Why is there no middle ground on guns?

[Taverner]

And please don't relocate this to the Guns forum - there really is NO middle ground there

Look, I'm all for gun rights. Hell, I think they should repeal the Assault weapons ban.

I also like the idea of registration. And yes, I do know the history of registration in the UK - it became a who's who for a huge assault on the rights of Britons. Black and Whites went door to door with the list and just took everyone's registered firearm away.

But we don't have to have that second step - all I am asking is a fingerprint database, and some record of who owns what - just like we do with Autos.

And yes, fingerprints can be changed, just like car licenses can be changed. But its SOMETHING.

[gravity]

1. The NRA nt

[Taverner]

2. HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

AHhhhhhhh that was funny....you're too much!

[X_Digger]

3. It's hard to meet in the middle when you're already standing on my toes.

"Compromise" doesn't mean "I'll only take half of what I want now, and half some other time."

When's the last time a gun controller ever said "We'll let you have X in exchange for Y"?

If there weren't a demonstrated subversion of gun laws in order to deny ownership overall, we'd be less inclined to fight every measure (good example is MI's "safety check" for handguns. It wasn't about safety, though, it was registration. The wrong kind of person shows up for a "safety check"? So sad, not safe, here let me confiscate that for you.)

[Taverner]

8. Well like I said, there needs to be a middle ground

Its obvious MI's safety check was an underhanded attempt, not meeting in the middle

[X_Digger]

15. Sad thing is, there's a pattern of not dealing in good faith.

It's poisoned the well, so to speak, against what otherwise might have been seen as reasonable.

[Taverner]

16. What if the NRA did the registraton?

Say it was done like driving schools are - licensed by the state, but wholly separate?

[X_Digger]

25. If there were written in stone controls on the data, maybe, yes.

But even today, we've got Frank Lautenberg trying to repeal the Tiahrt Amendment that prevents the National Instant Check System (used by dealers to run background checks on people) from becoming a de facto registration.

(Right now, if you pass a background check, those records must be destroyed within 24 hours. 'Deny' are kept and forwarded to the BATFE for investigation.)

[Abq_Sarah]

165. How would you feel about

Registering people of faith? Should the government register members of each religion?

What about a requirement to register with the government prior to exercising free speech rights?

Or registering reporters?


See where I'm going?

[flamin lib]

183. I'm typing this real slow because it seems that some folks don't read real well.

When the Constitution was written slaves only counted as 3/5ths of a person. The authors were smart enough to make provisions for changing the constitution. The 19th amendment changed the constitution regarding equal protection under the law. It did not change any other aspect of the Constitution. To change one aspect of the Constitution does not automatically lead to changing ALL of them.

To say that to restrict one right is to restrict all of them is just dumb and that's where this sub thread began.

Besides, rights are limited all over the place! Free speech? What about libel or slander? Inciting a riot? False advertising (except in political ads)? Advocating the overthrow of the US government by force? Threatening an elected official?

How about voting? Only if you're REGISTERED, not a felon, in the correct district/precinct, on the right day and at the right polling place.

Look, this is an echo chamber. Too many people here enjoy having their own thoughts reinforced by having others echo back to them. Just save the effort and type "Ditto".

That's why there is Gungeon, because any deviation from the locals endlessly repeating stuff they like to hear is ignored or shouted down. There is no thought put into any of this stuff--if there were every gun thread wouldn't automatically be sent here.

Okay, I have an idea. To save time typing and because every thing that can be said on the topic has been said, just assign a number to your statement. Pro are all odd numbers,and anti are all even. #1 is "the right to keep and bear arms", number two can be "well regulated militia". Keep going until all the oft repeated phrases are enumerated and then we can just type, "1" and it can be answered with "2".

I just say "42" to you to all the Gungeon dwellers.

[safeinOhio]

59. Can you point out any person in

Michigan that was ever denied a purchase of a handgun that was not defective, and I mean really defective? If you can point out about a dozen or so, or even one or two, I'll buy that argument. I live there over 50 years and never heard of anyone being denied purchase because of an unsafe handgun.

[X_Digger]

72. Do you know the history of Michigan's "safety check"?

Google Dr. Ossian Sweet

Dr. Sweet had moved into an all white neighborhood and had been indicted for murder for shooting one of a white mob that had attacked his house while Detroit police looked on.

Legislation quickly followed his acquittal.

[safeinOhio]

112. That was 1925

can you find anything a little newer, like in the last 20 years.
Are you just throwing out one of those "feel good" ideas that have no statistical evidence in recent history? If I'm correct one still needs a permit to purchase a handgun in Michigan, with no safety check. Does require a federal, state and local police record check. I have known people that were refused a permit to purchase because that check had turned up a felony conviction that didn't show up on a federal check when he did purchase a long gun from a dealer. Seems to me to work better than the federal system to keep guns out of the hands of felons. Then many here don't really care about felons having guns as long nothing is inconvenient for them.

[X_Digger]

141. "Aww Jim Crow? He's not so bad these days.."

How about 1967?

George Messerlian - tried to register a handgun to defend his shoe shop in 1965, was denied. Was killed during the Detroit riot defending his store with a baseball bat.

[safeinOhio]

155. 40 years ago, your getting closer.

40 years ago there was no "shall issue" in Michigan. Any since permit laws were changed in the 90s, I doubt it. Shall Issue took care of all the discrimination bull shit. Show me were Mr. Messerlian was denied because of a safety check.

[X_Digger]

161. "Jim's an old codger, don't worry about him.."

Racist roots, racist in application for at least 40 years. But oh, no, not racist now.

:sarcasm:

[safeinOhio]

172. You make a claim and can't back it up.

Some one could make a claim that relaxed gun laws make it easy for racist right wing groups to get handguns to attack people of color and you'd have a fit. Then you'd claim there is no evidence to back up that statement.
There is no evidence that Michigans handgun purchase checks have ever been used to deny anyone a handgun because of race. Only a bloggers rant that you seen to think is proof. You inject racism and jim crow to make you feel good when it has nothing to do with it.

Well it could some day or it might.....great factual argument.:sarcasm:

[X_Digger]

175. Here's an ISBN for you- 978-0884270331

You can't have my tattered copy, but amazon still has a few for sale used-

http://www.amazon.com/Restricting-Handguns-Liberal-Skeptics-Speak/dp/0884270335

[jazzhound]

180. I got myself a copy a couple of months ago, but haven't been able to get

completely through it 'cause schoolwork takes priority. Some interesting portions for sure.

[Captain Hilts]

4. I think handguns should be difficult to own and carry. Folks can all have a rifle for all I care -

Rifles and handguns are used - and misused - in very different ways.

[Taverner]

10. I think fully auto Microuzis should be available, as long as you have passed a safety class

And by safety class, I am talking about one put on by the NRA or some other non governmental org

[AlinPA]

206. It's off the subject I know, but a friend of mine is nearly deaf and hearing aids don't do

much now, but he admits that he should have worn ear plugs or ear protection while doing all his shooting. He is still an NRA instructor and said years ago people thought it was wimpy to wear the protection so he didn't want to look like a weakling. People learn the hard way.

[slackmaster]

5. There is no "assault weapons" ban - It expired automatically in September 2004

I think they should repeal the Assault weapons ban.

I'm glad you agree that it was pointless, but it can't be repealed because it no longer exists.

It's understandable that you aren't aware of its expiration, as there has not been any kind of a surge in crimes committed with modern-looking sporting arms.

[Taverner]

6. Gotcha. How come I can't own a Semi-Auto MicroUzi then?

I'm not disagreeing with you btw...I just don't keep up on the laws

[X_Digger]

11. State law, not federal. n/t

[Taverner]

18. Ahhh makes sense

I live in CA

No Uzi for YOU!

[slackmaster]

19. Import ban - US Code section 925 (d) (3)

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode18/usc_sec_18_00000925----000-.html

You can own one that was imported before the ban.

[X_Digger]

9. Maybe he meant CA / NY / NJ? n/t

[ProgressiveProfessor]

157. Only at a Federal level. California, Wash DC, NYC and other places are still suffer that kind of

oppression.

[aikoaiko]

7. A fingerprint database because of a crime someone might do in the future is not middle ground to me.

And maybe that is the problem. Everyone thinks his or her own position on guns and gun laws is reasonable.

[Taverner]

13. Yes but take an auto - the DMV has your license for a crime you may do in the future

they have your vin and a description...

[X_Digger]

23. Only if you plan on driving down the street..

Which I think makes sense. If you plan on taking your handgun out in public, you get a background check and are vetted as part of licensing.

