Heller-McDonald made it clear that firearms regulation was acceptable. Although, all the gun loons heard was "individual right" and their diseased minds went from there instead of seeing what was actually said.
Now, it seems that Bill O'Reilly is actually agreeing to reasonable regulation:
COSTAS: Roughly 40 percent of the guns purchased in this country do not require a background check for purchase.Didn't see that one coming did ya?
O'REILLY: Ok. So you want a background check, right?
COSTAS: You have that. You've talked about stricter penalties, harsher penalties for those --
O'REILLY: For criminals.
COSTAS: Exactly.
O'REILLY: Right.
COSTAS: There is that. There ought to be training programs for those who purchase guns. I don't see any reason why someone should be able to purchase military-style artillery and body armor and automatic weapons. Only the police or the military should have that --
O'REILLY: All right, all of those are reasonable positions.
Why did they block access to the NCIS background check system for individuals trying sell a gun?
ReplyDeleteThere are so many issues with this conversation it's funny. I will start with the most obvious. The issue of automatic weapons, as it is right now it is nearly impossible for a civilian to obtain automatic weapons. So as it sits police and military are effectively the only ones who can legally obtain them. Key term legally obtain. I would argue that stiffer penalties would have minimal effect on criminals wanting to obtain or modify weapons to be truly automatic as it is a federal felony now. Talking about military artillery in this context shows ignorance as artillery projectiles are often the size and weight of an average human being. Not exactly portable or readily available in your average gun show. And seeing as an automatic weapon hasn't been used in a crime since the North Holkywood shoot out in Los Angeles in 92, if memory serves, automatic weapons are the issue here. Anyone who knows and understands firearms. The ignorance of the argument makes it very difficult to take seriously. The emotion is the only appeal.
ReplyDeleteApplying for a permit and shelling out a few extra bucks is the same as "nearly impossible?"
DeleteYou know, if you guys would stop the exaggerating and twisting you might have to admit that proper gun control is the answer and that it wouldn't hurt you one damn bit.
Mikeb, you're the one who exaggerates. The tax stamp costs $200. The applicant has to get the approval of local law enforcement--some states deny that outright. Then there's buying the gun itself. There is a ban on owning any gun made after May of 1986. The older ones are still legal, but the price is much more than a few extra bucks. A legal, full-auto Sten gun--cheaply made out of cheap parts--will run you $5,000, and better weapons go for tens of thousands of dollars.
DeleteFor most people, that's impossible.
Anonymous said nearly impossible. What you're describing is like buying a used car. For most people, that's impossible?
DeleteWho's exaggerating, Greg?
Mikeb, given the expense for buying and then shooting a full-auto gun, for most people, that's outside the range of what they can afford. That's the case because the law has artificially inflated the price of such guns. Full-auto firearms are the Lamborghinis of the gun world.
DeleteYes, and the Lamborghinis of the gun world cost what a used Rambler used to cost.
DeleteMikeb, why do you have to be so exasperatingly dense? A cheapo full-auto gun bought legally costs several thousand dollars, while a good one runs into the high tens of thousands. Most of us don't have that kind of money to spend on guns.
DeleteTry this conversation:
ReplyDeletehttp://www.tigerdroppings.com/rant/p/38276243/Piers-Morgan-v-Carol-Roth-on-the-2nd-Amendment.aspx
orlin sellers
Laci, you do keep claiming that we don't know what's in the Heller and McDonald rulings, and each time, I tell you that I do. The rulings leave the question of more regulation open, but none are required.
ReplyDeleteIf you weren't such a pathetic arsehole, you'd be able to follow the conversation.
Your Juctice Scalia left room for "reasonable regulation" of firearms in his "Majority Opinion" (as it is called, there was 5 Justices in favor of an individual right, with 4 opposed) would be held constitutional. He held that there is NO right to carry a concealed weapon, and the only reason that D.C. couldn't ban handguns, was that they are in "common use".
DeleteThe State may ban all semi-automatic weapons, all carry outside the home by mere civilians, may impose punitive taxes on the purchase of arms, may ban most varieties of ammunition, may ban rifles and pistols capable of launching a projectile at a velocity greater than 300 meters/second, may require registration of all firearms, annual re-registration of firearms, may require licences that are unattainable to the primitives that populate much of America. If any of these laws are broken, the courts may be required to impose a mandatory sentence of LIFE WITHOUT THE POSSIBILITY OF PAROLE at the violation of such.
