Do you support stronger gun laws in America? Why or why not? — Brian

Yes, because common sense.

Let's recall that the constitutional right to bear arms is embedded in a passage regarding a well regulated militia. Here it is: "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."

So I put it that the lack of regulation on firearm use is what is unconstitutional, and not the other way around.

I just read that the NRA is against a prohibition of bump stocks. Bump stocks can convert semi-automatics to fully automatics, the latter are prohibited.

Why allow a product the sole purpose of which is to create something entirely illegal?

First, let me note that I'm a gun owner. I own two shotguns. I use them to blow clay discs or "pigeons" apart, an activity I find oddly satisfying.

That said, I find the debate on gun control taking place in our Great Republic to be very peculiar. There is, first, the reference to a militia in the Second Amendment, as StreetlightX noted, and a well-regulated one at that. It isn't clear to me what the drafters of the amendment intended by "militia" but apparently it's believed by some that it's intended to refer to the citizenry at large, which would seem to me to be less than well-regulated.

But even assuming the reference to "militia" means citizens generally, those who oppose gun control seem to think the Second Amendment cannot be limited or restricted. That simply can't be the case, unless the Second Amendment is different from every other constitutional amendment. The fact is that rights granted by Constitutional Amendments (e.g. those granted by the First Amendment) have always been limited or restricted in some manner. Rights of assembly and free speech are subject to time, place and manner limitations, for example.

So, I think, there can be no doubt (legally speaking) that reasonable limitations of the right to bear arms may be imposed, regardless of the question "what is meant by 'militia'?". The question simply is--what is reasonable? I suspect the leaders of the NRA are mere shills for gun manufacturers and retailers, and so want no restrictions whatsoever. Money being essential in the politics of our nation, many politicians are beholden to them.

I suspect the leaders of the NRA are mere shills for gun manufacturers and retailers, and so want no restrictions whatsoever. Money being essential in the politics of our nation, many politicians are beholden to them. — Ciceronianus the White

Yes, that and the powers of persuasion of said nefarious elements re the general public seem to me the bulk of the explanation.

It isn't clear to me what the drafters of the amendment intended by "militia" but apparently it's believed by some that it's intended to refer to the citizenry at large, which would seem to me to be less than well-regulated. — Ciceronianus the White

It was believed by the founders who wrote the amendment.

I suspect the leaders of the NRA are mere shills for gun manufacturers and retailers, and so want no restrictions whatsoever. — Ciceronianus the White

They literally just said they supported potential regulations on bump stocks. They have never called for people to be allowed to own any kind of weapon they want.

So I put it that the lack of regulation on firearm use is what is unconstitutional, and not the other way around. — StreetlightX

But so would banning all guns or passing regulations that make it nearly impossible to own one be unconstitutional, since the amendment presupposes gun ownership by the citizenry. "Nobody has said that" you say? Pelosi just said that she "hopes" currently proposed regulations are a "slippery slope." So I think proponents of the second amendment have a genuine concern about the intentions of those who push for greater regulations. I honestly doubt that you and Baden, for example, would shed a tear if guns were abolished outright. Michael in fact wants this to happen.

They literally just said they supported potential regulations on bump stocks. — Thorongil

And they're against a prohibition. Why "regulate" something that can only lead to ownership of illegal guns?

As was mentioned by BC elsewhere the NRA has about 5 million members, whereas something like 75 million American's own guns, the majority of whom are not fans of the NRA. Cracked has a good video on them that I like.

And they're against a prohibition. Why "regulate" something that can only lead to ownership of illegal guns? — Benkei

I don't know. I think it should be prohibited. The point is that the NRA is not monolithically opposed to any and all gun regulations, as was suggested.

And I have genuine concerns about the intentions of those who would prefer that the current murderous state of affairs stays as it is. So what? What a bizarre response.

And I have genuine concerns about the intentions of those who would prefer that the current murderous state of affairs stays as it is. So what? What a bizarre response. — StreetlightX

What you say here is bizarre. Find me the person who said, "I prefer that the current murderous state of affairs stays as it is."

