Let's get specific on the politics of GUN CONTROL

[Iceweasel]

Let's start out with banning manufacture of certain guns. The Thompson was a huge problem and every criminal worth his salts owned one. After they outlawed the manufacture, the gun slowly disappeared. And if you think the Thompson is any less lethal than a full auto M-16 or AK-47/74 you would be wrong. It took about a decade to get it out of most hands. If you want one now, you have to purchase it from a gun collector.

I see some similarities in the mass shootings. Large Capacity Mags, high fire rate to name the most common. The Handguns have done only a very small percentage of the killings as has shotguns. When you have a 32/50/100 round clip of either a 9mm or 556 you can do a lot of damage fast. Stop manufacturing these things and with a decade they will be gone from the Criminal Element.

Let's see...they outlawed the manufacture of the Thompson but you can still get one from the dealer? Tommy guns are wildly inaccurate in full auto so you would be wrong, they are less lethal in general than a AR or AK. Plus they are a sub gun, chambered for a pistol round, the .45 acp. That's why the military isn't issuing them these days.

I don't know how many rounds I'll ever need, I might have to fight a tyranical government someday so no, you can't regulated magazine (not clip) size.

You see, that's the problem with gun grabbers, they are highly uneducated but feel they are experts on the subject and refuse to deal with the real problem. The moral decay they promote.

They no longer allow the Chopper in the gun contests anymore since they had a tendancy to win. While the 2nd and later bullets were inaccurate, the first one was dead on. But since they are Automatic Weapons and not in the general population they are no longer used in the shootouts.

I just love it. If you say lie enough times does that make it true? The General public isn't buying it anymore.

I don't even know what point you're trying to make. Are you drunk?

 

[80zephyr]

France suffered more casualties (murders and injuries) from mass public shootings in 2015 than the US has suffered during Obama’s entire presidency (UPDATED 524 to 428)

Horseshit.

Really? So then can you give me the correct numbers, if you don't believe the ones in my link?

Mark

 

[Centinel]

Let's get specific about gun control? That is code for "lets don't do anything" about firearm abuse... The Second amendment was written at a time of flintlocks and muzzle loading guns, and when a militia could address an invading army of the British regulars. But, now, that is a little outdated. We are dealing with human nature now and technology, guns have advanced since 1776. Human nature, not so much. People abuse Guns, drugs, cars and each other. Perhaps it is easier to regulate guns than human nature. Or cars, or drugs, or anything else.

If you tell us what sort of legislation you're suggesting, we would be able to discuss whether your suggestion would be permitted by the constitution.

 

[Little-Acorn]

No, Congress cannot regulate intrastate commerce. That's the State. But it can regulate interstate commerce. And this includes companies like S&W, Colt and other arms manufacturers.

That was true when the Constitution was first ratified.

But when the BOR was ratified a few years later, the 2nd amendment removed Congress's power to regulate interstate commerce in guns and other such weapons. Since then, the "Commerce clause" no longer applied to guns.

This is regularly violated by various big-govt pushers who don't think people should have the right to own and carry guns.

But violating the Constitution regularly, doesn't make it legal.

 

[Centinel]

Hate to bust your bubble but if the gun manufacturer were to keep it in the state it was produced in, the Feds would nothing to say about it. But to move that sale to another state, you just entered into Interstate Commerce and the Feds do control that. Of course, it's within reason. And Reason is what this whole thing is about.

I don't know that anyone is arguing that shipping guns from one state to another isn't commerce among the states, or that the federal government may not regulate this commerce. So what sort of additional regulations would you like imposed on these interstate sales?

 

[80zephyr]

Above I gave FBI sources murder rates in the USA, with a population of 300,000,000.

A. Of the countries you mentioned, Japan has the population closest to the USA at about 127 million. Not even 50%. Ethnically, they are homogeneous.
B. All have histories of incredible violence toward their neighbors, except for Aussies and Canadians.
C. Aussies and Canadians live in countries where there are very few people per land area.

Concluding that only the difference between the USA and another nation's gun laws is the ONLY reason that 8,000 gunshot inflicted murders of 300,000,000 mostly armed citizens is narrow-minded.

First, the homicide rate with guns is closer to 11,000, not 8000. and sorry, the 20,000 suicides really are a problem. Japan had 11 gun homicides in the last year I can find numbers for. The United Kingdom had 48, Germany had 258. Even accounting for smaller populations, we have a horrific homicide rate for a developed nation.

Second, history is irrelevent in this context. We've murdered Iraqis, Vietnamese, Filipinos, and Native Americans by the hundreds of thousands because we've wanted their shit, too.

So, sorry, we have a real problem. And I'm getting a little tired of watching preschoolers being wheeled out in body bags so you can compensate for your tiny dick.

If the suicide rate "really is a problem" as you say, then why is it the Japanese suicide rate is 18.5 people per 100,000 and ours is 12.1 per 100,000.

