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 03:55:09 PM

BraveNewCheneyWorld: CPennypacker: I didn't want the Patriot act. Are you saying the only way to combat terrorism was the Patriot act? Why is your world so black and white?

This from the guy who insists that gun restrictions must be part of any plan for gun crime reduction...


Why don't we just ban brown poor people. They are the problem according to you, am i rite?

GanjSmokr: CPennypacker: GanjSmokr: CPennypacker: No, lets continue doing nothing while our per capita gun death rate is obscenely higher than every other country and pretend like there's no problem at all cuz you don't think you should have to fill out a form and have your background checked in order to buy a combusion powered high velocity rapid fire portable projectile weapon.

You sound like you might need a nap.

Screw it - let's just do whatever it takes to get gun deaths down that extra 7-8% you want from where they are now and look back only after we're done to determine what rights we've infringed upon.

/you must have really loved the Patriot Act.

Why are you operating under the assumption that it would take extreme measures to reduce gun deaths significantly? Or do you just consider any measure an extreme measure.

And your Patriot Act argument is bullshiat. I didn't want the Patriot act. Are you saying the only way to combat terrorism was the Patriot act? Why is your world so black and white?

Because I personally believe it would take extreme measures to reduce gun deaths to a number that you personally find acceptable.

I'm using the Patriot Act as an example of doing what it takes to accomplish a goal and worrying about the negative impacts later.  I think it was a bad idea then and I think it's a bad idea now.


I think its a bad idea too. Unfortunately, one side of the debate repeatedly shuts down discourse and research into the topic. So our choices are do nothing or forge forward blindly. I would prefer reasoned, informed regulation.
 
2013-04-03 03:56:09 PM

moanerific: From your link:
"Boyd asked Senate Democrats about Brophy's concerns. They sent her a statement saying an amendment dealing with thats issue is currently being drafted and will be presented in a committee hearing Monday. What that amendment looks like and whether it passes remains to be seen."

So, twinkie (more rare than cupcakes), a potential problem in proposed legislation was recognized and is being addressed.
OH NOES!


My argument is that they will try ban anything.  Even the ones who honestly don't want to ban everything often lack the knowledge about what they are crafting legislation for.


Your own farking source contradicts that very argument. Why isn't that giving you pause?
 
2013-04-03 03:56:49 PM

spif: Am I the only one around here who is farking tired of the simple fact that the only gun violence events that are used for these arguments are the ones where mostly white people are getting killed instead of the vast amounts of gang related violence in large cities?


Psh, who cares about brown people?

/No.  Race does not play a factor but age can.
 
2013-04-03 03:57:04 PM

spif: Am I the only one around here who is farking tired of the simple fact that the only gun violence events that are used for these arguments are the ones where mostly white people are getting killed instead of the vast amounts of gang related violence in large cities?


Best part is, all the proposed bans will do NOTHING to alleviate that problem.  Local gangbangers aren't rolling around with $1000 AR-15s with $600 holographic scopes on them.
 
2013-04-03 03:57:21 PM

Giltric: Dusk-You-n-Me: Giltric: It seem that democrats can't get the voters to agree with them unless they lie or pull the wool over the peoples eyes.

Yeah dude like totally.


It's like the Harvard study they were using for the health care debate....counted all these people who owed at least 1000 dollars in medical expenses as a medical bankruptcy while ignoring all the other debt the person had.

If the democrats told the tuth HCR would never have been passed.

Democrats have to resort to lies. They don't have any other process to get what they want.


You are aware that many of those were well over $1000 and the medical bills were the actual cause of bankruptcy?  It happens frequently and it isn't right to lose everything because you got sick or hurt.
 
2013-04-03 03:58:27 PM

moanerific: spif: Am I the only one around here who is farking tired of the simple fact that the only gun violence events that are used for these arguments are the ones where mostly white people are getting killed instead of the vast amounts of gang related violence in large cities?

Best part is, all the proposed bans will do NOTHING to alleviate that problem.  Local gangbangers aren't rolling around with $1000 AR-15s with $600 holographic scopes on them.


