Do you have adblock enabled?
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(NBC News)   Senators say that the NRA is ready to cave on background checks. Anyone felt their hands recently?   (firstread.nbcnews.com ) divider line
    More: Interesting, NRA, Democrats, background checks, Mayors Against Illegal Guns, 12-step programs, gun registry, Chuck Schumer, NBC News  
•       •       •

5116 clicks; posted to Main » on 13 Mar 2013 at 10:06 AM (3 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



499 Comments     (+0 »)
 
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest
 
2013-03-13 08:19:02 AM  
No they didn't:

An article appearing today on NBCNews.com is falsely reporting that NRA will not oppose legislation being negotiated in the U.S. Senate that would mandate background checks for all gun purchasers.

The posted on NBCNews.com alleges that NRA will not oppose expanding the background check system to include all private firearm sales, "provided the legislation does not require private gun sellers to maintain records of the checks".  This statement is completely untrue.  The NRA opposes criminalizing private firearms transfers between law-abiding individuals, and therefore opposes an expansion of the background check system.



Straight from the Horse's mouth:

Statement from Chris W. Cox, NRA-ILA Executive Director, regarding inaccurate NBC story alleging that NRA won't oppose background check bill
 
2013-03-13 08:21:22 AM  
My desires:

1. Universal background checks
2. Funding for the FBI to collect statistics on gun crimes so we know how often they are used in intentional shootings, accidental shootings, and self-defense.
3. Laws that say that if you purchase a gun, unless you sell the gun or report it stolen, if it is proven that that weapon was used in a crime, you are charged with a felony. That's even if you are not connected in any other way with the actual crime. (intended to reduce straw purchases)
 
2013-03-13 08:45:20 AM  

dittybopper: The NRA opposes criminalizing private firearms transfers between law-abiding individuals, and therefore opposes an expansion of the background check system.


Isn't that a contradiction of terms? How do you know that they're law abiding citizens without a background check?
 
2013-03-13 08:52:19 AM  

dittybopper: No they didn't:


Damn it. I got all excited, thinking I was actually seeing a compromise where both sides drop their more radical stands and move to the center.
 
2013-03-13 08:58:04 AM  
The NRA denies being part of any agreement. "We do not take positions on hypotheticals. We will make our position known if and when legislation is introduced," said Chris Cox

Isn't every position adopted by the NRA based on a hypothetical scenario where any regulation to limit firearms will lead to a brutal dictatorship being set up in America?
 
2013-03-13 09:16:35 AM  

SurfaceTension: My desires:

1. Universal background checks


Bad idea.  Very bad idea.  That turns what is an enumerated right into a government granted privilege.  Would you argue the same thing for a computer and internet connection?  That you must get government permission to post on the internet so that they know you aren't a subversive?  Or how about requiring a background check before you can assert your rights under the Fourth and Fifth Amendments?  How requiring government approval prior to getting an abortion?

The Bill of Rights isn't a la carte.  You don't get to pick and chose what you want.  If you seriously weaken the Second Amendment, you weaken *ALL* of the Bill of Rights, because people can say "Hey, we did it with *THIS* one, why can't we do it with the other one?".

Plus, there are numerous difficulties in implementing it.   You can do it under the general police powers at the state level, but it gets a bit dicier at the federal level, because you have to rationalize it under the Commerce Clause.  You can make that argument, and it might fly, but it's not a slam dunk.

Then you have the "You can make your own gun" loophole.  It's legal, and thousands of people do it every year.   It's only going to become easier with 3D printing of major parts.  For example, Defense Distributed just tested an AR-15 lower receiver (the part that is legally the gun) that they printed out on a 3D printer to over 600 rounds of full power ammunition.

Besides that, building something like a semi-auto handgun or a revolver only requires the ability to make a frame, and to purchase all the other parts, which are uncontrolled.  Anyone with some decent used machine tools can do that now. I know someone who made a Colt Commander-style 1911 from spare parts, and a rough casting of the frame.  He used mainly a drill press, a grinder, and hand files.

2. Funding for the FBI to collect statistics on gun crimes so we know how often they are used in intentional shootings, accidental shootings, and self-defense.

They already collect that data.  So does the CDC.

3. Laws that say that if you purchase a gun, unless you sell the gun or report it stolen, if it is proven that that weapon was used in a crime, you are charged with a felony. That's even if you are not connected in any other way with the actual crime. (intended to reduce straw purchases)

Very, very bad idea.

I have a gun safe in my closet.  Mostly, it doesn't get opened for months at a time, because I shoot a flintlock longrifle for the most part, and it hangs on my wall because it looks so damned good.

So, what happens if someone steals my guns without me knowing?  I'm an instant felon with no way to prove otherwise.  And it wouldn't be all that hard to do, either:  I keep a spare key for it in a non-obvious place so the distaffbopper can get to it, but even if they don't discover that, the lock itself isn't all that hard to pick.

Then too, what if you go on vacation for a month, someone breaks in, steals your guns, and kills someone with it before you even know you were robbed?

How would you enforce it against guns that don't have serial numbers, like home-made guns?   Remember how I pointed out that those are only going to become more common?  How would you enforce it against guns made before 1968?  I have a rifle sitting in my safe that doesn't have a serial number, because it was made before the Gun Control Act of 1968 required it of all guns.

In the end, though, what good would it do?  How would this stop crime?  All it would do is criminalize the victims of crime.

It wouldn't stop trafficking of guns, it would just shift it to other methods.  After all, NYC and NYS have very strict handgun laws, and criminals still get guns in NY, and despite the propaganda you might hear, the #1 source for guns seized in NYC is NYC.
 
2013-03-13 09:20:01 AM  

dittybopper: Bad idea. Very bad idea. That turns what is an enumerated right into a government granted privilege. Would you argue the same thing for a computer and internet connection? That you must get government permission to post on the internet so that they know you aren't a subversive? Or how about requiring a background check before you can assert your rights under the Fourth and Fifth Amendments? How requiring government approval prior to getting an abortion?


You're already not allowed to buy a gun if you're a felon. That's already on the books. So WTF are you talking about?
 
2013-03-13 09:22:36 AM  
The NRA is going to lose on this one and they know it.  What they'll do is raise a big stink about background checks and hope to keep some other measures off the table.  I really hope they do go balls out against this.  I think it would further marginalize them.

Either way, the whole background checks issue will give them something to wharrgarrbl about for the next few years.


The statement about "hypotheticals" is hilarious.  They are actively involved in influencing, even creating, legislation.  They don't just issue an opinion on whatever laws are passed.

Oh, and fark the NRA

/gun owner
 
2013-03-13 09:27:55 AM  

kbronsito: The NRA denies being part of any agreement. "We do not take positions on hypotheticals. We will make our position known if and when legislation is introduced," said Chris Cox

Isn't every position adopted by the NRA based on a hypothetical scenario where any regulation to limit firearms will lead to a brutal dictatorship being set up in America?


The text of the legislation was introduced into the committee yesterday, and it passed with a straight party-line 10-8 vote.

It was done in a slimy manner, too:  Senator Schumer introduced the bill 2 week ago, but it had no substance, it was merely a statement of general principles.

He introduced the actual text of the bill as an amendment yesterday, right before the vote.

That seems to be the standard tactic for anti-gun politicians these days.
 
vpb [TotalFark]
2013-03-13 09:35:01 AM  

dittybopper: SurfaceTension: My desires:

1. Universal background checks

Bad idea.  Very bad idea.  That turns what is an enumerated right into a government granted privilege.  Would you argue the same thing for a computer and internet connection?  That you must get government permission to post on the internet so that they know you aren't a subversive?  Or how about requiring a background check before you can assert your rights under the Fourth and Fifth Amendments?  How requiring government approval prior to getting an abortion?

The Bill of Rights isn't a la carte.  You don't get to pick and chose what you want.  If you seriously weaken the Second Amendment, you weaken *ALL* of the Bill of Rights, because people can say "Hey, we did it with *THIS* one, why can't we do it with the other one?".

Plus, there are numerous difficulties in implementing it.   You can do it under the general police powers at the state level, but it gets a bit dicier at the federal level, because you have to rationalize it under the Commerce Clause.  You can make that argument, and it might fly, but it's not a slam dunk.

Then you have the "You can make your own gun" loophole.  It's legal, and thousands of people do it every year.   It's only going to become easier with 3D printing of major parts.  For example, Defense Distributed just tested an AR-15 lower receiver (the part that is legally the gun) that they printed out on a 3D printer to over 600 rounds of full power ammunition.

Besides that, building something like a semi-auto handgun or a revolver only requires the ability to make a frame, and to purchase all the other parts, which are uncontrolled.  Anyone with some decent used machine tools can do that now. I know someone who made a Colt Commander-style 1911 from spare parts, and a rough casting of the frame.  He used mainly a drill press, a grinder, and hand files.

2. Funding for the FBI to collect statistics on gun crimes so we know how often they are used in intentional shootings, acciden ...


Nope.  Even voting requires regiatration.
 
2013-03-13 09:40:24 AM  

Mugato: dittybopper: Bad idea. Very bad idea. That turns what is an enumerated right into a government granted privilege. Would you argue the same thing for a computer and internet connection? That you must get government permission to post on the internet so that they know you aren't a subversive? Or how about requiring a background check before you can assert your rights under the Fourth and Fifth Amendments? How requiring government approval prior to getting an abortion?

You're already not allowed to buy a gun if you're a felon. That's already on the books. So WTF are you talking about?


Once you are required to get government permission with zero legal exceptions, what is to stop them from tightening the restrictions for those allowed to buy them?

Do you know all the categories for people who aren't allowed to own guns right now?  It's more expansive than you might think:

(d) It shall be unlawful for any person to sell or otherwisedispose of any firearm or ammunition to any person knowing orhaving reasonable cause to believe that such person -(1) is under indictment for, or has been convicted in any courtof, a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding oneyear;(2) is a fugitive from justice;(3) is an unlawful user of or addicted to any controlledsubstance (as defined in section 102 of the Controlled SubstancesAct (21 U.S.C. 802));(4) has been adjudicated as a mental defective or has beencommitted to any mental institution;(5) who, being an alien -(A) is illegally or unlawfully in the United States; or(B) except as provided in subsection (y)(2), has beenadmitted to the United States under a nonimmigrant visa (asthat term is defined in section 101(a)(26) of the Immigrationand Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(26)));(6) who (!2) has been discharged from the Armed Forces underdishonorable conditions;(7) who, having been a citizen of the United States, hasrenounced his citizenship;(8) is subject to a court order that restrains such person fromharassing, stalking, or threatening an intimate partner of suchperson or child of such intimate partner or person, or engagingin other conduct that would place an intimate partner inreasonable fear of bodily injury to the partner or child, exceptthat this paragraph shall only apply to a court order that -(A) was issued after a hearing of which such person receivedactual notice, and at which such person had the opportunity toparticipate; and(B)(i) includes a finding that such person represents acredible threat to the physical safety of such intimate partneror child; or(ii) by its terms explicitly prohibits the use, attempteduse, or threatened use of physical force against such intimatepartner or child that would reasonably be expected to causebodily injury; or(9) has been convicted in any court of a misdemeanor crime ofdomestic violence.
Look at those last few:  You can lose your gun rights upon conviction of certain misdemeanors.

Hell, you can lose them, at least temporarily, pretty much without any due process at all, if someone decides to get a restraining order against you.  That's fairly common in nasty divorce cases.

What is to stop them from passing a law saying "Hey, if you are on Prozac or other psychoactive drugs, you can't own a gun"?  That's similar to the restrictions on the mentally ill, and drug abusers.  What if they decide to extend it to anyone who's been convicted of any violent misdemeanor?  Ever got into a fist-fight?   After all, we already ban people for life who have been convicted of domestic violence misdemeanors, so why not extend it to all violent misdemeanors?

It just opens up the possibility of a slippery slope, which is a valid concern here, as slippery slopes related to gun ownership have happened in New York (both state and city), California, Chicago, Washington DC, and in other countries such as the United Kingdom.
 
2013-03-13 09:47:20 AM  

vpb: Nope.  Even voting requires regiatration.


Nice to see the Violence Policy Center weighing in.  So, is this Tom, Kristen, or Josh?  You never answered my question.

Voting isn't an enumerated right in the Bill of Rights, btw, so it's not exactly analogous, but you knew that, didn't you?

You don't have to pass a background check every time you vote, either.  I know, because I vote.

Stop trying to equate the two things.  If you could guarantee me that a simple registration that would never be used to disenfranchise a person from their right to own a firearm could be possible, I *MIGHT* go for something like that, after a lobotomy that removes all of my historical knowledge about how registration has been used for confiscations elsewhere, and how it's been used for "soft" confiscations even here in the US.

/Soft confiscation is the outlawing of possession of something, without just compensation, on the theory that you could sell it to someone in an area where they aren't outlawed.
 
2013-03-13 09:49:39 AM  

dittybopper: Once you are required to get government permission with zero legal exceptions, what is to stop them from tightening the restrictions for those allowed to buy them?


And gay marriage will lead to people marrying their pet turtles. There's no arguing against the slippery slope argument. But all the background check thing would do is be sure the laws already on the books are enforced. If they can't check out someone, then why even have the restrictions in the first place?
 
2013-03-13 09:52:50 AM  
I can't understand how "background checks"  = "taking away our gun rights!!!"
 
2013-03-13 09:54:04 AM  

mysticcat: Oh, and fark the NRA

/gun owner


Oh, you're one of *THOSE*.

I bet you hated that they water-down the law on armor-piercing bullets, didn't you?  Never mind that as originally written it would have banned every center-fire rifle.
 
2013-03-13 09:57:28 AM  

dittybopper: SurfaceTension: My desires:


3. Laws that say that if you purchase a gun, unless you sell the gun or report it stolen, if it is proven that that weapon was used in a crime, you are charged with a felony. That's even if you are not connected in any other way with the actual crime. (intended to reduce straw purchases)

Very, very bad idea.

I have a gun safe in my closet.  Mostly, it doesn't get opened for months at a time, because I shoot a flintlock longrifle for the most part, and it hangs on my wall because it looks so damned good.



I can agree that this is a bad idea.  However, I think that if you own guns and do not secure them around someone with questionable mental stability and they use those guns in a crime, you should suffer a consequence for that.  I think I've said it before, but I don't have a problem with someone who wants to defend their home with a 30mm chain cannon.  But if stray rounds find their way into their neighbor's homes, they suffer a heavy penalty and loose their right.  The same goes for anyone who draws down on someone for no good reason (flashing your gun in traffic, at a bar...things like that).  Arm up with what you want - you use it irresponsibly, you suffer the heavy consequence...heavier than now).

On another note, where are you storing your black powder...or do you use pyrodex?
 
2013-03-13 09:57:42 AM  

Mugato: dittybopper: Once you are required to get government permission with zero legal exceptions, what is to stop them from tightening the restrictions for those allowed to buy them?

And gay marriage will lead to people marrying their pet turtles. There's no arguing against the slippery slope argument. But all the background check thing would do is be sure the laws already on the books are enforced. If they can't check out someone, then why even have the restrictions in the first place?


Because you can charge people with violations of the law when you find them.

Personally, I don't have a problem with gay marriage.  I don't want the government in my bedroom or in my gun safe.  I don't think that's an unreasonable position.

Slippery slopes are a real concern, btw.

Pretty much *NONE* of the current federal laws were in place when I was born, and here we are arguing for even *MORE* laws.  Is this going to be the end?  Can you seriously argue that in the affirmative?

Whether you want to admit it or not, we are currently *IN* a slippery slope situation.
 
2013-03-13 10:04:28 AM  

vernonFL: I can't understand how "background checks"  = "taking away our gun rights!!!"


Try looking at it as though you're completely. illogical and paranoid, or part of the TINY minority who opposes background checks.
 
vpb [TotalFark]
2013-03-13 10:08:47 AM  
dittybopper:
Hell, you can lose them, at least temporarily, pretty much without any due process at all, if someone decides to get a restraining order against you.  That's fairly common in nasty divorce cases.

What is to stop them from passing a law saying "Hey, if you are on Prozac or other psychoactive drugs, you can't own a gun"?  That's similar to the restrictions on the mentally ill, and drug abusers.  What if they decide to extend it to anyone who's been convicted of any violent misdemeanor?  Ever got into a fist-fight?   After all, we already ban people for life who have been convicted of domestic violence misdemeanors, so why not extend it to all violent misdemeanors?



Nothing, which is good.  Those court orders are due process and they are handed down for a reason.  There were too many people getting killed in nasty divorces and domestic violence incidents.
 
2013-03-13 10:12:33 AM  

UberDave: On another note, where are you storing your black powder...or do you use pyrodex?


The ready supply is in the powder horn attached to the possibles bag, the 1 lb cans of it are downstairs in my old-fashioned chest that contains the various stuff that isn't in the shooting bag.

Possibles bag with powder horn is in the closet, away from the gun.

I have to use black powder because neither Triple 7 nor Pyrodex will reliably ignite in a flintlock.

I don't worry too much about leaving that stuff about because there is a specific sequence to load the gun, and unless you are knowledgeable about that sequence, pretty much nothing is going to happen.  Plus, you have to have some strength and a minimum size to be able to load it properly.

That, and unless you have built up the muscle memory to do it quickly, it's going to take you a while.  I can reload in something like 20 seconds, but I've practiced a lot, and reload time is important to me because I compete in timed events (primitive biathlons).

As far as the powder goes, so long as it's not contained, it's fairly safe to ignite.  It doesn't *KABOOM*, it just burns really, really fast.  I don't think you can get a *KABOOM* from any unrestricted black powder unless it's at least several tens of pounds, and you ignite it at the bottom of the pile.  Then you might get a bang, but it still wouldn't detonate, technically.
 
2013-03-13 10:12:40 AM  
Here's the delineation of Congressional powers regarding the militia,quoted directly from the Constitution:

To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;
 To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;


Seems like the Constitution grants all kinds of controls to Congress and to the States.
 
2013-03-13 10:13:11 AM  

dittybopper: The Bill of Rights isn't a la carte. You don't get to pick and chose what you want. If you seriously weaken the Second Amendment, you weaken *ALL* of the Bill of Rights, because people can say "Hey, we did it with *THIS* one, why can't we do it with the other one?".


Every right enumerated can be subjected to regulation and restriction from the 1st all the on through the rest.

Or have you forgotten how SCOTUS works?
 
2013-03-13 10:13:19 AM  
Jesus h. Christ. These incessant gun control threads make me want to commit a mass shooting and then blow my own head off.
 
2013-03-13 10:13:23 AM  
Setting aside politics for a moment - there's an opportunity to do some cool tech things. Like, if I have a gun, and I want to sell it to someone, I could get a private key tied to both my name and the serial number of the gun from any, lets say fire department because we have them everywhere and they're pretty neutral. The buyer could get another unique number valid for a few days showing that they have the legal right to buy a gun.

Then, I meet someone over the internet who wants to buy the gun, drive over to see them, type their unique key into my phone, see their driver's license pic pop up on my phone, and know they aren't a felon without needing to know anything else about them, even their name. They type my number in and see my picture with the serial number of the gun, so they know it's not stolen, I legally have it, etc. You could do it from anywhere (and at a library, fire station, etc).

I mean, yeah, it has lots of holes - it relies on two people wanting to engage in a legal transaction, but pretty much any regulation would require that anyway. And I'm sure people would think of better things. Like if you got a key, and then your key was signed with the other person's key on transfer, you could have proof you sold a gun to someone without any registration. If the cops came knocking on your door, you could just show them a digital certificate.
 
2013-03-13 10:13:29 AM  

vpb: dittybopper:
Hell, you can lose them, at least temporarily, pretty much without any due process at all, if someone decides to get a restraining order against you.  That's fairly common in nasty divorce cases.

What is to stop them from passing a law saying "Hey, if you are on Prozac or other psychoactive drugs, you can't own a gun"?  That's similar to the restrictions on the mentally ill, and drug abusers.  What if they decide to extend it to anyone who's been convicted of any violent misdemeanor?  Ever got into a fist-fight?   After all, we already ban people for life who have been convicted of domestic violence misdemeanors, so why not extend it to all violent misdemeanors?


Nothing, which is good.  Those court orders are due process and they are handed down for a reason.  There were too many people getting killed in nasty divorces and domestic violence incidents.


So you admit that this is just a first step, then?  I'm right to be worried about a slippery slope?
 
2013-03-13 10:13:34 AM  
I am as strong a supporter of the 2nd amendment as there is. All my weapons needed a check. I don't see the problem with that.

But..... I see the slippery slope thing. First the background check stuff, then something else, then something else, then like that moron Democrat idea to make buying ammo require anger management courses, etc....

And yet, to elect politicians, asking for ID is a sin, according to the same people who want gun control.
 
2013-03-13 10:13:54 AM  
Umm...Texan here - I'm pretty sure they already do background checks...even here. I know this because I wait at a Cabela's for 2 hours a few months ago while they ran my friend's background with the ATF...
 
2013-03-13 10:15:11 AM  
If the NRA leadership caved on that issue they would find themselves voted out of office by their constituents in a heartbeat.
 
2013-03-13 10:16:57 AM  

TheShavingofOccam123: suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;


So the Founding Fathers just saw Red Dawn before they wrote the Constitution.
 
2013-03-13 10:17:04 AM  

Thunderpipes: I am as strong a supporter of the 2nd amendment as there is. All my weapons needed a check. I don't see the problem with that.

But..... I see the slippery slope thing. First the background check stuff, then something else, then something else, then like that moron Democrat idea to make buying ammo require anger management courses, etc....

And yet, to elect politicians, asking for ID is a sin, according to the same people who want gun control.


This!  People act like guns are dangerous what with the bullets that come out of them very quickly and the killing people and whatnot.

But what about the danger of electing Kenyan Muslims who use our Constitution like a piece of TOILET PAPER!  That's far more dangerous than ANY weapon.

www.familysecuritymatters.org

Look at the way he berates our freedom!

/call me, fox news, i'm available on weekends
 
2013-03-13 10:17:18 AM  

Rurouni: Umm...Texan here - I'm pretty sure they already do background checks...even here. I know this because I wait at a Cabela's for 2 hours a few months ago while they ran my friend's background with the ATF...


this is for universal background checks, as in sales are checked in all 50 states. Right now the laws are disparate between each state which can lead to gun trafficking from straw purchases in one state to then have the weapons transferred to illegal owners in another.

For instance, there are places in the country where over half of the weapons confiscated can be traced to only a handful of shops out of that state.
 
2013-03-13 10:17:19 AM  
FTA: "We do not take positions on hypotheticals."

Moments later

"To be clear, the National Rifle Association does not support legislation that would criminalize otherwise lawful transfers of firearms between law abiding Americans," Cox said.

We don't take positions on hypotheticals. Now here's our response to some imaginary legislation.
 
2013-03-13 10:17:28 AM  
NRA already denied this. That's what you get for relying on blogs for news.

I'll happily trade gun background checks in all 50 states today with Voter ID in all 50 states today. I have nothing to hide. And, I want my purchase when I pay for it, not after a waiting period. You checked me, gimme my stuff now.
 
2013-03-13 10:18:11 AM  

Mugato: TheShavingofOccam123: suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

So the Founding Fathers just saw Red Dawn before they wrote the Constitution.


WOLVERINES!
 
2013-03-13 10:18:55 AM  

MyKingdomForYourHorse: dittybopper: The Bill of Rights isn't a la carte. You don't get to pick and chose what you want. If you seriously weaken the Second Amendment, you weaken *ALL* of the Bill of Rights, because people can say "Hey, we did it with *THIS* one, why can't we do it with the other one?".

Every right enumerated can be subjected to regulation and restriction from the 1st all the on through the rest.

Or have you forgotten how SCOTUS works?


Have you never heard of "Prior Restraint"?

Explain to me why having to get government permission to exercise your right to own a gun is different from getting government permission to publish something.
 
2013-03-13 10:19:30 AM  

Rapmaster2000: Thunderpipes: I am as strong a supporter of the 2nd amendment as there is. All my weapons needed a check. I don't see the problem with that.

But..... I see the slippery slope thing. First the background check stuff, then something else, then something else, then like that moron Democrat idea to make buying ammo require anger management courses, etc....

And yet, to elect politicians, asking for ID is a sin, according to the same people who want gun control.

This!  People act like guns are dangerous what with the bullets that come out of them very quickly and the killing people and whatnot.

But what about the danger of electing Kenyan Muslims who use our Constitution like a piece of TOILET PAPER!  That's far more dangerous than ANY weapon.

[www.familysecuritymatters.org image 576x304]

Look at the way he berates our freedom!

/call me, fox news, i'm available on weekends


Was there a point in your ramblings? Liberals are hypocrites, big time. That was my point, and it is fact. You want the 2nd amendment gone, and don't pretend, you and your leaders want it gone. This is your first step.

But even suggest something as logical as showing ID to vote, and you explode in anger. You are a breed apart and make no sense.
 
2013-03-13 10:20:03 AM  

MyKingdomForYourHorse: Every right enumerated can be subjected to regulation and restriction from the 1st all the on through the rest.


You could have posted that earlier. I was just in a movie theater and thought it would be fun to yell "FIRE". Now they're calling the cops.
 
2013-03-13 10:20:10 AM  
Oh, and what branch of the government is the NRA?

Oh, they're not, they're just a trade group?

Then f*ck them.
 
2013-03-13 10:20:56 AM  

Rurouni: Umm...Texan here - I'm pretty sure they already do background checks...even here. I know this because I wait at a Cabela's for 2 hours a few months ago while they ran my friend's background with the ATF...


If you buy from a dealer, they are required by federal law.

This is about making it required for *ALL* transactions, even between private individuals.
 
2013-03-13 10:22:18 AM  

SurfaceTension: My desires:

1. Universal background checks
2. Funding for the FBI to collect statistics on gun crimes so we know how often they are used in intentional shootings, accidental shootings, and self-defense.
3. Laws that say that if you purchase a gun, unless you sell the gun or report it stolen, if it is proven that that weapon was used in a crime, you are charged with a felony. That's even if you are not connected in any other way with the actual crime. (intended to reduce straw purchases)


And
4.  Strict Liability for Gun Owners (if your gun shoots someone you have liability regardless of your preventative measures (or lack thereof), just like if someone drowns in your pool)
 
2013-03-13 10:22:32 AM  

Mugato: MyKingdomForYourHorse: Every right enumerated can be subjected to regulation and restriction from the 1st all the on through the rest.

You could have posted that earlier. I was just in a movie theater and thought it would be fun to yell "FIRE". Now they're calling the cops.


Were you required to wear a ball gag prior to entering the theater, to prevent you from *FALSELY* yelling fire?  No?

Then it's not the same thing.
 
2013-03-13 10:22:59 AM  
Thunderpipes:

Was there a point in your ramblings? Liberals are hypocrites, big time. That was my point, and it is fact. You want the 2nd amendment gone, and don't pretend, you and your leaders want it gone. This is your first step.

But even suggest something as logical as showing ID to vote, and you explode in anger. You are a breed apart and make no sense.


The point is quite clear.

Libbo libby libtards say that we need ID to buy guns because guns are dangerous.

But they don't want ID to vote which IS JUST AS MUCH IF NOT MORE DANGEROUS because votes can be used to destroy freedom.

THEY ARE SUCH HIPPOCRATES!

/you should be thanking me
//i'm doing the heavy lifting for you
 
2013-03-13 10:23:53 AM  

dittybopper: Rurouni: Umm...Texan here - I'm pretty sure they already do background checks...even here. I know this because I wait at a Cabela's for 2 hours a few months ago while they ran my friend's background with the ATF...

If you buy from a dealer, they are required by federal law.

This is about making it required for *ALL* transactions, even between private individuals.


Easy answer: Only states can write in that proviso, since the federal government only has the authority to regulate interstate transactions, not internal transactions.
 
2013-03-13 10:23:54 AM  

Mugato: TheShavingofOccam123: suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

So the Founding Fathers just saw Red Dawn before they wrote the Constitution.


Yeah sure but in the new one, yes I saw it and yes it was terrible, they use Tec 9s that they got from gang members then use small arms captured from the Koreans. So it's not like they used legal guns in the first place.

/actually the Marine making fun of the Tec 9s was the only decent part of the movie
 
2013-03-13 10:24:29 AM  

RedT: SurfaceTension: My desires:

1. Universal background checks
2. Funding for the FBI to collect statistics on gun crimes so we know how often they are used in intentional shootings, accidental shootings, and self-defense.
3. Laws that say that if you purchase a gun, unless you sell the gun or report it stolen, if it is proven that that weapon was used in a crime, you are charged with a felony. That's even if you are not connected in any other way with the actual crime. (intended to reduce straw purchases)

And
4.  Strict Liability for Gun Owners (if your gun shoots someone you have liability regardless of your preventative measures (or lack thereof), just like if someone drowns in your pool)


Wow.  You *REALLY* hate gun owners, don't you?

And no, pool owners aren't subject to strict liability.  If you take reasonable measures (fence, etc.) you aren't liable if some drunk kid jumps the fence and downs in your pool.
 
gja
2013-03-13 10:24:47 AM  

Mugato: dittybopper: The NRA opposes criminalizing private firearms transfers between law-abiding individuals, and therefore opposes an expansion of the background check system.

Isn't that a contradiction of terms? How do you know that they're law abiding citizens without a background check?


By that reasoning how do you know you don't have colorectal cancer with jamming a camera up your arse?

/dr ben dover at your service.
 
2013-03-13 10:25:12 AM  
This is part of the asinine "enforce the existing laws" mantra.

Step 1: Pass a "gun law".
Step 1a: Remove all accountability and record keeping from the law.
Step 2: Refuse to fund whatever enforcement mechanisms the law does have.
Step 3: Claim the "new laws" aren't being enforced (Profit!)

This has happened multiple times in this realm.  It's hollow rhetoric that many of you conservative farkers fall for and vomit forth again and again.

I guess this shouldn't come as a surprise, it's what happens whenever lobbyists are allowed to write their own bills.
 
2013-03-13 10:25:23 AM  

dittybopper: Rurouni: Umm...Texan here - I'm pretty sure they already do background checks...even here. I know this because I wait at a Cabela's for 2 hours a few months ago while they ran my friend's background with the ATF...

If you buy from a dealer, they are required by federal law.

This is about making it required for *ALL* transactions, even between private individuals.


And Feinstien wants to make that illegal altogether. No more passing on weapons to your heirs, even very expensive collectables, if they so much as have a bayonet lug. She wants you to turn those over to the government when your grandpa dies.

It is all just a bunch of crap to slowly erode the rights of gun owners until it is too expensive and difficult to do so. Then you have a much more docile and subjugated population. Of course, all evidence shows none of that reduces gun crime, but who cares about that little bit?
 
2013-03-13 10:26:13 AM  
Background checks still wouldn't have stopped the Sandy Hook shooting.
 
2013-03-13 10:26:29 AM  

EyeballKid: Oh, and what branch of the government is the NRA?

Oh, they're not, they're just a trade group?

Then f*ck them.


Like the NEA, AFL-CIO? NRA is tiny compared to those giants.
 
2013-03-13 10:27:17 AM  

dittybopper: Have you never heard of "Prior Restraint"?

Explain to me why having to get government permission to exercise your right to own a gun is different from getting government permission to publish something.


Have you forgotten about Time, Place, and Manner regulations regarding the 1st? They clearly lay down precedent that our rights can be regulated regarding the time, place and manner in which we exercise them. There is also numerous case law regarding regulations for enumerated right in the constitution and bill of rights.

We can dance this dance if you want Ditty, I'll start dredging up case law if you want but the fact of the matter is that something like a background check is clearly within the powers of congress to enact, and the legislative to exact because ultimately it does not remove your right it only regulates when, where, and how you operate that right.

Mugato: You could have posted that earlier. I was just in a movie theater and thought it would be fun to yell "FIRE". Now they're calling the cops.


I thought it might be a good idea to go pitch a tent in the middle of the city and then complain when they remove me as a public nuisance that they are trampling on my right to peaceably assemble.
 
2013-03-13 10:27:50 AM  
I am confused. As a recent gun owner, I had to undergo a background check, release mental health files and get finger-printed. Is this not the norm? Regarding the concern of 'neighbor-to-neighbor' (private sales), how does the seller know he is not selling to another 'James Holmes'? Wouldn't a seller want to know that?
 
2013-03-13 10:29:40 AM  

dittybopper: UberDave: On another note, where are you storing your black powder...or do you use pyrodex?

The ready supply is in the powder horn attached to the possibles bag, the 1 lb cans of it are downstairs in my old-fashioned chest that contains the various stuff that isn't in the shooting bag.

Possibles bag with powder horn is in the closet, away from the gun.

I have to use black powder because neither Triple 7 nor Pyrodex will reliably ignite in a flintlock.

I don't worry too much about leaving that stuff about because there is a specific sequence to load the gun, and unless you are knowledgeable about that sequence, pretty much nothing is going to happen.  Plus, you have to have some strength and a minimum size to be able to load it properly.

That, and unless you have built up the muscle memory to do it quickly, it's going to take you a while.  I can reload in something like 20 seconds, but I've practiced a lot, and reload time is important to me because I compete in timed events (primitive biathlons).

As far as the powder goes, so long as it's not contained, it's fairly safe to ignite.  It doesn't *KABOOM*, it just burns really, really fast.  I don't think you can get a *KABOOM* from any unrestricted black powder unless it's at least several tens of pounds, and you ignite it at the bottom of the pile.  Then you might get a bang, but it still wouldn't detonate, technically.



I realized questioning about pyrodex when you have a flintlock was kind of dumb.  :)

I'm just getting into muzzloading.  I hunted last season with a modern .50 using pyrodex (209 cap + pyrodex = no problems of course).  I almost have my Colonial .45 percussion lock finished (kit) and I'm about to order some 3f and was wondering about storing it per regulations.  You can get 30 grain charges of pyrodex for pistols but I want to go loose powder.  I'm torn between just keeping it locked away in a safe place in the house (not within regulations), or storing it over at my parent's house where I can store it within regs.  I know it's not a big deal but I have a munitions background and know quite a bit about explosives and the storage of said explosives so the stickler in me is hard to suppress.

And speaking of regulations, I wish it was easier for businesses to sell black powder.  I live in the largest city in Texas and *no one* sells it here.
 
2013-03-13 10:30:06 AM  

dittybopper: The Bill of Rights isn't a la carte. You don't get to pick and chose what you want. If you seriously weaken the Second Amendment, you weaken *ALL* of the Bill of Rights, because people can say "Hey, we did it with *THIS* one, why can't we do it with the other one?".


