🇳🇱
NICE! As much as I hate the right every once in a while they do something good. Apparently now states **must** issue permits to carry a handgun to anyone who requests it unless they have an explicit reason not to (like they have a criminal history)... This makes all states "shall issue" states!
This is great, am really excited to see the #2A being expanded!
https://www.businessinsider.com/supreme-court-guns-decision-second-amendment-new-york-2022-6
@freemo Firstly, this is from last year, it's not new. Secondly, it's based on some bizarre legal theory, creating a legal principle that did not previously exist and does not make sense: specifically, that the state can pass gun control laws only if there is are "historical roots" for the law in question. So it's (again) the court making up the law it wants, rather than the law it's got.
Thirdly though, and most importantly, why is this a good thing? You're a gun nut, I get it, and that's fine - you're a responsible gun owner and all that.* But why does the fact that responsible owners are responsible mean that it's a good thing for everyone to be given a gun for the asking, even if there is no reason to believe they know what they're doing or will be responsible? We don't give cars to people who haven't demonstrated they can drive safely, for the good and sufficient reason that in incompetent hands they're lethal, and cars aren't even designed to be lethal weapons.
*Personally, I don't get why you would have a need to carry a gun in public, and open carry in particular is physically intimidating to others in the same way that walking around with a large and aggressive dog is. So I must say I think it's particularly anti-social. But that's not a safety issue, merely a courtesy one.
@VoxDei "The right to bear arms shall not be infringed"... very clearly denying a gun to people without any reason is infringing on ones right to bear arms.
Has nothing to do with if your a gun nut or not, has more to do with if your honest about what the law very clearly says.
@freemo A license requiring you know what you're doing and know how to be responsible in no way infringes on the right to bear arms.
@VoxDei Yes, it does. It creates a complex scheme governed by an indifferent at best / adversarial at worst bureaucracy that prevents prospective victims from acquiring a firearm to protect themselves in time-sensitive situations. There exists no shortage of cases in which this has happened.
Do I share your sentiment that everyone who owns a firearm ought to be trained and experienced? Oh, most assuredly. Everyone in the 2A crowd would ardently agree with you. We merely don't believe it should be used as a mechanism to dissuade one from acquiring or deny someone a firearm they need immediately.
@ihavenopeopleskills @freemo I would take issue with the idea that anyone (certainly any significant number of people, there may be edge cases) genuinely needs a gun immediately for legitimate purposes. Even more so if you exclude reasons that aren't caused by the wide availability of firearms in the first place - I'm much less likely to feel I need one to protect myself if the likely threat doesn't have one. Moreover the 2a protects the right to bear arms, not to be able to obtain one instantly.
> I would take issue with the idea that anyone (certainly any significant number of people, there may be edge cases) genuinely needs a gun immediately for legitimate purposes.
Once you put enough adjectives in front of something anything becomes a minority of the whole...
* genuine
* need
* immediate
*legitimate
* purpose
I mean sure ... lots of people have some combination of those 5 properties and not all 5 at once. The point? Someone with legitimate purpose, but it may not be immediate shouldnt have a gun because their need is "some unknown point in the future"?
> Even more so if you exclude reasons that aren't caused by the wide availability of firearms in the first place
That is a fallacy of statistical understanding, but lets not get off into that tangent....
> I'm much less likely to feel I need one to protect myself if the likely threat doesn't have one.
Not really, we have 3d printers that can make guns now, including fully automatic... One guy on youtube made a fully automatic gun in a few minutes by swleding together random parts from a bed frame.
Guns are trivial to obtain out of thin air, the idea that you think the other guy wont have a gun simply because you told him he couldnt doesnt track with the reality we are in, maybe 30 years ago, not now.
> Moreover the 2a protects the right to bear arms, not to be able to obtain one instantly.
No it doesnt simply "protect the right to bear arms".. it makes all infringement against ones ability to bear arms illegal. If you are denying me my right to bear arms in the hear and now, and dont even promise me the right in a few days, that is most certainly within the definition of an infringement.
Yeah, but the argument made was that a license prevents someone who needs a gun immediately from getting one. My point is why would you need a gun immediately? There might be one or two edge cases, but I suspect they'll be very small numbers of occurrences. I would say preventing people from getting guns immediately is a net *good* thing - it'll prevent a lot of suicides, for a start, way more than lives it'll ever save because someone could obtain a gun on an hour's notice.
