universal background checks are a common sense solution to gun violence - how is this not true?

October 26, 2015

Those are the sorts of insults that immature people resort to when they have lost an argument or have nothing of substance to say.

I'm perfectly okay with that.

October 26, 2015

I'm perfectly okay with that.

I bet you are.

October 26, 2015

Let's clarify the issue first. The issue was whether a federal law that prevented a convicted rapist, bank robber, or kidnapper from buying a gun would be unconstitutional. Are we on the same page?

I am not sure what would decide that issue for me. If the question were specifically put to the Supreme Court and it issued an opinion on the matter that was sound, that would likely decide the issue for me, unless I had a strong reason to believe otherwise.

Exactly what are you basing that conclusion on? I assume that you are talking about this case:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_of_Columbia_v._Heller

What exactly is it in that opinion that you believe I disagree with? And how did you draw that conclusion? Was it a knee-jerk reaction on your part?

I believe that individual people have a right to own guns. I will probably buy a gun myself when I buy a house.

But I believe that right is not an unlimited right. For example, a state law may prohibit a convicted rapist or kidnapper from buying a gun. Both of those things are stated in the SC case cited above. So I am not sure what it is what you think I disagree with.

My mistake. I thought you were arguing more generally about an individual right vs. a "collective right" to keep and bear arms. (I hadn't carefully followed the thread far back enough. That was sloppy of me. I apologize.)

However, from a constitutional perspective, I think Winchester is correct regarding the federal government and limited and enumerated powers. And, yes, I'm also aware that the government, including federal courts, has long ago abandoned that principle in practice.

Personally, I have no problem with states punitively depriving convicted murderers and rapists of the right to buy guns (just as they, by their crimes forfeit other legitimate rights and freedoms). But, constitutionally, the power to make such laws belongs to the states, rather than to the federal government.

Yes.

I also believe that men and women who have devoted 20+ years to studying it are generally more likely to interpret it correctly than a random person on the internet named Socrates.

An appeal to authority non-argument. I base my claims on the research of those who have spent far more time studying these matters than either you or I.

And it doesn't take 20 years of law school to realize that there are plenty of folks with long legal careers --yes, including SCOTUS justices-- who don't in reality give a rat's rear end about the actual meaning of the constitution or the framers' original intent, but only about using their position of power to twist the law to advance their own political ideology.

Again - I am not sure why you seem to have concluded that I believe that individual U.S. citizens do not have a right to own guns. But I will state it again for you:

I, Peace, a member of Phatmass, do hereby on October 25, 2015, solemnly declare that individual U.S. citizens have a right to keep and bear arms.

Groovy.

October 26, 2015

I bet you are.

Unfortunately for you, dus+ shut down the PM betting page about eight years ago.

October 26, 2015

What about laws that prevent convicted criminals from buying guns? They are still citizens are they not? The right to bear arms is not an absolute right, of course.

I'd be willing to bet that at least a few come from gun friendly states as well.

But laws and regulations can drastically reduce the amount of crime.

But the Federal Government can sometimes be the only means by which a person can exercise her rights. Just ask the Little Rock Nine.

The right to bear arms is an absolute right.

Bet all you want, show me the facts.

How are laws and regulations working in LA & Chicago?

Actually, local government would be best, not central government. The over reach by the Federal government is insane. Obama just gave his speech this past weekend on having schools limit tests to 2% of the school time. This is not how the Federal government is to function.

October 26, 2015

The right to bear arms is an absolute right.

OK. So then you believe that any form of background checks should be prohibited, and you believe that rapists, kidnappers, and bank-robbers should be allowed to purchase guns when they get out of jail? This is what it means if the right to bear arms is an absolute right. Are you OK with that?

Bet all you want, show me the facts.

OK. When I have nothing better to do than find facts to support the obvious - I will post them in this thread. Please don't hold your breath.

How are laws and regulations working in LA & Chicago?

I do not know. I have not conducted research on them.

