It was reported earlier today that Devin Kelley, the Texas church murderer, had purchased four firearms over the last two years. The AR he used yesterday (and probably all four guns) was purchased from a federal firearms licensed dealer, Academy Sports. It’s easy enough to lie on a form 4473. Applicants no doubt do it every day. The question was, how did he pass the FBI’s background check? Well now we know.
From nypost.com:
The Air Force failed to enter the Texas church shooter’s info about his domestic violence conviction into the federal background check system — allowing for him to purchase the weapon he used to slaughter 26 people on Sunday, a military spokesman says.
Devin P. Kelley, a former airman, was convicted of domestic assault on his wife and child in 2012 and then confined for 12 months and discharged for bad conduct two years later. But for some reason, nobody chose to let the government know about his criminal past.
Some reason? Let’s see, we can think of a few. Rank stupidity. Bureaucratic indifference. Organizational negligence. Legendary military efficiency.
“The Air Force has launched a review of how the service handled the criminal records of former Airman Devin P. Kelley following his 2012 domestic violence conviction,” the Air Force said. “Federal law prohibited him from buying or possessing firearms after this conviction.”
I know I feel better. You?
The point: those who continually call for expanding the FBI’s background check system — to enact a “universal” background checks — do so based on the underlying assumption that the data base is worth a damn. News flash: it frequently it isn’t. Garbage in, garbage out.
Dylan Roof passed a background check, too, despite a criminal record of drug convictions. That snafu was due to FBI incompetence. Nine churchgoers died.
Devin Kelley passed multiple background checks. The screw-up in this case was due to the Air Force’s negligence. And 26 churchgoers are dead.
Who knows how many more times the FBI OK’s prohibited persons every day, either through its own mismanagement or because of inadequate or faulty data provided to them?
Never mind that background checks are a clear infringement on Americans’ Second Amendment rights. Almost as bad is the fact that far too many people derive a false sense of security from a flawed, poorly run government system. Ask a veteran what kind of care they get at a VA hospital. Have you talked to anyone at the IRS or Social Security Administration lately?
Throwing more taxpayer dollars at the NICS system or expanding its remit won’t make it any better. It never does. Government programs are black holes of money, with gravitational pulls from which competence and efficiency can’t possibly emerge. But that’s a lesson that we seem to have continually learn and re-learn. The hard way.
I think it’s safe to say that the Air Force killed 26 people.
The Air Force has killed way more than 29 people but those folks weren’t among them. The shooter alone killed them. The Air Force was apparently negligent with critical criminal information dissemination though.
I called it! I hate to be right all the time, but here I am again.
And you know what they call it when you fail to do your job and people die?
Negligent homicide.
Air Force killed 26 people.
If that’s your opinion, then you agree with the Hillary line of thought that gun manufacturers are responsible for gun violence, and therefore are liable for criminal activity, and can be subject to lawsuits anytime there’s a shooting involving one of their manufactured guns. This bizzare concept would actually be a round about way to totally destroy the RKBA in America.
The military is held to a higher standard. It was the Air Force’s legal responsibility to update the NICS database with Devin Kelley’s information. They neglected to do so and thus they bear the liability for unleashing a wife-beating air thief onto an unsuspecting public.
Lawyers should be filing against the government on this point. If they want to play What If then that’s how it’s played.
He was able to do it because people in the AF screwed up. They tagged the guy who sold the Columbine clowns the guns so the OSI and USAF own this.
I’d guess that they did it because they are a big stupid bureaucracy that just tries to make problems go away with as little commotion and expense as possible. The thing about such bureaucracies is that they usually find a way to simply make the public pay financial penalties rather than actually putting the guilty parties in prison. It is the way of things.
Unfortunately getting anything out of suing the federal government takes decades.
US government can only be sued if it permits.
Dan Zimmerman again with the dunsky claims, in fact background checks are obviously NOT unconstitutional.
In the late 18th century if some creepy weird guy who you suspected was mentally unstable showed up volunteering to join the well regulared militia you can bet folks would have said oh no thats ok, we got it covered, thanks though, well contact you if we run short : )
It goes without saying the framers never intended to put dangerous tools in the hands of metally ill folks, only a dunsky like Dan Zimmerman would claim otherwise : D
One could argue that feeling that they could be better off by fighting the dominant world superpower was a mental illness
More than eight in ten murders by the mentally ill, including multiple murder, is with NON gun means
Didn’t you just say in some other comment on this site that someone judging this guy for being a creepy was a Nazi or some such BS
Rob again with the dunksy claims. In fact, background checks are actually obviously unconstitutional. Transparently so.
What a private organization does is not applicable or analogous to what the government does.
It actually goes without saying that the framers never intended to take tools out of the hands of peaceable citizens, and only a dunksy like you would want that.
The REAL question is the AF (or DOD) is reporting ANYTHING to NICS. DOD works pretty well with routine mindless repetitive task some civilian clerk is assigned to perform. ONE is not reported is less likely than NONE are reported.
ANE this was during the rein of Obumer.
I have the same sneaking suspicion that all of the military branches fail to report anything to the “prohibited person” database.
I’m sure that heads will roll for this at the highest levels of the Air Force…
…ok, sorry, I just can’t keep a straight face when I say silly stuff like that.
Like all of the heads that rolled after 9/11. Oh wait…
I too give Al Qaeda credit for rolling some heads when they retaliated against the US military headquarters that great September day sixteen years ago *weeping with joy*
They should have read off the endless list of dead including countless civilians women and children and elderly on the bloody hands of the Pentagon, instead of the molehill at the US military HQ, then they might have learned something about the world and the way their victims experience it…
holy shit I figured it out. Its our old pal More Dead Soldiers. I wondered what had happened to him
comrade more dead soldiers. Antifa poster child. Loves him some communism.
With the chair force, Airman Snuffy had a choice between watching YouTube videos or sending updates to the NICS database.
Decisions…
But those cat videos are so cute! What was I supposed to be doing again?
It is all software and electrons. The weak link will always be the user. A person may overlook the order to post something into a system, but the lack of communication between systems is inexcusable. It is possible to remove system errors to virtually nil. It is impossible ensure any human is 100% reliable at anything. The pro-gun argument seems to be, “It isn’t 100% efficient and effective, therefore it is hopelessly stupid to try to improve upon it.” I posit you will find that the communication problem was not that of human-error, but that two systems have not communication link. Of course, there was a considerable lack of capability in 1939, but the US and Russia somehow managed to overcome the deficiencies, and win The Great Patriotic War.
Comparing these events to World War Two is an insult to history, and human intellect as a whole.
Comparing lack of motivation in one arena to surplus in another is merely illustrative of the desire of the people to accomplish a thing.
During WW2, the US had one officer (any rank) per eleven enlisted personnel. Today, that ratio is 1:5. During WW2, the US had one general to 6,382 other ranks. Today that ratio is 1:1519. Yet, the US has not won a major war since 1945 (the Baghdad “Thunder Run” does not count as a major victory, and the US is still bogged down in southwest Asia, with no end in sight). What does this have to do with motivation? The US had serious motivation to win WW2, and managed with a general officer population that is severely under represented when compared to the US military of today. The motivation now seems to be growing the general officer ranks, not being successful at war-making.
And you are telling me that it is unfair or inopportune to compare the lack of motivation to improve inter-government communications, with the motivation to prosper a military that won a global war? The amount you are spending on the F-35 boondoggle would likely support upgrading the entire US government to a single, state-of-the-art system of computers and communication. Point is, there is no real motivation in the US for reducing mass murders because….it costs money better spent increasing the ranks of general officers, and buying bloated weaponry (where have you read about the naval artillery that was cancelled because the ammunition cost $900,000 per round?). It is all priorities, and innocent life stolen by the criminal and psychotic is quite low on the list.
