JSH1 said:
My thoughts exactly. My split with the NRA has to do with their stance against background checks and other tools that law enforcement could use to fight gun violence. That includes the ban on the ATF having a searchable database of 4473 information and the ban on researching the causes of gun violence.
Previously, I thought you were just naive about the possibility of UBCs being used for registration. I didn't realize you actually thought registration was a good idea. Are you familiar with how registration has been used to ban firearms historically? Even here in the United States, states have used registration to ban firearms.
Have magazine restrictions been litigated: Individually no. However both the 1994 federal assault rifle bans and individual assault rifle ban included restrictions on magazine capacity. These laws have been litigated, found constitutional, and the magazine restrictions stand.
This is utter nonsense. In 1994, 10 of 12 Circuit Courts took the view that the Second Amendment did not protect an individual right; but only a right of the states to form a militia. This was the basis of almost every
lower court opinion finding bans OK. You do not appear to be aware though, that the Supreme Court overturned that key finding in
U.S. v. Heller and
McDonald v. City of Chicago and found that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to bear arms which is incorporated against the states via the 14th Amendment. The 1994 ban had already expired by then, so any LOWER court decision resting on that reasoning would now be invalid as the core argument behind it was found unconstitutional contrary to your assertion.
As, I've said previously, to effectively prevent mass shootings we would have to do what Australia did.
Use registration to find out who owns what and then confiscate the least popular firearms piece by piece until you have destroyed gun owners as a political force?
Australia's ban has been effective in preventing mass shootings. Yes, there was a shooting in 2002 that killed 2. It was tragic but doesn't meet the standard used by the FBI which requires the shooter to kill 4 people (not including himself) in one location.
A great comfort to those 7 people who were shot I'm sure; but once again you are making a correlation = causation assumption. From 1976 to Port Arthur, Australia had five mass shootings that met the FBI definition (7 actual). From 1976-1956, Australia had 1 mass shhoting meeting FBI definition. From 1956-1936, zero mass shootings. From 1936-1926, one. From 1926-1916, zero.
During these time periods, no big change in gun laws but mass shootings were just as frequent as they have been since 1996, yet you have assumed gun laws are the reason. What is your evidence for that?
Something should be offered in exchange for background checks: I agree, but that requires two sides to negotiate. So far the NRA has not been willing to negotiate on anything and has only sought to kill any gun legislation. It may be possible to get something like nationwide concealed carry in exchange for background checks but someone needs to make that offer.
In 1986, the NRA accepted as a compromise, a ban on the registration of machineguns made after 1986. They wrongly assumed they would beat it in court. In return for this, they received, among other things, a law forbidding the government from keeping centralized registration of gun owners and protecting gun owners who were travelling through states from being snared by those states stricter gun laws. You know what was offered as part of Schumer-Toomey-Manchin? The same two promises - they had to be offered again because it appears there is no actual penalty should the government decide to register guns anyway and several states are just ignoring the travel protection part. Ignoring it to the extent that they are arresting people in NYC because their plane was inadvertently diverted to LaGuardia and those people were flying with a declared firearm.
The current Democratic leadership, with the debateable exception of Harry Reid, are straight-out gun banners. They have zero intention of honoring any promises. You cannot deal with them because they aren't dealing in good faith. Those of us who have watched that for 20-30 years tend not to be very tolerant of Johnny-come-lately's throwing in their $.02 from a position of ignorance.
By all means block me. I find it sad though that we have reached a point in America that people prefer to live in an echo chamber and only listen to those who agree with and reinforce one's own opinion. That is what leads to such a disconnect between the two sides.
Says the guy who refused to acknowledge or address any of my points and instead just reiterated two false statements he had already made without offering additional information.
