@JOL
I don't feel discipline applies in this case, If it did, I think it'd involve a short <s>trial</s> court marshal, and a long rope. We're talking about what citizens are allowed to have on their own, not when acting under the orders of the government. Again, the 2nd amendment was tacked on as an assurance to the doubters that the federal government wouldn't "discover" the ability to lock up all the guns.
Kind of like they "discovered" the ability to force the states to post 55mph signs. Or they "discovered" (for a while at least,) the ability to restrict the possession of guns within some arbitrary radius of a school, (do you KNOW how many schools are situated on highways?), based on its potential impact on interstate commerce.
The voting comparison is to show that the government will use any lever in its arsenal to enact it's goals. If it has a lever that says it can set the standards required to vote, it'll set those standards to prevent "undesirables" from voting, while not ticking off the "good people", (hence, grandfather clauses). If it has a lever that says it can require all prospective gun owners demonstrate good marksmanship and sense prior to possessing a gun, it'll eventually set the requirements so high only Annie Oakley and a lawyer could pass it. One for each half of the examination. They might also go so far as to limit the evaluations to centralized locations that would require most prospective marksmen drive some five hundred miles on average in order to attend, on a Wednesday, between the hours of 9 and 3.
I found your CNN poll. I am frankly surprised they could find that many people who have apparently never purchased a gun in a gun shop or gun show. This is why I wonder if, somehow, the new buyers somehow missed that they were being given a background check, or what it entailed. I'm seriously wondering, if the respondents were answering in ignorance of the nature of some minor thing they had gone through.
Of course, they could be largely young adults who got all their guns under the Christmas tree, or baby boomers who haven't bought a gun since before the Clinton administration, but I'm suspecting ignorance of what a background check is, is a larger factor.
Your comment on 2/3rds vs. 1/3rd suggests you might not have considered that they may not be the same 2/3rds. If 1/3 is wholly trusting of the governments motives, and 2/3rds feel the government would use that data to confiscate guns, that 2/3rds who feel such a list SHOULD be made could be split 50-50 between those who trust the government not to do such confiscation, and those who want such a thing to happen.
Then there are those who are somewhere in the middle, who have been convinced by the popular media and some parts of the government that guns that look superficially like military arms shouldn't be available for private ownership (because Diane Sawyer and Hillary Clinton told them so, and they never lie), but delude themselves into thinking "normal" guns wouldn't be next to be confiscated.
Remember, that compromise is both the art of finding a middle ground between two parties, and also the practice of making something more prone to failure, generally in your favor. You compromise on dinner, but you compromise a wall.
Rick Perry moment? No. I just trust gun shops to look out for their own interests, and incidentally mine, more than I trust the federal government to look out for the interests of gun owners or gun dealers. While I'd PREFER everyone seek and get the training to be safe, I would rather not have that imposed upon this community from on high, as I fear it would fairly soon be abused to the point of a virtual ban.
Found the video. Watched the video. Do you honestly think that ad was aimed at kids? Why shouldn't parents be encouraged to pick up such a thing? A new shooter has to learn some time and under the guidance of a parent is far superior to figuring it out for themselves based on Hollywood misconceptions and urban lore.
Oh, and in comment on the joker who said parents should teach their little ones to count rounds.
No. Just, No.
A. Gun. Is. Always. Loaded.
How do we get a legal requirement that doesn't get used to cut the spirit right out of the 2nd amendment protections? Pray?
Incidentally, that map I found?
I'm not saying it's impossible to do, but it'd be a herculean task to arrange.
The page with the map I mentioned, had a lot of other interesting information around it. One of the datums was the availability, which has consistently been above 97%. That is, better than 97% of the time, a dealer calls in, they get an operator, (or a working web page.)
There was a line in the law that assured that. One that said, if the FBI manages to fail to reply within a certain number of working days, the dealer can go ahead as if the background check came back clear. So the FBI was strongly encouraged to have a system that created the fewest delays rather than being encouraged to clear the fewest possible.
P.S. Find me the law that creates the ESRB, MPAA, or the (now defunct) CCA.
All three regulating agencies were formed by the interested parties to STAVE OFF government over-regulation. MPAA for movies, ESRB for games, CCA for comic books, while it existed.
46
@JOL
I don't feel discipline applies in this case, If it did, I think it'd involve a short <s>trial</s> court marshal, and a long rope. We're talking about what citizens are allowed to have on their own, not when acting under the orders of the government. Again, the 2nd amendment was tacked on as an assurance to the doubters that the federal government wouldn't "discover" the ability to lock up all the guns.
Kind of like they "discovered" the ability to force the states to post 55mph signs. Or they "discovered" (for a while at least,) the ability to restrict the possession of guns within some arbitrary radius of a school, (do you KNOW how many schools are situated on highways?), based on its potential impact on interstate commerce.
The voting comparison is to show that the government will use any lever in its arsenal to enact it's goals. If it has a lever that says it can set the standards required to vote, it'll set those standards to prevent "undesirables" from voting, while not ticking off the "good people", (hence, grandfather clauses). If it has a lever that says it can require all prospective gun owners demonstrate good marksmanship and sense prior to possessing a gun, it'll eventually set the requirements so high only Annie Oakley and a lawyer could pass it. One for each half of the examination. They might also go so far as to limit the evaluations to centralized locations that would require most prospective marksmen drive some five hundred miles on average in order to attend, on a Wednesday, between the hours of 9 and 3.
I found your CNN poll. I am frankly surprised they could find that many people who have apparently never purchased a gun in a gun shop or gun show. This is why I wonder if, somehow, the new buyers somehow missed that they were being given a background check, or what it entailed. I'm seriously wondering, if the respondents were answering in ignorance of the nature of some minor thing they had gone through.
Of course, they could be largely young adults who got all their guns under the Christmas tree, or baby boomers who haven't bought a gun since before the Clinton administration, but I'm suspecting ignorance of what a background check is, is a larger factor.
Your comment on 2/3rds vs. 1/3rd suggests you might not have considered that they may not be the same 2/3rds. If 1/3 is wholly trusting of the governments motives, and 2/3rds feel the government would use that data to confiscate guns, that 2/3rds who feel such a list SHOULD be made could be split 50-50 between those who trust the government not to do such confiscation, and those who want such a thing to happen.
Then there are those who are somewhere in the middle, who have been convinced by the popular media and some parts of the government that guns that look superficially like military arms shouldn't be available for private ownership (because Diane Sawyer and Hillary Clinton told them so, and they never lie), but delude themselves into thinking "normal" guns wouldn't be next to be confiscated.
Remember, that compromise is both the art of finding a middle ground between two parties, and also the practice of making something more prone to failure, generally in your favor. You compromise on dinner, but you compromise a wall.
Rick Perry moment? No. I just trust gun shops to look out for their own interests, and incidentally mine, more than I trust the federal government to look out for the interests of gun owners or gun dealers. While I'd PREFER everyone seek and get the training to be safe, I would rather not have that imposed upon this community from on high, as I fear it would fairly soon be abused to the point of a virtual ban.
Found the video. Watched the video. Do you honestly think that ad was aimed at kids? Why shouldn't parents be encouraged to pick up such a thing? A new shooter has to learn some time and under the guidance of a parent is far superior to figuring it out for themselves based on Hollywood misconceptions and urban lore.
Oh, and in comment on the joker who said parents should teach their little ones to count rounds.
No. Just, No.
A. Gun. Is. Always. Loaded.
How do we get a legal requirement that doesn't get used to cut the spirit right out of the 2nd amendment protections? Pray?
Incidentally, that map I found?
I'm not saying it's impossible to do, but it'd be a herculean task to arrange.
The page with the map I mentioned, had a lot of other interesting information around it. One of the datums was the availability, which has consistently been above 97%. That is, better than 97% of the time, a dealer calls in, they get an operator, (or a working web page.)
There was a line in the law that assured that. One that said, if the FBI manages to fail to reply within a certain number of working days, the dealer can go ahead as if the background check came back clear. So the FBI was strongly encouraged to have a system that created the fewest delays rather than being encouraged to clear the fewest possible.
P.S. Find me the law that creates the ESRB, MPAA, or the (now defunct) CCA.
All three regulating agencies were formed by the interested parties to STAVE OFF government over-regulation. MPAA for movies, ESRB for games, CCA for comic books, while it existed.