are there any sensible gun regulations you would support?

That has been covered multiple times - in the parlance of the 1780's, well regulated meant functioning properly, not controlled by the state. Quick Karl may not like it, but that has been the conclusion of historical scholars and the Supreme Court.

Meanwhile, dspieler, anybody who carries in public already is held accountable for what he does. Whether he realizes that or not, it is true.

The problem with mandating training, is that anti-gun governments could simply create onerous training requirements. For example, see Chicago's initial responses to the striking of their gun ban - a firearm purchase applicant would be required to get training and certification, but Chicago would not allow training ranges to open in the city.

In some instances, people don't have money for a class. In some, they can't get transportation. In some, they lack the spare time.

Please note that ALL those arguments were used in multiple states this last election cycle, and by the US Department of Justice, to fight against movements to require photo ID's and proof of US citizenships for voters...
 
Well – adverb - bet•ter \ˈbe-tər\ best \ˈbest\
CORE MEANING: a grammatical word indicating that something is satisfactory or is performed in a satisfactory way. Ethically or properly. Skillfully or expertly. Justly and appropriately.

Regulated (regulate) – transitive verb
Control Something. Adjust or select output. Control something by rules or laws.

Hey, I'm just using a dictonary...
 
Yes, you are using a modern dictionary, which lacks the context of the time in which the phrase was written.

I guess you missed the Supreme Court decision that 2A is an individual right?

You probably also don't realize that the state militia argument was a fairly recent (within the last 100 years) phenomenon. The Second Amendment had been assumed to apply to individual rights until then. The state militia argument didn't gain any traction until around the same time that Congress started its trend of ceding more and more powers to the Executive.
 
I live in a shall issue state, and I needed to demonstrate absolutely no minimal competency with my firearm to be allowed to carry.
Click to expand...
I live in such a state as well. The suggestion has been made that the state mandate training for a carry permit, but nothing has come of it.

While the idea seems appealing, I've yet to see any evidence that there are higher occurrences of accidents with firearms than there are in states with mandated training.
 
We have about as much regulation already that I'm willing to support. Criminals don't care. We arrested a fella the other night for flashing a firearm at someone at a bar. When we found him we found out he commited several crimes in one sitting. He was arrested for aggravated assault, carrying a concealed firearm into an alcohol establishment, illegal carrying a firearm by a person convicted of certain felonies, possession of a firearm with obliterated serial number. After the firearms serial number was able to be identified from a combination of locations on the firearm it was discovered to be stolen and he was also charged with possessing a stolen firearm. Would magazine sizeor anything else really have made a difference? Whats one more charge to a street thug that is already committing multiple felonies by having the firearm anyway.
 
Last edited:
First of all, I admit, I did not read all six pages of this thread so please excuse me if I repeat someone elses comments.
OP, do you honestly think a safety course would have prevented the recent trajedy? Do you or anyone else believe that any law would have stopped it.
Since the 1000's of existing laws don't seem to cure the criminally insane, I just don't see how a few new laws are going to help. Maybe a law banning our media from broadcasting the criminals name over and over for weeks straight thereby making them famous would help. No fame or glory....maybe that will work?
 
I would argue that this requirement has 'face validity' and while empirical evidence would be great, that is sufficient.

I also think that this meets the evidentiary standard required by many other arguments advanced here (not to be argumentative, just arguing my case).
 
All I've really been trying to say all along is that using the same arguments that fall on deaf ears, in the face of Newton, is ineffective.
 
Karl, the point I would like to make is that using any logic will fail when it is up against emotional arguments.

So what else can we do?

I'm not going to lower myself to use their methods (although it could be fun). It is morally and ethically wrong to do so. Besides which, the real anti-gun opponents are only using emotion as a cover for their agenda. They know full well that they have no logical ground to stand upon. Hence the need to use emotional tragedy as a cover.
 
I will not support any tax, regulation, or such for firearms. I will not support any tax, regulation or such for any marketable product, income, or service.

I will support any tax and regulation cuts under any circumstances for any excuse or reason, whatsoever... whenever it is possible.
 
In some instances, people don't have money for a class. In some, they can't get transportation. In some, they lack the spare time.
Click to expand...

Michigan requires a "class." It's a day long and usually requires about $150. I work full time during the day, go to school full time at night, and somewhere in between I raise my 18 month old daughter.

I don't have a license for the reasons you listed. As far as the cost, it literally often comes down to the penny for my family, so the spare money is not available; and while my Saturdays are technically free, I do on occasion like to see my wife and daughter!

I get why it make sense on paper for this, but it leaves people like me out in the cold.

Though of course, I also would only actually be able to carry on weekends, and both the school and my work prohibit it.

Apparently people in college don't need to defend themselves.

Maybe mandatory training would be ok if it had a defined standard: like you must meet this and this requirement, and the training should be free/government paid. It's the poorest people who are most likely to need to defend themselves anyway! Perhaps local PD's could host a class once a month that certified people?

