well when you can keep bad guys from selling cocaine and fentanyl-stuff that is used up every time someone uses it-as opposed to say guns (the Colt 45 my grandfather carried in WWI is over 100 years old and still works well) then maybe you can tell us how to keep bad guys from getting guns given that there are 400 million guns in the USA, almost as many available on the world market and CNC Machinery-far more sophisticated than the stuff my other grandfather designed (used to make the Inland MI Carbine, the M3 Grease gun and the Browning Automatic rifle) -are easily available as well.
all gun banners can try to do is make lawful shooting activities illegal or too expensive for most people. And that is their real goal. It is all about political hatred. They know they cannot stop criminals and they really don't care to do so
no, I am noting that people like you know you cannot prevent criminals from getting guns, but that is not your real goal at all.
Sure I do. Should we allow the government to ignore the Constitution, the Bill of Rights and SCOTUS to reduce the opportunities for guns to get into the hands of bad guys?
I have concluded that most of the anti gunners-at least the avid ones (as opposed to the sheeple who donate to grifter groups like Giffords or "Everytown") are not about disarming bad guys but harassing lawful gun ownership
If the constitution is standing in the way of us solving a problem, then we should amend the constitution. If the reason you guys always end up at to reject reform is the 2nd amendment, then it is clear that we need to change the constitution. I'm not suggesting that it would happen in any of our lifetimes, but when the 2nd amendment goes away, it will be because the NRA crowd abused it for so long. I own 3 guns, a 12 gauge, 3006, and a 20 gauge. I use them for hunting. I'm not trying to take away all guns, but if we can't do something without running into the 2nd amendment, then I would be 100% in favor of amending the constitution to allow for some level of regulation.
Step one to amend the Constitution is to get a bill introduced in Congress to do so. My research only shows one such attempt, with no co-sponsora, and never got past introduction. If you want gun violence numbers like the UK and Japan, or even like Australia and New Zealand, it's going to take more than "some regulation". It's going to take widespread confiscation.
Step 1 is to make the public conversation about a constitutional amendment. Step 2 is to get a bill introduced into congress, but that won't come for a decade or two after step 1. Right now, we have people pushing for regulation that isn't going to really make any difference, and any regulation that would make a difference is going to be unconstitutional.
Have that public conversation. The First Amendment protects that right. Just note that anyone who can count to 13 knows that it's not going to happen. Also note that any regulation that "makes a difference" will also require repealing or ignoring the 4th Amendment and confiscating hundreds of millions of guns, and that will take greatly expanding the federal police forces and killing lots of people.
I think we need to approach this as a 50 or 100 year problem. Solving it isn't something that we can do in any of our lifetimes, and trying to pussyfoot around it isn't going to help anyone. You don't seem to have a very high opinion of your fellow gun owners. If something was made illegal, wouldn't responsible gun owners follow the law instead of having shootouts with police officers just trying to do their job?
Best of luck getting critical mass to focus on a 100 year plan. Most of them, sure, but virtually none of the criminals who have guns. Do you believe that all gun owners will give up their guns peacefully? Will all of the cops be required to give up their guns? I don't necessarily trust the cops, either. https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/crim...on-him-and-his-mother-immediately/ar-AA1aXjEX
I think if the law was to require certain guns be turned in (which I am not suggesting BTW), that anyone refusing to abide by that law would become a criminal.
I'm referring to the current actual prohibited persons who can't legally possess any firearm and who use those illegally possessed firearms to commit actual violent crimes, not those suddenly labeled as a criminal by some malum prohibitum law.
Every illegally possessed firearm was at some point legally possessed. Somewhere down the line one of those "responsible gun owners" became irresponsible.
Quite a few illegal guns come from straw purchases, where the actual first buyer deliberately purchases a gun with the intent of transferring it to a prohibited person, committing a felony prior to even taking possession of the gun. Those people weren't "responsible gun owners" in the first place. Other illegal guns come from thieves. Thieves aren't responsible gun owners. Some small portion of illegal guns come from private sales where the government has prevented the seller from directly accessing NICS to verify the status of a buyer. The fact that illegal guns were originally legal guns means nothing.
That last part just isn't true. That transition from legal to illegal, needs to be where we focus our energy. That point of transition should be the concern of anyone wanting to prevent guns from getting into the hands of criminals.
Legally it means nothing. Nor are your concerns completely accurate. If the issue was the point at which legally owned guns became illegally own guns, private transfers between non-prohibited persons wouldn't be criminalized in every single UBC law and bill. The Hughes Amendment would be abandoned. People wouldn't be trying to ban classes of firearms in common use for lawful purposes. Just how would you enforce restrictions on private transfers? How would you stop one criminal from selling to another?
Again, i'm not looking at this as a short term problem. Your grandkids and great grandkids are going to willingly hand over the guns they inherit from you.
so you want to violate the constitution and ban legal gun ownership yeah we heard that already and rejected it
are they going to cut off their penises because they are sick of people being raped are they going to never drink because they are sick of drunk drivers killing people I don't believe in projection You apparently do
Its not a restriction per se, but of private sales were completed at a dealer, the dealer would run background check. It would reduce the number of sales from law-abiding to criminal.
not really, how many of those actually happen now. how many criminals buy guns from people they don't know its a non issue
