Supreme Court Weighs Second Amendment Showdown After Mass Shootings

[CSM]

Well that’s a nice fantasy equation, my equation that you call “half” is the actual real day situation.



Yes.



I doubt it, mobs are mobs, guns or not, and mob mentality will win out over any individual assessment.

Your reality is not mine. I do understand why you think like you do, however. Those who enjoy the protection provided by others seldom consider what happens when those others are not present to protect them. I suppose there is some consolation for you that the perpetrator will (eventually) be punished for wounding or killing you.

[STTAB]

Oh, absolutely. But the guys selling still has rules/laws to follow, even if the liberals scream otherwise. Wisconsin too, a private seller must ensure the age requirements are met, and that the buyer isn't otherwise prohibited by law in any way.

Liberals don't understand that the overwhelming majority of gun owners are RESPONSIBLE people, they KNOW what personal responsibility is. Liberals couldn't possibly imagine others being responsible outside of the government or police direct enforcement. It's a foreign concept to them.

And I agree about the horrid record keeping/tracking laws getting out of hand. Outside of ensuring legality, I don't think records should ever be transferable in any way to the government or police. Nothing that allows for confiscation down the road should be allowed. I know my brother Jeff in Georgia has the EXACT stance as you, as he's bought guns in such a manner in Georgia. And their laws are almost identical to Wisconsin.

I'm sorry Jimmy but sadly this isn't true. We all wish it were true, but there are a lot of morons out there who own guns. Legally.

I can get on my Facebook right now and go to one of the many yardsale sites in this area and post "I'm looking to buy an AR15 today" and within an hour I'd have someone offering to sell it to me, no questions asked.

I don't believe that is right or proper. I know that there are many people out there who don't need so much as a .38 revolver, let alone an AR15, but that there are many people who don't give a shit who they sell their guns to .

Same thing as I say about cops. Of course there are bad cops. There are bad people and cops are people and thus you will have bad cops.

Of course this brings up the real issue with "universal background checks" how the hell would you enforce that? I could sell you any weapon I own and how would the government even know unless we told them, let alone enforce me running a background check on you? Oh that's right, the only way the government would know is if they knew what guns each of us owned then they could say "wait a minute STTAB used to own this weapon, but not Jimmy owns it, where is the background check?"

And again, liberals know this.

I'll tell you what I would do if I were Trump though, I'd fight for a federal law making it a federal felony to open carry long arms in public. And I'd dare someone to challenge that law in court. It would be upheld.

I'm not talking about the guy , or gal, who has their hunting rifle safely put up in their vehicle, or the guy carrying his long gun in a carrying case. I'm talking abut the moron who shows up at a fucking airport with his AR15 slung across his chest like he's fucking Rambo. There is no need for that, it serves no purpose other than letting him imagine his penis is larger than it really is, and scaring people for no fucking reason.

This way every single person who is open carrying a long arm can be detained by police simply for carrying the weapon, no questions asked.

Or as the case last week near me in Springfield MO where a person made a citizen's arrest, and may actually end up in legal trouble himself because it's not clear that the kid carrying the AR15 violated any laws, he was merely being an asshole.

[Kathianne]

Your reality is not mine. I do understand why you think like you do, however. Those who enjoy the protection provided by others seldom consider what happens when those others are not present to protect them. I suppose there is some consolation for you that the perpetrator will (eventually) be punished for wounding or killing you.

I think it's related to the same rationalization that allows one to 'feel good' by 'helping the helpless' as is said about the poor Palestinians with asinine discrimination that is happening. Too late the response is, "We didn't know. Never again!"

[CSM]

I'm sorry Jimmy but sadly this isn't true. We all wish it were true, but there are a lot of morons out there who own guns. Legally.

I can get on my Facebook right now and go to one of the many yardsale sites in this area and post "I'm looking to buy an AR15 today" and within an hour I'd have someone offering to sell it to me, no questions asked.

I don't believe that is right or proper. I know that there are many people out there who don't need so much as a .38 revolver, let alone an AR15, but that there are many people who don't give a shit who they sell their guns to .

Same thing as I say about cops. Of course there are bad cops. There are bad people and cops are people and thus you will have bad cops.

Of course this brings up the real issue with "universal background checks" how the hell would you enforce that? I could sell you any weapon I own and how would the government even know unless we told them, let alone enforce me running a background check on you? Oh that's right, the only way the government would know is if they knew what guns each of us owned then they could say "wait a minute STTAB used to own this weapon, but not Jimmy owns it, where is the background check?"

And again, liberals know this.

