Too many people that have access to guns should not be having access to them.

turned out that no black person ever had a "proper reason for carrying a pistol" even though they certainly had "good reason to fear injury to his or her person or property".

Fortunately racist cops and government officials have been eradicated from American society so it is impossible for may issue to be abused today.

The idea is to make everyone safer by restricting everyone and their kid sister from carrying on the streets.
If the good guys with a gun have problems getting guns, the bad guys will have much more of a problem. Also the good guys with guns will be less likely to be selling to the bad guys too. Win-win, all around.

You are saying racist policies are fine as long as they are supposed to make us safe.

"Everyone" has historically been used very unevenly. Do police treat "everyone" equally on the street? If no, what makes you believe they will treat "everyone" equally under a may issue policy?

What do you propose we do to stop the killings?
I think we need to restrict everyone from obtaining the main too used, mostly hand guns, unless there is an actual need for one.

don't you agree?

my ideas for UBC, training, safe storage laws and more. Also I have posted how I believe focusing on historic Democratic strengths of providing opportunity, social safety nets and protecting civil rights will reduce all forms of violence, not just the gun violence subset.

I do not, and will never, support policies that will allow unchecked discrimination or deny people their right to due process.

So now could you please point out where I said "do nothing"?

You can train people and encourage or require the purchase of safes and trigger locks, but unless you have ways to follow up, such as by requiring renewal of a firearm possession license, along with home inspection and safety reviews, it really wouldn't change much, would it?

...along with the Second.

Once again, you lot prove that it's less about guns, and more about control...

locks for their guns, gun ownership shouldn't be considered a right, but a responsibility, I'm basing my statements on how the Swiss handle gun ownership.

Its about public safety, which should take precedence over privacy rights, particularly in cases where it has been demonstrated that keeping firearms unsecured is a hazard to everyone in the vicinity.

ON EDIT: Bear in mind I'm talking home inspection for checking the that the weapons are secure, the guns registered, etc.

...all in the name of 'public safety'.

Where were you when the Bush administrations were taking a large dump all over the
Fourth...and Fifth...and Sixth...and Eighth Amendments, all for ostensibly the very
same reason?

Fuck that noise. It was (and is) wrong, then and now.

How, in essence, does your stance differ from those of John Yoo and Alberto Gonzales?

no different than a vehicle safety check. They wouldn't be looking for anything else, it would be random safety inspection among gun owners. It doesn't even have to be in the home, just where the safes and weapons are located.

ON EDIT: I really don't understand the issue, gun ownership should be considered a privilege with heavy responsibilities, we have, as a society, tolerated this cavalier, reckless gun ownership for far too long, and look at the results.

Let me remind the disinterested reader of the text of the Fourth Amendment:

Not seeing the issue, this isn't a search and seizure, but an inspection of safety equipment for securing firearms. Would it be any better if the safes in question were owned by the government and mandated by law to be leased or rented out to gun owners for their use, for a nominal fee, of course? In that case, the government would only be inspecting its own equipment.

someone for a vehicle safety check would be stopping a citizen on the street for a random check for a weapon and if the individual has one, for the proper documentation.

My recollection is that there was great support here for de Blasio stopping NYC police from conducting stop and frisk.

The legal standard for stop & frisk is reasonable suspicion. [Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968)]
https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/392/1

and again, it doesn't have to be at home at all, as long as the weapons are secured.

Cars aren't inspected at home because they are mobile and its more convenient to go to a state licensed service station for the inspection.

The thing is that the guns would be registered already, along with the safes/trigger locks, so the randomness would be among gun owners, to make sure they keep their guns secure when not in use, and didn't sell them off on the second hand market. I don't see what's so alarming about that.

ON EDIT: It would be no more intrusive than a safety inspection of a home to make sure the gas lines aren't leaking, or their aren't code violations, etc.

department will come around if you call them and ask or help because you smell gas. They don't go around and, without a warrants (issued after a judge is certified that there is probable cause of a crime) enter your home looking for violations.

They don't even collect the business records from the gas company and evaluate the usage metadata to decide where to look.

But why stop there? Why not let DEA come around randomly to ensure you are taking your controlled substances only as prescribed and that you are not sharing or selling them.

Why not let the police come in unannounced and ensure you have never looked at child pornography.

Why not let the ATF drop by whenever they want to make sure there are no underage drinkers?

And don't forget child protective services, they need immediate access anywhere, include random checks anytime at homes that have never had a problem, to make sure nobody under the legal age of consent might be having sex.

