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.

 SilverMK2 wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:
But you don't have a Constitutional right to own a gun. We do.

I don't recall anything in the constitution saying you have an unrestricted right to own a gun. I don't recall anything saying that you would be protected from checks before purchase of a gun, or periodic checks to ensure that your guns are kept/used/etc safely.

I'll help. Pull up the Bill of Rights. Its the second one.

 Grey Templar wrote:
Ok, sure. Make people that leave guns out where kids can get them responsible for any harm caused by their negligence. O'Wait, wouldn't this already fall under Criminal Negligence?

Criminal negligence is a wrist slap compared to a manslaughter/accessory to murder charge.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Frazzled wrote:

 SilverMK2 wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:
But you don't have a Constitutional right to own a gun. We do.

I don't recall anything in the constitution saying you have an unrestricted right to own a gun. I don't recall anything saying that you would be protected from checks before purchase of a gun, or periodic checks to ensure that your guns are kept/used/etc safely.

I'll help. Pull up the Bill of Rights. Its the second one.

Oh, you mean the one about a "well-regulated militia"?

 Frazzled wrote:

 SilverMK2 wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:
But you don't have a Constitutional right to own a gun. We do.

I don't recall anything in the constitution saying you have an unrestricted right to own a gun. I don't recall anything saying that you would be protected from checks before purchase of a gun, or periodic checks to ensure that your guns are kept/used/etc safely.

I'll help. Pull up the Bill of Rights. Its the second one.

Since I have a splitting headache, wikipedia will do:

wikipedia summation and quote of District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 wrote:"the right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose". They also clarified that many longstanding prohibitions and restrictions on firearms possession listed by the Court are consistent with the Second Amendment

So, there are restrictions in place regards firearms and the owning and usage thereof. Which are constitutional. Therefore you do not have an unrestricted right to own a gun.

Didn't say I did. Don't have an unrestricted right to free speech either, but its still a right, unlike the UK.

"the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed"

The militia is to be well regulated, not the right to bear the arms. The National Guard is well regulated. My rights to bear those arms are not to be infringed.

Furthermore, I'd suggest you read the 4th Amendment again since you want to argue semantics. Try to argue how that one would allow for this.

Kanluwen wrote:Oh, you mean the one about a "well-regulated militia"?

I always get nervous when the government starts talking about militias. bad things happen.

Yes, but the level of that restriction is up for debate.

 Frazzled wrote:

Kanluwen wrote:Oh, you mean the one about a "well-regulated militia"?

I always get nervous when the government starts talking about militias. bad things happen.

The point actually was that the interpretation of the 2nd Amendment has been changed over time while still allowing for the ownership of firearms.

So why all this nonsense about Gestapo and Stasi? All it does is make you look like an idiot in a discussion about firearms regulations.

 Kanluwen wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

Kanluwen wrote:Oh, you mean the one about a "well-regulated militia"?

I always get nervous when the government starts talking about militias. bad things happen.

The point actually was that the interpretation of the 2nd Amendment has been changed over time while still allowing for the ownership of firearms.

So why all this nonsense about Gestapo and Stasi? All it does is make you look like an idiot in a discussion about firearms regulations.

While you're here Kanluwen can I get your opinion on:

 Gentleman_Jellyfish wrote:
How many deaths does it take before the police are allowed to come in to everybody's home in regards to that object? Like the unintentional pool drownings. Should everyone be required to lock their pool covers? Require everyone to build a fence around it?

?

 Grey Templar wrote:
Yes, but the level of that restriction is up for debate.

Ding ding ding, we have a winner.

Right now it errs on the side of the gun owners versus the government. Who is to say that an interpretation by the USSC might not allow for broader restrictions when it comes to safety concerns?

Right now felons cannot own firearms. Why not apply that same standard to morons?

 Kanluwen wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:
Yes, but the level of that restriction is up for debate.

Ding ding ding, we have a winner.

