Gun rights/control/ownership

[TikindiDragon]

If we limit the ability to get guns it will not stop the ones who want to use them. How many websites out there sell them? How many people own gun shops? How many people will go around selling them out of the back of their trucks?

All of those places are able to do so because it is legal for them to do in the first place, and because the gun registration laws are so lax. If you close down the websites that sell guns - ie, make it illegal to sell a gun except in a face-to-face interaction - and require every gun sold to be registered to a specific person with a serial number etched on the gun it becomes far more difficult to make the kind of illegal sale in the first place. Likewise sales out the back of vans can only happen because guns can be bought form manufacturers without registration numbers.

 

If *every* gun produced or imported into the US was required to be registered with a serial number in a national database, and to have papers signed every time that gun was transfered to another person, then illegal sales would become vastly more difficult - because there wouldn't be so many untraceable guns on the market. That's already the case in the UK - people *do* manage to get illegal guns, but there's not all that many of them as they are very, very difficult to get hold of. Because registration and import laws are so tight.

 

It's no coincidence that Mexico report that most of the illegal guns they seize appear to have originated in the US.

 

Hell, even if we're not talking the kind of gun laws we have in the UK (which bans most pistol) a proper system of having every gun registered, with serial number, to each individual - and requiring them to be stored in locked cabinets seperate from the ammunition - would undoubtably reduce the amount of illegal guns you guys have knocking about. If the laws are stricter about that sort of thing it does become much more difficult to get them illegally. Not impossible, but far more difficult.

 

"In every modern, decent country"? Where do you think that the US is some third world country?

 

Compared to Europe, yes.

 

There is nothing wrong with US people as you keep saying. There is a issue with the ones who do these crimes being uneducated and getting the help they need. It's not because we can get them. It's because they think they can, they find some small reason to do it and then they go and do it. It's not the entire US populations fault for one mad man with a weapon.

 

If *that* many people are "uneducated and not getting the help they need" then, yes, that is something wrong with the US. Because as has frequently been pointed out places like Switzerland have high levels of gun ownership, yet very low levels of gun crime. That's a base issue with American society, I'm afraid, and it's attitude towards guns. You've got a lot of them. America isn't a paradise, nor is it a shining example to the rest of the world. Most people in Europe think the US is very backwards. Not individual people, but the country as a whole.

 

It's interesting to note that the high-ownership/low-crimes countries are usually the ones where military service is mandatory. I can't help but wonder if things in the US would markedly improve if a minimun years worth of service with the National Guard was required for gun ownership.

 

Edit to add: Comparisons made per 1,000 of the population, or crimes as a percentage compared to the population, are perfectly acceptable things to compare. Unless you are suggesting that the USA should *never* have any of it's statistics compared to other places for the sole reason that they aren't identical in size and population to the US?

Edited December 18, 2012 by TikindiDragon

[PointOfOrigin]

Not everyone is happy with the laws we got. The health care system is crap, the gun control laws to me are fine, we aren't always right, I surely don't want everyone to follow what comes from here and I'm not the most patriotic person.

 

Don't assume that is how everyone is or feels.

And just because you aren't like that, it doesn't mean that those things don't exist in your country and that a big number of people doesn't have an attitude similar to that.

 

And yes, weapons don't kill people on their own. It doesn't mean that everybody who's off age should be capable of buying guns at any moment. Big number of people doesn't do the research on their own and because of that they put other people at risk. Providing mandatory crash courses for people who want to own guns would teach people and probably cut down on the number of accidents. As far as safety goes, having some kind of knowledge would make it easier for people to defend themselves.

[demonicvampiregirl]

All of those places are able to do so because it is legal for them to do in the first place, and because the gun registration laws are so lax. If you close down the websites that sell guns - ie, make it illegal to sell a gun except in a face-to-face interaction - and require every gun sold to be registered to a specific person with a serial number etched on the gun it becomes far more difficult to make the kind of illegal sale in the first place. Likewise sales out the back of vans can only happen because guns can be bought form manufacturers without registration numbers.

