gun show loophole rant
Quote: TheNightflyQuote: Beethoven9thHere's a better link. If she was your wife, she would have been raped or killed.
Ask Sarah McKinley how important her right to own a gun is now.
Good for her. I have not once said that gun ownership should be denied. She had a 12 gauge and a pistol and seemed to handle herself pretty well against 2 intruders. Once again, good for her. She was within the law to do what she did. Those two intruders were breaking the law and one is dead, the other hopefully facing many, many years in prison.
I'll repeat what I've said before. If you want a gun for self defense or because you collect shiny things or items of historical value or if shooting or hunting is a hobby (or perhaps necessity in the case of hunting) then go right ahead. I just don't understand why people get so bent out of shape when they hear that certain weapons may be restricted. It makes no sense to be bothered by it except for one of two reasons: 1) you can't stand the idea of being told what to do or what you can or cannot have or 2) you just have an infatuation with guns. Either way, suck it up and accept that in life you won't always have what you want.
God forbid she use a rifle or handgun that holds more than 10 rounds. Then we'd all be in danger. God forbid she have 15 rounds!
Quote: vert1276Sometimes I really do think...Pro gun control people who are all for making it harder to buy weapons....longer waiting periods, tax stamps, licensing, banning of certain guns ect ect...have never opened a history book....These are the people who really do believe "it could never happen here"....like they don't understand human nature and history....and put complete trust in their government
Somehow they have been lead to believe making it harder and more of a hassle/pain in the ass for law abiding citizens to buy a gun and limiting the guns they can buy, somehow makes them safer....its really hard for me to wrap my head around this....why do they think this way?
Given that there is about 1 gun for each person in the United States, I don't think this will be a problem anytime soon, history aside. My view is that as long as the gun companies can continue to contribute to political campaigns, guns will continue to be able to be bought and sold.
Sometimes I really do think... Pro gun people who like it the way it is... short waiting periods, little restrictions, no licensing, free markets, have never looked at the homocide statistics... these are the people who really believe that gun murders and the deaths of innocent bystanders due to guns is perfectly a result of the exercise of the 2nd amendment rights... like they don't understand human nature... and put complete trust in the gun owners.
Sometime they have been led to believe that continuing to arm Americans and letting them buy whethever guns they want, somehow makes them safer (when all of the statistics show a direct link between gun ownership and gun violence)... it's really hard for me to wrap my head around this... why do they think this way?
Quote: boymimboGiven that there is about 1 gun for each person in the United States, I don't think this will be a problem anytime soon, history aside. My view is that as long as the gun companies can continue to contribute to political campaigns, guns will continue to be able to be bought and sold.
Sometimes I really do think... Pro gun people who like it the way it is... short waiting periods, little restrictions, no licensing, free markets, have never looked at the homocide statistics... these are the people who really believe that gun murders and the deaths of innocent bystanders due to guns is perfectly a result of the exercise of the 2nd amendment rights... like they don't understand human nature... and put complete trust in the gun owners.
Sometime they have been led to believe that continuing to arm Americans and letting them buy whethever guns they want, somehow makes them safer (when all of the statistics show a direct link between gun ownership and gun violence)... it's really hard for me to wrap my head around this... why do they think this way?
Because we don't think about gun violence as some special evil subset of violence that must be reduced even if it doesn't lower violence overall. When people (like Piers Morgan) parrot anti-gun positions they always compare gun killing to other countries, rather than killing to killing. Why do you think that is? I guess it is much more civilized to do it with a knife and other manual weapons?
There is a link between gun ownership and GUN violence. There is NOT a link between gun ownership and violence. Which do you think matters more?
Quote: s2dbakerOh what people think they know makes my laugh sometimes:Quote: Maverick17..There was a time when cars didn’t have seatbelts or airbags or crumple zones, but they do now. The reason cars have the safety features they have now is not because of government regulation, but because that is what consumers want. The amount of lives lost to car accidents was not acceptable in 1950, and it is not acceptable today. The evidence is in the improvements made to the cars...
In 1968 that the federal government required lap and shoulder belts in the front outboard seats of all new cars sold in the United States except convertibles.
In 1973, federal regulators upgraded the safety belt standard to require three-point lap and shoulder belts with inertia reels that lock the belt during a rapid deceleration. Lap and shoulder belts were mandated in the rear seats of cars sold in the U.S. starting in model year 1990, and in pickups, passenger vans, and SUVs starting in model year 1992. A requirement for three-point belts for inboard rear seating positions was phased in between Sept. 1, 2005, and Sept. 1, 2007.
So there was not a single seat belt in a car until 1968?
There was not a single front seat shoulder belt until 1973?
There was ot a single shouldler belt in back seats of cars until 1990?
The reason the government required all of the above is because they were already introduced to the public, and the public liked it. They were purchasing it because they saw the safety involved in it. Well before 1992 I was exclusively driving in the back seat of a minivan. The only seat that did not have a shoulder harness was the middle seat of the furthest back seat of the minivan. This was a 1989 Ford Aerostar, which if you google, the Aerostar was a work van modified for passenger use, not the proverbial cats pajamas high-end model.
