are there any sensible gun regulations you would support?

[BGutzman]

SCOTUS explicitly noted that their decision affirming the personal right to bear arms did not preclude regulations barring or severely restricting the ability of individuals from owning particular classes of firearms.

Nor did the SCOTUS come out and say AR's can be or should be banned... 2nd law fall under the Bill of Rights not over it. You cannot pass a law that supersedes the "Bill of Rights" and if you do we have courts and groups to fight it back every step of the way. Ask Chicago and DC where these unconstitutional measures have gotten them... Giant legal bills and eventually loss after loss... not to mention crime rates to match the stupidity of their gun control laws..

The simple fact is SCOTUS has not ruled what is or is not permissible... If SCOTUS takes a look at what history has to say I suspect there's a lot more permissible things than non-permissible... I missed that right to be safe from all harm in the Bill of Rights....I missed that right to disarm others in the name of the illusion of safety.

[Spats McGee]

Originally Posted by dspieler

Modern life is predicated on making decisions in terms of costs and benefits. I hate to break it to you but there aren't alot of absolutes.

I am well aware that the RKBA isn't absolute. As far as costs and benefits, the government may not ignore the Constitution simply because it is inconvenient or costly.

With that said, what we're talking about is a lot of people talking about stripping me of my rights based on the actions of some third party. I would like to make two points about this "argument of needs," both of which I will explain just a little. First, it's not about "need." The 2nd Amendment is contained in the Bill of Rights, not the Bill of Needs. One of the things to remember with Rights is that they're not necessarily predicated on need, nor are they typically subject to a popular vote. A person with an incredibly unpopular political opinion still has a 1st Amendment right to express it, regardless of how the vast majority of Americans might view that political opinion. The First Amendment is awfully undemocratic that way. Second, just because one particular person does not "need" something, does not mean that we, as a society do not need for that person to have a "right" to it. Let's look at some of the other amendments to illustrate. I, personally, have never *needed* to exercise my rights: (a) to be free from unreasonable search and seizure under the 4th Amendment; (b) to invoke my right not to incriminate myself under the 5th Amendment; or (c) to be free from cruel and unusual punishment under the 8th Amendment. Nonetheless, I believe that we, as a society, need for all people under the laws of the United States, to have those particular rights. In the absence of those rights, the police would be free to kick in doors without warrants, and then torture whomever they find inside a house into confessing to crimes. The Second Amendment is no different. Just because I, personally, may not "need" an AR-15 or a Glock, we as a society need to start from the proposition that people have the right to have them. We need for every one of you to have the right to acquire effective means to defend yourselves, should you ever (heaven forbid) need to defend your lives and your families with force.

Originally Posted by dspieler

So, the question that is going to be dealt with, is whether the easy availability of ARs and such (however any final legislation attempts to define it) has a cost, and is the cost worth the benefit. For all of those individuals that harbor SHTF fantasies of zombie wastelands, that's not a benefit that is going to weigh into the calculation. Neither is the idea that we might need to defend ourselves from marauding bands of BATF agents. We need to get our heads right and our feet on the ground and deal with reality.

In my own personal belief, and as someone who lived in Germany and Sweden for periods of time, I think there is a reasonable argument to be made that semi-automatic weapons, pistols or long guns, have a weak foundation for justifying broad ownership in the civilian population. This isn't an argument that I want to prevail, but I know good, decent, intelligent people that make very good arguments to this effect. They will argue, with very strong empirical evidence, that making killing tools less prevalent in the population, there will be less killing.

Our argument needs to engage them on similar empirical grounds and not 1) Simply denying that some guns are just better at killing than others and 2) that our right to bear arms is absolute. Both are demonstrably false. The first by design, and the second by current law.

I have also lived in Germany. Let us not forget that Germany has its own history of gun control.

I have never claimed that the RKBA encompassed all weapons, in all places. That said, I decline to engage the antis on statistical grounds. My right to defend myself isn't dependent on my odds of having to do so.

