The 2nd Amendment doesn't need to be overturned. We've already accepted that laws can be made that restrict gun ownership.

 

To those that say look at the person. Why do we have so many people in the US who use guns to kill so many people compared to the rest of the world?

 

But laws haven't been made, and previous laws that were made were overturned under a new view of the 2nd amendment as unencroachable. Any restrictions are unconstitutional.

But laws haven't been made, and previous laws that were made were overturned under a new view of the 2nd amendment as unencroachable. Any restrictions are unconstitutional.

 

Now that's simply not true. There are still restrictions on e.g. automatic weapons, short-barreled shotguns. NY state was still able to pass an "assault weapons ban," and that's held up in court so far without a problem.

Now that's simply not true. There are still restrictions on e.g. automatic weapons, short-barreled shotguns. NY state was still able to pass an "assault weapons ban," and that's held up in court so far without a problem.

 

How is it possible that a hand gun ban could be struck down under heller but an assault weapons ban would not?

But laws haven't been made, and previous laws that were made were overturned under a new view of the 2nd amendment as unencroachable. Any restrictions are unconstitutional.

 

Even the laws that are made are weak because it's not federal.

 

Oh, so you make it hard to buy a gun in Chicago/IL? If only there wasn't a bunch of neighboring states within an hour or two that have no such laws. :|

 

As for gun crime...if you nationalize ALL gun crime and make sentences mandatory WITHOUT parole, the gun violence issue will resolve itself to a great degree. As it stands, some states have weak laws -- and even states that have strong ones, we have judges that are way to lenient and/or don't care...and even when sentenced for 2 years, they'll do less than one and be out of the street again.

 

Gun crime needs to become known as a one and done issue...get caught with an illegal gun, even if you didn't use it in a crime...say goodbye.

Even the laws that are made are weak because it's not federal.

 

Oh, so you make it hard to buy a gun in Chicago/IL? If only there wasn't a bunch of neighboring states within an hour or two that have no such laws. :|

 

As for gun crime...if you nationalize ALL gun crime and make sentences mandatory WITHOUT parole, the gun violence issue will resolve itself to a great degree. As it stands, some states have weak laws -- and even states that have strong ones, we have judges that are way to lenient and/or don't care...and even when sentenced for 2 years, they'll do less than one and be out of the street again.

 

Gun crime needs to become known as a one and done issue...get caught with an illegal gun, even if you didn't use it in a crime...say goodbye.

 

I agree with you, it needs to be done federally, with Chicago as a great example.

 

The second part I'm not sure how that could be handled. I don't think all gun crime could be handled under federal jurisdiction

I agree with you, it needs to be done federally, with Chicago as a great example.

 

The second part I'm not sure how that could be handled. I don't think all gun crime could be handled under federal jurisdiction

 

We claim to be a smart country -- if we're actually that smart, I'm sure our "smart" lawmakers could come up with something.

I agree with you that it isn't going to happen, but people actually advocating for it to happen puts appropriate pressure. When the only pressure is background checks, it's easy to stall. When background checks are the lesser of pressures from people actually wanting to buy back all guns (me), it may finally start doing something.

What kind of background checks are you referring to? because you do go thru one now with the NICS. Antis always scream about 'universal background checks' as if nobody ever gets checked and I would wager that most have no clue what they mean or are asking for. So a real question, what are you referring to?

How is it possible that a hand gun ban could be struck down under heller but an assault weapons ban would not?

 

Heller was the trigger lock ban but, more importantly, the first time an individual right to a firearm was explicitly laid out. McDonald was the Chicago handgun ban case that incorporated the 2nd to the states, and a later case forced Illinois to be the last state to allow concealed carry.

 

I don't know the intracicies of these cases, so I can't tell you why NYS's AWB is okay but Chicago's handgun ban wasn't--I think it boils down to a "self-defense" argument, but I'm not entirely sure. I've only ever read Heller, and both the majority and the dissent were examples of why judges pretending to be historians is really bad, but the finding in that case wasn't "any ban on guns whatsoever is unconstitutional."

