|
Post by Hordini on Apr 15, 2024 11:53:45 GMT -5
Why would it be unlawful? The second amendment makes no mention of the right to privately sell your arms, after all. So, based on the courts reading of other rights which are inferred (such as the right to an abortion), they must if they remain consistent say that the 2nd amendment does not grant the right to sell your guns, only to keep and bear them. Primarily because the ATF is changing the interpretation of the law after years of precedent without any new legislation being passed. Even if you agree with essentially banning private sales, the way they are trying to go about it is extremely shady. Also, the Constitution is a permissive document. Just because a right isn't inherently protected in the Constitution doesn't mean it doesn't exist, and at this point there are years and years of precedent of private sales being legal in the majority of states.
|
|
|
Post by Hordini on Apr 15, 2024 12:01:10 GMT -5
That's because it doesn't. It's a misleading term used by people who want to ban private sales. This will definitely be challenged in court. Well, first, because you're quoting me I assume you're ready to have a conversation for real, unlike your conversation with everyone else where you got challenged and then oh so bravely ignored their responses... but I'm sure you're still planning on responding to them, just like you always say you are (but never do. Weird, huh?) Second, just because you dislike how it's named doesn't mean it doesn't exist. We've been over this, you can stop pretending otherwise. Seriously, you whine about me being mean, but here you are being dishonest and pretending the dozens upon dozens of posts about this don't exist. It absolutely exists, you just don't like the name. If it was called "private seller loophole" or whatever, you wouldn't throw a single bitchy fit about this... but you would still defend the ability to sell guns to criminals. Like, it isn't even up for debate on whether or not it happens, we have lots of evidence it does. And before you complain I'm being unfair, if you're not required to run background checks, how do you know you're not selling to a criminal? Do you expect them to self-identify when they go to buy one? Also, "banning private sales"? No, the goal isn't to ban private sales, it's to ban saless that don't require any background checks is what people want to ban. You're strawmanning this topic and refusing to engage with what anyone has been saying for years. Imagine railing against something that will prevent criminals from getting easier access to guns. If you want a legal gun, go and buy it through a licensed seller. Anyways, you can go off about how mean I am again, and how I was super mean again because you engaged with me (not the other way around). There is no right to sell guns to criminals. Selling guns to criminals is already illegal. If you think that's what I'm defending, you're quite mistaken. You are correct though, that if they called it the "private sales loophole" I wouldn't have as much issue with it. I still would disagree that it's a loophole, because private sales were intended to be legal and have been for ages, but at least those who used the term would be being more honest about what they're actually trying to ban. Those who want to ban private sales use the term "gunshow loophole" to mislead people who are uninformed and don't realize that they are actually trying to prevent them from buying or selling their private property without going through an FFL (or becoming one themselves). The way the new interpretation is written is also overly vague and opens the door to all kinds of abuse, not to mention the fact that it's essentially a major change in the law without any new legislation being passed (or even interpretation by the judicial branch).
|
|
|
Post by A Town Called Malus on Apr 15, 2024 12:14:26 GMT -5
Why would it be unlawful? The second amendment makes no mention of the right to privately sell your arms, after all. So, based on the courts reading of other rights which are inferred (such as the right to an abortion), they must if they remain consistent say that the 2nd amendment does not grant the right to sell your guns, only to keep and bear them. Primarily because the ATF is changing the interpretation of the law after years of precedent without any new legislation being passed. Even if you agree with essentially banning private sales, the way they are trying to go about it is extremely shady. Also, the Constitution is a permissive document. Just because a right isn't inherently protected in the Constitution doesn't mean it doesn't exist, and at this point there are years and years of precedent of private sales being legal in the majority of states. And there were years and years of precedent of legal abortions in the majority of states, what's your point?
|
|
|
Post by Hordini on Apr 15, 2024 12:49:13 GMT -5
Primarily because the ATF is changing the interpretation of the law after years of precedent without any new legislation being passed. Even if you agree with essentially banning private sales, the way they are trying to go about it is extremely shady. Also, the Constitution is a permissive document. Just because a right isn't inherently protected in the Constitution doesn't mean it doesn't exist, and at this point there are years and years of precedent of private sales being legal in the majority of states. And there were years and years of precedent of legal abortions in the majority of states, what's your point? What do you mean what is my point? An executive branch agency reinterpreting the law after many years with no new legislation is far outside the scope of what they should be doing, and infringing on one right doesn't make infringing on another one okay. Just like this will be, the restrictions on abortions are being challenged in the courts, and many states are taking steps to actually pass legislation to protect abortion rights. If you think I'm going to take issue with infringing second amendment rights and cheer on infringing abortion rights, you're barking up the wrong tree.
