crkinnh

Well, we know for certain that they fought for days to word things perfectly, and even fought over where they should put the comma in the 2nd Amendment to make sure it was understood in the correct context. Arms includes any and all weapons, including ones of the future, rather than just muskets. Furthermore, all arms includes artillery, that seems 'highly ineffective and maintenance heavy, that citizens couldn't afford those easy' doesn't it? This did occur, here's a letter of marque and reprisal straight from President James Madison in which he gives an authorization of privateering to the captain of a privately owned and armed ship. http://www.constitution.org/mil/lmr/1812amer1.htm Not only did was this ship armed privately with cannons, it was with 18 of them! The 'muskets' clause isn't even a question, especially with the US Supreme Court Decision of District of Columbia v. Keller, and now with the upholding of that with Commonwealth v. Caetano; the latter of which upholds one decision which was that “the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding,”. That also furthers the view that the second amendment refers to all weapons, which in this case was a stun gun. Here is District of Columbia v. Keller, read it. https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf They were special, so special that the writer of the Constitution (Thomas Jefferson) knowingly equipped a reserve army officer, and a civilian with them for an expedition. In the United States, the only people who can aquire the XM-25 are manufacturers/importers of destructive devices. Even if we could get them without the importation deal, it was manufactured after May of 1986 since it's full auto, and is a destructive device since it is well over .50 cal plus fires grenades (each of which is a destructive device in and of itself to the ATF). Thank the National Firearms Act of 1934, and the Hughs Amendment of the Firearms Owner Protection Act of 1986 for people not knowing about this. It so far in it's limited success, only been 'successful' in countries that either never had many guns, or had the ability to forcefully confiscate them (violation of 4th Amendment without a warrant in the US). Furthermore, many of these countries didn't have a problem with guns to begin with. Lets take mass shootings as an example for Australia. Australia, in their list of massacres on Wikipedia, only had 21 mass shootings within the last hundred one years (including the 5 after the ban, starting from the first mass shooting). The gap between the first and second of which was 58 years, to me that's a long time to begin with when you are comparing them with similar laws at the time with the US. A different culture maybe, combined with a much smaller population? Then all the sudden from that second shooting in 1973, until the ban in 1996, there was 16 shootings (including the starting and finishing), creating an average of 0.6956 mass shootings a year from this time period from the second shooting until the Port Arthur Shooting. However, from the first shooting to the second shooting, there was only two mass shootings if you include those two shootings, leaving an average of 0.0344 mass shootings per year in that 58 year time period. Guns were not the problem in that time; something caused the surge in mass shootings after the second mass shooting. That is not the topic currently though. How much in the years since has that rate changed? Well, it changed to 0.25 per year. Congratulations Australia, you've still haven't got the rate back down even after the reforms. Give it 38 more years, and we'll see just how effective gun control has been. The difference between guns in that 58 years, and the types of guns you can now own after gun control, should be night and day. Furthermore, the access to guns without licenses should also be noted. Neither has affected the rate of which the shootings have happened, especially since there is 38 more years before the modern stats can accurately be compared. What you should think about instead, is why in that 23 years between the second shooting and Port Arthur are there so many shootings out of nowhere? Especially when the guns had always been available.

There is a reason the 2nd Amendment specifically said 'arms' rather than 'musket'. The wording was meant to include the future innovations in firearms, the writers of the Constitution weren't stupid, they knew that technical innovation would occur. It used to include artillery too, but that was gradually taken away with the NFA of 1934. Oh and twelve years before the ratification of the 2nd Amendment, the Grandoni Rifle was invented. This rifle could fire twenty two rounds in thirty seconds. Thomas Jefferson himself equipped Louis and Clark with this rifle for their expedition. Then there's the Belton Flintlock, which could fire up to 20 rounds with one trigger pull within about five seconds, and this was invented during the American Revolutionary War. Then there's the Puckle Gun, which was invented 60 years before the war, and could fire the equivalent to full-auto. They knew these existed too. With the logic that all amendments need to be updated, then the 1st Amendment needs to be updated to include all the inventions we've made over the years to include the internet, radio, television, and phones because they only had voice and the printing press then.