Right now it errs on the side of the gun owners versus the government. Who is to say that an interpretation by the USSC might not allow for broader restrictions when it comes to safety concerns?

Right now felons cannot own firearms. Why not apply that same standard to morons?

Because then no one in Washington would be able to own a firearm! Zing!

 Gentleman_Jellyfish wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

Kanluwen wrote:Oh, you mean the one about a "well-regulated militia"?

I always get nervous when the government starts talking about militias. bad things happen.

The point actually was that the interpretation of the 2nd Amendment has been changed over time while still allowing for the ownership of firearms.

So why all this nonsense about Gestapo and Stasi? All it does is make you look like an idiot in a discussion about firearms regulations.

While you're here Kanluwen can I get your opinion on:

 Gentleman_Jellyfish wrote:
How many deaths does it take before the police are allowed to come in to everybody's home in regards to that object? Like the unintentional pool drownings. Should everyone be required to lock their pool covers? Require everyone to build a fence around it?

?

Be required to let the police on their property whenever they want to ensure those safety measures are in place?

 Gentleman_Jellyfish wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

Kanluwen wrote:Oh, you mean the one about a "well-regulated militia"?

I always get nervous when the government starts talking about militias. bad things happen.

The point actually was that the interpretation of the 2nd Amendment has been changed over time while still allowing for the ownership of firearms.

So why all this nonsense about Gestapo and Stasi? All it does is make you look like an idiot in a discussion about firearms regulations.

While you're here Kanluwen can I get your opinion on:

 Gentleman_Jellyfish wrote:
How many deaths does it take before the police are allowed to come in to everybody's home in regards to that object? Like the unintentional pool drownings. Should everyone be required to lock their pool covers? Require everyone to build a fence around it?

?

I do not think "putting a number on it" is something which should be done, nor do I think that it should be every single firearms owner, ever who should be subjected to "surprise inspections".
Just those with children or who regularly serve as caretakers for children.

I will clarify a bit further though:
If an individual feels they are being unfairly targeted in the course of these "surprise inspections" they should be able to file harassment charges against the agency in charge, and any evidence obtained in the course of these inspections(excluding plain sight) should be considered fruit of the poisonous tree.

 Frazzled wrote:
Didn't say I did. Don't have an unrestricted right to free speech either, but its still a right, unlike the UK.

Then your comment had absolutely nothing to do with what I said in my post? Got it.

Besides which a "right" as... enshrined... in the constitution is no more or less mutable than the rule of law in any other nation. The US government can turn round tomorrow and say "sorry, we seem to have misplaced the constitution, here are our new laws and anyone who disagrees with them is going to be put against a wall and shot", same as could happen anywhere else, such as the UK where we poor, unprotected, unfree serfs toil away under our poor and inadequate common law.

 SilverMK2 wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
Didn't say I did. Don't have an unrestricted right to free speech either, but its still a right, unlike the UK.

Then your comment had absolutely nothing to do with what I said in my post? Got it.

Besides which a "right" as... enshrined... in the constitution is no more or less mutable than the rule of law in any other nation. The US government can turn round tomorrow and say "sorry, we seem to have misplaced the constitution, here are our new laws and anyone who disagrees with them is going to be put against a wall and shot", same as could happen anywhere else, such as the UK where we poor, unprotected, unfree serfs toil away under our poor and inadequate common law.

No they can't...

 djones520 wrote:

 SilverMK2 wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
Didn't say I did. Don't have an unrestricted right to free speech either, but its still a right, unlike the UK.

Then your comment had absolutely nothing to do with what I said in my post? Got it.

Besides which a "right" as... enshrined... in the constitution is no more or less mutable than the rule of law in any other nation. The US government can turn round tomorrow and say "sorry, we seem to have misplaced the constitution, here are our new laws and anyone who disagrees with them is going to be put against a wall and shot", same as could happen anywhere else, such as the UK where we poor, unprotected, unfree serfs toil away under our poor and inadequate common law.

No they can't...

Sure they can.

