Why is gun control so difficult in the US?

[iceaura]

Yeah so the South won the civil war then?

They lost it, in large part, because they had disarmed their peasants. And they were fighting for, not against, their government's imposition of oppression.

 

[Capracus]

I assume you're being farcical for amusement purposes. The same mg could have been mounted on an airplane, landing craft, locomotive, etc. and it would still be the mg that was the killer there.

It’s the complete system that makes the gun a potential danger. Elephants can be trained to do all kinds of amusing tricks, remotely triggering a machine gun mounted on its back would be well within its capabilities.

Just because you could arm elephants and private citizens with such weapons for self protection, it may not be in the best interest of the communities they exist in to do so.

 

[Gawdzilla Sama]

It’s the complete system that makes the gun a potential danger. Elephants can be trained to do all kinds of amusing tricks, remotely triggering a machine gun mounted on its back would be well within its capabilities.

Just because you could arm elephants and private citizens with such weapons for self protection, it may not be in the best interest of the communities they exist in to do so.

Oh, please. Your concept was silly when you posted it and your efforts to cover up have failed.

 

[Vociferous]

Bullshit, other animals kill each other all the time, historically the murder rate for humans was rough 15% or 1 in 6 men was murdered (god only knows what percentage of women were raped), the only thing you are right about is one also has a right to defend themselves. The "natural" rights you speak of are artificial: there is no "not infringe" in nature, it is kill or be killed. Worse your "natural" rights are subjective as just about everything we do "infringes" on others, it is simply a matter of degrees.

What definition of natural rights/laws are you using? I don't know of any that apply to animals. Oh, you seem to be conflating nature in general with natural law. You might want to look up the terms you're using.

So how about this for small steps:
1. Allow CDC to study gun crimes and gun crime reduction solutions, gather data on what works and what does not work and at what rate
2. Implement "common sense" solutions, like universal background checks and gun sale registrations
3. Register all guns such that illegal sale to criminals becomes harder.
132: ban all guns

1. That didn't seem to help Obama.

Earlier this year, President Obama ordered the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention to assess the existing research on gun violence and recommend future studies. That report, prepared by the Institute of Medicine and the National Research Council, is now complete. Its findings won’t entirely please the Obama administration or the NRA, but all of us should consider them. Here’s a list of the 10 most salient or surprising takeaways.
http://www.slate.com/articles/healt..._deaths_and_self_defense_findings_from_a.html​

2. The only way to enforce universal background checks is a nationwide gun registry, which is a non-starter.
3. Non-starter. It's the first necessary step to any eventual confiscation.

Anyways a national gun registry, or registry of every gun in america would allow the ability to track and stop sales of guns to criminals and psychos. Just like with a car where I need to exchange a title that the state must be informed of, thus the state knows who owns what car, the same could be done with guns. If the problem is so many criminals and psycho get guns maybe we should track how.

Defeats the intent of the 2nd amendment, and something about rights versus privileges.

He's fascist, like the rest of the Republican Party since 1980. The Republican Party has not been ideologically consistent since 1968 (fascism does not employ a consistent ideology per se).
That has nothing to do with the betrayal of the Republican groups who supported Trump - they are not betrayed ideologically, as they have no consistency, but personally, in that they thought they had a promise from Trump.

He's not a fascist. He's just a self-aggrandizing moron. Neither is the Republican Party. Republican politicians just tend to be spineless.
You're confusion about ideological consistency is understandable, but you seem paranoid. You sure you don't want to arm yourself?

They have to be restricted to exist. No absolute natural right can exist among the people of a community.

Yes, negative rights are all about restrictions (not interfering with others). Who said anything about absolute rights?

Guns, elephants and people can act any way they’re programmed to act.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Close-in_weapon_system

So not only conflating living and inanimate things, but human controlled things (which is the only reason anything murders anyone) too.

A gun is a weapon. A trained elephant is a weapon. A trained man is a weapon. A trained man with a gun is a weapon. A military armed with nuclear bombs is a weapon. Can you possibly imagine a necessity to regulate the use and possession of these weapons?

No weapon murders without a human. Regulate behavior, which is what laws already do. Tools are interchangeable.

no there is not. john lott is a liar and fraud and the study your referencing is almost without question understood to have never actually taken place. guns are rarely used in self defense.

