Gun Legislation

[Ombudsman]

...I believe the Second Amendment is not open to interpretation, it plainly says that the right to bear arms shall not be infringed...

It says more than that, didn't you know? Granted, the meaning of "Militia" in it is a matter of some dispute but there can be no confusion over the "well regulated" that you and the NRA oppose.

Gun humpers view "infringed" as the only word therein not subject to interpretation.

so why won't anyone on the pro gun side of this great molehill debate explain to me why I can't go out and buy a M65 280mm atomic cannon.

simple question that deserves an answer from those who read the Constitution so simply

splain it to me tag

Because of United States v. Miller which of course gun nuts like Roland want to ignore, or more often, misinterpret.

[Mr.B]

Today I swung my front door wide open and placed my Stevens 320,
(a shotgun) right in the doorway. I laid down 5 shells and left it alone
and went about my business. While I was gone, the mailman
delivered my mail, the trash man picked up the trash, a girl walked
her dog down the street, and quite a few of my neighbors drove
past the house.

After about an hour and a half, I checked on the gun. It was still sitting there,
right where I had left it. It hadn't killed anyone, even with the
numerous opportunities it had been presented with to do so. In fact,
it hadn't even loaded itself. . . . . .


Well you can imagine my surprise.....with all the media hype about how
dangerous guns are and how they kill people. Either the media is
wrong, and it is the misuse of guns by PEOPLE that kills people, or
I'm in possession of the laziest gun in the world.


All right, 'nuff sed, I’m off to check on my spoons and forks. I hear they’re making people fat . . .

[rstrong]

*Yawn.*

You know how many shootings there have been at Japanese universities there have been in the last 5 years.... Zero. Guess why? Because of rigid gun control. Sure the Yakuza (Japanese mafia) here still have guns, It just means they will get 10 more years in prison if they get busted while holding one.

A better indicator would be to compare similar cities. Canada's capital city of Ottawa had 16 murders in 2007, and Washington, D.C., which has roughly the same population, had 195 murders.

Handguns are available for self protection in Seattle, but not in nearby Vancouver, Canada; handgun killings are five times more common and the handgun suicide rate is ten times greater in Seattle. Guns make impulsive killing easy.
- Carl Sagan, Demon Haunted World

Perhaps the NRA has some credible figures that disagree. But probably not, since in addition to fighting gun laws, the gun lobby has spent the past 20 years fighting research into gun safety.

[neoplacebo]

Nah, don't bother with that one; there's a nicer Savage double barrel sawed off a couple of houses down leaning up against a post. Can't say about any ammo.

[O Really]

I considered doing a Mr.B parody about setting a bag of coke on my porch and nobody got high, and other stuff that's dangerous and illegal, but face it, the point was just too ridiculous to even make fun of.

[Roland Deschain]

...the point was just too ridiculous to even make fun of.

Yet you fools continue to miss the FACT that a gun is an inanimate object that does nothing without a human to operate it and focus on the objects not the operators. Really, like the coke analogy too....another great one that proves restrictions will not work and criminals will be criminals no matter what. Sometimes you idiots help the argument against gun restrictions more than you think.

[Ombudsman]

...the point was just too ridiculous to even make fun of.

Yet you fools continue to miss the FACT that a gun is an inanimate object that does nothing without a human to operate it and focus on the objects not the operators.

And you gun nut chicken livers fails to comprehend that people who kill, do so at a much greater success rate when firearms are involved.

[O Really]

...the point was just too ridiculous to even make fun of.

Yet you fools continue to miss the FACT that a gun is an inanimate object that does nothing without a human to operate it and focus on the objects not the operators. ...

Hi, Roland - you're back. I thought maybe you'd been away looking for more FACTS, but I guess not. Of course it's about the operators, not the inanimate object. But behaviour can be affected by restricting access. Starts with "baby-proofing" your house. You don't make sure the bookcase is attached to the wall because you think it might jump off by itself. You secure it because your baby might try to climb it. Stuff falling on toddlers is one of the leading causes of their death. Do you suppose it happens more or less often in houses with the potentially falling stuff secured? You don't lock your car because you think it's going to drive off by itself. You lock it to keep somebody else from getting in it.

Hardly anybody is talking about banning guns - and those that are have no chance of ever getting it done. But what we're talking about is doing a better job of policing who gets guns and how. I read a good article last week (I'll try to re-find it) where it tracked gun sales from Charlotte and South Carolina to New York. Bad guys want guns. They get "clean" people to buy them in places with few limitations records. "Clean" people run low risk of getting caught, so bad guys plan works. Suppose the risk of straw man purchases was greater, and the process for identifying possible straw man purchases was better. Fewer guns in bad guys hands. Not "none" but fewer.

[rstrong]

Yet you fools continue to miss the FACT that a gun is an inanimate object that does nothing without a human to operate it and focus on the objects not the operators. Really, like the coke analogy too....another great one that proves restrictions will not work and criminals will be criminals no matter what.

And yet that murder rates are somehow much lower where guns are less available.

As for your cocaine example, just what is your point? Murder and rape are illegal, and yet they still happen. By logic, are you saying that they should be legal?

Here in the real world, cocaine use did in fact drop as it was restricted. Murder and rape rates dropped as laws were enforced. Drunk driving deaths were cut by two thirds when the government cracked down on it in the 1970s with stiffer penalties.

"Handguns are available for self protection in Seattle, but not in nearby Vancouver, Canada; handgun killings are five times more common and the handgun suicide rate is ten times greater in Seattle. Guns make impulsive killing easy."
- Carl Sagan, Demon Haunted World

I gave other examples.

[Roland Deschain]

Hi, Roland - you're back. I thought maybe you'd been away looking for more FACTS, but I guess not. Of course it's about the operators, not the inanimate object. But behaviour can be affected by restricting access. Starts with "baby-proofing" your house. You don't make sure the bookcase is attached to the wall because you think it might jump off by itself. You secure it because your baby might try to climb it. Stuff falling on toddlers is one of the leading causes of their death. Do you suppose it happens more or less often in houses with the potentially falling stuff secured? You don't lock your car because you think it's going to drive off by itself. You lock it to keep somebody else from getting in it.

Nah, just waiting on someone with common sense to converse with, which is pretty much you in this cess pool. Great analogy with the "baby proofing". The problem with that analogy though is that there are no "laws" requiring a house to be baby proofed. It is done by people using common sense and taking personal responsibility...something sorely lacking in today's society and also something that can not be legislated. The other problem with restricting access is that darned old pesky CONSTITUTION.....you know, the one that says shall not be infringed?? That is exactly what "restricting" is...infringement!


Hardly anybody is talking about banning guns - and those that are have no chance of ever getting it done. But what we're talking about is doing a better job of policing who gets guns and how. I read a good article last week (I'll try to re-find it) where it tracked gun sales from Charlotte and South Carolina to New York. Bad guys want guns. They get "clean" people to buy them in places with few limitations records. "Clean" people run low risk of getting caught, so bad guys plan works. Suppose the risk of straw man purchases was greater, and the process for identifying possible straw man purchases was better. Fewer guns in bad guys hands. Not "none" but fewer.

You mean those straw purchases that are already illegal, and punishable by prison time? Those straw puchases? Again you have provided and example of FAILED LAWS and prove that more laws will also FAIL.

[Roland Deschain]

Yet you fools continue to miss the FACT that a gun is an inanimate object that does nothing without a human to operate it and focus on the objects not the operators. Really, like the coke analogy too....another great one that proves restrictions will not work and criminals will be criminals no matter what.

And yet that murder rates are somehow much lower where guns are less available.

Like in Chicago?? Try again!

As for your cocaine example, just what is your point? Murder and rape are illegal, and yet they still happen. By logic, are you saying that they should be legal?

Are you really that stupid....well yes I guess you are. Never mind!

Here in the real world, cocaine use did in fact drop as it was restricted. Murder and rape rates dropped as laws were enforced. Drunk driving deaths were cut by two thirds when the government cracked down on it in the 1970s with stiffer penalties.

Yes, but it is a "banned" substance. With that in mind, and according to libtard logic surrounding guns, there should not be any.

"Handguns are available for self protection in Seattle, but not in nearby Vancouver, Canada; handgun killings are five times more common and the handgun suicide rate is ten times greater in Seattle. Guns make impulsive killing easy."
- Carl Sagan, Demon Haunted World

I gave other examples.

Again, Chicago and while you are at it try looking up murders committed with OTHER weapons and juxtapose those. Your examples fail miserably.

[Mr.B]

"Today I got really angry at someone and aimed at him and pulled back on the trigger with my index finger.
First to go - the plagiarizing Mr.B."

Plagiarizing...? A copy and paste is plagiarizing? So what are you doing when you post those large, bold underlined links....super plagiarizing?

You, strong, and the O sure got your step-ins in a wadded pile over that parody, didn't you?

Uhhh....best watch pointing your finger and cocking your thumb...we live in a "scared rabbit" society; some liberal will file charges against you.

[O Really]

C'mon, Roland. Limiting the types of firearms that can be purchased or owned, the means and places in which they are sold, and the personal requirements for purchase and ownership may be "infringement" but it's not unconstitutional infringement. I'm sure you're capable of looking up the numerous cases. Saying it's so (no matter how often of how LOUD), believing it's so, disagreeing with the Supreme Court...doesn't make it so.

