gun show loophole rant
Quote: boymimboMy point was that Obama's program was not the first. The Bush program was. AZ was attempting to bring in politics, and it needed to be pointed out. We could also extend that to the massive amount of arms that Carter then Reagin gave UBL and the mujajideen to combat the Soviets in the 80s which penuntimately ended up in 9/11.
I didn't bring in politics I cleared up that the Bush admin tried to track guns and killed the program when that failed. Then the Obama admin didn't even try to track them and had the benefit of seeing what didn't work before. As to giving arms to UBL in the 1980s well we gave arms to the USSR in the 1940s. You work with who is an ally at the time being sure not to give them your best stuff lest their interests change. Though the left doesn't understand allies change over time as interests change based on their "we supported UBL under Reagan " comments.
Quote:Theories? Enforce current laws. Just like cars, license the firearm so that every year, the firearm must be accountable. If the owner of the gun can't account for the firearm, chuck him in prison. That means that if the firearm is sold, fill out the paperwork and submit to the government for approval (background check). If the firearm is stolen get a police report within 7 days, else prosecute.
This is one of the most tyrinacil ideas I have ever heard.
Yep. So tyrannical that this is exactly what happens in Canada. You must fill out paperwork for a transfer, must register your handgun (not long guns, anymore), and must undergo the background check (and take a class). If you don't, then you are subject to prosecution under Canada's criminal code.
Yes, I exagerrate when I say "chuck him in prison", but if a person is party to a straw purchase, why not?
Canada.... the Kenyan commune.
*giggle*Quote: boymimboCanada.... the Kenyan commune.
Straw purchasers are criminals and they should go to jail for at least a decade.
Quote: s2dbaker*giggle*
Straw purchasers are criminals and they should go to jail for at least a decade.
So when do they sent Eric Holder to the can?
Do you believe that a sting operation conducted with the full knowledge, approval and blessing of the justice department makes Eric Holder a straw purchaser?Quote: AZDuffmanSo when do they sent Eric Holder to the can?
Quote: s2dbakerDo you believe that a sting operation conducted with the full knowledge, approval and blessing of the justice department makes Eric Holder a straw purchaser?
Why not? It got a border agent killed. Holder wants to ban guns and he put them into a gang's hands. Kind of crazy.
If we want to curtail rights in the name of safety, please let's ban cigarettes first, and alcohol second. The number of deaths from those substances exceeds gun deaths by a large margin.
By the way, I think Studebakers do not have AIR BAGS! I would hope you would never subject another person to the added risk by being a passenger in such a vehicle! (When I'm next in Jersey I would be willing to take the risk)
Who are these people? Do they post here? Are they crazy? The only way we have of getting rid of the gun freaks is to encourage them to kill themselves while cleaning their guns. No one!! AND I MEAN NO ONE is suggesting for even a moment that a single solitary gun be taken away from anyone ever.Quote: SOOPOOTime for a summary.... There are those who want guns out of the hands of all Americans and cite numerous examples of innocent people being killed because of accidental use of guns, or other examples of incidents that would not have risen to the level of fatality if no guns were involved.
No one is looking to restrict any gun ownership rights. Further, alcohol and cigarettes are not designed to murder people. Besides, we're nearly there with the cigarettes so I don't see the point.Quote: SOOPOOThe other side feels that regardless of the facts, their rights to own firearms trumps the risk. If we want to curtail rights in the name of safety, please let's ban cigarettes first, and alcohol second. The number of deaths from those substances exceeds gun deaths by a large margin.
If they build another Studebaker, it will have airbags. I could argue that we now have the ability to make a weapon which will fire only while in the hands of the registered owner. Consider it the "airbag" technology for guns. Could you support that? Meanwhile, all the guns without this technology would be just fine.Quote: SOOPOOBy the way, I think Studebakers do not have AIR BAGS! I would hope you would never subject another person to the added risk by being a passenger in such a vehicle! (When I'm next in Jersey I would be willing to take the risk)
While we're inventing stuff for guns, can we invent a device that cleans a gun without killing the responsible gun owner?
Quote: MonkeyMonkeyAnd thanks for linking to Salon.com that bastion of unbiased reporting.