We haven’t won a war since World War Two because since then, we’ve adopted the liberal foreign policy of “limited war”, instead of total war. Lack of movement on gun control has nothing to do with padding generals salaries, (there are plenty of other reasons for that) and everything to do with it being unpopular and ineffective.
“Lack of movement on gun control has nothing to do with padding generals salaries”
I wasn’t highlighting “lack of movement on gun control”, the point was to illustrate that there is a lack of motivation to weave an effective and cohesive means of collecting crime date, and entering it into computers. That the government does not communicate between agencies because of the lack of interest in making crime reporting between police agencies efficient. In short, America advertises it can do the impossible when they put their minds and muscle to the task. Obviously, there is little motivation to rationalize inter-agency information sharing. As opposed to winning WW2. What could even a focused fraction of that effort accomplish in providing a usable system for assisting in reducing the number of people who obviously should not have access to firearms.
So, like I was saying below, you agree with the NRAs position that we could enforce current laws better. More efficient and so on. Sounds good to me.
Confiscation is obviously not even really imaginable as an outcome of politics or policy. Indeed, the idea is a distraction from really working out “common sense” solutions. Enforcing laws fairly and evenly should be the bone and sinew of a true “justice” system. The discussion I am trying to promote is that enforcing the current laws will be greatly assisted through the use of accurate and reliable criminal and mental health information sharing. Poor tools will always lead to poor results. It is not the results of the current quagmire that is important, it is the pathetic condition of the tools. If really good tools could be had, and incidents of mass murder (non-terrorist) are reduced to true rarity, why would that outcome be unpalatable?
Why do you keep changing your name? Are you embarrassed of your behavior?
I’ve been saying 2asux and sam i am are the same person………
Sam does sometimes find himself supportive of something I write, or at least a sentence or two. He will insert himself in defense of those agreements, often only to result in adding confusion, over clarity. I created an email filter to delete his postings generally, although sometimes I see where someone else responds to Sam, and I may join in.
Of course, this is all predicated on the assumption screen names are not hijacked, as they were for a time last year.
In a statement by the Air Force spokesperson it was claimed that they do report, and that this was (they hope) an exception. They’re putting the Inspector General on it….
I’m more shocked by the 12-month confinement. He was convicted of, among others, “applying force to the infant sufficient to kill or cause grievous bodily harm.” That sounds like attempted murder to me. I have concluded that the short sentence was an economy move, a fight against budget cuts, so they could quickly and cheaply dump him back into the civilian world. “Let it be their problem!” Well, it was. Happy?
You hit on the crux of my suggestion: improve the system to be accurate enough to make proper decisions about which mental health cases are considered too hopeless to allow firearms to be present. Such an improvement will not eliminate terrorist attacks, nor prevent criminals from illegally obtaining firearms. However, we have little history of mentally impaired individuals obtaining illegal guns “on the street”, or through “the black market”, then going on shooting sprees.
Is preventing these mass murders (much more often than we can now) not worth the thought effort to explore?
So you support better enforcement of current laws? Interesting. So you agree with the NRA then.
Enforcing existing laws, improving laws and systems to reduce mass murders? Why would I not support such efforts? Why should I be hesitant simply because such is also on the minds of gun owners. I am looking for common ground to begin exploring opportunities to reduce mass murders by people who are mentally impaired.
I’m pointing out that, that is infact the evil NRAs position too…
I will be candid, here. If an organization sporting only five million members can stop a movement to improve public safety regards gun ownership, then my side is in need of a brutal reality check. If the reason Trump won the presidential election was that the popular vote was only two million to Hillary’s advantage because of the NRA, then it should be simple enough to capture another four million voters to our side.Too many use the NRA as an excuse for not being able to “sell” our campaign to stop senseless killings by people who are supposed to have “natural, human and civil right” to own a firearm. Just as everywhere, people make up our constituency and leadership. Laziness is an equal opportunity malady.
About 8 in 10 murders by the mentally ill are with non-gun means.
If you want a system like Australia or the Uk where it is much easier to detain people who maybe mentally ill, much lower thresholds to committing them — then blame the ACLU.
Guns prevent way WAY more murders by the mentally ill than are used by the mentally ill to kill anyone
The thrust of the conversation is to reduce mass murders by the mentally impaired. Few murders of ten people or more are committed by mass murderers not equipped with a firearm. Do you venture to imagine that if the killer in Texas had been armed only with a machete that he would have been able to kill 26, and terribly injure 20 others in less than ten minutes?
Please stay on point: guns and mentally impaired, and criminal records.
He commit multiple felonies that the left likes to paper down to misdemeanor or equivalent.
Soft on crime leftists and ACLU make sure that felons get papered down to nothing and walk the streets.
Why does the left think that having people who try and kill infants once should be walking the street to do it again?
We understand that behind every tragedy of domestic violence, there is a live human who was more incapable of dealing with stress, frustration and loss of cherished hopes. The person who loses all ability to exercise self-control should be evaluated by the justice system, the mental health system, or both. Only in unenlightened nations are people convicted of crime treated like human detritus. While punishment must be just, we should be careful of throwing away an adult life in a fit of revenge. This is why the US justice system recognizes that mentally impaired people can sometimes be held accountable for certain crimes, the justice system also provides for placing such persons in psychiatric hospitals with the hope of them reintegrating into normal society (or remaining is those facilities the rest of their lives).
“The thrust of the conversation is to reduce mass murders by the mentally impaired. Few murders of ten people or more are committed by mass murderers not equipped with a firearm.”
And the mass murders with the highest body counts happened with explosives and fire. For under $50 this guy could have killed everyone in the church and probably gotten into Mexico without being caught. Just buy a few feet of chain, a few padlocks, and a couple gallons of gas. That wooden building would have gone up like a Roman Candle.
I agree with you assessment, but the alternatives you cite are not on point here. The discussion is not about removing every weapon imaginable. The discussion is about a system of checks regarding legal possession of firearms. The discussion is not about eliminating every method of creating mass casualties. This is a gun blog; subject is guns.
sam/sux. The NRA only has 5 million dues paying members. Yet there are a couple of hundred million gun owners in America. I am one of those that is not an NRA member. But I, like many millions more, vote my guns. Every election.
As for hillary winning the popular vote. I live in CA. The state that gave her the “popular’ vote. Because of my job I’m in daily contact with illegal immigrants that have official CA drivers license’s issued to them. I’ve heard them brag about voting for hillary.
hillary and the dems did not win because they did not deserve to win. Plain and simple. And folks are waking up to the chicanery going on from the antifa loving left.
For the long term future gun control is dead in this country. Thanks to the transparent shenanigans of hillary and her supporters Trump has 4-8 years, his choice, to load the supreme court and lower federal courts with conservative justices.
In fewer than 10 years we will have constitutional carry as the reality in America.
You really are quite myopic. My comment completely eluded you.
I was pointing out that if the NRA were the single most influential factor in the 2016 election, we would only need to counter the number of voters who are NRA members. If NRA were the deciding factor in any race, it would be so easy to overcome that influence. In point of fact, blaming the NRA has become nectar for too many who want lazy solutions. We need to get beyond the NRA, and appeal to the larger populace that wants society to progress beyond today, and into a future where social conditions are more supportive of more people who are trying to reach “the American dream”.
Part of that dream is an America where mass murders are unknown, or so rare as to be nearly unknown. In the 1950s, here in America, mass shootings were not the threat they are today. In those years, private handgun ownership was not virtually uninhibited. I’m afraid my people do spend too much time trying to win with little effort. We need to make our appeal more universal than of late. Truly, we need to get over the whole NRA thing.
1950’s? sam/sux we could mail order guns, including handguns to our door thru the USPS. Open carry was even legal in CA.
It’s not the ready access to firearms that cause the problem. This is America. We’ve always had ready access to firearms.
2Asux may or may not be a naturalized citizen, so history might be a bit challenging. However…I was stationed in Texas in the ’80s. Open carry was banned, as well as concealed carry. Both restrictions linked back to reconstruction era, IIRC. Handguns were not readily available, except maybe family hand downs. I was sensitive to gun laws because I carried a revolver on duty with the Air Force.
Watching Texas politics through TTAG, it seems that Texas approved concealed carry only in about 1995, and open carry only in 2016. So 2A is not completely wrong
sam/sux. I have family in Texas. I lived there in the 70’s. Guns were everywhere. Racks in trucks.
My cousin, a female, had a holstered .38 hooked to the steering column of her pickup. The rules then was it was legal so long as it was in plain sight.
This complete untruth that guns only recently became common place in America is just bullshit. And it immediately sets off the bullshit detectors of anyone that has even a passing knowledge of our history.
It’s a lie. But that’s all the anti’s have, is lies.
Now the question is. Are you, sam/sux willing to man up and admit that you’re an anti or are you going to continue this “i’m really one of you with some common sense suggestions” bs of trying to persuade us from within?
Good Morning,
I reported to you the status of the law at the time I was stationed in Texas. Whether or not some people just ignored those laws does not negate the fact the laws were in existence (regarding handguns). I did go on hunting trips, and we did have rifles (which, not being handguns were legal to possess, even in gun racks in the pickemup). In four years, I saw exactly zero people walking about with a shootin’ arn on their hip.
BTW, I am a second amendment absolutist, to the extreme (zero restrictions regardless of criminal, mental, or physical status). But also a realist.
Is it the same with all you lot? A differing opinion, or a mistaken comment is untinkingly declared “a lie”? I made a statement of impression of conditions in the US in the middle of the last century. A person with common sense, and even a passing familiarity with manners, would seek first to clarify, or to calmly correct the unintended error.
But, I am always happy to report to my associates that gun owners are the Luddites we suspected.
Sam I Am- ” handguns were not readily available, except maybe family hand downs”
This is simply not the case at all, nothing could be farther from the truth. I’ve only been in Texas since the 70’s, and it was expected that every truck would at least have a 22 revolver in it. A pistol was damn near issued with your glove compartment. In the 80s we took guns, hand guns and long guns, to go shooting and hunting with our friends before and after school. Rifles in racks of pickups in the high school parking lot was a normal thing.
I was part of the effort to pass concealed carry in Texas. One of the biggest problems was convincing lawmakers that it was actually illegal. Half the legislators I talked to didn’t believe me, as many carried a handgun and assumed it was legal, since it was so prevalent. Once we showed them proof positive that the normal practices they grew up with were criminal, the passage happened fairly quickly.
I rechecked the law. “Open carry” for handguns was illegal until 1995, and concealed carry illegal until 2016. What you or anyone else claims they did doesn’t change things. And the indisputable fact is that we did not see mass shootings as part of everyday life in those days (Whitman was long ago). Part of my job included infrequent interaction with local police.
To “get my mind right”, I rode along with a patrol cop one night. Early on, the cop observed what he called “a suspicious driver” (regrettably DWB), and made a traffic stop. The cop went to the driver window (there was a single cop in each patrol), talked for a moment, then arrested the adult driver. The cop confiscated a .22 target pistol, and charged the driver with unlawful possession of a handgun (no wants and warrants outstanding). The handgun was lying openly on the passenger seat (can’t remember if this was considered violation of the open carry, or concealed carry law).
But again, in the 80s, mass shootings were virtually unheard of. Maybe it was because the drastically mentally ill were normally institutionalized. I cannot tell you every variable that would have worked against the mass shootings we have seen since Columbine, but something changed.
Plea Bargain. No different than in the civil system. He plead guilty. Probably part of the plea was to get only 1 year and the BCD instead of the DD.
Smart way to bet how it went down anyway.
” Of course, there was a considerable lack of capability in 1939, but the US and Russia somehow managed to overcome the deficiencies, and win The Great Patriotic War.”
The Soviets were on Hitler’s side a the start moron
Of course the Russians were in a non-aggression compact at the start. Their military capability was atrocious at that time, remaining so until the Russians allied with western nations against Germany. My point was the two victors in WW2 had inferior capabilities to win, but motivated themselves to do the necessary to win. The point was motivation to accomplish, versus lack of motivation to do even the simplest of tasks to improve criminal reporting.
Perhaps I use too many complex concepts for you.
It is not a complex topic. But it is clearly one you know nothing about. This was NOT a “non aggression treaty” since we now know (I bet you deny it until you look it up) this treaty involved AGGRESSION against Poland, destroying it and having the Nazis and their Soviet moral equals commit mas murder and genocide in Poland.
And Germany never thought it could defeat the US, it thought it could defeat the Russians. We know this from many memoirs of senior Wehrmacht.
Your analogy was idiotic. The military is simply copying the civilian justice system, getting ever soft on crime. How much time did this guy serve for his aggravated assault on an infant and a woman? Two separate severe felonies?
The reports are stating a 12 month stint in jail.
Non-aggression pact, pact to jointly attack Poland. Not the point that was being made. 2Asux was comparing a status of unpreparedness prior to the war, to the current day where the government is not prepared to make sense of its computer and communication systems (as a former fed, i have direct experience with this). In the case of the war, both the US and Soviets ramped up quickly, and surpassed all previous armies fielded in their history, in less than four full years. It was a matter of putting resources to the priorities. The government sees no real priority for making their systems compatible with each other…despite the cyber threat.
Meanwhile, the actual pro civil rights argument is, “It’s not really all that efficient, never mind effective, at all and there’s no sure-fire way to make it any more so. Scrap it.” The pro gun control (non)argument seems to be, “It’s 1% efficient and effective, therefore it is absolutely vital and must be passed to save one life.” It’s a fucking miracle the government gets anything done these days. Just look at the “War on (Some) Terror,” for example — all of the technological advantage one could possibly want and still sweet fuckall in progress towards peace in the Middle East. Both World Wars were also entirely preventable and are in absolutely no way even analogous to this, let alone applicable.
“The pro gun control (non)argument seems to be, “It’s 1% efficient and effective, therefore it is absolutely vital and must be passed to save one life.” ”
I do not actually hear anyone over here saying that. The demand is to improve the reporting in order to prevent more irresponsible people from evading the system. 1% effective is not an acceptable level of reliability. Why do you think we are constantly looking to expand the reporting. What I am asking here is to consider ways to make the system more accurate, so that it can be more effective. I would prefer a system that is 99.6% accurate and available. Background checks are only a single tool, but it should be one everyone has confidence in, should it not?
There is no future in pretending that any system that is not 100% accurate should be scrapped. As presented earlier, to demand the firearms background system be 100% accurate, or then scrapped, is inconsistent with all the other systems for which you tolerate less than 100% accuracy. Especially surgical procedures where there is often a 3% incidence of fatal outcome. Would you refuse a needed heart bypass because there is a 3% risk of death?
