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.

 d-usa wrote:
Even SCOTUS rulings don't really matter. They are only the law until the SCOTUS rules differently the next time.

All laws are flexible and can be changed.

Hey, you be more respectful young man. The Supreme Court gave you the Supreme Court and if the Supreme Court wants to it can take the Supreme Court away so if you want a Supreme Court you better pay the Supreme Court more respect.

If we are not careful the legislature will legislate themselves more legislators and the executive will execute more executions of executive orders...

Now I confused myself...

2) Gun control in the USA: ever since I read about the reconstruction period after the civil war, my views on gun control have changed. I learned that most gun control efforts were by southerners trying to stop African Americans returning from the war, getting their hands on weapons, and a concentrated effort to disarm the black community. I read about the lynchings, the massacres, and learned that most gun control practices were rooted in racism. Obviously, I'm an outsider, but if I were an American (God forbid! ) I'd be deeply suspicious about gun control. Most of it seems to be rooted in moral panics.

Very correct. In Texas they were put in place post freeing the slaves. In California much was put into place after the Black Panthers got uppity.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 agnosto wrote:
The fist amendment doesn't protect hate speech just like the 2nd is not the go ahead nod from 200 years ago to own an arsenal. Keep and bear arms doesn't mean start a neighborhood arms race.

The First Amendment protects hate speech derp. Thank you for reminding me to make sure to update my membership in the ACLU.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 d-usa wrote:
Even SCOTUS rulings don't really matter. They are only the law until the SCOTUS rules differently the next time.

All laws are flexible and can be changed.

The Bill of Rights is not a law...

 Frazzled wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
Even SCOTUS rulings don't really matter. They are only the law until the SCOTUS rules differently the next time.

All laws are flexible and can be changed.

The Bill of Rights is not a law...

Having said that, the constitution does provide for a way to amend and amendments can be used to nullify other amendments. Surely all these folks who better understand how the 2nd should apply in the modern age can go through the proper procedures and amend it to read the way they want, right?

They can't because they don't have the support.

 Frazzled wrote:
They can't because they don't have the support.

Drive on Airborne.

 Frazzled wrote:

The First Amendment protects hate speech derp. Thank you for reminding me to make sure to update my membership in the ACLU.

Derp? Your response is right and wrong at the same time. Yes, I over generalized but I'll admit to laziness if you admit to a disengenious excuse to be rude.

Let's look at what the SCOTUS has to say since they are the final arbiters on interpreting the Consitutution.
Terminiello v. Chicago (1949)- hate speech is "protected against censorship or punishment, unless shown likely to roduce a clear and present danger of a serious substantive evil that rises far above public inconvenience, annoyance, or unrest ... There is no room under our Constitution for a more restrictive view."

Brandenburg v. Ohio (1969)
"the constitutional guarantees of free speech and free press do not permit a State to forbid or proscribe advocacy of the use of force or of law violation except where such advocacy is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action."

National Socialist Party v. Skokie (1977)
SCOTUS overturned restriction of Nazi march.

Here's where things start to change...
R.A.V. v. City of St. Paul (1992)
After a teenager burned a makeshift cross on the lawn of an African-American couple, the St. Paul Bias Motivated Crime Ordinance—which prohibited symbols that "[arouse] anger, alarm or resentment in others on the basis of race, color, creed, religion or gender"—came into effect. In a unanimous ruling written by Justice Antonin Scalia, the Court held that the ordinance was excessively broad. "overly broad" not against the constitution.

Virginia v. Black (2003)
In a 5-4 ruling written by Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, the Supreme Court held that while cross-burning may constitute illegal intimidation in some cases, a ban on the public burning of crosses would violate the First Amendment. "[A] State may choose to prohibit only those forms of intimidation," Justice O'Connor wrote, "that are most likely to inspire fear of bodily harm."

So, 11 years later, prohibition of hate speech went from overly broad to allowing the state to prohibit forms of speech that inspire fear of bodily harm.

