Say what you will

[Willow]

If it was able to keep people from buying them at shows and then reselling them to criminals, nut jobs, terrorists, etc. wouldn't that be worth the burden of 15 minutes and $30 ?

Yes.

Amendment II

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.

Is that so hard to understand?  I see no mention of mental capacity which, incidentally and in time, could be interpreted as holding a capacity to be willing to revolt against an established government.

I am willing, reluctantly, to compromise to a person who has been convicted of a felony involving the use of a gun to be denied his or her right, but, honestly, the Constitution makes no such provision.

I was seeking to purchase a handgun for someone to whom I am married.   The seller gave me a list of questions to be answered.  I read one of the questions as, "Have you ever been convicted of domestic violence or a misdemeanor?"  I have not been convicted of domestic violence but I was convicted of an unrelated misdemeanor.  I answered in the affirmative.  I misread the word as as the word or.  The seller informed me he could not sell me a weapon and that I could not buy one in the state for at least thirty days.  What bullshit.

I'm pretty sure I understand the second amendment better than the people who have interpreted it and applied additional laws.

Truthfully, the only solution to bad guys with guns is more good guys with guns.  Anyone who doesn't understand that is not worthy of my support politically at any level.  It's an easy statement.  It's the only thing that has been proven to work.

I will concede one other point.  If the government is able to eliminate firearms entirely (including in the hands of uniformed LEO) then the number of firearm related crimes will be reduced.  I don't believe that would result in a reduction of crime or in criminal killings.     

[The emperor has no clothes]

If it was able to keep people from buying them at shows and then reselling them to criminals, nut jobs, terrorists, etc. wouldn't that be worth the burden of 15 minutes and $30 ?

Yes.

Amendment II

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.

Is that so hard to understand?  I see no mention of mental capacity which, incidentally and in time, could be interpreted as holding a capacity to be willing to revolt against an established government.

I am willing, reluctantly, to compromise to a person who has been convicted of a felony involving the use of a gun to be denied his or her right, but, honestly, the Constitution makes no such provision.

I was seeking to purchase a handgun for someone to whom I am married.   The seller gave me a list of questions to be answered.  I read one of the questions as, "Have you ever been convicted of domestic violence or a misdemeanor?"  I have not been convicted of domestic violence but I was convicted of an unrelated misdemeanor.  I answered in the affirmative.  I misread the word as as the word or.  The seller informed me he could not sell me a weapon and that I could not buy one in the state for at least thirty days.  What bullshit.

I'm pretty sure I understand the second amendment better than the people who have interpreted it and applied additional laws.

Truthfully, the only solution to bad guys with guns is more good guys with guns.  Anyone who doesn't understand that is not worthy of my support politically at any level.  It's an easy statement.  It's the only thing that has been proven to work.

I will concede one other point.  If the government is able to eliminate firearms entirely (including in the hands of uniformed LEO) then the number of firearm related crimes will be reduced.  I don't believe that would result in a reduction of crime or in criminal killings.     

Carl, the constitution is not quite as back and white as you make it out. The Supreme Court has been "interpreting" it for years and years. It also doesn't say in the 2nd Amendment that weapons are to be restricted at all. But you have already granted reluctantly that felons should be barred. It makes no mention of toddlers. Or any person for that matter. Hopefully you would grant that "terrible twos" should not possess firearms. I realize that is an extreme example.

[Jess from VA]

There's nothing wrong with 2yo's having guns.  Loaded, cocked guns would be a problem.

Then again, I've shared ranges with adults who were barely smarter or safer than 2yo's.

There's a big difference between interpreting the constitution (consistent with the framers' intent), and making sh!t up.  That applies to the whole document, not just the 2d A.  Leftist activist judges are the lowest life form extant.

[Master Blaster]

Jess, if that is correct and I have no reason to doubt it. Why not make the other 3% get the checks. I don't doubt most criminals don't go into a show and purchase. But I do believe there is a fair amount of straw purchasing going on at them.

This is a typical liberal response, you feel that straw purchases are rampant, so it just must be true.  Feelings are not facts, but the average liberal cant recognize the difference.

[The emperor has no clothes]

Jess, if that is correct and I have no reason to doubt it. Why not make the other 3% get the checks. I don't doubt most criminals don't go into a show and purchase. But I do believe there is a fair amount of straw purchasing going on at them.

