Reality Check: More Minnesotans Own Guns, Violent Crime Remains Low

The idea is to make it more difficult for criminals to procure firearms, or at least certain kinds of firearms.

 

It is not the amendment process. It is the interpretation process.

 

That is already done, Criminals are banned from owning any type of firearms.

So since they cannot legally own them, they steal them or buy them from other criminals.

And it is illegal for them to own them, so when they are caught with a gun, it is a prison offence.

 

You refuse to understand the Constitution protects the right to keep and bear arms to the same degree as all other rights - or, you don't care.
You simply want to make it harder for the law abiding to exercise their right to arms.
And thus, we do not give an inch.

 

The 2nd has already been interpreted. Your point of view lost.

 

Yes, the misinterpretation of "The Court has held that “the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding,” "The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.", " 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" ""In the absence of clearer guidance from the Supreme Court or stronger evidence in the record, we follow the approach taken by the District Courts and by the D.C. Circuit in Heller II and assume for the sake of argument that these “commonly used” weapons and magazines are also “typically possessed by law‐abiding citizens for lawful purposes. In short, we proceed on the assumption that these laws ban weapons protected by the Second Amendment" "and "The Fourteenth Amendment makes the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms fully applicable to the States" gives us results like "If a ban on semiautomatic guns and large-capacity magazines reduces the perceived risk from a mass shooting, and makes the public feel safer as a result, that's a substantial benefit."

 

From the dissents in Heller:


Stevens:

https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/07-290.ZD.html

The question presented by this case is not whether the Second Amendment protects a “collective right” or an “individual right.” Surely it protects a right that can be enforced by individuals. But a conclusion that the Second Amendment protects an individual right does not tell us anything about the scope of that right.

Breyer

https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/07-290.ZD1.html

“ Thus I here assume that one objective (but, as the majority concedes, ante, at 26, not the primary objective) of those who wrote the Second Amendment was to help assure citizens that they would have arms available for purposes of self-defense.”

 

Of course it is.
You have nothing to back this up, however.

Another statement you cannot support.

 

One more: , "The right to bear arms is not granted by the Constitution; neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence"

 

Your impressions are incorrect. Yes, the Association of Chiefs of Police - an organization of political appointees who serve at the pleasure of elected officials - has supported restrictions. But 96% of rank and file law enforcement oppose them.

You put your time in, eh? Doing what? Unless you've dealt with the reality of crime and criminal violence and the mindset of societal predators you simply don't know what you're talking about.

Gun control is, by nature, inane and unconstitutional. After the massacre at Beslan a laundry list of recommendations for protecting kids in school was disseminated worldwide, and to date NONE OF THEM have been enacted at American schools. Why?? Because American "educators" blocked them. They claimed the recommendations were "too extreme" or "too expensive", or they complained they shouldn't have to undergo security response training, or kids shouldn't have to be educated under the watch of properly equipped security personnel. They blocked those recommendations and now scream for gun control, and that offends me to my core.

Spare me the emotionalist histrionics. That father might embrace gun control in his grief but he should be in a rage that proper security measures that could have physically protected his child from harm were blocked from enactment by the same people now demanding gun control.

As for the Constitution, if our society decides it isn't up to the task of a given situation then we have the ability, as a nation, to amend it to change that reality. But until we do that we still have to conform to its dictates.

Thank you... but I think my experiences are VERY relevant to this discussion, because I understand the realities of violence in ways someone like you could never comprehend.

 

There is no "interpretation process." The Founders told us what their intent was, and so we are required to conform to Constitutional parameters. We can't ignore the Constitution just because you find it inconvenient to your agenda.

 

The fewer guns out there the more difficult to get.

 

Thus we must do more for law-abiding people to have a safe life.

 

Lost on you.

 

You think that the framers of the 2nd amendment envisioned this kind of carnage?

 

You don't like the fact the court rejects your opinion on the matter.
Not much you can do about it, eh?

 

They were fully aware of such carnage taking place regularly on the American frontier and chose to ensure the people would always have access to the means necessary to protect themselves by protecting the right to keep and bear arms.

 

The acquisition by prohibited individuals is already illegal under any and all possibly circumstances that can be conceived. There is not a single legal venue available to them, that allows for the acquisition of firearms, without a felony offense being committed in the process.

Pray tell, exactly what more can be done to make the procurement process more difficult than the standard of being illegal under all circumstances?

 

Irrelevant and off topic. The statement on the part of yourself pertained to the amendment process. Such was stated in the words of yourself. The phrase was even presented in all capital letters.

 

The saturation level of firearms in the united states has exceeded critical mass, with there now being more firearms than individuals to own them on a one-to-one ratio. Any attempt at trying to reduce the number of legally owned firearms in current circulation will not only be resisted viciously, but any number of firearms successfully removed will be statistically insignificant. No number of firearms removed from circulation will be sufficient to overcome the confirmed fact, established by the FBI, that another forty one thousand will enter circulation within the very next day.

Any effort that is undertaken will quickly be undone and rendered useless. There is no point in even trying.

 

Good question and there is an answer. I just don't know what it is. It does have something to do with money.

 

Pray tell how? Since there are no legal venues available for the acquisition of firearms by a prohibited individual, the illegal venues are the market of the seller, not the buyer. Anyone supplying firearms to a prohibited individual is free to charge whatever price they wish, even ten times higher than the market price of a given firearm, as they maintain a monopoly on the available supply. There is no reason for one to not engage in profiteering in such a case, and the buyer will have no choice but to meet it.

 

Maybe the truth does not get travel to Sweden, why bother with things so remote in America ?