Sensible Gun Safety

[cradleandshoot]

The one thing i do know is that the day any SCOTUS tries to abolish the rights under the second amendment all holy hell will break out in this country.

1. There really isn't an individual right under the 2A. Scalia was plainly wrong in Heller, as the dissenting opinions of Breyer and Stevens (which totally own Scalia) show.

2. But #1 totally doesn't matter. Because the individual "right" recognized by Heller is so small and insignificant. And it has not been expanded by SCOTUS at all.

3. Bottom line, the 2A is basically just a PR device deployed by the NRA as a lobbying tactic.

Just one more stupid Big Lie. But it has been quite effectively deployed. You are a good example. You've actually been convinced that the 2A has some practical significance and that proposed gun regulations would run afoul of the 2A.

All of that is completely and obviously false. Yet you still believe.

Then I hope your willing to put your money where your mouth is. The day the gubmint bans the ownership of firearms I hope your willing to go door to door and explain to the people inside the legal reasoning why they need to hand their weapons over to you. Let me know if it ever comes to that how it works out for you. I can tell you one thing i still believe... your ass will get shot before you can finish explaining your logic.

[Kismet]

The one thing i do know is that the day any SCOTUS tries to abolish the rights under the second amendment all holy hell will break out in this country.

1. There really isn't an individual right under the 2A. Scalia was plainly wrong in Heller, as the dissenting opinions of Breyer and Stevens (which totally own Scalia) show.

2. But #1 totally doesn't matter. Because the individual "right" recognized by Heller is so small and insignificant. And it has not been expanded by SCOTUS at all.

3. Bottom line, the 2A is basically just a PR device deployed by the NRA as a lobbying tactic.

Just one more stupid Big Lie. But it has been quite effectively deployed. You are a good example. You've actually been convinced that the 2A has some practical significance and that proposed gun regulations would run afoul of the 2A.

All of that is completely and obviously false. Yet you still believe.

If the 2nd Amendment right to bear arms was somehow unconnected to being in a militia please explain why its first phrase is "A well regulated Militia....."

on the money ggait.

[PizzaSnake]

Again, simple question: how does enhancing background checks infringe on 2nd amendment rights??

Simple answer -- pretty much every gun regulation talked about (universal background checks, AWB, etc.) is 110% legal under Heller/McDonald.

TBD if that will change under ACB.

A theocracy coming soon to a store near you...

[cradleandshoot]

Same discussion after every one of these tragedies, and they are indeed very sad and hard to understand.
Anyone got any solutions though?

SImple.

Get the people like you and Holmes and Cradle together, and have YOU craft the gun restrictions. And craft them in a way that really sticks it to illegal use and storage of guns.

From there? Put together real funding for mental health in America.

Do those two things? The libs will back off. But what we've been doing is---absolutely NOTHING. Not even token changes to either guns or mental health. What message does that send to people who are sick of this insanity?

I'm not a gun person a Fan as you might describe them.

What I mean is: people who know what the F they are talking about when it comes to guns.

I think in the context you are thinking of, I am also a "gun person". I am pro gun. Most folks out here I know hunt and/or fish. I don't want to stop that.

That said? I stopped learning about guns at age 16. I don't know what I'm talking about, and haven't fired a gun in decades.

I do have a question for you. If the US bans 30 round detachable AR15 type magazines how long before you think people in other countries see a huge business opportunity? Hell 30 round magazines for our rifles could become the biggest export out of China via the Mexican border.....

You just explained exactly why I want someone like you to help to craft any legislation. Because I have no idea what you are talking about, and neither
do liberals who have never so much as held a gun, let alone fired one.

In a nut shell a Fan the 30 round AR 15 magazines are about as common an item as you can find in the world of rifles. They have been manufactured by the bazillions in the US and overseas since the late 70s and early 80s. In my time in the 82nd we did not have very many 30 round mags issued to us. We use to take 2 twenty round magazines butt them together and duct tape them. That was the practice damn near every infantry soldier used in Vietnam. When we did have 30 round mags available they came with their own problems. They were awkward to shoot with in the prone position(on your belly) they collected dust,dirt and sand and for that reason, unless you kept them clean and oiled the spring inside they had a tendency to misfeed rounds a lot. My preference was the standard 20 round mags. I put a chitload of 5.56 rounds down range and the standard 20 round mag always worked just fine. If the powers that be want to try and ban them, good luck with that. The market for them in the states is so huge that smugglers may switch from weed to 30 round mags. I am not kidding when I say that. The market for them is huge. If you know anybody that owns an AR 15 type rifle, ask em how many 30 round mags they have stashed away. I'm surprised nobody has mentioned speed loaders for these mags to be banned as well.

https://www.aliexpress.com/item/1005002 ... be9efdf2fc

[cradleandshoot]

The one thing i do know is that the day any SCOTUS tries to abolish the rights under the second amendment all holy hell will break out in this country.