If you plan on keeping your car at home, or trailering it around (race car, show car, farm vehicle), there's no requirement to title it, insure it, have it inspected, or registered at all. * apparently some states do regulate the private sale of cars, but they're a minority *

[Taverner]

24. It's called a "Certificate of Non-Operation"

And yes, you still need to license that car

[X_Digger]

28. Like I said, not where I live, or anywhere I've lived in the past.

I'm familiar with CA being a bit too 'in your bidness' for the rest of us.

[Taverner]

32. Its so when the junked car on a hill rolls down and hits someone, they know who to sue

[OneTenthofOnePercent]

70. Technically, to park your car on the road it needs insurance.

Here, to park a car in your driveway or on the road it needs insurance for that very reason. If you want to suspend insurance on a vehicle it must be tarped, covered, parked indoors, or not in the drive access to your house (or anywhere else commonly traversed by other motorists).

[shadowrider]

46. I have a car in the garage that hasn't been licensed in 7 years and don't need to

All I need is minor liability insurance on it. I can re-register it with the state if it ever becomes operational, which probably ain't gonna happen.

[GreenStormCloud]

116. Not needed in Texas. N/T

[Taverner]

135. Yeah - but if you have Marijuana they seize your home, stocks, paychecks and cars

And despite how much you have saved, you have to use a public defender

NO THANKS

[GreenStormCloud]

160. Different subject.

FWIW, I support ending the drug war. Legalize drugs.

[Callisto32]

208. Maybe in Commiefornia.

Ever wonder where that name came from? It has to do with the fact that pretty much everything is more restricted there than most other places.

[aikoaiko]

44. I think the primary reason for a DL is to verify operational status.

Not criminal investigation per se although they are often useful that way.


Finger prints are too far for me.

In order for registration to be at all tolerable to me, I'd have to get a whole lot more from the anti-gun side.

[sharesunited]

12. Here's your compromise. Stop selling new guns and ammo. Let the existing supply suffice.

[Taverner]

14. You just proved my point...

Sigh...

[slackmaster]

22. sharesunited wants only wealthy and politically connected people to be able to get firearms

And of course the government can have all the guns it wants.

The poor can fend for themselves.

[sharesunited]

31. Some poor people turn in their guns in exchange for cash.

[slackmaster]

33. A pittance that they will be forced to spend on bus fares, check cashing fees, and overpriced single

Rolls of toilet paper, assuming they don't get robbed first by professional criminals who will NEVER give up their weapons.

[sharesunited]

35. Fewer guns means fewer criminals. You love guns too much.

[slackmaster]

39. Two unsupported conclusions in one sentence:

1. Guns cause ordinary people to turn into criminals, and

2. Guns distribute themselves randomly, so the more guns there are in circulation, the more likely an innocent person will come into contact with one and be turned into a criminal.

[Taitertots]

45. The trend in the US has been more guns and less crime

Your hypothesis is demonstrably false.

[Taverner]

69. Make sure you are not confusing causation and correlation

Guns don't have much effect on stopping crimes

Guns don't have much effect on starting crimes either

It's a tool, like a baseball bat, grenade or nailgun

[Taitertots]

174. It makes sense as a response to "Fewer guns means fewer criminals"

I don't think more guns cause there to be less crime. However, there are dramatically more guns than ever before and crime has trended downward.


It is not like a tool. Where there are more 2x4s, it is a good bet there are more carpenters. The amount of guns is not a determining factor of the amount of criminals.

[rrneck]

87. Fewer guns means fewer criminals.

Bullshit.

Prove it.

[GreenStormCloud]

119. No, fewer guns means criminals will switch to other deadly weapons,

and the older people, and weaker people will be helpless against the young, strong thugs. Fewer guns will embolden violent criminals because the will be sure that their victims are unarmed and can't really fight back.

[guardian]

130. Have any data to back that up? n/t

[shadowrider]

47. Here, fixed it for you

Some poor people turn in their JUNK guns in exchange for cash, while they keep the good stuff.

[Caliman73]

71. Poor people also sell their blood for cash...what's your point?

Poor people suffer many more indignities and infringements on their rights than do wealthy people. Your arguments as usual, are without merit.

[katzenjammers]

136. Ah, the Barney Fife rationale. No, thanks.

sheesh

[no_hypocrisy]

17. My theory is guns haven't changed. People have.

Back in the Fifties, teenage boys could walk around our town with rifles, loaded but not cocked, for the purpose of shooting bottles or cans they found. They understood gun safety and would not use them on people for any reason.

Now it just feels like with all the fear, anger, and hyperparanoia, people with weapons are more likely to use them for any stupid reason: parking place, not winning an argument, love gone wrong, illusions of racial/cultural dominance, loss of manhood, fear of control, etc.

And since you can't tell someone with calm nerves from someone who is unpredictable, you end up restricting guns to everyone.

[Taverner]

20. I like the idea of firearms training in Jr High

Yes, this will get a lot of 'boos' here but chances are, one of those Jr Highers might need that information

[PavePusher]

73. In many of the places I've lived...

Your first example still applies.

Why have people become so fearful?

And why is it so often assumed that "the government should do something"....

[kenny blankenship]

21. Out there is the middle ground...

See if you can make it across. The other name for this patch is No Man's Land.

Let us know if the folk on the other side are happy to see you.

[Xithras]

26. I oppose firearm licensing. I have no problem with owner licensing.

There is a middle ground, and most of the gun owners I know fall solidly into it. I believe solidly that the "well regulated militia" that the second amendment refers to is talking about common citizens. Still, we must not overlook the words "well regulated".

I've always been of the opinion that there is nothing wrong with registering gun owners. If you want a gun, you get a license. I don't even have a problem with mandatory, periodic classes to verify that the gun owner knows how to use it, understands the laws surrounding firearms ownership, etc. Issue a license, make it good for five years or so, and leave them alone.

The thing is, once you've vetted the person and verified that they're fit to own a license, why is it the governments business whether they own one gun or twelve? Handguns or rifles? Licensing the owners contributes to societies safety by blocking ownership by those who are more likely to own them for nefarious purposes. There's a real societal benefit. There is NO matching benefit when forcing owners to divulge the specific weapons they own. If society deems a person to be responsible enough to own a firearm, why should it care whether the firearm is a handgun, an SKS, or a .22?

Most of the gun owners I know don't really have a problem with the idea of licensing owners, but simply fear that it will be used as the first step down a slippery slope. If there was a way to assuage that fear, we might be able to find the middle ground you're talking about.

[Taverner]

30. Agreed

However, and maybe this is an irrational fear, but when someone has 100+ weapons in his home - I do get worried

Maybe it is nothing, but Koresh had an aresenal - and I'm GLAD we took him out

[shadowrider]

49. If someone has 100+ weapons in his/her house

I might agree that's over the top, but if they're doing nothing illegal, nothing to worry about.

[Taverner]

63. True true...

[ProgressiveProfessor]

67. High counts do not bother me in the least

Those tend to be the collectors.

[shadowrider]

68. Doesn't bother me either.

[Taverner]

96. Perhaps - and maybe "collector" should be an identification

But how do you know they are not plotting revolution?

I understand the collector - I've known many (they tend to be techies)

But how do you separate them from those who do wish to overthrow the state?

[flamin lib]

159. Collectors "(they tend to be techies)

What, you know me??? Looking through my mail are you?

But seriously, that seems to be the case. Collectors of anything from Star Wars figurines to firearms tend to more involved in the details than the function.

[Llewlladdwr]

64. The Branch Davidians in Waco had fewer firearms per capita...

than the average Texas household.

[Taverner]

97. Bullshit. They had enough ammo to create an explosion

Hence, what happened


It was a cult, and the only people who kept firearms were the "guards"

But they had a lot of ammo

They were preparing for Armageddon. And since "Armageddon" as the bible states it will never happen, unless some cult starts it (think: Branch Davidians) it's not gonna happen.

[GreenStormCloud]

121. Read his post again.

He said, "...per capita...". Take the number of guns in the compound and divide by the number of adults and you get fewer guns per person than the average Texas household. The reason it was so many, as an absolute amount, was that there were so many adults in the compound. Fewer guns per person but LOTS of people equals a who lot of guns.

[PavePusher]

210. Ah. The explosion that would not have occured...

if Federal thugs hadn't firebombed them? That explosion?

Sigh.

[shadowrider]

211. Yup, that'd be the one

[PavePusher]

74. What are they going to do with 100 guns...

that they can't do with 4 or 5 guns?

Quantity is not the issue.

P.S. Koresh, however much you may have abhored his political/religous beliefs, never did anything wrong or threatening. Is it really O.K. to "take... out" someone who merely makes you uncomfortable? Along with dozens of innocents? Please, think over your reply most carefully....

[ProgressiveProfessor]

82. Collectors are an interesting breed

A friend has every variant of the Lee-Enfield and Mosin-Nagant and no semi auto rifles at all. He has close to 150 weapons total. All are functional, but only 2-3 see any real use.