Antis

 

Do you believe that anyone should be allowed to own any type of gun or are you an anti?

 

 

Do you believe that anyone should be allowed to own any type of gun or are you an anti?

Quit playing semantics tex. By antis I usually refer to people that want to ban all or almost all guns.

 

edit: To answer that, no i don't believe EVERYONE should be able to own ANY type of gun. People who have gone thru the legal system and have lost their rights are forbidden already, and automatic weapons are also a no no. There should also be a way to prevent people with certain mental health issues from obtaining them, but you would need to figure a way to balance that with medical privacy laws.

Edited June 17, 20169 yr by Alpha Dog

What kind of background checks are you referring to? because you do go thru one now with the NICS. Antis always scream about 'universal background checks' as if nobody ever gets checked and I would wager that most have no clue what they mean or are asking for. So a real question, what are you referring to?

 

Background check people want to extend it to private sales. I don't care about background checks. I would prefer a much more thorough credit score like system that would never get implemented

 

Long rambling facebook post? Knock to your gun credit score

Drunk in Public? Knock to your gun credit score

Domestic Violence charge? astronomical knock.

 

Credit score drops below 650, state takes your gun, pays you interest for time held. If your gun credit score improves you get gun back and on probation until you get out of the yellow zone.

 

There are versions of this that could be especially helpful, like colorful yellow bracelets that say "Hey, I just got my gun back, but I'm the yellow zone".

You know what would be nice to help figure out the best way to reduce the mass casualty capacity of many legal guns? If we could study it.

 

The technical pointed questions are a deflection. Some handguns can fire faster than rifles, extended clips can hold more bullets, yes. But the point is not a single gun is dangerous, but why can't we regulate deadly weapons such as guns to reduce their power to inflict mass casualties in these situations? Nothing in the 2A says we can't dictate the ammunition capacity and amount of bullets fired in a certain time frame. If people hack it, they hack it, but at least it would be illegal to hack it.

 

We can of course, do this, and the balance of freedom to own tools that do this vs the risk that it poses to society seems clearly tilted toward regulation.

 

That said, unlike others, I literally do favor a gun buyback and constitutional amendment to overturn the 2nd amendment. I'll settle for less, but it's time. I get there is a nostalgia factor. And I think there is plenty of room to allow people to have guns, but the 2A is so absolute that it obstructs it and I'd favor removing that right of citizenship.

 

Um, you mean like the laws that make it illegal to shoot people?

Quit playing semantics tex. By antis I usually refer to people that want to ban all or almost all guns.

 

edit: To answer that, no i don't believe EVERYONE should be able to own ANY type of gun. People who have gone thru the legal system and have lost their rights are forbidden already, and automatic weapons are also a no no. There should also be a way to prevent people with certain mental health issues from obtaining them, but you would need to figure a way to balance that with medical privacy laws.

 

So stop using the semantics.

 

It's not semantics for me it's an attempt to show that gun owners aren't these crazy everyone should have any gun they want types. The typical antis aren't every gun should be banned type either. Using those terms paints a very unrealistic picture and gets us nowhere. The vast majority of Americans have the same goal, stop these thousands of murders. How we get to that is the argument. If we focus on what we have in common, and the common goal, instead of generalizing and labeling, we may actually accomplish something.

Quit playing semantics tex. By antis I usually refer to people that want to ban all or almost all guns.

 

edit: To answer that, no i don't believe EVERYONE should be able to own ANY type of gun. People who have gone thru the legal system and have lost their rights are forbidden already, and automatic weapons are also a no no. There should also be a way to prevent people with certain mental health issues from obtaining them, but you would need to figure a way to balance that with medical privacy laws.

 

Alpha, I'm admittedly not savvy on the intricacies of gun purchases, but my understanding is that a private seller can transfer a firearm to a private buyer without need for background check, licensing, etc. Assuming that my understanding is correct, doesn't that kind of undermine the system and allow for guns to fall into unqualified hands? Is there a problem with licensing and titling firearms like we do with vehicles?

