Is there now justifiable hope of enacting sensible gun law?

About drunk driving deaths? You don't think making it harder to get drunk would make a difference?
Or- is that kind of dead somehow less releveant?

 

Let me put it this way......If Adam Lanza's bitch mother had had him and her guns taken away from her, he would have been able to get the help he needed for his mental problems, he wouldn't have been able to get ahold of all the weapons she left just sitting around their house, and all the kids that he ended up shooting at Sandy Hook would still be alive. His mother is far more responsible for their deaths than he is. SHE knew her son was mentally unstable and intentionally refused to get him help. SHE left her guns where her mentally unstable son could get them. SHE is the reason the kids at Sandy Hook died, because SHE was an unfit parent, as well as a unfit gun owner.

 

If you mean to deny non felon citizens of semi-automatic firearms, then no. If you mean greater background checks, then yes.

 

You think that someone would randomly phone people up to ask if they had a gun in their house just so that he can go and steal it?

 

Longer waiting times for a start

The Constitution has been amended many times

 

How about....

NO!!!!

Sorry, but the only sensible gun laws are NO gun laws.

Happy now?

 

Hey Natty, let me propose a hypothetical: Let's say you have your ideal world of "sensible" gun laws and almost no one has them. However, there is this unknown Al Franken/Charles Manson type that lives down the street. But, seeing as he cannot get a gun, you and your family are totally safe, right? My point here is that this person is not dangerous just because he might have a gun, but because he will be inclined to break many of our laws and won't need a gun to do it.

There are, literally, tens of thousands of laws in this country regarding the sale, storage, handling, and use of firearms. Why is it that none of them meets the requirement for your "sensible" gun laws?

Admit it, the Left's only "sensible" gun law is to see that no one has them; a ban. How did the ban on alcohol go in 1920? How is the ban on meth, heroin, cocaine, and marijuana going today? The reality is that it is impossible to keep proscribed things out of the hands of people that want them if the technology is low enough and the profits are high enough. Laws are only obeyed by the law-abiding. Criminals, by definition, do not obey laws. Someone that is willing to use a gun to commit murder will hardly stop at a law forbidding him to purchase an illegal, smuggled gun.

 

Is it really too difficult to believe such a concept?

 

Such does not actually answer the question. Waiting periods are not the same thing as a background check. Try again at providing an actual answer. Exactly what will these "more comprehensive background checks" look for in order to determine if someone is legally able to own a firearm? Do not throw the term out for consideration unless it ca be explained and defined in a coherent manner.

Which ultimately means nothing in the discussion. There are not enough states to support the type of amending that is being proposed by yourself There is no political appetite in the united to amend the constitution for the purpose of empowering the federal government to restrict firearms to whatever degree it wishes.

 

Comprehensive back ground checks combined WITH a mandatory waiting period would work in most instances...

Of course you don't care about mass shootings or people with mental problems having guns or people with histories of domestic abuse having guns so...

 

Such an hysterical fear is no more warranted that fantasizing that Rightist gun fanciers demand that everyone, including homicidal maniacs, must be given free access to firearms of all types without restriction. Sensible folks do not scare themselves with such ludicrous notions, but feel that our society is capable of reducing, through legislative safeguards, the astronomical rate of firearm deaths that dwarfs the occurrence in all other advanced nations.

Yes, there are those who insist, "No! We can't! We are powerless!", but most Americans do not agree with the defeatists.

Guns, undoubtedly have a mystique for some, and many fancy the idea of there being no restrictions regarding who can amass unlimited arsenals of any type of firearms.

While deaths by firearms in the US leads that of all advanced nations by far, states vary considerably - Hawaii, Massachusetts, New York, Connecticut, Rhode Island, New Jersey at the low end of the spectrum and Alaska, Louisiana, Alabama, Mississippi, Wyoming, and Montana the highest. (2013 statistics)

While not establishing a direct correspondence, the states with the highest rate of gun fatalities have the most permissive laws.

Among those with the strictest are Massachusetts, New York, Connecticut, Hawaii, Rhode Island, New Jersey.

State Rate

Alabama 17.79

Alaska 19.59

Arizona 14.20

Arkansas 16.93

California 7.89

Colorado 11.75

Connecticut 4.48

Delaware 10.80

Florida 12.49

Georgia 12.63

Hawaii 2.71

Idaho 14.08

Illinois 8.67

Indiana 13.04

Iowa 8.19

Kansas 11.44

Kentucky 14.15

Louisiana 19.15

Maine 11.89

Maryland 9.75

Massachusetts 3.18

Michigan 12.03

Minnesota 7.88

Mississippi 17.55

Missouri 14.56

Montana 16.94

Nebraska 8.99

Nevada 14.16

New Hampshire 7.03

New Jersey 5.69

New Mexico 15.63

New York 4.39

North Carolina 12.42

North Dakota 11.89

Ohio 11.14

Oklahoma 16.41

Oregon 11.76

Pennsylvania 11.36

Rhode Island 5.33

South Carolina 15.60

South Dakota 9.47

Tennessee 15.86

Texas 10.50

Utah 11.69

Vermont 10.37

Virginia 10.46

Washington 9.07

West Virginia 15.10

Wisconsin 9.93

Wyoming 17.51

http://www.vpc.org/fact-sheets/state-firearm-death-rates-ranked-by-rate-2013/

Does the empirical reality confirm that the states that have taken steps to reduce the level of gun carnage achieve that via laws that are simply "stricter"? No, only laws that are enforced and can be shown to contribute to lowering the rate of gun deaths are justified.

On the other hand, we know that doing nothing, as some advocate, insures the perpetuation of the exceptionally high level of human slaughter via firearms in America.

 

I don’t underestimate the creativity of the thieves. I believe it best to keep certain things close to the vest. Just like posting your vacation whereabouts on social media. Save all that until you get home.

I was listening to a 2 meter repeater (ham radio) and heard a friend of my son. He was talking to a guy telling him he was mobile and on his way to Phoenix from so cal. I called him on his cell to let him know that he just told everyone listening 1, you’re not home, 2, you’re not going to be home soon, 3 your call sign. A google search of a ham callsign will reveal the operators mailing address, which is your home.

 

Yes, definitely. You think that someone is going to waste his time phoning around random houses in the hope that one of them, being you, will say that you have a gun of unknown make just so that he has found a target to rob you of your gun without even knowing where it is and risking his life in searching for it.

 

Your scenario does not back up your argument. It backs up my argument. You telling an unknown caller that you have not got a gun to defend your home increases the chances of your house being the chosen target for him to rob. Who would be chosen to rob: a house that the burglar thinks is not defended or the house the burglar thinks is defended?

 

The problem is that keeping anyone who ever had some mental problem from getting a firearm is anything but a modest proposal. We're talking 1/3 to 1/2 of the population. And make no mistake, this is really why the anti-gun zealots push for mental medical background checks.
If you are talking about a person deemed and probably committed through due process of being critically mentally unstable and prone to violence, I have no problem.

 

Ignoring both the anti-gun zealots and the gun zealots, do you have any suggestions of legislative measures the the US might take to reduce the persistent, exceptionally high rate of firearm deaths in the US, or do you believe that we must resign ourselves to its continuance?

 

Seems pretty obvious to me.

 

And so, you cannot suggest a regulation to the effect you describe that complies with the constitution. Thank you.

So... when do you start your effort to amendment the 2nd?

 

My state I am not allowed to defend property with deadly force. And even if I was, I could only do so while I was there. Which is less than 50% of the time.

 

Nice non-seq you have there.
There is no rational reason to restrict the lawful exercise of a right when said restriction does not provide its intended effect.

 

Said no rational, reasoned person, ever.

 

While we're at it, protests need to be banned too. The left has shown they can't protest with rioting and looting.

F the bill of rights!

 

On what grounds?

Locked in a safe?

 

Or to break into the house to steal other things.
What kind of fool admits to a random stranger he has no means to defend himself or his home?

 

Wholly unnecessary.

Get busy!