A Model for Effective Gun Control: The CHL

[scott]

Obviously, gun control is subject to a lot of debate and will be in the coming months.

One of the big challenges in this debate is overcoming the meme that the idea of "control" is another way of saying "ban". This false equivalence gets the discussion off it's rails and prevents any meaningful progress. Similarly, calls to ban guns (by those who actually want to ban them) are counter-productive and prevent any meaningful progress.

As with most topics, everyone is quick to become a constitutional scholar when national events occur, but an overlooked aspect to the 2nd Amendment (and furthermore any part of the bill of rights) is that no part of the constitution gives the citizenry the unfettered and unrestricted right to anything. Rights are granted with the understanding the Government reserves the right to regulate where there exists a reasonable societal interest. A perfect example is how yelling "fire" in a crowded theater is not protected by a person's First Amendment rights. The Supreme Court is clear when it comes to guns, the people do have a right to bear arms, but at the same time the government does have the authority to regulate.

The all-or-nothing rhetoric ("Ban all guns!" / "Arm everyone") does nothing to serve the purpose of real reform. It is in the best interest of the government to gain better control of who has access to firearms. Yes, it is easier said than done. And yes, it will be a multi-generation process. But as it stands today, we have more controls on who can drive a car and who can vote than who can get a firearm. That's a signal that something is wrong here.

A great example of effective gun control has been the Concealed Handgun License. To receive it you must take a class, pass a test and have a license in good standing (much like a license to drive). Without arguing the merits of how well classes are taught, this is a good first step in getting better control over who is authorized to carry a weapon. Those caught in the unlicensed possession of a firearm should face strict penalties.

Will this stop illegal firearm possession and use overnight? No, but it a good first step.

Another good step is FOR EVERYONE to start treating guns are serious things that need to be explained to every American child so they grow up with the proper respect for the damage a gun can inflict.

Yesterday's piece by Dr. Aaron E. Carroll show gives an example of how we've let the industry put sales over safety, and it is not acceptable.


One of the things I do as a pediatrician is "anticipatory guidance." We ask questions about issues that have not yet occurred but might occur in the future. A lot of anticipatory guidance focuses on injury prevention. We might ask about bike helmets, or swimming, or fire alarms in the house. I even ask about guns in the home.

I don't ask this question because I'm eager to lecture patients or parents on the morality of owning guns, or the rights of individuals under the Second Amendment. I'm asking because I'm trying to prevent injury or death. The No. 3 killer of children age 10-14 is suicide; the fourth is homicide. The No. 2 killer of children age 15-19 is homicide; No. 3 is suicide.

I have been trained to ask parents if they have a gun in the home. If they do, I ask how it's stored. I strongly recommend that they keep it unloaded, locked up, and that they store the bullets separately. I do this because guns are part of almost 85% of homicides and more than 45% of suicides in kids 5 to 19 years old. This doesn't even account for injuries not resulting in death.

Yet recent laws have attempted to stop pediatricians from doing even this.

The rest of his editorial, found here (http://www.cnn.com/2012/12/18/opinion/carroll-mental-health/index.html), is definitely worth the read. Carroll makes the point that crafting legislation around unspeakable tragedies like these miss a bigger point - there are other tragedies happening every day that we can prevent, and those are what we should craft legislation towards.


While what happened in Newtown is a horrific occurrence, it represents the exception, not the norm, with respect to gun violence in the United States. While I welcome the opportunity for us to address the problem, I hope we focus on how we might best help all our children, not just those who make the national news.

It's time we invest in mental health care in America.

It's also time we regulate guns the same we we've chosen to regulate driving, AT A BARE MINIMUM. The CHL has proven an effective model, and can be enhanced to identify people who absolutely should NOT have a gun.

Thoughts?

[vy65]

nvm. I'm an idiot

[TeyshaBlue]

I completely understand the role of regulating a constitutional right. I also think it's tougher to do in an environment that is apparently corrosive to the 4th amendment. The 2nd and 4th play off against each other. As one is weakened the other should be bolstered.
That being said, I don't think that line of thinking necessarily precludes a CHL approach to gun ownership. But the health of the 4th amendment makes it a much tougher sell than it should be.

[DMC]

It's never going to happen where farmers and old coots go get fingerprinted and attend gun law classes and proficiency training in order to have the guns their grandfather passed down to them. For many, guns are all black, evil things. For many others they are as much a part of their lives as a fishing rod.

If you don't want to own or carry a gun, don't. Everyone is so ready to give up rights they don't use.

The call for "everyone to start" doing anything is fruitless. That's not a legitimate step as it cannot simply be applied. You might as well say "the next step is for people to stop shooting each other".

[boutons_deux]

b/g checks: no arrest record in past 5 years, no domestic abuse or other violence complaints in 10 years, not taking any psychoactive or sleeping pills.

Any violations of the background checks by gun owners will cause confiscation of all guns and ammo.

50% sales tax on all guns and ammo.

All guns must have s/n. Any owner, gun holder whose gun has no s/n is fined $10K and the gun confiscated.

All guns must have title of ownership and certified bill of sale which must be transferred when gun is sold.

All guns sold must be registered to a named owner.

The title/owner database will be national.

An annual ownership registration renewal fee must be paid, 10% of the "blue book" price.

All guns purchasers must first take and pass a gun owership/operation course before the gun is delivered.

[Drachen]

b/g checks: no arrest record in past 5 years, no domestic abuse or other violence complaints in 10 years, not taking any psychoactive or sleeping pills.

Any violations of the background checks by gun owners will cause confiscation of all guns and ammo.

50% sales tax on all guns and ammo.

All guns must have s/n. Any owner, gun holder whose gun has no s/n is fined $10K and the gun confiscated.

All guns must have title of ownership and certified bill of sale which must be transferred when gun is sold.

All guns sold must be registered to a named owner.

The title/owner database will be national.

An annual ownership registration renewal fee must be paid, 10% of the "blue book" price.

All guns purchasers must first take and pass a gun owership/operation course before the gun is delivered.

10% every year? :lol

Do you pay 1000 bucks every year to register your car?

[baseline bum]

God boutons is fucking retarded. smh

[boutons_deux]

10% every year? :lol

Do you pay 1000 bucks every year to register your car?

Bexar county registration was $70 for me a few weeks ago.

Speaking of cars, Federal law, not state, should lower the driver's alcohol max level to 0.05, not the alcohol-industry-friendly 0.08.

[Drachen]

Bexar county registration was $70 for me a few weeks ago.

Speaking of cars, Federal law, not state, should lower the driver's alcohol max level to 0.05, not the alcohol-industry-friendly 0.08.

Ok, well I am assuming that the blue book for your car isn't $700... Do you see the disparity here?

[TeyshaBlue]

Ok, well I am assuming that the blue book for your car isn't $700... Do you see the disparity here?

lol

[Drachen]

BTW, I like the CHL idea. The main resistance will be from those who think that their AR-15 is going to stop an M1 Abrams or an MQ-1 Predator and that the CHL courses and registration are just the government's way of getting a list together of who to take out first.

[boutons_deux]

Ok, well I am assuming that the blue book for your car isn't $700... Do you see the disparity here?

taxes on cars are usage taxes

my proposed regulations and red-tape nightmare and penalties for gun ownership are to dissuade (not ban) gun ownership, which should not be any easier to obtain than an abortion in a Repug/Confederate state.

[Drachen]

taxes on cars are usage taxes

my proposed regulations and red-tape nightmare and penalties for gun ownership are to dissuade (not ban) gun ownership, which should not be any easier to obtain than an abortion in a Repug/Confederate state.


Oh ok, so instead of making progress, you want to stand on your soapbox and cry. I see.

Ugh, I feel like Bizzaro Icarus. TeyshaBlue how long before this wears off?

[baseline bum]

BTW, I like the CHL idea. The main resistance will be from those who think that their AR-15 is going to stop an M1 Abrams or an MQ-1 Predator and that the CHL courses and registration are just the government's way of getting a list together of who to take out first.

I hate this line of thought that disregards the whole purpose of the second amendment. The US military can easily lose guerrila wars. I mean, see Vietnam or our occupation of Afghanistan.

[TeyshaBlue]

Oh ok, so instead of making progress, you want to stand on your soapbox and cry. I see.

Ugh, I feel like Bizzaro Icarus. TeyshaBlue how long before this wears off?

The only cure I know of is more cowbell.

[Drachen]

I hate this line of thought that disregards the whole purpose of the second amendment. The US military can easily lose guerrila wars. I mean, see Vietnam or our occupation of Afghanistan.

