Let's get specific on the politics of GUN CONTROL

[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?
.

And once again we see that conservatives have no valid reason to oppose background checks, no rational argument to offer, no facts or objective evidence in support of opposing background checks.

Background checks are Constitutional, as Federal courts have held, they are rationally based, pursue a compelling governmental interest, and are a reasonable regulation of the rights enshrined in the Second Amendment, consistent with Second Amendment jurisprudence.

In order to enforce private sales background checks the Government would need to implement registration that requires a new law and violates the no infringement of the 2nd Amendment.

And repeal a law as well...the Brady Bill no less...

(i) PROHIBITION RELATING TO ESTABLISHMENT OF REGISTRATION SYSTEMS WITH RESPECT TO FIREARMS- No department, agency, officer, or employee of the United States may--

(1) require that any record or portion thereof generated by the system established under this section be recorded at or transferred to a facility owned, managed, or controlled by the United States or any State or political subdivision thereof; or

(2) use the system established under this section to establish any system for the registration of firearms, firearm owners, or firearm transactions or dispositions, except with respect to persons, prohibited by section 922 (g) or (n) of title 18, United States Code or State law, from receiving a firearm.


The Brady Handgun Control Act (complete text) - U.S. Government Info/Resources​

​

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Where ya at Clayton? The Government can not make private sales background check without registration and that is illegal. Further Obama can not force private sales to be requiring a FFL either that would require a new law, he does not have that power.

 

[The Rabbi]

Is the TSA no flight list accurate ? No
Next.

Have there been any more hijackings since 9-11? Nope.

Accurate enough.

Of course hardened cockpits has nothing to do with that.

TSA has stopped NO, i.e. ZERO, hijacking attempts. Ever. And it is well documented they miss a huge percentage of phony attempts.
But the connection between TSA and UBCs is very close. In both cases they are designed to appear to "do something" when in reality their role is to restrict freedom and infringe on rights.

 

[Andylusion]

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.

Good post.

Good dialogue as well.

Really? That's a good post?

So you have first amendment right too.... can we deny that? We need to do a credit check before you are allowed to say your views. We need to check out your co-workers, and what school you went to, before you have freedom of speech. We need your FBI background check before you can have access to your freedom of speech.

All of that sounds insane doesn't it. A constitutional 'right'... is just that.

But that doesn't stop the left from pushing the Hush-Rush laws, and it doesn't stop the left from trying to deny other rights, like the right to bare arms.

It's amazing people can say that the right to vote, means we can't even see if the person voting is actually a US citizen, but with the right to bare arms, suddenly we can place every single infringement possible.

And again.... regardless of all his claims about his work place checking on him... the fact is, none of those checks would do jack, if someone really want to get around them.

I know, having worked with small business for ages, that people can lie, and get people to lie, and make up false information, to avoid all kinds of bad info. I know people who had buddies who worked at place X, told the company they worked at place X, and their buddy was a manager. The company calls place X, asks for bob, they give him bob, and bob tells the company "oh yeah, he worked here for ages, great guy perfect attendance, sorry to see him go".... and the guy never worked there.

I know another guy that told the company he went to college X, and put down a professor as a reference. They called him up "oh yeah, great student". Turns out the college professor was a drinking buddy, and the guy had never been to that school. They only found out because a co-worker (not me), was talking with him, and he blabbered that he had gone to a different school... but failed out.

And there are numerous ways to get around a credit check as well. The simplest, call up the credit agency and have a fraud victim alert placed on your report, and then freeze the report. Tell your company you had a relative who stole your identity. They look up your credit, see the fraud victim alert, and say "ah, it checks out.".

What's my point? My point is, you people seem to think that if you just make a bunch of back ground checks, that's going to stop someone. No it's not. Your background checks haven't stopped a single person on the face of this planet, from getting a gun. Surveys of convicts in prison, show that barely 10% purchased guns.

"well if we stop purchases, then we can cut crime by 10%!"

Bull. They'll just purchase guns the way the other 90% do, through the black market.

I know a guy who came back from Iraq, and wanted to buy a gun. He met a guy at a rest stop, and purchased a 9mm from him. Rest stop along the highway. "hey meet me here, and bring $100 cash"... he showed up, the guy gave him the gun, and he gave him the money.

Now if a legal military man can get a gun at a rest stop on the highway.... what background check do you think is going to stop a criminal?

Most guns are straw purchases. So I have no criminal record. Haven't even had a speeding ticket in 5 years plus. I walk in, buy a gun that someone wants. You people on the left, spend billions of tax dollars, checking my FBI record (zero), my criminal history (zero), my mental history (zero), and all the other checks and crap you want (zero zero zero), and determine I can legally have the gun. I buy it, walk out to my car, give someone who wanted it the guy, and he gives me the money with a bonus fee.

