Remove Your Guns And Ammo From Your Luggage!

[SRF]

On 4/9/2019 at 4:05 AM, Sancho_proudfoot said:

 

......we may not have "constitutionally protected rights" to own firearms, but what we do have is very low levels of gun crime.

 

But you are also now trying to ban pointy knives, as you have a lot of knife crime.

 

It is not the tool, it is the USER of the tool.

 

So after knives, what?  Cricket bats to be banned?

[SRF]

On 4/9/2019 at 8:17 AM, Sancho_proudfoot said:

 

 

Why not show the overall suicide and homicide rates for those same countries?

 

Japan's suicide rate is more than double the total mortality rate for firearms in the US.  Nearly 20 suicides per 100,000 persons. 

 

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

 

It is not the tool, it is the user of the tool.

 

 

[SRF]

On 4/9/2019 at 10:08 AM, navybankerteacher said:

What the US courts need to do is to actually understand that right — the passage does not simply say that every competent or incompetent person can have any sort of weapon he wants.  The relevant provision starts with the notion that : “A well regulated militia being necessary ... “.  The same sort of judicial reasoning which created a constitutional right to privacy and then stated that such right made laws limiting abortion unconstitutional — should also determine that “well regulated” includes reasonable limitations on types of weapons - as well as types (sanity, maturity, etc.) of people who can own such weapons as may be privately owned.

 

The US constitution is a living document, subject to reasoned application - and not  the suicide pact some people seem to want it to be.

 

You need to read the Federalist papers.

 

Based on your reasoning, the US would not exist, as they could not have fought the Revolutionary War.

[navybankerteacher]

1 minute ago, SRF said:

 

You need to read the Federalist papers.

 

Based on your reasoning, the US would not exist, as they could not have fought the Revolutionary War.

I have read the Federalist Papers - with a reasonable level of understanding.

 

Based on your reasoning, a society should never adjust to emerging realities:  how can you justify governments limiting or restricting, in any way, the rights of people to operate motor vehicles?

[sft429]

1 hour ago, navybankerteacher said:

I have read the Federalist Papers - with a reasonable level of understanding.

 

Based on your reasoning, a society should never adjust to emerging realities:  how can you justify governments limiting or restricting, in any way, the rights of people to operate motor vehicles?

 

Guns are a right.  Driving on public roads is a privilege.  Denying me my rights is against the law.  Denying me a drivers license is not.

[navybankerteacher]

8 minutes ago, sft429 said:

 

Guns are a right.  Driving on public roads is a privilege.  Denying me my rights is against the law.  Denying me a drivers license is not.

 

8 minutes ago, sft429 said:

 

Guns are a right.  Driving on public roads is a privilege.  Denying me my rights is against the law.  Denying me a drivers license is not.

The “right” to which you refer is “to bear arms”. When the amendment was drafted, “arms” meant muzzle-loading, single shot firearms - generally ***** or matchlock.

 

The term “arms” today includes flamethrowers, nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons.

 

Adhering to ancient wordings, while ignoring current reality, is simply evidence of unthinking simplicity.

 

All I want to see is current law reflecting current reality:  I assume that when our law applies reasonable limits, you will be willing to comply.

Edited April 19, 2019 by navybankerteacher
Correcting mistake

[sft429]

 

 

 

10 minutes ago, navybankerteacher said:

 

The “right” to which you refer is “to bear arms”. When the amendment was drafted, “arms” meant muzzle-loading, single shot firearms - generally ***** or matchlock.

 

The term “arms” today includes flamethrowers, nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons.

 

snip

 

Ok, what's good for the second amendment is good for the first amendment.  Only speech conveyed with quill pen or printing press or the power of one's lungs will be protected.

[navybankerteacher]

   Expression of ideas (free speech) is an intangible concept —- which is very different from material (and rationally definable) objects such as arms.

 

I do not believe fruitful conversation can be had without a shared understanding that there are essential differences between the concrete and the intangible.

