[W:211]What is "common sense gun control"?

[Gaius46]

The 2nd amendment is responsible for all mass murders. Remove it.

The worst school massacre in US history was carried out with explosives

 

[Gaius46]

What does it mean to you? The COnstitution calls for a "well regulated Militia", but I see few if any regulations.

To me "Common sense" would be background checks for the number one thing. I'm not talking about something that can be done with a causal perusal for criminal records, but something more akin to what you go through for a security clearance. Let's see some references, talk to some former and current employers, take a look at those social media accounts, and so on.

Licensing. Not just a piece of paper but a competency test. CAn you handle it without endangering others? Do you know how to store it properly, away from children and secure?

Registration. Title them like cars, selling one requires signatures and ID.

Liability insurance should be required for all who carry in public.

Then you can buy whatever you can pay for. "assault weapons", shotguns, pistols, mags so big you can't fill them by hand, whatever.

How about you?

“Well regulated militia” is a predatory clause. It gives a reason for the 2nd amendment. It should not be read as giving the only reason.

 

[Rucker61]

Wow, completely missing the point - or, maybedeliberately avoiding it? The suggestion was specifically about carriage outside the home. But even if it weren't, your response is irrelevant. There are insurance providers who do cover such risks. Why some would choose not to is completely beside the point. Moreover, they should, since accidents and negligence are covered and represent a large portion of shooting injuries and death:

• 492 people unintentionally die by gun in an average year.
• Thus far in 2022, there have been unintentional shootings by over 21 children, resulting in 9 deaths and 13 injuries.
• Accidental gun deaths occur mainly to those under 25 years old. So far in 2022, 209 children (age 0-17) have died by gunshot and an additional 519 were injured. Adolescents are particularly susceptible to accidental shootings due to specific behavioral characteristics associated with adolescence, such as impulsivity, feelings of invincibility, and curiosity about firearms.
• In 2021 there were at least 377 unintentional shootings by children. This resulted in 154 deaths and 242 injuries in the United States.
• In 2021, unintentional shooting deaths accounted for over 4% (2,007) of total gun related deaths (44,912) in the United States.
• Shelter in place orders during the coronavirus pandemic have led to major spikes in accidental shootings at home by children. Unintentional shooting deaths by children increased by nearly one-third comparing incidents in March to December of 2020 to the same months of 2019.
• During the Covid-19 pandemic, there were 3,906 additional firearm deaths and 9,278 additional firearm injuries in 2020 compared to 2019. ACCIDENTAL GUN DEATH STATISTICS IN THE US. It's almost as if facts, the law, and logic don't work for your arguments....

And all that is likely covered by homeowners. If not, the cost of such insurance would likely be the same as the cost for covering firearm accidents inside the home; that is, zero.

 

[Crakhobarbie]

I have to say unconstitutional.

So I will put you down as someone who thinks arming people with mental issues and violent felons is ok because the second amendment doesn't specifically forbid it.

 

[Rucker61]

So I will put you down as someone who thinks arming people with mental issues and violent felons is ok because the second amendment doesn't specifically forbid it.

It's not his fault that the Second Amendment exists or for the way that SCOTUS has ruled in the past.

 

[Gateman_Wen]

No, but it may have given them a good idea of how many were armed in the event of. Put your name or mark here and caliber. Registration. If need be would you turn out?

You have unwittingly stumbled upon the real purpose of the second amendment.

Congratulations.

 

[NWRatCon]

And all that is likely covered by homeowners. If not, the cost of such insurance would likely be the same as the cost for covering firearm accidents inside the home; that is, zero.

I suspect you don't realize you just changed the subject.... again. or maybe that's the plan.

 

[NWRatCon]

The worst school massacre in US history was carried out with explosives

And this is worse to be some kind of argument? Good lord.

 

[NWRatCon]

“Well regulated militia” is a predatory clause. It gives a reason for the 2nd amendment. It should not be read as giving the only reason.

Of course it's the only reason. That's literally what it says.

 

[Gaius46]

And this is worse to be some kind of argument? Good lord.

