Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Which imo is why the right to bear arms was written into the Constitution. So an armed militia could be called at a moment's notice. That is no longer relevant. But that is another argument.I understand the relationship as Constitutional rights, but the "arms" people are allowed to bear have always cost $. Even when the Constitution was written.Conservative65 makes a valid point. Yes, it's related because it's related to Constitutional rights even the unenumerated right to vote and the enumerated right to self-defense.I'm not sure voting and having a background check when purchasing an optional firearm are the same thing. I have nothing against voter ID as long as it is reasonably inexpensive. I believe around here a background check costs less than a birth certificate in many states.
that is one of the reasons those in the militia supplied their own arms
Nice straw man. Okay, let's make voter ID mandatory and charge a $20 fee.We are talking about a perhaps $20 fee. If you want to give guns to poor people, I can't stand behind that.
I never advocated giving anyone guns. I'm simply against people like you artificially jacking up the price of exercising an enumerated right out of pure nanny-statism.
You guys are determined not to follow my argument. So be it. Typical gun thread.It is to reduce the # of illegally owned guns on the street. Less sold to unvetted buyers, less to sell to a thug.Universal background checks anytime a gun is transferred (excepting close family members or lending a gun for a short time to a friend). This would not violate any law abiding citizen's right to bear arms. Too many guns are being transferred without proper caution to people who should not have one, either at gun shows or through casual sales. There are gun stores everywhere that can, for a small fee, run a background check for anyone interested in buying a gun. This will not be a problem for law abiding citizens.
Yet you still can't tell me what type of background check the person that stole my gun will go through for possessing that gun.
Until that criminal goes through a background check, expecting those of us that have never committed a crime to go through one so you can feel better is a problem. I'm not jumping through you damn hoops so you can say you did something to make yourself feel better.
in the criminal world all buyers are unvetted
Stolen guns which are used to commit crimes are a very small percent of the total number of crimes committed using a gun.On C-Span this weekend, they televised a conference about research into gun crime. Only 15% of the guns used in Chicago to commit crimes were purchased legally. They traced back as many as they could to the original owner and 75% said the gun had been stolen, however the majority had not been reported to the police. The other reasons were transfer (sale or swap) at gun shows and individual sales. All the guns bought new from the store had a background check and were sold to people who were cleared to have them. They did not commit the crimes. However, they allowed the gun to leave their possession without following through with equal caution. The guns ended up on the street being sold to criminals.
Now, if a gun is stolen, fine, it's not your fault, but it should be reported stolen. Why would you not report such a thing? If it were my tv or my car stereo or my laptop, I would report it. Why would so many people NOT report a stolen gun? My guess is that not all of them were actually "stolen." They were transferred to people who shouldn't have had a gun and the person who sold it knew it.
Keeping the above in mind, if 85% of the guns used to commit crime in Chicago were illegally owned, and if those guns arrived on the street after being transferred without the requirement of a background check, a good way to make those guns go "poof" is to start requiring all gun sales/transfers to have a background check, or hold the last legal owner responsible if the gun is involved in a crime. That would deter people from handing over guns to folks who shouldn't have them or selling them to anyone without a background check.
It would hopefully cut down on the illegally owned guns on the street. This is my own idea, developed after hearing the studies on C-Span. It couldn't be proven without putting it into effect, but I think it makes sense.
I do not believe the Second Amendment means what you believe it means, so you can have that argument with someone who likes to argue about the Constitution. It is very clearly not infringing on the existing rights of law abiding citizens to own a gun if all I am asking for is a background check for all sales/transfers.
Which imo is why the right to bear arms was written into the Constitution. So an armed militia could be called at a moment's notice. That is no longer relevant. But that is another argument.I understand the relationship as Constitutional rights, but the "arms" people are allowed to bear have always cost $. Even when the Constitution was written.Conservative65 makes a valid point. Yes, it's related because it's related to Constitutional rights even the unenumerated right to vote and the enumerated right to self-defense.I'm not sure voting and having a background check when purchasing an optional firearm are the same thing. I have nothing against voter ID as long as it is reasonably inexpensive. I believe around here a background check costs less than a birth certificate in many states.
that is one of the reasons those in the militia supplied their own arms
I have never heard of a light up Santa killing anyone. You must live in a nasty neighborhood.If you report the gun stolen, it is no longer your responsibility.It is to reduce the # of illegally owned guns on the street. Less sold to unvetted buyers, less to sell to a thug.Yet you still can't tell me what type of background check the person that stole my gun will go through for possessing that gun.
Until that criminal goes through a background check, expecting those of us that have never committed a crime to go through one so you can feel better is a problem. I'm not jumping through you damn hoops so you can say you did something to make yourself feel better.
What background check will the criminal that stole my gun go through?
Again, NONE OF YOUR FUCKING BUSINESS. Last time I looked, I don't have to do things the way you would do it nor am I wrong if I don't.
You still haven't answered what background check a criminal will go through that stole my gun.
I've had Christmas, Halloween, and Easter decorations stolen or vandalized from or in my yard. Should I report all of them?
I kind of like your reply here. "It's none of your fucking business." Gee, what a rock solid answer to a straightforward question. I'm going to use it anytime I haven't got an answer.
Your choice. I'd rather stick with the status quo than to give the anti-gun Left an inch.Then there is no sense in discussing it with you.
Agreed. In over 50 years of gun ownership, I have never, ever loaned a gun to anyone other than let someone shoot it at the range when I'm right there.Stolen guns which are used to commit crimes are a very small percent of the total number of crimes committed using a gun.
It's a LIB bullshit myth that legal gun owners 'loan' their guns to anyone.
99.999% of people who have legal guns are EXTREMELY careful with their guns.
Stolen guns which are used to commit crimes are a very small percent of the total number of crimes committed using a gun.Stolen guns which are used to commit crimes are a very small percent of the total number of crimes committed using a gun.On C-Span this weekend, they televised a conference about research into gun crime. Only 15% of the guns used in Chicago to commit crimes were purchased legally. They traced back as many as they could to the original owner and 75% said the gun had been stolen, however the majority had not been reported to the police. The other reasons were transfer (sale or swap) at gun shows and individual sales. All the guns bought new from the store had a background check and were sold to people who were cleared to have them. They did not commit the crimes. However, they allowed the gun to leave their possession without following through with equal caution. The guns ended up on the street being sold to criminals.
Now, if a gun is stolen, fine, it's not your fault, but it should be reported stolen. Why would you not report such a thing? If it were my tv or my car stereo or my laptop, I would report it. Why would so many people NOT report a stolen gun? My guess is that not all of them were actually "stolen." They were transferred to people who shouldn't have had a gun and the person who sold it knew it.
Keeping the above in mind, if 85% of the guns used to commit crime in Chicago were illegally owned, and if those guns arrived on the street after being transferred without the requirement of a background check, a good way to make those guns go "poof" is to start requiring all gun sales/transfers to have a background check, or hold the last legal owner responsible if the gun is involved in a crime. That would deter people from handing over guns to folks who shouldn't have them or selling them to anyone without a background check.
It would hopefully cut down on the illegally owned guns on the street. This is my own idea, developed after hearing the studies on C-Span. It couldn't be proven without putting it into effect, but I think it makes sense.
I do not believe the Second Amendment means what you believe it means, so you can have that argument with someone who likes to argue about the Constitution. It is very clearly not infringing on the existing rights of law abiding citizens to own a gun if all I am asking for is a background check for all sales/transfers.
It's a LIB bullshit myth that legal gun owners 'loan' their guns to anyone.
99.999% of people who have legal guns are EXTREMELY careful with their guns.
The old pro-Federalist vs. anti-Federalist argument; does the Constitution grant you rights or does the Constitution limit what government can do?Which imo is why the right to bear arms was written into the Constitution. So an armed militia could be called at a moment's notice. That is no longer relevant. But that is another argument.
Chicago has the strongest anti-gun laws in the nation and has a murder rate higher than New York and LA combined.Stolen guns which are used to commit crimes are a very small percent of the total number of crimes committed using a gun.
The stats in Chicago were: 85% of crimes were committed with illegal guns and 75% of those were originally "stolen" from their legal purchaser. That's a lot.
Fuck off. If you want the constitution changed to outlaw armaments there is an amendment process. And there is no way in hell it will ever pass.Universal background checks anytime a gun is transferred (excepting close family members or lending a gun for a short time to a friend). This would not violate any law abiding citizen's right to bear arms. Too many guns are being transferred without proper caution to people who should not have one, either at gun shows or through casual sales. There are gun stores everywhere that can, for a small fee, run a background check for anyone interested in buying a gun. This will not be a problem for law abiding citizens.
Mass murders were common back in 1776 - Isolated farmers vs roving bands of 10-20 bad guys. Damned redskins.Well, things change. We aren't using flintlocks anymore. And what do you think Jefferson & co, would have done if there were assault rifles and mass murders of pre school children in 1776? Things might be a little different.What, in your opinion, is the purpose of the Second Amendment? Why do we even have a Bill of Rights?The second amendment is being abused. And as a result, it's causing a menace to the general populace. We NEED firearms to protect us from other people WITH firearms. Right. If this were children fighting over a toy, you would take it away from all of them .You wouldn't let children abuse something they don't need and whine about how "the other kid has IT, we need one TOO" childish games. You take away their toys.
