US House passes gun control bill

[improvident]

Quote by: Autolykos I'm sure they're not much harder to find than drug dealers. - Rob

Now.. i may live in a decently small town.. but one thing we do have down here.. are PLENTY of guns.. and gun toting red neck extremists... and ive never seen nor heard of an arms dealer of ANY sort.. the closest youll find.. is individuals selling weapons back and forth between each other.. and they usually use pretty good judgment.. these are some crazy people.. not your regular red neck with a gun.. these are people.. who if you could find a black market gun seller.. you would go to them

[The Decider]

Quote by: Osborn F Enready Yes, they would, and have been for quite some time.

Examples? Is the NRA weak on gun rights?

[ZNFYRH]

Quote by: Autolykos He could still obtain one illegally, then, couldn't he?

Of course. But even then, you seem to miss the point.

Let's put it to the test. Go out and try to buy a handgun from a store. Then go out and try to buy a gun illegally.

For someone who isn't in that whole system of black market, it's not like they can just shrug and say, "Oh well" and then go to the alley around the corner to a random criminal selling firearms.

The point is to not make it so $400 gets a gun and ammo placed directly into their hands with a minimum of fuss.

Quote by: Osborn Recognizing this problem BEFORE they become adults, and having responsible people (family, friends, neighbors, employers, etc) take action when evidence becomes clear.

Let's break this down...

Recognize the mentally unstable, depressed sociopaths before they are 18 years old. I don't need to address how you recognize them if they haven't exhibited any profiled behavior, we'll just accept that part as a given.

Have responsible people take action.

Isn't a doctor a responsible person? Isn't identifying that person an action?

The big problem with the above is your use of the word "have." "Have" someone take action. How do you propose you "have" someone take action? Almost seems like you'd have to establish a series of consequences for them if they fail to act, right?

Like imposing penalties on the doctors who fail to act?

That's what this bill does. It establishes a consequence for when a responsible person fails to act.

[brien]

Sorry but I need clarification...... how is a Firearm a "God Given Right?"

In the Declaration of Independence written in 1776 there is a phrase that reads:

"We hold these truths to be self - evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights"

Now in the Second Amendment of the Bill of Rights, the last phrase reads:

...."the Right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

Conclusion: The FF identified "Rights" as being endowed by their creator for the citizens under the umbella of the government, so when they use the word Right in the Contitution, it means an unalienable Right endowed by our creator.

The 2nd Amendment, recently upheld in Parker vs District of Columbia, reaffirms this right for citzens to keep and bear arms.

[brien]

Pikatore wrote:

No, apparently, God did pull some of the founding father aside and had a little chat with them. Even though most were pagan

What bullshit this is here. Most of the Founding Fathers were religious people affiliated with various Christain Churches.. Why don't you list the pagans and show us.

[Milton Bradley]

Quote by: The Decider I didn't see you mention the NRA, only Congress.

You clearly inferred that I was talking about them as well, and I didn't correct you because there is plenty of blame to go around on this issue, and I have no trouble laying blame where it belongs.

[Autolykos]

Quote by: improvident Now.. i may live in a decently small town.. but one thing we do have down here.. are PLENTY of guns.. and gun toting red neck extremists... and ive never seen nor heard of an arms dealer of ANY sort.. the closest youll find.. is individuals selling weapons back and forth between each other.. and they usually use pretty good judgment.. these are some crazy people.. not your regular red neck with a gun.. these are people.. who if you could find a black market gun seller.. you would go to them

And your point? Is this anecdote supposed to be taken as inductive logic? "Black-market arms dealers are virtually impossible to find in my town; therefore, black-market arms dealers are virtually impossible to find everywhere"?

- Rob

[brien]

Quote by: The Decider The Second Amendment contains an important precondition to gun ownership---"a well-regulated militia." Do militias or armies employ medically diagnosed mental patients? Do they all ex-convicts to join? "Well regulated" means capable and trained gun owners. I don't think George Washington and Thomas Jefferson foresaw a Second Amendment right for Charlie Manson and the VA Tech murderer.

