Why is gun control so difficult in the US?

sculptor said:
"Congress shall make no law..."
I suppose you are correct..........if the criterion were met...
The framers of the bill of rights also denied congress the sole right to amend the constitution.
so, yeh
Agree
Click to expand...
And the gunners who clutch the 2A so tightly would drop it like a warm turd if it wasn't useful to them. They're already trimming off the "awkward" parts, editing it to fit their needs without the consent of the American public as a whole.
 
Is giving up ones rights to a government that is a slave to the whim of the mob ever a good idea?

.............
Why do we have a representative republic instead of a democracy?
 
sculptor said:
Is giving up ones rights to a government that is a slave to the whim of the mob ever a good idea?
Click to expand...
What if your right is to not be shot by some cowboy in Walmart who thinks your skin's the wrong shade?
Why do we have a representative republic instead of a democracy?
Click to expand...
Why? Because the people are rarely aware of the issues and mostly disinclined to even try to understand them. Representatives are supposed to listen to the people in his district but vote for the good of the nation as a whole. We could have 300,000,000+ people vote on every single issue, but it would be a bit slow.
 
Gawdzilla Sama said:
True. If the Constitution had nothing that could be manipulated into appearing to support guns it would be totally disregarded by the NRA.
Click to expand...
Likewise if the gun control advocates were not so easily misdirected by that manipulation.
So easily misdirected that they do it themselves - the idea that the 2nd Amendment is an obstacle to reasonable gun control is a standard talking point of "both sides". The effect is to jamb the argument, exclude reason, and set up a power fight.

But abandoning reason like, advocating for misreadings and special pleadings and symbolic absolutes and even outright repeal of a Constitutional right, only works for the unreasonable - the ones who plan to win a power fight, to govern by mob and by force. For those committed to governance by reason for the benefit of a citizenry, abandoning reason is failure.
 
If you want to stay a half lap ahead of gunners on the internet, watch NRA TV, the Vatican of Guns. You'll get the latest "arguments" that will be regurgitated here without any critical filters being applied. It's rather like having the enemy's war councils being posted on Youtube.
 
billvon said:
Most of those require time and cost prohibitive stings.
You're so worried about the cost and time of arming teachers, but you don't care about the added strain on law enforcement, which could only lengthen response times.
Click to expand...
Never knew you were so pro-crime. Interesting.
Click to expand...
No idea how you came to that conclusion.
iceaura said:
Of course they are enforceable, as other such laws are - and they are a significant deterrent to supplying the criminal and the unreliable with guns. (We see that in the efforts made to avoid them).
Click to expand...
What "other such laws?" How do they know who has a stolen car (that wasn't reported) or who it was bought from? A registry.
Again, who would know who provided the gun without a registry? The seller going to give the criminal enough info to identify them? Hell, I've seen gun sales without anything more than a phone number (which could be a burner) exchanged.
I do think the cost and trouble and time of public security against armed criminal assault is properly borne by law enforcement. Teachers inculcate knowledge in classrooms full of children, law enforcement deters and apprehends criminals running amok with high powered firearms, that seems to me a reasonable division of labor.
Click to expand...
Due to Obama policies against filing charges for crimes, to help stop the "school to prison pipeline", which also contributed to Parkland, teachers have already been tasked with dealing with criminals.
And again, unless you advocate for heightened police presence, police are often not on the scene when something happens.
You haven't convinced me (or even attempted to show any data) that anything short of a gun registry would be anywhere near effective in enforcing universal background checks. Until you do, I have to compare the ineffectual against its costs.
And if you're referring to AR-15s as "high powered firearms", you're showing your ignorance again.
So the knowledgable are going to be obstacles, and refuse to contribute to the necessary regulations.
Ok. Then they can stop whining about the inconveniences and errors built into them, inevitable whenever the poorly informed regulate an arena.
If you guys don't help write the new laws, you aren't going to like them.
Click to expand...
What do you think are "necessary regulations?" Republicans have already offered bills that would improve NICS in keeping more restricted people from buying guns. And in California, the gun industry just keeps selling new products to side-step ignorant laws. Their ignorance is actually a boon to the gun industry there, just as ignorant gun control threats are nationally.
I live in a free state, so I have nothing to complain about.
 
Vociferous said:
What "other such laws?" How do they know who has a stolen car (that wasn't reported) or who it was bought from? A registry.
Click to expand...
What motive would you have not to report a stolen car?

Yep, each gun has a serial number and is traceable. If in addition the manufacturer is required to save a sample of a test bullet, then the striations on the bullets can be associated with the gun and its original owner even if the serial number on the gun is removed.

