Gun Control - What's the Problem?

[Rigby5]

The obviously don't since it keeps happening

Just because events still occur doesn’t mean other occurrences aren’t being prevented. #uselogic

To what degree are they prevented

If 1 out of 1000 get caught that isn't prevention

Whatever you say

So you think getting one out of 1000 is preventing crime in general?

Are you high?

I dont even know what that means. Seems like a pointless debate. But if 1 life is saved out of a 1000 then I think that’s a pretty great thing.

Not if you intimidate people from having defensive guns, so then you cause thousands of crimes to be successful that would not have otherwise.have been lost.
Over 99.9% of people are honest and make society better when armed.
The 0.1% who are a danger armed, are not going to give up because you made it harder for honest people to be armed.
In fact, you will greatly encourage the criminals because they will know there is will be no resistance because everyone else will be unarmed.

 

[Rigby5]

Not really



You need a permit to protest on public property but not to protest in general

But hey let's make a mandatory syllabus for all citizens that they must complete with a 100% average then they can pay for and get a permit for every one of their guaranteed rights.

We could balance the budget on the backs of people who want their rights and liberties

Good idea huh. Comrade?

No, bad idea. Thanks for playing though

But making people get permits and licenses for their rights is OK if it's only gun rights ?

WHat's good for one right is good for all

You need to register to vote, do you not? You need an ID to register. You have regulations in speech depending on how and where you use it, right? Each of our “rights” is both protected and regulated as to protect the rights of others. That’s how it works.

All you need to do is prove you are 18 nd that you are a resident of the town

There is no permit . no class, no fee

What is it called when you prove your age and residency? “Registration” how do most people do it? With a license or passport

Come on man, you’re trying too hard

Voter registration does not require a license, passport or anything at all like that.
They send you voter registration card in the mail.
The main goal is to verify your address.
It is illegal in the US to require an ID, like a license or passport.

And gun control is nothing like that, because first of all it is federal, distant, banned by the Constitution, and pushed by those who have already admitted they want total confiscation of all private firearms.

 

[Rigby5]

Take awat the RA guns altogether. If we as a nation need them becuase another nation is assaulting ur, we can change the laws.

As for regular guns,No one under the age of 21 should have one and they need to go through extensive background checks.

A buy back law should be enforced and anyone found with an outlawed gun should see jail time.

That is incredibly foolish because you can not quickly become comfortable and proficient with firearms.
You have to start young, and practice weekly.
You can only do that if you have a constantly armed, general population.
That is also what the founders insisted on.

Background checks are useless, and the federal government can not have the authority because they are banned from jurisdiction by the Bill of Rights.

Buy backs are totally illegal.
The legal principle is called ex post facto.
What was legal when you bought it can not later be made illegal.

In Australia they outlawed all semi automatic weapons, and the reaction from the population was that only 15% were turned in. And even those were only turned in because they were broken or obsolete.
And the government's reaction to that was to just ignore guns completely.

 

[Rigby5]

If a guy came at me with a box cutter i;d rather have a gun because I don't want any fight for my safety to be even. In fact I want it to be so lopsided that the person who would want to threaten me would be an idiot to want to try

That’s great, you should have Gun of you are responsible citizen trying to defend yourself. I’d rather the crazy dude have a box cutter rather than a gun. Wouldn’t you?

As long as stopping him from getting a gun doesn't violate his or my rights I have no problem with it

In fact we already have a procedure for deeming people mentally ill

Do you agree with the legality and effectiveness of our current system of deeming people mentally ill and keeping them from buying guns?

I have no reason to disagree with it.

Every citizen has a right to due process of the law.

Well there are many hard asses out there that complain about all gun laws being unconstitutional. If you’re not in that camp then great. We agree

No one has ever said that gun laws are unconstitutional.
But everyone should be saying that all federal gun laws are clearly unconstitutional, because that is what the Constitution says. Its plain as day. The federal government is supposed to be limited to very few things that states could not do on their own, and the federal government can only legally do what it is explicitly authorized to do. There is ZERO authorization in the Constitution for any federal weapons laws.

 

[Rigby5]

Sure then we can apply that to every right and require people pay licensing fees too

Didn't take your 4th amendment and pay the fee for the 4th amendment permit?

Tough shit now the cops and search your home without a warrant

We do apply regulations to other rights when it has potential impacts on the general public. You need a permit to protest, right?. You need permission to advertise in certain areas and your content needs to fit guidelines, does it not?

Not really



You need a permit to protest on public property but not to protest in general

But hey let's make a mandatory syllabus for all citizens that they must complete with a 100% average then they can pay for and get a permit for every one of their guaranteed rights.