And why the hell should the IRS have to get a subpoena to look at anything you might have that relates to money, including the private records you keep at home? And call me old fashioned - but I tend to believe they should have to prove their case in court before seizing anything.

As long as amendments don't matter, why even have the 4th? All it does is protect the guilty, right? Don't all the authorities need to go where ever they think they need to go to save you from yourself.

No thanks, I'll stick with the Constitution's amendment process.

Hell, I had to wait a week to move into a rental because of some minor code violations that needed to be fixed. It was a pain, we had to wait on the code inspector after the house failed its first inspection.

How about having a firearm ownership license that needs to be renewed to keep your guns, would that be acceptable, a condition of renewal would be inspection. That seems reasonable, does it not?

and one blue. The only inspections were paid by the buyers and involved no state agencies.

Once you moved in, how many times have the code inspectors stopped by to ensure it was still in compliance?

And yes, your idea it would just be as reasonable as requiring a license to speak, worship or to be represented by an attorney. You could get more convictions by requiring indigent defendants to have a license in order to remain silent. And don't forget that extra license for a jury trial.

If you want to change the Constitution, amend it.

comparison. Its more akin to owning a car.

Also, I didn't say they were state, they were local government inspectors.

if you just keep it on your own property. A gun just in someone's home should be like this as well. You just have to comply with the storage/registration/inspection requirement if you carry your firearm into the public sphere.

for example, if you possess and handgun and do not secure it while living in an apartment, and it fires, for whatever reason, you put everyone in that building in danger of a stray bullet, those walls can be quite thin and aren't bulletproof. That gun which is kept in the home can be dangerous to everyone around you. I would say that society has an interest in making sure you have knowledge of and implement proper storage and safety procedures for storing guns in the home.

I've always hated that phrase as justification. As if "an interest" gives someone the right to do something. "An interest" was used as justification for the decision in Kelo. Hell, the state of Texas has "an interest" in preventing abortion and gay marriage. What they do not have is the right to do so. All "an interest" means is that the state or the Feds tell a judge "we really want to do this because of X, Y and Z". A if X, Y, and Z are compelling enough, a judge will make this exception to the Constitution. You could justify anything with "an interest". For example: "the state if Maryland has an interest in protecting the businesses and homes in Baltimore. Therefore, we are going to institute a dusk to dawn curfew following the verdict in the Freddie Gray case. Anyone found on the street will be detained. Anyone that resists will be shot on sight."
They don't have to justify it under any law on the books or provision in the constitution. They just have to say "our interest is in making sure shit doesn't get destroyed".

and registration are reciprocal across all state lines.

You certainly don't have to be 21 or even 18 to get one.

Minors can own cars.

Kids without a license, but with a learner's permit can operate a car in public under the supervision of a licensed driver (some states require the licensed driver to be 21).

The learner's permits are valid across state lines.

If you keep it on your property and don't operate it on a public street, you don't even need a license, registration or insurance.

If I want to conceal my car, I don't need a special license or registration.

But most importantly, there is no Constitutional provision addressing cars. Owning and operating a car is a privilege, not a right.

If you want to change settled law, amend the Constitution.

I mean a society where only certain police even need to carry a firearm, and only under certain circumstances, where you don't have to worry if that suspicious guy on the street corner is packing, or even the occasional nutcase. Where mass shootings are practically non-existent, and daily shootings no longer exist. Is such a world so horrible?

America will never be a firearm free society, it's just not going to happen.
I need my firearms, I hunt, I use my firearms to control the predators that try to kill our livestock, and I enjoy target shooting, and the main reason I own firearms is because it's my right.

Plenty of people there own guns, just not a whole lot of handguns.

I enjoy shooting my handguns, I also have a CHL, although in AZ, we have Constitutional carry, which means that a legal firearm owner doesn't need a CHL to carry concealed.

Pres. Obama and the Party platform all agree that it's an individual right, and that's all that matters.
Random home inspections by the police?
No court in the land would uphold that, it would be a gross violation of the 4th Amendment.

Don't schools teach civics anymore?

I was looking, roughly, at the Swiss model.

Also, I don't see a 4th amendment violation, its an inspection of equipment, similar to the government looking for safety and code violations in buildings during renovations and such.

Firearm ownership is a right, whether or not you like it or disagree with it, and no court in the land would tolerate what you're suggesting.

you can target shoot if you want, things of that nature, but the utility of them beyond that is rather limited unless you want to educate me.

I'll freely admit that my experience with guns has been limited, I'm well aware of the mishaps that can occur to possessors of said guns, especially when they are improperly handled.

google is your friend, there are videos, and stories of firearm owners defending themselves successfully.