That wasn't Lott, that was a CDC report.

Earlier this year, President Obama ordered the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention to assess the existing research on gun violence and recommend future studies. That report, prepared by the Institute of Medicine and the National Research Council, is now complete. Its findings won’t entirely please the Obama administration or the NRA, but all of us should consider them. Here’s a list of the 10 most salient or surprising takeaways.
...
7. Guns are used for self-defense often and effectively. “Almost all national survey estimates indicate that defensive gun uses by victims are at least as common as offensive uses by criminals, with estimates of annual uses ranging from about 500,000 to more than 3 million per year … in the context of about 300,000 violent crimes involving firearms in 2008,” says the report.
http://www.slate.com/articles/healt..._deaths_and_self_defense_findings_from_a.html​

there is nothing in the second amendment that prevents a national gun registry. while it is true that states have this does not fall into that arena. im not calling facts propaganda im calling propaganda propaganda. you like most gun nuts are extremely ignorant of the constitution and what it actually means.

You're right. It is only the intent of the 2nd amendment that runs counter to a nationwide gun registry. Government knowing who has the guns would be a serious disadvantage in the face of tyranny.

why don't you say what you mean you'll ignore me till i agree witgh you because your a child like most gun nuts who whines at the hint of having to be responsible with your toys. that you knowingly rely on a know fraud says everything i need to know about. you have zero constitutional knowledge other than what the NRA told you to believe. i've showcased your ignorance here. and yo dumbass if you want to convinve people your right you should care about about how credible you are but than again if you'll just whip out your gun and threaten me to get what you want. people like you are little more than thugs when you get down to the nitty gritty.

Seems you're the one ignoring anyone who doesn't agree with you. I know you can't be convinced because you are ideologically against guns. It's clear in your language. I don't need to threaten anyone. I just need to keep voting.

We have a natural right to have sex and to kill, and regularly avail ourselves of them. We have passed laws that restrict these natural rights to attempt to prevent rape and murder, which we define as crimes.

As I asked ElectricFetus, by what definition of "natural rights?" You seem to be conflating "natural" in general with "natural law", like he did.
You might want to look up the terms you're using.

We have a natural right to defend ourselves. We do not have a natural right to use (or mishandle) guns to slaughter or murder other people. We have passed laws that restrict what we can do with guns to attempt to prevent murder and manslaughter. We may well expand these laws to reduce the number of innocent people killed.

Not to the exclusion of allowing self-defense.

 

[Vociferous]

About a gun control bill that would have a very good chance of passing:
Why Senate Democrats are considering holding up a gun-control bill from one of their own
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...from-one-of-their-own/?utm_term=.0ce9fedd54b5

 

[iceaura]

2. The only way to enforce universal background checks is a nationwide gun registry, which is a non-starter.

It's the gun purchaser that's checked, not (necessarily) the gun, in a background check.

Regulate behavior, which is what laws already do. Tools are interchangeable.

Restrict RPMs, just as RPGs are restricted and for exactly the same reason.

He's not a fascist. He's just a self-aggrandizing moron. Neither is the Republican Party.

Yes, he is and they are. Quite obviously, and for decades now.

Republican politicians just tend to be spineless.

Not actually flexible, just unprincipled. As is standard in fascistic governance, they have no consistent principles or ideological positions.

 

[Capracus]

So not only conflating living and inanimate things, but human controlled things (which is the only reason anything murders anyone) too.

So you’re arguing that living things can't be weapons?

The California case of People v. Nealis (1991) 232 Cal.App.3d Supp. 1 surveyed the law throughout the USA and concluded "a dog trained to attack humans on command, or one without training that follows such a command, and which is of sufficient size and strength relative to its victim to inflict death or great bodily injury, may be considered a 'deadly weapon or instrument'." In Nealis, the defendant commanded her Doberman to attack two victims, and the dog responded by doing so and inflicting significant injuries.
https://dogbitelaw.com/criminal-pen...or-misdemeanor-for-using-dog-as-deadly-weapon

More on living weapons.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-tank_dog

Human controlled or human conditioned. Weapons systems can be designed to attack targets autonomously. Same with attack dogs. No one has to pull a trigger, they just do what their programmed to do.

No weapon murders without a human.

Unless as I noted above, the weapons are designed to function autonomously.

