Also, all used firearms sold through an FFL require a background check just like new guns.
What is left out is that many states have firearm permits or concealed carry permits which mean the holder has already passed a background check and doesn't need to be submitted for new ones. So a firearm permit in Nebraska from 2014 can be used to buy 5 firearms in 2016 and not a single background check would be done for those 5 sales since the holder is already validated.
I think that phrase from the "study" says it all. 350 million+ guns in the nation, 40%+ of households have guns, and they post results of a web survey of 4000 anonymous people? Also we have Johns Hopkins, Bloomberg, and The New Venture Fund from Bill and Melinda Gates as the folks involved with this. Um. No.
Guesswork? Fine. According to FBI stats the murder rate of 3.8 per 100,000. Simple math shows this is 26,315 years on average before being killed. Different studies show 70%-90% of murder victims have an arrest record, so that means the murder rate for law abiding citizens ranges from 1.14 to 0.38 per 100,000 for law abiding citizens, which means a range of 87,719 years to 263,158 years on average before being murdered. Since the murder rate in England is about 1.8 per 100,000, it's very possible that the rates are comparable to England's. No studies I know of for England saying how many murder victims are already felons, but considering they have a much lower gang problem than the inner cities of America I presume it's lower. So yeah.. that part is guesswork. Feel free to start a study.
I guess it's a matter of perspective. The average person would live to be something like 26,315 years old before being murdered in America - and if you aren't a drug dealer or gang member it's probably closer to 70,000 years. In fact, the murder rate for a law abiding American is probably equivalent to the murder rate for a law abiding Englishman.
You do realize that the murder rate in the USA is now at almost an all time low from the last 115 years? Except for 3 years in the 50's where it was fractionally better, the US has fewer murders per 100,000 than any time prior to this.
The idea that America has "war zones" is purely propaganda.
No, but the treat is clearly that the Executive branch wishes to expand the definition of "being in business" to include a whole lot more than what it is understood to mean today. When pressed on this, Josh Earnest CLEARLY indicated that selling as few as ONE firearm, if conducted in some yet to be specified conditions, could make you a dealer in the eyes of the law. I don't know what those conditions are, but the threat is this could be onerous and if pressed in the courts found to be illegal.
This is a good point. Obama is telling the DOJ to prioritize the prosecution of gun sellers they deem to be "in the business" and beefing up an ATF division to monitor online gun sellers who they deem should have an FFL. There is no change in the actual law concerning who is in the business of dealing firearms, but the threat of having to defend yourself in court is a substantial one due to the cost and potential penalties. This could turn out to have a beneficial affect if it ends up going to a court that will define an actual set of tests to determine who is in the business or not.
Much of America has little interest in what the rest of the world thinks about us. That kind of dates back to 1776.
Trying to get rid of any of the Bill of Rights could very possibly start another civil war in the US. I'll pass on that.
According to the CDC, in 2013 there were a total of 505 accidental deaths due to firearms. A total of 69 deaths for ages 0-14. Are you arging that there are less than 505 defensive uses of firearms in the US per year that saved a life?
And you are also arguing that gun locks will stop gun owners from committing suicide?
From Heller vs DC: "Finally, the adjective “well-regulated” implies nothing more than the imposition of proper discipline and training."
So, as of today and until the Supreme Court overturns Heller, well-regulated has nothing to do with government regulation and everything to do with what it actually mean in the late 1700's.
It's always about the money, and where it can be funneled. State paid out $6 billion without anything even close to adequate contracts just while she was Secretary of State. Think of the opportunities for redirection with a massive government led redo of the electrical grid..
http://www.washingtontimes.com...
The taxes in this case just end up as higher prices passed along to consumers. Is the intention to make the poor and elderly who are on fixed incomes use less electricity for cooling or natural gas for keeping warm in the winter? These are the ones that the tax will hit the hardest.
The rational given is that the taxes will be returned to the citizens so there won't be any out of pocket expense to the "people". Just that higher CO2 generating businesses will have their products artificially cost more. But after watching how they managed that return of taxes to the people with Social Security, color me skeptical (on gov't, not on climate change).:-)
Anybody with a 3rd grade math education can still see that the result is that everybody is going to be pushed to products that cost more - and thus it will hurt the poor and elderly the most even if they do return 100% of the money to the people. And there is NO realistic way we can tax China or India in a way that will change their behavior significantly. If you think we can just impose tariffs on their products, that's grossly optimistic in my opinion. China's not even making significant inroads on getting their pollution problems under control, and we think we can affect their electrical grid?
