Login required to started new threads

Login required to post replies

How many here would support
Quote | Reply
(YES THIS IS FANTASY ISLAND SO I DON'T WANT TO HEAR ABOUT HOW IT CAN'T HAPPEN)

A complete overhaul of the 2nd amendment and institute Rules simliar to what I understand they have in Japan?

Dr testing, long waiting periods, yearly Police inspections, bullets and guns stored in separate lock boxes. Etc. ( I am sure others can fill in more of the gun ownership rules in Japan, where it is allowed to own a gun, just a big hassle)

Just Triing
Triathlete since 9:56:39 AM EST Aug 20, 2006.
Be kind English is my 2nd language. My primary language is Dave it's a unique evolution of English.
Last edited by: DavHamm: Mar 27, 18 9:24
Quote Reply
Re: How many hear would support [DavHamm] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Sounds expensive.
Quote Reply
Re: How many hear would support [DavHamm] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Pretty sure this guy would.

----------------------------------
"Go yell at an M&M"
Quote Reply
Re: How many hear would support [DavHamm] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
I think you're misrepresenting Japan's weapons laws. The baseline of their law is "No one shall possess a firearm or firearms or a sword or swords." My understanding is that there are limited exceptions for sport shooting/hunting. For example, after all the checks, licensing, etc, you can buy a shotgun. Then after 10 years of responsible shotgun ownership, you might qualify to purchase an air rifle. Handguns are absolutely forbidden. You have to have a license to purchase ammunition. Small caliber rifles are prohibited in general, and if you own one, you can't pass it down to your heirs when you die, it has to be turned over.

I know you said you don't want to hear about how it can't happen, but I think any opinion on whether or not someone would support this kind of change has to include understanding of the environment around them. I wouldn't support overhauling the 2nd Amendment to mirror Japan's laws in large part because doing so would cause such upheaval and resistance in this country so as to be a nightmare.

Japan's laws are based on a diametrically opposed viewpoint. Our laws begin with the presumption that the right to keep and bear arms exists, and the government has to show cause to restrict it in any way. Japan's laws begin with the presumption that no one can own firearms, and you have to jump through hoops to prove that you can be trusted to do so.

Slowguy

(insert pithy phrase here...)
Quote Reply
Re: How many hear would support [DavHamm] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
You mean repeal the 2nd Amendment and pass laws giving implied consent to annual, no-warrant searches of one's home (among other things)?

Do we also get cops who carry only a baton, or will a fully armored SWAT team conduct these 'inspections'? What happens if there's a bong on the coffee table or a even just a large sum of cash under the bed?
Quote Reply
Re: How many hear would support [gotsand] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
gotsand wrote:
You mean repeal the 2nd Amendment and pass laws giving implied consent to annual, no-warrant searches of one's home (among other things)?

Do we also get cops who carry only a baton, or will a fully armored SWAT team conduct these 'inspections'? What happens if there's a bong on the coffee table or a even just a large sum of cash under the bed?

Out of all of these conversations recently, has anyone promoting gun control said anything about cracking down on the violent criminals that are already causing harm?
Quote Reply
Re: How many hear would support [slowguy] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
slowguy wrote:
I think you're misrepresenting Japan's weapons laws. The baseline of their law is "No one shall possess a firearm or firearms or a sword or swords." My understanding is that there are limited exceptions for sport shooting/hunting. For example, after all the checks, licensing, etc, you can buy a shotgun. Then after 10 years of responsible shotgun ownership, you might qualify to purchase an air rifle. Handguns are absolutely forbidden. You have to have a license to purchase ammunition. Small caliber rifles are prohibited in general, and if you own one, you can't pass it down to your heirs when you die, it has to be turned over.

I know you said you don't want to hear about how it can't happen, but I think any opinion on whether or not someone would support this kind of change has to include understanding of the environment around them. I wouldn't support overhauling the 2nd Amendment to mirror Japan's laws in large part because doing so would cause such upheaval and resistance in this country so as to be a nightmare.

