Does nobody seem to notice or is it something that is talked about all the time and has the national attention? I think it’s the latter. Do you really think the prevalence of violence in Chicago is due to a lack of good guys with guns? At any rate, the main point is that we can’t prevent someone with known terrorist affiliations to purchase as many guns and bullets as they want - that seems like a problem.

The main point is NOT that we can't prevent a known ISIS member from buying guns. Add up all the murders throughout the country each year. What percentage are committed by known terrorists? Some tiny fraction, well less than one percent?

The main point is that some of the very strictest gun control laws in this country, for decades, have existed in Chicago. Simultaneously, some of the highest gun murder rates have existed in Chicago. So what does a former President, and you, say to that? You both lament not having stricter gun control laws.

I live in a rural area where just about every household has some kind of gun, often more than one. My neighbors are hunters and some, like me, are NRA members. We have almost no murders out here and a primary reason is that criminals know this is a dangerous place for them to commit crime.

Clear your mind of your preconceptions for just one minute and really think about what I'm going to say here. Don't worry, it won't hurt. Ready? Okay, now, if a guy is contemplating committing mass murder, what does it mean to him when he sees on a building's doors: NO GUNS ALLOWED ON THESE PREMISES?

Does he think:
a) Well, I can't shoot up this place because I'm not allowed to bring my gun inside

or

b) Wonderful, I can murder to my heart's content with assurance there won't be anyone armed inside to stop me.

?

The harder you make gun ownership and conceal/carry laws for law abiding people, the easier you make it for criminals to murder. Common sense to many.... baffling concept for some.

Gun enthusiasts love to cite Chicago as proof that gun laws don't work.

But if you look at gun deaths per capita at the state level, it lines up pretty well with states that have loose gun laws and high rates of guns per capita.

Here are the 10 states with the highest gun deaths per capita:

Alaska (24.5 per 100k people)
Alabama (22.9 per 100k people)
Montana (22.5 per 100k people)
Louisiana (21.7 per 100k people)
Mississippi (21.5 per 100k people)
Missouri (21.5 per 100k people)
Arkansas (20.3 per 100k people)
Wyoming (18.8 per 100k people)
West Virginia (18.6 per 100k people)
New Mexico (18.5 per 100k people)

https://worldpopulationreview.com/st...apita-by-state


Here are the 10 states with the highest rates of gun ownership:

Montana (66.30%)
Wyoming (66.20%)
Alaska (64.50%)
Idaho (60.10%)
West Virginia (58.50%)
Arkansas (57.20%)
Mississippi (55.80%)
Alabama (55.50%)
South Dakota (55.30%)
North Dakota (55.10%)

https://worldpopulationreview.com/st...rship-by-state

Supreme Court ruled in favor of a constitutional right to carry. Big changes will have to be made in left-wing ban heavy jurisdictions that only give permits to friends of the sheriff.

Stop it with the facts and statistics! Repeat pro gun speaking points here please.

These days, there are "facts" and "alternative facts"...

We're talking about murder, so suicides need to be filtered out, and when we do that, there is less correlation between gun ownership and murder. Your list shows 7 states in both the high gun death/high gun ownership lists, but looking at only murders, there are only 4 states on both lists.

Also, I wonder how gun ownership is measured among non registered and illegal guns like those owned by gangs and criminals. Furthermore, cause and effect might suggest gun ownership goes up after crime goes up, as people seek to defend themselves. In other words, criminals/murderers are the cause, and higher gun ownership is the result.

Here are the 10 states with the highest murder rate, using your source:
https://worldpopulationreview.com/st...-rate-by-state

Louisiana (12.4 per 100k)
Missouri (9.8 per 100k)
Nevada (9.1 per 100k)
Maryland (9 per 100k)
Arkansas (8.6 per 100k)
Alaska (8.4 per 100k)
Alabama (8.3 per 100k)
Mississippi (8.2 per 100k)
Illinois (7.8 per 100k)
South Carolina (7.8 per 100k)

You just posted a list of states with loose gun laws, with the exception of Maryland and Illinois. And this was to prove your point? Quite the opposite effect.

Where there are mosquitoes, more people will be using bug spray.

Where there are murders, there will be more law abiding people seeking to defend themselves.