Create a tax... Because politicians have never raided tax coffers or pillaged the treasury before?
The only thing a carbon tax is going to lead to is massive graft and pork projects (see Solyndra), and meanwhile China/India/Africa/South America is going to be generating far more CO2 than North America and all of our attempts will amount to nothing. China already generates almost double the CO2 that the US does according to the numbers I see, and they are climbing FAST while we are dropping.
Skip the taxes and put some money into new technologies. And get the greenies to quit hyperventilating every time Nuclear or Hydro is mentioned. Otherwise, you're just wasting years and vast amounts of money. Jmho.
So on one hand we have right-wing and tabloid outlets shouting "New Mini Ice Age", and on the other hand we have leftwing sites saying "No Possible Solar Changes Can Influence Climate" and referencing papers that are years old and don't even know of the new theory.
How about going to the source? Interview with the scientists directly yesterday:
http://www.iflscience.com/envi...
Link to the paper being talked about:
http://iopscience.iop.org/0004...
She's an astrophysicist and seems pretty sure temps will be dropping due to noticeable solar activity drops.
“During the minimum, the intensity of solar radiation will be reduced dramatically. So we will have less heat coming into the atmosphere, which will reduce the temperature.”
Now we need some climate scientists to look at the new theories and new proposed solar activity levels and say how that will affect the AGW models.
Didn't say anything along those lines.
But any paper talking about theories from 2 years ago can't be used to deny new theories presented this week. It "may" be that the new theories show solar changes exactly identical to those that the 2 year old paper is talking about, but that's just guessing on your part.
A 2 year old paper talking about theories existing 2 years ago shouldn't be used to dismiss new theories.
That's as bad as reporting a new theory about a possible solar minimum in 15 years will be a "New Mini Ice Age".
You need to read Heller vs DC. That prefatory clause doesn't limit the 2nd Amendment at all. If the founders had intended it only to apply to state militias, they would have phrased it as "the right of states to arm and maintain militias will not be infringed." and never mentioned "the people" at all. That reading doesn't make any sense to anybody who knows even a little bit about the Revolutionary War though. The Shot Heard Around The World at Lexington happened while the lawful agents of the governor (the British military) were on their way to confiscate firearms and powder stores from various townships. Why would the Founders immediately say in the first Congress that the states had the right to arm or disarm the people at their whim when they just fought a war over England NOT having the right to disarm the people? I know the prefatory clause is confusing for a lot of people who are only familiar with modern English, but the intent of the founders to say that the 2nd Amendment applied to "the people" was clear at the time.
The 2nd Amendment includes civil defense against foreign powers, but goes far beyond that to include the right to personal protection as well as protection from our own government and it's agents.That is according to the Supreme Court in Heller vs DC (though they skipped over the protection from our own gov't for the most part), the Federalist Papers written by Alexander Hamilton and James Madison (which emphasizes protection from our own gov't), and practically any other discussion on the 2nd Amendment from the time of the founding of the nation.
1) determiners of "fit to own firearms"? Constitution says that is everybody in the US, barring some very nasty behavior on the person's part. Actually the Constitution is stating a pre-existing right, that of the people to have the right and means to defend themselves.
2) The more "secure" a firearm is, the less useful it is for actually defending yourself. Nothing like asking a rapist or home invader to please wait a couple of minutes while you remove your handgun from the state mandated gun safe and then remove the trigger lock and then load the magazine (no more than 7 rounds, naturally). Not to mention that Heller vs DC struck down storage requirements such as trigger locks - and trigger locks pale next to requiring gun safes or similar. Quote: "Similarly, the requirement that any lawful firearm in the home be disassembled or bound by a trigger lock makes it impossible for citizens to use arms for the core lawful purpose of self-defense and is hence unconstitutional."
