After the eighth school shooting in seven weeks – some gun control proposals

Also, please remdmber, when I said that if we have them we dont have to use them, that was specifically in relation to Balbus' extreme circumstance he put forward.

 

Do you see the message we are sending to everybody by doing more of the same in terms of legislation? Background checks aren't adequate. I think the best thing to do would be banning assault weapons in addition to background checks and age limit reform, then if and when the problem persists address high capacity magazines. I don't think it's realistic to expect semi automatic rates of fire to be addressed, though I do agree that handguns are a threat. I believe we have to start and starting somewhere means banning assault weapons. Once legislation is enacted at that level we'll see what else needs to be addressed. The start small approach. You catch my drift? We don't have the luxury of appearing callous, and adhering to our traditional views of the second amendment any longer.

 

I'm not the one who brought up white male gun owners, machinist did. I'm not making this about race and I'm certainly not making it about Republicans versus Democrats, not sure where you're getting that . I know Democrats own guns and I know not all are responsible with them

 

The message we are sending you say. Are you saying that we are telling people its ok to go out and kill a bunch of people? Again, the second amendment is not about hunting.

 

There's a saying in the law, "res ipsa loquitor" (the thing speaks for itself). If people with these weapons aren't inclined to use them, how is it that all these school kids, churchgoers, etc., are ending up dead?

 

I am not talking about that. I am talking about using guns to fight government as Balbus asked about. Even though I stated that you go back to it and I have to address it a second time.

 

By not addressing the assault weapons problem, we are essentially saying it's a non-issue. I think what we're really telling people is "we care more about guns than people getting killed".

 

Those "traditional views" are the foundation of this country that have made a great country. I do not share your view if you think we have now evolved and are heading towards some kind of utopia.

 

Also, those "traditional views" were examined very closely in 2008 supreme court case Heller v DC and turns out, they are just as good in 2008 as they were when the 2nd amendment was written. Thats part of wbat makes the USA a free country and one worth defending and one that I want to live in and am grateful for.

 

I don't know where we're headed to be honest. But I think we should address this issue with stiff action, not more of the same inaction. The amount of shootings warrants consideration of additional controlling measures like they were talking about: the bump stocks ban, raising age limits, banning assault weapons (again). Our traditions intended the government to be representative of the population. Right now it seems like the government isn't adequately representing what the people want. 70% would like to see better gun control. That number is telling because there 70% isn't just Democrats. But this "traditional" view of the second amendment is barring change with the current legislative majority. I think they're making a mistake.

 

Hmmmm

That's really interesting but also false. Private, unlicensed sellers are not required to run a background check. Unlicensed sellers are allowed to sell at gun shows.

But I can assume you would be in favor of legislation closing this loophole since you already thought it was in place. That's good .That's the sort of reasonable gun control we need!

 

Its not a traditional view. It is THE law. Have you ever shot a gun?

 

Thats misleading because the "gun show loophole" is not about vendors at gun shows. Its about private individuals at gun shows. So you basically said the same thing twice, just changed the location of where the transaction took place. Try going to a gun show and buying a gun without a background check from a vendor. Not gonna happen.

 

Ok? I didnt say it was about licensed vendors, I said it was about unlicensed sellers.

You said ALL gun sales require a background check. This is false.

 

In summation, the gun show loophole is a myth. And there is no legislation that will keep a private individual from selling to a private individual.

 

An unlicensed seller is basically you and me. Private individuals. There is no way to stop that.

 

There are no "unlicensed sellers" setting up booths at gun shows and selling guns.

 

How is it a myth when gun shows allow unlicensed sellers to sell.

Right, there is no current legislation. But legislation could be passed that requires private sellers to run a background check. There is no way to enforce this at point of sale, you're correct, but with legislation in place selling a gun without a background check would be an illegal sale. So if a private seller sold without a background check and that gun was later used in a crime and traced back to the seller they would face penalties. This is known as a deterrent .

 

From politifact:

So it may be uncommon but not unheard of .

 

I didn't realize AR15s are in the Second Amendment. The Framers must have been psychic. As I recall, it starts out :""A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State..." What does that mean? Are all AR15 owners presumably "a well regulated Militia"?