This is a typical liberal response, you feel that straw purchases are rampant, so it just must be true.  Feelings are not facts, but the average liberal cant recognize the difference.

You do understand the difference between "fair amount" and "rampant" ? 

[baldo]

Jess, if that is correct and I have no reason to doubt it. Why not make the other 3% get the checks. I don't doubt most criminals don't go into a show and purchase. But I do believe there is a fair amount of straw purchasing going on at them.

This is a typical liberal response, you feel that straw purchases are rampant, so it just must be true.  Feelings are not facts, but the average liberal cant recognize the difference.

You do understand the difference between "fair amount" and "rampant" ? 

I don't think he does.....

[baldo]

http://www.rawstory.com/2016/06/gop-wont-stop-terror-suspects-from-owning-guns-because-right-wing-nuts-are-a-threat-and-their-base/

Another look.............

[The emperor has no clothes]

There's nothing wrong with 2yo's having guns.  Loaded, cocked guns would be a problem.

Then again, I've shared ranges with adults who were barely smarter or safer than 2yo's.

There's a big difference between interpreting the constitution (consistent with the framers' intent), and making sh!t up.  That applies to the whole document, not just the 2d A.  Leftist activist judges are the lowest life form extant.

Jess, conservative activist judges are no better.  
Would you not agree that some should have their right revoked ?Would you not agree that the 2nd Amendment is not black and white as some would wish ? If the Constitution was as cut and dried as some believe we wouldn't even need the Supreme Court.

[RP#62]

The whole gun aspect of this is a red herring.  Its going after the means rather than the motivation.  If the Orlando terrorist didn't have guns, he just as well could have chained the doors and torched the place.  Gun control is a smokescreen.  If you've got groups that hate us and are bent on killing us, making them choose a different weapon while at the same time making it harder for people to defend themselves doesn't address the problem, it makes it worse.

-RP

[Robert]

The left and people here use as an excuse to make new laws that the criminals or those with records cannot get guns so they turn to friends and people to get guns but the real numbers will amaze you.

Rick Jones, executive director of Neighborhood Defender Service of Harlem, testified on June 26 on behalf of the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers, 68 million people in this country are living with a criminal record. That’s one in every four adults – 20 million people with felony convictions, 14 million new arrests every year, 2.2 million people residing in jail or prison. That’s more than anywhere else in the world, and more than the population of "France” Jones told the task force. (end quote)

These people cannot own guns and some have no voting rights and out of 68 million, we see lower than one percent commit crimes that it necessitates these traitors to tie up Congress, try to make laws and take away rightful gun owners rights?

That is a fact

If you are a convicted felon and you are caught with a gun its an automatic one year jail term. This is automatic and no judge can change it.

So if this is not enough to discourage a criminal

what will all the checks and registrations do to a non exsistant issue.

How about the 3 strikes laws then life in prison that goes for gun possession also.

SO I ASK AGAIN WHY NOW?

Since gun violence has actually dropped and gun ownership has risen.

[Willow]

Carl, the constitution is not quite as back and white as you make it out. The Supreme Court has been "interpreting" it for years and years. It also doesn't say in the 2nd Amendment that weapons are to be restricted at all. But you have already granted reluctantly that felons should be barred. It makes no mention of toddlers. Or any person for that matter. Hopefully you would grant that "terrible twos" should not possess firearms. I realize that is an extreme example.

I would respectfully disagree.  The Constitution is black and white (That means made up of printed letters with clear meaning.).  Interpreting is the process of determining what the authors' actually meant or intended.  Reading new meaning due to the changing times does not qualify as interpreting.

Actually it does use the verbiage "shall not be infringed".  I'm pretty sure that does mean specifically shall not be restricted. 

That is an extreme example and is the responsibility of parents, not the government.

You left out a not.  I appreciate the expedient use of the comma.   

[Jess from VA]

There's nothing wrong with 2yo's having guns.  Loaded, cocked guns would be a problem.

Then again, I've shared ranges with adults who were barely smarter or safer than 2yo's.

There's a big difference between interpreting the constitution (consistent with the framers' intent), and making sh!t up.  That applies to the whole document, not just the 2d A.  Leftist activist judges are the lowest life form extant.

Jess, conservative activist judges are no better.  
Would you not agree that some should have their right revoked ?Would you not agree that the 2nd Amendment is not black and white as some would wish ? If the Constitution was as cut and dried as some believe we wouldn't even need the Supreme Court.

