Why is gun control so difficult in the US?

[spidergoat]

Trying making any law about guns. I'll watch.

The thinning has been going on for years and it works. The populations have declined. Fewer sheep are killed, fewer children attacked, etc. If you don't know shit about a subject it's probably not good to comment on it.

I have a family of 6 coyotes living in my backyard.

 

[Write4U]

I have a family of 6 coyotes living in my backyard.

Question: Do you also have any chickens which provide you with fresh eggs everyday?

My chicken coup had some 30 chickens which ran free during the day and kept my yard free from many pests, such as the yearly swarm of carpenter ants.
And every week, I used to sell 2 dozen eggs to my neighbor. Paid for my monthly water bill.

p.s. Anyone interested in egglayers, I can recommend "Sex-link" hybrids. They produce beautiful light brown extra-large eggs and don't brood.
https://countrysidenetwork.com/daily/poultry/chickens-101/understanding-sex-link-hybrid-chickens/

 

[Write4U]

The National Guard is not a militia. You've been informed of that fact before, with links and detailed explication and so forth. You have no excuse for repeating that falsehood.
Afaik the militia most States is still the adult male population under the age of 45 or so, unless there have been recent changes in the local laws. How well regulated they would be, if called up, I have no idea - in my neighborhood they are often military veterans with decent weapons and other gear at home, so they would be better regulated to begin with than most of the militia in 1780.

So what happened to the term "a well regulated militia" . Are you claiming every Joe who owns a gun is part of this well-regulated militia?
Remember, this is a Constitutional requirement, not some useless afterthought. Keyword is Regulation which, in spite of your protestations, is practically non-existent in every state, except for the National Guard which consists of private citizen volunteers, who are required to actually partake in military exercises at regular intervals.

In the United States, as of the early 2000s, the National Guard serves as the nation's militia .
Made up of volunteers, the National Guard acts under the dual authority of both the federal and state governments. According to the Constitution, Congress can call the National Guard into federal service for three purposes:
to enforce federal laws, to suppress insurrections, and to defend against invasions. State governors can call upon the National Guard for emergencies that are prescribed by state law.

https://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/State militia

 

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Yeh-----------------what is the point?
If throwing away ammunition is the goal------------there are easier ways.

(personal bias) I have no respect for the spray and pray people.

The point there was that 30 rpm with a high risk of jamming just isn't "impressive". As for "spray and pray", it's rarely the best option, agreed. I had to train my guys on trigger control because they'd seen too many movies.

 

[Gawdzilla Sama]

I have a family of 6 coyotes living in my backyard.

Really? How long have they been there?

 

[Write4U]

I find it odd that a person can own a large capacity semi-automatic, but you cannot own a sawed-off shotgun for home defense. Just point in the general direction and pull the trigger. Result is an instantaneous spray of steel BBs , much more likely to hit a moving intruder than to try and follow his movement and constantly having to pull the trigger to launch a single round at the moving target. Even fully (illegal) automatic weapons fire only a single bullet at a rapid interval.

 

[Gawdzilla Sama]

I find it odd that a person can own a large capacity semi-automatic, but you cannot own a sawed-off shotgun for home defense. Just point in the general direction and pull the trigger. Result is an instantaneous spray of steel BBs , much more likely to hit a moving intruder than to try and follow his movement and constantly having to pull the trigger to launch a single round at the moving target. Even fully (illegal) automatic weapons fire only a single bullet at a rapid interval.

Well, for starters, it's wildly reckless to salvo a shotgun indoors. Your family, if any, are behind some of those walls.

 

[Write4U]

Well, for starters, it's wildly reckless to salvo a shotgun indoors. Your family, if any, are behind some of those walls.

I think this is a fallacious argument. BBs dont penetrate very well, otoh, even a 223 can easily penetrate a wall and is potentially much more dangerous than a BB.
The difference a BB is not likely to kill, but wound, IMO a safer way to disable an intruder.

But I will readily admit I am no expert in weaponry.

 

[Gawdzilla Sama]

I think this is a fallacious argument. BBs dont penetrate very well, otoh, even a 223 can easily penetrate a wall and is potentially much more dangerous than a BB.
The difference a BB is not likely to kill, but wound, IMO a safer way to disable an intruder.