[PavePusher]

85. That is a collection...

that I would buy a ticket to see.

[shadowrider]

84. IIRC, the siege at his compound was initiated by reports of child abuse

It was never proven before things got hot (pun intended). The arsenal he lawfully kept was an afterthought. I may be wrong. At my age, I find it difficult to remember what I had for breakfast this morning.

[Taverner]

91. They were doing more than child abuse

Child Abuse was just the first thing they could get a warrant for

True, the FBI should have built their case more before they tried to make an arrest - but Koresh's compound was not a "Church" as the RW would have you believe

[one-eyed fat man]

213. Koresh could have been arrested in a dozen other ways.

What was supposed to happen, (remember the ATF alerted a TV news team to be there) two bus loads of ATF agents storm the house like an episode of "Cops", and then there would be tables full of "evil assault weapons" with them pretending they were machine guns all on the 6 o'clock news.

ATF's budget hearings were going on, how about a nice big high visibility raid on "wacko cultists" to show how relevant they were?

No independent authority has ever been allowed to see the weapons the ATF claimed were illegal machine guns. It was ugly, nasty and poorly handled. Koresh may have been a megalomaniacal leader of a cult, but seventy-six people including more than 20 children, two pregnant women, and 24 British nationals died in the fire the FBI set off. That is a lot of 'collateral damage' to get one alleged child molester.

[oneshooter]

114. I have 200+ in my collection.

They range from Revolutionary War muskets and pistols, to rifles and pistols from Mr Lincoln's War, to WW1 and WW2 weapons. Are are housed in fireproof safes that weigh 250+ lbs empty, and are bolted to a concrete slab floor.
Why should/would you be worried about them?

Oneshooter
Armed and Livin in Texas

[Travis Coates]

145. I remember reading somewhere

that the average Branch Davidian had 2 firearms while the average Texan had 4

[X_Digger]

34. Would you feel the same way about a voting license?

Or a 'free association' license? I'm not a religious person, but I'd object to a religious license.

Why must this right be licensed when others can't be (Talley v California, etc)?

[Xithras]

48. Because the Second is the only amendment...

...that does grant society the right to regulate it.

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.

"Militia" is clearly defined in the Constitution, and means every able bodied citizen.

"Regulated", in the 18th century, had a different meaning than it does today. It didn't mean "pass laws about", it meant "discliplined" and "well trained". The Second Amendment does not simply grant a blanket right, but hinges that right on the necessity for society to be able to defend itself, and use their firearms properly. That's all licensing should do...verify that modern gun owners are "well regulated". Ensure that they know how to use their guns safely (well trained), and know when and where their use is appropriate (disciplined).

Of the ten original rights included in the Constitution, one was written for the benefit of the state governments (Amd. 10), and eight were written specifically to protect the rights of the individual. The second amendment is the ONLY amendment within the bill of rights that pins its protected right on the safety of society as a whole. It says, quite clearly, that you don't have the right because it's an individual right (like speech or religion), but because free ownership of firearms is ultimately beneficial for all of society.

You're thinking of "licensing" from the perspective of a "gun permit", where government is "allowing" you to own a firearm. I understand that there are strong legal and philosophical objections to that kind of thinking. I'm thinking of it more from the perspective of "proof that you're 'well regulated'", which fits into the Constitutions existing requirements within the second amendment.

[X_Digger]

52. That's why the right must be protected, yes.

However, the reason for protecting the right does not limit the right itself.

Various state constitutions written at the same time as the second amendment make it clearer, with language like 'in defense of self and state' etc. That doesn't mean that by not including it in the federal amendment that it wasn't understood to be an individual right.

All nine supreme court justices in the 2008 Heller cases agreed that it was an individual right, they just disagreed as to the amount it could be infringed without falling afoul of the protection the second sets out.

Actually, CRA (civil rights act) II (1866)..

The Civil Rights Act II (1866) passed after the 14th amendment would seem to dispute the 20th century idea of a link between the second and a militia..

"the right . . . to have full and equal benefit of all laws . . . concerning personal liberty, personal security . . . including the constitutional right to bear arms, shall be secured to and enjoyed by all the citizens."

(I had occasion to read the debates from that congress recently, and I clipped that from it.)

[PavePusher]

76. Massive Fail. n/t

[Taverner]

95. Not. At. All.

"well regulated" does not mean "stands in a formation"

Regulated meant exactly what it meant back then, today

[PavePusher]

149. Sorry, I should have been clearer.

I was not disagreeing with the definition of "regulated", the O.P. actually got that correct.

The problem is when s/he seems to think that the Amendment is only about "militia"s, and has nothing tho do with "the people".

[Taverner]

94. Is owning a gun a right or a privilege?

Although you can argue "right" Xithras makes a good argument that it is a privilege associated with a right.

[Abq_Sarah]

166. The bill of rights

Are not privileges.

A privilege is revocable and granted by government. Our rights are not granted to us by a benevolent government. The entire purpose of our government is to protect our rights.

[Taverner]

185. Not so fast...

The 1st amendment "shall not be infringed"

However, the 2nd amendment indicates a "well regulated" posse. That means it it not an inalienable right, like free speech...

Which means it might fall under (but not necessarily) privilege as opposed to right...

[X_Digger]

186. Err.. 1st.. "Congress shall pass no law"

The rest? What are you smoking, and can I have some?

"well regulated" at the time, and in this context meant 'well functioning'-

http://armsandthelaw.com/archives/WellRegulatedinold%20literature.pdf

In Item 1, Anne Newport Royall commented in 1822 that Huntsville, Alabama was becoming quite civilized and prosperous, with a “fine fire engine” and a “well regulated company”. I suppose one could make the case that the firefighters were especially subject to rules and laws, but the passage is more coherent if read, “They have a very fine fire engine, and a properly operating company.”

William Thackary’s 1848 novel (item 4) uses the term “well-regulated person”. The story is that of Major Dobbin, who had been remiss in visiting his family. Thackary’s comment is to the effect that any well-regulated person would blame the major for this. Clearly, in this context, well-regulated has nothing to do with government rules and laws. It can only be interpreted as “properly operating” or “ideal state”.

In 1861, author George Curtis (item 5), has one of his characters, apparently a moneyhungry person, praising his son for being sensible, and carefully considering money in making his marriage plans. He states that “every well-regulated person considers the matter from a pecuniary point of view.” Again, this cannot logically be interpreted as a person especially subject to government control. It can only be read as “properly operating”.

Edmund Yates certainly has to be accepted as an articulate and educated writer, quite capable of properly expressing his meaning. In 1884 (item 6), he references a person who was apparently not “strictly well-regulated”. The context makes any reading other that “properly operating” or “in his ideal state” impossible.

Secondly, let's look at the preamble to the Bill of Rights-

The Conventions of a number of the States having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best insure the beneficent ends of its institution.

The Bill of Rights was intended as a 'the government shall not' document- "to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers"- not a 'the people can' document. Rights aren't limited by the bill of rights; rather the scope of protections of certain rights are set. If the Bill of Rights were a listing of all a person's rights, there would be no need for the ninth and tenth amendments ("The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." and "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." respectively.)

And finally, let's look at the second amendment itself-

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.

Who does the right belong to? The militia? No, the people. See US v. Verdugo-Urquirdez for the salient definition of 'the people'.

Grammatically this can be broken down into two clauses- a prefatory clause and an operative clause. Similar wording can be found in other writing of the time, though it's fallen out of favor these days. For comparison, see Rhode Island's constitution, Article I, Section 20- "The liberty of the press being essential to the security of freedom in a state, any person may publish sentiments on any subject..". That construction- '{reason}, {statement}' exists today, but we usually swap the clauses- "I'm going to the supermarket, I'm completely out of soda." or we add in a 'because' or 'since'- "Since I'm completely out of soda, I'm going to the supermarket." or "I'm going to the supermarket because I'm completely out of soda."

I know that complex English is lost in today's twitter-ful and facebook-y terseness, but it really does pay to read older documents when you want to analyze what a sentence from that era actually means.

So with the point from the first section, the second section in mind, and rearranging the clauses per the third would yield a modern restatement of the second amendment as-

"Because a well functioning militia is necessary to state security, the government shall not interfere with the right of the people to be armed."

or

"The government shall not interfere with the right of the people to be armed because a well functioning militia is necessary to state security."

Nothing in either of those statements says that arms are only for militia service, rather the ability to raise an effective militia is _why_ protecting the right to be armed is protected. Since we know from the preamble (and the 9th/10th amendment) that the bill of rights is not exhaustive, we have to look outside the bill of rights itself to see if the founding fathers expected this right to extend beyond militia service.

