Maybe We Could Make It Illegal To Sell Guns Anymore

[LuvNewcastle]

I was just wondering if it would pass constitutional muster if we stopped the problem at the source. Could we make it illegal for gun makers to sell guns in the U.S.? We could let people keep the guns they have, but disallow the selling of guns, such as in pawn shops and gun shows. There are about 300 million guns in America already. Do we really need more?

[GGJohn]

1. No, it wouldn't pass constitutional muster,

it would be a violation of the 2A.

[LuvNewcastle]

3. How so?

We wouldn't be doing anything about their rights.

[Duckhunter935]

6. Yes you would

You would prevent people from purchasing weapons that are guaranteed via the 2nd amendment.

[LuvNewcastle]

9. The weapons aren't guaranteed, just the

right to bear them. There are plenty around already.

[Duckhunter935]

12. The right to own one is

Unless you are in a prohibited category.

[GGJohn]

15. If you stop the sales of firearms, you are violating

the people's right to acquire firearms, which is a violation of the 2A.

[LuvNewcastle]

21. They could still buy one from an

individual or a store that deals in used weapons. We wouldn't come down on the sale of used weapons, just new ones.

[GGJohn]

23. You can equivacate alll you want,

but the bottom line is that the courts would strike down such a law so quick, the ink on the paper wouldn't even be dry yet.

[Duckhunter935]

22. He is making tha same argument

The repubs make for abortions, scary a democrat would do that.

[GGJohn]

26. I hadn't thought about that,

but you're correct.

[Orrex]

81. Where does "the people's right to acquire firearms" appear in the 2nd Amendment?

The version I've seen reads as follows:

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.

Doesn't say anything at all about buying or selling. What am I missing?

[GGJohn]

90. You're missing the fact that it would be an unreasonable and unconstitutional restriction on

the 2A, and the courts would strike it down PDQ.

[Orrex]

92. How so?

You can keep and bear all the arms you want. You just can't sell them or give them away.

[GGJohn]

93. And you couldn't buy a new firearm, which is an unreasonable restriction on the 2A,

besides, it ain't never going to happen so I'm in no way concerned this would pass.

[Orrex]

96. How so? Where does the 2nd Amendment guarantee the right to buy or sell?

Look, I know that it won't happen because our cowardly legislature is completely in the grip of the NRA, but since we know that at least several SCOTUS justices are self-declared originalists, how would they justify ruling in favor of the sale and purchase of firearms, if that language is explicitly excluded from the Constitution?

[GGJohn]

98. The 2A guarantees an individual right to keep and bear arms,

and if you ban the sale of those firearms, it's an unreasonable restriction on that right.

[Orrex]

101. You keep asserting that as if it's established fact. I would like to know your reasoning.

The right to keep something is absolutely no guarantee of the right to sell it.

How do you arrive at the matter-of-fact conclusion that a ban on sales is a restriction on ownership?

Convince me.

[GGJohn]

108. Ok, if all sales were banned,

then how can you exercise that right to keep and bear arms?
You would be denying law abiding citizens of their fundamental right to a firearm.
Thanks for giving me a chance to convince you without the insults, that's refreshing.

[Orrex]

118. Well, you could manufacture them, as many as you'd like

I suppose that there could be inheritance, too.

To pursue it from another angle, even if citizens have the legal right to buy firearms, why must we conclude that corporations have the right to sell them? That would really take the wind out of a billion-dollar industry, I grant. However, if you're a fine gunsmith and I want to pay you for your product, that would be fine; but that doesn't guarantee Smith & Wesson any rights at all.

I'm assuming, for the sake of it, that we'd correct that whole "corporations are people" silliness first, of course.

[GGJohn]

120. I see where you're coming from, and I suppose one could go that route.

And as far as correcting Corporations United? I'm not holding my breath waiting for it to be overturned by the SCOTUS, nor the Congress doing the right thing.

[Orrex]

123. Well, one thing's certain, we've been far too civil about this, so I'll leave with an insult:

Take that, Mr. Sillyboots.

[GGJohn]

129. LOL.

I love it.

