The US 2nd Amendment.....

[jar]

Oh, I'm not misrepresenting your position. I've asked multiple times for you to clarify it, to no avail.

The fact that you cannot predict every outcome before the fact has nothing to do with trying to predict outcomes when conditions are known.

Considering potential, possible and likely outcomes are very important - hence my "unintended consequences" post.

The steps have also been outlined. First create a database of everyone who is in the US legally. Next require notification to that database by mental health professional when someone is determined to be a threat for misuse of firearms. Make it mandatory that a person be in the database to receive services and if not in the database that that identification is added and cross referenced for possible aliases. In those cases require some positive identification added such as DNA samples.

I don't know why you choose to ignore what I post. You skip over the enormous difficulties of identifying or qualifying people, let alone predicting future behavior. You ignore the right to privacy implications. You ignore presumption of innocence principles. Glossing over the difficulties and objections that will arise from your approach is idealistic

Make purchase or ownership of a firearm requisite on affirmative response from the database, this individual is listed and there are no listed restrictions on purchase or ownership.

The post that earned a *yawn* previously addressed this, and the flaws in the current system that is intended to satisfy this. However, instead of a database of known ill persons, you suggest a database of every person with an affirmation of no known mental risk. Do you truly think the government is capable of managing that? Furthermore, your idea only applies to new purchases, not the hundreds of millions of firearms already in existence. Your idea does not account for the purchase by a person who is fine today, but at risk 10 years after the purchase. For someone who has no expectation of an idealistic world, your recommendations indicate otherwise.

And yes, guns and knives are too different subjects and a law that places controls on gun ownership does not place restrictions on knife ownership.

Thank you for illustrating my point that you ignore the real issue. Why do you want to keep guns out of the hands of disturbed individuals? When you answer that question, you will see the relevance of knives and other potential weapons.

Remember, you are the one who selected mental health as the first issue to address.

No, in post #123 I asked "Again, which small part do you want to address first?"

In the following post (#124) you said "Let's address the question of keeping guns out of the hands of the mentally ill."

Knives and other weapons are not guns. Is that so hard to understand? This topic is about the US 2nd. Amendment and guns. Knives and other weapons are NOT mentioned in the US 2nd Amendment and so irrelevant to this topic. It really is that simple.

Yes, I suggested of building a database of all people in the US with identifying material like a DNA sample and additional information such as (in this case) mental helath determinations that would preclude purchase or ownership of guns.

Do I think the Government is capable of managing that? Of course. And all the available evidence is that Governments including even the US Government are capable of managing that. In fact there currently is a database of all people serving and having served in the military first created back in 1991.

Also, I skip questions of innocence and guilt since neither would be involved in any determination of whether or not someone should be eligible to buy or own a gun. Guilt and innocence are not the same as competent and permissible.

[dneal]

Knives and other weapons are not guns. Is that so hard to understand? This topic is about the US 2nd. Amendment and guns. Knives and other weapons are NOT mentioned in the US 2nd Amendment and so irrelevant to this topic. It really is that simple.

Why persist with this sophistry? You know well the point I have illustrated, but choose to dismiss it as irrelevant. Your premise is that we need to keep guns out of the hands of certain people. Specifically, the mentally ill. So answer the simple question of: why?

Yes, I suggested of building a database of all people in the US with identifying material like a DNA sample and additional information such as (in this case) mental helath determinations that would preclude purchase or ownership of guns.

Do I think the Government is capable of managing that? Of course. And all the available evidence is that Governments including even the US Government are capable of managing that. In fact there currently is a database of all people serving and having served in the military first created back in 1991.

A database of prohibited persons already exists. Information is added to it regularly. It is imperfect.

Also, I skip questions of innocence and guilt since neither would be involved in any determination of whether or not someone should be eligible to buy or own a gun. Guilt and innocence are not the same as competent and permissible.

More avoidance of the point... do you wish to have a discussion, or are you just trying to "win" an argument?

Try this on for size. This topic is about the 2nd Amendment, which the right to bear arms, and whether or not there should be a referendum to repeal it. Databases are irrelevant. It is really that simple.

