NC's new proposed gun law

[*rfaulk34*]

(06-23-2016, 01:38 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: Why is the response always to go more extreme?

Bottles the mind, doesn't it?

The most enlightened, technically advanced time in human history and what do humans do? Dumber and more violent things than ever. 

[xxlt]

Au165Probably should be it's own thread, but I often wonder if an amendment 250 years old about the right to have a gun fits in the world we live in today.

Amendment II

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.



Above is the amendment in question, and a good question it is.

And, it can certainly be argues the right of the people to keep and bear arms for the purpose of having them to perform in the service of a well regulated militia does fit in today's world. But this would not guarantee any right to hunters, to sport shooters, or to those who wanted a gun for personal protection. It would only guarantee the right of those who keep and bear arms for the purpose of serving in a well regulated militia.

Now, that could be interpreted to include active military service members, those serving in the National Guard, police officers, and even members of local militia clubs under the banner of churches, civic organizations, or just "the [your town name here] First Street Militia" (or any other street name or neighborhood name, e.g. "the [your town name here] west side militia." But these keepers and bearers of arms would need to be persons who were members of well regulated militias. At minimum this would require any such militia group to have a command structure, code of conduct, some communication and training protocols, and regular militia training - hence they would would be well regulated.

Just buying a gun, any gun, does not make you a member of a well regulated militia, it doesn't serve the purpose of that Constitutionally mandated necessity for a free state, and therefore that right is not protected by the Second Amendment according to my (and many others') reading of it. Unfortunately, to date legal rulings have ignored the clearly stated item "necessary to the security of a free state" - i.e. "a well regulated militia" - and interpreted the amendment to mean you can have unfettered access to weapons for no reason whatsoever.

It seems clear to me and many this is not what the amendment intended. And it is certainly possible at some point the courts will read the second amendment in whole and interpret it as so many do. For now, they have focused on a fragment. It is sort of like saying in Matthew chapter five Jesus said, "an eye for an eye." Well, he did say that, but went on to say this was not his teaching, and instead instructs those confronted with evil to "turn the other cheek," and "go the extra mile." So, saying Jesus said an eye for an eye is deceptive and ignores the context in which he said this and the fact he was not advocating for but instructing against such an orientation. Likewise the court's interpretation has been deceptive and ignored the context in which and the purpose for which the right to keep and bear arms was given. 

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(06-23-2016, 08:53 PM)xxlt Wrote: Au165Probably should be it's own thread, but I often wonder if an amendment 250 years old about the right to have a gun fits in the world we live in today.

Amendment II

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.



Above is the amendment in question, and a good question it is.

And, it can certainly be argues the right of the people to keep and bear arms for the purpose of having them to perform in the service of a well regulated militia does fit in today's world. But this would not guarantee any right to hunters, to sport shooters, or to those who wanted a gun for personal protection. It would only guarantee the right of those who keep and bear arms for the purpose of serving in a well regulated militia.

Now, that could be interpreted to include active military service members, those serving in the National Guard, police officers, and even members of local militia clubs under the banner of churches, civic organizations, or just "the [your town name here] First Street Militia" (or any other street name or neighborhood name, e.g. "the [your town name here] west side militia." But these keepers and bearers of arms would need to be persons who were members of well regulated militias. At minimum this would require any such militia group to have a command structure, code of conduct, some communication and training protocols, and regular militia training - hence they would would be well regulated.

Just buying a gun, any gun, does not make you a member of a well regulated militia, it doesn't serve the purpose of that Constitutionally mandated necessity for a free state, and therefore that right is not protected by the Second Amendment according to my (and many others') reading of it. Unfortunately, to date legal rulings have ignored the clearly stated item "necessary to the security of a free state" - i.e. "a well regulated militia" - and interpreted the amendment to mean you can have unfettered access to weapons for no reason whatsoever.

It seems clear to me and many this is not what the amendment intended. And it is certainly possible at some point the courts will read the second amendment in whole and interpret it as so many do. For now, they have focused on a fragment. It is sort of like saying in Matthew chapter five Jesus said, "an eye for an eye." Well, he did say that, but went on to say this was not his teaching, and instead instructs those confronted with evil to "turn the other cheek," and "go the extra mile." So, saying Jesus said an eye for an eye is deceptive and ignores the context in which he said this and the fact he was not advocating for but instructing against such an orientation. Likewise the court's interpretation has been deceptive and ignored the context in which and the purpose for which the right to keep and bear arms was given. 

It seems clear to you but the vast majority of constitutional scholars and the supreme court disagree.  If you study the language of the times it is clear that the framers intended military power to rest with the people and not just with a central government.  Several of the framers flat out say this in other writings.  It's fine that you disagree, just know that your opinion is not shared by most people who have studied the issue intently.