Where have you been?  The Bill of Rights has been more violated than Tiffany Tits in Backdoor Sluts XVII; the NRA's moral high ground has been a running gag for years.  The NRA let Congress dismantle habeas corpus without so much as a sneeze.  And if the government can imprison you indefinitely without cause, the 2nd Amendment is worth as much as toilet paper.  Habeas corpus was considered by our Founding Fathers to be such an essential right that it wasn't even in the Bill of Rights -- it was such a no-brainer that they didn't miss the chance to put it in the Constitution's first draft.  Did anyone -- ANYONE in that gargantuan group manage to put 2 and 2 together?  You can be a "law-abiding citizen" with a gun and be thrown in jail for failure to pay a parking ticket.  And go to jail you will, because all the use of the gun gets you is a date with SWAT and a bunch of other charges that have nothing to do with possessing the gun and everything to do with using it against the friendly badged fellows dropping by to show you just how much your precious rights are worth to them.  Now granted I haven't heard something to that effect happening, but if "slippery slopes" are what they're afraid of, it's one hell of a whopper.  Technically the government now doesn't even need gun control laws to put all gun owners in jail (because they can put anyone in jail), and for all the "protecting our freedoms" hoopla they're supposedly about, the historical precedent for actually using said weapons in defense of freedom is atrocious.

I'd take the NRA's arguments a lot more seriously if they gave any indication that they knew or cared about what the hell they were doing.  The 2nd Amendment is the least important right as far as actually owning weapons goes -- the 4th, 5th, 6th, 10th, 14th and habeas corpus are ALL far more important -- so you'd think the NRA would fight for those tooth and nail.  But if they're Constitutional scholars then my name is Mickey Mouse.
 
2013-03-13 10:30:34 AM  

Bravo Two: dittybopper: Rurouni: Umm...Texan here - I'm pretty sure they already do background checks...even here. I know this because I wait at a Cabela's for 2 hours a few months ago while they ran my friend's background with the ATF...

If you buy from a dealer, they are required by federal law.

This is about making it required for *ALL* transactions, even between private individuals.

Easy answer: Only states can write in that proviso, since the federal government only has the authority to regulate interstate transactions, not internal transactions.


Yeah, like the Commerce Clause is any barrier to that.   The Supreme Court has already ruled that activity that happens purely within a single state (like the growing and smoking of pot for purely personal use) can be criminalized under the Commerce Clause.
 
2013-03-13 10:30:37 AM  
So not only do we have the NRA denying this.... This from the actual blog makes it pretty laughable.


Senators negotiating a bill mandating background checks for all gun buyers are privately expecting the National Rifle Association not to fight the measure -- provided the legislation does not require private gun sellers to maintain records of the checks, NBC News has learned.


So do the checks but never be required to be able to prove you did. Brilliant.
 
2013-03-13 10:30:40 AM  

Thunderpipes: I am as strong a supporter of the 2nd amendment as there is. All my weapons needed a check. I don't see the problem with that.

But..... I see the slippery slope thing. First the background check stuff, then something else, then something else, then like that moron Democrat idea to make buying ammo require anger management courses, etc....

And yet, to elect politicians, asking for ID is a sin, according to the same people who want gun control.


If "voter fraud" ever becomes a real thing, like criminals who shouldn't have guns obtaining them easily actually is, we'll talk.
 
2013-03-13 10:31:28 AM  

dittybopper: vpb: Nope.  Even voting requires regiatration.

Nice to see the Violence Policy Center weighing in.  So, is this Tom, Kristen, or Josh?  You never answered my question.

Voting isn't an enumerated right in the Bill of Rights, btw, so it's not exactly analogous, but you knew that, didn't you?

You don't have to pass a background check every time you vote, either.  I know, because I vote.

Stop trying to equate the two things.  If you could guarantee me that a simple registration that would never be used to disenfranchise a person from their right to own a firearm could be possible, I *MIGHT* go for something like that, after a lobotomy that removes all of my historical knowledge about how registration has been used for confiscations elsewhere, and how it's been used for "soft" confiscations even here in the US.

/Soft confiscation is the outlawing of possession of something, without just compensation, on the theory that you could sell it to someone in an area where they aren't outlawed.


Although added later than the Bill of Rights, the constitution declares voting to be a right. Just because it wasn't added at the beginning doesn't mean it is less important or less of a right than any of the things mentioned in the first ten amendments.

Voting is exactly analogous. They are both rights; voting maybe moreso as it's mentioned in more than one amendment.
 
2013-03-13 10:31:50 AM  

weave: dittybopper: No they didn't:

Damn it. I got all excited, thinking I was actually seeing a compromise where both sides drop their more radical stands and move to the center.


Uh, a "radical stance" from the gun control lobby would be the demand that we ban all future weapon sales and declare the NRA a terrorist organization.

One side is really far from the center in this case.  Guess which one it is.
 
2013-03-13 10:32:05 AM  

ferretman: I am confused. As a recent gun owner, I had to undergo a background check, release mental health files and get finger-printed. Is this not the norm? Regarding the concern of 'neighbor-to-neighbor' (private sales), how does the seller know he is not selling to another 'James Holmes'? Wouldn't a seller want to know that?


In the end, civil liabilities will probably crop up. You can sell a car to a mentally-ill person because a car has numerous uses. You will probably will be held to have civil liabilities for selling a gun to a mentally-ill person who goes out and kills with the gun.

It's probably coming. Lawyers need money. The only thing that has prevented it so far is private sellers--at least some of them--don't have a lot of assets to take away in civil court. But gunshow sellers probably do.
 
2013-03-13 10:32:39 AM  
Only a matter of time until that nut is cracked.

And there will be no popular uprising, you're not very popular.
 
2013-03-13 10:33:06 AM  

jso2897: Thunderpipes: I am as strong a supporter of the 2nd amendment as there is. All my weapons needed a check. I don't see the problem with that.

But..... I see the slippery slope thing. First the background check stuff, then something else, then something else, then like that moron Democrat idea to make buying ammo require anger management courses, etc....

And yet, to elect politicians, asking for ID is a sin, according to the same people who want gun control.

If "voter fraud" ever becomes a real thing, like criminals who shouldn't have guns obtaining them easily actually is, we'll talk.


Like Melowese Richardson  who just got indicted for voting 6 times, for Obama? A democratic poll worker no less? Oh, they are investigating more widespread voter fraud there as well?
 
2013-03-13 10:33:41 AM  

Mark Ratner: Background checks still wouldn't have stopped the Sandy Hook shooting.


It might have made a difference in Aurora and at Virginia Tech.

Also, Link
 
2013-03-13 10:34:10 AM  

dittybopper: No they didn't:

An article appearing today on NBCNews.com is falsely reporting that NRA will not oppose legislation being negotiated in the U.S. Senate that would mandate background checks for all gun purchasers.

The posted on NBCNews.com alleges that NRA will not oppose expanding the background check system to include all private firearm sales, "provided the legislation does not require private gun sellers to maintain records of the checks".  This statement is completely untrue.  The NRA opposes criminalizing private firearms transfers between law-abiding individuals, and therefore opposes an expansion of the background check system.


Straight from the Horse's mouth:

Statement from Chris W. Cox, NRA-ILA Executive Director, regarding inaccurate NBC story alleging that NRA won't oppose background check bill


Just like how the NRA was against mandatory trigger locks as an infringement of the Second Amendment?

They dropped that opposition when the bill requiring trigger locks also  immunized gun makers against lawsuits.

You know - because they're for gun owners, not the gun industry.
 
2013-03-13 10:34:18 AM  

TheShavingofOccam123: In the end, civil liabilities will probably crop up. You can sell a car to a mentally-ill person because a car has numerous uses. You will probably will be held to have civil liabilities for selling a gun to a mentally-ill person who goes out and kills with the gun.


Gun insurance.

its coming, just give it time.
 
2013-03-13 10:34:47 AM  

jso2897: Thunderpipes: I am as strong a supporter of the 2nd amendment as there is. All my weapons needed a check. I don't see the problem with that.

But..... I see the slippery slope thing. First the background check stuff, then something else, then something else, then like that moron Democrat idea to make buying ammo require anger management courses, etc....

And yet, to elect politicians, asking for ID is a sin, according to the same people who want gun control.

If "voter fraud" ever becomes a real thing, like criminals who shouldn't have guns obtaining them easily actually is, we'll talk.


Don't question the analogy.  It's a flawless analogy.  I came up with it myself.  I am a master of logic.
 
2013-03-13 10:35:14 AM  

ferretman: I am confused. As a recent gun owner, I had to undergo a background check, release mental health files and get finger-printed. Is this not the norm? Regarding the concern of 'neighbor-to-neighbor' (private sales), how does the seller know he is not selling to another 'James Holmes'? Wouldn't a seller want to know that?


From your profile, you're in New Jersey. Those are state-level requirements.

Most states have relatively few state-level laws and defer to the feds. The feds say, in essence, "if you buy a gun from a licensed dealer (i.e. a gun shop), you must undergo a background check".

Your concern for private sales is a valid one, but from what I've read most private transfers are not between random strangers: most are between family members, good friends, or other people who know each other well. It's already illegal to transfer firearms to those prohibited from owning them and it's impossible for anyone (even with a background check!) to predict the future actions of someone else.
 
2013-03-13 10:35:45 AM  

ferretman: I am confused. As a recent gun owner, I had to undergo a background check, release mental health files and get finger-printed. Is this not the norm? Regarding the concern of 'neighbor-to-neighbor' (private sales), how does the seller know he is not selling to another 'James Holmes'? Wouldn't a seller want to know that?


So did I, at the gun store. But you can go to a gun show wearing a Hannibal Lecter mask and blood soaked overalls and buy an M-16.
 
2013-03-13 10:35:59 AM  

dittybopper: MyKingdomForYourHorse: dittybopper: The Bill of Rights isn't a la carte. You don't get to pick and chose what you want. If you seriously weaken the Second Amendment, you weaken *ALL* of the Bill of Rights, because people can say "Hey, we did it with *THIS* one, why can't we do it with the other one?".

Every right enumerated can be subjected to regulation and restriction from the 1st all the on through the rest.

Or have you forgotten how SCOTUS works?

Have you never heard of "Prior Restraint"?

Explain to me why having to get government permission to exercise your right to own a gun is different from getting government permission to publish something.


normally we some stuff in common, our love of firearms and bushcraft for example, so i am giving all due respect...

You have to get permission from the government to own and operate a vehicle and the process to do those is a lot more invasive than to own a firearm...
 
2013-03-13 10:36:15 AM  

TheShavingofOccam123: ferretman: I am confused. As a recent gun owner, I had to undergo a background check, release mental health files and get finger-printed. Is this not the norm? Regarding the concern of 'neighbor-to-neighbor' (private sales), how does the seller know he is not selling to another 'James Holmes'? Wouldn't a seller want to know that?

In the end, civil liabilities will probably crop up. You can sell a car to a mentally-ill person because a car has numerous uses. You will probably will be held to have civil liabilities for selling a gun to a mentally-ill person who goes out and kills with the gun.

It's probably coming. Lawyers need money. The only thing that has prevented it so far is private sellers--at least some of them--don't have a lot of assets to take away in civil court. But gunshow sellers probably do.


Medical records and fingerprints are not always, and should not be the norm.

Think the people who wrote the Constitution were for the idea that the government has to investigate and book you for you to earn one of the most important rights? Why don't we collect medical records and fingerprint voters, or the press, or protesters?
 
2013-03-13 10:36:15 AM  

MyKingdomForYourHorse: dittybopper: Have you never heard of "Prior Restraint"?

Explain to me why having to get government permission to exercise your right to own a gun is different from getting government permission to publish something.

Have you forgotten about Time, Place, and Manner regulations regarding the 1st? They clearly lay down precedent that our rights can be regulated regarding the time, place and manner in which we exercise them. There is also numerous case law regarding regulations for enumerated right in the constitution and bill of rights.

We can dance this dance if you want Ditty, I'll start dredging up case law if you want but the fact of the matter is that something like a background check is clearly within the powers of congress to enact, and the legislative to exact because ultimately it does not remove your right it only regulates when, where, and how you operate that right.

Mugato: You could have posted that earlier. I was just in a movie theater and thought it would be fun to yell "FIRE". Now they're calling the cops.

I thought it might be a good idea to go pitch a tent in the middle of the city and then complain when they remove me as a public nuisance that they are trampling on my right to peaceably assemble.


What time, place, and manner restrictions could possibly pertain to the simple act of purchasing a gun?

We don't place time, place, and manner restrictions on purchasing a computer, camera, or a newspaper, or something like that.  They merely narrowly define the circumstances where you can't use them, like in a court room, or a SCIF, or a jail.

That's more analogous to the restrictions against taking a gun into a school, or a government office building or court room.  No body has a problem with laws like that, BUT THAT ISN'T WHAT WE ARE TALKING ABOUT, AND YOU *KNOW* THAT.
 
2013-03-13 10:36:44 AM  
Meawhile,

occupycorporatism.com

3.bp.blogspot.com

occupycorporatism.com

assets.nydailynews.com
 
2013-03-13 10:36:59 AM  
Good to know our 4th branch of Government is willing to negotiate.
 
2013-03-13 10:38:06 AM  

dittybopper: It was done in a slimy manner, too: Senator Schumer introduced the bill 2 week ago, but it had no substance, it was merely a statement of general principles.

He introduced the actual text of the bill as an amendment yesterday, right before the vote.


Holy fark, that's scummy.  Seriously a scumbag move.

Introduce an essentially blank bill, then an "amendment" which is virtually the entire text of the bill right before the actual vote?

That's as bad, or worse, than those "poison pill" amendments that get stuck on bills like the Republicans tacking ". . .and repeal Obamacare" onto everything.
 
2013-03-13 10:38:56 AM  

dr_blasto: Although added later than the Bill of Rights, the constitution declares voting to be a right. Just because it wasn't added at the beginning doesn't mean it is less important or less of a right than any of the things mentioned in the first ten amendments.

Voting is exactly analogous. They are both rights; voting maybe moreso as it's mentioned in more than one amendment.


Then I assume you would have no problem with showing a picture ID and having a quick instant background check done on you when you vote, just to make sure you are who you say you are, that you still live in that particular political subdivision, and that you are still eligible to vote, right?
 
2013-03-13 10:39:06 AM  

Mugato: MyKingdomForYourHorse: Every right enumerated can be subjected to regulation and restriction from the 1st all the on through the rest.

You could have posted that earlier. I was just in a movie theater and thought it would be fun to yell "FIRE". Now they're calling the cops.


So your method of speech is not limited(voice, pen, keyboard, etc...), but your use of speech is?

My use of the RKBA is currently limited(brandishing a firearm, threatening with a firearm, committing a murder with a firearm), now they want to limit my method of the RKBA(type of firearm, capacity of magazine, things that go up and pistol grips).
 
2013-03-13 10:39:13 AM  

CeroX: dittybopper: MyKingdomForYourHorse: dittybopper: The Bill of Rights isn't a la carte. You don't get to pick and chose what you want. If you seriously weaken the Second Amendment, you weaken *ALL* of the Bill of Rights, because people can say "Hey, we did it with *THIS* one, why can't we do it with the other one?".

Every right enumerated can be subjected to regulation and restriction from the 1st all the on through the rest.

Or have you forgotten how SCOTUS works?

Have you never heard of "Prior Restraint"?

Explain to me why having to get government permission to exercise your right to own a gun is different from getting government permission to publish something.

normally we some stuff in common, our love of firearms and bushcraft for example, so i am giving all due respect...

You have to get permission from the government to own and operate a vehicle and the process to do those is a lot more invasive than to own a firearm...


Invasive? I mail in a form with the VIN number, bill of sale. No background check needed. Drivers' license? I pass a test when I am 16. Good for life. Renew it online every 4 years.  All of that is also optional, and not anywhere in the Constitution.
 
2013-03-13 10:39:32 AM  
The NRA;
For universal background checks before they were against them.
 
2013-03-13 10:39:54 AM  

Uranus Is Huge!: Also, Link


touche...but the article mentioned the Sandy Hook shooting as to why more is trying to be done to prevent future mass shootings. Like someone commented above, I thought you already had to go through a pretty extensive background check to legally buy a gun.
 
2013-03-13 10:40:03 AM  
extras.mnginteractive.com

a.abcnews.com

rhhr.files.wordpress.com

www.lostrepublic.us

Disarm law abiding Americans. Continue militarizing police. Seems legit.
 
2013-03-13 10:40:05 AM  

Mugato: ferretman: I am confused. As a recent gun owner, I had to undergo a background check, release mental health files and get finger-printed. Is this not the norm? Regarding the concern of 'neighbor-to-neighbor' (private sales), how does the seller know he is not selling to another 'James Holmes'? Wouldn't a seller want to know that?

So did I, at the gun store. But you can go to a gun show wearing a Hannibal Lecter mask and blood soaked overalls and buy an M-16.


Nice derp.
 
2013-03-13 10:40:15 AM  

dittybopper: mysticcat: Oh, and fark the NRA

/gun owner

Oh, you're one of *THOSE*.

I bet you hated that they water-down the law on armor-piercing bullets, didn't you?  Never mind that as originally written it would have banned every center-fire rifle.


If you mean "one of those" people who sees the NRA as a shill for the firearms industry rather than a group with the public interest at heart, then yes,I'm one of those.

The final straw for me was when they poured several hundred thousand dollars into a  local state representative race to defeat a candidate with a long record of excellent public service simply because she voted to table a measure on "guns in trunks" at the workplace.  The installed a moron who had run several businesses into bankruptcy, instead.  That kind of unyielding capricious power is not good for society.
 
2013-03-13 10:41:44 AM  
This group disagrees on background checks: They wanna take our guns!

s3.vidimg02.popscreen.com
 
2013-03-13 10:41:46 AM  

Uranus Is Huge!: Mark Ratner: Background checks still wouldn't have stopped the Sandy Hook shooting.

It might have made a difference in Aurora and at Virginia Tech.

Also, Link


Except that Cho went through background checks and I am pretty sure that SSB did as well.
 
2013-03-13 10:42:07 AM  

Thunderpipes: TheShavingofOccam123: ferretman: I am confused. As a recent gun owner, I had to undergo a background check, release mental health files and get finger-printed. Is this not the norm? Regarding the concern of 'neighbor-to-neighbor' (private sales), how does the seller know he is not selling to another 'James Holmes'? Wouldn't a seller want to know that?

In the end, civil liabilities will probably crop up. You can sell a car to a mentally-ill person because a car has numerous uses. You will probably will be held to have civil liabilities for selling a gun to a mentally-ill person who goes out and kills with the gun.

It's probably coming. Lawyers need money. The only thing that has prevented it so far is private sellers--at least some of them--don't have a lot of assets to take away in civil court. But gunshow sellers probably do.

Medical records and fingerprints are not always, and should not be the norm.

Think the people who wrote the Constitution were for the idea that the government has to investigate and book you for you to earn one of the most important rights?


 To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;
 To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;


They were for the idea of Congress and the States controlling the militia, obviously. Even arming the militia.
 
2013-03-13 10:42:13 AM  
Background checks do not "infringe" on any right to bear arms. All background checks do is reveal whom is disqualified from owning a firearm. It is the laws that disqualify individuals from gun ownership that do the infringing.

Simply put, any argument that background checks are unconstitutional ignores the plain language of the 2nd amendment.
 
2013-03-13 10:42:14 AM  

Mugato: But you can go to a gun show wearing a Hannibal Lecter mask and blood soaked overalls and buy an M-16.


No, you can't.
 
2013-03-13 10:43:08 AM  

dittybopper: How requiring government approval prior to getting an abortion?


Are you kidding me? Seriously? HAVE YOU SEEN THE DAMN LAWS THE REPUBS ARE PASSING IN RED STATES!?!?! You really think that right now I can just walk into my local Planned Parenthood and walk out baby-free without the Government intruding on that? Like forcing a woman to watch and listen to an ultrasound, making her wait at least 24 hours (the new fashion is laws that make her wait 72, NOT COUNTING WEEKENDS OR HOLIDAYS), trasnvaginal ultrasounds which force ultrasound wands up a woman's vagina whether she wants to have the procedure or not?

You are a moron of the highest degree. Go back to your cave, you troll.
 
2013-03-13 10:43:23 AM  

Mark Ratner: Background checks still wouldn't have stopped the Sandy Hook shooting.


she shouldve had her weapons in a safe, as i recall. that wouldve done it.

dittybopper coming up with hypothetical use cases as to why BG checks or legislation against straw purchases is no good is unconvincing. There are always use cases where legislation, when its discussed in bullet point format, will fail. thats why laws are so complicated and debated by lawyers and have so many sub clauses etc etc...

coming up with a hypothetical scenario where something may fail is not rhetorically convincing. Nor is it pragmatic, it just makes one appear obstructionist.

 i have a safe full of C&R weapons. I check the safe ... a lot. I love cleaning stuff, checking for rust.. if someone broke into my house and robbed my safe youre damn straight id know about it in a day, and so would you. Not wanting to try to strengthen safeguards against straw purchases because "someone might become a victim if their stuff is robbed while theyre on vacation" is pretty easily fixed, you have a provisional clause in the law which states if the owner can prove he was on vacay at the time of the theft/crime its not applicable. or something like this.

indeed, while firearm ownership is a RIGHT it is also a huge RESPONSIBILITY, and if we want to exercise our rights in this regard, this has responsibilities attached to it, too. And if you have the Right to own a gun, we must accept the responsibility to secure it so mentally deranged and thieves cant steal them and commit crimes with them. And if they do, and we are unaware of the guns being stolen, thats negligence. If you have a collection, its your responsibility to know whats up with it and keep it inventoried.
 
2013-03-13 10:43:27 AM  

dittybopper: dr_blasto: Although added later than the Bill of Rights, the constitution declares voting to be a right. Just because it wasn't added at the beginning doesn't mean it is less important or less of a right than any of the things mentioned in the first ten amendments.

Voting is exactly analogous. They are both rights; voting maybe moreso as it's mentioned in more than one amendment.

Then I assume you would have no problem with showing a picture ID and having a quick instant background check done on you when you vote, just to make sure you are who you say you are, that you still live in that particular political subdivision, and that you are still eligible to vote, right?


Which is more rampant, voter fraud or homicide? I would bet my house on voter fraud. Which has more impact on me, guns or politicians? Politicians by a mile. Sure, I could get gunned down in a random drive by here in dangerous Vermont. But I see my taxes going up year after year for sure. (Burlington and Winooski ship in hundreds of African refugees and their families on full aid, and they are somehow voting, imagine that). We have a few homicides a year at most. Bet you we have thousands of cases of voter fraud.
 
2013-03-13 10:43:28 AM  

dragonchild: The NRA let Congress dismantle habeas corpus without so much as a sneeze.


The NRA is a one issue group, they defend the second amendment. Your outrage should be directed at the ACLU who defends every right but the right to keep and bear arms.
 
2013-03-13 10:43:35 AM  

jso2897: If "voter fraud" ever becomes a real thing, like criminals who shouldn't have guns obtaining them easily actually is, we'll talk.


Yeah, it isn't like some poll worker in Ohio will vote 6 times or more.
 
2013-03-13 10:43:53 AM  
images.topix.com
 
2013-03-13 10:44:50 AM  

dittybopper: SurfaceTension: My desires:

1. Universal background checks

Bad idea.  Very bad idea.  That turns what is an enumerated right into a government granted privilege.  Would you argue the same thing for a computer and internet connection?  That you must get government permission to post on the internet so that they know you aren't a subversive?  Or how about requiring a background check before you can assert your rights under the Fourth and Fifth Amendments?  How requiring government approval prior to getting an abortion?

The Bill of Rights isn't a la carte.  You don't get to pick and chose what you want.  If you seriously weaken the Second Amendment, you weaken *ALL* of the Bill of Rights, because people can say "Hey, we did it with *THIS* one, why can't we do it with the other one?".

Plus, there are numerous difficulties in implementing it.   You can do it under the general police powers at the state level, but it gets a bit dicier at the federal level, because you have to rationalize it under the Commerce Clause.  You can make that argument, and it might fly, but it's not a slam dunk.

Then you have the "You can make your own gun" loophole.  It's legal, and thousands of people do it every year.   It's only going to become easier with 3D printing of major parts.  For example, Defense Distributed just tested an AR-15 lower receiver (the part that is legally the gun) that they printed out on a 3D printer to over 600 rounds of full power ammunition.

Besides that, building something like a semi-auto handgun or a revolver only requires the ability to make a frame, and to purchase all the other parts, which are uncontrolled.  Anyone with some decent used machine tools can do that now. I know someone who made a Colt Commander-style 1911 from spare parts, and a rough casting of the frame.  He used mainly a drill press, a grinder, and hand files.

2. Funding for the FBI to collect statistics on gun crimes so we know how often they are used in intentional shootings, acciden ...


Welcome to my favorite's list.
 
2013-03-13 10:46:00 AM  

dittybopper: mysticcat: Oh, and fark the NRA

/gun owner

Oh, you're one of *THOSE*.

I bet you hated that they water-down the law on armor-piercing bullets, didn't you?  Never mind that as originally written it would have banned every center-fire rifle.


Sudo_Make_Me_A_Sandwich: Setting aside politics for a moment - there's an opportunity to do some cool tech things. Like, if I have a gun, and I want to sell it to someone, I could get a private key tied to both my name and the serial number of the gun from any, lets say fire department because we have them everywhere and they're pretty neutral. The buyer could get another unique number valid for a few days showing that they have the legal right to buy a gun.

Then, I meet someone over the internet who wants to buy the gun, drive over to see them, type their unique key into my phone, see their driver's license pic pop up on my phone, and know they aren't a felon without needing to know anything else about them, even their name. They type my number in and see my picture with the serial number of the gun, so they know it's not stolen, I legally have it, etc. You could do it from anywhere (and at a library, fire station, etc).

I mean, yeah, it has lots of holes - it relies on two people wanting to engage in a legal transaction, but pretty much any regulation would require that anyway. And I'm sure people would think of better things. Like if you got a key, and then your key was signed with the other person's key on transfer, you could have proof you sold a gun to someone without any registration. If the cops came knocking on your door, you could just show them a digital certificate.


This.  I don't have a problem with background checks at all.  Current technology could make them instant and unobtrusive, and like regular background checks they don't need to keep a federal record of your gun either.

In fact, if I were to sell a gun on a website or at a show, I would want to do a check of who the person is.  It would just make me feel better.
 
2013-03-13 10:46:21 AM  
The same NBC that made up a video showing George Zimmerman executing TrayTray the Angelic from 30 feet away?

The same NBC that also re-edited a 911 call to "show" that Zimmerman's first thought was that "he's black"?

Uh huh.  Going to rush out and cancel my NRA membership over this article for fo SHU!
 
2013-03-13 10:46:26 AM  

Mugato: So did I, at the gun store. But you can go to a gun show wearing a Hannibal Lecter mask and blood soaked overalls and buy an M-16.


It is a felony to purchase an NFA item without proper documentation and tax stamp from the ATF.
 
2013-03-13 10:46:51 AM  

Dadoody: [extras.mnginteractive.com image 600x330]

[a.abcnews.com image 640x360]

[rhhr.files.wordpress.com image 410x350]

[www.lostrepublic.us image 480x360]

Disarm law abiding Americans. Continue militarizing police. Seems legit.


Why do libs like you hate our men and women in uniform out there protecting us?  Without the troops, Saddam Hussein could just waltz in here and make you eat cous cous.  Mexicans would charge across our borders and put eggs on the cous cous - forming some horrific huevos rancheros cous cous type fusion dish.  Do you want to eat that?

That's why I thank the Department of Homeland Security out there protecting our homeland from evil-doers that create things like North Korean tacos.
 
2013-03-13 10:47:15 AM  

Father_Jack: she shouldve had her weapons in a safe, as i recall. that wouldve done it.


Is there evidence that she didn't? I live in Europe so I don't follow all the details in the news, but as far as I've read nobody's reported any details about how the firearms were stored or how the shooter gained access to the safe. (Most gun safes are not difficult to force open with basic hand tools, his mother may have told him where the key is or what the combination was [that is, he could be authorized to open the safe], or he could have discovered the key or combination through other means.)
 
2013-03-13 10:49:22 AM  

dittybopper: That's more analogous to the restrictions against taking a gun into a school, or a government office building or court room. No body has a problem with laws like that, BUT THAT ISN'T WHAT WE ARE TALKING ABOUT, AND YOU *KNOW* THAT.


Actually that is exactly what we are talking about, you just refuse to accept reality.

But that's ok, most ardent proponents of the 2nd often are out of touch with the reality of supreme court case law and how it can effect enumerated rights in the constitution and bill of rights.

Giltric: My use of the RKBA is currently limited(brandishing a firearm, threatening with a firearm, committing a murder with a firearm), now they want to limit my method of the RKBA(type of firearm, capacity of magazine, things that go up and pistol grips).


And yes they do, and yes it is completely constitutional because ultimately they could limit everyone to a one shot powder only musket and it would pass constitutional muster because technically speaking you can still operate your right to keep and bear arms. No where in there is a clause that assures you can have whatever arms you want.

Because honestly if that were the case, I would so totally be driving to work in a Soviet made T-80U. You can get them relatively cheap on the world wide market.
 
2013-03-13 10:50:20 AM  

Silverstaff: dittybopper: It was done in a slimy manner, too: Senator Schumer introduced the bill 2 week ago, but it had no substance, it was merely a statement of general principles.

He introduced the actual text of the bill as an amendment yesterday, right before the vote.

Holy fark, that's scummy.  Seriously a scumbag move.

Introduce an essentially blank bill, then an "amendment" which is virtually the entire text of the bill right before the actual vote?

That's as bad, or worse, than those "poison pill" amendments that get stuck on bills like the Republicans tacking ". . .and repeal Obamacare" onto everything.


That sort of thing is par for the course when it comes to guns.

Hell, they've done even worse.   The Hughes Amendment to the Firearms Owners Protection Act, which bans the legal ownership of all machineguns manufactured after May 19th, 1986 failed a recorded vote, but that paragon of legislative ethics, Charlie Rangel, inserted it anyway after a bogus voice vote, late at night, and it ended up getting passed into law despite the fact that the House voted it down.

That was in 1986.  It wasn't until someone managed to get the video of the votes it a few years back that the slime-ball move was confirmed.  Prior to that, it was sort-of known to gun rights people, even making it into works of fiction like Unintended Consequences by John Ross,  but it was dismissed by many as sour grapes or paranoia.
 
2013-03-13 10:50:24 AM  

dittybopper: RedT: SurfaceTension: My desires:

1. Universal background checks
2. Funding for the FBI to collect statistics on gun crimes so we know how often they are used in intentional shootings, accidental shootings, and self-defense.
3. Laws that say that if you purchase a gun, unless you sell the gun or report it stolen, if it is proven that that weapon was used in a crime, you are charged with a felony. That's even if you are not connected in any other way with the actual crime. (intended to reduce straw purchases)

And
4.  Strict Liability for Gun Owners (if your gun shoots someone you have liability regardless of your preventative measures (or lack thereof), just like if someone drowns in your pool)

Wow.  You *REALLY* hate gun owners, don't you?

And no, pool owners aren't subject to strict liability.  If you take reasonable measures (fence, etc.) you aren't liable if some drunk kid jumps the fence and downs in your pool.


Uh, yeah, ok I hate gun owners because I want them to be responsible - hell, all I've heard from the rabid pro-gun crowd is how responsible every gun owner ever has always been.

The doctrine of strict liability allocates the presumption of responsibility for certain types of accidents to the defendant instead of the plaintiff. A gun is an attractive nuisance (even to a LOT of adults, as I have witnessed "responsible adults" who know nothing about guns pick them up without checking if they are loaded and looking down the barrel, pointing at shiat they have no intention of shooting, etc...)

For this reason I do believe that if you are going to have something so inherently dangerous, yet so irresistible, you should also have strict liability where the standard is a lot higher than "[sob**sob**] I didn't think Timmy would find my gun!" because ignorant non-gun owners and children can get just as shot, and your gun should be secure against theft to a lot higher standard than you secure your jewelry.  Strict Liability is NOT absolute liability, it just means YOU have to prove it was not your fault

And, quite frankly as a policeman's wife and multiple gun owner, (fark you ditty) I cannot think of a good reason why there shouldn't be strict liability when your gun is involved in a criminal or accidental.

/AAIRL
//Ditty, there doesn't seem to be any reasonable restriction on gun possession or ownership that you would concede, so we're done here.
 
2013-03-13 10:51:08 AM  

heypete: Father_Jack: she shouldve had her weapons in a safe, as i recall. that wouldve done it.

Is there evidence that she didn't? I live in Europe so I don't follow all the details in the news, but as far as I've read nobody's reported any details about how the firearms were stored or how the shooter gained access to the safe. (Most gun safes are not difficult to force open with basic hand tools, his mother may have told him where the key is or what the combination was [that is, he could be authorized to open the safe], or he could have discovered the key or combination through other means.)


im not 100% sure either, i live in europe too. :)

i seem to remember they not being stored correctly, however. And i dont know what sort of gunsafes youve seen but the ones im familiar with would not be easy to open. Admittedly tho you could well be right since it was a family member. its difficult to see how any amount of legislation palatable to the US electorate would've stopped this tbh.
 
2013-03-13 10:51:08 AM  

heypete: Father_Jack: she shouldve had her weapons in a safe, as i recall. that wouldve done it.

Is there evidence that she didn't? I live in Europe so I don't follow all the details in the news, but as far as I've read nobody's reported any details about how the firearms were stored or how the shooter gained access to the safe. (Most gun safes are not difficult to force open with basic hand tools, his mother may have told him where the key is or what the combination was [that is, he could be authorized to open the safe], or he could have discovered the key or combination through other means.)


He could have drilled a large hole in the top of the safe, filled the safe with water, and then lowered an explosive charge into the safe.  The resulting detonation would blow the door off of the safe, but leave the contents of the safe completely unharmed.
 
2013-03-13 10:51:18 AM  

Satanic_Hamster: The NRA;
For universal background checks before they were against them.


Nope.  At least as far as this debate goes, they were never for them.
 
2013-03-13 10:51:46 AM  
Allow private sales and title/register each gun like a car. The government can see who has what weapon and should somebody go schizo maybe we can see what they have before decide to take out another school etc.

The right to own guns isn't infringed and maybe things become just a bit safer from the nuts.
 
2013-03-13 10:52:04 AM  

weave: Damn it. I got all excited, thinking I was actually seeing a compromise


An oldie but goodie from a few compromises ago :
dl.dropbox.com

/I'd say if people want another gun control compromise, they should consider giving something back first.
 
