Any chance for a reasonable discussion about guns?

In reply to Toyman! :

In reply to Javelin : 

Let me start by saying I don't necessarily disagree with you.

My opinion is your wish runs afoul of the 10th Amendment. Nowhere in the Constitution does it state that the feds can institute gun control or require background checks for the purchase of weapons. This is how we end up with a 50-state patchwork. 

My other issue is the government sucks at everything it does. It is staffed by incompetents. Any system they implement won't work or will end up like the no-fly list. Mostly useless. 
 

You are right, but it doesn't mean that it can't work. Many of the laws that we live under are unconstitutional. But we still have them. The constitution doesn't prevent these laws from passing. But it functions more as a reset button if things get out of hand. Push too far, and those opposed can hit the constitutional reset button and wipe out the law, as well as other similar laws. That is exactly what happened with NY's concealed carry laws. They pushed too far, and the opposition smacked the reset button. Had they made the process of getting a CCW permit more agreeable to those opposed (yet still unconstitutional,) they would likely still have the law. I think a reasonable, well implemented universal background check law would stand a good chance of succeeding- assuming they get the buy in of everyone. But that is going to be really hard to do after so much effort has been spent to divide people on gun control. Cooperation doesn't get you votes, so you need to label the opposition as the enemy. Kinda hard to call someone to the table for compromise after demonizing them for years. More than compromise, because you are asking them to do something that they don't have to do. They know what side of the constitution they are on. After stunts like CA releasing the personal info of all CCW holders in the state- really hard for them to have any trust. The one thing in favor of it is that I believe the vast majority of gun owners are for keeping guns out of the hands of criminals. One of the main reasons that they are gun owners is because they believe criminals have easy access to guns. 

I've got a crazy solution. I think the legislation needs to come from the pro 2A side, not the anti gun side. They need to dictate the terms and implementation, and perhaps package it with severe penalties for prohibited possessors and repeat violent criminals. Also include penalties for those that would abuse the system to prevent a legal owners from buying guns. 
 

aircooled said:

I don't think he was criticizing the Constitution, just the interpretation of it.  In that case, it doesn't matter what he thinks, but it does matter what the SC thinks, and that thinking tends to "wander" as the years go by.

Yes. Exactly this. I am criticizing the Supreme Courts interpretation of the Constitution. I don't agree with how they view the second amendment.

In reply to Fueled by Caffeine :

I think the government is fairly efficient given the ridiculous constraints they place upon themselves.  Each group is so silod and barely works together. 
 

anyways.  
 

Isn't that kind of like saying "this car is fairly efficient given that the manufacturer chose to go with a 7:1 compression ratio, a 5.31 rear end, a three speed gearbox, and brakes that drag? 

Toyman! said:

In reply to Javelin : 

Let me start by saying I don't necessarily disagree with you.

My opinion is your wish runs afoul of the 10th Amendment. Nowhere in the Constitution does it state that the feds can institute gun control or require background checks for the purchase of weapons. This is how we end up with a 50-state patchwork. 

My other issue is the government sucks at everything it does. It is staffed by incompetents. Any system they implement won't work or will end up like the no-fly list. Mostly useless. 

Would you rather have 50+ useless systems and laws or 1? 

bobzilla said:

In reply to ProDarwin :

The problem is there's no money in "fix how gov programs operate" and theres a lot of money in "govt program all the things". Unfortunately its all about the $$ with the gov. 

Which is odd because they literally print the stuff...

Boost_Crazy said:

They need to dictate the terms and implementation, and perhaps package it with severe penalties for prohibited possessors and repeat violent criminals. Also include penalties for those that would abuse the system to prevent a legal owners from buying guns. 
 

the problem is we already have this in almost every jurisdiction. Additional time for violations with firearms etc. They just aren't being used. Same with repeat violent criminals. Catch and release doesn't work and they get higher crime rates because of it. 

EDIT: I guess the big question is how do we get prosecutors to do their damn jobs? Indianapolis has one of these that's completely worthless. He then goes on to complain about everything but his office not doing their job creating the problems. 

In reply to Javelin :

What does the Constitution say. 

That's what I want. 

Toyman! said:

In reply to Javelin :

What does the Constitution say. 

That's what I want. 