[MillennialDem]

110. Just to play devil's advocate, why would banning the sale of a product be unconstitutional, when

said product can be made at home?

[GGJohn]

113. From my reading of the OP's thread, he/she wants to stop all sales and manufacture of firearms.

Even privately made firearms.

[MillennialDem]

135. I know, but that's not really what I asked. Just playing devil's advocate - what if guns were

illegal to sale, but legal to make? What about that would fail constitutional muster?

[GGJohn]

137. Good question.

I believe that it might, and I stress might, pass constitutional muster.

[branford]

138. At a minimum, to pass constitutional muster, the question must be asked

what important government interest is served by banning the sale of firearms, and is the means substantially related to that interest.

If the interest is essentially "less guns are better," courts have already dealt with this issue, and answered with a firm no. It's essentially a law expressly designed to simply diminish or gradually eliminate the exercise of a constitutionally protected right, and will not pass constitutional muster.

Note also that although in the past few decades the number of lawful guns have increased by tens of millions or more, rates of violent crime have diminished by about half. The government would have difficulty proving correlation, no less causation, for a policy limiting the number of gun in order to reduce violent crime.

Unsurprisingly, it's very difficult to implement broad and pervasive regulations that have the potential to severely restrict constitutionally protected activity.

[Ichigo Kurosaki]

133. If it was that simple it would have been tried long ago. [nt]

[kelliekat44]

144. You could always make your own gun. So not selling them would not keep you from bearing one. nt

[GGJohn]

147. That's a possibility, with the advent of 3D printers,

and the cost of them coming down, more people will choose that option, which will really open the floodgates for more firearms in the country.

[yeoman6987]

64. Let's give it a try. Let's have Clinton sanders and O'Malley propose this

At the debate and see what happens. The general they can't change their minds. I want too see how serious Americans are for gun control. Polls are all over the place. The only way to test it is during the election.

[Union Label]

142. How about making the production of bullets illegal?

if the ammosexuals cant get bullets they cant go around killing innocent people?

[GGJohn]

146. That's a no go.

The SCOTUS has already ruled that ammunition is part and parcel to the 2A.
And millions of Americans, including me, reload our own ammo, it's really quite simple if you follow directions.

[HooptieWagon]

2. Prohibition worked well for alchohol and drugs...

...that is, if you're in favor of a completely unregulated black market.

[LuvNewcastle]

5. I thought about that.

Maybe we could allow pawn shops to sell them. They would all be used guns, so it wouldn't have anything to do with the manufacture of new guns. We wouldn't regulate the sale of used guns much, just stopping new guns from entering the market.

[Duckhunter935]

8. The black market and

Printing weapons would explode.

[LuvNewcastle]

11. I think the ATF could be expanded

to bust that shit up.

[Duckhunter935]

13. Yes that works so well for drugs.

Ever seen an AK made from a shovel?

[LuvNewcastle]

18. There are things that could be tweaked

to fit different situations, but I think it could work.

[Duckhunter935]

19. Nope

[Hoyt]

17. And you guys have been telling us you are law-abiding.

[Duckhunter935]

20. Just as much as you are

I seem to remember you admitted things that were not to lawfull.

[Hoyt]

36. Nope, you remember me trying to make a point to gunners trying to rationalize killing people

with the gun they tuck in their pants to walk down the street. You are saying you would not comply with gun laws that restrict you from acquiring more gunz and walking among us with one or more in their paints.

[Duckhunter935]

38. I never said that so please

Do not put words in my mouth I did not say. I have several weapons and really do not plan on any new ones.

[GGJohn]

31. We are law abiding, I've never been convicted of any crime, never been arrested,

last traffic ticket was over 25 years ago, so, unlike you, I've always been a law abiding citizen.

[Hoyt]

37. As long as you can keep accumulating more guns.

[Travis_0004]

51. I assume me, GGJohn and everybody in this thread. would not be smuggling in guns

People in this thread are likely law abiding citizens.

I dont trust criminals to follow the law. A 3D printer can be bought very cheap and it will only get easier.

Im not going to make any illegal guns on a 3d printer, if it was banned, I just also think local gang members dont have a hostory of following the law and would make them.

Plus I imagine gang members would be in support of disarming everybody.