Whether you actually hear anyone saying it is irrelevant and immaterial to the fact that it is indeed being said, and by gun-grabbers (the accurate and proper term for “gun control advocates”) that post here. Anyway, the actual demand is to make absolute reporting of every transaction mandatory, which is a prima facie logistically impossible task. 1% effectiveness apparently is an acceptable threshold for them because most all of their policies actually record that level of effectiveness in the first place. There is no conceivable way to make the system more accurate if the reporting agencies responsible for reporting and handling the data steadfastly refuse to do their jobs to begin with, and add that to the fact that no one is ever held to account for it, either. You would have to fix THAT before anything else, and I sincerely wish you luck being that the state is an entity without any incentive whatsoever to improve itself or hold its agents accountable — and cannot ever be given such an incentive, by anyone. It simply doesn’t care and doesn’t see any need to. THAT is why there is no confidnece in background checks and THAT is why there is generally little of any real confidence in the government itself.
There is also no claim stating that any system that is not 100% effective should be scrapped, either, nor could you point to to one because it was never made nor even implied. And, no, no it wasn’t. But, don’t let that little fact get in the way of a good narrative.
The weak link is always the loser – agency.
The only way to make the NICS system work, if it were even remotely Constitutional and therefore should be ALLOWED to work, would be to take it away from the government entirely and privatize it, including the ability of companies to compete for the business.
If there was a profit motive behind having the best and most accurate, up-to-date listing of (unconstitutionally) prohibited persons, and a financial and legal liability for getting it wrong, the system might not work in all cases, but would certainly be more reliable than a bunch of unaccountable bureaucrats with tenured jobs and getting paid by tax dollars whether they do those jobs efficiently or not.
A private company would have had personnel scanning Air Force records for people such as this and pro-actively adding them to the list, not waiting around hoping some airman fresh out of AIT remembered, or even knew, that he was supposed to email that data to the FBI or BATFE.
“The only way to make the NICS system work, if it were even remotely Constitutional and therefore should be ALLOWED to work, would be to take it away from the government entirely and privatize it, including the ability of companies to compete for the business.”
Thank you for your willingness to open discussion. Your observation is interesting.
As to whether NICS is de facto “unconstitutional”, that is a matter of law. From a layman perspective, I do not see NICS preventing any lawful citizen from obtaining (purchase or gift), either firearms, or ammunition. Merriam-Webster defines “infringement” as an encroachment or trespass on a right or privilege. That language is rather uninformative. As an attempt at clarification, M-W uses as an example, “any government action limiting freedom of speech is an infringement of the U.S. Constitution. Note the important word “limiting”. In the case of NICS checks, the right to purchase and hold a firearm is not limited in the sense of preventing one from holding or buying a firearm. Think about it. A person who has not been designated “a prohibited person” has no limitation as to purchase that is borne of the NICS. (NFA is a separate matter). Even if a non-prohibited person refuses to submit to NICS, that person may purchase firearms in a “private sale”, which is not governed by federal law (as I understand it). Thus, a person not proscribed by criminal record is still able to purchase and hold firearms. NICS is nothing more than an inconvenience of purchase (as would be the requirement to travel 300 miles in state to conduct a private sale of a firearm.
But on to your suggestion of privatization of the NICS.
You mentioned the positive effect having industry contract to manage NICS. I believe you only mentioned a few advantages because there are potentially many. America has a love affair with technology, why not put the best available onto creating an effective, efficient and accurate background check system?
While there are many pieces to a usable and reliable system, with background checks, data quality is paramount. Next would be speed of updates (or whatever nature). Of course, there would need to be an agreement with the government as to what data is to be included, from which sources. Even with the best of intentions, and the best of implementations, is there a place, or need, for some sort of vetting standard or gatekeeper? Who will set the standards for all the data points, system and quality testing, and system responsiveness? Would that be something only government can accomplish? Would there be some role for the NRA and other pro-gun organizations? Would it be a public/private set of “referees”?
It’s not even 25% effective.
NICS is trash and needs to be fixed or scrapped.
Not flagging this guy was a criminal act in itself. (Not that it would have stopped the killings, he would have found a firearm in any case). Goes back to the government makes laws, it and it’s various agencies, do not have to follow them.
There’s more rotten than just that. How does a guy beat a woman and crack a two year old’s skull, both of which he admitted and pled guilty to, and only spend 12 months in the brig and avoid a dishonorable discharge?
A “bad conduct” discharge is not the same as a dishonorable discharge? I actually don’t know. Maybe I even read it wrong.
No, a Dishonorable Discharge is like a felony. Bad conduct Discharge is like the misdemeanor equivalent of it.
The same way a deserter doesn’t get any jail time after disrupting air support in the region for a year (they were looking for him instead of backing up the forces on the ground). But, honest… No one died as a direct result. 😉
I was one of the people looking for that POS. And I’m just too damn angry to have rational conversation about his sentencing.
The crimes against his wife and child had to have happened on post, otherwise the local cops would have arrested and tried him I would tend to think.
So now we know why background checks do not work. Making them mandatory for family or friends who sell/loan guns to each other will do nothing to reduce crime or violence.
They’ll help track which guns go where so when in times of crisis, confiscations can be done much easier.
Government’s broken.
Justice system is broken.
Law Enforcement criminal investigation system is broken.
Military justice system is broken.
Education system is broken.
The entire nation is fundamentally BROKEN, but Wall St. keeps hitting records highs. The band plays on.
The end will be the same as the Romans, the Empire grew too large and it’s leaders too weak and incompetent ruled for too long and the barbarians took over.
“Whence commeth the barbarians?” -Oh, that’s right, we’ve been letting them come without vetting, without allegiance, and we haven’t even built a wall for them to destroy. But, they keep voting the same way, which keeps the music playing in all the big cities.
“When the music stops, turn out the lights.” To quote Jim Morrison, of The Doors.
So what you’re saying is, everyone should be disarmed by the government?
(sarcasm)
Let Shannon Watts, Gabby Giffords and the rest of those who slaver at the government teat suck on this for a while.
It won’t give them a moment’s pause. Being the government is like being in love – it means never having to say you’re sorry.
President Trump should find this guys chain of command and fire them and the admin commander at the base personnel office.
Different folks now, too much time has passed. Ultimately the foul up lies with the base JAG and Security Police, the responsibility to document his conviction starts with them.
Well as much as I’d like to say just bin the background check system, maybe we can actually see if they can just fix the damn reporting issues.
Ultimately I’d also really like to see reform of getting false positives and bad records corrected for thous people that have had trouble with this in the past. Supposedly it’s next to impossible to get this fixed without a costly lawsuit against the feds. :/
All you’re doing is giving legitimacy to this unconstitutional behemoth and allowing the gun grabbers a solid foothold with which to expand upon.
You don’t fix something like this. You get rid of it.
The only way to get a handle on this is to end all gun free zones. Start demanding that everyone licensed to carry a firearm be able to do so everywhere they go. We need to take all soft targets off the table.
IIRC Seung-Hui Cho also passed a background check.
In his case, again IIRC, he was mentally adjudicated but the State of Virginia failed to pass that information along to the FBI.
What a joke our incompetent Military is as well as our archaic gun laws. Even if the nut case had been caught by the Brady Bill he simply would have went to the nearest gun show or news paper add and bought a second hand assault rifle and all the ammo and high capacity magazines he wanted to commit mass murder and mayhem. We are the only industrialized country in the world that puts up with such insanity and as long as we continue to do so mass murders will continue to be a weekly occurrence.
Because we do not issue Firearms i.d. cards which require a mental test our freeways have become shooting galleries where anytime you cut someone off you can expect to receive a hail of gunfire from nut cases that should never have been allowed to purchase a gun. Again more insanity, more mayhem, and the rest of the civilized world is shaking their heads and saying “Good God I am so thankful I do not live in the U.S.”