 

I remain concerned by some people’s apparent belief that they have  absolute right to own (and presumably carry) items such as rocket propelled grenades, flame throwers, portable nuclear devices, etc.       

 

 

[sft429]

Expression of ideas is no more bewildering a concept than the right to defend yourself and your country.  The tools of expression are no more essential than the tools of defense and they are both protected constitutionally.

  

I don't believe a fruitful conversation can be had without all parties understanding that rights are not whims.  They don't change with the prevailing political climate.  They are not to be legislated away.

[lifes-a-beach]

4 hours ago, navybankerteacher said:

   Expression of ideas (free speech) is an intangible concept —- which is very different from material (and rationally definable) objects such as arms.

 

I do not believe fruitful conversation can be had without a shared understanding that there are essential differences between the concrete and the intangible.

 

I remain concerned by some people’s apparent belief that they have  absolute right to own (and presumably carry) items such as rocket propelled grenades, flame throwers, portable nuclear devices, etc.       

 

 

I think it’s reasonable to prohibit RPGs, flame throwers and nuclear devices. I currently own all of the following. Which do you think are reasonable to prohibit?

 

semi-automatic rifle*

semi-automatic shotgun*

semi-automatic pistol*

single action revolver

double action revolver*

single shot shotgun*

pump action shotgun*

pump action rifle

lever action rifle

machete

fixed blade knife*

folding knife*

automatic knife*

compound bow w/arrows

recurve bows/arrows 

 

I am a retired law enforcement professional. Those with the asterisk I have personally seen used as an “assault weapon”.  

[navybankerteacher]

1 hour ago, lifes-a-beach said:

I think it’s reasonable to prohibit RPGs, flame throwers and nuclear devices. I currently own all of the following. Which do you think are reasonable to prohibit?

 

semi-automatic rifle*

semi-automatic shotgun*

semi-automatic pistol*

single action revolver

double action revolver*

single shot shotgun*

pump action shotgun*

pump action rifle

lever action rifle

machete

fixed blade knife*

folding knife*

automatic knife*

compound bow w/arrows

recurve bows/arrows 

 

I am a retired law enforcement professional. Those with the asterisk I have personally seen used as an “assault weapon”.  

I would not say that any of your list should be prohibited - but the ownership of many of them should be limited to people who can be required demonstrate the stability, maturity, and intelligence to not misuse them.

 

Fully automatic weapons and large capacity magazines are harder to justify.

 

As it stands now, it is easier in many states to own a deadly weapon than to legally drive a car - or, in some cases, to open a bank account.

[navybankerteacher]

5 hours ago, sft429 said:

Expression of ideas is no more bewildering a concept than the right to defend yourself and your country.  The tools of expression are no more essential than the tools of defense and they are both protected constitutionally.

  

I don't believe a fruitful conversation can be had without all parties understanding that rights are not whims.  They don't change with the prevailing political climate.  They are not to be legislated away.

Our Constitution is a law - subject to application and interpretation - and, when necessary, amendment. The rights contained in it surely can be changed with change in tithe political climate.  My concern is that unthinking objection to reasonable limitations will ultimately result in extreme limitations being forced upon everyone.

 

If enough voters want to amend the Constitution, it will happen. People refusing to contemplate reasonable limitations will ultimately lead to attempts to LEGISLATE (by amendment perhaps) confiscation.

[lifes-a-beach]

2 hours ago, navybankerteacher said:

I would not say that any of your list should be prohibited - but the ownership of many of them should be limited to people who can be required demonstrate the stability, maturity, and intelligence to not misuse them.

 

Fully automatic weapons and large capacity magazines are harder to justify.

 

As it stands now, it is easier in many states to own a deadly weapon than to legally drive a car - or, in some cases, to open a bank account.

Has been my opinion for a long time that we need to have a grown up conversation about mental health in this country.  On that I think we can agree.  Full auto weapons are very tightly controlled and almost never used in a criminal event in the U.S.  I guess one would have to quantify what is considered a large capacity magazine.  But the fact of the matter is, if someone decrees 11 rounds too many the sale of 10 round mags will increase.  Anyone with a mental mindset to deliver mass firepower will simply carry more low capacity magazines.  In my time on the street I carried a pistol that used 7 round magazines and always had 5 or 6 extras.  It’s just a numbers game.  And I don’t believe it has anything to do with intelligence.  Or bank accounts.  

[SRF]

12 hours ago, navybankerteacher said:

I would not say that any of your list should be prohibited - but the ownership of many of them should be limited to people who can be required demonstrate the stability, maturity, and intelligence to not misuse them.

 

Fully automatic weapons and large capacity magazines are harder to justify.

 

As it stands now, it is easier in many states to own a deadly weapon than to legally drive a car - or, in some cases, to open a bank account.

 

And who determines that?   Once you have that in place, you have a system to prevent anyone of owning anything.

 

How many legal machine guns are used in crime?  If you did not know, it is legal to own them, just some hoops to jump through.

 

What makes higher capacity magazines dangerous?  Very a lot of smaller ones, and practicing reloads.

 

You last is not true.  I can buy a car in any state.  Not true of handguns.    I can buy a new car from a dealer with only a DL, without any Federal checks of criminal background, not true with firearms.  If I am a convicted felony, I can still buy a car and drive it, but I cannot buy or own firearms.

 

And anyway, if the some 27,000 firearms laws on the books have not stopped crime, what will more do?  We cannot stop TONS of drugs crossing the border, so how hard is it for them to bring over firearms as well (BTW they already do this)?

 

Do you realize that every major news story shooting incident, MULTIPLE laws were broken?  Why did those laws not work?

[SRF]

9 hours ago, navybankerteacher said:

Our Constitution is a law - subject to application and interpretation - and, when necessary, amendment. The rights contained in it surely can be changed with change in tithe political climate.  My concern is that unthinking objection to reasonable limitations will ultimately result in extreme limitations being forced upon everyone.

 

If enough voters want to amend the Constitution, it will happen. People refusing to contemplate reasonable limitations will ultimately lead to attempts to LEGISLATE (by amendment perhaps) confiscation.

 

Have you read the Supreme Court decisions on virtually every 2nd Amendment case?  They disagree with your interpretation of the 2nd Amendment.

[navybankerteacher]

On 4/20/2019 at 8:02 AM, SRF said:

 

Have you read the Supreme Court decisions on virtually every 2nd Amendment case?  They disagree with your interpretation of the 2nd Amendment.

All it will take is a couple of appointees to the Court with an inclination to treat the Constitution as a “living document” to tighten the meaning of “arms” in the context of the 2nd Amendment;  or, for enough state legislatures to come around to the frames of mind which exist in states like New York to repeal the 2nd Amendment.

[dkjretired]

17 hours ago, navybankerteacher said:

All it will take is a couple of appointees to the Court with an inclination to treat the Constitution as a “living document” to tighten the meaning of “arms” in the context of the 2nd Amendment;  or, for enough state legislatures to come around to the frames of mind which exist in states like New York to repeal the 2nd Amendment.

 

And yet all you are doing is punishing the law abiding citizen, see nothing in your comments to deal with the real problem.

[SRF]

2 hours ago, dkjretired said:

 

And yet all you are doing is punishing the law abiding citizen, see nothing in your comments to deal with the real problem.

 

Exactly

 

So you end up like the UK.  Ban firearms, then what do you blame.  Pointy knives is the current target in UK.  Then what?  Cricket bats?

 

You do not stop drunk driving by banning cars.

 

It is funny, that most of the people for banning firearms, are against mental health records being used in determining eligibility to purchase and own a firearm.

 

Deal with the USER, not the TOOL.

 

[ray98]

I will never understand what makes a rational adult think 'gun laws' will fix the problem.  In the vast majority of incidents of violent crime where a firearm is used we are talking about a criminal who is intent on committing murder or armed robbery knowing those two laws have some of the stiffest punishments in our legal system.  If a criminal disregards the threat of a life sentence or even capital punishment for murder, what makes you think a law telling him possessing the gun is going to phase him?

 

"well, I was going to rob a bank later but I just found out it is illegal for me to possess this gun"  

[dkjretired]

1 hour ago, ray98 said:

I will never understand what makes a rational adult think 'gun laws' will fix the problem.  In the vast majority of incidents of violent crime where a firearm is used we are talking about a criminal who is intent on committing murder or armed robbery knowing those two laws have some of the stiffest punishments in our legal system.  If a criminal disregards the threat of a life sentence or even capital punishment for murder, what makes you think a law telling him possessing the gun is going to phase him?

 

"well, I was going to rob a bank later but I just found out it is illegal for me to possess this gun"  

Exactly, they don't go for the people who are actually committing the crimes and as another poster mentioned, there needs to be a better awareness of mental illnesses.

 

I laugh as some of the Presidential Candidates are out there calling for an assault weapons ban like its the end all to everything involving crime.   Assault Weapons ban is a feel good law and I will tell you why   We had an Assault weapons ban during the Clinton years. (no reflection on Clinton)   During the ten years it was in effect there were something like 15 prosecutions nationwide.  That is 15 during the entire 10 years not 15 a year.  The reason is that when crimes using these weapons are committed they are prosecuted on a state and local level not in the federal courts.   There is no reality with these people because people just want to feel good even though it's ineffective. 

[Grandma Cruising]

Funny that the gun ban in Australia made a big difference to gun crimes and gun killing!

I know people can kill with knives, but only 1 person at a time!

 

I know you NRA people don’t want to hear comparative arguments, but thee is plenty of comparative evidence that in places where gun ownership is banned or restricted there is less crime and a lot less killings.

[dkjretired]

21 minutes ago, Host Grandma Cruising said:

Funny that the gun ban in Australia made a big difference to gun crimes and gun killing!

I know people can kill with knives, but only 1 person at a time!

 

I know you NRA people don’t want to hear comparative arguments, but thee is plenty of comparative evidence that in places where gun ownership is banned or restricted there is less crime and a lot less killings.

 

First off, do not assume all of us are NRA members or have loads of guns at home. I am neither one f those, I spent almost 30 years in Law Enforcement and own one gun. 

 

I can agree that a country with no guns will have less gun violence but that is not going to happen in the US largely due to our heritage and the fact that we have a very avid hunting tradition. By the way, I said this before but our gun culture can be directly traced to your ancestors.

Edited April 29, 2019 by dkjretired

[sft429]

58 minutes ago, Host Grandma Cruising said:

Funny that the gun ban in Australia made a big difference to gun crimes and gun killing!

I know people can kill with knives, but only 1 person at a time!

 

I know you NRA people don’t want to hear comparative arguments, but thee is plenty of comparative evidence that in places where gun ownership is banned or restricted there is less crime and a lot less killings.

 

Many countries with very strict gun control have higher homicide rates than the US.  Since the early 1990s our homicide rate has fallen dramatically coinciding with most states loosening concealed carry laws and an explosion in gun ownership.

[navybankerteacher]

1 hour ago, sft429 said:

 

Many countries with very strict gun control have higher homicide rates than the US.  Since the early 1990s our homicide rate has fallen dramatically coinciding with most states loosening concealed carry laws and an explosion in gun ownership.

If you are using statistics, you might try comparing apples to apples. Virtually all countries with higher homicide rates are in Central America and sub-Sahara Africa.  

 

 All the enonomically developed countries - virtually all of Western Europe, Canada, Australia, New Zealand and Japan have homicide rates less than half (most far less) than that in the US.

 

 

[sft429]

1 hour ago, navybankerteacher said:

If you are using statistics, you might try comparing apples to apples. Virtually all countries with higher homicide rates are in Central America and sub-Sahara Africa.  

 

 All the enonomically developed countries - virtually all of Western Europe, Canada, Australia, New Zealand and Japan have homicide rates less than half (most far less) than that in the US.

 

 

 

Ah, so when there is strict gun control and the homicide rate is low - it's because of gun control.

Where there is strict gun control and the homicide rate is high - it's because of something else...