1) gangbanger - most serious gangbangers have already committed some offense that makes them a prohibited person, and so simply catching them with a gun is enough to send them away. Otherwise maybe it's just some kid trying to defend himself from hardcore gangbangers... why shouldn't he be able to do so?
2) straw purchase prosecutions are a dead end according to ATF reports. The more you clamp down on straw purchases or try to implement full gun registration schemes such as universal background checks, the more common it becomes for the person to simply report the gun stolen. Example: Felon Jack gets cousin Jill to buy a gun and sell it to him for 50% markup. He then has Jill report it stolen. Cops can't do a thing.. and Jill can repeat this.
Felons will always find ways to get guns. If you think banning guns in America will work, how well did banning marijuana work for 50 years?
The gay marriage thing is a tricky one.. but in many minds it's very troubling that 225 years worth of Supreme Courts would have ruled one way, but our current Court ruled another way.
AND!! There's always the threat that another Court ruling will reverse it, since there is no legislative basis to their ruling - simply an interpretation.
The smart thing should have been for a Constitutional Amendment be passed which gave legal basis and definitions to who was entitled to the institution of marriage. Right now it's undefined... Gays? Check. polygamy? siblings? gay siblings? Not like there's a threat of children from that... Is it legal to discriminate by age on marriage now that it's a fundamental right? Etc, etc.
Constitutional Amendments - those guys with wooden teeth and slaves set up a pretty nifty system if you follow it.
Not all Walmarts carry firearms and ammo. They go by local laws and also local politics - you might have 90% of a state where the Walmarts carry firearms, and then the Walmarts in one city won't. I live in one such state.. fortunately I don't live in the one city that has issues.;-)
Sadly, you don't need to use the USSR as an example. Google up about Senator Grassley sending a letter to the DOJ and Veterans Administration about why the VA has been adding thousands of veterans to the NICS database if the veteran has somebody managing their financial affairs for them. Despite no federal law stating anything even close to saying that having somebody manage your finances makes you mentally defective under ATF standards, the current administration has implemented this rule.
http://www.grassley.senate.gov...
Curious about how the crime rate (especially violent crime rate) has changed since your state went to universal concealed carry? Blood in the streets from shootouts? Or lower crime rates since the criminals don't know who the easy victims are?
Slashdot Mirror
Also, all used firearms sold through an FFL require a background check just like new guns. What is left out is that many states have firearm permits or concealed carry permits which mean the holder has already passed a background check and doesn't need to be submitted for new ones. So a firearm permit in Nebraska from 2014 can be used to buy 5 firearms in 2016 and not a single background check would be done for those 5 sales since the holder is already validated.
I think that phrase from the "study" says it all. 350 million+ guns in the nation, 40%+ of households have guns, and they post results of a web survey of 4000 anonymous people? Also we have Johns Hopkins, Bloomberg, and The New Venture Fund from Bill and Melinda Gates as the folks involved with this. Um. No.
Guesswork? Fine. According to FBI stats the murder rate of 3.8 per 100,000. Simple math shows this is 26,315 years on average before being killed. Different studies show 70%-90% of murder victims have an arrest record, so that means the murder rate for law abiding citizens ranges from 1.14 to 0.38 per 100,000 for law abiding citizens, which means a range of 87,719 years to 263,158 years on average before being murdered. Since the murder rate in England is about 1.8 per 100,000, it's very possible that the rates are comparable to England's. No studies I know of for England saying how many murder victims are already felons, but considering they have a much lower gang problem than the inner cities of America I presume it's lower. So yeah.. that part is guesswork. Feel free to start a study.
I guess it's a matter of perspective. The average person would live to be something like 26,315 years old before being murdered in America - and if you aren't a drug dealer or gang member it's probably closer to 70,000 years. In fact, the murder rate for a law abiding American is probably equivalent to the murder rate for a law abiding Englishman.
The idea that America has "war zones" is purely propaganda.
No, but the treat is clearly that the Executive branch wishes to expand the definition of "being in business" to include a whole lot more than what it is understood to mean today. When pressed on this, Josh Earnest CLEARLY indicated that selling as few as ONE firearm, if conducted in some yet to be specified conditions, could make you a dealer in the eyes of the law. I don't know what those conditions are, but the threat is this could be onerous and if pressed in the courts found to be illegal.