Head on down and buy a passport, then leave.
Can’t just buy a gun at any gun show I go to without a 4473 and background check.
But you seem to have cottoned on to what’s being said. Background checks aren’t going to stop criminals.
We don’t need more restrictions. We need to get rid of gun free zones.
What a joke your incompetence is as well as your faulty logic. Even if the nut case had been caught by the Brady Bill he likely wouldn’t’ve been prosecuted, anyway, and 18 USC 922 still applies to private transfers no matter what you gun-grabbing mongrel idiots say. He’s a prohibited possessor and there is absolutely no way to legally own a gun, period. We are also not actually the only industrialized country that puts up with this insanity and we do not have mass murders on a weekly basis.
Laws do not prevent behavior, only punish it. End of story.
Firearms I.D. cards and whatever other knowingly ineffective and draconian proposals you have would not have stopped this tragedy, either. And, no, our freeways haven’t suddenly become shooting galleries or any of the other “blood in the streets” lies you gun-grabbing mongrel idiots have been spouting for 30+ years. You’re actually still far and away more likely to be run off the road by a drunk driver than to be shot in a road rage incident. Again, more insanity in punishing innocent people with gun control laws (which IS the only thing they ever accomplish), more mayhem facilitated by gun control laws, and the rest of the civilized world IS still beating down our door to live HERE. We, on the other hand, are rightly shaking our heads and saying, “Good God, I am so thankful I do live in the U.S.”
cisco kid,
Fact:
Right now, any motivated person with average intelligence can acquire chains, padlocks, containers, gasoline, and matches.
Fact:
Right now, any motivated person with average intelligence can acquire a truck.
Fact:
Within a few years, any motivated person with average intelligence will be able to EASILY make their own firearms with inexpensive 3-D printers and/or inexpensive mini-CNC mills.
All of these FACTS that I listed above make it CRYSTAL CLEAR that any motivated person of average intelligence can/will EASILY acquire the means to maim and murder en masse no matter what laws governments pass, period, full-stop. That being the case, why do you keep advocating for government laws on firearm possession/sales which are guaranteed TO FAIL to prevent violent evil scumbags from maiming and murdering?!?!?
And being strictly pragmatic, why don’t you spend your efforts trying to reform our criminal justice and mental health systems so that they consistently identify bad apples and consistently keep them locked away from society — which
IS GUARANTEED TO PREVENT violent evil scumbags from maiming and murdering?
to uncommon sense
Yes we do not have a viable mental health system because you keep voting for Republicans that are hypocrites who claim its a mental health issue and then refuse to fund money to run it. Or is this getting to complicated for you.
And by the way a Firearms I.D. card proving you passed a mental health test surely would have caught the nut case that shot up the church long before he would have had a chance to do so. The Military had him in the nut house and then let him go.
And by the way a Firearms I.D. card proving you passed a mental health test surely would have caught the nut case that shot up the church long before he would have had a chance to do so. The Military had him in the nut house and then let him go.
Yes, we actually do not have a viable mental health system because you keep voting for Dumbass-O-KKKrats that are hypocrites who claim it’s a gun issue and then refuse to fund money to run it. Or if this getting too complicated for you?
Rhetorical question: it is always too complicated for you.
And by the way, a “firearms I.D. card” proving you passed a mental health test would not have ever caught the but case that shot up the church long before he would have had a chance to do so. The databases against which such I.D. cards are run are inaccurate and incomplete. That and could have went to the black market, anyway, which is completely unbothered by the legal system. The military had him in a nut house and he escaped, not let him go.
“We are the only industrialized country in the world that puts up with such insanity and as long as we continue to do so mass murders will continue to be a weekly occurrence.”
Totally false. The European have had MORE of these large mass murder is higher, not lower.
In terms of everyday murder, the US has less murder of non criminals than EVERY European country
Please Site your source
I need this info to argue with relatives this thanksgiving 🙂
then get out, bigot troll.
*industrialized nation* = Industrialized western European majority white nation.
Half the countries in the world have a higher murder rate than we do. Most are industrialized.
I’ve never heard of a “bad conduct” discharge. I’m only familiar with Honorable, Medical, Other-Than Honorable, and Dishonorable. Only a Dishonorable discharge would not allow a person certain civil liberties such as owning a firearm. Which discharge did he actually receive?
Never mind, just looked it up. There is a Bad Conduct discharge. Never heard of it.
Nice to see a dishearteningly large amount of “enforce existing laws” dupes still populate the gun rights movement and are still greatly hindering any form of progress.
The system is an obvious failure, background checks do nothing but exist to be neglected and abused, and the whole NICS System and laws requiring background checks needs to be scrapped.
There doesn’t need to be a replacement. Just get rid of the entire thing.
“The Air Force failed to enter the Texas church shooter’s info”
Bushwah. The Air Farce didn’t “fail” — it carefully chose not to report Kelley’s conviction for the same reason that the Army carefully chose not to report Jared Lee Loughner’s failed drug test. Had the Army notified NICS, Gabby Giffords might be just another back-bench Democrat. Had the Air Farce notified NICS, over a dozen people might still be alive.
This is the US military — run by careerists who are more concerned about transgender soldiers, women in combat, and politics than actually defending Americans.
This is the sort of stuff that’s useful to mention every time someon brings up a background check.
In truth, I’d agree with background checks- if they actually worked.
The idea that background checks could “work” is ludicrous. All an “effective” background check system would do is drive more traffic to the black market, even as it worked to delay, degrade and deprive Americans of their natural, civil and Constitutionally protected right to keep and bear arms.
Remember: the system is ripe for abuse.
I know! Let’s put armed Americans on the super secret completely unaccountable terrorist watch list, and then ban them from buying guns. Hell, take their guns away! And so it goes.
Robert.
Don’t we want to cut off legal means of firearm acquisition from criminals and a-holes? Don’t we want them to have to find a dirty way to do dirt?
If “we” could improve NICS would that not help the pro gun side of things?
Perhaps a conversation is possible.
There is amazing technology available today. Why should a country on the crest of making self-driving vehicles not be able to improve its management and screening of criminal records? ‘
Your question should be on the minds of gun owners who do not wish to be blamed for condoning the ability of sketchy characters to purchase firearms through licensed dealers. Someone here posted the comment that improving NICS would just drive illegal gun purchases further into the shadows. The logic escapes me. The proposition seems to be that it is better for criminals to attempt, and perhaps succeed at, evading detection of their status because they are comfortable a “broken” background check system will allow doing business with legitimate firearms dealers.
Despite your facile propagandistic claim Robert Farago everyone does not have a natural right to buy an AR-15, you obviously dont understand the meaning of natural law.
Its extremeley complex as natural law refers to a huge body of overlapping thought in ethics, political theory and legal theory, and there are or course many nuances but the gist of it for our purposes is that natural rights are inherent, and they are readily apparent to any reasonable person. And early American political elites from the enlightened deist Jefferson to the more parochial and superstitious Washington (more in line with your cult of Jesus corpse delusions : D) imagined that a god endowed us with these natural rights.
Now if you want to pretend that it is obvious to reasonable people, that a god gave us an inherent right to spread AR-15s around then I dont know what to tell you there genius. But theres certainly a good case to be made that under natural law is included the right to life, the right to live, to live without being attacked by someone with an AR : D
And that your answer to coming under possible AR attack is NOT reasonable, that spreading ARs around so we can shoot it out with mentally ill folks with ARs is not an inherent right, that this is not the solution that an omniscient being would presume. Just the opposite, it sounds quite obviously insane to any reasonable person, never mind to your imagined magic creature in the sky who knows everything…
Despite your own facile and propagandistic claim, Comrade More Dead Soldiers, everyone does in fact have an inherent right to defend themselves and by the most effective means that they can acquire and bear. You quite obviously don’t understand the meaning of natural law yourself.
It is actually an extremely basic as natural law really refers to a small body of simple principles constructed from a larger body of lived experience throughout recorded history. Interestingly, you claim that natural rights are readily apparent to any reasonable person, yet you consistently and purposefully fail to even grasp the most basic of them and then project that willful pig ignorance onto people who merely disagree with you. All of this while simultaneously failing to address the substance of counter-arguments and offering absolutely none of your own.
Now, if you want to pretend that it is obvious to reasonable people that we don’t have the inherent right to defend our lives with the most effective means available, then we don’t know else to tall you, dunsky. But, there’s actually no good case to be made that under natural law is included the right to be free from fear of attack. What there is actually a good case for is to be able to defend yourself from an attack with an AR. 😀
And your answer to coming under attack is what’s actually NOT reasonable. That allowing people to choose for themselves the tools they deem appropriate for their purposes is an inherent right, and that this is indeed the solution that an omniscient being would presume. It actually sounds quite obviously sane to any reasonable person, a category to which you have already excluded yourself as a member, nevermind to any presumed higher power.
So doofus Rob Farago risibly claims that nature and/or some god have bestowed a natural right to spread AR-15s around, an idea that is pattently absurd on its face.
I simply pointed out that as usual he has zero understanding of the topic, that its extremeley complex as natural law refers to a huge body of overlapping thought in ethics, political theory and legal theory, and there are or course many nuances.
Now you excedrine stupidly insist with your barely literate ramble that: “It is actually an(sic) extremely basic as natural law really refers to a small body of simple principles constructed from a larger body of lived experience throughout recorded history.”
Heres a couple links to academic sites (what you term “fake news”) making clear that naturally as is always the case I am right and you are a dunsky (regardless of your boring nonsensical habit of repeating my words back to me, non-morons decide who is a dunsky and a facile propagandist and who is not based on the content of their posts, you may as well be saying “nuh-uh, you are”)
http://www.iep.utm.edu/natlaw/
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/natural-law-theories/
And non-gun-nuts understand that the solution to these mass shootings is certainly not to spread AR-15s around so we can shoot it out with mentally ill folks with ARs, and the delusion that nature and/or some god has given yall the natural right to do this remains a facile propagandistic claim.
I have spoken, do not contradict again : D
Dear Illiterate Snob..
I care nothing for your philosophy, your ethics, your opinion, your discomfort, your fear, your emotion, your elitist puffery. I have a constitutionally protected right to firearms. I have a constitutionally protected right to arm that are fit for duty as a member of the militia either in service to, or opposition of government. I have a constitutionally protected right to own an air pistol, or a fully automatic rifle. I do not have to justify my ownership to anyone. I am not required to be concerned with the death of individuals, or groups, regardless of the instrument of that/those deaths. I have no legal or moral obligation to be concerned a whit about your opinion.
The constitution exists, it protects people from government hubris. The constitution can be amended. Your smarmy attitude about my constitutionally protected rights does not substitute for a proper amendment of the constitution regarding the right of the people to keep and bear arms. Feel free to act within the law to change it. It is your “right”.
Sam I Am we agree the 2A is a CONSTITUTIONAL right, my post demonstrates that it is not a NATURAL right. Take a break from nonsensically smearing me as illiterate and hire a reading comprehension tutor.
Our 2A rights are bestowed by the political elites that decolonized from the British empire, not by any fictitious gods or reified nature.
And you misunderstand the nature of our constitutional rights under the 2A. Our society is ever evolving, our ethics, mentality, technology etc bears no resemblance to what it was in the late 18th century and of course Madison and Mason could not have envisioned what America would be like in the early 21st century. Our constitution is a living document via amendment, as legislation is passed and subjected to judicial review, and via executive orders.
So your claim that you have “… a constitutionally protected right to own… a fully automatic rifle” is simply wrong, there are a number of states at the moment that either prohibit such ownership or are extremely careful about who is legally permitted to own them. And until this is challenged in court and declared unconstitutional your 2A rights do not include this right you arrogate. Or put another way (and brace yourself you arent going to like this) at the moment in those states your 2A rights PROHIBIT you from owning a fully automatic rifle!
Likewise you arrogate “… a constitutionally protected right to arm (sic) that are fit for duty as a member of the militia…” but no such militia exists in the 21st century, again you are simply wrong. In the late 18th century a well armed militia could reasonably be expected to defend the country from invasion, but in the 21st century this is absurd as the evolution of technology necessitates a standing professional army to defend against invasion, so no “the militia” exists and you of course do not have any right to military grade weapons.
You are right however that you dont have to “justify” any rights, and that my “opinion” is wholly irrelevant regarding our rights, our 2A rights are set forth in the constitution and the ongoing interpretation of those rights via legislation, executive order and judicial review.
I see that you are convinced that you are an expert on this issue, but I suggest you take a breath, reread what Ive explained, consult any basic civics text or ask anyone conversant with basic civics before you ramble off more nonsense and further embarrass yourself…
Youre welcom
https://twitter.com/mikespiesnyc/status/927657230958198785
The TRACE is saying: The Military Is Reporting Almost No Domestic Abusers to the Main Gun Background Check Database
“A scan of active records shows that the Department of Defense has just a single misdemeanor conviction for domestic violence on file with the National Criminal Instant Background Check System, or NICS.”
According to the FBI’s own NICS data…
Does anyone here have an effective argument against NICS reform ( better background checks)? You know, what the GUN CONTROL groups are pushing for along side a ban on AR’s
Does anyone know what the anti gun folks are actually proposing when they say this?
Are there any pro gun groups with NICS modernization/improvement proposals?
I am surrounded by anti gun friends and family they are never clear what better means, the discussion always gets heated and ends with well we cant just do nothing, and there is just no reason for someone to own an AR.
Thanks
NICS reform? fine, whatever, but it’s a waste of money.
When the NICS first came into play, criminals simply changed their vector of acquisition from stores to theft,family, friends, and trusted contacts. Any changes, improvements, or expansions of the background check system will not change this, and will have no effect on criminal appropriation of weapons.
The ONLY thing that will get weapons out of the hands of criminals (who are the people who want these weapons the most) is to remove ALL the weapons from EVERYONE, and that’s just not going to fly, even if it was remotely logistically possible, which it is not.
Sian,
I agree no criminal will be stopped in obtaining arms however I do see value in reforming the NICS system to function properly for the pro gun side. Gun violence will never be stopped but if more criminals had to clearly break the law twice, once to obtain their weapon twice when they get caught, the political cost of gun violence may be shifted more on the perpetrator of the crime than the progun community/2A/NRA. especially if the revamped NICS has heavy pro gun influences. I dont know just a thought. Im constantly arguing with anti’s, I really think their motivation is political. they want to hurt “conservative types” hers how they can do it.
Sam I Am we agree the 2A is a CONSTITUTIONAL right, my post demonstrates that it is not a NATURAL right. Take a break from nonsensically smearing me as illiterate and hire a reading comprehension tutor.
Our 2A rights are bestowed by the political elites that decolonized from the British empire, not by any fictitious gods or reified nature.
And you misunderstand the nature of our constitutional rights under the 2A. Our society is ever evolving, our ethics, mentality, technology etc bears no resemblance to what it was in the late 18th century and of course Madison and Mason could not have envisioned what America would be like in the early 21st century. Our constitution is a living document via amendment, as legislation is passed and subjected to judicial review, and via executive orders.