I believe in gun rights, guns are simply a tool. Although a vast majority (when the math is done out, over 99%) of guns are used legally, those who are willing to use them to the harm of others will obtain them no matter the laws. Weather this be from straw purchases, black market purchases, smuggling, illegal manufacture, or even the occasional completely legal purchase. However, regardless of laws they will obtain them. As they have in every country with gun control, if they want one, they can get one. The trick to solving the problems we have now is like treating a virus, you can either treat the root cause in prevention or treat the symptoms. Most gun control is treating the symptoms. To solve the problems we have with guns we can do these following things: education for those old enough to understand it, secure storage for those who shouldn't be able to get into firearms, reforming the NICS system by mandating states to flag felons and DV offenders (somewhere around 80% of them aren't put into the system due to negligence, sorry for forgetting the source), ending the war on drugs (which ends a vast majority of gun crime overnight), and reform the mental health system. Currently I cannot support proposed bans on guns for people on the terror watch list due to the lack of due process, the mis-identification that occurs, and the fact that it would tip off the suspects that they are under surveillance. I will never support no guns for people on the no fly list because they don't have to be terrorists, or even dangerous to be on that list. With that I leave us a prayer: Hail Garand, full of grace; John Browning is with thee. Man among gunmakers, and blessed are the wares of Springfield Armory. Hail Garand, father of the M1; pray for us shooters now, and at the hour of bending our op-rods. Amen.

I'm done with this, this has gone on far too long now. My point is this: there has never been a problem with guns. Guns are a tool, and only that. The solution to gun violence is not to ban any guns, or create more ineffective laws which waste time and money in congress. The problem is poverty, drugs, mental illnesses, and terrorism. Enforcing these useless laws wastes resources, and money that could be used elsewhere. If this was the case with something else, I'm absolutely sure you would agree, but you don't and that's your right. I'm happy to live in a state where lax gun laws works outstandingly well, if you want to enact the laws that restrict the 2nd Amendment, please do it in your own state; leave mine alone.

Well, actually it is something they teach you in psychology, if it was a bad point then you should have said something before now. Why are straw purchases illegal, or better yet, why am I okay with that being a law rather than mandatory background checks on private sales? It's because this is enforceable significantly more than with background checks in private sales, and actually has a point. Yes, I said it. The theory is a theory from departments in the UK, not my own. However, they have never had armed police even when they did have armed criminals, so you aren't even close to being correct. Also, fun fact, the NRA is funded by it's members not the gun industry. In fact, it doesn't even represent the industry directly, as that is not its mission. Finally, you will try to spin this in some stupid way, but guns are not the problem. Around 83% of gun crime occurs because of drugs, numerous deaths occur because of perp on perp violence related to drugs which is then spun off by the politicians on guns.The problem with guns in the past few decades have been from drugs. Guns are not the problem, and when we give you a program to solve the problem, you ignore it. If gun laws are to blame on for gun violence, then why is New Hampshire, Maine, and Vermont so low in gun deaths? Why isn't there outcry in MA, NY, RI, and CT when each of these states similarly is close like the Chicago and Indiana gun debate which this started from?

Now, I'm not saying that a private purchase is not where a possible avenue is, I'm saying that it is not worth making an unenforceable law in a majority of states make perfectly law abiding citizens criminals for not abiding the bs that politicians spew out. As I have said earlier, the stuff that gun owners do is good enough 9/10 times. The problem is straw purchases, just like c13 told you. Also, it is noteworthy that the United States has a much different history on gun ownership than France. There's a theory that goes like this: criminals in other countries where the police is unarmed, don't have to be armed as an equalizer. This is a theory used to justify why the UK doesn't arm its police force. I'm not arguing however, that the police should be unarmed. Finally, you completely didn't even comment on my last part which is a psychological indication that you know I'm right on that part at the very least. The slippery slope exists, that's why we push for other laws to keep our rights and punish those who violate the rights of others (criminals). For example, how about Project Exile?

You and I are the ones who take the blunt force of the consequence for the actions of a statistically irrelevant few, that's what I am bringing up. Criminals aren't going to follow the laws, they figure that there's no point in not breaking another law if they get caught since there's enough laws they've broken anyway. If we break them and get caught, then we get the blunt force of the consequences because we were prosecuted for something that we had done our whole lives legally, and it never hurt anybody (statistic majority by far). You want another example of laws put into place that hurt only the people that follow them (besides guns), how about service members who can't drink because they are under 21? I considered where black markets get guns, it just hasn't come up until now. Guns do not appear magically in the hands of criminals, you are right. Black markets get their guns from guns that have been stolen (not many contrary to popular belief though), illegal shipments from other countries and manufacturers, and guns manufactured right at home. Yes, guns manufactured at home. Did you know that many gunsmiths actually make custom guns from the ground up completely with tools that they own in their garage. Even then, you don't have to be a gunsmith to make a gun using common tools. Illegal shipments, and smuggling also remains a big problem. France's gun control didn't stop the terrorists from obtaining military grade full auto AKs for the Paris Attacks last November, and Mexico's ban on firearms really stops the Cartels from obtaining guns right? You are right on another point, the point we make laws is to discourage people from doing something with the threat of penalty, but what good does a law do when it is unenforceable? To be able to enforce something would require other laws to fill in the problems that mandating something would have. This is what gun rights activists are talking about when we refer to the slippery slope: the enactment of more laws following the enactment of other laws. The point is that you should expect compliance from those who don't want to commit a crime no matter what, and don't expect it from the people who don't follow that because they realize that law is not only unenforceable; it's complete BS to follow it 9/10 times.

Firstly- no, I didn't advocate for criminals to get their hands on guns legally; I just said that adding more ineffective, near unenforceable laws only hurts the people who have to follow them with consequence (the people who follow the laws normally). That being said I'm moving on to the discussion, debate, or whatever you want to call it. Okay, and you advocate that by mandating background checks on all purchases regardless on weather or not they are privately conducted, an avenue will be closed to criminals on how to obtain firearms. Sounds good in theory right? How do you force people who make private sales unbeknownst to the government to follow this law? Surely black markets who sell firearms for much cheaper and illegally won't follow this. Lets not forget there is around a $50 fee to this check in the states it is required if you go the legal route, and many times the transaction is between family members or friends. I ask you before I make my next point, how do you force people who make private sales unbeknownst to the government to follow this law?

Honestly, it's not ridiculous, mandating background checks for all purchases is a hassle and just doesn't do anything that gun owners or dealers already do. It doesn't even mean that people will follow the mandate, which brings me to my argument. Regardless of origin, criminals will get guns, adding more ineffective laws only hurts the gun owners and dealers who follow them.

Okay, although I will say that it is irrelevant to the topic that we were on, as that was the 'gun show loophole' (which doesn't exist); even then it would be extremely stupid to spend money to rent a table at a gun show to sell one gun. Furthermore, most gun owners will discriminate as to who they will sell their gun to. They'll check the state of residence, and deny selling to anyone who is buying for questionable reasons. They don't want the liability of selling a firearm to someone who shouldn't have had one, no different than a gun store. In fact, it's the only business I know of where you can deny service for pretty much any reason.

No, what you mean is that the fact that it exists is illegal. If you are selling guns that are bought or made specifically for profit, not from your personal collection, you are required to be a federally licensed FFL dealer at the very least. Any time one of these purchases occurs a NICS background check must occur, or else you are breaking a federal law. If you don't and you get caught, you are looking at a forfeiture of both your license and your 2nd amendment rights for life, around 20 years in federal prison, and a massive fine. No sane dealer is willing to take that risk, and this includes all the dealers that I know. Before making comments on something that you probably have never experienced, try to do it first. Go out and try to buy a gun (a class I), try to buy one at a gun show; just make sure the transaction occurs in your state and you'll be fine without any extra paperwork outside of the state required (if any) and the 4473. Here is the form straight from the ATF, read it well. Oh, and if you lie on the form, you can get arrested for violating federal law. https://www.atf.gov/file/61446/download

Well, the second part of that statement is blatantly incorrect. It is a federal law to run a background check if you are an FFL dealer, this includes all purchases at gun shows (which has been a law for my whole life). Also, FFL dealers and educated private sellers will NOT sell directly to an out of state resident because if they do that, they are violating a federal law. To sell to an out of state resident legally, all transactions must be made through an FFL dealer in the buyers state of residence. The seller will send the firearm to the buyers state of residence's FFL dealer where they will proceed to run a background check and sell the firearm on the sellers behalf. In fact this person debunks your entire argument in one short video where he proves you wrong by personally trying to buy them himself (in Indiana going over this exact same topic).