That would likely be found constitutional. It would not violate any standard of constitutional review that would be applied to it.
Also, The governments may reinstate handgun bans if the restriction refers to "concealable weapons" defined as any firearm under 175 centimeters, as that wouldn't specifically ban a "weapon in common use", under the rationale that it would serve to ban things like sawn-off shotguns and other weapons that may already be illegal, heavily restricted, and not in common use in the U.S..
Therefore, regardless of the historical accuracy of their decision, and regardless of the fact that a single appointment would deprive you peasants of your "rights", although firearms may be heavily restricted and punished without infringing on your rights. Since the redneck denizens of the U.S. cannot afford a lawyer to practice their gun rights, doing so may be made (practically) necessary to lawfully obtain a firearm, without ever specifically stating so, as to not violate anybodies "rights".
May, may, may, but won't. Congress and the legislatures of most states won't pass new gun control, and the courts are unlikely to impose infringements on their own.
DeleteAs for us being peasants, you and Marie Antoinette shouldn't feel too secure.
Justice Scalia has said a great many things, and gun control proponents love to seize on the one E.N. mentioned. This one's my favorite, though:
Delete"A Bill of Rights that means what the majority wants it to mean is worthless."
Moonshine
He contradicted himself (twice) when he interpreted the Second Amendment to provide any rights to individual entities. He blatantly was judging the text of the (hideously obsolete) U.S. constitution by the context of modern times, and not as the framers had truly intended. The Bill of rights protects against Federal intrusion into State power, and should not be interpreted (if one subscribes to his judicial philosophy) to provide any right to a mere subject. If the U.S. actually had an education system other than television, you would have been taught (probably in grammar school) that the founders wanted to protect the rights of STATES (not individuals) against the power of the Federal Government, which was achieved through the ratification of a series of amendments to the newly established Federal U.S. constitution. You, a mere person, has no rights under the U.S. constitution (or any civilized society for that matter), only possessing rights which the State which you reside in, (foolishly) decides to grant you them.
DeleteUneducated inbred hicks, like yourself should stop polluting the internet with your ignorance of the law. The internet (unfortunately) provides a forum in which unthinking simple laborers such as yourself put on their thinking cap, and use big-boy words to justify your deviant, juvenile, and immensely antisocial behavior. Get a life, grow up, and listen to your betters.
EN perhaps you don't understand the constitution. As citizens we do have rights. The rights are not granted by the state or federal government but protected and ensured by the government. I am curious as to your positions on racism and slavery, as those were largely issues of states rights. So given your statement it is perfectly okay for a state to escalate a people? As subjects, as you like to identify us we have no right to vote? No freedom of speech? No right to a trial by our peers? No right against cruel and unusual punishment? Your argument is still strictly that the government, whether state or federal is the only thing of any consequence. Unfortunately for you that isn't the case. When the constitution says the people it means exactly that, the people. MikeZ
DeleteE.N., how about telling us what country you live in and why you come here spouting this nonsense? What do you hope to achieve? American believe in individual rights. You can insult us for that, and we'll consider the source. You can try to take our rights away, but in doing so, you'll only make a bigger fool of yourself than you already are.
DeleteI notice that none of the gunzloonznation indinoranti here are quite ready to throw Billfold O'Reilly under the bus, yet.
ReplyDeleteThat's alright fellas, hold your fire until the smoke clears. I suspect that the NRA decided not to buy a big ad package in Loofahboy's time slot and he's just fukkin' wit 'em, until the check clears.
I don't care one way or the other about Bill O'Reilly. I call things right or wrong as I see them. You, for example, are nothing but a parrot with bad hearing.
DeleteI'll throw him under the bus. He is a blowhard and had no idea what he is talking about.
Delete"I'll throw him under the bus. He is a blowhard and had no idea what he is talking about."
ReplyDeleteWell, yeah, now that he's become a traitor to the cause, I'm sure you will. How about Weenie LaPutrid and Rush Blowhard?
I don't know any individuals by those names.
Delete"I don't care one way or the other about Bill O'Reilly. I call things right or wrong as I see them. You, for example, are nothing but a parrot with bad hearing."
ReplyDeleteWTF does that last sentence even mean?
Democommie, you repeat what Dog Gone and Laci say, but you do a bad job of reproducing their ideas.
Delete