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)   43% of gun owners think that the laws covering gun sales should be stricter. Easy for them to say   (firstread.nbcnews.com) divider line 449
    More: Fail, Morning Joe, Americans, gun laws, assault weapons, Just Seventeen, United States Public Debt  
•       •       •

954 clicks; posted to Politics » on 03 Apr 2013 at 11:54 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-04-03 01:19:35 PM
A higher percentage supported warrantless wire taps.
 
2013-04-03 01:20:26 PM

Car_Ramrod: Laugh out loud. I'm sure it has nothing to do with the stance of the gun lobby that ANY sort of regulation amounts to unacceptable oppression and anyone that attempts any kind of action is an ignorant fascist.


Oh, I won't deny that at the forefront of the gun lobby is a bunch of intractable PITAs.  But the thing is - if you are trying to proactively DO something, like pass a new law, the onus is on you to be deliberate and conscientious about it.  Yes, the gun lobby is stubborn.  But the legislators are the ones who are responsible for making sure new laws are logical, reasonable, and fair, not lobbyists.

Yes, Washington doesn't actually work this way at the moment.  It doesn't really work at all.  But that is how it should, IMO.
 
2013-04-03 01:20:34 PM

bedtundy: because people are not gagged in an effort to prevent this limitation of speech before entering the theater


Not that I support this for slasher movies.... but somebody should look into the permissablilty of this.
 
2013-04-03 01:20:42 PM

Gonz: Handguns, not handuns. Firearms, not a snacky relative of a Funyon.

Also, the deer can at LEAST rush you, not as leash. Most people don't keep deer on a leash, unless they're Santa Claus and have reindeer.


I always carry a handgun in the woods.  I pistol whip the wildlife so that they know who really runs the forest.
 
2013-04-03 01:21:13 PM

ha-ha-guy: //namely that the Second only limits federal powers but the states can do whatever they want, which would mean that a total ban would be an option for a state


You missed the part where the 2nd was fully incorporated against the states, didn't you.
 
2013-04-03 01:25:44 PM
Gonz:
"God made all men, Samuel Colt made them equal" is probably one of the most famous quotes about handuns that I know of. It also translates as "Some other person would be better than me if I didn't have this metal tool. Thank you, Mr. Colt, for making me a real man."

So whats your point? You hate all technology that makes people to exceed their biological capabilities? Screw eyeglasses, forget leg braces, go to hell levers?

Or it just an issue with self-defense? Are you upset because a diminutive woman can defend herself if you try to forcibly rape her?
 
2013-04-03 01:27:00 PM

dittybopper: Altair: "Gun control" and so-called "stricter guns laws" is so poorly defined these days that opinion polls about them are useless

I'm guessing that 90% of the people polled, including most gun owners btw, don't have a good, comprehensive grasp on current gun laws.

The only way this kind of thing gets support is by people who are ignorant.


Background checks for every firearm transfer are bad because __________________.
Difficulty: Cannot resort to paranoia or claim that background checks ban transfers to mentally healthy noncriminals to fill in the blank.
NB: If you want to object on cost grounds: Are federal excise taxes on fuel (the right to interstate travel is constitutionally guaranteed) constitutional?
 
2013-04-03 01:28:32 PM

HeadLever: sammyk: your paranoid fantasies about acentral registry

The 'paranoid fantasies' agrument itself is destroyed when this type of registry was just recently use by the state of NY in order to confiscate the guns and revolk the license of someone who did nothing unlawful.


How so? The conversation is about lawful gun purchases ending up in a centralized registry. The current system with NICS destroys records of successful sales within 24 hours. How many time do you need to hear it before it sinks in? Expanding background checks to all firearm purchases will not change that. the issues in NY are due to a poor implementation of CCW law in NY. It has nothing to do with requiring universal background checks at a national level.

But that's not going to stop you from repeating this B.S. over and over is it? As a lifelong gun owner and supporter of the 2nd amendment I really wish you guys would STFU with the non-sense. YOU ARE NOT HELPING!
 
