Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Voter id, background checks , licensing is totally appropriate. Only illegal alien nut bags or lovers of vote fraud think differently.

So why aren't background checks and licensing "totally appropriate" for all gun owners?

Because it's discriminatory against poor people exorcizing their constitutional rights.

Why is a background check discriminatory against poor people? They are free unless your state chooses to charge people for them. And unlike ID, they can be done at any pawn shop or gun store. Last I looked, there are lots of pawn shops in poor neighborhoods.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think the craziest thing in this whole debate is that Congress could not pass a law that over 90% of the population supported. The NRA has so much power that it is able to kill a bill that most rational people (including gun owners) support. I think almost everyone (except the most extreme) would not fight keeping guns out of the hands of the mentally ill (or felons). Yet the NRA opposes even these limitations as part of the slippery slope. It is mind boggling.

What's the big deal? Get the votes to change the constitution and get rid of the 2nd amendment or open back up the mental institutions where all the mentally unstable and "homeless" (Aka crazy) people used to be committed


Problem solved. Stop whining , you sound crazy enough to put on your own cannot by a gun list.

It's pretty clear that the constitution need not be changed to regulate gun use (i.e. background checks, licensing requirements, limits on ammunition, assault weapon bans, etc. . .); the only people who believe to the contrary are NRA nutbags who have been drinking the kool-aid.

Shall not be infringed. So voter id is no infringement either. All those rules for gun ownership restrict the rights of poor people by increasing gun costs

BZZZZ. Thank you for playing "I don't understand Constitutional law!"

You see, there are these things called "balancing tests" that the courts use to evaluate whether a law that infringes a Constitutional right passes Constitutional or not.

If a law infringes on a Constitutional right, the government has to demonstrate that there is a compelling state interest in regulating whatever the law regulates, and has to demonstrate that the law achieves that regulation in the most narrowly tailored way possible.

Thus, in the case of voter ID laws, since the various state governments, like Wisconsin, were unable to identify a single case of in-person voter ID fraud, and were unable to explain to the court's satisfaction why anyone would actually commit in-person voter ID fraud, the cost to the people who had to go get IDs was judged to be too high given the very small (if not non-existent) risk to the integrity of the voting system that would be mitigated by requiring photo IDs.

If the government were able to demonstrate a compelling interest in regulating access to firearms, and could demonstrate that it was regulating access to firearms in a way that was narrowly tailored to minimize the impact on 2nd Amendment rights while still achieving that purpose, then that law should pass Constitutional muster.

Please come back and play again sometime when you've learned a little more about how your own government works.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Voter id, background checks , licensing is totally appropriate. Only illegal alien nut bags or lovers of vote fraud think differently.

So why aren't background checks and licensing "totally appropriate" for all gun owners?

Because it's discriminatory against poor people exorcizing their constitutional rights.

Anonymous wrote:Voter id, background checks , licensing is totally appropriate. Only illegal alien nut bags or lovers of vote fraud think differently.

So why aren't background checks and licensing "totally appropriate" for all gun owners?

Voter id, background checks , licensing is totally appropriate. Only illegal alien nut bags or lovers of vote fraud think differently.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think the craziest thing in this whole debate is that Congress could not pass a law that over 90% of the population supported. The NRA has so much power that it is able to kill a bill that most rational people (including gun owners) support. I think almost everyone (except the most extreme) would not fight keeping guns out of the hands of the mentally ill (or felons). Yet the NRA opposes even these limitations as part of the slippery slope. It is mind boggling.

What's the big deal? Get the votes to change the constitution and get rid of the 2nd amendment or open back up the mental institutions where all the mentally unstable and "homeless" (Aka crazy) people used to be committed


Problem solved. Stop whining , you sound crazy enough to put on your own cannot by a gun list.

It's pretty clear that the constitution need not be changed to regulate gun use (i.e. background checks, licensing requirements, limits on ammunition, assault weapon bans, etc. . .); the only people who believe to the contrary are NRA nutbags who have been drinking the kool-aid.

Shall not be infringed. So voter id is no infringement either. All those rules for gun ownership restrict the rights of poor people by increasing gun costs

You realize that most of us have read the Supreme Court case that contradicts what you are saying, right? Maybe if you care so much about guns, you might try reading it. Or get a grownup to explain it to you.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think the craziest thing in this whole debate is that Congress could not pass a law that over 90% of the population supported. The NRA has so much power that it is able to kill a bill that most rational people (including gun owners) support. I think almost everyone (except the most extreme) would not fight keeping guns out of the hands of the mentally ill (or felons). Yet the NRA opposes even these limitations as part of the slippery slope. It is mind boggling.

What's the big deal? Get the votes to change the constitution and get rid of the 2nd amendment or open back up the mental institutions where all the mentally unstable and "homeless" (Aka crazy) people used to be committed


Problem solved. Stop whining , you sound crazy enough to put on your own cannot by a gun list.

