"These laws will keep our kids safe from gun violence..." "The final legislation, AB 1292, updates how firearm transfers in the case of a will or trust are handled "so these firearms don't fall through the cracks or into dangerous hands," according to Bauer-Kahan."


Yet another "progressive" politician predictably complaining about needing more "common sense" gun laws in California - that are simply ignored by the criminal element but create another hurdle/legal barrier for the law abiding.

This does nothing to "keep kids safe" (or anyone else) from the problems we have right now - violence on the streets of our cities. Exactly how many criminals in Oakland (where people are being shot on a daily basis) obtain their firearms via the current systems of wills and trusts?

MichaelB, it takes a lot of bricks to build a house. This is just one. I see no reason that if a relative of mine dies, that I should get his/her guns without at least some paperwork.

Just because we need even more legislation, does not mean that this will not be a good law.

"Just because we need even more legislation, does not mean that this will not be a good law."


We do not need more gun legislation in this state given the amount of current regulations - and this law accomplishes nothing other than making people feel good. I see no reason subjecting heirs to potential legal liability/problems from the state by trying to take possession of property in a will/trust.

Good laws address actual problems - and there needs to be a compelling need to pass them in a free society. This "brick" tries to shift the debate/emphasis away from them by blaming society and/or individuals who have nothing to do with them. Kids are not any "safer" as a result despite Bauer-Kahan's claims.

Is it just me, or do others WISH Catharine Baker was still our rep?

These three bills are improvements for the health, safety, and cost to taxpayers for the people of California. I hear what Michael B is saying about paperwork for people settling an estate, but if law-abiding gun owners want to keep and use their guns they need to do the work of keeping guns from being mis-used. Requiring a gun-safety certificate before giving a relative of the deceased possession of a gun seems like a pretty obvious thing. These transfers are a loophole that could allow someone who shouldn’t get a gun to have one. If that’s the case with just one person, that’s too many.
This bill also exempts from liability the carrying a gun with out a permit for “transportation to a law enforcement agency of a firearm that has been taken by a person from another person that is using the firearm to commit a crime against the person taking the firearm.” That seems pretty common sense to me : D

Nicki, I doubt it's just you, but I for one am very glad Bauer-Kahan is our rep. ( And I voted twice for Baker!)

After watching the two recent Democratic candidates debate, I was hoping (at least for our district), that we could nominate a better candidate to replace Swalwell, then I thought of Catharine Baker, .....Republican or not, she would be better than Swalwell. Think if she ran against him, she could win, even in our district?

I talk with my staff about being productive vs being busy. You get no points for being busy. None of those bills solve a problem. Anybody in industry that has to do fault tree analysis should be rolling trying to map the thought process on some of these.

1. How are kids safer? The statement implies that kids are unsafe today, this bill makes them safer, ok, how many gun transfers from family wills resulted in injuries or deaths.....oh none? This to me seems more like "crap, I need a gun safety check the box item for election time"....shame on her for not doubling down on an environmental issue by passing legislation to require recycling of discharged shells....
That's what we in the bizz call a two-fer.

2. I'm not opposed to food allergen training, that's not a bad thing at all. But it couldn't be the cause of the womans death....seems like multiple other fail safes broke down to reach "death".

3. Dont make criminals pay for court costs. I get it, this is really a state fiscal trade off that I support, but should come with another consequence. Ie community service to cover, cant register for social programs, compounding social security lien....something other than, no reason to pay.

Baker was way better.

"Requiring a gun-safety certificate before giving a relative of the deceased possession of a gun seems like a pretty obvious thing. These transfers are a loophole that could allow someone who shouldn’t get a gun to have one. If that’s the case with just one person, that’s too many."

Not a pretty obvious thing at all. People being shot on the streets of our cities has nothing to do with a lack of safety certificates. There is no benefit in doing this because these kind of people are not part of the problem. Is it too much to ask that we direct resources/time where there are problems?

"Could allow" and "if it saves one life" is not a good justification to enact regulations restricting Constitutional rights of the citizens. We've already seen where this has gone - and is going. All of the firearms vendors were regulated out of business in Pleasanton back in the late 1990s for so called "safety" reasons - but had done nothing wrong. Cities in the Bay Area are not wanting gun shops/shows to operate in their communities despite their willingness to comply with strict state regulations. Washington DC essentially banned private gun ownership before the Supreme Court got involved. Gun confiscation schemes for law abiding people modeled after those enacted in England/Australia/New Zealand are being promoted by leaders in the Democrat Party.There is nothing "reasonable" or "common sense" about doing any of this.

Firearms do not "cause" violence and no one is being forced to misuse them. It's pretty obvious that gun control supporters are just making excuses for illegal activities, won't admit their policies do not work, pay lip service to going after actual offenders, and are never going to run out of things to restrict/ban for everyone else who have nothing to do with the problem.

Michael, do you think that, perhaps, this law might prevent one - just one - gun from getting in the wrong hands? If it doesn, then in my opinion, it is worth the effort.

"1. How are kids safer? The statement implies that kids are unsafe today, this bill makes them safer, ok, how many gun transfers from family wills resulted in injuries or deaths.....oh none? This to me seems more like "crap, I need a gun safety check the box item for election time"...."

I agree with the "crap" characterization. The typical "progressive" response. It's a gun control measure, it has to be good because private gun ownership is inherently bad, and you "don't care" if you dare oppose/question it. As far as "analysis" is concerned, what does it tell you about Bauer-Kahan by her using nonsensical terms like "gun violence" and saying it's "for our kids"? She's sounds just like one.

There’s been yet another American mass-shooting. This time in El Paso. Up to 20 possible dead.qA

"Michael, do you think that, perhaps, this law might prevent one - just one - gun from getting in the wrong hands? If it doesn, then in my opinion, it is worth the effort."

This is an impossible standard in a free society. There is always going to be a small percentage of the population that will not comply with/follow laws.

Meanwhile, the gun control movement uses this unrealistic belief system to shut down the legal process/make eventual criminals out of everyone else doing nothing wrong. No thanks. Time to dispense with the "collective guilt/society is to blame" argument coming from progressives as it relates to crime/violence. Private gun ownership has been around for years in this nation - but this reasoning process has not. It's failed.

Nicki:
I contacted Catharine Baker and asked her to run against Swalwell. I am confident Catharine Baker will defeat Swalwell.

There’s been yet another American mass-shooting. This time in Dayton, Ohio. Nine more people dead.

Wombat, that's the point. Pro-gun people talk about constitutional rights but can't grapple with the fact that gun violence is happening. There was once a time when the NRA actually thought reducing gun violence was its job. But that was before it's radical reinterpretation of the 2nd Amendment into some fantasy the actual framers of the constitution would find repulsive and perverse. So they continue to throw up complaints about rights and the supposed silliness of trying to do anything to stop it, as if we are totally helpless and powerless to make even minor changes under the nonsense theory of why save these lives when others still won't be saved. It's disgusting.

There is another hand, however. The busy but not productive argument does land. It is true that these laws wouldn't have stopped those shootings, or really any of the major ones. The use of that point to argue for sitting on our hands is wrong. But the point is meaningful. Clearly, something bigger is needed. And I don't know what it is. The arguments about creating a system to catch people with poor mental health and violent tendencies are good ones, but the path is scary because we don't want to hospitalize people who are not actually harmful.

I do have one point from these recent shootings, though. Why not ban or restrict body armor? There's no reason any self-defending or hunting gun enthusiast needs to wear a personal body tank.

As passed by the Congress and preserved in the National Archives, with the rest of the original handwritten copy of the Bill of Rights prepared by scribe William Lambert, the amendment says:

“A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”

The amendment was ratified by the States and authenticated by Secretary of State Thomas Jefferson as:

“A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”

We can’t agree on what was written, meant, or where the commas should be, let alone what guns we should be allowed to have. Yet we will send our condolences and just keep things the way they are.

Quiz Question: What is the ONE AND ONLY COUNTRY IN THE WORLD in which the number of its civilian firearms EXCEEDS the number of its citizens?

My $0.02; as long as politicians continue to grandstand on non causal chain requirements as a reactionary approach to these events, with zero action on actual contributing elements those opposing those measures are only going to dig in more against them because they aren't addressing the problem.
I really dont think the law abiding reasonable gun owner/hobbiest/hunyer/etc would oppose actions that limited or increased qualifications to ownership if those paths were more closely related to the causes of these events.

Ie - where is the bill to raise the age from 18 to 21?

There are 16 million illegals residing in the united states.
There are 5 million workers with temporary visas in the united states.
There are 85 million tourists visitors residing temporarily in united states.

Quote from fact check:
57% of US households to not own a gun.
11% do not own gun, but in house where someone owns a gun.
30% of house holds in US have a gun.

The above 116 milion temporary residnets, illegal or legal did not have a gun when they entered US.

United states populstion of 265 million along with 116 miiion visitors tend to narrow number of guns per person.

"Wombat, that's the point. Pro-gun people talk about constitutional rights but can't grapple with the fact that gun violence is happening. There was once a time when the NRA actually thought reducing gun violence was its job. But that was before it's radical reinterpretation of the 2nd Amendment into some fantasy the actual framers of the constitution would find repulsive and perverse. So they continue to throw up complaints about rights and the supposed silliness of trying to do anything to stop it, as if we are totally helpless and powerless to make even minor changes under the nonsense theory of why save these lives when others still won't be saved. It's disgusting."


What can't you grapple with? "Gun violence" is a political term. It's not the gun (an object) that is doing the violence - and it's already against the law to abuse them. What is radical is the left wing idea that guns (which have been around for years) now just "do things" and people abusing them are not responsible for it. Yes, they are. It just doesn't fit in with their "blame society" and more government control agenda.

Here's the silliness part - everyone who has a gun is now "collectively guilty" of violence, we need to have the CDC study "gun violence" as a "public health problem", gun manufacturers need to be sued for the actions of criminals, law abiding people need to be disarmed, gun shops/shows need to be closed or not allowed to operate for "violence prevention" reasons, etc.

None of this is a "minor" change. The legal process to own firearms is being systematically shut down in so called "progressive" localities and/or put out of reach for most law abiding people. Criminals do not care or will comply with any of it. So why should groups like the NRA and others supporting the 2nd Amendment just fold on this issue? Another predictable promise of only wanting "sensible" regulations?

"Quiz Question: What is the ONE AND ONLY COUNTRY IN THE WORLD in which the number of its civilian firearms EXCEEDS the number of its citizens?"


