A civil discourse on the 2nd amendment

[magnifier661]

They pollute and don't sport solar panels.

I'm so glad you helped pay for mine. I'm gonna get some more from you as well. I'm erecting a 500kw system soon. Thanks in advanced!

 

[Further]

Well except that felons are not getting their guns legally, so how does registering guns help track them? Do you really think that a felon will register their gun, when doing so would cause them to go to prison? Seriously?

Knowing what happens to legal guns and how they get into the hands of criminals is trackable. Right now, I can go and buy a firearm and sell it for an inflated price to a criminal. This happens frequently. But with registration required, if I wanted to sell to someone, we would both need file that sale, and if a felon was on the purchasing end, they could be arrested. I remember a story from I think it was South Carolina and Florida a while back, where huge amounts of guns that were being legally sold in One of those states kept ending up in the other, and they were able to determine that it was a whole organized system of legal buyers in one location selling to felons.

Point is, knowing and tracking the how and where the holes are that allow felons and non-citizens to keep getting guns can allow, over time, a big reduction in illegally owned firearms.

The Brady Bunch has made it clear that they will take any incremental additional control they can get, then go after more. Once we agree to let them infringe on our 2nd amendment right via registration, what keeps them from coming after the guns after the next mass murder?

The second amendment. That is still the law of the land. I am talking about registration, not infringement.

Again, please provide a list of politicians and organizations that want to take our cars.

The government doesn't have to go door to door to come get the guns. They would first pass a law making possession a felony, with a big-time sentence. Then they would give you a short time to turn in your weapons. When you turn in your weapons, they keep tabs of who did that, and compare it to that big-ass data base in Utah to see who had registered guns that didn't turn them in. Then they come with SWAT teams to take the guns, and arrest the felons. I don't understand how this is to hard to wrap your head around.

As I've said before, it's great that you don't think they will come after the guns. It's also great that you don't want them to come after the guns. But, if they decide they want all the guns, they really won't give two shits about what you thought they should do. And, you telling me, after they confiscate my guns, "Gee, sorry, I didn't think they would do that" really wouldn't help much.



If you can figure a way to do that without infringing on my rights, or endangering my rights, I'm down. People that endanger my right to defend myself from bad guys and/or government run amuck, quite literally, are the enemy.

Go Blazers

I think it comes down to you having an unrealistic fear that has been brought on by overzealous NRA spokesmen and fearmongers. There is a lot to stop those that might want to take your guns. For one, there's you, for two, there's me, for three, there is probably 275,000,000 Americans. Sure, many want to limit certain areas, clip size for example, but I never hear of anyone proposing we actually confiscate guns that are out there. I never hear of anyone suggesting a full eradication of gun rights, I just hear some wanting limits and those who are gun owners blowing the fact that some want limits into something much grander.

I'm sure you can find a person here or there that might want to take guns away, just like you could find a person here or there that thinks we should be able to buy grenades and rocket launchers. The the government can't just go bug nutty against what the vast majority of Americans want, especially in the realm of an amendment, and expect anything short of their total downfall.

 

[Further]

So the gun owners with 500 guns couldn't distribute them to people that don't have one?

A 22 works just fine, and you can carry, literally, thousands of rounds in a backpack. You just have to place your shots, and from fairly short range.

If the government wants to change your status the same as Brian's current status, and government has the advantage, you just want to role over?

If you read what I read, I said "but only he and his wife will use them, than the # that matters is 2". Sure they could hand them out. Some people would, some wouldnt. My point was that no matter how they hand the firearms out, the important number is not the total number of firearms but the number of people who get to use those firearms and have the ammo to use them.

So it might be 2, 20, 200 or perhaps they find a full 500 people, but whatever that number is, that's the constraint along with ammo.

 

[magnifier661]

I like guns, the guns that go boom. I'm mags with rights and I like the boom!

 

[Masbee]

I'm sure you can find a person here or there that might want to take guns away, just like you could find a person here or there that thinks we should be able to buy grenades and rocket launchers. The the government can't just go bug nutty against what the vast majority of Americans want, especially in the realm of an amendment, and expect anything short of their total downfall.

It is all part of the slippery slope. And it is not accidental.