[Belsnickel]

(06-23-2016, 11:03 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: It seems clear to you but the vast majority of constitutional scholars and the supreme court disagree.  If you study the language of the times it is clear that the framers intended military power to rest with the people and not just with a central government.  Several of the framers flat out say this in other writings.  It's fine that you disagree, just know that your opinion is not shared by most people who have studied the issue intently.

I agree with you here, and not just military but also law enforcement. In today's society, however, with a standing full-time army, a formal part-time army at the state levels, and law enforcement agencies, all things not in the minds of the framers when the Constitution and Bill of Rights were written would you consider it to be a fair argument that we should reassess our approach to how firearms in the hands of the citizenry and/our how our military and law enforcement in this country operates in the context of today's world?

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(06-23-2016, 11:36 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: I agree with you here, and not just military but also law enforcement. In today's society, however, with a standing full-time army, a formal part-time army at the state levels, and law enforcement agencies, all things not in the minds of the framers when the Constitution and Bill of Rights were written would you consider it to be a fair argument that we should reassess our approach to how firearms in the hands of the citizenry and/our how our military and law enforcement in this country operates in the context of today's world?

The ability to reassess already exists in the form of another constitutional amendment.  I understand your point, but I don't think the original intent is actually lessened by the above factors.  In some ways it's even more important.  The greater the technology gap between military and civilian hardware the more need for civilians to be armed in significant numbers to achieve the same effect.  In any event, why the need to reassess now?  As firearm ownership has grown violent crime continues to drop every year.  The "gun violence" crisis is manufactured as the actual numbers point in the exact opposite direction.  Couple that with an almost complete absence of firearm knowledge by most gun control advocates and you have a very insincere argument for further restriction.

[*bfine32*]

IMO anyone that has not been convicted of a violent crime should be able to purchase a firearm and keep it in their home. If you want to take firearms outside of your house on a regular basis then your should be able to pass a proficiency exam and then allowed to carry it where ever you wish.

Prior to passing the proficiency can only take the firearm off your property to go to a training site where you have a scheduled appointment.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(06-23-2016, 11:55 PM)bfine32 Wrote: IMO anyone that has not been convicted of a violent crime should be able to purchase a firearm and keep it in their home. If you want to take firearms outside of your house on a regular basis then your should be able to pass a proficiency exam and then allowed to carry it where ever you wish.

Prior to passing the proficiency can only take the firearm off your property to go to a training site where you have a scheduled appointment.

I agree with all of this but the last sentence.  If you're never planning on carrying outside your home then you should be free to take it to the range whenever you want, appointment or no.

[*bfine32*]

(06-23-2016, 11:57 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: I agree with all of this but the last sentence.  If you're never planning on carrying outside your home then you should be free to take it to the range whenever you want, appointment or no.

I thought about that, but without a scheduled appointment anyone could say I'm on the way to training. Just call ahead and schedule range time. 

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(06-24-2016, 12:01 AM)bfine32 Wrote: I thought about that, but without a scheduled appointment anyone could say I'm on the way to training. Just call ahead and schedule range time. 

Transport and carry are very different concepts and the law in every state already makes such a distinction.  Your restriction is quite honestly not necessary.

[*bfine32*]

(06-24-2016, 12:20 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Transport and carry are very different concepts and the law in every state already makes such a distinction.  Your restriction is quite honestly not necessary.

I will defer to your expertise; however, I would not want untrained folks driving around with weapons in their car

[mallorian69]

(06-24-2016, 01:09 AM)bfine32 Wrote: I will defer to your expertise; however, I would not want untrained folks driving around with weapons in their car

Chances are it's happened to you hundreds, if not thousands of times and you've never noticed.

[Vas Deferens]

(06-23-2016, 11:44 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: The ability to reassess already exists in the form of another constitutional amendment.  I understand your point, but I don't think the original intent is actually lessened by the above factors.  In some ways it's even more important.  The greater the technology gap between military and civilian hardware the more need for civilians to be armed in significant numbers to achieve the same effect.  In any event, why the need to reassess now?  As firearm ownership has grown violent crime continues to drop every year.  The "gun violence" crisis is manufactured as the actual numbers point in the exact opposite direction.  Couple that with an almost complete absence of firearm knowledge by most gun control advocates and you have a very insincere argument for further restriction.

Can you expand on this a bit?  Not sure I've heard this argument before. 

I'm as liberal as the next thumb sucking tech douche, but this is an issue I struggle with regularly.  I'm all for people having the ability to protect themselves, their homes and their family. But I just don't see the populace having the ability to rise up against the gov at this point. SSF, do you actually think that would be possible?

