Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 59 (9164 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: ChatGPT
Post Volume: Total: 916,919 Year: 4,176/9,624 Month: 1,047/974 Week: 6/368 Day: 6/11 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   How can we regulate guns ... ?
Taq
Member
Posts: 10085
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.6


(1)
Message 529 of 955 (687630)
01-14-2013 5:40 PM
Reply to: Message 525 by NoNukes
01-14-2013 5:28 PM


Registration wouldn't really help with kids being killed accidentally by guns. We generally know where those guns came from and who the gun owners are.
With registration, I was thinking more along the lines of banning private sales. In this way, if a gun is used in the commission of a crime you can trace that gun back to the owner and hold them accountable. This would also apply to manufacturers and wholesalers of guns since they would be required to trace the movement of these guns as well.
Edited by Taq, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 525 by NoNukes, posted 01-14-2013 5:28 PM NoNukes has not replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 10085
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.6


Message 534 of 955 (687635)
01-14-2013 5:53 PM
Reply to: Message 532 by Jon
01-14-2013 5:47 PM


Re: the right to bear arms == 2 simple action guns ...
I guess I missed the word 'invaders' in the Second Amendment.
It isn't in the 2nd Amendment. Where did I say that it was? I was speaking to the intent of the founders, not the exact wording of the amendment.
Added by ninja edit:
"If a well regulated militia be the most natural defence of a free country, it ought certainly to be under the regulation and at the disposal of that body which is constituted the guardian of the national security...confiding the regulation of the militia to the direction of the national authority...(and) reserving to the states...the authority of training the militia"."--Alexander Hamilton
Edited by Taq, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 532 by Jon, posted 01-14-2013 5:47 PM Jon has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 536 by Jon, posted 01-14-2013 5:55 PM Taq has replied
 Message 598 by ICANT, posted 01-16-2013 12:26 PM Taq has replied
 Message 615 by RAZD, posted 01-16-2013 3:28 PM Taq has not replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 10085
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.6


(1)
Message 539 of 955 (687640)
01-14-2013 5:59 PM
Reply to: Message 536 by Jon
01-14-2013 5:55 PM


Re: the right to bear arms == 2 simple action guns ...
The Founding Fathers, and their 'intent' is completely irrelevant.
Intent has been used in various other rulings where it concerned the interpretation of amendments, most notably the freedom of religion. We ascribe the phrase "wall of separation" to the amendment because that was the expressed intent of the amendment as stated by the founders. If we do not, then it is just a game of semantics. For example, we could just be arguing about the rights of the people to harvest the front limbs off of ursines.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 536 by Jon, posted 01-14-2013 5:55 PM Jon has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 541 by Jon, posted 01-14-2013 9:04 PM Taq has replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 10085
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.6


(1)
Message 555 of 955 (687677)
01-15-2013 11:04 AM
Reply to: Message 541 by Jon
01-14-2013 9:04 PM


Re: the right to bear arms == 2 simple action guns ...
As I already pointed out to RAZD, cartoons aren't an argument.
I didn't make it my argument. If you took the cartoon out of the post it would still make the same point, one that you seemed to have ignored.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 541 by Jon, posted 01-14-2013 9:04 PM Jon has not replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 10085
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.6


Message 557 of 955 (687679)
01-15-2013 11:07 AM
Reply to: Message 545 by Jon
01-14-2013 11:56 PM


Re: Back on Track
The discussion on the Founding Fathers is side-tracking the issue.
Policies have been proposed.
Any policy that is put in to action could be challenged on constitutional grounds and make its way to the Supreme Court. When the SCOTUS reviews the policy they will be looking at the original intent of the 2nd Amendment which includes the intent of the founding fathers who wrote the damn thing.
What use is it to write and implement a policy that is immediate overturned in the courts?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 545 by Jon, posted 01-14-2013 11:56 PM Jon has not replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 10085
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.6


Message 558 of 955 (687680)
01-15-2013 11:08 AM
Reply to: Message 552 by Theodoric
01-15-2013 10:27 AM