Obamacare is not constitutional. Yet that bastard child of a law was partially upheld by the Supreme Court by being rewritten. What was NOT a tax, magically, poof, the Supremes declare a tax, and voila, the law stands. Relying on the Supreme Court to uphold the constitution in its plain meaning was a HUGE mistake that many Republicans made in not fighting hard enough against it when it passed. They assume an obviously unconstitutional law would be overturned.

It is all part of the plan. It is part of the written plans of Progressives to "fundamentally change" this country.

When they can get change in big chunks they go for it. When they can't do that, they will take little chunks.

As for guns, the anti gun crowd (and make NO mistake, these people want guns GONE. They openly admire Australia's big gun grab (google it) and countries like Japan that have virtually no private gun ownership) knows that these little chunks - more registration, limits on magazines, limits on ammo, "assault" weapon bans, really whatever, won't do JACK SHIT.

None of these ideas will have any noticeable, measureable impact on the headline grabbing incidents that start all this crap - mass shootings, gang killings, whatever. Thus, as part of the plan, "failure" (as defined by the gun grabbers and the corrupt and compliant mainstream media) will be assured. These folks wait for the next incident, and the ratchet of the slippery slope is tightened further again.

"Waaaaahhh, another mass shooting. We need more laws, more government power, more control, we hate those red state rednecks for ruining this country, why do they want their guns, it is all their fault, why do they hate grandmothers and children?"

It is so predictable, so boring, so stupid.

I am surprised you can't see it when it is so blindingly obvious.

Not to be a big dick about it but those that support Federal laws that nibble at guns with small "reasonable" regulations are either closet gun grabbers pushing down the slippery slope, or dupes of the former, or delusional and naïve folks wasting everyone's time.

If you are really interested in doing something about mass shootings, we need to change this country's mental health system.

If you are really interested in cutting down on the gun murder rate in this country, we need to start by attacking the gang culture, arresting more violent criminals and putting them in prison.

 

[magnifier661]

It is all part of the slippery slope. And it is not accidental.

Obamacare is not constitutional. Yet that bastard child of a law was partially upheld by the Supreme Court by being rewritten. What was NOT a tax, magically, poof, the Supremes declare a tax, and voila, the law stands. Relying on the Supreme Court to uphold the constitution in its plain meaning was a HUGE mistake that many Republicans made in not fighting hard enough against it when it passed. They assume an obviously unconstitutional law would be overturned.

It is all part of the plan. It is part of the written plans of Progressives to "fundamentally change" this country.

When they can get change in big chunks they go for it. When they can't do that, they will take little chunks.

As for guns, the anti gun crowd (and make NO mistake, these people want guns GONE. They openly admire Australia's big gun grab (google it) and countries like Japan that have virtually no private gun ownership) knows that these little chunks - more registration, limits on magazines, limits on ammo, "assault" weapon bans, really whatever, won't do JACK SHIT.

None of these ideas will have any noticeable, measureable impact on the headline grabbing incidents that start all this crap - mass shootings, gang killings, whatever. Thus, as part of the plan, "failure" (as defined by the gun grabbers and the corrupt and compliant mainstream media) will be assured. These folks wait for the next incident, and the ratchet of the slippery slope is tightened further again.

"Waaaaahhh, another mass shooting. We need more laws, more government power, more control, we hate those red state rednecks for ruining this country, why do they want their guns, it is all their fault, why do they hate grandmothers and children?"

It is so predictable, so boring, so stupid.

I am surprised you can't see it when it is so blindingly obvious.

Not to be a big dick about it but those that support Federal laws that nibble at guns with small "reasonable" regulations are either closet gun grabbers pushing down the slippery slope, or dupes of the former, or delusional and naïve folks wasting everyone's time.

If you are really interested in doing something about mass shootings, we need to change this country's mental health system.

If you are really interested in cutting down on the gun murder rate in this country, we need to start by attacking the gang culture, arresting more violent criminals and putting them in prison.

Well said...

 

[MarAzul]

Knowing what happens to legal guns and how they get into the hands of criminals is trackable. Right now, I can go and buy a firearm and sell it for an inflated price to a criminal. This happens frequently. But with registration required, if I wanted to sell to someone, we would both need file that sale, and if a felon was on the purchasing end, they could be arrested. I remember a story from I think it was South Carolina and Florida a while back, where huge amounts of guns that were being legally sold in One of those states kept ending up in the other, and they were able to determine that it was a whole organized system of legal buyers in one location selling to felons.

