Let's get specific on the politics of GUN CONTROL

[Samson]

Clearly Americans shoot one another in astounding numbers, and something should be done while some are still alive. In my view, the obvious move is to make the NRA co-defendant in any gun-murder trial, as it is so obviously an accessory.

And AAA should be co defendant in every automobile accident.

We may trip over ourselves today: 1800 CALL NIKE.

PS: Here are a few obvious synonyms for obviously:

plainly · patently · visibly · discernibly · manifestly · noticeably · unmistakably · undeniably · incontrovertibly · demonstrably · unquestionably · indubitably · undoubtedly · without doubt · doubtless · of course · naturally · needless to say

 

[Samson]

Of course, the gun industry NEEDS mayhem. It needs for the occassional asshole to go out there and mow down a bunch of preschoolers. Because then all the rest of you will want guns, too, on the delusion they keep you safe.

Opposed to the delusion that the government will keep us safe. Never has: Never will.

 

[ThoughtCrimes]

"Gun control" is such a vague, catch-all phrase. I know how important bumper-sticker sloganeering is nowadays, but maybe we could get more specific on the individual issues within the overall gun control issue.

Let's start off with background checks. It seems to me that doing a background check on anyone who wants to purchase a gun - universal background checks - makes perfect sense and there is no reason why gun shows, for example, should have any kind of exemption.

A strong of Americans can see a value in this. Poll shows bipartisan support for expanding background checks -- Conservatives, if you disagree with that, what are your reasons?
.

If you're talking about a federal law mandating background checks, then we first have to identify which of congress' enumerated powers would permit the enactment of such a law. Without the power to do so, enacting such a law would violate the constitution.

Why don't you tell us? You raised the point, so within the 18 clauses of Article I, Section 8 can we find one or more of those enumerated powers authorizing Congress to mandate background checks?

 

[Samson]

Poking in is welcome!

Speak for yourself.

 

[Iceweasel]

Clearly Americans shoot one another in astounding numbers, and something should be done while some are still alive. In my view, the obvious move is to make the NRA co-defendant in any gun-murder trial, as it is so obviously an accessory.

Obvious to you is not the same as obvious to the lucid mind.

 

[Samson]

Clearly Americans shoot one another in astounding numbers, and something should be done while some are still alive. In my view, the obvious move is to make the NRA co-defendant in any gun-murder trial, as it is so obviously an accessory.

What do you consider "astonishing numbers"? And how do you justify making any group not associated with the crime a co-defendant?

Yes, I had difficulty with "Clearly..... astonishing numbers," until I realized that everyone that dissociates themselves from "Americans" either is Scandinavian, or wishes the USA was Finland.

According to the FBI (could there be a better source?) there were about 13,000 murders in the USA during 2010. This was slightly lower than murders during each of the previous 4 years. Only half of these murders were committed with handguns. About 25% were committed with other firearms. The remaining 25% were committed with mostly "knives or cutting instruments." Also, according to the 2010 Census, there were 308,758,105 people living in the USA during 2010

So, to answer your question: about 8,000 murders by gunshot, out of a population of 300,000,000 many of whom own guns is, Clearly Astonishing to iolo and others who seek "to make the NRA co defendant in any gun-murder trial."

 

[Samson]

Clearly Americans shoot one another in astounding numbers, and something should be done while some are still alive. In my view, the obvious move is to make the NRA co-defendant in any gun-murder trial, as it is so obviously an accessory.

Obvious to you is not the same as obvious to the lucid mind.

indubitably

 

[Redfish]

We already have background check laws. Hint: criminals and terrorists do not comply with them.

 

[The Rabbi]

Poll shows bipartisan support for expanding background checks"Gun control" is such a vague, catch-all phrase. I know how important bumper-sticker sloganeering is nowadays, but maybe we could get more specific on the individual issues within the overall gun control issue.

Let's start off with background checks. It seems to me that doing a background check on anyone who wants to purchase a gun - universal background checks - makes perfect sense and there is no reason why gun shows, for example, should have any kind of exemption.

A strong of Americans can see a value in this. Poll shows bipartisan support for expanding background checks -- Conservatives, if you disagree with that, what are your reasons?
.

First, it represents an infringement on my right to sell my own property.
Second, it will be ineffective in reducing crime. Will criminals submit to background checks? No.
Third. Well, with an infringement of rights on one hand and an ineffective policy on the other what more do you need to understand it's a stupid policy?

Poll shows bipartisan support for expanding background checks"Gun control" is such a vague, catch-all phrase. I know how important bumper-sticker sloganeering is nowadays, but maybe we could get more specific on the individual issues within the overall gun control issue.

