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.
I think lax gun laws are a knee jerk reaction to gun control.
I agree with the OP, but I realize that sometimes politics has a way of overreacting to make a statement.
For example Texas's "open carry" laws were obviously a direct result of Obama's attempt at gun restrictions. As a law abiding citizen with no criminal history or mental issues, I'm ok with registering every bullet I buy. However that being said, I think I should be able to shoot an old car with a grenade launcher if I want to.
I walked into the gun shop, selected my preferred weapon, purchased it and walked out within 30 minutes. My background is in criminal investigations and I can tell you there is NO WAY you can do a thorough background check in 30 minutes. So, my answer is that no we do not do a good enough job of screening people prior to allowing them to purchase a firearm.
I couldn't believe they got rid of the law keeping documentedly mentally ill people from buying guns. That, to me is the ultimate in common sense gun control laws.
I have to agree that the part of the 2nd amendment that claims "a well regulated militia..." pretty much negates any mentally ill types from buying and owning a gun. It appears the intent by our founding fathers is that gun ownership should be granted to those who are "well regulated" and therefore have some training in the use of firearms and pass some sort of competency test as given by the state.
Being a military reservist, I feel that I'm a bit more "well regulated" than a meth addict and therefore should be more entitled to firearms per the constitution.
If one wants a "right to bear arms", they should prove this by showing they're willing to take one for the team in military or police service. At least that's my interpretation.
I walked into the gun shop, selected my preferred weapon, purchased it and walked out within 30 minutes. My background is in criminal investigations and I can tell you there is NO WAY you can do a thorough background check in 30 minutes. So, my answer is that no we do not do a good enough job of screening people prior to allowing them to purchase a firearm.
That's not how NICS works. They don't do a background check of the individual. They look for a match of the buyer with a database of prohibited persons, if the buyer isn't on the PP list, the sale is approved.
I get what you're trying to say, but I'm willing to entertain the argument of why I should care.
I'm a right winger with a military background, and I'm inclined to lean towards your position, however logically I'm just not seeing it.
Even if Bernie Sanders was president, why should I care if he knows how many 9mm bullets I've purchased in the last 24 hours? Per the constitution, I believe I should be able to buy a grenade launcher with ammo, however I don't believe that extends to a crackhead down the street. I'm fully trained and competent and willing to take one for the team. I don't believe this right extends to everybody.
I have to agree that the part of the 2nd amendment that claims "a well regulated militia..." pretty much negates any mentally ill types from buying and owning a gun. It appears the intent by our founding fathers is that gun ownership should be granted to those who are "well regulated" and therefore have some training in the use of firearms and pass some sort of competency test as given by the state.
Actually, they had no such intent.
The phrase that mentions a militia, is there simply to explain WHY the right of the people to KBA cannot be infringed. Even if that phrase was never put in, the effect of the 2nd amendment wouldn't change. It would still ban all governments in the U.S. (Federal, state, local) from making any laws that restrict guns, or their owners from owning or carrying.
Suppose the 2nd amendment read instead:
"The moon being made of green cheese, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
And then, nearly 200 years after that amendment was ratified, astronauts finally land on the moon and prove once and for all that the moon is NOT made of green cheese.
Would the meaning or the effect of the 2nd (the one that mentions the moon) change at all?
No, it would not. It would still be a flat ban on any govt making any "gun control" laws.
The present mention of militias, has the same effect: None.
How about because it violates the fourth amendment of the constitution. Which forbids seizure
of Private property without jurisprudence. Just because some people who get Social Security
and can't manege there financial affairs doesn't mean there mentally ill. If the government can
get away with this any government flunky after passing a law could come and confiscate you guns after declaring you mentally ill.
I walked into the gun shop, selected my preferred weapon, purchased it and walked out within 30 minutes. My background is in criminal investigations and I can tell you there is NO WAY you can do a thorough background check in 30 minutes. So, my answer is that no we do not do a good enough job of screening people prior to allowing them to purchase a firearm.
That sounds like it's in violation of the Brady Act. Is that no longer a thing?
The phrase that mentions a militia, is there simply to explain WHY the right of the people to KBA cannot be infringed. Even if that phrase was never put in, the effect of the 2nd amendment wouldn't change. It would still ban all governments in the U.S. (Federal, state, local) from making any laws that restrict guns, or their owners from owning or carrying.
Suppose the 2nd amendment read instead:
"The moon being made of green cheese, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
And then, nearly 200 years after that amendment was ratified, astronauts finally land on the moon and prove once and for all that the moon is NOT made of green cheese.
Would the meaning or the effect of the 2nd (the one that mentions the moon) change at all?
No, it would not. It would still be a flat ban on any govt making any "gun control" laws.
The present mention of militias, has the same effect: None.
I'm still not following. We're holding the Constitution's text as sacred, yet we're only focusing on one part of the sentence. A well regulated militia seems to be the entire premise of the entire amendment.
How about because it violates the fourth amendment of the constitution. Which forbids seizure
of Private property without jurisprudence. Just because some people who get Social Security
and can't manege there financial affairs doesn't mean there mentally ill. If the government can
get away with this any government flunky after passing a law could come and confiscate you guns after declaring you mentally ill.
You may have a point, however lets say the "mentally ill" is a naturalized citizen with allegiances to ISIS. Shouldn't we be able to restrict their access to any firearm or ammunition they desire?
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.
