First Gun Confiscation Killing...

[Sparko]

Which was my point. You vastly underestimated the number of mass shootings carried out by legal gun owners - and still are, since your original claim wasn't limited to events after 2008. You underestimated the numbers so much that you were effectively shifting the blame for mass shootings onto illegal gun owners.They shouldn't. No-one says they should. The blame should be placed on those who allow potential mass shooters to purchase their weapons legally.

Unless you can come up with a reliable mind-reading device, one that can actually look into the FUTURE motives of people, how do you expect to prevent potential shooters from buying guns if they have no record of crime or insanity? And if they are a felon or certifiably insane, they will already fail the background check.

This is reality, not the Minority Report.

[lilpixieofterror]

Dodging: (actual definition): not answering.

Thanks for playing.

Already answered in the form of a question sweety, but I figured your incapable of reading between the lines as always. Now again, why are people that use their property legally responsible for people that use their property illegally? Do answer or are you dodging?

[lilpixieofterror]

Our Constitution was written by imperfect men, not by god, and so they weren't thinking 200 years into the future, they were thinking about the common weapons of the time, i.e. they were talking about muskets and such. You still have the right to bear arms, but that doesn't mean that that right is unlimited. If due to the lack of common sense as portrayed by so many on the right, we need to amend the Constitution in order to make clear to you that the right to bear arms is not an unlimited right, then perhaps we should do that, even though your own conservative justices have already interpreted that to be a common sense fact.

Btw, would you say that it is absolutely everyones right to bear arms, because the Constitution isn't explicit in answer to that question either?

[Roy]

Unless you can come up with a reliable mind-reading device, one that can actually look into the FUTURE motives of people, how do you expect to prevent potential shooters from buying guns if they have no record of crime or insanity? And if they are a felon or certifiably insane, they will already fail the background check.

The article I cited earlier includes several examples of people with criminal or mental health histories who did not fail the background checks. Looking at the future wasn't necessary in those cases - proper examination of the past and present would have sufficed.

Turning the background check from a negative test to a positive one would help too, as would ensuring that all relevant records are incorporated into the background check (which was recently vetoed). Getting rid of the idiotic clause that allows some-one to buy guns if their background check doesn't come back in time is an obvious step too.

This is reality, not the Minority Report.

Then deal with reality, not your fantasy world where there have only been a few mass shooters, none of whom had criminal or mental health records.

If you can't accept the scale or nature of the problem, you're part of it.

[lilpixieofterror]

The article I cited earlier includes several examples of people with criminal or mental health histories who did not fail the background checks. Looking at the future wasn't necessary in those cases - proper examination of the past and present would have sufficed.

Turning the background check from a negative test to a positive one would help too, as would ensuring that all relevant records are incorporated into the background check (which was recently vetoed). Getting rid of the idiotic clause that allows some-one to buy guns if their background check doesn't come back in time is an obvious step too.

Already dealt with. How do you plan on changing HIPPA laws?

Then deal with reality, not your fantasy world where there have only been a few mass shooters, none of whom had criminal or mental health records.

If you can't accept the scale or nature of the problem, you're part of it.

What is the odds of running into a mass shooter dear?

[JimL]

Jim, they were not idiots, they knew firearms technology would increase as time went on. They saw it increase in their own time, going from muskets to rifles and cannons and even machine guns as I showed you earlier. Your tired refrain has been defeated repeatedly and yet you just repeat it again and again. They expected that as firearms got better, the people would also keep better firearms. They would stay current.

And again, they were not PERMITTING the people to have firearms, muskets or not. The 2nd amendment just confirms that the people already HAVE the right to bear arms and the the government cannot infringe upon it.

Do you know what infringe means, Jiml? Please explain it to us.

Sparko, is it your opinion that the Founders meant that it is the right of every single person to bear arms, and that that right shall not in any case be infringed?

[Sparko]

The article I cited earlier includes several examples of people with criminal or mental health histories who did not fail the background checks. Looking at the future wasn't necessary in those cases - proper examination of the past and present would have sufficed.

And we have said that if they would properly enforce the laws we currently have they wouldn't need to keep trying to invent new ones to take away guns from those who should legally be able to have them. A background check is only as good as the information placed into a persons record. If someone is certifiably insane and it doesn't get into their record, how is a background check going to find it?

