When is it gonna end? This is getting too screwed up. Someone has to tell the gun owners they HAVE to lock up their guns. http://www.alternet.org/flo

[White Eagle]

We had a gun show just this past weekend. I wonder how many criminals bought assault weapons.

 

[CowboyBob]

We had a gun show just this past weekend. I wonder how many criminals bought assault weapons.

How nice the phallicly challenged had an opportunity to buy a pseudo penis! I'm still chuckling over the gun show in North Carolina where the gun went off and the people ran and hid.

 

[Rolyo85]

You must have misunderstood. Gun owners are responsible paragons of justice and social conscience.

 

[Kulindahr]

Your analogy is faulty, since the 'book report' is based on the chapter, i.e. the 2nd amendment is the relevant 'chapter' in a gun debate. Furthermore, the amendment is not being pulled out of its historical context. It is being applied to the 21st century, as it should be, since historically, only the core philosophy remains true, a philosophy that encompasses the whole 'book', but where one 'chapter' is now out-dated, due not to its purpose, but to its interpretation and implementation.

So you think that someone who ignores the rest of a book is entitled to comment on one chapter. That tells me a lot about your rigor in scholarship: basically, nonexistent.

Whichever way you want to look at it, it does not change the fact that todays militia (everybody/individuals) are not well regulated. This is not because government are failing to do anything about it. Its ironically because of Libertarians like yourself who take opposition with any attempt by government to get involved. You can't criticize lack of effort whilst snubbing attempts.

You're turning into a mirror-image Jack Springer: you refuse to see what's in front of you if it doesn't fit your narrative.

Please read my posts on this subject and try to make any kind of a case that I "take opposition with any attempt by government to get involved." You'll find that you are among the great majority here who are actually "snubbing attempts" -- I'm the only one proposing (extremely firm) action (and that based on the actual meaning of the amendment and the rest of the constitution instead of trying to throw it out by claiming it's out of date or something).

What exactly is there to take seriously, that you wouldn't (as a Libertarian gun supporter) take issue with if they tried?
I want you to tell me that you won't have an issue with licencing the militia, that you won't take issue with introducing a competency test, that you won't take issue with an age restriction on gun users, that you won't take issue with the ideology that having a police force that serves the purpose of the militia (with the exception of invasion which miltary deals with) makes redundant the need to organise, arm and discipline the people in general because the state does it already with their troopers.

But that isn't good enough for you, because you want to be able to use the 2nd amendment to protect your individual right to hold a weapon, despite being exclusive of the regulated membership of a militia. The police are the militia, but you refuse to accept that, because you dislike the fact that in the 21st century, the state and federal government are far more integrated than back in the day. So to you, the police are just working for 'THEM' rather than for the people.

If you want individuals to be able to hold weapons, you need to come up with some workable ideas as how to regulate them.

The pro-gun restriction argument is regulating the militia by seeking to impose strict rules about firearms.
The pro-gun lobby are instead striking down such attempts (chicago handgun ban) in favour of doing what? Nothing. Instead, all they have done is push gun use into ever more situations that continue to be abused by the irresponsible, the malicious and the plain evil.

Gun supporters don't care about working solutions, they only care about themselves.

Police are a state armed force, and therefore are not the militia. BY U.S. LAW, we are ALL the militia -- just as its been from the start.

Since you don't display any grasp of the meaning of the terms involved, it's difficult to respond to your questions about the militia, because they are meaningless. I am part of the militia, as is every able-bodied legally-resident person in the U.S. We don't have to be licensed -- nor are we given a choice; the law declares us so.

When you say "a militia", you've changed the subject significantly. "A militia", as you employ it above, means a formally organized group of citizens who have supplied their own arms, gotten training, elected their own officers, and -- the item the idiots claiming to be organized militias despise -- submitted their existence and their office list to their state authorities so that they can be called up in time of crisis (without that last, they fall into the category of a private militia, a very dangerous thing indeed; in fact, if we stuck to the spirit of the militia concept of the time of the founding, officers and leader/owner of any private militia would be automatically guilty of conspiracy to <X> in case of criminal acts of any of their members, if those acts were carried out with firearms, and liable to prosecution for treason if they did not step up to cooperate with the prosecution of any of their members for acts against the government).