Actually, local government would be best, not central government.

No arguments with you here - as a general principle.

The over reach by the Federal government is insane. Obama just gave his speech this past weekend on having schools limit tests to 2% of the school time. This is not how the Federal government is to function.

Does this have anything to do with gun control? If you could explain the connection it would be greatly appreciated. Thanks in advance.

October 28, 2015

OK. So then you believe that any form of background checks should be prohibited, and you believe that rapists, kidnappers, and bank-robbers should be allowed to purchase guns when they get out of jail? This is what it means if the right to bear arms is an absolute right. Are you OK with that?

OK. When I have nothing better to do than find facts to support the obvious - I will post them in this thread. Please don't hold your breath.

I do not know. I have not conducted research on them.

No arguments with you here - as a general principle.

Does this have anything to do with gun control? If you could explain the connection it would be greatly appreciated. Thanks in advance.

1) Each state sets out its own laws. If you have been extracted from society for preying on society, you lose many rights, including freedom, so this does not play into the conversation whatsoever.

2) If you only have time to bloviate based on nothing, then we can move on.

3) I have and I have posted links on this board.

4) Actually, that is the law of the land (US). Not a theory. Not a general principle.

5) Certainly, the Federal Government, including the President CANNOT seize power that was not specifically granted it. The Constitution leaves the schooling of our children to the States. So, this is highlighting the unconstitutional behavior of the Federal Government.

The ONLY way for this absolute right to be removed is via the amendment process. Anything else is unconstitutional as these rights are not to be infringed upon by the Federal Government.

November 7, 2015

1) Each state sets out its own laws. If you have been extracted from society for preying on society, you lose many rights, including freedom, so this does not play into the conversation whatsoever.

So then you agree that a state government may pass a law that may limit gun ownership. We agree.

2) If you only have time to bloviate based on nothing, then we can move on.

Do you honestly believe that not a singe weapon used in a crime in Chicago or LA came from a "gun-friendly" state? Please be reasonable.

3) I have and I have posted links on this board.

You have done research concerning the effectiveness of gun laws in LA and Chicago? Where would that be exactly? The only information I saw that you posted was "353 have been shot & killed in 2015." on the first page of this thread. That is not research. Research, for example, might be where you compare the number of homicides before a specific gun law is passed and after the gun law is passed. Posting that XYZ number of people were killed in Chicago in any given year does not tell us anything about the effect that gun laws in that state have had. The number could have been 1000 without the gun laws, for all you know.

4) Actually, that is the law of the land (US). Not a theory. Not a general principle.

Exactly where is it written that "local government would be best, not central government." in the "law of the land"? I do not recall having seen that written in any state/Federal constitutions or laws. How about the US military? That is as Federal as it gets. Shall we get rid of the US Military and have each state provide for its own defense?

5) Certainly, the Federal Government, including the President CANNOT seize power that was not specifically granted it. The Constitution leaves the schooling of our children to the States. So, this is highlighting the unconstitutional behavior of the Federal Government.

The ONLY way for this absolute right to be removed is via the amendment process. Anything else is unconstitutional as these rights are not to be infringed upon by the Federal Government.

Well of course. But what does that have to do with gun control? The vast majority of gun control laws are laws that are enacted by the states, not the Federal Government.

November 7, 2015

"Do you honestly believe that not a singe weapon used in a crime in Chicago or LA came from a "gun-friendly" state? Please be reasonable."

half of the guns in chicago come from gun friendly states. that's a fact. the chicago police chief wants at least universal background checks to help curb the problem of so many guns.

i know you guys are on a tangent, but to clarify my stance. 'the people' have a right to be in the militia. that's what i think the second amendment provides. because "bear arms" has military connotations as courts have found, such as that state supreme court in the opening post..... even hunters don't bear arms when they hunt.
this way of looking at it gives emphasis to everyone having a right as "the people" argument is said to infer by modern day conservatives.... but it grants a different right than they'd give, the right to milita membership v the right to a gun period.

