The Second Amendment seems to be the only article of the Bill of Rights that people call for a degree of restriction that amounts to paying lip service to considering it a right at all; or at best it’s a “right” that’s conditional on the entirety of the rest of society permitting you to exercise it. I mean fine, if society has mutated that far from the late Eighteenth century then let’s get honest and have the stones to formally abolish the Second Amendment and return the question of how much restricting gun ownership is reasonable to the states- just like we recently did with abortion. But until then, let’s respect the 2nd Amendment as a formal guarantee of a liberty, not a polite suggestion.
It works even better if you claim they want to see you dead!
Show some respect for those that do not hold your beliefs, and maybe we’ll talk.
So, I guess it is a win, since we have been doing that for decades. Last year 14,789.
But I am willing to listen- what higher level of background checks would you wants, and why?
Nope, and we have said that time and time again here- the 2nd Ad needs restrictions even more than the rest- and we do: Minors can not own guns. Felons cannot own guns. People adjudicated mentally ill can not own guns. If you have been convicted of spousal abuse or even Girlfriend abuse- even if it was a misdemeanor- you cannot own guns. If you are a drug addict - you cannot own guns. Also- in general and it varies by state- in order to carry a concealed gun, you must apply for a permit.
Many weapons are banned- fully automatic, sawed off shotguns. Howitzers, motars, grenades, explosive devices, silencers.
Nearly every American agrees these restrictions are reasonable and needed. Yeah, there are a few nuts that disagree, but there are also those who want free copying of copyrighted stuff, the right to own kiddy porn, the right to block freeways as a protest, etc etc.
And they have, every since 1934 machineguns, sawed off shotguns, explosive devices etc- have been more or less banned. (you can get a special permit to own a machine gun, it is very difficult, and there are few to buy).
Certainly I do. AFAIK it is totally legal to carry or own a voice amplifier in every state. I can buy one on Amazon and have it shipped to me by tomorrow. Using it- OTOH, can be illegal. But bullhorns are often used during strikes and protests.
Actually, needing a license or permit is the exception rather than the rule now. Only 21 states require it.
And strangely enough, the states that have dropped requiring a permit for public carry haven’t turned into post-apocalyptic barbarian zones. One might almost think that the presence of firearms doesn’t catalyze the commission of crime and violence…
Who even says that…outside of gun supporters misstating what other have actually said, that is?
I, too, am happy that areas haven’t turned into movie scenes from cheap-ass action films from the 70’s and 80’s…I guess??
Murders have either slightly gone down or stayed the same. Gun thefts and accidents have increased, however. Some have claimed violent rapes have decreased.
I’m not the one who claimed that background checks “are sufficient” .
They are not sufficient. 15,000 Americans murdered via gun every year is ample evidence that whatever steps we are taking to protect people from gun violence are insufficient to protect us from gun violence.
But you’re willing to listen, that’s awesome. Let’s look at countries do who don’t have 15,000 gun murders a year, and do what THEY do.
Now that you’re done listening to me, I’ll listen to you tell me how we gee whiz just can’t do what 40 other countries have already done. I mean goodness, we’re so different from them, we have wild hogs and grizzly bears, and our residents are already so violent that it would be foolish to not have guns everywhere.
Lots have! Over the last 30 years every time a state changed their carry laws from prohibitive to permissive or from licensed to unlicensed there was significant outcry from people and groups how the result was going to be a blood bath. “It’ll turn us into the wild west!” “Minor car accidents will result in shootings”. And so on. When such apocalyptic predictions did not come true there were no retractions of their outrageous statements.
When my state was doing away with it’s draconian CCW law (nobody but nobody could carry concealed except law enforcement. There were no exceptions whatsoever) several police groups came out in favor of concealed carry. An anti group went on record saying the police are signing their own death warrants by supporting the legislation and are ignorant of the fundamentals of law and order.
I pay very close attention to this issue and legislation regarding it and statements made in the media regarding it as I own a sporting goods store with a large firearms section. Next time there is a significant piece of pro-gun legislation being considered go on the antis websites and read the asinine statements they’ll put out regarding it.
Like this?
