Chicago AR ban lifted

[Lemon Drop]

99% of gun sales go through background checks, well 99% of gun sales between law abiding citizens. Criminals, probably not so much, and insurance requirements, registration,........ Read the part of the constitution that says "Shall not be infringed". Every American has the right to protect themselves

645 continues to push false information about CBCs. And other things. Nobody here takes him seriously on any gun related issue.

[Mr645]

Smote wrote:
Insurance won't work, because as soon as a person violates the law, the ins company will say, not our problem. And if the firearm is stolen, and someone uses it illegally, the legal owner isn't responsible for any of it, because that was decided decades ago with autos and boats.
each state can vary, but Florida is a no fault state for car insurance. Someone steals my car, crashes into another car, that owner is coming after my insurance

But once again, unless these laws and regulations are enforced without exception, it isn't going to work. The current ones aren't being enforced, what makes anyone think new ones will be? This is not a rhetorical question. The lawmakers fail to make it a requirement to enforce, with penalties on those responsible for their enforcement. So each and every one of us is responsible, because WE aren't holding the elected officials, and the law enforcement and criminal justice systems accountable.
pretty much. It is clear Hunter Biden lied on his form 4473 background check that clearly asks if you have used legal drugs, including marijuana and me replied NO.

Right now, liberal lawmakers craft and enact illegal legislation, and blame the conservatives when they don't succeed. And the conservatives don't trust the liberals to do "just a few common sense things" Ever heard Rep Giffords rant, and her party tries everything to walk it back, even as she keeps shouting ALL GUNS? I have a friend with 4 bullet scars in him. Never heard him rant about AKMs. Now the person who shot him, his questionable parentage, and where he will end up when he dies, sure. Anyone angry at SUVs because they got hit by someone on a cellphone? At the cellphone, or the person using it instead of just driving? Auto fatalities due to distracted driving are equal to those due to drunk driving

The games played by saying certain cosmetic features make a rifle evil, but without them they are fine, and they will be allowed? What rational and knowledgeable person THINKS that way? No one is the likely answer. AR-15 is bad, Ruger Mini 14 is good. Same gun, the Mini 14 has wood stocks and looks like a hunting rifle, but functionally is identical to an AR-15

People are trying to protect me from myself claiming I'm more at risk with firearms in my home. Not your job. You are free to do whatever you want to in your home. None of my, or anyone else's business as long as you aren't harming others in your community without their consent. Exactly. My home defense firearm stored near my bed at night is of no risk. Both my wife and I know how to use it. We have no kids living in our home

I'm all for any and all mental and emotional health assistance that can be made available to anyone who wants or needs it. What rational person would be against helping others in crisis, or near crisis? We don't really need guidance counselors in schools any more, we need social workers and mental/emotional health councelors. And in colleges/universities as well. Most people struggle with basic life until well into their 20s these days.

[Mr645]

Lemon Drop wrote:

99% of gun sales go through background checks, well 99% of gun sales between law abiding citizens. Criminals, probably not so much, and insurance requirements, registration,........ Read the part of the constitution that says "Shall not be infringed". Every American has the right to protect themselves

645 continues to push false information about CBCs. And other things. Nobody here takes him seriously on any gun related issue.

Most people here choose to just listen to firearm illiterate libels of Congress than bother to learn anything about firearms. If 400,000,000+++ privately owned firearms in the USA were a problem, we would know about it.

Look around to where you can buy a firearm without a background check. Not easy

[mattkime]

Mr645 wrote:
If 400,000,000+++ privately owned firearms in the USA were a problem, we would know about it.

Yet another failure of probabilistic thinking.

[pdq]

DeusxMac wrote:
[quote=Mr645]
[quote=DeusxMac]
[quote=Mr645]
So machine guns are OK? They were invented in 1778 and fired 100 rounds per minute.

Citation?

Mr645 wrote: Would the same rule apply to the first amendment? And voting techniques?