Quiz response: Another illustration of why gun control advocates are not to be believed as it relates to enacting "common sense" and/or "safety" regulations. There's just "too many", it doesn't matter who has them/what is being done with them, and numbers have to be reduced to a socially acceptable "low" number.

@MichaelB

In a short space of time we’ve had three American mass shootings - Gilroy, El Paso, and Dayton. I see you (and many Republicans) criticizing the proposed solutions of others to the problem of gun violence in America. But you know what I don’t see? I don’t see you or Republicans offering any actual solutions of your own to the problem of gun violence in America.

"But that was before it's radical reinterpretation of the 2nd Amendment into some fantasy the actual framers of the constitution would find repulsive and perverse."

There's a lot of alliteration in this statement, but you don't actually cite what the "radical reinterpretation" states?

Care to provide the evidence?

Dan

@MichaelB :”Quiz response”

The fact that America is the one and only country in the world in which the number of its civilian firearms exceeds the number of its citizens AND that America is the only country among its modern, industrialized peers (e.g., France, Germany, UK, Spain, Switzerland, Canada, Japan, South Korea, Australia, Italy, Norway, Sweden, Denmark, etc, etc, etc.) to have an out-of-control gun problem is a strong clue that there is an obvious correlation between the wide availability of guns and gun violence in this country.

Here’s another for everyone to consider: In the space of time that America has been through not one, not two, but THREE mass shootings, how many mass shootings have there been in the countries of all of our modern industrialized peer countries listed above COMBINED?

The scale of gun violence in this country is a tragedy and a national embarrassment.

"I do have one point from these recent shootings, though. Why not ban or restrict body armor? There's no reason any self-defending or hunting gun enthusiast needs to wear a personal body tank."

Why not ban bicycles?
Why not ban cars?
Why not ban knives?
Why not ban cigarettes and cigars?
Why not ban pot?
Why not ban guns?
Why not ban trans-fats and carbohydrates?
Why not ban...?

Lot's of things to ban that have the potential to kill someone.

Ban them all so we can be safe because we are too stupid to know better.

/s

"I see you (and many Republicans) criticizing the proposed solutions of others to the problem of gun violence in America. But you know what I don’t see? I don’t see you or Republicans offering any actual solutions of your own to the problem of gun violence in America."

I see you complaining about "too many" guns in the United States. That is not a "solution" to anything.

A solution is to better identify those at risk of abusing firearms - and intercept them before others are injured. That is what has been proposed which respects those who are not involved. This is in contrast to simply banning guns from those doing nothing wrong - because they supposedly "cause" a mass shooting.

Just a typical weekend in big city Chicago: Web Link

I wonder why this doesn't get more play with those wanting more sensible gun control?

As Trump so ably pointed out in last weeks outrages, big cities are run by Democrats. They cannot even control their own cities so they focus on inanimate objects and blame Republicans and special interest groups for their messes.

You've been outed.

"have an out-of-control gun problem is a strong clue that there is an obvious correlation between the wide availability of guns and gun violence in this country."


Another "clue" that gun control supporters just want bans. What's embarrassing is you giving human qualities to inanimate objects and portraying people who abuse guns (already illegal) as "victims". Sounds like an out of control progressive politics problem instead.

Guns were available through mail order purchase in the 1950s and 1960s. Where were all of the mass shootings then? Still waiting for all of the "wild west shootouts" that gun control supporters guaranteed were going to take place when more states (now 40+) issued permits for people to carry guns. Millions of citizens legally own so called "assault weapons" which have been available for decades. Why haven't they committed a mass shooting?

@MichaelB :”A solution is to better identify those at risk of abusing firearms - and intercept them before others are injured.”

And what specific, concrete steps have Republicans taken to implement laws, regulations, and other solutions aimed at identifying those at risk of abusing firearms and intercepting them before others are injured? Republicans have fought tooth-and-nail against even obvious measures such as closing the gun show loophole and stopping straw purchasing of firearms.

@MichaelB :”Guns were available through mail order purchase in the 1950s and 1960s. Where were all of the mass shootings then?”

Obviously the country has changed since the 1950’s and 1960’s. (duh). We don’t live in the 1950’s or 1960’s anymore. We live in the year 2019 and have to deal with 2019 problems.

Wanna understand why the US has a 2nd Amendment? Just look at what's been happening in Hong Kong over the last few weeks and you'll understand why.

Government (in this case Chinese Communist Party) tyranny.

No thanks. I think we'll keep our guns.

This is the look of Republicans dragging their feet, hunkering down, and trying to ride out the storm:

“'Do something!': (Republican) Ohio governor drowned out by angry chants at Dayton shooting vigil” - SFGate
“Trump vows action after shootings, but gives few details” - SFGate

"Obviously the country has changed since the 1950’s and 1960’s. (duh). We don’t live in the 1950’s or 1960’s anymore. We live in the year 2019 and have to deal with 2019 problems."


What's changed since then? So called "progressives" and our culture, not guns (duh).

Everybody is a victim of something, society is to blame, if it feels good do it, it's too "judgmental" to have standards of behavior/values, you are entitled, etc. You are not "dealing with the problem" by ignoring how this relates to violence - and then blaming an object that has been around years for it.

DKHSK wrote “Wanna understand why the US has a 2nd Amendment? Just look at what's been happening in Hong Kong over the last few weeks and you'll understand why.“

Good point, DKHSK. We wouldn’t want to end up in chains of servitude to the government like the citizens of our other modern democratic peers such as France, Germany, UK, Spain, Switzerland, Canada, Japan, South Korea, Australia, Italy, Norway, Sweden, or Denmark. I’ll bet that the enslaved citizens of these countries are reading the news right now and wishing that they had a 2nd Amendment just like we do.

Wombat,

Nice straw man you got there...

However, the serfs in Hong Kong get the privilege of knuckling under to a brutal dictatorship without the slightest means to decide otherwise.

But...Europe!

You're a smart one.

Doug,

Simple question: What are the Democrats going to do to fix their gun problems in their cities?

You have all the council seats, the mayors, the city managers, the congressional representation...so what are you going to do?

How are you going to fix poverty?
How are you going to fix the rodent population?
How are you going to fix the roads?
How are you going to fix crime?

Simple, no?

@DKHSK “Simple question: What are the Democrats going to do to fix their gun problems in their cities?”

What are Republicans going to do? What have Republicans done (except drag their feet)? Gun violence is a national problem. Many guns used in Chicago come from nearby Indiana where gun laws are much more lax.

Gilroy, El Paso, Dayton, Las Vegas, Orlando, Sutherland Springs, Santa Fe, Virginia Beach,..... The list goes on and on.

Our response has always been more guns in the hands of legal holders is GOOD for society.

There's my response. Now answer my question or go out and play.

@DKHSK

Your loaded question was answered to the extent that it deserved to be.

For your future reference: If I don’t respond to a question that you pose, it’s because I don’t think that it’s a sincere and honest question that deserves an answer.

We need to ditch the second amendment entirely. It is time for it to go. The language is incomprehensible and out of date. Historians say it had much more to do with states protecting themselves against a tyrannical federal government. It never had anything to do with hunting.

MichealB,

"Gun rights" is a political term. "Gun violence" is real.

Thanks Dan. “Government (in this case Chinese Communist Party) tyranny.” This is the most ridiculous argument presented by those who believe the 2nd amendment was meant to allow citizens to overthrow a bad government that is oppressing its citizens.

Unless the armed forces are backing citizens and not the government, no weapons owned by citizens will be sufficient to accomplish an overthrow.

Tell me why John Q Public needs assault rifles—it’s not for protection or hunting.

Ah...I see. So you don't LIKE the question.

Uh huh.

"This is the most ridiculous argument presented by those who believe the 2nd amendment was meant to allow citizens to overthrow a bad government that is oppressing its citizens."

Look up James Madison, Federalist No. 46. Then we can have a reasonable discussion free from your emotion...again.

Dan

"The language is incomprehensible and out of date."

2a:
A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS, SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED."

Emphasis mine.

Seems pretty clear to me.

Don't like it? Tough.

Dan

"In the 2008 case District of Columbia v. Heller, the Supreme Court held that the "Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home."

DC v. Heller: Web Link

Don't like it? Tough.

Dan

@DKHSK,

The language makes no sense. No definition of "arms". No modern context for "well regulated militia".

A tyrannical government can own machine guns, but an oppressed citizenry cannot defend itself from that government with those same machine guns? That makes sense? Machine guns are "arms" when the US Army owns them, but they are not "arms" when private citizens own them? So it is okay to infringe the right of people to own machine guns because they aren't "arms" when private citizens own them? This makes sense to you?

Is a machine gun an "arm" or isn't it?

BobB

Ok Bob, by your reasoning, the 1st amendment should allow for ALL speech, even for erroneously crying fire in a crowded theater?

I can play this game all day long.

Ever notice how democrats and communists (BIRM) always want restrictions on the 1st and 2nd amendments?

I do...all the time.

No emotion Dan.

If this was so clear, there’d be no debate. No citizen needs an assault rifle or cannon or rocket launcher or anything beyond protecting the home/family and for hunting.

Kathleen,

"No citizen needs an assault rifle or cannon or rocket launcher or anything beyond protecting the home/family and for hunting."

You're right, and if you had a done a smidgen of research you'd know that it is almost literally impossible to acquire "assault rifles" in the US. You can legally buy a cannon and rocket launcher, but then you'd have an equally hard time buying cannon balls and actual explosive rockets, because those too are illegal to obtain.

Again, please do a minimum amount of research before you spout off about things with which you know nothing about.

Dan

Not impossible enough: Web Link

"This is the look of Republicans dragging their feet, hunkering down, and trying to ride out the storm:"


This is the look of Democrats claiming to be "reasonable" and wanting "common sense" regulations. Try spinning this one:

Web Link

@DKHSK,

My reasoning was in no way comparable to "erroneously crying fire in a crowded theater". That would be comparable to discharging a machine gun in a crowded theater. Not owning one.

I asked a simple question. Is a machine gun an "arm", or isn't it?

