The left doesn't want to take your guns!

[Dill]

(04-05-2018, 06:50 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Quote:Requiring a license for every gun owner would not limit the rights of law abiding citizens to own guns.

It absolutely could, by applying future laws that limit who can purchase them.  Requiring an ID to verify your identity doesn't prevent anyone from voting, yet it's constantly decried as an attempt to stop poor and minority voters from exercising their right to vote.

That is because requiring a voter ID does prevent people from voting, disproportionately minorities. In any case, apples and oranges.

Check page 15 of US vs State of North Carolina Board of Elections 2016
http://electionlawblog.org/wp-content/uploads/nc-4th.pdf

The pre-Shelby County version of SL 2013-381 provided that all government-issued IDs,
even many that had been expired, would satisfy the requirement as an alternative to
DMV-issued photo IDs. J.A.2114-15. After Shelby County, with race data in hand, the legislature amended the bill to exclude many of the alternative photo IDs
used by African Americans. Id. at *142; J.A. 2291-92. As amended, the bill retained only the kinds of IDs that white North Carolinians  were more likely to possess.

Voter Identification Laws and the Suppression of Minority Votes
http://pages.ucsd.edu/~zhajnal/page5/documents/voterIDhajnaletal.pdf
Focusing on the validated vote in recent elections using the Cooperative Congressional Election Study we are able to offer a more definitive test. The analysis shows that strict photo idenfication laws have a differentially negative impact on the turnout of Hispanics, and race Americans in primaries and general elections. Voter ID laws skew democracy in favor of whites and those on the political right.

E.g., in some places such laws can depress Asian American voting by 12.1 points.

Rigged: How Voter Suppression Threw Wisconsin to Trump
https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2017/10/voter-suppression-wisconsin-election-2016/
After the election, registered voters in Milwaukee County and Madison’s Dane County were surveyed about why they didn’t cast a ballot. Eleven percent cited the voter ID law and said they didn’t have an acceptable ID; of those, more than half said the law was the “main reason” they didn’t vote. According to the study’s author, University of Wisconsin-Madison political scientist Kenneth Mayer, that finding implies that between 12,000 and 23,000 registered voters in Madison and Milwaukee—and as many as 45,000 statewide—were deterred from voting by the ID law. “We have hard evidence there were tens of thousands of people who were unable to vote because of the voter ID law,” he says.

[Belsnickel]

(04-06-2018, 04:21 AM)Dill Wrote: That is because requiring a voter ID does prevent people from voting, disproportionately minorities. In any case, apples and oranges.

Check page 15 of US vs State of North Carolina Board of Elections 2016
http://electionlawblog.org/wp-content/uploads/nc-4th.pdf

The pre-Shelby County version of SL 2013-381 provided that all government-issued IDs,
even many that had been expired, would satisfy the requirement as an alternative to
DMV-issued photo IDs. J.A.2114-15. After Shelby County, with race data in hand, the legislature amended the bill to exclude many of the alternative photo IDs
used by African Americans. Id. at *142; J.A. 2291-92. As amended, the bill retained only the kinds of IDs that white North Carolinians  were more likely to possess.

Voter Identification Laws and the Suppression of Minority Votes
http://pages.ucsd.edu/~zhajnal/page5/documents/voterIDhajnaletal.pdf
Focusing on the validated vote in recent elections using the Cooperative Congressional Election Study we are able to offer a more definitive test. The analysis shows that strict photo idenfication laws have a differentially negative impact on the turnout of Hispanics, and race Americans in primaries and general elections. Voter ID laws skew democracy in favor of whites and those on the political right.

E.g., in some places such laws can depress Asian American voting by 12.1 points.

Rigged: How Voter Suppression Threw Wisconsin to Trump
https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2017/10/voter-suppression-wisconsin-election-2016/
After the election, registered voters in Milwaukee County and Madison’s Dane County were surveyed about why they didn’t cast a ballot. Eleven percent cited the voter ID law and said they didn’t have an acceptable ID; of those, more than half said the law was the “main reason” they didn’t vote. According to the study’s author, University of Wisconsin-Madison political scientist Kenneth Mayer, that finding implies that between 12,000 and 23,000 registered voters in Madison and Milwaukee—and as many as 45,000 statewide—were deterred from voting by the ID law. “We have hard evidence there were tens of thousands of people who were unable to vote because of the voter ID law,” he says.