So you're saying that pistols should be the target.
/Good. They're mostly useless and often worse.
 
2013-04-03 03:59:17 PM

geek_mars: *I'm all for checks on sales, even private sales, but they better be very explicit on some of the rules regarding transfers. I can't see why a person couldn't loan their rifle out to a friend for hunting season without having to worry about federal weapons charges.


Well, that depends; what's your friend hunting?
 
2013-04-03 03:59:43 PM

asimplescribe: You are aware that many of those were well over $1000 and the medical bills were the actual cause of bankruptcy?  It happens frequently and it isn't right to lose everything because you got sick or hurt.


Not in civilized industrial countries, it doesn't.
 
2013-04-03 03:59:44 PM

moanerific: Best part is, all the proposed bans will do NOTHING to alleviate that problem.


Best part is, the AWB is DOA. You can sleep tight.
 
2013-04-03 04:00:51 PM

demaL-demaL-yeH: moanerific: From your link:
"Boyd asked Senate Democrats about Brophy's concerns. They sent her a statement saying an amendment dealing with thats issue is currently being drafted and will be presented in a committee hearing Monday. What that amendment looks like and whether it passes remains to be seen."

So, twinkie (more rare than cupcakes), a potential problem in proposed legislation was recognized and is being addressed.
OH NOES!


My argument is that they will try ban anything.  Even the ones who honestly don't want to ban everything often lack the knowledge about what they are crafting legislation for.

Your own farking source contradicts that very argument. Why isn't that giving you pause?


In that case sure, but that also reinforces my second statement even more.

Also, how about things like 1 feature cosmetic bans?  Do you realize how many weapons could be shoehorned into that group?  Or maybe the next crazy uses a pump action and they ban that anyway.

I am for background checks BTW, I am against impotent bans based on ignorance.  Mental health is where all of this political capital should be being spent.
 
2013-04-03 04:01:45 PM

CPennypacker: BraveNewCheneyWorld: CPennypacker: I didn't want the Patriot act. Are you saying the only way to combat terrorism was the Patriot act? Why is your world so black and white?

This from the guy who insists that gun restrictions must be part of any plan for gun crime reduction...

Why don't we just ban brown poor people. They are the problem according to you, am i rite?


Their poorness is the problem, and yes, we should fix it.  But yeah, try to paint me as a racist for acknowledging that fact, because quite honestly, you don't' want a solution, you want gun bans.
 
2013-04-03 04:02:20 PM

demaL-demaL-yeH: Ridiculous on its face. Ignores the rights inherent to marriage.


What "right" inherent in marriage supersedes Federal firearms law?

If there was, as you claim, some inherent right in marriage that invalidates Federal firearms law, it would be impossible for a husband or wife to make a straw purchase for their spouse, or for a husband or wife to be prohibited from having a firearm in the house because their spouse qualifies as a prohibited person.  Both conditions which are entirely possible under current law.

There is no right in marriage that allows for violations of Federal firearms laws, or redefines what a transfer is under the purview of Federal firearms law.  Even today, if my wife wasn't on the documents for my Class 3 stuff, I wouldn't be allowed to leave it with her when I leave the state or it would illegally transfer to her.

Perhaps a better understanding of firearms law is in order for people in this thread, because you guys really have no clue what you are talking about.
 
2013-04-03 04:03:33 PM

BraveNewCheneyWorld: CPennypacker: BraveNewCheneyWorld: CPennypacker: I didn't want the Patriot act. Are you saying the only way to combat terrorism was the Patriot act? Why is your world so black and white?

This from the guy who insists that gun restrictions must be part of any plan for gun crime reduction...

Why don't we just ban brown poor people. They are the problem according to you, am i rite?

Their poorness is the problem, and yes, we should fix it.  But yeah, try to paint me as a racist for acknowledging that fact, because quite honestly, you don't' want a solution, you want gun bans.


I don't want gun bans, I want solutions. What you want is the status quo which is why you derp out with the same tired BS in every gun thread no matter who you are arguing with.
 
2013-04-03 04:04:42 PM

CPennypacker: So our choices are do nothing or forge forward blindly.