Oh yeah, you are talking about unpopular occupations of NOT OUR HOMELAND 12,000 miles away. Exact same thing.

[boutons_deux]

Oh ok, so instead of making progress, you want to stand on your soapbox and cry. I see.



soapbox cry? no, just proposing to make gun ownership onerous AND expensive.

[boutons_deux]

just proposing some regulations for a "well regulated" guns-and-ammo industry, in contrast with the 40% of all guns sales with no b/g check.

[boutons_deux]

7 States Where Gun Sales Are Surging Since the Sandy Hook School Shooting
1. Connecticut.
2. Viriginia
3. Florida.
4. Texas.
5. Colorado. I
6. California.
7. Louisiana

http://www.alternet.org/tea-party-and-right/7-states-where-gun-sales-are-surging-sandy-hook-school-shootings?akid=9825.187590.tPtmfo&rd=1&src=newsletter763880&t=7

[baseline bum]

Oh yeah, you are talking about unpopular occupations of NOT OUR HOMELAND 12,000 miles away. Exact same thing.

It is pretty similar, unless you're arguing that our military would carpet-bomb our cities.

[Drachen]

It is pretty similar, unless you're arguing that our military would carpet-bomb our cities.

So in this scenario, the government is so evil that it must be overthrown, but isn't evil enough to put down the resistance?

[baseline bum]

So in this scenario, the government is so evil that it must be overthrown, but isn't evil enough to put down the resistance?

The senators can't fly the planes.

[Drachen]

The senators can't fly the planes.

Ok, so the citizenry doesn't need guns because the military is on their side.

[scott]

I hate this line of thought that disregards the whole purpose of the second amendment. The US military can easily lose guerrila wars. I mean, see Vietnam or our occupation of Afghanistan.

We need not restrict the idea to concealed handguns, but the way we regulate concealed handguns is much better than the way we currently regulate assault rifles. It should be harder for someone to get an AR-15 than a pistol, not easier.

[Wild Cobra]

We need not restrict the idea to concealed handguns, but the way we regulate concealed handguns is much better than the way we currently regulate assault rifles. It should be harder for someone to get an AR-15 than a pistol, not easier.
We will never agree. People kill people. The gun is just a tool for doing that. How about stiffer deterrents against the people committing the crimes?

[boutons_deux]

"How about stiffer deterrents against the people committing the crimes?"

state execution hasn't deterred crime.

[CosmicCowboy]

The thought of gun registration scares me. It really only accomplished two things. First it tells the government how many and what type of guns law abiding citizens have. Second, it tells them how much force they will want to bring with them if they ever decide to take the guns from law abiding citizens. The criminals are going to have unregistered guns anyway.

[scott]

We will never agree. People kill people. The gun is just a tool for doing that. How about stiffer deterrents against the people committing the crimes?

Maybe SUPER LIFE IMPRISONMENT? Or SUPER DEATH PENALTY?

Cool suggestions.

[scott]

The thought of gun registration scares me. It really only accomplished two things. First it tells the government how many and what type of guns law abiding citizens have. Second, it tells them how much force they will want to bring with them if they ever decide to take the guns from law abiding citizens. The criminals are going to have unregistered guns anyway.

They'll always have more force than you. Is this a real concern of yours?

[TheSanityAnnex]

We need not restrict the idea to concealed handguns, but the way we regulate concealed handguns is much better than the way we currently regulate assault rifles. It should be harder for someone to get an AR-15 than a pistol, not easier.
Ever looked into how many people are actually murdered a year with an "assault rifle"? 2x more people are murdered each year by a blunt object than an assault rifle, 3x as many people are murdered by fists and feet than an assault rifle. Lets ban all fists and feet!

[Wild Cobra]

Maybe SUPER LIFE IMPRISONMENT? Or SUPER DEATH PENALTY?

Cool suggestions.
How about actually imposing the death penalty, and quickly. It doesn't happen very much these days.

[CosmicCowboy]

Hell, I'm going by Academy on the way home to see if they have any Mossberg 715T's left. That was going to be my next toy purchase...add a laser and a hologram sight for a ranch plinking gun. Heard today that academy is going to sell out of semi-automatic rifles and not restock.

[boutons_deux]

But Real Men, equipped with Full Dicklessness, Insecure Masculinity, diseased pot bellies, need Real Guns.

[Wild Cobra]

But Real Men, equipped with Full Dicklessness, Insecure Masculinity, diseased pot bellies, need Real Guns.
I would say the family man need to protect himself from those you just described.

[johnsmith]

How about actually imposing the death penalty, and quickly. It doesn't happen very much these days.

The Colorado theatre shooter has tried to kill himself a few times while in jail now.....and most of the time these guys kill themselves the day of......so you're idea prolly wouldn't help.

[johnsmith]

But Real Men, equipped with Full Dicklessness, Insecure Masculinity, diseased pot bellies, need Real Guns.

Gun control issues aside, you sound like a giant pussy.

[CosmicCowboy]

They'll always have more force than you. Is this a real concern of yours?

Not me. I don't have any guns to register...:lol

[scott]

Ever looked into how many people are actually murdered a year with an "assault rifle"? 2x more people are murdered each year by a blunt object than an assault rifle, 3x as many people are murdered by fists and feet than an assault rifle. Lets ban all fists and feet!

Again with the false equivalence of "control" with "ban", well done.

[scott]

How about actually imposing the death penalty, and quickly. It doesn't happen very much these days.

You think that will be a real deterrent? Right.

[TheSanityAnnex]

Again with the false equivalence of "control" with "ban", well done.
My bad.....let's control fists and feet by making everyone register them.

[scott]

My bad.....let's control fists and feet by making everyone register them.

I'll play your game.

Since registration is pointless, why bother with cars? Or deeds and titles?

Why restrict our ownership of nuclear weapons? If you outlaw Nukes, only outlaws will have Nukes.

[scott]

Furthermore, are some of you suggestion that the CHL is an onerous restriction to gun ownership and should be done away with?

[cantthinkofanything]

My bad.....let's control fists and feet by making everyone register them.

I already have to do this.

[boutons_deux]

Gun control issues aside, you sound like a giant pussy.

This one giant pussy you dickless right winger don't ever want to meet in person. btw, you'll be overjoyed to know my mother is still dead.

[TeyshaBlue]

Oooooo scary bot!:lmao:lmao

[CosmicCowboy]

I'll play your game.

Since registration is pointless, why bother with cars? Or deeds and titles?

Why restrict our ownership of nuclear weapons? If you outlaw Nukes, only outlaws will have Nukes.

Didn't stop north Korea and Iran...:p:

[CosmicCowboy]

Furthermore, are some of you suggestion that the CHL is an onerous restriction to gun ownership and should be done away with?

Not at all. CHL is a VOLUNTARY registration in exchange for broader legal rights to carry a weapon.

[TheSanityAnnex]

I'll play your game.

Since registration is pointless, why bother with cars? Or deeds and titles?

Why restrict our ownership of nuclear weapons? If you outlaw Nukes, only outlaws will have Nukes.i only brought up fists and feet murders to show they've done more harm than the rifle you deemed so dangerous. I really don't mind the registration thing, I live in California and am used to getting anally raped every time I purchase a new firearm. It would be nothing new to me.

Basically my stance on it is this, I'll never give up my guns. They can pry them from my dead hand. I have a feeling there are millions more who feel the same way.

[vy65]

I'll play your game.

Since registration is pointless, why bother with cars? Or deeds and titles?

Why restrict our ownership of nuclear weapons? If you outlaw Nukes, only outlaws will have Nukes.

That's a pretty specious analogy. Title to property (whether its a car or land) helps determine who has an ownership interest. I don't think anyone believes registering a car makes people driver safer.

You're arguing for licensing as a way to control who has and ultimately can use guns. That goal (restrictions on use) is way harder to accomplish with licensing. Registration makes sense when you want to know who has a lien on my car or whether there's an easement on land I want to buy. It doesn't make sense when you want to restrict people's use of a thing.

[johnsmith]

This one giant pussy you dickless right winger don't ever want to meet in person. btw, you'll be overjoyed to know my mother is still dead.

:lmao

[scott]

i only brought up fists and feet murders to show they've done more harm than the rifle you deemed so dangerous. I really don't mind the registration thing, I live in California and am used to getting anally raped every time I purchase a new firearm. It would be nothing new to me.

Basically my stance on it is this, I'll never give up my guns. They can pry them from my dead hand. I have a feeling there are millions more who feel the same way.

And the original point of my thread was to make it clear that there was no intent to make you give up your guns. Again, there is the false equivalence.

