Why you personally should not carry.

[Rucker61]

RE: the rights of mentally unstable people to weapons:


Hallelujah! At least you think some ideas of gun control are OK. But you don't seem to know how absolutely rabid gun supporters can be:

" The National Association for Gun Rights (NAGR).... warned its supporters:

“This latest gun control proposal (for mental health background checks to purchase of weapons) could result in more law-abiding Americans losing their right to self-defense … [and ] … coerce states to hand over your private medical records to the Federal Government.”

Among the 1,100 comments on NAGR’s Facebook post — most calling the bill’s supporters “RINO”s (Republican in Name Only), traitors, communists, and socialists — one reader wrote, “Enemies to the country and the constitution by law are executed. This is why we need and want guns.”

https://www.thetrace.org/2015/08/nra-nagr-backlash-mental-health-gun-rights/

The Gun Control Act of 1968 prohibits any person from selling or otherwise transferring a firearm or ammunition to any person who has been “adjudicated as a mental defective” or “committed to any mental institution.” Such persons are prohibited from possessing firearms. That's been the law since 1968. We've been checking for that since the Brady Act of 1992.

 

[ataraxia]

The Gun Control Act of 1968 prohibits any person from selling or otherwise transferring a firearm or ammunition to any person who has been “adjudicated as a mental defective” or “committed to any mental institution.” Such persons are prohibited from possessing firearms. That's been the law since 1968. We've been checking for that since the Brady Act of 1992.

No we haven't. The NRA and pro-gun people have been fighting it tooth and nail to make sure we don't. Might hurt sales, you know- there are lots of crazy people around who are good paying customers.

So I am forced to conclude that either you are not well informed on the details of what the debate is all about (no, liberals are not out to take away everyone's hunting rifles), or you are just gaslighting. Either way, just FYI:

"Gun show loophole, gun law loophole, Brady law loophole (or Brady bill loophole), private sale loophole, and private sale exemption are political terms in the United States referring to sales of firearms by private sellers, including those done at gun shows, dubbed the "secondary market".[1] The term refers to the concept that a loophole in federal law exists, under which "[a]ny person may sell a firearm to an unlicensed resident of the state where they reside, as long as they do not know or have reasonable cause to believe the person is prohibited from receiving or possessing firearms".[2][3][4]....

Since the mid-1990s, gun control advocates have voiced concern over this loophole in legislation, and campaigned to require background checks and record-keeping for all gun sales. Contrarily, gun rights advocates have stated that there is no loophole, that current laws provide a single, uniform set of rules for commercial gun sellers regardless of the place of sale, and that no part of the United States Constitution empowers the federal government to regulate non-commercial, intrastate transfers of legal firearms types between private citizens.[5]"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_show_loophole

So what this means in practice is that right now, any crazy person can walk out of the insane asylum and buy the firearm of their choice any time they want. And any attempt to address this is called government tyranny and unconstitutional. Do you agree with this position?

 

[ataraxia]

You send your kids to school? You know that is a gun free zone. Yet every mass murder has taken place in a gun free zone. That is deliberately endangering your children because you are doing nothing to reduce the created danger. Is this not clear evidence being unarmed is a dangerous idea when there are risks from criminals and nuts?

The Republican Party Convention this year was a gun free zone too. What were they afraid of? If more guns make a place safer, they should have had all those patriotic, 2nd amendment supporting, gun-loving, conservative Americans be free to carry the weapons of their choice into the convention hall to listen to Mr. Trump give his acceptance speech, right? Shoulda made it the safest place on Earth, wouldn't it?

But no, guns are OK in my 3rd grader's elementary school, but not in their own convention hall... can you say: hypocrites?

 

[Goshin]

The Republican Party Convention this year was a gun free zone too. What were they afraid of? If more guns make a place safer, they should have had all those patriotic, 2nd amendment loving Americans be free to carry the weapons of their choice into the convention hall to listen to Mr. Trump give his acceptance speech, right? Woulda been the safest place on Earth, wouldn't it?

1. My understanding is that it was a rule of the venue site.

2. Carrying in general is one thing, carrying within range of a President or presidential candidate amid a controversial election is another matter. There are legit security concerns about assassination attempts.

 

[BretJ]

No we haven't. The NRA and pro-gun people have been fighting it tooth and nail to make sure we don't. Might hurt sales, you know- there are lots of crazy people around who are good paying customers.

So I am forced to conclude that either you are not well informed on the details of what the debate is all about (no, liberals are not out to take away everyone's hunting rifles), or you are just gaslighting. Either way, just FYI:

"Gun show loophole, gun law loophole, Brady law loophole (or Brady bill loophole), private sale loophole, and private sale exemption are political terms in the United States referring to sales of firearms by private sellers, including those done at gun shows, dubbed the "secondary market".[1] The term refers to the concept that a loophole in federal law exists, under which "[a]ny person may sell a firearm to an unlicensed resident of the state where they reside, as long as they do not know or have reasonable cause to believe the person is prohibited from receiving or possessing firearms".[2][3][4]....

