Do You Support Any Gun Control Laws?

[Newton24b]

there was some gun control back in colonial days.
6 years ago i ran across an online auction that had a revolutionary weapon for sale. it had been built for a mentally impaired male who wanted to participate in mandatory militia drills. the only thing was... the barrel was a solid piece of wood. he could participate but there was no chance of him doing something stupid.

there are to many ways to be considered mentally ill. for example based upon the laws lately, if your middle school teacher had you put on ritalin, you technically fall under the "plese check yes if you have been put on medications"

[Dashunde]

Originally Posted by Bob Hunter

The 2A is very clear

It is, in fact, very clear if your in a well regulated militia.
Otherwise, it is very ambiguous, and will remain subject to debate based on the fundamental question of whether or not the second part of the sentence still holds water if the first part is not applicable or adhered to.
I personally prefer Jefferson's version with fewer commas.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness

I've read several times in this thread alone about how "these gun rules inhibit my freedoms".
The crux of it is that the anti-gun folks feel (incorrectly) that they have the right to move about their modern daily lives without being exposed to armed civilians.
Of course there is no "Right" that substantiates this desire... except for the Declaration of Independence which states we have the Right to Life, which can be taken by a gun owner at any time without warning.
Their basic argument is correct in some respects... gun owners are law abiding... until they are not... at which point the Right to Life is violated.
They simply feel they have the right not to be exposed to that risk even though the Declaration of Independence was written for protection from the government, not each other.

For the record, I don’t agree with their perspective, I carry a gun everyday and I believe they have the right to protect themselves.
I'm not suggesting we happily give up ground, but instead appear open to hearing the anti-gun side of it instead of the usual fist pounding "shall not not infringe" arguments, which are debatable because few of us even know where to find a militia, let alone a well regulated one.

My point is that we often project the right message in the wrong way.
But I'll be damned if I know what the right way is, many of them are indeed hopelessly sold on the fallacy of a gun-free America.

Most all of you have made some great points, its excellent thread as far as I'm concerned.

[Coyote Blue]

Bump. We have to have a last word. Thank your for that fine comment,Dashunde. It was a fine civil discussion.

Thank you all.

[Levant]

For 177 years in this country you could order a gun through the mail and felons, when released from prison after paying their debt, were able to have guns to feed and protect their families. The Founders apparently did not see these limits as options or as needed.

Are you safer now than you were in 1968 when background checks became the law? Has it reduced gun crime in the cities? Has any gun control law you know of reduced the murder rate in Chicago? If you support the laws we have now and believe they have made any difference then you must certainly support more laws to do more good. If infringements are acceptable because they make us safer and you believe they do make us safer then more infringements must certainly make us more safe and be a good and acceptable thing.

If you believe that the infringements in place today do not make us safer then why would you support them or believe they're acceptable?

In my opinion, there are only two logically defensible stances - either all or nothing.

I'm on the side of nothing. Neither the Constitution nor the right are predicated on reasonable infringements.

[Levant]

Originally Posted by Dashunde

It is, in fact, very clear if your in a well regulated militia.

Besides the fact that the Supreme Court has ruled that the clauses are separate and that there is an individual right, nothing in the Second Amendment ever implied that you only have a right if you're in, or if exists, a well-regulated militia.

It says:

A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

It doesn't say that if you're in a militia your right cannot be infringed. It doesn't say if a militia exists that your right cannot be infringed. It says, in the form ratified by the states, that because a well regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free state, the right cannot be infringed. If the people are disarmed, how can a well regulated militia exist or be formed? In the form passed by the Congress, it says:

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

In this form, it says that the people are the well regulated militia and their right to be armed cannot be infringed. Nothing in the Constitution allowed for the formation of a National Guard and removing from the Militia all those males between 16 and 60.

In both forms, "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." is consistent and clear. What part of "shall not be infringed" is unclear?

[Evan Thomas]

In any case, the Heller ruling decoupled the individual right from the militia clause, making it clear the that former exists independently. This means that arguments based on the militia clause aren't relevant at this point. There is an individual right to keep and bear arms -- period.

[dlb435]

I realy think that something significant must be done.
The problem is that none of the legislation proposed seems to be any good.
It ranges from totally inefective to so oppressive that it violates the 2nd amendment.
Maybe it's time to re-think all of the arguements.
I read the 2nd amendment as not only a right, but also as a responsibility.
Could we look at it that way?

[MLeake]

dlb435, I will suggest the same thing I have suggested before as what I think a reasonable compromise would be.

1. Decriminalize marijuana. Go from spending billions in a war on drugs to making billions through licensing and taxes.
a) This would free up investigative and prosecutorial man-hours and funding;
b) This would free up a whole lot of jail and prison bed space and funding.

2. Use the newly found funding, man-hours, and space to investigate and prosecute violent criminals under existing firearms laws, and to incarcerate them for full sentences.

3. Put any surplus funds into mental health care, and possibly into pre-school programs.

Unfortunately, the antis won't like that because it doesn't address their real issue, and a lot of gunners are stuck on "Drugs are bad, M'kay?"

[Dashunde]

^I totally agree, not only would it free up those resources, making pot legal would eliminate much of the pot-related gang, distribution and dealer street crime. Nobody is getting shot at over booze and cigs anymore...
If we're lucky it might even put a dent in Mexico's problems.
The smarter ones could convert into proper "growing" businesses that paid taxes, had real employees and so on.
Its a real travesty that we have spent so much for so long and incarcerated (at our expense) so many over a damn weed.

