Why do law abiding citizens have a problem with gun control?

I know a fudd where I work. He's in his 80's and was a very firm belief guns are for hunting only. I showed him a fancy AR a local gunstore was raffling and he lost his (*)(*)(*)(*) about how nobody should have a gun like that. He used to own a semi automatic hunting rifle but nothing like that!. I lied and said it only held 5 rounds (they do make 5rd mags after all) and he didn't care because it's still too powerful. I tried explaining stuff like a 30-06 is far more powerful and of course he wouldn't listen. It's black and has features so it must be bad.

 

If the second amendment were to ever be repealed, you'd have no choice but to comply.

 

From reading the news, there are a handful of these kind of people in the country, out of the 130,000 or so FFLs. The dealer (Bullseye Shooter Supply) that sold the gun to John Allen Muhammad (DC sniper) was an example--he had dozens of missing or stolen guns, one of which ended up in the hands of Muhammad.

 

Ok, you're family just got picked up by the SS.

Why would any sensible person need a machine gun?

Won't happen? Yeah. They said that before.

- - - Updated - - -

Tell yourself that.

 

Move to Utah. You just can't detonate it.

 

Please point out a country that has background checks that otherwise has the freedom to buy guns. You can't. Background checks for gun buys in other countries are for the most part associated with only the elite owning guns.

I know people who currently have a half dozen or more guns that have no records for them. There are probably 100 million guns in this country in that status. How are you going to prove most of that? It's an impossibility, and currently, we can hold the people that are actually responsible for providing the guns directly to the criminals responsible. We aren't, so how are we going to hold everybody else responsible. It's a nice idea, but will never work.

Doubtful. I know I have never sold guns privately to people without a background check. The thing is, based on surveys of criminals, it's just not being done. Felons aren't buying guns from people they don't know. Felons are afraid of being robbed and of the police, per the U of Chicago study of criminals with guns.

My bet is almost none are being sold to felons from people they don't know. As the U. of Chicago study showed, criminals aren't buying guns from people they don't know--i.e. people that know they are criminals anyway. Making secondary sales harder to do will only bother people like me when we try to buy used guns or trade with friends or relatives. They are going to do almost nothing to stop criminals, but it makes good crime-stopping theater.

 

I agree. Everybody should own a gun if they are suited to. Just like voting is a responsibility of good citizens, so should gun ownership. Has somebody hacked your account, you're suddenly pro-gun.

 

Of course they do. They join with the ACLU often on freedom of speech issues.

 

We have had the biggest decrease in gun death rates in the industrialized world since 1993. Something we are doing is working, and it's not adding gun control. Interestingly, in that same time, we've had a relaxation of concealed carry permit requirements. Is it a correlation? I have no idea, but at the least increased numbers of guns doesn't seem to be making things more dangerous here. (the number of accidental gun deaths is also dropping, and has been since the 1990s).

 

Hopefully you can live with perpetual disappointment.

- - - Updated - - -

You know this statement is false.

 

Ah, so now that we have provided proof that convicted criminals don't generally directly buy from strangers, you have moved your argument to ... we are selling to straw purchasers for the convicts.
Thanks for confirming what researchers have been saying all along..... straw purchases are the primary way criminals acquire firearms.

Often, guns do stop violence when that violence is perpetrated on someone legally carrying a firearm. The problem is that less that 4% of our nation of 320 million people have carry licenses.

Our homicide stats have been on a downward trajectory since the mid nineties, while firearm sales have been on a drastically rising.
The one thing that is evident, more guns do not cause more crime. No one can make that argument given the statistics.

 

And how do you stop straw purchases?
You don't.

 

Private companies already own weapons grade uranium.

 

FALSE.

The Right to keep and bear Arms predates the Constitution. Even the United States Supreme Court has acknowledged that point.

IF/ WHEN the liberals have their way and they try to disarm America, there should be a resistance. It would be a lawful, morally correct and justifiable resistance. I want you to hear the United States Supreme Court out on this:

"The general misconception is that any statute passed by legislators bearing the appearance of law constitutes the law of the land. The Constitution of the United States is the supreme law of the land, and any statue, to be valid, must be in agreement. It is impossible for both the Constitution and a law violating it to be valid; one must prevail. This is succinctly stated as follows:

The general rule is that an unconstitutional statute, though having the form and name of law, is in reality no law, but is wholly void, and ineffective for any purpose; since unconstitutionality dates from the time of its enactment, and not merely from the date of the decision so branding it.

An unconstitutional law, in legal contemplation, is as inoperative as if it had never been passed. Such a statute leaves the question that it purports to settle just as it would be had the statute not been enacted.

Since an unconstitutional law is void, the general principals follow that it imposes no duties, confers no rights, creates no office, bestows no power or authority on anyone, affords no protection, and justifies no acts performed under it . . .

A void act cannot be legally consistent with a valid one.

An unconstitutional law cannot operate to supersede any existing valid law."

Indeed, insofar as a statute runs counter to the fundamental law of the land, it is superseded thereby.

