Gun Carrying Catholics Armed

[PetraG]

Well, if the people think they can amend the constitution, then let’s see them do it. We both know that won’t happen. Until then, the issue of government infringement upon already established rights will remain to be addressed by the people. Indeed, it is being addressed as we speak.

I don’t want to see the Constitution amended, but I don’t “know that won’t happen.” I think it would be less successful than Prohibition was, but that hardly means it won’t be tried.

There are no rights that are absolute and which carry no responsibilities. If we keep seeing private citizens ambushing crowds of other citizens and committing mass executions, I think there will be a “temperance movement” coming. Don’t assume you are too old to live to see it, either.

 

[Escabrosa]

Thanks, your approval means everything.

Sarcasm aside, personal responsibility and voluntary compliance with informal social controls can be very effective in maintaining a cohesive and peaceful society. In fact, I would say they’re more effective than most formal controls, though those are necessary and effective if applied conservatively.
If you think about it, Christianity stresses voluntary compliance over coercion and the Catholic social teaching of subsidiarity has been very effective when necessarily applied.

 

[TheOldColonel]

I assure you, the Old Colonel is infinitely older than you would ever believe.

 

[PetraG]

I assure you, the Old Colonel is infinitely older than you would ever believe.

Yes, well, let’s hope no one young enough to be your grandchild ever lives to see the right to bear arms written out of the Constitution. Let us not assume that advocating for all rights and no responsibilities couldn’t provoke such an experiment, though.

 

[JanSobieskiIII]

That isn’t just something legal that someone doesn’t like. That is a feature of the way a law is written that provides a means of evading the intention of the law. There is a big difference.

So a law written with the intention of not requiring private individuals to conduct a background check, and to only require business entities engaged in commerce to conduct background checks would not be defined as a loophole.

 

[PetraG]

So a law written with the intention of not requiring private individuals to conduct a background check, and to only require business entities engaged in commerce to conduct background checks would not be defined as a loophole.

The intention of the law was to keep people prohibited from buying guns from buying them. The loopholes are there at the behest of those who are more concerned about convenience than they are about being responsible about who they sell their weapons to. (I should say, by people whose constituients are more concerned about not being inconvenienced than they are about being provided a way to be as responsible as possible as they exercise their rights. If they were concerned about being responsible gun owners, they’d want the government to make information about those who have lost their right to own a weapon as easily-accessible as possible.)

 

[JanSobieskiIII]

Where did you get the idea that private transactions cannot be regulated just because someone doesn’t have a business license?

In the realm of firearms, there is currently no federal law which requires individuals to conduct background checks when they sell a gun, most states also do not have a law requiring but some do.

The ability to require stores to do so is justified under the commerce clause.

’m saying that if someone prohibited from buying a gun gets one and the authorities can show they bought it from you, you ought to have some explaining to do

If you knowingly sell a gun to a felon or other prohibited person you will be charged with a crime.

If you have free access to a database

The database that doesn’t even work because the feds don’t prosecute people who attempt to buy guns illegally?

Most people trying to buy a gun illegally are never prosecuted, U.S. Senator Kelly Ayotte says

Before Congress enacts any new gun control laws, the nation’s law enforcement officers and courts should better enforce

www.politifact.com

To achieve your goals we’d have to go ahead and agree to police state level privacy invasions. I will not support that.

 

[JanSobieskiIII]

The loopholes are there at the behest of those who are more concerned about convenience than they are about being responsible about who they sell their weapons to.

No it’s mostly just that for the majority of the country it’s really a non issue.

https://crimeresearch.org/2017/04/number-murders-county-54-us-counties-2014-zero-murders-69-1-murder/

 

[PetraG]

In the realm of firearms, there is currently no federal law which requires individuals to conduct background checks when they sell a gun, most states also do not have a law requiring but some do.

The ability to require stores to do so is justified under the commerce clause.

If you knowingly sell a gun to a felon or other prohibited person you will be charged with a crime.

How is it so bad that “knowingly” requires exercising the diligence to check a list of people the courts have barred from buying or owning weapons before selling? I don’t see how there is a right to have your ignorance protected. If you can say, “listen, here is evidence I ran the person’s information before selling,” then there is evidence that you made every reasonable effort to know if it was OK and went on the best information you had.

Just between you and me, why would you not want to do that? Any particular reason you wouldn’t want to check to see if some stranger is prohibited from buying a gun? Anything particularly threatening to your liberty to have a nationwide list of people with court decisions against them?