2013-03-13 10:52:29 AM  

Benjamin Orr: Uranus Is Huge!: Mark Ratner: Background checks still wouldn't have stopped the Sandy Hook shooting.

It might have made a difference in Aurora and at Virginia Tech.

Also, Link

Except that Cho went through background checks and I am pretty sure that SSB did as well.


You make a good argument for beefing up what the background checks should be checking for. I'd be okay with allowing mental healthcare professionals to flag a "threat" for 60 or 90 days. Have a hearing. Let a judge make a more permanent determination.
 
2013-03-13 10:52:49 AM  

dittybopper: That turns what is an enumerated right


as a member of a well regulated militia, i am getting a kick out of this post.
 
2013-03-13 10:53:04 AM  

tudorgurl: Are you kidding me? Seriously? HAVE YOU SEEN THE DAMN LAWS THE REPUBS ARE PASSING IN RED STATES!?!?!


While I can't speak for  dittybopper or anyone else, I've seen those laws and am disgusted with them.

Similarly, I've seen laws that restrict privacy, freedom of speech and assembly, laws that attempt to impose certain religious things, laws the allow for warrantless wiretapping and phone/internet snooping, restrict voting, etc. and am opposed to them all. I'm opposed to all laws that seek to restrict people's rights.

As an individual, I have fairly limited power when it comes to the enacting of laws, though I've written to my Senators and Representatives on numerous topics, am a dues-paying member of numerous organizations which seek to defend people's rights (including the NRA, EFF, and ACLU). There's not much else I can do, but I do what I can.
 
2013-03-13 10:53:12 AM  

Thunderpipes: jso2897: Thunderpipes: I am as strong a supporter of the 2nd amendment as there is. All my weapons needed a check. I don't see the problem with that.

But..... I see the slippery slope thing. First the background check stuff, then something else, then something else, then like that moron Democrat idea to make buying ammo require anger management courses, etc....

And yet, to elect politicians, asking for ID is a sin, according to the same people who want gun control.

If "voter fraud" ever becomes a real thing, like criminals who shouldn't have guns obtaining them easily actually is, we'll talk.

Like Melowese Richardson  who just got indicted for voting 6 times, for Obama? A democratic poll worker no less? Oh, they are investigating more widespread voter fraud there as well?


If the sum total of guns obtained by felons, loons, and addicts comprised an alleged total of six, I don't think we would be having this discussion. And again - when I can rob a liquor store and kill everybody there on whim with a vote - we'll talk.
In the meantime - if you want to waste your time posting silly analogies that nobody is buying - suit yourself.
 
2013-03-13 10:53:39 AM  
Dear America,

You do know that you don't HAVE to give a shiat about what the NRA has to say about anything, right?

The NRA doesn't even represent the opinions of NRA members.

Seriously.  Just laugh at the dinks.  You'll feel better and good things will happen.

Sincerely,
Humanity
 
2013-03-13 10:54:03 AM  

ferretman: I am confused. As a recent gun owner, I had to undergo a background check, release mental health files and get finger-printed. Is this not the norm?

Uh, hell no.

Where the hell did you buy a gun like that?

I can go to a gun store, lay down a few hundred dollars and walk out same-day with a rifle or shotgun.  Have to show ID to prove I'm of age, and an NICS check to verify I'm not a felon, but that's it (and Federal law prevents any kind of registry of gun owners being created from those instant background checks).  If I want a handgun, same thing but with the Brady wait tacked on to it.

Release mental health files and be fingerprinted for buying a gun?  WTF?  To get a concealed weapons permit and doesn't even have to have that.  That requires an 8 hour course on gun safety and laws, a marksmanship test where you have to show you could hit a man-sized target with a handgun of your choice at close range reliably, and a background check performed by the State Police.

Yeah, my fingerprints are on file, from my security clearance I got in the military, and for the background check when I became a police officer, but you don't have to give prints to just buy a gun.  Not in the USA, unless your local jurisdiction is ridiculously oppressive (NYC, Chicago?)
 
2013-03-13 10:54:09 AM  

Thunderpipes: I would bet my house on voter fraud


Then we'll be having your house here pretty soon.

Giltric: It is a felony to purchase an NFA item without proper documentation and tax stamp from the ATF.


No problem, lets take a step out to the parking lot where you and I can conduct a private sale.
 
2013-03-13 10:54:20 AM  

MyKingdomForYourHorse: No where in there is a clause that assures you can have whatever arms you want.


There is precedent in Miller v US. The justices declared that the citizens may own firearms that are in common use. With millions upon millions of ARs in use by law enforcement agencies, the military and civillians I would claim that I am assured the ability to own an AR.
 
2013-03-13 10:54:37 AM  
Gun control is just like the Democrats' tax strategy.

Obama was against closing loopholes or deductions, only a tax rate increase would do. He got it.
Now is pushing hard for closing loopholes and deductions.

Once Democrats get their hands in the cookie jar, it never ends. They are pretty public about their beliefs, only law enforcement should be allowed to own anything more than a revolver, shotgun, or bolt action rifle. And if they get it down to that, they will take those too. Of course, they all hand taxpayer funded security, with assault weapons, protecting them and their families.
 
2013-03-13 10:55:36 AM  
While we're at it, why not make everybody responsible for getting a background check on potential car-buyers for private car sales? Somebody with a DUI has no more business owning a car than a guy who gets into a fistfight has owning a gun, right? After all, it's the possibilities that count, right? Tyhen, we ought to also require background checks on the purchase of gasoline. Gasoline has but one purpose: to burn. Think of all the arson we can cut back on with this one simple step, not to mention the accidental fire deaths, which far outnumber the accidental gun deaths.
 
2013-03-13 10:55:50 AM  

dittybopper: SurfaceTension: My desires:

1. Universal background checks

Bad idea.  Very bad idea.  That turns what is an enumerated right into a government granted privilege.  Would you argue the same thing for a computer and internet connection?  That you must get government permission to post on the internet so that they know you aren't a subversive?  Or how about requiring a background check before you can assert your rights under the Fourth and Fifth Amendments?  How requiring government approval prior to getting an abortion?

The Bill of Rights isn't a la carte.  You don't get to pick and chose what you want.  If you seriously weaken the Second Amendment, you weaken *ALL* of the Bill of Rights, because people can say "Hey, we did it with *THIS* one, why can't we do it with the other one?".

Plus, there are numerous difficulties in implementing it.   You can do it under the general police powers at the state level, but it gets a bit dicier at the federal level, because you have to rationalize it under the Commerce Clause.  You can make that argument, and it might fly, but it's not a slam dunk.

Then you have the "You can make your own gun" loophole.  It's legal, and thousands of people do it every year.   It's only going to become easier with 3D printing of major parts.  For example, Defense Distributed just tested an AR-15 lower receiver (the part that is legally the gun) that they printed out on a 3D printer to over 600 rounds of full power ammunition.

Besides that, building something like a semi-auto handgun or a revolver only requires the ability to make a frame, and to purchase all the other parts, which are uncontrolled.  Anyone with some decent used machine tools can do that now. I know someone who made a Colt Commander-style 1911 from spare parts, and a rough casting of the frame.  He used mainly a drill press, a grinder, and hand files.

2. Funding for the FBI to collect statistics on gun crimes so we know how often they are used in intentional shootings, acciden ...


Hey look everyone! It's an 8 percenter!
 
2013-03-13 10:56:34 AM  

RedT: For this reason I do believe that if you are going to have something so inherently dangerous, yet so irresistible, you should also have strict liability where the standard is a lot higher than "[sob**sob**] I didn't think Timmy would find my gun!" because ignorant non-gun owners and children can get just as shot, and your gun should be secure against theft to a lot higher standard than you secure your jewelry. Strict Liability is NOT absolute liability, it just means YOU have to prove it was not your fault


totally agree with this.

reminds me of that article a last week where some dumbass and his friend used to put one round in a handgun and pull the trigger at eachother, and when one of them was inevitably shot the thought they were safe because they could see the round in the revolver and didnt realize the cylinder advanced when you pull the trigger... just.... incredible incompetence, incredible stupidity.

witnessed equally retarded people on the ranges... ah man.
 
2013-03-13 10:56:58 AM  

dittybopper: That was in 1986. It wasn't until someone managed to get the video of the votes it a few years back that the slime-ball move was confirmed. Prior to that, it was sort-of known to gun rights people, even making it into works of fiction like Unintended Consequences by John Ross, but it was dismissed by many as sour grapes or paranoia.


Two things no one likes to watch get made, laws and sausage.

But this is the system we have and how it operates
 
2013-03-13 10:57:09 AM  

K-jack: Background checks do not "infringe" on any right to bear arms. All background checks do is reveal whom is disqualified from owning a firearm. It is the laws that disqualify individuals from gun ownership that do the infringing.

Simply put, any argument that background checks are unconstitutional ignores the plain language of the 2nd amendment.


Sorry, you don't qualify to post on the internet.  Please turn in your unregistered and illegal computer at the nearest police station.
 
2013-03-13 10:58:04 AM  

Dadoody: [extras.mnginteractive.com image 600x330]

[a.abcnews.com image 640x360]

[rhhr.files.wordpress.com image 410x350]

[www.lostrepublic.us image 480x360]

Disarm law abiding Americans. Continue militarizing police. Seems legit.


Background checks are disarmament, guys.
 
2013-03-13 10:58:06 AM  

HAMMERTOE: While we're at it, why not make everybody responsible for getting a background check on potential car-buyers for private car sales? Somebody with a DUI has no more business owning a car than a guy who gets into a fistfight has owning a gun, right? After all, it's the possibilities that count, right? Tyhen, we ought to also require background checks on the purchase of gasoline. Gasoline has but one purpose: to burn. Think of all the arson we can cut back on with this one simple step, not to mention the accidental fire deaths, which far outnumber the accidental gun deaths.


I agree with you 100% that we should apply similar licensing and registration requirements for automobiles and firearms.

Great idea!
 
2013-03-13 10:58:34 AM  

Giltric: The NRA is a one issue group


In other words, they're morons.
 
2013-03-13 10:59:31 AM  

RedT: And, quite frankly as a policeman's wife


How do you feel about your wife looking the other way when a cop does something bad?

Does she break the blue wall of silence? Give a pass to a brother officer who is driving drunk?
 
2013-03-13 10:59:38 AM  

tudorgurl: Are you kidding me? Seriously? HAVE YOU SEEN THE DAMN LAWS THE REPUBS ARE PASSING IN RED STATES!?!?! You really think that right now I can just walk into my local Planned Parenthood and walk out baby-free without the Government intruding on that? Like forcing a woman to watch and listen to an ultrasound, making her wait at least 24 hours (the new fashion is laws that make her wait 72, NOT COUNTING WEEKENDS OR HOLIDAYS), trasnvaginal ultrasounds which force ultrasound wands up a woman's vagina whether she wants to have the procedure or not?


i1239.photobucket.com
 
2013-03-13 10:59:51 AM  

jso2897: Thunderpipes: jso2897: Thunderpipes: I am as strong a supporter of the 2nd amendment as there is. All my weapons needed a check. I don't see the problem with that.

But..... I see the slippery slope thing. First the background check stuff, then something else, then something else, then like that moron Democrat idea to make buying ammo require anger management courses, etc....

And yet, to elect politicians, asking for ID is a sin, according to the same people who want gun control.

If "voter fraud" ever becomes a real thing, like criminals who shouldn't have guns obtaining them easily actually is, we'll talk.

Like Melowese Richardson  who just got indicted for voting 6 times, for Obama? A democratic poll worker no less? Oh, they are investigating more widespread voter fraud there as well?

If the sum total of guns obtained by felons, loons, and addicts comprised an alleged total of six, I don't think we would be having this discussion. And again - when I can rob a liquor store and kill everybody there on whim with a vote - we'll talk.
In the meantime - if you want to waste your time posting silly analogies that nobody is buying - suit yourself.


If you think only this woman does voter fraud, well I have a bridge to sell you. If you don't think politicians cost lives, and more importantly, hardships, you are also mistaken. All of the recent shootings have nothing to do with the guns, everything to do with the people. None of this crap happened when I was a kid, and we had plenty of guns and were more relaxed about them than ever. Not a single study or case shows your magic gun laws change a damn thing. All they do is make it harder for law abiding citizens to own them.

We already have a law against murder. Why do you think more laws will somehow change anything?
 
2013-03-13 10:59:55 AM  

HAMMERTOE: While we're at it, why not make everybody responsible for getting a background check on potential car-buyers for private car sales? Somebody with a DUI has no more business owning a car than a guy who gets into a fistfight has owning a gun, right?


Um, they do that now. Its called a driver's license and car insurance. If you have a DUI, your license is restricted or suspended and your insurance is very expensive.
 
2013-03-13 10:59:55 AM  
Have not been an NRA member in over 15 years. Time to renew my membership. This Independent is moving farther away from the Democratic party.
 
2013-03-13 11:01:05 AM  

Mugato: ferretman: I am confused. As a recent gun owner, I had to undergo a background check, release mental health files and get finger-printed. Is this not the norm? Regarding the concern of 'neighbor-to-neighbor' (private sales), how does the seller know he is not selling to another 'James Holmes'? Wouldn't a seller want to know that?

So did I, at the gun store. But you can go to a gun show wearing a Hannibal Lecter mask and blood soaked overalls and buy an M-16.


Well I can purchase a rifle anytime I want just as long as I show my fire-arms ID card. Handgun purchases require getting a permit from the local PD and then a 2-3 day waiting period after purchasing a handgun for a NCIS check.
 
2013-03-13 11:01:53 AM  

Thunderpipes: And Feinstien wants to make that illegal altogether.


Ironic, for someone whose career only got started because a better politician was assassinated.

She and LBJ should love guns -- they owe their entire careers to them.
 
2013-03-13 11:02:28 AM  

Father_Jack: im not 100% sure either, i live in europe too. :)


*reads profile* Oddly enough, I'm also from the SF Bay Area (Peninsula) and live in Bern. We should get beer sometime.

i seem to remember they not being stored correctly, however. And i dont know what sort of gunsafes youve seen but the ones im familiar with would not be easy to open. Admittedly tho you could well be right since it was a family member. its difficult to see how any amount of legislation palatable to the US electorate would've stopped this tbh.

You'd be surprised (YouTube). Most gun "safes" are UL-listed as "residential security containers" and are rated for 5 minutes against basic hand tools. Most of the ones you'll find at retail shops are relatively thin sheet metal wrapped around drywall to reduce damage from fire. They serve well to keep out children, fools, and curious people but do little against a determined bad guy.
 
2013-03-13 11:03:04 AM  
wayne lapierre gave me a cold dead handjob whilst filling out a federal transfer form it was the best

what?
 
2013-03-13 11:03:10 AM  

Giltric: My use of the RKBA is currently limited(brandishing a firearm, threatening with a firearm, committing a murder with a firearm), now they want to limit my method of the RKBA(type of firearm, capacity of magazine, things that go up and pistol grips).


and yet your RKBA is not limited to what the amendment actually says in the consititution, because it was intended to apply to the military.  my apologies if you are speaking about military service, i am assuming you are not speaking in that context from the limitations on brandishing a firearms.
 
2013-03-13 11:03:12 AM  

Pockafrusta: Have not been an NRA member in over 15 years. Time to renew my membership. This Independent is moving farther away from the Democratic party.


Of course you're independent, you keep telling yourself that.
 
2013-03-13 11:03:54 AM  

MyKingdomForYourHorse: Thunderpipes: I would bet my house on voter fraud

Then we'll be having your house here pretty soon.

Giltric: It is a felony to purchase an NFA item without proper documentation and tax stamp from the ATF.

No problem, lets take a step out to the parking lot where you and I can conduct a private sale.


...so you can commit your felony outside in broad daylight?

I think your gunrunning career will be short.
 
2013-03-13 11:03:56 AM  

Pockafrusta: Have not been an NRA member in over 15 years. Time to renew my membership. This Independent is moving farther away from the Democratic party.


I have never been a member, until a month ago. I own two weapons, an M1A and a 1941 numbers matching K98. I fire them maybe once or twice a year at a range.

According to Democrats, I am an evil gun nut, since the M1A is a semi auto battle rifle with a 20 round magazine, and the K98 has a bayonet lug. Ar-15 is a pussy rifle compared to the M1A, but I have never seen a single complaint about it, I wonder why? Oh, it does not look as scary?
 
2013-03-13 11:04:56 AM  

Giltric: There is precedent in Miller v US. The justices declared that the citizens may own firearms that are in common use. With millions upon millions of ARs in use by law enforcement agencies, the military and civillians I would claim that I am assured the ability to own an AR.


Bingo.

United States v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174 (1939)  set up a two-pronged test for if a firearm can be banned (or regulated to the point its a de facto ban).  This test was upheld and cited with the District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008) precedent on Second Amendment rights.

1. Is the weapon in common use?  Given how many millions of AR-15's and similar rifles are now in circulation, including far more than there were in 1994 when the original AWB was passed, I'd say it's a common weapon.  By single specific design/model, the AR-15 rifle (and its clones) is probably one of the most common firearms in the US now.

2. Does the weapon have a lawful use?  Self defense explicitly counts, per Miller.  The AR-15 is widely used as a hunting rifle, and in shorter configurations similar to the military M-4 it's still a good home defense weapon (it's our standard urban combat rifle, we send door-kickers into Afghanistan to use them in houses, sounds like it's good for home defense to me).  Lack of plausible legal use is how they can ban things like rocket launchers, grenade launchers, heavy machine guns ect.  Can't defend yourself or go hunting with a M-203 grenade launcher or an AT-4 anti-tank missile, those are purely offensive weapons with no sporting or self-defense use, so they can be banned/heavily regulated.

A modern AWB would be. . .interesting, before SCOTUS.
 
2013-03-13 11:05:20 AM  

Vodka Zombie: You do know that you don't HAVE to give a shiat about what the NRA has to say about anything, right?


Scientists once thought that public opinion on science didn't matter, as opinion has no bearing on actual science.  That didn't work out too well.

It's tiring, frustrating and demoralizing, but when morons start screaming, there has to be some pushback or they eventually dictate reality within political circles.  I'm actually in favor of keeping firearms legal and to be honest would rather not see background checks implemented by the government.  But even though our positions align from time to time, the NRA's derp flat-out baffles me.  It's like being stuck on the same football team as an O-lineman with clinical anger management issues.  Sometimes it works, but most of the time you're cringing with worry about the possible damage.
 
2013-03-13 11:05:33 AM  

Giltric: There is precedent in Miller v US. The justices declared that the citizens may own firearms that are in common use. With millions upon millions of ARs in use by law enforcement agencies, the military and civillians I would claim that I am assured the ability to own an AR.


That is correct, but I would then point you to District Columbia vs Heller which affirms a law making body's ability to regulate even weapons under Miller vs US category but cannot outright ban. Then there is also the more recent McDonald vs Chicago which affirms that the second also bears beholding to the 4th so that if due process is made restrictions on ownership can be allowed.

So despite advocates who always point to Miller, the simple fact is that Congress can regulate the time, place, and manner of your enumerated 2nd.
 
2013-03-13 11:05:49 AM  

RedT: Ditty, there doesn't seem to be any reasonable restriction on gun possession or ownership that you would concede, so we're done here.


What more should I concede?  Are the laws we have *NOW* unreasonable?  What happens in 10 years when you want more reasonable restrictions?

Since I've been an adult, the following federal laws have been passed:

1. private ownership of new machinguns has been banned, despite that amendment to the FOPA failing a recorded vote in the House.

2.  people convicted of domestic violence misdemeanors have been banned from gun ownership even if their conviction was 30 or 40 years prior to the enactment of the law (Ex Post Facto, anyone?).

3. You need a waiting period to purchase a handgun (sunset).

4. Ban on so-called "assault weapons" and standard capacity magazines (sunset)

5. Instant background check required on all guns purchased from a federally licensed gun dealer.

6. Ban on armor piercing handgun ammo.

That's not counting the things that have happened at the state level here in New York.

I'm mostly OK with the federal status quo.

I don't think that's an unreasonable position.

What you want is more, more, more.  When will you be satisfied?   I'll tell you:  Never.

What happens if you get your wish-list now, and some other horrible event happens, as is inevitable?  What then?  Will you join me in fighting against newer, more harsh restrictions?  Or will you ask me, yet again, to be reasonable and compromise?
 
2013-03-13 11:06:12 AM  

MyKingdomForYourHorse: Thunderpipes: I would bet my house on voter fraud

Then we'll be having your house here pretty soon.

Giltric: It is a felony to purchase an NFA item without proper documentation and tax stamp from the ATF.

No problem, lets take a step out to the parking lot where you and I can conduct a private sale commit a felony.



Next time someone gives you rope to get you out of the hole you dug, try not to tie it around your neck for them to pull you out.
 
2013-03-13 11:07:00 AM  

RedT: And, quite frankly as a policeman's wife and multiple gun owner, (fark you ditty) I cannot think of a good reason why there shouldn't be strict liability when your gun is involved in a criminal or accidental.


So long as it doesn't apply to the thin blue line, right?

Because under your thinking, your husband should be spending weeks in jail if he's ever involved in a shooting incident, until he can be conclusively proven to be innocent. And being unable to legally possess a firearm, he should be terminated from his position for failure to qualify.
 
2013-03-13 11:07:02 AM  

ferretman: Mugato: ferretman: I am confused. As a recent gun owner, I had to undergo a background check, release mental health files and get finger-printed. Is this not the norm? Regarding the concern of 'neighbor-to-neighbor' (private sales), how does the seller know he is not selling to another 'James Holmes'? Wouldn't a seller want to know that?

So did I, at the gun store. But you can go to a gun show wearing a Hannibal Lecter mask and blood soaked overalls and buy an M-16.

Well I can purchase a rifle anytime I want just as long as I show my fire-arms ID card. Handgun purchases require getting a permit from the local PD and then a 2-3 day waiting period after purchasing a handgun for a NCIS check.


In Vermont, the most liberal state in the country, you have to do the NCIS check. No waiting period, no concealed permit needed, nothing. We have I think the lowest gun homicide rate in the country. With these freedoms, wouldn't you think we would be surrounded in blood and murder? Just another example of why Democrats are dumb. They tried to pass some gun laws here since Sandy Hook, shot down right away.
 
2013-03-13 11:07:48 AM  

way south: /I'd say if people want another gun control compromise, they should consider giving something back first.


Maybe they could offer to let you live in a society where you know dangerous people have a hard time gaining access to guns.

I live in a society like that. It's pretty nice.
 
2013-03-13 11:08:03 AM  

Silverstaff: A modern AWB would be. . .interesting, before SCOTUS.


Not really, its already been defined within scope

McDonald vs Chicago, Heller vs District Columbia, and Printz Vs US already help to define time, place, manner

Ned Stark: I think your gunrunning career will be short.


You would be pretty shocked and surprised. Pretty lucrative business too.
 
2013-03-13 11:08:05 AM  

stampylives: because it was intended to apply to the military.


letmelaughevenharder.jpeg
 
2013-03-13 11:08:05 AM  

TheShavingofOccam123: Thunderpipes: TheShavingofOccam123: ferretman: I am confused. As a recent gun owner, I had to undergo a background check, release mental health files and get finger-printed. Is this not the norm? Regarding the concern of 'neighbor-to-neighbor' (private sales), how does the seller know he is not selling to another 'James Holmes'? Wouldn't a seller want to know that?

In the end, civil liabilities will probably crop up. You can sell a car to a mentally-ill person because a car has numerous uses. You will probably will be held to have civil liabilities for selling a gun to a mentally-ill person who goes out and kills with the gun.

It's probably coming. Lawyers need money. The only thing that has prevented it so far is private sellers--at least some of them--don't have a lot of assets to take away in civil court. But gunshow sellers probably do.

Medical records and fingerprints are not always, and should not be the norm.

Think the people who wrote the Constitution were for the idea that the government has to investigate and book you for you to earn one of the most important rights?

 To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;
 To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

They were for the idea of Congress and the States controlling the militia, obviously. Even arming the militia.


Well I guess it's an issue that the 2nd amendment has been applied to individuals irrespective of militia membership.
 
2013-03-13 11:08:08 AM  

heypete: Father_Jack: im not 100% sure either, i live in europe too. :)

*reads profile* Oddly enough, I'm also from the SF Bay Area (Peninsula) and live in Bern. We should get beer sometime.

i seem to remember they not being stored correctly, however. And i dont know what sort of gunsafes youve seen but the ones im familiar with would not be easy to open. Admittedly tho you could well be right since it was a family member. its difficult to see how any amount of legislation palatable to the US electorate would've stopped this tbh.

You'd be surprised (YouTube). Most gun "safes" are UL-listed as "residential security containers" and are rated for 5 minutes against basic hand tools. Most of the ones you'll find at retail shops are relatively thin sheet metal wrapped around drywall to reduce damage from fire. They serve well to keep out children, fools, and curious people but do little against a determined bad guy.


you dont perchance work at ebay do you?

and im returning to the bay area at the end of the month. as much as i freakin adore living in CH on some metrics i need to leave and get out of the Hochnebel and back to family. Hope to return some day and live from April to October here and then back in the E. Bay between november and march. i had no idea i had seasonal mood disorder or whatever the hell they call it till i got out here.

yeah i know some safes are like that... huh. guess i never put that much thought into it but i assumed they were mostly pretty solid. my first one was more like gym locker now that you mention it, but the later ones were robust, bolted to the floor, and no monkeyfarking kid with a screwdriver is going to get into it and steal my ww2 stash goddamn it. :)
 
2013-03-13 11:08:40 AM  

stampylives: dittybopper: That turns what is an enumerated right

as a member of a well regulated militia, i am getting a kick out of this post.


Haven't been keeping up with current events, have you?

(1) The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. Pp. 2-53.(a) The Amendment's prefatory clause announces a purpose, but does not limit or expand the scope of the second part, the operative clause. The operative clause's text and history demonstrate that it connotes an individual right to keep and bear arms. Pp. 2-22. District of Columbia v. Heller.
 
2013-03-13 11:08:46 AM  

Giltric: RedT: And, quite frankly as a policeman's wife

How do you feel about your wife looking the other way when a cop does something bad?

Does she break the blue wall of silence? Give a pass to a brother officer who is driving drunk?


Huh?  I am a policeman's wife, meaning my hubby is a cop.  And quite frankly we (neither my husband nor I) let our friends drive drunk regardless of whether they are a cop or not.

You assume my hubby is a POS and I am going to waste my time defending him to you, when you have no evidence he has ever done or witnessed anything like this?
 

You seem like a hater.
 
2013-03-13 11:08:46 AM  
I'm pretty clearly in the "bitterly clinging to my guns" camp.  To me, the most valid comparison should be to a car -- which is the only other legal tool that we have that kills people as much as or more than firearms.  We register cars, we have to have the state register a change of ownership, we have to buy new ones from state-licensed dealers, we have to get a license to use one.  Honestly, it is no more onerous for me to have to do that if I'm interested in buying a GLOCK 19 or a BMW 3-series; a Remington 500 or a Ford 550.

I get where the NRA is coming from but I'm having difficulty seeing why a firearm should really be less regulated than a car.
 
2013-03-13 11:09:19 AM  

dittybopper: dr_blasto: Although added later than the Bill of Rights, the constitution declares voting to be a right. Just because it wasn't added at the beginning doesn't mean it is less important or less of a right than any of the things mentioned in the first ten amendments.

Voting is exactly analogous. They are both rights; voting maybe moreso as it's mentioned in more than one amendment.

Then I assume you would have no problem with showing a picture ID and having a quick instant background check done on you when you vote, just to make sure you are who you say you are, that you still live in that particular political subdivision, and that you are still eligible to vote, right?


Maybe.

Can we demonstrate that our current system jeopardizes public safety or allows for measurable differences in voting outcomes?

Are proposed laws arbitrary and capricious? Would implementing the new regulations prevent anyone legally allowed to vote from doing so? Would it create a burden on specific classes of people and likely disenfranchise them?
 
2013-03-13 11:09:35 AM  
They should require background checks.
For people to breed.

They should also be required to purchase candy, and cigarettes.

And lottery tickets.

See how easy it is to slide?


go ahead and keep giving your rights away.

you'll need a license to ride a bus one of these days, citizen.

You're all just pushing to be controlled.
 
2013-03-13 11:09:45 AM  

Giltric: Next time someone gives you rope to get you out of the hole you dug, try not to tie it around your neck for them to pull you out.


Heads get turned all the time, just because someone is SUPPOSED to report suspicious sale transaction doesn't mean they do. Also the ATF has been headless for years and been crippled with lack of teeth and budget to effectively investigate these illegal purchases.

Next time you want to make a point, use some farking facts.
 
2013-03-13 11:09:57 AM  
What's next?  Trying to keep people with Down syndrome from owning guns?  When will it stop?
 
2013-03-13 11:10:13 AM  

way south: weave: Damn it. I got all excited, thinking I was actually seeing a compromise

An oldie but goodie from a few compromises ago :
[dl.dropbox.com image 850x463]

/I'd say if people want another gun control compromise, they should consider giving something back first.


HAMMERTOE: While we're at it, why not make everybody responsible for getting a background check on potential car-buyers for private car sales? Somebody with a DUI has no more business owning a car than a guy who gets into a fistfight has owning a gun, right? After all, it's the possibilities that count, right? Tyhen, we ought to also require background checks on the purchase of gasoline. Gasoline has but one purpose: to burn. Think of all the arson we can cut back on with this one simple step, not to mention the accidental fire deaths, which far outnumber the accidental gun deaths.


The thing about bad analogies, is that they don't sound bad to the people who are already agree with the argument the analogy is trying to make.

So in your mind, the people who don't "get" the analogy are idiots.  But if your goal is to actually persuade people, you would be better to realize that it isn't the audience that is flawed, but your own argument.

In this case, your analogies don't work because they are bad.  They will never persuade your target audience.  You should try something else.
 
2013-03-13 11:10:21 AM  
I don't remember the NRA being elected to the federal governing process.
 
2013-03-13 11:10:57 AM  

RedT: And, quite frankly as a policeman's wife and multiple gun owner, (fark you ditty)


Sorry, sweetheart, I'm spoken for.  Besides, I'm probably too mellow for you anyway, what with you being married to a professional bully and all.
 
2013-03-13 11:11:36 AM  

Thunderpipes: shot down right away.


Uhm. . .

Well they did.
And if you ever had to deal with a pack of coyotes up here in Vermont, you'll prefer semi-auto over a bolt action any night of the week.
 
2013-03-13 11:12:05 AM  

Silverstaff: ferretman: I am confused. As a recent gun owner, I had to undergo a background check, release mental health files and get finger-printed. Is this not the norm?
Uh, hell no.

Where the hell did you buy a gun like that?

I can go to a gun store, lay down a few hundred dollars and walk out same-day with a rifle or shotgun.  Have to show ID to prove I'm of age, and an NICS check to verify I'm not a felon, but that's it (and Federal law prevents any kind of registry of gun owners being created from those instant background checks).  If I want a handgun, same thing but with the Brady wait tacked on to it.

Release mental health files and be fingerprinted for buying a gun?  WTF?  To get a concealed weapons permit and doesn't even have to have that.  That requires an 8 hour course on gun safety and laws, a marksmanship test where you have to show you could hit a man-sized target with a handgun of your choice at close range reliably, and a background check performed by the State Police.

Yeah, my fingerprints are on file, from my security clearance I got in the military, and for the background check when I became a police officer, but you don't have to give prints to just buy a gun.  Not in the USA, unless your local jurisdiction is ridiculously oppressive (NYC, Chicago?)


For a handgun purchase in NJ....I can walk into any fire-arms dealer and walk out with a rifle or shot gun as long as I have my ID card..
 
2013-03-13 11:12:34 AM  

MyKingdomForYourHorse: That is correct, but I would then point you to District Columbia vs Heller which affirms a law making body's ability to regulate even weapons under Miller vs US category but cannot outright ban


Thats the part where the gun control crowd rallies around Scalia assuming he means that they can regulate handguns and AR 15s?

The jist I get is that those waters are largely untested and in an interview he even claimed that we shall see what that means, but the gun control crowd has a temporary hero in Antonin Scalia.
 
2013-03-13 11:12:35 AM  

mysticcat: Oh, and fark the NRA

/gun owner


Double fark the NRA.

/another gun owner
 
2013-03-13 11:12:56 AM  

dittybopper: RedT: Ditty, there doesn't seem to be any reasonable restriction on gun possession or ownership that you would concede, so we're done here.

What more should I concede?  Are the laws we have *NOW* unreasonable?
BLAH, BLAH, BLAH...



THIS^^ is not CONCEDING any reasonable gun restrictions, this is biatchING about every gun restriction ever enacted.
 
2013-03-13 11:13:35 AM  

RevMark: mysticcat: Oh, and fark the NRA

/gun owner

Double fark the NRA.

/another gun owner


Ben them over and run a farking train on them.

/Another gun owner.
 
2013-03-13 11:14:10 AM  

Thunderpipes: According to Democrats, I am an evil gun nut, since the M1A is a semi auto battle rifle with a 20 round magazine, and the K98 has a bayonet lug. Ar-15 is a pussy rifle compared to the M1A, but I have never seen a single complaint about it, I wonder why? Oh, it does not look as scary?


thunderpipes, as usual, youre completely ill informed, borderline retarded.

anyone still have that "Deep Thoughts... .With Thunderpipes" image? man i loled when i first saw that.

The K98 is not an evil gun because it has a bayonet lug. Youre allowed under current CA legislation to have TWO evil features. As the K98 is a bolt action, internal 5rd mag, over x lenght (i forget what), and doesnt have a grenade launcher, youre good to go and doesnt make you an evil gun nut.

The m1a is a harder story tho because it has features of an assault weapon under california law: detachable mag greater than 10rds. so, you have to get a 10rd mag for it and youre good to go there, too.

So youre not an evil gunnut thunderpipes, youre just... illinformed and overly hyperbolic, like always.

//C&R holder here...
 
2013-03-13 11:14:20 AM  

dr_blasto: dittybopper: dr_blasto: Although added later than the Bill of Rights, the constitution declares voting to be a right. Just because it wasn't added at the beginning doesn't mean it is less important or less of a right than any of the things mentioned in the first ten amendments.

Voting is exactly analogous. They are both rights; voting maybe moreso as it's mentioned in more than one amendment.

Then I assume you would have no problem with showing a picture ID and having a quick instant background check done on you when you vote, just to make sure you are who you say you are, that you still live in that particular political subdivision, and that you are still eligible to vote, right?

