Another mass shooting, church in Texas

[EvilMonkey]

I don't think it's the guns that are illegal. I think it's something about the person that changed. Like if they got a domestic violence conviction after they purchased a gun, they are no longer legally allowed to own one.

They had that one as well, I think. However they put such a low value on it that they only assigned a few people to be the ones removing them, resulting in a huge backlog.

[Iwritecode]

What something would be is the weakening of the NRA. There are far too many guns on the streets. More guns means more gun related deaths. I don't know how anyone could conclude anything else.

 

Maybe. But it seems like these conversations only occur when some mass shooting happens and nobody has come up with a way to stop those.

[RockRaines]

You are forgetting the background check you need to purchase the gun. Form 4473 needs to be filled out and sent in to get your background check, even at Walmart and gun shows. The ONLY way you can get one legally without it is a private sale. You want to make an argument for that, you might have something. However as usual, every attempt at this so far have over-reached. In Seattle they tried to enact something like that but they worded it so broadly that a 'transfer' could be me handing you my new gun to check out or try a few shots while at the range.

The current background check system is crap, and the forms are rarely enforced and sent in at gun shows. I've had a guy literally stand there and tell me it doesnt matter. The electronic auditing and records from these sales are an area where there is tons of room for improvement.

 

private sales are something that for sure should be stopped or augmented.

 

At the end of the day, the RIGHT people should be able to own and operate a gun for personal defense or sport AFTER they pass a check, instruction, and certification IMO.

 

 

[StrangeSox]

Constitutional scholars way smarter than you have already tackled that so yo get no response from me.

 

http://www.constitution.org/cons/wellregu.htm

 

This guy does not appear to be a constitutional scholar.

[EvilMonkey]

This guy does not appear to be a constitutional scholar.

Look it up, lazyass.

[illinilaw08]

The current background check system is crap, and the forms are rarely enforced and sent in at gun shows. I've had a guy literally stand there and tell me it doesnt matter. The electronic auditing and records from these sales are an area where there is tons of room for improvement.

 

private sales are something that for sure should be stopped or augmented.

 

At the end of the day, the RIGHT people should be able to own and operate a gun for personal defense or sport AFTER they pass a check, instruction, and certification IMO.

 

And if circumstances change so a person is no longer eligible to own firearms (felony conviction, mental health diagnosis, etc.), there should be systems in place to divest them of their firearms in exchange for some monetary compensation.

[Balta1701]

Maybe. But it seems like these conversations only occur when some mass shooting happens and nobody has come up with a way to stop those.

Except for the rest of the world.

[StrangeSox]

Look it up, lazyass.

 

I did. He appears to be (or was, back in the 1990's) associated with the Cognitive Studies Department at UW-Milwaukee. His PhD seems to be about cognitive issues, not anything to do with Constitutional analysis or law in general.

 

What do you think his credentials actually are? Why is this site to be trusted as a definitive source? Who is Brian T. Halonen and why does he have the final say on what "well-regulated militia" means?

[bigruss]

Look it up, lazyass.

Watch the name calling, it will not be tolerated on either side.

 

We understand that there are a lot of emotions tied to this topic, but this is a warning to anyone that if you break the buster rules we will be enforcing them.

[RockRaines]

And if circumstances change so a person is no longer eligible to own firearms (felony conviction, mental health diagnosis, etc.), there should be systems in place to divest them of their firearms in exchange for some monetary compensation.

I can agree with that.

[EvilMonkey]

The current background check system is crap, and the forms are rarely enforced and sent in at gun shows. I've had a guy literally stand there and tell me it doesnt matter. The electronic auditing and records from these sales are an area where there is tons of room for improvement.

 

private sales are something that for sure should be stopped or augmented.

 

At the end of the day, the RIGHT people should be able to own and operate a gun for personal defense or sport AFTER they pass a check, instruction, and certification IMO.

They can tell you that, but ATF finds out they can lose their license.

 

Only problem with your last statement is who decides who the 'right people' are? In NYC it is very hard to get a gun permit. Unless you are a 'right person' with lots of money and a lawyer that knows whos palms to grease. In states that are a 'May Issue' for concealed carry, the local law enforcement official gets final say. If he doesn't like your politics, your long hair or the color of your skin, he can reject you and not have to give you a reason.