The criminal still gets the gun, but you morons wasted billions of tax dollars accomplishing nothing. Nothing! You successfully did NOTHING.

It's a bad policy, it will accomplish nothing, and it's a waste of money, and it will only serve to make the public more vulnerable to criminals.

 

[OKTexas]

"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?
.

And once again we see that conservatives have no valid reason to oppose background checks, no rational argument to offer, no facts or objective evidence in support of opposing background checks.

Background checks are Constitutional, as Federal courts have held, they are rationally based, pursue a compelling governmental interest, and are a reasonable regulation of the rights enshrined in the Second Amendment, consistent with Second Amendment jurisprudence.

The only compelling government interest in fucking with the second amendment is its own self preservation. And so far you freaking idiots have yet to demonstrate how additional background check requirements would have a positive effect on anything.

 

[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?
.

And once again we see that conservatives have no valid reason to oppose background checks, no rational argument to offer, no facts or objective evidence in support of opposing background checks.

Background checks are Constitutional, as Federal courts have held, they are rationally based, pursue a compelling governmental interest, and are a reasonable regulation of the rights enshrined in the Second Amendment, consistent with Second Amendment jurisprudence.

The only compelling government interest in fucking with the second amendment is its own self preservation. And so far you freaking idiots have yet to demonstrate how additional background check requirements would have a positive effect on anything.

Or how congress has the legal authority to enact a law requiring them...

 

[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?

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

Perhaps you should familiarize yourself with the both the Commerce and Necessary and Proper clauses.

I'm very familiar with both clauses, thanks.

So are you saying that possession of a gun is commerce? Commerce among the several states?

Let's say I build myself a gun (fairly easy to do). Is that commerce? If so, with whom in another state have I engaged in commerce?

You're changing the narrative to avoid addressing the obvious. You wrote this to which I initially responded;

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.

At issue were the enumerated powers of Congress to enact forms of Constitutional arms legislation. After having presented two of those authorized powers to you, you shifted the topic from congressional authority to this absurd, sophomoric argument;

I'm very familiar with both clauses, thanks.

So are you saying that possession of a gun is commerce? Commerce among the several states?

Let's say I build myself a gun (fairly easy to do). Is that commerce? If so, with whom in another state have I engaged in commerce?

That Straw Man has nothing to do with your initial assertion I quoted above. Stay on topic. If you wish to defend your assertion that Congress may not have the power to enact arms control legislation, make your case. Please refrain from these types absurd arguments.

 

[Centinel]

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.

Perhaps you should familiarize yourself with the both the Commerce and Necessary and Proper clauses.

I'm very familiar with both clauses, thanks.

So are you saying that possession of a gun is commerce? Commerce among the several states?

Let's say I build myself a gun (fairly easy to do). Is that commerce? If so, with whom in another state have I engaged in commerce?

You're changing the narrative to avoid addressing the obvious. You wrote this to which I initially responded;

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.

At issue were the enumerated powers of Congress to enact forms of Constitutional arms legislation. After having presented two of those authorized powers to you, you shifted the topic from congressional authority to this absurd, sophomoric argument;

I'm very familiar with both clauses, thanks.

So are you saying that possession of a gun is commerce? Commerce among the several states?

Let's say I build myself a gun (fairly easy to do). Is that commerce? If so, with whom in another state have I engaged in commerce?

That Straw Man has nothing to do with your initial assertion I quoted above. Stay on topic. If you wish to defend your assertion that Congress may not have the power to enact arms control legislation, make your case. Please refrain from these types absurd arguments.

My assertion that congress has no power to enact arms control legislation is based on the fact that that constitution does not specify that it has the power to do so. If you can cite any of congress' enumerated powers that would allow it to restrict the possession of arms by the people of the several states, feel free to cite the relevant language.

 

[TooTall]

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.

The next obvious move is to we make GM, Ford, Chrysler etc co-defendants when someone is killed in a car wreck. You really do come up with some gems.

 

[The Rabbi]

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.

Perhaps you should familiarize yourself with the both the Commerce and Necessary and Proper clauses.

I'm very familiar with both clauses, thanks.

So are you saying that possession of a gun is commerce? Commerce among the several states?

Let's say I build myself a gun (fairly easy to do). Is that commerce? If so, with whom in another state have I engaged in commerce?

You're changing the narrative to avoid addressing the obvious. You wrote this to which I initially responded;

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.

