Discussion on:

Constitutional Rights vs Voice of the People

The Iraq War was 2003. I fail to properly see the connection.

As for the hostage crisis, I draw your attention to my earlier point about the CIA's imposition of the Shah. We screwed their entire country, payback was to be expected. Then you tried an armed recue attempt...

I do find the US's attitude to Cuba truly outsiide of my ability to understand. You could have long since killed their regime off with kindness.

I'm just speculating as to how Islam became the target du jour. If you have other theories, by all means, trot them out.

I understood why the Iranian people wanted to unload the Shah, but I don't think that excused violating the generally accepted principle of diplomatic immunity.

But what I'm saying is that they, Iraq, Iran and Al Qaeda are scapegoats in that they were or are not the threats that they have been described as. In much the same way that the US particularly and the West in general are scapegoats for some Islamic countries.

Whether this is a deliberate and cynical ploy by the politicians or stupidity on the part of the politicians , I don't know.

"Whether this is a deliberate and cynical ploy by the politicians or stupidity on the part of the politicians , I don't know."

D. All of the above.

http://www.infowars.com/communists-cheer-on-obamas-gun-grab/

And your point, here? I'm assuming it's that communists are so implicitly bad that anything that they agree with is unhesitatingly wrong.

That was certainly the premise in the rubbish at the end of your link. Mao Tse Tung, for heavens's sake. He brought MaoTse Tung into the argument. Then, it got worse. Stalin. And then bloody Lenin! Shouldn't Godwin's Law apply to right-wing mouth-frothers? I think it should.

I loved the bit about the UK's "hunting ban". Context, please! The ban was on hunting foxes with dog packs. No guns here!

I loved the little sideways dig at the "journalist", with journalist in quotes. Hello! We can't have a communist journalist, eh? What sort of muppet wrote the piece? Googling him seems to suggest he's a conspiracy theory nut. That's well-supported by this piece of drivel!

I mean, "centralized monopoly of force which invariably turns tyrannical and deadly." We're doomed. We're all doomed.Well, we are over here as we don't have guns.

I usually follow any links that you post as, generally, you don't post links to total tosh. Don't make a habit of this!

By the way, what is it with the "Founding Fathers" and the reverence in which they seem to be held by you guys? So, it's really good for everyone to have guns but blacks have no rights?

..... that I just wanted to post that link.

Regarding your last question - reverence with our founders?

I'll answer your question (again), but why is it I have to answer the same kinds of questions over and over again. You guys don't seem to get a grasp of it.

It's not the people (founders); it's not the paper (constitution); it's the underlying principle - which means it's not really any given issue either, but rather the underlying principle which should act as a compass when considering issues.

Look at how dishonest ANSU is being up above about the definition of the word conservative - like I don't know the meaning of the word and its different variants and applications. He's hiding behind a word in an attempt to conceal his underlying principle. Likewise, people criticize "the founders" and the "constitution" as old white men and an out-dated piece of paper, all the while refusing to address the underlying principle, which is not outdated, and is inclusive to all men (gender neutral).

By the way, you knew that. So why did you have to ask?

On your pet peeve issue right now? And how I would reconcile our different outlooks and approaches?

Our federal government simply does not have the power to implement sweeping gun control laws. I would go on to explain myself, but I think I'll see what kind of criticism ..... I mean reply ..... that comment might generate.

It just makes you a tool.

I think we've established over the years that I really don't quite get it. Never have. Maybe you have to grow up with it to appreciate what it means. Maybe you have to have NOT grown up with and have grown up with a totally different system to get a different perspective. Let me try and explain what we have over here and then YOU may understand why I don't get it. Why we are SO different.

You have The Constitution. Capital 'T', capital 'C'. It's written on one document, codified, and amendable with great difficulty. Our constitution is uncodified, is contained in some documents such as the Magna Carta, the Bill of Rights the Act of Settlement, and the Act of Union but it is also, and mostly, contained in common law. It evolved haphazardly through conflicts between different power-groups over the last thousand years, Monarchy vs Barons, Monarchy vs Parliament, Parliament vs People giving rise to anything from minor constitutional changes through to major political upheaval and civil war. It eveolved through Case Law, Common Law and Acts of Parliament. It is now being further modified by interaction with the European Union via our signature on European Human rights legislation. The Human Rights Act enshrined the European Convention on Human Rights into UK law.