But I will readily admit I am no expert in weaponry.

If you can guarantee the people on the other side of the wall will be safe it might be an option, but it's still a very bad idea. Firearms are not for defense, they are for elevating violence.

 

[sculptor]

speaking of gun control
If you own a Remington Model 700 bolt-action rifle: You had better know where the muzzle is pointed.
Or, better still do not insert a live round before replacing the trigger assembly.

 

[iceaura]

So what happened to the term "a well regulated militia" . Are you claiming every Joe who owns a gun is part of this well-regulated militia?

They can't be well-regulated unless they first possess a firearm. A militia grade firearm, as indicated. Hence the provision, and the guaranteed right.

It's not that complicated a sentence.

The willful refusal of the dominant gun control advocates to read basic English for its ordinary meaning is a major contributor to the mistrust which has jambed the public discourse in the US, thereby blocking sane gun control (and doing much political damage beyond that).

 

[Dr_Toad]

speaking of gun control
If you own a Remington Model 700 bolt-action rifle: You had better know where the muzzle is pointed.
Or, better still do not insert a live round before replacing the trigger assembly.

I have a 783 with a Crossfire adjustable trigger. Very nice at a 3.5lb pull. Much less scary than the 700..

 

[Write4U]

They can't be well-regulated unless they first possess a firearm. A militia grade firearm, as indicated. Hence the provision, and the guaranteed right.

But no requirement to partake in knowledge or practise in military regulations such as chain of command, using a variety of weapons and other regulations in the course of warfare.

It's not that complicated a sentence.

I beg to differ. You may want to check this out before you can even enter basic training.

BEFORE BASIC COMBAT TRAINING
https://www.nationalguard.com/basic-combat-training/before-basic-combat-training

Then basic training itself will require 20 to 30 hrs of study, practice in regular maintenance, efficient disassembly and reassembly of the weapon and physical training.

The willful refusal of the dominant gun control advocates to read basic English for its ordinary meaning is a major contributor to the mistrust which has jambed the public discourse in the US, thereby blocking sane gun control (and doing much political damage beyond that).

I completely agree.
Owning a gun is a serious responsibility. Very much different today than +2 centuries ago .

 

[iceaura]

Keyword is Regulation which, in spite of your protestations, is practically non-existent in every state, except for the National Guard which consists of private citizen volunteers,

That's all irrelevant when it isn't wrong.

If that is the key word, you should look it up in the dictionary and learn what it means in this usage. While you're at it, look up "militia". Read a basic history book that describes the militia of the late 17oos in America.

This will be your third or fourth opportunity to become less ignorant in this matter, more trustworthy, and less of an obstacle to gun control in the US. Are you going to blow it off again, and repeat this foolishness on into the future?
- - - -
Militia are regular citizens, ordinary folk, who agree to break from civilian life and pack their gear and join a fighting force in response to some kind of need, when called upon, occasionally. They normally - very often - bring their own weapons and other gear. In most places at the time of the writing of the Constitution, most adult men were in their local militia automatically. In some places they were required to own and keep ready a militia grade firearm.

The National Guard is an enlisted, paid, uniformed, State commanded and State provisioned military force. Its enlistees serve set terms of service, are subject to military command assigned by the State and Federal government rather than chosen by themselves, are subject to involuntary deployment, are bound by formal Articles of War, are structured in formal ranks established by central military authority, etc.

It is not a militia. It will never turn into a militia, not even at midnight when its commanding officers become pumpkins.

I beg to differ. You may want to check this out before you can even enter basic training.

See? Not a militia.

 

[Gawdzilla Sama]

More NRA TV.

 

[Write4U]

That's all irrelevant when it isn't wrong.

If that is the key word, you should look it up in the dictionary and learn what it means in this usage. While you're at it, look up "militia". Read a basic history book that describes the militia of the late 17oos in America

That's why I advise you to read the current definition that describes the militia in modern times (post # 723)

This will be your third or fourth opportunity to become less ignorant in this matter, more trustworthy, and less of an obstacle to gun control in the US. Are you going to blow it off again, and repeat this foolishness on into the future?

And that makes you wrong three times. As long as you are not informing yourself of the current interpretation of "the right to bear arms, a well regulated militia being necessary,....I will continue to argue against the possession of weapons of war, unless you also sign up for service in the National Guard, also known as the State Militia..

