Graham introduces background check bill with NRA backing

[TurtleDude]

It's actually called common sense.

And THAT'S what this is all about. I just wish all gun supporters would be honest about the fact this is all about the recreational use of guns, whether it's collecting or hanging out at the shooting range. But of course they cannot admit that, because they would lose the "care about people" argument, and thus, not have any legs to stand on.

People killing themselves has no relevance in public safety? What?

Public safety is entirely what motivates me. You calling me a liar does not do anything to strengthen your argument.

And what you don't seem to understand, despite being told numerous times, I'm not out to ban all guns, just the most dangerous ones. Furthermore, I'd even be willing to compromise by not banning the guns, but just make sure obtaining them is not as simple as a 5 minute trip to the gun store.

But you don't want to hear any of that. All you want to do is go around accusing people of wanting to enslave you, wanting to steal all of your guns and being cowards. I don't know if I've seen you post in a thread about guns yet in which you haven't done at least one of those things.

The fact you think trying to save the lives of people is harassing you is all that needs to be said about the differences between you and me. I want to save people and you think saving people is harassment.

1) anything and everything the anti gun far wrong supports is not about public safety

most of the crap they support has no reasonable possibility of reducing crime

2) a five minute trip to buy a gun-again patent evidence you have no clue about buying a gun. I buy lots of guns, and I easily pass BGC yet it takes at least 25 minutes once I get to the store even if it is one I have already bought on line and don't have to pick it out


3) again nothing you support has a reasonable chance of saving lives and you have demonstrated you really don't have any knowledge sufficient to back up your speculation

 

[BretJ]

In actual reality, we have many examples which show fewer guns and fewer deaths go hand in hand. Furthermore, you're jumping in the middle of a conversation and completely twisting what the argument was, which is the logic behind the idea that fewer guns leaders to fewer deaths is not random, but rather a pretty simple path to follow logically.

So not only do we have evidence it has worked, you jumping in the middle of a conversation and twisting it to mean something else indicates you either were not paying attention or you simply did not care.

No, this is such an inaccurate characterization of the argument, and no matter how many times it is written, it will always be inaccurate.

I'm not choosing to support gun control because I want someone else to protect me, I'm choosing to support gun control to prevent needing protection in the first place. I support gun control to prevent situations in which someone has a gun threatening me or my loved ones. The stupid saying that "it won't stop criminals from getting guns" is so logically devoid it would infuriate me if I cared enough. It WILL stop so many would-be criminals from getting guns. Not every person who commits a crime has a hook up with a Colombian cartel. If you begin to regulate the weapons which are most likely to be used in a gun crime, the would be criminals are not nearly as likely to have a gun. Furthermore, how many gun deaths are a matter of convenience, as opposed to premeditated? How many times do you hear of drunken attacks with a gun? Was it not just last year when the Kansas City Chief football player murdered his girlfriend when he was drunk? We've all heard stories of a murder/suicide which came about because it started with arguing and fighting.

We will never stop people from killing each other, but it seems absolutely asinine to me to say that since we cannot fix it 100%, we should not even try. It's even more absurd to me that we hold a gun in higher esteem than a person's life. Guns kill over 30,000 people in this country every year. 30,000 people a year are killed from a bullet shot from a gun...you cannot tell me this is an acceptable number.

And if those who would do harm didn't have a gun in the first place, that choice may not ever present itself.

So the fact that firearms prevent crime or saves live is irrelevant in your view of public safety. So tell me, how do you propose those that are weaker or fewer in number protect themselves or are they simply a martyr for your cause? In your utopia, my wife and son would be dead or injured. The only gun involved was hers. How many murders are committed every year without a firearm? More than with. More lives are protected through the use of a firearm than murders or criminal shootings committed with one.
Again, your whole premise is fallacious. It is faulty logic when looked at objectively without bias. It is also odd, given you strong views on public safety, you would mention alcohol. How many beatings/rapes/murders/suicides are committed while under the influence? Far, far more than committed with firearms. Could it not also be true that if we restricted alcohol consumption further (with restrictions similar to those proposed for guns) we could save far more lives than gun control? Would you accept these restrictions given the exponentially larger number of lives and families saved?
Personally, I do not think you would tolerate the kinds of firearms restrictions you would applaud applied to alcohol. It is way too easy for gun control advocates to restrict rights they personally do not enjoy.

 

[Slyfox696]

2) a five minute trip to buy a gun-again patent evidence you have no clue about buying a gun.

VIDEO: Mark Kelly secretly tapes 5-minute gun background check | KVOA.com | Tucson, Arizona

Oh, you're right. It was 5 minutes and 36 seconds. My apologies. Carry on.

So the fact that firearms prevent crime or saves live is irrelevant in your view of public safety.

It's not irrelevant, it just pales when those firearms are behind so many of those crimes and lives at stake in the first place.

So tell me, how do you propose those that are weaker or fewer in number protect themselves

Protect themselves from what? I have to know what specifically they are protecting themselves from so I can answer the question.

or are they simply a martyr for your cause?

Over 8,500 homicides by firearm last year suggests quite a high martyr rate for yours...perhaps we should try something different.

In your utopia, my wife and son would be dead or injured.

And 20 children in Connecticut would still be alive. Now I don't know the specifics of the incident with your family so I cannot speak on that, but I do know 20 children were murdered with a Bushmaster XM15-E2S rifle with 30 round clips.

How many murders are committed every year without a firearm? More than with.

False. In 2011, there were 12,644 homicides. 8,583 were committed with a firearm. Roughly half of the 12,000+ homicides were committed with a handgun.

FBI — Expanded Homicide Data Table 8

More lives are protected through the use of a firearm than murders or criminal shootings committed with one.

I'd love to see how that figure is calculated, and I'd love to know how many lives were protected by guns FROM guns.

Again, your whole premise is fallacious.

No, it's logical and has evidence to support it. It's not fallacious, and I'm not even sure if you understand what a fallacious argument actually is.

It is also odd, given you strong views on public safety, you would mention alcohol. How many beatings/rapes/murders/suicides are committed while under the influence? Far, far more than committed with firearms. Could it not also be true that if we restricted alcohol consumption further (with restrictions similar to those proposed for guns) we could save far more lives than gun control? Would you accept these restrictions given the exponentially larger number of lives and families saved?

I'm okay with more control over alcohol sales. :shrug:

I bet that didn't work as well as you thought it would, did it?

Personally, I do not think you would tolerate the kinds of firearms restrictions you would applaud applied to alcohol.

Personally, I think there's a little egg on your face right now.

It is way too easy for gun control advocates to restrict rights they personally do not enjoy.

I like driving my car, I have no problem with the speed limit being lowered if it could save lives. I like voting, but I have no problem with being asked for ID when I show up. I'm a teacher and I fully support a tougher policy on students who are constant disruptions in the classroom.

This has nothing to do with what I enjoy, but rather what is best. 30,000 people last year were killed by guns, don't you think it's time we try to do something about it?

 

[TurtleDude]

I have bought 100s of guns. I have watched at least 10,000 being sold. I have worked gun shows for an FFL BEFORE the brady check That 5 minutes is not realistic

 

[BretJ]

VIDEO: Mark Kelly secretly tapes 5-minute gun background check | KVOA.com | Tucson, Arizona

Oh, you're right. It was 5 minutes and 36 seconds. My apologies. Carry on.

It's not irrelevant, it just pales when those firearms are behind so many of those crimes and lives at stake in the first place.

Protect themselves from what? I have to know what specifically they are protecting themselves from so I can answer the question.

Over 8,500 homicides by firearm last year suggests quite a high martyr rate for yours...perhaps we should try something different.

And 20 children in Connecticut would still be alive. Now I don't know the specifics of the incident with your family so I cannot speak on that, but I do know 20 children were murdered with a Bushmaster XM15-E2S rifle with 30 round clips.

False. In 2011, there were 12,644 homicides. 8,583 were committed with a firearm. Roughly half of the 12,000+ homicides were committed with a handgun.

FBI — Expanded Homicide Data Table 8

I'd love to see how that figure is calculated, and I'd love to know how many lives were protected by guns FROM guns.

No, it's logical and has evidence to support it. It's not fallacious, and I'm not even sure if you understand what a fallacious argument actually is.

I'm okay with more control over alcohol sales. :shrug:

I bet that didn't work as well as you thought it would, did it?