[Spats McGee]

Originally Posted by dspieler

. . . . SCOTUS explicitly noted that their decision affirming the personal right to bear arms did not preclude regulations barring or severely restricting the ability of individuals from owning particular classes of firearms.

Do you happen to have a citation for that "explicit" note by SCOTUS? The way you've phrased it is not quite how I remember it.

[dspieler]

I would like to make two points about this "argument of needs," both of which I will explain just a little. First, it's not about "need." The 2nd Amendment is contained in the Bill of Rights, not the Bill of Needs. One of the things to remember with Rights is that they're not necessarily predicated on need, nor are they typically subject to a popular vote. A person with an incredibly unpopular political opinion still has a 1st Amendment right to express it, regardless of how the vast majority of Americans might view that political opinion.

Granted. But note that there is 'harmful speech' that is regulated. That is/was a cost/benefit discrimination.

I have also lived in Germany. Let us not forget that Germany has its own history of gun control.

I'm steering clear of Goodwin's law.

That said, I decline to engage the antis on statistical grounds. My right to defend myself isn't dependent on my odds of having to do so.

To paraphrase Wolfgang Pauli's quote, this statement is so bad, it isn't even wrong.

[dspieler]

Here are the operative statements:

None of the Court’s precedents forecloses the Court’s interpretation: Neither United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U. S. 542 , nor Presser v. Illinois, 116 U. S. 252 , refutes the individual-rights interpretation.

United States v. Miller, 307 U. S. 174 , does not limit the right to keep and bear arms to militia purposes, but rather limits the type of weapon to which the right applies to those used by the militia, i.e., those in common use for lawful purposes. Pp. 47–54.

Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons. Pp. 54–56.

Note, of course, that this opinion is quite long so there are other relevant passages but this, I think, is the gist. In particular, the latter sentence on dangerous and unusual weapons has been read in subsequent cases (with no subsequent review that I know of), to be a up to the wide latitude of the legislative branch.

[MLeake]

dspieler, I don't know how good a shot you are, nor do I know how good a shot Uncle Billy is.

I know I am a pretty good shot. I do alright at IDPA, typically 1st or 2nd in accuracy, but only mid-pack in speed. I did ok at GSSF the couple times I tried it. Just scored another perfect handgun score on my last DOD annual requal, but only shot 39 of 40 with the M4.

I don't know what training you have received with regard to defensive handgun. My first class in that came from a USMC GySgt who was the weapons instructor for a Navy security unit. I have received some training here and there from 18B types attached to JSOTFs, and from Mas Ayoob, Marty Hayes, and Kathy Jackson.

All of those instructors taught me to shoot until the threat has ceased, however many rounds that takes.

Study of police shooting stats indicates that under fire and under stress, a shooter may be lucky to get a 30% hit rate.

Long-term news readership indicates to me that many robbers work in pairs or small groups.

Of my friends and family members who have been violently attacked (IE in a manner justifying defensive use of a gun), only two had single BGs. One was a would-be rapist, the other a (deceased as of the event) would-be carjacker.

Now, even given 50% odds of a hit, how well would you expect to do against three armed assailants, using a six shooter and speed strips or loaders?

As I said, I am a pretty good shot, but I carry an 8rd auto and a spare mag or two at a minimum. I would like to have sufficient ammo to stop three theoretical assailants, and still have a full reload ready in case their friends arrive before the cops do.

But you two are free to do as you like. You may be that much better than me.

[BGutzman]

(a) The Amendment’s prefatory clause announces a purpose, but does not limit or expand the scope of the second part, the operative clause. The operative clause’s text and history demonstrate that it connotes an individual right to keep and bear arms. Pp. 2–22.

