• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Two simple measures to cut child shootings.

goldkam said:
I am referring to children's safety in relation to firearms...hence the title of the forums is "TWO SIMPLE MEASURES TO CUT CHILD SHOOTINGS"
I can create another forum if you wish to discuss the other topic in more depth.......

That is the way you can misconstrue the purpose of individuals with no such evidence. I am interested in reducing gun use, with the primary aim of reducing gun injury and gun deaths.

What is you opinion to reduce child deaths by firearm?
Click to expand...

Why do you ask my opinion when you are not interested in it?
 
goldkam said:
I am referring to children's safety in relation to firearms...hence the title of the forums is "TWO SIMPLE MEASURES TO CUT CHILD SHOOTINGS"
I can create another forum if you wish to discuss the other topic in more depth.......

That is the way you can misconstrue the purpose of individuals with no such evidence. I am interested in reducing gun use, with the primary aim of reducing gun injury and gun deaths.
Click to expand...

Are you focused on reducing all gun use, including legal gun use, or just illegal gun use?

What is you opinion to reduce child deaths by firearm?
Click to expand...

1. Federal funding for Project Childsafe.
2. Tax breaks for gun safe purchases.
3. Education in schools for gun safety.
4. More PSAs on gun storage safety.
 
TurtleDude said:
those countries' laws are unconstitutional in the USA, wouldn't work with our borders or culture and we get the fact that liberals find the voting patterns of pro gun advocates to be problematic. Legal gun owners are a minuscule problem in the USA and on how whole are far more beneficial to our law and order than not.
Click to expand...

Funny thing about those countries with strict gun laws. Do you ever notice who they call when the battleships are headed their way?

It's fairly well established that one of the reasons Japan didn't invade mainland US was because of the preponderance of civilian owned firearms and a citizenry who knew how to use them.
 
Rucker61 said:
"Common sense gun laws" must be Constitutional, effective, enforceable and would be enforced here in the United States of America. The laws that other countries impose on their citizens don't necessarily meet these conditions.

Do you feel that laws against straw purchases should be a crime? That laws against lying to the government in order to buy a gun as a prohibited person should be a crime? I do, but neither of these laws are enforced worth a darn. Do you feel that the government should ban and collect "assault weapons"? Handguns? A law allowing these would not be Constitutional.



Do you deny the failure of strict gun control in countries like Russia and Mexico? Do you realize that Japan's gun control began four centuries ago where the mere possession of a firearm was a capital offense?



The US government is not empowered to ban and confiscate firearms in common use for lawful purposes. There is no other way to reduce the number of firearms.

If the number of firearms is the issue, what is the homicide rate per number of firearms in each of those countries?
Click to expand...


1. The Constitutional ideals are fluid in nature, hence the reason for the terming of amendments. Thus the idea of "common sense gun laws" depends upon those interpreting it and those who are to be the judge of its effectiveness and level of applicability.

Despite this however "common sense" in the general sense does not apply what is constitutional, effective etc.. It is the view/judgement held by the common people (the world). Apply the basic principles of etymology of the word "common sense" the US's laws relating to firearms exercise little common sense based on the collective global view.

You don't want them to meet the conditions. Anything could meet the conditions, it relates to the interpretation of the proposition put forth.

2. I believe comparing straw and firearms in quite nonsensical. Additionally I believe there should be the significant reduction in firearms through stricter legislation and banning. To extend on your point it greatly depends on the time and interpretation on certain rulings. United States v. Miller (1939) would be considered unconstitutional through your insight, yet was ruled against the Second Amendment and in favour of the National Firearms Act.

3. Russia's firearm laws have not failed, I believe they are just inadequate in nature. Better than the US however. Same goes for Mexico, inadequate. So no I don't believe there is a failure. Nor do I agree that it is strict gun laws, you have morphed and manipulated the gun laws to "look strict" when you are able to obtain a firearm at 18 and own up to 10 firearms in Mexico.

Japan still enacted successful gun control, that cannot be denied. It has upheld this for a long time.
 
goldkam said:
1- So the event being "occasional" makes it justified and alright. 4 lives of those under 18 years are lost every day at the hands of a firearm, that is not acceptable and never will be.

You seem to be justifying 4 deaths a day for the maintenance of a long held history of "going shooting"....the current trends need to be examined. 42% of American households have firearms, that is not a majority nor does it in any way justify maintaining a heritage for the loss of 4 lives per day.