[Hoyt]

56. Local gang members aren't interested in shooting you, quit using that as a rationale to arm up.

[Duckhunter935]

57. Well said

[GGJohn]

58. That's right, as long as I remain a law abiding citizen,

I can continue to buy and possess firearms to my hearts content.

[Duckhunter935]

40. Same here

My clearance requires that.

[MillennialDem]

107. Do you really think people are going to buy guns like they bought booze?

[HooptieWagon]

116. Oregon shooter's mother reportedly...

...was hoarding guns in anticipation of 'Obama taking away guns'.
And a gun ban would of course drive gun sales into a black market, where there would be ZERO regulation and background checks, and higher profits.
So the answer to your question...a gun ban would have some owners turning in their guns, and some reduction in sales. However, some owners will hold on to their guns to sell at a higher price, and some will hang on to them period. And remaining sales will be underground. Higher prices may encourage gun-smuggling into the US, instead of from the U.S.

[MillennialDem]

117. Higher prices could be a barrier to a lot of mass shooters though. Not to mention the act of possess

ing a gun getting you arrested ala gun sniffing dogs when you get pulled over.

I honestly just don't see a big underground market for guns. Other than mafia/drug lords and a very small percent (< 2%) of typical citizens buying guns. Most will just grumble and deal without. Keep in mind guns also require ammo and unless the person never wants to practice shoot again, they're going to run out eventually. Plus the issue of transporting guns getting you in hot water with the police.

[HooptieWagon]

119. Gun sales spike at mention of gun-banning.

That's why the wing-nuts keep up the "Obama is going to take your guns away" bullshit.
Look...you, me, reasonable people can sit here and say "I don't need a gun" and think others are as reasonable. But not everyone is reasonable. Many are batshit crazy. They will hoard guns, creating a black market of unregulated gun sales.

[MillennialDem]

134. I agree there will be a "run on the gun stores" if there is an impending ban or even just general

fear mongering about Obama going to come take guns - but really is there going to be a huge black market for this? If guns are illegal, a gun is probably going to cost $2,500 (or more) for even the most basic models. That's going to price a lot of people out of the market, and the price of ammo is going to skyrocket too.

Even aside from increased costs in such a scenario, I just don't see people going down to the speakeasy to buy guns. Like I said I see them just grumbling about it.


come to think of it, I should probably hoard some guns and ammo myself the day Bernie or Hillary get elected and then sell them, it's a sure fire investment because the gun stores will get sold ou and if I keep the receipt I can always return them to Walmart or wherever if need be).

[HooptieWagon]

136. Not all guns will be $2500.

A cheap semi-auto pistol (which won't have to meet any standards) might be under $400. Shotguns and nicer handguns could be $2500. Semi-auto rifles like AR-15 clones might be $5000.
I don't think prices will be too much to deter, people who can't afford a gun will steal stuff to buy one, just like drugs. And some may just view it as a good investment.

[Duckhunter935]

126. See reloading

[ileus]

4. Be kind of rough for new shooters to get in the market.

No one would sell firearms they already had, so where would folks that wanted a personal protection device turn to?

[LuvNewcastle]

7. That's the point.

We don't need anymore guns. We already have too many. We just need to stop new guns from being purchased.

[Duckhunter935]

10. So you would violate

Their rights, cool.

[LuvNewcastle]

14. They still have the right to get one.

It would just be much harder to find one. There is no constitutional guarantee of plentiful weapons.

[Duckhunter935]

16. Interesting

Same argument the republicans make on abortion, sad in my opinion.

[LuvNewcastle]

25. I don't think guns and abortion have much

in common, other than being controversial topics.

[Duckhunter935]

32. And except your argument is the same as the

Republicans use.

It's legal and the lady can get one, we will just make it so hard to find a provider it is essentially a ban. Very good of you, fucking sad in my opinion.

[Rex]

34. Guns and abortion go hand in hand with fundies. It is the cycle of stupid.

Lots of my lesser evolved relatives fall in that category. Growing up in south Texas is a real life lesson in stupid people with lots of God and Guns!