And of course, straw man purchases are illegal. That's not the problem. The problem is there is no effective way to find them. It has to be basically criminal stupidity or good luck. In the one recent case, it was a gun shop owner who just thought it was a bit suspicious that a guy bought 5 AR-15's. He wasn't required to report the sales as suspicious; many gun shop people wouldn't. You probably wouldn't. But without that report, the cops wouldn't have caught him.

But seriously - do you really believe that just because some people violate a law that the law should not exist? And if so, how do you justify any law whatsoever? You do know that most criminal laws aren't so much intended to prevent crime as to provide a legal basis for punishment, right? Most people aren't criminals - most gun owners aren't criminals. But if there is no law against a give activity, it can't be penalized. I don't not murder people because it's illegal; I don't murder people because I'm not a murderer. But without the murder laws on the books, anybody could kill off anybody else and not be prosecuted. Sorta like Florida's getting.

[O Really]

You, strong, and the O sure got your step-ins in a wadded pile over that parody, didn't you?
.

Sure, if "the point was just too ridiculous to even make fun of" is having the step-ins wadded, I guess I'm guilty.

[Roland Deschain]

C'mon, Roland. Limiting the types of firearms that can be purchased or owned, the means and places in which they are sold, and the personal requirements for purchase and ownership may be "infringement" but it's not unconstitutional infringement. I'm sure you're capable of looking up the numerous cases. Saying it's so (no matter how often of how LOUD), believing it's so, disagreeing with the Supreme Court...doesn't make it so.

And of course, straw man purchases are illegal. That's not the problem. The problem is there is no effective way to find them. It has to be basically criminal stupidity or good luck. In the one recent case, it was a gun shop owner who just thought it was a bit suspicious that a guy bought 5 AR-15's. He wasn't required to report the sales as suspicious; many gun shop people wouldn't. You probably wouldn't. But without that report, the cops wouldn't have caught him.

But seriously - do you really believe that just because some people violate a law that the law should not exist? And if so, how do you justify any law whatsoever? You do know that most criminal laws aren't so much intended to prevent crime as to provide a legal basis for punishment, right? Most people aren't criminals - most gun owners aren't criminals. But if there is no law against a give activity, it can't be penalized. I don't not murder people because it's illegal; I don't murder people because I'm not a murderer. But without the murder laws on the books, anybody could kill off anybody else and not be prosecuted. Sorta like Florida's getting.

OK, so we limit (infringe) on one type or style of weapon, then another, then another and the snowball starts. At what point does it become unconstitutional? So , a responsible gun store clerk reported the sale of 5 AR's to a single buyer. Why did the NICS system not catch that and stop the sale for review? The point about the laws is not that if they are violated they should not exist. The point is that we have multiple gun laws, laws on top of laws, and laws to offset other laws, and they have NOT stopped the gun violence. What makes you think that more laws on top of the myriad of EXISTING laws are going to make a difference? What was it about insanity?? Continuing the same actions while expecting a different result? That is all the gun control advocates want...more laws that will be just as ineffective as the current ones....insanity!

[O Really]

OK, so we limit (infringe) on one type or style of weapon, then another, then another and the snowball starts. At what point does it become unconstitutional? I don't know - that would be up to the Supreme Court, which I'm sure is capable of making that determination. I do know we haven't come close to reaching it yet. So , a responsible gun store clerk reported the sale of 5 AR's to a single buyer. Why did the NICS system not catch that and stop the sale for review? Because it's not designed to do so, and has no legal responsibility to do so. That's the point, and part of the problem. The point about the laws is not that if they are violated they should not exist. The point is that we have multiple gun laws, laws on top of laws, and laws to offset other laws, and they have NOT stopped the gun violence. What makes you think that more laws on top of the myriad of EXISTING laws are going to make a difference? What was it about insanity?? Continuing the same actions while expecting a different result? That is all the gun control advocates want...more laws that will be just as ineffective as the current ones....insanity!

I don't know of anyone who wants more ineffective laws. In fact, I think a lot of people would be happy if we did get better enforcement of existing law, or if some of the existing law was replaced with better. For example, if the NICS system did flag multi-purchasers, it would be an improvement. If any record were kept of purchases, it would be an improvement. If, since the Constitutional basis for gun ownership is national (Second Amendment), firearm purchase and possession laws were national, it would be an improvement. If CDC were allowed to conduct studies on firearm violence like they do on other matters, it would be an improvement. I could go on, but you get the point. Not one mention of sending anybody to take away your guns.