So your claim that you have “… a constitutionally protected right to own… a fully automatic rifle” is simply wrong, there are a number of states at the moment that either prohibit such ownership or are extremely careful about who is legally permitted to own them. And until this is challenged in court and declared unconstitutional your 2A rights do not include this right you arrogate. Or put another way (and brace yourself you arent going to like this) at the moment in those states your 2A rights PROHIBIT you from owning a fully automatic rifle!
Likewise you arrogate “… a constitutionally protected right to arm (sic) that are fit for duty as a member of the militia…” but no such militia exists in the 21st century, again you are simply wrong. In the late 18th century a well armed militia could reasonably be expected to defend the country from invasion, but in the 21st century this is absurd as the evolution of technology necessitates a standing professional army to defend against invasion, so no “the militia” exists and you of course do not have any right to military grade weapons.
So you are right that you dont have to “justify” any rights, and that my “opinion” is wholly irrelevant regarding our rights, our 2A rights are set forth in the constitution and the ongoing interpretation of those rights via legislation, executive order and judicial review.
I see that you are convinced that you are an expert on this issue, but I suggest you take a breath, reread what Ive explained, consult any basic civics text or ask anyone conversant with basic civics before you ramble off more nonsense and further embarrass yourself…
Actually, your posts just once again demonstrated that you are yourself are as a matter of fact, categorically-speaking, incorrect. So, take your own advice, for once, and stop nonsensically smearing others here as illiterate and take some reading comprehension classes yourself. Please and thank you.
The right to defend oneself is, indeed, a natural right. There is no rational distinction that can be made between the right to defend oneself and the tools one can use to do it, either. Whether you want to believe these things or not is irrelevant and immaterial.
So, no, our rights are actually affirmed — not bestowed — by the second amendment and the rest of the bill of rights. They are inherent to us, and it doesn’t matter the vehicle you choose to explain it, be it some deity or by the very virtue of our humanity. The conclusion is still the same and it not now, has never been, and shall never be the conclusion that you personally want it to be, which is in fact the only premise that you’ve been arguing from.
And you misunderstand the very nature of our rights affirmed — not bestowed — by the second amendment yourself. The evolution of society has less than absolutely no bearing on this whatsoever and you have not made any rational or evidentiary arguments to support anything to the contrary. Our Constitution is actually a document with fixed and unambiguous meaning, changeable only through a long and tedious process. It cannot be and has not been changed on the mere whims of passing public opinion which change as often as the wind.
So, your claim that we don’t have a constitutionally-protected right to own a fully-automatic rifle is what’s simply wrong here. Whether or not individual states choose to restrict these items is irrelevant and immaterial as well.
Likewise, you arrogate that no such militia exists in the 21st century on which, again, you are simply wrong. Under 10 U.S. Code § 311, everyone able-bodied between the age of 17 and 45 (64 if you’re a veteran) is, in fact, part of the militia. Which probably includes you, too. Also, take a look at what the Taliban in Afghanistan has been able to without the aid of air, armor, or artillery assets against the much-vaunted American war machine. Or the SNA, for that matter. Take a look at what the Vietminh did to the French, too. So, no, the militia is us and, of course, we have every right to military-grade weapons.
So, you admit that you’re wrong and your uninformed opinion is nothing more than a waste of bandwidth on people that already know better than you. Splendid.
You see yourself as an expert on this issue. But, I suggest that you again take your own advice, reread what we’ve explained to you being that you’re in no position to be explaining anything at all to us, and actually consult any basic civics experts yourself you ramble off more nonsense and further embarrass yourself.
crisco kid, you’re not fooling anyone. You know nothing. You understand nothing. You are not who you claim to be. Accept it. get over it. Get used to it. You’re going to anyway, so quit acting like you even have a choice.
Let me know if we understand each other. Ive explained that the constitution is constantly changing to accomodate ever-evolving techonology and ethics and mentalities etc and that that happens via amendment, legislation, EOs and judicial review.
And you correct me that the ongoing evolution of techonology and societal values has had zero impact on the meaning of the constitution which remains the same today as in the late 18th century (except for the amendments) and this unchanging meaning has no ambiguity.
Do you understand what Ive said, and is this really what you meant to say?
You’ve actually erroneously asserted that the Constitution is a living document, when in reality that couldn’t possibly by any further from the truth if you had tried; and I’m sure you already have. The Constitution actually says nothing about new and emerging technologies, or ethics, or mentalities. That would allow it to be used by bigots like you to restrict people like me, who have done sweet fuck all to you but somehow think that I owe you something because of reprehensible things my ancestors did, to whatever base form of expression that you would “allow” me to use. If any at all.
THAT is why the words in the Constitution have fixed meaning, THAT is why the words in the Constitution are actually clear and unambiguous, and THAT is why that does not change on the mere passing and trivial whims of a 50+1 majority mob that you do in fact personally “feel” should be able to take away rights that they don’t agree with.
So, yes, I understand what you’ve said, but you clearly don’t and certainly none the implications of it.
Im afraid you dont understand how to think logically so we are likely at an impass
You think that youve already cited your evidence and proven your point that prior to men codifying the 2A that you already had a natural right to an AR-15 but in fact all youve done is repeat your claim in different ways:
“… is, indeed, a natural right”
“… So, no, our rights are actually affirmed…”
“They are inherent to us…”
“… the very nature of our rights affirmed …”
none of which of course is evidence for your bizarre claim of pre-existing rights.
Repetition is not evidence, this is not logical.
Likewise you illogically conflate self-defence with a gun with self-defence without a gun
By contrast my claim is supported by straightforward evidence namely that our 2A rights were created by political elites when they wrote the 2A.
So best of luck in the Special Olympics biathalon, were all pulling for you… and if you make any bad shots or get outpaced just repeat to the judges in various ways that you actually skied the fastest and that its obvious that your shots were the best! : D
I’m afraid you’re simply projecting your own demonstrable pig ignorance onto me, so that’s actually why we may have reached an impasse.
You haven’t cited any evidence nor proven your point that our civil rights are somehow dependent on the whims of a 50+1 majority, when that is not and has never, ever been the case. All you have done is repeat your knowingly erroneous claims in the same way.
None of which, of course, are evidence of your bizzare claim of rights dependent on a 50+1 majority.
Repetition without any supporting evidence whatsoever is all you have to offer. What you have to offer is not logical.
Likewise, you illogically claim that self-defense is also dependent on a 50+1 majority.
By contrast, your claim is actually a bold-faced lie with nothing whatsoever to support it.
So, best of luck with the Special Olympics Triathlon. We’re not pulling for you. You will only make bad shots and get outpaced because all you’ll do is repeat to the judges, in the same exactly way every time, that you’re somehow by some miracle superior to them when you’re really not! 😀
When you read and comprehend the constitution, get back to us.
Sam I Am we agree the 2A is a CONSTITUTIONAL right, my post demonstrates that it is not a NATURAL right. Take a break from nonsensically smearing me as illiterate and hire a reading comprehension tutor.
Our 2A rights are bestowed by the political elites that decolonized from the British empire, not by any fictitious gods or reified nature.
And you misunderstand the nature of our constitutional rights under the 2A. Our society is ever evolving, our ethics, mentality, technology etc bears no resemblance to what it was in the late 18th century and of course Madison and Mason could not have envisioned what America would be like in the early 21st century. Our constitution is a living document via amendment, as legislation is passed and subjected to judicial review, and via executive orders.