I suppose it's the same person who said that we ought to be "banning all guns or passing regulations that make it nearly impossible to own one". The point being that I can play this stupid game of hypotheticals and intention projection too. An entirely irrelevant, idiotic game.

I suppose it's the same person who said that we ought to be "banning all guns or passing regulations that make it nearly impossible to own one". See, I can play this stupid game of hypotheticals and intention projection too. — StreetlightX

I just cited a quote from Pelosi, the meaning of which could not be more clear. Try again.

Ah, Pelosi's reference to a 'slippery slope' unequivocally translating to the "banning all guns or passing regulations that make it nearly impossible to own one". Yes, I see how you got from A to B, I don't know how I missed the all so obvious unpacking of it.

Amazing. Honestly, people like you need to be put in a Petri dish and studied. I mean, how do you get from - 'the constitution allows for regulation' to OMG THEY'RE GOING TO TAKE AWAY ALL OUR GUNS FOR EVER AND EVER. What kind of response is that? It's paranoid delusional.

Ah, Pelosi's wish for a 'slippery slope' unequivocally translating to the banning all guns or passing regulations that make it nearly impossible to own one". Yes, I see how you got from A to B, it's so clear. — StreetlightX

It is. I see no alternative explanation of her words from you here.

Amazing. Honestly, people like you need to be put in a Petri dish and studied. — StreetlightX

What a lovely thing to say. It's the kind of thing I've seen the mods delete before on many an occasion. Perhaps flagrant hypocrites like you ought to be studied first.

I mean it though. I think your response is so wild as to be something that honestly needs to be a case study in human communication. Along with most of the pro-gun discourse in the US in general. To move from, 'hey look at what the constitution says' to 'Yeah well, Pelosi wants to ban all our guns because she mentioned something about a slippery slope'. The one just isn't a response to the other - it's incongruent to the point of the fantastic. Plato could rewrite the Sophist on these terms, and the crazy part is that the entire US gun debate so often trades along exactly the kinds of lines you're traced out.

I honestly doubt that you and Baden, for example, would shed a tear if guns were abolished outright. — Thorongil

No, nor would I shed a tear if Trump's wig took over as President. But we, some of us, are bounded by reality and make our suggestions in that context. To imagine that Nancy Pelosi is going to take all your guns away is Alex Jones territory and you know better.

I don't know. I think it should be prohibited. The point is that the NRA is not monolithically opposed to any and all gun regulations, as was suggested. — Thorongil

If you can't recognize the tactic of minimal concession, you just haven't been around the block more than once.

mean it though, I think your response is so wild as to be something that honestly needs to be a case study in human communication. — StreetlightX

No you don't. You're purposely overreacting to make me appear crazy.

Along with most of the pro-gun discourse in the US in general. To move from, 'hey look at what the constitution says' to 'Pelosi wants to ban all our guns because she mentioned something about a slippery slope'. the one just isn't a response to the other - it's just a complete non-sequitur. Plato ought to rewrite the Sophist on these terms. — StreetlightX

Baden in the Shoutbox the other day said that he wouldn't wish to repeal the second amendment or ban all guns, but just now had the balls to admit that, "no," he would not shed a tear if all guns were banned. So he clearly sees minimal restrictions as hopefully leading to guns being banned. It's not at all difficult to imagine that someone like Pelosi privately prefers all guns to be banned, viewing the regulations she proposes as the best step in that direction. She and her colleagues have already proposed the banning of certain kinds of presently legal firearms.

To imagine that Nancy Pelosi is going to take all your guns away is Alex Jones territory and you know better. — Baden

She said: "They’re going to say, 'You give them bump stock, it's going to be a slippery slope.' I certainly hope so."

This cannot but mean that she would like to pass a bevy of regulations that would undoubtedly make it harder to legally own a firearm, which in turn is a step closer to an outright ban. In what other direction is it a step?

