Second Amendment in real time boils down to politics

[SecularMotion]

History, politics and law are all tangled up in contemporary court interpretations and public understanding of the Second Amendment, and politics is the greater part of the mix these days.

Last week, I wrote that we’ve so misread the amendment that maybe we ought to get rid of it. That’s certainly not on the horizon, but the idea drew a strong response and suggested to me that a review of the amendment’s history might be helpful. (Some of the responses also reinforced my belief there are many people who should not be allowed anywhere near a gun. What does racist name calling have to do with gun rights anyway?)

One theme that ran through comments supportive of unrestricted gun-ownership rights was that it is necessary for individuals to own guns to protect themselves against both crime and the U.S. government, and that the framers of the Constitution intended for the amendment to protect that individual right.

That’s a new way of reading the amendment.

http://seattletimes.com/html/localnews/2023554896_jdlcolumn08xml.html

[gejohnston]

1. the author is operating on the false impression that there are no gun control laws

in existence in the US. That is wrong and a strawman. Had he bothered to do any serious research on the subject or the writer of this book he is selling, he would have known better.
Why are intellectually lazy and shallow people attracted to journalism and punditry?

[randys1]

2. Guns are toys for childish playtime.

Now dont get me wrong, I can be as childish as the next guy, whether it is GT6 or Nascar "Inside The Line", I have the fancy steering wheel and pedals and so on, with my PS3.

I love WI silly games like tennis, want to try the horse racing one.

So I can be childish and do playtime, the difference is none of my games can hurt anyone let alone kill someone.

So you weigh the good and the bad when it comes to guns, the good would be for hunting I suppose, maybe protection.

Now, for hunting, I would make exceptions for people who live in the middle of nowhere, and for protection you need to weed out the guns over time, cant do it over night. People get nervous.


But the sane and adult thing to do is strive to have NO guns, at all.

I know it will interfere in your playtime, but it is what must be done, unless you are remote and need it for hunting lets say.

[gejohnston]

4. say what?

no, a sane adult has rational and logical discussions based on logic and facts, not childish comparisons to video games and male anatomy. That has no place in policy discussions any more than some politicians personal opinion.
If you think any sport or non work pursuit is "childish" then you don't grasp the concept.

[randys1]

9. I will respond, been there, done that

You have nothing new to offer, you want to own guns because you like playing with them, shooting them, etc

The down side to guns OUTWEIGHS your need to have fun, sorry

[Jenoch]

7. Are you saying only rural people should be allowed to own guns for hunting only?

[randys1]

8. I am saying there is no rational reason for anyone to own a gun given the down side

that maybe certain people in extremely remote areas where they live off the land might need a rifle for hunting or defense against predators, etc

yes, I am saying gun ownership is no longer viable

i wont even respond to the other person who thinks it is absurd to compare hobbies or playtime, because it is right on and not remotely absurd...

[Jenoch]

11. Besides writing a few posts on this thread,

what are you doing to reach your lofty goal of getting rid of most of the guns, with exceptions for people who live off the land like Grizzley Adams, in the entire U.S.?

[randys1]

17. what could one person possibly do?

Man, people get really touchy when you talk about their guns, I wish they understood why that is.

[Jenoch]

20. Every cause or organization starts with one person.

The reason the 2nd Amendment or RKBA is not going anywhere is because those that are in support of both actually CARE about the issues involved. All you have to do is to whine on the internet or with your friends and continue to not own guns or do anything to keep your status quo.

"Man, people get really touchy when you talk about their guns, I wish they understood why that is."

The reason is because I wish to keep my guns, as few as they are.

[randys1]

21. Eww touchy and insulting

Yeah, there isnt much I can do, but the way you react to the common sense observation of what a big problem guns are can be defined as defensive.

I am the whiner because I think gun deaths are a big problem, got it.

how ridiculous

[blueridge3210]

25. No

You are the whiner because your approach to the issue of criminal misuse of firearms is to deprive otherwise law-abiding persons of the right to own firearms due to the criminal actions of a small (app 1%) minority of owners. Your approach, if applied to the issue of DUI, would have been to prevent ownership of certain vehicles (assault muscle cars) or consumption of alcohol (high capacity cocktails). Neither would have actually addressed the issue of injuries/deaths caused by impaired driving and the results would have been minimal.