That kind of stifles discussion, don't you think?

[Terie_Benjamin]

[jar]

Your premise is that we need to keep guns out of the hands of certain people. Specifically, the mentally ill that a metal health professional consider a risk to the general public. So answer the simple question of: why?

As a method of determining if someone is an unreasonable risk to others. But I think there should be other restrictions as well. Some that have been mentioned are annual re-certification of competency, knowledge of the laws and proper use and minimal skill levels itself.


Sorry but once again, skipping guilt or innocence is irrelevant since that has never even come up in relation to owning or buying a gun. No avoidance there.

A database of prohibited persons already exists. Information is added to it regularly. It is imperfect.

Yup and so let's see about improving that database.

Try this on for size. This topic is about the 2nd Amendment, which the right to bear arms, and whether or not there should be a referendum to repeal it. Databases are irrelevant. It is really that simple.

That kind of stifles discussion, don't you think?

Yes, that would certain stop the discussion of a database but again would do nothing to address the concerns people have expressed.

[dneal]

jar isn't dead. It is just taking an unexpected bit of effort to lead him to the water.

[dneal]

As a method of determining if someone is an unreasonable risk to others. But I think there should be other restrictions as well. Some that have been mentioned are annual re-certification of competency, knowledge of the laws and proper use and minimal skill levels itself.

You want to keep guns out of the hands of certain people as a method of determining if someone is an unreasonable risk to others? It appears you mis-read the question, again.

[jar]

As a method of determining if someone is an unreasonable risk to others. But I think there should be other restrictions as well. Some that have been mentioned are annual re-certification of competency, knowledge of the laws and proper use and minimal skill levels itself.

You want to keep guns out of the hands of certain people as a method of determining if someone is an unreasonable risk to others? It appears you mis-read the question, again.

No, that is not what I said. I think it might be advisable of restricting those people who a mental health professional have determined might be a risk to themselves or the general public by requiring mental health professionals to enter such information into a national database. But to make the database effective it also needs to have everyone in it along with positive identification in the form of DNA samples to cross check against aliases.

[dneal]

Ok, I'm going to stop playing your games. I think you're well aware of the flaws in your reasoning as I point them out, which is why you are being obtuse and avoiding them.

First, there is no "gun" problem. If you want to assert that there is, I'm happy to consider your argument. You haven't made one and that's your embedded premise. I don't accept it. Convince me. Doctors, through negligence, kill exponentially more people than guns do, so "the gun problem" is not about innocent people dying. It's about getting rid of something you don't like. Have the balls to just say it, instead of creating smug pseudo-intellectual sideshows.

Second, there is no "crazy people getting their hands on guns" problem. This is because there is no gun problem, but also because crazy people can be dangerous in any number of ways. Even if you could nod your head like Barbara Eden and make all the guns go away, you would still have crazy people. They can still be dangerous. That's the point of the kitchen knife that you ignore and dismiss as irrelevant.

Third, your database idea is ridiculous. The American people will not accept a national, DNA database with all their medical and/or mental health provider data in it. It would be found unconstitutional for a myriad of reasons. The 4th and 5th amendments come foremost to mind. That is where prior incrimination principle comes into play, although you try to dismiss it. It is a logical consequence of your proposal, if you would think about consequences instead of (again) dismissing the problems with your argument.

As an aside, the dismissal of VertOlive's argument is disappointing. No reasoning, just waving it away. The fact remains that some people are bigger and stronger than other people. Some of those bigger and stronger people (who might be crazy too, by the way), are malicious and do or intend to do harm to others. Guns negate that. It's a fact, and there are plenty of links throughout the thread to back it up, should you trouble yourself to learn. Although it wasn't you specifically, the "disappointment with homophobes" is disappointing as well. No discussion, no rationale, just "shaming" in lieu of; as if it's the equivalent of cogent thought.

There are lots of problems in today's society, and guns can exacerbate them. Guns can also neutralize them. Let's look at something different than the mentally ill. How about gang violence? Gang violence is not about guns. It's about gang culture. They used to use chains, clubs, and knives. Pointing to guns and saying "that's the problem" is asinine, yet a shallow thinking, self-righteous vocal minority still do it.