State analogues of the second amendment that were adopted in the same timeframe give a clue-

http://www.davekopel.com/2A/LawRev/WhatStateConstitutionsTeach.htm (sections rearranged by me)

The present-day Pennsylvania Constitution, using language adopted in 1790, declares: "The right of the citizens to bear arms in defence of themselves and the State shall not be questioned."

Vermont: Adopted in 1777, the Vermont Constitution closely tracks the Pennsylvania Constitution.<15> It states "That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the State.."

Kentucky: The 1792 Kentucky constitution was nearly contemporaneous with the Second Amendment, which was ratified in 1791.<32> Kentucky declared: "That the right of the citizens to bear arms in defence of themselves and the State, shall not be questioned."

Delaware: "A person has the right to keep and bear arms for the defense of self, family, home and State, and for hunting and recreational use."

Alabama: The Alabama Constitution, adopted in 1819, guarantees "that every citizen has a right to bear arms in defense of himself and the state"

Arizona and Washington: These states were among the last to be admitted to the Union.<55>* Their right to arms language is identical: "The right of the individual citizen to bear arms in defense of himself, or the state, shall not be impaired, but nothing in this section shall be construed as authorizing individuals or corporations to organize, maintain or employ an armed body of men."<56>

Illinois: "Subject only to the police power, the right of the individual citizen to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."<89>**

So from analagous documents created by many of the same founding fathers or their peers, the individual right unconnected to militia service is fairly well laid out.

* Admittedly, not analogous in time to the others, but still demonstrates the point.
** same

You should read other cases such as US v Cruikshank ("This right is not a right granted by the Constitution . . . neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence.") or Presser v Illinois (""the States cannot, even laying the constitutional provision in question out of view, prohibit the people from keeping and bearing arms, as so to deprive the United States of their rightful resource for maintaining the public security and disable the people from performing their duty to the general government.")

[Callisto32]

209. Oooo, I'm good at this game.

You forgot the important part at the end:

"The right of the people"

Rule 1: A word used in a statute means the same thing throughout.

The tenth amendment shows that we are talking about individual, natural people by explicitly separating them from the corporate, governmental entitles the Untied States and the states.

"shall not be infringed."

Rule 2: When interpreting statutes, if the words have plain meaning on their face, we favor that meaning.

Shall not be infringed is strong language, absolute even. It is much stronger than the much loved first amendment protections that are preceded by operative language, (as distinct from a prefatory clause, upon which you hang your hat) stating "Congress shall make no law." Note that only congress is limited here, rather than a simply "shall not be infringed." Theoretically, as long as it isn't congress passing a law, there is no facial constitutional protection against the action. Not so with the 2nd.

The Pennsylvania constitution is even more direct and strong. It states that "The right of the citizens to bear arms in defense of themselves and the State shall not be questioned." Personally, I like this better than the federal version.

[Arkansas Granny]

43. I fully support being licensed in order to buy firearms and ammunition.

You have to have a license to drive, fish, hunt or perform any number of occupations. I don't see having a license to own a gun should be any more of an inconvenience.

I don't see a need to register weapons as long as you have established that it is legal for you to own one (or more).

[ProgressiveProfessor]

53. I would take it a little differently...I support a firearms owners ID card so there is no waiting

period. Just a call to verify the number is valid. Not mandatory, would not record serial numbers of weapons, but would be useful.

[PavePusher]

78. Please show me your First Amendment licence...

or your registered books.

[Caliman73]

89. I would not oppose some sort of credential

California has a Basic Handgun Safety Certificate, which you need to purchase handguns. There is no requirement for long arms. I don't have a problem with that, although as someone else cited, it should be tied to "no waiting period". In California you have a 10 day wait no matter how many firearms you already have. The first time I can see, because you may be buying for emotional reasons and you have that "cooling off" period (although the efficacy is dicey). After you have 2 or 3, I am pretty sure if you were in some sort of passionate need for a gun, you would wait for the one you are buying as opposed to the two you have.

However, people have licenses to fish, hunt, and perform occupations because of the State and Federal governments' desire for quality control. You have to show your license and your catch or kill because you are typically on State of BLM lands when you hunt. They license to prevent over fishing and hunting. If you own land or a water source with your own fish or game, you do not need a license to hunt or fish on your own property.

If you are going to keep a firearm for self defense which 80% of owners do, why should you have to be licensed to keep it in your home? You do not have to have a license to own a knife, a bat, household chemicals, or a swimming pool which are all more likely to be involved in injury or death than firearms.

[Euromutt]

113. Leaving aside constitutional issues, I agree in principle

I'm entirely on board with your reasoning that, if the state, acting in the interest of its citizens, has established that a given individual can be trusted with any firearm, the number and precise nature of the weapons that individual owns is immaterial.

Most of the gun owners I know don't really have a problem with the idea of licensing owners, but simply fear that it will be used as the first step down a slippery slope. If there was a way to assuage that fear, we might be able to find the middle ground you're talking about.

Absolutely.
The main reason I don't like the idea of gun owner licensing in practice is because there have been a few too many instances in the past of such schemes being perverted by members of the executive branch to create de facto bans by the expedient of making it difficult to impossible to meet the requirements, e.g. by not holding the required classes, or holding them at awkward times with little to no notice, etc.

If we could get some kind of general acknowledgment from the gun control lobby, and members of the legislative and executive branches of government who sympathize with them, that self-defense is legitimate reason for possessing a firearm, and that government cannot legitimately seek to deprive its citizens of the means of self-defense when it will not accept responsibility for their safety, and that this needs to be a fundamental and non-negotiable premise on which to consider gun control measures, then we can talk.

[oneshooter]

115. Do you also agree with voter licensing? n/t

[DonP]

122. We've done that in Illinois. It isn't helping.

Our Illinois Firearm Owners ID card (FOID) is essentially licensing the owner. No one is allowed to buy a gun or ammo or even touch them at a store or gun show without showing their FOID card.

Take a look at the Chicago murder numbers and you'll see how effective that approach is.

The people that are the problem using guns are not going to abide by any "compromise" or "middle ground" or any other sort of official regulation you place on ownership.

If their goal is to rob the local "stop and rob", they will shoot the place up if it strikes their fancy at the moment.

We keep trying to solve a problem with deep roots in social problems (street violence) with increasingly complex and useless laws that only serve to piss off all the law abiding gun owners.

More licensing, more registration etc. are not the answer. They just give authoritarians like Daley the tools they need to control citizens with no other recourse for protecting themselves, like Otis McDonald.

SCOTUS has made it clear a number of times that the police are not in any way responsible for protecting you from criminals or other threats, unless you are in custody.

People like Daley make sure that you have no other recourse... and then won't hire the 1000 police that the department is short of today and won't assign them to patrol the dangerous areas for "those people".

[Kitsune]

27. I don't know about fingerprint registration, but I'd support mandatory safety training.

And I think a lot of gun rights advocates would agree, because despite the stereotype of the gun-toting yahoo, most people who are serious about firearms are also serious about firearm safety. It would probably cut down on accidental gun injury or death if everyone who owned a gun took mandatory gun safety courses. To use the car analogy, we don't let people drive until they've passed a safety test, and I'd wager most people remember the horrible gory safety videos from driver's ed. I don't see why a gun safety course couldn't function in exactly the same way.

[X_Digger]

37. You can't legislate away stupid, unfortunately

I've taught basic pistol safety to a lot of friends and family, and everyone I know who has a gun is familiar with gun safety.

I can strongly recommend it, but I can't endorse requiring it.

I'd prefer that the local sheriff's department ran free gun safety classes.

Good news is that accidental shootings are at their lowest point since the 1950's per the national safety institute (or national insurance institute, can't find the cite right now.)

[TexasObserver]

29. There is. It's where most citizens are.

Which is "yes, we have a second amendment right to own a gun, but no, that's not an unfettered right."

[seabeyond]

36. a lot of people, majority for middle ground. arent we in middle ground

you have the extreme that say take all guns away, small percentage. you hvae the right saying they are going ot take away. but most all gun owners i know are into laws on it and they respectfully follow those laws.

i see us sitting in the middle ground

now, there might have been a law recently repealed, i am not remembering, so i might need a reminder on that

[X_Digger]

41. Trends in opinions have changed over time.. here's some interesting data..

http://www.gallup.com/poll/117361/recent-shootings-gun-control-support-fading.aspx



And a bit more recently..

http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/04/08/gun.control.poll/

Now, a recent poll reveals a sudden drop -- only 39 percent of Americans now favor stricter gun laws, according to a new CNN/Opinion Research Corporation poll.

[onehandle]

38. What? You don't want to go there and be dismissed as a 'racist?'

If'n yer not 100% wit'em, yer agin'em.