Not in the least. The poster I was responding made a categorical statement - that all mass murders are done with firearms. The implication being that if firearms go away so do mass murders. He is demonstrably wrong.

Obviously most mass murders are done with firearms.

 

[Rucker61]

I suspect you don't realize you just changed the subject.... again. or maybe that's the plan.

Are we still talking about insurance for firearms?

 

[NWRatCon]

Obviously most mass murders are done with fifirearms.

I reacted to the non sequitur. This is, of course, the main point. It's why only the US has this problem.

 

[Rucker61]

Of course it's the only reason. That's literally what it says.

How can the Second Amendment protect a right to keep and bear arms as a member of the militia when there is no right to be in the militia, and Congress can not allow the militia to be armed at all?

Why did so many states legislature ratify the Second Amendment and then also ratify state constitutions recognizing an individual right to bear arms for self defense?

The Bill of Rights has one purpose - to restrict the powers of the federal government. How can any part of the BoR restrict the rights of the people?

 

[Crakhobarbie]

It's not his fault that the Second Amendment exists or for the way that SCOTUS has ruled in the past.

And it's not my fault that he believes that arming people with mental issues and violent felons is ok because the second amendment doesn't specifically forbid it.

 

[Gaius46]

Of course it's the only reason. That's literally what it says.

Volokh published a paper about a dozen years ago where he made the point that statutes of the form of the 2A were common in the colonial period and the prefatory clauses were not read to be limiting.

Surely the founders didn’t mean to restrict firearm use to the militia given the number of people living on the frontier and those who hunted for food. That just doesn’t make sense to me.

 

[Chillfolks]

What does it mean to you? The COnstitution calls for a "well regulated Militia", but I see few if any regulations.

To me "Common sense" would be background checks for the number one thing. I'm not talking about something that can be done with a causal perusal for criminal records, but something more akin to what you go through for a security clearance. Let's see some references, talk to some former and current employers, take a look at those social media accounts, and so on.

Licensing. Not just a piece of paper but a competency test. CAn you handle it without endangering others? Do you know how to store it properly, away from children and secure?

Registration. Title them like cars, selling one requires signatures and ID.

Liability insurance should be required for all who carry in public.

Then you can buy whatever you can pay for. "assault weapons", shotguns, pistols, mags so big you can't fill them by hand, whatever.

How about you?

UBC but nothing as draconian as you suggested.

Licensing for public carry

No registration, no insurance to exercise a right,

Allowing people to beat choose for themselves what kind of firearm they wish to own

 

[NWRatCon]

Volokh published a paper about a dozen years ago where he made the point that statutes of the form of the 2A were common in the colonial period and the prefatory clauses were not read to be limiting.

Surely the founders didn’t mean to restrict firearm use to the militia given the number of people living on the frontier and those who hunted for food. That just doesn’t make sense to me.

That is explicitly what the Ninth Amendment is for. In contrast, the Second Amendment was only about States retaining their militias. It says so. "Bearing arms" was specifically in defense of the community. That's what all of the history demonstrates.

There was disagreement at the Constitutional convention, and those seeking a broader provision lost. Those that disagreed changed their State constitutions because of that. It's in the history.

 

[NWRatCon]

As I've made clear in numerous threads, I believe in the individual right to possession of firearms - under the Ninth Amendment. Trying to shoehorn political views into an amendment on another subject does violence to the Constitution and results in stupid - and disingenuous - arguments.

 

[Rucker61]

And it's not my fault that he believes that arming people with mental issues and violent felons is ok because the second amendment doesn't specifically forbid it.

Did he say it was okay?

 

[Rucker61]

That is explicitly what the Ninth Amendment is for. In contrast, the Second Amendment was only about States retaining their militias. It says so. "Bearing arms" was specifically in defense of the community. That's what all of the history demonstrates.

Pennsylvania: 1776: That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the state; and as standing armies in the time of peace are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be kept up; And that the military should be kept under strict subordination, to, and governed by, the civil power. Declaration of Rights, cl. XIII.
Vermont: That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the State -- and as standing armies in time of peace are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be kept up; and that the military should be kept under strict subordination to and governed by the civil power. Ch. I, art. 16 (enacted 1777, ch. I, art. 15).

