For Those Wanting More Firearm Laws

[PureX]

It is estimated that far less than %1 of legally owned firearms are ever used in a crime which means the vast majority of crimes are committed by people who have guns illegally. It would be hard to imagine that this increased bureaucracy would impact crime rates to any degree and what happens when it doesn't work?

Not if the increased regulation came with serious consequences for ignoring it. The problem is that we are awash in guns. There are so many of them out there that have been passed around, given away, stolen, sold, or otherwise left neglected that they are now easily available to any criminal or nutjob that wants one. It's why we need to license owning and possessing guns as well as regulating who can legally use one and in what circumstances. But none of that will matter if the laws regulating them have no teeth, and no consequence for breaking them, as they don't, now. No law will ever be effective without enforcement. People caught with a gun and no license need to pay a heavy price for that, while at the same time we encourage the easy, question-free collection of all those illegal firearms. This has worked well in Australia, and it would help us, here in the U.S., too.

Calls for increased gun control on the people who commit the least amount of gun crime. It is estimated by police chiefs around the country that ~60% of all gun crime is drug and or gang related.

Waiting until after the crimes have already been committed is not going to solve the problem. We need to keep the guns away from those people who are likely to commit the crimes.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Of course, the Constitutional right of people to own and use firearms says nothing about regulation. The only mention in the second amendment of regulation is a well regulated militia, which means the militia, if and when created, is well regulated. The right of the people, all the people to own firearms shall not be infringed.

There's more to the US Constitution than the Second Amendment.

Article 1, Section 8 gives Congress the power to regulate the militia:

The Congress shall have Power

[...]

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

 

[shmogie]

There's more to the US Constitution than the Second Amendment.

Article 1, Section 8 gives Congress the power to regulate the militia:

Your point being what? It impinges on the right of the people to own firearms in no way.

 

[shmogie]

There's more to the US Constitution than the Second Amendment.

Article 1, Section 8 gives Congress the power to regulate the militia:

Your point being what? It impinges on the right of the people to own firearms in no way.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Your point being what?

That you were wrong.

It impinges on the right of the people to own firearms in no way.

Indeed, because nobody with a lick of sense thinks that "militia" in the Constitution refers to everyone, as opposed to the actual militia (i.e. the National Guard, which hasn't had its members use their own personal weapons for a long, long time).

 

[shmogie]

That you were wrong.


Indeed, because nobody with a lick of sense thinks that "militia" in the Constitution refers to everyone, as opposed to the actual militia (i.e. the National Guard, which hasn't had its members use their own personal weapons for a long, long time).

The national guard is not a militia. I suggest you look at the definition of the word.

I do not contend the word militia refers to everyone. Yet a militia may be drawn from any of the people.

When the constitution affirms that the right OF THE PEOPLE, to own firearms it does not not say the right of some, government selected people can own firearms.

THE PEOPLE is a term also used in the first, fourth, and ninth amendments as well. In each case, it relates individually and is applied as such, to every person.

It stretches credibility to think they used the term with one meaning, then used it with another meaning, in the same document.

In Federalist 46, James Madison, an author of the Constitution, says "The advantage of being armed, which Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation."

He knew exactly what THE PEOPLE meant in the document of which he was an author.

There were state resolutions at the time that wanted a Bill of Rights to be in the Constitution, they wanted these rights, all of them, to apply to the "body of the people"

I suggest you look at Heller. The Supreme Court determines what the Constitution says, Heller says all of the people have the right to own firearms.

At the time of the writing of the Constitution, a militia was drawn from the people in the area where required.

The National guard is a standing military force which has close ties with and can easily be integrated with the army.

It does not constitute a militia.

All of the Founders, in one place or another, say that the people have the right to defend themselves from a tyrannical government. It is no coincidence that tyrannical governments make every effort to see that the people are unarmed.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

The national guard is not a militia. I suggest you look at the definition of the word.

And I suggest you educate yourself on your own nation's history and laws. The National Guard is identified as the "organized militia" in the Militia Act.

