Firearms background checks

Leroy42 wrote: »

What is the difference is spend? I absolutely agree that more should be done on mental health issues, and luckily we are constantly getting better in that regard with issues such as PTS and the like now being taken seriously. But given that it can never be eradicated, and the fact that in many cases on mass shootings they was no prior reason to incarcerate the individual, then taking away the ability to carry out lethal violence is a good step. It is not the only step, it is one of the measures.



Hunting - We leave in a world of industrialised farming. Very few people need guns in which to hunt other than sport. So that fits in with the selfish tag. But I am not advocating that this be stopped. But that is is managed and licenced and clubs that the liability for their members. If you are into hunting then surely a hunting club where you can avail of a range of weapons is a good thing?

Sport - OK, again this can all be done in clubs.

Personal Self defence - there is little evidence that this makes any difference but again, this can be far more controlled than it is now and should be subject to far stricter controls and limits on number and type of weapons.

Defense against Tyranny - when was this last required? And who will decide? There are a large amount of people in the US that think Trump is showing such signs - should they be allowed to start attacking the state? (that goes for any POTUS, Major, Governor, Senator Congressperson that they happen to disagree with). Should those that are against abortion be allowed to kill doctors or the legislature?

Crime rates - are these different in the US than in other countries without the same access to guns? Are they different in the states with tougher/easier gun access? But on the statistics, the very powerful nature of guns, the fact they are touted as not only a deterrent but a necessity for personal safety, wouldn't you think people would have pretty good evidence to back up the claim?




Self defence is pretty well established in law. Short range should mean why you are in physical danger. Why would it be seen to be excessive for me to run across a street to punch someone but you deem it necessary to be able to kill someone from a hundred yards? Sure at 100 yards you may feel intimidated, but there are plenty of options other than killing the person. Short range should mean why you are in physical danger.

And there are restrictions on knives. People are not allowed carry around samurai swords and use them in a bar fight.

In terms of the ammunition, I have already said I am not an expert. Simply change Hollow point for whatever type of round you like. The point being that a standard should be agreed upon and all ammunition restricted to that standard.



I am making the case and your response so far has been to point out I used the wrong type of ammunition and that you like hunting. You have failed to address the issue of gun control in any way. The constitution won't change on its own. Its up to the people of the US to decide what they want there country to be. At the present time selfishness and fear are the overriding factors. I don't see that changing any time soon.




And that is totally wrong. But that is an abuse of the text, not the core part of it. A gun is designed to kill. That is its purpose. Used correctly. There is a world of difference.

Leroy42 wrote: »

Hollow point,not hollow point, it is irrelevant. But it is typical of any discussion about gun control, the gun advocates like to talk details and we end up discussion type of guns rather than the overall policy.

As for me not being an expert, we are discussion overall policy here, as in any policy the overall aim is decided and then experts come in to discuss the possibilities and limitations.

Are only experts allowed to discuss things then should we follow the same for issues like drugs? Should only drug addicts and drub dealers be allowed to come up with policy?

And what about abortion? Surely these means that only women should be allowed to make any decisions.

There is a clear issue with gun deaths in the US. That is undisputed. What can be done in short/medium and long term so that this doesn't continue? Clearly limiting the availability of guns will have an effect, the argument that Manic and others use is that the effect is not big enough to justify them losing the ability to play with guns.

I don't agree, anymore than I agree with letting people drive whatever way they want and without insurance.

So if, as I suspect, a full rule out of all firearms is never going to fly, what can be done to limit the damage that is being caused. I have yet to see an justification that the general population need access to firearms at all, but certainly not anything bigger than a handheld weapon.

A limit on the number of rounds would be a start, a limit on the type of reloaders, a limit on the type of ammunition. I can also see no justification to owning more than one weapon, but I am sure there are cases that require it and they should be looked at and decided upon based on individual case need.

But the problem won't be solved because people in he US, or at least the people making the decisions don't think there is a problem, not one that can't be solved with thoughts and prayers. Until the mindset changes then nothing will change.

But based on the polls, there is clearly a movement towards something happening. Trump calling of a national emergency for the border opens up the possibility that the next DNC POTUS will use the same justification to call a halt to gun sales in the wake of the next massacre that happens.

Leroy42 wrote: »

Punish people? Not being able to own a fire an assault rifle is judged a punishment?

Therein lies the problem, and it stems directly from the 2nd Amendment and how it is interpreted.

Do you feel punished for not being able to own nuclear weapons? What about drugs? Do you think people are being punished by not being allowed to take whatever they want?

You continually point to issues with my ideas, which is great and welcome as that is what we are here for, but on the fundamental issue of limiting gun ownership to handheld, defence targeted rather than killing targeted you have not made any argument against it only that you like hunting.

When people make the argument that limited gun control in certain states hasn't worked it fails to mention that open borders between states means local laws are of limited benefit and the fact the pretty much every other country in the world proves that gun control, along with education, mental health services etc, absolutely do work.

The thinking seems to be that Americans simply cannot ever stop shooting each other.

Manic Moran wrote: »

The problem with the 2A historical argument is that there is something of a bit of overlap between the whole "rebelling against the government" thing and the whole "military protection thing". And, unfortunately, almost nobody really has it right.

2A was not, contrary to a lot of opinion in the pro-gun side, put in as a sort of 'failsafe' against the government (though I would observe that folks with nothing more lethal than an AK-47 and a Kawasaki have been giving the US military quite a bit of trouble for the last two decades or so, so I'm sure a few million folks with rifles would be quite a problem for the US government), it was put in as a protection for the ability of local governments to basically create posses to put down uprisings and the like.

A lot of folks forget this detail of US law, but when the 2A was created, the concept of "incorporation" had not yet been invented, and it would not be for some 100 years. This was a time that "The United States" was very definitely a "them", not an "it". It said so in law. Federal law quite literally only affected what the Feds did, and just because you had the right to free speech in the federal Constitution did not mean that it had any effect at all on what the State or City ordinances said. Instead, your "first amendment rights" were guaranteed by your State Constitution, whatever paragraph that happened to be. For example, the Pennsylvania Constitution (where Congress was before they invented Washington DC) protects the freedom of speech in Article 1 section 7. (The printing press shall be free to every person who may undertake to examine the proceedings of the Legislature or any branch of government, and no law shall ever by made to restrain the right thereof. The free communication of thoughts and opinions is one of the invaluable rights of man, and every citizen may freely speak, write and print on any subject, being responsible for the abuse of that liberty. No conviction shall be had in any prosecution for the publication of papers relating to the official conduct of officers or men in public capacity, or to any other matter proper for public investigation or information, where the fact that such publication was not maliciously or negligently made shall be established to the satisfaction of the jury; and in all indictments for libels the jury shall have the right to determine the law and the facts, under the direction of the court, as in other cases.. The right to bear arms would be found in Art. 1 Sec 21 of the State Constitution. The right of the citizens to bear arms in defence of themselves and the State shall not be questioned. . The idea of 2A applying to any individual against all takers only really came up after the Civil War with the incorporation doctrine. (And it was a known concern: If 2A, which was not limited to who 'the people' are like some southern states did, were to apply to all the States, then black men could be armed. This was observed in the Supreme Court at the time.). Note that to this date, some 44 States have a right to bear arms in their Constitutions, some of which are extremely explicit. So, in, say, Pennsylvania in 1840, you wouldn't be talking about your 2nd Amendment Right, you'd be talking about your Section 21 Right, which is just as strong.

At the time that the Bill of Rights was being written, a couple of rather nasty rebellions had just been put down by the States. Two notable ones are the North Carolina Regulators of 1771 or so, and particularly relevant to the framing of the Bill of Rights, Shay's Rebellion in Massachusetts 1786-7. The States wanted to ensure that they were capable of calling up a militia to deal with rebellions. To that end, they wanted 2A to prohibit the Federal Government from banning State militias. Insofar as it goes, the "Collective interpretation" people have a point.

However, what 2A was not intended to address, because nobody seemed to think it was needed for two reasons, was anything to do with individual firearms. Firstly, since it was basically a given that everybody had access to guns, and there was little thought given to the concept of not having them, and secondly, because the Federal Constitution had no particular authority over law enforcement within the States anyway. After all, the state militias which the States wanted to protect were quite simply bodies of men called to the colors, bringing along the weapons which they already owned for their various lawful purposes: Generally hunting, varminting, protection, and mass uprisings of the people against the government, such as that of King George III. (The devil is kindof in the details between a rebellion such as that which created the US, and that which was put down by the States, I guess). Thus, to that end, the 'defense against tyranny' argument does have merit, though not at the 2A level. Indeed, it was such a given that some States don't seem to have considered that there was even a need to put in a provision protecting personal firearms ownership. For example, Delaware's constitution was entirely silent on the matter until 1987 (Art 1 s 20). After all, who on Earth might restrict an individual's right to arms? And Delaware didn't muck about when the voters made their position clear with the text.

Thus, 2A is a bit weird: It is being applied, post facto, to a situation which was never anticipated when it was written: The concept of it being a late 18th century provision applied as a result of the mid-19th century concept of the Federal constitution applying directly through the States to affect the individuals in an environment where the Commerce Clause interpretation of the early/mid 20th century allowed the Federal Government to basically legislate directly in what was previously a State matter. When the Bill of Rights was created, it was not so much a case of granting rights, but is a list of limitatons on what the Federal Government can do. Hence you have the difference of opinion in the interpretation. As a result, there is logic behind the majority's reasoning in Heller of the right to bear arms being a pre-existing right unconnected with militia service: The predecessor Constitutional provisions which had been the final word on the matter before incorporation such as the aforementioned Pennsylvania's Art1 S21 or Vermont's Chapter 1 article 15 certainly said so. But the dissent's reasoning also has some logic, that 2A was never intended to protect individual firearms ownership as far as the 2A goes.

You refer to the Miller case of 1934. There are a couple of problems with it, the first being that Mr Miller was dead, and he didn't have a lawyer arguing his case. The second, that such an argument might observe that shotguns were commonly issued to US troops in WW1. And the third, which is its own interesting one... If 2A only protects military grade weapons, a lot of folks will be very happy to get full-on assault rifles back in circulation. So, yes, the court refused to consider the case because there was no evidence that shotguns were militarily useful. (see point 1 nobody actually making the case). However, the court refused to consider the case so said nothing on the merits of what 2A was supposed to mean, which is why Heller is considered to be the first time in 200 years+ that the court had actually specifically addressed the meaning of 2A.