Personally, I think there's a little egg on your face right now.

I like driving my car, I have no problem with the speed limit being lowered if it could save lives. I like voting, but I have no problem with being asked for ID when I show up. I'm a teacher and I fully support a tougher policy on students who are constant disruptions in the classroom.

This has nothing to do with what I enjoy, but rather what is best. 30,000 people last year were killed by guns, don't you think it's time we try to do something about it?

In all honesty, your answer to my question about alcohol did go as I expected. There are only really three answers and your answer confirmed that you are basically a safety and security over personal responsibility and freedom type of thinker. No egg on my face at all. I really wish I were using a PC at this point. (Not used to using my iPhone to post. When I have access to one I would be happy to rebut your links and facts.) BTW, fallacious arguments as in post hoc ergo something hoc or that old correlation/causation thing being applied without benefit of more data is fallacious. Not quite sure how my use of the term is incorrect. If i am using it incorrectly then, by all means, explain. I am never too proud to learn something new.

 

[Slyfox696]

In all honesty, your answer to my question about alcohol did go as I expected.

I doubt it, because you clearly were leading me to the idea that I'd not support alcohol restrictions...mostly because you said just that.

There are only really three answers and your answer confirmed that you are basically a safety and security over personal responsibility and freedom type of thinker.

Only when someone's irresponsibility costs others. If you could guarantee me the only people killed by guns were the owners of the gun doing the killing, I would be much less interested in the debate.

BTW, fallacious arguments as in post hoc ergo something hoc or that old correlation/causation thing being applied without benefit of more data is fallacious.

Post hoc ergo propter hoc only can be applied when the biggest chain in the link is time. Post hoc ergo propter hoc says "after this, therefore on account of this". Those who engage in this rely simply on the fact the second happened after the first. However, when there are other pieces of evidence which are relevant to the claim, it moves from fallacy into accepted argument. I'll explain more after the next section.

Not quite sure how my use of the term is incorrect. If i am using it incorrectly then, by all means, explain. I am never too proud to learn something new.

A logical fallacy is when a statement is made in which there is a flaw in the logic behind the statement, when it uses poor reasoning or when it introduces irrelevant material to the argument. My initial argument was "Fewer guns would lead to fewer gun deaths". There is no inherent flaw in the logic. Even if you wish to claim the statement is false, the logic behind the statement is not faulty. It does not assume anything, it does not introduce irrelevant material and it's a natural correlation. It is not a fallacious argument, even if you think it is an incorrect one, because it does not violate logic.

 

[Jerry]

Really, you want the federal government to tell state and local governments that they cannot prohibit guns anywhere?

Yes.

State and local authorities have no legal grounds to make any kind of law on arms; be it guns or "street legal" blade lengths for pocket knives or a ban on nunchuks. Not any kind of arms law at all.

Private buisnises which are open to the public have even less than no authority.

All such laws are only valid when the come from the Fed, as per the 10th amendment.

What laws do come from the Fed have to survive and comply with 'strict scruteny' since the right to arms is spicificaly named in the constitution.

 

[CaptinSarcastic]

Yes.

State and local authorities have no legal grounds to make any kind of law on arms; be it guns or "street legal" blade lengths for pocket knives or a ban on nunchuks. Not any kind of arms law at all.

Private buisnises which are open to the public have even less than no authority.

All such laws are only valid when the come from the Fed, as per the 10th amendment.

What laws do come from the Fed have to survive and comply with 'strict scruteny' since the right to arms is spicificaly named in the constitution.

Wow, just wow.

I so wish you (not me) could live in the world your bizarre understanding would create.

 

[BretJ]

I doubt it, because you clearly were leading me to the idea that I'd not support alcohol restrictions...mostly because you said just that.

Only when someone's irresponsibility costs others. If you could guarantee me the only people killed by guns were the owners of the gun doing the killing, I would be much less interested in the debate.

Post hoc ergo propter hoc only can be applied when the biggest chain in the link is time. Post hoc ergo propter hoc says "after this, therefore on account of this". Those who engage in this rely simply on the fact the second happened after the first. However, when there are other pieces of evidence which are relevant to the claim, it moves from fallacy into accepted argument. I'll explain more after the next section.