@DKHSK,

And while you're at it, here's an interesting quotation:

"Extravagant as the supposition is, let it however be made. Let a regular army, fully equal to the resources of the country, be formed; and let it be entirely at the devotion of the federal government; still it would not be going too far to say, that the State governments, with the people on their side, would be able to repel the danger. The highest number to which, according to the best computation, a standing army can be carried in any country, does not exceed one hundredth part of the whole number of souls; or one twenty-fifth part of the number able to bear arms. This proportion would not yield, in the United States, an army of more than twenty-five or thirty thousand men. To these would be opposed a militia amounting to near half a million of citizens with arms in their hands, officered by men chosen from among themselves, fighting for their common liberties, and united and conducted by governments possessing their affections and confidence. It may well be doubted, whether a militia thus circumstanced could ever be conquered by such a proportion of regular troops. Those who are best acquainted with the last successful resistance of this country against the British arms, will be most inclined to deny the possibility of it. Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation, the existence of subordinate governments, to which the people are attached, and by which the militia officers are appointed, forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit of."

What's that all about? Does it have anything to do with the language in the second amendment?

Here's another god quote:

"How about we treat every young man who wants to buy a gun like every woman who wants to get an abortion – mandatory 48-hour waiting period, parental permission, a note from his doctor proving he understands what he’s about to do, a video he has to watch about the effects of gun violence…

Let’s close down all but one gun shop in every state and make him travel hundreds of miles, take time off work, and stay overnight in a strange town to get a gun.

Make him walk through a gauntlet of people holding photos of loved ones who were shot to death, people who call him a murderer and beg him not to buy a gun."

(This quote has often been attributed to Gloria Steinem, but she says it is not her quote, the author is unknown.)

GtF, a family member posted that today. Hadn’t seen it before. The people who say guns are a right are the same ones who say choice is not. It will get dismissed with little thought of the irony.

Rather than engage in the tit-for-tat, questions I would like to see directly addressed (not the convenient talking points):

1.) Is the 2nd amendment obsolete? When it was written a musket could be loaded and shot 1-2 times in 60 seconds -max. 9 people were killed and 20+ injured in a matter of seconds in Dayton.
2.) Are those on the pro-gun side ok with the idea that over 240+ shootings have happened this year in the US? And if so why?
3.) What are your solutions to prevent this from occurring another 240+times in the next 7 months?
4.)A teammate and friend of my daughter had a brother killed in the Thousand Oaks shootings. Her friend has had her life changed in ways I can't imagine. Have we become immune to the after effects of these types of events which is why there seems to be so little constructive dialog about change. What would you change?
5.) Why, in US society, have guns become the 'solution' to someone's problem?

I am interested to hear your answers because I'm just not understanding why this seems to be 'ok' and accepted in this country and why most of the justification hinges on an amendment that was written 200+ years ago and has no relevance in our world.

What I will add is that I went to Concert in the Park on Friday and for the first time in my life, and my wife and daughter admitted to the same thing, I made sure we had an escape route...just in case... (and I have a sneaking suspicion that the Urban Assault Vehicle on display was multi-tasking...just in case.)

Kathleen,

Assault as in automatic firing. Geesh!

Dan

BobB,

It is an arm and you know it. Point please??

Dan

BobB,

the language in the 2A is settled by the highest court in the land. It is as plain as the nose on your face.

You don't like it, tough.

Dan

I had my car radio tuned to AM 740 CBS while I was driving over to Livermore Granada high school this morning. The morning radio staff was interviewing some person about the NAZI and white Supremacists websites. The person being interviewed named off those sites live on air. I was appalled, that CBS radio allowed the promotion of these sites, which anyone listening can go visit. I do not understand the media fascination with radical material and in the promotion of it live on air. This type of media coverage is a primary factor that encourages the crazies to do their evil stunts.

GTF,

Please point out where in the Constitution that access to abortion is clearly identified. I'll wait.

Until then, if you don't like the 2A, tough.

Dan

" 1. Is the 2nd amendment obsolete?"

No, absolutely not.

"2. Are those on the pro-gun side ok with the idea that over 240+ shootings have happened this year in the US? And if so why?"

No, I'm not ok with all these shootings. Upthread I asked what democrats are going to do since most of these shootings take place in cities that are politically controlled by DEMOCRATS, and not one of you has any solution. Hell, there were over forty people shot in Chicago alone over this last weekend but not a peep from any of you all.

"3. What are your solutions to prevent this from occurring another 240+times in the next 7 months?"

a.) Live in non-Democrat run cities b.) arm the population so that the average citizen can shoot back.

"4. What would you change?"

See 3.

Dan

Joe,
In general I agree with Kathleen's and gft sentiment; I think responsible ownership and collectables are a good thing, but licensing and "fitness " for ownership need to be reviewed, the ability to raise concern / review to authorities needs to be created, and definitely age to buy increased.
I actually think we need to educate gun safety at the younger level so kids know what to do / not to do and dont get desensitized by video games as their first introduction to firearms.

Baltimore records its 200th homicide of the year: Web Link

Over 20 killings per month. In one city. Run, top to bottom, by Democrats.

ONLY ONE DEMOCRAT-RUN CITY OUT OF THOUSANDS!

You can't even fix your own cities!

I'd laugh at your stupidity if I wasn't so disgusted with your hypocrisy.

Dan

I also agree with limiting certain weapon types, perhaps annual check ins to ensure proper ownership/modification like the dmv.

All this is good to address issues with legal ownership/causal paths. But that doesn't address the illegal or inner city problems.

So of course we again find political gridlock because any acceptance of reality casts a politically negative situation for each.

It's wrong to say, but these zealots should direct their frustration towards our political cowards (both sides) that create the environment where voices arent heard, not only not heard but turned against as insult for having an opposing view, dont shed the blood of innocent individuals going to a bar, Walmart, or school, to prove your point.

PP,

There are weapons that are illegal to own, mainly automatic-firing weapons.

Everything else you have to pull the trigger to fire a bullet.

If you are talking about weapons that LOOK like automatic weapons, then you really don't know what you want.

Dan

@DKHSK,

So if a machine gun is an arm, and "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

Then what part of "shall not be infringed" didn't you understand?

The language is __so clear__ that it takes numerous supreme court rulings to decide that "arms" only refers the roughly 5% of arms that private citizens are legally allowed to own and not the 95% of arms that the US military uses. But the second amendment is all about protecting citizens against a tyrannical federal government. They just can't have the same kinds of weapons. Sure.

The second amendment needs to be scrapped. No one can make any sense of what it means. It has served its purpose. Time to move on.

By the way. Did you take a look at that quotation?

BobB,

I really don't want to discuss semantics with you.

Here's an idea: read Heller and address your issues with the US Supreme Court.

Case closed.

DKSHK, you might get a bit more respect on this thread if you actually showed a bit of respect towards others:

"Assault as in automatic firing. Geesh!"
"You don't like it, tough."
"Again, please do a minimum amount of research before you spout off about things with which you know nothing about."
"...then you really don't know what you want. "
"Case closed."
"Then we can have a reasonable discussion free from your emotion...again."

Dan, I want to respect all opinions, even those that I strongly disagree with. But when you say things like this, you show that you do not respect what others have to say. So I'm going to ask you, nicely, please treat those who view this issue differently with more respect than you have in previous posts.

Thank you.

Dan,
I'm very familiar with automatic, and semi automatic weapons. I am also aware of which are legal and illegal to own. My point was, if registered owners had to have weapons inspected, those that were modified might get caught, or deterred from modifying. If you legally register but fail to inspect perhaps get flagged.
Again. This might capture these legal owner incidents. Still need a recommendation on the inner city issues / illegal gun ownership

"I am interested to hear your answers because I'm just not understanding why this seems to be 'ok' and accepted in this country and why most of the justification hinges on an amendment that was written 200+ years ago and has no relevance in our world."

People practicing violence of any type is not OK. It's not the "fault" of the gun. The justification is people are responsible for their behaviors/have choices to make. Others should not be punished for their poor decision making.

The 2nd Amendment is most certainly relevant for the purposes of self defense against those who would do others harm - especially considering that "progressives" have attempted to normalize any kind of antisocial/violent behaviors by portraying those who practice them as being "victims".

"I also agree with limiting certain weapon types, perhaps annual check ins to ensure proper ownership/modification like the dmv.All this is good to address issues with legal ownership/causal paths."

Not good at all considering that the leadership of a major political party thinks the solution to violence is "the fewer the guns, the better". This process (either upfront or eventually) will be made deliberately cumbersome/difficult if gun control supporters get their way. New York State has licensing for handgun possession. Want a pistol permit in Erie County (Buffalo, New York)? The permit needs to be signed by a judge - and the process takes about a year. It's an effective handgun ban for most state residents and politicians will not reform the process.

Resources are better spent setting severe penalties for misuse of firearms, addressing those abusing them on the streets of our cities, increased treatment for the mentally ill, and getting involved with young people to keep them out of the criminal justice system.

"4.)A teammate and friend of my daughter had a brother killed in the Thousand Oaks shootings. Her friend has had her life changed in ways I can't imagine. Have we become immune to the after effects of these types of events which is why there seems to be so little constructive dialog about change. What would you change?"


It's kind of difficult to have a "dialog" when one side has revealed what they already want despite repeated denials (getting rid of guns like other "civilized" nations), comes into the discussion with a list of demands, and then expects the other side to just cave in. It's a dictation, not a discussion.

What would I change? Gun control supporters need to agree to start giving things up/agree to repealing some regulations that do not work. No more of the "heads I win, tails you lose".

@MichaelB wrote “Resources are better spent setting severe penalties for misuse of firearms....”

Baloney. How would severe or more severe penalties deter these mass shooters? They don’t care about how severe the penalties are for what they do. In fact, oftentimes they shoot and kill themselves to avoid facing justice after they have killed large numbers of innocent people. How are “severe penalties for misuse of firearms” possibly going to affect them or deter their actions?

@MichaelB wrote “Resources are better spent setting severe penalties for misuse of firearms, addressing those abusing them on the streets of our cities, increased treatment for the mentally ill, and getting involved with young people to keep them out of the criminal justice system.”

The problem is that none of these superficially “feel-good” measures would have actually prevented any of these three recent American mass shootings. You’re just parroting standard Republican non-solution “solutions” to the problem of American gun violence including mass shootings.

"The problem is that none of these superficially “feel-good” measures would have actually prevented any of these three recent American mass shootings. You’re just parroting standard Republican non-solution “solutions” to the problem of American gun violence including mass shootings."

Speaking of being a parrot, isn't it time for you to start telling us when we need to start confiscating guns from people doing nothing wrong again, blaming the gun manufacturers, etc.?

Mass shootings are rare in comparison with people being shot/killed on the streets of our major cities - where so called "progressives" are in charge. There are reasons for that taking place. Calling it "gun violence" and blaming others for it is superficial and feel good.