Since the mid-1990s, gun control advocates have voiced concern over this loophole in legislation, and campaigned to require background checks and record-keeping for all gun sales. Contrarily, gun rights advocates have stated that there is no loophole, that current laws provide a single, uniform set of rules for commercial gun sellers regardless of the place of sale, and that no part of the United States Constitution empowers the federal government to regulate non-commercial, intrastate transfers of legal firearms types between private citizens.[5]"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_show_loophole

So what this means in practice is that right now, any crazy person can walk out of the insane asylum and buy the firearm of their choice any time they want. And any attempt to address this is called government tyranny and unconstitutional. Do you agree with this position?

Tell you what, this has been floated many times. How about an endorsement on a government issued ID/drivers license which shows you are not an alcoholic, violent offender or otherwise legally adjudicated to be a danger to yourself or others. The ID can be checked by any private citizen in order to determine if it is still valid. The ID must be presented prior to being served/provided alcohol, firearms or ammunition in either a private setting or commercial transaction. The penalty for providing alcohol, firearms or ammunition to someone without validating the ID or to someone without a valid ID would be so harsh as to be a life changing event. Make it so harsh that no one in their right mind would do so. Sound good?

 

[Rucker61]

So what this means in practice is that right now, any crazy person can walk out of the insane asylum and buy the firearm of their choice any time they want. And any attempt to address this is called government tyranny and unconstitutional. Do you agree with this position?

Any "loopholes" in the Brady Act are there because the Democrats who wrote the law, passed the law, signed the bill into law and gave it the SCOTUS stamp of approval wanted then in there. Neither the NRA nor the Republicans had any power to stop the Democrats from writing and passion just what they wanted.

If you're referring to a desire for a so called "universal" background check, regardless of constitutionality, unless there is full registration it would be impossible to enforce and therefore ineffective. You don't have to take my word for it; the Department of Justice said that in their 2010 report "Summary of Select Firearm Violence Prevention Strategies".UBCs also do nothing to stop straw purchases or theft.

 

[Rucker61]

Tell you what, this has been floated many times. How about an endorsement on a government issued ID/drivers license which shows you are not an alcoholic, violent offender or otherwise legally adjudicated to be a danger to yourself or others. The ID can be checked by any private citizen in order to determine if it is still valid. The ID must be presented prior to being served/provided alcohol, firearms or ammunition in either a private setting or commercial transaction. The penalty for providing alcohol, firearms or ammunition to someone without validating the ID or to someone without a valid ID would be so harsh as to be a life changing event. Make it so harsh that no one in their right mind would do so. Sound good?

The penalty for straw purchase is already a $250,000 fine and 10 years imprisonment. That doesn't seem to be harsh enough.

 

[Rucker61]

The Republican Party Convention this year was a gun free zone too. What were they afraid of? If more guns make a place safer, they should have had all those patriotic, 2nd amendment supporting, gun-loving, conservative Americans be free to carry the weapons of their choice into the convention hall to listen to Mr. Trump give his acceptance speech, right? Shoulda made it the safest place on Earth, wouldn't it?

Secret Service: No guns allowed at Republican National Convention | MSNBC

But no, guns are OK in my 3rd grader's elementary school, but not in their own convention hall... can you say: hypocrites?

How many armed secret service agents and local police officers are there at your child's elementary school, and how many shootings have happened at national political conventions?

 

[ataraxia]

1. My understanding is that it was a rule of the venue site.

2. Carrying in general is one thing, carrying within range of a President or presidential candidate amid a controversial election is another matter. There are legit security concerns about assassination attempts.

But I thought guns made everyone safer. The more guns a place has, the safer it is. If it's supposed to be good for my 3rd grader's school, it should be good for the presidential candidate.

Come on, man. You can't have your cake and eat it too.

As one constitution loving patriot put it regarding the ban in the convention hall:"The arena’s ban “is a direct affront to the Second Amendment and puts all attendees at risk."

 

[ataraxia]

Secret Service: No guns allowed at Republican National Convention | MSNBC



How many armed secret service agents and local police officers are there at your child's elementary school, and how many shootings have happened at national political conventions?

It seems there are two choices to make a place safe:

1) Have everyone carrying a gun
2) Have more trained security presence

Why would you propose one for my kid's elementary school, but another for a political convention hall?

 

[ataraxia]

Any "loopholes" in the Brady Act are there because the Democrats who wrote the law, passed the law, signed the bill into law and gave it the SCOTUS stamp of approval wanted then in there. Neither the NRA nor the Republicans had any power to stop the Democrats from writing and passion just what they wanted.

Even if they did, now they have changed their mind. Why can't we get this to go through?