Parents wanted their kids as safe as they could get them. Reagan, Bush I, and Clinton did nothing to put those shoulder harnesses in that van. Parents demanded it, and auto manufacturers put them in because they wanted to sell cars.
Thanks for playing.
Quote: bbvk05Because we don't think about gun violence as some special evil subset of violence that must be reduced even if it doesn't lower violence overall. When people (like Piers Morgan) parrot anti-gun positions they always compare gun killing to other countries, rather than killing to killing. Why do you think that is? I guess it is much more civilized to do it with a knife and other manual weapons?
There is a link between gun ownership and GUN violence. There is NOT a link between gun ownership and violence. Which do you think matters more?
YUUUUPPPPP!
Then after you do the above required homework, for extra credit check out the violent crime stats per capita in Europe vs the USA. Little pesky things like rape, felony assult, hot burglaries, robberies, etc.
If the guy committing the crime knows for a fact he is bigger than you, and can easily work you over with his fists, AND that you have no other means of defending yourself but your own hands, he is much more likely to get after you, than the exact same guy who MIGHT have a gun.
Quote: TheNightflyQuote: Beethoven9thHere's a better link. If she was your wife, she would have been raped or killed.
Ask Sarah McKinley how important her right to own a gun is now.
Good for her. I have not once said that gun ownership should be denied. She had a 12 gauge and a pistol and seemed to handle herself pretty well against 2 intruders. Once again, good for her. She was within the law to do what she did. Those two intruders were breaking the law and one is dead, the other hopefully facing many, many years in prison.
I'll repeat what I've said before. If you want a gun for self defense or because you collect shiny things or items of historical value or if shooting or hunting is a hobby (or perhaps necessity in the case of hunting) then go right ahead. I just don't understand why people get so bent out of shape when they hear that certain weapons may be restricted. It makes no sense to be bothered by it except for one of two reasons:1) you can't stand the idea of being told what to do or what you can or cannot have or 2) you just have an infatuation with guns. Either way, suck it up and accept that in life you won't always have what you want.
still blowing my mind....people are fine with the government taking away their liberties....and their answer is "suck it up and accept that in life you won't always have what you want".....This is EPICALLY mind blowing to me.....
Quote: bbvk05Because we don't think about gun violence as some special evil subset of violence that must be reduced even if it doesn't lower violence overall. When people (like Piers Morgan) parrot anti-gun positions they always compare gun killing to other countries, rather than killing to killing. Why do you think that is? I guess it is much more civilized to do it with a knife and other manual weapons?
Oh yeah, if my neighbor stabs my other neighbor, a random knife blade won't likely miss and hit me or someone else in the house through the window, or if I'm out in the yard.
I actually care if the people fighting are at least the ones getting hurt (see nearly all gang violence and bystanders getting hit).
Quote: vert1276still blowing my mind....people are fine with the government taking away their liberties....and their answer is "suck it up and accept that in life you won't always have what you want".....This is EPICALLY mind blowing to me.....
I hear you. The sad thing is that there are millions of people out there who agree with this guy, who flat out said that he "couldn't care less" about what Hubert Humphrey or Walter Mondale (or the Founding Fathers) had to say about guns.
Quote: vert1276
still blowing my mind....people are fine with the government taking away their liberties....and their answer is "suck it up and accept that in life you won't always have what you want".....This is EPICALLY mind blowing to me.....
Why? You haven't seen we're turning into EU, that
we're headed in the same direction? Ask not what
you can do for your country, ask how many entitlements
you have coming. Bleed and borrow the gov't dry,
just as long as the freebies keep showing up every
month.
Quote: Beethoven9thTheNightfly, if that's true, then I don't see why you'd even bother posting that link along with your commentary. In any case, have you even read the 2nd Amendment? What part of "shall not be infringed" don't you understand? We already know that you couldn't care less about the gun control opinions of Jefferson, Madison, Mason, Humphrey, JFK, or Mondale, but you need to suck it up and accept that in life you won't always have what you want.
Yes, I have read the 2nd amendment in full. I also understand the meaning of the word infringed. The Supreme Court has placed certain restrictions on who can (or more importantly cannot) bear arms according to their interpretation of the 2nd amendment. The rights of these individuals, it has been determined, have not been infringed. The court has also agreed that citizens (law abiding or otherwise) may not carry firearms in certain places (schools, courthouses, etc...) and if you were to be disarmed upon entering either of these two places, your rights will not have been infringed.
There are already certain regulations regarding firearms within the full scope of the 2nd amendment and these regulations have been set forth by over 200 years of high court decisions. In other words, your government, the same government who enacted the constitution and the bill of rights and amended the constitution, is much more knowledgeable about the interpretation of such laws than you or I and it is your government who will determine, based upon the court's interpretation of these laws what you may or may not do.
If it is determined that certain weapons may not be owned by individuals and it is also determined (by the Supreme Court I would imagine) that these restrictions do not infringe on your rights, then at that point you must simply say, "Ok, that's how it is".
So, until then we can all sit back and watch as history unfolds. If things remain as they are then so be it and I sincerely hope a way will be found to decrease the insane level of (gun) violence in the United States. If a change is made, then so be it but I am concerned that a certain percentage will simply disregard any law that they feel infringes on their rights, even if disregarding this law is unlawful in itself. As you can see, I'm fine with either outcome and will abide by the law either way. Will you?
