CDZ Can you vote democrat and support the 2nd Amendment?

[Humorme]

PS: By the way, I think the idea of making a CCW permit national in jurisdiction is a sound one.
Of course, the criteria that determines eligibility for a CCW will need to be ironed out, but as you said,
"Let's do this".
I'll buy that for a dollar.

We don't need a permit to exercise a constitutional Right.

 

[Liquid Reigns]

Like I said, don't follow them, so don't know. What I know was learned in an accredited law school. You don't want to have a conversation with me, that's fine.

An accredited law school? LMFAO, you have NO background in law, let alone have you ever attended a law school.

 

[Liquid Reigns]

We don't need a permit to exercise a constitutional Right.

You simply need a permit to carry certain weapons, as not all weapons require a permit.

 

[rightwinger]

From a private party?

I never buy guns from anyone other than a dealer.

But in many states it is illegal to privately sell a firearm to anyone not legally eligible to buy one.

This is and remains a state issue

Winner, winner Chicken Dinner!

There you have it. A straw buyer can buy from a gun dealer then sell it on the private market

This is a loophole you can drive a truck through

What part of in many states it is illegal to do just that did you not understand?

And you don't seem to realize a straw purchase is already a federal crime.

Some states?

Another loophole

Why not require background checks on ALL purchases and be done with it?

Actually a straw purchase is a federal crime.

Hey you people are the ones who say states have the right to restrict certain guns or certain size magazines and you're all fine with that but let the states regulate their own gun sales and you get your panties in a twist.

So let's do this. All gun laws are to be federal laws and no state can put additional restrictions on any gun owner than those that are federal law.

But that also means the CCW permit I get will be federal and all states will have to honor it or it means abolishing the CCW permit altogether and allowing anyone legally eligible to own a firearm to carry that firearm as he sees fit.

Then let's pass and enforce some really strict laws on gun crime all to be a minimum of 10 years and up to and including life to be served with no parole

Hard to prove a federal crime when no private purchases are reported

Problem with our gun laws

 

[Humorme]

You say that but it is always the democrats who want to ban firearms

So what? It's always conservatives who want to do equally ridiculous things.
A complete and total ban on firearms is impossible.
Not only is it impossible, it's a violation of the 2A.
Not only is it in violation of the 2A, it would also be impossible to enforce.

It's not always "The Democrats", it's SOME Democrats, and those Democrats have a loose grip
on the reality of the situation, that being we have 320 million guns in this country and they're not going
anywhere. We desperately need to regulate their ownership and use but even that will have to be based in common sense, and backed up by education, and it has to earn the support of the people.

The most important thing we need to accomplish regarding guns in this country is to reestablish the kind of respect we used to have for firearms in the past. That means doing away with the toxic gun culture we have right now. People with a clean record and demonstrated responsibility should not have to encounter any trouble regarding firearm ownership and use. We managed to do this for centuries, so it is not impossible.

Guns are not, nor should they be, a political issue. They are a security issue and a health issue and their ownership and use are constitutionally protected activities for sound, law abiding American citizens.
It is up to us as a society to rethink the notions of a healthy respect for guns.
Right now, society's views on guns are distorted from all sides.

we don't need to regulate ownership beyond the restrictions we already have in place.

We need to enforce the gun laws we have and send people who commit any crime while in possession of a firearm to prison for a long time.

I realize that you mean well, but the reality is, the United States already has more people in prison than any country on this planet!

Background checks, registration, etc. don't work until AFTER a person commits a crime. Background checks, registration, etc. are preludes to bans and confiscation... period.

The key is to stop wasting money on B.S. proposals that only promote totalitarian government. Reduce crime before it happens AND, when it does, punish the offenders, rehabilitate them and send them back into society as a full citizen... not the second class B.S. the left wants you to create.

 

[Checkerboard Strangler]

Nobody wants to ban firearms.

It's a dumb idea, because it would be impossible. We're not Australia with their twenty million souls and maybe
a few million guns, we're the USA with more guns than people. We'd go bankrupt trying to do it and we'd barely make a dent in them anyway.
And it would wind up creating an entirely new black market besides.
The whole idea of trying to "ban guns" is a non-starter.
Maybe it sounds good to hand-wringing ultra-left fanatics, but beyond that it's nonsense.