This is a good point. Obama is telling the DOJ to prioritize the prosecution of gun sellers they deem to be "in the business" and beefing up an ATF division to monitor online gun sellers who they deem should have an FFL. There is no change in the actual law concerning who is in the business of dealing firearms, but the threat of having to defend yourself in court is a substantial one due to the cost and potential penalties. This could turn out to have a beneficial affect if it ends up going to a court that will define an actual set of tests to determine who is in the business or not.
Much of America has little interest in what the rest of the world thinks about us. That kind of dates back to 1776. Trying to get rid of any of the Bill of Rights could very possibly start another civil war in the US. I'll pass on that.
According to the CDC, in 2013 there were a total of 505 accidental deaths due to firearms. A total of 69 deaths for ages 0-14. Are you arging that there are less than 505 defensive uses of firearms in the US per year that saved a life? And you are also arguing that gun locks will stop gun owners from committing suicide?
From Heller vs DC: "Finally, the adjective “well-regulated” implies nothing more than the imposition of proper discipline and training." So, as of today and until the Supreme Court overturns Heller, well-regulated has nothing to do with government regulation and everything to do with what it actually mean in the late 1700's.
Yes, flamethrowers are perfectly legal under federal law. They're just big versions of a Bic, ya know.
It's always about the money, and where it can be funneled. State paid out $6 billion without anything even close to adequate contracts just while she was Secretary of State. Think of the opportunities for redirection with a massive government led redo of the electrical grid.. http://www.washingtontimes.com...
The taxes in this case just end up as higher prices passed along to consumers. Is the intention to make the poor and elderly who are on fixed incomes use less electricity for cooling or natural gas for keeping warm in the winter? These are the ones that the tax will hit the hardest. The rational given is that the taxes will be returned to the citizens so there won't be any out of pocket expense to the "people". Just that higher CO2 generating businesses will have their products artificially cost more. But after watching how they managed that return of taxes to the people with Social Security, color me skeptical (on gov't, not on climate change). :-)
Anybody with a 3rd grade math education can still see that the result is that everybody is going to be pushed to products that cost more - and thus it will hurt the poor and elderly the most even if they do return 100% of the money to the people. And there is NO realistic way we can tax China or India in a way that will change their behavior significantly. If you think we can just impose tariffs on their products, that's grossly optimistic in my opinion. China's not even making significant inroads on getting their pollution problems under control, and we think we can affect their electrical grid?
Create a tax... Because politicians have never raided tax coffers or pillaged the treasury before? The only thing a carbon tax is going to lead to is massive graft and pork projects (see Solyndra), and meanwhile China/India/Africa/South America is going to be generating far more CO2 than North America and all of our attempts will amount to nothing. China already generates almost double the CO2 that the US does according to the numbers I see, and they are climbing FAST while we are dropping. Skip the taxes and put some money into new technologies. And get the greenies to quit hyperventilating every time Nuclear or Hydro is mentioned. Otherwise, you're just wasting years and vast amounts of money. Jmho.
So on one hand we have right-wing and tabloid outlets shouting "New Mini Ice Age", and on the other hand we have leftwing sites saying "No Possible Solar Changes Can Influence Climate" and referencing papers that are years old and don't even know of the new theory. How about going to the source? Interview with the scientists directly yesterday: http://www.iflscience.com/envi... Link to the paper being talked about: http://iopscience.iop.org/0004... She's an astrophysicist and seems pretty sure temps will be dropping due to noticeable solar activity drops. “During the minimum, the intensity of solar radiation will be reduced dramatically. So we will have less heat coming into the atmosphere, which will reduce the temperature.” Now we need some climate scientists to look at the new theories and new proposed solar activity levels and say how that will affect the AGW models.
Didn't say anything along those lines. But any paper talking about theories from 2 years ago can't be used to deny new theories presented this week. It "may" be that the new theories show solar changes exactly identical to those that the 2 year old paper is talking about, but that's just guessing on your part.
A 2 year old paper talking about theories existing 2 years ago shouldn't be used to dismiss new theories. That's as bad as reporting a new theory about a possible solar minimum in 15 years will be a "New Mini Ice Age".