Japan's laws are based on a diametrically opposed viewpoint. Our laws begin with the presumption that the right to keep and bear arms exists, and the government has to show cause to restrict it in any way. Japan's laws begin with the presumption that no one can own firearms, and you have to jump through hoops to prove that you can be trusted to do so.

Fully agree, which is why we will never get anywhere. So I wanted to suspend reality and play make believe.

Just Triing
Triathlete since 9:56:39 AM EST Aug 20, 2006.
Be kind English is my 2nd language. My primary language is Dave it's a unique evolution of English.
Quote Reply
Re: How many here would support [DavHamm] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
I think we need an overhaul of the 2nd amendment. It needs more clarity and context that actually makes sense for today. If we need weapons to resist an oppressive government then we need more weapons than are currently allowed. If we don't, then we need fewer weapons than are currently allowed. Right now we are caught in some sort of limbo and it doesn't really work.

So all we need to do is have everyone on both sides sit down and come to a reasonable consensus. How hard could that be?

I'm beginning to think that we are much more fucked than I thought.
Quote Reply
Re: How many here would support [j p o] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
j p o wrote:
I think we need an overhaul of the 2nd amendment. It needs more clarity and context that actually makes sense for today. If we need weapons to resist an oppressive government then we need more weapons than are currently allowed. If we don't, then we need fewer weapons than are currently allowed. Right now we are caught in some sort of limbo and it doesn't really work.

So all we need to do is have everyone on both sides sit down and come to a reasonable consensus. How hard could that be?

Lets prove we can do it by coming to agreement on Power Cranks, Drafting and Lance Armstrong first. :)
Quote Reply
Re: How many here would support [DavHamm] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Switzerland's gun laws seem to better approach what I take to b the spirit of the 2nd - the whole 'well-regulated militia' part.

a short period of mandatory service for all, when you come of age. then you keep your weapon when you leave the service, having been well trained in its use by pros. ammo stored at central depots.

____________________________________
https://lshtm.academia.edu/MikeCallaghan

http://howtobeswiss.blogspot.ch/
Quote Reply
Re: How many hear would support [rick_pcfl] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
rick_pcfl wrote:
gotsand wrote:
You mean repeal the 2nd Amendment and pass laws giving implied consent to annual, no-warrant searches of one's home (among other things)?

Do we also get cops who carry only a baton, or will a fully armored SWAT team conduct these 'inspections'? What happens if there's a bong on the coffee table or a even just a large sum of cash under the bed?


Out of all of these conversations recently, has anyone promoting gun control said anything about cracking down on the violent criminals that are already causing harm?

You know better than that. Take the guns away from the law abiding citizens and the people already breaking laws will stop breaking laws.
Quote Reply
Re: How many hear would support [slowguy] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
slowguy wrote:
I think you're misrepresenting Japan's weapons laws. The baseline of their law is "No one shall possess a firearm or firearms or a sword or swords." My understanding is that there are limited exceptions for sport shooting/hunting. For example, after all the checks, licensing, etc, you can buy a shotgun. Then after 10 years of responsible shotgun ownership, you might qualify to purchase an air rifle. Handguns are absolutely forbidden. You have to have a license to purchase ammunition. Small caliber rifles are prohibited in general, and if you own one, you can't pass it down to your heirs when you die, it has to be turned over.

I know you said you don't want to hear about how it can't happen, but I think any opinion on whether or not someone would support this kind of change has to include understanding of the environment around them. I wouldn't support overhauling the 2nd Amendment to mirror Japan's laws in large part because doing so would cause such upheaval and resistance in this country so as to be a nightmare.

Japan's laws are based on a diametrically opposed viewpoint. Our laws begin with the presumption that the right to keep and bear arms exists, and the government has to show cause to restrict it in any way. Japan's laws begin with the presumption that no one can own firearms, and you have to jump through hoops to prove that you can be trusted to do so.

