Gun Debate is pointless
- Thread starter DvlDog4WVU
- Start date
My point is this guy is psychotic. He is a bad person. ISIS is a terrorist group that should be destroyed. But to claim, at this point, that he was acting on behalf of a terrorist organization is too soon. Crazy people are "inspired" by a great many things. That was the reason for my Son of Sam analogy....
You are on very thin ice in your analogy. There's his ex-wife, his allegiance to isis and there's the question of how he met his second wife, like the San Bernadino couple. I do not rush to judgement but the runners are in the blocks on this one.
I fail to understand why the right won’t come to the table. I own two handguns. I just recently sold my Glock 17. I conceal carry my little S&W 380 where I can. I will likely buy a 20 gauge mossberg 500 for my next gun for my bedside. I consider myself a moderate, but lean left. That being said, there must be common sense application of stricter gun laws. Yes I realize guns don’t kill people. But I also know that they are the most effective and efficient way to kill large numbers of people without building a bomb. Again, there must be common sense applied. In no case should anyone on the FBI terrorist watch list ever be able to buy a gun legally. Never. In no case should the spouse of any such person be able to buy a gun. There is no good reason for not having wait periods for buying rifles capable of using magazines of 30 rounds for example. If I decide to buy an AR-15, I would have no problem waiting 15-30 days after application to purchase that weapon. I can’t even imagine any scenario where the purchaser has to have that weapon the next day or next hour. Probably where my left leaning stance is a little stronger is in the area of private sales. A family member has an AR-15. He obtained that from a dead uncle. I am considering buying that weapon for my personal use. My relative has no idea if I am a felon or if I intend to use it for reasons other than sport or personal protection. So I do think we need to have limits on what private parties can sell between each other even going as far to engaging a licensed dealer to be part of that transaction for a fee. (yes I realize that only the good guys suffer here but it may keep a small number of weapons from the wrong folks).
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized. - See more at: http://constitution.findlaw.com/amendment4.html#sthash.PirIg6kq.dpuf
Why should you have to wait 15-30 days? What would be accomplished from that?
If your relative knows you are a felon, than selling you the gun would be against the law. To be safe.... find a local shop or dealer willing to process the ATF paperwork and instant check.
The gun ban is the standard libtard diversion. In this case it was a monumental failure of the FBI. A gun dealer called the guy in on his attempt to purchase body armor. He had been interviewed 3x and there was no response by the government.
I think we can all agree,there is no constitutional right to body armor. I am a hardcore gun enthusiast; legal gun owners are not at fault here.
I think we can all agree,there is no constitutional right to body armor. I am a hardcore gun enthusiast; legal gun owners are not at fault here.
It's called compromise. Why should some whacko wannabe terrorist be able to walk into a gun shop and buy an AR and then shoot up a club? There are already waiting periods in some states. Why not create a national waiting period for certain high capacity firearms? That isn't a ban. That isn't an unrealistic hardship on a collector or a recreational shooter. To me, this is one example of a common sense compromise we all can live with
I don't disagree, but can you provide a list of examples of the scenario you utilized which would force the need?
IMHO it's not a compromise if it's a pointless en-devour. Someone being forced to wait isn't going to determine their plans. Most all of these mass shootings (not the gang related shootings that get labeled as "mass") are well thought out and planned well in advance. So you may deter that very very rare person that buys and kills the same day, but if they are that motivated, then they'll buy pass legal purchasing to begin with.
Heard something on the news the other day about where guns are bought that are used in crimes...I think they found that of the 50,000 dealers, that 500 dealers were involved in selling the guns used in a very high percentage of crimes (this was from trace data)...so why not focus on those 500 dealers as a starting point with existing laws and see what happens before raping due process for the rest of us?
If the 1st Amendment can have limitations placed upon it (ex. threatening speech, riot speech, profanity, etc.), then the 2nd Amendment can have SOME as well......
You can limit the USE of those rights, but you can't BAN those rights.
