Gun control, the constitution and you, let's keep it civil.

[Happiness]

I will say that gun registry's do not work. Canada tried and failed. Criminals will get the guns no matter what and at any means they can. There will never be a common ground in this issue. I do think that any online sales of guns should stop, and if it is found that a gun that was bought illegaly from a distributer directly is part of a crime, then that distributer be charge with the same crime. The American people say they own guns for protection, but I wonder if there are any statistics that show if victims had a gun on them or close by when the crime occured and if they were able to use that gun. It is a horrible thing when we hear about tragities and we just dont know what to do to fix it. The link if you read it is self explanitory.

http://globalnews.ca/news/463059/the-online-armory-no-background-check-required/

[croaker260]

Can anyone explain the republican stand against background checks and restricting gun show sales & internet sales, without doing them?

It would seem to me that responsible gun owners would want to make sure that the flow of weapons is directed to those that can legally possess them, and keep them out of the hands of those that shouldn't

As a gun owner and somewhat a student of history it is simple. The fear is that registration leads to confiscation. There have been plenty of statements from the anti-gun groups that todays proposed gun laws are "just the beginning". Conficscation has occured in other countries. and if allowed to will happen here. Hell, even Hitler got several contries to agree with voluntary gun confiscation " for the children". . Sound familier?

Therefore many gun owners take a no-compromise stance becasue they dont trust the other side to be reasonable, despite all their "fluff" and statements. The pro-gun and the anti-gn crowd comes from two different ends of the spectrum on a lot of beliefs. but the differences in opinions on guns is just too much to ever compromise on I think. Add to the fact that the anti-gun lobby lost any credibility with their thin definition of assault weapons (a made up catagory by the way) and their own demonization of gun owners themselves...these two sides will never agree. Its as personal as pro-life and pro-choice.

On a personal note, for a party that built its reutation in the 60's on civil rights...which included gun rights for black people (*little known fact)....they need to remember that GUN RIGHTS are CIVIL RIGHTS. If they protected them as much as they protected the right to vote, the right against search, the right of free speech..then they would have a lot of respect by gun owners like me. Instead they are in my view very hypocritical. Gun rights are a consitutional right, and that is what sets it seperate from every other example...such as car registration, the right to smoke, etc....

To answer the "well regulated militia" question.... This was defined as a well equped soldier by a SCOTUS descision in the 1930's, and again in the 1990's. Therefore any individual weapon is offered protection by the second ammendment, where crew served weapons (i.e. true machine guns like the M2 .50) are not. Going further back, a collection of writings called the federalist papers further discuss that the term "well regulated militia" applied to every person of majority who could bare arms.

There are some who are pro-gun to preserve the right to fight against tyranny , including by our own government. There are others who are pro-gun because they understand...like most of us I would imagine, that the world is a harsh and unforgiving place with a lot of bad people in it. They want guns for self defence.

History has it that any government that would deprive its citiziens from self defence

The reality is that they are the same argument. Guns in law abiding hands protect gun owners and their family against tyranny, whether it is tyranny from govenrment, or tyranny from the meth head down the street. And the same reality is that any goverment that would deny its citizens the same basic protections it grants its enforcers of the law...i.e. semi automatic firearms with magazines in excess of 10 rounds...is by defintition tyrannical.

A great scholarly discussion is here:

http://www.guncite.com/gc2ndpur.html

And a not quite as scholarly but equally moving discussion here:

http://jpfo.org/filegen-n-z/six-about-2nd.htm

In short, if you value any of the other rights you enjoy, how would you feel if they were taken away from you? Even under good intentions? Thats how I feel about the second ammendment as well.

Edited April 24, 2013 by croaker260

[island emt]

Steve: Like you , I am a gun owner and firm believer of the right for us to legally own them.

However I do believe that a background check should be mandatory and over the counter gun shows sales & internet sales should all be required to have it done before the sale goes through.

This is not gun registration, it is an attempt at keeping guns out of the hands of people that can't legally possess them. A poor attempt granted, but an attempt all the same.

We all know that criminals can always get their hands on guns as there are millions of them in circulation, but eventually they will go away as they malfunction and are harder to get in the underworld.

Here in Maine it is illegal for convicted felons to possess them and those who have been convicted of domestic violence can't have them either.

Domestic violence deaths are on the rise , with the majority of them being caused by firearms.

Do we not do anything to try and slow this trend??

When I worked in Hartford Ct it was a regular occurrence to have gang shootings and the majority of those weapons were in the hands of folks that would not pass a background check. a slow Friday night was only responding to 3 or 4 shootings.