[scott]

That's a pretty specious analogy. Title to property (whether its a car or land) helps determine who has an ownership interest. I don't think anyone believes registering a car makes people driver safer.

You're arguing for licensing as a way to control who has and ultimately can use guns. That goal (restrictions on use) is way harder to accomplish with licensing. Registration makes sense when you want to know who has a lien on my car or whether there's an easement on land I want to buy. It doesn't make sense when you want to restrict people's use of a thing.

The point with the licensing is less about controlling, and more about educating. We don't let just anyone drive a car - they have to take classes and pass tests to prove they are not endangering others. Do people still drive cars illegally? Yes, but is anyone willing to argue that we are not safer in having the driver's license system we have?

[scott]

Not at all. CHL is a VOLUNTARY registration in exchange for broader legal rights to carry a weapon.

Why not just let you carry a weapon without the CHL?

[Wild Cobra]

Why not just let you carry a weapon without the CHL?
You can. The CHL allows you to conceal it.

Are you familiar with the first second amendment by chance? Open carry is legal without a CHL.

[CosmicCowboy]

Why not just let you carry a weapon without the CHL?

I would prefer that.

[CosmicCowboy]

You can. The CHL allows you to conceal it.

Are you familiar with the first amendment by chance? Open carry is legal without a CHL.

LMAO

If you think open carry is legal then strap on your six gun and go to the grocery store and see what happens.

[scott]

I would prefer that.

So the CHL process is an onerous burden to your gun rights?

[vy65]

The point with the licensing is less about controlling, and more about educating. We don't let just anyone drive a car - they have to take classes and pass tests to prove they are not endangering others. Do people still drive cars illegally? Yes, but is anyone willing to argue that we are not safer in having the driver's license system we have?

No offense, but I really don't see gun education as accomplishing much.

I disagree with the whole premise of this conversation - I think we need to have a serious conversation about outright bans; licensing just rearrange's the titanic's deck chairs. I don't find the argument that people won't agree to them to be compelling (people made the same sort of claims regarding segregation). But I don't want to derail the thread

[scott]

You can. The CHL allows you to conceal it.

Are you familiar with the first amendment by chance? Open carry is legal without a CHL.

RIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIGHT.

Not even legal in Texas.

Thanks for your contributions, Wild Cobra.

[Wild Cobra]

RIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIGHT.

Not even legal in Texas.

Thanks for your contributions, Wild Cobra.
Then the Texas law is unconstitutional. Also, I meant 2nd amendment.

[scott]

No offense, but I really don't see gun education as accomplishing much.

I disagree with the whole premise of this conversation - I think we need to have a serious conversation about outright bans; licensing just rearrange's the titanic's deck chairs. I don't find the argument that people won't agree to them to be compelling (people made the same sort of claims regarding segregation). But I don't want to derail the thread

Not trying to be a dick here when I say this: I suggest a thread on an outright ban. The discussion would be interesting.

[CosmicCowboy]

So the CHL process is an onerous burden to your gun rights?

Don't try to chump on me, Scott. Onerous is a little dramatic. As a general rule I resent any governmental interference that I consider is an infringement on me as a law abiding citizen.

[vy65]

Then the Texas law is unconstitutional.

Oliver W. Holmes. The W stands for "Wild Cobra"

[scott]

Then the Texas law is unconstitutional.

District of Columbia v. Heller (2008):

"We find that they guarantee the individual right to possess and carry weapons in case of confrontation. However, like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose." -Justice Antoine Scalia

Wherever you got your ConLaw degree from, Wild Cobra, you should ask for a refund.

[CosmicCowboy]

Then the Texas law is unconstitutional. Also, I meant 2nd amendment.

WC, open carry is not legal. Really.

[spurs_fan_in_exile]

Wait, if he's dickless why would he be happy to meet a giant pussy? Isn't that one of those ironic tragedies like Burgess Meredith breaking his glasses on The Twilight Zone?

[scott]

Don't try to chump on me, Scott. Onerous is a little dramatic. As a general rule I resent any governmental interference that I consider is an infringement on me as a law abiding citizen.

But you do acknowledge that there exists non-law abiding citizens, and that there exists a governmental interest to regulate certain activities, right?

[Wild Cobra]

District of Columbia v. Heller (2008):

"We find that they guarantee the individual right to possess and carry weapons in case of confrontation. However, like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose." -Justice Antoine Scalia

Wherever you got your ConLaw degree from, Wild Cobra, you should ask for a refund.
Yes...

[spurs_fan_in_exile]

And an honest question from someone with no real knowledge of the gun licensing process, CHL or otherwise, do they have questions regarding the applicant's medical (physical and mental) history? Family's medical history? How deep do they really go?

[CosmicCowboy]

But you do acknowledge that there exists non-law abiding citizens, and that there exists a governmental interest to regulate certain activities, right?

I fully understand that there are non-law abiding citizens that do not honor existing gun regulations and use guns to commit crimes. That being said, the only good justification for the gun law is to give law enforcement something to bust bad guys on if they can't prove the larger crime...kind of like convicting Al Capone on tax evasion.

[scott]

And an honest question from someone with no real knowledge of the gun licensing process, CHL or otherwise, do they have questions regarding the applicant's medical (physical and mental) history? Family's medical history? How deep do they really go?

Generally speaking, background checks do not involve mental health investigations, and there is some debate over whether including mental heath databases would be a violation of HIPAA.

[scott]

Yes...

Just when I think you couldn't possibly get any more fucking stupid...

[Wild Cobra]

Just when I think you couldn't possibly get any more fucking stupid...
Please stop looking in that mirror.

[CosmicCowboy]

BTW, I am correcting myself. Open carry is legal in some states.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/4/40/OpenCarryUnited_States.png/300px-OpenCarryUnited_States.png


(yellow) Permissive Open Carry State
(green) Licensed Open Carry State
(orange) Anomalous Open Carry State
(red) Non-permissive Open Carry State

[spurs_fan_in_exile]

Generally speaking, background checks do not involve mental health investigations, and there is some debate over whether including mental heath databases would be a violation of HIPAA.

More or less what I thought. Thanks, scott.

[Juggity]

I'm actually on board with boutons's suggestions vis a vis gun regulation. Guns should be much harder to obtain than they are.

Disincentivizing gun ownership via taxation and heavy regulation is a good way to make it financially painful and a burden for people to get guns. It'd accomplish the goal of getting a lot of guns off the street. And as we all are aware, given the correlation between enactment of gun control laws and a reduction of gun crime, it seems clear that fewer guns on the street probably leads to fewer incidents of gun crime.

[TeyshaBlue]

The point with the licensing is less about controlling, and more about educating. We don't let just anyone drive a car - they have to take classes and pass tests to prove they are not endangering others. Do people still drive cars illegally? Yes, but is anyone willing to argue that we are not safer in having the driver's license system we have?

I drive in DFW. That's not the most cogent argument you could use.:p:

[boutons_deux]

Camden gun owners turn in record 1,100 guns after Connecticut shootingsGun owners could turn in up to three guns and receive up to $250 for each.

Of the $156,000 spent during the buy-back event, $110,000 came from criminal forfeitures.

Funds left over from previous cash-for-guns events and future forfeitures were expected to cover the rest.

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2012/12/19/camden-gun-owners-turn-in-record-1100-guns-after-connecticut-shootings/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+TheRawStory+%28The+Raw+Story% 29

[TeyshaBlue]

I'm actually on board with boutons's suggestions vis a vis gun regulation. Guns should be much harder to obtain than they are.

Disincentivizing gun ownership via taxation and heavy regulation is a good way to make it financially painful and a burden for people to get guns. It'd accomplish the goal of getting a lot of guns off the street. And as we all are aware, given the correlation between enactment of gun control laws and a reduction of gun crime, it seems clear that fewer guns on the street probably leads to fewer incidents of gun crime.

lol

[TeyshaBlue]

I'm pretty sure I don't want an enlightened progressive packing.:lol

http://twitchy.com/2012/12/18/actress-marg-helgenberger-one-can-only-hope-nra-members-get-shot/

[Spurminator]

Whoops, I responded to Juggity as if he was serious. Long day.

[TeyshaBlue]

I think the only thing this would accomplish right now is that more people would start purchasing guns on the black market.

Exactly.

[TeyshaBlue]

Good luck getting registration info then...and the "sin" taxes (lol).

[boutons_deux]

Why Isn't The Media Discussing The Unprecedented Law Giving Gun Makers And Dealers Immunity?


