And yet another Unconstitutional Push against the 2nd Amendment

intrepid

beezzer
But don't punish, restrict, inhibit the freedoms and liberties of everyone just because you want to control guns!

Dude, I'm using the words of the gun advocates. Not my words or anyone else. Every time a mass shooting happens the same argument comes out. "It's not the guns or responsible gun owners." OK, fine. Put in place stipulations that will minimize these peoples access to firearms. "NO way man. That infringes on gun owners rights." Uh huh. That tells me that "responsible gun owners" don't give a # about anything except their guns.

Bull-dooky.

We care about the freedom to purchase guns if we wish to.

Big difference.

Gun control advocates think that the fewer guns there are "out there" the less likely that violent crime will occur.

They know that suddenly taking all guns away from the citizenry won't work. That would cause a huge ruckus. So they incrementally pass legislation that chips away at the right to own firearms a bit at a time.

The end result in the "controllers" mind is that the guns will be eliminated over time and thus "the danger".

Problem with that is like anything else it is impossible to de-invent a thing thru legislation. Its a pipe dream.

But simultaneously lets all the hand wringers think something is being done while keeping the lid on gun owners anger about eroding their gun rights.

And that is why the second amendment uses the very word "infringement". They knew how it would play out even two hundred years ago.

reply to post by macman

There is no support for any type of serious gun control in this country. Every time some mentally disturbed loner shoots up a public place, politicians and pundits on the left will talk tough to look good to their base and on the right the politicians and pundits pretend that somebody is "trying to take our guns!" to look good to theirs.

In the end, what actually happens? The NRA gets a bunch of new members and gun sales go up. Maybe some largely symbolic act gets passed by a narrow margin and nothing really changes.

Attempts to seriously restrict gun ownership in the U.S. go waaaay back to the early 1800's. This is just one of those issues like abortion that's safe for both sides to use when they want to pander for votes because they know nothing is actually going to change.

Speaking of the NRA, they've completely flipped their position on registration and background checks:

On May 27, 1999, LaPierre testified before the House Judiciary Committee Subcommittee on Crime. The Columbine High School shooting, in which 12 high school students and one teacher were murdered, had happened a month earlier.

To rebut what he saw as a demonization of the NRA and its members, LaPierre listed a number of actions and laws he said were good policy.

First on that list was this:

"We think it's reasonable to provide mandatory instant criminal background checks for every sale at every gun show. No loopholes anywhere for anyone," he said. "That means closing the Hinckley loophole so the records of those adjudicated mentally ill are in the system. This isn't new, or a change of position, or a concession. I've been on record on this point consistently, from our national meeting in Denver, to paid national ads and position papers, to news interviews and press appearances."

He also spoke in favor of preventing juvenile felons from ever owning guns, setting up instant background checks at gun shows, and keeping schools gun-free.

There’s additional evidence, too.

New York magazine, in a January 2013 story, dug up the advertising campaign LaPierre mentioned in his testimony. Titled "Be reasonable," the NRA ads that ran in national newspapers said, "We think it's reasonable to provide for instant checks at gun shows just like at gun stores and pawn shops. But what's unreasonable is how the proposed Lautenberg legislation ignores the 250,000 prohibited people, like felons, who've walked away from gun stores — instead of being prosecuted for a federal felony for trying to buy a gun."

source

Feel free to have your buttons pushed if you like.

beezzer

intrepid

beezzer
But don't punish, restrict, inhibit the freedoms and liberties of everyone just because you want to control guns!

Dude, I'm using the words of the gun advocates. Not my words or anyone else. Every time a mass shooting happens the same argument comes out. "It's not the guns or responsible gun owners." OK, fine. Put in place stipulations that will minimize these peoples access to firearms. "NO way man. That infringes on gun owners rights." Uh huh. That tells me that "responsible gun owners" don't give a # about anything except their guns.

Bull-dooky.

We care about the freedom to purchase guns if we wish to.

Big difference.

Potential mass murderers too?

Phoenix
Most are familiar with this,

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.

In standard use of English the comma denotes separating elements in a series. The militia and people are two entirely different elements in the sentence above as found in the Constitution.

It says the "militia" is to be regulated. It says separately the people's rights shall not be infringed.

What part do-gooders, government officials and, others do not get about this plain English is really beyond me.

The founders obviously never intended ANY regulation on private ownership of arms.

They clearly intended regulation of militia due their abhorrence to standing armies.

In the part of the second amendment pertaining to "The People" please point out the EXACT wording that lets you perceive its Constitutional to limit, regulate, register or legislate anything at all to do with arms.