The reason we don't have a written constitution is because our country has been stable for a very long time when compared to most of the rest of the World. We remained free from the revolutionary fever that gave us the French Revolution and we weren't a new country like the US that required codification of citizens' rights as a necessary part of the process of independence. so we never bothered to write it down.

Your constitution tells you what your rights are, whereas our constitution is a little different in that we have the right to do anything EXCEPT that which is prohibited by law. The law, and therefore the constitution, in Britain doesn't tell us what rights we HAVE, it tells us what rights we DON'T have. To get to that point, by the way, you needed the 9th amendment.

We are a Constitutional Monarchy and Parliamentary Democracy. Parliament, using the power of the Crown, enacts law which no other body can challenge. Parliamentary sovereignty is commonly regarded as the defining principle of the British Constitution with the ultimate lawmaking power vested in a democratically elected Parliament to create or abolish any law.

It seems to work. We may get it all written down, one day. But, I suspect (and hope), not soon. And, if they do try and write it down, then it will probably be the wrong "they" and it will be wrong. And wrong forever. If it ain't broke, don't fix it. It gives us a constitution that, for the average Joe citizen (me), I have no real idea what my rights are but I haven't run up aginst anything obviously missing, yet. It's a constituution that is fluid and adaptable but because we have had it for a long time, it changes slowly and not in big jumps.

It is changing, though. We have had the introduction of codified rights of individuals for the the first time in the Human Rights Act 1998, and devolution to Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. These recent constitutional reforms may have made the constitution less flexible in some respects as, certainly, devolution would seem difficult to reverse and that goes against the principle that no Parliament should pass a law that another Parliament cannot undo.

So. do I understand your adherence to a rigid document written some hundreds of years ago by men who had no idea how the world would be now? No, not really. But I have the same trouble understanding religions and for much the same reasons.

To think about it, there's only one reason I get involved in anything political in the first place.

I'd much rather just stroll along the yellow brick road of my life, being content in not knowing where it will lead and knowing it offers no guarantees; minding my own business, and taking care of my own business - and certainly not minding anyone else's business; not bothering anyone at all, not hurting anyone, and being willing to stop and help someone I see along my way; and so on.

But I'm always finding myself saying (or thinking) things like:

Leave me the f^%$& alone - mind your own business - I don't give a rat's ash about your stupid problem - I'm responsible for your what? - You've got to be f#$$^%& kidding me! - I said to MIND YOUR OWN BUSINESS - Don't suck me into your stupid scheme - You believe what? - You believe who? - You've got to be f#$$^%& kidding me! - I said to MIND YOUR OWN BUSINESS - and on it goes.......

Do you know what I mean, Neli?

will answer you later. I may join in.

I'll blame the rant. (Upon rereading, that was funny!)

I really do, in fact I feel the same way quite often, when I do I find it best to give my head a shake and not care about people begging for help.

Much like yourself, I prefer to help people when I see a need to help them, not when I'm told to or asked to.

Before you bring it up, I don't get the same feeling from having welfare take my tax dollars to help others. I just don't and I know you see it as the same thing and perhaps I should too but I accept it as a necessary evil.

I really do relate to that mindset though, 'who am I to resolve your screw ups?'

Not a great example but playing on the same mindset, there's a guy at the track who ALWAYS asks you to buy him a pop when you turn up. As soon as you walk in the door its "Hey, see the Canucks game last night? Buy me a pop?"

Okay, in his defense he is a bit slow, actually he's quite slow, I'm not sure what actual mental issues he has but he's surely not on par with the rest of us.

I'm patient for that simple fact of course and I'll always buy him a pop because, well, because he's 'an old face at the track, in his mid 50's now and there are worse people I have to deal with.

It has gotten to the point now though where he EXPECTS you to buy him a pop.
HE -"It's Chinese New Year, you gonna buy me a pop for Chinese New Year?"
I - 'Sure man, I'll get you a pop when I buy my next beer.'
HE - "When are you getting your next beer?"
I - 'Not sure buddy, but I won't forget okay?'

At this point I haven't even checked in, bought a voucher, taken off my coat or found my seat at the bar.

I - order a beer and a pop. 'Hey buddy, here's that pop you wanted'
HE - 'Oh, okay, there's one muffin left, buy me a muffin?'

This is where I get ticked. The guy gets disability, welfare or whatever, he practically LIVES at the track (in fact he was all worked up last week because they decided to open an hour later in the morning) He used to have a menial job at some warehouse, flattening boxes or whatever, but he had a job, bottom line.
His sister, who nobody has met, is known to be rather wealthy and it seems that the track has become the place they tell him to hang out all day, like a care home.

So while I have NO PROBLEM buying a guy a pop, and in his case he does have some issues where he doesn't comprehend courtesy, it is STILL that sense that he is entitled to something and expects a handout that gets to me.

To be fair, I try not to encourage it but I do always by him a pop, as does everyone else he knows there. But I have also told him before that I'll buy him a pop if I feel like it and that it's not good to just walk around asking everyone for a pop.

It's getting to the point now though that I think, 'why does your family just expect you to come and beg here all day? If your family is wealthy, then why aren't THEY being responsible for your well being?'

I think they actually do give him a bit of money each day for food etc. but he'll just drop it on a horse and then ask someone to buy him food or drink. I don't see it as HIS fault but more so his family's fault. It's like they have just put him out to pasture, please forgive the pun.

I work all day and stop in for a beer and a bite after work, see a few old familiar faces and place a few bets while waiting out rush hour. Why is it MY issue to take care of him? If you don't 'help him out' then someone else will offer up handout and you get dirty looks for saying no to him or telling him to wait a while.

Then it's a matter of I'm an a$$hole for not cowtowing to his pleas, which is also encouraging it.

Note: This is also a guy who can drink gallon after gallon of pop. He'll take a large pop and drink it all without stopping for a breath.

Perhaps a poor example but it was just last night that I was thinking about it, 'why am I a bad guy for not offering a hand out EVERY TIME I SEE THE GUY?" And I see him several times a week.

Buying him a pop doesn't have any financial impact on me, if he is hungry and wants a muffin, NO PROBLEM! It's not the money, it's just the expectation that I have money and so I should be offering handouts every time.

Rant over, sorry, i tried to stay somewhat on track but it was a bug in my ear that I had to clear out.

Its very brevity makes it accomodating to a variety of historical eras. The secret to its usefulness is that legislators, courts, and the people have to accomodating of change. And they have been, for the most part. Americans start from a naive faith in the sweet nature of progress, and reshape their habits, institutions, and congressional interpretation to make the best out of whereever progress takes them.

There were some rascals in the early and mid 19th century who resisted progress, but we had a transformative little war and fixed them, more or less.

that gives you weirdies like the Second Amendment that is interpreted so many ways by so many different people. You have the Eigth Amendment and yet you have capital punishment, waterboarding, Gitmo and the largest prison population in the World. Certainly, it's flexible if the scope for (mis)interpretation is added in with Judicial Reviews to change the meaning every so often.

The Eighteenth and the Twenty-First were fun, eh? The Land Of The (Alcohol) Free.

Still, whatever suits you.

Lucky you could get your Civil Rights Act through without a Constitutional Amendment else they'd still be at the back of the bus.

The PATRIOT Act managed to go through without a Constitutional Amendment and if ever there was a case of something actually making all those guns relevent, that was it. But the concept of the armed citizenry acting as a brake on government is so much bollux, anyway. The chances of enough of you agreeing what's wrong with your government and what should be done about it is zero. But, hey, it's your constitutional right to fail to think through the fine detail so you're damn well going to keep it.

The French Revolution gave us the Terror and then Napoleon. The Russian Revolution gave us Lenin and then Stalin. What makes you think a bunch of armed Libertarians arguing which of the sayings of Ayn Rand should be sanctified into law are going to last any longer than the Provisional Government in Russia?

