and Ricky,
two problems we have mentioned over and over, you bring up Australia as some sort of shining example. Please tell me how many guns were available before the ban in Australia? Were they anywhere near as commonplace there as in America? Apples and Oranges yet again
and the claim that they have "eliminated" mass shootings? so far there have been no shootings of 5 or more dead, that does not mean there have been no shootings where fewer died, more were wounded, etc. You use the statistics to suit your purposes.

and lets use the Aussy example
it was not free, it was not voluntary either
they gave $500 per gun in a buyback offer, that would equal about 40 MILLION guns in the US
who's going to pay for that? My calculator doesn't even go that high, billions upon billions of dollars to buy these back, you think that is any sort of real option?

no no no
What are we talking about here? Banning Assault Rifles in the US.
Bringing back the earlier ban.
And as I pointed out earlier, what is the definition of assault rifle ...it boiled down to scary looking guns!
Seiautomatic was only part of the definition, the other part was pretty simple, it had to look scary!

you claim

the actual properties of guns relating to how they work and what they are designed and used for is the main issue.

but the ban you and other liberlas are calling for:

The proposed legislation defines an assault weapon as a semi-automatic firearm with a detachable magazine and one additional feature, such as a pistol grip, a folding or telescoping stock, a barrel shroud or threaded barrel, or a grenade launcher or rocket launcher. Also defined as assault weapons would be all semiautomatic rifles and handguns with a fixed magazine that can hold more than ten rounds of ammunition, semiautomatic shotguns with one additional feature and a fixed magazine that can hold more than five rounds, and semiautomatic shotguns with a rotating cylinder.

...scary looking guns!


You also call for keeping guns from the mentally ill, but then in the same breath call for the ban to be placed on everyone, again, explain slowly for me because I apparently am stoopid and aint understanding you, I see you saying one thing, then another and the two don't work together. Why mention the mentally ill having access to these weapons when you don't want anyone to have them?

Those listed characteristics of assault weapons are not all about how scary they look. Threaded barrels are internal for a start. Just because you think it is about the look of them does not mean that I do. So please stop telling me what I think.

On your last part, I didn't realise it was that complicated, but...

1) however good you make mental health, you will never detect all those people who pose a lethal threat
2) mental health problems do not always exist, they often develop over time, meaning that currently 'sane' people will become mentally ill later on
3) one of the main sources of illegally held weapons is the legal market, either through crime (robbing the houses of gun owners is a major issue, despite the magic properties of guns for defence of the home) or through passing on. In order to reduce the risk of having guns get into the hands of sociopaths, it takes more than just barring sales to known sociopaths.
4) it is not just the mentally ill who use guns to kill people.

so you are saying the comment about the mentally ill buying guns was what then?
again, you brought that up ...but it doesn't matter. So why bring it up in the first place?

I looked at that chart showing mass shooters being linked to mental illness. First of all standard for finding a shooter had a mental illness is extremely low. Where you would expect a diagnosis, you get something like "acquaintances said". Without a professional assessment, I don't how much confidence you can have that these shooters were suffering from an actual mental illness. Moreover, it would seem that only a small fraction had sought treatment, which of course is where we would intervene to not allow them to buy guns. There is also the issue that once it becomes widely known that you can't own guns if you get medical treatment that some potentially violent mentally disturbed people will not get treatment for fear of losing their guns. The reality is that chart shows a limited ability for us to stop the mentally ill from getting guns unless we test everyone for mental illness and I would oppose that.
Yeah,Brad, guns don't kill people by themselves but it also true for the most part that people don't kill other people without using
guns. By the way, out of curiosity, I am wondering how do you square your strong belief in the 2nd Amendment with not allowing someone who has a restraining order to have guns? You realize that a restraining order (well at least in California) requires less than reasonable doubt to get (clear and convincing if parties are not related; preponderance of the evidence in domestic situations, domestic being very broadly defined)

A person who has a restraining order put in against them is a situation that was brought to a judge. Being that the judicial review that is needed to revoke someone's rights (same as incarceration) is in place, that is how it is easily squared.

How (since you say it is a right i.e. the 2nd Amendment) do you square your beliefs that a person has those rights unless they have personally done anything to cause removal of those rights?

66% of all murders committed in 2009 are done with a firearm (most not with an assault weapon, but I digress). We couple with with the chart I provided from Mother Jones showing 66% involving Mental illness, we need to apply a similar standard of dealing with the issue.

I have said that there needs to be some gun legislation for those buying and operating a weapon
I have said there needs to be restrictions for those with a restraining order/mental illness issues/incompetent operator.

God help us all if I find data showing that most mass shooters are involved in violent video games.

I was using your interpretation of the 2nd Amendment. My own interpretation is that the right is limited to only stopping federal tyranny (the link to militia and bearing arms being solely used for military use during that time period make that clear) So states themselves should be able to regulate guns without restriction and the federal government is only limited to gun restrictions that would impede a state from resisting the federal government. Yes, very recent Supreme Court decisions have held differently but the decisions were close and the balance of the court will likely finally soon become liberal again. Better see if you can get a new amendment passed!
Also, yes a judge is deciding the restraining order, but in many cases he is making the determination on a relatively low standard of proof.

Why would I need to get another amendment passed. Heller v DC has ruled. I would think that the gun control advocates would need to get an amendment, not those desiring the status quo.

I appreciate your interpretation, but it does not meet current judgements from the highest law in the land.

Do I have to invalidate all the the 5-4 decision that went against "my beliefs" just because they were "close"?

Close doesn't cut it.

States most certainly can not regulate any way they see fit. They certainly have a lot of leeway and can tailor laws as they see fit but tailoring a pair of trousers is not the same as making them into shorts either! The US Constitution trumps any and all State laws, therefore if the Constitution says you have the right to bear arms, then the State can not step in and deny that right.

Bbauska, please read my earlier post. You seem to think Heller does what it does not do. For a start, it does not apply to the States, only Federal enclaves.

GMTom wrote:so you are saying the comment about the mentally ill buying guns was what then?
again, you brought that up ...but it doesn't matter. So why bring it up in the first place?

I am saying that it's not just about that, there is more to the issue of guns and mentalhealth than just stopping people with certain diagnoses or suspicions buying guns.

I never said it didn't matter. I just don't think it is enough as a solution. And bbauska brought it back up, not me.

I understand that Heller only applies to Federal enclaves. Is there law countermanding the 2nd Amendment that I am unaware of? Barring that, I guess the 2nd is still in effect.

But mcDonald does apply the 2nd Amendment to the states (Which without Heller's holding that a citizen had an individual right to have a gun for self -defense would not have been possible) But 5-4 decisions do not settle issues--both of those decisions could be overturned with a swing of one vote. And that may occur during Obama's term

Call me when that occurs...