Show me those words please.

When you look at our history gun control and regulations were far more common in our early years then they are. A series of laws after the revolition made owning of or selling guns to certain people illegal. Blacks, Indians,certian immigrant groups, indentured servants, the poor etc. In some of the colonies law existed that people who were considered not loyal could not own guns. Much like many things in the Constitution these freedoms were only for certain people. The Goverment even conducted door to door gun census for the first hundred years. And your personal guns could be confiscated and place in a central location for town defense. In the wild west guns were banned in most towns. The militia and the people (white males) were one and the same after the revolution. Guns bans on certain groups were seem as valid since those groups were not part of the militia. Of couse like all parts of the Constitution it is up the courts to decide and that can change of the decades. Now of course we have a much more open view of the what the 2nd means, less about a well regulated militia and more about people owning guns. Now anybody and everybody has got a gun. As a responsible gun owner I wish their was some sort of mandatory safety training required along with refreshers every few years teaching people how to handle them safely and how to secure them so kids stop shooting each other.

reply to post by teslahowitzer


Okay, first, how am I "fine with it?" You act like changing the Constitution is as simple as winning a simple majority...It ain't nearly that simple. Two-Thirds is no where near a simple majority. That was my point. The "Dims" need Two-Thirds just to propose such action. Our government is set up to make that very tough.

If the "Dims" couldn't do anything right after Sandy Hook when everything, including a majority of Americans, were in favor of some form of stricter gun laws, how could they even think about abolishing the 2nd Amendment. Seriously, they did NOTHING and passed NOTHING in the aftermath of a horrific school shooting. Nothing. Nada. Zilch.

As for the current administration not giving a rats behind...What about the last administration? How about the one before that? I say the last administration took away more of our civil liberties than this one. Oh sure, they continued the policies, but who started them? The NSA didn't just start in 2008!

intrepid

beezzer

intrepid

beezzer
But don't punish, restrict, inhibit the freedoms and liberties of everyone just because you want to control guns!

Dude, I'm using the words of the gun advocates. Not my words or anyone else. Every time a mass shooting happens the same argument comes out. "It's not the guns or responsible gun owners." OK, fine. Put in place stipulations that will minimize these peoples access to firearms. "NO way man. That infringes on gun owners rights." Uh huh. That tells me that "responsible gun owners" don't give a # about anything except their guns.

Bull-dooky.

We care about the freedom to purchase guns if we wish to.

Big difference.

Potential mass murderers too?

Sadly, yes. But that is the price of freedom.

Like the 1st Amendment, imagine how polite society would be if words, phrases were banned and made illegal.

Except for those who don't care about the law, they would just say anything. Hmmmm. . . . .

beezzer

intrepid
Potential mass murderers too?

Sadly, yes. But that is the price of freedom.

Like the 1st Amendment, imagine how polite society would be if words, phrases were banned and made illegal.

Except for those who don't care about the law, they would just say anything. Hmmmm. . . . .

So you are saying that ALL those killed in mass shootings are nothing compared to YOUR right to buy a firearm?

Freedom. As long as you don't get killed. OK.

intrepid
Whoa, we got the "spin cycle" here. Every time this comes up the gun advocates say, "It's the mentally unstable, not the guns or responsible gun owners." Now we say, "OK, let's look at that closer." Gun advocates say, "Hey, that's an infringement on my rights." If so your whole gun argument goes out the window. Then it's, "I want my guns and I don't care about anything else."

Spin that.

I hear the frustration,

Its just as frustrating from a Constitutional standpoint also.

Beezer is right when talking about the price of freedom and I happen to agree. I also think the methods employed or proposed to employ on Mentally challenged individuals is also a blanket response that ensnares innocents just as effectively as those that have violent tendencies that are ignored or remain untreated due insufficient oversight by mental heath providers - it is the blanket application that's the issue for second amendment supporters.

The OP started with providing information on what amounts to a "pre-crime" law based on no real problem identified as actionable on a societal level.

How many guns homemade were used in crimes? How many P2P sales can be identified as leading to crime? How many countries in past used registration for confiscation efforts later?

This amounts to some politician doing nothing but posturing at the further expense of law abiding citizens. Those law abiding citizens who already put up with something like 20,000 laws written that are mostly useless in stopping crime or sprees.

Useless, like plea bargaining down federal weapon charges with long fixed sentences for lessor guilty pleas that push criminals right back onto the street - how about fixing that!