[Jenoch]

28. Of course gun deaths are a problem.

My guns have never been the cause of death for any person. There are 300 million guns in the U.S. You have said that all of them should be gone except for the few that need them to hunt to survive. I asked you what you have done to achieve your goal and you thonk me asking you that is ridiculous? You whine about guns but have done nothing about it. How much money have you given to VPC or any other anti-gun organization?

[randys1]

29. I am lost, if I didnt give money to an anti gun group then i should shut up?

so if I send them $100 you will then agree with me to get rid of all guns?

The position you are taking is ridiculous but given you are a gun person, I suppose I should expect that.

[blueridge3210]

33. Who told you to shut up?

There was a simple inquiry regarding what attempts you have made to enact your goal of the virtual elimination of private firearm ownership. Attempts could be writing your congresscritter, taking a petition around for signatures or running for office to attempt to enact legislation. You then deviate onto a tangent regarding how sensitive gun owners are without addressing the issue.

[randys1]

37. All this energy to argue with me, wasting your time

I am on the right side of history here, how can I not be, wanting less guns and less death...

and dont be disingenuous, your comments are meant to belittle me and call me a whiner and so on...

wont work with me, I have been doing this for a long time

How about strict gun laws like


http://www.businessinsider.com/canada-australia-japan-britain-gun-control-2013-1

[Jenoch]

57. My point is that most anti-RKBA people never

really do anything in support of their views on guns.

[randys1]

32. And I dont like arguing with fellow Dems over this, makes me sad to think we cant even talk about it

So you think I am an asshole for saying get rid of all guns, how about we create some new, really tough gun laws?

[blueridge3210]

35. Which laws to you propose?

What impact do you expect them to have on criminal misuse of firearms or negligent handling of firearms. I omit suicide because, if successful, most laws would have no impact on use of a firearm to commit suicide.

[randys1]

38. Start here

http://www.businessinsider.com/canada-australia-japan-britain-gun-control-2013-1


Too long to cut and paste, lots to digest here.

[blueridge3210]

39. Too much work?

Seems if you are so interested you could summarize or post an excerpt instead of pasting a link.

[randys1]

42. In the time it took you to post that you could have read a couple of the points

You arent interested...

[Lizzie Poppet]

12. And the moment you can actually demonstrate that assertion via verifiable facts...

...I'll start according it the slightest credibility. Until then, well...I'm sure you can figure it out.

[randys1]

18. what assertion is that?

surely you understand guns are an unnecessary toy, right?

[Lizzie Poppet]

45. Gee, I don't know...maybe the one in the title of the post I responded to?

"surely you understand guns are an unnecessary toy, right?"

But that one will do, too. Knock yourself out...

[randys1]

46. How is that anything but true

What reason do you have to own a gun?

Now if you say protection, then good.

You see if we eventually get rid of ALL guns you wont need one, right?

[Lizzie Poppet]

52. Why wouldn't I need one if we got rid of all the guns?

I'm 5'3" tall and weigh 110 lbs. Do you for some reason think I'd have the slightest chance against the average (that is to say, much larger and stronger) violent criminal with my bare hands? You understand that no other method of resistance to violence is remotely as effective, right?

Gosh, I know: I could just rely on big, strong men to save me! How progressive...

[randys1]

97. If nobody had guns you could have mace or a stun gun, right?

How is that even complicated, are you saying you will always need a gun even if nobody else has them?

Why would you need a gun as opposed to other effective self defense weapons?

[gejohnston]

98. they are not as effective and

are often illegal in the same places that guns are strictly regulated or banned. Mace is not effective against humans.
http://www.loyola.edu/club/maru/self-defense/resources/mace
Also, criminals and gangs will still have guns, even in Australia where biker gangs use basement made sub machine guns.

[randys1]

99. thanks you just helped me decide i am not arguing with gun enthusiasts anymore, not worth it

[friendly_iconoclast]

101. That's a wise decision, as you were not very good at it

[Lizzie Poppet]

100. But they AREN'T as effective.

There's lots of data available on that precise point, and I've looked at that info. If non-lethal defensive technologies come to equal the effectiveness of firearms (or even get really, really close), I'll gladly adopt them. That is not the case at present.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

96. "You see if we eventually get rid of ALL guns you wont need one, right?"

Only 3% to 5% of rapists are armed with a gun. That means a woman who chooses to carry a gun has a 3% to 5% chance of being on equal terms with her attacker. In the other 95-plus percent of the encounters she will have the advantage. If you disarm women you put them at a perpetual disadvantage.