Is it likely to happen? No.

 Kanluwen wrote:
I do not think "putting a number on it" is something which should be done, nor do I think that it should be every single firearms owner, ever.
Just those with children or who regularly serve as caretakers for children.

Well I guess your number for nationwide change is 1-2 hundred deaths, so lets get started on all that legislation!

 djones520 wrote:
No they can't...

Sure they can. Is it in any way likely? No, not really. Can and do laws change slowly over time? Absolutely. Can they change into something very different from what was originally intended? I would suggest so.

 SilverMK2 wrote:

 djones520 wrote:
No they can't...

Sure they can. Is it in any way likely? No, not really. Can and do laws change slowly over time? Absolutely. Can they change into something very different from what was originally intended? I would suggest so.

Silver... he meant that the GOVERNMENT officials can't arbitarily change that.

It requires the voting population to have a say as well.

 SilverMK2 wrote:

 djones520 wrote:
No they can't...

Sure they can. Is it in any way likely? No, not really. Can and do laws change slowly over time? Absolutely. Can they change into something very different from what was originally intended? I would suggest so.

The ignorance of our Constitution and how it works in this thread is simply staggering.

 djones520 wrote:

 SilverMK2 wrote:

 djones520 wrote:
No they can't...

Sure they can. Is it in any way likely? No, not really. Can and do laws change slowly over time? Absolutely. Can they change into something very different from what was originally intended? I would suggest so.

The ignorance of our Constitution and how it works in this thread is simply staggering.

The ignorance of how a government turns into a dictatorship is just as staggering.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 whembly wrote:

 SilverMK2 wrote:

 djones520 wrote:
No they can't...

Sure they can. Is it in any way likely? No, not really. Can and do laws change slowly over time? Absolutely. Can they change into something very different from what was originally intended? I would suggest so.

Silver... he meant that the GOVERNMENT officials can't arbitarily change that.

It requires the voting population to have a say as well.

Yeah, but any actions taken which would so blatantly stomp out or ignore an article of the Constitution would be the acts of a dictatorship not a democratically elected government. Do you think a dictatorship would let the populace vote on their laws?

 Kanluwen wrote:

 Gentleman_Jellyfish wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

Kanluwen wrote:Oh, you mean the one about a "well-regulated militia"?

I always get nervous when the government starts talking about militias. bad things happen.

The point actually was that the interpretation of the 2nd Amendment has been changed over time while still allowing for the ownership of firearms.

So why all this nonsense about Gestapo and Stasi? All it does is make you look like an idiot in a discussion about firearms regulations.

While you're here Kanluwen can I get your opinion on:

 Gentleman_Jellyfish wrote:
How many deaths does it take before the police are allowed to come in to everybody's home in regards to that object? Like the unintentional pool drownings. Should everyone be required to lock their pool covers? Require everyone to build a fence around it?

?

I do not think "putting a number on it" is something which should be done, nor do I think that it should be every single firearms owner, ever who should be subjected to "surprise inspections".
Just those with children or who regularly serve as caretakers for children.

I will clarify a bit further though:
If an individual feels they are being unfairly targeted in the course of these "surprise inspections" they should be able to file harassment charges against the agency in charge, and any evidence obtained in the course of these inspections(excluding plain sight) should be considered fruit of the poisonous tree.

You are still catching a LOT of people with that restriction.

And again, how would this be enforced except after the fact? It would require a national registry of gun owners, which would then be cross referenced with birth certificates.


You would be putting reproductive limitations on anybody with guns who doesn't yet have kids, and putting gun ownership restrictions on those who have kids but don't yet have guns.

Yes, putting a paperwork hoop to jump through is a restriction. Its something you have to do before you do the activity in question.

See the ethical ramifications of this? Not enough people get hurt to make this worthwhile. And furthermore, those that do get hurt have already received their punishment.


The danger of an accident with firearms is all the motivation needed for proper gun safety. Those who ignore it will suffer the consequences without any outside interference.

 whembly wrote:
Silver... he meant that the GOVERNMENT officials can't arbitarily change that.