 

If *every* gun produced or imported into the US was required to be registered with a serial number in a national database, and to have papers signed every time that gun was transfered to another person, then illegal sales would become vastly more difficult - because there wouldn't be so many untraceable guns on the market. That's already the case in the UK - people *do* manage to get illegal guns, but there's not all that many of them as they are very, very difficult to get hold of. Because registration and import laws are so tight.

 

It's no coincidence that Mexico report that most of the illegal guns they seize appear to have originated in the US.

 

Hell, even if we're not talking the kind of gun laws we have in the UK (which bans most pistol) a proper system of having every gun registered, with serial number, to each individual - and requiring them to be stored in locked cabinets seperate from the ammunition - would undoubtably reduce the amount of illegal guns you guys have knocking about. If the laws are stricter about that sort of thing it does become much more difficult to get them illegally. Not impossible, but far more difficult.

 

 

 

Compared to Europe, yes.

 

 

 

If *that* many people are "uneducated and not getting the help they need" then, yes, that is something wrong with the US. Because as has frequently been pointed out places like Switzerland have high levels of gun ownership, yet very low levels of gun crime. That's a base issue with American society, I'm afraid, and it's attitude towards guns. You've got a lot of them. America isn't a paradise, nor is it a shining example to the rest of the world. Most people in Europe think the US is very backwards. Not individual people, but the country as a whole.

 

It's interesting to note that the high-ownership/low-crimes countries are usually the ones where military service is mandatory. I can't help but wonder if things in the US would markedly improve if a minimun years worth of service with the National Guard was required for gun ownership.

It would make them more difficult yes but not impossible. As I been trying to point out they still will get them one way or another. Using one legally or illegally. They still will do what they want with it. It makes little to no difference how it's obtained.

 

We are who we are. We are not the rest of the world. I do believe we separated from Europe to be different. We don't need to be a copy of another country.

 

I'm not saying all are. Some can be very educated in weapons yet still use them to kill someone. That's the type of person that needs help. If they have some mental disability that needs attention or it's hard to control how can we stop them if they decide to go on a rampage?

 

Personally I do agree with how Switzerland is going about it. If I remember right they train people to use those guns. I do believe we need that. I was taught by my dad to use one and I have yet to point one at a single person and I hope against everything I never have to.

 

Personally if we ever had mandatory services I'd probably leave the country. I wont point a gun at someone because someone else or the government tells me to. I can't kill someone just because I'm being forced too.

 

And just because you aren't like that, it doesn't mean that those things don't exist in your country and that a big number of people doesn't have an attitude similar to that.

 

And yes, weapons don't kill people on their own. It doesn't mean that everybody who's off age should be capable of buying guns at any moment. Big number of people doesn't do the research on their own and because of that they put other people at risk. Providing mandatory crash courses for people who want to own guns would teach people and probably cut down on the number of accidents. As far as safety goes, having some kind of knowledge would make it easier for people to defend themselves.

 

Personally I cannot stand people who scream we are perfect. We aren't and we wont ever be. I know people can be like that but saying that we all are is what gets me.

 

Edit to add: Comparisons made per 1,000 of the population, or crimes as a percentage compared to the population, are perfectly acceptable things to compare. Unless you are suggesting that the USA should *never* have any of it's statistics compared to other places for the sole reason that they aren't identical in size and population to the US?

 

No, what I was questioning was total population vs total population not just specific places or area range. I'd never say to not compare them just because the US has a bigger population than the other country you are comparing it too.

Edited December 18, 2012 by demonicvampiregirl

[TikindiDragon]

Personally I do agree with how Switzerland is going about it. If I remember right they train people to use those guns. I do believe we need that. I was taught by my dad to use one and I have yet to point one at a single person and I hope against everything I never have to.

 

Personally if we ever had mandatory services I'd probably leave the country. I wont point a gun at someone because someone else or the government tells me to. I can't kill someone just because I'm being forced too.