BTW, the "pro-gun restriction" position is not based on "regulating the militia", it's based on shackling it, on stripping away rights. They begin with the assumption that they can do anything they please (the very thing the War of Independence opposed), and call that "regulating" the militia, when the Constitution doesn't even grant any authority to regulate it! The sensible approach is to ask, "What is the militia?", and, "What is it to do?", and proceed to -- as the Constitution authorizes -- provide for a framework to enable the militia to do just that (i.e., discipline the militia). And my proposals based on that very conservative approach are far stricter than anything anyone else has proposed here, because they throw out proposals aimed at taking away personal responsibility and instead insist on demanding very strict personal responsibility.

Here's an example: if we took the constitution seriously, local militias would be allowed armories where they could store things like -- since they're a favorite mention -- tanks. But at the same time, if one of those tanks got misused, say to attack an airport, not merely those who misused it but every officer of that militia would be legally liable, personally, for whatever damages resulted (to borrow a phrase, militia officers would be setting their lives, their fortunes, and their sacred honor on the line for the responsible behavior of every one of their members).

This is why we need a new militia act: not to "update" the concept of militia, but to set out the responsibilities of militia in this changed age. Strict storage laws for weapons not in use, including not merely firearms but ammunition along with knives and anything else with a potential military use, fall under that heading -- and BTW, that's something Washington and Hamilton would recognize as merely common sense, and be thoroughly disgusted that the Republic had come to a point where the militia had to be told to not just leave their weapons lying about unsecured!.

Keeping and bearing arms is a basic right, not provided by the Constitution but protected by it. Handgun bans and similar approaches are therefore out of bounds, because they infringe on that right. The approach provided for in the Constitution is different: to provide discipline by demanding utmost responsibility for what anyone does with his handgun, or, to come at a different angle, to require that the militia actually be "well-regulated" (in the colonial-era sense)! Leaving a firearm where anyone irresponsible may take control of it is not "well-regulated"... indeed I'm tempted to argue that so much as having firearms in one's home if there are children in that household, without providing strict and thorough training and rules for those children, is not "well-regulated"! Merely having a firearm in one's possession during the commission of a crime against a person is not well-regulated. For that matter, a good argument could be made that selling a firearm (or any other weapon) to someone you do not know to be well-regulated himself is not well-regulated.

I know I'm somewhat rambling at this point, but as I said at a recent town meeting here with Senator Widen (and got a bunch of gun folks all riled) we need a new Militia Act, one which doesn't address the issues from a scattered and non-unconstitutional basis, but one which takes seriously Congress' authority and responsibility to provide for the discipline of the militia seriously, and treats every gun owner just about the same way the Swiss and Israelis treat their citizen-soldiers of the reserves. The federal government has no authority at all to take away our weapons, but they have not merely authority but responsibility to make the militia -- all of us -- grow up and behave in a well-regulated fashion.

 

[Kulindahr]

As for that link, no I didn't read it nor will I. It's too long of a conservative issue that I won't believe anyway.
BUT, I will clarify my meaning of background checks. It is not in the sales from gun shops, it's these gun sales that ANYONE can go to and not have to obey the rules set up for gun shops. These people do not have a background check so, as I said anyone can go there. Maybe the Boston Terrorist? Someone that has just decided to kill someone and not be checked.

That is the wrong way to do things.

The idiocy here is that Congress has never taken the first step of allowing private access to the NICS, leading to the bizarre situation of gun dealers at gun shows who have used their access so a private seller can make a background check being threatened with prosecution!

Just as a matter of tactics, the NICS should be thrown open to private sellers -- it would get people used to it, and since the great, vast majority of sellers would us it, it would soon make the position of not wanting to do a background check a suspicious one.

Hell, let the NRA do checks for its members, and the GOA, and JPFO and the rest -- just let us do those checks!

- - - Updated - - -

As for that link, no I didn't read it nor will I. It's too long of a conservative issue that I won't believe anyway.
BUT, I will clarify my meaning of background checks. It is not in the sales from gun shops, it's these gun sales that ANYONE can go to and not have to obey the rules set up for gun shops. These people do not have a background check so, as I said anyone can go there. Maybe the Boston Terrorist? Someone that has just decided to kill someone and not be checked.

That is the wrong way to do things.

The idiocy here is that Congress has never taken the first step of allowing private access to the NICS, leading to the bizarre situation of gun dealers at gun shows who have used their access so a private seller can make a background check being threatened with prosecution!

