The American Gun Rights Thread Vol. 3

[Rex Kwon Do]

Not America, but here's an interesting article about gun rights in Russia and how they might change in the near future. Spoiler alert: it's a lot harder to get one there than here.

http://www.themoscowtimes.com/news/...russians-their-guns-and-the-state/567462.html

 

[Gregolian]

Felt this was necessary

 

[Cubo de Sangre]

http://www.tennessean.com/story/opi...tide-begins-shift-gun-safety-debate/83850814/

This legislative session, a common-sense measure supported by Moms Demand Action volunteers in Tennessee became law with overwhelming, bipartisan support. The new policy, which passed with support from law enforcement, requires state law enforcement to inform local authorities when a domestic abuser subject to a final order of protection illegally tries to buy a gun and fails a background check. This legislation is great news for our state, as 83 percent of Tennesseans know that strengthening background checks can prevent gun violence.

Lawmakers passed that common-sense legislation — and they didn’t stop there. They continued to work across party lines to stop a bill that would have dismantled the state’s concealed carry permitting system and another that would have allowed some violent felons to possess firearms almost immediately after serving their sentences.

 

[Cubo de Sangre]

For gun-grabbers fear and emotion trump the Bill of Rights it seems.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/astronaut-mark-kellys-fight-stop-140700978.html

Mark Kelly understands how to pilot a space shuttle. What he doesn't get is why the hell Congress won't stop people on the TSA No-Fly List from shopping at gun shows.

Kelly is a retired NASA astronaut and Navy combat veteran. He's also the husband of Gabrielle Giffords, the former Arizona congresswoman still recovering from being shot in a gunman's 2001 rampage.

His latest mission: Fighting what he says is an incomprehensible lack of a law that would flag prospective gun buyers based on their status as suspected terror risks.

If due process is incomprensible then it must be lack of qualified candidates that has curtailed the nation's space program.

 

[My Spot]

For gun-grabbers fear and emotion trump the Bill of Rights it seems.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/astronaut-mark-kellys-fight-stop-140700978.html



If due process is incomprensible then it must be lack of qualified candidates that has curtailed the nation's space program.

Well I'm not surprised. Obama wants to deny Americans a constitutional right without due process despite being a constitutional professor.

 

[Cubo de Sangre]

Well I'm not surprised. Obama wants to deny Americans a constitutional right without due process despite being a constitutional professor.

It's fuckin' stupid how many people don't like due process as a rule. Do morons really think that everyone who is accused of something did it? And when it comes to the watch list these people aren't even accused of breaking the law. They're just suspicious to some assholes with the power to make a list. That's why we have a Bill of Rights. If a pill made babies smart morons would object to women being allowed to have it.

 

[SMEAC]

Well I'm not surprised. Obama wants to deny Americans a constitutional right without due process despite being a constitutional professor.

Or just a guest lecturer that only touched the Constitution when it dealt with black rights

 

[Cmart]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/201...ttacker-heard-shouting-allahu-akbar-knifes-m/

Munich knife attack: One dead as man shouting 'Allahu Akbar' attacks four at train station in Grafing, Germany

Well, Obama must hate stories like this. No guns, plus Muslims. Hard to lay blame.

 

[UpaLoompa]

It's fuckin' stupid how many people don't like due process as a rule. Do morons really think that everyone who is accused of something did it?

Yeah, I generally agree with you and also support restoring voting and gun rights to felons once they're off probation. If it's been deemed that you've served the appropriate sentence for your crimes, all your rights should be restored. If that's viewed as problematic, change the sentencing.

That said I don't think it is a completely clear problem. While restraining orders and no-fly-lists might* be too easy to end up on, I think arguments could be made supporting purchasing restrictions for the former if court dates are scheduled. Likewise I guess I don't have a problem with restricting sales to people on bail (I assume that's the case?).


*This is often alleged but I've no idea if it's true.

 

[Cubo de Sangre]

Yeah, I generally agree with you and also support restoring voting and gun rights to felons once they're off probation. If it's been deemed that you've served the appropriate sentence for your crimes, all your rights should be restored. If that's viewed as problematic, change the sentencing.

That said I don't think it is a completely clear problem. While restraining orders and no-fly-lists might* be too easy to end up on, I think arguments could be made supporting purchasing restrictions for the former if court dates are scheduled. Likewise I guess I don't have a problem with restricting sales to people on bail (I assume that's the case?).


*This is often alleged but I've no idea if it's true.

Not sure I agree on restraining orders in general. If someone has committed a violent crime then lock them up. Thinking someone might do something isn't a strong reason to be stripping rights. So it would depend in my mind on the rest of the details. I don't know how easy it is to get a restraining order from jurisdiction to jurisdiction. Someone simply saying they're scared of someone else isn't all that compelling. If there's pending charges of violence or threats of violence then I could get on board with not selling them guns or having them turn in their weapons (or having them secured via a 3rd party). Thankfully I don't really know how RO's work due to lack of experience.

Terrorist watch lists are some bullshit. If they're not citizens then don't let them in or deport them. If they are citizens then they have rights until due process determines grounds to remove those rights.

I agree that people on bail for violent crimes should be restricted.

 

[UpaLoompa]

Not sure I agree on restraining orders in general. If someone has committed a violent crime then lock them up. Thinking someone might do something isn't a strong reason to be stripping rights. So it would depend in my mind on the rest of the details. I don't know how easy it is to get a restraining order from jurisdiction to jurisdiction. Someone simply saying they're scared of someone else isn't all that compelling. If there's pending charges of violence or threats of violence then I could get on board with not selling them guns or having them turn in their weapons (or having them secured via a 3rd party). Thankfully I don't really know how RO's work due to lack of experience.