As major media outlets report on gun violence prevention strategies in the wake of the Newtown tragedy, they have ignored a controversial law that shields the firearms industry from being held accountable.

http://mediamatters.org/static/images/item/bush-plcaa.jpg

In 2005, former President George W. Bush signed into law the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act - the "No. 1 legislative priority of the National Rifle Association (http://www.nytimes.com/2005/10/21/politics/21guns.html?_r=0)" - which immunized gun makers and dealers from civil lawsuits for the crimes committed with the products they sell, a significant barrier to a comprehensive gun violence prevention strategy. Despite its recent reporting on proposed efforts to prevent another tragedy like the one in Newtown, major newspapers and evening television news have not explained this significant legal immunity, according to a Media Matters search of Nexis.


Faced with an increasing number of successful (http://www.bradycenter.org/xshare/bcen/lap/articles/vice-avoiding-dismissal.pdf) lawsuits over reckless business practices that funneled (http://www.bradycampaign.org/media/press/view/1426) guns into the hands of criminals, the 2005 immunity law was a victory for the NRA, which "lobbied lawmakers intensely (http://www.nytimes.com/2005/10/21/politics/21guns.html?_r=0)" to shield gun makers and dealers from personal injury law. As described by Erwin Chemerinsky, a leading constitutional scholar and the Dean of the University of California-Irvine School of Law, by eliminating this route for victims to hold the gun industry accountable in court, the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act was a complete deviation from basic "principles of products liability (http://www.law.com/jsp/nlj/PubArticleNLJ.jsp?id=1202571381862&Assault_weapons_in_the_cross_hairs_&slreturn=20121116110931)":

http://mediamatters.org/blog/2012/12/19/why-isnt-the-media-discussing-the-unprecedented/191910

[Spurminator]

God damn, boutons, you really suck at sticking to a topic.

[Spurminator]

Could registration for assault weapon ownership lead to profiling? And if so, would that be a bad thing?

[TeyshaBlue]

Could registration for assault weapon ownership lead to profiling? And if so, would that be a bad thing?

I think profiling is a natural outcome of information gathering, so yeah. And as an activity, no it's not a bad thing. It depends upon the action taken on the info.

[boutons_deux]

God damn, boutons, you really suck at sticking to a topic.

TB :lol GFY

[boutons_deux]

If if each step of the distribution chain was liable for breaking my regulations above, we'd be in much better shape.

explosives and some pesticides and herbicides are more regulated than assault weapons.

[TeyshaBlue]

TB :lol GFY

Fuck, you can't even get the name right.

[vy65]

Why Isn't The Media Discussing The Unprecedented Law Giving Gun Makers And Dealers Immunity?


As major media outlets report on gun violence prevention strategies in the wake of the Newtown tragedy, they have ignored a controversial law that shields the firearms industry from being held accountable.

http://mediamatters.org/static/images/item/bush-plcaa.jpg

In 2005, former President George W. Bush signed into law the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act - the "No. 1 legislative priority of the National Rifle Association (http://www.nytimes.com/2005/10/21/politics/21guns.html?_r=0)" - which immunized gun makers and dealers from civil lawsuits for the crimes committed with the products they sell, a significant barrier to a comprehensive gun violence prevention strategy. Despite its recent reporting on proposed efforts to prevent another tragedy like the one in Newtown, major newspapers and evening television news have not explained this significant legal immunity, according to a Media Matters search of Nexis.


Faced with an increasing number of successful (http://www.bradycenter.org/xshare/bcen/lap/articles/vice-avoiding-dismissal.pdf) lawsuits over reckless business practices that funneled (http://www.bradycampaign.org/media/press/view/1426) guns into the hands of criminals, the 2005 immunity law was a victory for the NRA, which "lobbied lawmakers intensely (http://www.nytimes.com/2005/10/21/politics/21guns.html?_r=0)" to shield gun makers and dealers from personal injury law. As described by Erwin Chemerinsky, a leading constitutional scholar and the Dean of the University of California-Irvine School of Law, by eliminating this route for victims to hold the gun industry accountable in court, the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act was a complete deviation from basic "principles of products liability (http://www.law.com/jsp/nlj/PubArticleNLJ.jsp?id=1202571381862&Assault_weapons_in_the_cross_hairs_&slreturn=20121116110931)":

http://mediamatters.org/blog/2012/12/19/why-isnt-the-media-discussing-the-unprecedented/191910

Those claims would never have survived summary judgment in the first place anyway

[CosmicCowboy]

Just got off gunsamerica investing in Ruger OEM 25 round extended mags for 1022's.

Ruger just came out with them a few months ago and the Sumbitches will be like gold in 5 years if they really ban manufacturing them.

[CosmicCowboy]

Sweet

I love being raised with guns/hunting and being damn good at it.

A friend just called me that has a big ranch that's disgusted with all the problems taking rookie guests out to cull (control herd size) on his ranch.

He offered to trade an all expenses paid trip (including airfare) to Palm Beach in February to go fishing on his 60' Viking for sailfish for me finishing up the culling on his ranch and whacking 10 more before January 15. I think I can do that.:p:

[CosmicCowboy]

*now if I could just find someone I could borrow a gun from*

[FuzzyLumpkins]

All I know is that when 60% of the country wants more regulation and over 50% want strict regulation then that means that the culture IS changing NOW. That is the point and this is a democracy.

When I read the cultural argument all I hear is "I am not going to change." I just get the impression that people really do not have a grasp of national attitudes especially in a TX based board. Now keep in mind that I own a pistol, rifle and a shottie so I am not some gun hating liberal.

Can someone explain to me the relationship between the second and the fourth? Are we really arguing that being armed to the teeth is an effective deterrent to law enforcement performing illegal searches? I hope it is a better argument then "me and S&W will stop the FBI from searching my house if the courts won't.'

[DMC]

God boutons is fucking retarded. smh

There's a reason people like him never accomplish anything. I don't think they actually want to.

[DMC]

All I know is that when 60% of the country wants more regulation and over 50% want strict regulation then that means that the culture IS changing NOW. That is the point and this is a democracy.

When I read the cultural argument all I hear is "I am not going to change." I just get the impression that people really do not have a grasp of national attitudes especially in a TX based board. Now keep in mind that I own a pistol, rifle and a shottie so I am not some gun hating liberal.

Can someone explain to me the relationship between the second and the fourth? Are we really arguing that being armed to the teeth is an effective deterrent to law enforcement performing illegal searches? I hope it is a better argument then "me and S&W will stop the FBI from searching my house if the courts won't.'

Fortunately Constitutional rights aren't a majority rule concept. There would likely be a majority who thought that the Aurora shooter shouldn't get a trial, just take him out and shoot him. There's probably a majority who thinks Muslims should not have the right to build a mosque near ground zero.

The framers of the Constitution knew the value of having minute men, people who would take up arms against tyranny when the time came. People now days pretend the military is that militia, but it's not. There was a military then as well, though they were British because the colonies belonged to the British. So the minute men rose up against them, and it was decreed that no law shall be made to remove guns from the citizen, as they have the right to keep and bear arms. There shouldn't be any laws to even infringe upon that right, but there are many that skirt it just far enough to not raise the ire of the Supreme Court.

It's not about being armed to the teeth, that's just a hyperbolic statement anyhow. It's about having the right to keep and bear arms. We're now getting into the Orwellian "some pigs are more equal than others" concept where the term "arms" is being manipulated to mean things other than what they historically have meant. Telling someone they cannot own a semiautomatic rifle is infringing upon their right to keep and bear certain types of arms, and technically is unconstitutional, although we seem to allow the knife to penetrate deeply as long as it does so slowly.

[vy65]

Can someone explain to me the relationship between the second and the fourth? Are we really arguing that being armed to the teeth is an effective deterrent to law enforcement performing illegal searches? I hope it is a better argument then "me and S&W will stop the FBI from searching my house if the courts won't.'

Yes. The argument made sense in 1787. Not so much in 2012.

[DMC]

Yes. The argument made sense in 1787. Not so much in 2012.

Wow, you were alive in 1787?

[CosmicCowboy]

There is no direct relationship between the 2nd and the 4th. He was making the point that people that would have their "cold dead fingers" pried off their trigger to protect their 2nd amendment right were willingly giving up their 4th amendment rights to "get them damn terrorists". I got it. Y'all didn't.

[DMC]

Just got off gunsamerica investing in Ruger OEM 25 round extended mags for 1022's.

Ruger just came out with them a few months ago and the Sumbitches will be like gold in 5 years if they really ban manufacturing them.

Hopefully they work better than the Butler Creek pieces of shit.

[vy65]

Wow, you were alive in 1787?

