US gun law reforms

[tyme]

Does the government have the power to regulate pressure cookers? How about lawn darts? Plastic bags? I'm serious. I'd like an answer. Irresponsible people with plastic bags are a menace if they let small kids play with the bags. We need background checks for almost everything, because either objects are dangerous to little kids, or they can be used as a weapon, or both.

You want universal gun background checks? Universal licensing of gun owners (you brought up cars, and driving is licensed)? Okay. I want plastic bag licensing. It's paper bags for you when you buy things, unless you present evidence of 4 hours of safety training regarding the hazards of plastic bags.

[Plumbnut]

Does a different view on this forum constitute breaking the rules?

All I'm advocating is simple background checks for all sales and givng away of guns.

Its not popular and I can see MOST everyone doesn't like it.

The next thing is me being attacked because of my view or claims that I'm breaking rules of some sorts.

I was responding to another member about the pool and the car. Read the thread.

Yes the govenment has the right to regulate anything or any product that is being used inconsistant to its intended purpose.

Read the fine print on a can of spray paint. Pour some oil out in your yard and call the EPA and tell them they cant do anything about it. Goodluck.

Yes they can regulate everything and do.

[jnichols2]

Plumbnut,

I just read the 2nd amendment, and had no problem finding "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

Could you help me just a bit where it says "the government sure has the right to REGULATE the ownership."

You aren't confusing "the people" with "A well regulated Militia" are you?

The highlighting serves to distinguish "the people" from "a militia".

Just trying to keep things straight.

[Plumbnut]

Jnichols2,

According to your logic then every law concerning firearms is unconstitutional.

If you think background checks are infringment then the rest of the laws have to also be unconstitutional.

Am I correct?

You want a free for all...no checks no serial numbers just everyone has the right to have and bare arms. Period.

I dont think so.

[tyme]

Plumbnut, don't be ridiculous. This is an open forum, not private messaging. Anyone can respond to any comments you made, even if you directed them at someone else.

You can advocate whatever you'd like. Repeating your argument over and over, and defending it poorly, won't get you very far. I'm the last moderator/staff you should worry about taking punitive action, but as long as you keep up your gun regulation propaganda, I'll keep posting in opposition, at least a little while longer.

You want a free for all...no checks no serial numbers just everyone has the right to have and bare arms. Period.

I dont think so.

The premise of that argument is that removing all existing small arms gun laws would have a minimal effect on crime rates (or that it might even decrease crime rates), and would increase freedom (less government bureaucracy, less government information collection, fewer opportunities for the government to pull BS like operation Gunwalker). Saying "I don't think so" is not a valid argument in favor of arms controls.

[manta49]

manta49, are you content with the regulations and restrictions you are under in N Ireland?

Some of it yes some no but it is what it is. I can see how such regulation would not please most Americans.

[dakota.potts]

Plumbnut, yes, that is essentially what many of us are saying.

[Plumbnut]

So my 13 year old nephew should be able to buy a gun.

The 2nd ammendment doesn't have an age restriction.

See how ridiculous it can get....

Regulation is needed and thats very clear.

[tyme]

It's not the federal government's business whether 13-year-olds can buy guns.

[Skadoosh]

Plumnut wrote:

If it comes down to them wanting the guns they will take them.

Easier said than done.

[Evan Thomas]

Plumbnut, before 1968, when the Gun Control Act replaced the Federal Firearms Act, there was no federal law prohibiting a 13-year-old from buying a gun. Some states had laws that set age limits, but the feds had no problem with minors buying guns or ammunition.

So there's nothing sacred or inevitable about the idea that minors shouldn't be able to buy guns -- it's a relatively recent addition to federal law.

Many of us feel that, while the right of the federal government to regulate firearms purchases involving interstate commerce (and to require background checks for such purchases) can at least be argued, based on the Commerce Clause of the Constitution and the 10th amendment, there is no constitutional basis for it to do so for privately owned guns in intrastate commerce. We're not happy about background checks in general, but that's an issue that isn't likely to come before the courts any time soon. But the idea that the federal government should have a say in how I dispose of my own property, within the state where I live, is just... abhorrent to me.

[Plumbnut]

Well if nothing else you have proven your fighting a losing battle.

Goodluck to you guys with the wild west mentality. Its not doing your cause one bit of good.

