Gun Control - Why isn't more done

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why has the biden administration stalled out on controlling the gun violence in our country? I feel like he had a chance to do something when the democrats took control of both houses and he blew it.

Violent gun violence is skyrocketing in our country and every night there is a shooting in DC.

The "gun violence" that is surging is in overwhelmingly deep blue jurisdictions. Of course actually addressing that is hard, good thing it is easier to advocate for taking away the rights of law abiding citizens.

No one is advocating for your rights to be taken away. Turn off OANN, my guy.

Also, the only way to address gun violence is to address it on a national scale….and because there are so many damn guns out there, it’ll take decades to see any results. But, yeah, let’s keep claiming nothing is being done when you are too damn scared to do support this country doing anything for fear of losing your symbol of masculinity.

And let’s be clear, you don’t give a shit about Chicago beyond using it as a talking point.

[Black woman gun owner]

Liberals lost the compassion for Chicagoans contest. I’m liberal and it’s a travesty and embarrassment.

Chicago is a perfect example of why gun laws have to be tightened on a national level. Chicago already has tight gun laws. But all a criminal has to do is go a half hour east into Indiana where a private seller can legally sell them guns at a gun show with no background checks and no questions asked.

This is not correct. Except for some exceptions related to active members of the armed forces, it is not possible to legally take possession of a handgun in Indiana if you you are not a resident of Indiana. This is true for all states actually. There is some responsibility on the part of the private seller to verify that the buyer is a resident of Indiana. And if the buyer is a resident of Indiana, and if the seller believes that the buyer intends to illegally transfer the gun (as in a straw purchase), then the seller may refuse to sell or face criminal charges.

You've completely missed the point. You are counting on the gun buyer, who is a criminal, to be honest, and to voluntarily, and without prompting, disclose that they are from out of state, which would then establish to the seller that it's an illegal sale. A criminal who wants a gun won't do that.

And currently there is nothing requiring a private Indiana gun seller to verify that the buyer is a legal Indiana buyer. So, it's don't ask/don't tell.

That is exactly how thousands of unscrupulous gun sellers flourish, feeding an epidemic of gun crime.

If we instead made it absolutely mandatory for every gun transfer to undergo a background check and kept a persistent database of all serial numbers and gun transfers and analytical capability for tracing guns from scene of crime to sources in the sales chain, as well as ability for looking for anomalous and suspicious behavior in buyers and sellers. Without pieces like that, there is no hope of stemming the illegal trade in guns.

You hit it on the head…it took you a while…but you got to it. The activity described is illegal. You have introduced a proposal aimed at addressing the problem. Thanks. We can debate it. My proposal for Chicago would be a lot more stop and frisk.

Stop and frisk is after the fact. The gun is already on the street at that point. Better off trying to slow the flow of guns to the street in the first place.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Support for gun rights has surged among minorities and especially blacks. I believe the largest increase in legal firearm purchases (by %) last year was black women. Gun control may be a politically dead issue. We should be talking about mental health anyway.

I noticed you had no source to cite on your bullsh!t claim.

If it were really true that AA’s were arming themselves the GOP would be demanding gun bans daily. The fact that they aren’t proves you’re lying. Because white trash gun nutters will not tolerate Black people buying guns too. They want their prey unarmed.

You’re a peach.

Totally true. If you saw blacks roaming around with AR-15s in their cos-play, pretend-soldier camo (see: chubby incel Kyle Rittenhouse, as just one example of many) Republicans would quickly find a way to clamp down on guns.

All of a sudden, gun control would become a matter of "national security."

But it is clear that Black people do own their own firearms.

It’s also clear you are intent on disarming Black people, and divesting them of their right to defend themselves in this country.

Why exactly is that? Planning something big?

It’s also clear you are intent on disarming Black people, and divesting them of their right to defend themselves in this country.

Really, it's clear that "I'm intent on disarming black (no capitalization necessary, dimbulb) people"?

Yes, many blacks own firearms. They just tend not to parade around dressed up like pretend soldiers in all their spiffy, cos-play "tactical gear." If they did, Republicans would get antsy.

I’ll just leave this right here for ya!

https://www.blacknfac.com/


As a gun owner, I support their right to assemble and protest. Even though my political ideology might be somewhat at-odds with theirs, I’m happy to see them embrace our shared freedoms.

"I’m happy to see them embrace our shared freedoms."

