Politics Trump’s support for background check bill shows gun politics ‘shifting rapidly’

[PtldPlatypus]

It doesn't seem to prevent anything we should care about though.

So you speculate. Impossible to say what has been prevented.

 

[Denny Crane]

more unskilled, untrained motorists...just what the world needs....passing a driver's exam has more purpose than generating income for the govt...and has some direct responsibility for public safety....nice try though...

Jumping through a hoop.

Nobody can learn to drive without passing a government test.

That just makes no sense. People drove before there were licenses. People don't always need licenses (like driving on a farm).

 

[Denny Crane]

So you speculate. Impossible to say what has been prevented.

You can tell by the data that it's not very effective. 1.3M/year die in spite of the regulations. That's a really large number. The biggest source of death in the US that I can find.

1.3M is more than heart disease and cancer and lung disease combined (those are the top 3 medical causes).

 

[MarAzul]

My guess would be that the issue is so polarizing that it's nearly impossible to come up with an alteration that would carry the 2/3 majority necessary for an amendment.

Well I think you are on to something.

 

[MarAzul]

I don’t think an amendment is needed. Just look at Justice Scalia’s words.

Oh well then, make your purposed law visible so we can see if the words, not infringed, have been adhered too.

 

[riverman]

People don't always need licenses (like driving on a farm).

you need an agricultural permit to drive farm equipment and a two week course before you apply....I had one on our farm...most farm kids did...you want some kid tipping over a trailer full of green hay bales on your tesla...that's on you...

 

[Denny Crane]

Scalia wrote:

“We also recognize another important limitation on the right to keep and carry arms. ‘Miller’said, as we have explained, that the sorts of weapons protected were those ‘in common use at the time.’ 307 U.S., at 179, 59 S.Ct. 816. We think that limitation is fairly supported by the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of ‘dangerous and unusual weapons.’”

“It may be objected that if weapons that are most useful in military service — M-16 rifles and the like — may be banned, then the Second Amendment right is completely detached from the prefatory clause. But as we have said, the conception of the militia at the time of the Second Amendment’s ratification was the body of all citizens capable of military service, who would bring the sorts of lawful weapons that they possessed at home to militia duty. It may well be true today that a militia, to be as effective as militias in the 18th century, would require sophisticated arms that are highly unusual in society at large. Indeed, it may be true that no amount of small arms could be useful against modern-day bombers and tanks. But the fact that modern developments have limited the degree of fit between the prefatory clause and the protected right cannot change our interpretation of the right.”

 

[Denny Crane]

you need an agricultural permit to drive farm equipment and a two week course before you apply....

If you are driving on the roads.

 

[riverman]

If you are driving on the roads.

most fields cross roads to get to the grainery or hayloft on the farm....while we're at it...are you going to let an untrained pilot fly you on a commercial flight without a license or training or testing? These things make no sense....Amtrak engineers, etc....a two ton hunk of steel that can go 35 mph can do some serious damage...I've been in countries where there are no real traffic regulations....it sucks...I feel training for shooting weapons needs more serious regulation as well.

 

[Further]

You can make laws about driving and drinking or otherwise regulate it, but it doesn't prevent people from driving and drinking.

That's where this line of thinking fails me.

Look at graphs, all the regulation, increased penalties and crackdowns have greatly impacted drinking and driving, and related deaths since the 1980’s.

This is an excellent example of how regulations work.

Just as with firearm regulations, they won’t dtop the killings, but they will impact the frequency and severity.

 

[dviss1]

We live in a supposedly free society. Why subject ourselves to elimination of our liberty (without due process) at all? Especially if prevention isn't the successful outcome?

All you end up with is less liberty. That's not a gain, but a loss.

You shouldn't have the liberty to endanger the lives of others because of some gun fetish. My child's liberty to go to a safe school trumps the gun nuts liberty to own an arsenal.

 

[riverman]

When throwing a beer can out the car window or dumping an ashtray in the parking lot became a 500 dollar fine in the 1960s....littering slowed way down...money talks..regulations work in enough cases to make them worthwhile

 

[Denny Crane]

Look at graphs, all the regulation, increased penalties and crackdowns have greatly impacted drinking and driving, and related deaths since the 1980’s.

This is an excellent example of how regulations work.

Just as with firearm regulations, they won’t dtop the killings, but they will impact the frequency and severity.

Public awareness, lawsuits, insurance premiums, etc., have greatly impacted drinking and driving.

MADD, not government. Excellent example of how the private sector works.

 

[Denny Crane]

You shouldn't have the liberty to endanger the lives of others because of some gun fetish. My child's liberty to go to a safe school trumps the gun nuts liberty to own an arsenal.

Your demand to take someone else's doesn't trump anything.

 

[riverman]

Excellent example of how the private sector works.

even better when they work together...sort of the point..

 

[Denny Crane]

even better when they work together...sort of the point..

Not required.

Government isn't the bartender taking someone's keys before pouring that extra drink. It isn't Uber offering free rides on New Year's Eve.

 

[riverman]

Your demand to take someone else's doesn't trump anything.

I didn't see anyone demand anything.....expressing yourself and your values is having the conversation...problem is the gun regulation conversation makes gun lovers very, very defensive and most will not for a second imagine a society without the need for them...this ain't happening overnight if it happens at all but it starts with the discussion...we have an army, a coast guard, a border patrol, a CIA, an FBI, state, local and federal law enforcement agencies...vigilantes aren't really necessary unless there's an armed revolution or invasion...I've tried to point out the margin of safety in places where citizens are not armed and places where they are....always ends the same way....don't take my guns...fact...I've never taken anyone's guns but I can foresee an advantage in not having the damned things everywhere. I did feel safer for two decades in a country where private citizens weren't armed...and I have been threatened with handguns here at home.

 

[PtldPlatypus]

Not required.

Government isn't the bartender taking someone's keys before pouring that extra drink. It isn't Uber offering free rides on New Year's Eve.

And you're deluding yourself if you don't think that most of those who take advantage of the free Uber do so to avoid the penalties the government could/would impose upon them if they drove drunk.

 

[riverman]

Not required.

Government isn't the bartender taking someone's keys before pouring that extra drink. It isn't Uber offering free rides on New Year's Eve.

In Oregon the state liquor board does make bartenders take the keys to someone drunk or report them if they refuse...or face a 5000 dollar fine and loss of a liquor license.

 

[Denny Crane]

And you're deluding yourself if you don't think that most of those who take advantage of the free Uber do so to avoid the penalties the government could/would impose upon them if they drove drunk.

They go to jail if they hurt or kill someone.

I do advocate penalties for criminality. The states can define what is homicide or assault as they see fit.

That's not the same thing as regulating drinking and driving.

Or regulating just driving. I don't see any criminality in driving a car down the road (or drinking, for that matter...)

 

[Denny Crane]

In Oregon the state liquor board does make bartenders take the keys to someone drunk or report them if they refuse...or face a 5000 dollar fine and loss of a liquor license.

They'd do it anyway.

 

[PtldPlatypus]

They'd do it anyway.

Your fantasy world fascinates me.

 

[Denny Crane]

The ACLU takes an interesting position. They don't see a 2nd amendment right to bear arms. But...

https://www.lectlaw.com/files/con11.htm

However, particular federal or state laws on licensing, registration, prohibition or other regulation of the manufacture, shipment, sale, purchase or possession of guns may raise civil liberties questions. For example, the enforcement process of systems of licensing, registration, or prohibition may threaten extensive invasions of privacy as owners are required to disclose details of ownership and information about their personal history, views, and associations. Furthermore, police enforcement of such schemes may encourage entrapment, illegal searches and other means which violate civil liberties.

The ACLU takes the position that any such legislation must be drafted bearing these problems in mind and seeking to minimize them.

(my note: I don't see how it is possible)

(footnote 1 begins here) When the Board adopted the June 1979 policy, it was suggested that it was unclear as to whether or not the ACLU supported gun control as a civil liberties matter, or simply did not oppose government regulation on this issue. In order to clarify this question, the following sentence was added to paragraph three of the policy as a footnote. "It is the sense of this body, that the word 'justifies' in this policy means we will affirmatively support gun control legislation."

At the April 12-13, 1980 Board meeting, the policy's footnote was reconsidered. Several Board members believed that the statement was inconsistent with the rest of the policy because there was no civil liberties rationale within the policy for affirmative ACLU support of gun control legislation. The Board then moved to refer the policy to the Due Process Committee to refine and discuss further the rationale for affirmative ACLU support of gun control legislation.

At the June 23-24, 1982 Board meeting, the Due Process Committee recommended deletion of the footnote from the gun control policy. The Committee's recommendation was based on the fact that no acceptable civil liberties rationale could be developed for affirmative support of gun control legislation. The link between guns and the breakdown of civil liberties, the Committee suggested, contains too much of the approach to crime control. And crime control, the Committee said, includes measures violative of civil liberties. The possibility that a person who might be defending his or her self at home might be arrested for the use of a handgun is troubling. If we support gun control legislation, we are encouraging the police to search homes, cars, and persons.

The Due Process Committee suggested that the problem with the footnote was that it was indefensible on civil liberties grounds, and that it is not the ACLU's role to commit the ACLU to involve ourselves in social issues by finding a constitutional basis where there is none. Even though gun control is a desirable social objective, and it would be nice to find a civil liberties rationale for affirmative ACLU support of gun control legislation, the Committee noted that the ACLU has never supported particular remedies for particular crimes, and as such, we cannot support gun control legislation.

The Board approved the Committee's recommendation, and deleted the footnote from the existing policy, but left intact the basic policy which expressed the ACLU's views.

 

[Denny Crane]

Your fantasy world fascinates me.

You seem to suggest the bartenders don't care about the safety of their patrons?

Again, all the MADD publicity clearly encourages them to do so. In states where it is not a legal requirement.

 

[riverman]

They'd do it anyway.

They sure don't smoke on airplanes anymore...sometimes...changes actually succeed

 

[Further]

Oh well then, make your purposed law visible so we can see if the words, not infringed, have been adhered too.

Your interpretation of “not infringed” is not the same as scalia’s or mine, so no need - you will not approve. But it doesn’t matter if you approve or I approve, it matters if the Supreme Court approves. No matter how much either of us disagree. My guess is the coourt will align a tad bit closer to my interpretation but I won’t know till the time comes.

 

[Denny Crane]

They sure don't smoke on airplanes anymore...sometimes...changes actually succeed

Sometimes. The airlines banned smoking on almost all flights before the government passed any law.

Bartenders and establishments that serve alcohol have long been subject to liability in lawsuits. Since the 1800s, even.

 

[Denny Crane]

Your interpretation of “not infringed” is not the same as scalia’s or mine, so no need - you will not approve. But it doesn’t matter if you approve or I approve, it matters if the Supreme Court approves. No matter how much either of us disagree. My guess is the coourt will align a tad bit closer to my interpretation but I won’t know till the time comes.

Scalia's interpretation is that the feds cannot infringe on 2nd amendment rights.

But the states can.

 

[MarAzul]

trumps the gun nuts liberty to own an arsenal.

Well now, pick your nut wisely when you go to prove this theory.

 

[Denny Crane]

CDC factsheet:

https://www.cdc.gov/motorvehiclesafety/impaired_driving/impaired-drv_factsheet.html