2013-04-03 01:29:18 PM

dittybopper: Gun dealers won't do it for cost.


Then it looks like the problem (and the goalposts for claiming "success" in this venture) has shifted.

If the cost of a NICS check was established by law (at $15; hell let it be $20 just so they make a sawbuck on every check they run) and dealers can't - again, by law - charge more than that for the service, would they rather deprive their fellow citizens of their 2A rights by closing up shop or suck it up and do 30 seconds more of paperwork?

Or, wait - this is a call for PRIVATE sales to have to go through NICS; FFLs (like those who run B&M shops) already have to ensure that the person attempting to buy is legally allowed to as well before making the transfer. You bring up a problem that does not exist.
 
2013-04-03 01:30:05 PM

Uisce Beatha: Car_Ramrod: Laugh out loud. I'm sure it has nothing to do with the stance of the gun lobby that ANY sort of regulation amounts to unacceptable oppression and anyone that attempts any kind of action is an ignorant fascist.

Oh, I won't deny that at the forefront of the gun lobby is a bunch of intractable PITAs.  But the thing is - if you are trying to proactively DO something, like pass a new law, the onus is on you to be deliberate and conscientious about it.  Yes, the gun lobby is stubborn.  But the legislators are the ones who are responsible for making sure new laws are logical, reasonable, and fair, not lobbyists.

Yes, Washington doesn't actually work this way at the moment.  It doesn't really work at all.  But that is how it should, IMO.


The fact is, like it or not, our country is in the middle of renegotiating our relationship to guns.

This being the case, I think it is incumbent upon gun owners to assuage the fears of a public who have been shaken by some high-profile acts of gun violence, and the violent and fascistic rhetoric so often used by ITG gun owners just isn't helpful to their position that they can or should be trusted to be able to possess something that with such a high capacity to threaten the general welfare.
 
2013-04-03 01:30:18 PM

BayouOtter: Gonz:
"God made all men, Samuel Colt made them equal" is probably one of the most famous quotes about handuns that I know of. It also translates as "Some other person would be better than me if I didn't have this metal tool. Thank you, Mr. Colt, for making me a real man."

So whats your point? You hate all technology that makes people to exceed their biological capabilities? Screw eyeglasses, forget leg braces, go to hell levers?

Or it just an issue with self-defense? Are you upset because a diminutive woman can defend herself if you try to forcibly rape her you can't force the Jews into ovens?


Next time, don't half-ass it.
 
2013-04-03 01:30:19 PM

demaL-demaL-yeH: Background checks for every firearm transfer are bad because __________________.


For me, it is not the checks themselves are bad.  It is the likely manipulation of the system that presents problems.  The system could be used to create a registry which I do not support, and the program could be manipulated in order to price normal folks from even using the system.
 
2013-04-03 01:31:43 PM

Giltric: dittybopper: Altair: "Gun control" and so-called "stricter guns laws" is so poorly defined these days that opinion polls about them are useless

I'm guessing that 90% of the people polled, including most gun owners btw, don't have a good, comprehensive grasp on current gun laws.

The only way this kind of thing gets support is by people who are ignorant.

Especially if they are going by the old survey that Obama is using to claim that 40% of people do not get a background check when purchasing a firearm.

And what does federal funding for gun studies matter if new studies will say only 4% do not get a background check....they will ignore the new survey since they have an older one that generates more fear with the 40% number.


as you probably know the 40% number does NOT show up in the old survey. gun show and flea market sales of all guns is shown as 4% in the 1994 report. i have never had a response after challenging folks on the 40% number/quote.
 
2013-04-03 01:32:36 PM

HeadLever: demaL-demaL-yeH: Background checks for every firearm transfer are bad because __________________.

For me, it is not the checks themselves are bad.  It is the likely manipulation of the system that presents problems.  The system could be used to create a registry which I do not support, and the program could be manipulated in order to price normal folks from even using the system.