While I am a person that is against any law that disenfranchises citizens. I'm actually in the process of a push for an end to felony disenfranchisement. However, using the right to vote and the right to own a firearm as a comparison is not an apt one based on the current legal framework that exists. Our judicial system currently sees voting as more of a privilege than a right. They have not recognized an actual positive right to vote that exists in the Constitution. They recognize that there are certain things that cannot be used to disenfranchise individuals, but that is not the same. On the other hand, the right to own a firearm has, since Heller, been viewed as an individual, positive right guaranteed by the Constitution.

This isn't to say that certain gun control restrictions aren't possible. Since Heller, the courts have been reluctant to get any more specific on what this means and disqualify gun control laws that could possibly be seen unconstitutional, now. Right now we are in legal limbo with the 2nd because the individual right to own a firearm is only 10 years old and this current court isn't willing to pick it back up and define it any further.

[fredtoast]

(04-06-2018, 08:55 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: Right now we are in legal limbo with the 2nd because the individual right to own a firearm is only 10 years old and this current court isn't willing to pick it back up and define it any further.

Heller acknowledges that gun control regulations are acceptable.  Just can poutright ban gun ownership.

The Heller decision would not prevent requiring a license to own a gun or a gun registry.  There is currently a federal law against a gun registry, but it is not a constitutional amerndment.  It could be removed by the legislature.

[Belsnickel]

(04-06-2018, 10:46 AM)fredtoast Wrote: Heller acknowledges that gun control regulations are acceptable.  Just can poutright ban gun ownership.

The Heller decision would not prevent requiring a license to own a gun or a gun registry.  There is currently a federal law against a gun registry, but it is not a constitutional amerndment.  It could be removed by the legislature.

You are saying what Heller says explicitly, which I get. I am saying that its impact in establishing the individual right to bear arms over the collective is one that could impact future court decisions for courts that look at the precedence set in Heller when viewing gun control legislation.

[Dill]

(04-06-2018, 08:55 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: While I am a person that is against any law that disenfranchises citizens. I'm actually in the process of a push for an end to felony disenfranchisement. However, using the right to vote and the right to own a firearm as a comparison is not an apt one based on the current legal framework that exists. Our judicial system currently sees voting as more of a privilege than a right. They have not recognized an actual positive right to vote that exists in the Constitution. They recognize that there are certain things that cannot be used to disenfranchise individuals, but that is not the same. On the other hand, the right to own a firearm has, since Heller, been viewed as an individual, positive right guaranteed by the Constitution.

This isn't to say that certain gun control restrictions aren't possible. Since Heller, the courts have been reluctant to get any more specific on what this means and disqualify gun control laws that could possibly be seen unconstitutional, now. Right now we are in legal limbo with the 2nd because the individual right to own a firearm is only 10 years old and this current court isn't willing to pick it back up and define it any further.

Good points. That's why I say apples and oranges.

Yet the analogy to these different cases does offer a kind of reverse illumination regarding how "defenders of freedom" define threats to freedom.

[Dill]

(04-05-2018, 05:18 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Surveys by Johns Hopkins and the Pew Research Center show that about 85 percent of gun owners favor universal background checks, an idea fiercely opposed by the gun lobby. Gun owners also strongly support a federal database of gun sales, prohibiting ownership for those convicted of domestic violence and barring people with mental illness from buying guns.

http://time.com/5197807/stricter-gun-laws-nra/

a national firearms registry, a policy proposal often raised after mass shootings. Among those who don’t own guns, 79 percent support a firearms-purchase database, but only half of gun owners back such a proposal. The level of support drops to 31 percent among NRA members.

http://time.com/5167216/americans-gun-control-support-poll-2018/

Those in favor of stricter gun legislation outnumber those opposed by a measure of more than two-to-one, according to the poll. Sixty-six percent of respondents said they would support more stringent laws, while just 31% said they would not. 

The split, however, was more even among gun owners, with 50% in favor and 44% not, according to the poll.

https://www.cnn.com/2018/02/25/politics/cnn-poll-gun-control-support-climbs/index.html

Overall support for stricter laws includes a majority of those who live in gun-owning households (57%) 

So it seems like that based on your argument that anyone who is in favor of any gun regulation is actually in favor of gun confiscation close to a majority of gun owners are in favor of gun confiscation.

Ok, so you were challenged to define "many" and you stepped up and did it.

I am curious, since you seem very familiar with the topic I would pose a question--obviously a substantial number of gun owners are down with gun control measures of some sort, but are there numbers on what percentage of NRA members also support gun control, and if so, what kinds?