I am no obstacle to gun control, I am a gun owner, but I do not consider myself as part of a militia, but then I don't have any weapons of war.

Militia are regular citizens, ordinary folk, who agree to break from civilian life and pack their gear and join a fighting force in response to some kind of need, when called upon, occasionally. They normally - very often - bring their own weapons and other gear. In most places at the time of the writing of the Constitution, most adult men were in their local militia automatically. In some places they were required to own and keep ready a militia grade firearm.

That was then and you seem stuck in the time of writing the Constitution and are not even considering how things have changed since that time?

 

[Vociferous]

What motive would you have not to report a stolen car?

Don't know it's stolen yet. Out of town, stolen from airport, etc..

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.

Yep, the only way to enforce universal background checks is national gun registry. Never going to happen, especially when people insist on confusing rights with privileges. You also seem ignorant of the fact that you can replace the barrel on any firearm and barrels aren't regulated. You can have one delivered to your home. You could also alter a barrel to change the striations.

So what happened to the term "a well regulated militia" . Are you claiming every Joe who owns a gun is part of this well-regulated militia?
Remember, this is a Constitutional requirement, not some useless afterthought. Keyword is Regulation which, in spite of your protestations, is practically non-existent in every state, except for the National Guard which consists of private citizen volunteers, who are required to actually partake in military exercises at regular intervals.

Now see if you can figure out which phrase in the second amendment forms a complete and independent sentence. Maybe learn some basic grammar.

I find it odd that a person can own a large capacity semi-automatic, but you cannot own a sawed-off shotgun for home defense. Just point in the general direction and pull the trigger.

Short barreled rifles/shotguns were regulated due to the unique history of organized crime during prohibition. It was about what could be easily concealed by criminals in a trench coat, balanced against what most law-abiding people own and use. Shortening a barrel decreases its effective power. So the only reason to do that, at the time, was likely criminal.

I think this is a fallacious argument. BBs dont penetrate very well, otoh, even a 223 can easily penetrate a wall and is potentially much more dangerous than a BB.
The difference a BB is not likely to kill, but wound, IMO a safer way to disable an intruder.

But I will readily admit I am no expert in weaponry.

223 can actually have less penetration through targets and walls than a 9mm handgun, due to its projectile (22 caliber) having less mass.

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.

Whatever you may claim the second amendment "only applies to" contradicts "shall not infringe."
It terms of the times it was written, people were allowed to keep and bear the most advanced weapons of warfare, including cannons.

Owner has to open fire in a house with one bad guy and, say, five family members. Bullet goes where? And owner has to be ready to kill without mercy or warning, and do it rationally so as to not endanger other residents.

And the AR-15 223 round penetrates fewer walls than a 9mm handgun, making it better for home defense.

 

[pjdude1219]

They can't be well-regulated unless they first possess a firearm. A militia grade firearm, as indicated. Hence the provision, and the guaranteed right.

It's not that complicated a sentence.

The willful refusal of the dominant gun control advocates to read basic English for its ordinary meaning is a major contributor to the mistrust which has jambed the public discourse in the US, thereby blocking sane gun control (and doing much political damage beyond that).

if its not so complicated why don't you understand it? why do you insist in lying about it? the only refusal to read its basic english meaning is nut jobs with an ax to grind like you vociferous.

 

[Gawdzilla Sama]

"And the AR-15 223 round penetrates fewer walls than a 9mm handgun, making it better for home defense."

Yeah, if you want to get in a gun fight with a long gun in a house, that's your johnwayne.

 

[CptBork]

Whatever you may claim the second amendment "only applies to" contradicts "shall not infringe."
It terms of the times it was written, people were allowed to keep and bear the most advanced weapons of warfare, including cannons.

When courts interpret laws and constitutions, they have to do it in a way which is consistent with past precedent. Given that tanks, combat aircraft and nukes aren't permitted to private citizens (except as museum pieces) and never have been since they were invented, a judge can easily rule that the ammendment doesn't forbid restrictions on certain arms, and since assault rifles and handguns were just as nonexistent as tanks and nukes when the ammendment was written, it can be interpreted as applying only to muskets, bayonets and perhaps 18th century cannons.