Point is, knowing and tracking the how and where the holes are that allow felons and non-citizens to keep getting guns can allow, over time, a big reduction in illegally owned firearms.

The second amendment. That is still the law of the land. I am talking about registration, not infringement.



I think it comes down to you having an unrealistic fear that has been brought on by overzealous NRA spokesmen and fearmongers. There is a lot to stop those that might want to take your guns. For one, there's you, for two, there's me, for three, there is probably 275,000,000 Americans. Sure, many want to limit certain areas, clip size for example, but I never hear of anyone proposing we actually confiscate guns that are out there. I never hear of anyone suggesting a full eradication of gun rights, I just hear some wanting limits and those who are gun owners blowing the fact that some want limits into something much grander.

I'm sure you can find a person here or there that might want to take guns away, just like you could find a person here or there that thinks we should be able to buy grenades and rocket launchers. The the government can't just go bug nutty against what the vast majority of Americans want, especially in the realm of an amendment, and expect anything short of their total downfall.

Registration is infringement. So is banning full auto weapons.

Did you know they actually did not banning full auto weapons because that is an infringement? Instead they require you to get a license that for years they just ignored when you apply. I don't really know if they will in fact give you the license today if you apply.

http://www.ehow.com/how_6742869_fully-automatic-gun-license.html

 

[RR7]

How is registration infringement, exactly?

 

[magnifier661]

How is registration infringement, exactly?

I think not being able to have automatic weapons are.

 

[MarAzul]

It is all part of the slippery slope. And it is not accidental.

Obamacare is not constitutional. Yet that bastard child of a law was partially upheld by the Supreme Court by being rewritten. What was NOT a tax, magically, poof, the Supremes declare a tax, and voila, the law stands. Relying on the Supreme Court to uphold the constitution in its plain meaning was a HUGE mistake that many Republicans made in not fighting hard enough against it when it passed. They assume an obviously unconstitutional law would be overturned.

It is all part of the plan. It is part of the written plans of Progressives to "fundamentally change" this country.

When they can get change in big chunks they go for it. When they can't do that, they will take little chunks.

As for guns, the anti gun crowd (and make NO mistake, these people want guns GONE. They openly admire Australia's big gun grab (google it) and countries like Japan that have virtually no private gun ownership) knows that these little chunks - more registration, limits on magazines, limits on ammo, "assault" weapon bans, really whatever, won't do JACK SHIT.

None of these ideas will have any noticeable, measureable impact on the headline grabbing incidents that start all this crap - mass shootings, gang killings, whatever. Thus, as part of the plan, "failure" (as defined by the gun grabbers and the corrupt and compliant mainstream media) will be assured. These folks wait for the next incident, and the ratchet of the slippery slope is tightened further again.

"Waaaaahhh, another mass shooting. We need more laws, more government power, more control, we hate those red state rednecks for ruining this country, why do they want their guns, it is all their fault, why do they hate grandmothers and children?"

It is so predictable, so boring, so stupid.

I am surprised you can't see it when it is so blindingly obvious.

Not to be a big dick about it but those that support Federal laws that nibble at guns with small "reasonable" regulations are either closet gun grabbers pushing down the slippery slope, or dupes of the former, or delusional and naïve folks wasting everyone's time.

If you are really interested in doing something about mass shootings, we need to change this country's mental health system.

If you are really interested in cutting down on the gun murder rate in this country, we need to start by attacking the gang culture, arresting more violent criminals and putting them in prison.

Right you are Masbee, the penalty for not buying Obama care was ruled a tax because Congress has the power to tax not penalize citizens for not buying something.

However, what that Chief justus left out, that still leave
the bill still in violation of the Constitution, is the fact that if it is a tax, then it is a "direct tax". Direct taxes are taxes levied on individuals and they are specifically prohibited. That is why the 16th amendment was passed, to make legal the income tax on individuals. The amendment does so by modifying the prohibition against direct taxes by allowing the tax on income but that will not cover the bastard tax in Obama care. This needs to be challenged in court again where it should fail the final test.

 

[barfo]

When you think Chief Justice John Roberts is part of the liberal conspiracy, you may be playing too deep in right field.

barfo

 

[MarAzul]

How is registration infringement, exactly?

Well, like the license on automatic weapons, $200 bucks to apply and it never happens. That is infringing the hell out of the right to bare arms.
The $200 dollar tax when imposed in 1934 was a huge infringement. Still is today if imposed on a person to register a couple dozen firearms at 200 bucks a piece.

