NRA

[scottw]

and here you go....

"Highly placed sources told CBS 2’s Marcia Kramer that Cuomo is negotiating with Assembly and Senate leaders for a package of gun control laws that would be a dramatic response to the gun violence besetting the nation, including the tragic shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Conn.

“It’s a very divisive topic,” Cuomo said on Wednesday. “There’s a lot of energy on both sides. Some people are vehemently against’ some people think we’re out of our minds for not passing it.”

Sources told Kramer the governor and lawmakers are negotiating furiously in the hope that Cuomo can announce a deal during his speech Wednesday.

Sources said the package is expected to include:

* New restrictions on assault weapons

* Stiffer penalties for using a gun to commit a crime

* New limits on the number of bullets in a gun magazine

“Gun control is highly political, politically contentious situation. It is polarizing,” Cuomo said."

* New restrictions on assault weapons

* Stiffer penalties for using a gun to commit a crime

* New limits on the number of bullets in a gun magazine

none of these would have stopped the Sandy Hook shooter(and they won't stop the next one)..the best that you(Jim) can do is argue the merits that you might reduce body count...but that's a "might"...the nut that shot the firemen in NY had someone purchase his firearm for him...where there's a (demented)will there's a way....these measures are a joke, they will not reduce gun crimes....if you truly believe that things like this are necessary or effective you need drop the charade and move for total ban and confiscation instead of bloviating over these meaningless restrictions and penalties that "criminals" might abide by....

[nightfighter]

911 call released in Loganville home invasion - CBS Atlanta 46

[The Dad Fisherman]

Originally Posted by scottw

bloviating ....

I had to google that one...

[Pete F.]

Here is a study on murders in Chicago.
It is detailed enough so that you could look at the proposed changes in gun laws and see what the effect would be.
Pretty close to nil.
https://portal.chicagopolice.org/por...ports/MA11.pdf

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

Here is a study on murders in Chicago.
It is detailed enough so that you could look at the proposed changes in gun laws and see what the effect would be.
Pretty close to nil.
https://portal.chicagopolice.org/por...ports/MA11.pdf

"Pretty close to nil."

I agree. But if the difference between "nil" and "pretty close to nil" is the life of a few children, is it not worth discussing? That's all I am saying.

[Pete F.]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

"Pretty close to nil."

I agree. But if the difference between "nil" and "pretty close to nil" is the life of a few children, is it not worth discussing? That's all I am saying.

Using that logic if the children had been garroted with wire leader we would make wire leader illegal thereby preventing this from happening again.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

Using that logic if the children had been garroted with wire leader we would make wire leader illegal thereby preventing this from happening again.

Right, because there's no difference between a wire leader, or a brick, or your bare hands, and a rifle with a large capacity magazine.

Many things are potentially lethal, but have significant value and utility in our lives - like a car. No rational person would suggest a federal ban on cars.

If you have to make ridiculous exaggerations to my point in order to make it seem like a weak argument, it seems to me that you have no argument against what I am actually saying.

[Carl]

Here is another aspect of new laws and background checks:

In a letter to the president shortly after the Newtown shooting a number of mayors across the country which are part of a group called MAIG (mayors against gun violence) adressed 7 aspects to curbing gun violence. Some of the points in the letter were the normal rhetoric of banning assault rifles and high capacity magazines, but items 5 and 6 are rather revealing in my opinion.


From the letter:

5. Prosecute prohibited purchasers who attempted to buy firearms, ammunition or high capacity magazines: The justice department should vigorously prosecute felons and other prohibited purchasers who fail gun background check. In 2009, the FBI referred more than 71,000 such cases to ATF, but the US Attorneys ultimately prosecuted only 77 of them. Prosecuting these offenders is a goal broadly supported by our coalition and the National Rifle Association.

6. Required federal agencies to report records to NICS: The NICS Improvement Act of 2007 required federal agancies to submit mental health, substance abuse and other records that prohibit a person from owning a gun to NICS. However, few agencies comly. In October 2011, the FBI provided data to MAIG on reporting by 60 federal agencies. Of those 60 agencies, 52 had given zero mental health records to NICS. Although total federal agency reporting of mental health records increased by ten percent between march and October 2011, to 143579, the vast majority of those records had been submitted by one agency, the dept fo Veteran affairs. Even fewer federal agencies are reporting drug abusers. Only three agencies - the FBI, the US coast guard, and the Court Services and Offenders Supervision Agency (CSOSA), the probation and parole services agency for the Distric of Columbia - have submitted any substance abuse records, and the vast majority fo federal agencies, including the DEA, have not submitted a single substance abuse record. ..."