And a racist, apparently.

[proteus_lives]

168. Nohandle complaining about people believing in absolutes?

Teapot calling kettle!

:rofl:

[Arkansas Granny]

40. I would like to see a system set up where a person who wanted to purchase

a gun would be issued a license for the sole purpose of purchasing firearms and ammunition. In order to get a license, a person would have to pass a gun safety course, establish identity and have a background check. The license number would be put in a database and checked anytime it was used to see if it was still valid (much like running your DL during a traffic stop). The gun could be registered to that person through the license at the time of purchase or not, depending on whether registration is required or not.

You have to have a license to drive, fish, hunt or perform any number of professions, why not to own firearms?

[ProgressiveProfessor]

54. The problem with your approach is the licensing of a right

Driving on public roads is a privilege, same with fishing and hunting. I do not need a license to vote, speak out on issues, worship or not worship as I choose.

[safeinOhio]

60. but you do have to register to vote.nt

[ProgressiveProfessor]

66. But I dont have to show a picture ID and be approved by the Government

[AtheistCrusader]

77. You do in WA.

[pipoman]

164. This is actually an excellent point

Usually gun control discussions like this are framed as a national issue, it is now and should be mostly a state issue. IMHO..The feds should be given a fine, extremely liberal/limited line in the regulation or limitation of a constitutional right. Everyone knows and understands constitutional rights can and possibly should have some limitations the vast majority should be state mandated and regulated. Those state restrictions are always subject to challenge on a basis of constitutionality.

This really isn't directed at you personally, your post just brought to mind this string of thoughts..

[PavePusher]

80. Proof of citizenship.

No fees.

No background check.

No finger prints.

No references.

You can vote in all elections in your district.

No "government approval" of your vote.

[Taverner]

101. Proof of Citizenship is from PATRIOT act

FYI

[PavePusher]

152. For voting? Ummm.... did I miss a memo?

When I registered to vote (well before 9-11-2001), I had to demonstrate proof of citizenship.

[Taverner]

162. No to buy a gun

So much for the sacred 2nd ammendment under Republicans...

[PavePusher]

167. Every time I have bought a gun, I have had to prove Citizenship.

In two states.

Or am I missing your meaning?

[Taverner]

177. Yes - I am agreeing with you - however a NATIONAL citizenship check is due to the PATRIOT act

[PavePusher]

181. Gotchya. Sorry for the misunderstanding. n/t

[PavePusher]

79. May I see your Thirteenth Amendment licence please? n/t

[Taverner]

109. Point taken - but the 2nd amendment does specify "regulated"

13th amendment prohibits slavery, no ifs ands or buts.

[shadowrider]

110. You missed the point.

If you want to regulate one right, you must regulate them all. You can't pick and choose which ones you want "watered down".

People in this forum that support 2A rights support ALL rights, not just ones that suit us.

[Taverner]

111. "Well Regulated Militia"

That argues for gun regulation

Granted, it also argues for gun proliferation

I agree with both

[OneTenthofOnePercent]

124. "Regulation" (circa 2010) =/= "Well Regulated" (circa 1776)

"Well regulated" as stated in the 2A is synonymous to "well fuctioning" or "effective".
Quite obviously, a well functioning Militia requires working/effective firearms to defend freedom.
The preface of the 2A offers only one such reason people have the right to bear arms.

An example,
A well regulated cellphone, being necessary to the ease of communication, the right of The People to keep and bear chargers, shall not be infringed.

Does that statement indicate that cellphones or chargers should be regulated? No.
It indicates that The People have a right to keep/use cellphone charges in order to maintain ease of communication.

[Taverner]

127. Regulation means Government Oversight

Like there should be over any public affair

If you want to use the MicroUzi, check in with the relevant folks so that everyone knows you are going to use it

I have no problem with registration - if that's all it is for

If you want to use a SubMachine gun to blow away clay pigeons, so be it. Just make sure those in your area know you are doing it.

That's all I want.

[OneTenthofOnePercent]

128. I have no arguments there.

I'm merely stating that when the founders wrote "well regulated" they did not mean "regulation" as you are implying. Their use of the term "well regulated" was an adjective to describe The Militia as "functional". For example, in 1776-speak a "well regulated clock" was a clock that kept proper time. The language back then was slightly different. It's kind of like reading Shakespeare... there are alot of modern words Shakespeare used that need put into context or the message becomes altered for 21 century readers.

PS: submachineguns ARE highly regulated and they are registered.
I myself own a MAC 9mm submachinegun. It's alot of fun. :shrug:

PPS: shooting clays with one would be asinine. You can't just fire rifled projectiles arbitrarily through the air.
They will travel thousands of yards before coming down hilling something/someone.
Although it is dream of mine to shoot clays with my MAC in some remote ravine someday with the safety of a backstop.

[Taverner]

129. All the more reason I would want to check with property owners about this!

I am just saying - lets just say the US Government took a "Guns will be guns" attitude

Shoot the gun you want, as long as you have the permits legislation

Have an entire industry based on property owners where by you can shoot WHATEVER GUN YOU WANT as long as the ammo has no chance of shooting somebody in an adjoining parcel

I understand that is not how things are...but what if they could be? IN a "middle ground" way

[OneTenthofOnePercent]

137. wrong reply. self delete. (n/t)

[Taverner]

139. Look I'm not anti-gun

I do not own one

But I think everyone should be able to own whatever gun they want

If they want a Machine Gun - Fully Auto - shit, my dream gun - a MICROUZI! - it should be available to anyone.

I just want some record, with a fingerprint done on the barrel, and then go at it!

If you want to shoot it without hurting anyone - go for it!

-----------------------

And I am not convinced at all, that the government should be the caretaker of such a list

In fact I wonder if we could do it "listless"

I'm not asking for the improbable here - I'm just asking for a way that, if a murder happens, we can link it back using gun fingerprints.

And I am asking for a way for cops to have a better idea of what situation they are getting into. Yeah, outlaws have guns. But if we are talking Mister Jones and his wife, Missus Jones - and there is a domestic disturbance - if they have a gun, that is good information for the cops to know.

My dad was a cop. As many arguments we got (get) into, he always said he wanted to know who had what when he went where he went. This is a start.



------------------------

And - more imporantly - I am asking that those who can buy guns are instructed in safety.

I think a Jr High School class on guns would be helpful

I think a course for those who haven't been in a safety program in Jr High would be nice for those who want to buy guns

[PavePusher]

151. Even if your aurgument held any validity...

the regulation part is in reference to the militia, not the arms.

[flamin lib]

158. That's the dumbest thing I've ever heard in my life.

If you regulate one you have to regulate all? Bull shit. Yes, we can choose which "rights" to regulate or change.

19th Amendment changed the 3%th rule. That's only ONE part of the original Constitution and it didn't change all the others, did it?

Voting rights act? Woman's suffrage? Equal protection? Any of them change the rest of the Constitution?

If you can't do it with legislation, with two thirds of the states you can pick and choose any goddamn "right" you want.

Besides, far too many 2Aers are only law abiding citizens because the law currently suits them.

Jeez.

[shadowrider]

171. So let me get this straight

You're all for regulating/restricting gun rights. Fair enough, it's your opinion and you're welcome to it.

If two/thirds of the states decide gay rights isn't a right and should be regulated/restricted you'd be for that?

How about restricting voting rights by 2/3 of the states adopting a measure that says you must own property, pass a civics test, have at least a high school education and know the 3 branches of government. Would you be for that?

Or do you just want restrictions on the 2nd?

[flamin lib]

176. Do I want restrictions on the 2nd?

Not particularly, I'm just really tired of the bull shit reasoning I see here in the Gungeon.

Still, everything I said about changing one right without messing with the others stands. That's why the authors of the Constitution put that provision in there.

[PavePusher]

182. "Besides, far too many 2Aers are only law abiding citizens because the law currently suits them."

Interesting accusation there.

What exactly do you mean by it, and what is your evidence?

[flamin lib]

184. From personal experience and from reading posts here I have reason

to believe that if a law were passed that didn't meet the Gungeon's interpretation of the 2nd it would be ignored.

Case in point. Prior to the Concealed Carry law signed by George Bush in 1995 it was illegal to carry in Texas. Upon passage a very large number of people signed up for the course. A number not surprisingly close to but smaller than the number of guns being carried illegally as estimated by law enforcement agencies.

How many Gungeoners would register their guns if the government passed a law to require it?

[X_Digger]

187. You need to check your stats..

http://www.txdps.state.tx.us/administration/crime_records/chl/ConvictionRatesReport1996.pdf

This shows that there were 4500 convictions for unlicensed carry of a firearm by the general public. That same year, there were 113,000 permit holders.

http://www.txdps.state.tx.us/administration/crime_records/chl/PDF/ActLicAndInstr/ActiveLicandInstr1996.pdf

Or are you going to hang your BS on 'as estimated' without a source?

