Gabby Giffords to the Senate: Shame on you

I strongly agree. I dont necessarily feel that it is a great idea to allow everyone access to military hardware, but the intent was very obviously to allow citizens to arm and form themselves into military units should they feel the need.

 

Just to clarify..is this, finally, the gun control thread?

(Don't know why the lot of you didn't set one up months ago. Seems like half the threads here are derailed into gun control debates).

 

I'm convinced that you only read parts of posts as opposed to the entire thing. Military weapons have always been banned. They continue to be banned. Nobody can go to a gun shop and buy a grenade, or a machine gun, or a flamethrower, etc.

What you can do is buy a pistol or a semi-automatic rifle. The problem I have is that the nitwit politicians are trying to ban those items and the basis they are using is flawed and shows their stupidity.

A semi automatic rifle can come in many shapes and forms, however they have the same basic internal function and they all basically perform the same. One rifle can look like it came from the old west and the next one can look (key word is look) like an AK-47 (which is a military weapon). However, they both fire the same ammunition, and basically have the same magazines and rates of fires. To say that one is inherently more dangerous than the other is a ridiculous a statement as saying a 6 cylinder Honda is more dangerous than a 4 cylinder Honda because it can go faster.

At least the people who want to ban all guns are being intellectually honest about what they want. People who want to ban certain weapons when they know nothing about them, but make their decisions based on "How scary they look" are at best stupid and at worst liars. Considering that Gifford's husband is ex military I have to say that in all probability they are just liars and trying (and succeeding) to fool the rubes.

 

You are absolutely wrong about "always". 'Military' weapons were most assuredly not explicitly banned from private ownership in 1789, and they still weren't explicitly banned a century later. Civilian firearms maintained parity with 'military' weaponry well into the late 19th century. Hell, the repeating Spencer, Winchester and Henry rifles used by the Native Americans at Little Bighorn were strictly superior to the single-shot Springfield Model 1873 carbines carried by Custer's own men. All of those weapons were available for legal purchase to any who could afford them. Banning private ownership of Military arms is, I'm sorry to inform you, quite a recent development. In fact, the federal government didn't start banning civilian ownership of military hardware (as well as some non-military hardware) until the passage of Tne National Firearms Act of 1934. We've been restricting civilian ownership of military weapons for less than a century.

Of course, I'll gladly concede that restricting the civilian ownership of destructive military weaponry is a step in the right direction and doesn't violate the second amendment at all. What you somehow continue to fail or refuse to notice is that I am playing devil's advocate with the explicit intent of illustrating exactly how absurd and willfully ignorant you are being.

When you concede that the government did not violate the second amendment when they began to restrict civilian ownership of machine guns, short barreled rifles, short barreled shotguns, suppressors, grenades, bombs, explosive missiles, poison gas weapons, any firearm with a bore over 0.50 inch (with exceptions for certain shotguns and shells found to be suitable for sporting purposes), smooth-bore pistols, pen guns, cane guns, disguised firearms, pistol gripped short-barreled shotguns, and handguns with a forward vertical grip with the passage of the National Firearms of 1934, you are also conceding that the government has the right to place limitations on the types of weapons you are allowed to own.

If you agree that the government (1) has the legal and moral authority to restrict civilian ownership of anti-Materiel rifles and Rocket Propelled Grenade Launchers, you cannot simultaneously argue that (2) the government lacks the legal and moral authority to place limits on the types of weapons civilians are allowed to own. The government already does this without controversy, and argument number one directly contradicts argument number two.

Keep the cake or eat it, Snook. You don't get to do both.

 

That is ridiculous. Using your argument the government HAS the legal and moral authority to ban everything including straws as they could be turned into spit ball shooters. We also must not forget the danger that a paper clip and rubber band could cause to someone as well as metal silverware. I for one refuse to keep my cake and eat it with a plastic fork.

Let's use your argument in other ways.

The first amendment grants us all "Freedom of Speech". However, long established law curtails this as you are not allowed to yell "fire" in a crowded theater or incite a riot. Since those curtails are allowed does the government have the authority to curtail others? How would you feel about that.

Roe V. Wade- While not an amendment to the constitution, this one is probably an even better example. If I recall correctly Roe V. Wade allows abortion anytime before the third trimester. Countless times Pro-Lifers have tried to pass laws to curtail this and if not to completely eliminate abortion, to at least shorten the time they are allowable. The Pro Choice crowd has drawn a line in the sand and fights tooth and nail any attempt to change this. This is what the pro-second amendment people are doing with the anti-gun lobby. I think an argument could be made that if you support the efforts that the Pro Choice people do to protect abortion you should accept the vigor used to protect the second amendment from the gun-grabbers.

How's that cake taste?

 

Snook, I don't even know how to respond to this. You are still acting as if limiting civilian ownership of Anti-Materiel rifles and Rocket Propelled Grenades does not constitute the government placing limits on your right to bear arms. If you can't concede this, I can't talk to you because you aren't being rational. At all.

My argument is that the second amendment does not strip the government of the legal and moral authority to limit civilian ownership of particularly dangerous weapons. I didn't say a word about paper clips and rubber bands, and I already flatly stated that the government does not have the right to limit civilian ownership of an entire class of weapons without good reason, and provided an example in the post before this one. DC vs Heller upheld the government's right to place reasonable limits on firearms ownership while simultaneously ruling that handguns, as a broad class of weapons and the most popular weapon for home defense, could not be flatly banned due to the second amendment.

Regarding the rest of your flight of fancy, you only serve to prove the point I've been trying to make. None of our guaranteed rights are limitless. Speech is free, but you don't get to hide behind free speech when you are causing a panic or inciting a crowd to violence.