I'm all for annual safety classes for ownership of firearms, no problem with that, what I and most of American's won't tolerate is intrusion into our homes for inspections, and neither would the courts.

victim of a gun crime by keeping one in the home, of having said weapon used on yourself or household members. Anecdotes are great for the visceral, emotional impact, not so useful as data unless they mark a trend.

http://annals.org/article.aspx?articleid=1814426

a very anti gun foundation who's bias are injected into those "studies", David Hemenway being one of the worse ones.

also, I don't understand how he's one of the "worst ones", from what I can tell from an extract of his book, he's talking about trying to prevent gun related deaths and accidents that should be preventable. Is that so wrong?

Also, is the data inaccurate? Are their counter studies that are also peer reviewed that contradict said studies. Please note that you have full access to the meta-analysis, its free.

Done in accordance with the Fourth Amendment.

Rights are not either/or choices. We do not say you have the right to not testify against yourself vut if you choose to remain silent your trial will be held in secret and you may have no attorney. Invoking the Fifth does not forfeit the Sixth.

We have many laws and regulations about household activities but manage to get by without wholesale violations of rights.

Your comment it akin to if we do not allow social workers to randomly inspect houses with children then our child abuse ans endangerment laws are just hot air.

happens to have an anachronistic Constitution Amendment that protects it. The usefulness of that amendment has long since passed, and I have yet to hear a reason why the 2nd amendment should exist at all.

Also, just a point, but it is difficult to protect children from abusers without first having it reported by someone first, however here is a key difference, we have a right to reproduce if we so choose, gun ownership is in no way comparable, they are no different than cars and less useful.

...and those >80 million Americans tend to vote at a higher rate than average, so your
approach isn't just stalled lately, it's losing ground.

Unfortunately, those that believe as you do seem bent on driving the Democratic Party over a
cliff...

just buy without question, like that they are good for self defense, that they are safe, etc. when what research that does exist actually shows the opposite. I'm thinking long term here, ideally, in a few generations or so, gun ownership here will be as low as its becoming in the UK or Australia. This is becoming an American peculiarity, and the amount of firearm deaths we suffer seems to bear out how utterly batshit insane it is.

The fact that we have 80 million people owning approximately 300 million firearms is a problem.

of the Bill of Rights. At various times, up to the present there have been people who say "I don't consider xxx a right" At times it has been free speech, at others the right to a jury trial, sometimes even the right to bear arms.

The reason the Second exists, along with the other nine is stated in the preamble:

THE Conventions of a number of the States having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best insure the beneficent ends of its institution

and no, you owning a semi-auto handgun isn't going to prevent the government from oppressing you if they really want to, they have tanks, RPGs and damn near an unlimited budget.

And again, I have yet to hear a justification for the existence of the 2nd amendment.

and been brought up in trial within at least the last two years. It was upheld and expanded in scope in Engblom v. Carey in 1983, not exactly ancient history.

And again, the purpose of all of the enumerated rights- to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers. If the very existence of the Second (and Third and First...) prevents government oppression, then they have succeeded in their purpose without the people having to fight abuses with force.

I would much rather keep the government in check via the courts rather than armed resistance in the streets.

any time in American history? I would think that by the time of the civil war, that argument would have died.

What purpose does the 2nd amendment serve?

under a Constitutional government. I have never needed my right to a jury trial, but I like knowing it is there.

Are you in favor of using the secret Bush lists to screen gun buyers?

Also no, those list are arbitrary, inaccurate and the people on them committed no crimes nor were involuntarily committed.

So again, what use is the second amendment? What is reassuring about it?

on asymmetric warfare.

Still it is there and though I do not plan on using it anytime soon, I prefer to not cede any rights to the government and simply hope for the best. There is much that can be done within the current wording and interpretations, all Constitutionally acceptable.

Yet there is a lack of political will to make even small changes; blaming the Second for that is simply lazy scapegoating. Last year we passed, as a state, a DV bill to remove guns pursuant to ROs. Progress can be made if the effort is made.

from the use of firearms on the off chance that you want the ability to rebel against the government if it becomes necessary? Do you realize how batshit crazy that sounds?

In addition, guns aren't a scapegoat, they make being able to commit violent crimes a hell of a lot easier compared to most other types of weapons. They represent an unnecessary risk.

OK, new question, is there a reasonable justification for the existence of the second amendment?

let's make it illegal to use guns to kill people.

