Week of 10/9/17: “Sen. Chris Murphy: ‘Willing to move forward’ with GOP on bump stock ban” and “NRA: Trump administration, not Congress, should ban ‘bump stocks’”

Home Forums Weekly News Week of 10/9/17: “Sen. Chris Murphy: ‘Willing to move forward’ with GOP on bump stock ban” and “NRA: Trump administration, not Congress, should ban ‘bump stocks'”

This topic contains 24 replies, has 5 voices, and was last updated by  Kyle DiGaetano 6 months ago.

Viewing 15 posts - 1 through 15 (of 25 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #1868

    Elan Isaacson
    Keymaster

    This week’s articles are “Sen. Chris Murphy: ‘Willing to move forward’ with GOP on bump stock ban” by Eli Watkins and “NRA: Trump administration, not Congress, should ban ‘bump stocks’” by Gregory Korte. It discusses the recent Las Vegas shooting tragedy and the legislative debate that has ensued over bump stocks and other firearm regulation. The articles detail the opposing views the NRA and certain Congressional leaders and members over the type of action that should be taken in regulation. What are your thoughts? What do you think Congress and the President should do? Make sure to add your thoughts in the forum.

    Please remember to keep all discussion civil.

    #1874

    Dylan J. Tulloch
    Participant

    Guns are a fundamental right that allows for an individual’s right to self-preservation, life, and liberty. The 2A states that any sort of infringement no matter how petty is still unconstitutional.

    #2285

    Dylan J. Tulloch
    Participant

    Hello old me, couldn’t agree more. Let’s see if anyone notices this.

    #2286

    Elan Isaacson
    Keymaster

    I’ve noticed this, and I disagree. The government has the power to regulate firearms. Even former Justice Antonin Scalia has affirmed this. In DC v Heller Scalia wrote, “We also recognize another important limitation on the right to keep and carry arms. ‘Miller’ said, as we have explained, that the sorts of weapons protected were those ‘in common use at the time.’ 307 U.S., at 179, 59 S.Ct. 816. We think that limitation is fairly supported by the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of ‘dangerous and unusual weapons.’” Scalia is essentially saying here that the government does have the power to regulate dangerous and unusual weapons, such as a bump stock. Which modifies a weapon beyond its original form, usual form and makes it significantly more dangerous.

    #2297

    Dylan J. Tulloch
    Participant

    Elan, a bump stock is not an unusual weapon, it is a piece of plastic that enables a gun to fire faster but less accurate. That is a gross intentional misinterpretation of that quote. What he is talking about would be weapons like a nuclear warhead or a battleship, weapons that no individual could reasonably utilize for the goal of self preservation as per the reasoning of the second amendment (demilitarize the battleship and you have one awesome yacht).
    Also, note that when the Second Amendment was written that it was for muskets and other guns of that nature. The militaries of all Western nations used these weapons as well. When guns modernized for the military, they did as well for the populace. This has only stopped in the last couple of decades. Due to fear, fully automatic weapons have been practically banned, most other guns are quite difficult to get, and 4 out of 9 supreme court justices argued in Heller v DC that no private citizens have a constitutional right to own a firearm. Not only is it a legitimate belief that one should be able to own a fully automatic rifle in accordance to the wording of the constitution, but that the second amendment could be all but nullified in meaning and practice by leftist policies and justices. This Wednesday we will see hundreds of students walk out of school to protest a constitutional right or only a few score will as the rest of the student populous realizes the function of the second amendment, although I expect it to be the former.

    #2298

    Anonymous

    A lot of the amendments do have limits to the protections they offer, the classic fire in a movie theater scenario. Based on this can you not see the legal precedent for the limiting of the certain parts of the bill of rights.

    You also talk about gun ownership being fundamental, but I would like you to prove this. Just because something is promised in the constitution does not mean it is fundamental, the document can change. Here is an example: “Freedom of speech is a fundamental freedom because the words by which we express ourselves are key in a functioning representational democracy so we may express our concerns and idea, such a freedom is fundamental to the success of the system.” The argument, “it says so here so its gotta be like this forever” is a lack luster argument for guns as a fundamental right that must be guaranteed. I would like to see an argument that justifies the existence of the second amendment remaining in the constitution.

    #2299

    Dylan J. Tulloch
    Participant

    The right to keep and bear arms is fundamental because aside from that the people have no guarantee that the government will respect their other rights. It is not a coincident that America is one of only a few nations with actual freedom of speech and also has fairly liberal gun laws (comparatively). On the contrary, places like Quebec have seen their government revoke freedom of speech, but if their people owned firearms they could at least protect their speech. Now granted, in these places that have seen freedom of speech it is not a full on Stalinist purge to find all dissidents, but it is still terrible to have the government remove such an important freedom. It is mainly that the second amendment provides a backing to the other amendments. Example: You wish to practice your minority religion of Zoroastrianism but the government has outlawed that religion. Why can you practice it? Because you defend your ability to do so with the weapon you have been given. If not for the second amendment, then other more important freedoms could be violated. Privacy, fair trial, differing opinion, etc. While these could continue to exist without a second amendment, their is no guarantee, but with the second amendment their is a guarantee of the people, by the people, and for the people.