 

[2aguy]

I don't object to those things. Never have. Most gun owners don't.

Most gun owners don't understand those policies...especially universal background checks and gun registration. If they did, they would not want anything to do with them.

I have no problem with background checks because I will pass every background check thrown at me.

Quite frankly if you can't pass a background check you shouldn't be allowed to have a firearm.

I am completely against registration though

They want registration.....that is why they are pushing universal background checks, they know UBCs give them the reason to get gun registration.

Most people can't understand the correlation between the infringements on the Fourth Amendment and the Right to keep and bear Arms.

If you have the Right, why should you be compelled to ask permission? Where is there probable cause to believe you are a criminal just because you exercise a constitutional Right?

That's because their is no 4A infringement regarding the 2A. You merely have the right to own a weapon, not necessarily to own a firearm. The Constitution doesn't grant you the right to own a weapon, it protects the right as granted before the USC via the 1689 EBoR.

Sorry.......even the Supreme Court knows you are wrong...
From the Heller decision....

We do not interpret constitutional rights that way. Just as the First Amendment protects modern forms of communications, e.g., Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union, 521 U. S. 844, 849 (1997), and the Fourth Amendment applies to modern forms of search, e.g., Kyllo v. United States, 533 U. S. 27, 35–36 (2001), the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding.

 

[2aguy]

Nobody wants to ban firearms.

It's a dumb idea, because it would be impossible. We're not Australia with their twenty million souls and maybe
a few million guns, we're the USA with more guns than people. We'd go bankrupt trying to do it and we'd barely make a dent in them anyway.
And it would wind up creating an entirely new black market besides.
The whole idea of trying to "ban guns" is a non-starter.
Maybe it sounds good to hand-wringing ultra-left fanatics, but beyond that it's nonsense.

and it didn't work in Australia...their gun crime rate is going up, not down.....

 

[2aguy]

Most gun owners don't understand those policies...especially universal background checks and gun registration. If they did, they would not want anything to do with them.

I have no problem with background checks because I will pass every background check thrown at me.

Quite frankly if you can't pass a background check you shouldn't be allowed to have a firearm.

I am completely against registration though

They want registration.....that is why they are pushing universal background checks, they know UBCs give them the reason to get gun registration.

Most people can't understand the correlation between the infringements on the Fourth Amendment and the Right to keep and bear Arms.

If you have the Right, why should you be compelled to ask permission? Where is there probable cause to believe you are a criminal just because you exercise a constitutional Right?

Maybe if we get more Justices on the Supreme Court to replace the Social Justice Warriors pretending to be judges, someone can take background checks to the court and get rid of them.....since they are a violation of your Right against self incrimination....

What would you be incriminating yourself with via a background check to purchase a firearm? You merely have the right to keep a weapon, not necessarily a firearm.

the Haynes v. United States ruled that felons are not required to register their illegal guns....because it violates their 5th Amendment Right against self incrimination....if that is so....and it is...then Background checks also violate the 5th Amendment....

 

[2aguy]

I have no problem with background checks because I will pass every background check thrown at me.

Quite frankly if you can't pass a background check you shouldn't be allowed to have a firearm.

I am completely against registration though

They want registration.....that is why they are pushing universal background checks, they know UBCs give them the reason to get gun registration.

Most people can't understand the correlation between the infringements on the Fourth Amendment and the Right to keep and bear Arms.

If you have the Right, why should you be compelled to ask permission? Where is there probable cause to believe you are a criminal just because you exercise a constitutional Right?

Maybe if we get more Justices on the Supreme Court to replace the Social Justice Warriors pretending to be judges, someone can take background checks to the court and get rid of them.....since they are a violation of your Right against self incrimination....

Background checks assume you're guilty and violate the concept of a presumption of innocence

They are a violation of your privacy

Background checks are the teeth behind gun registration which is why background checks are a prelude to registration and registration a prelude to confiscation. Registration cannot happen without the background check

The Bill of Rights is a limitation on the government, not the people.