We could balance the budget on the backs of people who want their rights and liberties

Good idea huh. Comrade?

No, bad idea. Thanks for playing though

But making people get permits and licenses for their rights is OK if it's only gun rights ?

WHat's good for one right is good for all

You need to register to vote, do you not? You need an ID to register. You have regulations in speech depending on how and where you use it, right? Each of our “rights” is both protected and regulated as to protect the rights of others. That’s how it works.

Wrong.
No ID can ever be required in the US.
You do not need an ID to register to vote.
You are sent a voter registration through the mail, because that verifies your address.
There are no regulations on where you use free speech.
The only regulations on free speech is when you deliberately say something you know to be untrue, in order to cause harm.

Rights can be restricted when it is necessary in order to protect the rights of others, but clearly restricting guns does not defend the rights of anyone, because the main use of guns is defensive. There are very few criminal compared to the honest people, but if the majority of the honest people are not armed, then the small number of criminals can cause massive harm to large numbers of people. And police are essentially useless. The criminals do not try to attack police, and police have way too slow of a response time. Therefore, logically it is average people who should be armed, and then police won't need arms at all.

 

[Porter Rockwell]

I won’t prevent that. It will still happen. We just support law enforcement to catch those guys

So the laws you want to pass will not stop the Next Sandy Hook, Santa Fe, Texas or Cop shooters, so tell me what is the point passing the law again?

Hell the Orlando Nightclub shooting could have been prevented had the agencies done their job, but alas they did not so will more laws make them do their job?

How do you know laws won’t and haven’t stopped any shootings? How many straw buyers have been busted. How many people with illegal firearms have been arrested and had the guns confiscated? How do you know that they wouldn’t have killed with those weapons had they not been arrested? Without laws and regulations those people would all still be on the streets locked and loaded.

How do you bust a straw buyer if he can legally pass any and all background checks?

NATIONAL GUN REGISTRATION - the precursor to confiscation as Trump and the Dems want it.

FearTactic101

I won’t prevent that. It will still happen. We just support law enforcement to catch those guys

So the laws you want to pass will not stop the Next Sandy Hook, Santa Fe, Texas or Cop shooters, so tell me what is the point passing the law again?

Hell the Orlando Nightclub shooting could have been prevented had the agencies done their job, but alas they did not so will more laws make them do their job?

How do you know laws won’t and haven’t stopped any shootings? How many straw buyers have been busted. How many people with illegal firearms have been arrested and had the guns confiscated? How do you know that they wouldn’t have killed with those weapons had they not been arrested? Without laws and regulations those people would all still be on the streets locked and loaded.

How do you bust a straw buyer if he can legally pass any and all background checks?

NATIONAL GUN REGISTRATION - the precursor to confiscation as Trump and the Dems want it.

FearTactic101

Would you like to put a wager on it? Do you need to be walked through the process?

 

[Rigby5]

Remember that next time you use the “laws won’t stop all mass shootings” argument. Nobody is claiming anything will solve the problem in full but if it stops some, even one, then it’s worth exploring.

Interesting stance. Because when we talk about the illegals that kill Americans, the left tells us they pale in comparison to Americans killing each other. So I think we should throw every illegal out of this country, because as you said, even if it stops some of the killing, even one, it's worth exploring.

It totally is worth exploring. And killing is a problem that should be address. Illegal and legal. Being here illegally is also a problem that should be addressed

The only way to stop illegal killings is for honest people to have MORE guns.
Police can't ever do it because they will always arrive way too late.
Attempting to eliminate all guns is NEVER going to decrease murders in the least, because anyone intent on murder is not going to be deterred by a minor gun law. If laws can't stop drug smuggling, they are not going to prevent gun smuggling.
All attempts to eliminate guns are going to do is increase the profits of gun smugglers.
They will love it.
But you will increase the murder rate, because you will make all the honest people far more vulnerable.
It would be stupider than disarming police, because it is the honest average citizens to stop crimes, not the police.

 

[Rigby5]

Then tell me what is the purpose of registering a car.

If you don't know I'll tell you

You have to register a car primarily so the state can tax you.

Since there is no legal way to put an excise tax on guns what is the purpose of registering them?

Let’s keep going... Why are licenses given for cars?

They are not. Anyone can own a car.

The license is to operate the car on public roads, which is not a right.

But, if the aim is to make sure we have people trained to safely use arms, we can accomplish that goal without the need for licensing.

I, and many like me, SUPPORT education in the safe and effective use of arms. Why wouldn't we?