[LuvNewcastle]

46. How many more arsenals do we need?

Jesus! It's fucking insane, and people just keep buying more and more. A friend of mine just got back from Finland, and over there they think this country is an asylum. They can't believe people aren't dying to get out of here.

[Duckhunter935]

60. I do not plan on any more

But others may and as long as it is legal they should be able to.

[yeoman6987]

69. Well nobody is leaving in droves so the prevention in Finland is wrong

I don't see people flocking to Finland like they do the United States.........hmmmmmmmm. Well that is interesting isn't it?

[LuvNewcastle]

76. Hey, it's cold there.

It's a very nice country other than the weather, so I hear. I would like living there, I think. I am going to have to relocate eventually, I'm afraid. If this country explodes, I am not going to stick around to see how it turns out.

[Duckhunter935]

85. Kind of sounds like the same argument the

Nut jobs are making. I have faith this country will muddle through for a very long time.

[yeoman6987]

112. I have been there once. It's nice for sure. That was 5 years ago.

[pipoman]

65. Do you know what the word "infringed" means?

[LuvNewcastle]

78. It means "bothered," basically.

I see where you're going, I think, but I think a successful argument could be made that the government wouldn't be bothering the right to bear arms by simply disallowing the sale of new guns. If the government determines that there is a glut of certain destructive items, it has the right to regulate them. It wouldn't be stopping people from owning guns, because guns are already plentiful, and no guns would be confiscated or gun owners harassed.

[pipoman]

80. No it can't be made successfully

You need to read up on gun cases starting at least with Miller, tjen work your way forward. Every question you have asked has been asked in 100 ways and the answer has always been the same...Read about the constitutional standard of, "in common use, for lawful purposes"...

[Duckhunter935]

87. Little things like that do not matter

To some.

[ancianita]

24. Gun makers as manufacturers existed before the Constitution and statehoods. It won't happen.

[Duckhunter935]

27. Yep

Even easier now with CAD mills and the new printing technology.

[LuvNewcastle]

28. Maybe you're right.

I don't think it would be worse than the status quo, anyway

[ancianita]

33. Gun manufacturing was status quo before the founding of the country. AND the two biggest

handgun manufacturers exist today in New Hampshire and Massachusetts, two of the founding colonies.

These states have strict laws and fewer gun deaths than other states, probably because they know their history and have the right kind of gun culture that respects the tools they make.

[HooptieWagon]

29. Fear of gun-banning sells more guns.

Oregon shooters mother hoarded guns because she thought they would be banned:
http://www.occupydemocrats.com/oregon-shooters-mom-is-a-paranoid-gun-hoarder-who-taught-her-unstable-son-to-love-guns/
Now in her case, she was just a paranoid nutcase. However, even rational people may hoard guns if the threat of a banning appears real. Prices will rise markedly, and a huge profit could be realized on the black market.

[Rex]

30. Notice how people freak out over that!?

Because 300 million of them are NOT ENOUGH! Ever wonder about people that stockpile guns? For the Rapture? Why?

Are they admitting they know they will be 'left behind' and have to shoot a lot of zombies?

Just stop making them.

HAHA! I KID!

Too many worship the culture of death. They jizz when the MIC blows something up.

[GGJohn]

35. Gee, I never "jizzed" when I blew shit up while I was in the Army.

Your post is childish at best and disgusting at worse.

[Rex]

39. Yeah me either.

Why do you self-identify with gun humpers? That is totally disgusting, but if you insist on doing it I can not stop you.

[Duckhunter935]

42. Probably as we are called

That on pretty much a daily basis here on DU.

[Rex]

44. Well you can self-identify with my words and make yourselves seem credible

or not. Either way I find it amusing that you so identify that way. All three of you.

[GGJohn]

48. Why do you label people?

I own and enjoy shooting firearms, also, our firearms protect our livestock from predators, bobcats, coyotes, and the occasional cougar.
Would you like it if I called you a control humper? Probably not, and I won't, it does nothing for the conversation.

[Rex]

49. Because not everyone that owns a gun is a hunter, did you not know this?

Seriously if the term bothers you, maybe think hard on as to why. I bet it has to do with something internal. I like hunters, I hate gun humpers.

