Do You Support Any Gun Control Laws?

[BumbleBug]

I'm not conceding that at all. Why would we concede it? Conceding that we need any gun laws is to concede that all guns should be taken away from civilians.

I agree with you, there is nothing to concede. The point being, if you are forced to make up law, let those effected the most & know the most at least have a say so.

Then the first person shot would have been the guard. It wouldn't have stopped a determined nut.

Maybe, maybe not - some chance is better than no chance. Why would anyone high profile place themselves in an indefensible position?

...bug

 

[LogicMan]

The phrase "well-regulated" is often confused to mean the modern term "regulate" as in government regulation. At the time it meant no such thing. What the phrase "well-regulated" meant was "well-trained," "in good working order," for example a well-regulated clock, or a well-regulated government, which is necessary for a functioning free society (this was mentioned in a speech given at a university in I think the late 1700s, I'll have to find it). Also, Alexander Hamilton in Federalist #29 talks about the militia and how, in his opinion, it really would be impossible for it to be able to have the characteristics of a well-regulated militia (i.e. a well-trained militia), because the militia, being the general body of citizens, could not all be trained up to that degree in proficiency with arms and war fighting.

The term militia itself is treated as a pre-existing entity in the Constitution, in Amendment 5, and also in Article I, Section 8, Clauses 15 and 16:

15: To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

16: To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

Note the usage of the phrase "the militia" as opposed to "a militia." It isn't saying Congress can form up a militia, it's saying the militia is pre-existing (the citizenry) and it can be called up by Congress.

Also the 5th Amendment:

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

So the phrase, "A well-regulated militia..." doesn't mean a general body of citizens subjected to heavy regulation (in the modern sense) from the government." It meant a well-trained militia which could serve as both a replacement for a standing army, as historically standing armies had been used to oppress the people and thus the Founders didn't trust them, and also to serve as a check on the government itself.

Regarding the phrase "the people," everywhere the phrase "the people" is used throughout the Constitution, it is used in reference to an individual right.

It is a popular claim amongst the gun-control types to say that the individual right interpretation of the Second Amendment is a relatively recent creation, mostly by propaganda from groups like the NRA. This is nonsense. For one, we have the above points, but also, the concept of a fundamental right to self-defense, and hence arms, goes all the way back to the writings of Aristotle, Cicero, Machiavelli, John Locke, Thomas Paine, Charles Montisquieu, Sir William Blackstone (whose Commentaries formed the core building block for the development of American law), and others. Fundamental right of self-defense goes back to the English common law as well (hence Blackstone writing about it).

 

[LogicMan]

I am okay with reasonable arms and weapons control. One thing to keep in mind is what the word "arms" meant. It is often said that the Founders could not have envisioned nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons. But that isn't fully accurate. They well could have envisioned biological weapons, as people of those days well knew about plague and sickness, and the act of throwing things/creatures infested with plague into one's enemy goes back thousands of years. They did not know just what plague and sickness were (bacteria, viruses, etc...) but they knew of the effects (sickness and death).

So the question then would be, did the Founders, in the word "arms," mean the ordinary citizen also had the right to keep say plague on hand? My understanding is likely not, that the word "arms" in the English common law meant "weapons in common usage among the citizenry." Hence muskets, to a degree cannon, along with the repeating arms of the day that were available (muskets were the most common weapons but repeating arms did exist, such as the Cookson Repeating Rifle and the Girandoni Air Rifle).

Today, the weapons in common usage are your various two-handed pistols, hand guns, rifles, and shotguns, so long as not automatic fire and manufactured so that they cannot be easily converted to be automatic fire. Also the manufacture of actual armor-piercing ammunition is regulated (both pistol and rifle) and also weapons more powerful than .50 caliber. I think all of these are fairly reasonable gun laws, and they protect gun rights because it saves us from the debate about whether automatic fire weapons should be easily available at all.

We sometimes have to jump up and down and scream it from the rooftops, but eventually it gets through: "You cannot just go down to a gun store and by a machine gun!" I think one of the worst inventions ever for the gun industry and one that, thanks to the company that invented it, could possibly even cost us our gun rights in the future to a good degree, was the invention of the bump-fire device. You attach that to an AR-15 and it's like an instant automatic fire weapon. Technically, it's just a rapid-firing self-loading gun, but it lets you fire the gun so quickly, it might as well be automatic fire. It's a BAD thing, IMO. Feinstein caught onto it and was showing videos of it in her hearings as an excuse for her bill. God help us if some maniac ever takes an AR-15 and attaches such a device and goes on a shooting spree. You'll see videos all over the news of all the people on Youtube who put up such videos of them firing AR-15s with a bump-fire device, and the media people will be saying, "SEE! We told you! They've got automatic weapons!"