1. There really isn't an individual right under the 2A. Scalia was plainly wrong in Heller, as the dissenting opinions of Breyer and Stevens (which totally own Scalia) show.

2. But #1 totally doesn't matter. Because the individual "right" recognized by Heller is so small and insignificant. And it has not been expanded by SCOTUS at all.

3. Bottom line, the 2A is basically just a PR device deployed by the NRA as a lobbying tactic.

Just one more stupid Big Lie. But it has been quite effectively deployed. You are a good example. You've actually been convinced that the 2A has some practical significance and that proposed gun regulations would run afoul of the 2A.

All of that is completely and obviously false. Yet you still believe.

If the 2nd Amendment right to bear arms was somehow unconnected to being in a militia please explain why its first phrase is "A well regulated Militia....."

on the money ggait.

Kinda like the chicken and the egg argument. The right to keep and bare arms shall not be infringed is what the 2nd amendment folks will reply. In retrospect the founding fathers should have clarified what they really meant. My guess is since it moved all the way up to #2 on the amendment list it was pretty important to them do ya think?

[cradleandshoot]

The one thing i do know is that the day any SCOTUS tries to abolish the rights under the second amendment all holy hell will break out in this country.

1. There really isn't an individual right under the 2A. Scalia was plainly wrong in Heller, as the dissenting opinions of Breyer and Stevens (which totally own Scalia) show.

2. But #1 totally doesn't matter. Because the individual "right" recognized by Heller is so small and insignificant. And it has not been expanded by SCOTUS at all.

3. Bottom line, the 2A is basically just a PR device deployed by the NRA as a lobbying tactic.

Just one more stupid Big Lie. But it has been quite effectively deployed. You are a good example. You've actually been convinced that the 2A has some practical significance and that proposed gun regulations would run afoul of the 2A.

All of that is completely and obviously false. Yet you still believe.

If the 2nd Amendment right to bear arms was somehow unconnected to being in a militia please explain why its first phrase is "A well regulated Militia....."

on the money ggait.

G Gait might need some help going door to door. You busy that day? How are your reflexes?

[PizzaSnake]

Why do people want to own guns?

If you could borrow/rent/lease for hunting, would that suffice?

When you join the “militia” (National Guard), they have some and will let you use them.

So, why buy when you can rent?

Or is there some other reason?

[ggait]

Kinda like the chicken and the egg argument. The right to keep and bare arms shall not be infringed is what the 2nd amendment folks will reply. In retrospect the founding fathers should have clarified what they really meant. My guess is since it moved all the way up to #2 on the amendment list it was pretty important to them do ya think?

Let's have at least a few facts in our discussion:

1. There was overwhelming consensus that there was no individual 2A right from 1791 through 2008.

2. The numbering in the bill of rights does not imply any importance whatsoever. You really think #3 is a big deal (no quartering of troops in peacetime)? In fact, #2 and #3 were rivals for 200+ years as the most obscure and unimportant parts of the Bill of Rights. Everyone knows the important ones are #1, #4, #5, #6 and #8.

3. The individual 2A right campaign was a branding and marketing effort spearheaded by the NRA. It was never about actual legal rights. Amazing how well it worked.

4. The founding fathers were VERY clear about what the 2A meant. You know that thing about the militia....

There were 14 state constitutions in 1791. Only two failed to mention militias when talking about arms. 12 tied guns and militias together. Most relevant was the Mass state constitution, which has pages of text about militias. That's relevant because the primary author of the federal 2A was...John Adams. PA was one of the few that said there was a right to bear arms separate from militia service. Georgia didn't say a word about guns or militias. So I guess bearing arms wasn't important in the Peach State?

Scalia's reasoning is incredibly weak. If you've never read Stevens and Breyers dissenting opinions you should. They completely shred Scalia's "conservative" "originalist" arguments. Total legal domination.

