Those who sell guns to criminals should not be held responsible for crimes committed

Would you pay $40 to sell a gun to your brother or best friend?

 

Then how do we create a basis for the gun control argument? What is the starting point? From what I have read here in the Gun Control Forum everyone is in favor of some form of gun control. Unless each person presenting an argument explains their exact position on guns/arms/weapons and gun control there will continue to be confusion. What level of gun control are you personally in favor of?

 

Perhaps whatever level cannot be misappropriated, weaponized, abused by bureaucratic individuals who are not accountable for their own actions, or potentially to lead to the death of innocent individuals due to their facing undue legal burdens that simply cannot be met in a timely and expedient manner?

 

If we don't all agree upon the meaning of the terms of under debate, it's not a worthwhile discussion. I'm a mathematician; that makes me a trained pedant. In math, we always define terms first to avoid talking past one another.

In general, I can only support "gun control" that's Constitutional, effective, enforceable, would be enforced and is necessary. If you have a question about my position on an existing law or proposed legislation, you can get an good idea of my position on it using those requirements as a filter. Also generally I'm opposed to giving the federal government any more power than is defined by the Constitution.

With regards to Constitutionality, I feel that the Second Amendment protects an individual right that is independent of the Second Amendment (Cruikshank) and protects "all firearms" (Caetano) "in common use for lawful purposes" (Heller) or "having a reasonable relationship to the preservation and efficiency of a well-regulated militia" (Miller), and extends those protections against the states and lower governments (McDonald).

 

So you agree in the Constitutionality of Heller and McDonald? If the SCOTUS decided to reverse those decisions would you also then agree with that ruling?

 

It depends upon what the overturning resulted in (a change to Heller could remove any power granted to anyone to restrict firearms) , but based on the arguments that the majority held in those decisions it would be hard to accept a new, reversed interpretation. Accepting the decision isn't the same as complying with the laws upheld. I don't believe that NFA 1934 is constitutional at all, but I'm not slapping a rifle stock or vertical grip on an AR pistol until the tax stamp comes through. While the government may not have the enumerated power to enforce those laws, they certainly possess a very real power to do so.

 

Passing on a sale you don’t feel comfortable doing won’t keep money from your pocket long. I have never advertised a gun that I didn’t get multiple potential buyers responding. And, if I was desperate, there are plenty of FFL buyers about.

 

OK, let's take it to the extreme. Suppose a 2A challenge makes it to the SCOTUS and a ruling is made that the 2A is about a well regulated militia and not private ownership. Only those who belong to that well regulated militia can own guns. Is that Constitutional? Do you support it even if you don't agree?

 

No, but I know far better than the NICS the histories of those close to me. Among close aquaintances I have one I wouldn’t shoot, hunt, with or sell a gun to and that person knows my opinion of them regarding their attention to responsibility with anything, much less guns.

 

No, I don't believe it's Constitutional, and no, I don't agree with it.

Edit: SCOTUS support is a necessary but not sufficient condition. US v Korematsu was decided in favor of the government, but there is no reading of the Constitution by a reasonable person that could support that decision. That's a example of where politics overrode the Constitution.

 

Oh please, you could warn the boss, call the police, or the person could change their mind, that has nothing at all to do with infringing upon the rights of millions because guns scare you...

 

Do you believe the same about selling a car to an illegal alien or convicted drunk driver? Cars aren't Constitutionally protected, guns are. Its a commodity, and it needs to be treated as all other commodities, not set apart, particularly because its Constitutionally protected...

 

Does this hypothetical ruling require the government to set up militias that people can join if they want to?

Does this hypothetical ruling make it clear that militiamen have the right to own M-16s, grenades and grenade launchers, and shoulder-fired anti-tank bazookas, and the right to keep these arms in their own homes?

Or does this hypothetical ruling create a situation where the Second Amendment doesn't apply to anyone at all?

---

A ruling that creates a situation where the Second Amendment effectively does not exist, is clearly wrong and should never be accepted.

But if the Supreme Court wants to start handing out bazookas, I'm listening.