[Roland Deschain]

OK, so we limit (infringe) on one type or style of weapon, then another, then another and the snowball starts. At what point does it become unconstitutional? I don't know - that would be up to the Supreme Court, which I'm sure is capable of making that determination. I do know we haven't come close to reaching it yet. So , a responsible gun store clerk reported the sale of 5 AR's to a single buyer. Why did the NICS system not catch that and stop the sale for review? Because it's not designed to do so, and has no legal responsibility to do so. That's the point, and part of the problem. That is EXACTLY what the NICS system is supposed to do The point about the laws is not that if they are violated they should not exist. The point is that we have multiple gun laws, laws on top of laws, and laws to offset other laws, and they have NOT stopped the gun violence. What makes you think that more laws on top of the myriad of EXISTING laws are going to make a difference? What was it about insanity?? Continuing the same actions while expecting a different result? That is all the gun control advocates want...more laws that will be just as ineffective as the current ones....insanity!

I don't know of anyone who wants more ineffective laws. In fact, I think a lot of people would be happy if we did get better enforcement of existing law, or if some of the existing law was replaced with better. For example, if the NICS system did flag multi-purchasers, it would be an improvement. If any record were kept of purchases, it would be an improvement. There are it is called a 4473 form! If, since the Constitutional basis for gun ownership is national (Second Amendment), firearm purchase and possession laws were national, it would be an improvement. If CDC were allowed to conduct studies on firearm violence like they do on other matters, it would be an improvement. I could go on, but you get the point. Not one mention of sending anybody to take away your guns. No need to mention it....it is the obvious lack of knowledge about the existing system that concerns me and other owners. Ya'll want to change a system that you know nothing about

[O Really]

You're disappointing me, Roland. The NICS (National Instant Criminal Background System) is supposed to filter out those people ineligible to purchase firearms. Nothing in the filter (and nothing criminal) about buying a lot of firearms. Nothing in NICS will warn or kick back to a dealer information that might be indicative of suspicious activity. If you're a criminal that hasn't been caught yet, you're good with the current version of NICS. And Form 4473? Puh-leeze. Sure, it's a "record" of purchase, but where is that data kept? Hardcopy with the dealer. What good is that unless you're able to find out about someone's criminal activity somewhere else? Enter all that information into an ATF database, and it might be worthwhile. Besides, neither of those ummm, "controls" applies to private firearm sales.

And sure, there may be some people wanting new or different laws that don't fully understand the current. But what everybody understands about the current is that it's way too easy to get around them, and law enforcement is severely hindered in their own efforts to reduce the availability and use of illegal firearms.

[Roland Deschain]

You're disappointing me, Roland. The NICS (National Instant Criminal Background System) is supposed to filter out those people ineligible to purchase firearms. Nothing in the filter (and nothing criminal) about buying a lot of firearms. Nothing in NICS will warn or kick back to a dealer information that might be indicative of suspicious activity. If you're a criminal that hasn't been caught yet, you're good with the current version of NICS. And Form 4473? Puh-leeze. Sure, it's a "record" of purchase, but where is that data kept? Hardcopy with the dealer. What good is that unless you're able to find out about someone's criminal activity somewhere else? Enter all that information into an ATF database, and it might be worthwhile. Besides, neither of those ummm, "controls" applies to private firearm sales.

And sure, there may be some people wanting new or different laws that don't fully understand the current. But what everybody understands about the current is that it's way too easy to get around them, and law enforcement is severely hindered in their own efforts to reduce the availability and use of illegal firearms.

O'really your true ignorance of the process of gun sales is showing. NICS will STOP a purchase immediately if the buyer is in the system as criminal. However, NICS regularly (and is supposed to all the time) holds purchases for up to 7 days so that the information can be reviewed if it seems "suspicious". After that review the purchase can either move forward or be halted. In my experience multiple purchases were one of the most frequently held. 4473 data is kept at the site of purchase as well as a copy going with the buyer. However, the information kept at the purchase site is subject to being given to ATF on request or in the event of a FFL (federal firearms license) audit.

It has nothing to do with "being able to get around" the existing laws. New laws would be just as easy to "get around". The point that the gun control idiots refuse to acknowledge is that a criminal will always be a criminal and will get a gun just as easily regardless of the law. So, the only people that are going to be affected by new restrictions are those who don't need ANY restrictions in the first place. It would seem, with all the systems in place, all that is needed is more adequate enforcement.

[O Really]

O'really your true ignorance of the process of gun sales is showing. NICS will STOP a purchase immediately if the buyer is in the system as criminal. However, NICS regularly (and is supposed to all the time) holds purchases for up to 7 days so that the information can be reviewed if it seems "suspicious". After that review the purchase can either move forward or be halted. In my experience multiple purchases were one of the most frequently held. .

Sorry, I stand corrected. I guess if NICS keeps that information it should be pretty easy for them to identify multiple purchases. I wonder why it doesn't. I'm sure your experience is far more than mine. BTW, do you happen to know how long the data stays in the NICS database?