Obviously not. Why's that matter?

[CosmicCowboy]

Hopefully they work better than the Butler Creek pieces of shit.

Yep. Ruger OEM. They work.

It's a soul cleansing experience to run through a 25 round clip without a jam.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Fortunately Constitutional rights aren't a majority rule concept. There would likely be a majority who thought that the Aurora shooter shouldn't get a trial, just take him out and shoot him. There's probably a majority who thinks Muslims should not have the right to build a mosque near ground zero.

Even a Constitutional literalist --which are about as common as a Biblical literalist nowadays-- is hard pressed to justify complete liberalism on gun ownership. Even Scalia has explicitly said that limits are allowed. You can try to equate it to due process but that really is not germane.

An easy litmus test is 'should all military arms be available to the public?' If you answer 'no' then your point becomes moot. There are arguments that can be made about the nature of the militias and the context of what militias were back in 1791 that seem ignored all too often.

[vy65]

There is no direct relationship between the 2nd and the 4th. He was making the point that people that would have their "cold dead fingers" pried off their trigger to protect their 2nd amendment right were willingly giving up their 4th amendment rights to "get them damn terrorists". I got it. Y'all didn't.

Or the idea that where there are robust constitutional protections there is a diminished need for guns. If the government was effectively constrained by the 4th, 5th, and 14th amendments, and the protections afforded by those amendments were themselves broad, the need for the second amendment dwindles.

[TeyshaBlue]

All I know is that when 60% of the country wants more regulation and over 50% want strict regulation then that means that the culture IS changing NOW. That is the point and this is a democracy.

When I read the cultural argument all I hear is "I am not going to change." I just get the impression that people really do not have a grasp of national attitudes especially in a TX based board. Now keep in mind that I own a pistol, rifle and a shottie so I am not some gun hating liberal.

Can someone explain to me the relationship between the second and the fourth? Are we really arguing that being armed to the teeth is an effective deterrent to law enforcement performing illegal searches? I hope it is a better argument then "me and S&W will stop the FBI from searching my house if the courts won't.'

It seems to me that right now, with the Patriot Act et al, that 4th amendment concerns are somewhat heightened. Alarm can feed the defense of a strong 2nd amendment, to me. They seem almost entwined.

[DMC]

Could registration for assault weapon ownership lead to profiling? And if so, would that be a bad thing?

You're profiled when you buy something on Ebay. That's why you get all those damn ads on your screen anywhere else you went.

People have been registering NFA weapons for a long time. Any profiling seems negligible.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

It seems to me that right now, with the Patriot Act et al, that 4th amendment concerns are somewhat heightened. Alarm can feed the defense of a strong 2nd amendment, to me. They seem almost entwined.

I get the concern but I am talking more about the efficacy. If the NSA, DHS, USM, FBI, etc is after you even a mountain of guns and a .50 cal is not going to save you. If anything it will get you roasted in a fire they start raiding your compound and then blame on you for said fire. It makes you a target.

[DMC]

It seems to me that right now, with the Patriot Act et al, that 4th amendment concerns are somewhat heightened. Alarm can feed the defense of a strong 2nd amendment, to me. They seem almost entwined.

The term "unlawful" is the out there. The 2nd Amendment would have to be defeated before search and seizure commenced. That would make it not only lawful, but possibly necessary (The BoR defines our rights but it's not exhaustive so not having the 2nd Amendment doesn't mean guns would be banned).

[CosmicCowboy]

It seems to me that right now, with the Patriot Act et al, that 4th amendment concerns are somewhat heightened. Alarm can feed the defense of a strong 2nd amendment, to me. They seem almost entwined.

I am alarmed at the erosion of 4th amendment rights but I'm not exactly ready to borrow a gun and go postal in defense of second amendment rights. I understand the limits of individual power against the state.

[TeyshaBlue]

I get the concern but I am talking more about the efficacy. If the NSA, DHS, USM, FBI, etc is after you even a mountain of guns and a .50 cal is not going to save you. If anything it will get you roasted in a fire they start raiding your compound and then blame on you for said fire. It makes you a target.

I get you....although I'd take my chances with a .50. :lol

[DMC]

I get the concern but I am talking more about the efficacy. If the NSA, DHS, USM, FBI, etc is after you even a mountain of guns and a .50 cal is not going to save you. If anything it will get you roasted in a fire they start raiding your compound and then blame on you for said fire. It makes you a target.

If someone wants to steal your car, they will likely find a way. Why lock it then? Same with your home, why lock your doors? If someone wants to kill you they will find a way.

[vy65]

If someone wants to steal your car, they will likely find a way. Why lock it then? Same with your home, why lock your doors? If someone wants to kill you they will find a way.

False analogy

[DMC]

Even a Constitutional literalist --which are about as common as a Biblical literalist nowadays-- is hard pressed to justify complete liberalism on gun ownership. Even Scalia has explicitly said that limits are allowed. You can try to equate it to due process but that really is not germane.

An easy litmus test is 'should all military arms be available to the public?' If you answer 'no' then your point becomes moot. There are arguments that can be made about the nature of the militias and the context of what militias were back in 1791 that seem ignored all too often.

My answer isn't "no". The public does own almost every military weapon. Defense contractors are owned and operated by civilians. So a person puts a gun in the name of a corporation, but technically the person has a right to keep and bear it, it doesn't say anything about owning it. People kept cannons in their yards back in those days.

Is there a rash of people wanting mounted .50 cal AA guns? No. However I know a few people who own .50 cal rifles and even one guy who owns the AA turret of .50 cals. He also owns an Israeli tank and a Huey. He's in charge of a war history museum, but I've fired many of the guns he owns.

You cannot tell me honestly that a very wealthy man cannot own damn near any military weapon.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

False analogy

Pretty much. You can point to the efficacy of locks against thieves. I want to see the efficacy of guns against law enforcement types.

[DMC]

False analogy

It's not a bad analogy. We lock our doors because that's within our power to control. We keep and bear arms because our personal defense is within our power to control. Every control has it's limitations. You wouldn't do away with door locks just because people are going to break windows or kick in doors anyhow. Likewise you don't do away with the right to bear arms just because the arms might not save you.

[DMC]

Pretty much. You can point to the efficacy of locks against thieves. I want to see the efficacy of guns against law enforcement types.

Why the double standard? How about locks against law enforcement types? How did the law enforcement types fare during the LA riots? The Koreans with AR-15s saved their shops.

[DMC]

btw, if the 2nd Amendment is outdated, so are all the rest. The perspective was from the same time period.

[DMC]

Obviously not. Why's that matter?

Because you seem to think you know how they viewed things back then, as if they were unaware that changes would occur, as if they didn't just go through a war and large changes, as if they fought against muskets with something other than equal force.

[vy65]

It's not a bad analogy. We lock our doors because that's within our power to control. We keep and bear arms because our personal defense is within our power to control. Every control has it's limitations. You wouldn't do away with door locks just because people are going to break windows or kick in doors anyhow. Likewise you don't do away with the right to bear arms just because the arms might not save you.

The reason why it's false is because a lock can in many cases deter a would be thief. Therefore, it's prudent to lock up for safety.

The doctrinal basis for the right to bear arms is the citizens right to overthrow tyrannical governments. The constitution was heavily informed by a severe mistrust of central government. And having said arms made sense back when the worst thing the state could point at you was a musket or a cannon. Now, that basis falls apart when the state has things like tanks, helicopters, and fighter jets. There is absolutely no point in saying we need guns to defend ourselves in a fight that is comically mismatched. What's the point to having a gun when the government could kill you just by pushing a button?

Obviously this situation is pretty far out there. But it does show that the constitutional/legal basis for having guns is really weak. So weak that prudential concerns like stopping school shootings should outweigh outdated constructional rights.

[vy65]

Because you seem to think you know how they viewed things back then, as if they were unaware that changes would occur, as if they didn't just go through a war and large changes, as if they fought against muskets with something other than equal force.

Well no. For one, I never said that I knew how they (whoever "they" are) thought back the . For two, I wouldn't make that claim given how scant the historical record is. For three, if they knew that things would change, wouldn't that be a reason to change the second amendment to stop school shootings? And for four, you're making my argument with this musket to musket business

[mavs>spurs]

Just got off gunsamerica investing in Ruger OEM 25 round extended mags for 1022's.

Ruger just came out with them a few months ago and the Sumbitches will be like gold in 5 years if they really ban manufacturing them.
funny, i just bought one of those

[O.J. Simpson]

:lol Gun nuts acting as if they'd ever rebel against the government.