How does anyone provide empirical evidence for an initiative that hasn't been tried? If you want to see empirical evidence for gun control generally, take a look at gun death rates in civilized nations with real gun control compared to ours.I have never heard of a light up Santa killing anyone. You must live in a nasty neighborhood.If you report the gun stolen, it is no longer your responsibility.It is to reduce the # of illegally owned guns on the street. Less sold to unvetted buyers, less to sell to a thug.
What background check will the criminal that stole my gun go through?
Again, NONE OF YOUR FUCKING BUSINESS. Last time I looked, I don't have to do things the way you would do it nor am I wrong if I don't.
You still haven't answered what background check a criminal will go through that stole my gun.
I've had Christmas, Halloween, and Easter decorations stolen or vandalized from or in my yard. Should I report all of them?
I kind of like your reply here. "It's none of your fucking business." Gee, what a rock solid answer to a straightforward question. I'm going to use it anytime I haven't got an answer.
I have patiently read your comments, you have not one shred of empirical evidence that anything you say lowers the murder rate
Well, the cops say the guns are coming in illegally from Indiana, which is next door and has lax gun control laws.Chicago has the strongest anti-gun laws in the nation and has a murder rate higher than New York and LA combined.Stolen guns which are used to commit crimes are a very small percent of the total number of crimes committed using a gun.
The stats in Chicago were: 85% of crimes were committed with illegal guns and 75% of those were originally "stolen" from their legal purchaser. That's a lot.
What's wrong with that picture?
And so, you are either unwilling or unable to have a rational discourse on gun control.The second amendment is being abused. And as a result, it's causing a menace to the general populace. We NEED firearms to protect us from other people WITH firearms. Right. If this were children fighting over a toy, you would take it away from all of them .You wouldn't let children abuse something they don't need and whine about how "the other kid has IT, we need one TOO" childish games. You take away their toys.For those of you who seek additional restrictions on the 2nd Amendment rights of the law abiding, I challenge you to a rational discourse on the issue.
To this end, please...
1: State the gun control law you seek (You probably should limit this to just one)
2: Define the problem you seek to correct with this law
3: Demonstrate that this law will indeed correct the problem you define.
4: Explain how, under current jurisprudence, this law does not create an infringement on the right to keep and bear arms
5: Do not resort to fallacious appeals to emotion, ignorance and/or dishonesty (Fallacies, after all, are irrational)
Please begin
Why do you continue to not understand that this means nothing as to go to IN and bring guns back to IL, absent the transfer being handled by a FFL, violates federal law?Well, the cops say the guns are coming in illegally from Indiana, which is next door and has lax gun control laws.Chicago has the strongest anti-gun laws in the nation and has a murder rate higher than New York and LA combined.Stolen guns which are used to commit crimes are a very small percent of the total number of crimes committed using a gun.
The stats in Chicago were: 85% of crimes were committed with illegal guns and 75% of those were originally "stolen" from their legal purchaser. That's a lot.
What's wrong with that picture?
How does anyone provide empirical evidence for an initiative that hasn't been tried? If you want to see empirical evidence for gun control generally, take a look at gun death rates in civilized nations with real gun control compared to ours.I have never heard of a light up Santa killing anyone. You must live in a nasty neighborhood.If you report the gun stolen, it is no longer your responsibility.What background check will the criminal that stole my gun go through?
Again, NONE OF YOUR FUCKING BUSINESS. Last time I looked, I don't have to do things the way you would do it nor am I wrong if I don't.
You still haven't answered what background check a criminal will go through that stole my gun.
I've had Christmas, Halloween, and Easter decorations stolen or vandalized from or in my yard. Should I report all of them?
I kind of like your reply here. "It's none of your fucking business." Gee, what a rock solid answer to a straightforward question. I'm going to use it anytime I haven't got an answer.
I have patiently read your comments, you have not one shred of empirical evidence that anything you say lowers the murder rate
Agreed about the process and the unlikelihood of repealing or altering the Second Amendment. The anti-gun Left knows this too and that's why they prefer to chip away at it with "reasonable" gun laws than try to do exactly what they want head on; repeal the Second Amendment....If you want the constitution changed to outlaw armaments there is an amendment process. And there is no way in hell it will ever pass.
Incorrect. Both are legal, today.I think any debating on this issue needs to consider the political strength of the 55% of US households that do NOT own guns versus the 45% that do. That is the fundamental issue that must be reconciled.
The first question that anyone needs to address is how literally do you want to interpret the 2nd Amendment?
In other words, what about machine guns and submachine guns? These were outlawed in the 1930's.
But it is mentioned in the 5th. Due Process.Additionally, the insane probably should not be given access to guns, however this is not mentioned in the 2nd Amendment.