[jar]

There are lots of problems in today's society, and guns can exacerbate them. Guns can also neutralize them. Let's look at something different than the mentally ill. How about gang violence? Gang violence is not about guns. It's about gang culture. They used to use chains, clubs, and knives. Pointing to guns and saying "that's the problem" is asinine, yet a shallow thinking, self-righteous vocal minority still do it.

And I have not said that gang violence is about guns.

Gang violence does need to be addressed and that is a great subject, so start a thread on it. However the top of this thread is "The US 2nd Amendment..... " and the Op contained "Hi Gang,
I think it's time for a referendum to either endorse or repeal the 2nd amendment to the US constitution.

Now before either side of this flames me to ash, I'm not on either side here.
I'm simply saying that it's well past time to put this question to the people and settle it once and for all.

Cheers,
Noel aka DuckMcF".

Now a referendum cannot have any effect on the 2nd Amendment, a different process is needed for that and I have asked how a proposed amendment that might pass the house and senate might be worded. Your simple declaration that there is no problem is of course refuted by the simple fact that the OP started the thread.

So is there an amendment that you can imagine might be passed by Congress and stand up to ratification?

[bluesea]

There are lots of problems in today's society, and guns can exacerbate them. Guns can also neutralize them...


Let's look at something different than the mentally ill. How about gang violence? Gang violence is not about guns. It's about gang culture. They used to use chains, clubs, and knives. Pointing to guns and saying "that's the problem" is asinine, yet a shallow thinking, self-righteous vocal minority still do it.

Well put.

Its less asinine and more the manner of how our government operates, in which superficial political solutions are created to address fundamental issues.

[Dragonmaster Lou]

The way I see it, the problem is that there is a not-insignificant number of people out there who own guns who, for various reasons, frankly should not own them. Even Antonin Scalia, one of the most conservative members of the Supreme Court in recent history, has stated that the second amendment was never meant to allow the mentally insane or violent criminals to own guns while writing an opinion on a Second Amendment case a few years ago.

Frankly, I think anyone who wants to own a gun should be required to under go some sort of training and licensing, to make sure they are competent to own a gun as well as use and care for it responsibly. An appropriate criminal violation or diagnosis of dangerous mental health conditions would result in suspension of that license. This shouldn't be considered that onerous as most of the responsible gun owners I know already participate in some sort of training (or have appropriate military and/or law enforcement training). If nothing else, the effort to go through such training would probably discourage those who are too stupid (but otherwise have no other "red flags" on their backgrounds) to responsibly own and use a gun from wanting to jump through the hoops to purchase one, or at the very least show that they are indeed too stupid to own one and would thereby never pass the training course.

[dneal]

The way I see it, the problem is that there is a not-insignificant number of people out there who own guns who, for various reasons, frankly should not own them. Even Antonin Scalia, one of the most conservative members of the Supreme Court in recent history, has stated that the second amendment was never meant to allow the mentally insane or violent criminals to own guns while writing an opinion on a Second Amendment case a few years ago.

Frankly, I think anyone who wants to own a gun should be required to under go some sort of training and licensing, to make sure they are competent to own a gun as well as use and care for it responsibly. An appropriate criminal violation or diagnosis of dangerous mental health conditions would result in suspension of that license. This shouldn't be considered that onerous as most of the responsible gun owners I know already participate in some sort of training (or have appropriate military and/or law enforcement training). If nothing else, the effort to go through such training would probably discourage those who are too stupid (but otherwise have no other "red flags" on their backgrounds) to responsibly own and use a gun from wanting to jump through the hoops to purchase one, or at the very least show that they are indeed too stupid to own one and would thereby never pass the training course.

Interesting. What other rights specifically enumerated in the Constitution should we place prerequisites on, before allowing individuals to exercise them?