Which is the better of these choices is where we disagree.  I'd rather see us put some thought in and do something that will actually accomplish something instead of forging forward blindly hoping what we do will help.

CPennypacker: I would prefer reasoned, informed regulation.


On this we agree.
 
2013-04-03 04:05:23 PM

CPennypacker: BraveNewCheneyWorld: CPennypacker: BraveNewCheneyWorld: CPennypacker: I didn't want the Patriot act. Are you saying the only way to combat terrorism was the Patriot act? Why is your world so black and white?

This from the guy who insists that gun restrictions must be part of any plan for gun crime reduction...

Why don't we just ban brown poor people. They are the problem according to you, am i rite?

Their poorness is the problem, and yes, we should fix it.  But yeah, try to paint me as a racist for acknowledging that fact, because quite honestly, you don't' want a solution, you want gun bans.

I don't want gun bans, I want solutions. What you want is the status quo which is why you derp out with the same tired BS in every gun thread no matter who you are arguing with.


Yeah, and I'm still waiting on an answer to my question.  What restrictions could you BraveNewCheneyWorldstomach to put a dent in gun violence?  All I want is an answer to that question.  I answered yours, now it's your turn to answer mine.
 
2013-04-03 04:07:22 PM

HeartBurnKid: geek_mars: *I'm all for checks on sales, even private sales, but they better be very explicit on some of the rules regarding transfers. I can't see why a person couldn't loan their rifle out to a friend for hunting season without having to worry about federal weapons charges.

Well, that depends; what's your friend hunting?


Well, if he's borrowing my rifle he's going to be legally hunting something that's in season and within his bag limit.
 
2013-04-03 04:15:32 PM

demaL-demaL-yeH: moanerific: spif: Am I the only one around here who is farking tired of the simple fact that the only gun violence events that are used for these arguments are the ones where mostly white people are getting killed instead of the vast amounts of gang related violence in large cities?

Best part is, all the proposed bans will do NOTHING to alleviate that problem.  Local gangbangers aren't rolling around with $1000 AR-15s with $600 holographic scopes on them.

So you're saying that pistols should be the target.
/Good. They're mostly useless and often worse.


No, I think we should be focusing on keeping guns out of criminals hands and increasing mental health awareness. Banning things never works. See war on drugs.
 
2013-04-03 04:15:56 PM

moanerific: demaL-demaL-yeH: moanerific: From your link:
"Boyd asked Senate Democrats about Brophy's concerns. They sent her a statement saying an amendment dealing with thats issue is currently being drafted and will be presented in a committee hearing Monday. What that amendment looks like and whether it passes remains to be seen."

So, twinkie (more rare than cupcakes), a potential problem in proposed legislation was recognized and is being addressed.
OH NOES!


My argument is that they will try ban anything.  Even the ones who honestly don't want to ban everything often lack the knowledge about what they are crafting legislation for.

Your own farking source contradicts that very argument. Why isn't that giving you pause?

In that case sure, but that also reinforces my second statement even more.


Also, how about things like 1 feature cosmetic bans?  Do you realize how many weapons could be shoehorned into that group?  Or maybe the next crazy uses a pump action and they ban that anyway.

I am for background checks BTW, I am against impotent bans based on ignorance.  Mental health is where all of this political capital should be being spent.


O.o
Hold an internally consistent position that is not based on paranoia, and I will listen.
 
2013-04-03 04:16:07 PM

geek_mars: HeartBurnKid: geek_mars: *I'm all for checks on sales, even private sales, but they better be very explicit on some of the rules regarding transfers. I can't see why a person couldn't loan their rifle out to a friend for hunting season without having to worry about federal weapons charges.

Well, that depends; what's your friend hunting?

Well, if he's borrowing my rifle he's going to be legally hunting something that's in season and within his bag limit.


What if he's trying to hunt an elephant in his pajamas?  Shouldn't you at least ask him how the elephant got in his pajamas?
 
2013-04-03 04:17:44 PM

Dusk-You-n-Me: moanerific: Best part is, all the proposed bans will do NOTHING to alleviate that problem.