So, no, the 1st amendment does not give you the right to say any old thing that crosses your mind. People have the right to express any toxic idea that presents itself in their fetid imagination but as soon as someone has a reasonable belief that you mean them physical harm, you've crossed the line. As the most recent Westboro case showed, it's perfectly fine to stand around with signs that say objectionable things like "gay people will go to hell." or something equally ignorant but it only takes one sign that says something like "We'll kill you because you're gay." to get things shut down pretty quickly.

You can change attitudes toward the Second Amendment without amending it. We know this because it has happened over the last 200 years. This idea that things mean the exact same thing and have been interpreted the same throughout our history is just silly.

 CptJake wrote:


Having said that, the constitution does provide for a way to amend and amendments can be used to nullify other amendments. Surely all these folks who better understand how the 2nd should apply in the modern age can go through the proper procedures and amend it to read the way they want, right?

While they do provide a way to amend the amendments, they way they do that is to add more amendments (see, the 18th and 21st amendments). They cannot simply rewrite the 2nd amendment, vote on it, send it to the states for voting and call it a day... the "new 2nd amendment" would become the 28th or 29th (whatever number we're on) amendment.

 agnosto wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

The First Amendment protects hate speech derp. Thank you for reminding me to make sure to update my membership in the ACLU.

Derp? Your response is right and wrong at the same time. Yes, I over generalized but I'll admit to laziness if you admit to a disengenious excuse to be rude.

Let's look at what the SCOTUS has to say since they are the final arbiters on interpreting the Consitutution.
Terminiello v. Chicago (1949)- hate speech is "protected against censorship or punishment, unless shown likely to roduce a clear and present danger of a serious substantive evil that rises far above public inconvenience, annoyance, or unrest ... There is no room under our Constitution for a more restrictive view."

Brandenburg v. Ohio (1969)
"the constitutional guarantees of free speech and free press do not permit a State to forbid or proscribe advocacy of the use of force or of law violation except where such advocacy is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action."

National Socialist Party v. Skokie (1977)
SCOTUS overturned restriction of Nazi march.

Here's where things start to change...
R.A.V. v. City of St. Paul (1992)
After a teenager burned a makeshift cross on the lawn of an African-American couple, the St. Paul Bias Motivated Crime Ordinance—which prohibited symbols that "[arouse] anger, alarm or resentment in others on the basis of race, color, creed, religion or gender"—came into effect. In a unanimous ruling written by Justice Antonin Scalia, the Court held that the ordinance was excessively broad. "overly broad" not against the constitution.

Virginia v. Black (2003)
In a 5-4 ruling written by Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, the Supreme Court held that while cross-burning may constitute illegal intimidation in some cases, a ban on the public burning of crosses would violate the First Amendment. "[A] State may choose to prohibit only those forms of intimidation," Justice O'Connor wrote, "that are most likely to inspire fear of bodily harm."

So, 11 years later, prohibition of hate speech went from overly broad to allowing the state to prohibit forms of speech that inspire fear of bodily harm.

So, no, the 1st amendment does not give you the right to say any old thing that crosses your mind. People have the right to express any toxic idea that presents itself in their fetid imagination but as soon as someone has a reasonable belief that you mean them physical harm, you've crossed the line. As the most recent Westboro case showed, it's perfectly fine to stand around with signs that say objectionable things like "gay people will go to hell." or something equally ignorant but it only takes one sign that says something like "We'll kill you because you're gay." to get things shut down pretty quickly.

NO. I'm right. Directly inciting violence is the only limit effectively put on "hate speech" (unless you're on a college campus of course).

Yes frazz is right on the money,

Besides which, we already HAVE reasonable arms control/limits in the states akin to the limits on free speech.

You cannot buy anything bigger then conventional arms, and anything that goes PEWPEWPEWPEW (class 3 firearms) already have severe restrictions in place on them. And that doesnt actually cover all the safty measures already in place. The problem isnt that we dont have enough laws and restrictions, we have plenty, and they are reasonable and common sense already.

 Frazzled wrote:

NO. I'm right. Directly inciting violence is the only limit effectively put on "hate speech" (unless you're on a college campus of course).

If it makes you feel better...directly inciting violence was not in the SCOTUS notes, rather creating a fear of bodily harm.