I can say "Fire" all I want... I can't say "Fire" in a manner that could cause panic or others to be harmed. The word is not banned, but limited in how it is used.
Guns should be no different. I can't fire off a few rounds in a crowded neighborhood, but I can go to a range and shoot all I want. The gun should not be banned, just how it is used.
I think we should re-examine the 1st amendment and limit who and how it's used with regard to the internet and other social media - this is how the radical muslim terrorists coordinate attacks and recruit new members...we need a "no-fly-no-type" law...that way the government can decide who is utilizing these mediums in way that threatens our national security.
I'm referring to a longer waiting list, not a ban. Especially when it comes to assault rifles or large magazines.
I do not think majority of Americans want to ban guns
As I said above, it is compromise. We all know that restrictions won't necessarily stop a shooter just as taking off our belts at the security checkpoint won't deter a terrorist on a plane. But it makes the anti-gun people feel a little better.
Realistically there are too many guns in this country to ever "ban" guns. I surely don't want ARs banned either. I just don't want freaks like the Orlando shooter to get one legally. To me, that is an issue
What measures that have been proposed would have stopped the Orlando shooter?
I said in the post you quoted, that further controls may not be effective. But to your point, nobody that has been investigated due to potential ties to terrorists or terrorism gets to buy guns.
Don't ask me how I know this, but the dog, Sam, lived on to achieve a bit of fame and a long life. If you can find the Dead Boy's song "Son of Sam" on the interweb, you'll hear the actual dog, Sam, barking and howling in the background. Dead Boys frontman Rat Scabies lived in the same neighborhood as Berkowitz. When word got about Berkowitz and the dog, Scabies and his bandmate Cheeta Chrome wrote some words for the song, headed over to Berkowitz's building, snuck through a police line with a cassette deck and recorded the dog barking. As far as I know, no one who heard Sam on the song went on a murderous rampage.
The rest as they say is history. For the record Berkowitz used a revolver, .357 I believe. He didn't need a lot of rounds, he didn't aim to miss. It was a hectic couple of weeks. Elvis went tits up on the crapper about the same time. The Big E was a wheel gun man ,too.
Bring back the flintlock, and ban everything else. Flintlocks are what the Founding Fathers were referring to.
Christ, I thought coming over here would lead to some higher-level thinking compared with the smack board. I was wrong for the first time in 2016. The lack of critical thinking skills, especially from college educated adults, is scary. Both sides in this discussion are making monumentally incorrect assumptions and comments.
What makes you believe that you have a right to own any gun? Your answer, as has been argued in this thread from both sides, is the Second Amendment. ********. Those who answer with that exhibit a fundamental lack of knowledge on the Constitution and how this country was built.
The Bill of Rights is a very short document. The authors, who mainly consisted of three people, were aware of this. They realized things could be taken out of context with such broad statements, so they made it a point to publish The Federalist Papers. The Federalist provides the intent and rationale for the creation of each amendment. So, if you want to go around claiming that you have gun rights due to The Second Amendment, you need to spend a few minutes reading The Federalist Papers . . . the part pertaining to the Second Amendment is #46. It is a short and easy read, but it will be extremely enlightening to many of you whom present incorrect arguments.
#46, written by Madison (who also created The Second Amendment), clearly dictates the intent and rationale he had in making the amendment. In it, Madison states that the right to bear arms is solely for the ability to stop a tyrannical federal government. Madison discussed the need for armed militias at the state and local levels for this exact reason. None of Madison's intent for the amendment had to do with hunting, sporting, protecting oneself from another individual, etc. The only rationale Madison provides for making The Second Amendment is for the ability to overthrow a tyrannical federal government. So, all of this "the Constitution affords me the right to bear arms" is incorrect . . . it is even worse when the same people who argue with that line want to argue against the Patriot Act or restrictions on gun purchases by those on a no-fly or terrorist list . . . but, we will get to those in a minute.
