NRA torches Biden admin for plan to change rules for gun buyers, sellers

I want to respond to just one point- "I don't pretend to know exactly what to do about gun violence."

A lot of people are thinking that way, and I think thats the wrong description of the problem we are concerned with. If we eliminate the word "gun" from the statement, then it is an accurate one that addresses the problem; violence. The choice of a weapon is almost irrelevant; the weapon is a tool. Remove all guns, you still have violent people, and everyone of us is armed with something that is capable of killing. Hands and feet are deadly weapons too. On the other hand, if we can remove all violent people- the presence of weapons would be irrelevant, and there would be no violence.

If you are killed with a knife or a hammer or a pool cue- you are just as dead as being killed with a gun. And most don't know it, but the survival rate for being gunshot is 30%, while the survival rate of being stabbed is 10%. The point is that the core problem is people. Our stability, our civility, our self-respect and standards. Those are obviously in decline today- you see it in the news every time you turn it on.

Solving problems starts with understanding the cause. If you get distracted into what amounts to a symptom of the cause, you treat the symptom- but you do not cure the problem, it just manifests itself differently.
Guns have no malice, they do not choose to be violent. A person determined to kill you who couldn't find a gun would find the next best thing, which could be as simple as a hammer or piece of rope.

Just as the greatest asset we have is our people, our worst enemy is our people, and the question is how clearly we can understand ourselves and promote the right values. I think that starts with examples, the way we learn from those around us. Good or bad- people learn about the world from what they see others doing and getting by with. Kids raised in broken homes or with unfit parents will not see examples of good values, but they will learn from what they see. The same is true of national leaders, who no longer are guided by honor, and ignore the rules and duties of their positions. The people see this, and will emulate it when it's convenient. When rules aren't enforced- there are no rules, and that leaves a gap that is always filled by chaos and squabbling like spoiled children. That's the case with national leadership and Congress today, setting terrible examples every day, distorting and dodging all the rules.

We start by making the rules stick. It's not complicated; If you don't play by the rules- you don't get to play. People learn from consequences, not threats, so for laws to work, laws must produce consequences. They must be fair and equal, so as not to demonstrate another form of abuse. For example, what if Congress were required to uphold just two requirements that already exist- the Oath of Office, and their Fiduciary duty... and failure to uphold them resulted in removal (you got fired). Very shortly- everybody in Congress would be keeping those obligations. Because if they didn't, they wouldn't be there. Result? An honorable Congress, respecting the rules that create honor and order, and soon applying the same process to all the agencies of government. Then- because Congress is a kind of role model for the nation, we have people adopting the same codes of ethics. As they change, the people they are role models for, such as their children- also change. That is how a society evolves, by respecting the rules and values that strengthen it. You keep the social soup nourishing and healthy by removing the elements that don't support the rules, and are toxic to it.

People make themselves who they are. Regardless of the problems we face, the choice of how to respond is individual. Strong people will make the right choices, will take responsibility and the consequences for their own decisions. Our weakness is allowing irresponsible people to blame the rest of society for what they do, and then- accepting that blame; and taking responsibility for the decisions that we have absolutely no power over and results we cannot change.

I do not feel sorry for people who will not be responsible for themselves. Neither will I accept the blame for what they have made themselves to be, nor shield them from the full consequences of their conduct.
I think that is where we start. Violence should result in heavy consequences. The price of violence needs to be a lot higher than what it is.

I do apologize for the length of this reply....

 

I've often asked if you are less dead and feel happier when you are killed by means other than gunshot.

 

Pardon my confusion, but the Marbury v. Madison ruling reinforced that the U.S. Constitution is actual law and not a statement of political principles and.or ideas. It reinforces that our rights of the second amendment is constitutional law.

Controlling the flow gives border agencies vastly more man power and capital to stop the massive quantities of fentanyl into this country.

It's surely not the sole product of the mental crisis in this nation, however we are seeing a massive uptick in mental dysphoria that is now being affirmed as transgenderism. Just like we are influencing kids to consider "what gender they want to be" which is insane!

You do realize your DNA currently defines what sex you are at birth... right? This new definition of redefining gender is in itself insane. It's only junk science

When the supreme court got a majority during the Trump administration, Democrats were clamoring about potential losing Roe v. Wade. They new this was a potential and had 2 years of both the house and senate and the presidency to codify is BEFORE Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization was handed down.

