Well, you didnt go far enough, even. I want a stronger version. And yes, it would stop the strawman dealers who are the #1 source of guns for criminals.
IIRC the FBI looked into that and didnt want it. But anyway- just how would it cut down? Explain, please. Criminals do not register their guns and do not have to. Now that leaves Bob the angry man who shoots someone in anger with his registered gun. So he wasn’t deterred by having a registered gun. I have been reading the “lone nut gunman mass shooter” cases, and in almost all, they bought their gun legally, and thus it was sorta registered with the Feds. They werent deterred by that. So who would it deter?
Well, if every firearm in this country were registered, one benefit would be if a gunowner was convicted of a felony or other crime that prohibited them from owning a gun, the cops would know that he owned guns and would have the legal right to remove said guns from his possession. Another benefit might be that a national registry would make it much more risky to sell a gun to a criminal. If the gun was registered to you, and you sold it to a guy on the street who then used the gun to commit a crime, you could be held partially responsible for that crime. That would go hand-in-hand with your background check requirements.
My point, in calling it nonsense isn’t that I didn’t understand what you were saying, it’s that it is nonsense and an obvious attempt to muddy the waters and change the subject from guns. You know, the number one cause of death for American children. Please stop with this nonsense.
We’ve been down this road before but it is right there, explicitly stated in the Bill of Rights. I know justice Scalia worked overtime to make that not mean anything but it is still there.
The NICS background checks (National Instant Criminal background System) are done before every legal firearm sale in the US. These checks are done at the point of sale, and cost a fee. Most people who are not allowed to buy a gun already know that and don’t apply. A few people get denied for reasons they might not be aware of. But the NICS background checks are reasonably close to the number of actual gun sales. There isn’t an actual record available for gun sales, this is close. Numbers are directly from the FBI. Take a look at how many millions of guns ar bought in the US, each month.
Only about 2.5 million last month. 31.5 million last year, 456 million since these records started being kept in 1998. Does not include any illegal sales.
And this is what you think you will stop with a few new laws? Really?
Today, strawman dealers cheerfully fill out federal registration forms, and get a background check, then drive those guns to another state and sell them to criminals.
If you sell you car, and it is used in a bank robbery, should you be held liable?
Again, the FBI looked into this and decided it wasnt worth the bother to ask for it.
So, of course you just want to name call and not debate.
Yeah, that refers to the Militia, not gun owners. Look the dudes who wrote the Bill of Rights wanted two things- an individual right to own guns, and to make sure the USA did not depend depend on a standing army, that each state, etc could have militias. They wrote one amendment for both.
We’ve been in this rodeo before. You will not find any substantial regulation or law they will support. They will demand you to come up with one, but it will inevitably be handwaved away as ineffective.
Now you are picking and choosing. Does this mean women can’t own guns? Does the conservative, ridiculous notion of “original intent” work here? Or is the court picking and choosing?
Or, can we read the words that are written? “Well regulated.” Why do those words mean nothing but the other words (in the same sentence) mean everything?
Did they, though? IANAL, but my understanding was that prior to the ratification of the 14th amendment, the Bill of Rights only limited federal actions, not state actions. So the law that those dudes actually wrote didn’t protect an individual right to own guns, it prevented the federal government from disarming a state. If a state wanted to disarm its own citizens, that was fine with them.
They only apply to militias. The individual right to own a gun has nothing to do with being in the Militia.
The writers were unclear on that. But the amendment protected the individual right to bear arms form federal laws, at least The 14th ad clarified this.
You contradicted yourself. The constitutional right to own arms ONLY applies to militias BUT owning a gun has nothing to do with a militia? Seems to me, per your take, no one has a right to own a gun unless they are in a well regulated militia.
Bottom line, gun ownership today is about as far from regulated as you can get. It certainly has nothing to do with a militia which is explicit in the constitution.
You have started back on your just asking silly asking question instead of actually honestly debating and giving your opinions. Debate honestly, please.
I have asked you several times what your solution is.
Were they? My understanding is that this was pretty settled law until the 14th. But again, NAL or historian.
Certainly, the 14th expands the restrictions of the 2nd (whatever their scope) to the state level. But I was taking issue with your claim that the people who wrote the second intended it to protect individual gun ownership. Since the second (absent the 14th) doesn’t actually protect individual gun ownership, this does not seem a defensible statement.
I want to discuss guns, not whatever nonsense that was. Guns are the number one killer of American children. People who refuse to accept that fact and stand in the way of reform help kill them.
It did protect individual gun ownership from federal laws at least- before the 14th. But the question of whether or not the writers thought the Bill of Rights affected State laws also is unclear. So were several court cases before the 14th, which did result in SCOTUS ruling that the BoR did not, at least in all cases- affect the States. So as to clarify that it did, the 14th was written, and passed without any real opposition. From reading the convention notes, at least the writers thought the 6th & 8th ad applied to the States (but not the 1st, oddly). I mean, there werent a lot of Federal crimes back in those days, so if those only applied to the Fed, then they were pointless.
Well, that’s absolutely incorrect. The southern states were completely opposed to the amendment, but were strong-armed into supporting it as a condition of re-admittance to Congress.