Back ground checks do no such thing.

You have the right to travel upon the road ways, yet if you drive you must have a license and registered vehicle. Now, you have the right to own a weapon, yet to purchase a firearm you now must register it. What's the difference?

Driving is not a Right. The democrats used poll taxes and literacy tests to keep blacks from voting....both were declared unConstitutional and violations of the 14th Amendment.....so forcing people to get a license, is simply a poll tax....and in Haynes V. United States, felons do not have to register their illegal guns....so if felons do not have to register obviously illegal guns, you can't make law abiding citizens register their legal guns....

 

[2aguy]

There is a gun group that goes by the name "The Liberal Gun Group." They support left wing agendas and causes...including supporting hilary clinton for President. They also came together to support the Right to Keep and Bear Arms. Is it possible to vote for democrats and expect to keep the 2nd Amendment? The unltimate goal of the democrat party, at a minimum....is a European gun ownership system where rich and famous people have hunting shotguns....and no one else has access to guns......the real agenda...banning all civilian ownership of guns.....down to the last .22 caliber revolver.....

Liberal Gun Club: Hillary Voters Who Refuse to Give up Their Guns

The Liberal Gun Club (LGC) is an emerging gun rights organization with leaders who voted for Hillary Clinton yet refuse to give up their guns.
LGC sees guns the same way they see abortion, contending that government attempts to ban either are wrong.

According to ABC News, the LGC has roughly 7,500 members in chapters throughout the nation. Lara Smith, president of the California LGC chapter, said, “I’m a liberal. I voted for Hillary Clinton. But I’m a strong Second Amendment supporter.”

She added, “I see everybody else’s views as inconsistent. Abortion and gun rights are the flip side of the same issue. If you’re for banning one and not the other there’s a real inherent inconsistency in there. My view is that neither of them should be banned. I’m arguing that I’m more liberal than even my liberal friends. The liberal view on most things is, I might not like it, but that doesn’t mean I’m going to ban it.”

Keep in mind...this is the starting point of hilary's anti gun agenda....she mentioned, fondly, the Australia gun confiscation.....

Articles: Hillary: Impose Gun Control by Judicial Fiat



Hillary’s focus on repealing the PLCAA seems strange: it’s been on the books for eleven years, it was passed by 2-1 bipartisan majorities (65-31 Senate, 283-144 House), and every suit it has blocked is one that should never have been filed. Yet oppose it Hillary does. Her campaign webpage proposes to “Take on the gun lobby by removing the industry’s sweeping legal protection for illegal and irresponsible actions (which makes it almost impossible for people to hold them accountable), and revoking licenses from dealers who break the law.” She told the Bridgeport News that “as president, I would lead the charge to repeal this law.” In Iowa, she called the PLCAA “one of the most egregious, wrong, pieces of legislation that ever passed the Congress.”

But, even given her anti-gun beliefs, why does Hillary place so high a priority on repealing some eleven-year-old statute?

The papers found in her husband’s presidential archives in Little Rock show why the lawsuits that the PLCAA stopped were so important to his anti-gun plans. A January 2000 question and answer document, probably meant to prepare Bill Clinton for a press conference, asks about his involvement in the lawsuits against the gun industry. It suggests as an answer that he “intends to engage the gun industry in negotiations” to “achieve meaningful reforms to the way the gun industry does business.” The memo suggests he close with “We want real reforms that will improve the public safety and save lives.”

This is noteworthy: the Clinton White House did not see the lawsuits’ purpose as winning money, but as a means to pressure the gun industry into adopting the Clinton “reforms.” What might those reforms have been?

The Clinton Presidential Archives answered that question, too. In December 1999, the “Office of the Deputy Secretary” (presumably of Treasury) had sent a fax to the fax line for Clinton’s White House Domestic Policy Council. The fax laid out a proposed settlement of the legal cases. The terms were very well designed. They would have given the antigun movements all the victories that it had been unable to win in Congress over the past twenty years! Moreover, the terms would be imposed by a court order, not by a statute. That meant that any violation could be prosecuted as a contempt of court, by the parties to the lawsuit rather than by the government. A future Congress could not repeal the judgment, and a future White House could not block its enforcement. The settlement would have a permanent existence outside the democratic process.