    #2300

    Anonymous

    So I would ask, If you feel the government is not protecting you what do you do? Women feel threatened in the workplace, shoot anyone who makes them scared? You feel your political ideas are being made fun of or not taken seriously by the government, shoot people? You are homophobic and the government isn’t protecting your right to be mean, assault people? There are logical extremes that subvert your argument, with that in mind we must consider the restrictions on the second amendment that all other amendments are subject to (you seemed to ignore this rather good point last time I brought it up).

    Also in the technological age I would argue that perhaps the first amendment is in the modern era providing more protections than the second. The proliferation of technology and communication means that the spread of ideas is now far more easy than it was in 1700. Further more the countries you list have issues not solely because of their lack of guns, and rebel groups with guns don’t always make the situation better. Saying guns protects our rights is a half truth, they do, but other factors go into the equation, and guns have had a decreasing influence on the ability for us to protect our freedom.

    Considering all this i’m sure some limitations can be agreed on by you, I didn’t read the article so I’m not sure what it was suggesting but I’m interested in your thoughts on ALL OF MY ARGUMENTS (you have a habit of ignoring ones I personally think are rather good) and your ideas on restrictions, which I think you could understand the need for a few (would you be ok with selling guns to anyone including convicted murders, if not you want at least some restrictions)

    #2302

    Anonymous

    I’m also reading the APUSH textbook right now and on page 632 they talk about overthrowing the government by racist parties in the south, clearly the second amendment can and has inflicted great damage on America in addition to the freedom it provides

    #2304

    Elan Isaacson
    Keymaster

    The problem with the argument that guns provide you with protection from the government is inherently flawed. The government has drones, supersonic jets and missile cruisers. A personal weapon really isn’t going to help you.

    #2305

    Sam Kovac
    Participant

    So I’ll agree with Max here that our constitutional rights should not be free from criticism and while I do not think every infringement on the 2A (like banning bump stocks or enforcing universal background checks) is a violation of the 2A. However, I definitely believe the 2A is incredibly important to the security of other fundamental constitutional rights. We are very lucky to live in a country where we have numerous unalienable rights (unlike countries like France where hijabs were banned at school).

    However, I definitly think a ban on the AR-15 and other semi-automatic rifles is dumb, considering 80% of all gun homicides are committed with pistols and that banning semi-auto rifles would not prevent mass shootings.

    Side note no one mentioned the role of the NRA in all this, and I believe they are taking way too much of the blame for the lack of gun control in congress.

    #2306

    Sam Kovac
    Participant

    I also think we should consider allowing teachers to have a pistol on them if they are properly trained and are comfortable with it.

    Thoughts?

    #2307

    Dylan J. Tulloch
    Participant

    I couldn’t agree more. The right to self preservation shouldn’t stop at a school’s doors. At the very least security, private or public, should be hired and placed in or around schools. I noticed that a lot of the students (not necessarily our school) who participated in the walkout on Wednesday wanted to feel safe in school and demanded immediate and decisive action. Security and/or armed teachers is the most effective way to do so. Nearly all shootings take place in gun free zones for obvious reasons, the shooter knows that the chance of someone else having a gun there is extremely low. Gun free zones as a whole make places more dangerous, not less due to this fact. These signs are like magnets to guns, not repellent. Additionally, I ask to those who consider themselves to be more towards the leftist side of this debate, what is the end goal? Where is the end of the continuously controlling laws? Will banning AR-15s be the magic needed to fix everything? I mean we’ve banned AR-15s before and that was before there was a giant market for them, nut nothing happened from it, so much so that the ban was repealed without complaint. Or do we need to go ahead and ban everything newer than muskets?

    Note: By armed teachers, I do not mean all or even half of teachers. I just mean willing and legally capable teachers that partake in a specialized training course.

    #2308

    Elan Isaacson
    Keymaster

    Arming teachers maybe a good idea if you only look superficially, but if you actually begin to dive deeper the issues become apparent.
    Here are two occasions after Parkland where teachers fired guns at students or in the classroom, either on purpose or inadvertently..
    http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-teacher-shooting-20180228-story.html
    https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2018/03/14/teacher-accidentally-discharges-firearm-in-calif-classroom-he-was-trained-in-gun-use/?utm_term=.1cef819f3125
    One of those teachers was actually trained in firearms as a reserve police officer. So clearly the answer to school shootings is not to give out more guns. The saying is fight fire with fire, but one should keep in mind that the fire department usually uses water.

    #2311

    Dylan J. Tulloch
    Participant

    Water, in this case, is unconstitutional, very impractical in implementation, and a major step away from traditional American culture. I will admit that it is not a perfect solution, there likely never will be one. However, I think that allowing, not forcing but merely permitting,
    select teachers to conceal carry in school and/or placing visibly armed security in schools will potentially deter or at least stop future school shootings.

Viewing 15 posts - 1 through 15 (of 25 total)

You must be logged in to reply to this topic.