Where Do You Stand On Gun Control/Second Amendment?

[BenjaminW]

In the wake of the tragic shooting at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School, the topic of gun control has re-emerged into the political limelight.

We have people who are either for or against gun control.

I personally find myself to be "traditionally" pro Second Amendment. What I mean by that is that where I stand on Second Amendment and gun control to be more in line in with what the Founding Fathers believed.

Again, that's my own personal opinion and if you can respect my opinion on this topic, I'll be glad to respect yours.

Anyways, feel free to share your thoughts on the Second Amendment and gun control. (Excuse the bad writing if that honestly matters.)

 

[Hollowway]

Well, I don't really know. Generally, I feel like government gets very few things right. So in that sense, I'm kind of libertarian. On the other hand, I also believe that we should follow statistics and evidence. Like, I think it's clear that, however great an idea it might be, communism doesn't work as well as capitalism at this point in history. And organizes religion has caused more death than prevented it - and therefore I think organized religion isn't valuable. And based on this sort of thinking, countries with gun control have simply fewer deaths than those with little or no gun control. Obviously, we cannot control for all variables, but it's at least worth trying it for a couple of decades, and seeing what happens.

With respect to the intent of the 2nd amendment, it is important to consider the actual text: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

It is not clear from the text whether the well regulated militia is the people who have the right to bear arms - i.e. whether only those in the militia have that right. In other words, there are those that feel that this is basically saying that the government has to allow militias, such that they may be necessary to protect the freedom of the "state." In reality, the idea of the 2nd amendment guaranteeing regular citizens the right to own a gun is a very recent development.

It is also interesting that the amendment doesn't specify what "arms" are being referred to. In the interpretation of the militia, one could assume it means pretty much all weapons. Like the military. The idea that it's specifically referring to guns (as opposed to anything else, like knives, flame throwers, or nuclear bombs) is also a very real development. I mean, we never hear anyone complaining about all the bans on knives (switchblades, long blades, butterfly knives, etc.) or the fact that no one is allowed to maintain their own nukes.

And the part I have a hard time wrapping my head around is the huge amount of overlap in the Venn circles of "pro 2nd amendment" and "fully supporting the cops and military." I say that because most 2nd amendment people, when asked what the purpose of the amendment was in the first place, say that it was to allow the citizens to rise up against the government, if necessary. Yet, these same groups are the ones in favor of allowing more and more police militarization, and less and less "policing" of police. The reality is that anyone who thinks their stash of guns is going to stop a tryannical US government is deluded. In fact, the best way to prevent tyranny of the government is to limit its power. While I will grant that libertarians believe in that, the fact is that most 2nd amendment proponents are republicans, whose party wants to award the government more and more control of its citizens.

So, given that we've tried the "no gun control" thing for a couple of decades, with no results, I'd be for mimicking what Australia did in the 90s to get guns off the streets. And it has to be a federal thing. You can't ban gun sales in a city (Chicago) and expect that gun deaths will go down, if surrounding areas still have easy gun sales.

 

[MaxOfMetal]

I'm a gun owner, but also a responsible and, I like to think, reasonable one.

I'm 100% for more, better gun control in this country.

It's absolutely insane how lax we are over here.

 

[narad]

I personally find myself to be "traditionally" pro Second Amendment. What I mean by that is that where I stand on Second Amendment and gun control to be more in line in with what the Founding Fathers believed.

How can you have any confidence in what the founding fathers believed relative to the technologies of the modern age? It made a lot of sense then...it doesn't make any now (for its stated purpose).

I would argue you can only be a traditionalist with respect to the situation of their time, i.e., I'm a traditionalist, because I think it was a sensible line of thinking given what early Americans were striving to overcome.

 

[MaxOfMetal]

How can you have any confidence in what the founding fathers believed relative to the technologies of the modern age? It made a lot of sense then...it doesn't make any now (for its stated purpose).

Yeah, I tend to find that's just a reason for sake of a reason.

 

[narad]

Yeah, I tend to find that's just a reason for sake of a reason.