 

[oldguy]

It is all part of the slippery slope. And it is not accidental.

Obamacare is not constitutional. Yet that bastard child of a law was partially upheld by the Supreme Court by being rewritten. What was NOT a tax, magically, poof, the Supremes declare a tax, and voila, the law stands. Relying on the Supreme Court to uphold the constitution in its plain meaning was a HUGE mistake that many Republicans made in not fighting hard enough against it when it passed. They assume an obviously unconstitutional law would be overturned.

It is all part of the plan. It is part of the written plans of Progressives to "fundamentally change" this country.

When they can get change in big chunks they go for it. When they can't do that, they will take little chunks.

As for guns, the anti gun crowd (and make NO mistake, these people want guns GONE. They openly admire Australia's big gun grab (google it) and countries like Japan that have virtually no private gun ownership) knows that these little chunks - more registration, limits on magazines, limits on ammo, "assault" weapon bans, really whatever, won't do JACK SHIT.

None of these ideas will have any noticeable, measureable impact on the headline grabbing incidents that start all this crap - mass shootings, gang killings, whatever. Thus, as part of the plan, "failure" (as defined by the gun grabbers and the corrupt and compliant mainstream media) will be assured. These folks wait for the next incident, and the ratchet of the slippery slope is tightened further again.

"Waaaaahhh, another mass shooting. We need more laws, more government power, more control, we hate those red state rednecks for ruining this country, why do they want their guns, it is all their fault, why do they hate grandmothers and children?"

It is so predictable, so boring, so stupid.

I am surprised you can't see it when it is so blindingly obvious.

Not to be a big dick about it but those that support Federal laws that nibble at guns with small "reasonable" regulations are either closet gun grabbers pushing down the slippery slope, or dupes of the former, or delusional and naïve folks wasting everyone's time.

If you are really interested in doing something about mass shootings, we need to change this country's mental health system.

If you are really interested in cutting down on the gun murder rate in this country, we need to start by attacking the gang culture, arresting more violent criminals and putting them in prison.

I'd rep you twice if I could.

Go Blazers

 

[MarAzul]

I am willing to allow the US government to exclude Nuclear weapons from my right to bare arms just so long as they also exclude
the Iranians from the same.

 

[Denny Crane]

How is registration infringement, exactly?

How is registering to vote infringement?

People fight laws requiring a voter to produce an ID, even if the ID is free to get.

 

[MARIS61]

You've made this argument a few times in these threads, and every time it is rather ridiculous. Arab Spring, Vietnam, Afghanistan, etc. were not fought or defended strictly with what would legally fall under the rights of the 2nd amendment so it's a pointless defense of it.

All weapons fall under the uninfringeable 2nd amendment, but those wars were all lost by the US even though the enemies fought primarily with simple guns, homemade bombs, rocks and pointy sticks.

 

[MARIS61]

My take = very few military would desert or refuse to fight. The fact that they willingly signed away most of their freedoms to join tells me they don't place much value on the concept.

Real Americans who have many weapons would share them with their unarmed neighbors. There would be no unarmed citizens.

Roundups and internments would come before all out war eventually broke out in revolt. "Natural" disaters and forced evacuations would be the initial premise.

There are 300 million "legal" guns in America. I'd guess at least that many more "illegal" guns.

 

[oldguy]

Knowing what happens to legal guns and how they get into the hands of criminals is trackable.

Which also gives the government the ability to take them from legal owners at their whim. The government can't take the guns until they know where they are. Step 1, registration.

Right now, I can go and buy a firearm and sell it for an inflated price to a criminal. This happens frequently.

What do you base that on? Do you have any evidence that criminals get their weapons legally?

Besides, that's not a business for the faint of heart. There are lots of felons that think the money you would like for you gun is worth more to him than your life is. Even though some of that goes on, why is it that you think the solution is to infringe on the constitutional right of hundreds of millions of legal gun owners?

But with registration required, if I wanted to sell to someone, we would both need file that sale, and if a felon was on the purchasing end, they could be arrested. I remember a story from I think it was South Carolina and Florida a while back, where huge amounts of guns that were being legally sold in One of those states kept ending up in the other, and they were able to determine that it was a whole organized system of legal buyers in one location selling to felons.