Regulate behavior, which is what laws already do. Tools are interchangeable.

The law regulates both the user and the weapon. And no, your socket wrench is not a substitute for an automatic assault rifle.

 

[sculptor]

RPM?

(rate of fire?)

.............................
anyone seen a rate of fire comparison between
as fast as you can pull the trigger
and
bump stocks
(I read somewhere that it was about 1 : 1.5)--(but that it decreases accuracy)---accurate?

 

[Gawdzilla Sama]

RPM?

(rate of fire?)

.............................
anyone seen a rate of fire comparison between
as fast as you can pull the trigger
and
bump stocks
(I read somewhere that it was about 1 : 1.5)--(but that it decreases accuracy)---accurate?

Rounds Per Minute.

 

[sculptor]

machine guns RPM -$
.50 at $3.00/round at 600/minute = $1800.00 for one minute (of whatever)
m 16 at $0,45/ round at 600 rpm = $270.00 for one minute (of whatever)
ak 47 at $0.25/round at 600 rpm = $150.00 for one minute (of whatever)

ok
I have no love for machine guns
perhaps, it is because I am just too damned frugal.

 

[Gawdzilla Sama]

And nobody rocks a .50 for a full minute, it's hard on the barrel.

 

[ElectricFetus]

What definition of natural rights/laws are you using? I don't know of any that apply to animals. Oh, you seem to be conflating nature in general with natural law. You might want to look up the terms you're using.

Your natural laws are an abstraction, devoid of nuance or existence. You might as well be an sjw telling me about the millions of types fluid genders. Oh what that you got some old philosopher that spouts your nonsense, yeah the sjw got that too. There are no "natural" laws, a simple platitude like "life, liberty and property" results in thousands of pages of law and never ending millions of hours of court trials when it comes time to try to actually achieve just those three pursuits because they actually conflict with one another in different situations.

1. That didn't seem to help Obama.

Earlier this year, President Obama ordered the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention to assess the existing research on gun violence and recommend future studies. That report, prepared by the Institute of Medicine and the National Research Council, is now complete. Its findings won’t entirely please the Obama administration or the NRA, but all of us should consider them. Here’s a list of the 10 most salient or surprising takeaways.
http://www.slate.com/articles/healt..._deaths_and_self_defense_findings_from_a.html​

Oh boy that a real comprehensive study, I guess we don't need millions of dollars more worth of studies, continuously, nope not at all. So we can mark that down 2013, we got the gun study that ends all studies and it finds shit, nothing!

Also slate? Why not cite the report its self? http://www.ncdsv.org/images/IOM-NRC...e-threat-of-firearm-related-violence_2013.pdf

Every chapter of this report ends with "Research Questions" on what further research is needed for this or that theory on cause of gun violence.

2. The only way to enforce universal background checks is a nationwide gun registry, which is a non-starter.

Lunacy! Sure it will not stop black market deals but at least open orders at gun shows and what not will be done with. This is the problem with you people, little improvements are not good enough because they are not perfect ergo we need the impossible to implement slippery slope solution and thus should do nothing.

3. Non-starter. It's the first necessary step to any eventual confiscation.

Like I said, slippery slope.

Defeats the intent of the 2nd amendment, and something about rights versus privileges.

Tell me does the 1986 machine gun "ban" not also defeat the intent of the 2nd amendment? And yet here we are, no tyrannical slippery slope, just a government of incompetent clownish morons ruled by a pig boar president, paid for by the NRA no less.

machine guns RPM -$
.50 at $3.00/round at 600/minute = $1800.00 for one minute (of whatever)
m 16 at $0,45/ round at 600 rpm = $270.00 for one minute (of whatever)
ak 47 at $0.25/round at 600 rpm = $150.00 for one minute (of whatever)

ok
I have no love for machine guns
perhaps, it is because I am just too damned frugal.

.22 lr at $0.038/round at 1200/minutes = $45.6 per minute... but a drum can only hold 177 or 275 rounds.

About a gun control bill that would have a very good chance of passing:
Why Senate Democrats are considering holding up a gun-control bill from one of their own
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...from-one-of-their-own/?utm_term=.0ce9fedd54b5

Classic political stratagem: propose your own bill so the other side will reject it and thus no measure passes under an opposing party controlled congress, then claim the other side did nothing. I'm not a cronyism democrat though so I don't care nor support this, sure I would vote for this fuckers of just about any republican but if it was up to me I would put them ALL against the wall.