I must leave for a school holiday program so allow me to sum up:

-firearm ownership is an enumerated right
-we do not have to justify a need for our rights
-as with all rights, limitations may be imposed
-that such limitations are not sufficient is not the fault of any Amendment but lack of will to enact such limits
-gun violence is a subset of a much larger violence problem
-many, if not most factors that will reduce violence, including gun violence, do not involve guns
-in case you missed it, we do not have to justify a need for our rights

...your opinion remains your opinion, nothing more.

and they say that firearms ownership is an individual right period.

I could give that you would deem an acceptable reason to own a firearm?

not necessarily rifles and shotguns. Handguns are used in 87% of gun crimes, roughly, in the country today, so they are a problem.

not connected to militia service, also, the party platform and Pres. Obama agree that it's an individual right.

People like you, who would dump rights because of something you don't like scares me far more than terrorists.

or human right. Its an outlier when it comes to rights and this should be discussed.

while polls about gun control have been relatively steady. I do wonder what will happen as gun ownership continues its slow decline.

Can you prove that?
How do you know that fewer and fewer people are refusing to acknowledge having firearms?

How do you explain the tens of thousands of new FOID card applications in IL since the passage of their shall issue concealed carry law?

which is actually less than a third of total population and I think about 41% of adults or so. This is according to Gallup.

Not sure what needs to be explained away, 41 percent is a huge number of people, not denying that, but up to 59% of the country used to have firearms in the home. Gunowners represent a minority, just a very powerful one, with powerful interest and lobbying groups on their side.

I have a question, do you think the CDC and other government agencies should be authorized and fund studies on the safety and effectiveness of firearms? There's been an unofficial/official moratorium on it for quite a while. Perhaps it should be reexamined.

it was very interesting in it's findings, it was fair and unbiased, it acknowledged that firearms were used thousands upon thousands of times per year for defensive purposes.

You should read it, it was very interesting.

and that more research is needed.

ON EDIT: In fact, the numbers are so suspect that gun owners/carriers are apparently many times more likely to be attacked by criminals than the unarmed population, this seems unrealistic unless they are all vigilantes or something.

And do you think DC's laws are preventing them from carrying? There have been over a 100 murders in DC this year, despite the fact that it is almost impossible to legally carry a firearm. I mean, I doubt these law-abiding citizens are worried about any restrictions on their right to own guns -

The good guys make sure of that by buying the firearms in states with lax gun control laws and shipping them to states and areas with tougher gun control laws, so they can be sold to anyone with the money. Stop the interstate shipment of illegal weapons, with tough federal laws and enforce those laws.

Which are already illegal in many/most circumstances. And the weapons themselves aren't illegal, just the purchases. There are laws on the books addressing these issues but they often aren't enforced.

they are illegal weapons.

You suggesting border controls and mandatory car searches before crossing State lines? And even that would only be semi effective based on how many drugs cross international borders.

Do investigation and put the sellers out of business. Put both the sellers and buyers in prison for laws we already have on the books.

....the dealer legally sells it to someone who then transfers it to a 3rd party. The someone & 3rd party already know they are breaking the law. It's already illegal.

But is it really a straw purchase when a gun store knowingly is selling dozens to hundreds of firearms at a time to someone that he knows is shipping them out of state to places where they are restricted and selling them? That doesn't sound much like a straw purchase to me. There has to be a limit to what the definition of "straw purchase" is.
That is more towards being an accessory to the killings he doesn't care about because he likes the profits from selling to the bad guys.
How far back up the chain does it have to go before a good guy is selling to a good guy that is really a good guy? People have reputations because word gets around. Any good guys in the chain have to be figuring it out after a while. If they continue, that makes them one of the bad guys, because the know what is going on. And back up the chain it goes.

Really?

You must have loved the Patriot Act.

Really, the real world is not so black and white as you imagine. There are other ways to do things. We should start trying some of them. What we are doing now, mostly nothing, is obviously not working.

which means "may issue" is not a solution. Lets have "shall issue" with strict background checks and training/storage requirements.

But I still maintain that there must be a good, verifiable reason for the purchase of hand guns. Permits, background checks. No issue until everything is in order.

you don't need a reason to exercise a constitutional right.

I don't understand how what amounts to a dangerous hobby can be constitutionally protected in this day and age. You don't need a gun in this society, and those who possess firearms are far more dangerous to themselves and everyone around them, law abiding or not.

and totally irrelevant. No one is even thinking about repealing the 2A.

like the 3rd Amendment, it is leading to roadblocks in all types of regulations on the production and sale of firearms.

Assault Weapons Bans, registration, universal background checks - all perfectly constitutional.

