Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
And have you noticed that the gun nuts have quit this topic? As soon as the narrative shifts away from "they're coming to take away your guns" and to the real issue of doing something to rein in the crazies at gun shows and the anonymity of private sales, the gun nuts vanish. They are ONLY interested in a debate where "gun control" means total prohibition. They're not capable of grasping any other concepts -- just like a religious fanatic.
Next time there's a thread about firearms, they will all pile on with "they're coming to take away your guns." And they will quit as soon as it's explained for the umpteenth time it simply isn't factual. It's like debating the existence of Santa Claus with a six-year old -- effete and counterproductive. We should simply ignore them and fix the problems without their input.
You sound like you could be fun.
I would encourage you to start a thread on a premise that you think you can support and prevail against this "gun nut".
I'm a gun control advocate, though I'm currently very interested in a man who carries a concealed weapon (so don't be accusing me of being unwilling to look at the issue from another perspective).
No one would argue that mental illness or serious mood disorders are present in every mass shooting in the US in the last decade or so (someone would have to remind me how many have we've had, because I've lost count). But what about the domestic violence cases involving guns that occur EVERY SINGLE DAY somewhere in the US? In most of these cases, an individual (usually a male), with no history of violence or mental illness or criminal activity, suddenly "loses it" one day - perhaps due to a marital or family dispute, fallout of divorce, etc - grabs a gun and kills at least one person (before often shooting himself).
Is mental illness a factor is every one of those cases as well? I say no. I say that the issue of mental illness is a red herring argument. After all, if mental illness is the main factor in all gun violence cases in the US, then wouldn't other western countries have similar gun violence rates (and just to be clear, NO, they don't. Not even close. The US is in a league of its own)?
Other countries are having financial difficulties where families struggle just like they do in the US. Other countries have divorce. People in other countries watch the same movies, listen to the same music, play the same violent video games, and have become more secular and "morally relativistic." People in other countries suffer from mental illness, depression and other mood disorders and have violent tendencies. And yet, the gun violence rates in every other western country is a fraction of what it is in the US.
So what variable is present in the US mix that isn't present in that of Canada, Europe, Australia, New Zealand or Japan? What could it possibly be?
Is is at all conceivable that it is the easy accessibility to guns in the US, and to handguns in particular? Is there any chance at all that easy access to compact but powerful weapons could have some impact on the gun violence rates of a country?
EXCELLENT post, very well stated! Nobody can possibly argue against what you just said. I will also add that the idea is really simple, I don't know why gun advocates don't understand this. Sure guns are not to be directly blamed, they don't shoot people themselves, but they are a tool designed for one purpose- to inflict harm or death. So to take guns away would remove the means by which murders can easily kill large numbers of people. That guy who went into the movie theater in Colorado a couple years ago and gunned down large numbers of people- if guns were not available, he would have had a MUCH harder time inflicting harm on such a grand scale. Maybe he could come in with a knife- he could start stabbing away, one by one, but he might get through a couple of people before a mass of people would jump on him to stop him. With a gun he could stand back at a safe distance so nobody could get close to him, and just fire away- getting people in all parts of the theater. It's a tool making mass killing that much easier- and THAT is why many people do place blame on the availability of guns.
Let's compare firearm sales to operating a motor vehicle. I know one is constitutionally protected and the other isn't. But bear with me.
We don't want drunk drivers operating motor vehicles. We have made it illegal to operate a motor vehicle while intoxicated. And we have a system in place where habitual offenders lose their license permanently. If the rules about drunk driving followed the same logic as gun sales, it would read, "Habitual drunk drivers may not operate vehicles purchased at car dealerships. And they cannot legally operate vehicles purchased at car shows or from private sellers. But we have no way of knowing if this happens, nudge, nudge, wink, wink."
We have determined as a society that we do not want felons, and the violently mentally ill to obtain firearms. But we provided them with a loophole big enough to drive a truck full of guns through. And until we close these loopholes, people like my crazy gun-nut uncle will continue to sell guns to anyone with enough cash in the parking lot of gun shows.
If the transfer of firearms were as well regulated as the transfer of motor vehicles, much of our gun mayhem would quickly disappear. Not all of it. But enough to make it worth closing these loopholes for sure. Anyone who has lost a relative to a stray bullet fired by an urban gang member would surely agree. (This sort of incident happens every few months where I live.)
The second amendment starts with the three words, "A well regulated." I would like to see us live up to the "well regulated" part.
You CAN buy sel trade any car to anyone, license or not, you may modify the car however you want and drive intoxicated if you want, you can drive that car as fast and as wreckless as you wish as well...you do not need to have it registered or plated or insured either...... All of that is perfectly LEGAL.
...as long as you keep it on your personal property....where all of the regulation comes in is when you want to operate that vehicle on taxpayer funded streets.
Quote:
The second amendment starts with the three words, "A well regulated." I would like to see us live up to the "well regulated" part.
LOL THIS again? REALLY? Well regulated means well armed.....but then if you did your research you already knew that.
This is why nobody takes the rabid pro-gun crowd seriously. Well regulated means well regulated. It doesn't mean anything else. And there's no possible way to misconstrue this. The framers did not want a bunch of drunken louts with guns making up our "well regulated militia."
If you truly believe that "well regulated" means "well armed" then "BigBrother1984" would be a more appropriate screen name for you.
Everything we need to know about the framer's intent can be gleaned from the way the government handled the Whiskey Rebellion in 1790.
This is why nobody takes the rabid pro-gun crowd seriously. Well regulated means well regulated. It doesn't mean anything else.
And this is why gun-rights supporters don't take modern liberals seriously when they discuss the Constitution and the right to arms / 2nd Amendment in particular. "Well regulated" means nothing being applied to the private citizens and the possession and use of their personal arms.
The right to keep and bear arms is not given, granted, created or otherwise established by the 2nd Amendment so the right can not be conditioned or qualified or restrained by words that the right in no manner depends upon for its existence.
SCOTUS has been boringly consistent re-re-re-affirming this principle for going on 140 years:
.
Supreme Court, 1876: "The right . . . of "bearing arms for a lawful purpose" [that of self-defense from the KKK by ex-slaves but then citizens in 1873 Louisiana] . . . is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. The Second Amendment declares that it shall not be infringed, . . ."
Supreme Court, 1886: "the right of the people to keep and bear arms is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. The Second Amendment declares that it shall not be infringed, . . . "
Supreme Court, 2008: "it has always been widely understood that the Second Amendment, like the First and Fourth Amendments, codified a pre-existing right. The very text of the Second Amendment implicitly recognizes the pre-existence of the right and declares only that it “shall not be infringed.” As we said in . . . 1876 , “[t]his is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. The Second Amendment declares that it shall not be infringed, . . . ”
.
For you to invent a action against the right to arms from your reading of "well regulated", runs counter to everything the Constitution is founded upon and the longstanding and unambiguous determinations of the Supreme Court in applying and enforcing the Constitution and its foundational principles.
Congratulations, you are what the framers warned us about.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ScoopLV
And there's no possible way to misconstrue this. The framers did not want a bunch of drunken louts with guns making up our "well regulated militia."
Whatever the founders / framers intended for the regulation of the militia (Under the powers granted in Art I, § 8, NOT the 2nd Amendment) had / has nothing to do with the arms keeping and bearing of private citizens not enrolled in any militia . . . Expressio unius est exclusio alterius ("the express mention of one thing excludes all others").
Quote:
Originally Posted by ScoopLV
If you truly believe that "well regulated" means "well armed" then "BigBrother1984" would be a more appropriate screen name for you.
Well armed is only one aspect of the meaning of the term "well regulated" as used to describe militia and troops. Generally it describes corps that are properly functioning and in operational order and condition, ready for battle.
While regulations written by Congress setting out organization, training and control would need to be followed in order to achieve the accolade of being a "well regulated militia", the condition of being "under regulations" does not, can not make a corps actually be "well regulated".
As explained in Federalist 29, the Constitution could not be read to require the militia (and certainly not private citizens not in the militia) to meet that demanding condition so they could be entitled to be called "well regulated", as the time investment for training would constitute an unrealistic obligation upon the people (emphasis added):
.
