No, they don't.

Why post this Bullshit? Pretty bad when even the gungho gunners can't keep the story straight and openly contradict themselves.

Big time RW Opinion piece: Jennifer Carlson is the author of "Policing the Second Amendment: Guns, Law Enforcements and the Politics of Race" and "Citizen-Protectors: The Everyday Politics of Guns in an Age of Decline." She is currently writing a book on the 2020 surge in gun purchases.

In 1996, amid backlash to two major federal gun laws — the Brady Bill and the Assault Weapons Ban — Congress passed the ****ey Amendment, named for its sponsor, Rep. Jay ****ey (R-Ark.). That measure stipulated that “none of the funds made available for injury prevention and control at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) may be used to advocate or promote gun control.” In the years since, headlines have described a federal funding “freeze” or “drought,” or claimed that “gun violence research has been shut down for 20 years.”

In terms of dollar amounts, this was a huge blow to gun research. Nevertheless, federally funded gun research marched on — just not from a public health perspective. Instead, criminal justice approaches have dominated federally funded gun research, with the National Institute of Justice leading the way in terms of the number of studies funded and the amount funded, as my co-author Rina James and I discuss in a forthcoming study. (I know firsthand that the federal government funds such research: I receive funding from the National Science Foundation to study how survivors experience the aftermath of gun violence in California and Florida.) It matters not just whether the federal government funds gun research but also how: A criminal justice-focused approach crowds out other ways of thinking about, and crafting public policy regarding, guns rights and gun harm.

for the US. It is an absolute lie that that intentional handcuffing measure directed towards CDC and its programs was not devastating to gun-related public health research during this time. An absolute lie. No one else had the (authority/legal) ability to collect and perform nationwide directed surveillance on gun-related intentional and nonintentional injuries--from the states.

Not to mention that R's and some extremely misguided non-R politicos in Congress and statehouses actively worked to muzzle pediatricians and other physicians--who merely asked about guns in the house/storage methods in order to counsel and prevent suicide and accidental child injuries and deaths.

BULLSHIT. and shame on DUers who believe this.

Shame on any American who fails to support the Bill of Rights.

Are you suggesting that anyone favoring reasonable gun control does not support the Bill of Rights? Is it your position that the Second Amendment does not allow for any restrictions on gun rights?

No. 4 is not a myth either. When I was young the NRA harped on gun rights but was also about gun safety.

Over the years they have become more and more extremist. They are indeed a lobbyist for American gun manufacturers and international weapons dealing.

When someone can post this load of fetid dingo's kidneys on a progressive liberal democratic discussion board and THINK it's a myth goes to prove how divided we really are.

I have been asking for several years for anyone who doesn't support the 2nd Amendment to propose a law (including of course any 'common sense' one) that could prevent criminals from getting their hands on pretty much any sort of gun they might want. So far nobody has managed to come up with anything even close to feasible.

... criminals? Even Switzerland and Israel who require almost everyone into military service and requires all ex-soldiers to keep fully automatic assault weapons at home - you know like a real Second Amendment "well regulated militia".

Neither country has the barest fraction of the gun violence the US does.

You admit that countries with sane gun laws are far 'safer' than our own with its relatively restrictive ones? I really wonder what you have been smoking. You didn't address my question....how will new or revised laws ensure that people with a willingless to do violence change their intent.

It is not surprising.

I really would appreciate answers.

It is a rule of law going back to the early days of the Common Law. I know of no society that does not provide for self defense.

However, your response does not answer my questions.

In my post 13, I asked: "Are you suggesting that anyone favoring reasonable gun control does not support the Bill of Rights? Is it your position that the Second Amendment does not allow for any restrictions on gun rights?"

I would appreciate a response.

In your post 9, you stated: 'I have been asking for several years for anyone who doesn't support the 2nd Amendment to propose a law (including of course any 'common sense' one) that could prevent criminals from getting their hands on pretty much any sort of gun they might want. So far nobody has managed to come up with anything even close to feasible."

In response, my post 14, I asked: "Is it your position that if a law cannot be 100% effective, it should not be attempted? Just because pervs will always be able to get their hands on child porn, should child porn be legal?"

I would appreciate a response.

No rights, whether granted under the Constitution or otherwise, are absolute. All rights can be regulated without infringing on them.

You surely agree that the Second Amendment does not guarantee the rights of civilians to own a Ma Deuce or an 81-MM mortar. You would not argue that in "infringes" on the Second Amendment to prohibit civilians from owning hand grenades.