Now, there are some liars among you who will say "yeah, well, I only have my guns to safeguard against a tyrannical federal government, because Obama and Hillary want to take away all of our rights since Obama is a Muslim and Hillary is a control freak." So, I will give you a huge benefit of the doubt and accept that your only reason for having guns is to stop a tyrannical government. Well, besides being a liar and a fool, you are also in a tough bind with that argument. You see, in the Federalist Papers, Madison also details the type of firepower/amount needed to overthrow a federal government (which, importantly, he includes the federal military as being a part of). In fact, he gets very specific by mentioning the number of armed citizens the U.S. would need at that time, based on the population and available firepower, to overthrow a tyrannical federal government. In other words, his intent and rationale for The Second Amendment is 1) to stop a tyrannical government 2) to provide the citizens enough firepower to be able to overthrow that federal government, which he mentions includes the federal military.
As we all know, the federal military could annihilate the 50 biggest cities in the U.S. within 48 hours. They have extreme firepower at their disposal. So, if you argue that your right to bear arms is guaranteed by the Constitution, you must first argue that your only purpose for having the weapons is to safeguard against at tyrannical government, then, you must stay consistent with the intent of the Constitution and be in support of citizens having the same firepower to be able to actually overthrow that government/military, which Madison clearly explains as the rationale. In turn, in order to stay intellectually honest, you must support citizens in having tanks, fighter jets, weapons of mass destruction, etc.
If you don't agree with all of that, you have to stop claiming that the Constitution affords you the right to bear arms. By stating that, assuming you disagree with what I just said, you are going against the clear and unambiguous intent of the Second Amendment . . .at which point, you might as well use the Constitution to start the next dumpster fire in Morganhole.
Now, somebody in this thread mentioned that the First Amendment has restrictions on it, so why can't we do the same with the Second Amendment. Again, this shows a fundamental flaw in your knowledge of the Constitution. The same Federalist Papers explain the reasoning behind The First Amendment (I can't remember the exact number). The freedom of speech, the press, right to peacefully assemble, etc. all centered solely around the ability to criticize the government. Its intent had nothing to do with being able to say whatever you wanted. That is why there are laws against slander; laws against the example given earlier about screaming "fire" in a crowded theater; laws against "freedom of expression" which make it so I can't walk down the street naked (well, outside of San Francisco). The First Amendment's intentions had nothing to do with any of those. It was made solely to allow citizens the right to criticize and speak out against the government without being punished.
Now, I believe DevilDog mentioned how he was against denying the ability to purchase guns for anyone on a no-fly list. Smart man. The no-fly list is an extremely arbitrary list which has thousands upon thousands of errors on it. There is no clear-cut explanation for how people end up on it. Many are mistakes based on simply similar sounding names. By denying the right to buy a gun, regardless if that purchase is or isn't (as we just saw) guaranteed by The First Amendment, you are denying due process, another essential part of the Constitution. Those people on a no-fly or terrorist watch list should still be able to purchase those guns unless they are afforded due process. Well, that sounds like a recipe for disaster, right? No.
Gun reform does not equate to taking away your guns. Gun reform can also mean a universal background check for all purchases and a mandatory waiting period. Currently, I can drive ten minutes to a flea market and legally buy an AR-15 without any background check being done, without any ID being shown, and without any bill of sale/paperwork . . . and it is all 100% legal. That is absolutely asinine and is why gun reform needs to take place. A universal background check on all purchases, including private sales, eliminates this and other loopholes. Cars are very dangerous objects with the ability to kill lots of people. As a result, we have passed legislation to eliminate a lot of these threats; seatbelts, speed limits, multiple tests to be able to drive, road regulations, car manufacturing regulations, etc. With guns, organizations like the NRA refuse to allow even any common-sense regulations like a universal background check. Now, what about those no-fly and terrorist watch people I allow the opportunity to buy guns? Well, they, like everyone else, have a mandatory waiting period before they can obtain the weapons. During a background check, the appropriate governing authorities will be notified that somebody on one of those lists is attempting a purchase. Not much unlike the current NICS system, certain "red flags" or "pings" will prevent a purchase. During the mandatory waiting period, investigators can then determine the status of the purchase. It isn't against any sort of due process restriction to talk to the attempted buyer. If cleared, everything is fine. If denied, the attempted buyer should be afforded due process.