I would pass a what ever measure can get through under and opposing party congress, but the problem with this is then when it inevitability fails the other party will claim no reform works. I think with gun control most people won't buy that argument because of the emotional reaction to do something every times their is a pile of dead bullet riddled children. They will always demand more be done with every mass shooting, it is only a matter of translating that anger into votes at a great rate then gun nut NRA lunatics that buy into Alex Jones level bullshit like this:

 

[Gawdzilla Sama]

And some guy has just gone the "cold, dead fingers" route outside the White House.

 

[Vociferous]

It's the gun purchaser that's checked, not (necessarily) the gun, in a background check.

And? Any real enforcement of universal background checks would require knowing who currently owns every gun in America. Otherwise, you can't prosecute any non-compliant seller of any of the 300 million guns already out there.

Restrict RPMs, just as RPGs are restricted and for exactly the same reason.

I get that you think RPM/RPG is cute or clever, but which of these do you want restricted?
1:

2:

Yes, he is and they are. Quite obviously, and for decades now.

Partisan ignorance.

Not actually flexible, just unprincipled. As is standard in fascistic governance, they have no consistent principles or ideological positions.

Partisan ignorance.

So not only conflating living and inanimate things, but human controlled things (which is the only reason anything murders anyone) too.

So you’re arguing that living things can't be weapons?

No. I'm saying that any weapon, of any kind, must be human controlled for it to be murder.
Guns and dogs don't murder without human input. A dog can kill without human input (hunting instinct), but a gun can neither murder nor kill without human input.

Unless as I noted above, the weapons are designed to function autonomously.

Red herring. Irrelevant to the discussion of civilian-owned wealons.

The law regulates both the user and the weapon. And no, your socket wrench is not a substitute for an automatic assault rifle.

"Automatic assault rifles" are already heavily regulated. Look it up.

RPM?

(rate of fire?)

.............................
anyone seen a rate of fire comparison between
as fast as you can pull the trigger
and
bump stocks
(I read somewhere that it was about 1 : 1.5)--(but that it decreases accuracy)---accurate?

Rate of fire can be measured in "rounds per minute" (RPM) or "rounds per second" (RPS). Rate of fire, cyclic rate, or RPS all seem more commonly used than RPM.
Professionally trained shooters can at least match a bump stock but have far better accuracy, usually in bursts, which is what the military does.

Your natural laws are an abstraction, devoid of nuance or existence. You might as well be an sjw telling me about the millions of types fluid genders. Oh what that you got some old philosopher that spouts your nonsense, yeah the sjw got that too. There are no "natural" laws, a simple platitude like "life, liberty and property" results in thousands of pages of law and never ending millions of hours of court trials when it comes time to try to actually achieve just those three pursuits because they actually conflict with one another in different situations.

So you were aping a term you don't even believe is meaningful. Okay. Makes your claim about what it entails it irrelevant.

Oh boy that a real comprehensive study, I guess we don't need millions of dollars more worth of studies, continuously, nope not at all. So we can mark that down 2013, we got the gun study that ends all studies and it finds shit, nothing!

Also slate? Why not cite the report its self? http://www.ncdsv.org/images/IOM-NRC...e-threat-of-firearm-related-violence_2013.pdf

Every chapter of this report ends with "Research Questions" on what further research is needed for this or that theory on cause of gun violence.

Straw man. Just because that report didn't come to Obama's desired conclusions, that doesn't mean we couldn't use more. With sufficient controls for bias, I'd welcome more studies.
Thanks for finding the actual study. I didn't look long enough to find it.

Lunacy! Sure it will not stop black market deals but at least open orders at gun shows and what not will be done with. This is the problem with you people, little improvements are not good enough because they are not perfect ergo we need the impossible to implement slippery slope solution and thus should do nothing.

No. Gun show sales by venders already comply with background checks. Person to person sales are just that, anywhere, including at gun shows.
So universal background checks are meaningless without an enforcement mechanism. We'd have to know who owns the 300 million guns already in America before there's any chance of enforcement. New gun sales don't touch the 300 million gun market.

Like I said, slippery slope.