In the same manner, we have the right to bear arms, but we don't have the right to bear any arms for any reason. The government is able to set reasonable limitations on the types of weapons we can own. Remember the statement that I explicitly took issue with, Snook -- the one that started this little fracas:

You argue that the government would need to negate the second amendment in order to place limits on the ownership of weapons or require background checks for their purchase. If that is true, then I want my ****ing rocket launcher. The government didn't have the right to restrict their ownership when it passed The National Firearms Act of 1934.

 

Wow. This is one of the best arguments I've seen in a while. You two should stop by more often....

 

I give up. It isn't worth the aggravation.

 

IOW, "I refuse to admit defeat, but I can't come up with a rational argument as to why."

(And I agree with T2. This place needs you two to show up more often. )

 

IOW, "I give up. It isn't worth the aggravation."

There's really no need to presume to speak for him, Splungie.

 

Allow me to rephrase my comment, then:

Obviously, you (Snook) refuse to admit defeat, but you can't come up with a rational argument as to why.

Thanks, Gaear. We would be totally lost around here without your pearls of wisdom.

 

Wow, who started this dumpster fire? (Oh wait, that would be me.) Correct me if my wrong, but the law that failed would not have placed any restriction on what you could or could not purchase in the way of guns/rifles. All it would do is require a background check in order to get one. And I still don't see how that's a bad idea.

I'm still completely dumbstruck that it is possible to purchase firearms over the internet. With identity theft so rampant, how can you sell something to someone online with any confidence that the person is who he/she says he/she is. It's bad enough that this happens with ordinary purchases, but with guns? Are you kidding? This was never a good idea at any point in time. If someone had asked me if it was legal to purchase a gun over the internet prior to this law being proposed, I would have confidently stated that of course you couldn't. How dumb would you have to be to sell someone a gun without verifying that the person on the other side of the monitor was legally able to purchase a gun. For all we know, some kid could be using his parents' credit card.

 

With exemptions for internet sales and gun shows, it makes me wonder what the point is of having background checks for sales from licensed dealers - there are enough ways around it to make it rather pointless. Note that I'm not suggesting that background checks be eliminated, but rather I don't understand the opposition to checks in some circumstances but not others.

 

@Aldeth, my understanding is that there is no legal interstate transfer of firearms that is not facilitated by a Federal Firearms Licensee (FFL). So you can't, for example, buy a firearm from an online shop in Idaho and have them ship it to your residence in Maryland. They would have to ship it to an FFL in your state, who would in turn facilitate the transaction with you and carry out any required background checks, etc. There are also many state laws potentially regulating this trade in addition to the federal laws. That said, AFAIK it is legal to carry out private sales and transfers as long as both parties are within your state, though I'm not sure how that would apply to 'internet sales,' even if the seller had a physical presence within your state, as no retail sales could be considered private. But Uncle Freddy could sell and transfer a shotgun to you without the involvement of an FFL or any background checks, from what I gather, as long as he lived in Maryland. If you were buying it from 'Uncle Freddy's Shotguns.com, Inc.,' however, he could not. Regular Uncle Freddy living in Idaho also can't sell/transfer a firearm to you privately - he would have to ship it to an FFL in Maryland. At least as far as I know.

I'm not entirely sure what the failed legislation proposed to do or what it really addressed as far as this goes.

Here is what appears to be a good source of information on the issue: Congressional Research Service: Internet Firearm and Ammunition Sales.

 

^ To the best of my understanding, that's pretty accurate, Gaear. Below is how my friends who have purchased weapons on-line described it.

If you buy a weapon on-line, you have to arrange transfer to a party which holds a FFL (I think one has 5 days to provide ID and payment to the other side, who aren't supposed to ship until it's confirmed). That is, the weapon is not shipped to the purchaser's home; it's shipped to a FFL business. When the weapon arrives, the party with the FFL (I think in almost every single circumstance this is some sort of licensed gun-dealer) will call the purchaser, who then must arrive with several forms of ID and fill out the appropriate state and federal paperwork (just as if they had walked into the shop and purchased a weapon directly from the dealer)--which already includes a federal background check. The dealer gets on the phone with the gov't after faxing or emailing certain paperwork in and must make sure it all checks out, before letting the purchaser actually walk out of there with his weapon.

As near as I can tell, there really is no internet loophole.

 

^ Now that makes much more sense.

Although there's still the gun show issue.

 

Gaear and dogsoldier,

Thanks for the explanation. That does make a whole lot more sense, and makes it a whole lot easier to understand why it's allowed. From what you hear on the news when they just say "buying a gun on the internet", makes it sounds like you go to a webpage, pick out your firearm of choice, and it arrives at your doorstep a few days later. (Well, not at your doorstep - the postman isn't going to just drop it off and hope no one comes along to take it.)

As for the gun shows, that's a state by state issue. I know purchasing at a gun show in Maryland DOES require a background check. You often times don't go home with the gun on the same day.

 

Dogsoldier, that story is about buying from a licensed dealer, this legislation is about buying from unlicensed dealers. The gunshow loophole is the same as the internet loophole, it concerns sales made by unlicensed dealers, at gun shows or over the internet that do not require a background check.

"Before and after the vote, the NRA said the measure “would have criminalized certain private transfers of firearms” and required “lifelong friends, neighbors and some family members to get federal government permission” to exchange guns. The measure didn’t expand background checks to such private transfers. It applied to sales by unlicensed individuals at gun shows and on the Internet." (via factcheck.org)