Two things:

1) John Paul Stevens (retired Associate Justice) would disagree with your history of the 2nd Amendment (link above), emphasis added:

Quote:
For over 200 years after the adoption of the Second Amendment, it was uniformly understood as not placing any limit on either federal or state authority to enact gun control legislation. In 1939 the Supreme Court unanimously held that Congress could prohibit the possession of a sawed-off shotgun because that weapon had no reasonable relation to the preservation or efficiency of a “well regulated militia.”

2) Don't you think that the eradication of segregation and Jim Crow laws caused a lot of "upheaval and resistance" and were a "nightmare"? Yet here we are.

----------------------------------
"Go yell at an M&M"
Quote Reply
Re: How many here would support [iron_mike] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
iron_mike wrote:
Switzerland's gun laws seem to better approach what I take to b the spirit of the 2nd - the whole 'well-regulated militia' part.

a short period of mandatory service for all, when you come of age. then you keep your weapon when you leave the service, having been well trained in its use by pros. ammo stored at central depots.

Switzerland's model of gun ownership seems to be tailored toward being intended to support its government and military against outside threats, though.. seems like we keep hearing that the whole 2A thing in the US is intended to allow citizens to fight back against their own government turning oppressive.
Quote Reply
Re: How many here would support [DavHamm] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
I wouldn't. Next Q.
Quote Reply
Re: How many here would support [DavHamm] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
DavHamm wrote:
(YES THIS IS FANTASY ISLAND SO I DON'T WANT TO HEAR ABOUT HOW IT CAN'T HAPPEN)

A complete overhaul of the 2nd amendment and institute Rules simliar to what I understand they have in Japan?

Dr testing, long waiting periods, yearly Police inspections, bullets and guns stored in separate lock boxes. Etc. ( I am sure others can fill in more of the gun ownership rules in Japan, where it is allowed to own a gun, just a big hassle)

Nope

_______________________________________________________
Yes
Quote Reply
Re: How many here would support [rick_pcfl] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
rick_pcfl wrote:
j p o wrote:
I think we need an overhaul of the 2nd amendment. It needs more clarity and context that actually makes sense for today. If we need weapons to resist an oppressive government then we need more weapons than are currently allowed. If we don't, then we need fewer weapons than are currently allowed. Right now we are caught in some sort of limbo and it doesn't really work.

So all we need to do is have everyone on both sides sit down and come to a reasonable consensus. How hard could that be?


Lets prove we can do it by coming to agreement on Power Cranks, Drafting and Lance Armstrong first. :)

THIS!

Hell, agreements could be made faster on things like:

Boxers or Briefs
T or A
Duffy or Forge
Tipping or No Tipping
Dogs or Cats
Quote Reply
Re: How many here would support [DavHamm] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
DavHamm wrote:
(YES THIS IS FANTASY ISLAND SO I DON'T WANT TO HEAR ABOUT HOW IT CAN'T HAPPEN)

A complete overhaul of the 2nd amendment and institute Rules simliar to what I understand they have in Japan?

Dr testing, long waiting periods, yearly Police inspections, bullets and guns stored in separate lock boxes. Etc. ( I am sure others can fill in more of the gun ownership rules in Japan, where it is allowed to own a gun, just a big hassle)

Are you willing to overhaul the 4th, 5th, 6th, and 8th Amendments as well, similar to what they have in Japan?

No Miranda, no limits on interrogation, no freedom from self-incrimination. They have a 95% confession rate in Japan. Gee, I wonder why. No limit on pre-trial confinement. No bail. No probable cause. No reasonable suspicion.

So - how many of you who are willing to throw away one Constitutional Right are ready to throw away others?

If there are no dogs in Heaven, then when I die I want to go where they went. - Will Rogers

Emery's Third Coast Triathlon | Tri Wisconsin Triathlon Team | Push Endurance | GLWR
Quote Reply
Re: How many hear would support [klehner] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Quote:
Two things:

1) John Paul Stevens (retired Associate Justice) would disagree with your history of the 2nd Amendment (link above), emphasis added:

Nothing you typed indicates any disagreement in interpretation. As I said, the opening presumption is the right to bear arms, and the govt has to show cause to restrict that right. In the example you provided, the govt determined that there was a valid reason to outlaw sawed off shotguns and that doing so didn't violate the 2nd Amendment. That's right in line with what I said.