Baden in the Shoutbox the other day said that he wouldn't wish to repeal the second amendment or ban all guns, but just now had the balls to admit that, "no," he would not shed a tear if all guns were banned. So he clearly sees minimal restrictions as hopefully leading to guns being banned. — Thorongil

I don't wish for you to stop posting, but I wouldn't shed a tear if you did.

There's nothing inconsistent here. Wanting some restrictions on what you (or anybody else) can post isn't the same as hoping that you (or anybody else) will be silenced.

You're purposely overreacting to make me appear crazy. — Thorongil

Says the dude who responded to a point about the constitution with 'they're planning to take away all our guns - look what Pelosi said the other day'. That's not the appearance of crazy, that is crazy.

This cannot but mean that she would like to pass a bevy of regulations that would undoubtedly make it harder to legally own a firearm, which in turn is a step closer to an outright ban. In what other direction is it a step? — Thorongil

I just turned west and took a step. I guess I was headed towards London. Does that mean I am going to London?

Says the dude who responded to a point about the constitution with 'they're planning to take away all our guns'. That's not the appearance of crazy, that is crazy. — StreetlightX

There was an "or" followed by another possibility that you have now conveniently ignored. I never said anyone was planning to ban guns. I said I can imagine that someone like Pelosi wishes she could. In the meantime, she would like to make guns harder to own by introducing much stricter regulations and by banning certain guns altogether. That was the clear intent of her words I quoted.

It's not hard to imagine, seeing as Baden on this very forum initially said he was opposed to banning guns only to reveal that he's not.

I also like how it's three against one and not one of you has refuted anything I've said. Just straw men and attacks on my character. While not surprising, it is hypocritical, as you are all mods, and I have seen the mods delete posts of a similar nature. This will be an excellent thread to reference whenever you try to censor the Kevins on the forum in the future and thereby cause an uproar.

And I can imagine Jesus riding a dinosaur with lazers shooting out of it's eyes. But that, like your point, would be entirely irrelevant to pointing out that the US constitution speaks of arms in the context of regulation. I mean I don't know how else to make you understand how insane you sound to me: you responded to a post about the US constitution with another post conjuring the most extreme scenario(s) of gun control, based off an ambiguous remark made by a single US representative the other day, and you did this as though this had anything to do with what I wrote, or, for that matter, political reality. You literally had to make-up/project a fake, impossible scenario as though this had anything to do political reality (which you know as well as I do will never happen), in order to respond to a factual point regarding the US constitution. And I'm overreacting. Yeah, okay.

I don't think the individual right to a gun is a right worth having, but you have it (at least that's the way it's been interpreted), and it's not going anywhere. The proposal I made took that into account. It's fairly straight-forward.

I also like how it's three against one and not one of you has refuted anything I've said. Just straw men and attacks on my character. While not surprising, it is hypocritical, as you are all mods, and I have seen the mods delete posts of a similar nature. This will be an excellent thread to reference whenever you try to censor the Kevins on the forum in the future and thereby cause an uproar. — Thorongil

You brought me into it by mentioning me. I wouldn't have bothered otherwise. Anyhow, seeing as you feel persecuted, I'll withdraw from the conversation.

You said: "So I put it that the lack of regulation on firearm use is what is unconstitutional, and not the other way around."

This is bizarre. The "regulated" in "a well-regulated militia" does not refer to gun control. Where did you get that idea from? Judging by the wording of your comment above, it seems you just pulled it out of your ass. The second amendment is there to establish the positive right to bear arms. It wasn't drafted to enforce regulations on firearms that make it difficult, if not impossible in some cases, to purchase, own, or carry a firearm. The regulations the Democratic party, one of whose leaders, and not just any old representative, wants to enact would greatly contribute to making it thus difficult.

Anyhow, seeing as you feel persecuted, I'll withdraw from the conversation. — Baden

God you're annoying.

Yes, it is indeed sooooo bizarre that the reference to regulation refers to some manner of regulation. SOOOoOoOOo bizarre. Seriously, I'm done, I can't take the sophistry anymore.