So basically your point seems to be the more guns, the safer people are. Which has been demonstrated to be the opposite of the truth based on all data.

But keep on believing whatever you want.

Most restrictive gun laws in the country are in Chicago and Washington D.C. Both have ridiculously high gun murder rates.

But keep believing strict gun laws work.

As of this morning, strict gun laws may be a thing of the past. This ruling establishes pretty directly that the 2nd is not special and is to be treated like other constitutional rights. It will be used to overturn more.

Bad news for gangs, drug dealers, car jackers, and other assorted gun carrying criminals. Their "profession" just became more costly in terms of personal risk.

Great news for those of us who prefer not to be their prey.

Any way you slice it, today's ruling is a very broad interpretation of the 2nd amendment, courtesy of the 6 conservative judges. This will very much weaken any semblance of states' rights that existed regarding gun control. Of course, that won't stop people, such as yourself from claiming that their 2nd amendment rights have been trampled on until now. But that doesn't make you correct.

The Supreme Court has a lot of power. Hopefully the pendulum swings back the other way later this century.

Not to steer this political, but if they greatly strengthen states' rights on abortion, many in the pro gun control crowd will be quite upset. Some people want the Court to guarantee rights not specified in the Constitution, but not guarantee rights (the 2nd Amendment) that clearly are.

This court is interpreting the Constitution and respecting its own limitations. The right to keep and bear arms is explicitly enumerated as a right guaranteed by the federal government. Many things are not, and the right to legislate them belong to the states. This is the role of the Supreme Court - to be an umpire and rule on laws expressly under their review, not to create laws as they choose.

I too am a fan of enforcing laws on the books.

Also i propose random searches of people on the street with a metal detector.....if drugs are found but they are declared before search you cant be arrested for that or anything else declared...

even if have a warrant for arrest, you would get a mandatory court appearence and receive a ticket but not have to post any bond but if do not show up they are new charges..

basically i dont want police using the random search to target people who then get arrested for other crimes but get the guns off the street...

if dont have a license to carry a gun you shouldnt have one on the street ..

If someone were to run from a search knowing they cant be arrested for anything other than carrying the gun, it would give good reason for a foot pursuit as we alway hear 'he ran cause had a warrant' etc....

It's illegal to text and drive and people die every day because of someone that was texting and driving but you don't hear about any lobbying for stricter punishment for people that are caught texting and driving.

If I'm involved in an accident caused by someone on a cell phone even if I tell a police officer responding to the accident I saw them on their phone he can't search their phone because it's against their rights to do so but if I have a gun in my vehicle even though I didn't cause the accident you can bet he's going to check to see if it's loaded and legal.

Nah, easier for them to get guns. They’ll be ok. Good luck against them.

It's a quite literal reading; you know, the obvious one to make using the meaning of the actual words, not what ban-supporters wish they had written. I'd love to hear where in the Constitution it says the 2nd is to be held to a different standard than the rest.

Personally, the text does not go far enough - it still holds the 2nd to a different standard from the rest by allowing shall-issue permitting. I don't need a permit to exercise my other constitutional rights. I don't need the state to give me a permit to practice a religious faith, or voice an unpopular opinion.

Yes, my claims do not make me correct. The text of the document does.

I would agree with you that the courts often exceed their original mandates, including on things I even agree with the Courts on. However, enforcing the Bill of Rights in the legal system (unlike many hot topic legal issues, guns are undeniably a constitutional issue - it's in there plain as day) is exactly what the Court is supposed to do. You believe States may or should simply ignore the Bill of Rights if they want too, and that is what states rights means? Even the very pro-state founders (though we like to forget the 10th today too) did not agree with that.

This ruling does not, in any way, make it easier or harder to get a gun. That is a fact.

You have freedom of religion. It is infringed by the government all the time - for example, when you claim your religion involves sacrificing a sheep in the middle of the street. You have freedom speech. It is infringed by the government all the time - for example, when you yell fire in a crowded theater. It is the second amendment where pro gun people draw the line and don’t accept reasonable restrictions like the other amendments - even the one that comes before it. Society is better off with these reasonable restrictions in place. We are worse off since they are not allowed by pro gun activists with respect to the second amendment. We are a laughing stock to the rest of the world with our guns and school shootings.

