From Backwoods Home Magazine: 2nd Amendment, the Bill of Rights...long read, but worth it

[TradeTheBeal!]

I don't watch Fox News and I am not a member of the NRA so I might not be qualified to answer. I am a gun owner who does not have an issue with universal background checks.

It is not a gun show issue it is a face to face transfer issue. The "Gun Show Loophole" is a brilliant piece of marketing in that it makes people think that anyone can walk into a gun show and buy anything they want with no checks. That is not how it works. Every registered dealer at a gun show is going to run the check on every sale. They have no interest in risking their business and way of life to make an extra sale. Especially in the current environment of mass panic buying. Where the "loophole" come in is with face to face transfers. Gun shows attract people who want to buy and sell guns. Some times they get together, and in some states they can sell guns to each other. No different than any other piece of personal property. This phenomena is not isolated to gun shows, it happens anywhere a buyer and a seller find each other.

Very informative response.

You can make a law stating that every gun sale must go through a background check, but how do you enforce it?

Let's work together and find a way.

Has there ever been a government in history that could effectively regulate individual sales of items between two people?

Just because its a challenging proposition doesn't mean we shouldn't try. We seem to do a pretty good job with auto sales, but of course the DMV is not hamstrung by loopholes and partisan garbage

Just having the law in place would probably keep most law abiding gun owners from selling without a check.

Yup. And stiff penalties for a violation would bolster compliance.

How do you implement it? Do both the buyer and the seller have to travel to a gun store to have the check done?

Sounds reasonable. Probably shouldn't be the only way

Will gun stores be willing to do checks for people, essentially diverting business away from themselves? What will they charge people to do the checks if they are willing?

Shouldn't be too hard to work out.

Maybe they have to go to the local police station. That is how it works in Maryland for regulated guns. Or do you open up the NICS system to allow any seller to call and do the check on their own?

Also very reasonable. Maybe Post offices could be used as well. Make it as convenient as possible.

These are just a few of the questions that lead to some of the concerns opponents may have.

Again, excellent post.

[ZoEd]

If your concern is privacy, then the law can provide for that. There was a provision in the recently passed New York law that gave local jurisdictions the power to control the privacy of their gun registrations. If you really don't trust the government to keep your privacy, I would be a lot more worried about my tax records, which have my address and how much money I make. Or my car registration that has my address and what kind of car I drive. Wouldn't a burglar actually be less likely to target a home that has guns? When you are not home, I hope that your guns are locked up in a way that doesn't make it too easy for them to be stolen.

I think there is a lot of gray area between paranoia and blind trust. "Trust but verify" is what Reagan liked to say.

We actually do have restrictions on the features of street legal motorcycles.

http://www.americanmotorcyclist.com/Rights/State-Laws.aspx?stateid=8

And of course, you must wear a helmet, and it is illegal to drive more than 200mph on public roads.

The simple facts are this: A restriction on magazine size to 10 bullets would make the clips used in Newtown, Aurora, and Tuscon illegal. It would make some of ammunition used at Virginia Tech illegal. Virginia has already changed its mental health laws related to gun background checks. More changes could keep guns out of the hands of future shooters.

I feel like the difference between a gun control advocate and a gun rights advocate is really just what you feel like the baseline should be. It seems like you look at the assault weapons ban and say, "Prove to me that it will work." I look at a proposal for gun control and I ask myself, what is the cost vs. the benefit?

The costs that I see are inconvenience for gun owners, less enjoyment for recreational shooters, and a decreased ability to fight the government/Communists/zombies. From what I can tell, the assault weapons ban will have little to no effect on the ability to protect yourself in a home invasion kind of situation. If you need to fire more than 10 shots without reloading you are probably in a situation that is going to require the police to resolve. The cosmetic regulations (pistol grip, collapsible stock, flash suppressor) don't seem to have much application in a self defense situation.

The benefits I see are that such restrictions could marginally limit the effectiveness of an attacker. While restricting magazine size and forcing someone to reload more often isn't going to prevent an attack, even a half-second could give a bystander time to act, or even to shoot back, if the bystander is armed. I think that in the case of the Oregon mall shooting, an armed bystander was able to confront the shooter when he was having trouble reloading.

I'm not really going to strongly defend the cosmetic restrictions because they are probably the least likely to have a tangible effect, but making civilian guns less military-like in their styling could affect the way people think about and use their guns. And there is little downside that I can see.

If we can make reduce the effectiveness of mass shooters and criminals, while having no real effect on the ability of law-abiding citizens to defend themselves, I will support it. Your balancing of these factors may be different.