Maybe.

Can we demonstrate that our current system jeopardizes public safety or allows for measurable differences in voting outcomes?

Are proposed laws arbitrary and capricious? Would implementing the new regulations prevent anyone legally allowed to vote from doing so? Would it create a burden on specific classes of people and likely disenfranchise them?


Do you not think that additional fees and paperwork would impose a burden on specific classes of people and likely prevent them from owning a gun?

Or is that the real objective:   Gun Control and Economic Discrimination: The Melting-Point Case-in-Point
 
2013-03-13 11:14:38 AM  

Father_Jack: you dont perchance work at ebay do you?


Nope. I'm at the university.

and im returning to the bay area at the end of the month. as much as i freakin adore living in CH on some metrics i need to leave and get out of the Hochnebel and back to family. Hope to return some day and live from April to October here and then back in the E. Bay between november and march. i had no idea i had seasonal mood disorder or whatever the hell they call it till i got out here.

Fun times. Yeah, the weather can get somewhat gloomy during the winter.

Before you head out we should get a drink. EIP.

yeah i know some safes are like that... huh. guess i never put that much thought into it but i assumed they were mostly pretty solid. my first one was more like gym locker now that you mention it, but the later ones were robust, bolted to the floor, and no monkeyfarking kid with a screwdriver is going to get into it and steal my ww2 stash goddamn it. :)

Yeah, I had a cheap metal-only gun locker when I first started out. I later owned one of these. While the Cannon one had fire-resistant material and was bigger, they both had essentially identical security ratings. Compare that to one of these, which is rated against 30 minutes of attack with power tools and starts at 1.5 tons (rather than ~500lbs of the Cannon).
 
2013-03-13 11:14:43 AM  

vudukungfu: Thunderpipes: shot down right away.

Uhm. . .

Well they did.
And if you ever had to deal with a pack of coyotes up here in Vermont, you'll prefer semi-auto over a bolt action any night of the week.


Hear them all the time behind my house (Georgia). Freaks the kids out.

Point is, an incredibly left wing state, but with extreme gun freedoms, is probably the safest state in the country in terms of firearm crime. Most of the new crime I see on TV is from out of staters here for the drug trade which we promote.

Gun laws won't change a damn thing. All it will do is create more division, which is exactly what Obama wants. Masterful politician.
 
2013-03-13 11:14:57 AM  
Another thread where bun nuts prove that they are, in fact, nuts.
 
2013-03-13 11:15:40 AM  

lennavan: I don't remember the NRA being elected to the federal governing process.

 
2013-03-13 11:16:18 AM  

SurfaceTension: My desires:

1. Universal background checks
2. Funding for the FBI to collect statistics on gun crimes so we know how often they are used in intentional shootings, accidental shootings, and self-defense.
3. Laws that say that if you purchase a gun, unless you sell the gun or report it stolen, if it is proven that that weapon was used in a crime, you are charged with a felony. That's even if you are not connected in any other way with the actual crime. (intended to reduce straw purchases)


And I would oppose that legislation.

In trying to reduce the number of straw purchases, you are going to make felons of people who aren't.  Let's say you keep an old shotgun hidden in the back of in your closet.  Let's also say that you keep the ammo for it locked away out in the garage and have a trigger lock on it.  Feeling like it's pretty secure, you maybe pull the shotgun out once or twice a year just to make sure it hasn't rusted.  Now let's say that unknown to you, your nephew steals the shotgun, sells it for whatever reason (booze, drugs, pay gambling debts) figuring by the time you miss it, he'll be long gone.  Sure enough, he is.  Meanwhile the shotgun gets used in a murder.  If they trace that shotgun back to you, you're going to jail--unless you can somehow prove you didn't know the shotgun had been stolen a couple of months ago by your nephew.  Since you didn't file a police report, good luck with the attorney's fees, and staying out of jail.

1. I have no problem with people owning semiauto rifles, pistols, in whatever quantity their heart desires. Selective fires weapons as well, subject to a much more stringent system of background checks, etc. I'll not detail here.  Want 30 round clips?  No problem, I hate constantly reloading at the range too.  Want 100+ round barrel clips...maybe that should be restricted at the level of selective fire weapons.
2. While I wouldn't make a law, I would, highly, highly, highly (get the idea) encourage people that have firearms they aren't using actively for home defense to lock them in a gun safe.
3. Universal background checks?  Sort of silly if I'm buying a .22 rifle from a buddy that just wants to get it out of his house, but if it will get the whiners to STFU, fine let's compromise on something along those lines.  But whatever we settle on MUST be simple, fast, not be an excuse for Sheriff Roscoe P. Gunban to hold up my purchase for weeks or even forever.  Also, if I go see a therapist every other week because I'm feel a bit depressed about life at the moment, there will be no stamping people's records NO GUN FOR YOU.  The standard for doing that must be significantly higher (like say institutionalization, on meds for serious mental issues, etc.).
4. I honestly don't care what stats the FBI collects so long as I don't have some government geek a few years from now running through Congress scream we must ban all guns because he's found .5% increase in the number of people who commit suicide with a handgun in cases where the victim was left handed, had a hotdog the night before, and was wearing painter's pants.  Be prepared for the fact that non-government organization will collect their own stats, that some will use the FBI's stats to spindle, fold, and multilate the truth to some political purpose and while the FBI collecting stats on the things you mention sounds wonderful, it won't be the cure all nor the last word on any debate, ever.
 
2013-03-13 11:16:32 AM  

TheShavingofOccam123: Here's the delineation of Congressional powers regarding the militia,quoted directly from the Constitution:

To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;
 To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

Seems like the Constitution grants all kinds of controls to Congress and to the States.


No, just the federal government and just the power to organize, arm, and discipline the militia.  I see no power to disarm the people.  In fact, the 2nd amendment explicitly protects the right of the people to keep and bear arms.
 
2013-03-13 11:16:41 AM  

RedT: Giltric: RedT: And, quite frankly as a policeman's wife

How do you feel about your wife looking the other way when a cop does something bad?

Does she break the blue wall of silence? Give a pass to a brother officer who is driving drunk?

Huh?  I am a policeman's wife, meaning my hubby is a cop.  And quite frankly we (neither my husband nor I) let our friends drive drunk regardless of whether they are a cop or not.

You assume my hubby is a POS and I am going to waste my time defending him to you, when you have no evidence he has ever done or witnessed anything like this?
 

You seem like a hater.


AHh my apologies I read that wrong.

I still think he would clam up or look the other way about his brother officers doing wrong though. It is part of the job.
 
2013-03-13 11:17:04 AM  

MyKingdomForYourHorse: Thunderpipes: I would bet my house on voter fraud

Then we'll be having your house here pretty soon.

Giltric: It is a felony to purchase an NFA item without proper documentation and tax stamp from the ATF.

No problem, lets take a step out to the parking lot where you and I can conduct a private sale.


If you think people are walking outside of gun shows to sell $10000+ guns that are highly restricted.... I have some beachfront property and a few bridges for sale.
 
2013-03-13 11:17:07 AM  

Father_Jack: Thunderpipes: According to Democrats, I am an evil gun nut, since the M1A is a semi auto battle rifle with a 20 round magazine, and the K98 has a bayonet lug. Ar-15 is a pussy rifle compared to the M1A, but I have never seen a single complaint about it, I wonder why? Oh, it does not look as scary?

thunderpipes, as usual, youre completely ill informed, borderline retarded.

anyone still have that "Deep Thoughts... .With Thunderpipes" image? man i loled when i first saw that.

The K98 is not an evil gun because it has a bayonet lug. Youre allowed under current CA legislation to have TWO evil features. As the K98 is a bolt action, internal 5rd mag, over x lenght (i forget what), and doesnt have a grenade launcher, youre good to go and doesnt make you an evil gun nut.

The m1a is a harder story tho because it has features of an assault weapon under california law: detachable mag greater than 10rds. so, you have to get a 10rd mag for it and youre good to go there, too.

So youre not an evil gunnut thunderpipes, youre just... illinformed and overly hyperbolic, like always.

//C&R holder here...


And you are of course, wrong.

Feinstien wants that list down to 1 feature. And of course, you are ignoring the real issue. It will never stop. Some nut kills someone with a rifle with an internal magazine, boom, another ban. What is next, muskets banned?

you have no argument, so you insult. I am used to it here. No problems. I like the deep thought picture too, that guy seems classy and fun to be around. Bet he is strong too.
 
2013-03-13 11:17:24 AM  

dittybopper: Mugato: MyKingdomForYourHorse: Every right enumerated can be subjected to regulation and restriction from the 1st all the on through the rest.

You could have posted that earlier. I was just in a movie theater and thought it would be fun to yell "FIRE". Now they're calling the cops.

Were you required to wear a ball gag prior to entering the theater, to prevent you from *FALSELY* yelling fire?  No?

Then it's not the same thing.


Your comparison is so much a false equivalency; a better one would be: "If you have tourette's or some other mental illness that would make yelling 'Fire!' in a crowded theater seem like a good idea, we usually register that fact in your medical records and try to help get you on meds to control those impulses. Just like having a background check for all transactions of gun purchases is a good idea."

Or even better: "Unless you are a licensed pharmacist, you aren't allowed to sell prescription drugs to people. And you need a doctor's prescription in order to get those drugs, because some drugs can really mess you up. This is a good thing to help prevent unnecessary deaths, as more regulation helps keep track of every transaction, including investigations for when things go wrong, and these drugs get into the hands of people who weren't supposed to have them."

/cue "b-b-but the FBI/CIA gives guns without registration to Mexican cartels all of the time!!!1!"
 
2013-03-13 11:17:57 AM  

Giltric: The jist I get is that those waters are largely untested and in an interview he even claimed that we shall see what that means, but the gun control crowd has a temporary hero in Antonin Scalia.


True, the waters haven't fully been tested but I think based on other affirmation decisions for other enumerated rights (1st, 4th, 7th, etc...) we will see it affirmed clearly that the time, place, and manner will be upheld for regulation of the 2nd.

But then again, no one could have seen something like Bush vs Gore or Citizens United cases, so who knows?
 
2013-03-13 11:18:18 AM  

MyKingdomForYourHorse: this is for universal background checks, as in sales are checked in all 50 states. Right now the laws are disparate between each state which can lead to gun trafficking from straw purchases in one state to then have the weapons transferred to illegal owners in another.

For instance, there are places in the country where over half of the weapons confiscated can be traced to only a handful of shops out of that state.


interstate sales/transfers to nondealers are already illegal, as are straw purchases.
 
2013-03-13 11:18:31 AM  

RedT: dittybopper: RedT: Ditty, there doesn't seem to be any reasonable restriction on gun possession or ownership that you would concede, so we're done here.

What more should I concede?  Are the laws we have *NOW* unreasonable?
BLAH, BLAH, BLAH...


THIS^^ is not CONCEDING any reasonable gun restrictions, this is biatchING about every gun restriction ever enacted.


OK, so what more should I give up?  Where is the line between reasonable and unreasonable?

Can you guarantee me that what you consider to be reasonable today be the end of it?
 
2013-03-13 11:19:07 AM  

Thunderpipes: More of the exact same words.


You are repeating yourself. Why? Everybody but a handful of extremists on your"side" reject your tired, strained analogy as the nonsense that it is. Why bother repeating it, like some sort of weird mantra? Are you simply preaching to the choir? Be aware, that to any intelligent person, the continual use of analogies, even good ones, tends to indicate an inability to reason or argue in the abstract. I'm not going to waste my time "conversing" with someone whose idea of conversation is the mere repetition of mantras that only have meaning to himself. We already have frequent threads regarding the so-called "voter fraud" issue. Why not discuss the issue there, instead of in threads that are about unrelated matters?
And if it is really your belief that anyone and everyone who advocates any form of gun control is a fool and/or hypocrite, why bother talking to them at all?
If you are just looking to vent your existential rage, why not get a punching bag? Works a lot better than posting in an internet forum.
 
2013-03-13 11:19:27 AM  

Uranus Is Huge!: Benjamin Orr: Uranus Is Huge!: Mark Ratner: Background checks still wouldn't have stopped the Sandy Hook shooting.

It might have made a difference in Aurora and at Virginia Tech.

Also, Link

Except that Cho went through background checks and I am pretty sure that SSB did as well.

You make a good argument for beefing up what the background checks should be checking for. I'd be okay with allowing mental healthcare professionals to flag a "threat" for 60 or 90 days. Have a hearing. Let a judge make a more permanent determination.


How many times have you posted that drivel knowing it was false?

Now you try and move the goalposts. Try being honest every once in a while.
 
2013-03-13 11:19:51 AM  

meanmutton: I'm pretty clearly in the "bitterly clinging to my guns" camp.  To me, the most valid comparison should be to a car -- which is the only other legal tool that we have that kills people as much as or more than firearms.  We register cars, we have to have the state register a change of ownership, we have to buy new ones from state-licensed dealers, we have to get a license to use one.  Honestly, it is no more onerous for me to have to do that if I'm interested in buying a GLOCK 19 or a BMW 3-series; a Remington 500 or a Ford 550.

I get where the NRA is coming from but I'm having difficulty seeing why a firearm should really be less regulated than a car.


with you in spirit. but ... the supreme court hasnt been making decisions on how car rights are to be handled as laid out in the constitution. the gun advocates have a strong legal position: its IN the constitution, whether we wish it there or not, and as such, its going to be harder to infrin- err, regulate, than things which arent.
 
2013-03-13 11:19:56 AM  

Benjamin Orr: If you think people are walking outside of gun shows to sell $10000+ guns that are highly restricted.... I have some beachfront property and a few bridges for sale


No, but they do to purchase several hand guns, a few rifles, maybe some shotguns, and the occasional AR or other military style of weapon. That way your capital isn't tied up in the more expensive stuff that doesn't move quite as quick.

If you don't think this style of straw purchases and gun running doesn't happen, then I got a bridge you might like.
 
2013-03-13 11:20:44 AM  

jso2897: Thunderpipes: More of the exact same words.

You are repeating yourself. Why? Everybody but a handful of extremists on your"side" reject your tired, strained analogy as the nonsense that it is. Why bother repeating it, like some sort of weird mantra? Are you simply preaching to the choir? Be aware, that to any intelligent person, the continual use of analogies, even good ones, tends to indicate an inability to reason or argue in the abstract. I'm not going to waste my time "conversing" with someone whose idea of conversation is the mere repetition of mantras that only have meaning to himself. We already have frequent threads regarding the so-called "voter fraud" issue. Why not discuss the issue there, instead of in threads that are about unrelated matters?
And if it is really your belief that anyone and everyone who advocates any form of gun control is a fool and/or hypocrite, why bother talking to them at all?
If you are just looking to vent your existential rage, why not get a punching bag? Works a lot better than posting in an internet forum.


Plenty of people agree with me. You just want opposition silenced, the liberal way. Maybe you should take away the first amendment, or regulate it.
 
2013-03-13 11:20:57 AM  

mysticcat: The NRA is going to lose on this one and they know it.  What they'll do is raise a big stink about background checks and hope to keep some other measures off the table.  I really hope they do go balls out against this.  I think it would further marginalize them.

Either way, the whole background checks issue will give them something to wharrgarrbl about for the next few years.


The statement about "hypotheticals" is hilarious.  They are actively involved in influencing, even creating, legislation.  They don't just issue an opinion on whatever laws are passed.

Oh, and fark the NRA

/gun owner


THIS.

The minimum standard for control will be background checks, registration, and liability for gun owners.
 
2013-03-13 11:21:08 AM  

Father_Jack: The K98 is not an evil gun because it has a bayonet lug. Youre allowed under current CA legislation to have TWO evil features. As the K98 is a bolt action, internal 5rd mag, over x lenght (i forget what), and doesnt have a grenade launcher, youre good to go and doesnt make you an evil gun nut.


Actually, the K98 isn't "evil" under the CA law because it's a bolt-action, not semi-auto.

The m1a is a harder story tho because it has features of an assault weapon under california law: detachable mag greater than 10rds. so, you have to get a 10rd mag for it and youre good to go there, too.

Senator Feinstein is pushing a federal bill that would lower the requirements to one evil feature, so a lot of guns that are fine under the current CA law (and/or the 1994-2004 ban, not to mention millions of guns in common use in the rest of the country) would suddenly not be ok.

The CA ban (and the former and proposed federal bans) don't regard a "detachable mag greater than 10 rounds" as an evil feature. Rather, the fact that a semi-auto gun accepts a detachable magazine at all is what counts, regardless of if the magazine holds one round or one hundred. The law separately addresses magazines over a certain arbitrary limit.
 
2013-03-13 11:21:10 AM  

MyKingdomForYourHorse: But then again, no one could have seen something like Bush vs Gore or Citizens United cases, so who knows?


CU was a law against campaign finance butting into the 1st Amendment. It never had a chance.

Gore v. Bush was a ruling that an election has to be conducted according to the rules in place at its beginning -- it hardly sets a precedent for much of anything.
 
2013-03-13 11:21:26 AM  

tlars699: Your comparison is so much a false equivalency; a better one would be: "If you have tourette's or some other mental illness that would make yelling 'Fire!' in a crowded theater seem like a good idea, we usually register that fact in your medical records and try to help get you on meds to control those impulses. Just like having a background check for all transactions of gun purchases is a good idea."


So you think firearms ownership is a sign of mental illness?  How telling.
 
2013-03-13 11:21:27 AM  

This text is now purple: RedT: And, quite frankly as a policeman's wife and multiple gun owner, (fark you ditty) I cannot think of a good reason why there shouldn't be strict liability when your gun is involved in a criminal or accidental.

So long as it doesn't apply to the thin blue line, right?

Because under your thinking, your husband should be spending weeks in jail if he's ever involved in a shooting incident, until he can be conclusively proven to be innocent. And being unable to legally possess a firearm, he should be terminated from his position for failure to qualify.


Two things:
1) Strict liability is a civil matter, not criminal,so it has nothing to do with guilt or innocence, but liability.
and,
2) Serously?? You DON"T think this is the case NOW? Do you think cops just shoot people, then head to the next call while clapping the dust off their hands?
There hasn't been a police shooting death in my town in over 15 years that did not involve a FEDERAL investigation after all of the local and state investigations.  After a shooting cops are immediately pulled off the street.  This city's average payout is 1 million dollars for every police shooting because that is generally cheaper than the cost of litigation, so yeah, that is STRICT liability on police shootings.

Wow, just, wow.
 
2013-03-13 11:21:43 AM  

pedrop357: interstate sales/transfers to nondealers are already illegal, as are straw purchases.


They are also investigated less and pursued even less because the ATF lacks budgeting for it, A Director, and little teeth to enforce what little law is there.
 
2013-03-13 11:21:50 AM  

dittybopper: That turns what is an enumerated right into a government granted privilege. Would you argue the same thing for a computer and internet connection?


That depends. Are computers killing 10,000 Americans every year?
 
2013-03-13 11:22:54 AM  

MyKingdomForYourHorse: Giltric: Next time someone gives you rope to get you out of the hole you dug, try not to tie it around your neck for them to pull you out.

Heads get turned all the time, just because someone is SUPPOSED to report suspicious sale transaction doesn't mean they do. Also the ATF has been headless for years and been crippled with lack of teeth and budget to effectively investigate these illegal purchases.

Next time you want to make a point, use some farking facts.


Facts? All you have is a talking point.

Can you detail this "lack of teeth" you are talking about? Can you give me examples of what not having a director has done to ATF investigations, stings, compliance checks etc?

Their budget is around 300k per member of the ATF. somewhere in the neighborhood of 2 billion a year. How much money does it take to let known straw purchasers aquire weapons and transfer them to the cartels without attempting to track those weapons anyway?
 
2013-03-13 11:23:14 AM  

dittybopper: RedT: dittybopper: RedT: Ditty, there doesn't seem to be any reasonable restriction on gun possession or ownership that you would concede, so we're done here.

What more should I concede?  Are the laws we have *NOW* unreasonable?
BLAH, BLAH, BLAH...


THIS^^ is not CONCEDING any reasonable gun restrictions, this is biatchING about every gun restriction ever enacted.

OK, so what more should I give up?  Where is the line between reasonable and unreasonable?

Can you guarantee me that what you consider to be reasonable today be the end of it?


No. No one could ever "guarantee" that regarding anything - including you, regarding anything YOU advocate. If that is to be the test, then, essentially, we can never do anything at all, even if it is a good thing, because later we might do it more, to the point that it is not a good thing.
 
2013-03-13 11:23:48 AM  

ferretman: For a handgun purchase in NJ....I can walk into any fire-arms dealer and walk out with a rifle or shot gun as long as I have my ID card..


Ah yes, the state that is so nanny-state they won't even let you pump your own gas.  Should have known they'd be anti-freedom in other ways too, like overly restrictive gun laws.
 
2013-03-13 11:24:26 AM  

MyKingdomForYourHorse: iltric: It is a felony to purchase an NFA item without proper documentation and tax stamp from the ATF.

No problem, lets take a step out to the parking lot where you and I can conduct a private sale.


Still illegal.
 
2013-03-13 11:24:27 AM  
I'd like to point out once again that TFA is wrong.

The NRA is *NOT* caving on their opposition to the private sale ban.
 
2013-03-13 11:24:49 AM  

Rapmaster2000: They will never persuade your target audience.


The intended audience (you lot) isn't willing to be convinced of anything.
Its mind is made up to the point where evidence and analogy wont have any effect.

We can only hope the bystanders listening to us bicker can realize your obstinance for what it is.

Sudo_Make_Me_A_Sandwich: I live in a society like that. It's pretty nice.


I live in a territory where we passed strict gun control laws.
The tightest laws in the nation, next to Puerto Rico.

/Both areas also have the highest murder rates in the US.
/You've got an odd definition of "nice".
 
2013-03-13 11:24:56 AM  

SurfaceTension: 3. Laws that say that if you purchase a gun, unless you sell the gun or report it stolen


you mean legitmately stolen?
 
2013-03-13 11:25:31 AM  

This text is now purple: CU was a law against campaign finance butting into the 1st Amendment. It never had a chance.

Gore v. Bush was a ruling that an election has to be conducted according to the rules in place at its beginning -- it hardly sets a precedent for much of anything


Citizens ignored YEARS of case law and decisions previously and has dramatic consequences for the definition of scope regarding the enumeration of the 1st. No one saw that coming really.

And Gore v Bush was actually so unique that in the decision write up it was essentially said "Only this time and never going forward" to actually prevent and precedent from holding. Also something no one saw coming

justtray: The minimum standard for control will be background checks, registration, and liability for gun owners.


And really, most people could get on board with that. Its simple, sane, and effective. The only thing I would add is to increase the punishment for offenses to deter illegal purchases.
 
2013-03-13 11:25:46 AM  

vernonFL: HAMMERTOE: While we're at it, why not make everybody responsible for getting a background check on potential car-buyers for private car sales? Somebody with a DUI has no more business owning a car than a guy who gets into a fistfight has owning a gun, right?

Um, they do that now. Its called a driver's license and car insurance. If you have a DUI, your license is restricted or suspended and your insurance is very expensive.


When was the last time someone's vehicles were all taken away when they were convicted of a DUI?  How about the last time a person was denied the purchase or rental of a car due to a DUI?
 
2013-03-13 11:26:16 AM  

Thunderpipes: Plenty of people agree with me. You just want opposition silenced, the liberal way. Maybe you should take away the first amendment, or regulate it.


The first amendment is already regulated.

Thunderpipes: Gun laws won't change a damn thing.


The science and actual data on gun laws directly proves otherwise.  But clearly reality isn't something that gets in your way.

Thunderpipes: And of course, you are ignoring the real issue. It will never stop. Some nut kills someone with a rifle with an internal magazine, boom, another ban. What is next, muskets banned?


You know what's funny?  Gun owners like to paint those who want regulations on guns as scared when in fact, you sound like the scared one here.  Why you so scared?  Big bad Obama is coming for your guns oh noes, what's next, your children?!
 
2013-03-13 11:26:17 AM  
I'm ok with this as long as we enforce background checks on alcohol purchases to make sure you're not a violent drunk and have no DUIs.

/bonus: not even in the Bill of Rights
 
2013-03-13 11:26:47 AM  

MyKingdomForYourHorse: Benjamin Orr: If you think people are walking outside of gun shows to sell $10000+ guns that are highly restricted.... I have some beachfront property and a few bridges for sale

No, but they do to purchase several hand guns, a few rifles, maybe some shotguns, and the occasional AR or other military style of weapon. That way your capital isn't tied up in the more expensive stuff that doesn't move quite as quick.

If you don't think this style of straw purchases and gun running doesn't happen, then I got a bridge you might like.


"A totally different thing from the tihng I described is happening so I'm right."

Interesting tactic.
 
2013-03-13 11:26:47 AM  
I need a license, insurance, and registration to drive a car.

Why not my guns?
 
2013-03-13 11:27:01 AM  

Mr_Fabulous: That depends. Are computers killing 10,000 Americans every year?


Nope.  But cars do.
 
2013-03-13 11:27:32 AM  

meanmutton: I'm pretty clearly in the "bitterly clinging to my guns" camp.  To me, the most valid comparison should be to a car -- which is the only other legal tool that we have that kills people as much as or more than firearms.  We register cars, we have to have the state register a change of ownership, we have to buy new ones from state-licensed dealers, we have to get a license to use one.  Honestly, it is no more onerous for me to have to do that if I'm interested in buying a GLOCK 19 or a BMW 3-series; a Remington 500 or a Ford 550.

I get where the NRA is coming from but I'm having difficulty seeing why a firearm should really be less regulated than a car.


Because firearms are protected items under the 2nd amendment..
 
2013-03-13 11:27:34 AM  
I will only feel safe when all Constitutional rights are limited by registration and background checks.

Only rich people, cops, and criminals should posses guns.
 
2013-03-13 11:27:40 AM  

RedT: This text is now purple: RedT: And, quite frankly as a policeman's wife and multiple gun owner, (fark you ditty) I cannot think of a good reason why there shouldn't be strict liability when your gun is involved in a criminal or accidental.

So long as it doesn't apply to the thin blue line, right?

Because under your thinking, your husband should be spending weeks in jail if he's ever involved in a shooting incident, until he can be conclusively proven to be innocent. And being unable to legally possess a firearm, he should be terminated from his position for failure to qualify.

Two things:
1) Strict liability is a civil matter, not criminal,so it has nothing to do with guilt or innocence, but liability.
and,
2) Serously?? You DON"T think this is the case NOW? Do you think cops just shoot people, then head to the next call while clapping the dust off their hands?
There hasn't been a police shooting death in my town in over 15 years that did not involve a FEDERAL investigation after all of the local and state investigations.  After a shooting cops are immediately pulled off the street.  This city's average payout is 1 million dollars for every police shooting because that is generally cheaper than the cost of litigation, so yeah, that is STRICT liability on police shootings.

Wow, just, wow.


For every police shooting? Maybe for every police shooting that was found to be negligent and/or wrong.
 
2013-03-13 11:28:09 AM  

MyKingdomForYourHorse: Thunderpipes: I would bet my house on voter fraud

Then we'll be having your house here pretty soon.

Giltric: It is a felony to purchase an NFA item without proper documentation and tax stamp from the ATF.

No problem, lets take a step out to the parking lot where you and I can conduct a private sale.


Hardly.  NFA items are rigorously tracked and are absolutely linked to an individual, a trust, or a corporation.  Also, the hypothetical M-16 mentioned runs about $30,000.  Nobody is doing a parking lot deal that will land both buyer and seller in Federal prison.
 
2013-03-13 11:28:43 AM  

Giltric: Their budget is around 300k per member of the ATF. somewhere in the neighborhood of 2 billion a year. How much money does it take to let known straw purchasers aquire weapons and transfer them to the cartels without attempting to track those weapons anyway?


Ohh Fast and Furious reference, nice.

The point was that the resources are stretched thin so that reports of suspicious activity often goes unreported and those that do are often never followed up because there are bigger fish to fry justice speaking. Meaning that the punishment for crimes like straw purchases is more of a slap on the wrist than an actual punishment.

Prosecutors and law people go after the big wins, prosecutorial speaking.
 
2013-03-13 11:28:49 AM  
The thing to remember is that the rich guys you voted in make laws that are reactive, not proactive
they have never been able to stop something before it has happened
so they create feel-good laws that are designed to make you believe they are doing their jobs.
do you feel safer yet?
Any power you give them, you don't get back
The registration seems like a good idea on a couple of different levels
but it's the idea behind it that is concerning
and what is to be done with the information they take.
We have seen how none of the recent situations could have been changed by any of the laws they have suggested
or laws that were already on the book
besides-don't farking shoot other people for no reason-
so be VERY careful before you sign on to another rule
 that people you already don't trust
tell you is going to make everything better
 
2013-03-13 11:29:21 AM  

MyKingdomForYourHorse: And really, most people could get on board with that. Its simple, sane, and effective. The only thing I would add is to increase the punishment for offenses to deter illegal purchases.


I agree. The NRA and extreme right gun nuts are going to battle against it though as hard as they can. You'll hear a lot about registration = confiscation, even though it never has in this country. Then they'll say "Califnornia SKS!" without actually having read the history of that at all, just heard some other gun nut say it not realizing guns that were registered before the ban remained legal.

Good times... good times.
 
2013-03-13 11:29:26 AM  

Thunderpipes: And you are of course, wrong.

Feinstien wants that list down to 1 feature. And of course, you are ignoring the real issue. It will never stop. Some nut kills someone with a rifle with an internal magazine, boom, another ban. What is next, muskets banned?

you have no argument, so you insult. I am used to it here. No problems. I like the deep thought picture too, that guy seems classy and fun to be around. Bet he is strong too.


i know what feinstein wants to do, but it hasnt happened yet. As such, your martyr argument is invalid.

re: slippery slope, "whats next", we cant tell. but its also a bit of a logical fallacy, since the tragedies like Aurora and Connecticut are not possible with a k98. As such, theres not as much of an uproar and political will mobilized against it.

Americans are willing to live with a certain amount of violence in our society associated with the ownership of guns and the odd tragedy, what people are finding themselves less willing to put up with are mass murder tragedies. As such, people arent focusing on bolt action rifles, since they havent been used in mass killings the way AR15s and Ak47s have.

that all being said the new feinstein stuff is absurd and lame... say good bye to the SKS and the SVT40 and the FN49 in my safe.
 
2013-03-13 11:29:53 AM  

lennavan: Thunderpipes: Plenty of people agree with me. You just want opposition silenced, the liberal way. Maybe you should take away the first amendment, or regulate it.

The first amendment is already regulated.

Thunderpipes: Gun laws won't change a damn thing.

The science and actual data on gun laws directly proves otherwise.  But clearly reality isn't something that gets in your way.

Thunderpipes: And of course, you are ignoring the real issue. It will never stop. Some nut kills someone with a rifle with an internal magazine, boom, another ban. What is next, muskets banned?

You know what's funny?  Gun owners like to paint those who want regulations on guns as scared when in fact, you sound like the scared one here.  Why you so scared?  Big bad Obama is coming for your guns oh noes, what's next, your children?!


Do you think the 2nd amendment isn't regulated?
 
2013-03-13 11:30:54 AM  
Hey guys lets compare cars to guns!


http://www.fark.com/comments/7565295/82224599#c82224599" target=_blank>Vegan Meat Popsicle: clowncar on fire: Seeing how more people die in auto related deaths, how would you feel about having a background check everytime you rented or purchased a car.

Yea, it's not like you have to pass a test and maintain a license to own a car. Or meet certain basic safety standards by maintaining it on a regular basis. Or register it. Or that there are any rules or laws governing when, where and how the vehicle can be used. And god knows if you break those rules often enough it's not like anybody confiscates your license or - god forbid - even the car itself. And, of course, there are no rules about how cars must be manufactured to meet safety standards to protect both the operators and the general public around the vehicle as it's being used. And, unlike guns, cars are totally unnecessary and have no real daily legitimate use.

Perfect analogy. You're so smart.
 
2013-03-13 11:31:00 AM  
I support background checks for all gun transfers. I also support background checks for voting, for private employment, and for when local authorities pull you over for speeding.
 
2013-03-13 11:31:44 AM  

redmid17: lennavan: Thunderpipes: Plenty of people agree with me. You just want opposition silenced, the liberal way. Maybe you should take away the first amendment, or regulate it.

The first amendment is already regulated.

Thunderpipes: Gun laws won't change a damn thing.

The science and actual data on gun laws directly proves otherwise.  But clearly reality isn't something that gets in your way.

Thunderpipes: And of course, you are ignoring the real issue. It will never stop. Some nut kills someone with a rifle with an internal magazine, boom, another ban. What is next, muskets banned?

You know what's funny?  Gun owners like to paint those who want regulations on guns as scared when in fact, you sound like the scared one here.  Why you so scared?  Big bad Obama is coming for your guns oh noes, what's next, your children?!

Do you think the 2nd amendment isn't regulated?


Do you think the 2nd amendment is regulated perfectly and exactly the way it should be for all time?
 
2013-03-13 11:32:16 AM  

RedT: This text is now purple: RedT: And, quite frankly as a policeman's wife and multiple gun owner, (fark you ditty) I cannot think of a good reason why there shouldn't be strict liability when your gun is involved in a criminal or accidental.

So long as it doesn't apply to the thin blue line, right?

Because under your thinking, your husband should be spending weeks in jail if he's ever involved in a shooting incident, until he can be conclusively proven to be innocent. And being unable to legally possess a firearm, he should be terminated from his position for failure to qualify.

Two things:
1) Strict liability is a civil matter, not criminal,so it has nothing to do with guilt or innocence, but liability.
and,
2) Serously?? You DON"T think this is the case NOW? Do you think cops just shoot people, then head to the next call while clapping the dust off their hands?
There hasn't been a police shooting death in my town in over 15 years that did not involve a FEDERAL investigation after all of the local and state investigations.  After a shooting cops are immediately pulled off the street.  This city's average payout is 1 million dollars for every police shooting because that is generally cheaper than the cost of litigation, so yeah, that is STRICT liability on police shootings.

Wow, just, wow.



latimesblogs.latimes.com

Yes we have seen it time and time again....most recently twice in the los angeles area where 2 different sets of cops opened fire without warning on 2 different vehicles that did not match the description of the vehicle they were looking for neither did either of the white occupants match the description of the black man they were looking for. The chief of police blamed it on stress......that should make everyone feel better...stressed police officers shooting people willy nilly.

In NY back in August, there was a situation where 9 innocent bystanders were shot by police and the police tried to blame it on the suspect they were chasing.
 