How about holding mental health providers responsible like bar owners are responsible for drunk driving accidents. Its readily apparent many of the spree shooters had lack of follow-up and monitoring - how about fixing that?

intrptr
Gun control advocates think that the fewer guns there are "out there" the less likely that violent crime will occur.

They know that suddenly taking all guns away from the citizenry won't work. That would cause a huge ruckus. So they incrementally pass legislation that chips away at the right to own firearms a bit at a time.

I see them trying to make money from this. Once they have a national registry they could attempt to tax per gun like a yearly registration stamp for 25$ per gun.

reply to post by Feltrick


First, I did not agree with W on a lot of topics, and again as easy it is for those that choose to look, a small chipping away at the constitution, a little at a time, bit by little bit, eventually you run out of bits. So we have an opinion difference, along with many I have encountered, I can tell you that if the house goes to the progressives (dims) you will see some changes, and the standards of this country will be challenged by socialists, anti-2nds, everyone you can think of. Just sit comfortable and enjoy, there are no threats to anything, it is all just a grand illusion to keep us all on the border of complacency and sanity, and our glorious constitutional loving leaders have nothing but the best of intentions for us deranged and thoughtless sheep whom will never be harmed in the smallest of ways. just go back to sleep, they got your back, sorry for the bother................

intrepid

beezzer

intrepid
Potential mass murderers too?

Sadly, yes. But that is the price of freedom.

Like the 1st Amendment, imagine how polite society would be if words, phrases were banned and made illegal.

Except for those who don't care about the law, they would just say anything. Hmmmm. . . . .

So you are saying that ALL those killed in mass shootings are nothing compared to YOUR right to buy a firearm?

Now who is being inflammatory?

I am saddened by every death. Not by guns either. T'is why I am begging that capital punishment be meted out to those who commit these crimes. Maybe that will stop someone from doing such horrors.

intrepid
Freedom. As long as you don't get killed. OK.

Freedom carries risks.

I don't know how to sugar-coat it for you.

beezzer
Now who is being inflammatory?

That's inflammatory? To who? Gun advocates? People that have lost loved ones to them?

I am saddened by every death. Not by guns either. T'is why I am begging that capital punishment be meted out to those who commit these crimes. Maybe that will stop someone from doing such horrors.

But will not accept any avenue that would detract from the long death list? That's a question, not a statement.

Logarock

intrptr
Gun control advocates think that the fewer guns there are "out there" the less likely that violent crime will occur.

They know that suddenly taking all guns away from the citizenry won't work. That would cause a huge ruckus. So they incrementally pass legislation that chips away at the right to own firearms a bit at a time.

I see them trying to make money from this. Once they have a national registry they could attempt to tax per gun like a yearly registration stamp for 25$ per gun.

More like keeping track of where they all are. If you sell your gun to someone nowadays you have to go thru a dealer. Forms are sent to the fed. If they pass a law tomorrow that makes a certain kind of firearm illegal, then you know they know that you have one.

If they ever declare an "emergency" then they also know where to find all the "legal" guns. Kind of defangs the Teeth behind the Republic.



Exorbitant taxes are levied on exotic weapons prior to sale. Yes the gov allows certain states to own machine guns, suppressors and grenades--- for a price.

reply to post by beezzer


Sorry my friend, and you are but that isn't freedom.

intrepid

beezzer
Now who is being inflammatory?

That's inflammatory? To who? Gun advocates? People that have lost loved ones to them?

I am saddened by every death. Not by guns either. T'is why I am begging that capital punishment be meted out to those who commit these crimes. Maybe that will stop someone from doing such horrors.

But will not accept any avenue that would detract from the long death list? That's a question, not a statement.

What part of "infringing on freedoms" don't you get?

Freedom isn't unicorn farts and rainbows. Sadly, freedom also means bad people are able to do bad things. That's why we need to punish those bad people as hard as we can.

intrepid
reply to post by beezzer

 

Tell me how you control the access to guns to mentally disturbed individuals without checks?

Its nobody's damned business if a gun owner is "mentally disturbed" or not. Who is going to make that call? What qualifies as "mentally disturbed"? There has not been nor will there ever be sufficient risk involved in arming the "mentally disturbed" to warrant removing the Right for everyone else.

beezzer
What part of "infringing on freedoms" don't you get?

I'm not debating that. I'm debating what "freedom" really means. If it means that you can buy a gun any which way you like and a dude gets killed by one in another area, or the same one for that matter, it's a pretty exclusive "freedom". Yours, not theirs.