You can already get in a heap of trouble for selling to prohibited people. They don't specifically make you check out the person, but it's certainly an option and people do it to protect themselves. If you sell a gun to a felon and get caught, you'll soon learn that it wasn't a "legal channel" at all.
Heller - 'arms in common civilian use'
- Thread starter gc70
- Start date
You can already get in a heap of trouble for selling to prohibited people. They don't specifically make you check out the person, but it's certainly an option and people do it to protect themselves. If you sell a gun to a felon and get caught, you'll soon learn that it wasn't a "legal channel" at all.
Riddle me this: if a happy switch was available on most autoloaders as an option at no extra charge, just as an additional stop on the safety button, would you get it just to have and ignore most of the time, but enjoy every now and then? I would. Other than misperception by the ignorant, I can't see a single problem with it.
applesanity
New member
Ah, the influence of the movie, "HEAT."
That's where the idea of robbing banks with rifles started.
That's where the idea of robbing banks with rifles started.
applesanity
New member
Speaking of, did you hear that Sarah Jane Olson got released, then thrown back in jail the other day?
I contend it's the movie, HEAT.
Robbing a bank with big scary black rifles is not a new concept; it's how to handle the big scary rifle if you're surrounded by cops, or that handguns and shotguns don't possess those magical 'cop-killah' bullets. If you watch the north Hollywood bank robbery, you can clearly see that the robbers trying to act out the movie. They were trying to leapfrog each other, use controlled bursts, etc.
The movie HEAT also influenced cops as well. One of the detectives in the movie tried to use a shotgun, but with no success. Now AR-15s are replacing the Remmy 870 in squad cars.
"It's a shoulder thing that goes up."
LightningJoe
New member
The weapons in common use circa 1776 were the same kind that Army regulars used. That was the point of the 2nd amendment, I believe. The citizen's ability to fight soldiers on the battlefield had made democracy possible.
If you had asked James Madison if that included cannon and warships, I suspect he would have said no. But I'm not sure.
If you had asked James Madison if that included cannon and warships, I suspect he would have said no. But I'm not sure.
LightningJoe,
The battles at Lexington and Concord happened when the British wanted to go and seize cannons belonging to the local militia from a private farm.
James Madison hired private warships when he was President.
The battles at Lexington and Concord happened when the British wanted to go and seize cannons belonging to the local militia from a private farm.
James Madison hired private warships when he was President.
Tennessee Gentleman said:
Here is how I see it. The authors of the documents which were used to found our country and emphasize our rights were as smart, and possibly smarter, than most politicians who vie for office today. They studied the known history of mankind and found one truth. Government, if not kept in check, will strive to govern absolutely. Man's thirst for power in the political arena has (and shall) ALWAYS be a force that the citizens of a free nation will have to stave off. This doesn't mean acting as a radical like Timothy McVeigh. It is more like a cold war...the citizens have weapons (as did the colonists of the 1700s) and they are the last line of defense against tyranny whether it comes from outside or inside our borders.
The problem is that people born in the "modern" world of today like to think that "times are different" and "we don't have the issues the founding fathers had". This simply is NOT true. Man's ambition for power has not changed one iota over the last two millennia.
Tennessee Gentleman said:
We have laws already in place to keep those with mental problems or a criminal history from getting firearms. How about we enforce those instead of denying our rights? If we want to deny rights, why don't we look at the first amendment. MOST of these mass killers had one motive in their twisted minds. They wanted to be "famous". This was the specific word used by the Omaha mall shooter. The media helped their dream come true. The rebuttal to the idea of limiting free speech as opposed to the second amendment will likely be that free speech doesn't kill. Yet if these mentally ill individuals were not on every newspaper front page and leading news station, there would be NO repeats. Only the Columbine attack was focused on a specific group of people who, in the killers minds, were the cause of their angst. Take away the medias rights with regards to these killings, and I guarantee you these heinous acts would come to a screeching halt.
Other than that...I don't have an opinion.
Fly
Tennessee Gentleman
New member
Who, without a mechanism like the background check can walk into any gun store and buy a gun. How is the dealer to know they are crazy or felon? He can't until AFTER the crime has happened. That's dumb! 99.9% of those private and FFls who sell guns don't want to sell to crazies or felons so I think the background check (with the proper funding for accuracy) is a prudent measure for public safety. Enforcing the laws you mention would happen too late and after great harm was already done.
Maybe you are right but you can't make the newspapers not report news.
DonR101395
New member
The background check is already in place and you can't punish prior to a crime.
But you feel it's ok to punish prior to a crime?
Since when did the 1st get more importance than the 2nd? I've always viewed them as equal even if I didn't alway agree with what was being said.
Tennessee Gentleman
New member
What?
The background check isn't about punishing people its about insuring that crazy people and felon can't buy guns through legitimate avenues.DonR101395
New member
I re-read what you wrote and saw misread it the first time. That is why I was confused.
Tennessee Gentleman said:
The background check IS the law I'm speaking of. Though using your example, a background check is useless unless they have already demonstrated their mental illness or broken the law. If not, they can buy a firearm and and they aren't disallowed from owning a firearm until "AFTER the crime has happened".