I do wonder though... if pot were legalized, what would some of the scrounging dealers do without a viable product to sell... what sort of other trouble would they go find or push instead?

I dont know about the antis... a good number are staunch liberal, generally not annoyed with pot, particularly the current crop (haha) of 20-50 year olds.
They might actually see it as win-win if convictions of current gun laws went up.

The died in the wool Republican conservatives and a decent percentage of gun folk wouldnt like legalizing it too much... but hey, if it diverts resources to pursue the existing gun laws we have and that we routinely say are not enforced it should be a good trade-off with the end result being reduced gun crimes after a few examples are made to show the laws are being enforced, finally...just maybe, taking some heat off of 2A in general.

[MLeake]

I agree on the reduced incentive for gang violence, at least with regard to pot.

I know some of my more ardent 2A supporting co-workers almost started foaming at the mouth when I brought it up with them; they are caught on the "gateway drug" paradigm.

And I have met quite a few antis who say they are worried about crime, but who really just dislike guns and don't believe private citizens should be allowed to own them.

I wonder, though, if the center might go for the idea.

And, 2A advantages or no, I think we imprison way too many people, and create way too many effectively unemployable persons, with our current marijuana laws.

[Dashunde]

Dont fall into that trap... the real gateway drug is alcohol.

[Spats McGee]

The discussion at hand, however, is whether there is any support for gun control laws.

[Dashunde]

Sure there is, but generally not by us, except for me who thinks that...

If a FFL has to run a check on a buyer for the purpose of stopping sales to those disqualified then it makes logical sense that the same checks be run for gun show (probably profiting under the radar) and private sales... equal requirements for all sales.
Family gifting and heirlooming, and provable friends excluded.

But all that is moot now... and I'm glad of it... So when is the stock going to show backup on the shelves?!

[MLeake]

I would argue that the gain from forcing FFLs to run background checks may not be enough to justify the prior restraint aspect of the checks, and so I definitely do not agree with them for private sales.

I would also ask if we should now argue for background checks prior to selling pressure cookers, cell phones, propane, ball bearings...

There comes a point when you simply can't legislate or control away all potentially harmful items, and where you simply must make the penalties for actual criminal acts sufficient to deter the majority from committing actual crimes.

[Coyote Blue]

I would argue that the gain from forcing FFLs to run background checks may not be enough to justify the prior restraint aspect of the checks, and so I definitely do not agree with them for private sales.

I would also ask if we should now argue for background checks prior to selling pressure cookers, cell phones, propane, ball bearings...

There comes a point when you simply can't legislate or control away all potentially harmful items, and where you simply must make the penalties for actual criminal acts sufficient to deter the majority from committing actual crimes.

Mike, you are my ideological twin brother! Sad that we have never met,bro!

[Double J]

I'd like to see it mandatory that everyone over the age of 16 be required to have at least 30 days marksman skill training, then given a weapon and ammo to take back home for home defense.

[BumbleBug]

This is an interesting thread, especially since it runs in parallel with the new GC bill just defeated.

I, like most I think, say why do more of what does not work? We have GC laws from 1968 that obviously have done nothing & were obviously abused (i.e. not enforced or supported properly) by the federal government. So the best thing is to strip GC laws back to zero & start over or say no laws. But if you start over, look who & what the anti’s would throw at you!

It would be interesting, to say the least, if we could strip the fed GC laws back to zero & start over and conceding that there needs to be some laws, let the NRA, gun experts & gun community craft a proposal. Just what would it be, thus the substance of this thread.

I’m a simple guy, so after Sandy Hook, the single statement that has stuck in my mind has been NRA’s statement (paraphrased) “…the only thing to stop a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun.”. This is so obvious & so true, no matter how distasteful it may be to anyone. It is indicative of the state of our society.

A member of congress, especially in the last few years, that wants to have a meet-n-greet at a supermarket & doesn’t even have a rent-a-cop with a gun around, is foolish to say the least. I’m not being condescending to victims but rather advocating practicality & common sense.

So the answer is change our society & everyone be more vigilant & practical. Unfortunately, you can't create federal laws to do this.

JIMHO

[RubiDing]

Since the gun control proponents have made it clear that the objective is a total firearms ban and each piece of new legislation is merely a brick in that wall; I am against all new gun control proposals.

[Levant]

Originally Posted by Double J

I'd like to see it mandatory that everyone over the age of 16 be required to have at least 30 days marksman skill training, then given a weapon and ammo to take back home for home defense.

Great idea... Now all we need is a name for those trained marksmen... I wonder what it could be.

I know!!!! We could call them a well-regulated militia!

[Levant]

Originally Posted by BumbleBug

It would be interesting, to say the least, if we could strip the fed GC laws back to zero & start over and conceding that there needs to be some laws

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.

Originally Posted by BumbleBug

A member of congress, especially in the last few years, that wants to have a meet-n-greet at a supermarket & doesn’t even have a rent-a-cop with a gun around, is foolish to say the least. I’m not being condescending to victims but rather advocating practicality & common sense.

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

Let's not blame the victim for not having snipers on the rooftops and a bullet-proof glass box to speak in. Blame goes to the nutcase who decided that the way to make his mark was to kill a member of Congress.

[BumbleBug]

Originally Posted by Levant

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.

Originally Posted by Levant

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]

Originally Posted by Tom Servo

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.