November 7, 2015

half of the guns in chicago come from gun friendly states. that's a fact. the chicago police chief wants at least universal background checks to help curb the problem of so many guns.

Well. Apparently 50% come from outside the state. Those would include "gun-friendly" states and non "gun-friendly" states. From the map it appears that a good chunk of those are coming from states like Indiana, KY, TN, ARK, TENN, MISS, ALA, GA, TX, so I think the point is proven well enough.

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2013/01/29/us/where-50000-guns-in-chicago-came-from.html?_r=0

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/30/us/strict-chicago-gun-laws-cant-stem-fatal-shots.html

Edited November 7, 2015 by Peace

November 9, 2015

more guns means more overall homicides

the evidence is overwhelming

http://aje.oxfordjournals.org/content/160/10/929.full

http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/hicrc/firearms-research/guns-and-death/

http://www.amjmed.com/article/S0002-9343(13)00444-0/abstract

http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2013/09/13/2617131/largest-gun-study-guns-murder/

http://heinonline.org/HOL/LandingPage?handle=hein.journals/stlpl12&div=18&id=&page=

November 9, 2015

more guns means more overall homicides

the evidence is overwhelming

http://aje.oxfordjournals.org/content/160/10/929.full

http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/hicrc/firearms-research/guns-and-death/

http://www.amjmed.com/article/S0002-9343(13)00444-0/abstract

http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2013/09/13/2617131/largest-gun-study-guns-murder/

http://heinonline.org/HOL/LandingPage?handle=hein.journals/stlpl12&div=18&id=&page=

But do more restrictive gun laws mean more deaths (or other crimes)? I think this is the question most of us are interested in. If we lived on a secluded island where it was possible to keep all guns out that would be one story, but what happens in a county like the USA with huge borders? Do you end up with a situation where criminals can still get them easily but law abing citizens cannot access them for their own defense?

November 10, 2015

i dont know the magical gun control, but over ninety percent of gun researchers say more gun control is better than none.

i would expect if we banned and confiscated weopons that gun murders would go down as that's what the evidence indicates. i'm sure with the open borders etc that there would still be some murder, and defenseless people, just not as much. the main reason people need a gun for self defense is because there's so many guns to begin with. ive never seen someone acknowledge "yes we get more murder with gun rights, but that's the way it is for self defense". but it seems that's what the situation is. getting rid of guns should be taken seriously, i just dont know the exact numbers for what would happen.

i know australia banned and confiscated a bunch of more serious guns and they knocked their rate in half. and they went from one mass shooting per year to none, that's not a statistical anomaly. that's not bad, if it was more serious confiscating, i could see it knocking say eighty percent of the murders. is that worth it while leaving people defenseless? i suppose it's not unreasonable to think otherwise than what im pushing, but yhou should at least acknowledge the deaths you're allowing for and openly consider both sides.

as the oxford link indicates, a gun is a danger to yourself and those around you... you're more likely to be shot or to kill with a gun. most people can accept this much. but then the next step is imagine lots of people with guns. wouldnt be common sense to expect more murders? that's what the evidence indicates, not just common sense.

i acknowledge it would be a messy transition to get rid of guns. and political reality is it aint gonna happen in this lifetimes or anytime soon relative to that. plus the USA has search and seizure laws to keep it harder to deal with. not that i'm complaining, just pointing out what some other countries dont deal with as much.

Edited November 10, 2015 by dairygirl4u2c

November 10, 2015

i reluctantly would probably support bans and confiscation on a nationwide scale. this view doesn't make me popular and i dont like taking people's guns away. and i am open to evidence to contradict my main premises and cause me more caution in my view. i am just openly considering the idea, which is what i think should be expected from everyone.

it's also important to note. most people who have guns for self defense are just people. who may or may not turn into criminals. it's not like there's a magic line between criminal or not. so reducing guns would reduce the number of people with guns and thus reduce murders.