There is no such thing as an activist conservative judge.  And conservative is not really the right word either.  Normal judges follow the constitution and the law and the principles of stare decisis, and traditional statutory interpretation, and analysis of legislative intent; all of which is by it's very nature a conservative and careful process, regardless of their personal politics, which they have forsworn to ignore as much as possible.  

Abnormal activist judges make sh!t up to achieve a results oriented decision.  The SCOTUS judges who wrote that the 2d A is not an individual personal liberty guaranteed all free, law abiding citizens are liars and scum who violated their oaths of office and should have been immediately impeached from office and disbarred from the practice of law anywhere.  They simply made sh!t up.  I have come to expect lying and deceit in politicians (in the executive or legislative), but hoped to never see it from the judiciary.    

Principles like equal protection of the law, (and many more) do require judicial interpretation as applied to hundreds of years of legislation.  We can treat people and classes of people differently if there is sufficient justification for it, and if we are not doing it for wrongful, unlawful reasons. Correctly applying the constitution to all of criminal law and procedure has required thousands of judicial opinions and appeals.  Judges are to interpret the constitution and ensure that it is not violated in enacted legislation (in whole or in part).  Judges are not to write or create laws (nor is the executive/president), that is exclusively left to the legislature.  

The 2d A is written as absolute as any part of the constitution.  Yet, today the right is not absolute.  But the limitations are very carefully limited (felons, minors, insane, drug abusers).  Other restrictions in legislation, mostly commencing with the National Firearms Act (NFA) in 1934, are and remain unconstitutional.  Just because the G has got away with unconstitutionally restricting gun rights to the free citizenry in the past is no good reason to let them get away with it now, or in the future.

If the people, in whom all power resides (not the G), want to amend the constitution, they should do so.  But if they cannot get that done, no law in violation of the 2d A should be passed, and no judge should make sh!t up to say the 2d A means something other than it does, or to call such law constitutional when it clearly is not.  

And speaking of Amendments, I would support a change to make the attorney general a national elective office (not a presidential appointment), and would remove from the president the right to appoint all federal judges.  I'm not sure where this power should go, but it should be put into the hands of a group of apolitical people who are constitutional scholars who don't make sh!t up (not associated with any universities).  I would support these changes even if the Rs held the presidency.  

Nothing in US history brought home the need for an independent DOJ, more than the rampant lawlessness of the Zero and Holder working together to violate and subvert the law and congress, withhold evidence, and promote the hope and change.  

[Robert]

Both Willow and Jess had great responses 

Since the rule of law or the Constitution is not being followed by some high courts and this administration it gives everyone the feeling that lawlessness is allowed. It gives the deceitful room to try to wiggle special favors and decisions that would otherwise not be possible. The fact that this rule of law is not decided impartially and administered impartially in faithfulness to those who wrote it gives way to the division we see today. It gives way to the idolizing money, power, bribes, and Congress that has become impotent.

  It gives society to start a downward spiral to say, let me take what I can get while I can and the heck with the consequences to anyone. We see it on the streets today we see it here and we majorly see it in our government. This country was not founded on laws but on men's hearts and religious beliefs supported by laws to keep things in check. The second amendment was wholly written as a means of the people who are the ones that are the government could protect themselves from tyranny coming from government or from any aggression from criminals.

 It established that people not government had the power to decide their own fate. Government is not to establish their own laws but to carry out the majorities decision and establish the laws they decided on. Its not about governmental activism in any form or special favors for Congress or making the government unobtainable to ordinary citizens and definitely not about rewriting the Constitution without proper procedure. What is in government today is socialism not the respect and trust that we are free men responsible for our decisions and able to decide for ourselves what way we should live.
 
Judaical activism and government activism boils down to either corruption or socialism.

  We have not given the young today enough of this kind of behavior to allow them to have the respect and awe that they should have from this piece of paper. We as the stewards of this have done and allowed some of the most destructive criminal and selfish acts by government to allow this document to not have the respect and force it deserves among the young. We have given up rights this document allows without a whimper and allowed those with liberal ideals the idea that its the government that gave us rights and power, instead of the people giving the government the rights and power.

  If we are created in the image of our maker and have these rights given to us by our maker and do not perform criminal acts then why do we have to ask the government for the right to protect ourselves? Why do some think making new laws will do anything to protect us if the morals and decency in us will not. Why rather than using the laws already on the books do we think new laws and restrictions will stop lawlessness.

