Forbin admits second amendment was written by people who did not understand the facts

Finally some honesty about the second amendment we can all agree on. Even forbin, our local guntard, believes that the politicians making it did not understand the facts about the future of gun technology and made a dangerous law allowing for the community to suffer massive harm by allowing citizens way to much access to firearms.

I can agree with this being an error considering at the time of the creation of the second amendment the firepower and destructive nature of future firearm technology could not have been known, and that the community at the time was far more reliant on hunting for their food and hunting weapons which need far less capacity that weapons of modern warfare.

So as to no further derail the other conversation I think this point should be further addressed by those who wish to, and we can note forbin has spoken his mind here and clearly agrees that we should address modern concerns with gun regulations with laws that more fully understand the community and modern dangers and safety regarding public firearm presence.

He did say "often".

Possible, but I don't see that. How could it not have possibly been known?

There is a reality that the framers of the constitution did recognize the future would require the document to be changed, and that it would be a work in progress and not the end of the process. For that purpose they wrote in ways to add to and alter it as needed instead of declaring it some sort of perfect document that should never be altered and was beyond mistakes. We see that it had problems like allowing slavery, the open dehumanization of black people, and the limitation of women, blacks, and others to participate in voting which needed to be changed. Clearly no one can say the second amendment was set in stone or should be regarded as anything else than being written by limited men who had no idea of the the future and danger of modern firarms, and they put in a method for the modification of their erroneous second amendment.

I'm with you on this.

That's where you're losing me. Why would they have had no idea?

Because they were not ever present in society at the time, and many were not even invented yet. Even if they could imagine these firearms they certainly could not have inamgined their presence in our society. Are you claiming these people made the constitution a perfect document and did not put in method for it to change as unforseen future events necessitated a need for new and different regulations, or are you just being an obtuse twat again?

I just don't see how anybody could think that someone from a time that had rifles and even revolvers couldn't possibly have imagined a gun that fires a round every time the trigger is pulled, or magazines, or pistol grips. The firearms we have now are within the same paradigm that existed back then. They understood rate of fire, accuracy, and firepower at the time. The firearms of today are just improvements on those things, not something that would have been unimaginable back then. It's not like we've got phased plasma rifles with a 40 watt range.

Ok, so you are again avoiding the point to make a completely obtuse derailment.

Color me not so impressed. Do you have anything to say on the point, or is this the best you got?

How is that not exactly the point?

Sorry, the question is answered, and I am not going in the dayton circle. My response has not changed, and you are being obtuse and ignoring it. Just more proof you are shit at discussion as you just get circular. That is not the purpose of this, and I consider our discussion over if this is all you are going to repeat. I will also consider this confirmation on your sinking reputation that I, and everyone else, have given you way too much credit, and you are pretty fucking worthless.

I'll get over it.

Good, I just know to stop the circle with you sooner because you do not have much to say. Given the absence of dayton I figured the reality of certain posters would become obvious.

I will certainly consider due naval gazing considering your rebuke. I had no idea my "reputation" had taken such a hit here. Thank you for letting me know.

I would not totally regard me as any form of weather vane in reputation land. What I will say is that the abuse of such tactics will become far more obvious in the absence of people like dayton who employed such tactics all the time. As the sea of bullshit lowers the mountains of shit become more visible.

Duly noted.

So you'd consider an amendment when phased plasma rifles are invented?

Seriously though I doubt very much that the Founders envisaged the future we are seeing where firearms are afforded a quasi religious status and kids are routinely shot in schools.

If they did surely it's time to reassess their reputations.

I know you wink, but seeing some of the things people who have a knowledge of science and manufacturing are actually playing with I am thinking we need one now. About 30 years ago I was ripping apart fireworks and playing with black powder and explosives to make bombs. We made napalm and contact explosives. I also played with pneumatics to the point I could use pressurized air to send shrapnel to penetrate a road sign. Part of my experimentation was to lower the yield of these devices to a safe level to be used in games. I used the knowledges of what makes a bomb powerful to disperse the physical forces in safer ways in my designs. However, the knowledge to make the devices more powerful was a part of what I was doing. I should also mention during some of these times I was a bullied high school kid who had fantasies of using these devices on my schoolmates.

I never did go school shooter, but I saw the fucking tripping point. My parents had to see what I was doing. It was certainly more visible than the women's clothing I was hiding. My only thoughts on the stuff I was playing with was keeping them in a safe area where it would not cause harm to the pets or burn down the house if ignited. Looking back at what I was playing with, fuck yeah it should have been limited or prohibited. There are supervised paths for actual science and learning for legal use of dangerous things, and being available to your local kid without reliable adult supervision and community monitoring are dangerous.