I always determine my support of something based not upon the idea itself and its merits, but possible unlikely tangential effects of it, too.
 
2013-04-03 01:32:46 PM
sphotos-b.xx.fbcdn.net

Fired about 200 rounds of 5.56 from my ARs yesterday, and another couple hundred using a 22LR conversion.  Despite evil features like a bayonet lug, telescoping stock, barrel shroud, flash hider and high capacity assault clip (even a suppressor for the 22LR!) the only thing that got hurt was white spraypaint on a steel plate.
 
2013-04-03 01:35:21 PM

demaL-demaL-yeH: Background checks for every firearm transfer are bad because __________________.


Because every time I go out of town on business, my firearms are legally "transferred" to my wife since she is the person in custody and control of them, even if they are all locked securely in a safe and I take the key with me..  Since I am a firearms instructor, I currently have 40+ firearms.  As you can imagine, there might be a problem if I were required to do a background check each time one of those firearms was transferred.  40+ transfers 10 to 15 times a year might be considered by some to be chilling on my 2nd Amendment rights.  Even if I owned just one firearm, having to run background checks on my wife 10 to 15 times a year would be an issue.
 
2013-04-03 01:35:41 PM

Paschal: So what's the difference between a magazine and a clip?


Magazine
chamberfour.com

Clip
www.images.asidatabuilder.com
These two items seem very different to me.
Oh wait...  you meant...
 
2013-04-03 01:35:59 PM

sammyk: How so?


My point is not about the current NCIS checks and the fact that they destroy the registry, but the general opposition we have to the creation of any registry that is mainted.  In this regard, my argument may have not addressed your point here.

However, the fact that NY state is currently using thier regsitry and licensing mechanism to confiscate guns from law abiding citizens is more than ample warning about what can happen when these policies are allowed to stand.
 
2013-04-03 01:38:09 PM

BayouOtter: Gonz:
"God made all men, Samuel Colt made them equal" is probably one of the most famous quotes about handuns that I know of. It also translates as "Some other person would be better than me if I didn't have this metal tool. Thank you, Mr. Colt, for making me a real man."

So whats your point? You hate all technology that makes people to exceed their biological capabilities? Screw eyeglasses, forget leg braces, go to hell levers?

Or it just an issue with self-defense? Are you upset because a diminutive woman can defend herself if you try to forcibly rape her?


Is there a special class of ad homenim attack where you imply that someone is a rapist because they do not agree with you?

/Does being rape-crazy make one immune to pepper spray?
 
2013-04-03 01:39:02 PM

CPennypacker: I always determine my support of something based not upon the idea itself and its merits, but possible unlikely tangential effects of it, too.


You should. Those "unlikely" tangential effects are usually the direct goals of the people who have more than two brain cells to rub together in the politics game. Three steps ahead is four steps behind.
 
2013-04-03 01:39:26 PM
demaL-demaL-yeH:
Background checks for every firearm transfer are bad because __________________.
Difficulty: Cannot resort to paranoia or claim that background checks ban transfers to mentally healthy noncriminals to fill in the blank.
NB: If you want to object on cost grounds: Are federal excise taxes on fuel (the right to interstate travel is constitutionally guaranteed) constitutional?


Background checks for every firearm transfer are bad because, under the current system, FFLs charge a fee for transfers and the accompanying NICS checks.  With background checks for all private transfers, you have essentially created a tax on the exercising of a enumerated right.

And we all know what the reception would be like if, lets say, there was a government-mandated fee for having a blog or Facebook or Twitter account.

That is to say nothing, of course, of how such a law would be written.  If I allow a friend to use my rifle to go to a range, does that require a transfer?  What if he keeps it a day?  A month?  A year?  What if a man buys his girlfriend a handgun for her defense - does he pay the background check when he buys the pistol, then she pays to have one done when its 'transferred' to her?  As many have said, the concept of background checks is valid...but the devil is ALWAYS in the details.