Re: Back on Track
I am a gun owner and have been quite immersed in the gun culture for many years. Talking with family and friends I can say that my general impressions are that this is sorta kinda where people I know are falling out on the issue.
There is a desire for more gun control among gun owners I know. There are also the dead enders like that asshole from Kentucky. Guys like that are helping drive this nation toward substantive gun control.
What is the feeling about closing the gun show and private sale loopholes amongst the people you talk to?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 552 by Theodoric, posted 01-15-2013 10:27 AM Theodoric has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 560 by Theodoric, posted 01-15-2013 11:27 AM Taq has replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 10085
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.6


Message 572 of 955 (687710)
01-15-2013 3:20 PM
Reply to: Message 567 by New Cat's Eye
01-15-2013 2:30 PM


Re: It may already be impossible to regulate guns...
The point was not that 3D printers prevent you from passing laws, but that they could make control impossible.
I think we have already experienced this type of failed regulation. You use pirated music as a good example, but we can also point to the prohibition of alcohol and more recently the prohibition of pot. In the end, the gov't just threw its hands up.
It is possible that new technologies will negate the worth of any regulation. Our only hope is that we see a cultural shift towards sane minded gun control. If the ethos of our culture turns against gun violence as it has turned against racism and sexism then perhaps we can make some headway.
Edited by Taq, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 567 by New Cat's Eye, posted 01-15-2013 2:30 PM New Cat's Eye has not replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 10085
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.6


Message 573 of 955 (687712)
01-15-2013 3:29 PM
Reply to: Message 560 by Theodoric
01-15-2013 11:27 AM


Re: Back on Track
Please realize that the gun owners I associate with now are not the own a gun for guns sake and to prove my manhood type of gun owners. For the most part. I do know a couple end of worlders that feel any regulation is bad, but they are a small minority. These are guys that are hoping for a zombie apocalypse cuz they think it would be cool.
I guess it all comes down to who the NRA is speaking for, be it sane people like you or the avid gun collectors who will not compromise on any points.
I can appreciate the position that if you give an inch they will take a mile, but I really think the NRA is making themselves look bad. If regulations are coming down the pike it would behoove them to be a part of the process.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 560 by Theodoric, posted 01-15-2013 11:27 AM Theodoric has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 577 by xongsmith, posted 01-15-2013 5:48 PM Taq has replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 10085
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.6


Message 578 of 955 (687720)
01-15-2013 6:33 PM
Reply to: Message 577 by xongsmith
01-15-2013 5:48 PM


Re: Back on Track
This is consistent with my idea of putting the NRA in charge of guaranteeing Gun Show accountability by requiring all buyers to swipe their NRA membership card and enter their PIN number (humorously termed the "Firing PIN") for each purchase around the nation. The NRA would be responsible for keeping the database of background checks for all the memberships. They would be liable for guns getting into the wrong hands or members spoiling their backgrounds to the point of revoking their membership cards. The US government would not have access to this database, so all the nutjobs could NOT whine about Nazi-Communist Islamo-terrorism taking over our government.
Perhaps this could be extended all weapon purchases anywhere the NRA has jurisdiction someday.
But this will not address inner city criminal usage.
Or they could just cover their ass and claim that the gun is not in their database, so it must have been smuggled into the country.
We register our vehicles and the sky hasn't fallen, and the gov't has not come around to confiscate our cars. A responsible gun owner has nothing to fear from a national registry, and it certainly does not violate anyone's constitutional rights.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 577 by xongsmith, posted 01-15-2013 5:48 PM xongsmith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 582 by xongsmith, posted 01-15-2013 9:29 PM Taq has not replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 10085
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.6


Message 579 of 955 (687721)
01-15-2013 6:35 PM
Reply to: Message 575 by NoNukes
01-15-2013 4:01 PM


Re: It may already be impossible to regulate guns...
In my opinion, enforcement would be utterly infeasible to accomplish. We can catch people purveying kiddie porn because 1) perverts have an insatiable desire to catch more of it and 2) it's illegal everywhere. But think of outlawing gun CAD files as something like outlawing DRM circumvention information for DVDs? That's stuff was impossible to stamp eliminate once it got on the internet. For decades that stuff was only illegal inside the US.
People can still make guns the old fashion way, not to mention the massive amounts of explosives people can make using common industrial chemicals. The OK City bombing was a perfect example of that.
Edited by Taq, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 575 by NoNukes, posted 01-15-2013 4:01 PM NoNukes has not replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 10085
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.6