Quote: TheNightflyYes, I have read the 2nd amendment in full. I also understand the meaning of the word infringed.
I'm not so sure about that. In which case did SCOTUS affirm the restrictions that you earlier proposed?
Quote: TheNightflyI just don't understand why people get so bent out of shape when they hear that certain weapons may be restricted. It makes no sense to be bothered by it except for one of two reasons: 1) you can't stand the idea of being told what to do or what you can or cannot have or 2) you just have an infatuation with guns. Either way, suck it up and accept that in life you won't always have what you want.
I have to ask a serious question here. Do you get just as confused when someone gets just as bent out of shape when a restriction is proposed on getting an abortion? Say partial birth abortion being banned or a parental notification law?
Just asking.
Quote: BuzzardDo I have to register my nuclear weapon ?
How will you preserve your freedom if only the government has nuclear weapons? Don't register it.
Quote: AZDuffmanI have to ask a serious question here. Do you get just as confused when someone gets just as bent out of shape when a restriction is proposed on getting an abortion? Say partial birth abortion being banned or a parental notification law?
Just asking.
I have no particular stance on abortion one way or the other. If you feel like starting a new thread with that question I might be able to come up with a better response after some thought.
Quote: vert1276Quote: TheNightflyQuote: Beethoven9thHere's a better link. If she was your wife, she would have been raped or killed.
Ask Sarah McKinley how important her right to own a gun is now.
Good for her. I have not once said that gun ownership should be denied. She had a 12 gauge and a pistol and seemed to handle herself pretty well against 2 intruders. Once again, good for her. She was within the law to do what she did. Those two intruders were breaking the law and one is dead, the other hopefully facing many, many years in prison.
I'll repeat what I've said before. If you want a gun for self defense or because you collect shiny things or items of historical value or if shooting or hunting is a hobby (or perhaps necessity in the case of hunting) then go right ahead. I just don't understand why people get so bent out of shape when they hear that certain weapons may be restricted. It makes no sense to be bothered by it except for one of two reasons:1) you can't stand the idea of being told what to do or what you can or cannot have or 2) you just have an infatuation with guns. Either way, suck it up and accept that in life you won't always have what you want.
still blowing my mind....people are fine with the government taking away their liberties....and their answer is "suck it up and accept that in life you won't always have what you want".....This is EPICALLY mind blowing to me.....
If the Supreme Court ruled that it was unlawful for you to carry a stun gun/taser and in this ruling it was determined that this does not infringe on your rights but you wanted to carry a taser, what would you do? We'll most law abiding US citizens would not carry tasers.
I am talking about obeying the laws of the land - the laws that have been put in place by the federal government and courts. I'm asking you to tell me what you would do if the federal government and Supreme Court (heck, Ron Paul while we're at it) deem this taser law to be constitutional but you don't agree. Do you follow the law begrudgingly or or do you knowingly break the law simply because you don't agree with it because it doesn't fit your interpretation of the constitution.
Now, I'll ask the same question regarding and potential limitations on the ownership of certain firearms. The law says you can't but you disagree. What do you do?
And please, enough with the "taking away of liberties" mantra. You are not at liberty to drive your car beyond the posted speed limit. You are not permitted to carry a gun into a school. You may not take a dump in your front garden to fertilize your roses. What liberty have you lost if you are not permitted to legally own an Ak-47? Oh wait, that law is already in place. Why is limiting magazines to 10 rounds any different? Is this what you're going to fight over? That is truly mind boggling.
Quote: TheNightflyQuote: vert1276Quote: TheNightflyQuote: Beethoven9thHere's a better link. If she was your wife, she would have been raped or killed.
Ask Sarah McKinley how important her right to own a gun is now.
Good for her. I have not once said that gun ownership should be denied. She had a 12 gauge and a pistol and seemed to handle herself pretty well against 2 intruders. Once again, good for her. She was within the law to do what she did. Those two intruders were breaking the law and one is dead, the other hopefully facing many, many years in prison.
I'll repeat what I've said before. If you want a gun for self defense or because you collect shiny things or items of historical value or if shooting or hunting is a hobby (or perhaps necessity in the case of hunting) then go right ahead. I just don't understand why people get so bent out of shape when they hear that certain weapons may be restricted. It makes no sense to be bothered by it except for one of two reasons:1) you can't stand the idea of being told what to do or what you can or cannot have or 2) you just have an infatuation with guns. Either way, suck it up and accept that in life you won't always have what you want.
still blowing my mind....people are fine with the government taking away their liberties....and their answer is "suck it up and accept that in life you won't always have what you want".....This is EPICALLY mind blowing to me.....
If the Supreme Court ruled that it was unlawful for you to carry a stun gun/taser and in this ruling it was determined that this does not infringe on your rights but you wanted to carry a taser, what would you do? We'll most law abiding US citizens would not carry tasers.
I am talking about obeying the laws of the land - the laws that have been put in place by the federal government and courts. I'm asking you to tell me what you would do if the federal government and Supreme Court (heck, Ron Paul while we're at it) deem this taser law to be constitutional but you don't agree. Do you follow the law begrudgingly or or do you knowingly break the law simply because you don't agree with it because it doesn't fit your interpretation of the constitution.
Now, I'll ask the same question regarding and potential limitations on the ownership of certain firearms. The law says you can't but you disagree. What do you do?
And please, enough with the "taking away of liberties" mantra. You are not at liberty to drive your car beyond the posted speed limit. You are not permitted to carry a gun into a school. You may not take a dump in your front garden to fertilize your roses. What liberty have you lost if you are not permitted to legally own an Ak-47? Oh wait, that law is already in place. Why is limiting magazines to 10 rounds any different? Is this what you're going to fight over? That is truly mind boggling.
Well, you are mistaken about the AK-47.
12 Year Old Boy killed in shooting accident.
Man shot by 4 year old dies.
Accidental Suicide.
Another accidental suicide, different state.
This kid died in Alabama.
A girl in Kansas, at least she lived (maybe).
That was just the first two pages of searching Google News for "Accidental Shooting" and I left a lot out. So now it's your turn. Find me as many links for situations where a gun was actually useful. If you do, I'll go post the rest of my links but I think you get the point.
Quote: TheNightfly
I'll repeat what I've said before. If you want a gun for self defense or because you collect shiny things or items of historical value or if shooting or hunting is a hobby (or perhaps necessity in the case of hunting) then go right ahead. I just don't understand why people get so bent out of shape when they hear that certain weapons may be restricted. It makes no sense to be bothered by it except for one of two reasons:1) you can't stand the idea of being told what to do or what you can or cannot have or 2) you just have an infatuation with guns. Either way, suck it up and accept that in life you won't always have what you want.
I suppose you would use this exact same argument to those attempting to legalize gay marriage.
See how that flys in the GLBT forum
Quote: BuzzardDo I have to register my nuclear weapon ?
I take it you saw that stupid interview of the moron in WV?
Quote: s2dbakerI guess if we're going to play battle of the link counts, here's a few for the common sense weapons regulation side of the argument:
12 Year Old Boy killed in shooting accident.
Man shot by 4 year old dies.
Accidental Suicide.
Another accidental suicide, different state.
This kid died in Alabama.
A girl in Kansas, at least she lived (maybe).
That was just the first two pages of searching Google News for "Accidental Shooting" and I left a lot out. So now it's your turn. Find me as many links for situations where a gun was actually useful. If you do, I'll go post the rest of my links but I think you get the point.
The number of self-defense uses of guns vastly outweigh accidental shootings. While "More Guns, Less Crime" isn't the best book the studies it cites are pretty conclusive.
Intentional uses of guns in crimes is a closer question. Though they probably outweigh self-defense uses dramatically, legislation will vastly reduce the uses of guns in self-defense but not significantly impact the uses of guns in crimes.
Quote: boymimbo
How many murders and suicides have occurred because someone kept a loaded gun in their nightstand and decided to turn it on their loved ones or on themselves?
I guess I will have to make sure not to do either. Shouldn't be hard.
Quote:What will happen to that gun, AZ, when someone breaks into your home, steals that gun, and uses it to kill someone at your local convenience store? Oh well????
Well, I don't accept the premise of "when" so lets say "if." Well, what will happen is I will testify that someone broke into my home and stole the gun, adding another felony to the one they already have. But my responsibility is zilch. I have the gun locked in my home. And as I already said, I prefer it loaded in the nightstand because if trouble comes it is unlikely to wait for me to open a gun safe, and take off a trigger-lock if some liberals had their way.
Quote:How many robberies in progress have been thwarted by a gun owner compared to the number of people who have been killed by that same gun. The answer is a number very close to zero.
Well, I have told this story here before. A grocery store near where I used to live was robbed at gunpoint. Robbers had drilled-out BB guns to make them look like guns. Woman in the store had a gun and was going to try to stop it but a store employee stopped her. Outside, her husband an off-duty cop of some kind, sensed something was wrong and walked near the store. He shot one of them right between the eyes. Robbery stopped.
Quote:Make it a law to keep guns locked up and unloaded at home. Then, you can own a gun. That doesn't break your 2nd amendment rights and might prevent some murders.
The SCOTUS says otherwise, they struck down a DC law that said you had to do just that. And how on earth will it "prevent murders?" Your statement is akin to saying, "since some people can't be trusted we have to punish everyone!"
Quote: bbvk05Quote: s2dbakerI guess if we're going to play battle of the link counts, here's a few for the common sense weapons regulation side of the argument:
12 Year Old Boy killed in shooting accident.
Man shot by 4 year old dies.
Accidental Suicide.
Another accidental suicide, different state.
This kid died in Alabama.
A girl in Kansas, at least she lived (maybe).
That was just the first two pages of searching Google News for "Accidental Shooting" and I left a lot out. So now it's your turn. Find me as many links for situations where a gun was actually useful. If you do, I'll go post the rest of my links but I think you get the point.
The number of self-defense uses of guns vastly outweigh accidental shootings. While "More Guns, Less Crime" isn't the best book the studies it cites are pretty conclusive.
Intentional uses of guns in crimes is a closer question. Though they probably outweigh self-defense uses dramatically, legislation will vastly reduce the uses of guns in self-defense but not significantly impact the uses of guns in crimes.
no way!!!! are you trying to say criminals don't follow the laws???? I find this very hard to believe.....you mean if you make drugs against the law, criminals will just sell them anyways? Or if you make alcohol against the law, criminals will just make it and sell it anyways?....I mean come on man...are you trying to imply that if the government made guns illegal criminals would use them anyways? This seems crazy to me<sarcasm off>
Quote: vert1276
no way!!!! are you trying to say criminals don't follow the laws???? I find this very hard to believe.....you mean if you make drugs against the law, criminals will just sell them anyways? Or if you make alcohol against the law, criminals will just make it and sell it anyways?....I mean come on man...are you trying to imply that if the government made guns illegal criminals would use them anyways? This seems crazy to me<sarcasm off>
Of course. You ban guns and all 300 million guns in American hands just disappear. None of them will end up in criminal circulation.
Quote: SOOPOOI am always amused at those who want 'background checks'. What EXACTLY in someone's background should make them unfit to legally own a gun?
This is the big problem that the gun nuts who desire positive change (ie your's truly) have with background checks. Of course, anyone in their right mind would want a background check to keep a person convicted of violent felonies from legally obtaining a gun. It's "the line" we are concerned about, and that is never spoken of. It's always just "background check".
Already you can have your stuff taken for being the subject of a restraining order. Sometimes this is prudent, others it's merely a revenge tactic of a jilted lover. Either way you lose your gun, and it's not always fair.
I'm a big fan of background checks on the surface, but can't yet endorse them because it's the government we're talking about. I've seen no evidence of a comprehensive plan, just ways to restrict.
Your post is very good, and highlights my concern. One and a half of your examples apply to me, yet I think you'd be hard pressed to find someone who'd think I was unfit to own and carry. Some of the disqualifiers are easy. Most are less so. Where do we draw the line?
Quote: TheNightflyHas the line been drawn? Does anyone know what this background check is checking and what the disqualifying "facts" might be?
I don't have a complete list yet (working on it, it's a LOT of work) and can only speak for NY, and only for handguns since long guns never required anything before.
Any felony is a disqualifier, doesn't matter if it was DWI or you killed 10 people. You can get that Right back, but it involves a court process, judge approval, and isn't guaranteed. This would remove your Right to long guns, too.
Any order of protection is a disqualifier. As I said, it doesn't matter if you beat your kids or your old lady just got jealous and wants to "pay you back".
The rest are subjective and up to the Pistol Permit Dept and the Sheriff who interviews you. There are a number of categories you must fill out when applying, including misdemeanor charges (whether or not convicted), mental health history and hospitalizations, stuff like that. I'm speaking out my ass here, but in this day and age, I wouldn't be surprised if a credit check was done. I almost think I remember hearing it was, but that would be hearsay if so. I haven't verified it.
Personally, I caught a possession ticket ('98, dropped), received treatment for depression and anger issues ('98-'99), had an obscene amount of "high value" speeding tickets (all VTL, no criminal, '97-'07), and "went into rehab" (voluntary outpatient to stay sober, not to get sober, '09). I admitted all but the rehab; it happened after the interview and before I received the permit. I was still granted the highest level of permit that NYS grants in '10, and, I believe, rightly so. I think you'd be hard pressed to find anyone who knows me who would deny me a permit, despite the transgressions of my youth. It is this type of stuff, the minor, "happened a long time ago" things that I fear the gov would use as an end around for banning.
I would suspect that anything egregious; severe emotional issues, several criminal charges, or charges for anything violent would result in denial, and rightly so. I don't know anyone who's been denied, but I run with a pretty straight crowd. I don't really have an issue with NY's system in this aspect. It was the 20+ months and over $200 to complete that gripes my ass.
I have a hockey tourney 2/06 - 2/10 and all the Sheriffs and Feds will be there. I'll see how much I can dig up on this subject, or any other that come down the line.
Regular listener of Russ Linbaugh !
Quote: Buzzard" What EXACTLY in someone's background should make them unfit to legally own a gun? "
Regular listener of Russ Linbaugh !
Treating your question as a legitimate inquiry, I'd say that past conviction or incarceration for robbery, assault or any crime in which a firearm was used should disqualify someone.
The idea that criminals should have the same rights as law abiding citizens has never seemed quite right to me. If you break the law, you should be punished and the loss of certain privileges (like a driver's license, the ability to own a firearm, or your freedom) seem to be appropriate. There has to be a negative consequence to breaking the law or there's not much point in having laws, law enforcement or courts. Play nice or lose your privileges.
Quote: TheNightflyTreating your question as an legitimate inquiry, I'd say that past conviction or incarceration for robbery, assault or any crime in which a firearm was used should disqualify someone.
The idea that criminals should have the same rights as law abiding citizens has never seemed quite right to me. If you break the law, you should be punished and the loss of certain privileges (like a driver's license, the ability to own a firearm, or your freedom) seem to be appropriate. There has to be a negative consequence to breaking the law or there's not much point in having laws, law enforcement or courts. Play nice or lose your privileges.
>Calling an unambiguous right a privilege.
The universal background checks sound nice until you realize that 90% of firearms in this country are not registered. Meaning you have no way of knowing if they change hands without a background check. The background checks for private sales would be a polite suggestion that non-criminals waste their time.
Quote: bbvk05>Calling an unambiguous right a privilege.
The universal background checks sound nice until you realize that 90% of firearms in this country are not registered. Meaning you have no way of knowing if they change hands without a background check. The background checks for private sales would be a polite suggestion that non-criminals waste their time.
Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
Once someone has been convicted of a crime, it is quite possible that they will be sentenced to prison. This would impinge on their right to liberty I would imagine.
Once someone has been incarcerated, I can't see how their pursuit of happiness ins't being restricted somewhat.
These are unalienable rights, endowed by the creator... at least this is according to the declaration of independence. How then can the incarceration of a person be deemed constitutional? WHAT ABOUT THEIR RIGHTS?
Oops, sorry, apparently they've been taken away. That's what happens when you are convicted of a crime.
Which is more important to a man? His gun or his freedom? If we can restrict his freedom constitutionally we can certainly keep him from possessing a gun legally.
That makes it much harder for a criminal to walk into a gun show and buy a gun. If we make it more difficult for a criminal to buy a gun then fewer criminals will have guns. This is how it works. Look at how effective Mississippi has been getting rid of the unambiguous right to abortion. Mississippi made it impossible for the average woman to obtain an abortion at a clinic in Mississippi (wealthy families can still get abortions but just not at a clinic). Make it more difficult for women to get an abortion and women will have fewer abortions. We don't get rid of speed limits just because some people speed, in fact, it makes the more dangerous drivers easier to find.Quote: bbvk05>Calling an unambiguous well regulated militia's right to have a musket a privilege.
The universal background checks sound nice until you realize that 90% of firearms in this country are not registered. Meaning you have no way of knowing if they change hands without a background check. The background checks for private sales would be a polite suggestion that non-criminals waste their time.
Quote: Face. It's "the line" we are concerned about, and that is never spoken of. It's always just "background check".
Well, I don't think they'll bother with retro-active appllication, just new purchases beyond the effective date.
Quote: s2dbakerIf we make it more difficult for a criminal to buy a gun then fewer criminals will have guns.
Even if you can't vote or legally possess a gun as a felon, you can still join the NRA where they will lobby for your non-existent second ammendment rights.
Quote: rxwineWell, I don't think they'll bother with retro-active appllication, just new purchases beyond the effective date.
I'm not worried about me, if that's what this implies. As I've said before, my practical guns are already bought, and my "just want it because" purchases, if they even happen, would be almost completely of the WWI / WWII bolt action variety and not on the list of "big, scary guns". I further don't plan on suddenly becoming a scofflaw* and have already passed what is possibly the most rigorous application process in the country.
My fight is for my friends, my family, my neighbors. My kids, their kids, and this country. While I think there are far more problems we need to address than guns and gun violence, there are problems in the culture and I don't mind addressing them. But the path we're following now, I feel, is not a good one. It's not good for gun rights, for freedom, and offensively, it's not even good for the problems they swear they're fixing. The deeper we get into this, especially seeing the clusterfuck Cuomo passed in my home state of NY, the more I feel we're following the blueprint of the War on Drugs. Who wants that?
*other than NY's gun laws. I'm one of the hundreds of thousands who were created criminals overnight on 1/15/13.
I'm pretty sure none of the drug dealers or users want a war on drugs. I'm pretty sure criminals don't want anything that will possibly make it more difficult to purchase a gun. I'm sure no criminals want tougher law and sentences.Quote: FaceThe deeper we get into this, especially seeing the clusterfuck Cuomo passed in my home state of NY, the more I feel we're following the blueprint of the War on Drugs. Who wants that?
Everybody just wants to have what they want and as easy as it is to point the finger at others and the wrongs in their lives, it seems to be much more difficult to simply accept that want you want might now be permissible under the law.
Many people will call this losing their rights and freedoms. It is often much less the loss of rights and freedoms as it is simply the unwillingness to accept that what you want for yourself and/or others just isn't permitted.
Quote: s2dbakerThat makes it much harder for a criminal to walk into a gun show and buy a gun.
A small fraction of illegally possessed guns are acquired at gun shows. Far more of them are acquired by friends/family and in informal transactions. You'll just be increasing the incentive to straw purchase, and it won't slow down anything.
And the prohibited possessor is exposed to criminal liability the entire time they have the gun as it stands.
Quote: s2dbakerIf we make it more difficult for a criminal to buy a gun then fewer criminals will have guns. This is how it works.
It doesn't make it appreciably more difficult for a criminal to buy a gun. Do you really think a felon is going to give up in frustration over the extreme difficulty of having his girlfriend show up and take the background check? What an inconvenience. I am sure so many fewer criminals will have guns now!
To test this all you have to do is look at states that have mandatory background checks on all sales. Wouldn't it be great to see it tested in the real world? Too bad nowhere in the US has this policy... wait... California, Illinois, and New York all have this policy already. Criminals there don't have guns, do they? The inconvenience of background checks defeats them.
Quote: s2dbakerLook at how effective Mississippi has been getting rid of the unambiguous right to abortion. Mississippi made it impossible for the average woman to obtain an abortion at a clinic in Mississippi (wealthy families can still get abortions but just not at a clinic). Make it more difficult for women to get an abortion and women will have fewer abortions.
An asinine analogy. It might make sense if the number of abortion doctors in Miss. were equal to the number of guns there... but that simply isn't the case. Mississippi is one of those places with more guns than people, and I'm not exaggerating.
Quote: s2dbakerWe don't get rid of speed limits just because some people speed, in fact, it makes the more dangerous drivers easier to find.
Another poor analogy. It would make sense if you said "we don't add speed-limiting regulators to cars because some people speed," but then logic would defeat your position.
Quote: TheNightflyI'm pretty sure none of the drug dealers or users want a war on drugs.
Dealers support drug laws. It's the only way they stay in business. Users? Sure.
Quote: TheNightflyI'm pretty sure criminals don't want anything that will possibly make it more difficult to purchase a gun. I'm sure no criminals want tougher law and sentences.
Depends on the criminal. Those surveyed that commit crimes against typical people love gun control because it reduces on-the-job hazards.
Quote: TheNightflyMany people will call this losing their rights and freedoms. It is often much less the loss of rights and freedoms as it is simply the unwillingness to accept that what you want for yourself and/or others just isn't permitted.
The government infringing on a right or freedom is inherent when they prohibit something. The question is if the infringing is justified. This right vs. 'just not permitted' thing isn't tenable. That's not a real distinction. You just want to pretend that possessing firearms (or other property) isn't a right.
Not sure if they care as much who is getting a gun.
Both are about rights.
Quote: TheNightflyI'm pretty sure none of the drug dealers or users want a war on drugs. I'm pretty sure criminals don't want anything that will possibly make it more difficult to purchase a gun. I'm sure no criminals want tougher law and sentences.
bbvk05 already took the words out of my mouth, but I'll respond anyway. As he said, I guarantee dealers love the war on drugs. It's what creates their astronomical profits. I've said it before; I could grow a pound of weed for little more than the cost of my time. With the WoD, I could sell it for a grand. Without the WoD, it'd be the price of corn. At 17, it was infinitely easier for me to buy a bag a weed, an eight ball of coke, or a few hits of hallucinogens than it was to get a beer and pack of smokes. The fact that those drugs would've got me a couple years was inconsequential, as idiots like 17yr old Face, and criminals, aren't the brightest. A criminal commiting a crime has already discounted the thought of jail time. Adding a little more because he commited it with an illegal gun... that's suddenly going to change his mind?
Quote: TheNightflyEverybody just wants to have what they want and as easy as it is to point the finger at others and the wrongs in their lives, it seems to be much more difficult to simply accept that want you want might now be permissible under the law.
Perhaps we're just different people. I fight for what I think is right, and for what I believe to be best for the situation I'm in. This happens to be one of those things. Perhaps, as I have countless other times, I'll fail to make change in the direction I wanted it to go. But I can't just sit and let it happen. I'm just not made that way.
Quote: TheNightflyMany people will call this losing their rights and freedoms. It is often much less the loss of rights and freedoms as it is simply the unwillingness to accept that what you want for yourself and/or others just isn't permitted.
I don't fault you for thinking that, I just don't share the same viewpoint. I'm much more jaded because, unlike you's in the other 49, my state has already acted. My state was so rash that they've enacted a law so that if an on-duty LEO responds to a school for a fight, fire, drug issue, shooting, whatever, and he has his weapon on him, he is a felon. That's not spin, that's not "Propaganda by Face", that's the law as it stands right now. And Gov Cuomo, who enacted said law, refuses to admit that he so much as made a mistake. It's being amended, but no confession of acting irresponsibly fast on a very important issue. He very nearly passed a bill that included confiscation (that part was negotiated out). On 1/15/13, thousands of NY'ers, including me, were made criminals overnight.
Perhaps some can accept that, and god bless them. But until my life is such that I can move, I never will. Ever.
Quote: TheNightflyWhich is more important to a man? His gun or his freedom?
I can't believe how many people fail to see how the two are directly related.
Quote: TheNightflyIf we can restrict his freedom constitutionally we can certainly keep him from possessing a gun legally.
...which is why the Founding Fathers included the 2nd Amendment for all law-abiding citizens. (A person's freedom is restricted through 'due process')
Quote: rxwineI noticed strong support for ID checks for voters from conservatives.
Not sure if they care as much who is getting a gun.
Both are about rights.
Did conservatives call for federal legislation that requires private groups to check ID for internal voting, or are you joining the bad analogy brigade?
Quote: Face
I don't fault you for thinking that, I just don't share the same viewpoint. I'm much more jaded because, unlike you's in the other 49, my state has already acted. My state was so rash that they've enacted a law so that if an on-duty LEO responds to a school for a fight, fire, drug issue, shooting, whatever, and he has his weapon on him, he is a felon. That's not spin, that's not "Propaganda by Face", that's the law as it stands right now. And Gov Cuomo, who enacted said law, refuses to admit that he so much as made a mistake. It's being amended, but no confession of acting irresponsibly fast on a very important issue. He very nearly passed a bill that included confiscation (that part was negotiated out). On 1/15/13, thousands of NY'ers, including me, were made criminals overnight.
Perhaps some can accept that, and god bless them. But until my life is such that I can move, I never will. Ever.
Best part about the NY law: you can have your 10 round magazines but you may not load them with more than 7 rounds. Take that criminals! You better not load your magazines past 7 next time you go on a killing spree or that is going to be illegal!
At least no one has yet said, "My friend, the criminal says that he thinks tougher laws on guns is good for business". I doubt anyone here really has much of an idea what criminals may or may not think about tough gun laws. If you do have an opinion, feel free to show your source.
By the way, "inalienable/unalienable" means that it cannot be taken away but in no way suggests that it cannot be modified or revised. You have rights as a human and as a citizen of the US but this doesn't mean that by your actions you cannot lose these rights. Even your right to life can be removed if you screw up badly enough.
I understand that some may want to have things as they believe they should be but that doesn't mean that this IS the way things should be. I'm not saying I am right but it's up to the courts to decide these things. I am shocked by the number of "patriotic" Americans who will turn on their democratically elected government (this holds true for R's and D's alike) and show no patriotism whatsoever when they simply don't get their way. This is only one example but it was much the same for many Democrats who couldn't stand GWB and his policies and blunders.
If the courts say you can have any gun you like, so be it. If they say otherwise, so be it. You can't possibly consider or call yourself patriotic when you continue to subvert the laws of the land and spit in the face of your democratically elected government. Of course criminals do it all the time - that's what makes them criminals.
Quote: TheNightflyWill you continue to go on about what the criminals are doing to justify what you want?
At least no one has yet said, "My friend, the criminal says that he thinks tougher laws on guns is good for business". I doubt anyone here really has much of an idea what criminals may or may not think about tough gun laws. If you do have an opinion, feel free to show your source.
By the way, "inalienable/unalienable" means that it cannot be taken away but in no way suggests that it cannot be modified or revised. You have rights as a human and as a citizen of the US but this doesn't mean that by your actions you cannot lose these rights. Even your right to life can be removed if you screw up badly enough.
I understand that some may want to have things as they believe they should be but that doesn't mean that this IS the way things should be. I'm not saying I am right but it's up to the courts to decide these things. I am shocked by the number of "patriotic" Americans who will turn on their democratically elected government (this holds true for R's and D's alike) and show no patriotism whatsoever when they simply don't get their way. This is only one example but it was much the same for many Democrats who couldn't stand GWB and his policies and blunders.
If the courts say you can have any gun you like, so be it. If they say otherwise, so be it. You can't possibly consider or call yourself patriotic when you continue to subvert the laws of the land and spit in the face of your democratically elected government. Of course criminals do it all the time - that's what makes them criminals.
The democratically elected government is supposed to be subservient to the constitution, which recognizes many preexisting rights. You don't have to bow to a democratic government that ignores its compact with you.
Quote: TheNightflyBy the way, "inalienable/unalienable" means that it cannot be taken away but in no way suggests that it cannot be modified or revised. You have rights as a human and as a citizen of the US but this doesn't mean that by your actions you cannot lose these rights. Even your right to life can be removed if you screw up badly enough.
I agree with this, and think that once you cross certain lines, you forfeit your rights. A felon can't own a gun? Too damn bad. He wants to apply for his rights back? No problem with that either. I believe in the punishment because I believe in accountability, and the chance to have them back because people can grow. I'm fine with that being left up to the courts.
Quote: TheNightflyI am shocked by the number of "patriotic" Americans who will turn on their democratically elected government (this holds true for R's and D's alike) and show no patriotism whatsoever when they simply don't get their way. This is only one example but it was much the same for many Democrats who couldn't stand GWB and his policies and blunders.
If the courts say you can have any gun you like, so be it. If they say otherwise, so be it. You can't possibly consider or call yourself patriotic when you continue to subvert the laws of the land and spit in the face of your democratically elected government. Of course criminals do it all the time - that's what makes them criminals.
I am shocked that you consider opposition to government "unpatriotic". Patriotism is love of one's country. The Government is not our country. We don't serve the Gov, they serve us. They are our employees. I challenge the Gov exactly because I love my country, and I feel they're damaging it. Political offices were never meant to be a career, they were a term of service for those who wished to make us our country better. Somewhere along the line, service of citizens became service of self. "Good of the country" turned to "what can benefit me". A term of service turned into a career. That's not right, and just because it's been that way so long that we no longer recognize it, doesn't mean that that's just the way it is now.
No, I challenge, resist, and will fight this fight exactly because I love my country, not in spite of it. Our elected officials are not Kings, and I vow no allegiance to them. If they make decisions I deem as good for the land, I will support their effort. If not, then I will assist in their downfall. That is democracy.
Quote: bbvk05Did conservatives call for federal legislation that requires private groups to check ID for internal voting, or are you joining the bad analogy brigade?
Why, it didn't matter to blacks that local agencies like police were helping violate voters rights at one time during the civil rights era. Feds or locals what was your point? The ATF or a local cop can take a gun; same result.