Why the hell would a felon go buy a gun that is registered, when all he has to do is by a stolen gun, or steal one himself? Buying a registered gun, and registering that gun himself puts him in jail. Felon = bad guy....not necessarily stupid guy.

Point is, knowing and tracking the how and where the holes are that allow felons and non-citizens to keep getting guns can allow, over time, a big reduction in illegally owned firearms.

How does that happen, when the felons are using stolen guns?

As a side note, wouldn't it be cool if the administration could close the hole that allows them to sell thousands of weapons to Mexican drug cartels? Those guns have killed plenty of innocent people. Where is your demand for controlling the gifting of fully automatic weapons to hard core criminals? Or, how about some control over gifting thousands of automatics to Al Fucking Qaeda in Syria? Those are ok, because they are 'over there' (for now)?

The second amendment. That is still the law of the land. I am talking about registration, not infringement.

Registration is infringement.

I think it comes down to you having an unrealistic fear that has been brought on by overzealous NRA spokesmen and fearmongers. There is a lot to stop those that might want to take your guns. For one, there's you, for two, there's me, for three, there is probably 275,000,000 Americans. Sure, many want to limit certain areas, clip size for example, but I never hear of anyone proposing we actually confiscate guns that are out there. I never hear of anyone suggesting a full eradication of gun rights, I just hear some wanting limits and those who are gun owners blowing the fact that some want limits into something much grander.

Fuck, Further, it's like you have amnesia or something. You don't remember the legislation they tried to push through six months ago in this very state? Go re-read the thread on House Bill 3200, then come back and tell me that there aren't plenty of politicians, in OUR OWN STATE, that want to take my guns. I get so damned tired of people telling me that the government doesn't want to take the guns, when it is clear to anyone that is paying attention that they do.

I'm sure you can find a person here or there that might want to take guns away, just like you could find a person here or there that thinks we should be able to buy grenades and rocket launchers. The the government can't just go bug nutty against what the vast majority of Americans want, especially in the realm of an amendment, and expect anything short of their total downfall.

I provided a long list of politicians that said things like, citizens should not have access to guns, in a much earlier gun discussion. I'm not that great using the search feature, but it's there. If you really believe what you just said, you ether have you head in the sand, or you are afraid to face the truth. How many do you suppose told their Australian buddy that they shouldn't worry, nobody wants their guns?

Go Blazers

 

[Natebishop3]

Like they even need the Army...

You'll see this thing running up on you.

[video=youtube;wE3fmFTtP9g]

 

[Further]

It is all part of the slippery slope. And it is not accidental.

Obamacare is not constitutional. Yet that bastard child of a law was partially upheld by the Supreme Court by being rewritten. What was NOT a tax, magically, poof, the Supremes declare a tax, and voila, the law stands. Relying on the Supreme Court to uphold the constitution in its plain meaning was a HUGE mistake that many Republicans made in not fighting hard enough against it when it passed. They assume an obviously unconstitutional law would be overturned.

It is all part of the plan. It is part of the written plans of Progressives to "fundamentally change" this country.

When they can get change in big chunks they go for it. When they can't do that, they will take little chunks.

As for guns, the anti gun crowd (and make NO mistake, these people want guns GONE. They openly admire Australia's big gun grab (google it) and countries like Japan that have virtually no private gun ownership) knows that these little chunks - more registration, limits on magazines, limits on ammo, "assault" weapon bans, really whatever, won't do JACK SHIT.

None of these ideas will have any noticeable, measureable impact on the headline grabbing incidents that start all this crap - mass shootings, gang killings, whatever. Thus, as part of the plan, "failure" (as defined by the gun grabbers and the corrupt and compliant mainstream media) will be assured. These folks wait for the next incident, and the ratchet of the slippery slope is tightened further again.

"Waaaaahhh, another mass shooting. We need more laws, more government power, more control, we hate those red state rednecks for ruining this country, why do they want their guns, it is all their fault, why do they hate grandmothers and children?"

It is so predictable, so boring, so stupid.

I am surprised you can't see it when it is so blindingly obvious.

Not to be a big dick about it but those that support Federal laws that nibble at guns with small "reasonable" regulations are either closet gun grabbers pushing down the slippery slope, or dupes of the former, or delusional and naïve folks wasting everyone's time.

If you are really interested in doing something about mass shootings, we need to change this country's mental health system.

