What are reasonable gun laws in your opinion?

[frankie_the_yankee]

cowboy writes:

In the last 3 years I've been a court room about ten times. Once during jury selection process, there was one deputy present... blah...blah.....

Who cares? How many courtroom shootings are happening these days? That's the bottom line.

Originally Posted by frankie the yankee
So if an airline told you that passengers were prohibited from carrying weapons aboard, that would be OK with you?

cowboy responds:

It's their prerogative. It would then be my prerogative to fly on another airline that will allow me to be armed.

Too bad there isn't an airline, or a government, in the world crazy enough to allow that or you would be all set.

And did you follow my links to airliner hijackings? Did you see how many there were before they started screening passengers for weapons? And did you notice how few there are today?

cowboy writes:

Your stance allows these so-called "reasonable restrictions" that open the door for any restrictions.

So you admit that what I have proposed is reasonable. Good going!

Oh, so we shouldn't put reasonable laws in place because someday someone might be inspired to pass unreasonable laws. The old slippery slope, right?

Well, under that line of reasoning, we shouldn't have any laws, because no matter how reasonable a law might be someone could always come up with an unreasonable one in the future.

But wait. I get it. You know which laws we can pass "safely" and which ones we can't. Rather than use our own powers of reason to arrive at our own conclusions, we should just listen to you.

Nice idea, but I think that Hugo Chavez thought of it first.

cowboy writes:

If those criminals were to be held in prison until they can be trusted - the reason they are being isolated from society in the first place is because they can't be trusted - then there would be no reason to violate the Second Amendment.

How will we know when they can be trusted? Tarot? Mapping out lines on their palms? Throwing chicken bones on the ground? Or maybe we should just ask you.

What are your plans for the "due process of law" part of the Constitution? Wait. I know. we should just ask you.

Hmmm..... I sense a pattern developing here.

cowboy says:

In the constitutionally abided world, violent criminals would be either dead or in prison, terrorists would be caught at the border, and lunatics would be institutionalized. Then I say "So what if the people could buy any gun they wanted no questions asked."

And this system would work perfectly? No criminals or terrorists would slip through?

Sounds like more fantasy to me.

cowboy continues:

It used to be that way - before criminals weren't let out of prison prematurely, the insane weren't allowed out without guardianship, and parents were actually responsible for raising their children.

When and where was it "that way"? Who were those people who knew just how long criminals needed to be locked up? And how did they do it? I am not aware of any time in the USA when there was no violent crime and no recividism.

Can you help us out here? Why not post a link to recividism stats in America for any time period of your choosing?

I want to see when recividism was zero.

Or would you just execute all criminals? You know, somebody gets drunk and mixes it up in a bar fight - execute him, right? A couple of football players do a little pushing and shoving after a solid hit - execute them. And hockey! Forget about it!

Originally Posted by frankie the yankee
It is only common sense that if anyone could tote MP-5's into a courtroom no questions asked, shootings would be more common than the near zero level of today.

cowboy responds:

No such thing has been established.

Well, it's true that there is no hard data on this. But that's only because no court is crazy enough to implement such an idiotic "plan".

So we have to resort to doing a "thought experiment". Einstein did a lot of these. If they were good enough for him, I figure they are good enough for the rest of us. And the people who are responsible for actually running courtrooms seem to agree.

cowboy says:

No one should ever need a permit or license to exercise an inalienable right - especially an absolute and inalienable right.

Too bad there are no such things as "absolute" rights, except in your dreams.

In fact, neither the word "absolute" nor the word "inalienable" appears in the 2A as far as I know.

Certainly our legal system, including the Supreme Court has never recognized any rights as "absolute".

What I can't figure out is where do people get off thinking that they "know" what the Constitution "really means"? It's one thing to have an opinion on the subject. It is quite another to "know".

You can always spot the "knowers". They are constantly making pronouncements that this or that is unconstitutional, or that the constitution means this or that.

People who know what they are talking about say things like, "The courts have held this.....", or, "I think it means that.....", or, "Maybe they'll find this way because....".

 

[frankie_the_yankee]

Quaamik,

You've made some interesting proposals.

Would you include airliners on a list of prohiited places? (Assuming full screening and security procedures of course.)

 

[gripper]

I always liked the Kennesaw Ga. ordinance that required evry hea dof household not prohibited by criminal record to actually have a firearm.One of you must have already referenced it,if so;my apologies.

 

[frankie_the_yankee]

Originally Posted by frankie the yankee
There may be a conflict between 2A rights and commerce clause powers. This conflict is currently resolved in favor of commerce clause powers. The chance of any court ruling otherwise is effectively zero.

cowboy responds:

You have some inside scoop on that? There is a good chance in the Court right now that may lead the way to resolving this "conflict".

Which case are you referring to? I'm not aware of any case on the docket where a conflict between the Commerce Clause anf the 2nd Amendment is being litigated.

And don't hold your head under water waiting for the Court to rule that it is OK for people to tote MP-5's aboard airliners no questions asked.

