Gun ownership poll

[Deertick]

Originally Posted by G1911

Batshit crazy was used to refer to the proposal that the 4th amendment be ignored and a police state set up to search anyone anywhere without any cause whatsoever, to see if they have a gun and arrest them, while ignoring any other illegal things they may be doing.

Banning everything I called extreme. It becomes crazy when the proposal is to ban basically everything or everything from the last century and a half of development without first using the legal process to actually eliminate the 2nd amendment. Nobody has proposed doing this (which would at least be a logical and coherent argument, just one I disagree with) - each proposal is to simply ignore constitutional rights they find inconvenient, the 2nd, the 4th, etc.

I must have missed the comment on this.

I did see the mention of using real "stop and frisk" laws on underage people violating a theoretical curfew. I really wish the 'constitutionalists' wouldn't pick and choose which to defend. The real threat has been the erosion of our 4th amendment all under the guise of 'law and order'.

So although I don't agree with it, I really can't see a disconnect with
the permitting of firearms, and then being subjected to the same bullshit subjective criteria of being 'suspicious' in someone's judgment and being asked to provide some info to law enforcement. I mean, the argument for stop and frisk always was along the lines of "If they have nothing to hide, why not comply".

And if we're talking about historical context, a flintlock took a few minutes to reload, a musket around 8 sec. What's the AR-15 again? Do you think that the Founding Fathers might have written a little differently if bump stocks were available?

[G1911]

Originally Posted by Deertick

I must have missed the comment on this.

Post 567.

Originally Posted by Deertick

I did see the mention of using real "stop and frisk" laws on underage people violating a theoretical curfew. I really wish the 'constitutionalists' wouldn't pick and choose which to defend. The real threat has been the erosion of our 4th amendment all under the guise of 'law and order'.

The constitutionalists are not picking and choosing. You were just complaining about a post where I attacked ignoring the 4th amendment just as much as ignoring the 2nd amendment. That is the opposite of pick and choose...

Originally Posted by Deertick

So although I don't agree with it, I really can't see a disconnect with
the permitting of firearms, and then being subjected to the same bullshit subjective criteria of being 'suspicious' in someone's judgment and being asked to provide some info to law enforcement. I mean, the argument for stop and frisk always was along the lines of "If they have nothing to hide, why not comply".

The proposal was too search anyone and everyone, not people with a concealed weapons license. Stop and frisk is also, as I have made clear, I think against the 4th. I am against unreasonable search and seizure. Standing on the sidewalk is not probable cause. Exercising my right to free speech is not probably cause. Exercising my 2nd amendment rights is not probable cause. One needs probable cause of committing a crime, not probably cause for disagreeing with a certain political faction.

Originally Posted by Deertick

And if we're talking about historical context, a flintlock took a few minutes to reload, a musket around 8 sec. What's the AR-15 again? Do you think that the Founding Fathers might have written a little differently if bump stocks were available?

A flintlock is, in fact, a kind of musket, so your point is kind of odd there. It did not take a "few minutes" to reload. I cannot think what musket you are thinking of that takes "8 sec." to reload either.

An AR-15 is an Armalite Rifle, their 15th model.

Do you understand what a bump stock actually is? Reading this, it sounds like you do not. A bump stock does not make a rifle more lethal, it makes it less lethal, really, by wasting rounds and harming controllability and practical aiming. Bump stocks are range toys.

I think a preponderance of the evidence suggests to me that no, they would not write it differently. The Founders, quite explicitly, added the 2nd because they wanted an armed population, armed with what was the AR-15 of the time. It was not for hunting. The American forces often had severe supply line problems and not enough arms, but their American-produced arms were the best in the world. A Kentucky rifle was a significantly better fighting gun than a Brown Bess, and was largely responsible for being able to build up enough cost to the British to keep the effort going long enough for them to just give up. The project to figure out a producible, practical repeating arm was well under way by 1789, and some of the founders themselves were involved in arms development projects. There is no reason to think that they have any objection to technology improving with time, or that they thought citizens should not arm themselves with the best (which I don't think an AR-15 even is; it's one of the better designs of 60 years ago). They wanted a population capable of fighting, quite explicitly. Hard to do with the tech of 2 centuries ago.

As has been gone over ad nauseam, even if we 1) assume without evidence the founders thought technology would freeze, do we hold any other amendment to this standard? Speech on a phone is not protected, because George Washington didn't have an iPhone. Search without a warrant is fine - if they are searching you for something that did not exist in 1789. No. Nobody believes this. This argument only works by taking for granted that the 2nd is separate and not equal to the rest. Politically convenient, logically senseless.