Gun Control

[ColoNoCoHusker]

Here's the ACLU's take that's not riddled with political hyperbole.

The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) is pleased to support H.R. 3516, the Social Security Beneficiary 2nd Amendment Rights Protection Act. All individuals have the right to be judged on the basis of their individual capabilities, not the characteristics and capabilities that are sometimes attributed (often mistakenly) to any group or class to which they belong. A disability should not constitute grounds for the automatic per se denial of any right or privilege, including gun ownership. Accordingly, we endorse the Social Security Beneficiary 2nd Amendment Rights Protection Act.

https://www.aclu.org/letter/aclu-endorses-hr-3516-social-security-beneficiary-2nd

I suggest reading the letter in the link.

Also, this:

We recognize that enacting new regulations relating to firearms can raise difficult questions. The ACLU believes that the right to own and use guns is not absolute or free from government regulation, since firearms are inherently dangerous instrumentalities and their use, unlike other activities protected by the Bill of Rights, can inflict serious bodily injury or death. Therefore, firearms are subject to reasonable regulation in the interests of public safety, crime prevention, maintaining the peace, environmental protection, and public health. We do not oppose regulation of firearms as long as it is reasonably related to these legitimate government interests.

At the same time, regulation of firearms and individual gun ownership or use must be consistent with civil liberties principles, such as due process, equal protection, freedom from unlawful searches, and privacy. All individuals have the right to be judged on the basis of their individual capabilities, not the characteristics and capabilities that are sometimes attributed (often mistakenly) to any group or class to which they belong. A disability should not constitute grounds for the automatic per se denial of any right or privilege, including gun ownership.

https://waysandmeans.house.gov/wp-content/uploads/2017/01/ACLU.pdf

Once again, it's important to read what's actually at stake. This was akin to the "Terror watch list" no fly fiasco.

I would like to see firearm reform and I personally support keeping firearms out of the hands of the mentally ill.

However, Saunders45 & the ACLU are correct in supporting the bill. The threshold for needing/having/being appointed a representative payee is the inability to manage one's own finances. It's a pretty low-bar to get an SSA representative payee and makes anyone in this category automatically mentally ill or disabled. We have gone through this for family members and it was much easier than getting a power of attorney. Having an SSA representative payee making someone classified as mentally ill/disabled is a miscarriage of our SSA system.

IMO, this bill would be like using your IRS records to determine employability. It could be accurate but more often it would lead to the wrong conclusion. In any case, the system was not built for that purpose and there are better sources to use.

https://www.ssa.gov/payee/

https://www.ssa.gov/payee/faqrep.htm

 

[Enhance]

And it seems this whole discussion shows that the party that cries "All Lives Matter! Every Life is Sacred! I'm 100% Pro Life!" is actually conditionally Pro Life.

Gun Rights > Life.

I think their argument is that any kind of gun reform isn't going to save any lives. The people who want to kill people on a large scale will still get guns (and they will, of course).

And I'd disagree with that. There's definitely ways to better the vetting process, and reduce gun crime, while also not punishing innocents. You could start by increasing the penalties for gun crimes. Because the number of repeat offenders is way too high. When I get a chance, I'll repost my thoughts on things you could easily do.

Oh, I'm fine with stronger vetting, and stricter registration laws. I own many guns, and I don't mind the government knowing what I have, because I am a responsible gun owner

.... However, none of that will prevent a hell-bent killer from getting their hands on guns. It just won't. Neither will stricter penalties.

This is only partially true in my opinion. Gun crime is such a broad term as it can be reflected in someone having a gun who shouldn't (a felon) or a gang member shooting up the house of a rival.

In my opinion, the single greatest reason we have such high gun crime, murder and suicide rates is because of the relative simplicity we have attached to owning a gun, mainly in comparison to other countries. For example, we have about five-to-six times as many people as the UK, but nearly 160 times as many gun-related homicides. In other terms, Britain has about 50-60 gun killing annually. The U.S. had 8,124 in 2014. The UK has incredibly strict gun laws and they work, by comparison.

I'm a supporter of gun ownership in this country but I don't think there's any way to argue stricter registration laws would not stop many killers from getting a gun.

Appreciate the statistics on that. Again, I'm all for stricter vetting, and gun registration laws. I'm just not convinced it would do much in the way of gang violence, and mass killing in our country.

I enjoy your perspective - I think where I come out is I look at all these other countries we can compare ourselves to (high-income societies), I see their low gun crime rates (comparatively) and struggle to come to any other conclusion than this: strict gun laws control gun crime.

I've mentioned it in this thread before, but in comparison to the UK, they ban handgun ownership and self defense is not a good enough reason to own a gun. They also require two references be put down on every single application in order to judge the permit seekers competency, among a slew of other laws. The latter is a possible option this country could pursue as it would address mental health, but the handgun ownership ban would never happen because of the 2nd amendment.