You have many bad guys who already have guns, guns purchased legally get stolen from cars(we had a rash of that in St. Louis lately), and none of it would prevent or make more difficult to succeed in killing someone in a situation like the one that follows:

http://www.stltoday.com/news/local/crime-and-courts/maryland-heights-man-was-wearing-bullet-proof-vest-when-he/article_e01ee342-793f-5182-9fcd-6e26ef7af179.html?

He was law abiding until he decided not to be.

What we need to do is reduce the amount of firearms in people's possession in this country, to reduce the circulation, to reduce the sales and purchases, to make it harder to purchase them at all, even with a squeaky clean record. You want to go shooting? Fine join a range and rent a gun at the site. Want to hunt, join a hunting lodge or rifle club. There is a persistent myth that guns are necessary, that we need it like we need water, to survive, that is simply not true, and from the studies that I've been able to look up, those who own firearms are more of a danger to themselves and their neighbors and household than to criminals, and are more likely to be victims of guns than using them to protect themselves. We don't live in an action movie. The myths that persist around guns are dangerous and unnecessary.

and then find some politicians that will help you. That is the way we things in America.

I'll be honest, the amount of people I know who are armed with modern or so called self-defense weapons isn't numerous. In fact, its confined to only two, my dad and a friend. My friend has problems and I'm glad he can't handle living near the city(he is a veteran with PTSD and anxiety), and lives very far away from me and my family. I do worry a bit about his family, but he seems to be adjusting even if he has to live out in the middle of nowhere to feel safe. I know there are other armed people near us, that's just a reality of living in the United States, but I won't lie and say I feel safer because of that fact.

I wasn't really raised around guns, my dad has one, my uncle another, both were war trophies from their dad from WWII, a Mauser K98 rifle and a Luger pistol. Both are maintained and only used for sport shooting, if for anything at all. The Mauser, which is my dad's always has a trigger lock on it while at home, and was locked up in the basement. Actually, my dad didn't even tell me he had it until I was a teenager and he thought I was old enough, up to that point, I thought we had no guns in the house.

Now, after my mom died and dad's living alone, he decided to purchase a handgun, for protection he said, but he lives in one of the safest neighborhoods in the state. He was always conservative, at least in certain ways, being a fox news viewer, so I worry that its making him a bit paranoid.

We already have to many no questions asked and then another shooting shortly after.

"Because" is a perfectly acceptable reason. We don't need the government's permission to exercise civil rights.

considered a civil right for the very reason you just posted, because right now "Because" is a good enough answer.

This means that honest evaluation of the risks of firearm ownership is impossible to talk about, it shuts down debate on a very important topic, and removes rationality and replaces it with rationalizations.

End of conversation.

DC law does not require a "good, verifiable reason" to purchase handguns. In fact, that sort of law is almost certainly unconstitutional. DC does require a good reason to obtain a concealed carry permit, and that's what the current dispute is about. You can own a firearm in your home in DC for any reason whatsoever, although there's no gun store in DC so you have to go to Maryland or Virginia to purchase a firearm and then have it transferred to a federally licensed firearms dealer in DC and pick it up from that person.

it up from? Aren't private federally licensed firearms dealers essentially operating as a gun store?

There is at least one FFL dealer who only provides transfer services only for DC gun purchases but does not operate a gun store.

as in, what well regulated militia do you belong to, right now?

shall I send you a link to Heller or can you find it by yourself?

If you want the short version, go read the Democratic Party platform - the part where it says the 2A protects an individual right to keep and bear arms.

Tons of literature that confirms that the founding fathers viewed every citizen/the entire people as the militia. Setting that aside, there's absolutely nothing in the Second Amendment that requires militia membership before you can own a firearm. You are contorting the amendment -- it doesn't say "The right of militia members to own a firearm shall not be infringed." There's a purposive clause that states a well-trained militia is necessary to the security of a free state and then there's a separate clause that restricts the government's ability to control the ownership of firearms -- "the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

.... was introduced as a way of preventing state malitias from being extinguished by the federalists in favor of a standing army. The fear was that the federalists could severally limit gun ownership and thus make a standing army the only feasible military defense. States were free to regulate arms to the extent they judged necessary. It was the federal government that was restricted in order to prevent the necessity of establishing a standing army.

Of course, the utility of a standing army and the ineffectiveness of state malitias was accepted not long after. In fact, the state malitias were pretty much proven ineffective during the revolution itsdlf. See then governer Jefferson's bungling of the defense of Virginia.

In my opinion the second amendment is pretty much archaic and mote. It should never have been incorporated. Given the bare minimum protection accorded by the SCOTUS to date, I don't think painfully restrictive gun regulations are out of the question.