[bangpath_root]

102. "What reason do you have to own a gun?"

I don't need a reason to own a gun any more than I need a reason to want to sit in the front of the bus.
Civil rights are wonderful things.

[Eleanors38]

24. "fancy steering wheel." Yes, I saw that in the 8.5 Amendment.

[randys1]

27. I didnt see it, neither did I see a right to own guns OUTSIDE of a well regulated militia

know why I didnt, cuz it aint there

End
Of
Story

[beevul]

30. Current law says otherwise.

I guess you'll just have to live with that.

[randys1]

31. Dont know if I can, so many god damn guns around and so many idiots

and no I dont mean you are an idiot, but if Dems cant start this conversation then there is NO chance of getting a grip on our gun issues

like the pun?

[beevul]

34. I'll tell you the same thing I tell others.

If you want things to change, you need the help of those who own guns and value their rights where guns are concerned.

Of course, that also means respecting their rights, since they're not likely to help without that respect.

Its a simple truth that most of the anti-gun folks seem to have forgotten.


There are 80 million plus gun owners, in possession of over 300 million guns in America.

There are 10 thousandish firearm homicides annually.

In the minds of anti-gun folks, the guns are a problem.

Of course, if that were true, there would be far more problems than there are.

Theres no disputing that.

[randys1]

50. Which is why I keep posting this

http://www.businessinsider.com/canada-australia-japan-britain-gun-control-2013-1

Only take a few minutes to look at the ideas of other evolved civilizations and what they do...

I will admit I am sick of having gun magazines where I work, having someone bring in a semi automatic russian gun forgot the name to show off, god damnit, enough is enough

[beevul]

60. Ahh yes.

You seem to be proceeding under the assumption that this has never been brought up before.

It has.

Japan, where they can beat a confession out of you all completely legal.

Britain, where someone was recently beheaded in the street.

Doesn't sound so evolved to me buddy.


If you don't like guns, don't own one.

If you don't like them to the point of wanting to make sure nobody can own one, you're an extremist.

That's right, I said extremist.

[randys1]

65. Very defensive, you are.

The argument that we are a far safer society without them is clear

the argument is you want to own one, period, no matter what the reason and regardless of the harm they cause society

Now who is the extremist? The guy who wants less people to die from guns or the one who doesnt care how many die as long as he can own one?

[beevul]

77. Hah.

The argument that we are a far safer society without them is clear

Yes indeed.

Just like we'd be a safer society if people weren't allowed to speak freely, protest, and incite riots.

Your all for that, right? Safer society so it must be good, right?

The argument is you want free speech, period, no matter what the reason and regardless of the harm it may cause society, right?

Just like we'd be safer if any governmental agent could barge into anyones house on a whim looking for child porn, "subversive material" (they'll know it if and when they see it, trust them), and other prohibited things.

Your all for that, right? Safer society so it must be good, right?

The argument is you want freedom from unreasonable search and seizure, period, no matter what the reason and regardless of the harm it may cause society, right?

"Now who is the extremist? The guy who wants less people to die from guns or the one who doesnt care how many die as long as he can own one?"

Now you're just trying to be cute.

First, how do you know I'm a guy? That's example number one of you talking out your ass.

Second, you have attributed to me, a position which I never claimed to take. "the one who doesnt care how many die as long as he can own one" ring a bell?

That's example number two of you talking out your ass.

Nobody wants people to die from guns.

Because I disagree with your methodology, doesn't mean I disagree with the goal of reducing gun deaths.

Of course, you knew that before you started talking out your ass, making assumptions, and falsely attributing to me, a position I do not hold.

[gejohnston]

