Gun Deaths Now the Third Leading Cause of Death in American Children

Didn't we have legislation to keep guns away from crazy people?
And didn't Republicans just repeal it?
And didn't Gunforge cheer about it?
Yeah, I seem to recall that happening.
Huh.

The side that wants no compromise is finger waving at the other side.
Adorable.

I don't think you know what compromise means. If the NRA knew I would support a universal background check law like the one that Joe Biden tried to get passed, they'd tear up my membership card.

So you don't think Biden's bill would have been progress if it had passed?

Okay. Good luck with that.

Yeah, I don't know who you're talking about, but you never saw me cheering about any such repeal.

Didn't mean you, but there were a couple in this thread....

The demand is "universal background checks!"

I put forward the conditions under which I could support universal background checks. This accomplishes universal background checks.

But because my conditions guarantee that rights are protected and that the UBC can't be used for other purposes, the control side is unwilling to accept my compromise.

Which says their demands for universal background checks are really about some other hidden agenda.

Compulsory gay sex for Christians.

No, you aren't, not really. You're waiting to *cough* shoot down *cough* any solution that isn’t “LEAVE IT ALONE! DON’T DO ANYTHING!!!! SECOND AMENDMENT!!!11!”

The solution is the same as the solution to driving a car: Licensed, registered, and you need to pass a written and vision test to own one – or 1,000, given the wankage in this forum.

Your argument will be either:

• There’s nothing about cars in the Constitution, or

• Nobody really neeeeeds a car.

But you fraidy-cats by God neeeeeeed your gunz.

^We've seen how licensing and registration schemes are used to deny people their Second Amendment rights. It's never going to happen.

As I said, I'm willing to support background checks provided my concerns about peoples' rights are addressed.

garamet:

Personally I think the Second Amendment is a poorly conceived of relic. A relic of the day when the founding fathers did not want the expense of funding a standing army (which they were afraid of anyway) and were in love with the fantasy of gentlemen farmers answering a call to arms in a case of national emergency by taking up their fowling pieces and being led into battle by a handful of professional soldiers.

But relic or not. Bad idea or not.

It is still in the U.S. Constitution. As much a part of it as the First Amendment or the Fourteenth (which half a hundred things are based on now).

yes, because it is a complex problem. Sometimes we want things simple, but that's not always the case. This is not "paper or plastic" at the grocery check-out line.

That's exactly it. It's poor mental health, it's gang violence, it's gross carelessness, domestic violence, etc.

Fully agree.

So, stick with the status quo because That's The Way Its Always Been?

You explicitly said you were neither willing to negotiate nor to compromise, so stop talking bullshit.

What's yours then?

No, I said I would not compromise my rights, and unless someone wanted to accept and acknowledge my rights, there was no point discussing things with them. The control side must accept that there is a 2nd Amendment and it does protect individuals rights. Only measures that can operate within this context are acceptable.

I've offered a way to get what the control side says it want: universal background checks. Every condition I have placed on my support is to address real world attacks on peoples' rights that I have actually seen.

To which of my conditions do you object and why?

I didn't read the rest of your post because it started with an announcement that you weren't interested in discussing the issue, so what use would it be if I either agreed or disagreed with anything you said?

Got it. You called "bullshit" on something you didn't bother to read.

No, I called bullshit on the part I answered, which is the part I called bullshit, because it was bullshit, just as your deliberate misrepresentation here is bullshit. Let me know if you want to have a discussion. Dictating terms only makes sense if and when you are pointing a gun at me, and you're not.

To recap:

1. You responded to (the portion of) my post (you actually read) by yelling "bullshit."
2. When I asked what you objected to, you repeated your "bullshit" chant.
3. You suggest that it's I who doesn't want a discussion.

Your move, chief.

False. And you are not this stupid. You started your post by saying you did not want to discuss this. I am not going to waste my time with that, nor should anyone else.

For a guy who doesn't want to discuss what I wrote, you're spending an awful lot of time yelling "bullshit" about it.

How about you express what you think your rights are? Give examples.

Can you think of any changes that would reduce gun deaths either willful or accidental that don't compromise your rights? As an expert you should have some good ideas. (sorry if you've expressed these already in this thread or elsewhere).

Use small words so even liberals can understand.

Here's what I posted up-thread:

1. That I have the guaranteed Constitutional right to keep, buy, possess, transfer, sell, gift, carry, travel with, practice with, maintain, inherit, and bequeath guns, ammunition, and related materials.

2. That this right includes the right of self-defense using a gun.

3. That I have a right to carry a gun on my person for my own defense.

4. That my right pertains to weapons and ammunition suitable for self-defense and, if necessary, militia service.

5. That my ability to acquire firearms and ammunition is not subject to arbitrary limitations.

6. That my right cannot be delayed or discouraged by fees, waiting periods, red tape, etc.

7. That the state has no authority to maintain a database of my property.

8. That restrictions on my freedom are acceptable only if I've demonstrated violent or very serious criminality, mental instability, or profound abuse of hallucinogenic substances.

9. That any state-mandated tests or checks when acquiring firearms must be performed immediately or waived, and the cost must be borne entirely by the state. All safety tests must be vetted and approved by nationally recognized gun rights groups.

10. That firearms and ammunition are not subject to taxation apart from prevailing sales taxes.

11. That storage laws do not burden poorer persons nor preclude the use of a gun for immediate self-defense.

12. That gun safety standards shall be uniform in all 50 states and that uncommon features or unreasonable safety requirements cannot be mandated.

And here's a little elaboration on each one...

1. My 2nd Amendment rights have to entail, y'know, rights.

2. This should go without saying, but, in any event, a Supreme Court ruling (Heller v. D.C.) has explicitly affirmed this.

3. The 2nd guarantees the right to keep and bear. If my right doesn't include the right to carry, then my right to self-defense ends at my property line.

4. A right to self-defense must include the means, and, since the 2nd explicitly ties this to the militia, militia weapons are covered. U.S. v. Miller also affirmed this.

5. Key word is "arbitrary." Any limitation on my ability to acquire the materials associated with the exercise of the right must be viewed with very high scrutiny. While a law preventing me from buying 10,000 pounds of ammunition might pass muster, one that restricts me to "one gun a month" or that requires me to have a license to buy ammunition for a firearm I already own are extremely dubious.

6. Again, the 2nd Amendment recognizes a right. All fees and regulatory compliance must be looked at with a highly skeptical eye, lest they be used to discourage firearm ownership.

7. The state has no valid purpose to know that I own a gun, and such information in the hands of a tyrannical state would be very dangerous.

8. Self-evident. The state can only restrict my liberty in response to misbehavior on my part.

9. My experience is that any place a state can put a stumbling block to gun ownership, it eventually will. While I accept that there may be some legitimate need to verify that gunowners are aware of the basic safety rules, this need cannot translate into delays or difficult hurdles.

10. Placing taxes on a good apart from the same sales taxes that are on everything else is a way to discourage consumption of that good. Unacceptable as the state has no legitimate reason to discourage firearm ownership.

11. Politicians want to craft storage laws that undermine self-defense by making ready access to a weapon all but impossible. The Supreme Court has already ruled (again, Heller v. D.C.) that such laws are un-Constitutional. A person has the right to have a firearm ready to use in their home.

12. California's "safety standards" have done little but keep almost all new handguns off the market, despite there being no evidence whatsoever that any of them are unsafe. It's a transparent attempt to institute a handgun ban by making the standard difficult, expensive, or impossible for new guns to meet, and for gradually eliminating all older guns.

I've outlined a way that I could support universal background checks. Schools should have gun safety programs.

Thank you.

What sort of background would limit someone from acquiring firearms?

edit:
I think #8 covers this?

8. That restrictions on my freedom are acceptable only if I've demonstrated violent or very serious criminality, mental instability, or profound abuse of hallucinogenic substances
​

How would you establish profound abuse of hallucinogenic substances? What is violent or very serious criminality? What demonstration of mental instability would cause restrictions?

I did read it, and pointed out specifically where it was bullshit.

To establish it, it would probably need to be demonstrated by some run-in with the law.

Violence is self-evident. By very serious criminality, I mean felonies of the type that would carry prison sentences of many years.

A demonstration suitable to get a mental health professional to swear that they believe the person in question was incapable of understanding or controlling their own actions.

I'm assuming universal means gun shows, etc. Would personal transfers fall under this?

In order for this data to be queried instantly, it would have to be in a database accessible to any gun dealer, anywhere, anytime. I could see some sort of check similar to that of the credit bureaus. Identity would have to be established beyond any doubt. Are you OK with this?

You did not. You opposed much of my position but neither showed how mine was "bullshit" or that your position was more valid.

My points:

Your responses...

Said conditions cannot be arbitrary or unreasonable. They must also not exist merely to add cost or insert delays.

Pretty sure I have the right to self-defense everywhere.

I see nothing in the 2nd that limits bearing arms to an occupation.

Disagree. You should explain what "bear" means if it doesn't mean "to carry."

Arbitrary means costs or delays inserted for no compelling reason, simply to make the process costlier or lengthier. We'd have to discuss a particular limitation.

No. Guns are small personal items, not large purchases like automobiles. Licensing for a car is only required for operating it on a public road.

Owning a firearm is a right, and no license is required.

Registration is out of the question. I have insured guns without needing them to be registered. And, as militia may be necessary to oppose the state, the state should not have locations of militia weapons.

Don't know what that last sentence means.

A person can pay for additional training if the wish. No training is necessary to purchase a gun.

Okay.

If someone had to break in to steal it, you're not liable for anything.

I mean doing the crap California has done: adding "safety" requirements that necessitate guns being designed solely for the California market, or mandating "smart guns" because a single $10,000 smart gun is available on the market.

Guns are a very mature technology. If the gun fires when it's supposed to, and doesn't fire when it's not supposed to, it's safe.