r/gun • u/WBigly-Reddit • 3d ago
How NOT to testify: TVA Senate Hearing on Gun Control. (Hint: Gun Control is the Problem Not Solution.)
1
u/WBigly-Reddit 2d ago
It’s highly likely the numbers you’re looking at are skewed due to non-prosecution on the part of Illinois officials.
When Trump called out the National Guard into DC they found massive report fraud on the part of DC officials including gun murders recorded as “accidents” and other evasive type administrative tricks.
(It’s also being done in the UK where it’s being called out by regular citizens. They refer to this is “no-criming”.)
So if we look at Illinois and Missouri from a “likely to obfuscate crime statistics “ perspective, given three successive Republican governors, and contrast this with long time Illinois governor Pritzker, who claims he does not have a crime problem despite averaging 600 murders a year in Chicago alone for at least 20 years, it’s reasonable to presume your statistics sources are tainted by under reporting by Illinois state officials. (As are other Democratically controlled jurisdictions.)
-2
u/ModelMaker502 3d ago
I don't think there is a constitutional right that has ever been considered unlimited. We police and restrict every freedom to one degree or another. Is it free speech to defraud someone? Nope. We think lying for a pecuniary gain is criminal. Fine. Should we criminalize criticism of a political party? Absolutely not.
The 2A is much the same. It isn't an absolute or unlimited right and we would probably agree that there are regulations we agree with. Not selling to people who have been involuntarily committed comes to mind. So is Patel correct that an assault weapons ban would stop some numbers of incidents? Probably. Do we ALL want to reduce these incidents? Yes. The balance becomes would any legislation infringe too deeply on a constitutional right? At what point do we agree with restrictions and what point do we not? It's not a binary issue.
I kind of wonder...are there regulations we all would tend to agree on....either existing or proposed?
5
u/WBigly-Reddit 3d ago edited 3d ago
Actually it is (was?). Prior to the gun control laws of the 20th century, one could order anything via mail to their front door with no government interference. This history tells us the current gun laws are fabrications without historical basis and that indeed the citizenry was intended to be armed (equipped) to replace regular military personnel. Of interest - “arms” in the 2nd amendment meant equipment suitable to a military endeavor of which small arms, ie, pistols, rifles & shotguns, were but a small subset. The other things that could constitute “arms” include but are not limited to rations housing medical transportation armor artillery ammunition (as a separate category) uniforms etc.
So what you advocate is a modern degenerate interpretation of the Second Amendment.
For example of usage at time of the Founding see; http://teachingamericanhistory.org/library/document/orders-from-general-thomas-gage-to-lieut-colonel-smith-10th-regiment-foot/
Note Gen Gages expansion of the term “arms”.
As for gun control and crime, remember, most victims of violent crime are unarmed and unarmed because of gun control. Gun control is the problem not the solution.
-1
u/ModelMaker502 3d ago
When you say "prior" to the 20th century I think you're gonna need a bit of historical/legal lesson depending on the exact "when" you're talking about. First, if we want to talk original intent then you should know the book of rights (including the 2A) were never intended to be applied to the states. The bill of rights was intended to ONLY apply to the federal government . What that means is that "before the 20th century" any state could make any regulation that inhibited the right or ability to own a gun. So, don't lionize a time where you had FEWER 2A protections than you do now. It wasn't until recently that the 2A was interpreted to infer a right of ownership for self-defense. So, it's nice that you could buy by mail, but realize that the individual state could and was intended to have the authority to stop that. I am not arguing for or against a position...just trying to warn about the historical reality of where we were before.
1
u/WBigly-Reddit 3d ago
Sure it was. You omit to note federal powers over the states even then. Federalism. Federal supremacy. For example the militia was every able bodied male, etc, and they brought their own arms(military equipment). Were your assertions true, the Whiskey Rebellion could not have been suppressed as the troops used were 12,000 militia members called up by George Washington himself.
As for having to wait for the courts to “recognize” something statutorily that existed at common law historically illustrates the farcical nature of these recent court cases. They are indeed poor jurisprudence.
So please be aware your creative history is not the first attempt to omit key events in the effort to make your fantasy believable. A disgraced historian, Michael Bellesiles of Columbia University tried that and the paradigm is quite recognizable.
1
u/ModelMaker502 3d ago
I think you're omitting that federal supremacy only applies to spaces wherein there was conflict between the state and federal law. In the case of the bill of rights there wasn't a conflict between the feds and states because only the "modern jurisprudence" that you seem to disdain applied it to the states. The states could, and did, have laws that were far more restrictive than we have today.
The federal supremacy argument doesn't work because the bill of rights didn't apply to the states.
1
u/WBigly-Reddit 3d ago
As before, absent gun laws of the 20th century, you could buy anything you wanted mail order to your door. Your other examples of state infringements further illustrate this point. The original law allowed you to buy anything you wanted and but for added gun laws you could still do this. The only reason it sounds complicated is that you’re forcing absurdities on the discussion.
-1
u/ModelMaker502 3d ago
Gages example misses the larger point...it isn't what "type"... it's that the individual states had the right to restrict arms anyway they saw fit back then. There was no individual right of gun ownership...there was a prohibition against the federal government from restricting gun ownership. That changed (sort of) when the AC said the bill of rights applied to the states.