Yeah, I'm not too far from you. Hence the comment on maybe gun purchase restrictions being okay if you've got an RO if a court date is set. Point being though is that it isn't quite as cut and dry as your post to which I responded made it out to be. While that was specifically about watch lists, the broader issue of due process applies to ROs.

Terrorist watch lists are some bullshit. If they're not citizens then don't let them in or deport them. If they are citizens then they have rights until due process determines grounds to remove those rights.

I assume the argument is that flying isn't a right?

 

[SMEAC]

I assume the argument is that flying isn't a right?

IIRC it had something to do with it being private businesses that actually fly you

 

[UpaLoompa]

IIRC it had something to do with it being private businesses that actually fly you

Still seems like bullshit but that makes sense.

 

[SMEAC]

Still seems like bullshit but that makes sense.

Oh its bullshit, especially since I think if you are no fly its really the TSA saying you can't be in secured area, but I recall that being one of the reasonings being put forth.

 

[Cubo de Sangre]

Yeah, I'm not too far from you. Hence the comment on maybe gun purchase restrictions being okay if you've got an RO if a court date is set. Point being though is that it isn't quite as cut and dry as your post to which I responded made it out to be. While that was specifically about watch lists, the broader issue of due process applies to ROs.

I assume the argument is that flying isn't a right?

To me there's wiggle room with RO's but not with some no-fly list being used to strip gun/due process rights. Flying as a right or otherwise is irrelevant to ignoring one Constitutional guarantee in order to relieve people of another.

 

[Cubo de Sangre]

http://www.pbs.org/weta/washingtonw...s-common-sense-gun-reforms-can-she-change-law

What is Hillary Clinton's plan to stop gun violence?

Her plan(link is external) includes several proposals:

• Enacting "comprehensive federal background check legislation"
• Requiring sellers who conduct business online and at gun shows to run background checks on potential buyers(link is external)
• Requiring sellers to wait until a background check is completed before proceeding with a gun sale (The current waiting period is three days.)(link is external)
• Requiring online firearms sales to abide by the same rules as gun store owners
• Preventing those with severe mental illness or those who have committed domestic abuse from owning and buying guns
• Outlawing "straw purchasing" -- when someone with a clean record purchases a gun for someone who does not
• Reinstating the "assault weapons" ban(link is external), which was signed into law by her husband(link is external) in 1994

Does the federal government have the authority to interfere with/restrict non-commercial private sales?

Why would an online seller need to conduct a check? They ship guns to ffl's who do that.

Don't they already have to wait until after the check is completed or until a specified time where the government failed to perform their obligation to do the check?

What rules don't online sellers need to abide by that retail sellers do?

Why is domestic violence different than any other? Are we talking losing one's right forever due to a misdemeanor of some sort or will we need a felony conviction?

Last I knew straw purchasing was already outlawed.

Good luck on that AWB. Isn't she supposed to be a lawyer? Did she miss SCOTUS saying you can't outlaw a whole class of weapons? Did she miss Miller where the key issue was whether or not a particular weapon would be appropriate for militia use? Does she plan to cross her fingers behind her back when taking the oath of office to defend the Constitution?

 

[Greoric]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/201...ttacker-heard-shouting-allahu-akbar-knifes-m/

Munich knife attack: One dead as man shouting 'Allahu Akbar' attacks four at train station in Grafing, Germany

Well, Obama must hate stories like this. No guns, plus Muslims. Hard to lay blame.

Yeah I don't really think throwing out anecdotes of knife attacks actually makes a sound argument. If we're to focus on these kinds of scenarios its easy to imagine that someone with a gun would have a substantially larger body count than someone with a knife. Note in this case there was only one casualty.

Its easier to defend the right by showing that violence doesn't increase overall if gun ownership also increases. No correlation exists.

 

[Cmart]

Yeah I don't really think throwing out anecdotes of knife attacks actually makes a sound argument. If we're to focus on these kinds of scenarios its easy to imagine that someone with a gun would have a substantially larger body count than someone with a knife. Note in this case there was only one casualty.

Its easier to defend the right by showing that violence doesn't increase overall if gun ownership also increases. No correlation exists.

If anecdotal evidence is thrown out, most of the left's anti-gun rhetoric is gone. So maybe that's what I'm shooting for, no pun intended.

 

[Greoric]

If anecdotal evidence is thrown out, most of the left's anti-gun rhetoric is gone. So maybe that's what I'm shooting for, no pun intended.

Absolutely. Most of their neo-Keynesian economic arguments are as well.

 

[Cmart]

Yeah I don't really think throwing out anecdotes of knife attacks actually makes a sound argument. If we're to focus on these kinds of scenarios its easy to imagine that someone with a gun would have a substantially larger body count than someone with a knife. Note in this case there was only one casualty.

Its easier to defend the right by showing that violence doesn't increase overall if gun ownership also increases. No correlation exists.

Also this reminds me of another point -- lethality of gun attacks on groups vs. bomb attacks. Enter a room with a knife and start stabbing, yeah just a few deaths. With a gun, you kill a few or several more, although many would run, you'd miss a few, maybe be tackled, even shot if you're not in a "gun free zone"... But strap on a well-made bomb... take out absolutely everyone in the room at one bang, no warning, no running away, no defense.

A bomb makes a better mass murder weapon than a gun is what I'm saying.