Celebrating The 2nd Amendment One Fine Firearm At A Time

[periopdoc]

Indeed. I purposely used the generic term retirement to avoid potential misunderstanding.

Personally, I think Kennedy voluntarily retires after this term, essentially leaving the future of the Court in the hands of the mid-term voters. How long Ginsburg can remain on the bench is anyone's guess, but I don't see how she has 7 years left ;-).

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[Hamhock]

The thing about the whole gun debate that drives me nuts, is that there isn't even agreement on the "problem" we are are trying to discuss.

Both sides first have to agree that there is a problem with gun violence in the US before the cost or benefit of potential solutions can be studied and then potentially implemented.

This is as close as I have seen to defining a "question" to be debated recently:

The Difficult Question at the Heart of the Gun Debate

HH

 

[periopdoc]

Why can't authors like this be bothered to do 5 minutes of research before spouting nonsense. No, Dan, in fact it is perfectly legal to own a tank. It may be expensive, and it may take several months before you can take possession, but it is perfectly legal if you are a law abiding citizen with a clean record. Finding ammo for it will be difficult to impossible, and each round will require a significant amount of paperwork and cash, but it is legal.

This is actually easier than both sides agreeing to a number of acceptable deaths, a consensus that will never be reached. Simply being honest about the numbers would go a long way to focusing the debate on the important issues, rather than the superfluous areas we spend all our time fighting over.

First, and easiest, we need to stop commingling the death statistics. Making a gun control argument from commingled data is like trying to fight cancer by lumping together all the different types. Obviously what works for prostate cancer doesn't work for lung cancer doesn't work for leukemia etc. Yet, the pro gun control side refuses to divide up the data into suicide, homicide by handgun, homicide by rifle, justified homicide (self-defense/ police), accidents etc. I find it personally abhorrent that the murder of 2 of my family members, and the suicide of the 3rd, with a single shot 22 long rifle, is used by gun control advocates to garner sympathy in their quest to ban so-called assault weapons. Even more abhorrent is using the bodies of inner city victims of handgun violence in that argument.

Second, we need to be honest about the numbers, and where the deaths are coming from. Unfortunately, every time I bring these numbers up, I am immediately met with howls of racism. I don't mean it that way, but the vast majority of homicides come from gang violence in the inner city, and solutions that might reduce violence in my part of the country are vastly different from solutions that might reduce violence in the inner city. And the gun control focus du jour, banning so-called assault weapons, won't make a dent in either.

Finally, we need to stop focusing solely on the numerator of the risk/benefit fraction. There is a definable benefit to gun ownership, but we never talk about it. It is like talking solely about medical errors without considering the lives saved from medical care. Of course, it is much simpler to measure the costs, but it is imperative that we correctly calculate the benefits to draw any real conclusion. To totally ignore the benefits in the calculation is wrong.

We don't need to agree on some acceptable number of gun deaths, but we do need to understand exactly how many there are of each type, and how many lives are benefited and saved by gun ownership, before we can have meaningful discussions on approaches to reducing gun violence.

 

[Hamhock]

Simply being honest about the numbers would go a long way to focusing the debate on the important issues, rather than the superfluous areas we spend all our time fighting over.

First, and easiest, we need to stop commingling the death statistics.


... solutions that might reduce violence in my part of the country are vastly different from solutions that might reduce violence in the inner city.

Finally, we need to stop focusing solely on the numerator of the risk/benefit fraction. There is a definable benefit to gun ownership, but we never talk about it. ...To totally ignore the benefits in the calculation is wrong.

but we do need to understand exactly how many there are of each type, and how many lives are benefited and saved by gun ownership, before we can have meaningful discussions on approaches to reducing gun violence.

periop -- I have edited your post for brevity in my response. I feel like I have done so favorably to you, as the risk of dismal of my post is too great if I err too much. Please point out any editing errors that misrepresent your post and I will change my edits in a new post to keep this going.
----
Briefly, I support most of your post; especially those parts quoted.

However, I think we need to take one step back.

Before we can even start a discussion (one that includes the benefits of gun ownership), all parties must first define and agree on the problem to be addressed. That is, we must all agree that the United States (I chose my entity carefully here) has a problem with gun violence.

One we all agree that we have a problem with gun violence in the US, then we can objectively study it and then propose solutions (that don't go to far; that don't erode too far into the benefits of gun ownership). These solutions will have to balance the benefits and harms of gun ownership.

I just wonder if we could even get everyone on this forum, never mind every participant in the discussion to agree with the statement:

"Gun violence in the United States in a problem that should be studied and addressed."

HH

 

[pgg]

I just wonder if we could even get everyone on this forum, never mind every participant in the discussion to agree with the statement:

"Gun violence in the United States in a problem that should be studied and addressed."

No.

Why didn’t you write “violence in the United States is a problem that should be studied and addressed” instead?

You’ve already assigned blame and implied a solution in your statement of the problem.

 

[Hamhock]

No.

Why didn’t you write “violence in the United States is a problem that should be studied and addressed” instead?

You’ve already assigned blame and implied a solution in your statement of the problem.

I can write that and agree with it. In fact, I feel that violence in the US is a problem that should be addressed and studied.

...but gun violence is part of the overall problem of violence in the US; and in a thread containing a discussion about "gun control" and guns, it seems that a discussion about gun violence is much more pertinent than other subcategories of violence; eg pugilism.

Just as we must separate and identify the types of gun violence (perhaps by suicide vs. homicide; or rifles vs handguns), 'violence' must be separated into component parts to get a better understanding and study.

Since this thread is about guns, the subcategory of 'gun violence' seems appropriate. No?

HH

 

[Urzuz]

No.

Why didn’t you write “violence in the United States is a problem that should be studied and addressed” instead?

You’ve already assigned blame and implied a solution in your statement of the problem.

Usually I stay out of these discussions, and I don't mean to take sides, but this response is just flat out weak and doesn't make sense. You're a physician and you know the basics as to how to conduct a clinical study/trial.

Before conducting a study you first have to identify what you want to study! The poster before you wants to "study" gun violence, and therefore wrote what he did. Now, you may contend that gun violence isn't an issue, which you can certainly do, but it would make more sense to back that claim up with statistics and data. Changing "gun violence" to just "violence" would be analogous to a cancer researcher saying "I want to study mortality rates in lung cancer because lung cancer is a problem" and someone saying "Why did you write lung cancer? You should want to study mortality rates in all types of cancer"

 

[pgg]

Fair enough. You are both correct.

I didn't articulate my objection very well. What I dislike are the very phrases “gun deaths” and “gun violence”. Words and phrases have literal meanings as well as idiomatic, implied, and common use meanings.

When a person uses the phrase “gun violence” in a discussion about gun control, the meaning is typically “guns are the problem, guns are the cause, and violence is the result” ... this is not a good way to start a discussion or study, unless you have a conclusion and remedy in mind already and are going fishing for supporting data.

In the context of a gun control discussion, a phrase like “violent crime in which a firearm is used” is more neutral than “gun violence” and doesn’t carry the baggage I mentioned (assigning blame and implying a solution in the assertion of a vaguely defined problem). Words are powerful and can subtly or overtly steer a discussion or research toward a preferred answer.

The people calling for “study” are universally passionate gun control advocates, so I am especially sensitive to and picky about the words they choose.

 

[Hamhock]

In the context of a gun control discussion, a phrase like “violent crime in which a firearm is used” is more neutral than “gun violence” and doesn’t carry the baggage I mentioned (assigning blame and implying a solution in the assertion of a vaguely defined problem)

I've actually worried about the same thing. However, I don't have the vocabulary necessary.

The phrase "violent crime in which a firearm is used" seems inefficient at best and misleading. Although I can not just now accurately quote the percentage, a ?majority, IIRC (I will google later and update this post), of gun deaths are not crimes but suicides.

I think this highlights my primary concern: until we can agree on that there is a problem that needs to be studied and addressed (and that includes definitions of the terms and problem itself), I think we will get nowhere.

Currently, the issue is defined by the "gun control" side and so the language most commonly used is "gun violence". Perhaps the NRA or a sportsman's organization or other could join the discussion and help define the problem and terms.

HH

 

[nimbus]

Texas Church Shooting Leaves at Least 25 Dead, Official Says

A 5 year old was shot 4 times.

I can see the responses now....

“But the shooter coulda used a plane.”
“Prayers for Sutherland Springs”
“God bless Sutherland Springs”
“I stand with Sutherland Springs”

But the truth is....

“Who gives a f***, back to football”

Apparently we as a nation have conceded that these shootings are not preventable, just like traffic accidents. We all gotta die of something, right?

 

[RadOncDoc21]

Texas Church Shooting Leaves at Least 25 Dead, Official Says

A 5 year old was shot 4 times.

I can see the responses now....

“But the shooter coulda used a plane.”
“Prayers for Sutherland Springs”
“God bless Sutherland Springs”
“I stand with Sutherland Springs”

But the truth is....

“Who gives a f***, back to football”

Apparently we as a nation have conceded that these shootings are not preventable, just like traffic accidents. We all gotta die of something, right?

Sadly, we can use the reaction of Trump and the media to identify the suspect. How is it possible that two men can kill over 70 people and not be considered a terrorist?

Let me guess, now is still not an appropriate time to talk about gun control? Let’s just focus on building walls, NFL players kneeling and banning Muslims!

 

[Twiggidy]

“But if everyone in the church was armed tho....”

 

[GA8314]

It does not take a gun to kill lots of people. As we've seen in Europe and the US (recently), all you need is a vehicle.

 

[nimbus]

It does not take a gun to kill lots of people. As we've seen in Europe and the US (recently), all you need is a vehicle.

True but it helps to have an AR15. What are they conceived and designed to do?

And I know we are not gonna change any minds here. Just venting.

 

[deleted480308]

Texas Church Shooting Leaves at Least 25 Dead, Official Says

A 5 year old was shot 4 times.

I can see the responses now....

“But the shooter coulda used a plane.”
“Prayers for Sutherland Springs”
“God bless Sutherland Springs”
“I stand with Sutherland Springs”

But the truth is....

“Who gives a f***, back to football”

Apparently we as a nation have conceded that these shootings are not preventable, just like traffic accidents. We all gotta die of something, right?

I've yet to hear a law that doesn't violate rights that could guarantee these things don't happen....but by all means, name it

“But if everyone in the church was armed tho....”

one guy with a gun would not have had as easy a time killing 25+ if they had been (more or possible even at all) armed....

 

[deleted59964]

It does not take a gun to kill lots of people. .

but they sure help

 

[nimbus]

I've yet to hear a law that doesn't violate rights that could guarantee these things don't happen....but by all means, name it

....

I agree. Therefore I concede these shootings are not preventable. More to come....

Go USA!!!

 

[deleted59964]

one guy with a gun would not have had as easy a time killing 25+ if they had been (more or possible even at all) armed....

ah yes - the django unchained strategy - good one.

 

[deleted480308]

I agree. Therefore I concede these shootings are not preventable. More to come....

Go USA!!!

all sarcasm aside, it's absurd to think these can be 100% prevented without violating rights.....not even close

 

[deleted480308]

ah yes - the django unchained strategy - good one.

I'm unfamiliar with the reference, but when a guy with a gun starts killing people the established first response is get some guns there to stop the bad guy

 

[deleted59964]

I've yet to hear a law that doesn't violate rights that could guarantee these things don't happen....but by all means, name it

or -- you could just agree actually "in our society, the general population don't need guns. just like they don't need tanks, or chemical weapons, or biological weapons, or anti aircraft missiles." but hey, wouldn't want to infringe on your right to shoot the **** of each other.

 

[drmwvr]

Odd...Las Vegas hasn't entered my mind (or my news feed) for at least 2 weeks...until tonight. I suspect we'll all forget about this in a couple of weeks. Weinstein, Russia, Kevin Spacey and all...

 

[deleted480308]

or -- you could just agree actually "in our society, the general population don't need guns. just like they don't need tanks, or chemical weapons, or biological weapons, or anti aircraft missiles." but hey, wouldn't want to infringe on your right to shoot the **** of each other.

the general population absolutely has a right to obtain guns and many would argue an actual need for them as a force equalizer against attackers or a govt gone awry

 

[nimbus]

all sarcasm aside, it's absurd to think these can be 100% prevented without violating rights.....not even close

Yup we like our guns and our mass shootings. And random small shootings too. Let’s pray. In theory God even helps idiots.

 

[deleted59964]

ok - we've seen how this thread plays out before.
nothing will change in the states, tomorrow this will be off the news and you'll be back to football till next time.

how about those bears?

 

[Twiggidy]

Odd...Las Vegas hasn't entered my mind (or my news feed) for at least 2 weeks...until tonight. I suspect we'll all forget about this in a couple of weeks. Weinstein, Russia, Kevin Spacey and all...

No....we'll forget about this in a couple of weeks because America

 

[Twiggidy]

the general population absolutely has a right to obtain guns and many would argue an actual need for them as a force equalizer against attackers or a govt gone awry

right......(sarcasm)

 

[Twiggidy]

ok - we've seen how this thread plays out before.
nothing will change in the states, tomorrow this will be off the news and you'll be back to football till next time.

how about those bears?

you are so right (and i'm totally serious).....we've beat the living snot out of this dead horse. we all know (or some may want to do some deep reading) on the reasoning behind the 2nd amendment but I'm not even trying to get into on this board. more people dead....more people "kanye shrugging".....as you said...Totthenham 1-nil and the 3 pts baby

 

[jwk]

Yup we like our guns and our mass shootings. And random small shootings too. Let’s pray. In theory God even helps idiots.

And our trucks - and our pressure cookers - and our 2x4s...

 

[pgg]

Odd...Las Vegas hasn't entered my mind (or my news feed) for at least 2 weeks...until tonight. I suspect we'll all forget about this in a couple of weeks. Weinstein, Russia, Kevin Spacey and all...

That's because in the grand scheme of things, the Las Vegas shooting wasn't really an important event. Twice as many people die just as unexpectedly and just as tragically in traffic every day. But they die in ones and twos and fives, and there's no news coverage.

The reason Las Vegas hasn't entered your mind for at least two weeks is because you know (even if subconsciously) that the risk of dying that way is negligible, and you've got more important things to occupy your thoughts.

 

[GravelRider]

That's because in the grand scheme of things, the Las Vegas shooting wasn't really an important event. Twice as many people die just as unexpectedly and just as tragically in traffic every day. But they die in ones and twos and fives, and there's no news coverage.

The reason Las Vegas hasn't entered your mind for at least two weeks is because you know (even if subconsciously) that the risk of dying that way is negligible, and you've got more important things to occupy your thoughts.

Then why do we spend an inordinate amount of time, energy, and money talking/thinking about ISIS and terrorist attacks?

 

[GravelRider]

the general population absolutely has a right to obtain guns and many would argue an actual need for them as a force equalizer against attackers or a govt gone awry

You're watching way too much Walking Dead.

 

[pgg]

Then why do we spend an inordinate amount of time, energy, and money talking/thinking about ISIS and terrorist attacks?

I don’t. My guess is you don’t either since you used the word “inordinate” ...

The things the media perseverates on, however ...

Remember when Obama called ISIS the JV team? Maybe we should’ve taken that subtle “chill out” to heart. A 24h news cycle headline’s gonna headline though.

 

[RadOncDoc21]

Then why do we spend an inordinate amount of time, energy, and money talking/thinking about ISIS and terrorist attacks?

Seriously, your comment puts it all together. There is something wrong with this country when we can easily justify and excuse mass killings as something normal.

 

[nimbus]

That's because in the grand scheme of things, the Las Vegas shooting wasn't really an important event. Twice as many people die just as unexpectedly and just as tragically in traffic every day. But they die in ones and twos and fives, and there's no news coverage.

The reason Las Vegas hasn't entered your mind for at least two weeks is because you know (even if subconsciously) that the risk of dying that way is negligible, and you've got more important things to occupy your thoughts.

For the same reason the need to arm myself with a gun never consumed me. I’ll just stay out of churches and country music festivals.

 

[Twiggidy]

For the same reason the need to arm myself with a gun never consumed me. I’ll just stay out of churches and country music festivals.

Who would've thought you'd be safer at Summer Jam

 

[Pooh & Annie]

That's because in the grand scheme of things, the Las Vegas shooting wasn't really an important event. Twice as many people die just as unexpectedly and just as tragically in traffic every day. But they die in ones and twos and fives, and there's no news coverage.

The reason Las Vegas hasn't entered your mind for at least two weeks is because you know (even if subconsciously) that the risk of dying that way is negligible, and you've got more important things to occupy your thoughts.

“Accidents” happen in every country. Tens of thousands of gun deaths every year don’t. It is a problem specific to this country. And we’re LITERALLY doing nothing about it.

We’ve got smart people that continually work on making cars and roads as safe as possible. Air travel is safe as hell because of continuous improvements. We advance medicine, we learn to improve response/prevention to/of natural disasters. Virtually every preventable death is addressed with a goal of keeping it from being repeated. And that’s whether it happens to ten people a year or ten thousand.

Tens of thousands of gun deaths a year and we shrug our shoulders. Advances in technology that can make guns safer; limits on how many bullets they shoot; limits on who can have them or how easy they are to get; even researching prevention of gun death; we’re repeatedly told that these are off-limits.

We f@cked this one up. There are ridiculous numbers of guns out there available to any psycho, wife-beater, or ex-con because that’s the society a segment of the population decided to create, whether they knew it or not.

I think we eat up the news stories because it boggles our minds how a brilliant country is so painfully embarrassing and stupid.

 

[nimbus]

We f@cked this one up. There are ridiculous numbers of guns out there available to any psycho, wife-beater, or ex-con because that’s the society a segment of the population decided to create, whether they knew it or not.

“He had served in the Air Force at a base in New Mexico but was court-martialed in 2012 on charges of assaulting his wife and child. He was sentenced to 12 months’ confinement and received a “bad conduct” discharge in 2014, according to Ann Stefanek, the chief of Air Force media operations.”

But the guy has a constitutional right to an AR15. We cannot limit his rights. I’m sure in his head he had good reason to do what he did and felt righteous.

 

[BLADEMDA]

“He had served in the Air Force at a base in New Mexico but was court-martialed in 2012 on charges of assaulting his wife and child. He was sentenced to 12 months’ confinement and received a “bad conduct” discharge in 2014, according to Ann Stefanek, the chief of Air Force media operations.”

But the guy has a constitutional right to an AR15. We cannot limit his rights. I’m sure in his head he had good reason to do what he did and felt righteous.

I'm a gun owner. I own an AR15 along with many other types of guns. That said, I don't believe that I have a "constitutional right" to own an AR-15. I realize this is a controversial subject but I'm pretty certain that my right to own and carry weapons can be limited by State and local laws.

The problem I have with these laws is that they ultimately end up confiscating all my guns including my 6 shot Ruger revolvers.

 

[deleted480308]

“He had served in the Air Force at a base in New Mexico but was court-martialed in 2012 on charges of assaulting his wife and child. He was sentenced to 12 months’ confinement and received a “bad conduct” discharge in 2014, according to Ann Stefanek, the chief of Air Force media operations.”

But the guy has a constitutional right to an AR15. We cannot limit his rights. I’m sure in his head he had good reason to do what he did and felt righteous.

Violent felons are not allowed to own firearms, did your story claim he legally owned the gun?

 

[pgg]

The basic, irreconcilable issue is that the Founders intended citizens to be dangerous. The Bill Of Rights specifically and clearly documents their intent to establish a nation in which the citizens are armed and dangerous. Dangerous people are harder to control and oppress.

An obvious consequence of having dangerous citizens is that some will go crazy or choose to be criminals, and inflict damage, injury, and death upon other citizens. It’s equally obvious that the Founders understood this obvious consequence, and wrote the 2nd Amendment anyway. Clearly, they felt the benefits outweighed the risk.

Gun control - specifically bans and additional punitive taxes levied to limit acces by the poor - is an effort to make citizens less dangerous. This aim, and that of the Founders, are diametrically opposed. If gun bans are what you want, the answer is to amend the Constitution to repeal the 2nd Amendment, not pretend it means something between what it actually means and what you wish it means.

The Constitution provides a clear legal mechanism for amendment. It’s been used before. If you think the 2nd Amendment is a dangerous historic relic, repeal it.


But quit pretending that the purpose of the 2nd Amendment is to protect hunting and sporting guns. Quit pretending that it doesn’t protect an individual right to possess weapons comparable to those carries by the nation’s armed forces. When the British marched on Concord to kick off the Revolutionary War, they weren’t going to confiscate pistols and flintlock muskets - they were going to confiscate artillery. This was THE eventuality the 2nd Amendment was written to prevent.

Be honest, and if you want to strip the people of the right to own weapons, join or start a movement to repeal the 2nd Amendment.


Or if you’d like to do something short of that, yet consistent with the Constitution, maybe ask how existing Constitutional gun regulation could be better enforced. This person had been convicted of felony domestic violence. The system failed here, but the point of failure wasn’t the Bill of Rights.

 

[Twiggidy]

This thread is pointless. Every RATIONAL person knows that short of banning guns, there should be tight regulation of guns. The Texas murderer/terrorist bought a rifle in 2016 in Texas, where it's legal for a felon to possess a rifle in their home. I'll just end my post with that sentence.

 

[nimbus]

 

[deleted480308]

This thread is pointless. Every RATIONAL person knows that short of banning guns, there should be tight regulation of guns. The Texas murderer/terrorist bought a rifle in 2016 in Texas, where it's legal for a felon to possess a rifle in their home. I'll just end my post with that sentence.

Define “tight regulation” specifically...

 

[Twiggidy]

Define “tight regulation” specifically...

How about for starter, felons can't have guns period. How about we not roll back regulation for people who have mental illness being able to get guns. Just off the top of my head

Anyway, Rand Paul is lucky Mr. Anesthesiologist chose to tackle him instead doing something else....in another state with very relaxed gun laws.

 

[deleted480308]

How about for starter, felons can't have guns period. How about we not roll back regulation for people who have mental illness being able to get guns. Just off the top of my head.

in most states a violent felon can't have a gun, I'm a little off on TX law and it seems like there might be a setup there where a felon with 5 clean years can own a rifle for hunting/homedefense. I'm fine with violent felons not owning, which is the norm

I'm not ok with a blanket "mentally ill" can't own. That's a horrible idea. Mental illness is a huge tent with a lot of completely non-violent people in it

 

[Pooh & Annie]

Violent felons are not allowed to own firearms, did your story claim he legally owned the gun?

So it WAS illegal? I don’t know the answer. Is a military court-martial for violence documented as felony violence on public record?
If it wasn’t legal, find out who sold it to him. Find out if he had his background checked. Maybe someone else needs to be punished for the sale if they broke a law.

In my opinion, If you have a conviction for violent behavior, particularly toward women or children, you shouldn’t be able to own a gun. If you have guns, they should be confiscated.

If you have s history of mental illness that involves delusional thought or violent thought, you shouldn’t be able to have guns. If you have them they should be taken. This is tricky because I don’t want people to avoid psychiatric care out of fear of being “punished”. Maybe documented med compliance could make someone eligible again.

Pgg and Blade should be able to have guns. Please stop the BS that we want to take everyone’s guns.

 

[Twiggidy]

in most states a violent felon can't have a gun, I'm a little off on TX law and it seems like there might be a setup there where a felon with 5 clean years can own a rifle for hunting/homedefense. I'm fine with violent felons not owning, which is the norm

I'm not ok with a blanket "mentally ill" can't own. That's a horrible idea. Mental illness is a huge tent with a lot of completely non-violent people in it

Yep, non-violent until they're violent and in possession of a gun. That's America. We're cool with gambling with other people's lives. Whether it's a congresswoman in AZ, a congressman at a softball game, or school full of kids. Again, one giant "Kanye Shrug"

 

[Pooh & Annie]

The basic, irreconcilable issue is that the Founders intended citizens to be dangerous. The Bill Of Rights specifically and clearly documents their intent to establish a nation in which the citizens are armed and dangerous. Dangerous people are harder to control and oppress.

An obvious consequence of having dangerous citizens is that some will go crazy or choose to be criminals, and inflict damage, injury, and death upon other citizens. It’s equally obvious that the Founders understood this obvious consequence, and wrote the 2nd Amendment anyway. Clearly, they felt the benefits outweighed the risk.

Gun control - specifically bans and additional punitive taxes levied to limit acces by the poor - is an effort to make citizens less dangerous. This aim, and that of the Founders, are diametrically opposed. If gun bans are what you want, the answer is to amend the Constitution to repeal the 2nd Amendment, not pretend it means something between what it actually means and what you wish it means.

The Constitution provides a clear legal mechanism for amendment. It’s been used before. If you think the 2nd Amendment is a dangerous historic relic, repeal it.


But quit pretending that the purpose of the 2nd Amendment is to protect hunting and sporting guns. Quit pretending that it doesn’t protect an individual right to possess weapons comparable to those carries by the nation’s armed forces. When the British marched on Concord to kick off the Revolutionary War, they weren’t going to confiscate pistols and flintlock muskets - they were going to confiscate artillery. This was THE eventuality the 2nd Amendment was written to prevent.

Be honest, and if you want to strip the people of the right to own weapons, join or start a movement to repeal the 2nd Amendment.


Or if you’d like to do something short of that, yet consistent with the Constitution, maybe ask how existing Constitutional gun regulation could be better enforced. This person had been convicted of felony domestic violence. The system failed here, but the point of failure wasn’t the Bill of Rights.

Everyone is being honest, so quit convincing yourself otherwise. Non-psycho,, non-violent citizens should be able to own guns.

EVERYONE should have a background check. If you sell a gun to someone, retail or privately, you should receive significant punishment for not checking someone’s background. Whether you’re a gang member hooking up your bro or a giant broker.

 

[pgg]

EVERYONE should have a background check.

I’d be OK with that, provided the universal background checks weren’t a door to a firearm registry.

So it WAS illegal? I don’t know the answer. Is a military court-martial for violence documented as felony violence on public record?

It’s a little fuzzy to me - I’m not sure if that’s because it’s early yet and all the facts aren’t verified.

A dishonorable discharge is specifically disqualifying to purchase a gun. It’s question 11g on the 4473 all gun purchasers must complete when buying from a dealer. But it looks like he actually got a “bad conduct discharge” ... which isn’t disqualifying.

He did spent a year in prison before his discharge. US law defines felonies as (among other things) crimes penalized with a year+ of prison. 11c on the 4473 pertains to felony convictions. Maybe he’s a felon?

11i on the 4473 disqualifies buyers on the basis of even a misdemeanor conviction for domestic violence. That’s him.

A background check should have caught him.

I haven’t seen yet where he got the rifle. If he bought it person-to-person without a background check, that’s a strong argument for universal background checks.