So try to repeal it. No one is stopping you or anyone else from doing that. I haven’t heard of a single state, that would support that, and such a small number of legislators that would consider such a thing that it would ever come up for a vote. Part of the concept of common sense legislation is that it has some chance of ever being enacted. A fight to repeal the 2nd amendment is the opposite of common sense, it would be a waste of effort and get marked up as another loss for change.
I will always, always, vote in favor of stricter gun-control measures, and the harsher the better. If people are going to have their guns, okay, but there should at the very least be some hard jail time for any infraction of the gun laws, and I mean any infraction.
yeah, because “mandatory minimums” have worked so well everywhere else they’ve been applied.
I don’t know what else to try. Make them work. No one’s going to go around and take guns away, so I really don’t know what can be done. Anytime someone suggests anything, anything at all, it seems like there’s always lots of reasons why “that can’t work so don’t even bother trying to do anything at all.”
Drunk driving used to get winked at, but that changed. Now harsher penalties really are applied. Ten years ago, no one could have guessed today’s status of gay marriage. I’m hoping gun control will finally undergo some sort of similar sea change.
That would be fine with me. I’d go even further and make gun owners criminally and civilly liable for the use of their guns by anyone. Seems to me there’s no constitutional issue there. If you have a gun you better keep it under your control. And claims that you lost your gun should be no excuse. You have a gun, nobody should be able to take it away from you, and if I am shot by your gun somehow you should be responsible for that.
I’m in the camp that doesn’t buy the pro-gun camp’s interpretation that the Second Amendment guarantees gun rights. But regardless of whatever interpretation, I can only hope people eventually, finally come around to the notion that like slavery, it’s time to patch up that part of the Constitution.
Are you referring specifically to the Washington law here? Does every transfer of every firearm require a separate background check? How long is it good for; could the hunters go to a gun store and have the check done, go hunting the next day, and pass the weapon back and forth between them? I don’t honestly know the details of the law on those points, but to hear my friend tell it no one can ever transfer a gun to anyone without risk of being hunted down like Al Capone.
That’s odd, my sense is that the people who own guns don’t think things through, or they do, and portray any increase in regulations as meaning that the jackbooted thugs will be kicking their door down to confiscate anything larger than a peashooter. (“And they’ll be coming for your peashooters, next!”)
I don’t particularly object to universal background checks, although the details on how that’s implemented could make a big difference. Perhaps when a check is done it’s good for three months or so. Someone who makes custom grips (or whatever) adds that to the cost of doing business (and the owner of the gun will need to pass a check to get the gun back). If gun owners think these laws aren’t thought through, let them offer details on how the background checks should be conducted; something more workable than “from my cold, dead hands.”
Consider the fact that you want to make penalties as harsh as possible because…reasons. “make them work” - like with magic? Extreme efforts to increase gun control must be met with extreme efforts in resistance.
Are you saying that the NRA wants criminals, children, and psychotics to be able to purchase and possess guns? I can’t tell if this is serious.
I don’t think this is true. And if it is true, it’s only because gun control advocates want to be able to define the population of folks that are ‘good guys’ and that population is zero.
Everytime Obama praises the Australian gun confiscation it should be a warning to all gun rights supporters that this is the true intent of gun control.
Here is the law:
The exceptions to the background check:
If both parties are hunting together, they can pass the firearm to each other under 4.f.(v). Lending a firearm to another person to go hunting when they come to your house would be prohibited.
But the only reason to bother repealing it is because you want to do something that would violate the constitution if it was not repealed.
Imagine somebody wanted to repeal the third amendment so much that they put the effort in to convince enough politicians of his position to change the constitution. Would you be at all surprised if the reason why he wanted to repeal the third amendment was because he wanted to violate it?
Constitutions aren’t all they’re cracked up to be. Us Frenchies are up to our fifth one (not counting the Revolutionary ones) while the Brits have yet to come up with any :D.
More seriously : that’s why those amendment thingamabobs exist, innit ? No reason the right to arm bears would be any more sacrosanct than the 3/5th compromise.
As for the enforcement of such stricter measures, I don’t reckon the stereotypical “thar comin’ for are guns, Ma !!!” police crackdown would even be necessary. Simply set up a couple months for turning over existing non-compliant guns to the local state reps for melting (possibly in exchange of equivalent value tax rebates or complimentary Red Lobster meal vouchers), then past that period anybody arrested for any reason gets the book thrown at them with great force should they happen to be caught with an illegal firearm, on top of whatever it is they’re arrested for.
But of course if any jokers *really *want to die on that hill and go all Bundy Ranch over their precious pile of M-16s, I don’t really see a compelling reason not to nuke them from orbit, either.
[QUOTE=kopek]
Most of the people I live around don’t have those advantages and the poor often don’t test as well as I do so ------- I see a couple problems with the idea should it come to pass.
[/QUOTE]
Well the aptitude test would simply be along the lines of “shoot this paper from X paces without spraying half the block in the process”, nothing fancy. We’re not talking about those absurd “literacy tests” they used to hand out to black people before allowing them to vote.
Seems to me the ability to hit whatever it is they wanna blow away is the bare minimum to ask of anybody wishing to own a deadly weapon, although I suppose a knowledge of the three big safety rules would also come handy (For reference : “treat a gun like it’s loaded at all times”, “don’t point a gun at anything you don’t intend to shoot” and “keep your fat fingers off that trigger unless you intend to kill something dead right just this minute”)
Have to start somewhere. But see? “Won’t work, never will,” the standard answer to any suggestion for gun control. I mentioned harsher drunk-driving enforcement – that came about because the will was finally there. Same with recognizing gay marriage, the will was finally there. I think the will for tightening gun-control laws will also come about, indeed may already be coming about.
Who said anything about won’t work, never will? Your suggestion is to do something, anything, and whatever it is, it should be as harsh as possible. I’m pointing out the irony that this attitude is part of the driver for resistance.
I say it’s worth a shot … so to speak.
What is?
The British Constitution was equally adored in it’s day — the 18th and 19th centuries: old constitutions fade away — but most famous for being unwritten, and for making Britain into a Crowned Republic, with the monarch subordinate to the dregs.
Ah there, Ikazuchi !
Anyway, every hunter knows the recommended way of transferring a loaded shotgun is to throw it over the fence onto soft ground, whilst loaded rifles should be leant against the fence or wall, and then reached for afterwards by the barrel, preferably guarded by the dogs.
— Which reminds me: I still haven’t read this article about the cruel lives of Spanish Hunting Dogs —
I think regulating guns in America couldn’t hurt, but only affects the externalities of the problem, if it is a problem: Americans are more prone to kill each other with or without guns. Neither the Swiss nor the Israelis have this magnificent obsession, so giving them guns or withholding them would make no difference.
As a Briton I only wish we had the freedom to own and use guns as freely as Americans — which we did up to WWI, although we didn’t have a lot of murders with or without firearms. Too apathetic really. Plus we had an extensive death penalty ( which certainly would deter me ).
Yes, I am saying exactly that. The NRA’s sole political purpose is to increase sales for the gun manufacturers who fund it.
Um, what? When was the last time a murder was committed with anything above and beyond what is typically used for hunting?
You could try buy-backs of certain types of guns. Mandatory licensing and liability insurance. Taxing the snot out of ammunition. Stopping import and manufacturing of certain types of guns. Background checks, age requirements for anything other than a simple hunting rifle. Unlicensed guns go into the incinerator.
These things wouldn’t immediately fix things, but it would start us down a better path.
Do you have any evidence that the NRA wants children, criminals, and psychotic to be able to purchase or possess guns?