2013-03-13 11:32:18 AM  

dittybopper: MyKingdomForYourHorse: dittybopper: The Bill of Rights isn't a la carte. You don't get to pick and chose what you want. If you seriously weaken the Second Amendment, you weaken *ALL* of the Bill of Rights, because people can say "Hey, we did it with *THIS* one, why can't we do it with the other one?".

Every right enumerated can be subjected to regulation and restriction from the 1st all the on through the rest.

Or have you forgotten how SCOTUS works?

Have you never heard of "Prior Restraint"?

Explain to me why having to get government permission to exercise your right to own a gun is different from getting government permission to publish something.


When the words you print on your computer comes flying out from the screen on another computer and kills them THEN it is the same. You sir, need to think for a bit.
 
2013-03-13 11:33:04 AM  

Mr_Fabulous: dittybopper: That turns what is an enumerated right into a government granted privilege. Would you argue the same thing for a computer and internet connection?

That depends. Are computers killing 10,000 Americans every year?


No, but they probably transmit far more pornographic pictures of children.  Anyone can just walk into any store in the country and walk with a camera, computer, and network equipment.  Even a 3 time convicted sex offender can have high speed internet straight to their house.

Not to mention the millions of households with high speed internet, digital cameras, and computers that have children living in them.

We need sensible camera control and we need it now.
 
2013-03-13 11:33:11 AM  

Mugato: dittybopper: The NRA opposes criminalizing private firearms transfers between law-abiding individuals, and therefore opposes an expansion of the background check system.

Isn't that a contradiction of terms? How do you know that they're law abiding citizens without a background check?


Yeah, I don't get that either.  I used to have to call in background checks, so I don't get it.  Are they just counting on people to ignore the new laws and sell weapons anyway?  Are they counting background checks as a "guilty until proven innocent" situation?
 
2013-03-13 11:33:26 AM  

lennavan: redmid17: lennavan: Thunderpipes: Plenty of people agree with me. You just want opposition silenced, the liberal way. Maybe you should take away the first amendment, or regulate it.

The first amendment is already regulated.

Thunderpipes: Gun laws won't change a damn thing.

The science and actual data on gun laws directly proves otherwise.  But clearly reality isn't something that gets in your way.

Thunderpipes: And of course, you are ignoring the real issue. It will never stop. Some nut kills someone with a rifle with an internal magazine, boom, another ban. What is next, muskets banned?

You know what's funny?  Gun owners like to paint those who want regulations on guns as scared when in fact, you sound like the scared one here.  Why you so scared?  Big bad Obama is coming for your guns oh noes, what's next, your children?!

Do you think the 2nd amendment isn't regulated?

Do you think the 2nd amendment is regulated perfectly and exactly the way it should be for all time?


There some things I'd like to see loosened and things I'd like to see tightened. I just hate it when people try to pretend the 2nd amendment isn't regulated.
 
2013-03-13 11:33:28 AM  

Thunderpipes: jso2897: Thunderpipes: More of the exact same words.

You are repeating yourself. Why? Everybody but a handful of extremists on your"side" reject your tired, strained analogy as the nonsense that it is. Why bother repeating it, like some sort of weird mantra? Are you simply preaching to the choir? Be aware, that to any intelligent person, the continual use of analogies, even good ones, tends to indicate an inability to reason or argue in the abstract. I'm not going to waste my time "conversing" with someone whose idea of conversation is the mere repetition of mantras that only have meaning to himself. We already have frequent threads regarding the so-called "voter fraud" issue. Why not discuss the issue there, instead of in threads that are about unrelated matters?
And if it is really your belief that anyone and everyone who advocates any form of gun control is a fool and/or hypocrite, why bother talking to them at all?
If you are just looking to vent your existential rage, why not get a punching bag? Works a lot better than posting in an internet forum.

Plenty of people agree with me. You just want opposition silenced, the liberal way. Maybe you should take away the first amendment, or regulate it.


I give up. It's like talking to a wall. Because I dare presume to disagree with you, you proclaim that I am a "liberal" (which I am not) and that I wish to "silence" you (which I do not). All because I point out to you that I cannot "discuss" a silly analogy with you that you insist on substituting for an actual argument of the subject currently under discussion.
At any rate - any time you want to discuss the actual issue, and not whether I am a "hypocrite" for advocating what you disagree with, I'll be happy to take the matter up with you.
 
2013-03-13 11:34:36 AM  

Marcus Aurelius: I need a license, insurance, and registration to drive a car.

Why not my guns?


You only need those to operate on public roads.  You don't need to do any of that to have a car on your property.

Also, vehicles, transportation methods, etc. are not explicitly protected in the constitution.
 
2013-03-13 11:34:48 AM  

ThrobblefootSpectre: I support background checks for all gun transfers. I also support background checks for voting-not done yet, but hey, given you need a license to drive, or a photo id to write a check in most places, I'm not exactly against this, provided all valid photo ids are acceptable, for private employment-already done, and for when local authorities pull you over for speeding- already done, via your license plates, id, and registration. It's often how they find stolen vehicles.

 
2013-03-13 11:35:39 AM  

Marcus Aurelius: I need a license, insurance, and registration to drive a car.

Why not my guns?


Because they're different.

Cars:
- The primary cause of death, injury, and property damage for cars is accidental, indicating that drivers need a basic level of training to reduce accidents. A license serves this purpose.
- Insurance covers liability for accidental death, injury, or property damage caused by one's vehicle.
- Registration serves to identify the owner for tax purposes, but does not otherwise contribute to public safety.

Guns:
- The primary cause of death, injury, and property damage for guns is intentional and criminal. Licensing wouldn't really have much of an effect, as criminals wouldn't get a license. Accidents involving guns are at or near record lows and are already quite rare, statistically speaking. It's unlikely that a license would have any meaningful effect in that regard.
- Insurance does not cover intentional acts. Existing homeowners/renters insurance already covers liability due to accidental death, injury, or property damage relating to guns.
- What purpose would registering guns serve? Criminals cannot be compelled to register their guns and even if it was required, they wouldn't. Several states have licensing requirements and there's no evidence that such measures have any effect on crime. Canada abandoned their national registry of rifles and shotguns because it was expensive to operate and ineffective at reducing crime. It also only had a ~30% compliance rate -- I doubt that compliance rates in the US would be any higher.
 
2013-03-13 11:37:34 AM  
dittybopper

I don't agree with you, but you've made some damn fine arguments.
 
2013-03-13 11:37:45 AM  

wickedragon: When the words you print on your computer comes flying out from the screen on another computer and kills them THEN it is the same. You sir, need to think for a bit.


http://abcnews.go.com/US/bullied-teen-commits-suicide-posting-loves- ha terz/story?id=15887174

You were saying?
 
2013-03-13 11:38:22 AM  

justtray: I agree. The NRA and extreme right gun nuts are going to battle against it though as hard as they can. You'll hear a lot about registration = confiscation, even though it never has in this country. Then they'll say "Califnornia SKS!" without actually having read the history of that at all, just heard some other gun nut say it not realizing guns that were registered before the ban remained legal.

Good times... good times.


Good times indeed.

Hey, look at it this way. It makes great fodder to save for the derp folder when you want to go troll the politics tab.
 
2013-03-13 11:38:53 AM  

pedrop357: TheShavingofOccam123: Here's the delineation of Congressional powers regarding the militia,quoted directly from the Constitution:

To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;
 To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

Seems like the Constitution grants all kinds of controls to Congress and to the States.

No, just the federal government and just the power to organize, arm, and discipline the militia.  I see no power to disarm the people.  In fact, the 2nd amendment explicitly protects the right of the people to keep and bear arms.


It's a bit worse than that.

Private firearms owners up until nearly the 20th century were actually better armed than their regular army counterparts, with more and higher quality weapons.  It was not just assumed that the militia had small arms in their homes, the armories scattered across the U.S. by the 1850s didn't contain anything remotely like enough weapons to equip large scale military formations.  What they did contain of extreme value was artillery and while private ownership of cannons wasn't by any means banned (indeed merchant ships were armed as a matter of course), artillery pieces were expensive to equipment and maintain, so they were relatively rare in civilian hands outside the maritime community.

It's pretty clear that a militia system was written into our Constitution and that Congress isn't maintaining it.  But that in no way repeals or nullifies the Second Amendment or its implied right for firearms owners to provide for their own home defense and the defense of their neighbors from everything from home invasions to Indian attacks (the "original" home invasion).
 
2013-03-13 11:39:07 AM  

Mr_Fabulous: dittybopper: That turns what is an enumerated right into a government granted privilege. Would you argue the same thing for a computer and internet connection?

That depends. Are computers killing 10,000 Americans every year?


Probably, at least as a contributory factor.

All substantive rights have a significant cost in human lives.  That's why they are protected.  If there was no cost associate with, say, a person's right to a jury trial, or to be secure against unreasonable search and seizure, or against self-incrimination, or to have an abortion, and yes even to speak out for what they believe (including Nazis and the KKK), we wouldn't need to protect those rights, because there would be no pressure to reduce or remove those rights.

How many people have died because of the other rights besides the Second Amendment?  We don't really know, but it's got to be up there:  After all, the police generally know who the likely suspects for gang-related crimes are, but they can't really arrest them without *SOME* evidence, and until they do, those suspects are free to commit more crimes.  Plus, if the police don't follow the rules, the people they do manage to arrest will be set free, again to commit more crimes.
 
2013-03-13 11:40:58 AM  

redmid17: lennavan: redmid17: lennavan: Thunderpipes: Plenty of people agree with me. You just want opposition silenced, the liberal way. Maybe you should take away the first amendment, or regulate it.

The first amendment is already regulated.

Thunderpipes: Gun laws won't change a damn thing.

The science and actual data on gun laws directly proves otherwise.  But clearly reality isn't something that gets in your way.

Thunderpipes: And of course, you are ignoring the real issue. It will never stop. Some nut kills someone with a rifle with an internal magazine, boom, another ban. What is next, muskets banned?

You know what's funny?  Gun owners like to paint those who want regulations on guns as scared when in fact, you sound like the scared one here.  Why you so scared?  Big bad Obama is coming for your guns oh noes, what's next, your children?!

Do you think the 2nd amendment isn't regulated?

Do you think the 2nd amendment is regulated perfectly and exactly the way it should be for all time?

There some things I'd like to see loosened and things I'd like to see tightened. I just hate it when people try to pretend the 2nd amendment isn't regulated.



Couldn't agree more.  I also hate it when people try to pretend the 1st amendment isn't regulated and use that as a reason why we shouldn't regulate the 2nd.  I'm not coming to steal your guns, so you can relax.  Stupid is stupid, no matter what side of the argument it's on.
 
2013-03-13 11:41:21 AM  

pedrop357: Marcus Aurelius: I need a license, insurance, and registration to drive a car.

Why not my guns?

You only need those to operate on public roads.  You don't need to do any of that to have a car on your property.

Also, vehicles, transportation methods, etc. are not explicitly protected in the constitution.


What is this? What? WAT? Who can afford to have a car just sit on their property with no intent to use it?

Do you have guns you never intend to use? (Uh huh. Sure you do.)

What happens when you use your car, that you had previously no intention to use? Why can't we do that with a gun?
 
2013-03-13 11:42:27 AM  
Just answer one question libs.... (well, two)

How will your gun laws reduce gun crime?

Why don't our anti-murder laws stop murder?
 
2013-03-13 11:43:43 AM  

Thunderpipes: Just answer one question libs.... (well, two)

How will your gun laws reduce gun crime?

Why don't our anti-murder laws stop murder?


Well duh, We need to perform background checks on everyone in the nation. Think of the jobs created.
 
2013-03-13 11:44:25 AM  

RedT: Giltric: RedT: And, quite frankly as a policeman's wife

How do you feel about your wife looking the other way when a cop does something bad?

Does she break the blue wall of silence? Give a pass to a brother officer who is driving drunk?

Huh?  I am a policeman's wife, meaning my hubby is a cop.  And quite frankly we (neither my husband nor I) let our friends drive drunk regardless of whether they are a cop or not.

You assume my hubby is a POS and I am going to waste my time defending him to you, when you have no evidence he has ever done or witnessed anything like this?
 

You seem like a hater.


He's a cop.  Of course he does that stuff or helps protect those that do.

You brought it up, if you don't want the scrutiny, don't post about it.

Only the fact that EVERY SINGLE COP I HAVE EVER MET has a power trip going on, and is a "guns are for us, not for the people" attitude... that simple fact makes one believe the rest are too.

/wife-like typing detected
 
2013-03-13 11:46:26 AM  

Thunderpipes: How will your gun laws reduce gun crime?

Why don't our anti-murder laws stop murder?


dgt1.net
 
2013-03-13 11:47:18 AM  

lennavan: redmid17: lennavan: redmid17: lennavan: Thunderpipes: Plenty of people agree with me. You just want opposition silenced, the liberal way. Maybe you should take away the first amendment, or regulate it.

The first amendment is already regulated.

Thunderpipes: Gun laws won't change a damn thing.

The science and actual data on gun laws directly proves otherwise.  But clearly reality isn't something that gets in your way.

Thunderpipes: And of course, you are ignoring the real issue. It will never stop. Some nut kills someone with a rifle with an internal magazine, boom, another ban. What is next, muskets banned?

You know what's funny?  Gun owners like to paint those who want regulations on guns as scared when in fact, you sound like the scared one here.  Why you so scared?  Big bad Obama is coming for your guns oh noes, what's next, your children?!

Do you think the 2nd amendment isn't regulated?

Do you think the 2nd amendment is regulated perfectly and exactly the way it should be for all time?

There some things I'd like to see loosened and things I'd like to see tightened. I just hate it when people try to pretend the 2nd amendment isn't regulated.

Couldn't agree more.  I also hate it when people try to pretend the 1st amendment isn't regulated and use that as a reason why we shouldn't regulate the 2nd.  I'm not coming to steal your guns, so you can relax.  Stupid is stupid, no matter what side of the argument it's on.


2nd amendment is already regulated. For instance, pointing a gun at somebody may not hurt them, but it is generally against the law. Yelling fire in a theater is causing a very real safety issue even though it would appear as an absolute right. There is a real balance, and it has been defined by court decisions over time. Problem is, once that balance is broken, you start sliding towards having rights regulated so much they are not longer rights. It has already started. Calling someone a name can now be an actual crime. How is that for freedom of speech?
 
2013-03-13 11:47:21 AM  

dittybopper: Do you not think that additional fees and paperwork would impose a burden on specific classes of people and likely prevent them from owning a gun?


Possibly.

What I do believe is that the current and proposed gun laws don't seem like they address the real problems of gun violence. I can't think of any measure that would prevent another Sandy Hook/Aurora/Giffords/V.Tech shooting spree, but those events are thankfully rare.

The real gun violence problems remain unaddressed. The real problems relate to persistent support of black markets, poverty, domestic violence and suicide. All of these could be addressed without violating anyone's rights or restricting use.

So long as we continue to ignore the root causes, we will continue to have shootings. Magazine capacities, weapon-type bans, background checks, import restrictions and whatever else won't eliminate the 300 million guns floating around. They certainly won't change the motivations of drug dealers shooting each other over turf battles. None of those make it easy for severely depressed people get free professional medical care to ease the symptoms that are causing suicidal thoughts.
 
2013-03-13 11:47:29 AM  

vpb: dittybopper: SurfaceTension: My desires:

1. Universal background checks

Bad idea.  Very bad idea.  That turns what is an enumerated right into a government granted privilege.  Would you argue the same thing for a computer and internet connection?  That you must get government permission to post on the internet so that they know you aren't a subversive?  Or how about requiring a background check before you can assert your rights under the Fourth and Fifth Amendments?  How requiring government approval prior to getting an abortion?

The Bill of Rights isn't a la carte.  You don't get to pick and chose what you want.  If you seriously weaken the Second Amendment, you weaken *ALL* of the Bill of Rights, because people can say "Hey, we did it with *THIS* one, why can't we do it with the other one?".

Plus, there are numerous difficulties in implementing it.   You can do it under the general police powers at the state level, but it gets a bit dicier at the federal level, because you have to rationalize it under the Commerce Clause.  You can make that argument, and it might fly, but it's not a slam dunk.

Then you have the "You can make your own gun" loophole.  It's legal, and thousands of people do it every year.   It's only going to become easier with 3D printing of major parts.  For example, Defense Distributed just tested an AR-15 lower receiver (the part that is legally the gun) that they printed out on a 3D printer to over 600 rounds of full power ammunition.

Besides that, building something like a semi-auto handgun or a revolver only requires the ability to make a frame, and to purchase all the other parts, which are uncontrolled.  Anyone with some decent used machine tools can do that now. I know someone who made a Colt Commander-style 1911 from spare parts, and a rough casting of the frame.  He used mainly a drill press, a grinder, and hand files.

2. Funding for the FBI to collect statistics on gun crimes so we know how often they are used in intentional shootings, acciden ...

Nope.  Even voting requires regiatration.


Not the same thing. What other rights do you dislike to the point where you would give them away?
 
2013-03-13 11:49:10 AM  

Father_Jack: since the tragedies like Aurora and Connecticut are not possible with a k98.


Ummm, Yes, they are.  Are you seriously saying that First graders are a serious threat to a person with a bolt action rifle?  Once that person shots the adult in the room, there is literally nothing stopping him from killing the kids.  Don't forget the shooter had at least 11, and probably more like 15 minutes, to shoot.

If you can't fire 50 to 100 rounds from a bolt action rifle in that time, you're plainly incompetent.

What about reloading?  Reloading a Kar98k is fast with stripper clips.

Plus, we know such tragedies can still happen with very limited capacity guns:   The Cumbria Shootings in the UK happened with a bolt action rifle in .22 LR and a double barrel shotgun.
 
2013-03-13 11:49:12 AM  

Nahbien: Mr_Fabulous: That depends. Are computers killing 10,000 Americans every year?

Nope.  But cars do.


So we should regulate the ownership and operation of guns, too?

I agree.
 
2013-03-13 11:49:15 AM  

StoPPeRmobile: I will only feel safe when all Constitutional rights are limited by registration and background checks.

Only rich people, cops, and criminals should posses guns.


Forgot politicians.
 
2013-03-13 11:50:16 AM  

tlars699: Do you have guns you never intend to use? (Uh huh. Sure you do.)


I do.  It's a shotgun that has historical significance for the railroad line in my town.  There is no reason to believe that it isn't fully functional, it is in excellent condition.  But it is strictly a decorative piece on the wall.
 
2013-03-13 11:51:36 AM  

MyKingdomForYourHorse: This text is now purple: CU was a law against campaign finance butting into the 1st Amendment. It never had a chance.

Gore v. Bush was a ruling that an election has to be conducted according to the rules in place at its beginning -- it hardly sets a precedent for much of anything

Citizens ignored YEARS of case law and decisions previously and has dramatic consequences for the definition of scope regarding the enumeration of the 1st. No one saw that coming really.

And Gore v Bush was actually so unique that in the decision write up it was essentially said "Only this time and never going forward" to actually prevent and precedent from holding. Also something no one saw coming

justtray: The minimum standard for control will be background checks, registration, and liability for gun owners.

And really, most people could get on board with that. Its simple, sane, and effective. The only thing I would add is to increase the punishment for offenses to deter illegal purchases.


Really? I saw it coming.

A law that says "you can't publish this within six months of an election"? Never had a chance. That's way too easy to test, way too clearly an abridgement of political speech, and way too contrary to everything the 1st Amendment was written to protect.
 
2013-03-13 11:51:41 AM  

vernonFL: I can't understand how "background checks"  = "taking away our gun rights!!!"


You don't actually think a criminal is going to buy their guns from someone who obeys the mandatory background check law, do you?  It won't stop a single criminal from illegally buying a gun just like they do today.
 
2013-03-13 11:52:15 AM  

way south: Rapmaster2000: They will never persuade your target audience.

The intended audience (you lot) isn't willing to be convinced of anything.
Its mind is made up to the point where evidence and analogy wont have any effect.

We can only hope the bystanders listening to us bicker can realize your obstinance for what it is.


Interestingly, you don't count yourself as being a part of that group.

Could you be persuaded for increased background checks?
 
2013-03-13 11:52:33 AM  

dr_blasto: dittybopper: Do you not think that additional fees and paperwork would impose a burden on specific classes of people and likely prevent them from owning a gun?

Possibly.

What I do believe is that the current and proposed gun laws don't seem like they address the real problems of gun violence. I can't think of any measure that would prevent another Sandy Hook/Aurora/Giffords/V.Tech shooting spree, but those events are thankfully rare.

The real gun violence problems remain unaddressed. The real problems relate to persistent support of black markets, poverty, domestic violence and suicide. All of these could be addressed without violating anyone's rights or restricting use.

So long as we continue to ignore the root causes, we will continue to have shootings. Magazine capacities, weapon-type bans, background checks, import restrictions and whatever else won't eliminate the 300 million guns floating around. They certainly won't change the motivations of drug dealers shooting each other over turf battles. None of those make it easy for severely depressed people get free professional medical care to ease the symptoms that are causing suicidal thoughts.


I agree wholeheartedly.
 
2013-03-13 11:52:37 AM  

dittybopper: That depends. Are computers killing 10,000 Americans every year?
 ----------------------------
Probably


And that, right there, is how self-deluded you have to be to argue on the side of the gun-nuts.

Computers. Are probably. Killing. 10,000 Americans every year.

You literally have to make yourself believe in absurdities to rationalize yourself into such a position.
 
2013-03-13 11:52:41 AM  

dittybopper: After all, the police generally know who the likely suspects for gang-related crimes are, but they can't really arrest them without *SOME* evidence, and until they do, those suspects are free to commit more crimes.  Plus, if the police don't follow the rules, the people they do manage to arrest will be set free, again to commit more crimes.


I always find it funny that the ACLU is never called for comment every time the exclusionary rule(s?) are invoked and evidence tossed out, or after the police find something with a warrant that might have made a difference if they could have searched earlier.


"Today the police revealed that the house of suspect John Doe Sr. was searched and various murder weapons were found.  The police spokesman claimed they knew the weapons were in the house days earlier and prevented several deaths, but couldn't search the house without a warrant.  They were unable to obtain a warrant initially because the judge believed there was insufficient evidence to justify issuing on.  Police officials blame the privacy lobby and their unwillingness to compromise on issues of public safety.  The ACLU could not be reached for comment.

"In other news, police believe a man who was l set free after exploiting the evidence loophole has killed again.  Police say Doe John III was released last month after evidence in his trial was tossed out due to being illegally obtained.  Prosecutors say John killed again last week.  DA Hole Ass issued a statement blaming the exclusion lobby for putting the rights of criminals over those of average citizens.  Attempts to reach the ACLU for comment were unsuccessful.
 
2013-03-13 11:52:57 AM  

Deep Contact: StoPPeRmobile: I will only feel safe when all Constitutional rights are limited by registration and background checks.

Only rich people, cops, and criminals should posses guns.

Forgot politicians.


A long as the politician is rich, he may posses a gun.
 
2013-03-13 11:54:14 AM  

Thunderpipes: Just answer one question libs.... (well, two)

How will your gun laws reduce gun crime?

Why don't our anti-murder laws stop murder?


1) Presumably by making access to guns (which make murdering people quite a bit easier) harder.  Whatever the method, gun laws have been proven to work by a variety of scientific studies.

2)  They do.  You think if murder was legal, we'd still have the same number?  Man you're dumb!

That was easy.
 
2013-03-13 11:54:31 AM  

Father_Jack: you have no argument, so you insult. I am used to it here. No problems. I like the deep thought picture too, that guy seems classy and fun to be around. Bet he is strong too.

i know what feinstein wants to do, but it hasnt happened yet. As such, your martyr argument is invalid.

re: slippery slope, "whats next", we cant tell. but its also a bit of a logical fallacy,


It's arguably a logical fallacy, but only when continuing down the slope isn't the stated intention of the policy in question. When the goal of a compromise is to tip the slope further, it's a door-in-the-face proposition.

Because door-in-the-face is not a logical fallacy and has been shown to be an effective debate tactic.
 
2013-03-13 11:56:19 AM  

Mr_Fabulous: dittybopper: That depends. Are computers killing 10,000 Americans every year?
 ----------------------------
Probably

And that, right there, is how self-deluded you have to be to argue on the side of the gun-nuts.

Computers. Are probably. Killing. 10,000 Americans every year.

You literally have to make yourself believe in absurdities to rationalize yourself into such a position.


Considering the drop in physical activity because of computers, I bet a very real case could be made that yes, they are. Being dead from fatness takes longer, but you are just as dead.
 
2013-03-13 11:56:51 AM  
I once felt maybe some of the gun laws could change then I saw that if you give anti-gun nuts an inch, they want to end up taking a mile. So now ....I will accept no tightening of any gun laws!
 
2013-03-13 11:56:53 AM  

dittybopper: Ummm, Yes, they are. Are you seriously saying that First graders are a serious threat to a person with a bolt action rifle? Once that person shots the adult in the room, there is literally nothing stopping him from killing the kids. Don't forget the shooter had at least 11, and probably more like 15 minutes, to shoot.


This just in, very often during crisis situations those who carry weapons cannot fire them accurately or even draw them in time
 
2013-03-13 11:57:06 AM  

Mr_Fabulous: dittybopper: That depends. Are computers killing 10,000 Americans every year?
 ----------------------------
Probably

And that, right there, is how self-deluded you have to be to argue on the side of the gun-nuts.

Computers. Are probably. Killing. 10,000 Americans every year.

You literally have to make yourself believe in absurdities to rationalize yourself into such a position.


I linked to scholarly articles that show there is an association between obesity and computer use.  Hell, I'm an example of that myself.

I'm actually more likely to die early from inactivity related to posting on Fark than I am from the guns I own.
 
2013-03-13 11:57:44 AM  
Why not just outright ban anything that could hurt you, or is bad for you?

I remember a movie about that. Sex can kill you. Candy. Swearing. Guns. Ban em all!!
 
2013-03-13 11:58:08 AM  

tlars699: Who can afford to have a car just sit on their property with no intent to use it?


You can use the hell out of it.

Just not on public roads.

\think farmers.
 
2013-03-13 11:58:53 AM  

Thunderpipes: Calling someone a name can now be an actual crime.


No, it cannot.

Thunderpipes: How is that for freedom of speech?


How can your totally imagined completely not true scenario be for freedom of speech?  I'd say it's about as stupid as you are.  Hey look, I called you stupid.  Do you think I committed a crime?

Thunderpipes: 2nd amendment is already regulated.

.. Problem is, once that balance is broken, you start sliding towards having rights regulated so much they are not longer rights.

Let's take one very specific proposed regulation.  A cap magazine size.  How does that make your right to bear arms no longer a right?  You have to reload more often and you're equating that with we may as well get rid of the 2nd entirely?  Yeah, you're stupid.
 
2013-03-13 11:59:08 AM  
dittybopper:
How would you enforce it against guns that don't have serial numbers, like home-made guns?   Remember how I pointed out that those are only going to become more common?  How would you enforce it against guns made before 1968?   I have a rifle sitting in my safe that doesn't have a serial number, because it was made before the Gun Control Act of 1968 required it of all guns.

Not trying to threadjack here, but what kind of gun?

Curious, as I have...a lot...of guns made before 1946 (some of the oldest go back to the end of the Civil War) and every single one of them has a serial number.  But all of them were also military issue at some point of time, so they would - obviously.

Like I said, just curious.
 
2013-03-13 11:59:49 AM  

This text is now purple: A law that says "you can't publish this within six months of an election"? Never had a chance. That's way too easy to test, way too clearly an abridgement of political speech, and way too contrary to everything the 1st Amendment was written to protect.


Well to the wit that it would fail that test yes, but I don't think anyone saw the breadth of how wide the decision would be. Everyone figured it would fall into that narrow scope of yes it failed this test, but passes this muster based on previous law.
 
2013-03-13 12:00:14 PM  

dittybopper: I linked to scholarly articles that show there is an association between obesity and computer use. Hell, I'm an example of that myself.

I'm actually more likely to die early from inactivity related to posting on Fark than I am from the guns I own.


However, I think you're slightly more likely to kill someone else with the guns you own than with your inactivity posting on Fark.  Perhaps that's the more relevant metric?

Farkin A people.  Defend your guns.  Defend your rights.  But stop being so goddamn stupid.
 
2013-03-13 12:00:47 PM  
I trust anti-gun people with "sensible restrictions" on gun use as much as I trust pro-lifers with "sensible restrictions" on abortion.

Can't you fuquers see that you're the exact same type of person?
 
2013-03-13 12:01:26 PM  

Benjamin Orr: MyKingdomForYourHorse: Thunderpipes: I would bet my house on voter fraud

Then we'll be having your house here pretty soon.

Giltric: It is a felony to purchase an NFA item without proper documentation and tax stamp from the ATF.

No problem, lets take a step out to the parking lot where you and I can conduct a private sale.

If you think people are walking outside of gun shows to sell $10000+ guns that are highly restricted.... I have some beachfront property and a few bridges for sale.


Anyone offering to sell an m16 in a parking lot is most likely an undercover ATF agent trying to make a bust.
 
2013-03-13 12:01:43 PM  
Thunderpipes: Just answer one question libs.... (well, two)

How will your gun laws reduce gun crime? 

Why don't our anti-murder laws stop murder?


Hello, Thunderpipes. We meet again....

1. Most likely, it will reduce gun related crimes by an overall percentage, because there are avenues to legally purchase guns now that would either be restricted, or (better yet, and hopefully) there would be better ways to determine who shouldn't have a gun in the first place, and making it extremely difficult for them to find one, without getting caught for having a firearm illegally before anything more drastic occurs.

2. It doesn't stop murder entirely. But it does reduce murder, because people who are caught attempting to murder, having just murdered, or having been found guilty of participating in these acts are then segregated from society. Heck, we put people in jail for killing people through sheer stupidity on accident, and segregate those people from society for a while, so there will be fewer people who has their right to live infringed upon.

3. A better example for comparison for argument's sake, is to question how restricting the prescription drug trade as we do affects our society, and how more regulation affects it.
 
2013-03-13 12:02:41 PM  

MyKingdomForYourHorse: dittybopper: Ummm, Yes, they are. Are you seriously saying that First graders are a serious threat to a person with a bolt action rifle? Once that person shots the adult in the room, there is literally nothing stopping him from killing the kids. Don't forget the shooter had at least 11, and probably more like 15 minutes, to shoot.

This just in, very often during crisis situations those who carry weapons cannot fire them accurately or even draw them in time


Is a spree shooter shooting unarmed kids really a "crisis situation" for that shooter?  Does it really matter if he has to shoot twice or three times to hit someone 5 feet away if he's got 15 or 20 minutes to shoot people unopposed?

Hell, I know *EXACTLY* what you are talking about because I shoot timed competitions where you have to run between shooting stations (wearing snowshoes, no less), so I know how your shooting can go to shiat when your adrenaline is up and you are physically exerting yourself, and I just don't think that applies to very much to people who can walk up to contact range unopposed and just shoot unarmed kids.

Now tell me where I'm wrong about that.
 
2013-03-13 12:03:45 PM  

Benjamin Orr: Uranus Is Huge!: Benjamin Orr: Uranus Is Huge!: Mark Ratner: Background checks still wouldn't have stopped the Sandy Hook shooting.

It might have made a difference in Aurora and at Virginia Tech.

Also, Link

Except that Cho went through background checks and I am pretty sure that SSB did as well.

You make a good argument for beefing up what the background checks should be checking for. I'd be okay with allowing mental healthcare professionals to flag a "threat" for 60 or 90 days. Have a hearing. Let a judge make a more permanent determination.

How many times have you posted that drivel knowing it was false?

Now you try and move the goalposts. Try being honest every once in a while.


I've never brought up VA Tech in any post.

What goalpost has moved? Background checks should actually check for disqualifying events.

Try being honest every once in a while.
 
2013-03-13 12:05:06 PM  

This text is now purple: tlars699: Who can afford to have a car just sit on their property with no intent to use it?

You can use the hell out of it.

Just not on public roads.

\think farmers.


Did not consider that. Why are there tractors on the roads, ever? wouldnt' the registration fees for those be cumbersome?
 
2013-03-13 12:05:31 PM  

This text is now purple: tlars699: Who can afford to have a car just sit on their property with no intent to use it?

You can use the hell out of it.

Just not on public roads.

\think farmers.


And race car drivers.  I know a guy who has a dirt sprinter.  Totally not street legal.
 
2013-03-13 12:05:54 PM  

Thunderpipes: Why not just outright ban anything that could hurt you, or is bad for you?

I remember a movie about that. Sex can kill you. Candy. Swearing. Guns. Ban em all!!


I know your throwing a straw man out there but its a good diversion to bring up the law of unintended consequences. When we had locations ban trans fats in this nation and the general switch from those trans fats many companies, restaurants, etc.. switched to use palm oil. Palm oil is primarily manufactured in the south east Asia area and many who produce it are land stripping areas of forest to increase palm oil production.

So with our intent to protect American consumers and try to get them a healthier product, we doomed rain forests across south east Asia.

Resume your bickering
 
2013-03-13 12:06:32 PM  

Sudo_Make_Me_A_Sandwich: Setting aside politics for a moment - there's an opportunity to do some cool tech things. Like, if I have a gun, and I want to sell it to someone, I could get a private key tied to both my name and the serial number of the gun from any, lets say fire department because we have them everywhere and they're pretty neutral. The buyer could get another unique number valid for a few days showing that they have the legal right to buy a gun.

Then, I meet someone over the internet who wants to buy the gun, drive over to see them, type their unique key into my phone, see their driver's license pic pop up on my phone, and know they aren't a felon without needing to know anything else about them, even their name. They type my number in and see my picture with the serial number of the gun, so they know it's not stolen, I legally have it, etc. You could do it from anywhere (and at a library, fire station, etc).

I mean, yeah, it has lots of holes - it relies on two people wanting to engage in a legal transaction, but pretty much any regulation would require that anyway. And I'm sure people would think of better things. Like if you got a key, and then your key was signed with the other person's key on transfer, you could have proof you sold a gun to someone without any registration. If the cops came knocking on your door, you could just show them a digital certificate.


I don't think I can wade through the rest of this thread but THIS is a million dollar idea.
 
2013-03-13 12:07:42 PM  

tlars699: 3. A better example for comparison for argument's sake, is to question how restricting the prescription drug trade as we do affects our society, and how more regulation affects it.


Yeah, because FDA regulations and drug laws have been very, very effective in stopping drug abuse...
 
