Executive Order to Deal With Guns

[A.Nonymous]

Since the 2nd amendment specifically states "well-regulated militia", regulations on gun ownership is not a violation of that amendment.

The Supreme Court disagrees with you.

 

[Davdi]

IN the UK it's illegal to own a handgun. But guess what, the gangs and career criminals have no problem in obtaining them. If you have any legitimate guns, they have to be kept in a locked steel Gun Safe. Oh, and they have to be registered with the police, and you need a firearms certificate for each one.

Legally held guns are not that easy to get, illegal ones are if you know the right people.

 

[rootbrain]

Yes, all guns should be registered, the same as cars, with a registration that goes with the gun when sold. That would not take anybody's right to own a gun away, or infringe on the second amendment in any way.

A car is different. Driving a car is NOT a right guaranteed by our Constitution, it is a privilege. Owning arms is a Constitutional right, just like free speech, freedom of the press, the right to a fair and speedy trial.

You don't like guns? Which of the other rights above do you want to have taken away?

 

[rootbrain]

IN the UK it's illegal to own a handgun. But guess what, the gangs and career criminals have no problem in obtaining them. If you have any legitimate guns, they have to be kept in a locked steel Gun Safe. Oh, and they have to be registered with the police, and you need a firearms certificate for each one.

Legally held guns are not that easy to get, illegal ones are if you know the right people.

That's a point that's brought up over and over. It doesn't matter to those that would take away our rights. They are in a position to afford to have private protection, or in a position to become and "exception" or special case because of fame, fortune or political clout.

They are blinded by their own zeal. This is really more about power than guns. Never doubt it.

 

[sntaylor]

And this school shooting Student tells teacher: 'I don't want to shoot you' - Yahoo! News

With a shotgun, stolen from his brother who owned it legitimately. And the guns at Sandy Hook? Stolen from his mother, a legitimate owner. She paid the ultimate price for her carelessness and not getting her son the help he needed, as did the children in this tragedy.

Interesting that both recent cases(and if I remember correctly the cinema shooting) guns were originally purchased legally.....I rarely hear of advocates to guns showing examples of mass murder to the general public(criminals in gang war fare don't count here) in schools or malls etc, using illegally purchased guns.

Even the more recent occurrences of mass shootings here in the UK were done with legally purchased guns!

I personally believe that the problem stems from a deeper problem in a mental state of mind. For some reason there are a group of people who want to commit suicide, but do so while taking the lives of others, this is the real problem...... unfortunately I don't have the answer.

With tighter gun laws though, these people may be less likely to get hold of weapons that can kill many in short period of time with the pull of a trigger(bombs being an exception which takes a bit more workso can't be done on an impulse!)

 

[jhtalisman]

The Supreme Court disagrees with you.

The founding fathers had no objection to it. They required firearms to be inspected and kept in good condition, with an adequate supply of ammunition as a public militia was our original national defense. At one time it was required for a man upon a certain age to own a firearm due to this. Which was in my opinion the original intent of the 2nd amendment.

And now the NRA wants more firearms put into people's homes, cars and schools. Yes, make them more readily available for crazy people to acquire whether legally or not. It is an insane proposition.

 

[A.Nonymous]

The founding fathers had no objection to it. They required firearms to be inspected and kept in good condition, with an adequate supply of ammunition as a public militia was our original national defense. At one time it was required for a man upon a certain age to own a firearm due to this. Which was in my opinion the original intent of the 2nd amendment.

Once again, the Supreme Court has heard this argument and disagrees with you. Good luck getting that reversed. This argument has been made at the highest levels more than once and the Supreme Court has consistently rejected it.

 

[Gmash]

A car is different. Driving a car is NOT a right guaranteed by our Constitution, it is a privilege. Owning arms is a Constitutional right, just like free speech, freedom of the press, the right to a fair and speedy trial.

You don't like guns? Which of the other rights above do you want to have taken away?

There you go again. Nobody is taking about banning guns. The second amendment doesn't say anything about the right to bear arms WITH NO REGULATIONS. You people fall for the scare tactics every single time. It's comical, really. We had the assault rifle ban before and the Supreme Court did nothing to stop it. 62% of Americans are in favor of the assault rifle ban now. The NRA is holding the country hostage by brainwashing the weak minded.

 

[copestag]

so once we get the almighty answer youre pushing for....... and they regulate to whatever extent you believe they will.... and assault weapons are banned again...... should we blame you for the next assault weapon murder? (and dont doubt there will be one with or without a ban).... or who do we blame? since the liberals tell us not to fall for scare tactics and they have the solution

 

[ElasticNinja]

IN the UK it's illegal to own a handgun. But guess what, the gangs and career criminals have no problem in obtaining them. If you have any legitimate guns, they have to be kept in a locked steel Gun Safe. Oh, and they have to be registered with the police, and you need a firearms certificate for each one.

Legally held guns are not that easy to get, illegal ones are if you know the right people.

Yes, but ordinary or accidental criminals do not have access to guns, knives at best. Of course, we still have assassins and the like. But there is not the fear that the angry man next to you could pull a gun.

 

[copestag]

Yes, but ordinary or accidental criminals do not have access to guns, knives at best. Of course, we still have assassins and the like. But there is not the fear that the angry man next to you could pull a gun.

criminals typically dont legally have access to guns in the US either

 

[jefboyardee]

62% of Americans are in favor of the assault rifle ban now.

That

 

[sntaylor]

Why Not A Ban On Weapons Designed Specifically For Killing?

This Would Mean Hunting Knives And AllGuns! Covers Assault Weapons!

remember I Stay In The Country Where We Deal With Airport Bombers In Cars By Punching Them

 

[jefboyardee]

Better put, what is not an assault weapon?

I found one!

 

[dden4012]

All this malarkey about gun regulations has cleaned out the our local gun stores inventory. The price of an assault rifle has risen faster in the last few months, than gold over the last 2 years.
If a nut job can't get a gun for their killing spree they can get a knife, chemicals, vehicle, and yes bathtubs....just saying.... and there's not a damn thing a politician can do to stop it. This is divide and conquer politics. Both side use fear to brainwash those who subscribe to their notion. Those 30,50,100 round magazines that were in the gun shop are now in the homes and vehicles of private citizens who bought as many as they could afford. They bought out of fear. And that scares the sh!t out of the libs that don't want you to have those items.

 

[jefboyardee]

there's not a damn thing a politician can do to stop it.

Yes, but there

 

[Speed Daemon]

anyone with more than 2 active brain cells also knows that any type of gun regulation is not the answer..... it has been irrefutably proven time and again that this is not a gun problem

IME all problems that are addressed by making inanimate objects the scapegoat continue to be problems, and often get worse after laws that criminalize the inanimate objects are enacted. The "war on drugs" and the "war on terror" ("terror" isn't even an object, only an undefined concept) are two prominent examples of such failures in recent history.

Until our society chooses to look at the real problem, the one that exists in people's minds, no positive change will be seen. It's sad to say, but IMO we're a society of cowards who are more interested in sweeping the root of the problem under the carpet, and keep on ignoring the larger issues.

unfortunately the ways to solve the problem will never occur......... and in this argument the guns always lose...... the ACLU trumps the 2nd amendment every time

Never say never.

To be fair, the NRA is far more involved, and has had far more success than the ACLU with this matter.

This time none of the parties that are large enough to get on TV are doing much more than repeating ridiculous talking points.

Being the aggrieved parent of a murdered child does not magically make that person an expert on firearms safety. In one particularly frustrating to watch TV interview, the parents of a slain child made a great point of describing how meticulous and cunning that the killer was. After they made this point in great detail, they immediately went on to claim that outlawing one certain accessory would have totally confounded the shooter to the point that he would have given up and not committed the crime. Really?

I blame the TV producers for putting those parents in that position in the first place. Even if the parents wanted to propose "solutions", the producers' job is to recognize why that's not fair to anyone.

I've read the Second Amendment, and don't see how it can be referring to anything other than a right to possess weapons of war, for the purpose of waging war against a corrupt government or outside invaders. It says nothing about hunting or home protection. Although the specter of war should scare people, the fact remains that the freedoms that we Americans enjoy came only after we resorted to warfare. Like it or not, being prepared to spill blood to protect our liberty may be necessary from time to time. And none of that has anything to do with people who go on shooting rampages.

Sooner or later, we'll need to face the fact that hunting and home defense by firearms aren't Constitutionally protected rights. If we as a society don't like that, we are free to amend the Constitution to reflect our 21st century desires. But unless and until that is done, we need to comply with the highest law in the land as it stands.

 

[Speed Daemon]

Yes, all guns should be registered, the same as cars, with a registration that goes with the gun when sold. That would not take anybody's right to own a gun away, or infringe on the second amendment in any way.

While this makes sense from a purely civil point of view, the problem is that the Second Amendment doesn't appear to be addressing peacetime issues.

"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."

If we look at the Second Amendment in what I believe is its proper context, registration of arms has grave military consequences because it gives an enemy too much information about the strength of our forces. I don't know the best way to reconcile our peacetime ownership of firearms with the letter and intent of the Second Amendment. And until I do, I would not be hasty in enacting laws that might do great harm in the long run, as well as being of dubious usefulness as a cure to what ails us today.

Rather than focus on firearms singularly, maybe we should be contemplating our responsibilities as "our brothers' keepers."

 

[Speed Daemon]

The Supreme Court disagrees with you.

Ironically this Supreme Court may well be one of "all enemies, foreign or domestic" that the Second Amendment empowers us to take up arms to fight.

I truly hope that we can resolve the Constitutional crisis of Supreme Court members who abuse their office to practice partisan politics. But the fact remains that we now have a very big problem in that, and our Constitution simply doesn't address it.

 

[Speed Daemon]

With tighter gun laws though, these people may be less likely to get hold of weapons that can kill many in short period of time with the pull of a trigger

This is a good time to remind all that in the US there is a mandatory 5 day "cooling off period" between the time of purchase and when the purchaser can obtain the new firearm. This has been the law for over 20 years.

 

[saptech]

I have one solution to this problem. Lets charge $100 per bullet! Problem solved, partially!

 

[Gmash]

This is a good time to remind all that in the US there is a mandatory 5 day "cooling off period" between the time of purchase and when the purchaser can obtain the new firearm. This has been the law for over 20 years.

Not at one of the many, many, "gun shows" constantly roaming across the country, nor Craigslist, etc.

 

[Speed Daemon]

I have one solution to this problem. Lets charge $100 per bullet! Problem solved, partially!

In the not too distant past, soldiers used to make their own bullets, right in the middle of a war. The technology is relatively simple, and there's plenty of reloading equipment in private hands that could be used as templates to make more if they were banned. A $100/bullet law could never be enforced.

The bottom line is that banning things that some people are determined to do just plain doesn't achieve the desired effect, and instead sows the seeds of discontent. In other words, bans just backfire. They're worse than worthless.

 

[A.Nonymous]

I've read the Second Amendment, and don't see how it can be referring to anything other than a right to possess weapons of war, for the purpose of waging war against a corrupt government or outside invaders. It says nothing about hunting or home protection. Although the specter of war should scare people, the fact remains that the freedoms that we Americans enjoy came only after we resorted to warfare. Like it or not, being prepared to spill blood to protect our liberty may be necessary from time to time. And none of that has anything to do with people who go on shooting rampages.

Sooner or later, we'll need to face the fact that hunting and home defense by firearms aren't Constitutionally protected rights. If we as a society don't like that, we are free to amend the Constitution to reflect our 21st century desires. But unless and until that is done, we need to comply with the highest law in the land as it stands.

The problem with that is that the Supreme Court flat out disagrees with you. The finest legal minds in the country have made their arguments before the finest legal minds in the country and have concluded that the Second Amendment does in fact protect the rights of private citizens to own guns.

 

[Speed Daemon]

Not at one of the many, many, "gun shows" constantly roaming across the country, nor Craigslist, etc.

That's a good point. But to be fair, there aren't nearly as many gun shows as that at any given time, and frankly the mind of a non-gun owner who's consumed with enough anger to kill isn't likely to be thinking straight enough to find these loopholes rapidly. I'm comfortable with this loophole.

If, after the public has had time to sober up and discuss the issues with clear minds, it's decided that vendors at gun shows have to abide by the same rules, I'm OK with that, although I know it's not going to be a panacea. I already have to jump through hoops to ship unloaded and dismantled firearms; by law a licensed firearms merchant must be involved at both ends. If I have to pay big money to inherit my uncle's hunting rifle, let everyone get soaked.