[Chloé Palmas]

Originally Posted by Hugh

Difficult to have a militia without guns...

Well, you can regulate the entity (the militia) but not the members / their possessions etc. The militia is fair game ; their arsenal is not because it does not belong the militia - it belongs to their members. If the militia owned the guns then fair enough, but it is the members who do.

That guns should be treated like cars, with an addendum - you have to be trained to a certain standard (just like the Armed Forces), you have to be licenced to own one, you are held responsible if someone injures someone (and you didn't mitigate to prevent this), you have to have insurance in case something bad happens, and that they have to be kept securely (the addendum).

I can get behind a lot of that - I think most, if not all is likely constitutional though I am not 100% sure.

In the UK, for me to own a similar gun (M4 / Uzi .22 etc) I have to go through all the similar procedures and I am fine to do so but am not required to obtain insurance.

In the US though, Insurance may be questionable as it is an inalienable right which you can't be forced to obtain insurance for.

Erm, I said "including gun shows", and thirty States still allow the private sale of firearms, including at Gun Shows.

Those same states allow the private sale of guns among anyone of the same state - gun shows are just one specific area / arena that receives no specific benefit nor penalty for gun sales.

Private transactions between two people of the same state are not required to go through any kind of background check in any other circumstance, either.

Private sellers without a federal license don’t have to meet the same requirement as Licenced Gun sellers, although this exception is often referred to as the "gun show loophole," it actually applies more broadly to unlicensed individuals, whether they are selling at a gun show or somewhere else.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-me...gun-show-loop/

Yes, absolutely - because they may or do chose not to become a licensed seller.

If it goes interstate / across to the jurisdiction of the federal government then they must get one, irregardless of being a licensed dealer or otherwise. That is a federal statute but state's are not charged with enforcing the statue and some states chose to implement their own checks, others do not.

There is no specific anything to do particularly with "gun shows" though.

The feds cannot come in and expect states to enforce their laws. (Whether it is on guns / sanctuary cities / abortion etc etc).

If states do wish to pass such legislation in their restrictive states, that is their call.

Though usually there are very good reasons not to - cost being one and the burden and so on.

---------- Post added at 02:22 ---------- Previous post was at 01:26 ----------

Originally Posted by ianch99

I don't know whether to laugh or cry.

Either way, bless you.

The following mass shootings are the deadliest to have occurred in modern U.S. history (1949 to present). Only incidents with ten or more fatalities are included

It is clear to anyone with an open mind that Semi-automatic rifles/pistols need to be be made illegal to own for private use and therefore more difficult to obtain.

So you overlooked my point entirely (or just didn't get it). Why focus on the gun instead of the shooter? Why not ban the criminal, not an inanimate object?

(Thanks for telling me though I am well aware of what massacres were perpetrated by whom using what weapon etc, now back to the question at hand...)

You obviously did not read the post enough to discover was specifically addressing semi/"full" automatic weapons.

Oh, I got that - but why? Why some arbitrary set of specifications in regards to semi automatics? Btw automatic weapons / new purchases of machine guns remain illegal.

Exactly the retort that pro-gun supporters use to close down any debate event when the debate is specific and addressed to a sub-set of gun types

You are yet to tell me why the subset or type? You can't pick an arbitrary group of weapons on a whim (for any particular nefarious purpose) and just whimsically decide to ban it for some lackadaisical reason.

Pure pedantry. The point I made was obvious: parents or relatives of the deceased should be given the opportunity to cross examine, in front of the American people, the Senators and Congressmen *and* the Lobbyists sponsoring them why they block new laws controlling the weapons used to kill their loved ones.

Umm...no. Firstly cross takes place in Court, not Congress. Secondly as much as I feel for the parents, they have no place acting as if they are Senators or Congressman. They do not have the right to do any such thing...they do not have the right to ask questions / subpoena or anything else.

I know you feel that they should have the right / opportunity to do as much but instead of thinking up new fantasies of ideas of what rights that they should and should not have, how about you try not to infringe upon the rights that they already have (like the second amendment).

Thoughts and prayers do nothing ..

What a crass thing to say. When a loved one has lost a child / brother etc, you claim that their prayers do nothing?

Wow.