90. there is only one problem

the article is not that accurate and it is misleading. It didn't even accurately describe Canada's gun law correctly let alone Australia's.
Canada's murder rate was still 1/4 ours even when the gun laws were not that different. Granted, they had stricter controls on handguns since 1934, but it was easy to legally own a machine gun until 1977.
It claims that their gun laws "ended gun violence". That is not even remotely true. Australia does not have any federal gun laws, each state does including the National Firearms Agreement. Before the NFA, each sate had at least a registration and licensing. The Port Author shootings were done with illegally obtained guns, one stolen from police evidence locker. The shooter did not have a license to own any firearm.
UK's gun violence was actually lower when there was no gun control laws at all. Japan never had widespread gun ownership, and never allowed the average person to own any weapon. Even then the article cherry picked three countries, one of which is "democratic" but is really a police state ran by oligarchs. In Japan, there is no right to a fair trial (a judge voting to acquit is bad for his career), no right to have a lawyer present during questioning (often involving torture), forced confessions and illegally obtained evidence is admissible in court. Cold cases are often written off as suicides just to clear the case. Murder/suicides are defined as "suicides", and are not that unusual so we don't actually know if their murder rate is that low. When I lived in Japan, a store went to was broken in. It took three weeks for the print guy to show up.
Did you also notice it only focused on "gun murders" not murders.
If strict gun laws made them safer, which they didn't, why didn't the same happen to Mexico, Jamaica, or Brazil which have stricter laws than any of those three yet have astronomical murder rates?
At best, it is a case of post hoc ergo propter hoc and proves absolutely nothing.

[Eleanors38]

43. 'Pun?' Like 'Dems?' Be advised some keepers of liberal sanctity

consider that a detogatory expression. I get your meaning, but keep using 'Dems' and someone will pull your card in other fora & groups.

[randys1]

47. what in the hell are you talking about>

"grip"

"guns"

Dems is derogatory? I thought it was short for democrats...considering I am the one who will SCREAM at you if you say democrat when you should say democratic, I think that is a bark of the wrong tree

[Eleanors38]

78. Oh, that Democrat (Party), too. What I said is true.

Some in DU don't like 'Dems' or 'Democrat (Party)', but do what you will.

[randys1]

79. didnt know that, i use Dems only to save time, wont do it anymore

[Eleanors38]

84. I prefer your shorthand, but some gatekeepers get upset.

[Eleanors38]

40. Correction: "End of YOUR story." The reality is this:

The Second recognizes a right to keep and bear arms. Rights, in our Constitution, are individual; not a state's or militia's rights. The reason for the "militia clause" is to make clear the federal government's stake in that right, not a condition on that right; otherwise, the framers would have stated it as a "militia right." They didn't. Because such a construction would have stood out as a stark exception to the rest of our rights.

[randys1]

41. Wow, an expert on the constitution, well then shut my mouth

Dear god there is NO hope if Democrats are going to ignore the obvious meaning of the gun issue...

Oh well, doesnt matter, climate change gonna kill us all anyway

[Eleanors38]

83. Obviously it's not obvious. Your 'militia clause' talking point

has been and will continue to be refuted despite calls for academic credentialism, either in terms of constitutional scholarship, or the within the minutiae of grammar.

By the way, have you read any of the accounts of what was asked on voter literacy tests in the South? Seems very knowledgeable citizens couldn't pass. 'Guess they weren't 'experts.'

[randys1]

85. What do Jim Crow laws have to do with your desire to own a gun despite

the obvious overwhelming harm done by guns?

Dont confuse the issue like that, please.

[Eleanors38]

91. Easy. The RKBA, and the right to vote should not be denied

Under the subterfuge of literacy tests, or dismissing an argument because of credentialism.
One has a poisonous effect on the body politic; the other has corrosive impact on intellectual inquiry, and is elitist to boot. Both, it would seem, require a standard that if not met disqualifies one from meaningful debate -- or voting.

[randys1]

92. oh lord

[Lizzie Poppet]

49. Of course it's there.

If you think the "militia" preamble acts as an exclusive and unconditional modifier of the main clause (and thus limits the "right of the people" in that manner), then not only are you contradicting both the courts and the president, but also simple, 101-level linguistic analysis..

End
Of
Story

[randys1]

51. Keep your guns then, how about gun laws?

http://www.businessinsider.com/canada-australia-japan-britain-gun-control-2013-1

[Lizzie Poppet]

53. I support many of them, existing and proposed.

Let's start with universal background checks...

[randys1]

54. How about smart guns, they can replace regular guns, right?

[Lizzie Poppet]

55. Perhaps eventually.

Given how easy it is to make a firearm (people knock out perfectly functional versions of AK47s with little more than hand tools and no electricity in parts of the world), that's not a situation I ever expect to see, but it's certainly possible. I think this is a promising (if far from perfected) technology, and I'd consider it for my own defensive firearms, once it's reliable enough.

[randys1]

56. Why do you need defensive firearms?

[beevul]

63. Why do you need a fire extinguisher or smoke alarm or spare tire? N/T

[randys1]

64. Not at all the same thing...

Either you live in a very dangerous area, and they do exist, or you dont.