No one is bound to obey an unconstitutional law and no courts are bound to enforce it.

— Sixteenth American Jurisprudence, Second Edition, Section 177. (late 2nd Ed. Section 256)

 

Because independent thought, true facts, and demonstration of critical thinking skills is more important that blind loyalty to ideology or political alliance. It has never been the policy of myself to tell citizens of the untied states that it would be in their best interest to follow the example of countless other nations around the world in how they regulate firearms. Truly it is of no interest or importance in how they manage their own affairs.

Both conservative and liberal party affiliations are equally capable of intellectual shortcomings on a great many issues. If there could be true bipartisan cooperation between them, with a willingness to discard blind loyalty to all party ideology, there would be room for significant improvements in society and elsewhere. But until such can actually be achieved, those that align with conservative ideologies and support such ideas as being individual responsibility are slightly ahead of those that align with liberal ideologies who support everyone and everything being made dependent upon the federal government as if they were nothing but children.

 

And how pray tell would mandating background checks on private sales stop a straw buyer from purchasing a firearm from a private individual, when such mandates are doing nothing to stop straw buyers from purchasing firearms from federally licensed firearm dealers right now?

And where exactly is the proof that supports and confirms your accusation, that a lack of background checks on privately sold firearms is the key aspect responsible for the firearm-related homicide rate of the united states? Where is the evidence that this one single policy, is the most responsible aspect for what is being experienced?

 

July 18, 1984 James Huberty, an out of work security guard, killed 20 people and wounded another 20 at a McDonalds in California

August 20, 1986 Patrick H. Sherrill, a mail carrier, walks into his post office and opens fire, killing 14 coworkers and wounding six others before killing himself

Jan. 17 1989 Patrick Purdy went onto a playground and killed five children while wounding approximately 30 more

On October 16, 1991 George Jo Hennard killed 22 people at Luby's Restaurant in Texas

Now I can go on and on about these shootings. I could mention Nidal Hassan who killed 13 fellow soldiers on a military installation. But there is one thing all of you should know:

ALL of the above cited cases happened either in spite of the fact that the perpetrators underwent background checks and / or obtained the weapons legally (and could have passed a background check.) If you will research mass shootings, most, if not all the shooters, could pass a background check.

So, what exactly are the benefits of a background check in the real world?

Answer: Background checks give teeth to unconstitutional laws that exist for the purpose of violating constitutional guarantees.

 

You are answering for the people who said:

"You're not a US citizen and have no skin in the game."

 

A true statement. But libs have trouble with the truth.

 

Wonderful! Except I'm not talking law or statues, I'm talking a repeal of the 2nd Amendment, you know, the right to bear arms, etc. What I am saying is that if the 2nd Amendment were to be repealed, you'd have no choice but to comply. Do you agree or disagree?

Btw if the tables were turned and it were conservatives that ever tried to disarm America, would you take the same position that there would be resistance by the people?

 

There's always a choice. But for liberals not so much.

 

The second Amendment didn't establish a right that already existed. It limits the government from infringing on that right. Emerging from the war, the framers understood, infringing on the right was a path to tyranny by a government. Understaning that will provde the answers to your questions.

 

You have to look no further than Conneticuts assault weapon registration to see wide spread defiance. So many are not complying that they can't even enforce it. People across the country would be even more defiant in light of a Ban.

A ban would not magically make nearly a half billion firearms disappear.

It's really all irrelevant anyhow. The 2A won't be repealed in our lifetime. It takes 2/3 of both houses and 3/4 of all the state legislatures to ratify the appeal.

 

The Second Amendment only guarantees the Right to keep and bear Arms. The Second Amendment, according to the United States Supreme Court:

"The right there specified is that of "bearing arms for a lawful purpose." This is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence."

United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542 (1875)

Let us recap what the Supreme Court said:

The Right to keep and bear Arms exists
It is not a right granted by the Constitution
The Right to keep and bear Arms is not dependent upon the Constitution - it exists either way

Unalienable Rights are not subject to a popularity vote. They are bestowed upon man, by his Creator, and are above the jurisdiction of man made laws. Again, another court ruling will explain this:

"The right of a citizen to bear arms, in lawful defense of himself or the State, is absolute. He does not derive it from the State government. It is one of the "high powers" delegated directly to the citizen, and 'is excepted out of the general powers of government.' A law cannot be passed to infringe upon or impair it, because it is above the law, and independent of the lawmaking power." [Cockrum v. State, 24 Tex. 394, at 401-402 (1859)]

Both federal and state courts, including the United States Supreme Court have admitted that the Second Amendment does not grant a Right. Subsequent rulings would be ultra vires - null and void in a constitutional / de jure / lawful Republic such as our Constitution calls for. Some Rights are simply above the jurisdiction of government. I have no reason to forfeit such a Right, because unalienable Rights cannot be taken by the government. Neither can I give them away.

 

If this is true as you maintain, then why have the 2nd Amendment at all?