Are gun owners STILL paranoid?

From:
Urban Policy

Address Gun Violence in Cities: Obama and Biden would repeal the Tiahrt Amendment, which restricts the ability of local law enforcement to access important gun trace information, and give police officers across the nation the tools they need to solve gun crimes and fight the illegal arms trade. Obama and Biden also favor commonsense measures that respect the Second Amendment rights of gun owners, while keeping guns away from children and from criminals. They support closing the gun show loophole and making guns in this country childproof. They also support making the expired federal Assault Weapons Ban permanent.

Click to expand...

So now, it is official White House policy to reinstate the AW Ban.

Seems to me we were told there was no rational reason to express concern for our right to keep and bear arms under the Obama Administration...

I have felt there should be a logical gun tracking system in which the registered owner should have to account for all their guns if audited.

Any gun transaction should be through a background check etc. If a gun gets stolen then it should be the owners responsibility to immediately file it. May not be perfect but it is a start until a better tracking system can be implimented.

That being said I would never support a gun ban on recreational hunting rifles or self defense handguns to responsible citizens.

creativedreams said:

I have felt there should be a logical gun tracking system in which the registered owner should have to account for all their guns if audited.

Click to expand...

This is an infringement on the right to arms.

Any gun transaction should be through a background check etc

Click to expand...

This, too, is an infringement on the right to arms.

If a gun gets stolen then it should be the owners responsibility to immediately file it.

Click to expand...

Any gun owner with a brain will do this.

That being said I would never support a gun ban on recreational hunting rifles or self defense handguns to responsible citizens.

Click to expand...

So... what guns -would- you ban?
Why?
How is that ban not an infringement on the right to arms?

There should never be a tracking system, nor should there be a registry. That sort of stuff can only be used against the People, it's dangerous to allow the government to use it; not when the rights and liberties of the individual are at stake. The criminals aren't going to submit so there's no reason you should infringe upon my rights. Obama will definitely be bad for gun rights...and that assault weapons ban was stupid.

What I'm trying to reconcile is the idea of conservatives being staunchly "tough on crime" with the idea of preventing police from being able to solve gun crimes. The Tiahrt amendment sounds retarded. If gun "enthusiasts" wanted to gain a bit of credibility in my eyes, they'd do everything in their power to make sure that it was as hard as possible for known felons to gain access to firearms.

And this is coming from someone who believes we are waaaay overpoliced.

Cardinal said:

What I'm trying to reconcile is the idea of conservatives being staunchly "tough on crime" with the idea of preventing police from being able to solve gun crimes.

Click to expand...

False premise. Restricting/infrigning the rights of gun owners does nothing to help solve crime, as gun control laws do not affect the people that commit most crimes -- that is, criminals.

If gun "enthusiasts" wanted to gain a bit of credibility in my eyes, they'd do everything in their power to make sure that it was as hard as possible for known felons to gain access to firearms.

Click to expand...

Felons are already denied legal access to a firearm -- they are banned from owning them. If you have a suggestion for a loaw that will keep them from getting guns and doesnt infringe on the rights of the law abiding, I'm all ears.

Well, look, I'm fully familiar with the "if guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns" argument, and to a large degree it makes enough sense to me. Also, I'm not really in the mood to debate whether the Tiahrt amendment did or did not stymie police efforts to solve gun crimes. I'm also not going to get into the whole assault rifle thing as that one is way above my pay grade. What isn't immediately apparent to me is how any of this hampers your ability to own guns.

I am firmly against the "assualt weapons" ban for a multitude of reasons, not all of which simply pertain to the 2nd amendment.

As far as childproofing guns, that is the parents job. If they have young children, then they should also have a gunsafe and a trigger lock. If they don't do this, that sucks, but it isn't the govenremnt's job to make sure that they do it.