Our shared "freedom" to live in a country with 400+ mass shootings a year. MAGA!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_mass_shootings_in_the_United_States_in_2021

60 in Chicago, 18 in Houston, 16 NY, 16 Philly, 14 DC, 11 in Detroit... yeah... MAGA indeed.

On a per-capita basis there are a lot more gun deaths in gun-toting MAGA places like Montana, Missouri, Alabama, Arkansas than there are in blue states.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Guns should be regulated the same way we do cars and driving.

1. Age and health requirements (i.e. not blind, mentally ill, etc) for owning and/or operating a gun
2. Mandatory training
3. Probationary period during training
4. Mandatory licensing requirement with periodic renewal that also checks to ensure owner/operator of the gun still meets legal and health requirements
5. Mandatory registration of guns
6. Mandatory title transfer process if gun changes hands that includes mandatory background check of recipient
7. Insurance requirement to cover liability costs
8. Mandatory periodic inspection of the gun to ensure it is still safe to operate, has not been illegally modified, and is still in the registered owner's possession.

We do this for cars and it does not impede law abiding drivers. As such it cannot be credibly argued that this would be an infringement on lawful gun owners' rights.

Second amendment advocates believe that license requirements will be used to ban private ownership, and their fears are most likely warranted based on the evidence. Cities with "may issue" license requirements made it so difficult to obtain permits that ordinary citizens could not possess or carry weapons. SCOTUS is about to rule on this issue in NYC. The Heller case addressed similar problems in DC.

I think at this point it would take a Constitutional amendment to layout a clear individual right to gun ownership for self-defense purposes in return for the licensure, insurance, and training requirements. That would be a fair trade in my opinion. But of course many people on both sides make a lot of $$$ politicizing the issue and don't want the gravy train to stop.

2nd Amendment defined the right as being for establishing a well regulated militia. Within 6 months of ratifying 2A the same Founding Fathers who wrote 2A also codified what militia meant in the Militia Act of 1792 and what eligibility and responsibilities that entailed. And it's not at all what 2A advocates today think it is.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Guns should be regulated the same way we do cars and driving.

1. Age and health requirements (i.e. not blind, mentally ill, etc) for owning and/or operating a gun
2. Mandatory training
3. Probationary period during training
4. Mandatory licensing requirement with periodic renewal that also checks to ensure owner/operator of the gun still meets legal and health requirements
5. Mandatory registration of guns
6. Mandatory title transfer process if gun changes hands that includes mandatory background check of recipient
7. Insurance requirement to cover liability costs
8. Mandatory periodic inspection of the gun to ensure it is still safe to operate, has not been illegally modified, and is still in the registered owner's possession.

We do this for cars and it does not impede law abiding drivers. As such it cannot be credibly argued that this would be an infringement on lawful gun owners' rights.

Second amendment advocates believe that license requirements will be used to ban private ownership, and their fears are most likely warranted based on the evidence. Cities with "may issue" license requirements made it so difficult to obtain permits that ordinary citizens could not possess or carry weapons. SCOTUS is about to rule on this issue in NYC. The Heller case addressed similar problems in DC.

I think at this point it would take a Constitutional amendment to layout a clear individual right to gun ownership for self-defense purposes in return for the licensure, insurance, and training requirements. That would be a fair trade in my opinion. But of course many people on both sides make a lot of $$$ politicizing the issue and don't want the gravy train to stop.

2nd Amendment defined the right as being for establishing a well regulated militia. Within 6 months of ratifying 2A the same Founding Fathers who wrote 2A also codified what militia meant in the Militia Act of 1792 and what eligibility and responsibilities that entailed. And it's not at all what 2A advocates today think it is.

“I ask, Sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people except for a few public officials”

-George Mason, Founding Father



They knew exactly whom the militia was.



Now, tell us that the word “regulated” in the context of 1791 means the same thing we think it means today. Go ahead! Fail 2-for-2 !

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Guns should be regulated the same way we do cars and driving.

1. Age and health requirements (i.e. not blind, mentally ill, etc) for owning and/or operating a gun
2. Mandatory training
3. Probationary period during training
4. Mandatory licensing requirement with periodic renewal that also checks to ensure owner/operator of the gun still meets legal and health requirements
5. Mandatory registration of guns
6. Mandatory title transfer process if gun changes hands that includes mandatory background check of recipient
7. Insurance requirement to cover liability costs
8. Mandatory periodic inspection of the gun to ensure it is still safe to operate, has not been illegally modified, and is still in the registered owner's possession.