2- The teaching of gun safety to children is not NORMAL. It is not NORMAL in any developed country because guns have been heavily legislated upon and banned or significantly reduced. So it was never a problem in the 42% of households ...except for those 4 kids per day....

Additionally why should I put trust in parents ensuring their children are taught "gun safety". Why should this whole system be based upon the ideal of "trust"??

3- The key words you have used throughout so far is "used to". We are living in the "now" not the "yesterday" (where the Second Amendment resides....in fact 225 years into the yesterday). The world has changed, society has changed.

4- You don't have to agree. A mental illness, a snap of anger or an accident is all it takes to turn that "right" into something of a "burden".

I support being able to use firearms for employment, professional sports and at shooting ranges. The premise of all of this however is the reduction in numbers and the use in a controlled and safe environment.

They still managed to inflict significant harm. The very commonality among all of them was a FIREARM. That commonality seems to get ignored, just like you displayed just then.
Click to expand...
1-4 lives under 18 are lost...by...gang banging? or are you claiming 4 children accidentally shoot themselves or others? See...I think your numbers are bull****. The last year there was gun safety data was 2015, and in 20915 there were a TOTAL of 489 accidental gun deaths...and that number has steadily DECREASED. Even allowing that every one was a 'child' under the age of 18 (and they werent) the number would be 1.3...and again...that is allowing for the scenario that EVERY ONE was under 18. And they werent.

2-The teaching of gun safety IS normal and in fact the NRA has extraordinary gun safety programs. The 'abnormal' is the homes were gun accidents occur. That is contributing factor to accidental gun deaths decreasing.

As for the rest of your silliness...I dont much give a **** WHAT you support. If you want to see gun bans there is a simple solution. Start a drive to amend the Constitution. Until then, all your ravings are the equivalence of pissing yourself in a dark suit. It might make you feel warm and fuzzy while you are doing it, but in the end you will probably just feel cold and nasty.
 
Manc Skipper said:
Two simple measures to cut child shootings. Engineering a solution is simpler and safer than relying on people.

The U.S. General Accounting Office has estimated that 31% of unintentional deaths caused by firearms might be prevented by the addition of two devices: a child-proof safety lock (8%) and a loading indicator (23%).

Statistics on Gun Deaths & Injuries | Giffords Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence
Click to expand...

You make one nonsensical post to start a thread, everyone responds, you never respond. Seems legit.
 
vegas giants said:
Typical pro gun speak. All you care about is your gun and by god you will not fill out a form. LOL
Click to expand...

You got me there. How is my filling out a form going to stop a kid from misusing a firearm? Even one with a pop up thingy on top?
 
goldkam said:
1. The Constitutional ideals are fluid in nature, hence the reason for the terming of amendments. Thus the idea of "common sense gun laws" depends upon those interpreting it and those who are to be the judge of its effectiveness and level of applicability.

Despite this however "common sense" in the general sense does not apply what is constitutional, effective etc.. It is the view/judgement held by the common people (the world). Apply the basic principles of etymology of the word "common sense" the US's laws relating to firearms exercise little common sense based on the collective global view.

You don't want them to meet the conditions. Anything could meet the conditions, it relates to the interpretation of the proposition put forth.
Click to expand...

If you want to pass a law, it needs to be Constitutional and should be effective, enforceable and would be enforced. That's my version of "common sense". You seem to believe that a law can still be "common sense" here in the US if it isn't effective or it's not enforceable. We aren't talking about "common sense" in general but in a very specific manner - "common sense gun laws".

2. I believe comparing straw and firearms in quite nonsensical.
Click to expand...

Just so I understand - do you actually think I was talking about two different objects, straw and firearms? Are you unfamiliar with the term "straw purchase", which is the deliberate felonious purchase of a firearm by a non-prohibited person with the intent to transfer it to a prohibited person?
https://www.atf.gov/file/58686/download - start on page 164.

Additionally I believe there should be the significant reduction in firearms through stricter legislation and banning. To extend on your point it greatly depends on the time and interpretation on certain rulings. United States v. Miller (1939) would be considered unconstitutional through your insight, yet was ruled against the Second Amendment and in favour of the National Firearms Act.
Click to expand...
Miller didn't ban anything; nor did NFA 1934. Miller did affirm that the right to keep and bear arms is an individual right, and yes, I believe that NFA 1934 is unconstitutional. Will you be going door to door with SWAT to collect guns?