I think the realistic statement here is: "What the Supreme Court interprets the Constitution to mean"

The constitutions says a lot of things.  Some of which are rather non-specific, especially when looked at in modern light, that is why it needs to be interpreted (by the SC).   Those interpretation have gone in some pretty strange directions and have resulted in a number of reversals and "changes of heart".  The SC has overturned 233 rulings in its history, some of which overturn thing thought of as acceptable at the time, but would be considered fully reprehensible in modern times. 

The Constitution is not nearly as rock solid obvious in what it calls for, or how it's interpreted, as many seem to think.

That being said, the justices can, and do, re-examine prior decisions. In 1974, a majority opinion stated, “The Court bows to the lessons of experience and the force of better reasoning, recognizing that the process of trial and error, so fruitful in the physical sciences, is appropriate also in the judicial function.”

https://qz.com/2098152/how-often-are-supreme-court-decisions-overturned/

https://thehill.com/regulation/court-battles/3477148-five-times-the-supreme-court-reversed-a-precedent/

(I apologize for the general focus of the articles above, that is obviously a primary subject recently, but they are still relevant examples)

In reply to bobzilla :

the problem is we already have this in almost every jurisdiction. Additional time for violations with firearms etc. They just aren't being used. Same with repeat violent criminals. Catch and release doesn't work and they get higher crime rates because of it. 

EDIT: I guess the big question is how do we get prosecutors to do their damn jobs? Indianapolis has one of these that's completely worthless. He then goes on to complain about everything but his office not doing their job creating the problems. 
 

Very good point. Laws are useless if they are not enforced. Without going off on too far of a forbidden tangent, I think the issue with prosecutors is temporary. A group of people who were looking to change our criminal justice system took advantage of an opportunity. They observed that we don't pay much attention to local DA races and put overwhelming support behind candidates that were willing to change the system from that position. It worked, and many DA's were elected throughout the country that supported their beliefs. My hats off to them, it was brilliant- change policy at the source rather than all of the hassle of getting lawmakers elected to change laws. But it's temporary, as the results for the average citizen have been as expected and they will not win re-election. Some have already been recalled. That's what can happen if we don't pay attention. 

Boost_Crazy said:

I've got a crazy solution. I think the legislation needs to come from the pro 2A side, not the anti gun side. They need to dictate the terms and implementation, and perhaps package it with severe penalties for prohibited possessors and repeat violent criminals. Also include penalties for those that would abuse the system to prevent a legal owners from buying guns. 
 

I think that is actually not a bad plan. Bi-partisan politics will not allow it, I'm sure.  As for the severe penalties... that's already there. District attorneys are refusing to prosecute with the enhanced sentencing. That's a failure of the system that no law can fix. If the district attorney refuses to prosecute correctly, there's very little repercussions for the repeat offenders. That appears to be a different discussion, likely for a different time. Here's what my pro-2A thoughts were earlier.

E_NinjA said:

I am fully in favor of making some compromises regarding firearms and legislation in this country.

CCW is contiguous 48 - you still have to leave the country to reach the other two and I dont wan't you packing on my boat or my plane. Thanks.

Legal age to purchase a firearm is 21. We can argue 18 due to the military here. If we want to go that route, I'm fine but have some other concessions to discuss. Chiefly this - people in the public school system can still be in high school until they are 22 years old. Want to buy guns at 18? Fine. Get the high school rejects off campus and at an adult school intended for them.

Federal background checks for EVERYONE. Background checks required to be processed by day 10.

Ten day waiting period for purchasing a firearm. PERIOD. Want to go hunting? Plan better.

@Javelin - I believe this would work in your world? You seem pretty adamant about wanting universal background checks. I agree that they are a good thing. Maybe the law needs written in such a way that no database is kept of persons that PASS a background check and that the database houses the information on those that FAIL. That should appease those that do not wish to be a government database as a firearms owner.

"I am not an advocate for frequent changes in laws and constitutions, but laws and institutions must go hand in hand with the progress of the human mind. As that becomes more developed, more enlightened, as new discoveries are made, new truths discovered and manners and opinions change, with the change of circumstances, institutions must advance also to keep pace with the times. We might as well require a man to wear still the coat which fitted him when a boy as a civilized society to remain ever under the regimen of their barbarous ancestors."- Thomas Jefferson.

