BUT name ONE additional gun law that would have prohibited Newton? After all.....he STOLE a gun from a legal gun owner and killed her. Then he proceeded in to a GUN FREE ZONE (an elementary school) and began shooting kids. Now....count the gun laws he BROKE....and then tell us which additional gun law would have prevented it. We'll wait.....
Remember from history that one of the first things Adolf Hitler did when he got into power was to have the guns registered. That way, he knew who had them, who to take them away from, and in the process he also gathered names so he knew exactly where the Jews where and if they were armed or not. Americans have a general distrust of government......it goes all the way back to our forefathers.....and that's why they built into our Constitution certain protections. Super smart Forefathers, we had!
I'm with you on the voluntary stuff, but not the confiscation, even temporary, without a conviction for an actual crime. Taking away someone's means of self-defense without proving they have forfeited their right by violating someone else's is an immoral act of aggression. Nothing is proven without due process and due process includes all the bells and whistles of a real trial, not some "judge" handing down an order. I am also opposed to CCW permits being required. You do not need anyone's permission to exercise your natural rights. Does that make me a "gun nut"? It's a rights issue, not a gun issue. Other people's fears are their own problem. Maybe they should talk to their therapist instead of demanding that others bow to their irrational demands. At this time several states "allow" constitutional carry, meaning no permit is required for open or concealed carry. They do not have any more gun crime problems than the states that demand that you get their permission to exercise your rights.
Obviously a person intent on breaking the law is unlikely to be stopped in some cases so anecdotal cases are not appropriate to a general discussion. There are some relevant issues that can be addressed that would reduce firearms violence though. For example, as I recall, in a single year about 80,000 individuals attempted to purchase firearms though FFL's in one year where the FBI NCIS database blocked the purchase but less than 100 of them were prosectuted for their attempt to violate the law. The reason is simple as the FFL's do not have a means of notifying the police to immediately respond to the attempted illegal purchase of the firearm nor does this seem to be a priority for law enforcement. This is about enforcing existing law that isn't beind done by law enforcement nor is there an easily means for the FFL to report the incident. We can fundamentally assume that most of these 80,000 individuals later purchased firearms from private citizens that don't have access to the FBI NCIS database so we do need a law that would allow a private party to access the FBI NCIS database (not a mandate that criminals would ignore anyway) and provide a means of reporting online when a person is prohibited to police based upon the FBI database. We can further assume that preventing 80,000 people annually from illegally purchasing a firearm by prosecuting them, which we're not doing, would result in fewer firearms related crimes. So it is a combination of both a new law authorizing private online access to the FBI NCIS database and actually enforcing the existing laws would significantly reduce firearms related crimes. Additionally we could also impose a federal law that anyone carrying a firearm in public, whether concealed or not, have a "license" to do so and that the firearm to be carried must be "registered" on the license. This is basically the imposition of the same CCW requirements (with the addition of the registration of the firearm) that does not violate our 2nd Amendment Rights. For limited purposes such as hunting the hunting license can provide the "license" and "registration" requirements during hunting seasons. Simply requiring individuals to have a "license and registered firearm" when carrying in public would allow law enforcement more authority to deal with firearms in public which is not being done today. This does not violate either the letter or intent of the 2nd Amendment and does address the issue of "public safety" that the government has a role and responsibility to pragmatically ensure. So there are "laws" that would reduce overall firearms violence without violating our 2nd Amendment rights but might not accomplish that in specific anecdotal cases where a person is intent upon violating the law.
The belief that the Nazis implemented gun control in Germany is a myth propogated by the "gun-nuts" of America. http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcnazimyth.html
A federal CCW and gun licensing requirement is unconstitutional without even considering the second amendment.
I seem to recall that after Hitler got into power and cemented his position, he made the Jews the target of hate. He them proclaimed that Jews could not own guns. See how easy it is to round up unarmed people?