If you are really interested in cutting down on the gun murder rate in this country, we need to start by attacking the gang culture, arresting more violent criminals and putting them in prison.

Before I get into this, I just want to make a couple notes. First, thanks, this is well presented. Second, I'm going to try and give my opinions without sounding too certain, because this has never been an issue that I have paid close attention to. I read an article here and there, but that's about it.


The biggest problem I have with your post has nothing to do with the guns. There are other threads for the obamacare, but bringing that up as an example of unconstitutional laws passing to me seems nonsensical because I believe it's completely constitutional. But that's a whole different thread.

As far as the goal being to totally get rid of guns, I honestly think you live in a right wing world where stories and beliefs are amplified that make you think people want to take your guns. I'm not doubting there are some here and there, but mostly the whole issue of guns, like other hot button issues from abortion to religion in schools are amplified far beyond where they should be by politicians looking to dazzle their constituents with a little dazzle dazzle.

But I work in a very liberal place, academia. And I have talked many times on this topic with bunches of liberals, and not one of them has ever suggested that we should ban guns. I have heard them say, it's too bad there are 300M guns out there because now we are stuck with them, can't take pee out of the ocean. But mostly I hear them talk about closing loopholes like gun show and private sales of guns to keep them out of the wrong hands (criminals).

I think it's mostly the media and politicians fault for using scare tactics going both directions, but that the issue itself is not that hard to handle with a few laws that have nothing to do with restricting guns or ammo, but are just designed to do a few things.

1) better healthcare, especially mental healthcare in schools.
2) better education for parents to recognize and treat dysfunctional youths.
3) better education for students, teachers and the public about mental issues and overprescribing of meds.
4) better education for gun owners who have children on how to safely store their weapons and make sure kids with access are well observed.
5) close gun show loopholes and require private sales to be facilitated by a licensed trader or gun store.
6) require guns to be registered. Require their resale, theft or destruction to be filed.



If we did this, I'd be fine with no more restrictions beyond what already exist. Let the guns, ammo and mags be.



Ok, so those are my thoughts.

 

[MARIS61]

1) better healthcare, especially mental healthcare in schools.
2) better education for parents to recognize and treat dysfunctional youths.
3) better education for students, teachers and the public about mental issues and overprescribing of meds.
4) better education for gun owners who have children on how to safely store their weapons and make sure kids with access are well observed.

5) close gun show loopholes and require private sales to be facilitated by a licensed trader or gun store.
6) require guns to be registered. Require their resale, theft or destruction to be filed.

1-4 are great, but the anti-gun lobby has shown absolutely no interest in these. Neither has the media or our President or our representatives in either party.

5-6 are obvious infringements on the right to keep and bear arms.

 

[Denny Crane]

If they don't want to take away peoples' guns, why do they ban guns in cities like D.C. and Chicago?

That's not an odd freak here/there wanting to ban guns.

So when the Supreme Court rightly ruled those bans unconstitutional, the people behind the bans just give up?

I. don't. think. so.

 

[PtldPlatypus]

Just a thought, but if I wanted to sell to a felon a gun that I had registered as owning, couldn't I just sell it for cash and then claim it was stolen? I don't see how a law prohibiting unregistered sale would actually prevent illegitimate sales.

 

[bluefrog]

The Supreme Court has ruled that regulations and restrictions were allowed. Presumably, a ban on private citizens owning rocket launchers and fully automatic machine guns are acceptable. Congress also has the power to set manufacturing standards on pretty much any product sold across state line.

My wife's car has a wireless ignition key. She just sits in the car and presses a button to turn it on. Couldn't guns be built with a wireless safety? The legal owner of the gun could have a small radio key that he wears on a key chain or embedded in a watch. When he holds the gun, the safety can be switched off. If anyone else picks up the gun without the radio key, the safety can't be unlocked. This means that toddlers can't find the gun in their daddy's nightstand and accidentally shoot someone thinking it's a toy. If the gun is stolen, it's just a useless lump of metal. But, if you have a friend in town who wants to borrow a gun to go hunting, no problem. You just loan them the radio key.

Yes, I'm sure criminals could hack the lock system. But, why bother, when they could just find one of the older guns without the radio locks? If your gun had the lock, they probably wouldn't take the time to steal it. No, I don't think this would do much to deter mass shootings. Most take place with legally purchased guns. But accidental deaths are a statistically more significant problem than mass shootings. And, yes, I know that most accidents are ones the legal owners inflict on themselves. But, just because all the safety systems on cars don't stop people from driving off cliffs is no reason to repeal the requirements that we all wear seat belts. The goal here is to mitigate, not eliminate.