93EXCivic said:

"I am not an advocate for frequent changes in laws and constitutions, but laws and institutions must go hand in hand with the progress of the human mind. As that becomes more developed, more enlightened, as new discoveries are made, new truths discovered and manners and opinions change, with the change of circumstances, institutions must advance also to keep pace with the times. We might as well require a man to wear still the coat which fitted him when a boy as a civilized society to remain ever under the regimen of their barbarous ancestors."- Thomas Jefferson.

That's quite the quote from Thomas Jefferson. Would you care to explain it and it's impact on the current discussion. It seems rather odd to supply a quote with no context into a conversation.

Toyman! said:

In reply to Javelin :

What does the Constitution say. 

That's what I want. 

Well it doesn't say corporations are people, but here we are. 

E_NinjA said:

 

That's quite the quote from Thomas Jefferson. Would you care to explain it and it's impact on the current discussion. It seems rather odd to supply a quote with no context into a conversation.

I think he is referencing my comment about how the interpretation of the Constitution changes over time (based on SC rulings).  It's not surprising Jefferson would feel this way, but he of course thought those changes would come in the form of amendments (which it has a number of times).  In modern times, the most significant changes seem to come from SC interpretations of course.  This is relevant because some of this discussion surrounds the interpretation of the 2nd A.

If I get a speeding ticket in Ohio, I get points on my Maryland license because The State systems talk to each other. It can't be that hard to do the same for red flags if someone wants to purchase a gun. 

Well some good news, July 4th could've been a lot worse:

https://www.cnn.com/2022/07/06/us/richmond-virginia-tip-mass-shooting-thwarted/index.html

I think a lot of people have a gross misunderstanding of what the Supreme Court is supposed to do. It is supposed to rule on the constitutionality of law. No more, no less. It's not supposed to say if it is a good law or bad law. It's not supposed to fix the law. It's not supposed to write the law. It's guide is the constitution. Not what the constitution should be, but what it is.  Not public opinion. It is not supposed to be a political branch of government, that is why they have life terms- so they won't be influenced by reelection. Yet they are appointed by Presidents, who usually choose them based on how closely their ideals align. So we end up with what we call liberal and conservative justices. Now, if they did their jobs as intended- to strictly interpret the constitution- we would have all conservative justices, since that is the very definition of conservative. It's a branch of government where liberalism is not really meant to work. That is what the amendment process is for. Make changes to the constitution through the legislature, and the justices are supposed to abide by those changes. Trying to get justices to reinterpret the constitution is the wrong way to do it, and is not supposed to be in the scope of their power. But we have had a lazy legislature. Rather then make changes and write good law, they write bad law and rely on the Supreme Court to step outside it's bounds to uphold it. If they don't, they point their finger at the court for the failure. Now, it often appears that our court is divided. We have some justices who occasionally rule on how they think things should be Vs. ruling strictly on the law and the constitution. But it's not as divided as some would have you believe. You hear about that split rulings, but you don't hear about the vast majority of rulings that are 9-0 or 8-1. 

Pulling back from the minutiae for a moment we are all really talking about a few specific things:

1: Should people be allowed to have guns if they are not in a well regulated militia?

1a: Should there be a limit to type, kind and quantity?

1b: What is the limits to type, kind and quantity?

2: Should we require a standardized licensing system across the United States and its territories? 

2a: Who will implement it?

2b: What should bar qualification of licensing?

3: Is the Federal Government capable of overseeing the complete system? 

3a: Should the Federal Government create a system in which all states, territories and districts adhere to, control, use and adapt for the sole purpose of streamlining licensing of potentially hazardous items such as hand guns, rifles, explosives and the like?

3b: If Federally commissioned and state and territory ran, who and how is the operation financed? Is it a separate department? Is it ran through normal licensing like the drivers license system or should it be a new clean slate system?

Javelin said:

bobzilla said:

In reply to ProDarwin :

The problem is there's no money in "fix how gov programs operate" and theres a lot of money in "govt program all the things". Unfortunately its all about the $$ with the gov. 

Which is odd because they literally print the stuff...