It requires the voting population to have a say as well.

Hey, I'm not suggesting it wouldn't cause (another) civil war if someone got into office (or a large extreme party seized power) and started imprisoning other politicians and officials before handing out decrees, but it is not like the history of the US is entirely free of revolutions against the duely appointed government

I'm just saying the constitution is a human construct... pretending it has magical universal powers and is protected from anything that would seek to change it is silly and dangerous.

 Grey Templar wrote:
You are still catching a LOT of people with that restriction.

And again, how would this be enforced except after the fact? It would require a national registry of gun owners, which would then be cross referenced with birth certificates.


You would be putting reproductive limitations on anybody with guns who doesn't yet have kids, and putting gun ownership restrictions on those who have kids but don't yet have guns.

Yes, putting a paperwork hoop to jump through is a restriction. Its something you have to do before you do the activity in question.

See the ethical ramifications of this? Not enough people get hurt to make this worthwhile. And furthermore, those that do get hurt have already received their punishment.


The danger of an accident with firearms is all the motivation needed for proper gun safety. Those who ignore it will suffer the consequences without any outside interference.

Much better said than I could do!

Maybe not, but it was intended to be a very difficult to change article with borderline magical powers. Otherwise, it would be pointless to have a ultimate authority to appeal to that was as fluid and changing as the sea.

I think the Constitution is fine as it is currently. We've pretty much worked out all the important kinks at this point. None of the issues we have now have any real merit for changing the Constitution at this time.

 Grey Templar wrote:

Yes, putting a paperwork hoop to jump through is a restriction. Its something you have to do before you do the activity in question.

If it's okay for voters to be forced to go through a bunch of bs (and have to deal with the nonsense of actually being able to be CHALLENGED by other voters questioning their "eligibility to vote" at the poll) to be able to vote, you can suck it up if you want to have a gun.

Deal with it.

The danger of an accident with firearms is all the motivation needed for proper gun safety. Those who ignore it will suffer the consequences without any outside interference.

They are not the ones who pay the consequence though, now are they?

 Grey Templar wrote:
Maybe not, but it was intended to be a very difficult to change article with borderline magical powers. Otherwise, it would be pointless to have a ultimate authority to appeal to that was as fluid and changing as the sea.

You know, I am pretty sure there have been a number of amendments to it over time... at least two anyway... I am sure there could be others in the future... even ones cancelling previous amendments or bits of the original constitution

Sure they do. If your kid shoots himself, you, another kid, or a sibling that is more than enough punishment.

 Grey Templar wrote:
Sure they do. If your kid shoots himself, you, another kid, or a sibling that is more than enough punishment.

That's not a punishment. That is something which has changed your environment.

YOU do not--generally--get put on trial in criminal court. You might find yourself being hit by a civil lawsuit, but that's weregild.

 SilverMK2 wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:
Maybe not, but it was intended to be a very difficult to change article with borderline magical powers. Otherwise, it would be pointless to have a ultimate authority to appeal to that was as fluid and changing as the sea.

You know, I am pretty sure there have been a number of amendments to it over time... at least two anyway... I am sure there could be others in the future... even ones cancelling previous amendments or bits of the original constitution

Hence why I said at this point in time. It wasn't perfect when it was first written, its not perfect now. But I think its pretty damn close after the revisions we've made so far.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Kanluwen wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:
Sure they do. If your kid shoots himself, you, another kid, or a sibling that is more than enough punishment.

That's not a punishment. That is something which has changed your environment.

YOU do not--generally--get put on trial in criminal court. You might find yourself being hit by a civil lawsuit, but that's weregild.

Losing your kid because you were stupid isn't punishment? Losing your own life isn't punishment? Having your kids best friend killed isn't punishment?

Do you think the only punishments that can be received are those in a court of law?

You are obviously not a parent or close to any member of your family to where losing them would be catastrophic for you.