I've beat this horse to death and I'm out. I see and everyone else can see out opinions which we all have a right to have if we are civil about it.

Again all I want is for when a gun is sold by ANYONE or when a gun is GIVEN away the person that is buying the gun will have a background check.

The make model or kind of gun being sold is not disclosed or even the quanity.

Have a wonderful evening everyone.

[Brian Pfleuger]

Originally Posted by Plumbnut

Well if nothing else you have proven your fighting a losing battle.

And you have proven nothing.

You don't use research or data of any kind to support your opinion, you do not accept statistics or history as evidence contrary to your opinion. You don't even accept the words of written law that directly contradicts your opinion. We are all free to have opinions, sir, but all opinions are not equally worthy of serious consideration. Repeating yourself ad nauseum while ignoring anything and every one contrary to your opinion does not make you right or convincing.

[hogdogs]

Guns are no different

WRONG... Completely different as only the gun thing is a right... None of the others can be remotely associated with the right of gun ownership...

and the government as the right to regulate.

Only a little bit... And the government has no RIGHTS!!!

Very little regulation is permitted... That is the nice thing...

Brent

[jimbob86]

h[QUOTE]

If the goverment really wants to take your guns.....they will take your guns.

I aim to make that as difficult and expensive as possible, in order to make even the idea of such an undertaking, even on a small scale, as to be prohibitively unpalatable to even the most strident Statist.

To that end, I will oppose ANY further erosion of my rights ........

It's MY Cake.*

If every gun owner would do the same, we'd not have to worry about what the feds would or would not do, and only about what WE would do........ "Discipline yourselves, so that others will not feel the need to."


Instead, we have YOU, who would cede common sense to a detached, uninterested, faceless, Federal Bureaucracy........ and your vote counts as much as mine ....... this worries me, and greatly........

If others still feel the need to attempt to regulate what I have, even when I have not done anything wrong with it ....... well then, right after they DQ themselves as potential rapists by chopping off their wedding tackle, I'll surely get right on the very urgent task of pointing and laughing at their wrongheaded altruism....... if fervent beliefs were really the solution to the problem at hand ....... count me out, 'cause I'm keepin' mine....... those of you with the courage of your convictions ........ by all means, whack away!


*http://thelawdogfiles.blogspot.com/2...-ill-play.html - A most excellent reply to the unimformed, and sure proof against these recurrent troll zombies who return again and again with the same arguments....... though not very effective vs. the LIV crowd ..... "There is no practical difference between those who do not read, and those who can not ........"

[jimbob86]

Goodluck to you guys with the wild west mentality. Its not doing your cause one bit of good.

....... so you do admit that your cause is not ours?


........

I've beat this horse to death and I'm out.

Vaya con Dios, and may your chains weigh lightly upon you .... later on in life, when your Chosen Government puts the screws to you, please remember that you chose your fetters as "inevitable"...........

[hermannr]

Everyone seems to forget...in the US we are assumed innocent unless PROVEN guilty in a court of law.

Background Checks assume you are guilty until you prove yourself innocent.

[Tom Servo]

Background Checks assume you are guilty until you prove yourself innocent.

Correct, which brings us around to the idea that one must prove eligibility in order to exercise a right. It's a step from that to having to prove good cause. Sooner or later, the list of acceptable causes gets smaller and the bar gets raised.

[Plumbnut]

No ones going to take my guns away or your guns away. You guys are getting all worked up over nothing.

I support simple background checks and nothing more. For the one hundreth time.

Innocent until prove guilty only applies to a crime. Background checks have been proven constitutional time after time.

I've talked to more than a handful of lawyers about this and all agree that the government can regulate firearms.

Ask the ones on the forum.

I probably have more guns than most of you and I dont intend to give them up .

Its common on forums for people to snip quotes out of context....just like some of you have done. That doesn't tell the whole story.\

Theres a thread on this forum that celebrates the killing of cats.......thats hurting your cause more than you know,do you realize how many people read this forum and see the use of firearms to kill cats as a bad thing? I assure you that particular thread is not helping show gun ownership in a very good light.'

One guy laughs that he killed his neighbors barn cat......another says he looks for micro chips as he skins them......thats horrible.