This waiting period would have to be more than the average 15 minutes it takes for the NICS to clear somebody or the three day waiting period some states have. Now, groups like the NRA will fight that, like they do everything. But, I couldn't go take a driver's road test, a written test, an eye test, etc. and be given a license immediately. I had to wait a certain amount of time. Even after passing, I still had restrictions on my "right" to drive. Likewise, having to wait 15 days (or whatever is determined as an appropriate amount of time to be investigated) for somebody on one of the lists to obtain the gun isn't infringing on their due process.
Some of you are vehement about the Constitution granting you the right to bear arms.Yet, those same people had no problem with Georgie Bush passing the Patriot Act which was the single biggest infringement on our Constitutional rights in the last 50 years. Those same people had no problem when Obama decided to extend the Patriot Act. It is, again, intellectually dishonest to argue (incorrectly, I may add) that one thing infringes on your Constitutional rights yet ignoring or accepting something else which truly does infringe on the intent of a Constitutional right.
Again, gun reform doesn't equate to taking away your guns. There are many common-sense gun control measures that can and should be taken which don't inhibit your ability to have weapons. I have owned multiple guns for more than a dozen years, and I don't want my guns taken away. At the same time, I am level-headed enough to not allow my bias of wanting guns to incorrectly jade the true intent of the Constitution. Those of you who argue against the Patriot Act (DevilDog) but claim you have a Constitutional right to guns (DevilDog) lack Constitutional knowledge. At the same time, those of you who claim that the Second Amendment (right to bear arms) should be regulated, because we have had no problem restricting the First Amendment (freedom of speech, press, etc.) fit in that same category.
What makes you believe that you have a right to own any gun? Your answer, as has been argued in this thread from both sides, is the Second Amendment. ********. Those who answer with that exhibit a fundamental lack of knowledge on the Constitution and how this country was built.
The Bill of Rights is a very short document. The authors, who mainly consisted of three people, were aware of this. They realized things could be taken out of context with such broad statements, so they made it a point to publish The Federalist Papers. The Federalist provides the intent and rationale for the creation of each amendment. So, if you want to go around claiming that you have gun rights due to The Second Amendment, you need to spend a few minutes reading The Federalist Papers . . . the part pertaining to the Second Amendment is #46. It is a short and easy read, but it will be extremely enlightening to many of you whom present incorrect arguments.
#46, written by Madison (who also created The Second Amendment), clearly dictates the intent and rationale he had in making the amendment. In it, Madison states that the right to bear arms is solely for the ability to stop a tyrannical federal government. Madison discussed the need for armed militias at the state and local levels for this exact reason. None of Madison's intent for the amendment had to do with hunting, sporting, protecting oneself from another individual, etc. The only rationale Madison provides for making The Second Amendment is for the ability to overthrow a tyrannical federal government. So, all of this "the Constitution affords me the right to bear arms" is incorrect . . . it is even worse when the same people who argue with that line want to argue against the Patriot Act or restrictions on gun purchases by those on a no-fly or terrorist list . . . but, we will get to those in a minute.
Now, there are some liars among you who will say "yeah, well, I only have my guns to safeguard against a tyrannical federal government, because Obama and Hillary want to take away all of our rights since Obama is a Muslim and Hillary is a control freak." So, I will give you a huge benefit of the doubt and accept that your only reason for having guns is to stop a tyrannical government. Well, besides being a liar and a fool, you are also in a tough bind with that argument. You see, in the Federalist Papers, Madison also details the type of firepower/amount needed to overthrow a federal government (which, importantly, he includes the federal military as being a part of). In fact, he gets very specific by mentioning the number of armed citizens the U.S. would need at that time, based on the population and available firepower, to overthrow a tyrannical federal government. In other words, his intent and rationale for The Second Amendment is 1) to stop a tyrannical government 2) to provide the citizens enough firepower to be able to overthrow that federal government, which he mentions includes the federal military.