|
|
|
Post by adurot on Apr 15, 2024 16:04:42 GMT -5
Selling your guns is against the second amendment. You’re supposed to keep them.
|
|
|
Post by Hordini on Apr 15, 2024 16:12:51 GMT -5
Selling your guns is against the second amendment. You’re supposed to keep them. Now you're talking!
|
|
|
Post by Peregrine on Apr 15, 2024 16:25:13 GMT -5
Why would it be unlawful? The second amendment makes no mention of the right to privately sell your arms, after all. So, based on the courts reading of other rights which are inferred (such as the right to an abortion), they must if they remain consistent say that the 2nd amendment does not grant the right to sell your guns, only to keep and bear them.
Aside from what Hordini mentioned about the jurisdiction of the ATF and its procedural issues the new policy has some major issues with vagueness. It seems intended to shut down sellers who set up a table at a gun show with dozens of guns and run a business in all but name but its definitions of what makes someone qualify as a dealer are extremely broad if taken literally. For example, advertising willingness to sell additional items makes someone qualify as a dealer but what is "advertising"? Obviously putting out a price list of factory-standard models and ordering new inventory if an item sells out counts but what if I sell a gun to another local collector and mention that I have a similar one they might also be interested in? Will the law be enforced based on the strictest literal definitions or based on the presumed intent? Courts don't like vague laws where a person doesn't know if their actions are legal or not.
And abortion isn't really a good comparison. Even if the case had to be decided on the merits of a right to sell guns rather than the procedural issues (issues which are entirely unrelated to any abortion case) it's pretty clear that a law restricting sales in arms restricts all of the associated rights. With abortion there wasn't really a strong connection to a constitutional right. The court had a desired goal in mind and they reached for whatever justification, however shaky, they could find for it. The right to privacy argument was reaching a bit, the trimester division was completely arbitrary and had no legal foundation. It was a weak ruling that should have been reinforced by laws protecting abortion but the democrats preferred to leave it weak so they could campaign on "donate and vote because republicans want to take your abortion rights away".
|
|
|
Post by Peregrine on Apr 15, 2024 16:26:11 GMT -5
Selling your guns is against the second amendment. You’re supposed to keep them.
|
|
|
Post by easye on Apr 16, 2024 9:23:35 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by easye on Apr 18, 2024 15:52:47 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Peregrine on Apr 18, 2024 16:58:31 GMT -5
Suicides make up majority of gun deaths, but remain overlooked in gun violence debate
Of course. Suicide is a complicated issue that can only be addressed by major changes to the system, there's no simple "VOTE FOR ME TO BAN THE BAD THING" solution politicians can use for fundraising. And TBH people like Bloomberg like having a high suicide rate because they can dishonestly group those deaths in with the deaths from actual violence and exaggerate the numbers for propaganda purposes. It's not like any of those 20,000 suicides are actual people dying, mere workers can be easily replaced.
|
|
Haighus
Ye Olde King of OT
Posts: 902
|
Post by Haighus on Apr 18, 2024 17:19:19 GMT -5
Suicide is definitely actual violence, even if it is against the self.
Ease and lethality of mechanism do make an impact on suicide success rates. Obviously system changes are needed to improve people's material conditions and mental health services to reduce attempts, but having easy access to an efficient method doesn't help.
|
|
|
Post by Peregrine on Apr 18, 2024 19:08:07 GMT -5
Suicide is definitely actual violence, even if it is against the self.
IMO no. Suicide is an act of despair or a rational decision depending on the circumstances but it lacks the aggression against a victim that defines violent acts. But whether or not that is the exact wording you would choose I think there's still a clear difference between suicide and murder. When anti-gun politicians group suicides in with other deaths the intent is to evoke a sense of fear in the audience, that a large number of people are being killed by guns and they need to be banned because you're next. And that is obviously not accurate, nobody is at risk of being suicided by someone else.