 

[IA_farmboy]

Frankie the yankee,
Not only did you misread what I said but you also seemed to have been able to simply avoid to address my comment that any background check is going to have errors.

How do you propose we keep this database of criminals and mentally unsound people error-free? Who is going to pay for it? (Or, rather, why should I put my money toward this? This background check is going to be funded either by my taxes, or I'm going to be charged an extra fee to purchase a firearm.) Do you have any data to show that this registration actually has prevented crime?

 

[ConstitutionCowboy]

So you admit that what I have proposed is reasonable. Good going!

I've admitted no such thing. Again, you have taken me out of context.

Answer this: Why would you allow people to carry guns in a school but not an airliner or a court? All three have been the target of criminals or terrorists. All three have suffered seriously adverse consequences as a result of no one being able to effectively fight back - even in those airline hijackings from way back when. The hijacked flights on 9/11/2001 were easily taken because no one was armed in any fashion that could have stopped the terrorists - no one armed because of law that was written in an attempt to prevent anyone carrying arms aboard an airliner to supposedly prevent any further hijackings. All that was accomplished was that it was possible for the terrorists to succeed with nothing more than box cutters! Nearly three thousand died that day for the lack of at least one armed citizen aboard each of those flights. What will you have to say when the next group of terrorists does the same thing with shards of glass, or takes over an airliner at the gate right before the cockpit door gets secured, or opened in flight for a pilot to use the lav?

Who cares? How many courtroom shootings are happening these days? That's the bottom line.

You cared before I exposed your fallacious barb on the number of deputies present in a court room.

Got nothing to say about equal protection under the law for the citizens of the other 48 states same as Alaska and Vermont have?

The case I refer to is DC v. Heller. It's the only 2A case before the Supreme Court that I'm aware of.

Hey, if you have so much faith in the law that if it is against the law for anyone to bring a gun aboard an airliner, will you guarantee that no one will sneak one aboard? If some one(or a group of conspirators) does and we have a repeat of 9/11 because no one else was armed and the air marshal was the first to be taken out, or no air Marshall was aboard, what then? Trust me. I've been an aircraft mechanic/inspector for 30 years, and it would be no problem to shoot out the hinges or latch on any of those supposedly secure cockpit doors, or to hack through the bulkhead next to the door and get in the cockpit that way. You could also gain access through the cabin floor, through the baggage compartment, and into the cockpit through the floor. Some airliners(mostly regional airliners) have access panels that are already there!

And don't hold your head under water waiting for the Court to rule that it is OK for people to tote MP-5's aboard airliners no questions asked.

Again, that would be in the purview of the airline. Do me a favor, will you? Write that down on a piece of paper and tape it to your monitor - just so you don't forget...

Oh, and it wouldn't be up to the court to make any such ruling. All the Court can do is strike down any such law Congress might pass to that effect. Then it will be solely up to the airline to choose what you can and can't carry aboard.

Woody

 

[Aguila Blanca]

As it turned out, the people on Flight 93 didn't need box cutters or anything else once they realized that this group of hijackers was different.

Yeah ... and the people on Flight 93 all died.

 

[wjustinen]

I'm a Canadian, so what do I know?

Anyone should be able to buy and carry a firearm, any firearm. If you want to carry across the border into Canada, or buy in Canada, no problem. If I want to carry across the border into the USA, same thing.

We have quite a way to go, and the first thing is to get on the same page. The 2nd doesn't say "shall not be infringed, unless we don't like somebody or some type of gun." It just says "shall not be infringed."

In Canada, we are supposed to have similar rights, but no one ever told the government that they were so important that, unlike other rights, they were not to be infringed; as was done by the framers of your constitution.

 

[frankie_the_yankee]

farmboy writes....

Not only did you misread what I said but you also seemed to have been able to simply avoid to address my comment that any background check is going to have errors.

How do you propose we keep this database of criminals and mentally unsound people error-free?

Actually, I regarded your observation as too inane and trivial to bother with. But if you insist.....

Who says that the background check system is perfect, or that anything created by Man is perfect? Do you think some insane "restrictions = infringements" regime would produce a perfect result? Are you going to guarantee us that no one will ever be hurt or killed by a stray bullet when a bunch of armed citizens on an airliner toting MP-5's shoot it out with a bunch of AQ terrorists, also toting MP-5's?

For about the 200th time, background checks place a small burden on GG's and a larger one on BG's. They force BG's into the black market to obtain guns, which makes it harder for them to get guns than if guns were just handed out free on street corners.

At least with CHL training requirements collateral damage is kept to a very low near zero level. But nothing is perfect. I don't expect CHL's to be perfect. But I do believe that on the balance, it is much better to have shall issue CHL's than to not allow people to carry guns at all. And I think it is much better to require shall issue CHL's than to allow people to carry with no license at all. (For the 200th time, it puts the BG's at greater legal risk when carrying and gives us more charges to convict them of.)

Background checks are not perfect. They do place a small burden on GG's. And yes, a small % get improperly denied, though this is usually only temporary. But they do make it more difficult for BG's and crazies to get guns.

There's an old saying that goes, "Don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good."

 

[frankie_the_yankee]

Originally Posted by frankie the yankee
Who cares? How many courtroom shootings are happening these days? That's the bottom line.

cowboy responds:

You cared before I exposed your fallacious barb on the number of deputies present in a court room.

1) No I didn't.
2) You exposed nothing. You recounted an anecdote. And who knows if it is even accurate? And who cares?

I stated a fact that courtroom shootings are very rare these days. Google it if you don't believe me.

I also stated another fact, that no court is the country is crazy enough to let people enter toting MP-5's.

 

[frankie_the_yankee]

cowboy asks:

Answer this: Why would you allow people to carry guns in a school but not an airliner or a court?

Schools, courts, and airliners are all different in some ways, be it size, the number of people going in and out, the makeup of the population present at any given moment, and in numerous other ways. There is no logical reason why exactly the same policy must be followed in all 3 venues.

 

[frankie_the_yankee]

cowboy writes:

The hijacked flights on 9/11/2001 were easily taken because no one was armed in any fashion that could have stopped the terrorists - no one armed because of law that was written in an attempt to prevent anyone carrying arms aboard an airliner to supposedly prevent any further hijackings. All that was accomplished was that it was possible for the terrorists to succeed with nothing more than box cutters!

The 9/11 hijackings were accomplished because doctrine in place did not anticipate suicide terrorists. A contributing factor was that the pilots were not armed, as they had been in earlier years.

Don't kid yourself as to what should have been done while ignoring the benefit of hindsight.

And if your "solution" is so "reasonable", why is it that no airline or government on Earth is crazy enough to do it?

Also, did you follow the links I posted showing hijackings from the 60's through the present day? What do you have to say to the dramatic reductions that have taken place since screening has been implemented? Why are you avoiding these questions? These are real life documented facts, not insane fantasies or speculation.

And when are you going to tell us how we should know when felons can be trusted to be released from prison? That's another part of your proposal isn't it? Well, out with it. You asserted that at some time in the past they did it right. I asked you to post a link to statistics on recividism where we could see just when the recividism rate was zero. When are you going to do this?

Or is this just another fantasy?

Have you found the words "absolute" or "inalienable" in the 2nd Amendment yet? I can't find them. Where are they?

cowboy says:

The case I refer to is DC v. Heller. It's the only 2A case before the Supreme Court that I'm aware of.

DC v Heller has nothing to do with any conflict between the 2A and the Commerce Clause.

If you think it does, please post a reference. I've read most of the briefs, and the Commerce Clause is not mentioned that I recall.

And the context of this issue is a conflict between your supposed 2A right to tote an MP-5 aboard an airliner and the government's power under the Commerce Clause to regulate or restrict that right. I've seen nothing in the briefs suggesting that carrying guns on airliners has anything to do with the Heller case. Have you? If so, please post the reference.

And the airline might have the perogative if the government hadn't stepped in and asserted its Commerce Clause authority to regulate. Under current law, if there is any conflict between the Commerce Clause and the 2A right to carry guns on airliners, the Commerce Clause wins out. And there is nothing in Heller or any other case currently pending that would alter this one iota. If you are aware of any pending cases that specifically address this, please post a reference.

cowboy writes:

Hey, if you have so much faith in the law that if it is against the law for anyone to bring a gun aboard an airliner, will you guarantee that no one will sneak one aboard?

Sure. As soon as you guarantee me that none of the MP-5 toting passengers will ever injure anyone when they dump a magazine in a giant AD when adjusting their zipper or something.

 

[frankie_the_yankee]

Originally Posted by frankie the yankee
And don't hold your head under water waiting for the Court to rule that it is OK for people to tote MP-5's aboard airliners no questions asked.

cowboy replies:

Again, that would be in the purview of the airline. Do me a favor, will you? Write that down on a piece of paper and tape it to your monitor - just so you don't forget...

OK. So don't hold your head underwater waiting for an airline to allow people to carry MP-5's on board no questions asked.

cowboy continues:

Oh, and it wouldn't be up to the court to make any such ruling. All the Court can do is strike down any such law Congress might pass to that effect. Then it will be solely up to the airline to choose what you can and can't carry aboard.

I hate to break this to you but carrying an MP-5 aboard an airliner is illegal now. So before an insane airline could adopt an insane policy like letting people carry MP-5's aboard, Congress would either have to repeal the current law under which such craziness is banned or the Court would have to overturn the current law. The Court would probably have to revisit and overturn portions of the NFA as well, along with numerous state laws that regulate the carrying of full auto weapons.

Then, and only then, if there were an airline run by crazy people that didn't mind passengers carrying MP-5's aboard they would be free to do so.

I kinda wish the Congress and/or the Court would act on this. I'm curious to see how many tickets such an airline could sell.

 

[ConstitutionCowboy]

I kinda wish the Congress and/or the Court would act on this. I'm curious to see how many tickets such an airline could sell.

I'd start flying again. That's one! Care to make it two?

Woody

 

[Art Eatman]

Too. Much. Snark.

Somebody oughta get a Golden Cork award: "A truly superlative thread stopper."

But not yet.

Art