 

If you’re a mathematician, then you should be in favor of the CDC being able to do studies and accumulate more facts befire any decisions are made.
Math people like scientists want reliable evidence. Is it reliable if it’s from a side that represents gun manufacturers ? Nope.
If you’re a math person then you respect the institutional foundations from which truth is derived...our institutes of higher learning and non profit research facilities.

If you’re a math person you’d be less apt to make quotes out of context, and post an entire reference and let the facts speak for themselves.

 

CDC accumulates data continuously, and they've conducted studies on gun violence. The latest was published in 2013. I've given you those links before. Why should it be the CDC conducting studies with regards to gun control when the DOJ has legal and crime experts that the CDC does not? The CDC is incapable of determining the Constitutionality of any proposed laws.

One study published by the CDC was in 2003, a metastudy of 51 other studies on gun control. Even with all of those studies they weren't able to provide definitive solutions.

Have I ever quoted the NRA or NSSF with regards to evidence?

I guess that's why I quote the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, the debate between the Federalists and Anti-federalists, the Supreme Court, the Department of Justice, etc. My mathematics and statistics background enables me to delve deep into studies like Kellermann's 1993 study on guns in the home or claims that schools shootings increased because the AWB went away.

It's why I take affront at statements like "The AR-15 is a weapon of war", "it was only designed to kill lots of people in a short time" "common sense gun control" from people who don't know the first thing about the Constitution, SCOTUS decisions, firearms or existing/previous law.

 

As in math, one study does not a valid conclusion make. My primary point is, institutions that support scientific research should be allowed and promoted to do many more studies in this area,
https://www.npr.org/sections/health...-still-limits-health-research-on-gun-violence

That’s not happening. You can pick and choose all the individual options and separate research you want, but only the scientific approach and institutional discovery by all, as in climate changes , the economy and all science in general, is the most reliable.
Firearms regulation IS behavioral science area and should be treated like a any science in discovery...it has not been.



Using the constitution as a rational for an opinion ? The constitution is a political document and has been subject to interpretation many times over.

The 2a is not absolute and is subject to regulation. Therefore, it’s in our hands, not the constitution alone.

 

The CDC is free to study the subject of firearms to whatever extent it wishes. But it absolutely may not advocate for or promote firearm-related restrictions. It is that simple.

 

No it isn’t. Because all research is stymied by lack if funding.ANY results would be an implied advocate one way or another,
https://www.npr.org/sections/health...-still-limits-health-research-on-gun-violence

 

Nor has anyone claimed the scope of the second amendment is absolute. But not absolute does not amount to being next to nonexistent.

 

From your own citation:

The authorization doesn't explicitly forbid research; rather, it says that no funds may be used "to advocate or promote gun control."

That alone undermines the entire position being presented on the part of yourself.

 

One study that review 51 other studies. Why did you omit that point?

This view of law is quite different than what the Constitution supports. We don't base laws purely on science, and nor should we. If we could simply ignore the Bill of Rights to pass laws that science says would make us safer, then no one could own a gun, or a knife, or any heavy hand tool, and no one could have free speech, or any protections at all from government search and seizure, or any form of due process at all.

I'm using the Constitution in support of making laws. That's its primary purpose. To ignore the Constitution, the Bill of Rights and subsequent SCOTUS decision is ludicrous. I thought you were a lawyer.

Yes, it's turned out to be subject to regulation. Are there any limits on the power of the government to regulate firearms?

 

They have no interest in the truth - they merely seek to spread the Big Lie.

 

Here's a question I always ask of GCAs when the topic of CDC research comes up, and I've yet to receive an actual answer: in your wildest dreams, if the CDC had unfettered power to research gun violence, what would you hope that they would find?

Follow on question: what would you expect to happen with those findings?

 

Then they will be hunted down, rebuked, and their dishonesty revealed.

 

The simple statistical studies available to anyone have long been available. States with stronger gun laws have less gun violence. . This is consistent,
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2013/03/07/gun-violence-study-chicago/1969227/