We Need to Make it Much harder to get a Gun

[Markle]

Nobody wants to take away guns from responsible owners, but there are way too many irresponsible owners out there, and it is way too easy to get a gun. In some states you can just go to the store or a private sale, or a gun show, and instantly buy one. Online sales are a free for all.

That needs to stop. A Gun license needs to be like a drivers license. We need to track and monitor all guns and sales like cars, and all gun owners just like vehicle owners.

Cars kill if used irresponsibly and we have a whole slew of laws and policies designed to keep people safe from irresponsible drivers.

Guns kill way more than cars and are substantially more dangerous, yet most people can easily get one. That needs to stop, because too many innocent kids die.

They need to close all the major loop holes like private sales, online sales, and hun show sales, and they need to get serious about keeping us safe.

I looked for a state that’s taking gun violence seriously. I found Massachusetts.

Massachusetts offers a model for dealing with gun violence that the rest of the country could follow.

www.vox.com

Here's a wild and crazy idea, why not try crushing the criminal that USES a gun?

How about this plan?

 

[Markle]

Comment and and reply in post 87:

"Teabaggers think their gun will fight a tyrannical government
Your pea shooter isn't going to help you against an RPG, tanks or bombs.
SO, why can't people own them, without a license, background check and registration"?

Your comment post 88:
"We have none of that, liar".

Same fucking thing..........RETARD.

There is no need, whatsoever, for anyone to give any reason for having a gun in the United States. It is our right, that's all we need.

Your false flag is simply goofy. I understand your desperation to latch onto anything to further your point but it is still GOOFY AND SENSELESS.

 

[Markle]

Teabaggers think democrats want to take ALL their guns.
They're IDIOTS.

WOW, you are really desperate. Of course they do, they believe that everyone will then be safe.

 

[Smokin' OP]

There is no need, whatsoever, for anyone to give any reason for having a gun in the United States. It is our right, that's all we need.

BS.
Do people have a right to machine guns, RPGs, hand grenades, tanks, landmines or flame throwers?
After all, they are "arms"..........right?

Your false flag is simply goofy. I understand your desperation to latch onto anything to further your point but it is still GOOFY AND SENSELESS.

No, it isn't.
A civilian, not in government, that needs an AK or AR military-style weapon or knockoff, a 30 round magazine and 2000 rounds of ammo is GOOFY AND SENSELESS.

 

[Smokin' OP]

WOW, you are really desperate. Of course they do, they believe that everyone will then be safe.

A 32 year old NRA lie.
"They're a comin' fer all my guns"..................you morons literally bought into it.

 

[2aguy]

Libtards only want to take the semi-autos.
And the guns that look scary. And sound scary.

No, they want to ban all the guns, they are just going to ban semi-automatic rifles, pistols and shotguns first......using the AR-15 as the model for banning and confiscation....once they get that done, they will work on getting the rest...

 

[2aguy]

BS.
Do people have a right to machine guns, RPGs, hand grenades, tanks, landmines or flame throwers?
After all, they are "arms"..........right?

No, it isn't.
A civilian, not in government, that needs an AK or AR military-style weapon or knockoff, a 30 round magazine and 2000 rounds of ammo is GOOFY AND SENSELESS.

The people have the Right to own, and carry bearable arms...

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf

Some have made the argument, bordering on the frivolous, that only those arms in existence in the 18th century are protected by the Second Amendment.

We do not interpret constitutional rights that way. Just as the First Amendment protects modern forms of communications, e.g., Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union, 521 U. S. 844, 849 (1997), and the Fourth Amendment applies to modern forms of search, e.g., Kyllo v. United States, 533 U. S. 27, 35–36 (2001), the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding.

In Caetano.....they tell you to pound sand as well....

Opinion of the Court[edit]



In a per curiam decision, the Supreme Court vacated the ruling of the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court.

------
As to “dangerous,” the court below held that a weapon is “dangerous per se” if it is “ ‘designed and constructed to produce death or great bodily harm’ and ‘for the purpose of bodily assault or defense.’” 470 Mass., at 779, 26 N. E. 3d, at 692 (quoting Commonwealth v. Appleby, 380 Mass. 296, 303, 402 N. E. 2d 1051, 1056 (1980)). That test may be appropriate for applying statutes criminalizing assault with a dangerous weapon. See ibid., 402 N. E. 2d, at 1056. But it cannot be used to identify arms that fall outside the Second Amendment.



First, the relative dangerousness of a weapon is irrelevant when the weapon belongs to a class of arms commonly used for lawful purposes. See Heller, supra, at 627 (contrasting “‘dangerous and unusual weapons’” that may be banned with protected “weapons . . . ‘in common use at the time’”).



