Virginia Beach mass shooting

[JonNC]

My point, as you can clearly read above is that guns and white supremacy are linked in the US. All the “ergos” are your points. Please don’t confuse my points with what you extrapolate from them. It would be just as irresponsible to claim “supporting the second amendment is” white supremacist as it is to claim that Democrats are primarily responsible for white supremacy.

If you read the Heller and MacDonald decisions, you can clearly see the Anti-slavery movement defended the 2nd. It was the Democrats who tried to keep arms away from American blacks.

There have been three responses: ignoring my point entirely, claiming that Democrats caused white supremacy and Republicans are the cure,

Were the cure. Republicans, as a historic fact, fought against slavery and later segregation, and these were defended by Democrats.
The history of the right to bear arms long precedes the American republic. To claim that the right is somehow a fabrication of white supremacy is not supported by the obvious evidence. The fact that Democrats in the south, and later in cities such as Chicago, attempted to prevent blacks from exercising their rights, the 2nd among them, is also obvious from history.

 

[JonNC]

So. When I asked what we’ll be doing nothing or arguing about guns, I see there was a decision made. Gee. How hopeful. Same time, same place? Just what I thought.

So, make a suggestion on what should be done to prevent people from breaking the law regarding already illegal use of firearms, that doesn’t limit or infringe on the constitutionally protected inherent individual right to keep and bear arms for tens of millions of civilians who abide by the law.

 

[DENNYINMI]

I’ve given good ones above, a big one is there is no hand me downs with guns. Junior needs to obtain the right to own one in the same way that Uncle did, he’s background checked. A tighter scrutiny on mental health assessments, there is no automatic constitutional right to own a gun if you’re a danger to society. That would include the evaluation for PTSD upon return home from active duty, no guns!~

Basic common sense laws with guns make sense. Every constitutional right that has the capability of harming someone has no choice but to be circumvented with regulation. You can’t uphold a constitutional right when it is not subordinate to responsibility by taking away someone else’s. It is also a fundamental truth that when the people give their consent to the government to govern them, they have entrusted that government with the protection of their safety and happiness.

 

[Theo520]

I’ve given good ones above, a big one is there is no hand me downs with guns. Junior needs to obtain the right to own one in the same way that Uncle did, he’s background checked. A tighter scrutiny on mental health assessments, there is no automatic constitutional right to own a gun if you’re a danger to society. That would include the evaluation for PTSD upon return home from active duty, no guns!~

Why do you think this is a systemic problem, that guns are handed from a legal owner to another family member that isn’t allowed to own, likely due to felony? I’ve seen no evidence this is a problem. Instead, it’s family members giving a gun to another person who is allowed to practice their 2nd amendment rights, not someone prone to murder.

I suspect you can’t support the need and are trying to fix a problem that doesn’t exist.

Basic common sense laws with guns make sense. Every constitutional right that has the capability of harming someone has no choice but to be circumvented with regulation. You can’t uphold a constitutional right when it is not subordinate to responsibility by taking away someone else’s. It is also a fundamental truth that when the people give their consent to the government to govern them, they have entrusted that government with the protection of their safety and happiness.

We already have common sense gun laws, our issue is with enforcement of existing laws, with people breaking them.

No, the Govt is not legally responsible for our protection, safety, and happiness. That expectation is not achievable.

 

[DENNYINMI]

I suspect you can’t support the need and are trying to fix a problem that doesn’t exist.

Once again, already talked about above. One of the biggest problems is that most states don’t regulate “hand me downs”…The information is out there.

You’re addressing right now a problem too, and by asking me to repeat something already addressed you did a wonderful job Theo of proving it.

No one wants to listen to the other, so I’ll tell you this…Why don’t we agree that the uselessness of the lives lost was a tragedy, and may the best man win in the war on a violent out of control gun culture.

Peace.

 

[billsherman]

If you read the Heller and MacDonald decisions, you can clearly see the Anti-slavery movement defended the 2nd.

Supreme Court opinions aren’t works of history either. They are works of political argumentation meant to defend political positions. They sometimes make pretenses of being historical scholarship, but there is a reason no professional historian uses them as source material (unless they are writing legal history).

White supremacy is an American problem. It is neither a Democratic problem nor a Republican problem. I’m not aware of a historian who argues otherwise. It’s been nice going back and forth here, but so not to appear like I’m rudely ignoring you, I’ll let you know I’m bowing out of the thread now. I think we’ve gone further than we should have down this circular path. Stay well.

 

[FirstFiveEighth]

Explain to me how the right to self defense as written in the Constitution is a racist promotion of white supremacy. You can’t do it because it is not true. Now what exactly is your reasoning in repeating ad nauseam that the second amendment is closely linked to White Supremacy? What has that got to do with an inherent right to self defense? I’d like to know why you think this “link” is important. Saying “gun rights are linked to white supremacy” is not a point, it is a statement. What is the point of your statement. We’d like to know. Not have you repeat “historians” at us again.

I think you will find that the only racism linked with the second amendment is racists trying to use gun control to keep firearms out of the hands of black people. Which is anti-second amendment.

 

[FirstFiveEighth]

Once again, already talked about above. One of the biggest problems is that most states don’t regulate “hand me downs”…The information is out there.

You are going to have to demonstrate that “hand me downs” are used to commit crime on any kind of consistent basis for this to even be an issue. How exactly is this a big problem? How many murders are committed with “hand me downs”? I’d bet it’s an astronomical number less than firearms that are stolen or even purchased legally. There are millions of “hand me down” firearms in this country. Show me one single case where an inherited firearm was used to commit a mass murder. You are then going to have to demonstrate how this person should have been unable to possess a firearm legally because they would not have passed a background check.

 

[DENNYINMI]

You are then going to have to demonstrate how this person should have been unable to possess a firearm legally because they would not have passed a background check.

I need to prove nothing. Once again common sense prevails.

I wouldn’t give a gun to a family member if my life depended on it, because if anything goes wrong (we’re talking guns so there is a likelihood it could and that is understood by ALL responsible gun owners) and that gun is registered to me…guess what?

Responsible gun owners know the answer to that and will not take the chance. If I have to go through a clearance, so do you my child. It protects us both.

 

[Rockoh22]

A long time ago I had a friend who owned many guns. One day he came to work, and was extremely mad at his wife, to the point that he said. I left the house, because if I stay I will smack her, and this will be grounds to take my guns.

 

[upant]

The strict gun laws created a new more healthy playing field. No auto and extremely restricted semi autos allowed at all in private hands. No large capacity magazines. No unregistered guns tolerated or crime involving guns and resulting in mandatory jail time. Require weapons licence from police which must be renewed and reassessed like a drivers licence. The effect being that the number of guns in the community is severely reduced.

pleased explain the gun problem in melbourne, it is as bad as some usa cities

Common sense is lost on some.

mostly on the gun control crowd. you can’t stop someone intent on killing someone else by eliminating just one tool.

they don’t see (or ignore) the self-defense side of gun ownership.

It is also a fundamental truth that when the people give their consent to the government to govern them, they have entrusted that government with the protection of their safety and happiness.

the government has no duty to protect you

that gun is registered to me…guess what?

does your state have a gun registry?

Responsible gun owners know the answer to that and will not take the chance. If I have to go through a clearance, so do you my child. It protects us both.

don’t you know your child? you would know whether they are responsible or not. a mandated check adds nothing the parent doesn’t already know about the offspring. if a parent wants to give a gun to his bad offspring a law won’t stop him.

 

[Theo520]

Once again, already talked about above. One of the biggest problems is that most states don’t regulate “hand me downs”…The information is out there.

You failed to show it’s a problem.
Or is it that you think anything not regulated is a BIG PROBLEM?

I agree it’s not specially regulated, just don’t agree it’s a big problem.

So, please back up your claim that it’s a problem source.

 

[FirstFiveEighth]

If you are going to advocate putting a government agency between every single firearms transaction, you absolutely need to demonstrate why it is necessary. If you want your proposition to be taken seriously that is. There is no evidence placing background checks for family firearms would prevent any crimes because inherited firearms are used no more frequently, in fact probably less so, than legal or stolen firearms. The second amendment is a constitutional right so restrictions have to pass a high bar.

The law you propose interferes with basic property and estate rights to boot. Similar laws have passed in states like Oregon, requiring anyone to transfer a firearm in the presence of law enforcement or an FFL holder and document it. Even to lend a firearm to go to the range. This treats all citizens as dangerous criminals and is an undue burden on a Constitutional right. You would not accept such restrictions for anything else that is not even Constitutionally protected. What if you had to have a certified transfer to let your teenager take your car to the grocery store every single time? And if you didn’t it was a felony? What if you couldn’t bring a cooler of beer to a get together without having it inspected and certified by the police or a licensed alcohol dealer first, or else be a felon? Cars and alcohol kill far more people than inherited firearms ever will. Such laws ignore all normal human interaction and activity. Stop treating the second amendment like a pretend right that we have to be granted a privilege to access.

Background checks for inherited firearms are nothing more than a mechanism for the state to confiscate legal firearms once the owner is deceased, as we can see in the state of California with their ridiculous new gun laws.

 

[MidwestGuy]

I wouldn’t give a gun to a family member if my life depended on it

My kid has his own guns and had to go through all the red tape to get them. Are you saying that he should have to go through the same red tape if I give him one of my guns?

because if anything goes wrong (we’re talking guns so there is a likelihood it could and that is understood by ALL responsible gun owners)

What is the likelihood that something could go wrong?

 

[F_Marturana]

If I sell my house or my car to my son, the title needs to be registered at least.

He wouldn’t be able to drive the car without a license.

 

[Guinness]

If I sell my house or my car to my son, the title needs to be registered at least.

That’s so the state can tax the property or assess usage fees. If you sell your son a knife, a sword, a bow and arrows, a chainsaw, or nunchuks, they don’t need to be, because you don’t have to pay annual taxes or use fees on weapons.

 

[Ender]

So, are guns the problem, or are they the way the problem is manifested? In England, and London in particular, I understand they are regulating the carrying of knives because of all the knife attacks. Are knives really the problem?

Before we can solve “the problem” it would be useful to ascertain what exactly the problem is, and simply assuming it is “guns” is not helpful. Data on mass shootings in the US are available and have been collected. What they show is that prior to the 70’s every decade had fewer than 10. In the 50’s there was only one. Guns were ubiquitous then, and had vastly fewer restrictions. Since then the number of mass shootings has risen dramatically.

It is not the mere existence of guns that has led to the carnage we are seeing now, and while reasonable gun controls are valid they won’t address the underlying cause, which surely lies somewhere else.