This is a discussion on New knee-jerk legislation resulting from the AZ shooting (MERGED) within the The Second Amendment & Gun Legislation Discussion forums, part of the Related Topics category; Originally Posted by hamlet So you won't mind your Fire Department closing. Nice redirection of the argument. That's what many would consider a straw-man argument. ...
That's what many would consider a straw-man argument. The issue was governement intrution to prevent situations like what happened in Tucson last week. Nowhere was the issue of Fire Departments brought up, nor germaine to the issue.
Trust in God and keep your powder dry
"A heavily armed citizenry is not about overthrowing the government; it is about preventing the government from overthrowing liberty. A people stripped of their right of self defense is defenseless against their own government." -source
Banning hi cap mags is like saying we need to ban 30 packs of beer because they are only used to get completely drunk, then drive and kill somebody.
But hey, you can go by five 6-packs, thats fine.
Excellent points through your post.
I do have a couple issues with the bolded parts though. First, didn't 'liberal' used to imply a push for extra freedoms and rights beyond the 'norm'? Why do people who want extra rights for 'minority' groups beyond the rights of the majority, and who started groups like the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) want to restrict the rights of the people?
Second, bringing it up in the manner you did implies a correlation where one may not exist. I'm a die-hard conservative, and disagree with many of the 'liberal' ideas that have been proposed in the spirit of the government giving to people when they would be better served earning for themselves. Even so, Gun control is about 60/40 in the conservative/liberal argument. Sure, more conservatives support gun rights than do liberals, but not all of the gun rights argument is along clean ideological or party lines.
I'll say it again, as they haven't responded yet. Hopyard and Hamlet need to just accept that they are proponents of expanded gun control. They'll sleep better, and probably have less headaches. They can cut a check to Jim Brady, and live happy. Either that, or they can actually begin to support gun rights like they say they do.
The argument turns on what legislatures and the courts deem reasonable.
That is the position of The Supremes given by Scalia, who last I heard was not a liberal.
Now, just to give an example of an unreasonable restriction on licensing (IMO), here you can't get a CHL if you are "finally determined to be in default on a student loan made under Chapter 57 of the Education Code. (Texas Government Code 4.11.172 (12).
That I can see complaining about. It is a restriction divorced from public safety and entirely unrelated to the subject of guns, mental capacity, or anything else beyond enforcing the minutia of the student loan program.
That IMO rises to infringing on a 2A right. Regulating magazine capacity does not.
Regulating magazine capacity absolutely infringes on the 2nd Amendment. Whether a 30, 15, 10, 3 or 1 capacity is illegal, it is an infringement, just like if the government restricted the number of people who could associate at the same time would infringe on the 1st. After all, you can't have a mob riot or gangs if there are only a couple of people allowed to assemble together.
Banning 30 round mags gets rid of most legal AK and AR mags. Banning anything over 20 even more so. Ban 15 and you eliminate most double stack mags, both handgun and some rifles. Ban 8 and that gets rid of 1911's and M1 Garands. Ban 5 round capacity and there goes revolvers. Ban two and you are down to single shot guns. It really is just a matter of degree.
If, in theory, you want to reduce crime and assassinations, get rid of revolvers and bolt action rifles, as they are what have been used the most. But in reality, it doesn't work, as criminals in the UK have managed to get guns on an island nation where they have been "infringed" to the point of completely banned.
Last edited by AutoFan; January 15th, 2011 at 08:53 PM. Reason: spelling
I also want to be clear that I'm not a rifle person and my thoughts with regard to restrictions on high cap. mags. were made strictly with handguns in mind. ARs, AKs and similar are really off my radar here and have an entirely different set of issues related to them than high cap mags for pistols-- which in many ways defeat the purpose of a pistol by increasing the size and making concealment difficult to impossible.
As for baning revolvers because those are used in most crime, that is a bridge too far and would indeed infringe 2A per Heller.
Now, this is what the court decided: " nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms."
So, The Supremes made it clear that it was not unconstitutional to impose conditions and qualifications (regulations? limits?) on the sale of arms. I take that to mean it is constitutional to ban high caps. That doing so is not an infringement per the ruling written by Scalia.
Maybe, "imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms" could mean something different from what would be involved in regulating the selling of high cap. magazines. Perhaps the court only meant stuff like the conditions and qualifications imposed on FFLs and the existence of FFLs. I don't know.
The more I read you and Hamlet, the more I wonder if he's your Alt. And I'm pretty sure both of you (assuming he's not an Alt) really do support gun control, and you're here trolling.
/wow, I never thought I'd be having this argument on a forum called DefensiveCarry. I'm used to dealing with it on Fark, which is a hive for the far Left.
An "infringement" is not being prevented from doing what you want to ideally do, it's when the basic right is not possible due to
the action of officials.
The other very important point: if your locale had a law - like some - limiting mags to 10, it would be an error to look at this as dictatorial action of THE GOVERNMENT, as if our government came unwanted from Jupiter. The "government" is the representatives of the people, at least those who make laws and most executives. They are people elected by other people. So, in a restriction 2 things will happen: if the lawmakers are going against the desire of the people who strongly dislike the restriction, the lawmakers will not be re-elected in a short period of time. If they are re-elected, their laws are agreeable to the majority of your fellow who do not feel threatened by the laws that their reps have passed. There is no 'foreign body" removed from your own people, so the majority wants something that you don't want. If you feel, even voted on by your community, the restrictions are still infringing on the basic right, then it can be taken to the courts. If they find it isn't an infringement, the majority of your neighbors' choice in laws remains.
So it goes in a democracy...
I'm not far from unsubscribing to this thread. . . the anti-gun sentiment is just too strong. I'm also more convinced that Hopyard and Hamlet are the same person, Hamlet being the Alt.
The Supreme Court was only ruling on whether it was legal to own guns in DC in Heller. Remember, the Court only writes opinions that are narrow in scope most times. In this case, in spite of the long winded opinions, it came down to simply "it's a violation of the 2nd Amendment to prohibit guns entirely, because that's what Heller et al were contesting." That's why it was only regarding owning firearms for home (keep), not carrying guns in public (bear). Not because the Court didn't want to make that determination, but because it's an answer to a question they weren't asked. They didn't say that restrictions were okay, they said that they may be okay, and that a future case would have to determine that. Because they weren't asked.
Not only that, but the Court isn't writing absolutes. They're called opinions for a reason, and they can be overturned by future cases.
The Supreme Court in Heller answered the DC restriction only on DC's restriction and how it was applied. Of course they could have decided it for the general reason that all restrictions were unconstitutional. Their reason was not that, and they made a point stating the same in length. They were free to decide on the basis they wanted to. Instead this point was gone into at considerable length: any restriction brought to the court could be allowable or not allowable based on what it was and how it was applied. We know the same is true of all amendments , from the numbers of successful challenges to particular local laws that restrict a right, as well as the numbers of challenges to laws that restrict a Right that are unsuccessful. Rights are Basic, not Absolute.