• Guest, The rules for the P & N subforum have been updated to prohibit "ad hominem" or personal attacks against other posters. See the full details in the post "Politics and News Rules & Guidelines."
  • Community Question: What makes a good motherboard?

Should the 2nd amendment be repealed?

Page 13 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

Should the 2nd amendment be repealed?


  • Total voters
    118

ch33zw1z

Lifer
Nov 4, 2004
31,472
10,237
146
I wasn't asking what the goal is. I think most would agree with 0%. I asked what was acceptable to you?
What's acceptable to me is a reduction of events like we're seeing in the last 20 years, where scores of people are gunned down by people with obvious mental health issues, where those people obtained weapons under current law without issue. And a country that addresses the variable in the gun violence equation like adults.
 
  • Like
Reactions: highland145

Cerpin Taxt

Lifer
Feb 23, 2005
11,908
402
126
I figure myself to be among the libbiest libs that ever libbed all the lib long day, and I don't support a repeal of the second amendment. I support additional gun control measures. I've always been an avid outdoorsman and enjoy shooting and hunting, but I do not fear additional gun control legislation. I keep my nose clean.

I suspect it is a fact that a disproportionate number of Republicans ("deplorables") would be judged unfit to carry firearms under even the more conservative proposed gun control measures, i.e. criminal records, domestic violence, etc.
 

highland145

Lifer
Oct 12, 2009
40,722
3,721
136
QUOTE="Cerpin Taxt, post: 39371794, member: 162945"]I figure myself to be among the libbiest libs that ever libbed all the lib long day, and I don't support a repeal of the second amendment. I support additional gun control measures. I've always been an avid outdoorsman and enjoy shooting and hunting, but I do not fear additional gun control legislation. I keep my nose clean.

I suspect it is a fact that a disproportionate number of Republicans ("deplorables") would be judged unfit to carry firearms under even the more conservative proposed gun control measures, i.e. criminal records, domestic violence, etc.[/QUOTE]
Well, you started, 100%. Ended 0% lol fact....lol We all know libs don't have guns...except for the privledged.


Sad. Try to not eludicicate too much.
 
  • Like
Reactions: IJTSSG

jackstar7

Lifer
Jun 26, 2009
11,679
1,941
126
It must be harder than I thought to answer a direct question. I'll try again. What is the pecking order of constitutional rights? To keep it simple just list the Bill of Rights in order of importance. What is the percentage of acceptable deaths by gun?
Discussion too tricky for you, dumbnuts?

Color me unsurprised.
 

Cerpin Taxt

Lifer
Feb 23, 2005
11,908
402
126
I figure myself to be among the libbiest libs that ever libbed all the lib long day, and I don't support a repeal of the second amendment. I support additional gun control measures. I've always been an avid outdoorsman and enjoy shooting and hunting, but I do not fear additional gun control legislation. I keep my nose clean.

I suspect it is a fact that a disproportionate number of Republicans ("deplorables") would be judged unfit to carry firearms under even the more conservative proposed gun control measures, i.e. criminal records, domestic violence, etc.
Well, you started, 100%. Ended 0% lol fact....lol We all know libs don't have guns...except for the privledged.


Sad. Try to not eludicicate too much.
Uh, what? Are you ok?
 

pmv

Diamond Member
May 30, 2008
7,390
2,610
136
Let's talk about putting rational limitations on abortion, free speech, freedom of religion, etc and see where that discussion goes...
You already have plenty of limitations on abortion. There are a good few on 'free speech' as well.
 

Amused

Elite Member
Apr 14, 2001
53,689
6,416
126
As I understand it, the gun show loophole has nothing to do with gun shows, strictly speaking. Federal law exempts from background checks sales between private individuals within state lines. Whether a gun is sold at a gun show or garage sale, the law makes no distinction regarding the venue.