A logical fallacy is when a statement is made in which there is a flaw in the logic behind the statement, when it uses poor reasoning or when it introduces irrelevant material to the argument. My initial argument was "Fewer guns would lead to fewer gun deaths". There is no inherent flaw in the logic. Even if you wish to claim the statement is false, the logic behind the statement is not faulty. It does not assume anything, it does not introduce irrelevant material and it's a natural correlation. It is not a fallacious argument, even if you think it is an incorrect one, because it does not violate logic.

Learn something new every day. I took enough philosophy in college to mess me up for the rest of my life. Your explanation makes perfect sense.

I am not quite sure if you phrased one statement you made correctly. Did you intend to mean that you would not be interested in the debate if the only people killed by firearms were the owners of said firearms? If so, what of instances where owners have used a firearm in defense of themselves, their family or others?
BTW, I have used the alcohol reference in a few threads and I have not always gotten the response I had expected. Some surprised me initially. Like I said, there are only three answers or variations I have received.
1. I have no problems doing that.
2. Prohibition did not work the first time.
3. Guns are different.

Regardless, bear with me on this, we have determined that my use of the term fallacious is incorrect. If someone bases an argument on a premise without taking into account other data which would show a weakness in the logic of their argument, what would be a description of their argument?

 

[Slyfox696]

Learn something new every day. I took enough philosophy in college to mess me up for the rest of my life. Your explanation makes perfect sense.

Thank you. I enjoy studying fallacies. I find them incredibly fascinating.

I am not quite sure if you phrased one statement you made correctly. Did you intend to mean that you would not be interested in the debate if the only people killed by firearms were the owners of said firearms?

If the only person killed by Johnny's gun was Johnny, I'd be less interested in the gun control debate. I'd still be interested, because I'd like to minimize accidents and suicides, but my interest would be less than it is now.

If so, what of instances where owners have used a firearm in defense of themselves, their family or others?

As I mentioned earlier, I'd love to know how often this really happens (as well as how the statistic is calculated), how often it is life threatening and how often it is in defense from a gun.

Regardless, bear with me on this, we have determined that my use of the term fallacious is incorrect. If someone bases an argument on a premise without taking into account other data which would show a weakness in the logic of their argument, what would be a description of their argument?

Well, this statement is actually fallacious. It is known as a loaded question, because (I assume) you're referring to me and my position. It's a loaded question because it assumes I'm not taking into account other competing data before coming to the position of supporting gun control or even the logic that fewer guns would lead to fewer deaths.

However, if you were not talking about me and were just asking for the sake of knowledge, it would probably fit under the fallacy of one-sided assessment (if not just pure ignorance).

If you're interested in fallacies, I recommend this book. It's a fantastic read. EPZ How to Win Every Argument: The Use and Abuse of Logic: Madsen Pirie: 9780826498946: Amazon.com: Books

I have to warn you though, reading that book will have you looking at conversations and debates in an entirely different way.

 

[Jerry]

Wow, just wow.

I so wish you (not me) could live in the world your bizarre understanding would create.

I wish I could, too.

It's the same logic and legal grounds behind anti discrimination law, Public Access and Public Accommodation law. The 2nd Amendment is just another right plugged into the existing legal platform. You wouldn't want local districts to determine rather or not they will admit atheists, or believers, or arbitrarily select this religion, but not that religion, do you? Same exact thing. Both are specifically named rights entitled to the exact same protections.

When it comes to rights not named in the Constitution, such as the right to marriage, then the 10th Amendment kicks those over to the State or People.

When a right is named in the Constitution, it is a Federal matter of which the States have their say through the Senate and Congress, and then the entire nation follows the same rules uniformly.

 

[CaptinSarcastic]

I wish I could, too.

It's the same logic and legal grounds behind anti discrimination law, Public Access and Public Accommodation law. The 2nd Amendment is just another right plugged into the existing legal platform. You wouldn't want local districts to determine rather or not they will admit atheists, or believers, or arbitrarily select this religion, but not that religion, do you? Same exact thing. Both are specifically named rights entitled to the exact same protections.

When it comes to rights not named in the Constitution, such as the right to marriage, then the 10th Amendment kicks those over to the State or People.