We've have plenty of slippery slopes proven true lately. Gay marriage to gender-fluid transgender rights and prosecuting Christian businesses. We were told gay marriage couldn't hurt anyone too.

Tell me does the 1986 machine gun "ban" not also defeat the intent of the 2nd amendment? And yet here we are, no tyrannical slippery slope, just a government of incompetent clownish morons ruled by a pig boar president, paid for by the NRA no less.

Well, since you used scare quotes, I assume you know it isn't a total ban. They're just exorbitantly expensive, taxed, registered, and tracked.
Discriminating against the poor isn't exactly new. Restricting everyone's self-defense rights is.

Which of these do you want restricted?
1:

2:

Classic political stratagem: propose your own bill so the other side will reject it and thus no measure passes under an opposing party controlled congress, then claim the other side did nothing. I'm not a cronyism democrat though so I don't care nor support this, sure I would vote for this fuckers of just about any republican but if it was up to me I would put them ALL against the wall.

The other side is willing to approve this bill, but they are threatening to pull it anyway, for a stronger bill that has no chance of passing. Democrats are screwing themselves out of bipartisan gun control action, in favor of no action at all.

 

[ElectricFetus]

So you were aping a term you don't even believe is meaningful. Okay. Makes your claim about what it entails it irrelevant.

How so? Your natural laws are bullshit. All we have is a social contract, a system of laws and rules, of which is very extensive and complicated, we have no "life, liberty and property" only an attempt at such.

Straw man. Just because that report didn't come to Obama's desired conclusions,

It did not come to any conclusion, other then there needs to be more study.

that doesn't mean we couldn't use more. With sufficient controls for bias, I'd welcome more studies.
Thanks for finding the actual study. I didn't look long enough to find it.

How about reading it.

No. Gun show sales by venders already comply with background checks. Person to person sales are just that, anywhere, including at gun shows.
So universal background checks are meaningless without an enforcement mechanism. We'd have to know who owns the 300 million guns already in America before there's any chance of enforcement. New gun sales don't touch the 300 million gun market.

Bullshit: Under federal law, private-party sellers are not required to perform background checks on buyers; whether at a gun show or other venue. They also are not required to record the sale, or ask for identification.

So there is no requirement, first there needs to be a federal requirement, then we can see about enforcement.

We've have plenty of slippery slopes proven true lately. Gay marriage to gender-fluid transgender rights and prosecuting Christian businesses. We were told gay marriage couldn't hurt anyone too.

Oh booo hooo, the gays can marry, some 19 year old tumblrina can call its self an otherkin transgender thing, so scary. As for christian businesses last I checked it was deemed a baker did not have to make cakes for gays, that weddings cakes were consider artistic expression and not a commodity.

Again to strip the 2nd amendment would require 2/3 of both the senate and house or 3/4 of states, that simply is not going to happen any time this decade or even this century.

Well, since you used scare quotes, I assume you know it isn't a total ban. They're just exorbitantly expensive, taxed, registered, and tracked.
Discriminating against the poor isn't exactly new. Restricting everyone's self-defense rights is.

For a machine-gun? A machine-guns for self defense? Do you think machines-guns should be cheap and easily available for all? How about tanks? How about atomic bombs? At what point is restricting ok? Is there a limit for you?

Which of these do you want restricted?

I would like a universal background check first. I would like to restrict ANY type of gun entering the hands of criminals and psychos, I don't see why law abiding citizens with training and sanity can't have guns.

The other side is willing to approve this bill, but they are threatening to pull it anyway, for a stronger bill that has no chance of passing. Democrats are screwing themselves out of bipartisan gun control action, in favor of no action at all.

Yeah so? What is wrong with a stronger bill? That republicans can't do it? why?

 

[Vociferous]

How so? Your natural laws are bullshit. All we have is a social contract, a system of laws and rules, of which is very extensive and complicated, we have no "life, liberty and property" only an attempt at such.

Now you seem to have gone from conflating natural law with the laws of nature to conflating natural law moral theory with natural law legal theory.
At least the latter two intersect. Human reason being the objective and logical difference between human and animal morality, and this being a logical justification for the authority of law.
But you don't belief any of that, so it's probably lost on you.

It did not come to any conclusion, other then there needs to be more study.

It did have factual findings, which some find inconvenient.

How about reading it.

Already have, when it was first published.

