It's time. It's time to repeal the second amendment (revisited)

Bullseye said: ↑
UBC's are a mindless masturbatory delight for anti-gunners. Totally useless waste of effort but it makes them happy.


Then, how would you describe your attitude towards these clueless, easily amused, mentally masturbating, simpletons?

 

LOL-- The Irony is priceless!

 

Not everybody is a UBC zealot. I exempt them.

 

Nope.

Congressman: ‘We won’t rest until we’ve confiscated guns’ from Americans
https://americanmilitarynews.com/20...t-until-weve-confiscated-guns-from-americans/

"We will not rest until we’ve taken weapons of war out of circulation in our communities,” Jones said. “Each and every day we will do whatever it takes to end gun violence. Whatever it takes.”​

 

My point is that your contention is absurd on it's face, and outdated concept which exists only in the mind of ultra right wingers.

 

LOL-- how was my showing you, that your post had absolutely nothing to do with mine, a "non answer?" That was kind of my point: I'm not going to just jump around, answering whatever random questions you decide to throw at me. I prefer having a cohesive discussion, or even a responsive "conversation."

And you have stated the same thing, before-- also without quoting my doing so:

Turtledude said: ↑
you never did answer my question as to what weapons you believe are protected by the second amendment-a legitimate question since you seem to support banning private citizens owning lots of commonly distributed firearms


That been your follow, quoting this post:

DEFinning said: ↑
Your questions are outside of the scope of my post, to which you're replying. Not for the first time this thread, your response basically ignores what is in my post, to fall back, instead, on your standard repertoire, of gun arguments.


I had explained, then, that what you were asserting, was not in my quoted post (nor in the one before it; nor in any of my posts in this thread). That explanation ended:

DEFinning said: ↑
...So, if you think your question is "legitimate," because you think I have expressed the view you describe, why does it seem so incredibly beyond your ability, to quote the post(s) in which I do this?

Rather-- and I can use these last two posts of yours, as examples, to back up this assessment-- all you seem to be doing, is trying to change the argument, to one of your dusty old favorites, which requires little from you, in the way of thought.
<End Quote>

And yet you are going to repeat the same claim, a second time, again without a supporting quote?


Does that mean that I can make up things, and claim that you have said them; and that you would then need to defend against my spurious allegations, or else I could accuse you of avoiding giving any answer, as if you had something to hide, or be embarrassed to admit?

And would all of that nonsense, somehow be "fun?" I don't understand the point, of just making up such bullshit. Does it make you feel like you have "won" something?

 

Nice try, but your source's title, is misquoting the Congressman's words. This is the quote, from the article:

“We will not rest until we’ve taken weapons of war out of circulation in our communities,” Jones said. “Each and every day we will do whatever it takes to end gun violence. Whatever it takes.”

He does not say, "'confiscated guns' from Americans." LOL.

His full speech, though, is applicable to this thread:

During a Thursday hearing to consider a raft of new gun control proposals, Rep. Mondaire Jones (D-NY) addressed opponents of new gun control efforts saying, “Enough of you telling us that school shootings are a fact of life when every other country like ours has virtually ended. Enough of you blaming mental illness and then defunding mental health care in this country. Enough of your thoughts and prayers. Enough. Enough.

Jones said “you will not stop us from advancing” a new bill being considered during the hearing called the “Protect Our Kids Act.” The bill, proposed by Rep. Jerry Nadler (D-NY) includes plans to raise the age to purchase many rifles and shotguns from 18 to 21, bans magazines capable of holding more than 10 rounds of ammunition and imposes firearms storage requirements.

“We will not rest until we’ve taken weapons of war out of circulation in our communities,” Jones said. “Each and every day we will do whatever it takes to end gun violence. Whatever it takes.”
<End Quote>

None of these things passed. The idea of raising the age to purchase some rifles from 18 to 21, however, is very popular in the country; in the Gallup Poll, I earlier quoted, it was supported by 76% of respondents. Even the limiting of the magazine size, was a 55% in favor, to 44% against, question.

 

It takes time, I admit. But, recall the women's suffrage, and how long that took.

 

I have told y'all before that sometimes progressives tell the truth by accident.