I guess you would have to understand the difference and as of yet I fail to see you even notice.

[GGJohn]

54. I try not to label people, although on occasion, I do, to my chagrin.

I'm not only a hunter, I also have a CHL, I like to target shoot, I like to collect firearms, historical and contemporary, does that make me a "gun humper"?
I have thousands of rounds of ammo, does that make me an "ammosexual"?

[Rex]

63. Do you worship the culture of death?

I mean seriously, if you need to be defined by me so it makes you feel better let me ask this; does violence and death excite you? If not, I don't think owning a million guns makes you a gun humper. The term humper infers someone that covets guns over life. Think of groups like the Oath Keepers.

Surely none of you three are running around saying you endorse the culture of death? I don't think so, though I've seen no proof to the contrary until you just labelled yourself in many different ways.

You ask my why I label? See, we are clearer now...you love the sport, yet you do not worry about a secret government takedown by Obama.

I am not responsible for what others here think, but that is my opinion.

[Duckhunter935]

67. Your definition is quite different than

Many here.

[Rex]

70. SO what? Is that my fault?

Take it up with them.

[Duckhunter935]

82. Of course not

But please do not blame us if we did not know your definition.

[Duckhunter935]

41. Same here

Some very childish things are posted here.

[GGJohn]

50. Yep.

Off topic, but your counter parts were the ones I worried about while driving my bird in hostile territory.

[Duckhunter935]

62. I would be now with some of the

Kids we pass through now

[LuvNewcastle]

43. I know.

How many do we need to have in order to be "safe." 5 per person? When will it end? I'm afraid the end of all this is going to be very, very ugly

[Rex]

45. Ultimately you are trying to have a rational argument with irrational people.

However the other 99% of us like to discuss this type of issue. 80% of Americans wanted gun control, but Congress said NO.

I get people that hunt for their food, I don't get keyboard warriors that worship the culture of death. Seems kind of outdated, like the Wild West...which the GOP/NRA is trying hard to bring back.

[LuvNewcastle]

52. I think a lot of them are basically anarchists.

Well, maybe that's unfair to anarchists. Maybe they want to try some Chas theory experiment on America. The gun control argument has already been won. It's just a matter of finding a way to satisfy the gunners while actually accomplishing something.

[Rex]

55. I agree and I think they mask that with claiming to be libertarians.

SO they need a zillion guns, when the govt comes for them. It is a self-fulfilling prophecy in the making.

[pipoman]

71. By refusal to seek facts most who want gun control

think "Congress said no" when it was actually the constitution standing in the way of your gun control desires....complete disregard for the possible while salivating at the impossible is the trail of US gun control...and the real cause for their failure..

[Rex]

72. Wrong.

The Gun Lobby told Congress not to do it and they went along with the NRA. Bother you much does it?

[pipoman]

77. Nope...the gun lobby told congressional and senate judiciary committees

That a federal mandate for universal background checks is a violation of the commerce clause, exactly as it was in 1994 when private intrastate sales were exempted. The federal government has no jurisdiction in the intrastate sales of used legal to own merchandise. This is why you will never, ever, have federal universal background checks at the federal level. It doesn't matter if the gun lobby exists or not, someone would challenge a ubc law and it would be overturned...

[ancianita]

53. The right kind of gun culture should prevail. Look at societies that have per capita the same

gun owner rates, examine their laws and social practices to get an idea of what good gun culture is.

[Duckhunter935]

66. Well most of mine are

Antique bolt action rifles. And I have a 45, a 9MM and a small 40. I love the AR as I have two uppers so I can change calibers without having to purchase two rifles. Great thing about the modular AR platform. They all serve different purposes, mostly I just shoot paper plates. Have a CCW but almost never carry.

[ancianita]

47. Each state even has its own official "state firearm." Try rescinding the 2A through the states

and see how that goes. There would be such congressional voter upheaval, besides the thumbs down from each state, that the whole process would be yet another colossal waste of taxpayer money.

[pipoman]

59. ....

[branford]

61. How many firearms you believe the country or any individual "needs"

is completely irrelevant to any constitutional analysis.