Bullshit: Under federal law, private-party sellers are not required to perform background checks on buyers; whether at a gun show or other venue. They also are not required to record the sale, or ask for identification.

So there is no requirement, first there needs to be a federal requirement, then we can see about enforcement.

Yep, just like I said. Private sellers, even attending a gun show. But guns show booths require FFL holders to sell guns, and they do run background checks. You're conflating private sales between gun show attendees and sales from gun show venders. They're two different things, that both exist at gun shows. Stopping private sales there would require stopping private sales everywhere.

Oh booo hooo, the gays can marry, some 19 year old tumblrina can call its self an otherkin transgender thing, so scary. As for christian businesses last I checked it was deemed a baker did not have to make cakes for gays, that weddings cakes were consider artistic expression and not a commodity.

Again to strip the 2nd amendment would require 2/3 of both the senate and house or 3/4 of states, that simply is not going to happen any time this decade or even this century.

True, but in a very Republican county in California. Any opposing ruling may take it to the Supreme Court, luckily recently rebalanced.
You don't have to repeal an amendment to effectively gut it. You could just price most people out of the right, like they do in Democrat cities/states.

For a machine-gun? A machine-guns for self defense? Do you think machines-guns should be cheap and easily available for all? How about tanks? How about atomic bombs? At what point is restricting ok? Is there a limit for you?

Reductio ad absurdum and straw man.
No one said machine guns should be cheap. I'm not afraid of them, but I don't mind the concession to the paranoid. Not even the military finds full-auto very useful. Though I would like to see suppressors less regulated, like in Canada until 1995, or present day Norway (not regulated at all), Finland (regulated like any gun), France (unregulated for rimfire), or Sweden (80 dollar permit).

We can own cannons, but I wouldn't have a use for one of those either. Much less a tank, which we can legally own as well. Look it up.

I would like a universal background check first. I would like to restrict ANY type of gun entering the hands of criminals and psychos, I don't see why law abiding citizens with training and sanity can't have guns.

How do you enforce it? Without a nationwide gun registry?

Yeah so? What is wrong with a stronger bill? That republicans can't do it? why?

A stronger bill everyone knows won't pass is worthless, and doing nothing compared to a bill very likely to pass with bipartisan support.

 

[Saint]

If I am 21, I go to buy a gun, will I be asked "why do you need a gun"?

 

[iceaura]

A stronger bill everyone knows won't pass is worthless, and doing nothing compared to a bill very likely to pass with bipartisan support.

When the Republicans block the doing of something, the Republicans are responsible for blocking the doing of something. When nothing gets done because the Republicans - in control of the legislature - block whatever was attempted, then the Republicans are responsible for nothing getting done.
Nothing prevents the Republicans from introducing that original very "bipartisan" bill, and voting it into law, for example. They don't need the Democrats to do it.

I get that you think RPM/RPG is cute or clever, but which of these do you want restricted?

I don't care. Rapid fire capability is the central problem, and it is a measurable feature. Measure it, and apply the law.

And? Any real enforcement of universal background checks would require knowing who currently owns every gun in America

No, that's stupid.

Otherwise, you can't prosecute any non-compliant seller of any of the 300 million guns already out there.

And that's stupid. You can prosecute anyone you identify as having sold a gun to someone without a background check. Any gun, registered or not.

 

[iceaura]

Every so often it seems like a good time to re-emphasize: It's not just the weird guy on the forum - it really is the way the 2nd Amendment is written, and why.
And it's a genuine "both sides to blame" jamb - possibly the only one, certainly the most important one:

https://historynewsnetwork.org/article/168388

We have a gun culture not because of the sanctity of the 2nd Amendment, but because killing, looting, burning, raping, and terrorizing Indians were an American tradition and militias helped carry out these horrors.
- - - - -
the first draft of the Virginia Constitution of 1776—Thomas Jefferson’s work, which preceded the writing of the U.S. Constitution by nine years—included the individual right to bear arms, stating: “No freeman shall ever be debarred the use of arms.”
- - -
But the Second Amendment (like the other ten amendments) enshrined an individual right. The Second Amendment’s language specifically gave individuals and families the right to form volunteer militias to attack Indians and take their land. Later, as racial slavery was institutionalized in the late 17th century, slave patrols were drawn from these militias. Both expansion into Ohio Valley Indian territory and maintenance of chattel slavery were primary objectives of secession from Britain
- - - - -
The purpose of my book, Loaded: A Disarming History of the Second Amendment, is to explore those questions. Instead of dismissing the Second Amendment as antiquated and irrelevant, or as not actually meaning what it says, I argue that understanding the purpose of the Second Amendment is key to understanding the gun culture of the United States,
- -