Militia Act of 1903 - Wikipedia

... though I was wrong in one respect: the militia also identifies that all able-bodied men between 18 and 45 who are either citizens or "of foreign birth who has declared his intention to become a citizen" as the unorganized militia.

... which apparently means that this group of people is the group that Congress has the authority to arm, organize, and discipline, and that the states are required to train "according to the disciple prescribed by Congress."

At the time of the writing of the Constitution, a militia was drawn from the people in the area where required.

That's right: the body that fulfilled the same function as today's National Guard (or Guards, rather, because every state has its own) was filled by conscripts who were required to provide their own small arms. This is why it speaks about personally owned weapons in the context of militias.

(Though this was more about the militias needed to put down slave insurrections than it was about defense against foreign enemies)

The justification for the Second Amendment disappeared when these groups began being issued standardized weapons.

 

[shmogie]

This is just silly sophistry. We regugate all kinds of things for public safety that the writers of the Constitution had no idea would ever even exist, let alone need to be regulated.
We have an automatic right to own anything we want to, unless specified otherwise. But in the case of dangerous machines, chemicals, processes, etc., we have to regulate that right for the sake of public safety.
No it's not. Not any more than regulating the ownership and use of automobiles was a step in banning them. You're just being ridiculous.
No, they aren't. Which is why we keep adding and altering how we regulate automobile manufacture and use, to save more lives. And it's why that regulation has saved lives, and has saved more and more lives as we get better at it. Sensible regulation works, which is why we should be regulating firearm ownership and use in a similar way.
Living with other human beings requires that one "restrict" their behavior for the well-being of the society in which they are living. Reasonable, responsible adults should be able to understand and accept this. Freedom in the modern world does not mean you get to do whatever you want. In truth, that condition has never existed. It's just a selfish fantasy.
This is just silly hyperbole. Military style assault weapons have no practical application in a civil society that already has a well-equipped and well-trained military, and police force.
"Popularity" isn't relevant to this issue. Firearms are dangerous tools, not "popularity" toys. The goal is to make the tools available to those who need them, but to do so in a way that keeps those among us who would abuse them, and do themselves or others harm with them, away from them.
Suicide is a different issue. If it were being dealt with properly, guns would not be involved in it.
That, alone, will not significantly stem the tide of gun violence in the U.S.,. It will help, but we're going to have to do a lot more then that, now that we have billions of guns already out there.

What you are saying is that no right is absolute, and become subject to some form of regulation when it impinges on someone elses rights. I agree.

Yet in almost 60 years of owning a large variety of firearms, my right to do so has never clashed with anyones rights.

My point? Constitutional rights are owned by the individual, they cannot be restricted en masse. You would restrict my firearms ownership, when it has never been a problem.

Assault weapons are clearly defined in the applicable federal codes used by ATF, the AR 15 in civilian use is not by definition an assault weapon. As you probably define them, my fifty year old semi automatic squirrel gun is an assault rifle.

"Military style weapons" what exactly are those? I used to be love in black powder shooting, using historical firearms.A pennsylvania/kentucky rifle was once the most technological advanced military rifle there was, is it a military styled firearm.

I have owned and still own revolvers, they once were used by the military, but no more, do they meet your criteria?

Actually, all violent crimes have been reduced year by year for the past decade. Even Chicago, where gun regulation, very strict, is a joke, and some neighborhoods are shooting arcades, is touting a reduction on murders.

I totally agree with you, in that those who abuse firearms should be identified and stopped.

I would like to hear your ideas on how to do it, without effecting my right to own firearms.