Turning the background check from a negative test to a positive one would help too, as would ensuring that all relevant records are incorporated into the background check (which was recently vetoed). Getting rid of the idiotic clause that allows some-one to buy guns if their background check doesn't come back in time is an obvious step too.

I can agree with that.
Although I am not sure what you mean by turning it into a positive vs negative? I am not aware of any law that says if the background check doesn't come back in time they can get a gun. I think it needs to show up as "clear" or not clear to buy a gun. But I have not watched one be done, but I have had at least 3 done in the last year. One to get my Global Entry/TSA Precheck, One to get my handgun license, and one when I actually bought my gun. But none of that is a guarantee that I won't go completely nuts 5 years from now is it?

[Sparko]

Sparko, is it your opinion that the Founders meant that it is the right of every single person to bear arms, and that that right shall not in any case be infringed?

What they 'mean' is irrelevant if they are not GIVING us the right. They only acknowledge we already have the right and they can't infringe on it.

So again, do you know what infringe means? Please explain it to us.

[Roy]

And we have said that if they would properly enforce the laws we currently have they wouldn't need to keep trying to invent new ones to take away guns from those who should legally be able to have them. A background check is only as good as the information placed into a persons record. If someone is certifiably insane and it doesn't get into their record, how is a background check going to find it?

It won't. So you need to make sure that mental health issues are covered by the background check.

I can agree with that.
Although I am not sure what you mean by turning it into a positive vs negative?

Change the process from
- is there any reason why this person shouldn't own a gun
to
- is there enough evidence to show that this person can be trusted with a gun.

[Sparko]

It won't. So you need to make sure that mental health issues are covered by the background check. Change the process from
- is there any reason why this person shouldn't own a gun
to
- is there enough evidence to show that this person can be trusted with a gun.

Well the latter would be a problem with the 2nd amendment. And a lot harder to validate. It is easier and more legal to find a reason why someone should not be allowed to have something they have a constitutional right to have, rather than to find a reason why they should be allowed something they already have a constitutional right to have.

In other words, everyone has a right to own a gun, unless they can show a good reason why they can't, like being a criminal or insane.

And the problem with putting mental health issues on a background check is that it conflicts with the HIPAA privacy laws that says nobody can reveal a person's health records without their permission. I agree that something needs to be done, but in this case the government has tied their own hands and unless they change something, it can't be done easily. Now if someone was arrested for doing something and it became known they were insane, then it would become part of their legal record. Like if they went nuts and tried to kill themselves or harm other people. Unfortunately sometimes when that happens it is already too late.

[Roy]

Well the latter would be a problem with the 2nd amendment.

Then have another amendment.

[Sparko]

Then have another amendment.

[Roy]

It is how it works. There are procedures for amending the constitution, and they've been invoked a couple of dozen times, including to reverse previous amendments. It was done for prohibition.

[JimL]

What they 'mean' is irrelevant if they are not GIVING us the right. They only acknowledge we already have the right and they can't infringe on it.

So again, do you know what infringe means? Please explain it to us.

That they weren't giving us that right doesn't mean that they believed, or that that right was, somehow inherent. It simply meant that there was no law against it at the time. And the reason that they raised the issue at all had to do with the perceived need of a well regulated militia. As far as infringed goes, they obviously had in mind its application to the common weapons of the time, not to nuclear weapons. But I do realize that common sense is necessary in order to understand that and that perhaps due to the lack thereof we may have to amend the 2nd amendment.

Does an infant have the right to bear arms, a 4 year old, an insane person, a murderer, a felon in prison? These things weren't spelled out for you either, the founding fathers assumed common sense would prevail I guess.

[Sparko]

It is how it works. There are procedures for amending the constitution, and they've been invoked a couple of dozen times, including to reverse previous amendments. It was done for prohibition.

You said have another amendment. You can't use a new amendment to just cancel an old one. And the bill of rights was written to delineate rights WE ALREADY HAVE and to limit the government's interference. We have the right to bear arms. No amendment can take that away. Any attempt would be actually breaking the 2nd amendment.

Once the government tries to take away rights that they never granted in the first place they have destroyed the constitution and all of our freedoms are in jeopardy. They could take away the freedom of the press or freedom of speech or religion just as easily.