Trump

[pogo]

Someone sends a 13 year old shopping. He tries to buy beer, cigarettes, porn, lottery scratchcards and a rifle. Guess which one he buys, perfectly legally?

[PumaG]

perfectly legally?

which state is it legal to buy a long gun at 13? I thought Vermont was the lowest at 16? Federal law is 18

[PumaG]

tons of info here http://smartgunlaws.org/gun-policy/


States with Child Access Prevention Laws

California
Colorado
Connecticut
Delaware
District of Columbia
Florida
Georgia
Hawaii
Illinois
Indiana
Iowa
Kentucky
Maryland
Massachusetts
Minnesota
Mississippi
Missouri
Nevada
New Hampshire
New Jersey
North Carolina
Oklahoma
Rhode Island
Tennessee
Texas
Utah
Virginia
Wisconsin

[pogo]

That was from 2014. It also suggests he took advantage of the loophole in the law that he bought the gun from a “private seller”. If you do that then you do not need a background check; maybe they don’t need to check your age too. A private seller that is who was selling six or more guns indoors, at what looks like a permanent venue, so a professional trader, with the sort of loophole you could drive a truck though.

[PumaG]

That was from 2014. It also suggests he took advantage of the loophole in the law that he bought the gun from a “private seller”. If you do that then you do not need a background check; maybe they don’t need to check your age too. A private seller that is who was selling six or more guns indoors, at what looks like a permanent venue, so a professional trader, with the sort of loophole you could drive a truck though.

they must have done their homework as there seems to be a lot of states his mum could be done under 'child access' laws, including Florida where the gun would have to be stored properly and some he could be done under carrying laws.

That loophole does indeed look serious as they state on the smartgunlaws site, link above

[KlaxonCow]

Here's the thing about the Second Amendment and, indeed, the Bill of Rights in general.

It's pretty much just the concise version of the Virginian Declaration of Rights.

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

Section 13. That a well-regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defense of a free state; that standing armies, in time of peace, should be avoided as dangerous to liberty; and that in all cases the military should be under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power.

Note the use of many of the same phrases. If you do a side-by-side of the Bill of Rights with the Virginia Declaration of Rights, then you'll see that the former clearly derived from the latter and that the Bill of Rights is largely the Virginia Declaration of Rights but written more concisely, with the Declaration's "sections" merged into fewer and terser amendments for the Constitution.

And, well, the reason for pointing this out is that the Virginian Declaration is, indeed, more verbose and, unlike the Bill of Rights, bothers to make the effort of explaining itself, as you can see above. So this gives us an intriguing insight into why the Constitution has the Second Amendment in the first place, as we trace where it originally came from.

Because those who defend the Second Amendment often talk about their right to bear arms being a defence from the government. But read Section 13 again and realise that it's actually talking about the polar opposite.

The enemy is standing armies in times of peace, as it is dangerous to liberty. The right to bear arms comes from Virginia aspiring to not have any standing armies by doing things the Swiss way - instead of a standing army, the citizenry are called upon to defend themselves. And, even then, it's very clear that the military should be strictly subordinate, and governed by, the civil power. In other words, the state government.

The fear was a military coup d'etat, or that standing armies could descend into feuding warlord-ism. And, in fairness, there are examples around the world of exactly such a thing happening - a military formed to depose a hated leader or regime then takes over completely and becomes a junta, or the civil powers are so weak that a country falls into "might is right" military warlord-ism - so you can understand their concerns at the time.

Okay, the army have won us our independence, but now we need to retire them pronto, before they get any ideas of using their military power to take over. Of deposing the government and becoming a junta.

The sentiment is not anti-government, it's actually anti-military and, indeed, in defence of the civil powers from the potential threat of standing armies in times of peace. The citizenry can keep a gun at home and defend themselves, so we don't need any standing armies no more. And if we do need to form an army - such as to repel a foreign invasion - then that military shall be strictly subordinate, and governed by, the civil powers.

That's the gist of the actual sentiment. Bearing pretty much fuck all resemblance - and, indeed, even being slightly contradictory - to the reasons that gun advocates like to state are the reasons for the Second Amendment.

And, of course, the sentiment is, in the modern era, perfectly moot. America not only has a standing army - and maintains it, even in times of peace - but has the largest defence budget on the entire planet. In fact, America's defence budget is more or less equal to all the other defence budgets of every other country on the planet combined.

So, you know, so much for Virginia's hopes of instituting "the Swiss model", eh?

And when Eisenhower warned the nation of "the military industrial complex", he was basically echoing the worries and concerns of the Virginians that, indeed, standing armies - or, more specifically, the whole military industrial complex surrounding the military and feeding it - in a time of peace are an ever-present danger to liberty.

[pogo]

As I wrote, a loophole you can drive a truck through. Seems there are rules but they mostly apply to gun stores. If you are a private individual, selling a gun like you would any other second hand item, you cannot be expected to follow all the rules. In particular you cannot be expected to do criminal background checks, and are also exempted from age checks, at least when selling long guns.

It seems a lot of these private sales take place at “gun shows”. And there are a lot of these gun shows, like the one in that clip. In fact they are frequent and widespread enough that traders can make a living selling at them. The sellers are private sellers only in name. The gun shows are just events ideal for sellers and buyers who don’t want to be bothered by annoying checks and restrictions.

[PumaG]

, America's defence budget is more or less equal to all the other defence budgets of every other country on the planet combined.

I think if you reduce it by something silly like 70% it still remains the highest budget
and then in addition? theres a truly obscene 'home defence budget' where technology would surely be shared and then the CIA would count as home defence? but operate abroad.
Perhaps when they perfect those long distance laser weapons, they can go easy on the tax payer a bit.

[KlaxonCow]

America's defence budget is more or less equal to all the other defence budgets of every other country on the planet combined.

I think if you reduce it by something silly like 70% it still remains the highest budget

Oh, indeed, it's perfectly obscene.

Particularly in the context that America massively begrudges paying for healthcare through taxation as well. They'll throw a trillion or so at guns and planes and bombs, but refuse to throw even a dime of tax money at helping a cancer patient.

In a nation that - save Hawaii and Alaska - is defended on either side by vast oceans and is neighboured to the North by those nice Canadian folks. That is, arguably the nation that geographically has the least need for much of an armed defence at all.

[SuperMappy]

'Murica!! I do like the eagle with the rifle though.

[Little stoned kiwi]

If the US were to do parades like Russia or China to show off their military muscle, that's exactly how I picture it.

President Trump might or might not be horrific. But either way, President Trump would be spectacular at being spectacular.

[F-ZeroOne]

British people are banned from giving blood? Er, some context might have helped with that remark?

http://www.npr.org/2015/01/07/375671942 ... -travelers

Err why is that? because you only took it as a 'remark' that needed correction and didn't make the effort to see any context? I imagine you only looked it up at all because you didn't believe me?

I didn't even have USA in mind, I was refused in Australia, it was based on a real life experience not a piece of paper. FYI I also abided by the law and didn't outstay my Visa even though I feel I could have been good for the economy and survived on my own (which is apparently now forgivable in the USA if you have the right ethnic origin)

It doesn't matter why and who cant give blood, my context was Human's disease and society disease and the blanket ban used to stop disease.

Not all Russian football supporters are hooligans, nor all of the 40,000 English. But they are being treated as such in the media and will be by UEFA with a blanket ban

I had to look it up because you didn't explain why you were mentioning it. Thats why a little context would have been helpful. It did, at least to me, seem to be a bit out-of-the-blue. I'm not sure how I was supposed to know about your experience in Australia from the original details you provided.

Also, whilst I can understand how you may feel about illegal residences, the problem is that Trumps proposed "solution" is almost certainly going to be logistically impossible, at least in any kind of realistic timescale (such as the maximum two-term Presidency), leaving asides the possible humanitarian consequences.

By the way, as far as I can tell even Trump does not seem to think that the "ban" will be a permanent one. So how do you tackle the "disease" during the ban, or once the ban is lifted?

[gravy]

As I wrote, a loophole you can drive a truck through. Seems there are rules but they mostly apply to gun stores. If you are a private individual, selling a gun like you would any other second hand item, you cannot be expected to follow all the rules. In particular you cannot be expected to do criminal background checks, and are also exempted from age checks, at least when selling long guns.

It seems a lot of these private sales take place at “gun shows”. And there are a lot of these gun shows, like the one in that clip. In fact they are frequent and widespread enough that traders can make a living selling at them. The sellers are private sellers only in name. The gun shows are just events ideal for sellers and buyers who don’t want to be bothered by annoying checks and restrictions.

Except it's not a loophole

It's a legislation exactly as a lot of people want it.

The NRA are basically evil. Worth having a read about their successful efforts to block the sale of bio locked guns in the states' some thing that would seriously reduce accidental gun deaths of kids and hamper the black market for guns

[pogo]

Certainly some are happy with it, but many are not. Surveys show broad support for closing this loophole by requiring background checks for all gun purchases. It’s a loophole because of this. There’s even a WP article on it:

Gun show loophole

As that notes a few states have tougher requirements, but that is hardly a limitation when all you need to do is get in your car and drive to the nearest show in another state. Don’t disagree about the NRA, except they exist because of the law and politics, not vice-versa. The problem is more the Republican party: an extremist stance on guns is one of the policies they’ve adopted on their long march to being the party of socially conservative whites.

[KlaxonCow]

In fairness to pogo, it is a loophole, in the sense that it's a way of dodging other laws that restrict and regulate gun sales. A way to get around things.

The fact that it's a perfectly deliberate planned loophole, because a whole bunch of people want it to be exactly that way, does not mean it's not a legal loophole.

It's just that it's a designed and purposeful loophole put there and defended by folks who don't want there to be any restrictions nor regulations on gun sales at all, for their own ideological reasons.

The purposefulness / accidentalness of a loophole does not affect its definition as a "hole" in a set of laws that effectively allows someone to by-pass or get around those laws.