3. Russia's firearm laws have not failed, I believe they are just inadequate in nature. Better than the US however. Same goes for Mexico, inadequate. So no I don't believe there is a failure. Nor do I agree that it is strict gun laws, you have morphed and manipulated the gun laws to "look strict" when you are able to obtain a firearm at 18 and own up to 10 firearms in Mexico.
Click to expand...

Here are Russia's gun laws: Firearms-Control Legislation and Policy: Russian Federation | Law Library of Congress They are as strict as any of the countries you use as an example.

Japan still enacted successful gun control, that cannot be denied. It has upheld this for a long time.
Click to expand...

Japan did so by taking away all civil rights at the same time. To impose Japan's gun laws here would also require gutting the 4th Amendment. More on Japan: Japan: Gun Control and People Control
 
Rucker61 said:
Are you focused on reducing all gun use, including legal gun use, or just illegal gun use?



1. Federal funding for Project Childsafe.
2. Tax breaks for gun safe purchases.
3. Education in schools for gun safety.
4. More PSAs on gun storage safety.
Click to expand...

Where on gods green earth is that working with lax gun laws in place also?
 
Anarchon said:
You make one nonsensical post to start a thread, everyone responds, you never respond. Seems legit.
Click to expand...

Just for giggles, that one nonsensical post links an article with no references past 2010. Gifford didn't date it, but I think 2011 would be most likely. The single reference by the OP is the very last paragraph.

Nothing to see here.
 
Rucker61 said:
How much damage do you think a black powder cannon loaded with cannister could do?

Repeating firearms known at the time of ratification:

Pepperbox revolver, 1780
Girandoni 20 shot repeating rifle, 1780
Cardiff superposed musket, 1682
Belton repeating flintlock, 1777
Puckle gun, 1718

The Belton repeating flintlock was even presented to Congress who ordered some.



Change the Constitution. Find a recent red/blue map of the US. Start counting red states. Stop when you get to 13.
Click to expand...


Do you not agree that in todays climate the firearms are more high power, dangerous and can inflict more harm. Additionally, do you not agree that the climate politically, economically and socially is very different today?

To your next point. Its a matter of standing by what one believes in, not giving up if there are more Republicans. Not giving up when the odds may not be in ones favour. If history enacted like that the world would be a very different place. This whole firearm debate is not about Republicans or Democrats, its about doing what is just and right. If individuals disagree, then they must be so caught up in the political debate and scene.
 
Rucker61 said:
You keep forgetting to add Russia and Mexico to your list of countries with very strong gun laws. I guess it's because the criminals still get all of the guns they want in spite of such gun laws.



We've told you how to get what you want. Which countries laws do you most want to impose here in the US?
Click to expand...

1- There needs to be a line drawn as to what "strong" is defined as........if you call Mexico's gun laws strong what would you call Japans gun laws?

In Mexico-
- You can own up to 10 firearms
- Its a constitutional right to bear arms
- Semi-Automatic Handguns, Shotguns, Revolvers are allowed to be brought by those who pass the permit
- You can purchase a firearm for the purpose of home defence, collection, hunting etc..

When considering how strict these laws are it needs to be considered on an international scale and thus determined collectively with all countries. Thus Mexico in comparison to Japan has quite lax gun rulings. Same with Mexico and Australia, UK, New Zealand. I don't think it is accurate to act as if Mexico is a leading country for strict gun policies. You correlation between "strict gun laws" and criminals are managing to get their hands on them is because of 1 of 2 reasons. The two countries laws are not in fact strict, they lie between the US (lenient) and Japan (strict) hence the firearms are still in abundance and enable easier access. Also the countries have significant black markets which facilitate this. The government won't do anything to diminish these black markets because it is allowing for economic growth and success. If those two aspects were at least looked into a very different outcome could be reached.

I am not a politician, nor a legislator, not an activist. I am merely stating my opinion and highlighting factual information in relation to other countries successes with gun rulings. Common Sense gun laws are what need to be imposed.
 
PleasantValley said:
Why do you ask my opinion when you are not interested in it?
Click to expand...

There is a difference between disagreeing with your opinion and not being interested in it. They are quite simply questions I posed...

If I wasn't interested in your opinion, I wouldn't be replying to you.
 
Rucker61 said:
Are you focused on reducing all gun use, including legal gun use, or just illegal gun use?



1. Federal funding for Project Childsafe.
2. Tax breaks for gun safe purchases.
3. Education in schools for gun safety.
4. More PSAs on gun storage safety.
Click to expand...


I am focused on reducing the risk of misuse and illegal gun use. The fact is I don't believe there can be a society where firearms exist where legal use can benefit society enough to outweigh misuse. The fact is for every 1 justified homicide (self-defence) there is 36 unjustified homicides (illegal use). There are more firearms than people. There are 14,900 more gun shops than grocery stores. Twice as many gun stores to McDonalds. Your average hand gun costs less than a typical grocery shop at Walmart and less than a Chromebook computer. About 50 women a month are shot to death by intimate partners in the U.S. The list goes on.

The fact is in the current situation something had to be done. But the very idea that this is all in reaction to occurrences highlights no proactive implementations are being put in place or being supported. This does not stop individuals from obtaining a firearms and using it for unlawful even vengeful purposes. It does not stop accidents. It does not stop suicides with a firearm. The very thing this stops, is the poor outlook placed on government by society when atrocities happen. It tames the lion until something else happens.
 
VanceMack said:
1-4 lives under 18 are lost...by...gang banging? or are you claiming 4 children accidentally shoot themselves or others? See...I think your numbers are bull****. The last year there was gun safety data was 2015, and in 20915 there were a TOTAL of 489 accidental gun deaths...and that number has steadily DECREASED. Even allowing that every one was a 'child' under the age of 18 (and they werent) the number would be 1.3...and again...that is allowing for the scenario that EVERY ONE was under 18. And they werent.

2-The teaching of gun safety IS normal and in fact the NRA has extraordinary gun safety programs. The 'abnormal' is the homes were gun accidents occur. That is contributing factor to accidental gun deaths decreasing.

As for the rest of your silliness...I dont much give a **** WHAT you support. If you want to see gun bans there is a simple solution. Start a drive to amend the Constitution. Until then, all your ravings are the equivalence of pissing yourself in a dark suit. It might make you feel warm and fuzzy while you are doing it, but in the end you will probably just feel cold and nasty.
Click to expand...


1- What are you referring to when you used the term "gang banging"?? According to the data it states "were shot" to extend on this a further 6000 per year are injured from gun shot wounds and have to attend hospital. Swearing is not required, not necessary to enhance your point. What sources etc.. disprove the statistics I have used..

Additionally the assertion you made that number is "decreasing" is wrong it actually increased in 2016 to 495 (https://www.aftermath.com/content/accidental-shooting-deaths-statistics). Please ensure you are using factual information not some morphed information to make your point sound better.

The fact is every gun death is as tragic as the last and not enough is being done to alleviate and reduce the risk and number of deaths.

2- What percentage of other developed countries is the teaching of gun safety a normality in everyday society.....you assertion is false. There are very few exceptions.

Gun Safety programs didn't do a whole lot for Stephen Paddock or Nicholas Cruze.....the fact is if someone is going to commit a crime, accidentally misuse a firearm or act in a vengeful way "gun safety" programs are not going to work. They are a knee jerk reaction to ensure that societies expectation of what should be done and what is being done is levelled out. It will tame the lion until the next atrocity occurs. Enforcing, heavily legislating and banning are mechanisms which have proven worth throughout the world, not ignoring the actual issue which is the firearm itself.

3- Once again swearing merely highlights you have an extended vocabulary range and is unnecessary. You don't have to care, in fact if you don't care don't respond to my posts as that is showing some sort of care (in reacting). You do care, you just don't agree. Once again the immaturity is quite astounding, particularly when I am putting my opinion forth and no change has been initiated. Would you act like this if such changes did happen?? Some individuals need to understand that this is an adult mature discussion, not some teenage conversation where the humour emanated is that of immaturity and spite. Unfortunate really....

I can have a Constitution debate with you if you wish (minus the swearing and immaturity)
 
Manc Skipper said:
Two simple measures to cut child shootings. Engineering a solution is simpler and safer than relying on people.

The U.S. General Accounting Office has estimated that 31% of unintentional deaths caused by firearms might be prevented by the addition of two devices: a child-proof safety lock (8%) and a loading indicator (23%).

Statistics on Gun Deaths & Injuries | Giffords Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence
Click to expand...

I think teaching mandatory firearm safety in k-12 schools and gun safety public service announcements would do a lot better of cutting down unintentional deaths by firearms than locks and loading indicators. We tell kids to not talk to strangers so they don't get abducted by Chester the child molester. We tell kids to not run with scissors so they don't hurt themselves. We tell kids to look both ways before crossing the street so they don't get ran over. We have sex ed classes to help cut down on unwanted pregnancies and STDs. We tell kids to not smoke or do drugs so they don't end up as junky losers in jail. Heck I even seen a PSA telling girls to not send nude selfies because their boyfriend might send it to everyone. We live in a country where is over 300 million firearms owned by civilians and that number keeps increasing every day. So it makes sense to teach firearm safety in school and to run public service announcements preaching firearm safety. As long as the gun safety message stays politically neutral and isn't pushed by anti-2nd amendment groups like the Giffords Law center to prevent Gun violence, the Brady Campaign or one of Michael Bloomberg's anti-2nd amendment groups the message should be well received by gun owners.
 
goldkam said:
There is a difference between disagreeing with your opinion and not being interested in it. They are quite simply questions I posed...

If I wasn't interested in your opinion, I wouldn't be replying to you.
Click to expand...

Then I thank you for your honesty and politeness.
I will reply in kind.
Please understand this is only my personal opinion and no one else's.

I have an effective military rifle in my home because i have seen with my own eyes the evil others can do to the unarmed and vulnerable.
I PERSONALLY will never have that evil visited on my family and those I love.
I was trained at a basic level by our military, then took that training to a more superior level to unsure my family and those i love are protected by by me if the opportunity arises.

I know if i have an effective weapon in my hands I can counter a group or mob intent on doing harm.
...and i am not talking about an AR-15. I do not consider them nearly as effective as others.

There. That is my personal and polite opinion on gun control, assault weapons, and the death penalty.
 
Rucker61 said:
If you want to pass a law, it needs to be Constitutional and should be effective, enforceable and would be enforced. That's my version of "common sense". You seem to believe that a law can still be "common sense" here in the US if it isn't effective or it's not enforceable. We aren't talking about "common sense" in general but in a very specific manner - "common sense gun laws".


Just so I understand - do you actually think I was talking about two different objects, straw and firearms? Are you unfamiliar with the term "straw purchase", which is the deliberate felonious purchase of a firearm by a non-prohibited person with the intent to transfer it to a prohibited person?
https://www.atf.gov/file/58686/download - start on page 164.


Miller didn't ban anything; nor did NFA 1934. Miller did affirm that the right to keep and bear arms is an individual right, and yes, I believe that NFA 1934 is unconstitutional. Will you be going door to door with SWAT to collect guns?



Here are Russia's gun laws: Firearms-Control Legislation and Policy: Russian Federation | Law Library of Congress They are as strict as any of the countries you use as an example.



Japan did so by taking away all civil rights at the same time. To impose Japan's gun laws here would also require gutting the 4th Amendment. More on Japan: Japan: Gun Control and People Control
Click to expand...

1- No doubt. That is why there is a debate created. Is it true however that what is deemed Constitutional by one judge or one individual varies from another. What was Constitutional in 2007 is different to today in relation to firearms. How do you know "common sense" gun control is not effective and enforceable if it has never been implemented. Your basing your judgements off mere opinion and perception....one that is biased in nature as well. The same principles apply just relating to firearms not general common sense



2- I must have misread the previous post, quite clearly I did.



3- I never stated they "banned" anything, I simply stated they overruled the Second Amendment in favour of a piece of legislation which reduced the functions of the Second Amendment. Additionally in the Court Case...Miller does not have any such power to make any binding decisions (as you stated they could "ban" something) that is in the hands of a judge or jury

Under the Constitution of that period it was deemed CONSTITUTIONAL..the very premise of my point is perceptions change and thus so too does the interpretation of the Constitution. You deeming of it as unconstitutional at that time is merely an opinion.

Your claim relating to the SWOT seems quite the mockery of my suggestions. Maybe everyone could just conduct themselves in an orderly and respectable fashion as Australia and many other countries have and did, largely give up the firearms for the greater national interest. Once again it seems that a right is justified as long as it doesn't harm too many people....

My suggestion is limiting the number of firearms to begin with, with strong economic and legislative policies and then implementing stricter legislation.




4- False News and merely an attempt by yourself to discredit the success of gun policies. How can policies be strict when you have a corrupt government. You can acquire a license when you are 18 or over (you can't even drink in the US when your 18) and don't have to get it renewed for 5 years. Largely unrestricted use of handguns and shotguns. Semi-automatic weapons are allowed.

The only websites that believe Russia has "strict" gun policies are all American websites (specifically the Library on Congress) quite a conflict of interest really. If Russia is strict...what do you call Japan's gun policies??



5- What civil rights were they?? The right to own a gun is not a civil right in nearly all the countries of the world....

Once again quite a conflict of interest when you are posting links which contain this on the bottom in support of the author "Make a donation to support Dave Kopel's work in defense of constitutional rights and public safety."

http://www.kisc.meiji.ac.jp/~transfer/paper/pdf/06/04_Enomoto.pdf
 
PleasantValley said:
Then I thank you for your honesty and politeness.
I will reply in kind.
Please understand this is only my personal opinion and no one else's.

I have an effective military rifle in my home because i have seen with my own eyes the evil others can do to the unarmed and vulnerable.
I PERSONALLY will never have that evil visited on my family and those I love.
I was trained at a basic level by our military, then took that training to a more superior level to unsure my family and those i love are protected by by me if the opportunity arises.

I know if i have an effective weapon in my hands I can counter a group or mob intent on doing harm.
...and i am not talking about an AR-15. I do not consider them nearly as effective as others.

There. That is my personal and polite opinion on gun control, assault weapons, and the death penalty.
Click to expand...

I do second your politeness and honesty. It most definitely is nice to have a discussion, debate whatever you wish to call it without such hast and anger being the vehicle driving it.

I undoubtedly respect your right and your enactment to conduct such a right. However....why is a firearm is such a necessity in the US but very few other developed countries?? I also believe self-defence is not a medium in which can justify gun use/ownership...here is why (this is merely my opinion backed up by credible statistics)....for every 1 justified homicide (self-defence) there is 36 unjustified homicides (unlawful/misuse of a firearm). I cannot justify having a firearm in that one case (where death or injury was not even necessarily going to occur) for 36 others to be killed/injuried. This is a cost/benefit analysis outlook. The costs far outweigh the benefits.
 
goldkam said:
I do second your politeness and honesty. It most definitely is nice to have a discussion, debate whatever you wish to call it without such hast and anger being the vehicle driving it.

I undoubtedly respect your right and your enactment to conduct such a right. However....why is a firearm is such a necessity in the US but very few other developed countries?? I also believe self-defence is not a medium in which can justify gun use/ownership
Click to expand...

Very telling and honest. Based on this you want zero lawful gun ownership. That will never happen in the US. It hasn't happened anywhere.

...here is why (this is merely my opinion backed up by credible statistics)....for every 1 justified homicide (self-defence) there is 36 unjustified homicides (unlawful/misuse of a firearm). I cannot justify having a firearm in that one case (where death or injury was not even necessarily going to occur) for 36 others to be killed/injuried. This is a cost/benefit analysis outlook. The costs far outweigh the benefits.
Click to expand...

You're only counting justifiable homicide as the only "benefit" to gun ownership. That's a flaw in your reasoning. In addition to justifiable homicide there are DGUs where the attacker is only wounded, or where no shots at all are fired. Additionally, the uses of firearms for the "purpose of hunting, trapshooting, target shooting, personal protection, or any other lawful activity" (Gun Control Act, 1968. Note that those who commit felonious homicide aren't protected by the Second Amendment for that action or in the majority for the mere possession of a firearm.
 
goldkam said:
1- No doubt. That is why there is a debate created. Is it true however that what is deemed Constitutional by one judge or one individual varies from another. What was Constitutional in 2007 is different to today in relation to firearms. How do you know "common sense" gun control is not effective and enforceable if it has never been implemented. Your basing your judgements off mere opinion and perception....one that is biased in nature as well. The same principles apply just relating to firearms not general common sense
Click to expand...
I can base my opinions off of studies by those considered expert in the field, or judge how they actually did work in other countries and extrapolate those results to the US. For example, in the 2010 DOJ study "Summary of Select Firearms Violence Prevention Strategies" it was noted that Universal Background Checks would not be effective without a reduction in straw purchasing (which already is the major source of firearms to criminals), comprehensive firearm registration and an easy gun transfer process. I'm not aware of any efforts or suggestions on how to reduce straw purchases and we don't have registration. Canada most recently tried to do so with a registration system already in place. There's no reason to expect any better success here in the US. 55 of Colorado's sheriffs presented testimony before the state legislature that they cannot enforce a UBC law. That's how we know UBCs won't be effective or enforceable.
3- I never stated they "banned" anything, I simply stated they overruled the Second Amendment in favour of a piece of legislation which reduced the functions of the Second Amendment. Additionally in the Court Case...Miller does not have any such power to make any binding decisions (as you stated they could "ban" something) that is in the hands of a judge or jury
Click to expand...
You did follow your stated opinion that you want banning with a reference to Miller. Any weapons bans would come through Congress, not a judge or jury. By reviewing Miller, whose defense was dependent upon an individual right to keep and bear arms, SCOTUS accepted that view of the 2A. Otherwise Miller would have had no standing to appeal.
Under the Constitution of that period it was deemed CONSTITUTIONAL..the very premise of my point is perceptions change and thus so too does the interpretation of the Constitution. You deeming of it as unconstitutional at that time is merely an opinion.
Click to expand...
NFA 1934 was never deemed "constitutional" by SCOTUS; the very same SCOTUS that upheld three different cases affirming the government's power to incarcerate American citizens in camps merely for having Japanese ancestry.
Your claim relating to the SWOT seems quite the mockery of my suggestions. Maybe everyone could just conduct themselves in an orderly and respectable fashion as Australia and many other countries have and did, largely give up the firearms for the greater national interest. Once again it seems that a right is justified as long as it doesn't harm too many people....
Click to expand...
Australia only "gave up" about 16% of the firearms owned in the country, and they now own more than they did in 1996. The justification of a right does not depend upon statistics.

(cont)
 
(cont)

My suggestion is limiting the number of firearms to begin with, with strong economic and legislative policies and then implementing stricter legislation.
Click to expand...
You're going to need a ban. You're going to need to amend the Constitution. I'll refer you back to counting to 13.

4- False News and merely an attempt by yourself to discredit the success of gun policies. How can policies be strict when you have a corrupt government. You can acquire a license when you are 18 or over (you can't even drink in the US when your 18) and don't have to get it renewed for 5 years. Largely unrestricted use of handguns and shotguns. Semi-automatic weapons are allowed.

The only websites that believe Russia has "strict" gun policies are all American websites (specifically the Library on Congress) quite a conflict of interest really.
Click to expand...

Did you read the Russia gun laws? Do you think that the LOC was lying? What conflict of interest would a government site have? Those laws are at least as strict as those of the UK or Australia. If you're saying that laws can't be strict if enforcement is lax, then you need to understand that the US doesn't enforce gun laws against felons now very well - there's no expectation that any future laws will be any better enforced.

If Russia is strict...what do you call Japan's gun policies??
Click to expand...
Draconian.

5- What civil rights were they?? The right to own a gun is not a civil right in nearly all the countries of the world....
Click to expand...
From Kopel's link: "The Tokoguwa began the gradual process of eradicating all Western influence from Japan, including the use of firearms. Under the Tokugawa, peasants were assigned to a five-man group, headed by landholders who were responsible for the group's behavior. The groups arranged marriages, resolved disputes, kept members from traveling or moving without permission, maintained religious orthodoxy, and enforced the rules against peasants carrying firearms or swords." Those freedoms.

What do you suppose the penalty was for a commoner speaking out against the government, or indeed being rude to the face of a samurai?

Once again quite a conflict of interest when you are posting links which contain this on the bottom in support of the author "Make a donation to support Dave Kopel's work in defense of constitutional rights and public safety."

http://www.kisc.meiji.ac.jp/~transfer/paper/pdf/06/04_Enomoto.pdf
Click to expand...

How does asking for donations indicate a conflict of interest? You are aware that the sources frequently quoted by the GCAs such as VPC and Mom's all ask for donations.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom