Question of the Day: What Do Gun Control Advocates Mean by “Common Sense”?

[txradioguy]

Banning guns in state Senate, House galleries is common sense the headline at seattletimes.com proclaims. Hello Seattle? How is stopping Washingtonians from exercising their natural, civil and Constitutionally protected right to keep and bear arms in their grandiose (not to say bellicose) legislative chambers “common sense”? For that “logic” the Times turns to an “expert” . . .

Christopher Hurst is a retired veteran law enforcement detective and commander of a 15-city homicide/violent crimes task force. He also served seven terms in the state House of Representatives between 1999 and 2017.

Turns out that when it comes to the Constitution, Mr. Hurst is a shifter . . .

The most conservative Supreme Court Justices have affirmed that the Second Amendment is subject to reasonable regulation. And even if it were not, how does the Second Amendment supersede or surpass the Constitutional protection for anyone’s own life, liberty and pursuit of happiness?
Don’t senators and House members have a Constitutional right not to be killed by high-power military assault weapons? Are their rights somehow less than those of the Las Vegas shooter who legally bought and transported his high-powered military assault weapons, with which he shot 546 people?

So “common sense” means making sh*t up and pretending like it’s as plain as the nose on your face. In this case, a police pensioner turned politician fabricated not one but two Constitutional rights: the right to life and the right to mass murder.

Am I right? What does “common sense” on guns mean to the antis? What does it mean to you?

http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2018/01/robert-farago/question-of-the-day-what-do-gun-control-advocates-mean-by-common-sense/

[Jazzhead]

"Common sense" as used by liberals merely means gun regulation that makes us feel good, that makes us feel as if we're trying to "solve a problem".    But what it should mean is something more specific - gun regulation that is efficacious;  that will actually achieve a measurable result in reducing the cost or frequency of gun violence in exchange for the restriction of Second Amendment rights.   

[txradioguy]

"Common sense" as used by liberals merely means gun regulation that makes us feel good, that makes us feel as if we're trying to "solve a problem".    But what it should mean is something more specific - gun regulation that is efficacious;  that will actually achieve a measurable result in reducing the cost or frequency of gun violence in exchange for the restriction of Second Amendment rights.

Even what you're advocating for won't work. It's not the law abiding citizens using guns to commit crimes. It's gang bangers...drug dealers and your average street criminal who give less than a rats ass about whether their gun is "legal" or not that's the problem.

Chicago is a perfect example of how utterly useless "common sense" gun laws are.

The only gun laws we need are national reciprocity and what is clearly defined in the 2nd Amendment.

[Jazzhead]

Even what you're advocating for won't work. It's not the law abiding citizens using guns to commit crimes. It's gang bangers...drug dealers and your average street criminal who give less than a rats ass about whether their gun is "legal" or not that's the problem.

Chicago is a perfect example of how utterly useless "common sense" gun laws are.

The only gun laws we need are national reciprocity and what is clearly defined in the 2nd Amendment.

Not so - there are a number of good, efficacious ideas out there,  but the "common sense" proposals we typically  hear - such as an assault weapon ban - are prime examples of rules that burden lawful gun owners but don't do much of anything to reduce the cost or incidence of gun violence. 

I have no philosophical aversion to burdening lawful gun owners - but only for changes that will make a real impact on the cost or incidence of gun violence.   

And national reciprocity is a stunningly stupid and un-Constitutional idea.   Leave restrictions on the public carrying of firearms up to local communities.   

[driftdiver]

"Common sense" as used by liberals merely means gun regulation that makes us feel good, that makes us feel as if we're trying to "solve a problem".    But what it should mean is something more specific - gun regulation that is efficacious;  that will actually achieve a measurable result in reducing the cost or frequency of gun violence in exchange for the restriction of Second Amendment rights.

@Jazzhead
Everytime guns have been banned the rate of violent  crime goes up.   It was true in the 1500s when europe first introduced gun control laws and its true today in Chicago, UK, or Australia.

Anti-gun zealots aren't against guns.  They are against free men having the right of self-defense.   Because what else is taken from people when guns are banned is the right of self-defense.

They are quite ok with the government having guns and using them to force their leftist ideals on the population.

[driftdiver]

Not so - there are a number of good, efficacious ideas out there,  but the "common sense" proposals we typically  hear - such as an assault weapon ban - are prime examples of rules that burden lawful gun owners but don't do much of anything to reduce the cost or incidence of gun violence. 

I have no philosophical aversion to burdening lawful gun owners - but only for changes that will make a real impact on the cost or incidence of gun violence.   

And national reciprocity is a stunningly stupid and un-Constitutional idea.   Leave restrictions on the public carrying of firearms up to local communities.

@Jazzhead
So Federal protection of a Constitutional right is "stunningly stupid and un-Constitutional idea." but Federal protection of a non-existent Constitutional right is acceptable?

[Jazzhead]

@Jazzhead
Everytime guns have been banned the rate of violent  crime goes up.   It was true in the 1500s when europe first introduced gun control laws and its true today in Chicago, UK, or Australia.