[flamin lib]

190. Tell ya' what, I won't call you a liar if you don't call me one, okay?

These are impromptu discussions and as such we rely on the good faith of each other not to fabricate things from whole cloth. IIRC the 113,000 number was very close to the estimated number of people carrying guns BEFORE it was legal (again IIRC, TXDOT figures one in five cars has a gun in it). I didn't recall exactly what the two numbers were so I didn't quote them. The article was in the Dallas Morning News back in 1996, the year after Bush signed the bill. Anyway this means that AFTER it became legal a lot of people did the right thing and became "law abiding citizens". The fact that 4500 people were issued citations indicates that "law abiding" and gun ownership don't go hand in hand, even for people who have no intention of violating other laws with a gun.

Now, back to my other question; if registration were required by law, how many Gungeoneers would register their guns and remain "law abiding citizens"? Care to run a poll on that one?

And your BS smells just as bad as mine!

[X_Digger]

193. When you make a wild claim like that, expect to get called to back it up.

The gist being that all the first years' CHL holders were previously carrying illegally.

You do remember though, that even before 2007's motorist protection act, one could legally carry a firearm in a car, if it was in an enclosed container, not 'immediately accessible', right?*

*Travis and Harris County prosecutors not withstanding, of course- those guys loved to catch guys leaving bass pro shops and cabelas after a range trip and charge them with UCW.

[flamin lib]

195. Yeah, I remember that and also know that you can transport firearms

in an auto now--same basic restrictions I believe.

Still, as I recall the article from 14 years ago, the DMN wasn't talking about simple transport, it was drawing a correlation between the number of applications for CC and those who, either by admission or by law enforcement estimate, were carrying before it was legal.

C'mon, you and I both know people who have in the past or still do carry w/o a permit. Most are completely harmless unless, like my sister-in-law forgot she had the .22 in her purse, they try to pick up a passenger at the airport. But that's whole 'nother story and not without it's humorous points . . .

[X_Digger]

196. Actually now, it just has to be concealed.

You can keep it in the center console, or between the seats, or in the door pocket, etc. Before, Williamson, Travis, and Harris county DA's were prosecuting guys with trucks because they didn't put their handgun in the bed (the 'not immediately accessible' language).

I still don't buy your correlation. "Hey, X number is similar to Y number! They're the same people!"- just doesn't flush. Even if, for the sake of argument, I buy that there were 110,000+ people illegally carrying (and that's a big assumption considering the cops only caught 4,500), that doesn't mean that it's the same 110,000 people who were licensed that first year. Considering the scrupulousness of those 110,000 permit holders regarding other laws (see previous link to 1996 CHL crime stats) I can't make the correlation stick.

[flamin lib]

198. Okay, I can buy that absent absolute, positive, irrifutable evidence

that the number of people who apply for CC within a year of passage and the number of people estimated to carry illegally prior is pure coincidence.

I don't see it as coincidence.

All that said, isn't this a better resolution to the conversation that accusing me of spreading bullshit and intentionally trying to mislead? Could it be that there were sources 14 years ago that I couldn't quote exactly and I was offering commentary in good faith?

See, we can be civil to each other.

[X_Digger]

199. Well, I'm still chewing on that baseball sized 'grain' of salt..

.. that your recollection of a 14 year old article is correct, and that it was accurate at the time. :)

[PavePusher]

189. So, if a law was passed requiring registration of books...

or religous paraphanalia, you'd comply, right?

Somehow, I doubt you would. Niether would I.

It is a civic duty to oppose, nay, ignore, unconstitutional, unjust, ineffective laws.

Otherwise, you have a lot of civil rights advocates who need to be arrested.... But that in no way makes people criminals-in-waiting, which you seem to be trying to conflate with criminals-in-fact.

[flamin lib]

191. So, okay, lets just drop the "law abiding" bit and go on about our

discussions without that needless distraction.

BTW, I don't seriously believe that books or religious paraphernalia or guns will be registered. My whole point is that, like the other great world religions, gun fetishes don't depend on being legal unless it's convenient.

[PavePusher]

202. Your tone, word choice and continued conflations...

Pretty much rule out rational discussion from your end.

Good day to you.

[flamin lib]

203. My sincere apolgy for offending you. It isn't the first time my dry sense of

humor has gotten me in trouble. That said, the hyperbole of my sarcasm was no further out of bounds than many posted in the Gungeon but far too many of the others were quite serious.

There are, even in this forum, many who approach topics ranging from interpretation of the Constitution to the implications of SCOTUS decisions and political wins/losses with a sincere wish to understand. Several posts here have made very good points regarding the meaning of "well regulated" and how that definition might apply to RKBA. Others have floated ideas that deserve exploration.

Then there are those who, in no small number, are simply nucking futz.

I haven't considered you, personally, to among the latter. In fact I feel I owe you some loyalty and gratitude for introducing me to my latest money sink; collecting.

So please accept my public apology for misapplication of sarcasm and hyperbole.

Ya' gotta' admit, tho, that this place kinda' lends itself to over-the-topism.

[PavePusher]

204. My apologies as well...

I've been a little testy lately.

You are quite correct about the "over-the-topism", and I'm occasionally guilty off fanning the flames myself. Mea culpa.

No offense intended, none taken.

I think I need to ease back on the coffee, and posting while fatigued. Hmmmm.....

[PavePusher]

150. Sure... if you have a licence that lets you avoid slavery.

Plenty of "ifs, ands or buts", if you squint hard and are standing on your head.

Somehow we have skipped over "the right of the people" and "shall not be infringed".

Not a lot of wriggle room there either.

[flamin lib]

194. Yeah and you left out the well regulated part.

According to Madison in his letters at the time a militia would be a small cadre of well armed and well trained men to form the core of a citizen army if the need arise. I believe his phrasing was, "the best that can be hoped for is the people could be gathered from time to time and trained in arms." It's been a long time since I read the Federalist Papers so the wording may be off a bit.

For what it's worth a lot of the Constitution is left intentionally vague. Phrases like "the general welfare", that whole "right of the people vs well regulated" not to mention the 9th and 10th amendments all together. Constitutional scholars fall into four categories: some think the founders did that because they thought the document would be replaced in 20 years or so, some think they did it because they couldn't agree and left "wiggle room", some think they were tired of the yelling and fighting and just wanted to get the hell out of Philadelphia and the rest don't fit in one of the other three categories. Little humor there . . .

[slackmaster]

42. Drizzle, drazzle, drozzle, drome

Time for this one to come home.

:crazy:

[Taverner]

61. And into the dungeon it goes...

[jeepnstein]

50. Because what you propose...

does very little to fight crime. The law-abiding will register or whatever but do you really think the criminal set will suddenly decide to comply with that law any more than the legion of ones they break every day? For a sub set of our society the law is meaningless and punishment is no deterrent.

Most Americans are quite safe and reasonable with their guns despite what some would tell us. If we weren't there would literally be blood running in the streets. It's not, though. We do have criminals murdering other criminals an awful lot. We do have criminals killing normal people far too often. And yes, we have the occasional idiotic accident or lapse of good judgment. What we don't have is a culture of guys in the suburbs dueling over goodness knows what. We don't have rampant political assassination. Shoot, even our lunatic fringes aren't all that dangerous. Most of America is peaceful and quiet even though we are armed to the teeth.

Registration is a solution looking for a problem. And I can assure you that someone would eventually use registration to further trample the Constitution. Registration hasn't done a thing for the average law-abiding Briton. It won't do anything for Americans.

[seabeyond]

51. OMG.. i cant believe i stepped into the gun room. how did that happen

never been here before.

backin out

[PavePusher]

81. Don't be a bigot. n/t

[Taverner]

93. Although I think its a discussion EVERY AMERICAN needs to have

Taunting will not promote discussion

[seabeyond]

142. bah hahaha. ridiculous. you dont know squat about me. don't assume. i was teasing

granted i havent been in the gun forum, nor will i be in after this thread, because i am not interested in guns. but per the post that was in GD i did discuss this issue and my attitude about guns.

i dont like guns. hubby likes guns. he has his right to them and is responsible with them.

there is my opinion

how does that make me a bigot because i am not interested in the gun forum?

[PavePusher]

153. My sincere apology.

I read you completely wrong and have been having a pretty stressed week. Not a sufficient excuse, but it's all I have, plus me being a jerk.

We have had some experience with folks who did feel that way, and it tends to trigger a reflex in me. Sorry for the asinine accusation.