False equivalence – describing two or more statements as virtually equal when they are not.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Puckle_gun
Technically the first, then in the late 1700's Gating invented his gun and various other fully automatic guns were invented.
Is it that you don't actually read your links, or you don't understand what you've read?

Where does it state "invented in 1778 and fired 100 rounds per minute."??

Who is your "Gating"* who "invented his gun" "in the late 1700's"??

Mr645 wrote: As far as comparing the 1st and 2nd amendments, both are the basis for our Constitution, both are in the bill of rights, don't see your point

If that represents the limits of your ability to differentiate between the two amendments, then the thought processes for your conclusions about them is explained.


*If you meant Gatling, he wasn't even born until 1818, and didn't develop his gun until 1861!
Getting to this a little late, but after awhile you find it’s wise to fact-check the statements of certain posters or read their proffered links because they are almost always BS.

[sekker]

Mr645 wrote:
[quote=sekker]
[quote=Smote]
[quote=sekker]
[quote=Smote]
But why do the politicians continue to craft, and pass legislation that they know violates the Constitution, and violates Civil Rights?

You can knock out quite a lot of the gun violence by these same politicians crafting and passing legislation that requires District Attorney to prosecute EVERY firearms violation. And to remove bail as an option for violent firearms offendors so they can't continue to terrorize their communities and re-offend while waiting on court for the first offense.

I don't see any Civil Rights violations in that, do you? Once you are about a pre-teen, you know that commiting a crime with a firearm in not OK, and you "should" get in trouble. Once the message is loud and clear that you WILL get in trouble, and its serious, lots of that behavior will stop. Either because the penalty is too steep for the gain, or you are behind bars because you can't behave properly in public.

The same cities rife with gun violence are the ones not dealing with the criminals, especially the repeat offendors. Why are so many people unwilling to punish those causing the trouble? Might get ugly for a generation, but it will pass.

No amount of laws will solve the problem if you never enforce them. Hunter Biden lied on a 4473 form. That's a 10 year sentence. It is even literally a signed confession. Nothing was done. In the national news, and nothing was done. It sends a message that these laws aren't serious, and we aren't serious about solving these problems.

No, no, no. You refuse to answer my questions because you know I'm right. There ARE solutions that will work and are Constitutional.

Tell me, do you want our kids to be safe in schools or not?
Absolutely I want our kids safe in schools. I never said I didn't. Please show me where I said I didn't. I have no issue with background checks, or reasonable close ended waiting periods. The bogus "assault weapon" hysteria is essentially made-up though, as the numbers of deaths FROM them is a fraction of a percent. They aren't the problem. Narrowing the issue down to a few hundred deaths a year driving everything is doing a massive dis-service to the cause of lessening firearms violence though, because knowledgeable people who have looked at the actual raw data that gets cherry picked over know they aren't the problem.

The shoulder brace BS? 3 cases where they have been used in a crime. Out of between 10 and 40 million braces. The ATF acknowledges this in their own ddocuments.

The stumbling block is that it is a very visceral emotional issue, and that is blinding so many people on both sides.

I notice no one but me is touching on politicians knowingly violating civil rights. As long as they don't bother you, it's OK?
No. You are trying to equate past governance failures to current proposals. 1) Actual background checks, no loopholes. 2) Registration of guns, no loopholes. 3) Insurance requirements because (2) means we have a place to start tracking who is responsible when a gun is used to kill people.

None of these ideas are un-Constitutional. And I share your comment that prior political solutions have been poorly executed.

So please stop not answering by accusing others. It is up to us to solve this problem, and we are capable of doing so if we find common ground.

99% of gun sales go through background checks, well 99% of gun sales between law abiding citizens. Criminals, probably not so much, and insurance requirements, registration,........ Read the part of the constitution that says "Shall not be infringed". Every American has the right to protect themselves
Just not true, but you can go ahead and keep posting numbers that are not real.

You are inventing arguments to avoid actually doing anything.