[Kismet]

The one thing i do know is that the day any SCOTUS tries to abolish the rights under the second amendment all holy hell will break out in this country.

1. There really isn't an individual right under the 2A. Scalia was plainly wrong in Heller, as the dissenting opinions of Breyer and Stevens (which totally own Scalia) show.

2. But #1 totally doesn't matter. Because the individual "right" recognized by Heller is so small and insignificant. And it has not been expanded by SCOTUS at all.

3. Bottom line, the 2A is basically just a PR device deployed by the NRA as a lobbying tactic.

Just one more stupid Big Lie. But it has been quite effectively deployed. You are a good example. You've actually been convinced that the 2A has some practical significance and that proposed gun regulations would run afoul of the 2A.

All of that is completely and obviously false. Yet you still believe.

If the 2nd Amendment right to bear arms was somehow unconnected to being in a militia please explain why its first phrase is "A well regulated Militia....."

on the money ggait.

Kinda like the chicken and the egg argument. The right to keep and bare arms shall not be infringed is what the 2nd amendment folks will reply. In retrospect the founding fathers should have clarified what they really meant. My guess is since it moved all the way up to #2 on the amendment list it was pretty important to them do ya think?

If you cannot discern between BEAR and BARE in terms of firearms I'd submit the rest of your points (like the numbering of amendments) should be taken at their face value (or lack thereof).

[jhu72]

Why do people want to own guns?

If you could borrow/rent/lease for hunting, would that suffice?

When you join the “militia” (National Guard), they have some and will let you use them.

So, why buy when you can rent?

Or is there some other reason?

... we all know the answer to this question. It is the tough guy myth, standing up to the government. Which today translates into threatening elected officials by carrying guns around government buildings and looking mean.

I for one see no reason to ban "reasonable guns". But we need registration and permitting for a modern world to make the job of policing possible.

Timely polling (out today).

[PizzaSnake]

Why do people want to own guns?

If you could borrow/rent/lease for hunting, would that suffice?

When you join the “militia” (National Guard), they have some and will let you use them.

So, why buy when you can rent?

Or is there some other reason?

... we all know the answer to this question. It is the tough guy myth, standing up to the government. Which today translates into threatening elected officials by carrying guns around government buildings and looking mean.

I for one see no reason to ban "reasonable guns". But we need registration and permitting for a modern world to make the job of policing possible.

Timely polling (out today).

Man, I’m cheap. I’d rather borrow than buy. Must be the Scots coming out...

You go ahead and buy and I’ll borrow yours. I won’t wven ride it hard and put it up wet...

[njbill]

There will be a futile attempt at banning assault rifles that will never fly as long as there is a 2nd amendment.

Not true. The Second Amendment does not protect assault rifles.

And by the way, you do realize that the Supreme Court never held that the Second Amendment protects individual gun ownership until 2008. In the full history of the country, it is essentially a brand new right, created by the activist conservatives on the Supreme Court in one of the most wrongheaded decisions in the court’s history.

Justice Stevens in his dissent articulated in a powerful and scholarly opinion why the Second Amendment does not protect an individual’s right to own a gun.

The simplistic answer is that the Bill of Rights was designed to protect rights the citizens of the young country thought might be infringed upon by their government, based in large part on English history. Everyone back then owned a gun, and no one was concerned the government would interfere with gun ownership. No one thought there was a need to have a constitutional amendment to protect individual gun ownership. That’s why the Second Amendment was never intended to apply to individuals.

I may not live long enough to see Heller overruled, but I hope my daughter does.

You could be right Jersey. The one thing i do know is that the day any SCOTUS tries to abolish the rights under the second amendment all holy hell will break out in this country. There is only like a bazillion people in this country that hold their right to bare arms sacred to them next to going to church on Sunday. No the irony in that statement is not lost on me. I said it above I am not a gun nut but i understand why people are fanatics about their gun rights. I really don't think that is a fight that even the most hard core liberal wants to pick.

Certainly in today’s environment, I would agree. Back in 2008, I think the NRA and the gun nuts would have gone ballistic if the case had gone the other way, but I don’t think there would have been a widespread hue and cry. But, yeah, if the case were overruled today, I think the reaction would be pretty widespread. Similar in some respects to Roe v. Wade. If the Supreme Court ever overruled that case, the FLPs as you call them would go nuts.