Strikes me a lot like guitar world. People would think I'm crazy if I ceaselessly defended my ownership of like 15 guitar because I was confident I was going to at some point start a band and make it big. Deep down we all know it's just fun to have cool gear (at least around these parts of the internet).

 

[MaxOfMetal]

Strikes me a lot like guitar world. People would think I'm crazy if I ceaselessly defended my ownership of like 15 guitar because I was confident I was going to at some point start a band and make it big. Deep down we all know it's just fun to have cool gear (at least around these parts of the internet).

Yeah, after a certain point the whole "defense" angle gets pretty silly.

Folks just need to admit that they just find guns cool because of movies and video games and wild west lore, not to mention gun culture in the US as a whole.

 

[_MonSTeR_]

I stand in the UK, we have strict gun control here, so I stand in the pro control camp.

If I was living in the US I think I’d still be pro control, but I’d want to own everything I could get my hands on in case the “bad guys” have them and I ever needed one. I don’t know what they actually accomplishor what have you but they would probably make me feel safer, even if it’s wholly a placebo effect!

 

[narad]

I stand in the UK, we have strict gun control here, so I stand in the pro control camp.

If I was living in the US I think I’d still be pro control, but I’d want to own everything I could get my hands on in case the “bad guys” have them and I ever needed one. I don’t know what they actually accomplishor what have you but they would probably make me feel safer, even if it’s wholly a placebo effect!

It's worse than a placebo effect because you're statistically less safe for owning it, especially if you have a family.

I'm in Baltimore now and I get a campus alert about once a week, sometimes a few times, about an armed robbery occurring within a 3-mile radius from where I live. It's new to me that I can't go out past dark and walk around with my headphones in and whatnot, and even though I've changed my habits (grocery shop during the day, always Uber home past dark), you can't totally demonize the muggers either. They're out for money, for phones, etc. They might be cold, maybe some have killed people, but the last thing you want to do is pull a gun out and make what is 99.9% a survivable event a 50/50 one. So people just go with it -- you get mugged, you surrender your stuff, don't talk back. And that's just the smart thing to do. Having a gun on you in that situation ...it's not great.

 

[CrazyDean]

I think this discussion would be much more productive if everyone gave their own definition of what they think is reasonable "gun control".

 

[thraxil]

Grew up on a farm in rural Maine with guns all around (varmint control). Guns are a lot of fun.

I see no reason that there shouldn't be restrictions and background checks on purchase (violent criminal history (including domestic abuse), mental illness, waiting periods). There should be licenses and mandatory safety training.

When I was growing up in Maine (maybe still now; I haven't checked) fireworks more advanced than sparklers were illegal. We would all drive down to New Hampshire to stock up before July 4th. Guns were significantly easier to purchase. This is really hilarious to me now, living in the UK where guns are highly regulated, but fireworks are legal and easy to get.

(aside on hunting: I wouldn't try to ban it; I respect hunting for food (despite being a vegetarian) and I know first-hand that there are benefits in terms of deer population management. It annoys me when people call it a "sport" though. Shooting an animal with a high powered rifle doesn't seem very sporting. Chase it down and kill it with your bare hands if you want me to respect your "sport".)

 

[Explorer]

I personally find myself to be "traditionally" pro Second Amendment. What I mean by that is that where I stand on Second Amendment and gun control to be more in line in with what the Founding Fathers believed.

Interesting. I am not aware of a definitive articulation of what they meant by...

With respect to the intent of the 2nd amendment, it is important to consider the actual text: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

...but, if you have one to offer, @BenjaminW, I'm interested in hearing how you determined how the text is unambiguous. As @Hollowway points out...

It is not clear from the text whether the well regulated militia is the people who have the right to bear arms - i.e. whether only those in the militia have that right. In other words, there are those that feel that this is basically saying that the government has to allow militias, such that they may be necessary to protect the freedom of the "state." In reality, the idea of the 2nd amendment guaranteeing regular citizens the right to own a gun is a very recent development.

...it's not a done deal.

