Once again, a school, a shooter....and we do the drill yet again.....

[jalapeno_pretzel]

Firearm dealers are not individuals, thus do not have individual constitutional rights. Individuals do have constitutional rights. That is why there are rules for businesses, the firearm dealers, and not for private sale.

What is the difference between a person who is a firearm dealer and an individual just selling a gun? Why would someone become a firearm dealer if they could just sell guns as an individual with less hassle?

 

[CdnCarrie]

I'm curious. Did you intentionally not bold where @mrodgers also mentioned mental health? Don't most other countries have different (I'm not going to use "better" because that's subjective) types of health care? Instead of focusing on the parent/family issue, maybe the health care issue? Or, wait for it, MULTIPLE issues? Do you think it could be MULTIPLE things that are allowing this to happen?

Can people not admit the US is different from other countries, in LOTS of things? Many of which can factor into the number of shootings?

Yes mental health is one factor. Parenting is another. Access to guns is another factor. I didn't bold mental health because I agreed with it.
Of course it's multiple factors. I think parenting except in extreme circumstances is probably a very low factor. Look at Sue Klebold as an active, engaged parent but had a child who because a mass murderer.

I don't think being in a single parent home leads to being a mass murderer. Or being raised by millenials. The mass shooters in Canada of recent have been much older for the most part. Not teens.

 

[kdonnel]

What is the difference between a person who is a firearm dealer and an individual just selling a gun? Why would someone become a firearm dealer if they could just sell guns as an individual with less hassle?

Once you start selling guns for a living, you MUST become a FFL holder to continue to sell otherwise you should and probably will go to jail.

If you are just buying and selling as a hobby, fine. Otherwise you need to become an FFL and follow all the rules and regulations that come with being a FFL holder.

 

[Pea-n-Me]

We do see it differently in a way. I think that while kindness can effect *some* change, it is not a solution to the problem that seems to be endemic at this time. Kindness to those who have gone through a tragedy can help those effected by it but that does not mean that kindness changes anything except feelings.

To go back to my cancer analogy, keeping a positive outlook helped me and those around me deal with what I was going through but it did not have any effect on the cancer itself. The thing that did have an effect on the cancer was proven therapies such as surgery to remove the cancer and chemotherapy to ensure that all cancerous cells were destroyed.

Not sure if that makes sense but there you have it.

I think being nicer to eachother, as a society, HAS to be part of the change we seek here, with this problem.

 

[jalapeno_pretzel]

Once you start selling guns for a living, you MUST become a FFL holder to continue to sell otherwise you should and probably will go to jail.

If you are just buying and selling as a hobby, fine. Otherwise you need to become an FFL and follow all the rules and regulations that come with being a FFL holder.

I guess I don't really see why it would be unconstitutional to require a hobbyist to submit the form for a background check when it is required for the guy or gal just trying to make a living.

 

[prairie_girl]

It's not ONLY a mental health problem.

Exactly! It’s such a cop out to blame mental illness. Can it be a cause? Sure, absolutely. But it’s also not the only issue. It paints all people dealing with mental health issues in such a bad light.

Then why aren't there this level of mass shootings in other countries. Are you saying American parenting is worse than then the rest of the world?

The bolded is just a straw arguement because you don't agree with gun control.

This is such a good question, but it’s one that rarely gets answered. They don’t answer, because they can’t give a good answer to it.

 

[kdonnel]

I guess I don't really see why it would be unconstitutional to require a hobbyist to submit the form for a background check when it is required for the guy or gal just trying to make a living.

The Supreme Court generally says that there can not be undue restrictions on rights.

Many argue that it might be an undue restriction on the second amendment. It adds costs to the purchase. Costs that low income people might not be able to afford. At that point the second amendment is only available to those above a certain income level. An unintended consequence I believe many would find problematic.

 

[jalapeno_pretzel]

The Supreme Court generally says that there can not be undue restrictions on rights.

Many argue that it might be an undue restriction on the second amendment. It adds costs to the purchase. Costs that low income people might not be able to afford. At that point the second amendment is only available to those above a certain income level. An unintended consequence I believe many would find problematic.

What if there could be a federal program to waive the fee on the background check for hobbyists? Could it be constitutional then if there were no cost concerns?

 

[jalapeno_pretzel]

Or, what if the definition of who must have a FFL was expanded to include not just those who make their living from selling guns, but anyone who sells more than (IDK pick a number) 20 guns per year or something? That might expand the number of background checks while not inconveniencing the hobbyist who is only selling a couple a year.