When a right is named in the Constitution, it is a Federal matter of which the States have their say through the Senate and Congress, and then the entire nation follows the same rules uniformly.

That may be what you wish, it is not what is, and even when some of the Founders DID wish to impose the protections on state law (and failed), NEVER did a single one suggest doing so with 2nd Amendment protections. Probably because ALL of their individual states had some pretty strict restrictions and regulations on firearms.

The Founders were, to a very large degree, state leaders, and the states they lead had some very strict restrictions.

One that comes to mind is the Pennsylvania Oath requirement which said that a person must take an oath if allegiance to the state or he was prohibited from owning, possessing, or carrying firearms or ammunition. The effect of this was that if someone protested the state, they either had not taken the oath or had violated the oath and could be forcibly disarmed. This was ow the Founders felt about states regulating arms. They did not want he fed telling them how to regulate arms, and that was the function of the 2nd Amendment, to prevent the fed from telling states how to regulate arms.

THAT was original intent.

If you want about the 14th and an opinion that it expanded the prohibition on regulating arms to the states, I would suggest you show me explicitly where it does that. The expansion can be wrung from the 14th, but it is not an easy interpretation and in fact took 150 years to make that leap.

 

[Jerry]

This was ow the Founders felt about states regulating arms.

This is what the founders thought about regulating arms:


"To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them."
George Mason
Co-author of the Second Amendment
during Virginia's Convention to Ratify the Constitution, 1788
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


"The people are not to be disarmed of their weapons. They are left in full posession of them."
Zachariah Johnson
Elliot's Debates, vol. 3 "The Debates in the Several State Conventions on the Adoption of the Federal Constitution."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


"… the people are confirmed by the next article in their right to keep and bear their private arms"
Philadelphia Federal Gazette
June 18, 1789, Pg. 2, Col. 2
Article on the Bill of Rights
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Founding Fathers on the Second Amendment

 

[CaptinSarcastic]

This is what the founders thought about regulating arms:


"To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them."
George Mason
Co-author of the Second Amendment
during Virginia's Convention to Ratify the Constitution, 1788
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


"The people are not to be disarmed of their weapons. They are left in full posession of them."
Zachariah Johnson
Elliot's Debates, vol. 3 "The Debates in the Several State Conventions on the Adoption of the Federal Constitution."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


"… the people are confirmed by the next article in their right to keep and bear their private arms"
Philadelphia Federal Gazette
June 18, 1789, Pg. 2, Col. 2
Article on the Bill of Rights
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Founding Fathers on the Second Amendment

Jerry, do yourself a favor, look at be laws in the states that the people you are quoting put or left on the books after they said these things.

If I say they meant those prohibitions to restrict the federal government from regulating the states, but not the states regulating themselves, it is an easy argument to determine the truth. If you are right, then all state gun restrictions would immediately have become invalid with the support of state leaders, who were themselves the Founders. If there was no effect on state restrictions, no challenges, not even a hint of an argument that the state restrictions that existed and the many that passed after ratification, then clearly, there was NEVER an intent by thhe Founders to prohibit states fom regulating arms and all those quotes you mindlessly paste were intended as only prohibitions on federal power.

Your going to have to think now. Well, you don't have to, but to respond in a manner that does not embarrass you will require some effort beyond cut and pastes.

 

[American]

That may be what you wish, it is not what is, and even when some of the Founders DID wish to impose the protections on state law (and failed), NEVER did a single one suggest doing so with 2nd Amendment protections. Probably because ALL of their individual states had some pretty strict restrictions and regulations on firearms.

The Founders were, to a very large degree, state leaders, and the states they lead had some very strict restrictions.

One that comes to mind is the Pennsylvania Oath requirement which said that a person must take an oath if allegiance to the state or he was prohibited from owning, possessing, or carrying firearms or ammunition. The effect of this was that if someone protested the state, they either had not taken the oath or had violated the oath and could be forcibly disarmed. This was ow the Founders felt about states regulating arms. They did not want he fed telling them how to regulate arms, and that was the function of the 2nd Amendment, to prevent the fed from telling states how to regulate arms.

THAT was original intent.

If you want about the 14th and an opinion that it expanded the prohibition on regulating arms to the states, I would suggest you show me explicitly where it does that. The expansion can be wrung from the 14th, but it is not an easy interpretation and in fact took 150 years to make that leap.