The question is not whether the right to bear arms can be regulated. The only question is what regulation is appropriate.

Goldwater was wrong. Extremism in the defense of liberty is still extremism and a danger to civil society.

Privateers were privately owned ships armed with cannon, and licensed ( letters of Marque, issued by the military) to capture enemy merchant ships. The ships and cargo were sold to the Government, They were called "Privateers" and were much feared, with out the license they were merely pirates. The arms at Lexington and Concord were privately owned, even the artillery.

as I think you took a wrong turn somewhere.

Welcome to DU !

Is it your position that if a law cannot be 100% effective, it should not be attempted? Just because pervs will always be able to get their hands on child porn, should child porn be legal?

There is such a thing as victimless gun possession. There is no such thing as victimless child porn.

50yrDem's argument was: "I have been asking for several years for anyone who doesn't support the 2nd Amendment to propose a law (including of course any 'common sense' one) that could prevent criminals from getting their hands on pretty much any sort of gun they might want. So far nobody has managed to come up with anything even close to feasible."

The argument is that because no law will ever be 100% effective in preventing criminals "from getting their hands on pretty much any sort of gun they might want," the attempt should not be made. By that reasoning, because no law will ever prevent perverts from "getting their hands on" child pornography, the attempt should not be made.

Gun regulation legislation is like any other. If the perfect is allowed to be the enemy of the good, nothing will be accomplished."

First of all, that's one hell of a straw man you've constructed there, and it's no kin of mine. There are already numerous laws designed to do exactly what you say. Some of them are successful. Some of them are not, and the objection is not that they aren't 100% effective -- it's that they're more like 10% or 5% or 0% effective in preventing crime. Furthermore, they're not without consequences in terms of things like enforcement budgets, public trust, the electability of Democrats, and rights.

Ever since the NY SAFE Act of 2013, it's illegal for me to go to the trap range and swap shotguns with person next to me so that we can try each other's gun: two "exchanges" without background checks, and two more when we return the guns to the original owners: four Class A misdemeanors in a five-minute swap. Tell me how that level of restriction has anything to do with crime or mass shooting or public safety. Two legal gun owners, exchanging guns temporarily, using them in each other's presence on private property, and returning them immediately. Yet this is illegal. "Universal background checks" sound great in principle, but honestly they mean nothing to convicted felons who steal their guns or buy them on the street: that's "nothing," as in 0% effectiveness. More on NY's universal background checks here: http://www.albanylawreview.org/Articles/vol79_4/1327%20Jacobs%20PRODUCTION.pdf

Furthermore, the laws against child pornography don't distinguish between people who should be able to possess it and people who shouldn't be able to possess it. It's not a question of "getting their hands on it"; it's a question of it existing at all. It shouldn't. There is no such thing as acceptable child pornography. Any law that does anything at all to inhibit the traffic in it should be implemented immediately.

There is such a thing as acceptable gun ownership, and the legal system needs to be careful where it draws the line between acceptable possession and unacceptable possession, so as to have maximum impact on crime without unnecessarily infringing on the rights of the law-abiding. That is unless you feel that guns, like child pornography, should be banned outright. Is that the case?

There are better ways of achieving the goal of keeping guns out of the hands of those who shouldn't have them. A licensing system for gun owners is one: fairly effective and reasonably unobtrusive. Pass a test to get your license, renew it periodically, surrender it if convicted of a violent crime, and otherwise just use to to freely purchase or borrow firearms. It works for drivers, helping to keep the unfit off the road. Why not for guns?

Unlicensed drivers still drive. One hit my parked truck years ago. Wife likes to watch "Cops", nearly every episode, one person is unlicensed. We have a license system here in IL, called the FOID. Still go through background checks, still have to wait. Backlog for renewals for FOID and CCW's is something approaching 10-12 months. If you can get into the system. Governor came out and stated that due to backlog, expired FOIDS and CCW's are good until one year after cessation of Covid emergency.

Background checks for purchasing or when renewing a carry license makes sense. You don't need a license, registration or insurance to drive on private property. Firearms should be the same way as vehicles.

I pay for a license, supposedly all FOIDS are run through a check nearly every day, to check for criminal/court activity, but I still have to go through a regular check when purchasing, along with a 3 day waiting period. A "triple play" for purchasing firearms, and still, the ball gets dropped occasionally. Someone could have a false positive on a check (similar name, etc.), and get delayed on their receipt of firearm. This is a delay in exercise of a right, IMHO, similar to needing a permit to write a news article, a "waiting period" to get defense counsel, etc.