Forums / Discussion / Serious Debate

Some comment in the clear backpack page has got me thinking about a line of thinking I've seen around. The idea that any new gun control laws are somehow taking away out god given right to bear arms, but all the existing gun control laws are somehow not being opposed at all? I've seen tons of people reject ideas like Assault Rifle bans, gun licenses, ammo restrictions, waiting periods, age restrictions etc. as an unconstitutional abridging of the second amendment.

Yet things like conceal carry licenses, gun free zones, banning mentally ill from owning guns despite them not committing a crime, not being able to own a gun if you once committed a crime, not being able to open carry in some states, not being able to own hollow point bullets, or a tank mounted minigun, or a type II weapon without the proper form somehow do not abridge your second amendment rights? Your second amendment right is already heavily abridged at this point, with good reason, as a completely unregulated gun market with everyone being able to buy and sell any weapon with no checks or tracking would be a nightmare scenario.

Has anybody else seen this logic floating around? Is there something I'm missing here? I know this will probably turn into another generic gun control shouting match debate thread, but I want to know if I'm the only one seeing this.

Because the initial laws were adopted hesitantly, with the knowledge that they would be the only exception, the absolute limit of how much laws could be made concerning guns before it began to actually strip out the 2nd amendments intent.

That was the concession made, that these laws wouldn't be used to enact further laws and create an ever expanding slow decline of amendment rights. Flash forward to today and what do we got? We got the first amendment being stripped down starting from the initial snowball of 90's. Privacy has pretty much evaporated as a right for people from the 2000's onwards.

So now we're talking guns, and we're 2 for 2 of concessions to further laws prohibiting rights resulting in annihilation of those rights.

But they weren't the only exceptions, there are many exceptions, and many gun laws were passed in a package, mainly the National Firearms Act and the Gun Control Act of 1968.

What first amendment stripping are you talking about? This isn't the UK, people can still say things without being arrested. Without context, that only sounds like paranoia.

Gun control was cool back when it was revolved around black gangs in the cities not being able to get guns. The columbine and other school shootings happened and then gun control was about white people in suburbs and rural areas not being able to get guns.
Taking away guns from black city gangs like the black panthers is 100% cool, but taking them away from white rural people is 0% ok for republicans. It was also around the time the NRA was "overthrown" to form what we know as the NRA today, a political pro-gun organization. It use to actually just be a gun enthusiast club.

What?

Is this one of those [moments after putting down the crack-pipe]?

You do realize that Democrats are the ones who are enacting all these anti-gun laws that take away gun from black people in all the major urban metropolitan centers?

If you bothered to look up any statistic regarding gun violence you would see that over 75% of gun crimes involve gangs. That black on black crime is one of those "eyes wide shut" type-deals where almost everybody knows the numbers surrounding it but nobody wants to do anything because racism and comments like yours.

So now you're trying to blame the NRA and white people because they choose to use their firearms for something other then gangbanging and blasting fools that try to step up?

Oy vey.

"If you give them an inch, they'll take a mile"

That is the mentality of many gun owners, because as it stands there are already many arbitrary gun restrictions and they're basically directly opposed to anything more. They can be opposed to some current gun laws but it is much easier and less time consuming to stop a law from being signed in than to revoke it afterwards.

Also you have to take into account that most gun owners I've personally talked to believe that the new laws that are being proposed do little to no difference in reducing the number of mass shootings. Considering what happened in the most recent mass shooting (police officer stayed out of the building he was supposed to protect, police were called to the shooter's home multiple times, kids admit to bullying the shooter, etc) many (myself included) believe that current laws could have prevented the tragedy if they were actually enforced properly.

The gun control debate is between normal and extremist people on both sides. Not "people with common sense" vs "lunatics obsessed with killing machines" like some people choose to believe.

I can't imagine that anyone here is unaware that "Democrats" of today are wildly different from "Democrats" in the 60s and thereabouts.

As for black crime, you might want to consider the factors at play. Statistics without context are worthless.

And I really don't think that last part was necessary.

@Zombie_Boy I'm not sure what you are even saying, but here are 2 graphs to add to my comment

Notice how gun control was at its highest point in around 1999, then soon after columbine happened, and many other school shootings, gun control support suddenly went way down, especially for republicans.

Gun control stopped being about gangs and became more random and in more suburban/rural white areas.

And yet Democrats have been in control of such major metropolitian centers since the 60s. Their shift in going leftward is both a reflection of their constituents as well as their need to gravitate towards such issues that give them votes, because they have nothing else.

Heck, look at California -- electing the man who set them on the path to fiscal oblivion; Jerry Brown.

As for black crime, are you suggesting we also include the vast majority of ghettos that are the cause of such crimes? That would mean circling back around to Democrats who've seen this steady decline in equality and the rise in the ghetto slums.