Got some links?

 

[Jerry]

It does not address a second loophole in the background check requirements – the gun show loophole – which critics say provides an avenue for people who know they cannot pass a background check to buy firearms.

That's not a loophole.

Loophole
: a means of escape; especially : an ambiguity or omission in the text through which the intent of a statute, contract, or obligation may be evaded

The original intent of Gun Control Act and FOPA did not include a desire to run a backround check on every single gun sale ever. The rule only applied to FFL holders.


If you're now saying the original intent of the GCT and FOPA was to document every gun sale, then that's a conspiracy theory you're welcome to open a thread on in the Conspiracy Theory forum of DebatePolitics.com.


*****
If you don't have a Class-A Commercial Drivers License, you do not have to get a physical every year and receive a [URL="https://www.fmcsa.dot.gov/rules-regulations/topics/medical/aboutDOTexam.htm"]DoT medical card[/url] to drive your car to work. It's not that you're getting away with some loophole, its that the rule doesn't apply to you because you don't have that license.

Performing background checks is a requirement of having an [URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Firearms_License"]Federal Firearms License[/url] , so naturally if you don't have an FFL, those rules do not apply to you, just like you don't have to get a DoT medical card if you don't have a class-A CDL.

A loophole is an ambiguity or omission. There was never any rule requiring all gun sales to have a background check performed, for private sales to have found a loophole. The rule only applied to Federal Firearms License holders, aka licensed dealers. The rule never did apply to anyone without an FFL, and it wasn't meant to.

Requiring citizens who do not operate a gun business to perform background checks is something completely new, not something which was supposed to have always been.

I'm not saying I oppose the idea, I'm only pointing out that no background checks for private gun sales is not a loophole, by definition. To call it a loophole is to lie, and that the Obama Administration would knowingly present this lie is highly suspect.

“But the reality is 40% of gun sales in our country don't requite a background check,” he said, referring to the gun show loophole. “Every day in our country, there are guns being purchased by dangerous people, and we can stop that just by extending background checks.”

Graham introduces background check bill with NRA backing – CNN Political Ticker - CNN.com Blogs

The 40% Myth


View attachment 67142685


[T]he number reported was a bit lower, 36 percent, and as we will see the true number of guns “sold” without check is closer to 10 percent. More important, the number comes from a 251-person survey on gun sales two decades ago, early in the Clinton administration.


More than three-quarters of the survey covered sales before the Brady Act instituted mandatory federal background checks on February 28, 1994.


In addition, guns are not sold in the same way today that they were sold two decades ago.


The survey asked buyers if they thought they were buying from a licensed firearms dealer. While all FFLs do background checks, those perceived as being FFLs were the only ones counted. Yet, there is much evidence that survey respondents who went to the very smallest FFLs, especially the “kitchen table” types, had no inkling that the dealer was actually “licensed.” Many buyers seemed to think that only “brick and mortar” stores were licensed dealers, and thus reported not buying from an FFL when in fact they did.


But the high figure comes primarily from including such transactions as inheritances or gifts from family members. Putting aside these various biases, if you look at guns that were bought, traded, borrowed, rented, issued as a requirement of the job, or won through raffles, 85 percent went through FFLs; just 15 percent were transferred without a background check.


If you include these transfers either through FFLs or from family members, the remaining transfers falls to 11.5 percent.


~snip~

The Brady bill has exemptions for states that issue permits that meet certain criteria. With these, the FFL does not have to do a check at purchase time as the license is proof of the check. ATF Online - Firearms - Brady Law / NICS - Permit Chart 21 states have exemptions. That is ~40%.


It's a lie to say there was no NICS check at all. It's a lie to say the buyer wasn't checked at all. The buyer had to have in their physical possession a permit which is exempt from NICS under the Brady bill.


More states are going to tailor their permits so as to also be exempt so in years to come be sure to watch for the anties to claim some higher number of gun sales occure without an NICS check, and try to use that as a spring board for further "we must do something for the children" restrictions.

 

[Jerry]

Jerry, do yourself a favor, look at be laws in the states that the people you are quoting put or left on the books after they said these things.