At issue were the enumerated powers of Congress to enact forms of Constitutional arms legislation. After having presented two of those authorized powers to you, you shifted the topic from congressional authority to this absurd, sophomoric argument;

I'm very familiar with both clauses, thanks.

So are you saying that possession of a gun is commerce? Commerce among the several states?

Let's say I build myself a gun (fairly easy to do). Is that commerce? If so, with whom in another state have I engaged in commerce?

That Straw Man has nothing to do with your initial assertion I quoted above. Stay on topic. If you wish to defend your assertion that Congress may not have the power to enact arms control legislation, make your case. Please refrain from these types absurd arguments.

Your arguments fail.
"Necessary and proper" is not a catchall clause for whatever one wants. If it were it woudl destroy the notion of a limited government of enumerated powers.
Commerce is also excluded as the rules envisioned would apply ONLY within the borders of a state. Transactions betweeen residents of other states are already subject to background checks and laws.

 

[candycorn]

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.

Good post.

Good dialogue as well.

Really? That's a good post?

Yes. It highlights what other advanced societies do to keep their citizens safe. These societies are second to none in personal liberties and standard of living. They do not have anywhere near as many gun deaths as we do. If the goal is to reduce gun deaths, they are in the right and we are in the wrong.

So you have first amendment right too.... can we deny that? We need to do a credit check before you are allowed to say your views. We need to check out your co-workers, and what school you went to, before you have freedom of speech. We need your FBI background check before you can have access to your freedom of speech.

All of that sounds insane doesn't it. A constitutional 'right'... is just that.

Words, though hurtful, are not deadly. Apples and oranges.

But that doesn't stop the left from pushing the Hush-Rush laws, and it doesn't stop the left from trying to deny other rights, like the right to bare arms.

I'm unaware of the "hush-rush" laws you're speaking about. Rush has been on the radio forever, folks here every day call Obama anything from the n word to much worse, I can't wait to see what you come up with for Hillary.... Nobody is going to Prison as far as I can tell for what they are saying.

That isn't to say that there are not consequences. The freedom riders experienced this in the 1960's as conservatives (mostly Democrats) utilized brutal methods to try to keep their backwards ways of life in tact.

It's amazing people can say that the right to vote, means we can't even see if the person voting is actually a US citizen, but with the right to bare arms, suddenly we can place every single infringement possible.

Again, pulling a lever doesn't end someone's life, pulling a trigger can.
PS: I'm for having to show a picture ID (as long as it is free of charge) when you cast your ballot.

And again.... regardless of all his claims about his work place checking on him... the fact is, none of those checks would do jack, if someone really want to get around them.

I know, having worked with small business for ages, that people can lie, and get people to lie, and make up false information, to avoid all kinds of bad info. I know people who had buddies who worked at place X, told the company they worked at place X, and their buddy was a manager. The company calls place X, asks for bob, they give him bob, and bob tells the company "oh yeah, he worked here for ages, great guy perfect attendance, sorry to see him go".... and the guy never worked there.

I know another guy that told the company he went to college X, and put down a professor as a reference. They called him up "oh yeah, great student". Turns out the college professor was a drinking buddy, and the guy had never been to that school. They only found out because a co-worker (not me), was talking with him, and he blabbered that he had gone to a different school... but failed out.



And there are numerous ways to get around a credit check as well. The simplest, call up the credit agency and have a fraud victim alert placed on your report, and then freeze the report. Tell your company you had a relative who stole your identity. They look up your credit, see the fraud victim alert, and say "ah, it checks out.".

What's my point? My point is, you people seem to think that if you just make a bunch of back ground checks, that's going to stop someone. No it's not. Your background checks haven't stopped a single person on the face of this planet, from getting a gun. Surveys of convicts in prison, show that barely 10% purchased guns.

"well if we stop purchases, then we can cut crime by 10%!"

When this idiotic argument of "people will just get around it" argument is brought up, you guys always conveniently leave out that a certain number of would-be assassins will be detered without trying, and another number will be careless in their preperation and get caught.

Bull. They'll just purchase guns the way the other 90% do, through the black market.

I know a guy who came back from Iraq, and wanted to buy a gun. He met a guy at a rest stop, and purchased a 9mm from him. Rest stop along the highway. "hey meet me here, and bring $100 cash"... he showed up, the guy gave him the gun, and he gave him the money.

Now if a legal military man can get a gun at a rest stop on the highway.... what background check do you think is going to stop a criminal?

And then there is this lame argument. Yes, the guy was able to buy a gun. I doubt Adam Lanza had $100 on him....maybe he did; maybe he didn't. Did that weirdo in Colorado have $100 on him? I doubt he saw $100 in the last few months.