So,

the government should clean their own house first since they have only prosecuted 0.1 % of all failed background checks. And have actually convicted even less (very close to 0).

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by Carl

Here is another aspect of new laws and background checks:

In a letter to the president shortly after the Newtown shooting a number of mayors across the country which are part of a group called MAIG (mayors against gun violence) adressed 7 aspects to curbing gun violence. Some of the points in the letter were the normal rhetoric of banning assault rifles and high capacity magazines, but items 5 and 6 are rather revealing in my opinion.

I like that there's a group called "mayors against gun violence". As if there are mayors out there who are in favor of gun violence.

The big problem is our culture, not availability of guns. If every single person on the planet were given a gun, I'm certain that murder rates in the US would still be much higher than most other developed countries. I have no idea how to fix that.

[buckman]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

I like that there's a group called "mayors against gun violence". As if there are mayors out there who are in favor of gun violence.

The big problem is our culture, not availability of guns. If every single person on the planet were given a gun, I'm certain that murder rates in the US would still be much higher than most other developed countries. I have no idea how to fix that.

Invest more money in social programs 👍
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Pete F.]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

Here is a study on murders in Chicago.
It is detailed enough so that you could look at the proposed changes in gun laws and see what the effect would be.
Pretty close to nil.
https://portal.chicagopolice.org/por...ports/MA11.pdf

This report tells how many assault weapons were used to commit murder in Chicago in a recent year.
Read it and tell me how effective the assault weapons ban will be?

[Fishpart]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

This report tells how many assault weapons were used to commit murder in Chicago in a recent year.
Read it and tell me how effective the assault weapons ban will be?

It's not about public safety, it's about POWER and CONTROL.

[Jay Dog]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

This report tells how many assault weapons were used to commit murder in Chicago in a recent year.
Read it and tell me how effective the assault weapons ban will be?

All these facts are true but at the same time if you were told in the past 6 months in 4 seperate incidents 45 people were killed and over 60 wounded, this included 21 kids under age 8 dead, all by the same type of weapon what do you think the reaction of the average person would be.

[buckman]

Originally Posted by Jay Dog

All these facts are true but at the same time if you were told in the past 6 months in 4 seperate incidents 45 people were killed and over 60 wounded, this included 21 kids under age 8 dead, all by the same type of weapon what do you think the reaction of the average person would be.

It wasn't the reaction of the average person to ban modern sporting arms. It was the use of this crisis to further an agenda that is calling for a ban
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Jay Dog]

Originally Posted by Jay Dog

All these facts are true but at the same time if you were told in the past 6 months in 4 seperate incidents 45 people were killed and over 60 wounded, this included 21 kids under age 8 dead, all by the same type of weapon what do you think the reaction of the average person would be.

Originally Posted by buckman

It wasn't the reaction of the average person to ban modern sporting arms. It was the use of this crisis to further an agenda that is calling for a ban
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

What they are trying to do is redefine "Sporting Arms"
The average person see's a rifle with a wood stock and that's a "Hunting Rifle" if that gun is fiberglass and plastic it's an "Assault Rifle" even if the capabilities are the same.
That's the stigma that needs to be overcome.
And having people yelling about rebellion and impeachment is not doing anyone any favors.

[JohnnyD]

Originally Posted by Jay Dog

All these facts are true but at the same time if you were told in the past 6 months in 4 seperate incidents 45 people were killed and over 60 wounded, this included 21 kids under age 8 dead, all by the same type of weapon what do you think the reaction of the average person would be.

Interestingly enough, if 2012 trends similar to 2011, more children died either as a direct or indirect result of alcohol use.

I don't see anyone calling for sweeping bans on alcohol. With that in mind, AWBs are not about saving lives. They are about taking guns out of the hands of lawful owners.

Also, the stomping on the Constitution has already begun:
NY Senate passes 'landmark' gun control laws - WSJ.com

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by scottw

none of these would have stopped the Sandy Hook shooter(and they won't stop the next one)..the best that you(Jim) can do is argue the merits that you might reduce body count...but that's a "might"...the nut that shot the firemen in NY had someone purchase his firearm for him...where there's a (demented)will there's a way....these measures are a joke, they will not reduce gun crimes....if you truly believe that things like this are necessary or effective you need drop the charade and move for total ban and confiscation instead of bloviating over these meaningless restrictions and penalties that "criminals" might abide by....

"the best that you(Jim) can do is argue the merits that you might reduce body count."

I agree. All I can do is say we "might" reduce the body count, and certainly not by much, because most gun deaths are typical street crime with handguns. I never intended to suggest otherwise.

"if you truly believe that things like this are necessary or effective you need drop the charade and move for total ban "

That's probably the least rational thing I have seen you post here. It doesn't need to be one extreme or the other. I could just as easily say that if you disagree with me, you might as well move for elimination of every gun control law on the books.

A total ban would be blatantly unconstitutional.

I don't see it as a "charade". Maybe what I'm proposing can't have a meaningful impact. But it's worth talking about, that's all I'm saying.

"restrictions and penalties that "criminals" might abide by"

OK. So now you are saying that a ban on anything, has no impact whatsoever on the amount of that something that people own.

Scott, I concede that if you ban something (drugs, guns, booze) you cannot eliminate 100% of the ownership. But likewise, you cannot imply that it has zero impact on ownership either. My point was never "if we ban guns, exactly zero people will therefore own guns". You tried to refute my premise by suggesting that bans are not 100% effective. Many people in this thread have also done exactly that. It's not a valid rebuttal to what I am suggesting, because my point was never "we can eliminate 100% of the guns out there". Amazing.

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

"if you truly believe that things like this are necessary or effective you need drop the charade and move for total ban "

That's probably the least rational thing I have seen you post here. It doesn't need to be one extreme or the other. I could just as easily say that if you disagree with me, you might as well move for elimination of every gun control law on the books.

A total ban would be blatantly unconstitutional.

If a total ban would be blatantly unconstitutional, why are partial bans not unconsitutional? Or are they just not "blatantly" unconstitutional? Is their a spectrum, as Spence might argue, of constitutionality. Are constitutional and unconstitutional merely "one extreme or the other"? Is the Constitution to be "interpreted" by degrees? Should we determine that what is constitutional is what falls mathematically in the center of extreme opinions.? That seems to be a way to keep the Constitiution "living."

Keeping in mind the way the Constitution was originally written--it was not meant to determine actual policies per se, or to be a codex of actual civil laws by which the people would be governed, but it was a structure of government that delegated which TYPE of policy would be the responsibility of which branch of Federal Government, and that if a type of policy was not delegated to the central gvt., such policies were reserved to the states and people--keeping that in mind, would you say that "gun control" policies that restrict individual gun ownership should be responsibilities of states and their people, or of the Federal Government?

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by detbuch

If a total ban would be blatantly unconstitutional, why are partial bans not unconsitutional? Or are they just not "blatantly" unconstitutional? Is their a spectrum, as Spence might argue, of constitutionality. Are constitutional and unconstitutional merely "one extreme or the other"? Is the Constitution to be "interpreted" by degrees? Should we determine that what is constitutional is what falls mathematically in the center of extreme opinions.? That seems to be a way to keep the Constitiution "living."

Keeping in mind the way the Constitution was originally written--it was not meant to determine actual policies per se, or to be a codex of actual civil laws by which the people would be governed, but it was a structure of government that delegated which TYPE of policy would be the responsibility of which branch of Federal Government, and that if a type of policy was not delegated to the central gvt., such policies were reserved to the states and people--keeping that in mind, would you say that "gun control" policies that restrict individual gun ownership should be responsibilities of states and their people, or of the Federal Government?

"If a total ban would be blatantly unconstitutional, why are partial bans not unconsitutional?"

Good question. My best answer is that we had a ban in 1994, and as far as I know, it was not struck down by the Supreme Court.

"Or are they just not "blatantly" unconstitutional?"

That's part of the debate I'd like to see. As I have said repeatedly, I wouldn't support any ban that was unconstitutional. That would need to be a significant part of any considered legislation.

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

"If a total ban would be blatantly unconstitutional, why are partial bans not unconsitutional?"

Good question. My best answer is that we had a ban in 1994, and as far as I know, it was not struck down by the Supreme Court.

There are two constitutional problems to consider in regards to the SCOTUS not striking down the 1994 ban. First, the NRA did not challenge the law on Second Amendment grounds. It feared, rightly or wrongly, that the Court would be inimical on those grounds. So the direct constitutional Second Ammendment restriction on the Federal Government to impose such a ban was not tested. Although, one of the provisions, which required state law enforcement to implement the Federal requirement to do the background checks was struck down on the grounds that the Federal Gvt. cannot compel the states to enforce its policies. Second the rest of the act was upheld under the infamous precedent created by the FDR Court that applies the Commerce Clause to INTRAstate commerce rather than being restricted to the power to "regulate" INTERstate commerce.

But that doesn't answer my question. If a total ban is unconstitutional, why is a partial ban not unconstitutional? What part of the ban is Constitutional? If the Commerce Clause can be stretched to include any commerce whatsoever, as it has been construed since FDR, how would a total ban be unconstitutional? Or, for that matter, since just about anything we do is in some way related to commerce, how would a Federal ban on anything else be unconstitutional. So, by interpreting the Commerce Clause in this way, which obviously renders the Constitution moot, we will be allowed to do and buy or sell those things that the Federal Government deems necessary or harmless, and we will be restricted to those rights that the government grants us rather than it being restricted to those rights we have granted to it. And if you think that serious gun control advocates just want to restrict scary looking guns, or only those with the capacity to kill more people quickly, you haven't been paying attention.

"Or are they just not "blatantly" unconstitutional?"

That's part of the debate I'd like to see. As I have said repeatedly, I wouldn't support any ban that was unconstitutional. That would need to be a significant part of any considered legislation.

The debate will go along the lines that have been drawn in this thread. So you are already seeing the debate here. The things being said here are as "reasonable" as the debate will get. And, probably, emotional arguments and "numbers" arguments will prevail at least to some degree, and we will get a "reasonable" bill passed. Whether or not it will actually be constitutional will be irrelevant. The common view that we must wait for SCOTUS debate to discover constitutionality absolves us from understanding the Constitution ourselves. It was written for us, not for the government except to give it bounds that it was not to trespass. It was written by people like us--farmers, mechanics, artisans, shopkeepers, as well as scholars and lawyers--for us. It was an improbable gift that might never be offered again. It was originally simply and directly put, but was made incomprehensible by successions of "interpretation" and bad case law so that only a small portion of it now is even given so-called "strict scrutiny," the rest being handed over to the Federal Government branches to say what it means. And that small portion given strict consideration is what's left of the bill of rights. And those are being worked on by politicians and judges--as attested to by increasing attempts at "gun control" as well as speech, property, and religious restrictions, against us rather than reserving them as the people's rights.

When you say that you wouldn't support any ban that wasn't constitutional, that implies you have an understanding of what is constitutional. If so, why must you wait for SCOTUS decisions, which have already muddied the Constitution into a swamp of judicial and congressional and executive whim, to find out?

[spence]

Originally Posted by detbuch

When you say that you wouldn't support any ban that wasn't constitutional, that implies you have an understanding of what is constitutional. If so, why must you wait for SCOTUS decisions, which have already muddied the Constitution into a swamp of judicial and congressional and executive whim, to find out?

So the SCOTUS is irrelevant on the Second Amendment? I seem to remember the Heller decision being applauded among many gun rights advocates while it also seems to back Jim's position.

-spence

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by spence

So the SCOTUS is irrelevant on the Second Amendment? I seem to remember the Heller decision being applauded among many gun rights advocates while it also seems to back Jim's position.

-spence

Heller was a chip in the right direction. It addressed gun ownership in light of the Second Ammendment, not the Commerce Clause. I don't think it addressed Federal regulations in light of the Second Ammendment.

Originally, and as it was adjudicated throughout the 19th Century, the Second Ammendment was strictly a prohibition against the Federal Government. States were allowed restrictive gun laws if they so chose. Heller now, at least affirms, that the states cannot abridge the Second Ammendment in regards to arms in common use. But it still leaves the door open for state restrictions of other types of weapons. Which is why I also asked Jim, and he didn't answer, if he thought the Constitution, as it was written, placed the issue of gun control under state jurisdiction or Federal. Which is why I also asked you why you thought the Constitution made it impossible to implement The Specialist's suggestions on gun regulation.

So, under what Constitutional provision, enumeration, whatever, does the Federal Government have the power to legislate individual gun ownership? And if the answer is the Commerce Clause, or General Welflare Clause, that is mostly the kind of non-sensensical, muddied-up "interpretation" that has pretty much made the Constitution a toy for judges rather than a structure of government, and is the type of "interpretation" that Madison referred to when he said "If not only the means but the objects are unlimited, the parchment should be thrown into the fire at once."