Other forms of speech are not protected as well, such as yelling "fire" in a theater or defamation or even selling "girlie" magazines to minors (Ginsberg v. New York). The overarching point here is that SCOTUS can and does interpret the meaning of the Constitution and the "meaning" changes depending upon whose butts are in the seats. Contrary to what many believe, the Bill of Rights is not a black and white document that you can read and live by and depend upon, there are mechanisms in place whereby application of these "rights" is applied through interpretation (it is an old document after all).

Inalienable rights are not all that inalienable depending upon who's walking all over them at any given point in time. If we see enough high-profile shootings and enough people die, who knows what the interpretation of the 2nd will be later...

Yelling fire is not hate speech.
selling girlie magazines are not hate speech.

Your points are not related to your statement that hate speech is not a protected First Amendment right. You lose. Do not Pass Go. Do not collect $200.

EDIT: I'll happily scale back firearms laws to the same level of Free Speech regulation if you'd like. Trashing 60,000 useless laws=priceless.

 Frazzled wrote:
Yelling fire is not hate speech.
selling girlie magazines are not hate speech.

Your points are not related to your statement that hate speech is not a protected First Amendment right. You lose. Do not Pass Go. Do not collect $200.

Yes, I'll admit that my example was bad; can we please move on to the real topic? I'm not trying to have an argument but a conversation. My point that you overlooked in your rush to be right is that neither the 1st nor the 2nd amendment (or any part of the Consitution) are documents that are not open to interpretation and the interpretation can and does change over time and with the needs/perceptions of the people.

Just as in the 1st, the interpretations by SCOTUS over the years has changed. Just as some forms of speech are not protected, the right "to keep and bear arms" is not a blanket right. In 1876, SCOTUS determined that the right to keep weapons was outside the Constitution and not dependant upon it. The in 1939, they decided that certain firearms could be restricted. More recently the pendulum is swinging back the other way again so we get whackos walking around with assault rifles on their backs in walmart and walking through the food court with pistols on their hips. It's almost like we're determined as a people to not advance beyond the wild west.

 agnosto wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
Yelling fire is not hate speech.
selling girlie magazines are not hate speech.

Your points are not related to your statement that hate speech is not a protected First Amendment right. You lose. Do not Pass Go. Do not collect $200.

Yes, I'll admit that my example was bad; can we please move on to the real topic? I'm not trying to have an argument but a conversation. My point that you overlooked in your rush to be right is that neither the 1st nor the 2nd amendment (or any part of the Consitution) are documents that are not open to interpretation and the interpretation can and does change over time and with the needs/perceptions of the people.

Just as in the 1st, the interpretations by SCOTUS over the years has changed. Just as some forms of speech are not protected, the right "to keep and bear arms" is not a blanket right. In 1876, SCOTUS determined that the right to keep weapons was outside the Constitution and not dependant upon it. The in 1939, they decided that certain firearms could be restricted. More recently the pendulum is swinging back the other way again so we get whackos walking around with assault rifles on their backs in walmart and walking through the food court with pistols on their hips. It's almost like we're determined as a people to not advance beyond the wild west.

You do realize AR does not mean "Assault Rifle", right? Because I genuinely doubt that those few people who have pre-ban assault weapons are actually walking around with them. Semi-automatic? Sure, and I agree those guys are doing more harm for their stance than good. But this isn't a simple semantic issue; it's a distinction that needs to be repeatedly pointed out because it is repeatedly used to try to villify gun owners.

and again, frazz has an excellent point,

if the anti gun side is in the right, why do they constantly

either out right lie about things, or at the very best, spew their ignorance like its fact regarding calling things that are NOT assault rifles, assault rifles, and purposely using the incorrect terminolgy for many things, simply because its the more scary word to use.

Far too often, outright lies are presented as fact, and policies around those lies are attempted to be pushed through... just like the "glocks can go through scanners" BS, and numerous other examples.

Their argument should stand on its own if its a good one, that it doesnt, and they have to resort to demonizing gun owners and particular "looks scary" guns just shows there is no leg to stand on.

 streamdragon wrote:
You do realize AR does not mean "Assault Rifle", right? Because I genuinely doubt that those few people who have pre-ban assault weapons are actually walking around with them. Semi-automatic? Sure, and I agree those guys are doing more harm for their stance than good. But this isn't a simple semantic issue; it's a distinction that needs to be repeatedly pointed out because it is repeatedly used to try to villify gun owners.