2013-03-13 12:08:43 PM  

dittybopper: Now tell me where I'm wrong about that.


You're not, it was a preemptive strike for anyone who might have spring boarded off your comment into the argument having weapons protects you from other people with weapons.

dittybopper: I'm actually more likely to die early from inactivity related to posting on Fark than I am from the guns I own.


However, you have a higher chance of dying by a gun shot than someone like myself who owns no weapons. Stop being disingenuous.
 
2013-03-13 12:10:29 PM  

dittybopper: tlars699: 3. A better example for comparison for argument's sake, is to question how restricting the prescription drug trade as we do affects our society, and how more regulation affects it.

Yeah, because FDA regulations and drug laws have been very, very effective in stopping drug abuse...


Don't be silly.  FDA regulations and drug laws have done literally nothing to stop drug abuse.  If we got rid of all FDA regulations and drug laws, we'd have the exact same number of people abusing painkillers and whatnot.
 
2013-03-13 12:10:42 PM  

MyKingdomForYourHorse: Everyone figured it would fall into that narrow scope of yes it failed this test, but passes this muster based on previous law.


What previous law held that you could censor political speech?
 
2013-03-13 12:12:12 PM  

MyKingdomForYourHorse: dittybopper: Now tell me where I'm wrong about that.

You're not, it was a preemptive strike for anyone who might have spring boarded off your comment into the argument having weapons protects you from other people with weapons.

dittybopper: I'm actually more likely to die early from inactivity related to posting on Fark than I am from the guns I own.

However, you have a higher chance of dying by a gun shot than someone like myself who owns no weapons. Stop being disingenuous.


No weapons?

I bet you do. Maybe a background check needs to be done on you, for our safety.
 
2013-03-13 12:12:58 PM  

justtray: Hey guys lets compare cars to guns!


http://www.fark.com/comments/7565295/82224599#c82224599" target=_blank>Vegan Meat Popsicle: clowncar on fire: Seeing how more people die in auto related deaths, how would you feel about having a background check everytime you rented or purchased a car.

Yea, it's not like you have to pass a test and maintain a license to own a car. Or meet certain basic safety standards by maintaining it on a regular basis. Or register it. Or that there are any rules or laws governing when, where and how the vehicle can be used. And god knows if you break those rules often enough it's not like anybody confiscates your license or - god forbid - even the car itself. And, of course, there are no rules about how cars must be manufactured to meet safety standards to protect both the operators and the general public around the vehicle as it's being used. And, unlike guns, cars are totally unnecessary and have no real daily legitimate use.

Perfect analogy. You're so smart.


Do you have to pass a test and maintain a license or pass safety tests to put a car on your private property?
 
2013-03-13 12:13:57 PM  

This text is now purple: What previous law held that you could censor political speech?


Buckley although it was narrowed in scope with McConnell vs FEC (yep, that McConnell)
 
2013-03-13 12:14:48 PM  

StoPPeRmobile: I bet you do. Maybe a background check needs to be done on you, for our safety.


A background check on me would read like the Penthouse Letters section, only with slightly more flesh and sweat added.

I ain't picky
 
2013-03-13 12:15:06 PM  

This text is now purple: tlars699: Who can afford to have a car just sit on their property with no intent to use it?

You can use the hell out of it.

Just not on public roads.

\think farmers.


You still hold a title for it.
 
2013-03-13 12:15:27 PM  

lennavan: Thunderpipes: Calling someone a name can now be an actual crime.

No, it cannot.

Thunderpipes: How is that for freedom of speech?

How can your totally imagined completely not true scenario be for freedom of speech?  I'd say it's about as stupid as you are.  Hey look, I called you stupid.  Do you think I committed a crime?

Thunderpipes: 2nd amendment is already regulated... Problem is, once that balance is broken, you start sliding towards having rights regulated so much they are not longer rights.

Let's take one very specific proposed regulation.  A cap magazine size.  How does that make your right to bear arms no longer a right?  You have to reload more often and you're equating that with we may as well get rid of the 2nd entirely?  Yeah, you're stupid.


Yes, it can. Hate crimes and bullying laws. Kid in school can be arrested in places now if they call someone a name. Hate crime if it also considered racist or against anyone non-white/straight.

Magazine size? Well, when the founders made that right clear, did they say the government can make you only use blunderbusses from 100 years back, or whatever they were using at the time?

What about internal magazines? How long until the Garand and Enfield are declared evil and banned? Why stop there? That is the problem with you liberal wingnuts. You have nothing better to do that useless regulation, and you will never stop until you have your goal. In this case, it is the complete repeal of the 2nd amendment. Obama gets his next justice, that is a very real possibility.
 
2013-03-13 12:15:32 PM  

dittybopper: tlars699: 3. A better example for comparison for argument's sake, is to question how restricting the prescription drug trade as we do affects our society, and how more regulation affects it.

Yeah, because FDA regulations and drug laws have been very, very effective in stopping drug abuse...


Actually, those things have been reasonably effective in the prevention of the marketing of contaminated, mislabeled, and "quack" drugs within the context of medicine. The failure has largely come in the failed attempt to regulate the consumption of recreational drugs by adults who know and accept the risks - which has failed for the same reason that Prohibition failed.
If your point is that no approach to ANYTHING can solve ALL problems associated with it, I must refer you to professor Ric Romero, of the Wellduh Institute for Stating the Obvious.
 
2013-03-13 12:16:29 PM  

Mr_Fabulous: dittybopper: That depends. Are computers killing 10,000 Americans every year?
 ----------------------------
Probably

And that, right there, is how self-deluded you have to be to argue on the side of the gun-nuts.

Computers. Are probably. Killing. 10,000 Americans every year.

You literally have to make yourself believe in absurdities to rationalize yourself into such a position.


You don't think our nation of lard-asses has been impacted by computers in any fashion?

Who's delusional?

I'd say that computers are probably responsible for more deaths than that, and are going to be responsible for epidemic levels of poor health in the next 20 years.
 
2013-03-13 12:16:33 PM  

Pixiest: I trust anti-gun people with "sensible restrictions" on gun use as much as I trust pro-lifers with "sensible restrictions" on abortion.

Can't you fuquers see that you're the exact same type of person?


Way to bring dead fetuses into this.
 
2013-03-13 12:18:15 PM  

MyKingdomForYourHorse: dittybopper: Ummm, Yes, they are. Are you seriously saying that First graders are a serious threat to a person with a bolt action rifle? Once that person shots the adult in the room, there is literally nothing stopping him from killing the kids. Don't forget the shooter had at least 11, and probably more like 15 minutes, to shoot.

This just in, very often during crisis situations those who carry weapons cannot fire them accurately or even draw them in time


Well duh.  That's why nobody needs more than a 5 round magazine to shoot a home intruder.
 
2013-03-13 12:19:33 PM  
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/School_anti-bullying_legislation_in_the_ U nited_States

Just a quick wiki search. Yes, calling someone a name can now be a crime, all because liberal wusscakes are wuss. Not federal law, yet. State by state.
 
2013-03-13 12:23:38 PM  

MyKingdomForYourHorse: Giltric: It is a felony to purchase an NFA item without proper documentation and tax stamp from the ATF.

No problem, lets take a step out to the parking lot where you and I can conduct a private sale commit a federal felony.


FTFY
 
2013-03-13 12:24:26 PM  
d1vezy1iv2ypkg.cloudfront.net
 
2013-03-13 12:24:57 PM  

dittybopper: dr_blasto: dittybopper: Do you not think that additional fees and paperwork would impose a burden on specific classes of people and likely prevent them from owning a gun?

Possibly.

What I do believe is that the current and proposed gun laws don't seem like they address the real problems of gun violence. I can't think of any measure that would prevent another Sandy Hook/Aurora/Giffords/V.Tech shooting spree, but those events are thankfully rare.

The real gun violence problems remain unaddressed. The real problems relate to persistent support of black markets, poverty, domestic violence and suicide. All of these could be addressed without violating anyone's rights or restricting use.

So long as we continue to ignore the root causes, we will continue to have shootings. Magazine capacities, weapon-type bans, background checks, import restrictions and whatever else won't eliminate the 300 million guns floating around. They certainly won't change the motivations of drug dealers shooting each other over turf battles. None of those make it easy for severely depressed people get free professional medical care to ease the symptoms that are causing suicidal thoughts.

I agree wholeheartedly.


This is also my problem with the NRA. Their leadership is made up of individuals who are vehemently opposed to any actions regarding root causes; if not through their NRA service (outside of favoring Republicans in most cases where there's equal gun rights candidates), then through every other avenue they engage in their lobbying activities.

I would think that a pro-RKBA group would spend time proposing public policies that would reduce gun crimes, violence and other misuse instead of just "no way" in response to any proposed regulation. Proper lobbying could get things like the FOPA and GCA repealed and/or replaced with actual smart legislation. There's no valid argument I've seen that supports elimination of gun regs altogether, but I'd still like to the ones on the books actually perform a public service and not just make whomever wrote it feel good that they've "done something" even if that "something" doesn't address the problems they were trying to correct.
 
2013-03-13 12:25:29 PM  

tlars699: This text is now purple: tlars699: Who can afford to have a car just sit on their property with no intent to use it?

You can use the hell out of it.

Just not on public roads.

\think farmers.

Did not consider that. Why are there tractors on the roads, ever? wouldnt' the registration fees for those be cumbersome?


As long as they are travelling within a 25 mile distance of their home license and registration is not required. This may vary by state. farmers even get fuel that is tax free, and undyed. If you get caught driving a licensed road vehicle and the DOT dips your tanks and they find undyed "offroad" fuel it may be a bit of a problem.
 
2013-03-13 12:27:53 PM  

This text is now purple: MyKingdomForYourHorse: Everyone figured it would fall into that narrow scope of yes it failed this test, but passes this muster based on previous law.

What previous law held that you could censor political speech?


Gat a background check on this guy, ASAP.
 
2013-03-13 12:28:11 PM  

StoPPeRmobile: Deep Contact: StoPPeRmobile: I will only feel safe when all Constitutional rights are limited by registration and background checks.

Only rich people, cops, and criminals should posses guns.

Forgot politicians.

A long as the politician is rich, he may posses a gun.



Right, forgot they are all rich.
 
2013-03-13 12:29:27 PM  
theMightyRegeya: "Are they just counting on people to ignore the new laws and sell weapons anyway?  Are they counting background checks as a "guilty until proven innocent" situation?"

They're staking out extreme positions so that they can drag any final deal further toward their preferences than they could if they held and espoused a reasonable position.
Further, the extreme position allows them to rile up the extreme portion of the base, who are more likely to call their congresspeople, support primary challengers, etc - which gives them even further political leverage than if they'd stated a reasonable position.

It's just a political weapon.
 
2013-03-13 12:30:40 PM  
 
2013-03-13 12:31:15 PM  

dr_blasto: dittybopper: dr_blasto: dittybopper: Do you not think that additional fees and paperwork would impose a burden on specific classes of people and likely prevent them from owning a gun?

Possibly.

What I do believe is that the current and proposed gun laws don't seem like they address the real problems of gun violence. I can't think of any measure that would prevent another Sandy Hook/Aurora/Giffords/V.Tech shooting spree, but those events are thankfully rare.

The real gun violence problems remain unaddressed. The real problems relate to persistent support of black markets, poverty, domestic violence and suicide. All of these could be addressed without violating anyone's rights or restricting use.

So long as we continue to ignore the root causes, we will continue to have shootings. Magazine capacities, weapon-type bans, background checks, import restrictions and whatever else won't eliminate the 300 million guns floating around. They certainly won't change the motivations of drug dealers shooting each other over turf battles. None of those make it easy for severely depressed people get free professional medical care to ease the symptoms that are causing suicidal thoughts.

I agree wholeheartedly.

This is also my problem with the NRA. Their leadership is made up of individuals who are vehemently opposed to any actions regarding root causes; if not through their NRA service (outside of favoring Republicans in most cases where there's equal gun rights candidates), then through every other avenue they engage in their lobbying activities.

I would think that a pro-RKBA group would spend time proposing public policies that would reduce gun crimes, violence and other misuse instead of just "no way" in response to any proposed regulation. Proper lobbying could get things like the FOPA and GCA repealed and/or replaced with actual smart legislation. There's no valid argument I've seen that supports elimination of gun regs altogether, but I'd still like to the ones on the bo ...


That is the problem. Not a single proposal from Democrats will really do anything to curb gun violence. Nothing. In fact, the only real evidence shows at best, it will do nothing (previous assault weapons ban), at worst, it will increase gun violence (Hi Chicago!).

The only thing I can see working at all, is somehow making mentally screwed up people be flagged and denied upon a background check. Aurora and Sandy Hook shooters were loons, and known to be loons. Even then, dubious as to any law has the ability to stop them from getting weapons outside legal channels.
 
2013-03-13 12:33:41 PM  

Giltric: tlars699: This text is now purple: tlars699: Who can afford to have a car just sit on their property with no intent to use it?

You can use the hell out of it.

Just not on public roads.

\think farmers.

Did not consider that. Why are there tractors on the roads, ever? wouldnt' the registration fees for those be cumbersome?

As long as they are travelling within a 25 mile distance of their home license and registration is not required. This may vary by state. farmers even get fuel that is tax free, and undyed. If you get caught driving a licensed road vehicle and the DOT dips your tanks and they find undyed "offroad" fuel it may be a bit of a problem.


actually the "on road" does not contain dye and is yellow in color. the "off road" is dyed red
 
2013-03-13 12:35:20 PM  

dittybopper: Satanic_Hamster: The NRA;
For universal background checks before they were against them.

Nope.  At least as far as this debate goes, they were never for them.


Yes they were.  They as recently as seven years ago considered universal background checks to be completely legal and reasonable.

And yet now they're the agent of satan.
 
2013-03-13 12:36:25 PM  
California Seizes Guns as Owners Lose Right to Keep Arms
By Michael B. Marois & James Nash - Mar 12, 2013 3:06 PM ET
Bloomberg

Wearing bulletproof vests and carrying 40-caliber Glock pistols, nine California Justice Department agents assembled outside a ranch-style house in a suburb east of Los Angeles. They were looking for a gun owner who'd recently spent two days in a mental hospital.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-03-12/california-seizes-guns-as-o wn ers-lose-right-to-bear-arms.html
 
2013-03-13 12:36:53 PM  
 Molavian: Mr_Fabulous: dittybopper: That depends. Are computers killing 10,000 Americans every year?
 ----------------------------
Probably

And that, right there, is how self-deluded you have to be to argue on the side of the gun-nuts.

Computers. Are probably. Killing. 10,000 Americans every year.

You literally have to make yourself believe in absurdities to rationalize yourself into such a position.

You don't think our nation of lard-asses has been impacted by computers in any fashion?

Who's delusional?

I'd say that computers are probably responsible for more deaths than that, and are going to be responsible for epidemic levels of poor health in the next 20 years.


Don't forget all the mercury that is released in the air from all the coal that is burned to power those computers.
 
2013-03-13 12:39:16 PM  
I was going to volunteer to coach youth baseball until I found out that they wanted to do a background check. I told those commies to go to hell.
 
2013-03-13 12:39:56 PM  

JungleBoogie: [3.bp.blogspot.com image 320x183]

Wednesday March 13, 2013: Four dead at barber shop, car wash in upstate New York


Is this the same New York that had strict gun laws, and decided to go even further with them?
 
2013-03-13 12:41:15 PM  

Uranus Is Huge!: I was going to volunteer to coach youth baseball until I found out that they wanted to do a background check. I told those commies to go to hell.


Is there a constitutionally protected right to coach youth baseball?
 
2013-03-13 12:43:23 PM  

pedrop357: Is this the same New York that had strict gun laws, and decided to go even further with them?


On the bright side, none of them died from excessive soda.
 
2013-03-13 12:45:33 PM  

mysticcat: The NRA is going to lose on this one and they know it.  What they'll do is raise a big stink about background checks and hope to keep some other measures off the table.  I really hope they do go balls out against this.  I think it would further marginalize them.

Either way, the whole background checks issue will give them something to wharrgarrbl about for the next few years.


The statement about "hypotheticals" is hilarious.  They are actively involved in influencing, even creating, legislation.  They don't just issue an opinion on whatever laws are passed.

Oh, and fark the NRA

/gun owner


Marginalize them?  Most people who own guns generally support the NRA.  I think YOU are the odd one out.

FTA:  "With about 90 percent of the public calling for a comprehensive background check system..."

90 percent?  Citation needed...
 
2013-03-13 12:45:36 PM  

Thunderpipes: The only thing I can see working at all, is somehow making mentally screwed up people be flagged and denied upon a background check. Aurora and Sandy Hook shooters were loons, and known to be loons. Even then, dubious as to any law has the ability to stop them from getting weapons outside legal channels.

You mean like Dorner?

Background check for the military. Top secret is a bit more vigous of a check. Scared some of my teachers.

Background check when he became a cop.

Seems like background checks work.
 
2013-03-13 12:46:14 PM  

JungleBoogie: [3.bp.blogspot.com image 320x183]

Wednesday March 13, 2013: Four dead at barber shop, car wash in upstate New York


Most mass shootings are committed with handguns.


themoreyouknow.jpeg
 
2013-03-13 12:47:17 PM  

pedrop357: Uranus Is Huge!: I was going to volunteer to coach youth baseball until I found out that they wanted to do a background check. I told those commies to go to hell.

Is there a constitutionally protected right to coach youth baseball?


No, but there is the same presumption of guilt that some are arguing in this thread.
 
2013-03-13 12:48:05 PM  

RedT: SurfaceTension: My desires:

1. Universal background checks
2. Funding for the FBI to collect statistics on gun crimes so we know how often they are used in intentional shootings, accidental shootings, and self-defense.
3. Laws that say that if you purchase a gun, unless you sell the gun or report it stolen, if it is proven that that weapon was used in a crime, you are charged with a felony. That's even if you are not connected in any other way with the actual crime. (intended to reduce straw purchases)

And
4.  Strict Liability for Gun Owners (if your gun shoots someone you have liability regardless of your preventative measures (or lack thereof), just like if someone drowns in your pool)


yeah, that's not going to mesh well with the laws already on the books that free you of any criminal or civil liability for shooting someone in self defense or in accordance with Castle Laws.
 
2013-03-13 12:48:08 PM  
Sides A and B are at extremes of an issue.
Side A decides to compromise a bit on their position to reach a solution.
Side B uses this as fodder to 'prove' that side A is wrong, gets even more extreme in their views.
Eventual compromise more heavily favors B because side A compromised.

And that's how it works in the United States.

Here's a very simplified example.
You have 50 people want hamburgers, 50 people want pizza.
One person on the hamburger side says "I wouldn't mind having pizza half the time if it means we can have hamburgers half the time."
Pizza side claims victory because it's now 50.5 votes for pizza and 49.5 votes for hamburgers. EVERYONE gets pizza.
 
2013-03-13 12:49:11 PM  

tommygunner: Giltric: tlars699: This text is now purple: tlars699: Who can afford to have a car just sit on their property with no intent to use it?

You can use the hell out of it.

Just not on public roads.

\think farmers.

Did not consider that. Why are there tractors on the roads, ever? wouldnt' the registration fees for those be cumbersome?

As long as they are travelling within a 25 mile distance of their home license and registration is not required. This may vary by state. farmers even get fuel that is tax free, and undyed. If you get caught driving a licensed road vehicle and the DOT dips your tanks and they find undyed "offroad" fuel it may be a bit of a problem.

actually the "on road" does not contain dye and is yellow in color. the "off road" is dyed red


In my state the same fuel is red for my furnace, blue for my on road truck and clear or yellowish for my offroad use.

But maybe my supplier is colorblind.
 
2013-03-13 12:49:40 PM  

StoPPeRmobile: Thunderpipes: The only thing I can see working at all, is somehow making mentally screwed up people be flagged and denied upon a background check. Aurora and Sandy Hook shooters were loons, and known to be loons. Even then, dubious as to any law has the ability to stop them from getting weapons outside legal channels.You mean like Dorner?

Background check for the military. Top secret is a bit more vigous of a check. Scared some of my teachers.

Background check when he became a cop.

Seems like background checks work.


So you support background checks for free speech? You shouldn't be allowed to speak your mind unless the government okays that you're not a terrorist.
 
2013-03-13 12:50:30 PM  

StoPPeRmobile: Thunderpipes: The only thing I can see working at all, is somehow making mentally screwed up people be flagged and denied upon a background check. Aurora and Sandy Hook shooters were loons, and known to be loons. Even then, dubious as to any law has the ability to stop them from getting weapons outside legal channels.You mean like Dorner?

Background check for the military. Top secret is a bit more vigous of a check. Scared some of my teachers.

Background check when he became a cop.

Seems like background checks work.


You do realize, people can get weapons illegally? Heck, just ask Holder.

You will never stop gun crime. Even if you make weapons 100% illegal, there will be gun crime. banning guns is just treating the symptoms, not a solution to the problem. Problem is we have crappy people, and we are getting crappier every day because kids are taught to be asses.
 
2013-03-13 12:51:54 PM  
God I love this shiat.

We can enact laws that say that my 4th amendment rights are null and void because I live within 100 miles of a border (or I have traveled within 100 miles of a border) and you security nut, zombie apocalypse preparing mall ninja's are ok with that... Begrudgingly...  but I ask you to make sure someone isn't crazy as fark before you hand them something that can take away ALL my rights (Including that important one that says LIFE, Liberty, etc in it) and its HELL NO YOU CAN'T GIVE THE GOVERNMENT AUTHORITY TO IMPINGE ON MY RIGHTS YOU ASSHAT!


Pick a side you assholes.
 
2013-03-13 12:52:47 PM  

lennavan: Thunderpipes: Just answer one question libs.... (well, two)

How will your gun laws reduce gun crime?

Why don't our anti-murder laws stop murder?

1) Presumably by making access to guns (which make murdering people quite a bit easier) harder.  Whatever the method, gun laws have been proven to work by a variety of scientific studies.

2)  They do.  You think if murder was legal, we'd still have the same number?  Man you're dumb!

That was easy.


So how's that war on drugs going?
 
2013-03-13 12:53:12 PM  

CeroX: dittybopper: MyKingdomForYourHorse: dittybopper: The Bill of Rights isn't a la carte. You don't get to pick and chose what you want. If you seriously weaken the Second Amendment, you weaken *ALL* of the Bill of Rights, because people can say "Hey, we did it with *THIS* one, why can't we do it with the other one?".

Every right enumerated can be subjected to regulation and restriction from the 1st all the on through the rest.

Or have you forgotten how SCOTUS works?

Have you never heard of "Prior Restraint"?

Explain to me why having to get government permission to exercise your right to own a gun is different from getting government permission to publish something.

normally we some stuff in common, our love of firearms and bushcraft for example, so i am giving all due respect...

You have to get permission from the government to own and operate a vehicle and the process to do those is a lot more invasive than to own a firearm...


Not true.  There are several vehicles a person could buy and operate on private property that don't need any sort of permission from the government.  As far as operating on public roadways and property?  Sure.  Now let's juxtapose with weapons.  The background checks and training required in most states is very stringent for CCW, and yet, unlike my freedom to drive a car in any state in the US with my ND driver license, I can only carry in a handful of states with my ND CCW permit.  And the states I really want to be able to carry in will never allow it (I'm looking at you, New York and California.)
 
2013-03-13 12:53:14 PM  

tlars699: This text is now purple: tlars699: Who can afford to have a car just sit on their property with no intent to use it?

You can use the hell out of it.

Just not on public roads.

\think farmers.

Did not consider that. Why are there tractors on the roads, ever? wouldnt' the registration fees for those be cumbersome?


I believe there are exceptions for tractors going over-road short distances -- usually as an exception carved out because so many roads were run through existing farms. That said, it's not uncommon to see a tractor registration tag on the backs of those tractors.

But you don't need a tag if it stays in the fields.
 
2013-03-13 12:53:41 PM  

RedT: 4.  Strict Liability for Gun Owners (if your gun shoots someone you have liability regardless of your preventative measures (or lack thereof), just like if someone drowns in your pool)



There are already enough stupid strict liability laws with respect to guns thank you very much. Those laws are great at ruining the lives of people who did nothing wrong and with had no knowledge that their activity is unlawful. (Unless they are politically connected, then it's okay to break the law, even after being specifically told not to):
 assets.nydailynews.com
 
2013-03-13 12:54:31 PM  

Shadow Blasko: God I love this shiat.

We can enact laws that say that my 4th amendment rights are null and void because I live within 100 miles of a border (or I have traveled within 100 miles of a border) and you security nut, zombie apocalypse preparing mall ninja's are ok with that... Begrudgingly...  but I ask you to make sure someone isn't crazy as fark before you hand them something that can take away ALL my rights (Including that important one that says LIFE, Liberty, etc in it) and its HELL NO YOU CAN'T GIVE THE GOVERNMENT AUTHORITY TO IMPINGE ON MY RIGHTS YOU ASSHAT!


Pick a side you assholes.


How about not having either one?
 
2013-03-13 12:58:12 PM  

Dadoody: [images.topix.com image 480x480]


As soon as I find a loudly conservative person who is actually informed...
 
2013-03-13 12:58:37 PM  
And remember, to enforce any gun laws, the Democrats will surely give the ATF new rights to infringe on your 4th amendment protections. After all, have to be sure you have a gun safe, or don't own a bayonet, or whatever. Random home searches for anyone who has ever bought a gun, etc. For our "protection" of course.
 
2013-03-13 01:01:06 PM  

CthulhuCalling: RedT: SurfaceTension: My desires:

1. Universal background checks
2. Funding for the FBI to collect statistics on gun crimes so we know how often they are used in intentional shootings, accidental shootings, and self-defense.
3. Laws that say that if you purchase a gun, unless you sell the gun or report it stolen, if it is proven that that weapon was used in a crime, you are charged with a felony. That's even if you are not connected in any other way with the actual crime. (intended to reduce straw purchases)

And
4.  Strict Liability for Gun Owners (if your gun shoots someone you have liability regardless of your preventative measures (or lack thereof), just like if someone drowns in your pool)

yeah, that's not going to mesh well with the laws already on the books that free you of any criminal or civil liability for shooting someone in self defense or in accordance with Castle Laws.




Insurance companies could refuse insurance policies if you own a weapon.
 
2013-03-13 01:02:04 PM  

theMightyRegeya: Dadoody: [images.topix.com image 480x480]

As soon as I find a loudly conservative person who is actually informed...


In most cases I would agree with you, but when it comes to just about anything regarding guns, I'm sorry, but the left is just clueless.  I'm pretty liberal when it comes to most things, and while I'm no fan of the NRA or Republicans in general right now, I just want to cringe when lefties start talking about guns.
 
2013-03-13 01:02:39 PM  

Securitywyrm: StoPPeRmobile: Thunderpipes: The only thing I can see working at all, is somehow making mentally screwed up people be flagged and denied upon a background check. Aurora and Sandy Hook shooters were loons, and known to be loons. Even then, dubious as to any law has the ability to stop them from getting weapons outside legal channels.You mean like Dorner?

Background check for the military. Top secret is a bit more vigous of a check. Scared some of my teachers.

Background check when he became a cop.

Seems like background checks work.

So you support background checks for free speech? You shouldn't be allowed to speak your mind unless the government okays that you're not a terrorist.


Yes. Background checks for all rights. It's the only way we can be safe.
 
2013-03-13 01:02:47 PM  

MyKingdomForYourHorse: This text is now purple: What previous law held that you could censor political speech?

Buckley although it was narrowed in scope with McConnell vs FEC (yep, that McConnell)


But CU wasn't about advertising and it wasn't about spending limits. It was federal preemptive censorship of a movie exhibiting protected speech.
 
2013-03-13 01:02:56 PM  

FilmBELOH20: CeroX: dittybopper: MyKingdomForYourHorse: dittybopper: The Bill of Rights isn't a la carte. You don't get to pick and chose what you want. If you seriously weaken the Second Amendment, you weaken *ALL* of the Bill of Rights, because people can say "Hey, we did it with *THIS* one, why can't we do it with the other one?".

Every right enumerated can be subjected to regulation and restriction from the 1st all the on through the rest.

Or have you forgotten how SCOTUS works?

Have you never heard of "Prior Restraint"?

Explain to me why having to get government permission to exercise your right to own a gun is different from getting government permission to publish something.

normally we some stuff in common, our love of firearms and bushcraft for example, so i am giving all due respect...

You have to get permission from the government to own and operate a vehicle and the process to do those is a lot more invasive than to own a firearm...

Not true.  There are several vehicles a person could buy and operate on private property that don't need any sort of permission from the government.  As far as operating on public roadways and property?  Sure.  Now let's juxtapose with weapons.  The background checks and training required in most states is very stringent for CCW, and yet, unlike my freedom to drive a car in any state in the US with my ND driver license, I can only carry in a handful of states with my ND CCW permit.  And the states I really want to be able to carry in will never allow it (I'm looking at you, New York and California.)


Also the whole "There's no clause in the document that is the basis of our government that gives you the right to own or drive a car."
 
2013-03-13 01:03:46 PM  

Thunderpipes: And remember, to enforce any gun laws, the Democrats will surely give the ATF new rights to infringe on your 4th amendment protections. After all, have to be sure you have a gun safe, or don't own a bayonet, or whatever. Random home searches for anyone who has ever bought a gun, etc. For our "protection" of course.


Stop, that's a slippery slope that would never happen. Never.  I mean, sure it got into one state bill.  But we have been assured it was strictly accidental.
 
2013-03-13 01:03:50 PM  

StoPPeRmobile: Securitywyrm: StoPPeRmobile: Thunderpipes: The only thing I can see working at all, is somehow making mentally screwed up people be flagged and denied upon a background check. Aurora and Sandy Hook shooters were loons, and known to be loons. Even then, dubious as to any law has the ability to stop them from getting weapons outside legal channels.You mean like Dorner?

Background check for the military. Top secret is a bit more vigous of a check. Scared some of my teachers.

Background check when he became a cop.

Seems like background checks work.

So you support background checks for free speech? You shouldn't be allowed to speak your mind unless the government okays that you're not a terrorist.

Yes. Background checks for all rights. It's the only way we can be safe.


It won't make us safe, it'll just make people 'feel' safe, like the TSA.
 
2013-03-13 01:04:25 PM  

Giltric: farmers even get fuel that is tax free, and undyed.


So do I. "Home heating oil" is just undyed diesel.
 
2013-03-13 01:04:37 PM  

Thunderpipes: StoPPeRmobile: Thunderpipes: The only thing I can see working at all, is somehow making mentally screwed up people be flagged and denied upon a background check. Aurora and Sandy Hook shooters were loons, and known to be loons. Even then, dubious as to any law has the ability to stop them from getting weapons outside legal channels.You mean like Dorner?

Background check for the military. Top secret is a bit more vigous of a check. Scared some of my teachers.

Background check when he became a cop.

Seems like background checks work.

You do realize, people can get weapons illegally? Heck, just ask Holder.

You will never stop gun crime. Even if you make weapons 100% illegal, there will be gun crime. banning guns is just treating the symptoms, not a solution to the problem. Problem is we have crappy people, and we are getting crappier every day because kids are taught to be asses.


I already except that. That's why only rich people, cops, and criminals should be able to posses weapons.
 
2013-03-13 01:10:11 PM  

chapman: Thunderpipes: And remember, to enforce any gun laws, the Democrats will surely give the ATF new rights to infringe on your 4th amendment protections. After all, have to be sure you have a gun safe, or don't own a bayonet, or whatever. Random home searches for anyone who has ever bought a gun, etc. For our "protection" of course.

Stop, that's a slippery slope that would never happen. Never.  I mean, sure it got into one state bill.  But we have been assured it was strictly accidental.


Damn, I was only speculating. But I guess I should not be shocked. So the 4th amendment is already under siege by the left over gun control....

Wow.
 
2013-03-13 01:14:52 PM  
How would universal background checks even work? Complete registration of every single firearm in the country. Anything less and the law would amount to nothing.

It's a really shiatty idea that opens the door for confiscation, and trust me they're gunning for it.
http://www.examiner.com/article/new-york-governor-confiscation-of-gu ns -could-be-an-option
 
2013-03-13 01:18:44 PM  

GUTSU: How would universal background checks even work? Complete registration of every single firearm in the country. Anything less and the law would amount to nothing.

It's a really shiatty idea that opens the door for confiscation, and trust me they're gunning for it.
http://www.examiner.com/article/new-york-governor-confiscation-of-gu ns -could-be-an-option


Well...  This certainly isn't going to help...

http://www.uticaod.com/news/x930813837/2-people-reportedly-shot-at-H er kimer-car-wash?photo=0


Mohawk police have identified the man suspected of fatally shooting six and wounding two others as 64-year-old Kurt Myers of Mohawk.

Police have not yet apprehended Myers. State police expect to hold a news conference at the Herkimer barracks within the hour. Gov. Andrew Cuomo and State Police Superintendent Joseph D'Amico will be in attendance, police said.
 
2013-03-13 01:22:30 PM  

Securitywyrm: StoPPeRmobile: Securitywyrm: StoPPeRmobile: Thunderpipes: The only thing I can see working at all, is somehow making mentally screwed up people be flagged and denied upon a background check. Aurora and Sandy Hook shooters were loons, and known to be loons. Even then, dubious as to any law has the ability to stop them from getting weapons outside legal channels.You mean like Dorner?

Background check for the military. Top secret is a bit more vigous of a check. Scared some of my teachers.

Background check when he became a cop.

Seems like background checks work.

So you support background checks for free speech? You shouldn't be allowed to speak your mind unless the government okays that you're not a terrorist.

Yes. Background checks for all rights. It's the only way we can be safe.

It won't make us safe, it'll just make people 'feel' safe, like the TSA.


No building have been blown up since they were formed. Sounds like it works.
 
2013-03-13 01:22:57 PM  
Uh oh. He used a long gun.

Gotta ban em.

no idea what type, if assault weapon, just adds fuel to the fire. If not, adds a new fire that must be put out.
 
2013-03-13 01:23:47 PM  

This text is now purple: Giltric: farmers even get fuel that is tax free, and undyed.

So do I. "Home heating oil" is just undyed diesel.


That reminds me. We need to have background checks on people that have large amounts of heating oil. Just to be safe.
 
2013-03-13 01:24:28 PM  

StoPPeRmobile: Securitywyrm: StoPPeRmobile: Thunderpipes: The only thing I can see working at all, is somehow making mentally screwed up people be flagged and denied upon a background check. Aurora and Sandy Hook shooters were loons, and known to be loons. Even then, dubious as to any law has the ability to stop them from getting weapons outside legal channels.You mean like Dorner?