Guns are *not* trivial to obtain out of thin air. 3D-printed guns are not common. I live in the UK, we have strong gun laws, you don't find that people have a secret 3D-printed gun hidden in a cupboard just in case they need to shoot someone. Yes, fine, hardened criminals might have one, but that's the case now - if you're determined to get an illegal weapon, you can, it doesn't make them widespread and it doesn't mean that Joe Average needs a gun and needs one right now (but with a long enough delay to nip down to the shops and come back with a gun).
I'm not denying you your "right" to bear arms (scare quotes because I don't understand why anywhere bestows that right in the first place, and the 2a explicitly says that it's related to the requirement for a "well-regulated militia", which is never considered in the legal arguments). But none of the constitutional rights is absolute. The first amendment, for instance, does not allow you to say anything to anyone at any time. If I go around saying "person X is a rapist" for example, if I can't prove it I get sued for slander, I can't say "Oh but the first amendment, I can say what I want whether it's true or not". Imposing a requirement on gun ownership to prove that you have some basic competence via a licensing scheme does not infringe your rights. Moreover, the 2fa bestows a "right to keep and bear arms", not to walk around with assault weapons - it would be within the meaning of the 2fa if the government said "You can have this one type of gun" - you would have a right to keep arms and to bear them. I realise that American jurisprudence, especially from the point of view of the current Supreme Court that barely pays lip service to the actual law, disagrees with that, but that doesn't change what I think the law actually says.
> Yeah, but the argument made was that a license prevents someone who needs a gun immediately from getting one. My point is why would you need a gun immediately? There might be one or two edge cases, but I suspect they’ll be very small numbers of occurrences. I
I dunno, I know you well enough to know your arguing in good faith, but if I didnt know that I would think this was intentionally dishonest.
For starters, no, the only argument against licening is not an immediate need. Generally the argument against it is five fold:
1) the 2A is very clear that all infringement against gun ownership is illegal (thought he supreme court has ruled in ways contrary to this text in the past). If you want to place reasonable infringements on gun ownership, thats fine, but get it added as a constitutional ammendment then as the law would require
2) Licensing means some way is needed to verify the license in real time against a database. This means any licensing would act indirectly as a gun registry and would open up the potential for gun owners to be targeted and abused and ultimately disarmed in unjust ways or make rising up against the government a virtual impossibility as everyone is pre-identified.
3) Licensing can be abused to deny people access to guns unfairly. In an ideal system the training is obtainable by everyone who puts in the time. But in reality licensing can be denied, and the fear is potentially for unjust reasons.
4) It divides access to a right by class... While guns themselves can be very cheap, and even made at home practically for free, licensing may be arbitrary expensive and prohibitive. This will push access to this right further towards the rich and block it from the poor.. Rights should be availible to all.. We could fix this by making all licensing paid for by public programs... but no one would allow that.
5) And of course the point you point out which is also very much a valid point... if your life is in immediate danger you may need a gun now.
Now as to how much of an edge case the immediate need is.. I mean I dont care if its 1%, these people need them to save their lives.. but its likely a lot higher than you think... Most people who buy them recently had someone threaten to kill or rape them, and that happens quite often... I have been pro-gun my whole life, never bothered to buy one till the mob said they would kill me... The two girls I know who carry, the only two, carry specifically because they broke up with an abusive BF who threatened to hurt and rape them... These arent edge cases, they are quite common I am sure (though I couldnt find actual numbers on it).
> Guns are not trivial to obtain out of thin air. 3D-printed guns are not common. I live in the UK, we have strong gun laws, you don’t find that people have a secret 3D-printed gun hidden in a cupboard just in case they need to shoot someone. Yes, fine, hardened criminals might have one, but that’s the case now - if you’re determined to get an illegal weapon, you can, it doesn’t make them widespread and it doesn’t mean that Joe Average needs a gun and needs one right now (but with a long enough delay to nip down to the shops and come back with a gun).
How is it not trivial when any 3d printer off a shelf can print on in a short period of time and then I have a gun... It is trivial. The fact that people dont bother to print them in the UK may be true, but that isnt due to it not being trivial, its still trivial, people just may not choose to.
> I’m not denying you your “right” to bear arms (scare quotes because I don’t understand why anywhere bestows that right in the first place, and the 2a explicitly says that it’s related to the requirement for a “well-regulated militia”, which is never considered in the legal arguments)
No it does nothing of the sort, and this is quite obvious to anyone reading the text in a way that is honest and objective. Furthermore the forefathers who authored the line themselves you are misrepresented have very clearly clarified that it doesnt mean what you are saying it means... Lets look at that.
First here is the exact 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."
The part about a well regulated militia is called a exemplary clause, it is not a qualifying clause.. in other words its meant to give an example of one reason why the right is so important, not intended as a limitation.
