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 499
    More: Interesting, NRA, Democrats, background checks, Mayors Against Illegal Guns, 12-step programs, gun registry, Chuck Schumer, NBC News  
•       •       •

5095 clicks; posted to Main » on 13 Mar 2013 at 10:06 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



499 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | » | Last | Show all
 
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.
 
Displayed 50 of 499 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report