 

[Further]

Just a thought, but if I wanted to sell to a felon a gun that I had registered as owning, couldn't I just sell it for cash and then claim it was stolen? I don't see how a law prohibiting unregistered sale would actually prevent illegitimate sales.

You would be required to report the theft. Also that's one time, but if it kept happening the pice could runs sting on you. The restrictions I suggested would not immediately curb gun sales to felons, but over time it would stem the flow. Yes, a criminal could go steal a gun, but all felons aren't good at theft and many wouldn't want to get guns that way knowing that by definition the gun owners you plan to rob have guns. Over time, we could make sure guns stay in the right hands

 

[Stevenson]

To me, it's the first clause that makes all the difference: "A well regulated Militia..." That clause modifies everything that comes after it, both legally as well as grammatically.

If the 2nd Amendment only said, "The right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed," then the no gun-control crowd should win, hands down. But that is not what it says.

The Framers chose every word in that document with the utmost forethought. The first clause is there for a reason. Unfettered access to guns is not what it promises. It promises guns within the framework of regulation, and a militia.

And to take the other side to its logical conclusion, if the 2nd Amendment does allow unfettered access to arms, can we all then own hand grenades? Bombs? Nuclear bombs? Why not, if that is your interpretation?

 

[MarAzul]

You would be required to report the theft. Also that's one time, but if it kept happening the pice could runs sting on you. The restrictions I suggested would not immediately curb gun sales to felons, but over time it would stem the flow. Yes, a criminal could go steal a gun, but all felons aren't good at theft and many wouldn't want to get guns that way knowing that by definition the gun owners you plan to rob have guns. Over time, we could make sure guns stay in the right hands

Wow! Do you actually believe what you post?

 

[Denny Crane]

To me, it's the first clause that makes all the difference: "A well regulated Militia..." That clause modifies everything that comes after it, both legally as well as grammatically.

If the 2nd Amendment only said, "The right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed," then the no gun-control crowd should win, hands down. But that is not what it says.

The Framers chose every word in that document with the utmost forethought. The first clause is there for a reason. Unfettered access to guns is not what it promises. It promises guns within the framework of regulation, and a militia.

And to take the other side to its logical conclusion, if the 2nd Amendment does allow unfettered access to arms, can we all then own hand grenades? Bombs? Nuclear bombs? Why not, if that is your interpretation?

There is no magic eraser to erase the words "shall not be infringed."

That doesn't mean, "may be infringed under certain circumstances."

 

[MarAzul]

To me, it's the first clause that makes all the difference: "A well regulated Militia..." That clause modifies everything that comes after it, both legally as well as grammatically.

If the 2nd Amendment only said, "The right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed," then the no gun-control crowd should win, hands down. But that is not what it says.

The Framers chose every word in that document with the utmost forethought. The first clause is there for a reason. Unfettered access to guns is not what it promises. It promises guns within the framework of regulation, and a militia.

And to take the other side to its logical conclusion, if the 2nd Amendment does allow unfettered access to arms, can we all then own hand grenades? Bombs? Nuclear bombs? Why not, if that is your interpretation?

Well it really makes no difference does it? Since the militia is of the people when they decide to be a militia, they must have to arms to arm the militia.

 

[Masbee]

To me, it's the first clause that makes all the difference: "A well regulated Militia..." That clause modifies everything that comes after it, both legally as well as grammatically.

If the 2nd Amendment only said, "The right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed," then the no gun-control crowd should win, hands down. But that is not what it says.

The Framers chose every word in that document with the utmost forethought. The first clause is there for a reason. Unfettered access to guns is not what it promises. It promises guns within the framework of regulation, and a militia.

And to take the other side to its logical conclusion, if the 2nd Amendment does allow unfettered access to arms, can we all then own hand grenades? Bombs? Nuclear bombs? Why not, if that is your interpretation?

In order to raise a militia, those who would be "well regulated" members of the militia must have ready access to arms - their own arms.

An unarmed militia ain't worth spit. Thus, the bill of rights guarantees individuals the right to KEEP AND BEAR ARMS.