Gun Control

[notorious]

We have all heard about what happened in Aurora, Co, and I think that Gun Control is going to be a huge topic in the following months.


What measures need to be taken? Do you have any ideas that will help prevent this kind of thing from happening again as it pertains to guns?

[mr. tegu]

Originally Posted by Pawnmower

The second amendment is there specifically to keep the government in check. (It even states the purpose is to have a well regulated militia).

The rights in the ammendment where very important back then, given the fear of British or potentially local authorities intruding on your rights and property. I just think that a 200+ year old law does not always equate as time goes on. Keep in mind I am not saying it should be removed. Just kind of sharing my thoughts on it.

[Iowanian]

By making it more difficult or expensive for me, as a law abiding citizen to purchase weapons and ammunition that are legal for me to own now. That's one example.

I own weapons and ammo that would look pretty bad if they were layed out on the floor for CNN, but they've broken no laws to date. Now the law changes that restricts the size of magazines or the number of rounds of ammo I can purchase for my own legal use.


Now, for your point, Imagine it's currently legal for you to buy alcohol at age 21. A 21 year old legally buys alcohol and drives his car into a movie theater killing many people. Now, the government should make the legal drinking age 25. Maybe that doesn't work to explain what I mean.

Maybe you should give an example of a law that only affects criminals that currently doesn't exist on the books.

[BIG_DADDY]

Originally Posted by mr. tegu

How about, if you are a convicted felon, you can't buy a gun at a gun show?

Who cares. Give them a 10 year ban. No scarlet letter legislation.

[Bo's Pelini]

Originally Posted by mr. tegu

I agree with this. I am a mental health professional and it amazes me how many people have a negative stigma about their psychological issues and instead of working on them, they just pop a pill.

Do you guys realize that there are physicians out there that give anti-depressants and other medications to 3 and 4 year olds to treat what they think is bipolar disorder. But in actuality these kids are, well, being kids acting appropriate for their age. Part of the blame is also on the parents for being so inept that they immediately take their child to receive medications for "misbehaving" when in actuality the parents are poor at their responsiblities and instead of taking the time to deal with it, they pop in a medication, which is essentially like sweeping the issue under the rug, unfortunately they aren't sweeping the correct issue under the rug to begin with.

Nobody talks about this Mr. Tegu.

I don't know if people just don't understand it or don't care to talk about it because things like gun control are more of a hot button issue and gets ratings for networks?

[Brock]

Originally Posted by mr. tegu

The rights in the ammendment where very important back then, given the fear of British or potentially local authorities intruding on your rights and property. I just think that a 200+ year old law does not always equate as time goes on. Keep in mind I am not saying it should be removed. Just kind of sharing my thoughts on it.

Perhaps we no longer need 1st, 4th, or 5th amendment protections any more. Maybe they're outdated too.

[listopencil]

Originally Posted by mr. tegu

The rights in the amendment where very important back then, given the fear of British or potentially local authorities intruding on your rights and property. I just think that a 200+ year old law does not always equate as time goes on. Keep in mind I am not saying it should be removed. Just kind of sharing my thoughts on it.

Those rights are very important right now too. I don't care to be treated like a sheep by my local authority figures, and I don't care to be a sitting duck for any armed derelict wandering a city street at night.

[mr. tegu]

Originally Posted by KC Fish

That's already illegal...

http://savannahnow.com/latest-news/2...w#.UAm8GzFSRsg

http://www.nola.com/crime/index.ssf/...t_gun_for.html

Perhaps I should have specifically said requiring background checks at a gun show. I realize if the seller FFL or not knows you are a felon (depending on the state) you can't purchase the weapon.

[mr. tegu]

Originally Posted by Brock

Perhaps we no longer need 1st, 4th, or 5th amendment protections any more. Maybe they're outdated too.

Originally Posted by listopencil

Those rights are very important right now too. I don't care to be treated like a sheep by my local authority figures, and I don't care to be a sitting duck for any armed derelict wandering a city street at night.

Come on guys. You both know that isn't what I said. As society changes so do laws. Just pointing out that when the law was enacted there were many more fears about intrusion from trained soldiers, foreign or not. I don't think many people live in fear of a Redcoat or British sympathizer breaking into their home and pillaging and plundering. And as I said, I was not even trying to say the law shouldn't exist still.