PP,

"if registered owners had to have weapons inspected, those that were modified might get caught,"

I'm not sure, but there appears to be very little in the way of modified weaponry that is used in these mass shootings. So how effective would this be? I really don't know.

What has been abundantly clear is that in the very recent shootings a lot the nut cases possessed weapons after being known-wolves. one of the latest perpetrators was arrested for creating a kill list of boys and a rape list of girls in school.

@MichaelB wrote “Speaking of being a parrot, isn't it time for you to -”

I’m going to stop you right there. Writing “Speaking of being a parrot, isn't it time for you to-“ isn’t a proper response. It’s a transparent attempt at deflection because you’re apparently unable to come up with a proper response to my point which I’ll re-post below:

“The problem is that none of these superficially “feel-good” measures (presented by MichaelB) would have actually prevented any of these three recent American mass shootings. You’re just parroting standard Republican non-solution “solutions” to the problem of American gun violence including mass shootings.”

I’ll take the fact that you deflected and made no attempt to defend your proposed measures as indicating that you concede the point that none of your measures would be effective at preventing future mass shootings.

@DKHSK,

Sorry to hear you are giving up on defending your position on the second amendment. Could it be that you agree with me that it is out of date and obsolete?

Funny that machine guns were legal for many years until they weren't. But the language is so clear.. .

MichaelB,

The second amendment is obsolete and should be scrapped.

@MichaelB wrote “Mass shootings are rare in comparison with people being shot/killed on the streets of our major cities”

Exactly what is that supposed to mean? Are you saying that addressing the problem of American mass shootings is relatively unimportant?

Get the facts,

If my being blunt is disrespectful to you, then don't engage with me. If by my providing a reasoned argument and links to back up my position aren't enough for us to have a debate on the merits of a topic, then so be it.

I cannot force another human being to agree with me, but I sure as heck will point out their hypocrisy and plain ignorance and I will not be respectful to them. On the other hand, if you look back at all the postings I've made over 17-18 years, you'll see that I will apologize if I get things wrong.

For the record, I am not saying you are a hypocrite or ignorant.

Sincerely,

Dan

BobB,

No Bob, I'm most certainly not giving up my support of the 2A. The case is settled law and now you have shifted the debate to the word "arms".

I'm mearly pointing out that, like the limits imposed on free speech which are reasonable, there are also limits of the types of guns a citizen can own, like automatic weapons or bombs which are also reasonable.

That you want to conflate arms used in the military to arms that civilians can buy is just semantics.

The 2A is settled law. You and all the others in your position will just have to live with it.

Dan

Dan,
I agree that individual's court records and school incidents should have been made available prior to his legal procurement/ownership of a firearm. Change that and the legal age of ownership and you've got a good start. I also agree with removing/repealing laws that haven't worked or don't have a direct benefit.

Has anyone noticed that most of the gun deaths in this country are perpetrated in Democrat-run cities and that most are committed by thugs using ILLEGALLY obtained firearms?

Why is NOBODY on this thread (Wombat, Kathleen, BobB) willing to tackle this issue?

PP,

I have said in the past that I see no issue with background check on ALL purchases of LEGAL firearms. If the FBI could get their act together, I'd have more faith in the system, but I just don't.

Dan

Dan, just a point on “settled law” . . . do you mean like a woman’s choice is settled law?

@DKHSK wrote “Has anyone noticed that most of the gun deaths in this country are perpetrated in Democrat-run cities and that most are committed by thugs using ILLEGALLY obtained firearms?“

Most large American cities have Democratic mayors, and the reason they have Democratic mayors is that large cities tend to have more Democratic voters. And the reason large cities tend to have more Democratic voters is that large cities have more jobs that require college degrees than small towns and rural areas do, and people with college degrees tend to vote Democratic.

As for the fact that a large number of the firearms used in crimes were obtained illegally, that shows that the current system of background checks and gun control laws does have some effectiveness in preventing these criminals from just walking into a gun store and legally buying a gun. The criminals are forced to go elsewhere for their guns. Expansion of gun control laws and regulations would help to further hinder the ability of criminals to get guns.

Ohhhh Kathleen...way to move those goalposts.

I think killing babies is abhorrent.

I'll just leave that right there for you to ponder.

Dan

ps...it ain't settled by any stretch of the imagination. I'll still wait for you to point out the right to kill a baby as noted in the Constitution.

D

Well well well: Web Link

Safe link to CNN

Seems like all the Democrats who blamed Trump for El Paso might have to blame themselves for Dayton.

Hypocrites.

Every. Last. One. Of. You.

And for the record, I don't blame any of you for this nut job killing innocent people.

Dan

I never suggested it’s constitutional. Also, I didn’t ask for your opinion on anything other than your notion of settled law. Reality is it’s settled until it isn’t.

Kathleen,

Noted.

Wombat,

I appreciate the effort it took for you to come up with what you think the solution is to inner city violence, I really do.

You know and I know, that "Expansion of gun control laws and regulations would help to further hinder the ability of criminals to get guns." will not prevent a single damned killing in an area where guns are already ILLEGALLY OBTAINED! Please note my emphasis because it is an important distinction between those who follow the rule of law and those that don't.

The only way that you can meaningfully change anything is by changing the culture of the inner cities.

Single-parenthood and welfare have done more damage to inner cities than any Democrat or Republican politician would dare admit. Our supposed leaders have crippled generations of families beyond all semblance of normality and for what? Votes.

It is an cynical ploy and won't get fixed until someone calls it out.

Trump called out a politician for the way his city has devolved under his leadership and instead of people looking at the facts, all they (the Democrats) did was call him a racist.

Trump was right, and we all know it. Facts don't lie.

Again, you can't change the vast majority of killings unless you change the culture.

Dan

@DKHSK wrote “Again, you can't change the vast majority of killings unless you change the culture.”

OK, so let us know what the grand plan of Republicans for “changing culture” is.

One cultural change would be to stop talking Dems and Republicans and get to discussing this from the perspective of lives lost—mass shootings, gun violence anywhere. We are killing each other with inaction. All of us.

"I’ll take the fact that you deflected and made no attempt to defend your proposed measures as indicating that you concede the point that none of your measures would be effective at preventing future mass shootings."

Short of mass confiscation of guns which would be politically unworkable, you can't.

It's like trying to prevent a tree falling on you and/or being struck by lightning.There are too many variables. However, we could dispense with the "everyone is a victim" and "society is to blame" mentality of the left to impose more codes of conduct/standards of acceptable behavior so there are certain things simply would not be tolerated (behavior of mentally unstable individuals more likely to be reported and acted upon).

In your case, you probably DO want mass gun confiscation (for those having nothing to do with mass shootings, that is) to "reduce gun violence". Thankfully, most people do not.

"The criminals are forced to go elsewhere for their guns. Expansion of gun control laws and regulations would help to further hinder the ability of criminals to get guns."


This sounds familiar and just what we don't need to hear - criminals (already violating laws) are just "victims" of not enough gun laws. So let's punish the citizens and ignore the 2nd Amendment even more.

This is where this state already is and getting worse thanks to people like Bauer-Kahan. Some of the strictest gun laws in the nation, new ones passed/proposed every year, and local politicians still not wanting any gun shops/shows operating in their communities for so called "safety" and/or "violence prevention" purposes.

No thanks.

Wombat,

"OK, so let us know what the grand plan of Republicans for “changing culture” is."

Ahhh, just as I expected. You don't have a plan to fix the very problems that your political party has created, so you look to Republicans to provide you with the answers.

Typical, VERY TYPICAL.

How about this for starters: Vote out every single Democrat, socialist, communist and RINO that represents the inner cities of the US?

Dan

@MichaelB wrote “This is where this state already is and getting worse thanks to people like Bauer-Kahan. Some of the strictest gun laws in the nation...”

You unwittingly gave away the main weakness of current gun control laws with the first part of your second sentence above. Let’s examine what you wrote: “Some of the strictest gun laws in the nation...”. Doesn’t that strike you as being odd? Here’s the problem with what you wrote: Why do we have strict gun laws in one part of the nation and lax gun laws elsewhere in the country? How can one possibly expect gun control to be effective if criminals can easily skirt tough gun acquisition laws in one community by simply getting their guns in a nearby neighboring community with lax gun control like the way that many criminal guns used in gun-strict Chicago are actually purchased in nearby gun-lax Indiana? Does that make sense to you? You “pro gun” enthusiasts wail over the ineffectiveness of gun control laws while neglecting to mention the fact that you yourselves crippled the effectiveness of current gun control laws by steadfastly opposing any attempts to implement a strong, consistent set of gun control measures at a national level.

@DKHSK wrote “Ahhh, just as I expected. You don't have a plan to fix the very problems...”

Wrong. There have been many, many gun control and other gun violence prevention measures proposed by Democrats. Don’t you remember? They’re all the ones that “pro gun” enthusiasts like yourself are always complaining and wailing about Democrats proposing. How could you possibly forget all that?

So it’s indisputable that Democrats are offering many solutions (whether you happen to like the solutions or not). So now it’s the turn of Republicans and “pro-gun” enthusiasts to offer some solutions. You wrote (and the following is a direct quote by you): “Again, you can't change the vast majority of killings unless you change the culture.”.

So, OK, fine. Your solution is to “change the culture”. That’s what YOU wrote. So then I quite naturally asked what your (and the Republican) practical grand plan for “changing the culture” was. At that point, apparently unable to come up with an answer, you exploded and accused me (and Democrats?) of not having a plan. Huh? Where did that come from?

"So it’s indisputable that Democrats are offering many solutions (whether you happen to like the solutions or not). "

Ok...you have ideas...now how about implementing them? After all, you democrats own the inner cities and look how great they've turned out. I'm sure your next solutions will be even better than the ones you're currently implementing.

"Your solution is to “change the culture”. That’s what YOU wrote. So then I quite naturally asked what your (and the Republican) practical grand plan for “changing the culture” was."

I gave you my starting solution...what more do you want??

2018 Top 30 highest murder rates for cities in the US: Web Link

I'll save you the suspense: There were 1735 murders last year in just these 30 cities. This converts to 33 per week.

Somehow none of you expressed any of the slightest concern until the tragedies of this past weekend.

I find that VERY telling.

Dan

@DKSHK

Come on, DKHSK. Do you have a point to make, or are you just throwing stuff at a wall to see if anything sticks?

