Election 2016

[deaddmwalking]

I can't understand why people can't grasp that there's a fundamental difference between guns in cities and guns in rural areas.

I can and do.

I live in Tennessee and most people I know own firearms. Most of them are responsible gun owners. Several of them have AR-15s. They aren't ever going to be in the news for shooting up a school.

But for these type of responsible gun-owners, there really isn't a problem with a 14-day or 30-day waiting period (other than it being annoying). If they're planning a hunting trip, they're usually not spur of the moment, and if it is, they can use their existing guns rather than use the new one they've been lusting after for a long time.

There's also no real reason not to close the private-seller loopholes. Sure, a bunch of them sell their old guns so they can buy new guns, but it's a little strange that we license people selling hot dogs and not people selling guns. Yes, if they have to run the background checks (or request them) it would make the gun purchasing more expensive, but there is a trade-off with safety.

And of course, responsible gun owners know how to use their guns. There is no reason that I can see that you wouldn't require owners to attend a class/test (like our state uses for conceal carry permits). A vehicle is a dangerous object and we license and test everyone before they are permitted to get behind the wheel.

For myself personally, I disagree with the Supreme Court's reading of the 2nd amendment. They take the first part to be completely redundant. Effectively, they have interpreted it as 'the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed'. The full text 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'. I think that the 'well regulated Militia' part should be given more prominence. I'd be in favor of requiring registration with Selective Service as a requirement of gun ownership and perhaps even mandatory enrollment in the National Guard. I'd like to see a little more 'well regulated militia' and a little less 'open-carry'.

The gun owners that I consider close friends think open-carry is ridiculous, by the way. If you are carrying a weapon and the world

[Pixels]

If you are carrying a weapon and the world

[deaddmwalking]

Looks like I lost the end of my post. I think that was going to say 'and the world knows it' and concluded with making yourself a target and reducing your ability to respond to a threat.

[tussock]

So, the Fascists won the United States, and are preparing for a proper war on Islam, and also Mexicans, and also whoever the fuck else if history is anything to go by. That's unfortunate.

What are the odds there won't be an election in 2018, because, you know, "emergencies"?

It's just, kinda part of the deal that fascists don't give up power. Don't really approve of there being an opposition at all, and this lot are still making talk of locking up Clinton and banning everyone who ever talked with Obama from being anywhere near government.

And the trend is holding strong, that they are not at all kidding about anything, they are not going to get suddenly moderate because "moderate" to them was what they were doing earlier. So likely aren't kidding about locking up leading political opponents on bullshit charges, and stacking the Supreme Court so it sticks. With the Republicans in the house and senate totally just falling into step behind all that so far. One or two standing off is not sufficient to stop anything.

It's not really looking like it will end well. The media isn't really helping. Two years is a long-ass time and the system may not flip back anyway if they power up the disenfranchisement even a little bit.

[Kaelik]

There will absolutely be an election in 2018, because the senate is poised for the Republicans to pick up several seats, and the House is so gerrymandered that Republicans would win it even if 60% of the country voted against them.

There will probably be an election in 2020, most likely the FBI and NSA and DOJ will be hard at work slandering any Democratic opponent, and black people won't be allowed to vote, but they will still hold an election.

If they somehow win in 2020, chances are very good that in 2024 and beyond the Republicans will win all elections with exactly 97% of the vote.

[Grek]

I'd be in favor of requiring registration with Selective Service as a requirement of gun ownership

So I guess women don't get to own guns in your ideal world? Because we can't register with the Selective Service. It isn't allowed and, with Trump in charge, very likely won't be any time this decade.

[erik]

I can't understand why people can't grasp that there's a fundamental difference between guns in cities and guns in rural areas.

I can and do.

I live in Tennessee and most people I know own firearms. Most of them are responsible gun owners. Several of them have AR-15s. They aren't ever going to be in the news for shooting up a school.

No, statistically it will be their children killing people with those guns if it's a school shooting.

Oh, and also they and their immediate family are much more likely to be killed by those guns. And if any of them suffer from depression then their risk of a successful suicide goes way up as well.

[hyzmarca]

There's also no real reason not to close the private-seller loopholes.
Sure, a bunch of them sell their old guns so they can buy new guns, but it's a little strange that we license people selling hot dogs and not people selling guns. Yes, if they have to run the background checks (or request them) it would make the gun purchasing more expensive, but there is a trade-off with safety.

There is also a private seller hotdog loophole.

If you invite your friends over for dinner, amd charge them money for some reason, the health department isn't going to come and bust your ass.

The reason why the private seller loophole exists is because it's just not practical to regulate such transactions. As in, the infrastructure needed to enforce it would cost far more than any possible benefit, and the burden on society would be tremendous, as well. If you couldn't invite your friends over to dinner without a fully certified commercial kitchen, plenty of people would be miffed, I think.