Eh? That's a bit of a contradiction. You agree with how Switzerland are going about it (mandatory service in the military), but you'd leave the US if they ever had that policy? How on earth do you make that work?

[demonicvampiregirl]

Eh? That's a bit of a contradiction. You agree with how Switzerland are going about it (mandatory service in the military), but you'd leave the US if they ever had that policy? How on earth do you make that work?

Actually I had absolutely no clue that it was from mandatory service. I thought they would do a class like thing. I had seen the post on Facebook and didn't back read these posts yet.

 

Sorry for the confusion. >_<

[casprrr]

The Federal Assault Weapon Ban needs to be reinstated. Sure, gun crimes will still occur, but incidents like Sandy Hook and the Aurora, CO theater shootings - two mass shootings in six months - are far less likely. This is legislation that makes sense.

 

 

[demonicvampiregirl]

The Federal Assault Weapon Ban needs to be reinstated. Sure, gun crimes will still occur, but incidents like Sandy Hook and the Aurora, CO theater shootings - two mass shootings in six months - are far less likely. This is legislation that makes sense.

I just talked to my dad and he said this was still in place? Cuz I asked him about the ones we have and we have 2 fifles and 3 shotguns (I was wrong on one of them).

[LascielsShadow]

I just talked to my dad and he said this was still in place? Cuz I asked him about the ones we have and we have 2 fifles and 3 shotguns (I was wrong on one of them).

It expired in 2004, so no, it isn't. Rifles and shotguns=/=assault weapons. The issue isn't really with those, as there's a big difference between the damage a shotgun and a semiautomatic weapon can do in the same amount of time.

Edited December 18, 2012 by LascielsShadow

[TikindiDragon]

I just talked to my dad and he said this was still in place? Cuz I asked him about the ones we have and we have 2 fifles and 3 shotguns (I was wrong on one of them).

Funnily enough (assuming your Dad hunts) you'd probably be allowed those in the UK (depending on how much ammunition the gun can hold without needing a re-load). Proper gun registration laws don't actually mean that no one has guns, they just mean they're easier to track & control, which makes it more difficult for them to be sold illegally, or to unstable people.

 

I don't suppose anyone can explain to my *why* so many people seem to think that arguing for better gun legislation means we want to take everyones rifles & shotguns away?

[demonicvampiregirl]

It expired in 2004, so no, it isn't. Rifles and shotguns=/=assault weapons. The issue isn't really with those, as there's a big difference between the damage a shotgun and a semiautomatic weapon can do in the same amount of time.

Thing is I don't know much about the ones he has besides two of them as they was around for a long time he's gotten 3 of them in the last about 6-7 years so I'm not quite familiar with them as I haven't touched a gun in a long time.

 

Funnily enough (assuming your Dad hunts) you'd probably be allowed those in the UK (depending on how much ammunition the gun can hold without needing a re-load). Proper gun registration laws don't actually mean that no one has guns, they just mean they're easier to track & control, which makes it more difficult for them to be sold illegally, or to unstable people.

 

I don't suppose anyone can explain to my *why* so many people seem to think that arguing for better gun legislation means we want to take everyones rifles & shotguns away?

 

He use to hunt actually. That's why he has the guns besides some being passed down through the family. I think 2 of the shot guns hold 3 rounds and one of the other holds 4-5. I'm not entirely sure on the rifles. Those are newer and I don't usually ask many questions. I'll ask when he wakes up later.

 

I know it's just what gets me is they think they can put in 100s of laws on something and expect people to follow them. If someones gonna shoot someone legally or illegally owning the gun isn't going to be the real problem. He's going to have one and use it whether he owned it or not.

 

I think people scream that so it gets the ones that are crazy about guns (idk how to put it atm) get worked up and they start to complain. No matter how many times a person can put in a statement that they want more restrictions on guns people still want to say they are taking them away. It actually amuses me when people scream that the government wants to take them away. I don't get how people can go as far as to say that. :/

[KageSora]

That's cute.  So how about the elderly?  The disabled?  I'm a middle aged woman with Multiple Sclerosis...my strength is pretty much zero.  There is NO way I could fend off an attacker.

That's cute, assuming I meant self-defense is a magical perfect solution to every single situation where a person is being attacked.

 

What about the elderly and the disabled? When, in my post, did I ever say that nobody should be allowed guns because some people in some situations can use self-defense? Oh, right, you can't find that because I didn't say that. Anywhere. Ever.

 

If you're too old or not physically capable of using self-defense, but you can use a gun, then great--if you can prove you are capable of safely carrying and using the gun, and that you are a sane, reasonable, stable person then you should be allowed to obtain a license and carry one.

 

Hell, you should be able to do that if you're physically capable of self-defense, since self-defense isn't a magically solution guaranteed to work. But then, neither is having a gun. Mostly I was trying to point out that having a gun isn't the only possible way a person could potentially escape/survive an attack.

 

Of course, even if you have a gun it might do you no good--y'know, if they incapacitate you before you can draw it or something.

 

 

I'm personally for stricter restrictions, and then once you have your license you need to go in for yearly reevaluations to ensure that you're still fit to carry the weapon. Mental health can change very rapidly, hence my support of a yearly reevaluation.

 

But I don't think banning guns will solve anything.

 

If you're fit to carry a gun, you shouldn't have anything to worry about with stricter restrictions.

 

 

I'll say this one more time, too--I think anti-gun and pro-gun people need to work together to refine and improve restrictions to make it harder for people to legally obtain guns if they're not fit to use the guns, while not making it overly difficult for people who are fit to use them to be legally licensed.

 

 

A friend of mine pointed out that we should also have a way to get some of the guns currently in circulation off the streets, too. That could help somewhat.

 

 

I don't suppose anyone can explain to my *why* so many people seem to think that arguing for better gun legislation means we want to take everyones rifles & shotguns away?

In some cases it's probably because they keep dealing with people who DO want to take their guns away.

 

In others, they're probably the sort of paranoid people who shouldn't own a gun anyway because apparently it's a threat to their right to own a gun. '

 

In others it's just plain not reading or listening, either because they have a potentially dangerous "me vs them" mentality, or again because they're so used to hearing that they shouldn't have guns...

 

 

But it's very scary the number of people who have this "Me vs. them" mentality when it comes to gun legislation--I personally don't think that's a very safe mindset to have if you want to own a gun.

[Shienvien]

Mental health can change very rapidly, hence my support of a yearly reevaluation.

I'd still say every five years, and definitely not yearly. Doing it properly is not something you can do by walking there, sitting behind table for thirty minutes, and walking off - which is what a yearly test which would be plausibly arrangeable for all gun owners would quickly become.

 

Mental stability and personality don't actually change rapidly. Mental state might - but then again, mental state can positively change by the hour, and thus testing cannot give valid results on what might happen during a year anyway.

[For example, if you have very stable, calm, rational and hard to anger individual, chances are s/he'd be that five years from now, too. In return, you can have person who is happy and content at one moment but completely devastated and hysteric ten minutes later because the person just learned someone s/he loved has died.]

 

[KageSora]

I'd still say every five years, and definitely not yearly. Doing it properly is not something you can do by walking there, sitting behind table for thirty minutes, and walking off - which is what a yearly test which would be plausibly arrangeable for all gun owners would quickly become.

 

Mental stability and personality don't actually change rapidly. Mental state might - but then again, mental state can positively change by the hour, and thus testing cannot give valid results on what might happen during a year anyway.

[For example, if you have very stable, calm, rational and hard to anger individual, chances are s/he'd be that five years from now, too. In return, you can have person who is happy and content at one moment but completely devastated and hysteric ten minutes later because the person just learned someone s/he loved has died.]

I would really prefer less than 5, maybe 2-3 instead of 1 (I'd personally argue for a several month grace period, actually, to allow that you can arrange time for a proper examination and allowing for something coming up that would prevent you from making your scheduled exam or whatever). But 5 at the absolute maximum between examinatons, IMO.

 

Mostly because you CAN actually go rapidly from somebody who nobody thinks has serious, dangerous mental health problems to being the very kind of person you don't want to give a gun to.

 

What actually kicked off my struggle with depression actually came on pretty rapidly. I went from being the kind of person who would be safe to handle a gun to being the kind of person you don't want anywhere near a loaded one in the span of roughly 2-3 months. Which I think is pretty rapid if your timeframe is a 5-year period.

 

 

Personally, I'd also like some sort of national system that can check both if you have any sort of license for a firearm and if you're on any kind of mood-altering drugs or anti-depressants or something. And that if you are, it triggers an alert if you try to buy a gun, or if you have a gun and you start going on medication it triggers an alert so you can be checked out if you want to legally be allowed to keep owning your gun.

 

Also some kind of required database for therapy, too, in case you're not on medication but you start having therapy for any conditions that might make you a more "at risk" person for owning a gun.

 

Of course, people would scream about government spying and privacy and whatnot...

[dark_kitsune]

That's cute, assuming I meant self-defense is a magical perfect solution to every single situation where a person is being attacked.

 

What about the elderly and the disabled? When, in my post, did I ever say that nobody should be allowed guns because some people in some situations can use self-defense? Oh, right, you can't find that because I didn't say that. Anywhere. Ever.

 

If you're too old or not physically capable of using self-defense, but you can use a gun, then great--if you can prove you are capable of safely carrying and using the gun, and that you are a sane, reasonable, stable person then you should be allowed to obtain a license and carry one.

 

Hell, you should be able to do that if you're physically capable of self-defense, since self-defense isn't a magically solution guaranteed to work. But then, neither is having a gun. Mostly I was trying to point out that having a gun isn't the only possible way a person could potentially escape/survive an attack.

 

Of course, even if you have a gun it might do you no good--y'know, if they incapacitate you before you can draw it or something.

 

 

I'm personally for stricter restrictions, and then once you have your license you need to go in for yearly reevaluations to ensure that you're still fit to carry the weapon. Mental health can change very rapidly, hence my support of a yearly reevaluation.

 

But I don't think banning guns will solve anything.

 

If you're fit to carry a gun, you shouldn't have anything to worry about with stricter restrictions.

 

 

I'll say this one more time, too--I think anti-gun and pro-gun people need to work together to refine and improve restrictions to make it harder for people to legally obtain guns if they're not fit to use the guns, while not making it overly difficult for people who are fit to use them to be legally licensed.

 

 

A friend of mine pointed out that we should also have a way to get some of the guns currently in circulation off the streets, too. That could help somewhat.

 

 

 

In some cases it's probably because they keep dealing with people who DO want to take their guns away.

 

In others, they're probably the sort of paranoid people who shouldn't own a gun anyway because apparently it's a threat to their right to own a gun. '

 

In others it's just plain not reading or listening, either because they have a potentially dangerous "me vs them" mentality, or again because they're so used to hearing that they shouldn't have guns...

 

 

But it's very scary the number of people who have this "Me vs. them" mentality when it comes to gun legislation--I personally don't think that's a very safe mindset to have if you want to own a gun.

My apologies if I was curt...but you didn't mention any of this in the original post. I recently had a debate with someone on facebook about this and she seemed to think that everyone could just learn judo and magically stop someone from attacking them with a gun. I figured you were going for the same angle. Sorry I jumped to conclusions.

[KageSora]

Nah, I'm sorry. Tone carries poorly with text, I shoulda been more clear in my original post.

 

However, I DID say that I was not supporting the idea that nobody should have guns--I did specifically state that I was not in support of taking guns away from reasonable, law-abiding citizens.

[dark_kitsune]

Ah...didn't see some of that in the original post. I sorta fazed out when I got to the martial arts section lol

 

I'm really not for restrictions on any one type of gun - an assault rifle is the same thing as a hunting rifle, it just looks scarier. They shoot the same rounds.

 

I am for more in depth background checks.

 

What this country really needs is - better assistance for the mentally ill, parents actually parenting their children, the media to stop turning these whack jobs into anti-hero's and to get rid of these so called 'gun free zones' which are nothing more that shooting galleries for these mass murderers.

[hazeh]

Mental health DOES degrade very rapidly. In a matter of weeks, actually, especially if an individual has a genetic problem that surfaces with age. Schizophrenia, for example, becomes mostly present in an individual around the time they turn eighteen or nineteen years old. In a documentary for Psyche that I had to watch, this one kid's schizophrenia surfaced in a matter of days. He went from a stable, "normal" teenager to an unstable, hallucinating teenager.

 

Five years is plenty of time for someone to go off the deep end. Yearly examinations is an appropriate amount of time, and possibly is even a longer stretch of time than it should be.

[Vhale]

As a note, they (insurance companies/corporations) are already getting close to forcing yearly medical evaluations in the US. We had our annual health care talk at work from our insurance guy two weeks ago. They are going to start testing yearly for tobacco use, same as drugs. And if you don't report that you are a smoker, you will be fired. If you are a smoker, you pay higher rates. Starting next year, they will also fine you 100$ if you don't get a "Wellness Evaluation" What tests that includes they have not yet said. Though so far, skipping it only nets a fine, not a firing.

[KageSora]

Five years is plenty of time for someone to go off the deep end. Yearly examinations is an appropriate amount of time, and possibly is even a longer stretch of time than it should be.

This, so much. Like I said with mine, I went downhill very rapidly once things started going south even before I had the history I do now.

 

And, to add further to my example...

 

It was less than 2 years between when I was a stable person and then both being medicated and undergoing therapy.

 

 

That's why five years just is way too many, IMO, and anything longer than 5 is absolutely too many no question about it.

 

I personally think it should be a 6-month exam (with a 1-2 month grace period to allow for things coming up and making sure you can schedule a time for the exam), but sadly not many people would be open to that, I think...

Edited December 18, 2012 by KageSora

[Shienvien]

Mental health DOES degrade very rapidly. In a matter of weeks, actually, especially if an individual has a genetic problem that surfaces with age.

In all cases it happens, there is a predisposion. If it is something to which we already know a genetic link to, a single genetic test will show whether you might get it or not.

 

 

Maybe keep the mental/physical health check separate from specifically gun licensing altogether? In case there is no gun-specific physical and mental health test, but rather just an all-encompassing general one, and people can use the same one as basis for getting driving license and gun permit renews, determining workplace project suitability, etc., etc., etc.

In that case I could probably agree with a gun permit requiring a proof of health check from the last 14 months to be valid...

 

(It has happened one time too many that I have to undergo the exact same trial I did less than month ago just because the last time, for some reason, no longer is valid. Yes, I know it is a different institution that necessitated it, but most of it overlaps and everything that has to be covered is covered, so can't the previous one accepted, too...?)

[philpot123]

Lookie here, a gun saved lives. Bet this doesn't get much media coverage.

 

Off-duty deputy stops theater shooting

 

Before anyone says "oh that's a cop, they have more training," keep in mind that in the space of two days I can take a course and become a reserve officer in a local town, and be legally permitted to carry a handgun at 18. I have more training with my handgun than half of those reserve officers or deputies.

[TikindiDragon]

(It has happened one time too many that I have to undergo the exact same trial I did less than month ago just because the last time, for some reason, no longer is valid. Yes, I know it is a different institution that necessitated it, but most of it overlaps and everything that has to be covered is covered, so can't the previous one accepted, too...?)

CRB (Criminal Records Bureau) checks in the UK are like that. They have to be individual to the company/organisation requesting them. It meant that in one year I ended up with 3 criminal records checks being run - when I had, in my posession, the certificate saying 'No Convictions' from the first check. But the one done for the RAF apparently couldn't be re-used, so both work and the Scouts also had to run seperate ones. Most annoying.

 

Actually I'd say a criminal records check should also be mandatory for gun ownership, and there should be a requirement that any and all convictions/cautions should be reported to the licencing body.

[philpot123]

Actually I'd say a criminal records check should also be mandatory for gun ownership, and there should be a requirement that any and all convictions/cautions should be reported to the licencing body.

Any federally licensed dealer in my state is required to run a background check through the TBI (Tennessee Bureau of Investigation) before they can sell anyone a rifle, shotgun, or handgun. Pretty much anyone who sells at a gun show runs a background check as well, licensed or not. But I'm not sure if that's required. The only loophole is private party purchases. No check is required. If you have a violent misdemeanor or felony on your record, you can't purchase a handgun from any sort of licensed dealer, be it a pawn shop, gun store, gun show, walmart, etc. I imagine those who have felony convictions that seek to buy guns illegally would do so even if there was some check on private party purchases, so I don't see that as being a huge issue.

Edited December 18, 2012 by philpot123

[TikindiDragon]

Any federally licensed dealer in my state is required to run a background check through the TBI (Tennessee Bureau of Investigation) before they can sell anyone a rifle, shotgun, or handgun. Pretty much anyone who sells at a gun show runs a background check as well, licensed or not. But I'm not sure if that's required. The only loophole is private party purchases. No check is required. If you have a violent misdemeanor or felony on your record, you can't purchase a handgun from any sort of licensed dealer, be it a pawn shop, gun store, gun show, walmart, etc. I imagine those who have felony convictions that seek to buy guns illegally would do so even if there was some check on private party purchases, so I don't see that as being a huge issue.

See, I don't understand how you can sell at a gun show (essentially same-day) when that kind of check takes weeks to do properly. Plus in the US I presume if it's only particular to the State then anything you've done in another state simply doesn't show up. Which makes it a waste of time as anyone with a record could simply border-hop.

 

I also don't think private party sales should be allowed, as proper tracking and registering of the gun in question would be nigh on impossible.

 

Re: the 10th Amendment argument (bit hectic here, so quite late on that) I'd like to controversially suggest that there is historical precedence for it having been made defunct and obsolete - namely the Civil War, or rather, Abolition. The 13th Amendment had not been added to the Constitution at the point in time Lincoln made the Emancipation Proclimation. On the technicalities of the 10th Amendment it was completely illegal until Congress made the 13th Amendment. Which makes a very simple point: the Federal Government can do what it likes - because all it needs to do is have Congress amend the Constitution after the fact, even if it has to use force the have it ratified. It therefore does not matter if something would currently be unconstitutional under the 10th Amendment, because if the Federal Government was really that behind something they have the complete capacity to *make* it Consitutional.

[Vhale]

Lookie here, a gun saved lives. Bet this doesn't get much media coverage.

 

Off-duty deputy stops theater shooting

 

Before anyone says "oh that's a cop, they have more training," keep in mind that in the space of two days I can take a course and become a reserve officer in a local town, and be legally permitted to carry a handgun at 18. I have more training with my handgun than half of those reserve officers or deputies.

The gun saved lives? You're leaving out a very important fact. The would-be shooter, he jammed his gun. As it was jammed, he couldn't fire it. Hard to shoot people with a gun that doesn't work. I'm certainly not sorry to see him get shot, but leaving out that detail is misleading. There have been mass murder attempts where the would-be shooter was an idiot and locked all the guns in their car with the keys. Does that mean the car saved people's lives?

 

Pop Quiz. You hear a gun go off. You go around a corner and see someone shooting a pistol. Do you fire? Now, how do you know if you were firing on a mass shooter or a civilian who was responding?