When someone says, does or shows you who they are... Make sure you believe them because it's not an accident

 

Okay, I ran your comment through 3 different AI Chatbots.

So, at the prompt, I took your statement and made it a question:

Is it true that If the 2nd amendment were repealed, congress still would have no legislative authority to enact gun control legislation?

BARD Chatbot (Google's AI)

ChatGPT-4 (subscription based):

BING AI Chatbot (note that claims of fact are hotlinked to the source)

So, all three AI Chatbots say your contention is false, that's a good indication of accuracy of the replies, though they are varied in their robustness . In my view, ChatGPT-4, which is subscription based, provides the most robust answers. It explains the 'why' of it.

 

You're desparate to save your narrative. that everyone can see. But you're failing...badly.

Let me remind you what the 2nd amendment says: "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.”

If you want more evidence there's a lot of it out there. you just have to open your eyes. Here's more for you from just a few years ago.

NY Gov Cuomo Proposes Firearm Confiscation in New York
https://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/ny-gov-cuomo-proposes-firearm-confiscation-new-york/

"New York Governor Andrew Cuomo has been on the front lines of pushing restrictions on the Constitutionally protected right of American citizens to keep and bear arms. He championed the NY SAFE ACT, a law which is so riddled with illegal, unconstitutional, and unenforceable provisions that it more closely resembles Swiss Cheese than a proper law. And he continues to press every day for even more ways to keep guns out of the hands of the average person and ensure that only the wealthy and well connected can enjoy armed security guards. His latest push is another wonderful example of why the often repeated phrase “no one wants to take your guns” is completely false — he wants to take your guns."

"That’s something which is possible in New York, at least for handguns. All handguns must be registered within the state, meaning the police already have a handy list of handgun owners they can check against the NICS system to identify prohibited persons and go confiscate their guns. For rifles that’s much more difficult, since there is no state registry. It wasn’t immediately clear whether Cuomo is proposing visiting every person convicted of domestic violence and searching their home for firearms, but that’s pretty much the only way possible to accomplish what he’s demanding here.

On its face this doesn’t seem too concerning. “These are people who are already prohibited from owning guns. And they were convicted of domestic violence. Screw ’em. Doesn’t impact me.” But this could be the start of a slippery slope. If door-to-door confiscation from those convicted of domestic violence becomes commonplace, what’s to stop New York from expanding that list of “prohibited persons” to include other “indicators of violence?” Would it really be that far of a stretch to think that Cuomo might one day do the same thing to people arrested for assault? How about any misdemeanor crime, including carrying silly string?

As much as the “slippery slope” argument is dismissed by the gun control crowd, the reality is that it’s an excellent illustration of how we got to this point. From the National Firearms Act to the Hughes Amendment we lost machine guns. From the Gun Control Act of 1968 to Obama’s executive orders we lost kitchen counter FFLs. We see this happen every year, and now Cuomo wants to push us a little further down that slope it seems."





​

 

ChatGPT-4 says:

The decline in the use of machine guns by organized crime groups like the Mafia and Cosa Nostra can be attributed to several factors:

Increased Law Enforcement Scrutiny
The use of machine guns and other heavy weaponry tends to attract significant attention from law enforcement agencies. This increased scrutiny makes it more difficult for organized crime groups to operate effectively.

Stricter Gun Control Laws
In many jurisdictions, laws regulating the ownership and use of firearms have become more stringent over time. This makes it more challenging for organized crime groups to acquire machine guns legally or even illegally.

Technological Advancements
Advancements in technology have produced smaller, more easily concealed weapons that are just as effective as machine guns for the purposes of organized crime. These weapons are easier to transport and less likely to attract attention.

Change in Tactics
Organized crime has evolved over the years, and so have the tactics they employ. The focus has shifted from overt acts of violence to more covert activities like cybercrime, drug trafficking, and money laundering. In these types of activities, the use of machine guns is not only unnecessary but also counterproductive.

Public Perception
The use of machine guns can turn public opinion against these organizations, making it harder for them to operate. Organized crime groups often rely on a certain level of community support or at least indifference, and overt acts of violence can jeopardize this.

Internal Policies
Some organized crime groups have internal policies against the use of such heavy weaponry because it brings unwanted attention and heat upon the organization. The leaders of these groups often prefer to use less conspicuous methods to achieve their goals.