I am also fine with bans on weapons not in common usage among citizens today (battle tanks, attack helicopters, artillery, explosives, NBC weapons, etc...). I disagree completely with so-called "Assault Weapons Bans" which are just stealth gun bans, so-called "High-Capacity Magazine Bans," because the politicians arbitrarily define that term too, and "Universal Background Checks" if it requires a gun registry and/or could lead to one.

I am fine with regulation of the manufacture of firearms and ammunition, however I am against the attempts of the gun-control people who try to co-opt it via the EPA, the CPSC (Consumer Product Safety Commission), and then when gun rights people resist such attempts, they lie to the public acting as if the manufacture of guns and ammunition is unregulated and gun people are against regulating such products when the reality is that they are regulated.

 

[Tom Servo]

God help us if some maniac ever takes an AR-15 and attaches such a device and goes on a shooting spree.

From what I've seen of the bump-fire stocks, the gun would jam, and he wouldn't be able to hit much of anything. As it stands, I've never heard of one being used in a crime. I suppose we could address the issue if that ever happens, but restricting the item in anticipation of what might happen makes for very bad policy.

You'll see videos all over the news of all the people on Youtube who put up such videos of them firing AR-15s with a bump-fire device

I don't believe I've ever seen mention of them on the news.

We sometimes have to jump up and down and scream it from the rooftops, but eventually it gets through: "You cannot just go down to a gun store and by a machine gun!"

Actually, until 1934, you could get Thompson submachine guns in hardware stores. You could even order them through the mail.

 

[LogicMan]

From what I've seen of the bump-fire stocks, the gun would jam, and he wouldn't be able to hit much of anything. As it stands, I've never heard of one being used in a crime. I suppose we could address the issue if that ever happens, but restricting the item in anticipation of what might happen makes for very bad policy.

Not yet, but at some point, one could be. I understand what you are saying, but the whole thing just terrifies me because it infringes on the ability to argue with authority that automatic fire weapons are very regulated. If you argue that, but then point out a bump-fire device, it kind of guts the argument IMO. And the media and gun control proponents have no problem distorting the facts on the issue.

I don't believe I've ever seen mention of them on the news.

That's because a mass shooter hasn't used one yet. If/when one uses one, and the police officer giving a press conference says, "The shooter used an AR-15 assault-style weapon with a bump-fire device..." immediately, the media will go to Google, type in "bump fire device AR15" and it goes from there.

Actually, until 1934, you could get Thompson submachine guns in hardware stores. You could even order them through the mail.

Yup, and we didn't have people going on mass shootings at the time either. This is something gun rights people need to point out. The mass shootings are not due to lax gun laws, but due to a breakdown in the mental health system.

 

[745SW]

I do not support any gun control, period. The anti gun people want the entire enchilada but they know they can’t have it with a single bite.

 

[Coyote Blue]

Actually, until 1934, you could get Thompson submachine guns in hardware stores. You could even order them through the mail.

The way it still should be.

 

[coldbeer]

Some crimes are so heinous that the offenders should have their rights taken away FOREVER. Murderers, pedophiles and rapists shouldn't be allowed to have firearms because they're sick in the head/mentally ill and many cannot be rehabilitated. These people shouldn't be out on the street let alone allowed to own firearms but they are.

 

[godot]

A couple of weeks ago when Federal background checks seemed to be in inevitability, I thought about it and sort of said "okay I can live with that". Then one of the anti gun people was interviewed about it on CNN and she said " we have to remember it's a marathon not a sprint". This to me implies that the endgame for the anti-gun people is the confiscation of all guns. Given that this is their agenda I'm opposed to any type of legislation.

 

[Dashunde]

^ Yea, that sucks, I wish their common sense would push through at least to the point that they understand and acknowledge that in the end the career criminals would be the ones who kept their guns anyway.

In the end, the only real reason I'd go in for gun show and private party background checks is because we already require it for retail sales, it makes little sense not to require it elsewhere. A gun is a gun, it doesn’t matter what type of sale it is.