First this is just obvious on the surface.. You can test this and get it past your biases by using a less controversial topic but of the same format. Take the following phhase
"An effective congress, being neccessary to the security of a free state, the right to democratic vote shall not be infringed"
Would this imply only congress gets to vote? Or that voting is only protected when voting from congress members? Of course not. Anyone reading that (or the original) can clearly see that they are explaining one reason the right is needed, and not saying the right is only exercised in that scope.
Now even if you do argue, as I said the authors of the 2A themselves have very clearly stated that it applied to **all** people and not just an organized militia, so all doubt is completely removed regarding the argument your making:
I have made posts on this where I listed like a dozen quotes from the founding fathers proving this.. I will leave the most direct here, there are more if you need it:
“I ask, Sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people. To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them.” — Founding Father, George Mason, co-author of the Second Amendment.
> The first amendment, for instance, does not allow you to say anything to anyone at any time. If I go around saying “person X is a rapist” for example, if I can’t prove it I get sued for slander, I can’t say “Oh but the first amendment, I can say what I want whether it’s true or not”.
No you can say or do anything.. it is just if what you say or do causes harm then you have to pay for it.
Your analogy applied to guns would only work if gun owners were claiming the #2A gave them a right to go around killing people because if they cant kill people it would infringe ont heir right to own a gun... no, killing people can be illegal even if ownign a gun is legal...
Similarly I can say whatever I want... Simply speaking is never illegal in and of itself.. However if that speech harms someone then yes, that harm can potentially be illegal. Just as no one can stop me from owning a gun, but how I use that gun, if it causes harm, can be illegal.
@freemo I have no time to read all the toots, but IMHO, for certain themes like guns, illegal drugs, alcoholics, prostitution, etc... one should compare the effects of different rules in different nations, for deciding the best approach.
For example if gun regulamentation is effective in reducing a lot the crimes, then it can be a good thing, despite there can be cases of person affected in negative by this limitation.
If buying drugs in a regular way reduce the profit of criminal cartels and the health impact on society, why not?
etc...
Summing up: a nation should do the contrary of USA: public health-care system; legal drugs; prohibition of guns. 🙂
Agreed, but you have to be careful to do it right.
For example this mentality is exactly what lead to my stance on gun-rights. The fact that virtually every state and nation, when banning guns, saw a **huge** spike in homicides and/or violent crimes in the 5 - 10 years following before those numbers sometimes go down but almost never reach pre-ban levels or below again... that pattern clearly shows that other nations banning guns has had a very harmful effect.
Obviously we can take one step further and also look at wars and falls of nations... in virtually every case a nation with a dictator was limited to countries where people were unarmed either in the past, or during the rise of the dictator.
Hitler is often cited as an example of this, there was a massive disarmenment of Europe in most countries (including germany) following WWI and surprise surprise, after the decade or so it took to get rid of guns Hitler pops up almost immediately.
While we are at it,a nd just to show im not cherry picking... lets address the OP with regard to canada, two topics you both picked so I cant be the one cherry picking here...
So canada a long time ago banned a lot of types of guns, but you can still in some cases get a license if you have a strong need. So handguns still had some use as self defense among a privilaged class.... But they never required training to get a license... Training to obtain a firearm license was enacted by Canada and passed into law in 2014 as an additional restriction on getting a license and a gun. This of course limited access to guns or at least put a barrier in front of it reducing the number of guns on the street...
So what did this relatively minor restriction due to the violent crime rates... well yet again, a restriction on access to guns caused a **skyrocketing** of crime rates. See the chart attached.
As is clear despite violent crimes being well on the decline the day the training requirement law passed we see a huge and continued upward spike in violent crime rates. On that appears to be continuing to climb....
Seems even your example of Canada shows quite clearly banning guns kills people.
> I have no access to the other statistics about the rise of homicides in case of ban of the guns. So if you have some link, I will read.
Thats why i provided the data for you to see as a chart. The source is clearly listed for the data, you are welcome to go to the source and check it if you'd like.
@mzan
So you are telling me his military didnt have guns, and those guns didnt stop unarmed jews from defending themselves?
Thats some significant rewriting of history you got going there. To think hitlers guns and everyone else he invaded not having guns played no role is bull...
You act like unarmed poland or unarmed civilians of other nations just voted him in...
Hell even when he got to power in germany he 1) used guns more than once 2) explicitly used guns to murder his opposition so as to fix the vote 3) used his access to guns to murder and frame someone in the reichstag fire.... yes his use of guns both allowed him to gain power, and to keep it.
@VoxDei @ihavenopeopleskills