[Dragonmaster Lou]

The way I see it, the problem is that there is a not-insignificant number of people out there who own guns who, for various reasons, frankly should not own them. Even Antonin Scalia, one of the most conservative members of the Supreme Court in recent history, has stated that the second amendment was never meant to allow the mentally insane or violent criminals to own guns while writing an opinion on a Second Amendment case a few years ago.

Frankly, I think anyone who wants to own a gun should be required to under go some sort of training and licensing, to make sure they are competent to own a gun as well as use and care for it responsibly. An appropriate criminal violation or diagnosis of dangerous mental health conditions would result in suspension of that license. This shouldn't be considered that onerous as most of the responsible gun owners I know already participate in some sort of training (or have appropriate military and/or law enforcement training). If nothing else, the effort to go through such training would probably discourage those who are too stupid (but otherwise have no other "red flags" on their backgrounds) to responsibly own and use a gun from wanting to jump through the hoops to purchase one, or at the very least show that they are indeed too stupid to own one and would thereby never pass the training course.

Interesting. What other rights specifically enumerated in the Constitution should we place prerequisites on, before allowing individuals to exercise them?

We already have pre-requisites for one right specifically enumerated in the Constitution: the right to vote (see the 15th, 19th, 24th, and 26th amendments for where the right to vote is enumerated as a Constitutional right). At the very least, one must be at least 18 years old to vote. Also, some sort of registration is allowed for voting, so long as the registration itself doesn't violate the rules set forth in those aforementioned amendments (i.e. no sex or race based discrimination, no poll tax, and so on). In addition, some states already rescind the right to vote to anyone convicted of a felony (although, admittedly, I'm not sure what the Constitutional status of this disqualification is offhand as I'm not sure if it has ever been challenged in court).

So if we can require registration in order to exercise your right to vote, and deny the right to vote to anyone convicted of a felony, why can't similar rules (with a requirement for training in order to be registered as a legal gun owner) be applied to gun ownership?

[dneal]

The way I see it, the problem is that there is a not-insignificant number of people out there who own guns who, for various reasons, frankly should not own them. Even Antonin Scalia, one of the most conservative members of the Supreme Court in recent history, has stated that the second amendment was never meant to allow the mentally insane or violent criminals to own guns while writing an opinion on a Second Amendment case a few years ago.

Frankly, I think anyone who wants to own a gun should be required to under go some sort of training and licensing, to make sure they are competent to own a gun as well as use and care for it responsibly. An appropriate criminal violation or diagnosis of dangerous mental health conditions would result in suspension of that license. This shouldn't be considered that onerous as most of the responsible gun owners I know already participate in some sort of training (or have appropriate military and/or law enforcement training). If nothing else, the effort to go through such training would probably discourage those who are too stupid (but otherwise have no other "red flags" on their backgrounds) to responsibly own and use a gun from wanting to jump through the hoops to purchase one, or at the very least show that they are indeed too stupid to own one and would thereby never pass the training course.

Interesting. What other rights specifically enumerated in the Constitution should we place prerequisites on, before allowing individuals to exercise them?

We already have pre-requisites for one right specifically enumerated in the Constitution: the right to vote (see the 15th, 19th, 24th, and 26th amendments for where the right to vote is enumerated as a Constitutional right). At the very least, one must be at least 18 years old to vote. Also, some sort of registration is allowed for voting, so long as the registration itself doesn't violate the rules set forth in those aforementioned amendments (i.e. no sex or race based discrimination, no poll tax, and so on). In addition, some states already rescind the right to vote to anyone convicted of a felony (although, admittedly, I'm not sure what the Constitutional status of this disqualification is offhand as I'm not sure if it has ever been challenged in court).

So if we can require registration in order to exercise your right to vote, and deny the right to vote to anyone convicted of a felony, why can't similar rules (with a requirement for training in order to be registered as a legal gun owner) be applied to gun ownership?

The right to vote is not in the same category as the right to free speech (or bear arms). The first 3 amendments are considered "Safeguards to Liberty". The right to vote isn't.

Ignoring that, for your argument to be analogous you would need to add more criteria than simple registration to vote. Is the requirement to complete a 4473 and get a background check to purchase a firearm not more onerous than registration to vote? Should we have training or education before we allow someone to vote? Fees? perhaps limit it to landowners (oh wait, that last part was eventually rejected...).

