You seem to think the problem is a "liberal" vs "conservative" issue.

I look at it as a life or death issue.

Which side are you on? Life? or death? Looks like you are part of the society that no longer values human life.

Possibly. And, it looks like you are the part of society that goes through life with their head up their ass and thinks more regulation, more laws and more spending is the answer to EVERYTHING...how naive you are.

Why not just call for the banning of all firearms and call it a day?

The USA is NOT the "murder capital" of the universe. We're not even in the top half. For that, you need to go to the "brown" 3rd world countries.

So...you compared America that is 51% minorities...to European countries that are much more "white" then we are. The more brown/black people...the more dangerous a place is. America included.

Minorities don't obey the laws.

Illinois, Chicago has a gun problem because they have a minority problem.

To eliminate 90% of ALL crime and violence...eliminate minorities. Control availability of guns to minorities.

Minorities no longer value life.

That IS what they want...even though gun violence is a MINORITY problem...they're responsible for 90% of it.

I do not call for the ban of all firearms, as our second amendment of the Constitution says, "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." But I do profess to believe in the first portion of that sentence that states that, "A well regulated militia..." which, in my estimation, means that firearms are allowed to be "regulated".

We are no longer in a country of a 1-musket ball long rifle, and we are no longer in a country whose citizenry must "defend" itself from outside forces. Do we individually need multi-fire semi-automatic weapons whose ammunition can pierce ANY armor, including the bullet-resistant vests worn by our law enforcement officers?

We need common sense regulation, and a perfect example of that is the regulation of automobiles and trucks. Of course there are elements of this society that can, and will, find ways to skirt the law, but as a whole, those regulations have saved countless lives. Aren't American lives worth saving?

I happen to think that saving lives is worth it, and you can call me naive, but I was a paramedic/firefighter for 20 years and had to deal with people who were gunshot victims, car crash victims, fire victims, and many others. I happen to value life. I will wear the badge of being naive with honor if it saves lives.

Huh?
 

My post, to which you were responding, did not say a word about handguns.

Carl in Tampa

.

so sorry, I must have been looking at a different item when responding, but I still see the gun-show loophole as a significant problem.

We HAVE "common sense" regulation.
 

In historical context the reference to "a well regulated militia" was understood to mean a well equipped militia. That's why people could keep and bear their own firearms. There was no provision for an armory full of firearms from which the militia could draw when needed.

The firearms that the citizens were authorized to own were the current weapons of war. The firearms keep up with the times. Contemporary writings by the Founding Fathers clearly demonstrate that the people were authorized to keep and bear arms to protect themselves from their own government if it should become tyrannical.

Virtually any rifle larger than a .22 rim fire, and many pistols, fire rounds capable of piercing the bullet resistant vests that are worn by most law enforcement officers. If you advocate forbidding private ownership of all those rifles, you end most hunting.

I value your 20 years as a paramedic/firefighter, but in my 40 years in law enforcement I also have rendered life saving attention to victims of gunshot, car crashes, people overcome in fires, and others in distress. And, I always arrived on the scene before the firefighters. You are not entitled to claim the moral high ground of compassion just because of your service.

You characterize my point of view as confrontational. I believe it is actually a realistic assessment of the facts. In virtually every high profile mass shooting since the Columbine High School incident there have been proposals for new "gun control" legislation, and none of those proposals would have corrected the situations that led to the shootings.

You keep calling for a discussion of sensible gun control laws. We are having it. You have made a couple of suggestions that I have pointed out are already the law of the land. You simply don't like what I have to say.

Carl in Tampa

.

Not really a Gun Show issue.
 

It is actually not a "Gun Show loophole" so much as it is a "Private sale" loophole. It became characterized as a Gun Show loophole because so many private sales were being made at gun show venues, where complete strangers met to buy and sell guns.

Federal law can regulate "businesses" engaged in interstate commerce. Interestingly, the federal government has never settled on a specific number of gun sales at a gun show, or in a particular period of time, which would trigger the requirement for a person to have a Federal Firearms license.