Just noting that among the English speaking peoples, in every land, a proper respect for liberty, process, and free speech has its failing moments.

The Patriot Act's actual Orwellian name (it's so easy to forget) is "Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism"; the acronym is USA PATRIOT. The point of the whole name is to come up with that acronym, which actually means "any congressman who votes against this bill is against the USA and against patriotism and is a turd who should be wiped from the national butt in the 2002 mid-term elections." The secret code embedded therein may not be as obvious to people outside the USA as it was to us, here.

I remember wanting to applaud the few lawmakers that refused to vote for it.
Just one senator voted against it in 2001, Russ Feingold. Voted against it in 2006, too.
66 reps voted against it in 2001, just a handful of them Republicans.

It's pretty draconian in that the people who define "secret" are not always -seldom - justified in so doing. However, it has a long long way to go to catch up with the Patriot Act! Just a few pleasantries...

Third-party holders of your financial, library, travel, video rental, phone, medical and place of worship records can be searched without your knowledge or consent, providing the government says it's "trying to protect against terrorism".

Secret searches can be authorised by a secret court without accountability, so long as there is a putative "foreign intelligence" basis for the search.

An unknowing association with a "known" terrorist is a deportable offense.

It's even got us over here. If I do business with a UK subsidiary of a US-based cloud operator, even if I specify that English law applies and I mandate a UK-based data centre operating under EU data protection laws, the FBI can still get access to my data.

The point I was making -and still am - was that you have the Patriot Act DESPITE the rights that some (a lot) of Americans keep wittering on about in threads on gun laws and such. Yes, we have similar laws and government control and nanny state the EU is about as anti-democratic as it's possible to be but what we DON'T do is bang endlessly on about "Freedom" and "Inalienable Rights" and feel it our duty to export the ideal.

We just went about bitchslapping half of the World into the shape we wanted. Don't know why we gave it up. Everywhere has gone to the dogs, since and at least we were honest about our reasons for Empire.

"Our federal government simply does not have the power to implement sweeping gun control laws."

We disagree on the word 'sweeping'. Would you say the federal government has any power to pass any gun control laws? Does any law on the subject automatically default to violating the 2nd amendment? For example, does federal registration of serial numbers violate the right to keep and bear? If so, how?

I wonder how some of the current laws have passed constitutional scrutiny (generally speaking, that is). Nonetheless, I think any federal gun law is treading on dangerous territory, in that it arguably violates the second amendment.

Arguably being the key component of my comment, with respective arguments taken to extremes on either side - and again, to say "extremes" is even subjective.

By the way, I'm not sure how to respond to you (or anyone else, for that matter) when you nitpick on words. Gee, I used the word "sweeping". Maybe I could have pulled another word out of my ash (tray) that would have been more appropriate for more people. Sometimes things just come out without having been given a lot of thought. I wish people would nitpick less and seek overall understanding more; and I think the former prevents the latter - oftentimes done intentionally, but not always.

Does registering the serial numbers of my weapons to the federal government violate the text of the 2nd amendment? How in the hell do I know? How in the hell does anybody know? Arguably, both yes and no, depending on who you ask and what their desired end result is. And it's for that kind of reason I'd prefer to start with the premise and work up (something advocates of progressivism refuse to do (because they fear to do), by the way).

Do I want to give the serial numbers of my weapons to the federal government? Hell no. That's not the intent of the federal government in regards to any of the articles or amendments of the constitution - the rules under which government must operate.

"That's not the intent of the federal government in regards to any of the articles or amendments of the constitution..."

"...promote the general welfare..."

I don't know how they've gotten away with it.

Neither does my buddy, James:

With respect to the words general welfare, I have always regarded them as qualified by the detail of powers connected with them. To take them in a literal and unlimited sense would be a metamorphosis of the Constitution into a character which there is a host of proofs was not contemplated by its creators."

"If Congress can employ money indefinitely to the general welfare, and are the sole and supreme judges of the general welfare, they may take the care of religion into their own hands; they may appoint teachers in every State, county and parish and pay them out of their public treasury; they may take into their own hands the education of children, establishing in like manner schools throughout the Union; they may assume the provision of the poor; they may undertake the regulation of all roads other than post-roads; in short, every thing, from the highest object of state legislation down to the most minute object of police, would be thrown under the power of Congress.... Were the power of Congress to be established in the latitude contended for, it would subvert the very foundations, and transmute the very nature of the limited Government established by the people of America."

- James Madison (regarding the general welfare clause)

I think I follow Palmetto's lead on this and I also wonder how changing how guns are registered actually infringes on the right to bear arms.As far as I can tell, nobody has removed rights, they are just keeping a registry of who, what and when.

I light of the current out of control situation, is it really so impeding ?

Secondly, and I see both views to this again, why would registering your guns with the Federal government be an issue? Do you oppose having your licence plate number being held in a central database ? If not, is the difference simply the fact that you don't have a right to drive noted in the Constitution?

I know, 'they know enough about me already, too much in fact, why do they need to micromanage my affairs?

I completely agree with that view point too, in fact I simply didn't exist about 5 years ago, England thought I was Canadian, Canada thought I was British, income tax didn't know where I was etc. It felt pretty nice for a few years but I really don't care now and am tracked like a bear in the woods.

What is the actual issue with respect to the 2nd amendment though?
Is it a feeling that the loss of SOME rights will lead to the loss of others too?

Is it even an actual loss of rights? Control, not removal?

Is it that American rights get trampled on enough and people are just fed up now?

Is it that the information they want to collect is seen as useless and just a reason to collect personal data?

I just don't get how it's an issue or why people are so enraged over the whole matter. If it was me, I don't know how I would oppose it, not being American of course.

Living in Canada, I thought it was pretty easy to go and get a permit, I didn't find a mandatory wait time to be an inconvenience of any sort. As long as you are not a criminal or psycho, you can have a gun, that basis seems pretty fair and acceptable to me, in fact I'm glad someone IS keeping tabs on guns.

Perhaps this really is one of those things that, unless you are American, you just don't understand it.

or is it one of those things where, you FEEL, that unless someone is American they wouldn't understand freedoms and liberties?

How its even a topic of discussion that lasted more than 5 minutes baffles me.
To me its like saying "The number of deaths due to guns is going through the roof in our country. Let's put together a together registry and REALLY check people out before issuing a permit."

To me that would be,
'I second the motion',
'motion carried, next order of business...'

Seems like such a no brainer, I just don't get it.

I THINK what Americans see is:
'okay, I second the motion''motion carried'
'next order of business, taking guns away from women under 40'
'motion carried'
'next order of business, taking guns away from white msales living in populated aread'
'motion carried'
etc?

Is that the fear, one allowance will lead to others, give them an inch and they take a mile?

"England thought I was Canadian, Canada thought I was British,..."

Are you sure it wasn't just that neither wanted you?

And yes, some people view gun registration as the first step down an increasingly steep slope that leads to restriction and inevitably prohibition.

Surely if that was their aim, they'd just do it right off the bat. No need to piddle around. I think the US knows very well just how poorly their attempts at prohibition have been (drugs and booze? c'mon, there are more guns in the US than drugs, I'd think).

Why do so many Americans not trust the government and yet state it's the best place on the planet to live?
There's got to be SOME association there, one would think that feeling you live in the best nation would go hand in hand with feeling you had the best government too.

It seems that most people want to stop irresponsible use of guns, especially those who are properly trained and practice for sport. The bad ones always make it worse for the good ones. But those same people fear that the government will strip them of their rights. They want more control but don't want more control?!

Is it that people feel the PEOPLE committing crimes need to be corrected and not the laws themselves?

How can that possibly work? If we could determine people's mental weaknesses that closely, there would be no crime and no plea of insanity.

I just don't get it. It seems the focus is that if each side argues about ridiculous fallacies, then nothing gets done and everyone carries on as usual, except the problem continues to escalate.

For a nation full of forward thinking people, how do those, who are stuck in the dark ages and simply won't accept that change is needed, have such a voice?

Seriously, I just don't see how its even an issue of debate, especially one that constantly results in a stalemate. I might say Americans are gullible consumers or that they can be lead like sheep but seriously, this can't just be a matter of people's blind ignorance, or is it?

I don't buy into that theory myself. I don't distrust our government as much as regard it as too incompetent to pull off something like total weapons ban. Even if such a proposed amendment would get through Congress, it would never get past the state legislatures. Anyway, the alcohol prohibition demonstrated that total bans are unenforceable.

Long guns in Canada were required to be registered since 1993, but that part of the law was thrown out by the Conservative government last year. Handguns have been registered in Canada since the 1930s.

There have been restrictions on automatic weapons, clip sizes, regulations around safe storage etc. mandatory safety training, for decades.

So it is entirely possible to implement some controls, but not slide down some slippery slope into a ban.

That;s the way I see it. Clearly many Americans fear that if they give an inch the government takes a mile. I know I have seen some changes and proposals here too that many, including myself, saw as a start with more to come. I can understand that mindset but it seems SO ingrained into so many US minds that one has to wonder if they trust government at all or if they feel its a crooked operation that needs to be either fixed by noncompliance or replaced entirely.

I think again the whole left vs right issue comes into play. the right will oppose Obama, no matter what, no matter how valid and no matter the reasons. He's left and must be opposed without consideration. If a right wing president were in office, I think it might play out similar though. Either he would be a visionary and everyone accepted change but it is more likely they'd see him a s flip-flopper or a democrat in a republican's clothing.

I know some actually feel that there should be no government at all, free reign for all etc. But I think that's seen as pretty radical by most.

I honestly don't see the US government trying to take it to great lengths, even if people agreed to more stringent checks and longer wait times. the ONLY benefit I see from that is reduced, random killing sprees and fewer guns landing in irresponsible hands.

Granted, it won't stop all gun violence nor is it be proposed to do so, but ANY life saved is still one life saved. As I said before, how many lives saved does it need to be deemed a worthy solution, 1, 15, 50?

The fear of a slippery slope is somewhat valid, if the government has been proven to do so in the past, but I honestly don't see it being taken to that extreme. Any elected leader in power at such a time would never see reelection, it just wouldn't make sense politically either.

I think it's the common fear, uncertainty and doubt.

Fear of change. Uncertainty on how it will take effect and who it will effect. Doubt toward the effectiveness of dramatic change or the seemingly inevitable slippery slope.

I don't see any of those reasons as a valid excuse to not save more lives; even if just a few, it's a valid change.

"It should come as no surprise that the Communist Party USA is on board with President Obamas plan to attack Americans right to keep and bear arms as a means to 'end gun violence.'"

I disagree with the article's title of 'gun grab', and I disagree that the proposed changes to gun regulations are an 'attack on rights to keep and bear arms'. These phrases tell me the article is not going to be impartial.

I don't buy into the 'slippery slope' theory that any regulation automatically leads to elimination. We had an ban on so-called assault weapons for a decade; it didn't lead to the elimination of other types of weapons.

I see nothing wrong with closing the 'gun show loophole'. Travelling retailers should be required to comply with the same laws as brick-and-mortar retailers.

I don't see anything wrong with state or national databases tracking serial numbers. We do the same with automobile VINs; that's hadn't led to government confiscation of cars, but does make it harder to sell stolen ones, return recovered stolen property to its owner, and identify vehicles used in crimes.

If that makes me a communist, fine with me. I wasn't aware that agreeing with someone on one principle automatically meant I agreed with them on all principles, but so be it, comrade. I guess I'm a lesbian too.

That's all I read.

.

no text

If they start having a central registration database of your serial numbers, the next step is to remove your right to ignore posts.

From my view, whic seems to mirror your own, the entire premise of the first paragraph is convoluted and one sided. "Obama's plan to attack Americans right to keep and bear arms" sounds pretty biased in it's context. Is Obama REALLY out to "attack" people's rights? or does he propose that some changes need to be made for the nation and to safely progress?