" BRADENTON, Fla. - One man is in the hospital, and another is in jail after a vehicle crash and an argument led to shots being fired in Manatee County
Yes, but you see- those deaths are not caused by problems with background checks. Most gun murders are drug gang related- they get their guns from “strawman dealers”- who buy like a dozen 9mm handguns all at once, passing the background checks- because they have never been arrested- and then they sell them to criminals. Bidens newish bipartisan gun control bill has put the kibosh on that- mostly.
What do other nations do? It all depends- the UK simply bans guns. Canada bans handguns- mostly, but they dont have the kind of inner city drug gang problems the USA does. Mexico bans guns, but has even more gun deaths than the USA.
The USA isnt even in the ten most murderous nations. It is about in the middle of all nations, and has a similar rate as the entire world… The Vatican has a 0 murder rate. Turks & Caicos has the highest by far. South Africa has a rate 8 times the USA, but it’s gun laws are tighter than the USA.
But in the UK, several things are going on. 1, No gun culture- never has had one. 2. Gun control. 3. Alcohol abuse had declined. 4. Use of cash has declined. 5. Cameras everywhere (would the USA put up with that?)
But you see- you can just point to a few Western Europeans nations, and note gun control and low murder rate. How does this explain the nations outside Western Europe? South Africa?
ALL of South America? In fact of all the Americas, Canada has the lowest rate (and there are lots of gun in Canada, just not many handguns) and the USA 2nd lowest. Why - despite strict gun control- is murder so prevalent in the Americas? Same as Africa- murder rate there is twice the world rate.
So, it isnt gun control- at least not by itself (it is a factor, of course). Nations with strict gun control have huge murder rates. And Western Europe has always been low in murder.
And it isnt number of guns- Finland, Montenegro and Serbia have WAY more guns per capita than any other euro nations- but still a low homicide rate. The Czech Republic has more lenient gun laws than other European countries - less than several USA states- but still a very low homicide rate - why is that? Honestly, i dont know.
So, clearly, the USA is not Western Europe, and we cant be Western Europe, no matter what laws we had.
One incident is meaningless. Overall, for some reason or other, shootings have not increased. I honestly thought that anger shootings would have increased a little*, but the overall homicide rate has not.
- I did think that violent stranger rape would decrease , but not by any huge amount, apparently.
That was one example of numerous incidents, in response to someone who said it was a prediction that didn’t come true.
O.K., how many would it take?
Uh huh. And where is your cite that there is an epidemic of otherwise law abiding citizens shooting people over minute’ issues? It’s not happening. A huge, HUGE majority of gun deaths are acts by actual criminals and folks who have taken the ultimate control over their life by choosing to end it. Yet every gun law since eternity has done nothing to alter the activities of those two demographics and only concentrates and those who are not the problem.
Literally less than 24 hours ago a man was shot in a drive-thru near me because the person behind him decided he was taking too long to order.
Here’s the thing. That guy outside has been revving his motorcycle for about the last half hour. It was annoying, but at this point, it has gone way beyond just annoying. It is affecting me in very bad ways.
Which is one reason I do not have a gun. I have a very long fuse, but there is a large barrel of powder at the end of it. If I had a gun, that guy’s bike would be irretrievable. Best case, anyway.
And yet, the gundamentalists say “an armed society is a polite society.” Yeah, fuck that noise. People go off, all the time. When they have guns, it can get seriously Florida. I do not want just about everyone going around packing, because I want reasonable responses to disputes and not to have to duck bullets.
I never used the word “epidemic”. I said that I was giving one example of numerous incidents. Is there some part of that you dispute?
How many cites does it take to satisfy using the term, “numerous incidents”? Is five enough, or do you need 10, 20, 50? Because those five took me all of two minutes to find in response to your claim that scenarios like this “did not come true.”
The number is never given because the number does not exist.
10 U.S. Code § 246 - Militia: composition and classes
(a)
The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.
(b)The classes of the militia are—
(1)
the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and
(2)
the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.
\
32 U.S. Code § 313 - Appointments and enlistments: age limitations
(a)
To be eligible for original enlistment in the National Guard, a person must be at least 17 years of age and under 45, or under 64 years of age and a former member of the Regular Army, Regular Navy, Regular Air Force, or Regular Marine Corps. To be eligible for reenlistment, a person must be under 64 years of age.
(b)To be eligible for appointment as an officer of the National Guard, a person must—
(1)
be a citizen of the United States; and
(2)
be at least 18 years of age and under 64.