Cite?
Wikipedia. There is a variety of technologies, some of which can be retrofitted to existing guns. You won’t be limited to just one model. Not that the 2nd guarantees you a minimum type of guns for your shopping pleasure or anything.
You do gun rights advocates no favors here.
I will always engage in polite discussion with anyone who wishes regarding gun rights. Part of supporting the right is to be a good advocate. Doing so requires responding to questions even from those who oppose you. I believe my arguments are winning ones and while I doubt I will convince too many people, it has happened before. Even more importantly that the person you are responding to, is the other readers who lurk and may be persuaded.
It is in this vein that I will take any who wish to go shooting, especially if they are new shooters. Nothing brings people into the fold moreso than having an enjoyable experience.
Contrast that with the vitriol commonly displayed by gun control advocates. Take the high road and persuade more people. Or not I suppose.
No one takes any joy in the suffering of others through gun violence, especially gun rights advocates. And while the suffering of a family that goes through these tragedies is awful, it is true that when compared to overall causes of death these rare occurrences are statistically insignificant. That should not be mistaken for indifference or misconstrued to be viewed as actually insignificant to those involved.
This bill didn’t come to a vote - I believe it was sent back to committee. It does get introduced over and over so vigilance is the key here.
See: [Illinois Association of Firearms Retailers, )
Kenneth Pacholski, Kathryn Tyler, and )
Michael Hall,
V
The City of Chicago and Rahm Emanuel, )
Mayor of the City of Chicago,](https://www.suntimes.com/csp/cms/sites/STM/dt.common.streams.StreamServer.cls?STREAMOID=azOWu6oNKuC3l12WAUy8FZhyJxsjEhlu6ZjgBv8viHRatYXQNDNacVnv$QMsgJhbjMpqdV2Mso4mH6beQ6T6p6cn$IfHvVpaPD23r0DuAcZaTfjnUETyN4ze2Kxdkdy8&CONTENTTYPE=application/pdf&CONTENTDISP)
Article:
[Chang’s ruling came in a lawsuit filed by the Illinois Association of Firearms Retailers and three Chicagoresidents. The judge noted Chicago’s ban covers not only federally licensed firearms dealers, but also gifts among family members, all in the name of reducing gun violence.
Chang wrote that the nation’s third-largest city “goes too far in outright banning legal buyers and legal dealers from engaging in lawful acquisitions and lawful sales of firearms, and at the same time the evidence does not support that the complete ban sufficiently furthers the purposes that the ordinance tries to serve.”](Chicago's ban on gun sales violates the Second Amendment, rules federal judge - CSMonitor.com)
This is after federal courts already ruled that a right to own also carries a right to practice. You were saying?
It kinda does. When you limit the type of guns to something that costs an arm and a leg, you’re infringing on the right to bear arms. That’s the “coy stupidity” I referred to. Of the “I’m not touching you!” variety.
I was hoping for some existing prototypes ready for police and military testing, or in the testing process already. I think we’ll need some expert input regarding the models involved and their potential. As far as I can tell, the politicians have concocted the wacky concept of banning all guns except a new largely untested and very limited version of a handgun. This doesn’t sound like they’re working to protect anyone … looks like they’re working to manipulate the emotions on both sides. They want votes from the least perceptive Liberals, money from the least ethical Liberals, and any Right Wing whack jobs that go bananas are a bonus … they’ll just push the gun-fearful into overdrive against the Constitution and the will of a huge segment of the population. Divide and conquer.
Well, on the face of it, it sounds like a law passed while gun rights people were chanting “no, no, no” and it passed anyway. Will of the people I guess.
Guns and ammo have been selling like hotcakes, haven’t they? I wonder if gun rights proponents can’t afford these new guns because they shot their wad on old guns and ammo, or what? Give it time; I’m sure the price of the new guns will come down, and the variety will go up. Really, the constitution doesn’t say you have to have cheap guns does it? Does it say we have to have cheap mortgages and food, too? Sounds socialist.
Gulls are fooled, loons are not. Both groups make up the NRA coalition of sad clowns, along with ducks, quacks and swallows. Hey, I’ve had to drop my claim that the NRA is an industry lobby posturing as a human rights organization though it rolls off the tongue really well.
Your cite covers 0-19 year olds and the 15-19 group is responsible for more than half of all deaths as seen on page 24. So your claim is FUBAR, but I sympathize: I couldn’t dig up the right info either. Maybe later.
I’ll WAG that we’re going to end up somewhere between childhood poisonings and drownings. Drownings are a pretty big deal, but we have prescription safety caps for a reason. The word “Negligible” is inappropriate but frankly I don’t know how to improve on it. I don’t know what the right word is. It’s certainly not “Humungous”. Anyway, facts first, characterization later.
Having the NRA teach gun safety is like having the cigarette lobby teach health classes.
Parents should be presented with a comparison of the odds of a home invasion (de minimus) compared directly with the odds of an accidental childhood shooting making sure that the denominator involves homes with both guns and children. Then they can decide whether they want trigger locks or not. NRA publications don’t seriously discuss anything like that, right? Note I said, “Seriously”.
Well, that’s not quite right. I understand lots of states mandate gun safety classes taught by either the NRA or law enforcement. And law enforcement won’t offer classes. The NRA tends to be pretty cozy with legislatures, notwithstanding the anti-government paranoia that they like to inflame. The NRA doesn’t have a problem with compiling databases of gun owners either, whether they are active members or not. They’re a lot more intrusive than they pretend.
Kinda, my ass.
Where exactly does the Constitution say that all guns must be affordable?
Helpful hint: It doesn’t.
I don’t think the cost is the factor in the minds of potential consumers. I think some real gun enthusiasts are alarmed that the laws governing the sale and ownership of guns will become more draconian and authoritarian … and for good reason. Then, there are the staunch political conservatives, who may or may not be serious about gun sports or collecting, or even really think they’ll use their gun for protection, but consider the gun a symbol. Either way, there are millions upon millions of Americans, Republican, Libertarian, and Democrat, who can read (the Constitution), can understand how guns are useful and often necessary for protecting oneself and family, and aren’t deluded by unethical politicians from both sides of the aisle.
Since I don’t bear arms, and am as Liberal a Liberal as they come, I can see that people on both sides of the issue are victims of manipulation by the ones who really stand to benefit from the disarming of the masses, and also profit by dividing citizens into groups that are at odds with each other (religious vs Gay, Black vs White, Progressive vs Traditional, etc.)
People are clannish, tribal … they easily band into groups with actual or perceived similar values and goals. And, they naturally tend to clash with other groups that are rivals, or are made out to be rivals.
Where exactly does the Constitution say that the state cannot require that rifles in the home have to be unloaded and disassembled or trigger-locked? Yet Supreme Court said that’s what the Constitution says. That requirement put too much of a burden on the exercise of the fundamental Constitutional right. Same with that ridiculous NJ law.
Random comment:
It’s heartening to see people who are for gun-owners rights distance themselves from the crazy. I feel better about people having guns when I know the grand majority of them are sane.
I’m not *completely *okay with it, because accidents and crossfire and mistaken identities and impulsive behavior under stress, but, people drive cars and you can easily kill people with a car. Just be careful.
Some people shouldn’t be allowed to drive, some people shouldn’t be able to own guns. The ones who shouldn’t be allowed to own guns are the ones that firmly believe they have a right to threaten other people with violence.
So when has the Supreme Court said that guns must be affordable and that any variety and model of gun that exists must be legal for sale to the public?
Red herring. That’s not what is being argued here.
sigh
Thought experiment: the government cannot limit the press. Could it impose a ten thousand dollar tax on every page of newsprint printed, under the theory that the Constitution does not say newspapers must be affordable?
Government can impose, however: minimum wage laws, payroll taxes, OSHA safety regulations, ADA accessibility restrictions, building code requirements…
Each of these is an infringement by this reasoning, no?
I mean, I get that you’re hyperbolizing for effect, but isn’t the real question about where we draw the “reasonable” line?
The problem is that gun control advocates have been dominated by folks who are not reasonable. This is how you get laws passed that say you have to have live fire training to purchase a firearm (seems reasonable) then ban any live fire training. Or that you can possess a firearm (reasonable) but you can’t buy, sell, acquire or transfer any firearms. Or that if one technology exists for the first time, then that new tech is the only one allowed and all other firearms that have been in existence for the past hundred(s) of years are now illegal to sell (smartguns in NJ and microstamping in CA). Or that Dick Heller who was the lead plaintiff in Heller vs. DC won his case to be allowed to purchase a handgun, but when DC enacted new laws to comply with the SCOTUS decision, the handgun he wanted to purchase was still banned. That same handgun is still illegal to purchase in CA as well.
These are the things that gun control advocates consider reasonable. They speak about common sense regulation, but never ever offer any concessions for all of their common sense measures.
:eek::dubious:
The NRA has as vice president a fanatic named Wayne LaPierre, in this thread we have a member that advocates terrorism is support of his 2nd Amendment rights, and you are against any and all regulations. The problem seems to be that one only has to be a gun control advocate of any kind to be considered “not reasonable” by you. If I am wrong, please point out any gun control regulations you think are reasonable.
Apropos of nothing, I went to the shooting range last week to celebrate the end of school. It was the first time I’d fired a rifle since I was about seven and the first time I’d fired a handgun ever. It was lots of fun.
I’m totally cool with felons losing the right to arms permanently.
I’m totally cool with the current prohibition on mentally adjudicated folks.
I’m totally cool with no guns on airplanes.
I would support mandating at the state level mental health and criminal records be submitted so they can be available for NICS checks.
Given the right circumstances, I’d be okay with background checks and all non-familial transfers and sales going through an FFL (sans waiting period). I would never support this in the current environment though because I don’t trust anyone who advocates for gun control. I used to be more open to certain regulation (I’m in CA and we’re pretty out there compared tot he rest of the country wrt gun laws) but after seeing gun control advocates and their tactics, the only viable course of action is to oppose any and all regulation. It’s made me almost a single issue voter.
You tell me, do you think those laws that I listed in #296 are reasonable? Think about the posters in this thread. There are some that will only post in gun related threads in the Pit because their arguments have no merit outside of it.
Are there any areas you think gun laws should be more permissive?
I have always said the NRA is too moderate for me. And Wayne is not the best spokesperson - but he does rally the base which is part of his job. He comes across poorly sometimes, but I haven’t heard him say anything that was too wacky. Compare that to Bloomberg or De Leon who crow on and on but don’t know what they are talking about.
Careful. Your fellow militiamen get twitchy when they sense a GNINO in their midst.