There are videos of people playing with plasma. Yes, phased plasma is a sci fi term, but containment for use of these things should involve inspection and a license in residential and commercial use. I have looked into things like furnaces, welding, glass blowing, and industrial heat requirements and we need regulation on the set up of these devices and the dumping of toxic waste from them that is much more than we have now. Just in running my paintball field I found a great section of wooded area that could have been used for paintball, hiking, or general nature stuff that was dangerous to travel because the land was so polluted with broken glass, metallic scraps, and dumped poison containers that it was dangerous to be around. It was a hug area in old NY orchards that we think was an old prohibition distillery and later a dumping ground for containers of chemical weed and bug poisons that the farms found too costly to legally get rid of.

You run into things like this which should be regulated based on dangers to society and destruction of land and habitat.

Rereading this there may be some on topic argument here. It is thin, but I guess I can have some fun with it.

I would be of the opinion that the framers of the constitution had absolutely no way to understand the effects such wide scale presence of guns in society would be. It comes down to a reality that they also did not have the comprehension of what society would become or look like in our time. They had no concept of what big cities would become, how low income areas would become, how travel would evolve, how dense population would be, and even how deadly guns would truly become. They fought wars where the most deadly things were still melee skirmishes and arrows. At the time walking around with a gun loaded was not something that would be done for days at a time because you did not have bullets. You would not leave a gun charged and ready for long periods because the charge would go bad, and the balls might fall out. That is not the same as a modern gun. Even the gatling guns or semi automatics of old could not compare to what we have now. We saw a revolution in the world wars that would come later because firing that fast and that often melted down the barrels of old guns and destroyed them. They physically could not shoot the RPS modern guns could because they would melt and distort.

That is a very real point. Even with paintballs designed to be non fatal and minimize damage we came to a point where the guns had a ROF that was beyond the imagination of the creators of the game and the injury to such rapid fire hits became so damaging and problematic it made the game unsafe to play. We have more safety regulations around paintballs which are designed to not be fatal and are actually designed to hit parts of the body without causing harm that are more effective and used than on real deadly weapons. Why isn't there a removable hard steel muzzle block made to stop the exiting projectile from the gun? Why is there not some hard safety device that can be put in front of the firing pin to keep it from moving forward? In the paintball industry we have multiple areas where we physically stop things from happening because we know trigger safeties fail through human error and physical error.

So if you want to discuss these things I guess I am up for it as I actually want there to be some way for people to shoot guns just for the pure joy of it.

Unanticipated cultural changes I can understand.

So, given those changes, is there not a case for re assessing the 2A?

It's not enough.
He needs to be broken, like when we conquered Japan.
Else he'll just misbehave again.
Like Japan.

He needs to get on his knees, and beg forgiveness.
Then kiss our sneakers.
Then scrub our toilets with a toothbrush and his tears.

It's the only way he'll learn.

Is there a case for it? Sure, but I don't think it's needed at this point. The courts have been interpreting and re-interpreting it for well over one hundred years. Just yesterday SCOTUS heard arguments for whether or not to take on another 2nd Amendment case.

Though I expect you are half joking I would say yes he needs to be broken of his ways if he clings to the sanctity of the second amendment. That bond does need to be broken because it turns out is dangerous and harms society.

Perhaps I should re phrase, by "reassessing" I actually meant screwing it up, shitting on it and dropping it into a vat of acid like the useless stretch of out of date toilet paper it is....should have been more clear

Ah... Yeah, I don't think we're ready for that yet. At the very least, you would need to reconcile the macro and micro arguments for highly restrictive gun laws and/or abolition of guns entirely.

Macro: The US is the most deadly violent country in the Western World.

Micro: You don't need guns you chicken.

I know personal self defense isn't even hinted at in the 2nd Amendment, but that and hunting are why most gun owners defend it anyway. Don't be fooled by the, "It's so The People can fight tyranny! " arguments.

If you're suggesting scrapping the 2nd Amendment and replacing it with one that focuses on self defense and recreational use as opposed to militias, you might get more traction.

not so funny thing, but a friend of mine was robbed and stabbed a few days back in what was essentially a discussion over a debt (no, not drug related) that turned into an assault.

18 fucking times.

They're releasing him from hospital today.

Not sure how owning a gun would've helped, unless he carried it everywhere, including inside his home.

Jesus sweet Christ, hope he's ok.

Did they arrest the attacker?

Nah, as you are doubtless well aware by now I'm pretty black and white in my opinions on this. You wouldn't get much traction at all for any proposals I'd endorse because a key point would be "no one gets any guns".

Seriously though I am at an extreme on this and my idea of gun control would be ban sales and keep whittling away at the illegal guns until all that was left were those legally in circulation for which no ammo could be purchased.

That being said, the last post was just playing to form as I've not had a rant in a few months and didn't want you all to miss out.

I can think of a way or two it might've.

Not if he didn't carry it with him all the time (including the shower). Lose the avatar, asshole.

"unless he carried it everywhere, including inside his home"

seriously? outside of having it on the side table or otherwise within arms reach, how?

OTOH, I can see how many likewise unsecured guns could make it to the streets this way...