If you dont then you dont need a gun for protection and eventually if you did away with all guns or most, nobody would need them.

Imagine the lives saved.

[beevul]

67. Alike in the ways that matter.

Things that are there in case they're needed.


That you can't or wont see that...

Well, that's your problem, not mine.


Less than 1 percent of people with guns are causing ALL the problems.

Take it up with them, and leave the rest of us - the 99+ percent of gun owners who aren't causing any problems - the hell alone.

[randys1]

69. One percent, how many is that?

How many gun owners?

50 million, one percent is 500,000

and you think it is ok for 500,000 owners to be running around doing irresponsible things with guns?

not me...

[beevul]

81. And now you're telling me what I think.

"and you think it is ok for 500,000 owners to be running around doing irresponsible things with guns?

I believe I did say "Take it up with them, and leave the rest of us - the 99+ percent of gun owners who aren't causing any problems - the hell alone."

Since when does telling you to attack the problem people where they exist and leave those who aren't a problem alone, translate into me thinking that people who are causing problems with guns is ok?

I believe, also I said "less than 1 percent.

A fraction of a percent actually.

[Lizzie Poppet]

70. Um...for defense.

What an odd question...

[randys1]

71. but why, do you live next door to drug cartels?

[Lizzie Poppet]

80. Do you really think you have to live in a terrible area to be at risk of violence?

That's simply not the case. Location is an influence, not an absolute determinant.

As it happens, I live in a very nice area, indeed (and in Portland, a relatively low-crime city). But my risk os far from zero (particularly as a female).

[randys1]

82. Let me ask you this then

Are you a Woman who for whatever reason has chosen to use a gun vs whatever else for protection and that is all this is, you are not a survivalist or whatever, right?


The last person I would take a gun away from is a Woman who has a reason to protect herself, men are vicious fucking animals.

[Lizzie Poppet]

86. I have more than one reason for owning guns.

But none of the other reasons are important enough to me that I'd adamantly insist on the right to possess firearms because of them. I'm a competitive shooter, but that's just a hobby...it's not significant in the greater scheme of things.

I'm not a survivalist, and in any case, weapons are less important than food in any legit survival situation. Weapons might be critical to a person in such a situation, but food would be critical beyond a doubt. I'd prioritize seeds and gardening tools (and fishing gear) over firearms in some sort of "collapse" situation. That and a good relationship with other decent people. Solo humans really don't do real well...we're herd critters.

[randys1]

87. If all gun owners were like you, we wouldnt be having this discussion

wouldnt be necessary...

[Lizzie Poppet]

88. Probably not.

But I genuinely believe that more are like me than aren't...it's the problem children that we need to address. I understand that this means compromise from the majority of gun owners. It's why I support certain additional measures beyond what are already in place.

Moreover, it's one reason I support measures that address some of the root causes of violent crime: economic inequities, the stupid war on drugs, lingering racism, and so forth.

[randys1]

89. Yes, but the kneejerk reacton some people have when it comes to guns bothers me.

If someone needs one for protection, and some do, far less than say they do but they exist, then OK, but we can eliminate that need eventually.

Then Women can carry around mace or stun guns or something in case they are attacked by men, and Women are attacked by men all the time, really big problem.

[blueridge3210]

72. I would agree to "smart" guns when LEO universally agree to use them.

As a LEO with 20 years experience I have seen numerous ways a weapon can malfunction; the last thing I want to do is introduce another failure point, especially one that cannot be manually cleared.

[randys1]

73. Has to start somewhere, and demilitarizing our police is another really important issue

[blueridge3210]

74. Smart guns have nothing to do with "demilitarizing" the police.

Any firearm (pistol/rifle/shotgun) can have manufacture specs modified to "smart" status; the result would be the same weapons but with the modification. While I agree the "war on drugs" has been an abysmal failure and largely contributed to the current poor reputation law enforcement has in the community, mandating "smart" guns would do nothing to address that. More useful would be requiring LEO's to wear body recorders to allow 3rd party review of their actions.

[randys1]

75. THey arent connected necessarily but we have to demilitarize our police

didnt the cops shoot a menacing 97 yr old woman the other day?

i want the day to come when cops dont have guns either like in Britain

[blueridge3210]

76. A "smart" gun would not have changed that as reprehensible as it was.

A body recorder could have recorded the interchange and provided evidence for a 3rd party review. Cops in Britain do have guns, btw.

