Arizona had the similar provisions for years without any major drawback. It's only ridiculous when you are not used to it

Call me an out of touch west coast liberal, but I personally would prefer that I don't regularly encounter people carrying a weapon capable of killing me. This isn't a war zone.

You're not wrong. This state is getting worse all the time. A little kid was shot an killed because his mom flipped someone off for cutting her off. The kid's last words were something like. "mommy. my tummy hurts."

Last I checked, they still hadn't caught him. This is not a state where more guns us going to make things better. It's a state that very clearly represents the temperature of the country: financially strong liberal strongholds arm wrestling with the government around them. (Abbott and Patrick don't hold back on how much they hate Austin.) We're just going to shoot at each more and scream Castle Doctrine about it.

Liberal strongholds tend to be soft on crime. When your response to someone who assaults another person "just because" is a slap on the wrist, it's no surprise they move on to more heinous crimes.

"But the guy didn't kill anyone, he deserves a second chance" -- right. And the rest of us deserve some safety from people like him.

You can't ban your way to more safety if you can't reasonably control the thing that you're banning. The US government can't reasonably control who has a gun in this country, that's just a fact and it will not change as long as the second amendment is a thing.

What you can do is adjust sentencing standards so that the people who are at highest risk of re-offending in a violent way are locked up.

I find it bizarre that your stance on civil liberties allows people to carry a gun freely but is totally OK with totally taking away someone's freedom for years or decades because they are supposedly a threat to public safety.

> I find it bizarre that your stance on civil liberties allows people to carry a gun freely but is totally OK with totally taking away someone's freedom for years or decades

What is bizarre? Freedom, personal responsibility, and the right to defend oneself are not mutually exclusive. Your freedom is yours to lose, and that happens when you infringe on other peoples' right to freedom.

> because they are supposedly a threat to public safety.

Strawman. You take away someone's freedom because they committed a crime of some kind and are likely to be a violent re-offender. Most likely that means they committed a violent crime in the first place, and were just lucky to not have killed someone. That sort of determination requires looking at the totality of circumstances, too, not just checking a couple boxes.

We're hard on crime in texas... Unless you're white. Then we let you castle doctrine your way out of almost anything.

And that's a problem that needs addressing on its own merits, with different circumstances and a different solution.

SF and NYC are supported by the government around them, and look at the explosion of violence and crime in those cities over the past year. Not so in Austin.

You're not from around here, are you?

Then you should probably move to a country whose founding document doesn't explicity state that citizen rights to bear arms shall not be infringed.

I live in California, which is part of that country, and bans open carry. Why would I need to move to another country for sensible gun laws? I believe there is a balance which respects the second amendment (which I support!) while also placing reasonable restrictions on purchasing and carrying guns. Guns are extremely serious things, and just because I support the right of gun ownership doesn't mean that I support the totally unrestricted right of anyone to buy any gun at any time and bring it anywhere.

Let me post the whole second amendment for you:

`A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.`

Your interpretation above, of an individual right to bear arms, derives from DC vs Heller ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_of_Columbia_v._Heller) which is relatively new: 2008.

It also doesn't comport with the contemporary writings of the framers, nor the fact that the term "militia" in the constitution refers to the National Guard, which was at the time imagined as a body made up of all able bodied men between 18 and 45 years old. Additionally, at the time, only men were considered "the people".

Are you in favor of banning knives?

Knives of a certain design (switchblades) and lengths? Absolutely.

You don't need a switchblade to kill somebody. A steak knife or a filet knife will do just as well. Should we ban those, too?

We should (imho) enact reasonable regulation that balances rights with citizen safety in a country where people need to be told not to fill plastic bags with gasoline and there is a widespread belief that there are microchips in vaccines.

Screwdrivers, tent stakes, bottles of propane, battery powered circular saws... you can kill somebody very easily with just about everything they sell at Home Depot, and many of them are far more effective than a knife.

Do you drive?

No

In cities that works because you can get police response in minutes. Not so in the country.

So you support unincorporated areas having conceal and carry without a permit but letting cities regulate it?

Yes, if that's what the residents want. Similar to how some businesses don't allow weapons, that could just begin at the city line.

Cool. I agree with that.

Do you have a study or evidence to support this belief or is it just your intuition? Arizona is on the high end for age adjusted gun related deaths in the US.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firearm_death_rates_in_the_U...

I'd be interested to see that data broken down further by homicide vs suicide.

If you look at this data

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firearm_death_rates_in_the_Uni...

it seems that murder rates do not corelate with the total firearm death rate.

Seems to not be supported by the evidence.

States that do not allow unlicensed carry of handguns have lower per capita gun death.

https://worldpopulationreview.com/state-rankings/gun-deaths-...

All gun deaths, or just gun crimes?

Well, the gun control argument is that guns are inherently dangerous, far moreso than lawn darts or kinder eggs, which are currently banned for sale in the US.

A gun is far more likely to kill a member of your own family than it is to protect a member of your family in a violent altercation.

Furthermore, evidence from the lowest crime and gun death countries around the world seem to indicate the gun ownership is strongly negatively correlated with gun crimes and gun death, unsurprisingly.

It's strange that folks epistemic horizon ends at the border.

Nah, it’s just ridiculous. I had to move away from my home state recently because I’m a member of a contentious minority and, after the legislature there passed a similar measure, I was becoming increasingly afraid that I’d be shot in broad daylight by someone who didn’t like the look of me.

Where are attacks like that increasingly happening aside from SF and NYC?

SF and NYC have some of the lowest per capital gun violence rates in the country.

> The most ridiculous thing I've heard about all week

Indeed. The fact that we have to pass State laws to reaffirm rights that are explicitly outlined in the Constitution is truly ridiculous.

Does the Constitutional right to bear arms on an individual level apply to nuclear, chemical, and biological arms, or is it limited in some capacity not explicitly outlined in the wording of the Second Amendment?

I'm in favor of private ownership of all these, the citizen not having committed any violent crime. Otherwise is instituting thought crime. It says "shall not be infringed". I'm not sure how people misinterpret that.

A world where my mentally ill neighbor can nuke the town when he gets pissed off is not really one I'm interested in living in, and I doubt it's a scenario the Founders envisioned.

The First Amendment has similarly strong wording, but we permit government consequences for certain forms of speech/expression like libel, fraud, screaming in front of someone's house at 3am, etc.

> A world where my mentally ill neighbor can nuke the town when he gets pissed off is not really one I'm interested in living in, and I doubt it's a scenario the Founders envisioned.

This is a strawman, mentally ill individuals who have been diagnosed as such are already barred from possessing firearms.

https://www.atf.gov/firearms/identify-prohibited-persons

edit: To the downvoters, can you explain why?

> This is a strawman, mentally ill individuals who have been diagnosed as such are already barred from possessing firearms.

So, shall be infringed in certain scenarios?

The infringement is limited to a very specific class of people who are a small subset of the general population. Consider that convicted felons may not own firearms, is that an infringement? I would argue that it is not, as you lose certain rights when you are convicted, just as you lose certain rights when you are deemed to be mentally ill or of unsound mind.

In other words, we agree "shall not be infringed" has exceptions, and are just haggling over where the line is.

Your wording is misleading. That applies to people who have been court committed (even the majority of hospitalizations are voluntary or tagged 'voluntary' as a courtesy), or deemed 'mentally defective' by a court. That is a much higher bar than what you wrote. There are plenty of people with mental health diagnoses who have never been court committed.

Obviously agree with you, though we dough have corresponding laws with guns i.e. brandishing, pointing or shooting at someone is a direct threat causing potential harm similar to libel or threatening someone. Simply possessing a weapon is not automatically a threat to someone else, it takes action. As far as nukes etc., legally not considered arms, but munitions so you do not have a right to have them.

The “right” for individuals to walk around armed all the time was invented by gun manufacturers and legal activists within the past few generations. That it is now taken as some historical/constitutional standard is due to an incredibly successful propaganda/marketing effort.

The constitutional amendment is about a “well-regulated militia”. The purpose was common defense against military invasion, not citizens having intramural shoot-outs.

> The constitutional amendment is about a “well-regulated militia”. The purpose was common defense against military invasion, not citizens having intramural shoot-outs.

DC vs Heller disagrees

Nope. This is simply factually incorrect.

Take the Pennsylvania constitution, written also in 1776 (by many of the same authors, as we know, as the federal constitution). They also have a "2a" clause. Below:

"That the people have a right to bear arms for the defense of themselves and the state"

There is simply no other way to interpret it -- the 2a was meant as an individual right to own common-use firearms.

Anyone who says otherwise, and is educated on the matter, is lying.

Please explain how this harmonizes with the “well regulated” clause of the second amendment.

> Please explain how this harmonizes with the “well regulated” clause.

The full wording of the 2nd amendment is:

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

The phrase "well regulated" means "well supplied", as in lots of guns and ammo, i.e. ready for battle, It does not mean "lots of government regulations" to restrict the rights of individuals to bear arms. The mention of the militia is an additional reason for the people to bear arms beyond their intrinsic individual right.

That's an, ahhh, "interesting" reinterpretation of the phrase. I'm sure it's an attractive understanding if it suits your political stance, but I don't see any support for it in the dictionary...

The Supreme Court of the United States agrees[1] with that definition:

> Finally, the adjective “well-regulated” implies nothing more than the imposition of proper discipline and training. See Johnson 1619 (“Regulate”: “To adjust by rule or method”); Rawle 121–122; cf. Va. Declaration of Rights§13 (1776), in 7 Thorpe 3812, 3814 (referring to “a well-regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms”).

[1]: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf

You originally said "The phrase 'well regulated' means 'well supplied', as in lots of guns and ammo", but your quote says it means "the imposition of proper discipline and training".

It doesn't seem like they agree with you?

I'd be much more comfortable with gun ownership requiring "proper discipline and training".

Worth pointing out the “minority” in the case represent far more Americans than the court’s “majority” appointed by people who lost the popular vote.

> Worth pointing out the “minority” in the case represent far more Americans than the court’s “majority” appointed by people who lost the popular vote.

That's neither relevant nor true.

The case, D.C. v. Heller[1], was decided 5-4 with Scalia, joined by Roberts, Kennedy, Thomas, Alito, representing the majority.

Scalia (1986) and Kennedy (1987) were nominated by President Reagan who had won the 1984 election with 58.8% of the vote (v.s. 40.6% for Mondale).

Thomas (1991) was nominated by President Bush who had won the 1988 election with 53.4% of the vote (vs. 45.6% for Dukakis).

Roberts (2005) and Alito (2005) were nominated by President Bush who had won the 2004 election with 50.7% of the vote (v.s. 48.3% for Kerry).

Not some, __all__, of the justices that decided that case were appointed by Presidents who had won both the popular vote and the electoral college.

Not that it matters though. A justice appointed by a President who only wins the electoral college is just as much as a justice.

And none of that is relevant to the point that your quote from the Supreme Court doesn't even remotely support the interpretation you claimed.

I was responding to the nonsensical and incorrect argument about the makeup of the court that decided Heller.

A militia is made up of ordinary citizens. It’s armaments are those of its members. It’s not a separate body. For it to be in working order, the populace are the ones that need to be armed and their right to bear those arms must not be infringed.

Note that the militia angle is merely an additional reasoning for why those rights exist. It’s an example, not a precondition.

Surely judicial decisions shouldn't be dictated by "the popular vote" anyway.

But then, one of the tragedies of modern America is that the Supreme Court seems to have become as much a political entity as a judicial one.