With the utter nonsense going on in this nation, the chairman of the Cato Institute pens this piece?
Stuff like this and arguing for open borders (without coupling it with the requirement of dissolution of all govt welfare), libertarians are becoming a joke and a bad one at that.
Bob Levy, way to give them ideas, you fuqstick…
Gun Control: Grounds for Compromise?
Three constitutional principles underlie gun control:
1. The Supreme Court has held that individuals have a right to bear arms in common use for lawful purposes.
2. Second Amendment rights are not absolute. Everyone understands that children can’t carry automatic weapons to school. Some people, some weapons, and some circumstances are subject to regulation.
3. The right to bear arms is “fundamental,” which means that government bears a heavy burden to justify its regulation. Government must show (a) public safety requires the proposed restrictions, (b) they will work, and (c) they are no more extensive than necessary.
Here are the major areas of contention and possible compromises:
1. Assault rifles. Millions of so-called assault weapons are now used for hunting, self-defense, target shooting, and even Olympic competition. Any attempt to buy them back would almost certainly backfire: Less affluent persons, who need money and are disproportionately victimized by criminals, would surrender their weapons. Lawbreakers, who rely on their weapons, would retain them, as would mentally deranged persons who aren’t motivated by financial incentives.
Around 400 Americans are killed annually by rifles of all types. Americans own 3 to 5 million “assault rifles.” Even if a different rifle were used in each killing, a ban would be more than 99.99 percent over-inclusive.
That said, some weapons can be banned. For example, automatic weapons have, for all practical purposes, been banned since 1934. But banning popular semi-automatic rifles, merely because they have a military-type attachment that doesn’t affect their lethality, makes no sense. The task, therefore, is to identify semi-automatic weapons that are not commonly used and not needed for lawful purposes. The 1994 Assault Weapons Ban went too far, but a more limited version might be viable.
2. High-capacity magazines. There are hundreds of millions of magazines in circulation with a capacity of 10 rounds or more. Realistically, they cannot be confiscated. Homemade magazines are easy to assemble. Experienced users can replace an empty magazine in a couple of seconds. Moreover, semi-automatic rifles are configured for up to 30 rounds; handguns are routinely configured for 11–17 rounds. That’s why 10-round limits encounter great resistance. Still, the FBI reports that magazines exceeding 10 rounds were used in 34 mass shootings between 1984 and 2015. To my knowledge, no actual or potential (civilian) victim has fired dozens of rounds in self-defense. Perhaps that suggests a ban on magazines with more than, say, 20 rounds.
3. Universal background checks. Surveys indicate that less than 2 percent of guns used by criminals are bought at gun shows — and that includes sales through licensed dealers who are already subject to background checks. Meanwhile, violence-prone buyers who fail those checks can purchase weapons illegally, or steal them. In a recent year, the National Instant Criminal Background Check System denied 76,000 would-be buyers.
Of those, 44 were prosecuted and 13 were convicted. That’s a conviction rate of two one-hundredths of 1 percent. Either the remaining denials were legitimate purchases that were unjustly blocked, or, if the denials were proper, then 99.98 percent of the 76,000 rejected applicants escaped punishment. Neither conclusion offers much hope for an expanded system of checks.
Despite those doubts, even staunch Second Amendment proponents might be receptive to background checks for private (non-dealer) sales at gun shows, over the Internet, and through published ads. The key is quid pro quo — concessions to gun rights advocates in return for closing the “gun show loophole.” That was essentially the deal offered by the 2013 Manchin-Toomey bill, which garnered 54 Senate votes, but not enough to meet the 60-vote threshold.
It may be time to revisit and, if necessary, fine-tune Manchin-Toomey. Buyers with recently issued concealed carry permits would be exempted from background checks, as would transfers by gift or bequest, in-person sales outside gun shows, and buyers responding to unpublished (e.g., bulletin-board) notices. More importantly, interstate handgun purchases from dealers would be legalized, added safeguards would be implemented against a federal registry, the time required to complete a background check would be significantly reduced, and interstate transport rules would be liberalized. Those are consequential benefits.
It’s doubtful that new gun controls — imposed mostly on persons who are not part of the problem — will be effective. Accordingly, they should expire automatically after a reasonable test period. If they work, they can be reenacted. The Second Amendment doesn’t bar sensible regulations, but it demands rigor from our lawmakers and the courts in legislating and reviewing gun control measures.
Original HERE.
No, No and No. And a giant fuck off on top of that.
Did they say “Cato Pulled Gary’s Johnson?”
“The Second Amendment doesn’t bar sensible regulations,”
Oh? On the other hand, the Constitution does bar any infringement on keeping or bearing arms. If, in fact, “The Second Amendment doesn’t bar sensible regulations” then (logically speaking) the Feds can pass any sensible regulation they want AS LONG AS IT DOES NOT INFRINGE on ownership of arms. How about this, how about a regulation that says “any money spent by individuals for weapons, ammunition or maintenance of weapons shall become a tax deduction of equal amount.”
Sounds sensible to me, and it doesn’t infringe my rights.
An answer in search of a problem. Worthless piece of writing.
FOAD
Which is about my opinion of the “Libertarian” party this year. A/k/a the LINO party, the brokeback RINOs, etc.
Background checks are de facto registration. Universal registration is a prelude to and necessary condition for confiscation.
The Second Amendment specifically denies the power to regulate arms to the government.
NO gun control law has a shred of legitimacy: the government has no power to regulate arms. None.
A common AR-15 rifle being used for target practice.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p0KJf7gKKS4
It would be interesting to see where Levy is from. He probably lobbied Fred Trump to keep Negros out of Trumps Coney Island Appartments.
Needless to say he probably lives in a gated and armed community with residents who have moved up in the world from Coney Island.
And to boot, Golfs at one of Trumps Golf courses that was formally male and gentile only.
I can remember the ROTC bringing their rifles to school and putting them in their locker.
There is a reason why governments want to keep guns out of your hands and it has nothing to do with your safety. It is the same reason that Stalin, Hitler and others of their mentality and desire for power give or not give as they never tell you their true motives. Which is, we rule by brute force and violence and we don’t want anyone to oppose us or let alone have the capacity to do so.
The early Fathers of the Constitution understood this. The panty waists, pacifier, accommodationalists think that they can give up a little freedom for security, that they can reason with those who want to take away your right to own firearms and come to some sensible agreement thru compromise. Can’t be done. There is no compromise. The government is the ‘Borg’. “You will be assimilated”.
It is gun confiscation thru attrition. Your right to own guns is only a right if you can enforce it.
Someone had a dream and relayed it. They came for this person’s guns and wanted to confiscate them. The person refused, saying that he had a 2nd amendment right to own guns and refused to surrender them. So, they shot and killed him. Rights are only Rights, if you can defend them. And you can certainly defend them thru acquiescence and supplication. Didn’t you learn anything in kindergarten about bullies on the playground?
All gun control laws are unconstitutional per the “shall not be infringed” phrase.
They named an Institute after a character on Green Hornet? When the fuck did that happen??
[img[/img]
Stucky, you just have to keep up with things.
I unsubscribed from Cato this time last year. They had gone full something – I’m not sure what, except it had the distinct flavor of playing both sides of the fence. That it lacked a focus. at that point (before getting this bad), was the kindest thing I could say. This? WTF, indeed.
“Second Amendment rights are not absolute. Everyone understands that children can’t carry automatic weapons to school. Some people, some weapons, and some circumstances are subject to regulation.”
Wrong on all counts. Second Amendment rights are absolute, because there are Bob Levy’s, Nancy Pelosi’s, Harry Reid’s and Barack Obama’s in the world. IF a child carries an automatic weapon to school, THEIR PARENTS are liable for any injury; if no injury, the child can be sent back for homeschooling, taught responsible gun safety by the formerly negligent parents or someone qualified, kept out of the government schools for a better education, and becomes a responsible citizen. See that? No need for DHS / SWAT response, no one dies, no one gets a criminal record, all end happy (except for government drones denied an excuse to restrict rights further). IF, God forbid, the child shoots someone, the civil justice system comes into play and all is handled as per state law.
“Some people, some weapons, and some circumstances are subject to regulation.”
No they aren’t; SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED applies, and all gun control laws are unConstitutional, therefore not binding on any citizen.
I cannot understand Jewish or African Americans supporting any gun control . 6 million unarmed people exterminated and until the 1970’s most gun control laws were to keep black people defenseless ! Gun Control is the responsibility of a free citizen ! Stoping criminal activity is why we tax productive people to cover the cost of policing our society of those who cannot handle freedom . We build cages to keep them in ! Our freedom as Americans makes our society a risky place to live but doing anything to restrict our rights for some foolish notion of safety is pure hog wash
Ya! The last people that should be for gun control is the Jews. Of course, I don’t think they are real Jews, but just an accident of birth.
Jews were able to resist the Nazis in the Warsaw Ghetto because they had guns until they ran out of ammunition. Israel is a nation and continues to be a nation because of guns.
But don’t worry you can still have knives and the crooks can still get guns. Taking a knife to a gun fight doesn’t work out too well, tho.
@ Boat Guy……I just want to interject one little tid-bit of info concerning your comment that “until the 1970’s most gun control laws were to keep black people defenseless”. That is incorrect. The gun control lobby’s sole purpose is to render all Americans defenseless. The 1968 GCA was a idiotic response to the Kennedy brothers and MLK’s assassinations. Never let a crisis go to waste is the hallmark slogan of the gun control lobby.
Bloomburg believe in gun control as well. For the rest of society that is. Just not for himself.
If you examine any liberal program , response or train of thought it generally falls on its face ! Most sound great free college great now find professors willing to teach for food ! The mind set is always depicting we are all to stupid to not just follow their collective edicts blindly . It’s right out of a Narcissistic play book “YOUR SHIT IS SHIT but OUR SHIT IS STUFF” . If we could all only be so special like our liberal benefactors we would understand . What we do understand is all these utopian ideals sound great but you eventually run out of OTHER PEOPLES MONEY !