How does “Common sense gun control” prevent mass shootings?

Discussion in 'Gun Control' started by TOG 6, Jun 12, 2019.

  1. vman12

    vman12 Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 25, 2015
    Messages:
    53,992
    Likes Received:
    34,779
    Trophy Points:
    113
    How many people have waiting periods killed?

    Um, in your professional opinion, do people who have heat of the moment desires to kill someone stop and go buy a gun, or do they just kill them with whatever is at hand?
     
    Ddyad likes this.
  2. Ddyad

    Ddyad Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 17, 2015
    Messages:
    33,432
    Likes Received:
    12,124
    Trophy Points:
    113
    The "Progressive Era" was also the Totalitarian Era.
    Diagnosis: communicable brain cancer.
     
  3. ibobbrob

    ibobbrob Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 5, 2017
    Messages:
    12,744
    Likes Received:
    3,134
    Trophy Points:
    113
    And thus, the killing continues.
     
  4. TOG 6

    TOG 6 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 23, 2015
    Messages:
    32,512
    Likes Received:
    9,826
    Trophy Points:
    113
    It continues because people like yourself aren't willing to address the actual issues; instead you use dead bodies as a means to needlessly and uselessly restrict the rights of the law abiding.
     
  5. gfm7175

    gfm7175 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 2, 2018
    Messages:
    1,116
    Likes Received:
    234
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Gender:
    Male
    Random number. Even if true, so?

    The 2nd Amendment right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. The Constitution is quite clear about this...

    You will have to pry my guns/gun accessories from my cold dead hands if you want them.

    So? We have people in Congress bought and paid for by a lot of things...

    It won't. No need to worry about that...
     
  6. gfm7175

    gfm7175 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 2, 2018
    Messages:
    1,116
    Likes Received:
    234
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Gender:
    Male
    That wouldn't be very practical.
     
  7. ibobbrob

    ibobbrob Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 5, 2017
    Messages:
    12,744
    Likes Received:
    3,134
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Ah knows dat. The boys aren't being practical either, so what the hell.
     
  8. BryanVa

    BryanVa Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2015
    Messages:
    381
    Likes Received:
    297
    Trophy Points:
    63

    Let me ask you first about something you said in post 261. I am curious to know what you mean by saying “you have too much already.”

    Too much what?

    It can be fine to start a discussion with the public policy questions behind proposed legislation—A. is there a problem that needs to be addressed, and B. does the proposed law effectively address it.

    But I suspect you and I can agree that no matter how bad you believe a problem to be, the problem never justifies an unconstitutional response. The end cannot justify the means, and the Constitution simply limits the tools you have available to address the problems you see. So a necessary question to answer is whether any legislation—regardless of how effective it might (or might not) be in solving the problem you want to address—is constitutional in your opinion. And that necessarily involves your opinion of the Second Amendment. So let me ask it this way…

    If you believe the 2nd Amendment is being wrongly interpreted to protect something it was never intended to recognize, then tell me.

    If you believe the 2nd Amendment is correctly interpreted but needs to be repealed, then tell me so.

    If you believe it is being correctly interpreted and is not in need of repeal, but you have legislation you think would be effective AND constitutional, then what legislation would you offer for us to consider?

    I do not believe owner registration and fingerprinting is an effective answer to the problem you want to address—keeping firearms out of the wrong hands. You cannot rationally expect that the “wrong handed people”—felons, etc., will willingly register their firearm ownership. More to the point, you cannot ever force them to do so. The very people you want to prevent having guns are constitutionally immune from the registration and fingerprinting requirements. You cannot force a felon, for example, to register his gun because to do so would be a violation of his 5th Amendment right against compelled self-incrimination. He is immune from your registration and/or fingerprinting requirements.

    Words matter when writing legislation. If this is your proposal, then do you have a way to address the constitutionally mandated loophole that allows the very people you want to deny access to firearms from safely thumbing their nose at your registration and/or fingerprinting requirements?
     
  9. BryanVa

    BryanVa Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2015
    Messages:
    381
    Likes Received:
    297
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Sorry, ignore the top quote in my last post. It's been a while since I have posted here and that got added by mistake....I'm not asking you to be any one else's press secretary.....
     
  10. Reality

    Reality Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 12, 2014
    Messages:
    11,997
    Likes Received:
    2,969
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Its actually going down, along with all violent crime but hey you do you.

    Sure you don't, which is why you want a registry which is used as a precursor to confiscation. Right now we have more than 20k laws governing firearms.