Unfortunately, short of a total or near-total ban on handguns, you aren't going to put much of a dent in total firearms deaths.

Um, you mean like the laws that make it illegal to shoot people?

 

It's not illegal to own a gun. It would be illegal to have a gun outside the restrictions set.

Background check people want to extend it to private sales. I don't care about background checks. I would prefer a much more thorough credit score like system that would never get implemented

 

Long rambling facebook post? Knock to your gun credit score

Drunk in Public? Knock to your gun credit score

Domestic Violence charge? astronomical knock.

 

Credit score drops below 650, state takes your gun, pays you interest for time held. If your gun credit score improves you get gun back and on probation until you get out of the yellow zone.

 

There are versions of this that could be especially helpful, like colorful yellow bracelets that say "Hey, I just got my gun back, but I'm the yellow zone".

A few states have tried checks for private sales. The bills originally started out pretty simple as in 'you sell to person A they need a background check from NICS before you can sell'. However by the time each of those got voted on, they were loaded with so many extra stuff that made them draconian, such as some examples I mentioned before. Seattle has rules that seriously make it a felony if I let you hold my gun. And you would have committed a felony by handing it back. That is how loosely they defined 'transfer'. it would be a felony for a father to let his son shoot his gun, even if he is of age. That to me isn't the so-called common sense.

 

As for your credit score idea, interesting, but would never fly as it would be considered registration.

Did anyone hear more follow-up on the report that the owners of the store that sold the guns to the guy in Orlando called the FBI to report him, and the FBI ignored it?

It's not illegal to own a gun. It would be illegal to have a gun outside the restrictions set.

 

But if you're a psycho intent on mass killings you're clearly not worried about legal consequences so...

Edited June 17, 20169 yr by JenksIsMyHero

Alpha, I'm admittedly not savvy on the intricacies of gun purchases, but my understanding is that a private seller can transfer a firearm to a private buyer without need for background check, licensing, etc. Assuming that my understanding is correct, doesn't that kind of undermine the system and allow for guns to fall into unqualified hands? Is there a problem with licensing and titling firearms like we do with vehicles?

You are correct, private sales do not need a check. That is what politicians who clamor for universal background check are talking about, but they always make it seem as if nobody anywhere gets any check whatsoever. There are private sellers that make people do background checks. And if the sale is across state lines, it is supposed to go thru a licensed dealer and a background checks. What little studying has been done, however, shows that most criminals steal their guns or buy them from some not so clean people. The type that would ignore any universal background check laws.

We also have to consider that some of these sales represent an exchange of less than $100. So the economics of registration is so much different than cars. How much is reasonable to spend registering an item that costs so little?

We also have to consider that some of these sales represent an exchange of less than $100. So the economics of registration is so much different than cars. How much is reasonable to spend registering an item that costs so little?

Gun shops will charge from $30 to $60 for a transer fee. Most I have seen are $40.

Gun shops will charge from $30 to $60 for a transer fee. Most I have seen are $40.

 

Seems ridiculous to me on a private sale.

Seems ridiculous to me on a private sale.

They justify it because they have to submit the paperwork, run the NICS check, log the gun as inventory in and then inventory out and maintain those records in 100% perfect state for ATF or risk fines, jail and/or closure should something be wrong on the forms.

Did anyone hear more follow-up on the report that the owners of the store that sold the guns to the guy in Orlando called the FBI to report him, and the FBI ignored it?

 

I thought I saw that the gun shop didn't have the guy's name, address, or any other identifying information, and the video footage was not of the greatest quality. I also thought I saw that the tape has since been wiped in the ordinary course of business, so they can't verify anything re: the video. I'm not sure what the FBI could have done with that.

 

Sidenote, the "See Something, Say Something" mantra has always seemed like it's probably not that helpful to me. I don't envy the amount of noise those guys likely have to sift through.