"You unwittingly gave away the main weakness of current gun control laws with the first part of your second sentence above. Let’s examine what you wrote: “Some of the strictest gun laws in the nation...”. Doesn’t that strike you as being odd?"

The "odd" part is you not understanding that criminals do not comply with them but the 2nd Amendment gets gutted in the process/law abiding people become the new criminals - like this state has done. The weakness is you (and people like Bauer-Kahan) peddling the argument that criminals will somehow get licenses, background checks, comply with buyback programs, magazine turn in programs, etc. They will not.

We already know what your definition of "strong gun laws" are, don't we? The US has "too many guns" and we need to reduce the number to something you find socially acceptable - very few or none. Not holding people accountable for what they do wrong with them.

"You “pro gun” enthusiasts wail over the ineffectiveness of gun control laws while neglecting to mention the fact that you yourselves crippled the effectiveness of current gun control laws by steadfastly opposing any attempts to implement a strong, consistent set of gun control measures at a national level."

The so called "progressive" plan for strong, consistent gun control laws? Gun bans - for all but the most politically/financially well off (like Washington DC before the Supreme Court got involved and/or New York City style). Nothing "effective" about this at all as it relates to criminal activity. They'll have as many as they wish because they are obtained illegally and the citizens are left defenseless.

"Come on, DKHSK. Do you have a point to make, or are you just throwing stuff at a wall to see if anything sticks?"

Yes:

1.) Democrats are not to be trusted with any type of gun-related issues or law-making
2.) Democrats are responsible for inner city crime
3.) Democrats keep the welfare system in place because they can count on votes from recipients
4.) Democrats cannot run any big city with competence and honesty
5.) Democrats have a history of racism that runs back from slavery, through Jim Crow and into modern politics of today

Need any more points, Wombat?

Dan

@MichaelB wrote “The "odd" part is you not understanding that criminals do not comply with them (gun control laws).....”

Of course criminals have to “comply” with gun controls laws! Of course their actions are affected by them. That’s why criminals in Chicago are often forced to get their guns in nearby Indiana where gun control laws are far more lax!

@DKHSK

Now you’re just making yourself look silly.

"Of course criminals have to “comply” with gun controls laws! Of course their actions are affected by them. That’s why criminals in Chicago are often forced to get their guns in nearby Indiana where gun control laws are far more lax!"

You continue to prove our point and I'm not sure if you are a troll, or just plain ignorant.

Step away from the keyboard and give it a rest...really.

Sincerely,

Dan

Wombat,
If you think people are obtaining weapons legally for the inner city issues dan is describing is real, you’re misguided. Those arms are being procured through the same illegal channels as the drugs, sand other crimes they are being used in.
Michael b, this is why gun advocates have issue with the proposed laws, they don’t address the direct acquisition path

@Pleasanton Parent :”If you think people are obtaining weapons legally for the inner city issues dan is describing is real, you’re misguided.”

Sorry, but you’re the one who is misinformed. Legal purchases of guns in other states with lax guns laws is a major supply route for guns used by Chicago criminals:

“FACT CHECK: Is Chicago Proof That Gun Laws Don't Work?”

“Neither Wisconsin nor Indiana requires licenses or permits to purchase a gun, for example, nor do they require waiting periods. While Illinois has that B+ rating from the law center, Wisconsin has a C- and Indiana a D-.”

“And there's good evidence that being next-door to those states keeps Chicago criminals well-supplied with guns. A 2015 study of guns in Chicago, co-authored by Cook, found that more than 60 percent of new guns used in Chicago gang-related crimes and 31.6 percent used in non-gang-related crimes between 2009 and 2013 were bought in other states. Indiana was a particularly heavy supplier, providing nearly one-third of the gang guns and nearly one-fifth of the non-gang guns.”

NPR: Web Link

Wombat,
Link to study? I hate studies that cite percentages without numbers (and vice versa).
In general though I agree the requirements cant be that different state to state.

"In general though I agree the requirements cant be that different state to state."

The requirements for ownership/possession need to be consistent with the exercise of any Constitutional rights - minimal interference (background checks, age requirement, reasons for exclusion on based on background/previous offenses, etc.).

Not what so called gun "safety" groups want - demonstrating a need/reason to own, a government controlled licensing process, banning guns/magazines they do not think you "need", declaring legally owned property contraband, insurance requirements,mandatory usage of "smart" guns,possession limits, prohibiting gun shops/shows from operating, etc. They have already shown us they ignore the 2nd Amendment, are interested in reducing legal gun ownership to an acceptably "low" number, blame society for violence, and pay lip service to going after those who misuse firearms deliberately.

@Pleasanton Parent

The link to the NPR article “FACT CHECK: Is Chicago Proof That Gun Laws Don't Work?” is given at the bottom of my previous post. Here it is again: NPR article, Web Link . The web link in the NPR article to the 2015 study by Cook, et., al. is broken. I found a copy of it by googling. Here it is: "Some Sources Of Crime Guns In Chicago”, Univ. of Chicago, Web Link .

. . . . .

MichaelB:
demonstrating a need/reason to own—Agreed
a government controlled licensing process—A must
banning guns/magazines they do not think you "need"—There are guns/magazines no one needs—not for protection or sport
declaring legally owned property contraband—I can accept grandfathering with licensing/registry of those previously purchased items
insurance requirements—Individual choice, but possibly smart if you could even get covered
mandatory usage of "smart" guns—Well, it would be nice to have mandatory “smart” owners
possession limits—I don’t understand a desire to have a weapons cache, but I wouldn’t limit a person’s “collection”
prohibiting gun shops/shows from operating—Fine if they have to follow vetting/licensing

"demonstrating a need/reason to own—Agreed
a government controlled licensing process—A must"

Absolutely no.

There is no 2nd Amendment under this system. You have a right to ask and that's it. This is ripe for abuse - and will not be handled like the DMV.

I made this point earlier about New York State pistol permits in Erie County - a year long wait for a judge's signature (even with a clean record). This is not a "right" at all. You want to defend yourself in your own home but need to wait a year to get approved? We all know how many CCWs are issued in Bay Area counties even if applicants successfully complete background checks/training programs - virtually none. The "gun safety" groups who promote systems like this will use it to discourage legal ownership - for no good reason. Criminals won't bother with any of it.

Don’t know why you would have a judge in the process. I am sure there are better processes to license a person to be a gun owner. Aren’t there enough intelligent people that could create a plan if there aren’t any current good processes? And by intelligent, I don’t think there are many identifiable in D.C. Maybe no one currently in any government or the NRA. It seems we need people less impassioned by either side.

Criminals don’t pay attention to any laws, yet we have them and we, hopefully, find justice. Framing laws solely in the belief it will **stop** a criminal is going to cause disappointment.

Kathleen,

"demonstrating a need/reason to own—Agreed
a government controlled licensing process—A must"

Just yesterday, two events happened perpetrated by a Democrat member of the political class and a former member of the bureaucracy.

The first was perpetrated by Democrat Congressman Joaquin Castro' doxxing of Trump donors. Some, even contributed to Castro' campaign.
Even though the information he published was public, this set up those donors to be the recipients of death threats from Democrats and left wing extremists, and for what? Donating money to someone THEY don't like.

Safe link to Congressman Castro' twitter: Web Link

The second was perpetrated by Former FBI Asst Director Frank Figliuzzi, who worked under Robert Mueller. Yesterday, Figliuzzi stated that Trumps ordering flag at half mass until 8/8 was a direct call out to White supremists. You see, Frank says that 8/8 is represented as "Heil Hitler" because the number 8 corresponds to the letter "H".

Safe link to MSNBC: Web Link

These are just two examples of the insanity that is the Democratic party and Feral bureaucracy and it should cause a lot of posters to pause and re-think their positions, but they won't.

THIS (and democrats dangerous opinions) is why we support the 2nd Amendment.

Sure Kathleen, lets trust the Government. /s

Dan

I wonder if anybody here who is a GOP cheerleader could explain how a regular citizen could justify having a high capacity magazine? Spray and pray? Lousy shot?

I await.

"Aren’t there enough intelligent people that could create a plan if there aren’t any current good processes?"

There are good processes that aren't being discussed nationally because all Democrats really want to do is take away all guns.

But most are too dishonest to say so, so they use the old canards like "better registration", "licensing"...etc.

We all know what you really want and you can't have it.

Dan

"I wonder if anybody here who is a GOP cheerleader could explain how a regular citizen could justify having a high capacity magazine?"

How about this: because it's none of your darned business what I own and how I use it? That is, unless I break the law.

Do you know that there are things out there that people own that I too have no idea why they would own it, but they do, and you know what? I don't give a flying frank that they own it.

Mind your own business and I'll mind mine.

Dan

@Kathleen

The whole “criminals don’t pay attention to laws” line of argument used by many pro-gun debaters is a weak one. One might as well say that we shouldn’t have laws against rape and murder because rapists and murderers are going to rape and murder anyway. As for gun control laws, criminals may not care to obey them BUT the vast network of licensed gun dealers do, and their actions determine the availability of guns to criminals.

Finally, with MichaelB here extolling the benefits of gun ownership and implying that large numbers of legal gun owners make our communities safer, here’s an article worth thinking about:

“Criminals steal more than 237,000 guns from legal American gun owners every year”
- Business Insider, 11/20/17

“Gun theft is on the rise in the US, fueling violent crime across the country.
A wide-ranging investigation by The Trace and NBC analyzed 800,000 police records. In 2016, more than 237,000 guns were reported stolen nationwide, a 68% increase from 2005.
The problem is exacerbated by legal gun owners who fail to secure their firearms, making it easy for criminals to steal them.”
Business Insider: Web Link
. . . .

"Criminals don’t pay attention to any laws, yet we have them and we, hopefully, find justice. Framing laws solely in the belief it will **stop** a criminal is going to cause disappointment."

I can't even...

What do you think we've been saying all along?

You have two choices: 1.) take away all guns from responsible ownership and leave the common citizen STILL at the mercy of criminals or 2.) widen availability and permit conceal carry or at least carry openly, and MAYBE expand background checks to possibly check for mental illness, since, obviously, anyone that would want to kill anyone else is obviously mentally ill.

Half measure are unacceptable because as you pointed out, they only embolden and enable criminals.

Dan

"The whole “criminals don’t pay attention to laws” line of argument used by many pro-gun debaters is a weak one. One might as well say that we shouldn’t have laws against rape and murder because rapists and murderers are going to rape and murder anyway."

You keep insisting on making these point, but don't realize it works AGAINST your arguments! It's all true: criminal minds are going to do criminal things REGARDLESS of the laws put in place.

