Support us on
Odds and Ends
14 8, 6:04pm
How was "discipline" used in the 18th Century? The way the Constitution used it to empower Congress to set and states to maintain militia "discipline." That denies no one ANY right, so does not conflict with the Second Amendment prohibition against infringing gun rights. Planes, trains and automobiles have been regulated for a century without once restricting possession: But owning and operating them legally requires demonstrated ability to do so responsibly, because they are as lethal with incompetent and/or reckless owners as they are useful responsible ones.
The voting comparison fails because the Constitution does not expressly give Congress the authority and duty to "discipline voters," states to maintain that discipline nor cite that discipline in an amendment gauranteeing voting rights: It leaves all elections standards to states, except for requiring all national elections be simultaneous.
The 46% of gun owners who have NEVER had a background check comes from
this poll aggregator
. Scroll down to the CNN/ORC poll from April 2013 (my memory erred; it was not 2014) and it is the penultimate question. Even more interesting (and revealing) are two of its earlier questions asked of all respondents (i.e. gun-owning and otherwise: )
Requiring gun owners to register with the state or local government and provide a set of fingerprints For: 66% Against: 33%
If the federal government does create a national list of people who own guns, do you think the government would use that information to take guns away from people who own them? Yes: 66% No: 32%
66% of people want mandatory gun owner registration AND believe government would use it to take their guns
: US gun policy has become THAT irrationally contradictory since we let dueling extremist minorities hijack the discussion to exclusion of the vast rational majority. To the specific points:
One. Different states using different background checks even for FEDERALLY licensed dealers, and not obligated to use ANY for state licensed ones nor unlicensed sales, perfectly illustrates the problems magnitude, and the urgent critical need for UNIVERSAL background checks so we no longer have HALF OF ALL GUN OWNERS WHOLLY AVOIDING BACKGROUND CHECKS.
Two. Most people have enough snap to realize that if someone takes their license and starts reading their name off to someone on the phone they are being checked out, but one of the favorite arguments against universal background checks is that existing ones are supposedly intrusive and tedious: How can something be tedious, intrusive and UNNOTICEABLE?
Three. Rick Perry moment? ;-p Ironically, even one his recent objection to gun regulations stated TRAINED responsible owners (emphasis mine) are no threat to anyone; implicit in his statement was that all gun owners are trained and responsible, but we know that is not the case and that there are no laws requiring it. Hence the irony: Perry is 100% correct trained responsible gun owners are no threat to anyone, yet strongly opposes the SOLE means of ensuring gun owners ARE trained and responsible.
Here is that
YouTube video of Crickets My First Rifle commercial "targeting" kids
. It gets right to the point:
8-year-old (maybe) kid: Hey, where ya goin'?
10-year-old kid: To shoot my new Cricket rifle!
8-year-old: I wish
Save Christmas: By your toddlers pint-sized .22s--they even come in pink for girls! If you had not already, you may have heard about those rifles during last years cases of 4- and 5-year-olds killing their toddler siblings or friends with their new present. This is why BB guns were invented; pardon my saying so, but when one gives a pre-schooler a .22, what inevitably follows is not a tragic "accident," it is felony child endangerment.
People who avoided ADDITIONAL dealer background checks because they had a PRIOR CCL check would not say they had NEVER needed a background check to get a gun. Again: We already agreed only trained people should have guns; how do we get that without legally requiring it? Hope...?