Tennessee Gentleman said:
Here is the problem. You are willing to take away 2nd amendment rights because the use of guns causes loss of life. Isn't the first amendment causing loss of life when the media is irresponsible with their rights? Shouldn't the media use good judgment and NOT broadcast/publish the killer's name and picture every 10 minutes? Why limit 2nd amendment rights if you aren't willing to restrict 1st amendment rights? In my mind, the media is contributing to the deaths of people. Or maybe I should say the editors kill, not the medium.
seeker_two
New member
Tennessee Gentleman said:
Of course you can....just ask the Soviets, the Iranians, and the Chinese.....
Tennessee Gentleman
New member
I am not advocating that the background check is fool proof, but it is not useless either. I think it is good public policy to make it more useful by improving the database. Forcing the mental health lobby and professionals to report mentally unstable people subject to penalty if they don't. With technology today it would be easy to do as well. BTW had it benn properly implemented Cho would not have been able to buy two guns thru legal channels as he did. He might well have done it anyway but we don't know that. The fact that people will brreak laws is not a reason not to have them at all.
2A rights are not being "taken away" by requiring background checks and the courts would never agree with you there. These are restrictions and the courts I believe would rule that they are reasonable for public safety.
Tennessee Gentleman,
I don't have a problem with background checks, but as you suggest, ALL of the system has to work including mental health professionals reporting those who display a propensity towards violence. I say background checks stay and we get the system working, because it has failed in recent history.
My suggestion that 2A rights are being infringed is more in line with the OP question of how to define "common". Don't take away my right to own what I want just because they aren't enforcing the current rules. Fix the system, but don't limit 2A rights. My example of the 1A rights was to make a point. No one would EVER think to limit the media, but in my mind they are contributing to the killings just as much as a firearm. Voluntary responsibility on their part would be nice, but we can't (and shouldn't) infringe on 1A rights any more than the government should step on my 2A rights.
Fly
I don't have a problem with background checks, but as you suggest, ALL of the system has to work including mental health professionals reporting those who display a propensity towards violence. I say background checks stay and we get the system working, because it has failed in recent history.
My suggestion that 2A rights are being infringed is more in line with the OP question of how to define "common". Don't take away my right to own what I want just because they aren't enforcing the current rules. Fix the system, but don't limit 2A rights. My example of the 1A rights was to make a point. No one would EVER think to limit the media, but in my mind they are contributing to the killings just as much as a firearm. Voluntary responsibility on their part would be nice, but we can't (and shouldn't) infringe on 1A rights any more than the government should step on my 2A rights.
Fly
Tennessee Gentleman
New member
Oh, but you see the media is limited. A great example is libel laws which the SCOTUS has upheld as a reasonable regulation of the 1A. Every right in the BOR is limited. There are NO absolute rights in the Constitution.
Libel is not a limit on speech. It is a limit on harming another, and furthermore is a tort, not a criminal violation.
For example, I have the right to bear arms, but I do not have the right to shoot you just because I want to.
No one person's rights supersede another. Your rights stop where mine begin.
The problem I have with the background check is that it allows for arbitrary denials, with no means of appeal. Even with a "mental health" issue- who decides what it a mental heath problem? Is there a way to get a second opinion?
For example, I have the right to bear arms, but I do not have the right to shoot you just because I want to.
No one person's rights supersede another. Your rights stop where mine begin.
The problem I have with the background check is that it allows for arbitrary denials, with no means of appeal. Even with a "mental health" issue- who decides what it a mental heath problem? Is there a way to get a second opinion?
So why don't we let the government be the final editors of the news stories? We don't have to stop the media from reporting the news, we just make sure they don't report any news that could be damaging to the public by giving press to mass killers who are doing it for the publicity and their legacy. Couldn't the government "reasonably" force the media to withold the name of the killer and what weapons he used to conduct the mass killings? This would prevent other would be mass killers from hearing the nitty gritty details that we don't want them to hear. I think that would pass a low level of "scrutiny" for public safety. The government should not ban news, but should regulate it to protect public safety. The media should never be allowed to report what type(s) of weapon(s) the criminal used. That just gives other criminals ideas on how to conduct "copycat" crimes, which should be against the law. Oh, they already are? Shazzam. Who'd a thunk? Well, lets make the media stop contributing to copycat crimes. Not by bans on what they can report as news, but the government should use a low level of scrutiny on what is allowed to be reported when public safety is at risk.
Last edited:
Lawyer Daggit
New member
I do not like the sound of 'Arms in current civilian use'.
The problem of course is the founding fathers were not really dealing with a difference between military and civillian weaponry- if anything the civillian weaponry was superior to the military- it was often rifled, whereas the military weapon of the time was a musket.
A distinction could rule out military style semi automatics.
The difficulty for everyone is the Court will rule a line somewhere- but where.
The problem of course is the founding fathers were not really dealing with a difference between military and civillian weaponry- if anything the civillian weaponry was superior to the military- it was often rifled, whereas the military weapon of the time was a musket.
A distinction could rule out military style semi automatics.
The difficulty for everyone is the Court will rule a line somewhere- but where.