Quote:
2) Don't you think that the eradication of segregation and Jim Crow laws caused a lot of "upheaval and resistance" and were a "nightmare"? Yet here we are.

Of course, That's not the point. My point was that the model of Japan is fundamentally opposite of ours. It wouldn't constitute an "overhaul" of the 2nd Amendment, but rather a complete reversal of how our system views the right to bear arms.

Slowguy

(insert pithy phrase here...)
Quote Reply
Re: How many hear would support [klehner] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
klehner wrote:

1) John Paul Stevens (retired Associate Justice) would disagree with your history of the 2nd Amendment (link above), emphasis added:

Quote:
For over 200 years after the adoption of the Second Amendment, it was uniformly understood as not placing any limit on either federal or state authority to enact gun control legislation. In 1939 the Supreme Court unanimously held that Congress could prohibit the possession of a sawed-off shotgun because that weapon had no reasonable relation to the preservation or efficiency of a “well regulated militia.”

You need to be very, very careful with that decision, based on the specific facts of the case. Also, it directly contradicts your position on "assault weapons."

Jack Miller and Frank Layton were indicted for taking an unregistered short-barreled shotgun across state lines, allegedly in violation of the National Firearms Arm of 1934. The defendants argued that NFA ’34 violated the Second Amendment and the district court agreed. The government appealed.

The Supreme Court never read or heard the defendants’ views, because they were not represented in any form; heard only one side of the matter, the government’s side; did not accept most of the government’s arguments; based its conclusion on a small part of the government’s argument; and declared that a short-barreled shotgun was not a "militia" or "military-type" firearm, protected under the 2A.

In deciding U.S. v. Miller, the Court declared that ownership of a firearm could be restricted if, and only if, it had no connection to military or militia activity. U.S. v. Miller strongly suggests that bans on military-type firearms, ammunition, and magazines are unconstitutional, as these devices plainly are central to the militia/military. The strongest challenge to U.S. v. Miller rests on the Supreme Court’s having implied that the law-abiding person has a civil right to be armed, when it held in 1856 that the government had no duty to protect the average person.

So, I would not be so cavalier in citing that SCOTUS decision. But thank you for the reminder that the AR-banning crowd has this little decision with which to contend ...

If there are no dogs in Heaven, then when I die I want to go where they went. - Will Rogers

Emery's Third Coast Triathlon | Tri Wisconsin Triathlon Team | Push Endurance | GLWR
Quote Reply
Re: How many hear would support [JSA] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
JSA wrote:
klehner wrote:


1) John Paul Stevens (retired Associate Justice) would disagree with your history of the 2nd Amendment (link above), emphasis added:

Quote:
For over 200 years after the adoption of the Second Amendment, it was uniformly understood as not placing any limit on either federal or state authority to enact gun control legislation. In 1939 the Supreme Court unanimously held that Congress could prohibit the possession of a sawed-off shotgun because that weapon had no reasonable relation to the preservation or efficiency of a “well regulated militia.”


You need to be very, very careful with that decision, based on the specific facts of the case. Also, it directly contradicts your position on "assault weapons."

I'm not the one basing an argument on that decision: Justice Stevens is.

I didn't know I had a position on "assault weapons."

----------------------------------
"Go yell at an M&M"
Quote Reply
Re: How many hear would support [klehner] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
klehner wrote:
JSA wrote:
klehner wrote:


1) John Paul Stevens (retired Associate Justice) would disagree with your history of the 2nd Amendment (link above), emphasis added:

Quote:
For over 200 years after the adoption of the Second Amendment, it was uniformly understood as not placing any limit on either federal or state authority to enact gun control legislation. In 1939 the Supreme Court unanimously held that Congress could prohibit the possession of a sawed-off shotgun because that weapon had no reasonable relation to the preservation or efficiency of a “well regulated militia.”