Aside from the above, the NRA can suck each of my nuts individually with care and a real attempt while I knuckle into their forehead with my fist full of dick as I'm jackin one out. Still wouldn't change my mind.  That's an evil org. 

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(06-24-2016, 01:28 AM)Vas Deferens Wrote: Can you expand on this a bit?  Not sure I've heard this argument before.

Absolutely, but it's not an argument, it's hard, and irrefutable fact.  Violent crime has dropped every year since 1993.  Gun ownership has surged in the past ten years.  There has been zero correlation between legal gun ownership and an increase in violent crime.  The vast majority of homicides in this country are committed in inner city areas and involve criminal on criminal violence. I apologize for posting no corroborating links or tables, but it's late, I'm tired and I have zero fear of someone coming along and contradicting me with the same.

Quote:I'm as liberal as the next thumb sucking tech douche, but this is an issue I struggle with regularly.  I'm all for people having the ability to protect themselves, their homes and their family. But I just don't see the populace having the ability to rise up against the gov at this point. SSF, do you actually think that would be possible?

 
Most definitely.  If it wasn't then the US would have crushed the Taliban in days.  Instead were' still fighting them.  The best weapon system in the world remains the infantryman and his rifle.  They alone allow you to take and hold ground.  Tanks, helicopters, bombers and fighters help you beat another conventional military and are absolutely useful, albeit less so, against a partisan threat.  But the bottom line is that, short of total annihilation, an armed populace remains an insurmountable obstacle to a conquering military.  Also, don't ignore how many military members would find it difficult, if not impossible, to fire on their fellow Americans in the, hopefully never realized, scenario we're talking about.

Quote:Aside from the above, the NRA can suck each of my nuts individually with care and a real attempt while I knuckle into their forehead with my fist full of dick as I'm jackin one out. Still wouldn't change my mind.  That's an evil org. 

I certainly have my issues with them as well.  You might have a different view of them though if you lived in CA, where politicians masturbate with equal fervor to the idea of disarming their citizenry by increments.

[Vas Deferens]

(06-24-2016, 01:49 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Absolutely, but it's not an argument, it's hard, and irrefutable fact.  Violent crime has dropped every year since 1993.  Gun ownership has surged in the past ten years.  There has been zero correlation between legal gun ownership and an increase in violent crime.  The vast majority of homicides in this country are committed in inner city areas and involve criminal on criminal violence. I apologize for posting no corroborating links or tables, but it's late, I'm tired and I have zero fear of someone coming along and contradicting me with the same.

 
Most definitely.  If it wasn't then the US would have crushed the Taliban in days.  Instead were' still fighting them.  The best weapon system in the world remains the infantryman and his rifle.  They alone allow you to take and hold ground.  Tanks, helicopters, bombers and fighters help you beat another conventional military and are absolutely useful, albeit less so, against a partisan threat.  But the bottom line is that, short of total annihilation, an armed populace remains an insurmountable obstacle to a conquering military.  Also, don't ignore how many military members would find it difficult, if not impossible, to fire on their fellow Americans in the, hopefully never realized, scenario we're talking about.




I certainly have my issues with them as well.  You might have a different view of them though if you lived in CA, where politicians masturbate with equal fervor to the idea of disarming their citizenry by increments.

Can't rep you enough. Thanks for the informed, demonstrative perspective. 

[Rotobeast]

(06-24-2016, 01:49 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Most definitely.  If it wasn't then the US would have crushed the Taliban in days.  Instead were' still fighting them.  The best weapon system in the world remains the infantryman and his rifle.  They alone allow you to take and hold ground.  Tanks, helicopters, bombers and fighters help you beat another conventional military and are absolutely useful, albeit less so, against a partisan threat.  But the bottom line is that, short of total annihilation, an armed populace remains an insurmountable obstacle to a conquering military.  Also, don't ignore how many military members would find it difficult, if not impossible, to fire on their fellow Americans in the, hopefully never realized, scenario we're talking about.

And the "gov't drones will get you" crowd should note this situation.
God willing we never have to worry about it, but a revolt against a tyrannical gov't would be an unconventional one.
Guerilla warfare and massive amounts of sabotage of the critical infrastructure, including utilities and logistics.

In this scenario, I can guarantee you that a large portion of the military members will defect to the cause, with massive amounts of equipment.
(heavily dependant on the situation, of course).

[Belsnickel]

(06-24-2016, 12:20 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Transport and carry are very different concepts and the law in every state already makes such a distinction.  Your restriction is quite honestly not necessary.