Risk of Escalation
The use of machine guns risks escalating conflicts with rival groups, potentially leading to a cycle of retaliation that is bad for business for all parties involved.

It's worth noting that while the use of machine guns has declined, this doesn't mean that organized crime groups have ceased violent activities altogether. They have simply adapted to the changing landscape, opting for methods that are less likely to attract attention.

Just a reminder, the OP was not about banning guns, but giving states and the federal legislature more control over their regulation.

I understand many will say 'well, repealing 2a is a ruse for gun banners to ban guns,. Sure, there's a small group within the liberal group that want to ban guns. Actually, I don't know any and I'm a liberal. There are actually quite a few dems who own guns, like to hunt and fish, visit the shooting range. And, believe it or not, one such person is the ultra liberal Rachel Maddow (though she's not a hunter), she likes to shoot at shooting ranges and she's really big on fishing. This stereotype that liberals are rainbow flag waving latte drinking gun hating lefties isn't quite right. The left is NOT a monolithic group.

My purpose for the OP was to get the conversation started, and consider why 2A isn't serving America very well, and many states, cities, etc., want to install legislation, but they are forever having to fight the unreasonable NRA, whose power is derived from the second amendment.

When it comes to the 'war on drugs'. First thing we should do is stop calling it that.

First, we must identify the source of the problem.

Who or what is the source of the problem?

Actually, Americans are the source of the problem. Americans want these narcotics and they are illegal, so it causes a black market.

Solution? My solution is the libertarian solution, make them legal, but with a liberal's regulatory mindset:

I think the government should:
1. Manufacture narcotics, regulate them. Then, with the aid of rehab doctors/professionals, design a system that will....
2. Provide them free to addicts, with the condition

A. They prove they are addicts, and who will allow themselves to be quarantined largely from society, with close monitoring of the movements on occasion they have to leave the compound.
B. Agree to a strict regimen of education, rehabilitation, under medical supervision, while they are taking the drugs, but according to their ability to gradually withdraw, giving them as much time as they need.
​

The idea is to pull the rug out from under the cartels. If they are legalized, control it within our borders, those beyond our borders will no longer have a market. Why? We are giving them away free to hard addicts. Now, the casual market, well, I said 'legalize'. so allow them to be government supervised, but privately manufactured, taxed, and sold in America.

I know drugs are terrible, but prohibition NEVER works. Didn't we learn our lesson with the prohibition of alcohol?

Prohibition causes more problems than it attempts to solve.

On drugs, I'm a libertarian, people should have a right to consume them. But, like alcohol, we need programs in place to make sure they are being used responsibility, severe DUIs given if not used responsibly, etc.

Now, in CA, over taxation of cannabis still causes a black market. so,sales taxes should be lowered, and red tape to start a dispensary, should be less. In CA, it costs an investor around something like a million bucks just to open a dispensary, get the licenses, etc.

 

Please spare me the search bot results. I don't find an algorithmically derived amalgamation of the totality of unspecified sources on the internet to be particularly compelling. As far as I'm concerned, they coulda just taken the old bots that found a preponderance of BS on stormfront/etc to deduce that 'blacks and jews are bad', and then told the 'AI' to just not say that part anymore. It took, what, about a year of people using 'AI' to generate art before the 'AI' started suffering from the 'copy of a copy' problem, generating 'art' made from other 'AI's that made their 'art' from other 'AI's... don't get me wrong, its an impressive feat of mathematics and programming, but its still just a really complex way of circlejerking together stuff that humans said and did ...and when it comes to facts, that's not reliable without the source, history, context and data provided.

And yes, humans are the problem, whether its guns or drugs.

I'm not arguing against regulation. I'm arguing against stupid regulation. The regulations we have against alcohol are a pretty good standard of finding an effective balance between too much and not enough, found through the (mostly destructive) experience of prohibition. We found out what works, what doesn't, and what completely destabilizes society. The regulations for guns (and drugs) should be very similar to those we put on alcohol, because guns (and drugs) are very similar in their demand, their requirements for production and their ease of smuggling, and, it should be noted, in their danger to society- murders by gunshot (not inc suicide) being just slightly under deaths by drunk driver, and deaths by gunshot (inc suicide) well under deaths by alcohol related disease.