If you're referring to a desire for a so called "universal" background check, regardless of constitutionality, unless there is full registration it would be impossible to enforce and therefore ineffective.

And what's wrong with full registration? There should be licensing too. In fact, there should be mandatory training and testing too, like they do with a driver's license. Why would anyone think a gun is safer than a car?

And as far as purchases, the local government knows every time a house gets sold, who sold it, and who it got sold to. It's not that hard.

 

[Goshin]

But I thought guns made everyone safer. The more guns a place has, the safer it is. If it's supposed to be good for my 3rd grader's school, it should be good for the presidential candidate.

Come on, man. You can't have your cake and eat it too.

As one constitution loving patriot put it regarding the ban in the convention hall:"The arena’s ban “is a direct affront to the Second Amendment and puts all attendees at risk."

Nothing is an absolute, but anything can be made an absurdity by taking it as an absolute.

 

[BretJ]

The penalty for straw purchase is already a $250,000 fine and 10 years imprisonment. That doesn't seem to be harsh enough.

Only a deterent if prosecuted.....Odd most of the Prohibitionists are not screaming for answers why they are not....

 

[Goshin]

. Why would anyone think a gun is safer than a car?
.

Possibly because cars kill and maim far more people than guns every year.

 

[ataraxia]

Nothing is an absolute, but anything can be made an absurdity by taking it as an absolute.

Thank you. Thank you for saying that. :applaud

Now, can you say that to the folks who say that a background check on mental illness or criminal history is unconstitutional? Oh, and don't forget to talk to the folks who think that their inability to buy fully automatic Gatlinger machine guns and nuclear ordnances for their attic is a violation of their 2nd amendment rights.

 

[ataraxia]

Possibly because cars kill and maim far more people than guns every year.

The only purpose of a gun is to kill. That's by far the major reason they are purchased. Cars are usually bought for other purposes.

 

[Goshin]

Thank you. Thank you for saying that. :applaud

Now, can you say that to the folks who say that a background check on mental illness or criminal history is unconstitutional? Oh, and don't forget to talk to the folks who think that their inability to buy fully automatic Gatlinger machine guns and nuclear ordnances for their attic is a violation of their 2nd amendment rights.

You seem to have missed the point entirely. Congratulations on a truly extraordinary example of self-pwnage.

 

[Goshin]

The only purpose of a gun is to kill. That's by far the major reason they are purchased. Cars are usually bought for other purposes.

Guns are usually (about 99.9%) bought for lawful purposes of sport, hunting, or defense, when purchased lawfully by non-felons.




Cars are often bought by people who intend to speed, tailgate, or drive drunk. Also, cars are not an enumerated Constitutional right.

 

[Rucker61]

It seems there are two choices to make a place safe:

1) Have everyone carrying a gun
2) Have more trained security presence

Why would you propose one for my kid's elementary school, but another for a political convention hall?

I didn't propose either of these. Talk to Joseph P. Clancy about the convention. Depending upon your location, it may be perfectly legal to concealed carry at your child's school.

 

[ataraxia]

Guns are usually (about 99.9%) bought for lawful purposes of sport, hunting, or defense, when purchased lawfully by non-felons.

Sure. And cars are usually purchased for purposes of transportation. But I am sure there are a lot of alcoholics and crazy people who want to drive too. But we don't let them. So what's different about guns?

 

[Goshin]

Sure. And cars are usually purchased for purposes of transportation. But I am sure there are a lot of alcoholics and crazy people who want to drive too. But we don't let them. So what's different about guns?

Do you ever drive on the roads? Plenty of crazy people and drunks out there driving.

 

[BretJ]

Even if they did, now they have changed their mind. Why can't we get this to go through?



And what's wrong with full registration? There should be licensing too. In fact, there should be mandatory training and testing too, like they do with a driver's license. Why would anyone think a gun is safer than a car?

And as far as purchases, the local government knows every time a house gets sold, who sold it, and who it got sold to. It's not that hard.

I presented a solution which would satisfy many of your concerns. No thoughts?

 

[ataraxia]

Re: 2nd amendment rights to Gatling machine guns and personal nuclear weapons:

You seem to have missed the point entirely. Congratulations on a truly extraordinary example of self-pwnage.

Not sure why. Why would the push toward more powerful military style weapons with high capacity magazine clips by the gun lobby be OK, but not a Gatling machine guns?

I want one of these for my birthday. I want to have it installed on my front porch:

 

[BretJ]

Sure. And cars are usually purchased for purposes of transportation. But I am sure there are a lot of alcoholics and crazy people who want to drive too. But we don't let them. So what's different about guns?

We do nothing to stop alcoholics or crazy people from driving. All we do is punish them for doing so after they violate the laws which don't "let" them drive.

 

[Rucker61]

The only purpose of a gun is to kill. That's by far the major reason they are purchased. Cars are usually bought for other purposes.

Wow, you contradicted yourself in your first two sentences.