Let's start off with background checks. It seems to me that doing a background check on anyone who wants to purchase a gun - universal background checks - makes perfect sense and there is no reason why gun shows, for example, should have any kind of exemption.

A strong of Americans can see a value in this. Poll shows bipartisan support for expanding background checks -- Conservatives, if you disagree with that, what are your reasons?
.

First, it represents an infringement on my right to sell my own property.
Second, it will be ineffective in reducing crime. Will criminals submit to background checks? No.
Third. Well, with an infringement of rights on one hand and an ineffective policy on the other what more do you need to understand it's a stupid policy?

If someone has a criminal history, or a significant mental issue history, or a restraining order on them, would you like to know that when they're purchasing a gun?
.

Not really. And if that passed I still wouldn't know because defeating the background check is just too easy.
Why dont you respond to my post on those points: it is an infringement and it will not be effective.

Well, "effective" is subjective. Would it stop just one psycho from getting a gun? A hundred? Ten thousand? Surely it would have some positive effect, the question is the degree. What is the real cost of going through a background check? A little temporary inconvenience?

Same thing with the notion of "infringement'. Any law or ordinance could be considered an infringement. I'm First Amendment purist, but even I will grudgingly bend for certain laws.

This isn't a binary situation. Rights are not destroyed by laws.
.

Effective means it would have a positive effect on the problem.
Since the mass shooters could all have passed a background check, it will have no effect on tht problem.
Since the shootings done in inner cities are caused by criminals who couldn't pass a background check, it will have no effect on that problem either.
So which people determined to shoot people will universal background checks stop? Please tell me what circumstances a new law would help.

A legitimate infringment is one that meets a specific test. Certainly one test has to be efficacy. Since UBCs are not effective (California had the law and San Bernadino happened anyway) then they are not a legitimate infringement.

 

[Missourian]

"Gun control" is such a vague, catch-all phrase. I know how important bumper-sticker sloganeering is nowadays, but maybe we could get more specific on the individual issues within the overall gun control issue.

Let's start off with background checks. It seems to me that doing a background check on anyone who wants to purchase a gun - universal background checks - makes perfect sense and there is no reason why gun shows, for example, should have any kind of exemption.

A strong of Americans can see a value in this. Poll shows bipartisan support for expanding background checks -- Conservatives, if you disagree with that, what are your reasons?
.

Gun shows have no exemption...you have been bamboozled by left wing propaganda.

 

[The Rabbi]

Not really. And if that passed I still wouldn't know because defeating the background check is just too easy.
Why dont you respond to my post on those points: it is an infringement and it will not be effective.

How do you define "Effective"?

The thing is, every time one of these crazy assholes shoots up a church or a school or a theater, the media finds out just how crazy these people are within hours.

seems the gun industry should be held to the same standard before selling someone a gun.

Lots of people are "crazy" and never shoot up anything. You, for example.

 

[JoeB131]

Opposed to the delusion that the government will keep us safe. Never has: Never will.

Yeah, because not letting any asshole get a gun never works.

Except for the United Kingdom, Japan, Germany, Italy, France, Australia, Canada...

Where they have gun control and oddly, NOWHERE NEAR the homicide rates we have.

 

[JoeB131]

Lots of people are "crazy" and never shoot up anything. You, for example.

Okay, you see, there's a difference between "Crazy" and "saying stuff you don't like".

I'm sorry I have to explain this to you.

But let's look at that.

For the job I started last year, the company did-

1) A complete background check.
2) A credit check
3) Checked where I went to school
4) Asked several co-workers about me (even though they had two of my former co-workers already working for them, which is how I heard about the job.)

In short, before they let me issue a single purchase order on their behalf, they thoroughly checked me out.

Seems to me we should probably do the same before we let people have guns.

If they had done a background check on James "Joker" Holmes, they'd have found his university was in the process of expelling him.

Had they done a background check on Dylan Roof, they'd have found he had been arrested for drugs and was under a restraining order for stalking a girl.

Had they done a background check on Seung-Hui Cho (The Virginia Tech Shooter) they'd have found a history of anti-social, violent behavior dating back to junior high school.

 

[Centinel]

"Gun control" is such a vague, catch-all phrase. I know how important bumper-sticker sloganeering is nowadays, but maybe we could get more specific on the individual issues within the overall gun control issue.

Let's start off with background checks. It seems to me that doing a background check on anyone who wants to purchase a gun - universal background checks - makes perfect sense and there is no reason why gun shows, for example, should have any kind of exemption.

