Gun purchasers may need to submit social media history under proposed New York legislation

[JonNC]

Sorry, I forgot you are not Catholic. I guess I knew that at one time. But that doesn’t really matter, since our Christian faith is similar enough on this point.

I agree.

Any provision of the Constitution can be repealed (in theory) with another amendment. The decision to do so or not do so would be based on the merits of that particular provision. The 21st Amendment is unique in being the only Amendment to repeal another Amendment.

But never has an enumerated right been repealed. The 21st repealed the 18th, prohibition, which was the only amendment that limited the actions of citizens, IIRC. All others either protect the rights of citizens, limits government power, or changes the way things are done (one could rightly argue that 16 increased government power, but that’s a different thread).
But the idea of repealing an amendment that specifically protects the rights of the individual conservatives would consider an attack on the very fiber of our culture. Religious liberty, speech, due process, the right to arms and others are all of the same category. Could we even think of repeal of protections from illegal search and seizure, cruel and unusual punishment, or slavery and involuntary servitude? A repeal
Of any of these would be an undeniable catalyst for civil war, and one could easily argue its justification. And the threat of repeal of all of these is the reason for the existence of the 2nd.

 

[Inisfallen]

The best way to defeat a bad guy with a gun: a good guy with a gun.

I would argue that the best way to defeat a bad guy with a gun is to make sure he doesn’t have a gun in the first place, but, hey, that’s just me.

 

[Inisfallen]

By the way, Chicago (and the sites of most mass-shootings) is a “gun-free” zone.

That’s not true. That’s just sloganeering.

If I’m wrong, and you’re right, show me.

 

[JonNC]

1cthlctrth:

The best way to defeat a bad guy with a gun: a good guy with a gun.

I would argue that the best way to defeat a bad guy with a gun is to make sure he doesn’t have a gun in the first place, but, hey, that’s just me.

Agreed. Now we have to figure out how to do that without interfering with the good guy’s right to have one.

 

[JonNC]

By the way, Chicago (and the sites of most mass-shootings) is a “gun-free” zone. That doesn’t appear to be working very well. Soft targets for the bad guys.

The media bias on this is overwhelming. Even after President Donald Trump again raised the danger of gun-free zones, the news media still refuse to mention this fact in its reporting of mass shootings. The attack earlier this month at Borderline Bar & Grill occurred in a gun-free zone. Unlike in 39 states, concealed handgun permit holders in California are banned from carrying permitted concealed handguns into bars. The mass shooting Monday at Chicago’s Mercy Hospital & Medical Center in Bronzeville was at a place where law-abiding citizens were banned from having guns.

Most gunmen are smart enough to know that they can kill more people if they attack places where victims can’t defend themselves. That’s one reason why 98 percent of mass public shootings since 1950 have occurred in places where citizens are banned from having guns.

How gun-free zones invite mass shootings

“This doesn’t happen anywhere else on the planet,” said California’s Gov.-elect Gavin Newsom. “We stand alone in the world in the number of mass shootings,” echoed U.S. Rep. Carolyn Maloney, D-N.Y. These…

www.chicagotribune.com

The bolding is mine.

 

[ProVobis]

(Post withdrawn)

 

[JonNC]

Easy. Have him fill out a Good Guy Application.

Or move to London.

I don’t know about London, but there are over 100 million gun owners in the US. The overwhelming majority are good guys. Most of the bad guys with guns got their guns using bad guy methods. Most of the bad guys with guns don’t follow the rules (that’s a definition of bad guys), which means most of the rules only apply to good guys. Gun free zones is a good example. Good guys don’t violate the rules. Bad guys do, and they know the good guys don’t.

 

[ProVobis]

What does it take to be or recognize a “bad” guy except for after the fact? That is probably too late and doesn’t offer a solution IMO.

 

[ProVobis]

(Post withdrawn)

 

[LeafByNiggle]

Inisfallen:

1cthlctrth:

The best way to defeat a bad guy with a gun: a good guy with a gun.

I would argue that the best way to defeat a bad guy with a gun is to make sure he doesn’t have a gun in the first place, but, hey, that’s just me.

Agreed. Now we have to figure out how to do that without interfering with the good guy’s right to have one.

You can try, but I think it will be impossible if “interfering” is interpreted in too extreme a manner. After all, even background checks in gun stores interferes slightly with the good guy’ right to have a gun. It places a burden on him to wait for the background check to complete. Yet I think that even you would agree that some level of background check at gun stores is an acceptable inconvenience to the “good guys.” So you see, it all hinges on how reasonable or unreasonable gun worshipers might get regard impediments to having a gun.

