposed here is one thing, but I do not feel like any right should be beyond scrutiny if it is so potentially harmful.

Thats why you live where you live and we live where we live. You're in good company though. Most people are looking for ways to get around other people's rights, so they can make them do what they want.

 djones520 wrote:

People always go on about how there needs to be more regulation. There is a ton of regulation. The problem is people who tend to use firearms for violent purposes (spoiler alert here), typically don't give a gak about laws.

They didn't say more regulation, just that they should be regulated. And while I love the guns that I tragically lost in a boating accident, I agree that there needs to be regulation, but we need to work on better enforcement of what regulation we do have, before trying to add anything more.

This state just passed a bill for the removal of firearms in the case of DV and mental health, with the provisions of imminent or significant threat of violence. I say, let's let this dog get settled into the house before we get adopt another one.


As others have said, this seems like block checking legislation, and I hope it fails, and I hope we can get rid of whoever wrote these junk bills.

 Pouncey wrote:


Also, where do you live that people breaking into your house to kill you at night is a big enough threat that you are buying guns to help you kill anyone who breaks into your house ever and you've formed very detailed plans on how to kill an intruder with a variety of weapons?

Well, the last time my home was broken into in the middle of the night while we were asleep upstairs was in the housing on the military base I was stationed on. You would think that would be fairly safe, wouldn't you. But yeah, they bypassed the locked doors, rifled through the lower level, stole a bunch of stuff and took my wife's keys and stole my car, all while we slept upstairs. And as others have already stated, if someone is willing to break into a home that they know is currently occupied, they have already decided that they are willing to inflict harm on anyone in that home. Had we woke up I would have been at the top of the stairs with a pistol (so I could protect children sleeping in their bedrooms as well as my wife in our bedroom) while my wife called 911. We were lucky, they didn't come upstairs. Bu the possibility and the threat were real. And you bat or you sample core aren't going to do much if the intruder has a firearm... So yeah.

 Ashiraya wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:
Also, from a civil rights perspective, once you start heavily regulating a right (and the right to own and bear arms has been affirmed as an individual right and incorporated to the states by the supreme court), it quickly ceases to become a right and in turn becomes a privilege, even if otherwise such regulations make sense.

I would be all in favor of requiring mandatory training and education to own a firearm, in concept I dont think that is at all a bad idea, but to do so undermines the concept of firearms ownership as a right, and that same line of thinking could then be used to attack and "regulate" other rights down the road.

I am not sure if I agree with the slippery slope argument. The 2nd amendment is unique because the other rights are not related to weapons. It's far more difficult to make a compelling case to limit, say, the 1st amendment.

The 1st amendment has far more potential to harm than the 2nd, "the pen is mightier than the sword" and all, and the exact same logic that can be used to excuse infringement on the 2nd can be used on other amendments.

That said, one will notice that in general, be it 2A or 1A stuff, the US is usually much more tolerant and open of distasteful or potentially dangerous things than even other relatively developed and democratic nations. One can say and advocate for things in the US that would get you arrested in the UK or France or Germany. They may be awful horrible distasteful things, bu they are legal in the US to say without fear of arrest.

The particular legislation being proposed here is one thing, but I do not feel like any right should be beyond scrutiny if it is so potentially harmful.

Nobody is disagreeing that there should be limits on certain things, one cannot directly threaten to harm someone for example, but they should be bare necessities and be as clear as possible, which such restrictions sadly often are not, particularly with weapons.

Trying to navigate the labyrinth of US guns laws inherently politicizes one simply to avoid falling afoul of the law (attaching a forward grip to a common handgun without Federal NFA paperwork can get you a 10 year felony sentence for example...but an angled grip is fine...) and as such thr community becomes very active and resistant whenever the subject is broached, much like Abortion as well.