Second, even in cases where dangerousness might be relevant, the Supreme Judicial Court’s test sweeps far too broadly. Heller defined the “Arms” covered by the Second Amendment to include “‘any thing that a man wears for his defence, or takes into his hands, or useth in wrath to cast at or strike another.’” 554 U. S., at 581. Under the decision below, however, virtually every covered arm would qualify as “dangerous.” Were there any doubt on this point, one need only look at the court’s first example of “dangerous per se” weapons: “firearms.” 470 Mass., at 779, 26 N. E. 3d, at 692.



If Heller tells us anything, it is that firearms cannot be categorically prohibited just because they are dangerous. 554 U. S., at 636.

 

[Smokin' OP]

The people have the Right to own, and carry bearable arms...

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf

Yeah, by the supreme court.
Why aren't machine guns, RPGs, hand grenades, flame throwers, landmines etc. considered "bearable arms"?

Some have made the argument, bordering on the frivolous, that only those arms in existence in the 18th century are protected by the Second Amendment.

We do not interpret constitutional rights that way. Just as the First Amendment protects modern forms of communications, e.g., Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union, 521 U. S. 844, 849 (1997), and the Fourth Amendment applies to modern forms of search, e.g., Kyllo v. United States, 533 U. S. 27, 35–36 (2001), the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding.

In Caetano.....they tell you to pound sand as well....

Opinion of the Court[edit]



In a per curiam decision, the Supreme Court vacated the ruling of the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court.

------
As to “dangerous,” the court below held that a weapon is “dangerous per se” if it is “ ‘designed and constructed to produce death or great bodily harm’ and ‘for the purpose of bodily assault or defense.’” 470 Mass., at 779, 26 N. E. 3d, at 692 (quoting Commonwealth v. Appleby, 380 Mass. 296, 303, 402 N. E. 2d 1051, 1056 (1980)). That test may be appropriate for applying statutes criminalizing assault with a dangerous weapon. See ibid., 402 N. E. 2d, at 1056. But it cannot be used to identify arms that fall outside the Second Amendment.



First, the relative dangerousness of a weapon is irrelevant when the weapon belongs to a class of arms commonly used for lawful purposes. See Heller, supra, at 627 (contrasting “‘dangerous and unusual weapons’” that may be banned with protected “weapons . . . ‘in common use at the time’”).



Second, even in cases where dangerousness might be relevant, the Supreme Judicial Court’s test sweeps far too broadly. Heller defined the “Arms” covered by the Second Amendment to include “‘any thing that a man wears for his defence, or takes into his hands, or useth in wrath to cast at or strike another.’” 554 U. S., at 581. Under the decision below, however, virtually every covered arm would qualify as “dangerous.” Were there any doubt on this point, one need only look at the court’s first example of “dangerous per se” weapons: “firearms.” 470 Mass., at 779, 26 N. E. 3d, at 692.



If Heller tells us anything, it is that firearms cannot be categorically prohibited just because they are dangerous. 554 U. S., at 636.

The Court has held that “the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding,” District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U. S. 570, 582 (2008), and that this “Second Amendment right is fully applicable to the States,” McDonald v. Chicago, 561 U. S. 742, 750 (2010). In this case, the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts upheld a Massachusetts law prohibiting the possession of stun guns after examining “whether a stun gun is the type of weapon contemplated by Congress in 1789 as being protected by the Second Amendment.” 470 Mass. 774, 777, 26 N. E. 3d 688, 691 (2015).

The court offered three explanations to support its holding that the Second Amendment does not extend to stun guns. First, the court explained that stun guns are not protected because they “were not in common use at the time of the Second Amendment’s enactment.” Id., at 781, 26 N. E. 3d, at 693. This is inconsistent with Heller’s clear statement that the Second Amendment “extends . . . to . . . arms . . . that were not in existence at the time of the founding.” 554 U. S., at 582.

 

[2aguy]

Yeah, by the supreme court.
Why aren't machine guns, RPGs, hand grenades, flame throwers, landmines etc. considered "bearable arms"?

The Court has held that “the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding,” District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U. S. 570, 582 (2008), and that this “Second Amendment right is fully applicable to the States,” McDonald v. Chicago, 561 U. S. 742, 750 (2010). In this case, the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts upheld a Massachusetts law prohibiting the possession of stun guns after examining “whether a stun gun is the type of weapon contemplated by Congress in 1789 as being protected by the Second Amendment.” 470 Mass. 774, 777, 26 N. E. 3d 688, 691 (2015).

The court offered three explanations to support its holding that the Second Amendment does not extend to stun guns. First, the court explained that stun guns are not protected because they “were not in common use at the time of the Second Amendment’s enactment.” Id., at 781, 26 N. E. 3d, at 693. This is inconsistent with Heller’s clear statement that the Second Amendment “extends . . . to . . . arms . . . that were not in existence at the time of the founding.” 554 U. S., at 582.