Just imagine if Republicans were the party to oversee such a decline in equality and rise in ghetto slums; you think the media would just say silent? Two scoops for the right answer.

As for the last part, how is it unnecessary? You blast me for "using statistics without context", yet when I do a nice bow-tie context to finish off the whole thing you say its unnecessary? What exactly are you looking for, then?

If you want to go back to the 60s, then you should familiarize yourself with Thomas Sowell.

Poochyena:
"Notice how gun control was at its highest point in around 1999, then soon after columbine happened, and many other school shootings, gun control support suddenly went way down, especially for republicans."

You seem to forget that after Columbine happened alot of leftists had literally lost their minds and went straight to calling for the banning of guns; ain't nothing changed in the past 16 years.

Before that both Republicans and Democrats were on board with trying to combat the rise in gang violence as related to gun violence; yet after Columbine (Bowling for Columbine, anyone?) the cracks between the parties soon became a chasm and the rest followed suit.

"Gun control stopped being about gangs and became more random and in more suburban/rural white areas."

That is because Democrats figured it is easier (politically speaking) to target WASP gun owners then it was to target their own constituents that vote for them with over 90% consistency -- you don't have to defend your own failings if you're consistently attacking the other side for their perceived failings.

…somehow do not abridge your second amendment rights?

Most pro-gun folks I know and talk to oppose gun-free zones, seeing them as nothing more than golden opportunities for mass shootings, as those who would obey the gun free zone law aren't going to be the ones committing the mass shooting and would be unable to defend against one. And given how many mass shootings occur in gun free zones, I'm inclined to side with them on it.

Most people support the nebulous "take guns away from the mentally ill" idea, but when specifics start to get mentioned (a judge determining who's mentally ill, what kinds of mental illness qualify, etc.) support beings to fracture as people's opinons and personal experiences raise concerns over proper implementation and due process issues.

I honestly can't think of a single pro-gun person who supports banning either concealed or open carry.

Basically, most of the things you're mentioning are heavily opposed by the pro-gun crowd and are seen as an abridgement of rights, so I'm not really sure what your argument is here.

I find your logic kind of puzzling as well. It's like arguing since fighting words are banned and no first amendment supporters are really against it, it's thus okay to ban hate speech or certain political speech. It's like "all or nothing" logic, where if you support some gun restrictions you have to support all gun restrictions and it's illogical if you don't.

@xTSGx I'm not talking about why some gun owners support some gun laws but not others, I'm talking specifically about the mentality some have that any new gun law proposed by protesters is a gross infringement of the second amendment and should not be supported based solely on that fact when there is already gun control laws on the books that they are fine with.

I'm not here to talk about which gun law ideas are good or bad, just why some people think all gun control is against the constitution, except the gun control we already have. It's this weird form of double-think where the users just don't want anymore gun control and use the argument that any gun law infringes on the second amendment, but aren't marching on congresses doorstep regarding the current gun control.

I find your logic kind of puzzling as well. It’s like arguing since fighting words are banned and no first amendment supporters are really against it, it’s thus okay to ban hate speech or certain political speech. It’s like “all or nothing” logic, where if you support some gun restrictions you have to support all gun restrictions and it’s illogical if you don’t.

That is so not my argument at all. I'm not saying "If you support current gun control, you should support new gun control" I'm saying "You can't use "It's against the second amendment" as an argument when the same kind of law is already passed and constitutional in the eyes of SCOTUS"

@yummies Kinda the same thing above, my question is not why some people are opposed to new gun law but not old gun law, but why people think any new gun law is destroying the second amendment while old gun law doesn't. I can understand the pro-gun people's point, just not this argument some of them use to decry any and all propositions from pro-gun control people.

Why is banning RPGs constitutional while banning Assault Rifles is not?

Why is banning mentally ill people from owning a gun fine but adding a waiting period the end of our rights as Americans?

That kinda thing.

Yeah, I heard about the hostile takeover of the NRA by gun rights activists.
When did that happen, again? Late 60's or late 70's?

Ryu said:

Why is banning RPGs constitutional while banning Assault Rifles is not?

Why is banning mentally ill people from owning a gun fine but adding a waiting period the end of our rights as Americans?

That kinda thing.

Because they were conditioned by the NRA to believe that any new gun regulations would infringe on their rights, despite the Supreme Court stating that the 2nd amendment isn't absolute.

Also, because the NRA really wants to sell more guns.

One way to think of it is that the Bill of Rights offers fairly broad protection of rights and that every new piece of legislation erodes, rather than outright destroys, the strength of that protection. So previous restrictions did in fact take some power away from the Second Amendment, but supporters of gun rights view these rights as either acceptable losses in the name of security or as lost causes to try and win back. So it's less of a "this law will be the one that finally destroys the second amendment" and more of a "we want to stop the rights granted by the second amendment from being eroded further."