You need to read Heller vs DC. That prefatory clause doesn't limit the 2nd Amendment at all. If the founders had intended it only to apply to state militias, they would have phrased it as "the right of states to arm and maintain militias will not be infringed." and never mentioned "the people" at all. That reading doesn't make any sense to anybody who knows even a little bit about the Revolutionary War though. The Shot Heard Around The World at Lexington happened while the lawful agents of the governor (the British military) were on their way to confiscate firearms and powder stores from various townships. Why would the Founders immediately say in the first Congress that the states had the right to arm or disarm the people at their whim when they just fought a war over England NOT having the right to disarm the people? I know the prefatory clause is confusing for a lot of people who are only familiar with modern English, but the intent of the founders to say that the 2nd Amendment applied to "the people" was clear at the time.
The 2nd Amendment includes civil defense against foreign powers, but goes far beyond that to include the right to personal protection as well as protection from our own government and it's agents.That is according to the Supreme Court in Heller vs DC (though they skipped over the protection from our own gov't for the most part), the Federalist Papers written by Alexander Hamilton and James Madison (which emphasizes protection from our own gov't), and practically any other discussion on the 2nd Amendment from the time of the founding of the nation.
1) determiners of "fit to own firearms"? Constitution says that is everybody in the US, barring some very nasty behavior on the person's part. Actually the Constitution is stating a pre-existing right, that of the people to have the right and means to defend themselves. 2) The more "secure" a firearm is, the less useful it is for actually defending yourself. Nothing like asking a rapist or home invader to please wait a couple of minutes while you remove your handgun from the state mandated gun safe and then remove the trigger lock and then load the magazine (no more than 7 rounds, naturally). Not to mention that Heller vs DC struck down storage requirements such as trigger locks - and trigger locks pale next to requiring gun safes or similar. Quote: "Similarly, the requirement that any lawful firearm in the home be disassembled or bound by a trigger lock makes it impossible for citizens to use arms for the core lawful purpose of self-defense and is hence unconstitutional."
1) gangbanger - most serious gangbangers have already committed some offense that makes them a prohibited person, and so simply catching them with a gun is enough to send them away. Otherwise maybe it's just some kid trying to defend himself from hardcore gangbangers... why shouldn't he be able to do so? 2) straw purchase prosecutions are a dead end according to ATF reports. The more you clamp down on straw purchases or try to implement full gun registration schemes such as universal background checks, the more common it becomes for the person to simply report the gun stolen. Example: Felon Jack gets cousin Jill to buy a gun and sell it to him for 50% markup. He then has Jill report it stolen. Cops can't do a thing.. and Jill can repeat this. Felons will always find ways to get guns. If you think banning guns in America will work, how well did banning marijuana work for 50 years?
The gay marriage thing is a tricky one.. but in many minds it's very troubling that 225 years worth of Supreme Courts would have ruled one way, but our current Court ruled another way. AND!! There's always the threat that another Court ruling will reverse it, since there is no legislative basis to their ruling - simply an interpretation. The smart thing should have been for a Constitutional Amendment be passed which gave legal basis and definitions to who was entitled to the institution of marriage. Right now it's undefined... Gays? Check. polygamy? siblings? gay siblings? Not like there's a threat of children from that... Is it legal to discriminate by age on marriage now that it's a fundamental right? Etc, etc. Constitutional Amendments - those guys with wooden teeth and slaves set up a pretty nifty system if you follow it.
Not all Walmarts carry firearms and ammo. They go by local laws and also local politics - you might have 90% of a state where the Walmarts carry firearms, and then the Walmarts in one city won't. I live in one such state.. fortunately I don't live in the one city that has issues. ;-)
Sadly, you don't need to use the USSR as an example. Google up about Senator Grassley sending a letter to the DOJ and Veterans Administration about why the VA has been adding thousands of veterans to the NICS database if the veteran has somebody managing their financial affairs for them. Despite no federal law stating anything even close to saying that having somebody manage your finances makes you mentally defective under ATF standards, the current administration has implemented this rule. http://www.grassley.senate.gov...
Gates, Buffet
Curious about how the crime rate (especially violent crime rate) has changed since your state went to universal concealed carry? Blood in the streets from shootouts? Or lower crime rates since the criminals don't know who the easy victims are?