I don't advocate banning guns.   I am an advocate of efficacious and reasonable gun regulation. 

[Jazzhead]

@Jazzhead
So Federal protection of a Constitutional right is "stunningly stupid and un-Constitutional idea." but Federal protection of a non-existent Constitutional right is acceptable?

The RTKBA is a Constitutional right, but so is the sovereignty of the states as guaranteed by the Tenth Amendment.  Rules addressing open or concealed carry in the public square do not implicate the Second Amendment, but rather are rules that are properly within the purview and sovereignty of the several States. 

[driftdiver]

I don't advocate banning guns.   I am an advocate of efficacious and reasonable gun regulation.

@Jazzhead
We have about 20,000 current gun laws.  Which ones are not efficacious or reasonable enough?   

No, 'reasonable' is code for increased regulations on law abiding citizens.

[driftdiver]

The RTKBA is a Constitutional right, but so is the sovereignty of the states as guaranteed by the Tenth Amendment.  Rules addressing open or concealed carry in the public square do not implicate the Second Amendment, but rather are rules that are properly within the purview and sovereignty of the several States.

@Jazzhead
You didn't answer the real question.

When the states use the 10th to infringe on the 2nd then the Feds have a duty to step in.    The second amendment is the only protected right in which the Feds are reluctant to do so.   Frequently the Feds step in to protect 'rights' which aren't even in the Constitution but which are politically popular.

[Jazzhead]

@Jazzhead
We have about 20,000 current gun laws.  Which ones are not efficacious or reasonable enough?   

No, 'reasonable' is code for increased regulations on law abiding citizens.

To earn my support,  a law must be both efficacious and reasonable.   As for "regulations on law abiding citizens",  so what?   Any regulation fits that definition.   A highway speed limit, for example, is an efficacious and reasonable regulation intended to improve safety for all drivers, even as it restricts liberty.   

[Jazzhead]

@Jazzhead
You didn't answer the real question.

When the states use the 10th to infringe on the 2nd then the Feds have a duty to step in.    The second amendment is the only protected right in which the Feds are reluctant to do so.   Frequently the Feds step in to protect 'rights' which aren't even in the Constitution but which are politically popular.

The RTKBA is not infringed by local rules concerning open or concealed carry in the public square.   These are rules that address safety and, much like a local speed limit,  are perfectly Constitutional under the 10th amendment.   

[txradioguy]

The RTKBA is a Constitutional right, but so is the sovereignty of the states as guaranteed by the Tenth Amendment.  Rules addressing open or concealed carry in the public square do not implicate the Second Amendment, but rather are rules that are properly within the purview and sovereignty of the several States.

2nd Amendment:

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."


10th Amendment:

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."


The power to regulate guns and to allow people to own them is clearly in the wheelhouse of the "United States" i.e. Federal Government no matter how you try to interpret or misinterpret the Amendments.


The right allowing people to keep and bear arms is a right granted by and protected by the Federal Government.  They didn't delegate that authority down to the states.

Your interpretation of the 10th on this issue is flawed.

[txradioguy]

The RTKBA is not infringed by local rules concerning open or concealed carry in the public square.

It is.  There are several states in clear violation of the 2nd Amendment with the restrictions they place on ownership...unfair taxation of ammunition and legislative hoops and red tape they throw up in the way of law abiding citizens to own a firearm for whatever reason they want it.

Your blindness on this is willful.

[Jazzhead]

2nd Amendment:

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."


10th Amendment:

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."


The power to regulate guns and to allow people to own them is clearly in the wheelhouse of the "United States" i.e. Federal Government no matter how you try to interpret or misinterpret the Amendments.


The right allowing people to keep and bear arms is a right granted by and protected by the Federal Government.  They didn't delegate that authority down to the states.

Your interpretation of the 10th on this issue is flawed.

No it's not.   200 years of jurisprudence prove that regulation of the gun right is permissible, so long as the regulation doesn't infringe on the right itself.   Time, place and manner restrictions on public speech and assembly, for example, are perfectly consistent with the First Amendment.  Why do you think you need to get a permit in order to hold a rally in the public square? 

[Restored]

"Common sense" is just a subjective way of saying "anything I want". Both Pro-life and Pro-Abortion groups could say "We need common sense abortion laws" and it would mean completely different things.

If your goal is to lessen "gun crime", you would have to go after pistols which are the most common gun used in crimes. Instead, Gun Control groups tend to go after weapons rarely used in crimes. These are the types of guns used for protection and collection. A friend calls them "government guns".  When the government comes after you to take your guns, these are the guns they will use. That's why the gun-grabbers don't want you to have them.

[Jazzhead]

It is.  There are several states in clear violation of the 2nd Amendment with the restrictions they place on ownership...unfair taxation of ammunition and legislative hoops and red tape they throw up in the way of law abiding citizens to own a firearm for whatever reason they want it.

Your blindness on this is willful.

I'm very mainstream on this subject.  I support the right, as well as the community's right to regulate the use of firearms, especially in the public square.  I also believe that gun owners should have the same obligation as car owners to register and insure their useful but dangerous implements.       If you want me to address whether I think specific rules are Constitutional, go right ahead.   What the hell is "unfair" taxation of ammunition?   