[The emperor has no clothes]

There's nothing wrong with 2yo's having guns.  Loaded, cocked guns would be a problem.

Then again, I've shared ranges with adults who were barely smarter or safer than 2yo's.

There's a big difference between interpreting the constitution (consistent with the framers' intent), and making sh!t up.  That applies to the whole document, not just the 2d A.  Leftist activist judges are the lowest life form extant.

Jess, conservative activist judges are no better.  
Would you not agree that some should have their right revoked ?Would you not agree that the 2nd Amendment is not black and white as some would wish ? If the Constitution was as cut and dried as some believe we wouldn't even need the Supreme Court.

There is no such thing as an activist conservative judge.  And conservative is not really the right word either.  Normal judges follow the constitution and the law and the principles of stare decisis, and traditional statutory interpretation, and analysis of legislative intent; all of which is by it's very nature a conservative and careful process, regardless of their personal politics, which they have forsworn to ignore as much as possible.  

Abnormal activist judges make sh!t up to achieve a results oriented decision.  The SCOTUS judges who wrote that the 2d A is not an individual personal liberty guaranteed all free, law abiding citizens are liars and scum who violated their oaths of office and should have been immediately impeached from office and disbarred from the practice of law anywhere.  They simply made sh!t up.  I have come to expect lying and deceit in politicians (in the executive or legislative), but hoped to never see it from the judiciary.    

Principles like equal protection of the law, (and many more) do require judicial interpretation as applied to hundreds of years of legislation.  We can treat people and classes of people differently if there is sufficient justification for it, and if we are not doing it for wrongful, unlawful reasons. Correctly applying the constitution to all of criminal law and procedure has required thousands of judicial opinions and appeals.  Judges are to interpret the constitution and ensure that it is not violated in enacted legislation (in whole or in part).  Judges are not to write or create laws (nor is the executive/president), that is exclusively left to the legislature.  

The 2d A is written as absolute as any part of the constitution.  Yet, today the right is not absolute.  But the limitations are very carefully limited (felons, minors, insane, drug abusers).  Other restrictions in legislation, mostly commencing with the National Firearms Act (NFA) in 1934, are and remain unconstitutional.  Just because the G has got away with unconstitutionally restricting gun rights to the free citizenry in the past is no good reason to let them get away with it now, or in the future.

If the people, in whom all power resides (not the G), want to amend the constitution, they should do so.  But if they cannot get that done, no law in violation of the 2d A should be passed, and no judge should make sh!t up to say the 2d A means something other than it does, or to call such law constitutional when it clearly is not.  

And speaking of Amendments, I would support a change to make the attorney general a national elective office (not a presidential appointment), and would remove from the president the right to appoint all federal judges.  I'm not sure where this power should go, but it should be put into the hands of a group of apolitical people who are constitutional scholars who don't make sh!t up (not associated with any universities).  I would support these changes even if the Rs held the presidency.  

Nothing in US history brought home the need for an independent DOJ, more than the rampant lawlessness of the Zero and Holder working together to violate and subvert the law and congress, withhold evidence, and promote the hope and change.  

Well I guess we are going to have to agree to disagree about activist judges. How one can not say that the Citizens United case was not from activist judges like Scalia ruling that corporations have the same rights as people is beyond me. That was the epitome of activists bending the law to favor their politics.  Also I would strongly disagree with making the Attorney General an elected position. We have enough shady politics in the DOJ already. That would just add to it.

[Romeo]

My question is, What makes a political force, " a force"? I believe the answer is money. And where do they get that money? From like minded folks. Am I right? I, as well 92 % number. I run with a pretty varied crowd and belong to a pretty diverse family, politically. Outsed of a few they overwhelmingly are anpro second amendment, and have real worries about that slippery slope.

[TallRider]

First off. How many of the guns used in these recent shootings involve gun shows. My understanding is all of these recent shootings have been the failure of some government entity and every time blaming gun ownership for the carnage. Must gun shows are run by right wing gun toting bible thumping fascist and anyone like the Orlando shooter probably would'not make it out alive at one of those shows. Probably just disapear. They would'nt go through the trouble to report him as suspiceous.

[6shutr]

Rob, Willow is exactly right. All laws that infringe upon the right to keep and bear arms are unconstitutional. Those who advocate any infringement should take advantage of the wisdom of our founders who provided a way to amend the Constitution. Infringement advocates should legally and lawfully work to Amend the Constitution's 2nd Amendment rather than attempt to unconstitutionally subvert it....my2cents, amigo rick

[The emperor has no clothes]

Rob, Willow is exactly right. All laws that infringe upon the right to keep and bear arms are unconstitutional. Those who advocate any infringement should take advantage of the wisdom of our founders who provided a way to amend the Constitution. Infringement advocates should legally and lawfully work to Amend the Constitution's 2nd Amendment rather than attempt to unconstitutionally subvert it....my2cents, amigo rick

Rick, this is my take on it. The Constitution was written by some brilliant men. And we as a society owe them more than I can express. But it can't possibly be expected to be so specific to cover every circumstance. We as a society have for the most part accepted that there are limits and prerequisites on the 2nd Amendment. We deny felons, children, etc. the right of the 2nd. Those are not laid out in the 2nd. If we were to apply the amendment the way it is written every citizen regardless would have right. As you know I am a simple butcher but I think most lawyers would agree with the Supreme Court in interpreting the 2nd this way. I don't see how requiring background checks and limiting the size of magazines is infringing on the 2nd in any way that is meaningful to the spirit of responsible citizens having the right to bear arms.
 Man are you guys as hot over there as we are ?

[6shutr]

I'd agree with you amigo Rob, but then we'd both be wrong.  If you're interested, you might want to research and read the writings and speeches of those who wrote the 2nd amendment and their explanations of it in their lobbying efforts to get it passed. Nuancing and equivocation, although often well intended, and often accepted as reality is a slippery slope that never ends well. The justification argument that the 2nd Amendment has already been infringed doesn't change the meaning and intent, of the 2nd Amendment, it only means that those infringements are clearly Unconstitutional, no matter the rulings of the Supreme Court, they have been wrong before, and Amendments to the Constitution were added legally and Constitutionally to correct their wrongs.......my2cents....rick

[The emperor has no clothes]

I'd agree with you amigo Rob, but then we'd both be wrong.  If you're interested, you might want to research and read the writings and speeches of those who wrote the 2nd amendment and their explanations of it in their lobbying efforts to get it passed. Nuancing and equivocation, although often well intended, and often accepted as reality is a slippery slope that never ends well. The justification argument that the 2nd Amendment has already been infringed doesn't change the meaning and intent, of the 2nd Amendment, it only means that those infringements are clearly Unconstitutional, no matter the rulings of the Supreme Court, they have been wrong before, and Amendments to the Constitution were added legally and Constitutionally to correct their wrongs.......my2cents....rick

So, no exceptions for anyone ?

[FryeVRCCDS0067]

Rob, Willow is exactly right. All laws that infringe upon the right to keep and bear arms are unconstitutional. Those who advocate any infringement should take advantage of the wisdom of our founders who provided a way to amend the Constitution. Infringement advocates should legally and lawfully work to Amend the Constitution's 2nd Amendment rather than attempt to unconstitutionally subvert it....my2cents, amigo rick

Rick, this is my take on it. The Constitution was written by some brilliant men. And we as a society owe them more than I can express. But it can't possibly be expected to be so specific to cover every circumstance. We as a society have for the most part accepted that there are limits and prerequisites on the 2nd Amendment. We deny felons, children, etc. the right of the 2nd. Those are not laid out in the 2nd. If we were to apply the amendment the way it is written every citizen regardless would have right. As you know I am a simple butcher but I think most lawyers would agree with the Supreme Court in interpreting the 2nd this way. I don't see how requiring background checks and limiting the size of magazines is infringing on the 2nd in any way that is meaningful to the spirit of responsible citizens having the right to bear arms.
 Man are you guys as hot over there as we are ?

Lets not forget the purpose of the 2nd Amendment is as a reset button. It is meant to guarantee the people always have the ability to overthrow a government gone bad, just as our founders did. Our founders intended citizens to have the same arms as our solders. I've really got no problem with the ban on full autos but all other small arms should be available to the average citizen. Just because citizens have been subjected to diminishing rights doesn't mean we should give up more. Enough is enough. We have enough gun laws, there should be no more passed unless they serve to bring back lost rights or confirm existing rights.