As far as registering guns, it should be voluntary and like Goobieman said, any gun owner with hlf a brain would file a criminal report when their gun is stolen and they should supply the police with any serial numbers for that weapon that they have. It should not be forced upon them though. If they choose not to do this, it is because they are stupid, which isn't and should not be against the law.

I am in favor of the local jusridictions having the right to regulate the sale of guns, at gun shows and such. They can create any laws that they see fit, so long as it doesn't infringe on ownership of the weapon, and only regulates the sales of weapons.

If Chicago wants to ban the sale of "assualt weapons" within city limits, they are free to do so, but if a store owner violates said law, and sells such a weapon, no harm may come to the purchaser of that weapon, because what they did should not be construed as a crime since they are simply excersing their right to bear arms.

The problem is that no federal law can ban weapons, IMO. This is CLEARLY a vilation of the 2nd ammendment, and the state's right to have a well regulated militia.

That wording seems to dictate that the state does have a right to regulate their militia as they see fit, IMO, so long as it does not infringe on the personal rigt to bear arms.

This means that the state should have a right to regulate sales and such, IMO. As well as pass laws that may require a certan degree of regulation of guns such as those regarding background checks.

These can only be state by state ordinances, and not federal ordinances, by the way I feel the 2nd was intended shown by the choice of the words" well regulated militia".

To me this implies that the states have a right to regulate guns so long as they allow the right to bear arms for those deemed qualified for militia duty.

Cardinal said:

What isn't immediately apparent to me is how any of this hampers your ability to own guns.

Click to expand...

To keep and bear arms is a right. I don't have to get the government's permission to exercise it. I don't need background checks, I don't need to register, I don't need to be tracked. The government can **** off if they think they have the rightful power to infringe upon the exercise of my rights.

Goobieman said:

From:
Urban Policy



So now, it is official White House policy to reinstate the AW Ban.

Seems to me we were told there was no rational reason to express concern for our right to keep and bear arms under the Obama Administration...

Click to expand...

Yeah...because a ban on assault weapons sooooo infringes on your ability to have hunting rifles or even handguns in your home....:roll::doh

Cardinal said:

What isn't immediately apparent to me is how any of this hampers your ability to own guns.

Click to expand...

Banning a class of guns, such as 'assault weapons' creates a restriction on the right to arms that is not inherent to that right. This is an infringement. 'Assault weapons' are class of weapons that fall under the definition of 'arms' as the term is used in the 2nd, and so our right to keep and bear them is protected by same.

You could argue that 'you can still own guns even is 'assault weapons' are banned. The obvious parallel to this is to argue that banning speech that criticizes the Preaident doesnt violate your 1st amendment rights because you can still criticize all the other parts of the government -- something I'm sure you'd disagree with.

disneydude said:

Yeah...because a ban on assault weapons sooooo infringes on your ability to have hunting rifles or even handguns in your home....:roll::doh

Click to expand...

It infringes upon my rights to have an "assault weapons".

disneydude said:

Yeah...because a ban on assault weapons sooooo infringes on your ability to have hunting rifles or even handguns in your home

Click to expand...

How prophetic of me.

You can argue that 'you can still own guns even is 'assault weapons' are banned if you want. However, the obvious parallel to this is to then argue that banning speech that criticizes the President doesnt violate your 1st amendment right to free speech because you can still criticize all the other parts of the government -- something I'm sure you'd disagree with.

Goobieman said:

Banning a class of guns, such as 'assault weapons' creates a restriction on the right to arms that is not inherent to that right. This is an infringement. 'Assault weapons' are class of weapons that fall under the definition of 'arms' as the term is used in the 2nd, and so our right to keep and bear them is protected by same.

You could argue that 'you can still own guns even is 'assault weapons' are banned. The obvious parallel to this is to argue that banning speech that criticizes the Preaident doesnt violate your 1st amendment rights because you can still criticize all the other parts of the government -- something I'm sure you'd disagree with.

Click to expand...

No....a better comparison would be on banning speech that could start a riot...the right to free speech is not absolute....nor is the right to bear arms.