It's pretty clear that the constitution need not be changed to regulate gun use (i.e. background checks, licensing requirements, limits on ammunition, assault weapon bans, etc. . .); the only people who believe to the contrary are NRA nutbags who have been drinking the kool-aid.

Shall not be infringed. So voter id is no infringement either. All those rules for gun ownership restrict the rights of poor people by increasing gun costs

States have almost always voted against gay marriage by wide margins. Gun control and anti gay marriage laws are shot down by individual rights.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The anti - gun people should get the votes to change the constitution as should the anti gay marriage majority .

There is no anti gay marriage majority. It no longer exists.

Ok then let's take a national referendum vote on gay marriage.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think the craziest thing in this whole debate is that Congress could not pass a law that over 90% of the population supported. The NRA has so much power that it is able to kill a bill that most rational people (including gun owners) support. I think almost everyone (except the most extreme) would not fight keeping guns out of the hands of the mentally ill (or felons). Yet the NRA opposes even these limitations as part of the slippery slope. It is mind boggling.

What's the big deal? Get the votes to change the constitution and get rid of the 2nd amendment or open back up the mental institutions where all the mentally unstable and "homeless" (Aka crazy) people used to be committed


Problem solved. Stop whining , you sound crazy enough to put on your own cannot by a gun list.

It's pretty clear that the constitution need not be changed to regulate gun use (i.e. background checks, licensing requirements, limits on ammunition, assault weapon bans, etc. . .); the only people who believe to the contrary are NRA nutbags who have been drinking the kool-aid.

Anonymous wrote:The anti - gun people should get the votes to change the constitution as should the anti gay marriage majority .

There is no anti gay marriage majority. It no longer exists.

The anti - gun people should get the votes to change the constitution as should the anti gay marriage majority .

Just read the last couple of pages to confirm that PP above's post is a complete nonsequitur.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Those numbers pale in comparison to the 2.4 million defensive gun uses(DGUs) every single year in the US.

And violent crime has declined dramatically over the past 25 years.

Can you please source the bolded?

Why is the NCVS an unacceptable estimate of annual DGU's? Dr. Kleck states, "Equally important, those who take the NCVS-based estimates seriously have consistently ignored the most pronounced limitations of the NCVS for estimating DGU frequency. The NCVS is a non-anonymous national survey conducted by a branch of the federal government, the U.S. Bureau of the Census. Interviewers identify themselves to respondents as federal government employees, even displaying, in face-to-face contacts, an identification card with a badge. Respondents are told that the interviews are being conducted on behalf of the U.S. Department of Justice, the law enforcement branch of the federal government. As a preliminary to asking questions about crime victimization experiences, interviewers establish the address, telephone number, and full names of all occupants, age twelve and over, in each household they contact. In short, it is made very clear to respondents that they are, in effect, speaking to a law enforcement arm of the federal government, whose employees know exactly who the respondents and their family members are, where they live, and how they can be recontacted."

"It is not hard for gun-using victims interviewed in the NCVS to withhold information about their use of a gun, especially since they are never directly asked whether they used a gun for self-protection. They are asked only general questions about whether they did anything to protect themselves. In short, respondents are merely give the opportunity to volunteer the information that they have used a gun defensively. All it takes for a respondents to conceal a DGU is to simply refrain from mentioning it, i.e., to leave it out of what may be an otherwise accurate and complete account of the crime incident."

"...88% of the violent crimes which respondents [Rs] reported to NCVS interviewers in 1992 were committed away from the victim's home, i.e., in a location where it would ordinarily be a crime for the victim to even possess a gun, never mind use it defensively. Because the question about location is asked before the self-protection questions, the typical violent crime victim R has already committed himself to having been victimized in a public place before being asked what he or she did for self-protection. In short, Rs usually could not mention their defensive use of a gun without, in effect, confessing to a crime to a federal government employee."

Kleck concludes his criticism of the NCVS saying it "was not designed to estimate how often people resist crime using a gun. It was designed primarily to estimate national victimization levels; it incidentally happens to include a few self-protection questions which include response categories covering resistance with a gun. Its survey instrument has been carefully refined and evaluated over the years to do as good a job as possible in getting people to report illegal things which other people have done to them. This is the exact opposite of the task which faces anyone trying to get good DGU estimates--to get people to admit controversial and possibly illegal things which the Rs themselves have done. Therefore, it is neither surprising, nor a reflection on the survey's designers, to note that the NCVS is singularly ill-suited for estimating the prevalence or incidence of DGU. It is not credible to regard this survey as an acceptable basis for establishing, in even the roughest way, how often Americans use guns for self-protection."

(Source: Gary, Kleck and Marc Gertz, "Armed Resistance to Crime: The Prevalence and Nature of Self-Defense with a Gun," Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology 1995, Vol. 86 No. 1.)

Anonymous wrote:"For every time a gun is used in self-defense in the home, there are 7 assaults or murders, 11 suicide attempts, and 4 accidents involving guns in or around a home."

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2013/01/pro-gun-myths-fact-check

That source is BS. Mother Jones? Seriously? The National Enquirer has more credibility than MJ.