Another Good News Story: The NRA has now granted permission to the U.S. Govt to perform its duties

johnnyp

@thetoast it’s a little more complicated than that.  Our constitution says “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed”

That statement isn’t talking about a militia to defend against foreign invaders, it’s talking about the people’s ability to overthrow a tyrannical government. An obvious example would be the founding of the US. So, in a way, gun ownership is tied to our national identity. 

Now, in a more realistic 2017 view, that’s completly infeasible.  Your home arsenal will not beat a tank. Or the Air Force. Or cruise missiles. It’s not fun to think about. But if the government went full-tyrannical, no one could do anything about it.

so to answer your question, no. Those things are not unreasonable and i support some level of increased regulation.  I suppose my point is that this probably isn’t a new law.  This will likely require an amendment to the constitution and that’s considerably more difficult.

DoubleEgger

I wish I had a dollar for every time someone says "common sense gun control". 

nolaegghead

jabam said:

Makes the paranoia about protecting yourself with a zillion guns kind of like, well, a pointless paranoia.

Hans61

“A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed”

What I get from this is that the FED's can't prevent a State from having its own army.

TheToast

jabam said:

This handy chart has convinced me we should definitely regulate heart disease, cancer and strokes. I can't believe we haven't outlawed these needless killers already. 

(sorry, getting carried away)

NPHuskerFL

Can you imagine how many people wouldn't get a gun if they use the same criteria as they do for adoption?  Then again people that have kids in many cases wouldn't pass the same criteria... Proven by any trip to The Walmart

johnnyp

http://www.peopleofwalmart.com/

TheToast

"I'm sorry, but you're not fit to adopt this child. You're irresponsible, deranged, with a tendency for violent mood swings.  As a consolation, here's a case of semi automatic weapons."

nolaegghead

Fact: If you or your family have a gun, you are more likely to die from a gun than if you do not. 

Fact: I say get moar guns.

JohnInCarolina

NPHuskerFL said:

Can you imagine how many people wouldn't get a gun if they use the same criteria as they do for adoption?  Then again people that have kids in many cases wouldn't pass the same criteria... Proven by any trip to The Walmart

LOL.  Walmart is a friggin leper colony man.  

I hadn't been in one in a long time until last spring when I stopped in the one in Salisbury, NC, to grab something for Butt Blast.  Holy cannoli Walmart is like stepping into a parallel universe, one where trailer parks are aspirational dwellings.  

JohnInCarolina

Hans61 said:

“A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed”

What I get from this is that the FED's can't prevent a State from having its own army.

No no no.  Clearly what the founding fathers had in mind was that everyone and anyone who wants an AK, six glocks and a pair of 357 magnums, can have all of that.

Gulfcoastguy

At the time the definition of militia was basically all free white males. They were all expected to own firearms and to participate if the native Americans got rowdy. Rea Yes they were both racist and sexist. Reading further writings by the signers of the declaration of independence and the writers of the constitution will help clear up the confusion. 

DMW

nolaegghead said:

Fact: If you or your family have a gun, you are more likely to die from a gun than if you do not. 

Fact: I say get moar guns.

What if you own a gun but it is stored offsite?

Hans61

Gulfcoastguy said:

At the time the definition of militia was basically all free white males. They were all expected to own firearms and to participate if the native Americans got rowdy. Rea Yes they were both racist and sexist. Reading further writings by the signers of the declaration of independence and the writers of the constitution will help clear up the confusion. 

Well they’re still supposed to be “well regulated”

bgebrent

DoubleEgger said:

I wish I had a dollar for every time someone says "common sense gun control". 

I wish I had a dollar for every time someone says “gun control”.  Wish there was a reasonable fix. There isn’t. Gun control is a pipe dream in that it would never prevent any mass shooting in recent memory.  Sad but true. “Gun control “ doesn’t cure or identify mental illness. 

TheToast

bgebrent said: “Gun control “ doesn’t cure or identify mental illness. 

Regulations that profile the person who wants to own a gun would identify mental illness. 

bgebrent

TheToast said:

bgebrent said: “Gun control “ doesn’t cure or identify mental illness. 

Regulations that profile the person who wants to own a gun would identify mental illness. 

You’re obviously a hunter. I’ve no time for someone who equates gun ownership with mental illness.  That is pure ignorance. 

Legume

Seems to me you have plenty of time Brent.

bgebrent

Legume said:

Seems to me you have plenty of time Brent.

I hate your accuracy. I’m working tomorrow. 

theyolksonyou

Legume said:

Seems to me you have plenty of time Brent.

Well, he has to work a couple days a week, plus he has to supervise Nicole's cooking and post results taking all the credit AND he has to supervise @DoubleEgger installing his dishwasher. So, he's busy. 

JohnInCarolina

bgebrent said:

DoubleEgger said:

I wish I had a dollar for every time someone says "common sense gun control". 

I wish I had a dollar for every time someone says “gun control”.  Wish there was a reasonable fix. There isn’t. Gun control is a pipe dream in that it would never prevent any mass shooting in recent memory.  Sad but true. “Gun control “ doesn’t cure or identify mental illness. 

The latest guy had converted semi autos into near full autos, allowing rapid fire.  He purchased the means to do that legally, and by all accounts, easily.  So I'm not sure your argument in particular holds up real well in this case.  Sure, without that stuff he could have still killed a lot of people.  It just would've been a lot fewer.  I'm guessing some of the parents and children of the dead would find merit in that.

But in general I agree.  Gun legislation is unlikely to prevent every and any mass shooting in the future.  But that doesn't mean it isn't worth pursuing to limit the impacts more broadly.

JohnInCarolina

bgebrent said:

TheToast said:

bgebrent said: “Gun control “ doesn’t cure or identify mental illness. 

Regulations that profile the person who wants to own a gun would identify mental illness. 

You’re obviously a hunter. I’ve no time for someone who equates gun ownership with mental illness.  That is pure ignorance. 

Psst: that's not what he's doing.

HeavyG

I think it would be perfectly reasonable to abide by the Militia Control Acts of 1792/1795.

After all, that was the spirit and guidelines in which in which the 2nd Amendment was passed.

stlcharcoal

Gulfcoastguy said:

At the time the definition of militia was basically all free white males. They were all expected to own firearms and to participate if the native Americans got rowdy. Rea Yes they were both racist and sexist. Reading further writings by the signers of the declaration of independence and the writers of the constitution will help clear up the confusion. 

The gun laws of today are still just as racist in some states.  The "may issue" states or ban cities/states.  We used to have the "permission to acquire" form here in Missouri up until about 10 yrs ago.  Any handgun or pistol acquisition and you have to get permission from your Sheriff who would charge you up to $10.  There were no checks and balances, just depends what he thought of you.  And guess what in certain counties with certain colors.....good luck, oh and you don't get your $10 back.

When they came out with CCW, it was a "shall issue".....meaning if you passed the background check, they had to issue it.  But there are still plenty of states that are "shall issue".  So, it's all up to the sheriff--and there are not any real criteria they have to follow.  Just up to them to see if they like you, and since you most likely don't know them, it's what see based off the demographics on the form or what they see on your Facebook page.  No "protected categories" like in a job interview, mortgage/rental application, etc......they can stereotype away!

So to answer @TheToast 's question from above.....that's why.  Notwithstanding the Constitution, it's not up to the police to decide whether or not you have a "legit" reason to protect yourself.  Look at Chicago.  For 30 yrs, you had to have a permit to have a handgun in the city limits.  Unless you had deep pockets, smoozed the chief and mayor, and had the rights friends, no way you were getting a permit.  Didn't matter if you had a really good reason or not.  Only the culturally elite had the right to defend themselves in that city......yet they had the highest murder & gun crime rates in the country.

No way they could ever afford the liability insurance anyway.  Same reason why fire & EMS stopped installing car seats.  Imagine if the police dept was the final authority in guaranteeing your need and mental state to buy a gun.  First person that shot themselves in the foot would own the place.  Not gonna happen, even if it wasn't so unconstitutional.

JohnInCarolina

Why do people always bring up Chicago, when St Louis is actually worse?

bgebrent

JohnInCarolina said:

bgebrent said:

TheToast said:

bgebrent said: “Gun control “ doesn’t cure or identify mental illness. 

Regulations that profile the person who wants to own a gun would identify mental illness. 

You’re obviously a hunter. I’ve no time for someone who equates gun ownership with mental illness.  That is pure ignorance. 

Psst: that's not what he's doing.

Psst:  You know I know that. 

bgebrent

JohnInCarolina said:

bgebrent said:

DoubleEgger said:

I wish I had a dollar for every time someone says "common sense gun control". 

I wish I had a dollar for every time someone says “gun control”.  Wish there was a reasonable fix. There isn’t. Gun control is a pipe dream in that it would never prevent any mass shooting in recent memory.  Sad but true. “Gun control “ doesn’t cure or identify mental illness. 

The latest guy had converted semi autos into near full autos, allowing rapid fire.  He purchased the means to do that legally, and by all accounts, easily.  So I'm not sure your argument in particular holds up real well in this case.  Sure, without that stuff he could have still killed a lot of people.  It just would've been a lot fewer.  I'm guessing some of the parents and children of the dead would find merit in that.

But in general I agree.  Gun legislation is unlikely to prevent every and any mass shooting in the future.  But that doesn't mean it isn't worth pursuing to limit the impacts more broadly.

I’m glad you agree. It’s the only logical conclusion.  I’ve been aware of bump stocks for 5 years. Never understood the need. He could have legally had true full auto guns. I’ve shot many, legally. Mentally ill people shouldn’t have access. That’s the focus. At least for anyone pragmatic. 

stlcharcoal

JohnInCarolina said:

Why do people always bring up Chicago, when St Louis is actually worse?

Because Chicago banned handguns to make things safer......and it only got worse.  Had nothing to do with safety, it was all about the mob.

St. Louis has always had a problem, but it's contained to certain areas.  Particularly one area where we have a state legislator that constantly introduces anti-gun legislation, yet she has a CCW permit and has been caught carrying drunk into the "peaceful protests" in her district.

g8golfer

No matter what is said the left is going to want gun control and the right isn’t going to change its stance. You can give all the charts you want but both sides aren’t going to change. 

JohnInCarolina

stlcharcoal said:

JohnInCarolina said:

Why do people always bring up Chicago, when St Louis is actually worse?

Because Chicago banned handguns to make things safer......and it only got worse.  Had nothing to do with safety, it was all about the mob.

St. Louis has always had a problem, but it's contained to certain areas.  Particularly one area where we have a state legislator that constantly introduces anti-gun legislation, yet she has a CCW permit and has been caught carrying drunk into the "peaceful protests" in her district.

"Let's just give everyone a gun.  In fact, let's give them more than one!  It seems like getting rid of them makes things worse!"  - Wayne LaPierre, probably.