Just as a matter of tactics, the NICS should be thrown open to private sellers -- it would get people used to it, and since the great, vast majority of sellers would us it, it would soon make the position of not wanting to do a background check a suspicious one.

Hell, let the NRA do checks for its members, and the GOA, and JPFO and the rest -- just let us do those checks!

 

[Kulindahr]

Henry, that's not even close to what the title of the thread says. It's about locking up the guns that are legal so kids can't get to them and kill more 2 year olds.

Seriously.

I have never been more proud of someone on the subject of guns and kids than when a guy only recently married realized that since his son had gotten strong enough he could probably pull a trigger, he needed someone knowledgeable to inspect his house, teach him how to take care of firearms with kids around, teach those kids how to behave, and be available should he or the kids have any questions. But as my roommate of the time and I guided him through it all, I was saddened at how often that gun owner said something like, "I never thought of that".

At this moment, my gut feeling is that I'd have no problem with a state law requiring anyone with a new child to have their home inspected for proper firearm safety before the new kid goes home -- and yes, for every new child, even if a couple already has a dozen.

 

[Kulindahr]

Oh Good Lord.... there are too many guns in the hands of too many people.

No -- but there are too many members of the militia who have become not only not well-regulated, but totally irresponsible.


Spur of the moment, here's an idea for a law: require everyone to enroll in a local militia. From then on, when a crime is committed, if any weapon used could be argued to have some military application (simple test: does anyone, anywhere on the planet, use that or a similar weapon in a military fashion?... and I include rebel forces), a second crime of misuse or abuse of a militia weapon automatically gets added -- and the penalty for that allows for no good time and no parole.

 

[Kulindahr]

PMSL. Sorry but the website which Durango linked to, the Justfacts one, reported that only 33% of criminals are deterred from committing a crime against someone they believed to have a gun, so 2/3rds are not going to be phased even with your firearms. That poor level of success in guns as a deterrent, when combined with the collateral damage from homicide, suicide and accidents tells a very different story.

That's revealing -- a quarter-century ago, well over 2/3 were deterred.

Interestingly, "Marine Corps" and "NRA Life Member" stickers on a house continue to deter at a higher rate than mere gun ownership -- but still not as much as they used to.

So... are our criminals getting more desperate? or what?

 

[Kulindahr]

What part of firearms homicides have decreased by 39% did you fail to comprehend.
The laws already on the books are working. Case closed. No need for more 'feel-good' legislation.

Excuse me, but the topic of the thread is proper storage of weapons. Requiring that is a matter of providing for the discipline of the militia, which is a Congressional responsibility. Since it is clear that a noticeable minority of the militia is failing fatally in this matter, new rules for the discipline of the militia are definitely in order.

A well-regulated militia is not a "feel-good" matter -- it's a matter of patriotism and good citizenship.

 

[Kulindahr]

We had a gun show just this past weekend. I wonder how many criminals bought assault weapons.

If it was the sort of rural gun-club-organized show I prefer, almost certainly no criminals bought any weapons (my fave is still a show where they provide a database of all the known felons in the state, right by the door -- a practice which has helped catch some wanted felons).

But since "assault weapon" is a term with no meaning except "I think that looks scary", there's no way to answer your question -- only questions with objective terms have answers.

 

[Kulindahr]

How nice the phallicly challenged had an opportunity to buy a pseudo penis! I'm still chuckling over the gun show in North Carolina where the gun went off and the people ran and hid.

From your avatar, I see that you enjoy a pseudo-penis, and it happens to be one that is ALWAYS harmful to those around you.


BTW, did they "run and hide", or did they move to take cover? There's a big difference.

 

[Kulindahr]

You must have misunderstood. Gun owners are responsible paragons of justice and social conscience.

Well over 99% are -- more so than non-owners.

It's the tiny percentage of us who aren't, that are the problem.












Personally, I consider them extra-terrestrials: terrestrials we could do without. Can we ship them to Mars? President Bush said it needs a colony....

 

[Rolyo85]

Yeah, the first part of your post does not apply to this world, so I guess it's all about Mars.

 

[TX-Beau]

liar liar pants on fire.

In fact "gun culture" is populated by huge numbers of conspiracy theorists, corporate stooges, hoarders, and juvenile man-children who think owning an assault rifle is going to put hair on their nads.

Sure there are people who are careful with their guns – but they generally aren't the ones who are buying the bushmaster now are they.

REGULATE!!!!!!

- - - Updated - - -

DAMN YOU ROLYO!!!!!

Beat me to it

 

[Rolyo85]

Love you too

 

[Kulindahr]

Why is it that you so blithely toss aside US law?

It's pointless discussing anything with someone who ignores what the law says, and that law states very plainly that all legal able-bodied residents are the militia -- that has nothing to do with any interpretation of anything, it's the words of the law, just like the fact that once called to federal service, the National Guard ceases to be militia.

 

[Kulindahr]

Circles Kuli, circles. You don't have to know everything about Middle Earth, in order to give scholarly commentary on Bilbo Baggins, because you get all you need to know from The Hobbit. In a scrutinization of gun rights, you don't need to be an expert in the entire constitution, its the 2nd amendment and that associated with the 2nd that counts. Your comment amounts to "you know jack shit about Bilbo Baggins cos you've not read the entire works (middle earth) of Tolkein, despite the fact that you've read everything that is about, or references, Bilbo.'

But you're saying I don't have to know what a hobbit is, or that Bilbo lives in Middle Earth.

By your approach, I don't need to know what an oven is in order to bake a pie -- I just have to know what a pie is.

The police force takes on the role of a militia in THIS century.

They take on a very narrow aspect of the role of a state militia -- which means they cannot be counted on to protect the citizens, because they can easily be (and frequently are) used against the people rather than for them.

The police force are organised, well regulated, competent.

Yeah, that's why they shoot innocent bystanders, break down the wrong doors and murder people, arrest people and invent their cause afterward, beat up on kids who call them "dude", and in general treat in contempt any citizen who knows his rights and stands on them (for example, just trying following the serious admonition of US Supreme Court justices to never answer any question at all from a police officer, and see what happens).

You're whole approach is based on accepting the citizenry as the militia.

Well, that happens to be the law, passed by Congress multiple times and upheld by the Supreme Court without wavering, ever since the first Militia Act.

It is not good enough to have stringent storage regulations though. Such regulations impact liitle if at all on gang related violence, spree shootings or domestic abuse.

If you can really claim that, you don't pay any attention to the news! The Oregonian, on the anniversary of our Springfield High shooting, looked back at spree shootings -- and it's really obvious that if people actually secured their weapons they weren't using, mass shootings over the last thirty years would have been substantially impacted, because most of the shooters got their weapons because they weren't properly secured.

Besides that, if you want to reduce gang violence, get the U.S. government to stop subsidizing it: the money used for weapons and ammunition and transportation and ever other element of gang violence is available to those criminals thanks to the US government.

You have to face facts, that the gun debate exists at all, because of widespread abuse of this so called right to bear arms (something which is itself a matter of debate, since self-defence is a true right, keeping and bearing arms a mere extension of that, and indeed, outside of the USA, that right is not extrapolated beyond the basic right of self defence).

The difference is simple: outside the US, most people accept that they belong to the government. Only in the US has the lesson that government does not exist by divine right, but by the consent of the people, really sunk in -- and we're losing it. If self-defense is a right, then so are the means to do so, and that includes the means of defense against those to whom the citizens delegate some of their rights concerning weapons.

Licensing would be a positively recieved step. But no, you don't support that. Limiting the spectrum of available firearms to an approved list?

Rights cannot be licensed. Licensing of rights is a right-wing authoritarian position.

How about we put Benvolio in charge of licensing free speech?

How about overturning 'shall issue'? I mean that doesn't sync very well with safe storage, and allows people with ill motive to evade detection, but no.

Again your approach is to penalize the law-abiding -- and, now, to throw out the rule of law and substitute favoritism and other kinds of corruption.

BTW, there's no conflict at all between shall-issue, which is a matter of protecting the law-abiding from official discrimination, and safe storage. And just how does it "allow people with ill motive to evade detection"?

If you are a responsible individual, educated and trained, you have nothing to fear from gun control.

"Mr. and Mrs. America, turn them all in!"

If you don't know which US Senator said that and can't name a prominent fellow senator who supports it, you don't belong in this debate.

"Gun control" has killed people. The versions of "gun control" advocated in this forum would have me dead and women I know raped, but wouldn't do a single thing to keep criminals from having firearms, and with little exception would do nothing to change anything about mass shootings (even V.P. Biden admitted that the measures he supports wouldn't change a thing).