I lost my cat to a battle with cancer...it was part of my family. I took her to the vet everyday for 4 months to get treatment. I loved her with all my heart. I fed her with a syringe 3 times a day for 4 months before she passed.

I just dont understand that kind of attitude.....and I know others who read it dont either.

Here is a picture ofher on her last Christmas. My wife and I loved her like you love a child and she loved us. We miss her.....

[Plumbnut]

I support background checks for the buyer or person receiving the firearm.

No serial numbers of the gun....no gun type or brand caliber or anything is recorded.

Just that John Doe is buying a gun. The background check would insure the guys not just been released froma mental home or just got out of prison for trying to kill his girlfriend...for example.

[Plumbnut]

Theres nothing in the constitution that says the government cannot require background checks to keep felons from buying guns.

All I keep hearing is "No ones taking my guns and my rights are to own guns" well I agree unless you are a convicted felon or a certified crazy person.

Again I'm not supporting taking awau your guns if your allowed to buy one now.

Background checks when guns change ownership........no record of what gun or even thetype of gun changing hands.


I wouldn't support any other laws added to that. What good s a background check if a felon or a certified lunatic ca buy it out of the newspaper with no check?

Do you think a felon or a certified crazy person should be able to buy a gun from you?

Like I said I own guns and I'm not giving mine up either.

I'm for responsible ownership.....

[jimbob86]

Theres nothing in the constitution that says the government cannot require background checks to keep felons from buying guns.

Aye, but the 10th Amendment sez that if it is not in there that it IS NOT the Fed.Gov's Bailiwick, but the various States, or the People's..... and the Fed.Gov should STFU and STFD. ..... not that the Fed .Gov has paid much attention to the document that alledgedly sanctions yet constrains it, due to legallistic contortions of the Commerce Clause......... at least since Wiccard v. Filburn (1942).....

“The powers delegated by the proposed constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite… . The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the State.” The Federalist No. 45, pp. 292–2

Right ........

[Plumbnut]

Your rights stop when they infringe on others peoples rights. Remember that and understand what that means.

Background checks DO NOT infringe on the 2nd ammendment. My backgrond check today literally took 4 minutes. 4 minutes to ensure the FFL dealer wasn't selling a gun to a known felon. Thats reasonable it is also responsible.

I think some pople just want a cause to grab on to and make a big deal out of. They like the idea of "us gun owners against the government" Its fun to be part of that group to them.

I've heard for the past 30 years..."They trying to take my guns" and I have been buying them the whole time without any issue.' No ones taking my guns and they never have tried......infact I shoot with police officers all the time.....I've trained with member of a Delta team. Even members of Delta believe felons should not own guns and background checks.

Who do you really think is going to come take your guns? Do you not understand "we the people"????

Dont you understand that the 2nd ammendment protects your right to bare arms?

I'm not your enemy...I do not want to take your guns...I simply do not want felons and nutcases from buying guns.

[Plumbnut]

Cats and the thread link I posted has to do with responsible ownership of guns and using them properly and respecting life.

Something some have no clue about. It puts gun owners in a bad light and the killing of pets should not be bragged about.

Killing non threatning pets with collars on and skinning them looking for microchips.

Thats not responsible ownership. Thats not a responsible person.

People who abuse animals and are cruel will do similar acts to people. Its a fact.

[Plumbnut]

OK THIS FOR THE LAST TIME IS WHAT I SUPPORT. NOTHING MORE AND NOTHING LESS

WHEN A FIREARM CHANGES HANDS A BACKGROUND CHECK MUST BE DONE.

IT WILL BE FREE AND NO CHARGE.

IT WILL NOT...I REPEAT WILL NOT RECORD THE TYPE OF GUN OR CALIBER OF GUN.

IT WILL SIMPLY JUST INSURE THAT THE PERSON RECEIVING THE GUN DOES NOT HAVE A FELONY OR HAS BEEN CERTIFIED INSANE.

NO GUNS WILL BE TAKEN AND THE 2ND AMMENDMENT WILL STAND STRONG JUST AS IT DOES TODAY.

Heck I would even be for lifting import bans on foreign surplus ammo or guns....solve our ammo shortage.

I would be for building public shooting ranges or having police ranges open to the public on certain days and have volunteer police give training classes for donations.

I'm all for our sport and our rights.