The terms were extensive and drastic:

Gun manufacturers must stop producing firearms (rifle, pistol, or shotguns) that could accept detachable magazines holding more than ten rounds. In practice, since there is no way to design a detachable-magazine firearm that cannot take larger magazines, this would mean ceasing production of all firearms with detachable magazines. No more semiauto handguns.

The manufacturers would be required to stop production of magazines holding more than ten rounds.

Manufacturers must also stop production of firearms with polymer frames. All handguns made must meet importation standards (long barrels, target sights, etc.).

After five years, manufacturers must produce nothing but “smart guns” (that is, using “authorized user technology”).

But those conditions were just the beginning. The next requirement was the key to regulating all licensed firearms dealers, as well. The manufacturers must agree to sell only to distributors and dealers who agreed to comply with the standards set for distributors and dealers. Thus dealers would were not parties to the lawsuits would be forced to comply, upon pain of being unable to buy inventory.

The dealers in turn must agree:

They’d make no sales at gun shows, and no sales over internet.

They’d hold their customers to one-gun-a-month, for all types of guns, not just handguns.

They would not sell used or new magazines holding more than ten rounds.

They would not sell any firearm that fell within the definitions of the 1994 “assault weapon ban,” even if the ban expired.

They must prove they have a minimum inventory of each manufacturers’ product, and that they derive a majority of their revenue from firearms or sporting equipment sales. No more small town hardware store dealers, and no more WalMarts with gun sections.

The manufacturers would be required to pay for a “monitor,” a person to make sure the settlement was enforced. The monitor would create a “sales data clearinghouse,” to which the manufacturers, distributors, and dealers must report each gun sale, thus creating a registration system, outside of the government and thus not covered by the Privacy Act.

The monitor would have the authority to hire investigators, inspect dealer records without notice, and to “conduct undercover sting operations.” The monitor would thus serve as a private BATFE, without the legal restrictions that bind that agency, and paid for by the gun industry itself.

The manufacturers must cut off any dealer who failed to comply, and whenever BATFE traced a gun to a dealer, the dealer would be presumed guilty unless he could prove himself innocent. (BATFE encourages police departments to trace every firearm that comes into their hands, including firearms turned in, lost and found, and recovered from thieves. As a result, it performs over 300,000 traces a year. Thus, this term would lead to many dealers being cut off and forced to prove their innocence on a regular basis).

Gun registration, one gun a month, magazines limited to ten rounds, no Glocks, no guns with detachable magazines (in effect, no semiauto handguns), no dealers at gun shows, an “assault weapon ban” in perpetuity, no internet sales. In short, the movement to restrict gun owners would have achieved, in one stroke, every objective it had labored for over the years -- indeed, it would have achieved some that (a ban on semiauto handguns) that were so bold it had never dared to propose them. All this would be achieved without the messy necessity of winning a majority vote in Congress.

Yes.

Lets say you somehow supported the ENTIRE Democratic party platform except on gun control measures.

For my ENTIRE LIFE you could have voted Democrat and had nothing meaningful done against your right to bear arms.

Kinda like if you vote Republican just hoping they would outlaw abortion you would have wasted your vote for the last 40 years.

On a more trivial note, each has won small victories outlawing guns or abortions but man. That's a lot of yelling and I can essentially still have my abortion unless something strange is going on and I can buy a semi-auto AK-47 on the way home.

Wrong......it is almost impossible to get guns in New York....in California, New York, Hawaii and other states...they can keep you from getting a permit to carry a gun......various states ban types of rifles and pistols...and the recent 9th and 4th circuit rulings curtail the Right to bear arms....you should actually study the topic before you post....

 

[2aguy]

Q. Can you vote democrat and support the 2nd Amendment

A. Sure, I support regulated capitalism and reject lassiez faire / anti regulation capitalism; I support every sane, sober and lawful citizen the right to own, possess and have in his or her custody and control to defend their home or business. I do not support unregulated gun ownership.

we do not have unregulated gun ownership.

