Gun Control Thread- Should we?

[Daseal]

Originally Posted by RedskinRat

How was a known felon in possession of a .223-caliber Bushmaster rifle, a .38-caliber revolver and a 12-gauge shotgun, just to use the most recent example?

I agree. That is a major issue. How many of those guns require background checks? I have limited experience. I do remember being 17 and drunk... walking into Wal-Mart, and purchasing a rifle. Luckily the older lady behind the counter reminded us to buy ammo as well. They didn't run anything. They didn't check IDs. They just sold us the rifle. To this day, that seems odd to me. Especially if felons aren't allowed to have guns.

What about gun shows? From what I've heard those are very popular for people to easily get guns because the sales don't have to be documented. I'm fairly ignorant on that fact and would be happy for someone to enlighten me on how those work.

RR -- how would you enforce such rules? If you want rule enforcement, there have to be ways to punish shortfalls? Do you punish the people that sold/gave to him? How do you prevent it going forward. It's a tough, nearly impossible, question to answer. That's the issue. Laws must be enforceable and have clear repurcussions.

Edit: Just want to make it clear. I'm not trying to be an asshole, just invoke some real discussion.

[RedskinRat]

BATFE should be tasked with enforcing these rules if they aren't already.

Selling a firearm to a person who isn't allowed one should result in a prison term.

Society as a whole has to step up.

[firstdown]

Originally Posted by Daseal

I agree. That is a major issue. How many of those guns require background checks? I have limited experience. I do remember being 17 and drunk... walking into Wal-Mart, and purchasing a rifle. Luckily the older lady behind the counter reminded us to buy ammo as well. They didn't run anything. They didn't check IDs. They just sold us the rifle. To this day, that seems odd to me. Especially if felons aren't allowed to have guns.

What about gun shows? From what I've heard those are very popular for people to easily get guns because the sales don't have to be documented. I'm fairly ignorant on that fact and would be happy for someone to enlighten me on how those work.

RR -- how would you enforce such rules? If you want rule enforcement, there have to be ways to punish shortfalls? Do you punish the people that sold/gave to him? How do you prevent it going forward. It's a tough, nearly impossible, question to answer. That's the issue. Laws must be enforceable and have clear repurcussions.

Today any lic. gun dealer has to run a back ground check. If your a dealer at a gun show you have to do a back ground check if your a private individual selling your guns at a gun show a back ground check is not required. That's BS to me. I think if person wants to buy a gun they need to go to a place like DMV and have a back ground check. They make it good for a period of time like a month, 2months, etc... Anyone selling a gun is required to see their back ground check and to then call it in to confirm its real.

[Daseal]

RR - It's easy to say enforce laws, but you're not giving any way for them to actually be executed. Thats why some of my suggestions included people who have their weapons used in crimes be partially responsible for the crime. It's a way to force people to keep track of their guns.

[Daseal]

Originally Posted by firstdown

Today any lic. gun dealer has to run a back ground check. If your a dealer at a gun show you have to do a back ground check if your a private individual selling your guns at a gun show a back ground check is not required. That's BS to me. I think if person wants to buy a gun they need to go to a place like DMV and have a back ground check. They make it good for a period of time like a month, 2months, etc... Anyone selling a gun is required to see their back ground check and to then call it in to confirm its real.

Firstdown, I completely agree. Seems like a realistic and really just a common sense move. The technology we have now makes these type of systems much more realistic than in the past. Honestly, I'm surprised we haven't seen this in place already.

[RedskinRat]

ATF Online - Firearms - Enforcement

[Giantone]

[QUOTE=HailGreen28;980378]No, you didn't. You just parroted what the desperate politician in LA said.

RR's joke does far less harm than your argument and what the paper's actions do.

QUOTE]

Yes I did but what worse is that you being part of that gun culture are too blind to see the need for change and new laws.As for RR's joke ...tell the people in Conn it does far less harm.

[HailGreen28]

Originally Posted by Giantone

Yes I did but what worse is that you being part of that gun culture are too blind to see the need for change and new laws.As for RR's joke ...tell the people in Conn it does far less harm.

Couple things in your post I don't understand.

What "gun culture" am I a part of? And how is this "worse" than feel good gun control measures?

I think I proposed something that would be a new law earlier this thread.

Why would the people in Conn. care about RR's joke, especially now? (Kind of a segue: By the way, aren't Conn. gun laws fairly strict?)

[RedskinRat]

Originally Posted by Giantone

.As for RR's joke ...tell the people in Conn it does far less harm.

When did I make fun of the murders in Conn?

Oh, and here's another link:

Regulating the Militia


There is no legitimate exception to the Second Amendment for military-style weapons, because military-style weapons are precisely what the Second Amendment guarantees our right to keep and bear. The purpose of the Second Amendment is to secure our ability to oppose enemies foreign and domestic, a guarantee against disorder and tyranny. Consider the words of Supreme Court justice Joseph Story — who was, it bears noting, appointed to the Court by the guy who wrote the Constitution:

The importance of this article will scarcely be doubted by any persons, who have duly reflected upon the subject. The militia is the natural defence of a free country against sudden foreign invasions, domestic insurrections, and domestic usurpations of power by rulers. It is against sound policy for a free people to keep up large military establishments and standing armies in time of peace, both from the enormous expenses, with which they are attended, and the facile means, which they afford to ambitious and unprincipled rulers, to subvert the government, or trample upon the rights of the people. The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered, as the palladium of the liberties of a republic; since it offers a strong moral check against the usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers; and will generally, even if these are successful in the first instance, enable the people to resist and triumph over them.

[RedskinRat]

And another link:

Celebrity Anti-gun PSA

Demand Celebrities Go F*ck Themselves [Extended...