Background check for the military. Top secret is a bit more vigous of a check. Scared some of my teachers.

Background check when he became a cop.

Seems like background checks work.

So you support background checks for free speech? You shouldn't be allowed to speak your mind unless the government okays that you're not a terrorist.

Yes. Background checks for all rights. It's the only way we can be safe.


All rights are exactly the same today and should be subject to the same standards. So let's require registration to own a weapon, ID when showing up, and have limtiations on when and where guns can be used to protect the safety of others to match non 2nd ammendment limitations. Good idea.
 
2013-03-13 01:26:14 PM  
I'm glad <b>thuderpipes</b>, the admittedly irresponsible gun owner, is here to lecture us all on the 2nd Amendment.  Keep fighting the good fight!
 
2013-03-13 01:26:18 PM  

This text is now purple: Giltric: farmers even get fuel that is tax free, and undyed.

So do I. "Home heating oil" is just undyed diesel.


it is dyed red.
 
2013-03-13 01:26:33 PM  

SurfaceTension: 3. Laws that say that if you purchase a gun, unless you sell the gun or report it stolen, if it is proven that that weapon was used in a crime, you are charged with a felony. That's even if you are not connected in any other way with the actual crime. (intended to reduce straw purchases)


So if someone steals your car and kills someone in a drunk driving incident before your realize it's been stolen you should be held accountable?
 
2013-03-13 01:27:05 PM  

GUTSU: How would universal background checks even work? Complete registration of every single firearm in the country. Anything less and the law would amount to nothing.

It's a really shiatty idea that opens the door for confiscation, and trust me they're gunning for it.
http://www.examiner.com/article/new-york-governor-confiscation-of-gu ns -could-be-an-option


Ah yes the slippery slope logical fallacy. A solid go to. I used my psychic powers to predict this invalid argument about 50 posts ago.

Now please go on about Califnoria SKS. Make sure you read the history of it first so you can realize that legal weapons have never been confiscated, and even the illegal ones were reimbursed as a buyback program.
 
2013-03-13 01:28:17 PM  

Zulu_as_Kono: I'm glad <b>thuderpipes</b>, the admittedly irresponsible gun owner, is here to lecture us all on the 2nd Amendment.  Keep fighting the good fight!


What did he admit to that you deemed irresponsible?
 
2013-03-13 01:29:22 PM  

MyKingdomForYourHorse: dittybopper: I'm actually more likely to die early from inactivity related to posting on Fark than I am from the guns I own.

However, you have a higher chance of dying by a gun shot than someone like myself who owns no weapons. Stop being disingenuous.


Actually, I'm probably not.  At least not a significantly higher chance.

Don't forget that non-gun owners can be killed by guns also.  It's especially true in the case of homicide, and also significantly true of accidental gun deaths.

My homicide risk is very, very low.  Everyone's accidental gun death risk is very, very low.

Suicide really isn't a problem here, because I can't think of a circumstance where I would off myself.

Chances are, for all practical purposes, my risk is the same as yours, because both of our risk is very low.
 
2013-03-13 01:32:12 PM  

redmid17: What did he admit to that you deemed irresponsible?


dittybopper: So, what happens if someone steals my guns without me knowing? ... it wouldn't be all that hard to do, either

 
2013-03-13 01:32:33 PM  

justtray: GUTSU: How would universal background checks even work? Complete registration of every single firearm in the country. Anything less and the law would amount to nothing.

It's a really shiatty idea that opens the door for confiscation, and trust me they're gunning for it.
http://www.examiner.com/article/new-york-governor-confiscation-of-gu ns -could-be-an-option

Ah yes the slippery slope logical fallacy. A solid go to. I used my psychic powers to predict this invalid argument about 50 posts ago.

Now please go on about Califnoria SKS. Make sure you read the history of it first so you can realize that legal weapons have never been confiscated, and even the illegal ones were reimbursed as a buyback program.


You do realize that the NYPD used a registry made in the 60's to confiscate weapons in the 90's right? Also, how is it a "slippery slope" when the governor himself said "Confiscation could be an option" That's not me being paranoid, the guy who ramrodded the NY SAFE act into existence said that.
 
2013-03-13 01:32:36 PM  

CeroX: dittybopper: MyKingdomForYourHorse: dittybopper: The Bill of Rights isn't a la carte. You don't get to pick and chose what you want. If you seriously weaken the Second Amendment, you weaken *ALL* of the Bill of Rights, because people can say "Hey, we did it with *THIS* one, why can't we do it with the other one?".

Every right enumerated can be subjected to regulation and restriction from the 1st all the on through the rest.

Or have you forgotten how SCOTUS works?

Have you never heard of "Prior Restraint"?

Explain to me why having to get government permission to exercise your right to own a gun is different from getting government permission to publish something.

normally we some stuff in common, our love of firearms and bushcraft for example, so i am giving all due respect...

You have to get permission from the government to own and operate a vehicle and the process to do those is a lot more invasive than to own a firearm...


Rights, privileges, they're all the same.
 
2013-03-13 01:33:14 PM  
D'oh - just realized I got my gun guys mixed up.
 
2013-03-13 01:33:44 PM  

MyKingdomForYourHorse: This text is now purple: CU was a law against campaign finance butting into the 1st Amendment. It never had a chance.

Gore v. Bush was a ruling that an election has to be conducted according to the rules in place at its beginning -- it hardly sets a precedent for much of anything

Citizens ignored YEARS of case law and decisions previously and has dramatic consequences for the definition of scope regarding the enumeration of the 1st. No one saw that coming really.

And Gore v Bush was actually so unique that in the decision write up it was essentially said "Only this time and never going forward" to actually prevent and precedent from holding. Also something no one saw coming

justtray: The minimum standard for control will be background checks, registration, and liability for gun owners.

And really, most people could get on board with that. Its simple, sane, and effective. The only thing I would add is to increase the punishment for offenses to deter illegal purchases.


I'm for background checks....not registration or have to purchase liability insurance. Most legal gun owners are not the ones killing people randomly (look at inner city crime).
 
2013-03-13 01:34:15 PM  
This is a serious question ( i haven't read the entire thread)...

As a legal gun owner if I want to sell one of my guns to another individual how would I go about doing it?

Would I submit information to an internet database and wait for a reply?  Would I be forced to go to a retailer and entail an additional expense for the to do it?  I'm not even going to argue about it from a philosophical perspective only a functional.  I don't see how this is anything other than a money grab for either the Gov or brick and mortar gun stores.  I hate the idea that the only people that will ever be affected by any of this is already law abiding citizens.  There are laws in my state that make me a felon if I drive into the wrong municipality with a legal rifle legally secured in my trunk.

This is all straight up bullshiat.

/liberal, anti-nra, obama voter, cop hater...
 
2013-03-13 01:38:08 PM  

Giltric: This text is now purple: Giltric: farmers even get fuel that is tax free, and undyed.

So do I. "Home heating oil" is just undyed diesel.

it is dyed red.


You're right. Which I should have remembered, considering my old tank used to weep at the valve.

Anyone interested in a pie tin with 3 ounces of old diesel?
 
2013-03-13 01:38:31 PM  

ferretman: MyKingdomForYourHorse: This text is now purple: CU was a law against campaign finance butting into the 1st Amendment. It never had a chance.

Gore v. Bush was a ruling that an election has to be conducted according to the rules in place at its beginning -- it hardly sets a precedent for much of anything

Citizens ignored YEARS of case law and decisions previously and has dramatic consequences for the definition of scope regarding the enumeration of the 1st. No one saw that coming really.

And Gore v Bush was actually so unique that in the decision write up it was essentially said "Only this time and never going forward" to actually prevent and precedent from holding. Also something no one saw coming

justtray: The minimum standard for control will be background checks, registration, and liability for gun owners.

And really, most people could get on board with that. Its simple, sane, and effective. The only thing I would add is to increase the punishment for offenses to deter illegal purchases.

I'm for background checks....not registration or have to purchase liability insurance. Most legal gun owners are not the ones killing people randomly (look at inner city crime).


So then why are you opposed to it?
 
2013-03-13 01:38:42 PM  

Father_Jack: Mark Ratner: Background checks still wouldn't have stopped the Sandy Hook shooting.

she shouldve had her weapons in a safe, as i recall. that wouldve done it.

dittybopper coming up with hypothetical use cases as to why BG checks or legislation against straw purchases is no good is unconvincing. There are always use cases where legislation, when its discussed in bullet point format, will fail. thats why laws are so complicated and debated by lawyers and have so many sub clauses etc etc...

coming up with a hypothetical scenario where something may fail is not rhetorically convincing. Nor is it pragmatic, it just makes one appear obstructionist.

 i have a safe full of C&R weapons. I check the safe ... a lot. I love cleaning stuff, checking for rust.. if someone broke into my house and robbed my safe youre damn straight id know about it in a day, and so would you. Not wanting to try to strengthen safeguards against straw purchases because "someone might become a victim if their stuff is robbed while theyre on vacation" is pretty easily fixed, you have a provisional clause in the law which states if the owner can prove he was on vacay at the time of the theft/crime its not applicable. or something like this.

indeed, while firearm ownership is a RIGHT it is also a huge RESPONSIBILITY, and if we want to exercise our rights in this regard, this has responsibilities attached to it, too. And if you have the Right to own a gun, we must accept the responsibility to secure it so mentally deranged and thieves cant steal them and commit crimes with them. And if they do, and we are unaware of the guns being stolen, thats negligence. If you have a collection, its your responsibility to know whats up with it and keep it inventoried.


I was with you until you used "vacay". That is unforgivable and you should feel bad.
 
2013-03-13 01:40:04 PM  

Zulu_as_Kono: redmid17: What did he admit to that you deemed irresponsible?

dittybopper: So, what happens if someone steals my guns without me knowing? ... it wouldn't be all that hard to do, either


So now Dittybopper is Thunderpipes? Frankly I haven't opened my gun safe in over a month and haven't removed my guns in probably closer to 4, since deer season was over just after thanksgiving. I'm the only one with a key to my gun safe, but if someone had jimmied the lock on it I probably wouldn't know. It's not that uncommon for gun owners to leave them locked up for long periods. It's not as if we sit on the couch stroking them while watching The Walking Dead. I clean my guns before I go shooting or hunting and clean them afterward. That's pretty much the extent of me checking on my guns. They are closed with a breech lock inside of a locked gun safe inside of a locked apartment. Leaving guns out in the open is irresponsible, but not constantly checking on locked up guns is definitely not reaching that threshold.
 
2013-03-13 01:40:16 PM  

GUTSU: justtray: GUTSU: How would universal background checks even work? Complete registration of every single firearm in the country. Anything less and the law would amount to nothing.

It's a really shiatty idea that opens the door for confiscation, and trust me they're gunning for it.
http://www.examiner.com/article/new-york-governor-confiscation-of-gu ns -could-be-an-option

Ah yes the slippery slope logical fallacy. A solid go to. I used my psychic powers to predict this invalid argument about 50 posts ago.

Now please go on about Califnoria SKS. Make sure you read the history of it first so you can realize that legal weapons have never been confiscated, and even the illegal ones were reimbursed as a buyback program.

You do realize that the NYPD used a registry made in the 60's to confiscate weapons in the 90's right? Also, how is it a "slippery slope" when the governor himself said "Confiscation could be an option" That's not me being paranoid, the guy who ramrodded the NY SAFE act into existence said that.


Provide a citation for confiscation happening. Needless to say, I believe you're being totally dishonest.

As for saying something could be an option, the sun exploding and killing us all tomorrow is also an option, doesnt mean it will. Lets focus on real things.
 
2013-03-13 01:41:55 PM  

Giant Clown Shoe: This is a serious question ( i haven't read the entire thread)...

As a legal gun owner if I want to sell one of my guns to another individual how would I go about doing it?

Would I submit information to an internet database and wait for a reply?  Would I be forced to go to a retailer and entail an additional expense for the to do it?  I'm not even going to argue about it from a philosophical perspective only a functional.  I don't see how this is anything other than a money grab for either the Gov or brick and mortar gun stores.  I hate the idea that the only people that will ever be affected by any of this is already law abiding citizens.  There are laws in my state that make me a felon if I drive into the wrong municipality with a legal rifle legally secured in my trunk.

This is all straight up bullshiat.

/liberal, anti-nra, obama voter, cop hater...


Theoretically Illinois state law and federal law are supposed to trump those municipal restrictions, but that's not much consolation when CPD has you face down on the street for having an unloaded rifle inside a case in your trunk.
 
2013-03-13 01:43:28 PM  

justtray: Now please go on about Califnoria SKS. Make sure you read the history of it first so you can realize that legal weapons have never been confiscated, and even the illegal ones were reimbursed as a buyback program.


Well, now you're just playing fast and lose with things and trying to put one over on people.  True, no "legal" SKS rifles were ever confiscated.  That's because California changed their mind on what was a "legal" weapon, then confiscated them.

California passed the Roberti-Roos Assault Weapons Control Act, which made SKS model rifles with detachable magazines illegal to sell, but legal to own... if you were stupid enough to register them with the state.  Of course, the California government being composed of people that know nothing at all about firearms, they never realized the difference between a fixed magazine SKS and a detachable magazine SKS is a flat headed screwdriver.   One embarrassing legal loss to James Dingman later, Calif passed AB 48, which theoretically gave immunity to people that Cali had confused as criminals because they didn't know squat about firearms... then in 1997 promptly said, "Oops, nevermind... they're illegal after all, turn them in immediately."

So yes, you are right... sort of.  No "legal" guns were ever seized.  They were all declared illegal, then the poor saps who were stupid enough to register them had to turn them all in or be arrested.

And yes, that does mean that registration has led to confiscation in the United States.
 
2013-03-13 01:45:08 PM  

Giant Clown Shoe: This is a serious question ( i haven't read the entire thread)...

As a legal gun owner if I want to sell one of my guns to another individual how would I go about doing it?

Would I submit information to an internet database and wait for a reply?  Would I be forced to go to a retailer and entail an additional expense for the to do it?  I'm not even going to argue about it from a philosophical perspective only a functional.  I don't see how this is anything other than a money grab for either the Gov or brick and mortar gun stores.  I hate the idea that the only people that will ever be affected by any of this is already law abiding citizens.  There are laws in my state that make me a felon if I drive into the wrong municipality with a legal rifle legally secured in my trunk.

This is all straight up bullshiat.

/liberal, anti-nra, obama voter, cop hater...


Use an FFL if you are concerned. No guarantees though.
 
2013-03-13 01:45:30 PM  

jafiwam: EVERY SINGLE COP I HAVE EVER MET

and I've met them ALL

Right?

So FTFY.

/ WTF is wife-like typing?
 
2013-03-13 01:46:37 PM  

TheShavingofOccam123: Here's the delineation of Congressional powers regarding the militia,quoted directly from the Constitution:

To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;
 To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

Seems like the Constitution grants all kinds of controls to Congress and to the States.



Govern:


1. to rule over by right of authority: to govern a nation.
2. to exercise a directing or restraining influence over; guide: the motives governing a decision.
3. to hold in check; control: to govern one's temper.
4. to serve as or constitute a law for: the principles governing a case.

It would seem clear that the "governing" clause (above) was intended to apply ONLY to those "employed in the Service of the United States", and not to the People at large.

And when the above is juxtaposed to the language of the Second Amendment, it would seem obvious that the right of THE PEOPLE to keep and bear arms is not tied to "The Militia" at all.

If it were, the Second Amendment would be redundant, would it not?
 
2013-03-13 01:51:09 PM  

Zulu_as_Kono: redmid17: What did he admit to that you deemed irresponsible?

dittybopper: So, what happens if someone steals my guns without me knowing? ... it wouldn't be all that hard to do, either


How would that be irresponsible?

Would it be irresponsible for you not to know if someone stole your car while you were on vacation?

Unless you also require very expensive gun safes as a condition of ownership, there is a real possibility that someone who owns a gun might not notice it missing, especially if they don't shoot it a lot.
 
2013-03-13 01:51:45 PM  

Amos Quito: TheShavingofOccam123: Here's the delineation of Congressional powers regarding the militia,quoted directly from the Constitution:

To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;
 To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

Seems like the Constitution grants all kinds of controls to Congress and to the States.


Govern:


1. to rule over by right of authority: to govern a nation.
2. to exercise a directing or restraining influence over; guide: the motives governing a decision.
3. to hold in check; control: to govern one's temper.
4. to serve as or constitute a law for: the principles governing a case.

It would seem clear that the "governing" clause (above) was intended to apply ONLY to those "employed in the Service of the United States", and not to the People at large.

And when the above is juxtaposed to the language of the Second Amendment, it would seem obvious that the right of THE PEOPLE to keep and bear arms is not tied to "The Militia" at all.

If it were, the Second Amendment would be redundant, would it not?




Meh, "Commerce Clause."
 
2013-03-13 01:52:25 PM  

In 1967 NYC, mayor John V. Lindsay signed into law a "long gun registration ordinance." Under that law, every citizen who possessed or would later possess any rifle or shotgun within the five boroughs of New York City was required to register it by make, model and serial number, and obtain an "inexpensive permit" to possess it. The fee was set at a modest $3.00, which figure City Councilman Theodore Weiss, sponsor of the bill, with great sincerity pledged would never be raised, and that the municipality would always bear the brunt of the actual costs of administering the law. In an effort to allay firearms owners' fear of registration, The New York Times, never a friend to firearms-owners, editorially assured everyone that the bill:

...would protect the constitutional rights of owners and buyers. The purpose of registration would not be to prohibit but to control dangerous weapons.
 Interestingly, just after the bill became law, a 16 December 1967 Times editorial entitled Encouraging Rifle Registration opposed the Mayor's proposed amendments to increase the fee to $10.00, or to $25.00 as he had originally proposed, expressing concern that...

...too-high license fees right off the bat would undermine effective operation of the law. The idea is to get maximum registration for the public safety.
The onimous hint of what was to come, of course, is in the phrase "right off the bat," and should have raised alarms that this was indeed, in an expression made infamous 30 years later by anti-gun politico Charles Schumer, the "camel's nose under the tent," for the fee had as if by dark wizardry escalated to $55.

Most significantly, just before the registration bill became law, one-time (1962) U.S. District Attorney for the Southern District of New York and former New York City Police Commissioner Vincent L. Broderick, who was later given a federal judgeship (U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York in 1976), testified at a City Council committee hearing on the legislation that the philosophy underlying the bill was "all wrong," since in Broderick's view, it assumed that all law-abiding citizens somehow had a "right to own shotguns or rifles," adding:


There should be no right to possess a firearm of any sort in 20th Century New York City, and unless good and sufficient reason is shown by an applicant, permission to possess a gun should not be granted.2
Most significantly, just before the registration bill became law, one-time (1962) U.S. District Attorney for the Southern District of New York and former New York City Police Commissioner Vincent L. Broderick, who was later given a federal judgeship (U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York in 1976), testified at a City Council committee hearing on the legislation that the philosophy underlying the bill was "all wrong," since in Broderick's view, it assumed that all law-abiding citizens somehow had a "right to own shotguns or rifles," adding: "There should be no right to possess a firearm of any sort in 20th Century New York City, and unless good and sufficient reason is shown by an applicant, permission to possess a gun should not be granted."


Fast forward to 1991 when the New York City Council, at the urging of Mayor David N. Dinkins, passed, and the Mayor signed into law, New York City Administrative Code, Sec. 10-303.1, an out-and-out prohibition on the private possession of certain semi-automatic rifles and shotguns... namely, various imitation or look-alike "assault" firearms. The ban was flat in the sense that it applied regardless of reason or need for the firearm... and it was passed despite then-Police Commissioner Lee P. Brown's testimony that no "assault weapon" registered with the Firearms Control Bureau had been used in a violent crime in New York City. Mayor Dinkins' response to that bit of information was that he wanted "to send a message."

New York City firearms owners' message back to Dinkins was the chant "We complied, you lied!" Then they made sure he was a one-term mayor.

The year following the enactment of the prohibition, a man's home in Staten Island was raided by the police after he had announced that he would not comply with the city's ban. He was arrested, "an arsenal of firearms" were seized, and a New York City Police Department spokesman rationalized its actions against the citizen by citing his defiance as proof that he was unfit to possess firearms, telling The New York Daily News:


...obviously, someone like that shouldn't be allowed to have guns!
 NYPD had notified some (but, inexplicably, not all!) of the 2,340 New Yorkers who had been licensed earlier to possess semi-automatic rifles and shotguns that any of those licensed firearms that were covered by the ban had to be surrendered, rendered inoperable or physically removed from the city. The recipients of the notification were directed to send back a sworn statement indicating what had been done with those firearms.

 The department subsequently announced that the majority... 2,615 out of 3,360... of these previously-registered faux "assault firearms" had been taken out of the city. In addition, Jeremy Travis, NYPD's Deputy Commissioner of Legal Matters, told The Daily News:


...for now, the department is taking owners at their word, but spot checks are planned

New York City Administrative Code, Sec. 10-303.1:

Prohibition of the possession or disposition of .


It shall be unlawful for any person to possess or dispose of any assault weapon within the city of New York, except as provided in subdivision d, e or f of this section or section 10-305. A person who peaceably surrenders an assault weapon to the commissioner pursuant to subdivision d, e or f of this section or subdivision f of section 10-305 shall not be subject to the criminal or civil penalties set forth in this section.Criminal penalty. Any person who shall violate subdivision a of this section shall be guilty of an unclassified misdemeanor punishable by a fine of not more than five thousand dollars or by imprisonment of up to one year, or by both fine and imprisonment, for each assault weapon disposed of or possessed, provided that the first violation of subdivision a of this section involving possession of an assault weapon as defined in paragraph c of subdivision 16 of section 10-301 shall be an offense punishable by a fine of not more than three hundred dollars or imprisonment of not more than fifteen days, or both, on condition that (1) such first violation is not in conjunction with the commission of a crime and (2) the possessor has not been previously convicted of a felony or a serious offense.Civil penalty. In addition to the penalties prescribed in subdivision b of this section, any person who shall violate subdivision a of this section shall be liable for a civil penalty of not more than ten thousand dollars for each assault weapon disposed of or possessed, to be recovered in a civil action brought by the corporation counsel in the name of the city in any court of competent jurisdiction, provided that the first violation by any person of subdivision a of this section involving possession of an assault weapon as defined in paragraph c of subdivision 16 of section 10-301 shall subject such person to a civil penalty of not more than one thousand dollars on condition that (1) such first violation is not in conjunction with the commission of a crime and (2) the possessor has not been previously convicted of a felony or a serious offense.http://www.thegunzone.com/rkba/rkba-34.html
 
2013-03-13 01:52:48 PM  

way south: weave: Damn it. I got all excited, thinking I was actually seeing a compromise

An oldie but goodie from a few compromises ago :


/I'd say if people want another gun control compromise, they should consider giving something back first.


That was awesome.
 
2013-03-13 01:54:49 PM  

MyKingdomForYourHorse: Have you forgotten about Time, Place, and Manner regulations regarding the 1st?


I especially like how earlier examples of the slippery-slope effect are used to justify later ones.  That's downright skillful.
 
2013-03-13 01:56:01 PM  

StoPPeRmobile: Securitywyrm: StoPPeRmobile: Securitywyrm: StoPPeRmobile: Thunderpipes: The only thing I can see working at all, is somehow making mentally screwed up people be flagged and denied upon a background check. Aurora and Sandy Hook shooters were loons, and known to be loons. Even then, dubious as to any law has the ability to stop them from getting weapons outside legal channels.You mean like Dorner?

Background check for the military. Top secret is a bit more vigous of a check. Scared some of my teachers.

Background check when he became a cop.

Seems like background checks work.

So you support background checks for free speech? You shouldn't be allowed to speak your mind unless the government okays that you're not a terrorist.

Yes. Background checks for all rights. It's the only way we can be safe.

It won't make us safe, it'll just make people 'feel' safe, like the TSA.

No building have been blown up since they were formed. Sounds like it works.


I haven't been attacked by a tiger since I started wearing Super Tiger Repellent spray. Would you like to buy some?
 
2013-03-13 01:58:13 PM  

Click Click D'oh: justtray: Now please go on about Califnoria SKS. Make sure you read the history of it first so you can realize that legal weapons have never been confiscated, and even the illegal ones were reimbursed as a buyback program.

Well, now you're just playing fast and lose with things and trying to put one over on people.  True, no "legal" SKS rifles were ever confiscated.  That's because California changed their mind on what was a "legal" weapon, then confiscated them.

California passed the Roberti-Roos Assault Weapons Control Act, which made SKS model rifles with detachable magazines illegal to sell, but legal to own... if you were stupid enough to register them with the state.  Of course, the California government being composed of people that know nothing at all about firearms, they never realized the difference between a fixed magazine SKS and a detachable magazine SKS is a flat headed screwdriver.   One embarrassing legal loss to James Dingman later, Calif passed AB 48, which theoretically gave immunity to people that Cali had confused as criminals because they didn't know squat about firearms... then in 1997 promptly said, "Oops, nevermind... they're illegal after all, turn them in immediately."

So yes, you are right... sort of.  No "legal" guns were ever seized.  They were all declared illegal, then the poor saps who were stupid enough to register them had to turn them all in or be arrested.

And yes, that does mean that registration has led to confiscation in the United States.


Other than your entire story above being false, you make a strong point.

The only guns that were bought back were purchased after the ban went into effect or were not registered before the ban went into effect.

Good try though.
 
2013-03-13 02:01:07 PM  

justtray: ferretman: MyKingdomForYourHorse: This text is now purple: CU was a law against campaign finance butting into the 1st Amendment. It never had a chance.

Gore v. Bush was a ruling that an election has to be conducted according to the rules in place at its beginning -- it hardly sets a precedent for much of anything

Citizens ignored YEARS of case law and decisions previously and has dramatic consequences for the definition of scope regarding the enumeration of the 1st. No one saw that coming really.

And Gore v Bush was actually so unique that in the decision write up it was essentially said "Only this time and never going forward" to actually prevent and precedent from holding. Also something no one saw coming

justtray: The minimum standard for control will be background checks, registration, and liability for gun owners.

And really, most people could get on board with that. Its simple, sane, and effective. The only thing I would add is to increase the punishment for offenses to deter illegal purchases.

I'm for background checks....not registration or have to purchase liability insurance. Most legal gun owners are not the ones killing people randomly (look at inner city crime).

So then why are you opposed to it?


One of us is confused....I have never stated I was against background checks (had to do it myself....think it makes common sense).
 
2013-03-13 02:01:20 PM  

Securitywyrm: StoPPeRmobile: Securitywyrm: StoPPeRmobile: Securitywyrm: StoPPeRmobile: Thunderpipes: The only thing I can see working at all, is somehow making mentally screwed up people be flagged and denied upon a background check. Aurora and Sandy Hook shooters were loons, and known to be loons. Even then, dubious as to any law has the ability to stop them from getting weapons outside legal channels.You mean like Dorner?

Background check for the military. Top secret is a bit more vigous of a check. Scared some of my teachers.

Background check when he became a cop.

Seems like background checks work.

So you support background checks for free speech? You shouldn't be allowed to speak your mind unless the government okays that you're not a terrorist.

Yes. Background checks for all rights. It's the only way we can be safe.

It won't make us safe, it'll just make people 'feel' safe, like the TSA.

No building have been blown up since they were formed. Sounds like it works.

I haven't been attacked by a tiger since I started wearing Super Tiger Repellent spray. Would you like to buy some?


Notice how I mentioned Dorner as an example of multiple background checks?

Of course I'll buy your Super Tiger Repellent spray. You can never be too careful. If we can save just one child from Super Duper Tigers I say it's all worth it. Maybe you can get a law enacted, requiring training, background checks, and licensing before obtaining Super Duper Tiger repellent. It's really the only way to be safe.
 
2013-03-13 02:04:34 PM  

GUTSU: In 1967 NYC, mayor John V. Lindsay signed into law a "long gun registration ordinance." Under that law, every citizen who possessed or would later possess any rifle or shotgun within the five boroughs of New York City was required to register it by make, model and serial number, and obtain an "inexpensive permit" to possess it. The fee was set at a modest $3.00, which figure City Councilman Theodore Weiss, sponsor of the bill, with great sincerity pledged would never be raised, and that the municipality would always bear the brunt of the actual costs of administering the law. In an effort to allay firearms owners' fear of registration, The New York Times, never a friend to firearms-owners, editorially assured everyone that the bill:

...would protect the constitutional rights of owners and buyers. The purpose of registration would not be to prohibit but to control dangerous weapons. Interestingly, just after the bill became law, a 16 December 1967 Times editorial entitled Encouraging Rifle Registration opposed the Mayor's proposed amendments to increase the fee to $10.00, or to $25.00 as he had originally proposed, expressing concern that...

...too-high license fees right off the bat would undermine effective operation of the law. The idea is to get maximum registration for the public safety.The onimous hint of what was to come, of course, is in the phrase "right off the bat," and should have raised alarms that this was indeed, in an expression made infamous 30 years later by anti-gun politico Charles Schumer, the "camel's nose under the tent," for the fee had as if by dark wizardry escalated to $55.

Most significantly, just before the registration bill became law, one-time (1962) U.S. District Attorney for the Southern District of New York and former New York City Police Commissioner Vincent L. Broderick, who was later given a federal judgeship (U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York in 1976), testified at a City Council committee hearing on th ...


Interesting history lesson. Not exactly confiscation though, except the one Law abiding gun owner who said he would disobey the law. Can't really be too mad at that.

No one who wasnt registered was off the hook, if their weapons were found in their possession they too would be prosecuted, so there is only a tangental relationship at best that doesnt really prove your argument that registration leads to confiscation.
 
2013-03-13 02:04:48 PM  

Zulu_as_Kono: D'oh - just realized I got my gun guys mixed up.


How could you confuse me with anyone else?
 
2013-03-13 02:08:39 PM  

dittybopper: Zulu_as_Kono: D'oh - just realized I got my gun guys mixed up.

How could you confuse me with anyone else?


You mean Army Vets who can make their bow and arrow and compete in primitive biathalons aren't common on Fark?

For shame!
 
2013-03-13 02:12:23 PM  

redmid17: Leaving guns out in the open is irresponsible,


So is leaving them where stealing them "wouldn't be all that hard to do".

dittybopper: How would that be irresponsible?


Allow me to move the ellipses.

what happens if someone steals my guns ... it wouldn't be all that hard to do, either

You keep your guns where it wouldn't be all that hard for someone to steal them and call yourself responsible?
 
2013-03-13 02:12:35 PM  

ferretman: justtray: ferretman: MyKingdomForYourHorse: This text is now purple: CU was a law against campaign finance butting into the 1st Amendment. It never had a chance.

Gore v. Bush was a ruling that an election has to be conducted according to the rules in place at its beginning -- it hardly sets a precedent for much of anything

Citizens ignored YEARS of case law and decisions previously and has dramatic consequences for the definition of scope regarding the enumeration of the 1st. No one saw that coming really.

And Gore v Bush was actually so unique that in the decision write up it was essentially said "Only this time and never going forward" to actually prevent and precedent from holding. Also something no one saw coming

justtray: The minimum standard for control will be background checks, registration, and liability for gun owners.

And really, most people could get on board with that. Its simple, sane, and effective. The only thing I would add is to increase the punishment for offenses to deter illegal purchases.

I'm for background checks....not registration or have to purchase liability insurance. Most legal gun owners are not the ones killing people randomly (look at inner city crime).

So then why are you opposed to it?

One of us is confused....I have never stated I was against background checks (had to do it myself....think it makes common sense).


I was referring to registration and liability insurance.
 
2013-03-13 02:13:18 PM  

redmid17: dittybopper: Zulu_as_Kono: D'oh - just realized I got my gun guys mixed up.

How could you confuse me with anyone else?

You mean Army Vets who can make their bow and arrow and compete in primitive biathalons aren't common on Fark?

For shame!


Technically, I haven't made a bow yet.  I do make the arrows myself, though.
 
2013-03-13 02:15:43 PM  

redmid17: dittybopper: Zulu_as_Kono: D'oh - just realized I got my gun guys mixed up.

How could you confuse me with anyone else?

You mean Army Vets who can make their bow and arrow and compete in primitive biathalons aren't common on Fark?

For shame!


Actually, I know another guy that *exactly* fits the description.  He doesn't post much though.
 
2013-03-13 02:16:38 PM  

justtray: The only guns that were bought back were purchased after the ban went into effect or were not registered before the ban went into effect.


In the event of making things up, please attempt to make sure that the actual law is not readily available:

http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id= 19 9719980AB48

The people of the State of California do enact as follows:SECTION 1. Section 12281 is added to the Penal Code, to read:
12281. (a)  Any person who, or firm, company, or corporation that, operated a retail or other commercial firm, company, or corporation, and manufactured, distributed, transported, imported, possessed, possessed for sale, offered for sale, or transferred, for commercial purpose, an SKS rifle in California between January 1, 1992, and December 19, 1997, shall be immune from criminal prosecution under Section 12280. The immunity provided in this subdivision shall apply retroactively to any person who, or firm, company, or corporation that, is or was charged by complaint or indictment with a violation of Section 12280 for conduct related to an SKS rifle, whether or not the case of that person, firm, company, or corporation is final.(b)  Any person who possessed, gave, loaned, or transferred an SKS rifle in California between January 1, 1992, and December 19, 1997, shall be immune from criminal prosecution under Section 12280. The immunity provided in this subdivision shall apply retroactively to any person who was charged by complaint or indictment with a violation of Section 12280 for conduct related to an SKS rifle, whether or not the case of that person is final.(c)  Any SKS rifle in the possession of any person who, or firm, company, or corporation that, is described in subdivision (a) or (b), shall not be subject to seizure by law enforcement for violation of Section 12280 prior to January 1, 2000.(d)  Any person, firm, company, or corporation, convicted under Section 12280 for conduct relating to an SKS rifle, shall be permitted to withdraw his or her plea of guilty or nolo contendere, or to reopen his or her case and assert the immunities provided in this section, if the court determines that the allowance of the immunity is in the interests of justice. The court shall interpret this section liberally to the benefit of the defendant.(e)  The Department of Justice shall notify all district attorneys on or before January 31, 1999, of the provisions of this section. The department shall identify all criminal prosecutions in the state for conduct related to SKS rifles within 90 days of the effective date of this section. In all cases so identified by the Attorney General, the district attorneys shall inform defense counsel, or the defendant if the defendant is in propria persona, in writing, of the provisions of this section within 120 days of the effective date of this section.(f)  (1)  Any person, firm, company, or corporation that is in possession of an SKS rifle shall do one of the following on or before January 1, 2000:(A)  Relinquish the SKS rifle to the Department of Justice pursuant to subdivision (h).(B)  Relinquish the SKS rifle to a law enforcement agency pursuant to Section 12288.(C)  Dispose of the SKS rifle as permitted by Section 12285.