Here's one from the NYtimes
Quote:
Why I'm for the Brady Bill
By Ronald Reagan; Ronald Reagan, in announcing support for the Brady bill yesterday, reminded his audience he is a member of the National Rifle Association
Published: March 29, 1991
"Anniversary" is a word we usually associate with happy events that we like to remember: birthdays, weddings, the first job. March 30, however, marks an anniversary I would just as soon forget, but cannot.
It was on that day 10 years ago that a deranged young man standing among reporters and photographers shot a policeman, a Secret Service agent, my press secretary and me on a Washington sidewalk.
I was lucky. The bullet that hit me bounced off a rib and lodged in my lung, an inch from my heart. It was a very close call. Twice they could not find my pulse. But the bullet's missing my heart, the skill of the doctors and nurses at George Washington University Hospital and the steadfast support of my wife, Nancy, saved my life.
Jim Brady, my press secretary, who was standing next to me, wasn't as lucky. A bullet entered the left side of his forehead, near his eye, and passed through the right side of his brain before it exited. The skills of the George Washington University medical team, plus his amazing determination and the grit and spirit of his wife, Sarah, pulled Jim through. His recovery has been remarkable, but he still lives with physical pain every day and must spend much of his time in a wheelchair.
http://www.nytimes.com/1991/03/29/opinion/why-i-m-for-the-brady-bill.html
Quote:Thomas Delahanty, a Washington police officer, took a bullet in his neck. It ricocheted off his spinal cord. Nerve damage to his left arm forced his retirement in November 1981.
Tim McCarthy, a Secret Service agent, was shot in the chest and suffered a lacerated liver. He recovered and returned to duty.
Still, four lives were changed forever, and all by a Saturday-night special -- a cheaply made .22 caliber pistol -- purchased in a Dallas pawnshop by a young man with a history of mental disturbance.
This nightmare might never have happened if legislation that is before Congress now -- the Brady bill -- had been law back in 1981.
Named for Jim Brady, this legislation would establish a national seven-day waiting period before a handgun purchaser could take delivery. It would allow local law enforcement officials to do background checks for criminal records or known histories of mental disturbances. Those with such records would be prohibited from buying the handguns.
While there has been a Federal law on the books for more than 20 years that prohibits the sale of firearms to felons, fugitives, drug addicts and the mentally ill, it has no enforcement mechanism and basically works on the honor system, with the purchaser filling out a statement that the gun dealer sticks in a drawer.
The Brady bill would require the handgun dealer to provide a copy of the prospective purchaser's sworn statement to local law enforcement authorities so that background checks could be made. Based upon the evidence in states that already have handgun purchase waiting periods, this bill -- on a nationwide scale -- can't help but stop thousands of illegal handgun purchases.
And, since many handguns are acquired in the heat of passion (to settle a quarrel, for example) or at times of depression brought on by potential suicide, the Brady bill would provide a cooling-off period that would certainly have the effect of reducing the number of handgun deaths.
Critics claim that "waiting period" legislation in the states that have it doesn't work, that criminals just go to nearby states that lack such laws to buy their weapons. True enough, and all the more reason to have a Federal law that fills the gaps. While the Brady bill would not apply to states that already have waiting periods of at least seven days or that already require background checks, it would automatically cover the states that don't. The effect would be a uniform standard across the country.
At what point does a responsible gun owner become an irresponsible one? And I guess that's my point. Beside the background check (the does not apply to some gun sales), you are giving deadly force to someone without educating them how to use it.
Here's my thought. A gun "enthusiast" will happily train themselves how to use, handle, and work a weapon. They'll understand the responsibility that the have. They'll go to the range and practice their shot. They'll keep their weapon safely unloaded. These aren't the people you see in the newspaper (although I am sure s2dbaker might find one).
My feeling is that a minority of gun owners (far greater than 1%) buy their guns and have no idea on how to use it or the responsibility that they have. The fact that their gun doesn't get stolen or they accidently shoot themselves or others is just because the gun is rarely handled. This, in my opinion, is an irresponsible gun owner. Just because only 0.02% of gun owners get into deadly accidents doesn't mean that 99.98% of gun owners are responsible. There is a segment of the population of gun owners who are far more likely to get into accidents because they don't use their weapon responsibly.
