Should the 2nd amendment be repealed?

[Skel]

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?

Are you proposing that I take my gun and whoever wants to buy it to an FFL and have them do and hold the paperwork, or are you saying that I should only be allowed to sell my guns to an FFL store?

You're kind of missing my point on the DB thing.. what if someone like my employer gets the info and then lets me go because of it? Or my doctor drops me because he hates guns? In any other way it's discrimination and you're creating the way to go about it with a DB of all owners of guns. It's still at this point a legal thing to own, so one shouldn't be discriminated because of it.

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.



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.



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.

My issue with the 90% vote thing is; I can't remember the last time I saw a vote on guns that was a public vote of the people not go pro-gun. Maybe it's an AZ thing, but I'm pretty sure almost all (all that I can remember) have passed with a large margin. I can't see 90% being true if some of those fly over states are being counted.

 

[fskimospy]

Are you proposing that I take my gun and whoever wants to buy it to an FFL and have them do and hold the paperwork, or are you saying that I should only be allowed to sell my guns to an FFL store?

All transfers should go through an FFL.

You're kind of missing my point on the DB thing.. what if someone like my employer gets the info and then lets me go because of it? Or my doctor drops me because he hates guns? In any other way it's discrimination and you're creating the way to go about it with a DB of all owners of guns. It's still at this point a legal thing to own, so one shouldn't be discriminated because of it.

Why couldn’t that happen now? I mean this database you’re worried about already exists for most purposes.

And yes they could fire you for that. There are tons of totally legal behaviors you can engage in that can and will get you fired, I don’t know why gun ownership would be special? I also don’t know why a doctor should be forced to treat gun owning patients. Florida tried to do that but the law was struck down as unconstitutional.

My issue with the 90% vote thing is; I can't remember the last time I saw a vote on guns that was a public vote of the people not go pro-gun. Maybe it's an AZ thing, but I'm pretty sure almost all (all that I can remember) have passed with a large margin. I can't see 90% being true if some of those fly over states are being counted.

It’s national, scientific polling of all Americans. All states, flyover or not, are included.

It’s a longstanding thing that Americans in general support more gun control. The gun lobby is very powerful though so we don’t get it. Gun owners are often single issue voters while people for more gun control are not.

 

[Amused]

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.

.

http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-brief...-support-background-checks-for-all-gun-buyers

http://www.politifact.com/wisconsin...-target-claim-97-percent-gun-owners-support-/

http://www.politifact.com/ohio/stat...parkland-shooting-ohio-congressman-said-70-8/

http://time.com/5167216/americans-gun-control-support-poll-2018/

https://www.motherjones.com/politic...-checks-for-gun-purchases-hits-all-time-high/

https://theweek.com/speedreads/7564...un-buyers-67-percent-want-ban-assault-weapons

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/arti...-support-at-highest-level-measured-poll-shows

http://www.newsweek.com/gun-control-measures-americans-support-824806

 

[Skel]

All transfers should go through an FFL.

That really doesn't answer my question.. In fact it doesn't answer what I thought was a direct question at all..

Why couldn’t that happen now? I mean this database you’re worried about already exists for most purposes.

And yes they could fire you for that. There are tons of totally legal behaviors you can engage in that can and will get you fired, I don’t know why gun ownership would be special? I also don’t know why a doctor should be forced to treat gun owning patients. Florida tried to do that but the law was struck down as unconstitutional.

Bakers are forced to bake cakes for things that violate their beliefs, which a doctor that has a belief that guns are so wrong he refuses people who have them is really close to the same thing.. but again you're missing my point.

It’s national, scientific polling of all Americans. All states, flyover or not, are included.

It’s a longstanding thing that Americans in general support more gun control. The gun lobby is very powerful though so we don’t get it. Gun owners are often single issue voters while people for more gun control are not.

I think I'm tracking.. I agree most people want "gun control". It's just that the words "Gun Control" mean different things to different people. I don't think anyone wants psychos to have them... that's gun control. The moment you start slicing those words up to mean actual things like your "All transfers should go through an FFL" do people suddenly start having different opinions.

 

[jackstar7]

Bakers are forced to bake cakes for things that violate their beliefs, which a doctor that has a belief that guns are so wrong he refuses people who have them is really close to the same thing.. but again you're missing my point.

Were you born gripping a .22?

Because it sure looks like you don't understand what the fuck you're talking about here.

 

[fskimospy]

That really doesn't answer my question.. In fact it doesn't answer what I thought was a direct question at all..

I’m not sure how to be any more clear?

Bakers are forced to bake cakes for things that violate their beliefs, which a doctor that has a belief that guns are so wrong he refuses people who have them is really close to the same thing.. but again you're missing my point.

It is not remotely close to the same thing. Owning a gun is a choice and being gay is not. Our system is designed so everyone is free to discriminate against each other based on their choices, just as it should be.

I think I'm tracking.. I agree most people want "gun control". It's just that the words "Gun Control" mean different things to different people. I don't think anyone wants psychos to have them... that's gun control. The moment you start slicing those words up to mean actual things like your "All transfers should go through an FFL" do people suddenly start having different opinions.

Again like I said, even specific things like universal background checks garner near universal approval. America as a whole REALLY wants tougher gun laws, there is just a highly motivated minority that does not.

 

[Skel]

Were you born gripping a .22?

Because it sure looks like you don't understand what the fuck you're talking about here.

Both the baker and the doctor (in this hypothetical situation) have beliefs. One is religious, the other is political (though I'm sure for some it feels so much more than that to them). Just because you believe something doesn't make you right.. nor does it make it so you have a right to impose your belief on those that don't agree.

I’m not sure how to be any more clear?

Because it a A or B and you somehow went C.. one is forcing a gun owner to sell his gun to an FFL dealer, the other is going to and FFL dealer and asking him to do and hold the paperwork. It's going "I want to sell my gun to this guy, we've agreed on a price. Will you do the background call and hold his paperwork? I thought it was pretty clear. I have to ask, do you know how FFLs work? It's fine if you don't, but it'll help you understand when someone questions your beliefs.

It is not remotely close to the same thing. Owning a gun is a choice and being gay is not. Our system is designed so everyone is free to discriminate against each other based on their choices, just as it should be.

I do find it amusing that you both completely missed my point by a wide margin... see above..

Again like I said, even specific things like universal background checks garner near universal approval. America as a whole REALLY wants tougher gun laws, there is just a highly motivated minority that does not.

Why did AZ pass a law to allow guns into bars? Which to me is one of the stupidest laws ever passed, but it passed.. It really seems that you believe so much that your definition of "Gun Control" is so right that you miss that the words might mean something to someone else.

 

[fskimospy]

Both the baker and the doctor (in this hypothetical situation) have beliefs. One is religious, the other is political (though I'm sure for some it feels so much more than that to them). Just because you believe something doesn't make you right.. nor does it make it so you have a right to impose your belief on those that don't agree.

Because it a A or B and you somehow went C.. one is forcing a gun owner to sell his gun to an FFL dealer, the other is going to and FFL dealer and asking him to do and hold the paperwork. It's going "I want to sell my gun to this guy, we've agreed on a price. Will you do the background call and hold his paperwork? I thought it was pretty clear. I have to ask, do you know how FFLs work? It's fine if you don't, but it'll help you understand when someone questions your beliefs.

I thought it was clear that I wanted B, I don’t understand the confusion? Trust me, I know a lot about gun regulation so I’m good on that one.

I do find it amusing that you both completely missed my point by a wide margin... see above..

Neither of us missed your point, I just get the feeling you don’t understand how public accommodation laws work. The reason you can’t discriminate against someone for being gay (in some states) is that sexual orientation is a protected class. Gun ownership is not. This is fundamentally because protected classes cover inherent characteristics like being gay, not things you choose to do, like own a gun.

Why did AZ pass a law to allow guns into bars? Which to me is one of the stupidest laws ever passed, but it passed.. It really seems that you believe so much that your definition of "Gun Control" is so right that you miss that the words might mean something to someone else.

Nothing I’ve said relies on people accepting my definition. I suspect that Arizona is an outlier when it comes to gun issues but regardless someone has already linked you extensive scientific polling on the issue that backs up what I said.

 

[FerrelGeek]

Precisely! I'm not going to answer every post that commented on mine. I was using a mixture of sarcasm and hyperbole to convey this very point. The founders obviously thought the 2nd amendment was pretty important as it was placed right after the first. Every potential restriction on our constitutional rights must be carefully considered lest we find over time that we've essentially nullified said rights.

One person's reasonable restriction on a given right may be another person's irrational restriction.

I do realize the difference between guns and the other examples that I mentioned. And there are already restrictions on weapons that can be owned by a private citizen. I have also stated in prior posts of firearm regulations that I would consider reasonable.

Thanks, all, for playing. Peace out.

Really? So what is the pecking order of constitutional rights? And what committee decided which were the most important?

 

[renz20003]

We don't have a gun problem, we have a heart problem. I say bring back god to the classrooms and teach the value of life to the kids. We have strayed too far from the flock.

 

[jackstar7]

We don't have a gun problem, we have a heart problem. I say bring back god to the classrooms and teach the value of life to the kids. We have strayed too far from the flock.

Odin and Zeus will punish you.

 

[Paladin3]

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.

Criminal record, domestic violence, drug use, etc. already disqualifies someone from owning or carrying a gun legally.

 

[ch33zw1z]

We don't have a gun problem, we have a heart problem. I say bring back god to the classrooms and teach the value of life to the kids. We have strayed too far from the flock.

Lol.... this guy

 

[Svnla]

Let say 2A is repealed, then gun owners will declare their guns, ammo, and accessories as "undocumented" and their houses/gun safes as "sanctuary entities/religious places " so the government can't do anything. Anyone that says anything will be labeled as haters/mean-spirited/racist/<insert more *ist here>

<is using the same logic of the supporters of the ILLEGAL alliens>

 

[jackstar7]

Let say 2A is repealed, then gun owners will declare their guns, ammo, and accessories as "undocumented" and their houses/gun safes as "sanctuary entities/religious places " so the government can't do anything. Anyone that says anything will be labeled as haters/mean-spirited/racist/<insert more *ist here>

<is using the same logic of the supporters of the ILLEGAL alliens>

People and inanimate objects are interchangeable to you? I don't want to make inferences about your personal life, but this certainly implies a lot.

 

[compuwiz1]

So, back to the poll... we have 104 votes, with 70% saying "no." There is no mandate to repeal the 2A. This gives me comfort because similar numbers would prevail across the country. Good thing liberalism doesn't represent more than about 25% of the population. We're not quite screwed yet.

 

[Indus]

A better poll should be.. should Assault Rifles be banned?

Would the numbers flip then?

 

[Svnla]

People and inanimate objects are interchangeable to you? I don't want to make inferences about your personal life, but this certainly implies a lot.

Interchangeable? That's YOUR word, not mine.

What do you say about let pick and choose which law/rule to follow and ignore/not follow the ones you don't like? Then make all the excuses in the world to justify it. <that's MY words and MY point of my previous post>

 

[NostaSeronx]

A better poll should be.. should Assault Rifles be banned?

Would the numbers flip then?

No, and No.

a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.
(b) The classes of the militia are—
(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and
(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.

Under any war effort; TFP is active. TFP is Total Force Policy. In which... essentially, it is a huge dormant draft. Where selective services applies to military, TFP applies to all. So, one can dodge the military, but no one can dodge the Militia.

TFP makes unorganized miltia's well regulated by definition of what occurs when the UOM becomes part of the State and National Defense Force.

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.

Meaning, 2nd amendment and current US code can not block anyone from keeping and bearing "ARMS".

Anyone being => all able-bodied males and any fems in NG.

 

[compuwiz1]

Most of the legally owned firearms in this country are not registered. The government does not know what you own, for the most part. Until 2014 long guns did not require registration. Most of my arms were purchased in the mid 80's and all before 2010. Zero are registered. There is only one way to find out what I have and that is to give me a reason to show you. I keep very few at home and most off site, for a reason. The idea that the government could find and confiscate all the weapons in circulation is absurd. That's a liberal wet dream.

 

[nickqt]

The idea that the government could find and confiscate all the weapons in circulation is absurd. That's a liberal wet dream.

Correction. That's the strawman liberal wet dream your handlers have trained you well to believe.

 

[compuwiz1]

Correction. That's the strawman liberal wet dream your handlers have trained you well to believe.

Whatever, scarecrow...

Trust me, this old man doesn't have handlers, unlike you sheep, who were indoctrinated by your liberal profs. Walk that line and whatever you do, do not step outside your square. Continue to be that good, well behaved, little liberal lap dog of the left.

 

[Veliko]

compuwiz1 is a perfect example of someone who:

- Has a desire to be an owner of one or more guns
- Isn't mentally suited to the above.

 

[compuwiz1]

compuwiz1 is a perfect example of someone who:

- Has a desire to be an owner of one or more guns
- Isn't mentally suited to the above.

OMG! I'm a scary old white man who has owned guns since he was old enough and haven't killed anyone yet.
I see you like to judge people's mental state because they own firearms. What a fucking bigoted asshole. People like you help make the case for preservation of the 2nd amendment. I don't trust you.

 

[Veliko]

OMG! I'm a scary old white man who has owned guns since he was old enough and haven't killed anyone yet.
I see you like to judge people's mental state because they own firearms. What a fucking bigoted asshole. People like you help make the case for preservation of the 2nd amendment. I don't trust you.

You sound very confused.

My judgement of your mental state is based on the things you are saying and the way you put your points across. You simply aren't capable of rational discussion about gun ownership.