Parker vs District of Columbia overturned Washington DC's ban on owning guns and it reaffirmed the phrase, "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." being independent from the first phrase regarding "militias". The two clauses stand independent of each other.

http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/...3/04-7041a.pdf

[brien]

A quick question about the 2nd amendment. Doesn't it violate a person's constitutional rights to have any sort of gun control? I mean the amendment doesn't say that ex-cons can't own them, or that insane people can't. It states that the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. So isn't any gun control measure infringing upon that right?

banko, I'll take a stab at helping you.

The Bill of Rights, void where prohibited by law.

You have the unalienable right to possess firearms. You lose the protection of government's guarantee of that right when you are convicted of a felony. You don't lose the right, merely the guarantee and protection of that right from the government.

[The Decider]

Quote by: brien Parker vs District of Columbia overturned Washington DC's ban on owning guns and it reaffirmed the phrase, "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." being independent from the first phrase regarding "militias". The two clauses stand independent of each other. http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/...3/04-7041a.pdf

The case addressed the issue of ownership, not government regulation of existing guns. Washington tried to ban handgun ownership. However, the ruling doesn't limit Washington DC's right to regulate how those guns are sold within its city limits.

By the way, the ruling has not yet been reviewed by the US Supreme Court. The issue is still open.

[Derach]

There are ample examples of subsequent legistlation contrary to the isolated phrase quoted above from the 2nd amendment "the Right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." ... and rightfully so. For instance, we 'infringe' on the rights of minors who are citizens ... and 'citizens' with a criminal history ... and to extend this 'infringment' to include people who, through prior acts even not necessarily involving firearms, are deemed to be too dangerous to be entrusted with the legal right to buy and use a firearm, is appropriate and should be within the states' right to administer any such regulation (or 'infringment').

[Praxius]

Quote by: Osborn F Enready I also agree with your DUI argument Rob, and have made this case several times to several peoples dismay, even though the logic is crystal clear, some still just "don't get it".

I disagree..... if there is potiential for further death and injury due to easy access to something, it makes sense to restrict that access.......

If you got a room full of kids..... and they all want a cookie but you don't want them to have one.... what do you do? Do you:

A) leave all the cookies on the table for all to easily grab and hope for the best?

or

B) Put them all in a cookie jar up on the Fridge?

Now granted you will still have the determined who will still want a cookie.... but the existing deterrant for most is there..... some kids wouldn't bother with the extra work in getting it on the fridge and in the jar...... therefore, a reduction in the ammount of kids having cookies would be far less if it was in a jar on top of the fridge, compared to having them all sitting on the table, at hand's reach.

The same logic applies here.... No law will absolutly abolish anything..... people will still smoke pot.... people will drink and drive, people will still get shot.... people will still make bombs and blow things up..... people will still rip tags off of matresses...... but that doesn't mean certain laws don't help the overall numbers.

[Derach]

If you are a high school kid, going to a moderately sized public school (say, playing division 1 sports) ... I'd wager you can get a black market gun within a day or two if you like.

[Praxius]

Quote by: brien In the Declaration of Independence written in 1776 there is a phrase that reads: "We hold these truths to be self - evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights" Now in the Second Amendment of the Bill of Rights, the last phrase reads: ...."the Right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." Conclusion: The FF identified "Rights" as being endowed by their creator for the citizens under the umbella of the government, so when they use the word Right in the Contitution, it means an unalienable Right endowed by our creator. The 2nd Amendment, recently upheld in Parker vs District of Columbia, reaffirms this right for citzens to keep and bear arms.

Thanks for the info, it does shed some light on the details..... one very big detail I would like to point out is this:

...."the Right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

This in no way at all means "Firearms" ~ You have no constitutional right to own a firearm, just Arms.... this could be anything..... from a Bow, a Sword..... to friggin Pulsar Phaser Rifles in the future.....

Technically, one could very easily restrict and even ban firearms from your country and not even break the constitution doing it. So long as you still had a means and way of arming yourself.

[brien]

By the way, the ruling has not yet been reviewed by the US Supreme Court. The issue is still open

I understand the ruling but wanted to point it out in terms of its relevance with regard to the right to the ownership of firearms. But anyway...

The pro 2nd Amendment people are chomping at the bit for this to go to the Supreme Court because the current make up of that Court bodes well for individual rights. I don't think the anti gunnners are rushing to the SCOTUS because we have a national election coming up next year.

Parker vs. District of Columbia

D.C. must either appeal the decision to the U.S. Supreme Court or lift the handgun ban. Pro-gun people think they have a strong case and would really like for the case to go to the Supreme Court. A victory in the Supreme Court will be a landmark acknowledgment that the Second Amendment protects the individual right to bear arms. Anti-gun people would like to see the ban upheld, but don’t really want a gun control issue in the headlines in the heat of the presidential election. It is uncertain what D.C. will decide to do.

Here is a WP article that sums the decision up and mentions the appeal that will inevitably come.

D.C.'s Ban On Handguns In Homes Is Thrown Out - washingtonpost.com

If the District appeals, the first step would be to seek a review by the full D.C. Circuit. After that decision, the Supreme Court could be asked to review the case. Constitutional scholars said the case is ripe for an airing before the Supreme Court no matter who might prevail in an appeal. However, some scholars said that a D.C. loss in the high court could create a stronger precedent against strict gun laws.

[brien]

This in no way at all means "Firearms" ~ You have no constitutional right to own a firearm, just Arms.... this could be anything..... from a Bow, a Sword..... to friggin Pulsar Phaser Rifles in the future.....

The term "arms" when the Amendment was written, included rifles and handguns. But you are correct, arms can mean everything you cited, as well as firearms. You list everything you consider "arms" and then say it excludes firearms. Hmmmmmmmm Got an agenda there Prax? Your slip is showing....

[brien]

Technically, one could very easily restrict and even ban firearms from your country and not even break the constitution doing it

I don't think so since the Parker vs District of Columbia ruling, it seems doing so, is unconstitutional.

[Praxius]

Quote by: brien The term "arms" when the Amendment was written, included rifles and handguns. But you are correct, arms can mean everything you cited, as well as firearms. You list everything you consider "arms" and then say it excludes firearms. Hmmmmmmmm Got an agenda there Prax? Your slip is showing....

I don't have any agenda.... I was just trying to point out a loop hole.

I don't think so since the Parker vs District of Columbia ruling, it seems doing so, is unconstitutional. Today 01:35 pm

Hmmm...... reading up on it:

The Appeals Court did specifically find that "Once it is determined - as we have done - that handguns are 'Arms' referred to in the Second Amendment, it is not open to the District to ban them."

So with this logic, anything you can arm yourself with should be legal? So you can have an automatic rifle, or an RPG for that matter?

I understand the Constitutional right to have a means of Arms for above situations where the Government goes to hell, or another country steps in...... but where does it originally state that Firearms in paticular Must be available to the general public as it is now?

How many of these people who own firearms do you actually expect would joing the Militia when the time comes?

I feel that if you are going to allow the common citizen to own firearms for the above reasons, there should be a manditory draft into the Militia when needed for those who have firearms...... seems like a logical trade..... and at the same time, those willing to join the Militia against the government, should be given proper military training with their firearms, and tested to see that not only that they know how to use the firearm properly, but also that they would be able bodied and capable of being a productive person towards the freedom of your country.

^ To me, that sounds more like something along the lines of what your constitution ment. It allows for control over certain people owning the firearms, and yet protects the constitutional right for baring of arms when needed.

How many of the people out there today owning firearms do you actually think would join the militia, or would be capable of joining the militia when needed?

[brien]

How many of the people out there today owning firearms do you actually think would join the militia, or would be capable of joining the militia when needed?

I haven't a clue. I am too old to march anymore...but I am an eagle eye with a rifle at 100 yards, and at 50 yards with a handgun, I can put a bullet in the ol bullseye. So I imagine us old guys are good for something.

[SoylentGreen]

Autolykos To be honest, I'm not sure where to draw the line, yet. But I do not submit to the proposition that whatever the state decides is drunk driving is therefore wrong.

Ok First you said you disagreed with DUI ,I took it to mean completly, no matter how drunk a person was.
Then you say not sure where to draw the line, so you believe a line should be drawn.
Ok that I can agree with and propose the best way would be to publish all the facts on body weight to consumption and then have a referendum.