The fact that felons and the adjudicated mentally ill are not legally permitted to buy firearms is proof that we do not have unregulated gun ownership

True, and I did not write that we did have unregulated gun ownership. Which belies the claim that the 2nd A. shall not be infringed is in play. However, the regs. are not effective and something more needs to be done to prevent the mass amounts of gun violence in America.

And we already have it......it is called prison....except people like you keep letting repeat, violent gun offenders back on the streets where they then use guns to shoot people........that is the problem...not John and Jane Q. Citizen carrying guns for self defense.

 

[2aguy]

--LOL

yeah so what

do buying a compound bow give one a rambo complex

--LOL

I don't know

Ask me the next time someone massacres a school or a church using a compound bow

you are falling apart at the seams

I wonder why the shooter in Las Vegas did not choose a compound crossbow as his weapon of choice?

I know why the Hero at the Texas church shooting Chose the AR-15 as a weapon...a weapon he used to save at least 26 lives........

I wonder why the guy in Nice, France chose a rental truck...oh yeah..so he could murder more people than the guy in Vegas did...since the guys in Paris easily got guns......but the rental truck was a more efficient killer....

 

[2aguy]

Q. Can you vote democrat and support the 2nd Amendment

A. Sure, I support regulated capitalism and reject lassiez faire / anti regulation capitalism; I support every sane, sober and lawful citizen the right to own, possess and have in his or her custody and control to defend their home or business. I do not support unregulated gun ownership.

we do not have unregulated gun ownership.

The fact that felons and the adjudicated mentally ill are not legally permitted to buy firearms is proof that we do not have unregulated gun ownership

True, and I did not write that we did have unregulated gun ownership. Which belies the claim that the 2nd A. shall not be infringed is in play. However, the regs. are not effective and something more needs to be done to prevent the mass amounts of gun violence in America.

The laws are not enforced that's the only problem with them

Casting blame as the sole cause of gun violence in America isn't convincing. Myriad issues are part of the causation:

1. The failure of the War on Drugs (and the fool who is now our AG, focusing on MJ enforcement and not enforcement of gun laws, is one prime example)
2. The NRA policy of no new gun laws, no way no how
3. People like you and others who see guns as a panacea and not a problem in reducing violence in America
4. The Republican Party using guns as a wedge issue and not seeking laws to mitigate gun violence in America.
5. The 2nd A. itself and the interpretation of it by using the weapons used in our revolutionary war by the Americans and the British*** with the firearms available to citizens of today.

List of infantry weapons in the American Revolution - Wikipedia

And each of those things is wrong.....the only problem we have is that violent, repeat offenders are not locked up for 30 years or longer.....violent, repeat gun offenders are released over and over again, serving less than 2 years for illegal gun possession....that is the problem. The longer term problem is single teenage mothers raising young males.....

 

[2aguy]

I got about a page and a half into this thread which is located in the so called "clean debate zone" when it struck me that the rules of "clean debate" have been tossed overboard, as that entire page and a half consisted of bald and naked character attacks, namecalling and straw men, followed by heaping dollops of confirmation bias.
However if anyone really does want to discuss the concept of liberals being okay with the 2A, I'll check back later.
I'm a liberal that owns guns and I am largely okay with the 2A.

Sorry....if you vote for democrats you are voting to end the 2nd Amendment......no way it will ever be otherwise...

 

[2aguy]

we do not have unregulated gun ownership.

The fact that felons and the adjudicated mentally ill are not legally permitted to buy firearms is proof that we do not have unregulated gun ownership

True, and I did not write that we did have unregulated gun ownership. Which belies the claim that the 2nd A. shall not be infringed is in play. However, the regs. are not effective and something more needs to be done to prevent the mass amounts of gun violence in America.

