anyone to take his class on handgun self defense without a background and CHARACTER check. That should be a standard for purchase of any handgun, private or thru a dealer.

Constitutional rights cannot.

your newspaper can require lots of stuff from you to post a LTE, no problem, just for starters. Then too, the Second Amendment is the only right in the constitution that includes a prefatory clause. That clause makes the 2nd different than all the others, as they don't include one. If you read the majority decision by Salia in the McDonald vs Chicago, there seems to be lots of the things, even the most conservative judge, thinks can be regulated other than the right to a handgun IN THE HOME.

Good try, I'll give you credit for your effort.

Oh, and we'll start about three years after applying it to voting. Deal?

As for background check, open NICS to the public (various methods have been proposed) and I'll be overjoyed to use it.

On a side note, I own 6 "military-style assault weapons", none of which was manufactured before 1944, and none for which a clip of over 8 rounds is available.

This is a lesson in vague and poorly understood terminology being used to sell fear, irrationality and ignorance.

your hero Massad Ayoob how he does it.

The reason why gun laws continue to become more liberal in the United States is simple - gun control is a career-ender for politicians who try to push it.

Also, 18 years ago in 1994, when we had the last major gun control law (the so-called Assault Weapons Ban), there was basically no internet. Today, there is. And people are aware and connected and able to instantly mobilize to protect their interests. And gun enthusiasts do.

This enables us to shine a massive spotlight on any attempts to create gun control legislation that punishes innocent people while doing nothing to actual criminals.

It allows us to instantly counter ridiculous suggestions, like banning assault rifles, by pointing out that there are only about 300 homicides every year committed with all rifles, let alone assault rifles, and that this is half the number killed by hands and feet every year. Imagine if that information had been readily available and easily spread back in 1994.

The Brady Bunch can drum up whatever so-called statistics they like. The proof of the pudding is at the ballot box.

Tighter gun laws are like higher taxes on the 1% in that way.

Point one: gun owners are willing to be politically active to protect their right to purchase, own, and use guns. Non-gun-owners, because nobody is forcing them to NOT own guns, don't generally give much of a shit about it.

Point two: many non-gun owners don't have the information they need to understand and opine on the issues they're being polled on. The information in the OP is a classic example.



[div class=excerpt style=background:#AFEEEE]In 33 states, criminals and terrorists can buy military-style assault weapons...

In the other 17 states, semi-automatic firearms that are mechanically identical to "military-style assault weapons" can be sold, as long as they lack certain combinations of cosmetic features. As a non-gun-nut what an assault weapon is, and you'll be lucky if they know that much. People for "assault weapon bans" are trying to draw a line (that can't be drawn) between legitimate sporting semi-autos and evil black semi-autos designed only for mass shootings.



[div class=excerpt style=background:#AFEEEE]...and high-capacity ammunition clips...

I believe you can buy 11+ magazines in all 50 states, but in some of them they have to be old. Not new-manufacture.



[div class=excerpt style=background:#AFEEEE].. from “private dealers” on the Internet or at gun shows...

No, there are no "private dealers". There are private sellers, who can, in most states, sell to other private buyers who reside in their state. The internet is used to arrange a geographical location for the sale, which, as long as it's in the seller's state of residence to another resident of that state, is legal. This geographical location may or may not be a gun show, McDonald's parking lot, or empty field.



[div class=excerpt style=background:#AFEEEE]... without showing ID or completing a background check. No ID, no background check, no restrictions, no detection.

Private sellers can't access NICS. If you want there to be a background check between every intra-state private firearms transfer, then the state legislature has to do this; it's beyond federal purview. Congress can't do it.



[div class=excerpt style=background:#AFEEEE]It is perfectly legal for private gun dealers and individuals to sell an unlimited number of firearms to anyone, including domestic criminals and international terrorists, cash and carry.

Well, no, not really. It's illegal to sell guns to convicted criminals, for example, and I would suspect foreigners as well. Of course, the private seller can't access NICS to confirm or deny any of this. This is most likely a subtle jab at the terrorist watch list, which of course requires no conviction or due process to get on, and it riddled with mistakes and errors. If you really think that once the government puts on a secret list ON A WHIM you can just have Constitutional rights stripped away, well, Alberto Gonzales would like to be your bestest friend ever.





And of course, there's still the often-disproved canard about 30,000 gun-related deaths a year, despite 60% of these being suicides and our suicide rate being fairly low, and the other 40% being murders despite a 50% reduction in total murder rate from 1990 to 2000.



Much ado is being make about the statistically-rare mass shooting, while ignoring that 99% of murders have either 1 or two victims. Also ignoring drug laws and mental health care. Because it's apparently it's just fine to have insane drug laws, 2 million people in jail, and shitty treatment for PTSD-affected vets and other people with mental health issues... just as long as they can't have 11+ magazines and semi-auto rifles with pistol grips.

The NRA is like Unions that way.

Russia has a much higher murder rate than we do. Mexico has a high murder rate too. And Japan's suicide rate is higher than ours. All of them have strict gun control. But since those aren't done with guns then they must be OK with you.

Puerto Rico has guns laws that Bloomberg can only dream of (Annual limit on ammo purchases - 500 rounds) yet they have a murder rate higher than DC. Since PR is an island they don't have the problem of someone driving across state lines.

If they are working Why do we need anymore?

How many laws does this country, county, state, city need? Why are we paying people to write more laws just so we can find more ways to wag our fingers at people and say "you're doing it wrong!"

I thought we were supposed to Help People NOT belittle them.

"...current gun laws fly in the face of public opinion. Most citizens, members of law enforcement, gun owners and even a majority of NRA members agree that we need more restrictive laws governing the buying and selling of firearms."

I have heard it used by many very experienced shooters.

That probably shows the impact of our media.

Well it's not so much of a problem as an annoyance.

I see little or no value in many of the ideas that those who oppose gun ownership often present.

There is a lot of truth in the theory that some wish to gradually impose new restrictions on gun ownership with the final object of disarming all citizens in our nation. This idea is politically impossible to accomplish in our current political environment. It's basically a total waste of time.

I suggest both sides of the gun control issue work together to find compromise. Unfortunately compromise is a lost art in our nation.

For example the article you linked to states:

anyway.

The quickest way to have either party adopt a particular position is to have the opposing party adopt a contradictory one. It's not about leadership nor does it mean progress, it's simply politics.

This IS one of the reasons I believe that President Obama is a leader and, right now, we need more leaders and fewer politicians.

I honestly have no idea who he is or what he stands for.

If by "work" you mean cause or create something useful, you're mistaken. The AWB didn't lower assault rates. It did eliminate bayonet lugs, folding and telescoping stocks, flash suppressors....

Certain things became more expensive between 1994 and 2004 but crime didn't change.

Which laws are you referring to?