The big problem with that is that we already regulate guns to a far higher degree than we do alcohol. We long ago hit the wall of diminishing returns regarding gun regulations. Thats why we can, for example, institute MBGCs, a defacto registry, mandatory safety training, ban private sales and now ban semi-autos here in WA(at an increased administrative cost of $10M/year btw) and watch the death-by-gunshot rate continue to climb completely uneffected for the better part of a decade now, in line with the rest of the country and regardless of what regulations other states did or didn't pass. Its not improving anything (and to be fair, its not making anything worse either, except for the wasted $10M/year, of course).

Even if rights weren't part of the equation, more gun control still doesn't make any sense, at least in the context of expanding it beyond what we already have. The best we could do is start trying to track down the known and reported attempts by prohibited persons to purchase a gun, but we don't because even just that would be prohibitively resource intensive for LE.

And yes, I know you're not specifically arguing for more regulation ...you're just arguing to alter the constitution to allow for more regulation. I don't see that as a meaningful difference. If you want to alter the constitution to allow for more regulation, then you need to argue for how that regulation is going to be beneficial, otherwise you're just proposing a huge drain of time and energy -thats what a constitutional convention will require- for what ...academic purposes? This isn't an accusation, I'm just telling you what the perception is coming in is- but it really seems like you want more gun regulations, but you can't explain why or how they will work, so you don't want to actually say you want more gun regulations. I'm not saying thats how it is, I'm just saying thats how it sounds....

 

I'd agree to that proposition. Of course, as you point out, it wouldn't solve the whole problem, but it would be a step in the right direction.

The mere deletion of 2A would send a signal to the gung-ho crowd that says: "I have the right to own a gun, so I'm gonna have one", followed by "and nobody will deprive me of that right".

It would also embolden some state legislators who, despite being right-wing, are as fed-up as you and me of the current level of gun violence and would gladly consider "doing something about it at last", if 2A wasn't standing in the way.

 

Even the one response that mentioned the actual constitution got it wrong. Owning a gun is not commerce. And the necessary and proper clause simply allows congress to enact whatever legislation that is needed and required to implement its enumerated powers, none of which involve firearms.

 

Aaaaaand, there you have it, folks! It's the best they can do. Repeat their pre-canned talking points until their fingers turn blue. But a real, logic, fact-based rebuttal.... don't count on it. They have none!

 

when those steaming turds call things "weapons of war" you can pretty much assume you are dealing with dishonest POSs

 

I have a better argument-come and take them. Ultimately that is what is going to happen. How do you think that will work out for people who want to seize firearms? Your side hates the constitution. Your side generally lies about why they want to ban guns or what they really want. And I accept that your side will never stop until it is rendered unable to continue to try to erase our rights

 

yeah great idea. interesting concept of freedom

 

have you ever figured out that your tactic of long disjoined, obtuse non-answers to points you refer to only accentuates what you see as problem?

 

"VOTE DEMOCRAT TO REPEAL THE SECOND AMENDMENT!"

Why isn't the DNC already running the ads?

 

that turd Jones is calling stuff that has never been issued to any military "weapons of war". Scum like him are nothing more than pimps who pander to stupid people.

 

No, get rid of people

 

That's not only a "better" argument. It's your ONLY argument. Problem for you is that I EXPLICITLY state, multiple times that, not only would that not be a good idea, but it wouldn't be necesssary.

AGAIN: the fact that you can only argue against what I DIDN'T say, is yet more proof that you can't argue against what I DO say.

My case is made!

 

No one used a gun on 1/6 except a LEO. So to try and use that as an example is idiotic. I've shown how the modern military is ineffectual against guerilla type tactics and have been beaten out of 2 countries (fyi...those are just the two I mentioned, there are many more) due to its use, countries which used far less sophisticated weaponry. You are clearly no tactician.

As far as compelling argument to keep the 2nd Amendment in case of tyranny...I know such examples have been given to you before. I've no need to repeat them. My only point was to show you that the claim that our modern military could easily beat unorganized militia's due to its advantage of modern technologies was based on you not understanding tactics. Which I have easily done.