[croaker260]

Steve: Like you , I am a gun owner and firm believer of the right for us to legally own them.

However I do believe that a background check should be mandatory and over the counter gun shows sales & internet sales should all be required to have it done before the sale goes through.

This is not gun registration, it is an attempt at keeping guns out of the hands of people that can't legally possess them. A poor attempt granted, but an attempt all the same.

We all know that criminals can always get their hands on guns as there are millions of them in circulation, but eventually they will go away as they malfunction and are harder to get in the underworld.

Here in Maine it is illegal for convicted felons to possess them and those who have been convicted of domestic violence can't have them either.

Domestic violence deaths are on the rise , with the majority of them being caused by firearms.

Do we not do anything to try and slow this trend??

Uhm..background checks are already mandatory for internet and all commercial sales outside of gun shows. If you purchase one over the internet, you must have it shipped to a dealer locally..you cannot receive it directly..and that dealer does the check. The problem is that the average democrate doesnt even understand "guns", much less the legal issues.... which is why the lies about so-called assault weapons and background checks caused even more mistrust on this issue. Pro-gun advocates simply (and correctly...IMHO) believed that Democrats were deliberately misleading the public on this issue.

Honestly..and this is my opinion only, of Obama had "just" gone after more comprehensive background checks on commerercial sales only..i.e. not between private citizens/family...and not tried to "take a mile" with the "assault weapons" issue, the "Magazine Issue", or the "registration" issue... If he had been moderate from the beggining instead of trying to use Newtown to get his entire christmas list..then he probably would have been successful. He is a good orator, and can appear quite reasonable.

But the truth is the Democratic party, rolling high on Obama's re-election, took the Newtown tragedy as a chance to strike back at the people they have been fighting for decades...middle class conservative republicans...and it backfired onthem. Even when they "tried" to be more moderate...the damage was done.

Edited April 25, 2013 by croaker260

[island emt]

Uhm..background checks are already mandatory for internet and all commercial sales outside of gun shows. If you purchase one over the internet, you must have it shipped to a dealer locally..you cannot receive it directly..and that dealer does the check. The problem is that the average democrate doesnt even understand "guns", much less the legal issues.... which is why the lies about so-called assault weapons and background checks caused even more mistrust on this issue. Pro-gun advocates simply (and correctly...IMHO) believed that Democrats were deliberately misleading the public on this issue.

Key word "supposed "to be mandatory. Yes licensed gun dealers selling over the web follow the rules, however there are many sales from "private" gun aficionado's [small time unlicensed dealers]

that operate outside the laws and will sell to anyone with cash. Same goes for the numerous gun shows held in auditoriums all over America. Green changes hands and the guns change hands without any paperwork filled out, much less sent in.

The AmVets hall has a weekly antiques show where they sell booth space, and have several gun sellers there moving firearms in & out of different hands on a regular basis.

We are an open carry state and have liberal gun laws. Concealed carry does require a state police background check and either be a veteran or take a 6 hr class.

I agree that some of the Dems went overboard on one extrememe as did some of the repubs on the other end of the scale.

Sticking their heads in the sand and refusing to even talk about meeting in the middle is a good reason to have term limits. one term to learn the job and a second to get things accomplished. Then poof they're gone back to the real world of working and paying taxes like the rest of us. No lifetime job on the public dole, No lifetime health benefits, No lifetime pension, No free private congressional health club where bribes are passed and laws are sold.

OK getting off my private "independent " soapbox now.

[DwayneEMTP]

It's just more political games...

I saw something on Facebook, a picture that basically said, "Shoot a bunch of kids, blame the gun. Bomb people at the Boston Marathon, blame the bomber."

Guns are just in the news. I guarantee you that if instead of shooting if I walk into a theater with a pail of gasoline and a lighter and burn a bunch of people to death, make the national news, that the next several mass killings will be done with fire instead.

Craziness...

[ERDoc]

And when a movie theater burns down tonight, we know who the prime suspect will be.

[island emt]

They have movie theaters in Papua NG?

I thought it was just dwayne doing hand puppets in front of a lamp on the shower building wall.

[ERDoc]

Good point. I guess movie theater is a relative term. If there is a fire it will probably from Dwayne doing "hand puppets" with the sheep and knocking over the lamp on to the wood wall of the shower building.

[DwayneEMTP]

Heh...I refuse to reveal my definition of hand puppet...

But no worries, no theateres anywhere near me in PNG, and when home I only see Disney movies...who could burn down a theater playing a Disney movie?