[MicaelS]

58. Guns are a tool for use in the gravest extreme...

When one might have to defend their life, or the lives of their loved ones. Given the fact that SCOTUS has stated multiple times that Law Enforcement has no responsibility to protect individuals (unless they are in Law Enforcement custody) only society at large, I will keep my gun, thank you very much, in case I need to use it to defend my life.

I am not, nor will I ever be, a Pacifist. I am not going to sacrifice my life to preserve that of a criminal. Sometimes the only acceptable solution to violence, or the threat of violence, is harsher violence. In the worse case scenario, that means the use of lethal force against the aggressor.

[randys1]

59. Do you live in a high crime area?

[MicaelS]

66. Not going to play that game.

Violence can happen anywhere. Home invasions do happen. I would rather have, and not need, than need, and not have.

You don't like guns, then don't own them, but you are not going to make that decision for me. As long as guns are legal, and I can legally own them, I will do so. I will not be shamed, shunned, embarrassed, or guilt tripped into not owing them. No amount of appeals to emotion, empathy or sensitivity will influence me. The day I decide to no longer own guns, it will be solely my decision.

[flamin lib]

3. What enforceable laws are there controlling individual sales? nt

[gejohnston]

5. I didn't say there was

I don't actually think there is anywhere, see Chicago, USVI, Jamaica, and Brazil. Illinois has its FOID since the 1960s, Michigan has UBC since the 1920s.
The pundit, and I guess the book author (who has a poor grasp of history of the issue based on the Amazon blurb). I simply said that the pundit seems to be under the false impression that there are no gun control laws.

[flamin lib]

6. You're really big on ad homineim aren't you?

Where did you get your degree in Constitutional law? Apparently nobody But you knows anything about the second ammendment. Perhaps they should all check with you first before publishing their research at a major university?

[Eleanors38]

44. Would have been good advice for Michael A. Bellisiles.

Though Knopf ain't a university.

[gejohnston]

93. ad homineim is personal attack

like references to him as a person that have nothing to do with the issue, like calling him stupid for example. I said based on the Amazon blurb. I may have overstated, but not personally attacked.

Perhaps they should all check with you first before publishing their research at a major university?

John Lott's book was published by University of Chicago Press. My point

The Amendment was written to calm public fear that the new national government would crush the state militias made up of all (white) adult men—who were required to own a gun to serve. Waldman recounts the raucous public debate that has surrounded the amendment from its inception to the present. As the country spread to the Western frontier, violence spread too. But through it all, gun control was abundant. In the 20th century, with Prohibition and gangsterism, the first federal control laws were passed. In all four separate times the Supreme Court ruled against a constitutional right to own a gun.

What court cases? Certainly not Nunn v Georgia where the Georgia SC struck down a state wide handgun ban based on the 2A. First, the western frontier was less violent than the cities. Second, none of the five or six pre Heller SCOTUS decisions said there wasn't an individual right to own a gun. The ones before US v Miller simply said that the BoR only limited the federal government, not the states. United States v. Cruikshank said the same of not only the second amendment, but also the first amendment. US v Miller simply said that (a not present defense) that there was no evidence provided that a SBS was a military weapon and kicked it to the lower court, who already said NFA violated the 2A.

[clffrdjk]

10. Well it varies by state. But at the federal level

No sale to a person from another state.
No sale of sbr's.
No sale of sbs's.
No sales of machine guns.
No making a business of selling.
No sale of destructive devices.
No sale to a person you know can not legally possess.
No production for the purpose of sale.
Just to name a few.

[flamin lib]

16. Key word is enforceable. None of what you mention can be enforced.

Here in Texas it isn't required to report a stolen gun so break any of those laws and simply say it was stolen when it turns up at a crime scene in NYC. Even at that after one guy buys a gun on Facebook or Craigslist and sells it to another guy the chain of evidence is lost.

The oft repeated phrase is "enforce existing laws", but its not that simple when the laws have no enforcement mechanism.

All NICS requests must be destroyed after 24 hours so unless Jeffrey Dahmer applies and is denied the denied request is shreaded. Even at that the NICS is updated at the State's discretion and some don't bother.

The whole system is designed to fail.

[clffrdjk]

19. So the laws we have now are not good enough because you won't enforce them

But we need more laws because you might enforce those? Be honest now, a few years after passing new laws you would be complaining that they are unenforceable and need more restrictive newer laws and so the cycle would continue. The gun industry has nothing to gain from not enforcing the laws we have, but by not enforcing them the anti gun side can try and claim that they do nothing and that we need more. So who is at fault here?