BTW, you have to be 18 to purchase rifles and shotguns, and 21 to purchase a handgun. Felons cannot possess firearms. Most of your similar rules are already in place.

[VertOlive]

As an aside, the dismissal of VertOlive's argument is disappointing. No reasoning, just waving it away. The fact remains that some people are bigger and stronger than other people. Some of those bigger and stronger people (who might be crazy too, by the way), are malicious and do or intend to do harm to others. Guns negate that. It's a fact, and there are plenty of links throughout the thread to back it up, should you trouble yourself to learn. Although it wasn't you specifically, the "disappointment with homophobes" is disappointing as well. No discussion, no rationale, just "shaming" in lieu of; as if it's the equivalent of cogent thought.

This sort of whimsical and discursive thought pattern so vexes me, I had to go decline some Latin nouns to restore my sanity. But I digress.

Dneal is correct, it is not a gun problem. It is a problem of culture. We are in steep decline and hold few common values. I'll step outside the coloring book lines to say this. For decades we've acclimated to the mining and sapping of violence undermining our culture. We've normalized the abortion of our offspring and marginalized our elderly, veterans, what have you, until we have men breaking down with a gun in their hands and a government who wants us to run to it for safety. That leaves the rest of us needing at least a symbol of security to hold on to.

So let the 2nd amendment stand as is.

[pengeezer]

As an aside, the dismissal of VertOlive's argument is disappointing. No reasoning, just waving it away. The fact remains that some people are bigger and stronger than other people. Some of those bigger and stronger people (who might be crazy too, by the way), are malicious and do or intend to do harm to others. Guns negate that. It's a fact, and there are plenty of links throughout the thread to back it up, should you trouble yourself to learn. Although it wasn't you specifically, the "disappointment with homophobes" is disappointing as well. No discussion, no rationale, just "shaming" in lieu of; as if it's the equivalent of cogent thought.

This sort of whimsical and discursive thought pattern so vexes me, I had to go decline some Latin nouns to restore my sanity. But I digress.

Dneal is correct, it is not a gun problem. It is a problem of culture. We are in steep decline and hold few common values. I'll step outside the coloring book lines to say this. For decades we've acclimated to the mining and sapping of violence undermining our culture. We've normalized the abortion of our offspring and marginalized our elderly, veterans, what have you, until we have men breaking down with a gun in their hands and a government who wants us to run to it for safety. That leaves the rest of us needing at least a symbol of security to hold on to.

So let the 2nd amendment stand as is.

+1. VertOlive is correct;the problem has nothing to do with guns--it has everything to do with culture. Requiring education
on gun ownership or rewriting/replacing the 2nd Amendment doesn't keep those who want to commit an act of
violence from doing so--they're going to be violent regardless of any registration whatsoever. BTW,they don't
need a gun to be violent,either--they can find a myriad of ways to do that. We have allowed our culture to
disintegrate and we're reaping the benefits.




John

[Dragonmaster Lou]

The right to vote is not in the same category as the right to free speech (or bear arms). The first 3 amendments are considered "Safeguards to Liberty". The right to vote isn't.

Can you cite a source (Supreme Court precedent, writing by Founding Fathers, etc.) making this claim that the first 3 amendments are "Safeguard to Liberty," as you so claim? Because, frankly, I think at the very least the 4th and 5th amendments are also important safeguards to liberty. Oh, and no where in the Constitution does it state that any amendment is inherently more valuable than any other amendment, with the exception of amendments that explicitly override prior amendments/clauses.

Going back to the first amendment, by your argument, I should be allowed to perform human sacrifices so long as I make a claim that my religion requires it. Of course, last I checked, human sacrifices were illegal...

Ignoring that, for your argument to be analogous you would need to add more criteria than simple registration to vote. Is the requirement to complete a 4473 and get a background check to purchase a firearm not more onerous than registration to vote? Should we have training or education before we allow someone to vote? Fees? perhaps limit it to landowners (oh wait, that last part was eventually rejected...).