[seabeyond]

156. just a .... my oooops....., works for me.

thanks. sorry it was a stressful week, enjoy the weekend

and i hear ya with the gun reaction stuff. geeez, on du... lol, doesnt matter really what the issue is. and i too have made assumptions, occassionally. not often. i tend to ask first.

[shedevil69taz]

55. The problem with registration

is the majority of guns that are used in crime are possesed already by people who cannot legally have them, and trying to force them to register their illegal weapons would be a violation of their civil rights.

You will also never be able to convince most of us gun owners that a registration system will NEVER be used to conduct widespread confiscations considering it has already happend in parts of the country in the recent past.

The system of registering long guns in Canada has proven to be nothing more than a gigantic waste of taxpayer money, and they are currently in the process of doing away with it because it costs too much to maintain. How would a similar system here end up not suffering the same fate?

[X_Digger]

56. *nod* Here's some math..

$948,000,000 to register 8,000,000 long guns in Canada.

$X to register 245,000,000 long guns in the US.

That's still discounting that, by best estimates, less than 50% of the long guns in Canada are registered.

[The Green Manalishi]

57. Exactly

" You will also never be able to convince most of us gun owners that a registration system will NEVER be used to conduct widespread confiscations considering it has already happened in parts of the country in the recent past.'

One the right to own and carry the firearm of my choice is writ in stone, *THEN* I will be willing to discuss restrictions and requirements. Until there is zero chance that I, as a law abiding citizen might have my firearms confiscated, regardless of ANY change in state or federal law or personnel, then I'll fight any and every initiative and person that seeks any restriction. Once the bastards who would say "you can't have that" are made told to STFU in perpetuity, in unalterable legal language, then I will be quite willing to discuss mandatory training and the deepest of background checks. Until then, as with any other right, such as speech, better by far the too widespread misuse of it than the restriction of it.

[X_Digger]

58. "I would rather be exposed to the inconveniencies..

attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it."

-Thomas Jefferson

[Taverner]

62. but what if it isn't the government doing the registration?

Say, the NRA itself?

I understand the numbers, but if it can help solve crimes, wouldn't it be worth it? Confiscating guns DOES NOT solve crimes, but knowing who has what gun - and if it can be traced, it shrinks the pool of potential perps.

[X_Digger]

65. We haven't even discussed efficiency.

How many crimes has NY & MD's ballistic fingerprinting solved? One. At a cost of > $3,000,000.

How many crimes has Canada's long gun registry solved? Zero.

So how do you convince people to give up privacy, on the off chance of solving a handful of crimes, at a huge cost?

Pros:
-solve a couple of cases

Cons:
-potential abuse
-loss of privacy
-huge cost
-Can't be held against criminals (US v Haynes)

[PavePusher]

83. If I don't trust a government with my Constitutional Rights...

why should I trust a private organisation? And what guarantee do you offer that the government will never overstep its bounds?

[Taverner]

90. Good point

I mean who's to say if we give the NRA the job, that they wouldn't get overrun by gungrabbers? I love Michael Moore, but he's dead wrong on guns. And if he had his way, he'd turn it into a gungrabbing org.

How can you trust an org to stick to their mission statement...

[shedevil69taz]

86. There are many measures that COULD solve

more crimes if they were implemented, but are not because off prohibitive cost, and/or possible infringement on peoples civil rights.

[Taverner]

88. Explain....

I wanna hear

[GreenStormCloud]

125. The problem is that "unalterable legal language" is instantly altered by lawyers.

Look at the many time that there has been campaign finance reform, only to find that before the ink on the signature was dry, lawyers had found loopholes. Those who would confiscate and ban guns would twist and distort the language of any bill until them made it sound like the original bill banned guns.

[proteus_lives]

75. No, thank you.

I already got fingerprinted for my CCW permit and I was uncomfortable with that.

No one has any right to know what firearms I legally own. Just like they don't have the right to know what books I read.

[Taverner]

92. Books and Guns are different things

Unless you have a hardbound book and beat someone to death with it, it is not a weapon

And if you say "ideas can be dangerous" the book still has to pass the "school of reason" in the mind's eye

[proteus_lives]

99. It's the same to me.

It's a violation of my privacy and my rights. I have committed no crime and I don't deserve to treated like I'm going to.

Anything can be weapon.

[Taverner]

100. But your violation of rights depends on the action

Let me ask this question:

You take a test and get a license to drive a car. A car is a weapon, but was not designed as such.

Should you not take a test and get a license to own a firearm?

I have no problem with registering users instead of guns, but shouldn't there be a threshold?

[proteus_lives]

103. Should I have to take a test for voting?

For choosing my own method of worship?

Slippery slope.

I've been a firearms-owner since I was 12. I don't need to take a test.

"I have no problem with registering users instead of guns"

Stop pretending there's a difference.

[Taverner]

105. Apples and Oranges

Voting and Worshipping do not cause deaths

Using a gun does

[proteus_lives]

132. "Voting and Worshipping do not cause deaths"

What world do you live in?

[Taverner]

106. So lemme get this right - do you think driving tests are wrong?

Unconstitutional?

[proteus_lives]

133. No, because I use public roads.

But I can buy a car without a license and keep it in my garage.

[Taverner]

98. OK - let's start from square one. You are a cop. You are handling a domestic disturbance case.

Would you or would you not want to know if the home you were about to go to had a gun in it or not?

[proteus_lives]

102. The LEO might but he doesn't have the legal grounds to violate the rights of anyone living there.

Slippery slope, slippery slope.

You said in your OP, you didn't approve of the way the Brits did registration but don't you see that you're arguing for the same thing?

[Taverner]

104. The Brits went off registration logs and went house to house!

And if you had a gun, it was confiscated

A bit different than asking a gun buyer to show a license

[proteus_lives]

134. No, it's not.

A license to buy firearms means the government knows within reason you own one and can use that knowledge to violate your rights.

[Travis Coates]

147. The Brits went off registration logs and went house to house!

What makes you think the Americans won't?

[Walk away]

163. Oh my god ! They took away their guns!!! How will they live???? nt

[proteus_lives]

169. It's not about guns.

It's about choices and rights.

Two things that most people are rather concerned about.

[shadowrider]

178. I'm amazed so many are unable to grasp those simple concepts

Choice and rights

[proteus_lives]

179. I'm always amazed at the disconnect.

They'll defend every right except the right to defend yourself.

I shake my head. Astonishing.

[GreenStormCloud]

188. Rather poorly. They have a hot burglary rate much higher than ours.

I a burglar enters a British home, there is little the homeowners can do. Here, in Texas, I can help the burglar solve his life problems by being an immediate candidate for reincarnation.

[jazzhound]

200. There's a mountain of statistics that the pro-control folks love to ignore.

As I recall the hot burglary rate in Great Britain is at least three times what it is in the U.S. But of course the fact that British criminals know their victims are likely unarmed has nothing to do with this, eh? :eyes:

Pro-"control" citizens enjoy the benefit of a higher level of safety in their homes because criminals (for the most part) don't know who's armed and who isn't.

Good thing for them they're not legally compelled to own their position and post signs on their property announcing it as a "gun free zone". If they did the Great Gun Debate would end immediately.

[friendly_iconoclast]

107. And how would a cop know, if one or more had been acquired illegally?

It's not the presence of a gun that's threatening, it's the presence of a criminal with a gun that is a
marker for danger, as most crimes with guns are committed by people with prior criminal convictions.

Anything else we should give up to make the authorities more comfortable while we're at it?

[Taverner]

108. Well yeah - but if one is registered there, they would know the gun is probably there

[friendly_iconoclast]

117. Cops *always* approach domestic cases as if someone may be armed

As they are known to be quite dangerous in terms of cop-ctizen encounters, so I can't see the point of this.

[Taverner]

118. Point made - although sometimes preparing can influence the outcome

And if it does in a bad way (drawing their guns) it will make things worse...

However we are now talking about method versus the issue...

[Euromutt]

131. So what difference does it make?

A registration system isn't going to tell the cop there's an unregistered (and thus probably illegally possessed) firearm in the house, and that kind of situation is arguably the most dangerous one. So we can side-step the whole question by positing that a cop responding to a domestic disturbance is well advised to operate on the assumption that there may be a firearm present, whether or not there is a firearm registered to that residence; which obviates that particular rationale for registration.

[GreenStormCloud]

126. How will he know if the place may not have illegal guns there?

Your system won't tell him about those and it is the illegal guns that are the greatest danger to LEOs.

[jeepnstein]

173. Everyone's armed.

That's the simple rule at a domestic. You just plan on it going straight to hell from the beginning and figure that everyone's armed and emotional. Domestics are the worst for a variety of reasons. Going to one and relaxing because someone didn't bother to register their gun would be a major mistake.