As we all know, the federal military could annihilate the 50 biggest cities in the U.S. within 48 hours. They have extreme firepower at their disposal. So, if you argue that your right to bear arms is guaranteed by the Constitution, you must first argue that your only purpose for having the weapons is to safeguard against at tyrannical government, then, you must stay consistent with the intent of the Constitution and be in support of citizens having the same firepower to be able to actually overthrow that government/military, which Madison clearly explains as the rationale. In turn, in order to stay intellectually honest, you must support citizens in having tanks, fighter jets, weapons of mass destruction, etc.
If you don't agree with all of that, you have to stop claiming that the Constitution affords you the right to bear arms. By stating that, assuming you disagree with what I just said, you are going against the clear and unambiguous intent of the Second Amendment . . .at which point, you might as well use the Constitution to start the next dumpster fire in Morganhole.
Now, somebody in this thread mentioned that the First Amendment has restrictions on it, so why can't we do the same with the Second Amendment. Again, this shows a fundamental flaw in your knowledge of the Constitution. The same Federalist Papers explain the reasoning behind The First Amendment (I can't remember the exact number). The freedom of speech, the press, right to peacefully assemble, etc. all centered solely around the ability to criticize the government. Its intent had nothing to do with being able to say whatever you wanted. That is why there are laws against slander; laws against the example given earlier about screaming "fire" in a crowded theater; laws against "freedom of expression" which make it so I can't walk down the street naked (well, outside of San Francisco). The First Amendment's intentions had nothing to do with any of those. It was made solely to allow citizens the right to criticize and speak out against the government without being punished.
Now, I believe DevilDog mentioned how he was against denying the ability to purchase guns for anyone on a no-fly list. Smart man. The no-fly list is an extremely arbitrary list which has thousands upon thousands of errors on it. There is no clear-cut explanation for how people end up on it. Many are mistakes based on simply similar sounding names. By denying the right to buy a gun, regardless if that purchase is or isn't (as we just saw) guaranteed by The First Amendment, you are denying due process, another essential part of the Constitution. Those people on a no-fly or terrorist watch list should still be able to purchase those guns unless they are afforded due process. Well, that sounds like a recipe for disaster, right? No.
Gun reform does not equate to taking away your guns. Gun reform can also mean a universal background check for all purchases and a mandatory waiting period. Currently, I can drive ten minutes to a flea market and legally buy an AR-15 without any background check being done, without any ID being shown, and without any bill of sale/paperwork . . . and it is all 100% legal. That is absolutely asinine and is why gun reform needs to take place. A universal background check on all purchases, including private sales, eliminates this and other loopholes. Cars are very dangerous objects with the ability to kill lots of people. As a result, we have passed legislation to eliminate a lot of these threats; seatbelts, speed limits, multiple tests to be able to drive, road regulations, car manufacturing regulations, etc. With guns, organizations like the NRA refuse to allow even any common-sense regulations like a universal background check. Now, what about those no-fly and terrorist watch people I allow the opportunity to buy guns? Well, they, like everyone else, have a mandatory waiting period before they can obtain the weapons. During a background check, the appropriate governing authorities will be notified that somebody on one of those lists is attempting a purchase. Not much unlike the current NICS system, certain "red flags" or "pings" will prevent a purchase. During the mandatory waiting period, investigators can then determine the status of the purchase. It isn't against any sort of due process restriction to talk to the attempted buyer. If cleared, everything is fine. If denied, the attempted buyer should be afforded due process.