You can't under existing federal law require dealer transfers be done on private transactions without banning children from being taught and allowed to shoot and hunt since a dealer can't transfer a handgun to anyone under 18 or a long gun to anyone under 21. An Indiana citizen can get a carry permit at age 18 and many do. But, an 18 yearold can't buy a handgun from a dealer so they have to be loaned or gifted to them by a parent. That also would become impossible if dealer transfers were required on all private firearms loans, sales, gifts and the like. The unintended consequences of such a law are completely out of the field of vision of people who know nothing about firearms and firearms culture.

Like myself, my kids can't even remember a time before they had shot a firearm. We taught our kids firearm safety right along with teaching them not to touch hot stoves or walk out into the road. We didn't hide or lockup our firearms or our car keys, we taught our kids to leave them alone. My two youngest sons had already taken their first deer before they were 14. If dealer transfers were required before firearms could be loaned, gifted, traded or sold, it would be illegal for kids to be taught firearms safety or taken hunting. Which, I think is the real driving force behind the push for dealer transfers for all private transactions. To break the American tradition of firearms ownership.

As an FFL holder I would certainly have the opportunity to make more money if this was required. And it matters not a bit. If my choices were to die cold, broke and alone or to make a living by doing something that hurts my country, I would die cold, broke and alone.

I think whenever question such as these come up, it's best to look back to our founders and the time of our country's birth for guidance.

"Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other
terrible implement of the soldier, are the birthright of an American... The
unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or
state government, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands
of the people" (Tench Coxe, Pennsylvania Gazette, Feb. 20, 1788)

"Firearms stand next in importance to the Constitution itself. They are the
American people's liberty teeth and keystone under independence ... From the
hour the Pilgrims landed, to the present day, events, occurrences, and tenden-
cies prove that to insure peace, security and happiness, the rifle and pistol
are equally indispensable . . . The very atmosphere of firearms everywhere re-
strains evil interference - they deserve a place of honor with all that is
good" (George Washington)

"On every question of construction (of the Constitution) let us carry our-
selves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spir-
it manifested in the debates, and instead of trying what meaning may be
squeezed out of the text, or invented against it, conform to the probable one
in which it was passed." (Thomas Jefferson, letter to William Johnson, June
12, 1823, The Complete Jefferson, p. 322)

"...but if circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an
army of any magnitude, that army can never be formidable to the liberties of
the people, while there is a large body of citizens, little if at all inferior
to them in discipline and use of arms, who stand ready to defend their
rights..." (Alexander Hamilton speaking of standing armies in Federalist 29.)

"I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for few pub-
lic officials." (George Mason, 3 Elliot, Debates at 425-426)

"Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who ap-
proaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright
force. Whenever you give up that force, you are inevitably ruined" (Patrick
Henry, 3 J. Elliot, Debates in the Several State Conventions 45, 2d ed. Phila-
delphia, 1836)

"The strongest reason for people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is,
as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government." --
(Thomas Jefferson)

"Good intentions will always be pleaded for any assumption of power. The Constitution
was made to guard the people against the dangers of good intentions. There are men in
all ages who mean to govern well, but they mean to govern. They promise to
be good masters ... but they mean to be masters." Daniel Webster

[MP]

Well said and reasoned, Frye.

[FryeVRCCDS0067]

Rob, Willow is exactly right. All laws that infringe upon the right to keep and bear arms are unconstitutional. Those who advocate any infringement should take advantage of the wisdom of our founders who provided a way to amend the Constitution. Infringement advocates should legally and lawfully work to Amend the Constitution's 2nd Amendment rather than attempt to unconstitutionally subvert it....my2cents, amigo rick

Rick, this is my take on it. The Constitution was written by some brilliant men. And we as a society owe them more than I can express. But it can't possibly be expected to be so specific to cover every circumstance. We as a society have for the most part accepted that there are limits and prerequisites on the 2nd Amendment. We deny felons, children, etc. the right of the 2nd. Those are not laid out in the 2nd. If we were to apply the amendment the way it is written every citizen regardless would have right. As you know I am a simple butcher but I think most lawyers would agree with the Supreme Court in interpreting the 2nd this way. I don't see how requiring background checks and limiting the size of magazines is infringing on the 2nd in any way that is meaningful to the spirit of responsible citizens having the right to bear arms.
 Man are you guys as hot over there as we are ?

By the way, my 10 year-old Grandson Dano took his first deer 2 years ago at age 8 if memory serves. Your universal background check idea would have made that illegal. Just as it would have his Dad's first deer too. It would have also made teaching Dano, his Dad and my other kids and Grandkids to shoot illegal too.