 

[jalapeno_pretzel]

Exactly! It’s such a cop out to blame mental illness. Can it be a cause? Sure, absolutely. But it’s also not the only issue. It paints all people dealing with mental health issues in such a bad light.

And, why do those that blame mental illness always seem to go silent when talking about implementing policies that could improve mental healthcare?

 

[CdnCarrie]

And, why do those that blame mental illness always seem to go silent when talking about implementing policies that could improve mental healthcare?

Can you give an example of that. I don't know what you mean.

 

[jalapeno_pretzel]

Can you give an example of that. I don't know what you mean.

I mean, they blame mental illness, but then they don't seem to want to get behind/support policy changes that improve mental healthcare access.

 

[CdnCarrie]

I mean, they blame mental illness, but then they don't seem to want to get behind policy changes that improve mental healthcare access.

Ah I see. I know our mental health resources are really lacking here. There's huge room for improvement. Many more beds and access to help is needed.

 

[kdonnel]

What if there could be a federal program to waive the fee on the background check for hobbyists? Could it be constitutional then if there were no cost concerns?

There are other costs, but yes if they are all covered, fine.

Other examples that are troublesome to me are mandatory training before purchase, or purchase licenses, or exorbitant taxes on ammunition.

All of those place an undue burden on the lower income.

Will people wanting to limit firearm access be ok with their tax money being used to acquire firearms?

I can easily take a day or two off to take mandatory training. Many can not. As part of mandatory training "common sense" laws are we going to compromise and allow federal tax dollars to pay not only for the training but for the time the person was required to take off?

I see a lot of parallels with voter suppression.

Our right to vote is in the constitution and should be vigorously supported. Voting should be easy and there should be lots of options. Rules should not be implemented that either by design or by accident make exercising the right to vote unduly difficult.

The second amendment is in the constitution. It should be vigorously supported. Buying a firearm should be easy and there should be lots of options. Rules should not be implemented that either by design or by accident make exercising the right to buy a firearm unduly difficult.

 

[CdnCarrie]

Buying a firearm should be easy and there should be lots of options. Rules should not be implemented that either by design or by accident make exercising the right to buy a firearm unduly difficult

This is such a odd, twisted, foreign concept. I cannot even fathom the thought process behind this.
Buying a firearm should be difficult. Lives are what matter.
And this thought process is exactly why you will never solve the problem.

 

[DisneyOma]

Since we're going this route with the thread, as I expected (the narrative already was mentioned prior to your post...) Just want to let you know that by saying "semi automatic" scary words, that includes the majority of handguns that you also mention as an exception.

For those mentioning the obvious solution, your obvious solution in penalizing me and those who don't do these things isn't going to solve anything.

Yeah, I'm not big on guns or what they do, how they do it, etc. To me the handgun is the thing on TV that goes "bang" and then a pause, and then "bang". The semi automatic would sound more like "BANGBANGBANGBANGBANGBANGBANG" GOod to know that they make smaller guns that can be hidden more easily and shoot faster

 

[kdonnel]

This is such a odd, twisted, foreign concept. I cannot even fathom the thought process behind this.
Buying a firearm should be difficult. Lives are what matter.

Rights matter as well.

No laws should be passed to restrict or limit rights written into the constitution at an undue level.

One of the primary purposes of the constitution is it to expressly protect certain rights and liberties for individuals from government interference.

A laws sole focus should not be to suppress a right.

 

[DisneyOma]

Rights matter as well.

No laws should be passed to restrict or limit rights written into the constitution at an undue level.

One of the primary purposes of the constitution is it to expressly protect certain rights and liberties for individuals from government interference.

A laws sole focus should not be to suppress a right.

Like we've never changed things in the constitution...

 

[kdonnel]

Yeah, I'm not big on guns or what they do, how they do it, etc. To me the handgun is the thing on TV that goes "bang" and then a pause, and then "bang". The semi automatic would sound more like "BANGBANGBANGBANGBANGBANGBANG" GOod to know that they make smaller guns that can be hidden more easily and shoot faster

The vast majority of firearms sold and owned are semi automatic.

In simplest terms, semi-automatic refers to any firearm designed to fire one bullet with one trigger squeeze, then automatically reload the chamber with a cartridge from a magazine and be ready to fire again.

There are handguns, rifles, and shotguns that are semi-automatic.

 

[kdonnel]

Like we've never changed things in the constitution...

Change it.

An amendment may be proposed by a two-thirds vote of both Houses of Congress, or, if two-thirds of the States request one, by a convention called for that purpose. The amendment must then be ratified by three-fourths of the State legislatures, or three-fourths of conventions called in each State for ratification.

Until it is changed though, don't treat rights written into the constitution as though one is less important than another.