You need to be very, very careful with that decision, based on the specific facts of the case. Also, it directly contradicts your position on "assault weapons."


I'm not the one basing an argument on that decision: Justice Stevens is.

That must be why you tried to use it to rebut slowguy ...

klehner wrote:
I didn't know I had a position on "assault weapons."

There are a lot of things you don't know.

If there are no dogs in Heaven, then when I die I want to go where they went. - Will Rogers

Emery's Third Coast Triathlon | Tri Wisconsin Triathlon Team | Push Endurance | GLWR
Quote Reply
Re: How many here would support [iron_mike] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Having read Switzerland's laws the spirit seems to be lots of people have weapons and are well trained in their use so as to defend against external aggressors. The spirit of the 2nd amendment seems to include that but also the idea the people have a right to defend themselves against internal aggressors. Which is rather hard to do when your ammo is stored at a central depot. I prefer the Swiss approach but think the 2nd is what it is.

They constantly try to escape from the darkness outside and within
Dreaming of systems so perfect that no one will need to be good T.S. Eliot

Quote Reply
Re: How many here would support [DavHamm] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
DavHamm wrote:
(YES THIS IS FANTASY ISLAND SO I DON'T WANT TO HEAR ABOUT HOW IT CAN'T HAPPEN)

A complete overhaul of the 2nd amendment and institute Rules simliar to what I understand they have in Japan?

Dr testing, long waiting periods, yearly Police inspections, bullets and guns stored in separate lock boxes. Etc. ( I am sure others can fill in more of the gun ownership rules in Japan, where it is allowed to own a gun, just a big hassle)

For me, nothing new here, it has been like this in ex Yugoslavia. You also had to explain why do you need a gun. Self defense? OK. Dozen of guns for self defense? Nope, not a chance. Another one for self defense for your wife? OK. 100 bullets for the on gun for self defense? No. a dozen bullets. OK.
I would support it although I am from Canada so nobody asks me :-)
Quote Reply
Re: How many hear would support [slowguy] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
slowguy wrote:
I think you're misrepresenting Japan's weapons laws. The baseline of their law is "No one shall possess a firearm or firearms or a sword or swords." My understanding is that there are limited exceptions for sport shooting/hunting. For example, after all the checks, licensing, etc, you can buy a shotgun. Then after 10 years of responsible shotgun ownership, you might qualify to purchase an air rifle. Handguns are absolutely forbidden. You have to have a license to purchase ammunition. Small caliber rifles are prohibited in general, and if you own one, you can't pass it down to your heirs when you die, it has to be turned over.

I know you said you don't want to hear about how it can't happen, but I think any opinion on whether or not someone would support this kind of change has to include understanding of the environment around them. I wouldn't support overhauling the 2nd Amendment to mirror Japan's laws in large part because doing so would cause such upheaval and resistance in this country so as to be a nightmare.

Japan's laws are based on a diametrically opposed viewpoint. Our laws begin with the presumption that the right to keep and bear arms exists, and the government has to show cause to restrict it in any way. Japan's laws begin with the presumption that no one can own firearms, and you have to jump through hoops to prove that you can be trusted to do so.

Good description. The remarkable thing is that in all those years their government has not turned dictatorial/tyrannical :-).
Quote Reply
Re: How many here would support [j p o] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
j p o wrote:
I think we need an overhaul of the 2nd amendment. It needs more clarity and context that actually makes sense for today. If we need weapons to resist an oppressive government then we need more weapons than are currently allowed. If we don't, then we need fewer weapons than are currently allowed. Right now we are caught in some sort of limbo and it doesn't really work.

So all we need to do is have everyone on both sides sit down and come to a reasonable consensus. How hard could that be?

"We are so fucked."

I believe you answered your own question.

_____
TEAM HD
Each day is what you make of it so make it the best day possible.
Quote Reply