Looks like I lost the end of my post. I think that was going to say 'and the world knows it' and concluded with making yourself a target and reducing your ability to respond to a threat.

On the other hand, there is the deterrent factor to consider. You won't have to respond to a threat if no one starts anything in the first place.

[Kaelik]

I'd be in favor of requiring registration with Selective Service as a requirement of gun ownership

So I guess women don't get to own guns in your ideal world? Because we can't register with the Selective Service. It isn't allowed and, with Trump in charge, very likely won't be any time this decade.

Grek, you are overreacting for no reason. He's making up a hypothetical GUN restriction that turns on the Supreme Court overturning DC vs Heller.

Zero gun restrictions will pass during any Trump turn, and DC vs Heller won't be overturned until Kennedy retires during a democratic presidency or something (which might not even happen).

Of course he, like everyone, everywhere, who is even remotely liberal, thinks selective service should be changed, since there won't ever be another draft, and "not having to register for selective service" is the go to excuse that all misogynists use to justify whatever dumb thing they are advocating today.

[deaddmwalking]

I think that all citizens age 18 and over should register for Selective Service, whether they are male or female (or other). If the reason gun ownership is protected as a Constitutional Right is 'necessary to the security of a free state' then anyone who wants to own a gun should be willing to contribute to the security of the state. Registering with selective service would be one way to signal that is exactly what you're doing.

[Longes]

I think that all citizens age 18 and over should register for Selective Service, whether they are male or female (or other). If the reason gun ownership is protected as a Constitutional Right is 'necessary to the security of a free state' then anyone who wants to own a gun should be willing to contribute to the security of the state. Registering with selective service would be one way to signal that is exactly what you're doing.

[Kaelik]

I think we should register everyone buying guns because guns are literal murder tools, and we should restrict them too, because guns are literal murder tools, and we should end selective service period, because it's probably time to admit that we aren't going to have another draft ever.

But I'd settle for women registering for the draft that never comes, and registering all gun sales after waiting periods with background checks as political reality.

[Mechalich]

Don't be so quick to say the draft could never come again. It absolutely could.

The Iraq War was, in the grand scheme 'wars the US is capable of fighting' actually quite small. Despite that, it managed to put sufficient strain on military recruitment that brutal retention methods like Stop-Loss were necessary and recruitment standards were relaxed significantly.

If Trump breaks the Iran nuclear deal and we end up in a war in that country troop requirements might be such that a draft receives very serious consideration. Especially since the conflict would like spiral out of control and we'd need more troops in Afghanistan, Iraq, and probably Syria too in addition to Iran.

Likewise, if Putin actually does invade one of the Baltics and the US honors NATO obligations and fights, I can see the US implementing a draft for the purpose of parking half a million troops in Eastern Europe for a decade or so to make a point.

[Kaelik]

The military does not benefit from the draft. We are long past the point where the influx of huge number of non volunteers with minimal training is a meaningful way to increase military strength.

[Occluded Sun]

But for these type of responsible gun-owners, there really isn't a problem with a 14-day or 30-day waiting period (other than it being annoying).

No problem with that.

There's also no real reason not to close the private-seller loopholes.

I could live with that.

And of course, responsible gun owners know how to use their guns. There is no reason that I can see that you wouldn't require owners to attend a class/test (like our state uses for conceal carry permits). A vehicle is a dangerous object and we license and test everyone before they are permitted to get behind the wheel.

Well, no. We test people *before we license them to drive on public roads*. It's the PUBLIC part that's the issue. For driving on private property, no license is required, nor for ownership of any number of cars.

I'd be in favor of requiring registration with Selective Service as a requirement of gun ownership and perhaps even mandatory enrollment in the National Guard. I'd like to see a little more 'well regulated militia' and a little less 'open-carry'.

Complete misunderstanding of the context under which the Amendment was added. The Founding Fathers were perfectly aware of both how vital guns were to individuals, AND to the rebellion against Great Britain. Militias were formed at the community and state levels, not the national.

I will further note that the draft, along with all other kinds of mandatory service, is incompatible with a free people, and this nation's stance against enslavement in particular.

[Kaelik]

I will further note that the draft, along with all other kinds of mandatory service, is incompatible with a free people, and this nation's stance against enslavement in particular.

So you are saying that you support the draft, but only for black people?

[Grek]

Well, no. We test people *before we license them to drive on public roads*. It's the PUBLIC part that's the issue. For driving on private property, no license is required, nor for ownership of any number of cars.

Would it be acceptable, then, to require licensing before someone can transport firearms on public property, including roads?