Because a machine gun is a crew served weapon....when I was in the military it was a 3 man crew to work the M60 machine gun....The gunner, assistant gunner and ammo bearer......

RPGs, and flame throwers are area effect weapons.........

Landmines are also area effect weapons.......

Thus, they are "Unusual," ....you twit.

 

[Smokin' OP]

Because a machine gun is a crew served weapon....when I was in the military it was a 3 man crew to work the M60 machine gun....The gunner, assistant gunner and ammo bearer......

SO?

RPGs, and flame throwers are area effect weapons.........

Landmines are also area effect weapons.......

Thus, they are "Unusual," ....you twit.

They are defensive weapons, moron.
"Unusual" for who?

 

[2aguy]

SO?

They are defensive weapons, moron.
"Unusual" for who?

No....they are area effect weapons vs. a gun which is a direct fire weapon.....

How do you say an RPG is a defensive weapon? Or a flame thrower?

YOu idiot....

 

[Blues Man]

They USED to be 30 YEARS ago, I was a member for 13 years, until 1995.

The NRA is still the premier gun safety organization in the country

 

[Blues Man]

WOW, how come teabaggers aren't whining about "INFRINGEMENT"?

Why don't you ask one?

 

[Mac-7]

A 32 year old NRA lie.
"They're a comin' fer all my guns"..................you morons literally bought into it.

Of course total confiscation of guns is your uptimate goal

Even if you dont realize that, the rest of us do

 

[Smokin' OP]

Why don't you ask one?

I just did.

 

[Smokin' OP]

Of course total confiscation of guns is your uptimate goal

Even if you dont realize that, the rest of us do

Sure...........................Why hasn't it been done in the 32 years teabaggers have been regurgitating the NRA lie?

 

[Mac-7]

Sure...........................Why hasn't it been done in the 32 years teabaggers have been regurgitating the NRA lie?

You have been trying but so far the gun grabbers efforts have failed

 

[Smokin' OP]

You have been trying but so far the gun grabbers efforts have failed

I have?
If that's the case, why didn't I just turn mine in?

 

[Mac-7]

I have?
If that's the case,

why didn't I just turn mine in?

Maybe you should have

Because using lib logic, its a wonder you have not murdered someone by now

 

[Cellblock2429]

Nobody wants to take away guns from responsible owners, but there are way too many irresponsible owners out there, and it is way too easy to get a gun. In some states you can just go to the store or a private sale, or a gun show, and instantly buy one. Online sales are a free for all.

That needs to stop. A Gun license needs to be like a drivers license. We need to track and monitor all guns and sales like cars, and all gun owners just like vehicle owners.

Cars kill if used irresponsibly and we have a whole slew of laws and policies designed to keep people safe from irresponsible drivers.

Guns kill way more than cars and are substantially more dangerous, yet most people can easily get one. That needs to stop, because too many innocent kids die.

They need to close all the major loop holes like private sales, online sales, and hun show sales, and they need to get serious about keeping us safe.

I looked for a state that’s taking gun violence seriously. I found Massachusetts.

Massachusetts offers a model for dealing with gun violence that the rest of the country could follow.

www.vox.com

/---/ Stuff it Gun Grabber. Your side is creating this mess.
When it comes to gun-control debates, most legislative proposals put forward by Democrats focus either on further restricting federally licensed firearms dealerships — or on adding new regulations for gun shows. It’s the same debate, over and over: What kinds of guns can gun shops sell? Who can buy their products? How are customers to be screened? Etc.

But as the Department of Justice reports, only about two percent of prisoners who were in possession of a firearm at the time of their crime got that gun from a gun store, while the share of prisoners who got their guns at a gun show is vanishingly small at 0.8 percent. That 18-year-old maniac in Uvalde — who bought his guns legally from a licensed retailer – was a statistical outlier. Licensed gun dealers and gun shows are, if you look at the numbers, basically non-factors in the crime scene.

What about the common — all too common — criminals?

One thing we do know is that a great deal of U.S. crime is driven by a relatively small number of career criminals. Prisoners in state custody have an average of ten arrests and five convictions on their résumés. And when it comes to violent crime — and, especially, murder — the chaos on our streets is largely the work of experienced, veteran bad guys.

You won’t be surprised to learn that more than 80 percent of the murderers in New York City have prior arrest records. (So do about 80 percent of the victims.) As in most of the rest of the country, these criminals typically have at least one prior conviction, and, in many cases, a prior conviction for a violent crime. In Chicago, 87 percent of the killers have police records, with an average of 12 arrests by the time they are brought in for murder. In Baltimore, the average killer has 9.3 prior arrests, and a third of the murderers are on probation when they kill.

Why the real solution to gun crime is improving gun-related convictions

In Illinois, the clearance rate (meaning the percentage of cases that result in an arrest) for gun crimes short of murder is less than 33 percent

nypost.com