"The project of disciplining all the militia of the United States is as futile as it would be injurious, if it were capable of being carried into execution. A tolerable expertness in military movements is a business that requires time and practice. It is not a day, or even a week, that will suffice for the attainment of it. To oblige the great body of the yeomanry, and of the other classes of the citizens, to be under arms for the purpose of going through military exercises and evolutions, as often as might be necessary to acquire the degree of perfection which would entitle them to the character of a well-regulated militia, would be a real grievance to the people, and a serious public inconvenience and loss. It would form an annual deduction from the productive labor of the country, to an amount which, calculating upon the present numbers of the people, would not fall far short of the whole expense of the civil establishments of all the States. To attempt a thing which would abridge the mass of labor and industry to so considerable an extent, would be unwise: and the experiment, if made, could not succeed, because it would not long be endured. Little more can reasonably be aimed at, with respect to the people at large, than to have them properly armed and equipped; and in order to see that this be not neglected, it will be necessary to assemble them once or twice in the course of a year."
.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ScoopLV
Everything we need to know about the framer's intent can be gleaned from the way the government handled the Whiskey Rebellion in 1790.
No, I think Federalist 84 is a much better explanation along with Madison's introduction of the proposed articles of amendment, (June 8, 1789) especially Section 10, for the framer's intent as to the Bill of Rights and their understanding of the origin and nature of "rights" under the the Constitution. Just a hint, it is diametrically opposed to what you seem to believe.
That article has so many errors in founding philosophy and legal history and action it is a laughing stock (but I do now understand where you glean your vocabulary and on-line demeanor).
.
Last edited by Jeerleader; 08-06-2014 at 03:27 PM..
And have you noticed that the gun nuts have quit this topic? As soon as the narrative shifts away from "they're coming to take away your guns" and to the real issue of doing something to rein in the crazies at gun shows and the anonymity of private sales, the gun nuts vanish. They are ONLY interested in a debate where "gun control" means total prohibition. They're not capable of grasping any other concepts -- just like a religious fanatic.
Next time there's a thread about firearms, they will all pile on with "they're coming to take away your guns." And they will quit as soon as it's explained for the umpteenth time it simply isn't factual. It's like debating the existence of Santa Claus with a six-year old -- effete and counterproductive. We should simply ignore them and fix the problems without their input.
Well, I have noticed that the anti-gun nuts have quit this topic.
As soon as the narrative shifts away from "this is what I want and you guys are all puppy-stomping Neanderthals for not going along" to the real issue of the law and the Constitution and what government can actually, legitimately do, the anti-gun nuts vanish.
They are ONLY interested in a debate where "gun control discussion" means they can define anyone who opposes their anti-liberty policy positions as willing if not eager to step over piles of dead kids so they can fondle their penis extensions. Anti-gun nuts are incapable of grasping any concepts based in logic or reason or secular law -- just like a religious fanatic.
The next time there's a thread about firearms, they will all pile on with "you guys want to give everyone a gun, from kindergartners to mental cases and criminals" and they will quit as soon as it's explained for the umpteenth time it simply isn't factual. It's like debating the existence of Santa Claus with a six-year old -- effete and counterproductive. We should simply ignore them and fix the problems without their input.
Ridiculous. This is, and always has been about making gun shows and private sales hold to the same standards which gun dealers have to follow. It is the rabid pro-gun crowd that cannot wrap their heads around anything other than complete prohibition.
It really is like debating the existence of Santa with a six year old.
... No background checks mean any insane person that can stand up, breathe and nod while at the gun show can get a gun.
Sorry, but that simply isn't accurate. If you had said "IF there are no background checks...", then all would be rosy. You see, several states prohibit the kind of sales you describe (including parking lot transactions), AND their LEOs patrol the gun shows and associated parking lots looking for just such shenannigans.
The problem is that the system is broken so that, even with a background check, dangerously mentally ill people do 'slip through the cracks.' Seung-Hui-Cho, the shooter in the 2007 Virginia Tech massacre (32 dead, 17 others wounded), was just such a person. So is Elliot Rodger, the shooter in this year's Isla Vista California mass shootings.
Thank Heavens that the vast majority of mentally ill people are not dangerous.
Sorry, but that simply isn't accurate. If you had said "IF there are no background checks...", then all would be rosy. You see, several states prohibit the kind of sales you describe (including parking lot transactions), AND their LEOs patrol the gun shows and associated parking lots looking for just such shenannigans.
These people also know that no such enforcement exists in Southern Nevada. Anyone with enough cash can buy a gun in the parking lot of the gun show here. And then there's private party sales, where straw purchasers buy guns from dealers and then re-sell them to people who cannot pass a background check. Google it.
Holding these transactions to the standards for gun dealers should be a no-brainer -- even for the rabid pro-gun crowd.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