What is a 4473? Is that the standard firearms background check? Fees are already illegal (see "poll taxes").

BTW, you have to be 18 to purchase rifles and shotguns, and 21 to purchase a handgun. Felons cannot possess firearms. Most of your similar rules are already in place.

True, but given how one doesn't need to show proof that one is not a felon for a large subset of legal firearms purchases (from individual sellers, gun shows, online want-ads, etc.), that isn't much of a deterrent. At the very least, the loopholes should be closed so that anyone selling a gun needs to see evidence of the purchaser not being a felon, etc., otherwise they could also be held liable for any crimes committed with said gun. Of course, this won't stop the issue of illegal sales off the back of a truck in a sketchy neighborhood, but said sketchy truck isn't exactly easy to find via a Google search.

This sort of whimsical and discursive thought pattern so vexes me, I had to go decline some Latin nouns to restore my sanity. But I digress.

Dneal is correct, it is not a gun problem. It is a problem of culture. We are in steep decline and hold few common values. I'll step outside the coloring book lines to say this. For decades we've acclimated to the mining and sapping of violence undermining our culture. We've normalized the abortion of our offspring and marginalized our elderly, veterans, what have you, until we have men breaking down with a gun in their hands and a government who wants us to run to it for safety. That leaves the rest of us needing at least a symbol of security to hold on to.

So let the 2nd amendment stand as is.

Again, I'm not proposing banning guns from those who are responsible, law-abiding citizens. Guns are, regrettably, dangerous in the wrong hands. While people are capable of doing harm with other tools, guns are arguably the most effective tool for doing harm unto others (this is not to say they don't have other uses. I mean, kitchen knives can be used to stab people or to cut up vegetables, for example). I'm only in favor of actions that would limit accessibility of guns to those who are most likely to do harm to others.

+1. VertOlive is correct;the problem has nothing to do with guns--it has everything to do with culture. Requiring education on gun ownership or rewriting/replacing the 2nd Amendment doesn't keep those who want to commit an act of
violence from doing so--they're going to be violent regardless of any registration whatsoever. BTW,they don't need a gun to be violent,either--they can find a myriad of ways to do that. We have allowed our culture to disintegrate and we're reaping the benefits.

Hey, I'm not in favor of rewriting/replacing the 2nd Amendment. I think that there are things that are allowed under the terms of the 2nd amendment that would limit accessibility of guns to those who are most likely to use them to cause harm to others. Of course, reasonable people may disagree. For example, I think the whole "well-regulated militia" clause of the 2nd amendment does allow for some training requirement, given how "well-regulated" means "well-trained" in 18th century language. I believe most gun owners at the time were at least expected, if not required, to participate in town security patrols of some sort given how there wasn't much of the way of government-operated law enforcement (not that I'm arguing that we don't need guns due to the existence of law enforcement). These patrols presumably had at least some sort of semi-regular training, I'd imagine. I also doubt that any of the Founding Fathers though it would be a good idea to let a bunch of yahoos run around brandishing guns irresponsibly. Of course, I'm willing to concede that the Founding Fathers didn't think that there'd be as many yahoos (as opposed to responsible owners) running around with guns as there often seems to be nowadays.

Heck, I don't even consider the kinds of limits I'm proposing to be a major personal political issue. Frankly, I think there are more vexing problems that probably should be addressed first.

As far as being a cultural problem, first, see what I said above about guns being more effective than most other tools that can be applied to performing violence. About the only tool I can think of that would approximate the effectiveness of a gun (whether it's more or less effective is, admittedly, something that is legitimately debatable) would be some sort of motor vehicle, and we have tighter restrictions on acquiring those than we do on guns at present.