All it takes is the government saying "Terrorists!" or "Messicans!" and "Jigaboos!" and every Bazooka Joe is willing to lay their life for the cause.

[DMC]

The reason why it's false is because a lock can in many cases deter a would be thief. Therefore, it's prudent to lock up for safety.

And a the prospect of facing a gun can deter the same thief.


The doctrinal basis for the right to bear arms is the citizens right to overthrow tyrannical governments.
That's a bit silly. There's no right to overthrow a government. Who's going to enforce that right? There's a call to do so, but a right? When you have no authority having jurisdiction over that right (the same government you're overthrowing would have to protect that "right", therefore making even having it pointless) you have no rights.

The constitution was heavily informed by a severe mistrust of central government. And having said arms made sense back when the worst thing the state could point at you was a musket or a cannon. Worst thing? Ever faced either a musket or a cannon? Death is death. Those aren't Nerf toys. That was maximum force then, we have maximum force now, but the difference is that we do not have a balanced mediation ability. That's not a call to surrender your only defense. It's a call to increase it.

Now, that basis falls apart when the state has things like tanks, helicopters, and fighter jets. There is absolutely no point in saying we need guns to defend ourselves in a fight that is comically mismatched. What's the point to having a gun when the government could kill you just by pushing a button?
You assume the right is based solely on the US government. How about local governments, or even a hyper aggressive HOA?


Obviously this situation is pretty far out there. But it does show that the constitutional/legal basis for having guns is really weak. So weak that prudential concerns like stopping school shootings should outweigh outdated constructional rights.

Sorry, you cannot obfuscate the situation by wrongly equating "Constitutional" with "legal". The Bill of Rights are not exhaustive, but there is a US Supreme Court in place to interpret the Bill of Rights as they pertain to new laws or cases. Though no freedom is absolute (you can lose the right to vote), the USSC has repeatedly rules that the 2nd Amendment grants the individual the right to keep and bear arms. It does not concern itself with why we may need guns just as it does not concern itself with why we may need freedom of speech. These rights are individual rights, not up for majority speculation.

[DMC]

Well no. For one, I never said that I knew how they (whoever "they" are) thought back the . For two, I wouldn't make that claim given how scant the historical record is. For three, if they knew that things would change, wouldn't that be a reason to change the second amendment to stop school shootings? And for four, you're making my argument with this musket to musket business

There were senseless killings then as well. Equal force is a right, it doesn't have to be an ability.

You are the one who attempted to state what 1787 was like.

Why does the 1st Amendment or the 4th not also get the same scrutiny?

[mavs>spurs]

:lol Gun nuts acting as if they'd ever rebel against the government.

All it takes is the government saying "Terrorists!" or "Messicans!" and "Jigaboos!" and every Bazooka Joe is willing to lay their life for the cause.

lol government getting their asses waxed by a bunch of towel heads with these very same "assault weapons" :lol

[CosmicCowboy]

The reason why it's false is because a lock can in many cases deter a would be thief. Therefore, it's prudent to lock up for safety.

The doctrinal basis for the right to bear arms is the citizens right to overthrow tyrannical governments. The constitution was heavily informed by a severe mistrust of central government. And having said arms made sense back when the worst thing the state could point at you was a musket or a cannon. Now, that basis falls apart when the state has things like tanks, helicopters, and fighter jets. There is absolutely no point in saying we need guns to defend ourselves in a fight that is comically mismatched. What's the point to having a gun when the government could kill you just by pushing a button?

Obviously this situation is pretty far out there. But it does show that the constitutional/legal basis for having guns is really weak. So weak that prudential concerns like stopping school shootings should outweigh outdated constructional rights.

The theory that having tanks, fighter jets, and helicopters makes you an automatic winner has pretty well been destroyed in Iraq and Afghanistan. You have to control the ground and occupied sentiment to really win. When every citizen is armed and dangerous they can't ever control the ground. I'm not advocating violence or anti-establishment revolution but I do like the check/balance provided by private gun ownership. Seriously, if they activated the full might and power of the US government to invade and conquer Houston (as an example) do you really think they could do it?

[vy65]

And a the prospect of facing a gun can deter the same thief.

It's not meant to deter thieves. See below.


That's a bit silly. There's no right to overthrow a government. Who's going to enforce that right? There's a call to do so, but a right? When you have no authority having jurisdiction over that right (the same government you're overthrowing would have to protect that "right", therefore making even having it pointless) you have no rights.
Worst thing? Ever faced either a musket or a cannon? Death is death. Those aren't Nerf toys. That was maximum force then, we have maximum force now, but the difference is that we do not have a balanced mediation ability. That's not a call to surrender your only defense. It's a call to increase it.

It's not silly at all. First, the time period in question was informed by a heavy mistrust for government. We just won a war against an oppressive and tyrannical king. The articles of confederation weakened the central government to the point that it could not function. The constitution passed only because the bill of rights were thrown in as a final safeguard against the federal government. There was a severe distrust of central authority and that distrust heavily colors the amendments themselves.

Second, the basis for documents like the constitution and the Declaration of Independence was the people's right to defend themselves from government. The 1st prevents the government from interfering with your religious exercise, the 4th prevents it from searching you unreasonably, and the 8th prevents it from torturing (the fact that we needed an amendment saying no torture should give you a good idea of people's opinion of the government at that time). A necessary corollary to that basis is the people's inalienable right to overthrow oppressive government.

Third, the amendments text refers to state militias. Those militias were not considered part of the government and in fact were somewhat hostile to the federal government. Taken together, the amendment's design was to safeguard the people from a central government on a rampage.

I've never faced a musket. But that's wholly irrelevant. Do you think there is a greater asymmetry in force in facing a cannon or an apache helicopter? Taken to its logical conclusion, your argument is a call for the constitutional right to bear an f16 fighter jet, which is just a bad idea.


You assume the right is based solely on the US government. How about local governments, or even a hyper aggressive HOA?

States and HOAs are non-federal entities and outside the scope of this debate.


Sorry, you cannot obfuscate the situation by wrongly equating "Constitutional" with "legal". The Bill of Rights are not exhaustive, but there is a US Supreme Court in place to interpret the Bill of Rights as they pertain to new laws or cases. Though no freedom is absolute (you can lose the right to vote), the USSC has repeatedly rules that the 2nd Amendment grants the individual the right to keep and bear arms. It does not concern itself with why we may need guns just as it does not concern itself with why we may need freedom of speech. These rights are individual rights, not up for majority speculation.

I'm not obfuscating anything. The constitution is a legal document enshrining rights. I agree that SCOTUS interprets those rights, but that also means, necessarily, that rights and laws change with the courts composition.

As for rulings like Heller, those decisions are far from set in stone. It's entirely conceivable that later courts will interpret the second amendment to mean something entirely different. In fact, several justices disagree with Scalia's interpretation and view the amendment as a protection for state militias, not individual defense.

Finally, I disagree that the amendment doesn't address why we need guns. The text refers to state militias. You can't just read that language out. The amendment doesn't refer to individuals. It doesn't refer to self protection. It says militias. Accordingly, the right protected is not for guns as such. Rather, it's a protection for the institution of the militia. Expanding gun rights beyond that context impermissible stretches the amendments scope as it is not textually supported.

[vy65]

There were senseless killings then as well. Equal force is a right, it doesn't have to be an ability.

You are the one who attempted to state what 1787 was like.

Why does the 1st Amendment or the 4th not also get the same scrutiny?

But there is no equal force today. People don't have the right to bear tanks.

What I stated was a common sense understanding of the arms people had in 1787. Is my assessment wrong.

The 1st and 4th get different treatment because of how they're worded. Those amendments refer to personal or individual rights. There's no mention of the militia. The second amendment on the other hand does refer to the militia. The right protected is not individual -- it's the right of the militia. Hence the different treatment.

[vy65]

The theory that having tanks, fighter jets, and helicopters makes you an automatic winner has pretty well been destroyed in Iraq and Afghanistan. You have to control the ground and occupied sentiment to really win. When every citizen is armed and dangerous they can't ever control the ground. I'm not advocating violence or anti-establishment revolution but I do like the check/balance provided by private gun ownership. Seriously, if they activated the full might and power of the US government to invade and conquer Houston (as an example) do you really think they could do it?

If the government was really crazed and wanted to occupy Htown, they'd probably level it with missles. No arsenal of weapons is going to stop that.