Once you have identified the gun and its original purchaser, you can trace ownership and any subsequent legal transfer.
If the transfer was made illegally then the ownwer(s) would be liable for complicity. This would surely result in a more orderly transfer or face possible prosecution. Ownership of a deadly weapon bestows special responsibilities on the owner.
This is what we do with cars and most cars are transferred legally. No papers of transfer or notification in case of theft and the car kills someone, off to jail you go.
Even if you do legally own a car but cannot produce liability insurance is sufficient for your car to be impounded and a fine.
 
Last edited:
Write4U said:
What motive would you have not to report a stolen car?

Yep, each gun has a serial number and is traceable. If in addition the manufacturer is required to save a sample of a test bullet, then the striations on the bullets can be associated with the gun and its original owner even if the serial number on the gun is removed.

Once you have identified the gun and its original purchaser, you can trace ownership and any subsequent legal transfer.
If the transfer was made illegally then the ownwer(s) would be liable for complicity. This would surely result in a more orderly transfer or face possible prosecution.
This is what we do with cars and most cars are transferred legally. No papers of transfer or notification in case of theft and the car kills someone, off to jail you go.
Click to expand...
so solid manufacturer regulation could mitigate the anonymity factor of new and ultimately second hand gun purchases?
 
Quantum Quack said:
so solid manufacturer regulation could mitigate the anonymity factor of new and ultimately second hand gun purchases?
Click to expand...
IMO, yes. If you can match a bullet to a specific gun, it and the original purchaser is no longer anonymous.
A powerful deterrent to just give or sell your gun to a stranger without proper transfer documentation, as I see it.
 
If tanks and missiles don't fall under the "right to keep and bear arms", then why should assault rifles and handguns? The 2nd amendment came half a century before the Gattling gun was even invented, let alone the repeating rifle. If I say the ammendment only applies to pea shooters, where in the constitution is that contradicted? And if you want to interpret the US constitution in terms of the times and people who wrote it, then everyone should have the right to keep a musket, and good luck shooting a crowd of colored people with those.
 
It would not be commonly necessary in an otherwise lawful society to need tanks and missiles.
 
spidergoat said:
It would not be commonly necessary in an otherwise lawful society to need tanks and missiles.
Click to expand...
But then neither would rifles and handguns, except for hunting.

And that changes the need for any "military" weapons drastically. They are not designed for hunting, but for random mass killing or maiming humans. Which is exactly what is happening on our streets and in schools.

We almost entered into a war with Cuba and Russia for installing "defensive missiles" in Cuba.
Why would we need to buy "Assault Rifles" for defensive purposes, scaring others into also buying AR15s ?
This is a clear example of going down a slippery slope .

Somebody is being disingenius about this self-defense argument. We already have "well regulated" militias in every state. They are called the National Guard or State Militia. Who is required to register with the State Militia in order to qualify for service when called?

I live in Idaho and everyone has a gun, because in NO.Idaho we run across grizzly bears and wolves and cougars as possible adversaries, but hunting for big game such as Elk and Moose with an AR15 would only needlessly wound the animal without killing it.

I lived there and can testify to that, and a .223 caliber AR15 would not stop a grizzly, regardless of how many bullets you pump into its hide, but a single well aimed 30-06 would.
And obtaining a hunting license without being able to prove you can shoot "straight" should also be forbidden.

And coming back to cars, seatbelts have saved thousands of lives, but should school children be forced to wear bullet proof vests in order to attend school?
 
Last edited:
Quantum Quack said:
Is there a generic name given to the policy proposal? Something to use in further discussion? A link perhaps?
Click to expand...
Sorry, it was my own personal opinion about the unabridged Second Amendment, it's intent and how modernization of weapons of war bestows additional responsibilities on ownership and should be addressed in the spirit of the times the document was written, which clearly was not anticipating the change from single shot black powder rifles to fully automatic weapons capable of firing hundreds of rounds in a few minutes inmall spaces, by simply changing a large capacity clip.
 
Last edited:
mRQ3Dld.png
 
Write4U said:
But then neither would rifles and handguns, except for hunting.
Click to expand...
I disagree, there can still be crimes that don't involve fighting off hordes of criminals.
Gawdzilla Sama said:
In other words, the benefit isn't there.
Click to expand...
Not a deal breaker in my book. Better regulation about gun storage and background checks would mitigate this. I'm a liberal in favor of gun control, but not gun prohibition.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top