    They won't. So your argument could best be summed up as "those who have nothing to hide have nothing to fear"?

    Listen carefully: No.
     
  11. ibobbrob

    ibobbrob Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 5, 2017
    Messages:
    12,744
    Likes Received:
    3,134
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Does the constitution say there should be no regulations?
    You register a car, yes? You register for social security, yes? You can't have it all ways. This is a silly conversation because the current ideas are easy for you.
     
    Last edited: Jul 31, 2019
  12. ibobbrob

    ibobbrob Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 5, 2017
    Messages:
    12,744
    Likes Received:
    3,134
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Of course, of course
     
  13. Reality

    Reality Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 12, 2014
    Messages:
    11,997
    Likes Received:
    2,969
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Operating a motor vehicle: Privilege. Social security: You must register for as it is paid out by the government, you can't receive it otherwise. Also not mandatory to receive.
    Keeping and bearing arms: An enumerated individual right which particularly shall not be infringed.
     
  14. ibobbrob

    ibobbrob Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 5, 2017
    Messages:
    12,744
    Likes Received:
    3,134
    Trophy Points:
    113
    If this gun violence continues, it will be "infringed"
     
  15. Xenamnes

    Xenamnes Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2015
    Messages:
    20,982
    Likes Received:
    6,086
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Because the countless thousands of firearm-related restrictions current in place are ultimately proving to be both useless, and failures, correct? The current restrictions are not good enough, so there must be more firearm-related restrictions to make the current ones work as intended?
     
  16. Reality

    Reality Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 12, 2014
    Messages:
    11,997
    Likes Received:
    2,969
    Trophy Points:
    113
    So "or else" then?

    And we're back to bold talk
     
  17. perdidochas

    perdidochas Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2008
    Messages:
    27,227
    Likes Received:
    4,286
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    It's not true, plain and simple. It's a falsehood, and I don't understand why you don't agree with basic facts. I thought you liberals wanted facts and data.

    Here's what the FBI says about the last part of 2018:

    https://www.fbi.gov/news/stories/2018-preliminary-semiannual-uniform-crime-report-released-022519
    https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2018/preliminary-report/home

    Simply speaking crime is down in real life, not in your fervid imagination, where for some reason, you think things are worse than they were.
     
    Last edited: Jul 31, 2019
  18. TOG 6

    TOG 6 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 23, 2015
    Messages:
    32,512
    Likes Received:
    9,826
    Trophy Points:
    113
    The Constitution says there shall be no infringements -- that is, unnecessary, ineffective and useless restrictions on the exercise of the right.
    Registration is unnecessary, ineffective and useless - thus, an infringement.
     
  19. TOG 6

    TOG 6 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 23, 2015
    Messages:
    32,512
    Likes Received:
    9,826
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Molon Labe.
     
  20. BryanVa

    BryanVa Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2015
    Messages:
    381
    Likes Received:
    297
    Trophy Points:
    63
    No. Nether the Constitution nor I have said “there should be no regulations.”

    Yes, you register a car and you register to receive social security. Where in the Constitution does it say the right to drive a car shall not be infringed, or the right to receive social security shall not be infringed? They are not listed because they are privileges controlled by the government rather than rights specifically protected against actions of the government. There is no question that registration can be enforced against a privilege which the government has the total power to grant or deny as opposed to a right of the people specifically protected by the Constitution against governmental infringement.

    Dress it up however you like, the ultimate effect of a registration system involving protected rights is to criminalize what is the free and peaceful exercise of a constitutional right. That is, if you don’t tell big brother first, then big brother can make it a crime for you to exercise a right guaranteed to you by the Constitution. I personally think its bad public policy to punish someone who is otherwise peacefully exercising a constitutional right.

    Having said that, I agree registration and permits are not unknown in our constitutional system. I know registration and permits have been deemed necessary and constitutional when dealing with the right of assembly and petition in public venues controlled by the government. But this is not because the right permits this registration, rather, it is the venue itself which requires it. In other words, freedom of assembly and petition—because they are constitutional rights—are not themselves subject to prior registration and permits. But when the right is sought to be exercised in a government controlled public venue then notice to the government of the intent to use that venue is constitutional. Government controls the venue, and registration/permit systems are required to ensure the equal protection right of equal access to use that venue for the exercise of your rights of speech and assembly.

    Beyond this specific circumstance, however, registration and permits are universally seen as unconstitutional prior restraints—and this is where I see registration proponents telling Dorothy to pay no attention to that Constitution behind the curtain. Registration for public venue protests is a necessary requirement because the government is charged with helping ensure the right can be freely and safely exercised at that venue. In contrast, notice to the government is not necessary for me to have a safe venue or to ensure an adequate supply of guns when I go to the gun store. Firearm registration is therefore not about a need for governmental involvement to help me freely exercise a right, it instead becomes a direct prior restraint on my free exercise of that right. Now see, for example, how SCOTUS deals with prior restraints like this (here involving a local ordinance that required door to door solicitors to obtain a government permit first—as challenged by a religious organization):

    If the exercise of the rights of free speech and free assembly cannot be made a crime, we do not think this can be accomplished by the device of requiring previous registration as a condition for exercising them and making such a condition the foundation for restraining in advance their exercise and for imposing a penalty for violating such a restraining order. So long as no more is involved than exercise of the rights of free speech and free assembly, it is immune to such a restriction. If one who solicits support for the cause of labor may be required to register as a condition to the exercise of his right to make a public speech, so may he who seeks to rally support for any social, business, religious or political cause. We think a requirement that one must register before he undertakes to make a public speech to enlist support for a lawful movement is quite incompatible with the requirements of the First Amendment.Watchtower Bible & Tract Soc. of N. Y., Inc. v. Village of Stratton, 536 U.S. 150, 164 (2002). (Note: This opinion was written by the chief dissenter in Heller, Justice Stevens. Additionally, 2 other Heller dissenters, Ginsburg and Breyer, also joined this opinion….)

    So, if you want registration, then give me your answer when I quote this case to say:

    If the exercise of the right to keep and bear arms cannot be made a crime, we do not think this can be accomplished by the device of requiring previous registration as a condition for exercising them and making such a condition the foundation for restraining in advance their exercise and for imposing a penalty for violating such a restraining order. So long as no more is involved than exercise of the right to keep and bear arms, it is immune to such a restriction.”

    What is your justification for the prior restraint involved in registration of all guns? It may very well be that those who promote registration hate guns and feel that randomly hassling gun owners is a legitimate governmental interest. But if so, then they will never admit it. The public claim has been registration is necessary to deter possession by the dangerous undesirables (felons, etc.) This is the worthy end which is advanced as the justification of criminalizing the otherwise free exercise of a constitutional right.

    The problem I see is you have avoided addressing the gaping flaw in any registration/permitting/fingerprinting scheme. Felons and others who are already barred from having firearms are the ones you wish to deter and/or prevent possessing a firearm—and they are completely exempt from a registration scheme. The act of registering, obtaining a permit, and/or fingerprinting is a confession to unlawful firearm possession—which is already a crime. This is where your proposal runs afoul of the 5th Amendment right to be free from compelled self-incrimination. The very people you want to aim the law at are totally immune from complying with your proposal. By any definition your proposal would be ineffective. I also argue above why it should be unconstitutional generally.

    But it is your proposal. The question is, can you argue that your law would be effective AND constitutional. Your argument appears to be this: Registration is already required for certain unrelated privileges that are not protected by the Constitution, therefore we can just take actual enumerated rights that are protected against government infringement and force them into a similar registration scheme as a prerequisite to the free exercise of the protected right. I respectfully submit that merely restating your analogy is sufficient to refute it in light of the case law I cited above.
     
    Last edited: Aug 1, 2019
    trickyricky and Reality like this.
  21. Nonnie

    Nonnie Banned at Members Request Donor

    Joined:
    Dec 25, 2017
    Messages:
    5,611
    Likes Received:
    4,690
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    As Dr Arthur Evans, CEO of the American Psychological Association points out, the fact is that mental illness is not to blame for mass shootings, it's access to deadly weapons. Mental illness only accounts for 5%.

    As deadly weapons are restricted and regulated, incidents reduce.
     
  22. Xenamnes

    Xenamnes Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2015
    Messages:
    20,982
    Likes Received:
    6,086
    Trophy Points:
    113
    And exactly what can be done about such in the united states? All firearms are deadly weapons, but such is simply not a legal basis for attempting to restrict their legal access.
     
  23. TOG 6

    TOG 6 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 23, 2015
    Messages:
    32,512
    Likes Received:
    9,826
    Trophy Points:
    113
    The right to own and use firearms is protected by the constitution BECAUSE they are deadly weapons.
     

Share This Page