Background checks should be required for all gun purchases

If a bad guy has a gun in a movie theater and plans on using it, knowing every other person in that theater has a gun would be a big deterrent.

Well the only one that offers any advantage is the one where everyone has a gun. No guns means potential victims while all guns has no draw backs.

So you see carrying a loaded weapon every where as the best option? To church, school, a bar, the Capitol, the baby sitter’s, the town office, the grocery store, political rallies, weddings, funerals…? What about the rest of us who see those with weapons as threats? If I saw someone carrying a gun into the grocery store, my reaction would be to call the cops. After all, I don’t know what your intent is, do I? I don’t know your mental history; whether or not you threaten people with guns;  whether you have a past history of violence in your family; whether or not your intent is to hold up the store; whether you are mad at your girl friend or boy friend who works at the store…. And I do not know that you are not paranoid. What I do know is that you are carrying a weapon in an inappropriate venue – from which I would assume that you are paranoid.  Do others  not have the right to a semblance of security that perhaps you are not one of those crazed people who will shoot everyone on sight?

Ah, yes,  I too should carry a gun and then if I see you with your gun, perhaps if I feel threatened, I should shoot you and that is the price of my liberty? And then all the other people who are in the store and carrying their guns can join in at the free-for-all? Have you no idea, how this sounds to someone who is rational about guns and the appropriateness of when and where to have them?

I find it really strange that people who carry the ultimate weapon of macho all sound kind of demented about it and also seem so small and fearful.  Are you really so scared of everyone and life that you need to be armed? Do you really think that someone is going to provide you with the ultimate opportunity to be a hero?

When others see someone carrying a gun, they see it as a threat, not
someone out there to protect and defend them. It limits their freedom to
speak or act out because they do not know the nature of the one carrying the weapon or their intent. Thus, it limits their liberty. Everyone carrying a gun increases the threat.

 Providing security for your family is admirable, but what about when you are not around to do that? Do you not think that perhaps  police or sheriff could fill that role as well?  Is our military not there to protect us from foreign invasion?  I would go further that in no  society can there be 100% security which is why I think that the Patriot Act, Homeland Security etc are dangerous to freedom. They perpetuate the notion that all one need do is, such and such, and voila, we are safe. What we do know is that some limits can provide a modicum of security even though one is never really safe from harm of one kind or another. We think that killing other people is wrong so we limit the right to do that. We also try to limit the means within reason. And that is what this is about. What is a reasonable measure to provide the basic freedom of gun ownership, with limitations on the harm that guns can do to others. Trees fall on people; other drivers smash into you; crazies with guns go into movie theaters and shoot you; ideologues decide to blow up public buildings; security even the security you think you can provide for your family – is ephemeral.  And, if you are the threat to your family, who is to protect them from you if you have an arsenal of weapons?

Often it is those with weapons, who are not part of any  government, who are a threat to the security, peace, and safety of the greater population. One need only look to Afghanistan and see that guns do not provide freedom or security. The Taliban represented a group of people, as say some militias in this country do, but are they about providing safety, security or freedom to others? No. And, if guns made for safety, we would be the safest country in the world. But we aren’t.

I do think that there are reasonable regulatory measures that protect the larger population to be free in our society, thorough background checks on everyone purchasing guns is a good place to start. Disallowing online sales of ammunition and weapons without background checks should certainly be considered as well. If you pass the check, you are okay. Where is the harm there?

Other countries have the same types of freedoms that we do but are not wedded to the idea that a gun is the only means to that freedom. Because it is not.

Despite the first amendment, even freedom of speech has some constraints on it in our society and that is an even more basic right to have since it encompasses freedom of thought. Freedom of the press has some constraints on it – despite the first amendment. And, the second amendment has some limitations, too.

When I mentioned other countries, I referenced their freedom and not needing untrammeled gun rights to be free. I will submit that other countries are violent too, and that some of them have higher crime rates and even violence by other means.  Mexico, for example, has become very violent. Much of it is drug and gun related. The ease with which guns can be had and the damage that can be done without injury to yourself, as well as the ease with which you can terrorize others with them, makes them the weapon of choice. Suicides also find them to be useful. In China, guns are not as easy to come by so stabbing is the method there. I agree that people will be violent. I also think that there is no such thing as complete security, but that is not even what is going on here. Government does plays a legitimate role though in providing safety to all of us and it does have the role of making laws within the parameters set by our Constitution.

Yes, the Supreme Court says that police play no role in providing personal protection but are there for the protection of society as a whole. They, of course, have their own protective service so don’t need to worry as other people seem to, about their safety. And what, pray tell, does protection for society as a whole mean? Does it not mean that if someone is, for instance, shooting up your neighbor’s home; raping her; or robbing her that if called, they would not be expected to respond when called? They would hardly say, oh, sorry we can’t come because we do not do protection, but when it is over give us a call, and we will investigate and file a report? Are you really saying that citizens should not expect them to stop a crime in progress, even if it is a personal safety issue? Or that they would not respond for that reason?  On the other hand, if you are just scared of someone who is stalking you, they will do nothing to protect you, you’re on your own. Unless you are somebody, like a Supreme Court justice, of course.  

As to whether or not the federal government can control intrastate commerce, perhaps in the case of, say, weaponry that is licensed through the US government, they would most likely have the right to interfere. I don’t know what the federal laws are but I read in an article on BDN or the KJ that in order to own automatic weapons one needed a permit from the feds. They could be wrong since it is not that easy to find out the real information on it online. I was under the belief that one needs a federal firearms permit to own certain automatic weapons – a class III permit? –  if that is the case, then why would they not have an interest in control of or knowing who else was getting that weapon.   Or is a Class III permit a concealed carry permit? Automatic weapons are military style weapons, after all, so sensible people would expect there to be some controls on them – and yes, that would be at the federal level.

Your comment was “Thirdly, what gives the government the right to regulate intrastate private property transfers?” 

I am familiar with the interstate commerce clause, are you? Congress has pretty broad reach where the commerce clause is concerned which is what gives the government the right to regulate interstate commerce.  You mentioned intrastate private property transfers. Well if the private property transfer is a sale, that is commerce. If it is across state lines, that would be interstate commerce. If is within state lines, that would be intrastate commerce.  So in my comments, I quite reasonable assumed you knew the difference. The federal government may well have the desire to know who controls automatic weaponry that had changed hands which is why there are background checks. What difference should there be if the sale is through private hands or a commercial seller. The law should apply equally.

 As for not knowing about federal firearms permits, I don’t have one, don’t want one, so no, I don’t know the rules. Why would I? This does not mean I should not have an opinion about whether or not I think that automatic weaponry should be on sale to the public or whether the law should be applied across the board to those who make gun sales – both private and commercial.  I am part of the public, an informed citizen, and voter. I read what others have to say, try to understand an issue and the views of others, but sometimes I feel that I, too, have something to say on an issue. I said the KJ had an article in which it referenced the need to have a federal firearms permit in order to own an automatic weapon,  but often one cannot rely on information garnered from the newspaper or the internet as to veracity. So I tried to find the definitive information with respect to the issue online. Sometimes there is contradictory information and sometimes resources in the newspaper and online are unreliable. Just as when I read something from the BDN comment section, I tend to take its reliability with a grain of salt. Which I will also do in this case.

 EVERYONE! I always carry mine, and I’m ‘just’ a girl!