As for the discussion of fuel excise taxes: the the right to interstate travel is not enumerated like the right to bear arms is.  That being said, there are other options for interstate travel beyond petroleum-fueled vehicles.  Their practicality in modern society might be lacking...but they still exist.  There really isn't such alternative when it comes to "bearing arms".
 
2013-04-03 01:40:03 PM
As a gun owner, I think guns  should be more difficult to obtain.
 
2013-04-03 01:40:45 PM

CPennypacker: I always determine my support of something based not upon the idea itself and its merits, but possible unlikely tangential effects of it, too.


Who ever said I didn't support it?  You making a strawman again?
 
2013-04-03 01:40:47 PM

Click Click D'oh: Because every time I go out of town on business, my firearms are legally "transferred" to my wife since she is the person in custody and control of them, even if they are all locked securely in a safe and I take the key with me..  Since I am a firearms instructor, I currently have 40+ firearms.  As you can imagine, there might be a problem if I were required to do a background check each time one of those firearms was transferred.  40+ transfers 10 to 15 times a year might be considered by some to be chilling on my 2nd Amendment rights.  Even if I owned just one firearm, having to run background checks on my wife 10 to 15 times a year would be an issue.


So you just made up an asinine situation to be afraid of, then?
 
2013-04-03 01:41:36 PM

HeadLever: It is the likely manipulation of the system that presents problems.  The system could be used to create a registry which I do not support, and the program could be manipulated in order to price normal folks from even using the system.


So it all comes down to what could happen (the creation of a registry, even though that is forbidden by law) versus what is happening (30K gun related deaths per year). We can attempt to reduce the latter without the coulds from the former.
 
2013-04-03 01:43:04 PM

HeadLever: Dimensio: On what occasion has a list of firearm owners ever been misused,

Here is a good example of that from very recent: http://www.longislandfirearms.com/forum/topic/67755-just-the-mention-o f-a-gun-in-school/


I'm going to need more than that.  I never heard of "Pistol Licensing" - is that one of New York state's farked up laws?  Got a reference to a real news article?
 
2013-04-03 01:43:04 PM

Uisce Beatha: I have always found it interesting that in my state, where gun control laws are pretty non-existent, if you go to the state gun owners website and look at their classifieds, pretty much all the sellers will insist on seeing your concealed carry permit before they sell you anything, whether it is a handgun or long gun. It is how they know you have had a background check and been cleared - so the person-to-person sales "loophole" is pretty easy to close, especially when the sellers are responsible


What I have always found interesting is that gun rights advocates will insist most peopel do the "responsible" thing so think any law making them follow "responsible" actions is an infringement on their rights.

/BTW-how do they verify the CC permits?
 
2013-04-03 01:44:04 PM

Dusk-You-n-Me: So it all comes down to what could happen


All?  no.  It is, however, a big hurdle that will need to be addressed in order to make this type of policy tolerable to many gun owners, though.
 
2013-04-03 01:44:19 PM

Dusk-You-n-Me: 30K gun related deaths per year


Over half of those are suicides. Suicides aren't caused by guns any more than they're caused by trains or bridges or sleeping pills.
 
2013-04-03 01:45:26 PM

LasersHurt: So you just made up an asinine situation to be afraid of, then?


How is it asinine?  I travel out of state on business quite frequently.  I do own 40+ firearms.  When I am not in residence at my home, the firearms are legally transferred to my wife.

That is all the truth.
 
2013-04-03 01:45:58 PM

cameroncrazy1984: SCUBA_Archer: 100% of gun owners support enforcing existing laws rather than making new ones.

Existing laws leave about 40% of gun sales without background checks.

So..no, no they don't.


no god dammit they don't. that 40% quote is crap and it's why folks like you aren't taken seriously. you want gun control and will use any method to get it is all that fake quote says.
 