Kentucky: 1792: "That the right of the citizens to bear arms in defense of themselves and the State shall not be questioned." Art. XII, § 23.

Ohio: 1802: "That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the State; and as standing armies, in time of peace, are dangerous to liberty, they shall not be kept up, and that the military shall be kept under strict subordination to the civil power." Art. VIII, § 20.
Indiana: 1816: That the people have a right to bear arms for the defense of themselves and the State, and that the military shall be kept in strict subordination to the civil power. Art. I, § 20.

Mississippi: 1817: "Every citizen has a right to bear arms, in defence of himself and the State." Art. I, § 23.

Connecticut: Every citizen has a right to bear arms in defense of himself and the state. Art. I, § 15 (enacted 1818, art. I, § 17).

Missouri: 1820: "That the people have the right peaceably to assemble for their common good, and to apply to those vested with the powers of government for redress of grievances by petition or remonstrance; and that their right to bear arms in defence of themselves and of the State cannot be questioned." Art. XIII, § 3.



The constitutions and courts of the various states indicated an individual rights viewpoint at least 66 times..

State Constitutional Right to Keep and Bear Arms Provisions

 

[SCrider]

Beef up mental health facilities and enforce the laws on the books for starters...

Tell that to your GOP leaders. Hell Abbot cut mental health aide in TX days before the last shooting.

 

[NWRatCon]

Pennsylvania: 1776: That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the state; and as standing armies in the time of peace are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be kept up; And that the military should be kept under strict subordination, to, and governed by, the civil power. Declaration of Rights, cl. XIII.
Vermont: That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the State -- and as standing armies in time of peace are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be kept up; and that the military should be kept under strict subordination to and governed by the civil power. Ch. I, art. 16 (enacted 1777, ch. I, art. 15).

Kentucky: 1792: "That the right of the citizens to bear arms in defense of themselves and the State shall not be questioned." Art. XII, § 23.

Ohio: 1802: "That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the State; and as standing armies, in time of peace, are dangerous to liberty, they shall not be kept up, and that the military shall be kept under strict subordination to the civil power." Art. VIII, § 20.
Indiana: 1816: That the people have a right to bear arms for the defense of themselves and the State, and that the military shall be kept in strict subordination to the civil power. Art. I, § 20.

Mississippi: 1817: "Every citizen has a right to bear arms, in defence of himself and the State." Art. I, § 23.

Connecticut: Every citizen has a right to bear arms in defense of himself and the state. Art. I, § 15 (enacted 1818, art. I, § 17).

Missouri: 1820: "That the people have the right peaceably to assemble for their common good, and to apply to those vested with the powers of government for redress of grievances by petition or remonstrance; and that their right to bear arms in defence of themselves and of the State cannot be questioned." Art. XIII, § 3.



The constitutions and courts of the various states indicated an individual rights viewpoint at least 66 times..

State Constitutional Right to Keep and Bear Arms Provisions

Thanks for proving my point.

 

[Rucker61]

Thanks for proving my point.

"Bearing arms" was specifically in defense of the community" . The number of states that listed bearing arms for self defense refutes your point.

 

[NWRatCon]

"Bearing arms" was specifically in defense of the community" . The number of states that listed bearing arms for self defense refutes your point.

Actually, it doesn't. It proves my point. Note how those State constitutions use different language. That was the dispute at the Convention. The framers chose not to address that as it was considered a State issue.

 

[Gaius46]

That is explicitly what the Ninth Amendment is for. In contrast, the Second Amendment was only about States retaining their militias. It says so. "Bearing arms" was specifically in defense of the community. That's what all of the history demonstrates.

There was disagreement at the Constitutional convention, and those seeking a broader provision lost. Those that disagreed changed their State constitutions because of that. It's in the history.

I don’t know that history but will accept for argument’s sake that you are right. If it’s treated as a 9th amendment issue doesn’t that effectively neuter the Federal government - except maybe for end runs using thr commerce clause?