I'll tell you what I would do if I were Trump though, I'd fight for a federal law making it a federal felony to open carry long arms in public. And I'd dare someone to challenge that law in court. It would be upheld.

I'm not talking about the guy , or gal, who has their hunting rifle safely put up in their vehicle, or the guy carrying his long gun in a carrying case. I'm talking abut the moron who shows up at a fucking airport with his AR15 slung across his chest like he's fucking Rambo. There is no need for that, it serves no purpose other than letting him imagine his penis is larger than it really is, and scaring people for no fucking reason.

This way every single person who is open carrying a long arm can be detained by police simply for carrying the weapon, no questions asked.

Or as the case last week near me in Springfield MO where a person made a citizen's arrest, and may actually end up in legal trouble himself because it's not clear that the kid carrying the AR15 violated any laws, he was merely being an asshole.

I have to disagree on this one. Your presumption (and assertion) that there is "no need for that" is the very same argument used by most gun control advocates. There is "no need" for the average citizen to posses a firearm. I have a real problem with that sort of thing. If one owns a car, can we presume that they are also a drunk driver? Of course not, that would be silly. Such a presumption goes against the very core of our justice system.... the presumption of innocence ... The idea that openly carrying a long gun (or any other firearm) indicates criminal intent is one of the slippery slopes which, in my opinion will lead to the demise of this country. There is no single instance (in my opinion) that any law enforcement agency should be able to detain a person, NO QUESTIONS ASKED, for any reason. The KGB, SS and other such organizations thrived on that philosophy.

[STTAB]

I have to disagree on this one. Your presumption (and assertion) that there is "no need for that" is the very same argument used by most gun control advocates. There is "no need" for the average citizen to posses a firearm. I have a real problem with that sort of thing. If one owns a car, can we presume that they are also a drunk driver? Of course not, that would be silly. Such a presumption goes against the very core of our justice system.... the presumption of innocence ... The idea that openly carrying a long gun (or any other firearm) indicates criminal intent is one of the slippery slopes which, in my opinion will lead to the demise of this country. There is no single instance (in my opinion) that any law enforcement agency should be able to detain a person, NO QUESTIONS ASKED, for any reason. The KGB, SS and other such organizations thrived on that philosophy.

I was hoping someone would go there.

In Philadelphia in 1787 it was ILLEGAL to carry a firearm within city limits.

The 2nd Amendment is so clearly misunderstood by both sides.

Just as the second was never intended to mean "only the militia may have guns" it was never intended to mean "hey you can carry anything anywhere at any time"

In short, the framers never intended for you to be able to carry an AR15 into an airport. That isnt' a right. If it were, then the government couldn't draw a line and say "okay up to here you can carry a gun, past here you can not"

And so now that we have deduced that you do not have a right to carry a firearm wherever you wish, it becomes a question of legitimate need versus public safety. Sorry, there is no legimate need to carry an AR 15 in public and certainly not one that outweighs the public safety.

Failure of gun owners to grasp and acknowledge this point is going to lead to worse gun laws , and doesn't even make sense. It's right up there with abortion freaks who try to argue that a fetus isn't a human being. When we can all clearly see that yes it's a fetus. Well we can also clearly see that only a moron wants to open carry a rifle in public.

Left and right we all need to stop catering to morons. I don't give a fuck if someone wants to carry an AR15 into an airport, that guys an idiot.

[jimnyc]

I'm sorry Jimmy but sadly this isn't true. We all wish it were true, but there are a lot of morons out there who own guns. Legally.

Not doubting, as I don't even know which state? But that is crazy then. So you could sell a gun to a 12 year old and no repercussions if caught? Only the 12 year old for buying? What if a year younger but looks older? No repercussions or responsibility to find that out? What if he shot someone an hour later? No repercussions to you for selling it to him? What if someone is a charged and convicted murderer. You have zero responsibility to even ask about their background? And zero repercussions if he's found to have shot someone an hour later?

I get that some don't care, but would hope they are known criminals knowing they are involving themselves in criminal events. I'd like to think most owners have a sense of responsibility, and of course no criminal involvement from themselves. Personally, I would still keep something, a picture, anything for my own records that I did my due diligence, but that would be for me only. A fine line - but not such a fine line when you consider the "other side" would like to confiscate one day. And considering (in some states) that there is this responsibility, and one could get in trouble, I would make it a habit of personal protection on top of my personal responsibility.

Wisconsin has no LAW that states sellers must do background checks of any kind - but one CAN be penalized - and hence the responsibility and protection, IMO. And maybe also not even addressed - the civil liability that may be involved.

any person who intentionally sells, loans or gives a dangerous weapon to a person under 18 years of age is guilty of a Class I felony.

is guilty of a Class H felony if the person under 18 years of age under par. (b) discharges the firearm and the discharge causes death to himself, herself or another.