The laws are not enforced that's the only problem with them

Casting blame as the sole cause of gun violence in America isn't convincing. Myriad issues are part of the causation:

1. The failure of the War on Drugs (and the fool who is now our AG, focusing on MJ enforcement and not enforcement of gun laws, is one prime example)
2. The NRA policy of no new gun laws, no way no how
3. People like you and others who see guns as a panacea and not a problem in reducing violence in America
4. The Republican Party using guns as a wedge issue and not seeking laws to mitigate gun violence in America.
5. The 2nd A. itself and the interpretation of it by using the weapons used in our revolutionary war by the Americans and the British*** with the firearms available to citizens of today.

List of infantry weapons in the American Revolution - Wikipedia

We have thousands of gun laws on the books or didn't you know that? So yes a very big part of the problem is lack of enforcement.

The NRA is a red herring. The NRA does nothing but legally advocate and lobby on behalf if its members

I never said guns are a panacea for anything. In fact I have said what my personal philosophy on gun ownership and concealed carry are many times here.

What new laws would mitigate violence?

If you want to hold the bill or rights valid to only what existed in the 18th century then you won't have a problem with the government monitoring all your computer activity because after all computers didn't exist then either.

If we have thousands of guns laws that don't work, what's wrong with working with The People to police themselves? You've read my arguments before, and always defaulted to the words in the 2nd A., too wit: "Shall not be infringed"

To repeat myself for the Nth time:

• Allow each state to require a license for a resident to own, possess or have in their custody and control a firearm, or not as each state decides;
• Require each firearm to be registered and insured within the confines of he state.
• Require every sale of a firearm to be sold to a licensed gun dealer, or, have a gun dealer broker the sale to a private person, who also needs to be licensed.
• For cause, every state can established the MQ's which qualify someone to be licensed to own, possess, etc. a firearm. Said license can be wither suspended or revoked for cause.
• An illegal transfer of a gun to an unlicensed individual, when proved in Court, said license shall be revoked for life.
• No one ever convicted of a crime of violence, domestic violence or other flaws of character, i.e. detained on a civil commitent as a danger to self or others, found to be an alcoholic or addicted to Schedule I drugs - as decided by the state, will not be eligible to be licensed.
• Possession of a gun without a license is a felony, and punishable by not less than 10 years on the St. Prison.

And none of those things will reduce gun crime. France, Britain...completely ban guns....including fully automatic military rifles...and criminals get them easily in both countries.....

Each and every one of your "solutions?" They target law abiding gun owners without doing anything to focus on actual gun criminals...the ones who actually drive the gun crime rate and the violent crime rate.

We can already arrest felons for illegal possession.....it is thrown out as a bargaining chip.

Licensing gun owners is a poll tax....Poll Taxes are unConstitutional, as ruled when the democrats used Poll Taxes to infringe on the Right of Blacks to vote.

The 9,616 gun murders in 2015......the shooters would not have a gun license since they are already banned from owning, buying or carrying guns...under current law...

Registration...another dumb idea.....Do you realize that felons do not have to register their illegal guns....? Haynes V. United States...so if felons do not have to register their illegal guns....why do law abiding citizens have to register their legal guns....?

Can you explain that?

Registration also leads to confiscation.......Germany, Britain, Australia.....first registered guns, then years later confiscated them.....

Canada...registered guns, and used that list to confiscate guns.

New York, California...registered guns and used the lists to confiscate them.

Just today.....Hawaii is using their gun registration lists to confiscate guns from people who have Medical Marijuana cards....

There isn't one thing on your list that makes sense....that doesn't violate the rights of Law abiding people and that will actually do anything to stop any mass public shooters or criminals....

care to actually try again...?

 

[2aguy]

The laws are not enforced that's the only problem with them

Casting blame as the sole cause of gun violence in America isn't convincing. Myriad issues are part of the causation:

1. The failure of the War on Drugs (and the fool who is now our AG, focusing on MJ enforcement and not enforcement of gun laws, is one prime example)
2. The NRA policy of no new gun laws, no way no how
3. People like you and others who see guns as a panacea and not a problem in reducing violence in America
4. The Republican Party using guns as a wedge issue and not seeking laws to mitigate gun violence in America.
5. The 2nd A. itself and the interpretation of it by using the weapons used in our revolutionary war by the Americans and the British*** with the firearms available to citizens of today.

List of infantry weapons in the American Revolution - Wikipedia

We have thousands of gun laws on the books or didn't you know that? So yes a very big part of the problem is lack of enforcement.

The NRA is a red herring. The NRA does nothing but legally advocate and lobby on behalf if its members

I never said guns are a panacea for anything. In fact I have said what my personal philosophy on gun ownership and concealed carry are many times here.

What new laws would mitigate violence?

If you want to hold the bill or rights valid to only what existed in the 18th century then you won't have a problem with the government monitoring all your computer activity because after all computers didn't exist then either.

If we have thousands of guns laws that don't work, what's wrong with working with The People to police themselves? You've read my arguments before, and always defaulted to the words in the 2nd A., too wit: "Shall not be infringed"

To repeat myself for the Nth time:

• Allow each state to require a license for a resident to own, possess or have in their custody and control a firearm, or not as each state decides;
• Require each firearm to be registered and insured within the confines of he state.
• Require every sale of a firearm to be sold to a licensed gun dealer, or, have a gun dealer broker the sale to a private person, who also needs to be licensed.
• For cause, every state can established the MQ's which qualify someone to be licensed to own, possess, etc. a firearm. Said license can be wither suspended or revoked for cause.
• An illegal transfer of a gun to an unlicensed individual, when proved in Court, said license shall be revoked for life.
• No one ever convicted of a crime of violence, domestic violence or other flaws of character - as decided by the state, will not be eligible to be licensed.

There is no need for registration.
It is already illegal in many states to sell to anyone not legally eligible to own a firearm. But I really have no problem with all sales being mediated by an FFL dealer. I don't sell my guns but if I did I would have an FFL broker all sales even if it was to a family member just to cover my own ass.

And when you start getting into arbitrary shit like "flaws of character" I have to say no way. Criminal records are enough we don't need some asshole denying people their rights on arbitrary bullshit.

All that needs to be done is to enforce the prohibitions on the books already and we need mandatory jail time for any crime committed while in possession of a firearm to be lengthy sentences to be served without parole. IOW do something to target the actual criminals and not treat law abiding people as such.

By flaws of character I did not meant to infer arbitrary sanctions, facts like Driving under the influence of Alcohol or other drugs, detained as a danger to him/her self or others (5150), making criminal threats, simple battery, drunk in public (647ff), dishonorable or bad conduct discharge are examples of the flaws I considered.

We already pull guns for all of those things........it didn't stop the Texas church shooter......and just today the Air Force may have failed to pass on 60,000 criminal records to the FBI to prohibit guns from military felons....

 

[2aguy]

The laws are not enforced that's the only problem with them

Casting blame as the sole cause of gun violence in America isn't convincing. Myriad issues are part of the causation:

1. The failure of the War on Drugs (and the fool who is now our AG, focusing on MJ enforcement and not enforcement of gun laws, is one prime example)
2. The NRA policy of no new gun laws, no way no how
3. People like you and others who see guns as a panacea and not a problem in reducing violence in America
4. The Republican Party using guns as a wedge issue and not seeking laws to mitigate gun violence in America.
5. The 2nd A. itself and the interpretation of it by using the weapons used in our revolutionary war by the Americans and the British*** with the firearms available to citizens of today.

List of infantry weapons in the American Revolution - Wikipedia

We have thousands of gun laws on the books or didn't you know that? So yes a very big part of the problem is lack of enforcement.

The NRA is a red herring. The NRA does nothing but legally advocate and lobby on behalf if its members

I never said guns are a panacea for anything. In fact I have said what my personal philosophy on gun ownership and concealed carry are many times here.

What new laws would mitigate violence?

If you want to hold the bill or rights valid to only what existed in the 18th century then you won't have a problem with the government monitoring all your computer activity because after all computers didn't exist then either.