[mavs>spurs]

If the government was really crazed and wanted to occupy Htown, they'd probably level it with missles. No arsenal of weapons is going to stop that.

the same reason assad hasn't done it in syria, there are international laws and russia/china would use it as a pretext to finally take us down. the world wouldn't stand by while a government mass murdered their own people, just like they stood up to hitler reluctantly. they'd lose all legitimacy if they aerial bombed our cities..and lose all their support and most of the military would defect (like syria and other countries) to fight them.

[mavs>spurs]

also, they'd lose all of their supporters and destroy their infrastructure/kill slaves which are making them all the money and doing all the work to keep the machine running. they aren't as stupid as you, "vinceyoung65" :lol

[baseline bum]

The theory that having tanks, fighter jets, and helicopters makes you an automatic winner has pretty well been destroyed in Iraq and Afghanistan. You have to control the ground and occupied sentiment to really win. When every citizen is armed and dangerous they can't ever control the ground. I'm not advocating violence or anti-establishment revolution but I do like the check/balance provided by private gun ownership. Seriously, if they activated the full might and power of the US government to invade and conquer Houston (as an example) do you really think they could do it?

Agreed. The only way the government could reasonably squash an armed uprising supported by the people is by carpet bombing neighborhoods, and I don't think those in the military would go for it. It's one thing for them to take down a few hundred people who had access to rifles, quite another to indiscrimiantly execute their own fellow citizens by the thousands. Of course, can't say I'd want a military dictatorship either, which is what would happen with a successful armed revolt by the people.

[vy65]

That's a bit silly. There's no right to overthrow a government.

Belief in the principle of revolution is deep in our traditions. The right of revolution is a part of the fabric of our institutions.

Scales v. U.S., 367 U.S. 203 (1967).

http://scholarship.law.duke.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=5203&context=faculty_scholarship&sei-redir=1

[vy65]

also, they'd lose all of their supporters and destroy their infrastructure/kill slaves which are making them all the money and doing all the work to keep the machine running. they aren't as stupid as you, "vinceyoung65" :lol

Lol foreskin
Lol rape clubs
Lol UTA
Lol Alex Jones
Lol calling anyone stupid

[mavs>spurs]

well thought out and intelligent rebuttal, bro.

lol our honorable servicemen bombing their friends and family

[vy65]

Lol comparing the US to Syria.

If you were paying attention, you'd know I think the scenario is far-fetched. That's why I don't think there's a constitutional basis for amassing a small arsenal.

Although, Isn't this scenario the sort of garbage Alex Jones pumps into your weak mind?

[Borat Sagyidev]

Scott tries to have a reasonable discussion and gets bukaked with stupid.

You guys aren´t beating the govt in any conflict. You´re too stupid and too pussified to do anything about it, which is why the govt walks over everyone right now in the first place.

If the government wanted turn the middle east into a glass plate, they could. They just chose not to eliminate everyone and let the puppet democracies continue, it gives some legitimacy to the whole stealing oil campaign.

Guerilla war only works when you have an opponent willing to engage in it with comparable arms. Most of these arms are useless if the govt get serious by details I won´t get into. Just as physicists ruled WW2, they could again if needed.

[spursncowboys]

The more I hear the arguments, the more I am bunkering down and going farther towards no regulations.

What really bothers me is that this is the dems capitalizing on a tragedy! An assault weapon wasn't used. Unless the new talk is outlawing all weapons, this would have happened anyway. But before the tragedy, the government was already taking my freedom to defend myself by openly buying guns (http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/110/hr2640/text).

[spursncowboys]

Politically, this is going to make BHO a lame duck. No Dem-lite, or MSM can save him from this. We'll see in two years how H.R. Clinton will act. I think the Dems need to just be happy they snuck Obamacare through and try and keep that, while keeping their social programs funded (with no clue of how to fund it).

[TheSanityAnnex]

Scott, you've mentioned stricter control instead of an all out ban, here's what I have to say to more control, fuck that. These "compromises" gun owners have made will never stop. They aren't compromises at all, they are methods used to slowly disarm our citizens. Do you want to live in a society where citizens have no way to protect themselves
?

also, anyone got any 20 round pmags they want to sell me for a reasonable price? A $12 may is now going for $50.

[Shastafarian]

Scott, you've mentioned stricter control instead of an all out ban, here's what I have to say to more control, fuck that. These "compromises" gun owners have made will never stop. They aren't compromises at all, they are methods used to slowly disarm our citizens. Do you want to live in a society where citizens have no way to protect themselves
?

also, anyone got any 20 round pmags they want to sell me for a reasonable price? A $12 may is now going for $50.

What compromises have you made?

[TheSanityAnnex]

Got an idea, let's make the theft of assault weapons illegal.

[spursncowboys]

lol government getting their asses waxed by a bunch of towel heads with these very same "assault weapons" :lol
:lol you're such a pussy

[Borat Sagyidev]

The more I hear the arguments, the more I am bunkering down and going farther towards no regulations.

What really bothers me is that this is the dems capitalizing on a tragedy! An assault weapon wasn't used. Unless the new talk is outlawing all weapons, this would have happened anyway. But before the tragedy, the government was already taking my freedom to defend myself by openly buying guns (http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/110/hr2640/text).


Scott, you've mentioned stricter control instead of an all out ban, here's what I have to say to more control, fuck that. These "compromises" gun owners have made will never stop. They aren't compromises at all, they are methods used to slowly disarm our citizens. Do you want to live in a society where citizens have no way to protect themselves
?

also, anyone got any 20 round pmags they want to sell me for a reasonable price? A $12 may is now going for $50.


Defending one self doesn´t mean having the ability to shoot up a luby´s full of patrons you fucking lunatics. Any all out ban would repeal the 2nd amendment and that´s not happening.

You aren´t defending yourself against the government with these weapons no matter the case.

Like I said, Scott posts a reasonable discussion and gets bukkaked with stupid.

[spursncowboys]

Scott, you've mentioned stricter control instead of an all out ban, here's what I have to say to more control, fuck that. These "compromises" gun owners have made will never stop. They aren't compromises at all, they are methods used to slowly disarm our citizens. Do you want to live in a society where citizens have no way to protect themselves
?

also, anyone got any 20 round pmags they want to sell me for a reasonable price? A $12 may is now going for $50.
pmags suck. I always break the plastic on top that holds the round.

[spursncowboys]

It's funny how everyone made fun of Pro-Gun people when they would say that BHO was coming after their guns. Good call G. Beck.

[TheSanityAnnex]

I am limited to 10 round magazines, had to install a "bullet button" on my mag release, and had to permanently attach my muzzle device to get my 14.5 barrel over 16".

now, these are just a nuisance to me, but a compromise nonetheless. Now explain to me exactly how these regulations have made my gun any safer. This is what is so annoying to me, the gov just doesn't get it. It's not the guns, it's the fucked up people in our country.

Anyone here remember learning about that barn massacre that took the lives of 30+ people back in the early 1900's? Pretty sure semi autos weren't around back then. People are crazy, and crazy people will continue to do crazy shit.

[Borat Sagyidev]

What compromises have you made?

http://cdn1.goodmeme.net/store/user_photos/0/25/2250_compromise_700.jpg

[Borat Sagyidev]

I am limited to 10 round magazines, had to install a "bullet button" on my mag release, and had to permanently attach my muzzle device to get my 14.5 barrel over 16".

now, these are just a nuisance to me, but a compromise nonetheless. Now explain to me exactly how these regulations have made my gun any safer. This is what is so annoying to me, the gov just doesn't get it. It's not the guns, it's the fucked up people in our country.

Anyone here remember learning about that barn massacre that took the lives of 30+ people back in the early 1900's? Pretty sure semi autos weren't around back then. People are crazy, and crazy people will continue to do crazy shit.

You have to have some skill to do that. I can shoot 30 rounds in a minute with .38 special revolver, that was my grandfathers aircrew issue from WW2 but that is because I was trained to do it over years. The average person cant do that nearly as easy with a semi auto.

[spursncowboys]

Agreed. The only way the government could reasonably squash an armed uprising supported by the people is by carpet bombing neighborhoods, and I don't think those in the military would go for it. It's one thing for them to take down a few hundred people who had access to rifles, quite another to indiscrimiantly execute their own fellow citizens by the thousands. Of course, can't say I'd want a military dictatorship either, which is what would happen with a successful armed revolt by the people.
Not to mention almost every soldier I've met in my six years owns a gun and a large percent shoot for sport or hunt.

[TheSanityAnnex]

You have to have some skill to do that. I can shoot 30 rounds in a minute with .38 special revolver, that was my grandfathers aircrew issue from WW2 but that is because I was trained to do it over years. The average person cant do that nearly as easy with a semi auto.
Pretty sure there were no guns involved, point being there are crazy people that will find a way to kill regardless of the tool available. To counter them, I will have better tools.