They emphatically could have with total control. They chose not to as they are getting political capital from it from every election now. Democrats are getting played like a fiddle.

Me, personally, think it would be an absolute travesty if any form of contraception was banned. I also think it would be a death nail in any chance the republicans have to keep control of the house and could give the Senate a super majority.

While some states of the most restrictive laws regarding abortion in the world, by the same token, we also have some of the loosest laws in the world. Many nations have a 12 week limit and you need to meet a helath panel to get approval for abortion. I'd like to see a happy medium where abortion is allowed, but limited. 24 weeks I'd be willing to work with.

 

Holy **** you actually said it! I can't believe you're trying to offer a race based or religious discrimination based justification. Well... that's not precisely true, I can believe it I'm just disgusted.
See equal protection clause. That option is superceded by amendment.
As I recall, several grabbers like yourself have offered that in cases making their way through the circuits. Its not a well taken argument.

The rule in bruen certainly would prevent a ban on race based discrimination or religious based discrimination, since it has to be in harmony with the rest of the constitution (ie those pesky amendments like "equal protection" which stymies your desired scheme of race based and religious based discrimination.). Of course you've already admitted elsewhere you don't care about the actual logical consistency of the rule itself, you only care about what you think the supremes will condescend to give you.

Further: Being black ain't being a felon. Being catholic ain't either. Indian neither. Asian, same.
About the only arguable analogy you have in that list is tory. Tory however referred to a person who had rendered material aid and support against the US government during the revolution. They're all dead now, there are not any civil war vets around to target with it either, and the analogy would be someone convicted of, or admitting to, treason, insurrection, or sedition. Not simple felonies these but the only actual crimes named in the constitution.
So that's not even an analog that gets you what you want.

Got something better?

 

Registration is unconstitutional, see the rule established in Heller and tested several times, most recently in Bruen. Then try to find an analog in place during the founding.

You'll find if you care to look in the library of congress (or other source that pulls from) at the meeting minutes for the committee that big brained the NFA into existence, that the members of the committee were quite taken with fellating each other over what a novel concept they had come up with (registration). The only similar law was the Harrison narcotics act, also a 1900's era law.
There are no historic analogs from the founding, ergo it fails the text, history, and tradition test.
You can gripe about o gee is the "founding era" cut off at the 14th amendment's writing or the 2nd's, but 1933 is right out of that range.

 

I didn't say security guard. I said the person in charge of the ward IE the teacher trapped in the classroom holding a stapler to throw if the person gets through the door.
We TEACH THEM THAT. What if we taught them the Mozambique instead?

Remember that cops wife from uvalde? Screaming and crying to be rescued from the phone? That she was trapped inside the classroom with the kids and he was breaking through?
What if she just shot the dumb *********ker when he was nicely silhouetted against the door?

 

Most seem to be unaware that the greatest threat to the future of the nation is the dilution of the standards we regulate both ourselves by (personal standards and values) and the gutting or distortion of the laws we use to regulate when people do not regulate themselves reasonably.

This starts with leadership- when they abandon order and ethics, they authorize the people to do the same. The basic values that should set our standards would be the recognition that personal decisions are the authority of the individual, and so long as the consequences of that decision are borne primarily by the individual- it's not the state's business, nor the business of other citizens who would dictate and impose a decision, then walk away and never deal with the consequences of it. If you have no skin in the game- it's not your game; not your decision.

 

Our governments, state and federal, had no means of resolving disputes.

Controlling the flow over the border won't stop production here. It didn't stop pot.

So, who's a woman...?

https://genetic.org/variations/

Justice Jackson didn't want to have to recuse herself later.

Roe was already law of the land. Anyway, they no doubt intend to make sure abortion is available in the United States.

What's your point? Republicans made it easy for women to support Democrats by coming out against abortion rights.

Women don't like you giving up their rights.

 

You're missing the point.

 

Hard to say.

https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/research-reports/judges-find-supreme-courts-bruen-test-unworkable

 

Didn't say everyone, just many and they prevent compromise.

 

I don't think you understand your opponents. They don't like guns. It has nothing to do with abortion rights.

 

We'll see if they're willing to set aside the NFA. They haven't so far.