(b) The prefatory clause comports with the Court’s interpretation of the operative clause. The “militia” comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. The Antifederalists feared that the Federal Government would disarm the people in order to disable this citizens’ militia, enabling a politicized standing army or a select militia to rule. The response was to deny Congress power to abridge the ancient right of individuals to keep and bear arms, so that the ideal of a citizens’ militia would be preserved. Pp. 22–28.

This is directly from the Heller decision.... hummmm sounds suspiciously like military style arms are acceptable or could be acceptable...

[Spats McGee]

Originally Posted by Spats McGee

That said, I decline to engage the antis on statistical grounds. My right to defend myself isn't dependent on my odds of having to do so.

Feel free to let me know when you've got an argument that actually contradicts my claim about rights and odds. I'll come back to the rest of your post tomorrow. What I will say for the moment is that the quote you provided does not support your claim that

Originally Posted by dspieler

. . . . SCOTUS explicitly noted that their decision affirming the personal right to bear arms did not preclude regulations barring or severely restricting the ability of individuals from owning particular classes of firearms.

[Romeo 33 Delta]

I have been following the discussion, Uncle Billy and dspeiler and I've concluded that they are both wrong.

The short and sweet is that I don't believe either of them understand that when it comes to what I need for my defense that I will determine what that is. All their arguments about "military-style" weapons being overly dangerous ... too dangerous for civilian ownership! Sorry, guys. Not an impressive argument for me.

I've been a gun owner for 58 of my 68 years. I'm also am an Infantry Combat veteran. I have more hours than I care to count of "trigger time" in both military and civilian arenas. Having been in the military and in close quarters combat does not confir any extra-numerary rights on me. It's just background information.

I've been in gun fights with well armed bad guys and have never complained about having too much firepower. There were many times when our 20-round magazine were not enough ... 30 would have been better, especially when you're outnumbered and being overrun.. I didn't kill my bad guys with bombs, artillery and napalm. I killed them with small arms fire. Yes, that was in combat. I don't imagine the LA riots were less scary for those in the midst of it. I don't imagine that hearing gunfire a block or so away in the dark of night was not scary for folks in Katrina or countless natural disasters. The two of you ... outnumbered by thugs is outnumbered! If you've never been in that position, you need to put a sock in it. You can't imagine what frightened is.

dspeiler talks of the fantasy of fending off hordes of zombies ... whatever. Get serious! How about something other than a single "home invader"? I don't live in an area where we are likely to have a major disaster that will result in civil order breaking down ... but it could happen. It could happen anywhere. Just as I don't know the future ... neither do the two of you. That being said, don't presume to tell me what level of self-defense I need. That's MY decision. "Deal with reality"? I am?

Equating harmful speech with a semi-auto rifle is invalid. The former is evil in intent, the latter is a piece of machinery.

I don't care about Sweden or Germany as to their firearms laws. Different cultures ... different situations ... different problems.

I'll just close with this: In 58 years of gun ownership I have never threatened. wounded or killed another human except when I served as a Combat infantryman. None of the firearms which I own have ever threatened, wounded or killed anything since I've owned them. As I am primarily a milsurp collector, there are a large number of my firearms which are magazine-fed, semi-auto rifles (WW-I, WW-II, Korea, Vietnam). They are NOT dangerous. They are just pieces of machinery, like my car. Exactly why should "society" have any input about the tools I own (you've already removed Class III)?

Speaking of cars ... under the banner of "too dangerous for most people" let's explore further:

A vehicle that can go faster than 55 mph is too dangerous for most drivers. They don't need to go that fast. Only police should have cars that can go faster and lower the speed limit to 55. There should be no vehicles with more than 120hp. That's twice as much as that of a late production VW Beetle and should be enough for anyone. No vehicle should have a gas tank holding more than 5 gallons of gasoline. Gasoline is very dangerous in any quantity. Nobody needs more than that because when they get low on fuel, they can just stop and buy more. Besides, they should take a break from driving anyway. We also need to ban all vehicles that look like the dreaded "sports car" or ever more dangerous "muscle car". Nobody needs to own something which might frighten others on the highway.