This would require only your time and the officers time.
 
sometimes compromise is important for the greater good. I might support a gunshow loophole being tied depending on how the law read. There is nothing wrong trying to keep firearms out of the wrong person's hands.
 
A: It's only a compromise if each side gives up something. Otherwise, it's just one side losing something.

com·pro·mise
[kom-pruh-mahyz] noun, verb, com·pro·mised, com·pro·mis·ing.
noun
1. a settlement of differences by mutual concessions; an agreement reached by adjustment of conflicting or opposing claims, principles, etc., by reciprocal modification of demands.
2. the result of such a settlement.
3. something intermediate between different things: The split-level is a compromise between a ranch house and a multistoried house . . . .​

Source: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/compromise?s=t

B: There is no gun show loophole.
 
Remember the GCA '68?

Incrementalism at work.

40+ years later we think it's normal to petition the .gov for permission to buy a firearm.


P.S. Also note it's effectiveness at deterring crime and violence.
 
Quick Karl said:
Effective communication requires not being stupid, especially when you are confronting a majority that is probably going to vote your rights away...
Click to expand...
First, I don't believe that refusing to surrender even more rights than we have already is stupid.

Second, with regards to "a majority that is probably going to vote your rights away," I have two points to make:

(a) The Bill of Rights is, in many ways, designed to protect the minority against an encroachment on the minority's rights against the majority. For example, the majority of Americans could, through their elected officials, pass a law that prohibits anyone from publicly criticizing the President. Clearly, that would be unconstitutional. The right to free speech is specifically protected in the First Amendment, and political speech is given the highest level of protection available. As I teach my students, "The First Amendment is terribly undemocratic in that regard." By way of comparison, Chicago and Washington D.C.'s laws were held as unconstitutional under the Second Amendment, even if their laws were passed as provided by law, by their duly elected leaders.

(b) I'm not entirely convinced that the anti-gunners are "a majority." That faction is very vocal at the moment, but that does not necessarily make them a majority. I do not see any point in accepting failure until the votes are tallied.
 
"I'm not going to lower myself to use their methods (although it could be fun). It is morally and ethically wrong to do so. Besides which, the real anti-gun opponents are only using emotion as a cover for their agenda. They know full well that they have no logical ground to stand upon. Hence the need to use emotional tragedy as a cover."

Emotion is the real reason people are calling for fast action. Obama wants this done in January! No time for real thought processes and discussion, but the emotion is still high. Our best chance is to delay decisions for at least two months when analytical and critical thinking can start to overcome emotion!
 
Just for a strategy point of view about the gun show loophole.

It does no good to say that there isn't a loophole anymore. That was the misconception awhile ago that there were no NICS for dealers at show.

That is cleared up in the most knowledgeable anti spokespeople.

They will argue now that the gun show is a convenient venue for private sales to come together with good guys and bad guys mingling. Thus, the show is an attractive nuisance as it expedites bad sales. Is that a loophole, not really but the counter to you saying there isn't one better be more than just there isn't one.

So if you want to come up with a gun show loophole argument - that's the current debate and saying there is one, won't work.

It's like how EBRS are now being clearly identified as semi-auto assault weapons to shut down folks saying an AR-15 is not an assault weapon as those are full auto.
 
Glenn E. Meyer said:
. . . . They will argue now that the gun show is a convenient venue for private sales to come together with good guys and bad guys mingling. Thus, the show is an attractive nuisance as it expedites bad sales. Is that a loophole, not really but the counter to you saying there isn't one better be more than just there isn't one. . . .
Click to expand...
Fair enough, Glenn. How about this: There is no gun show loophole. The laws for transferring firearms remain the same whether one is buying or selling at a gun show, in a brick-and-mortar store, on a tennis court, or the back 40 of Uncle Fred's farm. If you buy from and FFL, then FFL rules apply. In the modern age of cell phones, an FFL can call in the NICS check just as easily at a gun show as he can at a brick-and-mortar store. If you buy from a private party, then private party rules apply.

As to the convenient venue & attractive nuisance part, gun owners, like any other group, have a right to peacably assemble under the First Amendment to the United States Constitution.

ETA: Personally, when I hear an anti mention the gun show loophole, I always want to ask, "Can you explain this gun show loophole to me?"
 
Using the tenets of critical thinking, that is, reasoning without including emotion (sorrow and rage at the deaths of children; passion for guns that transcends compromise and resists regulation or denial of access to them in disregard for the risks they bring in unqualified hands) leads to these conclusions:

There is no legitimate civilian activity beyond recreational activities that requires weapons with the specific collected attributes of combat military small arms.

The lethal potential of such weapons in the hands of people who have access to them without having to pass through the military's filters of discipline, mental stability, a sense of responsibility and situation-determined use of such weapons limited only to armed combat or training for such combat, is and has been well demonstrated by the intended wanton murder of innocents.

The conclusion is that such weapons in such inappropriate hands in non-combat situations present an unnecessary risk to the public at large, substantiated by the numbers of deaths such inappropriate situations have resulted in.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top