 

[Making Chimichangas]

And unpopular opinion: I believe that pre-emptively banning people from buying guns, or anything else, on the idea that they might do something bad, is unacceptable. No one wants to see another shooting, mass or otherwise, but punishing people before they commit any crime is wrong.

Your first point contradicts your second point.

No it doesn't. If you pre-emptively ban or punish someone before they actually do anything wrong, that is unacceptable.

 

[Enhance]

And unpopular opinion: I believe that pre-emptively banning people from buying guns, or anything else, on the idea that they might do something bad, is unacceptable. No one wants to see another shooting, mass or otherwise, but punishing people before they commit any crime is wrong.

Your first point contradicts your second point.

No it doesn't. If you pre-emptively ban or punish someone before they actually do anything wrong, that is unacceptable.

To play Devil's Advocate, we breach this thought process in our society all the time. We ban people from all sorts of things before ever giving them the opportunity to do anything, whether it's good or bad.

 

[Cdog923]

And unpopular opinion: I believe that pre-emptively banning people from buying guns, or anything else, on the idea that they might do something bad, is unacceptable. No one wants to see another shooting, mass or otherwise, but punishing people before they commit any crime is wrong.

Your first point contradicts your second point.

No it doesn't. If you pre-emptively ban or punish someone before they actually do anything wrong, that is unacceptable.

My point is based on the condition that someone has already done something "bad". If they're a danger to society, and have proven it, then their rights do need to be restricted.

 

[Saunders]

And unpopular opinion: I believe that pre-emptively banning people from buying guns, or anything else, on the idea that they might do something bad, is unacceptable. No one wants to see another shooting, mass or otherwise, but punishing people before they commit any crime is wrong.

Your first point contradicts your second point.

No it doesn't. If you pre-emptively ban or punish someone before they actually do anything wrong, that is unacceptable.

My point is based on the condition that someone has already done something "bad". If they're a danger to society, and have proven it, then their rights do need to be restricted.

And in this case, the law/act was restricting rights based on a generalization that doesn't actually apply to everyone in this group. It's no different than the Trump immigration ban.

 

[Redux]

Religion isn't a thing that can be blamed for human actions. Religion is a human construct. It is no more to blame for bad actions than sport, nationalism, politics, love, money, or anything else humans create to explain their existence.

Religion is not inherently bad. Like a spoon or a pillow, it can be misused for bad things. But by its nature it is not bad.

Blaming religion for anything is a copout. It's humans who are to blame. Every time.

Could his post here be applied to man made weapons?

 

[BigRedBuster]

Aren't all weapons "man made"?

 

[Redux]

Aren't all weapons "man made"?

Most, yes.

 

[Saunders]

Aren't all weapons "man made"?

Most, yes.

Not my fists!

 

[knapplc]

Religion isn't a thing that can be blamed for human actions. Religion is a human construct. It is no more to blame for bad actions than sport, nationalism, politics, love, money, or anything else humans create to explain their existence.

Religion is not inherently bad. Like a spoon or a pillow, it can be misused for bad things. But by its nature it is not bad.

Blaming religion for anything is a copout. It's humans who are to blame. Every time.

Could his post here be applied to man made weapons?

Yes, in a different way, that's true. But if you're going to try and wrap that into a defense of guns, you'll have to navigate some muddy waters. Guns are physical tools and can be regulated. We can't regulate emotional thought like we can physical objects. If we start drawing equations between guns and religion, that opens doors to treating religions like businesses with regulations and taxes and nobody wants that.

It's not a dissimilar argument, but it's certainly not the same.

 

[BigRedBuster]

Aren't all weapons "man made"?

Most, yes.

Not my fists!

We're talking something that can actually hurt people.

 

[Redux]

Religion isn't a thing that can be blamed for human actions. Religion is a human construct. It is no more to blame for bad actions than sport, nationalism, politics, love, money, or anything else humans create to explain their existence.

Religion is not inherently bad. Like a spoon or a pillow, it can be misused for bad things. But by its nature it is not bad.

Blaming religion for anything is a copout. It's humans who are to blame. Every time.

Could his post here be applied to man made weapons?

Yes, in a different way, that's true. But if you're going to try and wrap that into a defense of guns, you'll have to navigate some muddy waters. Guns are physical tools and can be regulated. We can't regulate emotional thought like we can physical objects. If we start drawing equations between guns and religion, that opens doors to treating religions like businesses with regulations and taxes and nobody wants that.

It's not a dissimilar argument, but it's certainly not the same.

Fair enough.

The parallel is that both can and have been used for influencung the weak and causing harm on an enormous scale, often times one aiding the other.

 

[Saunders]

Aren't all weapons "man made"?

Most, yes.

Not my fists!

We're talking something that can actually hurt people.

 

[knapplc]

Go back and read through this thread and see how many times we've talked about mental illness and how we need to be focusing on that as a cure for America's gun issues, and then read this: