The Attack on the 2nd Amendment Continues

There's a pretty good case to be made that the South had a reasonable chance for a negotiated peace up till late 1864, or maybe even early 1865. Certainly well after Gettysburg, in any case. If the the Atlanta Campaign hadn't been totally bungled every step of the way, Sherman would have been parked in extremely unfriendly territory with questionable supply lines. I would agree that after early 64, the Confederacy had very little chance of "conquering peace", as the song goes, but a political solution was in no way far-fetched had any one of a few things (political or military) broken the other way. IMHO, etc etc.
 
Lincoln was never going to give them peace unless it was a full unconditional surrender. There was not going to be ANY negotiating away from that position by Lincoln.
 
seggy , Your home state of NJ already requires most everything that you want to add, so i'll question how well do you think firearm regulation and controll have worked in NJ?

right now the only thing that this gun control legislation (current attempt) has actually managed to do, is massivly increase the sale of guns and ammo. Beyond that, can you show me any form of product regulation in this country that has actually worked? Seeing that I can walk down the street, buy any drug, a cuban cigar, untaxed alcohol, a gun, or a hooker without much thought, effort, or expenditure would lead me to think that regulation of this sort of thing is largely ineffective. Would you go walking through downtown Camden, Elizabeth, Newark, Trenton etc at night alone? How about Detroit? DC? Chicago? There is such a long and proven failure rate of gun legislation, that I think it borders on the edge of pointless.

Regardless of how you interpret the 2nd amendment, the fact is, Guns are already here, and they won't just go away.
 
TUCKnTRUCK said:
Seeing that I can walk down the street, buy any drug, a cuban cigar, untaxed alcohol, a gun, or a hooker without much thought, effort, or expenditure would lead me to think that regulation of this sort of thing is largely ineffective.
Click to expand...

Trying to outlaw or heavily regulate anything that average people want is always doomed to failure. Guns, gambling, alcohol, pot, whatever. When Joe Schmoe wants it, someone will provide it, and the government won't have enough resources or desire to stop it. It's amazing that people still haven't figured this out, nearly a century after the Volstead Act.
 
ATN_Pilot said:
Trying to outlaw or heavily regulate anything that average people want is always doomed to failure. Guns, gambling, alcohol, pot, whatever. When Joe Schmoe wants it, someone will provide it, and the government won't have enough resources or desire to stop it. It's amazing that people still haven't figured this out, nearly a century after the Volstead Act.
Click to expand...
Maybe I'm reading Seggy post incorrectly but I don't think he is saying that all guns need to go to the melter right now. I'm a gun owner, I've been one for almost a decade. I am not a member of the NRA for personal issues. I do however think that most people who own a gun are responsible. That being said I have no issue with making background checks mandatory. I'm pretty sure that everyone who is posting on here would pass. Why is this such an issue? Background checks in my opinion do not infringe on your 2nd amendment rights. You can still own a gun once you pass the check. If you're a law abiding citizen this should not even register on your radar. If you think that the government is going to all of a sudden find out who you really are then I'm sorry you live in la la land. Keep posting away though. This has been quite an entertaining thread.
 
ATN_Pilot said:
Trying to outlaw or heavily regulate anything that average people want is always doomed to failure. Guns, gambling, alcohol, pot, whatever. When Joe Schmoe wants it, someone will provide it, and the government won't have enough resources or desire to stop it. It's amazing that people still haven't figured this out, nearly a century after the Volstead Act.
Click to expand...
I also wouldn't put gun control into the same pot as illegal practices such as you have stated above. Not a good way to win people over when you compare gun regulation to drug regulation.
 
Andrew, the problem with "universal" background checks is that the federal government has no authority to regulate transactions between two individuals intra-state. The NRA has never opposed background checks at gun stores, or even at gun shows when a gun dealer is involved. The NRA advocated in favor of that, and that's exactly what is done today. The problem is when you try to tell some guy that he isn't allowed to sell his own property to his neighbor without going through some background check. The federal government has no business getting involved in that, and in fact, has no Constitutional authority to do so.
 
amorris311 said:
I also wouldn't put gun control into the same pot as illegal practices such as you have stated above. Not a good way to win people over when you compare gun regulation to drug regulation.
Click to expand...

You must mistake me for someone trying "win over" people on this issue. That's a waste of time. People who are scared of guns will always be scared of guns. No amount of reason or logic is going to convince Seggy that he's off his rocker.
 
ATN_Pilot said:
Andrew, the problem with "universal" background checks is that the federal government has no authority to regulate transactions between two individuals intra-state. The NRA has never opposed background checks at gun stores, or even at gun shows when a gun dealer is involved. The NRA advocated in favor of that, and that's exactly what is done today. The problem is when you try to tell some guy that he isn't allowed to sell his own property to his neighbor without going through some background check. The federal government has no business getting involved in that, and in fact, has no Constitutional authority to do so.
Click to expand...
I understand that. I think the intention of the new regulation is good in spirit. The hang up I guess I have is why do we need gun dealers? If people are going to sell these devices at a garage sale then I don't think they are very responsible. I understand we will not stop guns getting into the wrong hands, but we will be able to keep honest people honest. It's kinda like border patrol. I'm sure we can all think of a time where we could make a quick buck but think twice because of the repercussions.
 
amorris311 said:
The hang up I guess I have is why do we need gun dealers? If people are going to sell these devices at a garage sale then I don't think they are very responsible.
Click to expand...

Most gun owners are pretty responsible and won't sell a gun to someone who seems suspicious. Most private party transactions involve friends, relatives, or neighbors, not strangers. I've bought guns on the internet where private sellers were listing their guns, but because it's an interstate transaction, the gun was sent directly to a gun dealer in my state where I picked it up after a background check. The ideas that are being spread by people like Jon Stewart, that any idiot can sell his gun online without the purchaser having a background check, are just plain false. The media also loves to talk of the "gun show loophole," but they almost universally fail to mention that only a very tiny fraction of sales at gun shows don't involve a licensed dealer and a background check. If you go to a gun show, 95% of the people there selling guns are licensed dealers who are required to conduct background checks before selling anything.

The background check push is just disingenuous.
 
amorris311 said:
I understand that. I think the intention of the new regulation is good in spirit. The hang up I guess I have is why do we need gun dealers? If people are going to sell these devices at a garage sale then I don't think they are very responsible. I understand we will not stop guns getting into the wrong hands, but we will be able to keep honest people honest. It's kinda like border patrol. I'm sure we can all think of a time where we could make a quick buck but think twice because of the repercussions.
Click to expand...

How about this...you enforce the laws you already have and when that is complete then you come tell me you want more laws. Here is the problem...once again, if you make a law, law ABIDING citizens will follow it while criminals won't. You are basically making it an honor system by saying all guns sold must require a background check. Who will know if gun A is my gun or I bought it from joe blow down the street...it is up to me to have the background check completed. Ok, so this is where the fear of registration come in. The only way to know if you have followed the law is if that gun and its serial number are tracked. Other than that, what good have you done with this new law? So...no to registration which makes the additional background check law watered down and merely something people can say "look what I did to protect our kids...". Bullcrap! I am not having it. Bring me something legitimate that will help stop gun crime (which by default you would have to stop crime in general), or you will continue to get a big fat hell no from me.
 
amorris311 said:
I understand that. I think the intention of the new regulation is good in spirit. The hang up I guess I have is why do we need gun dealers? If people are going to sell these devices at a garage sale then I don't think they are very responsible. I understand we will not stop guns getting into the wrong hands, but we will be able to keep honest people honest. It's kinda like border patrol. I'm sure we can all think of a time where we could make a quick buck but think twice because of the repercussions.
Click to expand...

I highlighted the portion of your post that amused me. This is the second time this week I've heard something similar. The first was a friend discussing Obamacare. She said - well, at least with Obamacare you'll be able to get insurance with your pre-existing conditions. I then explained how they shut that program down already as they woefully miscalculated the cost...therefore, I'm SOL. The look on her face was precious. Then she said "We'll, at least they TRIED to do something and THAT should count for something!". You state above that "...the intention of the new regulation is in good spirit."

My question is - when did doing SOMETHING, regardless of whether it would actually work or be effective, start to count for something? Seriously - "Dad, I tried to fix your house but ended up burning it down." would never elicit "Oh, that's ok son, at least you tried and that counts for something!". Are we so inept that we no longer hold our elected representatives to a minimum level of competence?
 
The background check legislation that was proposed mandated background checks in private party sales when the sale was advertised in media (newspaper, craigslist, etc) but not for just sales between friends or neighbors or family members.

Additionally, Antonin Scalia believes that the federal government has the constitutional authority to regular intrastate commerce vis a vis federal drug laws vs state legal marijuana laws, even if the marijuana is grown, sold and consumed inside one state. The court as a whole has indicated pretty broad powers in this regard and seemed to say that participating in intrastate commerce can effect interstate commerce therefore it is regulatable. It is kind of silly, but this is the basis for the constitutionality of many of our laws. I think that the court would say that the background check provision is legal because by advertising you're affecting commerce on an interstate basis even if you only intended for your advertisement to be seen by people inside your state.
 
ATN_Pilot said:
Most gun owners are pretty responsible and won't sell a gun to someone who seems suspicious. Most private party transactions involve friends, relatives, or neighbors, not strangers. I've bought guns on the internet where private sellers were listing their guns, but because it's an interstate transaction, the gun was sent directly to a gun dealer in my state where I picked it up after a background check. The ideas that are being spread by people like Jon Stewart, that any idiot can sell his gun online without the purchaser having a background check, are just plain false. The media also loves to talk of the "gun show loophole," but they almost universally fail to mention that only a very tiny fraction of sales at gun shows don't involve a licensed dealer and a background check. If you go to a gun show, 95% of the people there selling guns are licensed dealers who are required to conduct background checks before selling anything.

The background check push is just disingenuous.
Click to expand...
You're right. I agree with your statements but I also think that the regulation will not make it harder for law abiding citizens to acquire a gun. You don't have to agree or disagree with me. I'm just looking from the outside and occasionally ask questions. I honestly could care less about the issue when we have much bigger fish to fry. I think we should legalize marijuana before we go after background checks on gun sales. I think the trickle down effect will take care of a lot of gun violence. That's just me though.
 
WacoFan said:
I highlighted the portion of your post that amused me. This is the second time this week I've heard something similar. The first was a friend discussing Obamacare. She said - well, at least with Obamacare you'll be able to get insurance with your pre-existing conditions. I then explained how they shut that program down already as they woefully miscalculated the cost...therefore, I'm SOL. The look on her face was precious. Then she said "We'll, at least they TRIED to do something and THAT should count for something!". You state above that "...the intention of the new regulation is in good spirit."

My question is - when did doing SOMETHING, regardless of whether it would actually work or be effective, start to count for something? Seriously - "Dad, I tried to fix your house but ended up burning it down." would never elicit "Oh, that's ok son, at least you tried and that counts for something!". Are we so inept that we no longer hold our elected representatives to a minimum level of competence?
Click to expand...
I think it should be a single payer healthcare program. I agree that obamacare missed the point. It did open up the ability to take care of an aging country.

I'm glad I could amuse you. I'll try and think of another way to say it from now on.
 
SpiraMirabilis said:
The background check legislation that was proposed mandated background checks in private party sales when the sale was advertised in media (newspaper, craigslist, etc) but not for just sales between friends or neighbors or family members.
Click to expand...

That was the "compromise" version that was eventually reached, but the gun phobics were quite unhappy with it. They wanted it to cover every sale. Either way, it's unacceptable. Two private citizens selling legal private property should not involve the federal government.

Additionally, Antonin Scalia believes that the federal government has the constitutional authority to regular intrastate commerce
Click to expand...

Yes, and Antonin Scalia also believes that the Voting Rights Act is antiquated. I think you know what I think of Antonin Scalia's opinions.
 
Seggy, the latest reports show that gun shows across the nation are experiencing all-time record turnouts. In Syracuse, a gun show had a two-hour wait just to get in the door. And that was AFTER the gun legislation failed miserably in the Senate.

The NRA and the gun manufacturers should be thanking you and all of your gun phobic pals. You've done more to spread the proliferation of firearms in this country over the past five months than the NRA and the gun manufacturers could have ever dreamed of doing on their own over a period of years, let alone months.
 
I'd say it is more of the phobias the right wing have against our government (BUY GOLD FOR THE UPCOMING TAKEOVER BY THE FRENCH AND COMMUNIST EUROPEANS) moreso than the gun legislation.

Also when you say failed miserably, a majority voted for the law there...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top