Also, if we look at overall statistics with respect to our culture, the overall numbers of violent crimes have gone down over the past 50 years or so. Right now, the main issue is that it appears that the number of "mass violent" crimes (AKA nutjob goes on a shooting spree) has gone up. Most of these "mass violent" crimes seem to be a case of the mentally unstable getting a hold of firearms. Now, with respect to the argument that we're more violent than we used to be... hmm... I'm not quite so sure about that. We no longer have duels to the death (which, admittedly, were limited to one-on-one engagements instead of mass sprees). Lynchings are frowned upon. Violent vigilantism is no longer as common as it was in the 19th century. And as a counter-point, there has been an American fascination with violent, ghastly murder crimes and details in popular culture since at least the 18th century. Back then it was books, newspapers, and the like as opposed to modern day movies, TV shows, and video games, but that fascination has always been there.

[dneal]

Can you cite a source (Supreme Court precedent, writing by Founding Fathers, etc.) making this claim that the first 3 amendments are "Safeguard to Liberty," as you so claim? Because, frankly, I think at the very least the 4th and 5th amendments are also important safeguards to liberty. Oh, and no where in the Constitution does it state that any amendment is inherently more valuable than any other amendment, with the exception of amendments that explicitly override prior amendments/clauses.

I'm on crappy hotel wireless right now, so I'll see what I can do next week. It's vogue to group the amendments as safeguards to liberty, justice (i.e.: the 4th and 5th you mention), and civil rights. I don't necessarily agree with those categorizations, but the do make some sense. The "where in the Constitution does it say..." bit is a red herring. The constitution doesn't specifically say that over-ridden amendments are inherently less valuable. I think there is merit to the notion that the first 10 - the bill of rights - were what the founders considered the most vital.

Going back to the first amendment, by your argument, I should be allowed to perform human sacrifices so long as I make a claim that my religion requires it. Of course, last I checked, human sacrifices were illegal...

No, that's not my argument and I don't believe you can point out where I made it. I simply asked if you thought there should be prerequisites to exercising other fundamental rights (and I apologize, because I had the first 10 in mind). Read the first amendment again though, it says "Congress shall make no law..." not "the individual right to practice their religion however they see fit shall not be infringed".

What is a 4473? Is that the standard firearms background check? Fees are already illegal (see "poll taxes").

Yes, that is what a 4473 is. Poll taxes being illegal is my point (and I'd have to search, but I think the SC found them unconstitutional too).

True, but given how one doesn't need to show proof that one is not a felon for a large subset of legal firearms purchases (from individual sellers, gun shows, online want-ads, etc.), that isn't much of a deterrent. At the very least, the loopholes should be closed so that anyone selling a gun needs to see evidence of the purchaser not being a felon, etc., otherwise they could also be held liable for any crimes committed with said gun. Of course, this won't stop the issue of illegal sales off the back of a truck in a sketchy neighborhood, but said sketchy truck isn't exactly easy to find via a Google search.

Purchases from a firearms dealer require a background check before transfer. It doesn't matter if the sale was initiated online, at a gun-show, or online ad. There is no loophole.

Again, I'm not proposing banning guns from those who are responsible, law-abiding citizens. Guns are, regrettably, dangerous in the wrong hands. While people are capable of doing harm with other tools, guns are arguably the most effective tool for doing harm unto others (this is not to say they don't have other uses. I mean, kitchen knives can be used to stab people or to cut up vegetables, for example). I'm only in favor of actions that would limit accessibility of guns to those who are most likely to do harm to others.

The problem is that argument only "briefs well". Putting it into practice is not practical. Otherwise legal person who legally purchased a firearm has a fit of rage... how do you prevent that. Otherwise legal person who bought gun suffers from mental condition 10 years later and goes on a shooting spree... how do you prevent that?

As I said before, even if you could magically prevent them from having guns, there are still lots of ways they can cause mass casualties. Home-made bombs (largest school massacre in history was via explosives, btw), vehicle (think about a crazy person near a festival, parade, school zone in the morning or afternoon...) etc.

Guns are sensational, but statistically insignificant. They also prevent and/or stop crazy people.

[Dragonmaster Lou]

They also prevent and/or stop crazy people.

Perhaps, but only with proper training. Otherwise the gun user, no matter what their intentions may be, is just as likely to inadvertently hit innocents as the bad guy/s. That's also ignoring gun users who, frankly, are way too trigger happy and may escalate to gun usage when the situation doesn't call for it (although this case is probably more an example of criminal excessive use of force as opposed to simply not being a good shot in a stressful situation).

[Dragonmaster Lou]

I'm on crappy hotel wireless right now, so I'll see what I can do next week. It's vogue to group the amendments as safeguards to liberty, justice (i.e.: the 4th and 5th you mention), and civil rights. I don't necessarily agree with those categorizations, but the do make some sense. The "where in the Constitution does it say..." bit is a red herring. The constitution doesn't specifically say that over-ridden amendments are inherently less valuable. I think there is merit to the notion that the first 10 - the bill of rights - were what the founders considered the most vital.

Well, my language probably wasn't clear... but by "less valuable," I should've meant "no longer applicable, as they have been overridden." For example, the amendment establishing prohibition is no longer applicable (and arguably no longer valuable as it cannot be enforced) as it was later repealed by another amendment.

I'd also argue that amendments that protect one's voting rights are just as important as any amendments that protect one's other civil rights.

Poll taxes being illegal is my point (and I'd have to search, but I think the SC found them unconstitutional too).

Actually, they were explicitly banned by the 24th amendment.

Purchases from a firearms dealer require a background check before transfer. It doesn't matter if the sale was initiated online, at a gun-show, or online ad. There is no loophole.

That only applies to licensed (presumably professional) firearms dealers. If I, as J-random Individual, just take out a want-ad on craigslist to sell a gun I had in my possession and I am not an actual dealer, I don't need to make any background checks.

Again, I'm not proposing banning guns from those who are responsible, law-abiding citizens. Guns are, regrettably, dangerous in the wrong hands. While people are capable of doing harm with other tools, guns are arguably the most effective tool for doing harm unto others (this is not to say they don't have other uses. I mean, kitchen knives can be used to stab people or to cut up vegetables, for example). I'm only in favor of actions that would limit accessibility of guns to those who are most likely to do harm to others.

The problem is that argument only "briefs well". Putting it into practice is not practical. Otherwise legal person who legally purchased a firearm has a fit of rage... how do you prevent that. Otherwise legal person who bought gun suffers from mental condition 10 years later and goes on a shooting spree... how do you prevent that?

Well, the devil is in the details, I give you that. Fit of rage problems, well, that always has been and always will be a problem so long as firearms are legal (and again, I'm not advocating for banning). Dangerously mentally ill people may have to be required to turn over any firearms in their possession (perhaps to some sort of "escrow" or trusted associate of the mentally ill person or something so that they can be returned to him if he recovers or his next of kin if he doesn't -- I'm not into absolute confiscation), but I admit that could be difficult to enforce as well. Really, stronger enforcement/regulations probably would only block new purchases to mentally ill, felons, etc., but I agree that dealing with previously owned weapons could be a difficult, if not impossible, issue to address.

As I said before, even if you could magically prevent them from having guns, there are still lots of ways they can cause mass casualties. Home-made bombs (largest school massacre in history was via explosives, btw), vehicle (think about a crazy person near a festival, parade, school zone in the morning or afternoon...) etc.

Guns are sensational, but statistically insignificant. They also prevent and/or stop crazy people.

Well, I did mention that one of the only common tools with legitimate uses that could rival a gun for efficiency in causing murder and mayhem is a motor vehicle, so I see your point (although there are stricter motor vehicle controls than gun controls, but let's skip discussion of that aspect as it would probably just rehash prior arguments on both sides). Home-made bombs, well, they are outright illegal and have no legitimate uses, so that's a separate issue as well, but I agree to your point as to how much damage they can do.

As far as guns stopping and/or preventing crazy people, that may be the case, but only with proper training. Without proper training, the good guy with a gun is just as likely to inadvertently hit innocents as the bad guy they are trying to target. A lot of people without prior experience and/or training have no idea how difficult it is to accurately use firearms in a stressful situation such as trying to target a dangerous individual in a crowd of innocents. There's also the problem of overly trigger-happy gun users who may escalate situations to the use of deadly force when it's not necessary, but this is more akin to a scenario of criminal excessive use of force instead of simply being a bad shot when stressed.