2013-04-03 01:46:31 PM

HeadLever: CPennypacker: I always determine my support of something based not upon the idea itself and its merits, but possible unlikely tangential effects of it, too.

Who ever said I didn't support it?  You making a strawman again?


I guess only implying you don't support it earns you some sort of internet point?
 
2013-04-03 01:47:44 PM

HeadLever: Dimensio: On what occasion has a list of firearm owners ever been misused,

Here is a good example of that from very recent: http://www.longislandfirearms.com/forum/topic/67755-just-the-mention-o f-a-gun-in-school/


Wait, this is New York CITY.

That explains everything.
 
2013-04-03 01:47:52 PM

Click Click D'oh: LasersHurt: So you just made up an asinine situation to be afraid of, then?

How is it asinine?  I travel out of state on business quite frequently.  I do own 40+ firearms.  When I am not in residence at my home, the firearms are legally transferred to my wife.

That is all the truth.


It's asinine because nobody, now or in the past, has ever suggested that when you leave town you must legally sell your firearms including background checks to your wife. Nobody, ever, would or has suggested it. You clearly just made up that scenario so you could complain about how hard it would be. You're right, it would be hard, but so would having a camel's head instead of a normal head.

It's ridiculous, though.
 
2013-04-03 01:49:05 PM

Marcus Aurelius: I'm going to need more than that. I never heard of "Pistol Licensing" - is that one of New York state's farked up laws? Got a reference to a real news article?


No news article yet that I know of (stand by on that), but here is a link to the pistol permit bureau:

The guy has  'lawyered up' so not sure how much information will be coming forth.
 
2013-04-03 01:49:24 PM

doglover: Over half of those are suicides.


Pretty sure the end result of a suicide is a dead person.

doglover: Suicides aren't caused by guns any more than they're caused by trains or bridges or sleeping pills.


That is correct, suicides are not caused by guns. But a suicidal person with access to a gun has a 90+% chance of death. Without a gun, there's a 90+% chance they don't commit suicide.

HeadLever: It is, however, a big hurdle that will need to be addressed


Addressed like the law on already the books strictly prohibiting it? Okay, consider it addressed.
 
2013-04-03 01:50:35 PM

doglover: Dusk-You-n-Me: 30K gun related deaths per year

Over half of those are suicides. Suicides aren't caused by guns any more than they're caused by trains or bridges or sleeping pills.


This is inaccurate.  http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/06/magazine/06suicide-t.html?_r=2&page w anted=print&;
History shows that when you remove a simple and quick method for suicide, the suicide rate drops.  Turns out all you have to do is make suicide inconvenient and that stops most people.
 
2013-04-03 01:50:40 PM
Dusk-You-n-Me:
That is correct, suicides are not caused by guns. But a suicidal person with access to a gun has a 90+% chance of death. Without a gun, there's a 90+% chance they don't commit suicide.

People who make this argument assume all suicides are the result of a rational decision making process.
 
2013-04-03 01:50:41 PM

dittybopper: Gun dealers won't do it for cost. They'll want to make a profit, or they won't do it at all, which of course would suit many people just fine.

So now you're looking at a $30-50 charge.

In fact, that's in line with what FFLs currently charge for things like out of state transfers.

No FFL is going to touch private transfers for $10 or $15


Have the fed do it for free.

To compete dealers will play ball a little more.

CoolHandLucas: Background checks for every firearm transfer are bad because, under the current system, FFLs charge a fee for transfers and the accompanying NICS checks. With background checks for all private transfers, you have essentially created a tax on the exercising of a enumerated right.


BS.  The tax isn't on the buyer, and the buyer isn't in trouble if it isn't done.
 
2013-04-03 01:50:53 PM

Curious: Giltric: dittybopper: Altair: "Gun control" and so-called "stricter guns laws" is so poorly defined these days that opinion polls about them are useless

I'm guessing that 90% of the people polled, including most gun owners btw, don't have a good, comprehensive grasp on current gun laws.

The only way this kind of thing gets support is by people who are ignorant.

