Purely academic discussion about gun control

Let's have a purely academic debate.

The 2nd Amendment aside, what is wrong with collective society, through its elected representatives, choosing to regulate what kinds of guns and gun accessories the public can possess?

Most of us agree that the public should not be allowed to possess deadly weapons like anthrax, VX gas, nuclear weapons, grenades, landmines, etc.

And that shows that we mostly agree that only the military should have access to certain weapons.

So why can't The People, through their elected leaders, legislate what kinds of guns we can possess? Or require thorough background checks and training before someone can carry a gun in public? Or limit how many handguns we can buy each month?

 

IMHO, they can (and) do all of the above, except limit number of handguns that you can buy each month.

 

Simple...always has been; generate support for a repeal/modification of the 2A.

 

why?

how many handguns does one actually needs to possess?

if we allow 1 handgun purchase per month, they could acquire 120 handguns in 10 years. is that not enough?

 

this is a purely academic debate, that ignores the 2nd Amendment and is about human society in general.

try to focus.

what's wrong with society in general, on Earth, choosing to regulate guns?

 

The military doesn't have access to anthrax or VX gas, and it takes NCA to allow them access to nuclear weapons.

 

Why do you use the word "need"?

 

Or marriage/reproduction - we'd be better off if we matched up people genetically, to build stronger bloodlines and eliminate undesirable genetic traits.

Would you want the current administration creating laws "for the betterment of human society"?

 

why not?

if society decides to limit how many handguns someone can buy each month, what's the problem?

 

this thread is about GUNS and GUNS only.

try to focus.

 

That's not the answer to my question. Who decides what my needs are? Maybe society decides I don't need two cars, or a single family house, or any income I earn over $50,000, and takes them from me to help those less fortunate. If society is given the power to decide what any one person can have based on their interpretation of my needs, what prevents the abuse of that power?

 

It can't be. You're giving society power to control private ownership of goods. That entire supposition must be examined.

 

sure it can and any diversions into other topics will be reported as derailing.

 

As long as there are people who want to use the govt to tell others how to live, people need to be able to defend themselves.

As long as gun banners are around, there can be no gun control.

And you make the irrational leap from nuclear weapons to personal firearms. Anthrax, nerve gas, nuclear weapons, are in a separate class of weapons - they can destroy entire cities and possible even nations at a single swipe. To own they also require a level of care and expertise and facilities that few people and even few nations can provide.

Commercial explosives - grenades, landmines, dynamite, etc - can be owned by individuals. And you can make some pretty potent explosives with basic household items, just think about it and you should be able to come up with some ideas very quickly.

 

society could decide that in general, the only people who seek to buy more than one gun per month would be folks seeking to make an enterprise out of selling guns to folks who cannot buy them legally.

the vast majority of people and gun owners do not buy more than one gun a year. only a small minority engage in such behavior.

so creating such limits would only burden a select few

 

So, no need for reality to intrude on society's lawmaking?

In absence of a Second Amendment, this is certainly possible. Any gun law would be possible. That's why we fight to defend the Second Amendment from people like you.

 

Let us try then.

Would the regulations serve a legitimate, compelling interest in existing? Or would they exist ultimately for no reason other than existing?

Beyond that particular question that would need to be addressed, is has been demonstrated as fact that such regulations ultimately serve no purpose in existing, as they are incapable of actually accomplishing the promises used for selling their existence to the public. No matter the firearm-related restriction that is held up as an example, numerous violations can be presented to show that it is being ignored by those who do not care about matters of the law, and going unenforced by those who are actually tasked with enforcing the law. Or there are those who will ultimately fall through the cracks, despite glaring red flags, such as the individual David Katz.

None of which are an analog for firearms, as such weapons cannot be utilized in a precise, focused manner for dealing with a specific target while ignoring all others. Instead they can only be utilized in a widespread, general area, where mass casualties are accepted as being the end result of their use.

Factually incorrect, it does not. Rather it shows that it is recognized that these type of weapons cannot be utilized in a civilian-type defensive situation. They are best used when it is accepted that innocent parties will be killed simply for being in the wrong area at the wrong time. A private-citizen equivalent would be booby traps, which are illegal in the united states due to their indiscriminate nature of operation. A firearm can be utilized to kill a home invader while not posing harm to someone walking by outside of the home, but an anti-personnel explosive device will kill everyone within the blast radius, and destroy any physical structure as well.

Perhaps for the same reason the people, through their elected leaders, cannot legislate homosexuals and illegal aliens out of existence in the united states?

What is being proposed is ultimately mob rule, with no regard for how what is supported may ultimately victimize others.

What is the point in attempting to require what ultimately does not work?

Everything proposed above is already in place in the state of Maryland, and none of it stopped David Katz from legally acquiring a handgun for the purpose of killing those attending a video game tournament. He was involuntarily committed to a healthcare facility six times, and still he was allowed to legally purchase multiple firearms, permitted by the state law enforcement who issued him a permit after the involuntary commitments.

 

ok, make an argument that society should let people buy as many guns as they like, whenever they like

 

What is wrong with a collective society when government has to regulate those things?

Are you serious? Because 100 guns can kill more people than 1 gun?
Do you think creating a 1 per customer limit would reduce deaths?

Ron, what would most likely happen is they'd get them directly from one of the dealers, and then that dealer would lie about who he sold them too.
So your idea probably wouldn't do any good.​

 

What is the legitimate, compelling reason for the public at large to be told that they cannot legally buy commercially available goods to whatever extent and degree of regularity that it sees fit to?

 

If you were applying academic principles, the answer slapped you in your second sentence, as you began it.

 

Make an argument that society should let people make as many children as they like, whenever they like.

 

Or as many abortions as they like.

 

what's wrong with society in general-deciding to kill people that society feels are worthless? same mentality

 

Yeah but by "society" what he really means are "Democrats".