[TheSanityAnnex]

http://cdn1.goodmeme.net/store/user_photos/0/25/2250_compromise_700.jpg

you bitch about having a legit discussion and post a shitty meme? How bout addressing the questions I asked?

[Spurminator]

It's funny how everyone made fun of Pro-Gun people when they would say that BHO was coming after their guns. Good call G. Beck.

What exactly has been done so far to come and get your guns? I will continue to make fun of your paranoia until you're forced to return any of your guns. And that's a long, long time away, if ever.

[Latarian Milton]

you already see a big boost in gun sales after the sandy hook tragedy and that's a good implication of people's attitude to the possible gun regulation imho. people need the guns to protect themselves and to gain themselves some sense of safety that they can't get from anything else (like the police), but the majority of them won't actually use their guns throughout their lifetimes. gun crimes just reflect some social issues lodged deeply in our society and the fuckheads would continue to do shits even w/o guns. if guns were the real source of problems the country would've been destroyed several times, as there're more than a billion guns out there either legal or illegal. say you might have a fever and you for damn sure know it's not a problem with your skin imho

[baseline bum]

The Democrats are really going to pay in the mid-term elections if Obama signs an executive order to reinstate the assault weapons ban. Gun control has been a politcal loser in this country for years, and it will be again within 6 months.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Pretty sure there were no guns involved, point being there are crazy people that will find a way to kill regardless of the tool available. To counter them, I will have better tools.

The argument to this notion and it bears out statistically in pretty much the rest of the first world is that the rate at which people like you get to save themselves by having guns pales in comparison to the amount of gun crimes, accidents, suicides and homicides that occur because of it. There is really very little evidence that guns in any way reduce any amount of crime and a whole lot of evidence.

It's not hard to figure out. Sure some people will still manage to find a gun but then again many more will not.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

The Democrats are really going to pay in the mid-term elections if Obama signs an executive order to reinstate the assault weapons ban. Gun control has been a politcal loser in this country for years, and it will be again within 6 months.

Meh the electorate is changing. Shit it has changed and every year the demographics of this country change dramatically. Those that have ruled the electorate for years are riding off into the sunset.

[baseline bum]

Meh the electorate is changing. Shit it has changed and every year the demographics of this country change dramatically. Those that have ruled the electorate for years are riding off into the sunset.

Possibly, but those days aren't here yet. If they were, Obama could have made gun control a part of his platform this election.

[spursncowboys]

This isn't about the electorate as a whole. This is about district by district.

I see this as a call for the Tea Party and GOP finding common ground and a rally. Either way, this is at best for Obama, hurts him a little. Worst case scenario he'll get nothing done in his last two years and Hillary goes back to her 50% negatives before even running.

[mavs>spurs]

sadly the dude is right, they're replacing us with stupid ass minorities so that they can make our country more like the homelands these shitheads came from imho

[Borat Sagyidev]

sadly the dude is right, they're replacing us with stupid ass minorities so that they can make our country more like the homelands these shitheads came from imho

UEqa90XpPw0

[DMC]

Belief in the principle of revolution is deep in our traditions. The right of revolution is a part of the fabric of our institutions.

Scales v. U.S., 367 U.S. 203 (1967).

http://scholarship.law.duke.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=5203&context=faculty_scholarship&sei-redir=1

Do you realize the body that determines Constitutionality is one branch of the federal government.

So would the USSC defend your right to overthrow the government?

[DMC]

I have about 30 hi cap mags still unopened. I was saving them for this stock surge tbh.

Good thing I have about 5K rounds of high powered .17 HMR rounds. Those will go up as well. Oh, and the 3K rounds of .22 shells doesn't hurt either, especially the green (subsonic) ones. ffffffffffft

[TheSanityAnnex]

The argument to this notion and it bears out statistically in pretty much the rest of the first world is that the rate at which people like you get to save themselves by having guns pales in comparison to the amount of gun crimes, accidents, suicides and homicides that occur because of it. There is really very little evidence that guns in any way reduce any amount of crime and a whole lot of evidence.

It's not hard to figure out. Sure some people will still manage to find a gun but then again many more will not.I may never have to use my gun, and in north county San Diego, as safe as one could live. I hope no one forces me to use my guns. Ive got them though, and what harm does that do?
I will not be in any statistic you bring up of gun crime, accidents, suicide, or murder. I enjoy shooting, as much as I love golf, beer, weed, and pussy. Enjoy your freedoms pussies.

[Wild Cobra]

How can our government expect to impose more gun controls on us, when they can't control their own employees:

link: Operation Fast and Furious gun found after drug cartel shootout (http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-fast-furious-20121220,0,3268886.story) By Richard A. Serrano, Washington Bureau; December 19, 2012, 7:14 p.m.

[Shastafarian]

I will not be in any statistic you bring up of gun crime, accidents, suicide, or murder.

So you live alone and have no friends or objects of value. Sounds about right.

[ChumpDumper]

the same reason assad hasn't done it in syria, there are international laws and russia/china would use it as a pretext to finally take us down. the world wouldn't stand by while a government mass murdered their own people, just like they stood up to hitler reluctantly. they'd lose all legitimacy if they aerial bombed our cities..and lose all their support and most of the military would defect (like syria and other countries) to fight them.It's always refreshing to watch you red-ass your ignorance.

There are myriad examples of the world standing by while governments mass murdered their own people.

[ChumpDumper]

you already see a big boost in gun sales after the sandy hook tragedy and that's a good implication of people's attitude to the possible gun regulation imho.They are comically paranoid.

[ChumpDumper]

I will not be in any statistic you bring up of gun crime, accidents, suicide, or murder.Well, you can try to not. No guarantees.

[CosmicCowboy]

LOL

Checking around the internet...there isn't an AR 10 to be bought ANYWHERE.

[TheSanityAnnex]

Scrambled around a few days ago trying to find my buddy a complete AR lower, shit was ridiculous. As soon as we'd find one he enter his info and poof, gone. Finally found one but he had to overpay. I've been looking for a bolt carrier group to finish a build but I am not paying the 200+ dollars I've been seeing them go for.

[boutons_deux]

Fuck, you can't even get the name right.

TB :lol always applies

[TeyshaBlue]

lol simpleton

[DarkReign]

Bought my Ruger SR556 three days ago. Line out the door, shit flying off the shelves.

Still have my (shitty) lower from years ago, so I could potentially have two ARs which is enough for me.

[boutons_deux]

b/g checks: no arrest record in past 5 years, no domestic abuse or other violence complaints in 10 years, not taking any psychoactive or sleeping pills.

Any violations of the background checks by gun owners will cause confiscation of all guns and ammo.

50% sales tax on all guns and ammo.

All guns must have s/n. Any owner, gun holder whose gun has no s/n is fined $10K and the gun confiscated.

All guns must have title of ownership and certified bill of sale which must be transferred when gun is sold.

All guns sold must be registered to a named owner.

The title/owner database will be national.

An annual ownership registration renewal fee must be paid, 10% of the "blue book" price.

All guns purchasers must first take and pass a gun owership/operation course before the gun is delivered.

To dissuade lackadaisical, reckless gun ownership and storage, owners of all registered guns will be fined for any guns that found NOT in their possession (like in possession of a criminal or anywhere. Fines:

semi-automatic : $15K

hand guns: $10K

rifles: $5K

[TeyshaBlue]

lol. My home gets robbed and you're going to fine me for having weapons taken.

That's gonna work just swell.

[boutons_deux]

lol. My home gets robbed and you're going to fine me for having weapons taken.

That's gonna work just swell.

yep, EXACTLY. if the robber can get to your guns, you're a reckless, dickless sonofabitch. FINED!

[ploto]

When my son was younger, I asked every parent of every house he ever was invited to play or to stay if they had guns in the house, where they were, how they were stored ... If it pissed them off, my kid simply did not go to that house. It was my responsibility to make the decisions that I thought best for the safety of my child. His best friend now is a hunter, but the guns are not kept at their residence.

[ploto]

The argument to this notion and it bears out statistically in pretty much the rest of the first world is that the rate at which people like you get to save themselves by having guns pales in comparison to the amount of gun crimes, accidents, suicides and homicides that occur because of it. There is really very little evidence that guns in any way reduce any amount of crime and a whole lot of evidence.


The answer to gun violence is never more guns.

[TeyshaBlue]

yep, EXACTLY. if the robber can get to your guns, you're a reckless, dickless sonofabitch. FINED!

lol. Just when you couldn't say anything stupider, you deliver.