That's a very good point. To be honest, when I wrote earlier, I didn't specifically have AR-15s in mind though I can see how they would be lumped into the assault weapon category by appearance alone. One concern would be in how easy it is and how many options are available to make them into full-auto weapons. I'm also confused by how their appearance can be changed to such an extent that they don't necessarily look like the same weapon anymore.

Look at this:



And then you see things like this:


To someone like me who doesn't know a whole lot about guns, they're both pretty scarey if seen at a store or in a restaurant.

My wife's Japanese and I lived in S. Korea and Japan for over 7 years. During that time, a common question asked of me was if everybody in the US really carried guns in the open and just shot each other in the streets. Now, I know full well that no place in the world is entirely safe but I never had to worry about stray bullets walking through the seedier areas of Tokyo or Seoul. In fact, my wife has never gotten used to the idea that guns are so prevalent; she gets nervous around my neice's husband when he carries and he's a police officer.

It's not my intent to villify anyone. I believe in the basic right of Americans to own guns if they so choose but I also strongly believe in sensible restrictions for the public good. I don't know what the perfect solution is but I think that we, as a country, need to have a sane conversation rather than hiding behind old documents/out-dated concepts or hysterical, far left or right knee-jerk reactions.

to the above... you claim you are not an expert, but then in the next breath you claim that semi autos are easily converted to full auto... which is not factually true.

It takes a lot of expensive tools like milling/CNC machines and a lot of know how to make and modify the parts for full auto...

It is NOT easy.

So if you are smart enough to know you dont know much about guns, why are you still saying statements like the above when you dont even know if they are true or not... let alone believing them?

You should have told them, yes we shoot each other in the streets, but thats what you get when you wing the newspaper into my yard incorrectly. Its the only way to keep things civilized.

Then you should tell htme burgers are really made of People.

 agnosto wrote:
I don't know what the perfect solution is but I think that we, as a country, need to have a sane conversation rather than hiding behind old documents/out-dated concepts or hysterical, far left or right knee-jerk reactions.

To have a sane conversation both sides must be able to admit that they may be wrong. I have honestly never ran in to someone who is anti-guns that could entertain the thought that their position is wrong. Although honestly I don't think I've ever met a liberal that could entertain that thought at all

I avoid the issue by refusing to entertain thoughts.

There was a time Was a loop hole in the law. Where you can buy a lower assembly "kit" to to make a 16/4 into a full auto. Think it lasted three months before it was shut down by slapping a additional amendment to the law to cover that portion

 easysauce wrote:
to the above... you claim you are not an expert, but then in the next breath you claim that semi autos are easily converted to full auto... which is not factually true.

It takes a lot of expensive tools like milling/CNC machines and a lot of know how to make and modify the parts for full auto...

It is NOT easy.

So if you are smart enough to know you dont know much about guns, why are you still saying statements like the above when you dont even know if they are true or not... let alone believing them?

The internet told me that there is such a thing as a transferrable, drop-in auto sear.

Another legal solution, according to the interwebs is slide-fire which it's claimed can empty a 30-round clip in 3 seconds and costs around $350. Though technically not "full auto" it's apparently closer to that than not. But that's the internet so it could be completely wrong for all I know. I'm happy to be wrong.

Now, any thoughts on the real point I was trying to make or are you just interested in arguing the minutiae of my post?

@Gentleman_Jellyfish
A very valid point. I agree that (and actually stated so in my post) there are groups on both sides of the argument that a) have an agenda and b)could care less what anyone else thinks and are not interested in having a serious, intelligent discussion about the topic. In your opinion, what would it take to get both sides to the table (other than the proverbial swift kick)?

Edit: messed up quote.

 agnosto wrote:

@Gentleman_Jellyfish
A very valid point. I agree that (and actually stated so in my post) there are groups on both sides of the argument that a) have an agenda and b)could care less what anyone else thinks and are not interested in having a serious, intelligent discussion about the topic. In your opinion, what would it take to get both sides to the table (other than the proverbial swift kick)?