 

[PetraG]

No it’s mostly just that for the majority of the country it’s really a non issue.

What do you think the murder rate was at Thurston High School in the 1996-1997 school year?
How about Umpqua Community College during the 2014-2015 school year?
I’d been to Clackamas Town Center a good many times; never crossed my mind that someone might walk in with a long gun and shoot the place up. I tell you what, though: every school in the neighborhood has a lot better security than it once did.
I could go on with Columbine and Sandy Hook and so on, but I think you can see why so many people aren’t comforted by the murder rate statistics.

 

[PetraG]

Donating to the NRA doesn’t count as charitable giving. Neither does donating to Trump. Take that away and the “liberals” have once again won!

Most people don’t want to make contributions to political lobbies tax deductible.

 

[JanSobieskiIII]

Frankly, because it’s just a band aid. It wouldn’t be significantly helpful to prevent any crime.

And again, if people decide to ignore the law, there would be no way to enforce it without privacy violations.

Let’s say billy has 5 guns. He decides to sell one to Frank. They decide to skip doing your background check.

There is no way for anyone to be any the wiser, unless Frank commits a crime and gets caught.

And even then, unless Billy bought the gun new, there’s no way to prove he even sold it to Frank. If he did buy it new and they trace it back a simple “oh snap, must have been stolen and I didn’t know it, been a long time since I shot that gun” covers that

Unless you want to start inventorying the entire nations gun collections.Which would violate the 4th amendment.

 

[TheOldColonel]

Indeed. I fully intend to be around the day the sun finally burns out. Beyond that, I really have no definite plans. My schedules pretty much open.

 

[TheOldColonel]

The two main presuppositions behind the argument for more and more gun control are the foolish ideas that criminals and the criminally insane will follow such laws and that government is actually competent to enforce such laws. Neither has proven to be true.

 

[Escabrosa]

You gotta wonder how compliant folks would be if there were a repeal of the 2nd Amendment and guns were banned similarly to the UK or Australia. I’m thinking it would be similar to booze in the prohibition era, as someone else mentioned.
Years ago, while in the military, I was part of a humanitarian relief mission in Northern Iraq. We helped out in a Kurdish refugee camp right on the border of Turkey. One day I heard a commotion, and when I arrived there were half a dozen Kurds from a local Turkish village about to kill one of the refugees. He had stolen something from their village, I think food. Me and a couple of my buddies intervened and helped them peacefully iron things out.
The thing was, even thought Turkey has some pretty strict gun laws, these villagers were very well armed with AKs. I don’t think they were in compliance with local gun laws.

 

[JanSobieskiIII]

Repealing the 2nd amendment and doing something similar to the UK and Australia would absolutely result in a civil war. It would be devastating

 

[TheOldColonel]

I prefer to be addressed as “Colonel” or “Sir.” I feel I’ve earned it.

 

[pnewton]

Because it’s not the governments business.

…until a bunch of people are killed, then the fingers always point toward some form of government; the feds, the police, the school.

Repealing the 2nd amendment and doing something similar to the UK and Australia would absolutely result in a civil war. It would be devastating

I think you are right. It would be devastating and something I would never support. However, this post does point out that the idea that gun owners are mostly law-abiding is a myth. Like most, they obey the laws they agree with, and would show not loyalty to the rule of law if the Second Amendment was lawfully repealed, not that it will ever happen.

 

[JanSobieskiIII]

…until a bunch of people are killed, then the fingers always point toward some form of government; the feds, the police, the school.

The only one I’ve blamed on the feds was parkland because they really dropped the ball.

I’m content with just accepting the risk of shootings to maintain current firearm laws. Or get existing ones repealed if possible.

As far as being law abiding, there’s a difference between obeying a just law and letting a fundamental freedom be legislated away unjustly.

 

[mrsdizzyd]

However, this post does point out that the idea that gun owners are mostly law-abiding is a myth. Like most, they obey the laws they agree with, and would show not loyalty to the rule of law if the Second Amendment was lawfully repealed, not that it will ever happen.

Can you add a qualifier to this? You are getting a very skewed view of what a portion of gun owners believe.

America’s Complex Relationship With Guns

Americans have broad exposure to guns, whether they personally own one or not. About seven-in-ten say they have fired a gun at some point and 42% currently live in a gun-owning household.

www.pewresearch.org

As you can see from this in-depth poll, gun owners are not a monolithic group. There is wide disagreement on what is or is not pro 2A. The vast majority support some level of common sense gun control.

As with most things, the most diehard scream the loudest.