It is also interesting that the amendment doesn't specify what "arms" are being referred to. In the interpretation of the militia, one could assume it means pretty much all weapons. Like the military. The idea that it's specifically referring to guns (as opposed to anything else, like knives, flame throwers, or nuclear bombs) is also a very real development. I mean, we never hear anyone complaining about all the bans on knives (switchblades, long blades, butterfly knives, etc.) or the fact that no one is allowed to maintain their own nukes.

I once got on WJLA Channel 7 news in DC when a friend asked if I wanted to accompany him to a rally in defense of the Second Amendment. I made a placard arguing for home ownership of chemical, biological and nuclear weapons, and several of the other rally people started arguing that the government, representing the citizens, had the right and responsibility to limit access to weapons which were a danger to public safety at large. "You sound like those liberals who want to prevent me from buying big firearms!" I shouted. *laugh* I considered it to be epic trolling to have those guys arguing against themselves and their own placards, even though "trolling" wasn't really the term in those years.

How can you have any confidence in what the founding fathers believed relative to the technologies of the modern age? It made a lot of sense then...it doesn't make any now (for its stated purpose). I would argue you can only be a traditionalist with respect to the situation of their time, i.e., I'm a traditionalist, because I think it was a sensible line of thinking given what early Americans were striving to overcome.

Yeah, I tend to find that's just a reason for sake of a reason.

That's why BenjaminW's explanation of how he has reliably eliminated all ambiguity in the intentions of the Founding Fathers will be interesting. I'm hoping it will be more factually grounded than a statement of opinion.

 

[Explorer]

Oh! One more thing!

I like that @BenjaminW proposed "gun control" as a binary, yes/no issue, instead of being a large field of possible choices.

Weapons for everyone but those with domestic violence histories, and/or histories of assaulting strangers? Weapons for no one but those who register their guns? Weapons only for those who pass a safety course? Weapons for no one at all? Who knows?

Also, for those who vote against *any* control on guns... is it a hard "absolutely no restrictions!", or "yes, some!"?

 

[Edika]

Can your country at least do something? Call it gun ban, gun control, gun regulation, background checks, waiting periods, mental health screening, better mental healthcare so people receive treatment instead of solving issues with a gun. Or is it again "too soon and disrespectful to the people that lost loved ones" to talk about the issue? I find it a lot more disrespectful having a condescending callous attitude like that because the families of the victims would welcome a discussion and some actions to ensure this never happens again. I'm sure they would have preferred this happened after the last shooting a few months ago so their children would still be alive.

I remember hearing about a mass shooting in the US every one or two years in the past. Lately it seems to have devolved to one every couple of months. If banging your head on the wall to stop a head ache is not working, maybe see about another solution than keep on banging it repeatedly hoping it will go away.

 

[MaxOfMetal]

No one actually thinks it's disrespectful or too soon.

It's like when you get into an argument with your significant other and instead of fixing things you just yell and walk away for awhile.

Unfortunately, nothing is going to happen as long as millions of dollars in NRA money is funneled into politicians' pockets.

 

[Dcm81]

Should the views of one of the men who wrote the constitution not have more weight in discussions regarding said constitution?

Thomas Jefferson:

“I am not an advocate for frequent changes in laws and constitutions, but laws and institutions must go hand in hand with the progress of the human mind. As that becomes more developed, more enlightened, as new discoveries are made, new truths discovered and manners and opinions change, with the change of circumstances, institutions must advance also to keep pace with the times. We might as well require a man to wear still the coat which fitted him when a boy as civilized society to remain ever under the regimen of their barbarous ancestors.”

EDIT: I just read that this most recent school shooting is the EIGHTEENTH this year?!?!? Can someone confirm/refute that? If that number is correct then that is......well practically unbelievable. And once again, if correct, then I really can't understand ANY opposition to at least some changes to gun laws in the US.

 

[MaxOfMetal]

Should the views of one of the men who wrote the constitution not have more weight in discussions regarding said constitution?

Thomas Jefferson:

“I am not an advocate for frequent changes in laws and constitutions, but laws and institutions must go hand in hand with the progress of the human mind. As that becomes more developed, more enlightened, as new discoveries are made, new truths discovered and manners and opinions change, with the change of circumstances, institutions must advance also to keep pace with the times. We might as well require a man to wear still the coat which fitted him when a boy as civilized society to remain ever under the regimen of their barbarous ancestors.”

EDIT: I just read that this most recent school shooting is the EIGHTEENTH this year?!?!? Can someone confirm/refute that? If that number is correct then that is......well practically unbelievable. And once again, if correct, then I really can't understand ANY opposition to at least some changes to gun laws in the US.

The figure isn't entirely accurate, but the truth is still terribly grim.

https://www.snopes.com/2018/02/16/how-many-school-shootings-in-2018/

 

[Dcm81]

The figure isn't entirely accurate, but the truth is still terribly grim.

https://www.snopes.com/2018/02/16/how-many-school-shootings-in-2018/

Yeah, suicides don't really fall under the term school-shooting..."accidental firing" and my favourite, "unintentional shooting" I find kinda hard to categorize...and even harder to understand
While those numbers are truly grim, as you so aptly put it, those are only the numbers for school related incidents. I wonder where that number would be if you included all nutjobs that ran amok with firearms regardless of location i.e. Las Vegas last October.

 

[MaxOfMetal]

Yeah, suicides don't really fall under the term school-shooting..."accidental firing" and my favourite, "unintentional shooting" I find kinda hard to categorize...and even harder to understand
While those numbers are truly grim, as you so aptly put it, those are only the numbers for school related incidents. I wonder where that number would be if you included all nutjobs that ran amok with firearms regardless of location i.e. Las Vegas last October.

So far, 30 mass shootings in the United States in 2018.

http://www.gunviolencearchive.org/reports/mass-shooting

There have been four since Stoneman Douglas.

 

[KnightBrolaire]

I'm pro guns, not necessarily pro gun control. Nearly all of the proposed gun control ideas I've heard don't seem very realistic. Buyback programs won't work since people who spent thousands of dollars on firearms aren't going to engage in buyback programs where they get pennies on the dollar for them, and they're sure as hell not going to give up things they've bought for nothing. More rigorous background checks only makes things more difficult for the firsthand consumer, and does nothing to control the secondhand market. We could try and limit access to any semi-auto rifles/handguns but that's pretty unrealistic, given how frequently they show up on secondhand markets, where there's no background checks, and no way to guarantee the buyer isn't mentally unstable.
Anytime people advocate more laws and more restrictions it doesn't really get to the core of the problem, which is the secondhand market/street availability of certain weapons. More laws and more restrictions merely makes it more difficult for the average gun buyer, who's not going out and shooting other people. California passed laws last year where AR owners could only own 5 round mags and non-collapsible stocks, which didn't prevent the more recent shootings there, and merely inconveniences most users. The magazine law is asinine, since any mildly motivated person could drive to nevada or utah and buy 30 round magazines (provided they couldn't find them used in CA). If by chance they couldn't find any in CA or surrounding states, they wouldn't be hard to make out of sheet metal and a spring.
That's not even addressing the other issue of CNC milling/3D printing of parts, which is becoming more and more of a reality for average consumers. The ability to mill your own lower receiver or bolt/bolt carrier, etc is a big deal since you can essentially make a weapon without serial numbers or if you have some gunsmithing skill could make full auto weaponry.

Basically the only ways to effectively enact gun control would be to:
1. control who can buy on 1st and secondhand markets (good luck with that)
2. control consumer level manufacturing (ie CNC milling/machining/3D printing)

Outright banning firearms won't stop people since CNC/3D printing would allow them to build weapons, and even if we somehow regulated CNC/3D printing, motivated individuals will always find a way to hurt people or build things they shouldn't. Look at the UK where they don't have easy access to most firearms, and people get stabbed/have vehicle attacks and acid attacks. Look at France and the truck attacks.
Videos showcasing homebuilt firearms (some were made in the UK with rudimentary machining/tools):