[HailGreen28]

Originally Posted by RedskinRat

And another link:

Celebrity Anti-gun PSA

(snip awesome vid)

Great video.

I don't think the First Amendment should be sacrificed for the Second, but as long as we're talking about tweaking the law under the 2nd, those hypocritical celebs should definitely look themselves in the mirror and talk about tweaking the law under the 1st as well.

Change the MPAA ratings, and enforce them, for starters?

[Daseal]

Originally Posted by RedskinRat

When did I make fun of the murders in Conn?

Oh, and here's another link:

Regulating the Militia


There is no legitimate exception to the Second Amendment for military-style weapons, because military-style weapons are precisely what the Second Amendment guarantees our right to keep and bear. The purpose of the Second Amendment is to secure our ability to oppose enemies foreign and domestic, a guarantee against disorder and tyranny. Consider the words of Supreme Court justice Joseph Story — who was, it bears noting, appointed to the Court by the guy who wrote the Constitution:

The importance of this article will scarcely be doubted by any persons, who have duly reflected upon the subject. The militia is the natural defence of a free country against sudden foreign invasions, domestic insurrections, and domestic usurpations of power by rulers. It is against sound policy for a free people to keep up large military establishments and standing armies in time of peace, both from the enormous expenses, with which they are attended, and the facile means, which they afford to ambitious and unprincipled rulers, to subvert the government, or trample upon the rights of the people. The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered, as the palladium of the liberties of a republic; since it offers a strong moral check against the usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers; and will generally, even if these are successful in the first instance, enable the people to resist and triumph over them.

RR, there are some major issues with this little snippet. First, it was written somewhere between 1811 and 1832. During that time the assault rifle was a musket. Not exactly an efficient killing machine in the situations we deal with today. If you have 50 guys lined up, pretty efficient. One crazy guy with a musket, easily disabled by 2 people 50 yards away.

Secondly, it clearly illustrates that the motivation behind the 2nd amendment is to be available to defend the country. Regardless of if those attacks come from an internal or an external source. Most importantly, the militia is meant to be a replacement for a military. He illustrates that clearly by making points as to both the fiscal and political burdens that comes with a full-time military. And a leader (president) that has a military at their disposal.

Let's be honest. The constitution was written is 1787. The 2nd amendment was ratified in 1791. That's 221 years ago. I don't believe that rules written in the 1700s are still applicable today. Thomas Jefferson said he didn't believe the dead should rule the living and that the constitution should be updated every twenty years. Legislation has to grow with the culture.

You can't use arguments from 221 years ago to defend actions today. While I'm sure Justice Story was a brilliant man -- there's no way he could forsee the way this country has grown and the way technology has evolved. Using a 200-ish year old decision that you selectively take segments from is not a very strong argument.

[Daseal]

Originally Posted by RedskinRat

And another link:

Celebrity Anti-gun PSA

Demand Celebrities Go F*ck Themselves [Extended Cut] - YouTube

Yes. There's certainly no difference between their beliefs and the roles they're asked to play. Make believe versus real life. They are paid to take us away into an unrealistic world. Politically I'm sure they disagree with many roles they play. Their roles do not define their beliefs.

[RedskinRat]

Originally Posted by Daseal

RR, there are some major issues with this little snippet. First, it was written somewhere between 1811 and 1832. During that time the assault rifle was a musket. Not exactly an efficient killing machine in the situations we deal with today. If you have 50 guys lined up, pretty efficient. One crazy guy with a musket, easily disabled by 2 people 50 yards away.

That's a straw man.

Originally Posted by Daseal

Secondly, it clearly illustrates that the motivation behind the 2nd amendment is to be available to defend the country. Regardless of if those attacks come from an internal or an external source. Most importantly, the militia is meant to be a replacement for a military. He illustrates that clearly by making points as to both the fiscal and political burdens that comes with a full-time military. And a leader (president) that has a military at their disposal.

No, it doesn't it says, in part, 'The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered, as the palladium of the liberties of a republic; since it offers a strong moral check against the usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers; and will generally, even if these are successful in the first instance, enable the people to resist and triumph over them.'

So that would be the tyrannical rule point that the colonials had just rejected from Britain.

Originally Posted by Daseal

Let's be honest.

Just a personal foible, any time someone says 'Let's be honest' or variations thereof I assume that they haven't been honest previously. Otherwise why mention the need. I digress.....

Originally Posted by Daseal

The constitution was written is 1787. The 2nd amendment was ratified in 1791. That's 221 years ago. I don't believe that rules written in the 1700s are still applicable today. Thomas Jefferson said he didn't believe the dead should rule the living and that the constitution should be updated every twenty years. Legislation has to grow with the culture.

If this is the case why wasn't it made part of the Constitution?

Originally Posted by Daseal

You can't use arguments from 221 years ago to defend actions today.

I hear people use scripture (of varying religions) every day to justify their actions. This is at least a decently written document.

Originally Posted by Daseal

While I'm sure Justice Story was a brilliant man -- there's no way he could forsee the way this country has grown and the way technology has evolved. Using a 200-ish year old decision that you selectively take segments from is not a very strong argument.

If we are to attempt to keep pace with a potentially despotic government, as the 2nd Amendment clearly states its goal, then there shouldn't be a limit, should there?

[RedskinRat]

Originally Posted by Daseal

Yes. There's certainly no difference between their beliefs and the roles they're asked to play. Make believe versus real life. They are paid to take us away into an unrealistic world. Politically I'm sure they disagree with many roles they play. Their roles do not define their beliefs.

Or they could say "No, I'm not acting in a movie that glorifies violence"?

Of course they wouldn't, they are whores.