.

You should support gun safety, we all should. How do you support it and promote more people to partake?

Anyone who wants to learn gun safety can take some of excellent courses offered by the NRA

MAybe we should force everyone to take gun safety courses

"Anyone who wants to learn gun safety can take some of excellent courses offered by the NRA"

The NRA might not be willing to give courses to liberals.
Mason gun instructor wants no liberals, Muslims - San Antonio ...

https://www.mysanantonio.com/.../Mason-gun-instructor-wants-no-liberals-...
Oct 29, 2011 - Mason gun instructor wants no liberals, Muslims ... Keller's table at the Texas Gun and Knife Show at the Gillespie County Fairgrounds: ... His refusal to teach certain people, he says, fits in with his interpretation ... San Antonio Morphe fans hoping Jeffree Star will be at new North Star Mall store this weekend.

And personally I don't trust them and do NOT want to give them my money.

I would prefer a more official person; military or police.

"MAybe we should force everyone to take gun safety courses"

Perhaps we should force people to stop forcing people to do stuff.

Let people decide for themselves.

You absolutely do NOT want the military or police teaching gun safety classes.
The military and police have been trained very badly, and in practice, empty their magazine by constant fire, under the least provocation. They are immune from the law in general, so are ignorant of the law, and safety. If nothing else, they put those in the background in way too much danger from all of their misses.

When it comes to safety of the society, people do not have the right to just decide for themselves.
Protection of family, community, country, etc., is a responsibility.
No one has a right to dodge that responsibility to have a firearm and learn how to use it safely.
Whether it is criminals, invaders, or aliens, each individual has to be prepared to do their part, whether you like it or not.

 

[Porter Rockwell]

I have no problem with anyone who has not reached the age of majority being denied access to anything

Never have

But that has nothing to do with what adults should be able to do.

You’re right but it does have to do with what we consider constitutional or not.

If you think it's not then bring a case through the federal courts all the way to the top.

It’s clearly not in the constitution which is the argument the hardliners use to say all gun laws are illegal. But it has been brought through the courts and gun regulations have been deemed legal.

Time for a legal lesson:

"The general misconception is that any statute passed by legislators bearing the appearance of law constitutes the law of the land. The Constitution of the United States is the supreme law of the land, and any statue, to be valid, must be in agreement. It is impossible for both the Constitution and a law violating it to be valid; one must prevail. This is succinctly stated as follows:

The general rule is that an unconstitutional statute, though having the form and name of law, is in reality no law, but is wholly void, and ineffective for any purpose; since unconstitutionality dates from the time of its enactment, and not merely from the date of the decision so branding it.

An unconstitutional law, in legal contemplation, is as inoperative as if it had never been passed. Such a statute leaves the question that it purports to settle just as it would be had the statute not been enacted.

Since an unconstitutional law is void, the general principals follow that it imposes no duties, confers no rights, creates no office, bestows no power or authority on anyone, affords no protection, and justifies no acts performed under it . . .

A void act cannot be legally consistent with a valid one.

An unconstitutional law cannot operate to supersede any existing valid law.

Indeed, insofar as a statute runs counter to the fundamental law of the land, it is superseded thereby.

No one is bound to obey an unconstitutional law and no courts are bound to enforce it."

— Sixteenth American Jurisprudence, Second Edition, Section 177. (late 2nd Ed. Section 256)

The gun laws on the books today are a result of a combination of the United States Supreme Court legislating from the bench (and there is NO constitutional authority to allow that.) The other part of the equation is that the 14th Amendment was illegally ratified. If that Amendment didn't exist, the anti - immigrants couldn't wail about so called "anchor babies" either, BTW. See this:

https://www.constitution.org/14ll/no14th.htm

14th amendment ... illegally passed and ratified? | Post War History, The Reconstruction Period

The Fourteenth Amendment is Unconstitutional - Judge L.H. Perez

Supreme Law Library : Authors : Howard Freeman : freeman4

Stolen Rights

How does the constitution define the legal process to appeal or deliberate whether a law is constitutional or not?

There is no specified procedure. What you do have is the Declaration of Independence. Of that document, Thomas Jefferson said:

"It is the Declaratory Charter of the Rights of man."