An FFL dealer at a gun show is bound by the same restrictions (background checks) he or she would be at a storefront.
Yes, yet this does nothing to diminish my point. That's why it's called the gun show/private sale loophole because a significant percentage of sellers (estimated at 25%) at gun shows are not licensed dealers. Currently, 40% of gun sales in the US take place without a licensed dealer involved and with no background checks. The private sale loophole must be closed.

It is currently easier for a prohibited person to buy a weapon than it is for a ten year old to buy a beer in 95% of the country.

Let's at least address this first.
 

jackstar7

Lifer
Jun 26, 2009
11,679
1,941
126
You already have plenty of limitations on abortion. There are a good few on 'free speech' as well.
And there are some on guns. So clearly the interpretation of 2A has room.

But I'm with the former SCJ that 2A needs to go.
 

Atreus21

Lifer
Aug 21, 2007
12,017
571
126
Yes, yet this does nothing to diminish my point. That's why it's called the gun show/private sale loophole because a significant percentage of sellers (estimated at 25%) at gun shows are not licensed dealers. Currently, 40% of gun sales in the US take place without a licensed dealer involved and with no background checks. The private sale loophole must be closed.

It is currently easier for a prohibited person to buy a weapon than it is for a ten year old to buy a beer in 95% of the country.

Let's at least address this first.
Fine, I wasn't contradicting the larger point. Just that I don't understand why it's called a loophole - it's the intent of the law.
 
Nov 29, 2006
14,498
2,199
126
I am annoyed by those door to door electricity salesmen that claim to be from the utility company, but, really they are trying to scam people into signing up for a competing utility company. I have a no solicitors sign, but they come anyhow. I wish it was legal to shoot them for the good of the community. There should be a trophy for shooting them. Can we make shooting them covered as part of the Second Amendment?

That would be a use besides "killing things" since it would be "making them leave me alone and stop bothering me."
I'd allow that. Id also allowing killing of telemarketers if you deem it worthy of tracking them down.
 

Kwatt

Golden Member
Jan 3, 2000
1,603
12
81
Fine, I wasn't contradicting the larger point. Just that I don't understand why it's called a loophole - it's the intent of the law.
I believe the term "loophole" is misused in order to promote ire and fear.

The word "loophole" implies something was over looked or not worded correctly. Neither applies in this case. Private sales on firearms within a state can not be regulated by Federal law. If a provision for private sales had been included it would have been challenged in court. Each state can require private sale background checks if they choose. (Some will not due to the cost) It would take an amendment to force the states to comply. (Keep in mind some states have not fully adopted the NFA of 1934)

The last time I saw figures on background checks that were denied only about 2% were being prosecuted for perjury.

So, the current system is not being enforced because there is no outrage about it. And the cost would be high.



.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Thebobo

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
70,704
20,048
136
I believe the term "loophole" is misused in order to promote ire and fear.

The word "loophole" implies something was over looked or not worded correctly. Neither applies in this case. Private sales on firearms within a state can not be regulated by Federal law. If a provision for private sales had been included it would have been challenged in court. Each state can require private sale background checks if they choose. (Some will not due to the cost) It would take an amendment to force the states to comply. (Keep in mind some states have not fully adopted the NFA of 1934)

The last time I saw figures on background checks that were denied only about 2% were being prosecuted for perjury.

So, the current system is not being enforced because there is no outrage about it. And the cost would be high.

.
Hmm, then I guess private sales of drugs within a state cannot be regulated by federal law. Better inform the DEA.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wickard_v._Filburn

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gonzales_v._Raich

The gun show loophole was inserted as a sop to gun rights groups. If we wanted to we could close it tomorrow and require a background check for all firearm sales in the US regardless of where they take place. While that should only be the start of increased regulations, it's a good common sense start.
 

Atreus21

Lifer
Aug 21, 2007
12,017
571
126
Hmm, then I guess private sales of drugs within a state cannot be regulated by federal law. Better inform the DEA.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wickard_v._Filburn

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gonzales_v._Raich

The gun show loophole was inserted as a sop to gun rights groups. If we wanted to we could close it tomorrow and require a background check for all firearm sales in the US regardless of where they take place. While that should only be the start of increased regulations, it's a good common sense start.
Again, this seems a silly bone to pick, but how does it have anything to do with gun shows? If private sellers coalesced at a garage sale and sold their guns to private buyers would we call it the garage sale loophole?
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
70,704
20,048
136
Again, this seems a silly bone to pick, but how does it have anything to do with gun shows? If private sellers coalesced at a garage sale and sold their guns to private buyers would we call it the garage sale loophole?
If you want to call it the private sale loophole that's fine with me, it's just that a lot of private sales take place at gun shows. It's probably just a catchier name.
 

nickqt

Diamond Member
Jan 15, 2015
6,268
4,565
136
Again, this seems a silly bone to pick, but how does it have anything to do with gun shows? If private sellers coalesced at a garage sale and sold their guns to private buyers would we call it the garage sale loophole?
It would still be a gun show loophole where background checks are not required, imbecile.
 

Kwatt

Golden Member
Jan 3, 2000
1,603
12
81
Hmm, then I guess private sales of drugs within a state cannot be regulated by federal law. Better inform the DEA.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wickard_v._Filburn

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gonzales_v._Raich

The gun show loophole was inserted as a sop to gun rights groups. If we wanted to we could close it tomorrow and require a background check for all firearm sales in the US regardless of where they take place. While that should only be the start of increased regulations, it's a good common sense start.
Wickard v. Filburn

"Whether the subject of the regulation in question was 'production', 'consumption', or 'marketing' is, therefore, not material for purposes of deciding the question of federal power before us.... But even if appellee's activity be local and though it may not be regarded as commerce, it may still, whatever its nature, be reached by Congress if it exerts a substantial economic effect on interstate commerce and this irrespective of whether such effect is what might at some earlier time have been defined as 'direct' or 'indirect.'"

I doubt if private sales of firearms will "exert a substantial economic effect on interstate commerce".

Gonzales v. Raich

When the Fed makes all firearms illegal may(?) be applied.


.




 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
70,704
20,048
136
Wickard v. Filburn

"Whether the subject of the regulation in question was 'production', 'consumption', or 'marketing' is, therefore, not material for purposes of deciding the question of federal power before us.... But even if appellee's activity be local and though it may not be regarded as commerce, it may still, whatever its nature, be reached by Congress if it exerts a substantial economic effect on interstate commerce and this irrespective of whether such effect is what might at some earlier time have been defined as 'direct' or 'indirect.'"

I doubt if private sales of firearms will "exert a substantial economic effect on interstate commerce".
Uhmm, estimates are that about 25% of gun sales are private. It's hard to imagine a credible argument where something governing a quarter of all sales doesn't exert a substantial economic impact.

Gonzales v. Raich
When the Fed makes all firearms illegal may(?) be applied.
False. The question is whether or not Congress can regulate purely in-state commerce as part of a larger regulatory scheme. It was ruled that they could.

Like I said, we could close the loophole if we wanted to. I hope we do someday.
 

Skel

Diamond Member
Apr 11, 2001
6,082
365
136
Uhmm, estimates are that about 25% of gun sales are private. It's hard to imagine a credible argument where something governing a quarter of all sales doesn't exert a substantial economic impact.



False. The question is whether or not Congress can regulate purely in-state commerce as part of a larger regulatory scheme. It was ruled that they could.

Like I said, we could close the loophole if we wanted to. I hope we do someday.
Out of pure curiosity, what would a closed loophole look like? Forcing people to get pennies on the dollars from gun stores because the stores know there's no other option? An ability for private sellers to check the FBI database or prohibited users, if so how do you enforce it's used? Tracking the serial numbers of guns? A massive DB that could be used against a gun owner (like a raise in home insurance for owning a gun that's never left it's safe from the day it was bought) if it's contents weren't tightly controlled.. not even counting hacks.

I'm just wondering. I doubt this 'loophole' will ever be solved at a Fed level. The best you can hope for is states doing it, and even then.
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
70,704
20,048
136
Out of pure curiosity, what would a closed loophole look like? Forcing people to get pennies on the dollars from gun stores because the stores know there's no other option? An ability for private sellers to check the FBI database or prohibited users, if so how do you enforce it's used? Tracking the serial numbers of guns? A massive DB that could be used against a gun owner (like a raise in home insurance for owning a gun that's never left it's safe from the day it was bought) if it's contents weren't tightly controlled.. not even counting hacks.

I'm just wondering. I doubt this 'loophole' will ever be solved at a Fed level. The best you can hope for is states doing it, and even then.
Require all firearm transfers be done through an FFL. Considering that 75% of gun sales already go through the same database it would be 25% larger than it is now. Seems fine to me?

As for home insurance going up for gun owners from an actuarial sense it's hard to argue against. Gun ownership is associated with an increased risk of injury, homicide, and suicide so from an underwriting perspective isn't that smart?
 

Kwatt

Golden Member
Jan 3, 2000
1,603
12
81
Uhmm, estimates are that about 25% of gun sales are private. It's hard to imagine a credible argument where something governing a quarter of all sales doesn't exert a substantial economic impact.
Those are used sales. That would not be adding much economic impact. Which mostly come from new sales. Add may have a negative economic impact due added record keeping, processing, and admin. cost.



False. The question is whether or not Congress can regulate purely in-state commerce as part of a larger regulatory scheme. It was ruled that they could.
Those were personal growers if I read your link correctly therefore no in-state commerce. Except they weren't buying commercial product. That is federally prohibited anyway.


Like I said, we could close the loophole if we wanted to. I hope we do someday.
And I would rather it not happen.


*************

On a side note both of those cases were Supreme Court decisions. Which is the result of a challenge.:)


.
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
70,704
20,048
136
Those are used sales. That would not be adding much economic impact. Which mostly come from new sales. Add may have a negative economic impact due added record keeping, processing, and admin. cost.
Why on earth would a used market not affect the new market? Do you think new car sales would be different if the used car market didn't exist? I sure do. As for whether the impact was positive or negative that's not really relevant.

Those were personal growers if I read your link correctly therefore no in-state commerce. Except they weren't buying commercial product. That is federally prohibited anyway.
That actually makes the holding even stronger in favor of federal powers. They decided that so long as it's part of a larger regulatory scheme the feds can prohibit you from engaging in not only intrastate commerce, but actions that don't involve any commerce at all and take place entirely within your house, because otherwise you would go buy it from someone. By the way this decision is not one I agree with but...well... it's there.

And I would rather it not happen.


*************

On a side note both of those cases were Supreme Court decisions. Which is the result of a challenge.:)


.
If you don't want it that's fine, but it's within our power to do. It's also something that polls at around 90% support.
 

Kwatt

Golden Member
Jan 3, 2000
1,603
12
81
Why on earth would a used market not affect the new market? Do you think new car sales would be different if the used car market didn't exist? I sure do. As for whether the impact was positive or negative that's not really relevant.
OK, if sales of used firearms were prohibited or made so difficult no one did it we might just see as much as a 25% rise in new sales. The firearm manuf. will love that!

How can it not be relevant? The case to the link you posted was about grain sales.


That actually makes the holding even stronger in favor of federal powers. They decided that so long as it's part of a larger regulatory scheme the feds can prohibit you from engaging in not only intrastate commerce, but actions that don't involve any commerce at all and take place entirely within your house, because otherwise you would go buy it from someone. By the way this decision is not one I agree with but...well... it's there.
It was about someone growing something that possession of is illegal. At this time firearms are legal to own. I can build a firearm at home if I knew how and wanted to.


If you don't want it that's fine, but it's within our power to do. It's also something that polls at around 90% support.
It's also something that polls at around 90% support.

I have seen this posted before. I would like to know where it comes from. Mostly I want to know who was polled and how the question was worded.

.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY