Law Gun Control: A Global Overview

[Deorum]

 

[oldshadow]

That just about says it all. No background checks...wow.

You fill out the federal form for any ffl gun purchase. If you knowing lie on that form you should get an automatic 15 years with no parole along with time for any other crime you commit. That must be consecutively after you have served any other time if that applies.

Same with straw purchase and using any gun in a crime. You get the 15 added on to the end.

See that's a start of criminal control and cutting gun violence drastically.

 

[BFoe]

It's original purpose might be outdated but God bless the 2nd Amendment that allows us to defend ourselves while police protection is unavailable. Until I have a full time cop protecting me and my property it's unreasonable for people to want to curtail that right. In my state I already have to jump through hoops and pay hundreds of dollars for the privilege of what's a Constitutional right.

Self defense is very important—but again, I take the view that the 2A was never intended or interpreted as relating to self defense. And not needed for it either.

We all have a right to life, and thus the right to defend it. We also have property rights, and with that the right to defend our property. The idea of the 2A encompassing an individual right to self-defense is a very modern idea.

 

[oldshadow]

Self defense is very important—but again, I take the view that the 2A was never intended or interpreted as relating to self defense. And not needed for it either.

We all have a right to life, and thus the right to defend it. We also have property rights, and with that the right to defend our property. The idea of the 2A encompassing an individual right to self-defense is a very modern idea.

No the right to self-defense but the right to have a gun to use in self-defense or whatever required to maintain a free state.

 

[Rob Battisti]

Self defense is very important—but again, I take the view that the 2A was never intended or interpreted as relating to self defense. And not needed for it either.

We all have a right to life, and thus the right to defend it. We also have property rights, and with that the right to defend our property. The idea of the 2A encompassing an individual right to self-defense is a very modern idea.

So you’d argue that owning a gun is covered by something like the 14th?

 

[Deorum]

A massive thread on Gun Control with damn near 450 replies and not a single post from @spamking is crazy.

 

[spamking]

A massive thread on Gun Control with damn near 450 replies and not a single post from @spamking is crazy.

Haven't been on here much lately. I was in Phoenix for a few days last week and had to catch up on work and home stuff.

 

[Deorum]

Haven't been on here much lately. I was in Phoenix for a few days last week and had to catch up on work and home stuff.

I am in Phoenix.

How did you like the heat?

 

[spamking]

I am in Phoenix.

How did you like the heat?

It was in the triple digits here in Oklahoma when I left . . . . but that heat in downtown Phoenix was on a different level.

Are they ever going to renovate Sky Harbor? That place looks exactly like it did back in 2003.

 

[Deorum]

No the right to self-defense but the right to have a gun to use in self-defense or whatever required to maintain a free state.

So you’d argue that owning a gun is covered by something like the 14th?

NYSRPA v. Bruen

 

[PBAC]

name a single country that keeps their government in check with privately owned firearms? No you can't say the USA just because they allow it. You think Yemen is leading this cause?

 

[spamking]

Why would you want someone who has been to prison for beating his wife with documented violent mental health problems being able to walk into a gun store and walk out with a deadly firearm without valid checks to make sure he's okay to be let loose with one?

If he can't walk into a gun store, pass a background check, and walk out with the gun should he be out in society at all?

 

[Rob Battisti]

If he can't walk into a gun store, pass a background check, and walk out with the gun should he be out in society at all?

“No, not like that!!”

 

[spamking]

The 2A doesn't mention personal protection. It's about arms for "militia" purposes.

Should we be left unprotected then? Seems pretty ridiculous for anyone to think that since the police have no duty to protect us.

Which militia are you referring to? Organized or unorganized?

 

[BFoe]

So you’d argue that owning a gun is covered by something like the 14th?

Let me first address the McDonald v City of Chicago decision which incorporated the 2A to the states, via the 14th Amendment.
For any Originalists out there, you can’t get any better evidence that what we had on this topic: 2 different SCOTUS decisions, decided by judges who were contemporary with the passing of the 14th Amendment. The two first SCOTUS cases involving the 2A centered on this exact topic. The first of these cases comes just 8 years after the 14th amendment was ratified (it was ratified in 1868).

—US v Cruickshank, 1876. This case said:
“The right to bear arms is not granted by the Constitution; neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. The Second Amendments means no more than that it shall not be infringed by Congress, and has no other effect than to restrict the powers of the National Government.”

—Presser v Illinois, 1886. Once again, SCOTUS says:
“The provision in the Second Amendment to the Constitution, that "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" is a limitation only on the power of Congress and the national government, and not of the states.“

So there you have it, right? That question is settled.
—But of course, nothing is ever settled with the Roberts court. In 2010, a full 153 years after Cruickshank, we are told by these so-called originalists that these other SCOTUS justices, who were actually alive at the time the 14th Amendment was ratified, somehow got it wrong (!!).
It’s inexplicable.


So as I have talked about earlier ITT, the textual evidence from colonial times is overwhelming that the phrase “to bear arms” was only meant in the sense of military or militia combat, and did not refer to an individual possessing or carrying a weapon. It’s just not how the phrase was used, and Heller is therefore wrongly decided.

As I just demonstrated, McDonald—quite possibly the worst SCOTUS decision is my lifetime—is also completely wrong.

This post is long enough, but I’ll drop a post in about the case Deorum cited to you, NY v Bruen, as to why it’s not only wrong, but entirely unworkable.

 

[Deorum]

Let me first address the McDonald v City of Chicago decision which incorporated the 2A to the states, via the 14th Amendment.
For any Originalists out there, you can’t get any better evidence that what we had on this topic: 2 different SCOTUS decisions, decided by judges who were contemporary with the passing of the 14th Amendment. The two first SCOTUS cases involving the 2A centered on this exact topic. The first of these cases comes just 8 years after the 14th amendment was ratified (it was ratified in 1868).

—US v Cruickshank, 1876. This case said:
“The right to bear arms is not granted by the Constitution; neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. The Second Amendments means no more than that it shall not be infringed by Congress, and has no other effect than to restrict the powers of the National Government.”

—Presser v Illinois, 1886. Once again, SCOTUS says:
“The provision in the Second Amendment to the Constitution, that "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" is a limitation only on the power of Congress and the national government, and not of the states.“

So there you have it, right? That question is settled.
—But of course, nothing is ever settled with the Roberts court. In 2010, a full 153 years after Cruickshank, we are told by these so-called originalists that these other SCOTUS justices, who were actually alive at the time the 14th Amendment was ratified, somehow got it wrong (!!).
It’s inexplicable.


So as I have talked about earlier ITT, the textual evidence from colonial times is overwhelming that the phrase “to bear arms” was only meant in the sense of military or militia combat, and did not refer to an individual possessing or carrying a weapon. It’s just not how the phrase was used, and Heller is therefore wrongly decided.

As I just demonstrated, McDonald—quite possibly the worst SCOTUS decision is my lifetime—is also completely wrong.

This post is long enough, but I’ll drop a post in about the case Deorum cited to you, NY v Bruen, as to why it’s not only wrong, but entirely unworkable.

It's pretty interesting to note that prior to the rulings in Heller and McDonald, there were only two states in the country that had constitutional carry laws (Alaska and Vermont). Post-2010, there are now 29 states that do.

 

[My Spot]

Let me first address the McDonald v City of Chicago decision which incorporated the 2A to the states, via the 14th Amendment.
For any Originalists out there, you can’t get any better evidence that what we had on this topic: 2 different SCOTUS decisions, decided by judges who were contemporary with the passing of the 14th Amendment. The two first SCOTUS cases involving the 2A centered on this exact topic. The first of these cases comes just 8 years after the 14th amendment was ratified (it was ratified in 1868).

—US v Cruickshank, 1876. This case said:
“The right to bear arms is not granted by the Constitution; neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. The Second Amendments means no more than that it shall not be infringed by Congress, and has no other effect than to restrict the powers of the National Government.”

—Presser v Illinois, 1886. Once again, SCOTUS says:
“The provision in the Second Amendment to the Constitution, that "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" is a limitation only on the power of Congress and the national government, and not of the states.“

So there you have it, right? That question is settled.
—But of course, nothing is ever settled with the Roberts court. In 2010, a full 153 years after Cruickshank, we are told by these so-called originalists that these other SCOTUS justices, who were actually alive at the time the 14th Amendment was ratified, somehow got it wrong (!!).
It’s inexplicable.


So as I have talked about earlier ITT, the textual evidence from colonial times is overwhelming that the phrase “to bear arms” was only meant in the sense of military or militia combat, and did not refer to an individual possessing or carrying a weapon. It’s just not how the phrase was used, and Heller is therefore wrongly decided.

As I just demonstrated, McDonald—quite possibly the worst SCOTUS decision is my lifetime—is also completely wrong.

This post is long enough, but I’ll drop a post in about the case Deorum cited to you, NY v Bruen, as to why it’s not only wrong, but entirely unworkable.

You also thought it was wrong when they overturned Trump's bump stock ban.

 

[spamking]

It's also easily circumvented by buying guns privately and at gun shows.

Dealers selling at gun shows also have to submit a 4473 for the buyer. There is nothing special about a gun show. What you're referring to are private sales at gun shows. There is no gun show loophole.

 

[spamking]

Small penises but large testicles?

Heh

Abstract​

In this study, we formally examine the association between penis size dissatisfaction and gun ownership in America. The primary hypothesis, derived from the psychosexual theory of gun ownership, asserts that men who are more dissatisfied with the size of their penises will be more likely to personally own guns. To test this hypothesis, we used data collected from the 2023 Masculinity, Sexual Health, and Politics (MSHAP) survey, a national probability sample of 1,840 men, and regression analyses to model personal gun ownership as a function of penis size dissatisfaction, experiences with penis enlargement, social desirability, masculinity, body mass, mental health, and a range of sociodemographic characteristics. We find that men who are more dissatisfied with the size of their penises are less likely to personally own guns across outcomes, including any gun ownership, military-style rifle ownership, and total number of guns owned. The inverse association between penis size dissatisfaction and gun ownership is linear; however, the association is weakest among men ages 60 and older. With these findings in mind, we failed to observe any differences in personal gun ownership between men who have and have not attempted penis enlargement. To our knowledge, this is the first study to formally examine the association between penis size and personal gun ownership in America. Our findings fail to support the psychosexual theory of gun ownership. Alternative theories are posited for the apparent inverse association between penis size dissatisfaction and personal gun ownership, including higher levels of testosterone and constructionist explanations.

 

[LangfordBarrow]

If he can't walk into a gun store, pass a background check, and walk out with the gun should he be out in society at all?

There are people with histories of violent crime that you'd let out of jail at some point but you wouldn't want them to have access to firearms. I think here in NYC the safety precautions are a bit stiff but I'm all for things like red flag laws that can point to mentally disturbed people and restrictions for people that have shown themselves to be illegally violent.