gun show loophole rant
If it makes the paper, I'll be sure to post it here.Quote: FaceSince that means I'll surely be dead within the month, it's been fun s2dbaker =)
You don't need a crystal ball to predict the same outcomes when nothing changes.
Quote: rxwineThe Titanic sails again. The crowds cheer.
You don't need a crystal ball to predict the same outcomes when nothing changes.
You are correct. Had the law passed like all others it would have done nothing but made it harder for law abiding people to defend themselves or get guns for other legitimate purposes as collecting or hunting. That is why it failed.
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
It is so simple it only takes 27 words. I'd have to look but does any other amendment come close in how short and simple it is?
Or maybe it doesn't matter.
Quote: boymimboExactly -- some Amendments are meant to be repealed or revisited. Perhaps an amendment created in 1791 might not have realized the technology of today.
Or maybe it doesn't matter.
So are you saying we don't need the prohibition on quartering of troops because tents are so good today we don't need to worry?
Quote: Beethoven9thWell, the Founding Fathers were smarter than all of us here put together. For example, even though they couldn't have possibly envisioned the internet back in 1791, I'm sure they would agree that the 1st Amendment still applies.
The first amendment does still apply, but not carte blanche. The Espionage Act for example resulted in many convictions to people who distributed leaflets against the draft. Free Speech is subject to "clear and present danger" provisions. The first amendment does not apply to "commercial" speech either. Son of Sam laws also apply to protect convicted criminals to publish accounts of their crimes for profit.
The First Amendment is standard, the gold test to which laws are tested against. And that's a good thing. Exceptions to First Amendment rights are out there. Just as there are for 2nd amendment (gun control) and 4th amendment (Patriot Act) laws.
Quote: Beethoven9thWell, the Founding Fathers were smarter than all of us here put together. For example, even though they couldn't have possibly envisioned the internet back in 1791, I'm sure they would agree that the 1st Amendment still applies.
They also would agree that money is a form of speech and never tried to pass laws saying you cannot advocate for an issue or candidate right before an election.
Quote: AZDuffmanYou are correct. Had the law passed like all others it would have done nothing but made it harder for law abiding people to defend themselves or get guns for other legitimate purposes as collecting or hunting. That is why it failed.
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
That's not why it failed.
Exception 1, we already have gun control of different forms. There's a hella lot of people who would never support actual uninfringed gun acquistion at any level. And I predict always will, because fortunately people aren't complete fucking idiots.
If 90 percent supported universal checks, that includes moderates and consevatives. Apparently the politicians calculated they won't be broken on one issue alone come election, and they're probably right.
The loss, was of the threshold variety. The threshold wasn't met, this time. But the the barometer is not moving in your preferred direction.
Worst prioritizing ever. Fucking is all American. It's how most of us got here.
I use profanity sparingly. As far as I know, it's within the Wizards protocol.
This also is not Europe.
Quote:Keep it PG. No pornographic or violent images or text. Profanity is not specifically prohibited, but should be used sparingly to emphasize a point only, or in quoting another.
Quote: FaceThis state has reached such a level of clusterfuckicity I don't know where to go from here. To recap - law turned millions of citizens into criminals overnight, made criminals of every LEO in the state, raped the Constitution, and with every push back that weakens NYSAFE, to include every single upstate county save one voting against it, Supreme Leader Cuomo gets more and more batshit crazy.
Geez, AZ, you quoted Face in support of this statement, which contains the offending expletive. Please be evenhanded in your support of morality on this site.
We're allowed to be emotional on issues, and if that includes a sprinking of expletives from time to time, so be it.
Quote: Mr. Mackey
Step 1: Instead of ass say buns, like "kiss my buns" or "you're a buns hole"
Step 2: Instead of shit say poo, as in "bull poo", "poo head" and this "poo is cold"
Step 3: With bitch drop the t because bich is latin for generosity
Step 4: Dont say fuck any more because fuck is the worst word that you can say
So just use the word mmmkay!
Mmmkay?
Quote: boymimbo
We're allowed to be emotional on issues, and if that includes a sprinking of expletives from time to time, so be it.
Completely agree. But I'll apologize anyways because I, like AZ, prefer this site's member's conduct to 100% of the rest of the internets. I usually proofread a few times to include substituting intelligent insight in place of expletives, but certainly abandoned that practice in this thread.
So from here on I'll try to get back in that habit. Although I do reserve the right to use such terms as "clusterfuckicity" in the future, because c'mon =D
Quote: bbvk05OH NO. The Senate failed to ban private sales posted on internet forums. The blood will run in the streets now!
They want to be re-elected next year, they're not
stupid.
Quote: EvenBobThey want to be re-elected next year, they're not
stupid.
Well, Harry Reid is. Told you peeps he was an extremist in 2010.
Quote: boymimboExceptions to First Amendment rights are out there. Just as there are for 2nd amendment (gun control) and 4th amendment (Patriot Act) laws.
Exactly, I can see your point here. What I don't understand is when people argue against gun rights by saying that "the Founding Fathers never envisioned the weapons of today". If one is going to accept that as a valid argument, then that person shouldn't cherry pick and only use it against the 2nd Amendment.
Quote: Beethoven9thExactly, I can see your point here. What I don't understand is when people argue against gun rights by saying that "the Founding Fathers never envisioned the weapons of today". If one is going to accept that as a valid argument, then that person shouldn't cherry pick and only use it against the 2nd Amendment.
Agree with this. You can even forget the fact that they "only" use it against the Second. It on its own is a terrible argument. The breech load musket was the AR of its time, and was legal for all to own. Having "military capable" weapons for citizen use is the point of the 2nd. Preventing the gov from attaining superior fire power over the citizen is the point of the 2nd. The 1776 version of the AR was legal, the 2013 AR should be legal, and when they make laser-plasma-melty guns, they should be legal too.
This doesn't imply that grenades, 20mm auto cannons, and thermonuclear devices should be owned by John Q Public. In fact, I think the sanctions on these are already proof that the "lack of vision" claimed by the antis has already been accounted for.
Quote: FaceQuote: Beethoven9thExactly, I can see your point here. What I don't understand is when people argue against gun rights by saying that "the Founding Fathers never envisioned the weapons of today". If one is going to accept that as a valid argument, then that person shouldn't cherry pick and only use it against the 2nd Amendment.
Agree with this. You can even forget the fact that they "only" use it against the Second. It on its own is a terrible argument. The breech load musket was the AR of its time, and was legal for all to own. Having "military capable" weapons for citizen use is the point of the 2nd. Preventing the gov from attaining superior fire power over the citizen is the point of the 2nd. The 1776 version of the AR was legal, the 2013 AR should be legal, and when they make laser-plasma-melty guns, they should be legal too.
The same people who have issues with the Second to the point of requiring a full background check for me to buy a weapon of my choice always be the ones who love the Fourth to the point that they say it is unreasonable to ask someone on welfare to take a drug screen to remain on the program.
This is yet another reason I cannot take liberalism seriously.
Yeah, because if a crazy person gets a hold of an assault weapon it's exactly the same as a person on welfare smoking pot. That's the kind of thinking that makes me point and laugh at the conservatards.Quote: AZDuffmanThe same people who have issues with the Second to the point of requiring a full background check for me to buy a weapon of my choice always be the ones who love the Fourth to the point that they say it is unreasonable to ask someone on welfare to take a drug screen to remain on the program.
This is yet another reason I cannot take liberalism seriously.
Quote: s2dbakerYeah, because if a crazy person gets a hold of an assault weapon it's exactly the same as a person on welfare smoking pot. That's the kind of thinking that makes me point and laugh at the conservatards.
As was demonstrated in the last three major public shootings, background checks clearly don't seriously impede the ability of crazy persons to get firearms.
Also, increasing reporting of mental illness to the current background check system was the conservative bill that liberals rejected in favor of the idiotic gun show bill. Your comments should be directed at the democrats that refused it, not the conservatards who tried to do what you want.
Quote: s2dbakerYeah, because if a crazy person gets a hold of an assault weapon it's exactly the same as a person on welfare smoking pot. That's the kind of thinking that makes me point and laugh at the conservatards.
Not quite the same at all, because I am not paying taxes for the person who gets the weapon, but if a person wants to use dope I should not be paying their living costs.
And as we have seen, crazy people don't care about the law. Carry permit laws, gun-free school laws, and laws against murder do not deter them. Liberals think if you make a law or a speech you have solved the problem. Usually all you do is make life harder for the average person.
Again, that's just more conservatard logic. Saying that background checks don't work because there are ways around the current background check law is pretty dumb. Closing the gun show loophole would actually make it more difficult for a lunatic to get a gun because that takes away an easy venue by which a lunatic can get a gun.Quote: bbvk05As was demonstrated in the last three major public shootings, background checks clearly don't seriously impede the ability of crazy persons to get firearms.
If you make it more difficult for a lunatic to get a gun, then the lunatic may decide to use a pressure cooker bomb instead. Instead of killing 26 people, he kills 3.
Quote: s2dbakerAgain, that's just more conservatard logic.
Why does anyone (either side) find it necessary to use personal insults--and that is what these are, insults directed at a person based on a comment they have made--to make a point. I was always taught that the moment you get loud, nasty, insulting, or otherwise out of sorts was the moment you started to realize that you were not winning the discussion.
Quote: s2dbakerIf you make it more difficult for a lunatic to get a gun, then the lunatic may decide to use a pressure cooker bomb instead. Instead of killing 26 people, he kills 3.
This is an interesting theory but the problem with it is that the bombs could have easily killed more people and they certainly did maim a whole bunch of folks who will be dealing with amputations and such for the rest of their life. Oh, I am sire you knew that when you wrote it, I am just wondering why you would try to bolster a pro gun control position with such an absurd point.
Quote: RonCThis is an interesting theory but the problem with it is that the bombs could have easily killed more people and they certainly did maim a whole bunch of folks who will be dealing with amputations and such for the rest of their life.
I hear you. The last thing I'm going to say to a Boston victim who just had a limb amputated is, "Hey man, look on the bright side. At least you're not dead!"
Quote: s2dbakerAgain, that's just more conservatard logic. Saying that background checks don't work because there are ways around the current background check law is pretty dumb. Closing the gun show loophole would actually make it more difficult for a lunatic to get a gun because that takes away an easy venue by which a lunatic can get a gun.
Come on, liberals use this kind of logic all the time. From prohibitions on profiling air passengers to drug testing welfare recipients to Voter ID we get, "there are ways around it so why bother?" What the left really feels is they do not like guns so they feel nobody should have one, ever.
Quote:If you make it more difficult for a lunatic to get a gun, then the lunatic may decide to use a pressure cooker bomb instead. Instead of killing 26 people, he kills 3.
They could easily have killed 50 or more, and IEDs are as intended to badly wound as to kill.
Quote: chickenmanNot to highjack here, but will be interesting to hear how these Boston bombers got the guns they apparetly had during the overnight firefight. Initial reports are that they have been in country for about one year but I don't know as they'd be prohibited from legal ownership.
Interesting, yes. Why? It will bolster one side or the other of the gun control issue.
Will it make a difference? No. We can pass all the laws we want, we can even have registration and we could even confiscate every legal gun out there and people trying to create terror would still be able to find guns, build bombs, and cause terror. The number of gun killings COULD go down but maybe not--if the criminals with guns knew legal citizens did not have guns, what would happen?
Quote: s2dbakerAgain, that's just more conservatard logic. Saying that background checks don't work because there are ways around the current background check law is pretty dumb. Closing the gun show loophole would actually make it more difficult for a lunatic to get a gun because that takes away an easy venue by which a lunatic can get a gun.
If you make it more difficult for a lunatic to get a gun, then the lunatic may decide to use a pressure cooker bomb instead. Instead of killing 26 people, he kills 3.
Except it doesn't actually take away that easy venue. These people PASS BACKGROUND CHECKS because your party wants to focus on banning inanimate objects in lieu of improving the background check system. Both Holmes and Laughner walked right into a gun shop and passed a background check. No gun show loophole needed if the background checks don't seriously screen the mentally ill.
You'd feel better if Laughner passed his background check at a gun show rather than Sportsman's Warehouse?
Quote: chickenmanNot to highjack here, but will be interesting to hear how these Boston bombers got the guns they apparetly had during the overnight firefight. Initial reports are that they have been in country for about one year but I don't know as they'd be prohibited from legal ownership.
We give drivers licenses and tuition breaks to illegal aliens so why should guns be any different? The liberals want aliens to be able to access everything else so why would an alien fail a background check just for being an alien?
Quote: RonCInteresting, yes. Why? It will bolster one side or the other of the gun control issue.
Why? From my perspective another data point in an obviously very publicised incident, and of course after the initial terror attac. Will be interesting to see the empahsis put on it by both sides in the never-ending and poorly focused battle over gun rights.
I couldn't agree more that new laws will be just as ineffective as those currently in place.
oooo, I can play this game too!Quote: AZDuffmanWe give drivers licenses and tuition breaks to illegal aliens so why should guns be any different? The liberals want aliens to be able to access everything else so why would an alien fail a background check just for being an alien?
Conservatives enjoy watching children's brains get splattered about. Why else sould they oppose common sense legislation requiring all gun buyers to pass a background check?
Quote: s2dbakeroooo, I can play this game too!
Conservatives enjoy watching children's brains get splattered about. Why else sould they oppose common sense legislation requiring all gun buyers to pass a background check?
For the twenty-eighth time because criminals don't bother with background checks.
Which is exactly why there should be universal background checks. To make it nearly impossible for a criminal to easily get a gun. But it's not going to happen because conservatives think that criminals aught to have easy access to guns.Quote: AZDuffmanFor the twenty-eighth time because criminals don't bother with background checks.
Quote: s2dbakerWhich is exactly why there should be universal background checks. To make it nearly impossible for a criminal to easily get a gun. But it's not going to happen because conservatives think that criminals aught to have easy access to guns.
Who will get background checks? People who obey the law.
Who won't get background checks? People who have no desire to follow the law.
What about people who intend to kill people that can't pass the background check? After they fail, they'll just obtain weapons from other sources. It isn't like a background check will make criminals suddenly follow the law.
Background checks may slow some folks down, but I doubt they will really stop anything unless they screen people a lot better than they do now.
Quote: RonCWho will get background checks? People who obey the law.
Who won't get background checks? People who have no desire to follow the law.
What was the highly touted proposal for keeping mentally unstable people from getting guns if you don't have background checks when they purchase guns?
Or are there any ideas at all on the other side?
Even the kid in Newtown could make a plan. So, do many of the others.
If you can plan, you can probably get around something, one supposes.
Quote: s2dbakerWhich is exactly why there should be universal background checks. To make it nearly impossible for a criminal to easily get a gun. But it's not going to happen because conservatives think that criminals aught to have easy access to guns.
No, conservatives think law abiding people should have easy access to guns. We think criminals should be locked up.
Quote: AZDuffmanNo, conservatives think law abiding people should have easy access to guns. We think criminals should be locked up.
You should go into law enforcement. If you can spot All the criminals from the regular citizens without a background check. I assume by easy access, you'd ask few if any questions of the person you'd sell a gun?
Really, it's a statistical issue. The more guns that are generally available, the more gun crime that there will be. If only 10% of Americans had a gun in their home, there would be far less in the way of senseless massacres, gun suicides, and crimes of passions. It also means that there would be less of a market for guns, which means less availability to criminals, a smaller number of gun shops, lesser number of private transfers that go into the wrong hands, less straw purchases. In otherwords, the availability would be less and therefore less criminals would have guns. It would also make enforcement of existing gun laws easier because law enforcement agencies might have the resources to monitor gun purchase activities or might have more time to scrutinize background checks. It also means that yes, home invasions would be more successful especially if committed with firearms, but I'm not convinced that the rate of gun crime would increase if there was generally less guns available.
The thing is in the United States is that the cat is way out the bag on this one. Anything that will drastically and immediately lower the rate of gun ownership among legal gun owners WITHOUT CRIMINAL ENFORCEMENT will have the effect of making the criminals feel free to commit crimes with guns that they didn't give up.
But there are laws that will punish the criminal that will lower gun crime. One is very strong penalties for convicted criminals caught with a gun. Strong penalties for those who are carrying guns that they are not licensed to own. Mandatory and strong minimum sentences for those who use guns in a crime.
Among the lawful carrying population, background checks that include mental health screening will hopefully protect those who are mentally fragile from using a lawfully obtained weapon against themselves and others. Mandatory education might protect the stupid and may keep some cleaning accidents and children / teens away from guns.
I don't see any of those as barriers to 2nd amendment rights.
Quote: boymimboThis is exactly why guns should be locked up when teens are at home: Police chief leaves gun insecure, teen uses it for suicide. Teens are among the most susceptible groups for suicide, and are incredibly impulsive. The dad had no clue. Lots of parents of teens have no idea what their kids are feeling.
If someone feels safer with them locked up they are free to do so. But I would guess most responsible gun owners have taught their kids responsible use of guns by the time they reach their teenage years. No need for a law.
You don't give your children and teens access to a deadly weapon, period, except at a gun range to teach your kid gun safety. Teenager's minds are notoriously unstable, and many parents really have no idea what their kids state of mind is at any given time. The kid certainly knew how to use the gun, and pointed it at his head and killed himself. There is a law in place in NH, and the police chief will have to pay a fine of up to... $1,000.
Now, if the law was such that the parent would be locked up for keeping a gun unlocked with children present in the house, that police chief might have remembered to always keep the gun locked up AND unloaded while at home, and that teenager might be alive today. Mind you, he might have tried to kill himself using another way, and may ended up hanging himself, cutting himself, falling, overdosing on pills etc, all of which collectively have about a success rate of about 20%. But guns are 85% effective and immediate.