That paragraph makes me think of the arguments and positions the two of you have been putting out. I'm sorry if some members or moderators think I've gotten personal and nasty ... but REALLY!

[Al Norris]

Let's look at the actual crime stats. http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr...ables/table-20

2011 FBI Crime Stats

Total Murders	12664	100%

By Firearms	8583	67%

	Handguns	6220	49.1%

	Rifles		323	2.5%

	Shotguns	356	2.8%

	Unknown Firearm	1684	13.2%

Knives		1694	13.3%

Other Weapons	1659	13.1%

Hands, Fists	728	5.7%

The excel file is downloadable. As are the data back to 2004. Do your own calculations. You will find that rifles are the least used firearm to commit murder.

When we talk about banning something, look at those stats. It should be handguns, but Heller said no, in a big way. Next on that list should be shotguns... But that would really rile the hunters!

So the lowest on that list is their target.

This fact is known to the anti-gunners. You should be asking why they want to ban the least used firearm. What is the ultimate purpose?

Now tell me again why any rifle should be banned?

[sigcurious]

But note that there is 'harmful speech' that is regulated.

Except for the fact that it's how the words are used not the words themselves. Just like firearms, speech can be used for better or worse. The same could be said for religion, yet any calls to make certain words or religions illegal or restricted just because they've recently been used to negative effect would be met with strong resistance. The very idea of doing so would be nearly inconceivable, even though hate speech and religion gone awry have been used to negative consequence since before firearms and will continue to do so.

[Dr Big Bird PhD]

@Al, I was wondering where I saw that 323 statistic. Thanks for finding it for me again.

[Romeo 33 Delta]

Big thanks from me also ... very good ammunition.

[therealdeal]

B: There is no gun show loophole.

yes, there is. you can call or name it anything you want. you can disagree with it also, but it does exist. someone who would never even attempt to buy a gun at a gunstore would seek a gunshow if he had malicious intentions. Private sales many times are with people who know you or with someone who knows someone who knows you. What I am getting at, is private sales are different then the gunshow loophole in my opinion. gunshow loophole law would heavily cutdown on guns getting in the wrong people's hands.

[Odd]

I know that people say that guns are just tools, but not all tools are equal to every task. There are tools that are better suited to different tasks, and, prima facie, the AR is a tool nicely suited to a particular situation that, as Uncle Billy has suggested, I think correctly, is not a highly likely one in civilian life.

Features that describe a typical military assault rifle: Gas operated, select-fire, magazine fed, intermediate cartridge,resistant to corrosion, reliable in adverse conditions, durable, easy take-down for cleaning and most parts can be changed out without an armorer or gunsmith. Aside from the select-fire and perhaps the magazine size*, care to explain how each of the above features were meant to maximize lethality?

So, here's what kinda freaks people, the 'anti's', out a bit: It seems like there is a refusal to even admit that certain tools are optimized for different situations, and there are some tools that are so unlikely to arise in civilian life, that the tool probably doesn't have a strong reason to be in civilian hands.

In a shooting inside an enclosed space, i.e. buildings/rooms, a handgun or shotgun can do just as much damage at those ranges. A shotgun in particular produces devastating wounds at the closer ranges, more so than a .223 cal rifle. It's also faster to reload a handgun than a rifle. As for your statement on tools being optimized for certain tasks, the victims in all spree killings tend to be unarmed, untrained and unarmored. Not quite the definition of an enemy soldier is it not?

There, I said it. I have an AR, and I probably shouldn't. Because I'm not going to be fighting off large organized bands of bad guys, and I'm not going to be leading a revolution.

You're free to turn it in for the greater good and smile for the cameras whilst being interviewed by the anti-gun media.




*I don't see the point in magazine limits as 1) There are probably millions of magazines around and 2) Reloading is a fast process and two or more 10rd mags can be coupled together.