So your claim that you have “… a constitutionally protected right to own… a fully automatic rifle” is simply wrong, there are a number of states at the moment that either prohibit such ownership or are extremely careful about who is legally permitted to own them. And until this is challenged in court and declared unconstitutional your 2A rights do not include this right you arrogate. Or put another way (and brace yourself you arent going to like this) at the moment in those states your 2A rights PROHIBIT you from owning a fully automatic rifle!
Likewise you arrogate “… a constitutionally protected right to arm (sic) that are fit for duty as a member of the militia…” but no such militia exists in the 21st century, again you are simply wrong. In the late 18th century a well armed militia could reasonably be expected to defend the country from invasion, but in the 21st century this is absurd as the evolution of technology necessitates a standing professional army to defend against invasion, so no “the militia” exists and you of course do not have any right to military grade weapons.
So you are right that you dont have to “justify” any rights, and that my “opinion” is wholly irrelevant regarding our rights, our 2A rights are set forth in the constitution and the ongoing interpretation of those rights via legislation, executive order and judicial review.
I see that you are convinced that you are an expert on this issue, but I suggest you take a breath, reread what Ive explained, consult any basic civics text or ask anyone conversant with basic civics before you ramble off more nonsense and further embarrass yourself…
“..my post demonstrates that (2A) it is not a NATURAL right”
Self-defense is a natural right, the most basic of all rights. There is no natural, human or civil right to restrict self-defense tools. There is no cosmic moral authority to regulate my means of self-defense.
You still do not understand the constitution, specifically as relates to militia.
Over, and out.
Let me know if we understand each other. Ive explained that the constitution is constantly changing to accomodate ever-evolving techonology and ethics and mentalities etc and that that happens via amendment, legislation, EOs and judicial review.
And you correct me that the ongoing evolution of techonology and societal values has had zero impact on the meaning of the constitution which remains the same today as in the late 18th century (except for the amendments) and this unchanging meaning has no ambiguity.
Do you understand what Ive said, and is this really what you meant to say?
The right to defend oneself is, indeed, a natural right. There is no rational distinction that can be made between the right to defend oneself and the tools one can use to do it, either. Whether you want to believe these things or not is irrelevant and immaterial.
So, no, our rights are actually affirmed — not bestowed — by the second amendment and the rest of the bill of rights. They are inherent to us, and it doesn’t matter the vehicle you choose to explain it, be it some deity or by the very virtue of our humanity. The conclusion is still the same and it not now, has never been, and shall never be the conclusion that you personally want it to be, which is in fact the only premise that you’ve been arguing from.
And you misunderstand the very nature of our rights affirmed — not bestowed — by the second amendment yourself. The evolution of society has less than absolutely no bearing on this whatsoever and you have not made any rational or evidentiary arguments to support anything to the contrary. Our Constitution is actually a document with fixed and unambiguous meaning, changeable only through a long and tedious process. It cannot be and has not been changed on the mere whims of passing public opinion which change as often as the wind.
So, your claim that we don’t have a constitutionally-protected right to own a fully-automatic rifle is what’s simply wrong here. Whether or not individual states choose to restrict these items is irrelevant and immaterial as well.
You’ve actually incorrectly asserted, with absolutely zero evidence — empirical or otherwise whatsoever — that the constitution is a living document. It isn’t. The march of time nor technology have any impact on our rights at all. Any emerging technology is already covered under the bill of rights, and we already have long-established common, criminal, and contract law that dictates what we may and may not use it for.
THAT is why the meaning of the Constitution has changed very little in the last 226 years. THAT is why we are not still restricted to the soap box, printing press, and quill pen and parchment. THAT is why we’re still not restricted to muskets and muzzle-loading rifles.
THAT is why absolutely not any single solitary one of the proposals nor “supporting (non)arguments” made by you gun-grabbers makes any sense, in any context, whatsoever. They don’t even work, anyway.
Doesn’t really matter the vehicle you choose to explain it. Whether it be the very nature of our Humanity, some Creator of some sort, or something else entirely, the basic right to act on our self-preservation instinct is there in all of us.
This includes every tool within our reach. If said tool be an AR-15, all the better. If it’s a repro black powder musket, that’s perfectly fine as well.
What anyone has yet to see from you, or any other gun-grabber alive or that has ever lived for that matter, is even a logical explanation as to why that shouldn’t be so. That’s before even getting into the insane mental and legal gymnastics of all of the rights-destroying court rulings and legislation attendant to this discussion. That and the fact that none of the gun-grabbing schemes proposed would ever work in the first place, period.
Well, not without universal and forcible confiscation of every single gun on the planet including those in service with the military, which would have had to follow previous universal and forcible registration; universal and forcible confiscation of the means to produce guns right down to mining and ore processing, and the universal and forcible destruction of every shred of knowledge even tangentially relating to the manufacturing of guns, which would also necessarily mean either the permanent solitary confinement or killing of everyone in the world with any shred of any of this knowledge.
The complete and total uninventing of the gun, and the consequent rolling back of technology to about the 12th century before the first recognizable guns were seen anywhere, is what’s unarguably necessary for gun-grabbers to realize their dystopian dream of civilian disarmament. Civilian disarmament being the ultimate end goal even if everyone, everywhere simply rolled over and acquiesced to their increasing far-reaching demands for property previously acquired legally and in good faith. This is because nothing less will ever satisfy the gun control movement as they reach for more and more as their policies continue to fail and fail to achieve the desired result. It is literally the textbook definition of insanity, trying the same exact thing over and over and expecting a different result.
Not that you would have a problem with any of this, of course, as you’ve made it quite clear that you wouldn’t be too bothered to see us simply vanish from the face of the Earth being the hate-filled bigot you are. Or rather more accurately, gleefully embodying and readily proving to BE yourself what you claim to hate.
Gulag archipelago, anyone?
That and gun control, in its actual application, is every bit as racist as you desperately want to pretend that we are, too. Why would you want to give a state that you like to claim is totally against you at all levels to have the power to disarm you? Unless and until you can honestly answer that question, too, this discussion goes no further.
http://www.constitution.org/cmt/cramer/racist_roots.htm
https://www.firearmsandliberty.com/cramer.haynes.html
Clayton E. Cramer, Master of Arts in History from Sonoma State University, whose works informed the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas in United States v. Emerson, 46 F.Supp.2d 598 (N.D.Tex. 1999) and District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008), as well as McDonald v. Chicago, 561 U.S. 742 (2010).
http://www.davekopel.org/2A/Mags/dark-secret-of-jim-crow.html
David Kopel, Bachelor of Arts in History from Brown University, won the National Geographic Society Prize for best History thesis with a biography of Arthur M. Schlesinger, Jr. He graduated magna com laude from the University of Michigan Law School. He was also a contributing editor of the Michigan Law Review.
Gun ownership, whether you like it or not, is unquestionably a civil rights issue. Gun control always was and still is today written for the express purpose of discriminating against anyone who isn’t white.
So, whatever kind of classist, racist, sexist, anti-rights, anti-science, anti-Humanist, historically-illiterate, and intellectually-bankrupt moral cowardice are YOU going to spread next as the very worst of America on display here?
Your analysis is missing one important paragraph: guns in the hands of criminals.
Gun grabbers refuse to deal with disarming the criminal element, largely because that would be too hard (and a gun grabber might get hurt). The refusal is also based on the core racism of the liberals, leftists, statists, Demoncrats. Gun grabbers are almost exclusively white middle class, people who live in “nice” neighborhoods, who only go into “nice” places, with “nice” people. The only threat of gunfire in “nice” places attended by “nice” people is the crazed gun owner who can (and will?), “go off” at any minute and start wildly shooting innocent “nice” people. Shootings in the inner cities, or anywhere gang members hang out is acceptable because “nice” people don’t go there.
Comments are closed.