(A similar thing happens with crime statistics. A significant percentage of those non-suicide deaths are criminals killing other criminals and have very little to do with the risk faced by ordinary citizens. But anti-gun organizations always present them as part of a single total that everyone should be afraid of.)
It does make an impact but few gun control laws have any effect on that availability. A 30-round magazine, pistol grip, etc, don't make a gun any more lethal for suicide. Even the most basic single-shot hunting rifle, a weapon that is never going to be banned in the US, is perfectly capable of being a suicide tool with near-100% effectiveness. The only thing that is really effective is waiting periods and those only have any effect for the first purchase, someone who has guns already is no longer hindered by a waiting period.
The reality is that if people like Bloomberg genuinely cared about suicide they would be spending their money and lobbying influence on things like universal basic income, state-provided housing, universal health care that includes mental health services, etc. Spending that capital on gun control instead demonstrates they don't really care about suicide deaths as anything more than a tool for disarming the working class.
|
|
Haighus
Ye Olde King of OT
Posts: 902
|
Post by Haighus on Apr 19, 2024 4:28:49 GMT -5
Suicide is definitely actual violence, even if it is against the self.
IMO no. Suicide is an act of despair or a rational decision depending on the circumstances but it lacks the aggression against a victim that defines violent acts. But whether or not that is the exact wording you would choose I think there's still a clear difference between suicide and murder. When anti-gun politicians group suicides in with other deaths the intent is to evoke a sense of fear in the audience, that a large number of people are being killed by guns and they need to be banned because you're next. And that is obviously not accurate, nobody is at risk of being suicided by someone else.
(A similar thing happens with crime statistics. A significant percentage of those non-suicide deaths are criminals killing other criminals and have very little to do with the risk faced by ordinary citizens. But anti-gun organizations always present them as part of a single total that everyone should be afraid of.)
I agree there is a significant distinction between suicide and murder, but I do think your definition of violence is overly narrow. In addition, suicide does have a victim (the person committing it) and there may also be dependents affected. Whilst I do think suicide can be rational and something an individual can be capable of consenting to (and I am in support of assisted dying), often suicide is as a result of otherwise-treatable mental illness. The idea that someone "cannot be suicided by someone else" is pretty shortsighted if you hold an anti-capitalist viewpoint. We are broken by a society that exploits the majority, and treated as a burden when no longer productive to exploit. That gives peverse incentives to commit suicide that are not based in consent or real choice: suffer with no hope of real improvement or die now? Few gun control measures have an impact in the US. I agree with that- the measures would have to be across the entire contiguous US to have a hope of efficacy with open borders between states. That isn't happening any time soon. I also doubt rifles are used for that many suicides though, they are going to be relatively awkward for it. I suspect pistols would be the majority. You are not going to find disagreement from me on the latter points about healthcare- I work in the UK NHS and firmly believe universal healthcare is a human right. I am very aware that the US could spend the same amount of public money it already does on healthcare to make a universal system and immediately get more bang for its buck in improving the health of the population (obviously it couldn't with the current political deadlock and lobbying, but I mean in a practical sense). I don't think it is either or though. To take the example of cars- the UK has a national health service, and also has an organisation responsible for licensing drivers. They work together to ensure that people medically unsafe to drive do not drive. The idea of an organisation that regulates gun use and works with mental health services to identify at-risk individuals is extremely plausible. I do understand why the idea of the US implementing this is worrying, they'd probably make some fucked up system that discriminates along racial or gendered or political lines, but I'm not convinced that the US being bad at fair public institutions historically means you shouldn't try to do better going forward. We've discussed the merits of an armed society previously. You think the increased levels of violence on the whole are worth the increase in personal agency when attacked. I don't. I don't think we are likely to agree on that.
|
|
herzlos
Ye Olde King of OT
Posts: 700
|
Post by herzlos on Apr 19, 2024 5:18:12 GMT -5
Stuff that prevents suicidal people getting guns saves lives - waiting periods on purchases, restrictions on purchase/ownership for people having mental health crises, safe gun storage.
Will people try to kill themselves anyway? Probably. Will it be as impulsive and effective? Probably not.
Can we treat the cause and not the symptoms? Not in the USA, that'd be Communism.
|
|