HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » I believe the 2nd Amendme...
Introducing Discussionist: A new forum by the creators of DU

Sat Jan 12, 2013, 07:53 PM

I believe the 2nd Amendment gives individuals the right to own guns

but, like all of our rights, i do not believe that right is absolute. laws against child pornography, terroristic threats, and many others restrict our 1st Amendment right to free speech, and I support those laws. I also have no problem, in fact I strongly support, closing the gun show loophole on background checks and limiting the magazine capacity of guns available to the general public.

One can support the 2nd Amendment and be for reasonable gun control laws.

31 replies, 1863 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 31 replies Author Time Post
Reply I believe the 2nd Amendment gives individuals the right to own guns (Original post)
arely staircase Jan 2013 OP
Still Sensible Jan 2013 #1
pipoman Jan 2013 #2
arely staircase Jan 2013 #5
pipoman Jan 2013 #11
pipoman Jan 2013 #14
DanTex Jan 2013 #17
pipoman Jan 2013 #22
NutmegYankee Jan 2013 #3
arely staircase Jan 2013 #10
NutmegYankee Jan 2013 #13
Taitertots Jan 2013 #4
NoOneMan Jan 2013 #6
Taitertots Jan 2013 #9
arely staircase Jan 2013 #15
Taitertots Jan 2013 #18
arely staircase Jan 2013 #7
Taitertots Jan 2013 #12
arely staircase Jan 2013 #19
Taitertots Jan 2013 #21
arely staircase Jan 2013 #24
Taitertots Jan 2013 #25
arely staircase Jan 2013 #30
Taitertots Jan 2013 #31
jmg257 Jan 2013 #26
AverageJoe90 Jan 2013 #8
Creideiki Jan 2013 #16
arely staircase Jan 2013 #20
pipoman Jan 2013 #23
jmg257 Jan 2013 #27
pediatricmedic Jan 2013 #28
cui bono Jan 2013 #29

Response to arely staircase (Original post)

Sat Jan 12, 2013, 08:15 PM

1. Obviously there is too much common sense

in your post.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to arely staircase (Original post)

Sat Jan 12, 2013, 08:31 PM

2. I agree

The issues with "the gun show loophole" are just difficult. I believe there has been enough support for this in congress several times when a bill has been introduced. The problem in judicial committees chaired by both Democrats and thugs has been "the commerce clause". A bill has never made it out of committee because of this. I really believe the desired effect can come about, it simply needs to be enabled, then I believe states would begin requiring background checks on private sales.

The mag capacity could be limited..OTOH there are millions of high capacity magazines in circulation now. I don't believe semi-autos will be NFA, but high cap mags maybe could..

There are many thousand laws, rules, and regulations pertaining to firearms now. Some of the things which would be most effective are going to have serious constitutional issues. It will be interesting to see what happens..

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pipoman (Reply #2)

Sat Jan 12, 2013, 08:52 PM

5. What is your point about the commerce clause? Wouldn't that be the very part of the

Constitution from which congress has the authority to require background checks at gunshows? Has not the problem simply been the lack of political will to do so? Real question, I'm not being snarky or argumenative.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to arely staircase (Reply #5)

Sat Jan 12, 2013, 09:15 PM

11. Background checks are required at gun shows

by all federal firearms licensees...most of the gun sellers at gun shows are ffls. The "gun show loophole" is unfortunately named. It is actually sales of firearms between 2 residents of the same state, within that state, who are not ffl dealers. In other words, sales at garage sales, between neighbors, off craig's list, or in the parking lot of a gun show. The only sales of firearms regardless the venue, which do not require a background checks are sales between two residents of the same state...intrastate commerce. The federal government does not have jurisdiction to require anything regarding intrastate commerce if the item or product is federally legal to own. This has stalled and killed every "gun show loophole" bill. I am not being snarky or argumentative either, just stating my understanding of this issue.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to arely staircase (Reply #5)

Sat Jan 12, 2013, 09:20 PM

14. Here is a link to a thread about this

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to arely staircase (Reply #5)

Sat Jan 12, 2013, 09:35 PM

17. It is just the political will. The commerce clause thing is just an NRA talking point.

There is plenty of constitutional cover for the Federal Government to require universal background checks. The commerce clause is one way -- there is plenty of evidence that illegally trafficked guns are an interstate concern. But even failing that, the Feds could require states to implement the checks by withholding some funds otherwise.

Universal background checks are currently required under federal law for transfers of machine guns, so the idea that a private transfer of guns between private citizens can't be regulated by the feds is obviously wrong.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DanTex (Reply #17)

Sat Jan 12, 2013, 10:06 PM

22. The feds can't even get states to submit information to NICS

forcing isn't going to work on this issue..enabling might. Machine guns are, by their inclusion in the NFA, by definition, not "in common use for lawful purposes". This is the threshold for NFA registration. Guns currently not under NFA registration are, by definition, "in common use for lawful purposes"...the distinction is real and problematic for willy nilly throwing things on NFA.

Apparently anything you don't like the reality of is an "NRA talking point", eh?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to arely staircase (Original post)

Sat Jan 12, 2013, 08:34 PM

3. Agree.

Sales between private citizens could be facilitated by a state form that would be filled out to ensure that the background check was performed. The form would be approved once this was completed and the sale would be allowed to legally proceed.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NutmegYankee (Reply #3)

Sat Jan 12, 2013, 09:13 PM

10. well there are sales between individual citizens and then there are gun shows

imho the former, say me selling my shotgun to my neighbor, that transaction raises the question of how i run, or prove i ran, a background check on her. the latter is a traveling gigantic gun store. these "shows" go from town to town. I have seen the exact same people with the exact same booths - not to mention the guys that sell, survivalist, racist and conspiracy driven "literature." the people thAt organize and run those things can get licensed to run background checks. if the people that run the pawnshops can the traveling arms market/racist literature/ron paul selling paraphernalia people can as well.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to arely staircase (Reply #10)

Sat Jan 12, 2013, 09:19 PM

13. That was my idea of the form.

The form would document the seller and purchaser and the background check would be performed by an authorized agency or business who would then sign and authorize the sale listed on the form. I'd figure it would only add about $10-$25 to a private sale but would close the loophole for all legal sales. A copy of the form would be filed in records as proof that the sale was legal.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to arely staircase (Original post)

Sat Jan 12, 2013, 08:38 PM

4. The problem is that reasonable goes out the window when people are terrified

I don't think creating a slew of victimless crimes that punish the 99.999% of gun owners who will never hurt anyone with their guns is a reasonable regulation.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Taitertots (Reply #4)

Sat Jan 12, 2013, 08:58 PM

6. People are terrified because the old definition of "reasonable" is leaving blood in the streets

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NoOneMan (Reply #6)

Sat Jan 12, 2013, 09:07 PM

9. We live in the most peaceful era in all of human history

Being terrified about gun violence is the most unreasonable response to life in America that it is possible to have.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Taitertots (Reply #9)

Sat Jan 12, 2013, 09:24 PM

15. one mustn't be terrified to believe gun violence is too high in the US and that there is too easy

access to powerful weapons.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to arely staircase (Reply #15)

Sat Jan 12, 2013, 09:39 PM

18. But we live in the most peaceful era in human history and firearms are more available than ever

There is no rational reason to believe tightening gun control will reduce violent crime and/or homicides.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Taitertots (Reply #4)

Sat Jan 12, 2013, 09:04 PM

7. i have proposed no such thing

"slew of victimless crimes" as you put it. i am a gun owner. i have actually bought a mossburg pump action 12 gauge at a gun show. I have also in my life purchased guns from registered dealers and had to submitt to a background check. I should have had to have done so at the gun show, tht would not have been an unreasonable burden for me to have carried - especially since i was gettin the gun cheaper than in a store. why can't whomever organizes these gun shows have a way to run background checks at their travelling arms saleapalooza. it is usually the same people who have booths at all of these gun shows. if they are required to do background checks they will be able to do it. if you pawn a gun you have to go through the background check again when you retrieve your poperty after paying (the mafia like interest rates) loan.

How would any of that hurt me, a gun owner?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to arely staircase (Reply #7)

Sat Jan 12, 2013, 09:17 PM

12. Who was the victim when you bought the shotgun without a background check?

Who is the victim when someone owns a standard capacity magazine?

Gun owners are hurt when are subjected to arbitrary regulations that limit activities that don't hurt other people.

PS: I don't know when you bought the shotgun (laws have changed over time), but anyone in the business of selling firearms has to do background checks. Every single gun dealer has to call the NICS and do a background check. The only exception is when an individual is selling their personal firearms. If you see someone with a booth at a gun show that isn't doing background checks call the ATF immediately.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Taitertots (Reply #12)

Sat Jan 12, 2013, 09:41 PM

19. there was no victim

the point is the person selling me a deadly weapon had no idea whether i or anyone else they sell to was legally allowed to own a gun. i could have been straight out of prison. society has a significant enough interest in making sure the people at gun shows or even me selling a gun to my neighbor isn't selling one to a violent felon that extremely reasonable inconvenience of having to wait for a background check is not, imho, an undue restriction on the 2nd amendment - as for the high capacity magazine, it is the same notion. who is the victim when someone owns one? well that depends on who that someone is and that gets you back to the background check. Frankly I would just outlaw the importation, manufacturing and sale or transfer of the mags. I wouldn't flat out ban ownership and come round them up. I would let them slowly diminish in quantity through attrition.

i bought the shotgun in the mid-late 1990s. are you saying the people at those gun show booths would have to call the system were i to make the same transaction today? if that is true i applaud it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to arely staircase (Reply #19)

Sat Jan 12, 2013, 09:55 PM

21. Anyone "in the business of selling firearms" must call the NICS for a background check...

Regardless of the location of their sale. If you ever see someone that appears to be in the business of selling firearms (i.e. gun show booth) without doing background checks please call the ATF and report them immediately.

Regarding selling guns to your neighbor: Background checks do nothing to prevent people from illegally selling guns to prohibited people. Unless you are proposing a national firearms registry, there would be no way for the government to know that you had a gun to sell to them in the first place.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Taitertots (Reply #21)

Sat Jan 12, 2013, 11:09 PM

24. a national registry isn't politically possible, currently

not in the sense that all owners would have to go register theirs. i am not sure i could support that myself. however requiring background checks for individual to individual sales could be done at the county sheriff's office or a licensed dealer or anyone else who can already do it. that would of course slowly start building a data base of what is out there and who has it (the point of all of which being the making of certain weapons don't get in the hands of certain people.)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to arely staircase (Reply #24)

Sat Jan 12, 2013, 11:28 PM

25. I don't understand your position

You said that you don't know if you could support a registry, but at the same time you are saying that you want to create what amounts to a de facto registry system.

If there isn't a registry, requiring background checks on private sales wouldn't do anything. People would just sell them anyway and there would be no way to know if they got the check or not.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Taitertots (Reply #25)

Tue Jan 15, 2013, 09:19 AM

30. registry

I support a de facto registry that is built as guns change hands. I do not support a registry law that says "OK everyone has to come down and register their guns today."

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to arely staircase (Reply #30)

Tue Jan 15, 2013, 06:48 PM

31. You want a registry, but only if it is made in the most disingenuous way possible?

This is why people don't trust people when they advocate background checks for private sales; Because we all know it just means they want a registry.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to arely staircase (Reply #24)

Sat Jan 12, 2013, 11:30 PM

26. Why not shall issue fiream permits? Individual and unique id numbers.

Attach an 800 number to call at point of sale to confirm the buyer with a simple yea or nay.

Fraud is always a fear "fake ids" and all, but there should be a way to fix that.

LE able to request a gun holder produce the card if gun is publicly carried.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to arely staircase (Original post)

Sat Jan 12, 2013, 09:07 PM

8. I think you've just about pegged me, too.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to arely staircase (Original post)

Sat Jan 12, 2013, 09:26 PM

16. I believe the 2nd Amendment gives the people the right to "keep and bear arms"

Anyone who can handle the job should be allowed in the National Guard. In fact, I recommend the National Guard highly.

Note, until this moronic conservative majority on the SCOTUS, the second amendment was considered a collective right, not an individual right. It's just that there's more money for the gun and ammunition manufacturers if it's an individual right.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Creideiki (Reply #16)

Sat Jan 12, 2013, 09:52 PM

20. then we differ in that regard

i agreee with the scotus 2008 (i believe) ruling to which you refer. i do believe it is an individual and not just a collective right (though the existence of stste national guards shows. but as i originally posted, i believe it is a right, like any other right, that can be regulated and restricted.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Creideiki (Reply #16)

Sat Jan 12, 2013, 10:12 PM

23. Actually..

The second was only considered a collective right by some because it had never been definitively determined by scotus decision. Now it has been and has also been incorporated.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to arely staircase (Original post)

Sat Jan 12, 2013, 11:38 PM

27. Actually, secures the right, not "gives" the right...whatever that right is. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to arely staircase (Original post)

Sun Jan 13, 2013, 12:23 AM

28. Common sense not allowed here, you will now be told you have a small penis, are crazy, a PWG, etc.


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to arely staircase (Original post)

Sun Jan 13, 2013, 02:28 AM

29. Good point.

I keep hearing the argument that guns are different than cars because driving is a privilege and guns are a right provided to us in the constitution. But using the free speech example works even on those who insist that the 2nd Amendment doesn't apply only to a well organized militia.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread