LaShawn Craig may spend years behind bars—because the gun he used to justifiably shoot someone was unlicensed

[arein0 977]

21 minutes ago, LPTiger said:

Isn't the real question what did the drafters of the second amendment believe?

Why would it matter what the drafters believed?

They drafted this in a completely different time in history with different issues and technology. They would have made the Constitution non ammendable if they believed it was truly perfect and could withstand the different issues that arise in each time period.

It is our duty to enhance it to address the various issues that arise over time 

[auburnatl1 5,056]

6 minutes ago, arein0 said:

Why would it matter what the drafters believed?

They drafted this in a completely different time in history with different issues and technology. They would have made the Constitution non ammendable if they believed it was truly perfect and could withstand the different issues that arise in each time period.

It is our duty to enhance it to address the various issues that arise over time 

It’s a fair point about technology and amendments, but as a general rule I do tend to trust the founding fathers more than our politicians today.  Forgetting ideology  - I haven’t seen a politician today who’d have the smarts to craft a document like that. Until we start electing our best and brightest again, I don’t trust DC to do anything overly… complicated.

[CoffeeTiger 5,180]

42 minutes ago, LPTiger said:

Isn't the real question what did the drafters of the second amendment believe?

 

Obviously they didn't believe in writing highly detailed and thorough amendments. 

[KansasTiger 3,256]

29 minutes ago, arein0 said:

Why would it matter what the drafters believed?

They drafted this in a completely different time in history with different issues and technology. They would have made the Constitution non ammendable if they believed it was truly perfect and could withstand the different issues that arise in each time period.

It is our duty to enhance it to address the various issues that arise over time 

This is hard to do. Last time the constitution was amended was what, 1992? And it was about when pay rate changes go into affect for Congress.  So enhancing the constitution turns into unconstitutional laws followed by judicial activism to protect those laws to try and move the needle on whats acceptable.

[arein0 977]

11 minutes ago, KansasTiger said:

This is hard to do. Last time the constitution was amended was what, 1992? And it was about when pay rate changes go into affect for Congress.  So enhancing the constitution turns into unconstitutional laws followed by judicial activism to protect those laws to try and move the needle on whats acceptable.

It should be hard to do.

If it was easy, it would be very easy for corruption to follow.

I don't agree with EOs for that very reason. I don't know the history of them, bit if I were to guess they first started for a time sensitive situation and have since been used as a loophole to streamline policy.

[KansasTiger 3,256]

22 minutes ago, arein0 said:

It should be hard to do.

If it was easy, it would be very easy for corruption to follow.

I don't agree with EOs for that very reason. I don't know the history of them, bit if I were to guess they first started for a time sensitive situation and have since been used as a loophole to streamline policy.

I have nothing to disagree with about this post. Solid.

[Gowebb11 9,381]

2 hours ago, arein0 said:

It should be hard to do.

If it was easy, it would be very easy for corruption to follow.

I don't agree with EOs for that very reason. I don't know the history of them, bit if I were to guess they first started for a time sensitive situation and have since been used as a loophole to streamline policy.

Thank you. I’ve been saying this for years about EOs. For important things, take it to Congress and legislate. 

[AuburnNTexas 7,174]

I am  strong advocate of the 2nd amendment. I have no issues with background checks when buying a gun as long as the check can be done quickly. With a well thought out database there is  no reason you should have to wait long periods of time to be approved.

This same database can be used for medical types to add a flag if person has medical issue. The database should only be accesable by government agencies and so can't be used as part of background check. Also if a person is turned down, privately they should be provided reason so they can try to get red flag removed. When database rejects it should not provide reason just reject so seller has no idea why.

We have to use technology intelligently while keeping data private.

If law requires a registration gun should be registered but in this type incident the DA should have some discretion and lower to a misdemeanor and the require owner to register that gun and any other they have. 

I personally don't  like registration but do like a good background check as stated above when buying a gun. If I lived in a state where it is required I wouldn't  like it but I would do it.

Edited December 16, 2023 by AuburnNTexas