Ikari said:

It infringes upon my rights to have an "assault weapons".

Click to expand...

"assault weapons" are a myth. That ban was a joke (but it is no laughing matter).

It only sought (and seeks) to demonize certain weapons for political reasons.

disneydude said:

No....a better comparison would be on banning speech that could start a riot...the right to free speech is not absolute....nor is the right to bear arms.

Click to expand...

Which is why people cannot personally own Nuclear arms.

See that is the problem with extremists on all levels. If people would simply take a more moderate approach they would help their cause much more than the extremists who argue that people should be able to have any type of assault weapon, grenade launcher....etc.....

Goobieman said:

So... what guns -would- you ban?
Why?
How is that ban not an infringement on the right to arms?

Click to expand...

Assault rifles able to be loaded with full metal jackets(armer piercing), large magazine clips, and easily manipulated to be converted to fully-automatic.

What true purpose do they serve?

I may even be willing to ban any semi-automatic rifle because what true sportsman even wants one?

But I would never like to see any bans beyond that.

disneydude said:

See that is the problem with extremists on all levels. If people would simply take a more moderate approach they would help their cause much more than the extremists who argue that people should be able to have any type of assault weapon, grenade launcher....etc.....

Click to expand...

Assualt weapons are not grenade launchers. And extremist would be arguing that the right to bear arms includes tanks and ****.

Tucker Case said:

These can only be state by state ordinances, and not federal ordinances, by the way I feel the 2nd was intended shown by the choice of the words" well regulated militia".

To me this implies that the states have a right to regulate guns so long as they allow the right to bear arms for those deemed qualified for militia duty.

Click to expand...

I;d argue:
-The SCouTS has made it clear that the right of the individual, regardless of his connection to the militia, is protected by the 2nd.
-The 2nd amendment, applied to the states thru the 14th amendment, would prohibit states from violating TRKBA in the same manner as it prohibits the federal government from doing so.

disneydude said:

See that is the problem with extremists on all levels. If people would simply take a more moderate approach they would help their cause much more than the extremists who argue that people should be able to have any type of assault weapon, grenade launcher....etc.....

Click to expand...

Define "assault weapon."

creativedreams said:

Assault rifles able to be loaded with full metal jackets(armer piercing), large magazine clips, and easily manipulated to be converted to fully-automatic.

What true purpose do they serve?

I may even be willing to ban any semi-automatic rifle because what true sportsman even wants one?

But I would never like to see any bans beyond that.

Click to expand...

The right to bear arms is not about hunting. That belief is entirely opposite of the spirit of the Second Amendment.

disneydude said:

No....a better comparison would be on banning speech that could start a riot...the right to free speech is not absolute....nor is the right to bear arms.

Click to expand...

On the contrary -- my parallel is spot on.

Disagree?

Tell me:
How does the argument that speech that 'could start a riot' is not protected by the 1st in any way apply to the simple ownership and/or posesion of 'assault weapons'?

RightOfCenter said:

Define "assault weapon."

Click to expand...

I don't know that there actually is a definition that everyone would agree on. However, I do believe that a moderate view on limitations would serve the interests of all.

creativedreams said:

Assault rifles able to be loaded with full metal jackets(armer piercing), large magazine clips, and easily manipulated to be converted to fully-automatic.

Click to expand...

Respectfully, you dont know what you;re talking about.
-ALL firearms can be loaded with FMJ ammunition.
-FMJ ammunition is not armor piercing
-ANY weapon with a detachable magazing can take a hi-cap 'clip'.
-Assault rifles are already fully-automatic

What true purpose do they serve?

Click to expand...

Any and every legitimate purpose one can have for a firearm.

I may even be willing to ban any semi-automatic rifle because what true sportsman even wants one?

Click to expand...

Semi-automatics are perfectly well-suited for any and every legitimate purpose one can have for a firearm.