The United States Supreme Court ruled:

"The first official action of this nation declared the foundation of government in these words: "We hold these truths to be self evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. "While such declaration of principles may not have the force of organic law, or be made the basis of judicial decision as to the limits of right and duty, and while in all cases reference must be had to the organic law of the nation for such limits, yet the latter is but the body and the letter of which the former is the thought and the spirit, and it is always safe to read the letter of the Constitution in the spirit of the Declaration of Independence. No duty rests more imperatively upon the courts than the enforcement of those constitutional provisions intended to secure that equality of rights which is the foundation of free government." Cotting v. Godard, 183 U.S. 79 (1901)

The spirit of the Declaration of Independence lays out a road map to exhaust all nonviolent political and legal avenues of redress before resorting to extraordinary action. On some issues we may have met that standard - it's not for me to say, but NOBODY is required to relinquish an unalienable Right. Laws or no laws, there are some things that are beyond the reach of government. Without such Rights, we are a third world cesspool.

 

[Rigby5]

Incrementalism is the problem.

Slippery slope arguments are the problem.

That depends entirely on whether the slope is, in fact, slippery.

Pretty clear there is a huge slippery slope problem.
For example, the Bill of Rights is extremely clear there are to be no federal weapons laws at all.
And yet we have federal BATF and FBI assaulting women and children at Waco, murdering all of them, over a failure to pay a minor tax fee.
Ruby Ridge was even more clear, because Randy Weaver won in court, thus proving the FBI had violated the law.

 

[Porter Rockwell]

A determined killer can take an automobile and plow into a crowd and kill a lot of people in minutes. When I was a kid, In Ireland guns were tightly controlled, but the IRA / Sein Fein was able to wage some really bloody battles - many times with improvised explosives.

The people you're talking about could ALL have been identified and dealt with long before a gun could come into play.

Yes people can kill in many other ways. I don’t see what that has to do with regulating the quickest and most efficient killing tools we have so dangerous people don’t have easy access to them.

You don't have the constitutional authority to infringe on unalienable Rights.

Our law makers and Supreme Court disagrees.

And the fact that you think it constitutionally illegal to restrict stores from selling an uzi to a 12 year old is just laughable. You aren’t going to win that argument.

I never made that argument. A 12 year old is a minor. Try again. Do you realize that the United States Supreme Court disagrees with my position because they ILLEGALLY stole your Rights? Check this out:

Stolen Rights

Read that an YOU would disagree with the high Court.

Where in the constitution does it say what age a minor is or for that matter where does it say that the god given inalienable right of owning a firearm may be infringed on 12 year olds?

It don't. One of the first cases that interpreted the Second Amendment (and the principle was upheld for over 125 years - even in the United States Supreme Court:

"The right of the people to bear arms shall not be infringed." The right of the whole people, old and young, men, women and boys, and not militia only, to keep and bear arms of every description, not such merely as are used by the militia, shall not be infringed, curtailed, or broken in upon, in the smallest degree; and all this for the important end to be attained: the rearing up and qualifying a well-regulated militia, so vitally necessary to the security of a free State. Our opinion is, that any law, State or Federal, is repugnant to the Constitution, and void, which contravenes this right..." Nunn v. State, 1 Ga. (1 Kel.) 243 (1846)

I would not advocate inalienable rights. I prefer unalienable Rights.

I'm sure that the founders / framers relied more on biblical principles as a guide to figure out at what point a boy becomes a man. Our entire family hierarchy is predicated on biblical principles, so when a boy leaves his home and takes on his own life, he becomes his own man. I don't know of any Constitution or moral code that ever put an age on that.

 

[BasicHumanUnit]

The Intent of the 2nd Amendment is simple.......
Give THE PEOPLE the means of defending themselves from government tyranny.

Consistently and persistently....the Left DEMANDS that the Government be given more and more control over the 2nd Amendment.

Question.....
Does anyone else see the particularly glaring fault with their ignorant demands?

Is this not the same as asking the Fox to watch the Hen House?

 

[Rigby5]

The Intent of the 2nd Amendment is simple.......
Give THE PEOPLE the means of defending themselves from government tyranny.

Consistently and persistently....the Left DEMANDS that the Government be given more and more control over the 2nd Amendment.

Question.....
Does anyone else see the particularly glaring fault with their ignorant demands?

Is this not the same as asking the Fox to watch the Hen House?

I am an extreme leftist and the left has been fighting against government corruption for centuries.
For example, the Vietnam war protests, Civil Rights, desegregation, etc., and the left would never want or trust federal gun legislation.
But since the Clintons were in politics, that has been the Democratic party that has changed, not what is leftist.
It is just that democrats are no longer leftists.
Leftist do not support any federal gun legislation at all.

 

[Porter Rockwell]

The Intent of the 2nd Amendment is simple.......
Give THE PEOPLE the means of defending themselves from government tyranny.