If you think you have a counter point to make, it's yours to make, I won't be doing your work for you.

 

[CaptinSarcastic]

Got some links?

Got Google?

Try this... Arming America: the origins of a national gun culture - Michael A. Bellesiles - Google Books

Or look through these... https://www.google.com/search?q=gun...bav=on.2,or.&cad=b&sei=QReRUb_NHsOXigK61oGIDg

 

[Jerry]

If I am exercising my 2nd Amendment right and it intimidates you, is that my problem or yours?

I've seen people intimidated at the sight of a Muslim praying. It's your phobia to work past. Take your meds, keep your psychiatrist appointments, you'll overcome it.

 

[CaptinSarcastic]

If you think you have a counter point to make, it's yours to make, I won't be doing your work for you.

The point has been made, the Founders did not ever intend, nor did they apply, the Constitutional prohibition on the federal government with respect to arms regulation to state and local governments. The purpose of the amendment, and the concern it addressed, was that the federal government would disarm states and render them defenseless against federal intrusion.

The evidence of this fact are the numerous laws in the states run by the separate Founders who had already, and passed more, very restrictive gun laws, including disarming, by force, individuals who would not pledge allegiance or by their actions of protest against the government violate said pledge.

To put a modern spin on it, someone who posted on this forum a desire to procure weapons to protect themselves from the tyranny of the state could be disarmed for making that statement.

If you were correct and the Founders intended for laws like these to be disallowed, then these laws would have been overturned or at the VERY LEAST the Founders would have made these attempts and had these debates, but that NEVER happened. This evidence that your understanding is inaccurate.

 

[CaptinSarcastic]

I've seen people intimidated at the sight of a Muslim praying. It's your phobia to work past. Take your meds, keep your psychiatrist appointments, you'll overcome it.

So if a guy walks into a bank with a gun and politely asks for a gift of $10,000, then it is the problem of the bank employees gun phobia when the bank guards pull on the guy and hold him at gunpoint for the police to come and arrest him for bank robbery?

Did you forget the discussion that led to my question?

 

[Jerry]

The point has been made, the Founders did not ever intend, nor did they apply, the Constitutional prohibition on the federal government with respect to arms regulation to state and local governments. The purpose of the amendment, and the concern it addressed, was that the federal government would disarm states and render them defenseless against federal intrusion.

The evidence of this fact are the numerous laws in the states run by the separate Founders who had already, and passed more, very restrictive gun laws, including disarming, by force, individuals who would not pledge allegiance or by their actions of protest against the government violate said pledge.

To put a modern spin on it, someone who posted on this forum a desire to procure weapons to protect themselves from the tyranny of the state could be disarmed for making that statement.

If you were correct and the Founders intended for laws like these to be disallowed, then these laws would have been overturned or at the VERY LEAST the Founders would have made these attempts and had these debates, but that NEVER happened. This evidence that your understanding is inaccurate.

You haven't posted any evidence. Just your say-so.

 

[Jerry]

So if a guy walks into a bank...

That's not what your question was.

You had asked:

If I am exercising my 2nd Amendment right and it intimidates you, is that my problem or yours?

If you are bothered in any way at the mere sight of someone exercising any right, that's your character flaw, not theirs. It's your problem to work past.

 

[CaptinSarcastic]

That's not what your question was.

You had asked:

If you are bothered in any way at the mere sight of someone exercising any right, that's your character flaw, not theirs. It's your problem to work past.

Well, if you were answering the question, you would have had to say, "If I am bothered in any way at the mere sight of someone exercising any right, that's my character flaw, not yours. It's my problem to work past."

I did not ask the question you answered, which would have had to have been, "If you are exercising your 2nd Amendment right and it intimidates me, is that my problem or yours?" for your response to have been an answer the question as stated.

In any case, if a state or local community decides it does not want people carrying guns, they have the authority to pass such restrictions. Several states have zero open carry and may-issue concealed carry laws in which close to zero permits are granting, effectively banning the carry of firearms, period.

I expect you believe that these laws are unconstitutional, but they are not. The states, under the Macdonald ruling, may not ban ownership, but they may and do effectively ban carry.

 

[CaptinSarcastic]

You haven't posted any evidence. Just your say-so.

Actually, I have, post 118