 

[shmogie]

This is just silly sophistry. We regugate all kinds of things for public safety that the writers of the Constitution had no idea would ever even exist, let alone need to be regulated.
We have an automatic right to own anything we want to, unless specified otherwise. But in the case of dangerous machines, chemicals, processes, etc., we have to regulate that right for the sake of public safety.
No it's not. Not any more than regulating the ownership and use of automobiles was a step in banning them. You're just being ridiculous.
No, they aren't. Which is why we keep adding and altering how we regulate automobile manufacture and use, to save more lives. And it's why that regulation has saved lives, and has saved more and more lives as we get better at it. Sensible regulation works, which is why we should be regulating firearm ownership and use in a similar way.
Living with other human beings requires that one "restrict" their behavior for the well-being of the society in which they are living. Reasonable, responsible adults should be able to understand and accept this. Freedom in the modern world does not mean you get to do whatever you want. In truth, that condition has never existed. It's just a selfish fantasy.
This is just silly hyperbole. Military style assault weapons have no practical application in a civil society that already has a well-equipped and well-trained military, and police force.
"Popularity" isn't relevant to this issue. Firearms are dangerous tools, not "popularity" toys. The goal is to make the tools available to those who need them, but to do so in a way that keeps those among us who would abuse them, and do themselves or others harm with them, away from them.
Suicide is a different issue. If it were being dealt with properly, guns would not be involved in it.
That, alone, will not significantly stem the tide of gun violence in the U.S.,. It will help, but we're going to have to do a lot more then that, now that we have billions of guns already out there.

What you are saying is that no right is absolute, and become subject to some form of regulation when it impinges on someone elses rights. I agree.

Yet in almost 60 years of owning a large variety of firearms, my right to do so has never clashed with anyones rights.

My point? Constitutional rights are owned by the individual, they cannot be restricted en masse. You would restrict my firearms ownership, when it has never been a problem.

Assault weapons are clearly defined in the applicable federal codes used by ATF, the AR 15 in civilian use is not by definition an assault weapon. As you probably define them, my fifty year old semi automatic squirrel gun is an assault rifle.

"Military style weapons" what exactly are those? I used to be love in black powder shooting, using historical firearms.A pennsylvania/kentucky rifle was once the most technological advanced military rifle there was, is it a military styled firearm.

I have owned and still own revolvers, they once were used by the military, but no more, do they meet your criteria?

Actually, all violent crimes have been reduced year by year for the past decade. Even Chicago, where gun regulation, very strict, is a joke, and some neighborhoods are shooting arcades, is touting a reduction on murders.

I totally agree with you, in that those who abuse firearms should be identified and stopped.

I would like to hear your ideas on how to do it, without effecting my right to own firearms.

 

[shmogie]

And I suggest you educate yourself on your own nation's history and laws. The National Guard is identified as the "organized militia" in the Militia Act.

Militia Act of 1903 - Wikipedia

... though I was wrong in one respect: the militia also identifies that all able-bodied men between 18 and 45 who are either citizens or "of foreign birth who has declared his intention to become a citizen" as the unorganized militia.

... which apparently means that this group of people is the group that Congress has the authority to arm, organize, and discipline, and that the states are required to train "according to the disciple prescribed by Congress."


That's right: the body that fulfilled the same function as today's National Guard (or Guards, rather, because every state has its own) was filled by conscripts who were required to provide their own small arms. This is why it speaks about personally owned weapons in the context of militias.

(Though this was more about the militias needed to put down slave insurrections than it was about defense against foreign enemies)

The justification for the Second Amendment disappeared when these groups began being issued standardized weapons.

10 US code 246

The militia of the United States.

The militia consists of all able bodied men, between the ages 17 and 45

The organized militia- The organized militia is the National guard, and the Navy militia.

The non organized militia - The non organized militia is composed of all those who are not members of the National Guard or the Navy militia

Direct quote from the law defining militias in the currently

There were no organized militias at the time the Constitution.

The Supreme Court in Heller said that the statement in the Constitution " the right of people to keep and bear arms" refers to all the people, not just a militia. Heller affirmed the right of every citizen to own firearms.

Your opinion or mine has no standing before the Supreme Court.

I just happen to be right,

 

[PureX]

What you are saying is that no right is absolute, and become subject to some form of regulation when it impinges on someone elses rights. I agree.

Yet in almost 60 years of owning a large variety of firearms, my right to do so has never clashed with anyones rights.

It's not all about you. You are not the yardstick by which the rest of us all have to determine rights and responsibilities.

My point? Constitutional rights are owned by the individual, they cannot be restricted en masse. You would restrict my firearms ownership, when it has never been a problem.

Again, it's not all about YOU. Nor should it have ever been. You are one among many of us all trying to live together as safely, freely, and responsibly as we can.

Assault weapons are clearly defined in the applicable federal codes used by ATF, the AR 15 in civilian use is not by definition an assault weapon. As you probably define them, my fifty year old semi automatic squirrel gun is an assault rifle.

And yet one was designed to hunt squirrels, while the other was designed to hunt humans in wartime. Too bad the ATF couldn't manage to tell the difference. I guess all that bribery from the gun lobby clouded their vision.

"Military style weapons" what exactly are those?

Those are the ones designed to hunt humans in wartime. So what would you need them for?

Actually, all violent crimes have been reduced year by year for the past decade. Even Chicago, where gun regulation, very strict, is a joke, and some neighborhoods are shooting arcades, is touting a reduction on murders.

And still gun violence in the U.S. is nearly the highest of any nation on the planet.

I totally agree with you, in that those who abuse firearms should be identified and stopped.

Sure. You just don't want to have to do anything, yourself, to aid in that goal.

I would like to hear your ideas on how to do it, without effecting my right to own firearms.

That's not possible, because the problem and the solutions are not all about YOU. Nor should the rest of us have to think and act as if they are.

 

[shmogie]

It's not all about you. You are not the yardstick by which the rest of us all have to determine rights and responsibilities.
Again, it's not all about YOU. Nor should it have ever been. You are one among many of us all trying to live together as safely, freely, and responsibly as we can.
And yet one was designed to hunt squirrels, while the other was designed to hunt humans in wartime. Too bad the ATF couldn't manage to tell the difference. I guess all that bribery from the gun lobby clouded their vision.
Those are the ones designed to hunt humans in wartime. So what would you need them for?
And still gun violence in the U.S. is nearly the highest of any nation on the planet.
Sure. You just don't want to have to do anything, yourself, to aid in that goal.
That's not possible, because the problem and the solutions are not all about YOU. Nor should the rest of us have to think and act as if they are.

An interesting response. A giant puffball of nothing.

Whining, with no solutions.

Of course the "solutions" are about me, and millions of me's.

You deny consistently anything related to the rights of the individual, and preach that they are subservient to the collective will of the masses, or, the control of the mob..

You live in the wrong country for that to occur.

 

[esmith]

And yet one was designed to hunt squirrels, while the other was designed to hunt humans in wartime. Too bad the ATF couldn't manage to tell the difference. I guess all that bribery from the gun lobby clouded their vision.
Those are the ones designed to hunt humans in wartime. So what would you need them for?

Well that above statement definitely indicates your lack of knowledge about the history of military weapons. Either that or you are trying to make a point by using a seriously flawed statement because you don't have any other argument to support you opinion.
You do realize don't you, well maybe not, that every type of firearm from a muzzle loader to today's civilian rifle was used by the military. So, why don't you just admit that you can't make a factual argument and have to rely on emotional balderdash when it comes to firearms.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

Here is an example of the problem with advocating for stricter firearm laws.
Under DA Krasner, more gun-possession cases get court diversionary program

This was an interesting article, thanks.

I have a question: how does controversy of a DA’s enforcement of firearm carry laws, in Philadelphia, imply that there are problems with advocating for stricter firearm laws, anywhere? An assault weapon ban, for example. Or the red flag laws a number of states have, which Senator Rubio supports in Florida.

Apologies if this has already been addressed in the thread.

 

[esmith]

This was an interesting article, thanks.

I have a question: how does controversy of a DA’s enforcement of firearm carry laws, in Philadelphia, imply that there are problems with advocating for stricter firearm laws, anywhere? An assault weapon ban, for example. Or the red flag laws a number of states have, which Senator Rubio supports in Florida.