Suddenly my works firewall is blocking me because of this thread being categorized as "weapons" so I'm reduced to using my phone and can't respond without wanting to throw it across the room! However, I will say that I have a massive amount of respect for your opinion and words in this post. This is the kind of discussion I'm hoping for and I appreciate the manner in which you articulated it.

But one thing...not every state requires helmets or the same restrictions on motorcycles. Again, for the millionth time, my contention is more for how these restrictions will be enforced and prosecuted than it is with the intent.

[DjTj]

You can make a law stating that every gun sale must go through a background check, but how do you enforce it? Has there ever been a government in history that could effectively regulate individual sales of items between two people? Just having the law in place would probably keep most law abiding gun owners from selling without a check.

Car sales and boat sales have to be registered. Land sales must be recorded. You're not supposed to hire anyone without checking their immigration status.

Just make people go to the police station. You could even allow buyers to get pre-cleared licenses that expire after a certain amount of time so the buyer and seller don't necessarily need to go to the police station together.

It might be impossible to police every single sale, but we can have penalties for unauthorized sales, and harsh penalties for anyone who sells a gun without a background check if that gun ends up being used in a crime. It doesn't seem like it should be that difficult.

[Bang]

So, did the government make people buy these things? I'm surprised broccoli isn't on the list.

it was, but Bush, Sr. had it removed.

He hates broccoli.

~Bang

[autoidiodyssey]

Again, excellent post.

Thanks. It sounds like universal checks has a pretty good chance of getting implemented.

[AsburySkinsFan]

Screw the NRA

http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/wed-january-16-2013/there-goes-the-boom---atf

Enforce existing laws my arse! They gutted existing gun laws!

[Popeman38]

Don't forget their various attempts at infringing/making it more difficult with regards to people's right to vote.

Making it more difficult to buy a gun=bad

making it more difficult to cast a ballot=good.

One can counter that it works the other way too:

Making it more difficult to buy a gun=good

making it more difficult to cast a ballot=bad

And let's not confuse gun rights with abortion. There are MANY more Dems who support dun rights than there are Reps who support abortion. A better analogy would be urban vs rural. In a city, a gun is generally viewed as a tool of evil. In the country, a gun is generally viewed as a tool of life. You see TONS of cities clamoring to enact serious gun control measures. You don't see any rural areas doing the same. Hell, Harry Reid is worried about all the gun talk, cause Nevada is whole lot of open country, where a gun is needed to protect property from nature (cows, sheep, pigs from coyotes, moutain lion, bear). This issue is MUCH more complicated than the typical person paints it.

[rictus58]

One can counter that it works the other way too:

Making it more difficult to buy a gun=good

making it more difficult to cast a ballot=bad

And let's not confuse gun rights with abortion. There are MANY more Dems who support dun rights than there are Reps who support abortion. A better analogy would be urban vs rural. In a city, a gun is generally viewed as a tool of evil. In the country, a gun is generally viewed as a tool of life. You see TONS of cities clamoring to enact serious gun control measures. You don't see any rural areas doing the same. Hell, Harry Reid is worried about all the gun talk, cause Nevada is whole lot of open country, where a gun is needed to protect property from nature (cows, sheep, pigs from coyotes, moutain lion, bear). This issue is MUCH more complicated than the typical person paints it.

I agree with you. I'm just pointing out the inane things I see everyday on peoples FB pages. comparing guns to cars. gun violence to abortions. guns to anything else that doesn't make a fair comparison.

[s0crates]

I like the part about the 9th and 10th Amendment and natural rights.

Amendment IX

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Amendment X

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

The government does not give us our rights. God does.

I usually lean left, but I applaud anybody defending the Bill of Rights, even the NRA.

[AsburySkinsFan]

I agree with you. I'm just pointing out the inane things I see everyday on peoples FB pages. comparings guns to cars. guns violence to abortions. guns to anything else that doesn't make a fair comparison.

Oh don't forget Hitler, the Nazis and the rise of The Third Reich!

---------- Post added January-17th-2013 at 04:26 PM ----------

The government does not give us our rights. God does.

So was God wrong when we had our right to own slaves taken away?

Why didn't God think it was good to give women the right to vote?

[zoony]

Oh don't forget Hitler, the Nazis and the rise of The Third Reich!

---------- Post added January-17th-2013 at 04:26 PM ----------

So was God wrong when we had our right to own slaves taken away?

Why didn't God think it was good to give women the right to vote?

I think what he is saying is that the government does not grant rights, it only takes them away. Which is correct

[s0crates]

So was God wrong when we had our right to own slaves taken away?

Why didn't God think it was good to give women the right to vote?

Given that you consider those objections to my point, I take it that you missed my point entirely.

Women and blacks always had the same God-given human rights as everybody else. The government denied them.

[SkinsWarrior81]

Oh don't forget Hitler, the Nazis and the rise of The Third Reich!

---------- Post added January-17th-2013 at 04:26 PM ----------

So was God wrong when we had our right to own slaves taken away?

Why didn't God think it was good to give women the right to vote?

The idea is that you have "natural rights" and that when those rights are not being served to the public, they are being artificially blocked by the government.. not that you do to have them. It is complicated. Basically, people want the government to block natural rights, but only the natural rights they deem to be unimportant to them or others. Slavery and women being unable to vote, were an aberration of the intent of and philosophy of natural rights being artificially withheld from the populace by government. Some would say you would be able to and obligated to rise against the government in order to be able to confer those rights equally among men.

[rictus58]

Oh don't forget Hitler, the Nazis and the rise of The Third Reich!

ugh. Those really make me sick. And it's offensive to..well...damn near everyone who lives on this planet.

[Destino]

I appreciate any article that reminds us all that rights do not come from the bill of rights. I feel like the idea of natural rights has really fallen these days where rights are viewed more like the contents of SWAG bag reserved for the VIP segment of the American citizenry. You have to be an American citizen for some, though we allow some non-citizens a few, and you must not be a felon (though we continue to expand the definition of felony). The right itself is no longer terribly “righty” anymore. It’s more of a guideline that is followed when the government really doesn’t want to ignore it badly enough. This is a trend that doesn’t help anyone no matter where you fall on this particular issue and it’s a damn shame.

Having said that I think that the gun rights issue has a very easy middle ground that is lost in the screaming match the extremes love to get into. The NRA wants more guns and has decided that guns are essentially safety devices. Listening to them you would think that a gun should sit next to fire extinguishers (though not behind glass, because that would slow down a would-be hero). The opposite side seems at times (most) to be entirely ignorant when it comes to the guns they want to restrict. Hearing them prattle on about “semi-automatics” at times makes me groan when it becomes apparent that they don’t really know what it is. The same happens when people are pressed to define assault weapons often times. If you aren’t familiar with guns, you aren’t qualified to decide which are good and which are bad.

Everyone talks down to everyone in this debate. This thread for instance features the ignorant do gooder chatting with the “real American” that apparently learned detailed history from a wise old cow. That kind of **** isn’t going to bring people to the table and aid a sober dialogue.

I think the controls need to target the ammo capacity and training. I think people eager to do bad things with fire arms will still find a way to do so but there is no reason to make it insanely easy via a hundred round mag. Those seem designed entirely to do two things, allows the operator to go crazy at a shooting range for fun and/or engage a large group of targets without having to reload. Those IMO should be on the table to be entirely banned. The question then becomes what capacity is acceptable.

Training IMO serves a similar purpose to concealed weapons permits. People seeking to do bad things tend not to want to register their names and information. You think lunatics want to spend a great deal of time with trainers that can fail them for showing signs of instability? Evil people that are patient and outwardly normal are never going to be easily stopped, Al Qaeda has shown us this, but forcing contact between people seeking to legally own and use firearms with authorities will add a significant road block for many.

I’d tie training and licensing to the ability to purchase firearms and ammunition. I would not however record what firearms are purchased by license holders. Only that an up to date license is required to purchase.

This is not a perfect plan and I don’t pretend to have all the answers but I think it’s an example of a middle ground that can be discussed. This is not a right v left debate. I’m all for gun rights and I’m a democrat (some of you are no doubt shocked, I know). I think you’ll find that there are many among democrats that are pro-gun rights.

Please excuse typos, I have a new born and have to type FAST! haha

[Popeman38]

The interesting thing about the Militia Act of 1972 is that it included regulations on the types of guns and ammunition that every citizen between 18 and 45 was supposed to own.

I. Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, That each and every free able-bodied white male citizen of the respective States, resident therein, who is or shall be of age of eighteen years, and under the age of forty-five years (except as is herein after excepted) shall severally and respectively be enrolled in the militia, by the Captain or Commanding Officer of the company, within whose bounds such citizen shall reside, and that within twelve months after the passing of this Act. And it shall at all time hereafter be the duty of every such Captain or Commanding Officer of a company, to enroll every such citizen as aforesaid, and also those who shall, from time to time, arrive at the age of 18 years, or being at the age of 18 years, and under the age of 45 years (except as before excepted) shall come to reside within his bounds; and shall without delay notify such citizen of the said enrollment, by the proper non-commissioned Officer of the company, by whom such notice may be proved. That every citizen, so enrolled and notified, shall, within six months thereafter, provide himself with a good musket or firelock, a sufficient bayonet and belt, two spare flints, and a knapsack, a pouch, with a box therein, to contain not less than twenty four cartridges, suited to the bore of his musket or firelock, each cartridge to contain a proper quantity of powder and ball; or with a good rifle, knapsack, shot-pouch, and powder-horn, twenty balls suited to the bore of his rifle, and a quarter of a pound of powder; and shall appear so armed, accoutred and provided, when called out to exercise or into service, except, that when called out on company days to exercise only, he may appear without a knapsack. That the commissioned Officers shall severally be armed with a sword or hanger, and espontoon; and that from and after five years from the passing of this Act, all muskets from arming the militia as is herein required, shall be of bores sufficient for balls of the eighteenth part of a pound; and every citizen so enrolled, and providing himself with the arms, ammunition and accoutrements, required as aforesaid, shall hold the same exempted from all suits, distresses, executions or sales, for debt or for the payment of taxes.

http://www.constitution.org/mil/mil_act_1792.htm

So if the Federal government could require all citizens to own certain types of guns and a certain amount of ammunition, and to require them to report regularly, can it really be unconstitutional for the Federal government to require registration of guns, to limit the size of cartridges, or to regulate the types of guns that are sold?

Well, I would argue the militia of 1972 and the militia of 1792 were vastly different. :evilg:

[AsburySkinsFan]

I think what he is saying is that the government does not grant rights, it only takes them away. Which is correct

So who gets to figure out which rights God gave us and which rights God gave us that need to be taken away?

[s0crates]

So who gets to figure out which rights God gave us and which rights God gave us that need to be taken away?

I think that was the point of creating the Bill of Rights in the first place, to ensure that nobody would take away certain of our God-given rights.

We can lose the God talk if it helps. It is just short hand. We can just as easily talk about natural rights or human rights. The idea is that humans are free to speak, assemble, live, work, pursue happiness, protect themselves, own property, etc.

The only time somebody's rights should be impinged is when they infringe on somebody else's.

This is political philosophy and civics 101 stuff here. I'm somewhat concerned that this needs explaining at all.

[Destino]

So who gets to figure out which rights God gave us and which rights God gave us that need to be taken away?

No one. The government isn't supposed to even consider revoking those rights and they are expressly prohibited from doing so. That hasn't stopped them from doing so. Consider search and seizure these days...

[AsburySkinsFan]

This is political philosophy and civics 101 stuff here. I'm somewhat concerned that this needs explaining at all.

It doesn't I'm just providing pushback against invoking the divine in legislative matters, I know there are some variants of Christianity that present the Constitution as sacred writ...I do not.

[TradeTheBeal!]

It doesn't I'm just providing pushback against invoking the divine in legislative matters, I know there are some variants of Christianity that present the Constitution as sacred writ...I do not.

Amen.

[BurgundyBlood]

nevermind nevermind

[ZoEd]

I know a TON of people who own the Bushmaster AR15, they are recreational shooters who like to target practice with them and compete in tactical type competitions where rapid reloading and engaging multiple targets in real world scenarios. How is banning assult rifles from folks like this, many of which are either prior law enforcement or military, preventing "mass killings?

I have 27 guns, why? Well, because I collect guns. Growing up I spent a lot of time with my Dad hunting and competed in the National Hunter Education competition where myself and 4 others represented the state of WV. We competed in archery, sporting clays with shotgun, target shooting with 22's, walkthrough hunter safety course and written test, orienteering and wildlife identification. I was 16, the commradre between the competitors, coaches and parents made for an amazing event. When my father died I inherited all of his guns as well as purchasing several of my own. I don't sit around in a dark room polishing them while watching doomsday preppers and don't fill my trunk with ammo and run out to the range to blow off steam by firing a couple thousand rounds of ammo either. Anyway, when my fathers company went bankrupt back in the mid-seventies he was forced to sell some of his guns, one of the biggest regrets of his life. One of those weapons was an M1 Grand that could be considered an "assault" rifle. The guy who has it won't let it go, but he's promised me that someday he'll sell it back to me and his son has orders to make sure it gets in my hands if and when he passes. He claims it hasn't been shot since my father sold it to him, it has too much sentimental value because of his relationship with my late father.

You see, many people "collect" weapons, not to revolt against the union or even protect themselves, but because they collect guns. It's a hobby, like people who, lets say collect hammers. Which if you've watched the news caused more deaths than guns.

My point is and up to this point it's went totally unaddressed by the pro ban supporters, how will these restrictions and bans be enforced, applied and prosecuted? The INTENT is to prevent someone from going into theater and simply mowing people down with "assault" rifles with high capacity magazines but will it stop there? What's next? Do you have any idea how easy it is to convert some of these semi-automatic weapons to full auto? Do you have any idea how easy it is for just about anyone to modify a weapon to hold more rounds? Will it stop there? Define assault rifle. Anyone?

Most of us will say M16, AR's, AK's and anything fully automatic and by God I can see that. BUT, how will the legislation define "assault" rifles. That's the area of contention for the not so crazy gun nuts out there. We've seen how the gov't conducts business on a regular basis and it's oozing with corruption and greed. Someone said the gun lobbyists are paying off the politicians! Well no ****! So are the pharmacutical and oil companies, banks and every other special interest group that has to money to do so! Lol, really? Only the "gun lobbyists" are shady.

Some peoples children.

[Tulane Skins Fan]

I know a TON of people who own the Bushmaster AR15, they are recreational shooters who like to target practice with them and compete in tactical type competitions where rapid reloading and engaging multiple targets in real world scenarios. How is banning assult rifles from folks like this, many of which are either prior law enforcement or military, preventing "mass killings?

I have 27 guns, why? Well, because I collect guns. Growing up I spent a lot of time with my Dad hunting and competed in the National Hunter Education competition where myself and 4 others represented the state of WV. We competed in archery, sporting clays with shotgun, target shooting with 22's, walkthrough hunter safety course and written test, orienteering and wildlife identification. I was 16, the commradre between the competitors, coaches and parents made for an amazing event. When my father died I inherited all of his guns as well as purchasing several of my own. I don't sit around in a dark room polishing them while watching doomsday preppers and don't fill my trunk with ammo and run out to the range to blow off steam by firing a couple thousand rounds of ammo either. Anyway, when my fathers company went bankrupt back in the mid-seventies he was forced to sell some of his guns, one of the biggest regrets of his life. One of those weapons was an M1 Grand that could be considered an "assault" rifle. The guy who has it won't let it go, but he's promised me that someday he'll sell it back to me and his son has orders to make sure it gets in my hands if and when he passes. He claims it hasn't been shot since my father sold it to him, it has too much sentimental value because of his relationship with my late father.

You see, many people "collect" weapons, not to revolt against the union or even protect themselves, but because they collect guns. It's a hobby, like people who, lets say collect hammers. Which if you've watched the news caused more deaths than guns.

My point is and up to this point it's went totally unaddressed by the pro ban supporters, how will these restrictions and bans be enforced, applied and prosecuted? The INTENT is to prevent someone from going into theater and simply mowing people down with "assault" rifles with high capacity magazines but will it stop there? What's next? Do you have any idea how easy it is to convert some of these semi-automatic weapons to full auto? Do you have any idea how easy it is for just about anyone to modify a weapon to hold more rounds? Will it stop there? Define assault rifle. Anyone?

Most of us will say M16, AR's, AK's and anything fully automatic and by God I can see that. BUT, how will the legislation define "assault" rifles. That's the area of contention for the not so crazy gun nuts out there. We've seen how the gov't conducts business on a regular basis and it's oozing with corruption and greed. Someone said the gun lobbyists are paying off the politicians! Well no ****! So are the pharmacutical and oil companies, banks and every other special interest group that has to money to do so! Lol, really? Only the "gun lobbyists" are shady.

Some peoples children.

You're asking me to cry about some people not being able to take target practice in exchange for crazies not being able to get their hands on these guns?

[Bang]

i would suggest the first thing to enforce anything is to give the ATF back the power it needs to do it's job.

I'd like to see gun owners get behind forcing their so-called protectors to quit obstructing justice and do what's right, instead of blindly supporting politicians and lobbyists who are subverting the country.

~Bang

---------- Post added January-18th-2013 at 12:31 AM ----------

You're asking me to cry about some people not being able to take target practice in exchange for crazies not being able to get their hands on these guns?

Target practice?

Oh no,, these are collectibles! Sealed in mylar!

It is about the most selfish reason I ever hear in these discussions.

~Bang