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 25
    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»



Voting Results (Smartest)
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


Archived thread
2013-04-03 10:28:52 AM
3 votes:
"Gun control" and so-called "stricter guns laws" is so poorly defined these days that opinion polls about them are useless
2013-04-03 11:27:39 AM
2 votes:

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



That's sure to bring people to your side of the cause.

"If you disagree with me, then you must be ignorant."
2013-04-03 10:56:26 AM
2 votes:
"We have to do something!"

"What if what we're doing is stupid?"

"Uhm... it's still something, right? For the kids."
2013-04-03 06:30:27 PM
1 votes:
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 03:26:26 PM
1 votes:

Adolf Oliver Nipples: sammyk: Funny how you guys always run to the AWB that is never going to happen. Do you not support universal background checks? If not why? Difficulty:There will not be a list of gun owners for you to be paranoid about.

There IS a list. I found that out when a Pennsylvania State Police trooper told me every firearm I own. The list is composed of every firearm purchased with a background check. Remember, Pennsylvania doesn't have registration. Yet there it was, a comprehensive compilation of everything I have.

You know what? I don't have a problem with that. I am in favor of 100% background checks, for two reasons: First, it will help, if only in a small way, to keep firearms out of the hands of criminals. My concern is what we will have to do about the firearms we already have, but it's a small concern. All of mine have checks and records of the checks to go with them. The idea of a list does not concern me, because to confiscate the weapons they also have to abrogate the 4th Amendment, and the ACLU and others will put the kibosh on that.

Second, it will get the gun-control people to shut the hell up about the so-called "gun show loophole", which was neither confined to gun shows nor was a loophole. if they had wanted private sales covered they would have written it that way. But let's let it go away. One less rallying cry for the gun-control people, and it's such a small thing that we can hand it to them.


I actually do have a problem with that. While I do, in general, support expanded background* checks I don't like the idea of any government entity having an inventory of my belongings. If I want to buy a gun it seems like I should get my background check run and the gun dealer should get a reply saying yes or no. Depending on licensing restrictions it could come back with yes for class A, B and no for C,D (completely arbitrary classifications, only for example's sake). Then, once I pass the background check, I should be able to buy any amount of anything I choose that I've been approved for.
The Constitution says I can own guns. The background check says I'm not disqualified. That's the end of it. I don't see why they should be privileged to a list of my guns or my model trains or my StarWars toys or anything else I have in my home.

*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.
2013-04-03 02:07:28 PM
1 votes:

CPennypacker: BraveNewCheneyWorld: Dusk-You-n-Me: doglover: If you kill yourself, it's not violence.

Whether you consider that violence or not doesn't really matter. In those cases there was still a gun involved. Had that gun not been available, 90% of those people would not have taken their own life.

Can I borrow your crystal ball?

Actually, most suicides attempts occur with little planning during a crisis. About 90% of suicide attempters who survive never attempt it again


Suicide is almost completely an impulsive act.  94% of bridge jumpers never attempted again.
2013-04-03 01:40:03 PM
1 votes:
As a gun owner, I think guns  should be more difficult to obtain.
2013-04-03 01:32:46 PM
1 votes:
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 01:30:05 PM
1 votes:

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 01:19:27 PM
1 votes:

Big_Fat_Liar: t is, but what percentage of people fifteen years ago believed marriage is between one man and one woman?    What percentage of Democrats and Republicans voted for the Patriot Act(s)?    That's not a real question.  Just saying people are farked in the head and Democracy is far from perfect, particularly when it concerns what people perceive to be the rights of "not me".  "If xxxxxxx was an intelligent choice, then I would already xxxxxxx.  Eveyone else is ignorant and needs my direction"


87% of the public agrees on something so they're farked in the head?
2013-04-03 12:48:26 PM
1 votes:
Guns are useful for three groups: hunters, the weak, and the scared.

You kill some meat? Rock on. Good job, chow down. Share with me, and I'll share with you.

Every other justification for gun ownership is either "I'm really, really weak" or "I'm really, really frightened".

You can disagree with me, but you'd be wrong.
2013-04-03 12:46:47 PM
1 votes:

doglover: Rapmaster2000: It was in Red Dawn!

It wasn't actually, but you wouldn't know that because the idea of a moderate liberal is alien to you.


3.bp.blogspot.com

Here's your video evidence Mr. "Moderate" liberal.  John Milius knew all about what was coming when he wrote Red Dawn.  He wouldn't be fooled by "Moderate" liberals.

Neither will I.  Ever vigilant I will defend the perimeter of freedom from those who wish to penetrate its defenses and I will dispatch all enemies of that freedom with extreme prejudice!
2013-04-03 12:45:26 PM
1 votes:

sammyk: Uisce Beatha: sammyk: No one is suggesting we change the current NICS system. Just expand it to all gun purchases. Do you have any issues with the current system?

Nope, and I have no problem expanding it to private sales, so long as it doesn't come with a hefty price tag or some other hidden hurdle to make selling your private property damn near impossible without involved a 3rd party.

I can agree with that. I would hope if it gets implemented that a private buyer would be able to show a CCW as prrof. Not having that I think a 3rd party would be required. It would be nice if the law says a FFl has to process it and can only charge a nominal fee. Say $12-$20.


The only issue I see where is when the criminal ends up with the gun.  When the cops run a check on the gun's serial number (assuming it is still there), they'll see sammyk bought it new from a gun store in 2003.  So they come knock on your door to ask how Icepick the Serial Killer ended up with your gun.  You'll tell them "I sold that to ha-ha-guy in 2011 guys, he showed me his CCW, paid me in cash, and left with the gun."  Meanwhile I'm a scumbag arms broker for some gang so I'll just tell the cops "Yeah I met sammyk at the range a few times, but I never bought anything from him."  So the provable chain of custody is you and the serial killer, which doesn't look good for you.  Unless I was sloppy and kept proof of the transaction the cops can find.  Having some kind of background check fire off or making you go transfer the title, al la a car, protects you in that you would then have proof you sold and did so in the proper manner.
2013-04-03 12:27:59 PM
1 votes:

Dimensio: doglover: sammyk: There will not be a list of gun owners for you to be paranoid about.

Prove it.

On what occasion has a list of firearm owners ever been misused, such as in an effort to shame them through publishing it to the public?


[citation needed]

Public records are public, Jack.

It was inappropriate for the paper to publish the list, but they had the right to do so under NY state law.
2013-04-03 12:27:58 PM
1 votes:

Giltric: I'm waiting for you to discuss something in regards to the tactics used by the gun control crowd. All it seems you do is snipe at people.


All I said was that 87% is a large percentage. That's it. I didn't snipe at anyone. You replied to me. No, I won't discuss whatever made up bad things you think gun control advocates are supposedly doing. You're free to whine about that on your own. You don't need me for it, so don't reply to me and complain I'm not participating in your dumb conversation.
2013-04-03 12:27:32 PM
1 votes:

monoski: sammyk: cameroncrazy1984: doglover: sammyk: The FBI maintains indefinitely the records of prospective purchasers whose applications are denied

Looks like a registry to me.

If you deny the sale of a gun, how is that person a gun-owner?

Don't forget the person denied may have committed a crime by attempting to buy a gun. Sure seems the so called law abiding gun owners like to support criminals having access to guns for...er...freedom I guess.

None of the recently passed CT legislation would have prevented the school shooting the laws were born from.  A mom with no mental illness or criminal record legally bought guns and provided them to her mentally unstable son who then shot her in her sleep and then went on to commit the school massacre.


An expanded background check could have never found that she had a mentally unstable son that she tried to commit. Good point.

I love these arguments based on the fiction that no gun laws could ever stop anything. Except that they do, everywhere else in the world, and even within the US based on gun ownership, statistically speaking. But clearly they couldn't work, because when I limit the scope of the scenario, and such as, reasons.
2013-04-03 12:24:37 PM
1 votes:

Uisce Beatha: Blues_X: dittybopper: The only way this kind of thing gets support is by people who are ignorant.


That's sure to bring people to your side of the cause.

"If you disagree with me, then you must be ignorant."

It may not be the most tactful way of saying it, but that doesn't mean it is false.  Anyone who thinks an "Assault Weapons Ban" would do anything other than inconvenience some law abiding people, for example, is pretty ignorant.


Not like it's proven to do anything anywhere else we could compare to. No one is like the US except when I try to draw fallacous arguments that support my position. Like "violent crime." Then they matter.

Sorry these threads are so full of derp I just decided to attack the most stupid comments/posters. Have to prioritize.
2013-04-03 12:17:49 PM
1 votes:

Giltric: Dusk-You-n-Me: Giltric: Considering the gun control crowd has been claiming nobody gets a background check at a gun show I say that stat is spot on.

I think it is too. Glad to see it so high.

If you can't dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with bullshiat.

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 and those polls totally need to be unskewed.
2013-04-03 12:16:33 PM
1 votes:
ZOMG!!!  Why do gun owners hate the 2nd Amendment?!?!??!!1!
2013-04-03 12:15:40 PM
1 votes:

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.
2013-04-03 12:06:40 PM
1 votes:

doglover: sammyk: The FBI maintains indefinitely the records of prospective purchasers whose applications are denied

Looks like a registry to me.


If you deny the sale of a gun, how is that person a gun-owner?
2013-04-03 12:05:29 PM
1 votes:

Dimensio: I have never asserted acceptance of such control, and in fact I recognize a handgun ban to be Unconstitutional. For what reason are you lying?


I'm not lying. You have asserted that the only way to control gun violence is not just through an assault weapons ban but through the ban of all guns.
2013-04-03 12:02:40 PM
1 votes:

Uisce Beatha:
It may not be the most tactful way of saying it, but that doesn't mean it is false.  Anyone who thinks an "Assault Weapons Ban" would do anything other than inconvenience some law abiding people, for example, is pretty ignorant.


Depends on the nature of the ban. Something like the one in the 90s? Absolutely useless. Pistol grips do not make or break a mass shooting. Problem is, what the hell does? What happened at Sandy Hook could have just as easily been carried out with a semiautomatic pistol. So if the aim is to stop the next mass shooting, I suppose we'd have to ban all firearms that aren't single shot, which only the truly naive think is ever going to come to pass in the USA.

Given the current political paradigm, this is just not a solvable problem.
2013-04-03 11:40:51 AM
1 votes:

Uisce Beatha: Blues_X: dittybopper: The only way this kind of thing gets support is by people who are ignorant.


That's sure to bring people to your side of the cause.

"If you disagree with me, then you must be ignorant."

It may not be the most tactful way of saying it, but that doesn't mean it is false.  Anyone who thinks an "Assault Weapons Ban" would do anything other than inconvenience some law abiding people, for example, is pretty ignorant.


Funny how you guys always run to the AWB that is never going to happen. Do you not support universal background checks? If not why? Difficulty:There will not be a list of gun owners for you to be paranoid about.
2013-04-03 11:40:26 AM
1 votes:

dittybopper: hinten: The only solution is that all current owners have to hand in their guns.

I'm sure they'd be willing to do that, after they gave you the bullets first.


Another responsible gun owner.
 
Displayed 25 of 25 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report