Regulation of private in-state sales is more problematic, and is best addressed by the individual states. The residents of different states have different views.

Carl in Tampa

.

You are absolutely right, Carl. I have been to many gun shows and ALWAYS had to fill out background paperwork to purchase a new weapon. EXCEPT if I had a CCW where there was already an extensive background check on file.

When someone commits a crime using a gun, there are those that insist that we need new gun laws. When someone runs through a crowd in a car or truck, should we make new traffic laws? We have laws.

The private sale law also only applies to the transfer of a firearm between family members. Private sellers are also supposed to do background checks.

The fact is that we have ATF agents at gun shows trying to crack down on private sales because they are not legal.

It's interesting that you mention cars. Over 40,000 in the US were killed in car accidents last year while 11,000 were killed by guns. I heard a woman on television say that we need to pass whatever laws we can even if it were only to save one life. So should we pass more automobile laws?

About 13,000 people were killed as the result of drunk drivers. Do we need to make more laws against drunk driving?

Most people would say no to these questions. The answer is usually, we need to better enforce the laws that we have. I would argue the same thing for guns and gun laws.

More laws won't prevent more deaths. LAWS DON'T PREVENT CRIMES.

We have laws against drunk driving and 13,000 people were killed by drunk drivers. People break the laws. People commit crimes. If all laws were followed, very few people would be killed by a gun. People who commit gun crimes are already breaking several laws.

So how is making it more difficult for, good responsible, law-abiding citizens to obtain guns going to help this problem?

What we need to do is enforce the gun laws that we already have. We need stiffer penalties for people who commit crimes with guns. But even that is not going to prevent people like the LV shooter from acting. He went into this hoping to die. How do you defend yourself against someone who wants to die? They are like the Japanese Kamikaze pilots. Threats do not deter them and that is all that laws do. They present the threat of going to jail or being put to death.

They regulate "private" car sales....and do so effectively.

Hmmmm....idiots are not limited to menopausal women.

Try reading some of the articles you are posting links for...Why don't you suggest we don't "jump all over" the numerous things we disagree on??

You know nothing about guns or the sales of guns. You just keep google searching links to post, you don't even take the time to read them, because they have nothing to do with your erroneous claims...you are an idiot PERIOD!

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

You misunderstand it...they wanted the PEOPLE to be the militia. They wanted NO standing Army. They wanted citizen soldiers. "ARMS" means EVERYTHING an Army would have...the people would have. They wanted the people to be "well organized" in their local militia. You see...there wasn't supposed to a a federal "Army" for anyone to have to fight to change the government when it inevitably became too tyrannical...like it is now.

The difference between a citizen and a slave? A citizen can defend himself and his property.

What stops people from driving into a crowd? Nothing. And you're starting to see it. Ban one thing and another takes its place.

IF you were in a diverse area...you know then that MINORITIES are a FAR larger problem than these lone crazy white people. The percentage is...90% of killings ARE done by minorities.

Exactly...the people were to form well regulated local militias who would be equipped with "arms"...everything an Army would have. They were meant to be defensive in nature.

They WANT us to be slaves and not citizens...THEY want to call ALL the shots.

Minorities are responsible for 90% of shootings and killings. Ban THEM from having guns. Would you let your dog play with guns? A chimp? Well then...why do we let another species play with them?

You have a RIGHT to bear arms...that is why the regulation is at a minimum. Are ALL swap meets regulated? You can buy bows and arrows, knives, axes, all kinds of things that can harm...without regulation.

Minorities, the inner city thugs who commit 90% of the crime and killing...don't go to gun shows to buy their weapons. They get stolen guns from their fellow thugs.

You CAN'T stop someone who is determined.

For the tax money. If guns sold for multiple $ thousands...they'd be all over it.

Besides...owning a car isn't in the Constitution as a right.

Purchasing a car is not a Constitutional Right.