They commit suicides at a much greater rate than we do, all without the use of firearms. Why do liberals think suicides would be reduced without guns when the facts clearly show otherwise?

Mark

 

[MaryL]

Let's get specific about gun control? That is code for "lets don't do anything" about firearm abuse... The Second amendment was written at a time of flintlocks and muzzle loading guns, and when a militia could address an invading army of the British regulars. But, now, that is a little outdated. We are dealing with human nature now and technology, guns have advanced since 1776. Human nature, not so much. People abuse Guns, drugs, cars and each other. Perhaps it is easier to regulate guns than human nature. Or cars, or drugs, or anything else.

None of which matters at all to what the 2nd amendment means and does.

Yeah, everything to do with it.

 

[80zephyr]

Too funny. Out of high school yet? You would not have enough jails, nor personnel to enforce such nonsense. Do you honestly believe that well over 100,000,000 people will just march on order?

And, I think it likely they care even less what happens to your kind.

I think the vast majority would comply with the laws. It's only the few thousand NUTS who would be a problem...

and getting them out of the gene pool would be a blessing.

You are wrong about that. A couple of east coast states passed laws outlawing certain types of guns, and the majority of gun owners did not comply.

Mark

 

[Daryl Hunt]

Care to enlighten the rest of us where in the Amendments this is covered?

(patiently)

In the 2nd.

https://scontent-sea1-1.xx.fbcdn.ne...=39f42792914025ef40f767a763cf0fda&oe=5705D21E

 

[MaryL]

Why do pro gun people shut down their cerebrum on this ? The Constitution WAS written during an era of primitive gun technology, the same way freedom of speech was written in an era of printing press and not the internet, So we get terrorism on the dark net buying guns legally and creating suicide cells, I somehow don't think Jefferson and Co, would have approved ANY of that as an extension of "freedom".

 

[80zephyr]

What state?

In Virginia, I had an hour's class time, one-time range qual. Class cost $50.00, CC permit cost $50.00. Five year renewals cost $50.00. No permit necessary to buy.

Both nearby DC and Maryland, strong gun control regions, recently had a per capita gun crime rate five times that of Virginia. That rate may have changed with the Heller ruling. Since pro-2A forces have won this war, I don't pay too much attention to stats anymore.

Anyway, sounds like your state makes exercising your right a government cash cow. You really should complain.

and Virginia is where crooks in NY and Maryland get most of their guns.

Not to mention guys like Cho who had no business getting a gun.

You really believe that if nearby states didn't have guns, the criminals wouldn't get them? The US Virgin Islands have some of the toughest gun laws on the planet, they are ISLANDS, SURROUNDED BY WATER, and gun crime is rampant there. Joe, if you are gonna argue, at least do some research.

Mark

 

[Centinel]

Why do pro gun people shut down their cerebrum on this ? The Constitution WAS written during an era of primitive gun technology, the same way freedom of speech was written in an era of printing press and not the internet, So we get terrorism on the dark net buying guns legally and creating suicide cells, I somehow don't think Jefferson and Co, would have approved of that as an extension of "freedom".

What federal legislation do you suggest congress enact in order to address the problems you see?

 

[80zephyr]

I don't know how many rounds I'll ever need, I might have to fight a tyranical government someday so no, you can't regulated magazine (not clip) size.

You see, that's the problem with gun grabbers, they are highly uneducated but feel they are experts on the subject and refuse to deal with the real problem. The moral decay they promote.

Guy, the tyrannical government is going to have bombers and tanks. How many rounds your magazine holds would be kind of irrelevent at that point.

Lol. Our government won't even bomb foreign countries for fear of collateral damage. You really think they would bomb American cities that would have loyal Americans living in them? The first time they did that, they would have more to worry about that a "few" insurgents. They would have thousands.

Mark

 

[MaryL]

I am not Anti gun. I am like Benjamin Franklin, we both appeal to common sense and reason. Guns are not important. If they are a detriment, then lets be rid of them and be done with it.

 

[80zephyr]

That is of no consequence where concerns the right. Most of the 33,000 were suicides, which is a victimless "crime". Even so, 33,000 is not even an infinitesimal blip against the more than 100,000,000 law abiding gun owners nationwide.

Guy, we banned LAWN DARTS over a few deaths. We banned side-loading cribs over a few deaths.

We ban all sorts of shit over a few fatalities.

If you are saying there is no other way to prevent those 33000 deaths without losing your right to compensate for a tiny pecker, I really don't have a problem with banning guns altogether.

Or you can be breathtakingly rational and realize, "Yeah, too many guns are getting into the wrong hands, we need to do something about that."

How about disappearing the criminals instead?

We lock up 2 milllion people, compared to those gun-grabbing Europeans, who only lock up thousands. If locking people up was the answer, we'd have the lowest crime rates in the developed world, not the highest.

Joe, we both know that bans on illegal drugs like heroin and meth are ABSOLUTE, yet they are rampant in our society. So, explain to me how a gun ban would work when prohibition and drug laws didn't?

Mark

 

[2aguy]

Ya see that, Mac? How can anyone argue with airtight logic like that? The Rabbi has a right to sell his firearms......to anyone. There is no legal precedent that he'd agree with which would in any way regulate the sale of anything he owns to anyone. Period.

You are of course wrong and stupid. If I know the person is prohibited it is a crime to sell to him.
How many criminals consider that when selling their guns?

How are you going to know if the person is prohibited?

Are there any other things that you aren't allowed to sell without meeting some kind of regulatory criteria? If so.......are all of these regulations infringements on your rights and to be ignored?

You don't have to....when they commit a crime with the gun they can be arrested. If they are caught just owning or carrying the gun and they can't have it they can be arrested on the spot....no need to license all gun owners, register all guns or use universal background checks...

We already have all the laws we need to handle it....

In fact, all of the gun traffickers I have posted about...were captured because of informants telling the police and the police conducting sting operations...again...no need to license gun owners, register guns or have universal background checks...

The person who is prohibited knows they are prohibited...arrest them...focus on them.....not on the law abiding gun owner......

 

[Centinel]

I am not Anti gun. I am like Benjamin Franklin, we both appeal to common sense and reason. Guns are not important. If they are a detriment, then lets be rid of them and be done with it.

You haven't described any legislation you'd like to see passed. Without knowing what you're specifically suggesting, I can't comment whether or not the constitution allows it.

 

[2aguy]

Ya see that, Mac? How can anyone argue with airtight logic like that? The Rabbi has a right to sell his firearms......to anyone. There is no legal precedent that he'd agree with which would in any way regulate the sale of anything he owns to anyone. Period.

You are of course wrong and stupid. If I know the person is prohibited it is a crime to sell to him.
How many criminals consider that when selling their guns?

How are you going to know if the person is prohibited?

Are there any other things that you aren't allowed to sell without meeting some kind of regulatory criteria? If so.......are all of these regulations infringements on your rights and to be ignored?

You either know or you dont. If you know the guy is a resident of another state then you cannot sell to him. If you know he just got out ofprison on a felony, you cannot sell to him. But if you dont know then you dont.
Yes, you cannot sell your prescription drugs to someone else.

You might benefit from the background check then. So you can be certain that you are selling to a person legally. If you said that, though, you'd be accused of being reasonable. Can't have that.

And the criminal will bypass the background check buying from Rabbi the same way they bypass it at gun shows, gun stores and everywhere else...they will send a guy with a clean record to buy the gun for them...thus making the added money, time and manpower for the background check pointless....

The best solution...when you catch the felon with the gun....arrest them...they know they can't have it.....if they commit a crime with the gun...arrest them....

The same technique used for all other illegal activity...guns are no different.

 

[80zephyr]

Why do pro gun people shut down their cerebrum on this ? The Constitution WAS written during an era of primitive gun technology, the same way freedom of speech was written in an era of printing press and not the internet, So we get terrorism on the dark net buying guns legally and creating suicide cells, I somehow don't think Jefferson and Co, would have approved ANY of that as an extension of "freedom".

False is the idea of utility that sacrifices a thousand real advantages for one imaginary or trifling inconvenience; that would take fire from men because it burns, and water because one may drown in it; that has no remedy for evils except destruction. The laws that forbid the carrying of arms are laws of such a nature. They disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes.

-- Cesare Beccaria, as quoted by Thomas Jefferson's Commonplace book

 

[2aguy]

Ya see that, Mac? How can anyone argue with airtight logic like that? The Rabbi has a right to sell his firearms......to anyone. There is no legal precedent that he'd agree with which would in any way regulate the sale of anything he owns to anyone. Period.

You are of course wrong and stupid. If I know the person is prohibited it is a crime to sell to him.
How many criminals consider that when selling their guns?

How are you going to know if the person is prohibited?

Are there any other things that you aren't allowed to sell without meeting some kind of regulatory criteria? If so.......are all of these regulations infringements on your rights and to be ignored?

You either know or you dont. If you know the guy is a resident of another state then you cannot sell to him. If you know he just got out ofprison on a felony, you cannot sell to him. But if you dont know then you dont.
Yes, you cannot sell your prescription drugs to someone else.

You might benefit from the background check then. So you can be certain that you are selling to a person legally. If you said that, though, you'd be accused of being reasonable. Can't have that.

Why should Rabbi have to pay 150 dollars for a background check..as they do in some states....

The fee for the background check, even if it is .50 cents is a Poll Tax on a Right...and is unconstitutional......

The background check requirement is a violation of the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment since poor people will be forced to pay money to exercise a right that we all have.....