Apologies if this has already been addressed in the thread.

In this case the DA was beyond lax in the punishment of a habitual criminal offense, which was in this case the illegal use of a firearm. What message does this send if a new firearm law was passed and little or no punishment was given for violating the law? In other words why create a new law if it is basically a slap on the wrist for violating the law.

 

[McBell]

What laws, now on the books, do you consider useless. Be very specific and include which Title 18 of the Gun Control Act Title 18 of the U.S.C. Chapter 44 you are referring to. see Gun Control Act
What laws, now on the books, do you consider good laws. Be very specific and include which Title 18 of the Gun Control Act Title 18 of the U.S.C. Chapter 44 you are referring to. see Gun Control Act
What laws, not on the books, would you consider useful. You should probably justify why they would be useful and what purpose they would serve along with how to enforce them.

Interesting how this post of yours has been COMPLETELY ignored...
Not the least bit surprising though.

 

[shmogie]

This was an interesting article, thanks.

I have a question: how does controversy of a DA’s enforcement of firearm carry laws, in Philadelphia, imply that there are problems with advocating for stricter firearm laws, anywhere? An assault weapon ban, for example. Or the red flag laws a number of states have, which Senator Rubio supports in Florida.

Apologies if this has already been addressed in the thread.

Anywhere second amendment rights are effected, the effecting factor is emulated somewhere else.

Red flag laws are patently unconstitutional.

A so called assault weapons ban has proven in the past to have no effect in reducing firearms deaths.

Statistically, so called assault weapons are accountable for a very small percentage of firearms deaths.

 

[Audie]

Not if the increased regulation came with serious consequences for ignoring it. The problem is that we are awash in guns. There are so many of them out there that have been passed around, given away, stolen, sold, or otherwise left neglected that they are now easily available to any criminal or nutjob that wants one. It's why we need to license owning and possessing guns as well as regulating who can legally use one and in what circumstances. But none of that will matter if the laws regulating them have no teeth, and no consequence for breaking them, as they don't, now. No law will ever be effective without enforcement. People caught with a gun and no license need to pay a heavy price for that, while at the same time we encourage the easy, question-free collection of all those illegal firearms. This has worked well in Australia, and it would help us, here in the U.S., too.
Waiting until after the crimes have already been committed is not going to solve the problem. We need to keep the guns away from those people who are likely to commit the crimes.

More prisons and longer jail terms. Terrif.

 

[Audie]

Well that above statement definitely indicates your lack of knowledge about the history of military weapons. Either that or you are trying to make a point by using a seriously flawed statement because you don't have any other argument to support you opinion.
You do realize don't you, well maybe not, that every type of firearm from a muzzle loader to today's civilian rifle was used by the military. So, why don't you just admit that you can't make a factual argument and have to rely on emotional balderdash when it comes to firearms.

Well, it is not JUST having to rely on emotional balderdash.
There is also the thing of making up facts, like the one
about the ATF being bribed.

 

[Audie]

And I suggest you educate yourself on your own nation's history and laws. The National Guard is identified as the "organized militia" in the Militia Act.

Militia Act of 1903 - Wikipedia

... though I was wrong in one respect: the militia also identifies that all able-bodied men between 18 and 45 who are either citizens or "of foreign birth who has declared his intention to become a citizen" as the unorganized militia.

... which apparently means that this group of people is the group that Congress has the authority to arm, organize, and discipline, and that the states are required to train "according to the disciple prescribed by Congress."


That's right: the body that fulfilled the same function as today's National Guard (or Guards, rather, because every state has its own) was filled by conscripts who were required to provide their own small arms. This is why it speaks about personally owned weapons in the context of militias.

(Though this was more about the militias needed to put down slave insurrections than it was about defense against foreign enemies)

The justification for the Second Amendment disappeared when these groups began being issued standardized weapons.

So which other amendments to you find to be obsolete and
in need of elimination?