Yes. Just as it is illegal to shoot up a room full of school children, or to even discharge a firearm within city limits and nobody wants to change that. There is no requirement that I need to get a permit from the state to practice normal religion, or to speak my mind. You are advocating that special requirements be met to exercise the 2nd at all, which does not and has not existed for any other right. There is no clause that the 2nd is any different; that it is subject to a different set of standards from the rest. I don't need a permit to exercise my first amendment rights. I do not need a special permit to be protected by the 4th amendment. Nor should I for the 2nd; it should be treated the same as the rest, nothing more nor less.

Speakers wishing to speak, religions wish to hold services, are burdened with numerous permit requirements. Religious freedoms is not unconstitutionally infringed when we make a pastor comply with the fire code to preach. Nor is it infringed in my opinion if we require gun owners to pass a background check or, heaven forbid, take a safety course.

As discussed numerous times, buying a gun at the gun store already requires a background check, in all states. People getting a concealed carry permit will still go through a background check. Shall issue means they must issue by default, unless they find a very specific and non-arbitrary reason to deny, like having a violent criminal history. I really wish the anti-gun side would educate themselves on the laws, even as they screech for more they continually fail to understand what the laws actually are.

Yes, the church has to comply with the fire code. So does my sportsmen's club. Again, nobody is trying to change this. Gun owners are not saying the constitution means our meeting places don’t have to meet fire code. What changes is that the 2nd has to be held to the *same* standards as the other amendments, not a separate and different one whereby it can be ignored whenever desired by one side.

I may misunderstand the process. If I go to buy a shotgun today along with as much ammo as I can afford, what do they look for in me? Make sure I’m not a felon?

In all 50 states, you are run through a background check by the BATFE. You fill out a form 4473 and have to show your identification to prove you are who you claim you are. The form has a series of questions on your criminal history, legal status, mental health and history, and behavior. Lying on the form is punishable by up to a decade in federal prison. The BATFE runs a background check through NICS against the database to determine if you are a prohibited person for reasons legal or mental. If you are, you are denied and the store cannot give you the shotgun. If they do, they are punishable by, I think, up to 20 years in federal prison for one incident.

If you come up as clean in the database, the store is cleared to give you your gun. Gun stores will typically not even let you try to purchase a gun if you appear to be acting in a suspicious manner; it is illegal for them to sell you a gun if they have reasonable cause to believe you cannot have one, even if this person clears NICS.

Some states have more restrictive standards than this one, and will require you to perform a written test, perform a safe handling demonstration of the specific shotgun you are attempting to purchase, purchase a specific type of lock, and/or wait some period of time before the gun is actually given to you.

This is what a 4473 looks like: https://www.atf.gov/firearms/docs/44...53009/download

This is accurate. I worked retail for several years at a store that sold firearms. In addition, if there is any question in the background check (determining right identity for common names, etc.), there may be a delay on purchasing the firearm. We sold firearms days after the person initially came into the store, or declined sales in the same time period. We also declined sales up front without a background check because a person was intoxicated or acting in a disorderly manner.

Very strict, specific process.

As one of those guys who spends too much time with my FFL, it amazes me that this happens occasionally and I've seen it a coupe times. They are evicted in short order.

Can’t you buy guns online?

If you buy a gun from an online distributor, it is shipped to an FFL (a licensed firearms dealer), who then performs your background check, 4473, and the full process before turning the gun over to you if you clear the check and process. You pay them for their time and work, and the online dealer. You can’t just go to Atlantic Firearms and buy your hypothetical shotgun and have them ship it to you.

Certain curio and relic firearms are allowed to be delivered to individuals who have been specially licensed by the government through the mail without the FFL.

"Gun stores will typically not even let you try to purchase a gun if you appear to be acting in a suspicious manner; it is illegal for them to sell you a gun if they have reasonable cause to believe you cannot have one, even if this person clears NICS."

"We also declined sales up front without a background check because a person was intoxicated or acting in a disorderly manner."

Sounds like clear violations of those customers god-given Constitutional rights!

I'm sure an intelligent point could be made here.

I think it’s an excellent point. Unless you think those processes and checks should be eliminated we are all then agreeing there are restrictions that should exist. Kids can’t go into a store and buy a gun like a piece of candy, even though the constitution makes no mention whatsoever of an age restriction. And background checks were not required when the bill of rights was written so those are something that have evolved with the times. Once we agree there need to be some restrictions, it’s a matter of both sides agreeing on those. Instead the alt response seems to be over my dead body, stop trampling on my rights, etc. It’s not productive.