This waiting period would have to be more than the average 15 minutes it takes for the NICS to clear somebody or the three day waiting period some states have. Now, groups like the NRA will fight that, like they do everything. But, I couldn't go take a driver's road test, a written test, an eye test, etc. and be given a license immediately. I had to wait a certain amount of time. Even after passing, I still had restrictions on my "right" to drive. Likewise, having to wait 15 days (or whatever is determined as an appropriate amount of time to be investigated) for somebody on one of the lists to obtain the gun isn't infringing on their due process.
Some of you are vehement about the Constitution granting you the right to bear arms.Yet, those same people had no problem with Georgie Bush passing the Patriot Act which was the single biggest infringement on our Constitutional rights in the last 50 years. Those same people had no problem when Obama decided to extend the Patriot Act. It is, again, intellectually dishonest to argue (incorrectly, I may add) that one thing infringes on your Constitutional rights yet ignoring or accepting something else which truly does infringe on the intent of a Constitutional right.
Again, gun reform doesn't equate to taking away your guns. There are many common-sense gun control measures that can and should be taken which don't inhibit your ability to have weapons. I have owned multiple guns for more than a dozen years, and I don't want my guns taken away. At the same time, I am level-headed enough to not allow my bias of wanting guns to incorrectly jade the true intent of the Constitution. Those of you who argue against the Patriot Act (DevilDog) but claim you have a Constitutional right to guns (DevilDog) lack Constitutional knowledge. At the same time, those of you who claim that the Second Amendment (right to bear arms) should be regulated, because we have had no problem restricting the First Amendment (freedom of speech, press, etc.) fit in that same category.
Last edited:
Then we should limit free speech to street corners and pen and quill...that's all they had back then too
All of this diatribe, and you fly right over that there is a standing army when there ought not be.
Nope. They were in response to the Anti-Federalist papers and an attempt to convince people to support the Constitution.
The Federalist papers are also not the only look into our founders and their thoughts on our rights.
Meanwhile see McDonald v. Chicago and Columbia v. Heller.
That's not a "right".
I'm glad you're a Fudd. Good for you.
And another one who has never read The Federalist Papers (you really don't even need to with this one). The "no appropriation of money" for longer than two years is still followed to this day, which is why the Department of Defense has an annual budget they have to do. They have tried pushing it back to every two years to make it easier to work with while also maintaining the Constitutional provision.
And in doing so, it explained the intent and rationale the authors had for each amendment. Was that really too hard for you to understand?
Judicial decisions do not change the intent and rationale of the founders. Political affiliation, public support, and other aspects all play a much bigger role in judicial decisions on these issues than the original intent of the founders. I am not necessarily saying that is a bad thing, but it is proof that those who are claiming that the First Amendment was intended to give them the right to bear arms for anything other than to be used against a tyrannical argument are absolutely wrong.
But, they are the only ones to be published at the time of the Constitution and explain the intent and rationale for each.
Hence, the use of my quotations. It is no more a right than those claiming a right to own guns to be used for hunting, sport, or self-defense against individuals.
The need for a well-regulated militia and an armed citizenry are not mutually exclusive, nor is the right to have arms considered dependent on membership in an active militia.
Agreed on both parts. It still doesn't change the fact that anyone who possesses guns for anything other than being able to stop a tyrannical government is not afforded that right by the Constitution.
I'm a gun owner. I don't own guns for that reason. The overwhelming majority of other gun owners also don't own their weapons for that reason. So, the people who go around arguing that the Second Amendment gives them that right are either liars or ignorant to the intent of the Constitution.
Granted, the Supreme Court in 2008 (or '07 or '09) may have allowed a much too broad interpretation, but that has more to do work what I said in my past post than it does in the judges actually believing their decision was based on the original intent.
For argument's sake, time and again, it has been proven that an insurgent military can be very effective against our overwhelming military advantage. Vietnam, Iraq, AFG, etc. Very hard to bring to bear that kind of firepower against your own populace without creating additional enemies within. Additionally, you have to consider the willingness of the US Military to openly target American citizens. Lastly, more than a couple of examples of coups occurring without a shot fired exist as well. You don't have to measure might to effectively resist. The Revolutionary War is a very good example of this.