Notice the part up top is one giant "oops, yeah, that wasn't illegal, we aren't charging you" and the bottom part (underlined) is confiscation.
And in case you were wondering if there was some ambiguity of the term "SKS", they went ahead and defined that for us:

 Notwithstanding paragraph (11) of subdivision (a) of Section 12276, an "SKS rifle" under this section means all SKS rifles commonly referred to as "SKS Sporter" versions, manufactured to accept a detachable AK-47 magazine and imported into this state and sold by a licensed gun dealer, or otherwise lawfully possessed in this state by a resident of this state who is not a licensed gun dealer, between January 1, 1992, and December 19, 1997.

Note the underlined part, where they flat out admit they are confiscating lawfully owned firearms... which FYI, meant they were registered in order to be lawfully possessed.

Want to try again how California didn't set up registration then confiscate the registered firearms?
 
2013-03-13 02:16:53 PM  

Zulu_as_Kono: redmid17: Leaving guns out in the open is irresponsible,

So is leaving them where stealing them "wouldn't be all that hard to do".

dittybopper: How would that be irresponsible?

Allow me to move the ellipses.

what happens if someone steals my guns ... it wouldn't be all that hard to do, either

You keep your guns where it wouldn't be all that hard for someone to steal them and call yourself responsible?


Define leaving them where stealing them wouldn't be all that hard to do? For someone to get and use my guns they would have to break into my apartment, break into my gun safe, and then get some bolt cutters and cut off the breech locks. If guns are locked up, that's pretty much the end of the story. If someone has to commit a crime to get your guns, there is no way liability should fall on you.
 
2013-03-13 02:20:05 PM  

Mugato: dittybopper: Bad idea. Very bad idea. That turns what is an enumerated right into a government granted privilege. Would you argue the same thing for a computer and internet connection? That you must get government permission to post on the internet so that they know you aren't a subversive? Or how about requiring a background check before you can assert your rights under the Fourth and Fifth Amendments? How requiring government approval prior to getting an abortion?

You're already not allowed to buy a gun if you're a felon. That's already on the books. So WTF are you talking about?


That was an adjudicated restriction of your rights. A judge and jury decided the rights of the convicted warranted a restriction as a result of a crime that was committed.

That is vastly different than the legislative branch making up rules that impose a restriction of rights on people who have not been convicted of any crime.
 
2013-03-13 02:20:44 PM  

justtray: GUTSU: In 1967 NYC, mayor John V. Lindsay signed into law a "long gun registration ordinance." Under that law, every citizen who possessed or would later possess any rifle or shotgun within the five boroughs of New York City was required to register it by make, model and serial number, and obtain an "inexpensive permit" to possess it. The fee was set at a modest $3.00, which figure City Councilman Theodore Weiss, sponsor of the bill, with great sincerity pledged would never be raised, and that the municipality would always bear the brunt of the actual costs of administering the law. In an effort to allay firearms owners' fear of registration, The New York Times, never a friend to firearms-owners, editorially assured everyone that the bill:

...would protect the constitutional rights of owners and buyers. The purpose of registration would not be to prohibit but to control dangerous weapons. Interestingly, just after the bill became law, a 16 December 1967 Times editorial entitled Encouraging Rifle Registration opposed the Mayor's proposed amendments to increase the fee to $10.00, or to $25.00 as he had originally proposed, expressing concern that...

...too-high license fees right off the bat would undermine effective operation of the law. The idea is to get maximum registration for the public safety.The onimous hint of what was to come, of course, is in the phrase "right off the bat," and should have raised alarms that this was indeed, in an expression made infamous 30 years later by anti-gun politico Charles Schumer, the "camel's nose under the tent," for the fee had as if by dark wizardry escalated to $55.

Most significantly, just before the registration bill became law, one-time (1962) U.S. District Attorney for the Southern District of New York and former New York City Police Commissioner Vincent L. Broderick, who was later given a federal judgeship (U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York in 1976), testified at a City Council committee hearin ...


So the government telling you "hand it over or get rid of it" isn't confiscation? What farking world do you live on?
 
2013-03-13 02:23:27 PM  

redmid17: Define leaving them where stealing them wouldn't be all that hard to do?


Apparently, in dittybopper's gun safe.
 
2013-03-13 02:23:41 PM  

Uranus Is Huge!: Benjamin Orr: Uranus Is Huge!: Benjamin Orr: Uranus Is Huge!: Mark Ratner: Background checks still wouldn't have stopped the Sandy Hook shooting.

It might have made a difference in Aurora and at Virginia Tech.

Also, Link

Except that Cho went through background checks and I am pretty sure that SSB did as well.

You make a good argument for beefing up what the background checks should be checking for. I'd be okay with allowing mental healthcare professionals to flag a "threat" for 60 or 90 days. Have a hearing. Let a judge make a more permanent determination.

How many times have you posted that drivel knowing it was false?

Now you try and move the goalposts. Try being honest every once in a while.

I've never brought up VA Tech in any post.

What goalpost has moved? Background checks should actually check for disqualifying events.

Try being honest every once in a while.


So that reference to Virginia Tech (VA is the abbreviation for Virginia btw) that was in your post was not a reference to VA Tech?
 
2013-03-13 02:26:26 PM  

Man On Pink Corner: MyKingdomForYourHorse: Have you forgotten about Time, Place, and Manner regulations regarding the 1st?

I especially like how earlier examples of the slippery-slope effect are used to justify later ones.  That's downright skillful.


All while arguing the concept is a fallacy.

\It's not, if intent and means can also be shown
 
2013-03-13 02:26:45 PM  

redmid17: Zulu_as_Kono: redmid17: Leaving guns out in the open is irresponsible,

So is leaving them where stealing them "wouldn't be all that hard to do".

dittybopper: How would that be irresponsible?

Allow me to move the ellipses.

what happens if someone steals my guns ... it wouldn't be all that hard to do, either

You keep your guns where it wouldn't be all that hard for someone to steal them and call yourself responsible?

Define leaving them where stealing them wouldn't be all that hard to do? For someone to get and use my guns they would have to break into my apartment, break into my gun safe, and then get some bolt cutters and cut off the breech locks. If guns are locked up, that's pretty much the end of the story. If someone has to commit a crime to get your guns, there is no way liability should fall on you.


This. Do people realize, entire generations like me grew up with lots of guns, sitting on gun racks, unlocked, with ammo around, and we just did not have these problems?

Has nothing to do with guns or where we store them.
 
2013-03-13 02:30:08 PM  

Zulu_as_Kono: redmid17: Define leaving them where stealing them wouldn't be all that hard to do?

Apparently, in dittybopper's gun safe.


Unless you stick a vault somewhere in your house, you are likely to own a gun safe that is fairly easy to break into. A crowbar and a hammer would be good enough for half of the gun safes you could buy at Cabela's or Dick's. An angle grinder would be enable you to break into most of the rest. Your definition is pretty much shiat.
 
2013-03-13 02:30:09 PM  

Click Click D'oh: justtray: The only guns that were bought back were purchased after the ban went into effect or were not registered before the ban went into effect.

In the event of making things up, please attempt to make sure that the actual law is not readily available:

http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id= 19 9719980AB48

The people of the State of California do enact as follows:SECTION 1. Section 12281 is added to the Penal Code, to read:
12281. (a)  Any person who, or firm, company, or corporation that, operated a retail or other commercial firm, company, or corporation, and manufactured, distributed, transported, imported, possessed, possessed for sale, offered for sale, or transferred, for commercial purpose, an SKS rifle in California between January 1, 1992, and December 19, 1997, shall be immune from criminal prosecution under Section 12280. The immunity provided in this subdivision shall apply retroactively to any person who, or firm, company, or corporation that, is or was charged by complaint or indictment with a violation of Section 12280 for conduct related to an SKS rifle, whether or not the case of that person, firm, company, or corporation is final.(b)  Any person who possessed, gave, loaned, or transferred an SKS rifle in California between January 1, 1992, and December 19, 1997, shall be immune from criminal prosecution under Section 12280. The immunity provided in this subdivision shall apply retroactively to any person who was charged by complaint or indictment with a violation of Section 12280 for conduct related to an SKS rifle, whether or not the case of that person is final.(c)  Any SKS rifle in the possession of any person who, or firm, company, or corporation that, is described in subdivision (a) or (b), shall not be subject to seizure by law enforcement for violation of Section 12280 prior to January 1, 2000.(d)  Any person, firm, company, or corporation, convicted under Section 12280 for conduct relating to an SKS rifle, ...




The ban went into place in 1992 so im not sure how any of the above is relevant.
 
2013-03-13 02:30:46 PM  

This text is now purple: But CU wasn't about advertising and it wasn't about spending limits. It was federal preemptive censorship of a movie exhibiting protected speech.


It wasn't but for whatever reason the deciding judges decided to expand the scope which redefined speech as it adheres to the political scape. Essentially the deciding side decided to just throw caution to the wind and decided on things which technically weren't even being addressed.
 
2013-03-13 02:31:01 PM  

Zulu_as_Kono: redmid17: Leaving guns out in the open is irresponsible,

So is leaving them where stealing them "wouldn't be all that hard to do".

dittybopper: How would that be irresponsible?

Allow me to move the ellipses.

what happens if someone steals my guns ... it wouldn't be all that hard to do, either

You keep your guns where it wouldn't be all that hard for someone to steal them and call yourself responsible?


The modern guns are in a metal gun safe.  That safe isn't Fort Knox, it can be opened by anyone reasonably competent in that sort of thing, because I can't afford a $1,000 safe.

Or is that the point, to price gun ownership out of the hands of everyone except the rich?
 
2013-03-13 02:33:05 PM  

redmid17: Your definition is pretty much shiat.


I think your problem with the definition is with dittybopper, I'm just going by what he said.
 
2013-03-13 02:34:53 PM  
I wish gun nut cowards would at least be honest here. The argument of "background checks won't prevent dangerous criminals from getting guns!" conveniently leaves out the "...except that dangerous criminals won't buy a gun from a shop because of background checks" part.

At least use truthful language here guys: "Background checks don't reduce gun supply to criminals, so we may as well abolish the background check system so gun sellers can make a few bucks selling the guns to criminals!"

/Got a few guns in my house
//Perfectly fine with any background check
 
2013-03-13 02:35:06 PM  

redmid17: Zulu_as_Kono: redmid17: Define leaving them where stealing them wouldn't be all that hard to do?

Apparently, in dittybopper's gun safe.

Unless you stick a vault somewhere in your house, you are likely to own a gun safe that is fairly easy to break into. A crowbar and a hammer would be good enough for half of the gun safes you could buy at Cabela's or Dick's. An angle grinder would be enable you to break into most of the rest. Your definition is pretty much shiat.


Even a sawzall would work on mine.  It's just sheet metal.  I could have the back open in a very few minutes, take the guns, bend the sheet metal back, and put it back in place and until you opened it up again, you'd never know.

Plus, the lock isn't super secure.  Looking at it, I could probably pick it.

I got it as a concession to the distaffbopper when we got the littlebopper.  It's meant to keep a kid out, not a determined thief.
 
2013-03-13 02:36:19 PM  

MyKingdomForYourHorse: This text is now purple: But CU wasn't about advertising and it wasn't about spending limits. It was federal preemptive censorship of a movie exhibiting protected speech.

It wasn't but for whatever reason the deciding judges decided to expand the scope which redefined speech as it adheres to the political scape. Essentially the deciding side decided to just throw caution to the wind and decided on things which technically weren't even being addressed.


A film is "redefined speech"? In what world?
 
2013-03-13 02:36:23 PM  

Zulu_as_Kono: redmid17: Your definition is pretty much shiat.

I think your problem with the definition is with dittybopper, I'm just going by what he said.


So you do want me to be required to purchase a $1,000 gun safe in order to avoid prosecution if my guns get stolen, right?

How generous you are with my money.
 
2013-03-13 02:36:59 PM  

justtray: The ban went into place in 1992 so im not sure how any of the above is relevant.


No, the ban went into effect in 1989.  Hence, why it's named:Roberti-Roos Assault Weapons Control Act of 1989

1992-1997 is the period during which law enforcement agents were harassing lawful owners of registered SKS rifles because they couldn't be bothered to learn the law.  The part that you don't understand why it's relevant is the part of AB-48 in which the State of California has to pass a law to stop it's own people from continuously violating the rights of people.

I notice you don't comment on the part where CA outlawed and mandated confiscation of all registered and legally owned SKS Sporter rifles.  Does this mean you are willing to cede the point that CA did in fact use registration as a pathway to confiscation?

It's rather indisputable now.  The law is plain for all to see, linked above.
 
2013-03-13 02:37:11 PM  
How far we have fallen, and continue to fall.

Deer season used to be packed full of pick ups with gun racks and guns, in the high school parking lot. Now all those kids would be in jail.

kid makes a gun out of a pizza crust? Suspended. Make a gun gesture with fingers? Suspended. Swiss army knife hanging from your belt? Suspended/expelled.

Sucks. This is why we fail.
 
2013-03-13 02:37:58 PM  

GUTSU: So the government telling you "hand it over or get rid of it" isn't confiscation? What farking world do you live on?


The argument was registration leading to confiscation. I don't see how that occurred in this case. Are you making an argument that weapons should never be allowed to be deemed illegal?

I don't see how the registration had anything to do with the law made later on to deem certain weapons illegal. No one went door to door, and only one person, who classified themselves as an irresponsible criminal had anything taken from them, by your source.

Help me to understand here. I'm not really interested in arguing the semantic meaning of confiscation, especially if you've decided it's going to mean whatever it has to.
 
2013-03-13 02:38:45 PM  

redmid17: Zulu_as_Kono: redmid17: Define leaving them where stealing them wouldn't be all that hard to do?

Apparently, in dittybopper's gun safe.

Unless you stick a vault somewhere in your house, you are likely to own a gun safe that is fairly easy to break into. A crowbar and a hammer would be good enough for half of the gun safes you could buy at Cabela's or Dick's. An angle grinder would be enable you to break into most of the rest. Your definition is pretty much shiat.


To expand on this.  I have a Fort Knox safe weighing ~1165 lbs empty.  Mine's not easy to get into or steal , BUT nonethless people have had those stolen.  Not the contents, the whole farking thing.  The same equipment that was used to get it into my apartment is the same equipment thieves were using to wheel them out of houses, garages, etc. when the owners were on vacation or otherwise out.
 
2013-03-13 02:40:34 PM  

Click Click D'oh: justtray: The ban went into place in 1992 so im not sure how any of the above is relevant.

No, the ban went into effect in 1989.  Hence, why it's named:Roberti-Roos Assault Weapons Control Act of 1989

1992-1997 is the period during which law enforcement agents were harassing lawful owners of registered SKS rifles because they couldn't be bothered to learn the law.  The part that you don't understand why it's relevant is the part of AB-48 in which the State of California has to pass a law to stop it's own people from continuously violating the rights of people.

I notice you don't comment on the part where CA outlawed and mandated confiscation of all registered and legally owned SKS Sporter rifles.  Does this mean you are willing to cede the point that CA did in fact use registration as a pathway to confiscation?

It's rather indisputable now.  The law is plain for all to see, linked above.


I don't know why you can't just admit you're wrong instead of continually trying to rewrite history to fit your narrative.

Okay, the ban went into place in 1989. NO WEAPONS REGISTERED BEFORE THAT TIME WERE CONFISCATED IN ANY SENSE.

Pretty simple. That people registered them after they were banned is not valid in this argument. If you can show me some instances of the above being incorrect, I will reliquish the argument, otherwise, you should.
 
2013-03-13 02:40:39 PM  

Man On Pink Corner: I especially like how earlier examples of the slippery-slope effect are used to justify later ones. That's downright skillful.


As much as it might distaste some of us, there are those of us who see it clearly that much of this stuff is lawful and necessary.

We don't live in a bubble, are not nearly as isolated as we once were, and as a society we require rules to ensure the most stupid of us don't harm the rest of us.

redmid17: It's not as if we sit on the couch stroking them while watching The Walking Dead


Well I know if I had that browning MG Morgan had, I'd be stroking while watching.

dittybopper: Chances are, for all practical purposes, my risk is the same as yours, because both of our risk is very low.


Both are low relativistically speaking to our status, however sorry, statistically speaking yours are higher. Here, let me google that for you.

Its just simple statistics, but like all things ardent pro 2nd amendment people tend to ignore things like math.
 
2013-03-13 02:41:54 PM  

This text is now purple: A film is "redefined speech"? In what world?


No they expanded what the redefinition of what speech is, they went beyond the film
 
2013-03-13 02:44:03 PM  

dittybopper: So you do want me to be required to purchase a $1,000 gun safe in order to avoid prosecution if my guns get stolen, right?

How generous you are with my money.


I never said that.

But I did learn something today, so thanks for that.  I never realized that all these "gun safes" I hear about from responsible gun owners are more like fancified gym lockers.
 
2013-03-13 02:44:29 PM  

justtray: GUTSU: So the government telling you "hand it over or get rid of it" isn't confiscation? What farking world do you live on?

The argument was registration leading to confiscation. I don't see how that occurred in this case. Are you making an argument that weapons should never be allowed to be deemed illegal?

I don't see how the registration had anything to do with the law made later on to deem certain weapons illegal. No one went door to door, and only one person, who classified themselves as an irresponsible criminal had anything taken from them, by your source.

Help me to understand here. I'm not really interested in arguing the semantic meaning of confiscation, especially if you've decided it's going to mean whatever it has to.


The registration was put into place promising those that registered that it wouldn't be used for confiscation. 30 years later, the NYPD had a list of names and addresses of people that owned 'assault weapons'. Which then then called and said "Hand them in, or get rid of them or else we'll kick down your door and arrest you"

How the fark isn't that registration leading to confiscation? Are you farking daft?
 
2013-03-13 02:46:54 PM  

justtray: Okay, the ban went into place in 1989. NO WEAPONS REGISTERED BEFORE THAT TIME WERE CONFISCATED IN ANY SENSE.


Dafuq?

There were no SKS Sporters registered before the 1989 ban, because there was no requirement to register SKS Sporters before the ban... because the ban created the requirement to register.  Seriously.  It's not that hard.

1989: CA creates ban on sales, but private ownership is still legal with registration
1992-1997: CA law enforcement routinely violates gun owners rights because they don't understand the law
1998: CA passes new law admitting they've been violating their own law, then reverses direction and declares lawfully owned (read registered in accordance with the 1989 ban) firearms to be illegal and confiscates them.

What is so hard about understanding this timeline?
 
2013-03-13 02:49:04 PM  

GUTSU: justtray: GUTSU: So the government telling you "hand it over or get rid of it" isn't confiscation? What farking world do you live on?

The argument was registration leading to confiscation. I don't see how that occurred in this case. Are you making an argument that weapons should never be allowed to be deemed illegal?

I don't see how the registration had anything to do with the law made later on to deem certain weapons illegal. No one went door to door, and only one person, who classified themselves as an irresponsible criminal had anything taken from them, by your source.

Help me to understand here. I'm not really interested in arguing the semantic meaning of confiscation, especially if you've decided it's going to mean whatever it has to.

The registration was put into place promising those that registered that it wouldn't be used for confiscation. 30 years later, the NYPD had a list of names and addresses of people that owned 'assault weapons'. Which then then called and said "Hand them in, or get rid of them or else we'll kick down your door and arrest you"

How the fark isn't that registration leading to confiscation? Are you farking daft?


Other than no one except the guy asking for it's house get kicked down and no promise, nor registration being used as a means of confiscation, you have a decent point.
 
2013-03-13 02:51:16 PM  

Benjamin Orr: Uranus Is Huge!: Benjamin Orr: Uranus Is Huge!: Benjamin Orr: Uranus Is Huge!: Mark Ratner: Background checks still wouldn't have stopped the Sandy Hook shooting.

It might have made a difference in Aurora and at Virginia Tech.

Also, Link

Except that Cho went through background checks and I am pretty sure that SSB did as well.

You make a good argument for beefing up what the background checks should be checking for. I'd be okay with allowing mental healthcare professionals to flag a "threat" for 60 or 90 days. Have a hearing. Let a judge make a more permanent determination.

How many times have you posted that drivel knowing it was false?

Now you try and move the goalposts. Try being honest every once in a while.

I've never brought up VA Tech in any post.

What goalpost has moved? Background checks should actually check for disqualifying events.

Try being honest every once in a while.

So that reference to Virginia Tech (VA is the abbreviation for Virginia btw) that was in your post was not a reference to VA Tech?


Ya got me, Columbo. I have mentioned VA Tech once (twice counting this sentence). You asked, "How many times have you posted that drivel knowing it was false?" as if it was something I've repeated. My apologies for my blatant attempt at deception.
 
2013-03-13 02:52:13 PM  

Click Click D'oh: justtray: Okay, the ban went into place in 1989. NO WEAPONS REGISTERED BEFORE THAT TIME WERE CONFISCATED IN ANY SENSE.

Dafuq?

There were no SKS Sporters registered before the 1989 ban, because there was no requirement to register SKS Sporters before the ban... because the ban created the requirement to register.  Seriously.  It's not that hard.

1989: CA creates ban on sales, but private ownership is still legal with registration
1992-1997: CA law enforcement routinely violates gun owners rights because they don't understand the law
1998: CA passes new law admitting they've been violating their own law, then reverses direction and declares lawfully owned (read registered in accordance with the 1989 ban) firearms to be illegal and confiscates them.

What is so hard about understanding this timeline?


Incorrect.

The way it went down was;

1989 law passed, goes into effect in 1992 I believe. All SKS had to be registered before 1992 to be legal.

Then in 1992-1997, a different version of the SKS is deemed "technically legal." (the detatchable vs non detachable mag difference) - A bunch of people go buy this version to technically get around the ban.

1999 rolls around and CA legislature goes, "yeah that little technicality work around you tried to get away with after the ban went into place is not legit, here's money for those guns you should never have been allowed to buy."

I see no issue, no one who had their gun registered before the ban got it taken.
 
2013-03-13 02:53:44 PM  
MyKingdomForYourHorse:

We don't live in a bubble, are not nearly as isolated as we once were, and as a society we require rules to ensure the most stupid of us don't harm the rest of us.

So law abiding citizens should be penalized because of stupid people?
 
2013-03-13 02:54:26 PM  

Zulu_as_Kono: redmid17: Your definition is pretty much shiat.

I think your problem with the definition is with dittybopper, I'm just going by what he said.


No I think the only problem is your comprehension of laws and an inability to understand how things  actually work.
 
2013-03-13 02:58:55 PM  

justtray: GUTSU: justtray: GUTSU: So the government telling you "hand it over or get rid of it" isn't confiscation? What farking world do you live on?

The argument was registration leading to confiscation. I don't see how that occurred in this case. Are you making an argument that weapons should never be allowed to be deemed illegal?

I don't see how the registration had anything to do with the law made later on to deem certain weapons illegal. No one went door to door, and only one person, who classified themselves as an irresponsible criminal had anything taken from them, by your source.

Help me to understand here. I'm not really interested in arguing the semantic meaning of confiscation, especially if you've decided it's going to mean whatever it has to.

The registration was put into place promising those that registered that it wouldn't be used for confiscation. 30 years later, the NYPD had a list of names and addresses of people that owned 'assault weapons'. Which then then called and said "Hand them in, or get rid of them or else we'll kick down your door and arrest you"

How the fark isn't that registration leading to confiscation? Are you farking daft?

Other than no one except the guy asking for it's house get kicked down and no promise, nor registration being used as a means of confiscation, you have a decent point.


So it's only confiscation if the police physically take the aforementioned item from your person? The police using the registration to find out who had the firearms, and thus being able to carry out the confiscation had nothing to do with them being confiscated either, huh?
 
2013-03-13 02:59:59 PM  

justtray: 1999 rolls around and CA legislature goes, "yeah that little technicality work around you tried to get away with after the ban went into place is not legit, here's money for those guns you should never have been allowed to buy."


Your version of the story Vs the actual law:

(f)  (1)  Any person, firm, company, or corporation that is in possession of an SKS rifle shall do one of the following on or before January 1, 2000:(A)  Relinquish the SKS rifle to the Department of Justice pursuant to subdivision (h).(B)  Relinquish the SKS rifle to a law enforcement agency pursuant to Section 12288.(C)  Dispose of the SKS rifle as permitted by Section 12285.
http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id= 19 9719980AB48


Care to point out to me where it anything about only turning in SKS Sporters purchased between 1992 and 1997?

Bueller? 

The law in fact says " all SKS rifles commonly referred to as "SKS Sporter" versions ...or otherwise lawfully possessed in this state by a resident of this state who is not a licensed gun dealer, between January 1, 1992, and December 19, 1997. "   In order to be legally possessed between 1992 and 1997 it must have been registered in compliance with the 1989 ban.  It can not have been purchase between 1992 and 1997 and have been legally possessed.

For one who accuses me of making things up, you really should try READING THE LAW that you appear to be claiming didn't exist and didn't require the surrender of legally owned and registered firearms.
 
2013-03-13 03:00:04 PM  

MyKingdomForYourHorse: redmid17: It's not as if we sit on the couch stroking them while watching The Walking Dead

Well I know if I had that browning MG Morgan had, I'd be stroking while watching.

dittybopper: Chances are, for all practical purposes, my risk is the same as yours, because both of our risk is very low.

Both are low relativistically speaking to our status, however sorry, statistically speaking yours are higher. Here, let me google that for you.

Its just simple statistics, but like all things ardent pro 2nd amendment people tend to ignore things like math.


If I had the guns Morgan had, I would be sorely tempted to do so as well.

I'll have to look for the link but the Kellerman study was revised a few times, and Kleck (?) got a hold of the full dataset and found there was a 2.7% higher chance that a gun owner would die from the gun. I think Dittybopper linked to it in a past thread, but I do not have it on hand. IIRC it was a CDC or DOJ link too.
 
2013-03-13 03:02:44 PM  
Its okay, we only need a little bit of the rights. We can take some of the rights away, no biggie.

Little bit of the 2nd.
Little bit of the 1st.
Little bit of the 4th.

"Cattle car? Why would I want to get in a cattle car? I don't need a shower, Obama Brown Shirt guy, how kind of you to ask."

Just stupid, all of it. Gun control should not even be a debate. No damned law passed by the hippies has done anything other than make life difficult and give the ATF more funding. I loved the debate on one of the bills on C-SPAN. Pub read the statistics on studies of the previous assault weapons ban. Feinstien sat there looking like she ate a rate. No difference whatsoever.
 
2013-03-13 03:07:18 PM  

Mugato: dittybopper: The NRA opposes criminalizing private firearms transfers between law-abiding individuals, and therefore opposes an expansion of the background check system.

Isn't that a contradiction of terms? How do you know that they're law abiding citizens without a background check?


It's that whole INNOCENT UNTIL PROVEN GUILTY thing... ya may have heard of it.
 
2013-03-13 03:07:23 PM  

Mugato: dittybopper: Bad idea. Very bad idea. That turns what is an enumerated right into a government granted privilege. Would you argue the same thing for a computer and internet connection? That you must get government permission to post on the internet so that they know you aren't a subversive? Or how about requiring a background check before you can assert your rights under the Fourth and Fifth Amendments? How requiring government approval prior to getting an abortion?

You're already not allowed to buy a gun if you're a felon. That's already on the books. So WTF are you talking about?


Also if you are convicted of ANY DV related crime. Even the lesser crime of arguing will get your gun rights taken if they can throw on the DV attribute to the charge. Guess what, anyone in your house that you argue with makes it a DV. You don't even have to be involved with them.

In some states you can have the misdemeanor DV set aside to get your rights restored, others not so. They have rules for felons to regain their rights but not those convicted of a misdemeanor DV charge. The system is really very broken with this patchwork application of laws and punishments. The best they can do with the laws on the books is adding weapon enhancement charges during conviction. Until a crime is actually committed, the laws don't do a thing.

Taking rights away isn't the answer as it doesn't work. Punish the crime after it actually happens, not before you guess a crime will happen. Once someone pay's their debt, give their rights back and wait for them to mess up again.
 
2013-03-13 03:08:13 PM  

redmid17: No I think the only problem is your comprehension of law


What law am I miscomprehending?  The law about quoting people?
 
2013-03-13 03:12:42 PM  

Zulu_as_Kono: redmid17: No I think the only problem is your comprehension of law

What law am I miscomprehending?  The law about quoting people?


That you think people should be held criminally or civilly liable for safely locking up their guns. Try and keep up.
 
2013-03-13 03:18:25 PM  

Uranus Is Huge!: I agree with you 100% that we should apply similar licensing and registration requirements for automobiles and firearms.

Great idea!


Soooo... any infraction involving the use of a motor vehicle whatsoever automatically means losing your right to drive FOREVER. Any sign of mental stress or imbalance, the same, right?
 
2013-03-13 03:18:52 PM  

ferretman: So law abiding citizens should be penalized because of stupid people?


Unfortunately at times, yes they will be.

But if you can find a way for people not to be stupid then I am totally for that instead.

redmid17: If I had the guns Morgan had, I would be sorely tempted to do so as well.

I'll have to look for the link but the Kellerman study was revised a few times, and Kleck (?) got a hold of the full dataset and found there was a 2.7% higher chance that a gun owner would die from the gun. I think Dittybopper linked to it in a past thread, but I do not have it on hand. IIRC it was a CDC or DOJ link too.


Kellerman came to the correct conclusion using dubious methodology and was of course rightly debunked, however Harvard Health redid the study in 2009 using much better methods and corrected for Kellerman's flaws and found that his conclusion was correct that the 4 times more likely is true. The Harvard study however also went on to note that overall the chances of death are very low when compared to other forms of fatality, so in scope your chance of death is still small comparatively speaking.

Pedantic I know, but that's what you get from someone who reads things like statistician and SCOTUS blogs for fun.
 
2013-03-13 03:21:01 PM  

NateAsbestos: I wish gun nut cowards would at least be honest here. The argument of "background checks won't prevent dangerous criminals from getting guns!" conveniently leaves out the "...except that dangerous criminals won't buy a gun from a shop because of background checks" part.

At least use truthful language here guys: "Background checks don't reduce gun supply to criminals, so we may as well abolish the background check system so gun sellers can make a few bucks selling the guns to criminals!"

/Got a few guns in my house
//Perfectly fine with any background check


I'm a gun owner. I don't have a problem with background checks; my concern (not concern troll) is that any political efforts to enact this would end the debate nationally. That still leaves the same conditions that lead to the overwhelming majority of gun violence in play and I do not see the mechanism in a regulation like that which would cause any dent in the numbers killed or wounded nationally.

You will still need to mandate state compliance in the management of the database, something that, today, is nowhere near complete.

What is the problem this is supposed to solve? I do not see how this, if it had been implemented ten years ago, would have changed the number of people shot last year in Chicago nor would it have stopped crazy Aurora shooter nor the psycho in Sandy Hook.

At best, I would see a background check provide me, as a seller, small piece of mind on a face to face transfer.
 
2013-03-13 03:21:08 PM  

redmid17: That you think people should be held criminally or civilly liable for safely locking up their guns.


I do?

Try and keep up.

With what, your fevered imaginings of all the libs coming to take your guns?  No thanks.
 
2013-03-13 03:22:32 PM  

Zulu_as_Kono: redmid17: That you think people should be held criminally or civilly liable for safely locking up their guns.

I do?

Try and keep up.

With what, your fevered imaginings of all the libs coming to take your guns?  No thanks.


If you can find any instance of this username ever saying that libs are coming for my guns, I will give you TF for a year.
 
2013-03-13 03:22:35 PM  

dittybopper: Zulu_as_Kono: redmid17: Your definition is pretty much shiat.

I think your problem with the definition is with dittybopper, I'm just going by what he said.

So you do want me to be required to purchase a $1,000 gun safe in order to avoid prosecution if my guns get stolen, right?

How generous you are with my money.


The nice ones are cool and have lights, dehumidifiers and stuff. You could do worse.
 
2013-03-13 03:23:20 PM  

Click Click D'oh: justtray: 1999 rolls around and CA legislature goes, "yeah that little technicality work around you tried to get away with after the ban went into place is not legit, here's money for those guns you should never have been allowed to buy."

Your version of the story Vs the actual law:

(f)  (1)  Any person, firm, company, or corporation that is in possession of an SKS rifle shall do one of the following on or before January 1, 2000:(A)  Relinquish the SKS rifle to the Department of Justice pursuant to subdivision (h).(B)  Relinquish the SKS rifle to a law enforcement agency pursuant to Section 12288.(C)  Dispose of the SKS rifle as permitted by Section 12285.
http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id= 19 9719980AB48

Care to point out to me where it anything about only turning in SKS Sporters purchased between 1992 and 1997?

Bueller? 

The law in fact says " all SKS rifles commonly referred to as "SKS Sporter" versions ...or otherwise lawfully possessed in this state by a resident of this state who is not a licensed gun dealer, between January 1, 1992, and December 19, 1997. "   In order to be legally possessed between 1992 and 1997 it must have been registered in compliance with the 1989 ban.  It can not have been purchase between 1992 and 1997 and have been legally possessed.

For one who accuses me of making things up, you really should try READING THE LAW that you appear to be claiming didn't exist and didn't require the surrender of legally owned and registered firearms.


None of that contradicts what I said. I bolded it to clarify for you, since you seem to be lacking reading comprehension.
 
2013-03-13 03:25:14 PM  

GUTSU: justtray: GUTSU: justtray: GUTSU: So the government telling you "hand it over or get rid of it" isn't confiscation? What farking world do you live on?

The argument was registration leading to confiscation. I don't see how that occurred in this case. Are you making an argument that weapons should never be allowed to be deemed illegal?

I don't see how the registration had anything to do with the law made later on to deem certain weapons illegal. No one went door to door, and only one person, who classified themselves as an irresponsible criminal had anything taken from them, by your source.

Help me to understand here. I'm not really interested in arguing the semantic meaning of confiscation, especially if you've decided it's going to mean whatever it has to.

The registration was put into place promising those that registered that it wouldn't be used for confiscation. 30 years later, the NYPD had a list of names and addresses of people that owned 'assault weapons'. Which then then called and said "Hand them in, or get rid of them or else we'll kick down your door and arrest you"

How the fark isn't that registration leading to confiscation? Are you farking daft?

Other than no o