(1)
Message 641 of 955 (687886)
01-17-2013 1:36 PM
Reply to: Message 598 by ICANT
01-16-2013 12:26 PM


Re: the right to bear arms == 2 simple action guns ...
The States need to be protected from the Federal government just as the people who had come from England and other countries needed to be protected from the oppressive actions against the colonies in America.
That is the purpose of the state militias, such as the National Guard or even local police officers.
Even more, this can be accomplished by people keeping guns at home and not toted around in public at all times. This is the position that Switzerland has chosen, and it seems to work quite well. IMO, this seems to be the best possible solution.
If the States became a part of the union by ratyfing the constitution they can by the same vote withdraw from any State or Federal government that ceases to obey the Constitution (contract) they agreed too.
That question was settled by a civil war about 150 years ago.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 598 by ICANT, posted 01-16-2013 12:26 PM ICANT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 649 by ICANT, posted 01-17-2013 3:19 PM Taq has not replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 10085
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.6


Message 871 of 955 (688484)
01-22-2013 7:51 PM
Reply to: Message 869 by ICANT
01-22-2013 7:45 PM


Re: Problem Solving at its Best -- proposal #1: FOIDs
But that job has already been assigned by the ATF to licensed dealers.
You are forgetting about the gun show loophole where there are no background checks or tracking. A criminal can literally walk into a gun show with a pocket full of cash and walk out with an AR15 and no one would be the wiser.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 869 by ICANT, posted 01-22-2013 7:45 PM ICANT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 872 by Jon, posted 01-22-2013 8:16 PM Taq has replied
 Message 876 by ICANT, posted 01-22-2013 11:41 PM Taq has not replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 10085
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.6


Message 873 of 955 (688487)
01-22-2013 8:23 PM
Reply to: Message 872 by Jon
01-22-2013 8:16 PM


Re: Problem Solving at its Best -- proposal #1: FOIDs
But how serious of a problem is this? What percentage of guns used in crimes are actually obtained at gun shows?
And what percentage of criminals who obtained their guns at a gun show had a background that would have disqualified them?
I would be as interested in those numbers as you are.
What I do know is that it makes no sense to have such a wide open loophole if we are using background checks to keep these weapons out of the hands of criminals. It would make a lot more sense to tie a serial number for a gun to the person who buys it, and if that gun is used in a crime then the person that is registered to that gun can be held accountable for that crime. If that person wants to sell their guns to a friend or just someone off the street then fine, but it needs to go through a licensed dealer for a background check and transfer of title for the gun.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 872 by Jon, posted 01-22-2013 8:16 PM Jon has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 875 by Jon, posted 01-22-2013 8:28 PM Taq has replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 10085
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.6


(1)
Message 883 of 955 (688544)
01-23-2013 1:42 PM
Reply to: Message 875 by Jon
01-22-2013 8:28 PM


Re: Problem Solving at its Best -- proposal #1: FOIDs
Why? What would this accomplish?
It would be a deterrent for giving guns to criminals. It would also make people think about locking up their guns at home to keep others from grabbing them.
If we have some way of tracing guns used in crimes back to the last registered owner, even if that is a wholesaler, then we can start to crack down on the pipelines that allow criminals to acquire guns.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 875 by Jon, posted 01-22-2013 8:28 PM Jon has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 890 by Jon, posted 01-23-2013 5:08 PM Taq has not replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 10085
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.6


(1)
Message 888 of 955 (688568)
01-23-2013 4:19 PM
Reply to: Message 884 by xongsmith
01-23-2013 2:18 PM


Re: 2-d covariance math says....wow!!
I would only note that in the areas of high gun death it's no wonder the people living there want to stop it. If it doesn't happen in your backyard, well, that's how life goes. Out of sight, out of mind, so to speak.
This picture is rather damning for the knee-jerk liberals
Higher density urban regions do tend to have more Democrats, and they also tend to have higher gun violence. I really doubt that those perpetrating crimes using guns are much of a voting block for either the Dems or Repubs.
So Dems do "experience" more gun violence than Repubs. I think that would be a fair generalization. I would hardly call that a knee-jerk reaction since it has been an ongoing problem for quite some time.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 884 by xongsmith, posted 01-23-2013 2:18 PM xongsmith has seen this message but not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024