So long as there exists in this country and right to keep and bear arms, it will be legal to manufacture and sell such arms to civilians.

The federal government and states could regulate firearm manufacture as any other consumer product so long as such regulation meets at least intermediate constitutional scrutiny, if not strict scrutiny. Without getting into an extended lesson in constitutional law, suffice to say a law or regulation expressly designed to discourage the exercise of a right, such as artificially attempting to limit the firearm supply in the country as you propose, will not pass constitutional muster. Neither will ancillary attacks on the right such as prohibiting or severely restricting the manufacture of ammunition or replacement parts.

[LuvNewcastle]

68. The question is really how many guns are

we going to end up with if we don't stop it. Really. Are we all going to be tripping over guns everywhere? It's absurd to allow this to continue.

[branford]

73. Again, the number of guns in circulation is constitutionally irrelevant.

You cannot ban the sale of firearms because you or others believe we already have "too many." I don't need my law degree to make what I thought was such an obvious observation.

However, to the extent we might be "tripping over guns everywhere," Congress or the individual states may, again subject to constitutional scrutiny, impose certain reasonable limits on the storage and carrying of firearms.

[LuvNewcastle]

79. Okay, then. We've got to start somewhere.

The status quo is not acceptable.

[Jim Beard]

74. Registration is a must should be stated on the back of drivers liscense

I think that would enable a cop to act differently when people are stopped for drinking are taken straight to jail, away from their firearm.

These are small things of cousre this insn't small to the NRA and General George Patton.

[LuvNewcastle]

84. That's a very good idea.

I just don't like people being armed while they're shopping at Wal-Mart or in a public place. I think that's going too far. I can understand keeping one in your car if you're going on a long trip, or in other more personal spaces. I think nobody but the cops should be armed in public spaces.

[Duckhunter935]

91. So you want them to leave a weapon

Unsecured in a car if on a trip and they stop at a store or restaurant? That is kind of nuts if you ask me.

[LuvNewcastle]

94. Lock the car.

You're just being argumentative now. This is silly.

[GGJohn]

99. Because locked cars have never been broken into or stolen right? eom.

[Duckhunter935]

104. I know, right

Geeez

[GGJohn]

111. The illogic of otherwise intelligent people here is mind blowing,

Something about the subject of guns seems to trigger lack of logic in some people who are usually very smart.

[Duckhunter935]

114. And I am sure ther are and very nice people

[Duckhunter935]

100. No, I am not

It is stupid to tell people to leave weapons in cars unattended. You just do not like the fact that was called out.

[LuvNewcastle]

106. I'm not going to argue with you about

whether or not people should carry guns in public places. I think it's a ridiculous argument. Just the thought of people believing they should be able to carry their gun in the mall is ludicrous. It's foolishness. If people can't see that, I really have nothing more to say about it.

[Duckhunter935]

109. I do not agree with open carry

I am glad we agree on that

[Lee-Lee]

145. Did you know that criminals are exempt from registration- because of the 5th

Yep- SCOTUS ruled long ago that a person prohibited from owning guns, who did own them, couldn't be compelled to register them or charged with not registering because it would violate their rights.

[alarimer]

75. No, just tax the shit out of guns and ammunition.

Like 5,000%. Everywhere. That way the blood money would at least pay for the cleanup from all the dead bodies.

[LuvNewcastle]

86. That would be just fine with me.

[GGJohn]

88. The courts would strike that down as unconstitutional,

it would be a poll tax on an enumerated right.

[Jim Beard]

89. I have heard that mentioned before. Any mention would cause a stamped to the gun stores.

maybe the bullest have a shorter shelf life to avoid hording.

[branford]

122. Discouraging the hoarding of ammunition

is a solution to what problem?

I don't believe it's a safety hazard or otherwise is linked to any other safety or security risk or concerns.

A belief that people should just own fewer bullets, or thinking those who own bulk ammunition are weird or scary, would not be a sufficient rationale to pass any level of constitutional scrutiny.

[Duckhunter935]

127. How do you shorten the shelf life of bullets?

or more like i think you mean cartridges or rounds?