Most guns are straw purchases. So I have no criminal record. Haven't even had a speeding ticket in 5 years plus. I walk in, buy a gun that someone wants. You people on the left, spend billions of tax dollars, checking my FBI record (zero), my criminal history (zero), my mental history (zero), and all the other checks and crap you want (zero zero zero), and determine I can legally have the gun. I buy it, walk out to my car, give someone who wanted it the guy, and he gives me the money with a bonus fee.

Good for you. Considering you have possibly committed a felony (at worst) and have subjected yourself to police scrutiny (should your sugar daddy use it to blow away his wife) at best. Enjoy your bonus.

The criminal still gets the gun, but you morons wasted billions of tax dollars accomplishing nothing. Nothing! You successfully did NOTHING.

Well, it was going to be wasted anyway. We may as well save some lives in the process.

It's a bad policy, it will accomplish nothing, and it's a waste of money, and it will only serve to make the public more vulnerable to criminals.

Total nonsense.

 

[JoeB131]

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.

Uh, guy, we don't need to "change" the constitution. All we need to do is get another guy on the SCOTUS who will notice the words 'WELL REGULATED MILITIA" are in there.

 

[JoeB131]

You Liberals are worried about guns? Seriously?

Fetuses aren't people.

 

[JoeB131]

Above I gave FBI sources murder rates in the USA, with a population of 300,000,000.

A. Of the countries you mentioned, Japan has the population closest to the USA at about 127 million. Not even 50%. Ethnically, they are homogeneous.
B. All have histories of incredible violence toward their neighbors, except for Aussies and Canadians.
C. Aussies and Canadians live in countries where there are very few people per land area.

Concluding that only the difference between the USA and another nation's gun laws is the ONLY reason that 8,000 gunshot inflicted murders of 300,000,000 mostly armed citizens is narrow-minded.

First, the homicide rate with guns is closer to 11,000, not 8000. and sorry, the 20,000 suicides really are a problem. Japan had 11 gun homicides in the last year I can find numbers for. The United Kingdom had 48, Germany had 258. Even accounting for smaller populations, we have a horrific homicide rate for a developed nation.

Second, history is irrelevent in this context. We've murdered Iraqis, Vietnamese, Filipinos, and Native Americans by the hundreds of thousands because we've wanted their shit, too.

So, sorry, we have a real problem. And I'm getting a little tired of watching preschoolers being wheeled out in body bags so you can compensate for your tiny dick.

 

[JoeB131]

They had nowhere near the homicide rates we have BEFORE they had gun control.

THey also never had our levels of gun ownership. so that argument won't fly.

Incidentally, Japan's gun control goes back to the Meiji Restoration. so it's kind of hard to gauge what things were like 'before' gun control there.

 

[JoeB131]

France suffered more casualties (murders and injuries) from mass public shootings in 2015 than the US has suffered during Obama’s entire presidency (UPDATED 524 to 428)

Horseshit.

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

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.

Uh, guy, we don't need to "change" the constitution. All we need to do is get another guy on the SCOTUS who will notice the words 'WELL REGULATED MILITIA" are in there.

It is certainly likely a Democrat president would appoint someone carrying that oft-misconstrued phrase around in their error-filled head to the SCOTUS. And yes, it is possible that such a partisan moron would seek to self-amend the Constitution, because that's what Democrats do.

Now, were such to occur and when the people refuse to comply, and they will refuse, what would you suggest?

 

[Agit8r]

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.

Ooh, the pornographer's argument.

 

[JoeB131]

Suck post.
We do not deny rights based on expulsions from school. Nor based on hearsay from someone who may have a grudge. In Cho's case he was actually prohibited. But laws pushed by liberals for privacy prevented the law enforcement agencies from having that information so his background check passed.
As usual, Joe is wrong. And stupid.

In Cho's case, he was in a state which is notorious for selling guns to people who can't buy guns in their own state because the laws are tougher.

The thing is, everyone found out Cho was nuts within HOURS- HOURS of the shooting. Even with VA Tech in full CYA mode.

It seems to me that if NBC can figure out in a day the Cho was nuts without ever having met him, a gun seller can find out who is nuts given a week to do a background check.

 

[JoeB131]

It is certainly likely a Democrat president would appoint someone carrying that oft-misconstrued phrase around in their error-filled head to the SCOTUS. And yes, it is possible that such a partisan moron would seek to self-amend the Constitution, because that's what Democrats do.

Now, were such to occur and when the people refuse to comply, and they will refuse, what would you suggest?

We have lots of very nice jails for those people. You work on the assumption I really care if bad things happen to gun nuts. I really and truly don't.