[Kathianne]

Homicide deaths per 100,000 people per year by state (2015)
1.4 – 2.6
2.6 – 3.5
3.5 – 4.8
4.8 – 5.9
5.9 – 7
7 – 10.1
10.1 – 11.9
11.9 – 11.9

Color key would not copy, it's light to dark in ascending order.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o..._homicide_rate

[Kathianne]

https://huntingmark.com/gun-ownership-stats/

At this site you can find guns per population by state.

[jimnyc]

Homicide deaths per 100,000 people per year by state (2015)
1.4 – 2.6
2.6 – 3.5
3.5 – 4.8
4.8 – 5.9
5.9 – 7
7 – 10.1
10.1 – 11.9
11.9 – 11.9

Color key would not copy, it's light to dark in ascending order.

NM, my image was something else I think!

[STTAB]

Not doubting, as I don't even know which state? But that is crazy then. So you could sell a gun to a 12 year old and no repercussions if caught? Only the 12 year old for buying? What if a year younger but looks older? No repercussions or responsibility to find that out? What if he shot someone an hour later? No repercussions to you for selling it to him? What if someone is a charged and convicted murderer. You have zero responsibility to even ask about their background? And zero repercussions if he's found to have shot someone an hour later?

I get that some don't care, but would hope they are known criminals knowing they are involving themselves in criminal events. I'd like to think most owners have a sense of responsibility, and of course no criminal involvement from themselves. Personally, I would still keep something, a picture, anything for my own records that I did my due diligence, but that would be for me only. A fine line - but not such a fine line when you consider the "other side" would like to confiscate one day. And considering (in some states) that there is this responsibility, and one could get in trouble, I would make it a habit of personal protection on top of my personal responsibility.

Wisconsin has no LAW that states sellers must do background checks of any kind - but one CAN be penalized - and hence the responsibility and protection, IMO. And maybe also not even addressed - the civil liability that may be involved.

Of course it is illegal to sell a gun to a minor in ANY state Jimmy.

But you just take the buyer's word for it that they are not a minor and have no criminal history?

If that's the case, then how are conservatives pro voter ID laws? I mean why not just the person's word for it if they say they are allowed to vote?

Why have alcohol ID laws? Tobacco? You see where I'm going with this.

[CSM]

I was hoping someone would go there.

In Philadelphia in 1787 it was ILLEGAL to carry a firearm within city limits.

The 2nd Amendment is so clearly misunderstood by both sides.

Just as the second was never intended to mean "only the militia may have guns" it was never intended to mean "hey you can carry anything anywhere at any time"

In short, the framers never intended for you to be able to carry an AR15 into an airport. That isnt' a right. If it were, then the government couldn't draw a line and say "okay up to here you can carry a gun, past here you can not"

And so now that we have deduced that you do not have a right to carry a firearm wherever you wish, it becomes a question of legitimate need versus public safety. Sorry, there is no legimate need to carry an AR 15 in public and certainly not one that outweighs the public safety.

Failure of gun owners to grasp and acknowledge this point is going to lead to worse gun laws , and doesn't even make sense. It's right up there with abortion freaks who try to argue that a fetus isn't a human being. When we can all clearly see that yes it's a fetus. Well we can also clearly see that only a moron wants to open carry a rifle in public.

Left and right we all need to stop catering to morons. I don't give a fuck if someone wants to carry an AR15 into an airport, that guys an idiot.

Care to quote the part in the Constitution where it says you CANNOT carry a gun in specific places? Shall we ignore the "shall not be infringed" part?

Truthfully, my disagreement is not necessarily with your stance on the 2d Amendment but rather with your assertion "This way every single person who is open carrying a long arm can be detained by police simply for carrying the weapon, no questions asked." (bolding is mine). Where does that little gem stop? By the way, I disagree with "hate speech" laws too. Should folks be detained for wearing a ski mask? We all know criminals often use ski masks in the commission of a robbery. Should a person not be detained (given the aforementioned) NO QUESTIONS ASKED for wearing a ski mask in public places?

[Kathianne]

Care to quote the part in the Constitution where it says you CANNOT carry a gun in specific places? Shall we ignore the "shall not be infringed" part?

Truthfully, my disagreement is not necessarily with your stance on the 2d Amendment but rather with your assertion "This way every single person who is open carrying a long arm can be detained by police simply for carrying the weapon, no questions asked." (bolding is mine). Where does that little gem stop? By the way, I disagree with "hate speech" laws too. Should folks be detained for wearing a ski mask? We all know criminals often use ski masks in the commission of a robbery. Should a person not be detained (given the aforementioned) NO QUESTIONS ASKED for wearing a ski mask in public places?

Great job of summing up the queries, 'How far or how many rights are we comfortable giving up?' 'How far can one stretch the Bill of Rights before they become meaningless?'

I'm unlikely to every carry a gun, the 1 time I went shooting though, I enjoyed it. I do understand that we are all safer when it's a real threat to anyone who wishes to do any of us harm. It's why I have always been against 'gun free zones.' Seems more like an invitation to ne'er-do-wells.

Hate speech and hate crimes assume someone can read minds to determine intent. Personally I think all crimes are hate crimes, with perhaps someone stealing for food.

I truly do not trust the government, never have. The last few years have only given me more justification for not trusting on any level.

[jimnyc]

Of course it is illegal to sell a gun to a minor in ANY state Jimmy.

But you just take the buyer's word for it that they are not a minor and have no criminal history?

Absolutely, you ask. You see a copy of their DL. You're doing everything but the BG check itself, which you are doing verbally. Then it's, yes, a judgment call. And knowing that one can get in trouble, for the age one for example, it would make sense for one to do their due diligence. And same with any criminal history. I would at least get a signed receipt that I can later burn if need be. But no way I sell a gun to an "unknown" person, or someone not vouched for by someone else. Does it happen? Of course it does, and most of the time between criminals. Or do you prefer guess work without even asking the person you don't know or barely know? With ANY repercussions involving myself, I would at least do the due diligence part to try and protect myself.

If that's the case, then how are conservatives pro voter ID laws? I mean why not just the person's word for it if they say they are allowed to vote?

Why have alcohol ID laws? Tobacco? You see where I'm going with this.

I am not one who made any of those laws, and each can be considered on it's own. But for comparison's sake - sure, a lot of things, many of them dumb, will fall under comparisons. That doesn't make them the same. I also don't care for going for the "So what you're saying is..." or the non-stop "But when Bush did it, or when Obama did it". --- There's a whole ton of things that either need verifying in some manner and some where it's not the law or doesn't happen. But each one isn't a valid comparison.

My point from the beginning is that even though someone sells a gun privately, and no BG check is done, there are still laws that must be met, and repercussions are possible.

[STTAB]

Care to quote the part in the Constitution where it says you CANNOT carry a gun in specific places? Shall we ignore the "shall not be infringed" part?

Truthfully, my disagreement is not necessarily with your stance on the 2d Amendment but rather with your assertion "This way every single person who is open carrying a long arm can be detained by police simply for carrying the weapon, no questions asked." (bolding is mine). Where does that little gem stop? By the way, I disagree with "hate speech" laws too. Should folks be detained for wearing a ski mask? We all know criminals often use ski masks in the commission of a robbery. Should a person not be detained (given the aforementioned) NO QUESTIONS ASKED for wearing a ski mask in public places?

In MANY states it IS illegal to wear a mask in public, at least when participating in a protest or something like that.

And I'll reiterate , it was illegal to carry a fierarm in the capital city of the US at the time of the writing of the COTUS. Why? Because the founding fathers meant "bear arms" to mean own them and have them available for use" they did NOT mean "be able to carry them through town "

And again , if making them illegal to carry in certain areas were unconstitutional , you wouldn't see any gun free zones.

And let me be clear. I'm pro concealed carry. I simply don't see carrying a weapon as a right, and I don't see any legitimate reason to allow a person to carry an AR15 around in public.

[CSM]

In MANY states it IS illegal to wear a mask in public, at least when participating in a protest or something like that.

And I'll reiterate , it was illegal to carry a fierarm in the capital city of the US at the time of the writing of the COTUS. Why? Because the founding fathers meant "bear arms" to mean own them and have them available for use" they did NOT mean "be able to carry them through town "

And again , if making them illegal to carry in certain areas were unconstitutional , you wouldn't see any gun free zones.

And let me be clear. I'm pro concealed carry. I simply don't see carrying a weapon as a right, and I don't see any legitimate reason to allow a person to carry an AR15 around in public.

and again, I don't really care what your stance is on gun ownership or carry is. I will leave that up to the SC. I do find it disconcerting that you assert people should be detained for whatever reason with NO QUESTIONS ASKED. By the way, the COTUS was not ratified until Dec. 1787 and the Bill of Rights many years later. Before that, many state had laws that conformed to their state's constitution. Many of those constitutions were modified after the COTUS became the law of the land.

Clearly, we disagree on the right to carry. I will say that gun free zones do not seem to be very effective to me.