November 11, 2015

November 11, 2015

Wow! Shocking news: Guns are dangerous! (And all this time we dumb conservatives thought they were just harmless fluffy toys great for leaving in babies' cribs and such.)

But while we're in this mania for demanding that the almighty, all-wise Nanny-State keep dangerous things out of the hands of Little People, why not focus on banning swimming pools or motor vehicles, which kill more than guns in the U.S.? (Well actually, at least one popular leftist blogger has demanded that gubmint ban the latter.)

The left's anti-gun obsession is a bit weird.

(Or better still, why not focus on abortion clinics? Oh, but unlike keeping arms, that's a woman's constitutional right! Or so the all-knowing men in the black robes tell us.)

November 11, 2015

more guns means more overall homicides

the evidence is overwhelming

http://aje.oxfordjournals.org/content/160/10/929.full

http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/hicrc/firearms-research/guns-and-death/

http://www.amjmed.com/article/S0002-9343(13)00444-0/abstract

http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2013/09/13/2617131/largest-gun-study-guns-murder/

http://heinonline.org/HOL/LandingPage?handle=hein.journals/stlpl12&div=18&id=&page=

If A is attacking B and B ends up killing A in self defense, that's homicide.

You're moving from correlation to causation. In the UK, for instance, homicide rates were lower than in the US (I think it's a mistake to consider the US as a single entity, but it is what it is) prior to their increased gun restrictions.

Later you state that you would be for gun confiscation. It appears then that you approve of some forms of violence. So maybe parse out suicides, self defense, and murder. I would suggest also considering the effects of the drug war.

November 11, 2015

we have umpteen more murders for every defensive homicide, so i dont think making this point changes anything because it's all proportional still.

the only counter i can think of per correlation and causation is the countires and areas happen to be more violent, so people get more guns. not so much that people have guns so it gets more violent. i think the common sense understanding is though that one person is more dangerous with a gun, imagine all the more lots of people with guns. so i think gun presence is causative.

i dont know how local gun bans without confiscation or various gun control politces will play out. citing one example is anecdotal at best. at in reality the point isn't about x non ban nonconfiscation gun control policy, but that gun and murders are proporitional so maybe bans and confiscation might do something.

yes i am in favor of some violence, such as gun confiscation. and i think the president should have plenty of guns at his disposal. i dont think this makes me a hypocrite, i think he's an important man who people want to speciiclaly kill, so he gets special attention. and the people he has guard him aren't prone to using their guns to murder, so the problem as it might sit here is moot.

comparing guns to car wrecks and pool deaths is ridiculous. the later are things that people choose to participate in and they are not designed to kill. guns murders are non voluntary and guns are designed to kill.

Edited November 11, 2015 by dairygirl4u2c

November 14, 2015

When you see things that happened in France yesterday Gun ownership for the individual to protect themselves makes a lot more sense

November 16, 2015

yes i am in favor of some violence, such as gun confiscation. and i think the president should have plenty of guns at his disposal. i dont think this makes me a hypocrite, i think he's an important man who people want to speciiclaly kill, so he gets special attention.

So the right to personal protection should belong only to Important People like Dear Leader Barack Hussein Hillary Rodham Obama, and not to us lowly commoners. Got it.

comparing guns to car wrecks and pool deaths is ridiculous. the later are things that people choose to participate in and they are not designed to kill. guns murders are non voluntary and guns are designed to kill.

The vast majority of gun-owners are not murderers, nor do they have intent to murder.

Sign In

universal background checks are a common sense solution to gun violence - how is this not true?

Recommended Posts

Winchester

Peace

Socrates

Winchester

StMichael

Peace

StMichael

Peace

dairygirl4u2c

Peace

dairygirl4u2c

Peace

dairygirl4u2c

dairygirl4u2c

little2add

Socrates

Winchester

dairygirl4u2c

little2add

Socrates

Create an account or sign in to comment

Create an account

Sign in