We all get it.

Ban guns: only criminals will have guns
Create more laws: only criminals will ignore laws

The criminal wins no matter WHAT YOU DO. See how that works?

LOL! You are a brilliant one.

Dan

@DKHSK

Dan, It’s pretty hard to take your comments seriously when it’s clear by your writing that you’re not even trying to read and understand the comments written by others.

Wombat,

Then don't respond to me.

Nobody makes you post circular logic.

Dan

Dan, You are the south end view of a northbound mule. I said I did not trust any government elected official or the NRA to figure this out.

Idiots on both sides of the aisle, Dan—“the party of bad ideas vs the party of no ideas”—Lewis Black. Sadly, Black attributed this to certain parties at the time. Today, it’s interchangeable.

“How about this: because it's none of your darned business what I own and how I use it? That is, unless I break the law.”

There is a problem with this thinking (well many problems). I’m not willing to wait for you to go out and shoot a dozen people FIRST. It’s not necessarily my business, but what you have that can cause that kind of harm should be known.

“or 2.) widen availability and permit conceal carry or at least carry openly, and MAYBE expand background checks to possibly check for mental illness, since, obviously, anyone that would want to kill anyone else is obviously mentally ill.”

Widen availability . . . type of weapon or just more people? I would limit the types, as I’ve said. But if you want one gun or ten guns or 100 guns and can pass some vetting and licensing, have at it. The mentally ill trope isn’t accurate. While I agree something must be off to want to murder, it can be anger, passion, or some other trigger.

“The criminal wins no matter WHAT YOU DO.”

Dan, you aren’t even trying to be reasonable. This is a country of laws and we have the few who ignore one or more or all of them. That does not equate to inaction. “Don’t write a law (or change the current laws) because some will ignore them.”

Kathleen,

"Idiots on both sides of the aisle, Dan..."

No kidding. I've been saying this for years on many thread in PW.

Welcome to the party.

Kathleen,

"There is a problem with this thinking (well many problems)."

No Kathleen, there is no problem with a law-abiding citizen having the freedom to buy anything he/she chooses, UNLESS it is in the commission to commit a crime.

For instance, you wouldn't say that a terrorist driving a car into a crowd means that we should ban all cars now, would you?

I personally find lots of items that I think people shouldn't buy, primarily, foods that contain a lot of sugar, which is known to cause obesity and cigarettes/cigars and, in general tobacco. All perfectly legal and which kill many millions more than weapons with "high capacity" clips.

Yet here we are, wanting to ban guns, while other substances kill FAR more people.

If you refuse to see distinctions, then you are being willful in doing so.

Sincerely,

Dan

Kathleen,

"Widen availability . . . type of weapon or just more people?"

People. The weapons available now are not only legal, but constitutionally legal.

Dan

Kathleen,

"Dan, you aren’t even trying to be reasonable."

That's your opinion and its probably based on the fact that I don't agree with you, and that's ok.

"This is a country of laws and we have the few who ignore one or more or all of them."

Yep, murder is illegal and yet...people still murder. Murder using a gun is illegal, yet people use guns in the commission of murder.

All you are asking for is for the law abiding citizen to continue to be put at a disadvantage by creating more laws designed to stop bad people from doing bad things.

None of the things I've read about the last 3 shooter has anything remotely good to say about them. They each were BAD PEOPLE and not one law on the books was able to stop them. Take away all guns. There will still be killings on a massive scale because bad people will find a way to continue their behavior, even if it means buying smuggled guns out of Canada or Mexico or being moved on a boat from some other countries.

Dan

Constitutionally legal . . . Not everywhere. Maryland’s ban on 45 weapons was upheld in 4th circuit 10/4.

Can’t ask if a weapon is intended for use in a crime and get an honest answer. Can limit what you can buy.

There isn’t a nationwide problem of cars used as weapons. Sugar either, unless you want to blame manufacturers for the addictive nature—and even so, we have labeling laws so one can see how stupid eating it might be. Smoking—I’d love to ban that, but we have managed to curtail where it can be used, haven’t we? Maybe we can limit weapons to be used only in the home and with big permanent warning labels that they can cause serious injury and death.

Who are you being put at a disadvantage from? The likelihood of someone with a potentially banned weapon breaking into your house is something like not at all. And the chances you are taking a similar weapon to shop at Walmart or to a child’s school or for a drink or to a festival, just in case a person is bent on killing, is nil.

Kathleen,

"Who are you being put at a disadvantage from? The likelihood of someone with a potentially banned weapon breaking into your house is something like not at all. And the chances you are taking a similar weapon to shop at Walmart or to a child’s school or for a drink or to a festival, just in case a person is bent on killing, is nil."

Question asked and answered. <sigh>

I think we've seen just about enough for today.

Dan

I am a big 2A fan and believe in people’s rights to own any types of weapons under the context of “well regulated militia”. Both sides on the gun control throw away “well regulated militia”, I don’t think that you will ever come to a middle ground.

If you live in the middle of Pleasanton, you probably don’t feel like to own a gun to protect your home. I don’t. But if you live on the edge of the city, or somewhere in the unincorporated area in Livermore, a gun will give you a peace of mind. It’s all reasonable.

It’s my hope by attaching gun ownership with a well regulated militia, we Americans can come together on the gun issue.

A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS, SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED."

THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS, SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED.

It's amazing how many people can read that sentence and think that "people" means "militia".

Dan

The way the second amendment is enforced and implemented these days, it should read "Shall be mostly infringed", or "infringed for the majority of arms" rather than "shall not be infringed"

Why on Earth do people say things like, "I support the second amendment, but..."

Why not just say, "I do not support the second amendment"? Why is that so hard? Is the second amendment sacred?

Why did the founding mothers put “A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state,” as the first part of the second amendment? If those words were not necessary, why did they put them there? They were bright and intelligent people and they experienced conflicts much more than we have.

As I said that I support the second amendment in its full context, that’s just my opinion.

@DKHSK,

You said to someone "Look up James Madison, Federalist No. 46".

Then I offer a quote from it and you do not respond. Look at the language of that quote. Look at the use of the word militia. Look at the context.

"“Gun theft is on the rise in the US, fueling violent crime across the country."


Sorry, but theft is already against the law and violent crime is just a little more complicated than guns being available/around. Yet another attempt to "blame society" and further evidence that progressives just want to get rid of guns from those having nothing to do with violence - and then call it a "prevention" measure.

"I wonder if anybody here who is a GOP cheerleader could explain how a regular citizen could justify having a high capacity magazine? Spray and pray? Lousy shot?"


What's "high capacity"? Why don't you explain why these are supposedly/suddenly a "problem" when they have been standard equipment on many firearms for decades?

This sounds like another excuse to rationalize acts of violence.

"Can’t ask if a weapon is intended for use in a crime and get an honest answer."

How about an honest answer as to how someone determines a weapon is "intended" for use in a crime? Blaming the manufacturer for violence instead of the person carrying it out?

Everyone is forgetting the purpose of the 2nd amendment is to allow to protect ourselves against our government. I do believe if you have seen a head doctor or are taking Prozac or something like that it should be in a data base and you should be denied when you have the background check.

"Maybe we can limit weapons to be used only in the home and with big permanent warning labels that they can cause serious injury and death. "


And "big warning labels" accomplish exactly what?

MichaelB, not a stand alone sentence. It was following up on Dan’s reference to sugar and cigarettes.

While many say the second amendment was intended to arm citizens with anything available today, we could just go back to only having the weapons available at the time 2A was written. At least we could agree that was the intent at the time. Not reasonable?

Neither is much of what is available today. We aren’t the militia. We aren’t being invaded and if we were, they’d be useless against an enemy (nuclear). We aren’t beating are own government if it goes south either. So why does anyone need these weapons? We don’t.

Kathleen,
Regarding the need to arm ones self; you’re speaking from a position of your experience. Pleasanton is not representative of the rest of the world, states, or even ca. Living in certain areas may necessitate personal firearm.

Regarding time limiting the constitutional, 1. You can’t cherry pick amendments to timebound. 2. I’d like to think our founding members built and intended to build scale into what they wrote knowing times would change but intent behind the amendments would transition with

PP, I don’t want to stop gun ownership or even how many guns one may feel they want/need. However, there are weapons that civilians do not need for protection or sport. My point was it isn’t reasonable to go back to muskets, nor is it reasonable to have a variety of the weapons available today.

@Pete,

"Everyone is forgetting the purpose of the 2nd amendment is to allow to protect ourselves against our government."

Where did I forget that? That was the whole point of my anti-second amendment posts. That was why I posted the quote from The Federalist. If we can't get any of the same kinds of weapons as the government, how could we be expected to protect ourselves from them?

What part of "shall not be abridged" didn't you understand?

"nor is it reasonable to have a variety of the weapons available today."

All guns fire bullets. 1.) Some fire multiple bullets with one press of the trigger and 2.) most fire one bullet with each press of the trigger.

Guns in #1 are already illegal to own, heavily regulated, and have not been used in any mass killing for probably decades.

So...

Precisely which guns out of #2 would you like to ban and why?

Dan

BobB,

"If we can't get any of the same kinds of weapons as the government, how could we be expected to protect ourselves from them?"

By any means necessary.

Here's an analogy for you: During the Vietnam war, we could have flattened Hanoi and all major cities in the country, but we didn't. Vietnam was essentially a loss for the US. We had far superior weapons and tactics.

Same for the Middle East and Afghanistan.

And yet here you are, offering to lose without even trying to fight.

Simple enough for you?

Dan

BobB

"from it and you do not respond"

I answered your last post to me on Aug 6, 2019 at 9:58 am. That you don't care for my response is an entirely different issue and I will do my best to respond once I re-read the context. Fair enough?

Dan

Dan, are your category 1 weapons equally illegal everywhere in the US? Clinton’s legislation sunsetted in 2004.

“By any means possible.” It isn’t possible. You couldn’t even win against the PPD.

BobB,

"What's that all about? Does it have anything to do with the language in the second amendment?"

Madison quote regarding why he wrote what he wrote in Federalist #46:

"I propose to compare the federal and state governments, are the disposition and the faculty they may respectively possess, to resist and frustrate the measures of each other. It has been already proved that the members of the federal will be more dependent on the members of the State governments, than the latter will be on the former
I quickly read the background of the quote. There is a lot to unpack, but in short, he appears to be setting the stage of the different functions between the States and Fed in regards to standing armies and militia."

And to answer your question, yes it does and has been used also in the Heller v Delaware as the basis for common "people" to own "arms".

So, once again, the 2A is settled law, unless Kathleen gets her way and it isn't.

Sincerely,

Dan

Kathleen,

"Dan, are your category 1 weapons equally illegal everywhere in the US? Clinton’s legislation sunsetted in 2004."

Yes Kathleen. They are illegal to purchase unless you go through an extensive government process. Few individuals can qualify to own them and none have been used in mass shooting in the modern era.

Dan

Kathleen,

"You couldn’t even win against the PPD."

What does this mean, exactly? What are you trying to convey to me?

4 dead-2 wounded in SoCal.

Killed and wounded by a knife. Web Link

What will all you gun-grabbing democrats do/say now? Ban all knives?

Dan

Dan, you responded to BobB that to fight our government it would be done “by any means possible”. It isn’t possible, not even locally (anywhere locally really). I just used PPD because we live here.

No one will ban knives Dan.

"So why does anyone need these weapons? We don’t."

Some of us are old enough to remember what happened after Reagan was shot in 1981. Then we were told handguns needed to be banned because they were "not for hunting" and their only purpose was "to kill people".

Whose "we"? Many people just hate guns of all types - and do not think anyone has a "need" for them. They would gladly ban/confiscate them if given the opportunity.

"Why on Earth do people say things like, "I support the second amendment, but..."


Why on Earth do "progressive" people claiming to know better on this issue use nonsensical terms like "gun violence"? Firearms are objects - and objects do not commit acts of violence. Is it really that difficult for people to understand this? Only a small percentage of firearms in this nation are ever misused and the amount of mass shootings has increased since more regulations have been enacted on them.

Ok Dan, your Category 1 turns out to be Title II weapons as defined by the feds. I don’t know why anyone would need any of those weapons, even if they could pass a background check. As for “semiautomatic firearms with a large magazine of ammunition that were designed and configured for rapid fire and combat use” (USDOJ), I see no reason for those either and they have been used in mass shootings and are not regulated the same in all states.

MichaelB, yes guns don’t kill people, people kill people. I just don’t want it to be so easy to kill lots of people. Maybe the compromise is to add the DOJ defined semiautomatic weapons to the same Title II scrutiny/background checks and licensing.

Kathleen,

"It isn’t possible, not even locally (anywhere locally really)."

Then give up if it ever happens. Other people will fight for you.

Dan

ps, I am not in anyway advocating for a war with our government. Everything I write is hypothetical.

Kathleen,

"No one will ban knives Dan."

Already has happened to our overseas cousins: Web Link

Safe link to UK Gov site.

Knife control...oops.

Dan

Kathleen,

"I don’t know why anyone would need any of those weapons,..."

Personally I don't either except for sporting reasons. That's why you can pop one off very easily just outside of Las Vegas Nevada.

"semiautomatic firearms with a large magazine of ammunition I see no reason for those either..."

I disagree. Mostly for the same reasons as above.

Dan

Dan

Kathleen,

"I just don’t want it to be so easy to kill lots of people."

You obviously didn't read this, so I'm linking it again: Web Link

Dan

MichaelB'

"Only a small percentage of firearms in this nation are ever misused and the amount of mass shootings has increased since more regulations have been enacted on them."

Completely and utterly lost on them...but 'MORE regulation!'

Sincerely,

Dan

Dan,

“Others will fight for you.” I don’t think they’d get the chance in a real situation.

What sport needs Title II weapons? Really; I can’t imagine.

Not lost, Dan. I just don’t agree “because I believe I have the right and I want them” is justification enough. You want them, go through a process so I know I, who will not have them, will be safe in my community.

“Two US F-22 stealth jets and two Canadian CF-18 fighters intercepted the nuclear-capable Russian Tu-95 Bear bombers after they entered Alaskan and Canadian Air Defense Identification Zones, which extend approximately 200 miles off Alaska's western coast, NORAD said in a statement. The Russian aircraft remained in international airspace and never entered US or Canadian sovereign territory, the statement added.”

Like I said, never going to get a chance.

Kathleen,

"I just don’t agree “because I believe I have the right and I want them” is justification enough."

Ok...still legal, so this is merely an academic exercise at this point.

I'm out.

Dan

Kathleen,

"Like I said, never going to get a chance."

You realize this has been happening since the cold war, right? I have seen with my own eyes, Russian Bear Bombers flying over the ship I was based-on back in 1984, and again in 1986.

Dan

Certainly. Hippy Dippy weatherman? “. . . so I wouldn’t sweat those thunderstorms.”

You all keep making my point. The only reasonable interpretation of the second amendment is that it is about defending against a tyrannical federal government. But it isn't applied that way at all. Citizens can't have the same weapons as the government. Citizens would have no chance defending against the government.

The amendment is obsolete.

BobB, Wiki has a history of “militia”. (Sorry, PW isn’t picking up the link correctly) Worth at least a scan.

Some like to emphasize the latter part of the second amendment rather than the first thirteen words: “A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state . . . “

So, I don’t think the amendment is obsolete when considering States’ rights to have their own militias, for example. That interpretations have morphed into individuals owning any and every kind of gun feels like a reach beyond the intention of 2A. But, that’s the problem; differing interpretations.

BobB,

Ah...so in the absence of making it legal to own nuclear weapons and machine guns, we should just throw away our right to self-defense because the citizen couldn't possibly win anyway.

This seems sane.

Dan

Kathleen,

"But, that’s the problem; differing interpretations."

Only by you and other gun-grabbers.

The Supreme court has the defining and legal interpretation. You just don't like it.

Dan

No. I don’t like it. And you can’t justify owning weapons that are not for protection or sport. And . . . you continue to ignore the first part of the 2A. And not every state has the same laws regarding weapons. Whatever the answer may be, it needs to be cohesive.

@DKHSK,

Like I keep saying, the second amendment clearly isn't about self-defense. It is about defending against government tyranny.

Kathleen,

"And you can’t justify owning weapons that are not for protection or sport..."

I don't need to, it's settled law.

I didn't ignore the first part. The question is regarding private citizen ownership of weapons, which is clearly described in the second part and upheld by the Supreme Court.

Dan

BobB,

2nd Amendment:

A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS, SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED."

This is the law.

THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS is the natural law of self defense express to modernity. It is applied on all those who would illegally trespass against the common citizen. This includes burglars, murderers, bears, and of course, a tyrannical government amongst many others.

To apply the doctrine outside of self defense is a crime and punishable.

To say that one could not possibly defeat an illegal trespasser, therefore one should give up the means to self-defense, is directly against the natural law and is antithetical to human nature.

Roll over on your back if you wish. It's your choice and you are free to succumb to anyone.

Dan

Ahhh Dan, It’s just death holding a fancy weapon as the nuclear blast wafts past.

Read up on the first part of 2A, specifically militia history and meaning.

Yes, you can own guns, though I would argue about which guns. However, accepting **current** settled law might mean all weapons, then agree to a national vetting and licensing process and you can have/keep them. There is no legitimate reason to disagree if an owner is of sound mind, responsible, and not a criminal.

But I also want to be sure this then doesn’t extend to the extreme such as rocket launchers (you may find a need to shoot down an enemy plane?) or a personally owned tank, etc. Cuz I’m worried you may believe your interpretation lends itself to any weapon so you can fulfill your comment of “by any means possible”.

This guy isn’t helping: Web Link

Kathleen,

I might concede vetting based on history of mental illness and the taking of drugs for psychiatric disorders.

"might"

But not the culling of current weapons availability.

Dan

Kathleen,

"But I also want to be sure this then doesn’t extend to the extreme such as rocket launchers"

A rocket launcher without a rocket is useless. Just like a gun without a bullet.

If a machine gun is prohibitive to buy, try buying a rocket. Unless you do so illegally, you CANNOT buy one.

Dan

I suggest going forward, that every new gun manufactured in the U S and every gun coming into the U S be manufactured with a GPS chip which would allow monitoring major events, determine which is law enforcement and which isn't.

@DKHSK,

A friend of mine has a legally owned sub-machine gun (a full auto MAC 10). I have fired it myself. He had to jump through many hoops to get it. It isn't impossible to buy, just very difficult. By contrast, a stinger missile can't be owned by any private citizen. All of what I described are infringements on privately owned arms.

The whole problem with the second amendment is that it takes controversial and deeply split court decisions to try to adapt it to modern times. We should give up. It just doesn't work anymore.

Dan, “you CANNOT buy one”. My point is, you are arguing for weapons I personally don’t think you should have now (but will concede with vetting and licensing). But when will the argument change to being the 2A means one should be able to buy even more powerful weapons? I’m not seeing that bright white line that says absolutely never.

“Might” is a start at least.

Kathleen,

"But when will the argument change to being the 2A means one should be able to buy even more powerful weapons?"

I don't know when, but this is a useless point IMO. Nobody is arguing that we should have access to MORE powerful weapons. At least, nobody that I know or the opinions I read.

So it's a moot point.

Dan

Not exactly moot, Dan. The argument is about freely keeping possession of and the ability to purchase weapons that aren’t for protection or sport, because the interpretation is that 2A allows it. The goal posts moved to accommodate the desire to own those weapons. Will the goal posts move again with some new deadly weapon? Entirely possible.

Kathleen,

I don't understand why you think you are the arbiter of what makes up a sport or how one protects oneself.

Is Vanilla the only approved flavor for Ice Cream too?

Dan

Dan, I asked you several posts ago about what sports. Is this just about going out to ranges to shoot?

Owning any gun should include the training to shoot with precision—you don’t just buy a car without knowing how to drive and having a car requires knowledge and ability tests and a license.

You didn’t answer about moving the goal posts in the future either.

As for ice cream, if I own a gallon of Rocky Road (or some brand new flavor), the only person in danger is me.

"Owning any gun should include the training to shoot with precision—you don’t just buy a car without knowing how to drive and having a car requires knowledge and ability tests and a license."

No, it should not.

Driving is not a Constitutional right and the problems we have on the streets of our cities have nothing to do with a lack of training by people purchasing guns with legal transactions. Enough of the irritating "you're not doing enough" and "you're not safe enough" claims - for those doing nothing wrong. There is no "crime prevention windfall" by doing this and people who want to own guns legally will be at the mercy of bureaucrats/politicians moving the goalposts as to exactly what is "safe" enough. Hint- preventing as many people as possible from owning guns.