There is nothing in the Constitution that says a 'well regulated militia' cannot be required to have insurance.

[sekker]

'I'm all for any and all mental and emotional health assistance that can be made available to anyone who wants or needs it. What rational person would be against helping others in crisis, or near crisis? We don't really need guidance counselors in schools any more, we need social workers and mental/emotional health councelors. And in colleges/universities as well. Most people struggle with basic life until well into their 20s these days.'

This is terrific common ground. Now, how do we want to pay for this? Modern insurance is often TERRIBLE at covering mental health treatments.

[Racer X]

sekker wrote:
'I'm all for any and all mental and emotional health assistance that can be made available to anyone who wants or needs it. What rational person would be against helping others in crisis, or near crisis? We don't really need guidance counselors in schools any more, we need social workers and mental/emotional health councelors. And in colleges/universities as well. Most people struggle with basic life until well into their 20s these days.'

This is terrific common ground. Now, how do we want to pay for this? Modern insurance is often TERRIBLE at covering mental health treatments.

It would be reasonable, and very legal to require all health insurance plans to cover mental health, and to authorize it automatically every time a patient requests help. When the ACA was being worked on, they had requirements for minimums that every approved plan had to include/cover, or the state Insurance Commissioner would't let the policy be sold in that state.

The VA really screwed the pooch when the Atlanta shooter today was begging for help last Friday. If what was being reported is true, but it did come from his mother. A patient in crises not being given proper help in a timely manner.

[Racer X]

pdq wrote:
[quote=Smote]
[quote=mattkime]
[quote=Smote]Someone exercising that Right lawfully is harmless.

We disagree.
As is our Right. But so is my Right the bear arms.
So, you’re part of a well-regulated militia then?

Also, how do you feel about these obviously unconstitutional laws against people owning machine guns, cannons, tanks, or nukes?
The Supreme Court ruled that the right to keep and bear arms is also an individual right, and also encompasses self defense. So until the Supreme Sourt reverses itself, that is the legal reallity the entire country lives under today.

Where are these laws saying we can't own cannons or tanks https://www.drivetanks.com/own-one/ ? We can own "machine guns" as well. Just pay $200 for a federal tax stamp (includes background check) from the ATF and buy one. https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/27/479.105 There are privately owned mini-guns as well, and at least one restored WW II ball turret with quad M2a Brownings. That took 4 tax stamps. Want range time without owning one? https://www.drivetanks.com/machine-gun-shooting/ https://www.drivetanks.com/tanks-tracks/ https://www.drivetanks.com/big-guns/

[sekker]

Smote wrote:
[quote=pdq]
[quote=Smote]
[quote=mattkime]
[quote=Smote]Someone exercising that Right lawfully is harmless.

We disagree.
As is our Right. But so is my Right the bear arms.
So, you’re part of a well-regulated militia then?

Also, how do you feel about these obviously unconstitutional laws against people owning machine guns, cannons, tanks, or nukes?
The Supreme Court ruled that the right to keep and bear arms is also an individual right, and also encompasses self defense. So until the Supreme Sourt reverses itself, that is the legal reallity the entire country lives under today.

Where are these laws saying we can't own cannons or tanks https://www.drivetanks.com/own-one/ ? We can own "machine guns" as well. Just pay $200 for a federal tax stamp (includes background check) from the ATF and buy one. https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/27/479.105 There are privately owned mini-guns as well, and at least one restored WW II ball turret with quad M2a Brownings. That took 4 tax stamps. Want range time without owning one? https://www.drivetanks.com/machine-gun-shooting/ https://www.drivetanks.com/tanks-tracks/ https://www.drivetanks.com/big-guns/
Hmm. Your post makes me think that maybe it really is time for using something in the Constitution - called an ‘amendment’. Seems like we need to revise one that is clearly being misread by the current courts. There is NO WAY the violence we have in our country was imagined when the current language of the Second Amendment was written.