"as a means to end gun violence" I could be wrong but I highly doubt he's said as much, at least not in that simple context. It is a means to help reduce unnecessary deaths and greater CONTROL will most likely validate the effort.

Once again, how many lives saved does it take to make it a valid solution?

It's a bit of a trick question really. IF the answer is 1, then clearly it shows a value toward human life. If you say 10 or 50 or 100, then one's humanity is questionable. The question is still very valid though, if one is to deny such actions as being valid, then they surely have a value placed on human life and HOW MUCH VALUE is the key question, which any 'freedom of gun ownership' supporter can not honestly answer.

The whole registry idea even upsets some. As Max said, not to point fingers but purely as example, he wouldn't feel comfortable with the serials of his guns being kept in a central registry by the government. It's completely understandable that one would feel almost violated and sharing similar information makes a person uneasy. I've felt the same way about other issues with government knowledge of my activities.

Nobody seems to mind them having a record of your vehicle registration though.

What's the difference with guns? They are just as lethal, if not more, than a car?

I understand there are over 5000 THOUSAND gun shows in the US each year! It's simply a staggering number, more than car shows, electronics shows, boat shows, home shows etc. and I mean a LOT more.

LOL, without even reading it, I had replied to the registration comment with the same view as yourself.

As for your newly found political status, I wouldn't worry about it. I'm tagged as a left wing, tree hugging , commie, socialist.

In reality I am none of the above though.

That article is so unhinged I don't know where to begin.

The persistent lie about Hitler taking away the guns (he didn't, it was the Weimar government's response to the requirements of the Treaty of Versailles).

Along with the rights to have and bear arms comes the responsibility to understand and maintain the weapon of choice. I found a gunsmith that installs the Smart technology in handguns. Now I can leave my weapon out and it will not fire for anyone but me. The same goes for my wifes piece. As yet I haven't looked at the manual for the multiuser program but it supposed to handle up to five users. It doesn't use a ring or bracelet but has two biometric pads on each side of the grip. The solution?? NO but it might insure my own piece won't be used against me. Slanted more towards law enforcement as the black market has become over run with the rings and bracelets crooks wear just in case. Pretending you need an assault rifle for anything other than hunting humans is a bit see through and a poor defense for logic. One doesn't drive a car without some real experience and guns should be the same way.. Remember, a crash in car can be tragic but an accident with a gun can be lethal.

Ban person-to-person gun sales.
The thing to bear in mind here is this: The US has so many legal firearms, so many of which turn into illegal firearms, that people are smuggling them to Mexico!!!
Chew on that for a sec.
If people are smuggling something from a high-earning country, into a low-earning country, there's something not right.
The FBI is confident that theft, gun shows and person-to-person sales account for the bulk of the illegal weapons.
Considering that gun show salesmen are allowed to sell firearms without background checks for the same reasons private persons are, that's a two-fer.
As for theft: Put damn license plates on the weapons. Demand secure storage. Theft is hard to avoid, but it is possible to make people store the weapons so that they're hard to steal.

Illegal guns are a big problem, and there are insane amounts of them.

The Local Police Station was broken into and the side arms stolen from the safe. Well actually the safe and half the wall where stolen and latter found but by that time the safe was empty and several Glocks where missing.

Unfortantly there is no easy way to prevent something like that from occurring though I am however still amazed that they got away with it as the Police Station was in a residential area with lots of people around and no one noticed some sort of truck backing up to the wall of the Police Station and tearing it out.

I would have imagined that the thieves made quite a lot of noise with the way they took the safe.

Though why the US Government can not use Computers to store the Records of Fire Arm Owners is beyond my understanding.

Col

"Though why the US Government can not use Computers to store the Records of Fire Arm Owners is beyond my understanding."

Technically, it's not 'can not', but 'may not'.

But the only reason that it's like that is because someone or some group wants to prevent fast access to information and the most likely reason is that the Baddies want it that way.

Col

Preventing the government from using computers reinforces the "Government can't do anything right" refrain because people can point to the inefficiency of not using computers in today's world. The first argument then justifies arguments that there shouldn't be any expansion of what the government is already not doing correctly.