 

[Inisfallen]

Agreed. Now we have to figure out how to do that without interfering with the good guy’s right to have one.

If the price to be paid for reducing this country’s sick, diseased, insane level of gun violence is interfering with your, or my, or anyone’s, supposed “right” (a right you claim, but have yet to demonstrate, dates back to the Magna Carta) to own and carry whatever firearms one wants wherever and whenever one wants, I’m fine with that. I encourage it. I support such a solution. I will continue to contribute whatever I can to organizations that work towards that goal.

That said, your interpretation of the Second Amendment is not that of the Supreme Court. I have read, and am quite capable of understanding, Heller, and McDonald. There is room for sensible regulation.

And we’ll get there. We’ll achieve sensible regulation.

Since the gun rights fundamentalists refuse to work with sensible people, since they refuse to take the seat that’s being offered to them at the negotiating table, they’ll be excluded from the process. That’s their choice. So be it.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

I don’t know about London, but there are over 100 million gun owners in the US. The overwhelming majority are good guys.

What does that imply? The overwhelming majority of people who get the measles vaccine would not have gotten the measles even if they were not vaccinated. Yet we deem it appropriate to vaccinate against measles. There are many other examples of where the majority suffer an inconvenience for the benefit of a few. So this statistic on good guys vs bad guys all by itself is not a sufficient argument to avoid all conceivable inconveniences for “good guys.”

 

[ProVobis]

Gun bans are usually challenged and invalidated by the courts. I wish people would quit making a point that gun laws are the prime reason for murders.

 

[JonNC]

What does it take to be or recognize a “bad” guy except for after the fact? That is probably too late and doesn’t offer a solution IMO.

The sheriff and school district knew the Parkland shooter was a bad guy. The Air Force knew the Texas shooter was a bad guy. In most cases, though certainly no all, it is known.

 

[Inisfallen]

In most cases, though certainly no all, it is known.

In most cases? That’s quite an assertion.

Can you demonstrate that in “most” (and I’ll settle for 51% here) cases of gun homicide committed with a legally acquired firearm, the relevant authorities already knew that the perpetrator was a “bad guy?”

 

[ProVobis]

Sure but what did they do about? And how many others are “known” but fail to carry out their intent? My bet would be a lot more. This is a violent country as seen by foreigners.

 

[JonNC]

You can try, but I think it will be impossible if “interfering” is interpreted in too extreme a manner. After all, even background checks in gun stores interferes slightly with the good guy’ right to have a gun. It places a burden on him to wait for the background check to complete. Yet I think that even you would agree that some level of background check at gun stores is an acceptable inconvenience to the “good guys.”

The problem is I don’t hear from the gun control crowd any attempt in this regard. No examples. No suggestions. I hear “ban the AR-15”. I hear “we need a registry”. I hear all kinds of suggestions that obviously target gun ownership, and not the bad guys.
We already have background checks.

So you see, it all hinges on how reasonable or unreasonable gun worshipers might get regard impediments to having a gun.

You see, I see the “gun worshipers” in the same light as the free speech worshipers, and the religious free exercise worshipers, and the due process worshipers, and the worshipers of the protection from cruel and unusual punishment. They’re not really worshiping these things, but they darn well believe that these and many other things are necessary for living in a free society.
On the other hand, some of us don’t understand how, given the history of government, the gun-ban worshipers want only government to have guns.

 

[JonNC]

JonNC:

In most cases, though certainly no all, it is known.

In most cases? That’s quite an assertion.

Can you demonstrate that in “most” (and I’ll settle for 51% here) cases of gun homicide committed with a legally acquired firearm, the relevant authorities already knew that the perpetrator was a “bad guy?”

I’ll let you. The Sandy Hook kid had known problems. The list goes on, but if you want to play the numbers game, feel free.

 

[Inisfallen]

I’ll let you. The Sandy Hook kid had known problems. The list goes on, but if you want to play the numbers game, feel free.

I’ll take that as a “no,” that you can’t back up your assertion that “most” bad guys are “known” (whatever that means) before they kill.

 

[JonNC]

Sure but what did they do about? And how many others are “known” but fail to carry out their intent? My bet would be a lot more. This is a violent country as seen by foreigners.

Which countries? The Middle East? How about Mexico and Central America? China? Russia?
Other countries may see us as violent, but much of the violence we have is in small areas, particularly area major urban areas.