We have a family reunion yearly with a 25 yard .22 rifle shoot. Everyone uses the same rifle, an old Stevens Favorite with a Stevens/Pope barrel made around 1900 which I painstakingly restored and added receiver sights to. The distance and rifle are geared towards giving younger shooters and new shooters a chance. It's also a chance for myself and the other adults to teach these kids and non-shooting adults safe firearms handling and the joy of shooting. Your proposal would require a trip to a gun shop (FFL holders can only transfer firearms at their place of business or with ATF approval at a gunshow) to fill our a form 4473 and run a nics check before each of the 45 or so people can shoot. After they shoot, another trip to the gunshop to transfer the gun back to me would be required. Then, and only then could the next person fill our a form 4473, get a nics check ran on them, drive back to the range and take their turn. Then back to the gunshop for the next go-around.

Of course, there would no longer be 45 shooters because those under 18 would be barred from shooting because of your transfer law.

I understand you probably have no idea what is involved with your proposal or even that shooting and hunting are kid orientated family events for much of America and that your proposal would ban those family events.

Your willingness to pass laws affecting other people when you know so little about how it would affect them is much like our uninformed, firearms ignorant lawmakers who do the same.

Speaking as someone who does know and handle firearms on a daily basis I think not teaching kids safe firearms handling is irresponsible parenting and yet your proposal would make it illegal to teach them. Is that really your intention?

[The emperor has no clothes]

Frye, I killed my first caribou at 14. Moose at 16. Black Bear at 16. I know a little about it. 

[FryeVRCCDS0067]

Frye, I killed my first caribou at 14. Moose at 16. Black Bear at 16. I know a little about it. 

And yet, you now think your youthful hunting experiences should be illegal?

Or, do you just think other kids outdoor and shooting experiences should be banned?

Or, do you think the "universal background checks" law should be passed but then ignored?

How do you envision such a thing being done while still allowing the young to possess and use firearms when the transfer of firearms to these youth would be impossible?

How do you envision my family reunion shoot being done if "universal background checks" become the rule of the land?

Please enlighten us, because at this point, after telling us of your youthful hunting experiences which your proposal would ban, you seem a bit hypocritical.

[Robert]

Paul Ryan had a very good point that the Democrats that are on Obamas team just don't seem to care about. Not to mention the grandstanding and the fact that this issue has nothing to do with what happened in Orlando or that the FBI dropped the ball on more than one occasion to apprehend this guy. So much for all the surveillance we have on common people that was supposed to stop terrorism.

Democrats want the GOP to allow a vote on bills to expand background checks, and to prevent people from buying a gun if they are on an federal terrorism watch list. But Republicans say those lists are created without giving the people on those lists any chance to defend themselves.

[Psychotic Bovine]

Nationwide there are over 30,000 gun restrictions on the books.  And none has ever been responsible for a statistical drop in crime.
I'm not sure another gun law is the answer.
Also, funny that 3% was mentioned.  The total prosecutions of felons ATTEMPTING to get a firearm is under that number.
My take on the whole thing is that it costs very little time or money (in the grand scheme of things) to write laws.  Enforcement is a whole other thing.  Which brings up another thought.  A pretty good number of people who are totally innocent and just made one tiny mistake (like crossing in to NJ with a firearm, or possessing an empty shotshell in DC), are arrested.  To me, the reason is thus:  Low hanging fruit.  The anti-gun prosecutors (and politicians) can point to these numbers and say they are doing something.  When in fact, they aren't doing squat to the true law-breakers.

[6shutr]

Great point Frye about teaching kids to shoot. Richard henry Lee, co-author of the 2nd Amendment had this to say. "To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms and be taught alike , especially when young, how to use them" Like you and Rob, I learned at a very young age, and always carried my single shot J.C. Higgins 22 rifle with me on my horse to shoot squirrels, or rabbits, snakes and other varmints. I had my first 12ga shotgun before age 10, and was taught to shoot by my Father and my Grandfather. Our entire family were schooled and knew how to use firearms at an early age. As someone in the thread pointed out, gun laws do not stop gun crime. Laws are made for law abiding citizens. Criminals don't give a whit about the laws. Even though it's a common practice for our Government to punish Law Abiding Citizens for other's criminal acts, that doesn't mean we have to be happy or content with these unjust laws. "When injustice becomes law, Resistance become duty" ~ Thomas Jefferson.....my2cents, rick