We do this for cars and it does not impede law abiding drivers. As such it cannot be credibly argued that this would be an infringement on lawful gun owners' rights.

Second amendment advocates believe that license requirements will be used to ban private ownership, and their fears are most likely warranted based on the evidence. Cities with "may issue" license requirements made it so difficult to obtain permits that ordinary citizens could not possess or carry weapons. SCOTUS is about to rule on this issue in NYC. The Heller case addressed similar problems in DC.

I think at this point it would take a Constitutional amendment to layout a clear individual right to gun ownership for self-defense purposes in return for the licensure, insurance, and training requirements. That would be a fair trade in my opinion. But of course many people on both sides make a lot of $$$ politicizing the issue and don't want the gravy train to stop.

2nd Amendment defined the right as being for establishing a well regulated militia. Within 6 months of ratifying 2A the same Founding Fathers who wrote 2A also codified what militia meant in the Militia Act of 1792 and what eligibility and responsibilities that entailed. And it's not at all what 2A advocates today think it is.

“I ask, Sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people except for a few public officials”

-George Mason, Founding Father



They knew exactly whom the militia was.



Now, tell us that the word “regulated” in the context of 1791 means the same thing we think it means today. Go ahead! Fail 2-for-2 !

Well, in 1791, the only guns were flint lock Brown Bess muskets, so they are the only “arms” protected by the second amendment.

[Anonymous]

Do you know what a puckle gun is?

[Anonymous]

Read it properly.

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.

A well informed electorate, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and read Books, shall not be infringed

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Read it properly.

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.

A well informed electorate, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and read Books, shall not be infringed

38,000 gun deaths a year . . . GOP opposes gun control laws.

2 cases of voter fraud a year . . . GOP passes 361 new voter suppression laws to infringe on the electorate.

[Anonymous]

Let's call it a draw. No background checks or ID requirements for firearms purchases.

[Anonymous]

80% of Americans support voter ID laws.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Guns should be regulated the same way we do cars and driving.

1. Age and health requirements (i.e. not blind, mentally ill, etc) for owning and/or operating a gun
2. Mandatory training
3. Probationary period during training
4. Mandatory licensing requirement with periodic renewal that also checks to ensure owner/operator of the gun still meets legal and health requirements
5. Mandatory registration of guns
6. Mandatory title transfer process if gun changes hands that includes mandatory background check of recipient
7. Insurance requirement to cover liability costs
8. Mandatory periodic inspection of the gun to ensure it is still safe to operate, has not been illegally modified, and is still in the registered owner's possession.

We do this for cars and it does not impede law abiding drivers. As such it cannot be credibly argued that this would be an infringement on lawful gun owners' rights.

Second amendment advocates believe that license requirements will be used to ban private ownership, and their fears are most likely warranted based on the evidence. Cities with "may issue" license requirements made it so difficult to obtain permits that ordinary citizens could not possess or carry weapons. SCOTUS is about to rule on this issue in NYC. The Heller case addressed similar problems in DC.

I think at this point it would take a Constitutional amendment to layout a clear individual right to gun ownership for self-defense purposes in return for the licensure, insurance, and training requirements. That would be a fair trade in my opinion. But of course many people on both sides make a lot of $$$ politicizing the issue and don't want the gravy train to stop.

2nd Amendment defined the right as being for establishing a well regulated militia. Within 6 months of ratifying 2A the same Founding Fathers who wrote 2A also codified what militia meant in the Militia Act of 1792 and what eligibility and responsibilities that entailed. And it's not at all what 2A advocates today think it is.

“I ask, Sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people except for a few public officials”

-George Mason, Founding Father



They knew exactly whom the militia was.



Now, tell us that the word “regulated” in the context of 1791 means the same thing we think it means today. Go ahead! Fail 2-for-2 !

LOL this sounds a lot like the cherrypicked quotes 2A advocates throw around about "the people needing to defend themselves against tyrannical government."
Perhaps you need a reminder and refresher on what happened a few months after the Militia Act was signed into law? Some people took up arms against "tyrannical government" over the whiskey tax. What did those same Founding Fathers do? They authorized George Washington to muster the militia (which is NOT just any random hillbilly ridgerunner who wants to call himself a militia) and to crack down on the armed insurrectionists.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Guns should be regulated the same way we do cars and driving.

1. Age and health requirements (i.e. not blind, mentally ill, etc) for owning and/or operating a gun
2. Mandatory training
3. Probationary period during training
4. Mandatory licensing requirement with periodic renewal that also checks to ensure owner/operator of the gun still meets legal and health requirements
5. Mandatory registration of guns
6. Mandatory title transfer process if gun changes hands that includes mandatory background check of recipient
7. Insurance requirement to cover liability costs
8. Mandatory periodic inspection of the gun to ensure it is still safe to operate, has not been illegally modified, and is still in the registered owner's possession.

We do this for cars and it does not impede law abiding drivers. As such it cannot be credibly argued that this would be an infringement on lawful gun owners' rights.

Second amendment advocates believe that license requirements will be used to ban private ownership, and their fears are most likely warranted based on the evidence. Cities with "may issue" license requirements made it so difficult to obtain permits that ordinary citizens could not possess or carry weapons. SCOTUS is about to rule on this issue in NYC. The Heller case addressed similar problems in DC.

I think at this point it would take a Constitutional amendment to layout a clear individual right to gun ownership for self-defense purposes in return for the licensure, insurance, and training requirements. That would be a fair trade in my opinion. But of course many people on both sides make a lot of $$$ politicizing the issue and don't want the gravy train to stop.

2nd Amendment defined the right as being for establishing a well regulated militia. Within 6 months of ratifying 2A the same Founding Fathers who wrote 2A also codified what militia meant in the Militia Act of 1792 and what eligibility and responsibilities that entailed. And it's not at all what 2A advocates today think it is.

“I ask, Sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people except for a few public officials”

-George Mason, Founding Father



They knew exactly whom the militia was.



Now, tell us that the word “regulated” in the context of 1791 means the same thing we think it means today. Go ahead! Fail 2-for-2 !

Well, in 1791, the only guns were flint lock Brown Bess muskets, so they are the only “arms” protected by the second amendment.

Did you know that automatic weapons have been around since the 1500s? You just couldn't reliably mass-produce them until the 1800s.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2017/04/03/firearms-technology-and-the-original-meaning-of-the-second-amendment/

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Guns should be regulated the same way we do cars and driving.

1. Age and health requirements (i.e. not blind, mentally ill, etc) for owning and/or operating a gun
2. Mandatory training
3. Probationary period during training
4. Mandatory licensing requirement with periodic renewal that also checks to ensure owner/operator of the gun still meets legal and health requirements
5. Mandatory registration of guns
6. Mandatory title transfer process if gun changes hands that includes mandatory background check of recipient
7. Insurance requirement to cover liability costs
8. Mandatory periodic inspection of the gun to ensure it is still safe to operate, has not been illegally modified, and is still in the registered owner's possession.

We do this for cars and it does not impede law abiding drivers. As such it cannot be credibly argued that this would be an infringement on lawful gun owners' rights.

Second amendment advocates believe that license requirements will be used to ban private ownership, and their fears are most likely warranted based on the evidence. Cities with "may issue" license requirements made it so difficult to obtain permits that ordinary citizens could not possess or carry weapons. SCOTUS is about to rule on this issue in NYC. The Heller case addressed similar problems in DC.

I think at this point it would take a Constitutional amendment to layout a clear individual right to gun ownership for self-defense purposes in return for the licensure, insurance, and training requirements. That would be a fair trade in my opinion. But of course many people on both sides make a lot of $$$ politicizing the issue and don't want the gravy train to stop.

2nd Amendment defined the right as being for establishing a well regulated militia. Within 6 months of ratifying 2A the same Founding Fathers who wrote 2A also codified what militia meant in the Militia Act of 1792 and what eligibility and responsibilities that entailed. And it's not at all what 2A advocates today think it is.

“I ask, Sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people except for a few public officials”

-George Mason, Founding Father



They knew exactly whom the militia was.



Now, tell us that the word “regulated” in the context of 1791 means the same thing we think it means today. Go ahead! Fail 2-for-2 !

Well, in 1791, the only guns were flint lock Brown Bess muskets, so they are the only “arms” protected by the second amendment.

Did you know that automatic weapons have been around since the 1500s? You just couldn't reliably mass-produce them until the 1800s.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2017/04/03/firearms-technology-and-the-original-meaning-of-the-second-amendment/

They were found to have little practical use and don't exactly correlate to modern guns.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Guns should be regulated the same way we do cars and driving.

1. Age and health requirements (i.e. not blind, mentally ill, etc) for owning and/or operating a gun
2. Mandatory training
3. Probationary period during training
4. Mandatory licensing requirement with periodic renewal that also checks to ensure owner/operator of the gun still meets legal and health requirements
5. Mandatory registration of guns
6. Mandatory title transfer process if gun changes hands that includes mandatory background check of recipient
7. Insurance requirement to cover liability costs
8. Mandatory periodic inspection of the gun to ensure it is still safe to operate, has not been illegally modified, and is still in the registered owner's possession.

We do this for cars and it does not impede law abiding drivers. As such it cannot be credibly argued that this would be an infringement on lawful gun owners' rights.

Second amendment advocates believe that license requirements will be used to ban private ownership, and their fears are most likely warranted based on the evidence. Cities with "may issue" license requirements made it so difficult to obtain permits that ordinary citizens could not possess or carry weapons. SCOTUS is about to rule on this issue in NYC. The Heller case addressed similar problems in DC.

I think at this point it would take a Constitutional amendment to layout a clear individual right to gun ownership for self-defense purposes in return for the licensure, insurance, and training requirements. That would be a fair trade in my opinion. But of course many people on both sides make a lot of $$$ politicizing the issue and don't want the gravy train to stop.

2nd Amendment defined the right as being for establishing a well regulated militia. Within 6 months of ratifying 2A the same Founding Fathers who wrote 2A also codified what militia meant in the Militia Act of 1792 and what eligibility and responsibilities that entailed. And it's not at all what 2A advocates today think it is.

“I ask, Sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people except for a few public officials”

-George Mason, Founding Father



They knew exactly whom the militia was.



Now, tell us that the word “regulated” in the context of 1791 means the same thing we think it means today. Go ahead! Fail 2-for-2 !

Well, in 1791, the only guns were flint lock Brown Bess muskets, so they are the only “arms” protected by the second amendment.

Did you know that automatic weapons have been around since the 1500s? You just couldn't reliably mass-produce them until the 1800s.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2017/04/03/firearms-technology-and-the-original-meaning-of-the-second-amendment/

They were found to have little practical use and don't exactly correlate to modern guns.

Hilarious that the puckle gun is portrayed as a 1700s "machine gun" - it wasn't even semiautomatic. It was nothing more than a flintlock with multiple chambers that had to be manually rotated and fired.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Guns should be regulated the same way we do cars and driving.

1. Age and health requirements (i.e. not blind, mentally ill, etc) for owning and/or operating a gun
2. Mandatory training
3. Probationary period during training
4. Mandatory licensing requirement with periodic renewal that also checks to ensure owner/operator of the gun still meets legal and health requirements
5. Mandatory registration of guns
6. Mandatory title transfer process if gun changes hands that includes mandatory background check of recipient
7. Insurance requirement to cover liability costs
8. Mandatory periodic inspection of the gun to ensure it is still safe to operate, has not been illegally modified, and is still in the registered owner's possession.

We do this for cars and it does not impede law abiding drivers. As such it cannot be credibly argued that this would be an infringement on lawful gun owners' rights.

Second amendment advocates believe that license requirements will be used to ban private ownership, and their fears are most likely warranted based on the evidence. Cities with "may issue" license requirements made it so difficult to obtain permits that ordinary citizens could not possess or carry weapons. SCOTUS is about to rule on this issue in NYC. The Heller case addressed similar problems in DC.

I think at this point it would take a Constitutional amendment to layout a clear individual right to gun ownership for self-defense purposes in return for the licensure, insurance, and training requirements. That would be a fair trade in my opinion. But of course many people on both sides make a lot of $$$ politicizing the issue and don't want the gravy train to stop.

A fair trade would be agreeing to something like that but also having minimum prison sentences of 50 years for all violent crimes committed with a firearm. If you’re going to make it harder for law abiding citizens to protect themselves then we should at least put all of our criminals away for life. No early releases, no pleading down, no exceptions.

Why just violent crimes committed with a firearm? Why not just violent crimes in general? If someone was to stab your loved one to death, would you really be more "ok" with that than if they shot your loved one?

You’re right. If you commit a violent crime, you should be put away for life.