Especially if they are going by the old survey that Obama is using to claim that 40% of people do not get a background check when purchasing a firearm.

And what does federal funding for gun studies matter if new studies will say only 4% do not get a background check....they will ignore the new survey since they have an older one that generates more fear with the 40% number.

as you probably know the 40% number does NOT show up in the old survey. gun show and flea market sales of all guns is shown as 4% in the 1994 report. i have never had a response after challenging folks on the 40% number/quote.



Yeah thats a different survey. The survey with the 4% number is one asking people where they purchase their firearms. They also did one where they asked inmates of correctional facilities who used a firearm in a crime where they got their gun.  The one with the 40% number is one asking people if they got a background check when they purchased their firearm.

but even so...if 40% of people don't get a background check at a gun show and only 4% of people buy their firearms at a gun show ...why are people getting all up in arms about a number that is less than 2%? 2% can be considered a margin of error in most surveys. It could even be a statistical anomoly like spree killings.
 
2013-04-03 01:51:07 PM

Click Click D'oh: demaL-demaL-yeH: Background checks for every firearm transfer are bad because __________________.

Because every time I go out of town on business, my firearms are legally "transferred" to my wife since she is the person in custody and control of them, even if they are all locked securely in a safe and I take the key with me..  Since I am a firearms instructor, I currently have 40+ firearms.  As you can imagine, there might be a problem if I were required to do a background check each time one of those firearms was transferred.  40+ transfers 10 to 15 times a year might be considered by some to be chilling on my 2nd Amendment rights.  Even if I owned just one firearm, having to run background checks on my wife 10 to 15 times a year would be an issue.


Simple.  Don't let your wife stay in the house when you leave.  That way the gun ownership will transfer to your dog.  And nobody messes with a dog with a gun.
 
2013-04-03 01:51:12 PM

CPennypacker: I guess only implying you don't support it earns you some sort of internet point?


Even when I say the checks themselves aren't bad in the first sentence?  Do you read much? Or do you just make stuff up as you go?
 
2013-04-03 01:51:21 PM

Dusk-You-n-Me: That is correct, suicides are not caused by guns. But


But nothing. Suicides aren't caused by guns. Disingenuous statistics are disingenuous.
 
2013-04-03 01:51:51 PM

CPennypacker: People who make this argument assume all suicides are the result of a rational decision making process.


His argument or mine?
 
2013-04-03 01:52:21 PM

Dusk-You-n-Me: Addressed like the law on already the books strictly prohibiting it? Okay, consider it addressed.


You realize that NY state has a gun registry, correct?  Not as prohibited as you may think.  Check my link to the Pistol Permit Bureau above for more information.
 
2013-04-03 01:53:09 PM

doglover: But nothing. Suicides aren't caused by guns. Disingenuous statistics are disingenuous.


There's nothing disingenuous about it. More than 30,000 people die every year from gun violence. Some of those people die from gun suicides. Their death is not any less violent. They are not any less dead.
 
2013-04-03 01:53:15 PM

Marcus Aurelius: nobody messes with a dog with a gun.


www.digmydog.org
 
2013-04-03 01:54:23 PM

Dusk-You-n-Me: CPennypacker: People who make this argument assume all suicides are the result of a rational decision making process.

His argument or mine?


His
 
2013-04-03 01:54:58 PM

HeadLever: You realize that NY state has a gun registry, correct?  Not as prohibited as you may think.


And? States rights, right? Either way, we're talking about federal law here. Registries are forbidden and the background checks that Senator Coburn and Manchin are working on would not change that and would not allow the government to create one.
 
2013-04-03 01:55:16 PM

Dusk-You-n-Me: There's nothing disingenuous about it.


If you kill yourself, it's not violence. It's also morally debatable if anyone else should even care (as long as you keep your blood and offal off the carpet) since there's good reasons a body can have for suicide.
 
Displayed 50 of 449 comments

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

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report