 

[ElectricFetus]

Now you seem to have gone from conflating natural law with the laws of nature to conflating natural law moral theory with natural law legal theory.
At least the latter two intersect. Human reason being the objective and logical difference between human and animal morality, and this being a logical justification for the authority of law.
But you don't belief any of that, so it's probably lost on you.

Strawman. I can't tell me what I do and do not believe, If you can't comprehend the nuance I'll try, and try again to explain.

Simplest platitudes like "right to self defense" need to be balanced against allowing criminals and psycho access to highly lethal weaponry. Your moronic vision of natural laws simply do not work in the real world, for we in the end must balance everyone "natural rights" against each other meaning that said rights will to some degree be restricted and infringed depending on scenarios. Example: the right to liberty of a women verse the right to life of her womb-turd, her liberty takes priority to the thing inside her body, sorry.

It did have factual findings, which some find inconvenient.

"Anthropogenic induced Global warming is REAL" inconvenient or "we need more research" inconvenient?

Already have, when it was first published.

Bullshit.

Yep, just like I said. Private sellers, even attending a gun show. But guns show booths require FFL holders to sell guns, and they do run background checks.

This is bullshit minutia on your part. Not all sellers are required to be FFL holders. Some of those unlicensed sellers sell at gun shows. The point is that there are places LEGALLY where anyone without ID or background check can purchase as gun in the USA. Why are you trying to weasel around this fact? Very first step is to make such sales illegal, that ALL sales require a background check.

Stopping private sales there would require stopping private sales everywhere.

Yeah, so? Perhaps we have different interpretations of a private sale, when I bought my first car from guy, I had to exchange the title for a dollar at the county court house, the state registered the transaction and the car was mine, none the less I consider that a private sale. Is this another scenario where we need to define words?

True, but in a very Republican county in California. Any opposing ruling may take it to the Supreme Court, luckily recently rebalanced.
You don't have to repeal an amendment to effectively gut it. You could just price most people out of the right, like they do in Democrat cities/states.

A right to a machine-gun?

No one said machine guns should be cheap.

Then why are you saying the poor are being priced out of their "rights"?

I'm not afraid of them, but I don't mind the concession to the paranoid. Not even the military finds full-auto very useful.

Yeah, so?

Though I would like to see suppressors less regulated, like in Canada until 1995, or present day Norway (not regulated at all), Finland (regulated like any gun), France (unregulated for rimfire), or Sweden (80 dollar permit).

Your changing the topic. How about this compromise: all guns of just about any type, machine-guns to cannons, VSS Vintorez, etc, what ever gets your dick hard, can be sold, but EVERY sale must be registered, tracked, its owner licensed background checked, certified trained and tested for sanity? Don't give me that bullshit about "impossible" I'm speaking about a hypothetical, if we had that, would you agree?

We can own cannons, but I wouldn't have a use for one of those either. Much less a tank, which we can legally own as well. Look it up.

But they are not priced for the poor, as you are objecting and then claimed you were not. There is no law against the sale of atomic bombs either, but like tanks and cannon there are a variety of indirect laws that heavy regulate the sales of those, destructive device laws, street legal vehicles, and then of course there is the price, which you implied earlier was some kind of hederence to "rights" and now deny.

How do you enforce it? Without a nationwide gun registry?

Ok for example Bars and Pubs are not required to register alcohol, every sale of alcohol is not registered, none the less they are not willy-nilly giving that stuff out to teenagers. I have witness bars and alcohol stores kicking out teens, now why would they do that if they are not required to register every sale? Well because just the possibility of them getting caught selling to kids, losing their license to sell or even worse risking prison time for that offense is deterrent enough to GREATLY REDUCE sales to kids. No need to a registry which you claim is impossible.

A stronger bill everyone knows won't pass is worthless, and doing nothing compared to a bill very likely to pass with bipartisan support.

And why won't it pass, hum?