I have no issue with a Universal background check. My concern is that you could really only enforce it with new purchases. You could shut down the gun shows, fine, that would be easy. How do enforce Jim Bob and Uncle Dale back in the hollers of Mingo county from conducting a person to person sale? Or passing down firearms through the generations? Again, I have no issue with the background checks, and actual enforcement of straw purchasing (admittingly the laws need to clean up to be able to effectively prosecute this). Lastly on this one, by creating the sweeping change you list here, which I could support in theory, you run the risk of taking an average law abiding American and making them into a criminal.
I have and will continue to have a problem with both.
All in all, this was a very well thought out response and I thank you for taking the time to share it.
I can't speak for others, but my personal problem with all this "debate" over gun control is that our leaders are NOT debating about how to potentially fix problems....instead one side says we need to do this and the other says "blah blah 2nd Amendment". There is NO talk....no discussion....just the simple response to it. I know that there probably won't be an easy fix, but what is? NOTHING is easy when you are trying to change. Whether it be transferring schools, selling a home and moving in to another, etc. But does that mean we should just say "ah, it's too difficult to change and it probably won't work so **** it".
The problem I have with this position is that the right suggests things quite often and the left doesn't like it because it doesn't limit the amount of guns produced/purchased. It's not that the left is the only one trying. Both sides are deeply entrenched.
Granted.....and that is frustrating and dividing Americans even further. After the NRA shooting, I saw reports where the NRA (or at least some inside its leadership) were supportive of listening to possible regulations. I've not heard much since, however.
that goes against what madison's rationale was for authoring the Second Amendment. he claimed that the federal military would side with the government according to his explanation. so, if you want to consider the opposite, that the U.S. military wouldnt openly target American citizens, then you are actually arguing against Madison's rationale for needing the Second Amendment. you would be more inclined to support major gun reform in that case.
it would be no harder or easier than enforcing Jim Bob from selling Uncle Dale his left over oxycontin pills. will it still happen? yes. but, with laws on the books, it not only will reduce those doing it, but it will allow arrests and prosecution to happen when it does.
im not sure i completely understand your stance on this. are you saying that if a law were to be passed stating that all sales, even private, needed background checks, that average law abiding Americans would become criminals if they didnt follow the law? well, yeah. that is how laws work. if you break laws, you become a criminal.
oh? what has the right suggested "quite often" for gun reform that would actually work? the NRA, an extremely strong lobbying organization, has done a 180 from its original roots. it vehemently fights against any type of gun reform regardless of how little it is or how much common sense it takes. today is the first time in a long time that a number of republican senators voiced in favor of gun reforms. it definitely hasnt been something they have done "quite often."
You're forgetting the printing press. You didn't hear Frankilin and Lincoln complaining about quill pens, printing presses, and making speeches on the corner. What are you, some kind of Silicon Valley Socialist?
My context was that one could stand a chance resisting because many in the military would be hesitant to engage. That doesn't mean the military structure wouldn't.
We've seen already within the 2.5 decades the willingness of the military to engage, so we know they will, just not everyone.
Regardless, an insurgent force can be effective.
Right, my point here is A. It will be nearly impossible to enforce. B. Why would you even want to? C. More people will be negatively impacted than not.
I'm basically saying you are punishing the millions upon millions of law abiding gun owners due to the actions of 1000s of criminals who already don't follow the laws. Again, why?
Well, just last week they tried to push their own version of the No Fly No Buy which included Due Process. It was opposed by the left and some of the right.
A predominant reason to protect a right to self-defense and personal security is that such an interest may be a prerequisite to exercising and enjoying those rights that are explicitly enumerated. The dead probably have very little use for the First, Fourth and Fifth Amendments.
You could use that argument against as much as for. For example, in a drive-by shooting, I'm not likely to be able to take cover, draw a gun, and acquire a target in enough time to return fire without endangering other people. In that scenario, do I make other people more or less secure in their personal security by returning fire?