[Snobblevitch]

83. How do you propose such a law on the sale of guns be passed in congress?

You do realize that if there ever was a strong effort by Democrats to pass such a law, both houses and the White House would be controlled by Republicans for a generation or more.

[LuvNewcastle]

97. They're all bought by the gun lobby, too.

I know. It'll never happen. But it's interesting to entertain the idea for a while.

[Snobblevitch]

102. I don't actually believe all politicians are bought by the gun lobby.

I do however believe many Democrats fear them.

[Initech]

95. Alcohol prohibition didin't work, marijuana prohibition didn't work...

What makes you think that gun prohibition would work?

[LuvNewcastle]

103. I'm not talking about prohibition.

It wouldn't affect current gun laws about the right to bear arms. It would only affect the sale of new guns. No new laws on guns already in people's possession.

[Initech]

105. But preventing sales is exactly prohibition, is it not?

The definition of prohibition - at least alcohol prohibition - is the act of prohibiting the manufacturing, storage in barrels, bottles, transportation and sale of alcohol including alcoholic beverages, is it not? Wouldn't what you are proposing work exactly the same way? If so that is prohibition.

(And BTW - I am no way shape or form defending the gun industry, I've often said that the NRA is a terrorist organization. And I still stand by that claim.)

[LuvNewcastle]

115. Since it wouldn't affect the 300 million guns

that are already in circulation, I don't think you could call it prohibition. Liquor is consumed, but if you shoot your gun, you still have a gun (usually). I think the government has the right to decide when there is too much of something and they should be able to control how many more of those things that we want to allow. If government can't make those kinds of calls, it really isn't much use.

[branford]

125. The Constitution was specifically designed so that our government

generally doesn't get to decide things like when the People have had enough of their rights.

Except under very unusual circumstances, the government cannot set a national quota on the total number of guns any more than a limit on the number of newspapers, websites, protests or religions.

[LuvNewcastle]

132. It's laughable that people compare newspapers

with guns. Comparing owning a gun with free speech, a human right, is twisted as hell. How long are we going to allow guns to proliferate like this? Can you not see that being armed to the teeth like that is the creation of a tinderbox? To say it's insane doesn't even cover it.

[onehandle]

121. You're going to get a bunch of gun nuts showing up pretending...

...that the Second Amendment has something to do with private gun ownership.

It doesn't. A corporate owned SCOTUS misinterpreted it to pad the pockets of gun companies.

They also gave us President George W. Bush, Citizens United, Hobby Lobby, and Corporations are People.

[LuvNewcastle]

124. That's right.

I wish people weren't so fearful of each other in this country. The gun issue is really just a symptom of a deeper societal problem that we have. There are plenty of other countries where people aren't scared of the government and their neighbors and it's so sad that we can't live like that. Of course, our government does do some scary shit. The things we're doing to countries overseas could easily be turned inward, and people sense that and they want to feel safe. This is the price we pay for empire.

[Duckhunter935]

128. You mean the same one that gave us gay marriage

funny how that works when you agree with them I assume, right

[Hydra]

130. Facts and laws

Agree with them when it suits, call to tear down when otherwise.

A disturbingly common trait lately.

[Duckhunter935]

131. Sad nt

[kelly1mm]

139. The Democratic Party Platform specifically states that the 2nd amendment is an individual right

and that the Party will preserve the right to both own and use firearms. It reads in part:


"We recognize that the individual right to bear arms is an important part of the American tradition, and we will preserve Americans' Second Amendment right to own and use firearms."

Maybe you need to try and convince the Democratic Party to change their stance or is my Party just a bunch of gun nuts too?

[LuvNewcastle]

140. I haven't called anyone a gun nut in this thread.

I have just as much respect for the average gun owner as I do for anyone else. I just think the gun owners in this country have enough weapons to fight a war, and it's time to step away from the table.

I don't know exactly how many is too many guns, but 300 million should be more than enough and should satisfy our population for years to come. I don't want to take the guns people have already have, I just don't want new weapons to be sold. Enough is enough.

[ileus]

141. Exactly, there was no private firearm ownership before that ruling.

Why can't people understand that???

[WinkyDink]

143. And maybe the pigs and I will fly tomorrow.