[RIROCKHOUND]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

"the best that you(Jim) can do is argue the merits that you might reduce body count."

I agree. All I can do is say we "might" reduce the body count, and certainly not by much, because most gun deaths are typical street crime with handguns. I never intended to suggest otherwise.

Jim,
The difference is, you are one of the few on this board that I assume have seen first hand what these weapons do to a human. I think it gives you as a soldier, or a policeman a different perspective (see Gen. Stanley Mcccrystal) that the hobby shooter, might not have....

Lets start simple. Does anyone on here actually not think background checks for ALL gun sales is a good thing?

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by RIROCKHOUND

Jim,
The difference is, you are one of the few on this board that I assume have seen first hand what these weapons do to a human. I think it gives you as a soldier, or a policeman a different perspective (see Gen. Stanley Mcccrystal) that the hobby shooter, might not have....

Lets start simple. Does anyone on here actually not think background checks for ALL gun sales is a good thing?

"I think it gives you as a soldier, or a policeman a different perspective (see Gen. Stanley Mcccrystal) that the hobby shooter, might not have.... "

Maybe. But in my case, I can state for sure that long before I entered teh service, I questioned the need for some of these weapons to be available to anyone but the military and law enforcement.

"Does anyone on here actually not think background checks for ALL gun sales is a good thing?[/QUOTE]"

Using the same logic that many here have displayed...I could say that...

(1)No, I don't think that background checks are a good thing because some people who fail the background checks will still get guns illegally. Therefore, the background checks will serve no discernable purpose.

(2) No, I don't think that background checks are a good thing because you can also kill someone with a hammer, and I don't want 'Big Brother' making me submit to a background check every time I go to buy a hammer.

(3) No, I don't think that background checks are a good thing because errors in the checks will deny some law-abiding folks of their constitutional right to own a gun.

(4) No, I don't think that background checks are a good thing because in states where they have background checks, gun violence rates are still higher than 0.00000%. Therefore, background checks serve no discernable purpose whatsoever.

(5) No, I don't think that background checks are a good thing because that will make it harder for our citizenry to protect us from the totalitarian government. Because obviously, the only reason why the 82nd Airborne hasn't confiscated my house yet, is because they think I might have a gun. There's no other reason why they haven't come in, kidnapped my kids, and sold them on Craigslist.

[buckman]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

"I think it gives you as a soldier, or a policeman a different perspective (see Gen. Stanley Mcccrystal) that the hobby shooter, might not have.... "

Maybe. But in my case, I can state for sure that long before I entered teh service, I questioned the need for some of these weapons to be available to anyone but the military and law enforcement.

"Does anyone on here actually not think background checks for ALL gun sales is a good thing?

"

Using the same logic that many here have displayed...I could say that...

(1)No, I don't think that background checks are a good thing because some people who fail the background checks will still get guns illegally. Therefore, the background checks will serve no discernable purpose.

(2) No, I don't think that background checks are a good thing because you can also kill someone with a hammer, and I don't want 'Big Brother' making me submit to a background check every time I go to buy a hammer.

(3) No, I don't think that background checks are a good thing because errors in the checks will deny some law-abiding folks of their constitutional right to own a gun.

(4) No, I don't think that background checks are a good thing because in states where they have background checks, gun violence rates are still higher than 0.00000%. Therefore, background checks serve no discernable purpose whatsoever.

(5) No, I don't think that background checks are a good thing because that will make it harder for our citizenry to protect us from the totalitarian government. Because obviously, the only reason why the 82nd Airborne hasn't confiscated my house yet, is because they think I might have a gun. There's no other reason why they haven't come in, kidnapped my kids, and sold them on Craigslist.[/QUOTE]

Here in ma they do background checks .
Seems to be working out swell
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[scottw]

[QUOTE=Jim in CT;978783

"if you truly believe that things like this are necessary or effective you need drop the charade and move for total ban "

That's probably the least rational thing I have seen you post here. It doesn't need to be one extreme or the other. I could just as easily say that if you disagree with me, you might as well move for elimination of every gun control law on the books.

[/QUOTE]

follow your own logic Jim..if banning certain rifles and magazine capacities might have reduced the number of deaths(provided he didn't opt for more handguns and perhaps the shotgun that was in the trunk or decided to be less thorough on his targets)...and you seem to support that notion...then.....banning all weapons similar to what he used and magazines might have prevented all of the deaths...no???...surely you aren't going to argue for one and reject the other