If Al Gore had won the election in 2000, and if he had been reelected in 2004, he, not W, would have appointed the justices who turned out to be Roberts and Alito. Heller most assuredly would have been decided differently. Justice Stevens’ opinion probably would’ve been the majority opinion. But then the NRA and the other gun nuts would never have taken the case to the Supreme Court because they would have known the outcome.

My view is individual gun ownership isn’t protected by the Constitution. Like almost everything else in this country, it is subject to legislation, from Congress on the national level and the states on the local level. If Texas wants to require kindergartners to bring guns to school, I suppose they can do that. But if other states want to ban them, or severely restrict their ownership and use, they have that right as well. I understand mine is a decidedly minority view, at least in today’s world.

[jhu72]

Why do people want to own guns?

If you could borrow/rent/lease for hunting, would that suffice?

When you join the “militia” (National Guard), they have some and will let you use them.

So, why buy when you can rent?

Or is there some other reason?

... we all know the answer to this question. It is the tough guy myth, standing up to the government. Which today translates into threatening elected officials by carrying guns around government buildings and looking mean.

I for one see no reason to ban "reasonable guns". But we need registration and permitting for a modern world to make the job of policing possible.

Timely polling (out today).

Man, I’m cheap. I’d rather borrow than buy. Must be the Scots coming out...

You go ahead and buy and I’ll borrow yours. I won’t wven ride it hard and put it up wet...

I don't own any modern weapon. Don't hunt. Own a family heirloom without shells. I don't see me buying or renting.

[runrussellrun]

It was a simple question...leave it to run-at-the-mouth-russell to mangle the issue beyond recognition, sorta AKA Hannity/Carlson and those types.

That Cradle finds the run-at-the-mouth response a +1 is not surprising.

Again, simple question: how does enhancing background checks infringe on 2nd amendment rights??

..

J

[PizzaSnake]

Why do people want to own guns?

If you could borrow/rent/lease for hunting, would that suffice?

When you join the “militia” (National Guard), they have some and will let you use them.

So, why buy when you can rent?

Or is there some other reason?

... we all know the answer to this question. It is the tough guy myth, standing up to the government. Which today translates into threatening elected officials by carrying guns around government buildings and looking mean.

I for one see no reason to ban "reasonable guns". But we need registration and permitting for a modern world to make the job of policing possible.

Timely polling (out today).

Man, I’m cheap. I’d rather borrow than buy. Must be the Scots coming out...

You go ahead and buy and I’ll borrow yours. I won’t wven ride it hard and put it up wet...

I don't own any modern weapon. Don't hunt. Own a family heirloom without shells. I don't see me buying or renting.

Good points. I’m more of an “old world” craftsman and enjoy tactility...

[runrussellrun]

[

on the money

[cradleandshoot]

There will be a futile attempt at banning assault rifles that will never fly as long as there is a 2nd amendment.

Not true. The Second Amendment does not protect assault rifles.

And by the way, you do realize that the Supreme Court never held that the Second Amendment protects individual gun ownership until 2008. In the full history of the country, it is essentially a brand new right, created by the activist conservatives on the Supreme Court in one of the most wrongheaded decisions in the court’s history.

Justice Stevens in his dissent articulated in a powerful and scholarly opinion why the Second Amendment does not protect an individual’s right to own a gun.

The simplistic answer is that the Bill of Rights was designed to protect rights the citizens of the young country thought might be infringed upon by their government, based in large part on English history. Everyone back then owned a gun, and no one was concerned the government would interfere with gun ownership. No one thought there was a need to have a constitutional amendment to protect individual gun ownership. That’s why the Second Amendment was never intended to apply to individuals.

I may not live long enough to see Heller overruled, but I hope my daughter does.

You could be right Jersey. The one thing i do know is that the day any SCOTUS tries to abolish the rights under the second amendment all holy hell will break out in this country. There is only like a bazillion people in this country that hold their right to bare arms sacred to them next to going to church on Sunday. No the irony in that statement is not lost on me. I said it above I am not a gun nut but i understand why people are fanatics about their gun rights. I really don't think that is a fight that even the most hard core liberal wants to pick.

Certainly in today’s environment, I would agree. Back in 2008, I think the NRA and the gun nuts would have gone ballistic if the case had gone the other way, but I don’t think there would have been a widespread hue and cry. But, yeah, if the case were overruled today, I think the reaction would be pretty widespread. Similar in some respects to Roe v. Wade. If the Supreme Court ever overruled that case, the FLPs as you call them would go nuts.