Of course you do. I have said many pages ago that I am fine with the kind of restrictions that have historically existed - murderers were not permitted guns in their cells in 1789. I am fine with this. Not a single person is arguing it…

What you and the other banners/regulators in this thread have proposed, banning most all common use firearms or taxing them at 10,000x their value, is blatantly ignoring historical tradition, and is in no way closing an extreme - it’s infringing a basic right. Just as nobody objects to law against inciting using ‘free speech’

We are not saying the 2nd is DIFFERENT from the other amendments, in that we must ignore what was common when it was written and history. We are saying it should be held to the SAME standards as every other amendment. Nobody is saying convicted murderers cannot lose privileges, none of us gun owners have a nuclear bomb. These counter arguments from you are centered on absurdities arguing against things that the other side from you does not even think.

I would describe bitching about ‘god given’, which nobody here is arguing (it’s the Constitution, not the Bible) as the opposite of intelligent.

I am sure you could argue against what people are actually arguing instead of having to make things up that are easier to argue against. It was somehow better when you simply stalked me around replying “ok” randomly.

That’s why I added in background checks specifically and noted those were not done at the time the bill of rights was written. It was come for pre teens to have access to guns then too. What was not common then was semis of course. Regardless, the debate is theoretical at this point. No one is taking away any rights for many years with the current makeup of the Supreme Court. So sleep well (but perhaps avoid the news coverings of mass shootings).

You might want to tell that to Wayne LaPierre, literally hundreds of current and aspirational congressmen, and, almost to a man, the patrons of the shooting range I frequent.

Yeah, you get it. That’s why I’m not a supporter of background checks (not hugely against, personally, but it does violate), and am not for banning civil liberties to 18 year olds. Teens may possess a gun in many states, if you were not aware.

For the thousandth time, these insinuations that people who disagree with you are somehow supporting mass killings is nonsense that makes you sound like an ideologue without reason or common sense. Sleep well.

Yep, we dum’ ol’ re’neck’s think the 2nd amendament is in the Holy Bible.

The entire debate in this thread has been legislative and constitutional; not whether the right is natural born or god given. There’s plenty for you to mock, but mocking points literally no one has made is kind of stupid.

I don’t think you want them. I think having easy access to guns makes them inevitable. We’ve tried easy access. Doesn’t seem to work.

It is neither. And I'm sorry that I wantonly threw in a phrase that has been casually tossed around for decades by "no regulationers" in order to make it seem as a settled fact.

Nobody is saying it is. We are talking about the Constitution, not the Bible.

Your posts are informative and articulate.

I am finding it ironic that these people who think more laws will solve the problem, seem willing to sidestep, or set aside, the central law of this country since its very founding: the Constitution.

i think they dont enforce DUI's enough as well, if someone gets a DUI i think they should have to have a purple license plate for a few years so people to warn people etc..

metal detector is not unreasonable.......i do think the amount of people killed by gun violence is unreasonable..

the same people who think overturn roe v wade is ridiculous when abortion not a constitutional right are fine with overturning the constitution for gun control. Also same people fine with forcing a shot and lose your job if dont take covid shot are now saying its their body and no right to interfere with roe v wade even though they mostly live in states where nothing has changed and doesnt impact them at all..

plus interesting that people said you should get a shot because it impacts the life of other people...i would think abortion after a viable fetus also impats another life etc..

i not taking side here but just saying please be consistent..

At least one state does that I think but only on second offense.

thats cool to know but still funny they let you DUI once where you could kill people plus all the other times you werent pulled over and then they get you a 'free' DUI.

Not even the most anti-gun left-wing courts in the land are going to rule that the police 'randomly' searching, with no suspicion whatsoever, who are just out in general public and not a sensitive location that some courts consider separate (a courthouse, federal buildings, etc.) in order to arrest them for carrying a gun (which has just been reaffirmed as a core constitutional right), but for no other legal violations is in any way constitutional. It is an absurdly blatant violation of the 4th amendment that protects exactly against being searched without any cause or warrant.

This will lose 9-0 on the current court.