[friendly_iconoclast]

120. Here's MY offer- Take the "McDonald pledge", and we'll talk.

Step up and post on some public forum yourself avowing the following:

"I believe it is the Constitutional right of every American, barring legal disqualification, to keep and bear arms
in common usage for self defense and any other legal use."

IOW, no "poll tax", no "literacy test" disguised as a "safety check".

Make that compromise, give up on gun Prohibition and we can discuss.

Until then, we should seek to render gun control organizations as irrelevant as the temperance movement.

[spin]

123. I have a concealed weapons permit. Therefore I am a registered gun owner ...

no problem.

[OneTenthofOnePercent]

138. Middle ground implies compromise...

We both meet in the middle and then quit complaining about gun laws.

So what do you guys want? What are you willing to give up for it?
Both side should be asking this question.

[Taverner]

140. Comprimise is good

Especially since we live in closer quarters since the Bill of Rights was written

[Travis Coates]

143. Has anyone pointed out the obvious yet?

That middle of the roaders don't care enough about the issue to argue about it on the internet.

[jazzhound]

144. "Fewer guns means fewer criminals. You love guns too much."

As long as the lack of sanity reflected by statements like this are common there will be no trust........and without trust we can't move toward a middle ground.

To a large extent the onus for the current stalemate falls at the feet of the VPC and Brady Bunch, since they've never renounced a possible ban on handguns for the citizenry --- a position they once advocated openly.

Works for me, though, since their strategy is backfiring.

[east texas lib]

146. I like the tattooed bar code on the gun owners forehead with matching gun tag concept...

That way, when the 'living document' crowd finally succeeds in eliminating the Second Amendment at some future date the inevitable confiscation of privately owned firearms will proceed so much more efficiently.

[PavePusher]

154. Cool! Next we can hand out these...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Judenstern_JMW.jpg




(Edit #2: another stupid insult removed as it was wrongly given. I gotta stop doing this...)


Edit: Link doesn't show for me. I will repost it slightly modified. Add ".jpg" to the end.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Judenstern_JMW

[east texas lib]

192. Thanks for the link..

Missed the barb, but I'm sure it was up to your usual standard of excellence. Strangely enough, I spend a fair amount of time doing HVAC service work and installations at the Holocaust Museum in Dallas. It is a stark, brutally effective reminder of what happens out on the sharp end of the spear whenever a nations leaders decide that certain people need to cease to exist. And it ALWAYS starts with registration and then confiscation of your popguns.

[-..__...]

148. Count me as one of those that will NEVER compromise...

never bend, never make a deal, never give up the fight... screw that!

Why should I and every other gun owner in this country accept or be willing to make any compromise or meet on "middle ground"?

While you're at it... why not go and ask in the "Woman's Rights"/"Choice" groups if there should be some "middle ground" on abortion?

How about asking in the "GLBT" group if there should be any "middle ground" on DADT/GBLT rights?

Why are gun owners being asked the ones to compromise?

It just ain't going to happen... no-fucking-way.

Right now, we're up at bat at the bottom of the 9th inning, with the bases loaded, a 3-0 count and ahead 1 to zippo.

For what possible reason should anyone expect gun owners to compromise now?

Compromise!!! LOL!

Just wait.

The SCOTUS decision in McDonald v Chicago should be announced by the end of June.

Assuming a proper decision, we're going into a double-header, and this time, we're going to be going after as many existing gun control laws as we possibly can.

[shadowrider]

170. Agreed

See my post #110 (and response #158). I said the same thing in different words.

[jazzhound]

201. +1 n/t

[gorfle]

197. Define the middle ground?

Why is there no middle ground on guns?

Look, I'm all for gun rights. Hell, I think they should repeal the Assault weapons ban.

I also like the idea of registration. And yes, I do know the history of registration in the UK - it became a who's who for a huge assault on the rights of Britons. Black and Whites went door to door with the list and just took everyone's registered firearm away.

But we don't have to have that second step - all I am asking is a fingerprint database, and some record of who owns what - just like we do with Autos.

And yes, fingerprints can be changed, just like car licenses can be changed. But its SOMETHING.

Some points:

First, the currently is no Assault Weapon Ban. It expired some time ago.

Second of all, you only have to register automobiles that are used on public property. You do not need to register, insure, or have a license for using automobiles on private property. Firearms are much the same way.

If you admit the past history of firearm registration and its use in confiscation, how can you possibly support registration or wonder why firearm owners would be highly skeptical of such a thing?

As for the "middle ground", before we can start talking about low, middle, or high grounds, we first have to have an understanding on what you think the reasoning was for putting the second amendment in the Constitution.

Only when we agree on WHY we HAVE the right to keep and bear arms can we discuss positions on gun control.

[spin]

205. I believe we have found a workable middle ground ...

The NICS background check could receive more financing to enable states to post records faster and possibly a way should be found to use the system for private sales.

Enforcing our existing gun laws would do far more good than passing new "feel good" laws.

For example there are plenty of laws on the books that prohibit violent felons from owning or carrying a firearm. Often when a felon is caught carrying, he gets a slap on the wrist with a wet noodle. There should be no plea bargaining in such cases and the offender should spend a long time in prison.

We are not at the beginning of the gun control debate as we have been arguing about this issue for years. We have reached a workable compromise after all these years.

[Callisto32]

207. It won't be effective but at least its SOMETHING!

I agree it would be doing something. Making a whole new sink for taxpayer money to disappear down the drain in would be foremost. It would lead to a massive database of people who have done nothing wrong.

The assault weapons ban had a sunset clause, it ran out in 2004. Note that the world has not ended.

It is NOT just like cars, as I need NO permission to buy, own, or operate one on my own or other private property, unlike the situation you are suggesting.

[one-eyed fat man]

212. It s simple.

Every single gun control organization has in its charter the objective of restricting all civilian firearms ownership. Let me repeat, every gun control organization was founded on the premise that all civilian firearms should be eliminated. They might quibble about which guns to grab first; whether incrementalism and attrition; or confiscation in one fell swoop is better but in the end the GOAL is unwavering, no guns except for the "anointed ones." There is no shortage of quotes where they freely admit it is not about crime, it is about guns and taking them away from the law-abiding citizen.

In fact, the assault weapons ban will have no significant effect either on the crime rate or on personal security. Nonetheless, it is a good idea . . . . Its only real justification is not to reduce crime but to desensitize the public to the regulation of weapons in preparation for their ultimate confiscation.

Charles Krauthammer (columnist), Disarm the Citizenry. But Not Yet, Washington Post, Apr. 5, 1996

We're going to have to take one step at a time, and the first step is necessarily -- given the political realities -- going to be very modest. . . . e'll have to start working again to strengthen that law, and then again to strengthen the next law, and maybe again and again. Right now, though, we'd be satisfied not with half a loaf but with a slice. Our ultimate goal -- total control of handguns in the United States -- is going to take time. . . . The first problem is to slow down the number of handguns being produced and sold in this country. The second problem is to get handguns registered. The final problem is to make possession of all handguns and all handgun ammunition-except for the military, police, licensed security guards, licensed sporting clubs, and licensed gun collectors-totally illegal.

Richard Harris, A Reporter at Large: Handguns, New Yorker, July 26, 1976, at 53, 58 (quoting Pete Shields, founder of Handgun Control, Inc.)

In October 1985, for example, Carl Rowan declared in a column that there should be a 'universal federal ban on sale, manufacture, importation and possession of handguns.' In a 1981 essay he argued on behalf of a gun control regime in which 'Anyone found in possession of a handgun except a legitimate officer of the law goes to jail -- period.' However, on June 14, 1988, the public learned that Rowan would exempt himself from this prohibition. On that date, Rowan shot and wounded -- with an unregistered .22 caliber pistol in absolute violation of the 1977 DC handgun ban -- a young intruder who had trespassed onto Rowan's property to take a dip in his swimming pool. (Now if that isn't the absolute grade A, class 1 definition of hypocrisy, what is?)

One of the arguments in the McDonald v. Chicago, now before the Supreme Court, Chicago objects that Heller’s “common use” test may include “a weapon generally in common use for lawful purposes in one locale (such as a high-powered hunting rifle with precision sighting equipment popular in rural Illinois),” this “precluding a ban on use by Chicago gangs seeking to assassinate rivals.”

This illustrates Chicago’s assumption that it can demonize and ban any firearm. Gun control advocates feed our worst “paranoid delusions” by arguing for them in reality. Then they disingenuously claim they aren’t in favor of gun bans, while they argue they ought to be able to ban any gun. And they wonder why we don’t take them in good faith?

It all boils down to this, by their own words and deeds they have shown themselves REPEATEDLY to be lying hypocrites. Their lower lip is all puffed out because we don't trust them????

Were they lying then or are they lying now?