Can we have an honest, respectful discussion about guns in America?

Ban the sale of semi-automatics with detachable mags.
Make background checks universal and effective.
Make a 10 day waiting period mandatory to buy a gun
Allow states and municipalities to address guns and safety issues as they see fit...

You'll never hear another word from me.

But you want none of that nor would you allow it

 

So just ignore that the 2nd amendment exists, and give you everything you want with handwavium included (". . . and effective")......

Yeah sure sparky

 

I was responding to a specific question. That question did not mention the 2A.

And hey...I don't believe the 2A applies or have you missed that?

The 2A very specifically applies to arms as related to a "Well Regulated Militia". It exists but it is irrelevant to this discussion.

 

And Ronstar believes he's an FBI agent, feelings don't make facts.

Well regulated = in working order. Nothing in the grant of power over structuring the militias once federalized (art 1 sec grants a power to restrict their privately held arms, and the 2a provides for an individual enumerated right to keep and bear arms that is not dependent on membership in any militia. That's basic english grammar, this has been explained to you.

 

The Constitution describes what a "Well Regulated Militia" looks like.Article 1 Section 8.

I'll post it yet AGAIN since you are pretending you never saw it.

To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

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;

 

First- we are not like " other advanced nations" The American culture is very different, it includes more hostility and incivility than most. I've worked in several other countries and currently do business all over the world. Most of those nations do not think highly of our attitudes and morals; generally feeling we are all jackasses. Could be right; I do think that our level of arrogance and incivility directly contribute to the problem. We cultivate it.

What I support is what I stated. Monitoring and where appropriate control of people who are unstable enough to present significant risk. The mental care facility the Texas shooter broke out of described him, to the police, as mentally unstable and a danger to both himself and others. Those kind of things need to be reported, and along with reports of repeated domestic abuse, child abuse and a number of factors, result in a level of at least monitoring, and in some cases, hospitalization or retention.

Now you have no problem adding regulatory restrictions and penalties to millions of law abiding people in the hopes of mitigating some criminal killings.
This concept applies only to those who present high risk. We use some aspects of this on chronic drunken drivers and numerous other situations where people have shown they are dangerous and will not control themselves. It could apply here.


Still waiting for you to tell us what gun controls you think should be added, and of course why they will work.


By the way, I know a man in Houston who owns around 7,000 guns. He never shoots them- they are all collectibles, most of them are in a commercial vault and going up in value every year. Guns are one of his many investments. Some are brand new, all are special in one way or another. Many are very old but have never been shot. He has an old and perfect Colt pistol with serial number "One" for example. He certainly is a gun "fancier". Do you suppose he's "rabid"? Still waiting for the means you use to u identify them too.

 

That doesn't say "in working order" does it?

It describes not only the use that the militia should be put to (and indeed it WAS put to those uses) but how it should be organized and that it should be trained and have discipline with appointed Officers...

 

The mental care facility the Texas shooter broke out of described him, to the police, as mentally unstable and a danger to both himself and others.

And yet this person legally bought the guns he used in that massacre. Clearly something is not right there huh?

 

States already do. In PA we have a state law that prevents municipalities from creating their own gun control laws. It was passed after some fiefdom passed an ordinance banning guns. With hundreds of little fiefdoms in the state that would create chaos if every one of them could make their own gun laws.

 

He was convicted in an Air Force court in a way that should have put him on the fed no-buy list. Air Force dropped the ball and didn't report.
Hospital and local police didn't either; felt it wasn't their responsibility or that someone else would- so no one did. There were prior issues that were red flags, but nobody did anything then either. .

I can understand that some things will fall through the cracks, as they say. When it's the same person falling through repeatedly, something is definitely not right.
At the same time, we have a sexual fondling complaint pop up that is nearly 40 years old, and it's like a blizzard of righteous people demanding that heads roll.

 

They do in some cases but states are under attack for these laws and DC (Heller) was forbidden by Congress to do so.

 

The military has neglected to report these incidences routinely. That is part of fixing the back ground check issue. I'm sure you agree that this would be a sensible thing to do.

And he ALSO "escaped from a mental institution" so clearly the background check system is broken and needs repair.

And please...let's not conflate issues that have nothing to do with each other.

 

So from what I have seen...there is really no disagreement on these issues...other than a ban on assault weapons which is part of states being allowed to regulate arms as they see fit AND is very popular in general.

 

Obviously you've put some thought into your proposals but like all additional restrictions I simply feel that they will not work because the country is already flooded with semi autos with detachable mags, there are already background checks, if someone is intent on killing someone else, 10 days won't change their mind & states & municipalities already address gun & safety issues.

Perhaps it's time to face the fact that "just do something" isn't the answer as there are already 20,000 gun laws being ignored.

Maybe the answer lies somewhere other than trying to manage human behavior by restricting inanimate objects.

It is indisputable that making the national maximum speed limit 35 mph would save thousands of lives but would you recommend it?

Maybe strictly enforcing the existing 20,000 laws is more practical than "just do something".


Thanks

 

Life in prison if you use a gun in the commission of a crime. Death penalty if you kill someone during said crime.

 

Admit that I made a mistake? Of course. That's what grownups do. I don't need to be a mind reader to know her true motivation. All gun control is incremental until the ultimate goal is attained - no guns in private hands.

You didn't answer my question, however: do you agree with her when she says "Mr. And Mrs. America turn em all in..." ??

 

And create a thriving black market for same.

No problem there except for in-family gifting.

In other words, give the estranged husband of a battered woman ten whole days to track her down and kill her after he's violated the worthless restraining order.

Yeah. No. Chicago.

Somehow I doubt that.

Why would any rational person want a law that will do absolute nothing except benefit the bad guys?

 

The point of the other issue comment is that we are extremely erratic in what we give priorities to- and often they go to the lesser rather than the greater issues.

 

So you "know" what she wants based on a fantasy that comes from what exactly>
'
Rushbo? The NRA?

Clearly not reality

 

Responses in red

 

And that's 1) only applicable when they are federalized 2) not any grant to restrict their privately held arms in their capacity as private citizens or of the populace not in the militia.
It also does not override an amendment in case of conflict, the amendment most recent takes precedence. So if art 1 sec 8 and 2a butt heads, 2a wins.
Not to mention that the 2a right has nothing to do with membership in a militia.

 

The NRA has not taken a position on Fineslime, so no. And I don't listen to "Rushbo," so no. I answered your questions now will you please answer mine.

 

You're making claims to things not in evidence.

In one paragraph the framers are indeed talking about what the militia would be called up for (to put down the kind of insurrection you claim a militia would engage in being one of those uses). The second describes what a militia would look like and how it would be organized.

And the 2A clearly DOES tell us that the "Well regulated militia" is why we would need arms

Unlike your claims...those words are actually THERE

 

Please use the standard quotation protocol - your embedded red marks make responding very difficult.

I don't need to check my dad for the commemorative custom Sig getting him for xmas this year. The angry husband will already be armed. He violated the restraining order, why will he suddenly obey your silly gun law? The prevalence of guns in Chicago is because of the prevalence of thugs. Of course I want to do something about the prevalence of violence in this country - I think I've already made that quite clear: lock up the thugs.

 

They HAVE taken a position on assault weapons though...haven't they?