 

[MLeake]

I go the other way, Dashunde, and think we should ditch the system, particularly since prosecutions are so rare.

 

[Dashunde]

Perhaps. But I wonder how many sales to felons or "undesirables" its stopped so far.
Are there any published stats on its sale-stoppage effectiveness?

If its filled out truthfully and denied is there anything to prosecute in the first place?
I've always thought it was about lying on the form, no?

 

[MLeake]

I think for a felon to attempt to purchase is a crime, in itself, even if they fill out the form accurately.

Meanwhile, we've discussed this in a couple other threads, and while the stopped transactions typically number over 70,000 in a year, prosecutions typically stay under 100, and convictions under 10.

This leads one to wonder about the percentage of stopped transactions that are due to old, dropped cases, and how many are just flat-out unwarranted.

Frankly, I don't think an NICS check stop at a dealer is going to keep a determined crook or sociopath from finding a weapon via alternate means. And, I think the existing laws (for instance, ten years federal prison for straw purchasers, in theory) would have plenty of teeth to accomplish the desired ends, if they were prosecuted in good faith.

 

[TX Hunter]

I voted no, what we need is a good legal system that includes swift trial, and death penalty for Murders. Should take no more than two or three days to have a trial and an execution.

 

[MLeake]

TX Hunter, the only problem with your idea is that exoneration rates for murderers, last I checked, was over 10% in the long term. Look at Illinois's suspension of the death penalty; see also the Florida cases linked to the wonder dog tracking team; see also the Washington state capital cases brought up for review when the public defender assigned to them turned out to have committed major blunders while working under the impairment of severe alcoholism.

Now, if we were to follow your guidelines, that would imply that one in ten would be put to death, only for us to later find out we'd had a bit of an oops.

You may find that acceptable; I do not.

 

[P5 Guy]

Pretty much every crime one can commit with a firearm has been illegal since the beginning of time, so what is the point? Rape, robbery, coercion, vandalism and murder. What part the tool plays is immaterial. Some may say that keeping firearms from felons, mentally deranged and children are gun control laws and I would agree only if the felons and disturbed cannot be kept from the law abiding.
Just to put controls on a tool that has functions that can be used either way, to murder or to prevent murder. To destroy property or to prevent destruction.

 

[TX Hunter]

MLeak

Yes I do believe there would be some mistakes made, but I do think that we would see a drastic reduction of crime, and It would save alot of money thats waisted to room and board these Criminals. Just my views I understand others see things different. I also think that If we didnt have so many gun laws lives would be spared. Criminals attack in Gun free Zones.

 

[MLeake]

I agree about Gun Free Zones needing to go.

However, unless we curtail the rights of people to appeal - drastically - then the cost of 3 meals and a cot for lifetime don't come close to the cost of legal fees in a death penalty case. So, arguing costs in favor of the death penalty only work (as would your proposed timeline) if we gutted the appellate system.

If we did that, then what would happen to other sorts of appeals? Would we limit restrictions on appeals to capital cases, only? Or would we put severe restrictions on all appeals? I don't know about you, but I really, really do not like that idea at all.

Quite frankly, I don't think life imprisonment is exactly a cakewalk. It costs less than the court cases typically associated with dealth penalty trial and appeal; it allows an opportunity to mitigate the harm to the convicted, should exculpatory evidence turn up at a later time.

So, I don't favor the death penalty in general, and I really would not support it if the appeals system were gutted.

Note that this has nothing to do with thinking the life of the criminal is sacred, in my case. It just has a lot more to do with human fallibility, and my unwillingness to be part of a system that railroads people.

 

[TX Hunter]

ML eake

I can respect Your point of view, the current judicial system of catch and release keeps a healthy population of Criminals and generates revinue while maintaining job security for Everyone involved including the Criminal. My method would be detrimental to the population and overall well being of the would be do badders. It all makes since now thanks for enlightening Me.

 

[MLeake]

TX Hunter, your system would be detrimental to everybody who ever got convicted due to perjury, witness error, or coincidence.

I don't really care about the do-badders. I care quite a bit about the significant percentage who are factually innocent (not innocent due to technicalities or procedural errors, but who are no kidding the wrong guy) yet still get convicted.

There are quite a lot of those.

Your proposed system would kill all of them.

Maybe you need enlightenment, no sarcasm intended.