Consistently and persistently....the Left DEMANDS that the Government be given more and more control over the 2nd Amendment.

Question.....
Does anyone else see the particularly glaring fault with their ignorant demands?

Is this not the same as asking the Fox to watch the Hen House?

I don't mean to be an asshole about this, but the government didn't give us anything.

There are two separate and distinct issues here:

The Right of the people and
a militia that insures the security of a free state

The Second Amendment is guaranteeing an existing Right that predates the Constitution. The benefit to all Americans is a well armed populace that can prevent tyranny in government.

Unfortunately, we are NOT living up to our part as citizens. On the day that Trump signs the Universal Background Check, EVERY American should show up at their state capital and have a bonfire, burning their gun licenses, registrations, permits, tax stamps, etc.

The time for talking is over. It's either we accept the new laws or we don't.

 

[BasicHumanUnit]

I don't mean to be an asshole about this, but the government didn't give us anything.

Are you sure I said that the government gave us those rights?

There are two separate and distinct issues here:

The Right of the people and
a militia that insures the security of a free state

The Second Amendment is guaranteeing an existing Right that predates the Constitution. The benefit to all Americans is a well armed populace that can prevent tyranny in government.

I have no trouble with that. Not sure where you gathered that I did?

Unfortunately, we are NOT living up to our part as citizens. On the day that Trump signs the Universal Background Check, EVERY American should show up at their state capital and have a bonfire, burning their gun licenses, registrations, permits, tax stamps, etc.

The time for talking is over. It's either we accept the new laws or we don't.

Again, I have no problem with this. I've been saying "All that is required for evil men to prevail is for good men to do nothing" for years.

The only "asshole" tendency might have been making erroneous ASSumptions?

 

[Rigby5]

I don't even mind the abstraction of universal background checks, but I do mind the federal government doing it, and only allowing FFLs request them.
They they want universal background checks, then anyone and every one must be able to request one themselves, instead of paying an FFL to do it for them.

 

[S.J.]

Incrementalism is the problem.

Slippery slope arguments are the problem.

You obviously don't know what the term "slippery slope" means. Do I need to explain it to you or would you prefer to use a dictionary (recommended)?

 

[Slade3200]

Just because events still occur doesn’t mean other occurrences aren’t being prevented. #uselogic

To what degree are they prevented

If 1 out of 1000 get caught that isn't prevention

Whatever you say

So you think getting one out of 1000 is preventing crime in general?

Are you high?

I dont even know what that means. Seems like a pointless debate. But if 1 life is saved out of a 1000 then I think that’s a pretty great thing.

Not if you intimidate people from having defensive guns, so then you cause thousands of crimes to be successful that would not have otherwise.have been lost.
Over 99.9% of people are honest and make society better when armed.
The 0.1% who are a danger armed, are not going to give up because you made it harder for honest people to be armed.
In fact, you will greatly encourage the criminals because they will know there is will be no resistance because everyone else will be unarmed.

I’m not saying anything about taking guns away from responsible people. Please let that sink in, I’m tired of repeating myself

 

[Slade3200]

No, bad idea. Thanks for playing though

But making people get permits and licenses for their rights is OK if it's only gun rights ?

WHat's good for one right is good for all

You need to register to vote, do you not? You need an ID to register. You have regulations in speech depending on how and where you use it, right? Each of our “rights” is both protected and regulated as to protect the rights of others. That’s how it works.

All you need to do is prove you are 18 nd that you are a resident of the town

There is no permit . no class, no fee

What is it called when you prove your age and residency? “Registration” how do most people do it? With a license or passport

Come on man, you’re trying too hard

Voter registration does not require a license, passport or anything at all like that.
They send you voter registration card in the mail.
The main goal is to verify your address.
It is illegal in the US to require an ID, like a license or passport.

And gun control is nothing like that, because first of all it is federal, distant, banned by the Constitution, and pushed by those who have already admitted they want total confiscation of all private firearms.

How do they get your address? Regardless it is a registration process.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

I don't even mind the abstraction of universal background checks, but I do mind the federal government doing it, and only allowing FFLs request them.
They they want universal background checks, then anyone and every one must be able to request one themselves, instead of paying an FFL to do it for them.

The guy that shot six cops in PA was a felon, and from what I heard on the radio the other day, a rap sheet a mile long, yet he had access to all kinds of weapons obviously. There is no way he could have purchased his weapons from a licensed dealer and passed a background check.

This happens all the time unfortunately. I think if you are a felon that uses an illegal firearm in the act of a crime, it should automatically be a life sentence with no parole.