Exactly. We are criminalizing different degrees of crimes. You've provided the justification for increasing firearm regulation. And certainly different types of firearms represent different levels of lethality. As Heller stated there can be regulations on that basis. Also note while the Assault Weapons ban expired and hasn't been renewed it wasn't found unconstitutional. Just on this page there has been plenty of argument from the words of the writers of the Constitution that firearms can be regulated. Can I ask you but do you disagree with the Heller opinion? I will agree with you though gun control is only a part of addressing crime. There are many other things that also need to be done. As far as "the priveliged elite" that's mighty woke of you but as stated yes those people should follow the law. I mean we hear about "privelaged elite" violating tax and insider trading laws all the time. Does that mean we shouldn't crack down on those things? Not sure how that counters my point that decisions are made all by LE all the time regarding not using lethal force when it puts civilians in ordinate danger. Are you sayign that lethal forces should be used in all cases of robbery? And I stated that such techniques are dangerous and carry risk. I also stated the alternative of gathering information to allow for apprehension later. Your argument seems to be that apprehension later might be difficult so lethal force is justified. I will agree it doesn't invalidate the study but points out the limitations of the study.
The very quotes you posted say that the right is for a collective defense as they pertain to a militia.
they say nothing about limits in the sense of the right being "limited" to collective defense. Self-defense was seen as an inalienable right, as from God, that all free citizens have as individuals. Individual self-defense informs collective self-defense. The right to bear arms allows one to defend oneself in the home against intruders, and outside the home against assault.
This is what you posted from Federalist 46: "Let a regular army, fully equal to the resources of the country, be formed; and let it be entirely at the devotion of the federal government; still it would not be going too far to say, that the State governments, with the people on their side, would be able to repel the danger. The highest number to which, according to the best computation, a standing army can be carried in any country, does not exceed one hundredth part of the whole number of souls; or one twenty-fifth part of the number able to bear arms. This proportion would not yield, in the United States, an army of more than twenty-five or thirty thousand men. To these would be opposed a militia amounting to near half a million of citizens with arms in their hands, officered by men chosen from among themselves, fighting for their common liberties, and united and conducted by governments possessing their affections and confidence. It may well be doubted, whether a militia thus circumstanced could ever be conquered by such a proportion of regular troops. Those who are best acquainted with the last successful resistance of this country against the British arms, will be most inclined to deny the possibility of it. Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation, the existence of subordinate governments, to which the people are attached, and by which the militia officers are appointed, forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit of. Notwithstanding the military establishments in the several kingdoms of Europe, which are carried as far as the public resources will bear, the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms. And it is not certain, that with this aid alone they would not be able to shake off their yokes. But were the people to possess the additional advantages of local governments chosen by themselves, who could collect the national will and direct the national force, and of officers appointed out of the militia, by these governments, and attached both to them and to the militia, it may be affirmed with the greatest assurance, that the throne of every tyranny in Europe would be speedily overturned in spite of the legions which surround it." A "militia" isn't an individual. Officers are necessary for a militia and "subordinate governments (the states)" are the ones who appoint militia officers. Under that the ownership of firearms is for the purpose of a militia for collective defense.
well, then here's the text you should be pondering https://www.google.com/books/editio...+of+society.”&pg=PA11-IA2&printsec=frontcover
https://www.cnn.com/2022/06/05/opinions/guns-ar-15-uvalde-school-shooting-fanone/index.html This guy has some excellent points, reclassify the AR-15 as a Class 3 weapon
That would be criminalizing stuff that is not crimes. Parts of it have been. The ban on "high-capacity" magazines (which California kept after the federal assault weapons ban expired) was found unconstitutional. And yet, the actual guy who wrote the second Amendment said private citizens can have the most powerful and advanced weapons in existence (which at the time were shipboard cannon). Yes, it didn't go far enough to protect the rights of the people. Yes. We should enforce the laws that are on the books, so long as they are constitutional, even if I don't personal support those laws. No, I am saying that allowing the robber to escape in the hope that he will be identified and later tracked down is not a preferred outcome, in my opinion. That is because the identified and later tracked down part doesn't frequently happen. I would prefer the victim shoot the robber than the robber be let go in the hope that somehow he gets caught later. Now, if the victim knew the robber and could tell the police that it was Danny Jones that robbed him and he lives at 123 Main St., great. Apprehension later will be difficult if not impossible without some knowledge of who the person is. Those 30% robbery clearance rates include cases where the victim knows the robber. The chances of the police catching a robber without a name, a license plate, DNA, or fingerprints are very low. If you can stop them now, do it. The limitation of looking at a set period of time is common to pretty much all studies though, isn't it?
Why wasn't the law written to require the State of New York to both conduct and pay for every background check? Making the gun shop responsible seems awkward and an unnecessary headache, at least to me. If it takes a week or two to do so, fine. It's time, and tax dollars, well spent, in my opinion. Have the individual wanting to purchase the firearm give the required information to the gun shop, which sends it to the appropriate state agency. Agency approves or disapproves the purchase. Assuming it's approved, the citizen gets the firearm, the shop makes a buck or two, and the state has the needed information on file. If the state wants a fee to help cover the cost, make it a flat fee paid by the person who buys the firearm. Sounds like the state needs to rewrite the law.
Gun control? The is no constitutional right for gun control. Only a right granting Americans access to fire arms. People should be able to buy cannons and perhaps even F16s. Communities should have armories in fact. Gun ownership should be the norm. Access to a firearm is what stopped the shooter in Tx recently. The man who stopped them was an off duty BP agent who literally had to borrow a shotgun from a civilian and go in there NOT on the orders of any state entity. This is a prime example of why arms should be accessible. State entities have no legal duty to protect you. Even when they were willing to, it doesn't mean they can do so in a timely manner. That said, selling a gun to a criminal or person who has mental issues, should legally put the seller in hot water IF they didn't take steps to guard against it. Sellers should have to prove they screened the person to a reasonable extent lest they be held responsible for the actions that are taken with the gun. No I don't want any of the specific laws the Dems are proposing because they are all flawed so stuff it before you suggest them.
I'm not worried about the first part. I understand that a lot of the underlying reasons for 2A and 14A are about protecting minority opinions against tyrannical actions of the majority via the federal government, state government, or mob rule. I'm stating that I think we have to finally accept that this is ineffective. America has this underdog ethos ever since pulling the Revolutionary War upset by rising up with our guns. That underdog upset vicotry was a unicorn. No matter what side of right you were on throughout history (for/against taxes, secession, slavery, rights, etc) the upset victory via arms has never happened again. It's arguable that trying the upset via arms as a check against power just leads to more bloodshed, massacres, and defeat in the end. The only time the underdog actually wins is by the courts (minority rights, accused rights, etc) or by forming stronger coalitions through the democratic process. Modern day policy reasons for gun ownership is self-defense and hunting. That's a living constitution argment. That's a state constitution argument in many states. But it's definitely not as expansive of a power as the ideas behind 2A and 14A. And while practically impossible in the modern climate, I think there's a logical argument that 2A should be re-written from a self-defense and hunting lens. That's what 9/10 people think about and argue for anyways. And most don't even know about the reasons behind 2A/14A as they were written. So why not support changing it? Looking back throughout our history, has it really ever worked the way 2A and 14A were intended to work? It's just been all fails. Fail after fail after fail. So why take the baggage (extra deaths through expansive gun power and gun ownership) when the goal of an effective check is never achieved. There are other successful Consitutional checks against different types of tryanny. Some of them aren't funcitoning properly either (checks and balances), but some do from time to time. Gun power as a check just never worked. So once you change the constitutional justification lens to self-defense, it's easier to pass laws and regulate things to work on limiting the baggage (excessive violence and death) in conjuction with other strategies such as improving healthcare, education, and inequality.
What is a 'well regulated' militia? So you are against any potential gun legislation? For example, having to be 21 before you can buy an AR 15 type of weapon? Having a 3 day wait before you can buy a gun? Banning bump stocks?
I'm one very much for debate but after seeing this I see how pointless this is. There is no reasonable gun control laws because even though the vast majority recognize there is a problem there is an unreasonable opposition to accept even mild and marginal changes. What we see is an unreasonable opposition. We see this very much here in this very thread. As a country, as a society, as a culture we've failed this child. For those who can't see that and think we shoudl do nothing about it there really is no point in discussing it.
Lying to ATF on gun-purchase form yields few prosecutions, data shows https://www.washingtonpost.com/poli...-form-yields-few-prosecutions-new-data-shows/ excerpt: “Lying on an ATF form 4473 is a federal violation and can lead to severe penalties and jail time. Don’t lie and buy.” — Tweet from the Houston office of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms (ATF), Sept. 8, 2021 Form 4473 — the Firearm Transaction Record — is a six-page documentthat must be filled out whenever someone buys a firearm from a licensed firearm dealer. The form asks questions including whether the person buying the gun is a felon, whether the person is a fugitive from justice or convicted of domestic abuse, whether the person is addicted to drugs and whether the person is the actual buyer of the firearm. This tweet by ATF’s Houston office led a swarm of Twitter users to askwhy the bureau didn’t charge Hunter Biden, the president’s son, for allegedly lying on Form 4473 when he purchased a handgun in October 2018. The controversy prompted us to request statistics from the Justice Department to determine whether someone falsely filling out the form faced much of a risk of prosecution. It took months to obtain the data. The answer, it turns out, is no. The statistics are newly relevant as Congress discusses how to strengthen gun laws in the wake of high-profile mass shootings. This is a prime illustration of how, for a variety of reasons including prosecutorial choices, existing laws are not always rigorously or consistently enforced. more at the link
that's fine, I understand this part of what you're saying and don't have much to disagree with here I don't agree but not because I feel strongly against what you say--rather I just don't think "changing" the 2nd Amendment is (a) all that practical, nor is it (b) desirable in an ethical/moral/political sense. The problem of violence is violence itself--not the tools with which the violent among us choose to carry out their violent acts. There are some 330 million U.S. citizens owning some 400 million guns. The great bulk of those guns, perhaps 399 million guns, just sit there year after year in gun closets, inert, not hurting or killing anybody. Instead, perhaps a million violent individuals are out there planning their next criminal acts. And maybe another 100,000 or so who are not violent but who are negligent, and so their negligence will lead to so-called "accidental" deaths, such as the recent cases where a 2-year old shot her father and a 10-year old shot a woman her mother was arguing with. I think it better both practically and morally to aim at the violent and the negligent rather than at the tools per se. That is not to suggest that the tools should not be regulated; but rather to say an exclusive focus on "gun control gun control" is likely to backfire and create continued and increasing resistance from gun owners (among the other 329 million non-violent, non-criminal Americans) who have done nothing wrong and who will continue to do nothing wrong. I understand the sentiments and the emotion behind the phrase, "extra deaths," but I disagree that in some sense society is experiencing "extra" deaths. Violent people will still find ways to hurt other people independent of guns. This is of course not to argue that guns are not significant when it comes to violent crime; but again, my preference would be to target the criminals themselves--as well as the underlying causes of crime, e.g., the "war on drugs." I do not believe the 2nd Amendment is an either/or proposition: either about collective self-defense (the "militia" suggestion) OR about individual self-defense. It is about BOTH. Historically the right to bear arms has been about BOTH. To me that's just a historical and sociological reality which those who would seek to control guns should acknowledge.
Need more thoughts and prayers. https://www.huffpost.com/entry/republicans-prayers-mass-shootings_n_62a1341ce4b06169ca8664bb Gohmert complained in a House floor speech that Democrats “sure don’t want to hear any more about prayers” as a solution to the issue. “They’re disgusted hearing about prayers,” he said. “Look, maybe if we heard more prayers from leaders of this country instead of taking God’s name in vain, we wouldn’t have the mass killings like we didn’t have before prayer was eliminated from school,” he added.
here's what happens when your mainstream media doesn't understand firearms and/or ballistics when they attempt to report the "news" See how AR-15 style guns create 'explosion inside the body' Researchers at Wayne State University use gelatin to demonstrate how AR-15 styles weapons create an "explosion inside the body" compared to handguns. CNN's Josh Campbell reports.
