Why liberals should love the Second Amendment

[Atencio 43]

It already has. Many criminals aren't that bright for one. Second, the purpose isn't stop all criminals from obtaining guns, but to hinder them, which criminal background checks has been successful at. We just need to close up the loopholes for gun show purchases.

California requires you submit a DROS for every gun purchase yet I doubt that even momentarily slows bad guys down from getting firearms. It just makes regular people wait.

[Obama 2012 1,714]

It already has. Many criminals aren't that bright for one. Second, the purpose isn't stop all criminals from obtaining guns, but to hinder them, which criminal background checks has been successful at. We just need to close up the loopholes for gun show purchases.

Using though, you're logical fallacy - should we stop taking away someone's DL when they are busted for a DUI if the chance is that they will drive anyway?

Gun ownership is a right. A DL is not.

[slim 1,530]

i am certain there was a town/city who "required" all citizens to have a gun and crime went down there.... THAT actually wouldnt be a bad law to have

Check this out - http://www.rense.com/general9/gunlaw.htm

the purpose isn't stop all criminals from obtaining guns, but to hinder them, which criminal background checks has been successful at.

Is that a reason to add an extra "hoop" for someone to jump through in order to exercise their rights? What about requiring people to register their Bibles and requiring them to participate in a state-sponsored religion. After all, if more criminals went to church, they'd be moral, right?

As said in the article, you can't restrict ANY of the rights.

We just need to close up the loopholes for gun show purchases.

What loophole? Should we require a background check for every single sale and transfer, or only those done at a show?

Using though, you're logical fallacy - should we stop taking away someone's DL when they are busted for a DUI if the chance is that they will drive anyway?

I don't remember which amendment the right to operate a motor vehicle was covered under. Could you maybe quote that one for me?

That town is called fantasy land, considering time and time again, the total opposite has been proven using international examples.

Actually, it's called Kennesaw, Georgia.

[nab 74]

It should be no different to applying for a concealed weapons permits. Go to the county, file the paper work and all is good once the background checks pass.

I am sure Slim and others will have some BS objection to such common-sense rules.

depending on which state you're in, CCW isnt just a matter of some paperwork dearie. expensive "class" which takes time and money (not available to ALL people so that in and of itself is not a fair thing IMHO), paperwork and background checks (also at the expense of the applicant - i am blessed and live in a county who does not gouge people for extra $ on this but some arent so lucky), then after all that it expires so have to do it all again. this isnt the little $8.50 for driver's license renewal, this is hundreds of dollars. and that CCW holder could possibly save your behind when yore sitting in a restaurant or buying something in a Stop-n-Rob and some idiot comes in to shoot up the place or rob it. then we'll see how pro gun control you are.

in some states the laws are so screwy (though accepted like that just to get it passed in first place - gotta love the camel nose ) that you cannot carry most of the places you go so it's a PITA to constantly be taking it on/off, you either leave it in vehicle or you risk carrying illegally. but at least it's not home where it's doing no one any good.

and i solved some of that problem for myself... i dont give my business/money to ANY company who has those "come on in and rob us or our customers because no law-abiding citizen here is armed" signs.

/end rant

[Ban Hammer 13,508]

It should be no different to applying for a concealed weapons permits. Go to the county, file the paper work and all is good once the background checks pass.

I am sure Slim and others will have some BS objection to such common-sense rules.

but of course you think that's a great idea.

i got my first gun when i was 11 years old, and living in japan. i'm sure my dad woulda been happy to trot down to whereever to file whatever paperwork. even though it was my gun in name, i never knew where it was stored and never handled it without him around until i was 18.

also totally disregard any consideration of the father knowing whether his son (or daughter) would be able to legally own any firearms and not have that right taken away - it satisfies the need for more bureaucracy!

[Ban Hammer 13,508]

depending on which state you're in, CCW isnt just a matter of some paperwork dearie. expensive "class" which takes time and money (not available to ALL people so that in and of itself is not a fair thing IMHO), paperwork and background checks (also at the expense of the applicant - i am blessed and live in a county who does not gouge people for extra $ on this but some arent so lucky), then after all that it expires so have to do it all again. this isnt the little $8.50 for driver's license renewal, this is hundreds of dollars. and that CCW holder could possibly save your behind when yore sitting in a restaurant or buying something in a Stop-n-Rob and some idiot comes in to shoot up the place or rob it. then we'll see how pro gun control you are.

in some states the laws are so screwy (though accepted like that just to get it passed in first place - gotta love the camel nose ) that you cannot carry most of the places you go so it's a PITA to constantly be taking it on/off, you either leave it in vehicle or you risk carrying illegally. but at least it's not home where it's doing no one any good.

and i solved some of that problem for myself... i dont give my business/money to ANY company who has those "come on in and rob us or our customers because no law-abiding citizen here is armed" signs.

/end rant

i think i'm in love

[slim 1,530]

expensive "class" which takes time and money (not available to ALL people so that in and of itself is not a fair thing IMHO), paperwork and background checks (also at the expense of the applicant - i am blessed and live in a county who does not gouge people for extra $ on this but some arent so lucky), then after all that it expires so have to do it all again. this isnt the little $8.50 for driver's license renewal, this is hundreds of dollars.

I'm actually kind of surprised the democrats haven't tried to subsidize this process yet. After all, poor people have just as much right to defend themselves as rich folk. The way I see it, since the govt. is now making it mandatory to exercise rights (health care, anyone?) they should also make it mandatory to practice RKBA and have a public option firearm available to every citizen.

and that CCW holder could possibly save your behind when yore sitting in a restaurant or buying something in a Stop-n-Rob and some idiot comes in to shoot up the place or rob it. then we'll see how pro gun control you are.

in some states the laws are so screwy (though accepted like that just to get it passed in first place - gotta love the camel nose ) that you cannot carry most of the places you go so it's a PITA to constantly be taking it on/off, you either leave it in vehicle or you risk carrying illegally. but at least it's not home where it's doing no one any good.

and i solved some of that problem for myself... i dont give my business/money to ANY company who has those "come on in and rob us or our customers because no law-abiding citizen here is armed" signs.

/end rant

Here in Ohio it's been argued that criminals are going to stop robbing places with those signs posted because "guns are not allowed there."

Our biggest CCW group, Ohioans for Concealed Carry, actually maintains a "do not patronize while armed" list of "criminal protection zones" and passes out little wallet cards with a "no gun = no money" sign on them.

This is a perfect example of the "common sense" gun laws dummies have passed. "If we restrict law-abiding, licensed, background-checked individuals from coming in... criminals won't come in either." Really?

[one...two...tree 2,762]

California requires you submit a DROS for every gun purchase yet I doubt that even momentarily slows bad guys down from getting firearms. It just makes regular people wait.

I would agree that California has some gun laws that are not reasonable nor effective, but I cannot see any logic in allowing criminals to legally buy guns simply because requiring a background check is too much of an inconvenience for lawful gun owners. I'm in favor a streamlining background checks so that if you've purchased a gun within a certain time and are again making a separate purchase, a new background check would be waived. But IMO, criminal background checks as well as requiring all firearms be registered do act as deterrents as well as help law enforcement effectively prosecute criminals who use a gun to commit a crime.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

I don't remember which amendment the right to operate a motor vehicle was covered under. Could you maybe quote that one for me?

Slim, you are now changing your argument. You were making the argument challenging whether criminal background checks are effective in preventing criminals from purchasing guns. Secondly, as far as constitutional rights are concerned, a convicted felon has forgone some of their constitutional rights, such as owning guns. A criminal background check doesn't infringe on anyone's 2nd Amendment and if that is the argument that the gun lobby wants to take, I'd like to see them run with that and see how the courts rule on it. Even our 1st Amendment rights have limitations - you can't yell, "Fire!" in a crowded theater, for example. Reasonable gun laws are constitutional or they wouldn't be reasonable, IMO.

[slim 1,530]

allowing criminals to legally buy guns

How is that possible? Anyone who's not allowed to buy a gun cannot legally buy a gun. Period. We can't make it "more illegal."

simply because requiring a background check is too much of an inconvenience for lawful gun owners.

In all honesty, the background check is actually run pretty well and isn't that big of an inconvenience. However, it's still a "hoop" I'm required to jump through in order to exercise my rights and I can't support that. I wouldn't support jumping through a hoop to read the newspaper, why should I support one for exercising my 2A rights?

I'm in favor a streamlining background checks so that if you've purchased a gun within a certain time and are again making a separate purchase, a new background check would be waived.

That makes no sense at all since the whole purpose is to stop someone from completing a transaction. If you waive the requirement, you're rendering it ineffective. In order to do something like that, you'd have to license a purchaser or figure out some other way to have their name "pop up" when they tried to buy a new gun. Otherwise, they could run willy-nilly during their grace period.

But IMO, criminal background checks as well as requiring all firearms be registered do act as deterrents as well as help law enforcement effectively prosecute criminals who use a gun to commit a crime.

It's worked great in DC and Chicago, why wouldn't it work elsewhere?

[Heracles 417]

Can you imagine if someone proposed a background check for Bibles or made you register which church you went to? What about taxing works of art or only selling Van Gogh to "sane" people? Like the article above said, we don't even consider that type of thing because it's so outlandish yet for guns, we don't give it a second thought because "guns are bad."

Are you for real or deliberately being obtuse? Who in their right [sane] mind compares any of those to weapons and actually assumes they are the same.

[Heracles 417]

Reasonable gun laws are constitutional or they wouldn't be reasonable, IMO.

They have got you now.

Of course this cannot be. The thought that something in a document written nearly 300 years ago, in a totally different era not applying in 2010 is equivalent to blasphemy.

Edited August 16, 2010 by Heracles

[slim 1,530]

Slim, you are now changing your argument. You were making the argument challenging whether criminal background checks are effective in preventing criminals from purchasing guns.

Are they effective?

Secondly, as far as constitutional rights are concerned, a convicted felon has forgone some of their constitutional rights, such as owning guns.

Why is the burden on us to stop them from acquiring guns instead of on them to not acquire guns in the first place? That's like saying "I'm going to make you buy health insurance because you might get sick."

Where is the personal responsibility in all this?

A criminal background check doesn't infringe on anyone's 2nd Amendment

Really? Every time I buy a new gun from a FFL seller I have to wait to complete the sale. That infringes upon my right. I don't see anywhere in the amendment where it says, "after being thoroughly checked out by law enforcement and deemed fit."

and if that is the argument that the gun lobby wants to take, I'd like to see them run with that and see how the courts rule on it. Even our 1st Amendment rights have limitations - you can't yell, "Fire!" in a crowded theater, for example. Reasonable gun laws are constitutional or they wouldn't be reasonable, IMO.

But we don't make you get a background check in order to speak just because you could yell fire. That would be absurd, wouldn't it?

[slim 1,530]

Are you for real or deliberately being obtuse? Who in their right [sane] mind compares any of those to weapons and actually assumes they are the same.

For real. And, I believe you now see how absurd licensing a Bible would be. Yet, for some reason, you think licensing another of my rights - bearing arms - is reasonable. How is that possible?

The thought that something in a document written nearly 300 years ago, in a totally different era not applying in 2010 is equivalent to blasphemy.

Yep. We should totally do away with the entire 1st Amendment and that whole pursuit of happiness thing as well. We just shouldn't be doing that anymore since it's antiquated and we're "more developed."

Pick and choose all you want. You're just solidifying the case and reinforcing what the article said.

[Heracles 417]

Are they effective?

He's right regarding you changing your argument.

You have claimed having guns are safer, yet when homicides rates are shown to be 5 times or more lower per capita, you then turn it into a well they don't have rights.

Basically, once you are proven wrong, you change tact or play down the significance. For example, who cares about being 5 times higher per capita.