A Senate in the Gun Lobby?????s Grip

[_Bond James Bond]

Honest question:Would background checks have prevented the Sandy Hook massacre or Gabrielle Giffords assassination attempt?

Probably not. The only thing that would prevent gun deaths is no guns. So I guess the real question is: Are murdered people, including kids, an acceptable consequence for the rights of people to bear arms?

[_Kevin Graham]

Your own Harry Reid voted against this bill Kevin.

And I guess you're so stupid that you don't understand why? Your own link explained why, though it seems to have completely escaped you. Let me give you a clue: "Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nevada, cast a "no" vote to secure the ability to bring the measure up again."

Take your time thinking about this. Wouldn't want you to hurt yourself.

If this legislation wouldn't have prevented those tragedies in the past, then why would someone assume it would work to prevent them in the future?

How do you know it wouldn't have prevented them? If it does prevent a tragedy from happening, then nothing happens, there is nothing to report, and there is no knowledge of any intention to commit a crime. As far as you know, current gun laws have prevented the deaths of thousands.

The fact is Adam Lanza was mentally ill, and his mother was a gun enthusiast. Had she kept her guns locked up, he could have very easily purchased and used a rifle at age 20.

I'm still waiting for you to explain the Republican logic behind this obstruction. If it isn't just about money and being against it because Obama is for it, then what else is there? Every idiotic theory you folks have come up with to lie about the legislation has been shown to be myth. So I'm waiting for someone who hails from the more reasonable side of Conservatism (if any exist at this point!) to provide some rational explanation as to why it is a bad thing to make it more difficult for criminals and the mentally ill to obtain a firearm.

[_ajax18]

If you're embarrassed to be an American Kevin, you could always go back to Brazil. I bet they have plenty of gun laws there and all the socialism you could ever want.

[_Kevin Graham]

The silence in response to my request is deafening. Instead, I get bombarded with the exact kind of anti-intellectual drivel I've come to expect.

[_cinepro]

How do you know it wouldn't have prevented them?

When I asked if this legislation would have prevented them, you said "No". So I was only going by your answer.

If you're trying to win this argument by confusing me, you just won.

I'm still waiting for you to explain the Republican logic behind this obstruction. If it isn't just about money and being against it because Obama is for it, then what else is there? Every idiotic theory you folks have come up with to lie about the legislation has been shown to be myth. So I'm waiting for someone who hails from the more reasonable side of Conservatism (if any exist at this point!) to provide some rational explanation as to why it is a bad thing to make it more difficult for criminals and the mentally ill to obtain a firearm.

I don't have a problem with making guns harder to get, so if you were hoping I could help you out with that, I can't .

This article does a pretty good job of explaining the logistics of what happened:

http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/DC-Decoder ... y-be-kaput

[Guest]

Just to be clear, Kevin:

Are there any legitimate legal scholars who think the Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm?

(a) Yes

(b) No

If your answer is no, please articulate how you determined that.

Are you suggesting that the majority of the current Supreme Court of the United States is in bed with the NRA?

(a) Yes

(b) No

I'm going to take it as a given that you have not actually read anything Warren Berger said about the Second Amendment, but just so you know, quoting one single Supreme Court justice's opinion as dispositive of what the Constitution means is generally considered to be a sign that you're either a rube or arguing about ideology instead of law.

If you have an actual court ruling by Berger on the meaning of the Second Amendment--or even a law review article--I and every other living person would sure love to see it, though.

In a 1990 op-ed in Parade magazine, Berger indicated that he did not believe the Second Amendment was an absolute right---as in, regulating firearms did not violate the Constitution. He also recognized that, "Americans also have a right to defend their homes, and we need not challenge that." http://www.guncite.com/burger.html

Further to that observation, was the holding in Heller based largely on a right to self-defense descended from English common law?

(a) Yes

(b) No

Berger also implied in his op-ed piece that he thinks the Constitution guarantees a right to recreational hunting. "Nor does anyone seriously question that the Constitution protects the right of hunters to own and keep sporting guns for hunting game any more than anyone would challenge the right to own and keep fishing rods and other equipment for fishing -- or to own automobiles."

Kevin, in your considered opinion, do you have a constitutional right to go fishing? If the state you live in were to ban non-commercial fishing entirely, would your state be denying you substantive due process?

(a) Yes

(b) No

Since you believe that the individual right to possess a firearm is a fraud perpetrated by the NRA, will you agree with me that freedom of expression is a fraud perpetrated by the porn industry?

(a) Yes

(b) No

Since you believe that the individual right to possess a firearm is a fraud perpetrated by the NRA, will you agree with me that a woman's right to an abortion is a fraud perpetrated by Planned Parenthood?

(a) Yes

(b) No

Since you believe that the individual right to possess a firearm is a fraud perpetrated by the NRA, will you agree with me that a parent's right to raise a child according to the parent's own value system is a fraud perpetrated by the religious right?

(a) Yes

(b) No

Since you believe that the individual right to possess a firearm is a fraud perpetrated by the NRA, will you agree with me that an indigent person's right to be appointed counsel in a criminal case is a fraud perpetrated by the American Bar Assocation?

(a) Yes

(b) No

Since you believe that the individual right to possess a firearm is a fraud perpetrated by the NRA, will you agree with me that since the 7th Amendment expressly guarantees the right to a jury trial in cases at common law claiming damages over $20.00, the existence of small claims courts is a fraud perpetrated by various counties all over the United States?

(a) Yes

(b) No

Sorry for all the questions. I just wanted to make sure what you think the Constitution means doesn't depend on your political value judgments exactly the same way it does for people like Droopy and subgenius. So I just want to clarify whether you are sincerely a textual originalist, or only when it suits your political views.

P.S. I'm in favor of making it harder for felons and people with dangerous psychological conditions to buy firearms.

[_ldsfaqs]

Darth J and conservatism actually agreeing on something???

I echo your last statement as long as such doesn't unreasonably infringe on a persons right to a firearm.
For example, while I'm perfectly for people using "gun locks" safes etc. as is necessary, they absolutely shouldn't be "mandated". If a person or even a family member can't actually access their primary defense weapons in a reasonable time to actually protect yourself and your family, it entirely defeats the purpose.

We've all heard of that young boy who was home with his younger sister and guys were breaking in and he grabbed his Cop dad's AR15 and shot them and scared them off.

Anyway, nice to see some wisdom from you Darth J.

p.s. by the way, to everyone. I'm so irritated by the banning of "high capacity" magazines mantra by leftists. Most aren't even talking about actual high capacity, they are talking banning NORMAL capacity magazines, making them low capacity magazines. High capacity is like 50+ rounds. Normal is anywhere from 10-50. Liberals are wanting nothing above 10 or even 3 in some cases. Slime! :(

[Guest]

The NRA myths were disseminated on other fronts. Articles appeared in NRA publications and rewrote history by declaring that "Armed citizens [were] unregulated except by his own ability to buy a gun at whatever price he could afford." This credo became an NRA rallying cry.

Kevin, I have a reprint of the 1897 Sears Roebuck catalog. A PDF of some of the pages is here.

This catalog advertises military-grade firearms for sale. People could order the same rifles and pistols used by the U.S. Cavalry. No background checks, no questions asked. Is this a myth? Do I not really have this 1897 catalog, but the NRA is just making me think I do? Did the NRA forge this catalog and say it was from 1897 so I would believe you used to be able to buy whatever guns you wanted by mail?

(You could also order cocaine and opium from the pharmaceuticals section this catalog.)

[_Darth J]

Darth J and conservatism actually agreeing on something???

I am aware that you are shocked that someone would consistently read the Constitution as a legal document instead of a religious text that supports your personal value judgments. I wonder if it has occurred to you yet that the principle of applying the Bill of Rights to the states in McDonald v. Chicago is substantive due process, the same legal doctrine that explains why that South Carolina bill purporting to favor Christianity is unconstitutional. It's also the same legal doctrine that is the basis for the 9th Circuit ruling that Prop 8 is unconstitutional.

Boy, rule of law is a bitch, huh?

I echo your last statement as long as such doesn't unreasonably infringe on a persons right to a firearm.
For example, while I'm perfectly for people using "gun locks" safes etc. as is necessary, they absolutely shouldn't be "mandated". If a person or even a family member can't actually access their primary defense weapons in a reasonable time to actually protect yourself and your family, it entirely defeats the purpose.

I don't think this bill that just got voted down had much to do with gun locks. Pretty sure extending the scope of background checks is the issue.

We've all heard of that young boy who was home with his younger sister and guys were breaking in and he grabbed his Cop dad's AR15 and shot them and scared them off.

Yes, and we've also heard about the young boy who accidentally shot himself or shot a sibling with the gun in his parents' closet. I predict that liberals as a group will acknowledge that firearms can legitimately be used for self-defense right around the time that the right will acknowledge as a group that guns are dangerous weapons whose primary function is to hurt or kill people.

Anyway, nice to see some wisdom from you Darth J.

And since you have suddenly become such a fan of substantive due process---the doctrine that says state or local governments can't unreasonably infringe on the individual right to bear arms---I'm sure that you will be intellectually consistent and agree that South Carolina can't pass a statute that favors Christianity over other religions.

p.s. by the way, to everyone. I'm so irritated by the banning of "high capacity" magazines mantra by leftists. Most aren't even talking about actual high capacity, they are talking banning NORMAL capacity magazines, making them low capacity magazines. High capacity is like 50+ rounds. Normal is anywhere from 10-50. Liberals are wanting nothing above 10 or even 3 in some cases. Slime! :(

See, ldsfaqs, the thing is that there is no objective definition of what a "high capacity" magazine is.

[_subgenius]

The NRA myths were disseminated on other fronts. Articles appeared in NRA publications and rewrote history by declaring that "Armed citizens [were] unregulated except by his own ability to buy a gun at whatever price he could afford." This credo became an NRA rallying cry.

Kevin, I have a reprint of the 1897 Sears Roebuck catalog. A PDF of some of the pages is here.

This catalog advertises military-grade firearms for sale. People could order the same rifles and pistols used by the U.S. Cavalry. No background checks, no questions asked. Is this a myth? Do I not really have this 1897 catalog, but the NRA is just making me think I do? Did the NRA forge this catalog and say it was from 1897 so I would believe you used to be able to buy whatever guns you wanted by mail?

(You could also order cocaine and opium from the pharmaceuticals section this catalog.)