If Al Gore had won the election in 2000, and if he had been reelected in 2004, he, not W, would have appointed the justices who turned out to be Roberts and Alito. Heller most assuredly would have been decided differently. Justice Stevens’ opinion probably would’ve been the majority opinion. But then the NRA and the other gun nuts would never have taken the case to the Supreme Court because they would have known the outcome.

My view is individual gun ownership isn’t protected by the Constitution. Like almost everything else in this country, it is subject to legislation, from Congress on the national level and the states on the local level. If Texas wants to require kindergartners to bring guns to school, I suppose they can do that. But if other states want to ban them, or severely restrict their ownership and use, they have that right as well. I understand mine is a decidedly minority view, at least in today’s world.

It is not like I am qualified to debate this with a lawyer. I would disagree with you profusely when you say gun ownership is not protected by the constitution. I understand the need to regulate the ownership of fire arms. When you say you believe gun ownership is not protected by the 2nd amendment you have a tall mountain to climb to make that argument. I believe the founding fathers never anticipated the sophistication of todays fire arms. The 2nd amendment does need to be refined and clarified. The problem is how is that to be done. Those words in the second amendment seem to contradict themselves today. How do you compromise between what is a well regulated militia and then in the next breath declaring the right of the people to keep and bare arms is a huge chasm to have to build a bridge over.

[cradleandshoot]

The one thing i do know is that the day any SCOTUS tries to abolish the rights under the second amendment all holy hell will break out in this country.

1. There really isn't an individual right under the 2A. Scalia was plainly wrong in Heller, as the dissenting opinions of Breyer and Stevens (which totally own Scalia) show.

2. But #1 totally doesn't matter. Because the individual "right" recognized by Heller is so small and insignificant. And it has not been expanded by SCOTUS at all.

3. Bottom line, the 2A is basically just a PR device deployed by the NRA as a lobbying tactic.

Just one more stupid Big Lie. But it has been quite effectively deployed. You are a good example. You've actually been convinced that the 2A has some practical significance and that proposed gun regulations would run afoul of the 2A.

All of that is completely and obviously false. Yet you still believe.

If the 2nd Amendment right to bear arms was somehow unconnected to being in a militia please explain why its first phrase is "A well regulated Militia....."

on the money ggait.

Kinda like the chicken and the egg argument. The right to keep and bare arms shall not be infringed is what the 2nd amendment folks will reply. In retrospect the founding fathers should have clarified what they really meant. My guess is since it moved all the way up to #2 on the amendment list it was pretty important to them do ya think?

If you cannot discern between BEAR and BARE in terms of firearms I'd submit the rest of your points (like the numbering of amendments) should be taken at their face value (or lack thereof).

You got me there... proper vernacular is in the eye of the beholder. I actually discussed this in my pea brain and went with my gut instead of double checking the spelling... so shoot me then. To quote the queen of evil... what difference does it make today? Between bear and bare I should have just settled on beer and been done with it.

[runrussellrun]

[
frozen.....tiny......dancer....

[ggait]

It is not like I am qualified to debate this with a lawyer. I would disagree with you profusely when you say gun ownership is not protected by the constitution. I understand the need to regulate the ownership of fire arms. When you say you believe gun ownership is not protected by the 2nd amendment you have a tall mountain to climb to make that argument.

The facts and history are 100% undisputed.

There was no individual right to bear arms guaranteed by the Constitution from 1791 through 2008.

Since 2008 there has been a teeny tiny right recognized by a 5-4 SCOTUS vote. Traditional firearms, in the home, for self-defense. And subject to government regulation. That's it. So all this bluster about the 2A is, as a legal matter, a trifle:

No amendment received less attention in the courts in the two centuries following the adoption of the Bill of Rights than the Second, except the Third (which dealt with billeting soldiers in private homes). It used to be known as the “lost amendment,” because hardly anyone ever wrote about it. The assertion that the Second Amendment protects a person’s right to own and carry a gun for self-defense, rather than the people’s right to form militias for the common defense, first became a feature of American political and legal discourse in the wake of the Gun Control Act of 1968, and only gained prominence in the nineteen-seventies.

As a brand and propaganda, though, the 2A is much bigger.