The gun control law existed before Hitler came to power and existed for everyone and not just the Jews. The German gun control laws had nothing to do with Hitler's hatred of Jews or the Holocaust.
Currently CCW's are issued by the State and not the Federal government and I didn't advocate changing that. What I did advocate was that a CCW issued by one State should be recognized as valid in all States under the Full Faith and Credit Clause of the US Constitution just like a drivers license aand birth certificate are (and like all marriage certificates are supposed to be). Having the Federal government mandate a State issued CCW for firearms carried in public is no different than the Federal government requiring a corporation to be incorporated under State law. There is nothing in the Constitution that would imply this would be unconstitutional including the 2nd Amendment as the State is issuing the CCW, not the Federal government. Of course the Federal government can't literally mandate State laws but it can withhold federal funding from States if a State doesn't choose to comply. We can call it legal (and Constitutional) blackmail but the Federal government does have that authority. The Federal government can also mandate gun control laws and regulations on BLM and Federals land where it does have authority. Once again though the government has "power" but that power should be used wisely based upon compelling arguments that support pragmatic necessity to limit our Freedom the Exercise our 2nd Amendment Rights and any such limitations should be to the least extent possible in providing the protections of the Rights of other Persons. My problem with "gun control laws" is that in many cases they are not supported by compelling arguments such as the "assault weapons bans" that make no sense at all. In some states passing "assault weapons bans" I believe it's actually easier to own a fully automatic machine gun than it will be to own a semi-automatic so-called "assault" weapon. Some of the criteria for an "assault weapon" is really absurd such as can a bayonet be attached. When was the last time someone was attacked with a bayonet on the end of a rifle in the United States? It is a stupid criteria. LOL
They didn't even call it gun control back then. Gun control is a relatively new term. Call it what you will, Hitler used those laws to confiscate the guns from the Jews. Without the means to defend themselves, they were easily loaded up on cattle cars and sent to their deaths. The Jews complied with the law, as good citizens should, but it didn't save them much in the end. The ability to call for registration gives governments the ability to confiscate. Registration of any item is mandatory when the State owns that item, that way they can track what they own. A person should not be forced into registering private property. Registration of a firearm violates the 4th and 5th Amendments as well as the 2nd A. Registration always leads to confiscation. http://personalliberty.com/2013/12/...coming-for-guns-that-hold-more-than-5-rounds/ Any time a Right can be legislated, it is no longer a Right. so that BS line about no one is coming for your guns is a lie, that registration doesn't lead to confiscation is a lie. Governments always look to over-power a person's Individual Rights through legislation. This why the 2nd A was put into place.
You can call it legal blackmail, I just call it blackmail and, no, they do not have the authority, just the power and they didn't get that from the constitution. I believe that's called "usurpation". If your going to call something "constitutional", you should provide a reference to the exact clause in the document that grants the power. As long states have CCW permits, I agree that they should be valid in all fifty states just like driver's licenses. The rest of your ideas would require constitutional amendments.
Allowing private individuals access to the FBI NCIS database does not require a Constitutional Amendment. (one of my proposals) Providing a means for a private individual to report to law enforcement the attempted illegal purchase of a firearm by someone that would violate a court order or of the attempted sale of a stolen firearm does not require a Constitutional Amendment. (one of my proposals and the federal government can enforce orders of the court related to firearms ownership) Withholding of federal funds being provided to the States under other provisions of the US Constitution does not require a Constitutional Amendment. (not one of my proposals per se but certianly Constitutional) Article I Section 8 establishes that the federal government has legislative authority over all federal lands and it could impose licensing and firearm registration legislation addressing persons in possession of firearms on federal lands. (not one of my proposals but certainly "Constitutional" and the US government could actually require a "federal" license as well as the registration of all firearms owned by the person if they want to carry any firearm on federal land) The States can most certainly address "public safety" issues under the US Constitution and because the carrying of a firearm in public presents a potential public safety issue the requirement that any person carrying a firearm in public must have a license, regardless of whether they carry it concealed or not, as well as a requirement that the firearm to be carried is registered is certainly Constitutional. (my proposal but it excludes individuals that only possess firearms on "private" property such as in their home as that doesn't represent a "public safety" issue) I have made no unconstitutional proposals.
Yeah I remember that one from a previous post. OK. What is stopping a private individual from reporting an illegal attempted purchase right now? The contact info for the local police, FBI, ATF, etc. is out there. People have phones and email. Snail mail still works too (usually) if you want to wait that long. Or just drive over to the sheriff's office and tell him. There are plenty of means readily available. What other means needs to be provided? I don't know of any funds being provided to the states under any provisions of the constitution. I don't see how extending this unconstitutional practice (or selectively not) can be constitutional. The only legally-held "federal" lands are the ones that actually have federal installations on them. But you are be technically correct here. I have no problem with not taking a gun into a federal court house or onto a military base. What I carry on my person is not a "public safety" issue and it's no one's business what the make, model, serial number are if I haven't committed a crime. The states are not exempt from "shall not be infringed". You can thank the fourteenth amendment for that. In your opinion.
It's NICS not NCIS (Think Gibbs or Tony here ) and nope, it doesn't require a constitutional amendment, because NICS is for FFL holders to instantly check backgrounds through the FBI for ineligibility to purchase weapons. They only gives a yea or nay...not any reportable CHRI history to FFL holders. Even if the laws were changed to allow individuals outside of FFL holders to do the instant background check (NICS), if all you got was a yea or nay on the purchase....just what would you report to law enforcement? NICS only checks the eligibility of a purchaser to buy a weapon and not whether or not a weapon is stolen. Checking for a stolen weapon requires a NCIC check available to criminal justice agencies only and dissemination of information from NCIC by those privileged to read it carries severe penalties. NCIS and NCIC from the CJIS are not required by any law. It is voluntary participation by a criminal justice agency that requires adherence to very strict guidelines. I don't know what funds you would withhold Currently "The law - probably the biggest legislative achievement for conservatives in what was otherwise a year dominated by President Obama’s agenda - says national parks will be governed by the same rules as the states in which they are located. That means about 370 of the country’s 392 National Park Service properties will permit visitors to carry firearms." http://www.washingtontimes.com/news...will-open-gates-to-holders-of-conce/?page=all I don't think there are any rulings from federal courts as of yet about "any person carrying a firearm in public must have a license, regardless of whether they carry it concealed or not, as well as a requirement that the firearm to be carried is registered is certainly Constitutional" You have a source that says so? The jury is still out
Our Second Amendment clearly enumerates what is necessary to the security of our free States; why are we not holding the chief magistrates of the several States accountable, as commanders in chief of their State militias.
Maybe we should blame the chief magistrates of the several States as commanders in chief of their State militias.
even more sesquipedalian argument.............You cannot even define this. Don't bother replying, Mr Palos...you have no idea what the hell you're talking about. - - - Updated - - - see last post.................^^^^
What a coincidence; you also tend to resort to the most fallacies as well. I believe understanding our topics should be a prerequisite to inspiring any confidence in our sincerity.
Daniel, Daniel, Daniel....................I have nothing more sincere to say to you than this.............. you don't even understand what you are copying and pasting. A year on this thread and it is always the same with you. Now I'm going to wait for your insult.......
Non sequiturs are usually considered fallacies. Either you have a valid argument or you merely advance fallacy for your Cause. Our Second Amendment clearly enumerates what is necessary to the security of our free States; why are we not holding the chief magistrates of the several States accountable, as commanders in chief of their State militias.
even more babble back to ignore you have failed to produce on iota of common sense. You fail because you don't back up with you say except to post more irrelevant (*)(*)(*)(*). You have become irrelevant, that is why no one engages you any more. We know every time what to expect from you and can quote you from memory with all five of your responses.