[flamin lib]

22. No, make the laws enforceable.

For instance, if the NICS request is denied waive the auto destroy requirement. Give the FBI enough time to prioritize cases and persue convictions. Got a problem with that, if so please justify it.

[clffrdjk]

26. You said they were all unenforceable

Is that your only example?
As for your example, I see no reason why a denied check should be destroyed before being investigated. But don't construe that to mean that they can sit on it forever 15 days sound good? Obviously if a crime is found they can hold onto it as evidence.

[flamin lib]

36. No, not gonna let ya off that easy.

Almost every gun buyer restriction is rendered unenforceable by ALEC/NRA meddeling.

Universal background checks? Confiscation of weapons from people who have changed categories from OK to deny? How? Who knows if or how many guns they have?

If you see no reason to destroy denied requests what have you done to change it? Called a rep? Emailed the NRA? Sat on your thumb and bounced up and down? Yeah most likely the last. Done anything to get universal background checks? Yeah, I thought so.

All hat no cattle, don't get involved just talk big.

Before ya go there, I've done all the above, given money to MDA and other groups and all the rest.

[clffrdjk]

48. Let me off easy? You still haven't even tried to show how the rest were unenforcible.

All you did was post more restrictions.

Almost every gun buyer restriction is rendered unenforceable by ALEC/NRA meddeling.

Details please

Universal background checks?

Depends how it is implemented, what do you suggest?

Confiscation of weapons from people who have changed categories from OK to deny?

Where does this not happen now?

How? Who knows if or how many guns they have?

Well your example was an individual, you don't need national registration to figure out where one person lives. That's what court orders and search warrants are for.

If you see no reason to destroy denied requests what have you done to change it?

Nothing. I am too busy keeping antigun people from making laws that effect me.

Called a rep? Emailed the NRA? Sat on your thumb and bounced up and down? Yeah most likely the last. Done anything to get universal background checks? Yeah, I thought so.

All hat no cattle, don't get involved just talk big.

Before ya go there, I've done all the above, given money to MDA and other groups and all the rest.

like I said I am busy with mag bans, registration, assault weapon bans, ubc laws that won't let me lend to family or friends, waiting periods, smart-gun requirements, micro stamping. Stuff like that. At this point I feel any support I would give to you would be used against me.

[flamin lib]

62. This is beyond foolish. Bye !

[clffrdjk]

68. Damn that was easy

Toodles

[Bazinga]

95. This from the guy who claimed gejohnston was big on ad hominem? Wow! nt

[MicaelS]

61. Speaking strictly for myself...

I could accept the idea of a graduated driver's license model for Gun Ownership, accompanied with insurance, provided it was a Federal Universal License with absolutely no opt-out for anyone, anywhere. The exact same requirements would apply for every state, city, town and county. Absolutely No Exceptions, none. That means once I have my license, I can travel anywhere, move anywhere, and I can take my gun with me. If I have a Carry Permit, I can carry anywhere the law allows. The local authorities anywhere can't say or do a damn thing. And quite specifically, anyone in the most anti-gun cities like NYC, Chicago or DC passes the licensing test, they can have a gun. They don't have to justify it to the public officials. And, yes if would be specifically for self and home defense. Not some excuse like it's for target shooting or hunting. And if you don't like living with your neighbors owning guns, tough shit.

Of course I realize that will never work. Neither side would accept it.

[Eleanors38]

23. First thing that jumped out. It's like puking in your own carpet.

[TupperHappy]

13. Same old same old

SecularMotion, please, I have to ask, don't you get tired of spamming messages to this group day after day after day?

I mean, really, what do you hope to accomplish? You rarely if ever comment on your own postings, and in the other group where you are an admin, you close out anyone (myself included) who would raise any kind of rebuttal.

Do you think you are changing anyone's mind by engaging in these tactics?

Please I really would like to get a response, I really would like to have an actual, I don't know, dialogue here.

Or is this just your version of hippie-punching?

[blueridge3210]

14. Well, at least this spam-post isn't trying to equate gun owners with Nazis. (nt)

[friendly_iconoclast]

15. Or implying they belong to a secret Klan group in upstate New York...

[ileus]

94. Anyone with a life and family they want to defend should be a progressive 2A supporter.