Best part is, the AWB is DOA. You can sleep tight.


Federally sure, but some states are creating their own.
 
2013-04-03 04:18:59 PM

Click Click D'oh: husband or wife to be prohibited from having a firearm in the house because their spouse qualifies as a prohibited person


D'oh, see what you wrote? Who said anything about contradicting federal law?
 
2013-04-03 04:21:48 PM

demaL-demaL-yeH: moanerific: demaL-demaL-yeH: moanerific: From your link:
"Boyd asked Senate Democrats about Brophy's concerns. They sent her a statement saying an amendment dealing with thats issue is currently being drafted and will be presented in a committee hearing Monday. What that amendment looks like and whether it passes remains to be seen."

So, twinkie (more rare than cupcakes), a potential problem in proposed legislation was recognized and is being addressed.
OH NOES!


My argument is that they will try ban anything.  Even the ones who honestly don't want to ban everything often lack the knowledge about what they are crafting legislation for.

Your own farking source contradicts that very argument. Why isn't that giving you pause?

In that case sure, but that also reinforces my second statement even more.

Also, how about things like 1 feature cosmetic bans?  Do you realize how many weapons could be shoehorned into that group?  Or maybe the next crazy uses a pump action and they ban that anyway.

I am for background checks BTW, I am against impotent bans based on ignorance.  Mental health is where all of this political capital should be being spent.

O.o
Hold an internally consistent position that is not based on paranoia, and I will listen.


I'm not paranoid. Lawmakers across the nation have been proposing and even passing bans.

Here is something simple: No more bans. Keep guns out of criminals' hands, don't turn law-abiding citzens into them. Increase funding and awareness for mental health issues.
 
2013-04-03 04:25:17 PM

Dusk-You-n-Me: BayouOtter: Maybe if we had matching systems of universal health care, education, and other factors, maybe ditched our systemic racism, poverty, income inequality, the drug war, and some other things....we could see numbers like that.

YES! We should also do those things! I'm am totally on board with that!


I'm one of those wacky liberal dudes that enjoys firearms. If I could wave a magic wand and get some golden-age European social reforms while keeping our Second Amendment rights, you better call a doctor because my heart would explode with joy.

I hate all this stupid gun-ban bullshiat because it sucks up all kinds of money and effort - if we fixed the kind of stuff we're talking about we'd reduce violence across the board and make everyone's lives better at the same time.

But no, can't let poor people have good nutrition or healthcare says one side, and oh noes a man has 11 rounds in his magazine on the other, and nothing gets farkin' done.
 
2013-04-03 04:26:43 PM

Tomahawk513: geek_mars: HeartBurnKid: geek_mars: *I'm all for checks on sales, even private sales, but they better be very explicit on some of the rules regarding transfers. I can't see why a person couldn't loan their rifle out to a friend for hunting season without having to worry about federal weapons charges.

Well, that depends; what's your friend hunting?

Well, if he's borrowing my rifle he's going to be legally hunting something that's in season and within his bag limit.

What if he's trying to hunt an elephant in his pajamas?  Shouldn't you at least ask him how the elephant got in his pajamas?


I'd let the admitting psychologist ask him those types of questions.
 
2013-04-03 04:26:50 PM

moanerific: Federally sure, but some states are creating their own.


States rights!
 
2013-04-03 04:28:52 PM

Dusk-You-n-Me: moanerific: Federally sure, but some states are creating their own.

States rights!


Yep, it bites both ways. Just glad I live in a sane state as far as bans go. Legalization on the other hand...
 
2013-04-03 04:31:01 PM

demaL-demaL-yeH: D'oh, see what you wrote? Who said anything about contradicting federal law?


You suggested that the inherent rights of marriage would prevent the scenario I described from happening.  I pointed out several scenarios in which that is plainly not the case: straw purchases, prohibited persons and registered items.

Ergo, I have asked you what inherent right of marriage invalidates already existing Federal firearms law, which clearly holds that even though two people may still be married, the laws regarding the transfer or possession of a firearm still clearly apply to them as individuals.  Could you please tell us why you think this to not be so?
 