[illinilaw08]

Look it up, lazyass.

 

He doesn't have a resume that I can see at that link, and a google search of his name doesn't retrieve any "constitutional scholar" qualifications.

 

Suffice it to say, however, that you can find actual constitutional scholars - even on the Supreme Court! - that come down on either side of the meaning of the 2nd Amendment...

[StrangeSox]

He doesn't have a resume that I can see at that link, and a google search of his name doesn't retrieve any "constitutional scholar" qualifications.

 

Suffice it to say, however, that you can find actual constitutional scholars - even on the Supreme Court! - that come down on either side of the meaning of the 2nd Amendment...

 

The easy way out would just be pointing to Scalia's opinion in Heller. No need to site some weird website that quotes a random dude with no credentials and claim he's some sort of super smart Consitutional scholar.

 

 

[EvilMonkey]

I did. He appears to be (or was, back in the 1990's) associated with the Cognitive Studies Department at UW-Milwaukee. His PhD seems to be about cognitive issues, not anything to do with Constitutional analysis or law in general.

 

What do you think his credentials actually are? Why is this site to be trusted as a definitive source? Who is Brian T. Halonen and why does he have the final say on what "well-regulated militia" means?

I meant the meaning. That was just the first link I found. I am sure with your Googlefu you can find it.

 

Capitalism calls.

[StrangeSox]

I meant the meaning. That was just the first link I found. I am sure with your Googlefu you can find it.

 

Capitalism calls.

 

You insulted Quin's intelligence and claimed that constitutional scholars much smarter than him have decided this issue. You even provided a link!

 

1) The link was to a crank website

2) The quote is from some random guy with no scholarly background on the constitution

3) The language of the second amendment and really the entire Constitution is far from settled among actual, legitimate Constitutional scholars and court members.

 

I'm not sure what I'm even supposed to be looking for on Google, or why your "lazy ass" can't support your own arguments.

[Dick Allen]

Look it up, lazyass.

LMAO. Looks like you need to look up this guy's background.

[EvilMonkey]

The easy way out would just be pointing to Scalia's opinion in Heller. No need to site some weird website that quotes a random dude with no credentials and claim he's some sort of super smart Consitutional scholar.

Looks like you did look it up then. Bravo for you.

[EvilMonkey]

You insulted Quin's intelligence and claimed that constitutional scholars much smarter than him have decided this issue. You even provided a link!

 

1) The link was to a crank website

2) The quote is from some random guy with no scholarly background on the constitution

3) The language of the second amendment and really the entire Constitution is far from settled among actual, legitimate Constitutional scholars and court members.

 

I'm not sure what I'm even supposed to be looking for on Google, or why your "lazy ass" can't support your own arguments.

Poor choice for a first link. I was rushed and should have looked at that one more. His points on there are still good ones. Oh wait, I forgot. You don't believe anyone who isn't credentialed in a way that you agree with. My bad.

 

[StrangeSox]

Poor choice for a first link. I was rushed and should have looked at that one more. His points on there are still good ones. Oh wait, I forgot. You don't believe anyone who isn't credentialed in a way that you agree with. My bad.

 

You talked about constitutional scholars and then gave a link to a guy who isn't a constitutional scholar. Why would you take this non-expert's opinion over any other opinion, expert or not? Why should anyone else care what he has to say? Evaluating sources and their legitimacy is an important tool people should have and use.

 

And I already gave you the easy out. Just point to Scalia's opinion in Heller for the argument that "well-regulated militia" doesn't preclude an individual right to firearms from an actual recognized voice on the Constitution. I'm sure you can find actual Constitutional scholars to make your point (go hunt through the amicus briefs in Heller and I'll sure you'll find many on both sides of "well-regulated") That doesn't mean I necessarily agree with Scalia's opinion in that case, but his word is the final say and he's recognized as someone with relevant expertise and knowledge.

 

Looks like you did look it up then. Bravo for you.

 

I didn't "look it up." Heller was a fairly recent landmark decision. I read it when it was issued.

Edited November 7, 2017 by StrangeSox

[Iwritecode]

Except for the rest of the world.

 

The rest of the world doesn't have the US constitution working against them.

 

My point is that even passing more laws may not help. Take the Vegas shooter for example. I haven't looking into it much but from what I've read, he didn't really do anything illegal up until the point he started shooting at the crowd. He purchased all his guns legally and there was nothing in his background to trigger any kind of warnings.

 

IIRC the guns used in Sandy Hook and the Colorado movie theater shootings were purchased legally as well.

 

It's possible that the answer is in mental health but then we have to have a line drawn somewhere as to who is or isn't mentally stable enough to own a gun. I can't imagine that would be an easy distinction to make.

Edited November 7, 2017 by Iwritecode

[Quin]

Then maybe the GOP can actually support mental health if that's their scape goat.

 

Also, if the GOP is consistent, I expect them to demand defunding the Air Force for their negligence.

[illinilaw08]

The rest of the world doesn't have the US constitution working against them.

 

My point is that even passing more laws may not help. Take the Vegas shooter for example. I haven't looking into it much but from what I've read, he didn't really do anything illegal up until the point he started shooting at the crowd. He purchased all his guns legally and there was nothing in his background to trigger any kind of warnings.

 

IIRC the guns used in Sandy Hook and the Colorado movie theater shootings were purchased legally as well.

 

It's possible that the answer is in mental health but then we have to have a line drawn somewhere as to who is or isn't mentally stable enough to own a gun. I can't imagine that would be an easy distinction to make.

 

Here's the problem for me. One side of the political aisle screams mental health every time there is a mass shooting. But they continue to push health care bills that make mental health prohibitive from a cost standpoint.

 

That same side of the political aisle retreats to this very slippery slope argument that any gun regulation is a precursor to confiscation of all firearms. In this very thread, Alpha used efforts by California to take illegally owned guns as a precursor to government taking away all guns. If any and all government regulation is overly broad, and universal access to mental health care is a non-starter, yeah, you aren't going to effectuate any real change to the mass shooting problem.

 

On Vegas in particular, the bump stock made the shooter much more efficient and probably led to greater loss of life. As Balta has harped on here, bump stocks are still legal and are selling like crazy. The Republican majority has not introduced any legislation to make bump stocks illegal...

 

Some proposed legislation might not have a real impact, but doing absolutely nothing will definitively have no impact.

[EvilMonkey]

Some proposed legislation might not have a real impact, but doing absolutely nothing will definitively have no impact.

If it won't have a real impact, why do it? Just doing something for the sake of doing something is crap and usually ends up making things worse for everyone else. You are then just virtue signalling.

[RockRaines]

Here's the problem for me. One side of the political aisle screams mental health every time there is a mass shooting. But they continue to push health care bills that make mental health prohibitive from a cost standpoint.

 

That same side of the political aisle retreats to this very slippery slope argument that any gun regulation is a precursor to confiscation of all firearms. In this very thread, Alpha used efforts by California to take illegally owned guns as a precursor to government taking away all guns. If any and all government regulation is overly broad, and universal access to mental health care is a non-starter, yeah, you aren't going to effectuate any real change to the mass shooting problem.

 

On Vegas in particular, the bump stock made the shooter much more efficient and probably led to greater loss of life. As Balta has harped on here, bump stocks are still legal and are selling like crazy. The Republican majority has not introduced any legislation to make bump stocks illegal...

 

Some proposed legislation might not have a real impact, but doing absolutely nothing will definitively have no impact.

I think a major issue is proclaiming that the constitution is exact and infallible. It was literally built to be a living document that can be amended as times change. I dont know how that got lost in the shuffle.

[RockRaines]

They can tell you that, but ATF finds out they can lose their license.

 

Only problem with your last statement is who decides who the 'right people' are? In NYC it is very hard to get a gun permit. Unless you are a 'right person' with lots of money and a lawyer that knows whos palms to grease. In states that are a 'May Issue' for concealed carry, the local law enforcement official gets final say. If he doesn't like your politics, your long hair or the color of your skin, he can reject you and not have to give you a reason.

I'd say the same people who decide who the right people are that can immigrate to this country...