[Detoxing]

Originally Posted by listopencil

I don't know, I guess it is pretty cut-and-dry for me. Out in the real world, with the exception of specific random situations, you are going to have three groups of people that may be in armed conflict at any time.

(1)Authority figures like a policeman on patrol.

(2)Law abiding citizens who carry weapons and use them responsibly.

(3)Criminals, or people who engage in criminal behavior while using a firearm.

I, personally, want to keep (2) as well armed as possible, (1) as well armed as is reasonable and (3) as poorly armed as possible. Gun control legislation will not effect (1), has little to no effect on (3), and will most likely pose a significant restraint on (2).


Fail.

Nothing more needs to be said.

[listopencil]

Originally Posted by mr. tegu

Come on guys. You both know that isn't what I said. As society changes so do laws. Just pointing out that when the law was enacted there were many more fears about intrusion from trained soldiers, foreign or not. I don't think many people live in fear of a Redcoat or British sympathizer breaking into their home and pillaging and plundering. And as I said, I was not even trying to say the law shouldn't exist still.

Yeah, it really is what you said. You just said it again.

[Brock]

Originally Posted by mr. tegu

Come on guys. You both know that isn't what I said. As society changes so do laws. Just pointing out that when the law was enacted there were many more fears about intrusion from trained soldiers, foreign or not. I don't think many people live in fear of a Redcoat or British sympathizer breaking into their home and pillaging and plundering. And as I said, I was not even trying to say the law shouldn't exist still.

Where do you stop rolling back freedoms?

[mr. tegu]

Originally Posted by Brock

If I have to undergo a background check/waiting period to buy my weapon, am I not affected?

A background check is not the same as a required waiting period. Keep in mind it is my understanding that a waiting period is not necessary for those with a valid permit. I am sure you are aware of this but I will post it anyways.

Mandated by the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act of 1993 and launched by the FBI on November 30, 1998, NICS is used by Federal Firearms Licensees (FFLs) to instantly determine whether a prospective buyer is eligible to buy firearms or explosives. Before ringing up the sale, cashiers call in a check to the FBI or to other designated agencies to ensure that each customer does not have a criminal record or isn’t otherwise ineligible to make a purchase.

http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/nics/nics

[Fish]

Originally Posted by mr. tegu

Perhaps I should have specifically said requiring background checks at a gun show. I realize if the seller FFL or not knows you are a felon (depending on the state) you can't purchase the weapon.

Have you been to any gun shows at all? Background checks are required at a gun show. Just like anywhere else. The only exception is sales between individuals. Which constitutes a very small percent of sales at a gun show.

A Bureau of Justice Statistics report indicates that less than 1% of criminals obtain guns from gun shows.1 This study was based on interviews with 18,000 prison inmates and is the largest such study ever conducted by the federal government. It is also entirely consistent with previous federal studies, such as another BJS study which found only 1.7% of federal prison inmates obtained their guns from gun shows. 2 Similarly, a National Institute of Justice (NIJ) study reported less than 2% of criminals' guns came from gun shows.3

http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/pub/ascii/fuo.txt

[cosmo20002]

Originally Posted by KC_Lee

Fair enough, here's the full quote; "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

Definition of a militia;

mi·li·tia [mi-lish-uh]

noun
1. a body of citizens enrolled for military service, and called out periodically for drill but serving full time only in emergencies.

2. a body of citizen soldiers as distinguished from professional soldiers.

3. all able-bodied males considered by law eligible for military service.

4. a body of citizens organized in a paramilitary group and typically regarding themselves as defenders of individual rights against the presumed interference of the federal government.

So again I ask, why can we regulate one explicitly list right (as the text of the amendement calls for) but cannot regulate the inferred right?

It does say "well-regulated."

[Brock]

Originally Posted by mr. tegu

A background check is not the same as a required waiting period. Keep in mind it is my understanding that a waiting period is not necessary for those with a valid permit. I am sure you are aware of this but I will post it anyways.



http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/nics/nics

That doesn't change the point of what I said at all.