With cars, you have to get a license and prove to someone else that you're responsible enough to know the rules of the road and how to drive. You register and insure your vehicle with enough liability insurance to cover in case of an accident. I fail to see why this cannot be exercised with guns.
And no, I don't have a study -- the NRA and the 1996 congress directed the CDC to stop doing studies on gun violence.
I don't dig for stories. They are at the top of my news feed. If the body is still bleeding or at least still warm and I'm bored, I'll post it. Sometimes the story is too relevant to ignore. Like the discussion we had earlier about responsible gun owners and how they would never have an accident because they all know to clear the chamber. Then as if God had a sick sense of humor, someone goes and kills himself cleaning his gun and the news shows up in my news feed. I don't make this stuff up, I don't have to. The stories are numerous and constant.Quote: boymimboHere's my thought. A gun "enthusiast" will happily train themselves how to use, handle, and work a weapon. They'll understand the responsibility that the have. They'll go to the range and practice their shot. They'll keep their weapon safely unloaded. These aren't the people you see in the newspaper (although I am sure s2dbaker might find one).
Quote: rxwineHere's one from the NYtimes...
Ah, the Brady Bill. Now there's a piece of legislation that's been a complete failure. Don't think so? Re-read this thread and pay particular attention to your own posts as well as those of s2dbaker and boymimbo, you have all been arguing vehemently for more laws. If the Brady Bill had been a success we'd all be living in a gun-violence-free utopia.
Or perhaps it's just another in a long string of examples that show that more laws do not translate into more safety.
Quote: SOOPOO
By the way, I think Studebakers do not have AIR BAGS! I would hope you would never subject another person to the added risk by being a passenger in such a vehicle!
Since the last Studebaker was built in 1966 they probably aren't up to anything like modern emissions regulations. So, it makes you wonder, why do Studebaker owners that drive their cars hate the planet? They should know their little hobby is killing us all and have the vehicles crushed or donate them to a museum where they can't continue to kill.
Quote: boymimboRFIDs with a battery life of 48 hours that were crammed into guns to make the attennae useless sounds like a Bush initiative.
I don't know much about the Bush program, but I do know a little about RFID and the whole 48 hour battery thing sounds like complete nonsense.
And, as I'm sure you'll not just take my word for it, here ya go:
Quote:This is an absolutely key part of the technology; RFID tags do not need to contain batteries, and can therefore remain usable for very long periods of time (maybe decades).
Link: How RFID Works
If you don't like that site check a few more, they'll all tell you the same thing.
Now there are some technologies where RFID does take a battery to operate, and in my experience the mean time to failure is ~5 years. I have never, ever hear of RFDI technology that takes a battery that lasts 48 hours. It's difficult to fathom the application where that would make a shred of sense.
Quote: boymimbo
No I don't have any theories on why that might be? Do you?
Ok, my bad, you seemed to have all the answers so I thought you might have some idea why the current laws, which are used to prosecute offenders, aren't resulting in the prison time that is possible. In that case, I would further challenge you to outline how new laws would be any different than the existing laws. Since you have no idea why the current laws aren't being used to their maximum effect I highly doubt you can articulate why more new laws would be any different, and I would suggest that until you can figure out why this happening the way it is, you really have no business arguing for more laws. But please, if you've got an answer share it with the class.
It's the concept that we just need to keep making more laws until one finally works and the effect on law abiding citizens be damned that rubs me the wrong way. If this same logic were applied to something you don't think needed more regulation piled on I'm sure you'd begin to see the fallacy in this approach. I have an analogy I'm considering putting out there, but I don't want to distract any more from the discussion than is already happening.
Of course some here would rather just let the guy clean out their house because they are afraid they will shoot themselves while cleaning their gun.
This shows why we don't need draconian laws about locking up guns. The responsible gun owner can protect his house, the ones who think they will shoot themselves while cleaning their gun can keep it locked up and give the local Wal-Mart more business when the insurance check comes and they go to replace their stuff.
This would make sense if in fact I was saying that muskets and flint-locks need to be melted down but actually, I'm not.Quote: MonkeyMonkeySince the last Studebaker was built in 1966 they probably aren't up to anything like modern emissions regulations. So, it makes you wonder, why do Studebaker owners that drive their cars hate the planet? They should know their little hobby is killing us all and have the vehicles crushed or donate them to a museum where they can't continue to kill.
You know this for a fact how exactly?Quote: AZDuffmanHad he had to keep his gun in a safe with a trigger lock he would not have been able to stop the crook.
Quote: s2dbakerYou know this for a fact how exactly?
Well, logically how can you stop a crook if your gun is locked in a safe?
The only possible way to stop a crook is to point a gun at him, a gun that hadn't previously been locked in a safe. Sounds perfectly reasonable to me.Quote: AZDuffmanWell, logically how can you stop a crook if your gun is locked in a safe?
Quote: s2dbakerThe only possible way to stop a crook is to point a gun at him, a gun that hadn't previously been locked in a safe. Sounds perfectly reasonable to me.
So what if the crook is in he garage with the gun safe? Too bad for the homeowner?
Quote: BeardgoatSo what if the crook is in he garage with the gun safe? Too bad for the homeowner?
That's a tactical failure on the part of the gun owner.
There are many types of safes for many types of guns.
Some fit in a bedside table where the loaded gun can be safely stored yet accessed in a matter of a couple seconds.
If you keep all your guns in the garage, you're not intending on using them *NOW* for self defensive purposes. I'm pro-choice in this department.
Quote: BeardgoatSo what if the crook is in he garage with the gun safe? Too bad for the homeowner?
Yes. And too bad if he has to find the key to the mandatory trigger lock. Or just take time to open the safe. But that is what the gunphobes want.
Quote: AZDuffmanYes. And too bad if he has to find the key to the mandatory trigger lock. Or just take time to open the safe. But that is what the gunphobes want.
Don't ask me how I know this, but the term you're looking for is "hoplophobia" or "hoplophobes". Add it to the list of pointless trivia I know
Quote:KAUFMAN, Texas Kaufman County District Attorney Mike McLelland took no chances after one of his assistant prosecutors was assassinated two months ago. McLelland said he carried a gun everywhere he went and took extra care when answering the door at his home.
"I'm ahead of everybody else because, basically, I'm a soldier," the 23-year Army veteran boasted in an interview less than two weeks ago.
On Saturday, he and his wife were found dead in their home just outside the town of Forney, about 20 miles from Dallas, killed in an attack for which authorities have given no motive.
Quote:The killings came less than two weeks after Colorado's prison chief was gunned down at his front door by a white-supremacist ex-convict, and two months after Kaufman County Assistant District Attorney Mark Hasse was shot to death in a parking lot a block from his office Jan. 31. No arrests have been made in Hasse's slaying.
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-201_162-57577167/official-kaufman-county-district-attorney-mike-mclelland-and-his-wife-cynthia-were-targeted-in-killing/
Quote: rxwineI do find it ironic that basically good people are dying who probably have supported organizations making gun access easier for EVERYONE instead of just law abiding citizens.
I find it ironic that good people (who support the tough gun control laws of their cities/states) are dying from guns.
Quote: rxwineI do find it ironic that basically good people are dying who probably have supported organizations making gun access easier for EVERYONE instead of just law abiding citizens.
There are stories everywhere of tragedy. Did you see the one a few weeks back? Retired army sniper, possibly one of the best snipers who ever lived, took a fellow soldier out to the range. Guy was all messed up, PTSD something awful, and the sniper was trying to be there for him, help him out. Guy snaps, kills the sniper and his buddy right at the range.
World’s a fucked up place. Always has been, always will be. Why do you think we carry? It ain’t because it’s “cool”, and it sure ain’t comfortable.
But who are these people thinking everyone should have access to a gun? I don’t think I’ve ever heard that one before…
Quote: FaceGuy was all messed up, PTSD something awful,
The armed forces could easily screen for people
who would be prone to PTSD, but if they did
half the people sent into combat would be
disqualified. It would be like a casino screening
for problem gamblers and not letting them play.
Never gonna happen.
Quote: FaceDon't ask me how I know this, but the term you're looking for is "hoplophobia" or "hoplophobes". Add it to the list of pointless trivia I know
I didn't even know there was a term, I just made it up because of the *phobe statements the lefties make when someone doesn't support every facet of their beliefs.
Quote: Beethoven9thI find it ironic that good people (who support the tough gun control laws of their cities/states) are dying from guns.
Well, additionally I'd support tough gang laws, not support more gangs as the answer. And that would be the gun advocates approach. Let's have more gangs, because there are gangs to deal with.
Quote: s2dbakerThis would make sense if in fact I was saying that muskets and flint-locks need to be melted down but actually, I'm not.
But why do Studebaker owners that drive their cars hate the planet?
Quote: rxwineWell, additionally I'd support tough gang laws, not support more gangs as the answer. And that would be the gun advocates approach. Let's have more gangs, because there are gangs to deal with.
^ Because Easter.
I hope I don't have to explain why... =/
Quote: rxwineWell, additionally I'd support tough gang laws, not support more gangs as the answer. And that would be the gun advocates approach. Let's have more gangs, because there are gangs to deal with.
Not really. Gangs are there to break the law and enrich themselves. Guns are inanimate objects that can't break the law in and of themselves. Why I would want more people committing more crime in my neighborhood?
Quote: rxwineWell, additionally I'd support tough gang laws, not support more gangs as the answer. And that would be the gun advocates approach. Let's have more gangs, because there are gangs to deal with.
Um.....no. I assume this was an attempt at satire (which fell flat).
Gun rights supporters believe that law abiding citizens have a constitutional right to bear arms. Gang members are not law abiding citizens. This shouldn't be difficult to understand.
Quote: Beethoven9thGun rights supporters believe that law abiding citizens have a constitutional right to bear arms. Gang members are not law abiding citizens. This shouldn't be difficult to understand.
This.
I'm probably more extreme than most gunners. I completely support the private ownership of actual, dictionary definition "assault weapons", your so-called "machine gun". And I'm against the sort of capacity restrictions being peddled around nowaways. But neither I, nor anyone I have ever heard, know, or known of, has ever implied that keeping guns out of the hands of crims is the "infringement" we're rallying against.
I think I can speak for the entire gunner crowd and say those that have lost the priviledge due to criminal activity, or those who do not possess the mindset to properly operate one (mentals and small children) are not part of the "EVERYONE".
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YQEDvqmAfqg
http://www.carmax.com
Heck, we don't even require a background check to buy a car. Maybe we should start?
Quote: MonkeyMonkeyI don't know much about the Bush program, but I do know a little about RFID and the whole 48 hour battery thing sounds like complete nonsense.
And, as I'm sure you'll not just take my word for it, here ya go:
Link: How RFID Works
Thanks for the article. I'm quoting something that the whistleblower said to "Gun Rights Examiner". The "RFID" had to be high-powered and long range, which required a battery. So maybe it wasn't an RFID at all. Rush called it an RFID, and you know, everyone believes every single word that he says.
Quote:
Ok, my bad, you seemed to have all the answers so I thought you might have some idea why the current laws, which are used to prosecute offenders, aren't resulting in the prison time that is possible. In that case, I would further challenge you to outline how new laws would be any different than the existing laws. Since you have no idea why the current laws aren't being used to their maximum effect I highly doubt you can articulate why more new laws would be any different, and I would suggest that until you can figure out why this happening the way it is, you really have no business arguing for more laws. But please, if you've got an answer share it with the class.
It's the concept that we just need to keep making more laws until one finally works and the effect on law abiding citizens be damned that rubs me the wrong way. If this same logic were applied to something you don't think needed more regulation piled on I'm sure you'd begin to see the fallacy in this approach. I have an analogy I'm considering putting out there, but I don't want to distract any more from the discussion than is already happening.
Just because I don't answer the question doesn't mean that I have no idea. It's pretty easy to say why maximum jail times aren't being enforced. It's because your jails are more than full and the justice system is slow and unfair. Gun crime is so much less severe than a marijuana dealer on their third strike.
No, I'm suggesting creating "thoughtful" laws that will actullly reduce innocent gun deaths (and suicides) and to abolish laws that don't make sense. Because congress and the NRA essentially shut down the funding to CDC for gun control studies, there is no real empirical way to tell which laws have an effect and which ones do not. It's therefore easy to put up a set of statistics that state that laws have no effect just as easy as it is to put up a set of stats that state that laws have a great effect.
However, I would suggest you look at your neighbor to the north with its "draconian" gun laws and the resultant lower gun crime and accident rates as a result, even though our cultures are roughly the same. Yep, we have the draconian magazine limits, the crazy handgun registration, the laws requiring paperwork to transfer, no concealing weapons, and very specific permits for transfers. Guns must be locked up in the house. How do our criminals get their guns? They go over the border and smuggle them back (the same way the Mexicans do, apparently).
All I get from the gun proponents (save Face) is that all new gun laws are bad, which means that the current massacres and gun crimes that you see is acceptable. I understand that you might be self-centred enough to feel that way -- I mean, as long as it's not a member of your family or a friend being mowed down, it really doesn't matter -- as long as my rights aren't impacted, I really don't care what happens to everyone else.
So, what i'd like to see is some suggestion from the gun proponents to suggest ways to reduce the number of gun crimes that doesn't involve legislation, then. What is it? More guns? More gun clubs? Education? Mental health programs? What?
Or are you just fine with the carnage (as long as it isn't you or someone you love)?
Quote: boymimbo
Thanks for the article. I'm quoting something that the whistleblower said to "Gun Rights Examiner". The "RFID" had to be high-powered and long range, which required a battery. So maybe it wasn't an RFID at all. Rush called it an RFID, and you know, everyone believes every single word that he says.
I'd like to know more about the operation because there are radio frequency transmitters with ranges in miles that can run off fairly low amounts of power for periods longer than 48 hours. But in the end, I really don't care that much, it just strikes me as another example of people that don't know squat about technology babbling out buzzwords.
Quote: boymimbo
Just because I don't answer the question doesn't mean that I have no idea.
You did answer my question, you said you didn't know. To me that either means you have no idea, or you're holding back because the idea you do have doesn't fit well with your agenda.
Quote: boymimbo
It's pretty easy to say why maximum jail times aren't being enforced. It's because your jails are more than full and the justice system is slow and unfair. Gun crime is so much less severe than a marijuana dealer on their third strike.
So is this a researched, knowledgeable answer or is it from the book of ROMA? (The book of ROMA is a term we used in marketing to describe when someone was just making up facts or statistics to support their view. (ROMA: Right Outta My Ass)
Quote: boymimbo
No, I'm suggesting creating "thoughtful" laws that will actullly reduce innocent gun deaths (and suicides) and to abolish laws that don't make sense.
Well then (feel like I've already asked this...) do you have any suggestions as to what those "thoughtful" laws might be?
Quote: boymimboBecause congress and the NRA essentially shut down the funding to CDC for gun control studies, there is no real empirical way to tell which laws have an effect and which ones do not. It's therefore easy to put up a set of statistics that state that laws have no effect just as easy as it is to put up a set of stats that state that laws have a great effect.
Wow, that NRA lobby sure is powerful. I have to admit I'm a little puzzled as to why the CDC would study this in any event, do they refer to gun shot victims as having "lead poisoning"?
Quote: boymimbo
However, I would suggest you look at your neighbor to the north with its "draconian" gun laws and the resultant lower gun crime and accident rates as a result, even though our cultures are roughly the same. Yep, we have the draconian magazine limits, the crazy handgun registration, the laws requiring paperwork to transfer, no concealing weapons, and very specific permits for transfers. Guns must be locked up in the house. How do our criminals get their guns? They go over the border and smuggle them back (the same way the Mexicans do, apparently).
I think there are vast differences between the cultures of Canada and U.S., comparing them on this issue feels pretty apples and oranges to me.
Quote: boymimbo
All I get from the gun proponents (save Face) is that all new gun laws are bad,
I've not said that, I've asked why new laws you'd propose and how you imagine they'd be any different than all the other laws that people ignore.
Quote: boymimbo
which means that the current massacres and gun crimes that you see is acceptable.
That's quite a leap. I don't recall saying anything of the kind. Perhaps you should leave the absurd hyperbole to s2dbaker.
Quote: boymimbo
I understand that you might be self-centred enough to feel that way -- I mean, as long as it's not a member of your family or a friend being mowed down, it really doesn't matter -- as long as my rights aren't impacted, I really don't care what happens to everyone else.
You really have to love the sensitivity of liberals. Do you know me? Do you if my family or myself have been the victim of violent crime with a gun involved. What a crass assertion to make.
Quote: boymimbo
So, what i'd like to see is some suggestion from the gun proponents to suggest ways to reduce the number of gun crimes that doesn't involve legislation, then. What is it? More guns? More gun clubs? Education? Mental health programs? What?
I think the problem is one of how the issue is viewed. If you're waiting for me to come up with a law that criminals will heed, I'm the wrong person to address. If I, or anyone really, knew how to make criminals stop being criminals I should think the idea would have been floated by now. What I don't see is how more laws that will be ignored like the current ones are going to make any difference. You can only be more restrictive on law abiding citizens by making more laws. That's the crux of the legislation angle and until you can address that I can't see how you're going to get any traction with the "gun nuts".
Quote: boymimbo
Or are you just fine with the carnage (as long as it isn't you or someone you love)?
If I were to write what I'm really feeling right now I'd probably be banned for life. Suffice to say I think you should chose your remarks a little more carefully.
Bring it.
Just curious, will that website register the car in the name of the new owner with the DMV in the new owner's state and issue license plates for the vehicle?Quote: Beethoven9thWell, this website allows people who have had DUI's to buy cars:
http://www.carmax.com
Heck, we don't even require a background check to buy a car. Maybe we should start?
Quote: s2dbakerJust curious, will that website register the car in the name of the new owner with the DMV in the new owner's state and issue license plates for the vehicle?
Look up. That's my point flying over your head.
Because unlike a gun, you have to learn to use a car and be licensed by the state in order to use the vehicle on a public roadway. Since you seem to be suggesting that we treat guns like cars, how about we register every gun and license each owner to make sure that they know how to operate the gun properly. Also, we can require insurance for each gun and have it inspected each year.Quote: Beethoven9thLook up. That's my point flying over your head.
Now we're talking!
Quote: s2dbakerBecause unlike a gun, you have to learn to use a car and be licensed by the state in order to use the vehicle on a public roadway. Since you seem to be suggesting that we treat guns like cars...
Ah...guess you didn't look up!
Quote: s2dbakerBecause unlike a gun, you have to learn to use a car and be licensed by the state in order to use the vehicle on a public roadway. Since you seem to be suggesting that we treat guns like cars, how about we register every gun and license each owner to make sure that they know how to operate the gun properly. Also, we can require insurance for each gun and have it inspected each year.
Now we're talking!
The difference of course is that the right to keep a car is not in the Constitution, the right to keep a gun is.
Lets add in that there is no reason to require guns to be inspected as they are not used in public on a daily basis, like most cars. Guns do not have nearly the amount of use cars do, nor the complexity.
I didn't equate the two, Beethoven9th did. talk to him. He had the excellent idea.Quote: AZDuffmanThe difference of course is that the right to keep a car is not in the Constitution, the right to keep a gun is.
Quote: s2dbakerJust curious, will that website register the car in the name of the new owner with the DMV in the new owner's state and issue license plates for the vehicle?
But there is still a problem. To do a proper background check for a gun owner you will have to require a photo-ID. Well, we have been told lots of people were born outside of hospitals and have no birth certificate. And others simply have no ID as they do not drive. How on earth can you be in support of taking away the Constitutional Rights of these folks just because they do not keep a current photo ID?
Since so many people do not keep an ID then all background checks must be unconstitutional. That is what the courts have found, anyways--requiring ID takes away constitutional rights.
Quote: s2dbakerI didn't equate the two, Beethoven9th did. talk to him. He had the excellent idea.
If you believe that I really said what you claimed earlier, then that explains a lot about what you've written in this thread. *facepalm*
That might make sense if background checks were not required at gun shops. I'm certain that a background check can be worked out without photo ID.Quote: AZDuffmanBut there is still a problem. To do a proper background check for a gun owner you will have to require a photo-ID. Well, we have been told lots of people were born outside of hospitals and have no birth certificate. And others simply have no ID as they do not drive. How on earth can you be in support of taking away the Constitutional Rights of these folks just because they do not keep a current photo ID?
Since so many people do not keep an ID then all background checks must be unconstitutional. That is what the courts have found, anyways--requiring ID takes away constitutional rights.