A strong of Americans can see a value in this. Poll shows bipartisan support for expanding background checks -- Conservatives, if you disagree with that, what are your reasons?
.

If you're talking about a federal law mandating background checks, then we first have to identify which of congress' enumerated powers would permit the enactment of such a law. Without the power to do so, enacting such a law would violate the constitution.

Why don't you tell us? You raised the point, so within the 18 clauses of Article I, Section 8 can we find one or more of those enumerated powers authorizing Congress to mandate background checks?

I don't see any power that would allow congress to mandate background checks for all sales.

 

[The Rabbi]

"Gun control" is such a vague, catch-all phrase. I know how important bumper-sticker sloganeering is nowadays, but maybe we could get more specific on the individual issues within the overall gun control issue.

Let's start off with background checks. It seems to me that doing a background check on anyone who wants to purchase a gun - universal background checks - makes perfect sense and there is no reason why gun shows, for example, should have any kind of exemption.

A strong of Americans can see a value in this. Poll shows bipartisan support for expanding background checks -- Conservatives, if you disagree with that, what are your reasons?
.

If you're talking about a federal law mandating background checks, then we first have to identify which of congress' enumerated powers would permit the enactment of such a law. Without the power to do so, enacting such a law would violate the constitution.

Why don't you tell us? You raised the point, so within the 18 clauses of Article I, Section 8 can we find one or more of those enumerated powers authorizing Congress to mandate background checks?

I don't see any power that would allow congress to mandate background checks for all sales.

Interstate commerce. It's a weak argument but they will argue that commerce within the state affects commerce between states. They will cite Wickard v Fillbern as proof.

 

[Centinel]

"Gun control" is such a vague, catch-all phrase. I know how important bumper-sticker sloganeering is nowadays, but maybe we could get more specific on the individual issues within the overall gun control issue.

Let's start off with background checks. It seems to me that doing a background check on anyone who wants to purchase a gun - universal background checks - makes perfect sense and there is no reason why gun shows, for example, should have any kind of exemption.

A strong of Americans can see a value in this. Poll shows bipartisan support for expanding background checks -- Conservatives, if you disagree with that, what are your reasons?
.

If you're talking about a federal law mandating background checks, then we first have to identify which of congress' enumerated powers would permit the enactment of such a law. Without the power to do so, enacting such a law would violate the constitution.

Why don't you tell us? You raised the point, so within the 18 clauses of Article I, Section 8 can we find one or more of those enumerated powers authorizing Congress to mandate background checks?

I don't see any power that would allow congress to mandate background checks for all sales.

Interstate commerce. It's a weak argument but they will argue that commerce within the state affects commerce between states. They will cite Wickard v Fillbern as proof.

Sure, they can claim anything they want. But they'd have to make the case the buying a weapon from one's neighbor is commerce among the states. Which it isn't. They might as well try to claim that a horse is a fish.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

In order to enforce a background check on private sellers the Government would need to register all firearms. Without registration there is no legal way the Government can prove a private citizen sold their firearm to anyone else without a background check. Making the law unenforceable. Registration is nothing more than a means for the Government to seize weapons at their convenience.

 

[JoeB131]

In order to enforce a background check on private sellers the Government would need to register all firearms. Without registration there is no legal way the Government can prove a private citizen sold their firearm to anyone else without a background check. Making the law unenforceable. Registration is nothing more than a means for the Government to seize weapons at their convenience.

and that would be a bad thing, why?

If you guys are arguing that you can't own your penis surrogates....oh, sorry, Constituationally mandated rights without having to tolerate 33,000 deaths, 70,000 injuries and 1.5 million gun crimes a year, because you refuse to take the actions to keep those things from happening, then I really have no problem giving up the "right".

You don't need a gun, you want a gun.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

In order to enforce a background check on private sellers the Government would need to register all firearms. Without registration there is no legal way the Government can prove a private citizen sold their firearm to anyone else without a background check. Making the law unenforceable. Registration is nothing more than a means for the Government to seize weapons at their convenience.

and that would be a bad thing, why?

If you guys are arguing that you can't own your penis surrogates....oh, sorry, Constituationally mandated rights without having to tolerate 33,000 deaths, 70,000 injuries and 1.5 million gun crimes a year, because you refuse to take the actions to keep those things from happening, then I really have no problem giving up the "right".

You don't need a gun, you want a gun.

You want to take a right away? Feel free to change the Constitution, until you do, you have no authority no right and no power to do so. Good luck on that.

 

[the_human_being]

You Liberals are worried about guns? Seriously?