Is the 'right to bear arms' unlimited?

Well my argument style is not too dominate, so I match the effort you present. Don't blame me.

Well sure. Getting away with something like murder is going to be difficult because there is a dead body, a missing persons, loads of evidence.

If I buy a gun from my cousin, there isn't a body, nobody is missing... Harder to enforce.

Well if there was a law reporting me to get a background check is take my chances breaking it it's almost impossible to get caught. baby if I had a dad said I didn't get a background check probably at a cop caught me searched by a house or whatever got the gun and held it up to me it's did you get a background check on this oh I could just say yes. How would they know?

the dealers already are required to do a background check. If you ever bought a gun from an FFL you'd have to have filled out a 4473 form.

Again, learn about this stuff you're arguing for something that was law decades ago.

If a non dealer sells you a gun at a gun show is just like if he did it in his backyard.

I've looked into internet purchasing the websites I've talked to has to send it to an FFL that would charge a fee and have me fill out a 4473.

Again what you are arguing for already exists.

I've never registered a fire arm I can't there is nothing to register them with. And that would be an infringing. I don't have to register for free speech or not to incriminate myself.

Owning a gun isn't a privilege like being able to drive a car on public roads. It's a right. I'm free to exercise it with out registering anything.

 

So two reacting isotopes is nothing? Go tell the people in Fukushima.

Well they radiograph pipelines not people so they use a gamma ray source (cobalt 60) it's in this container inside of a depleted uranium capsule. They have to have warning signs all over their truck, the owner of the company has to fill out all sorts of federal paper work.

When using that they have to follow a very strict protocol. It's amazing how short of an exposure can kill you.

You don't stand near it when you are cranking out the source is done remotely. You have to clear everyone form the area.

If you want they'll expose you to it.

Sure, nuclear weapons, surface to air missiles. But rifles no.

 

Well this is the problem, and you should know-- since you're so up on all this stuff-- that, " the gun-show loophole," is probably the most-cited item by politicians favoring even the mildest gun-control measures, and something that enjoys tremendous popular support. What sense is it that a gun shop must run a backround check, but a travelling gun-show merchant can sell to anybody without a check? You realize, don't you, that the point of the background check is not to hassle law-abiding gun-owners, but to stop purchases by people who aren't allowed to own guns? While you might have an argument that your uncle Al knows if you have a criminal history, the seller at a gun show doesn't know his customers from Adam, & so it only makes sense that he should follow the same procedure as any other commercial outlet. Otherwise, criminals can all circumvent backround checks by just buying at gun shows (hence the expression, "...loophole").

 

You speak as if you knew more than you actually do: there are states that require guns to be registered, your right to free speech & to remain silent, aside. Gun laws vary by state, and you you can be arrested for not complying with the local laws.

 

Comparing failing to comply w/ a backround check w/ murder is a ridiculous analogy to begin with, though it may interest you to know that most murders are never solved; so I guess it was silly to make it illegal, by your way of reckoning. Probably a better comparison would have been something like shoplifting, which goes on all the time-- stores call it, "shrinkage"-- but only relatively rarely do people actually get arrested for it. Yet it's still against the law-- what d' ya know?

No, you really don't. You should probably try, "to dominate."

 

I said nothing about more or fewer guns.

My point was that if draconian gun laws were effective in reducing homicides, they would be effective in all countries with draconian gun laws, not just the cherry picked, wealthy, White, older countries commonly classified as "developed" countries.

There are well over 50 countries in the world with totalitarian gun laws and nothing like our 2nd Amendment but yet these countries far exceed the US in homicides. Some of them are Russia, South Africa, Mexico, Brazil etc (1). They all have far stricter gun laws but far higher homicide rates than the US.
Why?



(1) "Intentional homicides (per 100,000 people) - Country Ranking"
https://www.indexmundi.com/facts/indicators/VC.IHR.PSRC.P5/rankings

 

Yes it is. The government doesn't recognize that, though.

 

I think shoplifting is a poor comparison. Shoplifting at least has a victim the shops you're stealing from.

Further if it's easier not to comply and there's no real way to prove I did or didn't why would I comply?

No.

 

Yeah I don't live in those States and if I did I wouldn't comply.

And no other right is a side here. I don't have to register to speak and I don't have to register to not have warrantless searches. So I shouldn't have to register to exercise any of my other rights.

 

The gun Show loophole is not a thing. I've bought guns at a gun shop I had to fill out the 4473 form. When you buy from an FFL dealer you have to fill out that form doesn't matter if you're at a gun show or not.

it doesn't they can't there's no loophole it's made up.

I suggest you go to a gun show and try to buy a gun from an FFL. You will see the gunshow loophole is a myth.

they do I bought guns from gun shows I had to fill out a 4473 form. The gun Show loophole is a myth.

Criminals can circumvent background checks anywhere. They do it by buying a gun from someone who isn't an FFL. that's not a loophole it certainly isn't related to a gun show.

 

I don't. He would have -loved- for his militiamen to have one.

Redcoats:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_coat_(military_uniform)
Cannon:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cannon

 

Actually, no.
The "gun show loophole" is a lie.

 

I was giving the benefit of the doubt. I think some misguided people actually believe that's a thing.

I've run into people that do.

 

Perhaps, but he could have flown one of the two aircraft he owned loaded with avgas into the crowd. A lot more than 50 people would have died.

Actually, SCOTUS noted that regardless of the relative dangerousness of a class of firearms, as long as they are in common use for lawful purposes they are protected by the Second Amendment:

"As to “dangerous,” the court below held that a weapon is “dangerous per se” if it is “ ‘designed and constructed to produce death or great bodily harm’ and ‘for the purpose of bodily assault or defense.’ ” 470 Mass., at 779, 26 N. E. 3d, at 692 (quoting Commonwealth v. Appleby, 380 Mass. 296, 303, 402 N. E. 2d 1051, 1056 (1980)). That test may be appropriate for applying statutes criminalizing assault with a dangerous weapon. See ibid., 402 N. E. 2d, at 1056. But it cannot be used to identify arms that fall outside the Second Amendment. First, the relative dangerousness of a weapon is irrelevant when the weapon belongs to a class of arms commonly used for lawful purposes. See Heller, supra, at 627 (contrasting “ ‘dangerous and unusual weapons’ ” that may be banned with protected “weapons . . . ‘in common use at the time’ ”). Second, even in cases where dangerousness might be relevant, the Supreme Judicial Court’s test sweeps far too broadly. Heller defined the “Arms” covered by the Second Amendment to include “ ‘any thing that a man wears for his defence, or takes into his hands, or useth in wrath to cast at or strike another.’ ” 554 U. S., at 581. Under the decision below, however, virtually every covered arm would qualify as “dangerous.”

"Were there any doubt on this point, one need only look at the court’s first example of “dangerous per se” weapons: “firearms.” 470 Mass., at 779, 26 N. E. 3d, at 692. If Heller tells us anything, it is that firearms cannot be categorically prohibited just because they are dangerous. 554 U. S., at 636."

Caetano v Massachusetts, 2016.

You might find it interesting that Jerry Miculek, well known for his speed at firing guns, can fire 8 rounds per second with a revolver but only 5 rounds per second with an AR-15.

Multi-shot firearms in existence at ratification:
Pepperbox revolver, 1780
Girandoni 20 shot repeating rifle, 1780
Cardiff superposed musket, 1682
Belton repeating flintlock, 1777
Puckle gun, 1718
Cookson repeater, 1690
Lorenzoni repeating pistol, 1680
Kalthoff repeater, 1658
Snaphaunce revolver, 1598
Electronic communication and data storage devices in existence at ratification:
{null set}
Does this mean that the 1st and 4th Amendment protections don’t apply to your cell phone?
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,” District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U. S. 570, 582 (2000], and that this “ Second Amendment right is fully applicable to the States,” McDonald v. Chicago, 561 U. S. 742, 750 (2010). "
Caetano v Massachusetts, 2016.

 

What military equipment would that be?

 

The Constitution isn't a list of what the government can't do, it's a list of what they are allowed to do. Did you know that we couldn't even arrest a felon for failing to register a gun?

With regards to the enforceability of "universal" background checks:

Scenario: I’m traveling to the range on Sunday morning, which I do once or twice a month. It’s a 45 minute drive into country. In my car I have four rifles: one I bought new six years ago, with a background check (legal); one I bought used in a private sale, with a background check (legal); one I bought used in a private sale, without a background check, prior to HR.8 being passed (legal); one I bought used, after HR.8 was passed, without a background check (illegal)
Suppose I get stopped for speeding by the police. How does the LEO know that one of the guns in my car was illegally obtained?

In the 2010 report "Summary of Select Firearms Violence Prevention Strategies" the DOJ noted that “universal” background checks can’t be effective without a reduction in the illegal sources of guns to criminals and can’t be enforced without comprehensive firearm registration.
In "Source and Use of Firearms Involved in Crimes: Survey of Prison Inmates, 2016", the DOJ reported in Table 5 where criminals get their guns. We see that vast majority of guns in the hands of criminals come from straw purchases, family transfers, theft and the underground market (Illegal sources of firearms that include markets for stolen goods, middlemen for stolen goods, criminals or criminal enterprises, or individuals or groups involved in sales of illegal drug). A total of 1.2% come from gun shows and flea markets. Purchases from "good guys" in private sales don't even show up.
What does a UBC do to prevent criminals from getting guns?
https://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/suficspi16.pdf

 

Actually, AR-15s were not illegal to buy during the 1994 "ban". Existing models were grandfathered, and brand new versions that didn't meet the definition of "assault weapon" were also available for sale. The rifle used at Sandy Hook was not banned under the 1994 law.

Here's what we know from SCOTUS decisions after the 1994 "ban" expired:

“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,” District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U. S. 570, 582 (200, and that this “ Second Amendment right is fully applicable to the States,” McDonald v. Chicago, 561 U. S. 742, 750 (2010). "
Caetano v Massachusetts, 2016.
Given that SCOTUS has affirmed that the Second Amendment protects all "bearable arms" (Caetano v Massachusetts) "in common use for lawful purposes" (DC v Heller) or having a "reasonable relationship to the preservation and efficiency of a well regulated militia" (US v Miller) , and incorporates those protections against the states (Chicago v McDonald), how do you propose to Constitutionally ban AR-15s and the like?

 

~ At this point the question is moot. Biden administration will confiscate firearms. Beto is in charge .

 

They are effective because it reduces the number of guns available to criminals. It reduces the opportunity. We are the dumbest country in the world. We allow private sales from legal buyers to illegal possessors with no accountability. The seller is not required to make a buyer prove he is qualified, like licensed dealers are. .

 

Remington Model 700 bolt-actions rifles.
Smith and Wesson .38 revolvers
Winchester Model 12 shotguns.

 

Let’s tell everyone that same story when Obama took office. The fringe right will then have cold sweats scrambling to buy more guns.

 

That’s where Norway is headed....no semi autos. In reality, a revolver is just a semi auto that doesn’t litter.

 

According to the DOJ, private sales from lawful owners to illegal possessors isn't even a big enough number to account for. See Table 5:

https://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/suficspi16.pdf

 

Ha ha. You did read your own reference !
Seriously, is the right pretending they are NAIVE ?

You can’t even read your own source. 43% obtained them from the underground market. ALL new firearms are required bought from licensed dealers by qualified buyers first.

Only qualified people can buy new or used from a licensed dealers. That means that EVERY USED FIREARM of the 43% that went to criminals from the black market went from a licensed dealer to a qualified buyer....FIRST.
That’s the loop hole. Dah.

. Tell me how a used gun can get to black market without going through a licensed dealer to a legal buyer FIRST. ? Go for it.

 

ha ha. Tell me how else you can successfully kill people this easy from ten feet with a rope. Ten feet ? You going to throw rocks ? That’s funny. You’re implying that using a firearm is not the most efficient way of killing a designated person. Ha ha..., jus the threat of a fire arm from ten feet gets most to drop a load. Really, you think you can do better with a pen knife from ten feet ?