(06-24-2016, 01:09 AM)bfine32 Wrote: I will defer to your expertise; however, I would not want untrained folks driving around with weapons in their car

Figured I would expand on this a bit. As someone with a concealed carry permit I am able to carry my pistol any way I damn well please in my car in Virginia. Prior to 2010, without a concealed carry permit, I would have been required to keep the pistol and ammunition separate with the pistol locked up and/or out of reach. This is no longer the law, though, thanks to NRA lobbying.

(06-24-2016, 01:49 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Absolutely, but it's not an argument, it's hard, and irrefutable fact.  Violent crime has dropped every year since 1993.  Gun ownership has surged in the past ten years.  There has been zero correlation between legal gun ownership and an increase in violent crime.  The vast majority of homicides in this country are committed in inner city areas and involve criminal on criminal violence. I apologize for posting no corroborating links or tables, but it's late, I'm tired and I have zero fear of someone coming along and contradicting me with the same.

Most definitely.  If it wasn't then the US would have crushed the Taliban in days.  Instead were' still fighting them.  The best weapon system in the world remains the infantryman and his rifle.  They alone allow you to take and hold ground.  Tanks, helicopters, bombers and fighters help you beat another conventional military and are absolutely useful, albeit less so, against a partisan threat.  But the bottom line is that, short of total annihilation, an armed populace remains an insurmountable obstacle to a conquering military.  Also, don't ignore how many military members would find it difficult, if not impossible, to fire on their fellon the rmericans in the, hopefully never realized, scenario we're talking about.

I certainly have my issues with them as well.  You might have a different view of them though if you lived in CA, where politicians masturbate with equal fervor to the idea of disarming their citizenry by increments.

Here is the question I have, though, and that is if violent crime has been on the decline since 1993, a year before the AWB, and firearm ownership has really been on the rise in the past decade, since the sunset of the ban, does that not show that the correlation is not one of causation?

[xxlt]

(06-23-2016, 11:03 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: It seems clear to you but the vast majority of constitutional scholars and the supreme court disagree.  If you study the language of the times it is clear that the framers intended military power to rest with the people and not just with a central government.  Several of the framers flat out say this in other writings.  It's fine that you disagree, just know that your opinion is not shared by most people who have studied the issue intently.

Sure. I pointed out the opinions that matter most - those of the courts - disagree with my own. I have not researched the opinions of constitutional scholars or linguists, presumably those most likely to study such an issue.

The framers intent for military power rest with the people seems preserved by various elements of our government today - we don't have a "junta" and various civilians exercise considerable control over the military, including the civilian "commander in chief." But it also seems clear, as I stated, the framers wanted that military power resting with the people "well regulated." Arguing against licensing, registrations, minimum standards for arm ownership, and firearms training in the name of the second amendment seems counter to the framers' intent - guaranteeing the preservation of the free state via a well regulated militia. Joe Terrorist, Jane Housewife, and Billy the Lunatic each being able to buy a machine gun and six cases of ammo at 7-11 and go out in the parking lot and start choosing targets seems pretty Un-American to me. How does it serve a well-regulated militia and how does it preserve the free State?

[Rotobeast]

(06-24-2016, 08:44 AM)xxlt Wrote: Joe Terrorist, Jane Housewife, and Billy the Lunatic each being able to buy a machine gun and six cases of ammo at 7-11 and go out in the parking lot and start choosing targets seems pretty Un-American to me.

It's not even remotely close to being that easy to purchase a machine gun.
You have to pass an FBI/BATF background check (which takes 6 months+), pay for the federal tax stamp, and in most cases have your local sheriff or police chief sign off on it.
Then there is the cost....
After jumping through all the hoops, you're going to spend at least $20,000 on an automatic M16.
That would be a good deal, too.
That is the legal route.

Now, Tyrone Lucie could hit the street and find one for $6,000 or less, in a couple of days.
Of course, legislation will have no effect on that.

I will admit, it is possible that you used an improper term in describing your hypothetical firearm purchase.
I'm thinking you meant a semi-automatic rifle, but wanted to take the time to explain that there is no easy way to legally purchase a machine gun (fully automatic).

[Griever]

(06-24-2016, 10:08 AM)Rotobeast Wrote: Now, Tyrone Lucie could hit the street and find one for $6,000 or less, in a couple of days.
Of course, legislation will have no effect on that.

are we talking about guns or women?

[Rotobeast]

(06-24-2016, 10:12 AM)Griever Wrote: are we talking about guns or women?

I'm going to guess women cost a lot more.
The last I seen a RealDoll was $5-6k, so purchasing a live person would probably exceed that.
Not that I know anyone who would buy either.