The .gov does yes. But the elected officials dont get that, so they find alternative revenues. Campaign donations lead to sweat deals. Solyndra anyone? Helping their buddies and friends and donors make money on the backs of the average citizen. IT's happened since the beginning of time and I am not sure how to tackle that one just yet.

I grew up with guns in the country. I was carrying a rifle with most times when hiking around the countryside by the time I was 13 years old(though it was just a .22 and the main reason I carried it was because of rattlesnakes since I tended to wander miles from home in the mountains).

These days I don't even own a firearm of any sort, but I still fully support the right of people to own any firearm they wish and carry it with them if they so wish(though doing so is just asking for trouble if in town("don't bring your guns to town" as the song says)).

That being said....I honestly don't see any reason to not raise the legal age to purchase(purchase, not own, which means that parents who train their children in responsible use would be able to pass their guns down) a gun to 25 years old. The vast majority of these tragic shootings is committed by young stupid people with some chip on their shoulder. By the time you are 25 you have long since let go of any high school grudges you may have had.

To be honest I doubt that background checks catch much of anything and wont do anything at all to stop mass shootings...besides any licensed dealer already performs them....its already been proven to do nothing.

As for the 2nd amendment it is very clear in its meaning. The "people" ALWAYS refers to the citizens and not any branch of the government. A "militia"(also known as irregulars) is always made up of citizens and is armed using the private arms of those citizens...that is what a militia is. Take the wild west for example and the posses that a town sherrif might feel the need to raise...that is a militia, citizens using their own arms. The "well regulated" part of the 2nd amendment just refers to organization being key to secure freedom and has nothing to do with the guns themselves. Now....here is the crux of the 2nd amendment: "Shall not be infringed" this is very clear and in truth invalidates ANY law related to gun control. It does not say "shall only be infringed if you are a convicted felon" it does not say "shall only be infringed if you are determined to have mental health issues" it says "shall not be infringed". As written you can't write gun control laws to begin with, no matter what laws they are. Of course no one wants criminals or those with mental health issues to have guns...but the constitution is clear and has never been amended on that point.

As to the type of gun being limited. I personally am not much of a fan of AR-15 type guns. I see them the same way as SUVs....a gun able to serve many different functions...but one that does none of them well. A hunting rifle is better for long range situations, a pistol is better for close quarters, etc, but as far as limiting the type of gun most people make the argument "when the 2nd amendment was written you couldn't own a cannon" or something along similar lines.....which is a dishonest argument. Congress used to issue "letters of marque and reprisal" to privateers to hunt down pirates. These were private citizens with all the weaponry that the military possessed at the time so obviously the destructive capability of the weapon in question was not even a consideration to the founders(no surprise since they were cautious of tyranny).

In the end whether I would support more gun control is completely irrelevant, none of it is constitutional to begin with and wouldn't stand up to real legal challenge. Although I doubt ANY supreme court would ever have the guts to rule any such thing, the optics would not be good.

The only way you would ever get most of the nation to accept more aggressive gun control(beyond minor things) would be to amend the constitution to allow it, and while I believe the constitution should certainly be amended more often(when was the last time? 1965?) its a difficult process that requires an overwhelming majority to agree to it. Amending the 2nd would require very careful wording to get most of the nation to go along with it and comes with plenty of danger of its own.

All this misses the point though: If criminals respected the law then there would be no such thing as criminals. Write whatever words you want...it wont change anything...this cat is long since out of the bag when anyone with a lathe and a mill can make a gun.

Wicked93gs said:

All this misses the point though: If criminals respected the law then there would be no such thing as criminals. Write whatever words you want...it wont change anything...this cat is long since out of the bag when anyone with a lathe and a mill can make a gun.

Amen, brother.

In other news, a prominent political figure in a nation known for vigorous gun control was assassinated by what was apparently a handmade gun.

In reply to 1988RedT2 :

One shooting. We have had over 300 mass shootings this year...

QuasiMofo (John Brown) said:

Again. These posts do not move the conversation forward. It doesn't matter what he thinks, he's a ball player and contributes little to anything. It matters what the law says. 

How many of you have contacted your senator, representatives,  or governor about starting the amendment process?

Anyone?

QuasiMofo (John Brown) said:

He's equating a license to operate a vehicle on public roadways with owning a firearm.  Wow.