2013-04-03 04:31:48 PM

Giltric: The one with the 40% number is one asking people if they got a background check when they purchased their firearm.


thanks you very much, hate not to have the proper facts. found the study with google and bookmarked it.
 
2013-04-03 04:39:42 PM

Curious: Giltric: The one with the 40% number is one asking people if they got a background check when they purchased their firearm.

thanks you very much, hate not to have the proper facts. found the study with google and bookmarked it.


Mind giving us the link?
 
2013-04-03 04:40:55 PM

Click Click D'oh: demaL-demaL-yeH: D'oh, see what you wrote? Who said anything about contradicting federal law?

You suggested that the inherent rights of marriage would prevent the scenario I described from happening.  I pointed out several scenarios in which that is plainly not the case: straw purchases, prohibited persons and registered items.

Ergo, I have asked you what inherent right of marriage invalidates already existing Federal firearms law, which clearly holds that even though two people may still be married, the laws regarding the transfer or possession of a firearm still clearly apply to them as individuals.  Could you please tell us why you think this to not be so?


Would you have to transfer your weapons when you go on a family vacation under the proposed legislation?
No?
Then what the hell are you talking about? You don't transfer non-joint car ownership when you're working out of town for a few months (or register it in the other state), either.
Temporary absence from your domicile is not a transfer to your spouse under any proposed law.
 
2013-04-03 04:42:56 PM
demaL-demaL-yeH:
Would you have to transfer your weapons when you go on a family vacation under the proposed legislation?
No?


Yes.

Then what the hell are you talking about? You don't transfer non-joint car ownership when you're working out of town for a few months (or register it in the other state), either.

Well that isn't covered by the proposed legislation.

Temporary absence from your domicile is not a transfer to your spouse under any proposed law.

It is under Schumer's.
 
2013-04-03 04:47:14 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.



Thank you for being the posterboy of anti-gun ignorance.  #1.  Your 40% is bullshiat, I challenge you to prove otherwise (preferably with a survey done this century), and #2 I didn't realize that felons could legally purchase and possess a gun as long as they don't have to submit to that pesky background check!  Good to know.  Makes me wonder why all these gangs and mafia strongholds don't just set up weekend "gun shows" to acquire and trade their wares instead of buying cheap drop guns and having to steal them from legal gunowners and the police.
 
2013-04-03 04:55:09 PM

demaL-demaL-yeH: Would you have to transfer your weapons when you go on a family vacation under the proposed legislation?


Hell, I don't know... or care.  I was answering a question you asked.  What was:

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


You made no references to any proposed laws.  All you asked about was a background check for every firearm transfer, so all we can speak of, in regards to the question, is what the law currently says.

Also, firearms don't transfer if your family goes on vacation (assuming you take the family on vacation with you) since there is no one in the residence for the firearms to transfer to

.

demaL-demaL-yeH: You don't transfer non-joint car ownership when you're working out of town for a few months (or register it in the other state), either.


We aren't talking about cars.  You are 100% off base if you think the two are comparable.

demaL-demaL-yeH: Temporary absence from your domicile is not a transfer to your spouse under any proposed law.


It is under current law.  Any time a firearm is left with another person, or in their custody and control, it transfers to that person.  Period, dot, end of sentence.  This is why you should have paid attention to my prior example.  Let's say you have a felony, but you live in a house with a person who does not... can they own a firearm?  No, they can not.  Because, any time they are not in the home, that firearm transfers to you, a prohibited person.  Unless that person takes all of his firearms with him every time he leaves the house....
 
2013-04-03 05:00:19 PM
Let's have another example for people that don't understand firearms law.  Let's say that I'm at the range having fun with my Class 3 stuff.  What if I leave that item with a person who is shooting it on the range and go inside to get a cold coke?  No, that's a felony because by leaving the immediate presence of the item I have illegally transferred a Class 3 item.

"transfer" as it applies to firearms law does not hold the same meaning that most people assume for other legal transfers.
 
2013-04-03 05:11:29 PM

BayouOtter: demaL-demaL-yeH:
Would you have to transfer your weapons when you go on a family vacation under the proposed legislation?
No?

Yes.

Then what the hell are you talking about? You don't transfer non-joint car ownership when you're working out of town for a few months (or register it in the other state), either.

Well that isn't covered by the proposed legislation.

Temporary absence from your domicile is not a transfer to your spouse under any proposed law.

It is under Schumer's.


[citation_sorely_needed.jpg] Keeping your weapons in your home while you are temporarily away is not a transfer under this law. Even if it were, the law specifically exempts spouses, children, grandparents, and siblings.
 
2013-04-03 05:44:15 PM

BraveNewCheneyWorld: CPennypacker: BraveNewCheneyWorld: CPennypacker: I didn't want the Patriot act. Are you saying the only way to combat terrorism was the Patriot act? Why is your world so black and white?

This from the guy who insists that gun restrictions must be part of any plan for gun crime reduction...

Why don't we just ban brown poor people. They are the problem according to you, am i rite?

Their poorness is the problem, and yes, we should fix it.  But yeah, try to paint me as a racist for acknowledging that fact, because quite honestly, you don't' want a solution, you want gun bans.


Listen CPennypacker, BraveNewCheneyWorld can read your soul through a Fark thread. He knows the madness that lies in your heart. Don't you try and fool him with reasonable discussion, you huckster. If it were up to you, we'd lock all the brave patriot militia members in Wyoming and let the Mexicans take over the rest of this once proud nation.

He knows. He knows.

Cryingeagle.jpg
 
2013-04-03 06:30:27 PM
demaL-demaL-yeH:
Temporary absence from your domicile is not a transfer to your spouse under any proposed law.
It is under Schumer's.

[citation_sorely_needed.jpg] Keeping your weapons in your home while you are temporarily away is not a transfer under this law.


It is, its a transfer of possession thanks to rulings on 'constructive possession', and assuming it never leaves the house and is under 7 days, it might be alright.

I've covered and quoted this twice now I think, stop repeating your false point.

Paragraph (1) [Background checks] shall not apply to a temporary transfer of possession that occurs between an unlicensed transferor and an unlicensed transferee, if -
''(i) the temporary transfer of possession occurs in the home or curtilage of the uncensed transferor;
''(ii) the firearm is not removed from that home or curtilage during the temporary transfer; and
''(iii) the transfer has a duration of less than 7 days;

Even if it were, the law specifically exempts spouses, children, grandparents, and siblings.

Only for 'bona fide' gifts. I don't know if ten transfers back and forth of every gun you own from your spouse to you thanks so business trips could be called 'bona fide gifts' and I wouldn't want to tangle with a Federal prosecutor in court over the matter.

It also screws over us gay folks, since we can't legally marry in most states.
 
2013-04-03 06:41:57 PM

BayouOtter: I've covered and quoted this twice now I think, stop repeating your false point.


And I called you out for not finishing the exceptions.

Firing ranges, and hunting.


BayouOtter: Only for 'bona fide' gifts. I don't know if ten transfers back and forth of every gun you own from your spouse to you thanks so business trips could be called 'bona fide gifts' and I wouldn't want to tangle with a Federal prosecutor in court over the matter.


You don't have to "transfer" it if you are leaving it at home.

And you are once again ignoring that this isn't a law, but a bill.  These problems are no brainers to fix.
 
2013-04-03 07:00:00 PM

Uranus Is Huge!: Listen CPennypacker, BraveNewCheneyWorld can read your soul through a Fark thread.


No, I just watch him kick and scream any time someone brings up a solution that's based in anything other than gun control.  No internet telepathy required.
 
2013-04-03 07:08:44 PM

liam76: BayouOtter: I've covered and quoted this twice now I think, stop repeating your false point.

And I called you out for not finishing the exceptions.

Firing ranges, and hunting.


We weren't talking about those- and I have posted them.

BayouOtter: Only for 'bona fide' gifts. I don't know if ten transfers back and forth of every gun you own from your spouse to you thanks so business trips could be called 'bona fide gifts' and I wouldn't want to tangle with a Federal prosecutor in court over the matter.

You don't have to "transfer" it if you are leaving it at home.


Christ, you DO. If you leave the house and your spouse stays there, who is in 'possession' of the weapon?
The spouse! Or roommate, or whatever! Any temporary transfer of possession without transfer of title still counts as a transfer, and outside the very specific listed exceptions falls afoul of the bill. One of those exceptions is a time limit of seven days.

So yes, if I go out of state for a business trip for 8 days, I have to do a transfer.

And you are once again ignoring that this isn't a law, but a bill.  These problems are no brainers to fix.

Christ, its not like I ever said 'his proposed legislation' ten times. If its such a no-brainer, call your congressman and propose a fix for us to talk about.
 
2013-04-03 08:27:34 PM
That sounds about right, 43% of gun owners are reasonable.
 
2013-04-03 08:42:46 PM

BayouOtter: Christ, you DO. If you leave the house and your spouse stays there, who is in 'possession' of the weapon?
The spouse! Or roommate, or whatever! Any temporary transfer of possession without transfer of title still counts as a transfer, and outside the very specific listed exceptions falls afoul of the bill. One of those exceptions is a time limit of seven days.

So yes, if I go out of state for a business trip for 8 days, I have to do a transfer.


Transfer of possession requires some act witht he gun. Just leaving it stored wherever you regularly do doesn't fit the bill. Plus if you look at the actual text there is a glaring lack of "and" between C(i) and (ii).

Paragraph (1) [Background checks] shall not apply to a temporary transfer of possession that occurs between an unlicensed transferor and an unlicensed transferee, if -
''(i) the temporary transfer of possession occurs in the home or curtilage of the uncensed transferor;
''(ii) the firearm is not removed from that home or curtilage during the temporary transfer; and
''(iii) the transfer has a duration of less than 7 days;


BayouOtter: Christ, its not like I ever said 'his proposed legislation' ten times. If its such a no-brainer, call your congressman and propose a fix for us to talk about


I misread you, I saw the quoted text and thought you called it the law.

It is a no-brainer. Problem is that since NRA stopped becoming a civil rights group and an industry lobby, they don't really back the no-brainer things anymore. And given their money and the help of people like you and the blogs you are so fond of on this topic the "no-brainer" sane responses to this are going to be drowned out by people crying that you will go to jail if you don't fill out paperwork for the attorney general in 24 hours, that if you leave your guns at home for more than 7 days you will go to jail, and that if you hand your buddy your gun on a hunting trip it is a felony.
 
2013-04-03 09:25:43 PM

liam76: Transfer of possession requires some act with the gun.


I don't believe so. I'd like to see how you can to this conclusion.

I misread you, I saw the quoted text and thought you called it the law.

Happens.

It is a no-brainer. Problem is that since NRA stopped becoming a civil rights group and an industry lobby, they don't really back the no-brainer things anymore.


Actually, the NSSF is the industry lobby group. And they do support measures like making the NICS system available, but not when it comes with mandatory hooks and seems designed to entrap otherwise lawful gun owners. I'm a sharp guy, and you seem on the ball, but we can't seem to figure this out either way - whats Joe American going to do if this passes?
 
2013-04-03 09:43:28 PM

BayouOtter: liam76: Transfer of possession requires some act with the gun.

I don't believe so. I'd like to see how you can to this conclusion.

I misread you, I saw the quoted text and thought you called it the law.

Happens.

It is a no-brainer. Problem is that since NRA stopped becoming a civil rights group and an industry lobby, they don't really back the no-brainer things anymore.

Actually, the NSSF is the industry lobby group. And they do support measures like making the NICS system available, but not when it comes with mandatory hooks and seems designed to entrap otherwise lawful gun owners. I'm a sharp guy, and you seem on the ball, but we can't seem to figure this out either way - whats Joe American going to do if this passes?


NRA is more an industry lobby group than a civil rights group.  Maybe more of a "conservative" action group than either, but that is another conversation.

You realize the difference between available and required, right?  Pretending that saying it should be available will do anything is moronic.

Well if you are "Joe American" the lawful gun owner, so farking what.  When you want to sell your gun you will have to do the responsible thing (that some many people pretend most gun owners do, so it really shouldn't be that big a deal, and the right to bear arms, while protected the right to sell them with no responsibility is not so ti isn't a constitutional question) and go through the govt or a licensed dealer.

If you are "Joe American" the straw purchaser you are probably going to re-think your career, and if you don't the authorities will have a lot more tools to get you.

If you are "Joe American" he thug you are probably going to have to work a lot farking harder to get a gun because of how tought it will be to sell one to someoen who shouldn't own one.
 
2013-04-03 09:48:52 PM

BayouOtter: iam76: Transfer of possession requires some act with the gun.

I don't believe so. I'd like to see how you can to this conclusion.


Missed this bit.

The text of the law.  C(i) gives you an out.  C doesn't claim all below.  C(i) doesn't have "and".  And I realize common sense isn't the best way to look at laws, even if they did not have those "outs" put into the law, this wouldn't be constitutional.  Putting a big asterisk next to the right to bear arms, so that you can never leave home for more than 7 days without a massive paperwork shuffle isn't going to fly.
 
2013-04-03 10:03:33 PM

liam76: If you are "Joe American" the straw purchaser you are probably going to re-think your career, and if you don't the authorities will have a lot more tools to get you.

If you are "Joe American" he thug you are probably going to have to work a lot farking harder to get a gun because of how tought it will be to sell one to someoen who shouldn't own one.


Joe Strawpurchaser- "Dammit, that gun I bought last month is stolen! Guess I'll go buy another one! Hope this one doesn't get stolen again."

Or better yet, just fake a name. Buy a gun under someone else's name from a private buyer.

That you think criminals are stupid to not take any precautions doesn't  mean they'll be hard pressed. What you will guarantee though is people who do have legitimate issues get caught up in the legal system having to defend themselves.

But luckily once you have someone who would normally not be on the wrong side of the legal system gets thrown in prison we'll have the usuals biatching about how we imprison too many people. Because really, that's the solution to America's crime problem, subject more people to criminal scrutiny and have cops chasing around technical violators... who we all know are the REAL criminals.
 
2013-04-03 10:10:11 PM

liam76: Transfer of possession requires some act witht he gun. Just leaving it stored wherever you regularly do doesn't fit the bill. Plus if you look at the actual text there is a glaring lack of "and" between C(i) and (ii).

Paragraph (1) [Background checks] shall not apply to a temporary transfer of possession that occurs between an unlicensed transferor and an unlicensed transferee, if -
''(i) the temporary transfer of possession occurs in the home or curtilage of the uncensed transferor;
''(ii) the firearm is not removed from that home or curtilage during the temporary transfer; and
''(iii) the transfer has a duration of less than 7 days;


The sentence is divided into parts but it's one long declaration. Consider it a serial semi-colon.
 
2013-04-04 12:35:25 AM
22% of Americans own guns.  Not to be confused with the oft touted polling that 35% of households that have guns.

22% of Americans.

57% of that 22% want gun laws to stay the same, or be relaxed.

That's 13% of all Americans.

Clearly we should do what they say.
 
2013-04-04 01:11:05 AM

Kludge: 22% of Americans own guns.  Not to be confused with the oft touted polling that 35% of households that have guns.

22% of Americans.

57% of that 22% want gun laws to stay the same, or be relaxed.

That's 13% of all Americans.

Clearly we should do what they say.


Even if your stats were right (they aren't), the bill of rights was put there, among other things, to balance majority rule vs minority rights.
 
2013-04-04 01:30:11 AM

redmid17: Even if your stats were right (they aren't)...


Okay, even if we work from the inflated Gallup poll from 2011, and we ignore that gun owners as a percentage of the population has been in decline...

That's 34% of adult Americans who own guns.

57% of that 34% want gun laws to stay the same, or be relaxed.

That's 19% of all Americans... Counting persons under 18, 16%.
 
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