If we have thousands of guns laws that don't work, what's wrong with working with The People to police themselves? You've read my arguments before, and always defaulted to the words in the 2nd A., too wit: "Shall not be infringed"

To repeat myself for the Nth time:

• Allow each state to require a license for a resident to own, possess or have in their custody and control a firearm, or not as each state decides;
• Require each firearm to be registered and insured within the confines of he state.
• Require every sale of a firearm to be sold to a licensed gun dealer, or, have a gun dealer broker the sale to a private person, who also needs to be licensed.
• For cause, every state can established the MQ's which qualify someone to be licensed to own, possess, etc. a firearm. Said license can be wither suspended or revoked for cause.
• An illegal transfer of a gun to an unlicensed individual, when proved in Court, said license shall be revoked for life.
• No one ever convicted of a crime of violence, domestic violence or other flaws of character - as decided by the state, will not be eligible to be licensed.

There is no need for registration.
It is already illegal in many states to sell to anyone not legally eligible to own a firearm. But I really have no problem with all sales being mediated by an FFL dealer. I don't sell my guns but if I did I would have an FFL broker all sales even if it was to a family member just to cover my own ass.

And when you start getting into arbitrary shit like "flaws of character" I have to say no way. Criminal records are enough we don't need some asshole denying people their rights on arbitrary bullshit.

All that needs to be done is to enforce the prohibitions on the books already and we need mandatory jail time for any crime committed while in possession of a firearm to be lengthy sentences to be served without parole. IOW do something to target the actual criminals and not treat law abiding people as such.

What's your take on this:

SCOTUS Guts 2nd Amend. By Refusing To Hear Semi-Auto Ban Case

"Today the Supreme Court let stand the Fourth Circuit’s holding in Kolbe v. Hogan that semi-automatic rifles are not constitutionally protected “arms,” and in doing so declared the Second Amendment guarantees only a second-class right."

See more in the link above.

It only takes 4 votes to grant a writ of certiorari......


So.......that they dindn't take the case means this....


The 4 justices who will rule against the ban know they don't have a 5th justice...not until ginsburg, breyer or kennedy die or resign.....and the 4 left wing justices....know they don't have the 5th vote to support the ban.....

 

[2aguy]

With what exceptions?

I don't want to use the word "exceptions" because that word leads us all into the "infringement" portion of the 2A, and that argument is used as a blunt instrument to mute reasonable debate.
That said, guns are powerful devices and the exercise of power demands responsibility and fitness, therefore it is reasonable to demand demonstrations of both in the exercise of that right.

A lawmaker is deemed fit or unfit to hold office, yes?
A driver is deemed fit or unfit to hold a driver's license.
A lawyer is deemed fit or unfit to hold a J.D. and is disbarred if they fail to demonstrate fitness to practice before the bar.
Without such requirements, we strip away the veneer of civilization.

And in each case you list....an actual offense happens before they are denied...not before. The gun laws anti gunners want would deny the Right before a crime or infraction has been committed.

 

[Liquid Reigns]

Most gun owners don't understand those policies...especially universal background checks and gun registration. If they did, they would not want anything to do with them.

I have no problem with background checks because I will pass every background check thrown at me.

Quite frankly if you can't pass a background check you shouldn't be allowed to have a firearm.

I am completely against registration though

They want registration.....that is why they are pushing universal background checks, they know UBCs give them the reason to get gun registration.

Most people can't understand the correlation between the infringements on the Fourth Amendment and the Right to keep and bear Arms.

If you have the Right, why should you be compelled to ask permission? Where is there probable cause to believe you are a criminal just because you exercise a constitutional Right?

That's because their is no 4A infringement regarding the 2A. You merely have the right to own a weapon, not necessarily to own a firearm. The Constitution doesn't grant you the right to own a weapon, it protects the right as granted before the USC via the 1689 EBoR.

Sorry.......even the Supreme Court knows you are wrong...
From the Heller decision....

We do not interpret constitutional rights that way. Just as the First Amendment protects modern forms of communications, e.g., Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union, 521 U. S. 844, 849 (1997), and the Fourth Amendment applies to modern forms of search, e.g., Kyllo v. United States, 533 U. S. 27, 35–36 (2001), the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding.

YAWN, you need a reading comprehension class. You don't seem to grasp what I stated, nor do you grasp what you quoted. Would you liketo try again?