"As for ice cream, if I own a gallon of Rocky Road (or some brand new flavor), the only person in danger is me."

Private gun ownership in the United States is nothing new and a only a small percentage of firearms in circulation in this nation are ever misused. Predictions by gun control advocates of "wild west shootouts" after more people were given authorization to carry guns never materialized.

Time to get over the "anyone who has one legally is a public safety threat" and/or "is just about to abuse them" accusation. It's an emotionally based argument (the same one used by politicians in this state endlessly piling on more regulations/bans simply ignored by real criminals)and it doesn't hold up under closer scrutiny.

"The whole problem with the second amendment is that it takes controversial and deeply split court decisions to try to adapt it to modern times. We should give up. It just doesn't work anymore."

Perhaps some people should just give up on the "modern" (silly) idea of firearms (being legal to own and available for years in our nation) now suddenly being blamed as the cause of violence - and the supposed need to get rid of them from those having nothing to do with violence.

@MichaelB :”Predictions by gun control advocates of "wild west shootouts" after more people were given authorization to carry guns never materialized. ”

You’re already living in the “Wild West”, MichaelB. You didn’t know? We all are. The rate of gun homicides per capita in the US is about 10-TIMES HIGHER than the rates in virtually every other country among our advanced, industrialized, democratic peer countries of Western Europe, Japan, Canada, and Australia. In terms of gun violence, our peers are Paraguay, Nicaragua, and Mexico.

Kathleen,

Here is the list of the wide-variety of shooting sports:Web Link

You'll notice that there are a multitude of weapons that are used.

As far as moving the goalposts, we on the other side of the debate feel the same way. So again, this is a moot point.

The law is clear. The Supreme Court has been clear.

"Owning any gun should include the training to shoot with precision—you don’t just buy a car without knowing how to drive and having a car requires knowledge and ability tests and a license."

Ditto what MichaelB says on this point, but I'll add that driving kills FAR more every year and it requires licensing and proficiency testing.

You've lost perspective, but I don't blame you. It's an emotional issue for you and that counts for something.

Dan

Wombat,

"The rate of gun homicides per capita in the US is about 10-TIMES HIGHER than the rates in virtually every other country among our advanced, industrialized, democratic..."

Only because of the DEMOCRAT-run cities where gun homicide is prevalent.

You keep forgetting to implicate that these are in democrat controlled cities, Wom.

Dan

MichaelB, you can have the guns, even ones I’d rather you didn’t. Just get licensed. Not that difficult and, genuinely, not too much to ask. Stubbornness, on either side, does not get us to consensus and safety. If you are law abiding, there really is nothing to lose.

Headline - "After murder rate passes NYC, London Mayor Sadiq Khan calls for sharper knife control": Web Link

Safe link to USAToday

Kathleen, BobB and Wombat hardest hit.

You just can't make this stuff up, and yet, you will continue to argue.

Dan

Dan, ALL major cities; even Republican ones. And at least two people in Texas who died were Republicans. So it’s not Ds versus Rs. Killers aren’t asking for your affiliation first.

"Gun-Free" London no less.

My goodness.

Dan

Kathleen,

You misunderstand me. My contention is that most of these mass killings happen in Democrat-run cities, where gun restriction laws are practiced the most. I included a link to the cities that have the most homicides and what do you know, nearly all are run by Democrats.

I try not to classify mass killers as Republicans or Democrat, I classify them as INSANE LAWBREAKERS. If captured alive, they should have shorten trials and appeals and when found guilty, swiftly put to death. Same goes for rapists and pedophiles.

There is absolutely no redemption for these crimes. None.

Dan

"Sharper knife control"

I just noticed that in the headline. Clever...

Dan, and proximity to states without gun laws can be an issue for those cities One, unified plan for all states is necessary.

Agreed on no redemption.

From today's East Bay Times,

"The shootings have occurred in 42 states and the District of Columbia, with seemingly little relation to strict or lax state gun laws."

BobB,

"The shootings have occurred in 42 states and the District of Columbia, with seemingly little relation to strict or lax state gun laws."

Also BobB,

"The amendment is obsolete."

I'm trying to reconcile these two positions but its difficult because they fundamentally deal with States/Federal rights.

If I were to project, I'd say at heart you want to ban all weapons. If this is the case, and after all this thread, why not just come out and say so?

Dan

Kathleen,

"unified plan for all states is necessary."

There is one "unified plan" for all states and it's clearly enumerated in the 2nd Amendment. All else is left up to the states.

I understand you don't like the 2nd Amendment, I really do. Give this a few more days and there will be no more discussion about mass shootings, even the ones that happen EVERY SINGLE WEEKEND in Americas democrat-controlled cities.

Why? Because you democrats can't blame the inner city culture for being out-of-control. You're stuck. On the one hand if you say anything you're labeled as racists, on the other hand, if you stop your plantation policies, promote family policies and less welfare, you lose your voter base and are still called racists.

The left is being forced to eat their own. Identity politics have frozen you to inaction.

A real conundrum.

Dan, first, stop calling me a Democrat or even a Republican. This is a human lives issue. I don't care who is blue or red or purple. The rest of your ramble is ignoring where the guns come from--states without requirements.

I'm fine with the second amendment--as long as you give equal weight to the first half of the sentence. A national law that requires all states to have minimum standards for vetting and licensing their gun owners will work just fine.

When you have the clown running the NRA calling the president to "warn" him--that should be disturbing to everyone. The guy is spending NRA money on suits? He wanted a $6MM house paid for by the NRA? The NRA is, was it, $40MM in debt? Great leadership.

Kathleen,

"The rest of your ramble is ignoring where the guns come from--states without requirements."

This is plain wrong and frankly, just a bunch of nonsense. There are no "states without requirements". Every state in the United states has some requirements.

Here is the article that BobB referenced, but it seemingly came from MSN: Web Link

Safe link.

Notice a few paragraphs into the art this nice little blurb comparing California and Texas weapons laws:

"California, the country’s most populous state, has led the nation in laws regulating firearms, as ranked by the Giffords Law Center,...Still, California had 31 active shooter incidents from 2000-2018 — more than any other state. Texas, the second most populous state, had 17 incidents, despite its far less restrictive gun laws.

How do you square this Kathleen? Do you make California like Texas, or Texas like California?

If you want more regulation, it seems clear that it might result in more homicides according to Giffords Law Center, right?

Frankly, I don't expect even THIS example to sway you and it clearly shows that what you want, ISN'T going to work like you hope.

Your only choice is an outright ban on all firearms. But in that case, you only get what has happened in London and the link I posted yesterday.

Dan

Try this Dan--deaths per capita by state from the CDC in 2017: Web Link

California Death Rate per 100,000: 7.9 Deaths: 3,184
Texas Death Rate per 100,000: 12.4 Deaths: 3,513

The deaths are not broken down for murder vs suicide.

This site, Refinery29, just posted gun possession laws for every state: Web Link I didn't look at all of them, but these states have no registration, no waiting period, no assault weapons ban, and no background checks on private sales: Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, Indiana, Kansas, Maine, Missouri, Vermont, and Wyoming. There could be more. Other states weren't much better.

Again, some national law of minimum requirements for all states is needed.

Dan, sure, I would love to take away many of the guns you and others claim to have a right to own. The step forward I take is for registering, waiting, and licensing minimums in every state. The step forward gun owners need to take is realizing that it is a fair trade to make for the guns you wish to have.

@DKHSK,

Long knives have been regulated in Japan for decades.

As I've said all along, I am against the second amendment completely. I think it should be removed from the constitution, just like the eighteenth amendment was.

As far as gun regulation goes, I think we should start with something similar to what was done in Australia, and work from there.

Kathleen,

"The deaths are not broken down for murder vs suicide."

Oh really? Here: Web Link

Safe link to NPR. There are other sources too but I don't have all day.

Suicide make up more than 60% of all gun related death, followed by homicide, then accidents.

"...no background checks on private sales..."

You're point? See the above article and my previous points on the differences between the states.

Dan

Kathleen,

"The step forward gun owners need to take is realizing that it is a fair trade to make for the guns you wish to have."

YOU are not the arbiter of what is fair trade with respect to a constitutional right. Not now, not ever.

Dan

BobB,

"Long knives have been regulated in Japan for decades."

Culture.

Other than that, I'm not sure what your point is for this reply.

"I think we should start with something similar to what was done in Australia, and work from there."

No thanks. We have a constitution and the natural right to defend ourselves.

Dan

Yes, and we can and should amend the constitution.

Dan, neither are you. Laws change all the time. So has the constitution. Being obstinate isn’t productive or realistic.

Kathleen,

"Being obstinate isn’t productive or realistic."

Same to you Kathleen...same to you.

Dan

Dan, let’s try now the first three words of the second amendment . . . “A well regulated . . .” A national vetting, waiting, and licensing minimum should be set for you to have guns I don’t believe you need but will concede to for the trade off. You just have to say it isn’t the end of the world to do that much.

"MichaelB, you can have the guns, even ones I’d rather you didn’t. Just get licensed. Not that difficult and, genuinely, not too much to ask. Stubbornness, on either side, does not get us to consensus and safety. If you are law abiding, there really is nothing to lose."


Is this some kind of a joke? Just get real. The leadership of a major political party and most of its members want to emulate other nation's laws/restrictions that either prohibit gun ownership entirely and/or have confiscated previously licensed firearms from their own citizens.

It should be obvious that it's going to be quite difficult to get licensed (just like it is getting a CCW in any Bay Area county) if they ever come to power and people have plenty to lose when these same people predictably blame "too many guns" for what criminals do on the streets. Guess what? Criminals are not going to get licenses.

"The step forward I take is for registering, waiting, and licensing minimums in every state. The step forward gun owners need to take is realizing that it is a fair trade to make for the guns you wish to have."

Not buying it. More "heads I win, tails you lose". We heard the same "fair" thing for years from gun control advocates about supposedly only wanting the Brady Bill.

So called "progressive" states (California, New Jersey, etc.) will just pile on more "minimums" until ownership is out of reach for most people or will not repeal existing ones to match the national ones. Time for you to take a step forward by not blaming objects owned/used/carried responsibly by millions for criminal/violent behaviors - and that gun control advocates will simply never run out of new regulations to pass because they just want more control/power over the citizens.

....if ever there was a time for the publisher to close a thread....any second now.

“Time for you to take a step forward by not blaming objects owned/used/carried responsibly by millions for criminal/violent behaviors”. I have—even the ones I personally don’t see the purpose of anyone owning.