Why liberals should love the Second Amendment

[^_^ 5,021]

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2010/7/4/881431/-Why-liberals-should-love-the-Second-Amendment

[one...two...tree 2,762]

http://www.dailykos....econd-Amendment

Excellent argument! The only thing I take issue with his reference to liberals is that it implies most liberals are in favor of things like outright bans on handguns, and I don't think that is accurate. I would venture to say that most of them believe the 2nd Amendment does give explicit right for individuals to bear arms, while they also are in favor of reasonable gun laws.

Edited August 15, 2010 by El Buscador

[Danno 1,228]

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2010/7/4/881431/-Why-liberals-should-love-the-Second-Amendment

A flower sprouts from the dung ... I guess it was bound to happen if we waited long enough.

I actually enjoy reading Koz, especially the comment sections, it;\'s both entertaining and alarming, the stuff you read there.

[slim 1,514]

they also are in favor of reasonable gun laws.

Do you have an example of a reasonable gun law?

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Do you have an example of a reasonable gun law?

Criminal background checks.

[mawilson 2,133]

Criminal background checks.

Then they should be happy with the status quo.

Name a state where you can legally buy a gun without a background check (the gun show loophole notwithstanding).

[slim 1,514]

Criminal background checks.

So you're saying criminal background checks would stop criminals from obtaining guns and using them to break the law?

Do most criminals obtain their guns by legal means already? I'm guessing your law would also require them to conduct a background check whenever they illegally obtained a gun as well.

Then they should be happy with the status quo.

Name a state where you can legally buy a gun without a background check (the gun show loophole notwithstanding).

Just about every state in the USA.

For a private citizen to sell or transfer ownership of a gun to another, typically the only thing necessary is that you confirm the buyer is above the required age (typically 18 for long guns, 21 for handguns) and/or a resident of your state (for handguns) or an adjacent state (for long guns.) This is called a private transfer or "face to face transfer" (FTF) and no background check is required. However, the law says that you can't sell to anyone who you know or have reason to believe had their right to keep and bear arms (RKBA) disabled.

This is why the so-called "gun show loophole" would also be an ineffective form of gun control. You could stop legal private transfers at the show proper, but out in the parking lot folks could just sell to each other without any problems at all.

This is also why folks so vehemently oppose closing the so-called "gun show loophole" because it could lead to restricting ALL private sales or transfers without a background check.

[Heracles 417]

How about a background check for any gun transfer or sale?

[Ban Hammer 12,836]

How about a background check for any gun transfer or sale?

you do know that would affect father to son transfers, right?

[Atencio 43]

As Slim stated in most states if you do a face-to-face sale you don't need a background check. Of course that is not the case in California where everything requires a FFL.

[Heracles 417]

you do know that would affect father to son transfers, right?

It should be no different to applying for a concealed weapons permits. Go to the county, file the paper work and all is good once the background checks pass.

I am sure Slim and others will have some BS objection to such common-sense rules.

[nab 74]

Do you have an example of a reasonable gun law?

i am certain there was a town/city who "required" all citizens to have a gun and crime went down there.... THAT actually wouldnt be a bad law to have

[one...two...tree 2,762]

So you're saying criminal background checks would stop criminals from obtaining guns and using them to break the law?

Do most criminals obtain their guns by legal means already? I'm guessing your law would also require them to conduct a background check whenever they illegally obtained a gun as well.

It already has. Many criminals aren't that bright for one. Second, the purpose isn't stop all criminals from obtaining guns, but to hinder them, which criminal background checks has been successful at. We just need to close up the loopholes for gun show purchases.

Using though, you're logical fallacy - should we stop taking away someone's DL when they are busted for a DUI if the chance is that they will drive anyway?

[slim 1,514]

How about a background check for any gun transfer or sale?

I think you'll find most hard core gun owners like myself, Gary, and maybe even our boy JAS aren't really opposed to this, per se, but it does absolutely ZERO to stop crime.

You see shootings where folks have obtained guns legally, even with a background check (Seung-hui Cho) and then the shootings where the shooter has obtained it illegally and has been disabled from owning guns for a long time - yet still has a gun and shoots people anyway.

Most gun owners and even the NRA, want tough gun laws and proper enforcement of laws already on the books. However, what we don't want is unnecessary laws that do nothing to stop gun violence and create bureaucratic "hoops" to jump through in order to exercise our rights.

Can you imagine if someone proposed a background check for Bibles or made you register which church you went to? What about taxing works of art or only selling Van Gogh to "sane" people? Like the article above said, we don't even consider that type of thing because it's so outlandish yet for guns, we don't give it a second thought because "guns are bad."

Put people who use guns to break the law in jail. Fine. You'll be hard pressed to find gun owners that disagree with that. But, pass laws to require an "extra step" in exercising rigths.... yeah, not the same thing at all.

[Heracles 417]

i am certain there was a town/city who "required" all citizens to have a gun and crime went down there.... THAT actually wouldnt be a bad law to have

That town is called fantasy land, considering time and time again, the total opposite has been proven using international examples.