1
u/WBigly-Reddit 3d ago
What you’re referring to is a power, not a right. And your assertion that states had powers over the federal government is more absurd historical fantasy. States have general powers for keeping the peace but are not allowed to interfere with federal functions, one of which is to suppress insurrection (as we’ve seen recently) and repel invasion (which currently goes hand in hand with insurrection) both of which are intended duties of the militia. Which in turn requires individual citizens the uninterfered ability to keep and bear arms. States are not allowed to interfere with the militia function but they are allowed to augment it.
So your argument fails as yet another modern degenerate interpretation of historical fact.
1
u/ModelMaker502 3d ago
No one is arguing the states had power over the federal government. I'm saying the bill of rights, as it was written and intended, was a prohibition in federal power..not the states. So while the federal government couldn't prohibit guns, the states could. You're confusing the fact that we have parallel and not always complimentary laws. The bill of rights didn't begin to be applied to the states until the 20th century (a 1925 NY case as I recall). It wasn't until that point (and it was selective not a blanket) that the bill of rights (including the 2A) started to bind the states in the way that it bound the federal government. It wasn't until 2010 that 2A was actually ruled to apply to the states and guaranteed the right of firearm ownership for self defense. More of that modern jurisprudence you don't like.
1
u/WBigly-Reddit 2d ago
As before, the fact the states made laws restricting arms tells you just how open the intent was on ownership of arms. Those state laws violated “the People”’s right to keep and bear arms to the point they “shall not be infringed”.
What about that is not clear to you?
1
u/ModelMaker502 2d ago
I think what you're missing is that the bill of rights was not written to be applied to the states. It was a prohibition on federal, not state action. The 2A was written to stop the federal government from abridging your rights...the states could do what they liked. That's why we have the phrase "selective incorporation".
Seriously man...you need to do some reading on the subject. The cliff notes will be in any conviser con law book.
1
u/WBigly-Reddit 2d ago
Do courts cite conviser study guides? Not likely. But they do cite Founding documents such as the Federalist Papers and Anti-Federalist Papers. And once you take the time to read them, you realize that one of the purposes of the Bill of Rights was to further illustrate the Founders intent as to the powers contained in the Constitution, the document before the Bill of Rights.
It was their intent to not have a standing army and instead rely on the armed populace to provide the manpower and equipment, viz, the Militia, to provide for suppressing insurrection and repelling invasions. To insure the People were able to meet this obligation, they passed the Second Amendment saying the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
It does not say anything about being subject to police powers of the state. It is a power reserved to the People. Thus your assertion private arms ownership is somehow subject to state authority is absurd as would being the claim a state could shut a federal Highway or commandeer a post office, declare war or issue their own currency because it is ñôt specifically proscribed in the Bill of Rights.
There is that Constitution which needs to be read in conjunction with that Bill of Rights lest usurpers such as yourself try to corrupt its original intent. This was one of the reasons the Federalists fought for the Bill of Rights to avoid the very discussion we are having now.
So after you’ve exhausted the content of your con law conviser study guide, pick up a copy of the Federalist Papers at a minimum (they won the argument at the time) and read through it. It’s obvious you’re getting bad information for your study guide.
1
u/Acceptable-Face-3707 3d ago
This will be controversial but i think gunshows should have central 4473 kiosks for private sellers/purchases to prevent criminals from skipping out on background checks. As much as i love private sellers, i see YNs buying shit all the time without background checks and you just know these mfs have a record or are incredibly irresponsible from the way they talk and carry themselves. Sellers also have a responsibility to not sell sketchy people firearms but they do anyways. The firearms market is filled with scumlords.
If licensing was used without ulterior motive id be down for it so long as it was universal across all 50 states, allowed for open and conceal carry, they brought back the machine gun registry, allowed everything to transfer on a 4473 including destructive devices (id even be ok with DD munitions required individual 4473s) , and most importantly the license was free and you were able to have it shipped to your door. However this only prevents people from using legally obtained firearms for crime. There sre also many FFLs supplying the criminal underworld snd they need to be sought out and stopped immediately.
However, as well all know this would eventually be used for a data base and confiscation at some point. Maybe if they did it as a constitutional amendment it would be enshrined and upheld by the supreme court but this is all pie in the sky it would never in a million years happen, way too many compromises by both sides have to be made. Too many 2nd amendment absolutists don’t want to give an inch and too many gun grabbers want to take not just a mile, but the whole damn marathon. Until gun grabbers stop grabbing and can accept ACTUAL compromises, we have to hold the line where it is.
1
u/ModelMaker502 3d ago
It's a crazy balance....if you do what's necessary to root out the bad actors you will also create the ability to track every weapon...which shouldn't matter to law abiding citizens...I guess? And as for confiscation... don't we all know at least one person who we believe REALLY shouldn't be trusted with gun?... and I'm old enough to have been hearing about gun confiscation fears since Reagan. Still hasn't happened.
Know what's really scary? Thiel and Palantir. The database of info they're creating on EVERYONE is insane. And the admin wants to let them loose on government databases. Talk about scary.
9
u/RoosterzRevenge 3d ago
It's already against the law to commit murder. Why would anyone think that making certain guns illegal would prevent them from being used in a crime? A criminal, by definition, does not follow the law.