Crime is on a downward trend, right? Maybe we can stop adding on laws, enforce the ones we have, and ride out this positive wave of downward trends

 Gentleman_Jellyfish wrote:

Crime is on a downward trend, right? Maybe we can stop adding on laws, enforce the ones we have, and ride out this positive wave of downward trends

Frazzled brought this up too. I agree, there's way too much legislation out there either restricting or opening up control and it's different in every state. Wouldn't it be simpler to have a single, rational nation-wide gun ownership law? I know local control people would go nuts but we already have other national laws for national issues....

Thoughts?

Colorado effective recall on Democrats comes to mind. The "Good Idea Fairy" might look good in government but the "People" might not like it

 agnosto wrote:

 easysauce wrote:
to the above... you claim you are not an expert, but then in the next breath you claim that semi autos are easily converted to full auto... which is not factually true.

It takes a lot of expensive tools like milling/CNC machines and a lot of know how to make and modify the parts for full auto...

It is NOT easy.

So if you are smart enough to know you dont know much about guns, why are you still saying statements like the above when you dont even know if they are true or not... let alone believing them?

The internet told me that there is such a thing as a transferrable, drop-in auto sear.

Another legal solution, according to the interwebs is slide-fire which it's claimed can empty a 30-round clip in 3 seconds and costs around $350. Though technically not "full auto" it's apparently closer to that than not. But that's the internet so it could be completely wrong for all I know. I'm happy to be wrong.

Now, any thoughts on the real point I was trying to make or are you just interested in arguing the minutiae of my post?

@Gentleman_Jellyfish
A very valid point. I agree that (and actually stated so in my post) there are groups on both sides of the argument that a) have an agenda and b)could care less what anyone else thinks and are not interested in having a serious, intelligent discussion about the topic. In your opinion, what would it take to get both sides to the table (other than the proverbial swift kick)?

Edit: messed up quote.

When was the last time a slide fire or select fire weapon was used in a crime in the US (that wasn't purchased from the Department of Justice I mean)?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 agnosto wrote:

 Gentleman_Jellyfish wrote:

Crime is on a downward trend, right? Maybe we can stop adding on laws, enforce the ones we have, and ride out this positive wave of downward trends

Frazzled brought this up too. I agree, there's way too much legislation out there either restricting or opening up control and it's different in every state. Wouldn't it be simpler to have a single, rational nation-wide gun ownership law? I know local control people would go nuts but we already have other national laws for national issues....

Thoughts?

We have that now. Its the 1968 Law. Stick with that, report felons, and nutjobs to the reporting entity NCIS like you're supposed to. Bam wammo there you go.

I'd even be ok with tacking on adding a NCIS (is it that I may be getting it confured with another regulatory entity I deal with) check to private sales or gifts to everyone but non family members.

 Jihadin wrote:
Colorado effective recall on Democrats comes to mind. The "Good Idea Fairy" might look good in government but the "People" might not like it

Valid point. So, realizing that there has to be some sort of legislation, would sane legislation look like. If it can't be federal, then maybe a great enough model that states would naturally follow-suit.

Frazzled wrote:When was the last time a slide fire or select fire weapon was used in a crime in the US (that wasn't purchased from the Department of Justice I mean)?

I don't know. I never made that point. I just made one, small comment about how such weapons have a history of being converted to full-auto. It was never central to any point that I was trying to make, just a comment. Interesting question though, I'll check.

Edit: Can't find anything on the FBI website though there was interesting data on firearm related crimes, they didn't break it down into type. I did a general search and just came up with arrests for posession of automatic weapons.

I've not heard of anyone converting their AR to select fire. Its a felony IIRC. Maybe the cartels do, but hey they have rocket launchers and armored vehicles now.

I've heard but never seen a bumpfire stock, but reviews are not good for it.

Admittedly I'm not a tacticool AR fan myself. My eyesight makes any rifle require a scope just slightly larger than the Hubble scope, so thats kinda meh for me. I have .22s with big scopes for plinking fun and Dad's M1, but otherwise its scattergun/pistol for me.

I likes me some shotgun though...