[Count Arioch the 28th]

I'd be in favor of requiring registration with Selective Service as a requirement of gun ownership

So I guess women don't get to own guns in your ideal world? Because we can't register with the Selective Service. It isn't allowed and, with Trump in charge, very likely won't be any time this decade.

I agree, that's ridiculous. What if someone breaks into the kitchen? That's why I insist my bitch is armed and regularly attends the shooting range to ensure accuracy.

[hyzmarca]

I think that all citizens age 18 and over should register for Selective Service, whether they are male or female (or other). If the reason gun ownership is protected as a Constitutional Right is 'necessary to the security of a free state' then anyone who wants to own a gun should be willing to contribute to the security of the state. Registering with selective service would be one way to signal that is exactly what you're doing.

Gun Ownership is protected because of King James II, who placed severe restrictions on weapon ownership by Protestants while not placing the same on Catholics. After the Glorious Revolution, the English Bill of Rights was written, and it guaranteed the right of Protestants (but not Catholics) to keep and bear arms. .

This very much informed America Bill of Rights.

In this case, the meaning is less that the National Guard is needed to prevent the Russians from invading, so much as that it would be nice if someone shot the Brownshirts when they were still just getting into bar fights.

That is to say, selective disarmament can give one group disproportionate power. The police don't need to brutalize you personally. They just need to stand back and do nothing while the KKK brutalizes you.
'
And, indeed, lots of 60s and 70s gun control legislation was specifically designed to disarm minorities.

[Kaelik]

Spoiler alert, as some one actually kind of educated on the history of this stuff, what the Second Amendment "meant" and why it was included is not clear. There is a lot of evidence in both directions, and decent historical arguments in both directions, and if you think you definitely know the answer, you are wrong.

[Chamomile]

Counting on the draft to remain obsolete forever isn't wise. It's not likely to become relevant in the next ten years, and it's not even particularly likely to become relevant in the next fifty years, but unlikely is not the same thing as impossible. All it takes is the development of one useful weapon that can be transported and used to similar results in the hands of a guy with three months of training as in the hands of a specialist with a year of training, and the draft will be back on the table.

[Mechalich]

The draft is mostly likely to become relevant is there's a major shift in military mission. It doesn't supply much of use for short term offensive or defensive operations - which is what the volunteer force is geared to do - but it does have utility for long-term garrison or occupation purposes. Afganistan+Iraq, which represented a long-term occupation, placed an immense strain on the volunteer force despite being conducted at mission-crippling low manpower power levels.

A mass draft of all able-bodied males is highly unlikely, but the use of a draft to acquire something in the range 1-2 million troops for an occupation of Iran is quite possible.

[Voss]

Militias were formed at the community and state levels, not the national.

And... we don't do this anymore. At all. For a variety of good reasons, that include crazy things like training, technology and discipline. You can't form an army out of collection of idiots that can shoot at squirrels and or deer anymore, or pop a random businessman or lawyer with a desire for a political career in charge of that rabble. It was horrifyingly questionable 150 years ago, and completely unacceptable today.

I will further note that the draft, along with all other kinds of mandatory service, is incompatible with a free people, and this nation's stance against enslavement in particular.

You're dribbling absolutely baseless gibberish on the forums again. Periods of mandatory service (usually either military or civilian) are hallmarks of several European nations that don't lack any sort of freedom.

A mass draft of all able-bodied males is highly unlikely, but the use of a draft to acquire something in the range 1-2 million troops for an occupation of Iran is quite possible.

Not really. You'd get a severe backlash from both the general population and the military for that, though for wildly different reasons. Vietnam taught the US military quite a lot about the draft, and instilled a deep and abiding contempt for the concept of draftees (and often the draftees themselves).

[Kaelik]

I will further note that the draft, along with all other kinds of mandatory service, is incompatible with a free people, and this nation's stance against enslavement in particular.

You're dribbling absolutely baseless gibberish on the forums again. Periods of mandatory service (usually either military or civilian) are hallmarks of several European nations that don't lack any sort of freedom.

He thinks taxes are theft, so of course he thinks mandatory military service is slavery.

Unlike literal chattel slavery of minorities, which is freedom!

[maglag]

Militias were formed at the community and state levels, not the national.

And... we don't do this anymore. At all. For a variety of good reasons, that include crazy things like training, technology and discipline. You can't form an army out of collection of idiots that can shoot at squirrels and or deer anymore, or pop a random businessman or lawyer with a desire for a political career in charge of that rabble. It was horrifyingly questionable 150 years ago, and completely unacceptable today.

That's funny, because one of the most honed tactics of the USA for the last decades is to just hand out free guns to idiots to turn them into front line troops.

I guess the difference is that the idiots are living in other countries, usually the ones that the USA has on their shit list that year. But they're still militias created by the USA, and who are you to question their superior tactical genius in handing out tons of military grade material to idiots?