 

I do understand them well-I worked at Planned Parenthood as a security officer. Lots of lefties push gun control to harass their political enemies. Just like lots of conservatives push abortion bans for the same reason. I know this for a fact-one of the chief strategists for the GOP is a college friend. A secular Jewish woman who used to push anti abortion issues. I asked her why and she said-to keep the feminists on the defensive

 

I doubt there is any point in the gun control debate I haven't evaluated

 

I reject purists in political issues. the fact is, lots of people were not protected by local or federal laws at the time the constitution was issued. I think Bruen has some serious problems and the courts are going to slap back at some of it. was it a good decision? yes=was it a flawed decision-somewhat because I think there were more state restrictions that perhaps AJ CT realized. The fact is , lots of people were disbarred of arms in that era. And IF YOU THINK THE COURTS are going to overturn prohibitions on FUGITIVES or violent felons being disarmed-well it's as realistic as thinking any competent court is going to hold the second amendment guarantees you a right to own a surface to air missile or a TOW even though they can be individually operated. BTW it is the 14th amendment that prevents bans by states based on religion or ethnicity or faith

BTW The bolded part is exactly why I have no use for purists. They are fickle allies and often backstabbing

 

They should but I suspect the restrictions on destructive devices will never be set aside Machine guns is a close call-clearly under MILLER hand held weapons like the M4 carbine or the HK SMG should be protected. suppressors should and will be removed from the silly NFA and I expect so will SBRs

 

I agree, They are that dumb

 

You call them dumb, yet those dumbs are coming to your state with pills of money and buying homes with cash and jacking up home price at your neighborhood, they are brining their organic grocery store like Whole Foods, they are bringing their lefty restaurant like Sushi Bar, Starbucks. These dumbs are bringing their drag queen in local library and grooming conservative kids “how to explore sexuality”. These dumbs are getting elected in local school board and deciding what kind of CRT program conservatives kids will learn so they will grow up lefty. These dumbs are turning purple state to blue state and changing some of these conservatives state forever.

If “dumb lefty’ moving to Red state can do that, now imagine what smart liberal would do to Red state.

 

Tell that to the countries that DON'T have the problems with mass shootings that we do.

 

Bringing with them the same homeless numbers, feces in the street, garbage piled up on sidewalks, overpriced housing, and wall to wall illegals who live to be government controlled mindless drones.
A leftist utopia

Never seen one.
If you find one capture it for us so it can be studied

 

< snort >
Why do you think that is?
Prove your claim.

 

why do you pretend to believe that their silly nanny state laws would work here? most of those countries didn't have much violent crime BEFORE they started banning things and their crime rates have increased since they did. If you are so enamored with nanny state societies, nothing stops you from moving there

 

Those other countries have their own set of problems and differences. We are a unique nation for a reason. Trying to make us more "European" would end the grand experiment. There is no way this nation could adapt to being more "European". Most Europeans contribute to their system while over half of our nation is on some form of government assistance contribute little to nothing to the system...

 

I reject grabbers in political issues. The fact is, amendments to the constitution change the paradigm and equal protection is a thing.
Further: This argument has been offered by other grabbers, like yourself, and rejected by the Courts.

So, DO YOU HAVE ANYTHING BETTER THAN THAT?

I didn't say fugitives, they're absconded from custody having been properly seized under the 4th amendment. Felons: You can keep them in jail longer, but once out they're out. There is no analog for felons.

Again: You think the rule is whatever the supremes will deign to give you. That is not how rule of law works, that is not how originalist jurisprudential analysis functions, and you were in another thread smugly telling another poster Gorsuch was properly speaking when he said he didn't look at the outcome of his decision but of the law that required his decision.
Hypocrisy.

Backstabbing? You're a grabber, dude. You admit you don't care about the actual rule of law and what it requires, and admit you simply want the rule of man which is fickle and arbitrary.
We aren't allies. We've never BEEN allies. Its a discussion forum, your occasionally make a good point and I will acknowledge same. That doesn't make us buddies, and even if it did a friend would owe a friend to let them know they're wrong and to oppose such wrongheaded, asinine, hypocrisy when it falls out their wide open trap.
Telling you you're being hypocritical isn't backstabbing.
Reagan and his senile ramblings about a Rule do not bind me. I'm not even a ****ing Republican for ****'s sake.