Biden vs Gun Owners

[Doublegunner]

People also need to realize that there is not a single Constitutional right that is free of all regulation and oversight. So what we are talking about are what those should be (in light of the constitution).

People also need to realize (or cite good SCOTUS precident to the contrary) that until Heller in 2008, the US constitution had never been found to provide for a private right of gun ownership. And even Heller itself - the most pro 2A SCOTUS ruling in history - specifically says, "Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited." Scalia also wrote, "nothing in our opinion (Heller) should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws impos ing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms." He goes further and says, "We also recognize another important limitation on the right to keep and carry arms . . . . the carrying of “dangerous and unusual weapons.” (citing support for Miller and the NFA) He then makes refernce to M14s as being such a regulatable weapon - but of course this reference is merely dicta.

Any position that gun ownership is untouchable and beyond any regulation is based upon zero understanding of the law or of history - and is instead advocating for a brand new view of gun ownership that has never had the power of law behind it - and as such should need to carry the burden of that position - as our Constitution simply does not support it.

I didn't say that the 2nd amendment is free from regulation. Far from it. What i said was that we have reached a point where FURTHER regulation is not necessary and in some jurisdictions they have gone too far. HELLER left a lot of questions unanswered which is the case with legal precedent. Its a compounding procedure that takes time. That being said every right we enjoy comes with costs. The courts will need to balance those. The 2nd amendment holds a very interesting place in our constitutional history in that the Supreme Court has substantially ignored it since our countries inception. Given the significant burdens placed by some legislative districts on this fundamental right the Supreme Court needs to start taking some of these cases.

 

[VikingsGuy]

I can’t imagine looking around the last year or so and concluding , boy, the government sure is a great bunch, they should have more power and we should have less.

I’ll consider giving an inch on gun rights when the US government can go a few decades without murdering innocent people. In my lifetime, I doubt they’ve gone a single day.

I take the opposite spin. When the nation is so safe, and the criminals so controlled, that ALL politicians, celebrities, businesses, athletes and rich people agree that they can not hire an armed security guard for any reason (and capital hill guards are replaced by tour guides) then I will consider the country safe enough to consider giving up my family's armed security guard (me).

 

[Ben Lamb]

Doubtful.

Represent

This interactive database is no longer available.

projects.propublica.org

Here's the actual text of Manchin-Toomey. It was nowhere near as sweeping as what Biden is proposing. https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/113/s649/text

I don't see this what the president is proposing getting 51 votes. It will make it through the House, but will die in the Senate. Which is unfortunate all around. Rather than wasting time on divisive & ineffectual gun bills, they should revisit parts of M-T especially relative to improving NCIS, & funding LEO's better to go after those who trip the trigger on background checks.

Going after every private sale or transfer is stupid too. There is literally no way to shut down f-t-f transfer outside of the gunshow loophole.

And none of what the president is proposing does anything to change the culture that has made the issue the health crisis it is today.

If we treated mental health like any other healthcare issue, we would go father to reducing gun violence than of the democrat's proposals to strip people of certain scary looking firearms.

 

[VikingsGuy]

I didn't say that the 2nd amendment is free from regulation. Far from it. What i said was that we have reached a point where FURTHER regulation is not necessary and in some jurisdictions they have gone too far. HELLER left a lot of questions unanswered which is the case with legal precedent. Its a compounding procedure that takes time. That being said every right we enjoy comes with costs. The courts will need to balance those. The 2nd amendment holds a very interesting place in our constitutional history in that the Supreme Court has substantially ignored it since our countries inception. Given the significant burdens placed by some legislative districts on this fundamental right the Supreme Court needs to start taking some of these cases.

Never said you did - my reply was to Shrapnel's post . . .

As for being ignored - part of the reason is that until the 1960's the Bill of Rights didn't apply to the states and most gun control was state law. So except for Miller and the NFA in the 30's there was very little federal gun regulation litigation for SCOTUS to review before 1970. And the concept of pushing legally for a personal federal 2A right really didn't start until the very late 60's and early 70's and initially was driven by radical civil rights groups (think black panthers). Heck the NRA was a propent of of some of the 1960's gun regulations including the birth of the FFL process. So, what some feel is an undeniable right that stood unquestioned for 300 years is just an artifact of poor memories and good marketing.

 

[Bowhunter999]

All hunters or gun owners who voted this president in, can share the responsibility of whatever befalls the gun grab that is potentially in our near future. It was known beforehand what this guys agenda was, so there are no excuses !! If this sounds too political, so be it, everything we do is controlled by politics.........

 

[shrapnel]

We do, it's called a driver's license and it involves more training, test and enforcement than most common gun regs.

Driving is a privilege, gun ownership is a right...

 

[VikingsGuy]

Driving is a privilege, gun ownership is a right...

A right that every Supreme Court Justice agrees comes with limitations/regulations - hence this discussion. This mantra does nothing to move the discussion forward and is not even the slightest bit pursuasive to anyone with even rudimentary understanding of the law. We make fun of anti-gun people for not understanding guns - maybe we need to start making fun of 2A advocates who do not understand the law.

edited: tweaked to take a bit of the unintended edge off

 

[shrapnel]

A right that every Supreme Court Justice agrees comes with limitations/regulations - hence this discussion. This mantra does nothing to move the discussion forward and is not even the slightest bit pursuasive to anyone with even rudimentary understanding of the law. I am a pro 2A individual and I find this type of argument embarassing. We make fun of anti-gun people for not understanding guns - maybe we need to start making fun of self appointed 2A advocates who do not understand the law or history.

I may be misunderstanding the point you are trying to make, but if you are insinuating I am an embarrassment to to you as a gun owner or U.S. citizen, you owe me an apology...

 

[VikingsGuy]

I may be misunderstanding the point you are trying to make, but if you are insinuating I am an embarrassment to to you as a gun owner or U.S. citizen, you owe me an apology...

Not you, I assume you are a stand up guy - a guy I would happily buy a beer. If you took it as a personal attack I am sorry. I was referring to the cut and paste arguments in general like "guns are a right, cars are not", "what don't you understand about 'shall not be infringed'", "all the founders intended . . . " or "out of my cold dead hands".

 

[Trial153]

All hunters or gun owners who voted this president in, can share the responsibility of whatever befalls the gun grab that is potentially in our near future. It was known beforehand what this guys agenda was, so there are no excuses !! If this sounds too political, so be it, everything we do is controlled by politics.........

Maybe you should not project your abject partisanship on all gun owners and hunters.
You may find it hard to believe but there actually are citizens/ hunters/ gun owner who weigh a broad range of issues and vote with awareness that their choice will have consequences on issues that they will both agree with and disagree with.

 

[shrapnel]

Vikingsguy,

Thank you for the clarification, I believe we both want the same thing, I am adamantly opposed to more regulation. The bumper sticker "out of my cold dead hands" however, is an embarrassment to gun owners and I don't like it, but I can't condemn it under first amendment rights and wish there was a better way of expressing oneself, but alas, this is America.

 

[Wildabeest]

All hunters or gun owners who voted this president in, can share the responsibility of whatever befalls the gun grab that is potentially in our near future. It was known beforehand what this guys agenda was, so there are no excuses !! If this sounds too political, so be it, everything we do is controlled by politics.........

So would you equally say that all people who voted the last one in have the blood of the Capitol siege on their hands? Inciting violence was part of almost every campaign rally leading up to the 2016 elections.

Interesting how perspectives change when the situation is flipped.

 

[BigHornRam]

The vote on that bill is hard to use to gauge 2A support. Some 2A supporters voted for it as a way heading off a more stringent bill also on the table, some 2A supporters voted against on base principle, some 2A haters voted against it because they wanted a vote on the more stringent bill and some 2A haters voted for it because they figured it was all they could get this session and would come back for more later. A real mish-mash.

All the Democrats other than Reid that voted no, were up for reelection in a red state. All including Reid are no longer in the Senate.

 

[BigHornRam]

Part of me says let Schumer wreck himself.

 

[Doublegunner]

In MN you need license and insurance to title it and to be able to drive it off the lot, could you maybe buy but never drive? Maybe but that is like saying you could pay for a gun but could never hold it. Getting a DL does involve a background process of sorts.

Not really. Its more like saying that you can buy a gun, take possession including buying the ammo (like gas) but never register it in your name. You can still possess it and own it. Legal use is a different analogy.

 

[longbow51]

Just remember:
All semi-auto rifles and handguns = Weapons of war
Bolt Action Rifles = Sniper Rifles
Shotguns = Riot Guns

 

[VikingsGuy]

Not really. Its more like saying that you can buy a gun, take possession including buying the ammo (like gas) but never register it in your name. You can still possess it and own it. Legal use is a different analogy.

Is a car that can't be driven really a car, or is it a really big paper weight. Without DL you can't drive lawfully.

By your rational, would it be ok to allow any person to take title to a gun but the minute they pulled the trigger they become an instant felon? Very weird logic trail you are going down.

 

[beginnerhunter]

I was pleasantly surprised with the recent Biden proposals. Many were fairly mainstream and have support even on this forum. The immunity for manufacturers is BS tho (edit: In that gun manufacturers should NOT be held responsible for unlawful use of their product). Would be interesting to see how this played out in the courts.

So basically it's stuff that doesn't really threaten me as a fairly comfortable, educated, privileged individual. Yet it's the kind of thing that will rally the pro 2A activists and be an electoral loser for Democrats (liberal Matt Yglesias has written about how increasing gun control doesn't help Democrats win elections:
https://www.slowboring.com/p/national-democrats-misguided-re-embrace . BTW, this article is confirmation bias for me, but the comments from some liberals suggests this article made them reconsider their position).

 

[sigpros]

I was pleasantly surprised with the recent Biden proposals. Many were fairly mainstream and have support even on this forum. The immunity for manufacturers is BS tho. Would be interesting to see how this played out in the courts.

So basically it's stuff that doesn't really threaten me as a fairly comfortable, educated, privileged individual. Yet it's the kind of thing that will rally the pro 2A activists and be an electoral loser for Democrats (liberal Matt Yglesias has written about how increasing gun control doesn't help Democrats win elections:
https://www.slowboring.com/p/national-democrats-misguided-re-embrace . BTW, this article is confirmation bias for me, but the comments from some liberals suggests this article made them reconsider their position).

So you think firearms manufacturers are responsible if someone uses their products in an unlawful way? Just getting clarification

 

[beginnerhunter]

So you think firearms manufacturers are responsible if someone uses their products in an unlawful way? Just getting clarification

Poor wording on my part, meant that allowing manufacturers to be liable for unlawful use of their products is BS.