That the NRA not only fully supports, but lobbied for, the current woeful state of affairs at ATF is immaterial in their fallacious arguments.

That one always makes me chuckle. Being Ron Obvious is often the best way to be unnoticed. People think that it MUST be legit, nobody would be THAT obvious when committing a crime!

When I worked in store security, many many moons ago, we did some video testing with old crimes to see how brazen thieves would actually be. Two guys walked into The Bay (Hudson's Bay Company, largest and oldest department store, ex trading post company in Canada). They went to the candy department and bought $1.50 worth of candy, which was put into a Bay bag, and casually munched away while strolling the store and checking out security. They walked up to a canoe in the sporting good department, taped the empty bag onto one of the seats and thanked security for holding the door as they walked out of the store with it.

They ended up getting arrested three days later, not because they were tracked down by great security and cameras but because they returned and tried to do the same thing to steal the paddles ! Clever to start but why not a different store for paddles?!?

Needless to say we all pee'd ourselves with laughter but it can happen to the best of us, even the police (not to suggest they are the best of us).

Because if they had the sense to change stores, they'd probably be smart enough to have real jobs and be able to afford to buy canoes and paddles instead of stealing them.

They probably figured that since it worked once, it would work every time. Never a good assumption when breaking the law.

Actually two. Return to the crime scene and repeat the same crime. DOH! A lot more people would still be out there if they only had some common sense and didn't act on impulse.

"To date, the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) has prevented nearly 1.8 million criminals and other prohibited purchasers from buying guns. The law also has a deterrent effectprohibited purchasers are less likely to try to buy guns when they know comprehensive background check requirements are in place. "

"Unfortunately, current federal law requires criminal background checks only for guns sold through licensed firearm dealers, which account for just 60% of all gun sales in the United States. A loophole in the law allows individuals not engaged in the business of selling firearms to sell guns without a licenseand without processing any paperwork. That means that two out of every five guns sold in the United States change hands without a background check."

"Unfortunately, only six states (CA, CO, IL, NY, OR, RI) require universal background checks on all firearm sales at gun shows. Three more states (CT, MD, PA) require background checks on all handgun sales made at gun shows. Seven other states (HI, IA, MA, MI, NJ, NC, NE) require purchasers to obtain a permit and undergo a background check before buying a handgun. Florida allows its counties to regulate gun shows by requiring background checks on all firearms purchases at these events. 33 states have taken no action whatsoever to close the Gun Show Loophole."

There are over 5000 gun shows in the us each year, compared to how many car shows, boat shows, home shows?

It's so far out of control that no single measure will do much but every small step helps. Perhaps this is why so many Americans feel they will be stripped of rights and stripped of freedoms.

In the same sense, I was always told to pick my battles wisely. If the government were looking to restrict free speech, freedom of press or freedom of religion, I would strongly oppose THOSE right being taken away. But with something as stupid as gun ownership, I think Americans need to get a grip on what's actually important. Owning a gun is not important, it is a luxury. There are cases where it is very important but in such cases it is also legal and a matter of safety, security, police etc. For the average American to fight for gun freedom is simply insane to me. Nobody actually NEEDS a gun. Sport and hunting are fine examples of a DESIRE but not a need. Carrying a weapon for safety when in the wild is a NEED, even though just about any loud noise will work, except in the case of grizzlies. MOST wild animals flee at the sound of even distant human voices though.

This whole protection of your home, family and property is a crappo excuse to me though. Other country's with more stringent gun laws still have the odd home invasion but not to the point that most homeowners feel a NEED to protect themselves with a firearm. When I grew up, guns were simply for cowards. Anyone carrying a gun in the street or having one to protect their home would have been knocked out and laughed at for being such a pu$$y.

Back on topic, person to person gun sales are, for the most part, unregulated and often allow serious crimes to go forward. With 60% of US guns being obtained by any SCHMOE with a wallet, how is gun control such a confusing issue?

Put an end to it, it doesn't infringe on your freedoms to be checked out before being allowed to buy a gun.

IT's baffling how many Americans get so upset over something as gun registrations. As an upstanding citizen, how could such a system possibly be infringing on your rights?