[zxcvbob]

yes, there is. you can call or name it anything you want. you can disagree with it also, but it does exist. someone who would never even attempt to buy a gun at a gunstore would seek a gunshow if he had malicious intentions. Private sales many times are with people who know you or with someone who knows someone who knows you. What I am getting at, is private sales are different then the gunshow loophole in my opinion. gunshow loophole law would heavily cutdown on guns getting in the wrong people's hands.

What are you talking about? Seriously.

[Webleymkv]

Quote:
B: There is no gun show loophole.

yes, there is. you can call or name it anything you want. you can disagree with it also, but it does exist. someone who would never even attempt to buy a gun at a gunstore would seek a gunshow if he had malicious intentions. Private sales many times are with people who know you or with someone who knows someone who knows you. What I am getting at, is private sales are different then the gunshow loophole in my opinion. gunshow loophole law would heavily cutdown on guns getting in the wrong people's hands.

Since you made the claim that eliminating the supposed "gun show loophole" would "heavily cut down on guns getting in the wrong people's hands" then perhaps you might enlighten us as to what percentage of guns used in crimes are bought at gun shows as opposed to how many are stolen or bought through straw purchases.

The fact of the matter is that the whole private-party issue is one of personal responsibility and history has shown us that legislating personal responsibility typically fails abysmally. It is my personal policy not to sell a gun in a private party transaction unless I either know the buyer personally or the buyer is able to show me a concealed carry license or other proof that he/she has a clean record. Dealers are a different story because, if a dealer sold guns only to people he knew personally or those with a CCL, he would likely be out of business due to lack of customers thus the NICS system is necessary for them. I fail to see how my ability to responsibly engage in a legal activity (private party sales) should be taken away because of the irresponsibility of someone else.

[youngunz4life]

..............
After keeping silent for a week, except for a release announcing that the organization would make "meaningful contributions" to the search for answers to the problem of gun violence, LaPierre held what critics described as a "tone deaf" press conference in which he blamed the media, video games and Hollywood for the recent shootings, and suggested that the answer to gun violence was more guns.

Gun control advocates argue that a federal assault weapons ban is necessary to curbing gun violence. Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., who helped pass an assault weapons ban in 1996 is renewing efforts to pass similar legislation as the original ban expired in 2004.

"I think that is a phony piece of legislation and I do not believe it will pass for this reason: it's all built on lies," LaPierre said today.

LaPierre and many pro-gun advocates like him argue that assault weapons bans aren't effective and that violent criminals are solely to blame.

INFOGRAPHIC: Guns in America: By The Numbers

In today's interview, LaPierre pointed out that the Columbine High School shooting occurred after the assault weapons ban passed, but he failed to mention that the shooters obtained the guns they used illegally though a gun show.

He also did not discuss the fact that there was an armed guard on duty at the school when Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold killed 13 people there before killing themselves.

Several senators watching LaPierre's interview had strong reactions.

.........

you guys need to relax. So basically when anyone on this forum is against any laws, they are 'bad'? Sorry about the generalities, but I am pro-guns, pro-NRA, pro-second amendment, etc....I am guessing others on this forum who suggest some kind of concession might be too. I just felt the need to jump into the fray for those getting bashed for their opinion.

I'm not worried about the last part of the quote, but it is true about the armed guard at columbine and VA Tech had one too.

that isn't my point though.

MY ONLY POINT is that the so-called assault weapon ban is EXACTLY what LaPierre said it was - ineffect: 'garbage'(in my opinion).

that being said, the gun show loophole(that's the title given to it whether right or wrong) DOES allow individuals to get their hands on weapons when if they couldn't they might need to jump thru a few more hoops. I like gunshows, but I also am not happy these 20 schoolchildren lost their life in CT. And no, I am not being emotional in my response; I am just stating a fact about me. I am OK with a piece of legislation that might actually make a difference(again, the one proposed won't in my opinion and LaPierre explained why in no uncertain terms). I am a legal gun owner and a law-abiding citizen with a family. I am in a pro-gun state and a gun-lax state. I have no problem making it more difficult for certain nitwits to get their hands on some weapons. Said nitwit shouldn't have a problem buying a weapon if he isn't a nitwit in the first place(and can also if he is a nitwit). Secondly, we already know if nitwit is a criminal he'll probably be able to accomplish that as well, so I have no problem tightening the slack to possibly help society.....

All The Best+Merry Christmas
YounGunz4Life

[Dr Big Bird PhD]

youngunz4life

After stating the following:

I am OK with a piece of legislation that might actually make a difference(again, the one proposed won't in my opinion and LaPierre explained why in no uncertain terms). I am a legal gun owner and a law-abiding citizen with a family. I am in a pro-gun state and a gun-lax state. I have no problem making it more difficult for certain nitwits to get their hands on some weapons. Said nitwit shouldn't have a problem buying a weapon if he isn't a nitwit in the first place(and can also if he is a nitwit). Secondly, we already know if nitwit is a criminal he'll probably be able to accomplish that as well, so I have no problem tightening the slack to possibly help society.....

Since you have asserted a change in current policy, then the following is burdened upon you:

1a) Present unbiased, clear documentation of the weapons used in this massacre
1b) Cross reference it with other widespread massacres across the past 50 years.
1c) Establish an empirical and logical trend on the presence of these particular weapons, platforms, styles, magazines, etc being used during these massacres.
1d) Establish that these weapons were not only consistently being used along a specific trend, but also were acquired through legal loopholes.
1e) Establish how the current legal system failed to stop the acquisition of these weapons by the most relevant massacre, and then cross reference that with related massacres.
1f) Establish that these weapons have a great nuisance to society using not only statistical evidence, but also lack common use and can objectively not be defended by the founding fathers and current establishment's interpretation of the 2nd Amendment.

2a) Provide statistical evidence that previous firearms legislation has had a positive effect on the deterrence of criminal activity and murder rate over a reasonable timespan.
2b) Provide a legal framework that would further regulate these firearms established in 1). This legal framework must first be narrowly-tailored to befit the issue at hand, is not overly burdensome on government expenditure, and does not violate the 2nd Amendment rights of individuals.


Your turn

[Spats McGee]

Originally Posted by therealdeal

yes, there is. you can call or name it anything you want. you can disagree with it also, but it does exist. someone who would never even attempt to buy a gun at a gunstore would seek a gunshow if he had malicious intentions. Private sales many times are with people who know you or with someone who knows someone who knows you. What I am getting at, is private sales are different then the gunshow loophole in my opinion. gunshow loophole law would heavily cutdown on guns getting in the wrong people's hands.

"Loophole" implies that there is some unintended wrinkle in the language of the law that allows some people to "slip past" the requirements of the law. What has been held out in the media is the notion that if you bought a gun at a gun show, somehow, no background checks were required. That's just not the case.

The rules for transactions with an FFL remain the same, whether you buy a gun from the FFL at the brick-and-mortar store, on Uncle Frank's farm, or at a gun show. If you buy from a private individual, then you go by private individual rules, whether you buy in the individual's garage, out on a farm, or at the gun show. Whether you're buying at a gun show or not is irrelevant.

It sounds like you have some other understanding of the "gun show loophole," & I'd be curious to know what it is. What is this "gun show loophole law" of which you speak, what would it do, and how would it cut down on guns in the wrong hands?

Claims that "we should close the gun show loophole" are kind of like saying: (1) The speed limit is 30; (2) Lots of people drive 50+ on the interstate; therefore; (3) we should close the "interstate loophole."

[youngunz4life]

Dr Bird, I am not burdened to do anything. I willnot; I tend to believe it willnot change your opinion either. I have the right to my opinion....not sure if you just saw the movie "Lincoln" but if you did you might have noticed a great scene towards the end where Tommy Lee Jones conceded a little for the greater good(if he had gone all or nothing he would've been stifled - it was still very difficult for him to concede). Sometimes you have to give a little to get a little Bird. The antis see someone like you...and I feel I can say 'you' because they are stereotyping very much...as someone who will never give in even a millimeter because you have your own agenda. They say the same about the NRA. That is one of there most major beefs. Frankly I can care less, but is it true? I am pro gun rights. I have had opinions about the gunshow loophole since before VA Tech. I also believe in private sales and am ok with gun shows. I have no problem whatsoever admitting that I would be willing to negotiate and see if America can be safer if a hole/gap is closed and if both sides can be happy. As is, these laws trying to be passed probably amount to nothing and won't save a child. Most antis don't even understand that the term assault weapons is an extremely misleading. All that drawing a line in the sand is gonna amount to is a gunshow loophole, ammo, mag, limitations bans, AND assault weapon ban etc. I have no agenda. I believe what I believe period. Also, Web makes some great points, but not all private sellers are honest. as for this thread its really not my cup of tea so forgive me if I don't respond..especially since I'll be enjoying the Holidays.
Gunz

[K_Mac]

...whether about the "gun show loophole" or not I don't know, but I do agree that we have to be able to discuss rationally and calmly the issue of guns and violence. I am sometimes as guilty as anyone when it comes to perceived threats to my strongly held beliefs. Vitriolic attacks on folks willing to take an opposing position, even if only for the purpose of playing devils advocate, do not further our cause. Merry Christmas to you and yours.

[Carne Frio]

"Are there any sensible gun regulations you would support?"
No, not unless I am the one defining exactly what "sensible"
means.

[Brian Pfleuger]

Originally Posted by dspieler

Granted. But note that there is 'harmful speech' that is regulated. That is/was a cost/benefit discrimination.

Are you implying that there is not some firearms regulations already? As if we're starting with absolute, unhindered access and freedom and we're just negotiating a few, very minor restrictions that have never existed?

Think about that.
The 1934 NFA
1968 Gun Control Act
Mandatory background checks for all new purchases.
Handgun permits in most states, many of which are at the (arbitrary and capricious) discretion of local LE
1986 Hughes Amendment

and many more local and state restrictions.

The argument regarding existing restrictions on other rights actual supports FEWER firearms restrictions, not more "sensible", "common sense" restrictions. NO OTHER RIGHT is as heavily regulated and restricted as the 2A. Not even close.

Imagine a law requiring a permit from your local sheriff to be able to post on this forum!
Imagine if felons (of every kind) were denied permits to demonstrate.
Imagine if they passed a law in the middle of the night that said that printed magazines were now illegal.
Imagine if your speech had to be on an approved list.
Imagine paying $200 and waiting 6 months for every new internet connection.

Now, imagine that ALL of those restrictions were ALREADY in place, and people started talking about MORE, new, "common sense" restrictions on free speech and then starting saying that other rights are restricted, why can't you accept that some restrictions are OK to protect others, why do you act like your rights are untouchable, that they're absolute?

What nonsense would THAT be?

The same nonsense in the quote above.

[MLeake]

younggunz4life, you are unhappy about schoolkids at Newtown, so you want to focus on gun shows.

However, the guns at Newtown were stolen by Lanza from his mother, whom he murdered. He did not get them at a gun show.

Do you think we should close the TFL loophole? I just bought an HK, private party, from a TFL ad. I can find a lot of private sellers, some even in my state and area, via TFL... or Armslist... or Gunbroker.... or GunsAmerica... or the local classifieds.

So, what you are really saying is we should ban non-FFL transfers?

Please clarify.

Edit: never mind, just saw how you ended your last post... If you do check the thread in future, bear in mind that what Web was charging you with comes from basic rules of debate: the side arguing for changing the status quo is the side with the onus of burden of proof. You want the changes, so you have the burden - assuming you want to debate. Based on your last post, you really just wanted to state an opinion, then go on holiday...