[txradioguy]

No it's not.   200 years of jurisprudence prove that regulation of the gun right is permissible, so long as the regulation doesn't infringe on the right itself.

Really which case laws supports your theory on this?

And the laws in place in states like D.C....California...New York...Illinois...and most of New England make gun ownership almost impossible and overly expensive to the person wanting to purchase a weapon.

They laws are put in place to purposely discourage people from buying any kind of weapon and that is very much an infringement on an American's 2nd Amendment right.


And in all of those places I mentioned...violent crime is out of control.

Time, place and manner restrictions on public speech and assembly, for example, are perfectly consistent with the First Amendment.

No not really.   

Why do you think you need to get a permit in order to hold a rally in the public square?

So the local government can get money from it.  Plain and simple.

[Restored]

I'm very mainstream on this subject.  I support the right, as well as the community's right to regulate the use of firearms, especially in the public square.  I also believe that gun owners should have the same obligation as car owners to register and insure their useful but dangerous implements.       If you want me to address whether I think specific rules are Constitutional, go right ahead.   What the hell is "unfair" taxation of ammunition?

Cars that never leave your property don't need to be registered or insured. They only need that if they operate on the roads.
I'm OK with registering and insuring guns that are going to be shooting into traffic.

[XenaLee]

"Common sense" is just a subjective way of saying "anything I want". Both Pro-life and Pro-Abortion groups could say "We need common sense abortion laws" and it would mean completely different things.

If your goal is to lessen "gun crime", you would have to go after pistols which are the most common gun used in crimes. Instead, Gun Control groups tend to go after weapons rarely used in crimes. These are the types of guns used for protection and collection. A friend calls them "government guns".  When the government comes after you to take your guns, these are the guns they will use. That's why the gun-grabbers don't want you to have them.

Exactly.  If nothing else ... the left does tend to plan ahead for reaching their moist-dream goals.

[truth_seeker]

To earn my support,  a law must be both efficacious and reasonable.   As for "regulations on law abiding citizens",  so what?   Any regulation fits that definition.   A highway speed limit, for example, is an efficacious and reasonable regulation intended to improve safety for all drivers, even as it restricts liberty.

The places in the US with the highest rates of gun violence, have the most restrictive gun laws.  Is that efficacious? Is that reasonable?

My wife and I were in Cheyenne Wyoming a few years ago. I asked "do you think they have Starbucks, here?" After we had checked out the Capitol building.

Sure enough we found one. Full of yuppie types associated with government. And a couple of symbols of olde school Wyoming.

A guy dressed in black from hat to boots. A revolver on one side, and a 45 on the other.

I would feel more safe with that guy (and his guns) beside me, or as a next door neighbor, than some feel-good public school teacher (moderate Republican INO).

I like open carry, or concealed carry. The people that do so are acting in a manner, that increases my safety.

The cops are always minutes away, when you need them in seconds.

[Jazzhead]

Cars that never leave your property don't need to be registered or insured. They only need that if they operate on the roads.

Cars that are used for their intended purpose must be licensed or insured.   So should a gun.  (If you want to render a firearm inoperable and mount it on a wall, then, yes I agree, you shouldn't need to register or insure it.)   But guns and cars are both (i) useful and (ii) dangerous.   It is not an infringement of the right to own a car or a gun to require it be registered and insured when it is to be used for its intended purpose. 

[txradioguy]

I'm very mainstream on this subject.  I support the right, as well as the community's right to regulate the use of firearms, especially in the public square.

No you're not mainstream on this.  Unless you consider the "mainstream" to be hard left. 

I also believe that gun owners should have the same obligation as car owners to register and insure their useful but dangerous implements.

 

The only type of registration ANY American should have to do IMO...is carry a card showing they have completed a state approved concealed carry class.  That demonstrates they understand the basics of gun use...safety and operation and they aren't a criminal.

Other than that...any type of "registration" smacks of tyranny and is the tool of leftist regimes in third world sh*thole countries. 

If you want me to address whether I think specific rules are Constitutional, go right ahead.

Already tried that.  Because you don't truly believe in the 2nd Amendment you side with states like new York and Massachusetts and California who do everything they can just short of outright banning of all privately owned firearms to discourage and make it impossible to obtain a weapon.

You've already made that painfully clear.

What the hell is "unfair" taxation of ammunition?

When the tax on a box of .22 LR ammunition is more than the box of ammo itself...THAT is unfair. It's the definition of taxation without representation.



And to get back to a question you have ducked so far...there are over 20K gun laws on the books from the Federal down to the municipal level in this country...what exactly is one more piece of legislation or one more restriction going to fix?

[skeeter]

What the hell is "unfair" taxation of ammunition?

There's nothing unfair about a sales tax to retail sales of ammunition, many states have sales taxes.

A specific targeted tax on ammunition (as with tobacco), however, has only one practical purpose - to discourage its purchase. And that is the definition of infringement.

[Cyber Liberty]